CM Black Sea – BETA Battle Report - Russian Side

[herr_oberst]

That is a fair point Dan. Keep in mind that I did not have a good idea about what was in front of me when I made that move so wanted to ensure I could easily over power him. And I expected tanks in the Ukrainian company... I think the prebattle brief kind of misled me there.

I also expected 1st MRC to be the company with the initial fight as with that equipment disparity it's where I would have put most of the Ukrainian MRC.

Yes it's easy in hindsight to say what should have been done, but in the heat of the moment you have make a decision and deal with the consequences. Like I am doing now.

 

Pffft!   Pay no attention to the back seat / woulda / shoulda / coulda commentary.  You make your bets and you take your chances.  It's all educational.

 

Thank you for providing ALL the AARs you have done over time (not just this one).  For this one, had you hung back and not pushed hard early as you did, we would have missed out on the story thus far, or at least experienced a different story.

 

Perhaps the next one will be a more balanced meeting engagement...

[Bil Hardenberger]

Let me second Ian. Your move was the right one. Assaulting the town would have taken more than 15 mins, you'd probably have a more degraded force due to losses and still would the fricking Host of the Valar be coming right on your backside.

 

It's not often you see a Silmarrillion reference, well done Miquel!!  

Edited January 5, 2015 by Bil Hardenberger

[sburke]

It's not often you see a Silmarrillion reference, well done Miquel!!  

heh heh the best of Tolkien, let me see them make THAT into a movie.

[AttorneyAtWar]

Its great to see some fellow Tolkiens on here,I have only read the Silmarillion once quite a while ago, so unfortunately that one went over my head!

 

[Bil Hardenberger]

heh heh the best of Tolkien, let me see them make THAT into a movie.

 

There is fodder for at least a dozen movies for sure... I read somewhere that Children of Hurin could be up soon to be defaced and mutilated by Peter Jackson and co..  I hate what he did to the Hobbit.

[sburke]

actually haven't seen it.  As soon as I heard it was going to be another trilogy I wondered wtf he had done to it.  Maybe someday, but I am in no hurry.

[Baneman]

Beren and Luthien would be a good one, but Aragorn already gave away the ending in the first LOTR film    ( might have been only in the extended version ).

 

PS: IMO Thorin's Shakespearean-tragic-hero descent into madness in the 3rd film was well done. Other bits .. not so much.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Baneman

[BletchleyGeek]

It's not often you see a Silmarrillion reference, well done Miquel!!  

 

It was a great holiday break read - along The Lord of The Rings - it has been something like 15 years since the last time I last read both of them.

 

Indeed, the themes in the Silmarillion are more "mature" and not too different from what we can read on George R.R. Martin (mediating the conventions of JRR times and upbringing). Too bad that JRR departed for Aman before getting around "finishing" the Quenta Silmarillion into a tragic and epic tale of its own.

 

I am ambivalent about Peter Jackson's take on The Hobbit. This thing he has with warrior princesses is quite tiresome, honestly. On the other hand, interleaving the tale from the Hobbit with the stuff in the Unfinished Tales and the last part of The Silmarillion puts The Hobbit in the context of JRR's "vision".

Edited January 6, 2015 by BletchleyGeek

[sburke]

Then of course there is always Bored of the Ring.

 

In the eastern sky, Velveeta, beloved morning star of the elves and handmaid of the dawn, rose and greeted Noxzema, bringer of the flannel tongue, and clanging on her golden garbage pail, bade him make ready the winged rickshaw of Novocaine, herald of the day. Thence came rosy-eyeballed Ovaltine, she of the fluffy mouth, and lightly kissed the land east of the Seas. In other words, it was morning.

Edited January 6, 2015 by sburke

[antaress73]

Just trying to make things lively here But Poor Bill got handed a very bad hand here and publicly and I find that unfortunate

 

 

 

It's also impossible to employ Khriz correctly with only the launcher and sensor exposed. I think a pair of dismounted Kornet teams would be a better approximation, at this range, of a well concealed Khriz with only sensors and launcher exposed. 

 

Scott wrote about an encounter with a pair of Kryzantemas at 4000 meters while playtesting and he said his two abrams got hit four times each on the front armor (also said he was lucky to have survived it, since the missile is very potent and surely has a kill chance on the front) before he spotted one of the two vehicules. It also took a dozen rounds and even more incoming missiles before he could destroy them. So they were made harder to spot to alleviate the fact they can't be used properly and as effectively as in real life. A flanking attack on his two Abrams would probably have destroyed them both without the Kryz being spotted. 

Edited January 6, 2015 by antaress73

[antaress73]

T-90's are fully capable of taking out Abrams.

 

 

Of course it is... it fires a sabot round that can penetrate 730-750mm of armor at 2000 meters (at 1 km it's closer to 800-820mm) and it has similar sensors and capable optics. But Bill said that the exchange ratio would not be favorable to the T-90 in tank against tank combat so I would not bet victory on that ! 

Edited January 6, 2015 by antaress73

[Macisle]

So far, the T90 vs Abrams matchup is kinda' looking like a Firefly vs. Panther, with the Firefly being a buttoned Regular crew with no modifiers and the Panther being an unbuttoned, +modifier Crack/Elite crew with a fast turret.

 

In other words, if the T90 can land a hit, it has a reasonable chance of damaging or destroying the Abrams--even from the front. HOWEVER, a shot from the Abrams will almost always hit and kill on that hit, and it has an edge on both spotting and target acquisition speeds. The T90 commander has to work it to give himself a chance to get off a shot.

 

So, a rule of thumb might be:

 

Have at least 2 T90s per Abrams you want to engage, even in ambush. And, expect to lose one while the other lands a hopefully effective shot on the Abrams.

 

Using that rule...Bill is going to be hard pressed to get the needed local fire superiority to make the equation work.

[dan/california]

Lets not forget the Javelins almost certain to be over-watching from the central hill soon.  He is in a bit of a fix, too put it mildly.

[antaress73]

 

 

So far, the T90 vs Abrams matchup is kinda' looking like a Firefly vs. Panther, with the Firefly being a buttoned Regular crew with no modifiers and the Panther being an unbuttoned, +modifier Crack/Elite crew with a fast turret.

 

I wouldnt go that far, the firefly would be unbuttoned too... the T-90AM has good sensors and ICTV, panoramic sight for commander. And it can sometimes survivre hits to the frontal arc by the Abrams, according to some who are doing some playtesting. 

[antaress73]

 

 

Lets not forget the Javelins almost certain to be over-watching from the central hill soon.  He is in a bit of a fix, too put it mildly.

 

 

He has no arty left after using it to blast the town, so yeah... JAvelins.. even these alone would be enough to smash his force. Bill , How about your air power ? helicopters and aircrafts ! I think you have no choice but to send them in and hope for the best. Those Havocs carry 16 AT-9 ATGMs with  top attack capabilities and the SU-25s carry a similar number of AT-16 Vikr which are the equivalent of mavericks so they can have a strong effect but since you could not destroy the ukrainian Tunguskas, they will put a dent into your air power's effectiveness. Talk about being bitten in the ass by your own tech. 

Edited January 6, 2015 by antaress73

[Macisle]

I wouldnt go that far, the firefly would be unbuttoned too... the T-90AM has good sensors and ICTV, panoramic sight for commander. And it can sometimes survivre hits to the frontal arc by the Abrams, according to some who are doing some playtesting. 

 

That's a good point. I was putting forward a conservative rule of thumb idea. Like you said earlier, the Abrams has a marginal edge that is amplified as force size increases. My logic was:

 

• Abrams has a reasonable (ish?) chance to survive a frontal hit from a T90, but a T90 has to get lucky to survive a frontal hit from an Abrams.
• Abrams has an edge, however slight, on spotting and target acquisition speed, meaning the Abrams will usually get off the first shot, unless "true" ambush is achieved, which may be difficult on many maps.
• Abrams almost always hits on the first shot, but the T90 is slightly less accurate.

Given that, I think my rule of thumb is good as a conservative starting point. After all, mistakes are punished very quickly. Naturally, if you get a side/rear shot, it's a different story (just like a Panther). I'm talking about frontal/near frontal engagements mainly.

 

Of course, we won't know until the game comes out or Bill and Pnzrldr give us a window into things in the coming reports.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Macisle

[CommC]

It seems the scenario designer wishes to showcase the speed and firepower of the American equipment.  But do not fear, the scenario can still be balanced via the victory conditions.  Embrace the asymmetry.  Live it. Love it.  Its all good.

[DMS]

• Abrams has a reasonable (ish?) chance to survive a frontal hit from a T90, but a T90 has to get lucky to survive a frontal hit from an Abrams.
• Abrams has an edge, however slight, on spotting and target acquisition speed, meaning the Abrams will usually get off the first shot, unless "true" ambush is achieved, which may be difficult on many maps.
• Abrams almost always hits on the first shot, but the T90 is slightly less accurate.

 

How realistic is it? I think that any modern MBT has a good chance to survive frontal hit. And if armor is penetrated - I don't think that round would have energy to make destructions like if old T-72 is penetrated. In the game Abrams has new uber-super A4 round?

 

Why T-90 would be less accurate? For game distances T-62 would shoud without a miss, trajectory height is less than tank height (2m) below 1800m. And T-90 has a rangefinder.

[JSj]

The Abrams weighs almost 20 tons more than the T-90, that says it all about the armour. The T-90 is not nearly as likely to survive a hit. And yes, some of the weight difference is because the T-90 is a bit smaller, and have one less crew man. But that also means that the vital areas and systems are closer together, so any penetrating hit will likely do more damage. This was one of the main reasons why the T-72 was shown to have such poor survivability. The T-90 is just an upgraded version of the T-72, and the Abrams have also been upgraded and improved since the Gulf War.

Edited January 6, 2015 by JSj

[Michael Emrys]

It is also possible that a far more conservative approach by the Russian player would have altered things considerably.

 

This has been my thought as well. (I am writing this a day late due to modem problems, so I don't yet know if further developments in the AAR render this obsolete or not, but whatever, I'll throw it out anyway.) The scenario may have been laid out with the expectation that the Russian player would devote the early part of the game to reducing and occupying the town and would therefore be on better defensive terrain when the American force arrives. That might have had a more leveling effect on the outcome. Bil's more aggressive strategy toward the western edge of the battlefield upset that expectation.

 

Michael

[AttorneyAtWar]

This has been my thought as well. (I am writing this a day late due to modem problems, so I don't yet know if further developments in the AAR render this obsolete or not, but whatever, I'll throw it out anyway.) The scenario may have been laid out with the expectation that the Russian player would devote the early part of the game to reducing and occupying the town and would therefore be on better defensive terrain when the American force arrives. That might have had a more leveling effect on the outcome. Bil's more aggressive strategy toward the western edge of the battlefield upset that expectation.

 

Michael

 

Indeed! fortune favors the bold...sometimes....

 

However, this is Bil we are talking about, hes not out of the fight yet!

[Michael Emrys]

Pffft!   Pay no attention to the back seat / woulda / shoulda / coulda commentary.  You make your bets and you take your chances.  It's all educational.

 

Damn right. My comments are intended to be purely analytical. In this Russian army we don't shoot commanders for failure. I save that for the Peng Challenge Thread.

 

 

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

I read somewhere that Children of Hurin could be up soon to be defaced and mutilated by Peter Jackson and co..  I hate what he did to the Hobbit.

 

I don't mind what he did with The Hobbit too much since I never had much regard for that book anyway. But what he did to The Two Towers and The Return of the King should absolutely not been allowed.

 

 

Michael

[nonex]

I don't mind what he did with The Hobbit too much since I never had much regard for that book anyway. But what he did to The Two Towers and The Return of the King should absolutely not been allowed.

 

 

Michael

Is this a Tolkien thread now?

 

I hope the scenarios won't be like many were in CMSF -- one-sided stomp affairs where all the OPFOR are puny reserve conscripts and BLUFOR troops Crack/Elite gods. My friends largely refuse to H2H me because of the scenario balance in that game.

Edited January 6, 2015 by nonex

[DMS]

The Abrams weighs almost 20 tons more than the T-90, that says it all about the armour. The T-90 is not nearly as likely to survive a hit. And yes, some of the weight difference is because the T-90 is a bit smaller, and have one less crew man. But that also means that the vital areas and systems are closer together, so any penetrating hit will likely do more damage. This was one of the main reasons why the T-72 was shown to have such poor survivability. The T-90 is just an upgraded version of the T-72, and the Abrams have also been upgraded and improved since the Gulf War.

Survivability depends from round enerhy. If is just enough to penetrate armor - it is different case than export Iraq T-72s.