Russian Representation in CMBS

[Hydaspes]

0) since BFC decided to implement trophy  (Active protection system) for m1A2 versions of the abrams,which is not implemented right now ,or wasnt back then when Black sea came out, or at the very least it wasnt done on a large scale, why don't russians have  optics for ak74m , or at least, at the very least,why dont some* russian soldiers have it. what is the argument for that

1) abrams seems to be too good tank, or maybe i should say t90 seems like a junk

(arguments like: yes america is far superior are not arguments)

only real hint i could see for that being the case (murca far superior in tanks ) ,is that t90s cost less than abrams,but how much  less,there are contradictions showing up when trying to see real numbers on the internet

optics of abrams  are far superior to the optcis of  t90s .armor is penetrated easily even by bradley from the sides (t90), both A and AM

Abrams is almost resistant to Rpg fire,based on what?

2)AT 14 kornet seems to be nerfed, yes it can destroy bradleys but thats only ifv not a tank (aiming at abrams)

3)russian artilery calling time and drones are inferior to those of america,russian player must wait longer to get info from the drones  as far as i noticed,what is that based on?

 

[Rinaldi]

Well I can just tell this thread is going to be lovely.

[A Canadian Cat]

Well it could be very interesting. Perhaps we will see some actual evidence this time around. Hey, I can hope.

So, you are claiming that the Russian gear is under modeled. Interesting. Show us the information you have that supports that. BFC do a lot of research into the capabilities of the equipment. If you show them that they have made a mistake they will fix it. They have already fixed the side amour of the T90 and the ammo used in the 30mm and reduced the armor on the M1 in various places because people pointed out it was off.

I am no expert in any of this so my only opinion is that BFC will make changes if you point out a mistake. 

So, all of you out there who think the Russian gear is getting short shrift bring on the evidence. Actual evidence please because just saying that the Russian equipment is under modeled is not an argument.

[user2]

Pesonally, I'd like to know whether m1a2 has laser warning receiver as stantard equipment IRL. Wiki says nothing about such systems on that tank. LWR is part of the shtora system which is standard T90 equipment, and is noted on the wiki.

I agree with Hydaspes, russian small arms are 20 years old in this game. AK-74M? What about new AK-12, if we are really talking about future fictional war, or new rpg-30 with an ability to bypass aps systems? Yes, they are not fielded currently in the russian army, however m25 and М829A4 are not fielded too (xm25 and М829Е4 in reality). By the way, rpg-30 is already being produced for the regular army (according to wiki). Personally, i do not care much about it. It is a game and will never be able to simulate a real modern combat.

[Hydaspes]

Well it could be very interesting. Perhaps we will see some actual evidence this time around. Hey, I can hope.

So, you are claiming that the Russian gear is under modeled. Interesting. Show us the information you have that supports that. BFC do a lot of research into the capabilities of the equipment. If you show them that they have made a mistake they will fix it. They have already fixed the side amour of the T90 and the ammo used in the 30mm and reduced the armor on the M1 in various places because people pointed out it was off.

I am no expert in any of this so my only opinion is that BFC will make changes if you point out a mistake. 

So, all of you out there who think the Russian gear is getting short shrift bring on the evidence. Actual evidence please because just saying that the Russian equipment is under modeled is not an argument.

i am also interested  why is it like this,its not a pure attack on bfc. but some things are really suspicious

 

[womble]

i am also interested  why is it like this,its not a pure attack on bfc. but some things are really suspicious

 

Suspicious, schmuspicious. Evidence, evidence, evidence.

[Hydaspes]

Suspicious, schmuspicious. Evidence, evidence, evidence.

why do we have to form 2 factions and fight. thread was fairly neutral at the start, my opinion is that russians are not quite well represented in comparison to americans,in this specific theatre (fictional) but i am also welcoming information regarding why they  are represented in this way, even if that info will make me wrong

[MikeyD]

Abrams is almost resistant to Rpg fire,based on what?

Perhaps based on the double layer of reactive armor hanging from the skirts. 

[Rinaldi]

Okay @IanL since you broke the ice...I'll put on my gaiters and wade in.

 

1) abrams seems to be too good tank, or maybe i should say t90 seems like a junk

I don't want to be 'that guy' but I'll say it: Are you trying to go hammerhead-to-hammerhead with Abrams? Then yes....you should be getting chewed up and badly. The T90AM (which I remind you, is not in service as of 2015 - so you can thank BFC for giving Russia the benefit of that doubt) is more than capable of eating Abrams up...if handled intelligently. However, since the game is set in 2017, and BFC has already taken the extraordinary step of giving T90AMs with their Relikt armor and all, we've also recieved the (currently not in service) modern sabots meant to defeat Relikt armor.

You wouldn't charge a Sherman 76 across 2km of open ground to attack a dug in Jagdpanther if you have a covered route of approach, right? So why are you doing it with T90s - excuse the assumption. The Russians have an edge on battlefield observation and tank destroyers over the US, you should be playing with your T90s close to the chest. A US player will almost inevitably lead with his M1s, you should never be putting something big and easy to spot up front first against them.

 

  ,is that t90s cost less than abrams,but how much  less,there are contradictions showing up when trying to see real numers on the internet

Why? Let's stick to the game. The QB system is the first one based on true balance - and you can usually get 2:1 to 2.5:1 advantages in material and numbers as the Russians. If the US has similar numbers to you, or God forbid outnumbers you in say, a meeting engagement, then you need to re think how you select troops.

3)russian artilery calling time and drones are inferior to those of america,russian player must wait longer to get info from the drones  as far as i noticed,what is that based on?

The Russian C2 system is not as powerful as the US, and this is the reality of training differences. Its a disadv. offset by the fact that their battlefield observation is generally on par or greater than the US's - culminating in a drone that literally cannot be engaged by the US currently. More than a fair trade off. 

I play the Russians or Ukrainians almost exclusively and have never had a rough time of giving an equal opponent a good fight. There's so many people on these forums who will legitimately scratch their heads at some of the complaints. There's plenty of legitimate criticisms one can make atm, that have been proven by forum members. For example and off the top of my head: Antarres (sorry if I misspelled) has shown the side armor of Abrams being far too durable and has even deduced why that may be. People have shown consistently that Bradley ERA blocks tend to not explode, leading a Bradley to eat round after round - that's only a few pages back on the screenshot thread; I have no doubt the Devs took notice. Stagler, who I believe is still on a vacation for being a pecker-head, and others have shown that the 152mm precision round fails to penetrate or even significantly damage Abrams with good, clean hits - another thing that is now being considered for future updates.

Sublime as well has been proving through two separate DARs that a well handled Russian force can easily pull-around an American heavy team and inflict mass losses; offensively or defensively.

 

Edited October 3, 2015 by Rinaldi

[Thewood1]

The reason there is push back on the comments is terms like this...

"murca far superior in tanks"

and

"suspicious"

You really are saying you don't understand why someone would think your posting style is a little aggressive?

[Hydaspes]

The reason there is push back on the comments is terms like this...

"murca far superior in tanks"

and

"suspicious"

You really are saying you don't understand why someone would think your posting style is a little aggressive?

i dont see it as aggressive at all, your quotes are little out of context, when you look at the whole sentence then it doesn't sound aggressive 

[Hydaspes]

Okay @IanL since you broke the ice...I'll put on my gaiters and wade in.

 

I don't want to be 'that guy' but I'll say it: Are you trying to go hammerhead-to-hammerhead with Abrams? Then yes....you should be getting chewed up and badly. The T90AM (which I remind you, is not in service as of 2015 - so you can thank BFC for giving Russia the benefit of that doubt) is more than capable of eating Abrams up...if handled intelligently. However, since the game is set in 2017, and BFC has already taken the extraordinary step of giving T90AMs with their Relikt armor and all, we've also recieved the (currently not in service) modern sabots meant to defeat Relikt armor.

You wouldn't charge a Sherman 76 across 2km of open ground to attack a dug in Jagdpanther if you have a covered route of approach, right? So why are you doing it with T90s - excuse the assumption. The Russians have an edge on battlefield observation and tank destroyers over the US, you should be playing with your T90s close to the chest. A US player will almost inevitably lead with his M1s, you should never be putting something big and easy to spot up front first against them.

 

Why? Let's stick to the game. The QB system is the first one based on true balance - and you can usually get 2:1 to 2.5:1 advantages in material and numbers as the Russians. If the US has similar numbers to you, or God forbid outnumbers you in say, a meeting engagement, then you need to re think how you select troops.

The Russian C2 system is not as powerful as the US, and this is the reality of training differences. Its a disadv. offset by the fact that their battlefield observation is generally on par or greater than the US's - culminating in a drone that literally cannot be engaged by the US currently. More than a fair trade off. 

I play the Russians or Ukrainians almost exclusively and have never had a rough time of giving an equal opponent a good fight. There's so many people on these forums who will legitimately scratch their heads at some of the complaints. There's plenty of legitimate criticisms one can make atm, that have been proven by forum members. For example and off the top of my head: Antarres (sorry if I misspelled) has shown the side armor of Abrams being far too durable and has even deduced why that may be. People have shown consistently that Bradley ERA blocks tend to not explode, leading a Bradley to eat round after round - that's only a few pages back on the screenshot thread; I have no doubt the Devs took notice. Stagler, who I believe is still on a vacation for being a pecker-head, and others have shown that the 152mm precision round fails to penetrate or even significantly damage Abrams with good, clean hits - another thing that is now being considered for future updates.

Sublime as well has been proving through two separate DARs that a well handled Russian force can easily pull-around an American heavy team and inflict mass losses; offensively or defensively.

 

ive read entire post, my points are:

t90am is 480+ , abrams i 660+, thats not 2:1, and considering 1 abrams can take out 2-3 t90s.... (yes i know,tactics,but we are talking pure balance/power)

russian Sturm AT  is a joke,a bad joke,a very very bad joke

khrizantema is i duuno,it can deal damage,but its spoting is not as good as m1a2's and its armour is a bad joke , in real battle,with trees and obstacles its not efficient enough

Russian tanks , t90 series, are just not good enough to do anything, i really duuno how would you beat a competent player who takes abrams tanks, and t90 in combination with kornet and khrizantema, is also not as good as you might think, again, against competent player. you cant just place 3-4 teams/tanks in 1 spot like in company of heroes arcade ...

and imagine 7 abrams tanks attacking 1 part of the map or flank (thats what i am doing now in one pbem battle, first turn, bmp3 and 1 squad dead already on the enemy side)

also those bugs with abrams and bradley are just helping my 'cause' , also why arent they fixed already, i hope we wont wait untill 2017 war in the ukraine breaks out between nato and russia

 

 

 

[Rinaldi]

 also why arent they fixed already

The Dev team is smaller than my pinky finger and is working on several projects at once. Next.

and imagine 7 abrams tanks attacking 1 part of the map or flank

I'm imagining delicious, open flanks. Over-concentration rarely ends well and can be easily punished by a dynamic and mobile enemy. Where you see hoplessness, others would say there's opportunity. 

yes i know,tactics,but we are talking pure balance/power)

This is preposterous as an argument, to discount this. By your math, which I just checked is correct, a Company of Abrams costs 1.5x the cost of a Company of T90s. Lets say we're playing an 8500 point meeting engagement, that leaves the Russian player with almost 4000 points to play with. The US player, by contrast, is over budget already. The Russians can put a larger, powerful all-arms force in the field for cheaper. This is the literal definition of balance. If the US Player wants a balanced force, he might have to settle for a Platoon of Abrams.

 

Now we have 4 tanks against 9; more than a surmountable obstacle for the Russian forces. Your argument simply boils down to "Well I cannot take them on one to one" - Splendid, the dev team did their job then. Here's food for thought: Has it occurred to you that you can win a tactical victory while incurring slightly more losses than your opponent in certain sectors? The game is, after all, a tactical-level simulator.

I'm not discounting your concerns in a general sense, they're valid, I've even gone out of my way to show you actual, legitimate issues people have been able to find with the US forces - and have backed it up with reproduce able results. I just don't think your particular issues really deserve the dev team's attentions, sorry. They're not legitimate to me. Sounds to me you just have a fundamental disagreement with the design philosophy of the game; and I don't doubt BFC's research on the capabilities of the AFVs in game in the slightest.

 

Edited October 3, 2015 by Rinaldi

[Hydaspes]

The Dev team is smaller than my pinky finger and is working on several projects at once. Next.

I'm imagining delicious, open flanks. Over-concentration rarely ends well and can be easily punished by a dynamic and mobile enemy. Where you see hoplessness, others would say there's opportunity. 

This is preposterous as an argument, to discount this. By your math, which I just checked is correct, a Company of Abrams costs 1.5x the cost of a Company of T90s. Lets say we're playing an 8500 point meeting engagement, that leaves the Russian player with almost 4000 points to play with. The US player, by contrast, is over budget already. The Russians can put a larger, powerful all-arms force in the field for cheaper. This is the literal definition of balance. If the US Player wants a balanced force, he might have to settle for a Platoon of Abrams.

 

Now we have 4 tanks against 9; more than a surmountable obstacle for the Russian forces. Your argument simply boils down to "Well I cannot take them on one to one" - Splendid, the dev team did their job then. Here's food for thought: Has it occurred to you that you can win a tactical victory while incurring slightly more losses than your opponent in certain sectors? The game is, after all, a tactical-level simulator.

I'm not discounting your concerns in a general sense, they're valid, I've even gone out of my way to show you actual, legitimate issues people have been able to find with the US forces - and have backed it up with reproduce able results. I just don't think your particular issues really deserve the dev team's attentions, sorry. They're not legitimate to me.

 

send 9 t90s vs 5 abrams, even outflank them 1 turn(abrams will turn around in 3 seconds and insta rape t90), they will all die, ofcourse unless they are elite +2 fanatic , but then they are 5% more expensive than abrams veterans so it ll be 5v5 at best,and elite skill is helping 0% when it comes to armour,been testing many times

 

concentration of forces during attack (mobile tanks) is a valid tactic btw, just pwned some poor russians this turn (pbem) that way , hit and retreat. and if he had some t90s in my line of sight,they would be dead by now

 

edit: my point: optics,armour of abrams are just far too superior,and their cost is nothing serious,specially if u are attacker and u are doing pincer or thrust movement (usually on the flanks)

 

edit2: i forgot to say, yes  the fact that they are not a large team is not making me happier when it comes down to bugs. even u  said, they are working on multilple projects while not fixing previous ones, its just how it is, i dont wana aplaud someone who doesnt fix bugs and work on new games

 

Edited October 3, 2015 by Hydaspes

[Aurelius]

I did my mini version of Thunder Run against Hydaspes. 4 Abrams against at least 6 Kornets teams, there were some Saxhorns in the mix. They were firing from different angles on my Abrams. The only real damage to my babies was a knocked out main gun on one of the Abrams. All those "arguments" about tactics and open flanks kinda fall down when you see an AT 14 slam itself into Abrams and then a 120 mm shell explodes above the ATGM team. These are not Iraqis, I shouldn't be able to parade my tanks against an enemy that is technologically superior to Iraq.

[MikeyD]

Funny how you two have experiences in the game that nobody else has. Sounds like you two have an axe to grind.

Edited October 3, 2015 by MikeyD

[Aurelius]

Yeah cause I hate BF so much that I have all CMx2 titles. Yeah, let me dig up my tomahawk. Prepare the grindstone!

[A Canadian Cat]

So, still waiting for some kind of evidence.  Where are the weapons specs that say such and such can penetrate x amount of armour and the corresponding specs where such and such vehicle has y amount of armour and the following tests from the game that show things are wrong.  If  you cannot produce that they you cannot complain about the representation of equipment in the game. 

It is that simple.

[shift8]

There is nothing wrong with the Russian representation in this game, in fact it is one of the most accurate ever done. If ANYTHING, the Russians have received more buffs to make them balanced than the Americans have. 

What you do not understand is that not being the Iraqi Army does not mean you are in a competitive position. The Iraqi's had EVERY conceivable disadvantage, not just technological. They were out gunned, under trained, had poor tactics, suffered from operational problems, and lacked air cover. The Russian Army is certainly better, but "better" does not equate to "good enough"

There is a myth going around with grognards right now that the Russians are some kind of forgotten phantom that is overly disparaged, and that in reality their army is some kind of wonder-wagon that will defeat the over confident Americans with their expensive weapons. This is a load of dung. Since their collapse, the Russian Military has been in disarray, and despite attempts to modernize, has largely not succeeded. 

Lets focus on that tanks shall we?

The most modern Russian Ammo usable by the T-72B3 is the 3BM46 round. Funding shortages and technical limitations have kept newer rounds from entering service. This round in from 1991. The T-72B3 is protected by kontakt 5, which does not cover the entire frontal quadrant. None of the tanks currently in service in any numbers are capable of fitting the Relikt in game that is fitted to the T-90AM. It is one of the reasons the Russians want to upgrade their fleet eventually to the AM standard. M-829A2 was designed specifically to defeat K5, and M829A3 was a further improvement of that. M829E4, which is supposed to entire service this year or next IIRC, is specifically designed to defeat relikt, which, as I stated before isn't even in service yet. The M1A2 SEPv2 in game IS in service right now. 

The T-72B3 is a utterly inferior vehicle to the M1A2 SEPv2 if faces in CMBS. It is the Same IRL. 

If this fight were to happen right now, the US Army could field equal if not superior numbers of greatly superior tanks. The T-72B3's sabot ammunition is only capable of 650mm of penetration dead on at 2km. The M1A2SEPv2 has between 650-960mm armor. There are weak points of lesser thickness, and this is modeled in game. The T-90 and 72 in game can penetrate the lower hull of the Abrams in certain places when the range is low enough. They have a difficult time with the Glacis or Turret at any practical range. The M829A3 in service right this very second has estimated penetration abilities of 800-960mm at around 2km. The T-72B3 has its thickness armor on its turret when K5 in included, at around 750mm. Its Glacis is about 690mm w/K5. There are lots of places on both the T-90 and T-72B3 that are not protected by K5, and have as little as 500-300mm of armor underneath. In short, your T-72B's and T-90s are mince meat kinematically. In game, the Americans are using M829E4 to offset the also not yet currently in use T-90AM. Estimates on above values vary, but CMBS is in line the the Majority of the estimates available. 

Top this off with the fact that the 2nd Gen FLIR in the SEPv2, as well as its other subsystems are of a higher level of quality and technology than their Russian counterparts, and you get what you see in game. The Abrams see's first, shoots first, and is more survivable. War is a rich mans game, and America has had alot more money to spend over the last 25 years. 

 

Dont like this? Tough. This game is not about balance. If you do what Rinaldi suggested you might have a chance against a average opponent. If not, tough luck. 

[Thewood1]

i dont see it as aggressive at all, your quotes are little out of context, when you look at the whole sentence then it doesn't sound aggressive 

And yet a few people have issues with it obviously...you can keep talking smack, but don't be surprised when your comments are called out.

[Hydaspes]

And yet a few people have issues with it obviously...you can keep talking smack, but don't be surprised when your comments are called out.

when taken out of context intentionally yes

[VladimirTarasov]

The only issue I really see in the game when it comes to unfair unbalance is not the simulation of thermals and optics, But it appears Russian and Ukrainian vehicles have trouble spotting like there is a certain delay for them to start seeing. Armor is simulated well minus one incident I had where 2 T-90AMs were penetrated in a line from the front hull. Plus the M1A2s all are equipped withe ERA on the turret side which they should have put ones without them. And also the side of the Abrams is more thick then it should be. That is my only issue, Everything else seems fine. The delay is present on all RU and UA vehicles, I am wondering how they simulate spotting? 

And quite true on infantry optics, In 2017 most units especially front line units will have optics of atleast 2X magnification. Squad leaders with 4X, If BF needs some info I can gladly provide sources, I have some friends in the Russian army and their units have weapon sights and are fully equipped with radios. Also another thing that would be great is if they could make the troops peak around corners of walls and shoot, Or rest the weapons on stuff in buildings or wherever they can to get more accurate fire down range. 

[Sublime]

Ive regularly killed Abrams with AT14s and AT13s which have an exceptionally low setup time in buildings.

T90s handle abrams very well setup in ambush positions.

Ive gone over this over and over not even going to bother but also the Khriz is very effective in game. Ive gotten dozens of abrams and bradley kills with all the weapons systems listed above and rpg7s, 26s, etc.

Also you.re wrong, the XM25 has been fielded and used in Afghanistan, actually quite extensively and considering we.ve basically left Afghan that means this was a few years ago, same with 302. Show me actual proof of combat evidence with rpg30s or the Ak12s.

Russia isnt nerfed the T90 is about a 20 yr old weapon that has been upgraded to the AM which the Russian military hasnt adopted, BFC gave them the benefit of the doubt actually. The m1A2 has been continously upgraded and also the version in game is in active service.

Yes its harder to play as Russians and some issues that would help them in real life dont exist in game. However they are not nerfed, rather I think most players cases of hard times playing as Russians is due to lack of player skill and experience. If you do as I did and decide to insist on playing as Russians in every pbem you play in a few weeks or months , depending on the person, you.ll find yourself to begin winning against the US or at least giving them a severe bloody nose.  The US side is just more forgiving to new or lousy players.

 Also I love how everyone constantly claims the Russians are nerfed but noone mentions the Ukrainian forces at all or brings them up.

Myself, Antaress, Stagler, Rinaldi, and several others who have a good amount of experience playing the Russians do win as them and dont feel theyre nerfed at all. GAZ NZ plays Russians more often than not and is at the top of a couple of notable ladders

Finally it should be noted in qbs the force ratios on assaults make a defense near impossible to win as defender. Attacks very hard,much more so than the ww2 titles. I play probes because you still have the attack defend element of realism without a force ratio that gives the attacker so many extra points as to make the defenders job almost impossible

 

If you.d like a demo I.ll gladly kick your      @$$ as Russians and you get Americans in a probe. Ill either attack or defend. If I dont win I guarantee Ill give you such a bloosy nose thatbif it happened in real life it.d be one of the biggest tactical pyrrhic victories in US history and would have the country and military in an uproar.

Edited October 3, 2015 by Sublime

[A Canadian Cat]

. Also another thing that would be great is if they could make the troops peak around corners of walls and shoot, 

oh yes, that would be nice. That is an offen asked for feature probably number four on my list. 

[VladimirTarasov]

Sublime, T-90A is not 20 years old it entered service in 2005, It is based off of a better model of the original T-90. Funny to say the M1A2 is a new tank, they are also majority wise upgraded tanks, But they are effective upgrades with whole new armor packages and sensors, Which is essentially what a T-90AM would be, If we are speaking about 2005 model tanks being upgraded, There is also chances that there will be new builds instead of just upgrades. If you ask me I think the old T-90s will be upgraded to T-90AM standards and new T-90AMs will be built. MoD already said they were going to upgrade T-90s to T-90AM. And the technology made from the design of the T-14 will be put into it such as the new thermal sights, The new cannon to fit the T-90AM style layout. If these were simulated in game it would be a huge advantage for the T-90AM.