agusto

You can factor that in too.. a = ammo parameter, APDSFS => a = 1, AMP, HE, etc... => a = 0 Balistically though lasing is only required at long to very long ranges. In WW2 the german SOP for tank crews using Pz IV and laters was to set the range to 700 meteres and aim for the tracks of the targeted tank (or, more accurately, to "sit" the target on the "spike" in the optics) - no matter what round was loaded, at ranges between ~50 and 700 meteres the projectile would hit somwhere between the turret and the tracks. With modern tanks and ammo, something like this probably still works. IIRC the T-72 uses sights that have a sight picture very similar to that used on german WW2 tanks.

Hmmm sounds like a cool scenario. A pitty my PC cant handle it - i get an average of 5 PFS .

At 1200m or less, dont lase. At 1200 or more, lase. Dependency or unit skill is calculated via the following forumla: Conscript = c = 0.1 Green = g = 0.25 Regular = r = 0.5 Veteran = v = 0.75 Elite = e = 1.0 s = skill =c, g, r, v or e 1200 = r = battlesights range l = range at which the unit will start to lase if the target is further away. targets at ranges < l will not be lased, targets at ranges > l will be lased. r*s = l So a Conscript unit will lase targets that are 120m away and further, an Elite unit will lase targets that are 1200m away further. If you want to factor in fitness = f, morale = m, command skill = cs etc, you can just add a multiplier between 0 and 1 to the forumla for each parameter. Like r*s*f*m*cs = l.

I very much hope that we will somehow get the ability to 1) disable lasers and 2) disable the "pop smoke & retreat after beeing lased" behaviour. Sometimes i am happy that my tanks retreat wehen they get lased, but sometimes i would be happier if they continued to move until they reach the cover 3 secs away.

The video you posted John shows that while the Abrams may not be invulnerable, it is still really hard to kill from the front at 700m. The first volley at 3:02 resulted in 4 hits, 1 penetration. 2nd volley at 3:13: 4 hits, 2 partial penetrations. 3rd volley at 3:25: 4 hits, 2 partial penetrations, 1 armor spalling. 4th volley at 3:35: 3 hits, 1-3 partial pentrations. So out of 15 hits, 1 resulted in a pentration, 5-7 resulted in partial penetrations and 1 resulted in armor spalling. That is still pretty much in favor of the Abrams. If you did the test the other way round, with Abrams tanks firing at T-90s at 700m, the Abrams would probably achieve penetrations with every hit and all T-90s would be destroyed after the 2nd volley, possibly even after the first. To me there is no doubt that the Abrams armor, while certainly not impenetrable, is significantly superior to that of any other tank in CMBS.

Very nice kendar.

Hmm. I cant remember even a single penetrating hit vs. an Abrams at ranges in the 1km + range. Recently i had a game where 2 platoons of T-90s were slugging it out with a platoon of Abrams tanks at roughly 1500 meters. All the T-90s were destroyed but not a single M1A2. After the battle i took a look at the Abramses and all that my T-90s could do was degrade some subsystems. On the other hand, after i started to avoid long range fights against Abrams tanks in subsequent games and started to engage them at ranges between 250 and 500m, i found myself able to destroy Abrams tanks with reasonable success. I know, i know, "anecdotal evidence" etc, but i still have the impression that sending a T-90 to attack an M1A2 at 2km range is a really, really bad idea. It seems to be at least very unlikely to hit some of the soft spots on the Abrams frontal armor. It is not that i dont believe you saying that penetrations at 2km are possible, i just havent seen any yet.

Yeah 1 km is very close for the Khrizantema. At that range tanks are better for fighting the M1A2 in my experience. With the Khriz, you want to be 2,5km away from the target, in hull down and hidden in a treeline. Then the Khriz is a really, really effective Abrams killer.

Keyhole shot, both perspectives:

Some tank on tank footage, both sides perspective:

When fighting M1A2s, you should use your T-90s in the same manner as you would use your M4 Shermans when fighting Tiger I tanks. Another tip: dont try to frontally penetrate the Abrams' frontal turret armor at more than 500 meteres. I dont have any hard data available, but in my experience the best thing you will get at more than 500 meteres is a partial penbetration. At 1000m you probally wont do any damgage at all.

The trick is to engage the M1s at the closest possible range. If both tanks have equally capable crews, at 2000m the M1 will spot your T-90 several seconds first. At 500m it will still spot it first, but the time the T-90 needs for spotting the M1 will be much shorter than at 2000m. Another good tip is to a) attack the Abrams from the flanks, ideally from keyhole positions, and to attack in force. If 3 T-90s meet 1 Abrams, one of the T-90s will probably die, but the surviving 2 are definately going to spot the Abrams' muzzle falsh and engage it. You can also try to degrade the Abrams' optics and sensors with artillery fire before engaging in a tank vs. tank slugging match.

Wow - you gotta love the detail of CM.

Ahhhhh ....no wonder i couldnt find a program to play the "video" .

How did you open it?

You guys watch to much porn...but now that we are talking of it, watch this video closely: and then look at this image from a frame at around 1:05.. Am i the only one who sees it? I know its off-topic, just a little excursion.

How to open bts? I couldnt find anything useful in 30 secs of googleing.

That happened quite often in West Germany. Every year tank vs. car accidents that happened on the german roads and highways during the REFORGER war games cost the lives of several civillians. Here is a german newspaper article from 1977: Am letzten Tag des Nato-Herbstmanövers Reforger 77 erhielt das Pressezentrum in Leipheim in der Nähe von Ulm die Anweisung, Unfallzahlen nur auf direkte Anfragen von Journalisten bekanntzugeben. Die Bilanz der zwischen dem 12. und 21. September entlang der bayrisch-württembergischen Landesgrenze abgelaufenen Militärübung ist wahrlich nicht geeignet, an die große Glocke gehängt zu werden. Es gab zwölf Tote, darunter neun Zivilisten, sowie 94 ernsthaft Verletzte. http://www.zeit.de/1977/41/sicherheit-zuletzt 9 dead civillians and 94 with severe injuries. Happened during REFORGER 77.

Flares at night look really cool though. I love the way for example ArmA2 depicts the the illuminated nightly battlefield. But in terms of practicability i agree with panzersauerkrautwerfer that flares arent really a communications tool compareable to radios or PDAs.

Awesome! I hope you will find someone who can help you.

And what do the beta guys say about the behaviour of the infantry Tac AI when it comes under fire? Luckily i have never had the "pleasure" to be in a fire fight, but i ve watched a lot of combat footage recorded by US soldiers wearing helmet cams, and getting to the ground when bullets start flying is almost always the first thing they do. The second thing is to start firing like crazy into the direction the shots came from. I thought about posting that too. It looks cool in CM to disembark under fire, but you would never do that IRL unless you absolutely have to (like the guys in the landing boats on Omaha Beach). I almost never get my guys killed when disembarking them from their IFVs, the trick is just to do it while behind cover. Chess is the original turn based war game. I used to play Chess in a league for several years and since i stopped CM has always been sort of a substitute for that.

How bad was the damage on the BMP? Could they repair it?

I like GTOS too. The DLCs that add 60s to 80s scenarios ar really cool. My favorite iteration though is Steel Armor - Blaze of War (aka sabow). Sabow is basically like GTOS (same engine, ui, etc) but it allows you to hop in either a T-62 or an M60A3 tank and actively participate in the battle as tank commander. That is really cool IMO. The accuracy of the simulation is quite high and the 2 different tanks have interesting techonoglical differences. While the T-62 has a fully gyrostabilized gun but no night vision equipment, the M60 has 2nd generation night vision equipment but no gyrostabilizer.

It was Chris IIRC who promised that. How about sending him a a PM reminder?

Personally i havent been able to observe the behaviour described by the OP yet. All my troops behave similar, skill and training seem to determine behaviour under fire, not nationality. ----------------------------------------- They ARE supersoldiers. Here is a 1985 documentary on how the average US soldier behaves under fire: Notice the tactical importance of taking your shirt off - once you are half naked and the enemy can see your oiled up, sweaty muscles, the 'excitement' will throw his aim off and consequently render you invulnerable to enemy fire.