cbennett88

@John Kettler Appreciate that. I have nothing but respect for the weapon. Hats off to the Russians for designing a much more elegant(IMHO) system than our aborted Sgt York or Avenger. I fully enjoy it's inclusion in the game(Especially when my side has them! ) b/c I think it offers a potent counter to the number of UAVs and airpower the US has. I know from studying military history that the Russians found ZSU-23-4s very useful in urban combat in Chechnya...but they are also FAR more numerous and were no longer considered front-line equipment by then.

Totally agree that the Russian side doesn't need to be handicapped any further. The glitch in the BMP-2M is maddening. Actually...I am hoping that in any future update...they would fix both of them.

After some research...I found the picture used by the game developers to represent (at least in cut scenes) the 2K22M tunguska SPAA system. It was from the MAKS-2011 " International Aviation and Space Show" outside of Moscow in 2011. Other than this picture...can anyone show proof that the tunguska was ever equipped with a FLIR? B/c that was a display model designed to try and sell to other buyers...NOT a in-service Russian army vehicle. Yes.."night vision aides" are listed in Wikipedia and other sources, but those are driving aides...not a FLIR for targeting. My point?? In 2007, the Russians in fact moved to the truck mounted Pantsir system, which it some versions DID add a FLIR. http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-96K6-Pantsir-2K22-Tunguska.html I think the game is not correct in representing an ability that never made it into service. Yes...I realize the game is a "hypothetical 2017", but how many times have we been told in these forums that... "such an such weapon/system or upgrade won't be in the game b/c it hasn't been adopted". If someone can show that the Russian military did/or is going to add FLIR to these 1980's era weapons, please correct me. I recently played a QB PBEM game where my opponent only bought tunguskas and proceeded to run around the battlefield using them as "quick firing 30mm M-1s". Sure...I defeated him, but it struck me as "gamey" i.e unrealistic. Remove the FLIR ability, and they still function perfectly as intended (AA), but now have only normal sighting(ground fire) ability in daytime...and much more limited ability at night. Yes...I realize that many of you would HATE to lose your favorite battlefield weapon. But...if I understand who(for the most part) plays CM, it's military history buffs(like myself) who enjoy authenticity over "gameplay". Otherwise, you'd all be in front of X-boxes!

@LUCASWILLEN05 You are correct ...AN/PAS-13 LWTS does. All the more reason to change the effect of smoke in the game.

Maybe Turkey, Greece and the Czech Republic join in...but only to sneak in thousands of migrant refugees dressed as "soldiers"!

How about... The UK leaves the EU... and the resulting turmoil and bickering lead to the dissolution of NATO? Fits in with today's headlines.

Very good presentation! (need clapping hands emoji) Someone PLEASE forward this to the Kremlin for Putin to see!! I'm not convinced he has anyone advising him that would be willing to say this to him. I for one, only want to see these types of battles happen within the confines of the "CM world".

Agree...ESPECIALLY if time is a factor As I mentioned in an earlier post...The biggest weakness for the US is the Atlantic & Baltic crossing. IF...the Russian leader decides to strike the convoy carrying all the necessary mech equipment. I just don't think any amount of naval power can completely protect an convoy all the way to Gdansk(or any Baltic port). Just entering the Baltic with a carrier is highly risky. NATO spent years working on plans/war games to do it. In almost every scenario, losses were severe. That means landing somewhere else in Europe and long distance transporting them. Much safer...but too slow for anything other than a long term (3+ months) fight. Airlifts won't be able to do it, unless you are willing to take MONTHS. I realize that means an escalation. But if such a tempting prize WERE TO enter the Baltic I'm not sure Putin wouldn't risk it. Even on a war footing, a 2nd US convoy would take awhile...given that the US navy would want to double the protection... and that means pulling assets from all over. In that time, Putin might be betting that enough NATO nations aren't willing to let things escalate further, given that they themselves haven't yet suffered any losses. Would France, Italy or Turkey really care if the Baltic states were taken?

@LUCASWILLEN05 You are obviously up on your military history and have a good grasp on Poland's/Western Europe's current dilemma. Part of my assessment of Polish military ability is based on intangible items... 1) Since 2003 Polish military forces have rotated through Afghanistan and Iraq which gives them some combat experience and more importantly, years of experience working with/integrating into US/NATO military doctrine. Personal relationships(trust) and breaking down language barriers that comes from that probably counts for something when you have to suddenly fight together. 2) Polish special forces (GROM...there may be others) have also gotten years of valuable combat experience in those 2 hot spots. Sure...they can't stop a mechanized force by themselves but...used wisely, they might disrupt supply lines,etc. 3) The Polish air force has trained with the US for years. We get Polish pilots here at Nellis(I live in Las Vegas) all the time and many of them have gone through various US advanced military instruction. 4) Not sure if you saw it, but the Polish army and the German army have combined their armor school. Getting that sort of high quality instruction from the guys with years of experience with those exact Leopards HAS to be a good thing, right? 5) Lastly...and probably meaningless IRL but...imagine that if you added the Polish military to CM:BS...and gave me a choice of having to fight the Russians with... Polish Leopards 2 A4/A5 OR UKR equipment & troops...I'd definitely pick the polish! Like you said...would be an interesting hypothetical module to add to this game. Totally agree with this. It would be (IMHO) the only sensible military decision. @panzersaurkrautwerfer Did he not say during the video(@ 3:08 mins) that the complete brigade with ALL of their equipment is coming over EACH rotation? I thought he made a point of explaining that this was not going to be like the 80's REFORGER plan of flying in the troops to their pre-positioned equipment... I do appreciate the insight from your experience though. My experience with mass equipment re-deployment was from coming back to the US after Desert Storm. Did you know that we had to pass US Dept of Agriculture inspection before they would let us load our Humvees, etc?!? Ever cleaned the underside of a Humvee with a toothbrush?? I have! NO FUN! Lol

Pretty sure you meant "June 15..." Otherwise...I really need to talk to you about buying some lotto tickets! I'm curious as to how logistically they are going to pull this off? Will there be a 2-3 week overlap so that the new unit can get settled in? If so...where are they going to house/store all of them? Without that overlap, as CINCUSAREUR, I'd be concerned that the russians would exploit the "gap" as one brigade has already packed up...and the other one disembarks and unpacks. You'd basically have 2 units sitting helplessly at the docks so to speak. Plus...I'd be sure to have the US Navy escort the convoy bringing them the whole way, as if it was wartime. Better safe than sorry... @LUCASWILLEN05...Even Putin would pause before taking on Poland. Sure...much of their equipment is older and in need of replacing(especially their BMP-1s!!). But...they do have an decent size force of Leopard A2s (not the latest ones and yes, they are hand-me- downs from Germany). The air force is relatively well trained and the new JASSMs give them a serious punch that any russian military commander would have to consider. Speaking of Polish military... Do you think someone in the Polish army has played CM:BS and has learned a lesson or two about smoke dischargers??

Huh... Did not expect this. Always operated on the assumption that "stone" buildings offered better protection than "wood" ones.

Even though I had not noticed this specific happening, I totally believe it to be true. It does seem that M1's have almost perfect 360 vision at all times. Granted...the new commanders independent thermal viewer (CITV) does allow him to scan areas the gunner isn't watching. But, even combined...could that really be more than 180 degrees??

I had commented on just this thing in another post. It(the inability to area fire into smoke) goes against basic infantry training(IRL). Infantry platoon leaders are all taught the necessity of establishing an FPL (Final Protective Line) with deployed MGs to cover the unit's front in cases of assault. The guns are sighted to have intersecting fire (or at least a wall of fire if only 1 MG) across the unit's front. All the gunner has to do is push the gun to his left or right traverse(depending) and hold the trigger(FPF...Final Protective Fire). Certainly applies to cases of zero/limited visibility caused by a smoke screen. The idea is to have a "wall of lead" that your enemy HAS to cross before getting close enough to overrun you! Can't speak for Bradley or Stryker crews, but have a feeling they have similar procedures. Now...if the the argument is that "this tactic only applies to established defensive positions"...I'd argue that basic human nature means your soldiers are still going to fire random bursts into the smoke simply out of fear. It wouldn't be any different than the scenes on the news and Youtube of soldiers firing their weapons blindly over the top of walls and around corners. (need emoji for facepalm here!) Yes...there should be a definite accuracy penalty for area fire into smoke. The "having the area fire target several spots" to simulate the average soldier's nervousness at firing at unseen enemies seems like a good idea. Having smoke work as a "virtual force-field" like it is in the game, is worse than the "player as god" issue. There are so many times that "player as god" could be pointed out. However...even if this game was simply being used by the military as a training tool...the LAST thing they would want is combat leaders that think smoke offers the sort of protection like it does here! It's bad enough that the younger soldiers think they can "run and gun" around the battlefield like those Call of Duty games!

@TheForwardObserver, @kinophile So...conducted same test...battery of 6 152mm firing linear sheaf(airburst...heavy rate/medium duration) on top of a row of humvees (1151), Strykers and an LMTV supply truck. The humvees were knocked fairly quickly. The first one went on the first turn. The 2nd took two turns. After 3 turns of bombardment, the LMTV finally died but showed no damage up until then. Then... switched up to a full 6 gun precision HE round (airburst) on 1 stryker to see if that would do any damage... Nothing! After 2 bombardments, the strykers were completely untouched. No damaged tires...no missing smoke dischargers...nothing.

@TheForwardObserver @kinophile Thanks for taking the time to check this out and not just dismiss it out of hand. When I get home after work tonight, I'll run a test on Strykers and Humvees, etc. I'm curious whether "soft(er) skin vehicles" like Humvees or even supply trucks are affected...

Even damage to the rooftop secondary armament like the 50 and the 240 on the M1 would be significant. Sure the coax is still available, but disable the others and now the vehicle has that much less to deal with infantry. What is the old expression? "Death by a thousand cuts"

LMAO!! I understand that AFVs have some armor to protect important systems like optics, but there isn't armor protecting antennae, wind sensors and laser detectors(all of which are upright and more exposed), along with the radar if APS is installed. Fragmentation and blast overpressure would be damaging enough to have an effect. Sure...no wind sensor wouldn't prevent firing but it would affect the accuracy to some degree. As a defender, I'd take a 20-30% reduction in accuracy when up against the US. Laser detector not working? Now the US player has to consider whether it is still worth attacking across that piece of terrain. Russian ATGMs and tanks now "get a free shot". APS disabled? No question that makes a big difference in your opponent's chance to hit/destroy your vehicles. No radios b/c antenna is gone? No command link...no ability to call artillery... Do you see where I'm going with this? Yes...all little effects, but cumulatively they add up.

Were they airburst(personnel) rounds? Or ground burst (impact) rounds?? Have seen impact artillery damage/kill vehicles. Have not witnessed airburst have any effect on Bradleys and M1s

I'm in complete agreement w/you on the effects of artillery (IRL vs CMBS). Watching vehicles sit under a barrage of airburst without concern seems ludicrous. Could a real life artillery barrage have both airburst AND impact rounds? If so, I think that would be a great addition to the game, And maybe a command to throw grenades before entering a building. I have yet to find a way to clear buildings that doesn't cause at least 50% losses. I don't always have enough breaching kits to blast every wall.

I had this technique "taught" to me recently in the "Galloping Horses Downfall" scenario. He was able to eliminate all my Javelin teams by hiding behind the hillcrest, "popping up" long enough to shoot the building...and then quickly reversing back down. He never even had to change firing location. I will admit that it works well in the game, but IRL I doubt many tanks commanders would find it useful more than once against the same target. The game makes the Javelin gunner waste time trying to "scan and acquire" a target. Any decent Javelin gunner would be waiting for the attacker to "pop up again" in the same spot and drastically cut the time to acquire. Will I be using it next time I'm up against a US opponent?? Of course. But I also am the first to admit that it is a pretty "gamey" tactic. Which brings me to my other "gaming pet peeve"...the "forcefield of smoke". The game allows you to use smoke to effectively prevent your opponent from using area fire to stop frontal assaults. Again...I'm just as "guilty" at using this to my advantage. But...let's be serious. Any soldier IRL is going to fire straight into that smoke at where he "knows" the enemy is. MG's are sighted by every platoon leader to fire an FPL in such circumstances. B/c the game doesn't allow area fire into the smoke, the tactic works. But...IF the designers ever fix that... Don't mis-read my comments as being overly critical of CM. I absolutely LOVE this game! But as a former soldier...I feel guilty when I know I'm using tactics that wouldn't apply in the real world. It's why I never play games like Call of Duty, etc.

Thanks Really too bad since the Blue side really needs more options than the chokepoints at the two bridges. Made me wish some limited bridging equipment was modeled in the game for the Americans! Okay...now that I know that, it's time to replay that battle and experiment with crossing my infantry there...

On the subject of designed maps/crossing points/ etc...in the map for "Cry Havoc"...there seems to be a shallow fording point directly along the right edge of the map from the start point. Everything that I can tell from studying it from the underwater view, indicates it is set up for vehicle crossing. But...I can never get the Blue side(Americans) to cross! I guess it COULD be used by the Russian side if they wanted to go on the offensive, but I've never tried. What am I "missing"? It seems pretty obvious it was put there for a reason. Has anyone else gotten Blue side to cross there?