VladimirTarasov

I am in agreement with much of what Putin's government is doing. With the tension in Ukraine cooling (hopefully) Europe might remove their sanctions. And finally stop this nonsense. When Russia invaded Georgia in full offensive swing, Sanctions like these were not imposed... Why won't Europe sanction some of their other allies whom respectively are not clean slated themselves. But without getting into political arguments (which is not needed on this forum) I hope the military wont suffer from these sanctions much. I would personally just for this year, Cut some spending on the navy and airforce. The economic situation is not that bad at the moment, But if it continues at a worse rate then we should expect major cut backs from the military. Maybe with the Obama administration leaving, And from what I seen Donald Trump being the front runner ( And yes I may be the first to bring him up here ) tensions will cool down between Russia and NATO countries. (I feel wrong for bringing up Donald Trump forgive :)))))

Steve, Military budgets wont be decreased this year as well. Possible for 2017 if sanctions and Oil prices stay this low, But here's to hoping tensions will cool off already.

I did a ATGM overwatch on the hill to the right, Got one Bradley somehow another bradley some it and killed my ATGM team. Sometimes its as if the Bradleys are equipped with Laser warning devices. I was able to get my Forward Observer team to precision strike a bradley, Which hardly did anything to them. It is a real hard scenario, And some abnormalities like those kind of make it impossible to get through the mission without huge losses. Especially since from past experiences I'm too scared to even try flanking Bradleys as they appear to have magic eyes. Once I was able to use the MTLB with the 30 mm to take out a Bradley from the same hill point on the map. I'm not sure if there is a good way to beat this scenario.

I'm almost inclined to show an army service picture, But sadly I don't remember being issued stylish eye protection shades. You guys were looking prepared for style and combat!

DougPhresh, Even the 100mm HE would have been a better choice, His optics would be destroyed so would his gun, I've noticed it usually depends on the range on how the AI decide to engage targets. I've had BMP-3s use ATGMs before though. But a use weapon option would be great in my opinion. Or even a better function would be to disable some weapons for example the 100 mm so that they can use 30 mm only.

Kieme, You are right, I didn't mention the rounds stored in the hull(I guess I forgot about them), But in combat operations only the carrousel would be loaded. Unless the commander deems it necessary to have all rounds on board. Which would indeed expose it even more to nuclear explosion Ivanov, I cant wait for the next gen vehicles to be put in

Some Russian "Officers" in the First chechen war said the T-80s were junk not needed, And a waste. In reality, They were too incompetent to realise that the T-80s were sent without proper support, Or knowledge of the area or situation they would get into before hand. BMP-3s are great tools, And like said before, If penetrated and hit in the carrousel it will explode, And the Carrousel isn't that exposed, It also has cover against spalling armor, Or pieces from projectiles.

I'm excited for the next modules, Especially for other NATO countries hopefully.

Haiduk 218 T-90As? Who gave you these numbers Mr. Poroshenko? The T-72B3 numbers are more like 800 and more being upgraded. From memory T-90As should be 450-500 (I can't remember the exact figure) Plus the T-90s in reserve which make it to around 700. Our MoD thought saving the money over years for the T-14 was worth it. (And I'm sure it is) T-72B3s are a very half *** upgrade, Also intended to save money for T-14. But in all reality, It is enough for now. T-90As would more be used in a situation like a war in Ukraine vs NATO, But T-72B3s would compliment them, As they are in larger numbers. I was just recently talking to a army colleague who was a tank commander on a T-72B then transferred over to the T-72B3 in the southern military distract. His complaints on it was that the Commander still has the ancient periscope. I finally got to ask him actually (I've been wanting to ask him for months) how long it would take to identify western class tanks at long distances, During drills they would practice on tank sized targets, And from 2 KM it is possible to identify and engage 2 tank like targets in 16-18 seconds total (spotting, Identifying, Aiming, Firing) Although it is difficult to identify with the commander's sight on the B3 at those ranges, The gunner has no problem spotting AFVs. Today I ran another test (guys I haven't taken any screenshots I don't even know how to upload them here) T-90AM at 1980 meters distance versus M1A2. I also discovered another bug while at it. The M1A2 ate all 13 APFSDS, All HEAT. When the T-90AM (A.I.) ran out of HEAT and AP, He didn't fire anymore even though he had 4 ATGMs left. There has to be a look into the Armor, And spotting in this game again.

While at it, Could anyone link me to somewhere which shows estimations on the M1A2 armor? (thats reliable please)

Antaress73, I agree with you, And you are right that's what happened, It hit the M1A2 at a 90 degree angle. Where as the other round hit it at the thickest angle.

Vanir, You're right about the turret front slabs, Could you link me to something on the 3BM-60? I can't find anything on it. I assumed it would also cause armor spall or something like that, since its such a close hit. Affecting the crews' capability, From shock effects. But from 150 meters I would assume the round would cause some inside tank effects on the crew? Could you also link me to the info on the 900-1000 vs KE for the M1A2? I'm in the mood for some research

Guys, I didn't save any files or anything but after running some armor penetration tests on every tank in game, I found some bugs that break immersion from the reality of the game. I tested Russian tanks and weapons against UA and US tanks. An RPG-7 hit the right tread of a Oplot and caused a catastrophic explosion, The thing is it hit in directly from the front. Which would have just destroyed the tracks rendering it immobile. The tests against the Bulat and BV proved to be accurate in most cases. But against the M1A2 I found stuff that really angered me. I used a T-90AM against the M1A2 from 150 meters, (I made the M1A2 have a fire arc so he doesn't destroy the T-90AM) The first shot landed directly below the drivers viewing port and it did not penetrate. This really angered me, But I said hey its ok maybe the round had a factory defect () then the second round landed right on the left lower glacis of the M1A2 also no penetration. (this is where the rage kicks in) The third round lands on the left-turret front and does not penetrate (Maybe DU magic?) Then finally the 4th one penetrates the left-turret front and kills no one. I surrendered to the M1A2 after that. M1A2 VS AT-13, Front totally invulnerable even from the hull. On the side had some luck, It hit the ERA on the side of the turret and some how did not penetrate. But it penetrated the Hull ERA on the side. Conclusion: Bug? M1A2 VS RPG-7, No penetrations on hull front or side except for a lucky shot from the side of hull that hit the turret ring. On a serious note, I know how hard coding is and bugs like these can happen, But why is it only happening for US tanks? I hope the Armor vs KE and CE aren't based from Steel Beasts. I really enjoy playing this Combat Mission, But things like this really throw me off. I love realism, And if the armor on the M1A2 is like this in real life then I'm all for it. But if you ask me I don't think these are right. Maybe these are bugs? Also about spotting, I tested how long it takes to see M1A2s in tanks from ranges where you can instantly spot with your own eyes.(Range:150 meters) The T-72B3 took 10-15 seconds to see him, Around the same with the T-90A and AM. But the M1A2 sees them at 4 seconds. I understand Thermals help a lot and the one on the M1A2SEPv2 is more advanced then the one on the T-90A and T-72B3, But at these ranges out to even 2 KM these tanks should have no problem identifying each other around the same time. I'm not criticizing this game by the way, I really enjoy playing it. These might be bugs? Anyways if anyone disagrees feel free to argue with me. I just mentioned it because I would like the developers to maybe adjust some things so it's also fair to play as RU and UA.

Panzer, I worded it wrong about the ROK but you corrected me also you are right about the optics, FCS of modern tanks are usually the same capability its just on older tanks like the T-80U it has very poor optics compared to today's standard. I'm sure the ROK wasn't pleased about that because I'm not either, I mean think about it. If the cold war went hot all the NATO tanks would just pop regular smoke and shoot through it and massacre tanks when they shouldn't be massacred. But there were tactics developed to counter this but was it worth the expense if you ask me? No it wasn't, Thermals should have been a priority especially with the AT missiles designed for Soviet tanks. That is a flaw in soviet tank design which could have been avoided. akd, I assumed so after a bit more research.

Panzer, thanks for sharing that info on ROK, I didn't know they were "Camera" soldiers.(I thought that was only North Korea) Good stuff, I'm sure that US tanks enjoyed shooting through smoke and aquiring targets and longer ranges then the T-80U, Some Russian T-80Us are equipped with 1st gen Buran thermals, But not most of them. But as far as I know the FCS should be good enough to engage T-72 like targets to 2 kilometers at with day sights.You ever been in a T-80U in Korea? Tankers said that its roomy compared to the other tanks. I wish we could see some specs of the M829E4 so then we could have something to work on, On the degree of success it has against advanced ERAs. I looked all over but they're just estimations. Maybe the US government can give a projectile lenght, Speed, And penetration figure please?

Thanks for talking about the training, I did assume already that tankers would be taught where to shoot instead of can we penetrate. It does of course make sense that they can base the M829E4 against Relikt type ERA, As the 2A82M is designed for shooting shells to penetrate NATO's advanced armors' (which I'm sure the armor on them are classified) But the thing is, Is it really effective against ERA like it is in the game, An 80% success rate seems doubtful, Maybe 40-50%? Not only that is the problem in CMBS, But there are some issues with Russian tanks and Ukrainian tanks that need to be solved. They identify and engage very slowly at ranges they should be able to with ease, Their armor gets penetrated when it shouldn't.

Problem is that the SAA is fighting enemies from all terrorist organizations which are being backed by other countries. FSA has a huge stock of TOW missiles, I don't know how they got it but they have it. And with that said, They don't know what weapons to expect, RuAF has decreased the amount of ATGMs being fired from reports. T-90s are on scene, And if I'm not wrong have already been used in operations in Aleppo, Those tanks will boost ground capability. The TOS-1s are also good for taking out suspected enemy ambush positions. Say that a rebel group used the TOW-2 against SAA defensive positions, After their position is identified you can send alot of KGs of thermobaric explosives to the positions. These are a few tactics that are being used. About the oil tank footage, Would be great if you could maybe send a link? What I've been noticing is the RuAF is striking important equipment on the facilities instead of destroying all the oil. (Our bro president Assad will need it maybe ) The RuAF has a priority on being cost effective in Syria, They use the older of the FAB bombs in some missions.

Panzer, Sure you can get measurements, But do you have the actual Relikt ERA to test on? You can of course improve the M829A3 by strengthening the penetrator. Making it longer, Or what ever. Which if done correctly could indeed bypass the Relikt ERA with good success. But if you ask me the actual success rate would be 40-50% if optimistic 60%. Relikt is certainly not the god of ERA at the moment, But it is of the best. By the way, Just asking because I want to hear it from an actual US tanker, Was the M829A2 made to defeat K-5, Or was that the M829A3? I'm sure I could find it if I searched it but I'd rather hear from you. Also do you have any penetration figures for the M829A4? Estimates of course will do

I still don't see how the US has been able to get their hands on Relikt... If someone would clear it up with me in detail I'd change my mind of course.

I don't know what you American bros expected, It's an arms expo.... Of course they are gonna show off the mobility at its peak level.

That's extremely off BTR and I've been noticing that, I hit an M1A2 on the front of the hull where the hull meets the side and it caused a catastrophic explosion on the M1A2 when it should have just took out the engine. Also I highly doubt that the M829A4 can defeat relikt above a 50% rate due to the fact that US hasn't any ERA like that to test it on, Nor base their design on. But against K-5 and its upgraded variants why not. Also the T-90A's turret LOS varies highly on area, On the mantlet its stated to be 455 right before the armor connects to the mantlet is 680 LOS and beyond that it goes to 715 LOS toward the sides it becomes 815. And the T-90MA assuming them to be fresh builds would have a better armor array arangement, Which makes me highly doubt penetration of turret at 4 KM, I mean that is a joke.

T-90As are crewed by Russian servicemen, Not Iranian volunteers.

Sounds like fun, Looking forward to more posts from you.

It should be the same for Regular army's high readiness units too, Of course you have your conscript units which are under equipped but in 2015 I don't think we should have those issues anymore. Where did you serve? You were a crewmen? assuming you said you had it worst then infantry

Guys RPK isn't a bad weapon at all, And it should still be in use with some squads, But it shouldn't replace in the squad roles PKPs and PKMs. BTR this is a great post, But there are also some other things that I found are missing in this game for squad structures. All Squad leaders in squads(RU) should have NVG of 2nd or 3rd gen, In fact in my squad I was what is pronounced "Efreitor" Basically you could say I also kept everyone in order and directed too, I was also issued a NVG for night patrols, And some night drills. I believe it was of 2nd gen, If illumination rounds were fired just from memory I could probably see out to 300 meters and identify a standing individual on normal terrain. Of course these were drills and non-combat patrols, In war time each squad member would probably receive NVG. Also there isn't any formation moving which would really help in certain situations. There is a formation movement for urban street clearing and advancing called "Troika" I won't explain it but you can search it up maybe you can find it. That would really help out in situations. I really would like to see more dynamic infantry mechanics. And other equipment which aren't put in for the Russian side. For example SVD teams are common but each squad has a SVD issued, Special Purpose snipers can be attached to companies' which use weapons like SV-98, KSVK, Ect. ect. Optical sights are common in Russian high readiness units, Being of the 4x variants and 2x. Even so accuracy seems to be a issue with Russian and Ukrainian soldiers. And I personally can hit with a Iron sight of AK-74M out to 200-250 meters with high accuracy. Maybe the gun accuracy of AK-74 and 74M are off? Either way atleast the SL, Efreitor, And MG of the squads should be issued optics.