slysniper
-
Posts
3,915 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
10
Posts posted by slysniper
-
-
Just re-phrase what is being said and it all makes sense.
The tank as we know it, is on the going to be dead list, if you cannot see it, that is your problem.
What is going to replace it.
Likely a smaller tracked platform that is remotely operated and it has nothing more than desired weaponry mounted on it.
(at which point, can we call it a tank anymore, Maybe, but really it will not be a tank.)
I envision something much lighter, faster, likely caring something around a 40-45 mm caliber gun unit or missiles on it that can be fire at a very high speed of rate.
The crew will still be 3 or 4 men, but they will be detached either traveling with their own transport. they still need to do maintenance and all other general functions to the unit. But the whole point will be to use the gun platform to find and engage the enemy while the crew can hopefully stay secure to fight another day from a safer position.
But however you want to look at it, its not a tank as we know it today.
-
years of comments and it is what it is, if the coding could have changed more it likely would have.
When a CMX3 engines comes out, I am sure it will take a different approach to it to some extent.
I just hope we all like it when it happens, because change has a funny way of not pleasing everyone.
-
3 hours ago, The_Capt said:
So What Happened?
I am not sure and will likely spend a fair amount of time over the next decade trying to figure it out but there are some alarming trends that western militaries cannot avoid:
- Russian had the mass, Ukraine did not. Not saying the conventional UA sat out the first phase of this war but a 1300km frontage was largely defended by a hybrid force built on a foundation of irregulars...and it just butchered Russian mass. To the point of operational collapse. The Russians had knives, Ukraine had pillows, and Ukraine won; this is not small.
- The Ukrainians appear to have done something to friction and might not even realize it. Through a combination of information superiority - built largely on civilian infrastructure no less, and a shift in weapons effects, they were able to hit the entire length of the Russian forces, all the way back to the SLOC nodes. All of this using a lot of unmanned, which we have discussed. More to the point, they appear to have projected friction onto the Russian forces (already brittle for reasons presented) to the point that the Russians collapsed under their own weight.
- Russian concepts of mass are not that different from our own. We still rely on roughly the same organizational concepts. We call them "tactically self-sufficient units", Battlegroups etc. And yes they are set up differently, but I am not sure that would have made a difference, our tanks need gas too (and gawd help us if the RedBull supply is cut). But we have pursued Adaptive Dispersed Operations at the tactical level as well (awkward crickets) - "oh but we would do it right" - would we? Our LOCs are just as long as the Russians, our armour just as vulnerable and out combined arms concepts not too far distant. "Well the Russians didn't know what to do with their infantry...we do". Ok, so our Battlegroups do not have that much more infantry than a BTG and those Javelin systems really mean that your BG screen now needs to sweep every bush and henhouse out to 4000m(!) along the BG frontage or you are going to be trading burning vehicles for every km you advance. Surprise is pretty much dead. Unmanned is likely going to be everywhere...the list goes on. This is not another "tanks are dead" issue, it is "is mass as we know it dead?" issue.
- Information. There will be new fields of study created in military education based on this war on what just happened with respect to information in this war, from tactical-to-political. If I had to pick one factor that tries to explain a lot of this it is information. The implications are, again significant, to say the least.
I get these are early days but I see an "easy out" bubble forming, and it is dangerous in more ways than most understand. That is what I took away from that thread.
2 hours ago, The_Capt said:This is exactly what I am talking about. "No need for us to worry because...Russians suck and we don't"
There are a lot of assumptions here, and I am always cautious around assumptions at times like these. We do have better C4ISR but spotting and engaging a two man team out at 2+kms is nearly impossible if they don't want to be spotted, we found that out in spades in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are very spottable at 2+kms. APS, sure, and so long as every logistic truck and re-fueler has APS, every infantry vehicle and every command vehicle, every artillery piece and every engineering vehicle. APS is what we have but I am not sure how it performs against a Javelin-like system or a Switchblade and I am pretty sure the Chinese are figuring that one out as I type.
Tactical movement, again I am not sure what that means anymore. We can spread out in our formations and use the terrain but we would still be spotted and engaged at long range, I am not sure spreading out will matter in this context. And, again, our LOCs are just as long and vulnerable.
Look, we are not "ok" until we know we are "ok". And right now we do not know if we are ok. The Taliban choked out the best the west could send with a whole lot less than what Ukrainian defence brought to bear, took a lot longer but I shudder to think about a western intervention against an asymmetric foe armed with the Chinese equivalents for Javelins/NLAWs (or whatever comes next) and cheap unmanned systems and munitions.
Capt, you and I think alike, I would never had worded it as well.
But I also think that we need to evaluate what is happening and need to realize that the Armed forces of the West could also had suffered the same type of fate to an extent if they had tried a similar action.
I think the concepts of warfare is evolving and it always come down to who can come up with a new method that the enemy is not prepared for. That is what has happened, if a force knew what the Ukrainians were doing in advance, they can develop tactics to prevent it, but presently the Russians are playing catch up, I don't know if they can do it.
Meanwhile, on defense, the Ukrainians had advantages with their methods, But there is a huge difference if they try true offensive actions. I don't think that is a option for them without them suffering losses they cannot afford.
Their offence should be more of gorilla warfare, and that is likely where it should stay.
-
3 hours ago, Haiduk said:
I can recall two units of 58th CAA - 136th separate motor-rifle brigade (tank battalion with T-90A, participated in invasion on Donbas in 2014).
19th motor-rifle division. It had T-90A, when it was a brigade in tank battalion, but I havn't info about current T-90A number and sharing among MR regiments - this division hasn't tank regiment.
All BTGs of 58th CAA are Zaporizhzhia and east axis
1st tank regiment of 2nd Guard MRD has at least one battalion on T-90A and even first party of T-90M, but I don't know either this battalion participated in invasion or not.
Also T-90A were in 20th Guard MRD. Division has separate tank battalion instead tank regiment, but again there is no information about their T-90A in Ukraine.
Thanks , for what you can share
4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:The same lack of BMP-3s on the list pairs with the lack of T-90s. It could be that these units are ones deployed along the Baltic border or they are being held back "in case of emergency" around Moscow. There is also the possibility that the units with this equipment performed better in Ukraine than others and therefore retained more. Personally, I don't buy that. Performance across the board has not shown any unit capable of limiting its losses.
Steve
Well, with sources saying they had 750 - 1000 T 90's manufactured.
I would think they have a decent amount there in some formations.
So it makes me wonder, since they might be the only unit that could survive some of the ATGM type weapons. If this could be a factor.
Or Are they holding key units from the conflict so far.
I sure dont know, but it seems unusual in the stats.
The BMP-3 numbers might not be that far off.
they are showing 65 lost compared to 176 bmp-2s.
I would think that would somewhat match percentages of what might be in the field.
-
OK, looking at Russian losses, I see large amounts of T72's of all versions that have been lost so far within the war. a decent amount of T80's
But so far, only 17 T90A's
what is the possible reasons for this.
What units have these tanks and where are they presently located?
Is there still well equipped units that have not been committed to the fighting?
-
5 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
This is the key point people who say "tanks won't go away" are missing. Nobody is saying that there won't need to be a ground based armored weapons platform that is capable of working in combination with the other arms of a combined arms force. At least I have yet to find anybody saying that
What people are saying is MBTs might soon not be the ideal choice for that role. And there are plenty irrefutable benefits of UGVs vs. MBTs.
For me, the replacement of MBTs by UGVs is inevitable because the ability to do a straight swap is conceptually simple. What to do about IFVs, on the other hand, is less clear.
They already exist. They might also exist in really good tactical wargames for professionals to figure out how to best utilize them.
This is the next big deal in ground warfare. Militaries speak of capabilities that have the ability to be "force multipliers". Drones are whatever is better than a force multiplier.
the replacement of MBTs by UGVs is inevitable because the ability to do a straight swap is conceptually simple. What to do about IFVs, on the other hand, is less clear.
I see infantry having to be dispersed, the future is likely the exoskeletons concepts that are coming for each man. The ability to make a soldier independent and mobile but able to carry added needed items, weather weaponry or protective armor.
A unit of such soldiers would likely still need an armored unit to carry additional supplies, so not so much as a transport for them, more as a mobile support base for them when they are in the field.
The things of science fiction in the past are soon to become reality, for sure this is farther out than UGV's but change happens much quicker now than it once did, when the need arises.
They already exist. They might also exist in really good tactical wargames for professionals to figure out how to best utilize them.
I kind of figured that was what was happening, what a war game can do is provide a way to test out possible ways to see what might be the best method to use new weaponry at a low cost until they can do testing and purchasing of real items.
This is the next big deal in ground warfare. Militaries speak of capabilities that have the ability to be "force multipliers". Drones are whatever is better than a force multiplier.
For sure what we are seeing in the present conflict.
2 hours ago, akd said:A Marine talks to a Marine about fighting in Ukraine (and they go straight to the potential obsolescence of the tank):
Thanks for sharing.
Just the view of one man, but one man who is seeing it first hand.
warfare is always been how to outsmart the enemy, been that way from the first time someone killed his enemy by sneaking up on him and clubbing him to death from his backside.
basic logic should tell you that, putting oneself in a slow moving, large target piece of equipment, that is noisy and hard to hide is not a way to outsmart your enemy in todays world. Unless tanks can be equipped with defenses that can defeat all weaponry that can be used against them, they are obsolete.
At least UGV's will provide safety to some extent to the crew or man that controls it, the equipment might not last long, but the person trained to use it will last hopefully longer and will be able to get a another replacement piece of equipment to replace it since it should be easier to increase the quantities of what can be supplied.
-
17 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
Unnamed Ground Vehicles are the wave of the future of ground warfare. They can offer more punch, more survivability, more deployment options, and smaller size all for less money. Further, they provide for many other benefits already seen with UAVs.
We're not even that far away from self-guided UGVs. The Mars Perseverance Rover, Tesla, and various defense contractors are all working on this stuff at a feverish pace. Once it is even remotely practical, it will find its way onto the battlefield in some way soon after.
17 hours ago, MikeyD said:Everyone gasped when the Marines abandoned their tanks. And not long ago Britain was toying with the idea of abandoning its tank fleet, too, though that idea's apparently been discarded with the appearance of Challenger 3. That gives an indication that people in high places have been pondering the fate of the tank in a modern high threat battlespace. Its telling that Ukrainian tanks have finally made an appearance in phase 2 of the battle.
11 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:In this case I'm not predicting the "demise" of MBTs because of their vulnerability, but also because of their production and lifetime costs, deployment limitations, manpower requirements (logistics in particular), fuel usage, and a bunch of other things combined with vulnerability.
As the purchase and support price tags continue to increase in order to combat the lethality of less expensive systems, at some point people are going to wonder if it's all worth it. The big nations will probably slowly transition, the smaller nations will embrace it faster. It's inevitable for economic reasons alone.
Well, if people would just listen, the day of the tank as we presently know it is coming to an end.
Here is some statements from those that might have a little more insight than most of the rest of us
But there is still a need for what a tank does, what that will look like in the future will come down to what man will design to compete on the battlefield of the future at a cost they can afford.
No question we will see, unmanned, lighter faster platforms that can bring a heavy punch to a area needing clearing.
Also, I expect that counter measures to drones and drone type warfare will change and be added to soon. It really should not be hard to develop systems for the task. Because just as important as winning the skies with air power has been, winning the skies with drone power could be just as important. So ground troops will need light weapon systems that can get the job done as to removing such threats. Actually I think the US has some systems presently that can remove enemy drones from the battle.
But no question, warfare will evolve from this conflict if we don't go too far and turn this into the last war we as mankind sees.
But what we call tanks in the future (20 - 30 years) will likely change as much as what a tanks from WW1 has changed from our present day
-
5 hours ago, TheVulture said:
We've all seen factors in this war that probably wasn't in many military models before, or were only just starting to be appreciated. The willingness of Russian troops to abandon important equipment. The ability of light infantry with modern ATGMs to be able to hit high value targets. The use of drones in reconnaisance, fire control and as weapon systems. Crowd-sourcing intelligence from a friendly population. Modelling can (hopefully) be used to figure out how important each of these are and how they interact with each other.
Actually, I have felt that CMBS game have shown how this two aspects could affect the modern day battlefield.
The ability of light infantry with modern ATGMs to be able to hit high value targets.
I think CMBS has show that afv's are becoming tools of the past.
The use of drones in reconnaisance, fire control and as weapon systems.
CMBS has reflected this in a small amount, but now seeing how it is affecting this war, the game is only giving a hint compared to the present power of drone warfare.
On the other hand no war game would have thought to model
The willingness of Russian troops to abandon important equipment.
Crowd-sourcing intelligence from a friendly population.
4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:Tactical combat drives operational results which in turn determine the strategic picture. Having the best strategic or operational sim in the world means nothing if the tactical modeling for them isn't reasonably accurate. My sense is that the people making these higher level sims don't appreciate that as much as they should.
As mentioned earlier, every CM player knows that attacking with an inferior quality force over difficult terrain against a high quality and well armed defender is not easy even with superior numbers. And even with superior numbers, a victory generally means lots and lots of friendly losses.
Now take this situation and add things like mud. Now remove a combined arms element.
And as Steve mentioned here, the game does help one understand how these factors affect the outcomes in battles.
And that in turn affects operational and strategic decisions and outcomes.
I think there is way too many factors in war that are always present and unforeseen for war gaming to be a tool that can be used as a crystal ball as to what the future will bring.
But I do see it as a tool that can be used to practice concepts as to new uses of equipment and or tactics as to seeing if it would be a possible new method to employ and also as a tool to practice methods one is planning to use in the future.
So war games can help in planning and finding possible best methods in fighting conflicts. So there is a place for them , just not as lofty of a tool as some would hope for.
-
I have been staying out of the conversation about the war.
But have been watching the thread daily since this is somewhat my best news source.
but I do want to point out (who would have thought CMBS AI was playing the Russians more realistically than we ever thought)
A nice group packed way too close together, the Russians seem to keep doing it, each day they don't seem to learn from the last.
-
Now with the base game and one module out, it is about as comparable as any of the games.
It really just comes down to what you are most interested in. As said, at some point you will get bored playing the same time frame and units. So having the choice to move to a different game is great, but at some point you will find once you have multiple choices, they are all fun, it just then comes down to what you are in the mood for.
I have them all, I have not played CMBN or CMFB much at all for a few years.
I HAVE BEEN ENJOYING SOME OF THE OTHER OPTIONS, BUT SINCE ITS BEEN A WHILE I AM REALLY WANTING TO GET BACK TO THEM AND ENJOY SOME OF THE ASPECTS IN THEM I CANNOT FIND ANYWHERE ELSE.
So dont worry about it, just go for the one that interest you the most now,
by the time you want to move onto something else, you will have the money.
There is huge amounts of hours you can spend in one version before needing to move on.
-
Oh no, all that matters is my tanks in the game cannot slide out of control like that.
man, these games are broken. Maybe I should not play them or start protesting for months on end until we get that slide out of control modeled in the game.
-
Well, for the original poster.
if they come from other games and most games do nothing to try to reflect the aspects he is not use to. So of course it does not feel natural to what he is expecting.
If you never been in combat, again many of the chaos type events in the game do not make sense either.
Does the game have it correct, well not exactly, but as mentioned, its the only game that even tries to simulate it.
Now the sad thing is, as for infantry fire, the game might actually be over accurate compared to real life. So dont complain too much because most test I have seen or done seems a little too accurate compared to RL.
Spotting does have flaws and is not perfect by no means. But in the big picture can be accepted because there should be some fog of war aspects that no game ever hardly reflect.
But What will be interesting is when cm ever gets the next engine released, spotting is likely getting a whole new treatment, and I am sure it will be an improvement from what they have learned doing it in this engine.
SO if you dont try to expect the game to give the results you think it should have, but look into trying to understand what the real environment is more like. You will learn that the game is doing things that can reflect more realistically than most other games do.
Can there be improvements, sure, but it will not be the borg type aspects that most are use to from other systems.
-
4 hours ago, dbsapp said:
There is no point in comparing T-55 and M60A1.
M60A1 should be compared with T-62, as both tanks were mass produced in 60s and became classical competitors. There is nothing criminal in doing couch expertise ourselves (basically, the main thing we are engaged here), but it's better when it's done by professionals. So, as always, I suggest to refer to real documents.
The evaluation of T-62 and its comparison with M60A1 have been done TRADOC bulletin 10. Strangely enough, experts of US Army didn't mention anything about T-62 being much inferior to M60A1 in terms of spotting abilities, while stating that M60A1 is more effective at beyond 1500 meters ranges. They describe T-62 as very capable tank, in line with CIA\Army report that I had cited before.
In "Vision devices" section they note, that "the T-62 is equipped with vision devices that enable it to fight effectively with all hatches closed and in conditions of reduced visibility".
Well, if you would spend a few moments and run some test in the game and compare it to the professional information that you share, you might learn to stop making incorrect statements.
So I did an adjustment, Ran a few samples of the test. Now T62 (1975) vs M60 A1
at the range that this data is shown at, 1500 meters
combat for only one minute.
Results quickly show that the Russian tanks have the advantage losses were 30 M60a1 to 17 T62,s
spotting seemed about equal as to who were getting off first shots.
As for shots on target, I would say the game was a little under the percentages shown in the charts.
Or course all this can be tested out to get accurate numbers.
But wait, what's this the T62 is Out performing the M60A1 in almost 2 to 1 losses.
within a matter of minutes I have a test proving the T62 is performing better than the M60 and your world should be great. But you keep saying they are incorrectly modeled.
Learn to take the time to find out what the game is doing.
If you are having problems with the tank, it has to do with who is controlling it, the tank has the advantage.
-
An interesting side note, Because dust does impact spotting on older tanks. I am pretty sure there is an advantage if you are in a tank duel and you have the wind blowing into you face.
Its an item I have wanted to test to see how much it impacts spotting, but have never done it. but make sure during any testing to not have wind as a factor.
-
I went ahead and just did one set of test to see what I could find any unusual aspects as to how the game is performing as to spotting or anything else when it comes to Russian armor.
So I ran test on T55-a vs M60a1's at a range of 2000 meters
What findings I found,
if the tanks were unbutton. The m60's were approx. 5 seconds faster than the T55's in spotting the enemy unit.
With many able to spot in under 10 seconds.
If Button, the T-55 was having a much harder time spotting compared to the M60 approx. 10-15 second difference.
as for killing power, both sides were generally lethal on a hit.
As for accuracy of rounds, this was where I would say the M60 was again receiving better stats but I did not take the time to get accurate numbers but it was clear they were getting a few more hits on target in the same time frame.
Kill ratio for 2 minutes of combat was (4) M60 losses to (10) T55 losses.
What conclusions could I make
A slight spotting advantage to the early version US tank.
If buttoned, The T55 is suffering spotting affects and is at a distinct disadvantage.
Accuracy and time taken to get a round on target was the main advantage as to which tank performed better.
Rounds on target were taking about a minute of combat to happen. So spotting was giving a slight advantage, but accuracy was appearing to be the possible bigger factor.
For balance on the battlefield a ratio of 2 to 1 would be required with the added numbers also providing the Russian side to out position the enemy in a flanking position if the situation allows.
But since most shot were producing kills. Spotting and hitting first was the biggest factor. getting to a range where ones shots would hit quickly would increase the who spots first as the bigger impact. So the most important Russian aspect would be to engage with 3 to 1 ratio where the disadvantages would be removed because the rounds on target would turn to their advantage
Did anything here appear out of place to what is known about the units and how they should perform, not that I know of.
This is the approach one should take before making statements that are unfounded, then if game data test show numbers that seem off compared to real world data, that can be shown. then there is something to talk about and discuss as to the accuracy that is being portrayed.
-
On 2/7/2022 at 6:05 AM, dbsapp said:
Well, it boils down to fact that in CM universe it is so. What Battlefront actually says is Soviet\Russian equipment is bad.
Hilariously enough, at the same time they try to make an impression of some competition and challenge between fraction in CMCW (and in CMBS).
My main claim is that Soviet equipment is represented in the game in a way that immediatly raises question, because units don't see something that they must see.
It started right here.
where in this statement are you not insulting in every aspect of what you have said.
Then make a claim it should be so easy to see why it's the soviet equipment that has an issue.
But still to this point have made no effort as to showing logically why this statement you made is correct.
If you dont like spotting in the game, thats one thing. There is plenty of players that are not fans of it and there is some good reasons why, but the system is the system used and its not going to magically changed since its the basic programming of the game.
And there is plenty of evidence given, it affects both sides but not in your world of belief. So dont address any post that reflects that fact.
but you have done nothing to show how the Russian equipment compared to the US equipment is not balanced correctly to each other within the game. Just one aspect "spotting", remember you keep wanting to make the statement its the spotting of Russian units, come on just show us something as to why it immediatly raises questions
-
5 minutes ago, dbsapp said:
I was thinking on preparing more substantive answer, which required some time and effort in comparison of optics of two tanks.
I don't know if I'll have time to make it, and - which is even more important - after your post I have doubts if should.
Before asking me to present multi page referenced research with which you may be pleased (or which happens more often don't) I suggest you to do your own.
you want change, then spend the effort to make change happen.
But of course, lets try to make someone else do the work that you cannot appear to do or want to do yourself.
And AM I attacking your character, you better believe it. I can do it as easy as you can.
What, you do not like it when its against you, instead of you against someone else.
So go ahead and take another shot, I have lowered myself to your same level, so I am no better than you and maybe I am making some out there hate my guts also. But you know, I was bored, and all this done was show you cannot handle it any better than anyone else when the target is you. Imagine that.
But it will not likely make you think for a second on how you should address things in the future when it comes to trying to have a productive discussion on how to possible improve the game.
-
dbsapp
You are so correct, I did not provide any evidence, because like you, if I say it is so, it must be.
But why should or would I waste time on such a wasted effort, all the evidence that is available will never change your view, because you are set in your thoughts no matter what is brought forth.
I love you man, you can go on and on and on, with your little war of words against whomever you think is your foe.
And I am sure you think it is working to get to whatever you want the ends to be.
But in truth, you created a view of yourself that makes anyone that is on the cm team not even care to take a look at your claims as to issues within the game.
And there is plenty of effort to look at claims and to review how the game is performing to realistic results.
As was mentioned, there has been multiple things brought forth on these forums that have now been reviewed and hopefully adjustments will possible be made to make the game have better results in the future.
But have you ever been the one that has brought forth any useful data that has helped with any of those reviews.
I don't recall, like I said, at least you did provide something in this debate. It does not address the real issue. Spotting and why the US has the advantage there. But go on believing what you will, as I said it does not bother me.
-
And my final comment, if you really want to complain dbsapp.
It should be about how bias the scenario design staff is, Its a group of westerners, so they focus on showing things from that view point.
As pointed out, if you want to make the Russians shine, you can take the present game system and components and make it happen. Its just creating the situations that allow for what you want to shine to do just that. Its just not a task that is being done for the Russian side of the battle much.
But I just finished a battle I was testing for CM and I was playing the Soviets and I really enjoyed the fact that in truth I had a pretty huge advantage, and that is a meeting engagement.
So I know it is possible and it sure had nothing to do with My T55's out dueling his M48's
Oh, and by the way, that tournament Scenario that a few of these guys played. showed one thing. Those that used Russian type tactics were those that had the success in the battle, and in truth, the odds were against them, but a few players managed to make it happen.
-
Oh, dont try using the 1973 war as a source for any proof of Russian armor being on equal ground.
If you knew your wars, the majority of the Israeli armor losses were due to Sagger missiles.
They had tactics that did not account for the new weapon system and it caught them by total Suprise. They lost a huge number of tanks trying to do what worked in previous wars and found out very quickly what the new weapon could do.
Magically within just a few days, they came up with a whole new tactical doctrine to take on the new battlefield threat.
-
What I find as the most interesting part of this is you allow dbsapp to get to you. He can have his opinion, as discussed over and over again, its never has any substance, so why bother to listen to him.
At least this time he did find one document that was of some interest.
And I think I can prove the game has it right, if it really needed to come down to that, which it does not.
If you could make every thing even, The soviat tanks likely would have the advantage.
At least when it comes to armor, size, gun firing a normal round and so forth.
But the truth is, the studies that really matter for tank duels are the ones that show that he who spots and fires first is he who wins 80% of the time.
And again CM games proves that many of a time. So it all comes down to the complaint, that the game makes the Russian tank blind, more than it should be. But as pointed out again and again, everything mentioned, shows just that, there is no way for the Soviat armor to be able to spot as well as American armor. So its impressive that by just adjusting the crew skill level its enough to tweek the results that much. that in and of itself shows there is not a big difference between the units.
-
You cannot take the scenario above as any form for showing what a T62 can or cannot do vs a M60 in any way.
Just way too many variables to be of much use.
The biggiest being dust being produced was preventing armor from both sides seeing much of anything.
The weapon systems shining were those seeing through the dust.
-
On 2/7/2022 at 5:29 PM, Artkin said:
The T-62s had some seriously abysmal performance in the CMCW tournament Slysniper is hosting. My opponent had unbuttoned tanks totally oblivious to huge m60's for like half a turn within 300m. So I also think something isnt right there.
-
This issue has been brought up a dozen times in the past, And the same points have been discussed before.
The game does not get it perfect for sure, I think the pistol is still a little too accurate and bolt action weapons take a very long time between shots. So that does impact if this is realistic.
But the issue was reviewed, stats created and guess what, the game adjusted and its actually better than it once was.
At this point, likely not going to be reviewed and adjusted again.
Like was pointed out, if you are playing smart, really should not be an event that would happen much or impact the outcome of your game.
And as someone mentioned, when close to a target, An old fasion scoped weapon is very hard to aim and get on target, I will take open sights any day at those distances.
What people are saying is MBTs might soon not be the ideal choice for that role. And there are plenty irrefutable benefits of UGVs vs. MBTs.
Is The Tank Dead? What Is the Future of Armored Forces
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted · Edited by slysniper
well, if I can build something that cost 5 times less, so I can have 5 vs 1 to a tank. and I can make it smaller and faster. And I can have it operate without a crew inside it.
And forget about all the effort to put any protection on it for atgm's or large ordinance. Which one sounds like the way to go in the future, that or a present tank.
The only way for a present tank concept to survive long term is if some type of system to be developed that will consistently beat all incoming threats.
( I think that is a task that is not happening much anymore) the defense systems are presently getting too costly and is hurting performance without getting much back in return for survivability