I just gotta grinch about this

[minmax]

Okay there I am playing a scenario and the LAV-25s can get behind a T-72 or T-80 and still they get slaughtered like lambs. Now wait I know from field test (Gulf war and other places) that a 25 mm Chain gun can shoot through rear armor and take out the engine of a tank. I know I am fuming and prolly whining but shux and darn Major!

Okay tantrum over resume normal operations.

[Redwolf]

That were Bradleys shooting T-55s, if we are talking the same incident, and I'm not sure it was more than one.

If you check the armor stats in TacOps you'll find that the Bradley's gun can in fact penetrate parts of the T-55 armor.

[Stoffel]

I think he is right,I even read reports of 25mm rounds penetrating through the turretring of a T72

[minmax]

Well I have to check my sources for confirmation but I remember discussion of the success that Gulf War LAV-25s had against T-72 engine covers and I believe also against T-80s. It just steams me to watch LAVs sit there and get slaughtered by tanks.

"You apes wanna live forever?!"

[James Sterrett]

Did the Iraqis buy any T-80s? I thought they only had monkey-model T-72s.

[Redwolf]

Turretring or not, do you really want the game to model exceptionally good shots all the time? The resulting simulation would be a joke if Bradleys and LAVs could kill T-72s at will.

[Mike Robel]

The 1-4 CAV Squadron S-3 in his BFV was in between A and B Troops (the ground troops in the squadron). 3 T-72s came down the seam. John took out 2 with TOWS and then the third with a 25mm Burst on the side above the road wheels. Got the Bronze Star for Valor (we thought it was a Silver Star shot, but couldn't convince the CG.) Oh well.

[Big Duke 6]

Hi guys,

Thought I'd add my two cents in.

The best Iraqi tank during the Gulf War was the T-72M, also called the 'Dolly Parton' because it had

additonal frontal turret armor that made it look like Dolly. They had no T-80s.

Although ballistically, the 25mm firing DU ammunition could penetrate turret sides of the T55 from close range (under 1500 meters), and could certainly do some kind of damage to the rear of any tank it fired at, I think from a tactical point, you would never want to engage with that weapon if you had the choice. In the Iraqi case, a lot of their crewmen abandoned their vehicles at the first sign of trouble or hits, whether or not the vehicle suffered significant damage. A similar cicumstance occurred in WW2, when our Sherman 75s could not penetrate many of the German tanks frontal armor, so our crews fired HE at them instead, and caused the German crews to abandon the vehicle, thinking they were hit worse than reality. Desperate times call for desperate measures I guess. But I think in the Tac Ops model, trying to use a 25mm to kill a tank is a losing proposition, as it would be against a competent foe in the real world.

[minmax]

I think in a desperate moment anyone would use the Law of combat that says, "do something, do anything." No its not a plan any military commander would make to let armor pass your positions in the hopes of a chance shot in the fanny. But I also know that if its stupid and its works its not stupid.

The Iraqi's had the 'export version' of the T-72M which was generally regarded as a piece of crap.

I think my frustration is seeing any unit just sit there and get slaughtered without firing a shot. Besides the most deadly weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle.

[Mike Robel]

Actually, letting an enemy unit go by you in the hopes of a rear shot is a valid tactic. One I planned on, in fact.

[Big Duke 6]

Good points, although keep in mind that if you are in the enemy's rear, he is also in yours.

There would certainly be occasions for setting up an engagement area to fire at the enemy flank and rear, where the armor is thinner. We'd want to do that as much as possible, without letting him get behind us. I think too often in gaming, (and real training missions in the military) we tend to put guys out there on suicide missions, or using some tactics that would virtually guarantee our unit's death and destruction. "You'll take alot of them with you, though" is not much comfort to real people out there who make decisions on whether they will engage enemy tanks with a weapon that is clearly overmatched, or if they will sit snugly in their hole and let someone else shoot at the enemy. Bounce a bunch of 25mm off an enemy that is worth a damn and he'll stomp you into a mud puddle pretty quickly.

The Israelis have proven quite a few times how good they can use tanks that are pieces of crap, and beat better, more modern equipment time and again. Morale and leadership have a lot to do with that and I don't think Tac Ops is designed for that kind of a representation. It's good for what it does, and it does it very well IMO.

[Coyote]

Originally posted by Big Duke 6:

I think too often in gaming, (and real training missions in the military) we tend to put guys out there on suicide missions, or using some tactics that would virtually guarantee our unit's death and destruction. "You'll take alot of them with you, though" is not much comfort to real people out there who make decisions on whether they will engage enemy tanks with a weapon that is clearly overmatched, or if they will sit snugly in their hole and let someone else shoot at the enemy.

All too true. I tend to use stay behind forces when I'm just playing for amusement, not when I want to study a problem in some detail. I also tend to rate my improvement when replaying a scenario according to my loss rates. Trying to preserve your own forces rather than using them up like gas or bullets imediately turns TacOps into a tougher but still very enjoyable game.

Hmmm, I think I hear a bugle blowing somewhere . .

[minmax]

I agree playing to preserve forces is far more difficult and enjoyable. I also use re-supply vehicles when units run out of ammo. That adds quite a bit to a game.

In terms of hitting flank or rear the grunts that I have known liked hitting a dismounted group right in the 'snot locker' while armor and anti-armor likes to tickle one flank and force a turn so the rear is facing the real threat. Usually TOW-mounted Hummers taking a pot-shot and running away causing a turn and then rear ends are creamed by SABOT and APC mounted TOWS which seem to be more realiable than the hummers TOWs.

That ofcourse begs the question why are TOW-Mounted hummers less likely to hit their target than an LAV or Bradley that has TOWs?

Another one to ponder. That and programming the damn VCR.

nuff said.