Smaragdadler Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Is this real already? Will it come with the NATO-modul for german Leos? Could it ruin the game? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 According to this Wiki article "Prototypes have already been tested on several vehicles: SEP and CV90120 (Sweden), AMV 8x8 (Finland) and LMV (Italy)". Nothing seems to indicate that it has been ordered by any army yet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 If, big IF, that has even a 50-75% success rate against Kornet style ATGMs, as well as RPGs it should be mounted on every tank and AFV in the inventory ASAP. How does it do against top attack missiles? Does it have any effect on KE rounds? How Jammable is the radar, and how much does it interfere with other vehicle electronics systems? Price would be nice to know too? The armies creation of a EW MOS for inclusion in line units is looking brighter by the second. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Supposedly the fictional invasion of Syria takes place in 2008 so the game wouldn't have them, though aren't there other late date chages that were added to the game? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 it should be mounted on every tank and AFV in the inventory ASAP. I have a couple questions about these 'Trophy'-like systems. What's the electronic footprint? How far away can the signal be picked up? Could the enemy track your unit's movements simply by tracking the electronic signature? Like in Star Trek - "Captain, I'm detecting three aproaching Klingon cruisers!" Second question: the effect on the crew. If there's a scanning microwave radar involved it sounds like a commander sticking his head out a hatch would find his braincase nuked like frozen burritto. Other micowave emitters like the Prowler aircrafter literally line their cockpits in gold to shield the crew. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackMoria Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Because of the time frame of 2008, there is no operational deployment of such systems so it most likely will not be in the NATO module. We haven't been told the timeframe the CMSF 2 will encompass, so it is a possibility but that question is best put to the developers and I would guess that those sort of decisions haven't been made or are not for discussion at this time. They still have the British module, NATO module, a rumoured 'Red' module and CM:N on their plate so CMSF 2 is ways down the road. Edit: As it stands now, Blue has as a fist full of trump cards and the only real edge that Syrian forces have is the advance ATGMs and tons of RPGs. Assuming even a pessimistic success rate for anti AT weapons of 50%, that means Syrians have their own real advantage reduced by 50%. That means that game is more like kicking puppies at that point for Blue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Combatintman Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 According to Steve the rumoured red module is just that - the module 'surprise' that was mentioned in the other thread relates to blue apparently. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 I may be old-fashioned, but I wouldn't mind not seeing this sort of über-high-tech stuff in CMx2. It's the same reason why hypertechnological future warfare games don't appeal to me -- sometimes, technology can be too advanced, so advanced that it seems to take the fun out of it. (That's kinda why I save my Javelins for instances when I'm facing actual MBTs and I have not much otherwise in the way of AT assets.) Similarly, neither WW1 nor the Korean War have never interested me as much as simply WW2 -- in the former, technology was underdeveloped (though it did see the dawn of aerial combat), and tactics were appalling; in the latter, technology was pretty much the same as in WW2, as were the tactics. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flanker15 Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 I don't think "uber tech" would be the word to describe Hard kill defence, the Soviets have had the same system for their tanks for decades known as "Drozd" and "ARENA". "Trophy" was going to be bought from Israel by the US but then they decided not to because they're making their own one now "Quick Kill" (which is very fancy pants because it uses little missiles that shoot out and blow up on the proectile instead of just spraying fragments at it). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimguy Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 These technologies are real. I don't necessarily need them in the stock campaigns, but I like having units available for people to make other hypothetical missions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.