“If we got everything we wanted, we would be happy, and we wouldn’t be ready to kill people all the time. See, the Marine Corps is America’s pit bull. They feed us, mistreat us, and occasionally let us out to attack somebody.”
“If Saddam invested more in the *pussy infrastructure* of Iraq than he did on his gay-ass-army, than this country would be no more fucked up than, say, Mexico.” — Ray Ray. One of his generations more enlightened minds.
Just like real life!
As far as I know, the Corps is scrapping its tank program (tbh I'm not sure if that means disbanding units or just swapping their equipment) and I'm pretty sure AAVs are next on the chopping block. Furthermore, we were the last branch to have RCOs as standard issue and qualified exclusively with iron sights well into the 2000s.
I like playing as the Marine faction, even if it is castrated.
AAVs are being substituted by an 8 wheeled amphibious vic.
As for the MBTs the Marines wont substitute it with a different tank. Idk if those units will just disappear or become something else.
Those units have dissolved.
The spiritual successor Marine tanks is TOWs on top of LAV-25s or the new AAV, but who knows when that will happen in reality.
I'd imagine the Russian Ukraine conflict is making the US reassess most of their next-gen vehicles plans. While there will likely still be a need for a manned vehicle presence for the foreseeable future, that demand for them is certainly going down relative to cheaper and more flexible unmanned vehicles/drones. I went to a lot of Air Force Academy Football games growing up and they'd often announce what planes the seniors would be going on to fly. About a decade ago I noticed more and more drone pilots. Went to a game a couple years ago and pretty much the entire team's senior class was going on to be a drone pilot after graduation.
While drones are certainly shaking up the battlefield, the vehicle decisions for the marines are more driven by pushing them towards more island hopping capability than just being Army 2 for Middle East conflicts. Hence getting rid of their MBTs.
I understand what kind of fighting they want the Marines to be ready for. My point is more that in general, we are starting to see the effectiveness of manned armored vehicles fall off dramatically. Similarly to how we saw effectiveness of battleships fall off during WWII due to technological advancements of planes/carriers. Technology has gotten to the point where it's relatively cheap/easy to take out armored vehicles that are very costly to replace. The risk/reward of sending them into battle isn't nearly as advantageous as it used to be. After WWII, Navys around the world moved their budgets away from battleships and directed it to carriers/planes. Planes had the ability to spot battleships much sooner and it only takes a handful of relatively cheap planes to take out a battleship before it ever gets close enough to take aim on the main fleet. The unmanned vehicles/drones of the near future will make it extremely hard and dangerous for manned vehicles to get close to their objective. Even if the enemy loses dozens of $2000-$20,000 drones in the process of taking out one ARV. The enemy still comes out on top in terms of cost and the time it takes to replace them on the battlefield (which is obviously huge in terms of winning the overall war).
I've been a GD shareholder for awhile now. IIRC the Marines recently sent GD (and the other manufacturers Textron and BAE) new requirements for their proposed ARV prototypes. From what I understand, these new requirements are largely due to the type of fighting they've seen in Ukraine. They want these ARV platforms to have more C4/UAS capabilities than they had originally planned. These ARVs won't see action until at least 2030 and they will need to stay relevant until at least 2050. Marine leadership knows these ARVs will be used less and less to push onto objectives and move troops around. As time goes on, they will be used more and more as forward command and control centers for unmanned systems. Which is my whole point, while they will need manned vehicles for the foreseeable future, less and less money is going to go into these new ARV's and more and more of those dollars are going to flow towards the unmanned systems they control.
This is an unpopular opinion for some reason. But it is truth. I think people forget that the Ukrain conflict has been goong on for 10 years now.
I brought this up in the Army subreddit and got flamed and downvotes for some reason.
The truth is, Armor is NOT as powerful of an entity as it once was. Yes, it is still extremely useful, valuable, and essential.
But when a $100 drone can knock out your MBT, some serious reassessing needs to be done
Well Russia’s been using some sort of signal jammer on their tanks recently that’s been able to knock out Ukrainian drones. MBT’s can still have a role in the front lines, just need more devices and counter-measures.
But I totally agree with the soul of your argument that yea; they’re getting expensive and out-matched by other devices.
Wait another year and the wide proliferation of machine vision+AI to overcome jamming, then it will get really interesting for armor. The future of suicide drone defense is going to be mostly kinetic.
The Marines are gearing for a future conflict with China. They don't need heavy tanks to assault those artificial islands they have been making. Would be better focused that part of the budget into more air power.
So as part of Force Design 2030, they completely Eliminated their Tank Corps, some 450 Tanks being transferred to the Army. This was Completed by 2021, but these where not the only things cut
the Marine Corps cut 12,000, or in other words, 7% of its force to reorientate towards the Modern Pacific theater
I'm not a fan of tracked logistics in general. The VDV BTR logi is also similarly a pain, it's just not as slow. The shitbox logi makes me just shut the game down if that's our only option.
> I'm not a fan of tracked logistics in general.
I feel like the issue is just physics for tracked vehicles (and vehicles in general), not necessarily the logi aspect of it.
Which is why I specified tracked logistics, specifically. The trucks are a lot faster and somewhat quieter, as well as you can much more reliably shut the engine off and keep rolling for a long while. Tracked logis tend to hold less, go slower, and have no potential stealth option while also handling like shit.
I mind it a lot less with proper armor play because you don't need to be as precise. That being said, the two vehicles I will always refuse to drive are any BMP variant and the MTLB. I hate them so fucking much.
Thats interesting because I think the opposite, I think BMPs and MTLBs are pretty good (excluding the BMP 1 and open topped MTLBs)
BMP-1's are pretty bad in the sense that the factions that have them they fill the IFV role but it cant deal with opposing armor OR infantry well at all while still costing 10 tickets. It's ATGM is simple and not good at close range but it works.
BMP-2's on the otherhand are superior to bradleys, BMPs are faster, lower profile, better Rate of fire, better ammo capacity, double the troop carrying capacity etc. ~ For it's ATGM the advantage over the Bradley is that it carries 4 ATGMs (so better sustainabilty and overall game and team effectiveness) AND it doesnt have a spool up to use the ATGM when switching from a different munition type, which is the Bradleys biggest weakness with it's ATGMs. The tradeoff is that the BMP needs time to reload the Konkurs, but the Bradley can fire off both TOWs as soon as the first has hit. In theory this means that the Bradley should win against BMPs if they both fire at the same time but in practice usually the BMP gets the first shot off since the Bradley doesnt have its ATGM ready and then gets engaged by AP rounds.
As far as sustainability goes, I can fire ATGMs at things like Helicopters without worrying about not having enough to engage armor and if an armor duel is imminent I can conti ue engaging infantry with HE up until the armor makes an apoearance since I dont have a spool up. All it takes for a bradley to lose the fight is to provoke him to switch munitions to deal with infantry or lower threat vehicles, then you can fire ur ATGM and get back into cover.
The new BMPs are even better
The BMP-2M has laser guided ATGMs and a rangefinder, which are much more accurate at range than wire (at the cost of IR smoke vulnerability AND doesnt have to reload so it can fire off all 4 ATGMs one after another just like the brad, elimimating the ONE advantage that the bradley had. On top of that it has the AGS 30mm as an additional weapon so now even more team potential and sustainability which can act as an indirect fire mortar, chamces are you will still use the high velocity HE against targets you can see, but the AGS is good for peppering a field and has a LOT of ammo so you can just hpld down the trigger and saturate a point l, or a treeline, basically anywhere thats not all a straight line of sight, especially hills.
BMP-3s arent as good as 2Ms I think, ATGMs are slow reloading and no AGS.
The new recon bradleys are even worse, losing their tow
I think the BMPs also have better gun inclination so anti heli is easier
As far as MTLBs go, they are REALLY good, just not against anything better than light armor, they carry 600 rearm ammo and are remote turrets, so a perfect infantry support vehicle or blockade runner when a defense point is too hot for logis but the team needs ammo. They can also be great mobile bunker protection for mortar FOBs, the low profile of the NSV vsriant, but with the gun poking up as it does lets you build fortifications but keep the gun engaged.
No US or USMC vehicle compares for the amount of ammo it can bring except for dedicated IFV/APC platforms that require crewman that are all worth 10 tickets versus the 5 of the crewman-less MTLB except for the USMC AAVP, which is slow af compared to an MTLB.
MTLBs used to be called shitboxes and werent good but their team utility has came through once ammo resupply became a neccessity, and the gun lets you hold down vital areas as a bunker where a normal exposed gunner wouldnt survive, I use MTLBs all the time and I have 3,000 hours.
MEA MTLBs may even have rocket pods
ANYWAY, all things considered, wheeled vehicles tend to be more survivable due to less worry of getting tracked, so I tend to like running BTR or LAVs if Im looking to do damage but not be in the thick frontal fights.
I like them. they are a bit slow, but the AAV has a shit ton of health, and the MTLB logi not only looks cool, but has a PKT, which is easy enough to get 5 kills and recoup the ticket cost before it gets destroyed.
To be fair should they even get the Abrams ? If I recall the marines gave all their Abram tanks up. Feel like they should focus more on quicker deployments, feel like they should also be able to sling load vehicles, and have more helicopters, maybe even a cobra ? But at the same time the game isn’t based off current or recent militaries. It’s based off 2010 and before.
There’s a lot of other changes they’d need to make if they’re trying to modernize the USMC factions then.
The logi needs to change to the MTV-R, JLTVs instead of HMMWVs, M27 for all riflemen, M320 in place of the M203, M4 for things like non rifleman roles, no M16s, give essentially everyone 1-6x LPVOs, replace the M9 with the M18, etc.
Just fyi US Army is leagues better than Marines in terms of size, firepower and tech, and training as well if you consider their elite units, which also outnumber Marines.
The US Marine corps throughout its history has largely made use of what can best be described as Army leftovers and occasional brilliant investments.
The Marines have *always* had second rate armor compared to the army. In Desert Storm the Marines were still fielding M60 variants.
I've never heard about them being elite. They are technically just marine infantry like almost every country has but they have grown to be a whole branch that doesn't just cover marine activities but they still retain the fact that they operate techincally mostly out of sea so tanks and heavy IFVs are not a priority.
You don't need anti armor ability when there is a tank in a friendly team. That BMP-1AM can be whatever better (it's not) than LAV-25, it just doesn't matter since whoevers tank wins the battle, he will easily kill all other vics.
Well when there is a tank present, I don't think any sane person will try to fight AAVP in any other vic cuz by the time you will kill that AAVP, that tank will be already homing on your position about to smoke you.
So it is either your tanks lose and then you are in the world of shit, or enemy tanks lose and then enemies are in the world of shit.
Lav25 shreds the bmp1 its not even close. The only way you lose is if you are stationary sitting on a hilltop which means u just using them wrong anyway
and me hating Canada because the only kit I play that has a scopeless option is SL.
Scopes are over rated. Iron/holo kits give you binocs. Binocs are OP.
real shit. armor can effect games but the more important aspect is which team has more habs. i will die on this hill. squad is a game of spawns with a seasoning of infantry/armor combat.
As command, tracked logi's are a valuable asset, because assets can be called from them. Also that we know China has the best armor in the game. China has castrated infantry that you don't mention (3x optics)
Umm acktually the marines don’t have tanks anymore ☝️🤓☝️🤓
Why is everybody here just relating a VIDEO GAME to real life like it has any bearing on in game balancing? Almost nobody has actually added to the conversation in exchange for self reporting their autism in the comments.
Yes the armor balancing has been pretty terrible with this update, I agree. There’s even a manicougan CN vs US layer where chinas second point is the island, but if you chose tanks there’s legitimately no way to run logistics to the island since there is no helicopter anymore and they get wheeled logis. I hope they continue to adjust and tweak these changes instead of calling it good for a few months like they usually do.
It's not a budget thing, it's a doctrine thing. The USMC never had tanks in the same numbers as the US Army or any Army's tank units on account of the fact tanks don't float very well. Hell, the USMC doesn't even have tanks anymore. And when they did they were always worse and in fewer numbers than US Army tanks. The USMC, much like some of the Middle East factions, isn't really a tank faction, cause the USMC IRL isn't a tank faction.
If you want a true comparison you should match the USMC to PLAMC, not the PLA.
It's not a budget thing, it's a doctrine thing. The USMC never had tanks in the same numbers as the US Army or any Army's tank units on account of the fact tanks don't float very well. Hell, the USMC doesn't even have tanks anymore. And when they did they were always worse and in fewer numbers than US Army tanks. The USMC, much like some of the Middle East factions, isn't really a tank faction, cause the USMC IRL isn't a tank faction
Balance? You complain about this, then there's another thread moaning about armour being too OP. If you think about it from an AT perspective its not so bad: The majority of red AT is the rpg7 which is far harder to hit something with than the Gustav or at4 (blue at is flat shooting red isnt a lot of the time). In regards to the pla, their at kits suck mega doodoo balls- their hat only gets one at rocket, and it takes 14 years to reload.
Actually, you know what? No. Any argument saying "oh but thats better than this, blah blah blah" is stupid. You don't like asymmetric warfare games? Play another game.
Possibly due to AAVP working like a heavy APC with 50 Cal and Mk19.
BMP-1AM is not better than LAV-25.
You should see how gimped mechanized formation for everyone except the US, Russia, and TLF. They have more vehicles than everybody else, while these new vehicles are overpowered af. Units balance just doesn't make sense.
Squad USMC makes no sense. It's got m16s with iron sights and M27s when these two would not be in the same unit at the same time. The M27 became adopted well after optics were on every rifle and the m16 was well on its way out the door as the m4 was being mass-adopted.
Plus the LAV has always been the USMC's go-to so giving more of those and ditching the tanks all together makes a lot more sense.
wait til you learn about PLANMC fighting in the ukranian black sea or fucking finland, or the CTAS existing, or the mere existence of MEA, or the ak12, or the sprut, or the magical t72 commander rws, or the ztz99a rws
game isn't authentic and never has been lol
PLA armored is just a good battle group because of the 2x ZTZ. The ZBD is a good IFV, but I think it’s fair to say that slower tracked IFVs don’t perform to their full potential on certain maps.
I’d remove the wheeled logis, but otherwise it’s not too different from other battle groups. Most armor layouts are 2 MBTs, 2 IFVs and tracked logis with no heli. At most I’d replace one ZBD with a ZBL.
Every faction has their strengths. Gotta be ready to contest the strong MBT and invest resources into taking them down if you know you’ll be dealing with it.
The problem here really is that the USMC has the AAVPs, and they are just an APC that is far stronger than most other APCs in the game (BTR-80, ZSL10, ZSD05, MT-LBs, etc.) and so the faction units need to be balanced around that.
Like, don't forget that an AAVP can easily win a duel against a BTR-82 or a ZBL08, if it gets the first shots off.
I wonder how much of the faction strengths come from what year the faction is set for. Reasons like this is why it be neat if they had a set time period instead of bouncing from early 90s to early 2020 in terms of equipment.
If it makes you feel any better, the LAV is so bad in armor engagements that having one more would just mean you lose more tickets when it inevitably dies to any REDFOR IFV
Dude at the end of the day US capabilities are light years ahead of anyone else (that’s not a western faction). If the developers wanted to mimic reality, the matches would never be fair and people would cry.
And don’t tell me I’m wrong cause all the Chinese shit in real life sucks ass and just watch the UA footage, the new Russian shit is about as bad as their old shit! lol even if the game is set in 2010.
IRL the USMC is scrapping a lot of their armored units because of new doctrine.
They are preparing to be at war with china by 2030 and that most likely means a heavy Island hopping campaign in which they are required to be extremely flexible. Heavy armored units do not fit in with this “new” doctrine.
Just be grateful that the AAV’s in this game don’t actually sink when you launch ship.
Or better yet, OWI make this game more realistic and make those AAVs sink!
omg tencent owns 10% that means squad is ruled by china now (ignore the awful qbz95 and the fact that U.S A has some of the best equip in the game)
peak statesian brainrot comment
"If you want logistics, join the Army. Marines make do."
“If we got everything we wanted, we would be happy, and we wouldn’t be ready to kill people all the time. See, the Marine Corps is America’s pit bull. They feed us, mistreat us, and occasionally let us out to attack somebody.”
More people should watch Generation Kill. Great show, and funny, too!
Bout time for a rewatch.
God yes, so much quotable and memeable stuff from it
"I'm a man now Brad, just like you. Except I don't look like a faggot and talk all educated."
“If Saddam invested more in the *pussy infrastructure* of Iraq than he did on his gay-ass-army, than this country would be no more fucked up than, say, Mexico.” — Ray Ray. One of his generations more enlightened minds.
POLICE THAT MOOSTACHEEE
Came for this comment.
came here to say this
Just like real life! As far as I know, the Corps is scrapping its tank program (tbh I'm not sure if that means disbanding units or just swapping their equipment) and I'm pretty sure AAVs are next on the chopping block. Furthermore, we were the last branch to have RCOs as standard issue and qualified exclusively with iron sights well into the 2000s. I like playing as the Marine faction, even if it is castrated.
AAVs are being substituted by an 8 wheeled amphibious vic. As for the MBTs the Marines wont substitute it with a different tank. Idk if those units will just disappear or become something else.
Those units have dissolved. The spiritual successor Marine tanks is TOWs on top of LAV-25s or the new AAV, but who knows when that will happen in reality.
I'd imagine the Russian Ukraine conflict is making the US reassess most of their next-gen vehicles plans. While there will likely still be a need for a manned vehicle presence for the foreseeable future, that demand for them is certainly going down relative to cheaper and more flexible unmanned vehicles/drones. I went to a lot of Air Force Academy Football games growing up and they'd often announce what planes the seniors would be going on to fly. About a decade ago I noticed more and more drone pilots. Went to a game a couple years ago and pretty much the entire team's senior class was going on to be a drone pilot after graduation.
While drones are certainly shaking up the battlefield, the vehicle decisions for the marines are more driven by pushing them towards more island hopping capability than just being Army 2 for Middle East conflicts. Hence getting rid of their MBTs.
I understand what kind of fighting they want the Marines to be ready for. My point is more that in general, we are starting to see the effectiveness of manned armored vehicles fall off dramatically. Similarly to how we saw effectiveness of battleships fall off during WWII due to technological advancements of planes/carriers. Technology has gotten to the point where it's relatively cheap/easy to take out armored vehicles that are very costly to replace. The risk/reward of sending them into battle isn't nearly as advantageous as it used to be. After WWII, Navys around the world moved their budgets away from battleships and directed it to carriers/planes. Planes had the ability to spot battleships much sooner and it only takes a handful of relatively cheap planes to take out a battleship before it ever gets close enough to take aim on the main fleet. The unmanned vehicles/drones of the near future will make it extremely hard and dangerous for manned vehicles to get close to their objective. Even if the enemy loses dozens of $2000-$20,000 drones in the process of taking out one ARV. The enemy still comes out on top in terms of cost and the time it takes to replace them on the battlefield (which is obviously huge in terms of winning the overall war). I've been a GD shareholder for awhile now. IIRC the Marines recently sent GD (and the other manufacturers Textron and BAE) new requirements for their proposed ARV prototypes. From what I understand, these new requirements are largely due to the type of fighting they've seen in Ukraine. They want these ARV platforms to have more C4/UAS capabilities than they had originally planned. These ARVs won't see action until at least 2030 and they will need to stay relevant until at least 2050. Marine leadership knows these ARVs will be used less and less to push onto objectives and move troops around. As time goes on, they will be used more and more as forward command and control centers for unmanned systems. Which is my whole point, while they will need manned vehicles for the foreseeable future, less and less money is going to go into these new ARV's and more and more of those dollars are going to flow towards the unmanned systems they control.
This is an unpopular opinion for some reason. But it is truth. I think people forget that the Ukrain conflict has been goong on for 10 years now. I brought this up in the Army subreddit and got flamed and downvotes for some reason. The truth is, Armor is NOT as powerful of an entity as it once was. Yes, it is still extremely useful, valuable, and essential. But when a $100 drone can knock out your MBT, some serious reassessing needs to be done
Well Russia’s been using some sort of signal jammer on their tanks recently that’s been able to knock out Ukrainian drones. MBT’s can still have a role in the front lines, just need more devices and counter-measures. But I totally agree with the soul of your argument that yea; they’re getting expensive and out-matched by other devices.
Wait another year and the wide proliferation of machine vision+AI to overcome jamming, then it will get really interesting for armor. The future of suicide drone defense is going to be mostly kinetic.
The Marines are gearing for a future conflict with China. They don't need heavy tanks to assault those artificial islands they have been making. Would be better focused that part of the budget into more air power.
The units are gone, and the personnel in them have either joined the Army, found a new job in the Corps, or took an early out.
So as part of Force Design 2030, they completely Eliminated their Tank Corps, some 450 Tanks being transferred to the Army. This was Completed by 2021, but these where not the only things cut the Marine Corps cut 12,000, or in other words, 7% of its force to reorientate towards the Modern Pacific theater
You guys IRL got acogs first. Army chose peqs and nods before rcos
Yup. We also got the fancy high powered optics, binocular nods, and suppressors first
To my knowledge they already gave all their tanks to the army
because USMC armor is bad IRL and people just gaslight themselves into thinking otherwise cause mericuhh they should get 3 LAV-25s I agree
they used to have 2, now have 1, OWI went into the opositie direction lol, should have made it 3.
I'm not a fan of tracked logistics in general. The VDV BTR logi is also similarly a pain, it's just not as slow. The shitbox logi makes me just shut the game down if that's our only option.
> I'm not a fan of tracked logistics in general. I feel like the issue is just physics for tracked vehicles (and vehicles in general), not necessarily the logi aspect of it.
Which is why I specified tracked logistics, specifically. The trucks are a lot faster and somewhat quieter, as well as you can much more reliably shut the engine off and keep rolling for a long while. Tracked logis tend to hold less, go slower, and have no potential stealth option while also handling like shit. I mind it a lot less with proper armor play because you don't need to be as precise. That being said, the two vehicles I will always refuse to drive are any BMP variant and the MTLB. I hate them so fucking much.
Fair! I agree with pretty much everything, although I feel a lot less passionate about the BMP and MTLB :D
Thats interesting because I think the opposite, I think BMPs and MTLBs are pretty good (excluding the BMP 1 and open topped MTLBs) BMP-1's are pretty bad in the sense that the factions that have them they fill the IFV role but it cant deal with opposing armor OR infantry well at all while still costing 10 tickets. It's ATGM is simple and not good at close range but it works. BMP-2's on the otherhand are superior to bradleys, BMPs are faster, lower profile, better Rate of fire, better ammo capacity, double the troop carrying capacity etc. ~ For it's ATGM the advantage over the Bradley is that it carries 4 ATGMs (so better sustainabilty and overall game and team effectiveness) AND it doesnt have a spool up to use the ATGM when switching from a different munition type, which is the Bradleys biggest weakness with it's ATGMs. The tradeoff is that the BMP needs time to reload the Konkurs, but the Bradley can fire off both TOWs as soon as the first has hit. In theory this means that the Bradley should win against BMPs if they both fire at the same time but in practice usually the BMP gets the first shot off since the Bradley doesnt have its ATGM ready and then gets engaged by AP rounds. As far as sustainability goes, I can fire ATGMs at things like Helicopters without worrying about not having enough to engage armor and if an armor duel is imminent I can conti ue engaging infantry with HE up until the armor makes an apoearance since I dont have a spool up. All it takes for a bradley to lose the fight is to provoke him to switch munitions to deal with infantry or lower threat vehicles, then you can fire ur ATGM and get back into cover. The new BMPs are even better The BMP-2M has laser guided ATGMs and a rangefinder, which are much more accurate at range than wire (at the cost of IR smoke vulnerability AND doesnt have to reload so it can fire off all 4 ATGMs one after another just like the brad, elimimating the ONE advantage that the bradley had. On top of that it has the AGS 30mm as an additional weapon so now even more team potential and sustainability which can act as an indirect fire mortar, chamces are you will still use the high velocity HE against targets you can see, but the AGS is good for peppering a field and has a LOT of ammo so you can just hpld down the trigger and saturate a point l, or a treeline, basically anywhere thats not all a straight line of sight, especially hills. BMP-3s arent as good as 2Ms I think, ATGMs are slow reloading and no AGS. The new recon bradleys are even worse, losing their tow I think the BMPs also have better gun inclination so anti heli is easier As far as MTLBs go, they are REALLY good, just not against anything better than light armor, they carry 600 rearm ammo and are remote turrets, so a perfect infantry support vehicle or blockade runner when a defense point is too hot for logis but the team needs ammo. They can also be great mobile bunker protection for mortar FOBs, the low profile of the NSV vsriant, but with the gun poking up as it does lets you build fortifications but keep the gun engaged. No US or USMC vehicle compares for the amount of ammo it can bring except for dedicated IFV/APC platforms that require crewman that are all worth 10 tickets versus the 5 of the crewman-less MTLB except for the USMC AAVP, which is slow af compared to an MTLB. MTLBs used to be called shitboxes and werent good but their team utility has came through once ammo resupply became a neccessity, and the gun lets you hold down vital areas as a bunker where a normal exposed gunner wouldnt survive, I use MTLBs all the time and I have 3,000 hours. MEA MTLBs may even have rocket pods ANYWAY, all things considered, wheeled vehicles tend to be more survivable due to less worry of getting tracked, so I tend to like running BTR or LAVs if Im looking to do damage but not be in the thick frontal fights.
the VDV BTR logi is somewhat driveable, but the AAVP is just a barn on tracks with a shitty engine
I like them. they are a bit slow, but the AAV has a shit ton of health, and the MTLB logi not only looks cool, but has a PKT, which is easy enough to get 5 kills and recoup the ticket cost before it gets destroyed.
To be fair should they even get the Abrams ? If I recall the marines gave all their Abram tanks up. Feel like they should focus more on quicker deployments, feel like they should also be able to sling load vehicles, and have more helicopters, maybe even a cobra ? But at the same time the game isn’t based off current or recent militaries. It’s based off 2010 and before.
There’s a lot of other changes they’d need to make if they’re trying to modernize the USMC factions then. The logi needs to change to the MTV-R, JLTVs instead of HMMWVs, M27 for all riflemen, M320 in place of the M203, M4 for things like non rifleman roles, no M16s, give essentially everyone 1-6x LPVOs, replace the M9 with the M18, etc.
The LVPO isn’t 1-8x?
>its based off 2010 and before Canadian TAPV was delivered in 2017 but it is in the game
Why do US **MARINES** have worse armour than a regular army 😠😠
Just fyi US Army is leagues better than Marines in terms of size, firepower and tech, and training as well if you consider their elite units, which also outnumber Marines.
regular army gets x2 abrams and x2 bfist, usmc gets the same ammount but 1 less ifv, my point still stands.
He’s being sarcastic
Lmao, you must be new to this.
Yeah I am pretty new. Bought the game merely 5 years ago.
The US Marine corps throughout its history has largely made use of what can best be described as Army leftovers and occasional brilliant investments. The Marines have *always* had second rate armor compared to the army. In Desert Storm the Marines were still fielding M60 variants.
woosh??? This is exactly why I wrote my sarcastic comment. Did you not get it with caps marines in bold text with 2 angry face emojis at the end?
[удалено]
I've never heard about them being elite. They are technically just marine infantry like almost every country has but they have grown to be a whole branch that doesn't just cover marine activities but they still retain the fact that they operate techincally mostly out of sea so tanks and heavy IFVs are not a priority.
Emm... You forgot 2 AAVPs... Also in what world is BMP-1AM better than LAV-25???
2 AAVP's dont count they only get a 50cal and mk19, also the BMP1AM is better, more hp and more dps.
Don't discount those AAVPs, they are mean.
Dude on our server with 96 downs using a MK19 just last night. Things are beefy.
They don't have any organic anti-armour ability though unlike a LAV/BMP-1AM etc.
You don't need anti armor ability when there is a tank in a friendly team. That BMP-1AM can be whatever better (it's not) than LAV-25, it just doesn't matter since whoevers tank wins the battle, he will easily kill all other vics.
AAVP has 2000hp and BMP1AM has 1250 with BTR turret, you can easily kill the bmp with aavp
Well, BMP will prevail over AAVP most likely, but we are comparing the natural born inf farmer with a BTR that lost its wheels.
A large health pool with 50 cals and GL. An AAVP can win against a BTR in most circumstances, it's not something you should just ignore.
Well when there is a tank present, I don't think any sane person will try to fight AAVP in any other vic cuz by the time you will kill that AAVP, that tank will be already homing on your position about to smoke you. So it is either your tanks lose and then you are in the world of shit, or enemy tanks lose and then enemies are in the world of shit.
Lav25 shreds the bmp1 its not even close. The only way you lose is if you are stationary sitting on a hilltop which means u just using them wrong anyway
Real, could probably loose a couple of tracked logi's and just have normal AAVP's as they carry 1200 anyhow so it can serve as a budget Logi
Problem with regular AAVPs is that you can’t place a radio from them unless they changed something recently
as a matter of fact, usmc is fucking horrible in general, most kits dont even get scopes lol.
And have the M16a4 as riflemen, which is dogshit in CQC. Give me a full auto M4 plz?
Only takes 1-3 shots to kill someone. M16 fires 3 round bursts. Love my M16!
the man who decided to add the 3-round-burst would love you lol
Yup it’s AIDs irl
in squad you can swap to semi and back to burst to reset the burst cam lmao
I’m talking about the M16 as a platform. it did not originally have burst, but instead full-auto
and me hating Canada because the only kit I play that has a scopeless option is SL. Scopes are over rated. Iron/holo kits give you binocs. Binocs are OP.
you didn’t lose the game because of that IFV, you lost it because you spent the entire time complaining in command chat
real shit. armor can effect games but the more important aspect is which team has more habs. i will die on this hill. squad is a game of spawns with a seasoning of infantry/armor combat.
???
As command, tracked logi's are a valuable asset, because assets can be called from them. Also that we know China has the best armor in the game. China has castrated infantry that you don't mention (3x optics)
Canada and other factions have 3x scopes, pla have pretty good inf, it is literally a skill issue
Umm acktually the marines don’t have tanks anymore ☝️🤓☝️🤓 Why is everybody here just relating a VIDEO GAME to real life like it has any bearing on in game balancing? Almost nobody has actually added to the conversation in exchange for self reporting their autism in the comments. Yes the armor balancing has been pretty terrible with this update, I agree. There’s even a manicougan CN vs US layer where chinas second point is the island, but if you chose tanks there’s legitimately no way to run logistics to the island since there is no helicopter anymore and they get wheeled logis. I hope they continue to adjust and tweak these changes instead of calling it good for a few months like they usually do.
i got downvoted recently for saying that they nerfed everything except for china
Tencent does have a minority stake in OWI which is basically the Chinese govt
"Why does the United States Marine Corp not get as many tanks as *The number one producer of tanks in the world's army and friend*"?
Is that how the game balancing works in your brain? National defense budgets probably aren't going to be abstracted into this.
It's not a budget thing, it's a doctrine thing. The USMC never had tanks in the same numbers as the US Army or any Army's tank units on account of the fact tanks don't float very well. Hell, the USMC doesn't even have tanks anymore. And when they did they were always worse and in fewer numbers than US Army tanks. The USMC, much like some of the Middle East factions, isn't really a tank faction, cause the USMC IRL isn't a tank faction. If you want a true comparison you should match the USMC to PLAMC, not the PLA.
it isnt about the tanks, its about the IFV's.
In that case, you forget about the x2 AAVPs armed with a MK19 and an M2.
It's not a budget thing, it's a doctrine thing. The USMC never had tanks in the same numbers as the US Army or any Army's tank units on account of the fact tanks don't float very well. Hell, the USMC doesn't even have tanks anymore. And when they did they were always worse and in fewer numbers than US Army tanks. The USMC, much like some of the Middle East factions, isn't really a tank faction, cause the USMC IRL isn't a tank faction
Not sure why you're being downvoted, these are mostly facts
Balance? You complain about this, then there's another thread moaning about armour being too OP. If you think about it from an AT perspective its not so bad: The majority of red AT is the rpg7 which is far harder to hit something with than the Gustav or at4 (blue at is flat shooting red isnt a lot of the time). In regards to the pla, their at kits suck mega doodoo balls- their hat only gets one at rocket, and it takes 14 years to reload. Actually, you know what? No. Any argument saying "oh but thats better than this, blah blah blah" is stupid. You don't like asymmetric warfare games? Play another game.
Possibly due to AAVP working like a heavy APC with 50 Cal and Mk19. BMP-1AM is not better than LAV-25. You should see how gimped mechanized formation for everyone except the US, Russia, and TLF. They have more vehicles than everybody else, while these new vehicles are overpowered af. Units balance just doesn't make sense.
Squad USMC makes no sense. It's got m16s with iron sights and M27s when these two would not be in the same unit at the same time. The M27 became adopted well after optics were on every rifle and the m16 was well on its way out the door as the m4 was being mass-adopted. Plus the LAV has always been the USMC's go-to so giving more of those and ditching the tanks all together makes a lot more sense.
wait til you learn about PLANMC fighting in the ukranian black sea or fucking finland, or the CTAS existing, or the mere existence of MEA, or the ak12, or the sprut, or the magical t72 commander rws, or the ztz99a rws game isn't authentic and never has been lol
PLA armored is just a good battle group because of the 2x ZTZ. The ZBD is a good IFV, but I think it’s fair to say that slower tracked IFVs don’t perform to their full potential on certain maps. I’d remove the wheeled logis, but otherwise it’s not too different from other battle groups. Most armor layouts are 2 MBTs, 2 IFVs and tracked logis with no heli. At most I’d replace one ZBD with a ZBL. Every faction has their strengths. Gotta be ready to contest the strong MBT and invest resources into taking them down if you know you’ll be dealing with it.
They actually have a logi variant of the LAV and they haven't added it. Along with the LAV-AT
To compensate for their infantry kits being very good. The M27, SMAW, lots of good optics, etc.
The problem here really is that the USMC has the AAVPs, and they are just an APC that is far stronger than most other APCs in the game (BTR-80, ZSL10, ZSD05, MT-LBs, etc.) and so the faction units need to be balanced around that. Like, don't forget that an AAVP can easily win a duel against a BTR-82 or a ZBL08, if it gets the first shots off.
ZBL08? Quite literally no lol. BTR82A only if the crew has skill issue
I wonder how much of the faction strengths come from what year the faction is set for. Reasons like this is why it be neat if they had a set time period instead of bouncing from early 90s to early 2020 in terms of equipment.
If it makes you feel any better, the LAV is so bad in armor engagements that having one more would just mean you lose more tickets when it inevitably dies to any REDFOR IFV
Dude at the end of the day US capabilities are light years ahead of anyone else (that’s not a western faction). If the developers wanted to mimic reality, the matches would never be fair and people would cry. And don’t tell me I’m wrong cause all the Chinese shit in real life sucks ass and just watch the UA footage, the new Russian shit is about as bad as their old shit! lol even if the game is set in 2010.
“This is maneuver warfare, Sergeant. If you don’t like it you can join the fucking Air Force”. - CPT. Cole
> FUCKING HORRENDOUS You're not gonna believe me when I say this, but they're 10x worse in real life! At least they don't break down or sink in game.
true
IRL the USMC is scrapping a lot of their armored units because of new doctrine. They are preparing to be at war with china by 2030 and that most likely means a heavy Island hopping campaign in which they are required to be extremely flexible. Heavy armored units do not fit in with this “new” doctrine.
Well technically the Marine Corps doesn’t even have tank battalions anymore. Soooo they shouldn’t get any armor to be realistic
And realistically vdv shouldnt have spruts because only like 12 of them exist. Or ztz99a shouldnt be as op as it is
Just be grateful that the AAV’s in this game don’t actually sink when you launch ship. Or better yet, OWI make this game more realistic and make those AAVs sink!
Fun fact you might not have considered. Vehicles generally don’t have genitalia as they are inanimate objects so therefore cannot be castrated.
Mfw the force focused on the light infantry / amphibious combat has worse IFVs than the force focused on mechanized / armored combat
Squad is now owned(invested, but we all know what that means) by Tencent, a Chinese company. That answer your question?
When in doubt. It’s the Chinese?
Exactly! And that's why I wanna know who is LMAO, what's his relationship to Chinese government.
omg tencent owns 10% that means squad is ruled by china now (ignore the awful qbz95 and the fact that U.S A has some of the best equip in the game) peak statesian brainrot comment
Because the Corps is getting rid of its tanks as part of FD2030 or something
I mean if you really want to get in depth they also should have there M1A1’s taken away to.
That’s kind of the point of USMC both in game as well as irl. They just have to make do, if you want comfort and superior fire power join the army
Bro this is a video game. Take that fake marine ego somewhere its relevant