CM Black Sea – BETA Battle Report - Russian Side

[Kieme(ITA)]

I think that another way to deal with the ATGM poor performances (terrain/aps systems) would be to go on another direction, instead of keeping a measure/countermeasure race: back to good old kinetic energy weapons. A new generation of medium caliber weapons (higher than 20/25/30mm automatic guns, lower than a 105/120mm MBT gun), mounted on IFV hulls or a new hybrid hull smaller than that of an MBT, larger than that of an IFV. Or a vehicle capable of withstanding the fight against IFVs, given that a tank is still the best way to deal with another tank, while an IFV is not the best to deal with Others IFVs (due to their low survivalability and infantry carring bourdens).

[BletchleyGeek]

Thanks for the AAR - plenty of info to digest, presented in a compact and clear manner.

The lethality of the contemporary combination of sensors and computerised targeting systems is truly horrifying. You wiped out - or so it seems - a whole platoon, moving along a mostly covered approach in less than five minutes.

I can't help the thought that modern weapon systems show a level of self-sufficiency that have made obsolete "traditional" conceptions about combined arms.

What do you think? Has the "game" changed so much? In the past, such capacity to project firepower -and associated lethality - made combatants to favour the spade over the bayonet. But nowadays, fixed positions seem to be a death trap. And maneuver requires ample protection and/or firepower not only to be enabled, but to offer some chance at survival while executing it, as pnzrldr seems to have discovered.

[Bil Hardenberger]

Bil,

What you said in your No. 294 makes no sense to me. I have seen no sign of any Tunguska on your side, so please explain this passage:

"This area was also saturated with T90, BMP, and Tunguska fire to keep their heads down."

John, yeah 1st and 2nd MRC each have a Tunguska attached, see my post on my order of battle breakdown.

[Bil Hardenberger]

Thanks for the AAR - plenty of info to digest, presented in a compact and clear manner.

The lethality of the contemporary combination of sensors and computerised targeting systems is truly horrifying. You wiped out - or so it seems - a whole platoon, moving along a mostly covered approach in less than five minutes.

I believe it was Motorized Rifle Company Miquel.

I think two platoons of infantry plus all of the company's BMP-2s have been destroyed. The infantry from the 3rd platoon is without transport and should be pretty much out of the fight.

I can't help the thought that modern weapon systems show a level of self-sufficiency that have made obsolete "traditional" conceptions about combined arms.

What do you think? Has the "game" changed so much? In the past, such capacity to project firepower -and associated lethality - made combatants to favour the spade over the bayonet. But nowadays, fixed positions seem to be a death trap. And maneuver requires ample protection and/or firepower not only to be enabled, but to offer some chance at survival while executing it, as pnzrldr seems to have discovered.

I think fixed positions still have their place.. but you are right, with modern sensors and firepower you really have to keep moving.

If you are at a technological disadvantage like Scott was with his Ukrainian MRC and like I will be when his US forces arrive there is little you can do to increase survivability. For example, the BMP-2 that 1st MRC just ran into was hull down, but it didn't help it at all.. my lead BMP-3 spotted and fired first, even though it was moving. I am just a tad nervous about dealing with the US Bradleys and Abrams... that will be a serious test.

One thing I will say, you still need to apply proper movement techniques and proper tactics. I was able to basically mass against many of Scott's BMP-2s as they did not appear to be mutually supporting... where mine moved in teams, his seemed to be operating more widely scattered, and thus more individually. That's a recipe for disaster for sure, especially against a technologically superior enemy. A lesson I will take to heart when attempting to deal with his US force.

[BletchleyGeek]

I believe it was Motorized Rifle Company Miquel.

I think two platoons of infantry plus all of the company's BMP-2s have been destroyed. The infantry from the 3rd platoon is without transport and should be pretty much out of the fight.

 

I think fixed positions still have their place.. but you are right, with modern sensors and firepower you really have to keep moving.

If you are at a technological disadvantage like Scott was with his Ukrainian MRC and like I will be when his US forces arrive there is little you can do to increase survivability. For example, the BMP-2 that 1st MRC just ran into was hull down, but it didn't help it at all.. my lead BMP-3 spotted and fired first, even though it was moving. I am just a tad nervous about dealing with the US Bradleys and Abrams... that will be a serious test.

One thing I will say, you still need to apply proper movement techniques and proper tactics. I was able to basically mass against many of Scott's BMP-2s as they did not appear to be mutually supporting... where mine moved in teams, his seemed to be operating more widely scattered, and thus more individually. That's a recipe for disaster for sure, especially against a technologically superior enemy. A lesson I will take to heart when attempting to deal with his US force.

 

I am not very familiar with these OOBs, so most definitely I've lost the count

 

Thanks for the answers. It is true that pnzrldr's advance didn't seem to be very highly coordinated. Maybe his intent was to perform a recon in force or a probe rather than an actual determined attack on the Key Terrain areas. That might explain the lack of coordination you have perceived. I haven't read pnzrldr's thread, and I am personally wondering whether he has a plan at all, other than kill you with the Abrams (and I'm quite skeptical about that, you're going to engage them at "short" range which I think may even the scales quite a bit). 

 

I can see that concentrating fires on the enemy from several directions is important when you're the technological underdog - as in delivering a volley of guided missiles from different directions on a target equipped with anti-missile systems - is important as in "the only chance you (may) have". Indeed, as you say, maneveuring elements supporting each other has always been important, and more so in these conditions.

 

Yet I can't help thinking that future warfare will be fought by machines with a substantial degree of autonomy - the reaction times are almost inhuman with near future equipment, let alone with the stuff that will be economically viable to deploy in a battlefield by the end of the 2020s - with their goals and plans formulated by human operators that might well be on the other side of the planet. Human units being reserved for highly specialized roles which we won't probably be able to automate any time soon.

 

This seems to me to follow logically from the lethality of these vehicles: it kind of makes the employment of infantry a bloody and pointless exercise in any terrain other than 'urban'. Unless that infantry is equipped with 'invisibility cloaks' blocking radiation on the visible, IR and UV bands, of course. Stuff which isn't going to be 'affordable' not even by the spending levels of the US military any time soon. Looking at the kind of research grants I'm seeing being offered and awarded at the present, seems that there's a definite push to achieve the scientific and technological knowledge necessary to enable an scenario like the above by the 2040s at the latest.

 

Looking forward to the "decision" of this battle - that seems to be looming quite close.

[The Teacher]

Bil, I am in awe of your AAR.

[Bil Hardenberger]

Bil, I am in awe of your AAR.

 

  well the scenario you designed just keeps giving on the excitement level, I am just trying to keep up with all of the action!

[Bil Hardenberger]

...

 

Thanks for the answers. It is true that pnzrldr's advance didn't seem to be very highly coordinated. Maybe his intent was to perform a recon in force or a probe rather than an actual determined attack on the Key Terrain areas. That might explain the lack of coordination you have perceived. I haven't read pnzrldr's thread, and I am personally wondering whether he has a plan at all, other than kill you with the Abrams (and I'm quite skeptical about that, you're going to engage them at "short" range which I think may even the scales quite a bit). 

 

...

 Miquel, yeah I too am interested in reading Scott's thread.. I'm sure he had a plan, a plan that fell apart in the face of my BMP-3 advance and the cross map fire from 1st MRC... he couldn't pull his company out fast enough.

 

As for the Abrams.. I have done a few tests pitting T-90AMs against Abrams... and regardless of the range it is not pretty for the Russian tank.  I have a plan on how to fight them... time will tell if it'll be good enough.

[MikeyD]

ATGM accuracy - at least in the real world - increases with range. I imagine popping AT-5s from the far side of a farmers field into the next wood lot might be more problematic than firing from the far and of a valley at a nice silhouetted tank in profile.

[Mastiff]

I do know the Javelin has linier mode and pop up attack.

[Battlefront.com]

I do know the Javelin has linier mode and pop up attack.

 

Yup.  I think the technical Javelin terms for that are "direct attack" and "top attack", if my gray goo is not failing me.  I've used a Javelin simulator and I think a GameBoy is more difficult to use.

 

Steve

[Mastiff]

Yup.  I think the technical Javelin terms for that are "direct attack" and "top attack", if my gray goo is not failing me.  I've used a Javelin simulator and I think a GameBoy is more difficult to use.

 

Steve

mine was I couldn't remember the terms damn age..

[John Kettler]

Bil,

 

My apologies. I didn't realize you had them in the first place, hence my confusion. Today's terrifying thought--dueling Tunguskas! Interesting to see an SA-13. Used to worry about the real ones, which now to turn out to have an even nastier SAM guidance modes than the threat docs said. 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[BletchleyGeek]

As for the Abrams.. I have done a few tests pitting T-90AMs against Abrams... and regardless of the range it is not pretty for the Russian tank. I have a plan on how to fight them... time will tell if it'll be good enough.

My experience of the match up between the Abrams and those new Russian tanks comes from Chris video of an early build, where T90s were engaging Abrams from the frontal aspect - and killing them. Indeed, the Abrams weren't firing back, and that's huge, but it made apparent the vulnerability of the Abrams if the T90 gets the first shot.

Of course, things might have changed a lot as Black Sea approaches the release phase line.

Looking forward to both the deliverance and the game.

[Stagler]

My experience of the match up between the Abrams and those new Russian tanks comes from Chris video of an early build, where T90s were engaging Abrams from the frontal aspect - and killing them. Indeed, the Abrams weren't firing back, and that's huge, but it made apparent the vulnerability of the Abrams if the T90 gets the first shot.

Of course, things might have changed a lot as Black Sea approaches the release phase line.

Looking forward to both the deliverance and the game.

 

This might have changed, which in my opinion, would be a bad thing.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I don't know when the video in question was made, but Abrams armor resistance was lowed in a few weeks ago. Prior to that, Russian APFSDS could only penetrate frontally through the lower hull. It is now also vulnerable through the gun mantlet and the small area directly beneath it.

[Fenris]

Bil, I am in awe of your AAR.

 

 

Bil, I'm in awe of your profile pic

 

[Bil Hardenberger]

I just had to give this a shot, with a new video highlighting the T90 action from the last turn:  This is going to really help when the action really calls for a video!!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70rlt2s4G0&feature=youtu.be

Edited December 17, 2014 by Bil Hardenberger

[John Kettler]

Bil,

 

Presumably, the Russians in the game have DU for HVAPFSDS. Is this true? If not, why don't they? Let's say they do. Does the game depict the current long rod penetrators with an MV of some 1800 meters/sec, or does it reflect a Russian response to the US deployment of ERA, say, something like the latest US M829A3 in which some MV is sacrificed for the sake of a larger diameter, tougher in shear penetrator which can deal with Relikt and such? This indicates the Russians could find no answer for the DU protection on the M1HA, even with the latest 3VBM-17.  I find it rather difficult to accept they'd just give up, and there's zero track record, for many decades, of their giving up on finding a way to defeat any armor array the US fields. In the past, I've noted that Joseph Backofen, arguably the dean of all matters HEAT, and the CIA's top guy in this area, flat out told the hundreds of attendees (was one from a bunch of defense contractors) at the S/NOFORN/WNINTEL 1985 Soviet Threat Technology Conference that the Russians became aware of the siliceous core armor for the planned T95 and designed a HEAT projectile to defeat it. The T95 was canceled in 1960, but the T95-killing HEAT round went forward. It served until declared obsolete circa 1968 and only then was exportable. Israel recovered 76 mm rounds of this type during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, but we didn't get any from them until ~1983. US firing tests indicated this weapon would punch through the frontal armor of the M1 Abrams, which also was built with siliceous core armor, a fact not declassified until ~1984. The firing trial results were shocking, and the US had to consider that larger caliber versions of such HEAT munitions also existed. The awful discovery that a PT-76 could obtain a frontal kill on an M1A1 is partially why the US crash replaced all the M1A1s slated for invading Iraq with M1A1HAs taken from V Corps in Europe. 

 

On a related note, does the game model multi-staged Russian HEAT/FS projectiles, possibly with DU liners, such as those now fitted to TOW and Hellfire? 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[Bil Hardenberger]

John, those types of technical questions are best asked of Scott.  Sorry, you know me, I'm a tactics guy... the technical specifics on the equipment and ammo, other than having a basic understanding of how to apply the different weapons at my disposal, doesn't really interest me.  

[Vanir Ausf B]

Russian tanks in-game are assumed to be using 3BM60 Svinets-2, a DU round that AFAIK has not yet entered production. It will probably penetrate around 730mm RHA In Real Life™.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Vanir Ausf B

[Bil Hardenberger]

The Eleventh Minute - Part 1

 

2nd MRC - the two BMP section and the two tank section team started their attack in earnest on the US Recon Platoon... the BMPs stopped and dismounted their infantry to screen their advance.  Meanwhile 1st MRC's T-90s and Tunguska provided fire support.  The T90 section passed the BMP-3s as they area fired into the orchard.  

 

The lead T90 ran into a Bradley CFV and absorbed a lot of fire.. curiously the Bradley never tried to withdraw.. could it have been immobilized?  My T90 suffered only minor damage, however the Bradley was knocked out with one round.

 

Video of this action:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4te57FT8SAg&feature=youtu.be

 

1st MRC started to withdraw as can be seen in the following movie while providing fire support to 2nd MRC's attack on the US Recon Platoon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g0qDA_p-rU&feature=youtu.be

 

[Bil Hardenberger]

The Eleventh Minute - Part 2

 

In the pocket, my T90s fight back against the RPG team in the house next to the immobilized T90.  I still need to decide what I am going to do with this tank section.. I do not want to push only a single unsupported tank forward to hunt for that Tunguska.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IuellWVyIM&feature=youtu.be

 

Finally, I wanted to illustrate the new amphibious vehicle feature in Black Sea... this BMP 3 is swimming the river separating the Recon Platoon from the town in the pocket.  I want to bring the second BMP across as well, but wanted to get this one over safely first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwiP4Tv5nPw&feature=youtu.be 

 

Updated Blood Board:

Edited December 17, 2014 by Bil Hardenberger

[sburke]

John, those types of technical questions are best asked of Scott.  Sorry, you know me, I'm a tactics guy... the technical specifics on the equipment and ammo, other than having a basic understanding of how to apply the different weapons at my disposal, doesn't really interest me.  

speaking of which the reaction of your tanks seems to indicate threats from two diections.  That tank just spun it's side facing where the previous threat was from.  Either they eliminated that threat- unlikely as the other tank is still firing, or you may be in a spot of trouble.  Pins and neediles, next post!!!!!

 

And that is now 2 immobilized T 90s eh?

Edited December 17, 2014 by sburke

[Bil Hardenberger]

speaking of which the reaction of your tanks seems to indicate threats from two diections.  That tank just spun it's side facing where the previous threat was from.  Either they eliminated that threat- unlikely as the other tank is still firing, or you may be in a spot of trouble.  Pins and neediles, next post!!!!!

 

And that is now 2 immobilized T 90s eh?

 Steven, they were firing at the crew from the SA-13 they knocked out in the previous turn.. then they started to react to the more dangerous threat, the RPG team.

 

No, just the one immobilized T-90.