Smoke Dischargers, And Fragmentation Grenades Fired From These

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

The days of armored charges pretty much ended with the invention of the bazooka, panzerfaust, and RPG.

Maybe. However, from reading USA articles there seems to be consensus of the need for heavy forces. Whether that force is based upon an ACR or the prominent HBCT of today, the ability to close with, exploit, and pursue enemy forces remain unchanged.

In most recent memory, the Battle of 73 Easting, is often cited to demonstrate the need for and capabilities of an armored striking force, i.e. tanks.

Although, I do not think USA planners want to face an adverse Bear, or the Hermit Kingdom without a heavy force I have been wrong too many times in my life to recount them all here.

[Suhiir]

Yeah, there are situations where armor dominates ... mostly desert warfare.
For the most part tho you need a infantry support because pure armor is dog meat in forest, marsh, mountain, jungle, or urban terrain.

[Imp]

Off topic here but didn't 73 Easting & in fact the whole war show the effectiveness of the Cavalry Formation (as in Bradley) in open terrain. Not tanks in particular
Got your eyes & close defence from the men on the ground & the right terrain for ATGMs.

Pretty sure Bradleys were responsible for a lot more kills than the Abrams in that war.

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by Imp

Off topic here but didn't 73 Easting & in fact the whole war show the effectiveness of the Cavalry Formation (as in Bradley) in open terrain. Not tanks in particular
Got your eyes & close defence from the men on the ground & the right terrain for ATGMs.

Pretty sure Bradleys were responsible for a lot more kills than the Abrams in that war.

The Bradley did quite well.
I recall reading an interview with one of the Bradley platoon commanders and a couple things of interest came up.
1) Since the Iraqi tanks had manual traverse turrets the Bradley's were able to duck and dodge.
2) Suppression by the 25mm was pretty effective, probably more then WinSPMBT allows since troop quality on the Iraqi side was pretty low (for the most part).
3) As you mentioned the terrain REALLY favored the TOW, AND the Iraqi's had no missile suppression equipment on their tanks, AND since many of the battles were in poor visibility the Iraqi's were unable to see the Bradleys to fire at them thus disrupting their aim.

As to the Bradleys getting more kills then the Abrams ... no idea.

[Airborne Rifles]

As far as the effectiveness of the Abrams with well-trained crews, look at the Battle of Medina Ridge and CPT (now COL, I think) H.R. McMaster.

[Turret]

In SPWW2, the stugs, and German SPG's seem to fire NBW forward, and no other direction. Likewise, why can't M10 crews throw out grenades out of the turret?

The angles covered would be 360 degrees.

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by Turret

In SPWW2, the stugs, and German SPG's seem to fire NBW forward, and no other direction. Likewise, why can't M10 crews throw out grenades out of the turret?

The angles covered would be 360 degrees.

As to the SPWW2 SPG's (even tho this isn't the SPWW2 forum) that's a game engine limitation thing.
Certain weapon slots have a built-in limited firing arc that's part of the core code and short of a total rewrite can't be changed.

As to tossing grenades out of turrets, usually it's a matter of lack of weapon slots, again the limit if 4, and in the rest of the cases why increase the cost of the unit by adding a weapon that might come into play one battle in a hundred?