Amedeo

By the way, after seeing the second video about the "Last stand at Rumpenheim", I'm wondering whether simply swapping M1s for M60s and M2s for M113s would be enough to transform a nearly-impossible (from the US side) scenario to a cakewalk for the defender.

In a test scenario if one wants to minimize the impact of dust on spotting, in addition to setting wind speed to zero, it's also important to set ground condition to damp.

Interesting points. However, it should be considered that a procedure used by M60A3 TTS gunners was to acquire potential targets with the thermal sight at 3x magnification and then switch to the 8x daylight mode to identify them. Whit such a technique, the usefulness of even a crappy (in terms of resolution) TS would have been enhanced. Of course, I'm not saying that the US Army fielded crappy thermal and then was forced to use them in conjunction with day sights (the AN/AVS-2 thermal on the M60A3 TTS was even better, in terms of resolution, than the one fitted on the original M1), I'm saying that even a poor TS can be useful in the field. I agree, however, that even this limited usefulness might not justify the expense of equipping thousands of tanks with them - especially if a better solution is already in the works.

... also CMCW, since the gun entered service in 1981. Moreover, the gun itself was already obsolescent in the early '80, in the CMBS timerframe it's clearly obsolete. Its only real advantage could be the ability to see through even thermals obscurant smoke. And, yes the MT-12R Ruta has a RADAR fire control system, it's not merely a rangefinding device. Радиолокационный прицельный комплекс управления огнем «Рута» (archive.org) library.voenmeh.ru/jirbis2/files/materials/ifour/book2/book_on_main_page/9.9.htm

Maybe that's because that I'm on the other side of the pond...

I preordered the book on December 11th. It's still listed as out of stock. I hope there will soon be a second print run, it would be a pity if I don't get the book before, well, before WW3 begins in earnest! Just kidding... about the war, I mean, not about the preorder.

Another way - I mean, without doing the math - to understand that the counterintuitive answer to the Monty Hall problem is true is with an empirical test. You only need a collaborating partner and three game cards, one of which is, say, an ace. Then just play the game "guess where's the ace" a hundred times, twice. The first time without changing your original choice, the second time always switching cards and record the relative frequencies both times. You will see that the frequencies will approximate the probabilities given above. This. Classical probability is a measure of our ignorance, not a measure of an objective property of a system. If our knowledge changes, so does probability. This is in contrast to what happens in quantum mechanics where probability seems to be ontological rather than epistemic (actually it depends on the interpretation but... well, let's not start another OT in what already is an OT ).

Is that a BRDM?

As Codreanu said, no thermal imagers on Soviet production tanks during the Cold War. The fist tanks to ne so equipped were (or were intended to be) the command versions of the T-80U, that is the T-80UK but, even if some of them reached first line units just before the fall of the Soviet Union, it was at a time when the Cold War was over. So, even if the CMCW timeframe would be expanded to, say, 1989, by future modules, there's no chance to (realistically) see Soviet tanks with thermals in the game. On the other hand, the USSR did trial some prototype thermal imagers during the late Cold War, here's the photo of a T-80B equipped with such a prototype: Many years ago, a funny anecdote by colonel Murakhovskiy about these trials was reported on the TankNet forums. A Soviet tanker, showing his enthusiam after having used the new sight, basically said that thermal imagers were the best thing since sliced bread and asked his commander whether the Americans were working on something comparable. But, after the officer replied that thermal imagers were already standard issue on all new US tanks and IFVs, the tanker paled and became gloomy never to speak again. Poor chap!

Well the MT-12 is, indeed, equipped for indirect fire. But I wonder whether it was likely to see such a use in a typical CMCW (not CMBS) scenario, also considering that (in game) each (off map) gun is allotted 40 HE shells. Way above what the on map MT-12 has. Anyway, gotta love a gun that is called like the blades I use for shaving!

It's not uncommon to obtain frontal penetration against an Abrams with 3BM22 armed tanks even at 2000m range in CMCW. And T-80B/T-64B tanks are kinda able to shrug off most M774 hits at that distance; the problem is that the M1 will likely obtain a "lower hull hit" after a couple tries, and no Soviet tank is likely to survive such an hit.

Since there's no T-64B variant in game expressly labelled "1980", I presume you mean all T-64B tanks from 1980 onwards. Thanks for the clarification.

Speaking of typos in the manual: did you (or some other of the beta testers/devs) say that also the T-64A in CMCW uses the BM15 (and not the BM12)? Or am I remembering it wrong? Thanks.

I agree. But it's worth noting that, even during mid-late '80s, the air assets actually capable to use PGMs were in short supply, even in NATO air forces. For example, the only planes (again, I'm speaking about the Central Europe theatre) that were able to autonomously (i.e without external designators) drop LGBs were USAF F-111s and F-4s. Other planes had no capability whatsoever or a theoretical capability but no stocks to speak of, IIRC. It's probably not a case that also the tiny Italian air force contingent lost a Tornado to Iraqi AAA during a low altitude bombing pass. The point is that if you zoom low with many planes, you are bound to loose some to AAA and small arms fire, over dense concentration of troops. IIRC, RAF Tornados were then employed as medium altitude (laser) bomb trucks but, then, the aforementioned problem of insignificant stocks of PGSs presented itself.

Speaking of fighters, if we focus on the air war in Central Europe both the MiG-31 and the F-14 are out of the equation. The first was a PVO interceptor whose sole purpose was the defense of mainland USSR from strategic bombers/cruise missiles, the second would have been busy with fleet operations, everywhere in the world save for the IGB. Thus, the only NATO air superiority assets, available at start, to fight over Central Europe would've been those of the TWOATAF and FOURATAF. And, even in the mid-late '80s, the only all-weather and BVR capable units were the Eagle equipped 32nd TFS and 35th TFW (USAF) the Hornet equipped Squadrons No. 409, 421 and 439 (RCAF) and the Phantom equipped 92th and 19th Squadrons (RAF). Period. All other NATO fighter units in theatre were equipped with "light" fighters (F-16, F-104, F-5, Mirage 5 etc.) with no BVR capability. Thus, even against the maligned MiG-23, these fighters, while capable dogfighters, would have to dodge volleys of SARH AAMs before the merge. Moreover, NATO fighters had also the burden of escorting air strikes deep behind the frontline in a SAM-rich environment and against a redundant GCI radar net (no possibility of a stealth surprise airstrike against A-50 AWACS à la Clancy to clear the way, simply because... there were no A-50s in Central Europe, the few existing ones at the time were also a PVO only asset). If someone is thinking: why bother with deep strikes over enemy airspace, just defend over your own airspace... well, I presume that without some serious FOFA, NATO airplanes wouldn't have made the difference in WW3. And Western air forces had to manage this after (literally) tons and tons of explosive hurled against NATO airports and SAM sites in the form of ballistic and cruise missiles (and, possibly, bombs). Of course the Red Horde (TM) wouldn't have emerged unscathed from this ordeal, quite the contrary. But, probably, they had the numbers to better survive this attrition war, if the other Warsaw Pact assets were able to reduce/delay US reinforcement in the theatre.

The grass is always greener on the other side of the... iron curtain! The USAF was impressed by the fact that its planes couldn't totally dominate the air space over North Vietnam and decided to adopt a pure (no compromises for air-to-ground) air superiority fighter, the F-15A, complemented by an agile smaller (no BVR, no full all-weather capabilities) plane, the F-16A, that would best in a dogfight even the nimble older MiGs. The Soviets, on the other hand, were impressed by the fast, heavily armed, sophisticated, multirole US planes (F-4, F-111...) and wanted something similar. The MiG-23 was the first fighter aircraft in the Frontal Aviation (FA, I'm not talking about the PVO) with BVR capabilities and with sensors that made it not totally dependent on GCI. The MiG-27 was the first strike plane in the FA to be armed with a sophisticated navigation-attack computer, smart ordnance, 30mm Gatling cannon etc. Did it work flawlessly? No. Although I suspect that, in case of a general air war over Central Europe, the Floggers, with all their faults, would not have been something to scorn, considering that many NATO fighters were at the time slower, with poorer all-weather capabilities and with no BVR capability to speak of. Not every bird is an... Eagle!

To see Soviets heavies, it would be enough to extend the game timeframe to 1976, since that was the year when T-10s, IS-3s (and IS-2Ms too) were retired from the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany. But I can understand why your would like to see some Conqueror vs IS-3 matchup... although an attack lead by Leopard 1s against defending IS-2s would also be fun to play.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That model will be introduced in the module featuring the Armed Forces of the Republic of Kazakhstan!

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.

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.