A post about a pbem.opponent and Russian weapons

[Vanir Ausf B]

One realistic way to give a small nerf to US forces is set their electronic warfare level to Light, or one level higher than whatever you have the Russians on. Russian EW is very good.

[Red Rage]

One realistic way to give a small nerf to US forces is set their electronic warfare level to Light, or one level higher than whatever you have the Russians on. Russian EW is very good.

 

 

A bit of a noob question - when in QB menu, is the side with the selected EW setting on the receiving or the sending end of things? I was under the assumption that if for example the Russian side had it set to "Light", then they were the ones sending light electronic interference, but after your post I think I mixed things. 

 

Does EW affect individual spotting at all? And if yes - at what level does it become relevant enough to notice? Also, does it mess with individual systems like APS and laser detectors?

[Vanir Ausf B]

A bit of a noob question - when in QB menu, is the side with the selected EW setting on the receiving or the sending end of things?

Receiving

 

Does EW affect individual spotting at all? And if yes - at what level does it become relevant enough to notice? Also, does it mess with individual systems like APS and laser detectors?

 

There is a listing in the manual of what the EW effects and at what levels. From memory I don't think it affects those items you listed. Mostly it affects radio and satellite communications so that arty and air support call times are longer, UAVs stop working, ect.

 

Edited September 3, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[A Canadian Cat]

Zala

 

A note of clarification to my earlier comments. It is not unrealistic for the Abrams or any other tank turret to automatically slew towards an enemy unit that is lasing them, but the hull should not go with it. I am hopeful that the tactic of "lasing off" target will be implemented in some way and also bore sighting for close range engagements.

 

Plus, there should probably be a discussion about should gunners even be using the lazer at 300m ranges.  Especially if they know the other guy will just wheel around on them if the do.

[A Canadian Cat]

So it sounds like to me, you better start giving training as to the great insights you have as playing the Russians vs a American force.

 

I have some competence in playing the game but no real training in tactics - just discussions with my father and what I have learned from other players who do have training.  That includes @slysniper now too.  Much appreciated - I have a feeling I am going to get a lesson in our latest game too.

[Sublime]

kettler i know the abrams gets three smokes and bradleys from hard experience.

the house rule is because for one the us fornations come with drones attached already and the US has over a decade long proven track record with drones. I believe some Russian units come with drones certainly not all. i do just fine without them.

i never use russian drones and do fine without them anyways. Thx for the correction about drone types Vanir.

also kettler even though the russians are at a disadvantahe i feel its more a real life issue and to a lesser extent game issuue. imho its gamey to use something that cannot be fired upon. plus due to coding issues US vehicle or tripod mounted 50cals cant fire at low flying a/c or drones. also same with infantry. its a game im not losing sleep over it. though due to scathing reports ive read abt it, one provided by you John, I have no doubt the loud noise etc would get these drones ( and many US) shot down quickly from ground fire. Also add to that the US should have the avenger humvees because theyre still in service and should be in game. The avengers twin .50s should and would obliterate a drone.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Sublime

[A Canadian Cat]

Let me start by saying you might not like everything you are about read in my post.  I assure you I am not being glib or trying to offend.  If I have done a poor job of my diplomacy please be forgiving I am really just trying to help.  If this discussion can be productive and reasonable I'll stay involved and add more but if not I'll take no offense and move on to some other thread.

 

QB purchase decisions and actual unit stats/abilities have a bigger impact than all the manoeuvring in the world.

 

This I totally disagree with. Well OK maybe not totally - QBs can be a bit "he who buys the right stuff wins" I play mostly scenarios where that factor is some what mitigated. I find that using good tactics is on average more important than the actual gear you are using.  Obviously if you picked straight light infantry and you opponent has a lot of armour you are going to have a bad day.  Play scenarios - scenario designers carefully avoid choosing forces that are totally out of whack.  OK even that is a generalization cause they sometimes do that for effect.
 

is with a very strange spotting system. US gear does the edge in long-range target acquisition irl, however most engagements in CM take place under the circumstances where modern Russian gear should be good enough to do the job.

 

So, the US gear does have the advantage.  I am glad you acknowledge that.  The thing is so much of modern combat is whom ever gets the first hit wins.  What leads to getting the first hit - first to spot.  So, if you have one vehicle that can spot and acquire the target in N seconds and another that takes N+2 seconds guess which one is going to win most of those fire fights on equal footing.  It does not matter a damn if that second vehicle is better and faster than 90% of all the other vehicles on the battle field it still is not as fast as the other guy in this example.

 

So, if we really do have Russian vehicle taking minutes to spot stuff in the open the yeah we probably have a problem.  Someone can test for that and see what is up. If someone runs good tests and finds a problem it will be fixed.

 

Now back to the problem at hand: as the Russian player you need to find ways to negate that N+2 seconds disadvantage. Usually that means using the terrain to mask your approach and then get two of your assess against one of theirs (or more but it is tough enough usually to get two to one).  Then you can turn that N into N+N if there are two targets for the enemy to deal with and your N+2 guys can get a shot off.  Plus if you can get advantage from that terrain you might even do better than that.

 

This is where range comes into play because with lots of vehicles one hit is enough but against and M1 they can shrug off hits easier than anything else (not that other tanks cannot take a hit once in a while but the M1 can take more punishment more often) so as the Russian tank commander if you are only going to get one hit then it needs to kill.  That means closing to under 1000m under 800 is better.  Your T90s are just as toast if they get hit at 1500m as they are if the get hit at 800m but your chances of killing an M1 are way better at 800m than they are at 1500m or 2000m.

 

So summary, use terrain and maneuver to close to under 1000m and attack with two of your vehicles against one of theirs.

 

All is not lost at long range though the Khrizantema is actually pretty damn good at messing with M1s.  They need a good hull down position with cover and distance but their ability to fire a salvo is very handy.  In First clash my Khrizantema's scored several kills at long range.  Having some tanks in the same area as a Khrizantema can mean that you can cause all kinds of problems for M1s even at rage.
 

Or when you have a recce platoon of supposedly Ratnik-equipped infantry sitting 30m away from  T-90AM, with a full spot on several enemy vehicles, while T-90 just stands there like a monument for over a minute. Besides the point that the whole purpose of Ratnik is the the quick relaying of visualized information between units on all levels, even a WW2 infantryman would have time to run to the tank, bang his rifle butt on the hatch and start calling targets in that timeframe.

 

Right, I am not expert but some people that are have assessed the combat effectiveness of that system at a certain level.  They did that based on what evidence the could get (note I mean evidence not marketing materials).  They did the same thing for the US gear.  Both have been modelled as they believe the to work in real life. This is not an exact science but real, significant effort has been made.  Again totally outside my area of expertise so I cannot asses it personally.  So, if you think it is not correct BFC have a history of listening to new evidence or adjusting their interpretation of it when presented with a compelling case.  But I should warn you hyperbole and marketing claims do not impress them.  This can be hard but you, and everyone else, really has to separate their personal "my nation is the best" feelings from actual evidence or performance.  And before some one says "but the US gear is overly powerful" I'll just say my observation is that those with the expertise *did* put their "my nation is best" feelings on the back burner.

 

Then there are other smaller issues. Like why cannot Russian infantry  call in arty, <snip> It's not the rigid Soviet model anymore - any infantry squad with access to the net can call in targets of opportunity for support assets. Why does it take so much longer for Russian artillery to start their fire missions?

 

Another example: the assessment has been made that the US infantry really can call in support assets and the Russian infantry cannot.  This is again totally outside my area of expertise but again if the reality is different and it can be show as different you will get traction.  One thing I will add is do not mistake connection via comms to the battery as equating can call in a support mission.  If the NCO on the radio does not have the training to call and direct that support it really does not matter if he can talk to the battery commander or not.  So the assessment about who can call is not just about who has the right radio.
 

Why do Russian squads hunkered inside buildings seem to get insane casualties and suppression levels from simple 40mm US squads employ, when Ratnik gear utilizes aramid weave for actual armor pieces and shrapnel/burn resistant fabric for clothing items?

I think you are getting into "I'm frustrated and therefore every thing is broken" territory here.  I just do not see a massive difference in how well body armour protects infantry.  I have had many times where I blasted away at some building only to have the Russian's inside totally nail my guys a few moments later.  I get it you seem frustrated my simple advice is don't just call it all sucky and go further down the rabbit hole.  A huge factor in this game is you have perfect knowledge of how much damage your guys are being dealt but very little on how much punishment they are dealing back.  Just because some exchange looks lopsided does not mean it is.   Anyway if you are pissed annoyed about things then every little thing seems to go against you.  I just thing this one is just you being frustrated - please do not take offense - none is intended, we all experience that.

 

Why do Russian sections have no radios and tablets (again - standard Ratnik equipment)?

 

This I am unclear on. I see lots of Russian sections with radio coms to their platoon leader.

[Sublime]

Plenty of Russian sections have radios ans most HQs except a tiny minority down to squad leve can call in arty. You also need to remember sweeling mitary reforms take decades not 8 years and the Russ military is still having a lot of teething problems with its new way of working and waging war. And rememver the high command was mostly (even mid grade) in either the Soviet Army or immediate post Soviet Army that operated the same way. Change will take a long time especially for a huge country and.military like Russia. Germany from WW1 to 2 had the advanrage of being able to completely basically rebuild a new military from scratch, still had teething problems, and it still took about 15 years. Even under the new Russian system artillery assets are not meant to be called in by platoon commanders or even company commanders. Its a different mindset and system than US you just have to deal with it. Adapt. Also remember theres a large scale war going on around you in game, though it seems crucial to you that a whole battery of 155mm is called in NOW higher hq may not agree and there may be a unit being overrun or a juicy target spetnaz is lasing that could kill NATOs onsite oil supplies, etc etc Almost anything you could imagine. In the war we re discussing yes companies and v

battalions matter, even more so to the US public, but Russia has a long history of as in the words of US troops meeting Russians at the end of WW2 of allocating jobs to lieutenants or kapitans that would be given to NCOs in Western Armies. Russia also has a very poor historical record of on call response time to on the fly battles and artillery requests. Just food for thought. CAS needs an air controller which is why buying CAS as Russians is risky unless you wanna buy three air controllers.

I havent had your experiencss red rage. i did at first but instead of blaming the game i kept fighting human opponents and trying to figure out where i went wrong. and guess what my redfor game drastically improves over a couple mnths and now i at least win as many as i loae as Russ. and you cannot say im a biased westerner, Im 100% American, live in the US and was born to a career USAF officer on a base in then what was West Germany.

All of your evidence is anecdotal and it seems that instead of taking advice you become aggressively irritable and sarcastic. It also seems you more readily blame the game than simply admit maybe you had bad luck or need more practice bcause as of now are a poor Redfor commander.

As Ive stated endlessly no T90AM is anywhere clear the equal of an abrams.

That doesnt mean theyre useless it means abrams or a group of abrams should try to be engaged by surprise popout attacks fron cover by multiple tanks from different angles peeferably with ATGMS joining in the firefight. You also should have atgms or khriz' providing either overwatch or flank overwatch so reinforcements distracted and perhaps exposing their flanks to rush to the battle can be easily killed.

Im willing to help you but rest assured that BFC constantly improves all their games until they declare theyre 'done'. That was 3 years for BN!

If you.re willing to dispense with blaming everything on the game and western bias Ill gladly tutor you one on one otherwise all i can offee you is what everyone else gleans from my public posts.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Sublime

[hattori]

As I said before, I'm still pretty new to this game.  I'm also going back and forth on Red Thunder as I have a pretty deep interest (again, relatively new, the past couple years) in the eastern front ww2 history.

 

I'm still playing QBs, so I am aware the AI doesn't come close to matching another human.

 

That all said, I was wondering if my unit purchase would be considered a little 'gamey'.

 

First off, I'm playing as the Russians.  

 

I was annoyed with what I thought was poor unit selection by the computer, so I picked a veteran U.S. armoured rifle company to go up against.  I also gave them a uav, 3 155s, 2 platoons of 120mm mortars, and an extra javelin team.  All bradley's are ERA only, the Abram's platoon I believe are all APS.  I *think* that's a reasonable defensive force.

 

As for my force, I ended up picking and really editing the Russian tank battalion (the one with companies that feature 3 tank platoons and one rifle platoon).  As a final purchase I ended up with 2 tank companies (I have a total of 21 T90 AMs), a battery of 152, a battery of 122, 2 SU-25s, 1 Tunguska, 2 Khrizantemas, and 2 zalas.  I am VERY infantry light (the large random map is pretty open, 2 small villages, a few patches of woods here and there).  I've ditched all the BMPs and infantry that regular came with the battalion and gone with 6 scouts under the 1st company's infantry platoon, and 4 AT14 and 4 AG 30s in 2nd company's infantry platoon.  Oh yes, I picked up 1 more forward observer with the last of the points.

 

Again, it's just the AI, but 20 min in and I've destroyed half his bradleys and my only casualties are one wounded ATGM team (although I pushed my Tunguska out to rip into an infantry squad, and the last turn ended with a javelin headed straight for it, sigh, one day I will learn patience).  Considering how bad I normally am with the Russians, I'm pretty satisfied with how this started.  Used a ton more smoke to isolate a key piece of terrain, lots of scouts to get spots in that isolated area and overwhelming numbers of tanks on individual targets and area fire around them.  

 

Anyways -- I was just wondering if this force make up would be considered 'gamey' if I were to ever play another person, or also, if this is something that would only work on the AI, as a human is not going to let me meticulously go around destroying his defense one small piece at a time.

[A Canadian Cat]

Is it gamey - beats me but I would be happy with that US force.  The 3 155 batteries and the UAV could mean up to 9 burning AFV's right there - once your Tunguska is dealt with.  Making an infantry light force come to me with Javelins is not a bad place to be. 

[hattori]

Sorry, I didn't mean to ask if the U.S. force is gamey, I like that set up and is generally what I would use as an American -- it feels pretty balanced. I was curious if the near all Armour Russian force was ridiculous

[A Canadian Cat]

LOL - oops. Yeah I have no idea how I came to that conclusion reading it again it was pretty clear what you were asking.

 

I really don't know but you might find it difficult to operate in the woods or towns with out some infantry to keep an eye on your blind spots.

[Sublime]

No i wouldnt say it was gamey as Russian.. It was nuts to give even comp all APS abrams. the russians best at weapons are atgms.

That being said gamey purchases are generally things that cannot be destroyed. or using the map edge to advance. or say buy all abrams with aps nothing else. or in a ww2 title 2 crack FOs and a TRPs and naval artillery.

However the flaw in your strategy is the lightness on infantry. You *need* infantry for any force really unless you KNOW you.re only facing armor.

Seriously though play humans. playing the ai teaches you some really bad habits. first Never use the comp to select forces itll pick nonsense every time. And even the best crafted scenario with triggers still has an ai that cant area fire or truly react to you. I mean play Ai all you want but dip your toe into the pbem waters you wont want anymore single player aftee you play a human.

[John Kettler]

Sublime,

 

To advance the portion of the discussion regarding Russian drones, I believe it might be useful to show the actual airframes, relative sizes, sensor feeds, etc.

 

Pchela, for which visual coverage begins at ~12:00. Note size relative to man in frame. Model shown is Yakovlev Pchela-1T, presumably greatly improved over the one so bitterly denounced by an unidentified  Russian military source in the item I posted taken from a US analytical report. Still, pretty crude, with low res B&W TV camera only.

 

 

By contrast, here is the Zala 421-08 (starts at ~12:57). Note how tiny it is; how minuscule is its visual cross section and, by virtue of materials used and power plant, tiny RCS and thermal signatures, too. Compared to the Pchela-1T, it's tiny and practically undetectable, not to mention extremely maneuverable and fast. The sensors on this one are highly capable, hi res, full color in daylight mode. Equally, it's clear from the impressive computer displays this is a lot more than an eye in the sky. Rather, it functions in a highly integrated manner in support of the overall recon scheme. I've just sent this vid to my brother Ed, who builds and flies electric powered RC planes in every configuration (from small size aerial combat to full arm span, if not larger, twin engine birds) for comment.

 

 

Even were the Avenger in the game, I have grave doubts as to its effectiveness vs this drone, starting with the Avenger's meager target acquisition capability, coupled with tiny drone and big sky. It's either got to find it itself or engage it based on external cuing, which somehow has to find it in order to cue the Avenger! Let's just say I'm not at all confident of US ability to deal with a tiny stealth drone. The FLIR fitted is aligned to missile launcher boresight, and there is no separate hemispheric search FLIR for target acquisition.

 

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/avenger/

 

(Fair Use)

 

Targets are acquired either by using the optical sight or the Raytheon AN/VLR-1 Avenger FLIR (forward-looking infrared). The FLIR sensor is fitted to the left launch beam and is boresighted to the aiming point of the missile pod. The FLIR has three fields of view - wide, narrow and a rain mode.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited September 4, 2015 by John Kettler

[Sublime]

regardless if the russians can kill US drones then if theres a Russ drone in game the US cant kill its use IN GAME is gamey imo. And Ive seen documenraries of the avenger in action against redfor training forces and I dont know what you mean that it doesnt have good target acquisition. Plus if in real life or somehow in game you had dozens of US troops shooting M4s and 50cals at a drone... drones are A10s or SU25s I bet a single 5.56mm strike would crash a drone. So really you get everyone in a platoon with SAWs at the very minimum spraying lead at a zala I bet it.d get hit. After all to effectively spot it has to loiter and cannot take evasive action.

[John Kettler]

Sublime,

 

The Avenger is, at its core, a day only gyrostabilized system which finds its targets by Eyeball Mark 1 Mod 0 and engages them with first Stinger, then .50 high ROF .50 HMG. Accurate range was subsequently provided via installing a LRF, and night capability came from installing a FLIR, but the FLIR can only see where the Stinger launcher points. There is no overall hemispheric coverage from a separate omnidirectional FLIR system. The ability to externally cue and point the turret is all well and good, but if the AD network simply lacks the capability to "see" anything as small and low RCS as the Zala 421-08, it can't possibly cue the Avenger. Which takes us back to the core problem of finding the target by eye. I've been out to the RC flying field with my brother and watched electric RC birds of this basic design fly. They are fast and very nimble, not to mention practically invisible, especially edge on. Bear in mind, too, that the sensors are in a stabilized turret with hemispheric coverage below the craft, which means there's no need for getting close to the target at all in order to find a target and laser designate it. I'd very much like to know what targets you saw the Avenger engaging. I highly doubt it was anything like the Zala 421-08. I don't follow your bit about A-10s and Su-25s.

 

As for your notion one of these things is easy to hit with MG fire, this is actual video of one being deliberately run down a line of MGs, with very little altitude deviation, a set of ridiculously constrained operating conditions wholly unlikely IRL. Wing shooting is a special skill which takes lots of practice, and I'm not at all certain the US teaches AD gunnery for the .50 HMG anymore, either.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[Sublime]

the US does teach AD gunnery as Ive seen documentaries recently filmed where the opfor was engaged by Avengers. Mark one eyeball aside which is fine you.re forgetting thermal imaging and nvg. Perhaps the vehicle doesnt come with thermal imaging but it doesnt mean the soldiers and other equipment doesnt have it. Id also like to point out theres a difference between just zipping past something and circling it to spot hidden/camo.d troops and or target them. Especially if you have to lase them.

It of course may not hit anything either but be enough the operators fly the drone away from all the tracers they see. And you.re also assuming the US hasnt figured a way to jam drone link technology. for every new invention theres a counter invention. For example the Fritz X German guided bomb. Raised hell at Salerno and Anzio until we started jamming the radio wave. Id expect similar countermeasures.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Sublime

[antaress73]

One realistic way to give a small nerf to US forces is set their electronic warfare level to Light, or one level higher than whatever you have the Russians on. Russian EW is very good.

 

 

from everything I read on Russian electronic warfare capabilities (including from US sources).. Russian EW would have a strong effect on US forces and US EW a light effect on russian forces. That's a pretty big nerf right there.

[Bud Backer]

from everything I read on Russian electronic warfare capabilities (including from US sources).. Russian EW would have a strong effect on US forces and US EW a light effect on russian forces. That's a pretty big nerf right there.

 

 

Ok, that runs contrary to what I would have expected, given the tech disparity between Russian and US hardware. Very interesting though if it's true. Certainly would be fun to try a battle with those conditions. 

[Vanir Ausf B]

from everything I read on Russian electronic warfare capabilities (including from US sources).. Russian EW would have a strong effect on US forces and US EW a light effect on russian forces. That's a pretty big nerf right there.

 

Yep. You've probably read the same reports I have.

 

Hodges acknowledged that US troops are learning from Ukrainians about Russia's jamming capability, its ranges, types and the ways it has been employed. He has previously described the quality and sophistication of Russian electronic warfare as "eye-watering."...

 

..."Our biggest problem is we have not fought in a comms-degraded environment for decades, so we don't know how to do it," Buckhout said. "We lack not only tactics, techniques and procedures but the training to fight in a comms-degraded environment."...

 

...The US, Buckhout said, lacks a significant electronic attack capability.

 

"We have great signals intelligence, and we can listen all day long, but we can't shut them down one-tenth to the degree they can us," she said. "We are very unprotected from their attacks on our network."

 

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/warfare/2015/08/02/us-army-ukraine-russia-electronic-warfare/30913397/

[John Kettler]

Vanir Ausf B,

 

A terrific (and somewhat terrifying) article. Russia does jamming like nobody else does, as in jammers no matter where you go in terms of frequency, though I can't speak to MMW type systems, in terms of personal knowledge or anything I've read. I can say, having dealt with what we called Russian REC (RadioElectronic Combat) professionally, their capabilities are downright scary, be it versus comms (including FS delivered EXJAM (Expendable Jammers)), broad area surveillance, targeting radar, EO, weapon guidance and more. Nor is it just jamming, for large scale maskirovka measures must be considered, likewise obscuration capabilities. They also have a history of spoofing IFF, to great effect. These various things act to degrade enemy performance, increase exposure to defenses, suppress situational awareness and more. and to all of the above we now must add HPM (High Power Microwave) weaponry, which is almost certainly going to be deployed with SAM systems such as Buk. Russian jamming was already so severe that the indigenous Ukraine drone was designed to come home even if it lost the ground command link. Unsurprisingly, jammers are priority US FS targets.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited September 10, 2015 by John Kettler

[Bud Backer]

Yep. You've probably read the same reports I have.

 

Hodges acknowledged that US troops are learning from Ukrainians about Russia's jamming capability, its ranges, types and the ways it has been employed. He has previously described the quality and sophistication of Russian electronic warfare as "eye-watering."...

 

..."Our biggest problem is we have not fought in a comms-degraded environment for decades, so we don't know how to do it," Buckhout said. "We lack not only tactics, techniques and procedures but the training to fight in a comms-degraded environment."...

 

...The US, Buckhout said, lacks a significant electronic attack capability.

 

"We have great signals intelligence, and we can listen all day long, but we can't shut them down one-tenth to the degree they can us," she said. "We are very unprotected from their attacks on our network."

 

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/warfare/2015/08/02/us-army-ukraine-russia-electronic-warfare/30913397/

Thank you for the link, Vanir. This is really interesting. Certainly when it comes to occasional "house rules" for a QB, it might be very interesting to see what would the impact be for both sides.