Tanks v. AFVs

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Rifleman FTW.

[The Rifleman]

Rifleman, I like your formula. Seems like a pretty logical way to determine non-MBT AFV strength. A long while back, we had a discussion about whether certain types of AFVs- SPAAA, for example- would have a greater survival rate than others. I tend to think that vehicles that had a slightly reduced exposure to the FOB would be slightly more common, c.2000, than vehicle types that saw more direct combat. So, perhaps 7.5-10% prewar strength adjustment for "non-combat" vehicles like prime movers, SPA, SPAAA, etc, as opposed to MBTs, IFVs, and APCs, would be reasonable

I thought alot about what you said. I'm thinking about other factors in this. For example, artillery in the cold war faced radio direction finders, artillery radar, and counter battery fire. Not to mention, the soviets placed field artillery concentrations as their number two target (after nuclear weapons!), so they'd get a lot of attention from their air units too.

I can't see prime movers getting hammered from direct fire at all! But, I can see them getting a lot of cross fire hits. SPA would be a target that would get a lot of attention. On the other hand, SPAAA is an interesting topic. I could see ZSU 30-4s and M988s getting into the trenches with those autocannons pressed into service. As a matter of fact, I believe that the Soviet armor forces actually have ZSUs at either battalion or regiment level and they are expected to be right up from providing cover fire. On the other hand SPAAA systems mounting SAMs would be only have aircraft as a natural enemy, and would have a much, much higher probability of survival.

I could also see logistical assets surviving better too. Spetnaz teams would get their licks in, as well as the nukes, tactical bad decisions, lightning attacks and so on, but they aren't actively engaging in combat, thus creating no signature. I would think that would lead to more survivabity.

Also, I would think items like HMMWV weapons carriers would do better. Maybe not in the scout platoons, but once they move forward and drop off their infantry, they camaflage and wait. They would try to aviod combat, more so than say a BMP or M1.

What about something like this:

AFV/IFV/APC 0.0%
Towed artillery +0.5%
SPA +1.0%
HMMWV/UAZ +3.0%
SPAAA with chaingun +3.0%
SPAAA with missles +10.0%
CSS vehicles +10.0%

[The Rifleman]

Rifleman FTW.

Hooah, its that old 90s tanker mentality coming out of me. I still have the MTOE of an M1 and M60 battalion in my head lol.

[Raellus]

AFV/IFV/APC 0.0%
Towed artillery +0.5%
SPA +1.0%
HMMWV/UAZ +3.0%
SPAAA with chaingun +3.0%
SPAAA with missles +10.0%
CSS vehicles +10.0%

Brilliant. This is one of those things where I am kicking myself that I didn't think of it.

I might put Humvees at +5.0 or a bit higher, simply because everybody in the game world seems to have one!

As a side note, it's likely that a lot of those SPSAMLs would be sans missiles c. 2000.

[The Rifleman]

Brilliant. This is one of those things where I am kicking myself that I didn't think of it.

I might put Humvees at +5.0 or a bit higher, simply because everybody in the game world seems to have one!

As a side note, it's likely that a lot of those SPSAMLs would be sans missiles c. 2000.

Thank you. Good idea with the UAZ/Humvees. Alot probably did survive. Every colonel and staff officer had one to ride in. Just so many of them started the war they'd have to be in huge numbers. I wish I could remember how many were in the old cold war tank battalions. I'd say at least 12, and that doesn't include the medics. That adds up to a lot of non-combat vehicles kicking around!

[The Rifleman]

If you want to go into this without your head exploding..... this is the MTOEs from the US army in the 90s when they were going through the transition to Force 21. I was able to decipher it because I work with the unit manning reports (UMR) and MTOEs. In the first collum on the link shows how many of each type of company are in that battalion. The second collum gives major end items each company has. If you click on the links, into goes into ALL the details. You can find out how many E-3s are in every platoon if you really want, or how many wreckers or fuelers are in each battalion.

Some advice, go to the Divisions that don't have XXI and you'll get the real cold war style units. Also, when you click on the links, there are two collums, the one on the left that says BTOE and the one on the right says OTOE. You want the OTOE. The BTOE has the right type of vehicles not MTVs but old duece trucks, and 4.2" mortars instead of 120mm. But the problem is that they deleted most of hte support vehicles. . Some of the hidden codes:

tank, 105mm = M1IP
carrier cp = M577
TRK wrecker and TRK Tank Fuel are the HEMMTs
carrier 120mm mortar = M106
carrier armored = M113

Strangely, I saw no mention of the battalion's scout platoon. They typically had 8 M113s/M901s....

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/unit/toe/index.html

[Legbreaker]

I spent a LOT of time agonising over the vehicle and heavy equipment of the 2nd Marines a few months ago. In my opinion, what I posted here: http://forum.juhlin.com/showpost.php...6&postcount=61 is a pretty good estimation for that unit bearing in mind also what their mission was (I imagine other units might have a similar make-up though).

[Olefin]

Keep in mind also that some vehicles would be more surviveable just from being easier to maintain as well. Look at how many German tanks were lost during WWII to breakdowns where the more easily maintainable American tanks didnt have those issues.

And numbers will definitely matter as to spare parts as well that are gleaned from either recovered or wrecked vehicles - i.e. there are a lot of Bradleys and M1's and Hummers running around but if you have a Stingray there werent that many built to where you can easily find parts for it.

As for missile equipped vehicles - it will probably come down to what missile they had. Some missiles were made in much higher numbers than others so you may see some vehicles still relatively well equipped while others arent.

Also you could see some of them changed into different styles of vehicles - i.e. like the Germans in WWII took older tanks and turned them into dedicated tank destroyers. Some could be as simple as removing the AA system only while others could be repurposed.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Keep in mind also that some vehicles would be more surviveable just from being easier to maintain as well. Look at how many German tanks were lost during WWII to breakdowns where the more easily maintainable American tanks didnt have those issues.

And numbers will definitely matter as to spare parts as well that are gleaned from either recovered or wrecked vehicles - i.e. there are a lot of Bradleys and M1's and Hummers running around but if you have a Stingray there werent that many built to where you can easily find parts for it.

As for missile equipped vehicles - it will probably come down to what missile they had. Some missiles were made in much higher numbers than others so you may see some vehicles still relatively well equipped while others arent.

Also you could see some of them changed into different styles of vehicles - i.e. like the Germans in WWII took older tanks and turned them into dedicated tank destroyers. Some could be as simple as removing the AA system only while others could be repurposed.

Not to pick on you but part of Stingray's "appeal" was COTS - the gun was just a standard M68, the sighting system came off of Abrams, the engine was (and is) used in a wide array of not only military but civilian vehicles.

I definitely understand what you mean though. Some vehicles are simple & robust, others are hopelessly complex...

[Olefin]

You are right there about the Stingray - should have used a different example but you can see what I meant.

As for missile equipped vehicles that could be repurposed one would be the M920 M2 Hellfire AT Vehicle. Assume that Hellfire missiles are no longer available but the older TOW's are. Then you could have a Bradley turret mounted back on it and its back to being a regular Bradley again. Or you could turn it into a gun only AA vehicle similar to the M757 Blazer but without the quad Stinger launcher if those arent available anymore.

And a triple barreled 30mm chain gun has a lot of utility against cavalry or dismounted infantrymen attacking without armor support, which is a very common situation by 2000.

[bobcat]

have you guys heard about the new stryker varient looking to replace the 113

http://defense.aol.com/2012/11/02/gds-tracked-stryker-aims-to-knock-bae-out-in-race-to-replace-m/

the fanatic is going to have a fit about that (even though it addresses his only valid complaint about the stryker)

[raketenjagdpanzer]

have you guys heard about the new stryker varient looking to replace the 113

http://defense.aol.com/2012/11/02/gds-tracked-stryker-aims-to-knock-bae-out-in-race-to-replace-m/

the fanatic is going to have a fit about that (even though it addresses his only valid complaint about the stryker)

Hm.

I wonder if they could do a tracked MGS variant. Of course, if they did, they'd probably want to beef up the armor with some laminate. Maybe go with a rear-mounted gas turbine engine for extra power at that point.

'course, with that much power you might as well switch to a 120mm gun and th-

Heyyyyy wait a second...

[The Rifleman]

have you guys heard about the new stryker varient looking to replace the 113

http://defense.aol.com/2012/11/02/gds-tracked-stryker-aims-to-knock-bae-out-in-race-to-replace-m/

the fanatic is going to have a fit about that (even though it addresses his only valid complaint about the stryker)

Thank god! Its something with armor and treads. Get rid of these dam armored cars. I hate the strikers, but this looks and sounds like a move in the right direction.

[bobcat]

Thank god! Its something with armor and treads. Get rid of these dam armored cars. I hate the strikers, but this looks and sounds like a move in the right direction.

its a stryker with treads instead of wheels it has no more armor than a normal stryker(which is still better than an m113)

[The Rifleman]

its a stryker with treads instead of wheels it has no more armor than a normal stryker(which is still better than an m113)

Exactly. Its nothing more than tracks instead of wheels, and that is a move in the right direction!