Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

antaress73

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    891

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by antaress73

  1. antaress73
    1st platoon having a really bad day Yours truly commanding 4 T-90AM veteran against 4 M1A2 Abrams crack and veteran Hero of Russia ! I want to go home ! The T-90AM is no slouch !
  2. antaress73
    relikt on the turret is much more effective at stopping the abrams 's sabot shots, so hull down is very advisable .. the hull is s***
  3. antaress73
    Use covered approach .. Use precision arty on them when possible to degrade their external systems and optics or get the rare kill. Get close and come from two directions at once. Use infantry or recon troops with the tablets to recon (more discreet) .. Get spots on those Abrams, let the info disseminate through radio / constellation to your tanks before making a move. Will help spotting significantly. In defense, use higher ground, will negate armor sloping somewhat and give you top turret, top Hull hits even frontally if unlucky. Otherwise, double ambush (kill zones from two directions) with flank shots. If you have air assets or attack choppers, use them solely on the Abrams
  4. antaress73
    MGs must be used from higher ground or an elevated position to achieve effective fire lanes or kill zones
  5. antaress73
    Panzer: like I said .. I have no complaints using russian tanks against US forces controlled by the A.I and i know what to expect. The gap is smaller than the Sherman or T-34-76 vs tiger one
  6. antaress73
    Just to be clear: I am in no way saying that there is a HUGE bias towards the US view of things, just that its normal and understandable from a sociological point of view if there is SOME bias favorable to the US or detrimental to the russians since BF is staffed by humans and that it is mostly an American company. That's it. The fact that the bias is so subtle as to be a debatable issue is a testament to their integrity and commitment to realism .
  7. antaress73
    T-72B3 is pretty good frontally against ukranian weapons when Hull down ,the front Hull armor is inadequate even with kontakt-5 on the T-90A and T-72B3
  8. antaress73
    Maybe because they are less glaring and they affect play balance less in Human vs human combat
  9. antaress73
    I totally agree, when used correctly.
  10. antaress73
    I dont think that they overestimate American equipment btw. They have first hand accounts from actual military people to base their guesses on. For the russian equipment thats another story. Even some bugs seem to penalize russian equipment more (not voluntary) like the ERA bug (fixed) and the commander of BMPs not communicating with the gunner bug (affects russians more and not fixed yet.) You cant really escape politics when making a game that is depicting a potential actual conflict and secrecy and disinformation is rampant.
  11. antaress73
    We dont even know what kind of data the game uses. Does it take into account that the T-90AM CITV has the same TI than the gunner.. What are the ways the game takes into account sensor capabilities and which estimation of performance is used ? We dont. There is no way to know if its realistic or not, one way or the other. Russian soldiers are actually told not to discuss their training standards and its enforced . They did mention on the english russia site that they now regularly do live fire exercices . They are not very forthcoming So we have to guess even on that so imagine technical caracteristics of in service equipment.So much we dont know and so much estimation is done that some bias is unavoidable. People are still arguing if russian optics in late world war II were pieces of crap for god's sake. Battlefront caters to a western audience so its normal that if some bias is present, it will favor NATO because its human nature and Battlefront is a business. They wont aleniate their customer base when they have the luxury of favoring a pro American bias over giving the benefit of the doubt to russian capabilities when making educated guesses. As long as the game isnt too lopsided and some level of realism is achieved, ie: America is probably superior in many fields but not overwelmingly so to keep the game balanced.
  12. antaress73
    what he means is that with thermals the russian tank is more limited regarding range. He's probably using the day sight or IR (at night) when shooting missiles at long-range. He could detect a temp difference at 4-5 km without knowing what it is and switch to IR or daysight to identify and engage it with the ATGM.
  13. antaress73
    switching sights would reasonably require 1 second of time, this is one second too many when dealings with M1A2s because their gunners dont need to
  14. antaress73
    while the Us tanker would spot it on thermals... identify it and engage it .. a faster time of 1-2 seconds is likely at range then ... seems reasonable and you see that in the game. I've had some success at ranges of 2-3 kms in the valley of death but my tanks were outnumbering the US by a factor of 4 .. even then the exchange ratio was 11-5 for the Abrams. Not something the Russians could substain for long. Like I mentioned earlier, my results at close range are much better (even when just considering who spots first) because then the russian commander sees the M1 .. tells the gunner who engage and shoot it without switching optics. Or the gunner himself detects it and snap engage. Less hesitation and delay because the optics are at that range more or less on equal ground.
  15. antaress73
    so a russian tanker would spot a "glowing blob" on his thermal at 2.5km... switch to daysight with zoom to identify and engage it ?
  16. antaress73
    Did a quickbattle last night. A fight At close range, 300 meters and less... (Thank you terrain !) 7 T-90As veteran but -1 officer against a platoon of M1A2s with regular crews but +1 officers. The T-90As were attacking and they spotted the M1s that were stationary in some tree lines first most of the time and destroyed them.. Even with partial penetrations on the thick right and left front turret slabs (slightly off-center so the angle was close to 90 degrees). Result: 4 to 3 for the T-90As. So get close !
  17. antaress73
    You die before getting a positive contact
  18. antaress73
    Thé Catherine FC is not able to detect and distinguish an M1a2 at 2.5 km ? But i agree it takes more time anyway and a 1 second difference is enough.
  19. antaress73
    Which is feasible in european terrain
  20. antaress73
    Its like standoff boxing against an opponent who has twice the reach, a losing proposition.
  21. antaress73
    I havent seen that kind of stuff in my games anyway.. Dont fight the Abrams with russian tanks at long range ! Ambush them at close range when on defense and use covered approachs and precision arty to degrade them before engaging them at closer range and using swarm tactics. Use the kryz for long-range. Hull down and 2.5km + is essential for success with them.
  22. antaress73
    Even using the daysight ? It has 16x magnification so at 2.5km that should be enough. Russian thermals are not meant to be used much during the day anyway. And that panoramic sight on the AM should give the commander as much spotting capabilities if not better than being unbuttonned with binocs.
  23. antaress73
    I was thinking.. It could be a good way of showcasing stuff like the krysanthema in a scenario
  24. antaress73
    No amount of ammo preservation rationale would make me ground humans to pulp with a tank. I want my nights to be reasonably peaceful once the war is over.
  25. antaress73
    not all missile systems are out of the fight for the russians.. krysanthema, even without the possibility to engage abrams while completely out of LOS in the game, is very effective and would be even more in real life. THe Kornet and even AT-13 metis can punch through the side turret armor of an M1A2 Abrams even when protected by ERA (not the hull though, double ERA protection there). FIring at Abrams from elevated positions OR higher ground can hit the top turret and top hull which kills the tank (happened many times) I've knocked out quite a few Abrams with the RPG-7VR too. Not to mention helicopter missiles, SMERCH delivered bomblets, Iskander delivered bomblets (tank park attacks). There also arent hordes of them to field in a war in Ukraine ... current programs at upgrading to SEP V2 and SEP puts the #s at 1100 tanks. You wont deploy them all in Ukraine, America has other engagements and other adversaries may try to profit from the situation. And right now, it doesnt sports ERA nor APS. How many systems could be available at short notice from the Israeli firm that build them ? ALso the russians could be fielding in great #s the RPG-28 (1000mm+ penetration behind ERA) and RPG-27s and they still have a lot of men of military age to throw at any potential adversaries (140 millions people is not a small country, despite declining demographics). When push come to shoves, don't underestimate the russian capability for sacrifice even in these modern times. A capable RPG behind every bush is not something to underestimate. And the Donbass people are really convinced now they would be genocided if beaten in war, so motivation for them would be high and they would be a formidable supplement to the Russian regular army.
×
×
  • Create New...