Chibot Mk IX

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.

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.

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.

Wolski is trying to sniff what happenned.Translation:
According to sources that still require confirmation, one of the batteries of the Patriot system was slightly hit by shrapnel from a knocked down missile or a low-accuracy shock. Unofficially, there is talk of one or two launchers slightly damaged by shrapnel. No contacts (official and unofficial) confirm any major damage so far, but everyone strongly denies questions about the hit radar or SD. The case is, of course, in development and if the RUS effectively hit some element of the battery, it will be difficult to hide it. I personally doubt it.   Anyway: you can see that the Russians have prepared for this action carefully: 3 surveillance drones, 3 S300/S400 rockets are strike densities, 6 Shaheds, 9 Kalibrs, 6 Kinzhals - all attacking simultaneously from different sides. It was the best strike that the Russians can afford, where they even took care of Orlany for reconnaissance of routes for Kalibrs and Shahedes (!) But for the amount (24) of air assault means used, most of which were top for the Russians (Kalibr, Ch-47) and the fact of attacking lonely Patriot battery with a sector radar (+ some SHORAD) the combat effect is not impressive. But the events of last night will go down in the history of Western air defense because it was its toughest test and against a system "ripped" of such a boon as IBCS or air support.   As always, take it with solid solid pinch of salt; he has some contacts in both NATO and UA military and similar gossips are flying around in other places as well. Some lanuchers get scratched, but not serious lossess.    

Kalibres launched from the sea, first explosions in (over) Mykolaiv. Air raid alarm in Kyiv again. Hm... Will Russians repeat combined strike? Well, I go to sleep. Wish good hunting to our AD. 

Combat Mission Red Thunder and Fire & Rubble (with some mods).  Also included but not shown below are Kriegsmarine, Luftwaffe and Volksstrum.   
Tank riders.






Partisans



Lend Lease


Bedspring armor.

Just Because












 

Things are becoming hotter and hotter. I'm still struggling with time. But hopefully, it will improve shortly.
I believe you have seen the recent Prig video with the map. Based on what Prig stated, I decided to add a few notes to the map. Although it is Prig, it is really interesting, and I believe it will help you understand what is going on in the Bakhmut area.
It can be a little confusing and crammed at times, but if you examine each block carefully, it should be straightforward enough.
Number 1

Number 2

Number 3

Number 4

I have a few comments but due to lack of time I will post them later.

This is interesting. MALD decoys used parallel to the Storm Shadow strike in Luhansk?
 
MALD Decoy | Raytheon Missiles & Defense (raytheonmissilesanddefense.com) 

I previously thought the Crimea Bridge is an unlikely target to be hit with Storm Shadow (because of the quantities required to overwhelm the AD). ADM-160 might make that equation different...

Ok sorry, again posting just for laugh but this is heavenly one. Perigozhin-san.

Following a round of testing done primarily by @Millien on the unofficial CM discord server (link in signature I believe), it appears that the CITV on an abrams is not drawn from the CROWS viewer:



 
Nor is the Primary Gunner's Sight used to draw line of sight from:

 
Instead, it appears that the line of sight for both the PGS and the CITV is drawn from the main gun barrel.
Additionally, the CITV does not provide a 270 degree field of view - instead it would appear to effectively act as a repeater for the gunner's thermal imager. Unless the turret is facing towards an enemy, the CITV does not appear to be used. Testing instructions are to use non-multispectral smoke between tank and hostiles, hostiles should be at a 90 degree angle, and wait.
As such, this would appear to throw into doubt the perceived wisdom that Abrams should be used turned-in to take advantage of the tank's thermal imagers.
Thanks to @Millien for performing the tests.

Every now and again someone here posts a very informative summary of events to date. This one might not be that informative, but I found it highly amusing, nevertheless.

Regarding recent attacks- probably entire attack was conducted by one battalion of 3rd Brigade. Note how Ukrainians consequently hammer nails between Wagner and regulars; distrust between both forces stopped being purely political issue and clearly brings negative effects for katspas on the battlefield.
 

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. 

He is sort of exaggerating about the five kilometer front. But that is an approximation of what they have available to shove through the hole once they make it. I rather suspect they will make more than one actually.

That is an awfully good target.  I would be hesitant to put that many boots in that small a space.  It also makes for an enticing logistical tail target.  the RA may suck. but even they could do some damage there.

I think the plan is to let one drive onto the Kerch bridge and watch it collapse from the weight.

T34/85 has a crew of 5, T-72 has a crew of 3, and the technology difference in optics probably wouldn't have been that different. 
CMCW for many cases is modern weapons (ATGMs, etcs) with WW2-era optics (mk.1 eyeball and binoculars).

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.

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.

Thank you for sharing, it's an interesting video, we have witnessed the history.
I saw the uploader mention that this is the second known incident of Russian forces surrendering to a drone, but it should be the first documented case of humans surrendering to a drone.
This surrendering appears to be low efficiency. Perhaps in the future, we might witness each squadron of drones with one drone assign to a special task, carrying a loudspeaker, communicating with the Russian forces below?

The comparison with ww2 is interesting. I had some similar experience in that T-62 have issues hitting targets at 1000-1500m (and preferring HEAT over APFSDS) while German ww2 tanks performing better at such ranges. Even got a kill with the Jagdtiger at 2200m.
 

Yes, tanks have very narrow fields of vision, which means that the closer they are to something the less likely they are to see it. Remember, you're essentially looking at things through letterbox-sized periscopes or viewports, and in the case of the gunner through a straw.
To overcome this, they should be used en-masse where possible.
Western doctrine is to fight with the commander at least partially turned-out. Soviet doctrine was to fight turned-in and en-masse.

Thank you for sharing, it's an interesting video, we have witnessed the history.
I saw the uploader mention that this is the second known incident of Russian forces surrendering to a drone, but it should be the first documented case of humans surrendering to a drone.
This surrendering appears to be low efficiency. Perhaps in the future, we might witness each squadron of drones with one drone assign to a special task, carrying a loudspeaker, communicating with the Russian forces below?

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.