Bud Backer Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Browsing the CMBS manual (don't have the game yet) I see that UAVs are largely Immune to SAMs. But the U.S. has nothing like the Tunguska. So how do they shoot down the Russian micro-UAVs? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 They don't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieme(ITA) Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Stinger 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 stinger cannot target micro-UAVs 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted March 2, 2015 Author Share Posted March 2, 2015 stinger cannot target micro-UAVs Ok, so I was right....interesting! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 America lacks AAA in the game because it lacks AAA. Theoretically Bradley has some high angle AA capability but an ex-Bradley guy on the board commented that they never practice with that 'bulls eye' sight mounted to the roof, it may not even be referenced in the vehicle manual. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) Micro-UAVs could potentially be shot down even by small arms, although the probability per gun would probably be very low. These are basically RC planes with operating heights of only a few hundred feet. However, having everything on the map open up on micro-UAVs would pose some problems. We are missing AN/TWQ-1 Avenger in game, but hopefully will see it in a patch or module. It's high-RoF .50 cal would be great for swatting micro-UAVs. Edited March 2, 2015 by akd 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted March 2, 2015 Author Share Posted March 2, 2015 Micro-UAVs could potentially be shot down even by small arms, although the probability per gun would probably be very low. These are basically RC planes with operating heights of only a few hundred feet. However, having everything on the map open up on micro-UAVs would pose some problems. We are missing AN/TWQ-1 Avenger in game, but hopefully will see it in a patch or module. It's high-RoF .50 cal would be great for swatting micro-UAVs. Yeah, that is exactly what I thought was strange not to have. Are they not actually in active service? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bahger Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 America lacks AAA in the game because it lacks AAA. Theoretically Bradley has some high angle AA capability but an ex-Bradley guy on the board commented that they never practice with that 'bulls eye' sight mounted to the roof, it may not even be referenced in the vehicle manual. So company-sized US forces IRL do not deploy with any vehicle-mounted AAA or SAM? Is it all handled at battalion level? The lack of it in CMBS makes scenarios with decisive Russian air superiority ("Objective Delta") virtually unplayable for me as the US because I cannot for the life of me imagine how my task force can be expected to fend off Frogfoots and assault helos with no CAP and one Stinger MANPAD team. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 No, air defense units are not organic to the brigades in game. I believe they are in separate air defense brigades and would be handled by attachments. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LUCASWILLEN05 Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Yeah, that is exactly what I thought was strange not to have. Are they not actually in active service? Apparently Linebacker was taken out of service in 2006. US AAA certainly seems to be weak and they may suffer for this cut in the event of war with someone with a decent airforce such as Russia - at least until the USAF wins the air war. Which mght be some time into the conflict. In the meantime US ground troops have a problem... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2/M3_Bradley_Fighting_Vehicle#M6_Linebacker 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Linebacker and Avenger are different systems. AFAIK, Avenger is still in service, although some AD units are transitioning to the C-RAM system. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pablius Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Ther was a thread about this topic still active a few days ago In a few words, the argument made by people that know about this stuff is that the US doesn't have this systems because it counts on the air force to do the job So, basically the game assumes a situation that wouldn't be possible (or likely) in real life, except for a few very lucky Russian planes in the whole theater that would probably be shot down returning home anyway, but because this is a game it takes some liberties I won´t start an argument about this, since I don't claim any special knowledge about it, but in the interest of not starting another never ending thread on this I would suggest you check that other thread, specially the arguments put forward by US officers and see their reasoning for how things are the way they are 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted March 2, 2015 Author Share Posted March 2, 2015 Ther was a thread about this topic still active a few days ago In a few words, the argument made by people that know about this stuff is that the US doesn't have this systems because it counts on the air force to do the job So, basically the game assumes a situation that wouldn't be possible (or likely) in real life, except for a few very lucky Russian planes in the whole theater that would probably be shot down returning home anyway, but because this is a game it takes some liberties I won´t start an argument about this, since I don't claim any special knowledge about it, but in the interest of not starting another never ending thread on this I would suggest you check that other thread, specially the arguments put forward by US officers and see their reasoning for how things are the way they are Thanks for the reply - yes, that actually makes quite a bit of sense as to what their reasoning is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 So, basically the game assumes a situation that wouldn't be possible (or likely) in real life, Either that or the Pentagon is making assumptions. Its been so long since we've faced anyone with airpower that was even a potential threat to ground forces that we may have grown complacent. When were we last under genuine threat from enemy airpower, the north Africa campaign? the initial north Korean invasion of the south? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperial Grunt Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) I can't speak for how the US Army organizes it's Air Defense units but I can speak to how the USMC does. Each MEF has a Low Altitude Air Defense (LAAD) Battalion in the Marine Air Control Group (MACG) of the Marine Air Wing (MAW). Each LAAD Battalion possesses a Headquarters and Service Battery and 2 Firing Batteries. The Firing Batteries each possess a Battery Headquarters and 3 Firing Platoons. The Firing Platoons each have a Platoon Headquarters and 3 Firing Sections. Each Firing Section has a Section Headquarters Element and 5 two man Firing Teams. A LAAD Battalion can field 90 Stinger Teams. A firing battery, 45 Teams, a Platoon 15 Teams and a Section 5 Teams. A LAAD Bn has 60 Avenger vehicles, which is 30 per firing battery, 10 per platoon, 5 per section. The usual employment of a firing battery is 30 Avenger and 15 man portable Stinger teams but the mix of systems can be changed according to the mission, for example to support a helicopterborne assault, only Stinger teams would be employed. To support a mechanized unit, all of the Avengers would be employed. By doctrine, a LAAD Platoon will normally be deployed to support a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), a battery will usually support a Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB), and a full LAAD battalion will support a Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF). The majority of the LAAD elements will be in direct support of ground combat elements in a scenario like Black Sea, although some will be allocated to covering logistical units, HQs, FARPs, etc... Currently MEUs routinely deploy with only a LAAD Section vice a platoon due to the lack of a significant air threat and a Marine IAD network is usually only established at the MEB level and up. LAAD Units are usually employed in either general support (GS) of the MAGTF, or in direct support (DS) of a particular unit. Employed in the general support role, LAAD units position Stinger Teams to best support the entire MAGTF based on the MAGTF Commander's established air defense priorities. In the direct support (DS) they position Stinger teams to best support the unit they are in DS of, based on the guidance of the supported commander. So hopefully for the USMC module, Avenger vehicles will be running around on CM:BS maps. Edited March 2, 2015 by Imperial Grunt 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammersix Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 So hopefully for the USMC module, Avenger vehicles will be running around on CM:BS maps. Lovely. Except that Stingers can't shoot down UAVs in game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperial Grunt Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Lovely. Except that Stingers can't shoot down UAVs in game. But the twin .50cals can! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Given the ability of small UAVs to be deployed very close to the front lines, and the fact that a UAV and a mortar team can pretty much ruin your day, it seems like a problem that needs to be addressed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Given the ability of small UAVs to be deployed very close to the front lines, and the fact that a UAV and a mortar team can pretty much ruin your day, it seems like a problem that needs to be addressed. Yeah, winning the fires fight. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnersman Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Why, oh, why is the Army using .50cal for air defense? I love Ma deuce as much as the next guy. But I would feel much better with at least 20mm from a Gatling type weapon shooting at fast movers. Bring back the M163 VADS! Put the C-RAM on a Bradley chassis and call it good! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Avenger should be in for both US Army and USMC formations. The .50 should be a good tool for swatting UAVs too. Either that or the Pentagon is making assumptions. Its been so long since we've faced anyone with airpower that was even a potential threat to ground forces that we may have grown complacent. When were we last undergenuine threat from enemy airpower, the north Africa campaign? the initial north Korean invasion of the south? It's really North Africa. The DPRK managed a few leakers, but nothing really consistent. On the other hand, to this day we're still lacking even near-peer air threats. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 The .50 should be a good tool for swatting UAVs too. Is the .50 on the Abrams any good for this? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Is the .50 on the Abrams any good for this? Hmm. I'd never really thought of using the CROWS. CROWS is indeed designed to be able to engage helicopters. Acquiring the drone might be tricky though, and it's a really small target. The .50 cal on the Avenger is actually a faster firing weapon too so you'll get better saturation of the target area too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LUCASWILLEN05 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Avenger should be in for both US Army and USMC formations. The .50 should be a good tool for swatting UAVs too. It's really North Africa. The DPRK managed a few leakers, but nothing really consistent. On the other hand, to this day we're still lacking even near-peer air threats. Assuming it is actually still in service and has no been cu to make financial savings. Anyway, if not in service i may not be that simple to bring it back quickly if needed. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/44-44/Ch1.htm 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.