VladimirTarasov
-
Posts
817 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by VladimirTarasov
-
-
46 minutes ago, Sublime said:
Il is dead you mean kim jong un
Freudian slip hehe
-
I agree with Panzer about the second but Russian military presence in Cuba and Vietnam is already a reality, however I don't think Russia is opening a base in those regions we just don't need too, but of course the presence of our military in those regions will always offer some kind of influence.
In regards to the first link it says it all in the article: "However, officials said those attempts could not be directly linked to the Russian government" in US law, all suspects are innocent unless proven guilty. It could be a Russian dude working for Kim Jung IL for all we know.
-
9 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
But the more modern Ukrainian tanks are terrible at spotting. I'd like to at least see a justification of why they're so bad compared to some of the Russian tanks that have the same generation of optics.
Re: No LWR Abrams
I would like very much to see:
1. Baseline M1A2 SEP v2
Basically the "real world" Abrams that does not mount ERA as standard (I mean it can, but it's not mounted constantly), still uses MPAT instead of AMP, and lacks the LWR. It'd be much like the T-90A as far as no frills exactly how it exists right now in a motorpool somewhere.
2. M1A1SA
The model of Abrams used by the National Guard. Sort of a "why not?" slight step down in Abrams, and giving some more choice in tanks for QB.I second this
-
LWRs are cool but just as there is a choice for T-90AMs there should be a choice for a M1A2 without LWR please! it would make my life so much easier
-
3 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
Of course, using this logic there should simply be no Russian CAS at all in the game, as getting an SU-24/25 (which is overwhelmingly the majority of your air to ground element) past Patriot, E3s and all the various F whatevers is not an especially realistic situation.
Well of course if there's no AD then SU-24s and 25s are not going to be flying CAS, I know this. Anyways I think I get what you're saying, you meant that if there was little AD then aircraft could use the standoff range, and I agree with your proposal for the AD level thing.
-
Anyways I don't want to get into an argument whether or not the US can wreck Russian AD, but I think it's silly to assume that US fighter jets are going to be flying at standoff range unopposed by anything, while trying to target Russian stuff if there is an AD capability that can threat them.
-
1 minute ago, shift8 said:
Ah yes. Now that we have actual Russian IADS and AF, the NATO attack can now go from being described as a curb stomp to simply a mere seal clubbing instead.
Of course if it can erode it without facing heavy casualties and trouble back home, NATO has the numbers to out attrition us.
-
47 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
I think it'd just be scarier if US aircraft fired from standoff like they would for a real strike mission. There'd be a lot of sadface people wondering why their 2S6s keep exploding.
Of course if AD and a modern air fleet didn't block US aircraft from conducting CAS from their standoff range.Modern being not Iraqi or Serbian.
-
Are there any plans of introducing illumination rounds which could help Russian operations at night illuminating the battlefield and increasing the NV equipment's range? Would definitely be cool if looked over. My BMP-2s are not going to be launching operations at night without them against NATO type forces.
-
1 hour ago, George MC said:
@VladimirTarasov I'm jealous of your fluent English - wish i could speak Russian as good, or even English if I'm honest! Would have saved me many hangovers in the past! Maybe...
You should try to learn Russian then
could help you in Combat Mission understanding what those green men say. Thanks for the compliment.
-
19 minutes ago, IanL said:
Like I said if if you already know then just ignore me.
You're good I was just joking around.
-
55 minutes ago, Splinty said:
After a few days on field training exercises, we started to smell like sardines too.
Hehe I'm not unfamiliar with that smell.
13 minutes ago, IanL said:If that was not a request for explanation - then just ignore me
C'mon man my english is superb you can't just do me in like that
-
10 hours ago, Splinty said:
The seats aren't so bad when the vehicle is running at moderate speed on a paved road or smooth terrain. But as soon as the vehicle picks up speed, the troops in back start getting tossed around pretty roughly. It's very cramped, and those seats have no springs at all just a foam rubber pad, so it can get rather painful after awhile. Oh did I mention that we were packed in like sardines?
Hehe... Sardines?
-
47 minutes ago, TheForwardObserver said:
They do. I think the stated reason for operating at that capacity in-game is to avoid cross-loading dances. With that said the above pictured seats have since been replaced by bench seats so you can more easily squeeze dismounts inside and 9 isn't unheard of-- certainly not normal but not unheard of. If you're packed too tightly inside you just end up falling asleep anyways so doesn't really matter how cramped it is.
Roger that, but is it realistic to have whole battle groups with 9 troops in each Bradley? I'm just wondering not that I know much about Bradley make ups.
3 minutes ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:BFC wanted to avoid finding a way to code squads loading like this:
Ah I see, well if it's realistic and would be done in a real war then I have no issue with it. I was just wondering.
-
Is it me or do the Bradleys in game have 9 troop capacity? BTW those seats do look uncomfortable, but not that I'm unfamiliar with uncomfortable seating in an IFV.
-
1 hour ago, akd said:
It is up to designers to appropriately combine tree density and the heavy forest tile to achieve logical effects. However, you should also consider that heavy forest additionally represents dense undergrowth, fallen trees and broken terrain that might be found in primary forests even without extreme tree density. I have at times also used hvy Forest tile to represent vehicle impassable terrain that is not in the game, e.g. a steep-sided ditches.
Understood, my bad for the misunderstanding.
-
15 minutes ago, Machor said:
Sorry - I thought those following this thread might find the report amusing. The account of daily life with BMP-2s rolling around read like something out of Kharms or Monty Python.
No need to apologize Belarus troops are Russian troops too lol
(kidding) yeah BMP-2s passing by every day would probably make me go to the nearest government building and form a complaint. At least in Russia I don't know about Belarus, the government is getting better at listening to complaints.
-
1 hour ago, Machor said:
"Belarus villagers complain of army tanks on lawn"
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-37508677
Don't get how that pertains to the Russian army but still the locals should atleast contact the government to change that. I doubt anyone will actually get run over but I'd be pissed off to if I constantly had tanks going through my village.
-
14 hours ago, Codename Duchess said:
Muj and Soviets are both liars
Ehem....
14 hours ago, Codename Duchess said:As for SVP-24, I'm pretty sure we've discussed it before. It's an on board, user friendly ballistic computer, which is neat and accurate compared to like a Nordon bomb sight, but we've fielded similar tech since like the late 80s. That would be CCIP (continuously calculated impact point) and CCRP (continuously calculated release point) bomb modes for those familiar with flight sims.
Yes I know about CCIP I'm just saying we have a system like that as well.
14 hours ago, Codename Duchess said:but for some reason the Russians claim like a sub 5m CEP
It's debatable but I don't want to argue about this on here, but the CEP on the SVP-24 is definitely not 50 meters in ideal conditions. I'll be generous and say 10-20 CEP depending on altitude and based on footage from Syria.
14 hours ago, Codename Duchess said:CCRP is less visually impressive, so I only found simulator tutorials which are pretty accurate. Basically you're given cues to a launch basket to fly into, from which the computer decides the best time to drop the bomb. You can choose just how tight of a parameter you want but that will increase your workload and still doesn't promise high precision. This is a common way to launch guided bombs though because those give you a very large launch basket.
Sounds hard to do, definitely the claimed 5 CEP of the SVP-24 was under trials with ideal conditions. In actual war time it may differ, anyways obviously SVP-24 is not comparable to smart munitions but they are still useful. My point was that Russia may not have PGMs in service like you guys do but atleast we have guidance systems on our CAS fleet. I'm sure if we had the budget you guys had we'd also invest heavily in PGMs but that's not a reality.
-
3 hours ago, Codename Duchess said:
Real Life things
I agree with just about everything
3 hours ago, Codename Duchess said:Mujaheddin claim 270 kills, Soviets claim 100 losses.
Mujos can't be trusted more than Soviet numbers, those guys throw a bunch of numbers out. The Soviet claim might be less but shouldn't be too far off give or take dozens more on it.
3 hours ago, Codename Duchess said:and Pantsir is supposedly able to
The Pantsir's requirement is to engage PGMs, they make up part of the layer of defense of an HQ, Base, or air defense location. Other layers being ECM equipment, decoys, ect.
3 hours ago, Codename Duchess said:Russia has laser and GLONASS capable bombs, they just don't have very many.
Definitely not as much as the US air fleet. We opt for cheaper solutions like the SVP-24 on aircraft that's used in Syria to guide dumb bombs with accuracy. But of course our PGM capabilities still exist.
-
8 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
Same deal as the EW settings, given that they're both strategic level impacts on your battlespace. I've put this forward before, but you'd basically have four conditions (loosely based on how the US defines airspace conditions).
Off: As is, unless there's an anti-aircraft system on the map, aircraft are totally safe
Air Parity: The airspace is dangerous to everyone's airplanes. Both players face a small to moderate chance of losing air assets committed (either through an off map shoot down, or the air asset has had to go evasive to the degree it is not returning). This well simulates an environment in which both sides have functional air defense networks, and access to fighter cover.
Air Superiority: The player with air superiority has a much reduced chance of losing his air assets, while the player without has a much higher chance of losing that asset. This simulates an environment in which one side has started to suffer enough losses to air defense or fighter assets to grant the other side a distinct advantage.
Air Dominance: One player's air assets are virtually safe (still a very small chance of loss), while the other would be silly to commit air assets. Think of this like if the NATO air campaign goes stunningly well, and Russian air defense is effectively out of commission outside of isolated pockets.Sounds good actually.
-
50 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
Again, I'd like a system that lets us somewhat abstractly simulate who controls the skies. Is this the last 2S6 in Eastern Ukraine, making it's final stand defending the Russian Army as it retreats in front of the HATO swarm, or is it part of a functional air defense network inclusive of friendly fighters? It better captures the interdependence of each part of air defense if SHORAD is simply the last stop before a strike hits home vs the be all end all you just wasted points on CAS, you idiot system.
I agree then, it would definitely add more options but I'm wondering if that could be done somehow?
-
2 hours ago, Sublime said:
Idk man. I dont think theres an AAA platform short of several gatling guns mounted ON what would be the target literally creating a curtain of lead to stop a missile. I mean even the fastest turrets i dont think could track a missile going mach 2 for the split second its overhead or about to slam into sonethig. I just dont see it. Maybe if the tunguska was magically pointed at where the missile was coming from ajd it was over the course of a conflict of ww3 proportions perhaps thered be one case.
I agree that the Tunguska cannot even hope to shoot a missile let alone an aircraft that just gazes by over restricted terrain flying away from radar and limited LOS. But I was just saying it has a capability to engage incoming precision missiles.
2 hours ago, Sublime said:Frankly F15s wouldnt need nor desire to fly low. Under 10k ft its not just AAA its every @$$hole with a rifle banging away at you.
Quite true, but again if there's S-300s or a super sniper XX F-22 out there, the CAS fighter must fly very low and avoid being targeted by aerial denial assets. So depends on the scenario at hand. If the US has totally rendered the Russian long range AA useless, then indeed F-15s should be able to totally avoid being hit by AAA or SHORADs.
-
17 minutes ago, Sublime said:
Ok well Id just like to know how a tunguska could accurately track and shoot a missile thats flying way way faster than any aircraft would and more than likely headed in a downward slant-not to mention that unless the tunguska was very luckily parked it would have a fraction of a second to spray off a few bullets. Thats a little different than the ammo supply a nuclear powered aircraft carrier can take to literally place a wall of lead between the target and missiles - and the AAA/Anti missile stuff is what would BE on the target - they would be useless in protecting other ships. Im sorry but Ive never heard of it - weapons makers sayibg something is one thing but has a SPAA ever shot down a missile shot by anything anywhere in the world even in outside tests?
Of course I never said it was going to be a guaranteed hit, the Tunguska's main focus is against the aircraft itself. But if the terrain permits it, and the Tunguska can track the incoming missile then it is possible to attempt to hit the incoming missile.
23 minutes ago, Sublime said:While of course the game doesnt tell you engagement ranges or altitudes or anything about enemy aircraft I can tell you Ive seen Iglas shoot down F15s F16s you name it in BS theyve shot it down as far as actual CAS and not drones.
Then I think it has to be looked into, even if the F-15 was flying low altitude it has the proper ECM to avoid being hit by it.
Russian army under equipped?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted · Edited by VladimirTarasov
Those systems would indeed play a very important role in conflict, against an advanced adversary in the region. Missiles like the Tomahawk or Kalibr are quite important in modern warfare. The reason I like the Iskandar is because it's ground based mobile and because of that has a high survival rate on the battlefield, on a short notice such systems can hammer military infrastructure, reducing workload on say the Russian air force because the nearby enemy airfields just got hammered and is offline until repaired.