AAV Help

[rogue187]

This is kind of in conjuction with my sniper question. Since I have been playing the British, I have been enjoying using them. The Warrior is as good as the Stryker/Bradley and just as suvivable when hit. I have not played the Marines through becuase I have trouble with their AAVs. While I appreciate their greater firepower, they are just SO thin skinned. Since they carry more people than Strykers/Bradleys/Warriors the loss of up to 25 men is much more pronounced than just 9 guys in the other vechicles. Is is best to keep the Marines dismounted and use the AAVs for fire support? I am not trying to put them into direct danger, but the AI usually fires a RPG before they are spotted and get away with a devistating kill. Whats the best way to use the AAV?

[Ryujin]

The AAV's primary role is as a boat/truck on treads. Pretty much always dismount and keep it far away and hidden until you need to use it to cover an area. It's Mk19 is quite useful in a fire support role, but you should keep it 300+m away from the enemy when possible to avoid RPG fire (it's a big easy target too).

[theFightingSeabee]

Yes, Ryujin is right. You should hide them until you need them for support. Think of them as ammo boxes on tracks.

[costard]

The AAV's primary role is as a boat/truck on treads. Pretty much always dismount and keep it far away and hidden until you need to use it to cover an area. It's Mk19 is quite useful in a fire support role, but you should keep it 300+m away from the enemy when possible to avoid RPG fire (it's a big easy target too).

Max range of the Mk19 1500m. I've found it useful at 1200m suppressing trenches and rooftops. Hull down works better at this range against standard red AT.

I'd like to see an area fire from the Mk19 be described in the same way as a linear pattern in a mortar mission - suppress a trench line instead of one spot on the trench. Of course, you usually have more than one AAV, and something like a literal ton of ammo fully loaded (plus infantry gear..)

[MikeyD]

I'm reminded of the M3 halftrack in WWII. Sure its an armored troop transport but I believe its purpose was to get the troops to within a quarter mile from the front, as opposed to 2 miles with truck transport. 8mm armor is 8mm armor.

[Alan8325]

Humping in from a distance is a good strategy with any lightly armored transport, as long as the scenario designer leaves me enough time.

[Ryujin]

Yeah, the optimistic way to look at the AAVP is that it isn't a bad APC, it's a well armed and armored truck. A lot of vehicles people complain about in CMSF have more "strategic" use than "tactical". The AAVP's main role is to get troops from A to B, even if point A is a ship. Not so much to go around playing tank like the M2/M3, so it's main role within the scope of CMSF is to hide, haul ammo, and provide fire support from "safe" positions.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Getting hit with RPGs and ATGMs is too nasty not to disembark. Even the better APCs don't exactly shrug off RPGs and other threats. As such, I dismount ALL infantry regardless of the quality of the vehicle.

I find that any place where your infantry can't safely walk towards is not a place where you want to drop off your infantry anyway. It's better to approach an objective on foot, where the many eyes and muzzles of an infantry force, and the APCs on overwatch further back typically makes short work of any threat that might pop up.

[c3k]

Ryujin has it about right. At setup grab as much gear as you want to burden your troops with, then immediately dismount. Hide the AAV's behind some cover... 300 meters to the nearest enemy should be considered "danger close".

Ken

[Lampshade111]

Indeed the AAVP-7A1 should be treated as more of a truck than an IFV or even a Stryker.

Park it some 300 meters away if you can if possible look for a hull down position you can park the thing in.

That said I would kill for the firepower of the EFV in many scenarios. The fate of that program still remains to be seen however, yet regardless I believe the AAVP-7A1 needs some kind of replacement.

[Damian90]

That said I would kill for the firepower of the EFV in many scenarios. The fate of that program still remains to be seen however, yet regardless I believe the AAVP-7A1 needs some kind of replacement.

Well EFVP should be a bit redesigned in my eyes, but it is a good step forward, and maybe not as replacement for AAVP-7A1 but suplement of it.

EFVP can fight in direct combat and let's say transport 10 man, and AAVP-7A1 should be upgraded and stay as armored and armed truck, it can take 25 man + good amount of ammo and supplies so it is still usefull vehicle.

[rogue187]

Utimately what is the preferred method for using vechicles in modern war? Big tanks like the Abrams, Challenger, etc can still certainly lead the charge with infantry supporting the tanks. But the Stryker/AAV/Warrior, etc seems to turn that back around. While the Strkyer and Warrior are more survivable than the AAV, should ANY of these vechicles be used for direct attack, or as support fire for the troops?

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Your question has no simple answer, and it all depends on whom you're facing. If you're facing poorly-armed infantry with nothing bigger than a PKM, hell, you can attack them with just about anything tougher than a truck. It also depends on terrain. In areas with high maneuverability and long lines of sight, vehicles become very powerful by themselves. The more restrictive the terrain is, however, the more you'll need to use infantry as the main assaulting arm while keeping the vehicles well back and using them as supporting fire.

Does that make sense?

[rogue187]

It does make sense. The game has come a long way since the first release when poorly trained conscripts could hit a quick moving Stryker at 1000m and kill everyone. When I play, I try to use my infantry as little as possible and my vechicles as much as possible. While I have a better understanding of WWII equipment, I have had a hard time adjusting to just how lethal even a RPG can be with a lucky shot. I have noticed that with the introduction of casualty limits, I very rarely ever take fewer casualties than allowed.