Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Furia said:

While the DF 30 with its 30mm gun, and the onboard Spike ATGM team it is a serious and interesting vehicle. the DF 90 does not look much useful or interesting. An overkill for engaging light vehicles, but undergunned for engaging medium armoured vehicles. Bulky, slow, rate of fire........

I keep my dear Centauro fur such task, however the DF 30 it is  really interesting and able platform.

I Disagree.

The 90mm is capable of taking on older T-type tanks. ( if  i remember correctly a French armored car armed with a 90mm.  took out two T-55s in the Bosnian Serb conflict.

Plus newer type IFV's are as well armored and weigh as much as second gen tanks like the leo-1 T-62 and can take a lot of punishment from lower caliber weapons such as the 30/35mm

I have not put it to the test yet in game but i reckon the 90mm will make a good IFV killer and be able to engage targets at a greater range then vehicles armored with auto cannon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2019 at 6:28 PM, Marko said:

I Disagree.

The 90mm is capable of taking on older T-type tanks. ( if  i remember correctly a French armored car armed with a 90mm.  took out two T-55s in the Bosnian Serb conflict.

Plus newer type IFV's are as well armored and weigh as much as second gen tanks like the leo-1 T-62 and can take a lot of punishment from lower caliber weapons such as the 30/35mm

I have not put it to the test yet in game but i reckon the 90mm will make a good IFV killer and be able to engage targets at a greater range then vehicles armored with auto cannon

centauro is better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, dejawolf said:

centauro is better. 

I agree it is.

 

But i still think the DF90 will be a good IFV killer, With greater mobility then a tank and possibly the centauro.

I still have not but it to the test yet. so its only speculation on my behalf.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least the DF90 makes a passable proxy for Ratel90 (SADF). These were known to kill T55's with some crafty out-maneuvering and close quarters flank shooting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

All the usual disclaimers apply, but the DF-30s weapon station and electro-optics look particularly vulnerable to all sorts of nasty pointy things that would tend to be flying around, even in a counterinsurgency scenario.  Just an aside, and probably "SB-OPSEC", but have the DF vehicles been added because the Belgian military uses SB?  

Edited by ChrisWerb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/24/2019 at 2:44 AM, ChrisWerb said:

All the usual disclaimers apply, but the DF-30s weapon station and electro-optics look particularly vulnerable to all sorts of nasty pointy things that would tend to be flying around, even in a counterinsurgency scenario.  Just an aside, and probably "SB-OPSEC", but have the DF vehicles been added because the Belgian military uses SB?  

you are correct. particularly the ammunition belt. 
the version you have in SB currently is "idealized". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After employing both vehicles in the last Kanium mission, here are my thoughts. 

 

I employed one platoon of the DF 30 as the Company's recon element, and one platoon in the typical mech infantry role. The DF 30 excelled in the recon role, and was able to destroy pretty much anything that wasn't a tank. The Spike MR teams absolutely decimated the final objective, with the one platoon destroying about a company's worth of combat power from a good attack by fire position. The DF 30 doesn't really work as mech infantry; there just aren't enough dismounts to seize an objective. They do work well in a fire-support role, and would work well for supporting infantry. 

 

The DF 90 is a heavy fire support vehicle, kinda like the Stryker MGS. While it is POSSIBLE to kill tanks, it doesn't excel in that role; the 90mm cannon had trouble killing T-62s at greater than 1000 meters, and the lack of protection against any sort of tank round makes it a very poor choice as a tank killer, in my opinion.  Where the DF 90 did excel was destroying enemy strong-points, such as infantry garrisoned in buildings. The DF 90s didn't (to my knowledge) engage any PCs during the mission, but I imagine they would be able to kill them just fine. Normally, I end up assigning a tank platoon to support the infantry as they seize objectives, so being able to keep both tank platoons free while the DF 90s followed and supported was very advantageous tactically. 

 

In an ideal scenario, knowing what I know now, I would employ DF 30s in a cavalry role, and use them to seize/hold key terrain and disrupt the enemy's maneuver plan. I would use DF 90s to support motorized/mechanized infantry by using their main gun to destroy enemy fortifications, bunkers, and strong points. To me, those roles make the most sense for playing to the strengths and minimizing the weaknesses of the vehicles.

 

Finally, it is important to realize that the DF 30 and the DF 90 are not IFVs, tank destroyers, etc. The DF 30 and the DF 90, to me, are very similar to a Stryker RV (with a much better gun), and a Stryker MGS (with a smaller gun), respectively. Don't try to fight them like a CV9040 or a Centauro, as they just aren't designed for those roles. DF 30s, when combined with their ATGM dismounts, are amazing at locking down mobility corridors. The DF 90 will make your infantry have a much easier job, and free up your tanks to do something else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mirzayev said:

After employing both vehicles in the last Kanium mission, here are my thoughts. 

 

I employed one platoon of the DF 30 as the Company's recon element, and one platoon in the typical mech infantry role. The DF 30 excelled in the recon role, and was able to destroy pretty much anything that wasn't a tank. The Spike MR teams absolutely decimated the final objective, with the one platoon destroying about a company's worth of combat power from a good attack by fire position. The DF 30 doesn't really work as mech infantry; there just aren't enough dismounts to seize an objective. They do work well in a fire-support role, and would work well for supporting infantry. 

 

The DF 90 is a heavy fire support vehicle, kinda like the Stryker MGS. While it is POSSIBLE to kill tanks, it doesn't excel in that role; the 90mm cannon had trouble killing T-62s at greater than 1000 meters, and the lack of protection against any sort of tank round makes it a very poor choice as a tank killer, in my opinion.  Where the DF 90 did excel was destroying enemy strong-points, such as infantry garrisoned in buildings. The DF 90s didn't (to my knowledge) engage any PCs during the mission, but I imagine they would be able to kill them just fine. Normally, I end up assigning a tank platoon to support the infantry as they seize objectives, so being able to keep both tank platoons free while the DF 90s followed and supported was very advantageous tactically. 

 

In an ideal scenario, knowing what I know now, I would employ DF 30s in a cavalry role, and use them to seize/hold key terrain and disrupt the enemy's maneuver plan. I would use DF 90s to support motorized/mechanized infantry by using their main gun to destroy enemy fortifications, bunkers, and strong points. To me, those roles make the most sense for playing to the strengths and minimizing the weaknesses of the vehicles.

 

Finally, it is important to realize that the DF 30 and the DF 90 are not IFVs, tank destroyers, etc. The DF 30 and the DF 90, to me, are very similar to a Stryker RV (with a much better gun), and a Stryker MGS (with a smaller gun), respectively. Don't try to fight them like a CV9040 or a Centauro, as they just aren't designed for those roles. DF 30s, when combined with their ATGM dismounts, are amazing at locking down mobility corridors. The DF 90 will make your infantry have a much easier job, and free up your tanks to do something else. 

Recently I read an article I think on a recent Armor magazine, about the use of the Stryker MGS. The article explain that it should be used in cooperation with the Stryker ATGMV. Using their high level of mobility, the MGS would serve as a prey for the enemy, running top speed diagonally towards the enemy, while the ATGMV would engage targets with missiles. Apparently this tactic achieved great success in the NTC. I couldn't replicate the success in SB tho; all my MGS were always decimated before the missiles could hit their targets. (DF-90 and ITV)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, stormrider_sp said:

Recently I read an article I think on a recent Armor magazine, about the use of the Stryker MGS. The article explain that it should be used in cooperation with the Stryker ATGMV. Using their high level of mobility, the MGS would serve as a prey for the enemy, running top speed diagonally towards the enemy, while the ATGMV would engage targets with missiles. Apparently this tactic achieved great success in the NTC. I couldn't replicate the success in SB tho; all my MGS were always decimated before the missiles could hit their targets. (DF-90 and ITV)

I'm not a professional, but that sounds like a tactic born out of desperation. I wouldn't want to be the one trying to replicate the NTC results in real life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ChrisWerb said:

I'm not a professional, but that sounds like a tactic born out of desperation. I wouldn't want to be the one trying to replicate the NTC results in real life.

I read the article before drawing conclusions. From how it is worded in the article, it sounds much more like a hasty defense, with the MGS "jockying" from multiple battle positions, using micro-terrain, etc, to fix the enemy. Once they have tunnel vision on the MGS Platoon (or whatever size element,) the ATGMs attack the enemy's now exposed flank. Blindly charging against the OPFOR at NTC (or anywhere else) is a great way to destroy an entire Company in a matter of minutes. 

 

Here is the actual paragraph for reference:

 

Another option is to use the MGS to force the enemy to concentrate on them. Their maneuverability allows greater survivability than the ATVV. Also, the engagement of an enemy vehicle’s crew is just as debilitating to the target as is damage to the platform itself and can be conducted at the section or platoon level. This engagement can be coordinated by the weapons-troop commander. The damage inflicted by an MGS may also be sufficient to allow the ATVV to engage the target with less risk. To execute this maneuver, MGSs can engage while rapidly moving toward or adjacent to the enemy. The MGSs can also engage at close ranges, particularly from the flank or rear. These maneuvers can be initiated from multiple positions, preferably reconnoitered in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a psychological game for which NTC is somewhat famous, that NTC OpFor dares playing because no lives are at risk. At the same time I think they are now drawing horribly wrong conclusions from a silly trick that worked once, recommending it for doctrine. Once that you rely on vehicle speed to outrun bullets, you're doing it wrong, even if a game of laser tag allows you to brag about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

I think it's a psychological game for which NTC is somewhat famous, that NTC OpFor dares playing because no lives are at risk. At the same time I think they are now drawing horribly wrong conclusions from a silly trick that worked once, recommending it for doctrine. Once that you rely on vehicle speed to outrun bullets, you're doing it wrong, even if a game of laser tag allows you to brag about it.

👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/26/2019 at 5:39 AM, Mirzayev said:

After employing both vehicles in the last Kanium mission, here are my thoughts. 

 

I employed one platoon of the DF 30 as the Company's recon element, and one platoon in the typical mech infantry role. The DF 30 excelled in the recon role, and was able to destroy pretty much anything that wasn't a tank. The Spike MR teams absolutely decimated the final objective, with the one platoon destroying about a company's worth of combat power from a good attack by fire position. The DF 30 doesn't really work as mech infantry; there just aren't enough dismounts to seize an objective. They do work well in a fire-support role, and would work well for supporting infantry. 

 

The DF 90 is a heavy fire support vehicle, kinda like the Stryker MGS. While it is POSSIBLE to kill tanks, it doesn't excel in that role; the 90mm cannon had trouble killing T-62s at greater than 1000 meters, and the lack of protection against any sort of tank round makes it a very poor choice as a tank killer, in my opinion.  Where the DF 90 did excel was destroying enemy strong-points, such as infantry garrisoned in buildings. The DF 90s didn't (to my knowledge) engage any PCs during the mission, but I imagine they would be able to kill them just fine. Normally, I end up assigning a tank platoon to support the infantry as they seize objectives, so being able to keep both tank platoons free while the DF 90s followed and supported was very advantageous tactically. 

 

In an ideal scenario, knowing what I know now, I would employ DF 30s in a cavalry role, and use them to seize/hold key terrain and disrupt the enemy's maneuver plan. I would use DF 90s to support motorized/mechanized infantry by using their main gun to destroy enemy fortifications, bunkers, and strong points. To me, those roles make the most sense for playing to the strengths and minimizing the weaknesses of the vehicles.

 

Finally, it is important to realize that the DF 30 and the DF 90 are not IFVs, tank destroyers, etc. The DF 30 and the DF 90, to me, are very similar to a Stryker RV (with a much better gun), and a Stryker MGS (with a smaller gun), respectively. Don't try to fight them like a CV9040 or a Centauro, as they just aren't designed for those roles. DF 30s, when combined with their ATGM dismounts, are amazing at locking down mobility corridors. The DF 90 will make your infantry have a much easier job, and free up your tanks to do something else. 

After the first MP run as plt-leader with the DF30...it is a mixed back for me.

 

On the plus side:

- very good mobility on dry ground and roads. this enables you to get into goo observation points quickly

- good optics and a very good FCS make engagements rather easy.

 

Negavtive:

- Command of the platoon and coordination especially on the move is MUCH MUCH worse...the unmanned turret takes away the ability to get your head out and get and overview while the gunner keeps scanning

  This is the biggest downside of the vehicle for me. (maybe people used to turretless stuff IRL have a different opinion...)

- very long reload times for the 30mm gun and a low ammo count overall (90 rounds AP in total)

 

Summary:

- a good fire support vehicle

- with dismounts (scouts) with IR optics (UGV and or JIM LR) it can also be usefull as recon element...altough the lack of a crewable turret will also bite there

- definetly it is no IFV

What I would like to try: combine 2 pirania PC (with M153 or 151) + 2 DF30 in one platoon as infantry or recon element

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Grenny said:

What I would like to try: combine 2 pirania PC (with M153 or 151) + 2 DF30 in one platoon as infantry or recon element

Isn't that how the new Stryker Dragoon with the 30mm cannon supposed to be deplyed?  1-2 per platoon?  I thought I saw that somwehere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Grenny said:

Command of the platoon and coordination especially on the move is MUCH MUCH worse...the unmanned turret takes away the ability to get your head out and get and overview while the gunner keeps scanning

I have always wondered about that with remote turrets.  Does it inhibit situational awareness?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Grenny said:

Negavtive:

- Command of the platoon and coordination especially on the move is MUCH MUCH worse...the unmanned turret takes away the ability to get your head out and get and overview while the gunner keeps scanning

 

So there is kinda a workaround...

 

As the gunner, you can open your hatch, arm the turret, and set it back into stab mode. This will override the safety override for having a hatch open. The problem, of course, is that you have to have a human in the gunner's position, and you will need to alternate between scanning and looking out of the hatch. Definitely not ideal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mirzayev said:

 

So there is kinda a workaround...

 

As the gunner, you can open your hatch, arm the turret, and set it back into stab mode. This will override the safety override for having a hatch open. The problem, of course, is that you have to have a human in the gunner's position, and you will need to alternate between scanning and looking out of the hatch. Definitely not ideal.

The BN technical officer invited you to a training session.

General topic: System safety and career effects 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/27/2019 at 3:26 AM, Ssnake said:

I think it's a psychological game for which NTC is somewhat famous, that NTC OpFor dares playing because no lives are at risk. At the same time I think they are now drawing horribly wrong conclusions from a silly trick that worked once, recommending it for doctrine. Once that you rely on vehicle speed to outrun bullets, you're doing it wrong, even if a game of laser tag allows you to brag about it.

We had the same thing happen here with our "we don't require " MBT's any more (pre Afgstan}.

 

War gaming the MGS , which was to be bought to replace our Leo1's.

They tried many times in simulation to make it work as a tank, making the enemy less realistic (armour value) to make the MGS win, they never got it to a reasonable tank/inf support AFV.

 

In the end they had to come to the conclusion the MGS was NEVER going to fit our doctrine.

 

Its a case of ..We will buy this AFV , and write a doctrine to fit it, rather than the other way around...Our doctrine requires a AFV with these requirements.

 

So  a little brew-up in a far away desert changed our Leo1's fate, and the Leo2 entered the great white north.

 

 

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/the-myth-surrounding-canadian-leopard-tanks-in-afghanistan-driving-away-decommissioned-tanks-used-as-monuments-and-shipping-them-to-war-never-happened

 

MEXAS6.jpg

26703533022_ea8ea62e5d_b.jpg

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...