c3k

Just doing some quick pixel counting and measuring (avg Russian male, 20-30 yr. old, 2006-2010 is 176.2cm tall)... The Kurganets hull is 3m wide by 1.5m tall. It has about .5m ground clearance. Top of hull about 2m above ground. Side add-on blocks are about 31cm thick by 122cm tall. It's big.

The scale of this thing... https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/5700/5684310.59/0_131b5f_1faaa2f7_orig.jpg reminds me of this thing. http://static4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130812001445/starwars/images/f/ff/Sandcrawler.png

Chassis commonality: Armata tank clearly has a rear engine (based on overhead shots, upstream). Amarta IFV has a front engine.

The demo is free. Grabi it, give a play. Ask questions here about it. Then decide if you want to buy the whole game. Play value: many computer games I've played have scripted storylines. You wake up in a lab, have to escape, get to the "rescue" location, and perform some side quests along the way. These games have limited replay value. Like a movie, the script never changes no matter how many times you watch it. Some games take 8 hours to finish, other games take 20 hours to finish. But they all finish. Combat Mission is infinite. Every battle is different. You have the full editor at your disposal. You can create any battle of almost any size. The purchase price is higher than some games. The replayability is higher than all games. If you're interested in tactical warfare, you need to try the demo. If you like it, buy it. (There is a steep learning curve. The game can be hard for new players. Once past that initial phase, it becomes second nature to play. Post your questions to the forum.) (Another analogy: board games have a MUCH more limited playability than Combat Mission. The maps and counters are the limiting factor. They are physical objects and I cannot change them or duplicate them. CM has no such limit.) Welcome, Ken

Stealth aspect: Radar operates in specific frequencies. These frequencies equate to specific wavelengths. Wave Lengths. Long range aircraft search radars have wavelengths several meters long. Their azimuth controls create "boxes" several meters long (the wavelength) by 10's (to 100's) of meters wide (due to the mechanics of the azimuth/rotating system). Newer systems use digital waveform controls to tighten that azimuth. It can see NOTHING other than a "thing" in that box. (That's why air forces practice tight formation flying. If you can get 8 planes in one "box", the enemy may be surprised.) Some radar absorbance or aimed reflection will reduce the range at which the radar can pick up enough reflected energy to detect something in that "box". (Each box is, again, one wavelength long, and limited in the lateral dimension by the azimuth control system's sensitivity, but in case less than the wavelength.) Enough of that... Centimeter class radars can make out...centimeter scale items. Millimeter wavelength radars can make out...millimeter scale items. If I wanted to detect people, centimeter wavelength radar would work well. I would see man-size and man-shape blobs. Similarly with vehicles. If I want to IDENTIFY vehicles and people, then millimeter wavelength (or smaller) will allow all sorts of details to be seen. Things like wheel lug nuts, vision blocks, etc. Vehicles can be mapped down to the millimeter. This allows for automated "friend or foe" algorithms, etc. This is why millimeter wavelength radars are used for ground systems. (For the most part). The drawback to shorter wavelengths is attenuation when compared to longer wavelengths. (Rain, foliage (water has a specific wavelength which allows weather radars to work so well.) dust, all affect millimeter radar far more than meter wavelength. However, I cannot see that any of the shaping seen on the A/K/B vehicles can affect millimeter wavelength radars to any appreciable degree. Every crack, crevice, flat-spot, and curve which is greater than 1 millimeter will act as a reflector. The move to optical (laser) searching techniques (equivalent to a hyper small wavelength radar) renders it even more moot. If you can be more moot than just moot. I'm curious about the design and why it seems to be shaped for lowered RCS. The small-scale fit and finish seem to defeat the overall design. Ken

There is a vertical slot to the right of the cannon on the Armata. Perhaps that is for a recessed coax. But, yeah, the more I look, the uglier it gets. When they decided to change their design aesthetics, they went all the way! Lots of grenade launchers. Lots of sensors. The removable plate is interesting. You can see what appear to be retention cables on the top corners. Manually removed as needed? Some sort of aperture which is either classified or needs to be protected?

Totally love the triple-gunned tank! Nice. Side cutout on the Armata turret left side: a trunnion mount for another weapon? Perhaps some ATGM's? Great pix. Thanks, and keep 'em coming!

I MUCH prefer having mortars target their own missions. They are far more effective (IMHO) that way. Of course, the ability for other units to call them in allow for a much wider zone of influence.

Every waypoint can have a Target-type command. The last command carries on until replaced by another. Waypoint 1: FACE East Waypoint 2: Covered Arc, 360^, 100m Waypoint 3: Target Briefly Waypoint 4: Hide, Covered Arc 50m Additionally, you can PAUSE at each waypoint. So, Waypoint 3's Target Briefly is a 15 second order. I would give a 15 second pause at waypoint 3. Two techniques to "erase" target-type (combat) commands: 1: override it with a FACE at the last waypoint 2: wait until the next turn and give the unit a "Clear Target" command There's lots of good info in the forums. Search, but don't be afraid to ask. Ken

Going by the BFC definition, those units (Wittmann, Murphy, Baskeyfield) should be "elite", not "crack" or "elite". Of course, an argument could be made that it is not their experience which should be "elite", but their motivation should be increased ("fanatic") to keep them at it. A combination of higher motivation and differing experience levels create vastly different unit "feels". True, some units do get overinflated. An alternative to your throwing out those battles would be to open them up in the editor and adjusting them to the levels you think they should be. (To preserve FOW, have someone else do it for you.)

Hence the "apocryphal" comment. It is, as noted, a great story that should not allow the truth to get in the way.

When NASA started studying men going into space, one of the problems they foresaw was how to write. After great research, development, millions of dollars, time, and effort, they came up with a ball point pen which could write in zero g, and equipped each astronaut with one. The Russians used a pencil. Apocryphal, but still good.

A/K/B A= Armata: the tank T-14 A= Armata: the heavy IFV T-15 K= Kurganets: the tracked IFV B= Boomerang: the wheeled APC (or "Bumerang")

^^^ (Edited due to Steve X-posting. My "^^^" refer two posts up.) Very true. But parade vehicles may or may not be made with production standard items. E.g., soft steel, not armor. Empty ERA instead of filled. Etc. Not saying that's what they ARE, but that's what MAY be. Regardless, the shape of what's coming over the horizon speaks to a dramatic shift in Russian AFV design.

For a great book about the breakthrough battles "Autumn Gale" has been VERY good. http://www.amazon.com/Autumn-Schwere-Panzerjager-abteilung-Kampfgruppe-Recovery/dp/9080039381 OOP for now, and a bit expensive, but I cannot recommend this book highly enough. It covers the German defenses to the "Market" aspect of the operation in incredible detail. Period photos, great maps, "now and then" comparisons, detailed battle analyses, etc. Ken

He would also give them a DEPLOY command at that last waypoint.

I have both the Middlebrook and the Kershaw books, and as Pete says, they combine to give a very good view of the battle.

Crap...now I see the hinges. Just like the other ones. Exhaust pressure...sure, and others exhaust underwater too. Hell, boats do. But I'll believe it floats when I see one come up next to me on the beach. Unless...those aren't ERA blocks, but styrofoam? Thanks.

Sorry to repost ALL the pix... (But they look GOOD!) Top vehicle: No way does that have a rear ramp. The tow cable alone would preclude it's operation. The next vehicle does seem to have a drop down ramp. Third vehicle, despite having two small rear swing doors which I thought could be water propulsion, doesn't seem (to my eye) to be amphibious. The exhaust louvers would almost beg to flood the engine. It does have a door and lower hinges to allow a drop down ramp. No visible linkage to raise it, so maybe internal electric winch? Picture 5 shows how friggin' tall that thing is!

The definitions are very useful. To me, the "Veteran" definition applies to (modern) US soldiers before they've seen combat. MILES, virtual combat, enhanced workups prior to deployment, stable units, and constant training brings a high degree of proficiency. That means combat veterans would be at least one step higher, "Crack". Alternatively, that could mean that the very first firefight otherwise "veteran" troops would be engaged in could mean they're "regular", to make them a little more brittle. WWII training and professionalism was bit less than modern (US Army). I'd jump down one level for each. That would make a lot of units "veteran" after they'd seen some combat and many would be "crack". That would be the very "veteran" units. Regardless of the definition, the designer may've changed the settings to tweak the battle to either be more balanced, or to create historical outcomes. Ken

Tanks: I just remembered that you mentioned that you were planning to unbutton them. I wouldn't. The spotting advantage to being unbuttoned is huge, but in a close range fight like this you're just asking to have your tank crews take casualties and morale hits. The gun: since you spotted something, it looks like a prime target for some mortars. Squads: the units behind your scouts seem too bunched up. The US squads should be able to split into 3 teams. If 1 team is a scout, the remaining men should be split into two different teams, especially in terrain like this. One grenade would cause too many casualties.

Well, the Soviets/Russians were/are great at engineering amphibious vehicles, but I don't know of any amphibious tanks. (DD Shermans excepted.) As far as the volume needed to float a 60 ton tank, well, that's about 60 m^3. (I'll let the metric pedants correct the volume...then I'll toss in the "combat load" weight of 72 tons. ) Back on topic: this new family of vehicles certainly seems to bring a new level of protection to Russian AFV crews. It's yet to be seen how the vehicles perform. (Minor digression: WWII model of US shipping tanks overseas has been blamed for the Sherman not being uparmored. Every ton had to be shipped...twice. Once to England and then to the continent. A similar model appears in today's thinking. Each M1 has to be shipped. One tank per C5 or C17 sortie; although the C5 can lift more mass, the cg/density issues mean only one M1 per aircraft. Ships are less sensitive, but tonnage does add up. The Israelis do not have the expeditionary force requirement that the US has assumed. Their Merkavas take advantage of that and are heavy without needing to plan for shipment to distant theaters. Perhaps the Russians realized that they don't "need" to keep the tanks as light as they once thought?)

I don't know what drives the internal Russian military design decisions, but most countries follow a "theme" when designing equipment. Russian tanks look Russian. US airplanes look different than French airplanes. Etc. Partly this is due to corporate knowledge. The same techniques are passed down to the next generation. As far as mass equating to protection, that's well understood. Why has the Soviet/Russian armor school tended to medium weight tanks vs. the heavy weight Western model? I don't know. Perhaps it's the WWII production mentality: better to build 5 30 ton tanks than 3 50 ton tanks? 5 tanks have 5 guns: 3 tanks only have 3. Take the Western view on crew protection vice the historical Soviet/Russian acceptance of casualties, and you can see how the "cost" of crew protection is different for the two sides.

It's far more important that the major terrain elements align with the editor. For example, road nets should align with the cardinal or ordinal directions in-game. Other road orientations will have jagged edges. No way around that, I'm afraid. Similarly with waterways and railways. Not to mention buildings and walls. Hill masses can be whatever shape you want. Crop fields do better in the cardinal directions, otherwise the edges appear jagged. A minor bit of rotation and juggling for immersion is more important than verisimilitude.

^^^ Yeah, no US pivot in WWII. Short and terse, eh? Germans COULD, but it was highly discouraged. The metallurgy didn't allow it due to shortages of the alloys which made their gears inadequate to the design.