Alexey K

Usually I get non-APS Abrams easily killed with RPG and ATGM hits in side and rear parts of hull and turret.

Tried to listen to this song, but turned off after a minute. It's simply bad regardless of theme

So, I maintain my questions: what exact models of .50 BMG and 14.5x114 are present in game as for 1.01 patch? So far I've seen that 0.5 BMG is Mk211 but it will be changed for the next patch. BTW, what is standard M2 HMG round in US Army?

Hmm. I've found that Mk.211 armour penetration is 16 mm while 14.5mm B-32 round is capable of defeating 30 mm of armour.

What exact type of round is modelled for KPVT in CMBS?

Are there any figures of armour penetration for .50 SLAP and 14.5 mm AP?

Accoring to wiki 14.5x114 has almost twice muzzle energy of 12.7 BMG round. But in game M2 HMGs of Strykers and Armoured Knights seem to have significantly more impact than 14.5 KPVT of BTR-70 and BRDM-2. At least BMP-2 is quite resilent to incoming KPVT rounds but is quickly damaged by M2. I'am requesting explanation of this fact

It is love, it's supposed to be irrational

T-72 and BMP-2. Don't ask me why

Set "Huge" battle size and manually buy forces for each side abandoning unused points

Thanks for answers.

What are pros and cons of preferring mortars of howitzers? So far from my own observations I've conluded that: 1. Mortars have quicker reaction time (from calling in to first round falling) and better accuracy (rounds are less dispersed). 2. Howizters have better firepower - single howitzer round deals more damage and suppression than signle mortar round. Am I correct? What am I missing?

"Geographic" location of Russia is so huge, that "tailoring to it" would make vehicle to be adapted almost to any condition in the world.

That is some tricky point. 49 lost tanks is irrecoverably losses for sure. But that detailed info about 30 tanks doesn't specify if particular loss was irrecoverable. That 30 tanks might not be completely included in that set of 49 lost tanks, but merely intersect with them.

Another source: http://topwar.ru/26962-tanki-v-chechenskoy-voyne.html 49 tanks, 132 BMPs, 98 BTRs. Time frame is not clearly stated. Next paragraph says about "three months". Source referred is "по сведениям Главного автобронетанкового управления МО РФ", i.e. "according to Main Automotive-Armoured Tank Directorate of the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Agency_of_Automobiles_and_Tanks_of_the_Ministry_of_Defense_of_the_Soviet_Union) If it is true, then 30 tanks with known crew fate seem to be quite representative selection and give opportunity to draw conclusions. One interesting detail is mentioned in many documents: many tanks were lacking ERA. And even on those who had it ERA blocks were not loaded with explosive charges. Hmm. That's very interesting point indeed. Actually I was convinced that IDF is one of most hardened and professional armed forces in the world because they often engage insurgents. Nevertheless, IDF in 2006 seems to be an order of magnitude better organized and equipped than Russian Army in 1994.

How many incoming rounds will come to your tank while you "hand cranking damn thing" into position to fire? In CMBS we are arguing about seconds of reaction time which split life and death.

Chechens had that-day-modern equipment wich was on par with equipment of federal forces. They even had armoured formations (one of Russian tanks was lost to chechen-owned T-72A). And, in fact, they've won First Chechen war and were de facto independent until invasion into Dagestan in August 1999.

I'vealready corrected myself above: 30 tanks are not whole losses of Battle of Grozny, but tank losses with know crew fate. Overall tank losses from 31st Decemer 1994 up to 1st April 1995 consist of 49 vehicles. Speaking of Lebanon I didn't quite get your point. What was wrong with IDF tactics? And I still maintain my request for explanation. Unless you dismiss my data (which is quite acceptable but not very interesting possibility ) there should be some explanation. Russian tanks and Merkavas has shown equal crew fatality rate (~ 1 KIA per 1 lost vehicle) while Russian tanks are considered to be deadly for their crew and Israelli ones are one of the safest.

I have. But I've suggested another form of communication

Er... nobody is interested in discussing my numbers anymore? That's sad

AFAIK: Totally 29 tank lost. Of that number 13 tanks were lost with loss of life. Of which: 11 tanks were destroyed by ATGM and/or RPG fire. 2 tanks were hit by IEDs.

I've provided some details in #434. There is as much as I can povide right now. IDF loses are somewhat not so detailed, but to aggregate that data I need to read out large amount of text, It is not something I can do right now. P.S. Actually, these source are the only I've manage to find on that matter (crew survivability). I would be happy to find some more.

Please, accept my sincere apologies. Your eye injury was unintented... er... collateral damage

Very good point ideed. Both engagements have something in common and something setting them apart. Both represent asymmetric forms of warfare. On one side is regular army (IDF of Russian Ground Forces), on other - irregulars eploying guerilla-type warfare. Differences: 1. IDF in 2006 was in MUCH better shape than RGF in 1994. 2. AFAIK, no rolling-thunder type operation was performed by IDF like storming of Grozny. Some drill-down data from my sources (on per-casualty basis): IDF loses : 25 men KIA due to ATGM and/or RPG hits (can't derive more accurate data from source right now). 5 men KIA due to IEDs (but there is strong evidence that some of ammunition explosions were mistaken as IEDs). RGF loses: <grumbling> In editor mode table was inserted perfectly! </grumbling> Type of Damage|Tanks lost |KIA Artillery 1 3 ATGM 2 2 RPG 22 15 AT GUN 1 3 Unknown 4 8 Interesting fact: one T-80BV is said to be lost due to shot from chechen-driven T-72A. No crew was lost in this particular case. P.S. Give US Merkavas to test

Actually, I don't want to argue due to two reasons: 1. Forum arguments are mostly pointless. You don't see me much invovled in them 2. I'am not a specialist in question being discussed. Instead of starting an argument I suggest a session of problem solving. I have three pieces of data: 1. Russian armour is considered very lethal to it's crew. 2. Merkava series tanks are considered very safe for it's crew. 3. Numbers I've got my hands on imply that they are quite the same. Problem presented is that these pieces of data being put together make no sense at all. So, let's try and explore range of possible explanations of this contradiction while trying not to stick to particular one of them regardless of your personal preferences