Kieme(ITA)

This is how the coverage works supposing a 120° radious for each sensor... It's Worth to note that the extreme sides of each sensor are covered by the nearby one, this means that if the capacity/sensibility of the sensor decreases from the most central (let's say 90° arc) area towards the sides, these are covered by two sensors instead of one, thus augmenting the chances of detection. If the power of the sensors is perfect for the entire 120° arc the coverage is then perfect at the precise position the sensors radiouses meet. The above picture seems a bit of an overkill, so I'll try drawing cover arcs at other degrees, maybe something between 90 and 120, but should be nice to see what's the 90° option coverage.

This picture shows the potential coverage of the sensors. I don't know how they work and what's their effective radius of operation, so the light grey represents a 180° arc while the dark grey is a 90° area in front of each sensor. The real value could be anything between these numbers, althougn, 180° seems unlikely since the boxes show a plain straight facade; possibly, the coverage should be at least a few degree lower than 180, maybe a 120° arc each... I also don't understand why there's a fifth box on one side (or a missing Sixth one on the other side). Actually this set up covers the entire vehicle, they decided to use 5 sensors instead of 4 maybe because the coverage of each was not sufficient for a full 360* cover using only 4 sensors (one per corner). This means that we could evaluate with more precision what the radious of each sensor is, since 4 was not eough, and the 6th was not needed....

I tried to make a visual aid of the main APS on the Kurganets. I counted a total of 19 launchers (single tubes) pointing outwards and located on the top hull. The red boxes underline the (probable) sensor housings. The red lines are an (estimated) direct line of fire departing from each tube.

So BMD family and T-80BV for Ukraine. BMD family (up to the most modern versions) plus maybe Sprut for Russian VDV? Sounds nice.

AA assets will engage enemy aircrafts as soon as they spot them, usually it's immediate although the chance to kill is not guaranteed, sometimes it will take several shots/turns.

A few pictures from the battlefield aftermath:

Work in progress on the Russian MTLBs. Using BTR's green mod as base as Always.

If I recall correctly Mi-8 were in CMSF but are not present in CMBS.

With the new features of CMBS such as the precision arty strike + UAVs a similar mission could only be better.

Well, the idea is very good, but I see a limitation there, and it's a time constraint. While we all see APS systems racting very quickly, a tank movement might not be so fast. I can see that the automatic movement of the tank in certain cases is feasible but in the time laps of an "APS action", no I don't really see a tank reacting fast enough to place the right gear, start giving gas, the sprocket weel moves, it takes too much time compared to the fraction of time an APS works.

And the integration with the tank design itself is a long way to come. The ideal APS should be integral to the tank, so that it doesn't have weak parts protruding the silhouette, the parts should be protected from fragments and light weapons but still efficient, the entire shape of the tank should allow for the best possible angle covering and positioning of the system parts. The Armata surely is a first try to integrate the design of the APS system to the design of the vehicle, but it's a very rough tentative. The Kurganets, for example, is a vehicle that has zero integration between the design of the vehicle and the design of the APS. You can fit any APS system to any existing vehicle, but a brand new vehicle designed from its roots with a dedicated APS in mind will be something different and more efficient. Future systems might start growing in size (raw power of the countermeasure should be increasing rather than descresing in the future) and complexity (more devices pointing outwards and upwards, all around), so the next generations of tanks, given the APS will be used in the future as a standard device, will show a dedicated design.

Big compliment there, thanks.

I thought this very same thing imaging this "automatic system" (that drives the tank if the crew do not respon) in action within the game... Even if this feature is true and will be shown later on, I wonder if it would be recommandable to add in in game. Anyway, the Armata would have several interesting elements already (rotating smoke dischargers, to say one).

Actually Jane's recognizes that the only feature potentially capable of dealing against top-attack missiles consists in a canister of two sets of 12 devices each, which really resembles the cassic smoke grenade launcher tubes. Not onyl Jane's refers that it's unclear if such system is hard or soft kill form of APS (soft being smoke only), but also considers the possibilities that such device is just a storage for quick reload of the other launchers on the turret (horizontals). Personally, as I stated before, I really don't see any device on the vehicle that suggests the capability of dealing with top-attack weapons, and now that I look at it again, the box on the left-rear of the turret appears to me to be a vertical launcher to cover the direct overhead of the vehicle with smoke if not really just a storage for additional munitions such as Janes also suggests as a possibility... also, consider that this device is not symmetrical, it's placed on a rear-side of the turret only, besides, the big thing missing is in my opinion a visible device for the radar that should identify the top-attack weapon in the first place... Might be an excellent APS system, but I really see scarce evidence that it is capable of indentifying and intercepting top-attack missiles.

When I say:"The absence of this kind of bonuses are what makes CM games different" it's exactly what you confirm by saying (your words) "focus on realism and authenticity sets CM apart from other RTS games". But after that you say: "it might not be ideal, nor the most realistic way of Handling this". Pretty clear that you understood that gamey and unrealistic paths are not those followed by CM games. This pretty much closes any space for "bonuses" to be given to soldiers in CM games. If you think that's so easy to change anything within the spotting system, well... your opinion. Seeing how this feature evolved in the last few iterations of the CM2x series tells me something very different.

And the absence of those kind of "bonuses" are what makes CM games different from any common RTS games. The "+50% lethality bonus when operating inside buildings" is given by what? Nothing, it's just a gamey and false way to represent reality. How would that be achieved? Soldiers in CM games have their bodies, their eyes, their equipment, what should be programmed to make them achieve this +50% lethality? Faster shooting AK-74? Like a dream weapon? Special spotting abilities? Like programming their eyes to see 10 times better than those of an infantryman under the same conditions? No, simply not possible. God bless CM games follow another path. The "concealment bonus" is simply not possible, if you read what I wrote, understand how spotting works in game and what provides concealment, it's just impossible to add this kind of "bonus" unless you make the soldier logic model smaller, transparent or modify the spotting system globally (which would be a major change and affect ALL units), concealment in game is not given by the units, but by the environment features and environmental conditions, you need to better understand what are the contstraints of the game engine before you can assess what's easier and harder to implement in a module.

That unique tactics and drills are what's simply not possible to depict due to engine limitations.

One of the basic concept of CM games is that X unit is identical to Y when it comes to the human representation. Additional factors are Fitness, Morale, Motivation, Training/Experience etc. and then there's equipment, which have different charactristics, ranges, accuracy, handling etc. These are the elements that make a US soldier different from a Russian one in game now. When an infantry unit is on the field, the difference between what it can do and cannot is based on the above factors plus the player's input. "Bonus for concealment" and "cqb" (I imagine "close quarters battle") is not something that fits CM games mentality (my first combat mission was CMBO). Bonus for concealment. Just because a unit is "SOF" instead of "conscript russian army" doesn't make the human body heat signature of the former less evident than the one of the latter, for example. The only way to give such kind of bonus would be to make the single soldier of said SOF unit something different in game's logic, thus reducing its logic signature (hit box) somehow, or something else (not an expert of how the game is programmed, but it's evident that a rework of some basic elements would be needed). So one human being would not be the same of another human being. This kind of bonus/malus is at the basis of most if not all common RTS games since their origins and that's what makes a tactical simulation different than the common RTS game. Bonus for cqb. The ability of a "SOF" unit in a restricted environment is represented by a superior tactical training (in game now: experience/training, like Green, Regular, Veteran etc.), a better personal training (in game now: Fitness level), or quipment. Just because a unit is "SOF" doesn't make an AK-74 more precise than the AK-74 of "conscript russian army" or the reloading time significantly faster (for this game's sake), or the weight of ammunition inferior etc. If equipment is what makes the difference then it must be it, there's simply no space for a "bonus" here. FOs are better at calling arties because of their position in the chain of command and/or because they have better radio equipment and dedicated training, not because they have strange obscure bonuses. As you can see, it's down to game's mechanics. Potentially SOF units could be modelled in game, but this would require a considerable amount of time, and while Organization and Equipment could be easily modelled, training, tactics and abilities of SOF units within the game environment that is the one we have now is simply impossible. A new engine would be required at least, as a very basic requirement I can imagine buildings interiors, such that the inside space of a building is not abstracted like it is now in game, but it's effectively depicted, thus allowing for the use of more advanced and detailed tactics; not only that, the entire logic squares among which the units move now should be much smaller; commands, there should be many more commands available than those we have now, and in general a more detailed micromanagement, an example: smoke grenades. If you order a unit to do "smoke" you'll get the infantry unit to toss a smoke granade some meters in front of itself. That's it. This is a generic representation, but fits the level of simulation CM games are based upon. A dedicated team such as that of a special unit would at least be thought to be able to put a smoke grenade at a precise distance, in a precise position. So as you can see you'd need a re-work of the "smoke" command, but this wouldn't be of much use if the logic squares in which you can put the order were so large and generic as the ones we have now, which again, do fit the game level (for most occasions but not all), but wouldn't be small enough to represent a special team in a complex environment. In conclusion, the game as it is now does not allow for the specific requirements a special unit would be able to cope with, the only solution would be to start giving out bonuses etc. to units, thus breaking the basic idea of the tactical simulation as it is now and the very soul of CM games.

This is a good example of why SOF would not fit CM games.

Looks like that it's not really possible to instillate training where there are too many lacking basic features and requirements. This brings up the can of Worms of giving advanced weapons to untrained hands.

I was wondering about this because, from my side, I have little knowledge of the "training", and everything related to it, that the US provided to the new Iraqi army. Maybe US people got a lot of information about it during the years, here in Europe the process was never really described or studied deeply (even though also Italian troops in Iraq were described as training local police forces).

But weren't they trained by US personnel?

Possible that the tank was blown up intentionally by placing a heavy explosive on the turret floor and detonating it?

You can have a laser warning IFV with the BMP-3 Shtora. As you can see it's not much weight, but the system is complex as it needs several receivers to cover all sides of the turret. The BMP-2M lacks this kind of feature.