Kinophile

You miss the point - its the Abrams unrealistic reaction/acquire/fire time that bothers a lot of "us". Not the T-90's. It , for now, is a reasonably dangerous beast, not the magical psychic 6-eyed unicorn that the Abrams can sometimes feel like.

Because one person thinks the whole game is junk because of abrams ability in the game, that is how this thread was derailed.
As to how realistic this game is or any of CM games.
They all suffer from some basic flaws that are intentionally there to make it a good game. not a realistic simulator.
But still, they are the best thing you are going to get you hands on as to a battle simulator, but they have many unrealistic aspects to them that are not close to being realistic .
On the other hand, there is many things modeled well enough, that you do get a great feel for the advantages and strengths of the different weapons on the battlefield just as they would in real life.
 
The fighting in the game is always more bloody and deadly and the time frame very much reduced compared to how it would play out in real life generally. Plus the battles and situations players create would not normally be the situation in real conflicts.
players also direct their troops in unrealistic manors compared to real troop leaders. (Or at least ones that have not been shot by their own troops that is).
Plus, there is plenty of people as you can see from these post that will try and point out every flaw they can as to what they think is incorrect about the game - in general it is best to not encourage them.
 
 

Abrams armor plates


Chobham/Burlington armor of Chieftain

Merkava armor

And the last but not the least... T-72B armor

@IICptMillerII, I believe we can be fairly sure no one passed the "dreaded secret" of Chobham armor to the Soviet Union. It's just the laws of the physics are the same be it US, UK, Israel or the Soviet Union so the engineers come to the same designs when concieving similar things. I can tell you even more:
The effect that forms the basis of the spaced composite armor / NERA (Chobham armor) was first used in the armor of the Soviet tanks albeit in a different, considerably less efficient setup And even more, the way Kontakt-5 ERA works is the same as NERA, it's just NERA uses the energy of incoming projectile while ERA - the energy of chemical explosion

https://mwi.usma.edu/russian-ukrainian-war-understanding-dust-clouds-battlefield/
Nothing ground breaking,(or political, I believe). 
Still, useful for pointing out a possible Russian preference for sustained political pressure maintained by sustained military pressure. 
There could also be logistical/force sustainment considerations, but nothing Putin couldn't brush past if he so wished. 
When I started properly reading up in this nasty fight I'd initially wondered why Russia didn't go for a desert storm style strike. However it was described to me here and elsewhere, that choking an unfriendly regime, rather than can crushing it and dealing with a massed resistance, is better in many ways. 
Follow Up commentary:
http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/blog/2017/01/21/an-additional-comment-on-the-link-between-operations-strategy-and-policy-in-russian-hybrid-warfare/

Yup, the reaction/acquisition speed is AI fast, not "human" fast. (Which is just a harbinger of the real future of mech warfare (say, within 15/20 years)...) 
That incredibly quick 180 deg turret swing  is just depressing. I see that happen and I know I'm facing losses of 3:1., weather I win or no. A pyhrric win, at that ratio,  in real life 
So for me it's the acquisition part of the loop that breaks my immersion. 
Now and then I play UKR v US just to feel how the Iraqis did. 

 

https://mwi.usma.edu/russian-ukrainian-war-understanding-dust-clouds-battlefield/
Nothing ground breaking,(or political, I believe). 
Still, useful for pointing out a possible Russian preference for sustained political pressure maintained by sustained military pressure. 
There could also be logistical/force sustainment considerations, but nothing Putin couldn't brush past if he so wished. 
When I started properly reading up in this nasty fight I'd initially wondered why Russia didn't go for a desert storm style strike. However it was described to me here and elsewhere, that choking an unfriendly regime, rather than can crushing it and dealing with a massed resistance, is better in many ways. 
Follow Up commentary:
http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/blog/2017/01/21/an-additional-comment-on-the-link-between-operations-strategy-and-policy-in-russian-hybrid-warfare/

And Israeli armour isn't? I would imagine they'd pay attention to ATGMs after their experience in 1973... What do you have to back this up? Why is their armour not capable of defeating ATGMs by virtue of not being British, American or German? (Obviously superior Kruppstahl notwithstanding! )
I agree with the sentiment on LWRs though, it definitely seems much too fast. Even with thermal optics there is a lot of stuff to look at in a 30 degree arc to survey before you can dial in that team of two or three guys hiding in a bush!

You misunderstand, I believe - he's talking about unrealistically fast situational awareness giving unrealistic response times, accuracy and return fire rate to ATGM launches.
Generally, we want to Reduce the hyper fast awareness and turret traverse to more realistic timimgs 
 

Not quite right... Ehhh... CMBS' LWR-equipped tanks (like M1) acquire ATGM-launchers almost instanteniously. What is the basis for such a behaviour when real life LWRs (Thales, Leonardo) give you 30/45 degrees sector??? Instant target acquisition in a 30/45 degrees sector at a distance of 2-4km??? Why not have an Abrams with an ion-gun then?
And it has profound impact on the gameplay. In real life (Yemen, Syria) we see tanks being burned every time they are careless enough while facing an ATGM-armed opposition. In CMBS a platoon of Abramses can simply drive through the whole map blasting everyone around.

It's been fricking AGES since I played this game.
I'd really forgotten just how nail biting it can be, especially in RT, and even v. the AI.
Not the most amazing kill numbers, but the fight to get those 3 BTRS- ho boy...


2nd pic (from end game state) shows the long row of industrial/barracks types that the team nailed the BTRs from. I held them back until the middle BTRs were almost parallel, then nailed it. The lead backed up, swinging its turret and My guys just barely got it. the following BTR had surged past the first victim, stopped, backed up as the lead was getting royally rogered. But I had raced my guys forwards (ie towards the camera, through the buildings) and snaffled it as it was strafing the buildings where they had just been.
The speed of this little fight was mental, and I think it was actually critical - if those BTRs had broken past the buildings and swept right they'd have rolled up my advancing line from the middle, pinning me against a thin forest and muddy stream. I'd have beaten them off but the enemy right flank would have then ploughed into me.
2 little fellas and some ****ty RPGs put an end to that.
 
Sometimes, this game just knocks it out of the fricking park.
 

It's been fricking AGES since I played this game.
I'd really forgotten just how nail biting it can be, especially in RT, and even v. the AI.
Not the most amazing kill numbers, but the fight to get those 3 BTRS- ho boy...


2nd pic (from end game state) shows the long row of industrial/barracks types that the team nailed the BTRs from. I held them back until the middle BTRs were almost parallel, then nailed it. The lead backed up, swinging its turret and My guys just barely got it. the following BTR had surged past the first victim, stopped, backed up as the lead was getting royally rogered. But I had raced my guys forwards (ie towards the camera, through the buildings) and snaffled it as it was strafing the buildings where they had just been.
The speed of this little fight was mental, and I think it was actually critical - if those BTRs had broken past the buildings and swept right they'd have rolled up my advancing line from the middle, pinning me against a thin forest and muddy stream. I'd have beaten them off but the enemy right flank would have then ploughed into me.
2 little fellas and some ****ty RPGs put an end to that.
 
Sometimes, this game just knocks it out of the fricking park.
 

REVISED

LOADING SCREENS



 




 
A little blurry but a good compositional start.

If all the infantry the carrier is meant to protect are hors d'combat, it has already failed in its primary mission and everything else is a moot point. 

See Mr. Burke, what you fail to understand is that if a vehicle exists, and its in the military, it has to be a tank. Its a simple concept; army vehicles go boom boom with big guns.
Trying to apply any logic or reason to this simple equation just gives everyone a headache. And remember, the Bradley is such a good IFV, why not have a knock off version of it rolling around?
Seriously though:
Fetishizing some of the worst armored vehicles ever made to justify making the Stryker worse to be like them. Now this, Mr. Burke, is how its done. 

If the vehicle is carrying javelin armed infantry why does it need to have its own heavy AT weapon (that then requires additional ammo storage space, weight etc).
For example your statement about being able to set up and manage the vehicle weapons system remotely looks like a messed up reverse engineering of a dismounted Javelin team  
Trying to create a vehicle capable of all things means it likely does none of them individually well. i think this is actually one of the weaknesses of Russian vehicle design (and some western ones as well). Too many things are piled onto a vehicle without making sure it does it’s original intended role first. Too many compromises leads to a vehicle that can’t accomplish it’s original mission. 

Core unit ? maybe Kampfgruppe Merkel 

BY all that's holy, THIS. The Russians can make their tinker-toy BTRs amphib, but the all encompassing US military can't do so for the Stryker,, a vehicle whose fundamental purpose is infantry mobility? Seriously? There will always be a bridge? Even in CM, if an oppo mines a bridge over anything larger than, oh a trickle of piss and properly covers it then Strykers are screwed. 
Pretty ridiculous, IMHO. 

The most perplexing thing with the Strykers for me, given one of their raison d'etre ( mobility), is the lack of true amphibious ability.

I think the 30mm upgrade for stryker comes from exactly the same desire to improve vehicle versatility as our 30mm APC projects. It won't necessarily change its tactical niche but expand the application within that niche. Supporting dismounted infantry from a distance with a 30 is a lot easier and more effective than with a .50 after all.  

Ah, but you are not supposed to see them. Therefore they are working great.

Ugh. 
Some bad moments. 
Lost my left Hook Tunguska to a,  well, not sure really. Precision Arty or a mine, dunno, but total hull loss. 
Smoke intended to blond his centre line has instead land in the open centre ground,  screwing with my crossfire arcs on his central M1A2.
Right flank list 3 BMPs in a debacle of crappie manoeuvring.
Lesson learned: NEVER,  *EVER*  ATTACK LEFT -*AND* RIGHT AT A T-JUNCTION. 
Choose one arm of the T,  and concentrate. 
I've pulled Right Flank back,  going to withdraw rapido before those M1A2s charge forward.
Still have 2 mech Co on reserve. 
T90s sitting quiet,  some small adjustment to anticipate a possible US counter attack on the right. 
Remaining Tunguska has trashed his front line buildings facing my Left Hook,  then bailed off. 
Dropboxxed  my latest play but getting the notification email bounced back from a full in box. Oh well.... 
 

A post I just did in another thread reminded me and I want to bring this up again as a possible bug.
US 60mm mortar teams in all other titles using target light will lower their RoF on the mortar, but still not engage enemy with small arms unless the enemy is very dangerously close.  However I've noticed in BS US 60mm mortar teams ordered to target light usually will not even use the mortar and instead engage with small arms against enemy units even if the enemy is several hundred meters out.

OK as promised.  I have found away for Fire Fox and Chrome users to tweak the forum web site.  There is an add in called Stylish:
For Fire Fox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/stylish/
For Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/stylish/fjnbnpbmkenffdnngjfgmeleoegfcffe?hl=en
With that add-in installed you can write your own CSS that will be used to style web pages of your choice.  I have created a package of CSS styles that reduce some of the white space - every where, return the avatars to square and remove announcements from the topic pages.
Here is what the Black Sea forum looked like in my browser before the change:

As  you can see no actual content is visible because of all the excessive white space in the header area.  Now after applying the styles using Stylish the site looks like this:

And now you can see the first five topics of the forum.
Once you have the add in installed you can add these styles to your experience by clicking the "Install with Stylish" button here: https://userstyles.org/styles/119012/compact-battlefront-forum-ipboard
You can inspect and modify the CSS at any time.  You can turn it on and off easily as well so if anything breaks you can get back to the default quickly.
Enjoy.

Hmm I better relisten to turn 1 &  2. Otherwise a great danger of nasty HATO cheater smart bombs.