cbennett88

I do not have any access to how the developers set things up... or to any"definitive proof" in the form of a saved game to show everyone. It is simply my observations during gameplay(and yes, I realize my assumptions based on that can be wrong). IMHO...US troops seem to break and run less often while under fire(both sides being similarly motivated), reload faster(vehicles and crew served weapons), call for artillery, and perform "medic" duties much quicker. Even the fact that only officers and FO's on the Russian side can call artillery vs pretty much anybody on the US side. The equipment advantage that the US enjoys I totally understand. I hope that IRL the US ALWAYS experiences that! In the game though, I want both sides to have an equal chance at winning. Since Russian weapons aren't a "fair/equal match" (the Tunguska being the BIG exception!), I usually try to offer whoever plays the Russian side a 10%-15% points advantage. Use it to buy higher experience level troops. Buy 3X the ATGM teams to try and equal the US "superweapon" Javelin. Whatever...

@John Kettler I always assumed that lack of adequate training was already built into the UKR and Russian forces. It always seemed to me that their "veteran & elite" were only at the level of "regular & veteran" in the US forces... Am I wrong in believing that FO's get a quicker response time from artillery units once they have "established a relationship" by completing a fire mission with that artillery unit? As in...the 2nd, 3rd, etc follow up calls for fire take less time b/c the link has been established? And...whoever suggested somewhere on this forum about allowing "veteran" and above FO's w/laser designators to call in 1st round FFE (like TRPs)...I wholeheartedly agree!

Interesting! Any explanation why? Are they set up to handle different types of targets, i.e....left gun is fed only AP rounds to handle vehicle targets...while right gun has only HE type rounds for personnel & soft targets?

John Kettler Lol! I admit I am not up on WWII Wehrmacht songs like you. Had to Google it. Came up with Youtube clips of Robert Shaw as Wehrmacht panzer commander and then an explanation on Wikipedia. Not sure Poles are going to "go that far" with absorbing German tank training. Thanks for the laugh though!

First of all... Must say I was extremely impressed with the Leopard 2 in high speed reverse! They must have great rear cameras to trust driving like that! If the game designers decide to add the Polish forces, what piece of equipment would you be most excited by? Maybe I am "strange," but those 1-2 man ATV's are at the top of my list...followed by the Leopard 2's and the Spike ATGMs in that order. I'm just imagining being able to recon faster with less fatigue using those ATVs. Plus..there should be an improvement in troop quality(from better training) vs UKR forces. Did you know that the German Army and the Polish Army have combined their Leopard training school? That has got to be a good thing for the Poles!

@John Kettler I DO have a friend with one of these! Does that count??

@John Kettler Thanks John! It's not often that my hunches are right. You don't think they saw my previous post and decided to adopt my idea?!?? LOL

True...AESA is more difficult to track. It's the basis for most of the newest 4th gen fighter A/C. But...that also means it costs much more...so we will see less of systems on fewer Russian tanks. Unlike explosive armor, which has been for the most parts universally adopted on all their MBTs.

@panzersaurkrautwerfer No doubt! Never said they were good at retaining the lessons! Lol. Just said that they have fought enough of them to know that urban combat is still going to happen! @kinophile You are very likely correct! My knowledge of Ossetia and Ukraine fighting is limited. I simply used Google & wikipedia to search "urban siege battles"...then followed it up with a brief reading of those two. My overall main point was that more than the US, Russia has a long history of urban fighting that might justify having a specialized weapon for just that type of battle.

If the Russians are known for anything, it is for clinging tightly to the lessons learned from their battles & history. Urban warfare is a cornerstone to their military heritage. Odessa, Sevastopol, Leningrad, Stalingrad...then Grozny(3 times)...battle of Tskhinvali(Ossetia)...Battle of Ilovaisk(Ukraine) The current listing of the Russian Army has 12 Armies(NOT divisions) in 4 districts. That would give them what...1 TOS-1 per Army?? Hardly realistic... Given that this was fielded in the late 80's into 90's, their military wasn't feeling the budget squeeze they do now. So...isn't it far more likely they discovered an issue in the design and operation of the weapon that caused them not to build more?

Great minds think alike... "John...What do you think about this idea? What if (IRL) the better equipped militaries of the world considered issuing each tank something like one of those small roto-copter drones that are all the rage with the public nowdays? They have them that can "follow" you automatically. They are very cheap...almost disposable even. To have the commander be able to see the area surrounding his tank...to see what's on the other side of the hill...etc"

@Vanir Ausf B I had started to read something recently on this...but then realized it still sounded like what we've been hearing for years about the US fielding APS...that they stubbornly refuse to "buy" proven Israeli systems, and instead just want to drag their feet and develop their own! "The Army is currently fast-tracking an effort to explore a number of different APS systems for the Abrams. General Dynamics Land Systems is, as part of the effort, using its own innovation to engineer an APS system which is not a “bolt-on” type of applique but something integrated more fully into the tank itself, company developers have told Scout Warrior." http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1745414-army-starts-on-new-tank-after-abrams-2030s They are talking M1A2 SEP v4 to "start testing in 2021"...and that didn't sound like it would include APS till after! Do you have any good sources that say differently? I would LOVE to hear they are getting it sooner!

Maybe...but if that were true, "half" the people posting on here would never say a word! I think I kept my questions within the realm of "available from open sources" and generic enough to not give away any technical secrets...

@Combatintman Bahaha! I apologize if you took this as "urinating competition". Not at all. I appreciate your input. I read what you wrote...looked over the info on the link...and then gave what I thought was a well presented different opinion of the discussion. I even tried to provide data on what I found after researching the subject. I never said you were in any way wrong. I just feel differently than you do about "active systems vs passive systems". I do enjoy learning about any and all military technology from anyone who has experience in the related subject. I've made comments on this forum about various artillery matters...and then had "real cannon-cockers" (I was US infantry & Air Force) help me understand their field better. You've been in ISR for 32 years. Help me(and others reading this forum) understand how to overcome some of the difficulties I saw with battlefield radar. How do you discriminate military vehicles from civilian ones in say a semi-urban environment (example might be...watching a medium size town at night)? Do trees (forests of say Germany) hinder spotting? Do the operators of the radar worry about having artillery dropped on them (sorta like counter-battery fire) b/c they are transmitting?

@Sgt.Squarehead Awesome pic of that ZSU-23-4 with slat armor! I'm guessing that behind it are heavier metal plates to stop small arms b/c the original armor was really thin. Thanks for finding it.

Very good question! From some of what I have read on this forum(seem to be Ukrainians or Russian members/gamers) it seems like ZSU-24-4's are being used in theatre for only ground attack...but with the radar removed. I have no direct knowledge (and no better sources to quote). I would have to believe that, going on previous Russian habit of never "throwing away" any weapon that COULD be useful someday, they MUST have lots of these things sitting around their tank depots. Remember...the US Army did pretty much the same thing with the M42 Duster during the Vietnam war...and the M163{mainly the Israeli army) after...

Combatintman... I don't doubt that battlefield radars have come a long way, but no matter what the brochure says...they still can't see past the first hill that blocks LOS(unless you get them airborne...which is a whole different matter). Same with urban environments. Not sure about trees. The Israelis have good luck with them because of the open spaces of their environment. In cases like the Golan heights, they have specifically held on to that terrain just so they could see farther into the approaches they expect their enemies to attack from. It is an ideal area for battlefield radar since you have the high ground. And...there is plenty of terrain in this game where it could be used(although most of our maps are too small to fully exploit what those radars can do). So "yes", these radars are great if... you a military that can afford them...and have troops trained to understand and operate them. They also require a significant power source. Most likely a vehicle based electrical supply. "Manportable batteries" would be unlikely to operate the radar at full power for longer than a few hours if that. I also researched at what frequency this radar operates at. It is the KU band. Here are limitations on that band... "Ku Band Difficulties When frequencies higher than 10 GHz are transmitted and received in a heavy rain fall area, a noticeable degradation occurs, due to the problems caused by and proportional to the amount of rain fall (commonly known as known as “rain fade”) A similar phenomena called “snow fade” (when snow accumulation significantly alters the dish’s focal point) can also occur during Winter Season. Also, the Ku band satellites typically require considerably more power to transmit than the C band satellites." My source...http://www.tech-faq.com/ku-band.html I still stand by the idea that a "passive receiver system" that detects APS is more practical for so many more reasons...

Correct. They are listed as having about a dozen. It was actually listed as first being used by the Soviets in Afghanistan. The real question (IMO) is...why didn't they build more? Budget issues notwithstanding, it is not a grossly expensive system. No expensive FLIR or radars. Doesn't require a large crew to operate. Although it has been sold/given as trade to several countries, it doesn't seem to be something the Russian arms industry has had much success in selling. I find the fact that China never bought even one to test...and maybe "clone" to be interesting. They tend to buy "everything" unusual/new on the market to see if they should build their own.

John Did you ever what happened to Mack (the former SEAL/host of that show)? He died of brain tumor at the very young age of 52 just a couple of months ago.

The reason (IMHO) the Israelis aren't worried about their opponents tracking their APS Merkavas is... 1. Most of their expected enemies currently(Hamas, Hezbollah, etc) don't have the technology needed for this sort of RF tracking/jamming. 2. The short distances involved (mainly urban) don't give that much of an advantage. The Israelis aren't normally attacking from outside visual distance.

Thanks, ...but I knew what the vehicle was. I assumed most of the readers here would too. The Russian military has ~15 according to sources. Yes...they have been used in combat. Only 15 tells me they were "experimenting" and for whatever reason, never built more. Hell...even Azerbaijan has more than Russia(18)!

I have always wondered just this sort of question. By "broadcasting" all these active radar signals, how hard is it for an enemy to develop a receiver to locate where your vehicles are? Same principle as submarine warfare. Any sub using active sonar instantly gives away it's location. Maybe I can't "see" your vehicles hidden in the woods or that town, but I would certainly know once you turn on your APS system. General location, maybe how many...and even potential routes of attack based on movement of signal. Which brings up the possibility of aircraft armed with modified Hellfires or Brimstones fitted with homing seekers tuned to APS freq. Passive RF seekers are MUCH cheaper than active ones... Just my thoughts...

That thing looks awesome! Especially if they have put some more modern optics on it. How many have they built? Kinda like this weapon system...impressive, if they build enough to actually have them around in combat. Otherwise, just "concept vehicles"...

I've argued this a long time ago. A. The game designers modeled a version of tunguska that never went into production. It was from an arms show in 2011, intended to entice export orders. Although it may never happen, the first order of business to bring more realism to the system would be for the game designers to remove the FLIR ability in the game, which would eliminate players abusing it in ground combat at night. This is NOT a "M-1 w/30mm cannons"! B. Less than 300 of these went into service in the Russian armed forces. They are designed to protect "high value targets" at the regimental level and above. NOT ground attack weapons on the battlefield, as they are frequently exploited for in the game. In Chechnya, ZSU-23-4's were used against ground targets (especially urban areas). However...6500 of them were produced. Far more widespread, so their appearance at battalion level and lower (as in this game) makes much more sense. And...at that time(1994) they had been replaced as frontline AA...so their use against ground targets made sense considering they were now "extra equipment". Yes...this is a pet peeve of mine. Sorta like if the game allowed the US players to buy MLRS...and then use them in "direct fire mode" to obliterate large buildings with a single rocket. Could it be done(IRL)? Yes. Would it ever happen? No!

@JUAN DEAG Thank you! You are correct. I had the DshK confused with the KPV..which is the more powerful 14.5mm. I just read up on it. Would you believe that the round has a lethal range of 8 KM!!