Ukrainian T-80s for future expansion

[danzig5]

It seems Ukraine has refurbished some of their old T-80s with hopefully more to come. Future expansions now have an even better excuse for some sweet, sweet T-80bv action in a future expansion. I know this is only a handful of them, but more T-80 is good. Also Russian T-80s should be in the future too. T-80.

 

[John Kettler]

danzig5,

 

They sure look great, though I haven't a clue as to why T-64s are unsuitable for VDV but T-80s are? Is it they can't heat their food readily on the former, whereas gas turbine exhaust is just the ticket for quickly heating (durably sealed) things. Brother George, now retired but formerly of the 2/11 ACR in the strategic Fulda Gap, FRG, during the Cold War, told me of how in a convoy move he was in,  and despite warning signs, a Mercedes Benz got too close to the rear of an Abrams. So great was the exhaust gas heat it took the paint off the car's hood! Would think the gas turbine on a T-80 would make it very exciting to follow that tank as infantry. The Panzer division phrase sure was a shocker, but then it cracked me up.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited July 25, 2015 by John Kettler

[IICptMillerII]

I too would really like to see the T-80 series of tanks in a CM game, but I think it would be better suited in another CM game. The reason is because the Ukrainians do not appear to have that many of them right now and the Russians are phasing them out completely. I would rather see the T-80 series in a game based during a time frame where the T-80 was in its prime, an example of this being the 1980's. There were a lot of T-80 variants during this time, the most fearsome being the T-80U. That said I would not be the least bit disappointed if a T-80 series tank showed up in an upcoming CMBS module/expansion.

[MikeyD]

Those rebuilds are pretty nearly the equivalent of those complete WWII restoration jobs we see on the internet. I hadn't seen pict of a T80 in Ukraine that wasn't a half-dismantled derelict. its a heroic feat to get them back into fighting condition.

Edited July 26, 2015 by MikeyD

[LukeFF]

I too would really like to see the T-80 series of tanks in a CM game, but I think it would be better suited in another CM game. The reason is because the Ukrainians do not appear to have that many of them right now and the Russians are phasing them out completely. I would rather see the T-80 series in a game based during a time frame where the T-80 was in its prime, an example of this being the 1980's. There were a lot of T-80 variants during this time, the most fearsome being the T-80U. That said I would not be the least bit disappointed if a T-80 series tank showed up in an upcoming CMBS module/expansion.

 

One could say something similar about the BM Oplot but yet, here we have it.

Edited July 25, 2015 by LukeFF

[danzig5]

Honestly the Ukrainians don't have that many options for tanks to be added, most of the most logical ones are already present. However the T-80 is just far too cool to be ignored. I also think it would be pretty boss of Ukraine had some US lend lease panzers, like some of the old M1a1s we have warehoused. But such an option is even further fetched than adding t-80 in a new module. Although if its a future where we are willing to go to war over Ukraine, we might conceivable have provided them with more serious hardware, who's to say.

[LukeFF]

I also think it would be pretty boss of Ukraine had some US lend lease panzers, like some of the old M1a1s we have warehoused. But such an option is even further fetched than adding t-80 in a new module. Although if its a future where we are willing to go to war over Ukraine, we might conceivable have provided them with more serious hardware, who's to say.

 

Meh, no thanks. The T-80 would be far more plausible, in large part because those T-80s just refurbished are being sent into combat. Ukraine's supply of capable tanks is the least of its worries. 

Edited July 26, 2015 by LukeFF

[IICptMillerII]

One could say something similar about the BM Oplot but yet, here we have it.

 

Thats a good point. I do wish that the T-80 series were part of the base game for the Russians, simply because I think they would be a lot of fun to play around with, but I know why they were omitted from the game.

 

Still though, this could provide some content for a future vehicles expansion for BS. I think there are a lot of possibilities with such an expansion. I can't wait to see whats next for BS, and hopefully the T-80 makes an appearance along the way.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

In terms of realism the lend-lease Abrams is the least likely.  If we got into arming the Ukrainians in a serious way it'd be something like Polish T-72s with upgrades or someone's Leo 2A4s from storage.  The not-export M1A1s still have armor that is a pretty closely held secret in terms of actual composition, we didn't even trust the Australians with it which is saying something.

[MikeyD]

If they got Abrams at all they'd no doubt be mothballed M1a1s brought up to Egyptian standard (Remember Russian got their M1A1 example straight off an Egyptian loading dock!). Still, I don't see that happening. Its easier to ship 'em anti-tank missiles and artillery shells, play a little asymmetric warfare.

[Red Rage]

In game terms, T-80 will perform exactly the same as T-64... 

 

Those rebuilds are pretty nearly the equivalent of those complete WWII restoration jobs we see on the internet. I hadn't seen pict of a T80 in Ukraine that wasn't a half-dismantled derelict. its a heroic feat to get them back into fighting condition.

 

 

Can pick one up for about ~50-100k USD, straight from ATO Ships from Odessa. Quality or operational condition of combat modules is not guaranteed. For an additional 15k or a 10-year-old Lexus they'll throw in a crew from the latest mobilization raid on Kiev university. 

 

On a serious note, how will T-80 differ from T-64 in gameplay terms? Slightly better target acquisition and accuracy due to a better ballistics computer? Everything in this game is one shot one kill, so armor differences are kind of irrelevant. Gun's the same. 

[DreDay]

On a serious note, how will T-80 differ from T-64 in gameplay terms? Slightly better target acquisition and accuracy due to a better ballistics computer? Everything in this game is one shot one kill, so armor differences are kind of irrelevant. Gun's the same.

Yep, that is an excellent point and precisely what I was thinking as well. T-80BVs (whether Russian or Ukrainian) have very few tangible advantages compared to T-64BVs. Yes, their FC system is slightly better, and their gas-turbine engines are quite a bit more powerful... but this would have minimal impact in game terms. Don't get me wrong, I would still love to see them; but their impact on gameplay would be marginal at best.

[Red Rage]

We need rudimentary engine management system and fuel consumption accentuate the  T-80

 

How cool would it be to run out of fuel in a 2 hour match? Could add several settings for how the vehicle behaves on rough ground and how much octane it burns through - i.e., engines off (with a slight chance of not restarting), economy, regular, and performance. Performance being fast even through forest, without any zigzagging, but with crazy fuel consumption and a chance to throw a track playing in the rough). Kind of weird that BF never paid any attention to engines, while meticulously recreating armor and gun values; gas turbine, diesel, 1000hp, 1500hp, torque-ness, reliability,  practical road speeds - it never seemed to really matter. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

How cool would it be to run out of fuel in a 2 hour match? Could add several settings for how the vehicle behaves on rough ground and how much octane it burns through - i.e., engines off (with a slight chance of not restarting), economy, regular, and performance. Performance being fast even through forest, without any zigzagging, but with crazy fuel consumption and a chance to throw a track playing in the rough). Kind of weird that BF never paid any attention to engines, while meticulously recreating armor and gun values; gas turbine, diesel, 1000hp, 1500hp, torque-ness, reliability,  practical road speeds - it never seemed to really matter. 

 

Tanks running out of gas is an operational-strategic sort of event that doesn't fit in with a tactical game.  You don't drive a tank like it's a car, to the 5% remaining in the tank and then find a service station, most logistics planning is built around refueling well before two hours remaining fuel is even a factor.  In practice we tried to top off well before getting to 50%, and any long movement has some sort of fueling plan.  This is done precisely for the reason that you don't want to get into a two hour firefight and have to start thinking about fuel.

 

In that regard, assuming a semi-functional logistics element, and available fuel from it, the length of battle for most CMBS games is simply too short for fuel consumption to be a factor worth modeling.  

Also just cause'

 

1. Gas turbines are actually pretty efficient vs diesels when you're working them at high speeds/heavy workloads.  The trade off is they're MUCH less efficient at idle or slow speeds.

2. The average tank speed in a fight is something like 10 MPH.  The faster you go, the less likely it is you'll see someone before he shoots you, and no matter how fast your tank is, it cannot outrun a shell.  Good speed is still very helpful when moving from cover to cover in terrain that supports that, but tanks blasting across the battlefield at 45 KPH or whatever just doesn't happen.  

 

3. Thrown tracks, from my understanding are part of what drives tanks that become immobilized in CMBS not as a result of enemy action.    

[MikeyD]

I vaguely recall the last Ukrainian counteroffensive below Mariupol before the 'cease fire'  took effect was highly constrained by the non-delivery of fuel to keep the advance going. Word was that the front line units were more than a bit miffed at the higher ups for not bringing up sufficient fuel to complete the offensive. I hope I haven't entirely bolluxed-up that story, working off nothing but half-forgotten recollections of other peoples conversations.

[DreDay]

I vaguely recall the last Ukrainian counteroffensive below Mariupol before the 'cease fire'  took effect was highly constrained by the non-delivery of fuel to keep the advance going. Word was that the front line units were more than a bit miffed at the higher ups for not bringing up sufficient fuel to complete the offensive. I hope I haven't entirely bolluxed-up that story, working off nothing but half-forgotten recollections of other peoples conversations.

 

I am not sure about that one Mike. The winter Mariupol offensive by Ukrainian forces had a pretty limited scale and scope. It was mostly executed by Azov batallion with some armored support from ZSU T-64BMs. It had stalled around the village of Shyrokyne which is only 25km away from Mariupol, so I don't think that fuel shortage was a big issue there.

[Haiduk]

They sure look great, though I haven't a clue as to why T-64s are unsuitable for VDV but T-80s are?

 

Main reason why T-80BV gave to airmobile units its hight speed of this tanks, which much more then T-64 and T-72. Paratrooper units must be high-mobile on marches and during raids, so according this was decided to give a tank company of T-80BV for each brigade. 

[John Kettler]

panzersaurkrautwerfer,

 

Not exactly. There are several accounts of battles in the Western Desert during which tanks were rotated in and out of the firing line in order to refuel and remunition. This was done at the tactical, not the operational-strategic, level. For example, a tank company might have two platoons on line and the other off tending to fuel, ammo and quick repairs, not to mention tea. When it returned, the next one left. This sustains combat power in battle rather than abruptly removing great chunks of it via fighting the unit down to combat ineffectiveness. I defer to your knowledge of how the US handles such things now, but felt I should point out at least one other approach to combat sustainment while in combat was, in fact, mooted and used. Also, if you read Carius's Tigers in the Mud, he talks about doing the same thing even within his platoon. Such was the combat power of the Tiger 1.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited August 8, 2015 by John Kettler

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

Not exactly. There are several accounts of battles in the Western Desert during which tanks were rotated in and out of the firing line in order to refuel and remunition. This was done at the tactical, not the operational-strategic, level. For example, a tank company might have two platoons on line and the other off tending to fuel, ammo and quick repairs, not to mention tea. When it returned, the next one left. This sustains combat power in battle rather than abruptly removing great chunks of it via fighting the unit down to combat ineffectiveness. I defer to your knowledge of how the US handles such things now, but felt I should point out at least one other approach to combat sustainment while in combat was, in fact, mooted and used. Also, if you read Carius's Tigers in the Mud, he talks about doing the same thing even within his platoon. Such was the combat power of the Tiger 1.

 

Generally at the Company level we had fuel available, although the format might vary*.  The intent was that if we did reach a certain level of fuel exhaustion we would conduct some sort of resupply (mission depending of course).

With that said however, the rate at which we depleted fuel is well outside the length, and operational range of your average Combat Mission sized fight.  

 

Which is to say, having tanks puttering to a stop because they're out of fuel mid-mission is equally akin to soldiers suffering from hunger or starvation effects, or failing to model vehicles arriving to the fight with non-combat induced mechanical faults.  It's a factor in planning or in a lot of "higher" thinking, but in a game that rarely covers more than a few square KM, and takes up on average somewhere around 45-120 minutes of "combat" it's a bit absurd to include fuel exhaustion because of simply how acute the lack of fuel would need to be for that formation to not be able to operate within those limited confines.  

 

 

*On the attack, we'd have a fueler+PLS with partial basic load ammunition resupply, and those elements would remain with the Company trains, being called forward once a location was sufficiently clear.  Resupply generally operated as a "service station" with the supplying assets parked and tanks basically resupplying from trucks as needed (generally fuel, ammo, water and food from the Company internal supply asset), or "tail gate" with tanks parked in a security position, with the resupply asset making a stop off at each parked tank to complete supply upload.  "Fresh" fuelers and ammo carriers would come forward with each logpac to allow the previous element to reload.

 

Sometimes the assets would be concentrated into mega service stations, or especially for defensive type operations the resupply asset would "visit" but once the refueling/ammo upload was complete it would return straight to the rear.  

 

This is pretty out of sight out of mind for a "tactical" type game simply because it's not something that occurs within 2-3 KM of the FEBA.  Generally you have a lead element that'll serve as spearhead, and once it needs to stop for more gas you'll have a following element assume the spearhead to allow the previous lead element to stop off for more fuel, without stopping the advance.

 

Which is to again, say that to run out of fuel at the CMBS level is "realistic" in the sense that it historically has occurred to poorly prepared/supplied units, but is such an acute failure as to include chances of radio batteries being depleted and the unit having none to replace them, or tanks throwing track because they're using high milage worn out tracks.  They're things that certainly happen, but the mitigation for said events is well above the player's level in game, and it's best to simply assume everyone's supply chain is working reasonably well enough to allow for non-combat ineffective levels of supply.  

[Sublime]

Not to mention but when it first came up and the guy was like imagine how cool it.d be to have your tanks run out of fuel in mid battle my first thought was "that doesnt sound fun AT ALL"

imo.

Also Kettler that was Ww2 70 odd years ago. I dont think anecdotes of tank on tank combat from WW2 are that relevant especially tactically toa game in 2017. Of course some operational strategic and tacticla dictums will always remain true but those are more akin to adages (beware the hun in the sun, Sun Tzu, etc) than whether we rotate armor units for resupply in 2 hour max battles.

And if you want peoples supply lines cut give troops poor fitness ratings. You.re SOL on tanks unless you.re making a scenario then immobilize em. and give the troops lower fitness ratings.

Edited August 8, 2015 by Sublime

[MikeyD]

By coincidence I just reread (old book, bathroom reading ) that in 1994 Swedish trials for Leopard 2 and M1A2 Abrams showed that Abrams only got half the mileage of the German tank. Burning 14.78 liters per km compared to 7 liters per km for Leopard 2. Those numbers from averaging-out almost 4000km worth of testing. The Pentagon was very reluctant to introduce Abrams into Afghanistan. Fuel tankers were prime targets on that long supply corridor threading its way through Pakistan and over the mountains and Abrams is a thirsty beast.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Re: MikeyD

That's actually not at all why the Abrams did not go to Afghanistan.  You'll note the ABV, and the single Company the USMC took to Afghanistan operated with no significant hangups.  It's also worth noting that the amount of fuel brought into Afghanistan is already a vast never ending chain of fuelers (as uh, look at the sheer number of rotary wing assets and fixed wing going in and out of country).  Sending even a Battalion sized element of Abrams wouldn't have challenged the logistical train too much more.

 

On the other hand, the primary US Army AOs are in the least  vehicle (let alone tank!) friendly places in the country, and the Taliban's MO rarely involves standing in one place long enough for the "Cavalry" to arrive, or picking fights with strong US elements.

 

Marines took the Abrams in the south were it was little more traditionally desert, and they were conducting operations against a subset of Taliban that was trying to physically maintain a hold on some urban centers.  They operated them until it became apparent from my understanding that the Taliban just opted to stay in "just an innocent farmer!" mode when tanks were about.  ABVs proved much more useful, and also did not tax the logistical net to the breaking point.   

[Sublime]

Ive seen combat footage of Afghanistan where Abrams were being used to fire on targets.  I believe they were Marines too as Pz pointed out and obviously he'd know better than I about who had them over there.