holoween
-
Posts
291 -
Joined
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by holoween
-
-
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.
-
3 hours ago, JoMc67 said:
And now those Deathtrap Houses are like Bunkers against Attackers...Every House will need to be cleared, causing even more unnecessary and unrealistic casualties for both sides...So, who needs Moral Checks anyways...Sigh.
If youre taking heavy casualties while clearing buildings youre doing it wrong.
3 hours ago, Zveroboy1 said:For a human player it is a only a deathtrap if you decide to stay. Or you guys mean if you catch HE fire in the middle of a turn before you can manually order the withdrawal?
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.
-
3 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:
Yes, that is a better anecdote. However, you did actually spot the vehicle as it came close.
Only the one actually looking this direction. If we werent in a 360 security at the time we could have missed it entirely.
2 hours ago, c3k said:Yes, he did, but to give due credit, he did say it was a 210 ton vehicle.
Lol i meant 10 tons
-
1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:
If no, then I don't think the comparison really adds anything to the discussion.
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.
-
11 hours ago, Ithikial_AU said:
Yes the recent patch did toughen up the morale of infantry in hard cover but that was after some horrible (IMO and I think many others) experiences of troops breaking far to easily and fleeing hard cover/good positions where running meant getting killed quicker.
They didnt toughen up their morale they simply disabled retreating from buildings making them deathtraps against competent oponents.
-
21 minutes ago, Erwin said:
Sadly, casualties are to be expected. However, (assuming CM does reflect reality) the modern CM2 games clearly demoinstrate how deadly even a few ATGM's are to an armored force. And when we start having 5-10 ATGM's per enemy tank, it would be a massacre.
A nation can afford to lose and replace a few dozen ATGM units. It can't afford to lose a few dozen expensive and hard to transport and replace MBT's in a single short engagement.
This seems to be the direction that the Brits are thinking about in as well as the USMC.
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.
-
On 10/22/2020 at 11:26 PM, Erwin said:
How difficult to kill the 20 Javelin inf teams that can be hidden anywhere over a 2.5Km front vs every MBT?
One has to remember that economically and logistically one can build about 31 Jav systems for every M1A1. Then one can transport about 3,500 Jav's for the same weight as a MBT.
I love armor as much as any other armor fan. But, just as with bows and arrows and horse cavalry, everything gets superseded at some point. We can debate as to when.
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.
-
1 hour ago, Erwin said:
How much to build the Abrams and how much to transport it to the correct location?
How difficult is it to kill the abrams vs the infantryman hloding the javelin
-
20 hours ago, slysniper said:
but I see it as, if they spot and shoot first, I am likely dead ANYWAY.
So whatever unit you are thinking of with auto cannons, I see my force with a machine also with auto cannon or better capability. But its smaller, faster and possible the crew is safe behind the hill it is defending. Hopefully more of them than yours because my cost levels.
yes, can it be lost , sure, but my logic is, at a cheaper price, maybe saving the crew because of possible remote operation and hopefully just as deadly as what I am fighting against.
The concept of armour saving my crew is a concept that is past our day and time other than from small arms, and even them have the ability to penetrate a decent amount of steel with some of the special stuff out there now
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.
-
57 minutes ago, slysniper said:
I think the future of mobile forces should be to make them as light, small and fast as possible with a powerful attack weapon and minimal protection to counter small arms fire only.
Defenses should be high tech options that counter incoming high tech weapons before they make it to the target.
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
-
6 hours ago, StieliAlpha said:
Stupid question: Did you check out „Der Reibert“? Not an official document, but sort of a Bundeswehr Training Handbook, which should help you a little further. In my days almost every soldier owned one.
I didnt but its also not really a training manual more like a faq book for soldiers.
1 hour ago, akd said:Yes, of course, but is the “minimum effective range” 300m or 25m? That is what is funny: two official sources drawing (apparently) on primary sources using the exact same terminology for hugely divergent values. The section would appear to be taken from the same source if not for the number divergence.
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.
-
3 minutes ago, domfluff said:
So... yeah, small scenarios, played often are the best way to learn something like this, and the game/outside reading learning feedback-loop is the primary reason why I (personally) play simulationist games.
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.
-
49 minutes ago, Zveroboy1 said:
Now tell us what is the one change you want the devs to add to the engine to put the thread back on tracks.
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
-
10 minutes ago, Zveroboy1 said:
I don't really have time to study this in depth right now and already spent more time on this than I should have but...
1/ The whole thing is not super useful without providing the details of the test, but it is still interesting I guess. Did you just do this or is this an old test?
trench troops take 90% of casualties in the first 30s of shells landing and immediately abandon the trencesThat seems to indicate it is an old test made when pixeltruppen just fled under artillery fire instead of staying put, so I am not sure how relevant it is.
2/ It seems to show that trenches are just plain awful. That much is obvious. It is even shocking really how they perform a lot worse across the board compared to foxholes.
3/ Buildings offer a protection that's nearly ten times as good as foxholes in the open according to the data here. And they should be better that goes without saying, but ten times? It is going to be rather hard to reproduce engagements like El Alamein or Birk Hakeim. Foxholes in forest versus buildings is close yeah, but really the sample size is tiny so I'd be careful about drawing conclusions based on this alone.
4/ "They are great but you cant expect them to act like forcefields making your infantry immune to fire. " Please be so kind as not to put words into mouth or make me say things I never said. If anything this test makes me more convinced that fortifications need to be beefed up, trenches big time and foxholes if I was going to give a ballpark figure, I'd give them a 15% boost or so.
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.
-
47 minutes ago, Zveroboy1 said:
Anyway this has been debated to death. Some people find them satisfactory, some not so much.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1o4nz0sHbp8Z03fFmm9CweH8P8Z8Nf0XiGHwAQvztsZ4/edit#gid=0
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/130RTbJ8HABwYqp4rTvsBU4NASTWebO3K4igNDxL1W28/edit#gid
They are great but you cant expect them to act like forcefields making your infantry immune to fire.
-
12 minutes ago, Zveroboy1 said:
Hmm from artillery or from small arms fire you mean?
Small arms.
I havent tested buildings against arty so i cant say for sure which is better but foxholes are massively increasing infantry survivability against arty.
-
30 minutes ago, Zveroboy1 said:
I take it you have never played CM1 because right now in comparison they're barely adequate and offer nowhere near the same level of protection as they did before or should irl especially with half the pixeltruppen's torso sticking out.
Depending on where exactly you place them they have up to the same protection as buildings. Making them any better doest really reflect reality.
-
27 minutes ago, Zveroboy1 said:
Better trenches and foxholes that offer more protection.
Foxholes already provide some of the best protection you can get.
-
Its happening reliably to the german tornados which only have bombs and with all of their different bomb sizes.sSo reliably in fact i count them as only having 2 rather than the 4 they actually have for effectiveness (2 on target, 1 miss, 1 disapearing)
-
8 hours ago, Ultradave said:
For an HE mission to destroy tanks in the open, you really need a direct hit, which is very likely to immobilize/kill the crew inside, but still has a decent chance of leaving the tank usable in the future. Also, the older model the tank, the "easier" it would be to kill with artillery IF you hit it.
Scratch the usable in the future part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBQe7Ahod34
1:43 for the before and 2:43 for the after. If you get a dricet hit unless youre hitting the Turret or hull front composite armour arrays of something like an abrams/leopard2 youre left with a wreck and if you hit the composite armour thats a full rebuild of the area. In either case the tank is ko.
-
1 hour ago, Beetz said:
That's a little incorrect. I served until 2006 in a PzGrenBtl and from then on in a JgRgt and the Panzergrenadiers are as much infantry as you can get I can assure you that. We were wearing the green color everywhere (Litzen, Barett) just like the Jägers too and were trained similar to them with the addition to fight combined arms around the marders. And the Grenadiers are also using the MG4 of course.
Just as an example:
kind regards
BeetzIts not a little incorrect but its complicated.
Because yes they wear green and they are infantry but they also part of the "Panzertruppen" and not the "Infanterie".
Thats besides the point though. My claim wasnt there shouldnt be any mg4 with the Pzgrenns but rather that they shouldnt be the primary mg of them. What i posted was the closest to open source proof i could find because i cant just go around a few armouries, count the different mgs and then post how many of each type the PzGrenns in my area have. If the german army was a bit less strict i wouldnt have to rely on the anecdotal proof ive provided for my claims id simply go ahead and copy the manuals and post them.
What i cant directly prove is the fact that whenever possible the mg3 or mg5 is used rather than the mg4. That might have just been the preference of the specific troops ive been in contact with but if you look through the german armys youtube channel its exceedingly rare to see an mg4 but mg3s and to a lesser extend mg5 are everywhere so that particular stance seems to be similar across a large part of the german army.
-
1 hour ago, akd said:
Let's compare to this description of tests of the latest Milan ADT-ER version, follow-on to Milan 3:
The first test served to verify arming distance. Following a strike at a short range of 40 metres, the warhead did not detonate, demonstrating system safety and therefore the benefits to the operator in such an event.
A second test demonstrated the missile's accuracy over the minimum engagement range of 150 metres. The front and main charges were both triggered with the correct lag time between the two events.
With the third test, the objective was to demonstrate system performance against a moving target at the maximum range of 3,000 metres. The missile followed perfectly the sight line which was slaved to the target.To be clear, I think the 400m minimum engagement range was taken from Milan 1, so probably is wrong for Milan 3, but I'm doubting the 20m range as something that should be happening in any normal circumstances.
Nice find.
The document i found seems to talk about the milan 2 (its called milan2 in the table on page 89).
The german wiki puts the minimum range at 75m for the milan 2 the french and english ones at 200m but none of them provide a source.
Your link about the milan er would give credibility to the 75m claim but i have no idea if this is something that changed between missile generations. Either way it seems clear that the current 400m minimum range is far too high. If it should be at 20m, 75m, 150m or 200m depends on which source you want to believe.
Marines Out of Tank Warfare!
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
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.