cbennett88

I would "kill" to have someone give a definitive explanation of how to utilize "hull down" command in this game! I understand completely what hull down means...and how it applies IRL. But in the game, I can't seem to achieve a proper use. If...I have a spot on the map that I think would make a good hull down position...and I gave my tank a command to that spot...does the AI move there and search for the proper spot(maybe a little forward or back)? If I just give the command to a spot at the bottom of a rise in terrain(hill), will the AI move the tank up the slope to a point where it is hull down to the other side? Or...should I give the tank the command to the point on the ground where I want to target hull down(i.e. say a point on a road where I expect the enemy)? Then does the AI analyze where it needs to position the tank to be able to hit that spot and move the tank accordingly? It just seems like it COULD be a very useful command in the game...but without better understanding of how it works, it is seems more frustrating than helpful...

@Ivanov There's no argument that "humping" the 50cal(or any HMG) is a bitch. I know so from my time in the US Army. But I disagree on whether they are still in use by modern military...especially in MOUT or defensive battles. Although MOST are mounted on vehicles, the US has found them very useful in ground mount. Nothing short of a gatling gun will get the enemy's attention faster than a HMG shooting at you! I could show you footage of Russian HMGs in ground use in Ukraine...but obviously nothing that explicitly shows Russian troops using them(b/c they are NOT "really" there, are they? Lol).

@Ivanov That wasn't my question. Those are only medium machine guns. I specifically asked about Heavy MG's. Try using one of those MMG's on a light armored vehicle like a Stryker or MTLB, much less chew through a concrete building to get at the troops hiding inside. The penetration of 12.7mm rds vs 7.62mm is substantially different. Russia DOES HAVE 12.7mm MGs(the ones I listed). They may even still be using DShKs...which are even MORE POWERFUL(12.7mm x108) My question still stands...WHY does the US get them but not the Russians(and probably the UKR..I didn't check...) I understand this aspect but does anyone really think Russian commanders would NOT use the HMGs they have sitting in the armory?? Watch news footage from ANY war zone in the last 15 years and you see them EVERYWHERE(especially DShK's!

(Hands clapping!!) Ok...but where do my men get the wrenches and screwdrivers??

Their omission is a serious handicap in MOUT fighting. I haven't figured out how to get a BTR up 6 flights of stairs...

Has anyone noticed that the Russians don't seem to get the use of infantry carried HMG's? The US has the option of 50cal HMG teams. They may even have the option of dismounting them from Humvees(although I haven't figured out how to do it). But...I have looked at the choices in QB and I have not found any option for Russian HMGs. I have not even seen them as part of the TO&E of full formation units(like battalions) It's NOT like they don't have any in service... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kord_machine_gun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSV_machine_gun

@John Kettler I always enjoy the articles and videos you bring to this forum! But...WHO wrote this article(You DID warn us)? Is it a bad translation by Google Translate?!? It's like some 8 year kid tried to write it!!

@John Kettler Don't remember seeing that exact post but have no problem believing every bit of it. I am experimenting with having my UKR/Russian tanks unbuttoned more often than not b/c I have read here that it MAY speed up acquisition. VERY FRUSTRATING as the Russian player to lose so many engagements b/c the US is just so much better at spotting. 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.

@John Kettler Although I try to stay current on this forum, I may not have caught the new developments in the game since ver 4.0. Is there a good link you can share so I can get up to speed? Part of my "adjustment factor" though is not based on the effectiveness of Russian ATGM warheads once they impact the target. I have certainly experienced having my M-1s taken out plenty of times! It has to do with the frustrating number of times Russian ATGMs go flying wildly into the dirt or off course. As a former TOW platoon commander I understand the "delicacies" of wire guided missiles. So I am not expecting "miracles". But I have witnessed(as I am sure we all have) NUMEROUS times when Russian teams send their missiles straight into the dirt 100m in front of them even when not under fire(i.e stress). Then to have them quickly eliminated b/c they have given away their position. And...this IS with using "veteran" or better, crews. With 3X the AT teams, the Russian player can set up to compensate for "bad gunners". On the other hand...although SOME javelin missiles will miss/hit trees, etc...it is true that even the worst trained US operator(in game) can pretty much go up against the best Russian tank and succeed more often than not. Hardly "fair"... Russian system are old, I get it! And.. NO...IRL I PRAY that their systems are this bad if we ever have to face them!! But... an underlying principle of Russian warfighting has been to compensate for inferior quality in certain weapons by having more of them...usually LOTS MORE! So...especially if my opponent is the Russian player...I want it to be a more balanced fight. "Superior equipment" vs "Superior numbers"...it is the age old debate of the two sides since the Cold War right? Thanks for this!! I will incorporate this into my strategy next time I play as the Russians. I always assumed that their thermals just saw through it like the M-1s seem to do. But this still requires the Russian player to plan farther out(since his artillery response is slower)...have MORE artillery available(because to get more smoke rds you have to "buy" better units)...and have more guns available if you want to do anything other than lay smoke all game. Hence...back to what I said about giving the Russian player more points to do all this!

My "preferences" in PBEM games are... 1. No APS(or VERY LIMITED as in 1 vehicle per platoon). Mainly b/c...until the designers add the "Israeli Army module"...no current army has APS in use. Yes,,,IF they add the "US Marines module" I will amend that statement. I get it that the US or Russia COULD try to quickly outfit their vehicles, but...we are talking what forces are USING NOW. 2. My BIGGEST Pet Peeve? Opponents who buy 2 or 3 Tunguskas and use them as "ground attack buzz-saws". I have written a whole long post on this forum about why I think that system is badly misrepresented in the game. I would be totally fine if they added the ZSU-23-4 to the game and players wanted to use that in ground attack. There is precedent for it in Chechnya. 3. Whoever plays as the Russians in a game vs the US gets a 10%-20% bonus in points to buy forces. I just feel the Russian side is severely disadvantaged when up against the US. I understand that might be 100% accurate IRL but...IF my opponent and I want a more "balanced" game, then the Russian side needs the ability to counter superior equipment with numbers. Take the case of ATGMs... the US gets the "wonder weapon" Javelin which sees everything and almost never fails. The Russians need 4+ of any of their ATGMs (other than the AT-14) to reach parity. With the AT-14 it is more like 2-3. None of this is "set in stone" for me. Just what I prefer...

@John Kettler "Grade 1 eye candy" indeed! But...watching those BTR-4Es during the exercise only strengthens my opinion of the UKR mech forces. Either one of two things... A. Their shiny new "latest technology" vehicles are still woefully behind in matching their expected foe(the Russians). Based on my experience in game play, both the Oplot and the BTR-4E are too slow in spotting(vs Red similar vehicles). Watch the video ~6:00 mark. Notice how long it takes the gunner(using some sort of video display) to get the gun on target? In combat seconds count! And this is under "practice conditions"!! I was never a Mech infantryman, but I did get to practice on the Bradley during OCS. I can say that even my inexperienced young self could get the Bradley 25mm on target easier than what that video showed! Yes...US tech tends to lead the world, I know...but...if the UKR is trying to be prepared for a war that is almost on them(using a limited budget)...they may not be getting their money's worth! B. Or...Maybe the equipment is up to standard, but their troops aren't proficient enough to use them at peak effectiveness? It could be that the level of training(and combat efficiency) needs MAJOR focus. All those "shiny new toys" will be wasted money if they don't spend just as much on training the crews. All of this is IMHO. Simply based on playing as the UKR.

I prefer my meat a "little on the Dark Side"!

Not that I disagree with what you've stated(since it is exactly what I had speculated earlier)but...can you elaborate on your source?

@John Kettler That's a good point that I hadn't considered(although the length of that barrel is huge!), so I decided to re-watch some of the video for things I might have missed. IF...we stay with the argument that they serve as tool boxes/generators, etc... WHY did they go to so much trouble to mount them so far from the hull? Go to .51 and 1.12 mark. Notice how they are mounted with so much space from the hull? And...look at the angle of the boxes...WHY have them angled skyward along the line of fire? Those details aren't substantial enough to prove anything, I admit. But I am still leaning toward "something electronic" related to enhancing the weapon.

@TheForwardObserver Appreciate your insight! Now...we just have to wait till we find someone who understands Russian fluently...or for some western military source...to find out what those boxes actually do... I'm willing to buy John a beer if he turns out to be right.

@John Kettler Totally agree that an English translation would be fantastic!! I can definitely see your point about the storage but I'm not convinced.I'll explain further down below. I watched as he demonstrated the compressed air powered bore brush. Since I'm not a "cannon cocker" (only a grunt! ) I can't really comment on how much of an improvement that would be. My thoughts are...with their industry's history of inconsistent workmanship, I'm not sure that wouldn't be more of a liability once away from base. Felt the same way with the neat looking artillery loading vans. Cool to watch, but why would the Russians go away from the one things they traditionally have easy access to...ample unskilled manpower?? From what I observed...why not just bring a group of conscripts to reload? They certainly would seem faster than what the video showed... One of the only reason I'm not convinced those particular boxes are just tools, etc is...the Russians are completely obsessed right now with incorporating "the latest technology". Just look at Armata and the other new vehicles. If you watch when they use earlier footage, the Koalitsya does not have the boxes(I think the smoke dischargers were there and are now re-positioned to the side). Since neither of us speaks the language, my feeling is that the host talks about how this version has "advanced technology" over the previous version and that those boxes play a role. A gun chronograph would tell you muzzle speed but wouldn't tell you anything about shell trajectory variation outside the barrel. I know somewhere in my studies I read about some military artillery units using a dedicated radar vehicle to track outgoing shells so that adjustments could be made for wind, barrel wear, and other minute factors that affect the shell. Still...just a guess though. C

Btw...is this like the Russian version of "Top Gear" The way the host is riding on the front of the SPH while it is at speed, reminds me of the sort of crazy antics Jeremy and the boys would do...

@John Kettler Great video! Thanks for posting! Any idea John at the purpose of those 2 large boxes on the front serve? Seems unlikely they'd be some sort of APS. They remind me of some of the newer phased array radar on the Pantsir. I'm thinking...radar tracking of rounds to improve accuracy?? Just a wild guess... Chris

Can we get back to the 40 ft nuclear battle robots?!? Does anyone know if they will be included in an upcoming game module for CM:BS?? Sorry...I couldn't help myself. LMAO

@TheForwardObserver Question... Do artillery smoke rounds explode at ground level...or at altitude..or does it vary?

Totally agree. Someone else brought this up in their post b/c of how just the act of lasing the target was ruining ambushes.

I'm looking for those of you with recent military experience(or who have worked in defense related industries) It occurred to me while playing "Cry Havoc" this morning... The debate about whether any (IRL and in the game) military has FLIR blocking smoke has gone back and forth. What I am now wondering is...what effect(IRL) does artillery smoke have on laser rangefinders, and more importantly...laser guided AT missiles like the AT-14 (At-10, AT-11, etc)? I know from my military experience that smoke would block laser rangefinders...but that was years ago, so the power of today's lasers might change things . But...the opaque qualities of smoke must have SOME effect. Wouldn't a laser guided missile like the AT-14 loses guidance going into a smoke screen? Sure the FLIR could see through(especially since today's FLIRs see in multi-wavelengths...but those missile systems that use a laser to guide them might get "broken", correct? And for a MBT...doesn't that mean that range would have to be estimated b/c the laser couldn't get a reading? In that case, crew experience/level of training would play a role in how good those shots are b/c they would have to manually input it. There must be something there b/c the Russian Khrizantema switches to radar guidance when firing through smoke. I researched open source materiel on the AGM-114 Hellfire(not many blogs written by tank gunners available online! lol) since the earlier models relied on a laser designating the target. Clouds, dust and smoke all obscure the missile from reaching the target. The newer versions have dual guidance. Maybe all of this IS modeled in the game...but I have my doubts. Mainly b/c I experienced my vehicles getting a laser warning followed by a hit from my opponent's AT-14 while behind a 155 artillery smokescreen. Are there any former tankers out there that want to comment?? Not concerned so much about how the game model handles it. Just want to satisfy my professional curiosity.

@kinophile I don't mind not having MLRS simply b/c I believe it is TOO POWERFUL for these size maps. Plus...there would be those players who would just buy 2-3 of those and a couple of FOs in jeeps and run around the battlefield pummeling everything!

Cool story! BTW...There are several Hawker Hunters for sale if you've got enough extra $$$ lying around...

Somewhere on this forum I remember reading a fairly long series of posts as to why artillery smoke rounds do NOT block thermal sights like smoke dischargers do. If memory serves me correctly, it had to do with not being able to achieve the necessary concentration of "blocking elements" to work properly. The person who responded had more knowledge on the subject and had a pretty good explanation for why. Apparently there are some manufacturers who claim their product works...but the claims were unsupported. Try a word search...it should show up.