Larsen

Not really. From my understanding the program will include upgrading the existing T-90A and T-90 to T-90M standard and manufacturing new T-90M. From what i could find these two processes will go simultaneously. First T-90M were tested by the army in September 2017 during the Russia-Belorussia war games.

I like them too. I am not saying that they are not fantastic. I am saying that they are worse than M2 Bradley. Their lifespan is much shorter partially because of the location of the ammo storage and their sighting is also substantial worse. I saw a Russian source that atated that they were worth about 85M rubles in 2019 (about 1.15M USD) and that is three times cheaper than Bradleys and I personally feel that difference in the game.

That might one if them. The others are The first is the Vacuum-1 armor-piercing discarding sabot round with a depleted-uranium core. The designers say that in flight the projectile reaches a velocity of 1,980 mps and can rip through a meter of tank armor. The second is the Telnik high-explosive fragmentation warhead, which can be detonated remotely by the tank crew. And, thirdly, there’s the Sprinter guided missile, the trajectory of which can be adjusted in flight. And i think if it uses a new gun there should be a different autoloader as the new gun uses longer projectiles.

Hm. And why is that? Is CMBS an attempt at real battle simulation or a war game? Different weapon systems cost is directly related to their effectiveness on the battlefield. The modern world, the modern economy is global. Taking the real life costs and comparing them is the only real way of determining the modern armor value. There is a reason why some equipment is more expensive then the other. It usually the cost of technology and the cost of putting it all together that creates a dollar value. Keep in mind that there are two costs - one is what the government pays for the weapons produced by and inside the country and there is what the other countries pay to buy the weapons.

I know. Some sources call it 2A46M-4, some 2A46M-5, I saw also 2A46-5M - in any case that is a more powerful gun than what T-90A has (at least everyone agrees on that). That could be because there are some new shells that offer increased penetration. I think since M1A2SEP is in the game and it can be outfitted with APS Trophy (and Bradleys too! Although they are sitll testing it for Bradleys as of now) there should be T-90M as well.

Severely underprized. When was the last time the US side brought up any airpower or drones in a QB? They simply can't. But they BMP-3Ms are a bit overpriced and so are the Russian tanks compared to Bradleys and M1A3SEP. This article gives and estimate of 3.1M per Bradley M2 Bradley - Wikipedia

T-90M Proryv-3 Model 2017 MBT main battle tank data fact sheet | Russia Russian army tank heavy armoured vehicles U | Russia Russian army military equipment vehicles UK (armyrecognition.com) here they stated the tank was tested during the military exercise Zapad-2017. And here they claimed that T-90M was used and tested during Zapad-2017. Zapad 2017 Lessons Learned | Warsaw Institute During the maneuvers, the Russians had at their disposal all sorts of the missile and artillery assets such as Tunguska anti-aircraft system, Pantry S-1 system, Tochka-U missile system, Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) and BM-21 Grad, self-propelled howitzers (Msta and Akatsiya) as well as self-propelled artillery (Pion). As for the aviation, it was represented by the Su-24 bombers and various types of attack helicopters, namely Mi-24, Mi-28 and Ka-52. The maneuvers constituted an opportunity to present and test new types of weaponry. Moreover, the Russian took advantage of testing T-72B3 tanks on such a massive scale. In February this year, the first batch of twenty upgraded tanks was introduced within the Western Military District. The production of the most recent version of T-72 tanks started last year. Also such types of tanks as T-90M and T80BWM as well as BMPT armoured fighting vehicles appeared in the Russian army. As for the Belarusians, they could boast of the V1 light armoured vehicle, Caiman armoured vehicle and an upgraded T-72BM3 tank.

Zala is the only one that can not be killed by anything in the game. But then it can be used mostly for observation. Calling airstrikes with it leads to long spotting times and the eventual artillery strike going off the target. I tested it even with elite FO and elite artillery and still the strikes were very much off the target. So you spend 400 points to watch the battlefield. It has an advantages of course but for pretty much the same price you can get T-90A. Well, the US stuff is more expensive all around. It is also better. Who buys trucks in QBs? For Russian I think hey are useful as they carry extra HE shells for mortars. Not sure what the US side uses them. I think that Tunguska is underpriced too. The wiki gives a unit cost of $16M. That is about twice as much as M1A2. And that might feel like too much but Tunguska basically leaves the US side without any way to use drones or air power.

I saw a report somewhere that the first 10 unites were delivered in 2017. I can again look for the article if BCF really would take a note. But then as I understand Trophy APS was never really installed on Bradleys and there were not installed on Abrams in 2017. I also saw somewhere a discussion if LWS was standard on the M1A2 and Bradleys. But those are also in the game. There were about 6 operational Oplots in the Ukrainian army in 2017 and they did not have an APS. Those are also in the game.

T-90AM never existed. It was a test model that never got mass produced.

Hm. For example T-90A (different sources give the price between 1.5M to 3.5M per one) is at least 2 times cheaper than M1A2SEP 8.5M. And I feel that in the game M1A2 is underpriced. Another example are drones and MANPADS. Right now a section of Stinger armed MANPAD platoon (4 operators, HQ and 4 trucks) carry 24 stingers. Each missile is about $120K. So even without the price of trucks a section of the US MANPADS is at least $2.9M + 4 trucks (I didn't even look at price of those). In the game they cost 406 points for regular experience. Raven drone is $173K so the question is why in the game a section of MANPADS costs the same as one RAVEN drone? Do you know how many drones they can shoot with all their stingers? I ran a few tests. 5. I just happen to think that the drones are too expensive in CMBS and the real world price confirmed my suspicion. Again, there is a market for all those toys. Why invent your own system when there is a free market?

Oh, the prices of what Russian government pays and for what they sell their equipment is all over the internet. Same is for the US arms. Obviously there are a lot of different configurations but the ballpack is there.

The link you provided is for T-90MS. That is a modified T-90S and it uses the same gun as T-90A. This version is for export and i believe is in production for over a decade. I am asking about T-90M which just got into production 1.5 years ago and of which there were about 10 testing units in 2017.

Here they explain the history of T-90 and also claim that T-90M gas a 2A82 gun. They also mention T-90AM as a improved version of T-90A without any details. https://warbook-club.turbopages.org/turbo/warbook.club/s/voennaya-tehnika/tanki/t-90/

Here is a link to a Russian site https://dfnc.ru/katalog-vooruzhenij/tanki/t-90m-proryv/ Scroll down to specs to see the gun version. They actually mention here that T-90AM was a test version in 2010-2012 that never got into a production.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russian-army-just-received-its-first-new-t-90m-proryv-tanks-144577 Here they state that the gun os the same as on on T-14 and erroneously call it 2A46-4. T-14 is armed with 125mm 2A82-M. In any case this is a different and much more powerful gun than the original 2A82. Here https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/t-90m-proryv-3.htm They also claim that this is the same gun as on T-14 without specs. Here https://www.google.com/amp/s/eurasiantimes.com/t-90-tank-gets-faster-deadlier-more-survivable-how-does-india/ They claim that the gun is 2A46M-5. It is not the same as 2A46. Here https://www.deagel.com/Armored Vehicles/T-90/a000369 They say it us 2A82-1M Here too they say it us 2A82-1M https://www.google.com/amp/s/weaponsandwarfare.com/2020/08/28/t-90m/amp/ In any case the gun is different from the one on T-90A. And the fire control, thermal sites, ERA are all upgraded. Also it does not look like any APS was ever installed on T-90M

I understand that CMBS was developed way before 2017 and all these now existing tanks were under the development back then. It would be great to bring the specs to what they actually are. For T-90M (I believe about 10 of them were in service in 2017) the gun should be upgraded, the ERA also should be upgraded as well as the thermal sites, the APS should be removed as none of them were and are outfitted with any APS as of right now.

if that is the case then they got the gun wrong. The new gun on T-90M is the same gun they are installing on T-14. It is not 2A46M (L48). The new gun is 2A82-1M (which is eithe rL55 or L56 and offers better penetration). It would be great if this is fixed and the price of T-90am is adjusted to account for a gun comparable to that one of Abrams tank.

In the game we have T-90, T-90A, T-90AM. On teh internet I can find information about T-90 and T-90A. There is nothing really about T-90AM. There is T-90SM which is not in the game though. There is a version that is called T-90M which I believe was not yet in service in 2017 (and it is unclear if it is in service now) and supposedly include new ERA, better gun, better sensors and is supposedly could be outfitted with Afganite. What is T-90AM? Is that a real thing or is it supposed to be the T-90M? If it is supposed to be T-90M then it should have at least a different main gun at the least.

I played WWII titles for exclusively until recently. Now I switched to CMBS. There was no way to direct way to evaluate various units' costs for WWII. One had to empirically estimate the contribution of this or that unit compared to others. for CMBS there is a direct way of evaluating the units. Actually, there are two of them. The first one is how much it costs to produce or train a specific unit. Since this is a modern title we know pretty much how much different piece of equipment costs to produce. Modern battlefield is all about technology. Obviously the more expensive units perform better than the cheaper ones. Teh other way is actually let the market evaluate the unit worth. Taht is how much different equipment is sold for. There we go. What do you think?

I had a similar experience when my T-90AM (APS) exchanged fire with Bradley. I got "Hit: Opening" and penetration on my tank from the 25mm autocannon. I don't think taht should happen.

I am open to play CMBS with standard rarity.

Thank you. I saw that thread. It mostly relates to CMBN and it mostly concerns the artillery calling from the vehickes vs on foot. I am mostly interested in CMBS. I did not test any artillery calling from vehicles. I did a quick check for Russians and i almost did not see any difference between regular and elite FO. One time when i eas able to shave off a minutes was for a veteran FO and veteran off map arrillery. I think the call times went down from 7 to 6 minutes. But then i did not see any difference between veteran and elite FO. Someone suggested that the experience of FO and arrillery affects the accuracy. I am not sure if anyone conducted any tests though. I wish BFC would explain explicitly how arrillery and FO experience works.

From my testing I don't see any significant time decrease in call times. i only looked at Russians to be honest. For on board mortars The call times are always 4 minutes. It does not matter what the experience of the mortars or the FO is. For off-board artillery if you go to vet artillery for FO of vet and better you can shave one minute - from 7 minutes to 6. And that's about that. I never actually waited for the strike to arrive so I don't know - maybe you can save another minute on spotting rounds - that I don't know.

Actually, the call-in times don't change with experience. There is one instance for an off map artillery were going veteran on both FO and arty shaves off a minutes but that's it. I did not experiment with the grouping. Did you test it or is it just a guess?