antaress73
-
Posts
891 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by antaress73
-
-
that image of the T-72 versus the M1A2 is striking. At 46 tons, with the difference in size, yeah the T-72 or T-90 seems pretty well armored.
-
they are breeding like rabbits. Pink Rabbits. Pink Rabbits about human size.
if you count 6 feet 4 inches as human size
-
the young are more numerous than I thought !
-
Lets not forget the Javelins almost certain to be over-watching from the central hill soon. He is in a bit of a fix, too put it mildly.He has no arty left after using it to blast the town, so yeah... JAvelins.. even these alone would be enough to smash his force. Bill , How about your air power ? helicopters and aircrafts ! I think you have no choice but to send them in and hope for the best. Those Havocs carry 16 AT-9 ATGMs with top attack capabilities and the SU-25s carry a similar number of AT-16 Vikr which are the equivalent of mavericks so they can have a strong effect but since you could not destroy the ukrainian Tunguskas, they will put a dent into your air power's effectiveness. Talk about being bitten in the ass by your own tech.
-
So far, the T90 vs Abrams matchup is kinda' looking like a Firefly vs. Panther, with the Firefly being a buttoned Regular crew with no modifiers and the Panther being an unbuttoned, +modifier Crack/Elite crew with a fast turret.I wouldnt go that far, the firefly would be unbuttoned too... the T-90AM has good sensors and ICTV, panoramic sight for commander. And it can sometimes survivre hits to the frontal arc by the Abrams, according to some who are doing some playtesting.
-
or the two sides reduced to smoking wreckage.. and the surviving crews fighting each other with submachine guns and pistols
-
Strykers can carry more infantry. The strengh of a stryker brigade is its dismounted infantry. Strykers are there to provide mobility and carrying capacity for ammo, javelins and some light support against light targets,
Talking of BMP-3, the ERA equipped one has a yellow square level of protection (means good, better than bradley) against the 20-30mm projectile category. Interesting.
-
It's a screen showing a digital GPS combat map. Kind of like the U.S. military's Blue Force Tracker.
Thanks for the speedy answer Luke !
-
the top armor of the T-90 would be no more (and I'm very generous here) than 100mm equivalent of RHA. Even if ERA makes the Javelin lose 80% of his penetrative ability... 30% of 600mm is 120mm.. more than enough. From what I understand, ERA doesnt stop a plasma jet cold. It diminishes its penetrative ability by a fair margin. On the frontal armor (and often side armor) of a Main battle tank, this is often more than sufficient to save the tank if the round is not a Tandem warhead. As for Relikt, maybe it does have some anti-tandem capabilities but is it enough to protect the top armor against a 600mm penetrating missile ?... I doubt it.
-
T-90's are fully capable of taking out Abrams.
Of course it is... it fires a sabot round that can penetrate 730-750mm of armor at 2000 meters (at 1 km it's closer to 800-820mm) and it has similar sensors and capable optics. But Bill said that the exchange ratio would not be favorable to the T-90 in tank against tank combat so I would not bet victory on that !
-
Just trying to make things lively here
But Poor Bill got handed a very bad hand here and publicly and I find that unfortunate 
It's also impossible to employ Khriz correctly with only the launcher and sensor exposed. I think a pair of dismounted Kornet teams would be a better approximation, at this range, of a well concealed Khriz with only sensors and launcher exposed.Scott wrote about an encounter with a pair of Kryzantemas at 4000 meters while playtesting and he said his two abrams got hit four times each on the front armor (also said he was lucky to have survived it, since the missile is very potent and surely has a kill chance on the front) before he spotted one of the two vehicules. It also took a dozen rounds and even more incoming missiles before he could destroy them. So they were made harder to spot to alleviate the fact they can't be used properly and as effectively as in real life. A flanking attack on his two Abrams would probably have destroyed them both without the Kryz being spotted.
-
what is the function of commander's video in the sub-systems panel for the T-90A and T-72B3 tanks ?
-
John,
I agree that the professionalism in the american army is superb and i'm not saying the contrary. It reinforces what I'm saying. What i'm saying here is whichever army you are, fighting an intact and numerically superior US army unit is a losing proposition and in a big way, Whether you are syrian, russian, chinese, german. You need to work it up first and strip it of its fighting power before engaging it with your main units. It has a tech edge and very often a profiency edge. However little that edge is, it will be multiplied if it outnumbers you and is at 100% combat power.
In this scenario, maybe the russians have been given an equal experience rating, but you need at least a 2-1 numerical superiority to have any chance of succeeding considering the equipment involved. The Russian stuff is good, but not good enough to fight on equal terms against a HUMAN US army opponent. As an example, the russian infantry has a low chance of destroying no more than 2-3 abrams out of the 14 involved. The american infantry, on its own, with the javelin could devastate that russian force almost entirely. The T-90, as Bill said, cannot fight the M1s on equal terms and have problems even with perfect ambush. You need to engage them from multiple directions. You cannot do that when you are fighting to avoid numerous Javelin fire and M1A2s that outnumbers you, even more so on a small map.
Now, if you put all the US force at conscript level and the Russians at crack or elite, they would have a chance. Shows what you were saying, training is everything. But like I said, in real life, there are many things the Russians could do that could seriously erode that serious US edge before the two armies meet in the field, at least in the first week of any war. They do have some powerful and numerous long range stuff and the ability to use it effectively, especially so close to their backward. Who would have thought they could pull such an operation in Crimea under the nose of the West, quick and effective. They are supposed to be slow and lumbering. Dont underestimate them. They are much less corrupt than they were in the nineties, the huge money spent on modernizing mostly goes where it should and they learned from the Georgian war a lot and applied those lessons. They train way more regularly and in a realistic way. Things have changed. Even Breedlove (SACEUR) admitted so. There is a lot of waste of money in the US department of defense too and the US military budget represents the budget for a global force with the money needed to maintain such a huge infrastructure around the world.
The US could mop the floor with the Iraqis because it was a perfect situation for the US, everything was in favor of the US. WAY superior training, maintenance and equipment. Total air supremacy and a big flat pool table (desert) where all our fancy stuff could be used with utmost effectiveness. It was like pitting an NFL team against a high school team (an I'm sorry for offending all high school teams out there). Even the Russian army of the nineties would not have had much trouble soundly defeating them. Their ammo was crap, their tanks and equipment were old monkey models and were abysmally maintained. They couldnt hit the side of a barn even at close range. They were demoralized and their commanders in most cases amazingly inept. It was so lopsided you have trouble believing the reports. Even when they took the US by surprise tactically (Fright night), they couldnt do much with it but disable one of two M1s.
-
Lesson is: Modern combat seems unforgiving. The slightest advantage can turn into a tipping point. Meaning, it doesn't matter is you're 50% inferior or 10%, you are going to get plastered by the superior force in a lopsided way. The difference between countries like Syria and Russia is what it can do to you BEFORE your main force can engage their main force. Evening the odds somewhat. Syria would face intact US forces with all their force multipliers working 100%, Russia can seriously degrade a force before it enters battle (but that's outside the scope of the game), evening the odds somewhat. That's what scenario designers must take into account with this game. The first week would be hell for any nation fighting Russia. It all depends on how much force the US can retain so it can accomplish its war objectives after it gets things under control, and that's a bif IF. That's why I believe such a conflict is highly unlikely unless there is serious miscalculation on either side. But a game is fun !
-
and Ivan the Terrible no less
-
RPGs carried by Russian infantry are the same as the ones on the RPG-29. So it could take out a M1 or two from side/ rear/top even with reactive armor but it will be tough. And some of them carry APS so yeah.. Tough luck
-
The krizanthema were almost simply targets on such a small map .. I hoped they would be lucky but I expected it and anyway even at long range they would have killed two or three M1s and bradleys .. Putting an inconsequential small dent in such a massive force.
In real life such a force concentration would have been dealt with MRLS smerch fire, buratino fire, Iskander cluster ammo missiles (worked great in Georgia against armor concentrations) helicopter and air attacks and krisanthema long range ATGM fire (attrition pot shots) then taken on by a russian ground force. In the first days of a conflict dont underestimate the capacity of the russian air defenses and air force + strategic attacks on airfields to seriously degrade US air power especially this close to Russia proper.
But in the setting of this scenario..yeah looks like Syria revisited
-
Bill, the teacher believes you can do something against this force... Fight on ! Inflict maximum casualties !
-
Well that tunguska is one lucky bastard then .. And so is you .. Those ukrainians are actually the only ones providing good and effective air defense for your main US force. Manpads Stingers are great.. But tunguskas AND stinger manpads combination is deadly
-
minimum range, low chance of success... better to supress with 25mm fire at this range. which was.. less than a 100 meters ?
That russian rifleman not shooting his RPG-26 is strange.. maybe because he is out of range.. disposable rockets have bad accuracy at more than 50 meters.
-
The T-34/85 was a much better tank and thé optics problem was resolved when the industries that had to move east finished resettling and stabilizing. You'll try to produce quality optics or quality anything else when you are moving most of your industrial base in a hurry a few thousand km away to the east. It was a miracle. But the t-34 turret was a very badly thought out design and stupid. They probably didnt consult the military when designing it. The hull and chassis was very good with angled armor and Christie's suspension. That's why they kept it on the T-34/85.
-
Do the russians have an info sharing network in the game ? Ratnik and their latest hardware do have it in réal life (still few units). They are really making an effort in that field.
-
That's why the russians have invested heavily on jamming and EW these last few years. They are now WAY better than they ever were and its far from certain that thé US communication and info sharing edge would remain intact. You can simulate that in a scenario in CMBS.
-
drones will die quickly against modern air defenses... from what I read
But Poor Bill got handed a very bad hand here and publicly and I find that unfortunate 
CM Black Sea - Beta Battle Report - US/UKR Side
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
I meant 20%