BTR

I think there is a story like that for every armored platform that ever saw combat. One thing is certain, PG-7V has a very outdated warhead. One of the more commonly known examples is T-72B N611 from the second Chechen campaign, which over the course of two days, got hit by 3 Fagot ATGM's and 6 RPG shots while remaining operational. Here it is: http://imgur.com/dGrXBTu http://imgur.com/sD9jdmn One of the key differences in HEAT protection performance from first to second Chechen campaigns was newly supplied K-1 ERA which wasn't past its expiration period I outlined in my previous post.

Not sure about the optical systems, but tung's were used in the first and second Chechen campaigns as direct fire support vehicles.

I've had a tank company commander (a captain no less) fire a HEAT round twice to a front of an Oplot at around 300m while having more than one KE round available. Sometimes TacAI wants to go full retard.

Tried it both as Ukrainian and as Russians, and I got a slight feeling the Russian advantage doesn't just come from vehicles, but also their starting terrain.

K-1 should be swapped every 10 years since that's the warranty period. So two or even three times for some vehicles. Naturally that didn't happen so the effectiveness dropped accordingly.

I though there were different variations of that rack, just as there are T-90MS variations, but it looks like you're right for all of them.

Furthermore, it would be nice to have the gun lock vertically when being reloaded, additionally I think that having the spent casing being ejected from out of the turret would be a neat visual effect. The same applies to BMP-3 vehicles as well.

Well I suppose that having this capability is a lot better not having it. Point is, it is currently lacking any sort of representation at all. Also, if someone wants to help determining if "loaded" tanks have a lower chance to survive that'd be great.

I hate replying with a quote, but I am lazy on Mondays . It would be interesting to see if T-64 and T-80 lines behave the same way though.

Yes, certainly for most types of combat scenarios that is what will be loaded and available on the battlefield. The speed for manual reload on a T-72 (not that much different from any soviet tank in terms of the actual ergonomics or technique) is around 3-1 rounds a minute. The way I see this best represented in CM would be: Autoloaded rounds are reloaded at a normal rate. Whatever that rate might be, I need to run some tests to see how much that really is.Stored rounds are reloaded at around 3-1 rounds per minute.The last 3 or 4 rounds (depending on the tank) are reloaded at around 2-1 rounds per minute rate only when the tank is stationary.The norm for assisted reloading a full conveyor for a T-64 style mechanism takes around 13-15 minutes, T-72 should be around the same, perhaps a couple of minutes shorter. I have my doubts reloading that long is a useful feature in CM, but then again, we have some fire missions take that long so this is up for discussion*. *Again, T-72A Technical guide and Manual, book 2, part 1. Page 152 explicitly states that reloading the A/L is not an action that should be performed during combat.

I can't speak for armies other than the Russian one, but the manual describes several scenarios. 1) You're out of A/L, but you still have ammo around you and you are in immediate danger.That involves: switching the A/L feed and cycle off, fixing the gun in a loadable position, finding and loading the propellant charge and the round itself,unfixing the gun, aiming and firing,cycling the ejector.This type of loading involves both gunner and commander loading rounds depending on where they are stored. First go the rounds stored in the turret, and then the rounds stored in the hull. Loading from the hull requires the gunner taking off and the commander lowering the back of their seats. The last three rounds stored in the hull require the turret to be slightly offset to the left and locked in place. If you are really in deep, then cycling the ejector isn't necessary, you can manually throw out a spent propellant case when loading the next one. Theoretically T-90AM/M manual loading should be faster since 10 rounds are stored in an easily accessible rack behind the turret, however I am not sure how the loading process looks there. 2) You're out of A/L, but you still have ammo and you are in no danger. That involves: lowering the gun as much as possible,switching the stabilization system off and locking the turret in place,removing the back of the gunner's seat and removing commander's seat altogether. switching the A/L into loading modefeeding the loader the rounds and the propellant charge one by one cycling the loading tray after every load.This type of loading can't really be done in combat, and is really pretty much the same as regular loading. I am fully aware of that. The only real reason to stock up is for simple transport of ammo from one position to the next. Having the A/L only means that the ammo is stored in the most secure place, and your tank weights less. Both things are good. For Sly, as you can see, having more ammo isn't really an advantage since you can't really use it effectively anyways.

What bothers me a little bit is how T-72B3 and T-90A ammo loads are modeled. There is no distinction between what is readily available and what is simply stored inside the tank. I just gave it a try and my T-72B3 fired a full 23 HE + 4 ATGM + 6 HEAT (33 shots) non stop, even though autoloader capacity is limited to 22 rounds. Manual loading, while a fairly straight forward process when the rounds are in gunner's hands, involves both commander and gunner getting separate propellant charges and the rounds together, manually fitting them inside the loading mechanism*. Not the fastest process with varied speed depending on where the rounds are stored. Filling up the autoloader is also a mechanized process that requires the stabilization system to be off-line, and therefore isn't really applicable to combat situations (read CM)**. A bonus thought. Most accounts of actual combat (most recent being Chechen campaigns) mention only autoloader being filled for the duration of the engagement. So for those of you making scenarios with Russian and Ukrainian armor the two closest supply levels to actual combat loads are "Severe" (18 rounds) and "Scarce" (28 rounds). I've not yet determined if lower ammunition loads make it harder to cause catastrophic explosions though. *T-72A Technical guide and Manual, book 2, part 1. Pages 147-151, 154 **T-72A Technical guide and Manual, book 2, part 1. Page 152

From my personal experience on military readiness, unless you have 100% brand new equipment checked by factory personnel at the said factory, something will always be broken. 100% readiness is a bit like an ideal gas.

I would suppose the majority of that energy goes into the APS, but what the actual output is, I'm not sure. As I said before, as any emission it is detectable, just how reliably can you detect it in adverse terrain at a significant enough distance? More so, as you said, armor isn't exactly hide and sneak anyways and there are cheaper ways to detect meaningful formations.

1kW isn't the output, but the power usage.

Arena APS consumes less than 1kW to operate, so assuming it will "light up" a wave strong enough to be ID'd and tracked from several hundreds of meters away in varied terrain is a little optimistic I think. In comparison a modern PESA type radar (Zhuk-MSF to be precise) consumes around 12kW.

T-72М for anyone wandering.

Missed the B3 there, but I'm sure that was just a temporary lapsus :Р.

While I can't support SEP v3 since I don't know how reasonable it is to assume it will be operational by 2017, I think having three variants of SEP v2 would be a great addition for first response scenarios (and slightly more balanced multiplayer perhaps).

If we count the loader spotting (and we should right?), then we should have is M1's ability to spot actually drop during engagement.

Most if not all the clips we see from Syria are taken from UAV's which are not really used for targeting. Don't know why that decision was taken, but it is what it is. We don't have targeting pods to capture the same video's as US had.

Yeah, that would be a nice addition. The response time should be longer though. I never had a chance to participate in the actual traffic parsing for artillery solutions, but I think they work the following way: Forward observer: FO>Battery command>Section command>solution generation>test>FO adjustment>Battery command>Section command>fire mission. Any officer or senior NCO. Officer>CP>Battery command>Section command>solution generation>test>FO adjustment>CP>Battery command>Section command>fire mission.

If so, I think having US vehicles without ERA could be a good addition for variety purposes. One that wouldn't require a lot of modelling time either. It could really help simulate "first response" scenarios. John, I don't think the RPG-30 can be cleared for exit until its classified status is downgraded. The reason for such secrecy is the dummy round which upon its interception acts as chaff against the APS's radar. Maybe you are thinking RPG-32 which was developed solely for export?

How much of a stretch would it be to put in ERA-less US vehicles? Or is ERA something compulsory now?

Taking in account only "serviced or not" state would leave a grossly bloated equipment list.