nsKb

Yeah, this scenario is definitely one of the best in CMBS. But after playing it, I noticed that a certain "wish" had developed in me, regarding planes in the game.
The easiest and fastest way to acquire targets for a plane/chopper (but not necessarily the most helpful in terms of IDing the target), is to use their radar. The radar usually has a fast acquisition time and can cover a large area, which means that planes should be able to "see" more than the 700m radius they get in the game. Now, I do understand that the information is not necessarily easy to pass on to the ground commander (e.g. transferring FLIR imagery requires ROVER, etc.), but for the plane itself, it is more or less necessary for their situational awareness, and that, most of all, relates to threats. Right now, as it is, planes do not prioritise air defence threats, and it leads to them being shot down too much. An F-16 with its FLIR and RADAR and Mavericks is more than capable of detecting the Tunguska (let alone the fact that they could carry HARMs for self-defence) and killing it, but they don't do that, and they get shot down unnecessarily.
Therefore, I think planes should have some autonomy to detect targets outside their assigned attack area, and to engage them if they are considered high threat. Because I think it's more realistic than the current "completely obedient" planes which don't even look anywhere else.

Yeah, the AH-64E especially in this should be a god damn beast.  Its doing what the Longbow was designed for, and then some!
 
But due to aircraft mechanics, I dont think its possible to have them just hover far back and rain down taxpayer dollars. Its unfortunate, but oh well!

Your post touches on some important things. As nice as CMBS is for ground combat the current way CAS is done is very unrealistic, there was a big discussion on this a while ago.
 
Apaches in CMBS tend to operate as if it were a COIN environment, they circle and shoot. As far as I can tell what they should be doing is flying on the friendly side of the FLOT while terrain masking and firing Hellfires from behind terrain or using popup attacks, this makes much more sense to me. The mast mounted Ka band radar would be used to find targets (moving targets would be very obvious using such a system). The AGM-114L is fire and forget since it has a MMW radar and can be fired in either LOBL or LOAL modes which means that it can either be fired behind terrain using the mast mounted radar or in a popup attack using the IR sight.  Since the AGM-114L has an 8 km range it would outrange MANPADS.
 
The Tunguska has almost no capability to search for air targets while it's radar is off. The mast mounted radars on Apaches are equipped with radar frequency interferometers which would mean that in almost all cases the Apache would detect and locate the Tunguska before the Tunguska located the Apache.
 
Apaches equipped with the Ground Fire Acquisition system would detect missiles launches and ground fire and alert the crew to which direction the fire came from allowing them to bring their sensors onto the area. Apaches also have DIRCM and flares which spoof and seduce MANPADS.
 
Pretty much the same stuff applies to fixed wing aircraft, except they can fly at an altitude that makes them immune to short range air defenses and in pretty much every case the fixed wing would attack from a stand off distance outside the range of MANPANDS and SHORADS. I know that the story handwaves this away by saying a strong S-300 presence prevents high altitude flight but that isn't really realistic either since you wouldn't have much CAS available when SEAD still has to be done and after a few weeks most of the S-300 batteries would be destroyed.

What a strange request... myself, I play scenarios in a pretty much random order, picking tiny scenarios if I want something quick, tank scenarios if I want to see things burn, preserving scenarios with good PBEM potential for that etc. But hey, I'm not judging. Here's a list for you, anyway, took only a few minutes to check the scenario dates in the editor.
 
Morning Coffee - 0530 1 June
Ambush - 0900 4 June
Gagarina Ave Checkpoint - 0550 7 June
Going to Town - 1600 9 June
Phase Line Green - 0400 16 June
Hold the Line - 0500 16 June
Gauntlets Crossed - 1200 16 June
The Valley of Death - 1500 17 June
Into the Breach - 0645 20 June
Crossing the Dnieper campaign - 1530 20 June
The Shield of Kiev campaign - 0615 28 June
Taskforce 3-69 campaign - 1200 ? July (briefing doesn't give a more exact start date)
Dueling Shashkas - 1405 1 July
Galloping Horse Downfall - 0550 10 July
Platoon House Aleksandra - 0705 10 July
First Clash - 0530 14 July
Bridgehead at Kharalyk - 0600 15 July
Opportunity Knocks - 0110 19 July
Rollin' on the River - 0740 20 July
Cry Havoc - 0600 3 August
Objective Delta - 0505 15 August
August Morning - 0705 21 August
Brutal - 0920 22 August
Interdiction - 1515 30 August

I will reply on questions about our tanks:
 
- We no more have T-80UD, just possibly left dozen these tanks, all they sold to Pakistan. All what we have its mothballed T-80B/BV/U. There are plans to bring back them in service, but now its just plans... T-80UD can be included for Russia side. Their 4th Guard tank division uses this tanks and they were spotted near borders of Ukraine.
 
- Т-84 - previous version of Oplot. No panoramic sight, no anti-tandem ERA "Duplet", just old "Kontakt-5". 10 tanks produced, army couldn't buy it and they were returned on factory. Later four were sold to USA, six left in Ukraine two of them uses as visual aid in military academies, rest stood in tank park of 92th brigade as non-staff vehicles. They don't use in current war. So, what sense to put in the game the tank, which never was and never will be in servіce ? 
 
- Main difference between Bulat and T-64BV - Bulat has more effective "Nozh" ERA, which can successfully protect against all Russian monoblock warhead ATGMs and significantly reduce soviet APFSDS penetration capability. Also new sights and new engine. All you can to see in the table, which gave akd.

Some thoughts on the T-14.
 
The bizarre looking turret asymmetric looks like some effort at Stealth technology is being made, what with all the faceting, nonrectilinear openings and such. If so, it appears to be directed against ground level threats, since the roof is quite flat. While the turret front and gun mantlet are consistent with this notion, there is no effort to hide the gun barrel, as was done in the Poles' coming PL-01 with its diamond shaped shroud. Could the seemingly normal thermal jackets on the T-14 embody Nakidka? The Stealth tech, if that's what it is, seems to be geared toward the turret only and wasn't used at all for the FC assembly on top. The tank has completely radar unshielded (I think) external armor modules which make great radar reflectors. Alternatively, what we're seeing could be a particularly clever effort by GUSM (Strategic Deception Directorate) to screw with military-technical analysts and tie up a lot of expensive resources to sort this out. What is clear is that the APS is geared toward ground threats--unless it can operate like Quick Kill. No matter which way the turret points, there is 360 degree radar coverage around the tank. The hexagonal device on the roof is likely the cover plate for a top coverage radar, as seen in that manufacturer's ad posted somewhere in this or the other Armata thread. If so, then there are measures in place to address those threats.
 
Kurganets-25 APS radar installations
 
The question has been raised about the steel plates on the presumptive radar boxes on the Kurganets-25 (the pic with the big red lines on it). My assessment is that the plates are indeed armor and protect the otherwise exposed to grief electronics, while being removable for servicing the units.  Notice where that plate is on the rear unit. It protects the exposed side perpendicular to the antenna, and there is precious little visible from dead aft where the antennas are. If what we're seeing isn't a con job, then a reasonable explanation is that the larger antenna handles acquisition and tracking, while the smaller is the guidance link. The SA-8 GECKO/9K33 Osa/Romb does something similar. Likewise, the unit covering the right side has its right side covered vs fire from the rear, reinforcing my assessment. All other things being equal, form follows function. Since the radar units are on top of, rather than in the AFV, it makes sense to shield them from the most likely axes of fire. If I'm right, the core coverage approach continues around this AFV. I do note, though, there is a considerable difference between the MoD pic and the one I've addressed. Additionally, there's a pic of a Kurganets-25 which is considerably different in layout. 
 
Thoughts?
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

I swear to god simply burning every dollar, ounce of construction material, all military equipment given to the Iraqis in a giant pit would be a less wasteful use than what the Iraqis have done with it. 

The Iraqis had MANPADS available. Our aircraft just flew above the effective range of MANPADS and AAA, over their own "backfield" so it was never a real concern.

That is pretty much contradicted by the Reaper being unable to be shot down on Observe missions by on-map SAMs or AAA.

Everyone,
 
The purpose of this thread is to provide a central location into which I can put information and the like which I deem significant and worth knowing about, as well as my own observations and opinions, subject to the usual BFC rules, as well as certain request and strictures coming from BFC. In this way, there should be no further thread proliferation and "real post" ranking issues. Other members are, of course, welcome to participate in what I post, but I ask that you be respectful. Argue against the ideas I present; don't attack me. As some may have noted, I have formal requests in to the Mods to kill two separate threads. If they choose to do so, that should further alleviate matters on the CMBS Forum as a whole.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler
 
 

Yeah, sometimes weird results happen, and without a post-mortem damage analysis, we (as players) can't really say if it's just reality being unreal or something wrong with the modeling. I recall at one point a game with such a system realized that they'd modeled the gun components directly behind the mantlet by ten times; as a practical matter, it meant hits on the mantlet would always bounce -- any projectile from any aspect at any range. In CMx2's case, we'd just complain about mantlet's perceived effectiveness, Steve/Charles/etc. would shoot back that the mantlet's values were fine and so it would go until they looked deeper behind the scenes. On the other hand, I've seen stuff like a tank tilted right, turret trained out to the left which deflected a shot down into the track and immobilized the tank. People would scream bloody murder if you saw such a result in most wargames -- "How the hell does a non-penetrating turret hit take out my goddamned tracks?!" -- but **** happens.
 
That being said, I ran a quick test in CMBS because I do remember oddness with AFV damage in CMSF being a little too consistent for my liking. I got six good "test cases" out of it, being intact enough to take a look at damage and as it happened in the first case.
 
First case:

A few hits, none penetrating, one to the front upper hull, the rest to the right front turret. IR optics knocked out, that's fine, but immobilized? For the record, this tank is hull down and nothing landed lower than the upper front hull.
 

A few more non-penetrating hits to the turret strip off various exterior systems (laser warning system, smoke launcher, radio, CITV, etc.) but its only a partial penetration through the mantlet that knocks out the main gun and coax. Looks like locational damage is at least somewhat present and working well.
 
Second case:

 
Mislabeled hit text or wrong location for decal, but that is minor. Due to the way the track is orientated, the shot would have traveled through the turret. It didn't do much except degrade the laser warning system with marginal degradation of the tracks. I don't know where the laser warning would be located inside the track for CMBS' purposes, so I guess that (other than the track damage) this is alright.
 
Third case:

 
OK, WTF? Upper front hull hit, deflected by reactive armor... but tank is immobilized due to track damage. I actually looked all over this tank for other hit decals, especially around the tracks, but could find nothing else. Other than the tracks being knocked out, the rest is fine.
 
Fourth case:

 
Sole hit is high, just above the barrel sleeve, on one of the observation devices. OK, so locational damage isn't perfect in game; no redlined targeting, CITV or IR optics, but you do have a KO'd radio... and degraded track, yet again.
 
Fifth case:

Single hit just behind the Shtora "eye," mild exterior damage to the usual suspects, moderate damage to IR optics and tracks.
 
Sixth case:

 
Two hits behind the Shtora's eye, both deflected by reactive armor. Shtora (labeled as "EO Jammer") is degraded but operational, in spite of having two rounds smack inches behind it and splatter. However, the track falls off, possibly out of fright?
 
As an additional datapoint, I've personally seen the CROWS take a sabot through-and-through, causing the system to be destroyed but leaving everything else on the tank in perfect working order. So, in conclusion, there is some degree of locational damage modeling as in the first case and to a lesser degree in the other five cases with exterior "soft" systems. That being said, there might be an issue with track damage being too common outside of actual hits on the lower hull or tracks themselves.

Quoted because I am just that worth quoting:

 
 
We keep acting like there's tiny little digital mens in the tank, and their behavior is largely regulated by tiny digital eyes and brains, when in reality it's a whole mess of numbers and systems that are trying to replicate inherently chaotic, non-system results.
 
That said:
 
1. The T-90 in a treeline will be as obvious as it would be in the open with thermals.
2. T-90AM optics are still pretty "Eh."  The engagement range you selected is beyond the range of the Cathrine FC to be able to tell a M1 and a BMP-2 apart, but well within the M1's ability to tell you if the commander is out of the hatch and wearing sunglasses or not.
3. The GSR on the Russian vehicles sees really well through fog, and dark, but has a lot of problems with pretty much anything else. Trees, piles of trash on the ground, buildings, exposed rock faces, the target even being partially masked by terrain can all result in a "something is there!" but not a confirmed target*
 
 
So basically this is sounding like someone is rageful their Russian stuff is performing like Russian stuff performs.
 
*GSR is best used as a sort of tripwire, like it's your first warning something is there, but generally ground mounted radars are best to let you know where you look, vs the be all end all of spotting

Speak of the devil, and he shall appear.
 
Re: K1A1
 
It's a pretty good tank.  The thing that takes getting used to is while the M1 was scaled to fit a 6'1 American type person without discomfort, the K1 was built around a 5'7 Korean tanker as the average crewman, so it looks, and feels tiny if you're a yankee imperialist like myself. It's still big when you're out and walking around it because it's a tank after all, but once you get up close, or even on top of the tank and around the hatches you realize you're dealing with a compact.
 
In terms of performance it's by easiest and most direct comparisons, about on par with a late 90's early 00's M1A1HC.  It does suffer from a lower ammo count due to smaller vehicle size, although the suspension will let you do some cool tricks (like letting the tank lean backwards to shoot higher up, or drop to get behind lower cover).  Optics and weapons package are again around that vintage, it lacks the crazy-heavy armor of the Abrams but has more than enough protection to ward off the 115/100 MM guns that represent the primary weapons of the DPRK's armor branch.  Nice tank, appears popular with the crews.
 
K2 is a bit more squirrely.  It offers some amazing capabilities on paper, but when I was active in Korea they were still having major issues with the drive train, both in reliability and longevity that kept it out of mainline service.  I used to ask our ROK counterparts if they were going to see a K2 in their battalion soon, and they'd just laugh.  It could also be their BN was the literal bottom of the upgrade order though.
 
Re: Type 99
 
I'd like to have a chance to operate one, and then hit it with various weapons systems.  Chinese claims and internet dwellers seem to think it's the mightiest tank on the planet, but what is known smells fishy (claims of 1000 RHA against KE, the ERA panels are HUGE for real ERA, there's a mysterious "magnum" ammo they claim is in operation that somehow still uses the same basic weapon and autoloader from a T-72).  If I was giving an educated guess I'd put in on par with late model pre-B3 T-72s, but from what I've heard/seen of Chinese hardware (one of our exchange officers from Ghana back at Career Course refered to the APCs he'd used from China as "utter garbage" and other choice words, from what I've seen it looked really good, but usually concealed some crippling QA/QC faults) I'm not unconvinced it won't fall apart if it leaves the motorpool.
 
Re:Arjun
 
Everything I've seen indicates it's "INSAS Rifle: The tank!" which is why the Indians are heavily invested in T-90s.
 
Re: Challenger
 
Not often seen due to budget cuts, but one of my soldiers got to mess with one during the pre-2003 Iraq invasion build up.  He described it as...like to summarize it's like getting into an opposite to your normal drive sided car.  Everything is 100% in the wrong spot, or in a way that is somehow painful or awkward if your heart doesn't flutter a bit when someone says "bangers and mash"
 
Combat record is good though so I imagine it's fine so long as you're properly English
 
Re: Leclerc
 
I was part of an exercise with the French.  It was a command post exercise so no actual vehicles, but being the tanknerd I am, I picked people's brains for information about AFVs.  Any positive comment I made about the Leclerc agreed to with "if she runs" or "when she works" following.  I get the impression it needs more love than normal.
 
Re: Merkava
 
The troop bay isn't really a troop bay, it's where something like 75% of the main gun rounds live.  The ammo racks can be removed to make room for troops.  All accounts are it's amazingly cramped even at just 3-4 soldiers.  The frontal engine is interesting too.  It does place some pretty major constraints on frontal armor though (as it liimts the amount of "dead space" you can include, and the practical weight of the portion covering the engine).  Good for crew survival.  
 
It's really a tank designed for Israel, top to bottom.  I can't think of anyone else who'd get much mileage out of her at this point.  
 
Re: T-34
 
It amuses me that despite being effectively just as "good" as the Sherman that it gets remembered as some sort of wondertank while the Sherman is panned as a rolling deathtrap.  Losses of both vehicles in Soviet use are entirely comparable, and the T-34/85 vs M4A3E8 fights in Korea all indicate the advantage is with the better crew rather than one of those tank being better. 

It works better if you offer the crews of two of them as blood sacrifices to Baal.  

Thank you for welcome. I wish I could be more active in the community, however since I have not yet bought the Black Sea, my abilities and knowledge about inner game mechanics are somewhat limited.
 
As for PL-01... Well, here's is somewhat a rant of mine about it.
 
Short Version:
hell naw. For a game ? Sure, but hell naw to irl service.
 
Longer version:
PL-01 is nothing more than a bit uparmored CV90, up to 5+ STANAG 4569, which is nothing impressive tbh. It's not even an MBT, more like a Light Tank or an AFV.
 
As a technology demonstrator/proof of concept of the modules ? Sure.
 
Testing of APS for potential future use on PT-91/Rosomak/future BWP/whatever ? Yes please!
Testing of "Stealth" Tech for potential future use ? Sure.
 
Full blown combat vehicle ? Eeeh.
 
Fire support vehicle for infantry is a sound thing to be had (in limited numbers, most of the time you gonna have Armor support for those kind of things). 
 
1. 105mm or 120mm issue: Poland being a post Warsaw Pact nation, it has never used any kind of 105mm shells. Introducing yet another shell standard (beside 120mm for Leos and 125mm for T-72/PT-91) would even further divide limited resources for Production and R&D, and further complicate supply chain in war time. Going for 120mm seems like the best way to go as (afaik, I'm not an expert) some money could be shared among it and Leo 2 munition programs.
 
2. Chassis: CV90 is a foreign product. Starting up it's manufacture would be yet another thing to spend money on. Technology transfer (something our military industry has a major hard on for) is an obvious plus, however it could be done without starting up full scale production.
 
More obvious (and imho. better) choice would be acquiring a foreign turret (!! technology transfer !!) or developing our own (sorta unlikely, we still would need tech to make 120mm guns) and putting it up on the proven Rosomak chassis. 120mm could be a bit of a beast for it, but afaik it can be done, plus yet again, it puts less of a strain on the supply chain as we are getting/using Rosomak variants by the ton.
 
Alternatively, the program to develop BMP-1 successor is also planned to be a modular chassis with a lot of possible variants akin to the Rosomak. If anything, there could be a variant which is PL-01 like in the future.
 
As said, for a game it could be a curious quirky unit with interesting abilities, however for irl. it's a bit of an eh for above mentioned reasons (all of them imho of course).

Hello there, I'm a new user here. Before I get on with the topic, here's a short introduction: I'm a long time gamer, and I started the Combat Mission series with the first initial games, mainly the Beyond Overlord, which I loved. After all these years, I came to learn that there are far more Combat Mission games, and that they have also gone for more modern settings (Cold War Afghanistan and Modern Syria) for few of their latest games. I have tried the demo of the two games, and I have fallen in love again. Then I heard of the latest upcoming iteration - the Black Sea - and here I am. I wished to get it done before the release, but school got in the way.   Given the setting, as well as some rumors flying wildly about a possible future Module, I have decided to make the list you can see below. Please, by no means take it as me begging/pleading/ordering the Battlefront crew to include Poland in the game/future module. It's merely meant as a very general guide/refence, and to perhaps bring some interest of fellow tacticians to this country's armed forces, which usually are rather unheard of on the global scene.    The list may not be accurate, it's a rough prediction of what might be around for Poland in 2017. It's based on plans (which have been outlined up to 2020), as well as news from the military industry around the globe, as the situation is dynamically changing day to day. Any mistakes are not an ill will, merely a mistake or a document being interpreted the wrong way. Please keep that in mind. Also it's not really meant as a proper reference, and please don't use it as such. Hence, I won't link any of my sources (majority which are in Polish anyway) as this list was made rather hastily. Should you require proper references  (*wink wink, nudge nudge*), I will happily oblige as soon as I can (I have finals atm). Also, I cannot buy the Black Sea for the time being, but I hope to do so in the coming months.   Now onto the goodies:   Weapons and vehicles that are not (yet or otherwise) in service of Polish Armed forces, have names written in cursive.   Infantry Weapons:   Assault Rifles: Kbs wz. 1996 Beryl - 5,56 mm NATO
  Kbk wz. 1996 Mini-Beryl - 5,56 mm NATO (beside frontline service, also used by vehicle crews)
  Kbk AKM - 7.62x39 mm WP
  Kbk AKMS - 7.62x39 mm WP
  MSBS - 5,56 mm NATO and 7,62 mm NATO variants, should start entering service 2015/2016
  LMG:   RPK - in use in Airborne Force (limited)
  PK - various variants
  UKM-2000 - various variants, UKM-2000M to enter service in 2015, used by infantry as well as vehicle mounts
  Rheinmetall MG 3 - used on former Bundeswehr vehicles (Leopard 2A4/2A5 and respective ARV's)
  LMG variant of MSBS - 7,62 mm NATO, possibly to enter service in 2015 (image not available)
  HMG: WKM-B - Polish variant of the NSV MG, adapted to use .50 BMG NATO
  NSW - Polish variant of the NSV MG, still using the original 12,7 mm WP ammunition. In the process of being replaced by WKM-B
Both used on variety of vehicles or standalone   Sniper/Marksman rifles:   SWD/SWD-M - Polish designation for SVD Dragunow. SWD-M is a Polish upgrade. 7.62x54 mmR WP
  Sako TRG (TRG-21 and TRG-22) - 7,62mm NATO Sniper Rifle
  Bor - Polish made, 7,62 mm NATO Sniper Rifle
  Tor - Polish made .50 BMG Sniper Rifle
  Granade Launchers:   Underslung:   wz. 74 Pallad/GPBO-40 - 40mm Granade launcher for Kbs wz. 1996 Beryl
  Standalone:   Mk. 19 - on vehicles and tripod
  wz. 83 Pallad-D/GSBO-40 - single shot 40mm launchers
  RGP-40 - six shot revolver mag launcher. On order, should enter service in 2015
  GA-40 - may enter service before 2017
  AT Weapons Unguided:   Carl Gustav M3 - (Airborne and Spec Ops forces only)
  AT4 - (Airborne and Spec Ops forces only)
  RPG-7 - in service, unknown which warheads are in service in the Polish Armed forces
  RPG-76 Komar (in storage, requested and used by forces in Afghanistan for smaller targets upon which RPG-7 (or other weapons) would be a waste)
  Guided:   Spike-LR - Stationary launchers as well as launchers based upon HMMWV and ROSOMAK vehicles. 4km range, Fire & Forget, Fire Observe & Update, Lock-On After Launch - what more do you need ?
  9K115 Metys - limited use by airborne forces
  MANPAD:   GROM - reportedly a "copy" and vast improvement upon the Soviet designed 9K38 Igla. Several new versions made since then. Also used on variety of vehicles
  PIORUN - improved version of the GROM, should start entering service in 2015/2016 (launcher is reportedly the same, it's the missile that will be vastly improved)   VEHICLES:   MBT:   T-72M1 - no major/significant changes since the Warsaw Pact times, it's an export variant of the T-72A produced in Poland under license (chances are if you are seeing one of those anywhere near a frontline, then you are within a stone's throw from the Warsaw), reportedly Polish made T-72M1 were of higher quality and make than average among the Warsaw Pact countries (mentioned in passing in a book or two).
  PT-91 Twardy variants:   PT-91 - Polish Modernization of the T-72M1
  PT-91M
  PT-91MA1 - Same as above, majority of modifications is internal, such as better Radios and better electronics.     Leopard 2A4 - nothing much to say, not much different since the days of them watching over the Fulda Gap. They however have access to better ammo since those days.
  Leopard 2A5 - Unchanged since they rolled off the assembly line. They do have access to more modern ammunition though.
  Leopard 2PL - Poland has expressed interest to modernize our Leopard 2 fleet to 2A7+ like standard. First would go the 2A4's, then 2A5's. There are several proposals, but it's a bit of a mess right now (to say the least), hence it's doubtful it will be  ready or deployed in a significant capacity within Polish Armed Forces before 2017.   APC/IFV:   BWP-1 - BMP-1D variant "Good" old BMP-1D. Not much to be said. (We used to have BMP-2 and BMP-2D but our idiot paper pushers sold them). A program to develop new tracked vehicle to replace BWP-1 has been initiated, but extremely unlikely to produce anything of substance before 2017.
  KTO ROSOMAK variants: ROSOMAK is a family of variants developed upon AMV PATRIA family.   Rosomak - first initial variant, features Oto Melara Hitfist-30P turret, armed with 30mm autocannon ATK Mk 44 along with a coax 7,62mm UKM-2000C MG. Also equipped with Obra laser warning receiver connected to smoke granade launchers and an amphibious vehicle capable of swim.
  Rosomak-M1 – Modification for the needs of Chad and Afghanistan deployments. Changes include: additionf of Pilar "Fire direction detection" system, new and improved comm. systems, additional radio, two additional cameras on hull sides, connected to screen in infantry compartment. Water propellers have been removed, and the Vehicle was up-armored with Israeli Rafael Armor Package, bringing the vehicle to all around STANAG IV protection levels.
  Rosomak-M1M – further development of the version for Afghanistan Deployment. Changes from previous variant includes addition of American Qinetiq RPGNet, cabling and sockets to mount Duke IED countermeasure system and of Blue Force Tracking system (those systems are not integral part of this variant and were on loan from the US military). Infantry compartment went from 8 to 6 soldiers. This version has been up-armored by default by the original manufacturer, giving it the same STANAG IV protection levels as M1.
  Rosomak-M3 – version armored anologically to Rosomak M1. It's turret is armored up to STANAG III standard. The turret can carry WKM-B 12,7mm HMG or 7,62mm UKM-2000C MG or Mk. 19 40mm grenade launcher. Those vehicles usually carry either two of the above, one on the turret, second within the hull near the turret, allowing them to be swapped "on the go".
  Rosomak-S - unoficially called "Spajkowóz" (Spikewagon) – infantry carrier variant of the base version (ergo still capable of swim), equipped to carry 2 Spike LR launchers, a load of spare missiles, along their respective weapon teams. Otherwise unarmed.
  KTO Rosomak - Hitfist-30P turret with Spike LR variant and KTO Rosomak - Unmanned ZSSW-30 turret with Spike LR variant The former is no different than the Base Rosomak (aside from integration of the Spike ATGM with the turret) and has already been developed, built and tested, however the latter has been designated as next step in the Rosomak development hence the former most likely won't enter service. However (at the time of the writing) there only exists a first iteration of the ZSSW-30 turret, which is being tested, but is not integrated with the Spike ATGM yet, afaik only a mockup of the double launcher can be seen on the right side of the turret.  As both vehicles, for all intents and purpouses, will serve the same role and function within the game, either could be added.
  KWWO Wilk - Kołowy Wóz Wsparcia Ogniowego (Wheeled fire support vehicle) (105/120mm) Prototypes exist but appears extremely unlikely at this point to enter service.
  Recon: BWR-1D and BWR-1S  (BRM-1K and BPzV "Svatava" respectively) Basically a BMP-1 without ATGM, having somewhat better NVG's and optionally carrying a recon squad.
  BRDM-2M-97 "Żbik-B" Polish modification/modernization of the BRDM-2 vehicle. New turret, Obra laser warning receiver and smoke grenade launcher, new NVG's. Armed with WKM-B and a UKM-2000 as coax.
  Rosomak-R1 and Rosomak-R2 – Recon variants based upon the base Rosomak (hence still amphibious capable). Armed analogically to normal Rosomak, with 30mm AC and 7,62mm coax. No infantry carrying capacity. Crew compartment instead has been remodeled to house operators of additional equipment. Upon extendable 4 meter mast a FLIR System video camera, Thermal camera and laser rangefinder/target designation system were mounted, allowing for recon at the distance of up to 20 km. R1 variant has been additionally equipped with Turkish Aselsan ACAR Ground Surveillance Radar. Reportedly allowing detection of an infantry man from 12 km away, and vehicle group from 40 km away. Radar has been mounted on a mast behind the turret.  Both has been equipped with additional camera with directional microphone.
  Tank Destroyers:   BRDM-2 KONKURS
  Tumak-5 (M1045A2 HMMWV) with Spike-LR ATGM
  ROSOMAK with unmanned Spike Launcher Turret - there exists an existing presentation model with combined GROM launcher on top. The military has stated desire for such/similiar variant to replace aging BRDM-2 based Tank destroyers, however there haven't been much word on it since.
  Car transports: Tumak-2 (M1043A2 HMMWV) Tumak-3 (M1025A2 HMMWV) both come with Shielded/unshielded manned turret with UKM-2000, WKM-B or NSW, or mk. 19/GA-40
  Tumak-4 (M1097A2 HMMWV), transports up to 11 people depending on the exact setup, unarmed
  Skorpion-3 - light multi purpouse vehicle, 7,62 MG on the roof turret. 1+4 crew
  Star 266M - Working horse of the Polish army. Unarmed truck. Up-armored driver cabin variant may also enter service "soon" (see Hibernyt-3 below)
  AA Assets:   ZSU-23-4W1 Szyłka (ZSU-23-4V1) - no known changes since the Warsaw Pact times (possibly just some minor changes to make it compatible with modern AA Command and Control systems of the Polish Army). In the process of being upgraded to ZSU-23-4MP Biała standard.
  ZSU-23-4MP Biała - Polish upgrade, removal of the radar with mounting of completely passive opto-electronic detection and fire control systems, new ammo with slightly longer range (approx 3,5 km), and 4 GROM missiles for additional firepower (GROMs might be changed for PIORUN's in the future as they become available), all weather capability as well as Thermals and new AP rounds.
  Żubr-P - carrier of the POPRAD System using the GROM missiles (may use PIORUN as those become available). POPRAD is basically a passive detection suite, four GROM launchers and some spare missiles.
  9K35M Strzała-10M - About unchanged since the Warsaw Pact days (as far as I can tell)
  Osa-AKM-P1 "Żądło" - Polish upgraded OSA-AKM, not sure if it fits CM scale however.
  Hibernyt-3 - uparmored Star 266M truck carrying ZUR-23-2KG system. ZUR-23-2KG upgrades since the good old ZU-23-2 includes: CP-1 night-and-day sight with laser rangefinder, electromechanic gun turn system and twin launcher for "Grom" missiles. The truck carries additional ammo and spare missiles.
  Off Map Support:   AHS Krab - (aka THE MOST embarrassing project of the modern Polish Military industry) a division (at least) planned before 2017
  AHS Kryl (possible to enter limited service before 2017)
Both are 155mm NATO compatible Self Propelled Howitzers   Armatohaubica wz. 1977 DANA-T - 152mm Self Propelled Howitzer
  2S1T Goździk - Polish upgrade of venerable 2S1 Gvozdika
  SMK-120 RAK - 120 mm self propelled mortar system based upon ROSOMAK chassis - on order 80 vehicles to enter service in 2015
  2B11 mortar - 120mm Mortar
  M-98 Rodon mortar - 98mm mortar
  LM-60 mortar - 60mm mortar
  Air Support Helo:   Mi-24W (Polish designation for the Mi-24V)- Reportedly the Kokon ATGM are long past expiration date and they have only unguided ordinance now at it's disposal (!! REPORTEDLY !!). So either they won't have any or we assume we borrowed some Kokons from the Ukrainian stocks.
    Planes:   F-16 Block 52+ I have made this informative info-graphic about what kind of stuff it can carry. Not sure which of those fit scale of CM:BS, but that's everything we have for them or have planned for them at the time of writing.
  Su-22M4 - as much as it would be even a bigger of a suicide than flying A-10 into a modern ADN, a number of Polish Su-22M4 can carry a pair of Kh-29T's - TV guided Anti Tank missiles. Beside that, it can carry to up to 8 dumb bombs - FAB-500 max or ZK-300 Polish made cluster bomb (anti personnel).   MiG-29 (9.12A) - it can drop some dumb bombs, either FABs or ZK-300's   UAV:   Boeing ScanEagle Aeronautics Defense Orbiter WB Electronics FlyEye   I imagine that would be all. If there are any questions or anything else that might fit the CM scale, please feel free to ask questions and I shall do answer them best to my abilities/knowledge.   Apologies if I posted this in a wrong place.   Thank you for reading !   EDIT: Formatting was gone for some reason. Should be all good now.

As promised, here is a BETA version of my sound mod combining all previous work into one universal mod for CMx2 titles. There may also be a few small updates since my last release, but don't expect big changes if you have previously used my mod in CMSF or the WWII titles. There are specific modules for modern sounds so you can pull them out for the WWII titles, although any problematic overlaps should be minimal.
 
(edit: PM me for dropbox link.)
 
Hope it helps with enjoyment of Combat Mission: Black Sea! I am very proud to have participated in development of this title. Black Sea is one of BFC's best yet.

Over in the c3k vs DMS Free Game AAR, c3k lost a bunch of men to Russian 30 mm airburst fire from what turned out to be a BTR-82. I was confounded by this because, to my knowledge, no 30 mm Russian cannon currently extant can do that. When I raised the issue, he responded with this ammo fuze link, citing it as proof of the capability. A few posts later, I responded this way:
 
Fuze A-670M is PD, with just enough delay (0.002-0.004s) to get into the target and explode. The "distant arming" refers merely to the fact that the fuze arms a minimum of 20 meters away from the firing point and may not arm until as far away as 100 meters. This is in no way equivalent to or even imitative of things like Ainet. And 9-14 seconds after being fired, the fuze initiates and destroys the shell. Simply put, the BTR-82's 30 mm gun is operating the same way as the 25 mm Bushmaster on a Bradley. In fact, functionally speaking, it's exactly the same as what came out of a Sherman's barrel during WW II after the command, "HE, Delay" was issued as part of the fire order. Consequently, as things stand, every Russian or Ukrainian vehicle armed with the cannon 2A42, 2A-38 and 2A-72, whether firing HEI or HE-T, is affected. Further, this also applies to the Mi-28/HAVOC and the Ka-50/HOKUM. 
 
Would one or more of you who knows this fuze and its capabilities firsthand please wade in on this important matter? If I'm right, and I'm confident I am, it's going to put quite a dent in the in-game combat potential of every single 30 mm armed Russian and Ukrainian AFV and so armed attack helicopter. 
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler
 
 

Re: Flares
 
There's really two items to be considered:
 
1. "Star Clusters"
 
Basically a self contained flare unit with parachute attached.  They come in several colors (red, green, white for sure, might be a few others).  They're used for signals purposes, but have no Army-wide definition. One unit may use red star clusters as a signal for medevac, while others might use it for a backup "commence attack!" signal.  This is usually laid out in the signals portion of the operations order or theater specific signals instructions.  There's also 40 MM grenade launched flares, but in practice their use is the same as the self contained units.
 
The white light ones are also commonly used for local illumination.  There's also IR versions that provide well, IR light to support NVG operations.
 
2. Illumination rounds.  As described, artillery shell used to illuminate battlefield.
 
In terms of signal applications, they're not really useful in the same sense that Combat Mission covers combat.  The information relayed is so low fidelity, or limited to specific COAs that while they're useful in those applications, they're not really a communications device any more than smoke grenades, flashlight signals at night, and similar narrow application signals.  

Ther was a thread about this topic still active a few days ago
 
In a few words, the argument made by people that know about this stuff is that the US doesn't have this systems because it counts on the air force to do the job
 
So, basically the game assumes a situation that wouldn't be possible (or likely) in real life, except for a few very lucky Russian planes in the whole theater that would probably be shot down returning home anyway, but because this is a game it takes some liberties 
 
I won´t start an argument about this, since I don't claim any special knowledge about it,  but in the interest of not starting another never ending thread on this I would suggest you check that other thread, specially the arguments put forward by US officers and see their reasoning for how things are the way they are

I agree 100%. Panic should mean the troops run away from the battle disregarding the mission or safety. That said...panicking troops should run AWAY from the threat. I have had troops pinned down in the woods start to panic. Instead of running away, they stand up and run forward. I've seen soldiers get shaken in Iraq in some bad situations but never panic so they just start running around the streets

Update time!
Stagler's MSV Uniforms v.1.2
 
Added green and black face protectors Fixed missing shoulder textures (Thanks Kieme) Dropbox link is below. https://www.dropbox.com/s/zl2v1667xnvk5bz/SG_MSV_Uniforms.rar?dl=0UpUpdat

I think SOPs would go a long way in solving this problem (and others).

Must....... Not...... Post...... On...... Topic...... aarrrggghhhhhhh.
 
 
Pantsir and Tunguska cost 15 million USD+ and are only available in limited numbers, if wikipedia is to be believed Russian less than 300 Pantsirs and Tunguskas total. The systems have very small radars which means the engagement distance vs PGMs and HARM is small (~10 km or so, maybe even less against weapons like JSOW and JASSM), they can only engage something like 2 targets simultaneously. These two facts mean they can be saturated pretty easily.
 
 
Lets be real, Carlo lost his mind sometime in 2002. His work was pretty good before that (go read his original AIM-120 article), now he descends into incoherent rants where Su-35s somehow detect F-35s at 100 km and shoot them with R-77s. But since this is Carlo they are probably fantasy ramjet R-77s that have finally made the small and insignificant leap from being a scribble on a napkin to being a fully operational weapon. Seriously did anyone see those simulations they had up on youtube, it's too bad they took them down because that was some funny stuff, the Su-35s had like a 10:1 exchange rate against F-35s. Pretty sure they even presented that stuff to the Australian government. 
 
Riddle me this, how many sorties did the F-117 fly before one was shot down? Every time the F-117 shootdown is brought up I think of the internet stories I have read about the brilliant Serbian captain who modified his X-band SA-3 FCR to work in the L-band or something. It inspired my to modify my CBR 600 to be a submarine. 
 
 
Really hard seems like a bit of an exaggeration, at least when it comes to fighters and AEW&C vs NOE aircraft. 
 
The numbers seem to be on the side of popular opinion. panzersaurkrautwerfer already posted the numbers but lets recap, USAF has 32 E-3s and the USN has 52 E-2Cs plus some number of E-2Ds. This is without counting the AEW&C aircraft of other nations. 
 
 
How long do you expect those jammers to survive, Russian airspace will be significantly more porous in 2017 than in 1987 due to US's use of stealth technology which means those expensive jammers are going to be shot down or blown up. 
 
No doubt an E-3 can be jammed, but anything can be jammed, the tactical usefulness of this depends on the details. 
 
 
Speaking of Russian AEW&C, how will the Russians protect their AEW&C from super cruising F-22s? By the time they realize what is happening the AIM-120s would have hit and F-22s will be hauling ass in the opposite direction. 
 
 
What are the MCRs for the Russian birds under high sortie conditions? I would be very surprised if they were higher than NATO's.
 
Don't turn this into an F-35 thread, we don't need any backseat engineers coming on here to show us how much smarter they are than the boys at Lockmart. 
 
 
It's pretty clear that NATO has massive advantage in training, equipment, and numbers. How many modern aircraft are in the VVS? Original MiG-29s and Su-27s with their 1970s at best electronics don't count as modern. 
 
That Kopp article is a nice mix of extremely basic statistics, super sketchy assumptions, and fanboy fantasy numbers. If the statistics on the R-27's combat performance in the Ethiopian Eritrean war are true than its a pretty crap missile. From what I understand India is unhappy with the R-77. Is the R-77 deployed in any sort of significant numbers by the VVS? 
 
 
Back off topic
 
Did anyone here play on the United Operations ARMA2 ACE server, had some good times there. It is too bad they switched to ARMA3 since there is no ACE mod for that. Red vs Red scenarios were so much fun. 

You did compare the ability of the Soviet military in 1980's to conduct anti-shipping warfare to the ability of the Russian Federation to conduct CAS over hostile airspace in 2017.  You also announced it was your duty to bring a thread that was pleasantly derailed back to quite honestly a line of discussion that was pretty well tapped out.
 
So yeah, apples and monkeys, thread-Stalin.
 
Anyway, so now I'm bored, annoyed, and I AM FILLED WITH THE ANGER AND FURY OF A'TOMIC POM*
 
 
Re: SOF
 
There's practical limitations on just what they can do.  Russian SOF is not some sort of collection of ubermench able to accomplish any mission, any time without raising an eyebrow.  In a practical sense given the overt, and high intensity nature of the conflict we can assume the level of force protection is to put it mildly, "harsh and draconian."  Preventing observation of these high value assets will be a priority, let alone keeping folks back and away from the launchers.  Counting on a SOF campaign to do anything but knock off the odd launcher is fool hardy and the Russians are not at all that stupid.  
 
This isn't 1988 man.  There's no ultra deep cover Spetnaz company waiting by Ramstein to conduct a suicide attack with the Red Army Faction to knock out as many fighters as possible.  In talking about conducting SOF missions outside of the Ukraine, it's a game Russia will be hard pressed to play, simply put if it starts running craziness in NATO countries, it's inviting effectively like escalation into Russia, which is damage it cannot afford to absorb (Again, how hard would it be to send a few dozen Chechen fighters via funding through Saudi Arabia with Iglas in hand to camp out below any airport/air base?).
 
There's also a practical limit on how many special forces units can be deployed against targets (just in terms of teams available, and able to effectively blend in), mobility (likely restricted to foot movement, full scale war will doubtlessly bring a curfew and civilian traffic will be restricted.
 
Which really gets to the point of we can expect an effect, but again, an effect to the point where it strongly influences the ability of NATO to the degree it negates a nearly three to one advantage in airframes, literally dozens of AWACs and other radar platforms, the 1,000+NATO available PATRIOT missile launchers (again, they're not all going to the Ukraine, but it provides a number to draw from, and PATRIOT can be air transported pretty easily compared to other hardware) is just daft.  
 
But it does.  The loss of one AWACS would hurt, but it's not going to remove the capability.  The number of AWACS available also means you could afford to have more than two E3s in the air at once, say some sort of two forward one back setup.  It also handily negates your earlier statement about airframe/crew fatigue, they're not going to run into the ground with that many available platforms.  Two AWACS over West Germany reflects the 80's availability of those platforms.  It's not 1988 anymore, and the capability has increased to the degree where your point is moot.
 
 
A-10 has a role, but its after the Russian Air Force has been put to bed, and SEAD/DEAD has done its job.  Same deal with the SU-25, but there's no reasonable observer who believes the Russian Air Force can take on the NATO air element, to the degree it prevents the NATO CAP from being able to operate freely above friendly forces.
 
Additionally how many sorties did that  damaged SU-25 go on to fly the next day?  I rather imagine it was difficult with significant parts of the airplane missing.  A plane that badly damaged is effectively a self-conducting downed pilot rescue and little more.  Even if hundreds of SU-25s are limping home (this is doubtful.  The Georgian example made it home because once it left the target area it was safe from enemy fire, over the Ukraine the SU-25 would have to dodge the pursuing fighters), holed by various hits, they're effectively "killed" for the purposes of follow on operations and likely the remainder of the campaign.
 
 
We aren't talking about just superior technology dude.  We're talking about better planes, we're talking about better pilots, we're talking about three times as many airframes, cutting edge sensors, advanced command and control, all conducted above highly advanced friendly air defense.  If it was just one for one each side had 200 planes, but the US had 200 F-22s and the Russians 200 MIG-29s, it'd be a rough go, but certainly some CAS would leak through just by saturation.
 
But to the degree the Russians are outnumbered, to the degree they are behind technologically and training wise....god.  It'd be a bad day to be a Russian pilot.
 
Which goes to the REDFOR planning cycle. They're not going to commit horribly outnumbered, out gunned, and out-manned platforms to knock out a few tanks here and there.  Giving up a few Bears or Backfires to kill a carrier is an effective trade, carriers are important.  Giving up a four strike fighter element for a chance at a tank or two, the math just doesn't work.  The Russians only have so many planes, and they cannot afford to fritter them away by hoping THIS SU-24 isn't going to be picked up by AWACS while somewhere over Russia before catching an AIM-120 after crossing the border.  Further any fighters expended trying to make a hole through CAP is one less fighter to keep the few thousand NATO strike capable fighters away from bombing the tar out of Russian forces.
 
The actual value of the Russian Air Force would likely be closer to the whole "fleet in being" because that's the only way it survives the war without getting its heart ripped out over the Ukraine.
 
All well and good, but how fast do you think it'd take follow on NATO CAP to arrive?  Given the number of AWACS, and NATO interceptors, any hole will last for a few minutes, and only be created at major losses.  This was viable when the air forces were basically 1:1 in number, or Russian superiority, as losing some number of planes to secure a local advantage was sensible.  But in a fight where NATO has vast superiority of numbers and systems  it's just feeding the NATO kill count.  Make a hole, AWACS sends more fighters to fill the hole.  They have more fighters and more capable systems, Ivan's skeletal remains are collected up by a MIA recovery team in 2034 that's working with permission from Kiev.  His MIG-29 is in pieces, not over the Russian Army, A-10s have party funtime in late August because there's no Russian fighters left to challenge them.
 
Third and fourth order effects.  
 
 
Which gets to the point that building a new SHORAD system is moronic now.
 
Simply put Russian CAS may get some hits in.  But it will also almost certainly die in the process.  And Russians are not stupid enough to throw away their platforms and pilots to bag a couple of tanks.
 
 
*I discovered the PX sells rip-its.  My Grandfather picked up a strange affection for spam after his years in the Marines, it appears I've acquired at least an occasional nostalgia for terrible energy drinks after my years in the army.