Jump to content

Angry Mexicans

Member
  • Content count

    257
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Angry Mexicans

  • Rank
    Platoon Leader

Recent Profile Visitors

478 profile views
  1. Vehicle Brainstorming (Post Pictures)

    *sigh* Again, please read what you were responding to beforehand. Yes, I do understand what I am writing about. Also note that I did, previously, concede that it might not be the Bradley's base armor that could provide potential protection from RPG warheads as I saw claimed. Keeping in mind, the armor added onto later Bradleys is explosive-reactive armor, not non-explosive, reactive armor. While the two function on similar principles, ERA is far more efficient than NERA. That said, given data on ERA and basic RPG-type single-stage HEAT warheads, I have a difficult time believing that an M-3 with ERA cannot defeat a basic, single-stage PG-7VL warhead. With a perfect, head-on impact, the ERA won't help, due to the mechanics of that type of armor module, but otherwise it should be perfectly capable of withstanding a shaped-charge threat of that magnitude. As for the 100mm gun, yes, again, read my past posts in full, please. I am aware of the ATGM. Yes, it has greater range, but it is an ATGM; that is to be expected of the system. Yes, you are going to use weapon systems outside of their typical uses anyway. That always happens. That doesn't change the fact that it is a waste of use an ATGM on light armor when you have APFSDS rounds for that exact purpose. My whole point, remember, is establishing my reasoning for the view that the BMP-3's 100mm gun is a waste, based partly on the fact that overkill is a thing. The true benefits of that 100mm gun are mostly niche benefits, that really shouldn't be expected to make a huge difference. Going forward with the continued comparison with the BMP-2, the Konkurs missile can also engage Bradleys beyond the effective range of the 30mm gun. It's still a step backward in engagement at that long range. I did say before that, due to the fact that the source that claimed the Bradley has protection from RPGs does not specify whether or not this is with ERA, it may well be due to the ERA and not a characteristic of its base armor. So the 100mm ATGM flies faster. That's fair. It's still less powerful due to its smaller diameter warhead. At the end of the day, it's that firepower and ability to engage tanks without requiring a larger, heavier, and more expensive platform (as would be necessary to withstand the recoil of a high-velocity gun) from which to engage those tanks. For instance, keep in mind that, while the majority of vehicles on a mechanized battlefield might not be main battle tanks, they are where the majority of ground firepower lies. Well, technically the majority of firepower, in terms of casualty-producing weapons, is in artillery, but in terms of front line forces with the highest value in firepower, survivability, and tactical staying-power, main battle tanks are very, very valuable. And at the end of the day, you might decide that it is unlikely that an MBT will turn up, but when one does, and you aren't able to deal with the threat, you're fucked. Calling in dedicated tank-destroyers is all well and good, but it's even better if you also have IFVs which double as tank destroyers by themselves. That is far more valuable, tactically speaking. As for those Khrizantema-S tank destroyers, the fact that they are built on BMP-3 hulls doesn't really prove anything for either of us. The 100mm gun isn't mounted on the hull, it's mounted on the turret. The hull is pretty much a BMP-2 hull, functionally, in the sense that it has roughly the same armor protection. I don't know about the BMP-3's mobility off the top of my head, when compared to the BMP-2. The missiles, though, are, notably not 100mm ATGMs. They are full-on 152mm ATGMs, because those are superior ATGMs. Again, I'm not suggesting the 100mm gun doesn't have strengths. I'm suggesting they're not justified by the weight of what is lost in terms of capabilities, and what is gained in terms of physical weight added and space taken up in the turret. As for effective range, I am merely adjusting my definition to what I can tell of your definition. Both guns are supposedly capable of engaging targets out to 4,000 meters. You, however, don't count the 30mm cannon as being able to engage at 4km because it isn't nearly accurate enough. Well, on the basis of accuracy, the 100mm gun is also likely not going to count as accurate out to 4,000 meters, if the accuracy of larger-caliber, longer range and more accurate tank guns is any reference. This is, of course, talking about HEF rounds and not ATGMs. As for those APFSDS, what I've seen says the effective range against light armored vehicles is more like 1,500 meters, although I wouldn't be surprised that this is more a figure referring to engaging IFVs, and that those APFSDS could probably be effective against lighter armored vehicles, like Stryker, at upwards 2,500 meters. Remember that in that case, you are talking about having to outperform 14.5mm API at best, which really shouldn't be a difficult task for 30mm APFSDS. Anyway, at 4,000 meters, where neither gun is going to be particularly reliable at hitting a point target, I'd much rather either just get closer or try to blanket the area with a higher volume of smaller rounds. At that rate, I'd be at least as likely to score hits faster than with the 100mm. Again, keep in mind that this is considering that neither the 100mm gun nor the 30mm gun will be capable of truly accurate fire at that distance. If you absolutely must hit a target that far out, use your ATGMs or just drive closer, or call artillery or mortars. But ultimately, fine, there is one thing you point out that I didn't consider earlier. The 100mm gun can reload ATGMs without the crew having to dismount. That's a benefit. So the BMP-3 has that going for it, a larger HE warhead for use against infantry (which is a benefit I am suggesting is fairly minor), and for use against hard point targets like structures or fortifications (which I am suggesting is too niche a use to justify the overall system). Other than that, it really doesn't seem like the BMP-3 can do anything that the BMP-2 can't already do. No, you're right, Trophy definitely doesn't. None of the active protection systems currently developed can really engage APFSDS effectively. I think a scant few could score a hit, like, say, AMAP-ADS, but even those wouldn't really be able to stop the round. At best, they might be able to achieve some degree of deformation or partial fracturing, which would certainly reduce the effectiveness of the threat, but the threat will still be there. So far, only the Quick Kill system that the US is trying to develop would really have a shot at engaging larger threats like full-bore tank shells, APFSDS, and large missiles like the AGM-65 Maverick (which APS wouldn't be able to stop since it's simply too large and heavy, and even disabling the missile leaves the object still traveling at you at considerable speed). This is, of course, only because of the larger of the two hard-kill interceptors that the Quick Kill system is intended to utilize. It's smaller interceptors are to be effective at shorter ranges and against the usual threats, namely ATGMs and man-portable rockets.
  2. Vehicle Brainstorming (Post Pictures)

    The real effective range of 30mm HEI rounds is however far they can fly such that they impact hard enough to set off their fuses. In 1945, this might have been a concern, but modern fuses are hardly that prone to failure. A 30mm cannon can most definitely lob a shell 4,000 meters downrange. I'll go through some qualitative math if you want me to (given precise experimental data on drag characteristics of the projectiles, I could be much more definite), but I am very confident indeed that those shells will travel that far. If we're talking about effective range in terms of accurately and reliably hitting a target, well, sorry to tell you, but a 100mm low-velocity gun isn't going to have an "effective" range of 4,000 meters either. My buddy in an Abrams tells me shooting that far and reliably hitting a target is a bitch even for a gun and fire control system that accurate. There is absolutely no way that low-pressure gun is going to fare any better. Hell, at that distance, considering how you aren't likely to get pinpoint accuracy, you're actually better off using a higher volume of fire to blanket the target area with explosive shells. Regarding those ATGMs, no, the design philosophy isn't sound. The BMP-2 already carries ATGMs that are more effective than those of the BMP-3. They, like those 100mm ATGMs, would be capable of dealing with Bradleys and other such IFVs in a standoff engagement. Clearly that wasn't the idea, since that is a step backward in capability, since now you've gone from an ATGM which can also engage MBTs more effectively (side shots are always valid; these are self-defense weapons more than offensive weapons for IFVs) as well as Bradleys, and replaced it with an ATGM that is less effective in an anti-armor role, which, despite what you seem to believe, is most certainly why IFVs are outfitted with ATGMs to begin with. They were built for mechanized warfare, after all. Wherever they are, the enemy is likely to bring tanks. Ergo, you give them ATGMs. This is, of course, aside from the fact that IFVs are the kinds of targets that a vehicle like a BMP-2 and BMP-3 has 30mm APFSDS for. You don't waste ATGMs on a light AFV. You've only got a few, after all. If you must engage an IFV at standoff range, fine, but it isn't necessary. Even so, that 100mm missile is still a step down from the Konkurs. You didn't read what you quoted, did you? I didn't suggest that the M-2 Bradley does have 500mm RHAe. I pointed out the fact that armor mechanics are far more complicated than can be summarized in one, single RHAe figure. Seriously, please read again, then come talk to me.
  3. Vehicle Brainstorming (Post Pictures)

    Armor is more complicated than just straight RHAe numbers. Spaced armor is very difficult to quantify, particularly because it doesn't really behave like a contiguous block of metal. A PG-7VL can, certainly, penetrate more than 500mm of steel. However, let's say you have a 200mm plate and then another 200mm steel plate behind it, with 100mm of air in between them. This is 500mm in total, and there are 400mm of steel plate, but that same PG-7VL won't penetrate. Note that, where armor protection is simplified to the level of an RHA-equivalence number, modern vehicles tend to have two separate rating for HEAT/chemical energy threats and for protection against kinetic energy-based threats. This is because, as I mentioned before, the way that armor and its perforation works is more complicated than what can be truly boiled down to a single number. I really really hope we don't have a simple, Battlefield-style damage system. That would ruin vehicles for me. I really want to see no overall health bars, properly modelled armor and penetration, and vehicle components. As for the armor of an M-113, the Bradley definitely has better armor than the M-113. The -113, similar to the Stryker, provides protection only against 14.5mm API ammo. The Bradley, meanwhile, is armored against light autocannon fire, like that which it might expect to come from a vehicle like the BMP-2. That's not even counting the claim that a Bradley could withstand an RPG. Although, maybe that is a claim which takes ERA into account. For the modern Heer, I feel like the Puma would be a better fit than a Marder 1, and perhaps the GTK Boxer instead of the Fuchs. So, basically you encounter information that you don't like, because it contradicts your expectations, and you bail out? That's respectable. Your stated logic for ignoring it certainly isn't any more sound than this. And yes, the physics dictating why a larger warhead isn't universally better remains true for artillery and direct fire weapons alike. You are focusing too much on the question of cluster shells, anyway, when everything else that I talked about regarding artillery remains perfectly valid in demonstrating that your assertion that bigger is better is definitively false. My whole point, from the beginning, has been that the 100mm gun on the BMP-3, in lieu of just sticking with the secondary Konkurs ATGM launchers, might be a wasted effort. You disagree, based solely on the idea that a bigger warhead is better as a general matter. Now I demonstrate that this is not necessarily so. The fact of the matter is that of the two things that weapon brings to the table, those being an enhanced ability to engage infantry, and an enhanced ability to attack hardened positions and structures, one of those is possibly a rather minor improvement in the grand scheme of things, since that 30mm gun can already engage infantry well enough, and use against structures is a relatively niche role. That, considering the fact that the weapon adds more weight and takes up more space, also considering ammunition, and effectively reduces the BMP-3's ability to engage armored vehicles relative to the BMP-3, leads me to suggest that the gun may well not be worth it. You may disagree with my final opinion on the matter, but my analysis leading up to that conclusion is perfectly sound. Nothing that I've said up to that point is false.
  4. Vehicle Brainstorming (Post Pictures)

    Possibly. Remember that the Saudis are operating M-2A2s. The M-2A3 has improved armor protection. How much, though, I can't be sure.
  5. Vehicle Brainstorming (Post Pictures)

    Both are stated to engage around 4,000 meters. Sorry if facts make you stop reading... And it doesn't matter if the ordnance is deployed all at once or not. It is literally only a question of the area covered by a series of blasts. Lots of smaller warheads are more efficient at blanketing that area than a single unitary charge, and are more likely to score a hit sooner given a higher volume of fire. The big point about the artillery example was also to demonstrate the notion that, no, bigger is not just universally better. There are pros and cons. Particularly, the notion that one big charge isn't necessarily better simply due to a stronger blast. There is a lot more at play. Physics itself denies you providing a counter to that notion.
  6. These maps are definitely too small for fixed-wing aircraft. Hell, I'm on the fence regarding attack helicopters, too. Something like a Kiowa would be a decent fit for the maps we have, being smaller, nimbler, and having armament that wouldn't be capable of striking just about anywhere on the map. However, since I was recently made aware of the Kiowa's current move to retirement, and the fact that the most fitting helicopters for the US and Russia would be the AH-64E and Ka-52/Mi-28, respectively, we aren't going to be seeing armed helos (not counting door guns on utility helicopters) of the size and weight class of the Kiowa. Looking at the armament of those previously-mentioned attack helicopters, it is clear to me that they will be a challenge to incorporate properly into Squad. The idea of fixed-wing aircraft playing a role is, therefore, completely unfeasible as far as I'm concerned, unless they do something like War Thunder where aircraft flying above ground battles have air space covering land area several times larger than the ground maps themselves. However, this game would do well to avoid that approach, as War Thunder is a game focusing on aircraft just as much as it focuses on ground combat, whereas Squad is not. It would be far smarter to simply acknowledge that fixed-wing aircraft are not a good fit. I could see them working in the context of player-activated calls for fire, but absolutely nothing beyond that. The only way to make aircraft fit in maps of these sizes is to reduce their flying speed to a hilarious degree. I don't know about you, but I do not want to see a game where someone driving a ZSU-57 can shoot down, say, an F-15E with anything resembling ease simply because the Eagle can be outrun by a WWI fighter.
  7. Vehicle Brainstorming (Post Pictures)

    T72BU(aka T90) is It's diffirent vehicles. Normal AT weapon,well PG-7VL are normal AT weapon.I think they're enough to destroy it. RPG rounds,used by Insurgents in Iraq and A-stan was like PG-7V and their chinise clones,it's junk. Thats first. Second - vehicles on photos doesn't have ERA.Even if it's will be - cover this vehicle by infantry is dangerous.If someone hit ERA,they will blow like 5 Frag grenades. And finally third - M3 is recon vehicle,they have only 2 passanger seats. And please - there is no undestructable things. Even without penetration - after hit crew will feel themselves... like a mouse in tin can,which hitted by hammer. Nothing is indestructible for sure. That said, I think the M-2/3 would be able to withstand a PG-7VL. It's hard to say whether or not we're talking about older PG-7V warhead or foreign copies of them, or if we're talking about PG-7VL warheads, but the Bradley is listed as having all around coverage from 30mm APDS and RPGs. Now, let's assume that isn't entirely true and suppose the rear can't handle RPGs, but I can see the front and perhaps the sides having spaced armor that could handle a PG-7VL without ERA. Given that the M-3A3 Bradley and the CV-90 seem to be roughly in a similar weight class, and the CV-90 has demonstrated that it is capable of withstanding RPGs and autocannon APFSDS fire, I wouldn't be surprised in the least that a Bradley could take about the same.
  8. Vehicle Brainstorming (Post Pictures)

    Actually, artillery is a perfect example to prove my point. 203mm artillery, and really anything greater than 155mm in bore like the 175mm artillery that the US used to use, has really been pushed aside in most modern doctrines. Artillery that large fires considerably slower than 155mm and 152mm artillery, and while it has definite benefits in its ability to hit point targets with more effect, and while it typically has considerably longer range than 155mm guns, that simply isn't important in the long run. As was proved during Vietnam, 155mm artillery scored considerably more kills per shell fired on average than either the 203mm M-110 or the 175mm M-107, despite the fact that the -110 fired a much heavier shell, and despite the fact that the -107 was the longest ranged artillery piece in the world at the time, or at least the longest-ranged gun in the US arsenal. The volume of fire became more important, as faster fire allowed more effective adjustment of aim when delivering fire missions, and it allowed the enemy less time to move away from a dangerous area before follow-on shots could arrive. The fact is, the greater blast area allowed by a 203mm HE shell compared to a 155mm HE shell wasn't enough to make up for the difference, and it's a simple matter of geometry. The law of inverse squares demands that, in order to double the effective radius of a blast, the explosive must deliver four times as much energy. So, the greater "splash," as you call it, afforded by larger and larger shells actually yields diminishing returns, as doubling the firepower of a single shell does not double its blast area. Unfortunately, this also means that the weight of the projectile in question will increase exponentially and thus become increasingly less and less practical, as the difficulty of moving the system and its ammunition will increase, the the time needed to load the system will increase must more rapidly than you will see improvement in the effects on a target. That is why cluster munitions are a thing. You say that artillery isn't all autocannons, clearly implying that this is because larger shells are just better in every way. However, you are forgetting that submunitions, as can be fired by artillery, will cover a larger land area than a unitary warhead of the same size of the cluster shell being fired. In effect, you are achieving a wider blast area by using lots of smaller warheads that are, individually, more or less the size of autocannon shells, depending on the submunition type. So, in a sense, yes, artillery does use lots of autocannon shells to maximize the area of ground covered by one shell. In fact, in Vietnam, it was found that the performance of the M-110 exceeded that of the 155mm gun only in one area, that being in the use of cluster munition shells. This was, of course, due to the fact that a larger 203mm shell can fit many more submunition than a 155mm shell, and thus can cover a much, much larger area with one shot. In this case, the M-110 was able to achieve more average kills per round fired than a 155mm gun firing cluster munitions. As for the greater firepower a unitary warhead can deliver to a point target, well, the simple fact is the need for such firepower on a hardened position doesn't really exist anymore. It would be perfectly useful at Verdun, but on a modern battlefield where such extraordinarily hardened positions are few and far between, and just as easily be engaged by air power that can be called in for those few, rare cases, the need for a heavier artillery gun of that caliber simply doesn't exist. For hardened targets that are to be expected, a 155mm gun is more than good enough. QED This demonstrates, quite well, the notion that a bigger warhead is not always better. More powerful on a shot-for-shot basis? Absolutely. In the case of the 100mm gun on that BMP, it is a situation of considering whether or not the 100mm gun is really capable of performing a function that its 30mm autocannon can't already do as well as the vehicle needs to. By your logic, there'd be no reason not to just make all IFVs like a Sprut-D, just with a passenger compartment. Then you'd have a 125mm gun to use against infantry anywhere! That's just better, right? Well, clearly that's not a practical solution. You can kill infantry just fine with a large volume of HEI autocannon shells without resorting to a larger-bore cannon. Now, do I have any hard data on what kind of a difference that 100mm gun makes? No, of course not. However, there's nothing wrong with taking a look at the facts I do know and pointing out my doubts that the addition of a 100mm gun is a truly practical design element, since it isn't really bringing very much new to the table in terms of engaging infantry. It more or less matches the 2A72 autocannon in range as far as I can tell (remember that the 100mm gun is a low-pressure gun-launcher, so it has a lower muzzle velocity), with both having a stated range of around 4,000 meters against ground targets, and as I mentioned before, being only a 100mm cannon, any HEAT ammunition it could fire would be insufficient to engage modern MBTs, while lighter armor, such as IFVs, are already dealt with using 30mm APFSDS. The only thing the gun brings to the table that other weapons on the BMP-3 can't do already is serve a more potent demolitions role, blasting holes in walls and such. That is all well and good, and that is where the debate really crops up. That is, the question now is whether or not that demolitions capability is worth the added weight and interior space taken up by the breech, recoil length, and ammunition? In my view, it's a useful role, but still a relatively niche role. I would much rather have a BMP-2 and take advantage of those superior missiles. Yeah, I agree a mix makes sense for the BMP-3 and BMP-2. And I don't know about the BRDM-3 either, for sure. I can only say what I've read, but I only really know that it exists. Otherwise, I guess BMP-2s would make sense for recon for motor rifle formations using BMPs, but since we aren't really aiming to specify whether these troops are from an IFV or wheeled formation in-game, I say a mix of these would work as well. That is, mix the use of tracked recon vehicles and wheeled, whether or not that wheeled vehicle would be a BRDM-3. Also, are you sure the BRDM-2 isn't used anymore? http://weaponsystems.net/image/s-lightbox/n-BRDM-2/--/img/ws/ve_sct_brdm2_v1.jpg That looks like it has Russian flags on it, and those crewmen looks to be wearing Russian uniforms, not that I know the uniforms all that well. It also looks to be fairly recent.
  9. SL Marker Limit

    Or, you know, I could take advantage of more thorough visual cues as well as voice cues. That is just a better approach.
  10. Vehicle Brainstorming (Post Pictures)

    Please read what I said about the Ka-52 in full, including the fact that I am aware it is nowhere near as light as a Kiowa.
  11. Vehicle Brainstorming (Post Pictures)

    No, no, I never meant to give the impression that I thought the Ka-52 is actually in a similar weight class to the Kiowa. That is clearly not the case. I simply meant that of the selection of Russian helicopters to fit the bill of a lighter scout helicopter, then the Ka-52 (being used in a scout role and technically capable of a smaller payload than an Mi-28) would be the best available option. However that would work out, the Kiowa would have to be more numerous than the Ka-52 in order to balance properly. But also, it was actually Wiki that elaborated on what you had said. It was my Army buddy who said that Kiowas were the more fitting option. According to Wiki, you are correct that Kiowas are currently being retired. As for the AH-64E, I am aware that it is definitely not a light attack helicopter. It is just an upgraded AH-64D. Basically, I am saying we can skip the AH-64D and give the Americans the AH-64E. To the BMP-3, I definitely think that we should at least have a mix. It seems that this would fit with realistic Russian use, as well, at least according to Wiki, which claims that the BMP-3, while intended to replace the BMP-2 and BMP-1, instead supplements the BMP-2 in service. So, a mix makes sense to me. And it has nothing to do with a Western perspective, so do please stop trying to act like geographical perspective negates basic technical analysis. East and West don't change how much damage a particular warhead can do versus a particular target, and how much weight and volume that warhead would account for, etc. Sometimes doctrine decides what designs are good for certain vehicles in many cases, but ultimately you get to a spot where a design boils down to hard strengths and weaknesses. Acting like the 100mm gun-launcher is some anti-personnel panacea is just nonsense. There comes a time when more firepower is a waste of time, when, at the end of the day, carrying a larger number of smaller, lighter rounds might get the same job done just as well and come without the drawbacks of the additional weapon. It, as a matter of fact, isn't all down to the size of the blast. Technically, if you want to cover the greatest area with blast/fragmentation effects, you use a larger number of smaller warheads, due to the law of inverse squares. Clearly, the considerations behind the 100mm gun are far more complicated than you think. It has nothing to do with an "idiotic Western perspective." Am I making a final judgement and saying the BMP-3's gun is, factually, a waste of time? No, not at all. I'm simply pointing out that it may well be in a limbo where it is more powerful than is necessary for one role, when it already has a weapon capable of doing the same job perfectly well, and where it is simultaneously underpowered for another role it is expected to perform. It's a matter of pointing out general characteristics of a design, not making a hard judgement on said design. EDIT: As for the question of the Russian recon vehicle, it would seem that the BRDM-3 would find that it fits quite well here, no?
  12. SL Marker Limit

    I put down lots of markers for the benefit of my squad mates and other squad leaders. If there is a limit, it NEEDS to be more than just 2 or 3 a minute. What if I'm using arrows to lay down a path for my squad? What if I'm trying to designate a wide area of possible enemy contact?
  13. Vehicle Brainstorming (Post Pictures)

    Dude, that doesn't mean they aren't there. There are a shitload of units in Russia, as you well know. All it takes for it to be appropriate in-game is for the BTR-80A/BTR-82A to exist and be something that Russia is pursuing, which to my knowledge it is. If you know that Russia isn't buying BTR-82As and/or BTR-80As, then that's a different story, but it seems that they've even been seen in Syria, where I have read they are suspected to have been involved in fighting against anti-government forces. Isn't that all the basis we need to decide that they belong here? Again, I'm not suggesting we leave out the regular BTR-80. My friend who serves in armor for the National Guard and until very recently (a year or two ago) was a tanker for the regular Army mentioned Kiowas as being far more numerous, at least in his unit, than Apaches, and that they would be a more likely thing for a game like Squad with the maps we have, where you wouldn't necessarily call in your heavier attack helicopters to meet every call for CAS for grunts. Though, Wiki says that the Kiowas simply haven't been completely phased out, which makes sense. In that case, the question of helicopters probably becomes easier. In that case, we should probably go with just the AH-64E (which I didn't know existed until today) for the US and perhaps a mix of the Ka-52 and Mi-28 for the Russians. Also, the reason I was counting the Ka-52 as somewhat of a lighter helicopter was simply because it seems to have a lighter payload capacity than the Mi-28, and as far as I can tell, it seems to be used as an armed scout helicopter where the Mi-28 seems to be a bit more dedicated to attack roles. While the two aren't really very different, that pair was the best equivalent I could think of to what the US might have going with the Apache and Kiowa. But I guess we don't need to worry about that. As for the BMP-3 versus BMP-2, the BMP-3 seems to be in a sort of weird limbo with its 100mm gun. On the one hand, sure, 100mm HEF rounds are going to be more destructive against infantry than 30mm HEI shells, on a hit per hit basis, but that same 100mm gun is not going to be effective enough when it comes to the typical secondary role of IFVs, which is dealing with enemy armor in the nearby area, since those 100mm HEAT warheads are too small to really be effective enough. Conversely, the BMP-2 has ATGMs which are relevant in that secondary AT role, and in terms of engaging infantry, I feel like the 100mm gun is more than you need. Now, I like overkill as much as the next guy, but when you get down to it, a high volume of fire from 30mm HEI shells is going to shred exposed infantry plenty well enough, and the BMP-3 and BMP-2 both have the same capacity to engage light armored vehicles with APFSDS ammo, so it seems to me that the 100mm low-pressure gun is more a waste than anything else. It's just extra weight and taken space that doesn't really equate to huge positive returns over what is already available. That said, I would be perfectly happy to see a mix of BMP-2s and BMP-3s made available in-game to be used at the player's discretion.
  14. Vehicle Brainstorming (Post Pictures)

    We really shouldn't be considering any indirect fire support vehicles or weapons beyond mortars, and even then, I'm on the fence as to whether I would fully support the notion of using 120mm mortars considering the range they would give. I would more prefer to see 60mm mortars be the mainstay, but I don't know any equivalent mortar for the Russian factions to use, since the lightest I'm aware of is the 2B14 Podnos, which is 82mm, and is more comparable to the M-252 mortar in US service, standing in with light infantry units, it would seem, for the role played by 120mm mortars in heavier mechanized formations. Anyway, I think that gun-howitzers and multiple-launch rocket artillery systems are definitely a no-go for playable weaponry in this game. They simply don't fit. We need to think on a company scale, here. Aside from fire support which might be called in from off-map sources (ie, 155 or 152mm artillery fire), which are a different discussion altogether, we need to concern ourselves with what support weapons one would find on a battlefield of the size we see in Squad. The only exception would, perhaps, be in attack helicopters, but we need to think of light helicopters more than heavy attack helicopters. That would probably mean Kiowas for the US and, since I can't think of anything lighter, the Ka-52 for the Russians, with a smaller number of AH-64Ds and Mi-28Ns. This would be along the lines of main battle tanks, IFVs and APCs, reconnaissance vehicles and armored cars, and light utility vehicles or logistical support vehicles. That is, for the factions we currently have in-game, we could say: M-1A2 SEPv2 (btw Varenky, the CROWS/TUSK addition isn't an official designation; save yourself the trouble) for the US, T-90A for the Russians, T-72M1 or T-72S for Militia (export variants that could easily have been captured from a government depot in whatever fictional scenario this militia is in), and T-54/T-55 or a T-62 variant for the Insurgents, since those are the only two tanks fitting of an Afghan setting For IFVs, we could have the M-2A3 Bradley for the US, the BMP-2 for the Russians (throw in the BMP-3 as well if desired, but the -2 is probably a better all-rounder thanks to its larger ATGM), and maybe the same BMP-2 or BMP-1 for the Militia Then the US would get its assortment of Strykers for APCs, Russia would get the BTR-82A or BTR-80A (pretty much identical anyway, though the -82A is newer while the -80A is an upgraded -80), and Militia probably a BTR-60BP at the least US recon vehicles would probably include the M-3 Bradley CFV, for the Russians, I'm not sure what Russian armored recon would use aside from a BDRM-2, which Sam suggests isn't used anymore. Even so, it would probably still be the best recon choice for Militia. Of course, there could probably be some bit of variety thrown in as well. Maybe the Russians could get a mix of BTR-82As (unmanned turret and 30mm autocannon) and older BTR-80s (manned turret with 14.5mm KPVT). That could also open the door to explore the possibility of allowing the Americans access to Stryker ICVs equipped with 30mm Bushmaster Mk-44 cannons as the Army is apparently looking to do.
  15. Damn JIhad's at it again

    The tactic seems silly and dumb, yes, but I think that any hard prohibition on building any FOB constructs within a certain radius of the cache would be counterproductive. There might be legitimate things that you would want to build in the immediate vicinity of a cache.
×