russwg1970

A damn good day by Sergeant Wilbur in his M1A2 in the First mission of the US campaign!

pnzrldr (and BFC),
 
I have some questions for you regarding targeting priority for the BRM-3K and the two BSR/FD systems reported above and known as Lynx and Leopard, together with what I believe is a solid argument for removing the present range strictures on such RSTA systems. Apparently, under guise of an argument that operating at full power would get it killed by NATO air, the BRM-3K's BSR/FDR has been greatly reduced in terms of ERP (Effective Radiated Power, what actually gets sent from the radar antenna), considerably reducing its range and maybe more. Higher ERP goes directly, after all, to the critical S/N (Signal to Noise) ratio which is at the heart of the ability to separate a target from the radar background to begin with.  My argument is that the better way to operate would be at full power, but only coming out of dummy load briefly. The object is to secure a series of snapshots for SA, but to only radiate continuously as needed, such as when monitoring a fire strike on a target for purposes of adjustment or damage assessment. I'd like to raise some issues regarding the core arguments used to substantially defang the BRM-3K and, presumably, other such platforms whether vehicular or static.
 
Challenged Premise
 
The premise is that NATO air can "hear" the BSR/FDR and localize it well enough to permit prompt attack. I seriously doubt this to be correct, not least because RWRs are programmed to recognize SAM and ADA threats, which exist aplenty, not BSR/FDRs which pose no direct threat to the aircraft. Since so far I lack the operating freqs of the BRM-3K's radar, I can't say whether it's even in the freq range of radars the RWR would recognize in the first place. Based on prior knowledge of earlier systems, am strongly inclined to doubt the RWRs would even notice the emission.
 
What I might deem a technically credible argument is that the much more capable intercept equipment of the various dedicated SEAD/DEAD platforms, if it knew what to look for, and had the necessary spectral coverage, could potentially find the BRM-3K via its BSR emissions. But how likely is that? Not very. The Wild Weasel and such are dedicated intimidators and killers of SAM sites/launch vehicles and ADA sites/vehicles, of which there are far too many. In my informed view as someone who's read the relevant F-4G WW docs and had the chance to be briefed about the WW by a former top USAF WW pilot (who unprecedentedly was so much in demand the Air Force let him come back after he tried military aerospace and didn't like it), who was in my department, there was zero mention of any use of the F-4G for anything other than SEAD/DEAD.
 
If the above fairly states the military-technical issues correctly, then at the very least, most of the argument for defanging the BRM-3K goes away. Why not all? This is where pnzrldr comes in. The people who likely would be interested in the radar emissions from the BRM-3K would be the ground force commanders for the Army and Marines. I know jammers are already high priority targets, but what about the BRM-3K, and the bugaboo Lynx and Leopard systems described above, to name but two others? How big a threat are they perceived to be, if at all, and can you say anything about such systems being on the commanders' "this needs killing" list? Since there are only a few such vehicles to begin with, and each apparently supports an artillery battalion, it seems to me that removing the owning artillery battalion's best means of observing the battlefield, finding targets (including camouflaged ones), directing and adjusting fire, to including lasing for Krasnopol and such, would make such systems a fairly high collection priority and subsequent target. Is this, in fact, true? If so, I'd expect artillery fire to be the primary problem remover, with armed scout choppers or attack helos as the fallback position, particularly if there's a strong CB threat.  
 
Summing Up
 
I believe there's a sound case to be made for restoring full capabilities to the BRM-3K and any other such systems. It's bad enough that systems with extendable active sensors and weapons can't simply expose those while remaining defiladed, as a result of a maddening game engine limitation, but to compound the damage by cutting active sensor range seems both unfounded and unfair. If the argument is survival vs NATO FW air, then I think it's an argument highly porous at best. In my estimation, after that it comes down to the Army/Marines side of things. There I do believe the strong potential for localization and targeting exists, but what combat activity doesn't entail risk? I believe it should be up to the owning player to decide how best to use such systems as the BRM-3K. The Russians are no dummies when it comes to operating emitters in the face of counterfire, and you can presume they weigh the cost/benefit ratio very closely.  But does it make any sense to spend a boatload of money on radar, for a full-on modern war, that can detect, recognize and target items of combat interest: armor, trucks, personnel--at considerable ranges and not plan to use it in combat? Additionally, while this radar issue may not matter much on a small map, it's possible to envision situations where it could be a big deal indeed. How about the steppe? As the radar horizon calculator shows, if we set the BSR antenna height as 1 meter (awfully low since it's on top of a vehicle) and the searched for target at 3 meters tall, the BSR has a radar horizon of just over 11 km, more than enough to fully utilize its design range. Here's the radar horizon calculator HORCALC. I invite anyone interested to run the numbers. I sincerely believe BFC needs to revisit this matter ASAP, possibly fixing it in the first patch, if possible.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

ikalugin,
 
BFC itself has pronounced on this, and map size isn't the issue. It's where LOS is computed from, and the game's  not set up to deal with eyes, if you will, which aren't attached to the vehicle proper. Restated, you can draw LOS from the unbuttoned TC's eye to the target,  yet have the gunner still unable to see the target because the DF gunsight in the gun mantlet is still masked, meaning the cannon is also masked. This drives players crazy. "Why can I spot, but the gunner doesn't have LOS, so I can't shoot?" Back comes the explanation I've given you. Unlike WW II, in which very few vehicles ran their primary weapons from the roof, this is now fairly common, as seen in the Abrams, where all the sights, day and FLIR, except for the gunner's backup DF sight in the mantlet, also used for checking gun clearance over terrain, are on the roof. This is all well and good, except that the cannon is well below the roof sights! Here's what the 1.06 patch for CMSF said.
 
--- Citer ---CMSF v1.06 FEATURES

LINE OF SIGHT (LOS) & SPOTTING

• Enhanced LOS system takes into account the dynamically changing
heights of soldiers in different stances, and vehicles of varying
heights and the height of their crew positions and attached weapons.

This means things like MGs and ATGM launchers attached directly to the tank, when appropriately crewed, do generate LOS if other conditions so allow. The engine, which is, for this game's purposes, operating like CMSF's on steroids,  still has this fundamental limitation. Since I haven't played it myself, I don't know how Bradley ATGM launchers are treated, but I'm pretty sure the elevated TOW launcher and a big chunk of the Bradley have to be out of defilade, for we know this to be true of Krizantema in CMBS.
 
Thus, since LOS is generated as I described, the code apparently doesn't exist yet to permit sensors being used and weapons being launched from elevations which exceed those of the highest eyeball attached to the tank. Am no programmer, but I think it's reasonable to assert BFC needs to find a way to put various eyeballs and weapons in positions the current code simply was never designed, I believe, to deal with. When I found out that a well identified problem with such issues in even the latest form of CMSF still had not been addressed in CMBS, I was most unhappy and sounded off. Carefully and appropriately, as did many others. Frankly, my reaction was essentially, "I can't believe they didn't specifically address this in CMBS's design! After all, it's a known issue from CMSF, one people have been pretty vocal about." Weapons that pop up to fire and have the sights on the part which elevates, go at least as far back as the Buffington-Crozier disappearing gun mount, (invented in 1880) seen below circa 1900. The gun is completely defiladed until it clears the rampart, the target is directly sighted once the gun is fully up, the gun fires, and the recoil forces drive the gun back completely down below the parapet and close to the ground for reloading. Additional checking reveals the earliest disappearing gun design dates to 1860.




The US did tests in the 1970s of something like the disappearing gun, using a popup high velocity 75 mm ARES cannon mounted on a M551 Sheridan hull. You will note in this US Army official pic the sensors which operate at the same elevation as the gun. Though I wasn't able to link to another Army pic of the ELKE (ELevated Kinetic Energy), it's on the second link's page and neatly shows the tactical advantage the popup weapon mount confers. The gun, with its attendant remote from the testbed vehicle sights (apparently now on other side) is not in defilade, while the vehicle proper is, evidently on a reversed slope at that.   
I fervently hope BFC will find a way to fix the issue I've detailed and soon. CMBS proves quite convincingly that exposure = detection = kaboom. But we're not in WW II, where at 1500 meter range, on average it takes 17 rounds to get a hit. Now, it's one round. The partial exposure of the vehicle for basic LOS calculation from the shooting at it end is driven, I believe, by looking at the center of mass of the sought AFV or vehicle, not the center of mass of the exposed portion only. Or I could have this all wrong, but from what I can remember that's how it works. Certainly that's true when shooting, for the aimpoint on the target is known to be Center of Mass and has been so stated by BFC.
 
It all comes down to the current grim reality that a bunch of AFVs and softskins, which should be able to take advantage of their observe and/or fight from full platform defilade, can't. This has the effect of inflating overall losses at the end and causing wholly unnecessary rapid degradation during the game of a unit''s military potential because shots which could've otherwise been taken at the enemy and inflicted losses, can't be taken because the friendly firing unit died earlier because it was unnecessarily exposed to fire. 
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Marwek77,
 
Were I in your shoes, I would not run the BRM-3K around with tanks. Rather, I'd try to find it a series of protected locations from which it could observe the terrain to find enemy troops, vehicles and camouflaged positions via comprehensive sensors, which include the ability to establish target position to 20 meters, more than adequate for artillery fire. This thing is a super spotter and is typically tied to an artillery battalion to the rear. Here is the list of its capabilities. And just look at the BRM-3K sensor suite.
 
(Fair Use)
 
"Equipment installed to enable the vehicle to carry out its specialised reconnaissance role includes the mast-mounted 1RL-133-1 battlefield surveillance radar, which can be retracted into the vehicle when not operating; the 1PN71 thermal night observation device; the 1PN61 night observation device; and the ID14 periscopic laser range-finder.
The electro-optical devices are mounted on either side of the turret and, when not being used, the optics are covered by a hinged shutter that opens to the left.
 
The 1D14 periscopic laser range-finder has a magnification of x 7.3 and x 18 and a maximum range of 25,000 m. This laser is mounted on a turntable and can be used by the vehicle commander for reconnaissance purposes with an arc of 60° regardless of the position of the turret.
 
The 1PN61 active pulse night vision device with laser illuminator has a magnification of x 7 and a range of 1,500 m in the passive mode and 3,000 m in the active mode. This is mounted externally on the right side of the turret.
 
The 1PN71 thermal observation device operates in the 8 to 14 |im waveband and has a magnification of x 3.7 and x 11.5 and maximum target identification range is 3,000 m. This is mounted externally on the left side of the turret.
 
The 1RL-133-1 radar detects vehicles out to a range of 8,000 to 10,000 m and people out to a range of 4,000 m, with the actual ranges depending on the terrain. The radar can be elevated to a height of 1 m and traversed 240° left and right regardless of the turret position.
 
It is also fitted with the latest TNA-4-6 navigation device, 1T129 coordinator and the 1G50 gyrocompass to enable it to determine quickly its own position on the battlefield."
 
Given the above, I think it's profoundly ill advised to go gadding about the battlefield with a brace of T-90s for company. This thing's sensors probably put its cost, not to mention the highly trained crew needed, at several T-90 equivalents.
 
stikkypixie,
 
In light of what I now know about the BRM-3K,  I believe it's significantly more capable than a B-FIST, not least because it also has a BSR fitted.
 
gunnersman,
 
Though I seriously doubt it's modeled, the BRM-3K is set up for remote spotters from 500 meters by wire and  up to 6 km by portable UHF radio.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

All those ideas except the 1v1 campaign are bad.
 
However, focusing on what would be the best thing to add:
More forces for the nations already in game are numba 1 in my opinion. US marines and Ukraine and Russian VDV. Orthodox marines would be nice too, ukraine marines too but less so given their very small numbers.
More NATO countries would be Nice, specifially POLAND LAND OF THE STRONG/FREE/BRAVE THE HEROES OF EUROPE, Germany, and Canada are muh most wanted NATO boys.
Also, CMBS vehicle pack 1 T-80UD for Russia and Ukraine, T64bm1 Bulat or whatever the hell that new t-64 they are producing is called for ukraine, BTR-80 baseline (both ukraine and Orthodox empire use this wagon) possible but very speculative features would be T-14 and M1a3 both of which should in theory be shown to the public in this year. Also vehicle pack could include older tanks like the old t-72b which still makes up alot of Russian armor. Older US tanks would be nice if unrealistic, if for no other reason than variety. IE a US tank that isn't the FInal Solution to the T-90 question, but on tracks. 
 
In short, add the Army Rangers.

In a small attack QB (armor) I've been fighting as Blue, my vehicles are assaulting downhill through fairly densely-forested farmland.  My Bradley has spotted a Russian T-90 (I think...can anyone confirm?) but I did not want the M3 to chase him down the reverse slope so I left him in defilade with area-fire orders, hoping to push the tank back.  There was no way I could advance my forces down the road (by far the best available axis) without finding and killing that tank and there was no available spotter LOS for a precision round, so I had to risk a short-range tank vs tank encounter.  I sent my M1 down the road with hunt orders but made sure I gave him a target arc ninety degrees to the left of his direction of travel before he got to the opening between the buildings.  As my little video establishes, the M1's turret swivel in anticipation of finding the tank was what gave him the first shot and may have saved his life, as the T-90 had heard him come down the lane and was in the process of adjusting fast from his orientation on the Bradley.  I reckon he was about half a second from getting a shot off of his own.  A minor skirmish, I know, but really quite satisfying, as I have two victory zones out of three and with at least two Red tanks gone, I have to feel I have the tactical edge...as long as I do not do anything stupid or impulsive.  
 
What a great game this is, an evolutionary leap-frog over SF, in my opinion.