antaress73

They are regular and veteran

They are regular and veteran

Kieme's m1A2 mod

Bad luck Vladimir. I was playing the scenario included in the demo yesterday and I moved my M1 forward in a tree line to get a shot at a russian tank contact and it was dispatched with a nice clean hole in the gun mount, range 500 meters. It didnt spot the T90AM that killed it. Prompting many #$$#$ from me Not the first time either. Its actually 2-1 for the T90s in that game . I'm using my surviving apache and javelin teams to destroy the remaining T-90s so I got very careful hehe When playing the Russians on the attack I use smoke (both arty deployed and vehicule deployed) and regular and constant move orders (to get closer) for my tanks with bounding overwatch and the kill ratio is on average 2-1 or sometimes 1.5-1 for the Abrams against my T-72s or T-90s (both versions) which is not bad at all. I use veteran crews for the Russians .

somehow, your last sentence is in perfect harmony with your avatar picture

looks very futuristic with those two tanks on the map

Thanks sublime ! I'd like to see that LOL I'll send you my email by private message.

100% stopped on the bustle area.. 2-3 times... and in a test I did ... this happened on a regular basis: 3 AT-13s stopped on the turret side with reactive armor hit text. Not the first time. In fact, in 5 tests and many hits, didnt see the side turret penetrated at all by an AT-13; ALso notice the penetration decal on side hull with an empty ERA box, the tank wasnt penetrated by that hit. It wasnt even penetrated on the second hit at almost the same area despite ERA being blown away by the previous hit. No wonder M1s are hard to kill in the game !

It will stop the AT-13 (900mm +) on the side turret where there's no ERA coverage ! More than once in my case !

They are not counting on their air force alone, but on a combination of air force , insanely dense and sophisticated integrated air defenses and deep strategic and accurate Iskander and cruise missile strikes on enemy airbases to counter enemy airpower. It would work for a few weeks and that's all they need in a non-total war setting like in CMBS. If it goes to total war, nukes would be used. So its realistic for a two months limited conflict. You also need to consider air frame availibility for NATO (not great from what i've read. You also need to consider commitments elsewhere). Range is also a factor. If you need them closer to the battlefield for CAS, you put them in danger of missile attacks on their airbases. As for AWACS and air refueling tankers as force multipliers for NATO, the Russians know this and have developed long range asymetric solutions to them (specialized very long range air to air missiles). Their EW warfare and jamming capabilities are shockingly vastly superior to NATO by NATO's own admission. It would be a very difficult and costly fight. All of this is exarcerbed by the fact you're fighting near Russia's borders. They stand no chance in a conflict over a remote area, but near their borders its very different. Panzer is right: Attack helos on both sides would be much more common.

Okay then ! Like Napoleon once said: "I know he's a great officer, but is he lucky ? "

John: Yes that's what I meant.

I used to get partial penetrations against the side turret armor with the tandem-warhead AT-13 when hitting the single ERA tiles before 1.03. Now it's never. Are those single ERA blocks supposed to be LESS effective against tandem warheads with V1.03 ? I can understand the double blocks on the Hull defeating less powerful tandem warheads but the single ERA on the side turret ? Because of the way its installed, could it be that there is a SPACED armor effect because of the distance the blocks are from the main armor ? How resistant is the side turret armor on the M1A2 so it could protect against a 900-950mm HEAT tandem warhead missile ?

I agree, its not fair play (this is a game between two gentlemen not a real war).

Yes.. It's called a T-90 shish-kebab

The North threw à tantrum as usual because it was getting ignored. It worked: the two sides are talking today .

You must be careful And you'll lose some for sure. But fighting as Russians (or anyone else) against the US is challenging. Especially in an infantry only fight. But so much satisfying when you succeed But yes, the Russians love their BMPs and BTRs and their infantry is not supposed to fight without them in support (thus the squad commander being the vehicule commander as well.. and trained to remain in it and operate it).

Isolate and bunch up. Use keylocking and obtain localized superiority. Easier said than done I admit. Easier to do in urban environment than in rural ones. Dont use them piecemeal but en masse (massed firepower) against a small part of the defense at a time. They will suppress defenders quickly . Lots of work.

Yeah and also if you fight as Russian, you must fight like a Russian. You must make liberal and well planned use of automatic grenade launchers (AGS), RPO units and massive amounts of Mortar and artillery fire. Russians believe in heavy firepower, not aimed rifle fire. WHen you do that, they are very difficult if not downright impossible to fight against in infantry-centric battles. Dont use the russians as you would with US infantry. That's fighting on US terms and you will lose. Fight on YOUR terms.

Stagler: I know they are not in game Russians infantry is very accurate at (clear) night.. More than during the day because of night scopes.

Why where they not in the first release of the game ? As I understand it.. in a russian platoon, first two squads have 4 scope 1P63 and third squad 2..

70-75 meters .. Close range

Did à test . A platoon of RPO (10 two men teams) against a US reconnaissance platoon in some standard 2 storey houses. So far, after three battles, 72-1 in casualties in favor of the Russians. They are very effective. Some shots took out 5 soldiers at a time. Three houses were flattened.

The thermobaric warhead for the Rpg is even bigger (105mm) and I find the run of the mill HEAT rounds more effective against troops in buildings

Nonsense