Combat Mission AAR: MSR Titan

[George MC]

 I enjoy the length and detail of the accounts. Helps me follow the details of the plan, action and resulting events. Also helps become involved.

[Sulomon]

I also think the length and detail in the posts is quite good.

[IICptMillerII]

I appreciate the feedback all. I think I'll be able to find the balance between  detailed posts and appropriate brevity. If I ever figure out how to incorporate gifs into future AARs that will go a long way to cutting down on text (I hope). 

[Bud Backer]

@Bil Hardenbergerdid some very nice GIFs for his AARs. He inspired me to do some for mine. 

His are better. You can find them in his CMFB AAR. Really worth a look. 

Edited May 29, 2019 by Bud Backer

[Bil Hardenberger]

21 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

I appreciate the feedback all. I think I'll be able to find the balance between  detailed posts and appropriate brevity. If I ever figure out how to incorporate gifs into future AARs that will go a long way to cutting down on text (I hope). 

I wanted to say that I LOVE the detail of your posts.. don't sacrifice that for brevity... I guess I would rather you maybe post your really long posts over several posts but definitely don't lose the descriptive details.  My main reason is that I like to really think about what's happening and I start to lose the flow when you have so much action in one post.

I've been outvoted anyway, most like the length of your posts so just carry on.   

Bil

[Sgt.Squarehead]

@IICptMillerII.....Thought this brief article about (& nice picture of) the T-72AV TURMS-T might be of interest:

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2019/05/72-90.html

It seems the TURMS-T should be superior to just about all the other Soviet/Russian tanks in the spotting department (except possibly CM:BS' not entirely real at present T-90AM)! 

 

[Sulomon]

Bruh there aren't even TURMS-T in the match.  Plus we are talking about the glorious SLA Opfor not "Syrians" 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Yeah, I could probably have placed that better.....Sorry guys. 

[IICptMillerII]

On 5/29/2019 at 4:28 PM, Bud Backer said:

@Bil Hardenbergerdid some very nice GIFs for his AARs. He inspired me to do some for mine. 

His are better. You can find them in his CMFB AAR. Really worth a look. 

His gifs, and AARs in general, are fantastic and are the main inspiration for the graphics and presentation of my AAR. My trouble with the gifs though is I cannot seem to find an easy to use software to create the gifs in the first place. I can record and edit video no problem, but creating gifs eludes me thus far.

On 5/30/2019 at 12:02 PM, Bil Hardenberger said:

I wanted to say that I LOVE the detail of your posts.. don't sacrifice that for brevity... I guess I would rather you maybe post your really long posts over several posts but definitely don't lose the descriptive details.  My main reason is that I like to really think about what's happening and I start to lose the flow when you have so much action in one post.

I've been outvoted anyway, most like the length of your posts so just carry on.   

Bil

I think there's a sweetspot somewhere in there that I'll attempt to find. I will say that posting the longer updates can get rather tedious, and mistakes are easier to make, so for the sake of workflow I want to reduce the size of updates in the future. I'll figure it out eventually 

@Sgt.Squarehead Here's a little behind the scenes info for you. When I first set up this mission, I used the T-72AV thinking that it used the same ammo as the T-72AV TURMS-T. I chose it over the TURMS as I wanted to simulate an OpFor having the more typical day/night sights found on most Soviet/Russian tanks (at least until pretty recently) instead of giving them the Italian thermals. 

However, after the battle was already being fought, I found out that the ammo used in the T-72AV TURMS-T is actually better than what is used in the base AV. In a perfect world, OpFor would have been equipped with a T-72 with day/night sights (like the AV) and also the best tank ammo the Syrians have access to in SF2 (the TURMS-T). If I break out OpFor for some more fun later on, I'll be equipping them with the TURMS-T to reflect the better ammo, and to make battles more challenging against mid-tier US assets (like the M1A1HC as opposed to the M1A2)

To be clear, I do not know the specific ammo designations the Syrian tanks are using, but my testing showed that a TURMS-T can reliably penetrate the front armor of both the M1A1HC and Leopard 2A4 at combat ranges (1-2km). If I were to take an educated guess as to what the TURMS-T is firing, it would be BM-32 or BM-42 (or the closest equivalent).  

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Hmmm.....That seems odd.  Could the TURMS-T actually be 'placing its shots better', rather than using a different round? 

The only difference between a T-72AV and a T-72AV TURMS-T is the fire control system, they fight alongside each other in formations and presumably draw their ammo from a common stockpile?

 

Edited June 1, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead

[IICptMillerII]

THE BRIDGES

At this point, things are looking pretty good. I’ve established a decent base of fire observing both Bridge objectives as well as the far side of the objectives. So far, things have been relatively quiet.

Back on the elevated road leading to NAI 5, one of the fire teams from 1^st platoon spots an enemy tank. It is on the far side on the bridges, in an orchard of small, short trees, surrounded by a dirt berm. They quickly break out the javelin and take aim.

The javelin gunner acquires a lock and fires. The missile flies true, and comes down on top of the turret of the enemy tank, destroying it instantly. There are additional faint contacts in the area, but no one can see anything else yet. It is probably that there is at least a platoon of tanks, maybe more in this orchard. It appears that they are lying in wait for my forces to expose themselves while crossing the Bridges before they attempt to engage.

To deal with this, I’ll keep the infantry in position and try to spot more tanks to engage with javelins. I’ve also made sure that my tanks in a base of fire can observe the dirt berms of the orchards. This way if the enemy does choose to reveal himself, I will have at least 2 assets to engage them, from 2 different angles and at different elevations. This should increase my ability to both spot and engage threats as they appear.

Covered by infantry and tanks, 2 tanks from 2^nd platoon move forward across Bridge 31.

They take no fire as they move across the open bridge and encounter no obstacles of any type. The two tanks establish overwatch positions on the far side of Bridge 31. More assets move up and the bridge is strongpointed. Infantry from 2^nd platoon begins to move up, mounted in their Bradley’s.

They move up and deploy in front of NAI 12. The buildings on this NAI are right next to the MSR and would provide a good place for enemy infantry to set up an ambush against my vehicles.

As this is happening, the infantry along the elevated road spot another T-72AV parked in the orchard. They engage it with a javelin missile, destroying this one as well.

[Bud Backer]

Man, that shot with the missile coming down... 

[Erwin]

In the game it does seem like Javelins are the battle winners.  If one has enuff of them (plus inf spotters), I wonder if one needs tanks at all (in most situations).

Nice pics and AAR btw.  Thanks..

Edited June 2, 2019 by Erwin

[Wicky]

Re. caption font.   Try something other than the condensed blocky Impact font which is more for large headlines. Try simple sans serif; Arial, Calibri, Helvetica, Tahoma or Verdana.

Otherwise a very engaging & well put together presentation.

Edited June 2, 2019 by Wicky

[Sulomon]

11 hours ago, Erwin said:

In the game it does seem like Javelins are the battle winners.  If one has enuff of them (plus inf spotters), I wonder if one needs tanks at all (in most situations).

Nice pics and AAR btw.  Thanks..

Tanks are a lot better fire support than javelins, much less vulnerable to suppression, and are more mobile.  We could also play a quick battle or two with javelins instead of tanks and see how it plays out!

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Javelins need 15 seconds or so to acquire their targets.....The Red player can work with this.

[Erwin]

...Assuming the Jav team can be spotted prior to firing. 

Using the longer ranges the "fire and forget" missiles were designed for, Jav teams are likely to get off the first shot b4 detection.  In the game, if one had many Javs it would seem like Red armor (especially if attacking and hence not well-hidden) would be KIA easily.  And in some scenarios Blue is given more Javs than one knows what to do with.  But those scenarios tend to be more inf-dominated and/or urban.

Mobility is important.  So, maybe that's why someone thought it a good idea to create lightly armored vehicles like Strykers and give everyone a javelin(?).  

Edited June 3, 2019 by Erwin

[Sgt.Squarehead]

11 hours ago, Erwin said:

So, maybe that's why someone thought it a good idea to create lightly armored vehicles like Strykers and give everyone a javelin(?).

Indeed, but that firepower certainly doesn't come cheap.....Javelins often cost a great deal more than the targets they are used against! 

[Erwin]

Yeah, one could see there was trouble re the economics of the war when Javelins were being used vs single snipers.

[IICptMillerII]

Would you rather spend $100,000 on a missile to kill a single sniper, or would you rather sacrifice the life of your son to kill the sniper? I would gladly rot in debtors prison before I even began contemplating the latter option. 

The javelin is a fantastic weapon system that (in my humble opinion) redefines the tactical battlespace. It not only greatly increases the survivability of soft assets on the battlefield (such as infantry, light vehicles, recon assets, etc) but it also greatly increases their lethality as well. The 'holy trinity' of tactical warfare are lethality (firepower) mobility and survivability. The javelin is a real force multiplier of both lethality and survivability. Throw in a stryker for mobility, and the SBCT starts to make a lot more sense. The javelin is a tactical weapon designed to engage threats on a tactical battlefield. A tactical threat can be a tank, an IFV, or a single sniper or enemy forward observer. 

An actual example of inefficient use of assets given the target would be to call in a Tomahawk cruise missile on a single sniper. However this is impossible, seeing as the Tomahawk is a strategic level weapon and is never used for close support. That said, I would still hemorrhage millions of dollars on Tomahawks before contemplating the grim option I listed above. 

The next AAR update will be posted in the next few days, and there is a small tactical example of this discussion in action which is why I decided to address the javelin/cost/target "dilemma."  

[Erwin]

8 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

Would you rather spend $100,000 on a missile to kill a single sniper, or would you rather sacrifice the life of your son to kill the sniper? I would gladly rot in debtors prison before I even began contemplating the latter option. 

Totally understandable and who would disagree?

But, we're talking about the economics of war.  It's not viable to use $100,000 to kill one person when one has tens of thousands (or more) persons to kill.  (Unless one gutted all other weapons platforms expenditures/purchases.)  Overly expensive wars are what destroy empires.

[A Canadian Cat]

13 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

Would you rather spend $100,000 on a missile to kill a single sniper, or would you rather sacrifice the life of your son to kill the sniper? I would gladly rot in debtors prison before I even began contemplating the latter option. 

Having said that there is a balance to be made here, depending on availability resources. In an environment where there is significant enemy armour operating the correct decision may in fact be to risk your son to deal with the sniper given a later encounter with enemy armour may also be fatal to your son and his mates.

13 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

The javelin is a real force multiplier of both lethality and survivability. 

It is absolutely an increase in lethality but survivability is really only indirectly effected since the Javelin system does not directly protect soldiers from the effects of in coming fire.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Developing decent counter-Javelin tactics is a core skill for any aspiring Red commander IMHO.....One just can't leave AFVs in overwatch when that facing that system. 

I've taken to parking AFVs up behind buildings or dense trees (or even better both) and working in close cooperation with an infantry team, popping out to fire for ten seconds at a time and not a second more! 

[Chibot Mk IX]

9 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Developing decent counter-Javelin tactics is a core skill for any aspiring Red commander IMHO.....One just can't leave AFVs in overwatch when that facing that system. 

I've taken to parking AFVs up behind buildings or dense trees (or even better both) and working in close cooperation with an infantry team, popping out to fire for ten seconds at a time and not a second more! 

+1

like this 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I wouldn't move so far TBH.....I like about two to three seconds travel time from hard cover (ideally with some infantry sat in or on it), then a fifteen second target with a ten second pause, so they're still shooting as they roll back into cover (I've had BMP-3Ms locate and defeat several Javelin teams in an urban environment using these tactics). 

FWIW

Edited June 5, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead