panzersaurkrautwerfer

"Its alrigth honey, we can try it again later"

In practice the only thing the TOW is supposed to be used on is tanks, and tank-like targets.  Anything less than a tank is something the 25 MM will eat up.  You see them get shot at buildings a fair bit in Iraq, but that was more of a lack of any other use for TOWs and availability of platform and munition than a standard use. 

WHY ARE WE USING ALL CAPS?
 
This actually came up in a very lengthy discussion in a different thread, but the short of it is the SU-25 in all practical sense is just as vulnerable as the A-10 (it's not super-sonic, and the agility of a fully loaded strike platform is marginal), and whatever Russian ability to prevent NATO penetration of Russian air space exists, they're still vastly outnumbered by the NATO fighterswarm as it is.  The question asked by serious observers has been "how long will it take NATO to achieve air superiority over Russian forces?"  never "can the Russians achieve effective CAS?"
 
And to that end, to argue the very modest difference in capabilities of the SU-25 somehow makes it immune to quite possibly the most lethal air force ever assembled, and still very robust larger SAM systems (not to mention it's not like the various Ukrainian ADA platforms simply vanished) is just stupid.  The A-10 and SU-25 operate more or less in the same threat window, with the same level of vulnerability, and neither would be committed in contested airspace outside of as part of a massive strike package for a short window (Codename Duchess gave a great breakdown on what this looks like in reality).  
 
Also what sort of uberdouche give themselves reputation votes?  

And know what it does with some level of credibility. I'm sure whatever armor it has according to the Russians can defeat smaller nuclear explosions and resist Captain America's sheild but combat mission thus far has well modeled what we know about vehicles vs propoganda claims.

I did . . . . . once . . . . . . by accident.
Can we just call me a junior uberdouche and leave it at that.

And know what it does with some level of credibility. I'm sure whatever armor it has according to the Russians can defeat smaller nuclear explosions and resist Captain America's sheild but combat mission thus far has well modeled what we know about vehicles vs propoganda claims.

And know what it does with some level of credibility. I'm sure whatever armor it has according to the Russians can defeat smaller nuclear explosions and resist Captain America's sheild but combat mission thus far has well modeled what we know about vehicles vs propoganda claims.

And know what it does with some level of credibility. I'm sure whatever armor it has according to the Russians can defeat smaller nuclear explosions and resist Captain America's sheild but combat mission thus far has well modeled what we know about vehicles vs propoganda claims.

I think Russia leaving treaties would mean more if they followed them in the first place.
 
Anyway.  Nice to see some signs of military commitment in eastern europe.

1. Pyotr.  Stalin was already taken, so rock will do for now.  
 
2. Taylor Swift (she just doesn't know it yet)
 
3. The secret hero of defeat of HATO in the Novorussia front will reveal himself to both exist and be the spawn of Putin at the proper time, astride two Armatas, each driven by bears fed only with the most tender of the homosexuals.  

It's an abstraction, the hull down system is not tailored for each and every vehicle in game, it's more generic.
 
Facts:
-The krizantema CAN GO hulldown (proven)
-The krizantema CAN SHOOT from hulldown (proven)
-the krizantema CAN USE RADAR (proven - M1 in my tests were behind their smoke cover, enough to block Thermal, not radar)
 
I called that emplacement a "berm", but it's just the proof the kriza can go hull down in game. It was the game to tell me it was hull down, if it wasn't it would be called "partial hull down" instead.  Your idea of perfect hull down kriza is just not the same as the game (or developers) visually, but in terms of effectiveness it's the same,
If you desire try to make more kind of Hills...
 
But calling bugs or vehicle broken seems inappropriate in this case.

​Fewer things are/were more obscene that that abominable omelet. 

Re: Rarity
 
Rarity makes sense in the regards of it being a weapons system that is uncommon IRL.  Basically it's designed less for balancing more for keeping the game "honest" (think World War Two, if you want a big tank battle, it's there to keeping one opponent from simply buying as many King Tigers as possible, rare tank, less common).  The M1A2 SEP V2 is already quite common in the US inventory.  It is indisputably the MBT of the US Army, and there's a few thousand of them.
 
Re: Dealing with Abrams
 
Achieve local superiority.  Use good recon (if you've got UAVs, guess what?  The US can't shoot them down most of the time).  You should also have a general idea of how many tanks the enemy has based on the points going into the match which should let you know how worried you should be.  Look at the objective and think about how you would defend it.  Then look at the best way to approach these defenses.  
 
In so many words, you're trying to account for where his tanks are, where your tanks are best able to fight.  If he's got 14 Abrams, that's pretty scary, but if he's defending three objectives, then all 14 of those Abrams are not likely sitting on one objective.  If one of those objectives as two ways to approach it, then the fourish tanks he's allocated to it are not all likely facing the same approach.  So say two approaches he's likely to have two tanks on each.
 
So once you've figured out where he's got those two tank defending you take all twenty of yours and pile on. 
 
When you're simply going tank to tank on a flat field, you're missing out on this.  The technical capability of the armored vehicle is only a small part of the overall picture.  When you're testing two things sitting on a flat spot it's not a circumstance you're likely to encounter, it's not so much a solution in finding out which machine is optimal, it's discovering which tactic is optimal.

Here's the thing.  What Combat Mission tries to do is use unrealistic (in the military sense) systems to represent realistic outcomes.  This is the basis for any wargame.  The target/focus for this is to best represent the behaviors of military units operating within what is normal military practice.
 
So in that regard, the spotting systems assume two units moving into contact are doing so tactically through terrain that offers some degree of concealment.  It is not designed to properly simulate "and through the force of magic three tanks appear in a field 300 meters from each other."  The M1 has much better sensors, and as it works through the spotting checks it is most likely to pass them faster, and kill one of the T-90s, and then acquire and kill the second T-90, while sometimes the T-90's spotting rolls go well and it gets to shoot first.
 
This whole obsession with placing things more or less in the open and drawing conclusions from which is "better" is sort of....weird.  The game is not designed to support this behavior.  Nor is establishing it takes 1.34 T-90s to kill .56 Abrams especially helpful outside of measuring net trends over several battles.

Here's the thing.  What Combat Mission tries to do is use unrealistic (in the military sense) systems to represent realistic outcomes.  This is the basis for any wargame.  The target/focus for this is to best represent the behaviors of military units operating within what is normal military practice.
 
So in that regard, the spotting systems assume two units moving into contact are doing so tactically through terrain that offers some degree of concealment.  It is not designed to properly simulate "and through the force of magic three tanks appear in a field 300 meters from each other."  The M1 has much better sensors, and as it works through the spotting checks it is most likely to pass them faster, and kill one of the T-90s, and then acquire and kill the second T-90, while sometimes the T-90's spotting rolls go well and it gets to shoot first.
 
This whole obsession with placing things more or less in the open and drawing conclusions from which is "better" is sort of....weird.  The game is not designed to support this behavior.  Nor is establishing it takes 1.34 T-90s to kill .56 Abrams especially helpful outside of measuring net trends over several battles.

Sort of.  One of the things that's positively nerve wracking about long shots is the amount of time from shot to hit is just long enough for you to wonder if you've missed or not. While stopping or swerving when you see muzzle flash isn't going to save you, firing at targets around 3 KM+ there's just enough time that if the target was stopping as you fired, or starting to change directions you might miss.
 
A GLATGM can adjust for that sort of movement.  That said, it really is not a major factor until we have drivers who can see 4-5 seconds into the future. 
 
 
Oh totally.  Not to mention the simplicity of tank rounds make them pretty hard to stop through anything but armor plate.
 
 
The loader's armor set is also pretty good for letting loaders hide their smart phones on top of the tank from causal observation.  Sneaky privateses.   

Addendum:
 
Totally support rarity boosts for APS though.  They're not super-common on anything quite yet.  Having a higher rarity cost for US systems would be good too given the super-speculative nature of that system.

Clearly this is why Battlefront should hire me as a consultant and pay me lots of money to make obvious statements and use words I might not actually know the definition of.  Synergize those primary assets! 

As just a thought, if we really wanted to work in battlesighting, perhaps there could be a chance at shorter range, tied to troop quality that the tank wouldn't lase and would just fire without ranging the target.  Tying it to troop quality would be important as green crews likely wouldn't have the experience or confidence to take that sort of intiative, while a crack crew knows exactly what a tank at 1200 meters vs 1500 meters looks like, and that they need to lead it about 20 mils judging from how fast it's going.
 
It'd still be a variable, a crack crew might not be confident at this particular target, or a regular crew might be in the "zone" for that shot. Lower than regular just strikes me as doubtful.  Too new at tanking to really have a feel for it, or the experience to futz with estimating range while someone is drawing down on them.

Of course.  Is impossible tank of massive expense, weight, and battlefield record of being pretty hard to kill is as good as advertised!   Must be 'murica.  Now let me tell you about this T-72 with fuzzy dice in the turret and how it's pretty much the king of murder mountain.  

This is all part of the game guys. Murica

As just a thought, if we really wanted to work in battlesighting, perhaps there could be a chance at shorter range, tied to troop quality that the tank wouldn't lase and would just fire without ranging the target.  Tying it to troop quality would be important as green crews likely wouldn't have the experience or confidence to take that sort of intiative, while a crack crew knows exactly what a tank at 1200 meters vs 1500 meters looks like, and that they need to lead it about 20 mils judging from how fast it's going.
 
It'd still be a variable, a crack crew might not be confident at this particular target, or a regular crew might be in the "zone" for that shot. Lower than regular just strikes me as doubtful.  Too new at tanking to really have a feel for it, or the experience to futz with estimating range while someone is drawing down on them.

GSR isn't a magic eyeray that sees through all things.  It's pretty easy to confuse, and on a battlefield there is a lot of terrain between the emitter and the possible targets.  It is not useless by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not like press button and on the screen the location of all enemy tanks within the claimed effective range appears.  
 
It's the same sort of logic that made the US Army buy up a million LRAS3 type systems, and the same unfortunate reality in terms of the tyranny of lines of sight, target fidelity, and the reality that most military forces avoid the wide open spaces that favor sensor-centric warfare.  
 
So to elaborate on my earlier comment, in a world filled with sensor contacts that are both targets, and not targets, ground based radar is good at telling you where things are vs not.  It's marginal at discriminating between targets, and still totally subject to LOS issues.  It can shoot at the maybe targets, but again its not good at bulldozer vs tank, and it is just as bad as every other optic at seeing behind terrain.  

Oh I'm aware.  I'm just being generous.  

Here's the thing.  What Combat Mission tries to do is use unrealistic (in the military sense) systems to represent realistic outcomes.  This is the basis for any wargame.  The target/focus for this is to best represent the behaviors of military units operating within what is normal military practice.
 
So in that regard, the spotting systems assume two units moving into contact are doing so tactically through terrain that offers some degree of concealment.  It is not designed to properly simulate "and through the force of magic three tanks appear in a field 300 meters from each other."  The M1 has much better sensors, and as it works through the spotting checks it is most likely to pass them faster, and kill one of the T-90s, and then acquire and kill the second T-90, while sometimes the T-90's spotting rolls go well and it gets to shoot first.
 
This whole obsession with placing things more or less in the open and drawing conclusions from which is "better" is sort of....weird.  The game is not designed to support this behavior.  Nor is establishing it takes 1.34 T-90s to kill .56 Abrams especially helpful outside of measuring net trends over several battles.