Sulomon

@Sulomon that was freakin hysterical, you made my day. Thanks!

I don't know if its meds, cycle of the moon, monthly hormones, etc. but the hyperbole and quantity of posts from JK periodically ramps up until it gets to the point where someone has to question what the heck is going on.  You can tell its heading for peak JK time when you have 50% of the latest ten posts are started by him.

Most people don´t care anymore. And frankly almost 18 months for a patch...pfff. Shows that the developer doesn´t care either for one reason or the other. Don´t get me wrong it´s their business, they can do whatever they want. But the average customer expectation is to get stuff fixed within a reasonable amount of time and to communicate with the customer. Since neither is taking place here everyone has to draw his own conclusions.

Apparently you are too busy being your contrarian self ("opinions that are not my own are rubbish, but do not take me to task for my rubbish opinions") to truly grasp the point being made:
AI is objectively broken, making even the most fine-tuned AI plan impossible to evaluate in testing. This is a direct result of AI cutting and running after the lightest of indirect fires; a botched, if well-meaning, implementation of additional self-preservation features. This guts singleplayer play, and trivializes it. Which brings me back to the salient point of: why bother wasting my time attempting to code AI plans in that environment? Which is a key part of single-player scenario design.
Note I didn't say I've stopped designing maps or indeed even scenarios for head to head; which if you spent more time walking around with your eyes open you'd have noticed: a map has been published and a second scenario based on another's map is currently being playtested. I don't make maps for the piss of it, I create them for a scenario, and the current singleplayer projects I was helping create are impossible to evaluate with 4.0 in its current form. Was the AI plan trash, or did the human tester fire some off-map 105 and make an entire platoon cartwheel into a MG? Do I need to draw a picture for you?
Yawn. Not when the issue is fundamentally beyond the scope of a scenario designer.
Next time you have a go at me, or decide to call something I say rubbish, make sure all your synapses are firing, your contrarian drivel is truly starting to bore me now. 

I assume you mean M60 and not M48, since the M48 entered service in 1953 and design work on T95 didn't even begin until 1955?
Anyway.
Abrams did not and has not ever, to my knowledge, used silica-cored armor. Silica-cored armor is the hottest armor tech of 195X, hence why you find it on things like T95, the prototypes for M60 (but not the production model, due to cost issues), and T-64. By the late 70s, the hot new thing on the block was special armor such as Chobham, and the derived versions that the Germans used for Leopard 2 and the Americans used for Abrams. We know Abrams used special armor, because some of the relevant documents have been declassified and are available online.
The main part of the Abrams' special armor array is steel/rubber/steel "sandwich" NERA tiles, and in some places (like the turret side armor, depicted below) behind the sandwiches there are backing plates of steel and some unknown, possibly ceramic, material. This might be silica, but it could just as well be some other ceramic material or even some form of plastic for all we know.

I also strongly doubt the idea that PT-76 could frontally defeat Abrams, since it was specifically designed to be proof against 5-inch HEAT warheads and Soviet 115mm APFSDS over the frontal arc: even MBT-70, its predecessor, had been protected against 3-inch HEAT warheads, such as the PT-76's BK-350M.
I am incredibly dubious of this claim.
The most common APFSDS round for M68-equipped US tanks in Germany is M833, and in M256-armed tanks is M829. Both of those two rounds would be able to reliably penetrate anything the Soviets can bring to bear at any point in 1985.
Going two years forward and backward for fun:
In 1983, the best round the US has is M774, which can kill anything the Soviets can put on the field, except possibly T-80A with its new turret. But those top-of-the line vehicles that might be able to survive M774 are still very much the minority: the bulk of the Soviet tank fleet remains older T-64s and T-72s, which are vulnerable to M774.
In 1987, things are somewhat different: M829 and M833 are still the main two US rounds in service. The new T-80U with Kontakt is basically impregnable to M833, and even M829 will have trouble with the ERA. Hence the development of M900 and M829A1.
However, as before, those vehicles are in the minority, and the bulk of the Soviet Army's armored forces are still trucking along in older T-64s and T-72s, which M829 and M833 are still fully adequate for dealing with.

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.

 
 

For whatever reason the BMP-1 look appeals to me a lot.  But not as huge a fan of the way the BMP-2 and BMP-3 look.  

As for proper AFVs I like a lot of Soviet tanks in general.  I like the green color scheme they have a lot of the time and the way they look with and without reactive armor and other equipment on the tank.  T-55 and T-62 look the best of the major Soviet MBTs imo.

350 tanks is a significant amount.  The Armata now that's a true for show and national pride vehicle.

There is - target arc
reason for not simply having hold fire is you have more flexibility in that you don't want the enemy to just walk up and shoot you.  You can give your troops a perimeter in which they will defend themselves.  It also creates the point at which they will ambush anyone approaching so it can play several roles rather than having specific buttons for each action. Also don't forget you can hit shift+ target arc to get a 360 degree defensive perimeter.

Good day everyone. This AAR is based on a PBEM of a quite interesting scenario created by @Rinaldi, "Action at Chervona Hirka", and based on the (quite well-made, I would say) master map by @H1nd.
 
SITUATION AND BRIEFING
It's the early hours of June 11th, 2017. I have command of the Ukrainian 15th Mechanized Battalion of the 58th Mechanized Brigade, deployed to hold up the brigade's northern shoulder around the town of Chervona Hirka.
My primary objective is to retain control of the town itself, as it sits adjacent to the enemy's MSR and controls access to side roads that could let the Russians bypass Krolevets. This is Objective Aleksej.
A roadblock positioned astride the road to the south is a secondary objective, designated Objective Vasilij. It is held by the battalion recon platoon occupying Battle Position 1. I do not expect to hold the position for very long against enemy attack, if it comes to that. However, forcing the enemy to deploy to destroy the roadblock will cost him precious time, and hopefully, the recon platoon will provide me early warning of enemy movement.
My third objective is to attrit and delay the enemy as much as possible: inflicting losses and forcing him to deploy a significant amount of forces to overcome my position will cost him time and weaken his ability to continue the thrust. In this case, the priority is to engage and destroy his infantry and their carriers, with armor and logistical vehicles to be engaged as targets of opportunity.
At my disposal is the aforementioned 15th Mechanized Battalion, reinforced by a platoon of armor (BM Bulats) from the Brigade and a platoon of MT-12 antitank guns.
The enemy force is a BTR-equipped motor rifle unit with armor support, and the incoming attack is likely going to be in battalion strength, though possibly somewhat diminished: a company-sized enemy force was repulsed yesterday, leaving behind several BTRs and T-72s.


PLAN
There are three probable routes for the enemy to attack down, by my estimation. Map is hopefully legible enough to interpret.


My intent is to cover all three probable axes of advance:
The field, Axis Alpha, is the fastest and most direct approach to the town.
However, it is covered from three sides, forming a fire sack to attrit the enemy as much as possible if they choose to advance there. The Bulats and antitank guns will engage from BP 3, ATGM teams of the battalion antitank platoon are situated in BP 2, and the right flank is covered by infantry with RPGs as well as their BMP-2s, occupying BP 4.
Axis Bravo, along the river on my left flank, would potentially allow the enemy to maneuver very close to Objective Aleksej while remaining out of my view. A rifle platoon is deployed on the north side of BP 2 to keep the area under observation. If the enemy chooses to focus his main effort down this axis of advance, that platoon is to act as a delaying obstacle so I can shift my forces accordingly.
Axis Charlie, the road on the south, is the third potential route for the enemy to take, and the one I judge to be least likely: it is constricted and forces the enemy to drive straight along a fairly narrow path, directly into any potential ambushes. Nevertheless, if the enemy chooses to move through here, my intent is, much like with Axis Bravo, to delay them with the limited forces I have at BP 6, to buy time for shifting around other forces to BP 9 at the south end of Chervona.
The artillery has pre-registered target points on positions on the east edge of the field: these are where I expect the enemy to position support by fire elements in case of an attack along Axis Alpha. Artillery fire on the TRPs will hopefully obscure the vision of and damage/disrupt any SBF elements on these positions.
Phase Line Forward is the first position where the enemy is likely to be engaged, by the battalion recon platoon at BP 1.
PL Midfield is the forward line of the battalion's main body.
PL Stop is the no-pass line.
 
If the enemy attacks along axis Alpha:
Forces at BP 2 and BP 4 are to put flanking fire on enemy forces as they move across the field, and then withdraw to contract the line when the enemy approaches PL Midfield: the forces at BP 2 will move to BP 8, and the units at BP 4 to BP 9. Alternatively, units at BP 2 and BP 4 will be kept in place to strike at the enemy's trailing elements, if he chooses to pass them by.
Forces in BP 3 just past PL Midfield will be the first to engage the enemy when he breaks into Chervona Hirka from the field, and will if necessary cede the edge of the town and attempt to conduct a fighting withdrawal to BP 12.
BP 8, 9, and 12 are the final fighting positions, being directly in front of PL Stop.

If the enemy attacks along axis Bravo:
Forces at BP 2 will engage the enemy first, and fight to delay the enemy as long as possible.
They may attempt to conduct a fighting withdrawal toward BP 10, and then either fight in position there or withdraw a second time to further strengthen BP 3.
Units at BP 3 and BP 8 will reorient to face a thrust from the northeast. If they can be safely pulled out of their position, forces from BP 4 will move to BP 12.
If necessary, forces at BP 8 will conduct a fighting withdrawal to BP 12.

If the enemy attacks along axis Charlie:
Forces at BP 6 will be the first to engage the enemy, to delay and attrit them.
Units at BP 4 will move south to strike at the enemy's flank where they are strung out along the road, and units at BP 8 will move to BP 9 to receive a thrust from the south.

In the event I fail to stop the enemy and lose control of Chervona Hirka, I am counting on inflicting enough losses to leave the enemy unable to effectively take advantage of the ground they have taken.
My briefing does not indicate that force preservation is a critical concern, but ideally, I want to keep losses below 30%, to ensure the battalion remains capable of further combat operations.
 
And well, that's it for the opening post.
The next update (and first actual AAR content!) should be along fairly soon.

The Vickers Medium Mark I predates the Panzer III by over a decade, and had a three-man turret. The Swedes also made a prototype design with a three-man turret in 1934, which eventually ended up as Strv m/42. The Germans were not first with the 3-man turret, and it's hard to claim they were "ahead of their time" with it when the British did it over a decade before them.
Panzer III is hardly the originator of the MBT concept, at least not any more than any other medium tank is. In fact, if any WW2 tank in particular can be said to be "the grand daddy of the MBT" (and I honestly don't think any of them truly can be), the British cruisers would have more of a claim than Panzer III, given cruiser tank development led basically directly to Centurion, the "Universal Tank".
The Panther's side armor wasn't particularly thin by the standards of the time: both the T-34 and Sherman had about 40mm thick sides as well, and Centurion had 50mm. The shot trap was a problem, but all it took to fix that was adding the "chin" to the mantlet and it was a non-issue.
Finally, the interleaved suspension achieved good flotation by reducing peak ground pressure (by spreading the weight out over more contact points), and also saved on rubber, which was a scarce resource in wartime Germany. It was a nightmare to take apart, especially if you needed to get at one of the inner wheels, and it liked to get all stuck together with frozen mud overnight, but for what Germany's requirements were, the interleaved suspension was really not a bad design choice.

Olek's gonna love these:

You can never have too many AA assets! 

Except the Allies and Soviets didn't spit out tanks 3 generations behind...they produced tanks that were more than competitive with the enemy and in certain places objectively superior.
Piss poor analogy imo.

Hello this is an AAR of my quick battle with @Oleksandr  It's a Russia vs Ukraine medium size meeting engagement. 

I haven't played much Black Sea (I mostly play Final Blitzkrieg) and I went with what I figure would be a standard force.  I have four platoons of mounted infantry, 5 T-90AMs, six mortars, a mounted grenade launcher platoon, and an igla platoon and a Tunguska for AA.  

I don't have a very advanced plan.  Essentially move forward and see how the match develops from there.  But I assume the major objective will be the main contest and the minor objectives won't be very contested.  I send two platoons of infantry, the T-90AMs, and the grenade launchers to the center.  I send a platoon of infantry on each flank, one to secure my minor objective, the other to contest his minor objective if possible.  I dismount my platoon that is securing the minor objective since it is rather exposed, the BMP-3s will be first to the objective.

Damn!  I lose two BMP-3s at the same time and I don't even know what killed them, looks like tank rounds though.  Good thing I dismounted.  This doesn't change my plans but I do am now aware of how dangerous the area around the minor objective is.  Going to move my infantry platoon in the forest next to the minor objective.  I spotted a Tunguska while the rest of my units move forward uneventfully. 
Next post will be soon, either tomorrow or the day after.

This battle already took place and I got to see @Sulomon play it 'live and in real time' - the purchase of Tunguska's is the least of Olek's questionable ADA choices, I'll say that much.

Uh-oh, your power levels are showing!

Russia would be outnumbered, they don't have nearly as much industrial capability, military capability, and manpower.

Did you really just use GFP as a source?

Russia would be outnumbered, they don't have nearly as much industrial capability, military capability, and manpower.