Jump to content

exsonic01

Members
  • Content Count

    390
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

exsonic01 last won the day on May 26 2018

exsonic01 had the most liked content!

About exsonic01

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location:
    Somewhere middle of the dusty valley CA
  • Interests
    Chemistry, Tanks, and Games

Recent Profile Visitors

1,449 profile views
  1. What I want to say is the final decision of equipping K-5 for T-80U was people in charge in Morozov. They should had adequate knowledge about K-5 and its principle and capability to make that decision. And I think that experience somehow helped them to design their own. After all, ERA is not that seriously difficult mechanism to understand, neither serious degree of metallurgical knowledge is required to design and research one. Not to mention ERA is not related with thermal too. You and I are not in the position to make any call about UA's R&D capability and manufacturing at all, neither in position to correctly comment about reasons behind how they decided to develop Nizh and delay Thaliand order. (Unless you are UA government official. And I'm not related with UA in any forms) In this case, we can only speculate and express our 'opinion', at least we both agree about that, right? Your idea is also your opinion based on what you believe, but you don't need to undermine other's opinion as "fairy tale" before you bring your support evidence for your version of "fairy tale", right? To answer your claim, I don't know and I maybe wrong. But evidences shown in the report (presentation in 20th international armored vehicle conference I linked in original post) is suggesting that UA made a descent ERA and they fielded in Bulat tanks. I also agree, I don't expect they made totally something new. I also wrote in this post and previous post, they get some hint or they take some advantage from what they learned from experiences with K-5 and knowledge related with past doctrine / design principle of T-64 series and T-80 series. My opinion is, based on those, they developed something upgraded when compared old cold war soviet design such as K-5. Again, I am not saying their ERA is revolutionarily upgraded, but they just made something more or less better presumably based on their cold war experience. Report means the presentation in 20th international armored vehicle conference, which supports Nizh showed good operational capability in Donbass war. https://defence-ua.com/index.php/en/publications/defense-express-publications/5144-oleksandr-guchenkov-we-develop-innovative-reactive-armor-protections-while-simultaneously-upgrading-and-improving-legacy-designs http://uamicrotech.com/2018/11/23/oleksandr-guchenkov-we-develop-innovative-reactive-armor-protections/ Well I only have UA sources so... I don't know, all I'm sure is Morozov "participated" in research and they made final decision to put Nizh in Bulat. But who knows? Maybe you are right.
  2. Well, design of Nizh is not Mikrotek, but Morozov. And yes K-5 development was in NII Stali but it wouldn't make sense if Morozov have no idea about K-5's design principles and techniques, because they designed a tank with K-5. Morozov should have enough knowledge about K-5 which they could exploit to design their own ERA. Fair about budget issue, but we never know what and how they dealt with budget issue - they could just delay the project instead of downgrade the Nizh project. Or they could keep the Nizh R&D budget intact but just cut or delay budget for manufacturing. We just would never know about Nizh project. We can only assume, based on those reports, that Morozov did learned something from ERA of cold war designs, and applied such lessons to their ERA.
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nozh_(explosive_reactive_armour) Looks like Nozh and Nizh are the same ones.
  4. Recent conference of armored vehicles presented research / observation data for Ukraine Nozh ERA. http://sd.net.ua/2020/01/20/donbass-tanki-artylleriya.html https://diana-mihailova.livejournal.com/4420448.html I'm relying on google translator. Most of the armored vehicles were destroyed or damaged by artillery (total 45% of armored vehicle damage) Nizh ERA successfully defended against 3BM42 Mango and 152mm top attack EFP (probably from ICMs) Ukraine researchers examined 55 Bulat tanks operated during Donbass war, and they found 17 vehicles were protected by Nizh One of observation of Nizh ERA on Bulat was defense against 9M133 tandem Kornet. I think Bulat and Nizh's defensive performance is underestimated in CMBS. But if carefully think about this, this performance of Nizh shown in Donbass campaign presentation makes sense. Morozov design bureau has an experience of designing K-5 ERA during cold war. They should be able to develop something better than their old cold war era armor. There were a lot of underestimation or negative speculation about Nizh ERA around here and there, but based on those facts, I think Nizh ERA should be upgraded as well in this game. Accordingly, I think Bulat tank's survivality should be buffed for next version of this game. Other interesting point is that, artillery HE on top armor would not be likely to penetrate top armor of tanks. I mean, if it hits weak engine room or thin places, of course it will wreck tank. But if HE dropped on top of the armored area, it would not guarantee a kill. But of course it will bring huge damage. I mentioned before somewhere in this forum, but HE rounds are not meant to penetrate something. In this example, ERA cover can even defeat EFPs. We really need DPICM / FASCAM for this game. There is no question about it if this game truly want to depict the "realistic" armored warfare. Doctrine & TO&E of forces during Donbass war would not be the same with the ones of full scale war between US and Rus, I got that. However, it is also true that the damage potential & role of artillery is greatly limited in this game. Forcing artillery to not to use ICMs and FASCAMs and claiming "realistic combat" does not makes sense. Of course, to prevent arty spam, it would be needed to introduce off-map counter battery action. The presentation data also indicates very active CB missions during Donbass campaign (65% of arty killed by arty). I know, Donbass campaign cannot be compared with hypothetical US-Rus war, but technology and artillery doctrine wouldn't be hugely different from what we saw from Donbass war. In addition, for next version, so many things are needed for CMBS. More operations of drones (UA drones should be included of course), more recon ability (GSR and thermal) and more light infantry / low tier SF team to faster speed and better stamina as recon teams. Plus, I wish, (and I guess many others also think the same) new module of CMBS should leave from assumption of previous versions. Rather, it would be better to start from more realistic situations and more realistic weapons of 2015. Or, how about move to 2020? If next module depicts 2020 or at least late 2010s, (which I really wish), then new weapons would be needed: T-90AM should be moved to T-90M, T-72B3 obr.2016 should be introduced as well as T-72B3, and T-80BVM maybe? Also there should be Stryker with autocannon / Javelin ATGM. A-10 is still in service so should be included. And plus we need new M1A2C. And of course there are more. I'm not sure about T-14, as the program is very likely to further delayed.
  5. I'm not sure how ATGM missed. If APS defended ATGM from airstrike or gunship, that should be a bug. As far as I remember, CMBS APS has a range of angle and projectile speed to engage against projectile, shouldn't react against ATGM from air. I remember, the old patch fixed this issue, wasn't it? But I can't remember. Too long time ago I played CMBS. I'm not sure if 152mm/203mm really could one shot one kill the Abrams. Well, top armor is weaker than front, but HE rounds are not designed to penetrate something. (If it is DPICM then it is totally different story. ) But I agree that such direct hit of 152mm/203mm on Abrams would wreck all subsystems and takes out all observation/detection abilities, and has a good chance to wreck the cannon barrel. IMO that Abrams is already a dead one, so you can approach your RPG team and score a home run. This reminds of the meme "Omae Wa Mou Shindeiru" "NANI?" Anyway, speaking of killing Abrams in CMBS.... this really depends on geometry and luck. Back in the day when I used to enjoy CMBS PBEM, I relied on several elements I could try. 1) Smoke and Khriz (only works in no-wind day) Find the hill top or any good open position to observe enemy approach. Deploy the smoke curtain using BMPs or BTRs. Then move Khriz inside the smoke curtain. Khriz can aim and guide his missile using MMW radar, which can see through IR blocking smoke. Smoke curtain usually being blown off (even in no wind condition) ~1 min, so you need to retreat your Khriz, or redeploy smoke in good timing. While opponent's Abrams are killed or hide behind the cover, you can fast move your vehicles to the position you want. I usually purchase elite Khriz regardless of expensive price tag, to ensure high accuracy. 2) T-72 spam, try to engage within 500m or closer distance. Using T-90AM or T-90A is a waste, because they are not good against Abrams anyway. So I usually rely on regular experience T-72s, try to purchase them as much as possible. Then, approach to the enemy line, circumvent the possible kill zone, use cover as much as possible like infantry. I only moved cover to cover. Then engage Abrams within 500m, sometimes tried to within 100m. This really depends on map. With close distance, weakness of poor long range detection and long range accuracy is minimized, and weakness of weaker APFSDS can be decreased as well. I always try this method in many cold war tactical games. 3) You can min max 1)+2) Use Khriz + smoke, force your opponent to cover his Abrams behind the cover. If you are lucky, you can kill one or two. Then, rush your mechanized infantry and tanks to target town or forest and hide them well. Deploy your forces to key terrain before enemies do under Khriz+smoke cover. Later, those forces will make a good ambush homerun in the future. If the wind is heavy, your smoke cover will be blown off very fast, like 30 second. This is a problem because 30 second is less than 1 min turn time, which not allow you to control your Khriz before the smoke is gone. In this case, just use T-72s, or use one Khriz very carefully, like place them in curtain 30sec and retreat it... 4) Use mortar + recon wisely. Pre-design artillery strike or call mortar on possible enemy infantry deploy position to deny or harass Javelin team. Proper mortar can reduce enemy infantry number, which is very important. I always bring mortar, small or medium ones, because they have fast reaction speed and quite good to kill infantry and light vehicle. You also need a good recon control to figure out where the enemy troops are. Don't just throw them into the fire, they have better chance to detect enemy elements than your T-72s. So use them wisely, try to save them as long as possible. All of those needs some practice, and they are not easy of course (especially recon part), but once you get used to it, you can score good number of Abrams during CMBS PBEM... Still, it is really hard to win US with Rus in CMBS. The real problem for me was Javelin launchers. They are hard to detect, quite cheap, but never forgives my mistake. I sometimes scored a good exchange rate against Abrams using T-72s, but eventually I lost a lot of tanks due to Javelin, and some are killed by Bradley. In some games I got all Abrams tanks, but eventually lose in score because I lost too many T-72s by Bradley and Javelin... This is the reason why one need to practice how to properly use recon teams and mortars to hunt down Javelin teams. If you play a good hour of CMBS PBEM, you will be able to deduct / predict possible Javelin position. I don't use Russian airforce or gunships in CMBS, because Stinger is damn good. They are infantry, usually hide behind the line, very hard to detect or counter them, and not that expensive so easy to field 3+ number of Stinger teams. Stingers are accurate, so if there are 3 teams, usually they score at least one air asset at the first salvo. Airforces are usually expensive too. I rather buy more mortars. Even with those, it is not easy to win against good US player. While playing CMBS PBEM repeatedly, several opponents get used to my tactics and my "meta", and he begin to counter them with Abrams and Bradley. I won them several times, but my opponents getting smarter and cunning enough not to fall to my traps. So, playing Russian in CMBS is getting more and more geometry dependent. It is really important to find proper place to maximize your merit. So, what I wish to say is: It is true that Abrams in CMBS is very tough and difficult enemy to deal with. In that sense, CMBS Russian forces has much steeper learning curve than US. But still, it is more important how to manage them and how to set the tactics. They you can get a good score in the future.
  6. Hello Waclaw, 

    I wish to discuss something about your sound mode, but for some reason I cannot send you a PM. How can I send you PM? 

    Thanks for your great work! 

  7. I'm not sure if this topic has been discussed or not. If it is repeating post than please move this post to proper thread. Stryker with 30mm autocannon is already issued to US army from last year. https://www.dvidshub.net/news/257951/2cr-receives-first-30mm-stryker-europe Plus, Javelin Strykers are under initial fielding process, and more numbers will be fielded 2020 and later. https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/08/31/no-more-exposure-this-forward-unit-is-getting-an-upgrade-that-lets-strykers-fire-missiles-remotely/ If are there any plan for CMBS2 or next module of CMBS, can we expect those? They are already issued to field units.
  8. Is this just upgraded version of CMSF1, which bring same units and same maps based on circa 2008 based technology, but only with new game engine? Or is this something new one, with new units and new maps based on 2018 technology, with new game engine?
  9. After long while, I returned to here, but why this thread become warzone about Trump? Lets focus on Korea guys. As a thread starter, I feel some responsibility to open such battlefield. If this thread flows in this way, this thread will be closed.
  10. This is the true reality of DPRK. No propaganda, no politics, but the true testimony from a person who escaped from DPRK for her life. (Not only her, but also the most of DPRK defectors have more or less similar opinion) True face of DPRK communism is pure evil. I really can't understand why everyone is hyped about such peace deal with crazy Kim. Everyone knows what happened after Neville Chamberlain made Munich agreement with Hitler!! PEACE always looks cool and sounds great. But if anyone too obsessed with PEACE and commit a stupid mistake, then the outcome will be unfathomable. Peace without weapon and will to fight is just surrender, nothing more. I would rather be a person who prepare more weapon and ammunition, rather than a person who open the door to pure evil in the name of PEACE. http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/391788-graham-anything-trump-negotiates-with-north-korea-will-have-to-come-to Trump's deal need to pass the congress. Let's see what will going to happen. But many senators and congressmen are worrying about the deal.
  11. Yesterday's summit deal was really really bad deal. I think Trump is dreaming of Nobel peace prize way too much, so that he is doing the same mistake again. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/06/12/trump-should-give-kim-30-days-to-produce-denuclearization-plan-or-intensify-sanctions.html This is just opinion, not official news article. But I agree with this one. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/12/asia/kim-trump-success-for-north-korea-intl/index.html?no-st=1528824033 And yeah, I agree with this one too. Crazy Kim doesn't even need to give up anything. There's no "CVID" in the agreement paper. If Trump really thinks that he can "deal & solve" with crazy Kim dynasty and DPRK with the same methods of last two decades, then this mistake will eventually return to him, maybe during his re-election campaign or other time. They will cheat us again and they will come back with better nukes in their hands. Then, what Trump will going to say? He can't do anything at that moment if he is under other burdens on his hands. I don't know what is the mind of Trump and his cabinet. But if we can't do strict and broad CVID within very short period of time, we will fail. If DPRK does not accept that, we need to cancel the deal and increase the level of pressure to DPRK. https://www.jpost.com/International/Did-Trump-achieve-what-Obama-couldnt-559770 Look at this, even Israeli paper is criticizing this talk and Trump XD lol I really didn't expect this. All of those shows how bad the Trump's deal was.
  12. Hmmmmm... at least I tried not to be political about this topic, I only do when "someone" being political first. I will try not to be political more in the future.
  13. Pompeo and Kim Yong Chul is having a meeting now. Pompeo mentioned that there is a "real progress" but "significant challenges remained and predicted more “tough moments and difficult times” as the two sides negotiated." And he mentioned it is not clear yet whether the talk will be held at 12th June or not. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/31/pompeo-says-north-korean-official-to-deliver-personal-letter-from-kim-jong-un-to-white-house.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/31/world/asia/trump-kim-korea-summit.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/31/politics/us-north-korea-talks-new-york/index.html Besides, Taiwan and HongKong news suggests the possibility of Russia - PRC - DPRK summit talks before US-DPRK talk: https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3443887 SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) is the block of Russia, PRC, and old-soviet nations except Pakistan and India. While I'm not sure would whether Kim will really be at Shanghai, maybe very high ranking profile might be there and have a talk with Russia and PRC. This is not a good sign for US-DPRK summit talk.. If this talk (Kim-Putin-Xi meeting) really happens, this might be a good indication of incoming era of "new" cold war. Personally, I'm really not sure, is the talk really good idea. Strict level of CVID will require a lot of things, I'm suspicious if DPRK will accept it. Even though they agree with strict CVID, what if they lie to us again? What would we do if they dig a nuke in very deep deep mountain of the northern part of DPRK or somewhere very ordinary & plain place, and bring it later in their convenient time? Also, some sources say DPRK already hide key scientists by "identity washing" like our Witness Protection program. How do we find those people if they lie to us? Any "talk" requires the trust between each other, but they have so many ways to cheat us again. Recent CIA report suggests that DPRK will never give up their nuke program: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/north-korea/cia-report-says-north-korea-won-t-denuclearize-might-open-n878201 Let's watch what will happen from Pompeo-Kim talk, and see what kind of DPRK reaction will be there.
  14. I mentioned in previous post that current RoK leadership is very pro-DPRK and pro-PRC. Those Korean liberal groups are mostly stands for Korean-ethnic nationalism and socialism. The most of cabinet members and president himself of RoK were members of ultra-left organizations like "University student front" or etc, almost all of them were linked with DPRK directly or indirectly. They only little bit changed their attitude toward US and DPRK. This is not the first time RoK behaves strangely like this. RoK liberal leaderships in the past were also pro-DPRK and pro-PRC, more or less. Robert Gates once mentioned president Roh as "anti-American and probably a little crazy" in his book. Current president Moon was the secretary general of president Roh at that time. Novel peace prize winner, president Kim dae jung was also involved in illegal money transfer to DPRK back in 2003. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/13/kim.scandal/ Under this circumstance, I don't see why and how we are played. It is current RoK leadership who doesn't want to stand with us, not us who want to push them or being fooled by DPRK's plan to create space between US and RoK. See what current RoK advisor said about US-RoK relation: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/05/moon-south-korea-us-alliance/560501/ I think Koreans, especially Korean liberals, are very two-faced. I'm curious about whether they consider us as an ally or not. They want to sell their car, steel, phone, and all those goods to us, and they want to "look good" with us so that foreign investors & banks keep invest to RoK and they can keep their credit rating high enough. Yet, at the same time, they wish to turn down the relationship between us and them when we need their help as an alliance. I'm very suspicious that some of current RoK cabinet might be DPRK spies, maybe or maybe not. Anyway, what I want to say is, it is not our fault if RoK get away from us, it is their fault. And I don't think we need to beg to RoK to keep alliance with us. If they don't want us, fine, let them go. But considering the dependency of overall Korean economy on us, I think they can't just neutralize US-RoK alliance. In some sense I agree with you, I already expected and mentioned that there will be a US-DPRK talk, but any draft or agreement will be very ambiguous, and deal will be crushed due to collision on details, like recent Iran deal was broken. Key is, DPRK can't accept CVID, while we wish to push not only CVID but also hacking issues and overall NBC(Nuke Bio Chemical) weapons. And "maximum pressure" will be applied. Kim wants to earn some time before full weaponization of their nukes, so we better hurry if we want to do something. But I don't see what kind of advantages he get. I agree with this. I also think those talks with commies might be a waste of time honestly, because DPRK will never accept CVID. (I think Bolton expressed his concern in similar fashion) But at the same time, this can work as the final warning to DPRK, and I think Trump maybe wish to check by himself about what Kim is really willing to do. After this talk, they will be forced to choice something. If they keep their nuke program after the talk (which I expect), then the pressure will never be the same as before, and I think this time the pressure will include PRC. Honestly, I think all of those recent events are aiming towards PRC, and DPRK issue is just one of the way to find a good reason to take an action against PRC. This is just my guess, but I think Trump himself maybe knows that DPRK will not accept CVID plus etc, then pressure will be applied, then PRC will support DPRK, then we can start big sanctions against PRC and so on.... Not sure about this part regarding PRC so take a bit salt on this opinion XD I think they are doing typical good cop bad cop approach towards DPRK. When Bolton throws very hard ball, then Trump and Pompeo try to look "soft" during interview or etc. In some sense I agree, maybe PRC can playing against us using ZTE network and machines in the future, but I think it is not such a huge disaster like your claim. This can be an another leverage for us. ZTE sanction is another warning sign to PRC, let them know what can we do against them. Remember, we can give sanction again whenever we want, or when we find ZTE doing suspicious. So that PRC won't do any stupid things against us in the future regarding DPRK issue, South china sea and Taipei China issue and etc....
  15. Well, Trump canceled the meeting yesterday, which I also didn't expect. I was skeptical about meaningful result, but I thought at least they would have a talk. But I think this was a good decision. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-05-24/north-korea-talks-trump-can-win-by-walking-away This is just one of the reader opinions from Bloomberg, but I mostly agree with this article. Then suddenly, DPRK changed their mind, saying aggressive comments were DPRK diplomat's personal opinions, and mentioned they want to start the talk. Plus, they mentioned "President Trump" in their official statement. LOL, they never clearly stated "President Trump" before, and it was not long ago that DPRK statement blamed Trump, Bolton and Pence like "crazy warmongers will be on hellfire if they do anything stupid on 'holy' Juche nation". Funny to watch them in panic. Where have all those guts were gone? XD Typical cowards. Not sure whitehouse will re-accept the talk offer, but IMO pressure to DPRK and PRC will be increased. Folks are saying that strict financial sanction like BDA account squeeze will be also considered.
×
×
  • Create New...