Jump to content

IMHO

Members
  • Posts

    1,054
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by IMHO

  1. That's true. That's not true. Now speaking about CMBS. Trees have some sort of ellipses (that's my best guess as to approximating function ) to represent the tree crown. I don't have exact numbers from testing but in my experience they're different for different kinds of in-game trees. They're matched to visuals as best as humanly (CPU?) possible. Since it's a best match to the actual trees so tree crowns do not start from the bottom of the trunk. In many cases you can see through the tree crowns yet your pixeltruppen won't. Knowing when they won't one can use it to his/her advantage by moving behind those ellipses where you H2H opponent may see you yet have no way to shoot at you I'd say CMBS LOS is the best in class!
  2. Interesting. Does the smoke from the burning vehicles obscure both IR and "normal" vision or just the latter?
  3. I tested 122mm and 155mm precision rounds in CMBS against T-90s and BMP-3s - something like 30-50 of each caliber against each kind of target. I had many cases of 122mm direct hits on tanks and never got a kill - just equipment degradation (or track damage should the round have landed nearby). In my experience direct hits for precision rounds are about 1/3-1/2 of all shots so it should be 10-25 hits for each caliber. So I kinda doubt a 122mm can kill a tank in CMBS It kills BMP-3 pretty easily but I really doubt 80mm can do the same though it's just off the cuff opinion not based on testing. PS Sorry, I didn't track the exact progress as rough estimates were enough to answer the question I had back than. PPS I was testing to understand what effect should be considered satisfactory to stop expending precious ammo. So my conclusion was an M-kill is a VERY good result for 155mm precision vs T-90. Yes, 155mm can kill a T-90 but it's not that often to really plan for it.
  4. Distance? Angle? Soviet/Russian or Western penetration?
  5. You select a flight profile at the launch then the missile follows it automatically. For the seeker to work there should be some thermal gradient between the target and the background. I don't have a first hand experience but if other uncooled seekers are a proxy then few degrees would suffice. Small arms being actively used from inside enclosed spaces should be ok. Javelins are ubiquitously used in Afghanistan to target DShK nests. May be people who actually used it can comment. PS Though Javelin's direct attack is not as "direct" as KBP's laser beam riding so you can't actively guide the missile.
  6. There's a direct attack mode usable against field fortifications.
  7. What is this 9 pack of presumably unguided rockets? UPD I found out those are blanks to imitate shooting, part of MILES gear. Never seen it in pics, thank you so much!
  8. Having discussed this with that Foreign Intelligence Analytics guy it was the crux of the problem. Just like Kennedy-Lemay exchange at the time of Cuban Missile Crisis. JFK asked what Soviet Union would do should its forces on Cuba be bombed out and overrun and Lemay said they would do nothing because responding would mean the end of the world. The view that "they will never escalate to strategic" was promoted by the military but only because if we assume "they will" it automatically kills the need for huge armies, takes away generals' jobs and MIC's budgets. So on the Soviet side generals were allowed to say there's a room for avoiding going strategic yet it was done just not to alienate very influential armed forces. On the political level the untold understanding was it would escalate pretty quickly. And not because Soviets would have set the precedent by using tactical nukes first but just because Soviet Union had a massive superiority in conventional forces in Europe and loosing any sizeable part of Western Europe was unacceptable for NATO. So NATO would be pushed to strategic to avoid this unacceptable outcome. Another thing was Soviet's "rush to the Channel" strategy was driven not only by the desire to avoid American reinforcements reaching the other side of the Pond but also by the calculation that the Soviet Union cannot afford a long and protracted war. Economically OVD was no match to NATO. And by the second half of 70s - first half of 80s the Soviet Union critically depended on the West - oil and gas sales to the Western Europe, grain purchases from Canada and the US etc. Even limiting Soviet access to grain market would have meant severe rationing of calorie intake if not an outright hunger. Soviet Union imported 47 mln tons of grains in 1985 (45.6 by other estimations), 40% of all bread was made from imported wheat (36% if we count in imported rye). Locally produced wheat in Soviet Union was mostly feed grade not suitable for bakeries. Also Soviet cattle and poultry production very much depended on imported corn. So NATO had an option of not winning militarily yet stalling and waiting for the Soviet economy to implode into itself. Thus the only option the Soviet Union had was to get a quick decisive victory that would have secured a favorable negotiation position. Even a limited scale conventional war would have meant automatic trade sanctions and the end of Soviet Union's economy. But to get this quick and decisive victory the Soviet army should have brought to NATO a total military disaster on the fronts. And such a disaster would mean NATO had no other option but to go strategic pretty quickly. So in reality there was no solution to this problem.
  9. IMO you mix up duration and how advanced an opponent might be. I.e. Afghanistan "caveman" War is the longest War in American history. Can you provide examples of such "cavemen only" systems? IMO almost all American systems would fit easily a near-peer war. Except may be for Super Tucanos but they are quite rare. IMO the state of things are quite the opposite and America's using very advanced and expensive systems designed for a near-peer conflict to fight "cavemen" whereas much cheaper systems will suffice.
  10. Than for the US only China will count as a real war in your definition. Russia is far from being equal to US's might. History shows nations now rather avoid having wars with near-peer opponents so should we prepare for wars that never be?
  11. As long as you don't try to tamper with system processes CMBS behaved well and allowed proper switching between iGPU and dGPU right up to the moment I tried to change the GPU settings for Window Manager and a bunch of other system processes to reduce GPU temperature (DWM sometimes creates an inordinate load on GPU). After that - no luck. I reverted back all the settings yet CMBS still "prefers" iGPU.
  12. ICM should have no troubles with disposing of with the tanks shouldn't they? You're aware the old US Army calc for HE damage on the armor was a grave underestimation don't you? There was a thread some years ago where I posted the test range results. PS Gosh I've been to this place for well over 20 years by now. I remember I opened an account with CMBO discussion with my first post-grad job PPS Just as much as you are
  13. Unfortunately due to the game settings these do not convert into kills I.e. direct top hit to a tank from a 122 HE mortar would most likely end in KO though ingame it's no more than a mere one notch degradation of EITHER tracks or sighting IMO there are few things that really kill the game outright as compared to RL and HE effect on armor tops the list (together with AGL fire in CMBS )
  14. Agree with what you said yet it somehow does not make a different game mechanics for me. May be something's wrong with my take on the game I don't have CMCW yet it sounds like DPICM would have just walk CM's arty barrage just one step close to RL - big or small That IS deadly to armored units IRL.
  15. Thank you so much. Now it's one of my most listened to tracks!
  16. Thank you so much, @CMFDR. Now I have the name to the rhyme long loved!
  17. Russian MIC would love this statement. But not the Russian MoD How do you define the REAL war? To me - the real wars are the ones one has to fight now or in the near future. And those seems to be "to assassinate individuals in civilian settings" for the time being.
  18. And what exactly be the AirLand contribution to the game as compared to "good ol'" off-map fire support except for Air Support missions could sometimes (or always) be spoiled by AA defense assets? Just a "mission success rate" qualifier would have done the very same job Air support does in CMxx as of now.
  19. It seems those 15yrs old openGL libraries Cmxx is using have the mind of their own System selection worked just fine until I tried to lower power consumption on dual-GPU laptop with changing the settings for some system processes. Now i can't revert it back however I tried CMxx really sucks at however modern laptops
  20. I guess he might have the same iGPU/dGPU selection issue as I do. One does not really need even 10xx to run the game - the problem is the engine chooses to employ iGPU sometimes despite all the system settings and having a better dGPU to use @IanL
  21. You're using them just right. The usual detect-destroy cycle. Yet if you want low casualty rate you'd be forced to use direct fire support. Well Armata's thermal imaging is sourced from China. Not to mentioned less (or even more ) obvious things.
  22. @MikeyD IRL it suck at 500m The RL range ends at 300m - just a notch above RPG-7. That was the main reason for the switch to 30mm high velocity gun for BMP-2, if anyone can call Russian 30x163mm a really high velocity gun They tried an upgraded Zarnitsa 73mm gun but despite a heavy lobbying the performance spoke of itself.
  23. Well the problem is it's not Intel that wasted 15 years on land purchases and local community development HOI4, ARMA3, TWR2 runs flawlessly - it's just CMBS problem and it shows up only if I run it in a dual GPU configuration Have a single GPU - CMBS runs OK if using about half a gig of dedicated VRAM and thus degrading visuals. But for a big rig with 1.2KW power source who cares I only started having troubles when I tried to use my 2560x1440 display with my laptop of NV1070
  24. Well... Last time I checked it can be interrupted in CMBS at least I mean looking in the wrong departments really In CMBS (and as far as I remember in CMSF2 as well) an ATGM targeting may well be interrupted by a quick response at least from a tank gun. Actually for CMBS that's one of the main problems - tanks react (I believe) unrealistically too promptly even to FaF missiles. So digging up for differences in ATGM speeds is kind of... misplaced endeavours I believe
  25. @Sequoiayou'd better put the time period you want the answer for
×
×
  • Create New...