Russian Representation in CMBS

[Vanir Ausf B]

i have a problem, i keep getting deployed at  your deployment, tried 2 times now, turned of Cmh aswell , how do i fix this?

Workaround:

When player 1 gets file 002 back from player 2 and loads the PBEM save file, whatever setup zone he is in will be the one he is in every time he loads that save so long as he does not exit the program (exiting and restarting the program will occasionally result in a different zone). However, after loading then Quiting the 002 PBEM file player 1 can switch the setup zone he will be assigned next time he loads file 002 as follows:

1) Click on Quick Battle at the main menu
2) Switch the attacker and defender services, e.g. if it is set to Waffen SS attacking and US Army defending switch it to the other way around. It doesn't seem to matter what the specific services are or if they match the ones in the PBEM, only that they are reversed from the present default. Other settings in the QB setup screen seem to be irrelevant.
3) Hit OK --> select map (any map will do) --> select attacker or defender (doesn't matter which) --> select one player turn based --> advance to unit purchase screen
4) Once you see the unit purchase screen you don't need to go any further. Hit cancel to return to the QB setup menu.
5) Go to main menu --> saved games --> load PBEM file 002
6) purchase your units and proceed to setup. When the game starts you will be in the opposite setup zone as the last time.

[Vanir Ausf B]

The Blitz Ladder QB results to date:

Medium QB

Russian victories:11

US victories:9

1 draw

Large QB

Russian victories:4

US victories:3

http://www.theblitz.org/scenarios/combat-mission-black-sea/c-quick-battle-battle-size-medium/b-15.htm?action=scenario&id=11085

http://www.theblitz.org/scenarios/combat-mission-black-sea/d-quick-battle-battle-size-large/b-15.htm?action=scenario&id=11086

 

 

Edited October 4, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[Sublime]

Anyways  pm or email me to communicate because i manually do my pbems and cannot read your h2hh chat file

[antaress73]

I buy a couple of SU-25s and have them strafe the Abrams destroying most subsystems (thanks SubIime ! ) always buy the Orlan drone to locate the tanks and strafe them. So far, by using this tactic and T-90As, the kill ratio while doing that (even head- to head) and  using smoke liberally is 16-1 for the T-90A in my latest four games (all attack or assaults).  Any questions ? The US has trouble using his air and doing the same to the russians because hey, tunguska ! Stingers are a hit and miss. I usually buy tank heavy formations (armored mechanized company, 3 platoons of tanks and 1 platoon  of infantry) and he buys a mechanized armor company (2 platoons of infantry with brads and 1 platoon of M1s). So who has the Bradley does not always win  

The biggest killer against my tanks are the Javelins and that's because I do not  buy enough artillery ( I should drop the Hinds and buy more arty)  and use smoke well enough when attacking the Bradley and infantry positions while at the same time advancing my tanks (coordination) so they get inside minimum range and blast them. You do that and the americans have a very bad day. Using fixed defensive positions is a bad idea (he now knows). Last game he played the americans more skillfully and it was a bloodbath on both sides. He's a much less experienced player because he bought the game recently and he's a close friend of mine. 

 

Buy less main force formations and more support (air and arty, drones, anti-air) and learn how to use them (combined arms) when playing the russians on the attack. They have constellation to share info between units very rapidly. Use it !

 

Edited October 7, 2015 by antaress73

[antaress73]

The Blitz Ladder QB results to date:

Medium QB

Russian victories:11

US victories:9

1 draw

Large QB

Russian victories:4

US victories:3

http://www.theblitz.org/scenarios/combat-mission-black-sea/c-quick-battle-battle-size-medium/b-15.htm?action=scenario&id=11085

http://www.theblitz.org/scenarios/combat-mission-black-sea/d-quick-battle-battle-size-large/b-15.htm?action=scenario&id=11086

 

More victories for the russians .. maybe because the more skilled players are playing the russians and the less experienced take the US ?

 

Edited October 7, 2015 by antaress73

[Sublime]

_{Yes Im sure that has something to do with it. I cant continue my DAR but I will post a couple of screens at the end. All im gonna say is one abrams was def. ko'd last turn, another almost definitely with a weapon mount partial penetration.  Hes killed my on map mortars but driven right into an ambush where all my armor is...}

[ASL Veteran]

More victories for the russians .. maybe because the more skilled players are playing the russians and the less experienced take the US ?

 

You can't make any assumptions about the reason for results on the Blitz because there are many players with a varied skill set.  Sometimes scenario results will skew one way for several games and then they will skew the other way for several games.  The only way you can determine relative player skill is to click on the players recording the results and see what each player's overall record is.  If you do that though there has to be an obvious difference such as the player playing as the Russian has thirty wins and zero losses or something and the player playing the Americans has zero wins and thirty losses.  Some games are mirrored as well so you can get two players playing against each other in the same scenario simultaneously as opposite sides.  In that instance if the same side wins in both games you can make an observation that the scenario may be unbalanced since the same side won in both instances regardless of the player, but by the same token if the same player wins as both sides then it could mean the skill level is the deciding factor.  In any event, if the overall results grade out as largely even then you can assume that the game situations grade out as largely even.  The larger the sample size the better of course.

Edited October 7, 2015 by ASL Veteran

[antaress73]

thanks for clearing that up

 

[Luka]

... into service ... by the 2017 period depicted in game.  As far as introducing AK12s and RPG30s, that is much more debatable

Its not even safe to say at the moment that the AK-12 is very likely to be the next Russian general issue (currently it is being field tested along with the A-545),  let alone whether it or another service rifle should be depicted in a not too distant 2017 scenario (especially given Russia's very large stockpiles of 74Ms).

The RPG-30 however already is in service, has been for a year or two now. Though I doubt it is as "game changing" for want of a better word as the person who raised it may be thinking, probably doesn't warrant the devs precious time (at least until they focus more improving BS once they got other priorities out of the way). Additionally it is probably more questionable as to how commonplace the RPG-30 would be by 2017 than the M25 that was raised earlier (in fact I see little reason to doubt the M25 being standard in 2017 other than an gut scepticism).

 

[MikeyD]

I recall during development testers were surprised the RPG-29 wasn't in the game, though it is in CMSF. It turned out the new big tandem warhead RPG-7 was just as capable and considerable more convenient for the troops on the ground. Basically, RPG-29 was a limited procurement weapon meant mostly to grease the wheels for foreign sales while RPG-7 remains as common as fleas on a dog's back and fires a useful variety of rocket types.

[Luka]

If the RPG-30 were to replace a weapon for the Russian forces it would be the RPG-26, both being single shot disposable launchers. The main thing about the 30 is that it was made with the aim of overcoming APS, i think it was brought up earlier by those frustrated by the Abrams APS. However its not quite the "abrams killer" and  “asymmetrical threats to the US armed forces" it was talked up to be. More importantly, there is not enough information ,that I am aware of at least, to safely induce how likely it is for the RPG-30 to become widely available and a common sight in the Russian army. Perhaps if more info were to be found a case could be made to expect the guys to put it in the game but as is I would think the devs are already being quite giving to the Russians in game (such as always giving them the RPO-M not RPO-A), though I guess they also do much greater research and perhaps i am behind on how far the modernising has got in Russia (army wise).

 

Edit: The cool thing is we don't have to wait long to see these questions answered. 2017 isn't too far away.

Edited October 8, 2015 by Luka
added content

[BTR]

2013 RPG-30 contract states 1000 units for a total of 83M RUB (2013) which is makes a unit 83K RUB (2013) or 2717USD (2015). Not a very proliferated weapon, but should be available to some high readiness units already. The 1000 Units were purchased for Southern MD and Central MD's, so it is not a stretch to say they would end up in Ukraine. 

In my eyes the Russian Army is fairly well represented with some interestingly weird unit choices like two BRDM types,one from the 60's, but no Mi-35M or Shurm-SM which are actually in service.  

[user2]

The question was not about how widely ak-12 or rpg-30 or another modern hardware  will be spread by 2017. It was about whether it will be in service by 2017 or not. Tank "Oplot" will not be widely spread for sure by 2017, but it is represented in the game. Rpg-30 is already in service. Ak-12 is already chosen as rifle for "Ratnik". "Serial deliveries and batch production of Ratnik began in the first half of 2015" (according to wiki). Someone here thinks that it is laughable to suggest that ak-12 will be availble for troops by the 2017. It seems that person has been banned by wiki.

IMO it will be much intresting to have the real armament that is present today. Without fictional LWR on abrams and breadly, t-90am, xm25, oplot mbt and other uncommon stuff. And, yes, present LWR and not present rpg-30 are "game changing". Abrams is much easier to destroy without LWR systems. Currently kornet atgm is almost useless against it: tank pops smoke and reverses.

[BTR]

Taking in account only "serviced or not" state would leave a grossly bloated equipment list.

[Thewood1]

I think the M1 has a LWS today, just not the automated reaction system.  Just an uneducated view.

[BTR]

How much of a stretch would it be to put in ERA-less US vehicles? Or is ERA something compulsory now? 

[Luka]

The question was not about how widely ak-12 or rpg-30 or another modern hardware  will be spread by 2017. It was about whether it will be in service by 2017 or not 

As  BTR said, taking into account everything "in service" would result in a large amount of equipment to include.

Someone here thinks that it is laughable to suggest that ak-12 will be availble for troops by the 2017. It seems that person has been banned by wiki.

I dont mean to say it is laughable but definitly debateable as to weahter the AK 12 will be general issue by 2017 or not. Definitly more debateable than the RPG 30 which, as I was saying. AS far as I know AK-12 has not been selected to replace the AK-74M yet and is currently still in field tests along with the A-545 (its competitor to be the next general issue Russian rifle). Even if it were to be selected over the A-545 and chosen to replace the 74M the speed at which such a transition would happen is not certain given the lage stockpiles of Ak-74Ms Russia has. Of course if you can provide any new info sources to the contrary that would be much appreciated.

[user2]

As  BTR said, taking into account everything "in service" would result in a large amount of equipment to include.

I agree. Would result not only in large amount of equipment. It would be also very debatebale topic: sometimes it is difficult to say what equipment would be in service by 2017 and what equipment wouldn't. That's why I'd like to see "in service" only equipment. Equipment, which is already it use.

I dont mean to say it is laughable but definitly debateable as to weahter the AK 12 will be general issue by 2017 or not.

I was talking about person who exactly said "laughable", not you.

AS far as I know AK-12 has not been selected to replace the AK-74M yet and is currently still in field tests along with the A-545

According to wiki 28.02.2015 ak-12 was selected for "Ratnik" system. However it is said that A-545 would also be produced.

[Luka]

 

 It would be also very debatebale topic: sometimes it is difficult to say what equipment would be in service by 2017 and what equipment wouldn't. That's why I'd like to see "in service" only equipment. Equipment, which is already it use.

You mean you'd prefer only including equipment currently in service and at least somewhat widely available not just officially in service as I misunderstood.  Personally I trust the team to make sound inductions from their research and that they are open to any new info that is picked up or bought to their attention. I understand where you're coming from, however, as indeed it is inherently doubtful as to what would be common-sight in 2017 and therefore inevitably leads to some disagreement.

[antaress73]

As has been discussed previously, Abrams side turret armor is presently set too high in the game and will hopefully get fixed in 1.04. This rarely affects PG-7VR since it wouldn't penetrate the ERA+armor anyways. It does sometimes affect AT-13 penetration and possibly 30mm APDS. AT-14, AT-15 and 125mm sabot will go through anyways. Side hull armor is accurate as are all other areas to the best of my knowledge.

 ERA on sides of Abrams turret is single layer. The PG-7VR tandem warhead would detonate the layer and penetrate the armor with the main charge if struck relatively head-on. (90 degrees) Thickest protection of ABrams SEP v.1 was 540mm against HEAT. They increased it a little on the V.2. PG-7V can penetrate 650mm behind ERA. I would put its chances of penetrating fully at roughly 40-50%, the rest would be partial penetrations or non-penetrating.  AT-13 would penetrate most of the times since its 950mm behind ERA. Presently i've NEVER seen an AT-13 penetration on the side turret and I did many tests. The side hull has a double layer of ERA negating tandem warheads (tiles over boxes) plus the skirts, some space between the skirts and then the main hull  and only the Kornet and Kryz can penetrate if they strike it at 90 degrees. And not always. They wont penetrate if they strike the ERA laterally. You see the ERA gone,  the skirt being penetrated and a HEAT jet splash on the main hull armor among the wheels.

Edited October 8, 2015 by antaress73

[John Kettler]

BTR,

Not only is the RPG-30 now in Russian service, but it's now exportable. Have no idea how I got a pic to display!

http://www.janes.com/article/50821/laad-2015-russian-bazalt-allowed-to-export-aps-defeating-rpg-30

Sputnik, which doesn't utter a syllable without authorization from Putin's people, says it entered service 2012-2013. Interestingly, it says, in a recent article, September 18, 2015, the RPG-30's not cleared for export. Maybe Putin changed his mind?

http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150918/1027179302/russia-grenade-launcher.html

 

Also, Mark Galeotti, in his 2015 Spetsnaz: Russia's Special Forces, explicitly lists the RPG-30 as a Spetsnaz weapon, along with RPG-26/27/29, depending on mission. From page 59 of http://tinyurl.com/nvztpjo

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited October 8, 2015 by John Kettler

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

,How much of a stretch would it be to put in ERA-less US vehicles? Or is ERA something compulsory now? 

It's a pretty reasonable go either way.  I haven't seen ERA armor mounted at all outside of theater, and this included Abrams and Bradleys stationed in Korea (although I did find some of the mounting equipment for the Abrams).  So in that regard its distinctly possible units might show up to the fight sans-ERA.  

On the other hand in 2010, the last time I went to Iraq all of our refurbed M1A1s and A2 series Bradleys received ERA.  And that was a much lower threat than a shooting war against a near-peer enemy state.  The limitation is not one of material, it's of desire or perceived need.  

So in that regard, mounted ERA is not at all compulsory and it wouldn't be unreasonable to see ERA-less vehicles.  On the other hand, it's equally reasonable to imagine a US military that's purchasing Trophy APS off the shelf with the government charge card is also pulling every TUSK/BUSK kit out of storage and putting them on C-17s to go to wherever the reception point is for US forces arriving in theater is.  

[BTR]

It's a pretty reasonable go either way.  I haven't seen ERA armor mounted at all outside of theater, and this included Abrams and Bradleys stationed in Korea (although I did find some of the mounting equipment for the Abrams).  So in that regard its distinctly possible units might show up to the fight sans-ERA.  

On the other hand in 2010, the last time I went to Iraq all of our refurbed M1A1s and A2 series Bradleys received ERA.  And that was a much lower threat than a shooting war against a near-peer enemy state.  The limitation is not one of material, it's of desire or perceived need.  

So in that regard, mounted ERA is not at all compulsory and it wouldn't be unreasonable to see ERA-less vehicles.  On the other hand, it's equally reasonable to imagine a US military that's purchasing Trophy APS off the shelf with the government charge card is also pulling every TUSK/BUSK kit out of storage and putting them on C-17s to go to wherever the reception point is for US forces arriving in theater is.  

If so, I think having US vehicles without ERA could be a good addition for variety purposes. One that wouldn't require a lot of modelling time either. It could really help simulate "first response" scenarios.

Not only is the RPG-30 now in Russian service, but it's now exportable. Have no idea how I got a pic to display!

John Kettler

John, I don't think the RPG-30 can be cleared for exit until its classified status is downgraded. The reason for such secrecy is the dummy round which upon its interception acts as chaff against the APS's radar. Maybe you are thinking RPG-32 which was developed solely for export? 

 

Edited October 9, 2015 by BTR
Grammar

[Vanir Ausf B]

 ERA on sides of Abrams turret is single layer. The PG-7VR tandem warhead would detonate the layer and penetrate the armor with the main charge if struck relatively head-on. (90 degrees) Thickest protection of ABrams SEP v.1 was 540mm against HEAT. They increased it a little on the V.2. PG-7V can penetrate 650mm behind ERA. I would put its chances of penetrating fully at roughly 40-50%, the rest would be partial penetrations or non-penetrating.  .

Black Sea treats listed penetration numbers as maximum possible penetration, so the average after ERA penetration for PG-7VR is less than 650mm (and also note that some sources list max after ERA penetration of only 600mm). M1A1 HA side turret armor was 510-570mm RHAe. M1A2 SEPv2 armor is speculative but 600-650mm is reasonable. Our assumption is that PG-7VR is what the SEPv2 side armor upgrades were intended to defeat and that they should do that at least most of the time.

Edited October 9, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

If so, I think having US vehicles without ERA could be a good addition for variety purposes. One that wouldn't require a lot of modelling time either. It could really help simulate "first response" scenarios.

Certainly couldn't hurt, and M1A1SAs are still used by a few of the National Guard ABCTs last time I checked.  Wouldn't hurt to have some less advanced Russian stuff too for a more varied red vs red, or more gentle RU-UKR fight.