Jump to content
12Alfa

Development News Discussion

Recommended Posts

It would indeed be interesting to know how many PE users are in fact relevant military personnel (as in, personnel whose experiences in going through PE simulations actually help them at their current assignments).

I do wonder, for example, if anyone in Canada's LSH or 12e RBC regiments are PE users.

In any case, thank you for the detailed explanation, Ssnake, quite

Itkovian

No LDSH or 12RBC, however the 8CH have been using it from SB1 for training. Starting with M1 gunnery training for our trips down to the Simnet in Fort Knox. And also use SBPro for pre FTX training here in Canada using the lab at 403 Sqn as well as the arty call for fire trainin g for our commanders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm wondering - how viable a threat is the Tunguska against other vehicles/infantry? 30mm @ 5000 rpm (albeit in bursts of 250) out to 4000m does not sound too shabby..

After what I saw during a quick test with the Tunguska on an earlier build... quite a significant threat. It's just about the most spectacular thing I've ever seen in SB. We did some quick runs with some infantry platoons in open country attacking a single tunguska and they were minced meat in no time.

I don't perhaps think you would put a tunguska in the direct fire role against infantry in real life (unless there is no other option)... but you will in SB because it's just so damn awesome. To see all those tracers and the ground erupting with that amount of HE impacts is just jaw dropping.

I'm quite sure it will kill APV/IFVs as well.

-C-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Russians were using ZSU23-4 Shilka in the direct fire anti-infantry role in Groznii during their more successful attempts to clear the city...

It proved useful as it had good firepower, which it could elevate sufficiently to clear the upper stories of near by high-rise buildings.

Tunguska would be similar... But it chucks a bigger shell at a similarly high rate of fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that in the Lebanese civil war the Shilka was also used as a direct fire weapon in MOUT. Also I believe that they were used in the Yugoslav civil war as a way to clear buildings at range (shoot at them till they burn).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't perhaps think you would put a tunguska in the direct fire role against infantry in real life...

Sure you would. Happened/should be expected to happen regularly.

For that matter the M-16 (not the rifle; an M2/M3 halftrack mounting 4 .50 cal MG in a power turret) was supposed to be an AAA platform, but got it's nickname 'meatchopper' for reasons which had nothing to do with shooting down aircraft.

The same vehicle went on to do the same job against NK and Chinese infantry during the Korean War. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the M-163 was employed in a similar role by the Israelis, or the US for that matter.

I can see it doing a number on a tank, at that; at least taking out the sights and maybe mission-killing the tank by damaging the gun.

Shot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MMMMMMMMM!!!!

Fast Fire Fun!!

Theres something to be said about a heavy rapid fire weapon.

Now.

When do we get vehicle with belt feed quad 40mm Bofors???

(gets a piece of paper and starts scribbling.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure you would. Happened/should be expected to happen regularly.

For that matter the M-16 (not the rifle; an M2/M3 halftrack mounting 4 .50 cal MG in a power turret) was supposed to be an AAA platform, but got it's nickname 'meatchopper' for reasons which had nothing to do with shooting down aircraft.

The same vehicle went on to do the same job against NK and Chinese infantry during the Korean War. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the M-163 was employed in a similar role by the Israelis, or the US for that matter.

I can see it doing a number on a tank, at that; at least taking out the sights and maybe mission-killing the tank by damaging the gun.

Shot

Perhaps I should have been more clear of what I meant. Everything that can kill people will be used if it's a good/only option at the time. What I meant was that in a "conventional war" where you have at least matching weapons systems on each side you would perhaps think twice before you put a high value weapon like the tunguska into a role which can be easily filled by, let's say a BMP2. Given the sheer amount of ammunition that vehicle can consume it's pretty clear that would need some pretty impressive logistics to support it in a direct fire role.

Sure, it can probably mess up even a tank pretty good but I still wouldn't put it up against tanks (just as I wouldn't put a CV9040 up against tanks).

I didn't mean it couldn't happen and that if someone had to get creative the tunguska would automatically be out of scope. I just mean that someone would have some tough questions to answer if the unit the tunguska was supposed to protect was wiped out by enemy air power... just because someone decided it was time to do some meatchopping old school style.

-C-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just wondering about the "air strike" artillery option that will be added, how will it be aimed. With 2 bombs precisions will be somewhat more important than a artillery strike, so will the "plane" target vehicles by itself? If you just requested a strike from the map you'd probably miss since the enemy vehicle icons are not 100% accurate. You'd need a FIST vehicle to attack that way and then if the target moves you'd still miss. So when you call it in will the "plane" arrive at the area and choose the best target, then drop its bombs dead on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't mean it couldn't happen...I just mean that someone would have some tough questions to answer if the unit the tunguska was supposed to protect was wiped out by enemy air power... just because someone decided it was time to do some meatchopping old school style.

I follow. I don't think an AAA unit which has a credible air threat operating in the environs will forego its AAA mission to go whip a squad in a bunker, or to take on a tank if there's any other choice; I was just mentioning that such weapons had in the past performed most-capably in that function.

I wish I could remember where I read it, but I remember reading that a single Wirbelwind took down a whole American armored infantry company riding in half-tracks. The two had apparently bumped into each other by accident, and the Germans had got the drop on the Americans. As I recall, the Wirbelwind came away unscathed.

Shot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was fairly common to use the M16 SPAAG as a ground-attack weapon in support of infantry advances. I know it was used that way extensively at Remagen, for example. As in, several batteries of it.

I also seem to recall that the majority of Panamanian casualties in Operation Just Cause were caused by an M163 Vulcan SPAAG platoon, but I don't remember where I heard that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally, any chance we'll see an option to tailor the weapons loadouts of dismount troops carried by IFVs/ PCs? Honestly, the small-arms performance shouldn't be that different, but it would be nice to be able to select the ATGM they use, and maybe give the option of being able to add GPMG, .50 cal, or Mk-19 to dismounts carried by IFVs/ PCs. I suppose it would be one of the 'ammunition selection' pages for the IFV platoon?

... mostly I just want dismounts with ATGM that WORK, not the crap Dragon. What a horrible missile (emphasis on MISS-ile)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the IFV dismounts currently carry any ATGM. The best of the infantry anti-tank weapons carried by dismounts is the RPG29 carried by the BMP/MT-LB/BTR troops.

Pure 'leg' infantry can be given customised RPG loadouts, but a squad still can't carry an ATGM system.

ATGM teams are available as a seperate unit type, and can be equipped with anything from Dragon or Sagger, through Milan, Javelin, etc to TOW II.

HMG and AGL teams can be added as well, as seperate pure 'leg' teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incidentally, any chance we'll see an option to tailor the weapons loadouts of dismount troops carried by IFVs/ PCs? Honestly, the small-arms performance shouldn't be that different, but it would be nice to be able to select the ATGM they use, and maybe give the option of being able to add GPMG, .50 cal, or Mk-19 to dismounts carried by IFVs/ PCs. I suppose it would be one of the 'ammunition selection' pages for the IFV platoon?

... mostly I just want dismounts with ATGM that WORK, not the crap Dragon. What a horrible missile (emphasis on MISS-ile)

Have you tried shoehorning in a .50 (and ammo) into the back of a CV90?, I can't imagine it would be very comfortable for the squaddies, plus I'm sure that they would rather use the space for cookies, tea, biscuits, DVD players, teddy bears etc.

They can be pretty particular about those things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GH_L, appreciate the input (and thanks for the heads up on the RPG29 on BMP/MTLB), the question was less "what's available NOW?" and more "is it going to be fixed to allow editting mounted troop loadouts?" Was unaware that the mounted troops now had NO ATGM, Bradley troops used to carry Dragon, as I recall. I suppose that explains why they never seem to fire them in 2.370 Beta... I figured it was just the ridiculous short range of Dragon!

To Hedgehog, YES, you DO carry support weapons on IFVs/ APCs. It may not be standard operating procedure, but I've carried dismount Mk-19s in Strykers on a number of occasions. It sucks, sure, but you have to think PLANNED ATTACK. In a planned attack or advance, a lot of that extra crap gets left with the support troops. Trust me, any soldier worth his salt will leave behind the biscuits and sleeping rolls in exchange for more ammo and extra firepower.

...and cramming into an IFV next to a Mk19 sure beats carrying it 5 kilometers!

As it stands, the support weapons and ATGMs in SB Pro are essentially stationary. It'd sure be nice to be able to put a couple Javelins in my mech platoon to dismount and help secure the objective against counterattack, you know? Or be able to use the IFVs to carry ATGM and .50/Mk-19 up to a support by fire position and have them in position BEFORE next tuesday. The .50/ Mk-19, admitably, is something of a rarity to stick on an IFV (after all, the autocannon already fills the role), but Javelin is STANDARD on Bradleys and Strykers, and I imagine dismount ATGM are carried on other nation's IFVs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have to agree with outontheop to a degree. It would be good to be able to select the option to state whether the AFV/IFV/APC is a support coy varient. British support coy troops within Armoured Battle groups are invariably transported in Warrior or Bulldog. There is no point having a battlegroup with mobility and the support weapons coy being left behind.

You would need to specify that it is the support coy varient though as extra ammo does mean less space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incidentally, any chance we'll see an option to tailor the weapons loadouts of dismount troops carried by IFVs/ PCs?

You will get to see it, but I think that it'll take us another 12 to 18 months because we will do it only together with a few other major changes.

Having said that, how many Javelins does a Bradley usually carry these days?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we finally get the turret/top model for the Strv122? It's a bit campy without it. /for the new M1 a roof skin to go with the base will do it ;) /

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to Javelin on Bradleys, last I checked they'd replaced Dragon on a one-for-one basis. As I recall, the stowage racks are interchangeable for Dragon/TOW/Javelin, so you can tailor your loadout. To be honest I'm a Stryker guy, not a Bradley guy, so I'm not entirely certain how many it carries, I just know it DOES.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do we finally get the turret/top model for the Strv122? It's a bit campy without it. /for the new M1 a roof skin to go with the base will do it ;) /

So... yay or nay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So... yay or nay?

Still undecided. Originally my plan was to get it done with the Leopardo 2E for Spain since the major difference (aside from Spanish instrument labels) is the L55 gun. But apparently a simple copy & paste doesn't work as I had to learn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...