Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Panzer_Leader

  1. Hi Gents I’m interested in modifying some existing scenarios to experiment with units using the US Armoured Cavalry’s TOE. I understand a US cavalry troop consists of 9x M1 Abrams and 13x M3 Bradleys plus 2x M125/M106 mortar carriers. However, I have a few questions I’m hoping you can help with: Are there any other vehicles organic to the armoured cavalry troop? I understand there may be a maintenance section with an M88 and M113. How are the 2x platoons of 6x M3 Bradleys employed versus the 2x platoons of 4x M1 Abrams? In very simple terms I’m assuming the M3s are out front in advance and then behind or to the flanks of the M1s during assault or defence? Do the 2x platoons of 6x M3 Bradleys split into three sections of 2x or two sections of 3x? Generally, how would the missions and employment of a cavalry troop differ to a tank and mechanised infantry company team? I’m assuming the cavalry troop’s lack of infantry (other than scouts) makes it less suitable for holding ground in defence but better for screening flanks for example? I do intend to read FM17-95 at some point but, as I’m still working through the more fundamental FM17-15, I apologise for the laundry list of questions. Any other insights on US armoured cavalry employment versus “standard” tank and mechanised infantry company teams would be gratefully received. Thanks
  2. Land 400 Phase 2 - and the winner is .....

    Beast! I was hoping the Boxer CRV would win it. There's a handy one-page synopsis of the announcement and acquisition process here: https://gallery.mailchimp.com/ebe687fe800f7d0f2f28fa168/files/d8ef5d77-b761-42d7-8ba7-e2e0de30308b/DTR_Special_Bulletin_Land_400_CRV_winner.pdf
  3. Agreed. I generally set OPFOR Naval Infantry and Airborne as Regular, to represent their higher training level, versus Motorised Rifle, which I normally set to Conscript. I can do that for Mission 1 tonight, while I'm working on it, if you like?
  4. Hi Team I'm stepping out this week, and most likely for the remainder of February, to use my allotted BG ANZAC time for project work on Rolling Thunder 18. I'll keep Mark updated and comment in the relevant week's forum post when I expect to rejoin. Have fun in the meantime!
  5. Will be there tonight.
  6. smithcorpse, is that you?
  7. Intending to be there.
  8. Sorry team, I'm out this week as I'm at the beach sans PC. Back next week.
  9. Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

    To provide an alternative point of view, and maybe speak for others who do too, and not because I wish to start an argument in any way, but I would rather only have the most realistic possible additions to Steel Beasts, in line with eSim's current philosophy. If I'm crewing and fighting an IPM1, for example, I want it to be as close to its real capabilities as it can be in Steel Beasts' simulated environment, and its opposition, like the T-64B, too. If needed, I would rather create a proxy from the nearest equivalent vehicle that is patently not the intended vehicle, and wait for the real thing to turn up. I feel the approach you're advocating is more "game like", whereas I prefer as high-fidelity a simulation as possible. Sure I'd like more vehicles, but I want them to meet eSim's stringent standard for modelling and realism when they're introduced. Just my two cents worth in case eSim and others think there aren't those who have a different opinion.
  10. Yeah, sorry, advised I wasn't going to make it this week due to Silly Season commitments. Have also been swamped past two weeks with work so very little free time. Realise I owe responses on Dec-Jan timetable and Rolling Thunder 18. Will reply this weekend. All going well, should join next week's session. See you then.
  11. Sorry team, duty calls so I need to work again this evening. It's disappointing since I'll miss the return of our prodigal son (welcome back @smithcorp!), plus my tanking "fix". I'm probably out again next week due to full onset of the Silly Season. I'm hopeful I can make it on the 21st though, assuming there's a session then. Have fun!
  12. F4 vision blocks view with binoculars enabled

    But you can wear sunglasses to look cool, right?
  13. Sorry team, I'm out this week due to a work function.
  14. Thanks for the update Mark.
  15. Thanks Mark, duty first. I can make it tonight but will wait to hear about your availability first. I hope the conference is going well.
  16. Hi All I've started updating my scenarios to take advantage of the new features in 4.0 and thought I would consolidate links to the updated scenarios in this thread as they become available. First cab off the rank is 'Area Reconnaissance at Neustadt am Rübenberge 1989 v2.0 (4.0)'. This includes replacement of the original proxy ASLAV-25 with the SPz Luchs (Lynx) 2A2! Changes from v1.4: - The ASLAV-25 is replaced by the SPz Luchs (Lynx) 2A2. - Minor changes to Blue organisation and call sign template. (Based on Fahrzeug Profile 38, 'Die Panzeraufklärungstruppe der Bundeswehr 1956 bis 2008', Heeresstruktur 4). - M735A1 APFSDS-T KE ammunition replaced by DM33. - The Wisent ARV is replaced with the M88A1. - Red light machine-gun (LMG) squads are equipped with the PKM. The next updated scenario to be published will be 'Armoured Infantry Company Attack at Rydsgard 1991 v1.4 (4.0)'. Enjoy!
  17. Panzer_Leader scenarios updated for 4.0

    Hi All I've just published an updated version of my 'Heavy CT Delay v Tank Battalion FD' scenario, finally bringing it up to 4.019 standard (from 3.023): Key changes to v2.2 include: - Start time moved from 0445 to 0430 so that units commence mission in darkness due to changes in lighting effects introduced with Steel Beasts version 4.0. - A bug in the scoring that could see BLUE awarded a Victory after a RED breakthrough of MARS in greater than platoon strength has been corrected. - BLUE infantry sections comprise two rifle squads equipped with 5.56 mm rifle (EF88), 5.56 mm MG with 800 ready rounds representing M249 SAW (F89 Light Support Weapon), 25 40 mm grenades representing SL40 grenadier and 1 M72A1 (M72A6). - BLUE mechanised infantry platoons have a fifth M113AS4 added. The fifth M113AS4 (Delta call sign) carries the Manoeuvre Support Section of two squads, one with M2 (M3) Carl Gustaf and one with 7.62 mm M240 (MAG58), denoted by the appendix '[MSS]' to the in-game call sign. - A second Javelin team and M113AS4 (I61C) has been attached to the CT from BG DFSW platoon. - The infantry squads of the combat engineer section, E21, have been converted to Engineer teams. - Quality of BLUE troops set to Regular. - Changes to BLUE call sign template. - RED Motorised Rifle sections comprise two rifle squads equipped with 5.45 mm rifle (AK-74). One squad is equipped with 5.45 mm MG with 320 ready rounds (RPK-74) and the second squad with (R)PG-7L. Sources: FM 100-2-3, The Soviet Army: Troops, Organization, and Equipment, 1991 and OPFOR Worldwide Equipment Guide, 2000. - The infantry squads of RED MT-LB/Eng have been converted to Engineer teams. - A Unimog 1300L has been added to each RED 2S1 battery representing a GAZ-66. - Overhead View enabled. Please note this scenario contains two files, one denoted 'Contemporary' which includes T-90S and BMP-3 and a 41-tank battalion and another 'Soviet' which features T-72A/M1 and BMP-2 and the earlier 31-tank battalion. The Blue organisation is the same in both. Take your pick and enjoy!
  18. We love screenshots

    Forward Detachment Flambé
  19. And some road rage with heavy weapons?
  20. Video Thread

    Good to know, thanks very much for confirming Ssnake.
  21. Video Thread

    Great, nice work Rotareneg! Thanks.
  22. Video Thread

    Ouch! Is that bug reported? BRDM-2 AT's are key in at least three of my scenarios, so having them ineffective renders them thin-skinned targets only. It's funny, because last time I played one of the scenarios (Mechanized Infantry Company Team Attack at Gershausen 1987) I remember thinking the return fire from the AT battery was low / non-existent but didn't follow it up in the AAR. Definitely a good one to have fixed in the next update if true.