Kinophile
-
Posts
4,359 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
22
Posts posted by Kinophile
-
-
Prison? Corp level C&C?
-
I just spent a couple of hours walking in the woods, with all the fall colours, so this really fits my mood. Nice!
That's exactly what inspired me :-)
I've created 3 new ones, including a lovely tall birch, will upload this evening.
-
I think i re4ad last week or maybe earlier about an early (just post Russian strike campaign beginning) SAA armored offense that rapidly degraded into a debacle, due to the unexpected numbers of rebel AT missiles.
Sounded like heavy losses in a over-confident frontal attack. I Forget the name of the town...
Anyone else know of this?
-
Thank you!
Yes, I''ve since created a FAR tree for the above file; just need to update the cmmods file. Also made to more CLOSE trees, finalizing before I add a FAR version of them/
-
MI-24s are great, I still see potential in them for years to come. In Afghanistan, Helicopters would come back shot with dozens of bullets from .50 caliber weapons. There was a helicopter that was hit by a stinger, Luckily he was hit in a non-vital area he made it back home. As far as I know stingers are more powerful then Strelas or older model Iglas, So countermeasures like flares will do, Keep in mind old soviet manpads are not fire and forget. I started to see why using MI-24Ps with static 30mm is better for these situations. MI-24P pilots come flying onto their target how CAS jets do, It is more accurate and more effective per building or static targets. I think that the Russian air force is good with the MI-24s at the moment.
Is the Hind usually used in a much more close-in approach, in contrast to the AH-64 stand off methods?
I know the Apache certainly can and does come in hard and low, but I'm curious how much stand-off capability the Hind has?
I'm assuming the US helos have much better optics/thermals, which allows them to stay back that bit more, where must the Hinds close in fast to ensure on-target CAS, eg VERY close air support.
-
Fun fact... Canada just informed the coalition that it will withdraw its combat aircraft from the operations against ISIS.
Yup, this was pretty much on the cards once Harper started to slide.
On the other hand, there will also be a drastic increase in our intake of refugees.
-
Hi All,
Goofing around in photoshop I decided to mess with @Rambler lovely trees and make an Autumn flavour.
Screenies below - NOTE, using @BarbaricCo 's superb FX shine mod.
First tree Uploaded to CMMOD 3, waiting for confirm.
-
Threads which are about policies which determine or influence military matters... those are theoretically OK. If it dips into personal attacks instead of substance then it is closed. We're not there yet with this one, but it's getting close. If I didn't know the people involved have thick skins I'd have closed it already.
Fair enough.
-
Well, this is a disappointing death spiral to what could have been an interesting and branching topic.
I don't know, Steve, allowing this kind of blatant, relentless hijacking of the thread isn't particularly fair to the OP or any interested readers of the original topic.
Nothing is being gained or learned with letting this blinkered tit-for-tat accelerate in nastiness and insult count.
Where's the incentive to start a new tactics discussion if overwrought political and personalized bitching is going to be allowed bring it to a burning, flame war halt? This thread has long passed the point of reasonable digression.
Threads are free. Go start a new one.
Please Stop being selfish, rude and inconsiderate.
-
I'm just kidding :-)
It's probably not that the Bradley is a battle winner, but that it is a numerous (and thence noticable) example of the generally higher tech level of the US.
-
Soooooooooooooo
Bradleys = Win .
-
You know creating a forum thread is free, right?
-
If everyone is finished torturing poor Kettler with the off - topic posts, I for one would be very interested in current Russian low level helo tactics.
-
So, you could essentially ruin their gun lay if you give them a target from direction A, then used a LRF from perpendicular direction B to cause the turret to slew.
I presume there must be some sort of manual override, but it could still be a good distraction; especially with alternating, oppositely placed LRFs...
-
Really, from the front only? That sounds a bit daft. There's already so much frontal protection, why not cover the sides?
-
So essentially an AFV fired ARM.
-
https://www.dropbox.com/s/eqjjgszt1vu14hx/KPvsRC 014.ema?dl=0
Turn 14.
Correct DB link.
Turn 12 included here for prelude
https://www.dropbox.com/s/kilz9exfw23gqlh/KPvsRC 012.ema?dl=0
-
Oh! I'll correct this evening.
-
-
I'll run a copy this evening with that variation and forward to Abbasid to run his equivalent turn.
EDIT: Here is the db link for anyone to try out.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lqnnugf1y46q50s/KPvsRC 013.ema?dl=0
-
It's a pbem, I have the file, but I'll bite down and play on.
Norrmally I would, yes, let the tank auto target. I probably jumped the gun, in trying to kill the enemy eyes on my tank (as the Inf was spotted by the tank itself, so it was aware of him).
But the tank should still be able to use its CROWS to target infantry, as a first choice. This kind of situation is exactly why the system exists in the first place - to free up the main gun to stay on its prime targets.
While not an error in coding per se, it certainly feels like a gap in SOP MBT AI behaviour with regard to appropriate weapons targeting choice.
-
Exactly!
Prettydaft AI behaviour.
-
T90 facing off against about 3 Bulats. heavy urban environment
Spots an enemy inf directly behind him, probably an FO, which basically pinpoints the T90 for the enemy.
I set LIGHT FIRE against the inf, while moving away towards the Bulats (but into cover)
T90 slews its entire turret , Despite already being in contact with multiple enemy MBTs. to use its coax on the inf.
Arena defends against 2 shots, 3rd gets through, total loss.
Why would an MBT not use its CROWS or equivalent on an infantry BEHIND it?
Is it because I specifically told it to light fire on him? Would it have taken care of him itself?
If so, then Light Fire SPECIFICALLY means the coax firing?
-
Actually, that was Vehicle smoke...I went back a few turns, it was from an AFV that popped, then the smoke drifted south and ruined my day.
Its fun to completely jump the gun...
Dramatic Change in Russian Attack Helicopter Tactics
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted · Edited by kinophile
http://www.cast.ru/eng/?id=604
The always useful CAST on the Russian foray into Syria.
They also mention that equipment and readiness issues are normal and to be expected, due to the geophysical reality of the AO and Russian lack of modern expeditionary experience in such an environment.
It would probably have a disproportionate effect compared the to US lead coalition forces, due to the smaller numbers of airframes and sudden high tempo required for the intervention to be politically useful (ie hard hitting and fast, as opposed to the perceived steady grind of the US campaign).
Slightly older article, but prescient.