antaress73

Sublime was upset about the BMP-2s not firing their Kornets. I played à few games lately and they do fire their kornets .. i've killed MANY Abrams that were previously damaged/degraded with arty and other assets. They need to be veteran, +1 leadership and high motivation to fire them all .. their full loads at Abrams.

That being said. It shows very well the limitations of a game like combat mission. Most military would apply a general tactical doctrine based on sound and general principles against any opponent. They would not apply (at first) specific tactics tailor-made for an opponent. that's a luxury we have in a game like combat mission. Airbursting abrams on purpose would not be done in real life by the russkies to degrade sub-systems. Much like SU-25s would not strafe Abramst tanks to strip them of their components and make them easy meat for T-90s. They would try to kill it outright with those huge missiles they carry. They would use DICPM ammo. Contrary to real life, using VT against tanks in the game could be a valid tactic if airbursting would damage sub-systems when exploding directly over a tank or AFV (pretty easy to arrange for such a concentration of fire). A combined arms approach to fighting the Abrams if you want (death by a thousand cuts). As it is right now, it doesnt do ANYTHING. A light to moderate effect on subsystems would not be unrealistic in my view. Mainly antennas, smoke grenade launchers, LWR, APS would be affected. Nothing internal like IR optics or balistic computer. HEck, even the main gun could be taken out by a fragment in heavy barrages. That's was my point. While much more realistic and accurate than anything else out there, it's still a game. A real life military would not use a lot of tactics that people use in their games and would be hard pressed to reproduce them effectively because we players are like gods to our pixeltruppen. Battle Economics and logistics are not a concern in the game (fortunately) or else it would become very tedious.

Thats not much in Afghanistan . it is because its moutainous and there is a lot of close contact ? Mortars were probably more widely used.

STANAG 4569 figures for the various sub-systems on the Abrams are probably classified. I was thinking more about the smoke dischargers, APS elements, LWR, antennas. Disabling them would even the field a bit and make subsequent successful ambushes easier. A direct hit would probably screw sensitive electronics like the balistic computer, IR optics by shock effect (as it does when missiles or APFDS hit a tank but do not penetrate).

I agree with all of what you are saying. War is also an exercice in killing the enemy in the most COST-EFFICIENT manner and VT isnt efficient in that role in REAL LIFE. But when playing combat mission, anything that degrades an Abrams is useful when fighting as REDFOR (much less important for BLUEFOR). Maybe that's gamey but I also think a strafing run or tungsuska would not "strip" an abrams of most sub-systems in REAL LIFE as it does in the game. We dont have DICPM or PD ammo for arty in combat mission and the Russians would probably make extensive use of it so we use what we can. Playing as Americans, that's much less an issue as things are in the game. Right now, I use precision guided rounds (3 rounds) on abrams in defensive positions. Sometimes I kill them but all the times I immobilize them on the first try so they cant move "out" of the target zone. Then I hit them again with a three round precision mission hoping to degrade their susbsystems like LWR, smoke grenades, IR Optics (most important, since I can then use smoke to prevent return fire while shooting at them). Airburst having a light to moderate effect would be a plus. Right now, it does not have ANY effect even with mass fire (we tested it ). As a mostly red player, the Abrams is really what gives superiority to the US side and killing/disabling/degrading them is a priority. In real life, the Russians could bring a lot more assets that are not in the game to deal with them.

I did a search on the internet about real life effects of HE 152mm/155mm and the study I found would equate the penetration characteristics of a piece of shrapnel (big one) hitting 25 meters from the tank to 25mm APDS at 500 meters. SO it would actually shred exposed sub-elements of the tank and disable them quite easily. that goes for airburst artillery too since it would hit the top of the tank where most of optics, LWR, smoke dischargers are. It was on defensetalk forum and the guy was quoting a study done by NATO, the STANAG 4569 standard. Here is a quote: "On the effectiveness of artillery splinter against tanks there is no need for estimates. It is a NATO standard. In particular STANAG 4569: 155mm HE splinters (aka fragments) at 25m have the same penetration effectiveness as a 25mm APDS at 500m (Level 5) and a 155mm HE at 30m is the same as a 14.5mm AP at 200m (Level IV). While the frontal armour of most tanks will withstand 155mm HE splinters from a blast within 20m the side and rear armour won’t. Artillery shells falling from indirect fire are more likely to hit tanks with splinters from the sides and rear than the front. If the concentration of fire is dense enough to ensure blasts within 20-30m of tanks then those tanks are going to suffer some significant internal damage and be knocked out. It is also worth noting that STANAG 4569 is based on 152mm and 155mm HE shells with less energetic explosives and mild steel casings. There are HE shells with preformed fragments and high hardness steels and higher energy explosives that produce much more lethal splinters (smaller and faster) and fragments than those used in the STANAG testing. They will penetrate equivalent armour and much longer distances than the STANAG 4569 basis."

Actually, I've had pretty good success with the kriz against the Abrams.. BTR actually experienced a bug where the kriz's missiles go flying widly everywhere. I've experienced it myself when three khriz at 3kms (hull down) had the chance and time to fire their 45 missiles load and they ALL went widly missing. I thought they fixed this in the latest patch but it seems they didnt. I'd say accuracy is normally in the 80% range and what I like about it is that it doesnt "warn" the Abrams with a laser warnign like the Kornet does. Hull down is absolutely necessary for success. I've just played a hunting game where a khriz platoon fought against an abrams platoon in downpour conditions and it ended 2-2. EVen got a full penetration on the front right turret where the DU armor plates are because the missile hit the plate at just the right angle to minimize armor thickness LOS.

SO in your opinion, 0 out of 4 is a realistic result for a weapon system such as the Khriz ?

The Baltic fleet is a mostly brown water navy. It's not as important or powerful as the Northern fleet or pacific or even black sea fleet . ( even the caspian sea fleet maybe ). It was neglected but it seems this is about to change.

Arty smoke WILL degrade thermal sensors by some margin in the game .

Sometimes i think CMFB tanks spot better than Russian or Ukrainian tanks in CMBS.

It's his job to be concerned.

I did a T-80BV once. Very tough and it served as a destroyed vehicule in a diorama that a friend did (fulda gap)

It would also be good if in a new patch tanks would not lase under 1250 meters (it's point and shoot at that range) and that AFVs (especially the US abrams) would not detect and react that fast against a SACLOS (not the laser kornet) missile coming from the rear arc or sides.

That sounded so wrong lol

...

Had myself some fun with russian arty (two crack FOs ) with a platoon of veteran 2s19m2 attached to each FO. On the other side was 2 platoons of Bradley mech infantry in defense. Result: 7 out of 8 bradleys on fire and 19 killed 34 wounded. Did the same with strykers .. even easier. When out of krasnopol i did classic point barrages HE/ Quick. Worked like a charm. On lighter armored vehicules airburst will only work if it explodes DIRECTLY over the vehicule (the little cloud of dust you usually see on the ground must be right on top of the vehicule, like an explosively formed projectile) . Anywhere else wont even do any damage on light APCs even if really close. So it's not worth the expense of ammo and time unless there is infantry nearby. Airbursts will do no subsystem damage at all on Brads, late BMPS and of course tanks. It will Kill BTRs , strikers if youre lucky and get an airburst directly over the vehicule (direct hit). So to degrade/Kill AFVs you need ground contact HE (general) missions. Airbursts are a waste of time and ammo.

Yeah I wasnt talking about the whole map. Of course a skilled opponent would recognize these "ideal" positions for long range engagement and area fire or arty them.

well.... hills would provide fairly long unobstructed views. Also, kornets on tigr and kriz would not expose anything other than their missile mast and sensors. They probably have sensors that can differentiate tank targets at the ranges they were designed to operate. A different task and difficulty than detecting a well hidden kornet crew at the same range even with superior sensors. As for Kosovo, yes... sensors are better now but so are countermeasures. depends on where you are in Ukraine. Its less restricted than central europe where 1 km seemed to be the norm.

They had drones . Jstars .. laser guided ammo, special forces painting targets 1999 is not 1945 you know

standoff weapons would be great against vehicules if they can detect them and burn through extensive jamming standoff weapons would be great against vehicules if they can detect them and burn through extensive and powerful russian jamming. They would be of limited effectiveness against small well hidden (with thermal signature reducing measures) ATGMs launchers operating 4-5 km away. Its much more difficult in real life to detect small objects that dont want to be seen on the battlefield than in the game.Remember Serbia in 1999. With a LOT of NAto air power involved, hitting tactical targets in Kosovo was a massive failure. They had to switch to strategic targets in Serbia proper to force Serbia out. WHen the serbian army retreated from Kosovo, they discovered that the damage done to them in two months of intensive bombing was ridiculously low. I would not rely too much on air power alone in a war with Russia. Even if NATO could get air superiority early, supporting ground troops and lowering ground casualties by using air power would not be something I would count on. It will be bloody and would require a TOTAL commitment and many sacrifices. Its not worth it and it wont happen unless everybody goes full retard.

Going back to map size and modern battles, missiles are greatly nerfed because of that , this penalizes the Russians more. Thermals will find infantry sized targets at 2000 meters range and less pretty easily. Launchers get detected and killed pretty fast on a typical CMBS map. I've fought battles at 4000 meters and the Russians were surprisingly lethal at that range. Kornets were able to expend all their ammo and Kill many m1s frontally. T-90AMs were shrugging off m1 rounds because of relikt and also killed many Abrams (also frontally) by using shoot and scoot tactics over a hill. So at long range you can basically go head to head with the US and trounce them (destroyed 13 Abrams, losing only three T-90s and only ONE missile launcher team). Battles at that range rarely happen in the game because of the limitations. It would be common IRL on the Ukrainian battlefield with long LOS on the steppes where the Kornet would shine (the kriz too,with only the launcher being exposed ).

wow... your confidence is ... interesting. Anyway, I was arguing more for people to refrain to post the russian view of events on this forum since this is totally futile. Your post eloquently demonstrated my point. You, of course, totally have the right to fullfill your moral responsabilities by challenging these "fatally flawed" views. This is your company and forums afterall. As for myself, I have no interest in discussing this any further. You guys make interesting games that fits my tastes and this is good enough for me. regards,

hey guys ! so what about discussions that are purely game related ? I think that discussing what happened or did not happen, each side having a very different view based on the source of information that is used will lead us nowhere. Even though I tend to agree with Vladimir, I think we should all go back to topics that are game related. There is enough disagreement on how things are depicted in the game to avoid getting into more disagreements on politics, media disinfo, bad faith and all We have to agree to disagree. Steve: anything in the pipeline for CMBS ? a patch solving some important issues maybe ? (many have been reported, including by yours truly)

the shell penetrating and the commander dropping his binocs while saying matter of factly "Scheiße" before the turret explodes is funny. The shell penetrating was a nice effect but the commander`s legs would have been blown off and him at the bottom of the turret before the turret exploded. Sorry for the gore.