John Kettler

There is a very interesting graphic here under the M1A2 SEP portion, in the form of a drawing which shows how, from ODS on, US thermals stack up vs Russian ones. Though the gap is closing, as of 2003, the latest model of the Gen 2 M1A2 thermals still held the edge over the Gen 2 thermals on the T-72MP. This may well be part of the problem. Nor is it just range. Look at the overall system capabilities:
 
(Fair Use from above)
 
"The 2nd Gen FLIR is a fully integrated engagement-sighting system designed to provide the gunner and tank commander with significantly improved day and night target acquisition and engagement capability. This system allows 70% better acquisition, 45% quicker firing and greater accuracy. In addition, a gain of 30% greater range for target acquisition and identification will increase lethality and lessen fratricide.
 
The Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer (CITV) provides a hunter killer capability. The 2nd GEN FLIR is a variable power sighting system ranging from 3 or 6 power (wide field of view) for target acquisition and 13, 25 or 50 power (narrow field of view) for engaging targets at appropriate range."
 
By contrast, seen from the Russian end, the numbers look pretty grim in comparison. The ESSA sight (with Catherine FC IR camera) acquisition magnification numbers aren't so bad, 3 or 12 power WFOV, but only 24 power NFOV. Thus, in 2003, the M1A2 had just over twice the max available magnification of the T-90S now. The MRT (Mean Resolvable Temperature) for this unit is 2 deg C. Still looking for the numbers for the M1A2 SEP V2. I strongly suspect they'll be better in the MRT department than the ESSA. 
 
This is, I think, a grog wargame forum like ours, and concerns either something out or something being worked. There is no game here, so I FERVENTLY HOPE I won't get into trouble, and it probably is something like the old PE Development Group I used to participate in. This link is directly pertinent to this discussion because it has actual FLIR imagery and operator experience from Bradley and M1A2 users. One of the first remarks is instructive. It talks about seeing people in the open desert with the FLIR out to 2 km! The thread also talks about the different ways the operator can adjust controls to get the best possible performance from the system. It goes way past White Hot/Black Hot.  These people appear to be operating at something close to an engineering sim of the thermals being modeled. Looks pretty deep to me. Of particular interest is that it talks about a GEN III FLIR for the Bradley. Elsewhere, I've read that the Abrams and the Bradley now have common FLIR systems. 
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

The old hands here have been asking for flares since CMx1's CMBO (2000), yet 15 years later we still don't have them. Given the proliferation of night vision devices both image intensifying and thermal, I'm less concerned with the use of flares for illumination in CMBS than I am with their signaling applications, which go back to at least WW II. Colored flares were used to warn of tank attack, air attack, call down protective barrages, signal attacks and retreats, etc.
 
Ironically, in a game in which we have voice radio, digital encrypted voice comms, even secure PDAs which don't use voice at all, we don't have the all time great backup communication option. The one which is near instantaneous, totally immune to even the worst jamming (which we now do have) and has high WX immunity, too. It's a known fact that during the Cold War the Russians also used flares to warn of nuclear, gas and biological attack--while carrying on with the same sorts of uses as during the GPW. Consequently, unless proven wrong, I'm of the considered opinion that both UKR and RUS still use them, but I can't speak to the US, where my info base on that is nil.
 
Would the military/ex-military members from UKR, RUS, POL et al. please discuss this to me very important issue as it applies to "broken back" and EMCON comm situations?
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Nerdwing,
 
I've exceeded my quota there for the month, so it was up just long enough tantalize before the placard appeared. Fortunately, Global Security's not the only game in town. I figure these guys know something about the ammunition. Ever helpful, they even have brochures available to peruse. I thought DU was missing, but they've simply modestly called it HEI-T and put the DU part in the brochure. The BMP-2 pic was something that that I thought would be of particular interest to modelers and the oh so talented skin makers.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Over in the c3k vs DMS Free Game AAR, c3k lost a bunch of men to Russian 30 mm airburst fire from what turned out to be a BTR-82. I was confounded by this because, to my knowledge, no 30 mm Russian cannon currently extant can do that. When I raised the issue, he responded with this ammo fuze link, citing it as proof of the capability. A few posts later, I responded this way:
 
Fuze A-670M is PD, with just enough delay (0.002-0.004s) to get into the target and explode. The "distant arming" refers merely to the fact that the fuze arms a minimum of 20 meters away from the firing point and may not arm until as far away as 100 meters. This is in no way equivalent to or even imitative of things like Ainet. And 9-14 seconds after being fired, the fuze initiates and destroys the shell. Simply put, the BTR-82's 30 mm gun is operating the same way as the 25 mm Bushmaster on a Bradley. In fact, functionally speaking, it's exactly the same as what came out of a Sherman's barrel during WW II after the command, "HE, Delay" was issued as part of the fire order. Consequently, as things stand, every Russian or Ukrainian vehicle armed with the cannon 2A42, 2A-38 and 2A-72, whether firing HEI or HE-T, is affected. Further, this also applies to the Mi-28/HAVOC and the Ka-50/HOKUM. 
 
Would one or more of you who knows this fuze and its capabilities firsthand please wade in on this important matter? If I'm right, and I'm confident I am, it's going to put quite a dent in the in-game combat potential of every single 30 mm armed Russian and Ukrainian AFV and so armed attack helicopter. 
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler
 
 

Wiggum15,
 
I narrowly escaped decorating my keyboard and display with half chewed pizza while reading your lead! Clearly, you have no reverence for the Corps or MARPAT. If you don't want such a module, I'll buy one to replace you, but mine has to run on OS X. We're getting separatists--both sides.
 
Saferight,
 
Pretty much my reaction, though usage would be in the vernacular, rather than the theological.
 
sburke,
 
No fall or winter? Sniff. And no, I'm not catching a cold!
 
Black Moria and Saferight,
 
Poles are a must. With high motivation factor!
 
antaress73,
 
Love to see the T-14--if it actually exists as envisioned and enters service and is deployed to Ukraine. 
 
George MC,
 
At the rate things are going, the British will have to borrow tanks from Switzerland. Horrifying Challenger 2 situation--RAC has no tanks.

Imperial Grunt,
 
The alphabet soup is now escaped the bowl and is threatening to take over the world! Then we have "Disaggregated Company Sized Landing Teams." Synonymous with arrive in a jumble and spread all over kingdom come? Hope not! Good info, though, since I was still in MEU and MEB Land, with some MAGTF thrown in.

Regards,
 
John Kettler

Agiel,
 
A great find, though I don't agree with a lot he says. According to him, the A-10 is meat on the table to fighters. This, based on my understanding of the systems involved, is by no means cut and dried. Finding something that looks like the ground from above isn't that easy to begin with. The A-10 is a highly maneuverable airplane which can turn inside most fighters without even trying. Big wings, lower speed, larger control surfaces. A-10s have pilots with their heads on swivels, plus rear view mirrors, RWR, chaff and flares and typically also have a jamming pod. Finding a low visibility target in the weeds is difficult for LD/SD geometry and gun attack, and if you're down there, you're likely in trouble, for the A-10 is also armed with the latest Sidewinder when it turns into you. With very little effort (Hughes designed it to fit Sidewinder launch rails; I know, because I counted every last one NATO had ), the A-10 could be set up to use the AIM-120 AMRAAM in active radar mode (missile radar used for acquisition, followed by a tone in the pilot's ears) off the rail, providing a lot more reach and capability than a Sidewinder. Survive the missile and it's GAU-8 time. Now, this may sound like some pipe dream, but there is historical precedent. 
 
During the Vietnam War, three NVN MiG-17s bounced an A-1 Sky Raider CAS bird low over the DMZ. Theoretically, it should've been meat on the table. One engine. Prop. Slow. MiGs come whistling in, figuring it's lunch time. On the ball A-1pilot instantly reverses into them; the pilot salvoes pods of 2.75" rockets in their faces and lets fly with 4 x 20 mm cannon. The MiGs were persistent, to the tune of one destroyed outright, one damaged and one which fled to NVN.
 
Teal Group is a respected firm, and the estimable Steve Zaloga, author of dozens of Osprey weapon books, works/worked there. Respected, though, isn't any guarantee of correctness of conclusions.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler 

Regarding Poland, I think something important hasn't been mentioned, the KTO Rosomak, which comes with both 30 mm manned and unmanned turrets. Rosomak also brings the fascinating Spike ATGM into play. Apparently, the Rosomak has versions armed with Bushmaster and Spike and others that transport two Spike ATGM teams. The combat proven Rosomak comes in all sorts of interesting configurations, and even the baseline vehicles have thermals!  30 mm Bushmaster, armor good through 30 mm APDS, amazing terrain crossing capabilities and amphibious. Cool vid, but looks like YT squashed the audio.
 

 
Also, having now seen the ANDERS Light Tank of a family of ANDERS AFVs, I find it more nearly resembles something from SF than a conventional AFV. Note the design cue taken from the Merkava, with the big rear door and wide open fighting compartment aft of the turret. Vetronics and visionics are obviously of a very high order, too. What are those metallic cylinders which emerge from the hull side?
 

 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Over in the c3k vs DMS Free Game AAR, c3k lost a bunch of men to Russian 30 mm airburst fire from what turned out to be a BTR-82. I was confounded by this because, to my knowledge, no 30 mm Russian cannon currently extant can do that. When I raised the issue, he responded with this ammo fuze link, citing it as proof of the capability. A few posts later, I responded this way:
 
Fuze A-670M is PD, with just enough delay (0.002-0.004s) to get into the target and explode. The "distant arming" refers merely to the fact that the fuze arms a minimum of 20 meters away from the firing point and may not arm until as far away as 100 meters. This is in no way equivalent to or even imitative of things like Ainet. And 9-14 seconds after being fired, the fuze initiates and destroys the shell. Simply put, the BTR-82's 30 mm gun is operating the same way as the 25 mm Bushmaster on a Bradley. In fact, functionally speaking, it's exactly the same as what came out of a Sherman's barrel during WW II after the command, "HE, Delay" was issued as part of the fire order. Consequently, as things stand, every Russian or Ukrainian vehicle armed with the cannon 2A42, 2A-38 and 2A-72, whether firing HEI or HE-T, is affected. Further, this also applies to the Mi-28/HAVOC and the Ka-50/HOKUM. 
 
Would one or more of you who knows this fuze and its capabilities firsthand please wade in on this important matter? If I'm right, and I'm confident I am, it's going to put quite a dent in the in-game combat potential of every single 30 mm armed Russian and Ukrainian AFV and so armed attack helicopter. 
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler
 
 

If you wish to know Moscow's playbook, its track record; what worked, what didn't and why; if you want to know why what Putin's done in Crimea is an unprecedented departure from all post-Soviet practice, may I commend to your attention Jeffrey Mankoff's deeply insightful and informative article "Russia's Latest Land Grab: How Putin Won Crimea and Lost Ukraine," which is available online here at the Foreign Affairs website?
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler
 
P.S.
 
Mods, I tried to couch this description in ways not violative of the Forum Rules. If I still inadvertently stepped in it, my apologies and please tweak the prose as needed.

c3k,
 
While I hunt for further proof, take a look at the marvelous Rheinmetall presentation I found on new ammo developments for 25, 30 and 35 mm guns. Pages 4-10 are especially pertinent. In looking at this brief, I'd say there have been some revolutionary improvements in ammunition.
 
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2005garm/tuesday/buckley.pdf
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

This thread is most informative and thought provoking. It would appear that at least the BTR-82 and, likely, other AFVs with equally capable advanced FCS can, in fact, fire an airburst projectile. Had no idea such a round existed. Those lacking such an advanced FCS are evidently stuck with PD. This has some interesting implications regarding AFV costs, since there's a whopping performance delta on infantry lethality between the way past XM25 capability 30 mm equipped AFVs with the new round and those which have to smite infantry via ground impact, treebursts or impacts on things such as walls right behind the soldiers being shot at. 
 
The round description above is quite confusing. Fuze type specifically lists Time, whereas the blasting (projectile detonation) is described as "remote" and what appears to read "command contact" (FCS "talks" to shell at a distance?). If the blasting command channel is, in fact, optical, then my understanding of the principle would be that no programming of the fuze occurs in the weapon. Instead of inputting time into the fuze either right before the breech or in it US style, the projectile gets sent a detonation command optically (by laser?) when it's at the desired range, as determined by the FCS. The FCS could easily come up with the requisite timing information to do this. This interpretation is consistent with the round characteristics provided. Next question. Is the round pure Incendiary or is it really HE-I? Never heard of an exploding Incendiary round. Not sure how to categorize Raufoss.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler
 
Since we're talking about advanced auto cannon ammo, I wanted to make sure my fellow grogs saw the truly amazing work Rheinmetall has been doing in this same area.

 

Steve,
 
Ref your #225, I don't see beaten broken soldiers on/in the AFVs and trucks (one truckload of infantry even has two war dogs). I do see some battered infantry on foot, but from what can tell,  every man still has his rifle, and I see lots of guys, most, in body armor. For a force that reportedly abandoned its heavy equipment, I see a lot, including tanks, BMP-1 and 2, Grad, towed 152 gun howitzers, 152 mm SPA, ACRV, box bodied command vehicles, one towing its HQ protection, a ZU-23. Was beginning to wonder where the casualties were, which is about when the ambulances appeared, followed by a very real example of walking wounded, non-ambulatory wounded, and shrouded corpses. Unlike the US government, the Ukraine government dares to show the ugly face of war to its people, and what would be the odds we'd ever be allowed to see unfettered criticism by the troops of higher command? The men don't appear hangdog and radiating defeat. To the contrary, I'd say they're pretty cheery on balance and have good morale.
 
Schmoly War,
 
If that's the trailer, I can but imagine how devastating the actual program will be. Wow!
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

MikeyD,
 
Thanks for responding so quickly. I specifically said "Given the proliferation of night vision devices both image intensifying and thermal, I'm less concerned with the use of flares for illumination in CMBS than I am with their signaling applications, which go back to at least WW II. Colored flares were used to warn of tank attack, air attack, call down protective barrages, signal attacks and retreats, etc." By saying that, what I sought to convey is that I don't really care (much) about flares for Illum in CMBS, but instead want colored flares--the flare pistol fired star cluster variety--for visual comms w/o radio or other electronic emissions being involved. I certainly agree that earlier NVG and image intensification night scope displays would indeed "bloom" if subjected to the blinding light of a magnesium flare.
 
Frankly, I'm unsure whether your reply is intended to convey two separate and distinct thoughts, or whether the second sentence is a kind of restatement of the first. I've long been of the opinion, and have so stated on several occasions, that we ought to have both Illum rounds and signal flares, both of which provably and many many times factored into WW II combat and beyond. This was done by me long before CMBS was even being discussed on the CMSF Forum, never mind here.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler 

The old hands here have been asking for flares since CMx1's CMBO (2000), yet 15 years later we still don't have them. Given the proliferation of night vision devices both image intensifying and thermal, I'm less concerned with the use of flares for illumination in CMBS than I am with their signaling applications, which go back to at least WW II. Colored flares were used to warn of tank attack, air attack, call down protective barrages, signal attacks and retreats, etc.
 
Ironically, in a game in which we have voice radio, digital encrypted voice comms, even secure PDAs which don't use voice at all, we don't have the all time great backup communication option. The one which is near instantaneous, totally immune to even the worst jamming (which we now do have) and has high WX immunity, too. It's a known fact that during the Cold War the Russians also used flares to warn of nuclear, gas and biological attack--while carrying on with the same sorts of uses as during the GPW. Consequently, unless proven wrong, I'm of the considered opinion that both UKR and RUS still use them, but I can't speak to the US, where my info base on that is nil.
 
Would the military/ex-military members from UKR, RUS, POL et al. please discuss this to me very important issue as it applies to "broken back" and EMCON comm situations?
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

The old hands here have been asking for flares since CMx1's CMBO (2000), yet 15 years later we still don't have them. Given the proliferation of night vision devices both image intensifying and thermal, I'm less concerned with the use of flares for illumination in CMBS than I am with their signaling applications, which go back to at least WW II. Colored flares were used to warn of tank attack, air attack, call down protective barrages, signal attacks and retreats, etc.
 
Ironically, in a game in which we have voice radio, digital encrypted voice comms, even secure PDAs which don't use voice at all, we don't have the all time great backup communication option. The one which is near instantaneous, totally immune to even the worst jamming (which we now do have) and has high WX immunity, too. It's a known fact that during the Cold War the Russians also used flares to warn of nuclear, gas and biological attack--while carrying on with the same sorts of uses as during the GPW. Consequently, unless proven wrong, I'm of the considered opinion that both UKR and RUS still use them, but I can't speak to the US, where my info base on that is nil.
 
Would the military/ex-military members from UKR, RUS, POL et al. please discuss this to me very important issue as it applies to "broken back" and EMCON comm situations?
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Pelican Pal,

I never heard about CM. Instead, you might say it drove headlong into my life. I used to be an active member of the PEDG (Panzer Elite Development Group), a bunch of people (including our own Jeff Duquette) devoted to correctly depicting the characteristics and performance of tanks and other weapons in the game. There I was minding my own business when my eye was drawn to this onrush of German armor ("The enemy is attacking!" it proclaimed) in an animated banner across the top of the page I was on. I clicked on that, DLed the Beta Demo and proceeded to lose my wargaming mind. I fully expect this condition to be terminal.

I called the game Micro Armour™ That Moves and was completely blown away when I watched a StuG III deal with a crossing Sherman, even traversing the gun in the casemate before firing. Fairly sure the gun recoiled, too. Not only did the tiny AFV model do all that--to my utter wonderment--but the Sherman took the hit through the upper left hull, didn't explode and rolled to a stop! That sold me then and there. Thereafter, it was being on what used to be the only Forum here for CM, playing the two scenarios (Last Defense and Rieseberg) to death, endless waiting, then brief relief when we got one more demo, Valley of Trouble, in the CM Gold Demo.

By doing this, BTS narrowly avoided a wargamer insurrection. Barely. Great were the rumblings of discontent, and it was feared the desperate tactical wargaming masses might storm the state of Vermont were something not done to placate them.

One fine day, after whatever takes longer than aeons, CMBO was released. The disk it came on had both Mac (on which CM was developed) and PC versions. My world has never been quite the same. As you can see from my sig, I have played CMBO a bit.

Thanks for a chance to share some very happy memories and describe the period known as the Time When CMx2 Didn't Exist.

Regards,

John Kettler

Over in the c3k vs DMS Free Game AAR, c3k lost a bunch of men to Russian 30 mm airburst fire from what turned out to be a BTR-82. I was confounded by this because, to my knowledge, no 30 mm Russian cannon currently extant can do that. When I raised the issue, he responded with this ammo fuze link, citing it as proof of the capability. A few posts later, I responded this way:
 
Fuze A-670M is PD, with just enough delay (0.002-0.004s) to get into the target and explode. The "distant arming" refers merely to the fact that the fuze arms a minimum of 20 meters away from the firing point and may not arm until as far away as 100 meters. This is in no way equivalent to or even imitative of things like Ainet. And 9-14 seconds after being fired, the fuze initiates and destroys the shell. Simply put, the BTR-82's 30 mm gun is operating the same way as the 25 mm Bushmaster on a Bradley. In fact, functionally speaking, it's exactly the same as what came out of a Sherman's barrel during WW II after the command, "HE, Delay" was issued as part of the fire order. Consequently, as things stand, every Russian or Ukrainian vehicle armed with the cannon 2A42, 2A-38 and 2A-72, whether firing HEI or HE-T, is affected. Further, this also applies to the Mi-28/HAVOC and the Ka-50/HOKUM. 
 
Would one or more of you who knows this fuze and its capabilities firsthand please wade in on this important matter? If I'm right, and I'm confident I am, it's going to put quite a dent in the in-game combat potential of every single 30 mm armed Russian and Ukrainian AFV and so armed attack helicopter. 
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler
 
 

Here are three pages well worth reading if you have any interest at all in China as an emerging military presence in the Pacific. I found it quite a read.
 
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/japans-master-plan-defeat-china-war-12338
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

I was watching a vid regarding Debaltseve where, at 1:44 what appears to me to be an at least Airborne or maybe SpecOps shoulder patch on a separatist's cammies is clearly visible. Could someone please tell me what the patch says and what unit it relates to? Speaking of Debaltseve, it was on Yahoo's front page today in a report of EOD ops there and is in a slew of vids covering the fighting and UKR retreat. If retreat can be humorous, I'd have to say a clip I saw in another vid would qualify. A BTR rolls smartly past the camera heading away from Debaltseve--trailing a several vehicle lengths long strip of heavy gauge clear plastic wrap on the ground from its left side. It reminded me of someone walking around with toilet paper stuck to the shoe sole.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler
 
 

Sublime,
 
There's a site called Project Free TV Video Online and another called Watch Series which have the amazing Red Dwarf and gobs of other goodies, such as Danger: UXB. I remember how the male lead in Red Dwarf was pining over curry and talking about some incomprehensible to me (never heard of them) Papa Dooms. I'd eaten a bunch of meals, including curry, at Indian restaurants over a period of years but was a naan man, not knowing there was something else to be had. Once had what I didn't realize until too late (pungent spices masked aroma and batter their presence) was an onion fritter. A shocking first bite, since onions and I don't get on! Returning to a cheerier note...
 
By a remarkable synchronicity, in the remaining hours before my crash move from California early in 2010, brother Ed took me to an Indian restaurant close to LAX. There, as a snack while waiting for the food, I finally encountered the elusive, somewhat spicy and tasty papadum. Then I knew why the kid was going on about why he always ordered extras with his curry. My favorite Red Dwarf episode involved a canary and a time machine. Won't say more, lest I spoil it for you if you haven't seen it.
 
If you wish to see a first rate British crime drama, may I commend to your attention the superb DCI Banks? Unfortunately, it follows the maddening British TV practice--six episodes only/season. If you're used to Law and Order here in the States (20+ episodes.season), you may need sedation because you'll be frustrated beyond words: You start watching, blink once, and the season's done! DCI Banks is also at the sites listed. What I particularly love about the show, aside from the great characters, is Yorkshire, especially the moor and his place. Apparently, the new season starts March 4th!
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Michael Emrys (and BFC)
 
Oh, how that sucks! Unless my brain gets better and stays better, I may have to play the Allies in CMBS almost exclusively--for the sake of my sanity! To me, this mind obliterating saturated Martian red is something that urgently needs correcting. I don't recall ever running into it in any other CM games I've had (all CMx1, plus full CMBN and now CMBS), but that may well be faulty memory via whanged skull, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't an issue. I do recall not liking the color the Germans had in "Barkmann's Corner" or the Allied deployment zone in "Bridge at Varraville," but those were merely annoying or garish. This situation is extreme to the point of being almost disabling. Ideally, I'd like those lovely colored lines as deployment boundaries. Failing that, I would think BFC could simply and easily change the hue, value and chroma settings for whatever code is used to generate that map overlay. Ideally, the result would have only enough color/hue to make it visible on the map, with low value (not the totally in your face situation I describe) and as close to transparent as possible. In other words, an overlay with just enough color in it to tell it's there, with every terrain detail easily discernible beneath it, not totally washed out in the item of woe I'm reporting. There has to be a way to fix this!
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

c3k,
 
If Fortune truly favors the bold, then you are her poster child! If my mind is going 17 directions simultaneously from devouring your account and looking at all the wonderful annotated pics, I can scarcely imagine what it must be like fighting this rip snorter of a crazy battle. And there I'm going to let my plaudits lie.
 
What I'd really like, though, is to understand several things you mentioned. Your Red Team A got macerated by 30 mm airbursts. Fired from what, please? My understanding was that RUS 30 mm auto cannon shells were all impact fuzed, ditto the AGS-17 and such projectiles. To my knowledge, the only airburst munitions RUS has are the Ainet on your tanks and from the 100 mm gun of the BMP-3M. Also, I'm not computing the smoke you're talking about. I know the self protective smoke grenades block visual and IR, but I was under the impression artillery delivered smoke didn't. Has that changed? If not, then why does it seem you're saying it does? Given all the thermals in play, I don't see why it'd matter much if it can't block thermals. What am I missing here?
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

c3k,
 
Thanks for your reply. I had no idea we had deployed broadband obscurant smoke and thought the only artillery smoke in game was HC. Regarding the 30 mm airbursts, I believe someone at BFC made a mistake. A major one.
 
Fuze A-670M is PD, with just enough delay (0.002-0.004s) to get into the target and explode. The "distant arming" refers merely to the fact that the fuze arms a minimum of 20 meters away from the firing point and may not arm until as far away as 100 meters. This is in no way equivalent to or even imitative of things like Ainet. And 9-14 seconds after being fired, the fuze initiates and destroys the shell. Simply put, the BTR-82's 30 mm gun is operating the same way as the 25 mm Bushmaster on a Bradley. In fact, functionally speaking, it's exactly the same as what came out of a Sherman's barrel during WW II after the command, "HE, Delay" was issued as part of the fire order. Consequently, as things stand, every Russian or Ukrainian vehicle armed with the cannon 2A42, 2A-38 and 2A-72, whether firing HEI or HE-T, is affected. Further, this also applies to the Mi-28/HAVOC and the Ka-50/HOKUM. 

Also, I think BFC left out a smoke capability on the Abrams I didn't know it had. This may apply to other US AFVs as well. Quote's listed here under Countermeasures.

"A smoke screen can also be laid by an engine operated system."
 
Speaking of smoke, I see we finally have WP (don't have CMSF, so may be in already). Do I understand that the game treats an Antipersonnel mission as being VT fuzed? What I'm driving at is something one the veterans talked about as the recipe for dealing with entrenched troops, mixed HE (not VT?) and WP. If I'm right, there is presently no way to shoot such a mission. I know the US doesn't have DPICM in CMBS (I think it should), but even if the US does do away with it IRL, the Russians and Ukrainians should still have it. Such a capability is very much militarily significant.
 
Finally, does the US still follow WW II practice and issue ground mounts for .50 BMG and MK-19 weapons on Hummers?
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

nsKb,
 
That was a very good question you asked about Doppler radar. My preliminary research was not helpful, but fortunately, I know a retired Navy fighter pilot who flew the F-14 Tomcat and the even more formidable F-14D Super Tomcat. According to him, finding an A-10 sized target in the weeds is a function of altitude and ground configuration. If the background is flat treeless desert, then target altitude doesn't matter, but if it's over trees and below 200 feet, it's not really findable, because ground clutter overrides even sophisticated signal processing. Also, he said finding helicopters in the weeds is practically impossible with fighter radar. The F-14D radar is, per him, on par with what the F/A-18E Super Hornet carries, so ought to be in the ballpark of the Russian types. If you're talking MiG-23/FLOGGER B type planes, rather than MiG-29/FULCRUM or Su-27/FLANKER and beyond, there is no capability at all to radar locate an A-10 in the weeds, even if over the desert, because the ground clutter of even that environment  simply overwhelms the radar's much cruder signal processor.  
 
Digressing for a moment to WVR engagement of the A-10, the A-10 routinely operates at altitudes where fast movers are in real jeopardy of ground clobber. When I was a defense analyst, the breakpoint between being eaten alive by SAMs and gobbled by clobber was 200 feet AGL. Further, the A-10 routinely operates under cloud ceilings which would ground the fast movers outright.  
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Childress,

Unless I fundamentally misunderstood Steve, BFC has NOT implemented neutral steering in the game, even for those AFVs which could do so. Additionally, Steve made quite the point of describing how huge the turn radius was on the Sherman, a gripe historically recorded by the crews of same. Given these factors, I fail to see how neutral steer can be in the game, never mind in the game across the board. My understanding is that the rotation in place rates were nerfed from the get was to prevent the unholy combination of player SA, ability to react instantaneously (in RT; atypically fast in WEGO) to developments and squash threats with wild abandon. My argument is that since tank SA, especially buttoned tank SA, has been dramatically (?) degraded, then maybe now the rates can be made either historically accurate or at least improved somewhat.

Regards,

John Kettler