Unofficial Screenshots & Videos Thread

[John Kettler]

Remember when someone's Tunguska hosed down his own troops? Something similar occurred here, except it was real. Comments indicate this is a known issue with the Tunguska. No idea what happened to those unfortunate recipients. Offhand, I see no good outcome in the face of that kind of firepower.

https://www.funker530.com/aa-gun-sprays-friendlies-during-catastrophic-failure/

Regards,

John Kettler

[Seedorf81]

32 minutes ago, John Kettler said:

Remember when someone's Tunguska hosed down his own troops? Something similar occurred here, except it was real. Comments indicate this is a known issue with the Tunguska. No idea what happened to those unfortunate recipients. Offhand, I see no good outcome in the face of that kind of firepower.

https://www.funker530.com/aa-gun-sprays-friendlies-during-catastrophic-failure/

Regards,

John Kettler

Wow..

Onlookers' pants understandably filled with some involuntary brown stuff, I reckon. (That is, if they survived these fireworks..)

[exsonic01]

1 hour ago, John Kettler said:

Remember when someone's Tunguska hosed down his own troops? Something similar occurred here, except it was real. Comments indicate this is a known issue with the Tunguska. No idea what happened to those unfortunate recipients. Offhand, I see no good outcome in the face of that kind of firepower.

https://www.funker530.com/aa-gun-sprays-friendlies-during-catastrophic-failure/

Regards,

John Kettler

That was my video XD My case was coming from not a malfunction, but from a poor coordination of forced-attack and charge by noob commander X(

But that video is more awful, just wow... 

BTW, your post was 1000th reply to this thread. X) 

 

[John Kettler]

exsonic01,

Knew it wasn't from weapon malfunction, since BFC doesn't model those (but really ought to, if it can). Didn't know what "XD" was, but I looked it up. 1000 replies, eh? Bet that's more than the GDF gets in a year! Am surprised only a few of us post at all to "The Never Say You've Seen It All Thread" there. Would think at least that would generate some activity. Not like there's a shortage of material!

Regards,

John Kettler

[exsonic01]

The most brutal death of T72B3 I've ever experienced. I think the leader spotted the Bradley, but the gunner couldn't for some reason, maybe because of trees or wrecks. I think the leader would really get mad during that incident... 

Leader: "Enemy IFV, 12 o'clock, 700m front" 

Gunner: "I can't see anything, sir" 

Leader: "Look, there is a Bradley, just right in front of us, besides the trees and the wreck~!" 

Gunner: "Hmmmm.... there's nothing comrade, where is that Bradley more precisely?" 

Leader: "You stupid idiot, are you xxxxing blind? It is xxxxing right the.... Oh **** they shoot the missile, do you see it?" 

Gunner: "Nothing comrade, nothing" 

Leader: "Shiiiiiiit~ You **** us all~~~"

And the penetrator from the missile launched into the opened hatch, toasted everyone inside.... 

 

Edited March 5, 2017 by exsonic01

[John Kettler]

exsonic01 et al.,

Am with the gunner here. After four attempts (at full screen, too) and considerable eyestrain, I don't see the Bradley, nor do I see any inbound TOW. I did barely see a tiny blue diamond thingy with short parallel bars, so presumably that's a tactical symbol. Now, consider the situation. If the T-72B3's TC can see the Bradley, and the Bradley noticed and engaged his tank, which we know happened, then that detection and identification as a suitable target) were all it took to send a TOW 2B, since it doesn't need a direct hit, just overflight. As far as mech warfare in CM goes, this is an important lesson. In the face of the Americans, it's entirely possible for a Russian tank, IFV , APC or AC to be detected and engaged while one's gunner can't see at all. A most formidable capability. Why did I see no deployment whatsoever of obscurants? Was your tank out of them? What do things look like from the Bradley's POV.  In effect, the American have an elevated weapon system in which the ATGM is practically at the same height as the sights, permitting engagements not otherwise possible with next to no exposure to DF weapons, and the Russians have no ATGMs with top attack capability. Seems to me this is something the Americans should use to the maximum extent possible, since the Bradley can fire ATGMs while very nearly in turret defilade.

Regards,

John Kettler

[General Melchid]

John; I was under the impression that spotting was determined from the 'drivers' position and that mast/turret sight systems didn't work, has that changed. I seem to recall being unable to spot with Shturm-s whilst hull-down?

[MOS:96B2P]

6 hours ago, General Melchid said:

John; I was under the impression that spotting was determined from the 'drivers' position and that mast/turret sight systems didn't work, has that changed. I seem to recall being unable to spot with Shturm-s whilst hull-down?

It is still true that mast sight systems don't work .  So a crew member on the Brad had to do the spotting/shooting.  Below I paraphrased something Steve said in 2014.  Thought you might find it interesting.      

There are 5 ground heights in the game in terms of LOS, LOF, and Spotting: Prone, Kneeling, Standing/Small Vehicle, Tall Vehicle, Very Tall Vehicle.  LOS is from the eyes of your unit to a fixed position 1m off the ground.

[General Melchid]

Yes that is interesting, didn't realise it had the 5 heights, thought it was only a couple i.e  prone and stand/small vehicle; useful info'.

[Reiter]

Here you go. Have a nice day.

 

 

[snarre]

realy nice video 

[General Melchid]

That's the thing I really love about BS it's so deadly: it can all be going your way  , then BOOM 2 lucky rpg shots kill half your infantry

[c3k]

Hey, that's not so bad. There were survivors.

[exsonic01]

First 1 min = from .50 cal gunner's view

Second 1 min = same street and crossroads stomped by .50cal and Javelin, from different view.  

Last 1 min = Abrams, dealing with 3 BTRs. 30mm could be very nasty even against the Abrams. Look at that subsystem damages.  

My opponent brought tons of BTRs to this game, and I didn't expect that. My engineers and HMG teams are doing their best, but the 2A72 30mm from BTR-82A is too powerful to deal with. They have no problem to wreck the walls and buildings and boys inside, and they are cheap and expandable. I'm just barely stopping the waves or waves, but the game is slowly becoming his favor. I should have bought Bradleys. 

And I agree to @Reiter that war is cruel. If CMBS has gore mod, that crossroad and street would be full of hands, legs and body parts.... War is cruel, especially modern battlefield has no mercy at all, with ultimate firepower and advanced fire control. 

Edited March 15, 2017 by exsonic01

[exsonic01]

This is from one of the ongoing PBEM match. I'm playing redfor, and opponent is blufor. I think this is related with ongoing balance discussion. 

I expected the advance of enemy armor at that position around the treeline, so I set up a tank trap plan. Basic idea is hunt that Abrams with two T-72B3s, deploy one tank in ambush position while the other flanks the side. This turn took some time for me, to think and consider LoS, speed, approaching angle and routes, and all other possibilities. After long command phase, I pushed the big red button and wait for my opponent's response until next day. And the day after, I got the next file, and that video was what really happened. 

My plan worked....almost. It worked as planned and flanking T-72B3 hit the target, but only achieved partial penetration. It was within 200m, but that is fine. What makes me surprise was the next events after the shot. Abrams fields the smoke, turn the turret, and shot the ambushing T-72B3 and nailed it. Abrams not only evade my trap, but also destroyed. I guess the crews may be shaken, but anyway they killed my tank. Maybe my opponent brought crack or elite Abrams.... I feel so disappointing, all of my plans and considerations for long time are just gone in an instant. 

I have no objection against the current defensive (DU armor) / offensive (M829A4) / detection (up to x50 high resolution thermal sight) ability of CMBS Abrams. However, in this case, LWR saved his life, which is not equipped in SEP v2, and probably will be introduced from SEP v4 to my best knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong). Without LWR, that Abrams would be dead from side armor penetration. I wish the more realistic modeling of SEP v2 and SEP v3 in the next module. 

2nd thing I noticed is that, I frequently experiences the "commander saw, but gunner couldn't" situation. Actually, the commander (opened the hatch) of the ambushing tank, was watching the Abrams for about 5 or more seconds, but the gunner had no LoS, failed to shoot, so eventually destroyed. But isn't there any override ability in FCS of modern tanks, for commander to designate the target and aim regardless of gunner's sight? From my Steel Beasts experience I remember that Russians also have the override ability... but I'm not sure about this. Maybe because my commander was out of the hatch so couldn't conduct the override action? Does CMBS tanks are equipped with override ability?  

Anyway, I'm in trouble in this game. I should've killed that tank, but that OOTB LWR ruined my plan  Wind is heavy so I can't rely on Khriz, and this map is not a good terrain for Khriz play. I'm just trying to flank and push him all the way, but my opponent is really good. Don't know what to do now...  

Edited March 20, 2017 by exsonic01

[Erwin]

"commander saw, but gunner couldn't"

You are aware that the CO has a higher view than the gunner, and that the main gun may have been unable to shoot the target regardless of what the CO orders.

[exsonic01]

22 minutes ago, Erwin said:

"commander saw, but gunner couldn't"

You are aware that the CO has a higher view than the gunner, and that the main gun may have been unable to shoot the target regardless of what the CO orders.

Yes I know that, but I think TC should be able to override, and aim/shoot the target instead of gunner. Is this because TC at the moment was out of the hatch (so that unable to conduct the override)? Or override is not modeled in CMBS? I'm not sure which one is the case here. 

Edited March 20, 2017 by exsonic01

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I believe the Russians developed the capability for the tank commander to lay the gun with T-54. 

Quote

Contrary to popular belief, a hunter-killer regime is not at all exclusive to modern Western tanks. Rudimentary hunter-killer cooperation dates back to WW2, where commanders would have to yell out the direction of the target by referring to the angle indicated on his cupola's race ring. The gunner can slew the turret towards the target by referring to an azimuth indicator corresponding to the commander's, usually marked out on the turret ring. In 1951, the T-54 obr. 1951 pioneered a semi-automatic system where the commander only has to press a button to activate the electrical powered traverse drive and slew the turret towards whatever target he is viewing through his optic. The T-72, like the T-64 and T-62 before it, has this feature as well. As you would expect, the commander performs as the hunter in the hunter-killer system. On the end of the TKN-3MK's left hand grip is a button to initiate turret slewing to aim at whatever the commander has his crosshairs on. But even that isn't new. The T-62 tank, which began production in 1963, already featured the TKN-3 binocular sight and the same automatic target designation capability, but the T-72 features an additional electric motor that automatically counter-rotates his cupola so that his original orientation is preserved. Most Western tanks of the 50's and 60's already had the same hunter-killer feature, with some notable exceptions like the M1 and M1A1 Abrams, which did not have a similar feature until the M1A2 variant came about.

https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/t-72-soviet-progeny.html

This is a prime example of the problem with this game, that Abrams was a dead duck, but it casually zaps the T-72 while pretty much simultaneously surviving a penetrating round that should have concussed everyone inside regardless of whether it damaged anything else.  It also looked to me like that Abrams was reloading after taking a shot, so the ammo storage doors would have been open and that tank should have been a fireball (having just taken a point-blank turret penetration).

BTW - The T-72 & T-90 have better all round vision than the Abrams as the gunner has a periscope too, at closer ranges these tanks should have a spotting advantage.

 

Edited March 20, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[exsonic01]

20 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I believe the Russians developed the capability for the tank commander to lay the gun with T-54. 

https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/t-72-soviet-progeny.html

This is a prime example of the problem with this game, that Abrams was a dead duck, but it casually zaps the T-72 while pretty much simultaneously surviving a penetrating round that should have concussed everyone inside regardless of whether it damaged anything else.  It also looked to me like that Abrams was reloading after taking a shot, so the ammo storage doors would have been open and that tank should have been a fireball (having just taken a point-blank turret penetration).

BTW - The T-72 & T-90 have better all round vision than the Abrams as the gunner has a periscope too, at closer ranges these tanks should have a spotting advantage.

 

That Abrams was not shooting nor reloading before that shot, it was just overwatching the general direction of my forces. And I guess my opponent brought elite or crack Abrams, which make that situation not entirely impossible... But still, it would be tough even for elite or crack crews. I will check after the end of the game. Thanks for the info about gunner periscope, but I still think that Abrams will have first sight advantage because of HD thermal vision regardless of range. 

 

 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Still hard to explain the casual swatting of the T-72 IMHO. 

If it had survived, backed off and then come back and killed the T-72s, fair enough.....But that thing acted far too much like an AI controlled mobile death-ray and not very much like a tank (especially one that had just taken a penetrating hit). 

Edited March 21, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[exsonic01]

11 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Still hard to explain the casual swatting of the T-72 IMHO. 

If it had survived, backed off and then come back and killed the T-72s, fair enough.....But that thing acted far too much like an AI controlled mobile death-ray and not very much like a tank (especially one that had just taken a penetrating hit). 

Like I said, it is not entirely impossible. I'm just regarding myself unlucky, and I'm having my own lucky moment in this game so it was good compensation. But the game is in my opponent's favor.   

[Sgt.Squarehead]

How would you feel if the Abrams turns out to be Regular?  I'm intrigued to know how good it is now. 

[exsonic01]

1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

How would you feel if the Abrams turns out to be Regular?  I'm intrigued to know how good it is now. 

If it is regular I would be surprised, but still my stand will be the same. It is not entirely impossible but I admit that would be scare chance. This is just some graphical and mathematical modeling of physics, which tries to be perfect under some constraints, hence this should be in the same region of TRPG dice toss. It would be great if my tank killed that Abrams, but it wasn't and that's it, and I think the system is not entirely biased, just some bugs and mistakes here and there. This is not a perfect game, but they will going to do something to improve. Plus, we would never know the true real events of what happens unless there would be major war, which would be terrible. So, we are just enjoying this simulation, and if you don't like it, you can always stop playing. 

My question is not about their detecting ability neither the fighting ability. It is about LWR and the override ability. If BF decided to put the LWR to the SEP v2 with the same reason of introducing Trophy, I can take it, though I feel it is a bit of bummer. I understand BF, but I still strongly believe that the game should have approached in more conservative way when depicting weapons, try to realistic as much as possible. In that sense, watching Trophy and LWR in SEP v2 is acceptable but not happy, at least to me. Same goes for T-90AM and Oplot, which is not may numbers are ready at real life 2017, which should have more rarity point in my opinion. But that will ruin the game balance entirely, so in general, I accept their "hypothetical approximation". But in the next module, I wish to see more realistic version of SEP v2 and v3. 

But my curiosity regarding TC override is still unsolved. Maybe someday by some chance we would figure it out. 

Edited March 21, 2017 by exsonic01

[Erwin]

4 hours ago, exsonic01 said:

Yes I know that, but I think TC should be able to override, and aim/shoot the target instead of gunner. Is this because TC at the moment was out of the hatch (so that unable to conduct the override)? Or override is not modeled in CMBS? I'm not sure which one is the case here. 

You don't understand my point.  The TC in open hatch is literally a couple feet above the gunner and the main gun.  So, the TC can see a target while the gun is blocked.

[exsonic01]

19 minutes ago, Erwin said:

You don't understand my point.  The TC in open hatch is literally a couple feet above the gunner and the main gun.  So, the TC can see a target while the gun is blocked.

I regard that as TC in open hatch would not be able to conduct the override action, so unable to shoot.