Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Personal Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

5,017 profile views

Kev2go's Achievements


Rookie (2/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later
  • One Year In

Recent Badges



  1. Kev2go


    That does not appear to be a independent commanders TIS. But rather a display showing what the Gunner is seeing through his sight, kind of how M1A1 has gunners sight extension ( minus maybe being able to take control does T72b3 Commader take over controls?) . Commander can see what the gunner is doing but does not have its own independent TIS in the form of a CITV to search for targets whilst gunner is engaging his own targets. meaning T72B3 does not have hunter killer capability, which i was reffering to in a earlier post. there was a T72B3M demonstrator that had that capability, but im not sure if it was officially adopted and if it was, how many numbers.
  2. i guess it depends what you want. because what you describe doing is more akin to playing a battlefield commander at which point may as well be playing wargame or something. But what do i know I just play DCS for aviation experience, like probably 99% of the userbase. ( If anything the most asked for thing in development is the Dynamic Campaign like you had in falcon BMS) Not really following GHPC, but then again it is something of a indie game, a passion project, so i suppose it may as well be indefinite development
  3. True the only main weakness of Steel Beasts are its visuals (and maybe a more complex armor and ammo simulation, like you see in GHPC, which is taking some ideas in that regard from WT would be a nice to have) even with the 4.0 overhauls. IT still looks very dated. Steel beasts probably would need from the ground up new engine to really be able to take advantage of the latest hardware and have visuals to match it. DCS is not really a comparable to the likes of Steel Beasts or GHPC. as its not a combined arms or ground warfare sim, even with the combined arms module. I would argue its terrain fidelity is too low for my taste for ground forces gameplay, with the exception of the of the more recent maps Like Syria. Although fixed wing jet pilots dont care that much the rotorheads appreciate the extra fidelity in these newer maps.
  4. Kev2go


    Only the soft packs on the sides are latest relikt, otherwise what you see on the front Hull and Turret is still Kontact 5.Relikt has a distinct look ( see T80BVM or T90M). Without ERA the main armor as you know is going to be same protection as T72B mod 85 or 89. Also how many T72's ( or tank series any in Russian tank fleet) have independent CITV for commander? How many have battlefield management system? I Think only T90M and T14 Armata. have those.
  5. Kev2go


    We cant say for sure till the dust settles. But i can say for sure I think it validates that 360 degree APS suites need to be made standard fleet wide if going into conflict zones where agtms are present especially top down attack like javelins. But I think this is why the Americans for example has been buying Israeli trophy suites for the M1 series. Russians had been developed Arena APS but its questionable how many have actually been applied to their tank fleet ( if any at all). I acknowledge there wont be opportunity for a proper combat analysis until the dust settles, but i think its fair to say they haven't properly applied lessons learned from Chechen wars and the 2008 Georgian war, and overall one of the reasons western militaries are highly regarded, United States in particular is because of how much more $$$ and time they can invest in training on a yearly basis and because logistics is of greater importance than tactics or individual soldier competency
  6. Yes their M1A1 have become comparable to M1A2 SEP v2 in hard stats, but M1A1 FEp still behind to the M1A2 SEP v2 when it comes to the digital interfacing, and integrated battlefield management system. M1A2 V3 ( or M1A2C) however certainly is another modernization in electronics and yet another step up in protection to both SEP v2 or USMC M1A1's FEP model, as that has next generation armor configuration and a longer turret for extra layers. Anyways seems like a wasted investment ( even if was a more budgetary modernization as opposed a proper equivalent to M1A2 SEP standards of conversion) now that their tanks are gonna be scrapped. i mean what else can they really do? Long term storage? US can't export them because they never thus far been willing to sell domestic M1's with 3rd gen DU but only with a downgraded export armor package
  7. yea its a shame they still can't have the budget maintain those 3 tank battalions. That was not a large sum to begin with , but just enough to give the corps greater flexibility and their own independent Main battle tank support. The marines had tankers since pacific theater of ww2.
  8. heh if only i didn't already own ( nearly) everything.
  9. This is not a military fault but an issue of foreign policy of not having US addressed Chinese "expansionism". ( Or depending on what perspective you look at more like creating a buffer zone within the grasp of their backyard rather than encroaching on US territory, but of course i digress) Those changes should not involve neglecting and entirely scrapping other units. The USMC should not be forced to sacrifice parts of their left arm to be able to use their right arm. Again the real counter simply to be addressed with strategic positioning and adjusting tactics when nessary and enforcing foreign policy with military if deemed necessary. as you said building airstrips and artificial islands is a compensation for lacking naval carrier group projection capability levels of the USN.
  10. I know they aren't just that. No one said anything about tanks being a necessity in that 1 specific scenario. Do we not recall that USA as a superpower maintains global interests? The world doesn't end with the pacific ocean even if they were to draw down in the middle east by leaving Afghanistan and Iraq to their devices entirely. Neither does Chinese domain end on small subset of islands or a few airstrips in the pacific ocean CHina itself is one big landmass., and its foolish to think that when warfare switches to any landmass larger than those described that armored and artillery units wont find relevance, or forget about about any potential flash point in another region of the world not related to China. its better to have something and not use it, rather than not having something and need it. having deterrents or in this case certain equipment for self independent branch flexibility still matters.
  11. exactly. this. thinking only about China the only nation that any conflict could break out with is asinine. IF anything a conventional war would be a more opportune time to have better use for main battle tanks rather than GWOT which had marines "nation building" or performing "counter insurgency". really this just put the marines in a situation where they will basically at the mercy of asking the US army to detach some armor and artillery that would otherwise be used for army operations supporting another branch's mission, if a situation ever arisen that they badly need it, however given their expeditionary nature that wont always be possible. here are some more assumptions to consider then: And what happens once these small islands are secure? The marines capacity to wage warfare and conduct amphibious spearheads into a larger landmass is now degraded. Tanks have more use in conventional warfare. It would have made more sense for the USMC to scrap their tanks when they were doing low intensity asymmetric warfare against an insurgency or" nation building" in the sandbox. Now those are missions where main battle tanks have limited use. Or what happens if no direct confrontation in the pacific breaks out? What if other conflicts arise? The marines need to be flexible as a global expeditionary force. The Pacific isnt the only region in the world that could necessitate combat deployment of USMC assets. Every politician ever in history has always tried to defended cuts ( or im sorry "restructuring") with "leaner is better". What really going on here is the anything going to the usmc is a cut from the navies budget that would otherwise go to Navy things. The department of the navy would rather " them than us". i guess. The marines have always been in the short end of the stick when it has come to funding to their sister branches, so i guess this treatment is nothing new. In actuality They could still keep their current size, and simply utilize their assets depending on the situation. Its would be better to have support assets like tanks and additional artillery and not need it, than to be in a situation and be with out it. ( although this line of thinking can be applied to anything really). This is still short sighted, as even if your only thinking of China , their domain doesn't end with some minuscule islands in the pacific, but of course budget cuts had to be made in the wrong places. At the end of the day any war with any adversary that can retaliate with a sizable nuclear arsenal is probably not going to be a feasible option. Mutually assured destruction still applies. Most conflicts will continue to be either proxy wars or low intensity conflicts. ( not saying that large conventional forces aren't a necessary deterrent)
  • Create New...