Where are the Bradleys? (probably spoilers inside)

[Sunbather]

Well, Cold War has become my favourite CM game in the past couple of weeks. The clash of forces at this particular time is, albeit fictional, wildly interesting.

But where are the Bradleys? I have played a couple of scenarios, looked inside probably all of the scenarios, but no Bradleys.

I know from a Youtube video that there are some Bradleys as a back-up in Rumpenheim Rumpus. Is this the only scenario? Am I crazy?

 

inb4: Campaign-wise I have only played the NTC campaign to mission 3.

 

[Ultradave]

US campaign 1982 you'll have some. Kriegsburg later years  ('81, '82) will I believe.  I think there are some in the last couple scenarios of the US 1979 campaign too if I remember correctly.

But really to get the real feel of Cold War conflict you want to experience life with M113s. Helps realize why we didn't want to fight a full out war 

Dave

[Sunbather]

18 hours ago, Ultradave said:

US campaign 1982 you'll have some. Kriegsburg later years  ('81, '82) will I believe.  I think there are some in the last couple scenarios of the US 1979 campaign too if I remember correctly.

But really to get the real feel of Cold War conflict you want to experience life with M113s. Helps realize why we didn't want to fight a full out war 

Dave

 

Hello Ultradave,

thank you for your answer! I will try out the Kriegsburg scenarios soon. But as fate has it, I have finally pulled the trigger on Red Thunder yesterday, so I expect my war interests to divert from the Cold War for the next couple of weeks, haha.

 

That being said, I have already learned to embrace the M113 since it already had its fair share of destroying Soviet BMPs with its trusty .50 cal MG. But as much as I am surprised by the M113’s actual fighting capability, I am disappointed by the Dragon launcher of the infantry. The effective range of 1000 meters seems to be way to optimistic. Heck, sometimes they need all of their 6 rockets to destroy a single tank. The M109, of course, is an absolute killer but lacks any anti-infantry fight capabilites and is, of course, dependent only on its mere 8 rockets.

So all the purported and actual discourse surrounding the Bradleys notwithstanding, I can see why the US wanted to have something like the Bradley which combines all the 3 assets above, plus thicker armor and a proper automatic gun. After all, with the BMPs the Soviets had their form of “Bradley” already in the 60ies.

To conclude: in face of a Cold War gone hot, and as a aspiring arm-chair general, I would have churned up the production and deployed as many Bradleys as possible after 1981. Which is why I was a bit surprised to see none of them so far in the 1981 and 1982 scenarios.

[Simcoe]

9 hours ago, Sunbather said:

 

 

Hello Ultradave,

 

thank you for your answer! I will try out the Kriegsburg scenarios soon. But as fate has it, I have finally pulled the trigger on Red Thunder yesterday, so I expect my war interests to divert from the Cold War for the next couple of weeks, haha.

 

 

 

That being said, I have already learned to embrace the M113 since it already had its fair share of destroying Soviet BMPs with its trusty .50 cal MG. But as much as I am surprised by the M113’s actual fighting capability, I am disappointed by the Dragon launcher of the infantry. The effective range of 1000 meters seems to be way to optimistic. Heck, sometimes they need all of their 6 rockets to destroy a single tank. The M109, of course, is an absolute killer but lacks any anti-infantry fight capabilites and is, of course, dependent only on its mere 8 rockets.

 

So all the purported and actual discourse surrounding the Bradleys notwithstanding, I can see why the US wanted to have something like the Bradley which combines all the 3 assets above, plus thicker armor and a proper automatic gun. After all, with the BMPs the Soviets had their form of “Bradley” already in the 60ies.

 

To conclude: in face of a Cold War gone hot, and as a aspiring arm-chair general, I would have churned up the production and deployed as many Bradleys as possible after 1981. Which is why I was a bit surprised to see none of them so far in the 1981 and 1982 scenarios.

 

That is something I've noticed about the US in Cold War (without Bradley's). I find the majority of the firepower is in the tanks. They are absolute monsters but if the Soviets can disable them it's game over. The Soviets feel a bit more rounded in that regard.

[domfluff]

"Rounded" is one way to put that, "Excessive" is another.

The US company team is a collection of specialist elements - TOW launchers, armour, infantry and mortars. Each element is important, and every element relies on every other element to do their job. The Soviet company is a lot more single minded.

[Lethaface]

1 hour ago, Simcoe said:

That is something I've noticed about the US in Cold War (without Bradley's). I find the majority of the firepower is in the tanks. They are absolute monsters but if the Soviets can disable them it's game over. The Soviets feel a bit more rounded in that regard.

TOWs and Dragons can work wonders

[Halmbarte]

1 hour ago, Simcoe said:

That is something I've noticed about the US in Cold War (without Bradley's). I find the majority of the firepower is in the tanks. They are absolute monsters but if the Soviets can disable them it's game over. The Soviets feel a bit more rounded in that regard.

US infantry doesn't have that much organic anti-armor capability. They have a mediocre ATGM with poor warhead, short range, and an absurd failure rate, and a few one shot M73s that are better volley launched at ranges much over 75m, further reducing the number of kills they can make against Sov armor. 

The one flavor of Soviet infantry squad comes with an organic BMP that has a lot of potential armor kills on board, as well as providing reloads for the squads organic RPG7.

The BTR flavor loses the BMP's anti armor capability, but makes up for it with AT-7s and AT-4s.

I think of AT-7 as being what the Dragon wants to be, while the AT-4 is pretty much a shorter range TOW that's man-luggable. Either can be devastating in the defence or if pushed forward on the attack. plus the carrying BTR for either  carries a large number of reloads. 

Sov squads aren't as flexible as the American ones and they really need their carriers to be very useful but they are organized to perform their function in the Soviet combined arms army. 

H

[Lethaface]

50 minutes ago, Halmbarte said:

US infantry doesn't have that much organic anti-armor capability. They have a mediocre ATGM with poor warhead, short range, and an absurd failure rate, and a few one shot M73s that are better volley launched at ranges much over 75m, further reducing the number of kills they can make against Sov armor. 

The one flavor of Soviet infantry squad comes with an organic BMP that has a lot of potential armor kills on board, as well as providing reloads for the squads organic RPG7.

The BTR flavor loses the BMP's anti armor capability, but makes up for it with AT-7s and AT-4s.

I think of AT-7 as being what the Dragon wants to be, while the AT-4 is pretty much a shorter range TOW that's man-luggable. Either can be devastating in the defence or if pushed forward on the attack. plus the carrying BTR for either  carries a large number of reloads. 

Sov squads aren't as flexible as the American ones and they really need their carriers to be very useful but they are organized to perform their function in the Soviet combined arms army. 

H

Dragons aren't failing that much for me ingame, not noticeably more than the AT-4s do. While they struggle frontally against T-64/T-72/T-80, I'd definitely not underestimate it in CM at least. Especially when you're thinking you're safe behind that smoke screen ;-). 

[Simcoe]

6 hours ago, domfluff said:

"Rounded" is one way to put that, "Excessive" is another.

The US company team is a collection of specialist elements - TOW launchers, armour, infantry and mortars. Each element is important, and every element relies on every other element to do their job. The Soviet company is a lot more single minded.

Totally agree. Just thinking from the Soviet perspective. MRB vs company combat team. 

I find the MRB can roll over anything less armored than a tank. Infantry, APC's and anti tank can be rushed and destroyed by auto cannon, 14.5mm machine guns, AK's, RPG's

Against a US tank in the attack you have: your tanks, dead on artillery hit. I find Soviet ATGM's work much better in the defense since a US tank can usually shoot the missile team before it hits. The M60 might spot the team while they are getting in position too. For BMP's I find they work much better against infantry and light skinned vehicles. Against a tank I find the M60 just shoots them before the missile hits.

Once you take out the tank platoon in a company combat team the rest is a peace of cake. 

 

[Chibot Mk IX]

Scenario Czechmate has some Bradleys, although it is the M3 version from 2nd ACR

 

10 hours ago, Halmbarte said:

US infantry doesn't have that much organic anti-armor capability. They have a mediocre ATGM with poor warhead, short range, and an absurd failure rate, and a few one shot M73s that are better volley launched at ranges much over 75m, further reducing the number of kills they can make against Sov armor. 

The one flavor of Soviet infantry squad comes with an organic BMP that has a lot of potential armor kills on board, as well as providing reloads for the squads organic RPG7.

The BTR flavor loses the BMP's anti armor capability, but makes up for it with AT-7s and AT-4s.

I think of AT-7 as being what the Dragon wants to be, while the AT-4 is pretty much a shorter range TOW that's man-luggable. Either can be devastating in the defence or if pushed forward on the attack. plus the carrying BTR for either  carries a large number of reloads. 

Sov squads aren't as flexible as the American ones and they really need their carriers to be very useful but they are organized to perform their function in the Soviet combined arms army. 

H

 

I think the Dragon is underestimated here. With a clear FOV, Dragon can achieve 66% hit rate. Probably that means nothing to a T-64B, but to T-55/T-62 and soft skin BMP/BTRs that is deadly, so in many cases you can just make it hold fire, manually select soft skin AFV as its primary target. Dragon is also the only ATGM that can both see and fire through the smoke. A well placed smoke and a salvo of Dragon ATGM can turn the table. When not shooting, you can just use it as a scout assets, team up with tanks. They should spread the spotting information with unbuttoned tanks very quickly.

 

Short range could be an issue. Especially considering many of the CMCW scenarios have very large maps. So you will need M113 or a Jeep as the platform to maneuver.

Just think about these scenarios 

1, in a large map deploy 4-5 dragon teams forward as a screen. When Soviets forward elements show up. If it is recon force, you can destroy it before it reveals your Tanks and TOW ATGM position. If what you meet is soviets' main effort, fine,  fire the ATGM then jump on the M113 that is waiting behind. Retreat toward the main defense line and spread the information through radio network. Enemy retaliation fire will hit the empty ground

2, take the risk and send a Dragon ATGM + some other infantry team on a M113 infiltrate the enemy's flank. Hide in a patch of woods, identify the high value targets. the other infantry team deploy smoke grenade. Then the next turn Dragon ATGM open fire, taking a flank shot under the cover of smoke hopefully.

 

 

 

Edited January 17, 2023 by Chibot Mk IX

[Simcoe]

7 hours ago, Chibot Mk IX said:

Scenario Czechmate has some Bradleys, although it is the M3 version from 2nd ACR

 

 

I think the Dragon is underestimated here. With a clear FOV, Dragon can achieve 66% hit rate. Probably that means nothing to a T-64B, but to T-55/T-62 and soft skin BMP/BTRs that is deadly, so in many cases you can just make it hold fire, manually select soft skin AFV as its primary target. Dragon is also the only ATGM that can both see and fire through the smoke. A well placed smoke and a salvo of Dragon ATGM can turn the table. When not shooting, you can just use it as a scout assets, team up with tanks. They should spread the spotting information with unbuttoned tanks very quickly.

 

Short range could be an issue. Especially considering many of the CMCW scenarios have very large maps. So you will need M113 or a Jeep as the platform to maneuver.

Just think about these scenarios 

1, in a large map deploy 4-5 dragon teams forward as a screen. When Soviets forward elements show up. If it is recon force, you can destroy it before it reveals your Tanks and TOW ATGM position. If what you meet is soviets' main effort, fine,  fire the ATGM then jump on the M113 that is waiting behind. Retreat toward the main defense line and spread the information through radio network. Enemy retaliation fire will hit the empty ground

2, take the risk and send a Dragon ATGM + some other infantry team on a M113 infiltrate the enemy's flank. Hide in a patch of woods, identify the high value targets. the other infantry team deploy smoke grenade. Then the next turn Dragon ATGM open fire, taking a flank shot under the cover of smoke hopefully.

 

 

 

The dragon is alright but I find it works better for spotting. I find they are more valuable staying hidden and spotting for artillery. It can certainly help hitting them once the main column passes though. Give them a lose/lose situation. Keep moving or hunt you down.

[The_Capt]

On 1/15/2023 at 6:31 AM, Sunbather said:

Well, Cold War has become my favourite CM game in the past couple of weeks. The clash of forces at this particular time is, albeit fictional, wildly interesting.

But where are the Bradleys? I have played a couple of scenarios, looked inside probably all of the scenarios, but no Bradleys.

I know from a Youtube video that there are some Bradleys as a back-up in Rumpenheim Rumpus. Is this the only scenario? Am I crazy?

 

inb4: Campaign-wise I have only played the NTC campaign to mission 3.

 

When you play the Soviet campaign, the Bradleys show up and will try to kill you couple times.

[Lethaface]

8 hours ago, Chibot Mk IX said:

I think the Dragon is underestimated here. 

Indeed. It has been very good in PBEMs for me and my opponents lol.

 

13 hours ago, Simcoe said:

Once you take out the tank platoon in a company combat team the rest is a peace of cake. 

I don't know, it's really not my experience. The main threat are the TOW vehicles, apart from Abrams and perhaps TTS.

Edited January 17, 2023 by Lethaface

[Lethaface]

53 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

When you play the Soviet campaign, the Bradleys show up and will try to kill you couple times.

Haven't played that campaign yet, mostly play H2H but it's still on my list for someday. In PBEM the Bradleys are borderline 'OP' I'd say, smoking BMPs left right and center and often getting the drop on MBTs with the TOW. Although obviously they aren't really intended for dueling tanks and will go down to any serious accurate incoming, but the BMP-2 30mm struggles against them at anything but close range.

[Simcoe]

1 hour ago, Lethaface said:

Indeed. It has been very good in PBEMs for me and my opponents lol.

 

I don't know, it's really not my experience. The main threat are the TOW vehicles, apart from Abrams and perhaps TTS.

The difference between the TOW's and tanks is the armor. If I find a TOW I can use just about all weapons available to a MRB and it can't do much at all to infantry.

Tanks in the defense can only be reliably countered by tanks in the attack. Anything else bounces off and they are too mobile to fall victim to indirect.

If you lose your tanks as Soviets in the attack you can still kill the TOWs. You can't do anything against the tanks though. All this assumes you're playing against an intelligent human opponent who will move his tanks around.

[Lethaface]

44 minutes ago, Simcoe said:

The difference between the TOW's and tanks is the armor. If I find a TOW I can use just about all weapons available to a MRB and it can't do much at all to infantry.

Tanks in the defense can only be reliably countered by tanks in the attack. Anything else bounces off and they are too mobile to fall victim to indirect.

If you lose your tanks as Soviets in the attack you can still kill the TOWs. You can't do anything against the tanks though. All this assumes you're playing against an intelligent human opponent who will move his tanks around.

You don't find TOW, TOW finds you
I get the armor difference between m113 and tanks and yes in a duel / close fighting of course the tanks has more staying power but if you're playing against an experienced player he will look to ambush your vehicles at long range with the TOW which has great optics, accuracy and and mostly one hit, one kill statistics. And they are much more mobile compared to m48/m60 tanks. Anyway each to his own, obviously it all depends on context.

Edited January 17, 2023 by Lethaface

[domfluff]

The whole point of the US company team is that it's a combined arms team of specialists. No part of that team can carry things by itself, but in combination there's the tools to deal with everything.

Tanks in the US company are the jack of all trades, and as such they are the key enabler to allow all other parts of the team to do their job. The TOWs should be the main killing power of the company, and the infantry are the main defensive power, but the tanks can set the conditions for the other elements to get into position and get their job done - they don't hold ground as well as the infantry, they don't put out HE or smoke efficiently as the organic mortars, and they don't kill tanks as efficiently as the ATGMs, but they're the enabling glue that binds everything together.

That is until you get to M60 TTS, Abrams and Bradley, but since that's a generational change, that's really a very different discussion, and really the high-end of kit in CMCW can represent an entirely different game.

[Lethaface]

10 hours ago, domfluff said:

The whole point of the US company team is that it's a combined arms team of specialists. No part of that team can carry things by itself, but in combination there's the tools to deal with everything.

Tanks in the US company are the jack of all trades, and as such they are the key enabler to allow all other parts of the team to do their job. The TOWs should be the main killing power of the company, and the infantry are the main defensive power, but the tanks can set the conditions for the other elements to get into position and get their job done - they don't hold ground as well as the infantry, they don't put out HE or smoke efficiently as the organic mortars, and they don't kill tanks as efficiently as the ATGMs, but they're the enabling glue that binds everything together.

That is until you get to M60 TTS, Abrams and Bradley, but since that's a generational change, that's really a very different discussion, and really the high-end of kit in CMCW can represent an entirely different game.

Well put.