Blue vs Blue

[DaveDash]

I've been playing a bit of Blue vs Blue recently, USMC vs Army is pretty intense and a wildly different experience (unfortunately the Brit's don't have the firepower to compete).

I've noticed the following observations after quite a few games with Blue vs Blue:

Tanks:

US Army M1A1HC SA tanks are extremely tough to take out without luck or Javelins. There is no wonder the Syrians struggle with these.

In my most recent game I had two USMC M1A1 FEP (one with crack experience) set up in a forest ready to ambush two approaching M1A1HC SA's from flanking shots to the side (about 700m out). Not only did the Army M1A1HC SA's survive my flanking shots, they both turned around and destroyed both USMC tanks after a few minutes of pounding each other to death front on.

They then proceeded on towards their objective. I managed to destroy one with a Javelin. The other proved to be much more troublesome, and only managed to take it out using 4 split USMC anti-tank squads. After a harrowing few moments of attacking this single tank on the flank from both sides, the M1A1HC SA crew paniced and bailed. The tank was still completely usable!

Trying to take out two more with Javelins proved difficult at best as they are VERY good at spotting your two man Javelin team before or after launch. It's pretty much a case of launch and hope for the best. I even had one survive a direct Javelin hit.

All in all extremely nailbiting stuff!

Chally 2s (Enhanced) just don't seem to be able to stand up to US tanks which I think is a bit off. I had a couple of USMC M1A1 FEP take out 6 Challenger 2 (Enhanced) in a recent game in one battle (I had the advantage of flanking shots in the opening stages, but still). Could have just been luck at the time but I tend not to play a lot of Blue (Brits) vs Blue.

IFVs/APCs:

US Army kit here is far superior to their USMC counterparts. USMC is definitely an infantry supported by vehicles, whereas US Army is vehicles supported by infantry.

Infantry:

This is where USMC shines. While US Army rifle companies pack a lot of punch, they are just overwhelmed by USMC rifle companies. If you can neutralize the US Army vehicle dominance, USMC Infantry rules the battlefield. Both US infantry formations seem far more survivable than their British counterparts.

Artillery:

Even of course, but the interesting thing about playing Blue on Blue is you are not safe, anywhere. However given the fact that mortars can fall down very quickly and accurately, your body armour seems to protect your troops quite well.

I've had a few surprises after pounding the crap out of USMC or US Army infantry formations only to assault the position and find considerable stiff resistance remains, or had the same happen to me to find most of my guys are either OK or slightly injured.

Tactically I find you get good opportunities to execute planned moves because:

A) You infantry has the morale to do them

your infantry has the survivability to do them

and

C) The enemy infantry has the morale and survivability to not be routed, meaning you HAVE to do them

This makes for some interesting set piece small unit tactical battles as each side tries to outflank each other. I find with Red troops they just route too easily or panic and get pinned and there is far less room for error, meaning quite often you end up relying on mass over manouver. This of course has its own reward as it requires proper planning but given the engines quirks execution can often be frustrating with red troops.

There is nothing easy about it (USMC vs US Army) and it is not over quickly. In fact, I find engagements last longer than Red vs Red.

In my last game, I had an to commit an entire company of USMC to close with and destroy a US Army platoon dug in a trench system in a forest, taking around 45 minutes in game time - and not to mention a truckload of mortars.

Even with your own highly motivated and skilled troops numerous tactical problems exist, such as taking out that woodland reservse slope position. Arty isn't going to help as much as you think and a frontal assault is going to be futile.

Finally, using two different formations that are more or less even in strength but different in flavour offers a bit of excitement you cant find with matched Red vs Red scenarios, I find. Playing as Blue you often find yourself limited in some way (lack of support assets, casualty rate, collateral damage, etc) and it after a while it starts to feel contrived. USMC vs US Army there is no such need as you need all the firepower you can get!

All in all I'm loving Blue on Blue at the moment!

[Eagle2]

What missions do you play? I've been looking for some good Blue on Blue ever since I played the US v UK mission that came stock with the UK module.

[DaveDash]

What missions do you play? I've been looking for some good Blue on Blue ever since I played the US v UK mission that came stock with the UK module.

I actually edit a lot of the scenarios that come with the game and replace them with blue troops. Replace the Syrian forces in 'Following the Euphrates' with USMC and see how far you get.

[Alan8325]

In my most recent game I had two USMC M1A1 FEP (one with crack experience) set up in a forest ready to ambush two approaching M1A1HC SA's from flanking shots to the side (about 700m out). Not only did the Army M1A1HC SA's survive my flanking shots, they both turned around and destroyed both USMC tanks after a few minutes of pounding each other to death front on.

According to the descriptions, the USMC M1A1 FEP upgrades are along the same lines as the M1A1HC SA and M1A2 SEP upgrades. I believe M1A2 has some armor improvement but there shouldn't be any toughness difference between the different (non TUSK) M1A1 models.

Of course with the fairly realistic CMSF ballistics, damage modeling and spotting you can have 2 identical units face off against eachother multiple times and have wildly different outcomes each time. It's even possible for a BMP to take out an Abrams with a lucky rear shot.

Blue on Blue definitely has a different feel and so far the only scenario I've played is the stock one with the Brit module but I'd like to make and play more!

[Ryujin]

I think the army may often have better KE ammo, which will make a huge difference in a fight between two equal tanks.

[Alan8325]

Yeah there's no info on specific ammo quality/models in CMSF, only general HEAT or APFSDS. Obviously, APFSDS in a T-72 should have different performance than APFSDS in an M1A2 SEP. Steve would have to say whether Army tanks have newer and/or better ammo than USMC modeled in CMSF.

[Damian90]

According to the descriptions, the USMC M1A1 FEP upgrades are along the same lines as the M1A1HC SA and M1A2 SEP upgrades. I believe M1A2 has some armor improvement but there shouldn't be any toughness difference between the different (non TUSK) M1A1 models.

M1A1FEP, M1A1SA (there is not such tank like M1A1HC SA, M1A1SA have other designation name M1A1AIM v.2) and M1A2SEP got same armor, 3rd generation multilayer laminate armor with DU. M1A2SEP simply got more digital systems. All of them weight approx 63,100kg.

M1A1HC (Heavy Common) is common variant between Army and Marines. It was base for M1A2 development. Both M1A1HC and M1A2 got same armor, 2nd generation multilayer laminate armor with DU. Both weight approx 62,500kg. M1A1HC's in Army and Marines have some minor differences, like smoke granade launchers and other. M1A1HC was also base for M1A1D variant (not fielded in wide numbers, probably only for 2 batalions). M1A1AIM v.1 was only rebuild to zero hour/mile condition for all M1A1HA's and M1A1HC's, some were upgraded with new digital equipment but no deeper upgrades were included.

I think the army may often have better KE ammo, which will make a huge difference in a fight between two equal tanks.

Basic APFSDS ammo in US.Army and USMC is M829A2, Army however, can have more often newer M829A3, but Marines also can get them, everything depends on threats in theater, besides this, this is no problem with sharing ammo between Army and Marines if both operate in same area.

[Ryujin]

Basic APFSDS ammo in US.Army and USMC is M829A2, Army however, can have more often newer M829A3, but Marines also can get them, everything depends on threats in theater, besides this, this is no problem with sharing ammo between Army and Marines if both operate in same area.

within the scope of CMSF, I think the Army starts getting M829A3 at a lower quality setting than the Marines do. So if you gave both sides "good" equipment, the Army may have some M829A3 rounds. As mentioned it's very hard to tell as the ammo is labeled without that much detail, but I'm sure different types are modeled.

[DaveDash]

Yeah, after playing some more Blue vs Blue since my last post the tanks are so similiar the results are largely mixed. My gut feeling is though that the M1A2 SEP is the king of the battlefield.

[Damian90]

My gut feeling is though that the M1A2 SEP is the king of the battlefield.

Yeah, it got the best sight systems, TC and gunner got 2nd generation FLIR, so they got the best H-K capabilities.

In the armor manner, as I said, M1A2SEP, M1A1SA and M1A1FEP got the same armor protection and got the same weight: 63,100kg, M1A2SEP can just much more quickly find, identify and shoot at target. But FCS itself is same in all three versions, M1A2SEP just got CITV.

Besides this M1A2SEP got VCSU and Thermal Management System AC units so crew got more comfort in desert sun of Syria than in other tanks. :-)