Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Ratels also seem to have an extremely difficult time advancing in line formation. Try moving 8 of them in formation over uneven ground, zoom out a bit, and the frog noises start to make sense.
Accuracy while moving being terrible makes sense as they don't have stabilized turrets.
I just played a quick "skirmish" in the Battle Editor. I had 1x Mech Infantry Platoon (Ratel-20s) and a Tank Platoon going against a FAPLA/Cuban force of 2x Motorized Infantry Platoons (BTR-60s) and 1x Tank Platoon (Cuban T-55s).
During this battle, I had three vehicles taken out of action. 1x was an Olifant that had the Commander killed after taking fire from enemy RPGs. It retreated to safety but could not continue the fight.
The other two vehicles were Ratel-20s that had roll-overs in relatively flat terrain. Do roll-overs happen? Yes. However, losing 50% of a Platoon's vehicle combat power to roll-overs is frankly ridiculous.
This isn't an isolated incident. In the actual campaign, I was conducting a pursuit of the retreating enemy with Charlie Squadron. I lost seven Ratel-90s to rollovers. That is 39% of their "line platoon" combat power. Needless to say, I had to stop the advance due to no longer having sufficient combat power to pursue the fleeing enemy due to this.
I have read 'Battle on the Lomba' by David Mannall several times, which is a description of the events that took place on October 3rd of 1987 told by a Platoon Sergeant within Charlie Squadron. While there were many adversities that they faced, such as the death of 2LT Adrian Hind to a T-55, a friendly fire incident that knocked the engine out on the Ratel-90 of the author, and being bombed by Mig-23s, roll-overs were not mentioned. I could accept maybe one or two over the course of a campaign. I cannot accept that routinely losing 2x or more Ratels per battle to roll-overs is even remotely grounded in reality.
Ratel 90 seems a bit buggy in general.
Mine seem to like shooting through the ground and have trouble loading their gun
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2402995552
You seem to be in a custom battle using one of the WW2 maps? The Angolan maps have some very uneven ground, so any bug in the suspension code is going to be greatly amplified.
Firing through the ground is an increasing problem in GT (for me anyway). It's as if gunners are able to miraculously see targets not in their LOS and are ignoring the fact that there is ground in between them and the target.
I am also seeing that weird bug of always-visible retreating units come back. I had a recent battle were a Soviet soldier retreated all the way across the map, behind a forested hill and somehow I could see his yellow dot moving.
Nope. I used the Chambinga River map for the video. It does the same on the Cuzizi River map as well. Both are official releases that come with the DLC.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2402997475
A common occurrence with the Ratel-20 as well. The vehicle being named 'Patton' just added to the irony of the situation. This was from that recent scenario mentioned above. The "Retreat" is the Olifant, while the 2x "Vehicle Lost" are both of the roll-overs.
See above, I am replying to @Flannelette.
After trying it yesterday for the first time, I stopped playing the Op. Moduler DLC because it was too frustrating to try advancing Ratels in formation. They drove all over the place, no matter what modifiers and modes I used, and were so inaccurate when moving that they were getting taken out by RPGs even though 16 of them (x 3 guns ea) were supposed to be suppressing enemy infantry that had no cover.
Seems like the Ratel has really powerful brakes and ground friction so when it stops it tips over instead of sliding.
Having big problem getting the ratel-90 to use its gun, just seems to not want to load shells
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2403012050
Just kept driving closer and it just looked at the targets like the gunner forgets that he can't just keep aiming the gun and needs to load it too.
Which is really a shame, because using combined arms with AFVs in challenging terrain is a lot of fun. I've found the SADF arsenal to be VERY powerful if you just take things slowly. Establish a hasty defense, orient on an engagement area, array your Mech Infantry Platoons (Ratel-20s) and your Fire Support Platoons (Ratel-90s) to have interlocking sectors of fire, and enjoy the fireworks. I can overlook small, minute details about each individual unit until it has an effect on the entirety of 61 Mech's maneuver plan. Unfortunately, this issue does exactly that.
I noticed that Ratel-90s that are in the dedicated "AT" platoon have the tank icon and Ratel-90s in the non-dedicated AT platoons have the APC icon.
I tried to give orders to the dismounted infantry of the AT platoon (they have rocket launchers of some kind) but it was not possible to Alt-click and give separate orders. Presumably if you advance with the infantry in front of tanks order modifier, those dismounted troops will move ahead of the Ratels? I have yet to try it - my Ratels take damage and casualties from 14.5mm cannon and they are an easy target for ATGMs and RPGs. I find them ill-suited to anything other than stand-off and fire support, and would like to force them to crew both MGs, but they seem to keep ducking inside and staying there.
It's like there should be a whole thread dedicated to the tactical use of Ratels - like a training manual!
https://imgur.com/Iu01h6J
Yes, a good reason why Ratel-90 got the icon. Even thought its still count as FSV but it became more of a front line vehicle.
The funny story about Ratel is how South Africa wanted to make manoeuvre-oriented warfare which turn out a success. In the Angolan War, the Ratel met their match when up against the Cuban tanks. This is where the military began desperately to refit them with tanks, the South Africans "discovered" combined warfare which were used by the West and Soviets for years.
The Ratels were a success not because the facts they are fighting inferior enemies, but South Africans soldiers emphasized on micromanagement during battle, coordination between crew and commanders initiative. For example, you can retreat without permission. However this is not always the case, problem with between lower and upper command became a flaw in the South Africans decision making.
In the first DLC, this battle is an ambush by the SADF. By the time passed, the SADF had to make frontal attack when the enemy begun to defend. This broke the South African strategy and it puts the South Africa in a conventional warfare. Operation Packer is a great example of this.
There are more points but "The Lessons of the Border War" by
Leopold Scholtz is a good summary of the SADF fighting capabilities. He wrote books about this war as well.