panzersaurkrautwerfer

Told you  
The turret superstructure likely looks like this inside the plate housings and inert space.
 

It's one of the things that always drives me nuts about other games.  The enemy is done.  They've got maybe a tenth of my remaining forces, I'm on the decisive ground and still in pretty good shape, but no, victory is not secured until I have gunned down every remaining vehicle crew/surviving assistant MG gunners/mail clerks.  It's a bit abrupt though, like we're still at this point of "I'm about to kick his teeth in" then suddenly poof, battle is over gg.
 
In some sort of alternate reality CMBS, it'd be neat to give some incentive to losing well.  Like perhaps surrendering is wrong, but instead having a condition to move forces off the map after certain conditions are met, and to that end if you can pull enough forces off the map deny the enemy a major victory/perhaps even force a draw. 

It's one of the things that always drives me nuts about other games.  The enemy is done.  They've got maybe a tenth of my remaining forces, I'm on the decisive ground and still in pretty good shape, but no, victory is not secured until I have gunned down every remaining vehicle crew/surviving assistant MG gunners/mail clerks.  It's a bit abrupt though, like we're still at this point of "I'm about to kick his teeth in" then suddenly poof, battle is over gg.
 
In some sort of alternate reality CMBS, it'd be neat to give some incentive to losing well.  Like perhaps surrendering is wrong, but instead having a condition to move forces off the map after certain conditions are met, and to that end if you can pull enough forces off the map deny the enemy a major victory/perhaps even force a draw. 

The battles of antiquity are not a good model for modern fighting.
 
Given the separatist line about the outcome of the battle, they lack the POWs to support a flaming cauldron of doom, but an inflated kill count supports that to a large degree.  Either way that sort of losses is something that the Ukraine couldn't keep under wraps, simply in terms of human mortality.  That's something like 5% of total Ukrainian ground forces KIA/WIA, and 2.5ish Brigades down.  There's reason to have some pretty serious doubts.

K!
 
http://www.worldstopexports.com/russias-top-10-exports/2350
 
As of last month, 58% of Russia's net import income came from oil.  The next biggest contribution to their imports clocks in at 4.1% with steel and iron.
 
Here's how that 58% is doing:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/31/investing/russia-gazprom-profit/
 
Profits are down 70% for gazprom.
 
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29643612
 
Which is working out swimmingly for the Russian economy!  Which is lovely as even by Putin's sockpuppet admits:

 
 
And by and large, the predictions are the Russian economy is chugging along into another recession.
 
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-12-30/ruble-gains-as-russia-seeks-to-curb-worst-annual-drop-since-1998
 
Which is another rosy picture that the Russian economy is doing worse than it has for a long time, and doing significantly worse than the "good" years of high oil prices.
 
All of these point to a country that is less able to operate at max capacity.  Further it's not just the Russian tank fleet that's best served in the museum, it's the Navy.  It's the Air Force.  It's other AFVs, it's pretty much every piece of equipment is either obsolete in the strictest sense, or qualitatively well behind the west by a measurable degree.  THEN with the reduced ability to import technology and parts (see the MIG-35 article posted) and the need to set up industry to replace said parts...it's getting to be an increasing question of where the money is coming from.  
 
Frankly if Venezuela announced it was going to set up a space program, build its own fighter planes, while oil is tanked and the economy wasn't that great in the first place, and now they're building their own family of AFVs, you'd be just as doubtful about their prospects as I am of the Armata.  The money isn't there, and something has to give.  It might not be the Armata, but something is going to have to be cut to accomplish Russian plans, or the economy is going to have to get a lot better.  
 
Perhaps some economic reinvestment and improved quality of other industrial exports is in order?
 
 
I trust the US DoD, General Dynamics, Boeing, etc, etc, on par with your average lawyer, sales person, or politician.
 
Which is to say I think your faith in those agencies is entirely misplaced.  They all have their own agenda which is you believing they are performing as well as they claim.  And to that end I wouldn't put it past them to have parade floats vs tanks, or claim milestones that will be handily forgotten as they pass because look!! It's a S-400 on an Armata chassis!  Russia strong!  
 
 
It's the fetishization and sexual nature of the thing.  They're selling you this beautiful wonderful hardware as if it is a sign things are good, and you're okay.  It's paranoid state that leverages your fear as a means of glossing over how much it has failed the Russian people.  There was no threat to Russia in 1946 until it invented one.  There was no threat to Russia in 1992 until you invented it again.  There's no military threat to Russia in 2015, and here it is being invented again.
 
The parade itself isn't the problem, it's stealing the blood and sacrifice of the soldiers that the USSR left to fight and freeze, to sell this image of a strong Russian state, while pulling those same soldiers out of their old folks homes to serve as props in an advertisement for this amazing future of facing down the great and many enemies manufactured by the Russian state.  
 
It's disgusting, cheap, and bread and circuses at its best.
 
 
Try this one on:


 
Just as functional as the Armata is now.  Just as vulnerable to being a lot of cutting edge technology not quite working out, at a time in which the country building it couldn't afford to keep pouring money into it.  Development cycle is similar to Armta in terms of length.  Just as needed to replace increasingly obsolete tanks.
 
Unless there's a fundamental superiority to Russians, there's just as much reason to see the MBT-70 as the Armata of the 70's (or perhaps even the Sheridan, cutting edge, but never quite working right), as to see it as hitting the goals for it set forth.

K!
 
http://www.worldstopexports.com/russias-top-10-exports/2350
 
As of last month, 58% of Russia's net import income came from oil.  The next biggest contribution to their imports clocks in at 4.1% with steel and iron.
 
Here's how that 58% is doing:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/31/investing/russia-gazprom-profit/
 
Profits are down 70% for gazprom.
 
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29643612
 
Which is working out swimmingly for the Russian economy!  Which is lovely as even by Putin's sockpuppet admits:

 
 
And by and large, the predictions are the Russian economy is chugging along into another recession.
 
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-12-30/ruble-gains-as-russia-seeks-to-curb-worst-annual-drop-since-1998
 
Which is another rosy picture that the Russian economy is doing worse than it has for a long time, and doing significantly worse than the "good" years of high oil prices.
 
All of these point to a country that is less able to operate at max capacity.  Further it's not just the Russian tank fleet that's best served in the museum, it's the Navy.  It's the Air Force.  It's other AFVs, it's pretty much every piece of equipment is either obsolete in the strictest sense, or qualitatively well behind the west by a measurable degree.  THEN with the reduced ability to import technology and parts (see the MIG-35 article posted) and the need to set up industry to replace said parts...it's getting to be an increasing question of where the money is coming from.  
 
Frankly if Venezuela announced it was going to set up a space program, build its own fighter planes, while oil is tanked and the economy wasn't that great in the first place, and now they're building their own family of AFVs, you'd be just as doubtful about their prospects as I am of the Armata.  The money isn't there, and something has to give.  It might not be the Armata, but something is going to have to be cut to accomplish Russian plans, or the economy is going to have to get a lot better.  
 
Perhaps some economic reinvestment and improved quality of other industrial exports is in order?
 
 
I trust the US DoD, General Dynamics, Boeing, etc, etc, on par with your average lawyer, sales person, or politician.
 
Which is to say I think your faith in those agencies is entirely misplaced.  They all have their own agenda which is you believing they are performing as well as they claim.  And to that end I wouldn't put it past them to have parade floats vs tanks, or claim milestones that will be handily forgotten as they pass because look!! It's a S-400 on an Armata chassis!  Russia strong!  
 
 
It's the fetishization and sexual nature of the thing.  They're selling you this beautiful wonderful hardware as if it is a sign things are good, and you're okay.  It's paranoid state that leverages your fear as a means of glossing over how much it has failed the Russian people.  There was no threat to Russia in 1946 until it invented one.  There was no threat to Russia in 1992 until you invented it again.  There's no military threat to Russia in 2015, and here it is being invented again.
 
The parade itself isn't the problem, it's stealing the blood and sacrifice of the soldiers that the USSR left to fight and freeze, to sell this image of a strong Russian state, while pulling those same soldiers out of their old folks homes to serve as props in an advertisement for this amazing future of facing down the great and many enemies manufactured by the Russian state.  
 
It's disgusting, cheap, and bread and circuses at its best.
 
 
Try this one on:


 
Just as functional as the Armata is now.  Just as vulnerable to being a lot of cutting edge technology not quite working out, at a time in which the country building it couldn't afford to keep pouring money into it.  Development cycle is similar to Armta in terms of length.  Just as needed to replace increasingly obsolete tanks.
 
Unless there's a fundamental superiority to Russians, there's just as much reason to see the MBT-70 as the Armata of the 70's (or perhaps even the Sheridan, cutting edge, but never quite working right), as to see it as hitting the goals for it set forth.

Purely in a "Modest Proposal" sense it's because they're not real tanks, it's just going to be hundreds of parade float quality vehicles driven around by folks who are sworn to secrecy to present the illusion of the Armata being successful.  Exporting them would let other folks in on the terrible truth.
 
 
I think it's sort of a silly thing.  The sort of "crew is unconscious, but okay!" hits are rare, and given that all crewmen at in the same box now, seems like they'll all be okay or all be goo.
 
The remote operation stuff makes more sense in terms of being able to operate the tank as sort of a defacto remote controlled turret, but it does not look extensive enough to support that (although that might just be the limitations of technology).
 
 
I missed the original Battle Cruiser 3000 fracas, but the follow on Smart behavior remains the gift that keeps giving.

Purely in a "Modest Proposal" sense it's because they're not real tanks, it's just going to be hundreds of parade float quality vehicles driven around by folks who are sworn to secrecy to present the illusion of the Armata being successful.  Exporting them would let other folks in on the terrible truth.
 
 
I think it's sort of a silly thing.  The sort of "crew is unconscious, but okay!" hits are rare, and given that all crewmen at in the same box now, seems like they'll all be okay or all be goo.
 
The remote operation stuff makes more sense in terms of being able to operate the tank as sort of a defacto remote controlled turret, but it does not look extensive enough to support that (although that might just be the limitations of technology).
 
 
I missed the original Battle Cruiser 3000 fracas, but the follow on Smart behavior remains the gift that keeps giving.

In terms of Javelins available, there's about one launcher per rifle squad.  I'm not sure how many are available per each different flavor of Cavalry unit (IBCT, SBCT, and ABCT Cav looking dramatically different), but ABCTs had two per platoon in 2011 at least.  
 
Round allocation is a bit different, but the CMBS 3 or so missiles per launcher is well within the reasonable loadout, especially for US forces expecting armor.
 
Re: Topic.
 
Yeah. This isn't an RTS, we don't need to "nerf" things that are authentic.  The rarity price exists to keep folks from filling up on King Tigers in the world war two CMs, or keep APS Abrams from rolling around by the dozens, but for equipment that is simply available as a squad level weapons system, and has been for some years, I don't think you could do more wrong by adjusting to make it less common because we're trying to keep QBs "fair."
 
Also as an addendum, the "cheap and plentiful" Russian Army is a bit of a myth at this point.  As posted earlier there's no commanding size difference between the forces, the US Army has about 550,000 active duty personnel, but with mobilization can surge to a little over a million.  The Russian Army stands at something like 1 million active on hand by available positions, but in practice is closer to 700,000-800,000.  While it is certainly larger, it is no longer at the point where it can across a broad front simply plow enemy forces under, and especially given the inclusion of NATO forces, and the Ukrainian military in the CMBS scenario, likely has something we could call parity in numbers to NATO/UKR forces in theater.  
 
The gap between US equipment and Russian equipment is something the player has to close, (and much the same going the other way, with I feel one exception*).  Doing it in a "gamey" way is marginal.
 
*The US reliance on fixed wing aircraft  for air defense is poorly modeled.  Right now you're stuck with either "Russian jets are not available" or "Russian jets can bomb without any real opposition."  I'd like a way to model air interception during the game, so as to allow a more realistic limitation on CAS vs CAP covered forces, without simply having no CAS available at all.  

Wish it was more consistent.  I'm never quite sure what's going to happen if I send a Bradley up over a berm with armor downrange.  

Re: Javelin Operator
 
It's what's known as an "ASI" or additional skill identifier. It's a short class anyone can take usually offered at the various training installations (although mobile trainer teams are pretty common). In practice slots are usually reserved to ensure jav equipped units are at or above MTOE.  It's not a hard weapon to operate however and plenty of "Javelin Operators" downrange have the twenty minute version of the class before using it effectively.  

The way it's working out is more the parent unit owns both, but the Avengers still get farmed out as required.  Case in point while the PATRIOT batteries in Korea all live near very sensitive things, the Avengers are based out of Camp Casey with the rest of the US ground forces.  This does not preclude the point defense role, but it was not as cut and dried as being linked together.
 
Would have been the M1097 from my understanding.  

Again, the impossibru wasn't that something would show up to the parade, it was how real/operational the thing would be, and how fast it would enter service.  The jury is still very out on those questions, and the various follow-on ERA/APS systems.  Having Afganit as anything common would really genuinely take some major movements happening now/the next few months, otherwise at best if it were included, it should closely resemble the US APS in terms of rarity and cost.
 
Asserting that it's going to be common enough to balance the playing field is a bitch of a massive reach to put it mildly.   

I found something more interesting.  The nature of the Ukrainian dinosaur legions is approximately manifold of three to two rations against the Russian array of 4.5 Stegosaurus a minute.  This is acceptably within the prorate of twenty five, but well outside the GOP DOW electron of eighty nine.  I am frankly appalled at the weaponization of this gentle herbivore but after the semi-nuclear immulsion of sixty five raptors in Keplast Obast it is to be expected.
 
Either way, I know one thing and I know it well, this **** will make you a ********** sexual tyrannosaur and aint that the truth scrobot.    

I found something more interesting.  The nature of the Ukrainian dinosaur legions is approximately manifold of three to two rations against the Russian array of 4.5 Stegosaurus a minute.  This is acceptably within the prorate of twenty five, but well outside the GOP DOW electron of eighty nine.  I am frankly appalled at the weaponization of this gentle herbivore but after the semi-nuclear immulsion of sixty five raptors in Keplast Obast it is to be expected.
 
Either way, I know one thing and I know it well, this **** will make you a ********** sexual tyrannosaur and aint that the truth scrobot.    

In terms of Javelins available, there's about one launcher per rifle squad.  I'm not sure how many are available per each different flavor of Cavalry unit (IBCT, SBCT, and ABCT Cav looking dramatically different), but ABCTs had two per platoon in 2011 at least.  
 
Round allocation is a bit different, but the CMBS 3 or so missiles per launcher is well within the reasonable loadout, especially for US forces expecting armor.
 
Re: Topic.
 
Yeah. This isn't an RTS, we don't need to "nerf" things that are authentic.  The rarity price exists to keep folks from filling up on King Tigers in the world war two CMs, or keep APS Abrams from rolling around by the dozens, but for equipment that is simply available as a squad level weapons system, and has been for some years, I don't think you could do more wrong by adjusting to make it less common because we're trying to keep QBs "fair."
 
Also as an addendum, the "cheap and plentiful" Russian Army is a bit of a myth at this point.  As posted earlier there's no commanding size difference between the forces, the US Army has about 550,000 active duty personnel, but with mobilization can surge to a little over a million.  The Russian Army stands at something like 1 million active on hand by available positions, but in practice is closer to 700,000-800,000.  While it is certainly larger, it is no longer at the point where it can across a broad front simply plow enemy forces under, and especially given the inclusion of NATO forces, and the Ukrainian military in the CMBS scenario, likely has something we could call parity in numbers to NATO/UKR forces in theater.  
 
The gap between US equipment and Russian equipment is something the player has to close, (and much the same going the other way, with I feel one exception*).  Doing it in a "gamey" way is marginal.
 
*The US reliance on fixed wing aircraft  for air defense is poorly modeled.  Right now you're stuck with either "Russian jets are not available" or "Russian jets can bomb without any real opposition."  I'd like a way to model air interception during the game, so as to allow a more realistic limitation on CAS vs CAP covered forces, without simply having no CAS available at all.  

I found something more interesting.  The nature of the Ukrainian dinosaur legions is approximately manifold of three to two rations against the Russian array of 4.5 Stegosaurus a minute.  This is acceptably within the prorate of twenty five, but well outside the GOP DOW electron of eighty nine.  I am frankly appalled at the weaponization of this gentle herbivore but after the semi-nuclear immulsion of sixty five raptors in Keplast Obast it is to be expected.
 
Either way, I know one thing and I know it well, this **** will make you a ********** sexual tyrannosaur and aint that the truth scrobot.    

More certainty than when you go through the front, but a great deal depends on the weapon used.  It's not like the whole aft compartment is full of engine, there's a lot in there that might degrade the tank, or make doing a 100 KM road march a bad idea, but won't do much for the next hour or so.  RPGs and similar infantry type weapons will still need some luck or good aim to kill any tank from the rear.
 
 
My point is the "it is in storage, BUT MIGHT GET PULLED OUT FOR THIS ONE!" argument is a slippery slope.  Some stuff that is going to be in service isn't exactly a bad thing, or reserve stuff that's clearly, 100% intended to be pulled out in the event of war isn't bad, but the game generally covers what is real/likely.  Simply because a weapon exists, especially one pointedly rejected by the force that would be using it is not enough justification to include it.
 
Re: SMAWs and SRAWS
 
SRAW is dead.  I'm having a hard time getting more details but basically no more will be purchased and as of 2005 they lost their AT warheads.  Not sure it'll show up even in the USMC module.  SMAW is certainly still a Marine platform, but in 1991 and 2001, US Army forces borrowed some from the Marines to knock out Iraqi bunkers and Afghan tunnel systems respectively.   While the Russian military might have access to the RPG-29, it has rejected it.  The US Army however has access to more SMAWs....and a history of using them.  
 
So in that regard, US Army SMAW teams are much more realistic and authentic than RPG-29s in Russian use.
 
Which is not so much an argument for the SMAW, as much as an argument for keeping weapons and vehicles more grounded so we don't get into the weirdo land that the Wargames series did, in which we're arguing which counter-historical prototype, or not-procured weapons system is most legitimate to throw in the game.  Russian Army has selected RPG-7s as the rocket system for its squads, the US Army only borrows SMAWs when it knows its going bunker busting occasionally.   Thus no RPG-29 and no US Army SMAW is pretty much the way to go.
 
 
I'd be interested to see it if you found it.  If we're talking about Chechnya post 1994 (which is likely if we're talking about youtube) it's less likely to be a Soviet legacy system, and more likely to be a third party owned system smuggled in-country.  I actually just finished reading a book on the 1994 and 1999 fighting and while RPG-7s and RPG-18s were mentioned frequently, but nothing on the RPG-29.  

Haha.  Ha.  
 
When we know what it actually looks like/has on it/there's something more than CG renderings it might be worth thinking about.  Emphasis on might.

No, MARINE Space lobsters.  They're way more hardcore, and fight dragons and stuff.  

The conscript thing is worth of note when it comes to units freezing though.  It's not at all a question of morale, it's a question of training and the experience to be doing what needs to be done next .2 seconds vs 20 seconds after the event occurs. 
 
I think that's really a point worth making.  The conscript who's been in country three days asks himself "was that a bullet?" when here's getting the snappy noises that come with bullets going close then hits the dirt after he's come to the conclusion "THOSE ARE BULLETS!" or when ****.  The conscript who's been in country three weeks is hitting the dirt with sufficient vigor to make an impact trench about halfway through the first snaps (on the other hand, he's moving hunched over and moving with a purpose when it's "just" bullets whizzing by because those aren't the close ones).
 
Same deal for tanks now that I think about it.  A tank taking direct fire isn't going to just hang out and get shot if it can at all avoid it.  If it cannot return fire, it's going to pop smoke and back up out of direct fire LOS.  There should be a delay built into this based around the experience of the crew because a crack crew knows what an RPG sounds like hitting the tank, and knows it's a good idea to leave, while a green one is going to take a few seconds to debate if that was an RPG, or that was the neighboring tank.
 
On the other hand, a more experienced crew might know that "well hell, that was just an RPG hitting the frontal slope.  We're fine.  Grease that building it came from" and stick it out and keep fighting while the regular crew knows they're in danger and backing up is a good idea.
 
Just a thought.  Either way popping smoke and reversing is the right answer, just a question of delay.  

I always worry about being a Pat Buchanan.  Not in the political alignment sense nearly as much as continuing to exist and insisting on making noise long after I have passed from relevancy.  
 
Think we're pretty past the point of high possibility of war.  Russia's hand has gone about as far as it can reasonably go, western interests are not threatened to the degree that more NATO exercises and modest military funding boosts won't smooth over.  Something stupid could still happen, but it's not any worse than any given day in 1985 or something.  

I always worry about being a Pat Buchanan.  Not in the political alignment sense nearly as much as continuing to exist and insisting on making noise long after I have passed from relevancy.  
 
Think we're pretty past the point of high possibility of war.  Russia's hand has gone about as far as it can reasonably go, western interests are not threatened to the degree that more NATO exercises and modest military funding boosts won't smooth over.  Something stupid could still happen, but it's not any worse than any given day in 1985 or something.