Jump to content

Bradleys in ‘82?


Recommended Posts

So I’ve seen some people on this forum referring to the ‘79 scenario as the ‘pre-Abrams/Bradley era,’ which seems to imply that Bradleys will be available come 1982. However, upon doing some research it seems that the Bradley was only issued to combat units in March 1983. Does anyone know if this is correct? Were Bradleys in Germany during this game’s timeframe?   

 

Edited by Lukevan16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Lukevan16 said:

So I’ve seen some people on this forum referring to the ‘79 scenario as the ‘pre-Abrams/Bradley era,’ which seems to imply that Bradleys will be available come 1982. However, upon doing some research it seems that the Bradley was only issued to combat units in March 1983. Does anyone know if this is correct? Were Bradleys in Germany during this game’s timeframe?   

 

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh, be quiet!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Lukevan16 said:

So I’ve seen some people on this forum referring to the ‘79 scenario as the ‘pre-Abrams/Bradley era,’ which seems to imply that Bradleys will be available come 1982. However, upon doing some research it seems that the Bradley was only issued to combat units in March 1983. Does anyone know if this is correct? Were Bradleys in Germany during this game’s timeframe?   

 

Bradley's entered service in 1981. They were pretty rare in Europe even up to 85, but they were there. Plus, you can assume the US does a rapid buildup due to some kind of flashpoint somewhere in the world and prioritizes sending more Brads and Abrams to Germany in 81. 

5 minutes ago, dpabrams said:

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh, be quiet!

Don't worry, the Bradley and Abrams are in the game and that is where they will stay. 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

Bradley's entered service in 1981. They were pretty rare in Europe even up to 85, but they were there. Plus, you can assume the US does a rapid buildup due to some kind of flashpoint somewhere in the world and prioritizes sending more Brads and Abrams to Germany in 81. 

Don't worry, the Bradley and Abrams are in the game and that is where they will stay. 🙂

Cool, glad to hear it. As most of my knowledge of the Bradley comes from the movie ‘Pentagon Wars’ I have to ask, will we have to split sections up to fit them in the vehicle? I hear they were designed a bit strange lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lukevan16 said:

Cool, glad to hear it. As most of my knowledge of the Bradley comes from the movie ‘Pentagon Wars’ I have to ask, will we have to split sections up to fit them in the vehicle? I hear they were designed a bit strange lol

I’m sure it will work the same as in CM: Shock Force and CM: Black Sea, i.e. fudging the vehicle capacity, but you can split squads up close to actual reality if you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lukevan16 said:

Cool, glad to hear it. As most of my knowledge of the Bradley comes from the movie ‘Pentagon Wars’ I have to ask, will we have to split sections up to fit them in the vehicle? I hear they were designed a bit strange lol

Ugh, that movie 😁 

Just remember that movies are meant to entertain, not to educate. Especially comedy's. Don't read too much into all that. 

In CMCW the Bradley comes in its own TO&E formation, and the dismounts are the 6 man teams they were in reality. The player doesn't have to do any annoying splitting or cross loading, all of that is taken care of by the TO&E. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

Plus, you can assume the US does a rapid buildup due to some kind of flashpoint somewhere in the world and prioritizes sending more Brads and Abrams to Germany in 81. 

Presumably this logic could be implied to similarly interesting Soviet systems of the period (I'm thinking of things like the T-55AD & T-62D with the Drozd APS)?

 

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

Ugh, that movie 😁 

Just remember that movies are meant to entertain, not to educate. Especially comedy's. Don't read too much into all that. 

In CMCW the Bradley comes in its own TO&E formation, and the dismounts are the 6 man teams they were in reality. The player doesn't have to do any annoying splitting or cross loading, all of that is taken care of by the TO&E. 

That’s good to hear! Thanks for clearing everything up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

It could, but that is probably better used for systems that are in the game 😁

They were both in CM:A (though I honestly have no idea if they worked or not, possibly much like the real thing), although it turns out neither were deployed to Afghanistan.....TBH I thought the irony of having older units facing off and then discovering that the Soviets had a (at least nominally) functional APS might be kind of fun.

What's the score with the 2B9 Vasilek.....I notice the game TOE just states 82mm mortar.

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

They were both in CM:A (though I honestly have no idea if they worked or not, possibly much like the real thing),

They do work in CM:A, which is crazy. Although only about 60% of the time, and only against incoming threats directly to their front. Still though, its cool to see. 

That said, CM:A assets exist in a weird licensing gray area. I don't know the details myself, but I do know enough to know that it is not as simple as pulling the assets from CM:A into CM:CW. 

20 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

What's the score with the 2B9 Vasilek.....I notice the game TOE just states 82mm mortar.

I don't think it made the cut unfortunately. Not 100% on that though, we are still in beta here. But it might need to be added to the "add if CMCW sells well" list 😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See now that could easily earn the new game it's first 'Meh!' from me.....The 2B9 had been in service for the best part of a decade (I think it might already have been mounted in an MTLB within this timeframe).  :rolleyes:

PS - You can blame Twilight 2000 for this!  ;)

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

See now that could easily earn the new game it's first 'Meh!' from me.....The 2B9 had been in service for the best part of a decade (I think it might already have been mounted in an MTLB within this timeframe).  :rolleyes:

You'll manage somehow if you have to wait for a follow-on module to feature it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

You'll manage somehow if you have to wait for a follow-on module to feature it.

Sure as **** won't stop me buying it, and that's a fact.

But it was a cool weapon, very scary and very emblematic of the period (if perhaps not terribly practical as a medium mortar).

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right-O, Fireship4.  I was just saying it's one tough crowd!  And it is, and that's the big reason the games are so authentic.  Cup half full vs half empty is all.  I am still thinking I am going to wake up and realize this was just a nice dream that could never happen in real life.

The opening did say it's a sandbox, so someone will probably have it there in not too long. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

They were both in CM:A (though I honestly have no idea if they worked or not, possibly much like the real thing)

 

4 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

They do work in CM:A, which is crazy. Although only about 60% of the time, and only against incoming threats directly to their front.

😁

They work in CMA, and honestly probably more like 80% of the time. They cover a 40 degree arc (wherever the turret is pointing). Even they though stop Karl Gustav, RPG-2, and RPG-7 munitions, it still is likely to damage the vehicle (tracks) do to the munition being blow up in the process. Very cool vehicles that only ever really got experimented with in small numbers in Afghan sadly. Would love to see them go up against NATO stuff. (Same for BMP-1D and 2D). Still hoping for Afghanistan Module for CW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, lemme weigh in on this because there are going to be more questions.  What made it into the game...and why?  What did not make it into the game...and why?  Not easy answers to be honest.

First we took a deliberate design choice to try to stick to a policy of "historical introduction +/- 6 months".  The primary reason was to not artificially limit the choices of the player and leave more constraints/restraint decisions in their hands...they are the customer.  There will be purists out there - god love em- who will want to play with extreme historical accuracy and this game is set up for that.  Then there will be 'experimenters' that will want to see what happened if X showed up earlier/later, so we took a look and tried to keep the aperture open for them too.

Second, unlike most historical conflicts, the Cold War never went hot so the geopolitical or strategic situation never really evolved to mirror what is happening in our game.  For example, having spent a lot of time looking at committee records and  logistical after action reports, the reason that vehicles or weapons systems were introduced at a certain date was not the same context as, say, WWII.  These were not shaped by technical, industrial or operational realities as much as they were by good old fashion bureaucracy.  Vehicles and equipment were held up for funding shifts or strategic logistical SNAFUs, not anything "real".  So within a "what if" context saying "Nope the M2 Bradley cannot be in Europe in 81-82...sorry player" makes no sense if the primary reason was "it got delayed because we forgot to include a support package"  or "there was a congressional district issue"  or "the delivery process got held up in a contracting screw up".  If there had been an escalating strategic reality, all of this red tape would have been cut through and the vehicles, which were being manufactured (i.e. well past the prototype stage) and many of them in warehouses, could have easily been pushed forward.

So what?  Well if you see an odd vehicle date to your eyes, trust me we know about it and considered it.  If you want to play with the highest historical accuracy possible you can do that easily within the game.  If you wish to push the envelope of what could have been, well you can do that too...within reason.  You will not be seeing M1s rolling across the plains in 1979, there is a point between ahistorical and complete fantasy but some equipment, particularly US will be available earlier or later than its actual arrival date in the ETO but all of these vehicles were 1) well into manufacturing and 2) had been already delivered to the US military, contracts cut and the machine in motion.  

And finally, what got left out.  Ya, there is simply no way we were going to win this one...we still get beat up by the beta team for leaving out vehicle Z.  Here the tyranny of time kicks in.  Spending an extra 6 months modeling and testing in-game systems that were niche and that most players will never see or use, simply does not make sense.  And then some pieces of equipment would break the game engine itself (e.g. AVLB...breaks my heart as an engineer).  So hard decisions to leave some babies on the roadside had to be made...and they were.  What is in the game are the essentials (plus) and we are likely going to have disagreement on what was "essential"...now let the healing begin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

And finally, what got left out.  Ya, there is simply no way we were going to win this one...we still get beat up by the beta team for leaving out vehicle Z.  Here the tyranny of time kicks in.  Spending an extra 6 months modeling and testing in-game systems that were niche and that most players will never see or use, simply does not make sense.  And then some pieces of equipment would break the game engine itself (e.g. AVLB...breaks my heart as an engineer).  So hard decisions to leave some babies on the roadside had to be made...and they were.  What is in the game are the essentials (plus) and we are likely going to have disagreement on what was "essential"...now let the healing begin.

Makes perfect sense for the armoured oddities I mentioned (T-55AD & T-62D), but not for the Vasilek.

Basically I'm with @Rice here, angling for a new Afghanistan pack.....You guys really need to read between the lines more!  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Makes perfect sense for the armoured oddities I mentioned (T-55AD & T-62D), but not for the Vasilek.

Basically I'm with @Rice here, angling for a new Afghanistan pack.....You guys really need to read between the lines more!  ;)

Ah, yes, looping back to this.  The 2B9 came up and  *everyone repeat the designers mantra with me* "it is on The List", as in the one we will hopefully get as we reach for that shining city on the hill.

Afghanistan pack...well you could just throw sand on the desk and then put a loaded 9mm on a free-swing 720 degree gimbal and set it to go off at random intervals.  It mirrors the experience of that country pretty well in my opinion...but each to their own. 😉  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The_Capt said:

Afghanistan pack...well you could just throw sand on the desk and then put a loaded 9mm on a free-swing 720 degree gimbal and set it to go off at random intervals.  It mirrors the experience of that country pretty well in my opinion...but each to their own. 😉 

It really is the 'Graveyard of Empire', where else could you find FT-17s, Shermans, T-34s, T-55s, T-62s (and whatever NATO have dumped), all in the same scrapyard?  ;)

The Mujahidden Battalion & Tribal Group formations from CM:A were the best organised Uncon units we've ever had.....Infinitely better thought through than the useless incommunicado Groups that we have in CM:SF2.   With a bit of tweaking they could provide a much better representation of everything from Hezbollah through to Jabhat Al Nusrah.

These units really are a credible threat to a regular formation, not just targets.....Which is precisely how it should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...