Jump to content

holoween

Members
  • Posts

    282
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

holoween last won the day on October 20 2021

holoween had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

holoween's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (3/3)

222

Reputation

  1. Sure the exact number may vary but the basic principle will stay the same for quite some time. The reason is that drones have limited payload so if you invest it into a warhead you simply dont have the capacity to also get great range and great cameras. Well unless you dont care about size and price. If you make it large enough you can have all you want but thats expensive. So getting a bunch of drones with long flighttime and great optics to recon and then once targets are found direct the attack drones on them is going to allow for greatest effect. If the attack drones have to find their own target they would end up with far shorter range because they would have to be able to make a return trip if they dont find anything or be lost entirely. Also getting cued only from friendly units once in contact would be less effective since the enemy now cant be engaged before getting to engage himself.
  2. The typical drone attacks tend to be: At least 1 (usually more like 3+-1) spotting drone to find targets in the first place and to allow coordinating When a target has been found the fpv drones get send out to attack usually limited by operators. Depending on target and availability arty and drone bombers are also used. Where SHORAD helps significantly here is in pushing back those spotting drones or shooting them down. The tanks in COIN is funny to me because ive seen them or more exactly IFVs be highly useful and well worth their money. So as per this scenario the SHORAD would be able to deal with an attack that otherwise has the potential to take out an entire battalion. So even taking your scenario at face value that seems like great value. This also Throws up a dilema. If youre defending against an attack do you attempt to attrit the air defense first which means the attack might go through mostly unharmed by your supporting fires or do you focus on the attack itself which leaves the air defense free to do its job. So we bring FPV drones and SHORAD and our enemy brings just FPV drones. As per your example we lose a few vehicles while they lose a battalion. This seems like a reasonably sustainable attrition rate. And as per your scenario you dont need 2 per platoon but more like a platoon per battalion so 15 vehicles per brigade. This entire calculus also get a whole lot better once you actually enable your normal vehicles to engage drones aswell which isnt that much of a problem either. It gets even better when you include your own drone operators hunting down enemy drone operators and fire support. UAS at the current capability will become cheaper. Those for military use will become more expensive. Want them hardened against EW? Thats another hundred bucks for each. Want them with more than a few km range and still good payload? You just doubled the price. And all that is only necessary because you introduce countermeasures. Your ideal counter uas weapon simply doesnt work with physics. For ballistic weapons youre looking for a 30mm gun with a good fire control system so a few tons at least. For directed energy weapons you need the emitter itself and a power supply to sustain it aswell and thats another few tons. For infantry to carry more, move faster and go longer without resupply you need an external powersource. The most effective way to provide what you want is to give the infantry a vehicle. And if youre thinking exoskeletons then you might aswell forget about cheap in the first place. And while im not trying to understate the effectiveness of drones and i absolutely see them as a vital part of combat there are ways to mitigate their effect. Starting from low level simply having someone as a dedicated air observer to spot drones and getting them a shotgun or mg on an aa tripod gives a slight chance to deal with them. Provide each vehicle with a weapon capable of shooting down drones. Already starting btw Get some dedicated SHORAD vehicles for more effective fire and to protect vital points
  3. This seems a really weird thought process form you. Just because a system isnt perfect we shouldnt bother? From what ive seen the vast majority of drones are used for scouting to then call in fires either from arty or fpv drones. If that system can shut down the recon drones it already does an invaluable job. Suddenly an attack cloumn doenst get hit several km away from the first defender but only once they are in direct los to them. And if it forces all drones to hug the treelines to stay alive they suddenly see far less and become far more vulnerable to other weapons.
  4. I dont think this has found its way here yet. https://en.zona.media/article/2024/02/24/75k This is an article primarily trying to estimate russian losses but does a comarison with ukraine aswell. Its a russian news org so take with a grain of salt but from a read through and a quick glance at their other work it at least isnt an obvious propaganda site.
  5. One thing that isnt modeled at all is safety distance. With a morthar you can fire far closer to friendly infantry before getting danger close. So IRL the last prep fires on a position before infantry assaults would usually be morthars.
  6. How about actual troops. There has never been a question on weather NATO territory would be defended or not.
  7. NATO is a defensive alliance. Which is why when the US triggered Article 5 after 911 all of NATO joined while it didnt participate in the 2003 Iraq invasion.
  8. Yea but also the ground conditions didnt really allow for anything else.
  9. They are awefully modeled in SF2. The muzzle velocity is far too slow and they are less accurate than at4s somehow even though they have proper optics for aiming and rangefinding rather than just iron sights.
  10. The tropps from position 1 are not in a position to threaten my flank. They can reinforce the other positions, move to the objective or stay put. If they tey to flank they run right into my fire support. If they reinforce the other positions they fight where i want to fight and so can concentrate my fire and that is if they arrive in time. If they move to the objective ivcan defeat tem in detail. if they stay put i dont even need to fight them. Now this approach requires good terrain analysis or it will become difficult. If the enemy deploys vastly different he isnt conforming to the terrain and simply wont be much of a challenge to defeat. Id also challenge the idea that there is less freedom to manouver with my approach. I have an uncomitted platoon so i can react while broad front approach may find itself engaged everywhere at the same time. That might work in its favour if you have a massive firepower advantedge but id rather not count on that.
  11. TBH thats not at all how i think about it. I know this image is just supposed to be an illustration but if i look at it with this plan overlayed it looks to me like a failed attack. Specifically 3rd pln will be unable to advance due to flanking fire while 1st and 2nd pln will both get pulled into the same forest and get artied. This is what id expect the defensive setup to be. assuming the brown line marks a hill and the green area is forest. Id also expect position 2 to be lightly defended but have a trp on it to destroy attacking units there and then run a counterattack from position 3 hugging the north west side of the hill. So for a plan id go with something like this 1st platoon attacks position 3 with 2nd platoon following behind and supported with all arty. 3rd platoon runs a supporting attack on position 2 to tie it down. this automatically takes all troops on position 1 out of the fight, hits the likely highest troop concentration with arty, clears the way to the objective and cuts the fallback path from position 1 and 2.
  12. I "played" only in the RT one if one can call that played. My first 2 oponents never showed up and my third one left after a few turns when i started to get my t34s into his backfield while his attack bogged down at the starting line.
  13. even without the bug making tcs more easily targetable cm has essentially a parade unbutton. IRL you poke your heaad out just far enough for your eyes to clear the turret roof so good luck to any infantry man trying to snipe at that.
  14. In CM commanders who have thermals available should be buttoned up so they use them. IRL its unbuttoned all the way. The extra situational awareness makes it easily the default option. Especially given that at least for the Leopard 2 a6 and a7v its still possible for the commander to look at the display of the periscope so it isnt a choice between the optics. Also loader is always unbuttoned to aid spotting unless actively firing.
×
×
  • Create New...