Ivanov
-
Posts
1,048 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Ivanov
-
-
I'd be interested to hear from more experienced players, how do they see the role of the artillery in CMRT? In CMBS, my weapon of choice is precession artillery and forward observers with UAVs. But if no precession munitions are available, in general I think that the artillery barrage is merely a nice looking display of fireworks that may occasional cause a casualty or two. Obviously the precession strike capability is non existent in RT, so I'm wondering if artillery is important at all or if it's a secondary asset? What I can think of as important, is using the smoke screen to conceal the movement. Other than that, in general the artillery is slow to respond, inaccurate and with small direct impact on the enemy. How does the artillery suppression in RT works and for how long it's effects have an effect on the infantry?
-
The AT guns are one of the main tank killers but I was wondering about the ways, how infantry can handle tanks on it's own. What about the Soviet antitank rifles? I guess they are not very effective?
-
What does this have to with Combat Mission: Black Sea?
There are a lot of tanks in it?
-
Guys, thank you for your comments!
@Raptorx7 - if it was up to me I would let my guys stay at home, if no tank support is available. Unfortunately some scenarios require moving your forward and in most of the cases, the probability of bumping into enemy armored vehicles is quite high
@IanL - some good tips!
@Pete Wenman - I will check out that scenario
@sburke - indeed the difference between WW2 and modern warfare is just incredible. But IMO that's just a proof how good Combat Mission is in capturing those differences. -
Yes, I agree. When you withdraw as you suggest look for places where they can ambush that armour - town, forest, farm stead etc. That way if your enemy is too aggressive you can make them pay for it.
So without at least a Stug, I shouldn't think of confronting the enemy? Makes me wonder how the WW2 German infantry of that period must have suffered. The game obviously focuses on the more sexy, tank heavy engagements, but in real life it was the less glamorous foot soldiers who bore the brunt of fighting...
-
I have some experience with CM Black Sea and now I start getting into the Red Thunder. What I've noticed from the very start, is that comparing to the modern warfare, with it's lethality and man portable anti tank weapons, the infantry in RT is pretty helpless against the enemy vehicles. For example I start a scenario with German recon platoon - infantry loaded in Sd.Kfz. 251's. As soon as they bump into a Soviet recon element supported even by the light T-70 tanks, they get wiped out. The German recon has Panzerfaust teams, but with their effective range of 30 meters, they can be useful only if they manage to ambush enemy vehicles in urban terrain or a forest. For now, I figure that the best course of action for my recon or infantry, is to withdraw as soon as the enemy vehicles are encountered and wait for my own tanks or anti-tank units. What are your thoughts?
-
Lucky for that T-90 crew, assuming the other 2 are okay. Have there been many/any reported casualties amongst Russian ground forces? I haven't been tracking that closely.
I was a Syrian crew. That explains why they had the hatches open and Shtora switched off
-
The primary advantage for having your mortars on map is for direct-lay fire. Probably more useful for the WWII titles, because you're probably correct that they wont last long once spotted by modern AFVs.
+1 I'll keep them off map then
-
By the way what's the difference between the on-map and off-map mortar units? I prefer to have them off-map because otherwise they could get spotted and destroyed on those small maps. Is there any benefit of having them on-map? For example do they respond faster?
-
Based on my beginner experience with the game - tanks are the kings of the battle. They outperform other vehicles and infantry teams equipped with the ATGMs. I also prefer having more numerous, average tanks like T-72B to fewer to tier models like T-90AM. Unless it's a typical urban battle, I usually aim to build a combined force of T-72B3's and BTR-82A's. The BMP's are more expensive than the BTR's but in a battle they don't offer significantly greater protection. In theory they can fire ATGM's but only in theory, so I prefer more numerous and cheaper BTR's. As to artillery, I opt either for cheaper mortars or if there's enough cash the 152mm batteries with laser guided Krasnolol shells. A UAV attached to the artillery observers is also a nice addition.
Unless some house rules are implemented for a particular games, I avoid playing US forces - they just outperform other armies by a large margin.
-
Everyone who has the slightest knowledge about Mh17....except Russians and Western crackpot conspiracy nutters knows that Mh17 was brought down by mistake by half-assed trained Separatists or a russian military unit.
There is a strong indication, that the infamous Buk was operated by Russians from the 53th AD Brigade from Kursk, not the separatists.
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/
It is Ukraine who is RESPONSIBLE for the safety of passengers on civilian Airliners in their own airspace!
Unfortunately Ukraine is a pretty dysfunctional country. I couldn't understand the way they handled a lot of issues during the Donbas War. After the local administration buildings were occupied, I was expecting the special forces and some civil reconstruction teams to go in, to the areas where the separatists were active. I remember, watching interviews on the Polish TV with ex members of special forces, who were explaining how would they plan the action of recapturing the administration buildings. Instead there was a slow and reluctant response from the regular military units, which didn't really know what were they doing there. After few bloody provocations and ambushes, the situation escalated and got out of control as intended. Were the Ukrainian authorities incompetent in handling the insurgency in Donbas? Yes, but from the other hand, no normal government is really prepared for such a eventuality. Ultimately, the responsibility for the MH17 tragedy, is on those who were inciting the population of Eastern Ukraine to violence and those who brought weapons into a sovereign and peaceful country.
-
Trolling is against the rules. Promoting yourself as a troll is, therefore, pretty much asking for trouble. It is offensive and offensive Forum names are against the rules. If you wish to stay here please edit your name to something that is not offensive.
Steve
Thank you Steve. He obviously chose a provocative name on purpose. It's funny how new users, who normally have nothing interesting to say on the forum, get activated when some ****storm erupts. Democracy and freedom of speech are great but not for those who abuse them.
-
The Word "incompetence" can often be used to describe the Ukrainian conflict,At higher levels Ukraine has certainly not impressed!
1.Incompetence by Ukrianian authorities when it comes to The faith of Malaysian Airliner Mh17.
2.Incompetence by Ukrainian Military HQ....look no further then The Debaltseve pocket.....that was just PAINFULL to Watch!
Dear admins. I think that a two post user with a nick To.Droll.To.Troll use should be banned without further ado.
-
In regards to the original post, it is worth discussing whether the troops seen were Russian regulars, Russian militias trained by the Russian military, some totally independent source or any of the previous two with Russian military support. It sounds like they were Russian trained, but not regular forces. It sounds like they're not terribly good at low level tactics. It stands as a question if this is the end result of being trained to the Russian "standard" and this in itself is unacceptable, or their performance was poor for other reasons.
It can be explained pretty straight forward. Those volunteers were passing through provisional training camps set on the Russian side. The training was very rudimentary due to the lack of time. During the time of crisis, when the Ukrainians were on the offensive, the training period was about a week. So even if some of them had previous military experience, it was just not enough to form the volunteers into efficient subunits, that would learn and follow even the basic team tactics. As already mentioned - Ukrainian forces were no better due to similar reasons.
-
Guys, what's the point. If someone believes that there was no Russian army in Ukraine, you won't convince him. Infonapalm, can be dismissed as a Ukrainian propaganda. People believe in what they want to believe. What's really scary, is the huge mental gap in how people in Russia and in the West percieve the same facts and events. It brings a sad realization, that due to that, no real rapprochement is possible in any foreseeable future.
-
-
and the MOST IMPORTANT thing-Russian army in the war was not. ;-)
Right:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBs71ZQvW5Uhttps://informnapalm.org/en/internet-users-have-identified-russian-soldiers-captured-near-ilovaisk/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zssIFN2mso
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5SbQAjbsUoHowever the guy from the article could be wrong about fighting regular Russian army soldiers.
-
-
Interesting.
I remember reading that Russian losses were about 20-25% more than UKR - the not just outdated, but simply Bad tactics described here would support that. The UKR units without a basic defense plan is appalling.
In that war, I think both sides performed pretty badly due to the various reasons. Playing a devil's advocated here - I have an impression that in most of the cases, he was describing combat against what he calls "bandit" forces, not regular Russian army. They could be volunteers from Russia with a military training, but occurrences when regular Russian ground troops were entering a direct combat, were rare. As VladimirTarasov mentioned, Russian army doesn't use T-64 anymore, but those tanks were supplied to the rebels. He talks about fighting near Shyrokina. So I guess he was a volunteer of the Azov battalion. Except for the September 2014 onslaught ( when he describes an accurate artillery fire hit Ukrainian positions ), no Russian units were involved there.
-
Nice find, thanks @Ivanov
Your welcome Sir!
-
While the Russians were again following sound tactics (tanks and IFVs were blocking off the roads with infantry swarming in the buildings before moving on to the next road and repeating), their squad-level efficiency left much to be desired.
-
Looks like a good topic for a new thread Ivanov, go ahead I won't steal your idea!
I'm not an expert in electronic warfare, so that's why I haven't created a new thread. But I think the article above may be instructive, if we think of balance of power in a hypothetical confrontation between NATO and Russia.
-
US Army under-equipped?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/02/09/we-dont-have-the-gear-how-the-pentagon-is-struggling-with-electronic-warfare/
“We don’t have the gear,” Col. Jeffrey Church, the head of the Army’s electronic warfare division, said in a recent interview. “We’re working on getting it, [but] we’re talking years down the road, when our adversaries are doing this right now.” -
So unless it's a yankee imperialist M1A2, it's not carrying the 1987 vintage HA armor upgrade and beyond.
Fair enough
Artillery
in Combat Mission Red Thunder
Posted · Edited by Ivanov
In real wars, especially in WW2 and WW2 the weapons were notoriously inaccurate and required expenditure of tons of ammunition to kill one enemy combatant. The suppression effects of the WW1 barrage lasted for about 2 minutes after the artillery fire was lifted. That's why most of the subsequent infantry attacks were ending in slaughter of the advancing infantry. The soldiers didn't fire to kill and so on. But let's focus on the game not the real life;)
Time again, I'm coming to the conclusion that the most effective assets in CM series are the tanks. They have a great firepower, their fire is accurate, they are mobile and well protected. Comparing to them artillery looks less spectacular - it requires spotters, takes time to impact and as I said in the initial post - based on my experience - it's actual killing capacity is not that great. In CMBS I don't even bother moving the vehicles from the area under the barrage, I just mount the infantry back into the APCs. So I'm wondering what is the main merit of artillery in the game and how should it be employed tactically?