antaress73
-
Posts
891 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by antaress73
-
-
On 24/08/2017 at 6:02 AM, Marwek77 aka Red Reporter said:
I want that BTR-87 for my pixeltruppen right now!
I want the boomerang . Big improvement and way more survivable. Can probably withstand the 40mm heat grenades of US infantry at least.
-
Thanks. So basically its the T-90AM in the game. Good guess Battlefront !
10 hours ago, IMHO said:It's 2A46M-something - 2A82 is much longer in barrel. They're quite distinguishable when T-90s stands next to Armatas. T-90's 360 deg "beauty parade" footage is from good ol' days when UVZ was pitching T-90s upgrade to the MoD. Back then it was a sole "cat walk" piece.
-
Looking at the video, when they install back the turret it seems to have a shiny and unpainted new gun compared to the T-90A we briefly see untouched at 0:08. So good chance its the new 2A82 that has way more muzzle velocity and can fire the greatly improved ammo Vacuum-1-2. Question is, at 900mm long , can they fit the needed autoloader in that turret ? Probably not. But still, the increased muzzle velocity if the gun could increase the penetration ability of the svinets-2 round by a fair margin.
-
This interesting video is showing T-90As being modernized to T-90M standards. So it has started. I Do not know if its the version Battlefront introduced in the game or the better one announced in the media which sports the new gun from the Armata and can fire the new Grifel round which is claimed to penetrate 900-1000mm at 2000 meters.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=680228372164921&id=428343390686755
-
Kornet crews are trained to aim over a Target and AT the last minute to move the beam on the Target .. so the Target is not tipped off by the laser. Something we dont see in CMBS . This and tank crews not lasing targets at under 1500 meters since its point and shoot with 100% probability at that range .
-
On 13/05/2017 at 9:59 AM, Armorgunner said:
you are right about that. It´s confusing with all different modells of the T-72 now. Is it the T-72B3M or the T-72B3 (obr. 2016g). which 150 are to be deployed?
Its the B3M ... With the panoramic thermal for the commander and full Relikt coverage . They are supposed to be for the new organic tank compagnies of VDV. So you should see T-72B3-M with commander's panoramic thermal sight and full Relikt ERA ( including the turret) in a future VDV module for CMBS unless Battlefront believes otherwise.
The ones you saw at the parade represent the new standard for all current and future t-72b3 modifications which are still ongoing. Relikt on the sides and old K-5 on the front of the turret. They are stand-ins until the units get reequipped with Armatas starting in 2020.
The VDV will keep their T-72B3-Ms or B4s. That's why I believe the VDV requested the more capable upgrade.
-
Those are not T-72B3M. They are T-72B3 MOD 2016. The ones with the panoramic thermal sight for the commander are B3Ms or B4s. They are to be deployed but only 150 of them for now.
-
2 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
Easy.
The T-90AM alone has gone through several weapons "changes" on paper (2A46M, 2A46M+, 2A82), several different layers of protection (K-5, Relikt, Afganit etc) all depending on the press release. You only need to look at Antaraess73's posting history to see how many times a "Definite" T-90AM was announced as heading into production.
Then toss on the T-90M for giggles and you've got enough "models" to make up a half dozen easily.
But as the case is I was using a common idiom for a unfixed number beyond one or two.
Russia's concept of warfare is inherently linked to the concept of disinformation and less than truthy statements. Basically the point of having many tanks "in production" is that the information effect targets the following audiences:
1. For domestic consumption, or not especially savvy external observers it gives this image of a rapidly gaining strength armored foe. The fact that deadlines are never met is simply overridden with a newer more dramatic announcement (the T-90AM shift to T-90M is a good example of that), which basically continues to give an image of improvement despite stagnation or very little practical improvement.
2. For external observers of limited collection means, it creates some doubt to what Russia's actual course of action is. By Russian information, the Armata is happening as we speak, the T-90 is being massively modernized across the entire fleet, the T-72 is going to be totally upgraded, there's a plan to make the T-80 modern etc, etc, etc. Without an inside view, which is something Russia obviously denies or controls access to extensively, it's difficult if you are say, not a major intelligence agency, to reliably read Russian intentions in regards to military production.
3. Even for external observers with reasonable collection means, it still plants doubts and forces those collection assets to basically spread around more than needed. While obviously fake programs get discarded, instead of simply being able to dogpile collection assets on tank progam A because we know A is the next tank, there's still a need to make sure B isn't also being done, confirm C isn't happening, and that D isn't the low budget thing Russia is actually doing because A's ambitious design just won't stop having catastrophic issues with the sensor system, and B relies on systems that are not working on A.
Given the role of the Russian media, and various content generation sources in this information warfare, it's right to doubt pretty much anything that cannot be reliably sourced or verified from external sources when referring to content releases from Russian or Russian managed sources. Further along that line, some of that content may even prove to be accurate, but it's generated intentionally in a way to be Texas Sharpshooters, that "correct" data is intentionally released amid an ocean of "incorrect" data with the intention of making the correct data appear equally wrong, or at a future date to build credibility of the content generator while ignoring the times it stated blatant falsehoods.
Which again gets to the Russian concept of warfare as it is, the conventional aspect is entirely secondary to the information-political spectrum of options, and is only to be employed once the "battlefield" as been adequately prepared to allow for a conventional effort to succeed (dismembering NATO by fostering nationalist-populist political movements, fostering pro-Russian seperatists etc).
In this regard the Russians are ahead in a meaningful way because their information generation is not bound by law or truth, and given the historical basis of strength in disinformation and deception is operating at a point that is rapidly becoming something that will need to be dealt with, although that means of warfare has not been without its own setbacks to Russia itself.Maybe they Will be fielded in small numbers and you are right. CMBS is not wwii and historical accuracy and OOB realism is less important. Its what if. I would like these versions available in a family extension pack with educated guesses as to capabilities. Much like the Abrams has LWR , ERA and Trophy in the game. I want to explore what added capabilities it would bring the Russians. I dont care much about the real world. On a tactical level they would Make a difference in some part of the Battlefield which is the focus of CMBS.
-
Good source but some errors . The T-72b3-M or B4's panoramic independent sight for the commander does have its own thermal sight comparable in performance to the SOSNA-U. The panoramic sight's designation is PK-PAN and you can Google it.
-
On 13/02/2017 at 1:44 PM, LUCASWILLEN05 said:
For interest and information only. Not political debate, However, if Russia were to occupy Belarus it could be strategic game changer
http://belarusdigest.com/story/belarus-centre-russia-nato-wargame-simulation-29037
Russia and Belarus are military allies and have a mutual defense pact. Thus Russia has troops and airbases in Belarus since many years.
-
On 01/02/2017 at 9:15 PM, Rinaldi said:
Every example brings counter-example. Islandwala. Adwa, the Christmas Offensive - which is perhaps the most laughable of them all. Things must be brought in context. A well deployed, well led, force with sustainable technological advantages will generally defeat an enemy. But you don't always get the dream-team.
The point being that while the MBT design should always strive towards perfection, this reveals a lot less the fatal flaws in their designs than it does in their deployment. This even goes for the tanks that get their turrets tossed like a discus, is it the T-72M1s fault it gets crushed by an ATGM team or is it the apathetic Syrian officer who put it there? Being a total moron can negate quite a bit of your combat power.
Using infantry to screen tanks Will prevent huge losses to tanks near built up areas (grosnyy style) but you Will still lose some tanks. Losing 10-15 tanks out of a hundred is okay . This is what's happening to the Turks.
Also There is not Much you can do against well hidden infiltrated ATGM teams sniping from 3-4km. You Will lose tanks good Tactics or not. Thats where tech comes in It can prevent normally unavoidable losses some of the Times but it wont save you from bad Tactics or deployment.APS would have saved those tanks and revealed the launcher so it can be destroyed by Return fire.
People want no losses . Thats just not possible against a well-equipped and semi to fully competent enemy.
-
23 hours ago, exsonic01 said:
That was really lucky. The most near miss I've ever experienced in CMBs
that could have been a hard or firepower kill. Lower and it would have been pretty much a gun mount hit and the Kornet has a decent chance against that weak point.
-
You can simulate combat in a Chemical or nuclear environment by making Troops unfit or weakened and making them all Green. That should Do it.
-
1 hour ago, grunt_GI said:
What about the Carl Gustav for US infantry
Yes to Carl Gustav, yes to Avenger Stingers vehicules and also the 30 mm cannon striker.
-
On 25/01/2017 at 10:26 PM, akd said:2 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:
We're also forgetting the laughably tiny amount of "modern" tanks the Russians can field. 400 T-90? Seriously? That number is operationally irrelevant, and in a conventional war they could lose all 400 of those tanks in a single day of combat, especially considering all Western armor that would be arrayed against them is superior in every way.
"But muh armata, but muh 4000km range cruise missiles... etc muh etc"
There's no contest here, and no amount of proposed upgrades in the next few years are going to change that. I'm all for the inclusion of new vehicles into the game, but expecting one of these new vehicles to finally "even the odds against the evil amerikanski" is just as laughable now as it was when the game first came out.
But hey at least these threads are entertaining.
A T-90M as described here would be a very serious threat to an Abrams in the GAME and in a tactical setting. Gee, well employed the actual russian tanks are useful. You guys seem to think i'm talking on strategic level here. That new gun with the new ammo would ensure frontal kills against the Abrams in the game under (let be conservative here) 1500 meters and the Malackit ERA would help the tank survive the first hit more often than relikt. I dont care about Operational numbers or what would happen on a strategic level. I care about the tactical level which is the focus of this game. I'm well aware you guys are so entrenched in your superiority complex that there is no use in arguing what would actually happen in a shooting war.
Gee, looks like nobody reads what I write. Was There a NATO Ground presence on the western border 10 years ago ? No. So no serious impetus to upgrade or introduce new tanks. Things have changed . NATO is now identified as a threat in their doctrine. It wasnt even 2 years ago. So they will upgrade. You actually expect them to do nothing and roll over ?
They wont invade the baltics unless NATO invades Kaliningrad first and that would only be to relieve the enclave. NATO wont invade Kaliningrad so its a moot point. Yes, some people in Russia actually fear that scenario.
My point being that despite a lot of hot air in the last 20 years concerning upgrades and new equipment now the geopolitical situation is completely different and they cannot sit and do nothing like before. Those tanks have a really good chance of seeing service. I'm not convinced the Armata Will be available in interesting numbers in 5-10 years.
Unless you guys just want some russian targets to blow up in single player games so you can reinforce your feeling of national superiority. In that case, boring.
-
3 hours ago, Rinaldi said:
Yes, especially if we are speaking strictly in a relative sense. The history of claimed to actual viz. a viz. the Russians is practically no contest. Stunningly poor argument there. Even if your point had merit, its all Tu quoque to me; we weren't discussing what the US claimed, we're dicussing what the Russian MOD claims.
The majority of these types of posts ultimately boil down to a quest to find a 'peer' to US AFVs so they can then find their way into a video game. A game which has already taken liberities, especially with regards to the Ukranian Army, with the equipment and technology available to all the participants. To paraphrase a certain apostle; "I'll believe it when I see it." This isn't even grasping at straws, its grasping of husks of grain floating in the air.
I can set my watch to these types of threads.
The Russian MOD is often divided over what to do and always has been. In fact, it is not monolitic in his thinking and there is power struggles on the inside about what to do. Even Putin is not the all powerful supervillain you think he is. He must deal with bureaucratic opposition, friction and yes, corruption. So plans change, are being modified to placate a certain faction, compromises are made. It's not : you do as I say or else... He may wish it so, but there were many instances where he was blocked and frustrated on the inside for good reasons or less noble ones (like corruption).
The track record of the US department of defense is better because we live here and speak and read the same language. We read on what happens inside Russia through western media and Russian english news agencies. I've read some stuff in russian (translated, a bitch to read believe me..) and the picture you get is way different.
About finding a near peer threat for the US: Yes.. I admit it. Althought I play the russkies and trounce the US regularly with the actual capabilities present in the game for the russian army. It will Make for a more challenging and fun game for the American player in single player mode (ask Battlefront, its the preferred mode for the majority of players ).
But i'm not pulling that tank out of my ass. There is enough credible evidence to say that the tank will become a reality. Especially considering the "about face" that the Russians are making now that NATO troops are stationed on a permanent basis on their western border (I'm not going to discuss how this is their fault or not). They need top notch equipement in the short term and Armata is a long way off. There wasnt this need before. And they must and will adapt to the PERCEIVED threat. They already are reacting by creating new formations for the western districts.The T-90M thus stand a good chance of existing more or less as described (I dont think they will install Afghanit APS, too expensive, I'm betting they will put the money on the new gun and ammo.)
Also, The T-90MS was never going to be accepted in Russian service. IT was for export. The MOD was waiting for the technologies that were going to come out of the Armata program to upgrade and now with the geopolitical situation it is even more urgent and they were right to Wait. They can now upgrade the T-90A to something that can kill a western tank frontally reliably and have an acceptable chance of surviving a first hit.
-
6 hours ago, akd said:
So if this is all a must, and outlets like Sputnik all reported that MoD would modernize T-72s to this standard before any were produced, how did hundreds of T-72B3s happen?
Also note that if the produced T-72B3Ms have Relikt, it is just a switch of the reactive elements in the Kontact-5 modules (not even sure that is possible), not a complete new ERA package as seen on the T-72B2 "Rogatka," so it seems the pattern continues.
Because they changed their minds.. Relations with the west deteriorated since and now the T-72B3, which was planned in the late 2000s and was considered adequate at the time to fight near abroad enemies is now considered inadequate in the context of the possibility of a shooting war with NATO assets now stationed on Russia's western borders (whatever their intentions... militaries dont deal with intentions but with capabilities) . Thus the additional modernization to a much higher standard because the threat has changed.
The PERCEIVED threat has changed, there is now more impetus to upgrade more thoroughly and the Armata is still à long way off. They need fairly capable tanks and they need them now, not in ten years .The same reasoning goes for the T-90M.
-
1 hour ago, MOS:96B2P said:
Were they actual engineers or infantry armed with breach charges? CMBS has a difference between the two. Breach charges can only be used against walls, buildings etc. Demo charges can also be used against vehicles.
Nope i know the difference.. demo charges / real engineers..
-
as for the Sputnik report about the T-90M... it quotes a military expert with close ties to the MOD Alexei Leonkov who was interviewed for Zvezda TV, which is the military channel run by the Russian ministry of defense.
-
8 minutes ago, akd said:
Yup, and commander's thermal, fully modern FCS, new engine and new ERA were all a must on the modernized T-72.
T-72B3M has relikt, new engine, fully modern FCS and panoramic sight for the commander no ? They already received around 25-50 in service. The first upgrade was badly received and they are trying to correct.
Here's the tank and confirmation that 150 are going to be upgraded
-
13 minutes ago, akd said:
Honestly, Russian press and industry have repeatedly made exaggerated claims. Until an actual order is placed, you can read these reports / press releases (arguably they are really the same thing) as "we really hope the government wants to pay for X, Y, Z.) TuJust go back and read the reports on what the modernized T-72B would be and compare it to what actually resulted.
At least they added the panoramic sight for the commander with thermals on the M version LOL less disastrous. They have a few in service .
The malachit ERA and the new gun are a must for that tank. Afghanit less so. It will probably be dropped to reduce cost.
The Armata program is delayed. So they need toi upgrade existing tanks for the interim.
-
32 minutes ago, akd said:
Yet the T-90M shown by UVZ has none of this...
No new gun ? No Malackit ERA ? No afghanit ? Did you read something on russian or are you just deducting from the picture ? Maybe the tank shown in the picture is a stripped version ?
-
26 minutes ago, JUAN DEAG said:
The Russian English-speaking propaganda mouth piece is not conformation. If it's Al-Jazeera, RT, or whatever other foreign government "news" it's likely 99% bull****.
This has yet to be proven. I wouldn't use the words "successfully" and confirmation".
They wont lie about new equipment and procurement plans. Capabilities sure. The russians announced it on the MOD site but in russian. Do you believe the department of defense in the US when they announce new stuff and procurement plans ? Same thing here.
As for sabot .. they did not say which kind. Read the article (Us source, no propaganda *wink wink*) .Proven would mean combat. They wont model anything for the game if everything needs to be "proven". Even if its only effective 30% of the time, it can still have an effect on survivability. Relikt is moderately effective against the M829A4 in the game. Its still modeled with no proofs, albeit conservatively.
-
I was saying a couple of days ago that the T-90M selected by the Russian army to replace the T-90A (all 400 of them will be upgraded) will use the new 125mm A82 gun from the armata and Malackit ERA (more effective than Relikt against APFDS, Will probably defeat more often the M829A4). It is way superior to the T-90AM in the game. With Vacuum-1 rounds It will punch through 950mm-1000mm or armor at 2000 meters. It will also have the afghanit APS as standard equipment. Afghanit has sucessfully intercepted sabot rounds on tests. Here's the confirmation .
https://sputniknews.com/military/201701211049856690-t-90m-armata-cannon-russia/
Here's the article about afghanit APS:
That tank needs to be in the game. Between afghanit, Malackit ERA and the new gun and ammo, It will give the Russians in the game a near peer to the Abrams .
Armata soon to be in service.
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted · Edited by antaress73
It's only a first batch of 100. This is not the end total . They are going to equip a brigade , learn how to use the new toy and how to integrate it ( write the tactical and operational employment manual) then make a bigger order. Though I would not expect the grand total to exceed 600-700. They can probably build 150-200 a year . These numbers are only for the T-14 MBT version.
The 2300 number probably also included the infantry version T-15 (both the IFV and APC versions , one has autocannon and kornets, the other has 12.7mm only) and the other versions for engineering vehicules, medical, anti-tank missiles vehicule , etc.. This is the grand total for the whole family of vehicles.