Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Amedeo

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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! 😄
  4. Go to System Preferences / Security & Privacy and allow your Mac to open the "suspect" CMCW installer.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. As you noticed, in 1983 there should be no new piece of kit around that did not already enter service by 1982. On the other hand, new improved ammunition models were introduced in 1983: TOW-2, M833, 3BM26 etc... these could make a difference, although "introduced" doesn't necessarily mean "in widespread use".
  8. Very interesting thanks. BTW, I wonder what the "antitank gun over 100mm calibre" (page 299) could be in 1982, since the 2A45 was still to enter production and service. Maybe 130mm M-46 guns were sometime used as AT assets?
  9. Point taken for the AH-1F/S case. Although I'm still skeptical about the 3BM22/3BK18M upgrade for T-64Bs in 1980. The manual and the patch readme don't explicitly specify years, although both the manual and the readme show a couple typos, so it might also be the case.
  10. Yes. And this answers the original question: is the T-80B in 1980 equipped with a better APFSDS round than in 1979? No, because it won't be possible with the current game engine without renaming it, say, T-80B (1980). Moreover, they wrote in the manual that all T-80s are armed with 3BM22 APFSDS, so I wonder what this "better" APFSDS round might be... Anyway, this is what I got; If I'm mistaken, maybe someone of the devs will chime in to clarify things.
  11. I'm not saying that it is true because it's, in principle, impossible otherwise, I'm saying this is the case because of what the developers and beta testers said about the current game-engine. Please, check this thread: in particular, this post: and (the last sentence of) this one.
  12. All I'm saying is that they explicitly said this is impossible because of how the game-engine is coded.
  13. I presume that with "name" you're referring to "type". Anyway, we do know that the ammo doesn't change because BFC said that a given vehicle can have only a single specific version of a given type of ammo, and something that has a specific name is the same "object" regardless of the year. That is a tank armed with the 105mm M68 gun might have both APDS (say M728) and APFSDS (say M735) ammo, but it cannot have two different kind of APFSDS rounds (say M735 and M774). It's a game-engine thing. Thus the only way to change the specific model of a given type of ammo is to have an identical tank with a different name - e.g. T-72A and T-72A (1980) - yes, I know that the 1980 model sports also additional minor differences (for example smoke grenades) but this is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
  14. I doubt this is the case since developers and beta testers explicitly stated (if I'm not mistaken) that a given tank type always sports the same ammo loadout. I think it's also an engine-feature issue (cannot change the loadout of a vehicle without changing the its name). For the T-72A and the T-72A (1980) the loadout is different but, in that case, the "name" is different too.
  15. I remember the first references to the 82mm Vasilek mortar in Western magazines around 1984-85. Some hyped it as the umpteenth Soviet threat to which NATO had no equivalent/countermeasure, other disparaged it as a poor piece of ordnance, albeit the automatic feed. Anyway, it would be nice to have the 2B9/2B9M in future modules.
  16. IIRC, they said that is exactly what happened. A typo in the patch readme, I presume.
  17. It is also worth noting that a similar problem prompted the adoption of the new Tunguska SPAAG. The ZSU-23-4 was marginal (in terms of range) against TOW and HOT equipped attack helicopters. The introduction of the combination Apache/Hellfire completely outclassed the Shilka, range-wise.
  18. I'm talking about the AA role. The M163 had a shorter range and was not capable of engaging Mi-24V helicopters outside the envelope of their ATGMs. US Army was perfectly aware of these shortcomings and the DIVAD was the (unsuccessful) attempt to develop something really comparable to the ZSU-23-4 or the Gepard.
  19. Well, in game SPAAGs could be perhaps overperforming but, in real life, the M163 should be wimpier than the ZSU-23-4. I remember back in the '80s that the consensus was that US Army lagged behind the Soviet Army in the mobile air defense department, and the eventual demise of the ill-fated M247 Sergeant York added insult to injury. It will be interesting to see the Flakpanzer Gepard in action when the Bundeswehr/NVA module will be released! 😁
  20. Addendum I realized that the tables I posted in the above message could not be an easy read for many forum members, so I'm adding a couple of clarifying comments. The first table lists the total of tanks, IFV/APCs and artillery pieces for all Soviet (non-reserve, non-mobilization) Tank Divisions at the "end of the '80s" (actual data might be from the fall 1990 CFE treaty). The first column of the table shows the Tank Division number (the abbreviation гв. stands for Guards). The columns with the figures in bold are the totals (всего) of, respectively, tanks, APCs/IFVs, SPHs/ordnance/mortars/SPAAGs. The names of the individual pieces of equipment are easily recognizable (I presume). Tanks are the easiest, since the cyrillic Т has the same shape of a latin alphabet T, thus T-64 means, well... T-64! . The rest is an easy guess, for example: БТР-60 is BTR-60, БМП-2 is BMP-2, Д-30 is the D-20 towed howitzer, 2С1 is the 2S1 SP howitzer and so on. The second table shows the number of tanks in the Divisions and Independent Tank Regiments of the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany (later Western Group of Forces) in 1987 (1st January) and 1990 (19th November). The first column lists the Armies (in order: 1st Guards Tank, 2nd Guards Tank, 3rd Combined Arms - formerly 3rd Shock, 8th Guards Combined Arms, 20 Guards Combined Arms), the second column lists the units. Just consider that танковая дивизия means tank division, мотострелковая дивизия means motor-rifle division, отдельный танковий полк means independent tank regiment and гвардейская is an adjective that can be translated as "Guards". Both the columns under the 1987 and 1990 headers shows figures for the total number of tanks in the unit and the total number of T-80s in the division (the general total includes the T-80s). What is important is that, if we have to give credit to those numbers, there's something wrong with the 1985 figures describing the distribution of T-80 tanks in the GSVG from Michael Holm's site (the reference I used to compile the table in my first post in this thread. Please notice that I have no evidence to suggest which of the two set of data is wrong, mainly because neither clearly points to a primary historical source; I just want to clarify that they are incompatible. The "1985" dataset suggests a relatively high number of T-80 tanks in Germany, concentrated in less than half of the divisions present. On the other hand, the "1987" dataset suggests a less massive presence of the T-80 -about half of the tanks of the other dataset - but more distributed, that is: almost every division has a company/battalion/regiment worth of T-80s. Strangely enough, the only division that is almost fully equipped with T-80s in the "1987 dataset" (the 94th Guards Motorized Rifle Division) is one of the division that has no T-80s whatsoever in the other set!
  21. Seconded! More flexibility with the QB system would be a welcome addition.
  22. @Combatintman Yes, I have a copy of the book by Fes'kov et alii you mentioned. You are right, there are a few inconsistencies but there's nothing better around (AFAIK, of course). BTW, there's a revised edition of the same work, dated 2013, titled: The Armed Forces of the USSR after World War 2: from the Red Army to the Soviet Army - part 1: land forces. Of course Michael Holm used heavily this source, but the strength returns from 1979 and 1985 are probably from some Western intel source because in the aforementioned book I only found detailed figures for the end of the '80s. Moreover, the figures I gave above are obviously only an estimate to be taken with a (big) grain of salt, because they all sum up to the exact TOE totals for all the divisions listed. Here are the strength returns for Tank Divisions from the book relative to the end of the '80s (actually, the numbers seems to be from the 1990 CFE treaty returns, I couldn't find any difference, although I admit I didn't try too hard): As can be seen, totals from each division vary wildly, so I doubt that in 1979 or 1985 the situation was very different. Moreover the 1985 figures are incompatible with the 1987 data one can find in Fes'kov: It's worth noting that the information contained in these two tables comes from Lenskii & Tsybin's work: Soviet Land Forces in the last year of the Soviet Union. And, in turn, the figures for 1st Jan. 1987 in the last table, ultimately come from a 1998 issue of Tekhnika i vooruzhenie. For what concerns the OMGs, I presume you are well acquainted with the works of the late Richard Simpkin. I remember reading something in 1984 or 1985 but, although Simpkin's book and articles sparked debate in NATO circles, operational forward detachments were not a novelty in Soviet doctrine.
  23. A quick and dirty summary of the tanks present in the various divisions of the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany, I compiled this from the data available on the excellent Cold War Soviet Army OoB site by Michael Holm. These are only ballpark figures (and some smaller units are missing, namely a few independent tank regiments) but this should be useful to get the overall picture.
  • Create New...