Haggard Sketchy

In Los Angeles I would kill to be able to park in a building.

The gunners optics has a very narrow field of view.  That kills for spotting abilities and rightly so.  Think about all the disadvantages 2-man turrets have in other CM games.  Go play steel beasts and try to use the gunner sight for spotting.  It is not easy.  Switch to thermal commander system and its a world of difference.  I think the BMP-2M actually has the full 360 deg. CITV system and can outperform the BMP-3M in spotting.  I might be confusing the -3 with the 3M though.
 
As to weapon choice, it seems very spotty.  I get AT-10 sometimes and 30mm sometimes.  I think that is already on the docket for the next patch.

Don't get me wrong, I am glad the game represents the BMP-3 bad problems.
There are some issues anyway that could be ironed out with ease (such as the weapon choice depending on target type and range), and maybe the spotting could be improved to make it slightly worse than the Bradley -not such a huge difference-, if not for a 360° (the Bradley has a CITV), at least for the front arc where the BMP-3 turret is facing. Because, as it stands now, I really don't see how this asset can be used in a direct confrontation.

OK, I made a mistake in my test.  I left the infantry at Veteran and +1 leadership for the Russians.  When I evened everything out, it took 20-40 sec to spot the M2 and the BMP3 fired the AT-10 first and then fired a few bursts of 30mm.  So leadership and experience have an impact on what weapon to employ.

Just ran a test at 1000m...
 
BMP3M got an ID in 10 sec from start.  M2 got a ? at 8 sec and a solid at 14 sec.  I have run it a few times and there are huge swings in variability in the spotting.
 
The difference in my test is that I had spotters loaded in each IFV.  The BMP3 with a two man crew is at a big disadvantage to the M2 with a three man crew.  Load a an infantry unit in the BMP3 and the leader of the infantry unit becomes the commander of the IFV and uses the optics at that station.  There is whole thread on this issue down further, but,  more related to the BMP2M.

The main hitting point of the 30mm BMP-3M gun against the Bradley appears to be the turret (unless the distance is over 1000m).
 
 
 
I am conducting some "dry" testing. I am not a big fan of these, but I am wondering now how the BMP-3 can perform in general against the Bradley.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A first test (both tanks with same details, and regular crews/ perfect weather conditions/not a single obstacle etc.).
At 2000m
 
Bradley spots BMP-3 in a time between 1 to 10 seconds.
Bradley Always fire TOW2
 
BMP-3 spots Bradley in 2 to 4 (!) minutes (Bradley had restricted cover arc to force it not firing)
BMP-3 Always fire AT-10
 
Seems pretty huge difference to me, even considering you want to give the Bradley a net advantage on that. But with these numbers a BMP-3 will never be able to engage directly a Bradley.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second test, same conditions
At 800m
 
Bradley spots BMP-3 in a time between 1 to 5 seconds
Bradley Always fire 25mm
 
BMP-3 spots Bradley in 30 to 60 seconds
BMP-3 Always fire AT-10
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third test, same conditions
At 500m
 
Bradley spots BMP-3 in a time between 1 to 5 seconds
Bradley Always fire 25mm
 
BMMp-3 spots Bradley in 25 to 30 seconds
BMP-3 Always fire AT-10
 
As you can see, despite any range, the BMP-3 fires an AT-10 as first reaction to the Bradley spotted. As I mentioned in the first post, if the Bradley has an APS that shot is most probably wasted, thus giving the Bradley a reaction time that is the sum of 1)time needed for the BMP-3 to aim and shoot + (2) flight time of the missile + (3) missile intercepted by APS, during which the Bradley will Always use the 25mm gun with 100% precision.
 
***But the most astonishing result is in my opinion that while the BMP-3 spotting ability grows with the reduction of distance to the target (something which appears to be "realistic"), the Bradley ability to spot practically does not degrade with the increse of the distance to the target; this last effect is at its extreme point at 2000m, where the BMP-3 takes at least 12 times the time the Bradley needs to spot it.
 
Overall:
-Bradley will Always spot BMP-3 first
-Bradley does not suffer from catastrophic explosions (while BMP-3 will get one most of the time)
-Bradley APS can intercept AT-10 (while BMP-3 APS can intercept TOW2 as well)
-Bradley is more resistant than BMP-3 to 30mm fire than the BMP-3 to 25mm fire
-Bradley takes less time to aim and shoot than BMP-3.
 
BMP-3 is incapable of beating the Bradley in direct spotting (I will try a 200m or less test) or in any direct engagement.
The fact that BMP-3 will use an AT-10 as first rule of engagement will make the Bradley with APS, de facto, a guaranteed winner of any engagement.
 
At 140m of distance, the BMP-3 finally decides to use the 30mm gun first,. Always.
At 140m though, the BMP-3 will Always take 5 or more seconds to spot the Bradley, while the Bradley will spot in 1 to 2 seconds.
Bradley spotting ability seems practically instant, whatever the range.

The 30mm on the 2a72 would be saboted so it would negate the effect of the ERA on the Bradley.
Yes BMP-3 is made of paper, but how much better off is the Bradley?
 
As an aside where was the Bradley getting hit? I think its the unfortunate Bradley model that the AI targets targets the hardest parts due to the aiming mechanic, If the BMP-3 was firing at the turret then im sure it would be different.
Hopefully we can see a few more versions of the 3M in later expansions, like this one with Bakchka-U and Composite armour addons. Gurdy is working on this for us at RHS at the moment. Seems to be an older turret module as it lacks the commanders independent viewer.
 
http://s53.radikal.ru/i142/1004/8c/424c0d4dd288.jpg

Hi all,
 
I have recently played several matches where mechanized infantry units fought each other. The most unsettling situation Always came on the BMP-3 vs Bradley side. I have found two matters of interest.
 
1) The main problem I see in this is that the BMP-3 Always fires an AT-10 ATGM with the gun as the first act of any engagement against enemy IFVs (provided it has more than a couple in storage) and this happens at 1000m as well as less than 500.
This would be a correct act against an MBT or at ranges of over 2000m, where the other weapons lose either penetration or precision, or both.
 
In any case this fact is emphasized a lot when the enemy Bradley is equipped with APS, thus giving the Bradley a double advantage. Add the fact that the missile is very imprecise (I personally registered a 50% accuracy ratio, nothing more, on nothing less than veteran crew on BMP-3M) and you got an estimation of the result, if the two vehicles spot at similar times, the BMP-3 will fire its less prices weapon at its enemy, while the Bradley will fire a single burst of 25mm, with a 100% precision result and a guaranteed catastrophic result for the BMP-3. In more than a situation the 30mm gun would be a better choice, I would say Always when it comes to enemy IFVs of any kind.
Even more, consider that the Bradley rarely uses a TOW2 on a BMP-3, thus preferring the 25mm gun aven at 1000m+.
 
2) survivalability. I understand that the BMP-3 has weak armor, lots of ammunitions, and all the negative elements we know, but I recognized that while a Bradley can destroy or heavily incapacitate a BMP-3 with a single (or maximum two) bursts of 25mm; on the other hand the BMP-3 more often than not, needed an entire minute to destroy a Bradley, using the 30mm gun and sometimes firing another AT-10 (even at less than 500m), when I say a minute I mean that it took several long time bursts of 30mm, not just 4 or 5 rounds.
 
The sensible difference of sensor and spotting ability (which favours the Bradley) emphasizes the importance of the first shots.
 
I know that the game is not about balance, but I belive that the multi-Platform BMP-3 is not capable of fighting other IFVs at its best possibilities. The use of an ATGM is more often than not out of place against enemy IFVs and calls for a handicap start at any engagement.

Dear <deity> please cure Battlefront's allergy towards 1939-1941.

Great minds think alike. Suppression 'light'- and the resulting inflation in casualties- has (arguably) characterized all the CM2 titles. It may be a calculated decision on the part of BF in order to make the games more approachable and fun for non-grogs. The sterner system in CM1 (especially Barbarossa to Berlin)  aroused complaints from many buyers. But not everyone. In an older post I alleged that the hardcore guys play with a modified and much more punitive version at a hotel in Vermont. These events are held quarterly and entry requires a secret handshake 
 
You'll need a cattle prod to get those cowering GIs or landsers over the next hill..

I think the accuracy is fine, but suppression is undermodelled and morale overmodelled. Dudes are too willing to stand and bang with each other for extended periods of time.

A whole collection of misconceptions and mistakes in one sentence...let's break down Georgie's statements:
 
"The American Army as it now exists could beat the Russians with the greatest of ease..."
Famous last words if I ever heard them...was he talking about beating a few depleted Red Army units they encountered, or a knock-down fight with the whole Red Army?  Hitler didn't do so well with the prediction that the Wehrmacht could beat the Russians "with the greatest of ease" , and I doubt that Patton's statement would have been much more accurate.
 
...while the Russians have good infantry, they are lacking in artillery, air, tanks...
Pretty nearly backwards as far as I can tell; the Russians were very short of infantry towards the end of the war.  Red Army lacking in artillery?  That's a good one!  Russian tanks were both abundant and much better than most US tanks.  Airpower is the only place I've give the US a solid advantage.
 
...lacking...in the knowledge of the use of the combined arms...
Again, pretty rich considering that the Red Army had just finished crushing the Wehrmacht after pushing them back thousands of kilometers across a huge front.  

You're not wrong. Well, a little bit wrong; The US had great artillery.
 
 
 
Soviet artillery was plentiful, but afaict it's responsiveness was terrible. It was great for planned and orchestrated attacks (or defences) (and helped immensely by the German's* absurd defensive doctrine), but not much chop once the battle had moved to more open warfare. Bear in mind that the people describing Soviet artillery as 'excellent' were the Germans ... and they were hardly unbiased. Their own artillery was generally lamentable (due to vigourous de-centralisation and terriblelogistics), and they were eager to blame anyone and anything for their own failings. You see the same on the western front post-D-Day with the Allied airforces.
 
Jon
 
* and those absurdities consisted of way more than just Hitler's 'last man last bullet' orders.

The tac AI is less prone to shoot at infantry with rockets if they have less rockets on them.  So if you want your infantry to free fire rockets and grenades then you give them a lot extra from the vehicles.  If you want them to shoot the rockets less, keep more of them in the vehicles for later. 

Yes, target light should encourage less AT rocket use but it will also encourage less grenade launcher use too.  The OP ran into the problem that was noticed during testing and was changed to be less common but it was not eliminated form the Tac AI's tool box.  We could advocate for even less use against non vehicle targets but we already have seen a couple of threads asking for *more* use against infantry.
 
A question for Abdolmartin, did you use the target command on the enemy unit?  Or did you let your guys just choose their own targets.

There is a very simple solution to your problem: split your infantry unit, split an anti tank team, you'll get a new team with two soldiers one with javelin plus another dude, could be the sniper or another solider, this way you have a dedicated anti tank team, order it a cover arc for enemy armor and order another cover arc for your infantry for all targets, you get all your firepower (minus two soldiers you must spare for the AT team) for infantry targets, but you are 100% sure that javelins will be used for enemy armor only.
If you want you can try to split your unit and try to see if most if not all of the soldiers with AT4 get into a single unit, then consider that an AT unit (only for close distance, keep in mind).
AT assets acquired from vehicles are casually distributed to the unit, but you can experiment by splitting before the acquisition and/or after it. There's no guaranteed result, but you could achieve interesting mixes. Example: split a US rifle squad by creating a scout team, you get two soldiers in a team, order that team inside a Bradley and acquire two AT rockets, so you get a tag team of two with rockets to whom you can order a cover arc for armor only.

I was gutted when playing USA campaign scenario 2. I had 2 Javelins wasted by troops firing them at infantry.  I couldn't believe it!  Id used limited fire arks so they didnt take pot shots at light armor in the distance. I wanted to save it for tanks later.  So  when when my  big squad attacked the village with the recon troops in it, it shot a javelin at the officer squad in the trees! WTF. lol. Then next turn it did the same.  In a scenario thats all about armor. I could well have done without this . lol.

I love that image. I especially like the gatling gun on the left sidet
 

 
Looks like the Armarta is going to be in in the CMBS: Total Overkill module, along with the BMPT. I mean, how many barrels has this thing? 1 x 125 to 152 mm main gun, 1 x 30mm chain gun, at least 3 x 7,62 on the gatling gun + an additional 7,62 coaxial MG - this makes 6 barrels in total. History has clearly shown that multi-barrel weapon systems on MBTs are significantly cooler than their single-barrel counterparts.

No.  What I meant is injecting some comment about education systems is functionally irrelevant to the discussion, then claiming to not want to get into a political discussion.  Russian life expectancy is lower than American life expectancy thereby American fighter planes are vastly superior, but I don't want to get into a discussion about how much better life is in America effectively etc.  
 
Russian hardware isn't "bad" insofar as much as it's "budget."  What I've handled that wasn't third party production generally did again, what it was advertised but there's a wide difference between contemporary western and Russian night optics despite them both saying "night vision" on the box.  Further a lot of the fit and finish stuff I handled was lacking, in places that really needed a steel retention cable there was a cheap fabric strap.  Screws stripped on fairly new pieces of equipment with manual force only.  Corners were clearly cut, and this is something that's consistent with other technical intelligence written on Soviet/Russian hardware.  
 
Will the Aramata be good?  Sure.  Maybe.  But right now we're going into this discussion with the following facts known for sure:
 
1. There is a Russian armored vehicle program called Armata.
 
There's a lot more information of a pretty wide range of assumption, claims, and wild guesses, but we do not even know what the vehicle looks like, is armed with, and so forth.  Which is why I'm getting tired of hearing about the Armata, because honestly at this point I could just claim that it is armed with dual 152 MM autocannons that fire literal beehive rounds (As in hives full of bees) because there's equal parts evidence that it has a two man crew and radar guidance.
 
My incredulity isn't that Russia can design a threat tank, it's that they'll be able to build it.  The thing that killed the previous generation of new Russian designs was economic troubles.  Armata was conceived of and designed during good economic times and high oil prices.  It's supposed to be produced during some of the worst times the Russian economy has faced, and it's being done in a way that's apparently more or less totally ready for Private Strelok to drive out of the factory several months from now, despite the world at large not knowing anything except for a name, and that honest guys, it exists.  
 
Further looking at the performance of the other elements of the recent Russian rearmament programs in terms of the shortfallings of the T-72B, the limited procurement of new rifles and other equipment, and especially the very troubled Russian Air Force efforts, it's clear someone is making some budgetary choices, or things are running out.
 
Does this mean Armata is just another Black Eagle or T-95?  Who knows!  Either way we'll all know more in a few months.  But here's some things we can easily take from this discussion:
 
1. The Economist's ranking of Russian schools has absolutely nothing to this topic, and it was pointless to bring it up.
 
2. Armata does not exist in any reasonable way to be included in CMBS in the near future.

To expand on that final point, the published specs say the Javelin should have a PK of 95%. However, since most info on the Javelin is classified and since the US military and the manufacturer have an interest in making the Javelin look as powerful as possible, there has been an ongoing debate on whether that number is entirely accurate in actual battlefield conditions.

No piece of equipment is perfect, you will always have a certain number of duds or equipment malfunctions, which was factored in, but at a very favorable rate.

Also, since CMSF tracks the actual trajectory of the missile, you may have situations where the Javelin hits the tank at such an angle or specific point that the energy is deflected away from the tank resulting in little damage. This is the situation you sometimes see where a tank may require 2-3 missiles before it is actually knocked out.

When you run a test under ideal conditions, you may achieve a PK of 90-95%, although in most scenarios the PK is probably closer to 80-85%. Worse than the published numbers, but IMHO probably closer to the Javelin's real life effectiveness.

Milesb11,
 
Welcome aboard!  May've already done this, but don't recollect.
 
If your goal is tank duels with rounds bouncing and such, presuming you like the period, then CMFI may be the way to go for you. Both Axis and Allies have cool camouflage for starters!  The terrain is splendid, CMFI has mountains, and you'll be able to play kohlenkau's Malta campaign ere long. Try that in CMBS!
 
You didn't say whether you were buying the straight game or a bundle. Obviously, the latter will cost more, but it gives you much wider gaming vistas. CMFI has GL, whereas CMBS is just that. CMBN is currently most blessed in terms of Modules, for it has CW and MG, plus a Vehicle Pack.  All three games operate the latest version of the game engine, so level playing field there. I think, though, the key issue, given what you stated, is how well you can handle a tremendously lethal battlefield, if you're considering CMBS?
 
In WW II, per formerly SECRET level US Army analyses, it took 17 rounds on average to hit a tank at 1500 meters. Circa 1980, when that study was reported, that SECRET number was circa not even two rounds (65-80%, depending on the tank used). At the kinds of ranges we typically see in CMBS, the ammo expenditure to get a hit from an MBT cannon is one round. Said round generally removes a tank from the opposing side's force, especially if the recipient is Russian. The weaponry in CMBS in a Direct Fire KE engagement terrifyingly lethal. It's entirely possible to lose so much of your force in a single turn a small QB becomes hopeless. I speak from experience here. What I can't tell you, though, is what happens in CMBS as the ranges open up, for mine have been knife fights at 700 meters or so. At that distance, either side's tanks can get a frontal kill, though the Russian have to work harder. The combat tempo difference between the WW II CM games and CMBS is extraordinary, but it provides a fluidity I'm not used to but like very much. Until I meet a real human and have to abandon that nonsense, absent a lot of casualties inflicted, a strong base of fire and favorable reading of the chicken entrails that day. The great armored sweep is possible, but the great armored slaughter is more likely. The CM games have always punished mistakes, but in CMBS, the penalty bears alarming resemblance to decapitation, as whole segments of your force explode or are scythed down or torn apart. Best, too, not to get attached to AFV crews. If they survive the hit and bail out, they're almost certain to be wiped out by an airburst round immediately thereafter. Nor are there PGMs in WW II.
 
Summing up, and I'm assuredly no expert, I think it comes down to desired combat environment and intensity, what's to be had for a given game you're considering and the ground you like to fight upon. Frankly, Normandy gives me claustrophobia, Italy was a relief to my spirit, and that's from watching the Beta Demos for CMFI and GL, and Ukraine is, to the extent I've seen it in game or on vids, very soothing and pastoral. Until everything explodes in an instant. 
 
There really is no bad choice here. Ultimately, it's all about you. Also, and check on this, if you buy CMFI, it should come with 3.0 already in the game, sparing you from having to shell out $10 if that's the case. BFC said it was going to do this, but I'm not sure whether it's actually been implemented yet. 
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

I think most of these scenarios would be focused on a Stalin push West. An Allied push East was simply unthinkable at the time, Patton's enthusiasm notwithstanding. Though Churchill knew what was developing as the Red Army progressed, the Allied high command was driven by soldiers, not politicians. Neither the Yanks or the Brits would have suffered those losses on the ground, though the previously mentioned air superiority (for the Allies) would be a big factor. I don't even want to analyze the use of atomic weapons on Soviet strong points, which would have (even if outwardly subdued) created a nation of terrorists for the West to contend with.
Great read - both Overlord: D-Day and the Battle for Normandy, and then the follow-up Armageddon: The Battle for Germany 1944 - 1945, by Max Hastings. Summary for this topic would be - A) Germans had the best professional army (obvious, I know), The Soviets had a vengeful horde driven by a leader who didn't give two farts for casualty counts, and C) the Allies had soldiers who were products of basically ethical democracies. The progress of Allied troops through Europe, and especially Germany, was much slower than expected, even as resistance crumbled, driven by cautious commanders and GI's who wanted to make it home alive. Did we have manpower reserves after VE day? Yep. Were they low-value green troops? Yep. Was that already a HUGE issue with our current frontline troops? Yep.
 
A co got it - we didn't have the will to mount a war against the Soviets after VE day.
 
Nor am I saying that (in a conventional war) the Soviets would have done better against us in August of '45. Defensively, the Allies (along with every willing German POW, which would have been many) would have easily stopped Stalin in his tracks, esp. with air superiority. That's why he didn't do it.

True. But a different time, with the media completely in step with the government.  Now if it was a US crusade to Moscow with a European coalition with no real pretext, like an American Barbarossa, the US public would prolly get pissy pretty quick.  Then again perhaps not, if it was played right.  However if the Red Army attacked openly, and it was obvious that they were aggressively invading all that we had invaded to liberate from far right facism, and now the exact same was happening with far left communism I think you'd be surprised. The public would stomach casualties. Not millions of dead but I dont think the US would have millions of dead.  I think the conflict would end in an armistice with neither side being able to completely and totally win in the manner of crushing the Third Reich.  So I'd see US casualties maybe around what was expected of Operation OIympic.  And perhaps the forcing hand of the armistice, after lets say a summer of combat in 45 would lead to a couple of atomic bombs being dropped on Moscow and Leningrad by B29s.  Maybe Stalins killed, maybe not.  I doubt bomb shelters even now would stop a nuclear blast, except the ones put in mountains and made after years of atomic testing - this is 1945 we're talking about. (lets say confusion amongst the meeting armies led to skirmishing which led to Stalin fearing Churchill was running the show over the new US president Truman and Stalin ordering the Red Army into open combat against the west for example)
It has to be remembered though that without the Soviets being openly aggressively totalitarian and killing US troops and allies, the public would follow but it wouldnt be the same.  I dont see the public revolting in almost any scenario in that time frame however.  America was completely on a war footing, the media was completely in step with the government, and Hoover was running the FBI.   It also should be remembered that while the Western allies bled heavily, it wasnt like the devastation and casualties the Soviets took. Especially when you compare it to America.  We had millions of men who werent even in combat yet that could be used.  So the Red Army attacks into a hail of napalm, tac air, strat air, and a $hit-ton of US/Brit/French/German troops.  Maybe they'd advance maybe not.  It'd be an interesting fight.  But everyone always remembers the massive Russian army and seems to forget the US military was probably at its all time peak in history with 8 million men and 'only' roughly 500k casualties on both sides of the world.  The Sov. were invaded, and had roughly 30 million dead.  If nothing else even if the Red Army pushed to France you have the troops in Italy already by the Alps. Mobilized.    Of course, the Soviets despite casualties had good equipment and had learned a lot.  So any Western Allied offensive would be blood soaked.  My mind pictures not static warfare in trenches, but an elastic frontline based on WW2 style combined arms offensives and counteroffensives where neither side gets that far from where they started and a ruined wasteland being fought over.  Casualties mount.  Thousand bomber raids around the clock, then nukes and then some uneasy peace treaty.
However if we fast forward to say the Berlin blockade, the situation gets ugly. It gets really ugly in the 1950s.  The Allies would have been overrun and the US would have been tossing nuclear weapons  about like it was going out of style.  Europe would evaporate and much of the US and Russia too (in the 50s)
In the Berlin Blockade scenario the Red Army probably could push to the channel. But the 'soft underbelly' remains, and Americas unsinkable aircraft carrier - England - remains.  So the Red Army occupies Europe. The Allies who basically just went through the toughest training course in history on invading Europe - the destruction of the third reich - repeat 1940-1945.  Bombing, side offensives, eventually an attempted landing in Europe, if peace hasnt came yet.  Perhaps at the same time a surprise Soviet nuking of say London.  Then the question is - after 9 years of war does Britain part with the US, tell us to screw and go home and tell the Russians to stop tossing nukes at the war torn island?

I do not know exactly what it is like in game, but I do know that the rubble of buildings generally does provide more cover and concealment than the building itself. (Concealment when in the rubble) The battle of Grozny in the First Chechen War is a great case study of this. The Russians bombed and shelled the city to ruins and then moved their tanks and infantry in, but it actually gave the Chechen fighters better positions to ambush the Russians due to all of the rubble. Stalingrad is another example, if a bit older. The city was flattened, but this ended up aiding the defenders more. The Soviets learned a lot during that battle that went on to influence how they fought in urban conditions for the remainder of the war and after. they essentially wrote their urban warfare doctrine based on what happened in Stalingrad. 
 
It does seem like it should be the other way around, but there are a lot of battles that you can look into as case studies as to why rubble is actually better cover/concealment. 

Rubble is denser, with more small pockets, and enough ventilation to reduce overpressure issues.  The physics make sense to me.