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

    FOs Conduct of Fires Net

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted · Edited by antaress73

    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.

     

    0

    FOs Conduct of Fires Net

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    26 minutes ago, TheForwardObserver said:

    @panzersaurkrautwerfer Some good case studies on the level of support you should expect when you someday become BC would be the 3rd ID movement north in '03, and of course Phantom Fury November 2004.  Before deciding to bypass Nasiriyah, 3rd ID came under Iraqi artillery fire from the east bank, and fired 73 missions, and 1,100 rounds in 2 hours. In '04 6,000 rounds of 155 were fired in the first ten days of Phantom Fury.  As a comparison to those large volumes, by 2006 we'd fired 6,000 rounds in Afghanistan total.

    Regarding your distrust of Arty, rightfully so.  I've had VT lobbed at my own track before.  End of the day those mistakes can be mitigated by Fisters that are paying attention.  As a general rule, get opinions from your FSNCOs, and if they don't have answers demand that they acquire them.  FSOs are slimey shammers and will always take the path of least resistance, and their lack of experience is only ever surpassed by their laziness.

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

    0

    FOs Conduct of Fires Net

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted · Edited by antaress73

    1 hour ago, TheForwardObserver said:

    @antaress73 To really make sense of those STANAG 4569 figures you'd need to know what 4569 levels the various components of the Abrams are rated for.  I fully encourage this research.  Those numbers are like body armor threat level ratings.  Being rated at a level implies a 90% crew survivability against that particular threat.

    @panzersaurkrautwerfer I agree with everything you said with the exception of the level of support and volume you might be able to expect.  You've described what specifically sounds like a training situation with a modest amount of support for pre-planned targets and battlefield shaping provided by 1 unit in a general support capacity.

    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).

    0

    FOs Conduct of Fires Net

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted · Edited by antaress73

    1 hour ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

    Sigh.

    I've got places to be today so short reply:


    1. It's worth keeping in mind a lot of the airbursting is dumping fragments at unfavorable angles for penetration (again outside of a direct explosion above a tank, nothing is striking a surface at a 90 degree angle).  Also many of the "sensitive" bits are only really sensitive from narrow arcs (or as much everyone goes on about optics,, most fragmentation effects aren't going to do much against the ones on the Abrams at least except from near-frontal.

    2. Most fragmentation effects are not "big ones" to the degree to produce reliable results.

    3. An artillery hit within 20 meters is practically a "hit."  If tanks sat stationary during barrages waiting to get the heck kicked out of them, then maybe this would be a likely outcome, but generally exploiting the fact that tanks are mobile, they'll just move out of the current impact area.  On the offensive usually it's too kinetic to reliably mass fires  during contact (the reconsolidation or refit phases however...), on the defensive, it's the reason why you have primary-alternate positions for both units and vehicles.

    4. The key phrase mentioned earlier was "if the concentration of fire is dense enough" which is much like "if a tank is struck with enough 23 MM" or "millions of angry waterfowl attack" in that well, yeah if you do enough of anything it'll have effects.  But the sort of massing required to use fragmentation to knock out tanks reliably.  It's also worth looking at just how many rounds you get for your fires assets in CMBS, they're provided with the complete ammo loadout with the assumption your BN/BDE or the FA Battery/BN commander isn't going to cut you off after you fired 100+ rounds to try to HE/VT a tank into submission.  

    When I did my fires planning for real life training, you might have fire support for a window (like during  the 15 minutes of your assault they're firing as many rounds as the enemy on the objective would require), or a round allocation (like four rounds per gun battery mission), but at the end of the day, the sort of massive concentrated barrage we're all guilty of using is totally impractical in terms of logistics, and we're using it on targets that frankly wouldn't rank high enough on anyone's targeting matrix to draw the attention of a complete battery firing to the point of ammunition exhaustion. 

    Which gets to the point of accomplishing the sort of density required to have HE/VT be adequate in an anti-tank role is grossly inefficient.  A very lucky shot could accomplish something, like if you were going heavy HE/VT fires at a mostly infantry objective, and the tank section attached to them got caught in the heart of it, you'd likely see some damage, but there's a reason everyone on the planet fires PD or DPICM type rounds against armor targets instead of VT.

    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.

     

    0

    FOs Conduct of Fires Net

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted · Edited by antaress73

    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    ."
    0

    Khrizantema

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted · Edited by antaress73

    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. 

    0

    Khrizantema

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    3 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

    ATGMs are pretty miss or miss.  Javelins are pretty awesome, but the rest are not entirely reliable.  With that said, there's reasons why large caliber direct fire guns remain relevant despite the significant cost and difficulty in fielding them.  The great advantage to ATGMs is the complexity of the weapons system is carried in a self contained, fairly modest weight projectile (with some burden on the launch unit), but it does exchange that for a certain loss of reliability, and much greater impact of "friction." 

    Also I'd say as a general rule the closer to 0 feet above the ground, the increasingly less useful anything radar based gets. 

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

    0

    Russian Motor Rifle tactics

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted · Edited by antaress73

    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.

    0

    Any modules ? National Family extensions or patches in the works ?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    2 hours ago, General Melchid said:

    Well you would be able to get extended sight lines in keyhole type settings , but a unobstructed view of the whole map (to use game terms) would be unusual.

    As a example I saw video of a tank engaging at approx. 3km's , but in front of him was a low valley and he had 'dead ground' that he couldn't see for 500m-2000m.

    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.

    0

    Any modules ? National Family extensions or patches in the works ?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted


     

    43 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:



    Do try to find some real life 4-5 KM sight lines.  I'll be waiting.

    Or less sarcastically, even fairly flat land often holds a variety of terrain features that prevent unobstructed shooting out to max range.  Outside of select parts of open deserts, and very large firing ranges, it's just not common, or reliable enough to expect reasonable very long engagement ranges.

    Not to mention the sensor fidelity works both ways.  

    Either way 1999 is a poor analogy as it was the impetus for major sensor system overall.  It also highlights how irrelevant ATGMs hiding in bushes are if they haven't seen food ina few days.  Further the Serbian military could afford to take measures well beyond what the Russians could afford to accomplish (and still be mission-capable) to protect assets.

    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.

    36 minutes ago, General Melchid said:

    Certainly I agree that ranges would be a lot closer than one would 1st assume. Even though Ukraine is relatively flat, there's plenty of dips and folds and a surprising amount of foliage cover.

    Been reviewing a few vids of the conflict , and open long-range sight lines seem to be the exception rather than the rule.

    depends on where you are in Ukraine. Its less restricted than central europe where 1 km seemed to be the norm.

    0

    Any modules ? National Family extensions or patches in the works ?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted · Edited by antaress73

    51 minutes ago, kinophile said:

    Ah, now. That's a big stretch as an example. 

    1) It was almost 17 years ago

    2) it was 2 high tech,  high intensity wars ago

    3) it used what would now be considered pretty obsolete tech for guidance, targeting and surveillance. 

    4) no drones

     

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

    0

    Any modules ? National Family extensions or patches in the works ?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    standoff weapons would be great against vehicules if they can detect them and burn through extensive jamming

    9 hours ago, sburke said:

    unfortunately making maps that size takes a lot of effort.  I am one of those who really does like the flexibility of a larger map and I do tend to make an effort on that.  I have one on that scale in CMBS (Ukrainian crossroads) and 3 in CMFB, but that is pushing it.  It takes away from time on other items.  One thing to keep in mind though.  Those same maps or terrain would make some great hunting territory for US air support with standoff weapons...there is always a tradeoff. :P

    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.

    0

    Any modules ? National Family extensions or patches in the works ?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted · Edited by antaress73

    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 ).

    0

    Russian army under equipped?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    14 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

    Leaving bad information and bad logic unchallenged leads us to a place worse than nowhere.  As a citizen of this planet I have more moral responsibility to correct the disinformation and horribly and fatally flawed statements made on this Forum than I do to fix bugs in the game.  So if someone wants to post complete and utter BS on our Forum, they will find themselves challenged.  It is either that or banishment.  I will not allow this Forum to be a platform for promoting state sponsored lying of any sort.

    When facts and events are reasonably uncertain, agreeing to disagree is an option.  However, when someone says the world is flat or the universe revolves around the Earth there should be no accommodation.  A dangerous distortion of reality needs challenged.  It is a moral obligation.  The other option is to ban people for forcing this sort of challenge in the first place.

    There are some things in the pipeline, some CMBS specific some CM2 wide.

    Steve

    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,

    0

    Russian army under equipped?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    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 :D

    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) 

    0

    Armata soon to be in service.

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    2 hours ago, John Kettler said:

    panzersaurkrautwerfer,

    Though I've said it elsewhere, I highly recommend the Estonian movie (best seen with English subtitles; Russians speaking French in one version via VO is downright weird ) 1944. Impressed Estonian SS vs also impressed for service (in fact, stolen from their country when Russia took it over, then was forced out)) Russian 8th (?) Estonian Army. Has loads of the right toys, plenty of drama, pretty deep insights into men deeply conflicted by the terrible brother against brother situation they were in, with the focus on the SS guys., I found it pretty engrossing, and there are scenes in it which will warm the cockles of the CMRT players, as well as those who've watched certain battle specific videos from the game.

    LOckAndLOad,

    It's now possible I've seen it all. Overfed Russian POW tank crew with a tank! Adding to the surreal nature of whatever this was, Russian titles with "Panzer Lied" playing. Was this someone's military mushroom trip dream?

    Regards,

    John Kettler

    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.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...