Test number2: ABrams vs ATGM

[Thewood1]

You can build a "fair" scenario very easily using objective beyond just capture and kill.  Make it recon against recon screen, use spot or damage objectives, use any type of point system that favors the "weaker" side.  War isn't fair and the objective system id built to create the balance.  This isn't Wargame..

[Nerdwing]

You can build a "fair" scenario very easily using objective beyond just capture and kill.  Make it recon against recon screen, use spot or damage objectives, use any type of point system that favors the "weaker" side.  War isn't fair and the objective system id built to create the balance.  This isn't Wargame..

Exactly. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

Are they ~STRAIGHT TRIPPIN?~

 

Yes.  In 2008 we had them for every dismounted M240 type weapon in the Troop, in 2011 we had them for the M240s, M2s, and for M14s (but we did not receive the M14s until it was really too late to bother with them).  They're certainly not uncommon and for something happening 20 years in the future, think it's pretty reasonable to assume they'd be pretty common should someone decide they were needed.  

[dan/california]

On any reasonable interpretation of current trends every U.S. soldier whose primary job is to fire a weapon will have thermals by 2035.  There is no point in paying the vast cost of deploying the U.S. military and not providing equipment that is so obviously useful.  Likewise the only reasonable interpretation of why every U.S. armored vehicle doesn't have Trophy mounted currently is that some defense contractor has convinced some congressmen they can do better.  Both systems are so overwhelmingly, and obviously useful the case for their deployment is overwhelming. It almost doesn't matter what APS cost, smoking wreckage is expensive too, and bloody useless as well.

[Thewood1]

But in peace time, it is hard to get the spending through the budget process.  When a war starts, everyone will be all for it, but I am very skeptical APS bolts on as easily as some people think.

[dan/california]

In regards to the engineering involved in fitting Trophy to U.S. vehicles I would bet a fair amount of money that a lot of it has been looked at by the Israeli producer, and maybe the U.S military as well.  There is a LOT of money to be made if Uncle Sam came calling in a hurry, and the systems integration work involved is something that can be estimated in advance, unlike the basic R&D of making the widget work in the first place.  You need mounting brackets, you need electrical power and control wiring, you need FCS integration.  Some of that isn't simple, but its not blue sky research either.  Having a first pass at the various bits setting on a hard drive would save a LOT of time.

Edited April 13, 2015 by dan/california

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

You need mounting brackets, you need electrical power and control wiring, you need FCS integration.

 

Actually all of it is pretty modest.  The mounting brackets are no big deal, there's already a variety of systems that just plug into the Abrams (like the MILES type stuff, or the hookups for the DUKE/JUKEBOX stuff) so piggy backing off of that isn't a problem.  I'm not sure why the FCS needs to be integrated, I was under the impression Trophy did all of its sensor stuff internally, but even then the FCS is just a very specialized computer, it doesn't need a massive overhaul to cooperate with external devices.

 

It's not rocket science.  The main thing that keeps Trophy off of the tanks now is the US Defense industry, if there was a need for APS tomorrow, we could certainly have APS tomorrow.  

[dan/california]

The specific thing I was thinking about was Trophy's ability to give an azimuth to the threat on the FCS, and spread that through the net so the entire platoon or company knows which way to look. its a neat trick but it wouldn't be a deal breaker to leave it out of a crash install program.  There were a few glimmers of the U.S. APS program in another thread a while back, but it is just really quiet overall, at least in public sources.

Edited April 13, 2015 by dan/california

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I'm uncertain on it too.  I have to wonder if it's been shelved in favor of something more cutting edge, with the mass trophy buy as the "if we go to war in 2017" plan.

[akd]

You need to see the game as if history departed onto an alternate track more than a  year ago (when TO&E for the game was being finalized).  That means a decision to intregrate Trophy isn't being made tomorrow, or next year, it was made over a year ago.  Likewise Arena on Russian tanks, etc.  BFC is not going to patch Trophy out of the game when 2017 rolls around and there is no Trophy on Abrams on our branch of history, just like they won't rewrite the storyline when it doesn't come to pass.

Edited April 13, 2015 by akd

[Thewood1]

Well, there APS-less versions of AFVs already in game so if someone is really fussed out over it, they can just rebuild scenarios without it.  I did that on a couple.

[antaress73]

APS worked very well against the Hamas because it didnt have the tech to disable it by electronic means (jamming) or even low tech means (decoys like RPG-30, volley firing etc) . Even some massive artillery bombardment by MRLS with DICPM or run of mill arty could disable APS before the vehicules are engaged by direct missile fire in combat. It goes for both sides.

Edited April 13, 2015 by antaress73

[c3k]

I find su25 strafing also does a good job of stripping EVERYTHING off my Abrams.