Combat Ranges for tanks in black sea - engagement ranges?

[Destraex1]

Just curious as to what ranges tanks engage at these days and if maps are large enough to allow these ranges.

 

Was reading this at gamesquad which made me curious:

 

"Oh give me a break. Just getting the ranges realistic for ATGMs will be a major challenge in CMx2.

The problem is that ATGMs have a range of up to around 3.75 km without loss of accuracy (they are guided). So they like to shoot up tanks before any of the tank guns come into range. 

In CMx2 the maps are so small that a modern tank can usually fire at anything, or at best might be missing some diagonal range. But that isn't exploitable by the ATGM carrying unit since they can't move while keeping it that way.

If you were to make the map big enough to fix this problem then nobody could see what the hell is going on, because CMx1's unit scaling for display purposes has been dropped."

 

http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?120051-Combat-Mission-Black-Sea-announced-and-open-for-pre-orders

[Vanir Ausf B]

The guy who wrote that doesn't actually play the game. Map sizes have increased quite a lot recently and seeing what the hell is going on is not an issue. There are these things called "icons"...

 

Tank and ATGM engagement ranges in reality are mostly dictated by terrain and I think for the most part that is also true in the game.

[SeinfeldRules]

I would think that you would be hard pressed to find 3.75km of terrain in Ukraine that has clear line of sight for the path of the whole missile... there are so many trees and undulations that a moving tank so far out would be a fleeting target at best. This is not the desert. Besides, just because the missile can reach 4k doesn't mean it has 100% accuracy at that distance. In such a high intensity conflict, I imagine man portable ATGMs would be at such a premium that you couldn't afford to waste your precious few missiles at a target so far away.

[womble]

The guy who wrote that doesn't actually play the game. Map sizes have increased quite a lot recently and seeing what the hell is going on is not an issue. There are these things called "icons"...

 

And "Zoom" or "View Height".

Ooo. Wonder if BFC could let you "unit lock" an ATGM in-flight?

 

 

Tank and ATGM engagement ranges in reality are mostly dictated by terrain and I think for the most part that is also true in the game.

 

Indeed. It's not like the opposition don't know  that they can be killed from kilometers off, so it'd be a most uninteresting scenario where you had a few smug ATGM platforms lined up hull-down behind a ridge overlooking a 3-click-wide valley and the enemy MBTs declined to roll over the other lip and be summarily destroyed (not that this is a given, with the advent of APS). And then the UAV spots you and the precision munitions start popping your missile trucks.

 

 

I would think that you would be hard pressed to find 3.75km of terrain in Ukraine that has clear line of sight for the path of the whole missile... there are so many trees and undulations that a moving tank so far out would be a fleeting target at best. This is not the desert. Besides, just because the missile can reach 4k doesn't mean it has 100% accuracy at that distance. In such a high intensity conflict, I imagine man portable ATGMs would be at such a premium that you couldn't afford to waste your precious few missiles at a target so far away.

I'm sure such sweeping vistas exist. I'm also sure they won't be attacked across very often. And your other points mean ATGMs probably won't be taking "snap shots" at that range. What's the flight time for the missile, and how good are modern systems at spotting the incoming? The original article is quoting firing range accuracy against static, unaware targets. It's a given that there will be more misses at long range in a battlefield environment, because there's more chance for something to interfere with the missile's flight on a long reach. Yet more evidence that the poster Destraex is quoting doesn't actually know very much and has less critical faculty. Or is pushing an agenda.

[Destraex1]

It sounded like he was pushing an agenda. But I was curious none the less as I am unfamiliar with the latest miltech when it comes to ATGM vs Tank range. I know the Russians used to fire ATGMs from their tank barrels.

[sburke]

It sounded like he was pushing an agenda. But I was curious none the less as I am unfamiliar with the latest miltech when it comes to ATGM vs Tank range. I know the Russians used to fire ATGMs from their tank barrels.

couple things. 

1 Maps can get a lot larger than that person apparently realizes or perhaps it was written when we still had the 4x4km limit.

2 Even a 4 km map is huge.  Today's vehicles are a lot more alert to being fired upon.  A missile fired from 4 km by a vehicle that has to guide the missile in is likely dead before it's missile can hit.

3. Even if it isn't APS can still eliminate the missile.

4. It doesn't take much to miss at that distance against a moving target.  Undulations in the ground, trees, houses etc.

5 even with all that you will still see missile kills in CM, it is just hard to get away with.  They are accurate at distance, if by chance you get to fire one and not get spotted. The modern battlefield is lethal.  Sitting still is not a good thing.

 

Okay now that is weird, when I went to edit I accidentally hit the reputation link...you can give yourself points..errr

Edited December 28, 2014 by sburke

[Bil Hardenberger]

...Sitting still is not a good thing.

 

As will be seen in my next turn.... coming soon.

[Na Vaske]

I would think that you would be hard pressed to find 3.75km of terrain in Ukraine that has clear line of sight for the path of the whole missile... there are so many trees and undulations that a moving tank so far out would be a fleeting target at best. This is not the desert. Besides, just because the missile can reach 4k doesn't mean it has 100% accuracy at that distance. In such a high intensity conflict, I imagine man portable ATGMs would be at such a premium that you couldn't afford to waste your precious few missiles at a target so far away.

 

Having spent a lot of time in the area depicted in this game, I can assure you there are plenty of places where you can see further than you can engage with direct fire weapons.  Having spent 6 years in the army of the Russian Federation I can assure you that every option other than crossing such an open area with out obscuring the force would be considered before risking that type exposure, I'm certain the same can be said for the Americans and any other serious military force.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Okay now that is weird, when I went to edit I accidentally hit the reputation link...you can give yourself points..errr

 

You, Sir, get points for giving yourself points.

[A Canadian Cat]

LOL, but who will be the first to down vote themselves...

I'd do it right now but that is not available in the mobile version

[c3k]

There, did it for you.

 

Okay...ranges, the game, tanks, and the gamesquad post (which I have not read).

 

As addressed above, the maps can greatly exceed the effective range of main guns...against other tanks. In fact, this is prompting me to try something. (Secret test protocol enacted! Whiiiiiishhhhh)

 

The game plays amazingly well, imho. Look at Bil and Scott: at knife fight ranges, everyone dies fast. Really fast. The slightest advantage/leverage gets magnified and the lethality is unforgiving.

[Buzz]

Remember watching ATGMs fly across a 2-3km battlefield on CMSF.

It was George McEwan's NATO Tactical Vignette 98–5 ‘Steelers’ @ 1.5 years ago.

CMSF @ 2007 can manage these ranges w/o problem.

I expect Black Sea to give us more +.

 

"The slightest advantage/leverage gets magnified and the lethality is unforgiving."

 

In that case... you had better be ready to.... ATTACK!

[MikeyD]

I recall reading years (decades) ago that 'typical' engagement ranges in Europe rarely exceed 1.5 km. Sure, you can fire a missile the length of a valley if you're situated right but usually you're facing intervening terrain features, tree lines and scatter buildings. A growing number of CM maps are based on real world locations. If you can't fire a Shturn-S to max range on that map its because you can't fire a Shturn-S to max range at that location. Focusing exclusively on max ATGM engagement ranges kind'a misses the point of the game. Are we expected to only trade shots from 5km downrange while the infantry sit around twiddling their thumbs? M4 carbine effective range isn't much more than .4km. 

[c3k]

Tree cover is a tank's best friend...

[pnzrldr]

I have a 4100m kill already in beta testing "Bridgehead at Kharylyk" - a soon-to-be-favorite scenario for all you guys, by our high-climbing Scottish Mountaineer, George MC.  Got a pair of Abrams into a dual with two Krizentema at ~ 4100m.  They merrily pounded us with missiles, and we merrily sent Sabot rounds back (I hope, more accurate at that range, though the AI may have selected HEAT or AMP for light skinned).  I think we took two or three hits in the exchange, which had me very nervous, but they managed to shrug them off with moderate damage.  Took I think nearly a dozen rounds between the two tanks to finally get a hit.  But it was lethal.  Game does model long range engagements, and oh yes, the Abrams can hit at that range in real life.  

[pnzrldr]

As will be seen in my next turn.... coming soon.

Can't wait to see!

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Having spent a lot of time in the area depicted in this game, I can assure you there are plenty of places where you can see further than you can engage with direct fire weapons.  Having spent 6 years in the army of the Russian Federation I can assure you that every option other than crossing such an open area with out obscuring the force would be considered before risking that type exposure, I'm certain the same can be said for the Americans and any other serious military force.

Some very good points there. Even on the steppes I suspect you would often be able to find cover suitable for ATGM teams such as vegetation and balkas. These featutres were common on the Mius River battlefields fought over in July and August of 1943 (described in detail in Nipe's Decision in the Ukraine. The features of the battlefields fought over during the 1943 Battle of Kursk also included considerable natural cover. Boh sides will be seeking to exploit both natural and man made cover to maximum advantage. Terrain will rarely, if ever, be an open billiard board even in the steppes.

[Buzz]

A  4100m kill is a really, really long range kill vs WWII. Was messing around in CMFI last PM on a Mark Ezra QB Tunisia map with German / British ACs. These units had trouble reaching beyond 1km. Still plenty of fun but no where near 4.1km!

[Alan8325]

I have a 4100m kill already in beta testing "Bridgehead at Kharylyk" - a soon-to-be-favorite scenario for all you guys, by our high-climbing Scottish Mountaineer, George MC.  Got a pair of Abrams into a dual with two Krizentema at ~ 4100m.  They merrily pounded us with missiles, and we merrily sent Sabot rounds back (I hope, more accurate at that range, though the AI may have selected HEAT or AMP for light skinned).  I think we took two or three hits in the exchange, which had me very nervous, but they managed to shrug them off with moderate damage.  Took I think nearly a dozen rounds between the two tanks to finally get a hit.  But it was lethal.  Game does model long range engagements, and oh yes, the Abrams can hit at that range in real life.  

 

Isn't this before the Abrams' armor was reduced down in some frontal areas?  The Kriz was designed to deal with Abrams at long range.  Seems funny that it is totally ineffective.

[dan/california]

Isn't this before the Abrams' armor was reduced down in some frontal areas?  The Kriz was designed to deal with Abrams at long range.  Seems funny that it is totally ineffective.

No defense contractor has ever sold anyone clunker, surely not! I am sure someones new villa is spectacular.

[Alan8325]

No defense contractor has ever sold anyone clunker, surely not! I am sure someones new villa is spectacular.

 

Well I assume that BFC must have some info that Khrizantema is unable to deal with the Abrams because otherwise it makes more sense for gameplay reasons to assume the system has some ability to defeat the Abrams at least at long range.

[Vanir Ausf B]

AFAIK, the changes to the Abrams armor was for kinetic energy penetrators, not HEAT. But even before that it was not 100% invulnerable to the latest Russian missiles from the front.

[sburke]

Well I assume that BFC must have some info that Khrizantema is unable to deal with the Abrams because otherwise it makes more sense for gameplay reasons to assume the system has some ability to defeat the Abrams at least at long range.

That was a one off, I am not sure if you can discount it because of that.  Personally haven't tried that unit much so I can't speak to it's capabilities, but I lost an M1 to either an RPG or RPO (never did see what fired) from the side earlier this evening - engine shot.  Anyone who treats M1s as indestructible is going to lose them.

Edited December 30, 2014 by sburke

[MikeyD]

Generally speaking Abrams in CMBS is rather like Panther in CMBN. As tough as nails from the frontal arc, though liable to significant damage from big non penetrating hits. From the side its just another tank. The Pentagon didn't build a 68+ ton monster (20 tons more than a T-90) to be holed from the front. Yeh yeh, I know. Some people would rather compare it to Panther in CMRT, which liable to get a big old Russian-made hole in it big enough to put your fist through. 

[ChrisND]

Why are some of you guys already deciding that the Khrizantema's missile is useless? Making sweeping assumptions based on one anecdote or battle result isn't wise. Any number of a multitude of factors that you aren't aware of could have influenced those results.

 

Just ran a quick test to demonstrate, had Khrizantema shoot at Abrams on a clean range from the front - no APS.

 

15 hits to Abrams front (some were double salvo hits, some weren't):

three Abrams survived with moderate to major subsystem damage

four Abrams survived with moderate to major subsystem damage, but were immobilized

two Abrams survived with severe subsystem damage. Literally 90% of systems destroyed. Essentially a KO.

six Abrams KO'd.

 

And I happen to know that these are fairly typical results, provided of course that something doesn't drill the Khrizantema before it gets the shot off: it's a beast at killing vehicles, but also a glass cannon since it can't take hits and survive.