Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
vincere

Russia/US: What Weapons are Russian Superiority?

Recommended Posts

I'm a little out of date. Before Javelin I thought hand-held At.

 

 

1. But does Russia still have a Weapons mounted AT Missile superiority? Either in range or ubiquity of them. They seem far more prevalent on Russian Vehicles.

 

 

2. I have an idea that Russia is superior to US/West on Ground to Air missile defence. But realise my view is historical. Is it still the case for weapons systems and the numbers.

 

 

3. Others????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Short answer: I guess that the russian Krizhantema is possibly the best ATGM present in CMBS - at least after having read the equipment list on the website. That said, you have also to find out which weapon system is actually best suited for your tactics.

 

In general, you can assume that russian ATGMs are the best for the russians, while US ATGMs are the best for the americans. Modern anti tank missiles are all able to take out every tank on the battlefield with one shot. Russian and NATO doctrines though, tend to employ these weapons in different ways; based on the different doctrines the militaries of those countries employ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Krysanthema is great but not top-attack.. Now that russian doctrine identifies NATO as the biggest threat, you can expect them to develop and field a top-attack system very shortly since it is the best way to kill western tanks effectively. The AT-9 ataka has a top attack capability already so they know how to design and produce them. They had a prototype very similar to javelin at thé end of the nineties but it wasnt a priority because what they had was enough to deal with their doctrine's requirements

Edited by antaress73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russia's shoulder launched thermobaric anti-infantry weaponry is far superior to that of the US - in CMBS I dont believe they have any :D
 

The XM25 may be gap filler for this however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russia's shoulder launched thermobaric anti-infantry weaponry is far superior to that of the US - in CMBS I dont believe they have any :D

 

The XM25 may be gap filler for this however.

 

Maybe not shoulder-launched but there are thermobaric TOW warheads in real-life. I'm not sure if those are in the game though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, also AGM-114, and Khrizantema and ATAKA I believe - but I doubt they are ingame. :/

 

Khrizantema, if not spoofed or destroyed by the myriad DAS, has the capability to give any western MBT a good goosing - if you dont mind me using technical terms.

Edited by Stagler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Short answer: I guess that the russian Krizhantema is possibly the best ATGM present in CMBS - at least after having read the equipment list on the website. That said, you have also to find out which weapon system is actually best suited for your tactics.

 

In general, you can assume that russian ATGMs are the best for the russians, while US ATGMs are the best for the americans. Modern anti tank missiles are all able to take out every tank on the battlefield with one shot. Russian and NATO doctrines though, tend to employ these weapons in different ways; based on the different doctrines the militaries of those countries employ.

 

As good a CM is, doctrine is one of the weak areas. I felt CM1 command and fanaticism in CMBB at least seemed to give a different flavour.

 

Have not felt that with Shock Force or Normandy. Same with most other games, players will play with the best tactics they can despite historical doctrine.

 

I take your point though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2. I have an idea that Russia is superior to US/West on Ground to Air missile defence. But realise my view is historical. Is it still the case for weapons systems and the numbers.

For localized defense, yes this is true (Tunguska, Pantsir, TOR, etc).  The US simply hasn't focused on this area apart from Stinger and Avenger (which uses Stingers).  That said, Stingers are excellent MANPADS but are still limited as MANPADS. US air defense doctrine is focused more on Air Superiority through fighters supported by strategic SAMs.  The downside of this is a weakness (as in less favorable, not a hopeless situation) to helicopters.  However on a wider scale, I would say Patriot is greater than or equal to any of the big Russian systems, and is fielded in larger numbers than their newest stuff.  If this is applied to Sea to Air defensive missiles, then US takes a clear lead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For localized defense, yes this is true (Tunguska, Pantsir, TOR, etc).  The US simply hasn't focused on this area apart from Stinger and Avenger (which uses Stingers).  That said, Stingers are excellent MANPADS but are still limited as MANPADS. US air defense doctrine is focused more on Air Superiority through fighters supported by strategic SAMs.  The downside of this is a weakness (as in less favorable, not a hopeless situation) to helicopters.  However on a wider scale, I would say Patriot is greater than or equal to any of the big Russian systems, and is fielded in larger numbers than their newest stuff.  If this is applied to Sea to Air defensive missiles, then US takes a clear lead.

I was getting the impression S400 trumps Patriot. In addition, they have much more robust layered and layered surface to air defence assets. Understandable, seeing how US anticipate Air superiority at some point. Or the ability to create it in regions for specific periods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of stuff in game:

 

1. A lot of Russian stuff is amphibious with zero preparation.  It's still going to be dangerous to use/slow crossing, but it's a capability nothing in the US inventory has.

 

2. There's no real US Air Defense assets outside of borrowed Ukrainian 2S6s and Stringers.  The off-map stuff in terms of friendly fighters or PATRIOTs is only modeled by the scenario writer's inclusion of Russian aviation or not.

 

3. More airburst platforms, MBTs there is a parity, but the BMP3 does airburst, while the Bradley does not.

 

4. Better infantry assault type weapons (like thermobaric rocket launchers)

 

Re: Supershort Patriot vs S400 thing.

 

They're both pretty similar in terms of claimed performance, but unlike many systems (M1 vs T-90, BMP-3 vs M2 etc) their performance in regard to each other is entirely irrelevant, or much less relevant than the capabilities of the various SEAD/DEAD assets used by the US and Russia.  Either way both platforms require a dedicated, well thought out plan to be dealt with, and their impact on the air space will be noticed 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Potentially, an angle of superiority for the Russian equipment is it's tactical flexibility.

 

To illustrate my point, BMP-3 is:

-Fast

-Tracked

-Can cross large water obstacles

-Has fair ballistic protection 

 

At the same time it has:

100mm 2A70 gun capable of firing:

-9M117M1 guided munitions

-3OF70 HE munitions

 

30mm 2A72 gun capable of firing

-3UBR6 AP round

-3UOF8 HE round

-3UOR6 HE tracer round. 

 

A couple of PKT's. 

 

Same can be said about T-72(90') for instance, since their array of firepower can be very comparable (HEAT, AB, HE, TGM, APFSDS, 7.62 and 12.7). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 100mm airburst is going to be super-useful I think, in particular.  I hope the armories are well-stocked with em because I'm clearing every damn crater I see that looks suspicious with one! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only it were less capable of killing everyone in a 50 meter radius with a massive secondary explosion when it is penetrated by pretty much anything.

LOL so the Bradley is better then the BMP-3 because of this?

Edited by VladimirTarasov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're both asymetically balanced vehicles that you'll have to figure out which serves you better.  I like the TOW 2B, better armor array, troop arrangement and the anti-light armor abilities of the 25 MM more than I like the 100 MM gun, the airburst on said gun, and amphibious crossing abilities.  Otherwise will more highly weigh the BMP3's advantages an be able to easily justify that though.

 

That said if the BMP3 explodes like it did in CMSF, there's going to be some sad faces for redfor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably not, in overall combat effectiveness, but it can't be good for morale. :D

Well I would probably go into a rage mode seeing my fellow BMP-3 blow up killing half the platoon :) so it should be +1 morale for the witness and -1 for the guy that was right next to it :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing that the Russian kit is going to be very fun to use. Sure, the US has some overall advantages in weapon systems like the Abrams and Javelins, but it shouldn't be hard to balance things with scenario design. Taking that into account, the Russian stuff is more varied and tactically versatile. It almost makes me think of the Federation vs. the Klingons in Starfleet Battles. The Feds have tougher ships and more powerful phasers and photons, but the Klingons have a larger variety of weapons and their ships are slightly more nimble. Playing as the Feds could feel a bit vanilla in comparison.

 

The Ukrainians shouldn't be counted out, either. They have some cool stuff. It will be very interesting to see how folks find the RU vs. Ukr matchup and what kind of scenarios come out of that. I'm already beginning to ponder some medium-sized, infantry-heavy scenarios with those sides, older vehicles, and lesser troop experience levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anything, I anticipate Russian equipment would require more baby-sitting to be effective, but can be more effective in a larger variety of situations in comparison to the US. Poorer optics, generally smaller size with a more variable weapon load-out is an interesting combination that takes a certain mentality to use.  

 

Ukraine vs Russia would be an interesting match, especially if authentic units are present (T-72B3 vs T-64BM/ BMP-2 vs BMP-2/ BTR-80A vs BTR-4).

Edited by BTR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're both asymetically balanced vehicles that you'll have to figure out which serves you better.  I like the TOW 2B, better armor array, troop arrangement and the anti-light armor abilities of the 25 MM more than I like the 100 MM gun, the airburst on said gun, and amphibious crossing abilities.  Otherwise will more highly weigh the BMP3's advantages an be able to easily justify that though.

 

That said if the BMP3 explodes like it did in CMSF, there's going to be some sad faces for redfor. 

Don't forget that the Bmp-3 has a 30mm too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In general, you can assume that russian ATGMs are the best for the russians, while US ATGMs are the best for the americans. Modern anti tank missiles are all able to take out every tank on the battlefield with one shot. Russian and NATO doctrines though, tend to employ these weapons in different ways; based on the different doctrines the militaries of those countries employ.

 

This. Nearly every ultra-modern system is the best it is *for* the requirements specified by the organisation that ordered them. A T-90, which was the result of a doctrine that emphasised the attack, might be pretty crap at fighting from prepared defenses as a result of its poor gun depression, but their good power to weight ratio, *relatively* smaller size, APS, and their on average greater quantity of more developed HE and multi-purpose rounds makes it solid on the attack.

Edited by Agiel

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...