Jump to content

Vanir Ausf B

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Vergeltungswaffe in Mission Briefings   
    If the Red Army makes it to Austria in the module it could get interesting

  2. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to The_Capt in Mission Briefings   
    Ok, well lets unpack this.  I, for one, do not think you are a troll (perhaps trying hard to impersonate one but...), you are a paying customer who appears uninformed and we aim to both educate and entertain.
    So looking at the the ol' scenario list AND not counting the extra versions based on dates (more on this later) AND the US Campaign (1982) ones we are at 23 standalone scenarios.  Now one could say that the Soviet Training Scenarios do not count, which based on the number of YouTube videos is pretty unfair, but let's be brutal on ourselves (sorry Justin).  This would bring our paltry total down to 19 standalones.  Now BFC policy for a base game release is 15-20 with emphasis on the 20, if we can get to it.  So here we fell one scenario short of the upper end of content range.  Now in our defence CMCW requires large maps in order to really show things off, much larger than other titles, so that played a factor.  
    Now as to the "why the multiple years?" question.  Well we did that because CMCW covers off a 4 year period in which available equipment varies significantly year to year.  These differences create pretty interesting and noticeable variations in gameplay.  For example in 1979 you could see M48s vs T55s and in 1982 we have M1s vs T80Bs, the balances is very different between these dates.  So we thought, "hey there is a lot of kit here and maybe players don't really know the ins and outs of all of it.  We should create different time versions so they can easily see and learn how different equipment stacks up."  
    Now as to "rushing".  I am not sure what your scenario design and building experience is, or is not; however, it is no small task to create multiple versions of the same thing.   For example, the work that went into the 1982 vs 1979 US Campaigns was such that it probably would have been easier to simply do two completely separate campaigns.  The testing and play balancing is a long process, as is the deploying of units and AI.
    Finally, as to the the "cheating" US Campaigns ported over as standalones, there are 10 in total.  Well the thinking here was that these should really be bonus content.  First, not everyone is going to finish the US Campaign, or play all its battles, so this gives the player a chance to play and try any of them up front.  Second, it allowed us to offer them for H2H play, which should be very interesting for some.  Again, as to "rushing", porting the campaign scenarios over into standalones actually took more time as Red side briefings and Human vs Human considerations had to be made.  The US Campaign alone has over 190 square kms of map work btw, again very big maps required all tied to the actual ground in the region (seriously, check it out on Google maps). 
    To this we add one NTC campaign, and two versions of both the Soviet and US campaigns, I would sincerely hope that the average player can squeeze out at least of 60+ hours of quality play time, before hitting the QBs or Scenario editor.  
    So there you have it.  As per content guidelines, based on past titles, we are safely in the upper end of content requirements by about any metric.  I will leave the qualitative judgement to all you fine grognards.
  3. Like
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Myles Keogh in So when will the next project be officially announced?   
    I'm pretty sure BFC never promised to make an Early War game.
  4. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to The_Capt in Mission Briefings   
    So, because this was becoming a rather vocal issue, and I began to doubt us for a second, I exported 19 of the standalone scenario briefings (both Blue and Red) out of the commercial scenarios and cut and pasted them into Word.  That came to 20727 words in total.  Scrubbing through them all and using the Word spelling checker, we come to a grand total of 15 real spelling mistakes (not military slang or funny abbreviations) out of the sample.  This yields an error rate of about .07%, which in just about any industry standard is well below the accepted manufacturing rate errors (outside of the nuclear and space industry).  It is even lower than accepted experimental error in engineering. (https://courses.cit.cornell.edu/virtual_lab/LabZero/Experimental_Error.shtml#:~:text=Engineers also need to be,analysis techniques to get any). 
    The worst offending scenario had 5 spelling errors and the writer is not a native English speaker, but we can make sure we get help with that.  So now I am going to do a grammar and punctuation check but from that I can see so far (again thank you MS Word) we are doing better than a lot of adult students I know. 
    Now we will continue to try and get better in all things in order to continue a solid wargame to you all...thank you for your patience. [Note, I am sorry but I cannot share the Word Doc here as it is company IP etc.]  Oh and as an aside, I hold a Master's degree and still managed to spell "Frankfurt" wrong in Valley of Ashes, so human error happens.
  5. Like
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Artkin in So when will the next project be officially announced?   
    No such plan ever existed, and they have been explicit about that.
  6. Like
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Anonymous_Jonze in So when will the next project be officially announced?   
    No such plan ever existed, and they have been explicit about that.
  7. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to akd in TO&E Bugs, Oversights, Quibbles, Opinions and Suggestions Thread   
    Let's think about this. Either:
    1. It is a planned mission.  The FO can do this during setup. You can pretend the commander ordered him to do it.
    2. It is a TRP mission.  The FO can do this at any time from any position.  You can pretend the commander ordered him to do it.
    3. It is a mission on an unregistered target and you are willing to accept the inaccuracy that comes with skipping spotting.  The FO can do this at any time from any position with an "emergency" mission.  You can pretend the commander ordered him to do it.
    4. It is a mission on an unregistered target that you want adjusted for accuracy.  The FO will need to observe the fall of shot to send corrections.  You are asking that the commander be the FO instead.
  8. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from sttp in So when will the next project be officially announced?   
    No such plan ever existed, and they have been explicit about that.
  9. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to Holien in PBEM Integration   
    Just found another quirk which might be worthy of mention for anyone testing. I just loaded up a multiplayer setup to look at but not complete setting up my forces. I just wanted to see map to ponder my set up later today.
    I tried to exit but the program locks that out so only way to exit was to crash the whole program. Ctl alt dlt...
    Doing some research it would seem this is an anti cheating feature to stop save and reload scumming. 
    With such large setup for some CM scenarios you are going to have to allocate time to complete it fully else it doesn't get saved. Just something to be aware of in the CM implementation of PBEM++
  10. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to domfluff in Getting the most out of the ATGM BRDMs and the Shturm-S.   
    Like a lot of things in Cold War, the answer tends to be Mass.

    The AT platoons of the AT battery have three BRDM/Shturms, with an HQ in a BRDM. In general you want to be treating this more like a WW2 AT Gun platoon. Rather than treating ATGMs as an anti-tank sniper rifle, which you can do in the (more) modern games, they need to be sited so that you can gain an advantage by having multiple rolls of the dice - if all three of them are playing ambush predator and watching the incoming Tank platoon, then you only need one of them to spot to start the enagement in a favourable way.

    BRDMs unbutton in an interesting way - rather than sticking their head out, the cover of the front window opens. That tends to give them good visibility, but the vantage point is low to the ground, which affects what ground you can best fight from.

    Obvious stuff can help too, like using the HQ BRDM to spot with, and rely spotting contacts, since that's mostly what he's for.

    In general, ATGM *duels* are something that's pretty unique to Cold War, and almost always a bad idea. Long range fires, one-hit-kills, with a fairly large chance of missing means that trying to fight ATGMs with ATGMs is more or less a coin flip. TOW and AT-5 are more or less equivalent in practical terms - even if TOW is the superior weapon by any number of characteristics, there's a large chance of it missing, and if it misses, the M150 will probably be toast.
  11. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to Combatintman in Why are modern CM title soldiers all white men?   
    No here speaks a man who has deployed on operations with females.  Afghanistan 2012 ... day two of a PSYOPs deployment with a company team to Deh Rawud.

  12. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to Ryujin in US armour spotting ability - buttoned or unbuttoned?   
    M60A3/M1/M901 have a thermal gunners sight so turning the commander out shouldn't matter.
  13. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to domfluff in Battles or Campaign featuring   
    The series of NTC armour battles ends with one where you have an Abrams platoon.
    They kinda ruin it, really. The Abrams is such a dominant piece of kit that it wipes out a lot of the subtley in the game, and reverts to something more like CMSF.
    It's not bad as a late-campaign "reward" or the like, and it's interesting to see, but yeah, not really a fan of what it does to the game.
  14. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to Amedeo in Some thoughts on the effectiveness of the M735 and M774 APFSDS on the glacis armor of T-64A.   
    Yes, I'm sure the SBWiki penetration values are point blank and not at 3000m because the very first line of that page contains the words "measured at the muzzle".
    Speaking of the M111, I know that some consider that round as similar in performance to the M735 (the same SBWiki does) but I simply wanted to remember that, in the mid '80s, Zaloga stated that its performance was similar to the M735A1 (and thus more in line with the M774 than the M735). Zaloga's statement was not based on Israely marketing hipe. In the same book I quoted before, Zaloga said also that Israeli sources claimed the M111 to be superior (!) to the latest US DU APFSDS (i.e. M774 and M833) but added that an US officer, asked whether this could be true, just chuckled.
    Why are we discussing the M111? As you said, because of the notorious "Kubinka tests". Now, the only written published source about these tests (at least the only one I know of) was an article written by James Warford for the magazine Armor. The article said that the Soviet tested M111 APFSDS rounds against the T-72A in 1983 (circa) and were shocked when they found that the M111 was able to penetrate the tank's glacis. The article also reported that US made M735 APFSDS were allegedly tested, and the T-72A was found to be proof to them. The author wrote allegedly because he thinks it was unlikely that the Soviets managed to smuggle US ammo from West Germany.
    But fact is that the only things we know for sure is that an Israeli M60 (with ammo) was recovered by the Syrians in 1982 and shipped to the Soviet Union (the Kubinka museum recently agreed to sent it back to Israel in exchange for another one - they did this because Israeli officials asked the return of what was considered a "war grave") and some time after, a 20mm appliqué glacis plate for T-72/64/80 tanks. Period. 
    Actually, all the details we "know" about those tests were based on the recollections of colonel Murakhovskii (he, again) that leaked on internet forums: I'm referring in particular to the Tank-Net forum. The fact that the tank tested was a T-72A, the fact that it was tested at 1500m range, the fact that the Soviet found that the glacis was penetrated and the turret was proof, the fact that also the M735 was tested (actually it was said, generically, it was an "american APFSDS", but, if true, I think it's a safely assumption that we're talking about the M735, not the M774). I'm not stating that these details are false. I only want to point out that, as far as I know, there are no other independent confirmation of them, other than the aforementioned forum anecdotes.
    So, I went on and tested the M735 against a T-72A in CMCW, expecting it to be basically proof against that tungsten APSFSD, but.... see below.
    In my tests the M735, against a T-72A at 1500m, obtained 46% Superstructure front hull penetrations (!!!), 15% Upper front hull penetrations, 15% weapon mount penetrations, 15% Lower front hull penetrations, 9% Turret hits (no penetrations). That was totally unexpected! Especially considering the results of your tests against the T-64A. I don't know whether I managed to get a string of unlikely results (I "destroyed" only a dozen tanks to get my data - I don't claim any statistical relevance) but, now I presume that the problem might not lie in  "underpowered" US APFSDS (since their results of both the M774 and M735 against T-72s and T-80s are in line with the expectations... even more so) but in some sort of tougher T-64A glacis. Additionally, I think that it would be interesting to know exactly to which glacis areas the "Upper front plate" and "Superstructure hull front" corresponds. Maybe that the "Upper front plate" contains not only the driver's hatch zone but also a significant portion of the glacis.
  15. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to Armorgunner in Some thoughts on the effectiveness of the M735 and M774 APFSDS on the glacis armor of T-64A.   
    I was in the Swedish military from the first half of the 90´s, to the beginning of the 20´s century. And when the Berlin wall fell. We got 5 T-72M1´s from Germany, allmost for free. To test amunition on, and to test the East German amunition, and to share the results to Germany (and other NATO contries). 
    The T-72 M1 fired the BM22 and the arrows went straight through the S-Tank. When the S-Tank fired at the T-72 M1, it could not penetrate other than on weakspots! And remember, Sweden as a neutral country. Always bought the best (non DU ammo), if we could not developed it ourselfes (For political reasons, we could not buy DU ammo, nor develpe it ourselfs). And the S-Tank, had a longer barrel than any other 105mm L7 tanks out there at the time. So it compensated with higher muzzle velocity, for not using DU rounds (<10% higer penetration for DU rounds, and much more pyrophoric effects after penetration. Values are for 120mm rounds though). 
    The same after we bought the Strv 122 for our armoured brigades, and rented 160 Strv 121 (Leopard 2 A4) for our mechanized brigades from Germany in 1994-95. We wanted the best non DU ammo, and it was not in Germany at the time. So we bought Israeli APFSDS ammunition after comprehensive testing. 
    So I think that CM:CW is quite spot on, from my own experience!
  16. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to FinStabilized in Some thoughts on the effectiveness of the M735 and M774 APFSDS on the glacis armor of T-64A.   
    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.


    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.
  17. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to Haiduk in Did the Soviets really stop issuing binoculars after WW2?   
    Does the Soviet rifle platoon in CMRT really have binoculars in each squad and at platoon leader? This is incorrect!
    Here the document of rifle company equipmnet according to rifle regiment Shtat 04/551 (December 1942), which was actual up to the spring 1945. In equipment column you can see letters "пп" (SMG), "б" (binocular), "к" (compass). And here the terriblle thing - there are NO. ONE. binocular in the rifle platoons. Neither platoon leader nor squad leaders have binoculars. Only company commander and 50 mm mortar platoon (actually abscent in 1944) leader had. 
    @akd I think, this have to be reported for CMRT
  18. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to StrykerPSG in An early experience with the M47 Dragon in CMCW   
    US never bought the Dragon III, which had a newer sight with day/night capability in one unit. Dragon and Dragon II only had a day sight and you would attach an AN/PVS-5 (AN/TAS-5, just googled it) on the tube instead, or was it attached to the sight? (attached to the sight, then onto the missile, bulky as hell, not to mention the weight). Been a while. Anyway, never thermal, but passive night vision, so challenging when there's a lack of star/moon light
  19. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to benpark in Nvidia Control Panel settings?   
    This what I have ticked "on" in the Nvidia Control Panel (works best at these settings for the 2080, your mileage may vary):
    Antistropic Filtering: 16x
    Antialiasing Mode: Enhance
    Antialiasing Setting: 8x
    Antialiasing Transparancy: Off (screws up ground textures when "on")
    Low Latency Mode: Ultra
    Max Frame Rate: Off
    MFAA: On
    Open GL rendering GPU: Set as your card.
    Power Management Mode: Prefer Max Performance
    Texture Filtering- Antistropic Sample Optimization: Off
    Texture Filtering- Neg. LoD Bias- Clamp
    Texture Filtering- Quality: High Quality
    Texture Filtering- Trilinear Opt.: On
    Threaded Optimization- Off
    Triple Buffering: On
    Vertical Sync: Adaptive
    I'm mostly catering the settings away from DirectX settings, and trying to keep everything I can OpenGL friendly.
    All settings in CM at maximum.
  20. Upvote
  21. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to Amedeo in Some remarks on the ammo loadouts.   
    Well, I'm not that sure that more than half the tanks in the GSVG were T-62s in the early '80s. Yes, there were delays in the process of reequipping all Soviet units in Germany with the T-64, but these can be considered significant delays only if compared to the original goal of having the whole GSVG equipped with the new tanks by the end of the '70!
    According to the below referenced article - by colonel Murakhovskii - the process of reequipping Soviet division stationed in Germany with T-64s started in 1976 with the 16th Guards Tank Division and the 35th Motorized Rifle Division. It initially progressed at a speedy pace, because the concurrent production of the T-72 allowed shipping to Germany not only the newly produced T-64s but also the ones in service in the Western Military District of the USSR (that were replaced by T-72s). After this, the Soviet leadership realized that the Khar'kov plant (the only one producing T-64s) was not able to sustain the expected replacement rate and delays accumulated.
    РАЗВЕРТЫВАНИЕ НОВЫХ ТИПОВ ТАНКОВ В ГСВГ/ЗГВ « « Военно-патриотический сайт «Отвага» Военно-патриотический сайт «Отвага» (otvaga2004.ru)
    Long story short, this replacement took ten years, instead of the planned 3-4 years, but this doesn't mean that the T-62 remained prevalent in GSVG units in the early '80s. On the contrary, it was likely a minority by the end of the '70s; if we sum up the information provided by the aforementioned article and if we consider that the Soviets had twenty division - give or take, there were a few changes in the OoB during this timeframe - we end up with the following progression:
    1976 -  2 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20 
    1977 -  8 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20 
    1978 - 10 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20 
    1979 - 12 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20 
    1980 - 14 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20
    1981 - 15 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20 
    It was then decided to equip GSVG units with T-64s and T-80s, and they finally managed to complete the transition by mid '80s, T-62 tanks remained only in some independent tank regiments thereafter and, by 1990-1991 all the divisions in the (former) GSVG - then renamed Western Group of Forces, ZGV - were equipped with T-80 variants only (they managed to replace also the T-64s).
    So, it seems that in the early '80s it was the T-64A that accounted for the 50-75% of the total Soviet tank force in Germany, not the T-62.
    And this is exactly why I advanced the issue: giving the T-64A the 3BM12 means that, in the game, this "premium" tank is armed with an APFSDS that performs worse than the APFSDS that arms the T-62! (I don't know the actual game specs for these rounds since in game ammo performance data are not available in CMx2, but I presume the figures are in the same ballpark of those one can find elsewhere: just compare the data for the 125mm 3BM12 and the 115mm 3BM21 in SBwiki, for example). Moreover, this won't affect the player that chooses the more exotic (rarity wise) mixes - e.g. T-80s - they have the "correct" ammo, but will affect the players that want to use the sandbox trying to replicate a plausible 1979-1982 timeframe scenario. The present game design choices work well with the tanks that entered service near or in the 1979-1982 timeframe - as I said it is near perfect with the late M60 variants, the M1, the T-80, and this is why I agree with you with what you said in the first part of your post - but show problems with some of the tanks that (nominally) entered service well before 1979, as the M48, T-55, T-64.
    The fact is that the Soviet embraced a large and comprehensive tank upgrade and rearmament program in the mid '70s. The BM22 was chosen for a massive program of mass production (pun intended), to the extent that - during the recent war in the Ukraine - after exhausting the stocks of the more modern (mid '80s) 3BM32 and 3BM42 APFSDS, the contendents started to pull loads of 3BM22 rounds out of stocks. Why the 3BM22 and not the more recent 3BM26 or 3BM29? Exactly because it was the 3BM22 that was produced and stockpiled in large quantities, and not the other rounds.
    A quick fix, that would also preserve the present overall game design choices, could be giving the T-64A the 3BM15, the T-64B the 3BM22, and the T-55A the BM-20 or BM-25. This would both maintain the "tiered" approach to ammo distribution (i.e. "newer" variants of the same tank model get "newer" ammo) and allow for more realistic loadouts in the core (1979-1982) timeframe. But, in my humble opinion, also the option of introducing different (game) tank variants with different loadouts, reflecting ammo upgrade, could be viable. After all, in some respects, it's already in the game: what is a T-72A (1980) if not a vanilla T-72A with more modern ammo? Yes, yes, there are also the smoke dischargers to "justify" the variant, but you get the gist. 🙂
  22. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to domfluff in cold war tank thermals novice question   
    I believe that the TTS thermal sight on the M60A3 (TTS) is on the Gunner's sight, not the commanders. That means that unbutttoning shouldn't affect that (as far as I'm aware).
  23. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to StrykerPSG in An early experience with the M47 Dragon in CMCW   
    As a former 11BC10 (med AT Gunner) in my first enlistment (1983-1985), I can tell you, the M47 was indeed a system that made one nervous with regards to reliability. Though we had a trainer, it failed to reproduce the initial launching shock of the missile leaving the launcher and the follow on "popcorn" sound of the 200+ small engines igniting to keep your bird on track with your sight. More than a few dumped their missiles initially because of the surprised popping noises and the new gunner trying to get the missile to rise to their viewpoint, rather than giving enough time for it to rise to the proper sighted crosshair. The biggest reward for firing the Dragon is you no longer carried it on your back...lol. Admittedly, I studied every WP armored vehicle poster, noting the location of engine compartments and vulnerabilities on the sides and rear of WP vehicles.
  24. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to Chibot Mk IX in Panther G vs. IS-2   
    the bad luck could be caused by impact angle

    Just look at how many 88mm AP rounds failed to penetrate the IS-2's side armor.
    The amazing strong defense is caused by the posture of IS-2 . It makes the German AP ammunition impact at a 30 degree.

  25. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to Amedeo in Some remarks on the ammo loadouts.   
    Of course I have no difficulties believing that a lot of thought went into this whole business of crafting CMCW. I know the quality Battlefront strives to deliver because I'm a happy customer since the days of CMBO. With CMBO, Battlefront started to produce the best (that is, in my opinion, the most realistic, user friendly and fun to play) tactical wargames and still does. So, rest assured that I'm not writing this to bash CMCW: in fact, now that it is available, and installed both on my Windows laptop and Mac Mini, I ditched all my other tactical cold war era videogames.
    Does it mean that CM is perfect? Of course not. And, although I am not one of the top posters,  it's more than 20 years that I joined this community and I do remember how the process of polishing, improving and expanding the various CM titles passed also through a lot of long, documented and passionate threads on these very forums. Even I had the occasion to partecipate in some of those discussions and contribute a little bit of info than managed to find its place into some CM titles. So, I wrote the OP in the spirit of those constructive threads, not to point fingers, not to demand, but to suggest and discuss.
    And, speaking, of the engine restrictions on ammunition natures, I'm aware of them, but they are not consequential to what I wrote. They would be of hindrance if one had to place in the very same AFV different APDS types, or different APFSDS types, but that's not the case.
    I know of the sandbox nature of the game. But CMCW is not a 'generic' Cold War game nor simply an OPFOR vs US Army simulator: it sports a specific timeframe (1979-1982) and it's obvious that BFC goal was (as always) to provide players the most accurate and high fidelity representation of the opposing US and Soviet armies in terms of organization, equipment, weapons, ammo types etc. In this respect I do think that some more polishing and chrome might and should be added. Moreover, it can be easily made in a way that is already a CM staple, i.e. adding to a tank's name a suffix like 1979 or 1980 or early, mid, late, latest to differentiate models that differ only for the ammo loadout composition (reflecting, for example, the introduction of a better kinetic penetrator).
    For what concerns the composition of the M60 park in USAREUR units, you are, of course, right. In fact, even with the 'policy' of one tank model-one ammo model, BFC managed to achieve the "best fit" for M60s and M1s in the given timeframe. But, as you noticed, I wasn't speaking of them (although one could point out some subtleties that could allow for a bit of chrome... but I'd better reserve this for another post! 😄)
  • Create New...