Force Balance in NATO

[Sakai007]

Ok, I have had CMSF for a while now, and have played the crap out of US vs. Syria, to the point that I started to play Red vs. Red so it would be a fair fight. Now with NATO, I feel that the Syrians out match me at times and at others it close to even. I have lost I don't know how many Leopards to T-72 (granted, the upgraded 72s but still). It is partly due to the bad habit of being able to put my Abrams anywhere and have it survive 9 out of 10 times, but I love playing Allied vs. Germany in CMx1, I do know a little about positioning, Hull down, maneuver, cover, concealment, etc. I am curious is if this is a result of the Leopard armor not being up to Abrams standards (2A6M is the model in question), were the Syrian tanks up-gunned, or do I just suck.

[gibsonm]

Well if you are regularly risking your M1s in static positions where they are surviving being hit "9 out of 10 times" then the five words of your post maybe the answer.

I suspect you've just been lucky with the M1 hit locations and possibly not so much with the 2A6s.

Both can easily be damaged if not handled correctly so you need to employ the skills you learned in CMX1 and adopt a "fire then move" approach.

Sitting in static positions and "dueling" with the opposition will just end badly.

[Sakai007]

LoL, yes, I think you are correct. I just finished a QB in which I lost three 2A6Ms on contact with a full platoon of T-72 TURMs. I got six of them but it was as you said, sitting static and dueling. The one remaining 2A4 was hidden behind some forest and went un-noticed. A large number of BMPs were killed by combination of Infantry AT and the tanks but more were rushing my positions. Using my 2A4 in the only way I could think of, close range ambush, I destroyed three of the remaining T-72s and two BMPs. If I had used better tactics with the whole force, I would have wiped the enemy out. I am thinking I just have the wrong approach to modern tank warfare. I just cant seem to figure out how to withdraw my assets after first contact without making myself an easier target. Any tips or advice would be appreciated.

[Erwin]

NATO and Brit forces do have to be handled differently (more cleverly) from the "all-powerful" design treatment the US forces received.

[Alex]

interesting another thing, 1 time I crate scenario on 3x1,5km map, where put T90 and Leo2A6 to different map sides, and Leos fast kill all may T90 by one shot from 3km distance, it's looks strange (what the super round Germans have, DM-53LKII can't do like this)...

[gibsonm]

I am thinking I just have the wrong approach to modern tank warfare. I just cant seem to figure out how to withdraw my assets after first contact without making myself an easier target. Any tips or advice would be appreciated.

Mutual support, one pair provide support while the other pair moves.

Use your onboard smoke grenades to obscure the enemy (that is why they are there).

Choose a fire position with a withdrawal route that you thought of before you drove in.

Make sure you are Hull Down and Front On to the enemy, so a withdrawal is just a simple reverse into dead ground with your best armour towards the enemy (turning side on as you reverse is never good).

...

[Dietrich]

*starts stopwatch in anticipation of no-doubt-imminent comprehensive post by Damian90*

[DaveDash]

*starts stopwatch in anticipation of no-doubt-imminent comprehensive post by Damian90*

What's the time in Poland at the moment?

Been having a good discussion with him on another forum regarding armour.

gibsonm is onto it.

Tanks have mobility, firepower, and protection on the front. So you need to take advantage of all three. Also, always use them in pairs, so if one tank has an ATGM fire at it, the other can destroy it. If you're losing Leopards to T-72s then it sounds like you're rushing your tanks around unsupported and being hit by flanking shots. Most maps in CMSF require a combined arms approach, so you need to clear buildings with infantry (and use them as eyes and ears) before exposing the flanks of your tanks.

Sitting static and duelling against T-72s actually should be an unfair fight, to your advantage, if you're engaging them from the front. But if you're outnumbered you need to shoot, reverse, pop up, shoot, reserve. Or manoeuvre another team of tanks to get flanking shots against the T-72s. Real Time helps a lot for this.

[gibsonm]

gibsonm is onto it.

Well I hope so (having been a serving Armoured Corps officer for what, 25+ years now).

[gibsonm]

Sitting static and duelling against T-72s actually should be an unfair fight, to your advantage, if you're engaging them from the front.

Only if they are firing rounds at you. If there are ATGMs being fired by them (at longer ranges than APFSDS) then it isn't necessarily so.

[DaveDash]

Only if they are firing rounds at you. If there are ATGMs being fired by them (at longer ranges than APFSDS) then it isn't necessarily so.

I'm not sure I've ever had a vehicle launched ATGM fired at me in CMSF.

I imagine this is in part due to map size constraints and the fact that ATGM's fired by T-72s etc are laser beam rided (AT-11 I believe?), and the vehicle is unlikely to survive long enough to provide a beam for the missile.

In real life, I imagine things are different. I'm just referring to the game here.

A classic example of what I mean is the first US Army mission "Breakthrough at the Berm", where two static M1's on the berm can effectively wipe out a Syrian armoured company. I've also used static MBTs in many missions in hull down over watch positions down main MSRs, where they are extremely effective at engaging enemy armour that is trying to cross the MSR to support enemy forces.

[gibsonm]

Sure, but if you are playing the AI just remember its not that sophisticated in terms of AFV manoeuvre (if the AI plan says "go there", it does, and to a certain extent it ignores the enemy dominating that route). There are no AI plans for "Bounding Overwatch" or "Overwatch" (to use the US terms).

If you are playing a person then it hinges on how good they are.

[DaveDash]

Sure, but if you are playing the AI just remember its not that sophisticated in terms of AFV manoeuvre (if the AI plan says "go there", it does, and to a certain extent it ignores the enemy dominating that route). There are no AI plans for "Bounding Overwatch" or "Overwatch" (to use the US terms).

If you are playing a person then it hinges on how good they are.

I'll be popping my PBEM cherry soon, so I'll get back to you on that one.

[Sakai007]

I was an infantryman so I have a real grasp of the ideas of over watch, bounding over watch, all pretty much part of Fire & Maneuver which has been utilized since the second world war. The same for an infantry platoon that uses suppression fire from the MG squad as the rifle squads leap frog, supporting while stationary, with the use of smoke when possible. The good old, "Im up, He sees me, Im down" rinse, wash, repeat.

When using the US Army in CMSF I get more armor kills with Javs then Tanks since the original role of the tank is to support infantry, not kill other tanks, thats what AT platoons are for. This is the way I try to use my armor.

I will most certainly be using them in pairs now that I have learned to do so. And attempt to maneuver them as I do my troops, mutually supporting. And this gives me new thought on AT platoons, using them to over watch likely avenues of approach when I am moving my armor. Any critiques to this strategy?

[gibsonm]

I will most certainly be using them in pairs now that I have learned to do so. And attempt to maneuver them as I do my troops, mutually supporting. And this gives me new thought on AT platoons, using them to over watch likely avenues of approach when I am moving my armor. Any critiques to this strategy?

Not so much a critique, but also think of their movement like water or a fluid.

Keep to the low ground (don't go over a feature, skirt around it). You can do 40 or so Kph cross country so take the scenic route and avoid straight lines.

Movement between Bounds

But keep the front of the tank pointed at the likely threat. If you need to turn side on, do so behind cover so when you emerge you are facing him and moving.

Use "jockeying" (Australian term):

Jockeying Video

In terms of mutual support a pair (or your AT weapons) take up a position on some high ground ("on" means hull down behind it) set up some covered arcs in CM:SF speak and then move your other pair forward.

Again give them covered arcs as they can engage on the move and 4 tks firing at a fleeting tgt is better than 2.

Certainly a dismounted Javelin team is harder to spot at 2,000m than a M1 sitting stationary on the top of a hill. The Javelin also has a smaller "signature" when it fires so it doesn't give its position away. But again not one team but at least two.

Team 1 fires, then moves. Team 2 takes over the overwatch duty while Team 1 is moving. any new tgt and Team 2 sorts that out and then it moves (by then Team 1 should be firm in its new position).

Yes its "battle pairs" or "pepper potting" but with two tanks instead of two riflemen.

[DaveDash]

Gibson,

What is the best way to defend against top down attack ATGMs like Javelins? Shoot 'n' scoot?

Also as a Kiwi living in Aus, cheers for your service mate.

[gibsonm]

Ah well if I'd known you were a Bondi refugee ...

Well you can't really "defend against them", apart from suppressing likely firing locations before they fire (or not exposing yourself to the threat to begin with).

So now the combined arms effect kicks in and we use arty, air or even MGs to fire on locations (to keep their heads down), then move the vehicles and they in turn support the Inf as they move fwd by suppressing "anti Infantry" (which is pretty much everything) threats.

[dan/california]

Step 1, think very hard about the three or four best places to put a Javelin team if you were the other guy. Step 2, mortar the *&T%R%$$$^ out of them. If its PBEM and he is the subtle type all you can do is wish your side had shellled for that new active defense system the Israelis have out..

[Battlefront.com]

And to remind people that there is a big advantage with the NATO forces which most Syrian forces lack... the ability to accurately fire on the move. The NATO countries have collectively spent more money on this capability than some countries have earned through commercial exports since the dawn of trade. So use it for heaven's sake

When I first started playing CM:SF I constantly found myself doing the old WW2 "shoot and scoot" tactics way too literally. They still work very well, as Gibsonm has pointed out, but unlike WW2 you can work firing while scooting into the mix. Especially if the enemy starts to take a big interest in your forces that are stationary.

What I tend to do is move in pairs (as already recommended) but minimize the amount of time each pair is stationary. The more crap that is flying at me the shorter that stationary time is. If things are really hitting the fan I move both pairs simultaneously but try and make sure neither pair gets itself isolated from the other pair.

Oh, and I also use my tanks as "crap magnets" so my supporting forces can engage whomever is throwing the feces around. Javelins, TOWs, AGLs, etc. do a very nice job taking things out if nobody is lobbing big stuff at them.

Steve

[Sakai007]

gibsonm, brilliant! Those vids are idiot proof, reminds me of presentations the good ole US Army would show us, breaks it right down. I think I have the idea, same basic concepts of not silhouetting on hill tops, using terrain features to mask movement. And the term "on" had me thinking of parking right on a hill, of course this goes against all tactical sense. Using said hill as a hull down position. And I also tend to use tanks as "crap magnets", but they will still work as this function when hull down, just harder to kill with non top attack weapons. Very, Very, Very helpful guys, thanks so much, this turned into a great discussion.

[7thGalaxy]

On a slightly different note, how do people use scimitars? They are more vunerable than a humvee! I seem to just loose them as soon as they poke their heads out.

[Boche]

On a slightly different note, how do people use scimitars? They are more vunerable than a humvee! I seem to just loose them as soon as they poke their heads out.

only way at the back...even then ive lost some jaja

[gibsonm]

On a slightly different note, how do people use scimitars? They are more vunerable than a humvee! I seem to just loose them as soon as they poke their heads out.

Well doctrinally works for me.

Mounted recce where possible, dismounted recce where required.

If the ground is too open then dismount the crew and get them to look around on foot. When you are finished, they climb back onboard.

The main thing is its a recce vehicle, not a tank.

If you choose to exchange shots with an ATGM crew then they will have a very short life expectancy. Same thing if you drive them into narrow alleys in a RPG infested urban area.

Maintain the range advantage (use your optics) and either call in indirect fire / air or use the Raden cannon (great piece of kit by the way).

[Damian90]

Ok, here was a discussion about heavy armor and how to use it.

First we must get the knowledge about tanks development, technical data, they weak and strong points and doctrine of how they would be used.

The M1 for example was intended as universal tank, good in deffensive and offensive so it could have defend west against Soviet armored hords, but also to be effectively used in counteroffensive.

So design put's emphasis on :

Extremely thick frontal armor, very thick side turret armor, well protected side hull armor, and maximum crew survivability.

On the other hand, Leopard 2 was designed as more deffensive tank, that will be used in hull down positions in deffensive tactics, so only turret will be visible. Hull is actually more vurnabale, and there is stored most of ammo, unprotected.

Front armor is thick, but due to some completely not understandabale for me decisions, it have very big weak zones, side turret armor is also rather moderate thick over crew compartment, and bustle is protected only up to 30mm auto cannons.

So how to use both tanks?

M1 as I said, will be good in deffensive and offensive but remember, allways face enemy with front armor, even if tank is equipped with TUSK kit.

As for Leopard 2, it is better to use hull down positions and face enemy with only front of the turret.

Challenger 2 on the other hand is, depends on variant (OP Telic or Enhanced), very survivabale vehicle due to heavy addon armor over side hull and turret, very well shaped front turret armor that even as not so thick as on M1, is well shaped and angled and gives similiar protection. The only problem is Lower Front Hull, protected in Telic version by simple Dynamic Protection elements, and in enhanced by Dorchester armor module, actually the best way is to use enhanced version as M1, and Telic as Leopard 2.

Alex mentioned T-90SA's destroyed by Leopard 2's, well Alex, it depends where rounds hit. Hull is allways less protected than turret, even at front, it of course depends also on design, but T-90SA should also be used from hull down position and, if it is possible from maximum range to use it's GLATGM's.

[Sakai007]

I find the T-90 to be less survivable then some of it's older counter parts. The gun and ATGMs are great but there are times when I think I am better off with well upgraded T-72s. As for IFVs like the Brad and Marder, I know they exist to carry infantry into battle and should be doing so out of sight of the enemy, but how can I support the dis-mounts without risking the IFV to lethal AT fire? Granted working in teams is key, but is there a way to lessen the chance of taking casualties? I am always conscious of the dollar amount I would be spending if the battle were in real life, man those Javs will run up a bill