Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
WhiteWolf65

United States vs Russia capability questions

Recommended Posts

Good morning all,

I am playing several scenarios of CMBS as the Russian player vs the Americans and I have some questions about the capabilities or lack thereof as far as the Russians are concerned. 1) Is Russian night vision equipment as bad as it seems in the game? Is American night vision equipment as good as it seems in the game? One of the scenarios I am playing is one taking place at night and I am playing the Russian. It almost seems that the American player can see through walls at times. No sooner do I get an anti-tank unit (Kornets) or MG set-up then it gets ripped to shreds by infantry or armored vehicle small arms fire. All I see are the "ghost" icons of either the infantry or the armored units with my other units that do have a clear LOS to the enemy units. 2) Why is it that a Russian artillery barrage takes up to three to four times longer to arrive than it does for an American artillery barrage to arrive? Is the Russian command communication network that bad in reality? I am not really complaining about these two issues, just wondering is all.

**Chris**

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The American night-vision optics are a blend of NVG and thermal imaging so yes they are absolutely superior to the Russians NVG's. Keep in mind that EVERY US soldier has this optic as well so that is a huge force multiplier when fighting at night. As for vehicle optics I think steel beasts shows how advanced targeting/commander optics are on vehicles like the M1A2 SEP.

 

 

As for Russian artillery delays I agree that they are a little to long compared to the Americans.

 

Edited by Raptorx7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WhiteWolf65 said:

It almost seems that the American player can see through walls at times.

They can.  They can do it in CM:SF2 too!  

While testing Coup I drove a vehicle past a building with no windows on that side and a tall wall between us and it, but still received small arms fire from the (very competent) US team inside!   :o

I believe @MOS:96B2P saw it take place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Raptorx7 said:

The American night-vision optics are a blend of NVG and thermal imaging so yes they are absolutely superior to the Russians NVG's. Keep in mind that EVERY US soldier has this optic

It's been bought for select units only. And it's lacking from combat vids so most probably it wasn't actually fielded en mass even in those units.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IMHO said:

It's been bought for select units only. And it's lacking from combat vids so most probably it wasn't actually fielded en mass even in those units.

I meant every soldier in-game, but yes you are definitely right in that these are only deployed in large numbers to active units in Europe for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raptorx7 said:

I meant every soldier in-game, but yes you are definitely right in that these are only deployed in large numbers to active units in Europe for example.

Sure? Do you have information on this? AFAIK it's been bought for "quick response" units not specifically for European deployment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forward observer calls artillery fast enough, 5 minutes for 152 howitzers. Mortars - yes, they are too slow for unit organic weapons. And AGS lack indirect fire capability. They are widely used in this role in Donbass. Indirect fire is described in manual, it is "official" feature of the weapon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, IMHO said:

Sure? Do you have information on this? AFAIK it's been bought for "quick response" units not specifically for European deployment.

I can't find a good source for what units exactly have them, but what I can say is that my friend in the Army received them (ENVG 1/2 which has the thermal/NVG fusion technology) during training about two years ago and that his unit actively rotates through Europe.

As for numbers I only have a wikipedia link that has multiple sources cited at the bottom, apparently about 25,000 ENVG 2 and 1 sets have been bought by the US army since 2003. The ENVG 3 will start rolling out this year and the army plans to buy 45,000 of them in total.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/PSQ-20

https://www.army.mil/article/219674/army_to_field_new_night_vision_goggles

I know that's not ideal but its all I got. I think its fair to say that active units that are the most likely to see combat will be sufficiently equipped with these.

Edited by Raptorx7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, WhiteWolf65 said:

1) Is Russian night vision equipment as bad as it seems in the game? Is American night vision equipment as good as it seems in the game? One of the scenarios I am playing is one taking place at night and I am playing the Russian. It almost seems that the American player can see through walls at times. No sooner do I get an anti-tank unit (Kornets) or MG set-up then it gets ripped to shreds by infantry or armored vehicle small arms fire. All I see are the "ghost" icons of either the infantry or the armored units with my other units that do have a clear LOS to the enemy units.

Equipment that is fielded en masse lags behind US level for about 25 years. Russian Army sees as if it were few years after the First Gulf War. Equipment that is fielded in limited numbers is more advanced - say about 7 years behind American level. Lab-produced matrices are just 3-4 years behind American standard but Russia lacks capacity to produce them in significant numbers.

4 hours ago, WhiteWolf65 said:

2) Why is it that a Russian artillery barrage takes up to three to four times longer to arrive than it does for an American artillery barrage to arrive? Is the Russian command communication network that bad in reality?

Nope it's just BFC firmly believes Russian Army is stuck somewhere in "glorious 80s". In reality the Army of today operates in combined arms Battalion Combat Groups. A Russian commander will have more tubes and MRLSes readily available than an American one. As per the grunts-airmen interoperability - the delay will be higher than for the US since Russian Army is more reserved about keeping aircraft on station for anyone to call an immediate ad-hoc strike. One can judge from Syria experience, having just a handful of aircraft on the theater Russia was able to exert significantly higher pressure on the opponents than the Coalition. Strike-to-sorties ratio for the Russian aircraft must be many times higher than for the Coalition aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, IMHO said:

Lab-produced matrices are just 3-4 years behind American standard but Russia lacks capacity to produce them in significant numbers.

I see a profitable opportunity for some cooperation with China right there.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I see a profitable opportunity for some cooperation with China right there.  ;)

China lacks it as well :) At lab level Russia walks in step with France though production capacity lags materially behind. Actually Russia is pretty advanced in I2/IR but they are expensive so Russia Army does not order them in numbers.

Edited by IMHO

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...