John Kettler

Here is the natural building block for the US player in CMCW, for this is the training film on the combined arms team. It teaches core tactical principles that, if violated, will pretty much ensure defeat. Though the film looks horrible initially, the actual res is tolerable. Something which might bear looking into is the racial mix in the game vs reality. Frankly, though, am having a tough time finding close range imagery of US infantry in game so I can tell whether there even is an issue. Nor is this situation helped by having rocky vision today.
 
Regards,

John Kettler

All I'd ever seen before were stunning clips and VO in Czech. Thanks to English subtitles and the full film, here's your chance to follow a Czech Tank Brigade in action. There is a wealth of German hardware in this film, some of which will leave you stunned.  The Czech's gear is that of the Red Army from Operation Bagration on, and here's an opportunity to see for real what we've talked about for years. 
 
Regards,

John Kettler

Never saw this 1977 gem in my entire career as a Soviet Threat Analyst, a career which began in 1978. Not only does this show the ins and outs of the T-62 and how it operates with BMP-1s and AT-3 armed BRDMs, but it shows US capabilities, too, including the hulldown disparity, telltale reload indicator, low T-62 ROF and more. On the US end, everything from tanks to tacair and scatterable mines (by automatic minelayer or helicopter dispenser) are all there to see. Nor is the terrain the sere NTC, but someplace very European looking. Not only is there lots of great footage, but some remarkable model work, too. Of particular intetest to players will be the comments on open fire ranges, engagememt philoposophies, ammo selection and other game useful groggery. 

Offhand, I can't think of a better intro to the real world which CMCW seeks to depict.
 
Regards,

John Kettler

And here we have a Cold War BAOR vet describing how the Soviet MRR would attack, drawing on a BAOR training film, some of which is terrifying. For example, a 100 gun Soviet 40 minute artillery prep would be 12,000 rounds, based on a rate of 2 rpm per gun. Let me provide a frame of reference. During the Vietnam War, North Vietnamese bombardment of An Loc was a staggering to us 1200 rounds per day. We're talking 10 times that, delivered in only 40 minutes. Some of the Soviet artillery footage in the impact zone will make you wonder how anything could've survived. The timing and sequence of force buildup as the MRR is fascinating, and this video is set later in time, so that instead of T-62s, the Soviets have the T-64, though mercifully not the AT-8 armed T-64B. People with epilepsy and other flicker triggered conditions should be aware that some of the Soviet imagery is full of flickering. The comments verge on incredible, for most of them are either by vets or children of vets who would've been in the thick of things.
 
Regards,

John Kettler

Never saw this 1977 gem in my entire career as a Soviet Threat Analyst, a career which began in 1978. Not only does this show the ins and outs of the T-62 and how it operates with BMP-1s and AT-3 armed BRDMs, but it shows US capabilities, too, including the hulldown disparity, telltale reload indicator, low T-62 ROF and more. On the US end, everything from tanks to tacair and scatterable mines (by automatic minelayer or helicopter dispenser) are all there to see. Nor is the terrain the sere NTC, but someplace very European looking. Not only is there lots of great footage, but some remarkable model work, too. Of particular intetest to players will be the comments on open fire ranges, engagememt philoposophies, ammo selection and other game useful groggery. 

Offhand, I can't think of a better intro to the real world which CMCW seeks to depict.
 
Regards,

John Kettler

AFV overheating has long been an issue, and agonizing compromises have had to be made. Nor was it always the engine. A little looking will reveal, for example, DAK Panzer crews fighting with the turret doors open!  I have an account from Kursk in which the T-34 driver passed out in the buttoned tank from heat and inhaling cordite fumes. They violated combat regs (a big deal) to revive him and get back into the fight.

Regards,

John Kettler

Never saw this 1977 gem in my entire career as a Soviet Threat Analyst, a career which began in 1978. Not only does this show the ins and outs of the T-62 and how it operates with BMP-1s and AT-3 armed BRDMs, but it shows US capabilities, too, including the hulldown disparity, telltale reload indicator, low T-62 ROF and more. On the US end, everything from tanks to tacair and scatterable mines (by automatic minelayer or helicopter dispenser) are all there to see. Nor is the terrain the sere NTC, but someplace very European looking. Not only is there lots of great footage, but some remarkable model work, too. Of particular intetest to players will be the comments on open fire ranges, engagememt philoposophies, ammo selection and other game useful groggery. 

Offhand, I can't think of a better intro to the real world which CMCW seeks to depict.
 
Regards,

John Kettler

Never saw this 1977 gem in my entire career as a Soviet Threat Analyst, a career which began in 1978. Not only does this show the ins and outs of the T-62 and how it operates with BMP-1s and AT-3 armed BRDMs, but it shows US capabilities, too, including the hulldown disparity, telltale reload indicator, low T-62 ROF and more. On the US end, everything from tanks to tacair and scatterable mines (by automatic minelayer or helicopter dispenser) are all there to see. Nor is the terrain the sere NTC, but someplace very European looking. Not only is there lots of great footage, but some remarkable model work, too. Of particular intetest to players will be the comments on open fire ranges, engagememt philoposophies, ammo selection and other game useful groggery. 

Offhand, I can't think of a better intro to the real world which CMCW seeks to depict.
 
Regards,

John Kettler

All I'd ever seen before were stunning clips and VO in Czech. Thanks to English subtitles and the full film, here's your chance to follow a Czech Tank Brigade in action. There is a wealth of German hardware in this film, some of which will leave you stunned.  The Czech's gear is that of the Red Army from Operation Bagration on, and here's an opportunity to see for real what we've talked about for years. 
 
Regards,

John Kettler

All I'd ever seen before were stunning clips and VO in Czech. Thanks to English subtitles and the full film, here's your chance to follow a Czech Tank Brigade in action. There is a wealth of German hardware in this film, some of which will leave you stunned.  The Czech's gear is that of the Red Army from Operation Bagration on, and here's an opportunity to see for real what we've talked about for years. 
 
Regards,

John Kettler

Ha! Good one! Rolled up that way, they look more like sleeping bags than battle dress.

Regards,

John Kettler

Regards,

John Kettler

Regards,

John Kettler

Was cross checking a colorized image with amoeba camouflage and found this when I did some digging. The examples shown are either from shortly before the GPW or during it. Some of the examples are extremely authentic, being equipped with Axis bullet holes and Russian bloodstains. As you can see, there's even more color variety than in feldgrau German uniforms. 
https://www.warrelics.eu/forum/uniforms-insignia-rkka-red-army-soviet-army/couple-different-amoeba-camos-3270/

Here's but one image.



Regards,

John Kettler

ZPB II,

After reading this, from the excellent Tankograd BTR-80 article, I 've decided that the projectile which best fits the observables is indeed the MDZ, which is rated as having essentially the same explosive hitting power as the 20 mm ShVAK aircraft cannon fitted to the T-60 light tank and a great many Soviet fighter planes.

https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/btr-80.html
The MDZ is a high explosive incendiary (HE-I) bullet designed primarily for anti-aircraft work, but it is also suitable for soft skinned vehicles vehicles such as trucks, jeeps, and cars. The bullet has a bimetallic jacket containing an explosive filler. A detonator cap is installed at the nose of the bullet. It is extremely lightweight and occupies much less space compared to a mechanical fuze.   The filler of the MDZ bullet consists of ~5 grams of phlegmatized PETN. The phlegmatizer content is unknown, but the explosiveness of PETN (as determined by a Trauzl test) is 523 ml, while the A-IX-2 explosive-incendiary compound has an explosiveness of 530 ml, the same as pure hexogen. The explosiveness of the phlegmatized PETN charge is likely to be between A-IX-1 and A-IX-2. In terms of explosive payload, the MDZ bullet is similar to the 20x99mm OZ (HE-I) shell for the the ShVAK aircraft cannon, which contained 5.6 grams of A-IX-2.    The MDZ bullet is specified to blast a hole with a diameter of 20-30cm into a 1mm duralumin sheet at a distance of 1,500 meters. This is superior to a 20mm OZ round for the ShVAK, which is only capable of creating a 150x160mm breach in a 0.9-1.5mm duralumin sheet simulating the skin of aircraft.   Overall, the useful payload of the MDZ bullet is similar to the 20mm ShVAK OZ shell, despite the considerable difference in total projectile weight of 31 grams. The forged steel body of the OZ shell may be heavier and more effective at fragmenting compared to the jacket of the MDZ bullet, but at least in terms of weight, the difference is not as large as the total projectile weight suggests due to the fact that the OZ shell has a large mechanical fuze whereas the MDZ bullet does not. Regards,

John Kettler

I remember seeing a video where a Shilka in Syria was firing perpendicular at targets behind a highway, pausing whenever a truck, bus or other civilian car is about to cross the line of fire and then resuming firing. The traffic didn't even seem to slow down as they approach the stream of tracers.
The human condition and so on.

While there's footage of this formidable weapon in Syria blazing away with wild abandon, here is a far more tactical and measured use, together with effective use of terrain, too. The video shows conclusively that there can't be enough dust, dirt and devastation for CMx2 battles in heavily fought over cities in desert regions. These AFVs look worn, dinged up, damaged and more, with some sporting slogans, too. The ZSU goes into action at ~3:10. The GUN DISH radar is still installed, but there's no guarantee the pricey guts remain inside the ZSU.
 
Regards,

John Kettler

Gave the source before. It was the CIA's world class (possibly world's best) HEAT SME, Dr. Joseph Backofen, speaking at The Soviet Threat Technology Conference (U) in 1985 at CIA HQ. The conference was no notes and classified SECRET?NOFORN/WNINTEL/RD. Decoding, SECRET?NO FOREGN NATIONALS/ WARNING INTELLIGENCE SOURCES AND METHODS/RESTRICTED DATA. The last is a nuclear weapon clearance for things like weapon yields, payload weights, number of warheads, CEP, missile guidance, etc. 

The Conference covered not only every category of Soviet and Warsaw Pact weaponry for air, land, sea and space, but of what we knew was in the pipeline as well, Soviet and Warsaw Pact espionage successes against the US, how the Soviets established intelligence collection and technology acquisition requirements and more. Also discussed were various incidents involving Soviet use of various types of lasers in-country, at sea and in Afghanistan--everything from harassment to hard kill, even rapid clearance of fields of fire! 

This was the CIA spilling its guts because, institutionally, it was terrified. Contrast that with this: In my entire 11+ years as a Soviet Threat Analyst, I NEVER saw a single CIA document. Yet at that Conference and several more in succeeding years, the CIA had its SMEs systematically brief us comprehensively on, well, everything--at our clearance level, that is.--for long grueling days on end. 

Part and parcel of the Conference was the flat out terrifying rundown we got on Soviet ground warfare, especially the whole armor-antiarmor situation. And Dr. Backofen's dazzling and horrifying discussion of Soviet HEAT capabilities, engineering, advanced explosives and more was a key part of that overall portion of the conference. I don't recall that the GRAU number was given for the HEAT shell in question, but I do distinctly recall that it was a shell specifically developed to defeat the canceled T95 MBT. The T95 entered development in 1955, a process that went through 1959, after which the tank was canceled in favor of the M48.. If you look at the T95 Wiki, it specifically refers to its having siliceous core armor. Having read the declassification document for the Abrams, it specifically said the terming "siliceous core armor" was no longer a special program only term. Thus, the T95 design had siliceous core armor (steel/glass/steel sandwich armor array), and so did the original Abrams. Clearly, the GRU, KGB or both found out what the T95 armor scheme was, and the Soviet HEAT design bureaus were tasked to design a HEAT shell to defeat it. That particular problem was gone by the time the shell entered service, but the Americans kept the same basic armor scheme in the many ways revolutionary Abrams, thus inherited the exact same vulnerability the T95 would've had. Unless the Soviets had advance word before the T95 started development, this means the HEAT shell in question started development in the mid-50s. This rules out a GPW period HEAT shell as the threat. This HEAT shell was apparently declared obsolete in the late 1960s, and only obsolete antitank shells were permitted to be exported, to protect Soviet weapon secrets. the Israelis recovered some of these these during the Yom Kippur War but didn't let us know until 1984 when it finally handed some over for analysis and testing. THAT was where the real nightmare began!

Hope this gives you some idea what a big deal the Conference was and how staggering the disclosures were. This was where I learned of the dizzying array of Soviet laser guided munitions, where I learned of Soviet multi-mode sensor fuzed submunitions, of MRL fired antitank drones that had drone flight leaders (talked to the other missiles and dynamically assigned them targets) automatically replaced if shot down, thermobaric weapons and more. Simply put, the very high leverage combat weapon types the West counted on to stop the Soviet tank horde the Red Army already had or would have shortly, along with capabilities we didn't have. Their lead in armor protection was so great that only the Hellfire and Maverick were judged capable of a kill frontally. Everything else, from LAW through Dragon through TOW was obsolete from the front. that included the much vaunted 105 mm DU round. We, though, were highly vulnerable. 

The sources were as official as it gets, and the Conference was held under the aegis of the prestigious AIAA (American Institute of Aviation and Astronautics.

Regards,

John Kettler

There's a FB group that specializes in colorizing WW II imagery, and this is simply fantastic because not only do we have the pics but specific dates and locations, too, at least, for the German MG photo set. One such pic is below.

https://www.facebook.com/worldwarincolor/



Regards,

John Kettler

Megalon Jones,

The ammo types you listed all fly more slowly by far than HVAPFSDS and therefore have looping trajectories compared to the KE forming your baseline. In turn, this increases the likelihood of top hits. Would say that these days, HESH/HEP would be the lest penetrating--for multiple reasons. For starters, HESH/HEP, unless vs a very weak target, doesn't penetrate at all. that's not its kill mechanism. Instead, it creates massive spall on the far side of the armor plate struck. How massive? Pie plate size and, say, two inches thick! That piece of armor steel is now tearing through the fighting compartment, demolishing men and equipment throughout, not to mention wiring, hydraulaics and ammo. Have seen a classified pic from the 1967 War in which a T-55 took a turret rear hit from what I recall as 105 mm HESH/HEP. The spall pie plate cored out the large radio and kept going. There was no further coverage of the damage in detail, but that hit would've taken the TC apart and the gunner, too. For openers. But, to my knowledge, HESH/HEP has no such capability vs modern composite armor, because the layers of various materials grossly interfere with the detonation shockwave, preventing the all-important massive spalling. Armor arrays designed to defeat HVAPFSDS KE would not find HESH/HEP much of a challenge. Thus, the last Russian tank I would deem HESH/HEP effective against frontally would be the T-62, for everything after that, from the T-64 onward, has composite armor.

HEAT can be very effective, but how effective depends on a) the armor array struck, and the particulars of the HEAT shell used. For example, Russian HEAT is designed to take advantage of impact speed as well as the primary HEAT charge. Recall, too, that an obsolete 76.2 mm Russian HEAT round recovered during the Yom Kippur War was found to be able to frontally penetrate the Gen One Abrams. And while in Desert Storm Saddam's hardened steel KE harmlessly stuck to the sides of Abrams turrets like darts, 125 mm HEAT was no joke.

Summing up, in ascending effectiveness there is HESH/HEP, then HEAT, then KE, with pride of place going to the 120 and 125 mm gunned tanks. 

Regards,

John Kettler

Megalon Jones,

The ammo types you listed all fly more slowly by far than HVAPFSDS and therefore have looping trajectories compared to the KE forming your baseline. In turn, this increases the likelihood of top hits. Would say that these days, HESH/HEP would be the lest penetrating--for multiple reasons. For starters, HESH/HEP, unless vs a very weak target, doesn't penetrate at all. that's not its kill mechanism. Instead, it creates massive spall on the far side of the armor plate struck. How massive? Pie plate size and, say, two inches thick! That piece of armor steel is now tearing through the fighting compartment, demolishing men and equipment throughout, not to mention wiring, hydraulaics and ammo. Have seen a classified pic from the 1967 War in which a T-55 took a turret rear hit from what I recall as 105 mm HESH/HEP. The spall pie plate cored out the large radio and kept going. There was no further coverage of the damage in detail, but that hit would've taken the TC apart and the gunner, too. For openers. But, to my knowledge, HESH/HEP has no such capability vs modern composite armor, because the layers of various materials grossly interfere with the detonation shockwave, preventing the all-important massive spalling. Armor arrays designed to defeat HVAPFSDS KE would not find HESH/HEP much of a challenge. Thus, the last Russian tank I would deem HESH/HEP effective against frontally would be the T-62, for everything after that, from the T-64 onward, has composite armor.

HEAT can be very effective, but how effective depends on a) the armor array struck, and the particulars of the HEAT shell used. For example, Russian HEAT is designed to take advantage of impact speed as well as the primary HEAT charge. Recall, too, that an obsolete 76.2 mm Russian HEAT round recovered during the Yom Kippur War was found to be able to frontally penetrate the Gen One Abrams. And while in Desert Storm Saddam's hardened steel KE harmlessly stuck to the sides of Abrams turrets like darts, 125 mm HEAT was no joke.

Summing up, in ascending effectiveness there is HESH/HEP, then HEAT, then KE, with pride of place going to the 120 and 125 mm gunned tanks. 

Regards,

John Kettler

Megalon Jones,

The ammo types you listed all fly more slowly by far than HVAPFSDS and therefore have looping trajectories compared to the KE forming your baseline. In turn, this increases the likelihood of top hits. Would say that these days, HESH/HEP would be the lest penetrating--for multiple reasons. For starters, HESH/HEP, unless vs a very weak target, doesn't penetrate at all. that's not its kill mechanism. Instead, it creates massive spall on the far side of the armor plate struck. How massive? Pie plate size and, say, two inches thick! That piece of armor steel is now tearing through the fighting compartment, demolishing men and equipment throughout, not to mention wiring, hydraulaics and ammo. Have seen a classified pic from the 1967 War in which a T-55 took a turret rear hit from what I recall as 105 mm HESH/HEP. The spall pie plate cored out the large radio and kept going. There was no further coverage of the damage in detail, but that hit would've taken the TC apart and the gunner, too. For openers. But, to my knowledge, HESH/HEP has no such capability vs modern composite armor, because the layers of various materials grossly interfere with the detonation shockwave, preventing the all-important massive spalling. Armor arrays designed to defeat HVAPFSDS KE would not find HESH/HEP much of a challenge. Thus, the last Russian tank I would deem HESH/HEP effective against frontally would be the T-62, for everything after that, from the T-64 onward, has composite armor.

HEAT can be very effective, but how effective depends on a) the armor array struck, and the particulars of the HEAT shell used. For example, Russian HEAT is designed to take advantage of impact speed as well as the primary HEAT charge. Recall, too, that an obsolete 76.2 mm Russian HEAT round recovered during the Yom Kippur War was found to be able to frontally penetrate the Gen One Abrams. And while in Desert Storm Saddam's hardened steel KE harmlessly stuck to the sides of Abrams turrets like darts, 125 mm HEAT was no joke.

Summing up, in ascending effectiveness there is HESH/HEP, then HEAT, then KE, with pride of place going to the 120 and 125 mm gunned tanks. 

Regards,

John Kettler

Megalon Jones,

The ammo types you listed all fly more slowly by far than HVAPFSDS and therefore have looping trajectories compared to the KE forming your baseline. In turn, this increases the likelihood of top hits. Would say that these days, HESH/HEP would be the lest penetrating--for multiple reasons. For starters, HESH/HEP, unless vs a very weak target, doesn't penetrate at all. that's not its kill mechanism. Instead, it creates massive spall on the far side of the armor plate struck. How massive? Pie plate size and, say, two inches thick! That piece of armor steel is now tearing through the fighting compartment, demolishing men and equipment throughout, not to mention wiring, hydraulaics and ammo. Have seen a classified pic from the 1967 War in which a T-55 took a turret rear hit from what I recall as 105 mm HESH/HEP. The spall pie plate cored out the large radio and kept going. There was no further coverage of the damage in detail, but that hit would've taken the TC apart and the gunner, too. For openers. But, to my knowledge, HESH/HEP has no such capability vs modern composite armor, because the layers of various materials grossly interfere with the detonation shockwave, preventing the all-important massive spalling. Armor arrays designed to defeat HVAPFSDS KE would not find HESH/HEP much of a challenge. Thus, the last Russian tank I would deem HESH/HEP effective against frontally would be the T-62, for everything after that, from the T-64 onward, has composite armor.

HEAT can be very effective, but how effective depends on a) the armor array struck, and the particulars of the HEAT shell used. For example, Russian HEAT is designed to take advantage of impact speed as well as the primary HEAT charge. Recall, too, that an obsolete 76.2 mm Russian HEAT round recovered during the Yom Kippur War was found to be able to frontally penetrate the Gen One Abrams. And while in Desert Storm Saddam's hardened steel KE harmlessly stuck to the sides of Abrams turrets like darts, 125 mm HEAT was no joke.

Summing up, in ascending effectiveness there is HESH/HEP, then HEAT, then KE, with pride of place going to the 120 and 125 mm gunned tanks. 

Regards,

John Kettler

Wow! A Cav troop with 2 x dedicated 155 howitzer batteries formerly making up the heavy side of WWII US DIVARTY--plus 4.2" mortars, then a third 155 battery with DPICM (how many volleys?). Simply astounding Indirect firepower + a brace of voracious  omnivorous AH-1s!  Your tracks may be eggshells, but they're tied to a hardware store's worth of hammers, to steal JasonC's Marder characterization.

On a separate note, it's a pleasure and great education to read yet another of your Beta AARs, despite again being left feeling like the village idiot of warfare. The rigor and depth of your analysis is simply beyond what my still mauled brain can do, and I love all your great quotes. If you served, I hope you at least made LT COL, and if you didn't serve, then would argue we're much the worse for the lack of your formidable military mind.

Regards,

John Kettler