Jump to content

ThathumanHayden

Members
  • Posts

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ThathumanHayden

  1. I've played the American campaign a bit but I'm not super into it. The first mission went well, but the visibility was of course a problem. From there, I've really had less fun. The single biggest factor by far has been the mud. I feel quite constricted by the necessity of sticking to roads and this has made armored maneuvers more tedious than fun. I lost three of my m24s to the mud and never even went into the plowed fields. I'm not saying it's ahistorical or others won't find the campaign fun, but I don't really think it's for me.

  2. 25 minutes ago, Brille said:

    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. 

    I am a bit less interested in CMBS. I played the Ukrainian, base Russian, and TF-3-69 campaigns, but I am more interested in CMCW. I agree with what you said. Honestly in CW I would take the T-64/72/80 over the M-48 and M-60 A1. It gets harder with the A3s, and while I do love the aesthetics of the T-80, I would be lying if I said a 1v1 with an Abrams was a good match-up. Most importantly I find, both sides should be focused on forcing an unfair fight. As the Soviets, you should try to overmatch enemy armor with larger units opening up several angles (without forgetting how effective ATGMs and RPGs can be). For the US, you should be focusing on creating good kill-zones, brewing up some tanks and PCs, and withdrawing to set up another ambush while you're ahead.

  3. The big three Soviet 100mm sabots of the time were 3BM8, 3BM20, and 3BM25. 3BM8 and 3BM20 should have relatively similar penetration against flat RHA steel. The big difference was that 3BM20 could be manufactured with only a small portion of the tungsten that 3BM8 required (although performance may vary against sloped or composite armor). 3BM25 was introduced in the late '70s so it might be out of the time frame for the BAOR module. In-game the manual states that the base T-55 uses 3BM8 and the T-55A uses 3BM25. This is a threat that the Chieftan might be able to handle, although most Soviet forces in GSFG had T-62s by the mid '70s. I look forward to what the Chieftan's armor can withstand in-game😀.

  4. A good number of Ukrainians did fight for the Germans at the start of the war. And many Ukrainians were in the Ost-Battalions at Normandy (Although their alternative was likely starving to death in pow camps, as over 1/2 of Soviet pows died in German captivity). However, and contrary to modern Russian propaganda, by the late stages of the war the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians fighting fought for the Red Army. Ukraine was disproportionally affected by the general plan for the east, so a lot of Ukrainians chose the Soviets as the lesser of two evils. Ukrainians were instrumental in defeating the Nazis. If I remember correctly, the soldier planting the flag above the Reichstag in that famous photo had Ukrainian descendants but was born in Kazakhstan. The Ukrainians sacrificed a lot because they knew they would be wiped out if the Germans won. They acted heroically, and I would say their efforts greatly, or even decisively, helped in defeating the Nazis.

  5. 1 hour ago, Probus said:

    I'm really hoping this war will be history soon.

    I think we all are. It was about 9 months after the actual invasion before I started playing Black Sea again. It was too depressingly relevant for a while.

    I would love some CM exploration into the real conflict in the future, but I do still really like the idea of Black Sea's alt-history being expanded.

  6. I personally like the idea of Black Sea (not referring to another future title about the 2022 invasion) remaining in the fictional 2017 timeframe. Oplots, APS, and US forces in direct contact with (well-prepared and competent) Russian forces. In this regard, I am primarily interested in keeping a little bit of distance from the current invasion and the realistic developments of 2017. I think the game should stay historical fiction (again, not ruling out a future title).

    Among many pieces of Ukrainian and Russian kit, I nominate the BTR-3 as a very sexy unit.BTR-3_Kyiv_2021_11.thumb.jpg.2e5a1d104efe30545d88185ac77b987c.jpg

    BTR-3U Has a 30mm autocannon, 30mm AGS grenade launcher, coax, and barrier ATGMs. Additionally, BTR-3E90 has a 90mm gun for fire support, and the BTR-3DA has improved weapons and presumably better optics. Give me some of these in mixed units, likely in the fictional context of greater Ukrainian procurement, and I'm happy.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTR-3

  7. I was surprised to hear this, but Tankograd's article on the T-80 corroborated the lack of a remotely operated AA MG on the T-80B. The T-80U also did not have a remotely operated AA MG, instead the MG could be fixed on three masts around the cupola, and rotated from there. The T-80UD was the first variant to introduce a remotely operated AA MG.

    https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2016/02/t-80-gambol.html#aa

  8. I would like to point out that there has been a good bit of debate on the forums about the T-64's armor performance. A few posts marshalled significant evidence that the upper glacis is over-preforming against sabot and lacks the top center weak spot. Still, T-64/72/80 were very tough tanks in this time period, so don't be surprised if they can take serious punishment to the front armor.

  9. I try to use recon a bit more aggressively as Red in CW than I would normally. I've had some succuss bounding BRDMs forward quickly from positions of cover to other positions. I recommend getting the scout teams out quickly and staying in heavy foliage. Remember that they can listen for vehicle noises. The BRDMs can be used a bit like trip wires, one getting annihilated telling you where Blue can see you. Any BRMs I recommend putting in 'ambush-esque' positions, where they will be stationary before any Blue forces roll into their sightlines. This seems to give you a bit better odds.

    Honestly, my advice is probably crap. I love playing as Red, but I struggle a lot when Blue gets thermals. I hope I interpreted your elegantly worded question correctly.

  10. I'm wondering about the actual crew survivability of Soviet T-64/72/80 series vehicles. I've seen a lot of tanks getting hit and not loosing their turrets in Syria and Ukraine, but many images of wrecks are missing their turrets. Anyone have sources on this? Some have lost their turret only after fire spread to the autoloader, and some explode instantly; but I don't know much about this.

  11. 2 hours ago, Centurian52 said:

    That's because the games aren't currently capable of taking advantage of the full power of modern computers. They are well optimized, and will run reasonably well even on a potato. But there is no noticeable improvement in their performance on even the most powerful gaming PCs. Engine 5 will probably address this.

    Lets hope. Input lag and camera lag is one of the most frustrating parts of Combat Mission. One of the most important reasons why I prefers SF2 over all other games is performance.

  12. Hello everyone! When reading Wikipedia, I stumbled across this interesting piece of information:

    "T-80U (1985): Further development with a better turret, Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour, improved gunsight, and 9M119 Svir missile system. In 1990 a new, 1,250-hp, engine was installed. Overall protection with Kontakt-5 against APFSDS/HEAT is 780/1,320 mm RHAe.[7] 9K119M with antitank guided missile 9M119M installed since 1990. Some of the tanks in commander version (T-80UK) equipped with Shtora-1 APS, and thermal imaging night sight TO1-PO2T (detection range / target classification range = 6,400/4,600 meters at night). Basic thermal night sight of the T-80U is within the limits of 1,750/1,500 meters."

    Unfortunately, the citation link is dead. As a result, I wanted to ask: Does anyone know anything about thermal imagers mounted on T-80s during the Cold War? Unfortunately, Zaloga's excellent book about the T-80 only mentioned thermal imagers in a photo of the T-80U's gunner and commanders positions, with no reference to date or frequency. My understanding is that the Soviets finished development of the "Agava" thermal imager in 1982 or 1983, but it was never fielded before the USSR's collapse as production of the small electronics was deemed too expensive to warrant its widespread adoption.

    So do you lot know anything about this? I know this equipment is outside the scope of CM Cold War, but I find this topic very interesting. Perhaps a future expansion will extend the time frame of the game. Any discussion is welcome. Thank you!

×
×
  • Create New...