Ivanov
-
Posts
1,048 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Ivanov
-
-
52 minutes ago, Erwin said:
Doesn't everyone in Europe fight in more or less the same type of terrain. Amazed at the uniform variety. It's like a fashion show...
What do you mean by that? There's no unified European army and every country is designing camo patters by itself. Apart from the practical issues, the uniform shows the national identity - I just can't imagine for example Polish army wearing the same uniforms as the Germans, despite of the fact that they are allies.
Re the video: it's a compilation of few videos actually, they were all staged spectacles for the press - I wouldn't draw any conclusions about the tactics from it. It's like those infamous shows for the VIP's were the team performs helicopter insertion 100 meters from a building occupied by the terrorists.
-
1 hour ago, John Kettler said:
LUCASWILLEN05,
Nice vid. Better yet, no music! Poland appears to have an amalgam of COMBLOC and western weapons. In some cases, late model AKs, the former are sporting US ACOGs. I saw flat out US Woodland Pattern and something which looks like it but much more subdued. The single biggest thing I noticed is the enormous numbers of smoke grenade lauchers on those T-72 type tanks. When Poland comes in, it might be wise to allow several more salvos than is usual in CMBS. Mind, this presumes that's how the Poles actually use them.
Regards,
John Kettler
The riffle is called Beryl:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FB_BerylThe camo patter is wz.93 Pantera:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wz._93_Pantera
Note that both are due to be replaced. A new Polish riffle:http://www.military-today.com/firearms/msbs.htm
And a new camo pattern:
-
16 hours ago, exsonic01 said:
Interesting. Is the bellingcat trustworthy source?
It's one of the best sources available on the net. Almost as they were professionals.
-
14 minutes ago, akd said:
Anyways, Syria is where turrets go to learn to fly.
But in this case it's almost certain that the Leopards were blown up after the capture or bombed by Turkish air force ( the first option being more probable ).
-
Meanwhile IS bombed Iraqi Abrams from a home-made drone.
-
2 hours ago, Armorgunner said:
according to the blogg Below the turret ring. The turret roof hit, was a lucky hit by an ATGM. The tank is in a slop, and the missile struck the turret roof. So it seems, it was not by arty.
And by the same site, maybe there is not so many destroyed Leopard 2. As the ISIS propaganda want us to believe. Read for your self, and make your own assessment.
http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.se/
You're right. This seems to be a very lucky ATGM shot. Possibly by Metis-M. Most of the tanks were heavily damaged and captured. Again, makes me wonder about the training and morale of the Turkish army.
-
There are some fresh pictures of the most recent Turkish loses. People have been scrutinizing the pics and apparently most of the tanks were destroyed by IS after they got captured or hit by Turkish air force or artillery. Makes me wonder what led to their capture? The crews panicked after SVBIED attacks?
Possible hit by artillery:
-
11 hours ago, Armorgunner said:
Since Leo 2a5 there is addon armor to the front half of the turret sides. But even if the turret may look the same behind those addon plates, the inserts of composite has changed over the years. Just as it has On the Abrams.
Since i´m from Sweden, i have no knowledge of the difference between different German versions. But i have great knowledge of the Swedish Strv 121 (Leo 2a4) and Strv 122. But the Strv 122 has addon armor from the then Swedish corporation Åkers krutbruk, which is now owned to 51% by German corporation IBD.
And yes, its the same concept as Leo 2 Evolution. IBD is the manufacturer of both.
You're correct about the improved turret protection since A5. I was referring to the hull side protection.
BTW the Swedish Strv 122 is one of the most comprehensive Leopard 2 modifications.
-
36 minutes ago, Armorgunner said:
Sorry i missed your post earlier
I disagree that newer versions of Leo 2, is equally vulnerable as the A4 on the side. Because they are not. But i see your point, and it is absolutely true that newer versions would not stop a metis or kornet in the side. And you are absolutely right, that APS is the way to go. As a cheap temporary solution, maybe advanced slatarmour could do a decent jobb.
I have friends who serve on Leopards 2A4 and A5. Up until A7 there were no significant improvements of the side protection. The Swedish upgrade you posted, has similar protection to the Revolution package. Maybe it's the same thing.
-
2 hours ago, MikeyD said:
I'm trying to recall, the US Iraq invasion in 2003, did anyone see/hear/witness any anecdotes about US forces coming under fire by ATGMs? I do recall they absolutely FREAKED when they mistakenly thought Kornet was in-country, threatened to attack Syria over it. But there weren't any.
And BTW, anyone whose played good-old CMSF for half a day knows about ATGMs and any type of (not-reactive) armor hit from the side.
Recently I've been reading quite a lot about the 2003 invasion and I'm still amazed how little loses US forces suffered in the process. It seems that the Iraqi forces were kept decisively off balance by the speed of the highly mobile nature of the US assault ( compare it with the stationary Turkish Leopards ). It seems, that the most common Iraqi anti-tank teams encountered at that time were irregulars ( fedayeen, Al-Quds ) armed with RPG's. The Iraqis were planning to ambush US forces in the cities that were largely bypassed. BTW, the Turkish Leopards were hit by older ATGM's like Konkurs. A Kornet would go through front armor of Leopard 2A6.
-
18 minutes ago, Armorgunner said:
We must take into account here, that the Turkish Leo 2s. Are some of the oldest in service, anywhere in the world today. You can compare them with the original M1, or maybe the M1A1. There are many different versions of armor on the Leo 2. Like the Swedish Strv 122, with heavily reinforced turret roof armor, the german Leo 2A7 and a7+. All with very improved armor vs the Turks A4.
The newer versions of Leopard like A5, A6 ( the most common variants used by NATO forces ) have improved turret armor, but on the sides they are equally vulnerable as the A4. The Revolution package has improved side protection but they are in service only in Indonesia and Singapore. A7 still isn't in service in any significant numbers. Since in any foreseeable future the asymmetrical conflicts are much more probable than any regular warfare against the near peer adversary, I think that the Syrian conflict highlights the need of equipping the western tanks with the APS systems. So far only the Dutch CV90's are going to be fitted with an Israeli APS Iron Fist.
-
2 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:
Not a myth. 'Flying turrets' doesn't apply to every model of the T-72, but it certainly applies to a few of them.
I'm referring to the post GF1 mindset, that every Soviet/Russian build tank ( read T-72 ) is a crap, while western tanks like Abrams, Challenger or Leopard 2 are invincible.
-
1 hour ago, Lethaface said:
Do you have any source for the confirmation by the Turkish Army? couldn't find it.
Apparently this chart comes from the official Turkish sources:
-
9 hours ago, sburke said:
before bothering getting into a debate about the Leo 2, one might want to consider who is reporting this. Even according to the these guys say the losses are unconfirmed. Just click on the link to source and it says it right there. No need to even google around anywhere else.
The site has a reputation as a Russian front source. i.e. not particularly reputable. Lots of other statements floating around this thread without corroboration.
The loss of 10 Leopards has been officially confirmed by the Turkish Army. South Front is a pro Russian source but it doesn't mean that they lie all the time - they just report what is convenient from their point of view. For example the destruction of the Leopard 2 myth is a nice payback for the myth of flying turrets of T-72. Leopard 2 is a main tank of most of the European NATO armies.
-
All Turkish Leopards have been hit from the side or from the rear. They were in stationary positions, without the infantry support, essentially sitting ducks. If anything the loses are a statement of very poor tactics employed by the so called "second NATO army". One could argue, it could be a result of the recent purges in Turkish army, but they probably affected mostly the higher echelons. The bad tactics employed in Al-bab should be blamed on the lower rank commanders.
BTW the Turks also lost few upgraded M-60's equipped wit additional ERA. Similarly the Saudis are losing Abrams in Yemen. So no equipment is immune to the bad tactics. -
29 minutes ago, cbennett88 said:
@Ivanov That wasn't my question. Those are only medium machine guns. I specifically asked about Heavy MG's.OK. Well in general modern armies wouldn't employ the heavy machine guns with their infantry teams. You may see them in some irregular conflicts, with more unprofessional/irregular belligerents, that scrap heavy machine guns some older vehicles. But modern armies field medium machine guns because they allow them to be more mobile in the field. I'm surprised that US player has an option of purchasing .50 Caliber Machine Gun. I haven't seen that before.
-
The Russian machine gun teams available in CMBS are called PKP or PKM and you can pick them from the specialist team list in QB setting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecheneg_machine_gun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PK_machine_gun -
7 hours ago, snarre said:
well they doed same random running in 3.0 .
The problem is that in 4.0 this behavior seems to be exaggerated.
-
After playing sometime with 3.0, I'm not too happy with how the infantry acts right now under fire. I got an entire squad running away in a random direction under fire from one enemy rifleman ( in CMBS game ). This doesn't seem realistic and is frankly suicidal. I think I'll start using 3.0 again.
-
Placing tank in a hull down position has two benefits:
1. The tank in hull down represents a smaller target.
2. It exposes the best protected part of the vehicle, which usually is the turret.
So this discussion is relevant only in case of Panzer IV starting from the H model, which had an additional 30mm armor plate added to the front hull ( earlier models had turret and front hull equally protected ). Anyway in real combat it is the turret that receives something like 80% of all the hits.
-
5 hours ago, JoMc67 said:
Yes, you can re-install 3.0 on same computer, but I believe you will need to rename the game so it doesn't install over existing 4.0
4 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:'Perfect' may be a bit stronger than I would use, but yes that is the idea. Mind you, I don't have the upgrade yet, so cannot testify how well this all works, but I notice that those who have seem uniformly enthusiastic, so I would guess that there is a good chance of it working for you once you get some experience with using it.
Michael
3 hours ago, sburke said:Yes it is. I have both currently.
Also it is always true that you need to be at same game engine level to play an opponent.
Thank you guys for you replies.
-
6 hours ago, sburke said:
If it is a pre upgrade save that is expected. From what I understand it may sort out the next turn, but I don't know that for certain.
OK, it has to be it. I don't se the issue with the new games. BTW my opponent that still uses 3.0 is unable to load my turn save after I've upgraded to 4.0. Is it possible to install 3.0 and 4.0 on one computer?
-
After upgrading ( issue present both in CMRT and CMBS ), the smoke looks like fireballs.
-
14 minutes ago, Wolfseven said:
the serial number provided to me from your licensing site is invalid.
You need to introduce the serial number of the base game, not the update serial.
Polish Army Video
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted · Edited by Ivanov
I think if you look at the camo patters, it's a neverending work in progress, just like with weapon systems in general. Look at the failed US odyssey with the UCP. Tons of money invested in a pattern that is universal, only because it blends universally bad regardless the surrounding terrain. Why to invest in something that doesn't work and is worst that the earlier patterns? Designing a camo pattern is a complex task and it incorporates the latest technological and scientific methods, so I guess there's no way in coming up with a universal pattern for all the conditions.