BTR

I hope you take pictures

Good catch, thanks. I'll edit during the day.

Since I've no access to Ukrainian info, I decided to drop them in the Marine doc. It felt like a waste to delete the whole part in the VDV section.

I think I tackled all of them. Much appreciated, I left some of the comments since I feel they add to the document. I'll try to incorporate some of my answers into the main text.

Not to do double work: I've switched the doc to "can comment" mode, so comment away and I'll update the file in the evening. Thank you in advance! https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KBUAveCAONlgLoODwjyRNK3HW9S-BoinINTWfmm8bdI/edit?usp=sharing

Naval Infantry is a lot harder to research and is generally a lot more closed to public then the VDV. As such it is a "shorter" doc. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VWUEsCDPnIrgek6-XWmg1bVv0T4xHah3Q8gumLCszUQ/edit?usp=sharing

Just to further VDV in CMBS discussion, here's what my friends and I thin should be in CMBS: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KBUAveCAONlgLoODwjyRNK3HW9S-BoinINTWfmm8bdI/edit?usp=sharing

That is correct.

Out of curiosity I did some mobility tests for Ukrainian and Russian tanks. Forward full speed 200m: T-90AM BM Oplot T-90A - BM Bulat T-72B3 T-64BV Reverse 200m All tanks equal (!) This isn't in line with what these tanks can do in real life and severely handicaps top Ukrainian and Russian tanks with reverse speeds. Forward speed representation also seems a little off to me. I know using theoretical hp/t is not the best solution, but for the sake of KISS principle here is how tanks should line up: Forward full speed 200m: BM Oplot (hp/t - 23.5)- T-90AM (hp/t - 22.6)* T-90A (hp/t - 20.8) BM Bulat - (hp/t - 18.8)**- T-72B3 (hp/t - 18.2) T-64BV (hp/t - 16.5) Reverse 200m BM Oplot - T-90AM (both quoted max 30km/h in reverse with automatic gearboxes) T-90A - T-72B3 - BM Bulat (Russian manuals claim 4.8km/h in reverse, while BM Bulat is an assumption based on horsepower) T-64BV (Manual states 4.2km/h in reverse) *Assuming 50t. combat weight quoted for P-3 during MoD presentations **Unless they were re-equipped with 6TD engine variants

Updated and refined the glacis breakdown.

Because putting more micromanagement is a step in the wrong direction.

Everything concerning positioning and pace is controllable, everything concerning actual engagement is TacAI dependent. Sounds pretty consistent to me.

A game that started on operation level that allowed you micromanage individual unit weapon usage. No thank you :).

The preferred path for me would be to improve TacAI instead of feeding player's god complex.

Yeah, the BDD's are pretty complex, this is what their "fat part" looks like: click. I've yet to convert these numbers into RHAe, that'll be an interesting number crunching exercise.

Experience handles these conceptual differences already, and handles them quite well. The percentage relation may vary depending on sizing decisions going forwards. The estimated total number of professional soldiers is not to change from 2017 onward, and looking at historical figures so far all is going according to plan.

Not that this is particularly relevant to CMBS, but my friend and I went forward and put together a little study on T-55M armoring. While glacis was pretty much a known, the turret BDD was never really examined closely, so this is a proud first :). General: And the general BDD breakdown

Just a convenience issue really, I think. Also, one clarification on a grammatical mistake I made - 352K of contractors were present across all *armed* forces, which then added up to about 50% of *all* personnel in the army. The percentage of contractors in the ground forces is currently the highest of all branches and the aim is to replace all combat roles with contractors by 2021.

Hm, wanted to create a short summary thread about this year's changes and events in Russian military, but this will do. I think it is important to look at these as we are coming closer to the 2017 date in CMBS. Black overalls have made a return for tank crews Hard-top helmets are now the standard attire for arctic and Western MD AFV crews. Non MBT crews now carry infantry vests. As of this month third company batch of T-14's has hit army testing. As of end of this week BUK-M3 complex has completed army trials and is now gearing for procurement. As of mid June SVDM is now being supplied to Russian army. Main difference with old SVD and SVDS is the unified SV-98 free-floating barrel which should translate to higher accuracy. Tentatively these are being supplied to high readiness formations (mostly VDV). As of early June "Nebo-U" radar complexes are now in serial production alongside their 2012 variants. These are reported deploying to Western MD. As of late May company scale batches of T-72B3's are now in service with the air-mobile arm of the VDV. As of late May improved "liven'" GLONASS stations have now hit Western MD. This marks the move to a third generation SatCon network. As of late May S-300V4 (in army service since 2014) has finally received a high-powered rocked designed to combat AWACS type targets at Maximum cited distance of 400km. As of late April BMD-4M and BTR-MD are in official VDV service. This marks a new attempt at departure from BMD-2 vehicle line as previous attempts at servicing new IFV's (BMD-3 and BMD-4) have not been successful. Currently a total of 350 new vehicles have been budgeted in a three year contract. As of late April RS-24 is being delivered to five SR Regiments. According to MoD, as of mid April around 900 exercises took place across 100 different locations from the beginning of 2016. Some MoD figures include a total of 100K hours in-air between Naval and VKS aviation, 3K days for surface water navies and 600 days for submarine crews. As of mid-April "Arbalet-MD" armed Tigr vehicles are now being procured. 2016 Spring draft marked a historic moment where the amount draftees exceeded draft requirements. As of beginning of 2016 VKS (Air forces) marked a 52% modern equipment ratio. "Modern equipment" is an ambiguous term that more often then not indicates the ratio of procured vehicles with service life under 15 years. As of February 1000 full Ratnik complexes have been delivered to Southern MD in addition to a full 80K shipments of last year. As of January around 50% of VKS helicopter fleet are Mi-28 and Ka-52 platforms. As of 2015 end around 352K professional soldiers were present in the ground forces, which added up to around 50%. With staffing at 92%, current plans are to make sergeant roles professional as well. By 2017 the plan is to have around 425K professionals, and this looks to be currently on track. Year end marked the total amount of various UAV's increase to a figure of 1.7 thousand. Syrian campaign showed that Vitebsk countermeasures are now mounted by default on all helicopter types in war zones.

Don't use artillery smoke vs US, it gives them the advantage.

Panzer's your guy for this. Don't know in terms of thermals and other expensive devices, but in terms of actual dust and other things covering optics during operation, all modern systems have water flushes to clear optics.

My tactical training is all vehicle-centric, as in, how you operate a vehicle and how you integrate it into a formation. You'd need someone platoon level to start speaking proper command tactics. "Classic" attack formation for a company tactical group sandwiches infantry between MBTs (first) and IFVs (last). If recon is available, naturally it leads the way for tanks. MBTs come with superior sensory equipment, best available protection and the quickest way to neutralize any threat (in caliber terms). Beyond that, there is very few things that I can say since every scenario is different. I tend to advance heavy armor first because I feel that using infantry to draw fire is a: a cruel, gamey tactic and b: eliminates my ability to fight in the woods, urban terrains and scan on a wider area. I just recently completed (well, lost) a gagarina ave. scenario against a human opponent, and I think that scenario demonstrates best that "MBT first" is generally a great concept.

Something like that. Basically Reaction times (time to drive back from laze detection) scales down with every veterancy level (represents superior crew cohesion); Reverse distance scales down with every veterancy level (represents superior crew composure); Laze duration scales down with every veterancy level (represents superior FCS handling); Laze-less engagement range scales upwards with every veterancy level (represents more nuanced FCS handling). Current crew reactions to AT threat are rather binary, something I feel wouldn't be the case in real life. Naturally I have no idea how hard these are to code into the AI, so people are welcome to poke holes in this.

I find this behavior quite logical. After all that is why you couple smoke with LWR's, so you can shuffle out of the zone danger zone while not being seen. I think lazing, duration of laze and minimal range at which the crew uses their LRF should depend on veterancy. Some time ago we exchanged some ideas around this in the armor thread and panzer seemed to support liking lazing to crew training. Reaction times I think should also be a function of veterancy since vehicle "training" represents overall crew training and synergy. A green crew therefore would, in my own service experience, respond much slower to all stimuli including all sorts of mechanical warnings when compared to more trained vehicle operators.

Did you also hold the candle at the voting booths? Tatar population in distress is such a funny point in these discussions considering one of the wealthier areas of Russia is Tatar and there are vastly more Tatars living in mainland Russia then there are in Crimea. Mejlis got canned because it was curated by Turkish intelligence and money. Better late then never.