dbsapp
-
Posts
592 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by dbsapp
-
-
That's to good to not be published here.
Head of Ukranian delegation to NATO and Member of Parliament Egor Chernev published an article were he underlined the main goals of military hysteria of several last months:
"The United States is conducting one of the largest information special operations in history against Russia. And this we must clearly understand when we hear about the imminent invasion.
The tasks of this special operation lie on the surface:
1. Mobilization of NATO countries and restoration of the unity of the North Atlantic Alliance and the West as a whole.
2. Demonization of the Russian Federation in the world and the creation of a stable toxic species for it.
3. Infliction of the greatest losses for the economy of the Russian Federation without war.
4. Stirring up anti-war sentiment in Russia itself.
5. Demoralization of the Russian military elite due to the public exposure of their secret materials.".
Those things are really obvious to everyone who are not influenced by military propaganda, but it's funny that mr.Chernev told openly about it.
-
Great campaign. Really well made.
Playing it right now, unfortunately Blimey mod doesn't work. But it doesn't make it less fun.
-
49 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said:
+1. This. Below is a Khrizantema drill.
1. Check wind strength and direction. (Wind strength not more than medium.)
2. Give smoke vehicle1 Fast order waypoint short of where you want smoke & upwind of Khriz. Vehicles.
3. At Fast waypoint give Pop Smoke order.2 (make sure smoke is on (Alt K))
4. Next turn Fast buttoned3 Khriz. vehicles to a shoot position4 behind smoke.
5. Once vehicles are in good LOS location place them on Pause.
6. Maintain smoke as long as possible / necessary. Reposition before smoke clears. If Khrizantema crews become rattled they may not shoot.
Notes: 1)Typically BRM-3K which can Pop Smoke twice with a range of 72m (9xA/S). 2)If vehicle spots OpFor it may engage instead of Pop Smoke. 3)Khris. must be buttoned to use radar and has a minimum range of 400m. 4)Keep at least two open Action Spots between Khrizantema vehicles.
-
10 hours ago, arkhangelsk2021 said:
Well, the Soviets have not been shy to invest in money when they think it's worth it - missile-armed tanks, gas turbine tanks, night vision, titanium hulled subs, all of which would demand the best available at the time. I think one of the big reasons is that ... the early thermal imagers just aren't that good, due to their very low number of elements.
This is what a M1 might look like through an optical sight with vertical FOV of 35 milliradians (~2 degrees) at 1000m:
.thumb.png.75daaa1205e2ef80aa33678396227ab7.png)
Here's what it might look like in thermal. It's hot, so it's white, but we are now in grayscale:
A "Generation 0" sight (such as 1PN59) is said to use only 50 elements, so the vertical resolution is 50 pixels:
↑Despite the picture being maximally simplified and the tank is white to simulate how a tank pops out from its environs due to heat, does that even still look like a tank? It might be a good toy for specially trained recce troops, perhaps by making the straw even narrower. As a tank sight ... needs work.
↑This, with 100 lines, is about the level of a 1st generation tank sight. Agava-1 is said to be 100 lines. Leopard 2's first sight, EMES 15, would also be about this level (at 120 elements). Definitely getting better, but if it is say at 2000m, or the tank is hull down so its bottom is blocked, or you are thinking your target are much smaller and cooler infantrymen, or we degrade its contrast ratio by putting a real background behind it, put coverings on it to reduce its heat transmission ... etc, do you want to pay a substantial amount and look through 35 mrad straws for this?
↑Agava-2, at 256 elements. Ah, definitely becoming useful here. That's when the Soviets decided they finally had a viable tank sight ... but then the Soviet Union broke up.
That may well be the main differential point between NATO and the Soviets - whether to accept a resolution less than the 144p which is the crappiest resolution on Youtube or wait for 240p. I think NATO can accept the lower resolution because they are thinking they need to attack hot, mobile Soviet tanks and are willing to shoot at blobs that are only a bit better than a dot. The Soviets wanted something that can help them hunt down hull down tanks, small TOW jeeps and infantry.
Great pic!
To build up:
M1 thermal sight modelled in Steel Beasts. You can see one t-62 in the open and one behind bushes at the distance of 1800 meters.
Optical sight:
Concerning Soviet Agava thermal sight. The sight has successfully passed the tests, more than 50 devices were made, but it was not accepted into service. The official reason was not announced, the Army mentioned small vertical field of view. But, as the developers argued, the true reason possibly was military bosses were afraid that field units were not ready to work with sophisticated helium equipment.
-
2 hours ago, 37mm said:
Coincidentally, I too have been having some fun with the Stalingrad content by @kohlenklau, @NPye, @umlaut & @dragonwynn...
Is there a single "Stalingrad mod" pack?
-
On 2/8/2022 at 2:44 AM, Sgt.Squarehead said:
Looks like bad car CGI from 80s movie.
-
16 minutes ago, slysniper said:
you want change, then spend the effort to make change happen.
But of course, lets try to make someone else do the work that you cannot appear to do or want to do yourself.
And AM I attacking your character, you better believe it. I can do it as easy as you can.
What, you do not like it when its against you, instead of you against someone else.
So go ahead and take another shot, I have lowered myself to your same level, so I am no better than you and maybe I am making some out there hate my guts also. But you know, I was bored, and all this done was show you cannot handle it any better than anyone else when the target is you. Imagine that.
But it will not likely make you think for a second on how you should address things in the future when it comes to trying to have a productive discussion on how to possible improve the game.
It's a third post devoted to me. Nice.
I suggest you stop discussing my humble person before this beautiful topic is closed by moderators.
Possibly you didn't mention, but I never use personal attacks first and try to refrain from them even after they were used against me. To be honest, I'm little bit astonished by the level of personal hatred that can be generated by such abstract and innocent theme as Cold war tanks and their simulation in PC game. It seems some of local inhabitants are much more fragile than I had assumed.
-
19 minutes ago, Stardekk said:
Well, T-14 is not in service even now, in 2022, so not in 2017 too...
What i do wonder if they could change is some stuff that Battlefront fought the US will have in 2017 in 2014 but they don't have IRL.
If you will remove the LWS for the Abrams and Bradley it will not only be more historically accurate but also more blanced, they could instead put it with a different variant like they did with the APS. M1A2s do have APS IRL (they will likely buy more Trohpy APS from Israel as tensions rise before the conflict itsealf) at the time, but the Bradleys don't, and they don't have any LWS too. Also, if you carry the trophy with the M1A2 i'm pretty sure you can't carry ERA at the same time.
About the Marines, they still have Javelins.... What they will not have is a commander sight for the Abrams (M1A1 FEPs don't have does...), not Bradleys and no MQ-1Cs (which means the russians will have Drone superiority 100% of the time).
As far as I'm aware of, T-90s and T-90Ms do have a LSW as standard issue, and also, unlike in game, their smoke is quite effective and you do not need to wait 5 seconds until the smoke lands on the ground and starts to spread.
The lack of LSW (for the most part) for the US Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT) means that things like AT-14s (both on BMPs and on foot) Will be much more deadly than they are now. Similarly to Combat Mission Shock Force.
This means that M1A2s will have better spotting than Russian tanks but Top tier Russian tanks (not T-72B3s) will have more defenses with LWSs.
Both factions should have a rare APS system like they do now. But US's IFVs can't mount them while Russia's can.
Those are good points.
Regarding APS Battlefront was quite generous both towards the US and Russia. As far as I know, APS are not installed en masse on any models of Russian tanks even now, where as T-72B and T-90M have them in CMBS. I'm not taking as example other even more fantastic elements, like hundreds of Bulat tanks in Ukraine.
I also doubt that Russians could have any superiority in terms of UAV in real life now, I had the impression that US has great superiority in this field. I don't know about marines operational structure, but it's hard to imagine any US army branch action without dense aviation support now.
-
4 hours ago, Lethaface said:
It may be an interesting document indeed, but the part that you cited didn't contain anything about optics. I asked you about this but you didn't reply (yet).
The issue some people may have with your posts is that you are aggressive in tone claiming that CMx2 is very biased towards US and that everyone who says anything else is blind/biased etc. You make broad sweeping statements but don't follow up when the actual bolts and pieces are discussed.
This is sometimes called 'seagull management'; as in someone (in the example a manager) comes flying in, makes a lot of noise and **** on everything than flies away.When you get pushback (which is to be expected when utilizing the form and tone of communication you favor), you start acting like a victim and cry about ad hominems on your person and than project your own discussion style onto others.
To get back to the point (although slightly OT): in game m60 is perceived to have better spotting and targeting capabilities compared to T-62. Do you assert that is wrong? If so, on what base?
Simply shouting that T-62 is blind because m60 can see it while T-62 can't see m60 isn't proving anything. Posting an interesting document about how some researchers who have written stuff in the past might have come to wrong conclusions also doesn't proof anything to anyone.
Most people on this forums understand that, but you seem to believe you have excellent scientific empirically valid dissertation about why CMx2 has stuff wrong.
Which you haven't. Basically you make a lot of noise, but often not much else.I was thinking on preparing more substantive answer, which required some time and effort in comparison of optics of two tanks.
I don't know if I'll have time to make it, and - which is even more important - after your post I have doubts if should.
Before asking me to present multi page referenced research with which you may be pleased (or which happens more often don't) I suggest you to do your own.
-
slysniper,
I appreciate that you showed so much interest in my person and devoted second lengthy post entirely to me.
Unfortunately, I can't reciprocate. I literally don't know who you are, since I don't recall even a single more or less noticeable post from you.
Since I know that it's futile to demand from you anything that goes beyond personal insults, I would only remind you that it's not village club of mutual compliments, but forum in system of interconnected computer networks (called internet). And forum by the merits of its nature presupposes exchange of ideas, some of which you may don't like or don't agree with.
-
It would be great if they changed balance, but it's 99% probability that everything will remain the same.
It seems they are going to introduce new variant of M1 as if previous was not overpowered enough. I guess the new one will shoot enemies hidden behind walls.
The only miracle that can change someting is addition of Armata, Kirov airship or hypersonic laser saber on Russian side.
-
1 hour ago, slysniper said:
allow dbsapp to get to you
I see you are really worried.
Those pathetic ad hominem arguments prove one thing - you have nothing to offer except them.
I do provide factual basis for my opinion and do find interesting documents. How many documents you found to prove your point?
What I've seen is perpetual word salad on how Soviet equipment was bad, needs 3 times advantage in numbers to compete and bad at spotting. Except "dbsaap is bad" I didn't see any documents from you in defense of this position.
You can pet each other into oblivion in your close circle repeating the same dogma again and again, but it won't change the fact that people see that the king is naked. Not everybody likes child beating games, people demand realism, challenge and fair play.
-
16 hours ago, Artkin said:
The T-62s had some seriously abysmal performance in the CMCW tournament Slysniper is hosting.
3 hours ago, Lethaface said:As someone who played with the T-62s in that tournament I had a slightly different experience.
Do you have stats on Red vs Blue results in the tournament?
-
18 hours ago, The_Capt said:
Can you point me at the thread where you cited this?
I cited it here:
I've found interesting discussion that resembles ours between Zaloga and two other researchers in "International Security" magazine:
-
There was an interesting discussion on Soviet and Western tank comparative capabilities in "International Security" magazine between Malcolm Chalmers and Lutz Unterseher on one side, and Steven Zaloga on the other side in 1988-1989. Those debates, that happened almost 35 years ago, resemble the discussions we have today on this forum.
First, Malcolm Chalmers (University of Bradford, UK)and Lutz Unterseher(Chairman of the European Study Group on Alternative Security Policy, Germany) published an article "Is There a Tank Gap? Comparing NATO and Warsaw Pact Tank Fleets". In this paper they compared Warsaw Pact and NATO tank armies both quantitively and qualitatively. They argued that, despite WP had slight advantage in number of tanks, qualitive advantage of NATO equipment closed the gap and even provided some superiority to NATO.
This article is a real goldmine for those who want to prove that Soviet tanks were inferior, but for the purpose of intellectual honesty I will cite it here and do their homework for them
It really translates CMCW underlying concept. Anyway, as we will see later, this claims were confronted by Steven Zaloga.
Authors estimated that a ratio between Warsaw Pact and NATO tank numbers in Central Europe of 1.47:1 three days after mobilization, 1.41:1 after ten days, 1.24:1 after 40 days and 1.31:1 after four months.
The average Warsaw Pact tank weighs only 38 metric tonnes compared with 49 metric tonnes for NATO. While the Warsaw Pact has a 2.1:1 lead in numbers of tanks worldwide, therefore, it has a lead of only 1.6:1 in total tank tonnage.
NATO's comparative advantage is also stocks of older generation models. NATO has followed a policy of carrying out major upgrades to ensure that, although the bodies of these tanks are 20 or more years old, the technology is almost comparable to that on its most modern tanks. As a consequence, the quality gap between old and new-generation models is relatively small. In contrast older models of Pact tanksave not been significantly upgraded.
As Chalmers and Unterseher argued, NATO tanks had technological edge in almost every aspect.
They claim, that earlier Soviet tank models are far inferior to any post-1950 Western tank in the all round orientation capability which they give the crew. Soviet tanks have fewer and smaller viewing points on commanders' cupolas, and commanders still have to stick their heads out more in order to observe their surroundings. All Soviet tanks rely on "active" illumination of their nighttime surroundings with clumsy searchlights.
In Soviet tanks, the commander's and gunner's sights used in targeting generally exhibit a low level of sophistication. Soviet range-finding technology lagged for many years well behind that of the West. The Soviets did not begin to incorporate the more accurate optical base-on-own-vehicle range-finders into some of their tanks until 20 years after the U.S. had begun to do so.
With the introduction of its T-62 tank in the early 1960s, the Soviet Union pioneered the extensive use of a large caliber, smooth-bore gun. Muzzle velocities of kinetic energy rounds fired from these guns are high. But this advantage is largely wasted because of the gun's poor accuracy, a result of stability problems with the gun barrel and of inadequate quality control on ammunition production.
The difficulties caused by these cramped and dangerous conditions are such that Soviet tank crews must be less than 1.65 meters tall, a constraint that severely limits the recruiting pool for tank crews and could therefore have adverse effects on crew quality.
To conclude, USSR actual numerical advantage is relatively small, ranging from 1.24:1 to 1.64:1. But the qualitive difference transforms it into a NATO combat potential lead of between 1.06:1 and 1.42:1.
In 1989 well known tank expert Steven Zaloga published his answer in the same magazine ("The Tank Gap Data Flap"), where he called Chalmers and Unterseher arguments "too one-sided and simplistic". In his words, they "in many respects overstated their case".
Although the authors spend a great deal of time pinpointing technical deficiencies in older Soviet designs like the T-55 and T-62, The Soviet forward deployed forces have been in the process of removing these older tanks from their units in favor of T-64, T-72, and T-80 tanks.
The authors' description of shortcomings in Soviet tank design suffer from factual inaccuracies and Western biases in tank design. For example, their assertion that "all Soviet tanks rely on 'active' illumination" is simply false. All Soviet tanks do carry an active infrared search light for nighttime illumination, but the same is true for most NATO tanks produced up to the early 1980s, including the M60A3, Leopard 1 and Chieftain.
In fact Soviets introduced passive night gunner's sights using image intensification technology in the late 1960s with the T-64 and in the early 1970s with late model T-62s; they have been using them ever since. NATO enjoys a comfortable lead in second generation night sights using thermal imaging technology. About a third of NATO tanks have thermal imaging sights, and about 15 percent still rely on the older image intensification sights. But over half of NATO tanks still rely on older active infrared night sights or have no night fighting capability at all. The Soviets have been adopting thermal imaging sights at a much slower pace due to high cost, but over a third of their tanks now have passive image intensification night sights.
The authors' description of shortcomings in Soviet tank fire controls reveals a distinct NATO bias in favor of long-range tank engagements. The use of ballistic computers, wind sensors, and other fire control improvements greatly increase tank gun accuracy at long ranges (over 1000 meters), but have little effect at close ranges. The Soviets feel that simpler fire controls are adequate due to the prevalence of "close-grain" terrain in Central Europe. In German border region, 55 percent of the terrain has sighting ranges of 500 meters or less, 28 percent from 500 to 1500 m, and 17 percent over 1500 m.
Stadiametric sights, as used on the T-62 and earlier types, are not substantially inferior to advanced fire controls when using Armor Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot (APFSDS) ammunition at ranges up to 1000 m, since the ballistic arc of the projectile is so flat. For example, U.S. Army trials suggest that at 500 m, a tank using a stadiametric sight has a 98 percent probability of hit, and a tank with a laser range finder has the same 98 percent probability.In any event, the tanks most likely to be encountered in the first weeks of a conflict in Central Europe, namely the T-64, T-72, and T-80, are all equipped with laser range finders and ballistic computers.
The authors' general conclusion that Warsaw Pact tanks are "much less capable" than comparable NATO tanks is a gross simplification. NATO tanks do enjoy substantial advantages during certain types of tank engagements, such as long-range duels, or night engagements where there is not enough ambient moonlight for image intensification sights to work. But under many average situations, such as tank combat at average (under 1000 m) ranges during daylight, NATO advantages rapidly diminish.
To draw my own conclusion, I would say that both Chalmers and Zaloga made strong arguments. It shows that there is no single, already scientifically proven point of view. The thing that we discussed here were debatable earlier and they remain debatable today (though we gain new knowledge and data since then ).
In my opinion CMCW and CMBS designers have chosen the concept of force balance that is based on arguments as those that were proposed by Chalmers and Unterseher. This is their right of course, and they can provide some arguments to defense their position.
But what Chalmers-Zaloga discussion showed is that this concept is far from being the only one. There are other views that can be grounded in facts as well. Which one better for the purpose of game simulation, balance and - the last but not the least - fun, is up to game designers to decide and for players to evaluate.
-
1 hour ago, Simcoe said:
Combat Mission forum house rules: don’t feed the dbsapp
You don't have to humiliate yourself by this pathetic bootlicking. It's only an internet forum and you can afford some dignity.
-
2 hours ago, The_Capt said:
So far we have not seen one wit of research or citations
That's a lie, and you know it. I already cited this CIA report that clearly claims Soviet tanks had advantage, including advantage of all types of t-62 over M60.
But this document - not the definitive answer to all questions or final truth immune to criticism of course, but quite serious document, that, at very least, had to seed some doubt on "Gulf war showed that t-62 was garbage" thinking - was memory holed and put under the rig, since it didn't fit the narrative.
For sure the doc that I cited is much more reliable and serious source, than infamous "M60 vs T62 - Cold War Combatants - 1956-1992" book that I've read in Osprey edition, and I knew that it's just a question of time before someone will feed it to you and advice to quote as some sort of "proof". As a matter of fact its a poorly written and poorly sourced popular book based on war propaganda. I can quote much more Russian books like that claiming that t-62 destroyed billions of m60s. I may open you a secret - not every book deserves to be cited.
Anyway, Chinese farm is just an episode, "liberation of Kuwait" - one sided conflict. They represent nothing, and the fact that the author of that book chose to use them as a benchmark clearly shows that he is biased.
Researcher who is interested in objectivity would try to compare tanks performance in more or less equal situations with intensive usage of tanks, like Iran - Iraq war, that I've mentioned already, or Yom Kippur war of 1973.
The thing that Israelis didn't publish official record of their losses of 1973 is quite telling. Only estimates exist. I would recommend to read Edgar O'Ballance book on 1973 war (free online), which is quite objective and shows that neither side could win, and as in Iran-Iraq case, the war ended in stalemate:
"The truth is that the October War, militarily speaking, was a standoff. Even though the Egyptians gained some 300 square miles of Israeli-held Sinai on the east bank of the canal, the Syrians lost almost the same amount of terrain in the north. Politically speaking, the war drastically changed the situation in the Middle East from the almost crystallised one of No Peace, No War, to one of No Victor, No Vanquished. In short, both sides gained advantages and suffered disadvantages, the Arabs perhaps gaining far more than the Israelis. The next shock to NATO planners, the Soviet Union, and others was the incredible amount of material destruction that occurred in such a short period of time. Precise figures are still elusive, but it may be safe to say that not less than 500 aircraft and 2,500 tanks were destroyed, together with an untold number of guns, vehicles, and other equipment".
Besides, every war is not restricted to "comparing tanks performance". In fact, tanks are just one piece of a broad puzzle picture, so comparing their qualities side by side doesn't solve any war history related questions. Good or bad performance, casualties or scores, usually are result of interplay of many factors, first of all, command quality, available intelligence and logistics.
It's quite funny that you demand again and again some kind of peer researched PhD thesis from me (at the same time ignoring everything that I'm trying to say). But all the evidence you need is at your disposal already. The only thing you need is to play this game, and everybody can make their own opinion.
-
41 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
Ah, well and of course UH and Rice agree with you...wait a minute can you point to the timestamp in the video where they do?
The Soviet T62s did get pretty mauled due to spotting abilities....just like they did in the Gulf War:
"The lack of high powered optics, thermal sights and ballistic computers of Iraqi tanks compared to their adversaries made the T-62 and other Iraqi armoured fighting vehicles extremely vulnerable and unable to retaliate against Coalition vehicles. The Iraqi 3rd Armored Division alone lost about a hundred T-62 tanks" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-62...wiki no less, how hard is it to look up freakin wiki?) Oh wait there is more:
"The turret also cannot be traversed with the driver's hatch open. Although the tank commander may override the gunner and traverse the turret, he cannot fire the main gun from his position. He is also unable to override the gunner in the elevation of the main gun, causing target acquisition problems."
"The tank uses the same sights and vision devices as the T-55 except for the gunner, who received a new TSh-2B-41 sight which has x4 or x7 magnification. It is mounted coaxially with an optic rangefinder"
And because I think amateur hour is finally over:
"As might be expected, the authority of the platoon leader is even more restricted. He is not authorized to transmit on the radio except in an extreme emergency or to request support. This communications posture is consistent with his role, which is to lead his platoon in the execution of the company mission. He does not have the responsibility to translate his superiors' mission into a platoon mission. The noncommissioned tank commander monitors and complies with his superiors' commands and follows his platoon leader in the execution of the company mission. Since he is not issued a map, he has limited capability to relay targets of opportunity to fire support units." (https://irp.fas.org/doddir/army/fm100-2-1.pdf)
So when one does game engine design one goes down to the sub-systems of each vehicle in question. You then assign values to each of those sub-systems based on the available historical data that get incorporated into the design. So for example for the T62 we could have:
Optics (see the target) - roughly inline with the T55, post WW2 but barely. Noted historical poor performance in Gulf War.
Targeting (shoot and hit the target) - noted issues between gunner and crew commander, no targeting computer system
Crew Conditions - a brutally cramped and ergonomic nightmare
Command and Control (ability for target hand-off by others) - very limited by doctrine and training.
Ok, let's stack all that up and weigh it against one loud opinion on the forum who has not bother to post a single fact to back up his opinion...hmm.
And you dare to claim that somebody "hijacted" topic after posting the walls of wikipedia quotations?
I suspected that your knowledge doesn't go beyond wikipedia articles, but now my suspicions are confirmed.
19 minutes ago, Bufo said:If you really took the year 1991 as a baseline to measure the T-62s performance, then it's no wonder they underperform since they were built for the 1960s.
I was in process of writing exactly that when I saw this post.
To make evaluation of Soviet Cold War might based on Iraqi permormace in early 90s is really amateurish level of expertise. Some guys are really "traumatized" by Gulf War - now every war is Gulf War, including imaginary wars with USSR in 70s or Russia in 2010s. It's endless repetition of beating child in CMSF.
Iraq war was a milestone in military art and marked a really historical event when US showed new age warfare potential.
For sure it was not old t-62 vs modern Abrams collusion. Mainly the war was won due to overwhelming advantage in technologies and numbers of all sorts, but primary - advantage in aviation. Modern M1 and M2 which not surprisingly were far better than export variants of old Soviet tanks engaged already demorolized and bombed to the ground forces. This situation doesn't say anything about t-62 in Soviet Army during Cold War period.
If anybody would like to dwell into Soviet\Western equipment performance, including t-62, they would undoubtedly turn to Iran-Iraq war that lasted 8 years and ended in stalemate. At least this war featured relatively equal sides.
-
13 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
Oh yay, another thread hijacked by @dbsapp , yet again without any proof beyond the same stamping of feet demanding that “Soviets must be able to see X”. In case it hasn’t sunk in we are not going to redesign the game because “you think so”…seriously go play something else if this is causing you so much grief and sleeplessness.
As to players who make Soviets work, here is yet another video:
As to the original post, I really enjoyed UH’s play thru and post game analysis, I thought it was first rate.
"Hijacked"? I merely discussing the content of the above-mentioned video.
What happened is Soviets were crushed due to the lack of spotting abilities.
The video itself is the evidence that you so crave to see, but you won't because you are as blind as t-62.
I really don't have any naive illusions that you will change anything, because all the failures of the game are by design. But that won't spare you of well deserved criticism. Enjoy.
-
1 hour ago, SergeantSqook said:
Pro-communist leaflets would make a major blow to the enemy.
-
29 minutes ago, Rinaldi said:
Perhaps T-62s perform poorly because they are poor tanks, an avenue worth exploring @dbsapp
. Alternatively, a poor craftsman blames his tools, do you consider yourself a decent handyman?
Well, it boils down to fact that in CM universe it is so. What Battlefront actually says is Soviet\Russian equipment is bad.
Hilariously enough, at the same time they try to make an impression of some competition and challenge between fraction in CMCW (and in CMBS).
My main claim is that Soviet equipment is represented in the game in a way that immediatly raises question, because units don't see something that they must see.
-
33 minutes ago, Monty's Mighty Moustache said:
But if Hapless had indeed sent 3 companies of tanks down the left side then he would have lost a few (perhaps even quite a few) sure, due to the spotting limitations, but all those muzzle flashes would have given the M60s' positions away. At least a few of the other 30 tanks are bound to notice and get the spot and then the M60s are in trouble.
And maybe if he sent those 3 companies on the left flank they would be mercilessly slaughtered by invisible enemy? We are engaging in pure speculation at this point.
What are the facts? The facts are Reds were demolished, scattered to pieces and blown away by enemy, who they didn't see.
What should we discuss? We should discuss this spectacular failure and draw the conclusion that Reds are blind.
What they are discussing? "How Soviet dictrine works".
It would be easy to put all the blame on clumsy mr. Hapless and his "wrong' decisions and save the face of the broken system. But would it be fair? I believe that his major mistake was to select Red team instead of Blue.
What amuses me is that this thread and post-game discussion are framed in deductive reasoning, which is basically pre-Enlightment method of thought. Discussion goes from concept (Soviet doctrine works in CM normally) to facts (the fact that Halpless failed is him to blame).
Where as post-Enlightment method is inductive, e.g. to construct concepts based on facts (the fact that Halpless's units couldn't see anything means that something is wrong).
-
15 minutes ago, arkhangelsk2021 said:
They should have made things like spotting or artilllery delays be customizable, with 100% meaning parity. They can then say (for example) that Soviet searching is 60% because that's where we think it honestly is, but if you disagree here's a slider - just make sure both sides agree to moving the slider if you are doing Multiplayer.
I really don't get why they didn't make things like visability and weapons costomizable, while CM is quite mods-friendly in terms of skins and visual effects. Instead they chose to make it pro version feature.
And why "homesty is 60%"?
after thermals - maybe, but why it should be so before, it's a mystery foe me.
-
24 minutes ago, Hapless said:
There was also a crack M60 staring at a T62 at near point blank range for 40 seconds that never spotted it, so clearly M60s are blind too.
The thing that M60s sometimes don't see something doesn't change the fact that on average all Soviet tanks are much, much worse in spotting than their American opponents, and it makes them really uncompetitive.
Your "Deathride to Schweben" video clearly illustrates it.
Basically it shows just that: in present state Soviets in CM are doomed to fail. If you read comments section on Youtube, you'll see that they don't hesitate to speak out this obvious truth.
.png.8d140da46e0d1c5001321e7b7cb112d5.png)
. Alternatively, a poor craftsman blames his tools, do you consider yourself a decent handyman?
Soviet vs NATO tanks discussion in "International Security" magazine
in Combat Mission Cold War
Posted
Absolutely. The same goes for PBEM as well.
M901 tow vehicle which in my opinion absolutely domintaes all types of armor is on par or even cheaper than T-64b.