Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kieme(ITA)

A day in the Cavalry

Recommended Posts

Kieme(ITA),

 

Presumably this was vs Computer? At what settings? If not, whom did you fight and under what parameters? In any event, that was more of a massacre than a battle. Also, it appears you succeeded in giving Herr Clausewitz the cold shoulder while in the process of giving Mr. Putin apoplexy. The Teflon battle--virtually friction free and loss free to boot. Were this the British, you might very well find this becoming the "pink" at RMA Sandhurst! What was the total elapsed time to so thoroughly wreck OPFOR as to force surrender?

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The total time of the play was more or less 15 minutes, against human opponent. Elite setting.

 

More than anything shows up the power of M1 Abrams tanks used in numbers.

Edited by Kieme(ITA)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was the opponent, not lie it was a rather horrible 15 minutes.

 

It looked like we both had the same plan of throwing everything at the grain silos, where as my vanguard was BMP3's his was M1's so yeah that fire fight didn't go my way.

 

The second wave was T-90s that I moved to engage the M1's, unfortunately I hadn't even spotted the other platoon of them till I had wandered into the cross fire, Needless to say that did not end well.

 

The 120mm mortars caught another platoon just as they where disembarking and gutted it so by that point it was all over.

 

Kieme is a LOT more aggressive than anyone else I play in PBEM games and unfortunately is rather good at it as well so my initially planning constantly over estimates where I will come into contact with his forces subsequently he captures my infantry in there transports and murderizes (A technical term) them.

 

Hopefully at somepoint I will get my recording software working again with CMBS and I can make a recording of the carnage first hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kiema:

Very nice AAR, thanks!

 

@Waltz:

As far as i see it, the reasons for your defeat seem to be a lack of reconnaisance and a bad force choice. You brought 5 T-90s and 11 BMPs to a fight vs. 9 M1A2s (2x4+1 HQ) and 4 Bradleys on an open, tank friendly map, which made a Russian victory already seem unlikely from the very beginning. The lack of reconnaisance let your BMPs bump into the 9 M1A2s by accident, sealing their (the BMPs) fate, and when you sent in your numerically inferior tanks to save or revenge the BMPs, not knowing as you said that Kieme had brought 2 M1A2 platoons, this was the beginning of the end.

 

Kieme seem also not to have conducted any sort reconnaisance but instead relied on the strength of his M1A2s, advancing line abreast, in case he makes contact unexpectedly. You could use this knowledge to your advantage in future battles, Waltz.

Edited by agusto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had expected to get where I was going first, the idea was to use the infantry as bait hoping he would engage them then allowing me to maneuver my tanks to fight.

 

But yeah I had a serious lack of AT going on in general not quite sure what I had been thinking when I picked the force as normally I fit as meany ATGM's in as is feasible so as soon as his tanks engaged me I suddenly realized I have left them all back at the depot so I decided to double down and shove my tanks in quickly in the hope of getting the jump on his tanks while they where having a field day with my infantry needless to say that did not go as planned at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The total time of the play was more or less 15 minutes, against human opponent. Elite setting.

 

More than anything shows up the power of M1 Abrams tanks used in numbers.

 

Kieme(ITA),

 

Very well done AAR.  I enjoyed it.  The call signs for the different platoons was a nice touch. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was the opponent, not lie it was a rather horrible 15 minutes.

 

It looked like we both had the same plan of throwing everything at the grain silos, where as my vanguard was BMP3's his was M1's so yeah that fire fight didn't go my way.

 

The second wave was T-90s that I moved to engage the M1's, unfortunately I hadn't even spotted the other platoon of them till I had wandered into the cross fire, Needless to say that did not end well.

 

The 120mm mortars caught another platoon just as they where disembarking and gutted it so by that point it was all over.

 

Kieme is a LOT more aggressive than anyone else I play in PBEM games and unfortunately is rather good at it as well so my initially planning constantly over estimates where I will come into contact with his forces subsequently he captures my infantry in there transports and murderizes (A technical term) them.

 

Hopefully at somepoint I will get my recording software working again with CMBS and I can make a recording of the carnage first hand.

Kieme and I played a game on this map and the result was much the same. Only he was Ukraine not US. His speed and aggressiveness surprised me. I did kill a few things but it was nonetheless a disaster for me. Good game. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL reading this makes me want to try my luck against Kieme as well :D. I dont have a lot of H2H experience, but after criticizing Waltz' tactics, i would like to see if mine are actually better. What do you say, Kieme, same map, ME?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kieme(ITA) and Waltz,

 

15 minutes? 15 minutes to so badly wreck the foe that you forced surrender! Pretty much encapsulates the whole understanding of battlefield lethality which originated in the US during the Cold War: "What can be seen can be hit; what can be hit can be killed." These days it should read, as far as American in-game capabilities vs Russian: "What is there will almost certainly be seen first, IDed, shot at and destroyed, often with no or ineffective fire going the other way."

 

To me, it seems that, even sans APS, but with ERA, the M1A2 SEP V3 Abrams of CMBS is about as close to the ideal tank as there is. Military theorist (retired RTR veteran, MC in the Western Desert, OBE for major contributions to the Chieftain's design) BG, Ret. Richard Simpkin, in a circa 1985 book (whose title I don't recall) on armored warfare, showed any tank design may be depicted as an equilateral triangle, with each apex bearing a unique label for Firepower, Mobility and Protection, and the positioning of a discrete dot inside the triangle defining the particular priorities particular to a given tank. In the case of the Abrams, the official design priority was crew protection, which of course is Protection, derived not merely from armor but other crew survival measures, but somehow it's as though the tank really gets three dots simultaneously. Why? It's got excellent Firepower and, depending on the terrain and route specifics, tremendous Mobility. These days, maybe instead of a triangle, what's needed is a pentagon. This is because the categories Sensors and Communications need to be added, IMO, to reflect the drastic changes made possible by today's technology. There, the Abrams is in a class of its own. 

 

Because the CMBS Abrams is such an incredible combination of what armored warfare is all about it, in my estimation, it has fundamentally restored armor's shock value, allowing the super aggressive tactics Kieme(ITA) used to win such a shattering, lightning quick victory. Had he not had ERA on his Abrams, things would likely not have been so rosy, considering two of his tanks took ATGM hits, though I don't know what type. Certainly Kornet or similar could've been devastating, though the hits were frontal. Imagine what almost certainly would've happened had he run the same attack with even M60A3s, which had thermals, laser rangefinders, full gun stabilization and ballistic computers, plus early ERA. These tanks were T-90 contemporaries, but had the edge on sensors and gunnery accuracy, whether static or firing on the move. What they didn't have was gun power or the ability to defeat both HEAT and KE hits.

 

The US Army's and the Defense Science Board's assessments (1984, I believe) were even the T-72 could kill us, but we couldn't kill it at ~1600 meter range in a frontal engagement from a 105 mm gun armed tank or from any ATGM in the arsenal through the TOW. By contrast, the Russians had fielded in the very early 1960s, so early it was obsolete in time to be exported to Egypt before the Yom Kippur War, a HEAT round, in 76.2 mm size, no less, able to defeat the Gen One M1 Abrams siliceous core armor, and I'm pretty sure the Russians beat us to the punch on adding precursor charges to HEAT warhead designs. Had he tried the same attack with M60A3s, it is highly likely there would be quite a few blazing American tanks on the field, complete with probably dead crews as well. Tandem charge ATGMs would've blown through US ERA, and the KE would've punched through the monobloc steel armor with ease. As it is, in relative terms, the CMBS Abrams comes racing in (relative to the M60A3), spots first, fires first and generally kills first, while being all but immune to anything thrown at it.

 

Bud_B,

 

I'm quite impressed that he managed to do much the same thing with Ukrainian tanks, which lack most of what the Abrams has. I'd be interested in knowing what kind of Ukrainian tanks he had for his repeat victory. How did they stack up vs T-90AMs in terms of comparative capabilities?

 

agusto,

 

You are a brave man--with your virtual force! Do keep us posted on how you fare. Here's a thought. Play Blue vs Blue with identical forces.  That would be interesting, since it would totally level the military-technical playing field. Then it becomes a test of skill in battle and the whims of Lady Luck and Fate. Of course, with a sample size of one the results would have no statistical validity whatsoever. Consequently, it's necessary you repeat the experiment a hundred times--for the sake of the statistical analysis, right?!

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kettler: you jump to conclusions very fast . There are a lot of things that can seriously threaten an M1 force that were not in this particular game or even in combat mission at all ( MRLS, accurate modeling of krizanthema) You can't fight the Russians against an M1 heavy force like he just did,  full frontal. Unless at a distance (2500m  and more) and hull down in defensive positions with the T-90AM where relikt is surprisingly effective, hull down causes many misses from the M1 and the t-90 can usually kill by hitting the gun mantlet or the sides when the M1s backs off from being lased. I did just that on a long steppe map and engaged the M1s at 3000-4000 meters with the Kriz first (got 6 like this) then moved 20 T-90AMs hull down and egaged the rest: Result: 13 abrams killed for 2 kriz and 3 T-90AMs.

 

 Don't base your understanding of what a war (god help jus) against the Russian Federation would look like on this game. It is very good, dont be mistaken. And pretty realistic in general. But such a war would be a carnage on both sides.

Edited by antaress73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this shows the power of agressiveness since he did the same thing with the Ukrainians. Using smoke, fast orders movement and terrain, you can get in close as the Russians pretty quick too. 

 

But I did trash the AI 27 T-72B3 to 1 M1 in a quickbattle LOL SO yeah.. you respect the M1A2 as you had to respect Tigers and Panthers in WWII.

Edited by antaress73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I think the russians tanks dont spot realistically. Even the T-90AM. I agree the M1A2 has the edge in spotting but not that much against the T-90AM. They seem blind sometimes. That's why I always use veteran +2 leadership to offset this. Kieme also had M1s in overwatch... not moving.. that always insures spotting first and killing against a moving target. 

Edited by antaress73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

antaress,

 

I'm not saying there aren't credible threats to the in-game Abrams, for there are. But the grim reality is that in an ME, the Russians are going to have a very rough time dealing with Kieme(ITA)'s force: a Company(-) of Abrams with a cross-attached platoon of Bradleys. Waltz's force was much the same thing organizationally speaking, but BMP heavy and tank poor. While the T-90AM's spotting capability may be mismodeled in CMBS, based on the available real world tech data, there is no doubt the Americans hold a significant, combat exploitable sensor edge over the T-90A, as well as the BMPs and BTRs. Else, the Russians wouldn't be buying the Catherine FC in an effort to get well, but the Thales FLIR simply isn't as capable as the US FLIR, common to both the Abrams and the Bradley.

 

In my own QB vs AI, I've rolled an Abrams, with no external spots, out of the woods at ~700 meters and in plain view of  2 x Veteran T-90AM. I also had a Veteran crew, and both sides' tanks were buttoned. What happened next was so unbelievable I reported it as a possible bug: a 4-second kill from initial spot to finish. This was full frontal, too. Two kills in under 30 seconds while on Hunt. Neither OPFOR tank, both of which were static, lived long enough to get a shot off. Both popped smoke, and I killed both before the cloud became an issue. I believe this was because the TOF for the Russian obscurant grenades was long enough to let me shoot before LOS was fully blocked when the obscurant canisters got where they were going and initiated. Waltz's fight, AIUI, pitted the sensor challenged BMP force and a dribble of T-90AMs against the thundering might of  two Abrams platoons on line and driving hard, with Bradleys in support.  Did Kieme(ITA) benefit from having tanks in overwatch? Almost certainly, but was that necessary for him to succeed given the way he handled his force? I don't think so, and my views are born out by my own previously reported QB experience, where I was moving and they weren't, but I still wiped them out with no return fire.

 

Bluntly put, tank for tank, in the real world and the game the Russians are outclassed in virtually every category by the Abrams, and it is the considered view of many of us, including Steve, that the T-14 still won't be enough to close the gap. Likewise, I believe the gap is much wider, even vs the T-90AM, than you're prepared to accept. In practical terms, today's Abrams is a veritable super tank, and CMBS models the already in the pipeline next model, which has even more of a performance edge. The Abrams doesn't have to do all that much to win, whereas the T-90AM does. As renowned/notorious Las Vegas odds maker Jimmy the Greek said, "The race may not always be to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet." I believe it fair to say the Russian tankers face long odds, while the Americans, barring doing something stupid, are at even or maybe playing with the House's money. None of this makes the Abrams unkillable, but the Russians aren't fighting with their full set of capabilities, either, as was noted elsewhere in this post, and to which I'd add what I said and thoroughly documented about Russian artillery delivered obscurants which degrade or block, variously, LRFs, laser homing, NVGs, thermals. You talk about having killed a bunch of Abrams, but was that vs AI or vs Human? In any event, you were hull down, defending. But I'm talking about the two sides on the attack.

 

IMO, given what Waltz had, what he faced and what his troops were doing when contact was made, absent strong decisive measures and considerable luck, his force was pretty much doomed. Kieme(ITA) got the drop on him, seized fire superiority at virtually every point of contact, never let it go and therefore dominated the battlefield, resulting in a crushing victory. That outcome was entirely predictable based on US data going back to ODS, if not earlier. If the Russians in CMBS had Cold War quantitative superiority levels (6:1 at focus of attack) then the military-technical gap wouldn't be so important, but MEs provide no such numerical advantage. Consequently, I don't believe I jumped to any hasty conclusion. Instead, I drew upon US plans, technology and assessments going back to the mid 80s, as well as US experience in ODS, OIF and other scenes of combat. Russia's tanks today are in the unenviable position of having been massively leapfrogged by a US military utterly determined never to be behind the eight ball again. IMO, the game simply reflects real world realities, however galling and difficult to stomach. Tanks certainly have their place in the Russian forces, but putting them outnumbered against a Abrams-heavy company is to me a truly bad idea. As for an actual war between the US and Russia in Ukraine, I have no doubt it would be bloody and by no means one sided. Russia has the same sorts of high tech weapons we do in most areas, deployed on a vast scale, and has weapons for which we have no equivalent, including the UAV which is rocket launched from the BM-30 and targets for it. The US has never been under the steel rain to which we subjected the Iraqis, yet that most certainly awaits. Nor am I at all sanguine the US will be able to stop Russian tacair before it can do considerable damage. The US has relatively weak air defense on the ground and hasn't been really subjected to mass air attack since Tunisia in WW II. 

 

Meanwhile, BadgerDog and I are about to have at each other. I'm the Ukrainians on the attack, and he's Russians defending. Not only is this likely to be exciting generally, but in the interests of getting the battle going in this lifetime, the computer selected the forces on Mixed setting!

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Antaress73 post

I've played against lots of M1s and taken them out with  many AT14s - 13s , T90s and mixed firepower.

Not that hard.     It was before the patch but things work better now.

It all comes down to terrain and positioning.

 

M1s are to be respected that's for sure but like the Tiger / Panther they are not invulnerable. 

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...