Test number2: ABrams vs ATGM

[antaress73]

Kornet and kryzanthema will penetrate M1 frontally on : gun mount, turret ring. When firing from an elevated position you will achieve penetrations (and hard kills) on a non negligible basis on top frontal Hull and top turret, especially if the tank is driving down a slope or sitting immobile on a downward slope. The launcher will be spotted and die from other assets but hey, one less M1 to deal with.

Edited April 10, 2015 by antaress73

[IICptMillerII]

Its important to note that many Russian ATGMs won't do much to an Abrams besides annoying the crew with a loud blast and damaging external systems on the tank. Others have mentioned that a few of the Russian ATGMs can penetrate and cause damage to the Abrams from the front, but as a rule of thumb know that a lot of ATGMs are pretty ineffective against an Abrams. If the Abrams has APS, its honestly a waste to engage them with missiles. Try to slug it out with your own tanks, or if you have none, get small and hope the infantry can do something about it. Don't waste ammo and give away your position by spewing useless missiles at the enemy. Adapt and overcome or die

[Thewood1]

I still think that universal application of APS on US tanks by 2017 is a little bit of a pipe dream.  The DoD procurement process doesn't work like that.  This isn't like cutting armor off of a wreck and welding it on to a Humvee.  I think APS should be a lot less frequent in scenarios.

[db_zero]

I still think that universal application of APS on US tanks by 2017 is a little bit of a pipe dream.  The DoD procurement process doesn't work like that.  This isn't like cutting armor off of a wreck and welding it on to a Humvee.  I think APS should be a lot less frequent in scenarios.

Last I heard the US Military was downsizing, they didn't want any more tanks and the overall defense posture was pivoting to the Pacific, so that combined with the Byzantine DoD and congressional budgeting process I too would agree that not only would universal application of APS on US tanks by 2017 be true, but the next war, wherever and whenever it will be fought will be with the wrong force structure at the wrong time.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

I still think that universal application of APS on US tanks by 2017 is a little bit of a pipe dream.  The DoD procurement process doesn't work like that.  This isn't like cutting armor off of a wreck and welding it on to a Humvee.  I think APS should be a lot less frequent in scenarios.

 

 

Universal application is a bit out there, but fairly common is not.  The pre-1991 build up saw conversion of several hundred M1A1s to M1A1HAs (which includes changing the armor array, not a small act!) and adding LRFs and other neat tools to the M2A2 platforms (to the degree that remaining M2A2s are "M2A2 ODS" for "Operation Desert Storm" after the upgrade package became standardized).  While there was a lot of rumbling about the hillbilly armor, there was a lot of Army designed and purchased factory upgrades of various types, and the various C-IED systems made you feel like if you blinked you missed three or four generations of system.

 

The large system stuff moves slow, and involves a lot of politics, but when the US military needs widgets and needs them next week, we're one of the few forces in the world that can afford to throw money the problem until it goes away.  And to that end, effectively buying out the Trophy assembly line, and keeping USAF C-17s idling at the nearest airport to receive delivery is something that is well within reason should the US military decide it needs APS tomorrow.  

 

 

 

Last I heard the US Military was downsizing, they didn't want any more tanks and the overall defense posture was pivoting to the Pacific, so that combined with the Byzantine DoD and congressional budgeting process I too would agree that not only would universal application of APS on US tanks by 2017 be true, but the next war, wherever and whenever it will be fought will be with the wrong force structure at the wrong time.

 

The downsizing is net total Brigades, however the remaining Brigades are increasing their "line" battalions by one (so instead of each ABCT having 2 CABs, they now have 3).  There's only four Battalions of combat power going away across the Army, and while I forget the exact breakdown, it's not all armor.

 

In terms of tank procurement, it's really embarrassing but we've been at sufficient tanks to fill out the Army, Marine Corps, and several preposition ships and depots, and then have a surplus.  The Lima Tank factory is a congressional thing that refuses to die.

 

The Pacific Pivot ran straight into the Ukrainian crisis.  It's better to say we're seeing a Middle East divestment.  The Army, and the ABCTs especially remain in a posture that doesn't preclude deployment to Europe on short notice (as 1st CAV has done on a few occasions).  

[db_zero]

The Pacific Pivot ran straight into the Ukrainian crisis.  It's better to say we're seeing a Middle East divestment.  The Army, and the ABCTs especially remain in a posture that doesn't preclude deployment to Europe on short notice (as 1st CAV has done on a few occasions).  

Speaking of the Pacific Pivot it is aimed at China-the new boogey man. While its wise to remain weary of China, there is ample evidence that China may be the paper tiger they once accused America to be. The vaunted China economic miracle is showing signs of great weakness and there is a good argument that it may be headed for a greater disaster than that which befell Japan. In the 80's Japan was the great economic powerhouse and like the Chinese are doing today gobbling up American real estate and other assets. In fact there was a lot of controversy back in the day about the Japanese buying Rockafeller Center.

 

Then the great Japanese real estate bubble burst and Japan was never the same. In the end the Japanese ended up liquadating their American real estate assets at a huge loss.If you look deeply into China they are potentially Japan times 2. If the real estate bubble bursts in China watch out. They are trying to pivot to a more consumer based economy and in the process the steel and other construction based industries are in a state of near depression. The implications are wide and far reaching.

 

Meanwile back in Russia....

[IICptMillerII]

 but the next war, wherever and whenever it will be fought will be with the wrong force structure at the wrong time.

 

Oof, ain't that the truth. If the United States has proven one thing, it is that it never enters a war anywhere close to prepared. Some of the worst military generals in history have led Americans into battle at the beginning of wars, and the men were under-equipped, under-trained, and overall under-prepared for what they faced. So many historical examples of this, to name a few the Civil War, North Africa and Operation Torch in WWII, the beginning of the Korean War ("No more Task Force Smith's" to those who know the reference and now infamous Army mantra) Vietnam (more for political reasons) and the 2003 invasion of Iraq ('Not enough IBA's or up-armored vehicles? YOLO!' - US Military, April 2003)

 

However the other thing the US Military has proven is how quickly it adapts. Rommel said, and I'm paraphrasing here, "I've never seen such utterly incompetent fighters before in my life, but I've also never seen someone learn the lessons of war with such speed and effectiveness." Again heavy paraphrasing there. If someone knows the real quote feel free to throw it in. Panzer makes a good point that, like what Rommel was saying, the US Military, when it really needs something, usually does a pretty good job at getting what it needs real fast. I think that in the scenario presented in CMBS, it is logical that there would have been some build up to the conflict, and that combat ready units in the US Military (those units expected to meet the enemy first if hostilities were to break out, which they have in CMBS) would have had APS installed on them ahead of other units.

[db_zero]

The Pacific Pivot ran straight into the Ukrainian crisis.  It's better to say we're seeing a Middle East divestment.  The Army, and the ABCTs especially remain in a posture that doesn't preclude deployment to Europe on short notice (as 1st CAV has done on a few occasions).  

I'm not sure we're going to get a Middle East divestment. Our negoiations with Iran only deals with the nuclear issue. Correct me if I'm wrong but nothing is said about the Irans use of proxies in the region. I'm sure if we also pushed for Iran to agree to halt that activity there will be no deal and I don't see our leadership willing to make that sort of commitment. Our allies in the region are rightfully very wary of being thrown under the bus.

Edited April 11, 2015 by db_zero

[antaress73]

Trophy will intercept Javelin. I did a blue on blue civil war and Javelin was innefective against APS equipped Abrams but as effective as against russian tanks against normal Abrams. Trophy  coverage is a dome over and around the tank.

Edited April 11, 2015 by antaress73

[c3k]

Trophy will intercept Javelin. I did a blue on blue civil war and Javelin was innefective against APS equipped Abrams but as effective as against russian tanks against normal Abrams. Trophy  coverage is a dome over and around the tank.

 

It is like a dome...of iron.  

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

I'm not sure we're going to get a Middle East divestment. Our negoiations with Iran only deals with the nuclear issue. Correct me if I'm wrong but nothing is said about the Irans use of proxies in the region. I'm sure if we also pushed for Iran to agree to halt that activity there will be no deal and I don't see our leadership willing to make that sort of commitment. Our allies in the region are rightfully very wary of being thrown under the bus

 

In a continued foreign policy platform, yeah we're still involved in the middle east.

 

As a mission the US Military is oriented on, not so much.  The sort of equipment, units, and training that was oriented on operating a conventional ground force for an extended time in the middle east is largely gone at this point.  You still have Kuwait and some ongoing missions, but it's a big change from the degree to which the US military used to pretty much be focused on Iraq/Afghanistan, and things touching Iraq/Afghanistan.  The post War On Terror military is....still very much evolving.  The Pacific Pivot though, should not be seen as a "screw all for the Pacific" and the current US plans and intent have certainly seen a shifting focus back to Europe given recent events.  

[jep]

Its important to note that many Russian ATGMs won't do much to an Abrams besides annoying the crew with a loud blast and damaging external systems on the tank. Others have mentioned that a few of the Russian ATGMs can penetrate and cause damage to the Abrams from the front, but as a rule of thumb know that a lot of ATGMs are pretty ineffective against an Abrams. If the Abrams has APS, its honestly a waste to engage them with missiles. Try to slug it out with your own tanks, or if you have none, get small and hope the infantry can do something about it. Don't waste ammo and give away your position by spewing useless missiles at the enemy. Adapt and overcome or die

 

That's the very problem with Quick Battles. Russian player must adapt and overcome to win. For US player it is generally enough to idle and wait. I can see some game balance problems here. I hope both Abrams and Javelins get fixed on next patch. No matter how realistic game is, it's no good if one cannot play it without house rules.

Edited April 11, 2015 by jep

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

No matter how realistic game is, it's no good if one cannot play it without house rules.

 Hear hear.  Let's cut down the performance of late war German and Soviet tanks in CMRT too as they're entirely unfair!

[Thewood1]

We can call it Combat Mission: European Escalation.

[snarre]

if that gind patch go out , then its not any more combat mission =D 

[Kieme(ITA)]

That's the very problem with Quick Battles. Russian player must adapt and overcome to win. For US player it is generally enough to idle and wait. I can see some game balance problems here. I hope both Abrams and Javelins get fixed on next patch. No matter how realistic game is, it's no good if one cannot play it without house rules.

 

A US player who idles and wait is the perfect enemy for a russian player looking to flank.

[Djiaux]

That's the very problem with Quick Battles. Russian player must adapt and overcome to win. For US player it is generally enough to idle and wait. I can see some game balance problems here. I hope both Abrams and Javelins get fixed on next patch. No matter how realistic game is, it's no good if one cannot play it without house rules.

 

I think that Abrams spotting and in general US spotting could use some fixing (also Russian spotting), but appart from that I don't think the game needs much balancing, the US player will always have it easier so the less experienced player sould use it. The balance has to come from bigger numbers on the Russian side, Russian units have to be cheaper in a QB, if even with this your game isn't balanced just ask whoever is playing with you ti give you a 10%, 20% advantage.

 

Abrams and Javelins are fine as they are, they just spot too well on occasion (trought dense forest with no LOS for ex).

[db_zero]

I think that Abrams spotting and in general US spotting could use some fixing (also Russian spotting), but appart from that I don't think the game needs much balancing, the US player will always have it easier so the less experienced player sould use it. The balance has to come from bigger numbers on the Russian side, Russian units have to be cheaper in a QB, if even with this your game isn't balanced just ask whoever is playing with you ti give you a 10%, 20% advantage.

 

Abrams and Javelins are fine as they are, they just spot too well on occasion (trought dense forest with no LOS for ex).

I'm not sure if I would consider that broken. The M1 has very sophisticated thermal imaging that allows it to see objects through foilage and the LOS tool to my understanding is not entirely accurate as shown. There is something of a built in fudge factor.

 

The Javeling I don't know if it has thermal imaging, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did.

[Nerdwing]

Is there certain terrain/tree types that the "I cant see through this... oh wait, but I can!" is duplicatable on using the Abrams?  It may just be certain pieces of foliage that are causing the weird issue.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

The Javeling I don't know if it has thermal imaging, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did.

 

It does.  We used the Command Launch Unit (the launcher sans missile) in lieu of other optics.   It was a bit easier to use than the PAS-13s, while also not being actively strapped to a weapon system.  Also did not weigh 200 lbs like the LRAS3.  

 

I haven't gotten the impression there's some sort of magic spotting going on.  Stuff that's got ultra sensitive thermal optics tends to pick up stuff better than stuff that lacks it.  The seeing through woodlines, I just haven't seen anything that was certainly wtf lol noscope or whatever.  

[IICptMillerII]

That's the very problem with Quick Battles. Russian player must adapt and overcome to win. For US player it is generally enough to idle and wait. I can see some game balance problems here. I hope both Abrams and Javelins get fixed on next patch. No matter how realistic game is, it's no good if one cannot play it without house rules.

 

Then don't play it. Go somewhere else if you don't like the realism. I for one am sick of games claiming to be realistic and then dumbing down aspects for the sake of gameplay. That is not, and should not ever happen in CM. You want a game where ATGMs can kill hordes of Abrams and the T-90 is equal to or better? Play Wargame:Red Dragon. Luckily there will be no nerfing of the Abrams of Javelin in the game from a patch because the developers of CM strive to provide a realistic simulation. 

 

Thats the other point. Its a SIMULATION. Not a 'game.' How does gameplay even factor into a simulation? Aside from UI< controls, and eye candy, it doesn't. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Actually if you really want "fair" games, playing Ukraine vs Russia or US vs US (or RU vs RU etc) is a much better bet than expecting something to be toned down to better make the game equal.  

[Nerdwing]

How common were the AN/PAS-13's, Panzer?  I play ArmA3 with buddies and they lament that thermal imagers for rifles are available.  In a 2035 game.

 

Are they ~STRAIGHT TRIPPIN?~

[womble]

That's the very problem with Quick Battles. Russian player must adapt and overcome to win. For US player it is generally enough to idle and wait. I can see some game balance problems here. I hope both Abrams and Javelins get fixed on next patch. No matter how realistic game is, it's no good if one cannot play it without house rules.

The only "balance" in the game is points values. And those are only ever going to be rough, generalised "rules of thumb" (an Abrams isn't worth as much in a close-quarters map like urban as it would be on an open map, and an infantry squad is worth comparatively more in the same situation). Idling and waiting doesn't work on the attack.

[antaress73]

Ukraine against Russia is not very fair for the Ukrainian player if playing with realistic OOBs