Russians Underpowered, US Overpowered in CMBS?

[John Kettler]

c3k,

Seems to me you don't need to know precisely where the enemy is. All you need to do is interpose the curtain (better yet, several in succession) between the attacking force and the other guy's troops. This is especially true when forced to advance across the open. The idea is to be able to deny long range attrition as much as possible (Russians are great terrain analysts, so know where the long shots can come from), thus arrive at close range relatively intact and in the lethal envelope of even relatively inferior Russian tank cannon. This was part of a nightmare scenario which made my stomach churn when I was at Hughes and was involved with TOW and other antitank programs. Russia had a major-huge edge (depending on sector hit and scenario) in numbers then, which only made things worse. Have already described how bad things were then on the armor/anti-armor front. 

Regards,

John Kettler

[Codename Duchess]

I don't want to get too into specifics but there is no requirement for a LGB to have its target lased all the way from launch to impact to ensure a hit (Chosen randomly, 10 seconds is more than enough time and you can almost certainly choose less). Also there's no way for him to know whether or not I've released the weapon, so I can laze him, watch him pop smoke, and patiently wait for the wind to blow it away before lazing him again to keep trolling or to release a weapon.  Or I can just bomb the middle of the smoke and hes still going to have a bad day.  Suffice it to say I don't think there's any system out there to offer protection from precision munitions released from an aircraft outside of extremely lucky outliers.

Edited March 26, 2017 by Codename Duchess

[John Kettler]

Codename Duchess,

Am aware you don't need to lase continuously and can readily look up what the numbers are using the relevant FS docs for the Army. Regarding the second, you're an evil man, toying with those poor tankisti like that! Could you please provide some info on typical delivery angles for JDAM and Maverick? Am trying to see whether either would enter Shtora's 25 degree elevation coverage. Tunguska is designed to be able, inter alia, to defeat glide bombs and LGBs, maybe even Maverick. Pantsir is designed to defeat even HARM. There are non-APS hard kill options available.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

[Codename Duchess]

8 hours ago, John Kettler said:

Codename Duchess,

Am aware you don't need to lase continuously and can readily look up what the numbers are using the relevant FS docs for the Army. Regarding the second, you're an evil man, toying with those poor tankisti like that! Could you please provide some info on typical delivery angles for JDAM and Maverick? Am trying to see whether either would enter Shtora's 25 degree elevation coverage. Tunguska is designed to be able, inter alia, to defeat glide bombs and LGBs, maybe even Maverick. Pantsir is designed to defeat even HARM. There are non-APS hard kill options available.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

It's just a function of trigonometry. Height of aircraft vs distance over ground of aircraft and target. Hypotenuse, more or less, being the trajectory of the weapon (more straightforward for a Maverick and more ballistic for a non-glide bomb). So it really just comes down to launch parameters but by and large it will almost certainly be greater than 25 degrees because that's really shallow. You'd have to be really low (not recommended or useful against ta ms and what not). Hell, even gun runs are meant to be done at 30 degrees.

[John Kettler]

Codename Duchess,

Thanks! That's what I thought your answer would be, but I thought it would be wise to ask the questions directly to be sure. Consequently, it looks like the Russians are screwed. They put up up a broadband obscurant scree directly overhead, but Shtora can't see high enough to do so. Consequently, it would appear they are going to have to rely on higher, even if it's just the Verba and Tunguska associated radar at Regiment, in order to get the overhead obscurant bursts in place. 

2 hours ago, Codename Duchess said:

There are non-APS hard kill options available.

The above should've said "These are non-APS hard kill options available at a very low organizational level." 

Regards,

John Kettler

[Artkin]

Speaking of verba.... do you think we will start developing an APS on aircraft? Ships get the phalanx, although it is much different than what we could see on an airplane. Air would be the final frontier (besides space since there is no combat there... yet) for APS systems

[Codename Duchess]

I think Lockheed mentioned some sort of defensive air to air missile concept recently so that's already being looked at. I think your most likely bet is going to be a laser based system, but that's still a bit away. 

[Artkin]

I had figured it wouldve been similar to arena and trophy, but on second thought the engagement range for the aps would likely be too close anyway. Cool stuff. Those aps missiles sure will be expensive

[HerrTom]

1 hour ago, Codename Duchess said:

I think Lockheed mentioned some sort of defensive air to air missile concept recently so that's already being looked at. I think your most likely bet is going to be a laser based system, but that's still a bit away. 

I'd be impressed if that were remotely reliable. Hitting ATGMs and cruise missiles is one thing. AAMs and SAMs? That's a new ball game! I agree with your bet on the laser system. That's the only way I imagine you're going to reliably engage the missiles haha

[c3k]

Laser spoofing/burnout of IR imagers is the way...

For radar guided, well, now you're talking a lot more energy. You'd need to burn it through a vulnerable section. Based on engagement geometries, the only surface presented would be the nose. EW would be more effective.

Of course, the F35B (Marine version) has that drive shaft and clutch pack. You could generate a LOT of power if you dropped the fan and stuck a generator in there.

There's all sorts of stuff going on in the anti-AAM sphere.

[John Kettler]

Conclusive proof TOW doesn't always work. This may be the luckiest tank crew ever!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Chudacabra]

On 3/20/2017 at 1:30 PM, IanL said:

I think this post speaks to what we really need to consider - points cost. People seeking to dump down vehicle X's capabilities or beef up vehicle Y are going about things in the wrong way. The vehicle / system capabilities should be modelled like in RL. The balance of QBs needs to be in the points not in tweaking capabilities. Those that are arguing that the US capabilities are too strong because they always beat the Russian forces are barking up the wrong tree.

I agree. All three armies in CMBS have their strengths and weakness, but these need to be balanced with extra points in QBs depending on the circumstances. I think tactics matter a lot more in this game than anything else. People seem quite obsessed with tank spotting capabilities, although I'm generally of the opinion that a guy with binoculars should be doing the spotting first then directing a superior number of tanks against the enemy accordingly. Of course that doesn't always work out as intended, but if it did then this game wouldn't be any fun.

[shift8]

Another thing to point out when it comes to numbers is that the cost of Russian units, which is considerably lower, is not realistic. So any balance that "should" be done has already been done by making the Russian forces much cheaper compared to American units. 

[Artkin]

We need an Armata with that french FLIR already 

[A Canadian Cat]

43 minutes ago, shift8 said:

Another thing to point out when it comes to numbers is that the cost of Russian units, which is considerably lower, is not realistic. So any balance that "should" be done has already been done by making the Russian forces much cheaper compared to American units. 

Indeed - I could see someone making a legitimate argument that the costs need to be shifted even more.

 

30 minutes ago, Artkin said:

We need an Armata with that french FLIR already 

Hopefully that smiley is you trying to be funny cause since the Armata does not exist for deployment adding it to the game is not happening any time soon. See the fun / insane thread on that topic already...

[Rinaldi]

He's a troll, a particularly poor one at that.

[Artkin]

31 minutes ago, Rinaldi said:

He's a troll, a particularly poor one at that.

I actually didn't know it wasn't ready for deployment yet. It's too bad I dont read every inch of the forums isn't it buddy ?

[Rinaldi]

Heaven helps those who help themselves.

[Artkin]

How wrong is it to assume they would be ready for deployment after being in production for two years now?

[Rinaldi]

That's a better question; I don't think any of us can answer with any certainty - I think they'd have an appreciable number by 2020, not full replacement, but in not insignificant numbers,  if there are no major flaws discovered during its breaking-in period.

Edited March 29, 2017 by Rinaldi

[Artkin]

Their plan is 2300 by 2020 which would be at least double the t90a count

[Rinaldi]

2300 is optimistic by every stretch of the imagination given Russia's current capabilities and economic pressure. I'd eat my hat if they have more than a brigade to division equipped with them at 100 percent material/80 percent trained manpower (e.g: "Constant Readiness") by 2020. The reality is that the Russian army in 2020 will most likely see most brigades brought up to T90AM standards with a handful of lavishly equipped constant readiness units.

Before anyone leaps down my throat saying I'm once again underselling the Russians, try to keep in mind most nations without the cash to blow on military spending operate this way. That's just reality. No matter how hard Russia Today tells you Putin will clap his hands and make 700 Billion dollars magically appear for military spending.

Bottom line: It doesn't belong in Black Sea

Edited March 29, 2017 by Rinaldi

[Artkin]

How many Oplots do you think there are? 

Bottom line: It's feasable.

[Rinaldi]

Apples to oranges comparison; so no, its not. When the game was being conceived the Ukraine was not yet in a state of war and OPLOTs were already 'off paper', tested and ready for mass production - to say nothing of the fact that it is a modernization of a currently existing chassis. Secondly, Kharkiv works is more than capable of production but it (a) doesn't suit the Ukraine's needs given that they are in a hybrid war and (b) would stretch their already strained resources in light of that.

The same logic BFC applied to the OPLOT was applied to the T90AM.  The Armata wasn't even on the radar when they began development and no one knows a damn thing about it in reality. Whereas the latter two are modernizations of currently existing chassis that have been in production and have a fair more information available. There's at least a Company of OPLOTs in service with the Ukraine on paper, another company in service with Georgia, and 25 in Thailand. That's at least a dozen more than the Armata, if we're keeping count .

So no, its far from feasible, its a downright pipe dream to think that the Armata belongs in any scope in a game set in 2017 and its quite a pointless waste of your time continuing to advocate for it, no matter how "OP" you believe the Abrams in game are  or how cool you think it is. BFC set out to display what they interpreted the real-life capabilities of these nations would have been in 2017 if events played out according to their scenario. They've done an admirable job of this.

Edited March 29, 2017 by Rinaldi

[Artkin]

Doesn't it take nearly a year for the assembly line to produce Oplots? Something like ten months?

Armata is off paper already isn't it? 

The same logic can be applied to any armored vehicle in the game. Nobody knows what the strength of the armor package on the Abrams, T90, Oplot are besides the servicemen that operate them. What do you know about any version of the T90 besides what you read? It's all assumption how they will perform. 

Included in that assumption is Russia doesn't have enough Armatas to field. I highly doubt you will see them announcing how many they are producing. I think there are differences in the West and the East in terms of disclosure. Wasn't this game designed on the principle that the economies are stimulated by war? Therefore they are producing more high tech military equipment faster...

On top of that Russia can easily outproduce Ukraine. 

30 minutes ago, Rinaldi said:

The Armata wasn't even on the radar when they began development

BFC set out to display what they interpreted the real-life capabilities of these nations would have been in 2017 if events played out according to their scenario.

Okay so did BF look into glass ball and decide that they wouldn't add in the Armata? Because as you said it wasnt even "on the radar". So you can't say BF chose not to add it in. 

Edited March 29, 2017 by Artkin