Thewood1

My understanding is the radar was mostly used for ranging and long range aiming. It's like a radar version of a laser ranging system, but with poor visibility capability. When it was introduced, the USSR had no access to thermal imaging and lasers were heavy, bulky, and expensive. It was actually easier to mount a small radar to extend the range and life of the 100mm gun. There's a reason it didn't show up on tanks and other combat vehicles.

This book... https://ospreypublishing.com/store/military-history/series-books/elite/tank-war-central-front-nato-vs-warsaw-pact-pb ...got me hooked on cold war that is still my main focus in wargaming today. I was fresh out of college and recreated the opening scenario with Avalon Hill's MBT to my great enjoyment. I went on to create it in Steels Beasts just a couple years ago. It was amazing watching it come to 3D life. I tried recreating it in CMSF1 and then 2, but the exact units aren't there and the maps were just not big enough to do the whole engagement. I highly recommend the book to get a good taste of a later cold war engagement.

The TTS started in production in 79. By the end of the year, it started being introduced into Germany-based US units. They didn't hit their full stride until 1980. Sources are Squadron/Signal, Concord, Osprey, and SBWiki/Steel Beasts.

My understanding is that even in M1's later series, SOP was to fire on the halt as a preferred method. But the accuracy of the M1 firing on the move is still very close to moving on relatively smooth ground. On the Later M60A3s, the stabilization system kept the gun pointed at the target, but it still had lash and vibration that made firing on the move not as accurate at medium to long ranges.

The gun is basically the same. But the fire control in the M60A1 and M60A3 is not as modern as the M1's. The original M1 was built to fire more accurately on the move. Even later M60A3s were still just stabilized and not really built for fire on the move. The M1 also has the first gen thermal. As you can see, there is a relatively significant increase in armor.

According to Squadron/Signal's M1 book, In final development of the XM1, 105mm L7, UK 120mm, and German 120mm were tested in a benchmark. The German gun was preferred and actually selected, but issues using the caseless ammo and some breech design issues had to be worked out. M1 production was imminent enough that the 105mm was selected, but trunnion design was set to take the German 120mm. So it wasn't cost that was the result of the 105mm selection, it was the 120mm cannon not being ready for US operations. It took Rheinmetall anther year to work out the issues for use in the M1. I'm sure that having a lot of 105mm ammo in war stocks also had an influence. The short is that the M1 was originally designed to take the 105mm. shortcomings in the Rheinmetall gun lad to the upgrade path being chosen.

My limited understanding of tactical GSR, on-ground and airborne, is they are dependent on doppler effect and signal processing of movement to be able to seperate a ground unit from the background and any debris in the air. Larger systems that cover wide areas can pick up some non-moving large ground units, but these tend to mostly strategic or maybe high-level operational.

This is from the Admiral Trilogy's High Tide addon to the Harpoon board game developed by Larry Bond, et. al. "by Dr. John F. Lehman The decade of the 1970s was the low point in the fortunes of the United States as leader of the free world alliance in the Cold War. The Watergate scandal, defeat in Vietnam and a deep loss of confidence by our national leadership resulted by the end of the decade in a world in which the Soviet Union was ascendant and The United States seemed to be paralyzed by what President Carter called a national “malaise.” The size, capability and morale of American Armed forces had drastically declined. Ronald Reagan campaigned for President in 1980 promising to rearm America and to return the Free World to an assertive foreign policy designed ultimately to prevail over the “Evil Empire.” Upon election he asked me to lead the Navy in carrying out its part in his new national security policy." I think this is an excellent backgrounder on the 1979-82 period as a transition from a superpower in serious "malaise" to one developing an "unassailable" technical advantage over its rival. 1979 -1980 was probably when the SU had its peak advantage of NATO countries.

And its not just mines. Bridging ditches, breaching obstacles, etc. are a major part of Warsaw Pact and NATO plans. These aren't just strategic or operational plans. Entire tactical battles are fought over getting a bridging unit in place in Steel Beasts. CM in modern time frames always seems somewhat sterile without the engineering aspect. It's been a future possibility for a decade. I also understand that its not going to sell many new units like new AFVs do.

Yeah, I've been through that site a few times. But the SBWiki gives a nice graphical and consolidated view of the armor.

OK, that is news to me. I haven't built a scenario in quite a while. So the AI will automatically take a few/some/all ammo and weapons on dismount? I just want to make sure I'm clear. Because last time I built a scenario a few years ago there was no way to make the AI do that and it was confirmed on the forums.

I assume the AI as an opponent can't do that yet, correct?

Bunch of info on the T-72A http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=T-72A/M1 The same site lists the Dragon I that would fit this timeframe as a being able to penetrate 300mm of steel. Combining the thickness of the T-72A and its armor composition, its not likely to get a straight on penetration. But as in all T-72/T-90 tanks, there are a number of weakpoints. So its worth a shot if you can get it.

That's a very good question. The engineering side is an area CM still has a lot of gaps. In any Fulda Gap play, breeching and bridging is going to be key.

2008 called and wants its wishlist back.

You can also try using the onboard Intel HD graphics just to see if CM will run. Assuming you have an Intel chip set.

GTX 2080 Super and no issues. I have a hard time believing a fairly standard GPU like a 2070 (even a super) would be a reason for CM not to run. You seem to have a few big issues lately with CM running.

My question is back to the OP's focus on CM. Will a difference between a 1660, 1660 Super, and 1660 Ti make a difference in CM's performance. I buy a new laptop every year. I have gone from a 1050, 1060, 1080, 1660, and now a 2080 Super. All are mobile. The only measurable difference I saw with CM was the move from a 1050 to a 1060. The change in FPS was immeasurable. Loading times seemed to improve along the way, but not execution.

Except with CM sometimes. CM does require a slightly different set of recommendations. Unless you are fairly steeped in the PC build world, common sense would say that the most powerful CPUs are the newest ones. If your value decision based on only CM, coming here is probably a good place to start.

As I said above.

If you are never playing any game but CM, that is probably a very good balance between performance and price. the i5 has better single core performance than more "powerful" i7/i9s. I have a 1660 on my backup laptop and I see almost no fps difference between it and the 2080 on my main laptop for CM. You can even skimp n the RAM as I don't think CM uses more than 4Gb. A fast SSD is probably the one thing that might make a difference in loading times and the stuttering you might get when quickly changing views.

What has this got to do with anything? Someone left the gate open again.

And right here is one of the issues with this forum. While there are things that CM does that differentiate them from other games, CM is not alone is making "realistic tactical and brilliant games". Off the top of my head, there are the Graviteam games, which have a decent following and beat BFC to Steam by close to a decade. Steel Beasts have a good following of people who use it as a combined arms simulator/game. I play a lot of tactical combat games, including the above mentioned, as well as CM. I own every CM game and module, as well as owning several of them multiple times. Up until five of six years ago, I played CM almost exclusively as my ground combat go-to game. But over those more recent years, I have started playing other games as they have grown and, in many ways, surpassed CM overall. There are other very good games out there. But there are people on this forum who are so heavily vested in CM, they are blind to anything else going on. They have built their online social life around it. Their hobby isn't wargaming, its CM. And they will defend BFC regardless of how things are going. It has created an insular community with a motto of "BFC or Death". Forum conversations have become very focused on defending CM or BFC against all comers. The only issue with that is all comers is becoming no comers. It seems the majority of the discussion has become either John Kettler-like discussions or The Empower Has No Clothes around issues with CM. I still come back periodically to see what's going on and hope that CMRT or CMBS module news floats out. But I find myself being less and less enthused about it. Reading other wargaming forums, I know I'm not alone. The regulars here think there is only a small minority of detractors for BFC's performance. That's because the people on other wargaming and gaming forums, who used to be regulars here, stopped caring a while ago.

I keep seeing people mentioning this and understand its correct. But BFC knows that when they lay out their plans. After 20 years, you would think that someone at BFC would know the company's capabilities. Its not like people complain about just the pace of releases, granted it is agonizingly slow. The main complaint is that BFC seems unable to predict anything even close to what they can do. Every year we get a list of what's going to be released and less and less of that list gets realized. And maybe even worse is the communications on where things stand. We don't need to know every intricate detail of BFC's plans, but please be more realistic in forecasting what BFC capabilities are. And this isn't some anomaly of missing almost everything on a list because its been going on for years. In 2020, it was partnering with Slitherine, in 2019, it was something else, etc. I have slowly realized that missing almost everything on a list is not some random event every year, its the inability of someone at BFC not learning from past experience. Instead of a little self reflection, I know the reaction will be to throw hands up in the air and declare no more plans. Then we go back to 2018 or so and no one from BFC posts anything for over a year, to the point of beta testers openly complaining. The solution, to me, is a simple list every month or quarter with updates on a few of the developments. This removes the main issue of everyone running around trying to glean info from minor comments from BFC and jumping to conclusions or developing bad expectations.

I think Iron mode makes a difference here also. IIRC, Iron mode has more "realistic" limitations on verbal and visual comms. You have to be closer for longer to pass info on to subordinates and non-subordinates. The comms and the morale stuff are still two of the main features that other wargames lag behind on. CM2 seems to have a more detailed model for both and they are inter-related.