question about weapon optics

[John Kettler]

VladimirTarasov,

 

Did you see the rather surprising CMBS test results for various smokes on Russian AFVs? I'd also like to note that though no nation currently in CMBS has in-game or is deemed by BFC IRL to have multispectral smoke, the current Russian artillery smoke seems to operate much that way. As the Americans vs Sublime's Russians, I'm finding, just as Sublime told me via text, the Russian smoke does really affect my ability to see. This is rather shocking considering practically everything I have has thermals, and one of the main ideas behind thermals was to be able to see through battlefield dust and smoke--over and above night and (at least some) bad WX. When he opened his attack with a smoke barrage, I thought he was militarily nuts, since it blocked his LOS and wouldn't affect mine. How wrong I was. Fortunately for my defenders, his screen had lots of holes, which allowed me to put lots of holes in his AFVs!

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[VladimirTarasov]

Yep, I did see some interesting results indeed... Although it did work, The M1A2s even when my T-90AMs knew that the tanks were behind the smoke got insta shotted as it moved from cover and hit my T-90AM the funny part is at 1053 meters it penetrated my first T-90AM (which didn't shock me but this is what did: It penetrated and killed my other T-90AM behind him. America has some alien technology or something 

 

Edit: By the way both were penetrated from the front upper hull.

Edited August 23, 2015 by VladimirTarasov

[antaress73]

Yes.. It's called a T-90 shish-kebab

[John Kettler]

VladimirTarasov,

 

CM has quite a history of strange projectile behavior. There was one on CMBN where, ISTR, a Panther fired clear through two Shermans, killing them, possibly penetrating, sans through and through, a third thereafter and knocking it out, though I wouldn't swear to that. How that's possible, given my understanding of AP shell penetration behavior, is beyond me. IMO, this becomes even more problematic with long rod KE, which per what I've read, bites into the armor and "J"s as it does. If the shot hits the glacis and does that, then I can see no way in which the M829A4 can then go on to skewer the tank behind the first victim. Against BMPs, that seems reasonable, since the projectile so overmatches the armor on them. Maybe I'm missing something here, would hardly be the first time, but what happened to you seems wildly unlikely to me, especially for a hit on the frontal armor. I can see how something like that might happen in a side shot, again because of overmatch issues, presuming the ERA didn't stop the penetration or at least badly degrade it.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[VladimirTarasov]

John kettler,

I dont know what to tell you, I don't do US armor vs RU armor anymore. It is completely unfair. At ranges of 1200 meters in flat terrain with no obstacles, The T-90AM fails to spot the Abrams. While the Abrams always spots it. And then shoots God's lightning bolt into my poor T-90AM. The T-90AMs both day and and thermal optics are way then good enough to spot the M1A2 Abrams, And get a shot off at it in the first few seconds, Just like the M1A2 can. AT-15s are my only choice against them. 

 

What do you think about this topic? Have you had any similar experiences. I mean I don't want to be the guy who criticizes the game, I actually enjoy this game very much. But I would greatly enjoy this to be adjusted. I had both the tank crews sent to the same training by the way, Both facing each other dead on, Same leadership. 1 on 1, On every single try the Abrams lases, My T-90AM pops smoke then when the smoke clears the Abrams shoots and sends my T-90AM to tank hell  out of 4 times I tried this. Maybe this is bad luck? 

[sburke]

What might be interesting is to see how it compares to other NATO tanks when we get to see those.  Right now I think the quandary is the M1 is fairly well known, many of the folks on this forum have direct experience.  The T90 however is more an unknown and how to rate it takes a bit more guesswork.

 

When we get the Leopards on here and can test and compare performance I'll be curious as to what folks with experience on the Leopard have to say.

[antaress73]

John kettler,

I dont know what to tell you, I don't do US armor vs RU armor anymore. It is completely unfair. At ranges of 1200 meters in flat terrain with no obstacles, The T-90AM fails to spot the Abrams. While the Abrams always spots it. And then shoots God's lightning bolt into my poor T-90AM. The T-90AMs both day and and thermal optics are way then good enough to spot the M1A2 Abrams, And get a shot off at it in the first few seconds, Just like the M1A2 can. AT-15s are my only choice against them.

What do you think about this topic? Have you had any similar experiences. I mean I don't want to be the guy who criticizes the game, I actually enjoy this game very much. But I would greatly enjoy this to be adjusted. I had both the tank crews sent to the same training by the way, Both facing each other dead on, Same leadership. 1 on 1, On every single try the Abrams lases, My T-90AM pops smoke then when the smoke clears the Abrams shoots and sends my T-90AM to tank hell out of 4 times I tried this. Maybe this is bad luck?

Bad luck Vladimir. I was playing the scenario included in the demo yesterday and I moved my M1 forward in a tree line to get a shot at a russian tank contact and it was dispatched with a nice clean hole in the gun mount, range 500 meters. It didnt spot the T90AM that killed it. Prompting many #$$#$ from me

Not the first time either. Its actually 2-1 for the T90s in that game . I'm using my surviving apache and javelin teams to destroy the remaining T-90s so I got very careful hehe

When playing the Russians on the attack I use smoke (both arty deployed and vehicule deployed) and regular and constant move orders (to get closer) for my tanks with bounding overwatch and the kill ratio is on average 2-1 or sometimes 1.5-1 for the Abrams against my T-72s or T-90s (both versions) which is not bad at all. I use veteran crews for the Russians .

Edited August 30, 2015 by antaress73

[VladimirTarasov]

Hmm, I don't know, I use my tanks the best I can, Even getting to the side of the Abrams. My tank doesn't notice him somehow, By the time I do the Abrams swivels around and takes me out. I mean this is getting ridiculous. Same with the Stryker, My BMP-3 sees him late even though he has a view on his side perfectly, And gets penetrated from the frontal turret by 40MM HE rounds. Please for the love of God how was that even possible. I haven't yelled that much playing a game in a while 

[A Canadian Cat]

Well the Abrams tank's ability to spot their enemy is top of the heap so I am not surprised to see you getting beat to first shot.  The Russian tanks can get the first shot off at times if they surprise them but really their main path to victory is while the Abrams is lining up the kill shot on one two other tanks get hits on the Abrams.  If you are going at them one on one you are going to come out on the loosing end the majority of the time.

 

It seems to me that you might be trying to treat the T90 as equal to the M1.  It is not, regardless of what some might say.  The best thing you can do is stop using tactics that treat them as equals and instead try to close the distance and out manoeuver your opponent.  Once you get the T90s in under 800m or better yet 500m then who ever hits first is likely going to be the victor.  In close like that you can also find ways to outnumber the enemy tanks locally.

 

Try the First Clash scenario.  The Russian force can wipe out the initial US force every time.  I have done it against the AI and a competent opponent and he did the same to me as the Russians.  Once the US reinforcements arrive it gets dicey for the Russian player it comes down to how much damage they took from the initial force.  But if you can get your tactics down so that you can destroy the initial US force then you will probably be happier.

[VladimirTarasov]

Even if the T-90AM is somehow way below the M1A2 SEP v2, Then why cannot my tank see him from the side until he sees and destroys my tank. I mean the range is 100 meters, What is this a sick joke? And I a fully happy to argue about the M1A2 SEP v2s capabilities with the T-90AMs. I have sources and information to give facts. Sure in game the T-90AM is way less capable then the M1A2 but I mean come on, How much technology does a tank need to see a tank like target at 500 meters first? Hes directly in front of you! I just made my own scenario, T-72B3 flanks the Abrams which is directly infront of him yet the Abrams turns out and puts his M829A4 straight into my face. Surely there will be some adjustments to Russian vehicles' optics? 

[Vanir Ausf B]

I have a feeling US spotting will be reviewed for the first module. I don't expect major changes, but what needs to be tested is US moving spotting vs Russian stationary spotting. If the former is better than the latter there is a problem.

But more than anything else what needs changed is reaction speed. It is rediculous that you can lase a tank and it will pop smoke or slew around 90 degrees before the sabot leaves the barrel. The same is true regarding how vehicles routinely detect ATGM launches off to their sides. Vehicles effectively all have Shtora. These issues are not at all unique to US vehicles but the effects are magnified for them since Abrams frontal armor facing matters more.

Edited August 30, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[John Kettler]

Vladimir Tarasov,

 

I see I made a mistake, one in a long series of late, in my #26. There, I should've said "artillery smoke" for the sake of clarity.

 

Not seeing an Abrams at 1200 meters, in a T-90AM, no less,  on flat terrain strikes me as being more than a little odd, but it would be useful to know what the picture is on both ends as far as soft factors, and not just leadership rating. As for tank launched obscurants, in my experience, Shtora is screwed vs the Abrams because the very thing which provides a big multispectral obscurant screen is what undoes the using Russian AFV--the distance the grenades must travel before initiating. I'm not at all sure this is right in the game, because I've seen footage of a Russian tank popping smoke, and the grenades were bursting in the air all around near instantly, rather than initiating on ground contact tens of meters out. I've found, at least at ~750 meter range, the Abrams can kill the Russian tank before the smoke is even deployed fully, not more than track guards high, whereas the Abrams can disappear in practically an instant when lased. I had one of mine do exactly that and swiftly reverse behind a ridge, causing the shot to miss. Were I the Russians, I'd build a bunch of remote controlled laser designators (maybe use the ancient DAK-1s) and scan them back and forth across the battlefield, popping the rapidly exhausted American smoke all over the place and freaking out the affected AFV crews. Our Abrams tanker pnzrldr confirmed the Abrams was capable of a 4 second kill chain at 750 meter range, but in that QB instance, the targets were dead front, though the Abrams rolled out of cover totally blind. This was Veteran on Veteran with static T-90As and both sides buttoned. One Abrams vs two T-90As = two dead T-90As, though one survived a hit before dying from a second. At the kind of range you cite for the side on case, there should be zero need for lasing. Battlesight with the gun parallel to the ground should be more than sufficient. Perhaps BFC should consider changing lasing behavior of AFVs in battlesight range, which could easily be 1000+ meters for tank cannon in the game?

Here's my suggestion. If you want to enjoy the game and Abrams as Zeus and Jammersix's mighty Bradleys keep mandating trips to the proctologist, I strongly recommend playing Red on Red, as I did vs BadgerDog. The T-90AM is a fine tank and is a joy to behold. Fast, maneuverable, great sensors (in its category) and lethal as can be. From what I can tell, Russian AFVs are significantly faster than those of the US, making for a faster OPTEMPO, and they can use terrain the US AFVs can't in order to hide or sneak around. People can say what they like about Suvorov/Rezun, but when he talked about how he was trained to fight in tanks (was CO of a T-55 company): of flowing like water through the low ground, I paid careful attention. Such tactics maximize the value from the steppe warfare optimized designs of Russian AFVs.

 

I think it fair to say the hulking Bradley fully rates the WW II German characterization of the Grant--"skyscraper on tracks," whereas even a minor fold will generally hide a BMP-2 or 3 series or MTLB-M. Not so sure ref BTR-82A and such, but footage someone provided recently from Donbass fighting shows that it's quite easy for terrain to mask such a vehicle's running gear. The same footage shows a T-72 also gets a lot of terrain masking, something the much taller Abrams wouldn't get as much of.

 

Vanir Ausf B,

 

The increasing anecdotal evidence suggests to me there may be several issues operating in negative synergism vs Russian tanks. Of these, reaction time would seem a very strong candidate for examination, but at the ranges under discussion, I think that some assessment of how much sensor performance is good enough to support Russians, especially with the American tank  broadside on, firing first needs to be looked at. To me, some of the engagements VladimirTarasov described above certainly appear to fall under the rubric of "good enough for the job," as far as FC optics, particularly considering that using crude by comparison WW II day optics, the Russians got tank kills at 2000 meters!  Something seems off here, and I think he's got a very good case to back his argument there is indeed a problem.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[Red Rage]

Hmm, I don't know, I use my tanks the best I can, Even getting to the side of the Abrams. My tank doesn't notice him somehow, By the time I do the Abrams swivels around and takes me out. I mean this is getting ridiculous. Same with the Stryker, My BMP-3 sees him late even though he has a view on his side perfectly, And gets penetrated from the frontal turret by 40MM HE rounds. Please for the love of God how was that even possible. I haven't yelled that much playing a game in a while 

 

 

Yup, it's like there is an invisible wall that takes 5 to 10 seconds to see through and only applies to Russian IFVs (Ukrainians have an even longer wait time on that "wall", but I don't think anyone without masochistic tendencies actually plays them). I mean at point blank range, with a perfect view of that ass or side, even a WW2 IFV shouldn't take that long to spot and ID. Last mission of Red campaign I actually managed to sneak my T-90AM right into immobilized M1's tailpipe tucked in between buildings on the left, only to have M1 spin the turret and actually get a shot off killing my T-90; after the ragereload my T-90 got the first shot off, but M1 still had the time to spin that turret, and just didn't have that fraction of a second to finish aiming. T-90 took its time seeing the target (at less than 70m) that was spotted by a dozen other units over the course of 1 hour 30 mins, with several CAS runs over the location (don't even have to be all fancy pants with net-centric capability to see a pair of Mi-24 pounding the location and know that something nasty might still be there).

[VladimirTarasov]

John Kettler, Yes those were my problems and you have explained it in better detail. I with my eyes can see a tank like object from atleast 500 meters in a flat field. 

 

Red Rage, I have had countless of experiences. And that wall of invisibility is dead on. I don't even like playing UA vs RU because the UA can't see nothing either. 

[Nerdwing]

Bad luck Vladimir. I was playing the scenario included in the demo yesterday and I moved my M1 forward in a tree line to get a shot at a russian tank contact and it was dispatched with a nice clean hole in the gun mount, range 500 meters. It didnt spot the T90AM that killed it. Prompting many #$$#$ from me

Not the first time either. Its actually 2-1 for the T90s in that game . I'm using my surviving apache and javelin teams to destroy the remaining T-90s so I got very careful hehe

When playing the Russians on the attack I use smoke (both arty deployed and vehicule deployed) and regular and constant move orders (to get closer) for my tanks with bounding overwatch and the kill ratio is on average 2-1 or sometimes 1.5-1 for the Abrams against my T-72s or T-90s (both versions) which is not bad at all. I use veteran crews for the Russians .

 

That one's damn nasty.  I think the US Tank crew's low experience there is a big cause though?

[antaress73]

They are regular and veteran

[antaress73]

They are regular and veteran

[antaress73]

They are regular and veteran

[Sublime]

tarasov you.ve had bad luck. you should never take t90ams on abeams head to head. htry to engage abrams from different angles so at least one weapons system getd a shot. to fighr bradleys and abrams i use a mix of 2 khriz, at13s and 14s and T90s. try to engage abrams close as possible. rush em out from behind hills or buildings. to engage flanks or rear. or to engage front so an atgm ccan shoot its flank. khriz is best left in a good ambush position and left alone. At14s are best used with fortificatikns outside the at13s deploy in 20 seconds inside buildings. i used to get beaten horribly against use comcibed arms if it was abrams and bradleys. you just need to keep at it with human opponents and you ll gain ezperience. you also have to accept t90ams are nowhere close to abeamd equiivalents and shouldnt be treated as such. at all. also if the abrams is alone or doesnt have a bradley or jav to save it or other abrams a tunguska will keep plastering it shocking the crew into submission. if they have smoke theyll pop and reverse. sometomes they reverse. sually they sit and get pounded by hundreds of 30mm rnds and get immobilized ajd mission killed. Russian victorys can and will be against the US. antaress has copies of a recent save of a game i played against nidan. killed 6 abrams ans 8 bradleys and nearly all US infantry. lost 8 t90s and both khriz. some bte 82As and some infantry but tge US was wiped out and surrendered. it can be done and the more i play the more effective i become. if youd lile proof, or anyone here would fight me in a medium or large qb on a map size thats obe larger than the battle size. no aps as rge russians best at weapon is atgms. if i dnt win i guaeantee ill kill many abrams and bradleys. pm me if anyones interestrd we can do regular qb or do it as a combat lesson dar

Edited September 1, 2015 by Sublime