Jump to content

Amedeo

Members
  • Posts

    525
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Amedeo

  1. Well, don't consider the "end of service" date for a given piece of equipment as a reliable indicator for what frontline Soviet troops in central Europe can be expected to be issued with. Even in the '80s there were Soviet divisions in central Asia still equipped with T-34-85 and IS tanks but, of course, you won't fond these AFVs in CMCW, and with good reason. Basically the Soviets didn't throw away anything (e.g. the last remaining IS-2s in Germany were sent back to the USSR, not scrapped, in 1976!) , but GSVG troops and Western Districts troops tended to have state of the art equipment. Sort of.
  2. Photos of Soviet troops involved in suppressing the 1956 Hungarian revolt, show that the AK was practically ubiquitous. So, I presume that it's safe to assume that in 1957 for Soviet front line troops in Germany/Eastern Europe the AK was standard issue.
  3. Yes, a 1957-1962 setting would be interesting. Speaking about small arms, from the Soviet side the transition from the AK to the AKM should be less dramatic than the one from the M1 to the M14 - in game terms I doubt there's any noticeable difference between these two Kalashnikov models - on the other hand the transition from the RPD to the RPK should have more impact. Anyway I'm perfectly aware that the chances of a late '50s-early '60s CMCW game are very slim (euphemism), but that's not really a problem. I just hope that the expected modules for the 1979-1982 timeframe will see the light in the coming months.
  4. IIRC, only the airborne divisions and the marine FMF completed the full transition to the M14 by the beginning of 1962, while the bulk of the US Army completed the transition by the end of the year. So, in that year, some American infantry units might still be equipped with M1 rifles.
  5. Yes, you're right. The diagram could show an earlier version or even a prototype. Maybe even the "infamous" Leopard 2AV that allegedly resulted less armoured than the M1 during the evaluation trials.
  6. That model will be introduced in the module featuring the Armed Forces of the Republic of Kazakhstan!
  7. Yes, I think you're reading it right. Anyway consider that at the time that chart was made (I guess late '70s early '80s) data available about both the T-72 and its ammo was scarce. So actual results might differ for better or worse. What really amazes me is that a T-62 that is considered capable of penetrating a Leopard 1 at 1800m (and the Leopard 1 was not famous for its heavy armour) is still able to penetrate the thickest part of the turret front of a Leopard 2 at 1000m! Even though the people who made the chart could not be aware of the real performance of newest Soviet hardware, they surely did know the ins and outs of the Leopards. If this chart is not fantasy, I guess that many of the estimates I've seen for the frontal turret protection of the Leopard 2A4 are way off.
  8. Then, to fix this glitch they'll have to remove the shadow on the T-64 and... add the guidance module on the T-80! Yes, this is said tongue-in-cheek but I'm not kidding too much. In fact, while there was a T-64B1, that is a T-64B without the guidance module for gun launched ATGMs, actually there was no T-80B1, ever. That is: no T-80B was ever produced without being ATGM capable. Of course, I am for keeping the "T-80B1" in the game, just to represent a different ammo loadout for the T-80B, but if one has to fix its 3D model, the ATGM sight should be added, not the shadow removed.
  9. Well, I don't dispute this. My only point is that, if one wants to but Khrizantema TDs in a QB, it would be pointless not to provide them with IR-blocking smoke cover, considering the only advantage its sensor have that is is the game is the capability to acquire target and shoot them through every type of smoke (real kife Khrizantema has also other peculiarities, i.e. mast mounted sensors and multplte targeting capabilities that, for reasons due to the game engine, are not represented in CMBS). Anyway, the Khrizantema-smoke ruse is old story, not a game-winning strategy but it seems I'm not the only one (see link below) that found it viable to enhance the poor game performance of that TD - then, that that increase in performance is enough to warrant buying them in QBs is another story, but, again, I'm not suggesting buying them, I'm only saying: if you buy them, then buy also smoke covering AFVs).
  10. Well, of course it works only if you are in the defensive and fire from keyholed positions. Smoke can only help you to use these tank-destroyers in their intended role, it won't allow you to use them effectively in the offensive or at short range. In the first situation the original poster described, a smokescreen could have saved its TDs and allowed him to fire back.
  11. Bringing the Khrizantema to a knife fight is a recipe for disaster. Haiduk already explained its intended use. However, dont' forget that this missile tank destroyer has a radar sight that works in game. So, pairing a Khrizantema with e.g. a BMP-3 providing IR-blocking smokescreens will allow you to engage US armour at long range without risking being targeted by them (as long as the smoke doen't disperse). And, when it doesn't risk being fired upon, a Khrizantema can be very deadly, considering that it has enough penetration to frontally defeat an M1A2 and salvo fire to overcome APS defences.
  12. ... and don't forget Leopard 2s! Possibly the best tanks NATO fielded in the game's timeframe.
  13. I doubt that a single "Battle for Scandinavia module", as described, will be viable for BFC: too much stuff (not that I wouldn't buy it instantly). Perhaps, as already stated, an "Arctic" module featuring Norwegian Army, USMC, Soviet Naval Infantry and Soviet Motor Rifle Divisions with infantry on MT-LBs instead of BMPs/BRTs. That's all. Then, maybe, a Danish/Polish module, assuming the VDV and NVA forces needed for a proper "Danish invasion" scenario were already included in the 2nd (Bundeswehr/NVA/US AB/VDV?) and 3rd (BAOR/Canadians/Dutch?) module. Swedes and Finns are probably out of the equation, since this would require more than five CMCW modules! Not that I wouldn't like to see even more, but no CMx2 title managed to have more than three modules, to date. On the other hand, until a few months ago, we were sure that a Cold War CM game would have never seen the light, weren't we?
  14. Polish forces were also earmarked for the invasion of Denmark, so Danish troops should be present in a module featuring Polish paras and marines.
  15. If one nitpicks Napoleon's blunders one can make him look a bad commander enough; but you know that he also won a lot of campaigns and he won them against Armies and States that, at the time, were considered the best in the world. Moreover, he won them with a level of success that was unprecedented (e.g. the magnitude of Napoleon's smashing of Austria in 1805 and 1809 was something that Frederick the Great could only have dreamed of). To say that the best commander is the one that is never defeated puts too much weight on chance. Had Napoleon died for natural causes in, say, 1810, according to your metrics you should have rated him one of the best commanders ever (if not the best). Also in sports, the best team is not the one that has never lost a match (especially if plays only with sub par adversaries in a single season) but is the one that routinely confronts and beat other top tier teams. So, in this respect, I do think that Napoleon was a superb commander. Having said this, I admit that, yes, the 1812 Russian Campaign was a strategic blunder and this error eventually lead to the loss of his Empire. But even if his conquest were ephemeral, it was the personal fate of the individual named Napoleon Bonaparte that was defeated, not what he was actually fighting for: he eventually lost but managed to win enough to make the conquests of Revolutionary France shape the future of Europe, and not the pseudo-feudal institutions of most of the old monarchies that opposed him. In this respect, Napoleon's fate was in somewhat similar to Alexander the Great's one: he died, his Empire fell apart, his son died young and was never on a throne. But what he did influenced for centuries the future of the territories he had "lost".
  16. If the problem originates from the inability of the AI to adapt to these LOF restrictions and not from coding issues per se, it would be nice to have the possibility to disable this feature in human vs. human games.
  17. Well, it was also monobloc. So, save for being tungsten and not DU, more similar to the M774 than to the M735.
  18. The armour on the T-64 (and on base T-72, for what matters) was designed to stop 105mm APDS, not APFSDS (simply because there was no 105mm APFSDS in service or near to enter service at the time). Thus, I expect the T-64A to be frontally impervious to the M728 (save for the lower hull and the occasional weak spot) and marginally effective against the M735. The M774 should not have particular problems at normal combat ranges. On the other hand, the T-64B is a different beast. According to the infamous Kubinka tests, its armour (comparable to the one on the T-72A) should be very good against the M735 and fail against the M774 on the glacis (especially the upper glacis). I'm assuming that the alleged M735 test took place and that the M111 is more comparable in performance to the M774 than to the M735, we have no incontrovertible data about these assumptions but they seems reasonable to me for a number of reasons I have partially detailed in another thread. Considering the data posted above and in the other aforementioned thread, I dare to say that in CMCW T-64A's armour is more resilient than it ought to be, but this advantage is offset by the fact that very few hits land on the turret cheeks (where there's the thickest armour) and a lot on the hull (especially on the lower hull), and US gunners are able to score a lot of hits even on extreme ranges. I presume that some tweaking of the T-64A protection and hits distribution and rate is already in the works but I also presume that the next patch will be concomitant with the Steam release, so we have to wait some more time.
  19. Well, the Iraqi T-72s were issued 3BM15 APFSDS rounds, that is an early '70s penetrator that had no chance, frontally, against the depleted uranium armour of an M1A1(HA). So, there's no need to assume Iraqi tanks were issued practice rounds to explain their ineffectiveness, since their best round available was just as useless as a candy bar. Maybe the fact that the obsolete/obsolescent 3BM15 was relegated to "practice round" role in the Soviet Army at the time of the US-Iraq Gulf War, gave origin to the story about the issue of "practice rounds" to Saddam's forces. But, AFAIK, no Soviet client state, outside the Warsaw Pact, had access to anything better than 3BM15 before 1991. Long story short, an M1A1(HA) was able to obtain first round hits and (catastrophic) kills on a T-72M1 at distance at which the T-72 wasn't even able to see the Abrams (at night), let alone hit it. If we factor also the difference in numbers, training, morale, air support etc. I simply don't see the need to explain the one-sided results of the 1991 with further unlikely assumptions.
  20. My understanding is that troops riding outside their BTRs/BMPs in Afghanistan/Chechenia were doing that only where mines were considered a more likely threat than AT weapons and small arms fire. The Soviet Military Encyclopedia (published 19776-1980, thus very relevant to the CMCW timeframe) clearly states that tank riding tactics lost their importance in the postwar period because of the introduction of armoured transports. Of course the practice didn't totally disappear, but I guess that tank riders in the Soviet Army of the '70s/'80s were more likely to be found in propaganda photos than on the field. I'm not saying that it wouldn't never ever happen, but, well, if we are talking about the first days of a hypothetical WW3 in Central Europe, I don't expect to see a Soviet assault with tank riding infantry. Yes, it could be a nice feature to have but, as already pointed out, it would be too much a pain to implement, given it wouldn't be an expected/viable tactic. I think there are a lot of more urgent/relevant features to add.
  21. Yes, a BAOR/4th CMGB module (complete with a First Clash campaign, ça va sans dire) would be a nice second module, after the Bundeswehr/NVA one. Well, actually, it would make also a nice first module!
  22. Go to System Preferences / Security & Privacy and allow your Mac to open the "suspect" CMCW installer.
  23. Yes, there is a Mac version. It runs well on my 2014 vintage Mac Mini but it might have performance issues with the newest Apple computers with the M1 processor. Anyway, if you have a Mac with an Intel processor, you should be able to run it without particolar problems.
  24. Vismod T-44 tanks were often used in Soviet movies as props for German Panzers. Panzer-44: tankist_31 — LiveJournal Moreover, the KV-1 in the movie isn't a real KV but a movie prop with a false turret on an IS-2 chassis.
×
×
  • Create New...