Amedeo

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.

IIRC, they said that is exactly what happened. A typo in the patch readme, I presume.

Excellent!

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.

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.

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!

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!

Seconded! More flexibility with the QB system would be a welcome addition.

@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.

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.

It's a pity that CMCW struggles on a M1 MacBook when it runs smoothly on my old 2014 vanilla model MacMini. Let's hope that Apple will improve the performance of legacy intel code on the future releases of Rosetta.

IIRC, both the M2/M3 and the BMP-2 mistakenly got for their cannons the same armour piercing ammunition of CMSF2/CMBS, that is 25mm APFSDS and 30mm APDS. Actually, in the early '80s, both guns used less performing ammo (namely 25mm APDS and 30mm APBC) so, after the upcoming patch, the Bradley could perform a little worse against MBTs with its Bushmaster cannon (although it should be a threat even frontally to some tanks, e.g. T-55s, when striking at weak points).

Or, just drop smoke with the mortars (IIRC Bradleys can see through smoke but can't guide ATGMs through it) and close with the tanks for a kill?

I'd like to see new modules for CMCW and new games that will (slowly) cover the rest of WW2 in the ETO, giving priority to the Eastern Front (including the Winter War) and the war in North Africa, but, hopefully, ending with Fall Gelb and Fall Weiß. I'm not that enthusiastic about having, say, a three year hiatus for a new CMx3 engine and then seeing again the third incarnation of CMBO and CMSF3.

Yes. Moreover, while US unbuttoned TCs are only keeping their head above the armour, unbuttoned TCs on Soviet tanks often are literally sitting on the turret roof, thus being more exposed to splinters, blast, ricochets, you name it (although forward-opening hatches partially shield their body).

Just for the record. I managed to dug up a reference to one of the older TankNet threads I was talking about. This is a post from another forum with a link to an old (i.e. no more active) TankNet forum address. There's an excerpt of the relevant post quoted, however. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showpost.php?p=576481&postcount=3

Of course it was a purposely designed QB on a pool-table like map pitting T-72As vs M48A5. The Pattons opened fire at 4000 m and scored a lot of hits with their obsolete APDS rounds, managing also to penetrate their targets on gun mantlets and lower hulls.

@FinStabilized Thank you for taking the time to reply in depth. For what concerns the Kubinka tests, what I'm saying is simply that I wasn't able to trace a source about them that was not in turn traceable to what was reported on the TankNet forums (and other Russian webpages, allegedly). I cannot point out to posts still present in the forums, the discussion started in the early 2000s. I quoted the above post by V. Fofanov, since he was involved in reporting col. Murakhovskii's recollections. Jim Warford is also a top poster at TankNet's and I'm positive that what he wrote in his article regarding the Kubinka trials was collected from the forums. He didn't wrote about the M735 because he (understandably) thinks it was unlikely American APFSDSs were smuggled from West Germany. Interestingly enough, if you open War Thunder and test the T-72A against M735 and M111 at 1500 m you'll find exactly the same results I described above (i.e. M735 fails, except at weak spots, M111 easily pierces the glacis but fails against turret cheeks). Not that I'm advocating considering War Thunder as the ultimate simulator (it isn't) but I think it's not a coincidence that that game (developed by a Russian company) reproduces the aforementioned conclusions about the Soviet tests. Having said so, I'm basically in agreement with your main thesis. Roughly speaking, I think that T-72/T-64A level protection (frontal armour excluding weakened zones) should be proof against M728, vulnerable against M735 (hull) and M774 (hull & turret), while T-72A/T-64BT-80B level protection should be proof against M728 and M735 and vulnerable against M774 (hull).

Perhaps you're right, maybe they accidentally switched the protection levels. Just now, there are some M48s butchering my T-72As with 1960s vintage APDS rounds at a range of 3000m plus! (mainly Lower hull and weapon hits, nonetheless...). P.S. I don't know how much faith one can put in the hit decals' locations. I mean, I'm not sure they display the exact impact point. I always thought decals were intended mainly to be eye candy,

Yep. Glantz is not exactly the best prose writer. Amongst his books, the ones with the best style are the ones written with Jonathan House.

Yes, I'm sure the SBWiki penetration values are point blank and not at 3000m because the very first line of that page contains the words "measured at the muzzle". Speaking of the M111, I know that some consider that round as similar in performance to the M735 (the same SBWiki does) but I simply wanted to remember that, in the mid '80s, Zaloga stated that its performance was similar to the M735A1 (and thus more in line with the M774 than the M735). Zaloga's statement was not based on Israely marketing hipe. In the same book I quoted before, Zaloga said also that Israeli sources claimed the M111 to be superior (!) to the latest US DU APFSDS (i.e. M774 and M833) but added that an US officer, asked whether this could be true, just chuckled. Why are we discussing the M111? As you said, because of the notorious "Kubinka tests". Now, the only written published source about these tests (at least the only one I know of) was an article written by James Warford for the magazine Armor. The article said that the Soviet tested M111 APFSDS rounds against the T-72A in 1983 (circa) and were shocked when they found that the M111 was able to penetrate the tank's glacis. The article also reported that US made M735 APFSDS were allegedly tested, and the T-72A was found to be proof to them. The author wrote allegedly because he thinks it was unlikely that the Soviets managed to smuggle US ammo from West Germany. But fact is that the only things we know for sure is that an Israeli M60 (with ammo) was recovered by the Syrians in 1982 and shipped to the Soviet Union (the Kubinka museum recently agreed to sent it back to Israel in exchange for another one - they did this because Israeli officials asked the return of what was considered a "war grave") and some time after, a 20mm appliqué glacis plate for T-72/64/80 tanks. Period. Actually, all the details we "know" about those tests were based on the recollections of colonel Murakhovskii (he, again) that leaked on internet forums: I'm referring in particular to the Tank-Net forum. The fact that the tank tested was a T-72A, the fact that it was tested at 1500m range, the fact that the Soviet found that the glacis was penetrated and the turret was proof, the fact that also the M735 was tested (actually it was said, generically, it was an "american APFSDS", but, if true, I think it's a safely assumption that we're talking about the M735, not the M774). I'm not stating that these details are false. I only want to point out that, as far as I know, there are no other independent confirmation of them, other than the aforementioned forum anecdotes. So, I went on and tested the M735 against a T-72A in CMCW, expecting it to be basically proof against that tungsten APSFSD, but.... see below. In my tests the M735, against a T-72A at 1500m, obtained 46% Superstructure front hull penetrations (!!!), 15% Upper front hull penetrations, 15% weapon mount penetrations, 15% Lower front hull penetrations, 9% Turret hits (no penetrations). That was totally unexpected! Especially considering the results of your tests against the T-64A. I don't know whether I managed to get a string of unlikely results (I "destroyed" only a dozen tanks to get my data - I don't claim any statistical relevance) but, now I presume that the problem might not lie in "underpowered" US APFSDS (since their results of both the M774 and M735 against T-72s and T-80s are in line with the expectations... even more so) but in some sort of tougher T-64A glacis. Additionally, I think that it would be interesting to know exactly to which glacis areas the "Upper front plate" and "Superstructure hull front" corresponds. Maybe that the "Upper front plate" contains not only the driver's hatch zone but also a significant portion of the glacis.

Interesting post. I think you my have a point. However, before addressing the issue in more detail, I'd like to point out two things. 1) Please notice that the figures listed in SBWiki ammo page are for point blank penetration. 2) Steven Zaloga in his old booklet on the M1 wrote that the Israeli M111 is comparable to the M735A1, not the M735. I admit that the source is dated but this may be consistent with the recurring anecdote about the (in)famous Kubinka tests of 1983 (see here: https://www.tanknet.org/index.php?/topic/20803-abrams-production/&do=findComment&comment=567798 ) P.S. In a series of CMCW test I just did with M774 against T-80B at 2000m, it took on average 4 hits to have the target destroyed (and in flames).Nearly all fatal penetration were Upper front hull hits, but there were also some Superstructure front hull hits that KOed the tank anyway. And all the non penetrating Superstructure front hull hits caused spalling.

Three days after announcement, the post count of this forum surpassed the CM:touch one. Three days after release, the post count of this forum surpassed the CMA one. Now, on to the next! Extrapolating, we should get the next module just before reaching the 17k mark... hoping that they won't post that much in the CMSF2 forum!

So, I wish you luck with your aspirations. Your success is our success, I hope that all this work and dedication will soon produce truckloads of new CMCW modules that will dwarf even a 3BM22 stockpile!

So, can I take this as an unofficial confirmation that a 1983-198? expansion module will eventually be released?