Chibot Mk IX
-
Posts
620 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Chibot Mk IX
-
-
I think this is a term carried over from CMx1 . As mentioned above, there is a difference between knocked out and destroyed, it has an impact in CMx1's campaign. But CMx2 doesn't reflect the difference.
And yes, all the burning enemy vehicles in CMx2 are "knocked out". Guess that should be described as a fog of war?
-
Yes, there are additional ammunition on the vehicle.
The Gerbirgsjäger sqd has two PzF3 with two projectile and Panzergrenadier sqd has 1 PzF3 with 1 projectile. On the IFV and APC there are 3 more projectiles
-
Most of the PzG squad has two AT solider but there is only one PzF3 in the OOB. What is the other AT solider's responsibility?
-
1 hour ago, DesertFox said:
155mm Cluster ammo for AFU - The options on a map
US is sending M864 Cluster Munition 155mm Artillery Shells to Ukraine each has 72 grenades and a range of ~29km If fired 7-10km from the current frontline, Ukraine can reach 100% of Russia’s 1st line of trench fortifications and 78% of the 2nd line of trench fortifications
This tweet is a little bit of misleading. It highlights ICM vs fortification, but as many of us have learned from CMCW, the ICM is not effective against a fortified enemy. ICM can be deadly against exposed enemy especially personal and soft skin vehicle, so it is handy in fend off RUS's counter attack. ICM also improves UKR side's counter-artillery efficiency, pose a threat to the hovering NOE Ka-52. But this is not a magic bullet that can make the Russian fortification line melt away in a short period of time.
-
22 hours ago, SDG said:
My personal experience is that SMGs greatly outperform rifles in almost any concievable scenario.
If you take a German squad, the main "damage dealers" are the two machine guns and the squad leader's MP40. The dudes with the bolt action rifles are just glorified ammo bearers and meat shields for the rest of the squad.
Funny thing is, that one would think that medium to long ranges, rifles outperform SMGs, while in close ranges (<50m) SMGs should dominate. In reality however (at least according to CM's reality) SMG squads are still extremely deadly within 200 meters (pixeltruppen are happily firing deadly burst), and a full smg squad can wipe the floor with dudes carrying only rifles.
+1
And.....
I even suspected the SMG squad will outperform the Stg44 squad at 150m distance. I thought about doing a test before, but haven't got a chance to do one.
************************************************************************************************
Regarding pickup SMG through first aid, here is my post, hopefully that helps. Only those with Pistol will pickup SMG
-
On 6/20/2023 at 5:39 AM, Maciej Zwolinski said:
Have you managed to find any weapons which would work for this? I do not think there is any mobile SHORAD in the Nato inventory which could reach out to 10 KM. US ones are based on Stinger, so no better than MANPADS in the range department.
I proposed to strike airfield, FARPs, kill the birds when they are in the nests. Utilize Artillery to bomb the hovering Ka-52 and use FPV kamikaze drone. Unfortunately CMO cannot simulate the FPV drone idea. Maybe we will need the help from ARMA 3.
-
I haven't played this campaign so I have no idea what's going on. But I would bet it is a scripted AI strike mission.
On 6/2/2023 at 4:35 PM, Smitty23 said:I think you might have hit the nail on the head here. The past few times I've attempted this mission, Russian air support always comes at turn 60 so I believe it is a pre-scripted fire mission. It's just not in the same place every time. If the Russians have visual on any of my units, the fire mission gets called on them, but if they have no visual on my units, it seems to always default to my deployment zone. The thing that is still weird though is the fact that if this was a pre-planned mission with the details manually worked out by the scenario designer, why would the fire mission jump around from different locations as if it was a live non-scripted fire mission? Is it possible to script fire missions that target spotted units, but also default to a specific location if no units are spotted? Because that would explain everything there.
What's the distance between your deployment zone and the units detected by Russia? Air strike mission can have a 700m strike radius
On 6/1/2023 at 11:12 PM, Smitty23 said:Again, I ceased fire to see who called in that fire mission and surely enough, the observers that I killed 16 turns before gained another BTR kill.
I had a similar experience recently. One of Russian ATGM kills my UKR BTR, then I wiped out this ATGM team. At the end of the game, I lost one more BTR to mine, guess what, the dead ATGM team got 2 BTR kills on its final tally...
-
On 6/18/2023 at 1:13 PM, kevinkin said:
That goes without saying. The devil is in the details. Fixed wing altitude vs finding the chopper in the clutter long enough to get a lock. Plus all the other things you mentioned like EW and setting up a SAM safe corridor for the choppers to work in. Using the fixed wings to strike bases would be more efficient. There is not a lot (any) new information on this. Maybe the USAF gave up on the idea. But the UA could come up with their own tactics when they receive F16s
As a Wargamer, one of the greatest joy we have is using various tools (even if they are amateur and used for entertainment purposes) to check if our crazy ideas are feasible. Here, we have a set of tools called CMO. I have created a few scenarios in the editor. Overall, I agree with your perspective that using an F-16 fighter jet to attack a low-flying Ka-52 helicopter within Russian-controlled territory is not an efficient approach.
In the scenario, I assumed that Ukraine is using the F-16A MLU donated by the Netherlands, while the Russian military has a Ka-52 helicopter hovering at a low altitude 10 kilometers behind their first defensive line. The F-16's radar can generally detect the Ka-52 at a range of 16nm. If the F-16 is at high altitude, there is only one opportunity for an attack because the Ka-52 will quickly enter the radar's blind zone. If the F-16 decides to dive into low altitude or initiates the attack from low altitude, it must consider the threat from short-range air defenses. However, considering the threat posed by the Russian S-300 system, a low-level penetration might be a more viable option.
Subsequently, I added more elements to the scenario, including A-50 and a full suite of short-range and long-range SAM systems for the Russian. The Ukrainian F-16 takes off near Vinnytsia, flies at high altitude over Zaporizhzhia, transitions to low altitude, and turns southeast towards Orikhiv. This brings an additional issue: after flying over 200 nm, the low-flying F-16 only has around 20 minutes of fuel remaining before Bingo Fuel, meaning it can only perform one attack before disengaging.
Similar to before, the F-16's radar detects the Ka-52 at 16 nm, but both aircraft are in low altitude, significantly reducing the effective range of the AIM-120B missile due to air resistance (and yes, max range =/= effective range). The F-16 must close in to approximately 7 nm for the Ka-52 to be within the missile's Dynamic Launch Zone (DLZ). However, before reaching this distance, the F-16 pilot receives multiple SAM radar warning alerts.
In summary, after conducting a single AMRAAM attack, the F-16 must turn and disengage. The success rate is not high, with a small probability of the F-16 being shot down by SAMs, and the chance of the AIM-120B hitting the Ka-52 at the extreme edge of its effective range is also low. According to the PoH calculation formula in CMO, this probability is only 29%.
Please note that this simulation only considers the Russian ground-based SAM systems, and if a group of Su-35s are added to provide CAP, the F-16's chances of a successful attack would be extremely low.
The conclusion drawn from this simulation is that the Ukrainian F-16 should focus on its main tasks, such as gaining air superiority and conducting SEAD, plus attacking Russian airfields and ground support. The mission of hunting down the airborne Ka-52 within Russian-controlled territory should be assigned to other weapons and equipment.
-
3 minutes ago, dan/california said:
What I want to know is what was in the trench that was worth risking a SOF team for? Or at least what they thought was in it? A SOF team seems like too high value an asset to risk just to eliminate some random mobiks.
the Trench looks very clean, so I guess it is in the rear. A raid to take out HQ?
-
16 minutes ago, cesmonkey said:
This update is not totally positive
.https://t.me/sashakots/40458But I think either Google Translate is not understanding it well enough, or the original text is not perfectly written so that I can't grasp the full meaning.
By the way, what does BC mean as in "BC is being delivered, but there is a lot of work."БК
Боекомплект (боевой комплект, Б/К)
Ammunition?
-
42 minutes ago, Jiggathebauce said:
Have a totally left field question about helicopters: have there been recorded instances where air assets were hit by ground based artillery, out of pure coincidence and serendipity? Accidental reverse anti air, if you will?
at least one recorded incident
Has an artillery shell ever hit an airplane? - Quora
-
2 hours ago, Kinophile said:
So explain this Ka-52 issue to me.
We've been assuming that low level air attacks are doomed/limuted due to ground level MANPADS saturation, yet there are consistent reports of helo problems for advancing UKR mech infantry and often from 10 km away.
How can UKR close this tactical loop hole?
It is worthy to mention this post
The issue of controversy remains unchanged since the introduction of the AH. The Ka-52 (or replace it with AH-1) is not likely to survive long in a strike mission over enemy-controlled territory due to the threat of MANPADS (or HMG and autocannon in the case of AH-1).
However, with a carefully prepared flight plan and by loitering around friendly-controlled zones in close coordination with ground forces, the Ka-52 (or AH-1) can take a keyhole position to overwatch the road that the attacking force must pass through, making it a formidable tank destroyer.
To counter this threat, Ukraine needs to target Russia's airfields and FARPs.
When the Ka-52s are in an ambush position, things can become more complex, particularly in terms of detection. Ukraine lacks AEW assets, but quadcopters equipped with thermal imaging capabilities could be helpful. Additionally, adopting a good CM gameplay tactics would be beneficial. put yourself in the shoes of the Russians, think where you would position your Ka-52.
If the airborne Ka-52 threat is detected, fire artillery, airburst artillery rounds and ICM should pose a significant threat to the Ka-52.
While it may not be confirmed if it is possible, utilizing FPV kamikaze drones could be fatal to a hovering Ka-52. It might be worth considering deploying a few FPV kamikaze drones to patrol the areas that have been identified as potential ambush sites.
what is range of switchblade again?
-
17 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
The one in on the "left" in the documentation images of the Leo and Brad destruction? Clearly this was a second attempt at a lane and the second driver drove around the destroyed vehicles from the first attempt. It is far better to take a second pass over the same lane and deviate only when necessary. The reason is that mine plowing is inexact, so it is better to make multiple passes over the same lane than separate lanes with only one pass.
Steve
Oh, no.
DesertFox asked a similar question below, but his expression was much clearer than mine.
5 hours ago, DesertFox said:Thanks that helps with understanding. However, what I totally don't get is, why on earth the Btl. CO decided 2 times to have his Btl. move transverse in front of enemy lines. Big NO NO and I guess he, if at present still in charge, would have had a small "discussion" with Brig. CO about that. Well maybe we learn over time why this Btl. acted as it did.
Yes, it gets me puzzled.
-
42 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:
"I reconstructed and geolocated the route and losses of one of the two columns of the 47th mechanized brigade. Of course, I also used the work of other OSINT people, but many of the given locations were inaccurate and the place of the destruction of M2 and L2A6 was wrong. Freeze frames from movies added to the orientation of what was where.
This column had a difficult fate: it was surrounded by drone-corrected artillery 3x, it defeated 2 groups of mines, and finally, while overcoming the second one, it fell under the fire of Ka-52's Wihr ATGMs and ATGMs as well as artillery. Really KUDOS to the soldiers of this battalion because they went through hell that day.
P.S. location and slides from the second (west) column will be uploaded later. This is the one whose end was supposedly photoshopped."
Going 7 kilometers under drone-corrected artillery through two minefields and then getting waked by Ka-52s
source: https://twitter.com/wolski_jaros/status/1668251143552606214
Just wondering why the right column take a zig-zag route, and turning in front of enemy line.
Any possible explanation on this?
My Guess: Using the treeline as the concealment, and later, after suffering casualty, trying to turn to center and regroup/combine with the friendly force there?
-
33 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:
Russians unfortunatelly reached IRIS-T radar.
Can't still believe such small flying bugger as Lancet (and similar) is probably single most effective Russian weapon of this war, putting to shame T-90's, ballistic rockets, artillery, EW equipment (50/50 here, maybe) and other stuff they liked to bragg so much before the war.
It's Orlan-10, Orlan, always about Orlan. Not sure on Ukraine/NATO side if they have any plan to deal with this threat.
-
5 hours ago, danfrodo said:
And what the holy hell is going on w the raids into Russia? Seems these are causing a lot more trouble than I would've imagined.
that's essence of guerrilla warfare
"When the enemy advances, I retreat. When the enemy encamp, we harass them. The enemy is tired and I offer an open battle. When they retreat, I pursue." ---Mao Tse Tung
-
48 minutes ago, panzermartin said:
A storm shadow? I'm glad we also have the French version aka scalp in our arsenal. What makes this missile more capable to penetrate defenses than Kalibr that constantly gets shot down 99% of the times ?
Apart from russian ineffectiveness and my suspicion that UA banning videos of strikes plays a role in hiding also successful hits of the Russians.
Low RCS return, make it harder to be detected by AEW like A-50.
-
hopefully this helps.
-
3 hours ago, Brille said:
I know that a squad that gets for example a Javelin with 3 rockets and maybe some additional AT4, looses the ability to use the "fast" command and I suppose they will tire out faster (or do they?)
Yes, and assign a team to be the ammo bearer always help.
In CMBS I usually put the Inf plt HQ team as the ammo bearer. Inf squad/team take one to two Javelin missile, HQ stay behind, on their back there are additional 2-3 missiles. Besides perform their commander role, in case an Infantry team depleted their Javelin, the HQ team will rush forward share the missile with the Infantry team.
-
2 hours ago, Fenris said:
Real? Having russian refugees displaced inside russia is going to be a real headache for the regime me thinks
Haha, just reminds me TOAW. There is a special event called refugee, refugee clogging the road. If that happens the supply point drops and movement cost double by two. Looks like right now in Belgord the movement penalty should multiple by 10.
2 hours ago, Beleg85 said:Oh, no doubts Putin's will may overcome opinion of military. But unless those raids will repeat itself, and in numbers, they will most probably be able to explain it to him that they have sufficent forces at hand to protect border, which maybe only needs some slight adjustments/support from security services. Let's remember Kherson, when military prudence ultimatelly overcome political prestige matters.
Perhaps the pressure of the continuous raids will push him adopt a "brilliant idea" that he believes can simultaneously alleviate political pressure and meet military needs in further south, that is another round of mobilization (good luck with that).
-
6 hours ago, womble said:
How do seaborne missile defense systems like Aegis stack up against Patriot? If they're at least comparable, this wee demonstration has changed the whole threat profile of China's hypersonic shipkillers: they're no more likely to hit a Supercarrier or one of their escorts than a Kindjhal is to hit a Ukrainian target.
They are not comparable. On paper Aegis is supposed to have far better performance. See the pic below. Patriot PAC3 is a terminal phase interceptor with very short window of opportunity to intercept SRBM and MRBM (see the blue dots there?), Patriot's speed is too low to work on an IRBM.
The yellow Aegis BMD line in the graphic seems to be representing RIM-161 SM3, an Exo-atmospheric interceptor.
As you can see , the right end of the yellow line does not extend to the x-axis, because SM3 doesn’t work in Endo-atmospheric. That makes this graphic a little misleading as the SM2 and SM6, two Endo-atmospheric interceptors deal with terminal phase interception also belong to Aegis BMD. They have better performance compared to Patriot PAC3, although they will have trouble to deal with IRBM.
Put hypersonic weapon hypothesis, Kh-47 kinzhal is just an air launched Iskander SRBM with a limited maneuverability MaRV . It’s flight profile might be very similar to DF-21D and YJ-21 ASBM, but I guess DF-21D is the hardest to be intercepted due to its terminal speed. There is no way for Patriot PAC3 to intercept a DF-26B, an IRBM with anti-ship roles. That’s when you need SM3 to intercept before the RV from the IRBM dive into the terminal phase.
So far there is no indication that the HGV from DF-17 has the anti-ship capability. But due to the HGV’s flight profile, it will make the detection very very hard, and it is also operating on upper edge of the atmosphere so SM3 is useless in the face of this threat. Also due to its flight profile, HGV won’t have a great potential energy to convert into speed at terminal phase, so THAAD and SM6 should be able to intercept that but it is still too fast and maneuver for Patriot PAC3. We don’t have any open source to study on this, this is just my guess
Anyway, the key to successfully intercept a ballistic missile is not about the interceptor missile’s performance, its more about early warning, detection and classification. There are some discussions on this topic in Matrix game forum CMO section, I can see if I can find the discussion.
-
9 hours ago, dan/california said:
Well here is one guys take. And he is a former Italian army officer with deep Ukrainian connections.
That's just not possible. or he just provide some exaggerate claims here to attract attention.
During cold war a reinforced Soviets Mot Rifle Bn may deployed in an attack formation deal with 3km front, that would cause the Bn form in a multiple echelon formation that is 10-15km long. Now just image 160k + troops deploy in this kind of formation.
The Soviet Division may initially concentrate the whole division's firepower in this 3-4km front to achieve initial breakthrough, then funnel the following battalions through this breakthrough point. But later they will have to expend the gap, because you will need as many roads as possible to support a large formation's safely maneuver and logistics.
-
On 5/7/2023 at 10:28 AM, Beleg85 said:
Muscovite video with YPR-765 hit by Russian fire. Fortunatelly, everyone seem to bail out.
It is a miracle that everyone managed to escape alive.
On the other hand, it reminds me of CM gameplay. I have always felt that the effectiveness of armor penetration after-effects in CM is somewhat exaggerated. A single 45mm AP penetrating from the side can kill an entire PzG squad inside a sdkfz251. In CMCW, a hit from an AT-4 or AT-7 on the upper front hull of an M113 like this, or in CMSF2, a hit from an AT-13 on the YPR, often means that no pixeltruppen can survive and escape from the burning wreck.
-
On 5/8/2023 at 1:49 PM, Centurian52 said:
Having seen the video, my takeaway is that hypersonic weapons aren't as useful to the US as they are to our adversaries. Hypersonic weapons are really only useful against a fairly narrow range of targets. In order to be worth targeting with hypersonic weapons a platform needs to be important enough to be worth expending extremely expensive ordinance, time sensitive enough to require ordinance that will reach it quickly, and well protected enough against conventional ordinance to require weapons that can penetrate those defenses. We have platforms that perfectly fit the description of a good target for hypersonic weapons (carriers), while our adversaries don't have many juicy targets. So hypersonic weapons neatly fit our adversaries' needs, but they don't fit our own needs as much. It's more urgent for us to develop defenses against hypersonic weapons than it is for us to develop the weapons themselves.
I just watched the whole 1 hour video.
I agree that the United States may not have a significant immediate need for hypersonic weapons, but they will still require such weapons in the medium to long term. Considering China's ongoing Midcourse Missile Defense tests and the potential development of a comprehensive space-based early warning system, as well as the presence of some hawks in the Pentagon who may plan SSBNs with hypersonic weapons for close-range strikes to seek the ability to destroy ICBM silos in Xinjiang and Gansu, the demand for such weapons is evident.
In non-nuclear confrontations, hypersonic weapons also have their own demand. As Perun mentioned in the introduction of the USN's hypersonic weapons program, HALO serves as a supplement to the conventional subsonic anti-ship missile arsenal. Taking PLAN as an example, the current PLAN has almost no effective response to the saturation attacks of AGM-158C LRASM once it moves away from the coastal areas. However, in the future, PLAN may push its warning range further out to 50nm by building a cost-effective ISR system (equipped with radar and infrared detection devices on board UAV swarms) and use carrier-based aviation plus relatively inexpensive combinations of HHQ-16 and HHQ-10 for interception. In such a scenario, the US side would require a high-speed "disruptor" to dismantle PLAN's defense system.
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Former head of DPR militia Igor Strelkov detained in Moscow — wife - Society & Culture - TASS