FoxZz

Ok, lol, it's indeed much more understable now ! Thanks !

I'm not convinced by the 300% increase in firepower. An IAR is just an HK 416 rifle with a bipod, an acog and a 16" barrel, so basically, a better M16A2. I hardly see how it replaces a M249 and its much bigger supressive fire abilities.

I must say I'm confused by your use of component in this sentence, what do you mean haha ? Very intesresting anecdotes though, always funny to have the other side views ! ----- To get back on the previous discussion, I agree with the fact that most of German Armed forces problems don't come from money. Even though they could definitely invest a lot more in defense considering their GDP and general wealth. When you look at the actual budgets, German, French and UK budgets are more or less in the same league, but there is a huge capability/readiness gap between France and UK and Germany. And it is even more striking when you consider that German armed forces have a much smaller navy, no nuclear detterent forces, no bases abroad and a lot fewer deployments. So with this level of expenditures and comitment, they should really have a much capable force. I really thing the problems comes from an organisational/cultural standpoint, and that before giving it more money, those problems shoud be fixed first otherwise it would just be wasted. If you were increasing the French and German budget in the same amount, probably the French/Brits would get twice the Germans return. I think it is very much link to how the German army spends its money and how it is organised. That was my take on the issue.

I think Russians would veto any UN intervention and directly invade Ukraine themselves. And it would be difficult to oppose them considering you're describing a failed neo-nazi Ukrainian state and massacre of Russian minorities. Supporting the western regime would actually be a crime against humanity and nobody would risk it in the west. The West would face a situation very similar to the situation the French faced in Rwanda. An ally governement (Habiarimana/Perrechenko) is facing a rebellion supported from abroad which is ethnically different and with another language (Tutsi RPR supported from Uganda and English speaking/ Dombass separatists, from Russian minorities, speaking Russian and supported by Russia). Things go wild and a genocide starts, organised by your ally against the opposing ethinic minority (Hutu kill Tutski/Ukrainian kill Russian minorities). You want to support your ally but also stop the genocide. This inconfortable position only brings you international condamnations. So in this example, either Nato gets involved and will be accused of complicity of Genocide (exactly what happened to the French in Rwanda) or you get out of it and you let your ally bite the dust, which will eventually happend anyway, since he's on the wrong side of the argument and that the other side is supported by Russia. But in your example, I really don't see why the French would have to fight the US. It's possible that they disagree with a NATO intervention beacause they learned their lessons in Rwanda, in that case, if the US still wants to go, Frannce would just not go, as it did in Irak in 2003. And if they decide to get involved, they would share the same objective as the US : preventing genocide, avoiding Russian take-over. But the hypothesis of France and US fighting (for what reason really ?) each other is very much unrealistic, as is the an UN peacekeeping force anyway. That being said, tensions between peace-keerpers and "allied nations" do occur. In 2008 in Lebanon, Israeli air force killed several European blue helmet, and French peace-keapers and Isreali almost fought at 2 occasion. One was attacking-behaviour by Israeli F15s on French bases that almost prompted a Mistral fire, another one was when israeli attempted to breach the ceased Fire line with a several hours stand-off between Leclercs and Merkavas. But this was a completly different situation. A nation attacking UN peace-keepers in a direct confrontation would meet international outcry anyway.

To be honnest, having best gear doesn't really matters, as long as there is not a huge gap between the two (like T55 vs M1A2). What really matters is experience of the crew, training, speed of planing, quick decision making, coordination between branches, support, etc. The tank is just a smmall part of it. People tend to focus too much on it. There is plenty of examples where OPFOR forces with inferior gear, wipe the floor with regular army units in their last generation tanks. Human factor will always be the most important one. If Desert Storm was such a cake walk, it was mainly because of the training, not the tanks. You could have swapped the gear, result would have been the same.

I really wasn't sure it was Russian, but definitely sounded very similar. I should probably have checked before hand :p.

http://www.lrt.lt/mediateka/irasas/1013687203/karines-paslaptys-2018-03-17-karines-paslaptys-s3-ep29 Here is a video about the French current deployment in Latvia, comments are in Russian though, but you can see all the vehicles I talked about in the topic as well as the BVS Viking which is used by the moutain troops (in snow camo). There is also a Dutch engineer platoon.

Yeah definitely, I would love UK to be in too. It would make a lot of sense to have both in a Entente Cordiale DLC, they work together very often and are very much alike and complementary. Poles would be very good too. The more nations are in the more I will be happy anyway, diversity is great !

Thank you for your comment, very appreciated But I don't understand the second part of it , what do you mean ? France really is permanent member of the Security council and 3rd nuclear power (both in number of warheads - although, far behind ones of the US and Russia - and capabilities). Even though nuclear weapons in CM:BS are really not relevant considering a direct affrontment could occur only if they are set aside, such a status implies great responsabilities on the international stage. That's why I made this statement, to back my argument about France being very likely to be involved, it wasn't meant to be taken as a nationalistic bragging :). Hope this clears the misunderstanding

It's true for whine, I think it's supposed to be 1 glass per person per day or 1 can of beer. About the gourmet food, our MREs are quite well known abroad. I think the exchange rate in Afghanistan was 1 French for 3 americans. And French cooks are quite good too. If France ever gets into CMBS they should get better morale thanks to the food haha

Hello all, As it's rumored that this game is expecting several DLCs, I take this opportunity to make a plea for a French DLC, or a LDC including the French. Why should the French be included in a DLC over other nations ? First, let's look at the setting. Game setting is placed in Ukraine, at the border of Europe in 2017/2018. France is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, it's the third world's nuclear power, and the first military power of Europe (if Russia doesn't count as Europe). Diplomatically, France has been at the forefront of the discussion on Ukraine, being at the initiative of the Minsk II agreements, and is as such very involved on this matter. Historically, France is a very active military power and has significantly taken part in all the majors conflicts since the end of the Cold War : Gulf War, Yougoslavia, Somalia, Afghanistan, Lybia, Mali, Syria, etc. Furthermore France is regularly (and currently) involved in NATO and bilateral military exercises in Eastern Europe which show its commitment to the security of this region. Lastly, France would probably be able to come very quicly into the theater with significant amount of troops having a very high readiness and being located in continental Europe. All those elements make it almost certain that France would get involved in a conflict in Ukraine. On a gameplay point of vue, we would get a ton of exotic toys. Most of French gear and vehicles are indegenously devlopped. It would be also very refreshing as French military very rarely depicted in the Video Game industry (at the exception of the Warhame series). French army is also very modern and would be balanced with US and Russian military. Interesting fact, French army is the only to have fielded operationally its future soldier system program. French army also has an orginal doctrine which differs from the US or Russian one: emphasis on mobility, flexbility, and initiative, even at the lower echellons, which comes from its exprience in irregular warfare. It influenced many of its military design, with, for example, an emphasis of wheeled vehicles. As such, many asks, how would this system fare in a more conventionnal context ? CM:BS gives us the opportunity to test it. Here is a link about French Doctrine https://wavellroom.com/2017/11/30/the-french-intervention-in-mali-a-lesson-in-mission-command/ Moreover, as I said, French armed forces are very rarely depicted in video games, and French video games market is very dynamic one with 4,3 billion euros of revenue in 2017. So it would probably attract many French players eager to play their national forces (even if they're not very vocal on english speaking forums) while also attracting players from all around the world interested in brand new faction. Lastly, French forces are the only major military power never depicted in a modern CM game. We had the US, Russia, Canada, UK, Germany, Netherlands, but not France. Operationnal structure : The basic infantry combat squad is made of 8 soldiers: 1 squad leader, 1 marksman, 1 300m fire team with 1 team leader and 2 AT4 soldiers and 1 600m team with 1 team leader, 1 minimi soldier and 1 light mortar soldier. There is 3 combat squad in a platoon as well as one support squad made of 1 squad leader and 2 Eryx teams, which can exchange the Eryx against M240 MGs. Lastly, the platoon is led by a 4 men command team with one platoon leader and its deputy, one radio operator and one medic. 3 infantry platoons are supported by a weapon platoon with two 81mm mortars teams and two MILAN atgm teams, those teams can also be armed with .50 calls or .30 calls. This makes a company. The French cavalry platoon is made of 4 tanks (Leclerc or AMX10RC) and 4 armoured scout cars (VBLs). There is also a recon platoon made of 8 scout cars with different equipments (Milan, .50, .30, etc) The compagny is the center of an infantry centric French operationnal Battlegroup. Then, it receives several reinforcements from other arms. Usually, a cavalry platoon, an artillery battery, a engineer platoon, a recon platoon as well as support elements (Snipers, JTACs, Commandos, Logistics, Transmission, Health and Oil services, etc). If the battlegroup is cavalry centric, then, its made around a Cavalry squadron, with the support of an infantry platoon, etc. There is also the possibilty of mixing it up with two infantry platoons and two cavalry platoons, etc. Those battlegroups are part of a broader battallion which can either use them dispersed or together. Usually it's made of 3 infantry compagnies and 1 tank squadron and the support elements. The proportion between tanks and infantry varies in the same fashion as in BG depending of the need. Nowadays, French troops are always deployed in Battlegroups or Battallions. Regiments, Brigades and Division are only used as adminsitrative command levels in metropolitan France. As of 2017, here is a list of indigenous French army armament : - Leclerc MBT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMX_Leclerc ; http://www.military-today.com/tanks/leclerc.htm - AMX 10 RCR wheeled tank: http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/France/AMX-10-RC-RCR.php - VBCI IFV: http://www.military-today.com/apc/vbci.htm - VAB line of vehicles, including ULTIMA version with remote .50 cal, Mephisto version with HOT missiles, 20mm version, etc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Véhicule_de_l'Avant_Blindé - VBL scout vehicle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Véhicule_Blindé_Léger - PVP liaison vehicle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petit_Véhicule_Protégé - 120mm Rifled Mortar, its rifling permits to fire bigger shells (similar effect than 155mm shells) at longer ranges than regular mortars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortier_120mm_Rayé_Tracté_Modèle_F1 - CAESAR 155mm SPG: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAESAR_self-propelled_howitzer ; https://www.army-technology.com/projects/caesar/ ; http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1470.htm - 81mm Mortar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LLR_81mm - FAMAS assault rifle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAMAS - FRF2 and HECATE II sniper rifles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FR_F2_sniper_rifle ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGM_Hécate_II - MILAN 3, ERYX and HOT 3 ATGMs: https://www.army-technology.com/projects/milan/ ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ERYX ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOT_(missile) - Mistral MANPAD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistral_(missile) - Tiger HAD and HAP attack helicopters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_Tiger - Gazelle HOT scout helicopter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aérospatiale_Gazelle - Rafale fighter-bomber: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale - Mirage 2000D bomber: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_2000N/2000D France interesting bits of kit : - Rifle Grenades, both anti-tank and HE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC58 ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APAV40 - Infantry mortars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance-grenade_individuel_Mle_F1_(LGI_Mle_F1) - BONUS anti-tank shells: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors_155_Bonus - SPACIDO precision fuse: http://www.nexter-group.fr/en/press/528-spacido-la-france-engage-la-phase-finale-de-la-qualification-du-premier-systeme-dartillerie-a-correction-de-trajectoire-de-nexter-munitions-et-junghans ; http://basart.artillerie.asso.fr/article.php3?id_article=1341 - FELIN system, with special optics and improved situation awarness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FÉLIN - AASM self propelled stand-off bomb, with a low altitude launch range of 15km, which allows the plane to escape long range anti-air missile while staying out of range of SHORAD systems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AASM Here are some videos where you can see most of the gear I talked about : In 2017 in Estonia, where you can how would look like a French Battlegroup in CM:BS : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9tzEyWL-zo& Combat actions in Mali where you can see VBCI, VAB, AMX10RC, shoulder launched Eryx, Rifle grenades, infantry mortar, Hecate II, Tiger, etc So, as you saw, lots of interesting and cool stuff could get added into the game with a French DLC. I hope it will convince you ! DOn't hesistate if you have any question. Here is a last video to convince you of the awesomeness of the French Army

It's weird that they went for ERA blocks from the get go. Does it means its base armor is already lackluster ?

Direct confrontations between nuclear states being very, very risky, I don't think either Russia, neither US, France or UK is willing to go that far.

You've been saying the exact same thing since yesterday, and despite all the answers you received, you ackwnoledged none ... It's very difficult to discuss with someone that disregards all the answers he gets. Even if your replaced Strykers by Bradleys, those would be in very bad situation if they faced a bunch of T90s. I'd say, in an even worst situation than the Strykers. Their TOWs and 25mm gun would be defeated by the T90s armor and APS, and with only 6 man carried in the back they would have a lot less man and Javelin ammo to set up a good defensive position. What makes Bradleys good at fighting tanks isn't Bradleys, it's Abrams. Bradleys mission is to destroy ennemy light targets and infantry using both its weapons and its infantry, it's meant for supporting the tanks, not to destroy tanks. So if you replace Strykers by Bradleys, if you don't bring Abrams with them, you'll have the same problem. The Army is currently fixing the Stryker deficit of firepower against light targets with a 30mm version. Here you got your answer. Also, you must take into account that in real life, the US air force is doing something !

I think this turret is unmanned and doesn't penetrate into the vehicle though. So it might be possible to move around the Stryker and the turret in 2 differant C130, even though it is more complicated. Or the US can buy some A400M to carry their bigger vehicles while keeping the tactical capabilities of the C130 ^^. I'm wondering what will be the role of those new vehicles. Will they replace the MGS ? Will they be recon vehicles ? I doubt all the Srykers will be converted to this standard.

And the more the ennemy will target them with heavy weapons.

This thread looks like a dialogue of the deafs. One asks a question, gets an answer, but he's not happy with it so he asks the same question after calling for bad group thinking that will cause the end of the US because they didn't see the next high intensity war coming. Yet he doesn't know what a Stryker Brigade is made of.

God, you're stubborn Once again, Strykers and Bradleys don't have the same mission ! Strykers belong to motorised troops while Bradley are mechanized. The difference is that one fights mainly mounted, the other mainly dismounted. Furthermore, many people question the relevance of having TOW vehicles on Bradleys. The MGS isn't the AT platform of the Stryker Brigade !! The MGS is an assault gun meant tu suport infantry by blowing out combat positions and so on. This is !

This is already the case. http://www.military-today.com/missiles/m1134_stryker.jpg And I think the Javelin is very widespread in the US Infantry. But if you know all that, what's the point ?

You have some serious scale issues. The type of armament carried by a troop transport is technical, tactical at most. The war of the future is in the strategic/doctrinal scale. I don't think adding an atgm on all the vehicles of the US army will help the US winning the next war. Be serious. Furthermore, if the next war was really something unpredictable, then, what makes you believe that more AT weapons will be of any use ? And Prior to 1914 every european country was training for the next European war, otherwise instead of huge conscript armies, everyone would have switched to small professional armies like the British. There is no Group Thinking here.

Strykers carry infantryman which themslves carry Javelin. Why do you want to expose the vehicle to tank fire, when you can dismount the infantry and set up a discreet anti-tank positions a few hundred meters away. However, something like the Spike NLOS could be interesting to strap onto some dedicated Strykers (not all Strykers need it). But when it comes to the breand and butter APC, it doesn't need more than a 12,7/Mk19. Remember that adding more powerfull weapons often means adding a turret, which increases weight, reducce the number of infantry-man carried, increases the cost. A turret is the most expansive thing in a vehicle (about 2/3 of the cost). Furthermore, optimal fire support positions are often not at all optimal for unloading the infantry. In the end you end up with the worst of both worlds, or a vehicle which is much more expansive.

The Chadians were using classical rezzou tactics, but used Toyota pick-ups straped with Milans instead of camesl and horses. They are still using those tactics today which proved to be effective yet deadly against the islamists.

I've been told that the army is disapointed with its new saw, it cannot drive a nail ... Instead of wasting money buying all those saws and shovels, they should have kept the good old hammers.

Range determination was done without any laser range finding device, it was meant to test crew ability to estimate distances. I wonder what were the final results in each exercise and what were the coefficient for each of them. Also, I wonder how they evaluated the physical training considering some crews are only 3 per tank.

The concept of the Stryker Brigade is the concept of the medium force. Something that seats in between Heavy tracked forces and light forces on truck. Prior to the Stryker, the US had nothing in between Abrams/Bradleys and Humvees. As it has been explained above, having something in between is a good idea both for tactical reasons but also economically. Having the entire army riding Bradleys would be very very expensive. Strykers are armoured battle taxis, they're not meant to fight head on. They are supposed to move the troops around fast thanks to their great operationnal mobility while offering them basic protection against battlefield hazards. They aren't IFVs like the AMV Patria or the VBCI. They more like the German Fuchs or the French VAB in terms of use. The problem is that the game scale doesn't represent the Stryker's advantages well since when the game starts, the mission of the Strykers is mostly done. Another issue with the Strykers is that some vehicles are missleading. Because the thing has a gun strapped on the top doesn't mean it's meant to fight tanks, it's mostly an infantry fire support vehicle. For real wheeled tank destroyers, it's better to look at the Italian Centuro or the French AMX10RC, which are dedicated vehicles and not converted APCs. In general, those medium brigades shine on low to medium intensity operations with long elongations and low supply available, after being projected quickly. That's what they're meant for ! Here is an example of an operation where a Stryker Brigade could have shine : https://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiT043s9_fTAhUB2RoKHWruBYgQFggnMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rand.org%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Frand%2Fpubs%2Fresearch_reports%2FRR700%2FRR770%2FRAND_RR770.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEYSKiTgiuAS1v8v6ecXXUpsNLu0w&sig2=Am0mqbUtOuXGztWusF71Ng&cad=rja To sum up, Stryker Brigade aren't bad at all, it's just that it's not the right tool to fight head on high intensity mechanized battles against a peer opponent, which is what is depicted in CMBS. It's not their purpose. Furthermore, this concept is rather "new" to the US army, and the shortcomings that were found are being corrected (mine protection and so on).