VladimirTarasov
-
Posts
817 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by VladimirTarasov
-
-
36 minutes ago, Codename Duchess said:
Sources said the wire snapped. This is really dangerous because often you've slowed down to the point where you can no longer hit the blowers and power out ("Bolter"), leaving about half a second to eject. Here's a recent maximum pucker factor incident from an E-2. Thing is this happens like once a year in US Navy aviation, which has a whole lot more sorties than a single Russian carrier. The Russians gambled by sending an antiquated and ill-prepared beast out for propaganda purposes. It's time for it to return to port.
Here's the same type of plane (Flanker-D) doing the same thing in 2005.
Yep, the Kuznetsov needs intense overhauls. Not only was it a PR move but it was also to get some carrier experience. Funny how just a disfunction of an arrest gear can screw everything up even if everything else runs fine. Looks to me the Kuznetsov doesn't have any spares made for the arresting gear. Those damn 90s really did hurt the Navy and the effects are even seen today.
-
36 minutes ago, Erwin said:
They say the arrestor wire broke again. (They only have one?) The plane ran out of gas while waiting for it to be repaired.
I don't think it's the wire that's at issue but the arresting gear for it.
-
It's not the issue with the pilots, it's the system on the arresting cables... Embarrassing indeed but glad no one died. They need to fix whatever the f*** is wrong with the arresting cable system. It's been an issue ever since the MIG-29K got lost.
-
49 minutes ago, Haveatya said:
I'd rather have this thread stay on the Stryker Dragoon and not the "what-if" of politics. The new system adds 2 tons of weight. Spread across 8 wheels that is 4000/8 so 500 pounds of weight per wheel which is pretty minor. Also the MGS is of similar weight already so if anything it is just standardizing their terrain capabilities.
Okay, thanks for the clarification. I was referring to a complaint or two I've read from US army guys about the vehicle's mobility. If it doesn't affect anything at all then it's a good upgrade. When are those bad boys being thrown into service?
-
1 hour ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
It's worth bearing in mind the Obama administration started off with a "reset" to relations with Russia in an attempt to improve relations. Wouldn't exactly count chickens at this point.
Off topic however, Trump and Obama are not comparable even in the 1%, I'm sure things will be way better than they are now in terms of Russia and America's relations. Even the Anti-Trump "experts" are predicting so. Anyways that was quite off topic
The up gunned Stryker looks promising they could go toe to toe with heavy IFVs with that upgrade, the firepower upgrade looks promising on it. But I see one possible problem, I heard the Strykers don't coupe to well on off road terrain, if this is true; will the extra weight from this turret affect the mobility of the Stryker?
-
28 minutes ago, Ivanov said:
Obviously I made a joke c'mon man
-
24 minutes ago, Ivanov said:
Yes and they are going to be deployed to Europe - Poland and Baltics. I guess the reason for it is to further provoke Russia
No problem since Mr. Trump will be improving relationships I welcome such a beast into service
no provocation there.
-
Are those things actually going to be put into service? (30mm)
-
13 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
RELEVANT:
Artillery is ineffective against roof armor on Lada type assault platforms.Not only that but Russian artillery crews show their mastery skills... You think he accidentally got the round bouncing off the Lada?
-
Nope there are heavy jammers that can ruin any UAV's day.
-
47 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
1st platoon attacks to destroy enemy located on hill 211. The enemy is not there. In the Russian system, 1st platoon waits for the Company to confer with Battalion to figure out what's next. In the western system 1st platoon reports negative enemy contact and tries to figure out where the enemy went. Company-Battalion build a better understanding of what's going on and make broader stroke plans for what's next instead of figuring out what 1st platoon should be doing now.
From my experiences during drills and operating with low level leadership, it's not as tied to "permission" as it was before the reforms. You're not wrong in the fact that the Russian army use to be like that but now more or less, doctrines have changed and new battle experiences have provided a different approach to things in many cases.
Speaking from my experience, if 1st platoon attacks and the enemy isn't there; depending on the situation they are to either set up positions to be able to hold the position in any case, or if needed they can also search and destroy. During drills we always moved to contact, or to get a better view of our situation. Permission isn't as loose as in western armies of course you aren't wrong, but it isn't going to hinder the troops where they are dozens of minutes from figuring out a plan. US formations of course are more flexible in certain areas, but Russian units won't be lacking in situational awareness in the battle phase of things enough to be totally kaput.
It will also depend unit to unit... If there is a less experienced and trained motor rifle unit of course the better trained US counterpart will be able to adapt to the situation and figure out a plan faster, no argument there. Or did I miss your point?
-
1 hour ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
The Russian method lacks the "permission" or small unit leadership to be agile enough, or entrust its junior leaders to make those sort of choices, which makes it more cumbersome and less able to adapt to unforeseen consequences. It's also more easily disrupted and degraded given the reliance on a higher level command authority, and units are more easily isolated in time and space given the slowness of the Russian organization (or a smaller more agile force can destroy a larger Russian force by massing on it's smaller subordinate units while the Russian forces are still trying to mass combat power where the agile unit was an hour ago).
We need to be more detailed with this one. Russian formations don't lack in reacting to situations... A platoon on its own has the means on carrying on in the area of operations... Say 1st platoon of 2nd company is being engaged by an enemy: they don't need permission to attack and exploit this unit... Or am I missing out on something? Would be great if you could tell me exactly where you say we are lacking in.
-
1 hour ago, MikeyD said:
If they're not in CMBS they did it on purpose, one supposes to reflect current international conventions opposing the use of cluster munitions and air-sewed antipersonnel mines.
Russia operates DPICM in great numbers and it would be indeed used in this war. I know the US doesn't use them anymore but Russia does and it would actually help out a lot if they were modeled in game.
1 hour ago, MikeyD said:By coincidence just last night I got a direct hit artillery penetration of a BTR80 in the game. And I bombarded a copse of trees that had a T90A hidden in it. End of game I found the T90A dead.
Russian and Ukrainian vehicles are destroyed by shells, but during my gameplay time I've come to find vehicles like the Bradley and Abrams don't get their subsystems wrecked or destroyed like they should. I called in like 3 precision 152mms on an Abrams in one of my QBs and found out after that he took barely any subsystem damage. Would also be great if the crew could get a penalty for being hit by 152mm HE shells directly. I'll have to elaborate later on with some evidence, but I'm sure others have come across the same issue.
Edit: Just ran a test and it seems the case I mentioned was only once... Turns out Abrams do get destroyed by the 152mms. I must have had some bad luck to be honest
Everything seems fine.
-
7 hours ago, Abdolmartin said:
Even though ICM munitions aren't in CMBS, I still think (as has been mentioned in the forums before) that artillery doesn't do as much damage as it's supposed to. I once called in two 3-round 122mm precision strikes (from a Gvozdika platoon) on two Bradleys, both of which were hit at least once on the weapon mount. However, none of their guns were disabled. I may be able to believe that it wouldn't completely destroy the vehicle, but seriously, a 122mm HE round directly hitting the weapon but not disabling it doesn't sound that realistic to me.
Same thing happened to me. In real life that gun was shredded, and so were the optics on it.
-
11 minutes ago, Codename Duchess said:
USNI is reporting via a translation of a Russian press release (linked in that article) that the lost MiG-29 suffered dual engine failure while in holding for a foul deck to be cleared after the second of three planes broke an arrestor cable (it happens). Probable cause is fuel starvation. That should not have happened. Why wasn't their a tanker airborne, or provisions for the fighter to divert to Syria or even Cyprus?
Good question... Why do you think that happened? Miscalculation?
-
10 hours ago, Codename Duchess said:
I don't doubt that your pilots are good, but the fact of the matter is you need A LOT of flight time to be proficient at carrier landings and you guys just don't really have the ability to compete with the US in terms of hours or facilities, including actual at sea time (it's a lot different than a practice landing on a land based field). That's a no brainer, but the fact is you're going to see a higher mishap rate (our own mishap rate is up lately due in no small part to reduced flight hours from sequestration).
Yeah I understand that,, of course no one was trying to say we are on America's level in terms of carrier operations, you guys have like ten of them and you've been using them like crazy.
10 hours ago, Codename Duchess said:If the reports that it turned back to the carrier shortly-ish after takeoff are true then it is likely a technical issue. That should raise some eyebrows because this is one of your newest aircraft at the beginning of a very high profile deployment. These things don't just happen, someone somewhere screwed up. It's just lucky that the pilots weren't killed.
Yeah it is probably a technical issue, if it wasn't it would have saved more face to say the pilot screwed up. They are the new MIG-29 models that can use PGMs unlike the SU-33s. The Indians have been using this carrier variant and haven't had any mess ups. I'd say this incident was either bad maintenance, bad luck, or an individual technical issue.
-
Lol... That's going to look great. First the smoke furnace on the Kuznetsov now MIG-29s will be called rust planes
Technical malfunction is all what it was Duchess, naval aviators are pretty good at their job in the Russian navy. WELL actually, could also be a pilot mistake, since I just read the pilot was most likely a rookie, but the thing that threw me off is it crashed a few kilometers away from the carrier, that doesn't look like a mistake to me. MiG isn't going to be happy, and the Russian command isn't happy.
-
13 hours ago, antaress73 said:
The BMP-3M has thermals. But I guess not many were put into service since they expect the Kurganets to be available soon.
No BMP-3Ms in standard service AFAIK, the Azerbaijani army operates the BMP-3M and from my understanding they love it.
12 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:My understanding of the Russian military criticism of the BMP-3 is that it costs a lot more than a BMP-2 and yet has most of the same core deficiencies. This means Russian units are still mostly using BMP-2s even though the BMP-3 came out more than 20 years ago. It also means that the units with BMP-3s do not have significantly greater capabilities vs. a BMP-2 unit embedded inside a BMG. Yes, the BMP-3 is a better vehicle than the BMP-2 in many quantifiable ways, but sometimes better doesn't really matter.
Yes it does cost a lot more, and it doesn't add decisive technology like thermal sensors to the mix... Which is shame, but that's because our Soviet inheritance did not focus on Thermals what so ever. After the collapse you already know what happened... The BMP-3 has been ordered recently, 200 of them. But that's to keep the factory working I guess. Because sooner or later we're transitioning into those new armored vehicles.
12 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:Even if the US Mech Platoon was 3x Bradleys the Americans would have an advantage because they would have 3 fully functional IFVs + up to 21 dismounts. The Russian Platoon can not match that.
Correct, but even with a regular American platoon, a Russian platoon can still compete in wartime with them. Albeit, with the American platoon obviously having an advantage. I mean let's face it America and Russia operate under two different doctrines with totally different budgets and history.
15 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:I'm not sure how valid this is for Russian operations given their higher emphasis on doctrinal adherence..
Same here, but it varies depending on the unit. BMDs have horrible commander seats, if I were to face against an enemy with advanced armor, I'd do so very delicately and using tactics to negate the fact that the armor on the vehicle is paper thin (IFV category wise) and that we didn't have any thermals on them. But with a BMP unit of course the commander can stay where he is needed.
-
4 hours ago, panzermartin said:
Slightly OP but the first good sign for the World matters is that Trump will abandon support for the rebels in Syria according to a latest interview in WSJ.
So finally an end to this war basically.
15 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:Remember too, Obama started off with a "reset" in Russian relations and see how far that one went. He's inheriting a lot of people, agencies, and programs from Obama too.
Obama and Trump are two different characters. I know for a fact Trump wont be continuing with the "Russian aggression" rhetoric, since you know the same Democrats in office said he has ties to the Kremlin LOL!
-
27 minutes ago, kinophile said:
Well, if he's intending to reset NATO & Russia relations then my money is s on Ukraine receiving diddly squat support.
Ukraine won't be receiving anything from Trump, shall I give the links to every negative comment the Ukraine's media and politicians have made against him? Ukraine really messed up in that regard. They were convinced Hillary would become the president of the US. I'm not expecting Trump to let everything slide, but he will definitely improve relations between Russia and the US, and in doing so with Europe as well.
-
10 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
I was not aware the attitude had changed. It was generally very poorly thought of for at least the first 10 years it existed, at least according to what I've read.
Well the only bad experience they had were in the 90s during the first Chechen war, 2 BMP-3s were lost catastrophically, but we all know the reasons why the Russian army performed poorly during that conflict. BMP-3s are the best IFVs in service with the Russian army, the only drawback it faces is crew protection (sitting on top of HE) and sensors. Other than that, it has immense firepower, great mobility.
A Russian BMP-3 platoon basically has 3 heavy direct fire-support weapons that can lob 100mm HE out to long distances, and it can engage tanks (or atleast attempt to with a good chance of damaging or destroying a tank) they're pretty good for what they are. The only thing the Russian army is missing out on is the thermal systems for these vehicles...
10 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:The BMP-3 should have 6 dismounts and 3 crew.
Yes if the commander stays in the vehicle and you pointed that out anyways. But yes I of course agree that Bradley's are designed with a permanent commander, and then with a squad dismount of course. But a Russian platoon has less dismounts because the Bradley platoons have 4 IFVs.
-
27 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
2. Squads are designed to operate with a dedicated, trained leader. When the leader is absent the squad under performs in many ways.
Not to nit pick into your post, you have the experience making games and balancing things but even if I were to die say in battle, I had a senior rifleman which could have still led my squad. Not much of a penalty to a Russian squad with the SL gone (other than if he died which ofc will either drop morale or send the team into a revenge mode) inside the IFV. But anyways, I almost always disembarked with troops (because I was in a BMD, try being a commander in one please) but BMP-2s and BMP-3s both have better commander optics than a BMD. Also better seating, also better positioning, also... Let's just say better everything!
27 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:1. The BMP-3 is under designed for its role as an IFV. In particular it's small seating capacity. That's very clear when looking at other nations' IFVs and even previous Soviet designs. Not to mention major criticism within the Russian military towards the BMP-3.
Actually, BMP-3s are looked upon well in the Russian military. BMP-3s have 7 INF plus 2 crew where as a M2A3 has 6 dismounts and 3 crew as standard.
-
6 minutes ago, panzermartin said:
He hasnt spoken a lot about foreign issues. Probably he will rely greatly on his staff on that which can be a good or a bad thing. I bet if he and Putin were taking a history/political quizz it would be embarassing for him;) We know he doesnt like China much, hates ISIS and goes way easier on Russia than Clinton and Obama.
The few hints we have about Ukraine, is that at first he seemed to be ok with Crimea being russian: " But you know, the people of Crimea, from what I've heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were. And you have to look at that..."
Also, he didnt meet Poroshenko in NY, while Clinton did. Some say he snubbed him, others it was just due to conflicting schedules.
Its too early to tell but it would be nice to hear a more insightful speculation from people that know better perhaps.
About Ukraine.... Let's just say Mr. Trump and Ukraine's government will not be having any good times together. Their whole media campaigned against him in country, demonized and insulted him. Trump wont forget that lol... Kind of a mistake on Ukraine's end.
-
44 minutes ago, Euri said:
Is in real life so easy to immediately spot an ATGM which has just fired from a relatively concealed position as in this game? In CMBS the ATGM is basically dead after it first shot most of time.
Not so easy... Especially with recent clips of a M1 in Iraq being shot at with a ATGM, even with the thermal systems on board, the tank wasn't able to engage back. Most of the times I'd assume the crew would be focused on something else. Of course it's not impossible but the in game spotting of the ATGM position is pretty crazy IMO. Plus there really isn't a general rule lot's of variables that could allow the position to be spotted quickly or not so quickly.
no provocation there.
Russian army under equipped?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Well people would be sad for the pilots and more so than people, the Kuznetsov would be in a lot of trouble more so than they already are. A whole naval operation delayed just over arresting gear? If pilots would have died it would have been bad. But it would not change Russian opinion on the Kuznetsov deployment. I just want that thing to work properly and then once the operations are over I'd like it to go through extensive overhauls and modernizations, because it really isn't cutting right now.
Also other things this operation highlights are the need for a CATOBAR on the carrier, the SU-33s weren't taking off with heavy loads in the Air to Ground role possibly because of STOBAR limitations. Maybe that's why at one point the SU-33s were launched from the airbase in Syria. However after the MIG-29K crashed there were still sorties flying out the Kuznetsov, I guess the gear wore out again probably lack of spares IMO.