Jump to content
Douglas Mac

Russians Underpowered, US Overpowered in CMBS?

Recommended Posts

Just now, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

 

ERA has been around since 2008. LWR there's some legacy stuff in storage but there's bolt on units available from several sources. 

Shtora, ERA, Arena etc already is in mass production. But you still didn`t answer my question- is there SO MANY ERA to equip every single M1\Bradley\Striker? Or at least is there enough ERA to convince its rarity in CMBS (actually it`s same question)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

USA definitely has enough buying power to drastically alter its technologies on fighting vehicles. However I disagree with the idea that they could be readily implemented on all these different afvs. So I see both sides of this.

The same side of the coin applies to the Bmp3m with shtora... and obviously APS

Edit: speaking for APS not ERA

Panzer,

Were you a crewman for the Abrams? Any mention of these techs being implemented? 

Edited by Artkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Sorrow_Knight said:

And question right for you- what Russian gear is so "fantasy", or at least MORE "fantasy, than LWR, APS and ERA on US vehicles (wich is changing performance vs russians)?

Well lets take the vehicle that has been the main issue of this thread, the T-90AM. It is not in service at all. It uses Relikt ERA which is not available on other Russian vehicles. And on top of this gets Sabot ammo in game that is not generally available to other vehicles. The Current M829A3 was quite capable of dealing with kontakt5 armored tanks like the T-72B3. The Russian ammo that was in service at game release, and mainly in use now, is not capable of dealing with the Abrams from the front reliably. The upgrades to the abrams in game keep the Abrams relatively superior. The Russian upgrades in game elevate their equipment from "will be curb stomped" to "has a fighting chance." A totally different margin of scale. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, exsonic01 said:

Does they have that much ERA / Shtora / Arena BMP-3M variants, which would convince the current rarity point in CMBS? From this point I'm not sure, but I will remain skeptical point of view about it. 

Oh, i waited this question. If you ask about APS, Shtora and ERA, so, i'm sure you may explain why any objections about M1A2 SEP X and other funny toys are rejected.

I want to say, that i don't use T-90AM, BMP-2M, BMP-3\3M with APS\ERA\Shtora because i like historical real weapon. T-72B3 and BTR-82A are my favourite units, sometimes i form heavy company with BMP-3 or BMP-3M and T-90A. I hate T-90AM, XM-25, BRM-3K, M1A2 SEP X and etc. I don't mind of them existing in the game, i just want to have a choise.

I might use the same logic and i could say that we are able to add Arena, Shtora (T-90A use it, we have Shtora in service, and i don't understand why it is a problem - to hang Shtora on BMP-3M) and ERA to BMP-3M only because we want to do it. If such arguments are normal for M1A2, why the same arguments aren't normal for BMP-3M? Is it unfair? Yes, it is unfair and for M1A2 SEP X, and for BMP-3M.

The choise - what i want to buy and what i don't - might solve this problem, all this theme might be solved thanks to just patch.

Edited by Sophist_13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom line here is that the both sides received gear they do not have, or do not have in large numbers. But the most far fetched of these upgrades went to the Russians. Period. 

There is nothing to complain about here. BFC has already stretched the Russian equipment to the limits of what can be justified and still be somewhat representative of realistic of force structures. The US was FAR LESS stretched. The Russians also got big advantages in how cheap their units are to offset their general inferiority. In reality Russian ground forces would be out gunned, and out numbered once US and NATO forces moved en mass. How much fantasy do you want? 

 

And arguing off the basis of "fictional units" is pure folly. If you really want to push the ball here, and insist on getting T-14s, the USA should star destroyers and mecha suits. We must be somewhat proportional after all, and it would seem like that nation with 5 times the GDP, two times the population, and 8 times the military budget should at least get a little more. 

And if you don't like that, fight the Ukraine. Balance issue solved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was once an Abrams tank company commander and pretty active in the armor community on a whole. 

I'm not bored enough to go into the details of upgrades, but the 2025 and similar estimates for future US tanks are not based on our limitations, as much as when we expect an update to stay ahead of threat capability to be required, thus allowing us to do one mass upgrade to cutting edge standard vs constant small upgrades to meet largely fictional Russian procurement of AFVs.

The T-14, T-90M etc have more to do with information warfare than technical capability. I place very little faith in the ability to field something soon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

The T-14, T-90M etc have more to do with information warfare than technical capability. I place very little faith in the ability to field something soon. 

T-14s will be fielded but it wont replace the fleet for a while. I don't think the T-90 upgrades will happen, as the T-14 is way better. I think the T-90As are enough for current NATO tanks speaking comparison wise for the most part, but we lack the numbers the US tank fleet has (as in we lack advanced tanks) you guys have like 1.5-2K M1A2s upgraded to latest standards, not counting the M1A1s. Meanwhile our fleet is relatively older, and less advanced (speaking about the many T-72Bs we have... which lack any thermal and the cannon is mediocre) But considering Russia's wars for the most part will be regional, the current fleet is ehhh enough. 

I mean seriously, Russia needs to upgrade the tank fleet. The T-72B3 upgrades are good and all but the commander still lacks a thermal imager, which is dumb as hell... Just the B3M upgrade would bring the Russian fleet's quality up. But nah they like the B3s more I;m assuming. LOL 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Codename Duchess said:

I like the logic of the only way US vehicles can get ERA is if we have enough tiles to equip every single vehicle in our inventory  (literally thousands) but the Russians can totally justify bringing all <20 Armatas. 

Simply because I hadn't got to it yet, there's been enough to equip several Brigades over with it, both BUSK and TUSK kits.  Less sure about SRAT but it's a pretty small reach.

 

 

2 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

T-14s will be fielded but it wont replace the fleet for a while. I don't think the T-90 upgrades will happen, as the T-14 is way better. I think the T-90As are enough for current NATO tanks speaking comparison wise for the most part, but we lack the numbers the US tank fleet has (as in we lack advanced tanks) you guys have like 1.5-2K M1A2s upgraded to latest standards, not counting the M1A1s. Meanwhile our fleet is relatively older, and less advanced (speaking about the many T-72Bs we have... which lack any thermal and the cannon is mediocre) But considering Russia's wars for the most part will be regional, the current fleet is ehhh enough. 

I mean seriously, Russia needs to upgrade the tank fleet. The T-72B3 upgrades are good and all but the commander still lacks a thermal imager, which is dumb as hell... Just the B3M upgrade would bring the Russian fleet's quality up. But nah they like the B3s more I;m assuming. LOL 

My read is as follows:

Unless the T-90/T-72 upgrades dry up it stands to reason the Russian Army intends to keep those platforms as capable as possible for a time to come.  This indicates that T-14 procurement is not going to be sufficient likely for some years to come. 

My read is the T-14 as a program has managed to get away from reality.  When oil was good, and sanctions were not a thing it was likely a more reasonable goal.  However it faces more hurdles than are reasonable in the short term, thus the sudden interest in T-90Ms and other similar upgrades.

In this context, the T-14 might appear behind schedule, however I would not be surprised if it instead serves as a family of test vehicles for the actual future tanks to be launched once Russia's industrial capabilities are up to the task of producing such a vehicle

In the narrower context of right now, they serve the twofold mission.  To the domestic audience they are a counter to the narrative that Russia is second best (or worse) in the tank business, and fits the wider narrative of Russia ascendant.  To the foreign audience it is part of the mission to make Russian conventional forces appear unstoppable/able to meet and defeat NATO in open combat.  The T-14's part in this is a key weak spot for that perception of capability has been the perception Russian tanks are inferior to NATO's (thanks in no small part to 1991).  

Basically looking at where Russia is putting it's money/time has been in unconventional assets, information warfare, and things short of conventional conflict (cyber/electronic warfare or insurgency support).  While it very visibly displays conventional weapons, they're ones that mean very little to Russia's strategic posture, or are often beyond the ability of Russia to procure in numbers relevant to change the current calculus.

Observing Russia's tactics in regards to the Ukraine and Baltics, the Russian strategy would actually appear to be:

1. Disrupt NATO as much as possible.  Ultra nationalist, isolationist parties need as much power as possible, but ideally NATO would be put in a place that it'd be unable to effectively respond to rapid Russian military actions against former Soviet NATO members.
2. Enable Russian nationalists in border areas with the Russian federation with weapons, training, or direct support to build enclaves to support future operations.
3. Display military might and nuclear deterrence to give the impression of being militarily able to win any war it starts.  

Ideally Russia would surge from already established enclaves in border countries, basically leap frogging from rehearsed "snap" drill positions, and rolling in before the attacked nations can mobilize.  Ideally NATO's various governments would include as many Trumps as possible to prevent a concerted response, and hopefully the Armata-super carrier PAK-FA imagery of conventional Russian military arms would be enough to discourage anyone from doing independent action to retake the Baltics or similar targets.  

Where this hasn't worked out is while Trump was elected vs Hillary, he hasn't lived up to expectations in regards to lifting sanctions, and oil has rebounded, but stabilized at still fairly low.  Western Europe hasn't especially splintered and while there's still some nationalist-nativist issues floating around, Trump appears to have had more to do with rejection of a certain candidate than any change in American antipathy for Russia (as we can see by the way the "Russia" scandal has basically knocked the Trump presidency off axis).  Same deal with anti-NATO elements in Western Europe, they haven't gained the sort of traction expected.

Regardless until there's more serious, more realistic modernization efforts in Russia's conventional forces, it stands to reason that their decisive element/main focus has little to do with waves of Armatas, and more to do with greenmen . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Artkin said:

Assuming I know I'm disagreeing with the devs and suggesting I stop purchasing their games is childish. Did I once say I was going to boycott their games over one little thing I'd like to see added? Grow up. 

 

You should go back and read what I typed, because you clearly didn't do it carefully enough. Stop getting  mad, start making good points. Ta.

Edited by Rinaldi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

I mean seriously, Russia needs to upgrade the tank fleet. The T-72B3 upgrades are good and all but the commander still lacks a thermal imager, which is dumb as hell... Just the B3M upgrade would bring the Russian fleet's quality up. But nah they like the B3s more I;m assuming. LOL 

I agree, I think T-72B3M (or B4) is close to T-90AM in CMBS now in some degree. (http://uralvagonzavod.com/products/special_products/6/)

It would be better to concentrate on new T-72 program, which is cheaper, faster, and easier than T-90M upgrade, considering their recent sequestering. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

exsonic01,

If this thing ever sees night combat, the Russians better pray it's at shortish range? Why? The commander can only ID a target at 1000 meters, while the gunner can do that to 3000-3500 meters. What could possibly go wrong as a result?! Wouldn't count on the driver for spotting under the same conditions, either, for that worthy can see only 100 meters, a 1/10 of the commander's already inadequate ID range.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Sorrow_Knight said:

I actually could say the same about every(!!!) US unit in BS, because I can`t really say where is pure propaganda and where is real combat performace.

Well I can state for sure that BFC's goal is for the game to reflect real combat performance. Clearly that is challenging but I think they do a good job of combing through the information and comparing various sources to any real world examples etc. and making sure they don't take manufacturer's claims at face value. For those paying close attention you can see the fixes that were made to the M1 side turret armour when they found it was too thick, they bumped up the T90 armour in several locations when it was found that the 25mm could penetrate it where it should not. Those are the two I remember reading about but I am sure there have been others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something which Pzrskwfr mentioned in passing which I thought should be expanded upon. The US military is in the unique position of maintaining conventional superiority...at will. Sure, there will be some new technology developed by potential adversaries (meaning, "countries/forces we may end up going to war against") which may negate a US advantage. Then, the US simply turns on the "super tech" spigot and fields or develops the NEXT layer. And has the production capability to equip current forces with it.

Sure, there will be setbacks and surprises. That's what keeps life interesting and fun. ;) 

The biggest issues to US total dominance is the US internecine politics and budget issues. (If a war were in the offing, both of those usually disappear. For a while...)

The Russian T-14 looks VERY impressive. On parade and on paper. Okay, now field them. The US is listed as having just under 9,000 Abrams of basically two versions: newest and the one just prior. The Russian Army has just under 16,000 tanks...counting all the various flavors. Based on CMBS, how many older Russian tanks could fight an Abrams? Shrug. It's not like Kursk II will ever happen (hopefully). Does anyone think Russia has the wealth or capability to replace all 16,000 tanks with Armatas??? Does anyone doubt that the US could and will upgrade all 9,000 Abrams to SEP v3 or v4?

That's the difference.

If the SEP v4 (or whatever comes after v3) proves to be ineffective (or at a disadvantage) to Russian or Chinese MBTs, then there'll be something else...which will get built and fielded to all the forces.

Just a thought...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother George sent me this. Judging by what he said in the accompanying E-mail commending this video to my attention, he'd never seen the Arena live fire test footage, which in this case is confined to just vs the RPG. There are some issues with the data in this video, especially on Abrams gun ranges. Ignore the keyframe.

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Unless the T-90/T-72 upgrades dry up it stands to reason the Russian Army intends to keep those platforms as capable as possible for a time to come.  This indicates that T-14 procurement is not going to be sufficient likely for some years to come. 

My read is the T-14 as a program has managed to get away from reality.  When oil was good, and sanctions were not a thing it was likely a more reasonable goal.  However it faces more hurdles than are reasonable in the short term, thus the sudden interest in T-90Ms and other similar upgrades.

Not sure, Russian procurement at this stage is very weird in what they are deciding. Upgrading BMPs to BMP-2Ms in some numbers, buying BMP-3 version when BMP-3M is out. But I'm pretty sure T-14s will be brought into production as declared, just I highly doubt it's going to reach the number goals anymore.

19 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

In the narrower context of right now, they serve the twofold mission.  To the domestic audience they are a counter to the narrative that Russia is second best (or worse) in the tank business, and fits the wider narrative of Russia ascendant.  To the foreign audience it is part of the mission to make Russian conventional forces appear unstoppable/able to meet and defeat NATO in open combat.  The T-14's part in this is a key weak spot for that perception of capability has been the perception Russian tanks are inferior to NATO's (thanks in no small part to 1991).  

Well propaganda of tanks are done by all sides. I'd hype my tank up too if I made the M1A3 abrams. But in this context the T-14 is not only just a propaganda tool, the Russian military does actually want to field these tanks and replace alot of tanks with them. 

19 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

1. Disrupt NATO as much as possible.  Ultra nationalist, isolationist parties need as much power as possible, but ideally NATO would be put in a place that it'd be unable to effectively respond to rapid Russian military actions against former Soviet NATO members.
2. Enable Russian nationalists in border areas with the Russian federation with weapons, training, or direct support to build enclaves to support future operations.
3. Display military might and nuclear deterrence to give the impression of being militarily able to win any war it starts.  

These are all force multipliers to conventional warfare that happens. Of course Russia will use "hybrid" tactics as well as conventional tactics. War against NATO wouldn't be numerically fair at all for Russia at this current stage. 

19 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Regardless until there's more serious, more realistic modernization efforts in Russia's conventional forces, it stands to reason that their decisive element/main focus has little to do with waves of Armatas, and more to do with greenmen . 

T-14 is a serious modernization effort, set backs doesn't make it unrealistic. Of course no one denies Russia still has to replace the aged up T-72B fleet it has. But keep in mind even with mediocre tanks like T-72Bs, locally Russia would for some time have superiority on the ground in terms of numbers. Since it is connected to Europe. Meanwhile the US needs to ship in all the armored vehicles and its logistics which I'm not sure how long would take, but would offer Russia advantages until the Abrams hordes arrive. If we're speaking of a Russian invasion of Baltics or Ukraine of course. 

I agree with most of your points. Just I think you're belittling the T-14 program more than it should be. It's definitely not only going to be used as a propaganda tool. They're very serious about implementing the tanks into service in large scale. Sanctions took their toll of course. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

akd,

Just watched the video a second time, during which I noted the gunnery page was even worse than what went whizzing past my eyes the first time out. Aside from the glaring error in DF KE for the Abrams and the citing of maximum ranges for the Russian gun as a HE bombardment weapon (does the US train for this at all; it did during WW II which is why all Shermans had clinometers fitted), what was probably a Desert Shield/Desert Storm period issue with the "bladehooking" (new term to me)/sand ingestion problem and some cherrypicking of video when discussing ops in mud (amusing, considering a video I recently posted showing a bogged T-90 of some sort), as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of the Ma Deuce and no understanding of/interest in the T-90SM's actual armor, I thought the video, which definitely has a POV was useful and raised some points worth considering. Am not at all sure how much I believe the claims about the survivability of the tank if hit in the location which used to send the turret skyward and obliterate the crew.  Certainly, just about anything would help. In theory. Was quite surprised there seemed to be so little speed difference between the two, to the point where I wonder whether some fundamental mistake was made. From all the footage I've seen, and using both in CMBS in separate games, I think the Russian tank would run rings around ours. Please explain, in detail, your specific objections, which most be pretty major to justify outright dismissal of the video. We see videos with mistakes, overstatements, blatant propaganda and more here, day in and day out, so why are you so worked up over this one in particular?

panzersaurkrautwerfer,

I knew about TUSK but had to look up BUSK and SRAT. The latter is now apparently up to SRAT II.

http://www.gd-ots.com/armament_systems/gs_armor_stryker.html

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

My read is as follows:

Unless the T-90/T-72 upgrades dry up ...<<SNIP>>... has little to do with waves of Armatas, and more to do with greenmen . 

Very well thought out post, makes a lot of sense to me.  B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Not sure, Russian procurement at this stage is very weird in what they are deciding. Upgrading BMPs to BMP-2Ms in some numbers, buying BMP-3 version when BMP-3M is out. But I'm pretty sure T-14s will be brought into production as declared, just I highly doubt it's going to reach the number goals anymore.

Well propaganda of tanks are done by all sides. I'd hype my tank up too if I made the M1A3 abrams. But in this context the T-14 is not only just a propaganda tool, the Russian military does actually want to field these tanks and replace alot of tanks with them. 

These are all force multipliers to conventional warfare that happens. Of course Russia will use "hybrid" tactics as well as conventional tactics. War against NATO wouldn't be numerically fair at all for Russia at this current stage. 

T-14 is a serious modernization effort, set backs doesn't make it unrealistic. Of course no one denies Russia still has to replace the aged up T-72B fleet it has. But keep in mind even with mediocre tanks like T-72Bs, locally Russia would for some time have superiority on the ground in terms of numbers. Since it is connected to Europe. Meanwhile the US needs to ship in all the armored vehicles and its logistics which I'm not sure how long would take, but would offer Russia advantages until the Abrams hordes arrive. If we're speaking of a Russian invasion of Baltics or Ukraine of course. 

I agree with most of your points. Just I think you're belittling the T-14 program more than it should be. It's definitely not only going to be used as a propaganda tool. They're very serious about implementing the tanks into service in large scale. Sanctions took their toll of course. 

I don't discount a future tank, or even a future model of the T-14, however I think given some of the friction that it has encountered (obsolete industrial practices, loss of many of the sources for high-tech components, teething issues etc), it opens the question if the T-14 as currently presented wouldn't have lost much of it's technological relevance by the time the problems holding it up are resolved, or worse, the strategic factors influencing its design will have changed.

So unless the issues are resolved quickly, there's reason to believe the ultimate version of whatever the future tank of the Russian Federation is, it won't be the T-14 as presented.  Especially if the Armata program as a whole fails to meet production timelines, it reopens the possibility that the shared family of platforms might become defunct.

Basically the program appears far enough horizon that in terms of near-future analysis the Russian tank force will likely continue to be T-72Bs of varying makes, and the family of T-90A+ whatever T-90 upgrade actually makes it into the field.  
 

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...