whitehot78

Isn't this a little insulting? Russia /Soviet Union has always been one of the leading countries in the world in producing culture, science, athletes and so on. You seem to be pointing at some kind of barbarian state.

as windows and doors are abstracted into the buildings 3d model it maybe that there is a VERY small chance that the sabot round would pass through those. Of course, being those "openings" abstracted, you have, say a 10% chance to hit one on a side of a building. But passing through five would be in a probability order lower than me winning the lotto.

imho the precision strikes over mbts have a good chance to disable the target, although normally not knocking out it. I experimented with basically all the tanks, M1A2, T-90 and even T-72 don't get killed by direct hits: although if I remember correctly I managed to destroy T-64s with krasnopol precision strikes. btw, in CMSF we had the "armor" fuze setting in the FS interface, which has been lost in BS. I don't know exactly what it is in real life (maybe a little delay, or a less sensitive fuze?), but in CMSF used to destroy heavily armored tanks with the 155mm rounds. It was available, if i remember correctly, to all the arty tubes the US had in the game, 60mm to 155mm. Why isnt there anymore in BS? Precision mission coupled with that coulod maybe have better effects?

In regards to "firing solution", in RL we have stingers and iglas certified for use on vehicle based and even helicopter based mounts. Now, It is clear that a MANPADS carried and aimed by a human being on a moving afv is not very stable. yet these kind of systems do not have a very complex acquisition/engagement procedure - basically you have to point them in the direction of the target and get a lock on cue. Once locked, the system is armed and the trigger can be pulled - the missile will perform its task from then on. Provided that all the systems in CMBS are all-aspect heat seekers, all of them are also quite capable in terms of engaging a target lying quite far from the boresight (basically the aiming reticle), I don't see any real problems in firing them from afvs on the move. Maybe there could be some kind of "negative bonus" on the acquisition times, based upon the vehicle speed and the operator proficiency.. Some folks are talking about how bumpy rides on ifvs are and they are ofc correct. Yet the bumpiness is quite varied - a vehicle moving at 5 mph over a paved road is quite a different situation than one moving at 20 mph in a river bed.

me too. I remember another thread in which the issue of sabots going through two IFVs was already discussed and reckoned as pretty much likely in RL

Was reading about them in the manual - IFVs, APCs and MBTs with the K letter. Do they improve somehow the communications between units? Or lower fire support missions times by maintaining a better link with higher level HQs? If so, is that something that can be experienced at any other level than iron? (In fact, I play at elite, and was wondering what effect, if any, would they have)

Me too. I own all the combat mission games since cm1, but modern is really my favorite area. BS is in fact the best of all to me, although imho still needs some polishing and bug squashing. If I have to find something in which shock force still stands out it's single player campaigns. I actually have a lot of love for campaigns which follow a long and structured storyline. We even had branching, with some modules who would let you choose which way your task force would go. Or situation in which winning or losing a battle would put you in a different branch of the campaign. I mean, years ago there was a lot of care for this kind of things, I think that the level of the campaigns since, substantially FI, has been declining constantly. 5 missions for side is too little for me (even if, you can say it's 15 mission overall which in the end isn't that bad), I would pay these games the extra dollar if they made longer campaigns, and more of them. I hope they'll make something I saw the folks at DCS have started doing - DLC single player campaigns. A nice amount of playing hours with a 10ish$ tag would be a great option to me.

I wonder if, asides from the technological devices the infatrymen carry, there is some kind of consideration into a more general angle. In fact, if there is something taken into account from how much an american soldier costs to his country vs a russian or ukrainian one. I would be thinking that UA soldiers cost a little more than RU even with inferior equipment/training because the general state of UA armed forces is somehow worse - that country has more difficulties in recruiting, training, equipping and maintaining a man under arms. I don't know if these things have been abstracted into the logic that determines the price for ingame units, but imho, somehow these aspects should be accounted

But, an era block should be exploded if it has a hit decal under it? In my experience I noticed that russian tanks aren't doing good with exploded era and hit decals. Mostly I can't find where the penetration occurred and end up like in the screenshot the op posted. Probably has to do with these models being kinda complex, with era blocks made up by several different shapes and so on. Yet, seems a feature still half-broken to me

In fact everything I read about Minsk-2 said that the Debaltsevo area was not comprised in the cease fire agreement. It's not that clear why many western medias have been constantly accusing the separatists to violate the international agreements by committing an offensive on that city

yup, it's messed up for me too windows 7 64, 12 gigs RAM

the 970 I have performs flawlessly at 1200p, with all the games I own at maximum eye candy. Forget the 3.5gb VRAM fuss. I'm under the impression it was some kind of one of those questionable commercial moves done by the opposition, if you get me. In fact, I tested it myself with some games and there is nothing like fps drops in any possible scenario. Nvidia itself is encouraging folks (seen this on their forums) to use the "upsampling" feature on the driver's control panel (this would make you "unlock" resolutions higher than your monitor supports - basically you get textures which haven't been downsampled to the monitor's native resolution). Visually there isn't much of a difference, but you get to use more vram and so see by yourself that there is no 3.5gb bug

Some historians are arguing that something like more than a million soviet soldiers were shot by the germans while surrendering, or immediately after, mostly during the early stages of barbarossa (probably local commanders interpreted that way the order by which Hitler instructed the wermacht to shoot political commisars or personnel related to the communist party). In such a setting I would not expect the enemy to come at me with chocolates and smokes after throwing my hands up, specially if I was the crew of the tank you mentioned.

I find artillery missions guided by drone observations to be less precise. First of all, I noticed that the FO needs sometimes a dozen of spotting rounds (happened a couple of times). After that, FFE normally ends up near, but not really on the chosen target. I may have been unlucky so far, but that's what I have got. I may add that russian artillery seems to have much more trouble in this exercise than american (didn't try ukr), maybe too much (I'd be guessing that in 2017, even ISIS can place accurate mortar/howitzer fire, having a FO with LOS on the target)

You forgot Custer

But the op talked about engaging the brad from the side. The 30mm on the bmp should pen it rather easily, at least that's what happens to me in similar scenarios. I noticed that when IFV engage themselves in cannon fire it's normally a matter about who shoots first. The american bushmaster cannon seems to have an advantage at longer ranges; nonetheless what happens to me is that both the IFVs can penetrate the other frontally - the small bursts the op talked about have always been enough to disable the M2, as far as I played BS. The lighter 2a72 cannon on BTRs and mtlbs seems to be having more problems in defeating the brad from all sides, which should be realistic.

I would say it doesn't look right. Is this before or after the 1.01 Update? I 've also had the impression that the T-90 armor underperformed at times(although the ERA bug could have been a factor)

May I surmise that the phenomenon the op described happens with light weapons and infantry too? I remember several games in Normandy and Italy where my infantry was jogging in column formation and an MG-42 on their front dropped two or three men istantly. I don't understand though, if it was a single bullet passing through a soldier and hit the one standing behind him, or they were just invested by different bullets of the same volley

but does some sort of "breaking point" exist, or those effect can be reversed to the fullest?

it's a rather complex matter, I guess that in BS it has been abstracted as to allow players to have a balanced situation, with a simmetry that wasn't the case in CMSF. Being the game set in 2017, you would have to consider several factors which at the present are not very clear. Basically, NATO would have an advantage in sheer Air Power, and the air to air war would probably go their way. This advantage could be in fact be frustrated by the state of the 2017 VVS, which is something not clearly predictable. Some factors would be: -the deployment in big numbers of the PAK-FA -the deployment of advanced AA and AG ordnance on VVS aircraft -the training state of the frontal aviation regiments -the state of the organisms apt to maintain and keep operational the theatre air forces Also much would be decided by the ability of the contenders to replace losses due to attrition, both human and material. Imho, even if I may sound simplistic, the western air forces shoot down more planes than the russian, but Russia can deploy powerful ground to air systems which would negate much of the advantage the air superiority gives to the westerners, even in presence of large SEAD/ECM environments. In a nutshell, West gets a slight air superiority (far from air supremacy or dominance), hence some more air support ops than Russia

I encountered this kind of situation several times already, I must say that imho it's realistic. All considered, even the heavier IFVs have just a thin aluminium armor layer to oppose to penetrator rounds specifically designed to pierce the fronts of modern tanks. I also have the impression (but didn't read nothing technical about it so is just an assumption), that being aluminium rather flammable, the penetrated armor would also become a cloud of melted shards expanding inside the fighting compartment at supersonic velocities - after being subjected to the attrition of the penetrator making way through it. Maybe somebody more prepared than me on this technicalities could shed some light. But it's not difficult to imagine the effect of said fragmentation effect on the occupants bodies, ammunition and equipment inside the IFV

Is there a line mission for air support?

I thought that exposed infantry, once subjected to artillery fire, would get a reduction in morale that lasts for the whole game. The effects of suppression would be reduced as they recover, but their status (like "rattled, "nervous" etc) would stay - so if engaged in combat later in the game they would be more easily get suppressed and forced to retreat or surrender.

Playing CMBS I found myself several times wishing I could in fact decide which weapon to use. Normally I would had picked ATGMs over other kinds of weapon systems. Had also cases in which I really wanted specialized ATGMs teams to engage in-building infantry with their missiles, tried both area and point fire but they just used ARs. I would think it's not very realistic as, afaik, on modern battlefields ATGMs are employed against pretty much everything, while in BS their carriers seems to be a little conservative with them

Soviets and Russians actually produced DU sabot rounds for the 125mm gun. In fact there's a an extensive list of different rounds for that gun at this wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/125_mm_smoothbore_ammunition Seems to me that both tungsten and uranium alloys are employed, although I'd be interested to know if and on which conditions a round is carried by operational vehicles