the best ways to use US Army against Russia

[Imp]

If the terrain does not suit helos dont use them, no cover no helos.
ATGMs will kill most times if hit of course T-90 has 2 anti missile defence shots which have a chance to stop them. I say again try smaller battle & learn putting ammo trucks by inf ATGM with a fast arty call time results in instant death.

[DRG]

ALL ( repeat ) ALL units in the game have their cost calculated in the same way. Units with higher capability have higher costs whether they are US or Russian or Chinese or whatever. National experience and morale ratings also affect a units cost but that only shows up in the game NOT when viewing the OOB's in MOBHack. In the game the T-90 is one of the most expensive tanks ( and some of the Russian attack helos are the most expensive attack helos as well) As Kramax says....... WHY do you expect killing them to be easy ?

the random map for USvsRussia is russian terrain often, with not many obstacles views

Then ALTER THE MAP if you don't like it. All the controls are available to do that when viewing the map.


Don

[c_of_red]

Be sneaky. Capitalist are sneaky, so their war making reflects that. Watch your ranges. Set the range so that you are not taking long range low percentage shots. If you have the CD version, use your op fire filters to set up your anti-armor units to fire only on the side or rear of those T-90's.
If you are doing PBEM, out-think your opponent. Set traps and lure him into a kill sack. If your opponent has 3 choices, make sure he chooses the one you want him to. It's called controlling the OODA loop or riding inside his cycle.
The main requirement for all of these tactics is information. You must win the data battle BEFORE you fight the kenetic battle. Buy cheap scouts and either turn off their weapons or set the range to zero. Get them to their zone and then don't move them any more often then 1 hex ever other turn. If you can see him and he can't see you, you will win. I don't care what sort of uber panzer he is driving wround in.
As the U.S. Marine Corps tells their grunts "Hunting tanks is fun and easy".

I have been on a unwanted sabbatical for the last several months. I now have a fresh install of 4.5 with 250 PBEM slots. I also have a legal requirement to keep a low profile for the rest of the year. So if you want, we can play, me as US and you as Russian. I will explain what I did AFTER I do it to you.
Then you can try to do it to me and learn the counter tactic.
Every weapon has a counter. Every counter has a weapon.
The ultimate weapon is surprise. It comes free with EVERY OOB. The counter to surprise is information. Most information is expensive, but some is free so long as you remember that no information IS information.

[Suhiir]

The US Army doesn't use the SMAW but believe me since every USMC rifle platoon has two attached if you even the least bit sneaky you can blow the hell outta an armored assault.

[Lampshade111]

Fighting Russian first-elchelon units eh?

Well first while the M1A2 Abrams some of the equipment of the T-90A (VIRSS, gun launched ATGMs, etc.) the later APFSDS ammo should have no problem dealing with the T-90A. Also the M1A2 SEP is very well protected when in a hull down position. In fact I don't think the T-90A can penetrate the front turret in WINSPMBT, so try to use this advantage when possible and get your tanks in a hull down position.

WINSPMBT's rendition of the countermeasures system the T-90A has isn't entirely realistic, but regardless VIRSS has a chance to block your Bradley's TOW-2 missiles. While it seems the Russians only have Arena on a few prototypes in real life, in the game they may end up with some tanks with CIWS systems, these have a better chance to stop your missiles. TOW-2B should be able to penetrate Russian armor from any angle as it is top-attack but with older model TOWs you may need to hit the sides. Javelin missiles used by your infantry are quite expensive, yet their effectiness seems rather inconsistent. In some battles I have crushed multiple tank platoons with them, in others half of them that hit don't penetrate.

If the AI buys a ton of older anti-aircraft guns like they sometimes do, use your artillery the best you can. Against mobile SAMs and advanced anti-aircraft systems, sending in a stealth aircraft or SEAD F-16, followed by lets say a F-15E loaded with JDAMs can be quite effective.

Helicopter effectiveness varies from map to map.

[c_of_red]

The Problem is the T-90 is WAAAAAAAY overrated (10 to 15%) in game terms.
It looks like some Russian teenager did the numbers for the T90.
An RHAE of 1100mm! Somebody has been deep into the pipe for that number.
ALL the Soviet/Russian Armor rating's need to be cut by about 1/4.

http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor...p?armor_id=161

The Russians, like the Soviets are stuck in WW2 when it comes to MBT design. What they see as 'features' are actually 'bugs'.
A short list of examples;
Low profile. Important in WW2 where you had hordes of tanks crawling across the Steppes, it is a serious drawback in a modern tank. That low profile limits the ability of the MBT to get a 'hull down' firing position. Being hull down is of greater value then a low profile.
Auto loader. A complex bit of gear that even when working is slower then a human. Plus by reducing the crew from 4 to 3, you increase the maintenance workload of the crew by 1/3rd. That lowers crew efficiency, which is already pretty low because of the low profile making the tank uncomfortable to live in. Not only does this lower crew effectiveness, it causes the crew to leave the MBT for rest breaks. 80% of tankers killed are killed outside their tank.
I could go on, but I will make one more point, then stop. American tanks have blow out panels so if the ammo explodes, the force of the explosion will be directed outside the MBT. In a soviet MBT the blow out panel is called a 'turret' by other nations.

Soviet Armor sucks. That is why it keeps getting slaughtered in REAL combat. I'm trying to find a link to the research the Israelis did on the armor they captured in their various battle. It seems quality control isn't so hot;

http://www.weaponsofwwii.com/story-o...mor-commentary

The above link is for WW2, but IT STILL APPLIES today. The Soviets/Russians haven't learned yet what makes a good MBT.
They never will because their social system won't allow them to see it.
The simple fact is that any weapon system is no better then the crew using it. In the above URL, the German officer writing the article hits the nail on the head. The T-34 was inferior to the German tanks because it has a two man turret. Period. The motorheads that don't seem to understand that tanks have crews never see the point here, Despite the Germans running up absurd kill ratios against the T-34, they keep insisting the T-34 was a superior tank. Despite mountains of evidence otherwise.

No, once you get off the paper or monitor and onto the battlefield, Soviet/Russian tanks get pounded. They will continue to get pounded until the Soviets/Russians figure it out. That won't happen until the Russian social system recognizes the value of human life and it's primacy over the state.
Here is a URL to a technical intelligence site;

http://www.wlhoward.com/id3.htm

This is from FAS, which is a socialist organization that is prolly a former Soviet front. I say that because they have been running on fumes since the Soviet collapse, which would indicate their funding was cut off.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/5T90.pdf

{Snipped}
Times have changed since the T-90/T-90S first appeared in 1993. Built upon
the poor performance of Iraqi-employed T-72s in Desert Storm, network news
footage of turretless M-84A MBTs ablaze in the former Yugoslavia, and the
misplaced bad press dumped on the T- 80BV MBT for its performance in
Chechnya, large export orders for modernized T-72s and T-80U MBTs have not
materialized."

Multi million dollar targets are not in great demand.
Most sources give a 800 RHA and a 870 RHAE (HEAT) rating for the T-90.
Numbers like that are dubious (WAG's) to say the least, but they are the best there is. In game terms that would be 80 and 87 instead of the 90 and 110 in the game.
If I can find that IDF article, I'll post it. Examination of wrecked T-62 by the IDF and T-72's by the US Army show serious quality control problems in all the soviet MBT. Bubbles and air pockets in the Armor showing that the were not manufactured corectly.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/5T90.pdf

[c_of_red]

I got side tracked. The solution is to not play the Russians. MBT has many other nations. Avoid playing the ones where the equipment values were lifted off a sales brochure.
The fact is that the T-90 is just a renamed T-72. That was done because the Russians were losing sales to the Ukraine, which was selling renamed T-72's (T-80). It worked, since the Indians bought 300 of them to counter the 320 T-80's the Pakis bought.
You can argue that the T-72, T-80 and T-90 are different tanks. I can argue that they are not. Same tanks, a few different bits bolted on them.
In the end, the only thing that really counts is how the perform on the battlefield. The T-72 didn't do any better then the T-62. The T-80 didn't do any better then the T-72. I doubt that the T-90 will do any better then the T-80. You can make excuses all you want, in the end I can point to pillars of smoke raising to the sky from burning Soviet MBT's.
Or as we say in the West, 'the proof is in the pudding'.
Russian designers have to start with a clean sheet of paper. They have to realize that a low profile means nothing in an age of radar and infrared guided weapons. That crew comfort is the single most important part of a crews ability to fight their weapon. That crew survivability is even more important then anything else.
American MBT's did "Thunder Runs" thru Baghdad because the crews knew that even if they got hit, they wouldn't get hurt. That gave them the confidence to be very aggressive, which is what you need in a tank crew.
compare that to the Soviet tankers in Chechnya(sp?) who knew they were dead as they climbed into their steel coffins. Brave men all. It's just a pity and a crime that they had to die proving their bravery.
As Patton said; 'The idea is to make the other poor SOB die for his country.'

[Wdll]

Eh, aren't all MBTs sold by USSR/Russia of lesser equipment and armour than those for the country itself? Don't think that because the MBTs of the Iraqi's sucked that much means the ones used by Russia are exactly same in qualities.
Also, you seem to be forgetting a major factor, one that you keep mentioning as being very important. The quality of the crew. How can you possibly rate as comparable the crew of an Iraqi or Egyptian or perhaps even Syrian MBT and the one of the USA or Israel?

[c_of_red]

Originally Posted by Wdll

Eh, aren't all MBTs sold by USSR/Russia of lesser equipment and armour than those for the country itself? Don't think that because the MBTs of the Iraqi's sucked that much means the ones used by Russia are exactly same in qualities.
Also, you seem to be forgetting a major factor, one that you keep mentioning as being very important. The quality of the crew. How can you possibly rate as comparable the crew of an Iraqi or Egyptian or perhaps even Syrian MBT and the one of the USA or Israel?

You are fondling my point, but you won't reach out and grasp it.
Soviet MBT's have design flaws built into them. It doesn't matter which ones they export when they ALL are poorly designed.
And yes, crews are the most important part of any weapons systems. Anyone that thinks one man is better or worse then another man because of the location of his birth is wrong. Now the various social systems that raise, train and support that tanker ARE different. That difference is important.
At this point in history, we don't have many examples of 3rd worlders fighting it out with NATO vs Soviet equipment. Jordan and Syria springs to mind. A few others. Israel isn't quite a 3rd world nation. That will change in a few decades once the ****tes kill off all the Suni's and take over in Iraq. Of course, they won't have access to American weapons by then, but I'm sure the French, Germans and British will be more then happy to sell them weapons.
Og yeah, that reminds me, Iran Iraq war from 1980 to '89, IIRC. Iran started that war with NATO weapons and would have finished with NATO weapons if they could have gotten spare parts and/or new units.
The point I was trying to make is that the Soviets are designing the perfect WW2 tank. Only WW2 is over and has been for some time. The Russians need to step back and rethink the entire concept of armor use in the 21st century. Hanging new bits off the T-72 won't make it a better MBT. Raising the profile, throwing out the autoloader, finding somw place else to store ammo will make a better MBT.
The T-62 had the fuel tank in front!!!! Diesel at that. So every time an IDF 105 round hit the glacis of a T-62, the fuel would detonate, sending the fighting compartment back into the engine compartment. Rough on the crew. It would also detonate the ammo, which would send the blow out panel (AKA turret) flying skyward. That would have been rough on the crew also, only by then they were meat paste and didn't care anymore.

My question is, "How would having a Russian crew changed that?"
Followed by "How would having that T-62 assigned to a front line GSF formation instead of being sold to the Syrians have changed that?"

[Wdll]

I am sorry but I am not sold to your idea/opinion. The lower profile = worse tank argunment just doesn't make any sense to me. The M1A1/2 have lower profile/shape than the previous american tanks. British, French, German tanks all have low profile, they might not be as low as some russian ones (I guess, I don't know), but that doesn't mean they don't see advantages to it.

I am a bit lazy right now, but I don't think I agree with most of your points about why a russian tank is not as good. Crew quality (training, society) I agree, but tank design, not so much.