BTR
-
Posts
745 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by BTR
-
-
A lot of tank equipment is designed for longer ranges, and therefore creates tunnel vision. So crews being oblivious to something 5-10-20m away makes sense to me in that regard. The system is not perfect though, since we never know here is the tank looking really. One thing that could solve a bit of ambiguity with spotting would be animated commander optics. I think it would be an elegant solution to showing us where is main tank spotter looking without creating any disturbing visual effects.
-
This could be a more unpredictable way of handling things, but other than that I don't see what it would change.
-
It is very difficult to asses the armor and anti-armor theories beyond this particular conflict. For the most part armor was used in small numbers in any one place and the anti-tank capabilities were generally poor. This has implications for similar battlefields, such as Syria, but not much for a straight up conventional war between modern forces.
A glimpse of proper ATGM usage was demonstrated in Yemeni conflict. With both a fair amount of varied armor and, if I understand correctly, a lot of skilled operators there being military or ex-military. Not much sign of a reversal, but of course we only get to know the successful attempts over video.
Russian Army maneuver groups are roughly 500 personnel. If five were in Ukraine on a particular day that's only 2500 personnel in total. This is a small enough number that it can be easily inserted at different points along the Ukrainian border at different times (even if phased a couple of hours apart) in a way that would make it impossible to have a cohesive picture of even one group, not to mention five. That said, there's plenty of videos of Russian equipment of company size moving on highways through Luhansk and Donetsk from the border and towards the fighting.
That's pretty reasonable. Small scale involvement has always what I was behind as an idea, and I think it is a most reasonable approach. A lot of people however, were quoting literal hordes of Russian tanks Fulda style. The fabled "several battalion tactical groups" I think came from a Ukranian field report after Ilovaisk and quoted straight as fact, I do however think that even 2.5 to 4+k(higher estimate) concentrated in one area would be detectable. Company tactical groups, of armor or otherwise, I can definitely agree with, which has sort of always been my point of view on the involvement.
-
Read the full report twice (both times in one sitting). Fairly interesting observations in terms of fire and maneuver advancement linked to UAV proliferation, this really was the meat of this paper for me. I don't necessarily agree on his points about ATGM vs Armor counter-revolution since, in my eyes, neither side had a properly modern counter-armor equipped force. There were many reports on both sides about expired munitions and unreliable guidance equipment which is only natural since both sides are using mostly surplus and storage material. Perhaps this point still holds true in light of this particular conflict, but looking at Yemen I don't think this is a proliferated change in balance. Declining survivability of light infantry vehicles point felt a little bland for me since this has been a fairly recognized trend.
Again, the force composition and the amount of Russian support made me chuckle. I am still waiting on those sat images from 2014 showing those multiple battalion tactical groups. At least before the action. Something like this:
PS: I very much dig the new forum design.
-
More of this again. I find it interesting that Steve trusts SBU sources which have been known to falsify their information (casualty lists for example) as if they were fact. Especially information that has been released to the public. Also the smug attitude of some members here is quite off puting.
-
It's entirely possible to live in a country and not have an especially good understanding of what's actually going on in that country. This is especially true in Russia given the state control of the media. As long as your end of the Russia is doing fine, you're entirely reliant on an agent who's only job is to tell you how great Russia is to really understand the rest of it. This is rather different than the UK perceptions of the US simply because of our wide availability and consumption of news sources.
It is entirely possible sure, but not very relevant in the case of people that have access to internet. Everyone has exactly the same availability of news sources, including opposing ones. That is why I do not understand why people keep on clinging to the frankly outdated denial formula "your media is bias" on the internet.
-
Did you have CnC vehicle between your AA units? They should "in theory" help avoiding this (at least this is one of their functions in real life).
-
2. The a single Leclerc is capable of destroying 45 T-55 type tanks in 5 minutes.
Well, if we take T-55's in their 1958 form, line them up in plain field at about 1000m, then maybe we can get something like 22 kills in 2 minutes.
-
Did you manage to get BMP-3 or BRM-3 without cammo? I remember you lost the plain version.
-
Would that stop 152mm round do you think? I am not sure about 120mm, maybe it can go both ways depending on where the round lands.
-
Here's a slightly more quality take on CITV from M1A2 SEP v2 (I think):
-
That in fact, is a very good question. I don't think this does (I am hoping it doesn't).
-
Point is, why are 9KG, 45KG, 600m/s rounds landing on compartments other than the troop compartments are not instant BBQ then? Also, 120mm RHA?
From www.tank-net.com.
-
Is dishonest, and a simply...it's not real. It's fake pictures of a fake tank on fake terrain. When speaking about systems this sort of mockup cannot be taken as a demonstration of any capabilities.
Fair enough. Maybe I should have phrased otherwise. Yet, these systems do exist with higher resolution domestic made matrices. I still think that marketing material represents FOV and is relatively representative of a system operating in perfect conditions. I have no idea how these systems will perform in a real fight because I have not used them or know anyone who has.
-
I still think that if a fireteam (4 squaddies) get two tiles allocated instead of one, the world won't burn and we'll get a much more lose and representative infantry behavior. I really think modern warfare setting demands more spacing than WW2 one.
-
These are representative enough of FOV + distance of target recognition in *perfect* environment. They came from a manufacturer's presentation (marketing pitch). Perhaps the point I was making, is that T-90AM/T-72B3 don't quite spot as well as they should, but this has been said many, many times already.
For real pictures, Sosna-U
Thermal
-
I did this a while back, and even though most of you read this, I got too lasy to include actual pictures I managed to dig up of how different sights actually looked from the operator's perspective. Sorry for those images being so small. They show what next-gen thermal domestic thermal optics (currently available) are capable of doing.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gfvptz_WOH8jLBMOaFk4CXWK05JWNXX1oFxBBwNknSw/edit
-
Yes, that is right. The graph reads "up to" 50m, so the spacing is governed by geography. However the better LoS between squads is, the further to those 50m you want to get. Also, if you notice a tank is 100~200m apart from infantry, that is how late 80's tactics incorporated full scale usage of Arena/Drozd type of APS and K-5 ERA. If your tank lacks those, you would probably want them slightly closer. Also, this area ~250x300m was though to be ideal if squad comms break down due to E-WAR.
-
The point is not to rush in with BMP's
. Here's what BMP's were designed for:From a platoon reinforced by a tank to to a separate squad:
Granted this stuff was designed for the 80's conventional conflict, it still holds when dealing with BMP's when attacking. This also makes sure you keep your troops safe from ERA, APS and secondaries. Try it when playing the Russians.
-
Well, I did some maths. I took an 80kg water ballon to the top of a building. I tossed it off, onto a Bradley... 12,000 Joules = 1/2*80kg*(17m/s)^2. In order to get the velocity of 17m/s, I needed to use gravity for 2 seconds. Before I tossed the water ballon off the roof, I realized it was too bulky to move. Therefore, I used an anologue for the water balloon. Humans are mostly water...
The height needed (in a vacuum) to reach 17m/s is only 14 meters. (H=1/2*9.8*t^2).
Looking around the world, I see many, many, many structures of 14m or more in height. Therefore, the best defense against an armored incursion would seem to be throwing oneself off a building onto an armored vehicle's roof.
Perhaps hardness matters? (oh, that's a can o'worms! Don't let blstk see this one...)
Ken
Hardness, or the area of impact and the subsequent pressure. Also has to do with impact velocity being around ~600m/s.
While loving the modern setting, I miss the inflexible, "wooden" but very laid back artillery from WW2 titles, with 10 min call times, blind guess prep barrages and decreased deadliness. BS can be a micro hell sometimes, especially when facing US insta-arty on call, with the constant need to shift forces around or be pounded within a minute of stopping in seemingly safe spots. Maneuvering is cool, but sometimes I just want to chill on position for 10-15 mins, reorg, sip some tea and put an assault group together for the next push without the need to go through the clickfest of sandwiching my AFVs between buildings for shelter, one at the time.
E-War setting is there for a reason. If you want stiff artillery crank it up from "casual border skirmish", to full blown WW3.
-
When a 45kg round smashes 25mm armor with ~12000J at almost verticaly, I'd think you don't even need to consider how effective the tip is. That's all discounting exсluding a 9kg explosive as well.
-
Additional ERA can be added if missing. I'll report missing ERA, but note that ERA arrangement is not always consistent between various T-64BVs. This is the most important issue as it directly affects protection in game.
There are only two variations for T-64BV (early and late), and only 1 variation for T-64BVK (shame it isn't in game).
T-64BV obr. 1985 =
Side
1 section of 3 blocks
1 section of 6 blocks
5 sections of 4 blocks
Turret
1 section of 7 blocks
T-64BV obr. 1987 =
Side
1 section of 3 blocks
1 section of 6 blocks
4 sections of 4 blocks
Turret
1 section of 7 blocks
T-64BVK obr. 1985
Side
1 section of 3 blocks
1 section of 6 blocks
5 sections of 4 blocks
Turret
1 section of 14 blocks
Everything else is either a field mod, or a lack of supplies.
-
I've made a more thorough pass on the Soviet and Russian tanks this time. Some discrepancies are fairly criticals because they reduce rear, side and lower front protection. Most apparent is T-64BV which is missing entire side turret ERA mount.
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/120047-soviet-russian-tank-models/
-
Bolts are textures and can be replaced by anyone who can use photoshop
. Glacis geometry is not that simple.
. Here's what BMP's were designed for:
Russian Representation in CMBS
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
2013 RPG-30 contract states 1000 units for a total of 83M RUB (2013) which is makes a unit 83K RUB (2013) or 2717USD (2015). Not a very proliferated weapon, but should be available to some high readiness units already. The 1000 Units were purchased for Southern MD and Central MD's, so it is not a stretch to say they would end up in Ukraine.
In my eyes the Russian Army is fairly well represented with some interestingly weird unit choices like two BRDM types,one from the 60's, but no Mi-35M or Shurm-SM which are actually in service.