Jump to content

Captain_Colossus

Members
  • Content Count

    1,984
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Captain_Colossus

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

5,680 profile views
  1. the other issue is that the marines tend to have the smallest budget with the smallest allocation of manpower and materiel. the marines have 4 tank batallions. in the grand scheme of things, it's not necessarily the biggest problem if you had to make adjustments. they deliberately keep the marines a small, exclusive branch within the department of the navy.
  2. which is why the changes are being made now. this area was being neglected for years while the chinese were making claims and testing people's tolerances and this sort of thing. sure. given the current projected threats, and that is all we have, there are no crystal balls, but assumptions, the presumed threat from china is considered a threat we have not adequately prepared for, especially if it actualizes with any sort of thing that went down with north korea.
  3. the situation from the chinese point of view is they aren't going to try and compete in a pitched war with the united states navy, they aren't going to try and match the navy carrier for carrier and so forth- they'll never catch up there. instead over the decades they have been building up these island airstrips to serve as their carrier force, cheap and not mobile, however. they are also investing in surface to surface missile batteries to offset what they lack in blue water carrier groups. they're not digging into these islands like the japanese, they aren't going to arm with tanks, even they realize they don't stand a chance in holding any one particular island. absent enemy aircraft, modern aircraft and ballistic missiles won't have too much trouble disabling these small islands before the marines make it ashore. so the strategy is to have a lot of them and saturate the us navy's defenses with plane and land and ship based missiles where they can, try and inflict casualties wherever they can rather than opting for a fortress like defense of every island. they are not intended for that.
  4. what happens when they are secure? answers its own question. you're not going to go driving off of these islands in a tank and go attack and take another. they're not being degraded, because that is not the mission, they're not being deprived of something that would be necessary to have for the mission. "or what happens if no direct confrontation in pacific breaks out" good news. at some point some administration may see a need to change things again as the mission may need. the basic premise is not to say, "aw hell with it, let's just step on our tallywhackers for lack of anything to do" for years now the pentagon has been preparing for the kind of mission where the united states is no longer nation building, we've done this for a long while now while neglecting a potential threat in the pacific. that's why this is happening, this discussion has been going on for years before the trump administration. the chinese are ahead of us in terms of the islands they already have built which are designed to launch and recover aircraft throughout the range the chinese claim territory. these islands are not recrations of iwo jima, they are fixed airfields in the middle of nowhere to support amphibious operations, not armored spearheads. it's not short sighted, i'm sorry, you're stating a case as if no one has thought about what your'e saying. assumging the united states is going to shift gears from iraq and afghanistan, and assuming the united states has neglected the pacific which the chinese have made designed on for several years, this is what the aim is at- adapting to this new environment. saying it's short sighted or acting as though it is foolhardy is not really what it is, this discussion was going on for several years and we were getting ready for this for awhile now.
  5. again, the idea is that they are being restructured for specific requirment of amphibious warfare in the pacific. what use would artillery be? assumptions: these islands are not too definisble. you can tell just by looking at them- the artificial atolls are made out of sediment reclaimed from the seabed, and just made into airstrips on small patches of land with some support facilities for water treatment and receving supplies and so on. there is nowhere to fortify and therefore nothing to soften up with artillery; and given the vast area are of the pacific, the individual islands are out of range of one another for the purposes of tube artillery. getting the artillery ashore would be a moot point- if you are able to do that, the island is already secured. if such a future conflict played out like that, then you can see why this program is not done just willy nilly, there is a purpose to it, to fill the void that is perceived as lacking, i.e., the marines have been used for duties that is not aligned with its core mission, and one which is foreseen to be needed in response to agressive moves made by china in the pacific. the tradeoff is that the marines are upgrading their main amphibious assault vehicle to a newer vehicle (while the LAV-25 is not an assault vehicle). combat aviation and ship launched missiles will be more valuable and more necessary than artillery in this type of environment. the chinese appear to see it that way, they seem to be betting on land based cruise missiles and/or other ways of launching guided missiles. they won't likely even bother attempting to fortify these islands like the conventional warfare of typical weeks or months long world war 2 campaigns. these battles will develop very fast and will be over sooner rather than later, needing a rapid deployment and moving around of amphibious forces. those are the assumptions, of course, there is no real purpose to maintain heavy armor units when they will be of little use for that type of warfare. the opening blows will be delivered by aircraft and swarms of missile salvos, tanks would just be targets caught up in all of that while they in turn will have few or no opportunities to shoot at other armored targets
  6. this has been in the works for years, this should not come as a surprise if you provide the context the decision is based on- the fact that the marines are being reconfigured to being an elite amphibious force once more and away from nation building as they have been used as of late: the idea of course that if and when war with china breaks out you won't have a fast reaction force to take and hold islands without restructuring back to what the basic mission of the marines is intended, which is not going to be based on tank warfare over contested islands. as the same time, there is no particular reason why in the future the marines cannot be reconfigured again if the need arises, in either case flexibility gives you options. when you look at these archipelagos and islands that the chinese are constructing and building and reclaiming, they are not really that defensible- it's likely the chinese do not expect or plan to defend them like a japanese style fortress in world war 2. they are just a few acres with an airstrip built on them, there is nowhere to dig in and nowhere really to hide. in this case getting artillery ashore is of no use, since you would have already defeated the enemy to begin with in order to safely get the artillery and supporting assets ashore. warplanners have likely realized that artillery won't matter when individual battles will be decided by precision smart weapons, cruise missiles and aircraft, which would likely outclass and nullify artillery. these islands are mostly air craft carriers to send combat aircraft out to attack fleets and disrupt amphibious landings, once the enemy aircraft are destroyed, once any sort of platform capable of delivering a guided missile of some kind is detected and destroyed first, then tanks and artillery won't be as important as fast moving amphibious troops which can be shuffled around.
  7. i don't think that is what it is. in theory, any of the rpg weapons could be dual use against both infantry and vehicles, all of them in steal beasts are rated to have some level of penetration- even the dedicated anti-personnel rockets have some chance of doing damage to both infantry and vehicle targets. i'm not sure steel beasts refines the decision making to: |"anti-personnel warhead"-- use against infantry. at any rate i did several tests with LAW rockets and different RPG types to see if i could replicate it, and i never was able to do it. that is why i remember this incident so well, because it was such a one off. if it were normal behavior, it would not stick out in memory
  8. several years ago, if i recall correctly around the time the unbuttoned passengers became visible on infantry fighting vehicles but before vehicle crews were visible- (IIRC 2012), i once saw something that i never saw before nor since- an infantry unit crawling up to an enemy infantry unit positioned in a gully, and the AI unit deliberately used an RPG and took out the enemy group down below rather than using rifles. when i saw it happening i was fixed on the scene developing because it was so unusual- watching the unit deliberately set up for an RPG shot, aim and take fire and take out another infantry group. even as it was happening i wondered, "no, this isn't going to happen is it"- and it did and to this day i remember it and i cannot help but notice this is not typical behavior for the infantry in steel beasts, that is, RPGs are conserved to use against vehicles rather than infantry. maybe the unit had depleted its rifle ammunition and/or some other calculation just happened to come together to do this, but i never saw it naturally happen as a function of autonomous AI behavior ever again. on the one hand i could see the purpose of AI units exhibiting more aggression with their RPGs, but on the other, the cost of which for a vehicle centric simulation may entail frustrated players when AI units would tend to spend their RPG loads and not have the sense to preserve them for enemy vehicles as players intended. in this respect, the weight of consideration towards simplicity maybe the better part of the compromise for the larger picture- they may not kill other infantry with their RPGs however much you want the autonomous behavior to do so in some situations, but at the same time, that means they can remain a threat to vehicles since the AI doesn't spray them all and have nothing left over. it could be an exploit where players send out waves of infantry to cause an opponent to use up their RPG ammo, and then would be defenseless against their armored vehicles. the complexity of more autonomous behavior in this case may be exploited, if that makes sense.
  9. im not interested in any of that. politics between arguing players aside, the interface is this clunky, anyone planning on purchasing might want to have this information before committing. it is good that there is a demo to try, it is highly recommended from this non fanboi and non self described geek to get a sense of what its like before purchasing modules out of the gate.
  10. take for example using the su-25's shkval tv sensor to use guided missiles and bombs. try fling the aircraft on a stable approach route while at the same time using the combination of required keys to slew and zoom and frame the sensor around a target- the dexterity required with the convoluted key mapping makes this procedure not fun at all, it's too difficult. they could pare down the amount of key procedures by making some redundant, for example, instead of zooming the sensor out with minus (-) and zooming in with equal (=), they should make one key for both functions, press it once to zoom in, press again to zoom in, press again to zoom out and so on. instead every single function must have some unique key procedure assigned to it, and these are often combined with right ctrl or left ctrl or the space bar and so on. with your fingers tripping over these bizarre key assignments while trying to lock the tv sensor while flying is a poor interface decision. might be more possible from a stable hover in helicopter, but a flying jet which is shaking and buffeting and drifting- good luck
  11. increase the visible distance even before it gets to maximum will do it
  12. when you go to the website they are soliciting ideas. this is what i was getting at earlier. i do not wish this on anyone or anything like that, but you get this sense of what is going on. and that is what it is
  13. i do not think it would be worth the erffort. the early playable leopard 1 tanks have dimensions closest to the smaller russian tanks, but not the armor model, nor the ammo options, which of course you cannot change. with a little imagination, the df-30/df-90 and centauro piranha based vehicles look similar to some chinese wheeled ifvs and mobile assault guns; the non heavy armor versions of the m1/m1a1 probably look closest and may arguably perform closest to a chinese type 96 with some cosmetic changes, i do not think however anyone will have the skill to mold a playable nato tank to look like a russian t-90 or armata tank by messing with alpha channels- it works better for minor changes, extremely difficult to make a box turret look pan shaped with reactive kontakt armor attachments, say
×
×
  • Create New...