wee

Just wanted to say hello. I just purchased the game and am very excited to have a game that is so complex. Reading through the forums I can see that this is a very serious community with great information. 
 
i am myself a combat Infantry veteran and purple heart recipient. I was a member of the Army's very first stryker battalion 1-23 INF during the experimental phase and deployed with them twice to Iraq. I had ICV 0004 so I am pleased to see a game that allows me to use that old tactical noodle again. Looking forward to learning from you guys and being a part of this community.

If you only had good luck the game would be no fun to play

Something to keep in mind is that one of the changes from CMSF to Black Sea in how vehicle optics work is that thermal imaging systems -- FLIR -- are much better at spotting than day/night sights. In CMSF TI sights just let you see through normal smoke but were otherwise treated the same as any other day/night sight. Also note that, to the best of my knowledge, the Black Sea code draws a distinction between thermal intensifiers that see in the near infrared spectrum -- smaller, cheaper, not cooled -- and  thermal imagers , i.e. FLIR, that see into the mid to far infrared spectrum and are larger, more expensive and are cooled. The former are considered to be day/night sights and not in the same category as FLIR.
 
To the best of my knowledge the BPK-3-42 gunner's sight on the BMP-2M is a thermal intensifier. The fact that it has a passive range of only 800 meters is strongly suggestive. That means that in the Black Sea code it is not on-par with the Stryker gunner's thermal channel nor with the Vesna-K gunner's sight on the BMP-3M which by way of comparison is a FLIR with a passive range of over 4000 meters.

Nope, not a stupid question...mods work on either Mac or PC.
 
To do Mac you right click on the Black Sea Icon and select "show package contents"
 
Then click through CONTENTS>RESOURCES>DATA
 
In the data folder you will see a bunch of "brz" files...create a folder called "Zmods" and stick mods in there..they can be in folders if you like since a lot of them download that way...
 
Then launch the game and off you go.

Re: 200-500 meters
 
I think he's quoting max lethal effects range, or basically the distance at which fragmentation effects become entirely safe.  If it was possible to get such results from 3 KG of explosives and a special fuze, we'd be seeing a lot more flipping out about this/single artillery shells sweeping 4 KM clear of all life

8 degrees according to this. That is a far cry from the nearly 180 degrees of motion sensitive field of view that the Mark 1 Eyeball enjoys.

Sorta makes sense the gun maker is doing well in a country that's going guns over butter.
 
Re: AK-12
 
Russia would be well served just to pick one weapons system per role and stick with it.  They're sort of the king of having three tanks types for one mission, two or three "standard" systems, and a various spread of systems that are in field testing for a decade before ghosting.  Rifles especially, this isn't 1945 with bolt action, semi-auto, and assault rifles are all wandering around the battlefield, or it's a major showdown between 7.62X51 rifles and smaller 7.62X39 or 5.56X45 calibers.  If you dropped AK-74s with sufficient rails/somehow made them NATO compatible onto US troops, you'd see no real change in squad capabilities, and the same would go with M16A4s if they were actually AK-16A4s.
 
Rifles need to be generally reliable, mostly accurate, and cheap enough to give everyone one.  I would suggest the greater problem in rifles is that the only meaningful advances in rifle design since the late 70's-early 80's has all been accessories.  The reason the M16/M4 endures is simply because nothing out there offers so great an advantage as to be worth replacing every rifle in the US inventory.  I'd suggest the AK-74 is much the same, it's a good gun.  The AN-94, AK-12, and the like all haven't really offered a massive change in capabilities (with neat tricks like the AN-94's two shot burst not really being revolutionary must buy features).  

I would be more impressed if that were backed up by serious increases in defense spending. Most NATO counties barely have an army anymore.

I won't hold my breath either.

I won't hold my breath either.

I've noticed in AAR vids that many people do not use walk very often.
 
Walking is a very good way not to be seen.
 
I've walked recon units and FOs to locations in full view of the enemy and reached ideal locations
without being spotted.
 
When I quick move to a building, I walk to an elevated floor and setup. Only if the enemy is very close do I become spotted and invariably not even then.
 
Also walking around leaves your troops rested and ready for assaults or fast running.
 
I don't know how many times I've seen experienced players assault a position with tired forces and have them smacked.
 
If you plan to assault, rest your men. Too many times, people are in a hurry to engage. Condition is a very important part of the game and is seemingly ignored by many.
 
Also, C&C is also ignored by many. Its very important. I see players either move their command units to dangerous positions, leading from the front. This is American Civil War stuff. Think about moving command up to a safe, close position in relation to their troops. Try not to include them in the attack.
 
If you have to move them up for observation purposes, move your troops up first, wait a bit for spotting, then if its safe, move the command up slowly to a good observation spot.
 
Just a few thoughts.

It tells me that the separatists were heavily reinforced with better units and equipment ( all of a sudden ). Gee, I wonder where they suddenly came from ?
 
Edit: On top of which, there was also a "ceasefire" - if one side tries to observe it and doesn't use its heavy weapons ( artillery etc. ) to prevent enemy massing for an attack ( which they successfully did for weeks if not months prior ), that's also going to adversely affect the outcome of an offensive.

How does advancing while being under fire from heavy artillery look like? Although I have no military training I'm sure I would floor the bloody pedal to the metal after I'd decided where and when to move.
Edit: Something like, "Davai davai davai!!"  Anyone observing this might not get the impression there is actually a thorough plan behind those speeding fools in military vehicles.

Yeah don't know if that was a wise move by my government, selling of those tanks. From one point of view I don't see Netherlands active in a full spectrum armoured conflict all by itself (so why have them), on the other hand the knowledge of operating a tank battalion can be important to retain for one never knows what the future brings. It is said we are keeping some tank crews that train with tanks leased from Germany, for what that's worth.

I'm not sure!  Usually if it's not listed or available it's either OPSEC or a system not offered for sale elsewhere.  I try not to share anything I can't find in less than five minutes on google as then I assume it's not something I should default to sharing.  Either way the Thales system would be a pretty solid system for 1999, or if you're building tanks on a budget.  
 
 
This is deceptive.  The price of building something in America, by Americans, to American safety/union workplace standards etc would mean that if we built T-90s in the US, they would be much more expensive than the Russian T-90.  It's also worth comparing the ability to buy more than the actual price-point.  And to that end American has been able to afford several times as many M1A2s than Russia has been able to produce T-90s.
 
 
Armored vehicles all by their own nature of complexity tend to be fairly hard to maintain.  It's worth noting however the M1 is not especially hard to maintain, and the American system of maintenance has always allocated repair personnel to lower echelons (while still maintaining well fitted out rear repair areas).   More details:
 
a. The gas turbine engine while more fuel thirsty than most engines also has significantly less moving parts, and is actually fairly insensitive to lower quality fuels (basically if it'll burn and isn't too full of debris, the tank will run on it).  
 
b. The Abrams is very "plug and play" anything that cannot be readily fixed in the field can be pulled out as a module and replaced by field maintenance staff.  So while there's dedicated electronics repair staff, the tank doesn't have to actually go to them, and the matter of replacing even fairly complex systems if the part is available (and the amount of "bench stock" repairs in a war-footing unit is crazy) is capable of being accomplished by Company level personnel.
 
c. Each armored/mech infantry/armored cavalry type unit has a company level maintenance team of trained mechanics.  A tank has to be exceedingly broken before it gets sent to the rear
 
This question also ties back into the question of different capabilities.  The American supply system is amazingly robust, and efficient.  If there's one thing you can say about Americans, it's having more than enough fuel and supplies on hand is the norm by far.  US tank design can be more supply intensive for more performance because the US military can support supply intensive.  Historically the Russians have suffered in logistics, and their tanks are adjusted accordingly to be lower performing, but less supply intensive.
 
So to really tie these two points together, it's not best to compare economics one for one, but more of how well the system is adapted to the country it serves.
 
To that end the T-90 has proven expensive, and in many ways not enough of a tank for the money invested (see the focus on the T-72B3s, Armata programs over non-export T-90 upgrades). The US is quite happy with the M1 series.
 
 
Depends on the area of operations.  1 KM isn't a bad estimate in Europe.  If you're talking about someplace like, Korea then even shorter ranges may become the norm.  
 
 
You pick up the heat signature of whatever dust is kicked up. however thermal imaging still "sees" through dust and the like much better than the naked eye, you need a lot denser cloud of obscurantion before it effects the thermal image.  

Sosna-U is a Belarusian sight (made by Peleng in Minsk) that utilizes license-produced Catherine thermal imager. AFAIK, the FCS on the B3 was not fully modernized and has been criticized in the Russian military. It is very much a stop-gap, bare bones upgrade pending introduction of Armata.
T-90SM/AM, however, does have a fully modernized FCS. Don't remember, but possibly the AM in game has been given the Catherine XP thermal camera as these are supposed to be produced under license in Russia soon, but this still falls short of the optics in Abrams. But T-90SM/AM does have one fire control advantage over Abrams: the commander has his own laser rangefinder in his panoramic sight.

Yes. Even humidity will degrade it to a small degree. The dust kicked up by large artillery barrages can block it (although I don't think that is modeled in the game). Infrared light is still a type of light, after all. But infrared light will penetrate obscurants more readily than visible light because of its long wavelength -- particularly light on the mid to far end of the IR spectrum, which is why thermal sights can see through most types of smoke.

+1
 
Couldn't agree more.
 
Single IFVs cheving a light building in to the pieces for few turns or entire platoon for one turn is my most used MOUT tactic. Doing it from distance to avoid LAW/RPG fire. After the wall collapses, I fire few more salvos into the building and after that my infantry enters. Usually they encounter only littered corpses of enemy soldiers.
 
My tactic is also quite "russian" in advance or assault. I avoid MOUT as long as possible, trying to skirt and flank, and destroy the enemy outside urban areas. I also seek for multiple directions to fire urban inside areas and use streets and avenues as "fire corridors" to restrict enemy movement inside the town and finally destroy them when opportunities arise during my overwatch. But whenever I'm forced to attack a building, I do it with masses of firepower from distance, using MBTs, IFVs and artillery (saving mortars for open ground targets). 

+1
 
Couldn't agree more.
 
Single IFVs cheving a light building in to the pieces for few turns or entire platoon for one turn is my most used MOUT tactic. Doing it from distance to avoid LAW/RPG fire. After the wall collapses, I fire few more salvos into the building and after that my infantry enters. Usually they encounter only littered corpses of enemy soldiers.
 
My tactic is also quite "russian" in advance or assault. I avoid MOUT as long as possible, trying to skirt and flank, and destroy the enemy outside urban areas. I also seek for multiple directions to fire urban inside areas and use streets and avenues as "fire corridors" to restrict enemy movement inside the town and finally destroy them when opportunities arise during my overwatch. But whenever I'm forced to attack a building, I do it with masses of firepower from distance, using MBTs, IFVs and artillery (saving mortars for open ground targets). 

With the abundance of IFVs on the modern battlefield, 20 to 30mm autocannon fire is my tool of choice for clearing rooms from the outside. Bradleys have them, BTRs have them, BMPs have them, and they are all lethal against infantry in buildings. 120mm tank gun fire is nice, but not as readily available as the autocannons. The most effective MOUT vehicle is the Tunguska IMO. Its extremely fast rotating turret, combind with the lethal high rate firepower of its multiple barrels is absolutely devastating on any soft target inside a building. Usually a single burst is sufficient to kill everything in a room. IRL the Tunguska also has the important ability to hit the upper floors, something most tanks and IFVs cant due to gun elevation limits.

Odds are they are benefiting not just from being stationary, but also have dismounted infantry eyes aiding in their spotting. Try using mortars -- or any responsive tube, really -- to work the area over before you advance and see how that works out.

I did well in the first US campaign mission on Veteran (see here) and although I am no CM ninja, 16 friendly KIA and WIA vs 156 enemy KIA and WIA is a good result.  This is what I learned:
 
- Take it slowly.  Be cautious and methodical with your recon.  Do not look for a fight but position your units for the best possible LOS with the least possible exposure.
 
-  Move purposefully.  Do not move units unless they have decent cover as they maneuver and/or overwatch from other units with good LOS.  If you must cross open ground with inadequate cover, use "Fast" move orders so that your unit does not stop to engage superior forces.
 
-  When you deploy UAVs, keep them fairly close to your forward units.  If you send them too far forward they can get shot down and you have no eyes on where the shot came from, nor any capacity to spot and prosecute the responsible entity.  The best way to leverage both UAVs and indirect fires is to minimize speculative use and to coordinate these assets with direct fire and maneuver.
 
-  Place units with long-range weapon systems on uncontested high ground if possible but only after recon has been there first to spot threats.
 
-  Exploit long-range weapon systems by placing tanks and ATGM-equipped vehicles in defilade from where they can command LOS from one end of the map to the other, using intersecting lines of fire.  It's amazing how effective these systems can be in taking out enemy vehicles before they can position themselves as a threat to your main effort.
 
-  Always get down in the weeds to assess LOS and use the predictive LOS tool to assess LOS from a forward plotted waypont before committing to that route.
 
-  Never push your IFVs so far into combat that they might get shwacked before you dismount the infantry.
 
-  Do not move your vehicles across long distances without overwatch or cover provided by either elevation or terrain obscuration.
 
-   Plan carefully for where you place snipers, FOs and JTACs and give them target arc limits so that they do not pick fights when they should be spotting.  More through luck than judgement, I managed to get a vehicle-mounted spotter into such a good position in the first mission of the US campaign that he was able to direct precision artillery fire onto three enemy tanks, obliterating them all.
 
-  Do not use supporting fires speculatively but time it so that you can coordinate indirect fire with direct fire and maneuver on identified targets.
 
-  If you see an enemy tank with LOS on your axis of advance, do not walk your forces into its kill zone.  Put them nto cover, suspend your advance and use precision artillery, long-range direct fires or CAS to deplete the threat before you move up.
 
-  If you have to advance through woods or towns, dismount infantry and cover their advance with LOS from vehicles.
 
-  Set up intersecting lines of fire.
 
-  Above all, be patient.  OPTEMPO is an interesting concept.  It is much better to play out a couple of turns if you feel that the enemy might reveal itself to your forces by maneuvering into their LOS envelope than pressing into unknown territory because you think there is some benefit in racing to your objectives when your situational awareness is incomplete.  It is much better to wear the enemy down via good fire and maneuver tactics than rushing headlong for objectives.  Maneuver to take the primary objectives and dig in rather than over-extend yourself.  You will still be credited with a Major Victory through overwhelming attrition of the enemy regardless of ground gained (apart from the primary objectives).
 
None of this will come as any surprise to experienced players but it may be of some use to intermediate strivers like me.

I'll put in a report about it to see if it can get changed to a more appropriate name.

Pardon my possible ignorance, but when looking Ukranian infantry squad unit roster, there's listed 9.25mm ammo, usually 48 rounds in the squad? Being quite familiar with russian origin small arms, I've never heard of such ammunition. 
 
Possible typo, meaning 9x18mm Makarov ammo? 6x8 = 48 -> six 8 round magazines in the squad?

Combat Mission: Mutant Apocalypse