IMHO

***SPOILERS*** To be honest it's been a quite while since I played it so I may miss some specifics by now. As far as I remember the only real thorn in the flesh was T-90AM that overwatches the bridges. Both roads to the bridges are too obvious and possible overwatch positions are too enticing so I didn't take them at the start. But that was the first time I met T-90AM and I was too used to Russian tanks having poor situational awareness. So I lost half a squad to T-90's thermals Sudden onrush of tank reinforcements in the big town was unexpected but since I'm very careful when clearing towns with infantry it was a mere surprise rather than a real threat. The sequence I took was big town in the bottom right corner first, then coming back to you starting position and from that going to the town in the top left corner. I don't remember what route I took to the last town in the top right corner - just recall it was uneventful. Looking at the map again what I'd pay attention is first, I'd have a lot of infantry overwatch in all the woods in the center before moving your armor from your starting location to the top left town. And moving to the last town I'd take fords rather than go through the bridges. Bridges look dangerous to me with plenty of sweet overwatch positions. Other than that it looks like however meticulous but pretty straightforward town clearing with the infantry. Please don't use spoilers in your reply, Cry Havoc was one of the most enjoyable scenarios I had and now I've forgotten it enough to have another go at it

You get information about enemy positions. But IMO in "Cry Havoc" you don't really need a Raven. All the bad moves you can potentially make that an UAV can prevent are bad per se - Raven or no Raven. And for the good moves having a Raven does not help much in this scenario.

Simply sending the bird and then turkey shooting with "Precision strikes" would be dull and uninteresting, don't you find? For me the average lifetime for a Raven with Tunguska(s) present is something between 2 and 4 minutes. You can try to harness the maximum from this period by pre-positioning your forces near the suspected SPAAG sites and then listening carefully for Tunguska fire. Normally it takes more than one burst to take down Raven so you can quickly relocate Raven's mission to the suspected site and with some luck get a bean on Tunguska before it kills Raven. But I wouldn't expect Raven to live long enough to actually direct the strike itself.

If a scenario designer writes "it's a cakewalk" I always read it as "we will kick your ass as hell" Because if it's really that simple they do not write anything I guess if you JUST go through the field or say the long paved road to your right you'll be scorched. I didn't try but from the Bradly position I got on my one and only play of this scenario - it should have pretty good oversight of the field. So here comes the ditch that's deep enough to hide even BTRs. But I personally would rather spend my time on AD Myrne Roadblock. Bradley is really straightforward and with Myrne one can try different approaches - there's no one simple solution to the task. PS And I guess it's actually Mirniy rather than Myrne. Mirniy is "peaceful/tranquil" in Russian

I'd rather not post it on an English-language forum - it's too detailed. Please understand it's not arrogance or disrespect.

https://echo.msk.ru/programs/arsenal/1621962-echo/ The interview of then CEO of UVZ where he said the number of Armata-based vehicles in the State Defense Procurement Program is 2300 by the year 2020. Do you see them around?

2A82 is whole one meter longer than 2A46 so it's impossible to miss. Do you have a picture of T-90M with a longer barrel? PS That's not T-90M but it illustrates the point.

I dunno - it was posted in one of the Russian tank groups

Not sure should I put it into Russian or Ukrainian thread http://btvt.narod.ru/4/tender.htm - tank trials document of the Greek tender. It's well known in the Russian/Ukrainian internet but may be new to the English speakers. It's in Russian so use google translate - sorry, it's quite long to translate manually.

Don't be - it's just the game and different people like different gaming styles. My record was almost 2 hrs of examining the AO before I ever made a first turn. That was for Debaltseve devils. Out of AD series try the "AD Myrne Roadblock" - it's a marvel.

Nope, I do mean domestic version. UVZ actually demonstrated two T-90M prototypes - one with 2A82 and one with 2A46-M5. AFAIK so far the actual delivery is with 2A46 and even Armata is mostly to be delivered with 2A46. There are fundamental production problems with 2A82: higher tube pressure for 2A82 requires steel grades that are no longer produced en mass in Russia. Relevant Soviet steel works were scrapped due to cost optimization. May be that'll be corrected but it will take quite a time.

AFAIK T-90M still uses the latest reincarnation of 2A46. 2А82 is almost one meter longer - it differs visually.

It takes a while to waste Armata budget.

Diagonal ditch running parallel to the diagonal orchard dirt road. It gets all of your force all the way to the rear - even BTRs may fit. I just had to be careful with the intersection when the ditch changes direction. And I guess the ditch was created as an intentional solution. But I spent quite a time making sure there's no ambush. Sometimes scenario designers create too obvious a way to avoid a frontal assault and put an ambush on the way to trap smartasses. I didn't need the tank. Bradley is impossible to see for BTRs but I used the trick when one's infantry detects the enemy armor and one orders his armor to area fire with lines of fire crossing the enemy vehicle. Since BTRs are shooting at Bradley's rear - it's deadly. Though the Bradly still did manage to kill one BTR before dying. Overall the scenario seemed too obvious for me. All other approaches are nearly suicidal in my opinion.

RPG-29 can be disassembled in two pieces. Russian Army has PG-7VR for close-quarters and Kornet for long-range engagements. Why add another weapon to an already well-balanced mix? PS BTW the same warhead is also used by RPG-32. It has higher velocity than PG-7VR but lower than RPG-29. But it's comparable in length to RPG-7 with grenade attached so not as bulky as RPG-29.

No, I wasn't involved in BMP-3 operations. As far as I remember the use of ATGMs over 30mm I lifted from the talk of BMP-3 trainer that was posted to UAE when they bought BMP-3s. They have pretty rigid rules of what ammunition to use in what situation though I'm not sure it's followed to the letter in real-life combat situations. Actually it was pretty lengthy and interesting description of how BMP-3 behaves in hot and sandy environment. It looked very balanced - neither a poster propaganda nor a senseless bashing. PS I got the impression from his description that original BMP-3 simply stands little chance even against a modernized T-55. But that's my own interpretation. Like if you see a tank in broad daylight just hide somewhere immediately, if you're not able to then shoot an ATGM and hide anyway. He was kind of critical of original BMP-3 sights/battlefield awareness yet he praised BMP-3's ATGMs themselves.

My post was a reply to this one.

@Aquila-SmartWargames, some points against your logic: BMP-3 has an autoloader so it takes just couple of seconds to load a round. My guess would be aiming 30mm takes more time than loading an ATGM. AFAIK autoloader does not support unloading the rounds. If you have a round loaded you have to shoot. For an autoloader to work the gun inclination must be within certain limits so it means aiming 30mm may well result in ATGM not being loaded. ATGMs and 30mm aiming angles will be different obviously so aiming 30mm actually delays an ATGM discharge. AFAIK IRL the standing order for BMP-3 crews is to engage tanks with ATGMs and NOT 30mm. So if TacAI behaves like this it simply contradicts real life.

They had used Thales matrices for locally produced tank sights not the FLIRs of French origin. That was for tanks bought by Russian Army and up to the moment the sanctions put an end to that. Exports markets were covered by French sights wherever client desired. China produces them as well. Actually I do suspect supposedly Russian-made decoys are actually re-branded ones of Chinese origin

In my experience the worst case is against modern Russian tanks. If a TOW vehicle launches against a tank from forward arc then it's more probable the TOW vehicle ends up dead than the tank. I sometimes use double launches from different directions so that whatever Bradley the tank decides to aim at will break the contact and the second Bradley will finish the tank nonetheless. Though one wasted missile always breaks my heart

I haven't done proper testing but I have a feeling the drone spotting is random enough - just like ground units spotting. That means to infer even a generic conclusion one needs dozens of tests with identical setup. I'd say closer to a hundred at least.

Why should most modern Russian hardware be worse at spotting than a dated American one? It seems you're falling a trap of "if it's not invincible uber-waffen it's useless ****" In my experience TOW Strykers is at least no worse at spotting than the best of Russian BMPs. It's worse than the best Russian tanks but that seems fair. I prefer to avoid using any vehicles for initial recce. I deploy all kinds of vehicles only after the battlefield is thoroughly investigated by foot units. Since spotting is a random game in CM I find it a risk too much to deploy vehicles and rely on better battlefield awareness inherent to American hardware. If your foot units see all enemy vehicles then you can catch the moment the enemy detects your vehicles and you can safely order your vehicle to break the contact and retreat. But that's usable only in RT games. In my experience placing TOW Strykers in a position where it can be spotted from many quarters is too risky. The probability that one enemy vehicle or another will spot and open fire after the launch is just too high. Especially Russian tanks. So I deploy them in a keyhole positions with multiple fall-back position to retreat and gradually grind on advancing enemy armor whenever possible. I never use TOW Strykers (or any other vehicles ) from a forward arcs - too easy to be spotted by the enemy, I always shoot from sideways. In my experience if you follow all these rules it's quite possible to win firefights even with Russian armor facing Americans. Just avoid risky setups - you should always have an advantage in number of eyeballs observing the battlefield. And fall back to prepped positions if overwhelmed.

Have you done proper testing? In my experience BRMs are much better in detecting enemy armor in forward looking arcs compared to line BMPs.

1. Can you provide a cross-checkable list of cases when they were empoloyed on massive scale in recent battles and played a decisive role in modern warefare? 2. CMxx is mostly a (reinforced) company level simulation. You seem to wont to turn CMxx into a modern BTG simulation. I guess you believe it'd make it more interesting but it wouldn't. Modern warefare is much more brutal so a reinforced and properly combat supported BTG equals to a regiment or division of good ol' times. As a division commander you'd be firstly and foremostly playing the game of chess of your immediate subordinates you'd been given the command of and secondly trying to squeeze as much of the logistics and (combat) support chain as humanly possible. And since your superiors would normally fail you on both tracks you'll have no one but you to recoup. Making it too realistic will kill the game.