Capt. Toleran Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Getting to this discussion late -- I think sometimes people forget that Battlefront is a business, and at the end of the day, they need to sell games to make more of them. Let's think about the audience for the game -- while we have plenty of international players (welcome!), there is still a significant amount, I would assume the majority, that are American. This means you do Marines, because the Marines are almost a religion unto themselves here, revered (rightfully so) as some of the best of our best. If you want to sell games to Americans, you make it about Americans. Battlefront themselves said that one of the big problems with CMBB was that the effort vs. ROI tradeoff was very poor vs. CMBO because there were no Americans in that part of the war. It was a great game for a specific niche of hobbyists, and Russians didn't bite on the game (or maybe they couldn't really sell it there anyways vs. pirating), so it was kind of a waste. All of these other countries I have seen listed -- France, Britain, Poland, etc. -- they will have to be "in addition to Marines." Nothing against those countries, but until the UK and France, Germany, etc. start buying the game wholesale (if you want to help Battlefront, spread the word!), they are going to focus on things that make Americans buy games, and there are a lot more of us who care more about US Marines vs. any other country's force that is supposed to be on the "allied" side. This is just economic reality, but I am eager to hear any counter-arguments that might contradict this, including if there were any major demographic changes in the Battlefront audience since CMBO. If so, I stand corrected. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 This thread got me wondering about the ACV. I just did some wiki reading and it looks like the Corps won't have any before 2020. If I understand correctly though, there have been some upgrades to the AAV. Any other new vehicles for the USMC since what we saw in Shock Force and 2008? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuri Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Should be interesting to see older Abrams fighting against modern Russian tanks at least. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thewood1 Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 One thing I have noticed is playing with M1s not having APS. That is a realistic possibility. It levels the playing field a bit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 This thread got me wondering about the ACV. I just did some wiki reading and it looks like the Corps won't have any before 2020. If I understand correctly though, there have been some upgrades to the AAV. Any other new vehicles for the USMC since what we saw in Shock Force and 2008? Contract has been awarded to BAE to upgrade 4 battalions of AAVs with a survivability package. I don't believe this has been seen yet. LAV-ATs are getting a new TOW turret, the same one that is on the Stryker ATGM vehicle. Marine M1A1s have a new commander's weapon station. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr0Buggy Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 (edited) Should be interesting to see older Abrams fighting against modern Russian tanks at least. Afaik, USMC M1's ain't that far off from Army ones. The went through the same/similar upgrades, though at later times. Not sure how much of an improvement are the 3rd gen. DU inserts over the 2nd gen. ones though. Edited March 4, 2015 by Mr0Buggy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 The Marine M1A1 FEPs are about on par with the M1A2 SEP minus the CITV, and the differences in commander's weapon station (A2 SEP simply had a completely manual mount, the A1 FEP has as pointed out, a sort of CROW lite) . The Marines also have employed an IR type jammer on their Abrams in the past. That's really about it. It's not like the 90's vintage HA/HC types. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperial Grunt Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 (edited) Yep, AAVs are getting a new upgrade (again), some have already. LAVs got a new upgrade (again) and new TOW turrets. Marine Personnel Carrier won't be fielded until 2020. No JLTV yet either. There is a list of new weapons but the vehicles remain essentially the same since Shock Force. The one type of vehicles that could be added for MEU specific operations would be the Fast Attack Vehicles (FAVs). Marine M1A1s embarked on MEUs will not have ERA. Tanks from MPF shipping could have ERA added if time allowed but in our 3 month scenario, I could see some sent forward without ERA while some are held back to get kitted up. TUSK should also be an option after the first month as well. USMC vehicles will also be sans APS unless the Army lends some for the tanks. I can't see a system made for a Brad being installed on an AAV. Maybe a Stryker system could fit on a LAV without too much modification, I have no idea. At any rate, even if it was possible, that probably won't happen during the first month. I have my notes ready to go for Chris when it's time. Edited March 4, 2015 by Imperial Grunt 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rokko Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Like the M27 IAR? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperial Grunt Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Like the M27 IAR? Yep. And other weapons. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 No CITV is a very serious handicap.. It really helps on spotting and shooting first (from what I see on game) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 No CITV is a very serious handicap It's certainly not a selling point, but they're closer to differently upgraded Abrams than to obsolete if you get down to it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperial Grunt Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 It's certainly not a selling point, but they're closer to differently upgraded Abrams than to obsolete if you get down to it. And funding-wise, it speaks to different priorities. USMC tanks are really for infantry support, not seeking battle with other tanks. A Marine unit will rely on air power (mostly) to fight enemy armor, especially in the offense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Near as I can tell with the current modeling in CMBS you have vehicles with APS, and smoking wreckage. That seems to include every single pixelStryker unfortunate enough to come under my command, and not a few my opponents in one of my ongoing PBEMs. There just are no safe places with the reach modern ATGMs. I would be scared bleepless to so much as hit the start button with troops in an AAV. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) If the Russian Marines are in, therefore, to some degree, amphib ops, the US Marines should have the UHAC (Ultra Heavy-Lift Amphibious Connector), a great hulking beast which can carry 3 x Abrams (~ 20 y.o. LCAC can take one) at a time, go where not even a man can (lower ground pressure) AND scale 10' sea walls while fully loaded. Fits neatly inside US amphib ships with well decks. This one's half scale for demonstration purposes. UHAC can get into and out of places no warfare planner ever envisaged being able to conduct amphib ops, which means the USMC's landing ops option just got much bigger, together with the concomitant migraines on the other end and worse on other end! Landing tests were first ever for UHAC in military setting, as part of RIMPAC. Land speed shown on vid is probably about 1/10 of actual capability. Regards, John Kettler Edited March 5, 2015 by John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 No CITV is a very serious handicap.. It really helps on spotting and shooting first (from what I see on game) The upgraded SCWS will bridge the gap to a degree: https://marinecorpsconceptsandprograms.com/programs/ground-combat-tactical-vehicles/abrams-m1a1-main-battle-tank-mbt other new stuff: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012mcsc/Shrader.pdf 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperial Grunt Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) Well, that heavy connector thing is beyond the scope of CM just as LCACs and LCUs are. What I would love to see however, is zodiacs for a BLT's boat company! Edited March 5, 2015 by Imperial Grunt 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Ref my #140, Both the migraines and worse apply to OPFOR. Too many "others" as written. Imperial Grunt, A man can dream, can't he? I wasn't kidding, though about UHAC's ability to create huge new areas for insertion of US Marines. Consequently, I'd argue that once the Marines are in the game, it ought to be possible to depict attacks happening which, under normal amphib limitations, would be impossible. With UHAC, OPFOR's coast defense scheme becomes grossly inadequate. Instead of causing some havoc with helo and Osprey landed infantry, now the Marines can put all the sinews of war ashore and carry on from there. Just imagine the fun possible with Marine Abrams, LAVs and Avengers running amok. Bet they wouldn't find it terribly difficult to capture an airfield for Marine V/STOL and fixed wing ops. Would love to have Zodiacs, RHIBs, and this. Did I mention I want Navy SEALs and whatever Force Recon is calling itself these days? Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperial Grunt Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 The RHIBs and Force Recon and MARSOC will have to await a SOF module. I would really love a SOF module as well, although CM can only depict large scale SOF type missions. UHACs are not armored (if you are willing to consider an AAV as being armored) so it will never be in the assault wave. But once security is established, it certainly will improve and speed up the ship shore movement phase of the landing phase. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rokko Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 IG, as a marine, do you know why the USMC adopted the M27? I never quite got the reasoning behind that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperial Grunt Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) It's debatable, like the .45 vs 9mm debate! The M27 IAR is a fantastic weapon system and in the offense, is more lethal and lays down more accurate suppressive fire. It tires the gunner far less in the assault and is much more ergonomic to handle and reload. In range tests, IAR gunners outlasted SAW gunners while shooting more 4-6 round bursts on target to provide suppression for their fireteams while in the assault. It was also tested in Afghanistan with very positive reviews from the troops and commanders. But with that said, shortcomings were recognized. It simply cannot provide sustained MG-like suppression like the M249 SAW can. This is fully acknowledged and is the reason why every company still has 9 M249s as T/E equipment to be employed as the company commander sees fit. That has essentially evolved to 3 M27 IARs and one M249 SAW per squad. It may also be a secret plot by the Corps to quietly move away from the M16/M4 to a rifle that is basically a souped up HK416. If I was Commandant for a day, I'd do this immediately! Edited March 5, 2015 by Imperial Grunt 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Re: M27 It's because the USMC is dumb and terrible. I'm kidding naturally. Coming from the Army I think it's a good system given the USMC's large squads, and dismounted mobility emphasis. Conversely I like the M249 more for our smaller squads, makes up a bit for the less overall shooters. On the other hand, going to one M240L for the squad's MG, and then an IAR type weapon for the not-MG carrying team makes some sense to me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieme(ITA) Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Speaking of MARINES.... What's the deal with these? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 The first one is utlra-Dead. It went into development hell, and never came out after budget cuts. The second one I believe is a technology demonstrator for a ship to shore transporter, but isn't indented as a frontline vehicle (sort of like, a less landworthy version of the WW2 DUWK). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperial Grunt Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Kieme: #1) CANC'd. Very serious mistake on the Corp's part to let this program fail in my opinion. #2) See the discussion on the UHAC above. It's an experimental ship to shore connector for heavy equipment or a whole lot of logistics. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.