antaress73
-
Posts
891 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by antaress73
-
-
1.5 millions TOTAL . check on the internet . Army, air force and Navy. And combat troops are a small number of the total. The US Army could maybe deploy à few brigades amounting to a big division in Ukraine . Anything more and they risk getting there when the war is over .
-
At-14 will get through gun mantlet, middle of front lower Hull , driver,s hatch , turret ring, and front upper Hull (this one if fired from an elevated position or with the Abrams going down a hill) most of the time. You get maybe a 15-20% chance of a kill using an At-14 or Kryzanthema frontally against the Abrams at the same elevation. That's not negligible and firing in salvos is effective even frontally.
You were probably extremely unlucky. I lost and killed plenty of Abrams with frontal Kornet shots.
-
The Russians are fine when well played . Their infantry will still be better than what we see in-game in 2017.
I'm not looking to beef-up the Russians . I'm looking at realism and nice toys to play with.
Ohh and by the way xxmushmanxx, the US military budget is not 3.8 trillions but more like 800 billions
. the size is far from being more than the 5 next armies combined. Active US forces is 1.5 millions , Russia 800 000, china 2.3 millions. -
Russian infantry in 2017 will likely be fully equipped with Ratnik. Especially units taking part in a with NATO in Ukraine. They should all have day scopes and improved accuracy and penetration rounds in the game. Their body armor should be very good and at night they should have at least night vision goggles and quite a few thermals. Right now, Russian infantry in-game is pretty much depicted as it was in real-life in early 2015. And dont give me the economic difficulties reasoning. The only thing that wasnt slashed in the 2016 budget is military spending. Modernisation of the armed forces is considered sacred.
If anything, economic difficulties will bring more contract soldiers in. For the first time , there were more candidates (as many as 8 per opening) than available openings in the military academies which have been totally revamped. They could pick the best. Word is out that living conditions in the Army are now very good.
-
BMP should support infantry assaults against US infantry previously softened up by arty or mortars. And way back they should be to mitigate the occasional hero launching an at-4 at long-range despite small arms fire , aytocannon, 100mm rounds exploding all around him.
-
Definitely you have to be skilled. Doctrine. Perhaps. I tend to just... use them as I see fit. It does me fairly well though perhaps it does you quite a bit better - however I dont have access to Soviet or Russian field manuals on the doctrine of their using their modern day armor. I know I could google it etc etc but I have a lot going on in real life (kid, job, etc etc) so unless you could help me out with a link or a .pdf the 'Clark Doctrine' shall continue =)
Also I wasnt trying to be rude in my comments Antaress. I hope you didnt take them that way.
Any type of engagement versus Bradleys I handle all Russ armor with kid gloves. Even with T90AMs Im very aware of the capabilities of say Brads and therefore am wary of them. I also always try to position things so when things get to where both vehicles spot eachother mines preferably sitting still pointed in the direction he's gonna come from.
Does anyone know if adding the 'extra' crewman as people do with the BMP2M affects only the 2M or does it help the 2, and 3?
Also while I've noticed CM does seem to reinforce the idea that if Soviet era MBTs are struck and penetrated they tend to explode in fantastic manner (and IFVs as well obv) Ive also happened to see some very very strange things as well that were either bugs or maybe point to parts of certain Soviet tanks being very blast resistant. Case in point - I was doing an attack DAAR with JammerSix several months ago. Not the Because Bradlehy the following where I had armor. One of my T90AMs parked next to a house had 3 separate US precision artillery strikes where a round penetrated the vehicle ( in different spots!) and the vehicle survived and remained combat effective. Some subsystems were hit to the point of being 'orangey circles', mostly the tracks, which I take to mean the tracks took some minor damage. Ive also seen other anecdotal incidents that actually directly contradict the stories from IRL and in game here. But its anedotal and still rare enough on my end to really think in the end that if I see hundreds or possibly thousands of armor engagements by now Ill have seen a lot of bizarre outlier events.
T64s shrugging off multiple penetrations from T72s.. T90As being completely penetrated and panicked twice in a battle and still continuing to fight once I guess Comrade Orlovskys blood was cleaned up by the freaked out crew.
Of course for the US side theres things like
Including also 3 BMPs penetrated by US 120mm round
2 MBTS and an MTLB KO'd by an Abram
6 Trucks KOd by an Abram
Things like this make the game great IMO, except of course some things are a bit much. Like the penetrations all havent happened to me. In fact I believe (not 100%) 2 of my 3 US examples were me as US fighting AI. I do think the idea of rounds penetrating multiple vehicles should be looked at, along with rounds that dont have a bursting charge in them still exploding when they richochet and flop off and land somewhere and blow up.
Sorry for this being kinda ranty in advance..
ah and yes .. Drones .. . the orlan-10 has à laser designator. Take out the Bradleys with it. . two crack Orlan with crack air controllers and veteran arty batteries should precision KO quite a few brads instead of risking BMPs or will make à kill ratii of 2-1 for the brads acceptable for dealing with the renainibg brads if there is some. Or use tanks
-
Sublime: dont worry about sounding rude. As far as doctrine, bmps are made to support the infantry and carry them around, not to be used as lighti-tanks in Russian doctrine. Using support assets like aviation (fixed-wing and rotary) artilery ( including précision guided) and tanks to remove threats to the infantry (punch à hole for it) in à speedy manne and using shockr with lots of snoke (now multispectral ) is doctrine. Nothing spécial and esoteric about it :D
-
I've just read a Russian general severely criticized the bmp-3 calling it a " coffin" in 2010. Btw , Russia bought "several hundreds" of these BMP-3M Dragun while waiting for the kurganets:
http://m.sputniknews.com/russia/20150917/1027144651/afp-features-expo.html
That baby should be in the game instead of the BMP-2M in the next module or Russian ORBAT expansion pack.
It seems more spacious and safe with the engine in front , rear ramp, unmanned turret with thermal caméra and target tracker, panoramic sight for the commander
-
Bmp-2 has the same armor as BMP-,3 no ? And is the BMP-3 going Nuclear most of the time when penetrated and taking out nearby armored vehicules realistic ? I think they would design ammo less susceptible to explosions. Does it have such à réputation in real life or Battlefront just extrapolated ?
-
In tests . I've killed M1A2 Abrams with BTR-82A in games Agaibst the AI too. But much more difficult to achieve against a human. You will see more kills of T-Xx with the Bradley 's autocannon than BMP/BTR kills of Abrams . question of sensors and Laser warning reaction time too. BTW, With an off the shelf laser warning receiver , is the Abrams and brad's instant smoke disapearing act realistic ?
-
we'll just have to agree to disagree in the argument of BMPs over Bradleys. Can BMP cannon kill Brads? Absolutely. But its just way to easy and common for my BMPs to come out on the losing end to think theres any comparison. I just dont handle Brads with the same kid gloves I do BMPs. After all too - Bradleys CAN and WILL KO Soviet MBTs from the side and rear. Thats just not happening with the BMP. (except for the Kornet which to me remains mythical
i didnt say the BMP is as good as the Brad in the game and I did mention that even when the BMP is hammering à Brad there s a risk of losing or mutual destruction . You have to be skilled to use them effectively or apply sound doctrine .
-
Russian thirty is very good against bradleys as long as the first few rounds disable the Bradley enough to avoid "revenge before we die" return fire when getting the drop frontally because sometimes even a short burst from a Bradley on the process of being ventilated can kill your BMP and save the Bradley or bring about a mutual kill.
But its not only the Bradley. I've lost two Bradleys in the same turn where they got the drop on a BMP-3 ... Were hammering it with 25mm and at the last second before the BMP goes Nuclear it fires a stabber ATGM ( it was at less than 200 meters) and kills my Brad. Very Russian like.
-
I might be wrong but the latest patch upgraded all BMP-2 ammo to the kind that can penetrate the Bradley.
Are you sure about this ? I thought only the M and BMP-3 had it.
-
I like the bog standard BMP-2s but that's because I tend to use them as battle taxis. None of the BMPs hold up especially well to direct fire, and while the BMP-3 offers a lot of weapons I rarely seem to get them to use them before something blows them up (and by god do they blow up). BMP-2M is neat but expensive. Would rather save my points for tanks.
problem is the 30mm cannon AP ammo on the vanilla BMP-2 doesn't penetrate the Bradley. BMP-2M and 3 does. I've killed a great many brads with BMPs. But yeah, tanks are much better. Brads are vulnerable to direct fire too , especially AT-13, rpg-7s vr , btr-82A and BMP-2M/ 3 autocannon fron any aspect.
-
I was not talking about getting the tech specifics of the round but more about knowing that it was tested against Relikt. I agree they are not as efficient in stealing tech as they used to bebutbthry still rely much on human intelligence. . I didnt know the specifics of how heavy ERA works and that going heavier and slower would defeat it. Doesn't that reduce the round's capability against normal armor ? It seems that segmenting the round is efficient too.
In regards to changing Relikt, I am doubtful. There's practical "throw" weights to ERA, and making something better adapted to say, a slower heavier projectile might just result in making something too slow to deal with older projectiles. There's a pretty narrow window of adjustment for anything that's trying to defeat a sabot type round, and frankly detonating earlier, or later isn't going to have as much of an effect if we're dealing with something that's basically designed to physics its way through ERA effects.
Further while M829A4 has only just gone from being an experimental round, Relikt has been offered for export for some years. In terms of using technical exploitation it is a much earlier problem to solve, the tiles exist they are for sale/have been on display somewhere they could walk off from. The M829A4 has not.Russia is not the Soviet Union. It has some decided intelligent capability, but no longer the resources, the third party actors, or ideological pull it used to have. And in regards to stealing secrets frankly they're lightyears worse than the Chinese these days, who do have the money and third party actors.
Also HUMINT is marginal in this case, and frankly I wish folks would stop acting as if that abbreviation was some magic invocation for perfect intelligence. There's not many folks who work on modern defense projects these days that have a grasp on the entire system (simply because of technical complexity and cross disciplinary design) that comprising one or two people will not strictly give you the sort of picture you need (or one more useful than sitting down with scaled photos and slide rules will give you).
-
So basically they tested it against Relikt or something built according to Relikt specifications obtained thanks to the almighty dollar and found effective. The Russians probably know that you know, they have almighty dollars too and a rich history of using HUMINT and could have changed Relikt in such a way that would invalidate the test's results. But they never saw war with the US as a real possibility until very recently so they probably didnt think it was necessary. The US too btw, they wanted something to beat Relikt just in case Russia started selling it widely to targeted client-state considered hostile by the US.
-
What does it say ? The Russian text ?
-
HNII "Stali" know.
They make Relickt and they make this illustration
as you can see Relickt can protect T-90 from M829A2 щт 1000m (it is 750mm KE penitration).
I think that is official position of NII "Stali"he was talking about M829A4 , M829A3 is actual round in service. A2 is in reserve status I guess.
-
They do have the latest sabot and HEAT rounds in the game, svinets-2 APFDS is the very latest that the autoloader can accomodate . It can penetrate 730-750mm RHA at 2000 meters and maybe 800mm + at close range. The other new rounds are for the new autoloader in the armata and are longer. They do not fit the autoloader in the T-90.
-
No not only driver's hatch.. That I can understand , weak spot . But impacts and penetrations on upper Hull where there is clearly relikt , by SKIF and at-13 .
-
T-90AM with Relikt gets penetrated. Everytime by SKIF (800mm) and AT-13 on upper front Hull .. Upper front hull hit decals are described as superstructure upper Hull (driver's hatch ?) so maybe its à bug. Even using 540-570mm agaibst CE energy numbers, both these missiles should not punch through upper Hull front because of Relikt.
-
Well, T-90A is a deeply improved T-72 obr. 1979, that doesn't exactly take us anywhere. If we consider the past 100 years of armor development in Russia and specifically last 60 of UVZ's production, even year-to-year batches can have improved protection in what seems to be the same layout. T-72 has had 6 known glacis layout iterations over the course of its 36 years of service doubling KE and CE resistance. That's a variant and ~30mm KE every 6 years. T-90's have been in service for 23. To assume capabilities remained still even for the past 15-10 years is a big leap.
exactly what I'm saying but more succinctly and effectively
-
Vasily Fofanov and Andrei Tarasenko - thrustworthy Russian and Ukrainian tank specialists consider most Steel Beasts volumes as pure fantasy. I personally asked Tarasenko in his LJ about SB and he just laughed. And, yes, of course T-90AM is just T-90A with Relikt, additional screens and better equipment. No different in armor in export version and domestic. Differences only in equipment and ammunitions - export version of T-90A - T-90S has fire control system like on early T-90 (without "A"). There no any secret alloys in its - usual hard and medium hardness steel and STB. All innovations touch only blocks metal-ceramic packing of turret. According to you I have to demand from developers a bare glacis on BM Oplot impenetrable for Svinets-2, Kornet, M829A4 and direct hit of Death Star, just because our media claimed that Oplot is a best tank in the world ). But reality it is old, slightly modernithed hull of T-80UD with new ERA and euipment. What revolution in alloys could make NII Stali in the mid of 2000th in order to put it on serial tank ? All their new developments implemented in Armata, but T-90 is just upgraded T-72.
I didnt say that... A kornet or AT-13 would still punch through. But not an RPG or direct-attack javelin or AT-7 . You are implying things I didnt say. If its that weak, no wonder they are looking at the Armata like one of the wonders of the world. Which it is not.
-
Zaloga, well that's the guy who pretended ERA wouldnt not be useful on soviet tanks because crews would be scared by the explosions and abandon the tanks. Sorry, but I dont put much credibility in him. He's biaised as hell. He's another " be assured we can occupy Russia in 7 days" (Turkish foreign minister) type of guy. Russian tanks are not as good as western tanks, sure, but they are not made of cardboard. Mithril is not necessary to increase protection against CE. New polymers in a sandwich with improved alloys, spaced armor could do the trick. We're not talking Leopard-2/M1A2 1400-1600mm against HEAT levels of protection here but 900mm. Much more reasonable but not "unreal". It doesnt imply double the protection against HEAT like western ceramic/polymer sandwiches do. It does imply lesser material and technology (realistic) but not 2-3 times as worst and 1989ish as current numbers imply.Research didnt completely stop during the nineties and early 2000's in Russia for tank technology. And the rate at which the T-90 was produced implies some difficulties in manufacturing it or improvements that warranted delays to wait for another version. Or money problems.
You can say " but why did they feel the need to add ERA" ? well, 900- 940mm is good (it protects against most non-top-attack western missiles and older soviet missiles) but not good enough. If you can augment it to 1400mm-1500mm with ERA, so much the better.
I found this estimate on a forum for T-90A latest batch : 940mm against HEAT for the glacis. Yes it's a forum, but it seems reasonable. There's many estimates in the same range. Steel Beast, that forum, other places too. ZAloga's and fovanov's estimates (which are based on zaloga's numbers) for a vanilla T-90 first batch are in a minority as far as I can see. Notice he mentions that svinets-2 penetrates 770 RHA at 2000 meters. I would say more like 730-750mm according to other estimates but he's not out of the ballpark.
Armour-
vs. APFSDS
(frontal turrent): 740 mm RHA
Glacis:510mm RHA
lower Hull:230mm RHA
vs HEAT
Turret: 1180 mm RHA
Glacis:940 mm RHA
Lower hull: 230 mm RHA
Firepower-
3BM48 "Свинец-2"APSFSDS- pierces 770 RHA at 2000 m
9M119 Refleks HEAT: 900 RHA(note: HEAT so its actually 500 MM APFSDS value)
Speed: 37-40 mph
Operational range:340-430 mi
Weight: 52 tons
Size: 31x12 feet
Power: 20.4 hp/tonne (15.8 kW/tonne) for V-92 12-cyl. diesel engine
. the size is far from being more than the 5 next armies combined. Active US forces is 1.5 millions , Russia 800 000, china 2.3 millions.
Russian army under equipped?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
tRussian thermals are that bad in your opinion ? Looking at footage of TV shows made inside the armata and kurganets which were showing detailed footage of the CRTs , they seemed good enough . I havent used thermals since 2003 (Canadian LAV-3/Coyote ) to be honest.