Regarding the bradley linebacker and US AA

BetterDeadThanRed · Post by **BetterDeadThanRed** » 2007-09-18 22:05

As of now, the AA for the US team is set up unrealistically through mirror balancing and would not require a major change to fix. So what's the problem and what to do?

I will strategically ignore the fact that the Marines do not use the bradley fighting vehicle but I will suggest this, the Tunguska is an Surface to air monster and should be treated as such. It has 4x 30mm auto cannons to the bradley's meager 1x 25mm chain gun and the Tunguska sports 8 SA-19 SAMs to the bradley's 4x stinger block.

So how can the Tunguska be displayed realistically as the monster that it is and still not leave the linebacker in the dust? Simple, the linebacker is not a dedicated AA platform but an IFV with AA capabilities. So to treat it as such, I would suggest to add 4 extra seats for infantry, separate the driver from the gunner and alter the weapons compliment to mirror the LAV-25 with the exception of an extra 4 stingers. Alternate between APFSDS-T and HEI-T with M-240 as an alternate fire and an extra weapons screen (tied to the 3 command) with nothing else besides the stinger missiles.

On a side note, this setup would also eliminate that really annoying locking sound you get when crossing through Kashan near that burning oilfield. If anything, I would at least suggest an ability to turn the radar off on the other AA vehicles.

Now this setup would put the US at a disadvantage as its AA vehicle would hardly be considered a match for the beefy Tunguska in AA capability, queue the avenger.

'nuff said.

Asymmetrical warfare FTW. To hell with this EA mirror balancing ****.

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2007-09-18 22:23

The Linebacker has been withdrawn from service, so it will eventually be that way in the game too. As Katarn says, we cannot pull assets out of our asses, so any vehicle that will replace it (Avenger or LAV-AD) is going to take time to get into game. Until we do, it stays the way it is.

BetterDeadThanRed · Post by **BetterDeadThanRed** » 2007-09-18 22:29

'[R-DEV wrote:Eddie Baker;488184']The Linebacker has been withdrawn from service, so it will eventually be that way in the game too. As Katarn says, we cannot pull assets out of our asses, so any vehicle that will replace it (Avenger or LAV-AD) is going to take time to get into game. Until we do, it stays the way it is.

Fair enough, but the LAV-AD is long gone and so is the VADS. The reason being that the US has no need for an air defense system given its current enemies. Should the US be led to fight a conventional war with a modern army with a well equipped air force, you could safely bet that those air defense systems would be quickly recalled.

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2007-09-18 22:36

BetterDeadThanRed wrote:Fair enough, but the LAV-AD is long gone and so is the VADS. The reason being that the US has no need for an air defense system given its current enemies. Should the US be led to fight a conventional war with a modern army with a well equipped air force, you could safely bet that those air defense systems would be quickly recalled.

I never said I thought having the towed VADS or mirror balanced Bradley Linebacker in the game was a good idea.

The USMC LAV-AD is still around; I believe you're thinking of the M163 PIVADS?

Lampshade111 · Post by **Lampshade111** » 2007-09-18 22:37

The LAV-AD is still around. The Marines only have a handful of them but they would make the most sense to see in the game.

I thought the Avenger was already in the PR? Was it removed?

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2007-09-18 22:39

Lampshade111 wrote:The LAV-AD is still around. The Marines only have a handful of them but they would make the most sense to see in the game.

I thought the Avenger was already in the PR? Was it removed?

Oh, I guess we finally worked the bugs out then.

Lampshade111 · Post by **Lampshade111** » 2007-09-18 22:45

The rate of fire on the Linebacker could also be increased. It does not seem like it is firing 200 rounds per minute currently and the M242 is capable of faster rates of fire than that. (it is usually limited to 200 RPM however)

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2007-09-18 22:48

Lampshade111 wrote:The rate of fire on the Linebacker could also be increased. It does not seem like it is firing 200 rounds per minute currently and the M242 is capable of faster rates of fire than that. (it is usually limited to 200 RPM however)

Unfortunately, even on the Linebacker, the rate of fire for the Bushmaster is still governed at single shots, 100 rpm cyclic or 200 rpm cyclic. This is one of the reasons I am glad the Bradley was withdrawn from service in SHORAD capacity.

BetterDeadThanRed · Post by **BetterDeadThanRed** » 2007-09-18 22:48

[R-DEV]Eddie Baker wrote:I never said I thought having the towed VADS or mirror balanced Bradley Linebacker in the game was a good idea.

The USMC LAV-AD is still around; I believe you're thinking of the M163 PIVADS?

Checked globalsecurity.org to confirm what wikipedia said and I will retract my statement on the LAV-AD but I stand by my statement about the VADS M-167 being withdrawn. Hasn't been used since the gulf war to my knowledge.

The M167 VADS Vulcan Air Defense System, which has been withdrawn from service, was a towed short-range air defense gun intended to protect forward area combat elements and rear area critical assets. It also protected against lightly armored ground targets.

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2007-09-18 22:52

BetterDeadThanRed wrote:Checked globalsecurity.org to confirm what wikipedia said and I will retract my statement on the LAV-AD but I stand by my statement about the VADS M-167 being withdrawn. Hasn't been used since the gulf war to my knowledge.

That's correct. I didn't actually know the VADS had been put in the game until I saw one while exploring the map in an empty server. While it is a beautiful model, it's just not realistic for the setting; I think our surplus VADS turrets all went for Foreign Military Sales . I think South Korea and Israel still use them; Israel is selling some improved versions, IIRC.

Ragni<RangersPL> · Post by **Ragni<RangersPL>** » 2007-09-19 01:01

Hi!
Can you make separate seats for a driver and a gunner inside AA vehicles (linebacker, tunguska, etc.)? Right now AA vehicles are operated by only one crewman. Is this some kind of a temporary solution or is it always be this this way.?

... I'm just asking

Liquid_Cow · Post by **Liquid_Cow** » 2007-09-19 01:47

We need to keep some sort of anti-air for the US, this being a "near future" mod, and as it is currently played the US does not enjoy total air superiority (which we do IRL).

I know there is a working Avenger model in POE2, this is probably the closest thing to realistic air defense for now. There does not appear to be any other mobile AAA in the works, perhaps if the shit hit the fan the US would have to buy a foreign built unit until they could gear up for production. What do the Brits use for AAA right now?

Asymmetrical warfare FTW. To hell with this EA mirror balancing ****.

Can I get an AMEN? I agree totally, the problem is that on maps with tank busters, US armor is helpless once the SU25 gets airborne. Stingers are currently useless. If you're going asymetrical you've got to mix everything up. Giving both sides tanks and tank buster planes but only one can defend against it isn't asymetrical, its a slaughter in the making.

Desertfox · Post by **Desertfox** » 2007-09-19 02:28

Liquid_Cow wrote:We need to keep some sort of anti-air for the US, this being a "near future" mod, and as it is currently played the US does not enjoy total air superiority (which we do IRL).

I know there is a working Avenger model in POE2, this is probably the closest thing to realistic air defense for now. There does not appear to be any other mobile AAA in the works, perhaps if the shit hit the fan the US would have to buy a foreign built unit until they could gear up for production. What do the Brits use for AAA right now?

Can I get an AMEN? I agree totally, the problem is that on maps with tank busters, US armor is helpless once the SU25 gets airborne. Stingers are currently useless. If you're going asymetrical you've got to mix everything up. Giving both sides tanks and tank buster planes but only one can defend against it isn't asymetrical, its a slaughter in the making.

You say you want asymmetrical gameplay but then you say its a slaughter in the making?

Post by **LeadMagnet** » 2007-09-19 03:19

We had a working SLAMRAAM in RC, perhaps you can use that?

Teek · Post by **Teek** » 2007-09-19 04:11

[R-CON]Desertfox wrote:You say you want asymmetrical gameplay but then you say its a slaughter in the making?

no, he saying right now its a slaughter in the making with 1 side having more net airpower ( the wrong side I may add).

USI had a Advenger.

WNxKenwayy · Post by **WNxKenwayy** » 2007-09-19 05:42

If an advesary of the US manages to get air superiority, AAA wont matter a shit lick. Someone that has the technology to beat the f/a-22, b-2, f/a 18, etc. will sure a hell be able to defeat our air defense. Right now no one can, nor in even the distant future can we see anyone being able too.

Desertfox · Post by **Desertfox** » 2007-09-19 06:01

WNxKenwayy wrote:If an advesary of the US manages to get air superiority, AAA wont matter a shit lick. Someone that has the technology to beat the f/a-22, b-2, f/a 18, etc. will sure a hell be able to defeat our air defense. Right now no one can, nor in even the distant future can we see anyone being able too.

Not that we know about

*dons tinfoil hat*

Liquid_Cow · Post by **Liquid_Cow** » 2007-09-20 00:47

[R-CON]Desertfox wrote:*dons tinfoil hat*

LOL, I hear the Russians are working on that!

Expendable Grunt · Post by **Expendable Grunt** » 2007-09-20 04:46

Speaking of Avengers, what ever happened to them? We had one in Operation Greasy Mullet in .5 and I loved it. Would do beautifully on Kashan since they don't show up on LGB HUD's.

LtSoucy · Post by **LtSoucy** » 2007-09-20 10:18

Ok guys theUS armed Forces have a stock pile of old guns dating back to WW1 till 2007. They have tanks dating back to WW1 till 2007. But they have alot of older units still in service with the National Guard Forces. The bradley is still in use but the Linebacker was removed several years ago due to they WERE making a new 1 but they stoped testing.