Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

antaress73

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    891

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by antaress73

    Unofficial Screenshots & Videos Thread

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    On 16/01/2017 at 0:33 AM, exsonic01 said:

     

    Friendly match with friend of mine. He surrendered after that back-to-back homerun. 

    Exploding an Abrams with a front turret penetration snapshot and then surprise another wow. Where did the front turret shot penetrate ? Turret ring or the area just around the gun mantlet where There is no DU armor ? 

    0

    Family update ?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    29 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

    Last I heard the XM-25 wasn't cancelled, it was going back to receive tweaks and such based on combat experience after extensive field testing in Afghanistan. 

    That would be very cool to have added in CMBS, if nothing more than to increase the variety of tanks the Russians get. The Soviets fielded a ton of tank variants, but in CMBS we only have two variants. Not doubting that this is accurate to current Russian TO&E, it just feels weird to me. 

    Okay so XM-25 not cancelled

    0

    Family update ?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    Steve once said they would also make family upgrades, meaning new equipement but without a new module coming out. Any news  on this ?

    WHat I would like to see;

     

    RUssia:

    T72B3M with commander`s panoramic sight. 32 (probably more) were delivered to the Russian armed forces in 2016

    https://sputniknews.com/military/201603191036592096-russia-t-72-upgrade/

    T-90M (domestic version of T-90MS , close to T-90AM but with better fire control and additional armor) 

    http://defence-blog.com/army/russia-unveils-new-t-90m-proryv-3-main-battle-tank.html

    Tigr with Kornet-EM 

    More scope equipped russian troops per squad.

    Glonass (GPS) rounds for Russian Arty 

    http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/173267/russia-claims-its-gps_guided-artillery-rounds-cost-$1,000.html

    Koalitsiya-SV

     

    USA:

    M1A2 abrams without ERA and LWR

    M1A1SA (national guard)

    Bradley without LWR

     

    there is more to upgrade on the Russian side since the US already has all the future cool toys (including the cancelled one like the XM-25)

     

     

     

     

    0

    Giving hull down a spin

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Lethaface said:

    My problem was that my T-72s stopped with LOS but without LOF to the target (in this case bradley). So, any move order other than hulldown (or hunt) would probably have worked better. Still need some more learning with it ;)

    I have trouble picturing that.. seems like the interface lost you a tank

    0

    objective Delta no spoiler

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    On 13/12/2016 at 9:47 PM, gnarly said:

    Gravedigging this thread, but I'd rather post in an on-topic one, then start a new one.

     

     

    --- SPOILERS ----

    Played this for the first time a few days ago, my first real exposure to enemy CAS (want to 'learn' it before incorporating it into PBEMs. Currently I house-rule it out, as it seems far too luck orientated). Had the ground war totally in hand (javs/arty precision strikes and Apache strikes on enemy armour), but lost all but two vehicles to CAS, as they were blithely parked out in the open. Stinger team missed with both shots.

    Touched all objectives (barring the exit) and got a minor defeat. Fair enough.

     

    Reloaded the save before enemy CAS started, and parked everything deep in the treelines. This time Stinger team took down enemy chopper (Hind? I think the Russkies only get one, as I had no more enemy heli attacked, only fast air?) from exactly the same spot (hence my continuing view that the airwar in CM is more luck than anything else, which can lead to very frustrating PBEM games).

    As before, touched all objs except exit, this time lost only (?) 3 Strykers to CAS jets (they were all buried in the woods, so clearly such camo is only partially effective. Interestingly it included both MGS's, bigger profiles?).  This time a draw (400 points each).

    FYI, I primarily took the left hand valley/route, then orientated from the mosque down towards the police compound/barracks.

     

    My comments/questions:

     

    1/. What is the point of the exit objective in this mission? I don't think it is worth any points?  (i reloaded my last save again, and exited a few vehicles of map, with no change in points, and the briefing lists no points for this). 

    2/. The 400 point US obj of minimizing casualties is rather harsh IMO given the incredible vagaries/luck component of enemy CAS (as illustrated above). As discussed previously, more weighting of the Police Compound and other objectives points, and or reduction of the US casualty objective (say 200) would feel more balanced.

     

    You can open up the scenario in the editor and change them. 

     

    0

    Artillery is underpowered against vehicles

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted · Edited by antaress73

    Arty being more lethal in CMBS would indeed make alternate fighting positions and shoot and scoot a must though the maps are fairly small for such tactics. Directs hits should be rare but even near misses or overhead airbursts would be dangerous since you would lose some sub-systems that makes an MBT such a threat on the modern battlefield. Much more so than in WWII.

    0

    Artillery is underpowered against vehicles

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted · Edited by antaress73

    1 hour ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

    What's with you and trying to find "The great equalizer" for the Russians?  It's like every other post you've made is how some US thing isn't really as powerful as it seems, or some Russian thing will explode all the Americans.  

    Re: Direct hits in general

    Artillery has been problematic historically simply because the concentration of fires to achieve effects has been prohibitive against armor.  Or looking to what field artillery considers effective "destructive" effects, it's something like a 20% kill rate.  Which is still unfortunate, but it provides a historical context to why artillery has a sort of "yes it kills/no it doesn't" dynamic, when artillery hits it certainly can be lethal.  But again conventionally employed each conventional shell only carries a small percentage of a "kill."  

    What's changed, and changed without a minor conflict ala 6 Days War/Persian Gulf 1991 to really illustrate how much it's really going to do is target acquisition is more precise, and the ability to drop rounds on top of targets has increased.  While the capabilities to find targets with drones/drop guided rounds on targets has been demonstrated, it's been done in highly permissive environments (or Russia's artillery operating against the Ukraine has done so in virtual safety against an enemy with no real electronic warfare capabilities, US precision fires has been blowing up dudes with beards and AKs for the last 15 years).  

    So in an environment in which drones are making it 200 meters from the launch point before having their receivers burned out, or pretty much anyone's signals from space are highly suspect, it might be very much the exception than the rule to put rounds on top of a target rapidly.

    Also more specifically to the Russians, as discussed elsewhere on this forum, only a fairly small part of the overall force is modern/especially well trained.  It'd be interesting to see how much of what CMBS is the exception vs the rule for Russian performance.  

    In any event I'd contend if artillery was more lethal in CMBS it'd encourage using the sort of shoot and scoot, multiple firing position tactics that tankers use anyway.  One of the great advantages of armor is that it's not as adversely affected by being in the "kill" area for artillery, and displacing under fire is something quite doable (and indeed, why defensive positions are supposed to have alternate positions).  

    As far as the actual effects of a direct hit from an artillery round on a tank, again, it's not an especially common historical event.  I think a lot would depend on the fuzing, where the round hit, etc etc.  

    I'm talking about in the game panzersaurkrautwerfer. I like playing the Russians, this is probably because most people like to play the US and I like the challenge. Nothing personal against you or americans in general. I focus on the russian side since I play them more. When I play the US I like to play infantry-centric battles. Here you go, another reason to hate me ;) I have nothing against your favorite toy either, the Abrams but blowing them up in the game is satisfying becauss they are indeed fantastic machines ;)

    As for real life, A war with Russia would be bloody for all sides and I have no wish to see this happening. Both sides would suffer immensely and both sides have assets that can blow up/neutralize each other. It would be a traumatizing event for all, even if NATO ultimately wins.

    0

    Artillery is underpowered against vehicles

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted · Edited by antaress73

    So artillery will Kill APCS and IFVs and severely degrade or mission Kill MBTs even with near misses and airbursts. If battlefront would model this in the game I guess artillery would be the dominant arm on the battlefield and battles would be fought between the depleted and severely degraded survivors of arty barrages. Also gives the attacker a strong advantage since its easier to hit defenders with arty. Guess Russia would have a great equalizer or worst right there.

    Would that make for a fun game ? In a modern setting with superb detection and  acquisition (drones.. radars..thermals) methods and extremely accurate arty (even with dumbs shells) thanks to glonass, GPS and computer. .probably not. 

    WWII is another matter since arty takes longer.. less radios to call it, less flexible and far less accurate so it would be less dominant. Splinter tech is probably less advanced too and less able to penetrate .

    0
×
×
  • Create New...