holoween

Id like to point something out that everyone seems to keep forgetting about high cyclic rate of fire. Its your maximum rate of fire not what you actually fire. Simply firing 3-5 round bursts with 2-3 second breaks in between lowers the strain on ammunition supply to no more than the watercooled mgs of the allies. But in situations where you need the higher rate of fire you can simply use longer bursts and shorter breaks. For Barrel wear and heating actual rounds fired per minute is also the only relevant metric. As for changing the barrel you keep acting as if its a disadvantedge while its the opposite. Its not the cas that you have to change the barrel constantly or the gun will break but its to allow it to keep up with water cooled hmgs in sustained fire. Just to illustrate with the mg3 by the book you should change barrel after each 120 round belt. In practice exceeding that by an order of magnitude isnt uncommon when using it as a coaxial tank mg because its somewhat awkward to do. This leads to glowing barrels and the oil literally buring of the guns but simply change the barrel and youre practically back to no rounds fired. This does degrade the overall service life of the barrels but not to the point that it would matter on the ww2 timescale.

ive only seen one test of it so far where someone kept track of all casualties during a scenario and there was no noticable effect. And at the ranges where i could see your point a possibility it isnt a big deal because then you do have time to salvage the mg.

Ive never expected small arms including lmgs to make hits passt 200m and simply supressing they do fine. For killing at range there are heavy weapoons. MG gunnerl like leaders arent really much more commonly hit they just get remembered more.

I dont see how the germans could be considered to be the underdog in quick battles. Their OOB is simply better than the americans. I rarely cut or add anything to german infantry units but find myself doctoring the americans around until im basiacally left with a german unit in american uniforms. Their infantry has more firepower and since a large chunk of it comes from the mg42 german infantry units tend to dropp far less firepower as they take casualties. They also have the best at weapons. Their tanks are as good as anyones and if youre buying panther and up youre completely dominating open ground to the point that more open maps are practically guaranteed wins for the germans. Their only real downsides are that arty is less responsive than the americans, they have fewer radios and rarity can limit your choices. I think its quite telling that in the scenarios and campaigns ive played so far the americans tend to bring a reinforced company to attack a platoon while the germans get a depleated company to attack a reinforced one with both scenarios carrying the expectation of winning.

You are.

To quote the actual report Im sorry but thats not pencil pushers having a field day on some gray area difficult situation.

If you have any lightly armoured or unarmoured vehicles aircraft will shred them with ease earning you several times its points back. And shooting at infantry a single basic infantry squad makes its cost back. At 30 points a piece its an auto include in every QB. Youre not sacrificing anything and get to invalidate any attempt at using mechanized troops.

Arty has a lot of utility that isnt directly measured in killcount. - it forces the enemy to spread out his troops making them far easier to beat. - its the fastest way to shift your focus on the map - it can supress massive areas you wouldnt otherwise be able to - it can cover dead ground And for actual killing the best rule of thumb is to target teams only if they are high value targets(atgm), squads only if they are in especially good positions. Otherwise targeting platoons and up is the way to go.

Not really. You never send tanks without infantry into cities so the additional meter of barrel length isnt a big problem. That the additional weight of it tends to overheat the electrical system used to stabilize it in heavy terrain on the other hand is a bigger issue. The leo2a7 new cooling system for the combat compartment isnt there for crew comfort. Its there to keep the electronics working with crew comfort simply being an incidental benefit.

Tbh the pz4 price is one of the more reasobable ones. If you want to go after the really problematic ones start with the 30points strafing aircraft.

All infantry tactics boil down to the find, fix, manouver, destroy loop. All the textbooks do is show this principle applied in different situations to help teach new leaders.

If youre taking heavy casualties while clearing buildings youre doing it wrong. Being pinned cancels your movement orders with the only excepton being the retreat command. Since they disabled the retreat command for buildings you now have no way of extracting pinned units from buildings.

Only the one actually looking this direction. If we werent in a 360 security at the time we could have missed it entirely. Lol i meant 10 tons

I coan give you an anecdote thats slightly more relevant. On an exercise i was sitting with my squad just off a crossroad in a forest waiting to move on and suddenly on the crossroad a 210ton military truck apeared. Noone had heard or seen it until it stood on the crossroad itself and ony those actually facing the crossroad itself even saw it. And that instance wasnt even with any combat noise around.

They didnt toughen up their morale they simply disabled retreating from buildings making them deathtraps against competent oponents.

In CMSF2 a jevelin is a sure kill if launched. All other ATGMs are far less likely to KO a NATO MBT. With APS youre looking at fairly low killchances even for javelins. If we were living in a world without aps but with javelins id agree with you.

I can tell you i wouldnt want to be the guy having to launch a javelin at an mbt that can fire a 120mm+ airburst he shell, has several thermal optics equally if not more powerfull than my own. I might kill the tank but the he grenade will kill me and my buddies. And if the tank has an APS i cant even expect a kill. And since tanks arent used alone and if the one im shooting at doesnt get me another one probably will. As for economics youre not really making fair comparisons. Every MBT will cost far more to initially acuire but the ammunition is far cheaper. Now take in mind youre not always shooting at MBTs so your cost effectiveness for missiles goes way down.

How difficult is it to kill the abrams vs the infantryman hloding the javelin

Spot first, shoot first, kill first is called into question for atgms with the introduction of active protection systems. So against active protection systems you either have to try to overload the system with several missiles at the same time, deplete the defensive munitions or simply use KE. To defeat een a current mbt with KE from the front you need 120+mm guns which by virtue of their size inherently require larger vehicles and once youre at 30 tons just to get the gun and associated ammo, optice, etc moving you might aswell put enough armour on it to protect it from autocannon and smaller caliber tank shells. As far as costs are concerned, the optics, electronics, engines and weapons are making up the largest part of an afvs cost.Armour is comparaby cheap so your smaller and faster units might both lack the punch to actually ko mbts easily and lack the numerical superiority you hope for.

The issue is that the lower your base armour is the easier it is to defeat it with low tech ammunition. Your lightly armoured fast vehicles like strikers for example will easily get destroyed from autocannon fire from IFVs no matter how much active protection systems you put on them. The same goes for IFVs vs tanks. If anything id say active protection systems have the possibility of restoring armour superiority for the forseeable future. Infantry nowadays relies exclusively on shaped charges to defeat armour which is easily defeated by active protection systems. So with widespread adoption of them infantry might run into near complete inability to counter armoured vehicles in general. Also high tech weapons are incredibly wastefull. Firing your sensors and computers as part of the weapon is simply inefficient.

For some reason the strikers mounted mk19 has a far worse dispersion than the crew seved one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-sjWRH8meo

I didnt but its also not really a training manual more like a faq book for soldiers. To me there is a pattern emerging. the warhead arms somewhere between 25-75m possibly changing between missile versions with the 200m being the doctrinal min range so soldiers dont try to use it too close.

Id echo that sentiment but id also add that this is the primary reason i also like to play huge battles. Once you know how to play well increasing the size adds an entire extra layer on top. because your small unit tactics still matter but they are now put into a greater context and managing an entire battalion sometimes forces decisions that on company level seem stupid but make sense in the bigger picture. So at some point you simply learn more from larger battles.

The ability to split Squads in whatever way i want. The current system works reasonably well and for doctrinally ridgid armies is great but for more flexible ones it really misrepresents what they could/can do. But since were in dreamland let me add more things. Better arty control by allowing barrages to be modified by intensity and allowing a mix of ammunition used. The ability to have more than 1 player per side for pbem Larger maps so properly deploying and using forces becomes possible especially in the modern games. Recrewing of crew served weapons

1. trench vs foxhole comparison was last patch but the behaviour still exists. 2. Agreed Trenches are awful 3. Id expect buildings to have a far better cover rating than foxholes in the open so as far as im concerned no surprise or problem there. Equally Foxholes in dense terrain provide great cover which is again something id expect. The reason i dont have a larger sample size there is because ive been doing such comparison tests quite a bit in cm and while there are usually some outliers in every test the small sample size is enough to give a rough idea which is enough for me. It really doesnt matter to me if the foxhole cover is 90% or 100% as effective as buildings but rather that its comparable. 4. That wasnt directed at you specifically so sorry if that came across as such. Ive had that discussion now several times and usually the issue is that too much is expected of defenses. Also i dont disagree that defenses could get a boost but i think foxholes are in a good place. Trenches though are just plain aweful and really need a buff or preferably proper narrow and deep trenches need to be added rather than the wide and shallow ones we currently have.