Halmbarte
-
Posts
469 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Halmbarte
-
-
He died defiant, with his pistol in his hand while facing down a squad of Soviet dismounts...
H
-
7 minutes ago, Zeb II said:
Took this quick video while testing some stuff some time ago. A battalion gets deleted. Heavier formations can be blown up similarly, don't have a video of one of those tests.
It's certainly possible to remove entire map grids with artillery. There may be a few more tubes involved than a balanced battle would have, so you just gotta pump up those numbers.
What kind of area was that battalion stuffed into? A normal Sov battalion would have a frontage of ~1-2km and should be much better dispersed to prevent exactly the kind of concentrated air/artillery attack from being do effective.
My normal SOP when playing the Sov is to assume that the US has observers everywhere and unlimited air/artillery with cluster bombs & ICM. I try to stay under tree cover when've I can, disperse vehicles by at least 50m, and move frequently. I can't always adhere to those norms but trying to decreases vulnerability.
H
-
9 minutes ago, MikeyD said:
Playing the game you will find Soviet tactics on favorable terrain are VERY difficult to stop, especially before the arrival of American DU penetrators and thermal optics. The Soviet strategy was not to win every battle but to reinforce success where it occurs. That means you in your little valley may be able to blunt an enemy thrust but you're likely to afterward find the enemy on your flanks and to your rear. A young corporal during the Vistula Oder offensive would be a three star general in our timeframe. The Russians still retained a late WWII frame of reference. NATO, in our timeframe, was post 'Nuclear Tripwire' but pre-'Airland Battle' in both doctrine and capabilities. Some contemporary Pentagon strategists derided NATO strategy as 'don't lose' and pushed alternate strategies that were heavy on the bravado while being light on the chance of success.
Yes, this. The early period Sov has a large advantages of having mass and better tanks and actual IFVs. The US is stuck with tanks with RHA, tanks cannons that aren't really up to the task of defeating T64/T72 armor, and facing a whole lot of Sov ATGMs.
And even if you manage to defeat the forces that attacked you the 2nd echelon will be coming.
H
-
43 minutes ago, Pelican Pal said:
Artillery in CM has two key weaknesses that make it suspect within the context of a mech heavy environment. The first being (as I've been told) that CM does not model vehicles closing up vision ports when under artillery fire. The second that the game does not model fragmentation damage to vehicles.^1 Combined this is causing artillery to under perform against armor. I'm not sure by how much it is under performing but my suspicion is that its not a meaningless loss.
Part of my reasoning is that, as you have said, the Soviet forces are often at a 2:1 to 3:1 advantage. Within this context you might have a M60 TTS platoon against a 2-3 platoons of Soviet armor and the reduction of even a single TTS's capability to effectively engage results in a significant drop in combat power for NATO.
Now this can be worked around but it requires that you use artillery in a way that I suspect most players don't readily take to. For example, you have located a TTS platoon astride the advance of your FSE. A player might drop a large number of shells over 8-10 minutes only to find that no damage has been done at all to the opposing armor. Not only that but during the barrage their spotting ability is not being reduced. The player has therefore expended a large amount of firepower and a significant amount of time for no impact on the enemy. I think this fairly leads to frustration on the players part.
^1 Documented bug but I also have a suspicion that how CM would model fragmentation might be doing a bit of a disservice to them.
~~~
Overall though I actually disagree that the Soviets don't work. But I do think that the peculiarities of both the Soviets and CM work against players having initial success with them.I don't know that that is true. I've had a BTR knocked out (and I think set on fire) by an artillery airbursting directly over it.
H
-
46 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
Thought I should probably expand on this.....With forces like the US & NATO, I'll quite often start a Harass/General/Maximum (often not using all the tubes in a battery) at, or shortly after, scenario start (preferably using mortars).
Then as I bait various OpFor units (like ATGMs & AT Guns) into revealing thmeselves (I'm absolutely not above recon by fire) the bombardment can be re-targeted as needed, taking them out or supressing them one by one.
General as opposed to VT? I usually use VT as it should have more effect than ground bursts against unarmored targets like ATGM crews.
Since Sov infantry ATGM teams have a good supply I've used them to snipe US ATGM teams. No kill like overkill.
H
-
57 minutes ago, BeondTheGrave said:
To your larger point, as I cant comment on the effectiveness of arty, the problem with the CMCW simulation is that its limited by numbers, which forces battles which can only be *so* big. Id argue that NATO also suffers from this issue in its own offensive situations. In real life, as best as I understand Soviet doctrine it would have been not to fight first and foremost, if the spear can flow around an enemy position then it ought to do so. But if it had to fight that it was up to HHQ, either at the regimental or divisional level most likely, to concentrate maximum force onto a single axis. Probably this would mean picking one battle and dumping the entire divisions artillery pool on it, plus helo and air support. This concentration of arty assets would be possible in engine, certainly it would give you the effect youre looking for, but I think it would drive most players insane. Moreover, the idea of the balanced battalion on battalion boxing match is IMO probably not as it would have actually gone in many situations. If the forward detachment and combat patrols located a serious NATO obstacle, division HQ would make a determination as to the best case of action. If it was decided to attack, several battalions from the regiment would be moved into position to overwhelm the position, and depending on the situation perhaps several regiments from the division would also engage in the attack. The goal being to make the fight unfair, to hit the enemy with as much as the can from as many directions as possible to fold up resistance quickly and get back to moving. CMCW doesnt simulate any of this because it doesn't do the operational side of the conflict and anyway I doubt many players would like the lopsided engagements that commanders would try to produce on the battlefield.
As I understand it NATO doctrine is mostly the same re: concentration and dispersal. FM71-2 in one of its scenarios recommends that the commander concentrate several companies of his battalion to systematically destroy each enemy platoon. Operationally the same thing would apply at the higher levels. Several battalions ideally would want to hit a single one, several brigades a sole regiment.
Ultimately CM is a game, not real life. Its a cool game. But it cant capture many of the factors actual Cold Warriors would likely have faced.
Exactly this. The real life fight should be the Sov battalion attacking a seam in enemy forces where there are few if any troops or an overwhelming force attacking enemy positions. But those aren't fun games, for either side. So scenarios tend to focus on the meeting engagement and times when the upper HQs have failed and you're in a roughly even match.
I do agree that artillery doesn't seem to damage AFVs as much as I'd expect although I've lost BTRs, BMPs and M113s to close artillery hits, including VT fused airbursts.
H
-
Air controllers can call in strikes on TRPs w/o having eyes on.
H -
On 12/22/2021 at 8:19 AM, zmoney said:
I’m reviving my long dead thread due to the fact that I started the Dutch campaign again. Does anyone know if it is a small bug the vehicles that carry the missiles should also be carrying the launcher for said missiles(Gill)? I cannot recall any other nation carrying javelins for example but not the launcher for them.
USMC trucks have Javelins but no launchers if I remember correctly.
H
-
9 minutes ago, OnePingOnly said:
This is similar to the (unresolved) issue I posted about. I’m using Win 10 via Boot Camp on the latest Intel Mac with a Radeon Pro XT 5700. I never get to the black screen, however… I get a few seconds of the Windows “thinking” wheel and then… nothing. No icon ever shows up in the tray.
For me, the other titles take 10s or so to fully open, but the icons do show up in the tray while waiting.
I also tried running in various compatibility and resolution modes to no avail.
I also deleted my CW install and did a full reinstall from BFC. This also did not work.
I filed a ticket, but haven’t received any help. Sucks not being able to play a game I paid good money for.
Does the Mac version work?
H
-
17 minutes ago, IanL said:
@Halmbarte your men are having a hard time. I hope you can help turn their fortunes.
I'm actually playing the Sov with this one. I reconfigured Czechmate with '79 equipment and so far I've lost a T62 and a loaded BTR (dang window in the trees I thought was providing cover). The T62s have had a couple of close calls if trees hadn't intercepted 2 TOWs I'd be down 2 more T62s.
AT4s and AT7s are deadly when you get them into good firing positions w/o them being detected before they shoot. Much better than the Dragon and TOW in many aspects, such as man portability thru dense trees and the carrying BTRs actually have a reasonable number of reloads. Plus the hit rate seems higher than my Dragon teams normally manage. Although that one drunk AT4 team has dumped at least 2 missiles in the dirt. Maybe the run back to the BTR for more AT4s and back to a firing position will sober them up.
H
-
Just who thought the little turret on top of the big turret on the M60 was a good idea?
Don't worry about long term emotional impact on the surviving crew. The tank didn't survive the rest of the turn.
H
-
When a 120mm mortar shell drops into the open turret of the Vulcan you know the crew are experiencing an emotionally significant event.
H
-
14 minutes ago, Redwolf said:
Hopefully we get a 2S1 or somesuch in the next module.
The real eggshell armed with a hammer.
H
-
I recall from playing Tacops that Sov formations frequently included a 6 gun unit of howitzers intended for direct fire (although they could do indirect also). Were these really not in the TO&E or...?
-
Which scenario is that? For me it was Hornet’s Nest. That was… intense.
H
-
21 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:
Which mode of play is better when you use IED'S Real Time or WEGO? In one of the scenarios in which IED's were used Real Time was recommended for what I suspect were the IED's. On WEGO in the AAR's most were not used.
I've had plenty of IEDs used against me by the AI playing wego.
H
-
28 minutes ago, LukeFF said:
...and the M14 was/is nothing more than a glorified M1 Garand.
It's actually worse than that. The Army intended for the M14 to replace the BAR, M1 carbine, the M1 Garand, and the various SMGs the Army had been using. In the end the M14 didn't replace any of them and was itself replaced after being the US Army's shortest in service rifle since the Krag, I think. What the M14 did was force the adoption of a overly powerful cartridge by NATO and kill other promising designs.
The US Army could have had the FAL/SLR in a decent intermediate cartridge in ~6.5-7mm in the 1950s, A rifle that would have been able to compete with the AK on even or better terms in the various CW conflicts.
The US Army had a almost fatal case of NIH syndrome in the time frame where the M48/M60 was being designed and adopted.
H
-
Air is tough. Do I use them to area target places I can't see or wait until the schwerpunkt is developed and use air power (hopefully) decisively? I tend to go for the 2nd approach. That also gives me a chance to target AA assets to clear the way for any attached air.
I also always assume that the enemy is bringing air assets. Vehicles and troops get parked under trees and in the lee of buildings whenever I can. I try to minimize exposure and move frequently when troops have to be out in the open.
H
-
Every 1st world army that had 7.62 battle rifles has gone on to adopt rifles chambered in 556 NATO as their primary arm.
My main point is that we (NATO) could have had a SLR chambered in an intermediate cartridge in 1950 if the US Army had been making more rational decisions. Imagine an SLR that was actually able to be issued with full auto functionality, in the mid '50s...
H
-
24 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:
The M14 was about equal to the SLR (FAL) the Australian army was using. The Europeans were also using that weapon and the Germans the G3 all 7.62 mm NATO on paper Superior to the AK47. In Israeli hands more to do with their training the M60 and Centurion could hold their own against the Soviet equipment in the Arab armies. I accept with the T64 he Soviets had probably a better tank on paper. Kind regards I come here first to discuss the game and I am not a fan of the Cold War because it never took place.
The US jammed the cartridge that became 7.62 NATO down the other NATO members throats*. NATO could have standardized on a ~6.5 or 7mm high velocity cartridge in 1950 instead of the last gasp of full bore .30cal that was 7.62 NATO.
The M14 was so outclassed by the AK47 that the US Army did a rush job of adopting the M16 before it was ready.
The US Army made a series of really bad decisions between the end of WWII and the '70s. The end result was an Army that wasn't equipped with the best weapons.
H
*We bullied the British (and therefore NATO) out of a very promising cartridge they were developing for the Enfield bullpup: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM-2_rifle
-
6 hours ago, chuckdyke said:
Compared with other countries the US was OK in my opinion. M4 Easy Eight Sherman was the mainstay in the Korean war. The bogey tank the Soviet IS3 was not an efficient tank at all. Egyptian service in the Sinai outmaneuvered by Israeli Shermans which could go from A to B without dehydrating the crew. The IS3 was relegated to static defense positions. The new Soviet tank on the block was the T54 like an SU100 with a turret all WW2 technology. US armour was at least equal fortunately we never found out how the Soviets would have handled their armor. The North Koreans and the Arab Nations didn't exactly promote it. probably unfair to judge the Soviet export models with western technologies.
I don't know that that statement is correct. The US Army's tanks were frequently a generation behind what the Sov was fielding.
In general the US Army was plagued by the problem of waiting on perfection. They wanted the perfect infantry rifle, the SPIW, and continued to field the Garand or product improved Garand (the M14) until being in a real war forced their hand. They also kept mucking about with revisions to the M26 while waiting for a supertank that couldn't actually be built. We eventually get the M1 tank (austere MBT70), but that could have been replacing something more like the Leopard 1 or a tank with silica core composite armor 20 years previously.
The problem I have with the M60 is that it can't do its job. Firepower is either just barely adequate (or barely inadequate) The armor is thick enough that the engine can't move the bloody thing very fast but not thick enough to actually take a hit and protect the crew and systems. In short, it's not fit for purpose. Plus it's a huge and easily spotted target.
Faced with the technological limitations of when the M60 was designed it probably would have been better to acknowledge that you can't put enough steel on a tank and preserve mobility. Take the route that the Germans did with the Leopard 1. The tank should be proof against light auto cannons and shel fragments and that's it. If you can't keep nasty stuff from penetrating the armor it doesn't really matter by how much you can't keep nasty stuff out.
H
-
I was just hiding them in the trees so the big bad airplanes don’t get them! H
-
15 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:
In that save file Tank Hunter 6 has no move orders. If I give it one it does move.
Yeah, in the previous 2 turns I gave them move orders and they dropped the orders when I hit go. I did get them to bail out and remount, but they still won't move for me.
Tank hunter 6 now has a slow move order in this save and they dropped it when the turn started: https://www.dropbox.com/s/pnne0e3d7m6z9dx/US Campaign (1979) 33.bts?dl=0
H
-
Got another bug: tank hunter 6 drops all move orders when I press go. https://www.dropbox.com/s/0esbc79hm0x42is/US Campaign (1979) 20.bts?dl=0
H
Does Soviet tactics work in Combat Mission?
in Combat Mission Cold War
Posted
Great summary and to build on that point about AT assets.
Sov platoons have different AT assets than an American platoon, although in a lot of ways the RPG-7 is better than a 66mm LAW and you have more HEAT ammo than the US has. BMPs bring their organic ATGMs and BTR companies have the frequently under rated AT-7 and they bring a lot of them.
The thing that is frequently missing is scale. The Sov should never be sending a infantry platoon off by themselves, devoid of long range AT weapons. If it's an important objective then send a company and support them adequately with FOs or other assets.
H