Peanut Gallery for the AAR, No Bill or Pnzrldr

[dan/california]

I thought I would start a thread to discuss the AAR without messing up either sides plans or revealing something we shouldn't. This requires Bill and Panzrldr not to peek.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

[dan/california]

I don't think the scenario designer thought about the implications of The Russian side more or less bypassing the trapped Ukranian units and just trying to run the blocking force clean off the map.

It also seems that Pnzrldr underestimated the gap in combat power between the BMP-2s on his side, and the BMP-3s on the Russian side. The BMP-2s don't seem to be providing much more than target practice.

[sburke]

I don't think the scenario designer thought about the implications of The Russian side more or less bypassing the trapped Ukranian units and just trying to run the blocking force clean off the map.

It also seems that Pnzrldr underestimated the gap in combat power between the BMP-2s on his side, and the BMP-3s on the Russian side. The BMP-2s don't seem to be providing much more than target practice.

It's early. Panzrldr's primary combat power is still on the way and Bil's force has already suffered losses as well. On top of that he now has 3 different issues to draw his attention- the encircled forces, the main allied force and that pesky Tunguska.

I am cheering for Bil for the simple reason I think he has a very demanding position and I'd like to see him hold out.

[dan/california]

Bill may be able to engage The main U.S. force as it appears on the map. That could be harsh.

[Jargotn]

I'm not sure why the scenario editor decided to call this scenario a russian defence. RIght now it feels more like a meeting engagement.

We are early in the battle right now. I think both will get reinforcments in the future. Until then everything is open.

[leakyD]

We are early in the battle right now. I think both will get reinforcments in the future. Until then everything is open.

Yep. And I think the predictions of modern being EXTRA violent are proving to be correct.

Will be VERY interesting to see how this plays out with two skilled opponents!

[Vinnart]

So far I like Bil's plan. I think the way he is going about things is a bit unexpected, and throwing Panzrldr off balance a bit moving at him so aggressively. Being engaged rather immediately when arriving on map can certainly do that. That of course could all fall to pieces rather quickly once the Abrams arrive. Certainly too early to say how this will go. Modern warfare is just so deadly things can shift very quickly.

[Vinnart]

Bill may be able to engage The main U.S. force as it appears on the map. That could be harsh.

Most definitely. Coming under fire right out the gate would give Bil a psychological advantage too I feel. I know it would throw me off a bit for sure.

[sburke]

Bill may be able to engage The main U.S. force as it appears on the map. That could be harsh.

Given he may be engaging Abrams that can also spot him, I'd rather have the Abrams as the BMPs will be firing missiles. The Abrams can hit first and the missile is then just an unguided explosive. That is assuming the Abrams APS doesn't just take it out. If his T90s are engaging that may be a different matter, but I'd rather not face an Abrams platoon teleporting into battle.

Bil needs to force the Abrams to face threats from multiple directions, an option he may not have if he is in LOS of the entry position.

I would also expect the scenario designer to have them appear on map in those gullies.

[c3k]

The Abrams is a fearsome beast. In reality, and in-game. Bil will need to think about how to defeat them. (Both have already played this battle, based on previous comments, so both know what the other has.)

I'd expect Bil to try to get positions to fire on sides/rear and with multiple shooters. His front-rush will help with that. Scott will have to pry open a safe entry zone in order to use his Abrams.

[BletchleyGeek]

I second the comments regarding Bil's force engaging pnzrldr's armour as it comes on the map. The range would be very short, about 1,000 meters. Chris' videos made apparent the Abrams vulnerability at that range.

It will probably boil down to who spots first whom. Pnzrldr has a substantial advantage in crew quality - maybe - but Bil hs the high ground. I'd expect pnzrldr to start beating the bushes on those hills with all the support fires he can muster, otherwise I think his chances of breaking through aren't good.

I am wondering if the above could change with the timely use of UAVs and the US superior C3i. Being pnzrldr a real pro I expect we'll see a master class on using those assets.

[DMS]

The Abrams is a fearsome beast. In reality, and in-game. Bil will need to think about how to defeat them. (Both have already played this battle, based on previous comments, so both know what the other has.)

I'd expect Bil to try to get positions to fire on sides/rear and with multiple shooters. His front-rush will help with that. Scott will have to pry open a safe entry zone in order to use his Abrams.

How AI tank commander will act in case he is being lased? Push back, face to the threat? And will show side to other enemy.

[c3k]

Well, I don't want to give away any information I shouldn't. However, the TacAI reaction to being lased seems to me to be spot on. There are some circumstances in which the tank's reaction causes it to be more exposed to an unknown (to it) threat, but that reflects reality. In MOST cases (the vast preponderance), the TacAI's reaction to being lased increases the tank's survivability.

[DMS]

By the way, do you know - if spot on the ground near tank is lased, will detection system react?

Hm, so many tactical possibilites. To shoot without laser rangefinder, for example.

[antaress73]

does the laser warning indicator tell you from which direction it's coming ? I remember playing M1 Tank PLatoon from Microprose and it was simply a light and a sound telling you you've been lased.

[ChrisND]

does the laser warning indicator tell you from which direction it's coming ? I remember playing M1 Tank PLatoon from Microprose and it was simply a light and a sound telling you you've been lased.

Many modern systems will not only tell you the direction within a few degrees but can also automatically slew the turret to the threat direction. In Black Sea vehicle AI will usually rotate the vehicle to have front armor face the threat. This is of course dependent on many factors, such as whether the vehicle is busy doing something else such as moving forward or engaging a target.

[John Kettler]

ChrisND,

I can say for a fact that by the early 1980s at least some Com Bloc tanks were fitted with laser detectors (bad news for high tech laser rangefinders and laser guided weapons) which gave a quadrant readout. Found it! Saw the early intel myself and realized full well the implications. With the upgrades described, even T-55s became a matter of concern. "Kladivo" means "hammer" in Czechoslovakian. Apt when you see what it meant.

Very nicely done text taken from a kit review.

http://misc.kitreview.com/armourreviews/t55amd2reviewcs_1.htm

(Fair Use)

"Kladivo consisted of a Czech-designed laser range finder, new ballistic computer, and wind drift sensor combined with the new Soviet 1K13 fire control sight. The 1K13 also permitted the tank to use the new 9K116 Bastion (AT-10) through-the-barrel guided missile system. Lastly, the tank received new radio sets, skirts and a laser warning receiver and Type 906B "Tucha" smoke grenade protection system with eight 76mm tubes."

"improved 100mm ammunition, extended the life of the T-55 and increasing its lethality to M60 or Leopard 1 series tanks out to about 4,000 meters with missile and 2,000 meters with gun. But by the time the M-1A1 and other modern tanks were fully in service by the early 1990s, its days were coming to a close. It is still a dangerous opponent in some parts of the world, but many of the former eastern European ones are now museum pieces."

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

I would like to make a general observation about what we're seeing, and that is staggering lethality, in very short periods of time. This was an issue noted during the Yom Kippur War of 1973, during which Israel went through ammo and tanks at such rates the US was forced to conduct crash resupply by air and sea under NICKEL GRASS. This resupply included hundreds of tanks, for the US had explicitly promised Israel it would make good on Israel's shocking tank losses. And that was when the ATGM technology of the Egyptian force was relatively primitive, likewise gunnery, compared to today's integrated fire control systems.

Somewhat waggishly, I'd suggest CMBS may become the fastest playing CMx2/CMx3 ever, because it embodies the Cold War statement in the FMs "What can be seen can be hit; what can be hit can be killed" many times over compared to the weapon tech of the time. Things now happen so fast, with such high lethality, that combat tempo skyrockets and forces are simply swept from existence in mere minutes. These realities are modified downward some by ERA, APS and broadband smoke, plus the usual factors,but the grim truth is that the speed of the meatgrinder called the battlefield has now been set to High, at least as seen by the CM WW II players. Tank has yet to meet tank, but the overall trend is clearly in evidence when it comes to the IFV war (where the BMP-3 rules supreme) and the BMP-3 vs infantry, whose sole kill was with an ATGM, but otherwise has done nothing except provide targets for the "Woodpecker" 30 mm autocannon and the 100 mm with its devastating airburst HE capability. The withering Tunguska experience merely makes the point again from CMBN/CMFI/CMRT about the effects of autocannon vs AFVs, but now, it's so much worse because modern ones are festooned with important and highly vulnerable optical, electro-optical and RF systems, which means a mission kill can be had with only a burst or two. Indeed, a single hit can drastically reduce an AFV's combat capability. Earlier M1s, for example, could easily lose both the day sight and the night sight from a single 30 mm hit, and the same burst could also put paid to the TC's hunter killer sight on the later models.

Shall be most interested to see how this battle unfolds, together with the attendant butcher's bill.

Regards,

John Kettler

[The Teacher]

As the scenario designer I must say there is a hell of a lot more to happen on both sides.

Panzer is under pressure at this point but Bil cant ignore the encircled troops or ignore the fact that there are troops on the way to save the troops on map.

I'm not going to give away anything more, but I will say watch the AAR and enjoy

Cheers

Stephen

[c3k]

Fast games? Just the opposite. Due to the extreme lethality, blindly rushing forth will result in high losses. A premium will be placed on terrain analysis, scouting, and patiently examining what's around.

With on-call fires, one man with a radio can rain havoc on a large enemy formation.

[John Kettler]

The Teacher,

I find your maniacal cackling to be distracting. Please confine expressions of evil glee to rubbing your hands together vigorously! I congratulate you on putting together such a clever tactical situation. To my mind, it treads new ground in terms of originality.

c3k,

Coming from you and your oft expressed sanguinary views, I feel as though I've suddenly entered the "Twilight Zone"™ and find my brain is melting. Which is bad, since I need the what's left of it currently on hand. Do you really believe that with gunnery accuracies while shooting on the move that exceed most Cold War static firing accuracies, terrifyingly accurate, presumably responsive support support fires, ERA, APS and more that this crowd is suddenly going to become a collection of Bil Hardenbergers scrutinizing the map with greater concentration than a Zen archer? Somehow, I doubt it. Will some follow that model? Certainly, but I think we'll see a lot of freewheeling maneuver, of gun while run, but I fervently hope it doesn't start to produce WoT type ridiculous visuals. Neither Bil nor pnzrldr is acting with abandon, yet the havoc is already considerable--with combat barely begun. When they really get cranking I expect we'll see a lot of flaming wrecks in very short order. Of course, there won't be enough to satisfy your bottomless need for blood (which rivals zombies' hunger for brains), but it should cause others to quail a bit and turn bilious green. And if those two create carnage while playing prudently, imagine what happens when the mere mortals have at it!

Regards,

John Kettler

[A Canadian Cat]

Do you really believe that with gunnery accuracies while shooting on the move that exceed most Cold War static firing accuracies, terrifyingly accurate, presumably responsive support support fires, ERA, APS and more that this crowd is suddenly going to become a collection of Bil Hardenbergers scrutinizing the map with greater concentration than a Zen archer? Somehow, I doubt it.

LOL you are quite possibly correct. But here is the thing, in the WWII titles if I play someone who is free wheeling and running all over I can often make them pay for doing that but not always. Sometimes the get away with it. In modern combat there are so many weapons and so much nasty stuff just a call away but I suspect that I could make them pay for doing that pretty close to *every* time. The learning loop is tighter.

Sorry to sound unhumble cause I am certainly no virtuoso or anything. I learned to be careful and move with meaning and purpose by superior players who tough me by shredding me just like I describe countless times. Now our games have slowed down quite a bit because of that learning.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Yes, firing while on the move is very accurate in Black Sea. But you still have to spot it before you can shoot it.

[Jargotn]

I think that we will see both:

If a battle startes without contact there will be a slow and cautios recon and planbuilding phase. As soon as contact is achieved we will enter the "damnmyplanfailedprepareformayham" phase.

Unless one of the players is c3k. In that case the mayham will start immediately.

[Lethaface]

I think the difference between WWII and CMBS isn't fast vs slow, but how lethal are the mistakes one makes.

There is nothing wrong with moving fast or being cautious, it all depends on the context.

For example Bill is much more fast moving in this CMBS AAR when compared to the previous WWII AARs. However, IMO this has more to do with the map and available forces than with Modern vs WWII. Right now he has the ability to take favorable ground. If he waits he might have to face the enemy operating from the favorable ground. Hence, it is worth taking now and given the open areas around it & the enemy pocket in his back, it is more wise to rush than to take it slow.