How accurate *is* CMBS?

[Vanir Ausf B]

6 hours ago, Thewood1 said:

My understanding is that LWS on tanks already does this.  If a laser targeting is detected, the turret is automatically oriented to the threat and smoke is discharged.  It can be overridden through a quick switch, but I saw a demonstration of it and its how the T-90 works in CMSF..

A LWR needs to be integrated into a larger defense system (Shtora, Trophy, ect) to do this. If you bolt LWRs onto an otherwise unmodified vehicle it will just give an audio warning.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Vanir Ausf B

[db_zero]

18 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

Nazi Germany in 1944-45 begs to differ. At a time where the Allies had near total air dominance, and were bombing German industry, infrastructure and all that other good stuff, the Germans somehow managed to produce the most amount of war materiel in 1944. If nations can endure massive bombing campaigns, in which things are physically destroyed, and lives are directly lost, I'm sure nations will be able to survive a prolonged power outage caused by a cyber attack. 

Yes, cyber attacks against civilian targets will be very disruptive, but they will hardly cause some kind of apocalyptic scenario on the homefront. More like a very large scale inconvenience to everyone. Again, this is pointless unless its used as a way to buy time for a first strike of some kind. 

There are very knowledgeable people who believe the Russians can overwhelm the Baltic States in 60 hours and there is little the West can do. Just do a search and decide for yourself. I agree with it on most parts that the Russians would have a good probability of over running the Baltic states should they choose to do so. 

I don’t think they have any intentions at the moment and don’t plan to do so in the future.

As for cyberwarfare it’s quite capable of destroying things. Don’t kid yourself. Just ask the Iranians. Even if it doesn’t completely destroy things it could easily require a restore from backups and archives. 

Aside from the chaos and confusion it causes it forces you to take countermeasures which not only take resources it also can cause delays and serious disruptions.

You can also track down and know the location of key individuals by their electronic footprint. That can be used to ones advantage.

Just about everyone has a smartphone these days. It’s been sold as a way to have a window on the world. It’s also a window for others to keep tabs on you. 

I have no doubt the Russians-and others are collecting data on US and NATO military and other key personnel and have built a database to keep tabs on there whereabouts. 

We probably do the same too

[Thewood1]

43 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

A LWR needs to be integrated into a larger defense system (Shtora, Trophy, ect) to do this. If you bolt LWRs onto an otherwise unmodified vehicle it will just give an audio warning.

Yeah, and my understanding is that is what is typically done.  But I only heard it second hand.  I was told it was the reason LWS was never installed on M1s.  It was going to be part of a more elaborate system with automated responses.

[John Kettler]

Wish to note for interested parties the tracking beacon on a TOW is a xenon light, not red phosphorus. Earlier Russian ATGMs do, I recall, use flares. 

Regards,

John Kettler

[Vanir Ausf B]

1 hour ago, Thewood1 said:

Yeah, and my understanding is that is what is typically done. 

I think that is correct. However, there are several vehicles in CMBS that do have just the receivers -- off the top of my head: Bradley non-APS, Abrams non-APS and T-90AM non-APS.

[Wicky]

11 hours ago, John Kettler said:

I have a twisted mind that thinks about nasty tricks like that. During the Cold War, in INFANTRY magazine there was a piece on using a post, to which was nailed a tin can and in whichwas placed a grenade simulator. Boom! Instant missile launch flash to bedevil the assaulting Russian horde trying to find the TOW launchers and kill them. My approach is much higher tech and far more expensive but can cause alll sorts of havoc with but one sweep of the traverse arc.

Copyright 2015 > 

 

[IICptMillerII]

3 hours ago, db_zero said:

There are very knowledgeable people who believe the Russians can overwhelm the Baltic States in 60 hours and there is little the West can do. Just do a search and decide for yourself. I agree with it on most parts that the Russians would have a good probability of over running the Baltic states should they choose to do so. 

Yes, these reports and quotes from experts are doing their jobs. In the military world, you always prepare for the worst case scenario. You always assume the worst. The idea is, if you prepare and train for the worst, then what you encounter in reality won’t be as bad. It’s better if the training you endure is worse than the reality. 

However, you cannot take the worst case scenario and assume it is what would be most likely to happen. That’s why buzzfeed-like sites are so obnoxious. They take an out of context quote and extrapolate on it without having any understanding of either the quote or the subject matter. Most people don’t have time to spend delving deep into real analysis, so they take it at face value. The idea that Russia is capable of running over all of Western Europe is a result from these over generalized articles. It’s not true. 

3 hours ago, db_zero said:

As for cyberwarfare it’s quite capable of destroying things. Don’t kid yourself. Just ask the Iranians. Even if it doesn’t completely destroy things it could easily require a restore from backups and archives. 

Aside from the chaos and confusion it causes it forces you to take countermeasures which not only take resources it also can cause delays and serious disruptions.

 

Again, this is only useful if used as part of a first strike to buy time by causing temporary chaos. Otherwise, it’s pointless. We do not live in a world where if the electricity dies, or GPS fails, everything falls into apocalypse. This notion is completely false, especially in a military sense. Most militaries train and operate in environments where these basic every day luxuries are already absent. This is nothing new, and just because it appears that everyone is over reliant on technology, does not mean everything falls apart when the WiFi dies. 

 

3 hours ago, db_zero said:

You can also track down and know the location of key individuals by their electronic footprint. That can be used to ones advantage.

Just about everyone has a smartphone these days. It’s been sold as a way to have a window on the world. It’s also a window for others to keep tabs on you. 

Yes, this can be done in peace time, but most of the information gained is already known. Most countries have a thing called communications and operations security. This means that, when the posture is necessary, things like smartphones are off and stored away from units that need to maintain their security posture. No one leaves the wire with their iPhone. Russia struggled with this when their “volunteers” did not observe this type of security posture, and many of those “volunteers” were tracked through Ukraine. Vice news actually did a rather good piece on this specifically. 

[Thewood1]

2 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

I think that is correct. However, there are several vehicles in CMBS that do have just the receivers -- off the top of my head: Bradley non-APS, Abrams non-APS and T-90AM non-APS.

OK, I didn't know that.  Is that listed somewhere that the LWS isn't integrated into an automated response?

[Erwin]

40 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

However, you cannot take the worst case scenario and assume it is what would be most likely to happen.

While that is a reasonable POV, one has to realize that nations do not tip their hand by deploying all their capabilities unless they really have to.  For example, maybe the west has the capability of destroying ICBM's on launch using all sorts of new fun things orbiting in space.  However, we won't use that capability to shoot down (say) N. Korean test launches as we don't want to show an enemy what our capabilities are. 

When an airport goes down, or a region gets blacked out, or a Credit Agency loses all its customers' personal details, we really have no idea if it was the work of a hacker, or genuine stupidity as no authority is going to say, "Gee we really got screwed by that cyberwar/hack/whatever".  But those were scenarios that were being posited a couple decades ago.  History over the last century unfortunately has shown that societies are never prepared for the next war.  Sincerely hope we never find out... 

[Vanir Ausf B]

1 hour ago, Thewood1 said:

OK, I didn't know that.  Is that listed somewhere that the LWS isn't integrated into an automated response?

This is what it says:

Vehicles equipped with laser warning receivers can detect when an enemy laser rangefinder has marked the vehicle, a reliable indication that an enemy weapon is about fire to upon the vehicle. When the laser is detected, the marked vehicle will display "LASER WARNING" hit text. The vehicle will turn towards the threat, activate smoke launchers if available, and then back up towards cover. Vehicles will delay this defensive behavior if they are currently occupied with an important task, such as engaging an enemy target or moving. 

 

[Thewood1]

OK, but it doesn't say whether its automated or not.  That is what I am wondering.

[BletchleyGeek]

47 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Vehicles will delay this defensive behavior if they are currently occupied with an important task, such as engaging an enemy target or moving. 

Looks to me that the way it is implemented - in the game - is that the "behaviour" is put in a queue of "jobs" which are served on first in first out basis. How often the queue is peeked to select the next task/behaviour to execute is another matter. Charles could have implemented that in a number of ways.

Edited January 30, 2018 by BletchleyGeek

[Vanir Ausf B]

4 hours ago, Thewood1 said:

OK, but it doesn't say whether its automated or not.  That is what I am wondering.

I'm guessing no since one of the other reaction behaviours is backing up, and that is not a feature of any defense system I know of. But since the manual does not specify one way or the other I suppose you could imagine they are. It's really a moot point anyways since vehicle AI in Combat Mission is so robotic they behave as if they have automatic defense systems, even in the WW2 games. Vehicle crews always react instantly to detected threats regardless of the means by which the threat is detected.

Edited January 30, 2018 by Vanir Ausf B

[Vanir Ausf B]

4 hours ago, BletchleyGeek said:

Looks to me that the way it is implemented - in the game - is that the "behaviour" is put in a queue of "jobs" which are served on first in first out basis. How often the queue is peeked to select the next task/behaviour to execute is another matter. Charles could have implemented that in a number of ways.

That could be in some situations, although with movement the behaviour is prioritized based on the type of movement. The tank will not interrupt a Fast move order, but will any other type of move order.

[BletchleyGeek]

1 hour ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

That could be in some situations, although with movement the behaviour is prioritized based on the type of movement. The tank will not interrupt a Fast move order, but will any other type of move order.

That's quite interesting, thanks for sharing!

[John Kettler]

Given the way the AI works, the only way to make sure your AFVs keep going is Fast, but this is best done while possessed of iron nerve and the best model Abrams to be had! Have had some harrowing time on the end of the lased/smoke/reverse syndrome. Frankly, it's paralyzing to any sort of armored movement which isn't an out and out charge. You race from one place to another on the battlefield, hoping you can get to cover instead of being caught on the hop. The syndrome is also very effective in wiping out smoke capability, soon leaving the lased tank or IFV's owner with a feeling of profound nakedness. Once smoke exhausted, you find yourself on the wrong ends of both equations, for you can't pop smoke to hide when lased yet are still subject to the reverse when lased AI. As if that's not bad enough, throw in some hostile autocannon-armed IFVs or a Tunguska shooting at you. There, a single burst (let alone several) can cause significant degradation to combat performance, starting with ripped up targeting systems. Even the mighty Abrams starts falling apart under such conditions as I've described. The particular QB referenced here had T-90AM as the tank threat, too, something the Abrams can't ignore. Had the tank losses to prove it. Overall, I think it makes all the sense in the world for the defender to do something like what I suggested. The LDUs (Laser Deception Units) could be operated remotely and not switched on until the foe started rolling on the assault. Imagine the fun when the LWRs abruptly lose their minds and the attack collapses--with the force now no longer in cover. Talk about a combat momentum killer! One that sets the table for the hard kill weapons not brought into action until the attacker is broken down into readily consumed bites of a unit once coherent and mutually supporting, but instead instantly in chaos. 

Regards,

John Kettler

[Rinaldi]

You'll find your sentiments shared with a lot of people, John. On the one hand there's nothing wrong with dashing at top speed from battle position to battle position, and the reverse in conjunction with the hull-down command can save you, but you're right: It's an outright pain in most other situations and usually turns formation advances that are "shoot and move" into wild traffic jams with rounds only flying in one direction. Inbound. 

[MikeyD]

Pretty much anybody can 'overwhelm local defenses' inside the first 60 hours, from ISIS fighters in pickups to crackpot ranchers hijacking and occupying an isolated federal building. The trick is what come after those first 60 hours. Let's remember the Allied defense strategy during the Bulge offensive. Let them enter the salient, firm up the shoulders to keep them contained, then close the bag once they're all inside. That netted the allies practically all of the German tanks on the Western Front in just a bit over a month.

[IICptMillerII]

23 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Pretty much anybody can 'overwhelm local defenses' inside the first 60 hours, from ISIS fighters in pickups to crackpot ranchers hijacking and occupying an isolated federal building. The trick is what come after those first 60 hours. Let's remember the Allied defense strategy during the Bulge offensive. Let them enter the salient, firm up the shoulders to keep them contained, then close the bag once they're all inside. That netted the allies practically all of the German tanks on the Western Front in just a bit over a month.

Exactly.

[db_zero]

On 1/31/2018 at 2:37 PM, IICptMillerII said:

Exactly.

What you are referring to is the way it was 74 years ago! By 1944 the allieds had a massive army already deployed and had sorted out numerous logistical and organizational kinks.

We no longer have a large standing army in Europe and Western European countries don’t have the same military posture they did in the 80’s.

You have to fight with what you have deployed and then reinforcements will then have to move and be deployed a very time intensive process.

Look how long it took to build up from Desert Shield to Desert Storm-and the Kindom of Saudi Arabia was very well suited to be reinforced quickly as during the 70’s there was a massive infrastructure buildup in the Kingdom-New and modern airfields designed for military operations, highways, ports enlarged and equipped to offload heavy equipment and a Command and Control Center at KKMC.

I know-I was there when this buildup took place in the 70’s.

The US also had a much larger Army, Navy and combat air force and had forces still in place in Europe where they could easily deploy.

Today the picture is much different. Our infrastructure is much different and heavely dependent on the high speed digital nervous system. 

The military and its dependency on digital technology has grown by leaps and bounds.

Thats about all I have to say on this.

[Thewood1]

"Thats about all I have to say on this."

That's a somewhat discouraging discussion technique.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Did anybody mention the issues with artillery hits on vehicles yet?  Multiple 122mm precision munitions bouncing off the top of a Bradley (and apparently not significantly degrading it's remarkable spotting capabilities) rather had me scratching my head. 

Edited February 2, 2018 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Saint_Fuller]

20 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Did anybody mention the issues with artillery hits on vehicles yet?  Multiple 122mm precision munitions bouncing off the top of a Bradley (and apparently not significantly degrading it's remarkable spotting capabilities) rather had me scratching my head. 

Hmmm...

[IICptMillerII]

4 hours ago, db_zero said:

What you are referring to is the way it was 74 years ago! By 1944 the allieds had a massive army already deployed and had sorted out numerous logistical and organizational kinks.

We no longer have a large standing army in Europe and Western European countries don’t have the same military posture they did in the 80’s.

You have to fight with what you have deployed and then reinforcements will then have to move and be deployed a very time intensive process.

Look how long it took to build up from Desert Shield to Desert Storm-and the Kindom of Saudi Arabia was very well suited to be reinforced quickly as during the 70’s there was a massive infrastructure buildup in the Kingdom-New and modern airfields designed for military operations, highways, ports enlarged and equipped to offload heavy equipment and a Command and Control Center at KKMC.

Did you even read what @MikeyD wrote? His whole point was that, even if you assume NATO could be overrun in the first 60 hours of combat due to all of the factors you just listed, there is no strategic point. First off, as I have said before, I very much doubt the Russians could even conduct such a complicated maneuver. Second, and more importantly, is that they simply could not hold all of the ground they would take in such a scenario. 

Yes, it would take a while for the bulk of NATO forces to be brought to bear against them, but this is nothing new. This has been accepted in the US ever since we started fighting wars not on the North American continent. This isn't some glaring, overlooked weakness. It's well known and accounted for. For crying out loud, the US military has an entire Corps, the 18th Airborne Corps, dedicated to this. Their purpose is to be rapidly deployed anywhere in the world within 24-48 hours with enough men and equipment to "hold the line" long enough for the bigger heavier support to arrive. 

4 hours ago, db_zero said:

Today the picture is much different. Our infrastructure is much different and heavely dependent on the high speed digital nervous system. 

Unless infrastructure is physically destroyed, it can still be used. No amount of "hacking" is going to change that, unless of course said "hacking" causes highways to explode and gasoline to no longer be combustible, and food to no longer provide sustenance. 

4 hours ago, db_zero said:

The military and its dependency on digital technology has grown by leaps and bounds.

This isn't true, no matter how much the History/Military/Discovery Channel tells you it is. As I said before, basic land navigation qualification is still done with a map, compass and pace counts. Basic marksmanship still requires a soldier to hit a target with his rifle, unaided by machines. Everyone is still trained to operate in a WWII-like environment, where none of the new shiny toys work. Because guess what? Even under optimal conditions, those shiny toys tend to break. Yes, there is more technology now, that is more capable, thus allowing us to do more things. But no one falls to pieces when the tech stops working. This is pure fantasy. 

[sid_burn]

49 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Did anybody mention the issues with artillery hits on vehicles yet?  Multiple 122mm precision munitions bouncing off the top of a Bradley (and apparently not significantly degrading it's remarkable spotting capabilities) rather had me scratching my head. 

This is a problem that I have witnessed several times. I wish they would fix it already. In general Russia needs a boost to its capacities to destroy blufor. Some people complain about the 4.0 infantry bug ruining single player, but I think this is a far more pressing issue.