ThathumanHayden

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.

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

Many on-topic posts about the year to come😉. Also, in CMCW, if the Soviet second-generation tanks are not working for you, look at some of Hapless' stuff. Used well they are very formidable. Not too much you can really do against a good opponent in SF2 or CMBS against the Americans though😕

I get it. CMCW is probably my favorite title so far, and it's where I'm spending almost all of my time right now. But you'd be hard pressed to find a CM game that I'm not interested in (CMBO perhaps, but only because it's been superseded by CMBN). For me part of the point of CM is the ability to compare different time periods and theaters in the same realistic engine, and you don't get the far right extreme on the timeline that has been covered in CM so far without CMBS (CMAK gets you the far left extreme of the timeline so far (finding effective ways to use anti-tank rifles is a challenge, but I think the trick is to mass a bunch of them on a single target from multiple angles)). I don't think you really get the full CM experience if you only play one CM game.
CMCW is definitely a good compromise starting point if you aren't sure if you want to dive into WW2 or modern warfare first, being roughly right in the middle between them.
Oh yeah, the M-48A5 and M-60A1 are definitely not as good as the Soviet 3rd gen MBTs they so often have to go up against. But I still love them.
Yeah, there is nothing the Soviets have that can match the M1 Abrams. The only thing keeping it from completely dominating in this time period is its rarity.
I don't think there's a whole lot on either side that is a perfect 1v1 match for each other (well, M-60A1 vs T-62, but other than that...). They generally seem to be either significantly better than their counterpart on the other side or significantly worse than their counterpart on the other side. It isn't the individual weapons systems, but the sum total of the units with all of those weapons working together that seem to be a remarkably even match.

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.

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. 

Well said.  Wrong place and just wrong.

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).

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

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

From my notes on fighting like the Soviets:
1) Time spent on recon is never wasted.
2) Time and resources spent killing enemy recon is never wasted. 
3) Have a plan and execute it. 
4) The artillery fire plan dictates the maneuver plan. The maneuver plan dictates the fire plan. These must be mutually supportive. 
5) A company of Sov tanks spots better than any single German/American tank. 
6) Take away the better spotting offered by the NATO habit of fighting unbuttoned. Get them heads down to decrease their situational awareness. 
7) When you attack, attack! Don't poke him with one finger at a time. Make a fist and crush the enemy with overwhelming force. 
10) Use a platoon to crush a squad > use a company to crush a platoon >> use a battalion to crush a squad. Fair fights are for suckers.
9) Keep pressing attacks until they aren't feasible anymore, but don't reinforce failure. The Germans/Americans never have enough troops/tanks. 
10) Just because you have mass doesn't mean the only way forwards is a frontal assault. There are other ways to win that don't involve sticking your dick into the meat grinder until it jams. Recon routes that bypass the enemy, the Germans/Americans never have enough troops/tanks to cover every avenue of approach. Infantry infiltration is a thing.
11) Take you time, don't be in a rush to die. You'll probably run out of people, tanks, and/or ammo before you run out of time. 
H

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.

I mean, they were fighting Nazi Germany. Even if ignorant of Hitler's ideology before the war, after a few years of occupation I imagine everyone would have a firm understanding of their vested interest for fighting.

I mean, they were fighting Nazi Germany. Even if ignorant of Hitler's ideology before the war, after a few years of occupation I imagine everyone would have a firm understanding of their vested interest for fighting.

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.

I also nominate the base T-84 as another nice unit to add to the Ukrainian side.

What's not to love?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-84

As we all know, BFC is going to have its hands full adding to the Equipment (TO&E) of the Ukrainian Army (and even to the Russian Army).  I think it would be fun to start listing that equipment here.  This can be anything from a handheld firearm, drone, or SAM to an Abrams Tank or F-16 Fighter. Please include as much information as you can and a picture of the item if you have one. e.g.
Image: Name:  Model:  Version(s):  Description:  Weapon Subsystems: (if any) Ordinance: Date of introduction: (to the month)  Links to Equipment "Wiki": What other attributes should we list that would be helpful for BFC as a resource? I'll add 'em.
If someone makes an error, please correct it diplomatically.
This is going to be fun!  
Ready, Steady, GO! o7

I'm really hoping this war will be history soon.  At that point BFC will be free to release a CMBS update.  Before then its dicey. 
Having said that, personally, I would really like a platform that I could use to test out hypothetical scenarios based on current events (but again, that's just me).

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-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

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

Love seeing Cold War get more videos, especially ones of such high quality. Loved the combination of graphics (really well done by the way) gameplay and commentary! I'll echo others in saying that Free Whiskey continues to raise his own bar with each video he releases. Just really well done stuff. Plus, I appreciated the short clip from my tactical doctrine training scenarios of the T-64s all firing on line. Great shot! The commentary from Dom is great as well! Very informative, clear, and well spoken. A fantastic overview of the fundamentals of Soviet tactical doctrine. I can see this video along with the one Hapless did a year ago being go to shares for any newcomers asking about the basics of how the Soviets should fight. 
Honestly one of the most satisfying things I have seen from Cold War is how much intelligent discussion it has generated. Talking about concepts such as Soviet doctrine, US Active Defense and AirLand Battle, higher level stuff, tactical intricacies, etc. Its all been great to see. Dare I say that CMCW might be the high brow CM title.

I asked Domfluff to help me out in creating a video about Soviet military doctrine in the Cold War era, and how those principles can be applied in a Combat Mission scenario/QB. He played a game against me as the Soviet Army, gave me an arse kicking, and then sat down with me and explained why he did what he did. The result is the video down below!
 

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.

I think most of the debate was around the early American APFSDS M735 and M774. Usually Hapless has a good video on the M-60's. M60A1 RISE+ onwards should have M735, and the M60A3 should have M774.

+1
I haven't watched the video but it does sound like it makes overly broad generalizations.
--------
Another key ingredient in the rejuvenation of the Soviet tank fleet was the improvement in quality control. Through 1943 output quantity had remained the emphasis; quality control was weak, as mentioned in the previous chapter. The Nizhni-Tagil design bureau had been pressing the GABTU to allow them to impose greater uniformity on the several plants manufacturing the T-34/85 and to put more emphasis on quality control at the subcontracting plants. This began to pay off in 1944. The policy of testing new T-34 tanks on a test track in 1943 found that only a small fraction could run the minimum requirement of 300 kilometers before breaking down. By early 1944 this dismal record had been overcome and T-34 reliability finally reached acceptable levels. During February 1944 tests 79 percent of tanks reached 300 kilometers, and of the test batches 33 percent reached 1,000 kilometers. This became immediately apparent to the tank troops. The deputy commander of the 1st Guards Tank Army, P. G. Dyner, commented that tanks in 1943 would reach only 75 percent of their guaranteed life span in engine hours and mileage, but in 1944 they reached 150 percent.
-- Steven Zaloga, Armored Champion