Map size and lethality

[Dynaman216]

CMSF often felt like a knife fight with the fighters tied together. The 3.0 engine should help with the map size issue but will the active defense systems make any difference with the lethality of certain tanks vs other tanks - namely just about any western tank vs any soviet tank.

Any other remarks on lethality in the new system? Granted, modern hardware is more lethal than WWII but I'm probably going to pass on this one.

[dan/california]

I confess I am a bit curious about how long it takes to reduce at least one side to smoking wreckage. There are a lot of fire and forget, nothing left but a smoking crater, sort of toys on that list. Of course "seven turns to surrender"battles might mean I had time to play....

[Buzz]

"CMSF often felt like a knife fight with the fighters tied together."

Black Sea won't be ... Ya Mama's CMSF Check out the list of new Black Sea units, equipment, features... Looks like a whole lot more equal sparing ... even if you select knife fight distances.

Maps presumably would relate to modern equipment - could be many KMs ins both directions? Heck, CMRT WWII has some darn HUGE maps.

Active defense systems make a life saving difference in real life so I suspect this will be realistically modeled into Black Sea.

[Cuirassier]

It will very much be a 'first look, first shot, first kill' kind of environment I imagine.

[pnzrldr]

Biggest issue with lethality right now is the Abrams. In truth, it is a deathwagon, and is very hard to kill, especially with APS added to it. Javelins are also difficult for Eastern hardware to cope with. Best bet there is to kill the squad before they shoot. Everything else is fairly balanced. Both sides have thermals, and though western are better, they still serve as an equalizer. If the Abrams is too lethal for you, try taking Stryker units up against Russian Mech! Note that you can also play UKR versus RUS and enjoy a sizable tech advantage as the Russians! However, you have to respect the overall lethality of ALL the weapons on the battlefield. Modern tandem RPGs are wicked. Russian INF squads also carry thermobaric warheads - very evil for US INF. INF weapons on both sides are vicious. Light cannons and grenade launchers will shred INF on either side. If you are good at systematic, bounding, flowing fire and maneuver, or synchronized focused defensive kill sacks, you will love this game. If your typical tactics resemble Cardigan at Balaclava... well, you may have a sizable learning curve.

[MikeyD]

Also something in this game that's not in CMSF - the heavy ECM environment. Your anti-tank missile is liable to veer off course or get knocked out of the sky. You hit someone with a laser rangefinder and they automatically disappear behind a cloud of smoke. Your communications with your drone or artillery support might be jammed. So your highly lethal environment might find itself incrementally less-and-less lethal. One-shot-one-kill turns into one-shot-one-dud.

[Alan8325]

Biggest issue with lethality right now is the Abrams. In truth, it is a deathwagon, and is very hard to kill, especially with APS added to it.

Knowing this, the Russians would probably do their best to deal with these with artillery and air attacks at the operational level, before we get to a CM-like scenario. Precision artillery, guided missiles launched from aircraft and mines would be the anti-Abrams weapons of choice. Of course they wouldn't necessarily be successful and the U.S. would probably ensure it has air superiority before sending Abrams formations, but Black Sea scenario designers have plenty of realistic "the Abrams' didn't make it" situations to use as back story for balanced scenarios.

[Hister]

I get the impression Abrams is a too hyped up weapon. Does it really have such a superiority? I mean in real life.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

In a word, Yes.

[Michael Emrys]

Well it did 23 years ago, but it should come as no shock if some of that advantage has dissipated due to other nations, especially Russia, making their own advances in the field of armored warfare.

Michael

[George MC]

One of the beta testers is a RL US armour officer with a great deal of experience of the Abrams. It does appear they are pretty fearsome AFVs, however they do that their weaknesses and are vulnerable. Large maps are useful as you can then attempt to outmanoeuvre them and go for flank or rear shots. Another tactic that does for them is volley fire from ATGMs.

Back on topic it's worth keeping in mind that large maps can be a struggle to run on some PCs etc. Whilst you can make really large maps some players will struggle to have their PCs run em. My largest map is around 4km x 4km on rolling farmland terrain with lot's of wooded shelter belts. Not many units but less beefy PCs could struggle to run it. I'm running the following:

GeForce GTX 660Ti

Intel® Core™ i5-4670K CPU @ 3.40Ghz

16GB RAM

1920 x 1080, 60Hz display

1 Tb hard drive

And this map plays fine for me running around 30FPS, occasionally dropping to around 20FPs when the shooting starts big style. Even with lower FPS the game play is still smooth as butter.

It is great fun though charging about with modern armour at full speed 'dodging' ATGMs!

[DMS]

I get the impression Abrams is a too hyped up weapon. Does it really have such a superiority? I mean in real life.

IRL Abrams probably won't penetrate modern Russian tanks front armor. Also Abrams won't be penetrated by them. At least by 1st shot in both cases, armor can degrade after multiple hits.

Actually, noone knows.

P.S. No T-80 in the game? It will be easier for Abrams commanders.

[Hister]

IRL Abrams probably won't penetrate modern Russian tanks front armor. Also Abrams won't be penetrated by them. At least by 1st shot in both cases, armor can degrade after multiple hits.

Actually, noone knows.

P.S. No T-80 in the game? It will be easier for Abrams commanders.

Ha, I guess we will know when the game is released.

[Stagler]

Unit listings are already up.

No T-80 sadly. T-80UD is in second line service at the moment I believe, although AKD would disagree but hes allowed to have his opinion

It is slowing ending service.

I guess if the game is set in 2017 then it can be assumed that T-80 will be completely phased out by now.

Protection levels on the T-90AM with Relikt is believed to be sufficient to stop APFSDS. It is assessed that there is around a 25% chance of APFSDS deflection or damage to the projectile I believe. So the chance to deflect is still quite slim. Most HEAT munitions on the other hand will have trouble with Relikt. Top attack munitions will most likely still penetrate the turret. As ERA coverage on the roof is minimal at best, and is still Konkakt-5.

Ukraine has in service T-80UD Birch. This is precursor of the OPLOT.

[Razgovory]

I get the impression Abrams is a too hyped up weapon. Does it really have such a superiority? I mean in real life.

It's difficult to actually know. Unlike WWII tank battles, there's not a lot of data. Often things like armor thickness or makeup is classified. Not to mention what any given weapon will do to the armor. For all we know the Russians figured out how to defeat Chobham armor ten years ago. We really have no idea what happens if missile x hits vehicle y. Well someone probably knows, but that tends to be secret.

In my mind the Abram's armor and guns are somewhat overhyped. The vehicle certainly isn't invincible. The biggest advantage is in crew training.

[Alan8325]

9M123 Khrizantema was designed to deal with current western MBTs such as the M1A2. Either it works as advertised or it doesn't. Unfortunately (fortunately) real life Abrams haven't come up against such weapons to guide simulation of their effectiveness.

[wolf66]

Nice vid about 9M123 Khrizantema

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a6e_1382516899&comments=1

[SgtHatred]

IRL Abrams probably won't penetrate modern Russian tanks front armor. Also Abrams won't be penetrated by them. At least by 1st shot in both cases, armor can degrade after multiple hits.

Actually, noone knows.

P.S. No T-80 in the game? It will be easier for Abrams commanders.

IRL I'm pretty sure the Abrams would cut right through the T-90AMs front armor. The T-90's protection is not that impressive, especially compared to other modern tanks, including the T-80.

The T-84 Oplot-M is in the game though, so the Ukrainians may actually have a better tank than the Russians, though I know very little of how advanced the Oplot-M is over the T-80UD

[Michael Emrys]

It's difficult to actually know. Unlike WWII tank battles, there's not a lot of data.

Which is why I have always regarded modern warfare games (aside from those based on such actual wars as the Arab-Israeli wars [and even there we don't always get the real dope]) as science fiction to be taken with a generous grain of salt. They have, with a few exceptions, been based mostly on rumor, supposition, and wishful thinking in varying proportions. Doesn't mean that they can't be fun to play, just that one should not try to draw too many conclusions from them.

Michael

[MikeyD]

Regarding Abrams vs T-90 lets recall one weighs twenty tons more than the other. That's roughly the weight differential between a Panther and Sherman, and then some. Recent events have shown that T-90 (and its variants) are not exactly unstoppable uberweapons on the battlefield.

[DMS]

Regarding Abrams vs T-90 lets recall one weighs twenty tons more than the other. That's roughly the weight differential between a Panther and Sherman, and then some. Recent events have shown that T-90 (and its variants) are not exactly unstoppable uberweapons on the battlefield.

It is larger, that's why heavier.

It's like IS-2 (46 tons) and Tiger. (56 tons)

What exactly events? As I remember, in 2008 there were no T-90 in action.

[Dynaman216]

With Russian equipment the question to ask is if it is really "better" or just the latest name change for propaganda purposes. Does their new round deflection system actually work? Who knows?

[AttorneyAtWar]

With Russian equipment the question to ask is if it is really "better" or just the latest name change for propaganda purposes. Does their new round deflection system actually work? Who knows?

Well I would hope people know in regards to the T-90 that it is literally an upgraded T-72, its unofficial name is T-72BU and was later changed to T-90. I have a feeling it might be for propaganda purposes.

[Vanir Ausf B]

propaganda purposes.

Marketing. The brand took a hit during the '91 Gulf War.

[Stagler]

Well someone probably knows, but that tends to be secret.

This is true.

Russian design puts a lot of reliance upon the effectiveness of ERA. I would say that open source assessments of ERA are mostly correct.

The T-90 is indeed an update of the T-72 series. Its original model, the T-72BU, was simply a T-72B upgraded with K5 and T-80U level FCS and sighting systems.

However with the T-90A series the turret and hull was redesigned. It looks similar but when all ERA is stripped off is a completely different shape.

Traditionally Russian platforms have suffered from a lack of acquisition capability, but with Thales systems installed on the newest variations of tanks this capability gap with the west has been bridged.

Destroying a T-90 will not be an issue for the M1 series, but now the M1 series is at risk of being accurately acquired, engaged, and destroyed from a range by T-90A, AM, and T-72B3s. All of which have Thales FCS, and GLATGM.