panzersaurkrautwerfer

Not thinking about it correctly. Detection radius is not especially useful because rarely outside of table top gaming are LOSes uncomplicated flat objects. The real issue with Russian optics is that: 1. They maintain very poor resolution on the move making it difficult to scan rapidly. 2. Fairly bad at telling subtle differences in heat. So a Russian thermal optic will tell you there's a hot object. It might be a sun heated rock, might be a helmet, might be the gunner's optics on a tank. Something with better discrimination, you'll be able to see more than just hotspots. The range is irrelevant for reasons you've picked out already. But the Russian tank will be trying to filter through dozens of "might be target" hot spots, while the NATO tanks will be generally better able to narrow down which hot spots are tank-like targets vs rock-like targets. T-90A is not on par with anything except for T-90s man. Re: Myths I can't read Russian, so I'm going to assume your chart has some words in it. However: What are irrecoverable loses? Are they vehicle penetrated and burned, or is it simply the tank mobility killed, crew bailed out, and it's now behind German lines or even simply was declared a loss because it's easier to get a new tank than whatever complicated assembly fell out the back of the tank? Regardless from the US Army AAR on Armor on Armor combat against T-34/85s in Korea, they found what was left of about 75% of NKPA tankers on penetrated vehicles. This certainly excludes tanks abandoned due to less than penetrating damage, or catastrophic mobiltiy kills (vehicle has fallen off a bridge). Further in terms of Grozny you're looking at very few penetrations, and a lot of vehicles being mobility killed, and then abandoned as their panicking overwhelmed crews abandon them. The killer of armor there was not catastrophic vehicle ruining, it was after 19-22 non-penetrating RPG-7 hits, the vehicle is untenable and was left behind. I'm just curious. I'm getting caught up on my Eastern Front stuff, and lot of T-34 losses early war had everything to do with a lack of recovery assets/poorly trained crews/automotive reliability issues and very little to do with enemy fire.

Re: Sublime With how much you play red actually I think your opinion is more valid here. T-90As failed me for the last time some time ago. Might have to give them another whirl. I do play mostly US though and I rarely notice a difference unless it's a T-90AM as occasionally they do not explode despite being hit directly, and I feel like T-72B3s are quicker to return fire which gives me the impression of better sensors. Re: T-90As continued The simple rule of tank on tank is he who shoots first wins. Simple as that. The sensor package on the T-90A will make it challenging to accomplish that. If it spots a Western MBT first, there's a chance that if it hits that tank, it will be unable to knock it out. There is virtually no chance if the T-90A is struck first it will survive in any sort of combat effective manner (it might not blow up, but given the small size of the tank, a penetration is going to kill crew, the weapons, or the mobility, or some combination of those three things). It's like the T-90A is a gun fighter, and he will generally start the gunfight facing the wrong way, his bullets are only effective if carefully aimed, and he has shown up wearing nothing more than jeans and a t-shirt so if he's hit, he goes down. If you're shopping for tanks and your enemy is a T-72M or worse user, the T-90A is a good tank. Against a M1A2, Leo 2, Challenger 2, Leclerc, K2 for good measure, it's just not enough tank. As a tanker I was by far more worried about dismounted ATGMs*, or close range RPG ambush or even mines than I ever was Russian armor. *not exactly for the penetration values, more to do with if a T-90 showed up, I'd likely see him and kill him before he had much of a chance to do anything all of those other threats are things that might sneak up on me/hit somewhere that wasn't the frontal slope of the armor. There's ways to mitigate all of them pretty effectively, but against tanks it was just keeping your eyes open and then shooting center of mass on whatever you spotted.

Re: Oplots Those and those alone are the reason I have some questions about Ukrainian tanks. Their sensors shouldn't be too drastically far behind Russian armor, and yet, feels rather like you've got a T-34 out there vs something somewhat modern. Re: T-90A The skinny on why I'm not especially impressed: 1. The armor array cannot effectively resist any US Army anti-armor (and many western NATO) weapons. It'll do okay against some earlier model TOW-2s, but it doesn't have enough protection to resist sabot type rounds, or more advanced ATGMs. If I could see it, the question was never "if" I could kill it. 2. The firepower is lacking. The autoloader limited just how potent the shells could be, and as a result it increasingly fell behind western armor design. If he could see me, there's a simple chance he's not going to be able to kill me. 3. The sensor package is marginal. Like about on par for everyone else's 1990's vintage tanks, but poor in 2005 and very poor in 2017. Not only in terms of detection/target discrimination, what's the point of having a stand-off weapon like an ATGM if you cannot actually spot a target at stand-off range? 4. It's a small compact tank. While giant house sized tanks are sub optimal, looking at how smaller tanks react to penetration, usually there's something to be said for somewhat bigger (or compare, late model Sherman and T-34s were about on par for armor protection. However in practice, while each Sherman knocked out tended to generate around 1 KIA or WIA per penetration, however T-34s had a 75% mortality rate for crewmen on struck tanks let alone WIA). The T-90 couldn't take a turret penetration without likely killing the turret crew and firepower killing the tank, and that autoloader seems to like to explode. I know folks who've walked away from catastrophic Abrams losses with one very messy KIA but otherwise the rest of the crew intact. Not sure a smaller more compact vehicle would have handled it as well, and the advantages to something that compact pay off enough to make the downsides worth it.

Concur with Putler's 1st law. The second law of Putler is likely to bring up entirely unrelated western acts/western acts as filtered by RT as reasons why it's okay for Russia to do something terrible.

The key difference between western vs eastern propaganda I'd contend is where the lies are parked. Fox news strictly in terms of "reporting" isn't entirely inaccurate. If George Bush had eaten a live baby, they'd have reported he ate a live baby vs contended that he was protecting it in his secret stomach pouch. The propaganda comes from the commentary/pundit brigade of various "shows" in which all the various news agencies bend things to suit their audience. Fox wants the NASCAR block, so it's commentary type shows are going to talk about Obama's secret muslim communist upbringing, while still factually reporting during the "news" block. This is partly because in the western media there is sort of a marketplace of ideas. There's news sources who have commentary that caters to more leftish people...but again on the other end of the stick they're not going to invent that George Bush eats babies and report it as fact. And none of these news sources are directly controlled by government agencies outside of some very modest stuff (NO BOOBS DONT SWEAR sort of stuff). The difference then with Russia is the Russian media is wholly state owned and state directed. It's commentary and news is directed by state organs to suit state needs. And within those confines while the various western news companies may debate if nationalized healthcare is good/bad, they're not going invent FEMA deathcamps for the elderly and report it as reality. The Russian media would however report that FEMA deathcamps existed if the "reality" that they existed suited the Russian government's needs. It's not that there exists Fox News that we're all equal, it's that some portions of a free-market media will pander to certain audiences. However grossly inaccurate stuff loses viewers as it's pretty easy to look on NBC and see that George Bush IS actually eating babies no matter how hard Fox news denies it. Which gets to the heart of why it's silly to compare the two. Yeah, there's bull feces stories from Western Media, and governments try to shape a generally independent media's stories through various means (report how great this is and I'll let you actually get close to the event sort of things). But the Russian media exists solely to "sell" information the Russian government deems fit/desirable that its people consume. And that lack of separation makes it entirely untrustworthy vs "trust with verification"

IRL it hasn't exactly impressed many folks either. I'll contend it's sub-par to the T-72B3 simply because ultimately it is a later model T-72, and retains a lot of its problems, while a lot of it's "fixes" aren't quite up to snuff either, while the B3 is at least more modern equipment. If you're on a budget or you're worried about fighting someone with T-72s, it's not a bad choice, but it falls pretty short of most NATO or Western designs. I'm really rather convinced there's a bug or some improperly set value for the Ukrainian armor. I don't expect it to be great, but it does not work to a degree that is suspicious.

I have yet to see a T-90A survive anything bigger than an AT-4. It's optics are only good because the Ukrainian ones appear to have been stolen and sold elsewhere, firepower wise it is subpar and Bradleys take a bloody toll on it. The T-72B3 at least lets you mount APS, but I've never felt like the T-90A was a good investment, real life or in game. It's the finest in 1995 technology regardless of introduction date.

Certainly doesn't act like it.

Heeeeey pay no attention to the embarrassing pile of Russian hardware in the Ukraine, HERE IS AN ARMATA OOH AND AAH OVER IT. Frankly the only way I'll take it as a serious project is if Russian separatists in Donbass capture a battalion sized elements of T14s from the Ukrainian Army. Then I'll know it's actually in service.

For Russian tanks: They're all effectively increasingly effective T-72 variants (the T-90 designation has more to do with moving away from the disastrous connotation of the T-72 designation than anything else). Key things to remember: 1. T-90A<T-72B3<T-90AM from my experience. The T-90A represents an aging 90's era tank, the T-72B3 is a very aging tank that's had a lot of new and powerful equipment slapped on it, and the T-90AM is a semi-fictional massive upgrade to the T-90A (in that it exists but last I checked, no one has bought it) 2. Firepower wise they're all pretty much equal in regards to main gun. There's a practical upper limit to the size of the gun rounds thanks to a shared autoloader. I think the T-90AM might be slightly more lethal but that may have to do more with other factors. None of them work especially well against the Abrams from frontal angles, all Ukrainian tanks however don't seem to resist 125 MM even in the frontal arc well. 3. Mobility is virtually identical. 4. The big differences are all in protection and sensors. All have about equal protection once you get past the ERA/APS array...but boy does the ERA and APS make a difference. In detail: The T-90A again is a largely 90's era tank with fairly modest upgrades. It is your entry level Russian tank. I'd contend it is still superior to all Ukrainian tanks, but it lacks a lot of the protection measures of your other choices. It also does have anti-ATGM jammers but they're miss or mostly miss (rarely doing anything to US missiles, sometimes confusing earlier Ukrainian ones) It also has the worst optics for Russian tanks, and will virtually always lose in a gunfight with Abrams, and it's lack of APS means that top attack ATGMs* are pretty much world enders. The T-72B3 is a very robust upgrade to the cold war era T-72B. Chiefly it incorporates a newer thermal optic and improved fire control package, and the very latest in K-5 ERA. It will stand a slightly better chance of detecting US Armor before getting engaged, and it does a better job at finding enemy infantry I find. The K-5 is the bigger deal however in that it makes the tank much stronger against any ATGM that is not a top attack, and reduces the effect of not-Abrams sabot type rounds. It's also comes in an APS equipped model which will add TOW-2B to the list of things you do not have to worry so much about (Javelins and Abrams still being pretty high on the list though) The T-90AM represents a very dramatic upgrade in protection and sensors to the T-90. Best optics of any Russian vehicle in the game I feel, and the Relikt ERA is quite formidable. It's one of the few Russian tanks that reliably will take main gun rounds from US or Ukrainian tanks and not just explode. It also comes with the Russian C3 system so it better shares information with its fellow T-90AMs and other late model Russian equipment. It also has a remote weapons station which helps in infantry engagements. Finally it also may be equipped with APS which makes it quite robust. Its only real downside is that it's quite expensive in QB, and the firepower is still lacking to go head to head with US Armor. Sublime is the better reference for the actual tactics in employing them. I get the impression that folks might disagree where I place the T-90A, but I've never gotten especially better results with them over the T-72B3. *TOW-2Bs now that I think of it. Javelins in top attack virtually always get through anyway. **Okay it's not nearly that certain, it's not a good idea to get in tank duels with them.

It does sound like he just sorta plopped an AT-14 team in a building and let them adjust accordingly. Any sort of tripod weapon in CMBS requires very deliberate placement as unlike shoulder mounted AT weapons, or LMGs, they require some combination of things being unfolded, loads being unpacked, optics being turned on and the place in which the weapon now dwells being prepared for the weapon's operation (making a clear lane for the missile to depart the firing point, finding SOMETHING that'll keep the hundred plus pounds of the weapons system securely at window level, waiting for the guidance thing to warm up etc). When you put an AT-14 in a building, it needs to get a sector of fire or a facing or it'll establish itself in a place that'll require the missile to get repacked to go to the other part of the building. Seventeen turns just sounds weird though, as generally the few times I've employed any non-shoulder fired ATGM, it's taken minutes, but it hasn't taken the better part of a game to get set up.

I totally have the bingo card at the ready. Great product Duchess, promote ahead of peers! Addendums: The ADA Stryker is less a reflection of realizing the sky is now red and deadly dangerous, and more of the evolving mission of the SBCT. With the drawdown of US forces there's a much smaller footprint of forward based units (chiefly 2 CR, and 173rd Abn, and to a lesser extent the rotational Brigade in Korea). We do have a not at all small number of heavy equipment that can be put in preposition yards, but that's still a fairly lengthy process of deployment. Units that can walk/roll up a C-17's ramp and roll off ready to throw down are required. The IBCT is simply too light for most of this. It's got next to no mobility once it's off the plane/chopper and a lot of the support assets are also childsize (see 105 MM vs 155 MM artillery etc). The SBCT however still packs a reasonable punch and has the mobility to operate across a much wider battlespace than an IBCT. and has fairly modest lift requirements compared to an ABCT. The Avenger ADA system remained in service largely because it could deploy with an IBCT which might find itself in country before a major USAF presence could be established. With the new emphasis on rapidly deploying SBCTs that could roll out while the USAF is still surging into theater, an ADA asset makes some sense (especially if it's fairly modest, like one of the existing LAV based platforms adapted for a Stryker). For an ABCT however, it's going to be ready to rock in the length of time it's taken to deploy pretty much the entire USAF, USN, USMC, and possibly some of the better armed aviation museum fleets to theater*. That really gets to the heart of one of the reasons an ABCT is not always the right option, it takes a bit to get rolling. However ideally the course of action would be: 1. Crisis is identified, and deemed worthy of response. Required units are notified 2. In theater units respond, USAF/USN air elements start flowing into theater 3. Follow-on rapid deployment SBCTs arrive and establish a sort of theater screen-cover mission, IBCTs defend high value nodes, ABCT initial cadre arrives and starts mobilizing preposition equipment 4. PATRIOT network entirely established, initial armor and heavy assets arrive in BN-/BN+ sizes to augment SBCTs, theater CAP is established. Follow-on replacement units/reinforcements are identified. 5. Remainder of ABCTs arrive in theater. Long term logistics nodes and support sites begin stand-up in theater. Continued improvement of positions follows until enemy attacks and gets skull loved if you get my drift, or decides honestly there's some tartars that need kicking so they'll go somewhere else now. So in that regard, the ABCT doesn't have heavy ADA assets because it's going to be fighting under an umbrella of F-22s, F-15Cs, and F/A-18Es, all flown by people who's entire reality revolves around being able to paint a MIG silhouette on the side of their airframe. And as much as we talk about S-400s and stuff, I'd be way more scared taking an SU-25 into airspace that might or might not contain some F-22s, because frankly the first sign they ARE operating in the AO might not be until after I've got a missile warning. As alluded to by the bingo board, lack of NATO air dominance does not mean Russian CAS is likely. *This is less a condemnation of the ABCT and preposition deployment, and more the reality the USAF and other US aviation assets are highly expeditionary and frequently will deploy to other countries simply to show the flag/maintain the capability. If there's an existing NATO airbase in region it's going to be a pretty simple exercise, so while it's conceivable an SBCT's C-17s, and the planes carrying the personnel for the ABCTs are sharing the airspace with fighters transiting to Europe, it's doubtful the ABCT will be ready before the skies are lethal for Russia's legacy era strike platforms.

I think the question is were the smoke grenades allocated to troops though. Thousands of chemical weapons shells were produced during the war, and yet not deployed. While this is an extreme example the simple presence of smoke grenades may not mean they made it to rifle squads for instance. It might be they were reserved for Company leadership only and doled out accordingly before the battle, or Soviet smoke grenades were intended chiefly for vehicle crews or any other such outcome. If they're not included for the Soviets, I'd like to see some documentation for how the Soviets did, or did not issue smoke grenades because that might just place it in the proper context, or alternately mean that there really ought to be smoke grenades for Soviet troops.

IT BEGINS AGAIN. Off of the ADA, it's also reflecting the old style HBCT/ABCT which only had two CABs. The new style ABCT which is the standard for post-downsizing has a third Combined Arms Battalion which includes an additional 29 or so MBTs and a similar number of IFVs. It also includes a whole additional Engineer Company with should have both a mech infantry company level allocation of Bradleys (the EFV is basically a Bradley with tool racks) plus the heavy equipment platoon (ABVs, AVLBs, dozers etc), and there's an additional battery in the Artillery Battalion (I'm not sure if they kept the batteries the same size though so might be less than the 24 tubes you'd assume). I'm not bored enough to delve into the logistics but that's certainly a lowball estimate. Might be they're just counting the MTV series which excludes the PLS stuff which would be missing out on much of the cargo capacity of a Brigade. Interesting that they're using a deliberately plussed up Russian Brigade vs the Iraq legacy "more but smaller" concept for US Brigades though.

This of course, merely encourages my natural urge to kill all the anime with fire.

Think the fact that the gambling was so successful starting off really led to a mentality that the throw of the dice was an acceptable course of action vs a hail mary. Looking back into 1940-1941, the odds weren't too bad, and generally when it came close to "even" the better quality/doctrined Germans stood a better chance of winning on the coin toss. As the war went on this gap narrowed significantly and no longer would anything but exceptional luck allow for much German success in the long term (again the German success in the Ardennes was less "success" and more "totally depleted German forces in the west in exchange for low strategic value terrain, inflicting sustainable losses on the allies and doubtful delay of the spring offensives from west and east). The failure to understand western resolve is also interesting and a systematic failure across the German military. Time and time again it's virtually a planning factor that soft Americans and battle weary British troops will break once Der Panzers show up, and time and time again this proves to be false at great cost to Germany. Not to mention the failure to understand they're fighting effectively two, or perhaps even three totally different fighting styles (see the Lorraine fighting in the fall of 1944 for trying to apply the Eastern Front doctrine to Americans and just how badly that goes) and to adapt to any of them. In a lot of ways watching Germany is watching someone with a bad hand refuse to leave the table and to continue to struggle long after going broke (that said the Japanese were much worse and even more stubborn). It isn't so much they're "good" and so much they're still sacrificing disproportionately to achieve any results long after more rational parties would have folded.

Dunno, given some of the stuff coming out of Donbassian legions of massive freedom, I certainly wouldn't rule out extensive drug use. The Australian thing is hilarious. If it wasn't killing people, Russia's stance on the Ukraine would be a lovely farce.

I think if I had to chalk their success up to one thing, is that the Nazis personified picking the most damaging option over the smartest option. Like when doing the enemy assessment when planning an operation you always have the Most Likely Course of Action, which assumes an intelligent enemy reacting in a way that manages risk vs ability to accomplish mission, and then a Most Dangerous Course of Action which assumes the enemy has basically decided this battle is the decisive one, and he's throwing everything he has available into this one regardless of losses or impracticality. Time and time again the Nazis hit with everything they had regardless of losses or impracticality* (or validity of long term strategy) which doubtless drew blood and sometimes impacted the ability of the Allies to conclude the war. However as evident by the many disasters resulting this behavior only made the war worse vs achieving any sort of lasting success. *See literally every German counter-offensive against the Anglo-American forces post D-Day for great examples of this behavior.

Re: Weapons setup in general It's also not just "pop out tripod" setup, it's preparing the position to have a weapon operated within it. This might be moving furniture, clearing firing ports, or any number of other thingies. Some folks feel it takes too long, I'm on the fence simply because it can really take a while to make a crew served weapon ready for firing, especially if it's one that might be carried in multiple pieces and is especially large. Either way don't count on an ATGM team that isn't a shoulder fired sort of unit being ready to fire quickly. Re: Spotting range Depends on the tank, depends on the terrain. On a map approximating Kuwait 1991, they're going to be visible beyond missile range to an M1A2. On a map with more broken terrain and stands of trees, it might be 500 meters but it also might still be 2 KM because that tank got lucky. Think less in terms of distance and more in terms of concealment. Do also be mindful of the effects of concealment on ATGMs though (as many of them do not like treelines). Often it's better however to have a fairly narrow FOV ATGM position that's well concealed from all other directions. Basically the better spotting conditions go both ways, the more an ATGM team can see, the more enemies can see it. Re: Artillery vs tanks All armored vehicles are fairly hard to kill with general bombardments, you need pretty good saturation to start seeing effects that are crippling. Mobility/sensor damage doesn't appear uncommon again assuming some level of saturation, although if you're playing against someone I wouldn't count on them hanging around to let you achieve that. If you're using airbursts however just stop. Re: RPO Works pretty well against troops from what I hear, although it doesn't seem to generate consistent results would appear to be the complaint about it. Not exactly a good tool for AT though. Re: Kord The equipment available to the Russian troops is what is currently allocated by the available information on Russian military planning. If there's no Kords it's because the units in question do not operate them. Re: AGS Likely minimum range, or the enemy is in some sort of defilade and the weapon cannot be brought to bear.

The lack of ERA is odd, considering the prime Ukrainian AT assets are pretty weak to ERA on a whole. Could be he's going for strictly mass....or that he's got a sacrificial company of "bad" stuff he's feeling out your lines with.

In my defense, conspiracy theories, paranormal activity and the like are all hobbies of mine. I believe absolutely none of it, but I find it fascinating to look into as a sort of modern mythology (and also it's often good storytelling. I love crap like the Jersey Devil and Chupacabre). So while certainly not reading to believe it, I've had enough exposure to the fringe stuff to know when it smells less of sincere woo and more of propaganda woo. The externally directed Russian stuff doesn't seem to work very well though. Like it finds roots within certain communities but often gets dismantled and only the parts that community wants are being used. So often what remains isn't the messaging itself, but the assertions that the Russians know Obama is secretly a lizardman. Same deal with the Russian support of the Alaskan and Texan separatists, they're just so laughably inconsequential* that even it's value in terms of poking the US in the nose is less than the value for making fun of Russians for using real money to support them. *For non-yankee imperialists, there's some very small elements of both Texas and Alaska, and indeed some other states that want to break off from the US and form their own country. Most of these movements could also fit all of their members inside of a large closet and still have elbow room, so the fact that Russia even talks to them occasionally is pretty lolwat.

I think if the ME 262 had been more of an occasional threat, we'd have seen P-80s and Meteors pushed into service. The Meteor was almost as mature as the ME 262, the P-80 was not, but it was likely no worse than a lot of first block of operational airframes (see B-26s and Corsairs). If there'd been a need, I'm sure there'd have been allied jet fighter squadrons in service against the Luftwaffe (vs the Meteor's homeland defense only missions). Either way there's not much the Germans could have done to win barring the sorts of outlandish examples that's been listed. And even those count on the allied follow up to those disasters being equally inept (like Moscow falls, but the Soviets do not counter attack, or there's not some weirdo Soviet-American offensive circa 1943 to liberate it). It's almost like the Nazis required a never ending series of low probability events to occur to win.

I think the decisiveness of the ME 262 is overstated anyway. A lot of the things that crippled the Luftwaffe in the long run wouldn't have been exactly stopped by a very maintenance heavy, even very unreliable plane that was demanding on trained aircrew. Would it have been more dangerous for bomber crews? Maybe. But we're talking about an airforce that increasingly struggled to put any planes in the sky for a variety of reasons.

I'm just saying I've read yankee imperialist woo and that's not yankee imperialist woo. I'd contend it's a not-American source trying to disguise itself as American woo. It's fixated on a very pro-russian margin, with occasional "west is bad/dumb/DOUBT YOUR ALLIES" blurbs which is different from the usual American woo of "everyone is going for your guns/joint French-Russian peacekeepers are on the way to your town/Obama nuked Alaska!" stuff.

It does bring to mind the older style Soviet propaganda that blamed everything on counter-revolutionaries lurking in literally every corner. Also sarcasm aside it's pretty badly done propaganda. The website itself highlights the importance in using people who can talk like a "native" or maintain credibility of same, and instead it's just pretty much RT with some American flags slapped on it. The low proliferation of same seems to indicate it's either intended as a false external view ("Hello Russians this is what Americans think outside of their ruling elite!") or it's the end result of a poorly planned attempt to infiltrate Russian perspective into western audiences (again, very badly, it's been translated but not interpreted).