Russians Underpowered, US Overpowered in CMBS?

[exsonic01]

39 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Plus laser warning receiver and AMP round. The in-game Abrams is functionally an SEP v4 minus the Gen III FLIR and maybe the upgraded armor. It's scheduled for 2021 or thereabouts 

http://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2017_global_defense_security_army_news_industry/u.s._army_will_begin_the_development_of_m1a2_abrams_sep_v4_main_battle_tank_11302171.html

I don't have an issue with it being in the game, I just wish the real SEP v2 was also present.

 

BF decided to bring hypothetically upgraded SEP v2, based on the assumption that this is all-out, full scale war, and each side bring "the best" in their arsenal. So BF made an assumption that US upgraded SEP v2, such as LWR and Trophy, before sent to battle field. Same goes to Russia (ex: significant number of T-90AM tanks), and Ukraine (ex: significant number of Oplot tanks). At first I was the same like you, but I'm convinced, and now I understand their decision, to make the game more interesting. 

I do wish the realistic version of each side's tanks and vehicles in the next module, but I think BF will try to keep the same track, same artificial history line. It would be sad for me if they continue their "assumptions", but oh well, I can live with that.

18 hours ago, HerrTom said:

I did my own tests on spotting, which I admit I don't have a ton of data, but as Vanir said, there is a metric ton of variation.  The M1A2 definitely spots faster, but there were a couple of cases where it took significantly longer.  I haven't filtered out the outliers from this data set if there are any, but there doesn't appear to be a huge difference between the two tanks...

Who spots first shoots first though, and the M1 tended to take about 2 seconds to aim and fire compared to the T-72's 4 seconds.  Anyway, read into it what you will...

Map looks like this - flat terrain

Both tanks were Regular, Normal, +0, etc... middle of the line.

Thanks for the test, this solved some of my question to this game, break my bias to this game. Can I have this map? I wish to conduct some tests later.

[Rinaldi]

Perhaps @panzersaurkrautwerfer wasn't explicitly clear enough for y'all but making the game reflect current deployable formations and equipment would not help your quest to seek balance. If anything, it will make it worse . The M1A2 in game is only upgraded in so far that it has HEAT, AMP and ERA (which we already have shown, repeatedly, is far from 'fantastic.') whereas the Russians have been given a totally-real-we-swear tank in the form of the T90AM.

Really the only faction that stands to see a marked change in their situation would be the UA; and much for the worse.

Edited March 22, 2017 by Rinaldi

[Muzzleflash1990]

Ran the same test as HerrTom, until I got bored. Got roughly the same results for the Abrams. During the first batch with 10 runs for the Russians I noticed that the truck was attempting to evade (not that it had anywhere to go). So for the next batch (with 30 runs) I had it immobilised.

The huge variance also shows why poor 20 is not good enough and why poor c3k has to do 200. Not enough data to go on, but it seems the tail is too heavy to form a one sided normal distribution.

 

Edited March 22, 2017 by Muzzleflash1990
Added Sampled Std Dev

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Wow, that's variable.....I can see now why my test was rather meaningless from an analysis point of view, but the WTF? Factor still remains rather high IMHO.  If it counts for anything I have high confidence that this will all get straightened out in due course, I guess that's the advantage of a community like this, even if it can be a bit vociferous at times. 

[TheForwardObserver]

I can get behind a nerfed Abrams option and improved equipment options for the Russians.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I'm not sure why the T-90AM is viewed as a semi-fictional maybe-it's-real-maybe-not tank. "T-90AM" is just an outdated designation for the T-90M/T-90SM which is in production.

[HerrTom]

1 hour ago, Muzzleflash1990 said:

Ran the same test as HerrTom, until I got bored. Got roughly the same results for the Abrams. During the first batch with 10 runs for the Russians I noticed that the truck was attempting to evade (not that it had anywhere to go). So for the next batch (with 30 runs) I had it immobilised.

The huge variance also shows why poor 20 is not good enough and why poor c3k has to do 200. Not enough data to go on, but it seems the tail is too heavy to form a one sided normal distribution.

 

Beautiful data - from the standard deviations we have we can figure out roughly what number of samples we need to get particularly useful data - if we want the standard error to be 1 second that's an alarming 625 samples (from my data - from yours far far more!  Almost 2,000 ).

Another anecdotal thing I noticed in my test was that the T-72 missed pretty much all but one shot, while the M1A2 may not have missed at all.  Accuracy, man If you miss the Abrams, it won't miss you!

[Artkin]

I've heard that the oplot takes about a year to build!

[John Kettler]

Believe the debate regarding ERA equipped Abrams in CMBS can now be ended. The rotating ABCT (currently, the 3rd) in Europe began fitting its M1A2s on February 28, 2017 with ARAT, per an official US Army press release dated March 9, 2017.

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/army-unit-adds-reactive-armor-to-m1a2-abrams/ 

Regards,

John Kettler

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

6 hours ago, Sorrow_Knight said:

And what Russian hardware in game you think so "entirely fictional"? 

Ukrainian army at moment almost hasn`t anything really numerous, so some "small numbers" hardware may be in the field.

T-90AM isn't anywhere near in service.

BMP-2M isn't as far as I can tell a variant entering service.

That's just at a glance. 

Basically CMBS in 2014 or so locked down what they thought summer 2017 might have available.  Looking at the "predictive" choices, only a few of them are really "on-time" right now, while a reasonable selection of them are at least still "things" someone is building. 

But right now as is, the Russian armor line up is T-90As on the "good" side, some T-72B3s (about 2400 of those two types combined) with the remainder of Russian tanks being more primitive models.

Again a DLC that brought all the TOEs up to the ground truth of Summer 2017 would be good.  I don't think it'd change the balance too much, but it'd feel a bit more authentic, and offer a wider spectrum of capabilities for QBs at the least (and let people play out training exercises that are going on right now). 

 

1 hour ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

I'm not sure why the T-90AM is viewed as a semi-fictional maybe-it's-real-maybe-not tank. "T-90AM" is just an outdated designation for the T-90M/T-90SM which is in production.

Could you get me a source for this?  I've seen it claimed in a few places but never anywhere reputable.  I know the T-90M's capabilities are still basically in flux though so I have my doubts.

 

 

10 minutes ago, John Kettler said:

Believe the debate regarding ERA equipped Abrams in CMBS can now be ended. The rotating ABCT (currently, the 3rd) in Europe began fitting its M1A2s on February 28, 2017 with ARAT, per an official US Army press release dated March 9, 2017.

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/army-unit-adds-reactive-armor-to-m1a2-abrams/ 

Regards,

John Kettler

ARAT has been available since 2008 in one form or the other, just not often mounted.  

[exsonic01]

1 hour ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

I'm not sure why the T-90AM is viewed as a semi-fictional maybe-it's-real-maybe-not tank. "T-90AM" is just an outdated designation for the T-90M/T-90SM which is in production.

Vast majority of T-90 in Russian army is T-90A variant, and even their numbers are not that big when compared to number of T-72B3. If T-90AM issued to Russian army, than it would be not for the service, maybe for some test? But I never read any news about massive deployment of T-90AM to the Russian army..... That is why I think the introduction of T-90AM in CMBS is one of the "hypothetical upgrade" for the gaming concern. If we consider realism, T-90AM should have more rarity point than now, at least. And if BF decided to introduce T-90M in next module, they should have significant amount of rarity point. 

By the time I wrote this, @panzersaurkrautwerfer gave the better answer.

Edited March 23, 2017 by exsonic01

[Vanir Ausf B]

48 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Basically CMBS in 2014 or so locked down what they thought summer 2017 might have available.  Looking at the "predictive" choices, only a few of them are really "on-time" right now, while a reasonable selection of them are at least still "things" someone is building.  

The Indian army placed an order for 460 T-90SMs a few month ago

http://nation.com.pk/national/25-Jan-2017/india-to-deploy-massive-tank-army-along-border-with-pakistan

The T-90Ms status is a more murky. They will be upgraded T-90As rather than new-built but I don't have any timetable.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/get-ready-nato-the-secret-reason-why-russias-new-t-90m-tank-19110

[Vanir Ausf B]

49 minutes ago, exsonic01 said:

Vast majority of T-90 in Russian army is T-90A variant, and even their numbers are not that big when compared to number of T-72B3. If T-90AM issued to Russian army, than it would be not for the service, maybe for some test? But I never read any news about massive deployment of T-90AM to the Russian army..... That is why I think the introduction of T-90AM in CMBS is one of the "hypothetical upgrade" for the gaming concern. If we consider realism, T-90AM should have more rarity point than now, at least. And if BF decided to introduce T-90M in next module, they should have significant amount of rarity point. 

By the time I wrote this, @panzersaurkrautwerfer gave the better answer.

See above. The plan is to upgrade the T-90As to T-90M standard, not to build new tanks.

Edited March 23, 2017 by Vanir Ausf B

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

10 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

The Indian army placed an order for 460 T-90SMs a few month ago

http://nation.com.pk/national/25-Jan-2017/india-to-deploy-massive-tank-army-along-border-with-pakistan

The T-90Ms status is a more murky. They will be upgraded T-90As rather than new-built but I don't have any timetable.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/get-ready-nato-the-secret-reason-why-russias-new-t-90m-tank-19110

The T-90M thing is pretty trash.  Or it's on par with the declaration last year that all T-90s would be upgraded to T-90AM standard, unverified.  The T-90MS is from "An Indian Defense Official" talking to Jane's....which is pretty well into unverified and given other Indian defense reporting, about as solid as jello.

I am not discounting that both tanks might exist someday, but they're hardly good representations of Russia's armored force.  

As I stated earlier, I'd like a DLC that had US armor at "modern day" standards, with some of Russia's more common "lower tier" tanks and PCs (as the majority of Russia's armor is inferior to the T-72B3)

[John Kettler]

panzersaurkrautwerfer,

1 hour ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

ARAT has been available since 2008 in one form or the other, just not often mounted.  

I know it's been around for some time, but the issue, in terms of CMBS, was the appropriateness of having ERA equipped Abrams in the game. My point is now it's a done deal. No longer is is a matter of "The US has ERA for the Abrams and can quickly fit it if needed." LWRs are another matter entirely. If the US has them in the game, and it really shouldn't (don't know myself), then this exerts a stifling effect on Russian weapon performance, especially LBR ATGMs. 

Regards,

John Kettler

[exsonic01]

1 hour ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

See above. The plan is to upgrade the T-90As to T-90M standard, not to build new tanks.

How long it would take to upgrade the "significant number" of T-90A to T-90M? How many T-90Ms would be possible to be upgraded and sent to field divisions in 2017? I have no idea about their plan, but considering Russian economy and the cut down of Russian defense budget, I think it would not that optimistic. 

[shift8]

Regardless of the debate on who should have what tank etc. 

 

The bottom line is that there is nothing wrong with a tank that has better optics routinely out-spotting a tank with fewer less capable optics. Crew experience is not a magical force of mystical powers that can bore a hole through hard technology limits. 

Like I said before, the crew experience of the T-90AM is about as likely to equalize the optics disadvantage as the Abrams crew experience will somehow yield x-ray vision.

[TheForwardObserver]

I like new content and options.  If some of that new content happens to give the players that like to play as Russia or Ukraine for that matter a better warm and fuzzy going toe to toe against my US forces than that doesn't bother me.  If some of that new content happens to be F-35s that can't get shot down by Tunguskas, even better.

[Codename Duchess]

From my understanding the "S" in SM means export. Are there any plans to acquire the same tank for the Russians themselves? The Indian Army is not featured in CMBS. The question isn't whether the tank could be/has been built (in small numbers for the Russians if at all) it's whether it's an appropriate consideration. 

The T-90M is a more reasonable request, although there are so many "I'm serious this time, promise" upgrades for Russian tanks that it's hard to avoid skepticism. For what it's worth, I bet we see widespread distribution of T-90M while the Armata quietly goes the route of "hey look we have something brand new! T-14 is such old news!"

[Vanir Ausf B]

3 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

 

The T-90M thing is pretty trash.  Or it's on par with the declaration last year that all T-90s would be upgraded to T-90AM standard, unverified.  The T-90MS is from "An Indian Defense Official" talking to Jane's....which is pretty well into unverified and given other Indian defense reporting, about as solid as jello.

This is the Jane's article referenced, or a least the teaser they give out for free

http://www.janes.com/article/67082/india-to-deploy-newly-ordered-t-90ms-tanks-along-border-with-pakistan

Janes is a credible source in my book but if you want to remain skeptical that's your prerogative.

3 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

I am not discounting that both tanks might exist someday, but they're hardly good representations of Russia's armored force.

Agreed, but that has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. No one is asking for the near-future Abrams to be removed. I'm not sure how the T-90AM even got into the discussion except to satisfy the rule that all discussions on the Black Sea forum must turn into a political tug-of-war between the pro-NATO tribe and the pro-Russia tribe 

[Vanir Ausf B]

2 hours ago, exsonic01 said:

How long it would take to upgrade the "significant number" of T-90A to T-90M? How many T-90Ms would be possible to be upgraded and sent to field divisions in 2017? I have no idea about their plan, but considering Russian economy and the cut down of Russian defense budget, I think it would not that optimistic. 

For what it's worth I looked up the T-72B3 numbers a while back and if memory servers it averaged out to around 200 T-72s upgraded per year.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

1 hour ago, shift8 said:

Regardless of the debate on who should have what tank etc. 

 

The bottom line is that there is nothing wrong with a tank that has better optics routinely out-spotting a tank with fewer less capable optics. Crew experience is not a magical force of mystical powers that can bore a hole through hard technology limits. 

Like I said before, the crew experience of the T-90AM is about as likely to equalize the optics disadvantage as the Abrams crew experience will somehow yield x-ray vision.

I understand and do not disagree with this point right up to the moment the Abrams start shooting, at that point the experience of the T-90 crews should make a world of difference.....It's their utter lack of response that's as much a problem as anything else. 

[exsonic01]

9 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

For what it's worth I looked up the T-72B3 numbers a while back and if memory servers it averaged out to around 200 T-72s upgraded per year.

IMO upgrade of T-90M would be totally different from T-72B3's one, considering T-90M program contains new cannon, and they need to produce more Malachite NERA, it is different story from T-72B3's K-5 upgrade. And I'm still pessimistic about their financial ability. I don't have their manufacturing plan, but their defense budget faced serious cuts recently. 

Edited March 23, 2017 by exsonic01

[Vanir Ausf B]

1 hour ago, Codename Duchess said:

From my understanding the "S" in SM means export. Are there any plans to acquire the same tank for the Russians themselves? The Indian Army is not featured in CMBS. The question isn't whether the tank could be/has been built (in small numbers for the Russians if at all) it's whether it's an appropriate consideration. 

The T-90M is a more reasonable request, although there are so many "I'm serious this time, promise" upgrades for Russian tanks that it's hard to avoid skepticism. For what it's worth, I bet we see widespread distribution of T-90M while the Armata quietly goes the route of "hey look we have something brand new! T-14 is such old news!"

To the best of my knowledge the T-90M/SM/AM/MS are essentially the same tank. In other words, it's already in the game There are some options offered by the manufacturer, including a 12.7mm machine gun for the RWS and Arena APS for the export version. The interesting speculation I have seen is that the Russians may put the Afghanit APS on their domestic version. We'll see!

Edited March 23, 2017 by Vanir Ausf B

[Vanir Ausf B]

8 minutes ago, exsonic01 said:

IMO upgrade of T-90M would be totally different from T-72B3's one, considering T-90M program contains new cannon, and they need to produce more Malachite NERA, it is different story from T-72B3's K-5 upgrade. 

Then throw out a number. How much longer does it take to upgrade a T-90A to T-90M? Twice as long? That's 100 per year. Four times as long? 50 per year. Keep in mind the Indians have ordered 464 of the things new-built and I doubt they expect to wait a decade for them.

8 minutes ago, exsonic01 said:

And I'm still pessimistic about their financial ability. I don't have their manufacturing plan, but their defense budget faced serious cuts recently. 

This is the cheap option. If they can't afford this they can't afford much of anything (this 2015 article states the cost of a new-built T-90SM is 4.5 million).