Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dynaman216

Map size and lethality

Recommended Posts

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

Marketing = Propaganda = Public Relations

It's just that the term Propaganda lost some of it's marketing value during the last century :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey

Stop bullying the T-90! :) I'm sure it's a potent weapon in the right hands under the right conditions. With that said I'm also sure the Abrams is easily destroyed when used incorrectly under bad conditions. Now if we are talking one on one, platform vs platform, plain ground, standing and exchanging then I'm pretty sure we all would bet our money on the Abrams..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey

Stop bullying the T-90! :) I'm sure it's a potent weapon in the right hands under the right conditions. With that said I'm also sure the Abrams is easily destroyed when used incorrectly under bad conditions. Now if we are talking one on one, platform vs platform, plain ground, standing and exchanging then I'm pretty sure we all would bet our money on the Abrams..

Nail on head mate :) I've found using Abrams you get cocky - then you lose em. Flank shots, multiple hits from multiple directions etc etc. They are not invincible but one on one, toe to toe T90 vs Abrams is usually not going to end well for the T90. Far better to ambush the Abrams or take one from multiple directions using multiple attackers. Think T34-76 vs Tiger :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a question. Ok, probably Abrams can survive hit from T-90. But can it survive multiple his? Imagine situation. Platoon (company) of T-90 meets single Abrams and start shoot at it. In old CMSF Abrams may loose optics, but would stay alive. How realistic is it? I think armor plate will degrade after multiple hits. The same thing for ERA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey

Stop bullying the T-90! :) I'm sure it's a potent weapon in the right hands under the right conditions. With that said I'm also sure the Abrams is easily destroyed when used incorrectly under bad conditions. Now if we are talking one on one, platform vs platform, plain ground, standing and exchanging then I'm pretty sure we all would bet our money on the Abrams..

I would bet money on both. If they fired both at the same time that is. Both would be mission kills. Probably a kinetic kill on the T-90.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a question. Ok, probably Abrams can survive hit from T-90. But can it survive multiple his? Imagine situation. Platoon (company) of T-90 meets single Abrams and start shoot at it. In old CMSF Abrams may loose optics, but would stay alive. How realistic is it? I think armor plate will degrade after multiple hits. The same thing for ERA.

I've noticed this in CMBS - multiple hits on Abrams will end up killing it. So it appears that degradation of it's armour is modelled, or a single hit got lucky.

In fact that is the best way to do for them is engage with multiple shooters, ideally from different angles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless Charles has added it to Black Sea without telling anyone, armor degredation is not modeled in CMx2, with the exception of ERA. Presently in the game the Abrams can be penetrated frontally by the latest Russian tandem HEAT and APFSDS munitions, but only occasionally. It's a crap shoot with the dice loaded in the Abram's favor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IRL Abrams probably won't penetrate modern Russian tanks front armor.

The reason why the US didn't use the L/55 120mm that the German's have gone to is because the M829A3 round fired from the L/44 M256 has greater performance and it's a safe bet it will penetrate frontally at battle ranges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One factor that might lower the lethality is that the farmfields of Ukraine does not equal the deserts of Iraq or Ft Irwin, where we've had the brunt of our "near peer threat" experience with mechanized units. A quick perusal of Google Earth shows a large swath of Ukraine that is agriculturally developed and limits LOS to 1k and under, and very spotty LOS over that. I would be curious to look at some of the REFORGER exercises in Germany and see what their estimations of lethality were and what combat would have looked like. That might give a better idea of what to expect of mechanized combat in a more temperate environment.

Another thought that occurs to me is that our idea of modern lethality is primarily based upon our experience in rotations at CTCs, where whole brigades go up against determined, near peer threat OPFOR over the course of several weeks. Often you can see entire brigades attrited to under 50% combat power in a matter of days, only to be reconstituted in 24 hours to fight the next series of battles. Very important for training value, but a little hokey when it comes to depicting the friction of continuous combat operations. An entire brigade combat team is not built in a day... and the soldiers who are left alive would not be eager to throw themselves into the fray again when it means certain death, and neither would their commanders. You lose an Abrams on the battlefield, and a new one requires not only all the metal parts of the hull, but all the complicated electronics that have specialized parts you can't fix by handing a mechanic a welding torch. You get a bullet through your fancy BFT and you can't hand your driver a wrench and tell him to fix it. Good luck getting a replacement from the contractor who made it too, because he's thousands of miles away overseas and all the other vehicles with bullets (or sabot rounds) through BFTs need it too. An ASIP radio is very common in the US Army, something we take for granted: but if it breaks down (even through normal wear and tear) you now have to jump through hoops to get it fixed, and you've just lost that extra bit of edge that makes us so lethal. We've never really seen a modern, near peer fight like this on the modern battlefield, if we had happened to lose an entire battalion worth of soldiers and equipment in one day during the invasion of Iraq our tactics probably would have drastically changed. Not only are we casualty adverse, but the very equipment that makes us more lethal is complicated computerized systems that require repairs that go far beyond what we can do on the battlefield or the areas right behind it. You can't just throw a brigade worth of modernized equipment away in one fight. And if you do, better hope you can make more quickly, because a combined arms task force that lost 90% of it's Abrams and shot all it's Javelins would still have a hard time defeating a battalion of cheap, easily mass produced and less sophisticated Russian export battle tanks.

People like to say the battlefield has gotten dramatically more lethal, but the first time two modern armies fight and lose entire brigades in a matter of hours will see a drastic change in tactics and techniques. Saying you expect 75% casualties in the lead breaching company is a cold and calculated statement when you're a battalion commander at NTC, but is entirely different when you actually have to do it when the casualties and losses are real, and then your battalion might have to do it again the next day, and then the next day after that...

Just my 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

600px-M1A2_SEP_frontLOS.jpg

Abrams has some weak spots frontally (gun mantle, middle of hull).. basically the middle of the frontal cross-section of the tank can be penetrated fairly reliably by the lastest russian long rod penetrators under 1600 meters. The probability of hitting those spots increases as the range decreases. At 500 meters or less (boresight), who shoots accurately first kills the other. At over 800 or 1000 meters the M829A3 cannot reliably penetrate the T-90A frontally unless hitting a weak spot (again, gun mantle.. middle of hull.. top of tank). It's not that simple. M829A3 can penetrate around 900mm RHA at point blank I believe and 825mm at 1000 meters, 770mm at 2000 meters. Latest russian sabot can penetrate around 900mm at point blank too but performance decreases faster with range (around 675-700mm at 2000 meters). Those are very rough estimates I admit.

T90armour.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't know for sure, but the Abrams in-game is very likely using M829A4 given that the game takes place in 2017 and the new round is planned to be in service by 2016.

Russian APFSDS type is more uncertain. 3BM-60 Svinets 2 would be my guess, but we beta-testers haven't been told what it is so we're guessing like everyone else :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The T-90 is armed with 9M119 AT-11 SNIPER (9M119M Refleks) laser-guided missile with a hollow-charge warhead that is supposed to be effective against both armored targets and low-flying helicopters, will they be able to engage helicopters in CMBS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like all these things (and certainly RL WW2), the real effectiveness will be a function of all manner of things (some of which are not modelled in CMBS. Using WW2 where we do have data, if you fight Panthers vs Shermans (even late models) in equal numbers, you get complete German dominance. I may be a dud player, but I cant get 1:1 kills (except in special circumstances like perfect ambushes), even using Commonwealth forces with Fireflies. However in RL, the allies didn't meet them in equal numbers, and losing 2-3 Shermans per Panther still brought them out on top. As to the individual vehicles, I am with the 'no one knows' school. It is so difficult to extrapolate (read: guess) from published data, and then factors like combat philosophy, training and supply make speculation even harder. I will go with 'explore the game, work out what seems to be the situation, and adapt play to suit'! But I am still on CMRT, so BS will wait!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing is for sure that anything not behind armour and seen is at very high risk of a quick and messy death from the top of the foodchain systems if they are present !

Seeing a Manpad team taken out by a precision airbust fire mission from a FOO over 1k away is as scary as it is impressive to watch.

P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The T-90 is armed with 9M119 AT-11 SNIPER (9M119M Refleks) laser-guided missile with a hollow-charge warhead that is supposed to be effective against both armored targets and low-flying helicopters, will they be able to engage helicopters in CMBS?

To engage a low flying copter with a GLATGM is an almost impossible task. The helicopter literally needs to be popping up above tree height and either coming toward you or stationary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I don’t have any inside knowledge as I didn’t take part in testing this one.

But it looks to me as though Battlefront have shown justifiable caution in the assumptions they have made about what new kit to model.

My great fear was that “fantasy..” equipment would creep in as no one can know for sure what will be around in 2017. Things are constantly cut, or dropped, or delayed. It looks as though they have gone with the idea that equipment should be very similar to that currently in service but with all sides launching a four or five month “production surge...”. Bringing a much a possible up to date and tweaked to the latest standard.

This is a sensible approach in my view.

Later no doubt there will be some big additions. The Russians have a long list of equipment ready to go. But not deployed to units yet. This stuff is real in that it’s available to export customers. It’s not the defence equipment equivalent of “vapourware.. “.

New tanks, IFVs both tracked and wheeled, new and much improved AT missiles and infantry AT weapons. Often designed to help evade APS such as Trophy.

But we will have to see what gets fielded. This time probably most. The new tank will be on display at the Victory Day parade in Moscow next summer.

CMBS will certainly be a lot of fun as it will be so different.

Greatly looking forward to that first look and play around with it,

All the best,

Kip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They seem to be pretty conservative about adding "soon to be deployed" equipment, which is good. I wouldn't be against adding some of the more questionable stuff in a future "funnies" unit pack however. It would make for some fun "what if" scenarios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im more concerned about the lethality of Infantry Combat.

In the CMx2 games the ability to take cover was always modeled way to low and the "breaking point" was way to high so mostly even green conscripts fight to death.

When they rout, they mostly do it in a stupid way getting themselves killed anyway.

Also Infantry got spotted way to quick.

The excuse from Battlefront was always that CM simulates "all in" battles were no side will considering routing or surrendering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the CMx2 games the ability to take cover was always modeled way to low and the "breaking point" was way to high so mostly even green conscripts fight to death.

Overgeneralisation for the win, huh?

How come I regularly sweep hedgerows and buildings clean of defenders with small arms fire then?

When they rout, they mostly do it in a stupid way getting themselves killed anyway.

This, I'll give you. What's the point of falling back 30m into the field where you've little or no cover so the guys with SMGs who snuggle into the far side of the hedge you just abandoned get all its benefit. The TacAI could do with some tweaking so the pTruppen fall back to the next decent cover, in a more "intelligent" way.

Also Infantry got spotted way to quick.

Well that depends how you use 'em, don' it?

The excuse from Battlefront was always that CM simulates "all in" battles were no side will considering routing or surrendering.

I think you exaggerate wildly here. BFC always say the actions are typically "point of the spear" (cos those are the exciting ones to play), hence the casualty figures over a wide front can't be used to compare with the casualty figures from a typical CM engagement. Since troops regularly get Broken and fall back, you don't seem to have played the game much.

There's a lot of learning that needed to be done about how houses do and don't protect you, and a lot of unlearning that needed to be done by CMx1 veterans about how the finer terrain scale affected spotting, but largely what you're claiming is the unrefined viewpoint of someone who hasn't undertaken the effort to understand the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
%7Boption%7DIt's not that simple. M829A3 can penetrate around 900mm RHA at point blank I believe and 825mm at 1000 meters, 770mm at 2000 meters. Latest russian sabot can penetrate around 900mm at point blank too but performance decreases faster with range (around 675-700mm at 2000 meters). Those are very rough estimates I admit.

Which new Russian ammo would that be? I don't think they have any ammo that matches the M829A3 in momentum and aspect ratio, those 2 figures of merit are not the end all be all in armor perforation but they are critical.

Unless there is some super secret new Russian APFSDS that is closer to the M829A3 in dimensions I doubt they can match the M829A3's perforation ability at any range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that CM terrain not only looks "flat"...it feels flat.

I know there is some microterrain abstraction but its way to low if you ask me.

While in real life grenade launchers, mortars and anti-materiel rifles are used to kill enemys behind cover, in CM there is nearly no such "cover" and thats why even 5.56mm ammunition from 300m away is able to inflict huge casualties on defenders in a forest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that CM terrain not only looks "flat"...it feels flat.

I know there is some microterrain abstraction but its way to low if you ask me.

While in real life grenade launchers, mortars and anti-materiel rifles are used to kill enemys behind cover, in CM there is nearly no such "cover" and thats why even 5.56mm ammunition from 300m away is able to inflict huge casualties on defenders in a forest.

Too a large extent that's down to the scenario designer. It helps if designers make full use of the tools available, including inserting micro-terrain features and creative use of the terrain tiles. If you leave the may at the default '20' with vanilla grass tiles, well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...