Jump to content

Recent presentation about Nozh ERA


exsonic01

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, exsonic01 said:

to locate and target the 79th Airmobile Brigade before the engagement.

Battalion of 79th has arrived directly before strike - for 20 minutes. There are battalion of 24th mech.brigade and border guards were staying there about two weeks as if no any war around.  

 

3 hours ago, exsonic01 said:

Zhirokhov noted that Ukrainian forces often communicated via mobile phones to correct artillery fires at the outbreak of the conflict,

Not only at outbreak, but in Debaltsevo battle too.

Zhyrokokhov... Hm...  He is not good investigator of ATO history, he is typical copywriter. His articles mostly superficial and sometime contain many inaccuracies, subjective conclusions and even plagiarism. Despite this he made own image of "authoritative military expert", which is quoted by the media, also he managed to issue several books. 

20 hours ago, exsonic01 said:

y guess is probably Russians and pro-Russians increased / reinforced their artillery capability in the middle of Donbass campaign.

Separs has not so mauch of artillery during active phase in summer 2014. Initially they used mostly mortars (some number of "hand-made" 82 mm were produced in Kramatorsk mechanical plant), also Russia delivered them several artillery and MLRS systems, but only since mid of July Russia gave them main quantity of barrels, but anyway total number of artillery (without 120 mm mortars) was 56 guns and 22 MLRS in DNR and 35 guns and 12 MLRS in LNR. They used 122 mm D-30 and 2S1 howitzers (the same barrel, just 2S1 is SP) and 120 mm 2S9 Nona and towed version Nona-K. MLRS were represented only with BM-21 Grad. Also separs reportedly could capture one transporting&charging vehicle of BM-27 Uragan and one 2S9 Nona (as far as the start of conflict).

Edited by Haiduk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, exsonic01 said:

So, I wish if future CMBS module provide a larger map, like at least 10km x 10km or more, to properly describe at least regiment size combats. I think it is not enough but I also think CMx2 game engine would not be easy to depict anything larger.

Man I'd kill for that (although the maps would take quite a while to make), but the current limit is something like 4km x 4km or 5km x 3km. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Honisse said:

Some information about Oplot-M from Chinese Network,protection capability of Oplot-M compare to VT--4

front turret >1100mm vs KE,>1500mm vs CE

front hull >900mm vs KE,>1300mm vs CE

 

Thanks! This is first time I'm seeing some concrete values. Though, would be interesting to translate last string under the table with ** explanation. There is contain UAE "Nozh" 2003 and "Duplet" 2009 (ERA of BM Oplot). Probably it can be approximation of Duplet protection, based on Nozh examinations in UAE in 2003. Duplet is a two layers of Nozh (or even three partially overlapping on the front turret), which maintains protection against tandem HEAT (Nozh can only slightly reduce its effect). Though, now it considers that Duplet is too heavy for mounting not only for T-64 family, but even to T-80/84. Upgraded T-80BV for air-assault troops has Nozh ERA, not Duplet.

In the table given protection values against 3BM42 Mango, OFL120F1 and Kornet-E ATGM.

Edited by Haiduk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Haiduk said:

Separs has not so mauch of artillery during active phase in summer 2014. Initially they used mostly mortars (some number of "hand-made" 82 mm were produced in Kramatorsk mechanical plant), also Russia delivered them several artillery and MLRS systems, but only since mid of July Russia gave them main quantity of barrels, but anyway total number of artillery (without 120 mm mortars) was 56 guns and 22 MLRS in DNR and 35 guns and 12 MLRS in LNR. They used 122 mm D-30 and 2S1 howitzers (the same barrel, just 2S1 is SP) and 120 mm 2S9 Nona and towed version Nona-K. MLRS were represented only with BM-21 Grad. Also separs reportedly could capture one transporting&charging vehicle of BM-27 Uragan and one 2S9 Nona (as far as the start of conflict).

Got it, thanks, I will be careful to separate Russians and pro-Russians. But any source about this info: pro-Russian separatist artillery and mortars? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Honisse said:

Some information about Oplot-M from Chinese Network,protection capability of Oplot-M compare to VT--4

front turret >1100mm vs KE,>1500mm vs CE

front hull >900mm vs KE,>1300mm vs CE

123.thumb.png.fa81c6ac1382c8240b37c90c6eb6c3d1.png

 

Any source about this data? Title of document? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, exsonic01 said:

Got it, thanks, I will be careful to separate Russians and pro-Russians. But any source about this info: pro-Russian separatist artillery and mortars? 

This is OSINT investigation of Dmytro Putiata, he is author of many detailed articles about Donbas war. About separs artillery he issued two articles. There is almost nothing about ATO in Ukraine from official sources, except two General Staff describings of summer campaign 2014 and winter campaign 2015. But both have many blank spots and sometime obviously gloss over mistakes of political leaders, ATO HQ and sector commanders. Also we have several large interviews with ATO HQ commanders, which give understanding of ATO on operative level, but they also not always fair to the end...  Military, of course have something, but it is not issues for wide public. So, single way to learn something about real developments (not HQ reports for TV) there is need to collect and analyze articles, memories, photos etc. So, if you want any source on each quantity of tanks, guns or something other, I can't give it directly, because it is all in my archive %) 

About mortars - they have produced several pieces only. Of course, this was short-life weapon. Now in Luhansk separs is trying to produce 82 mm "ShMON" mortar in two variants. But this is small production of garage level mostly for propaganda purpose like Donetsk-developed MLRS "Cheburashka" similar to Syrian baloon missiles, but on more hihgh level. 

This is "traditional" variant of ShMON. Light (assault) variant you can see right.

hqdefault.jpg

 

Other photo of assault varian of ShMON. 

bjhTDok9mK3WllQd-L_Vrv2jEC9Loo-R4NaCyDUx

Edited by Haiduk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

at least 10km x 10km or more,....

Be careful what you wish for.
As an experiment, try going into the editor and making a rudimentary map at the game engine's current max size.
Include a few hills and houses and trees. Then place  units on it and try driving/walking across it from corner to corner. For one thing, it takes a LONG TIME to traverse, especially if you've got infantry walking and you're wary of ambushes. Then there's the problem of even finding the enemy to shoot at them on maps that size. I read awhile ago that LOF in the European theater rarely exceeds 1500m, often its much shorter. There's always that line of trees on either side of a distant stretch of road, or that cluster of building or that wooded lot separating fields. I spend a lot of time on Google Map Street View and often you'd can't even see the horizon for the intervening hills and trees and houses.

As a test I (virtually) went to central Ukraine and randomly picked a rural spot that might offer good long distance fields of fire. When I dropped down to Street view I didn't see anything that couldn't be reproduced in the CM editor as it currently stands.

Ukraine 3 copy.jpg

Ukraine1.jpg

Ukraine 2.jpg

Edited by MikeyD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

Be careful what you wish for.

Anyway for modern warfare current max size of the map is unsufficient. Even the company tactical group have too low space for manuevers, so modern warfare turned out into WWII style clash. With "X-RAY vision" of many units it is make the warfare... a strange.

33 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

When I dropped down to Street view I didn't see anything that couldn't be reproduced in the CM editor as it currently stands.

This is mostly true for rural terrain, but how about big industrial and infrastructure objects? Administrative buidings with strong walls? Modern offices of glass walls? Railway wagons (halliluya to Aquila we have a mod now and at last it is possible to make adequate Ilovaisk assault scenario)? Environment of CMBS almost doesn't differ itself from WWII series.

Edited by Haiduk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for referencing some interesting quality sources. 

My biggest gripe with CMBS is the ineffectiveness of arty fire against armoured vehicles. We've discussed this extensively in the past particularly with reference to the Swedish 1960s experiments and some of the pix @Haidukposted a while back of tanks etc destroyed by artillery fire. The Swedish experiments showed that near-misses are in a way better than a direct hit because they cause all sorts of damage to engines, running gear and other equipment (soft kills);  I have done no experiments, but observations playing all 3 sides in CMBS has been armoured vehicles shrugging off extensive pelting of arty fire. The most ludicrous being a Bradley that had a 122mm off map round explode underneath it without suffering any serious damage.

From a gaming perspective, this means that weaker sides have limited options to knock out tanks, but also other AFVs. So I hope the new module will do something to remedy this. I like my games to be fun, but I also want them to be pretty realistic, within the limitations of the game engine and BF being a small company, which they usually manage well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A reminder, 'maneuver' isn't fighting. If you want to build a giant map just to drive around on a for a few hours then go for it. Once you come in contact with the enemy, though, it becomes a standard CM tactical engagement.

About not being able to reproduce huge city buildings, I constructed an entire Texas highway-side shopping mall complex all the way back in CMSF1 days. Here's a CMBS very large building I threw together is just a few minutes. The problem is map makers hate building them, hate fidgeting with the countless interior walls, and players are loath the enter them because they're death traps. So usually they just get pummeled with artillery.

 

CM Very large building.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

3 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Include a few hills and houses and trees. Then place  units on it and try driving/walking across it from corner to corner. For one thing, it takes a LONG TIME to traverse, especially if you've got infantry walking and you're wary of ambushes. Then there's the problem of even finding the enemy to shoot at them on maps that size. I read awhile ago that LOF in the European theater rarely exceeds 1500m, often its much shorter. There's always that line of trees on either side of a distant stretch of road, or that cluster of building or that wooded lot separating fields. I spend a lot of time on Google Map Street View and often you'd can't even see the horizon for the intervening hills and trees and houses.

I understand. I understand too big maps might bring frame rate and performance issue, and big maps will take huge time to make, and there might be a limit of game engine and computational burden which might be related with performance issue. And indeed, you are right. Phase of game will become slow, on-foot infantry will take forever to cross the map. As a person who do a coding as a part of career, I do understand all those headaches.  

But still, I think for "modern" battle, we need bigger size. If 10km x 10km is too large, maybe some optimization effort would be needed. Or, how about fix the map size with formation size? Like:

2.5km x 2.5km or very small map for battle of forces of equal less then a company

5km x 5km or small map for battle of forces of equal less then a battalion

7.5km x 7.5km or medium map for battle of forces of equal less then a regiment

10km x 10km or large / huge map for battle of forces more than a regiment. 

If the computational resources & performance / optimization would be the issue, then OK, there is nothing I can do.

But I'm not worrying too much about "slow battle" for modern battle because:

1) Drones and advanced spotting sensors. (And one of the reason why it would be great to see GSR in this game in the future) 

2) Proper scenario design, guide players and AI to use more mechanized / motorized maneuver over on-foot marching. But "smaller" games would still be able to cover such close combat of on-foot soldiers.   

Plus, that is why I think it would be great to depict modern battle if CM engine could introduce: 

1) Heliborne air-assauit infantry 

2) Infiltrated recons / light infantry / SF operators, hunting or searching for enemy high value targets. Put light infantry and SF more stamina and movement speed. SF? Oh yes they can participate in the "conventional" operation, this just depends on tier of SFs.  

3) On top of current simplified EW description, ELINT & SIGINT operations can boost the game phase and would make more interesting "modern" game. And they are realistic of course. 

4) Description of FASCAM and ICMs and counter battery. 

Those will help to bring faster phase of the game for "modern battle" even with bigger maps. But I indeed agree that AI and performance issue would be a trouble. But PBEM players would enjoy regardless of AI. 

48 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

A reminder, 'maneuver' isn't fighting. If you want to build a giant map just to drive around on a for a few hours then go for it. Once you come in contact with the enemy, though, it becomes a standard CM tactical engagement.

About not being able to reproduce huge city buildings, I constructed an entire Texas highway-side shopping mall complex all the way back in CMSF1 days. Here's a CMBS very large building I threw together is just a few minutes. The problem is map makers hate building them, hate fidgeting with the countless interior walls, and players are loath the enter them because they're death traps. So usually they just get pummeled with artillery.

Maneuver is not fighting, of course, but it is one of the way to achieve better position and terrain advantage to repel enemy forces. Small maps of current CMBS with drones and exceptionally good optics / thermals force players to engage in very limited position, not that much option or flanking route to escape and circumvent kill zone. Plus, CM does not brings muti spectrum blocking smokes. I know Russians didn't had them in 2015, but both US and Russian probably have them now. 

I'm not sure if large urban area would be great environment to show modern battle of combined arms. But I can tell you, some larger field maps will definitely better for "modern" clash of combined arms, anything larger than battalion size. 

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a216492.pdf

This is cold war material, but I'm just introducing for example. Depends on preparation readiness of NATO, the width of front boundary for Russian forces line can vary very widely. Yeah, narrow front is possible for regiment size, but wide front is possible too. 

 

Edited by exsonic01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, exsonic01 said:

Any source about this data? Title of document? 

It's not a document,it comes from a short article about Thai Army's  Oplot-T and VT-4 on Weibo,all data based on unclassified information

The author speculated the turret can provide about 600mm vs KE and 630mm vs CE without ERA based on these two article

http://btvt.info/1inservice/t-80ud/t-80ud.htm

http://btvt.info/1inservice/t-80u.htm

ERA protection capability comes from this article

http://btvt.info/3attackdefensemobility/duplet.htm

 

The values are for reference only,but I think Oplot-M is too easy to be penetrated in the game even Russian tank is using new ammo like svinets-1/2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/30/2020 at 4:20 PM, exsonic01 said:

However, in CMBS, the game hypothetically suggested what if scenario of full-scale attack of Russians to UA. In this case, I think regiments, brigades and divisions are major part of any Russian OMG (Operational Maneuvering Group). But there will be small-formation and small-group skirmishes of course.  

So, I wish if future CMBS module provide a larger map, like at least 10km x 10km or more, to properly describe at least regiment size combats. I think it is not enough but I also think CMx2 game engine would not be easy to depict anything larger. 

I doubt you can do regimental level battles with CMx2 style game due to the micro involved.

OMG is an obsolete term. With non-linear battle all formations act in OMG-like manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the map sizes and engagement problems - the legacy motorised rifle battalion would have ~5km frontage in fixed defensive positions (in the ongoing conflict the positions tend to be broader). So if you are doing battalion vs battalion engagements you need larger than 5km by 5km maps as otherwise you are looking at frontal assault against a force of equal size which is very stupid.

And for meeting engagements and the like the frontage could be even broader.

The "lets cut of manuever part" argument is also silly as concentration of effort and mass are important principles and would lead to significantly better than 1 to 1 ratio of forces when the contact is established.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, MikeyD said:

About not being able to reproduce huge city buildings, I constructed an entire Texas highway-side shopping mall complex

You can't build large and tall empty spaces like airports, railway stations, stores, supermarkets, giaint industrial workshops

13 hours ago, MikeyD said:

A reminder, 'maneuver' isn't fighting. If you want to build a giant map just to drive around on a for a few hours then go for it. Once you come in contact with the enemy, though, it becomes a standard CM tactical engagement.

Here is a map of battle area of second battle for Heorhiivka. This was maybe unique "classical" battle between regular UKR and RUS units during all war, were used alsmost all weapon  - tanks, BMPs, BMDs, ATGMs, artillery, MLRS, AT-guns, AA-guns, helicopters and MANPADs. Two Russian VDV companies, supported with tank platoon each, have attacked from two directions. They could take two UKR positions, but were forced to retreat after artillery strike and counter attack of reinforcement half-company with two tanks. On this map reflected only spotting/battle contact area and not shown line of start deployment of Russians.  Near highway crossroads the pair of UKR helicopters have stroke Russian column and knoked out as mininum one tank, when they were making outflank maneuver before the battle. As you see, classical engagement  "the attack on prepared positions" of relatively small forces happened on the square about 5,5*5,5 km

 

Без-назви-1.jpg

Edited by Haiduk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Honisse said:

It's not a document,it comes from a short article about Thai Army's  Oplot-T and VT-4 on Weibo,all data based on unclassified information

The author speculated the turret can provide about 600mm vs KE and 630mm vs CE without ERA based on these two article

http://btvt.info/1inservice/t-80ud/t-80ud.htm

http://btvt.info/1inservice/t-80u.htm

ERA protection capability comes from this article

http://btvt.info/3attackdefensemobility/duplet.htm

 

The values are for reference only,but I think Oplot-M is too easy to be penetrated in the game even Russian tank is using new ammo like svinets-1/2

OK, so it is just estimation based on btvt sources, not Thai army official or something, right? Still, thanks to let me know. 

I don't know about Nizh and Duplet's true capability. Tanknet or sturgeonhouse  (there is a sturgeonhouse link about Nizh discussion in earlier replies of this post) still disputes towards this armor. But at least I also kinda agree, based on international armored vehicle conference presentation, looks like current CMBS UA tank's ERA might need some buffs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, ikalugin said:

I doubt you can do regimental level battles with CMx2 style game due to the micro involved.

OMG is an obsolete term. With non-linear battle all formations act in OMG-like manner.

Good point, level of micro would be burden, and that is one of the reason why I brought AI issue. But if some controls are automated, then it would still be possible and reasonably enjoyable for turn based game IMO. Well, I just used concept of OMG for easy explanation, nothing more. 

18 hours ago, ikalugin said:

The "lets cut of manuever part" argument is also silly as concentration of effort and mass are important principles and would lead to significantly better than 1 to 1 ratio of forces when the contact is established.

+1 to this comment. Also what I wish to add is, not only the larger maps, but also other idea should followed. Like advanced / automated AI, ELINT/SIGINT, more artillery munitions and counter battery, light infantry and SF infiltration, etc... 

Edited by exsonic01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Haiduk said:

Here is a map of battle area of second battle for Heorhiivka. This was maybe unique "classical" battle between regular UKR and RUS units during all war, were used alsmost all weapon  - tanks, BMPs, BMDs, ATGMs, artillery, MLRS, AT-guns, AA-guns, helicopters and MANPADs.

Do you have any detail about this battle? Kinda curious how combat flowed. And indeed, this is another example of how "small forces can maneuver and fight in huge map with many assets"  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, exsonic01 said:

Do you have any detail about this battle? Kinda curious how combat flowed. And indeed, this is another example of how "small forces can maneuver and fight in huge map with many assets"  

Yes, but this is very long story that deserves separate thread. In Sector A (Luhansk direction) in August 2014 happened several direct clashes between UKR and RUS troops. Heorhiivka is really unique due to "setting" of used weapon systems. Of course, direct clashes also were and in Sector D (border/ Ilovaisk), but because of lost of control and сhaos its turned out in sporadic clashes, which ended in encirclement and shooting out of columnes under Ilovaisk. Unlike this in Sector A UKR troops fought against Russians very tough and have foiled their attempts to eliminate Sector A troops. Alas, even in our ATO history much more attention payed to defeat near Ilovaisk than to the fierce fights in Sector A, which showed Russian army are not Terminators and we can successfully fight with them. But instead we continously hearing from TV "we can't fight with Russia! Do you want another Ilovaisk?" 

Edited by Haiduk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1621104237___.jpg.b0fe27dee8abed493b2563

On 1/28/2020 at 12:22 AM, Haiduk said:

Here the list of Russian units, invaded in 2014, you can see that composition of forces is very different.

 

What is the source of the table? Is it official reporting of Ukrainian military? The table looks really strange if we check it against lostarmor.

  1. The table claims there were 36 T-90s yet there's not a single loss of a T-90 recorded.
  2. The table claims 7 full airborne and air-mobile battalions armed with almost 250 BMD-2/BTR-D yet there's not a single loss of BTR-D recorded. IRL TO&E provides BTR-D to BMD-2 ratio of about 1 to 3 for airborne and 1 to 2 for air-mobile.
  3. There's only one recorded loss of BTR-82A though the table claims there were almost 80 of them deployed.
  4. L/DNR tank losses are 45 T-64s to 35 T-72s. T-64s are not used by Russian Army so if we assume losses were the same for T-64s and T-72s it means L/DNR deployed about a third more tank units than Russian Army.
  5. The table states the following composition of Russian artillery:
    • 2C1 6
    • 2C3 25-27
    • 2C4 3
    • 2C6 2
    • 2C9 36 + one more whole arty unit
    • 2C19 15 + one more whole arty unit
    • 2C23 6
    • 2C34 6

Whereas L/DNR losses state ten 2C1 and just one 2C19. So just L/DNR losses of 2C1 exceed all 2C1 deployed by Russian Army by ALMOST TWO TIMES whereas out of 93+ other artillery systems claimed to be deployed by Russian Army there's only one recorded loss.

And I may go on and on. The table looks more like a list of all Russian units deployed along the Russian-Ukrainian border and an attempt by Ukrainian command to justify high losses of Ukrainian Army.

Edited by IMHO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another funny observation about this strange table. I've finished checking air-mobile and airborne units and the table lists ALL AIR-MOBILE/AIRBORNE UNITS IN RUSSIA. So I do suspect the table was created by Ukrainian command as a justification of their high losses. To say they were fighting against all Russian Army.

Link to comment
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
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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...