Project Reality Forums

'Sirex[SWE wrote:[MoW];1450488'] ironic slander remark.

I think you need to review the defintion of slander

slander - definition of slander by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation

'Sirex[SWE wrote:[MoW];1450460']Yes i mean in conventional war. Insurgents are not factored in when discussion modern mobile/armoured warfare in a conventional war.


First of a majority of the forces were pushing through the city, and it was a small battle. The fact why tanks are still used as fire support in the US army because they lack a proper IFV. First of, it is ridiculous that a 60-ton vehicle that can move 40km/h and still hit and destroy moving enemy tanks at a distance of 2500 meters, is delegated to be used as a simple static fire plattform, which a ww2 staurt tank could perform with equal performance, or a vietnam era M-60 Patton that still that could still take rpg hits. Also the 2nd Marine Division is not a tank division, thus the tanks here that you are referring to is infantry support tanks since they are assigned to a none tank division.

But now i am rambling, the point is that US in this case simply lacked a better combat vehicle for infantry fire support use. A russian BMP-3M can fire a 20kg HE round up to 7000 meters, which in this case as infantry support is much much much better then the 2500 meters of the M1A1 Abraham and provide armour deterrence with it's atgm range 5500 meters, or the russian BTR-90 with automatic grenaderifle weapon would have finished the mission with out binding up valuble tanks. Or the Puma or CV9040 have adequate anti-personal weapons for the illustrated case. Or as many countries do, simply have older tanks left as infantry support weapons instead of the finest tank you have in the army.

Tank doctrine is to not have tanks in cities. If you are forced to use tanks in slug matches in cities, you are doing it wrong and are wasting assets. This is why the germans developed the Stug series, infantry support combat vehicles, specialty urban warfare. Which's role was later given to grenaderifles, something american infantry lacks. A Carl Gustav m/86 per squad perform miracles, or an rpg with high-explosive anti-personnel ammunition per squad.

I like your thinking - tank doctrine only matters for conventional battles, therefore anything that doesn't fit tank doctrine doesn't count

The fact is that there is a huge role for tanks to take in modern combat that does not include armored thrusts to the enemy's weak points, especially when fighting an insurgent army.

Furthermore, PR doesn't have the scale to represent real 'doctrinal' armored combat as envisioned by the fools who spent the cold war figuring out how to re-fight WW II. A single tank company in the US consists of 62 people (sauce), almost the maximum number as PR:BF 2 can have on a single server. Even using 1/2 crew limits and cutting out the headquarters elements means that a PR server can barely support the fielding of a single US Army tank company, and it can't have more than 4 people outside of tanks on the US side. You can fight an armored battle, but without a significant amount of air, artillery or reconaissance support, and with no recovery assets or infantry support, which have proved critical to armored units in both Desert Storm and OIF.

Finally, the fact is that there is no longer a role for tanks to go free ranging towards enemy formations without combined arms cover when there are widely available tank-killing missiles, easily mounted on helicopters or carried by infantry. A single Mi-24 or AH-64 can wipe out 1/2 of a tank company in a few minutes, and without air or anti-air the tanks have nothing with which to shoot back. With the introduction of the Javelin in the UK and US armories, infantry have a near guarantee to kill tanks at 2500m, and it is unlikely that any but the best tank crew will eliminate them before they're knocked out. Honestly, I don't see how this 'doctrinal' warfare is any way realistic, except for a realism game portraying officers at US war colleges in the 80's and 90's.

'Sirex[SWE wrote:[MoW];1450460']Yes i mean in conventional war. Insurgents are not factored in when discussion modern mobile/armoured warfare in a conventional war.


First of a majority of the forces were pushing through the city, and it was a small battle. The fact why tanks are still used as fire support in the US army because they lack a proper IFV. First of, it is ridiculous that a 60-ton vehicle that can move 40km/h and still hit and destroy moving enemy tanks at a distance of 2500 meters, is delegated to be used as a simple static fire plattform, which a ww2 staurt tank could perform with equal performance, or a vietnam era M-60 Patton that still that could still take rpg hits. Also the 2nd Marine Division is not a tank division, thus the tanks here that you are referring to is infantry support tanks since they are assigned to a none tank division.

But now i am rambling, the point is that US in this case simply lacked a better combat vehicle for infantry fire support use. A russian BMP-3M can fire a 20kg HE round up to 7000 meters, which in this case as infantry support is much much much better then the 2500 meters of the M1A1 Abraham and provide armour deterrence with it's atgm range 5500 meters, or the russian BTR-90 with automatic grenaderifle weapon would have finished the mission with out binding up valuble tanks. Or the Puma or CV9040 have adequate anti-personal weapons for the illustrated case. Or as many countries do, simply have older tanks left as infantry support weapons instead of the finest tank you have in the army.

Tank doctrine is to not have tanks in cities. If you are forced to use tanks in slug matches in cities, you are doing it wrong and are wasting assets. This is why the germans developed the Stug series, infantry support combat vehicles, specialty urban warfare. Which's role was later given to grenaderifles, something american infantry lacks. A Carl Gustav m/86 per squad perform miracles, or an rpg with high-explosive anti-personnel ammunition per squad.

Yes all true because the Bradly and AAV-7 are not IFV's at all; even though one is expressly classified as such, and thats the others primary roll, other then getting marines on land.
As for your argument about the Automatic grenade launcher on a BTR, why waist all that steel that is required to build a BTR? The us army can slap a MK.19 onto just about anything they want to.
but other then that I 100% agree with you, except the whole talking out of your *** part.

hmm.....

I see we've veered of course from talking about effectiveness of armour in-game to debating the use of MBT's as fire support. Not good...

I'll pipe in but about PR tank usage.

Kashan, I was once CO on a good round, our tanks (3) were covering bunkers which meant the inf could move in and put up a FOB with a TOW, once that FOB was manned and a stable foothold was established the tanks were freed up to go on search and destroy missions, not before.

As is so often the case in PR, if the tanks are pro, and are communicating and coordinating either via CO or mumble SL, epic RL tactics are not only possible but fun. If we play with a uniquely squad attitude and gameplay, not so good with the armour searching, at high risk, a good personal KD ratio.

If every game could be played with comms and patience I'd be a happy man.

[quote=""'[R-MOD"]BloodBane611;1450528']I like your thinking - tank doctrine only matters for conventional battles, therefore anything that doesn't fit tank doctrine doesn't count

The fact is that there is a huge role for tanks to take in modern combat that does not include armored thrusts to the enemy's weak points, especially when fighting an insurgent army.
[/quote]
No. An APC with tank level armor is better in insurgency warfare because of humans are more important to distinguish civilians and none civilians and make precise shoots then a 120mm HE-AP round is. So the tanks is actually not good at insurgency warfare, you want smaller caliber like the puny bradley gun.

'[R-MOD wrote:BloodBane611;1450528']
Furthermore, PR doesn't have the scale to represent real 'doctrinal' armored combat as envisioned by the fools who spent the cold war figuring out how to re-fight WW II. A single tank company in the US consists of 62 people (sauce), almost the maximum number as PR:BF 2 can have on a single server. Even using 1/2 crew limits and cutting out the headquarters elements means that a PR server can barely support the fielding of a single US Army tank company, and it can't have more than 4 people outside of tanks on the US side. You can fight an armored battle, but without a significant amount of air, artillery or reconaissance support, and with no recovery assets or infantry support, which have proved critical to armored units in both Desert Storm and OIF.

Yes it is true that PR lacks scale in that sence. But the basic concept of using tanks to hit enemy rear areas can still be used, especially with C&C.

[R-MOD]BloodBane611 wrote: Finally, the fact is that there is no longer a role for tanks to go free ranging towards enemy formations without combined arms cover when there are widely available tank-killing missiles, easily mounted on helicopters or carried by infantry. A single Mi-24 or AH-64 can wipe out 1/2 of a tank company in a few minutes, and without air or anti-air the tanks have nothing with which to shoot back. With the introduction of the Javelin in the UK and US armories, infantry have a near guarantee to kill tanks at 2500m, and it is unlikely that any but the best tank crew will eliminate them before they're knocked out. Honestly, I don't see how this 'doctrinal' warfare is any way realistic, except for a realism game portraying officers at US war colleges in the 80's and 90's.

Wrong.
In ww2 there existed capable anti-tank guns at company and battalion infantry levels. The threat existed even then. And in ww2 tanks thrust was not made without combined arms. You misinterpreted me. I never said to not use combined-arms. Even in ww2 there were anti-tank emplacements and infantry which needed to be nutrialised and could not be engaged by armor. That is why we have tracked mobile artillery and CAS and mechanised infantry. I never stated tanks should directly engaged enemy forces, you again put worths in my mouth. I said tanks should push through weak spots, but one actually want tank to only fight against easy opposition.

Look at the Yum Kippurh war, there was the largest atgm armed infantry in the world (the attacking Egyptian infantry had a ATGM per 7 soldier), yet the isreal after redefing tactics to make use of infantry and artillery made armored pushed in to Egypt. Tanks operate with AA or air cover. Helicopter are generally cost ineffective and vulnerable to everything.

I never stated infantry should be combated in close combat with tanks. I said tanks should push through in the rear lines pushing for operations and strategic goal to win the war. Infact i am a firm believer in that in the actual breakthrough of the enemy liens you want as few of your own tanks there. And instead use artillery and infantry to sweep the opposition away and then send your tanks through.
Exactly as in breakthrough at Sedan in ww2 were Guderians 10:th armored division broke through Sedan (a city with a river), but the actual breakthrough was done by the mechanized first sh?tzenregiment and sh?tzenregiment (rifleregiment) Grossdeutshland and platoons from the 43 stormpioneer battalion and followed up by armor when it was clear.
And exactly as in the Yum Kippur war when the Israelis breakthought occured as Israeli useed paratroppers to secure bridges and destryoed enemy SAM sites and infantry atgm emplacments.

You seem to have a lacking understanding between the use of mechanised infantry corps uses and armored coprs uses. And once again i never said combined-arms is not to be used. I said that tanks should not bear the blunt of combat. That is why i find the russian T-series superior, faster and can cross rivers without support. Overall less support and maintenance is needed behind enemy lines. Also Sovjet solution for the problem you say is large amounts of artillery in breakthroughs, to wipe out defending tanks and infantry so that the atgm problem is no more.

[quote="AgentMongoose""]Yes all true because the Bradly and AAV-7 are not IFV's at all; even though one is expressly classified as such, and thats the others primary roll, other then getting marines on land.
As for your argument about the Automatic grenade launcher on a BTR, why waist all that steel that is required to build a BTR? The us army can slap a MK.19 onto just about anything they want to.
but other then that I 100% agree with you, except the whole talking out of your *** part.[/quote]
I did not take up the Bradly and the AAV-7 because i find them lacking in everything against other nations IFV and thus they are mere glorified APC then actual Infantry fighting vehicles and not worthy to be mentioned. The Bradly with its puny 25mm gun is hopelessly underequiped and outgunned, and as for actually support its infantry with High explosive power it is useless with its 25mm gun. Compared to the CV9040 which have 40mm HE grenades and can quickly switch and reload its carousel with 3 different magazines and can knock out all T-series from the side with its main gun, from a nation with 9 million inhabitants. And then we have the BMP-3M which can fire 20kg HE rounds up to 7000 meters makes the bradley a none option as an IFV in comparison. I don't understand your question. The BTR is an armored wheeled transport. The steel is there to protect the crew and combat-soldiers.

'Sirex[SWE wrote:[MoW];1450584']
I did not take up the Bradly and the AAV-7 because i find them lacking in everything against other nations IFV and thus they are mere glorified APC then actual Infantry fighting vehicles and not worthy to be mentioned. The Bradly with its puny 25mm gun is hopelessly underequiped and outgunned, and as for actually support its infantry with High explosive power it is useless with its 25mm gun. Compared to the CV9040 which have 40mm HE grenades and can quickly switch and reload its carousel with 3 different magazines and can knock out all T-series from the side with its main gun, from a nation with 9 million inhabitants. And then we have the BMP-3M which can fire 20kg HE rounds up to 7000 meters makes the bradley a none option as an IFV in comparison. I don't understand your question. The BTR is an armored wheeled transport. The steel is there to protect the crew and combat-soldiers.

Wait, the Bradley has a 25mm gun and a TOW rocket launcher, but it is underequipped?? Seriously, dude...25mm HE shells deliver quite a punch and are probably better suited than 20 kg HE rounds in terms of minimizing civilian casualties.
Above that you say that a 120mm explosive shell is too much, but you endorse the large caliber of BMP3 ( an Abrams round weights about 25kg, BMP3s 20 but Abrams is overkill?). You say that the BMP3 can fire up to 7000m, but we're talking about urban warfare, you won't encounter that range there.

EDIT:reading you other posts I can say that you are a Russian equipment fanboy and you dislike everything that comes from the west. No point in arguing with you then.

you are obliged to post sources when saying: "this will destroy this from this far." etc.

making such claims without proper sourcing won't get you far.

masterceo wrote:Wait, the Bradley has a 25mm gun and a TOW rocket launcher, but it is underequipped?? Seriously, dude...25mm HE shells deliver quite a punch and are probably better suited than 20 kg HE rounds in terms of minimizing civilian casualties.
Above that you say that a 120mm explosive shell is too much, but you endorse the large caliber of BMP3 ( an Abrams round weights about 25kg, BMP3s 20 but Abrams is overkill?). You say that the BMP3 can fire up to 7000m, but we're talking about urban warfare, you won't encounter that range there.

EDIT:reading you other posts I can say that you are a Russian equipment fanboy and you dislike everything that comes from the west. No point in arguing with you then.

Reading your post i can gather that you can't seperate differnt terms/subjects in one text. I said that: The 25mm was udnerequipped against armored targets and useless as high-explosive support. The 120mm was to much against insugecy warfare, but also stated that the bradleys 25mm would be good in against insurgencets. Read my post before answering please... Most of the urban warfare in the battle mentioned was in none densed urban warfare with large firing rangelanes. Also on the same subject i everywhere stated that i don't agree of having tanks or armor in city at all. I have never talked about the BMP3 in an insurgent warfare subject, again you show that you mixed up what i talked about.

I don't dislike everything from west. I dislike the US doctrine and thus it choice of equipment. I like most armies setup, european, but i find that Ruissia has the best doctrine and naturally i feel that the weapons and vehicelas that they field are the best balanced.

Souls Of Mischief wrote:you are obliged to post sources when saying: "this will destroy this from this far." etc.

making such claims without proper sourcing won't get you far.

Well i expect people that take part of this discussion to have a basic knowledge of military hardware. I am not a teacher. If there is something particular in mind you can say what and i will respond.

'Sirex[SWE wrote:[MoW];1450609']Reading your post i can gather that you can't seperate differnt terms/subjects in one text. I said that: The 25mm was udnerequipped against armored targets and useless as high-explosive support. The 120mm was to much against insugecy warfare, but also stated that the bradleys 25mm would be good in against insurgencets. Read my post before answering please... Most of the urban warfare in the battle mentioned was in none densed urban warfare with large firing rangelanes. Also on the same subject i everywhere stated that i don't agree of having tanks or armor in city at all. I have never talked about the BMP3 in an insurgent warfare subject, again you show that you mixed up what i talked about.

Define: useless.
You say that 25mm is useless against armored targets, but it will chew through probably every APC there is. And if it doesn't the Bradley has a TOW launcher so how can it be under equipped?
My point was: how is the Bradley lacking to the other IFVs? It can perform well in anti-ins missions and in conventional warfare, and has even proven so during the Gulf War. Up to-date the Bradley has won encounters under both conditions: be it with tanks in open field or with insurgents in dense urban enviroment, so how can one call it under equipped?

Furthermore, you classify it as an APC (which btw it was in its original design, but is not the case anymore) on the basis that it cannot provide HE support. Riiiight.

'Sirex[SWE wrote:[MoW];1450609']
I don't dislike everything from west. I dislike the US doctrine and thus it choice of equipment. I like most armies setup, european, but i find that Ruissia has the best doctrine and naturally i feel that the weapons and vehicelas that they field are the best balanced.

At least you openly admit it that you refuse to accept anything that's American.

ok, blah blah, tank doctrine...

I feel that the role of armor in PR is really challenged, (not talking about INS, there its just a bloodbath for either sides). I mean, a tank in PR has to move every 5 seconds if on a good server like TG. On other servers tanks usually get stolen and wasted, but that's another story. I mean all the TOWs, CAS and HATs really make a tank guy's life miserable. The only way to stay alive is to sit in main, but I doubt that anyone does that. If your team has good CAS and pilots then its fine, but if not, which often happens, well, you're screwed. I also think that the HMG gunner should be commander, like in ARMA2, so everyone is happy.

'Sirex[SWE wrote:[MoW];1450609']
Well i expect people that take part of this discussion to have a basic knowledge of military hardware. I am not a teacher. If there is something particular in mind you can say what and i will respond.

i doubt that knowing the maximum range of a bmp-3 he round counts as basic knowledge.

posting sources shows you are familiar with the rules and gives your post some credibility.

masterceo wrote:Define: useless.
You say that 25mm is useless against armored targets, but it will chew through probably every APC there is. And if it doesn't the Bradley has a TOW launcher so how can it be under equipped?
My point was: how is the Bradley lacking to the other IFVs? It can perform well in anti-ins missions and in conventional warfare, and has even proven so during the Gulf War. Up to-date the Bradley has won encounters under both conditions: be it with tanks in open field or with insurgents in dense urban enviroment, so how can one call it under equipped?

Furthermore, you classify it as an APC (which btw it was in its original design, but is not the case anymore) on the basis that it cannot provide HE support. Riiiight.


At least you openly admit it that you refuse to accept anything that's American.

It is underequipped because it only have a 25mm gun. It will get outdated faster then any other IFV. No, i did not classify it as an APC. I said it was a glorified APC, but still a IFV.

Souls Of Mischief wrote:i doubt that knowing the maximum range of a bmp-3 he round counts as basic knowledge.

posting sources shows you are familiar with the rules and gives your post some credibility.

In a military forum i consider knowing about the russians main modern IFV as basic fact, here is for the BMP-3M.
YouTube - BMP-3M

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:All Russian tanks and the BMP-3 have cannon fired missiles

Also in .91 our tanks match there r/l speeds as closely as we can get it and in later versions we are doing as much work as possible to make each tank unique based on there r/l data.

PR is going to specifics? My wish is finally coming true.

this is not a militray forum its a forum for a bf2 mod called project reality.

It is underequipped because it only have a 25mm gun.

bradley has a tow launcher, as well.

Souls Of Mischief wrote:this is not a militray forum its a forum for a bf2 mod called project reality.



bradley has a tow launcher, as well.

Does not matter, still underequipped in terms of a modern IFV. The BMP-3M got a 40mm AP automatic cannon, 100mm HE gun, and cannon fired atgm. With the rate that IFV and APC armor is improving you could throw out the 25mm of the bradley and set in some extra tow because the 25mm sure enoguh won't be able to destroy anything more heavly armed then a truck with it's main cannon. While on the other hand a CV9040 will for atleast 10 more years be perfectly able to shoot out T-series tank with its main cannon in the sides. Just look at new IFV, not one single county in the world buys a newly engineered CV with a mere 25mm autocannon.

Also modern Russian army tanks have Arena and Shtora. To my knowledge the US has not implemented any soft-kill system in any vehicle. So the tow is by no means a final solution, infact the T-90 fully armored repeatedly survives hits from Kornet atgm.
ARENA E - Active Protection System
Shtora - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
T-80U and T-90 Trials 20.10.99

Wh33lman wrote:again, i dont know where you play, but were talking 6 pubbers that think their tank is an unstopable war machine. in respect to Kashan, hey're always in the hills to the east of the bunkers waiting to get lazed, in the hills north of the bunkers waiting to be flanked, or running around the MEC outpost looking for each other.

i cant say anything about Silent Eagle seeing as i have only been able to play a total of 15, very laggy, minutes since .9 was released. i once saw a tank against the skyline there, where i promptly mowed down by the coax, so i assume the crews are jst as stupid on SE as Kashan.

Pretty much your best shot of winning is to avoid stumbling upon fobs, act as a tank destroyer first, then an interdiction role, disrupting supply lines and reinforcements, and if you still haven't had to revert to the tank destroyer role, start pummeling infantry mercilessly at long range with the sheer volume of HEAT or MPAT that you carry about.

If you have a BMP-3, one of those would be fantastic too, for clearing out bunkers.

Armor as a whole doesn't feel very deadly though, sensors are a bit lacking, and armor has to operate as a tank destroyer first.

TBH the tanks just need to have materials done right, however the MAs know how it's done, or Steel Beasts Pro PE, seeing as how they make a sim good enough to train real armor crewmen.

Sensors need to also be done appropriately for the tank's faction. Mosquill's FLIR done on the cheap, simply being the map statics in a sort of dark green, then just a simple, non-detailed, bright green texture for any vehicle of any sort to save on texture size. Or whatever color is needed. It could just be greyscale FLIR shaded to different colors as needed.

Also, some ability to shoot on the move is the cherry on the top. Stabilization will be an issue. If at some point that becomes possible, then maybe FCS and ballistics could be added in too.

I think that would make tanks good enough to provide a more realistic experience.

'Sirex[SWE wrote:[MoW];1450690']Does not matter

Well then,

'Sirex[SWE wrote:[MoW];1450690']The BMP-3M got a 40mm AP automatic cannon, 100mm HE gun, and cannon fired atgm.

Does not matter, still underequipped in terms of modern IFV.

'Sirex[SWE wrote:[MoW];1450690']25mm sure enoguh won't be able to destroy anything more heavly armed then a truck with it's main cannon.

Then i guess it'll use the TOW.

About the Shtora:
quoting wiki as source-lol
TOW is wire, not laser guided, so I believe that it is not effected by Shtora.

This concludes my point. We have derailed the thread too far already.

[R-DEV]Jaymz wrote:It's all down to the lads crewing it and who they're working with.

Second. If the crew forgets the "tactical" part its a waste of tickets, if the crewmembers know what they are doing it is close to cheating.

Look at Fallujah west for example. If the Crew knows what they are doing, a single crewed APC can Surpress insurgents to the point, that they can only defend an area in a 50 radius around the cache. If the armor is gone, then there is the armor ticket loss and taking down a cache with infantery only is far more costly as well.

Of course there are cases where the ais support is really really good, thats hard to defend against, especially if the team does not adapt and crews AA vehicles to escort the armor.

masterceo wrote:Well then,

Does not matter, still underequipped in terms of modern IFV.

Then i guess it'll use the TOW.

About the Shtora:
quoting wiki as source-lol
TOW is wire, not laser guided, so I believe that it is not effected by Shtora.

This concludes my point. We have derailed the thread too far already.

The Bradley could stand having a CTA40 or Mk44 autocannon replacing the M242 and the TOWs being replaced by a Spike ATGM, but I digress.

Armor in PR should be able to completely shrug off certain types of ammo. Things that would never penetrate within normal combat distances should do no damage in PR. Anything that does penetrate should do enough damage that a second shot (for tanks) would kill it off for sure.

Autocannon should be done such that 10 round salvos should either kill the crew and leave the vehicle alive, or jam the turret and leave everything else working, and another 10-20 rounds should kill it for good.