antaress73

How about choppers then ?

Javelin can be intercepted by trophy but trophy only has two shots I believe. I played blue on blue and my javelins failed to destroy any Bradley or Abrams. Now that NATO is once again identified as an enemy in the new russian doctrine, wont be long before the russians develop and field a Javelin countering APS . It's all about doctrine (program funding allocations). Their APS was made for low intensity or regional conflicts and countering RPGs and older missiles, not a high tech war with NATO. No near-abroad country had a javelin-like missile so they didnt see the need. Now that has changed. I also expect they will field a Javelinski pretty soon.

I've written boresight range before but its battlesight indeed. So under say 1000 meters the crew should not lase to prevent warning the target, especially russian crews.

Hiding vehicules in Woods doesnt do s*** against 2 SU-25SM, this is the modernized version with all the shiny avionics and FLIR sensors so it can fight in all weather and at night. It destroyed m'y strikers hiding in heavy Woods everytime and my stinger team can only shoot down one (sometimes) in my many attempts at this scenario

tactical air defenses are solely the realm of stingers .. yes.. when the US is fighting alongside the Ukrainians they can have a tunguska which helps a lot.

Just imagine if you didnt have the apaches . they kill 80% of the russian vehicules everytime I play.. BMP-2M with 4 kornets it can fire in salvos to defeat APS and better optics is no slouch.You have 13 on the map plus three T-72s.. plus russian air and artillery (mortars and 152mm). Plus those Russian RObin Hoods with their tandem charge RPGs that can hit a vehicule on the first try at 200 meters LOL

Third time I get my ass handed to me you sadist

I love and hate that scenario .. Kept my force too long in one place as a fire base because "I didnt want to rush in and lose some to RPGs and infantry ambushes"...well.. Russian mortars and 152mm + air attacks killed them all (well almost) instead

I wasnt implying anything gentlemen .. I was just amazed at how powerful a Maverick is. And for that anecdote Mike.. I wasnt attacking you

the penetrations were of the lower side hull for those tanks... (the frontal turret was another episode) protection is very weak there. It went through for both tanks and exited on the other side. One exploded (with four immediate fatalities) and the other caught fire with 2 fatalities and two uninjured crewmen. No powerful sabot has ever penetrated a very vulnerable part of an M1 so we dont know. That episode of the "unable to penetrate our own armor" was in the first gulf war and some put it in doubt. Come on, a silver bullet not getting through the sides ? Or the front turret at an angle like I talked about earlier ? They didnt try very hard. On a sidenote, I've seen a pic of an M1 with a huge hole on those famed front turret slabs from a maverick (they destroyed it so it couldnt fall into Iraqi hands)

Okay... I stand corrected, both sides of the front slabs of the turret are homogenous. My mistake. I got two penetrations on that right side at 600 mettres because of the angle. The T-72B3 was slightly to the side, which means that the russian sabot hit the right turret slab twice at a 90 degrees angle. If you're totally in front of the tank, those slabs are angled from your perspective and you need to punch through much more armor (960mm). That's good design. But the T-72B3's position negated that angle and hit the slab twice... with full penetration each time. I dont know what's the real thickness of those slabs but they must be like 700-750mm when hit at a 90 degree angle so it's realistic. So if you're slightly to the left or to the right of an M1A2, you could penetrate the slabs on the front turret at 1500 meters or more. You now know what to do (maneuver if you can to get that shot angle and use 2-1/3-1 advantage to gain that room for maneuver)

My bad it was the earlier version of the M1 which had less armor on the right side. I stand corrected

They are not homogenous because of optics taking up space on the right slab. Test it un game, the right slab is much easier to penetrate than the left.

Okay that was a fluke.. Lol .. It ended invariably 4-1 in favor of the Abrams all the other times. And optics did play a big role but Relikt works about 15% of the time

Results: 2 dead M1A2 abrams on fire with 6 out of 8 crew members dead. One dead T-90AM on fire with one crewman dead. Relikt stopped a M829A4 sabot (reactive armor hit), at the strongest point of the turret armor, you could see the block missing. M1A2s were destroyed by lower hull hits and one front turret partial penetration (probably weak spot). I was surprised. First time since ERA was working I was putting those two tanks against each other.

Did he give the US tanks a cover arc so they would not shoot back ?

The left side of the turret is 920mm .. Right side much less because of vision equipment but around 750mm against KE. The svinets-2 the russians are using in the game can penetrate around 750mm (some say 780mm) at 2000 meters. Do the math. M829A4 penetrates 880mm at 2000 meters. Still 130mm more than the russian round because of longer length That still leaves the right turret slab of the M1A2 vulnerable to the russian round at under 1500 meters.

My bad, you are right. He may be right but later versions of the T-90 had their base armor upgraded. His numbers are for the first version in the early nineties. Why is Battlefront not releasing the specs they use for modern stuff ? Its not like they use classified info. It's available for WWII titles. I got the UI mod where all the specs for weapons and armor are indicated on the silhouette.

No you are right for KE protection. But 540mm against KE is noy the same as against CE. It's composite armor so it generally adds 100-130mm for soviet composite against CE . so lets say base armor is more like 640-670mm against CE. Which is not much but should protect against the AT-7 and AT-4C.

One word: asymetric spending. You spend big money in systems that are specifically designed for negating a potential and identified enemy's strentghs. So comparing expenditures is not really useful. Not to mention that a large part of that expenditure is for maintaining 350 bases around the world.

I've penetrated the lower side Hull armor of the Abrams with the discarding fin-stabilized sabot 30mm round on the BMP-3M all the time. Many penetrations then knocked out by AT-10 stabber. Not the same round as the vanilla 30mm armor piercing. Much more powerful. But that was in version 1.00.

Thats impressive. All the stars must have been aligned for you Escaping air attacks was a stroke of luck ! But I agree.. rushing too much results in dead soldiers. But I still lost the second time because the clock with extra-time ran out but that's because my men were all whimpering and getting spooked by everything. There was this russian machine gunner who had maybe 4-5 25mm airburst grenades explode over him and he was still shooting while running back and forth. Ratnik body armor and luck can do miracles. Napoleon once said: " I know he's a good and competent general, but is he lucky ?" That hugging the river side could have been costly because there is a lot of LOS to your forces and if they had anti-tank missile teams and even a well placed and hidden T-72 it could have a been a bad night.

************SPOILER ALERT************** I attacked from the left road... tought the little valley surrounded by tree lines would protect me from the bulk of russian forces in the middle and right side (near the river). I did use the javelin, the Apache and precision rounds along with the UAV and eliminated all the enemy vehicules. I splitted the javelins from the sqauds and sent them in the house along the middle road to kill the russian armor. The two MGS strykers were deployed in the tree line in front of the the agricultural field. Worked fine until they got spotted (after doing a good job) and one MGS was eliminated by long-range RPGs and the Javelins by enemy infantry and snipers. I lost nothing to enemy vehicules. All my vehicule losses were long-range RPG shots from Infantry and air attacks. Then my infantry got caught in a russian mortar barrage while establishing a fire base around the crossroad objective close to the police station to support an attack on it and took heavy casualties. Also pot shots from snipers and maybe one BMP-2M managed to kill a few of my infantry before being destroyed the next turn by an Apache. There is not many good positions to establish a supporting firebase. A firebase is also dangerous to establish. 4 strikers were lost to air attacks including a strafing run on a striker (setting it on fire) while a squad was resupplying inside with 25mm grenade for the M25. It got out of the vehicule all yellow and it ran in panic back and forth for 4-5 turns before I could send the lieutenant to calm them them and rally them. They were very useless afterwards because they were broken.(all my infantry was broken after that last air attack and mortar barrage. The stinger was in a good position and shot his two missiles at the SU-25MS without result.

Any luck with that scenario playing as US ? Its an evil one for the US player. I got a tactical defeat and a minor defeat (getting better lol) on the two tries losing all my armor (strykers) and 65% of my men (27 killed 16 wounded 1 missing). At the end of the second try, I tried to take the bridge but despite using fire and maneuver with my surviving infantry they were too broken and tired to keep a steady advance , a single bullet over their heads sending them into panic mode and lot's of " fight ! You cowards" Lol Extra time ended before I could reach the bridge.

540 mm against heat for upper Hull glacis ? That's very weak and if the numbers you dug up for the other russian tanks are as mistaken as this one, no wonder they are so easy to kill. Where did you get this data?