Krasnoarmeyets

That is just the regular "Dubl'" ("double") mode of the FCS, which allows the TC to precisely lay the cannon and engage the target independently of the gunner, which has been present at least since the T-80U (do not recall if the late T-64B/80B had it too). The commander still has to acquire the target though, so that is mostly for engaging immediate threats at the shorter range, when there is no time to give commands to the gunner. In general, the capability for the TC to automatically lay the gun to the given azimuth (with the gunner completing aiming in the vertical plane) is ancient, present on the Soviet tanks at least since T-10 (again do not recall right now if the T-44/54 had it too), and on the Western counterparts also IIRC. It is the CITV that really makes the difference, so I hope to see the T-72B4 in a later module (still, the best modification for T-72 was the B2, which unfortunately was deemed too cost-ineffective, apparently).

If it is not too much work, how about a version with a good old solid red star? (Всех с днем Советской Армии и Военно-Морского Флота!)

Excellent! And thank You for explaining how to work the editor. All we need now is a 'side-neutral' (no white stripes and flags) version of Kieme's Ukrainian vehicles...

That is good to hear! Would be really great if it works out. In my opinion, for the CMBS plotline type scenarios, with the war breaking out just recently, the rugged and masked faces would probably not go very well with the relatively tidy Ukrainian uniforms. However, if someone were to make a ragtag uniform retexture of the Ukrainians to go with the current conflict type scenarios (which this mod would be better suited to too), with both sides living and fighting in the field for weeks and months at a time, they would soon be nearly indistinguishable from each other if it were not for insignias, stripes and other special markings (as is often the case in real life too). So, maybe make a tidier face version for now, but also preserve the rugged one for later? P.S.: A tangential question - is there any way to add friendly Russian troops as support for the 'red' Ukrainians in Ukraine vs. Ukraine type of scenarios and/or QBs? P.P.S.: I realized a minor downside to switching the rebels to the Ukrainian side: they would start speaking Ukrainian. Since even local Ukrainians from Donbass tend to speak mostly Russian, they would lose some authenticity for someone who could distinguish Russian from Ukrainian (not a very major concern on the global scale, I know ). But maybe someone would be so kind as to make a sound mod replacing Ukrainian speech with the one from the Russian side to plug in when you play for militia (of course, then the Ukrainian army would start speaking Russian too, but to a large degree it actually does so already in real life, and you do not hear the enemy very often in any case ). Or even better - Russian with a bit of Ukrainian mixed in for some local flavor.

Just FYI, there is only one motor rifle division and only one tank division in the Russian Ground Forces right now. All other MRDs and TDs were reorganized into brigades, which are subordinate mostly to the various Combined Arms Armies, and some - directly to the Military Districts. (Though I am sure comrade BTR knows that already.) And if the Soviet practices for tactical markings were not changed much, then each brigade will get a tactical marking in its own distinct shape, which will then be modified with alphanumerical and pictorial symbols for each of the battalions and independent companies. Therefore, down from the line battalion level, the tactical marking should be the same (which means it should normally be the same for the bulk of the force you are given in the scenario, and the attached forces from other units of the brigade should have similarly looking markings, just with different symbols inside them; you should get an entirely different marking only if you have units from another brigade). Therefore, if it is impossible to control how textures are assigned to vehicles, perhaps it would be better to just have a single type of tactical marking, or maybe a collection of different replacements to be swapped in for variety in different missions (i.e., in one mission you have mostly units from x bn of yy bde and put in one type of symbol plugin, in the next - z bn of yy bde, so a plugin from a set of similar symbols, and in the next one you have a completely different bde, so a plugin with a completely different symbol). The tactical numbers are a much tougher case - since they are unique for every vehicle of a certain type in the brigade (i.e., one tank can have the same number as one IFV, but every tank has its own unique number), and are supposed to adhere to a structured order (established on the brigade commander's discretion within the set of numbers assigned to the brigade), it would probably be impossible to get them right. Perhaps the best option would be to assume that the number set follows this system: xyz number, x = number of the battalion in the brigade, yz = number of the vehicle in the battalion (the highest one I can think of is 41 for the MBTs in the tank bn). Since you rarely get more than a battalion worth of any type of vehicle in a given scenario, it would probably be possible to make enough texture variants for every vehicle to have a unique number, and for the number range to be relatively authentic too. The numbers would still be mixed up within the units though, but what can you do (well, perhaps we can petition BFC to make a variable to connect the unit place in the TOE with the kind of texture it gets). In any case, BTR - thank You enormously for this outstanding work. Our vehicles already look better than ever, and I can't wait for the final polished version (well, technically, not polished, but a used and dirtied up one). P.S.: I am relying on this analysis for my assumptions: http://army.armor.kiev.ua/hist/opoznav.shtml

Blimey, Kieme - thank You for Your replies. Especially for pointing me to Kieme's mods - they look as a very significant improvement. The mod looks very well and also authentic enough; would be quite useful, at least untill the irregulars module comes out. If I also may suggest, it would be better to replace the SVD's texture as well - the sleek black one is too sexy for them. The same for PKM. I am not sure what to do with the PKP, as that is a unique model. Maybe the top carrying handle can be made transparent and the stock and grip textures can be swapped in from Ukrainian PKM to give it a "PKMish" look (still would not be completely authentic though)? Additionally, the crew uniforms remain the standard Russian pixel ones (or are You planning to do an individual one for that?). Furthermore, would it be possible to swap in these textures for the Ukrainians by simply renaming them, or do they have a different texture layout? The Ukrainian side would already have all the right weapons (especially the RPK-74, ubiqiutous in the current conflict), and with the right names in the UI panel. It seems that the digital Ukrainian camo does not share any textures with the standard one (or am I wrong?), so would it be possible to have the Ukrainian army and paramilitaries from the digital set of uniform, and the militia from the regular one? Thank You! P.S.: Noticed from one of the previous comments: Does that mean that You have tested that already?

Thank You for Your work! Have You considered 'ragtagizing' Ukrainian units (mixing different shades and patterns of TTsKO, various civilian and paramilitary camo, and donated older NATO uniforms (I remember seeing German Flecktarn (may be an imitation, not a real Bundeswehr uniform), British desert DPM (looked authentic) and something in plain khaki with Canadian insignia) plus mix of standard Soviet and volunteer-supplied civilian market body armor, fatigues and helmets)? It is quite common even for the regular army units to have very mixed clothing, and even more so for territorial battalions and other semi-irregular formations. Also it would be nice to give them dirtier 'living in the trenches' look, as opposed to 'just stepped out of the barracks' one that we have now. P.S. Also, if I may suggest (and if it is technically possible) - it is better to replace most of the separatist weapons with their analogues from the Ukrainian side, to reflect the mostly older equipment being used (with wooden grips and stocks, orange 5.45 magazines and 'plum' purplish Soviet plastic instead of the modern Russian black one).

The ones with the top ten crews.

If you want to see at least what vehicles have been shown to be lost, here is a web community that has been aggregating this information since the beginning of the conflict: lostarmour.info That is a list of destroyed / severely damaged vehicles: http://lostarmour.info/armour/ (press the 'Показать весь список' long blue button to see the whole list) Captured vehicles: http://lostarmour.info/spoils/ The site is in Russian, but it is not hard to navigate. The content of columns is, left to right: - number of the entry on the current sorting of the list (not fixed) - type of the vehicle (easily translatable, or in many cases immediately obvious from the numerical parts) - vehicle's tactical number (if it was identified) - date of the photo/video source capture - place of capture - owner of the vehicle (yellow-blue - Ukraine, red with blue cross - DPR/LPR militia) - specific unit which owned the vehicle (if known) - source material - source link - vehicle's unique ID in the database (fixed) - map reference (if available) The green background is for the entries that have been added / updated in the last 24 hours (there was a huge addition of captured ones today from Debal'tsevo area, and the reports are only starting to pour in (they still occasionally add vehicles from last summer pockets that have not surfaced on the photos until now, for example)). I suggest that you sort the list by date (4th column), so it is easier to see the ones from recent fighting at the end of the list. Also note that the date format is year-month-day (not year-day-month like it is in the US).

Very good guess, but as far as dictionaries go I was only able to find a reference in a couple of them to a possible relationship to the ancient Greek word for "blue material" or "metallic-colored". Most of the others simply state "origins unknown". If I were to make an amateur guess, I would note that if you took the Russian word for blue ("siniy") and tried to apply it as a noun to describe a lump of blueish solid stuff in an archaic way, you would get something like "sinets", which is rather close to morph into the current form over time. (And that is how you go from discussing the tactical conditions of a simulated combined arms battle to pondering fine peculiarities of Russian etymology in four posts. )

"Nekul'turnaya svin'ya" (некультурная свинья), if you want to get it completely properly. Yes, after some lengthy testing it was determined that the best material for the penetrator was not tungsten or uranium, but pork. Stands for "lead" (the metal), has nothing to do with pigs.

T-90A (except some early production runs, apparently) and T-72B3 (and probably the T-80UE-1/UA with the different MZ type also, but they are very rare) already have a reworked autoloader that can house the lengthened "Svinets-1/2" / "Lekalo" APFSDS. Also, it is unlikely that "Armata"-based MBT would have a carousel autoloader, since it would be hard to fit it into an unmanned turret (since combat compartment no longer extends into the hull, there is simply no space for it). The bustle autoloader, mounted in the back of the turret, seems much more logical, especially since the tank would likely be upgunned to 152mm main cannon later in its service life. It will also probably have new unitary rounds to simplify loading operations.

I guess I should have said "stealthier". Of course, it is hard to stay completely radio silent on the modern battlefield (even a MANPADS squad might have to flash an IFF signal before launch). But if the vehicle were receiving target parameters from a squadron / brigade AD station (which it can do automatically since the M2 modification; the battery's 9A35 vehicles can also reveal actively emitting aircraft through passive radiolocator), the radiorangefinder would have to work only momentarily before launch (and in a narrow angle), and since the missile is F&F, the vehicle can immediately disengage and withdraw to cover after launch if necessary. Also, if I recall correctly, the rangefinder (and IFF transmitter) can be taken completely out of the launch sequence (which would become similar to the one used on 'Strela-1'), with the target being acquired visually at the cost of some time and accuracy (and the improved optical visor on the M3 modification was to enhance that capability). Of course, 'Tunguska' has several non-emitting (optical and inertial calculation) combat operation modes too, but it would normally be expected to provide constant area coverage with an active radar location station. BTW, I think you meant the 9M333 missile (introduced alongside 'Strela-10M3'). 9K333 is the 'Verba' MANPADS (with the 9M336 missile, which is also quite neat ). Yes, I would like to have 'Verba' too - apparently it starts to push into the proper SAM area by some characteristics. Also, are you sure the HMG station is not remotely operated (maybe the TC was simply unbuttoned at the moment)? AFAIR, T-90SA in CMSF had a remote-controlled one. Yes, perhaps. My misgivings are academic at this point anyway (though the scenario can be tweaked in the future, perhaps). The one supporting the 2nd MRC looks positively doomed. Still hope it would be able to put at least its autocannons to good use, though. There, I have at last made this post somewhat relevant for the original topic (perhaps we should go with all this to some dedicated AA thread)...

Every frontline motorifle company would be issued about 3 MANPADS (about 1 soldier in each platoon would be trained to use them, though not officially assigned an "operator" position) with several missiles (each BMP can carry up to 2) depending on the severity of the threat. That is in addition to the 27 MANPADS in one of the AA missile batteries of the brigade's AA missile-artillery squadron. The main difference between them is that the AA battery MANPADS squads are tied into brigade's AD network, being aware about the air threat situation and ready to engage enemy aircraft in advance, whereas the MR companies' MANPADS are for the last-ditch self-defence when the enemy aircraft are in direct LOS. Given that there is a battalion tactical group - sized force present in this AAR, it is very strange indeed that it has no MANPADS at all. Also, the 2 2K22 'Tunguskas' should probably be backed up by 2 9K35 'Strela-10' systems (which could utilize their amphibious capability and stealthy IR target acquisition to deploy even further towards the frontline than the 'Tunguskas').

Yes, I am Russian, born in the Russian SFSR of the USSR. I have left home to study in the US (long story) before I came of conscription age, but plan to finally return for good in the coming few years, which is when I hope to make my service in the Russian Armed Forces (specifically Tank Forces, I hope; unfortunately my beloved T-80s might all be in reserve by that point, but on the other hand I might have the chance to participate in putting one of the "Armata"-based vehicles into line service ). Modern warfare (actually, historical warfare too, and history in general) and its various aspects is of interest for me for its complexity, variability and sophistication; and because of a general concern for the current geopolitical situation and its prospects for the future (and also for a bit of practical application in various tactical simulators (my "primary" community is that of Operation Flashpoint and Arma) and wargames ). The online name is the one I have been using for more than a decade now, chosen mostly for moral / ideological reasons. Thank You all for the replies, some of it has given me new food for thought; unfortunately do not have time to reply in-depth right now.

Yes, thanks - I have already seen it in the other thread. Scanned it quickly - seems very interesting (too bad such large parts were redacted), will read into it later. I have read through your other document though (the analysis on armor and intelligence conclusions in general) - quite enlightening too, I have marked for myself several interesting points of note (like western estimates of Soviet tanks operational status by year, and what guesses proved right or wrong in retrospect), so thank You for those!

If there was a part of Russia that was historically largely inhabited by Americans and pro-American Russians (lets call it, say, Newamerica, for simplicity sake ), and an armed uprising has toppled the Russian government, replacing it with a regime that people of Newamerica felt was unfair and dangerous for them, which led them to protest against it and demand broader regional autonomy, which led to said new regime threatening and intimidating them with nationalist forces and hired thugs, which led to Newamericans and their friends, relatives and sympathisers from American mainland organising into militia squads and arming themselves by capturing local police and SBU FSB stations (actions that were perpetrated with impunity just several weeks ago by their opponents in Lvov and Kiev Saint-Petersburg and Moscow), which resulted in them being pummeled by the new Russian regime's artillery, tanks and airstrikes - then yes, American help with weapons, supplies and advisers would not be an invasion, but aiding in defense of their own people. Sorry for bringing up political questions, but could not just stay quiet.

Well, I have an idea of what it can do in real life, but no idea of how exactly it was modeled in the game (BTW, "Skif" and "Corsar" have laser beam-riding guidance and should not be subject to dazzlers), which is why I am asking. The pictures I am referring to are the ones immediately following corresponding articles. Specifically, the two pictures on the page 99 (in the T-72B3 article) are clearly those of T-64BV (small rolling wheels, angled rear turret container, only HMG and TC's IR searchlight visible above turret profile), not T-72B3 (larger rolling wheels, straight rear turret container, wind sensor (mast above number 5 in the picture) and part of "Sosna-U" sight (the box behind and above smoke launchers in the picture) visible above turret profile). The picture on page 97, in the T-64BV article, is the one of T-64BM "Bulat" (modified ERA array on the turret front with long rubber screens clearly visible), identical to the one in "Bulat's" article on page 98. All of that might seem like nitpicking, but, again, I wonder if the other information provided in those pictures is correct or mixed up too (ammunition and systems seem correct, but I am not sure about the armor values). Besides, if that are actual pictures from the game, then controlling one tank and seeing its stats illustrated with the picture of the other might produce an irksome cognitive dissonance.

Not sure if it is an issue with the manual or the game info, but the encyclopedia entry for the T-72B3 (both regular and APS version) seems to show the picture for T-64BV (though it has a green background apparently used for Russian vehicles), while the T-64BV entry has the picture for T-64BM (all of which leads me to wonder if other info in the panels, like armor values, has not been mixed up also). Additionally, can you please specify, at least in a couple of words, exactly which SACLOS ATGM systems "Shtora" and "Varta" dazzlers would be effective against (I am especially curious if they would affect the TOW-2)?

Combined GPS and GLONASS. Here is the manufacturer's data sheet: http://lreri.tripod.com/TIUS/TIUS-N.pdf

Long story short: T-80UD + "Varta" system + 1200 hp engine + other minor improvements = T-84 T-84 + new welded turret + "Nozh" ERA + improved side skirts + possibly thermal imager* = T-84U "Oplot" T-84U + new FCS and TI** + CITV station** + new turret and side skirts + "Duplet" ERA + satellite navigation + improved communications = BM "Oplot" (initially called "Oplot-M") * - Sources differ on wether actual production vehicles possess it. If yes, would probably be an analogue of 1st gen. Soviet/Russian "Agava" device. ** - Apparently made with foreign electronics. Ukraine Armed Forces have procured 10 T-84U's during 2000's. The general consensus is that 6 are still operational (mostly in the Lvov ground forces academy - about 4 vehicles, possibly also in "Desna" training centre; no line combat unit is known to operate them so far - the most advanced 1st tank brigade has 2 T-64BM "Bulat" battalions and 1 T-64BV battalion). There was a 2009 contract for 10 BM "Oplot" vehicles, but it was not realized due to lack of funds. There are now plans to procure 50 new BM "Oplot" vehicles until 2018, but these look questionable due to state and capabilities of the Malyshev KhZTM factory (which apparently still lacks qualified personnel, equipment and funds even after all mobilization efforts - the workforce that still remains has to pull double/triple shifts to keep up with repair demands for reserve and damaged tanks) - former director (which has since been sacked) has stated that producing 1 new tank would take about 10 months IIRC, which would correspond with the pace demonstrated by Thailand contract (49 BM "Oplot" ordered in Sept. 2011, first 5 delivered Nov. 2013, apparently only 1 new one assembled as of Oct. 2014).

Thank You very much for the reply! Yes, I understand that we can strive to model reality ad infinitum and still be nowhere close to valid representation; and with limited resources you should focus on the most common and important stuff first. However, at least the first capability that I have presented (the IR screening) seems of such monumental importance that I think it would perhaps be even more vital than say APS systems that have been purposefully modelled for the game (current generation of APS would not save you from a system like "Javelin" in a top-attack mode, but if its targeting efficiency can be reduced at least for 25%, that would make a huge significance on the battlefield (statistically speaking - losing a quarter less armored vehicles to the attacks by well-hidden ATGMs can make all the difference)). Reductions in general IR observability could also give your forces a much needed edge. Have you as a team considered the question of IR camouflage, and if yes, what conclusions did you reach (can and should it be a target for implementation in the future)? If not, is there a hope that you will consider it sometime in the near future? Thank You again. 2 - The problem with artillery screens is that they are rather temporary in their effect (once the shells cease falling, the field becomes subject to dispersion and wind, whereas the chemical vehicles that I am suggesting would be keeping the smokefield up for as long as they are able to operate). Being able to cut off entire areas of the battlefield from observation and precise engagement for extended periods (perhaps for the entire battle duration) is a very significant capability in my eyes. 3 - Yes, that is true for the most part, but the largest scale CM battles are pushing partially into operative-tactical (regimental/brigade, at least when the supporting assets are considered) level. I can certainly imagine a battalion tactical group being temporarily supported by an engineer company (from a special engineering battalion attached to the combat brigade, which might be provided by a dedicated engineering-sapper brigade through an operational command) that can set up a few of such devices to aid in tactical defense. Thank You! I have tried. I hope BFC would not find me overly presumptious for trying to suggest how to do things within their own game. That is some quite interesting information. If I may be so bold (and if this is not classified) - when did you first become aware of the T-64 MBT (specifically the capabilities of its composite armor) and how much of a threat it was then considered? I am asking this because it looks like most of the US Army field manuals of the mid-to-late 70's seem to consider T-62 medium tanks for the most dangerous opponent, when Soviet Army already had quite a few T-64A and T-72, and the much more capable T-64B / T-80B were starting to enter service. I know this is quite off-topic, but since there is an expert from the opposing side present, I can not miss the opportunity. On the Kosovo campaign - actually that is what originally started me thinking about using unconventional means and decoys to defeat or reduce conventional threats. I even remember reading about Serbian usage of regular off-the-shelf microwave owens as X-band (if I recall correctly) radar decoys against NATO HARM missiles (though I was not able to verify technical possibility of such an approach). Quite true. However, the MLRS battery support can be unavailable at the moment due to it redeploying, executing other fire missions, being reloaded or waiting for munitions, engaging in a counterbattery fire cat-and-mouse game with BM-27/30s, being destroyed by tactical ballistic / cruise missile strikes, getting caught up in spetsnaz ambush on the march, or any and all combinations thereof (or a hundred other things). Meanwhile, the situation might demand storming the covered positions immediately (they can, for example, be at the important roadway that provides the only viable route into the flank of the charging enemy brigade that has to be engaged now before it achieves a breakthrough at an important point in the frontline). Or the protected positions could be too valuable for the attacker to destroy with the "Big Guns" (and, in any case, if the enemy has to resort for those, you must be doing something right ). Generally, this capability seems important enough to warrant considering its implementation (especially since all the basic smoke mechanics are already there). Yes, rightly so. Though I myself have not served in the RKKA, obviously. Thank You! Yes, I agree - this is more operationally significant. However, I can also see it being used tactically, maybe even not in a pre-planned way, but resulting from adaptability of battlefield commanders (i.e. "Hey, we have chemists/engineers nearby. Contact their HQ - we can use their help."). Yes, I have read the manual as soon as it was posted. However, referencing the "Shtora" and "Varta" jammers, it only describes their general operation, without mentioning specific SACLOS systems affected. I am asking this because, as far a I remember, the early TOW missiles had a single band / wavelength tracer emitter, which signals "Shtora" could immitate and therefore disrupt the guidance. However, either I-TOW or TOW-2 has added a second emitter operating on a different band / wavelength, rendering the original "Shtora" emitters ineffective. I do not exactly remember the technical details - maybe Mr. Kettler can help with insight from the TOW side at least. Still, I should perhaps ask this question in the manual thread. As far as I understand, while the anti-radar capability of the material (absorbing or redirecting radar waves coming from outside) would be significantly affected by dirt and other obstructants (is that a word, I wonder ), the anti-thermal capability (masking IR waves coming from inside) would not. And the reduction of IR signature is the most important part (on the tactical frontline level represented in the game) in my opinion. Yes, that too. Additionally, it seems that on that distances (for the rear positions) the radar signature reduction would be more significant (to reduce observability by ELINT planes and satellites), corresponding to conditions where it would be easier to maintain. The wear-and-tear issue is a concern too, of course (judging by how easy it is to lose a whole side skirt through a simple brush against a building). However, the manufacturer claimed that the fabric's material is rather sturdy (on the levels of rubberized fabric, perhaps) and therefore might be expected to survive contact with thick bushes and other landscape features that might be encountered during unit's march. Combined with its relatively low costs and a little maintenance dedication, it should be possible to keep it operational enough even among frontline fighting units. Additionally, I remember that the new alternative application methods were discussed (one of particular interest was essentially spraying the covering material onto protected surfaces like paint). All in all, there are, obviously, many issues and variables related to this technology, but it is my belief that its potential benefits on the battlefield make it worthwhile to investigate this issue further. I hope Battlefront will at least keep it in mind for the future. Thank You for Your attention.

Greetings. I have just registered here on the forums, but have been playing CMSF for several years and am awaiting CMBS very eagerly. I have several questions / suggestions pertaining to some tactical capabilities that can be potentially game-changing on the modern battlefield and the possibility of their implementation in CMBS and its (hopefully) future modules or unofficial modifications. I apologise if this have already been discussed (in that case, can you please direct me to the relevant topics / posts, if possible), but I was not able to find anything relevant through the search (only "Nakidka" has been mentioned a couple of times in passing, it seems, and without official BF comments on it). Also, pardon me if my English is not perfectly clear, since I am a non-native speaker. So, without further ado, how about putting in the game: 1.) Vehicles equipped with infrared-blocking and radar-absorbing camouflage covers. The obvious example is the Russian "Nakidka" kit (my apologies for the Wiki link - could not find anything more useful in the English language). Since thermal imaging plays an enourmous role in how most modern combat vehicles and some weapon systems (especially the deadly "Javelin") acquire and engage targets, reducing the vehicle's IR signature should be one of the top priorities for any nation faced with a modern technological opponent (such camouflage should probably become as common as optical camouflage eventually). The radar signature reduction would probably be more significant on the operational level (I do not know if and how the functioning of BRM-1/3 recon vehicles radars is simulated in CMBS), reducing the visibility of the formations to the enemy radioelectronic reconnaissance, but would still perhaps help against certain radar imaging / targeting systems, such as the AH-64's "Longbow". I am not sure if there are currently stocks of the "Nakidka" or similar kits for the regular line service vehicles of the Russian units (this was probably a rather low priority since Russian Ground Forces were not likely to face a major high-tech opponent in the past two decades; however at least the new M2 modification of the 2S19 "Msta-S" SPH seems to come factory-equipped with such countermeasures). However, it should be relatively easy to rush produce them during the mobilization efforts when faced with the real possibility of conflict with NATO (certainly easier than producing new APS units or ERA modules; for example this article (in Russian) claims that the price of one such kit for Armenia was just $2675 in 2005). US/NATO seems to have done some research (.pdf link) too, though I am curious as to how far it has progressed (obviously, encountering major high-tech opponents has not recently been a priority for NATO either). Implementing it: Since I do not know how the CMBS engine deals with IR/radar spectrum (if simulating them at all), I can not offer concrete advice on how to simulate it in the game. If the IR/radar signature is an independent value of the unit, then the camouflage kit should, obviously, directly reduce it in the given proportions. If there is just a single "observation" parameter (combining optical, IR and anything else), then perhaps the camouflage can reduce it by a proportion relative to FLIR/radar system "boosts" factored into the values. For weapons with IR/radar guidance, the camouflage can perhaps increase times needed for acquiring the target and/or increasing the probability of losing target lock in-flight (not sure how air support is implemented - if even ATGM launches are handled as very precise area strikes then perhaps their CEP can be increased when targeting the camouflage-equipped vehicles). Not sure if it is better to handle the process from the targeting ("how much it is seeing") or the targeted ("how much it is seen") vehicle's side, and how to do it without affecting either the observation capabilities of regular optical systems, or the visibility parameters of vehicles without camouflage (it would be really great to have independent IR and radar signature variables if there are not ones now ). As for the vehicle models, while it would be really great to have ones with visible camouflage covers, from gameplay perspective just standard models with changed values and short description modifier (like "T-72B3 'Nakidka'" or "T-72B3 (IR camo)") would suffice. 2.) Dedicated smokescreen laying systems for area concealment. As opposed to the already implemented individual smoke screens or artillery smoke rounds with temporary localised effect, how about being able to cover entire areas of the battlefield in the long-term across-the-spectrum (visible/IR/radar) shroud? As an example, here is a recent exercise (in Russian) of the Russian CBRN protection unit - an entire railroad station was concealed for 3 hours with a 2 km long and 200 m high optical/IR/radar impervious smokescreen. The exact designation of the equipment used is not given, but it was probably something like the TMS-65 turbojet spraying vehicle (here is a rather illustrative video of its operation). And Russian chemical units practice such actions rather routinely, training to conceal entire military bases and airfields. Combined with a heavy ECM jamming of GPS signal transmission frequences to block or disrupt satellite positioning, such smokescreens would render just about any piece of precision-guided weaponry ineffective in the protected area (the only thing I can think of that would remain unaffected is inertial guidance, but this method is not very precise to begin with), and any kind of target acquisition beyond the simple notion that "the enemy is somewhere in there" would be completely impossible (the same would also be true for the defenders though - "somebody might be coming at us from somewhere"). While this would probably be more common practice at an operational level (protecting sensitive installations in the rear from airstrikes), it is not impossible to imagine it being used in a tactical frontline defensive action (if you have to defend a fixed position against a technologically superior enemy, it is much better if he were not able to use his sophisticated engagement capabilities effectively). Aside from being outright useful, I think it adds the possibility of some very interesting tactical situations (think of having to assault or defend a completely shrouded city, with your and enemy soldiers fighting through an apocalyptic gloom while wearing gas masks, further reducing visibility to almost point-blank engagement ranges, as if city fighting was not already hard and brutal enough as it is ), and therefore would be a welcome addition to the game. Implementing it: Since basic smokescreen mechanics have been present in the game for a long time, it seems that implementing a bigger version of it should not be that hard (yes, very presumptious of me, I know ). There may perhaps be some processing power concerns, but even CMSF already has a capability to produce quite large smokescreen fields (like when a couple of "Stryker" platoons get spooked by a mean-looking T-72 ) without a noticeable effect on performance. In any case, it is probably possible to reduce the smoke field's detalization for the sake of gameplay. 3.) Realistic decoy vehicle dummies. Here are some photos of the Russian 45-th independent engineering-concealment regiment training to set up various inflatable high-fidelity (well, relatively speaking ) decoy vehicle dummies. They not only look realistic enough, but also have appropriate moving parts (like turrets) and equipment that reproduces thermal and radioelectronic signatures of the real vehicles. All to confuse the enemy, of course, and to make him waste time and effort destroying these false targets, sparing your real forces some trouble. Since the dummies are easy to transport and deploy (the tank decoy weighs less than 100 kg and takes about 10 minutes to set up) they might prove to be an advantageous asset in a defensive operation. Perhaps the player can be allowed to place them in the deployment stage within the designated zones, where they would stay for the duration of the battle. Implementing it: The real trouble would perhaps be in allowing the player to identify the vehicles as dummies while denying his enemy the same untill his forces make a positive identification (for which they presumably would have to get rather close to them - within less than a kilometer, probably (obviously bound to differentiate depending on the observing unit's capabilities)). The actual models can probably be borrowed from the vehicles that are being simulated (and this course will probably have to be followed if there is no way to present different models of the same unit to the player (dummy) and his opponent (real vehicle model untill identified as dummy)), while adding '(dummy)' classification to their description (though, if the enemy player would be able to see it too, that would obviously defeat the whole purpose ). The on-hit animations and after-effects would probably have to be changed too (it would certainly be nice to have a deflating and a burning/melting animation (or being torn to shreds in case of large explosions), but from gameplay viewpoint simple disappearing into a pile of rubber debris would suffice, perhaps). So, dear Battlefront, can you please-please-please-pretty-please-with-a-cherry-on-top try and implement at least some of these capabilities in one of the further patches or modules? Or, if not, maybe some modification makers are feeling up for the task? In any case, thank You for Your attention. P.S.: As long as we are on topic of softkill countermeasures, I also had a question about the "Shtora" optical-electronic suppression system in the CMBS. Have its emitters been implemented as an upgraded system, now covering the relevant tracking signal spectrum of the TOW-2, or would they only be effective against Ukrainian "Konkurses" and other older SACLOS ATGMs?