c3k

New map released and available for download by Bubba.  CMBN Cherbourg.
 

He did

LOL...those dark reddish brown blemishes? My men covet those "Honor Marks".  Frequently, I've overhead them as they discuss the likelihood of their achieving such exalted status. "Gor! I wonder what lucky sods won't return from THIS mission!" is not uncommonly heard. Lucky indeed... 
 

LOL...those dark reddish brown blemishes? My men covet those "Honor Marks".  Frequently, I've overhead them as they discuss the likelihood of their achieving such exalted status. "Gor! I wonder what lucky sods won't return from THIS mission!" is not uncommonly heard. Lucky indeed... 
 

Crap. I think you're exactly correct!  Back to Reading Comprehension 101 for me. 
Guess it's time to get some volunteers and yellow up some squads...

Nordic module with winter terrain
Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Finnish and more Russian/Warsaw pact forces of course!

Mmm - I must say that the NTC campaign seems well designed from the pretext that "many commanders coming to Fort Irwing where shocked with the effectiveness of the OPFOR and the enemy equipment they faced"...

So out of the gate I just want to say that Combat Mission Cold War is fantastic and is probably my favorite Combat Mission. Overall everything seems exceptionally well done and I am having tons of fun with the Campaign and Scenarios. I think I may have found an issue with M735 and M774 ammunition however. While playing various missions and some quick battle multiplayer with some friends, I noticed that the T-64A was remarkably durable. I didnt think too much of this at first, because I was expecting the T-64 to be a tough nut to crack. But as time went on I started to notice that it might be a bit too tough.
M735 and M774 are not capable of penetrating the front glacis plate of T-64A, in combat mission. I have not tested this agaisnt the other Soviet tanks with similar armor compositions, so I am not sure if this potential problem pertains to those tanks as well. If the same issue exists there, much of this post may be relevant to those tanks also since they have the same or similar armor profiles on the glacis.
 
I would like to start out by showing how the current game models the mentioned APFSDS vs the named target. I performed this test at 1000m, 0 degrees angle. I used RISE Passives for the M735 test and M60A3 TTS for the M774 testing. I counted each APFSDS fired to ensure I was not confusing sabot hits with other types of ammo the AI might choose to fire. I did the tests after noticing the durability of the T-64 glacis in various battles to verify under controlled conditions what I suspected was happening. In the screenshots you will notice that HEAT and Sabot hits have a different damage decal. To summarize the results, neither round can reliably penetrate the T-64 glacis. The game appears to model the weak point near the drivers hatch as the "upper front hull" and the main glacis as the "super structure front hull." M735 is ineffective against the superstructure and can occasionally gain penetrations against the driver plate area. M774 is slightly more effective with almost all rounds that hit the superstructure bouncing off, but very occasionally one will get though. M774 also tends to get through the driver plate area fairly reliably. However in both cases many of the hits to the driver plate area are counted as partial penetrations and not complete penetrations, which is odd considering that there is basically no composite armor in this area. Partial penetrations can seen in these screenshots via a smaller hole decal. They are rare for both rounds, especially vs superstructure.
 
M735:




 
M774:


 
The T-64A glacis plate uses a laminate armor array that consisted of 80mm of steel followed by 105mm of texolite followed by a 20mm backing plate of RHA. This armor greatly increased protection against shaped charges while still providing good protection against kinetic threats.  For additional visualization purposes, I will use some screenshots from war thunder in some areas. There will also be screenshots from various books and webpages.
 

 

Source: https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/t-72-part-2.html#8010520

From Zaloga's T-64 Battle Tank:

 
 
 
 
The Combat Mission CW manual states that M735 has 410mm of penetration and M774 has 440mm of penetration. These numbers are identical to the ones quoted on the steel beasts wiki, and are listed as being for a range of 3000m. I will include the table here, as well as some other rounds which will be relevant.

 
From Tankograd: https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/t-72-part-2.html#8010520

 
The above simulation shows that M735 would certainly penetrate the 80/105/20 array and then some at 1000m.

 
The Israeli M111 APFSDS was a derivative of the M735. It would appear to be ballistically of similar performance due to that and the penetration values on the SB wiki. Russian testing of this round revealed that it could penetrate

From Tankograd:

It should be noted here that the T-72A and M1 featured a even thicker armor array than the one on the T-64, going to 60mm RHA/105mm texolite/50mm RHA. So if this could be penetrated by M111 it stands to reason that M735 could go through the weaker T-64A armor.
 
After the end of the cold war T-72M1's were shot at with various German ammunition, including DM33 which is similar in performance to M774. These T-72s have the extra armor added later in the early 80s. It should be noted as well that the extra armor plates are past the scope of CMCW since they were not implemented until after the 1982 Israeli conflicts. DM33 105mm APFSDS penetrated the hull at 2km.

 
Additionally, here is how M735 performs in steel beasts at 1840m, which is using the same penetration numbers as the CMCW manual (the picked range was just as close as I could get to 2km in the editor without spending 1 million hours trying to get it exact):


 


 
 
Based on the general evidence, I think that the M735 and M774 ammunition should be made much more effective in game. M735 should be effective agaisnt the T-64A armor out to any practical range and M774 should be capable agaisnt the T-72A armor if it is not already, which I am guessing it is not based on in game performance agaisnt the worse T-64A armor array.

that's excellent for dial up.

It is a brand new car. I didn't even start it. Just sitting in it listening to the radio.

Bug Or Sabotage ???


me too
I think this is the excellent Umlaut Factory mod

Coffee *Check! 
Beer *Check!
Wife going to Friends *Check!
Edit
Wife bringing kids with her *Check!

You MoFos!😁
I didn’t travel more than 5 miles from my home once in the last 5-6 weeks. First gun show in more than a year, finally, bit it’s a 3 hour drive. I figure F&R won’t hit until at least Monday, right? So as I’m standing in line to get in, I check my email. Guess what’s in there? Fastest tour around the vendor stalls ever; left in 20 minutes, hoping no one will let the cat outta the bag, lol!  No such luck, but I’m home now and at least it’s downloading. 
 
I forgive you all.💣

I know what you mean.
But, here's some inside ball: you've heard all the "gotta test to make sure a 'fix' doesn't break something else", right?
My contribution to CW is very small compared to the incredible work that others have done. But, here's a sample of what I put into this. There was a question about spotting. (This is the type of observed behavior followed by rigorous testing that discovered the infamous Tiger gunner sitting sideways issue.) In order to dig into the particular issue in CW, I created some tests. In the course of these, I entered, individually and by hand, 13,500 data points. Pause, look, type, tab: repeat thirteen thousand and five hundred times.
Let me repeat that: 13,500 individually entered data points. Painful? Oh, yes.
The result? The game rocks.
Now, if there were patches released each week, they would NOT get this type of detailed testing.
(There's a game, not naming it, but has to do with Commanding air and naval stuff, in a Modern setting, at an Operational scale, that releases patches (and beta patches) pretty frequently. You can pretty much bet that each one breaks something. A sonar fidelity increase means ballistic missiles don't get intercepted.)
I'm a gamer, like you. We all would like a perfect game. Or, a better game sooner.
This is how it is, and it works pretty darn well...
Ken

I know what you mean.
But, here's some inside ball: you've heard all the "gotta test to make sure a 'fix' doesn't break something else", right?
My contribution to CW is very small compared to the incredible work that others have done. But, here's a sample of what I put into this. There was a question about spotting. (This is the type of observed behavior followed by rigorous testing that discovered the infamous Tiger gunner sitting sideways issue.) In order to dig into the particular issue in CW, I created some tests. In the course of these, I entered, individually and by hand, 13,500 data points. Pause, look, type, tab: repeat thirteen thousand and five hundred times.
Let me repeat that: 13,500 individually entered data points. Painful? Oh, yes.
The result? The game rocks.
Now, if there were patches released each week, they would NOT get this type of detailed testing.
(There's a game, not naming it, but has to do with Commanding air and naval stuff, in a Modern setting, at an Operational scale, that releases patches (and beta patches) pretty frequently. You can pretty much bet that each one breaks something. A sonar fidelity increase means ballistic missiles don't get intercepted.)
I'm a gamer, like you. We all would like a perfect game. Or, a better game sooner.
This is how it is, and it works pretty darn well...
Ken

I know what you mean.
But, here's some inside ball: you've heard all the "gotta test to make sure a 'fix' doesn't break something else", right?
My contribution to CW is very small compared to the incredible work that others have done. But, here's a sample of what I put into this. There was a question about spotting. (This is the type of observed behavior followed by rigorous testing that discovered the infamous Tiger gunner sitting sideways issue.) In order to dig into the particular issue in CW, I created some tests. In the course of these, I entered, individually and by hand, 13,500 data points. Pause, look, type, tab: repeat thirteen thousand and five hundred times.
Let me repeat that: 13,500 individually entered data points. Painful? Oh, yes.
The result? The game rocks.
Now, if there were patches released each week, they would NOT get this type of detailed testing.
(There's a game, not naming it, but has to do with Commanding air and naval stuff, in a Modern setting, at an Operational scale, that releases patches (and beta patches) pretty frequently. You can pretty much bet that each one breaks something. A sonar fidelity increase means ballistic missiles don't get intercepted.)
I'm a gamer, like you. We all would like a perfect game. Or, a better game sooner.
This is how it is, and it works pretty darn well...
Ken

I know what you mean.
But, here's some inside ball: you've heard all the "gotta test to make sure a 'fix' doesn't break something else", right?
My contribution to CW is very small compared to the incredible work that others have done. But, here's a sample of what I put into this. There was a question about spotting. (This is the type of observed behavior followed by rigorous testing that discovered the infamous Tiger gunner sitting sideways issue.) In order to dig into the particular issue in CW, I created some tests. In the course of these, I entered, individually and by hand, 13,500 data points. Pause, look, type, tab: repeat thirteen thousand and five hundred times.
Let me repeat that: 13,500 individually entered data points. Painful? Oh, yes.
The result? The game rocks.
Now, if there were patches released each week, they would NOT get this type of detailed testing.
(There's a game, not naming it, but has to do with Commanding air and naval stuff, in a Modern setting, at an Operational scale, that releases patches (and beta patches) pretty frequently. You can pretty much bet that each one breaks something. A sonar fidelity increase means ballistic missiles don't get intercepted.)
I'm a gamer, like you. We all would like a perfect game. Or, a better game sooner.
This is how it is, and it works pretty darn well...
Ken

sounds like someone has discovered why ww1 was a meat grinder.

BFC posters sometimes remind me of Star Wars fans grilling actors at Comi-con over details of arcane Star Wars lore. Not only are they outraged that the poor actors don't know what they're talking about, the super-fans disagree amongst themselves about what the correct answer should be.

I agree with you and understand where you're coming from.
I definitely wasn't trying to say that you guys don't work hard at fixing stuff...just that it takes a while and it isn't surprising you will see comparisons to other companies. And yes that anecdote is something I'm very familiar with 😉.
 

Oh man that is what the third hilarious post from you in a day. I don't usually think of you as the funny guy (usually think of @sburke or @c3k did one of them hack your account :-) - thanks for the laughs.

Harsh and uncaring are qualities normally associated with Soviets....perhaps you should have shown them more love.
Those M60s can really see well, even when buttoned.  That and that crew comd’s .50 cal makes them nasty.  Good thing they also burn well 😈

I lost three out of six of my Dragon Teams.  I just didn’t dwell on it.

This would have probably been a good slice of the Advance Guard for a TR (or the toothy end of a MRR).  Tank types are a bit off but still in the realm of realistic (T64 and T62 mixes) but if we go with TR then there would have been the rest of the lead Tank Bn about 30 mins behind this force.  In reality they probably would have crashed into this scenario, right about the time we call ceasefire. 
A quick look at the tables say that would mean around another 2 x Tank Coys, plus a boatload of arty who would slice through this little tussle without breaking stride.  Behind them by about 20-30km  (so an hour) is the rest of the Regt, so 2 x more Tank Bns and the rest of the MRB.   The ACR over on Bil's is basically down a Squadron by this point, so they would have two left, screen along the axis of advance.  So this little scrap would be a historical footnote in reality.
The power of Active Defence was not so much at the front end, it was the plan to attack the entire Soviet system while defending.  This was smart as the Soviets' had pretty rudimentary logistical support.  So the theory was to attrit and delay in the front while creating breaks and gaps in the rear so that the entire monster grinds to halt.  I honestly doubt it would have worked in 79 but odds get better when we move forward from there.  By the mid-80s the deal was sealed and any fight would have needed tac nukes for the Soviets to stand a chance, which despite the rhetoric they would not have used unless it really was the end of the world.  SDI, scared them so much because if their strat nuke option was blunted, then it meant all of their options for tac nukes were also blunted...all at the losing end of conventional competition as warfare moved from mass to digitized speed.  
Or at least that is how it looked to me...

@The_Capt.. Warren, this has been a brilliantly written and presented AAR.  Bravo.  I actually laughed out loud a couple times.
Well played game as well... as always you have been a worthy opponent.  
Bil