Jump to content
brian_heard@hotmail.com

How to use the Khrizantema?

Recommended Posts

Wanted to start by saying this is a wonderful game. I have all the combat missions and this is the best one yet!

 

One question:

I've tried multiple scenarios with several of the Khrizantema systems vs an M-1A2Sep (no APS) and I cannot get the systems in range. If I get close to where I can see the M-1, I get a message that says inside minimum range. If I back up to over 400 meters (min range) or more than the I can't ever spot the Abrams. This is on a large open map.

 

I would think the sensor suite would pick up the Abrams and then be able to use the radar or laser to engage, but the tank destroyer Khrizantema will not see the Abrams, but the Abrams has no problem in acquiring and destroying all the Tank Destroyers.

 

I've even set a small 10 meter arc for the Abram so it will not fire back, but still cannot get the Khrizantema to fire.

 

Any thoughts on what I can do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The radar is supposed to work in an abstracted sort of way. But it is also assumed to be not always turned on. But even with a not-always-on radar the Khriz is supposed to be one of the best spotting vehicles in the game. Unfortunately, because of the highly random nature of spotting in CMx2 how good or bad anything is at spotting is difficult to tell from a small number of examples, particularly outside of a test environment where factors other than the vehicle's attributes are at play.

Edited by Vanir Ausf B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a small test scenario and my Khrizantema's are firing at enemies. This is at ranges 3km and up. Most common is though that the Khriz get one shot off .. then are dead from the Oplot's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just using them yesterday and watching them fire is a thing of beauty - with two missiles in quick succession against and M1 even APS it not a ticket to a free ride.  I hope you can figure out how to get them to fire.  They do take a long time to aim so they really need some cover to ensure they spot first - those M1s are quick on the draw.  I try to set them up like I do AT guns - with key hole LOS to an area were the enemy is likely to move past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks this is good info. I think I have an inherent problem in dealing with the M-1A2Sep's and they are so fast on the draw. I did another scenario and a single Abrams just took out 9 x T-90's, so it's not just the Kriz's.  I wish there was a way to better determine line of sight during a quick battle setup.

 

Awesome game, though hat's off to the team on this one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been able to KO an APS equipped M1A2 frontally with a salvo shot, but apart from that I'm a little underwhelmed by their performance so far. Perhaps the average CMBS map size and turret-down options impacts the usefulness of this vehicle in a significant way. Imo on average (in game) it is not much , if at all, more useful against an M1A2 compared to how effective a TOW humvee is when fighting russian MBTs.

Edited by Lethaface

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The radar is supposed to work in an abstracted sort of way. But it is also assumed to be not always turned on. But even with a not-always-on radar the Khriz is supposed to be one of the best spotting vehicles in the game. Unfortunately, because of the highly random nature of spotting in CMx2 how good or bad anything is at spotting is difficult to tell from a small number of examples, particularly outside of a test environment where factors other than the vehicle's attributes are at play.

 

This is odd because the IR footage in the 9P157-2 marketing videos is of very low quality, you can tell the IR sensor is simple no where near western standards and has a lot of bloom, very "washed out", poor contrast, low resolution, a part of this may be attributed to the conditions during the test. I also see no evidence the radar has any sort of search functionality, it seems only capable of track and missile guidance. Even if the 9P157-2 is using an upgraded IR sensor in CMBS it would probably still be worse than whatever the Western standard is in 2017. 

Edited by nsKb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No vehicle mounted AT system gets off particularly easily in the game, especially facing active defenses. TOW Humvee and BRDM-2-AT are 1/3rd missile carrier, 2/3rds practice target. Shturm-S seems to have the spotting abilities of those early-generation Russian vehicles in the game - in other words 'bad'. I think the trick is putting the vehicle where you want it with a nice long firing range, NOT MOVING, supplying the enemy with plenty of other targets to distract him and letting them come to you. A nice target is an Abrams that's turn his flank to you while turning to face a T90 thats on the far end of the map. If he's turned to face you he'll probably spot you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A simple rule when facing M1A2s with russian tanks ..you need 2 T-90AMs against 1 M1 .. From different directions.. It can drill a hole on the right side of the frontal arc of the turret (500 meters Got two penetrations in a row on that spot and it was a T-72B3, same ammo) and also the gun mantlet, front lower Hull. It can even get a partial at less than 100 meters on the left part of the front turret, which is almost 900mm of protection.

For T-72b3s .. You need a 3-1 advantage . since it is less quick on the draw. Unbutton the commander for better and quicker spotting when using T-72s abd T-90A.

Against the americans, the T-90A is the worst russian tank. It spots less well than the two other russian tanks (awful) and its gun and ammo seem less powerful. You cant fit Arena on it either. Good against the Ukrainians but use it very carefully against the US.

My experience comes from using them in a test scenario with the russians attacking frontally two M1s hidden on the edge of a forest. Difficult for russian tanks . The average kill ratios after running the scenarios more than 20 times doing exactly the same thing using the above rules is 1-1 for T-90AM (impressive) .. 2.5-1 for the M-1 agaibst the T-72B3 (not bad) and a bad 4-1 for the M-1 against the T-90A.

Edited by antaress73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is odd because the IR footage in the 9P157-2 marketing videos is of very low quality, you can tell the IR sensor is simple no where near western standards and has a lot of bloom, very "washed out", poor contrast, low resolution, a part of this may be attributed to the conditions during the test. I also see no evidence the radar has any sort of search functionality, it seems only capable of track and missile guidance. Even if the 9P157-2 is using an upgraded IR sensor in CMBS it would probably still be worse than whatever the Western standard is in 2017. 

 

Russian IR is already assumed to be less advanced than Western.

 

Your point about the radar is interesting. I don't know much about it myself, but a fellow beta guy is under the impression that the Khrizantema's radar has ground surveillance capability similar to the BRM-1K and BRM-3K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Against the americans, the T-90A is the worst russian tank. It spots less well than the two other russian tanks (awful) and its gun and ammo seem less powerful.

 

I don't know about spotting, but all 3 Russian tanks use the same gun and APFSDS ammunition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I setup my T90s at right angles to probable Abrams approaches. This allows one T90 to take out one Abrams. This is also effective for BMP 3Ms. Anything approaching head to head is a no-no.

I do have a problem with the speed of reload of the T90 and believe it should be increased in game as it has a good auto loader, while the Abrams is manually loaded. Setting up kills zones at 90 degrees with two T90s

is very effective and will rack up the kills.

 

Another effective method of taking out an Abrams is with infantry hidden in a house behind trees in a compound. Have the infantry open up on the Abrams. The Abrams will stop and try to spot the infantry. If you couple this with an FO with LOS and precision arty....boom.

Edited by Icecold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found that pairing Khrizantema armed TDs with BMP-3s to provide IR blocking smoke screens is a viable tactic against US tanks.

 

I managed to easily destroy, with multiple frontal penetrations, ten M1A2 SEP tanks (some w/APS) losing only three TDs, and a couple IFVs (smoke cover doesn't last forever).

The radar system on the Russian TDs is capable to see through IR blocking smoke effectively while the sensors on an Abrams tank are blinded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found that pairing Khrizantema armed TDs with BMP-3s to provide IR blocking smoke screens is a viable tactic against US tanks.

 

I managed to easily destroy, with multiple frontal penetrations, ten M1A2 SEP tanks (some w/APS) losing only three TDs, and a couple IFVs (smoke cover doesn't last forever).

The radar system on the Russian TDs is capable to see through IR blocking smoke effectively while the sensors on an Abrams tank are blinded.

This sounds like a great concept for putting in a scenario. I would love to see a few scenarios where the Americans get their heads handed to them. I get tired of people thinking they are so powerful. I feel there is some real fragile concepts as to how they rely too much on certain aspects of what they are expecting to do in combat.

(Like if they somehow lost control of the sky. It is not pretty. )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found that pairing Khrizantema armed TDs with BMP-3s to provide IR blocking smoke screens is a viable tactic against US tanks.

I managed to easily destroy, with multiple frontal penetrations, ten M1A2 SEP tanks (some w/APS) losing only three TDs, and a couple IFVs (smoke cover doesn't last forever).

The radar system on the Russian TDs is capable to see through IR blocking smoke effectively while the sensors on an Abrams tank are blinded.

How many kryzanthemas did you have ? That sounds like a superb and genius tactic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds like a great concept for putting in a scenario. I would love to see a few scenarios where the Americans get their heads handed to them. I get tired of people thinking they are so powerful. I feel there is some real fragile concepts as to how they rely too much on certain aspects of what they are expecting to do in combat.

(Like if they somehow lost control of the sky. It is not pretty. )

Even if its just hotly contested they are in trouble and losses would be awful and politically unnacceptable. Edited by antaress73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do have a problem with the speed of reload of the T90 and believe it should be increased in game as it has a good auto loader, while the Abrams is manually loaded.

I remember reading somewhere, and I have no idea if it's true, that the manual loader can actually be faster with a well drilled crew than the autoloader. Something like 4 seconds for manual to 7 seconds for the autoloader. I haven't done too much research into this so if it's totally wrong I wouldn't be surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Outside of some of the more advanced bustle type autoloaders, manual loading remains faster.   

 

 

 

Even if its just hotly contested they are in trouble and losses would be awful and politically unnacceptable.

 

The game somewhat artificially boosts lethality in that it has two forces collide until unambiguous destruction, or especially when fighting the AI, an enemy with predictable behaviors/individual units require more love to do smart things.  If tank gets smoked from unseen locations, most commanders are not going to feed the rest of their company right into the same engagement area because maybe it won't happen again?

 

On topic

 

ATGMs offer two basic advantages:

 

1. Smaller "footprint" than a gun, allowing for mounting on a wider range of vehicles

2. Superior performance at very long range

 

ATGM only vehicles are most useful when you can best utilize that standoff provided by point two.  Where that gets fuzzy is Russian sensor systems have never been quite comparable to western platforms, so it's a bit of being a sniper with a 2x scope.  The fidelity on ground based radars has never been especially good, they're much better at letting you know there's a thing out there somewhere vs there is a certain kind of thing, and here it is with fidelity.

 

So to that end the Khizantema is a great tool in controlling open, fairly unobstructred terrain with good visibility conditions.  It is something you need to make a special plan to employ properly at closer ranges though, especially given the imbalance between Russian-US spotting capabilities, and in environments with decent cover and concealment something you might almost be better off ditching in favor of gun equipped systems or dismounted AT teams.  

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.


×
×
  • Create New...