Lethaface

One thing about 'offensive' cyberattacks is that part of the weapons are spend after usage (malware type). DDOS / overburdening type of attacks aren't, but they aren't usually sustainable for a longer period. However who knows what kind of stuff they can come up with. I'd assume the Russian MoD network be well protected and separated from internet. But if one would be able to affect some part of it's infrastructure in some way, or the Doema's mailsystem? And indeed I think those options are now definitely on the table.

Other idea: Stuxnet next generation rewards program v2.0 will be allowed in the wild in Russia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOS-1

This is why I was still sort of surprised this morning, especially the conflict broadened from Donbass. Maybe he just wanted to see what his modernized army is capable off. This goes beyond destabilizing Ukraine or Russia's security, even if one has the perspective that Russia's security was threatened by Western influence on Russia's western borders. That influence just got a long term 'buff'.

TOS-1 I guess.

If Ukraine is has no rights to exist as a 'nation state', what about Belarus? will that also be part of Russia, while they'll give back Kalinigrad to Germany?

The nordstream 2 issue is about gas, not sure if Iran has that on offer in quantities. But others like the emirates and USA do. There are also still reserves in Europe, although for example the Dutch reserves are a bit of a hot cake due to earthquakes caused by extraction. Indeed one can question what Russia gains economically from this affair. Both as a country and among oligarchy 'stakeholders'.

I think the reason is simply that people expect some sort of 'balanced' scenario if it is advertised as a H2H scenario. Although I think there is a lot of fun in such a scenario and often enough options for both parties involved to have a fun game. Might not be balanced but if you don't mind too much about that I think most scenario's can be interesting to play H2H.

Nice explanation and good point on the 'fighting' bit :). Jockeying in CM is a bit difficult, although with using pauses it's quite doable imo especially with modern tanks and using the pause feature.

I have a hard time imagining that too :). If the hull down Panther could have aimed for the turret of the hull up Panther, the test results would probably be rather different. Also the tests don't account for battlefield conditions, in which the hull up Panther also has more chance that it is exposing it's weak hull side armor to other units compared to the hull down Panther. Although that all depends on the exact position.

So, like @Bulletpoint already suggested the Panther is not a great tank to do these tests with, because the results don't necessarily extrapolate to other tanks.

Remember that the 'disadvantage' is only for tanks with significantly weaker turrets vs the majority of it's hull armor (which probably invalidates it for most if not all modern armor). Personally I'm not surprised that a Panther can range in shots on a target the size of another Panther turret at 700m in a couple of shots. Edit: the CMx2 mechanic of always hitting centre mass does also influence this corner case. Because the 'hull up' panther in these tests will have the advantage that once zero'ed in most of the shots will impact the stronger hull.

Well for one you failed to mention that it's only valid for tanks with a weak turret compared to front hull (i.e. Panther). I don't necessarily agree that these posts help player to understand how the systems in the game work. If you had said something like: "Be vigilant because being hull down doesn't give magical protection. The main advantage is that it shows less of your tank so it is less visible and a smaller hitbox. However once you are spotted you can be engaged and turrets aren't invincible or that hard to hit for a decent AT gun at normal engagement range. So remember the survivability onion and reposition often to avoid getting spotted, especially after firing a shot or two. Bonus: remember that the turret is the Panther's weak chin so you don't want them to get hits on the turret. " I wouldn't have said anything. You explicitly said "A user is able to rely more on pure match up information and isn't being misled into expecting hull down to provide protection once spotted.", which I felt is misleading and incorrect for a large number of cases.

Mmm I think this statement is incorrect and misleading. Being hull down does provide 'advantages' even after being spotted, only for a hull down Panther tank which is being targeted from close range by an accurate gun that can pierce it's turret there is no 'magical protection' that hull down give to save the Panther or help is turret become stronger.

But what means 'not that much harder to hit' in this case? I'd say that regarding the answer to that question, the following are also a factor: * Gun accuracy * Range * Size of turret If hitting an object with the size of a tank turret (which do differ in sizes) at 500m with the first shot is not a problem for a certain gun platform, than the simple fact of your tank being hull down won't help your tank 'not getting hit' by that platform (in the condition the tank has already been spotted). My personal take on the lesson which can be learned there, is that it is wisest to reverse to cover when you know your tank has been spotted by a threat at a range at which it is likely to hit your turret and damage it. Hulldown is no magical shield. And if things come down to a close range brawl, I rather shoot & scoot from cover vs staying static (hulldown or not hulldown) and having a honest to god duel ;-). Unless one clearly has superior assets (for example King Tiger vs Sherman 75) I think a 'honest to god duel' isn't a wise way to wage war.

Still on this? It's always good to remember exactly what you're testing. In the setup of 2 identical tanks (1 hull down, 1 not hull down) which have spotted each other and are duking it out, you are mainly testing the offset between the advantage of presenting a smaller target vs presenting strongest armor at 'center mass aimpoint'. Without having done any tests, I predict there will be a large variance in results from: * Gun accuracy: with a less accurate gun, more rounds will impact off center mass aimpoint. * Range: (as a factor of gun accuracy; at longer ranges relatively less rounds will exactly impact the center mass aimpoint. While point blank all rounds will exactly impact center mass). * The relative strength of turret armor vs 'center mass aimpoint' armor (which in case of Panther is stronger than turret armor) There is also a brute fact to consider: * For any tank with stronger turret armor compared to hull armor there is principally nothing to gain ever by any rounds impacting the hull over the turret. So, whatever it is the test results will tell you, you'll have to consider that the results will vary for different tanks and different ranges. The question is what value the results will give anyone regarding 'actionable information'. My impression is: zero. Logic predicts that for tanks with stronger hull armor than turret armor, you'd rather take a hit on the hull than on the turret. Concluding: when you have a Panther and you are in close range to other tanks that have spotted your tank and for some reason you feel like Dirty Harry and have a good shoot out with enemy (instead of reversing to cover and reposition), don't bother with hull down but present that cheeky hull armor in the enemy face! In all other cases: bother with hull down and don't engage in honest to God duels if you don't need to.

I don't directly see how addressing the T-62 optics, including the type of rangefinder which The Capt already mentioned, and FCS would require multi page referenced research. TheCapt basically already did the work for you: he mentioned the optic, type of rangefinder (including it's appreciation) and lack of FCS for T-62. So if you have better information addressing that shouldn't require much more time & effort than his post. Or rather, considering you already have an opinion about the subject it should require less time. Because, how can you have a well researched & sourced opinion that something is wrong if you don't have knowledge at hand about what is wrong? That insinuation would lead me to believe you don't have specific knowledge of the subject and thus have formed your opinion on other grounds: bias / emotion. Which is very normal for people to do and we all do at times. But it is also why humanity has developed the concept of science / scientific research and how one can draw validated conclusions. -- I don't ask you to do multi page referenced research; it's rather you who state that something is wrong and should change. The onus is on you to provide arguments and facts into why something should change. I don't think this aspect is modelled incorrect in CMCW, so there is no reason for me to do research. -- Why does my post creates doubt in your mind if you should do what you wanted to do (and provide proof that T-62 optics should be improved ingame)? Perhaps it is you that is fragile and you need to be complimented before you dare to take such a step. The only reason why I addressed your communication style is that I was 'bo(the)red' by it. You post here regularly, as do I. So over time I have taken note of your style of communication and it isn't a very positive one. More than one constructive thread became unconstructive due to the way you post. You won't make a lot of friends that way, I can guarantee. Not that I care much about it, but sometimes I feel like calling a horse a horse especially if I'm bored by something. Concluding: there is nothing wrong with being critical of the game. It is a perfectly fine position to take that in your opinion USSR spotting isn't modeled well in CMCW, or that you have the impression that there is a USA bias. I myself have some gripes about CMSF2 Syrian ammo stuff in QBs, among other things. The CMBS US Javelin issue was fixed much faster than those ;-). But there's also logic in that, as probably most of the paying customers are from US and not from Syria so would complain more about Javelin issue compared to an RPG/PKM ammo bug in QBs. However the more important question is how to present yourself / opinion and gather attention and support for the issue you see/feel. Using expletives and such is usually not the way to go. At least in my life / experience. Your mileage may vary; good luck with addressing the things you would like to see changed! You'll need all of it I guess Edit: If you don't like posts dedicated to you, you could try changing your style of posting. Or rather: chill out.

It may be an interesting document indeed, but the part that you cited didn't contain anything about optics. I asked you about this but you didn't reply (yet). The issue some people may have with your posts is that you are aggressive in tone claiming that CMx2 is very biased towards US and that everyone who says anything else is blind/biased etc. You make broad sweeping statements but don't follow up when the actual bolts and pieces are discussed. This is sometimes called 'seagull management'; as in someone (in the example a manager) comes flying in, makes a lot of noise and **** on everything than flies away. When you get pushback (which is to be expected when utilizing the form and tone of communication you favor), you start acting like a victim and cry about ad hominems on your person and than project your own discussion style onto others. To get back to the point (although slightly OT): in game m60 is perceived to have better spotting and targeting capabilities compared to T-62. Do you assert that is wrong? If so, on what base? Simply shouting that T-62 is blind because m60 can see it while T-62 can't see m60 isn't proving anything. Posting an interesting document about how some researchers who have written stuff in the past might have come to wrong conclusions also doesn't proof anything to anyone. Most people on this forums understand that, but you seem to believe you have excellent scientific empirically valid dissertation about why CMx2 has stuff wrong. Which you haven't. Basically you make a lot of noise, but often not much else.

There is nothing on optics in your citation. Do you assert that the T-62 had equal optics to the M60A1, or a ballistic computer? If so, on what basis?

There are some stats but they have limited/zero value for determining anything other than the players relative performance. As I understood the battle was designed to favor BLUE. Among other things BLUE forces were crack with TOWs and dragons, while RED forces had more tanks.

that will probably be the regular surprise release.

As someone who played with the T-62s in that tournament I had a slightly different experience. I think the performance of M60 vs T-62 was for a large part decided by how the players utilize the assets. In my game my opponents m60 didn't do that much against my T-62s, although the TOW vehicles (and Dragons fired through smoke) did take a heavy toll on my tank force. One thing I did notice is that the T-62s seemed to be more affected, with regards to their spotting, by dust and smoke compared to the M60A1. Another thing some people might forget at times, is the value of c2. For example in that match I had my FO in a good observation post. He relayed this information to the infantry Bn HQ. I had the infantry Bn HQ meet up with both Tank Bn HQs so they could exchange c2 info. That worked and before my tanks were taking up positions, they all had tentative contacts for the enemy tanks and had no issue spotting them (having tentative contacts makes a big difference). I'm not 100% sure about the US OOB in that match but the tanks and mech infantry might all be part of the same structure and thus c2 information is shared between the whole force automatically. In general US forces have better c2 infrastructure to help sharing spotting info and that might explain quite a significant part of people finding their RED tanks blind compared to BLUE tanks. In CMx2 it is always prudent to check the c2 structure and if you command various formations make sure the HQs of those formations are in range to exchange spotting info as fast as possible. Anyway in my anecdotal experience the m60 does have better spotting than a T-62 in CMCW. Whether the real world spotting capabilities (optics etc) are correctly translated in game is another question. But not all tanks have equal spotting capabilities and AFAIK CMx2 tries to model each individual vehicles capabilities. So the m60 being better than a T-62 with regards to spotting isn't necessarily a problem; it might not only be working as designed but also true to real life capabilities. I'm not a real expert in that field but going from Wikipedia, other posts/info, my own observation and critical thinking there seems to be various indications that the spotting/optics/target acquisition of the T-62 is worse than that of m60A1. For example the T-62 gunners sight is said to be far from ideal. On another note; The thing which did struck me as an issue (not sure if it's a bug or working as intended) was the T-62s tendency to use it's HEAT round at distances around ~1KM+, instead of it's APFSDS round. The HEAT round is just not accurate at that range while the APFSDS round is (and capable enough to damage the M60 at that range, or take it out).

CMx3 in unity engine with speedtree featuring WW2 early war, Pacific and modern Vietnam theatres with onscreen air assets confirmed

Unfortunately the book isn't in stock in any Dutch online bookstores (including Amazon). Although that might be a good thing for you ;-). Any idea if it will be available soon?

I had no issues with them in the past. Need laser designator, point target and lof. Maybe new patch did something?