DerKommissar

It's dead, Jim. "Bones"

How's this game?

Much more useful for infantry support, I can imagine. For the next one, I am going to group together 4 vehicles into one. Top to bottom: Neubaufahrzeug (1940), Vickers A1E1 Independent (1933, prototype), T-35 (1935), Char 2C (1921) These are big, heavy, slow, lightly armoured and infamously unreliable -- which made them all but useless in WW2. Albeit, the British were forward-thinking enough to retire theirs to the museum. This was the first incarnation of the Heavy Tank, a concept that would become obsolete by the MBT. They say great minds think a-like. In this case, they were just plain wrong. I can imagine these super-tanks were useful for propaganda -- they look imposing even to this day.

Forgot to mention which units I was using -- rookie mistake. 8.4 million in USD and they already made a 100 of them. Still pretty pricey. Aye, I am sympathetic, in most regards. I thought you were drawing such a comparison, hence the questions. Apologies for any potential tension, on my behalf. The tension was intended for the tracks of that Type 10 up there. My points were mostly in regards to why the conventional decay happened, and why that trend will continue.

What is that? Some sort of prototype for Sea Lion?

Matilda II: The desert queen is that classic British infantry tank. 78mms at the front, 65mms on the sides and 55mm on the rear. Incredible protection for the time. It served practically on every front in WW2. France, Afrika, Asian, Pacific and Eastern fronts. Not Italian front, however. Couldn't accommodate a large gun, despite various attempts. The Valentine (tank in the center) replaced it. Couldn't fire HE shells, which is curious for an infantry tank. Valentine was lighter and faster. Interestingly enough, it did not serve in Italy either and was eventually replaced by the Churchill.

Well, it has active hydropneumatic suspension. Allowing it to do cool tricks and absorb recoil. erm... Ignore the last one. The Type 90 (50 tons) was only deployed to the northern island, because they had appropriate bridges there. The Type 10 (44 tons) can cross any Japanese bridge, and therefore can be deployed anywhere! CVT transmission, allowing it to reach 70 km/h in forward and reverse. A new domestic cannon that can fire both new domestic ammunition and NATO standard 120 Rheinmetall rounds. It's got sophisticated communication equipment (C4I). It's also a pretty future proof design, with modular armour and options for larger cannons. Do they really? I'd ask them to put their money where their mouth is. However, their money is in western banks, western football teams and western real estate -- and their children are in western universities.

Here's a thread to post pictures of your favourite IFVs, and explain why you like them! APCs, MBTs, IFVs, WW2, Cold War or current -- anything goes! This thread isn't necessarily about which vehicles are the best, but which ones you like -- and why you like them. Photos, videos, artwork, and models are all accepted!

I think the Leo 2s, M1s and Challengers are top of their game. That being said, they are not virtually immune to HEAT. Challenger 2's frontal armour was penetrated by PRG-29. A few Leopard 2s were lost in Syria. Still, better track record than T-80s and T-90s -- which also can take some punishment, but are smaller and lighter tanks. I looked over penetration data for 120mm versus 125mm platforms on Dziennikz Brojny (Polish Army - Military News) and the Steel Beasts wiki. The ones from the last 20 years or so look pretty neck-in-neck, albeit the 120mm are consistently superior, as a general trend. I am fascinated by multi-spectral camo. Considering Soviet doctrine of disguising tanks -- I am curious if they are coming up with ways to hide from thermals.

The Germans produced P4s and StuG 3s to the end of the war, which were quite antiquated at that time. Early war Allies and Soviets saw the successes and failures of various inter-war designs pitted against P3s and P4s. The Sherman was designed while the war was going on, based on experiences from it -- which, made it better than pre-war designs. Even if you equate WW2 medium tanks to modern MBTs, they required MAJOR overhauling (or replacement) every year or so. No plan survives contact with the enemy, in this case. No country, to my knowledge, "spits" out tanks like they did in WW2 -- partly because the operational requirements are completely different. How do you define a generation? Which tanks are part of which generation? From what I gather, the T-90 and current T-80s and T-72s are considered to be in the same generation as the current Leopards and Abrams. Are they inferior? Yes. However, I seriously doubt they are useless.

I want all these toys.

I was sure that the Leo 2 had a manual loader. However, I am rather behind on their newer upgrades. Which one introduces the auto-loader? Little picture of a 2a4. Here's a video of the loading of the 2a5: I do agree that modern day/night and thermal optics are very important and do provide a critical tactical advantage. I am skeptical that older thermals, or no thermals, make a tank completely useless. Besides, not all of Russia's neighbors have NATO tanks stationed and the T-72 is the new T-55. I've always been curious how useful the barrel-launched ATGMs are. If they are anywhere as effective as their man-portable counter parts -- they're a serious threat besides the shorter-range APSDFS rounds.

I can imagine the unresolved issues of the Korean war, that still linger to this day, make it a much less compelling narrative than "The Great Crusade" of WW2. I suppose the tales of Japanese WW2 armour in ROKA service is just a myth. Ironically enough, the Korean war jump-started the Japanese industry. Right after the Armistice, the JSDF was born.

You just described my dream multiplayer wargame experience.

That's what I'm saying, man. It would explain the weird angle of the hull, lack of thermal imager and the old gun. I am curious if they added the weird sheet metal on the gun to make it look sci-fi and new. Your link had plenty of examples of funky engine decks on old Soviet models. The engine exhausts look different to me, Karrar looks like a stock T-72. From what I understand, both the T-90Ms and T-84s needed new auto-loaders to mate the new gun with the new turret-bustle. So the question is: which auto-loader/cannon combo are they using? Just a good shot of the T-84's gun for comparison.

As will the Leopards, from the looks of it -- unless they get rid of the smooth-bore 120mm. I've heard the main reason for the Japanese switched from the manual loading to autoloader, from the Type 90 to the Type 10, is because the tanks are easier to transport by rail. Which gave me deja vu to WW2-era tank designs having to comply to narrow railways. It benefits the people who run the Neo-Tsardom. Aggressive rhetoric helps encourage the taxpayer to not complain, and keep paying for projects that never materialize. Any time people think they are getting a raw deal, they can poke the west and receive new sanctions. The oligarchy can blame the west, and come up with new overly-ambitious projects. However, back to tanks: I don't see the requirement, especially for Russia, for super-tanks, at all. They need numbers to secure their wide borders. I think it is much better to develop a more cost-efficient vehicle, much like the T-72 was in its day. One that is not top of the line, but meets modern MBT criteria. I actually really like the T-90M. It addresses the main issues with the T-72 platform: an ammo bustle, new fire control and a new auto loader. I assume that the new gun can take new ammunition, as well as old. I remember hearing that the T-80s would be put in storage, and then hearing they would be modernized. I would be quite excited to have a T-90M-esque upgrade for the T-80. After all, it is a more modern chassis.

There'll /have/ to be a Chosin campaign. I'd also want an Operation Killer campaign. It is a forgotten war, though. I guess that is because it's one of those status-quo wars. I'd think a lot of media would try to avoid the controversy. It's /too/ relevant. Was Type-95 used by the ROKA? Or any other Japanese tanks at the museum?

Maybe a NATO module like there was for Shock Force? I mean, they could port over the Canadian units and paint them super-green. Could always head-canon your unit as Quebecois?

Aye. I'm so used to Hollywood casting older actors for younger roles in movies of all genres and time-periods. Gen Kill had an amazing cast. They felt like real people and were easy to relate to. I even heard that they cast some veterans in it. Highly recommend that miniseries. That AND unnecessary romance (?) plots involving French girls. Oh, AND inspirational trailer speeches.

The fire extinguisher is a good analogy. People living in each house buy their own fire extinguishers. Some houses may keep the extinguisher up to its date of expiration, others may delay replacing it after that. A house where the head of the household is a kleptomaniac may steal the fire extinguisher, and replace it with excuses. I agree, each house should have an effective fire extinguisher. However some houses forget about theirs, and others have British-made ones. I'll admit, I have a soft spot for the manual-loading, coincidence-range-finding era of tanks. I've got a thing for the T-62s. So, my analysis warrants skepticism. However, even the lumbering NATO beasts are switching to auto-loader, sadly. No more slick loaders -- just push the button. I guess the Type 10 will be my new favourite tank. The Lexus of fire extinguishers.

They're taking the half-tracks to Stalingrad?

Did these come with wireless sets? In early war, Soviet tanks had a lack of wireless sets and that the Germans learned to exploit that. Meanwhile American radios were generally fairly advanced. I can imagine that for for situations that required tactical finesse, these lovely M3s would have been more valuable than a T-34. I think people often overlook the power of radios.

I've never heard anyone talk like Brad Pitt in this one. Why did he have to do that silly accent? Why did they even cast him? I kept thinking this is a dark comedy like Inglorious Basterds. Also thought Shia Labeouf is going to make Fury transform into a robot, talk and make crude pee jokes. I am being a bit unfair, but they should have casted more relatable actors. I think Bill Murray, Sean Bean or Willem Dafoe would make good War Daddies (new family comedy). Can't cast Ed Harris or Tom Hanks, though -- they're already assigned to other units. But... professional and level-headed conversations would make this film "boring". It needs exciting dialog, or else they'll need to put actual stakes in the plot.

Always wanted coop in my wargames. I'll have to try out these workaround. While remembering to save during preview and then sending the file over email, every minute, sounds like a bit of a hassle. Still, more "coop" than Graviteam. Just curious, any recommended forum for finding players for "coop" games?

I suggested that the probability of facing a peer enemy in a conventional conflict happening is negligible, but nobody knows the future. Over the last 50 years or so, Soviet (and Russian) armed forces have been involved in these low-intensity conflicts. As times passed, T-62s and T-55s became hopelessly obsolete and the aging T-72s and T-80s eventually replaced them in the same role. The conclusion being that, based on their previous experience, there is no immediate demand for new MBTs. This being said, I did realize something while watching FSA and SAA go-pros on youtube. T-62s and T-55s are zipping about, putting rounds down range, defending and attacking. These were technically "medium tanks", not even 1st generation MBTs even. They are operated outside of their intended doctrine and maintained by inexperienced crews. Yet, they are putting in work -- even in the days of drones and man-portable ATGMs. Just 10 years ago: