Alan8325
-
Posts
583 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Alan8325
-
-
New Plan.. RUN AWAY!!!
Not a bad plan if you can get Baneman to bog his JT in pursuit. A bogged JT would be a good lesson in why turretless AFV designs aren't seen too often anymore.
-
Akd's point is definitely plausible for real-life, but in CM I would argue that there is higher value to decentralizing AT capability within a squad.
When the RPG gunner goes down in CM and there is an armored threat nearby, another team member cannot simply pick up the RPG and have a chance to quickly counter the threat. We have to go through the buddy aid mechanic and if the RPG gunner is "unfortunately" wounded rather than killed the buddy aid process can take disastrously long, if it even occurs at all under pressure.
Rather than getting into the buddy aid mechanics can of worms it might make more sense to add the RPG-27 to the game at least as an aquirable weapon. It could bridge the flexibly gap between CM and real life AT weapon sharing while being fairly realistic.
-
Sounds like "The Hole" is as much a right of passage (hazing for newcomers) as it is a prison.
-
I believe the .50 also has better penetration against building walls, but I haven't actually done real testing to verify it. I remember seeing a sniper with the 50 take out an enemy in another building though, and it was satisfying to watch.
-
A large chunk of the US Army in CMBS is driving around with an APS that can defeat top attack weapons
And it can stop the Frogfoot's Kh-25 with minimal damage to any components. Awesome tech, that APS.
-
IIRC Javelin active guidance system is constantly making corrections to the flight path based on a constantly updated imaging IR input. It makes sense then that it could be defeated by IR-blocking smoke directed upwards -if- the missile is detected early enough. Detect it too late, as in like just a couple meters from the top deck, and it makes no difference.
-
Heh... I thought you might have been saying that.
I'm really not boned up on details of these proposed systems, but I do know that if you're trying to intercept the angle and the munition (currently) are tied together. Generally it's a lot harder to score a kill on the perpendicular, so if the tube is mounted horizontally it is most likely protecting the horizon only.
So to recap... I think the current position should be that Russia's new APS defenses offer no (or little) protection against a top attack weapon until there is solid information to suggest otherwise.
Steve
I would think against a western opponent on a near future battlefield ATGM threats are likely to be from the top (Javelins, Hellfires), with horizontal threats primarily being KE penetrators.
So if the new APS is really geared towards horizontal threats it would lead me to believe one of two things is true:
1. They realized they are technically incapable of defeating top-attack munitions, or
2. Armata in general is really designed to fight Russia's weaker neighbors.
More likely I think the system does in fact have some ability to detect and counter a top-attack weapon. Can it do it well? Who knows..
-
Can i turn off weapons, for instance on a sniper team to make it so they don’t get spotted but can still spot?
Actually yes you can prevent teams from firing if you want to use them as spotting units. Just create a short cover arc for your sniper team so that it falls short of where you would expect any enemy units. They will still spot units beyond the cover arc but will not fire. I don't believe you will get any spotting disadvantage outside the arc as long as the unit is facing the right way.
-
How do they achieve that level of density to KO all those tanks with HE?Grad and conventional artillery. There have been very few confirmed uses of cluster munitions by either side.
Steve
In CM the only way I can mobility kill a tank with arty is to get multiple near misses or direct hits with 152mm+ and it's challenging even with PGMs. I imagine mobility killing just a platoon of tanks with area fire would take all the shells of multiple batteries in CM. And that's when you know exactly where they are.
-
In that close-up top view of the Armata turret you can really see the pins holding the panels on, indicating that they are probably just there to hide the smaller silhouette of actual turret.
-
Does the turret still need to be NBC-proof? If not, all kinds of modular armor configurations are possible while not needing to stay airtight. Perhaps what we are seeing is just a placeholder that covers up the framework that armor modules get bolted to.
-
It looks like the intent of the design is that ATGMs are stopped by APS, auto cannon such as 25mm is stopped by the "new, improved steel" plating and sabot rounds pass straight through, hopefully not hitting anything on the way.
-
Russia's future won't look like this at all. Not only will it still retain a plethora of support vehicles (more varied than the US, IMHO) that have nothing in common with A/K/B, but unlike the US it will also have to retain a large number of fighting vehicles that have nothing in common with it. Just like when the BMP-3 was introduced. The resulting logistics headaches are proportionally larger than what the US has to suffer AND the Russians don't have the logistics strengths that the US has.
Steve
3d printing technology is quickly reducing the need for infrastructure to produce the parts to maintain a wide variety of equipment. Navy ships are being equipped with direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) printers to make replacement parts. Antique cars can have new replica parts made from scratch instead of using salvage parts. A unique wrench design was "e-mailed" to a printer on the ISS.
I think the big picture indicates cheaper maintenance and logistics for everyone and a wider variety of equipment fielded.
-
To be honest, I'm not even sure now who I don't like the most. I like Kurganets-25 IFV the most, tho. Boomerang IFV comes second, I guess.
Ouch
So, who else agrees that the new Afghanit APS is a Quick Kill analogue?
Small sensor next to the radar is probably LWS:
Those canisters being the size they are and in fixed positions are consistent with a Quick-Kill style missile that maneuvers into intercept position.
-
Would you care to show me where the EFPs fall under Russian MTOE?
Neither an MRAP, or a HMMWV will react positively to much more than limited HMG fire. That much is a fact, ATGMs, tank fire, autocannons all will ruin them just as hard. Against small arms they're both about as robust. The MRAP type of vehicles deals with IEDs quite well, but in CMBS there's no Russian Motor Rifle Regiments out placing pressure plate EFPs, or strapping 152 MM artillery shells under highway overpasses. It just is not any more survivable against most threats, and even further it comes with appalling drawbacks in mobility and a massive size.
The MRAP is a great COIN vehicle. The HMMWV is the much better choice for the majority of light truck type missions however.
Apparently we are getting some realistically-inspired unconventional factions such as DPR, Russian Voluteers and Ukrainian nationalists in one of the earliest modules. I'm not sure how much they use IEDs..they probably get enough better stuff donated to them to not even bother with IEDs. The US would probably still rather send HMMWVS over MRAPS for the lower profile silhouette against tanks and ATGMS.
-
Yeah, that thing looks like it needs a one-story building to hide behind for proper hull-down positioning. It's one of those things that I wouldn't mind seeing despite gimped state if it's easy enough to add, but if it requires more than a casual few minutes of modelers' time, leave it out in favor of other things.Not without proper mast/high mounted sensors it isn't.
It would defeat the point. It would be even more vulnerable than poor Khrizantema.
-
If you create your own scenario or play a quick battle you can simulate a special forces unit by setting the unit's experience to 'elite' and its motivation to '+2.' Most special forces use the same or very similar small arms as the best equipped conventional forces so the only thing you will be missing from explicit SF is some of the unique uniforms and small-unit tactics.
-
I'd love to see Armata in the game, but it seems most CM-relevant improvements over current Russian tanks are to crew survivability, which in CM terms means combat will play out very similar to the way it does now but with less Russian casualties. I see it going something like this:
The way CM is now - M1A2 SEP spots T-90AM before T-90AM spots M1A2 SEP. M1A2 SEP fires APFSDS round through turret of T-90AM, causing catastrophic explosion. 3 Russian casualties.
CM after T-14 is added - M1A2 SEP spots T-14 before T-14 spots M1A2 SEP. M1A2 SEP fires APFSDS round through turret of T-14, causing catastrophic explosion. T-14 crew bails out and escapes. Possibly gets mowed down by MG or airburst HE.
-
That is true, but there are more than one type of situation to receive a contact marker. I didn't make clear in my post (my bad), but I meant to refer specifically to "Lost Contact" type of markers. A spot where the AI definitely observed enemy units but subsequently lost contact might be worth the AI issuing a "Target Briefly" order on that action spot.
You certainly wouldn't want the AI to area fire on every single marker that pops up, only the most recent, and only for a limited time.
What if the conditions for the AI conducting an (1 min) area fire are:
A.) Area firing unit has a contact marker.
B.) Another friendly unit has LoS to an enemy unit at a location within one action spot of the contact marker.
-
I'm not sure I'd want my own guys selecting their own suspected enemy positions to fire upon, especially if I want to conserve ammo or stay hidden, but this feature would be great for an AI opponent. It would add a whole new level of unpredictability to the AI and give it another tool found in the playbook of human players.
Maybe it could somehow be part of the "strategic" AI.
-
It might make sense to include the Koreas in an expansion for a large CM title focusing on China vs the US with South Pacific allies. That would be a good one down the road.
Edit: Potentially Vietnam would be one of the US's South Pacific allies, and it could be a development stepping stone to a Vietnam War title further down the road.
-
Nice! I think an appropriate result of intercepting a Maverick or Kh-25 should be at least severe damage to top-mounted external systems on MBTs, probably knocking out the APS, and on lightly armored vehicles possibly knocking it out all together. Good to hear that missiles will have a steeper attack profile and be harder to hit.
-
As long as just 1 in 4 or so US armored vehicles are equipped with APS, Russian air support could still do some serious damage by firing missiles first. However you can be sure that infinite taxpayer money would be used to equip all vehicles with it within months if it's really as effective as depicted in game.
-
If Trophy APS is realistically as insanely effective against all forms of ATGM from every angle, including the massive Kh-25 which is a rough equivalent to Maverick, Russian air support AI needs to change to use cannons first to strip the APS. I've done a few tests using two SU-25s against just a single platoon of Abrams, all equipped with APS, and the Frogfoots were completely ineffective at even making a dent until they used their cannon and stripped the external systems from the Abrams, but at this point the missiles were expended. This happened every time (5 tests). Helicopters were a little more effective only because they had enough missiles to keep shooting after the APS was expended.
I'm absolutely certain that if Trophy isn't bugged and is really this much proof against every kind of ATGM threat until it runs out of ammo, the Russian pilots would try to strip this system off their targets before they waste valuable ATGMS to explode harmlessly a few meters from their target every time.
Saudi M1 vs Kornet
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Why does the US seem to be the only nation innovating with new DU armor designs, especially since the Russians should also be able to produce plenty of DU? Do you believe it is more an issue of doctrine or funding?