DMS Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Anyone remember the Greek trials for tanks back in... 2006 I think? The Shtora system on the Russian tank was 100% mitigated by the LRF on the M1A2. It didnt detected it whatsoever. At first, this looked like it was due to the system being outright non-functional, but when you look at it it makes sense. Was it in test program? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 Bil, I think you are simply the victim of a scenario that has a serious force imbalance. You are not fighting at just a disadvantage, you are facing overwhelming opposition. Personally as someone who has loved your many beta battles, it would have been far more enjoyable to watch you from a position similar to C3K after you wiped out his tanks in Market Garden. Watching the interplay between you two as he engaged in nearly wreaklous heroics which actually succeeded in thwarting you which was reminescent of the 1st Airborne amazing resistance to the German counterattack. See saw battles are so much more enjoyable. I truly appreciate all the effort that you put into making these battles so enjoyable to follow (and make us all want to buy the game). Whatever the outcome, there is no shame in losing against a stacked deck. Chris Thanks Chris... there is no way I can win this one, my goal now is to cause him as much pain as possible before I fall, at least make his victory a Pyrrhic victory. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BletchleyGeek Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) Thanks Chris... there is no way I can win this one, my goal now is to cause him as much pain as possible before I fall, at least make his victory a Pyrrhic victory. This isn't the kind of battle where I am used to see you fighting, Bil - it will be interesting to see what kind of tactics you come up with. I have only seen you just once really playing on the defensive (a CMBN scenario on the bocage, where your command was a company of German parachutists). You really put the grief on your opponent in that one, establishing killzones and pulling back when his force became overwhelming. The biggest challenge I see in this - new battle - is that it isn't obvious how can you use the terrain as a force multiplier. I am not sure what you can use: the sensor platforms on the US forces seem to basically turn pretty much everything but thick concrete walls (or reverse slopes) as useless for concealment. If nothing can be hidden from the Lidless Eye, the alternative is to create a "distraction". And I am skeptical that is possible with the current arrangement of the playing pieces. But the North Korean guys can totally work with a US Pyrrhic victory Edited January 7, 2015 by BletchleyGeek 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macisle Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Yeah. Raw deal, Bil. Best of luck in inflicting as much pain as you can. Hats off to you for hanging in there and going down Alamo style. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AttorneyAtWar Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Thanks Chris... there is no way I can win this one, my goal now is to cause him as much pain as possible before I fall, at least make his victory a Pyrrhic victory. Let 'em have it comrade! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuderian Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Continuing the T-90 vs. M1 debate, CM Black Sea is the first CM title to allow aphibious vehicle river crossing, a significant tactical advantage for the Russians imho. Regarding the huge weight difference between the tanks, are there bridges in Ukraine that could carry a T-90 weight but not a M1's? If this was the case, it would be another tactical advantage. One thing that is not modelled at this level is the fuel consumption and maintenance overheads for each tank which I imagine would give the T-90 an advantage in logistical supplies needed. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rinaldi Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 You and Pnzrldr both have put on a fantastic show; thanks so much for doing this AAR. Hopefully you can cause him frustration before the end. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holien Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Good hunting Bill, not sure you can even do that, but hats off to you for giving it a go. Let's hope turns pick up a tad.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrzafka Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Continuing the T-90 vs. M1 debate, CM Black Sea is the first CM title to allow aphibious vehicle river crossing, a significant tactical advantage for the Russians imho. Regarding the huge weight difference between the tanks, are there bridges in Ukraine that could carry a T-90 weight but not a M1's? If this was the case, it would be another tactical advantage. One thing that is not modelled at this level is the fuel consumption and maintenance overheads for each tank which I imagine would give the T-90 an advantage in logistical supplies needed. Making river crossings as smooth as possible, thus not losing the operational tempo, was always important in Soviet doctrine. There are a lot of rivers in Central and Eastern Europe, moreover quite a few flow the south to the north (or vice versa). So you can either cross them or find a gap between them, for example the Smolensk area in Russia which witnessed some heavy fighting in WWII. However, making vehicles able to amphibiously cross rivers comes at a price of course. It usually means that weight must be realtively low, sacrificing some survivability. I find it interesting that, even though Poland is member of NATO for some time, it was decided that Polish Patra AMVs should be amphibious.As far as I know Strykers, being roughly similar to Patria vehicles, are not amphibious. And when time came to send AMVs to Afghanistan, the swimming ability was removed (not many rivers there) and additional armor fitted to make the vehicle resistant to 14,5 mm AP. As a result, many argue here that insisting on amphibious capability is simply some leftover idea from Warsaw Pact times. I don't know who is right though 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agusto Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Yeah, great AAR. But i expect nothing less of you than a fight till the last breath, the last drop of blood, the last round of ammunation! Make pnzrldr pay for every inch of ground! Ideally you force him to clear out your remaining forces from the woods and the buildings in the south and east of the map in man to man combat. Dont be to bothered by losses in men, equipment or the prospect of loosing the battle. You have lots of people watching and enjoying your struggle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 This isn't the kind of battle where I am used to see you fighting, Bil - it will be interesting to see what kind of tactics you come up with. I have only seen you just once really playing on the defensive (a CMBN scenario on the bocage, where your command was a company of German parachutists). You really put the grief on your opponent in that one, establishing killzones and pulling back when his force became overwhelming. Yeah I'm sorry I couldn't finish that AAR too.. but I lost all the files in an upgrade. By the way, my opponent in that battle was none less than pnzrldr. He does tend to move without proper recon and it can cost him... he does it again in the next turn (I'll post the report on it tonight). Must be the audacious armor officer in him, balls to the wall, don't mind the flanks! The biggest challenge I see in this - new battle - is that it isn't obvious how can you use the terrain as a force multiplier. I am not sure what you can use: the sensor platforms on the US forces seem to basically turn pretty much everything but thick concrete walls (or reverse slopes) as useless for concealment. If nothing can be hidden from the Lidless Eye, the alternative is to create a "distraction". And I am skeptical that is possible with the current arrangement of the playing pieces. But the North Korean guys can totally work with a US Pyrrhic victory The terrain in this one is difficult.. the biggest problem I have is the equipment quality disparity.. that will be more challenging. Also the lack of any dismounted ATGMs is something I sorely miss. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Can we get a current blood board? I have lost track of all of the destruction. Hang in there and make him pay, it will be good for him, if not his pixeltruppen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 Dan, yes I will update that with the next turn report this evening. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 ANYTHING is better than Tom Bombadill/Silmarillion posts! Really. Get back in the fight! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 The trolls go weird when underfed, fresh meat is not being shoveled fast enough. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Making river crossings as smooth as possible, thus not losing the operational tempo, was always important in Soviet doctrine. There are a lot of rivers in Central and Eastern Europe, moreover quite a few flow the south to the north (or vice versa). So you can either cross them or find a gap between them, for example the Smolensk area in Russia which witnessed some heavy fighting in WWII. However, making vehicles able to amphibiously cross rivers comes at a price of course. It usually means that weight must be realtively low, sacrificing some survivability. I find it interesting that, even though Poland is member of NATO for some time, it was decided that Polish Patra AMVs should be amphibious.As far as I know Strykers, being roughly similar to Patria vehicles, are not amphibious. And when time came to send AMVs to Afghanistan, the swimming ability was removed (not many rivers there) and additional armor fitted to make the vehicle resistant to 14,5 mm AP. As a result, many argue here that insisting on amphibious capability is simply some leftover idea from Warsaw Pact times. I don't know who is right though Natural barriers, such as rivers which are a major feature of European geography including that of Poland, have played and will play an important role in all wars, and if your army can ignore them then all the more power to you. Or less power to your enemy, perhaps, as it means that they will need to fortify areas which would be normally unapproachable. Amphibious troop transports are one part of a solution, but not the only one. Airborne troops, Bailey bridges and vehicle deployed bridges, assault boats or brute force to capture intact bridges have all been used, with varying results. But amphibious troop transports are an organic asset and as such greatly enhance a unit's ability to swiftly cross rivers instead of waiting for combat engineers to come and help you out. Just think of the lengths the Allies went to secure a few river crossings in Operation Market Garden! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BletchleyGeek Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Yeah I'm sorry I couldn't finish that AAR too.. but I lost all the files in an upgrade. By the way, my opponent in that battle was none less than pnzrldr. He does tend to move without proper recon and it can cost him... he does it again in the next turn (I'll post the report on it tonight). Must be the audacious armor officer in him, balls to the wall, don't mind the flanks! The terrain in this one is difficult.. the biggest problem I have is the equipment quality disparity.. that will be more challenging. Also the lack of any dismounted ATGMs is something I sorely miss. Are still US armor tactical guidelines dismissing the high ground? Or that idea was eventually abandoned? Re: dismounted ATGMs. I would have expected the Russian heavy infantry to have AT-14 on their BMPs, similarly as US heavy infantry and NATO do have Javelin or Milan on their IFVs. That's an interesting assymmetry. Looking forward to the next update. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelican Pal Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) I'm not sure what the BMP-3 has in it. However, the ATGM from the BMP-1 and BMP-2 are dismountable. Edit: Not in game. A ground mount is carried in the vehicle which allows the rifle squad to remove the ATGM and take it with them. Edited January 7, 2015 by Pelican Pal 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rinaldi Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) I'm not sure what the BMP-3 has in it. However, the ATGM from the BMP-1 and BMP-2 are dismountable. Edit: Not in game. A ground mount is carried in the vehicle which allows the rifle squad to remove the ATGM and take it with them. Its a Bastion; its fired from the 100mm barrel, and therefore is not dismountable. I believe in SF to circumvent the lack of dismountable ATGMs, BMP2 and BMP1 recon platoons had an ATGM team attached and already mounted. Edited January 7, 2015 by Rinaldi 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) Bill, its not only the equipment quality disparity... But the sheer numerical superiority with tanks. You could have handled a smaller force and without having to worry about the ukranians. Edited January 8, 2015 by antaress73 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 You arty woukd have been useful and your air asseets would have had an easier time without the tunguskas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macisle Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 ...This could get ugly, and it could be over quickly depending on how strong the US force is. Truthfully, I would be comfortable, were I in Scott's shoes, attacking this Russian force with one US company team, two platoons of Bradleys and one platoon of M1s... that's all it would require. Something more like this, maybe? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted January 8, 2015 Author Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) Saavik: Permission to speak freely, sir? Kirk: Granted. Saavik: I do not believe this was a fair test of my command abilities. Kirk: And why not? Saavik: Because... there was no way to win. Kirk: A no-win situation is a possibility every commander may face. Has that never occurred to you? Saavik: No, sir, it has not. The Seventeenth Minute The Company Team in the south continued to move laterally across the front of 1st MRC... however, Scott ran a couple M1s straight into my initial defense line... his tanks absorbed a lot of fire, RPGs, 100mm ATGM from BMPs, 30mm fire... as seen in the following gifs.. no damage was noted, but I hope he suffered some degradation to sensors. First M1A2 comes over the top right on top of one of my RPG teams... and into the line of fire of two of my BMPs: The second M1A2 went further into the gully and catches an ATGM and a handful of 30 mike mike. These two tanks seem to be his flank protection... One of my forward RPG teams gets a bead on a Fire Support Bradley putting a hole in the turret... this happened at the end of the turn so status is unknown.. but that had to cause some damage, perhaps even a KO. The US Company Team in the North moved very little.. obviously setting up for a move on 2nd MRC... which loses another BMP this turn.. (the BMP that was unhorsed several turns ago by Scott's RPG gunner never was able to be recrewed). If Scott continues to advance at this slow pace he will still be in this area when my air arrives in 8 turns (all of it, two helicopters, and the surviving SU-25.. yes, after further review I did lose that first SU-25 to Scott's AA fire a few turns ago). I owe you guys a Blood Board.. sorry, but I won't be able to get to that util tomorrow. Edited January 8, 2015 by Bil Hardenberger 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) I see that an M1 was hit on the side by an ATGM from the BMP-3 but the reactive armor saved it. THe missile fired by the BMP_3 has a tandem warhead with 700-750mm of penetration after ERA, Should have made it through anywhere on the sides even with ERA. Edited January 8, 2015 by antaress73 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AttorneyAtWar Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I see that an M1 was hit on the side by an ATGM from the BMP-3 but the reactive armor saved it. THe missile fired by the BMP_3 has a tandem warhead with 700-750mm of penetration after ERA, Should have made it through anywhere on the sides even with ERA. This time it didn't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.