Jump to content

Amedeo

Members
  • Posts

    507
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Amedeo got a reaction from Splinty in Cold War ear Tank Battle Info (Iran-Iraq)   
    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. Like
    Amedeo reacted to domfluff in The game "manual" is sorely lacking   
    Doctrine and the TO&E go hand in hand - each absolutely lead the other. You're certainly free to use any tactical approach you'd like, but the kit is designed to be used in a particular way, and trying to force it into a different direction will usually be deficient in some manner.

    The Tutorial scenarios do a very good job of demonstrating the core principles of Soviet doctrine.

    The first (attack) will teach you about mass, maximising firepower and coordination with a layered plan for fires. The second (meeting engagement) will take those same core principles, and then show how they apply in a much more fluid and subtle battle of manoeuvre, in a manner which is suitable for implementation in the campaign, but also in the context of multiplayer quick battles.

    This kind of tutorial scenario is something which I think is lacking in CM generally - there are an awful lot of questions that could be answered by this kind of thing. Typical examples have included how best to employ a Commonwealth rifle formation, and what the purpose of the two inch mortar is - if there was a simple, doctrinal setup that you could point to and say "if you can't win this with minimal losses, you don't understand it", that would be extremely useful, across all titles and factions.

    The Cold War campaigns do an excellent job of demonstrating the doctrine of the two sides, but often with additional complexity, since we're no longer in a tutorial. There is at least one US campaign mission which is an excellent demonstration of Active Defence, and the Soviet stuff is well represented throughout their campaign.

    There could always be more documentation, naturally, but field manuals exist and they're mostly very accessible. A "strategy guide" would mostly involve re-writing those.
  3. Like
    Amedeo got a reaction from Centurian52 in ZSU-23/4 Super Deadly   
    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! 😁
  4. Like
  5. Like
    Amedeo reacted to Ivanov in Reforger Nostalgia   
    T-34 turned into Leopard 1, used as an OPFOR by Polish army during Cold War. In the background another T-34 turned Chieftain.

  6. Like
    Amedeo reacted to Bufo in Cold War Screenshots   
    Usual forum advice: "Never send a platoon where a squad hasn't been, never send a squad where a- section hasn't been, never send a setion where a single guy hasn't been."
    Me: "Yeah yeah."
     

  7. Like
    Amedeo got a reaction from Dr.Fusselpulli in What Subject For The First CMCW Module?   
    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. Like
    Amedeo reacted to HUSKER2142 in US/USSR Cold War tactics to use in the game   
    Combat regulations of Ground Forces USSSR
    Part II. Battalion, company [1982]
    Alas, on Russian language. 
     
  9. Like
    Amedeo reacted to Bufo in CMCW points and rarity table   
    I have created a spreadsheet to show how much points IFVs and MBTs cost and how rare they are / rarity point cost.
    There are three tabs for loose/standard/strict rarity levels.
    You can access it here:
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GGWyVuMdVJEuxZzBaMaqOnye-aBdKrc7G_aX6Y_1zDk/edit?usp=sharing
    It looks like this:

  10. Like
    Amedeo reacted to Roter Stern in Does anyone think that the Dragon ATGMs in 1979 scenarios are too powerful?   
    Did a bit of repetition - recorded the outcome of 550+ Dragon hits on various Soviet tanks at various aspects.
    I'll keep it to the point:
    If a Dragon manages to score a penetration, it is a guaranteed K/O - 292 penetrating hits recorded, all of which resulted in a (often catastrophic) K/O. The real weakness of the Dragon is reliability. I didn't keep track of how many nosedived and hit the dirt short of target, but it was a lot; and that's considering the Dragon teams were not being fired upon. T-55s and T-62s have no protection against the Dragon - first hit to connect is a guaranteed penetration at all aspects and hit locations. I stopped recording 55s/62s results after the first 48 frontal hits resulted in 100% K/O rate. All other Soviet MBTs seem almost impervious to the Dragon in the upper frontal arc (front turret, weapon mount, upper front hull). Of 280 hits that landed in upper front, only 2 managed to penetrate (0.07% rate).  At the same time, all other arcs offer no protection - of the 290 hits recorded to sides (even at rather shallow 30* angles and including turret sides) and most importantly lower front hull - all scored a penetrating hit, a 100% K/O rate. So a true case of YMMV:
    On one hand, a T-64/72/80 in a perfect hull-down position might appear "invincible". During one contrivance, I had to stop after 30 (thirty) consecutive hits failed to K/O a single T-72; however, make no mistake, there was not a single relevant subsystem left functional on that tank. Where as on the other hand, something as simple as a 30-degree traversal of the turret relative to the ATGM team pretty well guarantees a K/O on the first shot to reach the target. I think no matter which side of the Dragon ATGM you find yourself in, such dramatically polarized results can most certainly lead to frustration.
    p.s. In case anyone is curious what my last two hours looked like, here's a 12 min segment - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2midc46M9CA
    (You can also get a sense of how many missiles fail to reach target ... or even clear the launcher, as a few unlucky teams caught their own shrapnel)
     
  11. Like
    Amedeo reacted to RockinHarry in German 7.62mm vs 7.62mm AP ammunition   
    not quite so. For german 7.92mm, hardenend lead core was standard, while hardened steel core (not tungsten) the very coomon AP variant.
  12. Like
    Amedeo reacted to RockinHarry in German 7.62mm vs 7.62mm AP ammunition   
    valid tactic. If encountering thinly armored vehicles they get used quite effectively at close ranges, up to ~300m IIRC.
  13. Like
    Amedeo reacted to RockinHarry in German 7.62mm vs 7.62mm AP ammunition   
    In more detail:
    7.92mm s.S lead core standard until 1940
    7.92mm S.m.E soft iron core introduced in 1940 and from 1942 about to replace the s.S production wise.
    Huge numbers of both remained standard use until end of the war.
  14. Upvote
    Amedeo got a reaction from c3k in Soviet T-72's   
    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.

  15. Like
    Amedeo reacted to MikeyD in CM Cold War v1.01 patch is now avilable   
    From what I understand, they did some thinking-outside-the-box and labeled the extended tube a 'bipod' so so when the weapon is deployed the 'bipod' (e.g. extended tube) appears. One of those things that's obvious only after someone first thinks of it.
  16. Like
    Amedeo reacted to domfluff in Stinger Missiles   
    It is interesting how few Soviet accounts mention them though. It's also been suggested that those kill rates were based on self reporting by the mujahideen, with successes being met with more weapons and funding, so there would be an incentive to massage those numbers. Both sources there have the obvious issues.
    That doesnt mean that the Stinger wasnt significant - it's certainly a real AA capability - but it's quite possible that the systems importance has been overstated.
  17. Like
    Amedeo reacted to Redwolf in Please up the budget for quick battles   
    I second the notion that a text field to enter a number would be the way to go.
    I mean just the formation selection screen shows several premade (realistic) formations costing close to 30,000 points. And that's not even high quality troops.
    (also, I would really like to have the points values displayed in the editor. If you take formation variations into account it is nearly impossible to "translate" from a QB selection display to the editor)
  18. Like
    Amedeo reacted to HerrTom in ZSU-23/4 Super Deadly   
    Something else to note re: ZSU-23-4 vs M163 is that the former had a Radar fire control system while the latter only had a Radar ranger. Thus, the Shilka can leverage its FCS to put shells where the computer expects the aircraft to be when they arrive vs the M163 where the gunner has to eyeball it.  I think this disparity, more than any other, makes the Shilka far more effective at the AAA role.
  19. Upvote
    Amedeo got a reaction from Megalon Jones in ZSU-23/4 Super Deadly   
    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. Like
    Amedeo reacted to QuiGon in Please up the budget for quick battles   
    ~13,000 points for huge quick battles is nowhere enough for the big maps (especially if air and arty support is involved). I would love to see if the budget points for quick battles could be increased, as even a single US mech bataillon without additional support costs more than 20,000 points.
  21. Upvote
    Amedeo got a reaction from IICptMillerII in Soviet T-72's   
    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.

  22. Upvote
    Amedeo got a reaction from Vanir Ausf B in Soviet T-72's   
    @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. Like
    Amedeo reacted to Combatintman in Soviet T-72's   
    In terms of composition it was a Tank Army but going back to what I said about relearning everything I thought I knew about the Cold War it was not called 3 Shock Army during the time frame of this game.  It also only had only three divisions until 1983 (two tank and one motor rifle) vice the four that I am more familiar with in the time that I was expected to face it off.
    OMGs were the new buzz words in the late 80s so for the game period  I wouldn't set too much store by them.   3 CAA/Shock Army's main effort would have been in the 1 (GE) Corps AOR (Hannover and immediately north of it), 2 GTA was pretty much going to be the second operational echelon for GSFG and given where it was based, would most likely have rolled through 1 (GE) Corps and bits of 1 (BR) Corps.  Of course it could have been employed north and south of that option though .   The most likely second operational echelon in the south would have been the Central Group of Forces and, from what I've read, the Poles, if they turned up, would have been given the northern option (eg Hamburg and all of the coastal stuff).
    There is the issue of the NVA - from what I can gather during the game time frame two NVA divisions were slated to come under 3 CAA/3 Shock Army's command, both were fairly high category reserve divisions and my guess is that they would get given tasks to either fix bits of 1 (NL) Corps and 1 (BE) Corps or do a bit of 'kameradenschaft' with 1 (GE) Corps in built up areas such as Hannover.
  24. Like
    Amedeo reacted to Ivanov in Soviet T-72's   
    Great scenario BTW. I loved it.
  25. Like
    Amedeo got a reaction from Centurian52 in Soviet T-72's   
    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...