The_MonkeyKing

Thanks, sounds good. I got worried when I saw the TOW fail to kill the T-64 in the Captain vs Bill AAR and started checking and saw no versions specified in CMCW TOE.

Which versions of the TOW are in the game? I believe at least three fit the timeframe: source: http://www.military-today.com/missiles/tow.htm#:~:text=BGM-71A%2C a basic missile,was first fielded in 1970. battlefront site TOE only says TOW":

I think it is good to keep it secret. It tells a lot about the state of the enemy if he is asking for ceasefire If you want ceasefire send ceasefire, if the enemy also wants ceasefire he sends ceasefire and you get a ceasefire.

The problem with the Warriors lies with the rate of fire. More specifically the Warriors gun "RARDEN" has manual loading system using 3 round clips. Max full auto salvo is 6 rounds. BMP-2 can fire more rounds of HE in a one burst than the Warriors whole ammo load of HE.

Oh yeah, actual multiplayer support. No 3rd party turn manager required

Or the tank being designed to be operated TCs head out. Contrast this to soviet designs.

They seem to be.

Haha, nope. It was listed on the website but it was later confirmed to be a copy paste error from fire and rubble.

I liked mission 4. Real slug fest, got pretty bloody. Defiantly did not feel fair but I think that was the point. (I guess if one gives up the town a lot of blood will be spared) I am in the middle of the Mission 5. So far mission 5 seems to be the least interesting one for me. I am not sure why I don't really find this one interesting. Quite linear battle with only very limited options for the player. I think this is very noticeable when you contrast this mission with freedom of choices of the mission 3.

TheCaptain seems to have timed his attack/dash perfectly. Right before indirect hitting and while 2/3 of the M60 platoons were repositioning.

One of my main weapons against Abrams in CMBS with the Russians has been the 155mm precision ammunition. (especially if I get to fly a drone with laser for pointing targets) With three round salvo you usually get immobilized and significant system damage. With another salvo it is totally out of action Abrams. But indeed I have no data on the actually survivability of the tanks in real life against artillery.

@TheCaptain How on earth did you get away with so few casualties? I think you are now very muchly back in the game.

I know in CM you can kill BMPs with mortars >80mm and tanks can die from 122mm(smallest I have seen). Tanks have been up-armored since A-10 and cluster munitions showed up.

well, that went surprisingly well

This just beautiful stats! Thank you @akd Surprisingly low percentage. US army training materials speak about 90% hit change for most soviet ATGMs. source: https://youtu.be/4wtcd8PppJw Now I would be very interested about similar practical stats for all the ATGMs of the era. haha

snorkel indeed

US does have TOW-missiles for the higher level assets. So the real questing is are the Dragons better or worse than the alternatives for squad level AT-weapons of this era? Speed is same as the AT-5, so yes a bit on the slow side but nothing out of the ordinary for the era. Does the way it flies or the sound it makes matter if it hits and kills the target? We need some actual data on the hit changes and reliability. Video on how it works: https://youtu.be/L-9_EhxfFvY?t=296

How is it terrible? I am under impression that it is essentially longer range heavy RPG-type weapon. It is a squad level AT-weapon. Soviets have RPG-7 for this role with real range of about 200m, with Dragon US squad as effective range of 1000m. It is mobile, good enough with the penetration but I am not so sure about the accuracy, do we have any data on the hit changes? How about on moving target? If its role would have been a company level AT-asset, yes I would agree it would have been terrible.

Good to hear! Even tough Dragon is not the most dangerous missile out there it will be a real trouble maker in numbers. As I understand it is light, fast to setup and the missiles are not too heavy. So integrates well to an infantry squad without limiting the mobility.

Where are and how we going to be seeing this system in practice? Squad level system like the Javelin in US Army or like the Javelin with the USMC? Are all infantry going to be getting it or just mech or light infantry?

Good analysis, makes sense.

New info for me. Thanks!

Were the T-64s misused or why do we have two T-64 platoons practically inoperable?

I am surprised by the somewhat lackluster performance of the T-64s. Are they really that blind compared to the M-60?