Stagler
-
Posts
1,164 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by Stagler
-
-
Depends man, all the aircraft ingame at the moment have high attack profiles. Maybe with the exception of the Su-25 which favours a wider approach with more time to put the laser in the nose on the target and fire, especially now its revealed that its using Kh-25 which is old fashioned at best.
US aircraft have either the ability to look down shoot down with the TV guidance system on the Maverick. The Kh-29 would make a good counterpart to that as it has similar capabilities, its likely that the Ukrainians would operate the Kh-25ML which relies on laser designation of the target. Russian updated versions do have TV guidance, and they would operated on Su-24, but they would not choose to operate this system over the more modern (1980+) Kh-29.
-
The weakpoints in the Abrams front turret armor are dead center in the middle.
Frontally on the turret yes, below the gun mantlet. Frontally on the glacis and obliquely on the hull/turret not at all. If your looking at the front of an M1, you are in elysium my friend!
-
I thought it was mentioned in another thread that the ATGM intercept was being looked at?
I thought Su-34 operated Kh-29 ingame. My mistake here, sorry. However its a bit strange a brand new platform like Su-34 operating a legacy AGM. Especially because of the TV guidance suite and additional weapons operator that is not present on legacy platforms that the Kh-29 would take advantage of. Might have been overlooked or standardised to fit in with the rest of the platforms ingame, as they surely must all operate Kh-25. Kh-25ML, which is the most recent laser guided version supposedly travels at around 1000mph. Kh-29 can be used in dual role as anti-shipping, it is a very large missile in terms of warhead so even exploding at a range it may throw out shrapnel. It also comes in fire-and-forget flavour. Kh-29 cannot top attack per se, but it can be guided downward on a good day.
APS dealing with any projectile is based on speed and acquisition of the incoming missile. What is the maximum speed of acquisition of the APS platform in question before it launches projectiles to intercept. Then it has to make sure it launches the projectiles in loop to strike the incoming missile. If it is going fast then by the time it has launched countermeasures the missile may have closed the distance.
You would have to look at the individual specs for Zaslon, Arena-E, and Trophy for the maximum speed of the incoming missile before it cannot be tracked, although this is not something that people reveal. You might also have to look at lead time between detection and countermeasure launch in terms of how far the missile will travel in that time.
I dont know what bias you think I hold AKD, but I am not Russian. OPFOR kit is often under represented, even on exercise. If nobody played devils advocate then surely NATO would be equipped accordingly and eternally prepared to combat any threat...
What sources do you/they use for your OPFOR kit? Primary material is not always the best, especially when looking at Russian vehicles.
Rarity cost of BMP-3M Arena is also very high, but that can be mitigated with QB selection modes. Ill take alook tonight when I get in how much stuff I can buy for a medium QB and make a table of the costs.
-
This is advantageous if it is a lightly protected IFV, but if your firing at an M1 or ERA equipped M2. Then hitting the centre mass will have little affect. When you say exposed, if the turret is available to be seen, will it fire at the turret or will still attempt to fire at the centre mass even if it is behind cover?
-
A lot of people don't realize that CM games are not balanced, by design, as your common "rts" game. The only form of balance is in the QB unit selection roster, which is a rough and primitive form of balance in order to avoid having a player with 100 MBT fight one with 10 soldiers.
By balance and costings I was referring to the QB unit selection roster, things also cost the same in regular mission editing and it is intended to balance forces as such when creating scenarios. Not to artificially balance kit.
This is highly speculative.
Do you have anything else than your subjective perception to support this claim?
The high probability of the APS shooting down incoming Kh-29 missiles and other heavy AT missiles was recently confirmed as a bug by the devs and will be fixed in 1.02. But keep in mind this affects all heavy missiles from fixed and rotary wing aircraft that are not top-attack capable, not only the russians. I think (but i am not sure) that the US F-15s/F-16s in game can be equipped with Maverik AT missiles, so these should be affected as well.
Isnt it like that already? In a Meeting Engagement QB i can buy a company of Typical quality T-90s and a company of BMPs while US can only buy a force of 1 Typical M1A2 platoon and 2 platoons of Bradley infantry.
Speculative? Not at all. My day job significantly involves looking at osint among other things.
No, I was agreeing with Antarees previous post about the fact that it is an American game. Try to read previous posts. I am sure significant testing of the game went on. The bugs are less forgiving to the Russian player than American player as his capability is far greater. The M1A2 is far more forgiving when spotting issues occur than the paper mache T-72B3
Depends on angle of attack and the speed of projectile. Can Trophy intercept KH-29 at 910mph? Kornet travels at 560mph. I dont know, but the next patch is too late for the game currently running.
You can buy whatever you want. In a meeting medium with loose rarity, I was able to field 3 T72B3, two platoons of BMP2m (two groups of 3 BMP-2M, and 1 OC BMP-2K), one 9K22M, three dismounted Kornet teams and BTG mortar group.
I was up against 4 M1A2, and two four bradley platoons, with attached dismounted javelin teams.
I initially picked BMP-3M ERA and Arena mix, and I was only able to afford one platoon (3 vehicles) in that case and the company commander. Thats why I chose BMP-2M instead to make up the numbers. These are a rough idea of the numbers we are talking here. Dismounted Russian squads are very cheap. IFVs less so.
-
How does vehicle aiming work. Do they aim for the center of the vehicle?
-
We dont even know what kind of data the game uses. Does it take into account that the T-90AM CITV has the same TI than the gunner.. What are the ways the game takes into account sensor capabilities and which estimation of performance is used ? We dont. There is no way to know if its realistic or not, one way or the other. Russian soldiers are actually told not to discuss their training standards and its enforced . They did mention on the english russia site that they now regularly do live fire exercices . They are not very forthcoming So we have to guess even on that so imagine technical caracteristics of in service equipment.So much we dont know and so much estimation is done that some bias is unavoidable. People are still arguing if russian optics in late world war II were pieces of crap for god's sake.
Battlefront caters to a western audience so its normal that if some bias is present, it will favor NATO because its human nature and Battlefront is a business. They wont aleniate their customer base when they have the luxury of favoring a pro American bias over giving the benefit of the doubt to russian capabilities when making educated guesses. As long as the game isnt too lopsided and some level of realism is achieved, ie: America is probably superior in many fields but not overwelmingly so to keep the game balanced.
To be fair Janes is a pretty good jumping off point, and I would say that Battlefront has a subscriber membership to this site, or maybe one of its devs does. I would say that this is solely the source. Janes however is pretty crap on new Russian kit, independent research from the rest of the internet would be a better choice for this.
I understand battlefront is a US company and there will be bias present, but it does seem like some of the bugs effect the Russian side more. Another one yet to be mentioned is APS shooting down incoming Kh-29 missiles from fixed wing aircraft which saw me throw my game to Doug Williams over the last few turns. It seems that the US side is more refined and tested. Also proliferation of above system should be made less, or vehicles mounting it more expensive. A unit of APS mounted BMP-3M is significantly more expensive to field than that of a unit of APS mounted M2. For opponents to be peer, this needs to be ironed out.
US kit should be better, definitely, but Russia should have the balance in costs to make up for it.
-
They can engage straight from the TI if they want, its up to the discretion of the gunner what he is most confident hitting the target with at that range. If he is plowing into a full spectrum combat situation, and knows the direction of the facing of the advance and the likely enemy direction. He will light up anything straight away with the TI optic. If he wants to further examine the target however he will look through the day sight.
You're just factoring the gunner's optics into the equation. The CITV on the Abrams is as I keep mentioning, just as capable as the Gunner's Primary Sight, and usually is used to scan independently of the gunner's optics meaning a much faster acquisition cycle.
The CITV on the T-90MS also has the same TI system as the gunner. I wasn't factoring anything in, I was using an arbitrary number for the effectiveness of the tank vs the other tank. The Abrams is probably 3x more effective, than the T-90AM in game, it can take on 3x T-90AM and win lets say. Maybe it should be made less effective in some way, or made more expensive/T-90AM cheaper? The latter likely being the most agreeable solution. Numbers wise and 'murica platforms stronk, this, that, or the other - it doesn't make for a much fun game if the opposition is a non entity.
-
switching sights would reasonably require 1 second of time, this is one second too many when dealings with M1A2s because their gunners dont need to
Probably two seconds to move your eye from left to right, nevertheless this should be factored into time between acquisition and first shot fired, not acquisition itself. They should be spotting faster off the bat.
There is an argument that in a domestic model T-90AM, a hypothetical construction anyway, that the Sosna-U would be replaced by ESSA which has 12x TI zoom. At this time ESSA is only on export designation vehicles to India.
At the moment M1 spotting is probably about 3x better than T-90AM, howabout making it 2x better instead. Or make T-90AM cheaper.
-
How many M1A2 do we have in Europe at this time?
-
Yes, it would make sense to engage in this way because of the wider FOV and acquisition capabilities of the Sosna-U. The day sight has 12x magnification and the ranger integrated, so you then switch over to regular gunsight, which will already be layed in the rough direction by the FCS, and acquire, lase, then fire through the regular sight. It is only 10cm away from the thermal eye viewer.
How long is it taking spotting now? At night yes, it would be higher as he would switch to IR and search there. But daylight hours, process would not take so long. Its not like the gunner has to turn an extra turret to face the target, the thermal optic and gunner daysight are almost aligned anyway.
Spotting does need looking at in some respects, look at my BTR thread in the tech support section.
-
Not the first time these issues have been raised.
As I said a while ago, engagement sequence in Russian MBT is as follows. Thermal, IR ,Dayoptic.
You look through thermal, oh there's thermal a return.
Can I see him with my IR optics, because they are slightly better than day optic in low light conditions. I can.
Can I see him with my day optic gun sight. I can.
Now I engage.
Accuracy with GLATGM will always be higher than gunnery, if your manually putting something onto the target around 100% is expected. You can guide it, duh. With regular gunnery on the move 100% accuracy is unexpected, I think that's where you might be mistaken. But firing GLATGM from stationary, yes that is feasible. If you cant do it right then your not doing your job properly and will be enjoying stint as driver mechanic for the next few weeks. All you need to do is fire and keep the aiming reticule on the target, and it is guided to its explosive end by the will of Putin himself.
BRM series requires an extra "crew" or team in its passenger slots to utilise the radar function.
-
Its not just a case of magicking armoured brigades into theatre the Russians have an extensive rail network built and maintained by railway troops to ensure such mass movement of forces from east to west is efficient. The Russians would have numbers on their side initially as they are remarkably efficient at masking intentions and moving troops into staging areas to attack without warning. The concept of Maskirovka is well practiced and adhered to to maintain strategic suprise and capture the tactical initiative. You would expect to face down the best part of 400 T-90 roughly in the first week or few days of fighting.
As for the long term however, as NATO forces moved into Ukraine to support, and came from further afield like flew into Germany if the conflict dragged on, the US could eventually concentrate more armour in europe and drive it east.
This should be reflected in QB rarity as well I think, the first few months, rarity of US tanks should be high, getting to loose rarity in the third month of the conflict as US forces arrive in theatre.
Just to reiterate my opinion on this matter, Abrams > T-90 definately - althought ingame I think the price of each should be adjusted accordingly, as it stands you cant get as many T-90A to take on an equal "points worth" of M1A2
-
A brad survived a sub 500m shot from a T-90AM, on its ERA? Did you know what round it fired?
-
AI Ukranians are shocking in the attack. Just move forward and die in droves sadly.
-
You might want to do a check and see how many M1A2s there are vs how many T90s there are in Russian service before you say such things.
It is true that there are more M1A2 in service than T-90, however both points and total numbers in service are irrelevant at the end of the day as its reliant on them actually getting those numbers to the fight. Either across the Atlantic, or across Siberia, nobody will ever get all their tanks into the fight. Most trains will get stuck in Siberia somewhere.
its probably worth looking at how many are deployed forward in Germany and in the WMD.
-
Abrams protection best protection. Its why I think the continued construction of carousel autoloaders in Russian tanks is a horrendous idea.
-
It's been requested. Right now thermal imagers and image intensification NV are lumped together under the same subsystem.
Fair one.
-
Slightly off topic like, but on the damage indicators on Russian kit it mostly has IR optics listed in subsystems. It says IR optics on things that should have TI (BMP-3M), not IR (not that TI is not IR, but I refer to IR as night-vision green on black IR). Maybe this should be changed to indicate more easily what has TI and what has IR optics.
-
Are you <several dozen attempts deleted because could be considered a personal attack> kidding?
The AI in CM1 was, well a joke. OK perhaps that is a bit harsh - no, no it is. It always did the same plan and half the time the plan was not particularly good either. In a QB I suppose it could be made to work fairly well. But if you factor in a QB with more than one scripted plan available the scripted plan method smokes it. In a scenario it just cannot complete with the scripted AI we have right now. A scenario designer can create AI plans that take into account terrain features, objective priorities etc. and match the forces chosen for the AI groups.
It is theoretically possible to create an autonomous AI that can do all these things but that is a crazy amount of work. If BFC spent a fraction of that work in adding new features to the current AI scripting (additional triggers if/then paths) plus some editor improvements, scenario authors could create an even better experience at a fraction of the cost of your fantasy AI. You are just dreaming and you are way off base. Spend your time convincing BFC to augment their existing script based AI. Since they actually want to go in that direction you will have more success.
QB needs to be fast. It takes a while to make your own QB map. With an existing AI programme, you could make a QB map, put an objective in it, and away you go in 15-30 minutes. The utility of QB is its speed, and it is part of the long term playability strategy of the CM series. There is only so many shipped missions and campaigns, and there will only ever be so many user scenarios, eventually interest dies or everyone will play the newest latest bestest battlefront thing and CMBS will get forgotten about, then all you really have is QB and the editor then, and some people cant/wont edit in depth.
You can call it fantasy as much as you want, Battlefront does not have this, other games do, it is obviously possible - albeit a large investment of man hours and their wages. Its up to them to choose their development path and whether they listen to customer feedback or not, but yes, I am just dreaming of a day where they do decide to put resources into creating a proper AI. Is there anything wrong with dreaming for better days? I don't think so.
-
The more they get malleted, with a lesser leadership number they will go from okay to panicked to rout faster.
-
Would the assistant leader and squad leader getting optics actually have any spotting effect? I thought the entire squad had to have the optics to make it work as such.
-
Stagler,
So it really is a documentary? Are there more? If so, I'd love to see them. I was unsure, since I don't speak Russian, whether or not it was, but it sure looked like a documentary to me. Was very impressed, despite being able to pick up only the odd word here and there. I noticed some BMD-4s were shown briefly, and at the very end,a BTR-82A.
Yes there are plenty of others.
Look in the Polygon 2 channel on youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCM-z1vR7XbTThPvEjKZSM2Q
-
Most definitely a concept.
In-game spotting system: are you kidding me?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted · Edited by Stagler
If someone was to judge by my avatar and sig AKD then they might think differently if they didnt think to ask, or know me from BI forums or somewhere. Seemingly hilarious as you may find people assuming individuals nationalities, I remember accusations being thrown around of several forum members being SVR officers not so long ago...
Russian kit is universally under-rated in defence, this is often the case in all things regarding Russian kit whether it be simulations, wargames, etc. The experience of 1991/2003 goes a long way to provide this thought base. It is often dismissed on here as well, granted not by yourself, but has been since CMA. If I feel the need to provide data I will find a source (but not ingame turns as I dont play much turn based).
I was saying that I think an M1A2 is worth 3 T-90AM in CMBS, combat value wise. I dont think anyone has any real life hard data to back that up to be honest.
For aircraft launched AGM:
Top speed of Kh-25 is explained here as 870m/s, or cruising speed of 670m/s. So that would qualify for Trophy to intercept.
http://www.deagel.com/Anti-Armor-Weapons-and-Missiles/Kh-25ML_a000809001.aspx
Interestingly it also does not mention the SU-34 as an operator of the missile, but it is almost certain that it can if required.
Back onto the spotting topic: The inclusion of ESSA is abstract as T-90AM isnt real, but T-90S export for india is equipped with the system. It is how we say in the industry, a realistic possibility, for it to be fitted to T-90AM/MS in a hypothetical 2017 situation - the same as Trophy which is not widely distributed at this time.
To give a grounding of my thinking and where I am coming from, my bias as you say, begs me to think that if the inclusion of Trophy was thought of for the US systems, which in October last year talks were had over the purchase of the system but nothing concrete signed I believe, why was ESSA not included as it is included in export model of T-90S, when T-90MS is also an export piece?
If we are going up against the US A-team, can we have the OPFOR A-team as well? I know T-90AM was included so the capability gap could be bridged somewhat. Hopefully by may I will have had better look at Armata, and that may be bridged further - even if it is only the crew suviving the vehicle being destroyed