Amedeo

ISU-152M assault guns.

This is the Tomskii Komsomolets landing ship (bort 076) unloading a few PT-76 tanks in 1983. The same ship had bort number 072 from 1978 to 1981, thus what she is unloading is perfect for the CM:CW timeframe! (hint, hint)

My next CM challenge: trying to kill an Abrams with one of these!

As you know, it is a light amphibious tank used in the Soviet Army for scouting purposes and already obsolescent (if not obsolete) by the early '80s. I presume that it is included in CM:CW just because of this: being a standard asset of the recce elements of the army that the game narrative has on the strategic offensive, it is likely to be encountered in a typical meeting engagement scenario. On the other hand, being the Syrian army on the strategic defensive in CM:SF, it would have serious difficulties (euphemism) in fulfilling its role in a battlefield dominated by US/NATO air/elint/antiarmour assets.

My guess (and it's only a guess) is that mobilization categories will not be reflected (per se) in the force selector, simply because the game (at present) is designed to represent combat between first line Soviet and US forces in Germany in the first phase of a hypothetical WW3. So, all of the units in the GSVG should be classified in what you'd call "A" category.

I completely agree that the early '80s are more interesting from the perspective of having a more balanced game. That said, I'd like to see the timeframe extended (a bit) in future expansions. As I said, nothing dramatic, up to '83 or better '85... and '78! Just to have the M551 Sheridan in the 11th ACR and recreate the opening engagement of Hackett's The Third World War! Poor Sir John! Technological development was so fast that just a little after the publication of his novel (written in 1978 but set in 1985) many piece of hardware that played a role in the story were retired (from Polaris SLBMs to Sheridan tanks). Anyway, the Sheridan continued to soldier with the 82nd, so if an airborne module is in the works...

I'd like to see 1983 included just because it was the year we really risked the third world war; 1985 is also interesting (new pieces of kit: 120mm armed Abrams, reactive armour on Soviet tanks etc,). Indeed the decade 1979-1989 saw the introduction of many new weapons systems, especially in land warfare, just to keep up with the new ammo types for the same gun (just consider the kinetic penetrators used during this decade in the US 105mm gun: M728, M735, M774, M833; M900) would be daunting!

I think that the decision to depict the launchers in extended position is due to the fact that, although these weapons "spend" the majority of their CM time simply being carried around, most of the situation in which we players are actively looking for and at them (watching a replay, taking a screenshot) are when they are fired or are ready to be used.

Well, it seems that I didn't remember all the details of the comparison from the Panzerblitz booklet... in my defense, there was some misleading contradiction: the tank depicted is the M48A2 (and the profile, indeed, is one of a 90mm armed M48), but it also says that the tank is equipped with the 105/51 (i.e. M68) gun...

Indeed. The only downside in using HEAT ammo for the M48, other than the loftier trajectory compared to APDS, is that 90mm and 105mm HEAT rounds were notorious for their unrealiable fusing when striking at high obliquity. Anyway, as I said, I agree that a Panther would be in disadvantage in a duel against a M48.

The first tactical wargame I ever played was the good ol' Panzerblitz by Avalon Hill. (Disclaimer: I'm not that old, I got the game more than ten year after its first release ) I remember that, in the scenario booklet, there was an appendix detailing technical data about the various German and Soviet tanks depicted in the game. There were also the specs of the US M48A5, next to a Panther, with a note saying that this was the proof that tank design practically stagnated for twenty years. Since then, I always dreamed about a Panther G vs M48A5 match! It's a pity we cannot mix and match hardware from the various CM games! P.S. No, I do not think that the PzKpfw V was on par with the M48, especially if one considers the 105mm armed variant.

BTW, IIRC sometime during the '70s Chieftains used coax MGs for tanging fire. Did you also use similar techniques in the early '80s?

Thank you very much for your prompt answer. A lot of interesting tidbits of information I would have never got elsewhere! By the way, what you are telling me about APFSDS is (of course) perfectly compatible with what I heard from another BAOR veteran that said his unit got the first APFSDS rounds in late '84.

Considering the 1979-1982 timeframe, 1958 pattern webbing should still be standard issue, if I'm not mistaken, along with Mk IV helmets and L1A1 rifles...

From the ammunition page ot the SB Wiki (Ammunition Data - SBWiki (steelbeasts.com) - first line: "the penetration values below ("RHAe" in milimeters) are line of sight (LOS) estimations measured at the muzzle against a semi-infinite target" (emphasis mine) At the muzzle, thus point blank.

May I kindly ask you if you remember in what year did you get APFSDS (instead of APDS) rounds in your loadouts?

Notice that 300mm is the point blank penetration value. Anyway it shouldn't be a big problem against T-55s even at 2000m or more, save for the occasional ricochet when striking the curved turret armour or the sloped glacis at very unfavourable angles.

And consider that the difference is even larger than what can be inferred from the table, since APDS rounds are more prone to ricochet and suffer from greater speed loss compared to APFSDS rounds .

Well, I presume that the British Army and the Bundeswehr will be eventually included in the game. When and in which order is pure speculation at this time. (OK, OK, also stating they will be eventually included is pure speculation at this time, but it's not wild speculation! )

According to a post in this informative thread on TankNet forums: Timeline for APDS Replacement in NATO? - AFV Forum - tanknet.org I think we can safely assume that, in the 1979-1982 timeframe, all USAREUR M48A5 tanks were equipped with M728 APDS rounds.

I'd say yes, considering that the M48 was always considered as the "equivalent" of the T-55 and that the A5 version is armed with the 105mm gun. The T-55A should also be a worthy opponent, especially if equipped with the 3BM20 or 3BM25 APFSDS.

I do remember seeing a picture of an Army (82nd Airborne) sniper armed with an M21 rifle in an old osprey booklet about Operation Urgent Fury. Cannot comment on the accuracy of this representation.

Well, presumably it worked but it had limits: no target recognition, no engagement of stationary targets. A good TI with an advanced FCS (and a skilled gunner) is a better all around solution. A more advanced radar paired with a modern computer would be another matter. After all the present 9P157 missile tank-destroyer has also a radar FC. Moreover, if I'm not mistaken, the US Army trialled a radar FC system (based on the Apache Longbow radar) on the Abrams: results were good but this gadget was considered too expensive and was never fielded.

Well, they actually tried to make a tank destroyer out of it: the 2S15 Norov. The radars sight of the MT-12R antitank gun only provided the gunner a reference into his sight to guide his manual aiming. With this AFV they tried to design a completely automated system but when they managed to have the thing actually working (mid '80s, IIRC) they realized that a 100mm gun wasn't going to be a viable solution against modern NATO tanks in long range frontal engagements and the project was cancelled. If I'm not mistaken, there was also a previous attempt to make something like this on a T-62 tank chassis but I have no info about this prototype AFV.

... another difference is that the ammunition available to Soviet T-55s and T-62s in CM:CW is way better than the ammo available to Arab tanks during the October War, especially in the kinetic penetrators department.