CM Black Sea – BETA Battle Report - Russian Side

[antaress73]

That's why the russians have invested heavily on jamming and EW these last few years. They are now WAY better than they ever were and its far from certain that thé US communication and info sharing edge would remain intact. You can simulate that in a scenario in CMBS.

Edited December 31, 2014 by antaress73

[antaress73]

Do the russians have an info sharing network in the game ? Ratnik and their latest hardware do have it in réal life (still few units). They are really making an effort in that field.

[akd]

Do the russians have an info sharing network in the game ? Ratnik and their latest hardware do have it in réal life (still few units). They are really making an effort in that field.

Yes, modernized vehicles (and some command vehicles) have Constellation-2M (FBCB2 equivalent). Brigade recon units have the Strelets dismounted system (i.e. "PDA" in CMSF terms). This gives a pretty reasonable approximation of a partial fielding in the 2017 timeframe.

Edited December 31, 2014 by akd

[Vet 0369]

​I do appreciate you chiming in... sorry for my previous reaction, it sounded like you were accusing me of being less than honorable in my deployments to this point.    

I agree that for a test scenario it is fine to be "honorable," but in a real scenario we must take advantage of everything we can. Perhaps The Teacher didn't anticipate a bypass of the pocket with a rush on the staging area. I'm sure if the Russians had intelligence of a relief force coming, they would do everything possible to decimate it as soon as they could. There is no honor in war.

That said, I continue to learn from Bil's AARs. I play mostly H2H and appreciate his ability to adapt to ever changing conditions. Keep up the excellent work Bil!

[Nerdwing]

Flank shots are effective against the Abrams.. however in my tests even when getting a beautiful flank position often the M1 will spot, be able to rotate its turret, and fire before T90 ever gets a firm spot.  I did get quite a few kills in my tests, and those were only against stationary M1s with no AI orders, and most of the time they were dearly purchased.  These M1s will be commanded by Scott who knows his business, he would not be a Lt. Colonel if he did not.  

 

The M1A2 SEP spots faster, shoots more accurately, and is far better protected than the T-90AM.  

 

I know my limitations, and yes it is that bad of a matchup.

To the world's horror... sometimes US procurement policy gets things right.

 

REALLY right

[DMS]

The M1A2 SEP spots faster, shoots more accurately, and is far better protected than the T-90AM.  

 

 

That seems wrong. I remember that awfull unrealistic situations, that sometimes happened in CMSF. Syrians in perfect ambush positions... Abrams comes and shoots before syrians take aim. Also I stil remember, when I sent T-72 to flank Abrams, then he turned turret 90 degrees and shot faster. I understand, that western gamers think, that Abrams is much better, than T-90. Ok. But he should't always forgive tactical mistakes, as there would be no sence in the game... Just move Abrams forward and do nothing.

Edited December 31, 2014 by DMS

[Alan8325]

Any time someone asks why we should believe the U.S. equipment is superior to the Russian counterpart, look at the U.S. defense budget compared to Russia's.  Something would be really wrong if quality was equal between the two forces.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I haven't done any formal testing, but my observation has been that while the Abrams does spot better than the T-90 the differences are not massive.

 

US vehicles in general spot better than Russian. I think this is mainly because their Gen II FLIR is a little more advance than the Russian/French Catherine-FC thermal sights.

 

This is not universally true, however. The Russian Khrizantema-S is very good since it can use radar to detect targets.

Edited January 1, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[sburke]

wish folks could wait till it was out before pronouncing judgements, but I guess it is Bil and Scott's fault as we are simply filling in time waiting for the next installment...

 

So here is how it really works.  You have two tanks about 1km distant.  Tank A spots Tank B.  Tank B's laser detector goes off and it automatically fires smoke.  If Tank A has already fired that doesn't do much good other than protecting it from additional shots.

 

So what it really comes down to is how fast can a tank fire off an accurate round after lasing.  The Abrams is faster.  That means you may have a lot of instances of getting an opportunity of that flank shot only to see the Abrams defensive measures allow it to escape. For the T 90, odds are that first round is on it's way before it can pop smoke.  Obviously you may be able to affect that by crew experience settings.

 

You will have a lot of instances in CMBS where your tank pops smoke and backs up and you'll be scratching your head as to what lased it.  Get used to that.  In a large tank engagement you are gonna see a LOT of smoke.

 

CMBS is a whole lot different than I think anyone realizes.  These boards are gonna be fun once it is released.

[dan/california]

Can wind direction suddenly become very important?  How many rounds of smoke are the main vehicles carrying?  And while I am reeling off random questions, how injurious is it to infantry.

 

I can envision all sorts of maneuvers involving popping in, out, and around out of smoke screens......

[DMS]

Any time someone asks why we should believe the U.S. equipment is superior to the Russian counterpart, look at the U.S. defense budget compared to Russia's.  Something would be really wrong if quality was equal between the two forces.

 

Progress depending from cost is non-linear. New car is much better than 20-year old car, very expensive car is slightly faster in city conditions and may be more comortable than usual car. More money - less progress per 1$. You can have hardly modified gun for IPSC with sights, flashlights e.t.c., but you can be shot from an old "standard" shotgun and collimator sight won't help you.

 

And U.S. have bases all around a world and a huge navy forces.

 

I haven't done any formal testing, but my observation has been that while the Abrams does spot better than the T-90 the differences are not massive.

 

US vehicles in general spot better than Russian. I think this is mainly because their Gen II FLIR is a little more advance than the Russian/French Catherine-FC thermal sights.

 

This is not universally true, however. The Russian Khrizantema-S is very good since it can use radar to detect targets.

 

That's true in hazy or night conditions, but in CMSF U.S.vehicle spotted faster at daylight, in low distances. When Abrams moves around a corner 500m away - you will see it, have you FLIR or not. Or 1000m away.

[Vanir Ausf B]

That's true in hazy or night conditions, but in CMSF U.S.vehicle spotted faster at daylight, in low distances. When Abrams moves around a corner 500m away - you will see it, have you FLIR or not. Or 1000m away.

The effects of optics on spotting in the game are not well understood, but they appear to be abstraced to a large degree, so while they work realistically in most situations most of the time there will be exceptions.

Having said that, we have it on very good authority that it is SOP for Abrams crewmembers to primarily use the thermal sights during the day. I don't know if the same is true for Russian tankers.

Edited January 1, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[DMS]

The effects of optics on spotting in the game are not well understood, but they appear to be abstraced to a large degree, so while they work realistically in most situations most of the time there will be exceptions.

Having said that, we have it on very good authority that it is SOP for Abrams crewmembers to primarily use the thermal sights during the day. I don't know if the same is true for Russian tankers.

 

Usually spotting works very well, but sometimes strange things happen. For example, T-34-76 in CM:RT. May be I don't understand developers's intention - may be player should "target" question marks manualy. Or such micromanagement is a gamey, that shouldn't be used?

[slysniper]

I have waited a long time for this game, I wanted something like this since they started making the CMX1 version of the game. Now that it is about to be released, I sit here in the shadows and watch this AAR and the only thing that keeps crossing my mind is how much I will need to learn to adapt my tactics to the modern battlefield. It Is a bloody Slaughter House and I really don't see it as something that will be easy to get accustomed too. CMSF always seemed so one-sided when Running Nato forces. It will be interesting to see if Bill will be able to cause a little more Blood shed vs the American units with what he has to use.

 

Get these turns posted guys, the anticipation is killing me.

[stikkypixie]

Usually spotting works very well, but sometimes strange things happen. For example, T-34-76 in CM:RT. May be I don't understand developers's intention - may be player should "target" question marks manualy. Or such micromanagement is a gamey, that shouldn't be used?

 

These spotting quirks don't occur for German equipment?

[womble]

Usually spotting works very well, but sometimes strange things happen. For example, T-34-76 in CM:RT. May be I don't understand developers's intention - may be player should "target" question marks manualy. Or such micromanagement is a gamey, that shouldn't be used?

The T-34/76 should be relatively rubbish for spotting. Not as bad as a Renault early war tank, perhaps, but it has a 2 man turret and its optics are nothing to write home about. Especially when it's moving. Spotting works exactly as it should 99.9999% of the time and we picky Herberts notice and remember and drag up over and over again the one in a million occurrences that don't, perhaps work as they should (as opposed to how we think they should).

[Bil Hardenberger]

Get these turns posted guys, the anticipation is killing me.

 

You guys need to hurry Scott along as he is the bottle neck... I am caught up and just waiting for him.  

[dan/california]

You guys need to hurry Scott along as he is the bottle neck... I am caught up and just waiting for him.  

The poor man is probably trying to stay married AND employed, its time consuming....

[Michael Emrys]

The poor man is probably trying to stay married AND employed, its time consuming....

 

And trying to write a novel into the process does not speed up things up. You guys need to be more thoughtful about what you ask for.

 

 

Michael

[Holien]

The novel approach could be his millstone?

While I can understand you delaying your AAR to allow some time for catch up, it should not be unlimited time? Hope we get a post soon.

Edited January 2, 2015 by Holien

[DMS]

These spotting quirks don't occur for German equipment?

I don't know.

The T-34/76 should be relatively rubbish for spotting. Not as bad as a Renault early war tank, perhaps, but it has a 2 man turret and its optics are nothing to write home about. Especially when it's moving. Spotting works exactly as it should 99.9999% of the time and we picky Herberts notice and remember and drag up over and over again the one in a million occurrences that don't, perhaps work as they should (as opposed to how we think they should).

Yes, everyone knows that T-34-76 didn't have commander. But that doesn't mean that it is blind. If LaGG-3 was slower that 109F, that doesn't mean that it must fly 300km/h, so everyone would note it.

I am finishing off-topic, sorry.

[JSj]

I don't know.

Yes, everyone knows that T-34-76 didn't have commander. But that doesn't mean that it is blind.

 

Yes, it does, it was pretty much blind. In combat, the gunner/commander was usually on the gun sight, with the overhead hatch closed. This meant he had no ability at all to scan around for targets. There are plenty of German accounts describing how the early T-34s were just driving straight ahead, completly unaware of what was going on around them.

Edited January 2, 2015 by JSj

[George MC]

Whilst we're waiting From the link below:

 

However the quality of Soviet optics combined with the limited visibility from inside the tank affected combat performance. A German unit that used the T-34/76 model ’43 in combat noted (8):

‘The gun sights in Russian tanks are far behind the German designs. The German gunners need to be thoroughly accustomed to the Russian telescopic gunsights. The ability to spot a hit through the gunsight is very limited.’

‘In a Russian tank it is difficult to command a Panzer or a unit and at the same time serve as the gunner Therefore fire direction for the entire Kompanie is hardly possible, and the concentrated effect of the unit’s firepower is lost. The commander's cupola on the T 43 makes it easier to command and fire at the same time; however; vision is very limited to five very small and narrow slits.’
 

‘Safe driving and sure command of both the T 43 and SU 85 can't be achieved with the hatches closed. We base this statement on our experience that on the first day in combat in the Jassy bridgehead, four Beute-Panzer got stuck in the trench system and couldn't get free with their own power, resulting in the destruction of German defensive weapons during the attempt to retrieve them. The same thing happened on the second day.’

 

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html

[JSj]

Thanks George MC! Those are some very interresting links, especially that post busting the way too widespread myth that the T-34 was "the best tank of WWII". The T-34 certainly is the most overrated tank ever.

[Macisle]

Thanks George MC! Those are some very interresting links, especially that post busting the way too widespread myth that the T-34 was "the best tank of WWII". The T-34 certainly is the most overrated tank ever.

And the Sherman probably the most underrated.