Vanir Ausf B

In fairness, the original thread only mentioned Fireflies.

There is a report. Search under "jeffsmith". It is marked as resolved but it only mentions Fireflies.

The teams starts with 9 missiles -- 3 each -- and fire 7. There are 2 remaining at the end of the turn, so all are accounted for. I didn't count but there were several, yes. But 7 is a very small sample size. The way CM handles random ATGM misses is by having them dive into the ground before reaching the target. Overshoots only happen when the missile is spoofed. It would be nice to have more variation in the type of misses but that's just how Charles chose to do it.

This is from ammo sharing. It loses access to the missile it fires along with the 2 the neighboring teams fire. This is confirmed by looking at the ammo count in the left pane (next to the night vision device count). That only shows the missiles held by that specific team and ignores shared ammo. For each team it starts at 3 missiles and decreases by one every shot. As for accuracy, I just ran a test of AT-14s vs T-64BVs at 1000 meters under ideal conditions, then a second test identical except for changing the weather to "heavy rain". For both tests I fired 100 missiles. In both tests 87 missiles hit. This is right in line with ATGM accuracy testing done during development. It also suggests that rain, at least, does not affect ATGM accuracy.

Regarding the tank destroyer thing, in addition to the doctrinal usage Armata reportedly weights in around 56 tons which puts it well within MBT territory.

I don't think I have the self discipline. Once I see something I have a hard time walling it off from my thinking.

Clearly he didn't want to see it, and now it cannot be unseen.

That leaves a lot to interpretation. It probably goes without saying that these rules would rely on the honor system for enforcement. But if you did play this way there are other rules you could add. No calling in of indirect fire by spotters out of C2 (it's ridiculous that the game even allows this, IMO). No orders given using knowledge gained by sound triangulation or of seeing walls/hedges disappear when unspotted vehicles run over them. I'm sure there are others.

This is a terrific idea. Thanks!

In other words, the US defines its national interest more broadly than "DEFEND THE BORDER" so it's not such a crazy concept. And frankly, in every conflict the US has fought since the introduction of the M1 Abrams the result would have been nearly identical had we rolled in M60A5s. For whatever reason there is perceived value in overkill. Heck, even Germany is building a new fleet of expensive IFVs (Puma) even though they are a nation of pacifists completely surrounded by allies that are almost pacifists. I can think of several good reasons for Armata and family that don't require 10,000 of them to be built. 1) Those nations bordering Russia that Russia likes to intimidate and beat up occasionally will not always be equipped with old Soviet junk. Ukraine domestically produces a tank roughly on par with the T-90 and Germany will hold another fire sale on slightly used Leopard 2s at some point. 2) When attracting volunteer recruits is a central goal of your modernization program having a vehicle fleet that does not have a reputation for exploding may not be a minor consideration. 3) Export market. The T-series sales pitch of "The best tank you can buy from a country that doesn't care what you use them for!" is wearing thin.

To be fair, you could replace "Russia" with "United States" in that statement and it would be just as true.

Tanks in CM are certainly not usually destroyed with one shot. One penetration, perhaps, but I don't think that is unrealistic at all.

Not really. If we are talking logistics, every branch procures parts from the same suppliers. It's true that Russia has much less logistical capacity than the US but they also aren't supporting a global empire

It seems like tanks are getting uglier

To be fair, nobody does. Not even the US. The Abrams entered service in 1980 but the USMC went to war in 1991 riding M60s. There are still thousands of M113s in service.

The only issue I have is that it gives roughly equal weight to the importance of training and experience. But that seems to be what CM does as well so it's appropriate in that context. In reality training is a better predictor of performance than combat experience.

To the best of my knowledge artillery response times have not been changed since the game was released.

dp

Most tanks that lacked neutral steer could lock one track and pivot on that. It's a larger turn radius but is otherwise just as effective. The Sherman couldn't even do that, however. I don't recall the details, but something about its transmission required it to have both tracks turning. Consequently it turned around like an automobile, backing up and pulling forward. US tankers complained about this bitterly after watching panzers pirouette.

No doubt. The S400 was originally for domestic use only, then they sold a bunch to China.

From the testing I did during CMBS beta I'd day it makes all the difference.

There is a long thread on this subject somewhere. In a nutshell: tanks have instant reaction times, tanks are allowed to ignore obstructing terrain such as trees and narrow streets when rotating, many WW2 era tanks were not even capable of rotating but are allowed to in-game. So rotation speeds are slowed down to compensate for the other advantages tanks already enjoy.

The 25mm Bushmaster will still penetrate the side hull of a T-90 under 1000 meters. IIRC, the side hull on the T-90 is only 60mm thick and 25mm APFSDS DU penetrates 100mm at the muzzle.

There has never been an ambush command in the CMx2 games, However, there actually was one in CMBO. It was removed in CMBB.

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/115503-skill-levels-effects-and-is-it-the-same-for-the-ai/?hl=loading#entry1539480 I have yet to see any evidence of the claim. But even if it were true I wouldn't care. The game would benefit in some ways if the AI was allowed to play by different rules.