Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think there is a story like that for every armored platform that ever saw combat. One thing is certain, PG-7V has a very outdated warhead. One of the more commonly known examples is T-72B N611 from the second Chechen campaign, which over the course of two days, got hit by 3 Fagot ATGM's and 6 RPG shots while remaining operational. 

Here it is:

http://imgur.com/dGrXBTu

http://imgur.com/sD9jdmn

One of the key differences in HEAT protection performance from first to second Chechen campaigns was newly supplied K-1 ERA which wasn't past its expiration period I outlined in my previous post. 

Edited by BTR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also keep in mind that many of the RPG rounds could have been past their expiration date or improperly manufactured or poorly stored or all of these things.  The Coalition forces in Iraq were hit by lots of RPGs in the early days that had been sitting around for a long time and they either failed to go of completely or they just burned a bit instead of doing what they should have.  There's even some really crazy pictures of an RPG round that went through a couple of temporary housing units and wound up in the lap of a US soldier who was lying on his cot sleeping!

Point is I'd be shocked if every RPG round in the Ukraine conflict was new stock, current model, made to high manufacturing standards.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh Steve, since you signed in this topic, can you comment on our autoloder discussion on the previous page? 

As I understand it the game is being too kind to Soviet/Russian tanks because the auto loader can only handle 22 rounds without a lengthy reload process.  Likewise, using the ATGM rounds involves going outside.  Yes?

Things like this are very difficult for us to simulate.  However, I will make sure it's being discussed.

I can not remember why we do not have the gun elevation for reloading.  I think there was a coding issue and it was determined it wasn't worth the effort to make it work.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it the game is being too kind to Soviet/Russian tanks because the auto loader can only handle 22 rounds without a lengthy reload process.  Likewise, using the ATGM rounds involves going outside.  Yes?

Things like this are very difficult for us to simulate.  However, I will make sure it's being discussed.

Steve

Partially yes. To condense the manual for you in terms of time values:

  • Autoloaded rounds are reloaded at a normal rate.
  • Regularly stored rounds are reloaded at around 3-1 rounds per minute.
  • The last 3 or 4 rounds (depending on the tank) are reloaded at around 2-1 rounds per minute rate only when the tank is stationary.

There is no connection between using ATGM and going outside at all :). The ATGM is stored and loaded as a regular round. I'm not sure where you picked that up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some ATGM rounds are fired through the main weapon barrel. Those are purely internal and should have a delay, but only insofar as that needed to select that round, load it, program it/link it to the guidance system, and then fire it. That delay would/should be far less than those ATGMs which are fired from outside the hull. Some examples include the TOW and various Russian BMP types. (The exception being when there are multiple launchers, e.g., TOW can fire 2 before needing to reload.)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There is no connection between using ATGM and going outside at all :). The ATGM is stored and loaded as a regular round. I'm not sure where you picked that up. 

Yes, my bad!  I confused the stowage picture (posted by AKD) with something else.  I was thinking that is where the special ATGM rounds were stored, however I now see that is not the case.  Never mind that point ;)

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, the full loadouts for Soviet-based and Russian tanks CMBS are the following:

  • T-90A 21HE+ 8T-HEAT+ 4ATGM+ 14APFSDS+ 300AP-I+ >2K 7.62
  • T-72B3 23HE+ 6T-HEAT+ 4ATGM+ 13APFSDS+ 300AP-I+> 2K 7.62
  • T-90AM 21ABHE+ 8T-HEAT+ 4ATGM+ 14APFSDS+ >2K 7.62
  • BM Oplot 14ABHE+ 4T-HEAT+ 8ATGM+ 10APFSDS+ 450AP-I+ >1K 7.62
  • BM Bulat 14HE+ 4T-HEAT+ 8ATGM+10APFSDS+ 300AP-I+ >1K 7.62
  • T-64BV 14HE+ 4T-HEAT+ 10APFSDS+ 300AP-I+ >1K 7.62

Conclusions are: 

  • T-90A's total ammo capacity is 47 vs real-life 42. Coax rounds are also more numerous that the real life vehicle (2K exactly IRL). Source.
  • T-72B3's total ammo capacity is 46 vs real-life 45. Coax rounds are also more numerous that the real life vehicle (2K exactly IRL). T-72B operational manual 1992, Book 2, pages 47-52. 
  • T-90AM's total ammo capacity is 47 vs real-life 40. 7.62 rounds look fine, but then I can't really tell how many there are. Should be 2000 (coax) + 800 (MG). Source.
  • BM Oplot's total ammo count is 36 vs real-life 46. Coax and HMG are correct. Source.
  • T-64BM's total ammo count is 36 which is correct. Coax and HMG are correct too. Source.
  • T-64BV's total ammo count is 28 vs real life count of 36. Coax and HMG are correct. T-64B and B1 operational manual 1983, Book 2, Page 15 and inlay 5. 

Other thoughts on the matter:

  • Why is a less funded military more outfitted with expensive GLATGMs on a tank per tank basis? Even if one was to argue that there are less tanks overall, supplying 8 guided munitions per tank makes little sense considering how seldom they are used. Perhaps there lies the answer to Ukrainian propensity for spamming ATGM's from tanks when it makes little tactical sense to do that.
  • I am under the impression that T-90, T-80UK and T-90A had Ainet for quite some time now, and that this system was first trialed on the T-90S. If the T-90AM has ABHE, then the T-90A should have them too. 
  • Which leads me into the next random though. Why is it that T-90AM doesn't have regular contact-fuse HE rounds? Theoretically it makes the AM much less effective vs urban fortifications then the B3, 90A and pretty much any other tank.  
  • Last but not least, isn't it HEAT-T and not T-HEAT :)?

 

Edited by BTR
Formatting and grammar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-thanks for ammo load corrections.  Started looking at this yesterday and you saved me a bunch of time!

-agree that ATGM count on UKR tanks needs to go down.  There are some other outstanding issues with ammo loads, so hopefully they can get fixed together.

-best info found previously was that only T-90AK, not production T-90A, was equipped with Ainet.

-T-HEAT is abbreviation for Tandem-HEAT, not HEAT-Tracer.

-pretty sure the T-90AM HE can work as airburst or point-detonating in game, except in a few specific situations (walls and open roofs) where airburst is always used even though it might not always be optimal.

Edited by akd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

-best info found previously was that only T-90AK, not production T-90A, was equipped with Ainet.

-T-HEAT is abbreviation for Tandem-HEAT, not HEAT-Tracer.

-pretty sure the T-90AM HE can work as airburst or point-detonating in game, except in a few specific situations (walls and open roofs) where airburst is always used even though it might not always be optimal.

-Got it. The system is in relatively widespread service I believe. Perhaps the confusion came from Ainet being mounted on command T-80U's and command T-90's. T-90A's all have that as standard I believe. The tech itself isn't something groundbreaking either and has been around for nearly 30 years. 

-Understood. Didn't make the connection in English ^_^.

-That doesn't make much sense considering how ainet system works. For airburst to work, range must be acquired via the rangefinder, then this information is passed onto the fuse before it is loaded and fired. As far as I managed to gather, the fuse doesn't work on contact, only on distance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-thanks for ammo load corrections.  Started looking at this yesterday and you saved me a bunch of time!

-T-HEAT is abbreviation for Tandem-HEAT, not HEAT-Tracer.

 

I mantissed ammunition mismatches for Ukrainan tanks, before 1.03 was issued, but possibly already wasn't have a time to make something. 

So, looking on T-HEAT abbreviation, this means that UKR tanks in the game have TANDEM HEAT rounds ? If yes, this is mistake! 

 

Edited by Haiduk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mantissed ammunition mismatches for Ukrainan tanks, before 1.03 was issued, but possibly already wasn't have a time to make something. 

So, looking on T-HEAT abbreviation, this means that UKR tanks in the game have TANDEM HEAT rounds ? If yes, this is mistake! 

 

Doesn't the Ukranian army have 3VBK-25? That is a tandem charge (with 3BK-29M charge). Some report it being available from as early as 1992.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't the Ukranian army have 3VBK-25? That is a tandem charge (with 3BK-29M charge). Some report it being available from as early as 1992.

Now our main ammunitions are 3BM22 Zakolka and 3BK14/18/18M.  In most cases It's enough for opposite T-64BV and T-72B. I still didn't see any photos with more modern T-HEAT of APFSDS from frontline. Often happen that only HE OF26/36 only available for crews. I read we have lack of these AP-ammunitions, possibly 3BM42 and T-HEATs are "emergency store" on case of full-scale war with big numbers of modern tanks. To this time appaerance of Т-72B3 and T-90A in Donbas have episodic charecter...  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reads to me like BM Oplots maybe could have 3VBK-25 (although I am not sure any were supplied to Ukraine) and, more plausibly, 3VBM-17. The rest is solid early-mid 80's ammo tech then. 

Off to BMP-3 based vehicles (still armor right :) ):

  • 9P157-2 has 15 rockets in storage (correct), but only 1 rocket loaded (while there are two tubes)
  • 9P157-2 has 9M123 ATGM listed instead of AT-15 Springer*.
  • 9P157-2 doesn't appear to have HE-T 9M123F ATGM as a viable ammunition type. Link.

*That's a little weird the game uses NATO designations as they are very ambiguous and lump together guidance systems and missiles. Actually the point about absence of all HE thermobaric ATGMs is an interesting one. BMP-3, T-72B3, T-90A and AM's could potentially receive some flavor. 

  • BMP-3/M has 22 100mm rounds, 3ATGMs, 195AP, 305HE and 2000 MG readily available. It's the same sotry as with tank autoloaders not being modeled. Link.
  • BMP-3/M 30mm and 100mm total loadouts are correct, however a fully loaded coax MG has 2000 rounds, not 1K as CMBS has it. Link.
  • BMP-3/M ammo stowage can store additional 18 100mm rounds or 250 30mm rounds. Some flexibility would be nice. Link.
  • BMP-3K only has the readily availabe rounds (22 10mm rounds, 3ATGMs, 195AP, 305HE and 2000 MG), and does not have additional stored ammo. Link + BMP-3K operational manual 1998, Book 2, Page 16.
Edited by BTR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things like this are very difficult for us to simulate.  However, I will make sure it's being discussed.

Steve

I gave it a bit of though, I and I still think this sort of detailing is needed. While for the majority of the audience might view REDFOR vehicles as just part of the "scenery", ultimately attention to detail is what sets CM apart from anything in the operational-tactical bracket of PC land wargaming market. In other words, correct details equals a better product.  

Edited by BTR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing I noticed, is that a tank firing 2-3m away from an infantry squad doesn't really affect their suppression state. I think overpreassure and noise should factor in how infantry behaves around armor. Not to mention the muzzle blast does nothing for infantry laying underneath a 125mm cannon. I don't know if this has been brought up before, but here is a bit of a visual aid:

LaR1eDs.png

125mm guns have very similar danger zones I believe. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considered and rejected, because video game (think of the poor AI).

More like "endless moaning and complaining from micromanaging players who have expectations that even Deep Blue and a crack team from MIT could not satisfy" :)

The primary problem with this is it sets up chain reactions which the player will routinely not anticipate, not "approve of", and therefore call us poor game developers everything in the book.  Since it is absolutely impossible for the AI to read the player's mind *and* defend itself for making the best out of a bad situation, we're not interested in a half measure that we'd most likely wind up abandoning after having our heads served on a platter.  Which is why we are staying away from this thing like the plague.  Call it survival instincts ;)

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I figured I wasn't the first person to bring this up, but it felt like having this here for the record would advance overall discussion. I see why this is a gameplay decision, but I also feel there is too little penalty for bunching up infantry and tanks. I have tested APS damage to infantry and I couldn't conclude whether that was the blast from RPG's damaging infantry or the APS itself. I have also tested ERA discharges, and they don't seem to impact infantry behavior. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTR,

Yet more of your typical great in-depth material on RUS/UKR treadhead matters--even if the spell checker hates "treadhead," which is in the Urban Dictionary. 

akd,

I think you fundamentally misunderstood what BTR said about Ukrainian tank ammo load outs. Somehow, you came away thinking the game gave them too much, when it is really, broadly speaking, too little and definitely of real tactical significance. I have bolded the key parts of what he said, clearly showing the disparity between what the game gods provided and what the tyl shows should be in the racks.

  • BM Oplot's total ammo count is 36 vs real-life 46. Coax and HMG are correct. Source.
  • T-64BM's total ammo count is 36 which is correct. Coax and HMG are correct too. Source.
  • T-64BV's total ammo count is 28 vs real life count of 36. Coax and HMG are correct. T-64B and B1 operational manual 1983, Book 2, Page 15 and inlay 5.

BFC,

What happened to our post numbers? Just noticed they were MIA.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTR,

Yet more of your typical great in-depth material on RUS/UKR treadhead matters--even if the spell checker hates "treadhead," which is in the Urban Dictionary. 

akd,

I think you fundamentally misunderstood what BTR said about Ukrainian tank ammo load outs. Somehow, you came away thinking the game gave them too much, when it is really, broadly speaking, too little and definitely of real tactical significance.

 

 

How did you come to that conclusion?  Probably not reading before firing off posts, as usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

akd,

The answer is simple. I'd been up continuously from sometime the day before, and when I read the post, somehow my sleep deprived brain registered "ATGM" as "AT." Obviously, that's wrong, but I wasn't aware I'd misread what you wrote. Thus, I made a mistake, for which I now apologize. When may I expect yours for your sweeping and false characterization of the way I deal with posts? I NEVER post without first reading what I'm responding to. Where, pray tell, did you come up with such a fundamentally wrongheaded notion?

Regards,

John Kettler 

 

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this is a general Armor topic, a couple of my observations about T-90A's from Syria:

http://i.imgur.com/fA4k3Q6.jpg

Front mudguard has been swapped for a pre-89 design, possibly due to the original one being lost in combat. Shtora jammers are not in combat position (leveled), but are in illumination position, meaning some lower levels NVG's might have been used. Gunner's hatch suggests these are pre 2006 models, but are definitely post early 2004 since these are French thermals.
 

http://i.imgur.com/WOoyUyH.jpg

Interesting to see the fourth K-5 section is finally being mounted, but similarly interesting to see front-most K-5 section missing. This suggests that it is still to loose in urban combat and comes of too easily.

Perhaps the second image is the more interesting in terms of CMBS. There is a high chance T-90A's and T-72B3's would have full four side ERA sections in your hypothetical face-off with US and Ukrainian invasion. 

 

Edited by BTR

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...