Vanir Ausf B

Apologies if I misunderstood. It sounded to me like you were driving the vehicles until they were barely in LOS and then stopping them immediately.
 
Anyways, I grew weary of deciphering other people's tests and did my own. BMP-3M vs Stryker M1126. Both have 2 man crews, both have a thermal imager on the gunner's sight. The moving vehicles top a rise 800m in front of the stationary ones. Quick and dirty; no spotting times, just who spots who first. 50 iterations each way.
 
BMPs moving
Stryker spots first: 45
BMP spots first: 5
 
Stryker moving
Stryker spots first 19
BMP spots first: 30
1 draw
 
Bottom line is that Black Sea assumes US sights to be more capable than Russian, and I have yet to see any convincing evidence to suggest that is incorrect. The degree to which they are better is debatable and I am not going to claim that this early version of Black Sea has it nailed at the outset. This sort of thing is difficult to quantify and usually boils down to people's gut feelings. Tweaks may be made.
 
But I also think we should put to rest the charge that stationary Russian units are routinely spotted first by moving US units, at least in cases of both having similar types of sighting devices. But if it's an older Russian vehicle that doesn't have a thermal imager and it's raining or foggy it may be time.

How is using the target line any different an exploit than going to ground level and moving all around the map and looking at the terrain.  You can't do that in real life as a commander.  To me you get the exact same exploit, its just one of them is easier and saves time for people that don't have all night to play.

Until the AI is smart enough to find a good position themselves, it's necessary to some degree. You can't tell your ATGM team to go up on the ridge and find a spot overlooking the road. They'll just go exactly where you say and happily stare at the backside of the ridge, even if moving two meters forward would give them a good view. I'd rather deal with a few exploits of the target line instead of having my troops stand around in a useless spot just out of LOS when moving them.
 
Aside from that, in general CM simulates the combat very well, but not being in the commander's boots. You almost always have far, far more information and command power than an actual commander. Just comes with the perspective and the fact you play as every leader on your side.  

I generally try to encourage people to test things when they have questions about game mechanics, but I don't think nuzrak's tests show anything. What does "BMP-3M moving into the LOS of static M2-A3 in open ground" really mean? If the moving units are stopping the instant they move into LOS of the stationary units then the movement is irrelevant. If they are moving while in LOS of the enemy then the distance and speed need to be known. The results are further compromised by the separate commander not effectively communicating with the crew, a known issue.

I don't play turn based. Its a ****ing pos. Only wego I have is with Doug Williams. And the turn cache is cleared.

huh?

Re: WP
 
It had to do with causing the ventilation system on the target tank to ingest the special happy fun super-thick smoke WP produces.  Given the nature of fires in tanks, the decision cycle to bail out of the tank is usually truncated without the proper inquiry to if the outside of the tank is the on fire part or not.  Also a hit going off on the frontal slope would totally ruin whatever aim the German tank had, crew evacuation our not.
 
Re: Oh god why are we still talking about this
 
There's two separate issues to discuss: Why airbursts are not the tank eliminator, and why replicating tactics that don't exist based on internet warrior ideas is bad.
 
a. As stated, the impact of a PD fused weapon on the tank apparently is not able to knock out a tank.  This is pretty well established, and agreed on.  The question is however, why a much smaller explosive charge exploding away from the vehicle will result in anything but inferior effects.  Here's some things to consider:
 
1. The Precision type artillery rounds (which have much larger warheads and destructive potential than the HE type tank rounds) have all been tested, and indeed to some degree designed to be capable against armor type targets.  None of them use this apparently tank blinding/crushing/better than PD airburst attack.  They all point detonate because people who are still paid to do these things have determined point, or point delayed type fuze are the only rounds that really are worthwhile shooting at tank type targets.
 
2. VT can be set for different altitudes.  If airburst is a highly lethal tank maimer, why are anti-vehicle missions still this inferior PD system?
 
3. Abrams especially has been hit by close airburst analogs.  In Iraq for a time the insurgents were strapping IEDs to overpasses because Jubul Al Kettlar or something told them it would render the tank a mission kill.  In practice it shredded topside gear, but did not effect the tank significantly.  It was a different story with truck type targets obviously, but outside of EFPs, massive IEDs (like aviation bomb derived ones), and RPG-29 from flank/top shots, there wasn't much that was reliable against M1s.  
 
 
Either way as a tangent, we all place way too much emphasis on max range standoff shoots.  It's not a realistic representation of engagements, and even further down the road, engagement with marginal tactics at long range is....dumb.  The better tactic is to use what you have to force the enemy to fight at your optimal range, rather than trying to figure out if you strap enough tinfoil to a AT-14, it'll convince the APS sensors that it's actually a low flying commercial jetliner (Which of course subjects it to BUK intercept)
 
b.  Making up tactics that troops might, or might not try based upon backseat quarterback opinions from the internet is questionable.  If the Russian manuals advocated a airburst over the tank and a sabot chaser, then bam, should be in the game, but we go down a slippery slope when we start including behaviors based on player "if I was a tankman!" ideas.  We're playing this game to see broadly realistic behavior, not what forum user #120 would do if he was a T-90 commander.  

I generally try to encourage people to test things when they have questions about game mechanics, but I don't think nuzrak's tests show anything. What does "BMP-3M moving into the LOS of static M2-A3 in open ground" really mean? If the moving units are stopping the instant they move into LOS of the stationary units then the movement is irrelevant. If they are moving while in LOS of the enemy then the distance and speed need to be known. The results are further compromised by the separate commander not effectively communicating with the crew, a known issue.

Something to keep in mind is that one of the changes from CMSF to Black Sea in how vehicle optics work is that thermal imaging systems -- FLIR -- are much better at spotting than day/night sights. In CMSF TI sights just let you see through normal smoke but were otherwise treated the same as any other day/night sight. Also note that, to the best of my knowledge, the Black Sea code draws a distinction between thermal intensifiers that see in the near infrared spectrum -- smaller, cheaper, not cooled -- and  thermal imagers , i.e. FLIR, that see into the mid to far infrared spectrum and are larger, more expensive and are cooled. The former are considered to be day/night sights and not in the same category as FLIR.
 
To the best of my knowledge the BPK-3-42 gunner's sight on the BMP-2M is a thermal intensifier. The fact that it has a passive range of only 800 meters is strongly suggestive. That means that in the Black Sea code it is not on-par with the Stryker gunner's thermal channel nor with the Vesna-K gunner's sight on the BMP-3M which by way of comparison is a FLIR with a passive range of over 4000 meters.

I generally try to encourage people to test things when they have questions about game mechanics, but I don't think nuzrak's tests show anything. What does "BMP-3M moving into the LOS of static M2-A3 in open ground" really mean? If the moving units are stopping the instant they move into LOS of the stationary units then the movement is irrelevant. If they are moving while in LOS of the enemy then the distance and speed need to be known. The results are further compromised by the separate commander not effectively communicating with the crew, a known issue.

This would be more like necessary unrest

Something to keep in mind is that one of the changes from CMSF to Black Sea in how vehicle optics work is that thermal imaging systems -- FLIR -- are much better at spotting than day/night sights. In CMSF TI sights just let you see through normal smoke but were otherwise treated the same as any other day/night sight. Also note that, to the best of my knowledge, the Black Sea code draws a distinction between thermal intensifiers that see in the near infrared spectrum -- smaller, cheaper, not cooled -- and  thermal imagers , i.e. FLIR, that see into the mid to far infrared spectrum and are larger, more expensive and are cooled. The former are considered to be day/night sights and not in the same category as FLIR.
 
To the best of my knowledge the BPK-3-42 gunner's sight on the BMP-2M is a thermal intensifier. The fact that it has a passive range of only 800 meters is strongly suggestive. That means that in the Black Sea code it is not on-par with the Stryker gunner's thermal channel nor with the Vesna-K gunner's sight on the BMP-3M which by way of comparison is a FLIR with a passive range of over 4000 meters.

For what it's worth...

Spotting times for BMP-2M vs Stryker, 1200 meters
Mean = 72.4 seconds
95% confidence interval for Mean: 57.41 thru 87.42
Standard Deviation = 55.4
Hi = 214. Low = 15
Median = 47.0
Average Absolute Deviation from Median = 45.1
 
Spotting times for Stryker M1126 vs BMP-2M, 1200 meters
Mean = 29.1 seconds
95% confidence interval for Mean: 14.38 thru 43.88
Standard Deviation = 15.5
Hi = 73 Low = 1
Median = 25.5
Average Absolute Deviation from Median = 11.6
 
Number of times the Stryker spotted first: 22
Number of times the BMP-2M spotted first: 7
1 tie
 
...
 
Spotting times for BMP-2M vs Stryker, 500 meters
Mean = 21.9 seconds
95% confidence interval for Mean: 17.97 thru 25.83
Standard Deviation = 12.5
Hi = 53 Low = 4
Median = 20.0
Average Absolute Deviation from Median = 9.17
 
Spotting times for Stryker M1126 vs BMP-2M, 500 meters
Mean = 16.0 seconds
95% confidence interval for Mean: 12.11 thru 19.96
Standard Deviation = 8.58
Hi = 35 Low = 2
Median = 14.0
Average Absolute Deviation from Median = 6.43
 
Number of times the Stryker spotted first: 20
Number of times the BMP-2M spotted first: 9
1 tie
 
Note that each test has a sample size of 30 which is pretty low for this type of test, and the testing was not entirely scientific since the Strykers and BMPs were spotting each other instead of a common target, so the results should be viewed as suggestive rather than definitive.
 
That having been said, it appears the Stryker has a significant edge at all ranges but it is more pronounced at longer range. However, the Stryker does not spot first every time.

For what it's worth...

Spotting times for BMP-2M vs Stryker, 1200 meters
Mean = 72.4 seconds
95% confidence interval for Mean: 57.41 thru 87.42
Standard Deviation = 55.4
Hi = 214. Low = 15
Median = 47.0
Average Absolute Deviation from Median = 45.1
 
Spotting times for Stryker M1126 vs BMP-2M, 1200 meters
Mean = 29.1 seconds
95% confidence interval for Mean: 14.38 thru 43.88
Standard Deviation = 15.5
Hi = 73 Low = 1
Median = 25.5
Average Absolute Deviation from Median = 11.6
 
Number of times the Stryker spotted first: 22
Number of times the BMP-2M spotted first: 7
1 tie
 
...
 
Spotting times for BMP-2M vs Stryker, 500 meters
Mean = 21.9 seconds
95% confidence interval for Mean: 17.97 thru 25.83
Standard Deviation = 12.5
Hi = 53 Low = 4
Median = 20.0
Average Absolute Deviation from Median = 9.17
 
Spotting times for Stryker M1126 vs BMP-2M, 500 meters
Mean = 16.0 seconds
95% confidence interval for Mean: 12.11 thru 19.96
Standard Deviation = 8.58
Hi = 35 Low = 2
Median = 14.0
Average Absolute Deviation from Median = 6.43
 
Number of times the Stryker spotted first: 20
Number of times the BMP-2M spotted first: 9
1 tie
 
Note that each test has a sample size of 30 which is pretty low for this type of test, and the testing was not entirely scientific since the Strykers and BMPs were spotting each other instead of a common target, so the results should be viewed as suggestive rather than definitive.
 
That having been said, it appears the Stryker has a significant edge at all ranges but it is more pronounced at longer range. However, the Stryker does not spot first every time.

There is a very interesting graphic here under the M1A2 SEP portion, in the form of a drawing which shows how, from ODS on, US thermals stack up vs Russian ones. Though the gap is closing, as of 2003, the latest model of the Gen 2 M1A2 thermals still held the edge over the Gen 2 thermals on the T-72MP. This may well be part of the problem. Nor is it just range. Look at the overall system capabilities:
 
(Fair Use from above)
 
"The 2nd Gen FLIR is a fully integrated engagement-sighting system designed to provide the gunner and tank commander with significantly improved day and night target acquisition and engagement capability. This system allows 70% better acquisition, 45% quicker firing and greater accuracy. In addition, a gain of 30% greater range for target acquisition and identification will increase lethality and lessen fratricide.
 
The Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer (CITV) provides a hunter killer capability. The 2nd GEN FLIR is a variable power sighting system ranging from 3 or 6 power (wide field of view) for target acquisition and 13, 25 or 50 power (narrow field of view) for engaging targets at appropriate range."
 
By contrast, seen from the Russian end, the numbers look pretty grim in comparison. The ESSA sight (with Catherine FC IR camera) acquisition magnification numbers aren't so bad, 3 or 12 power WFOV, but only 24 power NFOV. Thus, in 2003, the M1A2 had just over twice the max available magnification of the T-90S now. The MRT (Mean Resolvable Temperature) for this unit is 2 deg C. Still looking for the numbers for the M1A2 SEP V2. I strongly suspect they'll be better in the MRT department than the ESSA. 
 
This is, I think, a grog wargame forum like ours, and concerns either something out or something being worked. There is no game here, so I FERVENTLY HOPE I won't get into trouble, and it probably is something like the old PE Development Group I used to participate in. This link is directly pertinent to this discussion because it has actual FLIR imagery and operator experience from Bradley and M1A2 users. One of the first remarks is instructive. It talks about seeing people in the open desert with the FLIR out to 2 km! The thread also talks about the different ways the operator can adjust controls to get the best possible performance from the system. It goes way past White Hot/Black Hot.  These people appear to be operating at something close to an engineering sim of the thermals being modeled. Looks pretty deep to me. Of particular interest is that it talks about a GEN III FLIR for the Bradley. Elsewhere, I've read that the Abrams and the Bradley now have common FLIR systems. 
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Thank you for welcome. I wish I could be more active in the community, however since I have not yet bought the Black Sea, my abilities and knowledge about inner game mechanics are somewhat limited.
 
As for PL-01... Well, here's is somewhat a rant of mine about it.
 
Short Version:
hell naw. For a game ? Sure, but hell naw to irl service.
 
Longer version:
PL-01 is nothing more than a bit uparmored CV90, up to 5+ STANAG 4569, which is nothing impressive tbh. It's not even an MBT, more like a Light Tank or an AFV.
 
As a technology demonstrator/proof of concept of the modules ? Sure.
 
Testing of APS for potential future use on PT-91/Rosomak/future BWP/whatever ? Yes please!
Testing of "Stealth" Tech for potential future use ? Sure.
 
Full blown combat vehicle ? Eeeh.
 
Fire support vehicle for infantry is a sound thing to be had (in limited numbers, most of the time you gonna have Armor support for those kind of things). 
 
1. 105mm or 120mm issue: Poland being a post Warsaw Pact nation, it has never used any kind of 105mm shells. Introducing yet another shell standard (beside 120mm for Leos and 125mm for T-72/PT-91) would even further divide limited resources for Production and R&D, and further complicate supply chain in war time. Going for 120mm seems like the best way to go as (afaik, I'm not an expert) some money could be shared among it and Leo 2 munition programs.
 
2. Chassis: CV90 is a foreign product. Starting up it's manufacture would be yet another thing to spend money on. Technology transfer (something our military industry has a major hard on for) is an obvious plus, however it could be done without starting up full scale production.
 
More obvious (and imho. better) choice would be acquiring a foreign turret (!! technology transfer !!) or developing our own (sorta unlikely, we still would need tech to make 120mm guns) and putting it up on the proven Rosomak chassis. 120mm could be a bit of a beast for it, but afaik it can be done, plus yet again, it puts less of a strain on the supply chain as we are getting/using Rosomak variants by the ton.
 
Alternatively, the program to develop BMP-1 successor is also planned to be a modular chassis with a lot of possible variants akin to the Rosomak. If anything, there could be a variant which is PL-01 like in the future.
 
As said, for a game it could be a curious quirky unit with interesting abilities, however for irl. it's a bit of an eh for above mentioned reasons (all of them imho of course).

I used a program called Combat Mission Black Sea
 
It's just a save game file. On a Windows machine you place it under My Documents --> Battlefront --> Combat Mission --> Black Sea --> Game Files --> Saved Games

Hello there, I'm a new user here. Before I get on with the topic, here's a short introduction: I'm a long time gamer, and I started the Combat Mission series with the first initial games, mainly the Beyond Overlord, which I loved. After all these years, I came to learn that there are far more Combat Mission games, and that they have also gone for more modern settings (Cold War Afghanistan and Modern Syria) for few of their latest games. I have tried the demo of the two games, and I have fallen in love again. Then I heard of the latest upcoming iteration - the Black Sea - and here I am. I wished to get it done before the release, but school got in the way.   Given the setting, as well as some rumors flying wildly about a possible future Module, I have decided to make the list you can see below. Please, by no means take it as me begging/pleading/ordering the Battlefront crew to include Poland in the game/future module. It's merely meant as a very general guide/refence, and to perhaps bring some interest of fellow tacticians to this country's armed forces, which usually are rather unheard of on the global scene.    The list may not be accurate, it's a rough prediction of what might be around for Poland in 2017. It's based on plans (which have been outlined up to 2020), as well as news from the military industry around the globe, as the situation is dynamically changing day to day. Any mistakes are not an ill will, merely a mistake or a document being interpreted the wrong way. Please keep that in mind. Also it's not really meant as a proper reference, and please don't use it as such. Hence, I won't link any of my sources (majority which are in Polish anyway) as this list was made rather hastily. Should you require proper references  (*wink wink, nudge nudge*), I will happily oblige as soon as I can (I have finals atm). Also, I cannot buy the Black Sea for the time being, but I hope to do so in the coming months.   Now onto the goodies:   Weapons and vehicles that are not (yet or otherwise) in service of Polish Armed forces, have names written in cursive.   Infantry Weapons:   Assault Rifles: Kbs wz. 1996 Beryl - 5,56 mm NATO
  Kbk wz. 1996 Mini-Beryl - 5,56 mm NATO (beside frontline service, also used by vehicle crews)
  Kbk AKM - 7.62x39 mm WP
  Kbk AKMS - 7.62x39 mm WP
  MSBS - 5,56 mm NATO and 7,62 mm NATO variants, should start entering service 2015/2016
  LMG:   RPK - in use in Airborne Force (limited)
  PK - various variants
  UKM-2000 - various variants, UKM-2000M to enter service in 2015, used by infantry as well as vehicle mounts
  Rheinmetall MG 3 - used on former Bundeswehr vehicles (Leopard 2A4/2A5 and respective ARV's)
  LMG variant of MSBS - 7,62 mm NATO, possibly to enter service in 2015 (image not available)
  HMG: WKM-B - Polish variant of the NSV MG, adapted to use .50 BMG NATO
  NSW - Polish variant of the NSV MG, still using the original 12,7 mm WP ammunition. In the process of being replaced by WKM-B
Both used on variety of vehicles or standalone   Sniper/Marksman rifles:   SWD/SWD-M - Polish designation for SVD Dragunow. SWD-M is a Polish upgrade. 7.62x54 mmR WP
  Sako TRG (TRG-21 and TRG-22) - 7,62mm NATO Sniper Rifle
  Bor - Polish made, 7,62 mm NATO Sniper Rifle
  Tor - Polish made .50 BMG Sniper Rifle
  Granade Launchers:   Underslung:   wz. 74 Pallad/GPBO-40 - 40mm Granade launcher for Kbs wz. 1996 Beryl
  Standalone:   Mk. 19 - on vehicles and tripod
  wz. 83 Pallad-D/GSBO-40 - single shot 40mm launchers
  RGP-40 - six shot revolver mag launcher. On order, should enter service in 2015
  GA-40 - may enter service before 2017
  AT Weapons Unguided:   Carl Gustav M3 - (Airborne and Spec Ops forces only)
  AT4 - (Airborne and Spec Ops forces only)
  RPG-7 - in service, unknown which warheads are in service in the Polish Armed forces
  RPG-76 Komar (in storage, requested and used by forces in Afghanistan for smaller targets upon which RPG-7 (or other weapons) would be a waste)
  Guided:   Spike-LR - Stationary launchers as well as launchers based upon HMMWV and ROSOMAK vehicles. 4km range, Fire & Forget, Fire Observe & Update, Lock-On After Launch - what more do you need ?
  9K115 Metys - limited use by airborne forces
  MANPAD:   GROM - reportedly a "copy" and vast improvement upon the Soviet designed 9K38 Igla. Several new versions made since then. Also used on variety of vehicles
  PIORUN - improved version of the GROM, should start entering service in 2015/2016 (launcher is reportedly the same, it's the missile that will be vastly improved)   VEHICLES:   MBT:   T-72M1 - no major/significant changes since the Warsaw Pact times, it's an export variant of the T-72A produced in Poland under license (chances are if you are seeing one of those anywhere near a frontline, then you are within a stone's throw from the Warsaw), reportedly Polish made T-72M1 were of higher quality and make than average among the Warsaw Pact countries (mentioned in passing in a book or two).
  PT-91 Twardy variants:   PT-91 - Polish Modernization of the T-72M1
  PT-91M
  PT-91MA1 - Same as above, majority of modifications is internal, such as better Radios and better electronics.     Leopard 2A4 - nothing much to say, not much different since the days of them watching over the Fulda Gap. They however have access to better ammo since those days.
  Leopard 2A5 - Unchanged since they rolled off the assembly line. They do have access to more modern ammunition though.
  Leopard 2PL - Poland has expressed interest to modernize our Leopard 2 fleet to 2A7+ like standard. First would go the 2A4's, then 2A5's. There are several proposals, but it's a bit of a mess right now (to say the least), hence it's doubtful it will be  ready or deployed in a significant capacity within Polish Armed Forces before 2017.   APC/IFV:   BWP-1 - BMP-1D variant "Good" old BMP-1D. Not much to be said. (We used to have BMP-2 and BMP-2D but our idiot paper pushers sold them). A program to develop new tracked vehicle to replace BWP-1 has been initiated, but extremely unlikely to produce anything of substance before 2017.
  KTO ROSOMAK variants: ROSOMAK is a family of variants developed upon AMV PATRIA family.   Rosomak - first initial variant, features Oto Melara Hitfist-30P turret, armed with 30mm autocannon ATK Mk 44 along with a coax 7,62mm UKM-2000C MG. Also equipped with Obra laser warning receiver connected to smoke granade launchers and an amphibious vehicle capable of swim.
  Rosomak-M1 – Modification for the needs of Chad and Afghanistan deployments. Changes include: additionf of Pilar "Fire direction detection" system, new and improved comm. systems, additional radio, two additional cameras on hull sides, connected to screen in infantry compartment. Water propellers have been removed, and the Vehicle was up-armored with Israeli Rafael Armor Package, bringing the vehicle to all around STANAG IV protection levels.
  Rosomak-M1M – further development of the version for Afghanistan Deployment. Changes from previous variant includes addition of American Qinetiq RPGNet, cabling and sockets to mount Duke IED countermeasure system and of Blue Force Tracking system (those systems are not integral part of this variant and were on loan from the US military). Infantry compartment went from 8 to 6 soldiers. This version has been up-armored by default by the original manufacturer, giving it the same STANAG IV protection levels as M1.
  Rosomak-M3 – version armored anologically to Rosomak M1. It's turret is armored up to STANAG III standard. The turret can carry WKM-B 12,7mm HMG or 7,62mm UKM-2000C MG or Mk. 19 40mm grenade launcher. Those vehicles usually carry either two of the above, one on the turret, second within the hull near the turret, allowing them to be swapped "on the go".
  Rosomak-S - unoficially called "Spajkowóz" (Spikewagon) – infantry carrier variant of the base version (ergo still capable of swim), equipped to carry 2 Spike LR launchers, a load of spare missiles, along their respective weapon teams. Otherwise unarmed.
  KTO Rosomak - Hitfist-30P turret with Spike LR variant and KTO Rosomak - Unmanned ZSSW-30 turret with Spike LR variant The former is no different than the Base Rosomak (aside from integration of the Spike ATGM with the turret) and has already been developed, built and tested, however the latter has been designated as next step in the Rosomak development hence the former most likely won't enter service. However (at the time of the writing) there only exists a first iteration of the ZSSW-30 turret, which is being tested, but is not integrated with the Spike ATGM yet, afaik only a mockup of the double launcher can be seen on the right side of the turret.  As both vehicles, for all intents and purpouses, will serve the same role and function within the game, either could be added.
  KWWO Wilk - Kołowy Wóz Wsparcia Ogniowego (Wheeled fire support vehicle) (105/120mm) Prototypes exist but appears extremely unlikely at this point to enter service.
  Recon: BWR-1D and BWR-1S  (BRM-1K and BPzV "Svatava" respectively) Basically a BMP-1 without ATGM, having somewhat better NVG's and optionally carrying a recon squad.
  BRDM-2M-97 "Żbik-B" Polish modification/modernization of the BRDM-2 vehicle. New turret, Obra laser warning receiver and smoke grenade launcher, new NVG's. Armed with WKM-B and a UKM-2000 as coax.
  Rosomak-R1 and Rosomak-R2 – Recon variants based upon the base Rosomak (hence still amphibious capable). Armed analogically to normal Rosomak, with 30mm AC and 7,62mm coax. No infantry carrying capacity. Crew compartment instead has been remodeled to house operators of additional equipment. Upon extendable 4 meter mast a FLIR System video camera, Thermal camera and laser rangefinder/target designation system were mounted, allowing for recon at the distance of up to 20 km. R1 variant has been additionally equipped with Turkish Aselsan ACAR Ground Surveillance Radar. Reportedly allowing detection of an infantry man from 12 km away, and vehicle group from 40 km away. Radar has been mounted on a mast behind the turret.  Both has been equipped with additional camera with directional microphone.
  Tank Destroyers:   BRDM-2 KONKURS
  Tumak-5 (M1045A2 HMMWV) with Spike-LR ATGM
  ROSOMAK with unmanned Spike Launcher Turret - there exists an existing presentation model with combined GROM launcher on top. The military has stated desire for such/similiar variant to replace aging BRDM-2 based Tank destroyers, however there haven't been much word on it since.
  Car transports: Tumak-2 (M1043A2 HMMWV) Tumak-3 (M1025A2 HMMWV) both come with Shielded/unshielded manned turret with UKM-2000, WKM-B or NSW, or mk. 19/GA-40
  Tumak-4 (M1097A2 HMMWV), transports up to 11 people depending on the exact setup, unarmed
  Skorpion-3 - light multi purpouse vehicle, 7,62 MG on the roof turret. 1+4 crew
  Star 266M - Working horse of the Polish army. Unarmed truck. Up-armored driver cabin variant may also enter service "soon" (see Hibernyt-3 below)
  AA Assets:   ZSU-23-4W1 Szyłka (ZSU-23-4V1) - no known changes since the Warsaw Pact times (possibly just some minor changes to make it compatible with modern AA Command and Control systems of the Polish Army). In the process of being upgraded to ZSU-23-4MP Biała standard.
  ZSU-23-4MP Biała - Polish upgrade, removal of the radar with mounting of completely passive opto-electronic detection and fire control systems, new ammo with slightly longer range (approx 3,5 km), and 4 GROM missiles for additional firepower (GROMs might be changed for PIORUN's in the future as they become available), all weather capability as well as Thermals and new AP rounds.
  Żubr-P - carrier of the POPRAD System using the GROM missiles (may use PIORUN as those become available). POPRAD is basically a passive detection suite, four GROM launchers and some spare missiles.
  9K35M Strzała-10M - About unchanged since the Warsaw Pact days (as far as I can tell)
  Osa-AKM-P1 "Żądło" - Polish upgraded OSA-AKM, not sure if it fits CM scale however.
  Hibernyt-3 - uparmored Star 266M truck carrying ZUR-23-2KG system. ZUR-23-2KG upgrades since the good old ZU-23-2 includes: CP-1 night-and-day sight with laser rangefinder, electromechanic gun turn system and twin launcher for "Grom" missiles. The truck carries additional ammo and spare missiles.
  Off Map Support:   AHS Krab - (aka THE MOST embarrassing project of the modern Polish Military industry) a division (at least) planned before 2017
  AHS Kryl (possible to enter limited service before 2017)
Both are 155mm NATO compatible Self Propelled Howitzers   Armatohaubica wz. 1977 DANA-T - 152mm Self Propelled Howitzer
  2S1T Goździk - Polish upgrade of venerable 2S1 Gvozdika
  SMK-120 RAK - 120 mm self propelled mortar system based upon ROSOMAK chassis - on order 80 vehicles to enter service in 2015
  2B11 mortar - 120mm Mortar
  M-98 Rodon mortar - 98mm mortar
  LM-60 mortar - 60mm mortar
  Air Support Helo:   Mi-24W (Polish designation for the Mi-24V)- Reportedly the Kokon ATGM are long past expiration date and they have only unguided ordinance now at it's disposal (!! REPORTEDLY !!). So either they won't have any or we assume we borrowed some Kokons from the Ukrainian stocks.
    Planes:   F-16 Block 52+ I have made this informative info-graphic about what kind of stuff it can carry. Not sure which of those fit scale of CM:BS, but that's everything we have for them or have planned for them at the time of writing.
  Su-22M4 - as much as it would be even a bigger of a suicide than flying A-10 into a modern ADN, a number of Polish Su-22M4 can carry a pair of Kh-29T's - TV guided Anti Tank missiles. Beside that, it can carry to up to 8 dumb bombs - FAB-500 max or ZK-300 Polish made cluster bomb (anti personnel).   MiG-29 (9.12A) - it can drop some dumb bombs, either FABs or ZK-300's   UAV:   Boeing ScanEagle Aeronautics Defense Orbiter WB Electronics FlyEye   I imagine that would be all. If there are any questions or anything else that might fit the CM scale, please feel free to ask questions and I shall do answer them best to my abilities/knowledge.   Apologies if I posted this in a wrong place.   Thank you for reading !   EDIT: Formatting was gone for some reason. Should be all good now.

I don't understand how anyone can expect any help or response without putting a save game up.  Are we supposed to assume you can list every parameter and someone can reproduce it?  I mean look at the questions coming up.  Why not save everyone the aggravation and just post some saves, or at a minimum, a picture.

I never played Shock Force so the more NATO the better.

I never played Shock Force so the more NATO the better.

I never played Shock Force so the more NATO the better.

But thanks anyways for providing our Armata Thread of the Day.

I never played Shock Force so the more NATO the better.

But thanks anyways for providing our Armata Thread of the Day.