.png.91b60a5bafb4dcb6f45c202eabcb3ba8.png){kind=avatar}
exsonic01
-
Posts
415 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by exsonic01
-
-
I knew and read about Debecka Pass, but national interest article is new to me. Contents about future plan in page 3 is really interesting.
When I first read about Javelin scored 4000m+ target kill, I was surprised about that. CMBS Javelin may should do the same, I think.
-
1 hour ago, John Kettler said:
Was under the impression T-34/85 with mine rollers were in CMRT. They were after all a Russian secret weapon unveiled at the start of Operation Bagration.
I think they are really needed in here in CMBS. Mines are kinda OP now in my opinion, there's no easy or fast way to deal with. And mine rollers are all issued in both sides.
-
Gunner of that Khriz would never know, about where his first missile headed. He may still thinks that his first missile punched the tree, complaining his bad luck that day.
-
22 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
Don't know if that's true in all regards, my main issue would be that it seems to react extremely swiftly compared to other vehicles in its general class.
I still think that crews were crack or elite. If they were regular, I would be really surprised, but oh well, sxxt happens on the battlefield, I will take that. And I got my lucky moments too.
10 hours ago, Lethaface said:nice ambushes!
That was lucky moment
-
4 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
OP?
OverPowered
-
T-72B3 can do this~!
Same T-72B3 yesterday made a home run again. Heavy wind condition blow the smoke away at 30 sec point. 15 sec later, (around 45sec) crews detected unidentified contact, and 8 sec later (around 53 sec) gunner observed the enemy tank and engaged, hit turret front, and destroyed. I couldn't find the hole, so I'm not sure about the exact penetration spot, but my guess is just above the cannon mount, the area not protected by DU armor.
305m is close enough distance for T-72B3 kinetic shell to penetrate/damage the Abrams, but there are still a chance to fail to penetrate against Abrams. It is the work of random generator in the CM code, so I'm would not be surprised if my tank fails to penetrate. If it hits the DU armor plate, then I'm not sure what would happened. In that sense, I think I was lucky this time. But my opponent was lucky several times as well XD
So, in this case, T-72B3 detected Abrams earlier, and engaged earlier, and killed at one shot. At this distance, the chance of T-72B3 triumph increases.
-
On 3/22/2017 at 4:47 PM, Muzzleflash1990 said:
Reading ye' olde lexicon:
"Trees are an essential part of both the micro and macro eco system of fauna. In addition to sustaining life, trees are also in general consided beatiful and is an essential part of planning and development. They have noise cancelling effects and ......
....
Also, in mechanized warfare, trees function as excellent cover against armor piercing penetrators. In fact Oak Tree #412 was awarded the Hero of the Federation: without regard for personal safety, the tree decided to stand still in the midst of heavy fighting, thus protecting the more vulnerable tanks."
Sigh...
The Oak tree #412 will be remembered in our hearts.
3 hours ago, Artkin said:In regards to your Tank Trap video Exsonic01, it should be noted that abrams op
Well there are different factors regarding that situation, and I don't particularly think the CMBS Abrams is OP, but I think he was lucky.
-
2 hours ago, IMHO said:
@exsonic01, well in the original edition of your post it was 200 - not 400 - and it was related to Vanir's post of 200 T-72 upgraded to B3 level annually
May we close this line of discussion so personal to both of us? Peace? 
More things to add. The reason why I'm pessimistic about 200 T-90M within 2017 is not only the budget, but because of new equipment. Their new 2A82-1M new cannon is bit different from old 2A46M-5 cannon, which would make more labor and time for the cannon exchange. Plus, to my best knowledge, they need more Malachite NERA to meet the demand, so they need to wait for new supply. And they are under sequester. So, for me it is hard to believe such many deployment of T-90M in this year.
30 minutes ago, Artkin said:As true as your statements are, the same can be applied to the AM. And Battlefront has no issue with issuing them generously in their scenarios. I say bring the T90M's and the Armatas! WOO HOO!
Of course, CMBS is under already "hypothetical" story line, I think there are very good chance to see T-90M in CMBS. Maybe same rarity point with T-90AM? This depends on BF's decision.
-
1 hour ago, IMHO said:
@exsonic01, well in the original edition of your post it was 200 - not 400 - and it was related to Vanir's post of 200 T-72 upgraded to B3 level annually
May we close this line of discussion so personal to both of us? Peace? 200 or 400 doesn't matter, my personal stand is, I can't buy claim that 200 T-90M can be fielded within 2017 will going to good chance to be wrong. But I admit I can be wrong, there is no peace or not like that in here, I just raised my pessimistic opinion about T-90M upgrade program, that is all.
-
28 minutes ago, IMHO said:
Well if you allow me to be blunt - you don't know what Uralvagonzavod is and what are the sources of their revenues. It's a complex structure and you try to generalize
I gave my expectation, if you call that "generalize", fine, I will take that, but I'm not gonna buy any claims like "Russian army will upgrade 400 ore more T-90Ms in 2017 in real life". That is what I want to talk about in this issue. Of course, I can be wrong, and they can actually progress the upgrade program like that, but I think the chances for such event would not that high.
ps) I know what "Uralvagonzavod" is, but I don't know about their revenues. If I have enough time I would love to dig in.
-
Just now, IMHO said:
@exsonic01, kind of need no search at all
May we play "truth-or-lie" game? Would you please list the "Ural's works" business units structure, what these BUs produce, what their buyers are and the situation at the buyer's end of the budget? Say, five years behind from now - it'll explain "budget cuts"
Stop chit chat, I can tell any procurement program of Russian will be under effect of their recent sequester. But I don't know how that will influence the T-90M program. If you want to dig in, you do that.
-
49 minutes ago, IMHO said:
Really, any proof of that?
Since you comment on that I guess it wouldn't hurt to learn the details. Just I know were the wind is blowing from
Then do you have proof or anything? I raised my pessimistic expectation for T-90M program based on their budget cut reports and news. My words are not any form of prophecy, and I'm not a fortuneteller, but I can have some expectation based on reports. And my expectation can go wrong, so I don't know what will be the real fate of T-90M program.
Bydax gave me a good correction regarding budget cut, but still, their new armament program will be influenced by it. Search yourself if you want to find the proof.
-
1 hour ago, Marwek77 aka Red Reporter said:
I am sure this will never happen... unfortunately...
It is my Christmas gift wish list, And I will blame Santa if BF denies them
I know that some of the lists will not be possible (I remember some of the list are denied by devs because of various reasons.), or possible but not in reasonable time frame. But some of them (VDV, Marine, Naval infantry) are mentioned by dev and BF tester, so let's see what will going to happen.
-
6 hours ago, Bydax said:
Except it wasn't - The Russian Defense Budget and You.
" I would add that by spending to reduce the defense sector’s debt, the MoD in reality has also reduced its procurement costs for the future so it’s unclear how the 7% reduction in the budget plays out relative to likely lower purchase prices since the budget is no longer forced to absorb financing costs for these debts. In conclusion, the Russian defense budget will remain very much alive, while the state armament program will continue to truck along with reduced expectations. "
First of all, thanks for the good article @Bydax, this gave me a new lesson, so it was not 25% but much more "acceptable" reduction, right? But the article also mentioned that any new armament program will be under effect of sequester. So, we still don't know how this could influence the T-90M program and others.
-
Most of my suggestions are discussed in this forum at least once. But here I introduce again of mine...
My logic is simple: More detailed expression = more immersive environment = possibly more realistic game = possibly more sales.
1. Tank with mine roller/dozer
2. More delicate engineering features, such as bridge explosion and mine clearing
3. As far as I know, arty HE rounds should be able to clear mine fields, at least in some degree.
4. Vehicle mast sight & TC override ability. Also bug fix regarding some vehicle's sight such as Khriz. Khriz should be able to "see" from radar, but it seems its viewpoint is crew's eye.
5. Realistic building collapse and debris.
6. Realistic TAC-AI about retreat. If they are in good cover, they should stay in the cover regardless of damage / suppression.
7. Visual representation of airplanes and rot.wings when flyby in game. It doesn't need to be perfect detail, just far silhouettes would be OK.
8. Small chances for "flying turret" for vehicles when destroyed. This happens rare for modern tanks, but still it happens. Dramatic boom boom is always great
9. Some attack helicopters should be able to perform multiple target engagement, such as Apache guardian / longbow.
10. Some attack helicopters should have very low chance to be shot down by AA, since they can engage behind / slightly over the ridge lines, shoot and scoop style. Right now, they all are just attempting strafing run like Vietnam war Cobra style. This is not true.
11. Blood / gore expression (optional). Well, this could be debatable but this will make the game more.... realistic in some sense. But I also think that this is not that much essential. Just blood expressions would be enough maybe. Or we can introduce turn on / off ability for this option.
12. Detail modeling of shells(tanks/artillery) and several airstrike missiles. Right now, shells flying like the Star Wars laser blaster.
13. FASCAM, ICM, WP, Thermobaric, and chemical strike. As far as I know some of those special ammos are also available for regimental level support assets.
14. Fire on trees, buildings, houses, and glass, burned ground expression.
15. Up to date of UA forces, such as UAV in UA.
16. Variable weather and wind.
17. Transport helicopters and heliborne / repel.
18. If possible, dedicated multiplayer server and 2:2 3:3 possibility? Or multiplayer campaign? But I think those are really tough goals.
19. Variable turn time depend on faction, if possible.
20. Counter artillery option for artillery and airplanes. Give them "counter arty" mission. When activated by user, by some chance, artillery automatically reacts to enemy arty, based on each side's counter battery radar ability. And results will be printed on fire support team like "counter battery success", like "Airplane shot down" of AA units. Depending in their mobility, artys can evade CB but they cant couduct any fire mission during evade.
Counter battery is also available by airplanes. Several A2G stand off missiles are able to conduct counter battery missions.
21. SEAD aircrafts, and realistic EW ability of airplanes. For example, as far as I know, F-16CJ is equipped with jamming pods, should have more survive chance against AA. And SEAD will allow users to attempt like strike package by multiple airplanes.
22. More units: Javelin / 30mm Stryker, Tos-1A Buratino, Other rocket artilleries, T-90M, M1A2 SEP v3, Marines, VDV, Naval infantries, and etc....
-
1 minute ago, Vanir Ausf B said:
I brought up the Indian numbers to show than manufacturing capacity isn't a limitation. The Russians only have around 400 T-90As to begin with. So we'll go with 50 per year. It's a number pulled out of the air but I'm happy with it. Are we all happy with 50? Glad that's settled.
I'm not happy or unhappy about that call, and honestly I don't know, and frankly, 50 is optimistic value from my side. This could be more, or this could be less. It depends on their decision about which program is more important for given budget.
-
5 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:
Then throw out a number. How much longer does it take to upgrade a T-90A to T-90M? Twice as long? That's 100 per year. Four times as long? 50 per year. Keep in mind the Indians have ordered 464 of the things new-built and I doubt they expect to wait a decade for them.
This is the cheap option. If they can't afford this they can't afford much of anything (this 2015 article states the cost of a new-built T-90SM is 4.5 million).
My guess is around 50 per a year, but we will see, how much they can invest to T-90M program. It is not logical to bring Indian army supplies to discuss about Russian army's plan, they are totally separated program, using different budget. And recent Russian defense budget cut was 25.5%, it is huge. Plus they have lot more priorities such as PAK-FA, T-14, new missiles and etc... so I think T-90M program might be able to influenced depend on their decision, that is why I see pessimistic. I agree they will have some T-90M tanks in the field. The problem is how many.
-
9 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:
For what it's worth I looked up the T-72B3 numbers a while back and if memory servers it averaged out to around 200 T-72s upgraded per year.
IMO upgrade of T-90M would be totally different from T-72B3's one, considering T-90M program contains new cannon, and they need to produce more Malachite NERA, it is different story from T-72B3's K-5 upgrade. And I'm still pessimistic about their financial ability. I don't have their manufacturing plan, but their defense budget faced serious cuts recently.
-
1 hour ago, Vanir Ausf B said:
See above. The plan is to upgrade the T-90As to T-90M standard, not to build new tanks.
How long it would take to upgrade the "significant number" of T-90A to T-90M? How many T-90Ms would be possible to be upgraded and sent to field divisions in 2017? I have no idea about their plan, but considering Russian economy and the cut down of Russian defense budget, I think it would not that optimistic.
-
1 hour ago, Vanir Ausf B said:
I'm not sure why the T-90AM is viewed as a semi-fictional maybe-it's-real-maybe-not tank. "T-90AM" is just an outdated designation for the T-90M/T-90SM which is in production.
Vast majority of T-90 in Russian army is T-90A variant, and even their numbers are not that big when compared to number of T-72B3. If T-90AM issued to Russian army, than it would be not for the service, maybe for some test? But I never read any news about massive deployment of T-90AM to the Russian army..... That is why I think the introduction of T-90AM in CMBS is one of the "hypothetical upgrade" for the gaming concern. If we consider realism, T-90AM should have more rarity point than now, at least. And if BF decided to introduce T-90M in next module, they should have significant amount of rarity point.
By the time I wrote this, @panzersaurkrautwerfer gave the better answer.
-
39 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:
Plus laser warning receiver and AMP round. The in-game Abrams is functionally an SEP v4 minus the Gen III FLIR and maybe the upgraded armor. It's scheduled for 2021 or thereabouts
I don't have an issue with it being in the game, I just wish the real SEP v2 was also present.
BF decided to bring hypothetically upgraded SEP v2, based on the assumption that this is all-out, full scale war, and each side bring "the best" in their arsenal. So BF made an assumption that US upgraded SEP v2, such as LWR and Trophy, before sent to battle field. Same goes to Russia (ex: significant number of T-90AM tanks), and Ukraine (ex: significant number of Oplot tanks). At first I was the same like you, but I'm convinced, and now I understand their decision, to make the game more interesting.
I do wish the realistic version of each side's tanks and vehicles in the next module, but I think BF will try to keep the same track, same artificial history line. It would be sad for me if they continue their "assumptions", but oh well, I can live with that.
18 hours ago, HerrTom said:I did my own tests on spotting, which I admit I don't have a ton of data, but as Vanir said, there is a metric ton of variation. The M1A2 definitely spots faster, but there were a couple of cases where it took significantly longer. I haven't filtered out the outliers from this data set if there are any, but there doesn't appear to be a huge difference between the two tanks...
Who spots first shoots first though, and the M1 tended to take about 2 seconds to aim and fire compared to the T-72's 4 seconds. Anyway, read into it what you will...
Map looks like this - flat terrain
Both tanks were Regular, Normal, +0, etc... middle of the line.
Thanks for the test, this solved some of my question to this game, break my bias to this game. Can I have this map? I wish to conduct some tests later.
-
According to unconfirmed report, Russian high command recommended the hero of federation medal to that tree.
What a giving tree, this is the second time during CMBS PBEM, that tree saved my tank
There are actually 0.1~0.2 sec of difference between two shots. Distance was around 320m. If it were not that tree, Abrams could got my T-72, or this could be a cross counter.
-
Special delivery from the sky, with love.
-
36 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
If I was a TC in an open hatch and I saw an Abrams side on point-blank, I'd slam it down and take that shot.....Wonder why this one didn't?
"Oh look, there's an Abrams! Should I tell the gunner? Nah, he must have seen it, I'll just sit up here in the fresh air and spectate."
It doesn't really make much sense as an explanation does it?
At first I was same with you, but I eventually understand the situation. It is same as @Erwin mentioned in the reply above. TC's view might be clear while the view of gunner blocked by wood or bush.
But my point is, I thought that the override action would be possible even with TC out of opened hatch, but I also remembered in Steel Beasts that TC override was only available while TC is inside the tank. I'm not sure how the override action is modeled in CMBS so I raised the question, just in case if the TC is possible to use override out of the hatch, but it seems that it is same with Steel Beasts. Or, override ability is not introduced in the first place. Or other 3rd option. I'm not sure which one is the case for CMBS.
US Marines considering M27 IAR
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/02/10/usmc-releases-rfi-11000-iars-rumors-abound-pure-fleeted-m27-standard-rifle/
So, according to this article, it seems that "replacing all M4" is wrong, rather, M27 will replace M249. 11000 is too small number to replace "all rifles" for Marines, it needs at least 30k ~ 40k M27s to do so.