New Russian BMPs

[headquarters]

My opinion -be they humble ,they are still my own

1) firing ports are only useful in a few very special situations ,if you are in a tracked vehicle you could possibly drop frags out if they are really close -other than that if anyone gets close enough to actually be engaged from the port you might as well run them over -shooting from one is worse than shooting from the hip with youir face turned away ,and sprays the whole crew compartment with brass

2) fighting from an open hatch is pretty much the only way if you are not going to deploy the squad or use onboard armament-but risky due to enemy fire and not very effective as you bounce around like a popcorn in the pan if the terrain isnt smooth tarmac.I would say you have about 1% chance of hitting something with an assault rifle from the hatch if traversing bumpy terrain in speed .From the firing port it is even less.But a 200 belt will yield at least 1 or 2 hits I guess.Rule wise I would say :" these shots are taken on a rangebanner that is 24 times the actual distance"

3)enough space inside is essential to maintain operative status over time and to be able to travel any substantial distance .Traveling prolonged in a BTR or maybe even a M113 equals fatiguepoints as I see it .

4) If you have moved your apc in to an area where you are attacked in a manner that requires you to fight back from your firing ports you have fucked up in the first place-one of the rules of armoured combat vehicle managment - be able to efficiently cover the terrain in your immideate surroundings -otherwise the APC is more of a deathtrap than a weapon with all its blind spots and limited escape options for the crew and squad.

Now as I said - all in my humble opinion based on what I know of APCs.

[jester]

And alot of your points are why I have said what they said.

A vehicle like that will only have the organic troops carried inside and would most likely out distance other troops in other vehicles. So, in the end they would have five men to guard the vehicle, or clear buildings or roads or what ever the task maybe, and if the vehicle is dealing with urban terrain 5 men is not enough.

As for the firing ports, as I said in my view they are a good means to keep infantry from getting atop the vehicle or near enough to toss handgrenades either on the vehicle or inside. Another negative aspect of working in urban areas <which the vehicle is allegedly supposed to be made for> or fog, woods and other areas with low visibility.

As for firing from the ports as a rule, for suppressive fire purposes sure it could work, since supressive fire is not intended be on target or accurate, it is just to keep the enemys heads down. And we must remember, the Russians don't have a long history of well aimed accurate fire by their troops, mostly especialy with the adoptation of he Kalashnikov design its been mostly full auto bursts, so, saturation of the target area with volumes of lead and hope the law of probability works.

And yes firing from an open turret can be decently accurate.

Which I will need to seee the pictures again, I do not recall top hatches those vehicles. Which would prove useful in hot open climates, or mine infested areas.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by jester

And we must remember, the Russians don't have a long history of well aimed accurate fire by their troops, mostly especialy with the adoptation of he Kalashnikov design its been mostly full auto bursts, so, saturation of the target area with volumes of lead and hope the law of probability works.

I might be wrong but who does outside of a small number of highly trained troops in every army? B-52's dropping bombs over the wider possible area don't make me dream of accuracy. Moreover, each time we are aiming at a target we end up blowing the entire area, often including our own forces.

A common joke has been that if you want to survive an American attack, you must remain at the target center. Don't take it bad, I'll say the same about everyone, Russian and French included. Of course, I won't be honest and I'll argue that the French are the best soldiers in the world . In fact, reality is that we don't have what it needs to shell the entire area so we are often forced to use more precise tactics, much to the dismay of our generals.

In my opinion (again only an opinion) what you describe has been the general worldwide strategy since the American Civil War.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by jester

As for the firing ports, as I said in my view they are a good means to keep infantry from getting atop the vehicle or near enough to toss handgrenades either on the vehicle or inside. Another negative aspect of working in urban areas <which the vehicle is allegedly supposed to be made for> or fog, woods and other areas with low visibility.

The best defense against infantry attacking your vehicles is your own infantry, but they can't perform that job well if they aren't dismounted. Sure, you can suppress enemy infantry from the vehicle, but you are going to have to send in your infantry on foot to clear out the enemy.

[jester]

Originally Posted by copeab

The best defense against infantry attacking your vehicles is your own infantry, but they can't perform that job well if they aren't dismounted. Sure, you can suppress enemy infantry from the vehicle, but you are going to have to send in your infantry on foot to clear out the enemy.

That is part of the point I am trying to make.

5 dismounts in the vehicle is not enough to clear or secure an area or provide protection for the vehicle.

And as for firing from inside the vehicle. if the vehicle is moving going from point A to point B, or it is moving to target X at a rapid pace so that the infantry can't walk, they need to be buttoned up. Then as they come around a corner a SAW opens up, but from the oposite side a ballsy Cpl comes out of a bush with a WP or Thermite grenade to toss on the engine grill or fuel tank?

That is the benefit I saw in the firing ports. To defend the vehicle against troops who got close and are trying to climb atop or toss on a grenade to take the vehicle out.

It is similiar to how tanks "scratch" each others backs when that happens. Another tank will machinegun a freindly tank to eliminate enemy infantry crawling on it.

But, yeah, infantry is the best defence for infantry attacking a tank. It makes the tank a true force multiplier. However, I would put my money on one or two rifle squads if they had a couple of AT-4s going up against one of those BMP-Ts with a full compliment of infantry dismounts, the exceptions of course being in wide open places which the best course would be to withdraw or attack in darkness, but in wooded, mountainous or urban forget it. Or even trenches and bunkers the tank with its compliment is at a disadvantage.

And I would even go far as to say if they went against infantry in a field with tall grass or crops in them the tank would have issues.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by jester

That is part of the point I am trying to make.

5 dismounts in the vehicle is not enough to clear or secure an area or provide protection for the vehicle.

I understood your point but recent experience by israel prove you wrong. Don't forget that this might not be intended to fight regular infantry.

Moreover, I found them interesting as, in T2K, regular infantries are increasingly rare. Espeically the one with the proper gear to stop such vehicles.

[jester]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

I understood your point but recent experience by israel prove you wrong. Don't forget that this might not be intended to fight regular infantry.

Moreover, I found them interesting as, in T2K, regular infantries are increasingly rare. Espeically the one with the proper gear to stop such vehicles.

And thus I was wondering what its purpose was for? As I said, how many vehicles would you need to get an adaquate amount of infantry to support not just the vehicle but also the position?

[Mohoender]

Ok I didn't got it about the regular infantry man. Both Falloudja and Beyruth saw more destruction than needed but that is a personnal opinion from what info I got (I might be wrong then). On both, I was not clear enough, then, I didn't mean to compare them with the amount of destruction found in WWII, but both had to face air and artillery attacks that might have helped the defenders more than the attackers (more like Monte Cassino). I could have sited Vietnam as another exemple or Okinawa (then you right again: WWII).

I agree about U.S. emphasizing on marksmanship as much as it can. But that's valid only when you control the ground and more or less the war. Nevertheless, I was talking about T2K not about IRL and in T2K, I don't expect U.S. to field only well trained troops. Casualties are too high and you need to replace the losses in a hury. I understand that many among you are playing very experienced soldiers; I usually have less experienced groups that get better from "field training" if they survive of course .

If you look closely at the Russians, the russian army never numbered much more than 400.000 troops. These are the well equipped core and they are reinforced by less trained and effective troops that would come in much larger numbers. Usually, the less trained one are entering the field first, when the ennemy get to the core, it has exhausted its best forces. Standard Russian procedure from way before the soviets.

About Marksmanship, I would think that U.S. entered the war in Iraq baddly prepared with inadequate equipments and command. Things certainly have changed today. For my campaign, I'm now over with Russia and got on U.S. and Britain. As a result, I get more info on new equipments fielded by both armies. Things have changed a lot. It just goes to an old idea: an army is always well prepared for the previous war and unprepared for the next.

About these vehicles I think they are developped for the same purpose than similar vehicles made by Israel.

[jester]

Originally Posted by jester

And alot of your points are why I have said what they said.

A vehicle like that will only have the organic troops carried inside and would most likely out distance other troops in other vehicles. So, in the end they would have five men to guard the vehicle, or clear buildings or roads or what ever the task maybe, and if the vehicle is dealing with urban terrain 5 men is not enough.

As for the firing ports, as I said in my view they are a good means to keep infantry from getting atop the vehicle or near enough to toss handgrenades either on the vehicle or inside. Another negative aspect of working in urban areas <which the vehicle is allegedly supposed to be made for> or fog, woods and other areas with low visibility.

As for firing from the ports as a rule, for suppressive fire purposes sure it could work, since supressive fire is not intended be on target or accurate, it is just to keep the enemys heads down. And we must remember, the Russians don't have a long history of well aimed accurate fire by their troops, mostly especialy with the adoptation of he Kalashnikov design its been mostly full auto bursts, so, saturation of the target area with volumes of lead and hope the law of probability works.

And yes firing from an open turret can be decently accurate.

Which I will need to seee the pictures again, I do not recall top hatches those vehicles. Which would prove useful in hot open climates, or mine infested areas.

Nope, the US and the British practice and taught their men to aim and pick their targets. The Germans in WWI commented when the Americans came on the scene, "We haven't faced such fire since the old contemptables." which was a reference to the prewar BEF who were well trained and proffessional.

US forces or at least back in the day, did not generaly set their weapons on the full auto/burst mode, leaving that role to the automatic weapon or SAW of the squad/team.

You are refering to B-52s and such, I am refering to the infantryman, you are comparing Stratiegic to Tactical to different realms.

Further, old style and most certainly RUSSIAN was the massed artillery barages where the guns would be wheel to wheel and saturate and area. American style, a few guns, a few Forward Observers and picking and firing on pinpoint targets rather than saturating the area.

It has been said, that the massive Barrage on the Somme was one of the things that detracted from its success because the torn up ground made it an obstacle and slowed down the advance.

But also, a problem with a massed shelling of an area is:

Destroys ground you need to advance over, as mentioned.
Destroys targets, if you shell the hell out of an area and the bridge is your target to cross a river, well you just destroyed your mission.

LOGISTICS: moving guns and enough shells into the area takes time and ties up roads, takes alot of transportation assets to build up the stockpiles.

Time: takes time to set up guns, and displace them.

Telegraphs to the enemy the location of the attack. A Massive build up of artillery and supplies in the area is not hard to detect, and tells the enemy something is up.

RISK: putting large amounts of artillery at risk in the advent of an enemy counter attack. It takes time to load up a gun get it on the road and they are no the fastest things on the road, so, they can also tie up your transportation network delaying a withdraw, resupply or reinforcement.

Those are just some of the problems with massed artillery off the top of my head, then we also have comand and control of such assets as well.

[Mohoender]

Jest you got confused, you quoted yourself.

Of course but I was not being serious or not entirely. Your view of the Russian, however, is pretty simple and I would say false. During WWII Russian were using more snipers than anyone else (they still do). They used 14.5 rifle as soon as 1942. At Kursk they used a multi-layer defense that destroyed massive attacks by the Germans.

They use mass fire when employing low level soldier but that is true to everyone. Things might be changing as most armies are now professional troops, highly trained. That would not remain as such in case of global conflict as you would have to rely on less trained troopers (in my opinion).

At a tactical level what you say is true for everyone, at a strategic level everyone use as much power as it can to the soldier dismay usually. You gave the Somme as an exemple but there are several more recent ones: Stalingrad, Monte Cassino, Berlin, Beyruth (1982), Falloudja...

[jester]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Jest you got confused, you quoted yourself.

Of course but I was not being serious or not entirely. Your view of the Russian, however, is pretty simple and I would say false. During WWII Russian were using more snipers than anyone else (they still do). They used 14.5 rifle as soon as 1942. At Kursk they used a multi-layer defense that destroyed massive attacks by the Germans.

They use mass fire when employing low level soldier but that is true to everyone. Things might be changing as most armies are now professional troops, highly trained. That would not remain as such in case of global conflict as you would have to rely on less trained troopers (in my opinion).

At a tactical level what you say is true for everyone, at a strategic level everyone use as much power as it can to the soldier dismay usually. You gave the Somme as an exemple but there are several more recent ones: Stalingrad, Monte Cassino, Berlin, Beyruth (1982), Falloudja...

I realised I quoted myself after I had typed everything.

Falloudja as an example of massive barage? Explain that one? Beruit? Not really, those are different as well. The only similiarity was the attempt to control the city. But brining as much force one can muster on a city, no, not really the US has not done that since WWII, the other wars we didn't use as much force as we could have/should have to flatten a city before we sent in ground troops in order to save the city or spare the civilians.

As for training troops in a hurry, again the US does place emphasis on marksmanship, we always have.

You are talking about "snipers" snipers are not regular soldiers. I am talking about the regular rifleman in the ranks.


Also, keep in mind the doctrine of the armies. In some, the rifle team is there to support the macinegun, in others the machinegun is there to support the rifleteam. Which determines the use and effectiveness of your suppressive fire.