.png.91b60a5bafb4dcb6f45c202eabcb3ba8.png){kind=avatar}
exsonic01
-
Posts
415 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by exsonic01
-
-
Almost all YT vids of Zapad-81 are contaminated by stupid BGMs, which I really hate. I really cannot understand why people ruin the great original with absurd BGMs. Anyway, finally I found the original propaganda video of Zapad-81. Redfor Pixeltruppens in CMCW 81' or 82' games may participated in this exercise.
-
Wow, the topic of this article finally comes to the reality in the year of 2021!!
-
Will there be any new contents or updates to Matrix and third party version of CMBS? Or same with the current version?
-
On 2/10/2020 at 1:32 AM, Combatintman said:
Thanks to share, fair enough, it seems Taiwan has good enough amount of palm trees. Maybe some far-south islands of Japan would have too.
But I would still argue these cannot be a "Fareast Asia" or "Northeast Asia" which covers Korea, Japan, and Northern China. It would be better to be described as "Southeast Asia".
-
13 hours ago, MikeyD said:
Most of the stuff (vaguely) mentioned in that presentation isn't applicable to CM scale. If a supply network is disrupted or an ammo depot hit 200 km away that will only show up on the tactical battlefield as reduced ammo and fewer tanks. If battlefield comms is interrupted that's CMBS's ECM setting (that few people touch because its annoying to play). I'm reminded of players who wanted Panther D's low mechanical reliability modeled in WWII. Well, that's modeled in those scenarios where Panther D isn't present. Because it had broken down 100km back a few days ago, outside the scope of the game.
I'm not claiming "CM must depict all those features shown in videos". But there are some parts, like SIGINT/ELINT/counter battery/ and etc..., which can be depicted inside the current CM time / length scale frame. Plus, I really wish next CMBS series with increased scale and I truly believe CMx2 engine (and upgraded engine in the future) has an ability to depict larger scale battles with more toys and more features. This part is my wish, but I think CMx2 engine has huge potential to become a game of depicting larger scale battle with "modern" technologies, which would includes some or little part of "multi-domain battles". It is not just ECM thing.
CMx2 already modeled drones. Info-sharing and datalink is modeled. So, it would be relatively easier to model ELINT / SIGINT description with some assumption and simplifications: something like in form of "in-situ updated information from higher formation signal / intelligence company", you could depict "unknown radiation/signal source" icon on the map with some frequency and RNG-based algorithms. EW setting can play some here, by increasing the time to take share info, or decrease the accuracy of estimated position of "signal" icons. Offmap counter battery is something not easy to model, but it is not something impossible to do. Based on these factors, I think CM engine would be the perfect one to depict such futuristic modern warfare in the future.
One core thing I wish is larger scale: this is something I (and some others) truly believe what is really required in CMBS. Description of DPICM and FASCAM is essential in modern combat of combined arms, as it is already shown how they can influence on armored battle during Donbass campaign. Small size of maps can be a problem with those cluster munitions, because cluster munitions might cover too wide area. Not only that, if the infiltration of SF/light infantry and ELINT / SIGINT information are depicted, small map size will make game a bit too easy. On top of those, most of maps of CMBS has no room to maneuver and flank and circumvent. I'm not sure why you are so reluctant to increase the scale of combat. If that is related with performance and optimization issue, then OK I understand. But if you have plan to develop any future CM engine, then please consider to make one with bigger scale battle. With the increased scale, all those features will make this really great.
-
https://www.tradoc.army.mil/Portals/14/Documents/MDB_Evolutionfor21st (1).pdf
After years and years of COIN-oriented operations, US armed forces are trying to increase their full-scale war readiness in a way to develop and prepare their forces and structures based on "multi-domain battle" doctrine. These are far future plan concepts, but as far as I know, US army is slowly but steadily trying to change their forces to meet new demands from new doctrine.
I hope these contents hopefully convince devs to prepare next modules of CMBS with more features of "modern" battle field with wider map. Frankly, I think CMx2 engine has much more advantage then other games to depict such features, as CMBS and CMSF2 showed good description of info-sharing, battle field data-link, and unique detection/observation mechanism.
On top of those,
- Better description of artillery fire power including FASCAM/DPICM and counter battery.
- ELINT / SIGINT description
- Wider maps
- Description of SF/light infantry infiltration
etc etc...
Those will show a glimpse of such futuristic modern warfare in larger scale in CMx2 engine.
Well, if game engine limitation prohibits such upgrades then there's nothing we could do about it. However, if something like these are nicely modeled and described in CMx2 engine, then that will looks like easier, ground-war version of CMO / CMANO, and that will make all wargame grognards fully excited!!
-
On 2/4/2020 at 8:40 PM, 37mm said:
lol...
This is Vietnam, isn't it? Palm tree, rice field, tree house... As a person who has relatives in Korea and China, I can tell those are not Far East Asia (Northern China, Korea and Japan). Those are typical of South East Asian terrain and structures like Vietnam. Maybe you could claim as Guam or Taiwan, and I think Guam would be fine. But even Taiwan does not have that much amount of palm tree as far as I know.
-
So is that mod a
On 1/25/2020 at 2:17 PM, Sgt.Squarehead said:Not sure how the first two would get to the Ukraine?
Don't disagree with the broader idea at all (many of us would love a sandbox type game on this engine), but that's not really how BfC seem to work.
If you would be interested in a fully-modded far-eastern variant of CM:SF2, keep an eye on the 'Heaven & Earth' thread:
So is this a Vietnam war mod? Because I don't see any Far-east Asian nation units or terrains. It looks like... Vietnam with Abrams tank? Could you introduce us more?
-
16 hours ago, Haiduk said:
Here is a map of battle area of second battle for Heorhiivka. This was maybe unique "classical" battle between regular UKR and RUS units during all war, were used alsmost all weapon - tanks, BMPs, BMDs, ATGMs, artillery, MLRS, AT-guns, AA-guns, helicopters and MANPADs.
Do you have any detail about this battle? Kinda curious how combat flowed. And indeed, this is another example of how "small forces can maneuver and fight in huge map with many assets"
-
18 hours ago, ikalugin said:
I doubt you can do regimental level battles with CMx2 style game due to the micro involved.
OMG is an obsolete term. With non-linear battle all formations act in OMG-like manner.
Good point, level of micro would be burden, and that is one of the reason why I brought AI issue. But if some controls are automated, then it would still be possible and reasonably enjoyable for turn based game IMO. Well, I just used concept of OMG for easy explanation, nothing more.
18 hours ago, ikalugin said:The "lets cut of manuever part" argument is also silly as concentration of effort and mass are important principles and would lead to significantly better than 1 to 1 ratio of forces when the contact is established.
+1 to this comment. Also what I wish to add is, not only the larger maps, but also other idea should followed. Like advanced / automated AI, ELINT/SIGINT, more artillery munitions and counter battery, light infantry and SF infiltration, etc...
-
20 hours ago, Honisse said:
It's not a document,it comes from a short article about Thai Army's Oplot-T and VT-4 on Weibo,all data based on unclassified information
The author speculated the turret can provide about 600mm vs KE and 630mm vs CE without ERA based on these two article
http://btvt.info/1inservice/t-80ud/t-80ud.htm
http://btvt.info/1inservice/t-80u.htm
ERA protection capability comes from this article
http://btvt.info/3attackdefensemobility/duplet.htm
The values are for reference only,but I think Oplot-M is too easy to be penetrated in the game even Russian tank is using new ammo like svinets-1/2
OK, so it is just estimation based on btvt sources, not Thai army official or something, right? Still, thanks to let me know.
I don't know about Nizh and Duplet's true capability. Tanknet or sturgeonhouse (there is a sturgeonhouse link about Nizh discussion in earlier replies of this post) still disputes towards this armor. But at least I also kinda agree, based on international armored vehicle conference presentation, looks like current CMBS UA tank's ERA might need some buffs.
-
3 hours ago, MikeyD said:
Include a few hills and houses and trees. Then place units on it and try driving/walking across it from corner to corner. For one thing, it takes a LONG TIME to traverse, especially if you've got infantry walking and you're wary of ambushes. Then there's the problem of even finding the enemy to shoot at them on maps that size. I read awhile ago that LOF in the European theater rarely exceeds 1500m, often its much shorter. There's always that line of trees on either side of a distant stretch of road, or that cluster of building or that wooded lot separating fields. I spend a lot of time on Google Map Street View and often you'd can't even see the horizon for the intervening hills and trees and houses.
I understand. I understand too big maps might bring frame rate and performance issue, and big maps will take huge time to make, and there might be a limit of game engine and computational burden which might be related with performance issue. And indeed, you are right. Phase of game will become slow, on-foot infantry will take forever to cross the map. As a person who do a coding as a part of career, I do understand all those headaches.
But still, I think for "modern" battle, we need bigger size. If 10km x 10km is too large, maybe some optimization effort would be needed. Or, how about fix the map size with formation size? Like:
2.5km x 2.5km or very small map for battle of forces of equal less then a company
5km x 5km or small map for battle of forces of equal less then a battalion
7.5km x 7.5km or medium map for battle of forces of equal less then a regiment
10km x 10km or large / huge map for battle of forces more than a regiment.
If the computational resources & performance / optimization would be the issue, then OK, there is nothing I can do.
But I'm not worrying too much about "slow battle" for modern battle because:
1) Drones and advanced spotting sensors. (And one of the reason why it would be great to see GSR in this game in the future)
2) Proper scenario design, guide players and AI to use more mechanized / motorized maneuver over on-foot marching. But "smaller" games would still be able to cover such close combat of on-foot soldiers.
Plus, that is why I think it would be great to depict modern battle if CM engine could introduce:
1) Heliborne air-assauit infantry
2) Infiltrated recons / light infantry / SF operators, hunting or searching for enemy high value targets. Put light infantry and SF more stamina and movement speed. SF? Oh yes they can participate in the "conventional" operation, this just depends on tier of SFs.
3) On top of current simplified EW description, ELINT & SIGINT operations can boost the game phase and would make more interesting "modern" game. And they are realistic of course.
4) Description of FASCAM and ICMs and counter battery.
Those will help to bring faster phase of the game for "modern battle" even with bigger maps. But I indeed agree that AI and performance issue would be a trouble. But PBEM players would enjoy regardless of AI.
48 minutes ago, MikeyD said:A reminder, 'maneuver' isn't fighting. If you want to build a giant map just to drive around on a for a few hours then go for it. Once you come in contact with the enemy, though, it becomes a standard CM tactical engagement.
About not being able to reproduce huge city buildings, I constructed an entire Texas highway-side shopping mall complex all the way back in CMSF1 days. Here's a CMBS very large building I threw together is just a few minutes. The problem is map makers hate building them, hate fidgeting with the countless interior walls, and players are loath the enter them because they're death traps. So usually they just get pummeled with artillery.
Maneuver is not fighting, of course, but it is one of the way to achieve better position and terrain advantage to repel enemy forces. Small maps of current CMBS with drones and exceptionally good optics / thermals force players to engage in very limited position, not that much option or flanking route to escape and circumvent kill zone. Plus, CM does not brings muti spectrum blocking smokes. I know Russians didn't had them in 2015, but both US and Russian probably have them now.
I'm not sure if large urban area would be great environment to show modern battle of combined arms. But I can tell you, some larger field maps will definitely better for "modern" clash of combined arms, anything larger than battalion size.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a216492.pdf
This is cold war material, but I'm just introducing for example. Depends on preparation readiness of NATO, the width of front boundary for Russian forces line can vary very widely. Yeah, narrow front is possible for regiment size, but wide front is possible too.
-
6 hours ago, Honisse said:
Some information about Oplot-M from Chinese Network，protection capability of Oplot-M compare to VT--4
front turret >1100mm vs KE,>1500mm vs CE
front hull >900mm vs KE,>1300mm vs CE
Any source about this data? Title of document?
-
21 hours ago, Haiduk said:
Separs has not so mauch of artillery during active phase in summer 2014. Initially they used mostly mortars (some number of "hand-made" 82 mm were produced in Kramatorsk mechanical plant), also Russia delivered them several artillery and MLRS systems, but only since mid of July Russia gave them main quantity of barrels, but anyway total number of artillery (without 120 mm mortars) was 56 guns and 22 MLRS in DNR and 35 guns and 12 MLRS in LNR. They used 122 mm D-30 and 2S1 howitzers (the same barrel, just 2S1 is SP) and 120 mm 2S9 Nona and towed version Nona-K. MLRS were represented only with BM-21 Grad. Also separs reportedly could capture one transporting&charging vehicle of BM-27 Uragan and one 2S9 Nona (as far as the start of conflict).
Got it, thanks, I will be careful to separate Russians and pro-Russians. But any source about this info: pro-Russian separatist artillery and mortars?
-
On 1/27/2020 at 4:22 PM, Haiduk said:
About Zelenopillia. Russians initially uncovered the presence of big UKR activity by using SIGINT. Our soldiers in mass used cell phones, so for enemy SIGINT operators their basecamp looked as big bright point, which cried "We are here!!!"
I found the source myself.
Report from Janes mentioned
QuoteIt is possible that during Zelenophillya that scouts from Russian special forces were used to locate and target the 79th Airmobile Brigade before the engagement.
But it also mentioned
QuoteThere are also reports that Russian electronic warfare (EW) assets, such as the RB-301B Borisoglebsk-2, were used to direct artillery fire. Borisoglebsk-2 is a multifaceted EW platform that can be used to jam radio signals or intercept mobile phone communications. Zhirokhov noted that Ukrainian forces often communicated via mobile phones to correct artillery fires at the outbreak of the conflict, prompting Russia to deploy EW systems that enabled them to listen in.
So it was work of both SoF recon + SIGINT operation.
-
2 hours ago, ikalugin said:
The issue is that should Russia decide to conduct large scale operations much like CMBS campaighn assume those would be done in Army formations, with concentrated regiments, brigades (possibly divisions) and not dispersed BTGs.
With a lot of artillery support but mostly exploiting the advantage in the numbers of tank units to conduct manuever battle.
Well, in real-life Donbass campaign, Russians were mostly based on BTGs rather than brigades or division operations. But this is because of unique political motivation which I don't even need to mention.
However, in CMBS, the game hypothetically suggested what if scenario of full-scale attack of Russians to UA. In this case, I think regiments, brigades and divisions are major part of any Russian OMG (Operational Maneuvering Group). But there will be small-formation and small-group skirmishes of course.
So, I wish if future CMBS module provide a larger map, like at least 10km x 10km or more, to properly describe at least regiment size combats. I think it is not enough but I also think CMx2 game engine would not be easy to depict anything larger.
-
On 1/27/2020 at 3:59 PM, Sgt.Squarehead said:
Again.....I agree.
As mentioned elsewhere a few of us are experimenting with small forces on big maps.....This seems to get the most out of the CM:BS engine.
Good, we all wish next module of CMBS or any modern CM series would nicely cover modern battle.
-
On 1/27/2020 at 4:22 PM, Haiduk said:
I sure this "2 artillery battery in BTG" really is 120 mm mortar battery of battalion + attached artillery battery of brigade level (122 or 152 mm). Of course, if need, higher levels can be added. But one artillery battrey in support is typical for BTG.
Figure 4 of the report I linked also describes about potential weapons capabilities of Russian BTG during Donbass campaign. One or two Rocket arty company, and one or two tube arty company. BM21, BM27, BM30, and 9A52-4 as rocket, and 2S19 (direct and indirect) and 2S1 as tube. It coincides with your comment of "higher level".
And yeah I agree "typical BTG" of Russians are not that arty-heavy, but "Russian BTG during donbass conflict" looks like particularly reinforced artillery capability. My guess is probably Russians and pro-Russians increased / reinforced their artillery capability in the middle of Donbass campaign. I guess this is because of terrain? Not much cover, flat terrain makes them rely on artillery. Or, they may wanted to reduce the burden to leave evidence of direct Russian intervention.
In the PDF I linked, page 10, "Reconnaissance-Strike Model and the Russian Artillery Mindset" is written. Report mentioned the drone technology + typical Russian doctrine of firepower favor, saying "It must be noted that Russian action during the Donbas campaign parallels the historic Russian approach to the employment of rocket and artillery fire"
On 1/27/2020 at 4:22 PM, Haiduk said:About Zelenopillia. Russians initially uncovered the presence of big UKR activity by using SIGINT. Our soldiers in mass used cell phones, so for enemy SIGINT operators their basecamp looked as big bright point, which cried "We are here!!!"
Do you have a source for this part, where cell phone use of UA soldiers helped SIGINT operation during Donbass which caused artillery casualty?
-
24 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
I have to agreee.....Quite how it would be implemented I'm not sure, but IMHO it deserves some thought (I wondered if FASCAM could be modelled by setting mines as reinforcements, but the game engine won't have it).
Well, I never wrote they would be easy, but if CM series wish to depict "modern" battlefield more accurate, then I think those are significant...
Both FASCAM and DPICM can use graphic of current cluster artillery.
For DPICM, if the CMx2 engine is possible to depict each submunitions then that would be great. But if not, it should be modeled in a way to induce AT damage against top armor within certain range from artillery strike position, with some RNG-based location decision of submunition inside effect radius of each shell.
For FASCAM, CM series already has damage model for mines. It would be great if engine can depict each minelets. But if not, we could rely on RNG-based location decision algorithm for specific number of minelets inside effect radius of each shell (random mix of AP/AT), except inside the building tiles.
For SIGINT / ELINT, now this is totally outside the touch of field commander, but we can assume the data from information / signal company / battalion under higher formation is shared to player or AI commander on the field. Then it could depict very rough location of HQ unit, radar-sam unit, and GSR unit in a form of "unidentified icon" within AO, for random duration of time, shown in the map for every random or semi-random frequency of time. This can be depicted like fixed seed number with narrow RNG range. I also don't like to rely on random, but there is no other options to depict such things without RNG for current scale of CMx2.
I think map size should be increased if possible for "modern battle". Info-sharing and optics / sensors / EW of modern battlefield make it possible to engage at quite far distance. Wider map will provide much more opportunities for maneuvering, infiltration / counter infiltration, and will increase the importance of recon operations (and heliborne if possible). FASCAM can be tactically important asset as it can be used for area denial or delaying. DPICM can be used for counter battery and counter armor. ELINT/SIGINT information can be nicely mixed with infiltrated SF / recon team to guide precision munitions or to assist direct assault of SF / recon / light infantry team on HQ / SAM / artillery assets.
What I really wish to see is more field engineering feature but that would be even more difficult I presume...
-
22 hours ago, Haiduk said:
No, typically only one artillery battery as BTG support.
At the point of 2020 Jan, this report is slightly outdated but still it captured important observations during Dobass war. This is the first reference I cited in post above, check second reference too.
From figure 2 and 3, you can check very artillery-heavy Russian (include Pro-Russian) BTG formation during Donbass war. I guess this is only particular example for Donbass campaign, and I think this also supports the first slide of presentation from very first post, International Armored vehicle conference presentation from UA: Most of the damage was done by artillery. But you also mentioned the effect of UA rules of engagement, which sounds interesting. Do you have any references for UA side rules of engagement?
But still, regardless of any theater, I think artillery with FASCAM and DPICMs should be included as well as at least simplified feature of SIGINT/ELINT operations and counter battery operation. Those are critical factors for any "modern" battlefield. While examples of Donbass campaign might be biased due to artillery-heavy TO&E, firepower / counter firepwower plus description of various EW operations would be significant.
-
On 1/23/2020 at 4:58 AM, Haiduk said:
This is Donbas war specific - it is mostly a distant war of artillery and MLRS. By this case most of battles will be very hard to reflect in CMBS. Direct clashes of tanks and other armor of course took place too, but this almost never was like CMBS type company vs company or battalion vs.battalion meeting engagement. Advances on unknown terrain without knowledge about enemy and own forces around, sometimes long raids, ambushes, clashes for small positions - platoon strongholds and endless mortar, artillery and MLRS fire. This is very strange that CMSF2 has BM-21 Grad, but CMBS doesn't, though this is typical brigade-support weapon system, like SP-guns.
I kinda agree that huge percentage of artillery is something specific about Donbass war. TO&E of both sides were very artillery heavy. Russian BTG force structure contains 1 armor company + 3 mech. infantry companies + 1 AT company + 1 AA company + 2~3 artillery company. Those are heavily reinforced battalion group, which strengthened heavy artillery (rockets and heavy tubes) to enhance independent operational capability. [A.C.Fox & A.J. Rossow, 2017 & L.W.Grau & C.K.Bartles, 2017]
However, I feel any "modern" battle field will be heavily rely on firepower and counter firepower, and related EW / SIGINT / ELINT operations. So I was feeling that current CMBS is not capturing such features of various artillery and counter artillery nicely...
Plus, I think typical map size of CMBS is kinda too small to depict such clash of combined arms. I wish if there is any chance to see 10km x 10km + map size for modern battle in the future, though I think chances would not high...
-
On 1/22/2020 at 5:44 PM, MikeyD said:
Take photos on the web of sabot penetration of turret fronts of Russian or Ukrainian tanks with a grain of salt. These days the outer shell is only the first line of defense. There's still 'special armor' and the inner shell to get through before the tank's officially 'penetrated.' I recall a few decades ago there was NATO live fire testing done against T72s and the testers were dismayed that M735 105mm sabot wasn't penetrating, and to add insult to injury Carl Gustav HEAT couldn't even ignite the fuel in the fender fuel cells!
These are different topics from Nizh, but may I ask what is your opinion towards btvt references? Also, as far as I know this game's 105mm is not using M735 but using M800, is this right?
On 1/22/2020 at 5:44 PM, MikeyD said:Well, that's pretty much what the Pentagon is doing. They've got a very thick folder on 'lessons learned' from the conflict that they're taking to heart. After 4-5 decades of chasing down dirt farmers in backwater countries with rusty AKs it was an eye opening experience to watch how modern war gets waged.
Speaking of 'modern war', any plan to consider different theater for hypothetical modern hot war, like East Asia? Like Taiwan or Korea. As you may know, PRC is one of the potential hostility for any possible "total war", even if in a sense of "limited total war". Experts are expecting "fait accompli" style strategy of Russia and China, so it is likely to see something similar in Asia too...
-
1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
As mentioned there appear to be some major issues with the alleged working mechanism of 'Nozh':
I'm also one of the person who is also curious about the theory behind the performance shown in the presentation.
It is totally unrelated opinion but I must tell, these days I don't trust "some" materials from sturgeonshouse, tanknet, or warthunder forum. Problem is, a lot of people there do not share the name of document neither properly cite and use reference. It is very easy to use photoshop to "fix" any screenshots, and too many people just upload mysterious screenshot from "mysterious PDF data they somehow get", citing no reference, and "search yourself". Well, I don't buy any of such claims with mysterious PDF screenshot without clear reference comment. If somehow it is crosschecked by another reference, then I trust. You also need to be careful about that.
Well, at least the person of that article put some efforts for referencing, so I respect that. Plus, there are some good arguments are back and forth in that posting about Nizh, it was good to read. Thank you for sharing that thread.
-
2 hours ago, IMHO said:
Firstly I think I read enough Ukrainian source material - interviews etc. to have an opinion. And the fact that Morozov's plant is not capable of producing anything at the moment - that's a sum of these sources not my own opinion. Secondly I consider this obvious that if a company has no money for payroll and it reneges on a contract that spells its life or death - that probably indicates that the company is not capable of any serious undertakings. You're saying that's not so and there was some secret plan behind it. I'd say the burden of proof is on your side
Well, unless you are UA official, my stand is the same. I don't care, no matter how much read about this issue. Whatever materials you and I read is only officially published materials by UA government, and we will never know what is behind them, we can only speculate. And such speculation should be regarded as opinions, so I will consider your idea is just your opinion. Maybe your speculation might be close to real. I don't need to prove anything because I'm just telling my opinion based on that conference presentation, which shows UA made descent ERA and they are using them. But I already expressed regarding my opinion "I don't know about it, and I maybe wrong". And yeah, you maybe right. Is this satisfies you?
2 hours ago, IMHO said:- Ummm... Ok, here's Thai Oplot order. Thai Army has some examples of Nozh ERA and, presumably ,Thai Army representatives were shown the results of Nozh tests before buying it. Does it mean Thai Army can go and design a new ERA? The same with tank designers, they take an element - ERA in this case - check that it meets their requirements and bolt it on on their new shiny tanks. Knowing design principles for ERA would me mean having knowledge and results of tests. What will happen if you you this or that plate material? If it's a steel what happens if you make it harder but brittle or vice verse? What if you make it thicker or thinner? What happens if you put in more or less insensitive explosives? How ERA interfaces with solid rods and composite rods? What happens if you increase or decreas the rod speed? How blunt or sharp nosed rods interacts with the plate and explosives? Etc. - a million questions.
- So what makes you believe that KhBTM has this understanding and a multitude results of tests on hand whereas they don't have money to pay salaries and pulled the rug under their crucial customer?
I'm not sure what is the idea you wish to convey, but is that "Thai army tested and saw Nizh but they can't design new one, so "UA made decent ERA" is wrong"? Is this correct?
Then bringing Thai army example to this argument makes no sense. Thai army or any company in Thai has no comparable experience neither any capability of MBT development, design and manufacturing like Morozov. Morozov has their experience and archives from cold war, and what you are doing is comparing Morozov's capability with Thai in the same degree, but I don't think that is correct. Totally different environment. I don't know about design capability of Morozov in full detail. But I, or anyone can easily deduct that Morozov could do something based on their experience and based on old designs.
2 hours ago, IMHO said:-
Is it the first "Nozh uber alles" stuff you've come across? Believe me you can look up many more of them
They write a lot of words yet they don't do the first thing every honest producer would do - they do not do range testing. AFAIK the only limited range testing they did was done 12 years ago and it was done with a couple . Many more penetrators were developed since that time both in Russia and in the West.
-
How come they mention 152mm top-attack EFP no one heard of?
- When they mention Mango and provide a picture for the results. https://topwar.ru/28864-bronetehnika-ukrainy-itogi-potencial-perspektivy.html Here's the article dated to June, 2013. You can see the same picture that's given in the presentation.
First of all, I never said Nizh is uber alles. I just said it showed "good" performance during Donbass war according to presentation, so this game needs to buff Bulat and Nizh performance to reflect that observation.
Are you working for UA DoD or defense industry? How do you so sure about claims like "They write a lot of words yet they don't do the first thing every honest producer would do - they do not do range testing. AFAIK the only limited range testing they did was done 12 years ago and it was done with a couple"? What if they just didn't published for public? I don't know about them as well, but I'm curious, where does your such high confidence regarding your claims coming from. Do you obtains some classified materials somehow? If yes, then OK, I will trust you. But if not, it is just also your opinion. I respect yours, but you also need to respect other's opinions.
Plus, at this point, based on your tone of your writing, you just don't trust the presentation and regard it as propaganda, right? Well, if you want to believe that, then you can believe that way and there is nothing I can do about that. But you need to understand that me and some people more trust the publications from international journals and conference presentations more than forum keyboard warriors, and you need to respect and being polite towards other's "opinion"s, rather than undermine and being rude.
At this point the argument can be politics and propaganda thing, so if you want to write about that, do that in different post, not in this post.
1 hour ago, IMHO said:Here's the reality of Ukrainian weapons production.
https://diana-mihailova.livejournal.com/4425155.html
And here's the reality of Ukrainian war machine in general:
https://diana-mihailova.livejournal.com/4427305.html
The resolution of the Special Parliamentary Commission into the multiple mysterious fires at the Ukrainian ammo storage facilities:
All of those are totally not related with Nizh ERA performance. First link can be a circumventional / situational background at best, but second link is totally out of topic. Those cannot be the direct evidence regarding any claims of Nizh ERA performance, and they tell nothing about Nizh ERA performance. You also know that, right?
Well, I don't like your attitude anyway so this will be my last time wasting towards your reply. But I wish you to say, calm down, and next time, better respect other's opinions too.
.
They write a lot of words yet they don't do the first thing every honest producer would do - they do not do
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Like the reply above, Putin just ordered military operation inside the Ukraine ground, which is effectively the declaration of the war. And all breaking news says full scale artillery barrage just begun.
I've been enjoyed CMBS for long time, but never imagined I would see this would happen in real world. Too sad and too bad we are seeing this right now.