Grey_Fox
-
Posts
473 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Grey_Fox
-
-
3 minutes ago, Larsen said:
I found an article that states that the FCS and thermal sights are about the same in both models. The difference is that since R-90AM has a bigger turret the sensors are positioned more compactly and the tank profile is lower than T-72B3M. I will do some testing and see if i see any difference in spotting.
What's in the game may not be the same as what's in real life.
-
In my experience the T-90AM has superior spotting to the T-72B3, particularly as it has a CITV (Commander Independent Thermal Viewer) system. It also has superior ERA, so is more survivable.
-
1 hour ago, slysniper said:
well, if I can build something that cost 5 times less, so I can have 5 vs 1 to a tank. and I can make it smaller and faster. And I can have it operate without a crew inside it.
But it isn't 1/5 of the price. A Bradley is ~3.1 million USD, an M1A2 seems to be someplace in the region of 9 million USD. And you sure as hell are not going to get a fully remote-operated, performant IFV for 1/5 the price of an Abrams.
I posted a video here not long ago of IFVs crashing into each other which had manned crews. Any remote-operated IFV is going to have **even worse** situational awareness since the crews aren't going to be able to poke their heads out of the vehicle and look around, plus will be susceptible to all manner of EW.
Besides - what do you think a small, remote-operated, armoured vehicle which doesn't have any passengers and has all sorts of weapons is called? You can call it a UGV all you want, it's still a tank.
1 hour ago, slysniper said:And forget about all the effort to put any protection on it for atgm's or large ordinance. Which one sounds like the way to go in the future, that or a present tank.
Trophy APS is already a part of the SEPv3 programme, so I'm not sure what this sentence is supposed to mean.
1 hour ago, slysniper said:The only way for a present tank concept to survive long term is if some type of system to be developed that will consistently beat all incoming threats.
Since when has any tank ever been able to consistently beat all incoming threats? You created scenarios which are bundled into the CW base game - aren't pretty much all tanks in that time period vulnerable to all anti-tank weaponry? Weren't pretty much all tanks in WW2 vulnerable to most AT weaponry?
The way I'm reading this is that you're trying to set an impossible standard - that the only way a tank can be useful is if it's invincible and then declaring victory in the argument because there's no such thing as an invincible wunderwaffe. You even seem to be throwing out the entire concept of combined arms warfare.
1 hour ago, slysniper said:the defense systems are presently getting too costly and is hurting performance
When has warfare ever been cheap?
-
22 minutes ago, womble said:
How do you get "more vulnerable" than "dead"? I'm not sure that the state of a BMP is functionally any worse than how a T-72 turns flips its turret into the next street when a Javelin EFP arrives. Sure, the entire hull top gets ripped off the APC, not just its turret, but both are irreparably combat ineffective and everyone inside is dead. Not sure the tank is worth the extra money for what it brings to the fight.
There are many things that can kill an APC or IFV that won't kill a tank. If it can kill a tank, of course it's going to kill an APC, and probably a lot harder
25 minutes ago, womble said:There are other threats though that the APC is capable of surviving, and "transiting contaminated areas", per the context of what you've quoted, is one of them. And it can carry infantry, protected, where a tank cannot.
I'm not saying that APCs and IFVs are obsolete or useless. I'm saying that tanks aren't obsolete or useless. They perform a role that APCs and IFVs can't, which is bringing a whole lot of mobile protected firepower to the field without any compromises made to allow them to carry passengers.
-
7 hours ago, womble said:
Armour doesn't necessarily mean "tank". You might have noticed things called "APCs" and "IFVs" in the battlespace
APCs and IFVs will be even more vulnerable than a tank against the same threats. At the very least they'll either have less armour or less weaponry if they want to be able to carry passengers, and most likely they'll have to have less of both.
-
22 hours ago, akd said:
I mean, other than losing probably a third of their modernized tank force already, yeah, no big deal.
That sort of loss rate is kinda reasonable for 6 weeks into a peer conflict.
Also we don't actually know how badly the Ukrainians have been affected - they've been pretty good at opsec and their citizenry haven't really been broadcasting lost Ukrianian vehicles on the internet.
-
When panzershreks and bazookas were clapping Shermans and Panthers, was the tank dead?
When Israeli tanks were being reamed by Egyptian ATGM teams in 1973, was the tank dead?
The "analysis" by a dude who mainly posts gaming footage seems to be you need to use modern equipment on the modern battlefield. Deep.
-
4 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:
+1. I like the white armbands on the Russian troops.
Thanks, you can get the mods that contain them from the unofficial discord server (linked in video description).
-
6 minutes ago, SgtHatred said:
Yeah, I can confirm that the T-90AM has the same problem (on the Steam version anyway), and that even small arms can penetrate the front of these tanks. Hopefully this can be fixed somewhat quickly, because a tank that lacks front hull armour isn't super useful.
@BFCElvisfor visibility
-
-
5 hours ago, Erwin said:
6:1 ratio for attacking??
Enough to guarantee a breakthrough with acceptable casualties which allows the attacker to defeat and counterattack or continue into the enemy rear. That ratio can be achieved by using fire support as well, not just boots on the ground.
-
3 hours ago, Larsen said:
Actually, the call-in times don't change with experience. There is one instance for an off map artillery were going veteran on both FO and arty shaves off a minutes but that's it.
So you agree that artillery call-in times do get faster with experience. It's possible to get down to a < 1 minute call-in time at the extreme end of the scale.
3 hours ago, Larsen said:I did not experiment with the grouping. Did you test it or is it just a guess?
What I've seen and been told, no hard data to back that up.
-
6 hours ago, Larsen said:
I know that in WWII titles the experience of the artillery and FO speed up the time of the barrage arrival. So far I don't really see the same effect in CMBS. So, my question is what does the experience for FO and experience for the artillery do in CMBS?
Same as the other games: faster call-in times, tighter groupings.
-
5 minutes ago, Mechasaurian said:
Wait, really?
How on earth did you get the Leopard working in BS? I'm eager to see it.
It's probably a reskin of an abrams.
-
-
Just now, Bulletpoint said:
What kind of missile hit the Kyiv shopping centre last night? It seems an extraordinarily big explosion based on the damage.
Could have been a sympathetic detonation - there are images of military trucks under cover there, so perhaps it was being used as a munitions depot.
-
The story with this is that allegedly A couple of Ukrainians soldiers were left behind (presumably after a failed attack?) and a drone was sent to find them. They had taken cover in a crater until nightfall where they were rescued:
-
I've just experienced a precision artillery strike penetrate and catastrophically kill one of my T-90As.
-
2 hours ago, Erwin said:
"that court case against Ovsiannikova, where she was accused of all the horrors with seemingly having to serve 15 years in prison, immediately ended with... her having to pay a fine of $100."
Virtually no one has commented on her incredibly mild "slap on the wrist" $100(!) fine considering how harsh the "anti Russian" laws that have been passed. There has to be a much larger story here. Either she is a very connected VIP or someone is certainly protecting her... maybe evidence of a split with Putin by some powerful people.
It comes out at a week's wages of the median income in Russia.
-
8 minutes ago, John Kettler said:
Gray_Fox,
Did you read it, or are you rejecting the message simply because you don't like where it appeared? Have seen Douglas MacGregor interviewed on TV, and I can tell you the interview text reads just like he talks. I see no evidence his words have been tampered with, elided, or rephrased.
Regards,
John KettlerI did not, because it's a whackjob conspiracy site with who knows what kind of internet security issues.
-
2 minutes ago, John Kettler said:
domfluff,
Believe the domain name reflects a concern of the site operator, if that's the right term. You seem to have seized on that domain name as an excuse to reject out of hand what's on the link. Did you bother to look at what Lt. Col., Ret., Douglas MacGregor said, or have you simply rejected it sight unseen because the domain name put you off? By the way, I could've used his interview with Tucker Carlson on his show on FOX, but then I'm sure there would've been a chorus rejecting the information because a) it was FOX and, b) on Tucker Carlson's show. In the interest of giving MacGregor's important thoughts and assessments a chance to be seen. without that TV overlay, I went and found what I needed in text form instead. And still got grief over it!
Regards,
John KettlerLinking to a whackjob conspiracy site because you think Fox, as bad as they are, would be worse...
-
55 minutes ago, kraze said:
And that court case against Ovsiannikova, where she was accused of all the horrors with seemingly having to serve 15 years in prison, immediately ended with... her having to pay a fine of $100.
Market exchange rates don't reflect the real cost of the fine in purchasing power terms. While the ruble is nearly worthless outside Russia, it's not as worthless in Russia.
-
7 minutes ago, Simcoe said:
Based on what we're seeing. Is the traditional Combat Mission scenario of a reinforced combined arms company all rolling up together still plausible? If not what, what WOULD be more plausible?
Battalion+ sized stuff, and larger map sizes to allow you to disperse more when needed.
-
1 minute ago, Machor said:
Russian 'success' videos, as requested. Large quantity of destroyed Ukrainian armour in Kherson:
Just goes to show how big a rout the Ukrainians suffered in the south, and how poorly their initial counterattack went.
Soviet Artillery Smoke Rounds
in Combat Mission Cold War
Posted · Edited by Grey_Fox
I know that in the modern games it's to differentiate between normal smoke, which only blocks normal vision, and multispectral smoke, which blocks thermals. Idk if that was the rationale for CMCW.
Note that artillery smoke, despite being white, isn't multispectral in any title.