Jump to content

BlackMoria

Members
  • Posts

    645
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by BlackMoria

  1. Maybe the mindset of 'Pimp my ride' has reached Russia. That said, for me, what is important isn't how they look, it is how they perform - both in combat and in the maintenance cycle. They could prove to be very expensive to maintain. Or not. They may perform admirably in battle. Or not. All factors we can't know right now. My feel is the T-12 just may have issues with the improved and more powerful gun in a smaller density (and if the discussion about the turret 'shell' are correct) turret due to differential shear forces when the gun fires. Remember the M551 Sheridans? A nice light air droppable tank with a 152mm gun on it. Too much gun for such a light turret and tank and the tank needed heavy maintenance as a result. It was even reported that sustained firing of the gun would nearly shake the turret apart (catches on hatches would break and the hatches would slam open and closed on firing, damage to the turret motors, etc). When they tried putting a 105mm gun that was higher velocity than the 152mm on the vehicle, the result was the gun nearly shook the vehicle apart). Despite advances in metallurgy and new mounting/recoil systems, you can't cheat physics and if the mass to shear force ratio is such that the shear forces induce exceptional strain on the turret components due to insufficient mass, maintenance will be necessary, frequent and expensive.
  2. LnL wrote: "Uhm, nope, sorry. My position is mainly based on the knowledge of existing Russian tech, facts and logic. If you want to counter it, please start by quoting the exact words, followed by a proper counterargument."
  3. Finished this one yesterday and I really enjoyed it. The map is really great looking with tons of tactical possibilities for either side. The terrain for this scenario will both be boon and bane for either side. The high ground gives great observation and allows long range fires but usually it is quite open and dangerous moving up to or out of the high ground. The balance of forces is good as is the scenario time. My play through was on Elite Real Time with version 1.01. I played the American forces. My scenario outcome most likely would different with version 1.03 as I would have taken casualties from Russian attack helos, since 1.03 has changed the attack vector of air to ground missiles so that APS is mitigated or bypassed. Initially, I was frustrated. Damn frustrated! Right from the on set, whenever I tried to get into positions of observation with a vehicle, the damn vehicle would be lased and back away or pop smoke. Next, I tried to move my scout dismounts into positions and was shot at by some large caliber gun with air burst rounds, resulting in light wounds on two of my scout teams. The only casualty I took the entire game was in the first two minutes as I tried to get close to a crest position with a humvee and the 50 cal gunner was incapacitated by a nearby sniper team on my side of the map. So, let's summarize the first two minutes of the game. I have a enemy sniper team nearly on top of my deployment area which sniped my Humvee gunner, every vehicle I tried to get eyes on the enemy with is lased and retreats and two of my scout teams were shot at and lightly wounded trying to achieve positions of observation. Remember me saying at the start of this post that I enjoyed this scenario. I did, despite the temptation to slam my fist through the monitor in the first two minutes. I was faced with a real challenge and I like being challenged. Creative use of artillery smoke and vehicle smoke allowed me to get troops into positions of observation. Let the game of cat and mouse begin. I spotted some T-90s advancing up to my left flank but lost them nearly immediately in dead ground. I also got a spot on several unknown vehicles in the middle and far ground. One mission of 155mm guns on the middle target and mortars on the far target. I estimated where the T-90s might be heading and moved a scout team with Javelins to counter their possible move onto my left hand hill and moved several other forces from my right flank to the weaker left flank. That move did mean a short dash across open ground and as predicted, the laser warning detectors went wild on the three vehicles making the dash but all three made the safety of the dead ground on the left. Smoke columns from my arty missions meant the middle and far ground unknown vehicles were toast. This proved to be incredible stroke of luck as I found out by the end of the game as those two initial vehicle casualties was the only Russian Tungkuska and one of the deadly anti-tank dual missile vehicles. I risked sending up the two Ravens (I had no idea I had smoked the Tuskguska by the time these missions began active observation). Three T-90s were confirmed and were dealt with. One was killed by Excalibur rounds, one was killed by a Javelin and the other was very short range TOW 2 shot. Initially, that Bradley opened up with the 25mm, nearly making me scream 'NO, YOU IDIOTS!' but after two short 25mm bursts while the T-90 swung its turret, the gunner fired the TOW and scored a kill just as the T-90's gun lined up for the kill shot. I finally got the two Raven missions changed over to the far ridge to try to find the the ATGMs I knew would be up there. Then the Russian attack helos showed up. The initial missile was thwarted by the APS of one of my tanks. I scrambled my vehicles into nearby trees to make the Angels of Death's job tougher. The attacks went on for several minutes, either attacking a APS equipped vehicle and having the missile intercepted or detonating in the trees. Finally one of the Stinger teams dropped one helo and the other helo fired a hail of lead at one of my Bradleys, damaging it but not enough to make it combat ineffective. The sole remaining helo left it seemed, and I was hoping it was out of ammo since it was down to gun strafes. Using APS vehicles to goad the AT-14 into shooting at them, I finally identified the AT-14 positions and eliminated them with artillery and mortars. I set the Ravens for the objective clusters of houses, found several vehicles and some infantry and destroyed them with direct fire or artillery. It took me at least an hour to get into positions of observation and sanitize the area of possible threats, such was the nature of the terrain and the layout of the enemy. Finally, I did a two prong armored assault, one sweeping left, the other right, to sweep through the two clusters of building and the touch objectives there with the intend for my forces to meet at the objective bridge. Enemy was encountered and expeditiously dealt with by the combined might of 4 tanks and a company of Bradleys. I even managed to work some of my forces up to the far ridge and take the back objectives, resulting in a clean sweep of all objectives. Another Russian attack helo showed up but was killed by one of my Stinger teams. End game was Total US Victory with only 1 WIA (the 50 cal gunner shot in the first two minutes) as my casualties. Was I lucky? Hell, yes! The Russian attack helos could have done a real number on me but their attacks were thwarted by APS or by trees. If it was version 1.03, I may have lost 5 vehicles, though I doubt it would have changed the game outcome any except for me having a higher casualty count. My killing of the Tungkuska very early in the game allowed me to fly the Ravens, which were key in locating the AT-14s. A shout out to George MC to another sterling scenario. Great looking map, great possibilities for fire and maneuver. This scenario is NOT a cake walk. Expect frustration trying to get 'eyes out' on the enemy and frustration due to the seemly ever present Russian attack helos overhead during the middle to late game. If you are terribly unlucky, the attack helos will extract a costly butcher's bill on your forces. If you act hastily and move without considerable regard to safe routes and how to cross open ground, the enemy anti-armour capabilities will make you pay a heavy price for the ground you take. I give this scenario 5 stars out of 5. I look forward to trying this one out again with version 1.03. Is that the distant 'whup-whup' of choppers I hear?
  4. I can't say I disagree with her assessment. Why would you leave one cold place (Saskatoon) to retire to another cold place. I've had it with 50+ years of Manitoba winters. When I retire in a few years, I am going someplace warmer for the winters. My wife would divorce me if I said I wanted to retire to Finland and rightly, she should.
  5. They may be fulfilling orders in the order received because this would be the first time ever I had something shipped from the States that actually beat an internal US address for notification. I am usually waiting weeks and weeks for something from the US. I ordered the day the Pre-Order went live.
  6. I live in Canada and I got a shipping notification on 25 Feb, so clearly, shipping has started, at least to the US and Canada.
  7. c3k, did you finally talk with DMS about that Bradley which started each turn with a laser warning? Did he have something in position causing that or is a bug, as you musing about or did he still have something late game that could laser designate the Bradley?
  8. Most scenarios have a threshold value for victory - that is how the levels of victory are determined. Pass the highest threshold and the scenario ends. So while you may have not take the last objective, you gained enough VPs to trigger the threshold for Total Victory and end the scenario. I am not a scenario designer so they can correct my assertion if I am wrong.
  9. Yes. In game in CMSF. The Armor option for artillery is simulating putting the PD fuzes on fuze delay. What that means in the underpinning of the game, outside of having a better chance of knocking out armor, I don't know. From my perception, buildings target with artillery set to armor setting seemed to bring down the building faster but I have no proof of that.
  10. If the French look anything like your avatar, there is a reason they were not invited to the party. :P Seriously, I would love to see the French in CMBS
  11. *blink*blink* Yeeaah...Riiight. Was it April 1 in Russia the day that article came out? Edit: looking at the rest of the articles on that site - if it is typical of unbiased reporting in Russian, the best thing the West can do is do is send massive shipments of tin foil hats for the Russians to wear. I have never seen such tripe in my life.
  12. What is wrong with having both .... and much more. There is lots of interesting things that can be done under the umbrella of a 'NATO' module, like the Poles, which I would like very much like to see in the game.
  13. If DMS is rendered hors de combat like yourself, will this be decided by proxies - hence the brave/suicidal charge of IanL for the middle of the bridge? Or are you just claiming a moral / immoral victory by getting IanL on the bridge, even if the game ends, based on the terms, as a draw.
  14. Damage to the vehicle aside, the bigger concern is your bloody tank falling into the basement. I don't know about the Ukraine but most structures have basements and the most floors simply can not support the weight of a modern tank driving into the building. Tanks have to use bridges rated for their weight to cross and bridges are designed for vehicle traffic. Most building and houses are not.
  15. No. Personnel setting is HE round using a Time fuze or a VT fuze. General setting is Point Detonating (PD) fuze. Armor setting is PD fuze set to delay setting, allowing the round to penetrate deeper before going off.
  16. I got a shipping notice yesterday from Battlefront so it looks like they are shipping them out now.
  17. Steamrollering the AI, as I usually do. I have noted that the AI is better that CMSF. The battle plans by the scenario designers is also much better, making many CMBS scenarios challenging. And I am challenged and some of my victories are hard won as a result. Which is good in my book.
  18. At least you will be carried off on your shield. IanL can stand on the bridge, head uplifted to the skies with a clenched fist and scream "Vengence!" in your honor.
  19. I'm your huckleberry if you can find some others who want to engage in this experiment.
  20. MLRS type systems are referred to as 'Grid Square Removal Systems' jokingly in the military. The footprint of a salvo is nearly 1 km across. Now, if everything single map in CMBS (including the Quick Battle maps) was minimum 2 km square in size, maybe a case could be made, but most maps are not that size, making MLRS systems impractical for the map scale. Now for quick battles, imagine the most likely outcome. You buy a Grad system, your opponent buys a MLRS. Now you can't use the rocket systems once in contact unless you like fragging your own troops, so they become a turn one or turn two system. You can rule lawyer that you aren't targeting the setup area, it is just a consequence of such a large system that the setup area falls in the footprint... Now, at the start of the battle, you rocket your opponent, he rockets you. Then you play with what is left standing. That might be interesting to some people but not others. Another thing is larger rocket systems are brigade and division assets. CMBS is a company level game for the most part, with some large maps perhaps capable of fielding a battalion but it is very rare for a scenario to have a battalion worth of assets to play. Typically, most games are few platoons to a few companies in size. At that scale, MLRS systems are not going to be used in the battle - they would be used on forces before they actually entered the scenario map because only the truly desperate use large rocket systems on forces in contact.
  21. Ouch. 7 BMP kills and 31 enemy casualties. Yeah, Tunguska from hell. Hero of the Ex-Soviet Union to his comrades.
  22. Did another pass at this scenario last night. I stayed with my same basic plan that I used for my first scenario. Played out differently (different AI plan I think) but the results nearly the same. I got 1 WIA and 1 aircraft shot down. This time, my Stinger missed when the fast air showed and a munition landed mere metres from one of my vehicles but had no effect other than give a very significant pucker factor to my pixeltruppen. I tucked my vehicles into treelines as the fast air came around. This time, the Stinger downed the attacking air (saw the message, heard the plane go down). Then I heard a jet pass overhead. Oh crap, a second SU. What followed was a intense 5 minutes of the SU and my vehicles playing hide and seek. I obviously did the hiding part. The jet made about 4-5 passes but didn't see my vehicles because there was not a followup attack before it RTBed. So, hiding does work but it is not perfect. Vehicles can be spotted in trees and attacked but with 4-5 passes overhead, I think the probably of being spotted is on the low end, otherwise I would be attacked. So for those frustrated with the scenario, keep plugging at it. It is possible to hide vehicles in treelines successfully but as I stated, it is not a sure thing.
×
×
  • Create New...