Vanir Ausf B

For what it's worth I looked up the T-72B3 numbers a while back and if memory servers it averaged out to around 200 T-72s upgraded per year.

This is the Jane's article referenced, or a least the teaser they give out for free http://www.janes.com/article/67082/india-to-deploy-newly-ordered-t-90ms-tanks-along-border-with-pakistan Janes is a credible source in my book but if you want to remain skeptical that's your prerogative. Agreed, but that has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. No one is asking for the near-future Abrams to be removed. I'm not sure how the T-90AM even got into the discussion except to satisfy the rule that all discussions on the Black Sea forum must turn into a political tug-of-war between the pro-NATO tribe and the pro-Russia tribe

See above. The plan is to upgrade the T-90As to T-90M standard, not to build new tanks.

The Indian army placed an order for 460 T-90SMs a few month ago http://nation.com.pk/national/25-Jan-2017/india-to-deploy-massive-tank-army-along-border-with-pakistan The T-90Ms status is a more murky. They will be upgraded T-90As rather than new-built but I don't have any timetable. http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/get-ready-nato-the-secret-reason-why-russias-new-t-90m-tank-19110

I'm not sure why the T-90AM is viewed as a semi-fictional maybe-it's-real-maybe-not tank. "T-90AM" is just an outdated designation for the T-90M/T-90SM which is in production.

Plus laser warning receiver and AMP round. The in-game Abrams is functionally an SEP v4 minus the Gen III FLIR and maybe the upgraded armor. It's scheduled for 2021 or thereabouts http://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2017_global_defense_security_army_news_industry/u.s._army_will_begin_the_development_of_m1a2_abrams_sep_v4_main_battle_tank_11302171.html I don't have an issue with it being in the game, I just wish the real SEP v2 was also present.

In Soviet army every man is a Marxman!

The variance in spotting is high, particularly at long ranges. For example, in the WW2 CM2 games the average time for a Panther A (mid) to spot a Pz IV at 1200 meters is 125 seconds (n=300, 95% confidence interval: 115.5 thru 138.9) with median of 107 and a standard deviation of 103. EDITED to add: Dug up some old Black Sea data. BMP-3 spotting M1 Abrams at 700 meters, n=220 Mean = 67.5 seconds 95% confidence interval for Mean: 59.11 thru 75.87 Standard Deviation = 59.0 Hi = 326 Low = 1 Median = 49 Average Absolute Deviation from Median = 41.1

He mentioned going to Mord's house to check up on him.

There are certain game mechanics that exaggerate the primacy of frontal armor protection and smoke-popping speed. Since the Abrams is the only tank on which frontal armor facing actually matters in US vs RF it benefits disproportionately (the same dynamic is true for T-90s against Ukrainian forces). The Abrams also pops smoke much faster than any other vehicle in the game (that is a bug that will hopefully get fixed.) Also, the version of the Abrams in the game is significantly more advanced than what the US Army actually has. So if you want a more balanced and arguably more realistic matchup the first thing to do is ban the M1 Abrams entirely. You can play mech infantry vs mech infantry or even allow the Russians to have tanks since they are helpless vs Javelin anyways (the Javelin has it's own issues but less serious than the Abrams). In fairness the Russians do get the benefit of the doubt in a couple of areas. The Zala UAV cannot be shot down by the US. Russian ground search radars work better than in reality. In fact, in my experience the best way to kill Abrams is to bring a lot of Khrizantema-S tank destroyers along with IR smoke popping APCs and shamelessly abuse the radar targeting.

I really don't see passengers in buttoned HTs getting hit much. German HTs in particular do just fine in the assault if they are kept more-or-less pointed at the enemy and there are no 12.7 MGs raking them. The turn speed of vehicles is heavily abstracted and takes into account factors not specifically modeled. For example, every vehicle in the game can pivot-in-place but most could not in reality.

You mean like a 3rd party database or spreadsheet? None that I am aware of.

I've never had to create an account to download directly from Nvidia. http://www.nvidia.com/Download/index.aspx

Bulletpoint is correct in principle even if his 500m rule of thumb may not be. While the chance of being hit is always lower when hull down, at short ranges the difference may be quite small, in which case a very large difference in penetration probability becomes the dominant factor in whether you live or die*. A complicating factor in the case of the Panther is that the lower hull is also more vulnerable than the upper hull. * In the game. In reality gunners could aim at specific areas on an enemy tank at short ranges, e.g. US tank gunners would aim at the lower half of the Panther mantlet for a ricochet penetration through the hull roof.

In addition to Motivation, it's been my impression that units out of C2 are more likely to open fire while Hiding.

Russia ceased production of the T-80 in the 1990's although Ukraine still produces variants. The T-80UK command tanks have a thermal gunners sight as do a handful of T-80Us that were upgraded in the 90s before Russia shifted priority to the T-72B, but the basic T-80U does not.

Kantemir Division (4th Guards Tank Division) is equipped with T-80U.

In 2020 maybe, not 2017.

In the statement I quoted you were talking about penetration of AD bubbles and knocking out SAM sites. That goes well beyond showing resolve and is not something the F-35 is ready for right now.

What is the great perceived need in Ukraine? Note that the good general said they were looking at non-combat zone deployments.

There is the Combat Mission Wiki http://combatmission.wikia.com/wiki/Combat_Mission_Wiki

I think we're getting ahead of ourselves here. Even if the US were considering the deployment of fighter aircraft to Ukraine -- which I very much doubt -- the F-35 is not ready for prime time yet and likely will not be for a few years. From the DOT&E FY2016 Annual Report:

It would be fascinating to see the F-35 against a neer-peer opponent. The US has bet most of it's marbles on the dominance of BVR but that is mostly theoretical.

Very nice map!

Did you try the test scenario I sent you? As I mentioned in the PM, it appears your issue is caused by attemping to fire the mortars through trees.