Jump to content

antaress73

Members
  • Content Count

    891
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by antaress73

  1. So artillery will Kill APCS and IFVs and severely degrade or mission Kill MBTs even with near misses and airbursts. If battlefront would model this in the game I guess artillery would be the dominant arm on the battlefield and battles would be fought between the depleted and severely degraded survivors of arty barrages. Also gives the attacker a strong advantage since its easier to hit defenders with arty. Guess Russia would have a great equalizer or worst right there. Would that make for a fun game ? In a modern setting with superb detection and acquisition (drones.. radars..thermals) methods and extremely accurate arty (even with dumbs shells) thanks to glonass, GPS and computer. .probably not. WWII is another matter since arty takes longer.. less radios to call it, less flexible and far less accurate so it would be less dominant. Splinter tech is probably less advanced too and less able to penetrate .
  2. It seems that attillery effects in CM were modeled after the old erroneous model describéd in the magazine. Airbursts regularly destroying main guns and optics seemed to be the nom according to these professional tests . It also included Bradleys as targets. Airburst arty would transform a battle into a fight bwtween immobile and expensive pillboxes lol
  3. I saw m1a2s react instantly many times to an At-13 (saclos) fired from behind .. enough that the tank could turn around and prevent à rear/side armor hit. Many times where the launcher was deployed in a reverse slope position with the targeted tank moving into lOS presenting it's big fat ass to my forces. frontal aspect . yup I can believe it. BUT from the rear while moving .. to instantly react 60-70% of the time.. nope.. the commander must be looking at the right direction.at the right time . detect the launch and warn the driver to turn around ..thats takes a least a 2 seconds delay. Not enough to prevent à rear aspect hit especially at the short range featured in the game. I agree that The commander will do a 360 from time to time with the panoramic CITV.. but most of the time he will try to detect threats to the front , not the rear or sides.
  4. The BMP-3M has thermals. But I guess not many were put into service since they expect the Kurganets to be available soon.
  5. Anyone will fix the BMP dark Green mod for the Russians. With 1.04 the turret 3d model was changed and now the Mod first work. got that grey turret from the base game.
  6. It can now penetrate the m1's turret side on a regular basis in 1.04, tested it. BUT it detects the launch and reacts so fast you rarely hit the sides.
  7. One things that bugs me is the almost instant reaction the M1A2 has when it is fired upon by an At-13 from the sides or behind. I mean instant ! it detects the launch as soon as it leaves the launcher and start turning to put the front of the armor towards the incoming At-13. even at close range where the reaction time is 1-3 seconds. I mean it's good but not THAT good. Many rear and side ambush shots where ruined by this unrealistically fast reaction time. AT-13 is SACLOS. it does not trigger the LWR meaning the commanderust detect the launch visually.
  8. Russian arty will not Kill m1s often but will Kill sub-systems making them much less formidable.
  9. Russian precision rounds are good on the offense but useless in defense. US ones too.. it s not 1-2 minutes less response time (warrior level and up) that will make a difference against a moving advancing opponent. GPS rounds are nice but can get jammed . Anyway the Russians are also introducing Glonass-guided rounds for their arty.
  10. v1.04 Patch Notes: Infantry Weapons: * Effectiveness of the M-25 CDTE's HE grenade has been increased against enemy troops. * More models of recoilless weapons can fire indoors, and with less suppression on the firing troops. * Infantry mortar teams will now use their mortars when given a Target Light area fire command. * FIXED: Disposable AT weapons not disappearing from the soldier's kit after use. * FIXED: Igla S missile offset from tube when launching. * FIXED: Rarely an AT-14 team would be unable to finish deploying the ATGM inside houses. * FIXED: M25 CDTE has 5-round magazine. Vehicles: * IFVs with cannons and ATGMs will more intelligently choose which weapon systems to engage enemy vehicles with. * Abrams tank side turret armor (both base armor and ERA) is now less effective at defending against tandem HEAT warheads. * Russian Kontakt-1 and Kontakt-5 ERA are now less effective at defending against tandem HEAT warheads. * Abrams smoke deploys slightly more slowly. * Ukrainian tank ammunition loads have been adjusted. Oplot-M now carries APFSDS 3BM42 Mango (instead of Zubr), and T-64BV now carries APFSDS 3BM22 Zokolka (instead of APFSDS 3BM42 Mango). T-6DBV now carries 3BK18 HEAT shells instead of 3BK18M. * BTR-80A, BTR-82, and BTR-82A are now more willing to area fire in low visibility conditions. * 2K22M Tunguska does not have thermal optics (the 2K22M1 still does). * FIXED: The AT-10's tandem HEAT warhead from the BMP-3/3M was too weak against ERA. * FIXED: Sometimes Bradley and Abrams ERA blocks would fail to function, allowing HEAT warheads to travel through them and hit the base armor unimpeded. * FIXED: At close LOD, BMP-2M would look like a BMP-2. Support: * FIXED: UAV thermal vision works better in poor weather. Quick Battles: * QB prices of fortifications have been increased. * Tunguska SPAA QB price increased. Artwork: * Improved textures for M110. * Improved textures for Skif. * Improved textures for AK-74M. * Added muddy textures for MT-12 Rapira. * Corrected some mismapped textures in a few flavor objects. * Small adjustments to a variety of vehicle models. Misc Bug Fixes * FIXED: M1167 Humvees would sometimes count as a tank kill on the AAR screen. * FIXED: Unit crossing bridge would sometimes get stuck or needlessly zigzag. * FIXED: Sometimes a wire fence would stay upright after a vehicle rolled through it. * FIXED: A specific Independant House building model had opaque windows. * FIXED: Other minor misc bug fixes.
  11. The patch is great. it is me or the Russians are more deadly and in general spot better ?
  12. Not a Kill fest against humans , especially cautious and capable ones but against the A. I for sure.
  13. I was just saying that with ERA or LWR it would be much easier for the Russian side in the game. If I had a tank to choose to fight with in RL, It would be the Abrams or the Armata because they are designed to protect their crews. I have nothing against the tank.
  14. remove LWR and ERA tiles on the M1A2 so their configuration is like the one they have in the real world and it wont be much of a challenge to play the russians against the US when playing single player against the AI. For human vs Human it would be great. But good human players can already give a good spanking to US players half the time . The Abrams is a death machine but remove LRW and ERA and you have a good chance of killing it on the sides even with ONE RPG team. It wont get warned when engaged with Kornets, making 100% killing shots on the sides a routine and sure thing. Russian tanks will get the drop quite often and kill them much more easily since human players tend to be really agressive with the Abrams. AT-13 will kill them if they hit anywhere on the side hull and turret without ERA. It would be tough for the Abrams. Gee, even BMP-3s would have a good chance with their missiles against the side of an Abrams with ERA. They would not warn the Abrams with their laser before shooting either.
  15. There is a few working models of the T-90AM and there is serious talk if not actual plans to upgrade the current T-90A fleet to T-90AM standards.
  16. interesting in-depth analysis and description of the BMP-3: https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.ca/2014/10/bmp-3-underappreciated-prodigy.html He says that the self-sealing fuel tanks located in the front hull greatly add to the protection of the crew compartment on that part of the vehicule. Interesting, like the front glacis of the M1A2 (where the fuel tanks will protect against penetrations).
  17. ahh yes... but some people are very skilled at using artillery and if playing the Russians you need lot's of it and preplanned targets too. They rely on it heavily in real life and are very good at it and getting even better and high tech from what I can read. Also, Javelin launchers should be knocked out more often when the guy holding it is a casualty. Right now they seem indestructible which is far from the truth. I've seem squads getting slaughtered almost to the last man by air burst arty and the last survivor gets his senses back, picks a javelin up and kills a tank or BMP. It CAN happen, but it happens WAY too often in the game. Using snipers in well hidden and tactically well placed overwatch will help too. I've seen RUS snipers kill javelin gunners when he exposes himself to aim and fire. Using tree canopies and moving from cover to cover with fast moves will help: Javelin needs a long time to aim. You can break LOS before they can aim. You need every skills to play the russians effectively. Funny fact: i've seen arena defeat a Javelin. How ? two T-90AMs close by... the javelin was aiming for the left tank and came into the effective ARENA engagement enveloppe of the tank to the right. I was elated ! I try to do that now... works sometimes. I've should have recorded the thing with fraps.
  18. I love CMBS and i'm really looking forward to the next patch which could solve many existing issues and add some tweaks or tactical behaviors which would again vastly increase our enjoyment of the game. Any idea when this could be expected/ hoped for ?
  19. Well... yes.. at range placing your BMPs in LOS of the US is a bad idea. Its a bad idea against the russians too btw. US superior optics makes attacking easier for them. But placing a BMP Hull down with the addtional commander`s optics , they get the drop more often than people believe against Brads. It also enables the targetting of two vehicules in quick succession way more often (it happened even against the US in my games) and it prevents situations like 2 bmps attacking a lone bradley by surprise and ending up both dead like it can often happen if you dont put a commander in.
  20. Yes ... the BTRs have a commander's (leader) position to be filled by the infantry squad leader. It's a totally different doctrinal philosophy and you ignore it at your peril. It can be lethal for the enemy but more costly in terms of losses. They are switching away from it with the armata and boomerang/Kurganets because they dont have the necessary manpower to substain à high level of losses and also modern Russians are less inclined to accept lost lives.
  21. I did some tests... 1 BMP-3M at 300 meters open field against 2 strikers. Only gunner and driver: average spotting time of strykers and engagement : 11-12 seconds With scout team inside: 6-7 seconds With squad leader led team inside : 6-7 seconds BUT: Average engagement cycle and destruction of the two strikers targets with scout team inside: 35 seconds Average engagement cycle and destruction of the two strikers targets with squad leader Led team inside : 27 seconds So with squad leader led 3 man team inside (Split team in two equal parts) it doesnt spot faster but is faster at spotting and sequentially engaging and destroying two targets than with the 2 men scout team inside. So it's best to use the squad leader led team even if you lose one dismount in the process compared with only splitting a scout team since your BMPS will be more deadly and better at engaging multiple targets which is more desirable than an additonnal dismount.
×
×
  • Create New...