Centurian52

While all the other things you said I would agree I differ here a little bit. 
In general you surely should avoid frontal attacks on Abrams and try to outflank them and/or hit from different angles. 
But considering you have the latest models of T90s with a competent crew,you can definitely try it out if you have not a better option available. I didnt had that many CMBS human encounters so far, but in my latest game I was surprised how good the T90 performed. Truth be told most of the killed Abrams were side shots but in return the T90 sucked up incoming tank fire more often than not. 
Though I was fighting regular tank crews while mine were all crack. 
 
In a test before the match however I tested each tank against the other on a shooting range. And while the spotting performance and armor protection was better on the Abrams overall it was not to far ahead from my observations. 
So the general rule applies again: Don't do tank duels and get local superiority in fire power. 
So if one tank goes down the second (or third) will probably do the job. 

Oh yes, I started doing much better as the Soviets/Russians after watching Freewhisky's collabs with Domfluff (and fully reading FM100-2-1 for myself).
Haven't played against a human in CMBS yet. But I started doing a lot better as the Russians vs US AI after studying Soviet doctrine. The key is to not use Russian forces the same way you would use US forces. Prep the way with forward echelons (recon, feint (only works against a human obviously, so I haven't put this into practice yet), pin down part of the enemy force), choose an unexpected avenue of approach for your main attack, then fully commit everything at once to the main attack when (not before) it's ready to go in. It's a firepower based army, so I make very liberal use of firepower when it's time for the main attack to go in. I'll generally have all of my artillery expending all of its ammunition on anything I think might pose a threat to my main advance. I'll aim to have my tanks and IFVs arrive on the objective while the barrage is still falling, with main guns and autocannons blasting all suspected enemy positions without waiting for spots (to get a vehicle to engage multiple targets in a turn I'll use a target briefly command with a 15 second pause, then a movement order to get them to the next target briefly command), with infantry aiming to arrive on the positions they are trying to storm seconds after the supporting vehicle's 'target briefly' command runs out.
Even with all this though, you can still very much feel the superiority of the US forces. The short artillery call-in times for the Americans practically force you to be aggressive, since if you ever stop moving you will become pinned down. And frontal engagements against American tanks are a complete no-go.
Basically I think it's possible for Russians to do well against the US in CMBS (haven't proven that it's possible to do well against a human US opponent yet, so maybe I need to hop into CMBS and see if I can find an opponent). Though it's certainly harder than the US against the Soviets in CMCW. Probably not possible for the Syrians to do much against the US in CMSF2 though (maybe if you do everything perfectly you could inflict a few more casualties while losing).

Another "I will try" here...

... a miserable September morning sees a reinforced US mechanized platoon trying to delay a Soviet MRB at a small village called Hohkeppel.

Oh yes, I started doing much better as the Soviets/Russians after watching Freewhisky's collabs with Domfluff (and fully reading FM100-2-1 for myself).
Haven't played against a human in CMBS yet. But I started doing a lot better as the Russians vs US AI after studying Soviet doctrine. The key is to not use Russian forces the same way you would use US forces. Prep the way with forward echelons (recon, feint (only works against a human obviously, so I haven't put this into practice yet), pin down part of the enemy force), choose an unexpected avenue of approach for your main attack, then fully commit everything at once to the main attack when (not before) it's ready to go in. It's a firepower based army, so I make very liberal use of firepower when it's time for the main attack to go in. I'll generally have all of my artillery expending all of its ammunition on anything I think might pose a threat to my main advance. I'll aim to have my tanks and IFVs arrive on the objective while the barrage is still falling, with main guns and autocannons blasting all suspected enemy positions without waiting for spots (to get a vehicle to engage multiple targets in a turn I'll use a target briefly command with a 15 second pause, then a movement order to get them to the next target briefly command), with infantry aiming to arrive on the positions they are trying to storm seconds after the supporting vehicle's 'target briefly' command runs out.
Even with all this though, you can still very much feel the superiority of the US forces. The short artillery call-in times for the Americans practically force you to be aggressive, since if you ever stop moving you will become pinned down. And frontal engagements against American tanks are a complete no-go.
Basically I think it's possible for Russians to do well against the US in CMBS (haven't proven that it's possible to do well against a human US opponent yet, so maybe I need to hop into CMBS and see if I can find an opponent). Though it's certainly harder than the US against the Soviets in CMCW. Probably not possible for the Syrians to do much against the US in CMSF2 though (maybe if you do everything perfectly you could inflict a few more casualties while losing).

I'll take your word for it that you're not pro-Russian. But you are clearly getting your information from Russian propaganda. It has been obvious since last April that Russia is going to lose this war. That comes with the caveat that victory conditions are asymmetric. Russian defeat does not automatically mean Ukrainian victory. Russia has already lost this war, and there is absolutely nothing that can change that now. Ukrainian victory has not yet been assured, though it is very likely. In fact the only way that Ukraine could lose at this point is if western support evaporates. So long as western support remains strong, Ukraine cannot lose.
Yes, Ukraine is still struggling with corruption. They are not more corrupt than Russia (they aren't even as corrupt as Russia (even in 2014 Ukraine was still only the 2nd most corrupt country in Europe after Russia)). They are struggling with the same corruption that all former-Soviet/Warsaw Pact and Russia-aligned states struggle with. Notably, all former Soviet/Warsaw Pact states which realigned away from Russia have drastically reduced corruption and increased economic prosperity compared to when they were aligned with/part of the Soviet Union/Russia. We are seeing signs of the same trends in Ukraine. A single decade is far too little time to eliminate all of the corruption that comes with formerly being aligned with Russia, but they are making impressive progress.
There is zero chance of this becoming WW3. Even if war broke out between Russia and NATO (which is basically impossible, considering that Russia has no available forces to attack NATO with (they are all in Ukraine), and in order for NATO to attack Russia all members would need to unanimously agree on something), Russia just isn't a world war-class threat (modern day Russia is not the Soviet Union, and it is not modern day China). It would be a big war, but not a world war (by any reasonable standard).
Stopping the war would overwhelmingly benefit Russia and hurt Ukraine. It would give Russia a chance to rebuild their forces, absorb lessons, and retrain under peacetime conditions. It would undo so much of the progress that has been made towards defeating them. And remember that Russians do not keep to their agreements. Any agreement that is made with Russia will be broken by Russia. Peace now along the current borders will result in Russia invading again in a few years. They will have a better starting position, they will have produced more modern equipment, and they will not underestimate the Ukrainians next time. If we stop the war now then far more people will be killed in the inevitable next war than if we see the current war through. Seeing the current war through will make it possible to more completely defeat the Russian army, allow the Ukrainian army to reestablish itself along more defensible borders, and make it easier to accept Ukraine as a full NATO member, all of which will drastically reduce the threat of future Russian invasions. 
Another reason not to stop the war right now is the importance of deterring future wars started by other would-be invaders. Allowing Russia to keep any part of Ukrainian territory sends the message that land grabs work. Part of the modern rules-based order is that invading your neighbor is no longer a legitimate way of settling territorial disputes (Russia is allowed to claim that Ukraine is a historical part of Russia all they want, but they are not allowed to settle that claim with force). We must send the message that as long as the current world order lasts, land grabs will always fail.

I think the quality of the tank is beside the point. What matters is that there are a lot of battles in the current war that we cannot replicate without T-72Bs, T80BVs, T80Us, T80BVMs, T72B3Ms and so on

I'll take your word for it that you're not pro-Russian. But you are clearly getting your information from Russian propaganda. It has been obvious since last April that Russia is going to lose this war. That comes with the caveat that victory conditions are asymmetric. Russian defeat does not automatically mean Ukrainian victory. Russia has already lost this war, and there is absolutely nothing that can change that now. Ukrainian victory has not yet been assured, though it is very likely. In fact the only way that Ukraine could lose at this point is if western support evaporates. So long as western support remains strong, Ukraine cannot lose.
Yes, Ukraine is still struggling with corruption. They are not more corrupt than Russia (they aren't even as corrupt as Russia (even in 2014 Ukraine was still only the 2nd most corrupt country in Europe after Russia)). They are struggling with the same corruption that all former-Soviet/Warsaw Pact and Russia-aligned states struggle with. Notably, all former Soviet/Warsaw Pact states which realigned away from Russia have drastically reduced corruption and increased economic prosperity compared to when they were aligned with/part of the Soviet Union/Russia. We are seeing signs of the same trends in Ukraine. A single decade is far too little time to eliminate all of the corruption that comes with formerly being aligned with Russia, but they are making impressive progress.
There is zero chance of this becoming WW3. Even if war broke out between Russia and NATO (which is basically impossible, considering that Russia has no available forces to attack NATO with (they are all in Ukraine), and in order for NATO to attack Russia all members would need to unanimously agree on something), Russia just isn't a world war-class threat (modern day Russia is not the Soviet Union, and it is not modern day China). It would be a big war, but not a world war (by any reasonable standard).
Stopping the war would overwhelmingly benefit Russia and hurt Ukraine. It would give Russia a chance to rebuild their forces, absorb lessons, and retrain under peacetime conditions. It would undo so much of the progress that has been made towards defeating them. And remember that Russians do not keep to their agreements. Any agreement that is made with Russia will be broken by Russia. Peace now along the current borders will result in Russia invading again in a few years. They will have a better starting position, they will have produced more modern equipment, and they will not underestimate the Ukrainians next time. If we stop the war now then far more people will be killed in the inevitable next war than if we see the current war through. Seeing the current war through will make it possible to more completely defeat the Russian army, allow the Ukrainian army to reestablish itself along more defensible borders, and make it easier to accept Ukraine as a full NATO member, all of which will drastically reduce the threat of future Russian invasions. 
Another reason not to stop the war right now is the importance of deterring future wars started by other would-be invaders. Allowing Russia to keep any part of Ukrainian territory sends the message that land grabs work. Part of the modern rules-based order is that invading your neighbor is no longer a legitimate way of settling territorial disputes (Russia is allowed to claim that Ukraine is a historical part of Russia all they want, but they are not allowed to settle that claim with force). We must send the message that as long as the current world order lasts, land grabs will always fail.

Oh, and Freewhisky and Domfluff. They have great Soviet tutorials.

https://wotinspector.com/en/webapp?targetVehicleId=57937,34898,30547,23892&mode=xray.armor&platform=pc
No idea how accurate this is but like Steel Beasts the hardcore WoT players tend to be as obsessive as we are - and before anyone asks, no this is not what BFC uses in their modelling, their engine pre-dates WoT.  To be honest I strongly suspect suitcase deals in underground parking lots are where the guys get their in game modelling data.
Regardless, the Chieftian looks a lot like a NATO T-64 type situation in the making.  Quite a beast.  Now the fire control and targeting will be the thing.  And of course that changed within the time periods we are talking.
Oh and absolutely T-80 country…feel the flavour.

Pleeaase just dot it (in 2025 or 2026 but do it pleeeaase)!

Hello,
I haven't touched CM in ages, having mostly lost interest in it, but today I had an itch and looked at the code I had written for the uncam tool and somehow ended up rewriting the entire thing in one setting. I fixed some issues and it should be possible to unpack CMCW campaigns as well as potentially campaigns of yet unreleased games, as long as BF does not muck with the file format. Anyways, I don't have CMCW so I can't test and there are no campaign files in the scenario depot. If it doesn't work, send me the campaign file (or a download link) and I can take a look at it. I don't even have a Windows PC anymore, so I couldn't test the Windows version either, so please report any issues.
Best regards
PS: If anyone wants the source code, feel free to ask but I didn't include it this time in the archive.
uncam-0.10.zip

Thats it updated... no tracers new file added.
@kohlenklau
 
https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/cm-mod-warehouse/combat-mission-afghanistan/combat-mission-afghanistan-other/no-tracers/

Don't trust those eyes - it's a trap!

Wow. This is by far the most incomprehensibly stupid thing I have heard in this war (edit: from anyone outside of Russia) so far (and I do not throw around words like "stupid" lightly. They are really going to need to explain how the concept of an "exit plan" applies to this war. The US doesn't need an exit plan, because US forces aren't in Ukraine. Ukraine doesn't need an exit plan, because why would Ukraine want to leave Ukraine? Russia is the only party to which an exit plan might apply. But their objective is to conquer Ukraine and make it a permanent part of Russia. An exit plan would be an admission of defeat.
The United States needed exit plans for Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, because we were foreign forces in those countries that had no intention of permanently conquering those countries (in other words, our forces would eventually need to "exit" those countries).
I haven't been watching the regular news or paying much attention to how the average American views this war. But I wonder if this is part of a larger trend of assuming that every single war is like Iraq or Afghanistan. This is not the first time I've heard objections raised about this war that were applicable to Iraq or Afghanistan, but not in any way applicable to Ukraine. Some conversations I've had with some of my coworkers have left me with the suspicion that Iraq and Afghanistan are the only frames of reference they have for any war.

😆 Yeah that's a pretty good line. Of course Firefly is full of good lines.

Wow. This is by far the most incomprehensibly stupid thing I have heard in this war (edit: from anyone outside of Russia) so far (and I do not throw around words like "stupid" lightly. They are really going to need to explain how the concept of an "exit plan" applies to this war. The US doesn't need an exit plan, because US forces aren't in Ukraine. Ukraine doesn't need an exit plan, because why would Ukraine want to leave Ukraine? Russia is the only party to which an exit plan might apply. But their objective is to conquer Ukraine and make it a permanent part of Russia. An exit plan would be an admission of defeat.
The United States needed exit plans for Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, because we were foreign forces in those countries that had no intention of permanently conquering those countries (in other words, our forces would eventually need to "exit" those countries).
I haven't been watching the regular news or paying much attention to how the average American views this war. But I wonder if this is part of a larger trend of assuming that every single war is like Iraq or Afghanistan. This is not the first time I've heard objections raised about this war that were applicable to Iraq or Afghanistan, but not in any way applicable to Ukraine. Some conversations I've had with some of my coworkers have left me with the suspicion that Iraq and Afghanistan are the only frames of reference they have for any war.

😆 Yeah that's a pretty good line. Of course Firefly is full of good lines.

Well, spotting in CM is broken. But spotting in real life is just as broken 

Wow. This is by far the most incomprehensibly stupid thing I have heard in this war (edit: from anyone outside of Russia) so far (and I do not throw around words like "stupid" lightly. They are really going to need to explain how the concept of an "exit plan" applies to this war. The US doesn't need an exit plan, because US forces aren't in Ukraine. Ukraine doesn't need an exit plan, because why would Ukraine want to leave Ukraine? Russia is the only party to which an exit plan might apply. But their objective is to conquer Ukraine and make it a permanent part of Russia. An exit plan would be an admission of defeat.
The United States needed exit plans for Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, because we were foreign forces in those countries that had no intention of permanently conquering those countries (in other words, our forces would eventually need to "exit" those countries).
I haven't been watching the regular news or paying much attention to how the average American views this war. But I wonder if this is part of a larger trend of assuming that every single war is like Iraq or Afghanistan. This is not the first time I've heard objections raised about this war that were applicable to Iraq or Afghanistan, but not in any way applicable to Ukraine. Some conversations I've had with some of my coworkers have left me with the suspicion that Iraq and Afghanistan are the only frames of reference they have for any war.

😆 Yeah that's a pretty good line. Of course Firefly is full of good lines.

One of my favourite lines in Firefly is after Jayne gets attacked from behind by a victim of the Reivers. Once the assailant is caught and turns out to be smaller than reported, Jayne defensively retorts: "He looked bigger when I couldn't see him"

The U.S. Army agrees with this strongly enough to be buying a new light tank.
https://www.defensenews.com/news/your-army/2022/12/29/new-army-light-tank-under-construction/
Actual funded program, I think it is in at least low rate production. They basically put the Abrams fire control system in a half size package with a 105mm gun.
Both of these videos are worth the time.

Wow. This is by far the most incomprehensibly stupid thing I have heard in this war (edit: from anyone outside of Russia) so far (and I do not throw around words like "stupid" lightly. They are really going to need to explain how the concept of an "exit plan" applies to this war. The US doesn't need an exit plan, because US forces aren't in Ukraine. Ukraine doesn't need an exit plan, because why would Ukraine want to leave Ukraine? Russia is the only party to which an exit plan might apply. But their objective is to conquer Ukraine and make it a permanent part of Russia. An exit plan would be an admission of defeat.
The United States needed exit plans for Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, because we were foreign forces in those countries that had no intention of permanently conquering those countries (in other words, our forces would eventually need to "exit" those countries).
I haven't been watching the regular news or paying much attention to how the average American views this war. But I wonder if this is part of a larger trend of assuming that every single war is like Iraq or Afghanistan. This is not the first time I've heard objections raised about this war that were applicable to Iraq or Afghanistan, but not in any way applicable to Ukraine. Some conversations I've had with some of my coworkers have left me with the suspicion that Iraq and Afghanistan are the only frames of reference they have for any war.

Well, spotting in CM is broken. But spotting in real life is just as broken 

Please! 🐭