Nerdwing

I, for one, welcome our new mafia overlords.

It was all a misunderstanding. When Obama picked up the phone and ordered an abominable war-crime, his aides assumed he meant nuclear strike. Of course, he really meant to order a Dominos "pizza".

Funny scene (not mine)  from demo scenario: 
 

If someone was to judge by my avatar and sig AKD then they might think differently if they didnt think to ask, or know me from BI forums or somewhere. Seemingly hilarious as you may find people assuming individuals nationalities, I remember accusations being thrown around of several forum members being SVR officers not so long ago...
 
Russian kit is universally under-rated in defence, this is often the case in all things regarding Russian kit whether it be simulations, wargames, etc. The experience of 1991/2003 goes a long way to provide this thought base. It is often dismissed on here as well, granted not by yourself, but has been since CMA. If I feel the need to provide data I will find a source (but not ingame turns as I dont play much turn based).
I was saying that I think an M1A2 is worth 3 T-90AM in CMBS, combat value wise. I dont think anyone has any real life hard data to back that up to be honest.
 
For aircraft launched AGM:
Top speed of Kh-25 is explained here as 870m/s, or cruising speed of 670m/s. So that would qualify for Trophy to intercept.
http://www.deagel.com/Anti-Armor-Weapons-and-Missiles/Kh-25ML_a000809001.aspx
Interestingly it also does not mention the SU-34 as an operator of the missile, but it is almost certain that it can if required.
 
Back onto the spotting topic: The inclusion of ESSA is abstract as T-90AM isnt real, but T-90S export for india is equipped with the system. It is how we say in the industry, a realistic possibility, for it to be fitted to T-90AM/MS in a hypothetical 2017 situation - the same as Trophy which is not widely distributed at this time. 
To give a grounding of my thinking and where I am coming from, my bias as you say, begs me to think that if the inclusion of Trophy was thought of for the US systems, which in October last year talks were had over the purchase of the system but nothing concrete signed I believe, why was ESSA not included as it is included in export model of T-90S, when T-90MS is also an export piece?
If we are going up against the US A-team, can we have the OPFOR A-team as well? I know T-90AM was included so the capability gap could be bridged somewhat. Hopefully by may I will have had better look at Armata, and that may be bridged further - even if it is only the crew suviving the vehicle being destroyed

I have finally got some time to look into this. Despite being an uncooled device it is not clear to me that the TIM 5000 is necessarily less capable than the Catherine FC. It does have a lower resolution, but it sees further into the infrared spectrum than the Catherine FC and has a more powerful zoom.

Catherine FC
Spectral Band: 8-12 μm
Field of view (FOV):
Wide FOV : 9° x 6.7° Narrow FOV : 3° x 2.2° Electronic zoom (x2) : 1.5° x 1.1°
Image resolution: 754 x 576
 
TIM 1500
Spectral band: 7.5 - 14 mm
Format 640 x 480 28 mm pitch
Field of view (horizontal) Wide 10.1°; Narrow 3.3°
Electronic zoom 2x, 3x, 4x

When my brother was at NTC, one night there was a soldier, out cold in his sleeping bag. Then someone moved an M113 about ten feet in the dark without checking ahead. You know the rest. Which was how I learned about crunchies after hearing him first use the term and not understanding it. Some explanations can be done without, I've discovered. I was equally perplexed by "DATs" and "CDATs," but those terms, while not endearing to those referenced, at least didn't directly involve sudden large compressive forces on a hapless friendly.
 
In looking at my #89, I now find myself cringing a bit over my first sentence. I think what I find offputting is that I prefaced my lead thought with "sadly," and I wish I hadn't done that. To me, it seems almost inhuman when I look back at it. 
 
Codename Duchess,
 
A very good question. Monty Python would've gone to town with that training session. Something like.
 
Training Instructor
 
"Now see here, men. You've all done the Armour Course, You're real tank men now. Regret to inform you that something got left out of the training syllabus."
 
(Up pipes Private Watkins)
 
"Sergeant?"
 
Training Instructor

"Yes, Watkins, what is it?"
 
Private Watkins

(Freezes, can't talk)
 
Training Instructor
 
"As I was saying, you've learned you must shoot, move and communicate in order to fight your tank properly and kill the enemy, right?"
 
(Growling but low enthusiastic utterances from the men)
 
"Kill the enemy! Right!"
 
Training Instructor
 
"But sometimes, you must be clever in how you go about it. Understand?"
 
(Tank men look clueless)
 
"You must learn to squish and not be squeamish. Got it?
 
(Watkins again)
 
"What? Getting toothpaste out of a tube?"
 
Training Instructor
 
"Something like that."
 
Watkins
 
"Why ever would one be squeamish about toothpaste?"
 
Training Instructor
 
"Well,..."
 
END
 
I really would like to see Armata. Something that rumbles smartly down the road, a brilliantly conceived and executed steel, exotic alloy and composites tank that leaves observers speechless. Not one that looks that way, but is made of plywoodium, either. I want to see Armata, but the only place I want it in combat is on our (virtual) turf. There, we shall test its mettle (and metal) in vicious flurries of electrons and charge state changes!
 
I feel like Tantalus, and I'm tired of having this purported super tank dangled in front of me, yet always out of reach. Given that we seem to be able to get pictures of experimental tanks on the Poligon, pics which, given my former work, would've been practically priceless during the Cold War, it's frustrating to have so little on Armata. I almost wish I'd not seen the speculative or better informed renderings (not the SF style insanities), articles and vid. For they gnaw at me. At times. If patience is a virtue, right now I'm not terribly virtuous!  
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Looks like they did not get a very good score for the campaign - they missed the secret mission where the 1st Belorussian front takes Berlin again.

I agree that the majority of this thread was useless.  It looked like some people venting with a little nationalism thrown in.  But again, if individual modeling of important units are severely broken, they only way to check them is sometimes individual testing.  And sometimes its needed to show that things either aren't broken or aren't as simple as some people think.

Here's the thing.  What Combat Mission tries to do is use unrealistic (in the military sense) systems to represent realistic outcomes.  This is the basis for any wargame.  The target/focus for this is to best represent the behaviors of military units operating within what is normal military practice.
 
So in that regard, the spotting systems assume two units moving into contact are doing so tactically through terrain that offers some degree of concealment.  It is not designed to properly simulate "and through the force of magic three tanks appear in a field 300 meters from each other."  The M1 has much better sensors, and as it works through the spotting checks it is most likely to pass them faster, and kill one of the T-90s, and then acquire and kill the second T-90, while sometimes the T-90's spotting rolls go well and it gets to shoot first.
 
This whole obsession with placing things more or less in the open and drawing conclusions from which is "better" is sort of....weird.  The game is not designed to support this behavior.  Nor is establishing it takes 1.34 T-90s to kill .56 Abrams especially helpful outside of measuring net trends over several battles.

This is all part of the game guys. Murica

There is a very interesting graphic here under the M1A2 SEP portion, in the form of a drawing which shows how, from ODS on, US thermals stack up vs Russian ones. Though the gap is closing, as of 2003, the latest model of the Gen 2 M1A2 thermals still held the edge over the Gen 2 thermals on the T-72MP. This may well be part of the problem. Nor is it just range. Look at the overall system capabilities:
 
(Fair Use from above)
 
"The 2nd Gen FLIR is a fully integrated engagement-sighting system designed to provide the gunner and tank commander with significantly improved day and night target acquisition and engagement capability. This system allows 70% better acquisition, 45% quicker firing and greater accuracy. In addition, a gain of 30% greater range for target acquisition and identification will increase lethality and lessen fratricide.
 
The Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer (CITV) provides a hunter killer capability. The 2nd GEN FLIR is a variable power sighting system ranging from 3 or 6 power (wide field of view) for target acquisition and 13, 25 or 50 power (narrow field of view) for engaging targets at appropriate range."
 
By contrast, seen from the Russian end, the numbers look pretty grim in comparison. The ESSA sight (with Catherine FC IR camera) acquisition magnification numbers aren't so bad, 3 or 12 power WFOV, but only 24 power NFOV. Thus, in 2003, the M1A2 had just over twice the max available magnification of the T-90S now. The MRT (Mean Resolvable Temperature) for this unit is 2 deg C. Still looking for the numbers for the M1A2 SEP V2. I strongly suspect they'll be better in the MRT department than the ESSA. 
 
This is, I think, a grog wargame forum like ours, and concerns either something out or something being worked. There is no game here, so I FERVENTLY HOPE I won't get into trouble, and it probably is something like the old PE Development Group I used to participate in. This link is directly pertinent to this discussion because it has actual FLIR imagery and operator experience from Bradley and M1A2 users. One of the first remarks is instructive. It talks about seeing people in the open desert with the FLIR out to 2 km! The thread also talks about the different ways the operator can adjust controls to get the best possible performance from the system. It goes way past White Hot/Black Hot.  These people appear to be operating at something close to an engineering sim of the thermals being modeled. Looks pretty deep to me. Of particular interest is that it talks about a GEN III FLIR for the Bradley. Elsewhere, I've read that the Abrams and the Bradley now have common FLIR systems. 
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

For what it's worth...

Spotting times for BMP-2M vs Stryker, 1200 meters
Mean = 72.4 seconds
95% confidence interval for Mean: 57.41 thru 87.42
Standard Deviation = 55.4
Hi = 214. Low = 15
Median = 47.0
Average Absolute Deviation from Median = 45.1
 
Spotting times for Stryker M1126 vs BMP-2M, 1200 meters
Mean = 29.1 seconds
95% confidence interval for Mean: 14.38 thru 43.88
Standard Deviation = 15.5
Hi = 73 Low = 1
Median = 25.5
Average Absolute Deviation from Median = 11.6
 
Number of times the Stryker spotted first: 22
Number of times the BMP-2M spotted first: 7
1 tie
 
...
 
Spotting times for BMP-2M vs Stryker, 500 meters
Mean = 21.9 seconds
95% confidence interval for Mean: 17.97 thru 25.83
Standard Deviation = 12.5
Hi = 53 Low = 4
Median = 20.0
Average Absolute Deviation from Median = 9.17
 
Spotting times for Stryker M1126 vs BMP-2M, 500 meters
Mean = 16.0 seconds
95% confidence interval for Mean: 12.11 thru 19.96
Standard Deviation = 8.58
Hi = 35 Low = 2
Median = 14.0
Average Absolute Deviation from Median = 6.43
 
Number of times the Stryker spotted first: 20
Number of times the BMP-2M spotted first: 9
1 tie
 
Note that each test has a sample size of 30 which is pretty low for this type of test, and the testing was not entirely scientific since the Strykers and BMPs were spotting each other instead of a common target, so the results should be viewed as suggestive rather than definitive.
 
That having been said, it appears the Stryker has a significant edge at all ranges but it is more pronounced at longer range. However, the Stryker does not spot first every time.

Can you cite any of those?  i have done some preliminary searches and can't find anything quite like that.
 
There is this on NATOs home page along with a bunch of other interesting stuff.
 
Assuring the security of the Euro-Atlantic area remains at the heart of NATO's purpose, but the role of U.S. nuclear forces based in Europe has been reduced as the Alliance's ability to diffuse a crisis diplomatically has significantly improved. NATO has committed to eliminate "all nuclear artillery and ground-launched short-range nuclear missiles" and significantly reduce the role and readiness of sub-strategic nuclear weapons in defense planning. This position is reflected by member states such as Denmark, Norway, and Spain which forbid the deployment of nuclear weapons on their territory in peacetime. Though the nuclear forces based in Europe provide an essential link between Europe and North America, NATO will only maintain a "minimum level sufficient to preserve peace and stability" while reducing the strategic role of these weapons in defense plans
 
 
Promises and pledges
Claim: NATO promised not to build infrastructure or move troops into the new Allies in Central and Eastern Europe. Fact: The relationship between NATO and Russia is governed by the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security, agreed by NATO Allies and Russia in 1997 and reaffirmed at NATO-Russia summits in Rome in 2002, and in Lisbon in 2010. (The Founding Act can be read here.)
In the Founding Act, the two sides agreed that: "in the current and foreseeable security environment, the Alliance will carry out its collective defence and other missions by ensuring the necessary interoperability, integration, and capability for reinforcement rather than by additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces. Accordingly, it will have to rely on adequate infrastructure commensurate with the above tasks. In this context, reinforcement may take place, when necessary, in the event of defence against a threat of aggression and missions in support of peace consistent with the United Nations Charter and the OSCE governing principles, as well as for exercises consistent with the adapted CFE Treaty, the provisions of the Vienna Document 1994 and mutually agreed transparency measures. Russia will exercise similar restraint in its conventional force deployments in Europe."
Therefore, both infrastructure and reinforcements are explicitly permitted by the Founding Act.
 
Claim: NATO leaders promised at the time of German reunification that the Alliance would not expand to the East
Fact: No such promise was ever made, and Russia has never produced any evidence to back up its claim.
Every formal decision which NATO takes is adopted by consensus and recorded in writing. There is no written record of any such decision having been taken by the Alliance.
Moreover, at the time of the alleged promise, the Warsaw Pact still existed. Its members did not agree on its dissolution until 1991. Therefore, it is not plausible to suggest that the idea of their accession to NATO was on the agenda in 1989.
This was confirmed by the former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev himself. This is what Mr Gorbachev said on 15 October 2014 in an interview with Rossiiskaya Gazeta and Russia Beyond The Headlines:
"The topic of 'NATO expansion' was not discussed at all, and it wasn't brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn't bring it up, either."
NATO enlargement
Claim: NATO enlargement followed the same process as the expansion of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact Fact: The countries of Central and Eastern Europe chose to apply for NATO membership through their own national democratic processes. This was done through debate, in peacetime conditions, and in a transparent way.
Their incorporation into the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact was carried out under conditions of military occupation, one-party dictatorship and the violent suppression of dissent.
 
im: The cases of Kosovo and Crimea are identical
Fact: The Kosovo operation was conducted following exhaustive discussion involving the whole international community dealing with a long-running crisis.
Following the operation, the international community engaged in nearly ten years of diplomacy, under UN authority, to find a political solution and to settle Kosovo's final status, as prescribed by UNSCR 1244.
In Crimea, there was no pre-existing crisis, no attempt to discuss the situation with the Ukrainian government, no involvement of the United Nations, and no attempt at a negotiated solution.
In Kosovo, international attempts to find a solution took over 3,000 days. In Crimea, Russia annexed part of Ukraine's territory in less than 30 days.
Claim: Russia's annexation of Crimea was justified by the opinion of the International Court of Justice on the independence of Kosovo (online here). Fact: The court stated that their opinion was not a precedent. The court said they had been given a "narrow and specific" question about Kosovo's independence which would not cover the broader legal consequences of that decision.
 
Claim: The Ukrainian authorities are illegitimate Fact: Ukraine's President Poroshenko was elected on 25 May with a clear majority in a vote which the OSCE characterized (report here) as showing the "clear resolve of the authorities to hold what was a genuine election largely in line with international commitments and with a respect for fundamental freedoms." The only areas where serious restrictions were reported were those controlled by separatists, who undertook "increasing attempts to derail the process."
The current parliament was elected on 26 October in a vote which the OSCE characterized (report here) as "an amply contested election that offered voters real choice, and a general respect for fundamental freedoms". It again pointed out that "Electoral authorities made resolute efforts to organize elections throughout the country, but they could not be held in parts of the regions (oblasts) of Donetsk and Luhansk or on the Crimean peninsula".
Finally, Russian officials continue to allege that the Ukrainian parliament and government are dominated by "Nazis" and "fascists." However, in the parliamentary elections, the parties whom Russia labelled as "fascists" fell far short of the threshold of 5% needed to enter parliament. Ukraine's electorate clearly voted for unity and moderation, not separatism or extremism, and the composition of the parliament reflects that.
In short, the President and parliament are legitimate, the actions of the separatists were not.

They love Putin for perfectly understandable reasons totally divorced from any understanding or misunderstanding of "humanist freedom": he turned the economy around and restored a sense of national dignity. It isn't exactly a secret that the majority of the current Russian middle class owe their position in society to Putin's massive increase in the mid-level state bureaucracy, nor is some uniquely Russian love of totalitarianism the reason they cheered when we he ended the Chechen War decisively in Russia's favor and it is should obvious that breaking the effective political power of the oligarchs was going to be extremely popular after the loot-fest of the nineties.

agreed

I hope it can, its pretty damn unfortunate when it happens
 
The Stryker MGS in Chris's stream being the most notable example off the top of my head

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

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

pnzrldr,
 
In a QB for which I have the Save, I observed a complete Kill Chain occur in four (4) seconds. NO LOS from anyone but my tank, which had zero LOS until it Hunted forward and cleared terrain mask and foliage LOS block. While moving, buttoned, it saw a T-90AM at what I subsequently determined to be a range of 654 meters, lased and fired. First shot kill. Veteran vs Veteran. T-90AM got no shot off at all. I know our guys are super well trained, but to me, that seems ridiculously fast, even with SABOT up the spout. And I'm not sure I believe that, either. I'd think AMP would be the default round. Would very much appreciate your thoughts on this. Original post is on CMBS Tech Support.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

I am speaking as a military professional, former Cavalry Platoon Leader, Troop XO, Battalion and Squadron Planner, and Tank Company Commander when I say troops appearing through arkane majicks on your flank is not right.  
 
The "board" artificially conceals the nature of terrain and battlefield to the player.  If we consider the edges of the map to be something like say, Company or Battalion boundaries, I'll still have maps and graphics of those locations.  I'll also have the greater situational awareness coming off of the Battalion/Brigade Net in terms of what's happening around the battlefield.  Further I'll have an idea of what the higher mission is and what's going on to my flanks, and very likely someone else (even if I was the flank company, there's good to high odds the Battalion or Brigade scouts are screening us) will have either let me know to cover them (something closer to "and X Company (your company) represents the farthest left unit" vs "YOU ARE OUR FLANK CPT TIMMY IT ALL DEPENDS ON YOU!!!").  Further if I was the farthest flanking unit I'd sit down and look at the AO outside of my boundaries to see just what might influence my battlespace from the outside.
 
This is where scenario design becomes super important.  Bad scenarios just hit you on the flank and pull a Lucas in claiming I need to secure every thing ever because every direction could possibly hide an enemy tank company.  Good scenerios instead sit down and give you the complex terrain to look at and have to plan for. You want the player to think "those woods on my right look like they might hide enemy forces, or allow infantry to infiltrate into my AO without me seeing it.  I'm going to leave a section of 3rd PLT to ovewatch it", rather than in an open field suddenly there's a dozen BMPs.
 
Another even more interesting one would be to give you information to make reasonable choices in the briefing.  Example:  "Enemy reserves are located on OBJ Thresher to your east, and are expected to be committed once our main effort is identified.  S2 estimates they may use RTE Gold or RTE Black, located at A1 and A2 on your map, and have a response time of approximately 20 minutes" 
 
Or just leaving roads coming onto the map from the flanks, and making enemy forces appear from there, it's likely the enemy reserves arrives suddenly on a road.  It's doubtful they rapidly appear from rough or wooded terrain (if mounted).  
 
These are all reasonable ways for the wargamer to be forced to make choices concerning their flank security.  The scenario designer should view the player as a training audience, who should be rewarded for reasonable responses to stimuli.  Surprise flanks simply frustrate the player, and instead of encouraging him to make smart choices based on good observations and sound tactics, instead force him to play in the almost comical state in which you either accept losing a scenario and having to replay it because 3/101st Shock Tank Guards Battalion emerged from a tunnel network in an otherwise empty field, or expending 50-60% of your overall forces covering fields that are actually occupied just out of sight by your sister units, or something else requiring no overwatch.    
 
The player has to know what's on their flanks to make interesting and tactical choices about those flanks.  Tank Companies don't drive across the battlefield in big circles, guns pointed in 360 degrees in case the enemy appears FROM ANYWHERE.  It's imperative the scenario designer give the player some sort of situational awareness to let them play realistically.
 
And as a further textual wandering, enemy forces in games should have sort of...like a story to go with them.  They need a beginning.  How did they get to the battlefield, why they are there, what they hope to do.  Then a middle, what their plan is for the battlefield.  And then an end(s), what they hope to do if they're successful, or unsuccessful. 
 
Each one of these needs to make sense, and should reflect the same amount of knowledge as the player team has about the enemy.  The designer knows the blue player is going to enter from the NW corner of this open field.  Why would the red team know the exact spawn location of the blue player though? 
 
I'd suggest flawed, but realistic doctrinally sound enemy deployments are more interesting than playing against some enemy force led by insidious commanders with ESP who know all the faults and locations of the player forces.  

CM::NW  Nuclear War.  I predict to have poor sales and be by far the most boring CM Battlefront could ever consider releasing.  The good news is, you could play a couple games of it in an evening easily.

Atleast it is not one of those weird Stechkins.

Appreciate this information and the vid, but concur with Oakheart on characterization of AK-12. Maybe it's the paint scheme, too, but to me, it looks butt ugly (and the weapon's butt does look ugly, too), elevating the AK-47 to the level of visual art by comparison. I'm not saying the AN-12 (also the name of an Antonov C-130 clone) isn't a tough reliable weapon. To get through State trials it would have to be, but I think soldiers prefer weapons that do their jobs well and look good. If both did well on the weapon end, I'd want the AEK-971, which not only gets the military job done but is scary looking (intimidation's always good) and has clean cool lines as well. And let's face it, if FMS figure in, sex appeal, if you will, is apart of the marketing equation. Aesthetics most definitely do figure in, and I now show this was an issue which concerned catapult designers in ancient Greece.
 
Philon, circa 250 BCE,  Construction of War Engines
Referring to a new type of catapult called the wedge engine, he has this to say, and it's very much marketing related, as is his prior listing of features and benefits for his innovative and more powerful version of a well-established key weapon:
 
"Finally, in appearance it is no less imposing than the others..."
 
Cited in Campbell's Greek and Roman Military Writers: Selected Readings, p184.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Dude.  You're both diming him out for not being precise enough about a system that might or might not do anything at this point, while using the lack of concrete information to speculate on capabilities that might be beyond merely an upgraded Arena system.
 
Either way imagine the sensor portion of intercepting a very steep angle missile might be the bigger trick