John Kettler

Raptorx7,
 
Thank you! Turns out I've been consistently looking too low, as in the far right corner at the level where Forums are listed. No wonder I couldn't find the blasted icon. With my SAN restored, am off to confront Cthulhu!
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Appreciate this information and the vid, but concur with Oakheart on characterization of AK-12. Maybe it's the paint scheme, too, but to me, it looks butt ugly (and the weapon's butt does look ugly, too), elevating the AK-47 to the level of visual art by comparison. I'm not saying the AN-12 (also the name of an Antonov C-130 clone) isn't a tough reliable weapon. To get through State trials it would have to be, but I think soldiers prefer weapons that do their jobs well and look good. If both did well on the weapon end, I'd want the AEK-971, which not only gets the military job done but is scary looking (intimidation's always good) and has clean cool lines as well. And let's face it, if FMS figure in, sex appeal, if you will, is apart of the marketing equation. Aesthetics most definitely do figure in, and I now show this was an issue which concerned catapult designers in ancient Greece.
 
Philon, circa 250 BCE,  Construction of War Engines
Referring to a new type of catapult called the wedge engine, he has this to say, and it's very much marketing related, as is his prior listing of features and benefits for his innovative and more powerful version of a well-established key weapon:
 
"Finally, in appearance it is no less imposing than the others..."
 
Cited in Campbell's Greek and Roman Military Writers: Selected Readings, p184.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Marwek77,
 
Were I in your shoes, I would not run the BRM-3K around with tanks. Rather, I'd try to find it a series of protected locations from which it could observe the terrain to find enemy troops, vehicles and camouflaged positions via comprehensive sensors, which include the ability to establish target position to 20 meters, more than adequate for artillery fire. This thing is a super spotter and is typically tied to an artillery battalion to the rear. Here is the list of its capabilities. And just look at the BRM-3K sensor suite.
 
(Fair Use)
 
"Equipment installed to enable the vehicle to carry out its specialised reconnaissance role includes the mast-mounted 1RL-133-1 battlefield surveillance radar, which can be retracted into the vehicle when not operating; the 1PN71 thermal night observation device; the 1PN61 night observation device; and the ID14 periscopic laser range-finder.
The electro-optical devices are mounted on either side of the turret and, when not being used, the optics are covered by a hinged shutter that opens to the left.
 
The 1D14 periscopic laser range-finder has a magnification of x 7.3 and x 18 and a maximum range of 25,000 m. This laser is mounted on a turntable and can be used by the vehicle commander for reconnaissance purposes with an arc of 60° regardless of the position of the turret.
 
The 1PN61 active pulse night vision device with laser illuminator has a magnification of x 7 and a range of 1,500 m in the passive mode and 3,000 m in the active mode. This is mounted externally on the right side of the turret.
 
The 1PN71 thermal observation device operates in the 8 to 14 |im waveband and has a magnification of x 3.7 and x 11.5 and maximum target identification range is 3,000 m. This is mounted externally on the left side of the turret.
 
The 1RL-133-1 radar detects vehicles out to a range of 8,000 to 10,000 m and people out to a range of 4,000 m, with the actual ranges depending on the terrain. The radar can be elevated to a height of 1 m and traversed 240° left and right regardless of the turret position.
 
It is also fitted with the latest TNA-4-6 navigation device, 1T129 coordinator and the 1G50 gyrocompass to enable it to determine quickly its own position on the battlefield."
 
Given the above, I think it's profoundly ill advised to go gadding about the battlefield with a brace of T-90s for company. This thing's sensors probably put its cost, not to mention the highly trained crew needed, at several T-90 equivalents.
 
stikkypixie,
 
In light of what I now know about the BRM-3K,  I believe it's significantly more capable than a B-FIST, not least because it also has a BSR fitted.
 
gunnersman,
 
Though I seriously doubt it's modeled, the BRM-3K is set up for remote spotters from 500 meters by wire and  up to 6 km by portable UHF radio.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Appreciate this information and the vid, but concur with Oakheart on characterization of AK-12. Maybe it's the paint scheme, too, but to me, it looks butt ugly (and the weapon's butt does look ugly, too), elevating the AK-47 to the level of visual art by comparison. I'm not saying the AN-12 (also the name of an Antonov C-130 clone) isn't a tough reliable weapon. To get through State trials it would have to be, but I think soldiers prefer weapons that do their jobs well and look good. If both did well on the weapon end, I'd want the AEK-971, which not only gets the military job done but is scary looking (intimidation's always good) and has clean cool lines as well. And let's face it, if FMS figure in, sex appeal, if you will, is apart of the marketing equation. Aesthetics most definitely do figure in, and I now show this was an issue which concerned catapult designers in ancient Greece.
 
Philon, circa 250 BCE,  Construction of War Engines
Referring to a new type of catapult called the wedge engine, he has this to say, and it's very much marketing related, as is his prior listing of features and benefits for his innovative and more powerful version of a well-established key weapon:
 
"Finally, in appearance it is no less imposing than the others..."
 
Cited in Campbell's Greek and Roman Military Writers: Selected Readings, p184.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

apoll,
 
Truly remarkable options. You were offered a Webley, a British officer's revolver, which I suppose could be used in a Tiny QB, but what possible use would you have for this? I suppose it would make a good defensive position if you got to use fixed fortifications as the defender. And these, evidently, were the same options!  Glad you got it all sorted out and hope you weren't drinking or eating when confronted with such shocking options.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Gunhappy42,

You missed my point. Our Elite SpecOps warriors do have lots of experience and continue to accrue it. Vanishingly little of what they do, and where they do it, you'd be amazed, is ever reported, and it's not the successes. Those usually pass unremarked upon.

Until VP Biden ran his mouth at a cocktail party, for example, Delta, not the SEALs would've gotten credit for the UBL raid. It also took direct, unreported by the media, censorship of "Zero Dark Thirty" to prevent giving away the SEAL playbook--the how-to of operational planning, timelines, target mockup locations and more which would've jeopardized, for years, ops to come. As for combat, how about four SEALs vs hundreds of Taliban? There've been multiple encounters of this type. We've lost whole four man teams on occasion, but Taliban causualties have been astronomic by comparison. Talking hundreds in one fight, at times. There've been hot extractions which make Hollywood versions seem tame, too. Not exactly a few pirates!

Can, say, four SEALs directly stop an MRR? Doubtful. But what if Regiment and Division CPs go boom; if the ammo dumps (unbelievavly densely packed and not fire protected) go up in a spectacular, combat power eviscerating, display; if the 2S6 Tunguskas won't start, no matter what? What if the if cartridges start blowing up in the user's rifles and MGs; if within-own-lines jamming disrupts communication; if mobile CPs and artillery observation vehicles are taken out in rapid succession? How about delayed-action charges causing AFVs, ammo and fuel trucks to suddenly explode? These and more are all doable.

Organizations which don't encourage initiative tend to come unstuck when presented with unplanned for events, and decapitation type attacks offer particularly high leverage. As always, the enemy rear areas are rich pickings and upheaval there can take the steam out of an offensive in a hurry. Tunnels, bridges and other constrained locations also offer great possibilities for mischief.

Regards,

John Kettler

Vanir Ausf B,
 
How's this grab you? Taken from here. aw_mm's #11, dated 8/26/14. I have never seen the like of the kind of detail. During the Cold War, analysts got all excited because the someone managed to image the underside of a T-72 turret, for some reason upside down at the tank plant, allowing determination of the cavity size for special armor in the turret front. This makes that look like a nonevent by comparison.
 
 
"ERA is highly efficient per thickness - afaik it is the most space efficient armor. The reactive elements in the Soviet Kontakt-1 ERA consisted of a 7 mm thick layer of explosive sandwiched between two 2 mm thick steel plates (so the total thickness is 11 mm) which can reduce the penetration of a missile warhead by 400 mm. The optimal protection is achieved when the ERA is sloped, but at the roof this is not necessary, because pretty much all top-attack weapons strike from an angle (except artillery bomblets).

The only thing I was able to find about the actual Soviet/Russian ERA used on their MBTs is this picture from a Russian news website/blog:


It shows trials done during the development of the enhanced roof protection in 1983. The (1) marks the 50 mm thick anti-radiation layer installed inside the tank. (2) shows the 40 mm thick roof armor made of medium hardness steel. (3) is a 2 mm thick steel layer for holding all stuff together. (4) is a 80 mm thick polyurethane layer and (6) marks a 10 mm thick armor plate of high hardness steel under which a Kontakt-1 reactive element is located.

So the whole array would be: 50 mm anti-radiation liner - 40 mm thick roof armor - 80 mm polyurethane - 2 mm steel - 7 mm explosive - 2 mm steel - 10 mm high hardness steel or 191 mm of armor of which 90 mm are part of the turret roof and 101 mm applique armor.
According to said blog (if Chrome translated everything correctly) the armor was tested against an artillery bomblet with a penetration of 200 mm (dent in the armor marked with (8) ) and was able to resist it. 
Such a bomblet strikes perpendicular at the armor, against a missile like Javelin which will strike at an angle a protection of 400 to 500 mm could be expected in my opinion. Still this wouldn't be enough to deal with the Javelin missile, but then again it is a prototype armor from 1983. I'd expect at least the T-90 (1992) or T-90A (2005) to have upgraded roof armor."
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

CMC,
 
I did some specific number crunching on the best way to use artillery back in the CMBN Forum. I looked at ROF, both starting and sustained, fire density per unit time and several other parameters to establish how much ammo was expended, over how long, for each type of shoot specified. At the extremes, it went from Drizlzle to Smite. After doing the analysis, I concluded the way I'd been using artillery was inefficient. Have been up since 9 AM yesterday and don't recall what I concluded, though. Here's one such table, but it's not mine. Have done a lot of digging, but so far, nada.This has the CMRT Russian Data sheet, which clearly answers your questions for every available weapon. Several people identified issues, but DAF went hog wild with his research and analysis. 
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

pnzrldr (and BFC),
 
I have some questions for you regarding targeting priority for the BRM-3K and the two BSR/FD systems reported above and known as Lynx and Leopard, together with what I believe is a solid argument for removing the present range strictures on such RSTA systems. Apparently, under guise of an argument that operating at full power would get it killed by NATO air, the BRM-3K's BSR/FDR has been greatly reduced in terms of ERP (Effective Radiated Power, what actually gets sent from the radar antenna), considerably reducing its range and maybe more. Higher ERP goes directly, after all, to the critical S/N (Signal to Noise) ratio which is at the heart of the ability to separate a target from the radar background to begin with.  My argument is that the better way to operate would be at full power, but only coming out of dummy load briefly. The object is to secure a series of snapshots for SA, but to only radiate continuously as needed, such as when monitoring a fire strike on a target for purposes of adjustment or damage assessment. I'd like to raise some issues regarding the core arguments used to substantially defang the BRM-3K and, presumably, other such platforms whether vehicular or static.
 
Challenged Premise
 
The premise is that NATO air can "hear" the BSR/FDR and localize it well enough to permit prompt attack. I seriously doubt this to be correct, not least because RWRs are programmed to recognize SAM and ADA threats, which exist aplenty, not BSR/FDRs which pose no direct threat to the aircraft. Since so far I lack the operating freqs of the BRM-3K's radar, I can't say whether it's even in the freq range of radars the RWR would recognize in the first place. Based on prior knowledge of earlier systems, am strongly inclined to doubt the RWRs would even notice the emission.
 
What I might deem a technically credible argument is that the much more capable intercept equipment of the various dedicated SEAD/DEAD platforms, if it knew what to look for, and had the necessary spectral coverage, could potentially find the BRM-3K via its BSR emissions. But how likely is that? Not very. The Wild Weasel and such are dedicated intimidators and killers of SAM sites/launch vehicles and ADA sites/vehicles, of which there are far too many. In my informed view as someone who's read the relevant F-4G WW docs and had the chance to be briefed about the WW by a former top USAF WW pilot (who unprecedentedly was so much in demand the Air Force let him come back after he tried military aerospace and didn't like it), who was in my department, there was zero mention of any use of the F-4G for anything other than SEAD/DEAD.
 
If the above fairly states the military-technical issues correctly, then at the very least, most of the argument for defanging the BRM-3K goes away. Why not all? This is where pnzrldr comes in. The people who likely would be interested in the radar emissions from the BRM-3K would be the ground force commanders for the Army and Marines. I know jammers are already high priority targets, but what about the BRM-3K, and the bugaboo Lynx and Leopard systems described above, to name but two others? How big a threat are they perceived to be, if at all, and can you say anything about such systems being on the commanders' "this needs killing" list? Since there are only a few such vehicles to begin with, and each apparently supports an artillery battalion, it seems to me that removing the owning artillery battalion's best means of observing the battlefield, finding targets (including camouflaged ones), directing and adjusting fire, to including lasing for Krasnopol and such, would make such systems a fairly high collection priority and subsequent target. Is this, in fact, true? If so, I'd expect artillery fire to be the primary problem remover, with armed scout choppers or attack helos as the fallback position, particularly if there's a strong CB threat.  
 
Summing Up
 
I believe there's a sound case to be made for restoring full capabilities to the BRM-3K and any other such systems. It's bad enough that systems with extendable active sensors and weapons can't simply expose those while remaining defiladed, as a result of a maddening game engine limitation, but to compound the damage by cutting active sensor range seems both unfounded and unfair. If the argument is survival vs NATO FW air, then I think it's an argument highly porous at best. In my estimation, after that it comes down to the Army/Marines side of things. There I do believe the strong potential for localization and targeting exists, but what combat activity doesn't entail risk? I believe it should be up to the owning player to decide how best to use such systems as the BRM-3K. The Russians are no dummies when it comes to operating emitters in the face of counterfire, and you can presume they weigh the cost/benefit ratio very closely.  But does it make any sense to spend a boatload of money on radar, for a full-on modern war, that can detect, recognize and target items of combat interest: armor, trucks, personnel--at considerable ranges and not plan to use it in combat? Additionally, while this radar issue may not matter much on a small map, it's possible to envision situations where it could be a big deal indeed. How about the steppe? As the radar horizon calculator shows, if we set the BSR antenna height as 1 meter (awfully low since it's on top of a vehicle) and the searched for target at 3 meters tall, the BSR has a radar horizon of just over 11 km, more than enough to fully utilize its design range. Here's the radar horizon calculator HORCALC. I invite anyone interested to run the numbers. I sincerely believe BFC needs to revisit this matter ASAP, possibly fixing it in the first patch, if possible.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

ikalugin,
 
BFC itself has pronounced on this, and map size isn't the issue. It's where LOS is computed from, and the game's  not set up to deal with eyes, if you will, which aren't attached to the vehicle proper. Restated, you can draw LOS from the unbuttoned TC's eye to the target,  yet have the gunner still unable to see the target because the DF gunsight in the gun mantlet is still masked, meaning the cannon is also masked. This drives players crazy. "Why can I spot, but the gunner doesn't have LOS, so I can't shoot?" Back comes the explanation I've given you. Unlike WW II, in which very few vehicles ran their primary weapons from the roof, this is now fairly common, as seen in the Abrams, where all the sights, day and FLIR, except for the gunner's backup DF sight in the mantlet, also used for checking gun clearance over terrain, are on the roof. This is all well and good, except that the cannon is well below the roof sights! Here's what the 1.06 patch for CMSF said.
 
--- Citer ---CMSF v1.06 FEATURES

LINE OF SIGHT (LOS) & SPOTTING

• Enhanced LOS system takes into account the dynamically changing
heights of soldiers in different stances, and vehicles of varying
heights and the height of their crew positions and attached weapons.

This means things like MGs and ATGM launchers attached directly to the tank, when appropriately crewed, do generate LOS if other conditions so allow. The engine, which is, for this game's purposes, operating like CMSF's on steroids,  still has this fundamental limitation. Since I haven't played it myself, I don't know how Bradley ATGM launchers are treated, but I'm pretty sure the elevated TOW launcher and a big chunk of the Bradley have to be out of defilade, for we know this to be true of Krizantema in CMBS.
 
Thus, since LOS is generated as I described, the code apparently doesn't exist yet to permit sensors being used and weapons being launched from elevations which exceed those of the highest eyeball attached to the tank. Am no programmer, but I think it's reasonable to assert BFC needs to find a way to put various eyeballs and weapons in positions the current code simply was never designed, I believe, to deal with. When I found out that a well identified problem with such issues in even the latest form of CMSF still had not been addressed in CMBS, I was most unhappy and sounded off. Carefully and appropriately, as did many others. Frankly, my reaction was essentially, "I can't believe they didn't specifically address this in CMBS's design! After all, it's a known issue from CMSF, one people have been pretty vocal about." Weapons that pop up to fire and have the sights on the part which elevates, go at least as far back as the Buffington-Crozier disappearing gun mount, (invented in 1880) seen below circa 1900. The gun is completely defiladed until it clears the rampart, the target is directly sighted once the gun is fully up, the gun fires, and the recoil forces drive the gun back completely down below the parapet and close to the ground for reloading. Additional checking reveals the earliest disappearing gun design dates to 1860.




The US did tests in the 1970s of something like the disappearing gun, using a popup high velocity 75 mm ARES cannon mounted on a M551 Sheridan hull. You will note in this US Army official pic the sensors which operate at the same elevation as the gun. Though I wasn't able to link to another Army pic of the ELKE (ELevated Kinetic Energy), it's on the second link's page and neatly shows the tactical advantage the popup weapon mount confers. The gun, with its attendant remote from the testbed vehicle sights (apparently now on other side) is not in defilade, while the vehicle proper is, evidently on a reversed slope at that.   
I fervently hope BFC will find a way to fix the issue I've detailed and soon. CMBS proves quite convincingly that exposure = detection = kaboom. But we're not in WW II, where at 1500 meter range, on average it takes 17 rounds to get a hit. Now, it's one round. The partial exposure of the vehicle for basic LOS calculation from the shooting at it end is driven, I believe, by looking at the center of mass of the sought AFV or vehicle, not the center of mass of the exposed portion only. Or I could have this all wrong, but from what I can remember that's how it works. Certainly that's true when shooting, for the aimpoint on the target is known to be Center of Mass and has been so stated by BFC.
 
It all comes down to the current grim reality that a bunch of AFVs and softskins, which should be able to take advantage of their observe and/or fight from full platform defilade, can't. This has the effect of inflating overall losses at the end and causing wholly unnecessary rapid degradation during the game of a unit''s military potential because shots which could've otherwise been taken at the enemy and inflicted losses, can't be taken because the friendly firing unit died earlier because it was unnecessarily exposed to fire. 
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Marwek77,
 
Were I in your shoes, I would not run the BRM-3K around with tanks. Rather, I'd try to find it a series of protected locations from which it could observe the terrain to find enemy troops, vehicles and camouflaged positions via comprehensive sensors, which include the ability to establish target position to 20 meters, more than adequate for artillery fire. This thing is a super spotter and is typically tied to an artillery battalion to the rear. Here is the list of its capabilities. And just look at the BRM-3K sensor suite.
 
(Fair Use)
 
"Equipment installed to enable the vehicle to carry out its specialised reconnaissance role includes the mast-mounted 1RL-133-1 battlefield surveillance radar, which can be retracted into the vehicle when not operating; the 1PN71 thermal night observation device; the 1PN61 night observation device; and the ID14 periscopic laser range-finder.
The electro-optical devices are mounted on either side of the turret and, when not being used, the optics are covered by a hinged shutter that opens to the left.
 
The 1D14 periscopic laser range-finder has a magnification of x 7.3 and x 18 and a maximum range of 25,000 m. This laser is mounted on a turntable and can be used by the vehicle commander for reconnaissance purposes with an arc of 60° regardless of the position of the turret.
 
The 1PN61 active pulse night vision device with laser illuminator has a magnification of x 7 and a range of 1,500 m in the passive mode and 3,000 m in the active mode. This is mounted externally on the right side of the turret.
 
The 1PN71 thermal observation device operates in the 8 to 14 |im waveband and has a magnification of x 3.7 and x 11.5 and maximum target identification range is 3,000 m. This is mounted externally on the left side of the turret.
 
The 1RL-133-1 radar detects vehicles out to a range of 8,000 to 10,000 m and people out to a range of 4,000 m, with the actual ranges depending on the terrain. The radar can be elevated to a height of 1 m and traversed 240° left and right regardless of the turret position.
 
It is also fitted with the latest TNA-4-6 navigation device, 1T129 coordinator and the 1G50 gyrocompass to enable it to determine quickly its own position on the battlefield."
 
Given the above, I think it's profoundly ill advised to go gadding about the battlefield with a brace of T-90s for company. This thing's sensors probably put its cost, not to mention the highly trained crew needed, at several T-90 equivalents.
 
stikkypixie,
 
In light of what I now know about the BRM-3K,  I believe it's significantly more capable than a B-FIST, not least because it also has a BSR fitted.
 
gunnersman,
 
Though I seriously doubt it's modeled, the BRM-3K is set up for remote spotters from 500 meters by wire and  up to 6 km by portable UHF radio.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Dadekster,

I fear you've got your metaphors mixed up. You slap someone's face with a glove, but you throw down the gauntlet. I will admit, though, that your approach is certainly hard to ignore and is highly provoking.

Regards,

John Kettler

JasonC,

I never ceased to be amazed by the stuff you know. Do you have a time machine and count these weapons as they come off the production line?

On a more serious note, the 37s aren't going to be covering the frontoviki per se. Rather, they'll be protecting HQs, supply dumps, bridges, choke points, defiles, key transportation assets, and similar. Again, this is exactly the way they were used in the Cold War, and the doctrinal writings also emphasize flak traps, surprise fire and orientation on expected axes of attack. Mobile assets on halftracks will have similar priorities, but will move with the protected formation. I say this having done threat laydowns for everything from a Lead March Security Detachment to all of East Germany at the start of a conventional war.

A nation which still uses linear artillery deployments is going to do the same thing then that it does now. It's simply a matter of qualitative and quantitative improvement. Flak coverage probably will extend past the FEBA/FLOT, but that's a side effect, rather than a deliberate choice. AAA assets are limited, and commanders ruthlessly protect only the essentials--starting with themselves. It starts with troops firing rifles, MGs and ATRs into the air and goes up from there, clear to the radar-directed 85mm KS-12s and 100mm KS-18s defending the Kremlin. Every unit has some sort of air defense, and when you start plotting all those weapon range circles on a map, it starts to get ugly for any intruding aircraft.

Regards,

John Kettler

Bil,
 
I saw the US/UKR latest info first, and my questions there are now moot. Quite the game, and I'd say this Beta game between you and pnzrldr, coupled with ChrisND's videos, were instrumental in getting me to buy CMBS. I certainly did have a longstanding interest in modern tactical warfare before, including my wargaming background, personal studies, a depressing outing with AH's could've been great but bore no resemblance to reality MBT and my work as a Soviet Threat Analyst, but to see the matured versions of weapons I knew, or were aborning, in combat was both engrossing and practically terrifying. The carnage per unit time would've been unbelievable, had I not figured out the overall OpTempo and lethality trends decades ago, but it was still shattering to behold.  Thanks very much for doing this, and it's a shame the Beta went into an irrecoverable spin!
 
If you never served in the US military, it's just as well for the enemy, for you are a combat machine. Every time you play in a Beta I learn at great deal, but if I'm ever to beat you, you need to stop improving while I devote a year to playing against tough opponents. Then, I might have a chance. Or I could simply play you, get walloped, and come back a few months later after thoroughly analyzing my thousand mistakes! But even one would likely be game fatal.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

mjkerner,

How I yearn to be average, then! Not even close--when I have the necessary circuits firing so I can play.

Skwabie,

The answer must be of course. Else, how are the tankodesntaniki supposed to protect their armored steed? In practice, and I seriously doubt this could be coded, the SL is behind the turret, fairly well protected, kneeling or squatting and positioned so that he can either bang on the hatch, when the tank's buttoned, or get the TC's attention when unbuttoned. He's doing the real spotting. The rest of the squad is a) hanging on for dear life while looking for close-in threats out to, say, 0-100 meters. Guys with Tellermines to guys with Panzerschrecks. Brrp. Brrp. Gefallen im Krieg!

Regards,

John Kettler

Stalins Organ,
 
You are correct, sir. Many moons (not Moons) ago, brother Ed received a cool Walker Bulldog tank toy for Christmas. Not only was it battery powered, but it had a lever on the rear deck which, when pushed forward, cocked and fired the gun which fired plastic "shells" at impressive velocities. Want to say the maker was REMCO. Believe there was also a Renwal Walker Bulldog kit. Man, were those kits detailed--long before detailing really existed. At one time, I had an M42 Duster. 
 
(a bit of digging later)
 

 
And here's the cover of the now confirmed Renwal M41 Walker bulldog model. This collector's site (best I can tell not selling anything) itself is grog central, with a superabundance of goodies, including the splendid AFV Profiles.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Marwek77,
 
Were I in your shoes, I would not run the BRM-3K around with tanks. Rather, I'd try to find it a series of protected locations from which it could observe the terrain to find enemy troops, vehicles and camouflaged positions via comprehensive sensors, which include the ability to establish target position to 20 meters, more than adequate for artillery fire. This thing is a super spotter and is typically tied to an artillery battalion to the rear. Here is the list of its capabilities. And just look at the BRM-3K sensor suite.
 
(Fair Use)
 
"Equipment installed to enable the vehicle to carry out its specialised reconnaissance role includes the mast-mounted 1RL-133-1 battlefield surveillance radar, which can be retracted into the vehicle when not operating; the 1PN71 thermal night observation device; the 1PN61 night observation device; and the ID14 periscopic laser range-finder.
The electro-optical devices are mounted on either side of the turret and, when not being used, the optics are covered by a hinged shutter that opens to the left.
 
The 1D14 periscopic laser range-finder has a magnification of x 7.3 and x 18 and a maximum range of 25,000 m. This laser is mounted on a turntable and can be used by the vehicle commander for reconnaissance purposes with an arc of 60° regardless of the position of the turret.
 
The 1PN61 active pulse night vision device with laser illuminator has a magnification of x 7 and a range of 1,500 m in the passive mode and 3,000 m in the active mode. This is mounted externally on the right side of the turret.
 
The 1PN71 thermal observation device operates in the 8 to 14 |im waveband and has a magnification of x 3.7 and x 11.5 and maximum target identification range is 3,000 m. This is mounted externally on the left side of the turret.
 
The 1RL-133-1 radar detects vehicles out to a range of 8,000 to 10,000 m and people out to a range of 4,000 m, with the actual ranges depending on the terrain. The radar can be elevated to a height of 1 m and traversed 240° left and right regardless of the turret position.
 
It is also fitted with the latest TNA-4-6 navigation device, 1T129 coordinator and the 1G50 gyrocompass to enable it to determine quickly its own position on the battlefield."
 
Given the above, I think it's profoundly ill advised to go gadding about the battlefield with a brace of T-90s for company. This thing's sensors probably put its cost, not to mention the highly trained crew needed, at several T-90 equivalents.
 
stikkypixie,
 
In light of what I now know about the BRM-3K,  I believe it's significantly more capable than a B-FIST, not least because it also has a BSR fitted.
 
gunnersman,
 
Though I seriously doubt it's modeled, the BRM-3K is set up for remote spotters from 500 meters by wire and  up to 6 km by portable UHF radio.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Michael Emrys,

I understood the intended message, but it was too much fun to pass up. That said, I narrowly avoided multiple semantic gaffes in the thread on the article about the history of BFC. Still, tough to top a doozie I saw in a book I'm laboriously reading. "One much prefers to be thought a fool than be thought a nave." Don't know about you, but I have zero interest in being part of a church's architecture!

And Bil marches and grinds on, providing us with insightful running commentary and fabulous AFV screenshots. Meanwhile, I think Elvis has shown both teeth and an appetite to use them. So far, it's been a nip here, a nip there. Will he last long enough to make a proper bite? In any event, rabid or not, Bil clearly plans to put him down.

Regards,

John Kettler

Icecold,
 
Welcome aboard!
 
Good question, and I find the resulting discussion helpful. Found a small, badly translated article on the Constellation system. It appears from this the actual hardware which concerns us is called Tral-D.  I like your avatar. Where did you find it? Looks like a great piece of pinup art--to the extent I can see details at all.
 
LukeFF,
 
Since you indicated Constellation is affected by jamming, would you please say, if you know, whether the system uses frequency hopping and/or spread spectrum?  Was under the impression both had significant jam resistance. Understood, in fact, that at least during the Cold War, spread spectrum was unjammable. Even a strong jammer having to cover such a range of frequencies wound up being diluted, if you will, to ineffectiveness.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Here are my initial impressions. The load screen's armed MTLB was stunning, leading me to hope for better graphics (have only 256 MB VRAM on Intel 3.06 Core 2 Duo iMac w/4 GB HD, OS X 10.7.5) than I have in CMBN. Was I ever right. Tremendous difference verging on miraculous. Thank you, BFC! The rendering, considering, say, what Barkmann's Panther looks like, even CMBN 3.11, is almost jaw dropping. Before that happened, though, I ran into repeated sound glitches, interruptions and hangs while loading, which made me wonder what was going on, together with what seemed to be abrupt jumps in the score. Loading was much faster than full on CMBN lacking only the Vehicle Pack, but this may be from interactions involving coding, file size and other matters, alone or in combination. In-game sound was bell like in clarity, thunderous, reverberating. And I was listening to it through my internal speakers. Am going to have to really be careful when wearing headphones and encourage everyone here to do the same. 
 
Selected QB and picked Armor on Armor--Auto Select. Hit button and waited several seconds to be taken to Briefing. Same thing when going from Briefing to game. With very few forces on the board, there was a significant delay before the turn began. But when it did...Let's just say the Americans got the drop on me, raining 25 mm fire on the rears of several BMD-3s pointing the wrong direction. Boom! Boom! Boom! M1A3SEPs went racing up the hill (and I do mean racing), knocking out one T-90 frontally while running and gunning, but at least it didn't explode. The AMP round did, though, right over the crew which had gotten out. Nasty business, war. But it wasn't all in favor of the Americans, for my other T-90s lased two Abrams perpedicular to and in front of them and hit and penetrated at least one. Was very hard to tell because of two tanks' worth of broadband obscurants in the way. With the tanks all behind the smoke, the presumptive Bradleys had another go at my BMD-3s, which had had no time to react, so were still mainly headed for the village while executing Move orders. More explosions. In one minute of combat, half my force was destroyed. Those used to WW II gunnery, movement and OpTempo are in for quite a terrible shock from this game. It was blazingly fast, but having analyzed such modern combat dynamics for many years, I was prepared for the speed and the carnage, at least to some degree.
 
BFC, you guys have outdone yourselves! Even with my anemic video card, the game looks great. The vehicles are spectacular, and the men (was too busy to do anything with them, so spared only a glance) looked good. Terrain's very nice, particularly after being stuck in the bocage. What I especially loved is that the UI is now crisp, clear and easily readable--a huge contrast to the bitmapped awful eye test of yore. Bravo Zulu. Well done. I would suggest, though, you return the Go button to bright red. I almost missed it because my brain's programmed to look for that. While I do know the basic UI and controls, I still find it impressive I was able to bang out commands and be in battle in under two minutes. This has huge implications for people who wish to play but are time constrained, for CMBS is a near instant game when played with QBs and force Auto Select once core parameters are decided. I had the forces set faster than the time it took to get to the Briefing after that.
 
All in all, I'm hugely impressed, and will, of course, share my excitement with my brother and others who may be interested (or whom I waylay). I believe you have not merely a real winner, but more like a, if not the (my bet), top computer wargame for 2015. As far as I'm concerned, this game is a category killer at minimum and ought to win a Charles Roberts Award. I almost feel sorry for your so-called competition. I hope you've got room there for all the awards--I expect a slew to come. This is how I'm responding with a total of less than ten minutes spent, beginning with loading the game. You know I'm no sycophant. I call them as I see them, and as they say in comedy, this game kills! 
 
Regards,
 
John Kettker

Here are my initial impressions. The load screen's armed MTLB was stunning, leading me to hope for better graphics (have only 256 MB VRAM on Intel 3.06 Core 2 Duo iMac w/4 GB HD, OS X 10.7.5) than I have in CMBN. Was I ever right. Tremendous difference verging on miraculous. Thank you, BFC! The rendering, considering, say, what Barkmann's Panther looks like, even CMBN 3.11, is almost jaw dropping. Before that happened, though, I ran into repeated sound glitches, interruptions and hangs while loading, which made me wonder what was going on, together with what seemed to be abrupt jumps in the score. Loading was much faster than full on CMBN lacking only the Vehicle Pack, but this may be from interactions involving coding, file size and other matters, alone or in combination. In-game sound was bell like in clarity, thunderous, reverberating. And I was listening to it through my internal speakers. Am going to have to really be careful when wearing headphones and encourage everyone here to do the same. 
 
Selected QB and picked Armor on Armor--Auto Select. Hit button and waited several seconds to be taken to Briefing. Same thing when going from Briefing to game. With very few forces on the board, there was a significant delay before the turn began. But when it did...Let's just say the Americans got the drop on me, raining 25 mm fire on the rears of several BMD-3s pointing the wrong direction. Boom! Boom! Boom! M1A3SEPs went racing up the hill (and I do mean racing), knocking out one T-90 frontally while running and gunning, but at least it didn't explode. The AMP round did, though, right over the crew which had gotten out. Nasty business, war. But it wasn't all in favor of the Americans, for my other T-90s lased two Abrams perpedicular to and in front of them and hit and penetrated at least one. Was very hard to tell because of two tanks' worth of broadband obscurants in the way. With the tanks all behind the smoke, the presumptive Bradleys had another go at my BMD-3s, which had had no time to react, so were still mainly headed for the village while executing Move orders. More explosions. In one minute of combat, half my force was destroyed. Those used to WW II gunnery, movement and OpTempo are in for quite a terrible shock from this game. It was blazingly fast, but having analyzed such modern combat dynamics for many years, I was prepared for the speed and the carnage, at least to some degree.
 
BFC, you guys have outdone yourselves! Even with my anemic video card, the game looks great. The vehicles are spectacular, and the men (was too busy to do anything with them, so spared only a glance) looked good. Terrain's very nice, particularly after being stuck in the bocage. What I especially loved is that the UI is now crisp, clear and easily readable--a huge contrast to the bitmapped awful eye test of yore. Bravo Zulu. Well done. I would suggest, though, you return the Go button to bright red. I almost missed it because my brain's programmed to look for that. While I do know the basic UI and controls, I still find it impressive I was able to bang out commands and be in battle in under two minutes. This has huge implications for people who wish to play but are time constrained, for CMBS is a near instant game when played with QBs and force Auto Select once core parameters are decided. I had the forces set faster than the time it took to get to the Briefing after that.
 
All in all, I'm hugely impressed, and will, of course, share my excitement with my brother and others who may be interested (or whom I waylay). I believe you have not merely a real winner, but more like a, if not the (my bet), top computer wargame for 2015. As far as I'm concerned, this game is a category killer at minimum and ought to win a Charles Roberts Award. I almost feel sorry for your so-called competition. I hope you've got room there for all the awards--I expect a slew to come. This is how I'm responding with a total of less than ten minutes spent, beginning with loading the game. You know I'm no sycophant. I call them as I see them, and as they say in comedy, this game kills! 
 
Regards,
 
John Kettker

Childress,
 
Regarding the statistical analysis you reported in your #9, what number did you mean here? 
 
"He cites the probability of this statistical occurrence as 1 in 16,0000 plus".
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

For gamers here in the States, at least, pizza is a favorite gaming adjunct. It's generally consumed during or after the game, particularly when in a social situation--where great quantities disappear in short order. The valuable information at this link may cause many to take a hard look maybe not at pizza per se, but whence it comes. I was hankering for pizza today, and in my search for the best chain pizza, found this, which cost Dominos a sale. I believe this link to be within Forum Rules, for it's information and offers no competing games.
Nor is the below author's name hype.

If You’ve Ever Eaten Pizza Before, This Will Blow Your Mind (Maybe Literally)
By Food Babe

http://foodbabe.com/2014/03/23/if-youve-ever-eaten-pizza-before-this-will-blow-your-mind/

Regards,

John Kettler

Badger73,
 
You're most welcome. Being just past the halfway mark, I find a certain anxiety building over what to read next that can possibly top this reading experience. Should you essay the book, you are in for a tremendous experience and quite the grog fest.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler
 
P.S.
 
After or during reading it, you may wish to repair to the other grog. The kind formerly served out by the Royal Navy. 

Scase, russwg1970, QuiGon, alaskanbiker56, Blyskawica
Welcome aboard!
 
I've been reading these pre-release CM discussions, including the one for the CMBO Gold Demo scenario, for 15 years now, and I must say the quality of the discourse has improved dramatically. Never did I think I'd be encountering cogent analyses of software development pros and cons, let alone waterfall marketing. Even the quality of the fulminations against BFC and its overseas shipping practices has gotten better! That said, I'd be mightily perturbed to be stuck with an additional 75% just to get the game across the Pond and into my hot little hands. Historically, the typical post in a thread like this was rather akin to...
 



Bravo Zulu, people. Repeat. Bravo Zulu.  
Regards,
 
John Kettler