Next release: Nato-Modul!

[Sergei]

Lee,

There is what a gamer would do, then there is what a real army would do. The more specialized a vehicle is, the less likely the gamer will use it realistically. It's kinda a rule of the universe, up there with death and taxes

I doubt that Gepards would be brought into a frontline situation any more than I think a M109A6 would be brought to hit targets at point blank range. At least not as a matter of course.

Steve

It's like the Swedish Landsverk Anti II which is lacking from Finnish TO&E in CMBB even though the Hungarian Nimrod - a license copy of the Landsverk - is present. Okay, there's the factor that Finland had only 6 Landsverks and used them for AA, while Hungary produced 135 Nimrods and used them for AA and against light armour. But let's forget that and consider how the 6 Finnish Landsverks could have been used and how they were used.

Of course I, as Gamey G. Gamer, would really have enjoyed seeing them in the game. Not that I'd have tried to use them against ground forces per se, but only to shoot down Sturmoviks hunting my tanks on large maps... AND possibly maul some infantry that somehow had sneaked behind the frontlines. But from reading the histories I gather that for the most part they were nowhere near the frontline. Rather, they were defending the crucial supply lines a long way in the rear of the Finnish Armoured Division. As a result all six Landsverks survived the war (unlikely to happen under my command) and served until 1966 when ZSU-57's replaced them.

So, all in all, my wishes as Gamey G. Gamer, if fulfilled, would have resulted in an outcome very far from history. Then again, one purpose of wargames is to try out different what-if situations. It's the unending struggle between the gamer and the historian.

[Lee]

I certainly hope that will be included in the Finnish TO&E when we get to a CM2: WWII module that covers Finland versus Russia. Since we're going to be having all these WWII modules released, allowing BTS to go into great detail, we should expect to see these sorts of cool vehicles.

[Lee]

Another video of the great MG3 in action, with Norwegian forces this time. It'll be cool to see these in action in the upcoming module. Will German troops in the module be able to fire them on the move (which, as can be seen in the video, is possible), from both the shoulder position and at waist level by holding the bipod with the left hand, at targets at close range (maybe 100 yards or less)?

[afreu]

I don't think any infantry unit is able to fire on the move in CM:SF.

[Clavicula_Nox]

Do you mean "move and fire simultaneously"? or "Move, pause to fire, move" ? They most certainly do the 2nd.

[YankeeDog]

Another video of the great MG3 in action, with Norwegian forces this time. It'll be cool to see these in action in the upcoming module. Will German troops in the module be able to fire them on the move (which, as can be seen in the video, is possible), from both the shoulder position and at waist level by holding the bipod with the left hand, at targets at close range (maybe 100 yards or less)?

I don't see any footage of anyone firing an MG while actually on the move in that clip. There is footage of MGs being fired from kneeling or standing, but their feet are stationary.

As noted, units can and do fire small arms from a "quick stop" while executing a move order already in CM:SF, though I don't recall if the individual soldier carrying a full rifle-bore GPMG (as opposed to smaller caliber SAW etc.) will do this. I generally try to keep my GPMG teams out of situations where this might be required; they're too valuable as long-range fire assets...

[Wiggum]

Will German troops in the module be able to fire them on the move (which, as can be seen in the video, is possible), from both the shoulder position and at waist level by holding the bipod with the left hand, at targets at close range (maybe 100 yards or less)?

Sounds like Rambo to me...

[Lee]

Yeah, I don't mean firing at the exact same time as walking, but being able to walk with the MG3, then stop and quickly fire from the shoulder and/or waist without having to set the machine gun up first. This would be very useful in an assault situation when you are trying to get the MG team into a new position and the enemy turns up near by and such.

[normannobrot]

wo ! i am confused, how many other add-ons is battlefront planning on releasing???

ive counted or read about on here CM:normandy / CM: nato / afghanistan / ????

any one give more light on the subject?

[Wengart]

Nato is the final modul (expansion pack) for CM:SF, CM:Afghanistan is a standalone game being made by Russian developers, and CM: Normandy is another standalone game being made by BFC which will be the beginning of the WW2 ETO series.

[MikeyD]

Think of the new CM titles like different divisions of a car company. There's General Motors brand, GM:Pontiac, GM:Opel, GM:Cadillac, GM: Daewoo, GM:Vauxhall...

Admittedly, that may have been an unfortunate choice of companies to compare to the CM franchise.

[souldierz]

Id love to see a little preview with some pics of the troop uniforms and weapons that made it into the NATO mod.I'm also curious as to how the tactical play is going to change with the NATO Module considering the Marines and Brits both brought a different style of game play.I for one am looking forward to this Mod.

[Dietrich]

Will German troops in the module be able to fire them on the move (which, as can be seen in the video, is possible), from both the shoulder position and at waist level by holding the bipod with the left hand, at targets at close range (maybe 100 yards or less)?

Demonstration of "Sturmfeuer" by reenactor Kurt Suleski:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp0FbdrsIGM

This is not especially pertinent to CM:SF, considering that 7.62mm weapons are platoon/company weapons and are intended for medium to long-range supporting fire.

This will be pertinent to CM:N, since similar weapons (MG-42, Bren) were issued to squads as well as to "heavy machine-gun" teams. Presumably MG-Schützen will be able to fire their MG-42s from standing/kneeling positions; whether they do so from the shoulder or from the waist (probably not both) will depend on what animation BFC creates for on-the-move fire by the corresponding soldiers.

[Pandur]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35XnNtwB-Yg

thers some shots from MG3 fired while walking at 1:35, and around 4:15 theres a guy shooting the G36 left handed, a rare sight.

[John Kettler]

MARS42,

Welcome aboard!

MARS42 (and subsequent contributors),

Great and very meaty thread full of grog goodness! Not only do I know woefully little about European ground weaponry these days, except for the Challenger 2, LeClerc, the stunning SPH2000 and a few other nice toys, such as the BAE 57 mm and the AT-4CS but it's further apparent that I've fallen even farther behind on the M1 and M1 ammo fronts, let alone non U.S. tank ammo and armor schemes.

Damian90 and M1A1TC,

Fantastic pics! Had no idea there were so many Wiesel variants, and the Leo stuff verged on incredible, no equivalent pics from the U.S. M1 being available that I know of.

Regarding the Gepard...

The Russians in Grozhny found ZSU-23/4s to be very valuable in MOUT, because of both enormous firepower and especially the ability to engage threats in upper stories. This is why this wicked little item came to be, and it's got "only" 30 mm cannon, not 35 mm.

BMP-T

http://www.warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=245&linkid=1785&linkname=BMP-T

Since I happen to have a photocopy of the Gepard manual dating back to the 1980s, I'm curious as to why the Gepard doesn't simply blast annoying infantry and light vehicles with the "mine" antiaircraft shell?

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/gepard/

Great Gepard vid!

http://www.military-today.com/artillery/gepard.htm

Am beginning to see the problem--the "I" attached to all the HE round designators! Believe that would invoke the "Weapons intended to cause unnecessary pain and suffering" clause in the Geneva Convention. Surely vanilla 35mm HE would serve if Gepards were committed to a ground warfare role? Believe the second pic from left at link is suitable.

Oerlikon KD series Bushmaster III

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankammo.html

Discussion and better pics here. Note particularly the trend toward airburst HE ammo for IFVs and such.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WLIP.htm

Regards,

John Kettler

[Damian90]

and the Leo stuff verged on incredible, no equivalent pics from the U.S. M1 being available that I know of.

Well, I saw some pics of damaged M1's by very big IED's with some outer armor plate ripped off and inserts shown (side turret armor), but there are only showed only small parts of armor inserts, only first 3 thin layers of some metal plates and something between, but nothing more, so I don't know how armor inserts looks in deeper parts of cavity. This is because US have very tight OPSEC in terms of such thing like armor inserts, besides this, damaged tank was M1A1HC, and from known official sources in M1A1SA and M1A2SEP armor is different not only over front turret and hull but also over side turret.

Edit: Ok here is one small pic of damaged M1A1HC:

By the way, armor structure is very similiar to armor structure in Merkava Mk.4A damaged by... well something, maybe very big EFP:

Here are more for people that interested in that topic:

Merkava Mk.4A:

BMP-T

It is not correct designation, correct designation is BMPT (sometimes called Terminator or Ramka-99).

[Damian90]

Another damaged M1A1HC:

Inserts were completely removed by OPSEC teams before picture was taken, tank was hit by very big IED and catch intensive fire.

British prototype armor inserts maded from DU and polycarbonite:

[Damian90]

And T-72B:

Empty armor cavity:

And inserts:

[Damian90]

T-64B and T-80B possible armor inserts layout:

Ps. Sorry for so many posts, I can't include more than 5 pics in one post.

[John Kettler]

Damian90,

I was referring to the detailed factory floor pics of the turret armor on the Leo, as opposed to almost nothing on the same topic for the M1. I saw a documentary covering factory rebuild of M1s to new latest model configuration and still wound up knowing pretty much nothing about the armoring scheme.

The Merkava Mk.4A is the only pic I've seen before from those you posted, was my first look ever at a modern armor array in a serving combat tank ever, and there's absolutely no need to apologize for such splendid posts. To me, this is treadhead Christmas! As for the T-72B empty cavity, there's so little visual context I can't really tell what I'm seeing or where. Is it one half of the "Super Dolly Parton" bulges on the turret face? If not, what am I seeing, please?

I started a thread I hope you put your marvelous pics and discussions into, for I'd hate to see them lost in a sea of posts.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1175812#post1175812

Regards,

John Kettler

[normannobrot]

Nato is the final modul (expansion pack) for CM:SF, CM:Afghanistan is a standalone game being made by Russian developers, and CM: Normandy is another standalone game being made by BFC which will be the beginning of the WW2 ETO series.

ah danke .

[Smaragdadler]

Good posts as ever Damian90, You should make money out of some intel job.

[Damian90]

I was referring to the detailed factory floor pics of the turret armor on the Leo, as opposed to almost nothing on the same topic for the M1. I saw a documentary covering factory rebuild of M1s to new latest model configuration and still wound up knowing pretty much nothing about the armoring scheme.

As I said, Yanks are much more aware in OPSEC than Germans (well My friend have some experience with this, but I can't tell more ), so the only people that can see US M1's armor are employes of GDLS, TACOM etc. And as I said, there are pics of only small fragment of side turret armor of M1 tank, same goes for Merkava Mk.4A.

As for the T-72B empty cavity, there's so little visual context I can't really tell what I'm seeing or where. Is it one half of the "Super Dolly Parton" bulges on the turret face? If not, what am I seeing, please?

First pic is empty T-72B inserts cavity, and these bulges are just cas steel.

Second pic are inserts, in Russia called Reflecting plates, it is very similiar in how it works to BDD armor, or Bulging armor... in fact almost all if not all armors works in the same way. I have a pic with same turret but with inserts in place, I will try to find it out and post.

I started a thread I hope you put your marvelous pics and discussions into, for I'd hate to see them lost in a sea of posts.

http://www.battlefront.com/community...12#post1175812

Yeah sure, when I find some time. :-)

Good posts as ever Damian90, You should make money out of some intel job.

Well, most of such pics can be find i.e. on TankNet or on Russian (or Ukrainian) site BTVT.narod.ru

So let say, I'm only dig them up for people that not know such great sites. :-)

[Damian90]

Ok, this are few armor types used in some Sowiet tanks:

1) Reflecting plates used on T-72B and T-90.

2) Cellural casting on T-80U.

3) Metal-ceramic armor on T-80UD and some T-80U production batches, but Russian statement is that they don't offer grater protection than armor number 2.

Comparision between T-90A welded turret and T-80UD welded turret, similiar turret is proposed for Russian T-80U's that will be upgraded to T-80UA standard.

Ok next posts will be in other topic about armor protection of modern armored fighting vehicles.

[Lee]

Any updates on what European armored vehicles will be included in the Nato module?