holoween

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.

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.

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.

Depending on where exactly you place them they have up to the same protection as buildings. Making them any better doest really reflect reality.

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)

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.

Its 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.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/93127/milan-adt_er-passes-industry-firing-trials.html 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.

One is the weapons capability and the other the intended engagement range. Compare the max ranges given for the ERYX.

I wouldnt want to have to do it but its at least possible. The Milan flies Quite straight irl rather than the weird things it does ingame compare Ingame to IRL

They are all relevant to 2008 Aside from the link on the milan they are all just to demonstrate the point as i cant really post german official TOEs and doctrine.

Ive been playing quite a bit with the german army and ive noticed several inaccuracies in the equippment which i think could be adressed. Ill note here that the german army is quite unwilling to give out documents so its quite hard to present hard evidence for some of these. Infantry cant fight from marder even though this is part of the core doctrine https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjGL65hNDRw MG3 weapon teams doesnt have the tripod even though they should https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9jlx9NGqyo PzGren should by default come with the mg3. The mg4 should at best be an option. https://www.bundeswehr.de/de/ausruestung-technik-bundeswehr/ausruestung-bewaffnung/mg4 end of the first paragraph "The mg4 is mainly used in the infantry" PzGrens in the german army arent counted as part of the infantry and anecdotally ive yet to see an mg4 in any PzGren unit but plenty of mg3s and a few mg5s Milan has a minimum range of 400m but should be 20-25m http://www.guerredefrance.fr/Documents/AIDE MEMOIRE CHEF SECTION INFANTERIE.pdf on page 86 armin distance is 20m

Considering that fighting mounted is still active doctrine in the german army https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjGL65hNDRw https://youtu.be/lgFH68KcloQ?t=51

Basically youre looking towards 1975 to 1985 cold war. At the end of this period the first thermal imagers apeared but they were bad enough that they only really represent some night vision capability.

So ive tested it a bit more and it seems that for some reason the majority of the spotting potential from the stuart comes fromm the driver and bowgunner. 5 stuarts in hulldown position barely spotted 5 p4s in the open while 5 stuarts in the open easily spotted 5 p4s in hulldown. Trying the same with shermans there was a similar effect but not as drastic. What seems to be clear though is that being hulldown doesnt seem to give any benefit to being spotted for some reason and in CMFB at least for all tanks ive tested so far noticably decreased their spotting ability.

My conclusion would be that the ai has bonuses on higher difficulties and as such testing should always be done in hotseat mode.