Wicky

Weeeell, that or maybe the Ukrainians repaired some of their junk T-72s, equipped them with Sosna-U and export Kontakt-5 from Belarus and let those fall into the Separatist's hands to make it look like Russia supplied high end T-72s to the coal miners.
 
On a more serious note: Does Russia have a lot of old T-72 around in garages and warehouses and such which aren't getting upgraded? Or aren't they actually upgrading but rather producing new ones (given the newer models have new engines for instance),
 
I remember having read an interview with some poor sod who was arrested for DUI in Rostov and then offered to go to Donezk to repair and maintain tanks (cause he was a mechanic) for two weeks in exchange for dropped charges. The end of the song was he got captured by the Ukrainians after a column of tanks, one of which he drove, getting driven near the frontlines was ambushed. Doubt it was the same incident though, since these guys weren't supposed to fight and the crewmember didn't even know each other and weren't trained either.
 
Do you know how many AFVs were lost in that incident? From the pictures I'd say at least 3 T-72s and 1 BMP. I'd also really like to know how they were engaged. For me this is part of a bigger issue since I have real difficulties imagning what typical combat and engagements in that conflict look like, given that there is more or less parity in numbers and equipment for the most part (not like OIF for instance which was more the type of fighting CMSF tried to portray).

Ther was a thread about this topic still active a few days ago
 
In a few words, the argument made by people that know about this stuff is that the US doesn't have this systems because it counts on the air force to do the job
 
So, basically the game assumes a situation that wouldn't be possible (or likely) in real life, except for a few very lucky Russian planes in the whole theater that would probably be shot down returning home anyway, but because this is a game it takes some liberties 
 
I won´t start an argument about this, since I don't claim any special knowledge about it,  but in the interest of not starting another never ending thread on this I would suggest you check that other thread, specially the arguments put forward by US officers and see their reasoning for how things are the way they are

Childress,

Having stated my argument twice now, I'm starting to wonder whether I'm writing in English or whether you're being obtuse. It's as though your brain registers only the half of what I'm saying that worsens the problem with tank lethality. Let me restate my central premise, after first defining the current situation.

Current Situation

1.

For a variety of reasons previously addressed, tank lethality was dramatically higher in CMx2 than historical performance figures.

2.

This lethality was not merely the result of what I deem incorrect modeling of key dynamics of the tank kill chain, starting with noticing a something and extending thence clear through to target destruction, but also of player omniscience, coupled with the ability to respond to battlefield events at speeds far quicker than was historically possible.

3.

For these reasons, and possibly others, BFC deliberately decided to hold down pivot in place angular rates in order to keep the already fearsome tanks from becoming outright Terminators.

4. In an effort to once again make infantry viable and simulate at least some of the real world limits on tanks in combat, BFC made major adjustments in the tank's SA and reaction time, especially when the tank is buttoned. The net effect of these changes is that the tank has been considerably toned down.

My Proposal

Since the pivot rate was nerfed in order to avoid making tanks practically unstoppable, my suggestion is that BFC, having significantly degraded tank performance where it should be degraded, based on history, tech and ergonomics, may wish to improve the current pivot rates, but not so much as to a) bring the main problem back to prior levels or worsen it.

What I'm suggesting is that BFC fix, to at least some degree, what was earlier nerfed in order to avoid a serious game consequence. I believe we can make some progress toward getting limited traverse SPs and tanks to a place where they can pivot at speeds significantly faster than the present operating parameters, yet not create Terminators or Super Terminators in the process. Indeed, were further effort to be put into more detailed modeling of what really happens in the tank kill chain and how fast it happens, then we may eventually see something close to actual pivot rates, yet with the tanks still facing a formidable series of problems, the same ones they faced in combat.

Concluding, I've stated my case about as plainly as I can, given a long, ugly night last night. I hope you will carefully consider what I've said. You seem to view the concepts I've put forward as being mutually exclusionary, but I believe there is a way to get the right game results by correctly modeling tank warfare, rather than creating an in-game effect via nerfing something only secondarily, if that, related to the primary problem. If a tank, by way of behavior coding, morale state, fatigue, satiety and more, simply can't respond as fast as the player can, then player omniscience and near instantaneous response will be reduced as the high leverage factors in the overall tank lethality calculation. The overall effect should be that a tank will behave in-game close to or the same as a real WW II tank. If that happens, then the way a battle unfolds will change, op tempo will slow down, first round kills will become less likely, dictating longer engagement sequences, and the tank will last longer. No longer will a CM WW II engagement more nearly resemble Desert Storm than the WW II counterpart it's supposed to depict.

Regards,

John Kettler

Wow...all our weapons will be liquidated! Like a going out of business sale.

Who knew the Russians had decised a way to overcome the laws of physics and drain batteries 20km away...yet somehow their own electronics are fine.

Wiggum15,
 
I narrowly escaped decorating my keyboard and display with half chewed pizza while reading your lead! Clearly, you have no reverence for the Corps or MARPAT. If you don't want such a module, I'll buy one to replace you, but mine has to run on OS X. We're getting separatists--both sides.
 
Saferight,
 
Pretty much my reaction, though usage would be in the vernacular, rather than the theological.
 
sburke,
 
No fall or winter? Sniff. And no, I'm not catching a cold!
 
Black Moria and Saferight,
 
Poles are a must. With high motivation factor!
 
antaress73,
 
Love to see the T-14--if it actually exists as envisioned and enters service and is deployed to Ukraine. 
 
George MC,
 
At the rate things are going, the British will have to borrow tanks from Switzerland. Horrifying Challenger 2 situation--RAC has no tanks.

Imperial Grunt,
 
The alphabet soup is now escaped the bowl and is threatening to take over the world! Then we have "Disaggregated Company Sized Landing Teams." Synonymous with arrive in a jumble and spread all over kingdom come? Hope not! Good info, though, since I was still in MEU and MEB Land, with some MAGTF thrown in.

Regards,
 
John Kettler

jh_morneau,

You are indeed correct, sir. To give you some idea of what we faced, one time the GM gave us instructions while performing a tirade through a large class tumbler which was jammed into his face, covering his mouth completely. He practically turned purple, so worked up was he, then removed the glass, and asked/demanded "Is that clear?!" Since we didn't dare to ask after that terrifying display, off we went to Clone Loss Central™.

It was a lot of fun, we got to practice Buddhistic non-attachment to our characters (rough at first), and I held a particular advantage, in that I routinely worked, as military analyst, in an environment of progressively more restricted and ever more highly classified information. Rather like the color clearance levels in the game!

DaddyO,

I don't have the answer to your question, but at 1:20 here you may find something notable. On a more serious note, it's been a long time since seeing a game at such an early stage of development. If you dig up the ones for the first CM ever, CMBO, you'll see how astoundingly far we have come.



Regards,

John Kettler

Thank you all for watching, I am pleased that you liked it!
 
 
Your luck is that I didn't expect company HQ to deal with Abrams!   Too optimistic expectation.
 
Su-25 30mm guns were much more effective than expensive laserguided missiles. They should first attack with gun, then with Kh-25. Now I want to buy DCS flight sim and try it.
 
 
 
Yeah, but wouldn't that elite Abramss tanks kill them like sitting ducks in meeting engagement? And I could take only a company of them. Though some T-90s and BMPs would be a better choice. BMP spots better and 100mm gun is more serious weapon.
 
In that battle my best units were artillery guns, I think. UAV was very helpfull. This thing changes warfare not less than APS!

exsonic01,
 
Maybe I can help. I used to work for the firm that made the TOW. Both TOW and ITOW used a xenon beacon which was tracked by the guidance system on the launcher, with steering corrections automatically generated by the position of the crosshairs on the target. The missile tracker could be interrupted by both battlefield dust and other environmental effects, but also by vehicular smoke (diesel on exhaust manifold) artillery smoke and smoke grenades. The idea behind Shtora was to deceive the TOW guidance system by making it think the false optical signal was the real one by first "outshouting" the tracker beacon, then feeding false information back to the launcher designed to cause the TOW to break tracker lock and crash.
 
TOW 2 shifted from the optical band xenon beacon to the thermal band "waffle iron," a heated honeycomb structure on the missile's rear. ISTR the xenon beacon was retained for the sake of backwards compatibility with earlier launchers lacking thermal sights. This was important because TOW 2 had a much more powerful warhead which now was the diameter of the missile body, making the missile lethal to much more serious threats than either TOW or ITOW could handle.
 
That was a kluge, but the real value of the TOW 2, TOW 2A and TOW 2B lay precisely in using the thermal beacon as primary guidance. Since thermal sights, such as the AN/TAS-4 night sight on the TOW, can see right through battlefield obscurants, vehicular smoke, artillery smoke, visual band AFV deployed obscurants and most WX with ease, this makes the countermeasure problem much more difficult. Strobing lights aren't going to cut it, which is why Arena was integrated. It provides hard kill to deal with whatever can't be caused to crash or driven off course. Defeating any TOW of the types named requires breaking the SACLOS link driven by being able to see the beacon from the launcher. TOW 2B Aero uses RF command guidance, so Shtora is helpless against it from a direct EOCM perspective.
 
Javelin uses an IIR (Imaging InfraRed) seeker which operates on fundamentally different principles than does TOW. With Javelin, the countermeasures are no longer working at breaking a command link, but at hiding from, misdirecting or destroying the missile seeker, whose guidance computer knows what your AFV looks like and is coming for you! Unlike, say, a UKR Corsar, which is a LBR missile, Javelin emits nothing, locks on and launches. Once it's away, you can shoot the operator squarely between the eyes, and the missile will very likely still kill you. If you do the same thing to the Corsar operator before missile impact, the missile will crash, and he will die. That is the power of Fire and Forget. If the Javelin comes in horizontally, then Arena has a good chance of defeating it. but for the sake of keeping the vital on the steppes vertical profile low, Russian tankers have an APS which simply can't deal with high divers which come in over its vertical coverage.
 
No system is perfect, and if BFC has carried the concept over from CMx1, there are things modeled in the game via fuzzy logic, in which weapon performance generally, depending on under the hood values set, will go a certain way, but not always. APS in the game, regardless of which particular type, even if the threat is in the engagement envelope, will generally do a great job, but it won't do a perfect job. The purpose of APS isn't saving a particular tank, but rather, protecting the armored herd as a whole and keeping more of its elements in battle, longer.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler 

Steve,
 
Understand regarding video I posted, but I'm a little confused about the second. Or maybe it's just poor description by eyewitnesses or reporter writing up their sightings? What threw me was that the quote specifically referred to trucks, theoretically ruling out the 9K35. But what I took to mean a towed weapon doesn't necessarily hold, for the Pantsir-S1 is truck mounted. Given the scarcity of such systems, it's remarkable the "separatists" would be provided such a telltale weapon, whose primary purpose is to protect the S300PMU on up from HARM and such. Maybe the Russians are expecting separatist Buk M1 ACQ Radar and TELARS to be attacked? Is either the S-300 or S-400 weapons system in Ukraine? Either/both would make perfect sense to justify deploying Pantsir-S1.
 
But a more interesting possibility would be protecting Iskander M! I just through looking at a fascinating video shot in occupied Crimea. A guy heard the police clearing the road for a Russian convoy and from his upper floor apartment got Hi-Res video of a remarkable Russian force on the move. It had Tigr escorts,1 x towed T-12M, trucks with troops (gun crews) and without, a Msta (I think) under tow, 2 x Iskander M, 1 x probable command vehicle with directional comm mast and flat plate antenna and 2 x SA-8b TELAR. If the Pantsir-S1 is in Eastern Ukraine, then to my mind, either Iskander M may already be there somewhere or is expected. According to this article, Iskander M may be a key part of any Russian effort to wreck Ukraine's national air defense system, also S-300 based. Unless there's been a change (was true for both SS-21 and SS-23), the CBU warhead for Iskander M is probably going to be hundreds of Grad warheads. Devastating to the vital radars involved. Iskander M is apparently expected to do what Russian aerial SEAD isn't really equipped to do itself.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler 

Turn 9, finale...
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
Whether or not that HQ has DMS is immaterial. The icon stayed in its location, so no WIA/KIA. Shrug.
 
Next turn, Red 2 and White 2 are each laying area target fire on Kornet 1 or 2 (respectively). My Abrams are advancing...as they should. My Jav teams are changing their underwear and will rejoin the fight in several minutes.
 
DMS has 3 BTR's left, one on my side...the rest by Tunguska hill. My infantry is too light on the ground. I need to get my 3 teams closer together. My orders are to lay down suppressive fire and gain a bit more elbow room.
 
Ken out...

Skwabie,

Here's my response to your remarkable, jarring initial post.



Kudos for realizing later you were definitely on the wrong timeline.

Regards,

John Kettler

President Putin, inspecting one of the new troops transports that is supposed to enter service in 2018:
 

 

GAZ NZ,
 
If it does all that, please send me one, for I'd love to see it. Somehow, though, I doubt the Pentagon would let me have it long, but first, the people there need to know I have it. I therefore urge discretion in packaging and shipping it. May I suggest "tractor parts," since so much of the domestic manufacturing base is now gone? 
 
Douglas Ruddd,
 
I remember that pic. First saw it, I believe, over on the CMSF Forum. I've never understood why so many SF movies and such insist on using such lurid paint schemes. Unless this is for combat on Mars, in which case it's in the same color palette as NASA's portrayal of Mars.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

There is an argument that if Europe plays the long game any Russian threat will disappear when the current Russian economic policies come home to roost. So just because there is a perceived gap at the moment does not mean Europe has to play the Arms race /spend game others are playing.

I have obtained early view of T-14 and M1A3 platforms.


 
Extensive testing indicates the M1A3 will defeat the T-14 under all circumstances.


 
Thus the Armata is terrible and should not be in the game, and we can stop having "ARAMATA IS COMING" threads.

Regards:

Your repitllian vampire overlords.  

panzersaurkrautwerfer,
 
Judging my your apparent reactivity to my post, I appear to have struck a nerve or maybe nerve plexus. To characterize me as a "man who thinks tanks are aircraft carriers" is pretty snarky, and "thread-Stalin" was even worse. The latter wasn't wry humor, for it "bit" the instant I read it.
 
You did a bang up job of misconstruing and distorting a whole series of things I said. I never said the US IADS is all, to the contrary, I depicted it as subject to multiple forms of attack, including SpecOps. I pointed out, in instance after instance, where the vulnerabilities lay and what the Russians had the wherewithal to do, having very carefully thought through what they'd be facing. I then essentially argued that a variety of frictions (ECM, anti AWACS and anti Patriot weapons, OPFOR SpecOps vs Patriot, AWACS and such, poor US MCRs and more) would significantly degrade expected US combat performance, in turn making Russian aircraft more survivable. That would likely reflect positively in the Russian CAS/BI side of things.
 
I very much appreciate the detailed force breakdowns. Things have changed past drastically from what they were during the Cold War. Back then, Russia and the Warsaw Pact held the numerical advantage, but now it's Russia vs practically everyone. I agree US and NATO forces are far better trained and get more flying time/month. The FRG may be gone, but that in no way invalidates the point I was making about AWACS coverage.  I do NOT share the views of some here who think the A-10 wouldn't be survivable in the campaign we're discussing. A-10s have flown as many as seven sorties/day in combat, too. Consequently, I'm very much of the same opinion regarding the SU-25's prospects. In one case during that Georgia business, a Russian Su-25 took an engine hit (SAM blew up under the plane) from an SA-6/SA-11 (don't recall which) SAM which destroyed one engine outright, but thanks to armor around the engines, the other one was fine, and the plane got home. Any such hit on a single engine plane is goodbye plane.
 
Nor was the wargame I cited irrelevant. It was relevant precisely because it spoke to how a single poor decision can unhinge a defense composed of the best of the best of everything a nation has at its disposal, which is exactly what Phoenix armed F-14s, with top notch highly trained crews, operating off CVNs, were then. Superior technology, even the revolutionary technology embodied in the tracks 24, simo engages 6 AWG-9 FCS and the associated ultra long range Phoenix missile, which was unique in AAMs, still failed to deliver the expected win. As I said, it was a cautionary tale. And how many here are blithely prepared to sign up for the "Russians won't be able to fly CAS" while at the same time proclaiming over on CMRT how the Russians beat the Germans at the operational and operational strategic levels? Do the chess playing Russian strategists now suddenly revert to tiddly winks just because it's air warfare and not ground combat? Somehow, that doesn't seem like a safe bet at all.
 
If the Russians perceive a need for CAS, they'll find a way to do so or get the same net effects some other way. One of the ways to get there from here is to, by one way or several, tear a hole through the SAM belt and do to the US/NATO what we did to the Iraqis in GW I. Create a corridor through which to ram further forces to wreck the SAM defenses and create a secure corridor through which to move the strike force proper. During the Cold War, we called this the Air Operation. This Air University Review article explains the enormous differences between how the Russians looked at conducting offensive aerial warfare and how the US thought they did. This Air Operation concept has doubtless evolved dramatically since, not least because strike aircraft can now do many times more damage /sortie than was previously the case, and they can do it from standoff ranging from minor to several hundred klicks. The latter case would involve such things as AS-4 and follow-ons launched from Tu-22M BACKFIRE, which is a theater level multipurpose aircraft; Putin has shown a willingness to use against NATO, as seen in his NATO interception challenged probes of NATO nations in the region.
 
blottes,
 
Welcome aboard!
 
The scenario I cited was played well before Red Storm Rising was ever heard of. What I described wasn't some wrongly credited memory from the book. The book wasn't published until 1986, and I was only at Hughes until late 1984, so there is no confusion on my end about what happened and whence the scenario came.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

MikeyD,
 
Long ago, I was in sales, where I was taught to always, always first present the feature, then explain the benefit to the customer. You've told us what the feature is, but not the benefit. Survival! Your point about factoring in the consequences of having infantry (or even softskins) near an APS munition detonation is well made. Don't know whether  a live AFV's armor can now screen against bullets, allowing the infantry stacking we see in war footage and movies, but if it does, things could get altogether too exciting in an RPG from behind type situation. Might wipe out a whole squad, in fact. 
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

c3k,

What a marvelous piece of writing, for which full marks are awarded for using, in a single short narrative, "inchoate," "cravat," "au jus" and "tete a tete!" I do think, though, the "hand-basted veal ribs..." were unfair to mention, seeing as how mine aren't here yet. Somebody's got to do the QC, after all. Personally, I favor destructive testing--by my jaws.

Now, I believe you were going on a bit about some romp in the woods with PPShs?

sburke,

Brilliant ripostes! The image of Charles laughing in his brain jar was simply priceless.

Regards,

John Kettler

MikeyD,

Good things to know. May I suggest a simple first order test? Look at the in-game US 76mm Sherman gun performance vs Panther. If the Russian 85mm is outperforming the 76mm, then the data for the 85mm are wrong. Russian firing tests at NIBT Poligon clearly established the 76mm as having better penetration than the 85mm had. Firing tests vs a King Tiger showed quite substantial differences!

http://english.battlefield.ru/was-the-tiger-really-king.html

"10. American 76 mm armor-piercing projectiles penetrated the "Tiger-B" tank's side plates at ranges 1.5 to 2 times greater the domestic 85 mm armor-piercing projectiles."

Topic change

Since you're here, would you or someone else please provide the link posting guidance I requested on January 21st of this year? The whole issue makes me twitchy, following an Infraction awhile back. Nor am I the only one in this boat. Thanks!

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=113229

Regards,

John Kettler

Kieme CMBS USA Abrams
 
Let's be honest, whatever modern game you get your hands on, you can't avoid to feel this one as the battlefield's king. That's why I was so undecided upon so many things that, in the end, I had to base most of the weathering on the few recent photos showing M1A2 SEPs in europe during joint trainings. Thanks also to Saferight's force specific screens mod and its good pictures.
The trickiest part is the side ERA/spaced armor. BFC should really differentiate between the turret blocks and the skirt ones, otherwise you ca't get mud on the lower blocks without splashing unrealistically all the blocks in the same way and the upper turret sides.
 
Download:
https://app.box.com/s/24plheazjvgue3y883gmrqkblhum95ia
 
Changelog:
-darkened and desaturated colors
-enhanced details
-added light rain marks
-added 2 layers of dust and dirt
-added 2 layers of dry and fresh mud
-added subtle scratches
-added local effects
-new normal maps
-includes US vehicle gear and US vehicle MGs textures
 
Previews:

Apocal,

CNN doesn't know a tank from an SPG. Those are 122mm 2S1s. The wheeled AFVs are BTR-80s. Mi-24 HIND helos. Hard to say for sure, but estimate F model with twin 30mm cannon and AT-6 SPIRAL ATGMs.

I went through multiple versions of the paragraph you quote, but I couldn't find a clear way to express my core concept. That was: If the perceived reality of an event, as seen from your POV, lies in social media, then where're the excited-outraged posts from Russians--made during the force buildup before Russia moved against Ukraine? Those are what I didn't see. Thank you for the images you did provide.

sburke,

Thank you for taking the wisecracks elsewhere.

agusto,

Thank you for your courtesy, and I had zero idea it was a serious question, still less you're one of my readers. I will say this, and you're welcome to query me further on my site. Russia has some very exotic aerospace equipment of its own.

Regards,

John Kettler

Well, apparently Apple has a macro issue with conflict. Period. On this basis, to resolve a burning one, I propose that Apple be forced to have two virtual calculators in not only the Mac OS/iOS, but in all apps employing such calculating functions. Clearly, it's discriminatory, ethnically insensitive and possibly racist of Apple to exclude RPN (Reverse Polish Notation), right?

Regards,

John Kettler

Michael Emrys,

Tut! Tut! this is obviously an incorrect understanding of "speed bump." The cognoscenti here understand the true meaning of the term is "whatever's in the way of the ISU-122."
Whether Elvis winds up becoming one is presently an open question!

All,

Appreciate the comments from several here on optimal movement methods for armor. Had always used Hunt myself for final stages of movement in imminent contact situation, but I now know this approach, while seemingly appropriate, has real and potentially casualty intensive issues. I've faced this tank distraction problem clear back to CMBO. I'm trying to fight the armor war, but the AI sees infantry, loses its mind, goes after the infantry and ignores the enemy tank, which then kills me.

Regards,

John Kettler

I don't think it deigns a new thread so soon after my last, so I'll place it here:
 

 
A very interesting mission made challenging by the terrain, rather than the staunchness of the defenders. Definitely felt like a fish out of water with so much open ground having come from the base game.
 
Of course, just like my Carbide-Carbide video, I've combined more cinematic edits with me droning on; the latter half of the video is nothing but (thankfully unnarrated!) infantry action. I can confirm as well that pixelation only occurs from camera movement; but as its only occurring during top-down segments, I don't think its much of an issue this time around.