Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Not at random at all. That's where they were last seen as part of a formation (295th MRD) back in 1990. 

Posted Images

2 hours ago, cbennett88 said:

Ahhhh...you going to have to show me some proof for that. I have been "arguing" on here for awhile that until CM:BS adds a module that brings the Israelis into the mix, all arguments about APS being realistically deployed by the vehicles in the game are worthless. Show me ANY other military that has operationally DEPLOYED APS on their combat vehicles? NOT "in testing" or "soon to be added". The US Army has been "promising" to buy a system for years...and yet we still aren't any closer than "in testing"!

Here is my proof..."The service made a decision to buy Trophy for Abrams on Sept. 29, Dean said, and now the Army is moving out to deploy the systems to Europe by 2020."

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2017/10/09/europe-bound-army-to-urgently-field-abrams-tanks-with-trophy-active-protection-system/

"...deploy the system...by 2020" ...is NOT a valid argument that the US(or any side) should have it available in the game that we have been playing for the past couple of years. It is also why  you won't ever see me "buy" APS for my vehicles during QB. I am not faulting the game designers for including it when they created the game(~2015 I think) because it probably seemed like the sort of development that the US military(and the Russians) would have recognized as needed. But people keep forgetting that military procurement is "glacially SLOW!!"

So...just like the back-n-forth on whether the Armata should be included next...until someone shows me pics of an operational unit (say company size or up) in the US military that has APS installed...I'm going to say "NO WAY!" :D

 

P.S. I double checked on the US Marine Corps b/c I know sometimes they "cut through red tape" quicker, but "no" they haven't purchased it operationally yet either.

 http://defense-update.com/20160415_army-marine-corps-want-to-test-israels-trophy-aps-again.html

 

Trophy is an off the shelf systems that was included because the US Army has a history of buying COTS type systems on fairly short notice to make up for perceived shortfalls (see MRAPS, or just how many wizzbang odd little gadgets made it to Iraq), or even pushing "green suit" programs hard and fast for same (see the 1990 M1A1HA upgrades completed in theater).  It wasn't really an unreasonable assumption made two years prior to the game's events, and as we are seeing it is both technically feasible, and within the ability of the US military to procure such a system.   Given the possible high intensity conflict with Russia on the horizon vs an abstract in the scenario, again, it's not an unreasonable leap.

There's a bunch of stuff in-game for all countries that  has yet to happen (large scale APS fielding being a big one) and stuff that likely will never happen (XM25 large scale fielding, T-90AM, Oplots, etc, etc).  

Battlefront made a fairly educated guess in where equipment might be in a few years.  It also made a few jumps to flesh out the Russians and Ukrainians, but no jumps into absurdity (T-90AM being almost absurd, but I think it was worthwhile in the same way CMBS's T-90s were). 

Armatas are a whole other beast though in having unknown capability, final configuration, fielding, etc, etc, etc.  

If I had to backseat drive the CMBS development/DLCs though:

1. On top of whatever comes along (USMC, VDV, whatever), having a "as they actually were" MTOE for the units already in the game.   This would only include equipment in service 2017 to basically let us play it out without APS, LWRs on vehicles that do not have them right now, no T-90AMs, BMP-3s, Oplots etc.  It wouldn't be absolutely effortless, but it doesn't seem to demand a lot of modeling nearly as much as a few formations assembled from existing assets, and some minor unit behavior changes.  Possibly having it as a setting in the lobby for multiplayer would be good to ensure no sneaky unit selections.

2. Including some lower capability options for all parties involved.  Like for tanks, including M1A2 SEP v2s without ERA fit (as ERA is something that totally is done, and has been done, but it's not part of the basic vehicle) and some M1A1SAs (there's a few still kicking around in the National Guard) would give some choices as far as having a narrower gap between US and RU equipment.  And on the other end of the spectrum, the Russian tank force still relies on a lot of older tanks that are more on par with the Ukrainian forces.  Same deal could be done for IFVs (non-ERA M2A3s, modernized M2A2s, etc)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kraze said:

If CMBS was "biased" and "pro-NATO" - wouldn't it have a Ukrainian tech overpowered too? :huh:

it would also have "overpowered" American stuff :D  As the recent posts have discussed, we were very conscious and careful about what we added and didn't add.  When we did add something that looked like it would happen within our timeframe, we went as close to the likely specs as we could.  Outright fantasy stuff was outright rejected.  That included a LOT of stuff on the US side.  In fact, the two biggest things we guessed wrong for in CMSF were short changing American forces:

1.  We did not think the use of drones would move into use so quickly and on such a large scale

2.  We did not think laser/GPS guided artillery would move into widespread use so quickly

In our defense, within our game's timeframe lacking both of these is still defensible, but within a year or so of our timeframe the argument for not including them is right out the window.

Something like the XM-25 was definitely a judgement call.  It had the four elements we needed to even consider it for inclusion:

  1. There was nothing about XM-25 that precluded it's mass production from a technical standpoint
  2. We knew the technical capabilities of the XM-25 to a reasonable degree
  3. A high level decision existed which indicated the XM-25 would be purchased in large quantity
  4. Production could happen fast enough to produce and field enough to be worthy of inclusion

Now, the fact that the military stalled the process does not mean we were wrong.  It means the coin landed the opposite way on the Pentagon's floor than it did ours.  Why?  Probably cost vs. perceived value.  But it could simply have been a 4 star general woke up on the wrong side of the bed with the wrong lobbyist on the other side for all I know :D  The point is that a logical case isn't the same as an infallible case.  An illogical case pretty much is.  Which is why we stick very hard to logical cases.

On the other hand, we ABSOLUTELY had lower thresholds for excluding stuff when we looked at Syria, Ukraine, and even Russia.  While we refused to put in anything that was wildly speculative, we did say "oh, what the Hell" on a few things.  Opolot and T-90AM were two of the most well known.  The reason for BIAS towards Syria, Russia, and Ukraine is that the BIAS made the game a little bit more interesting than it would otherwise be.  Having yet another whiz-bang thing stuck to an Abrams wouldn't have the same positive impact on the game. 

We've been defending our decision making process for this or that near-future weapon since CMSF's early days.  We're used to it :)  Sometimes we get it wrong and people can rightly say "dude, you got it wrong".  We accept that.  However, not once has anybody successfully argued that we've biased the game in favor of US/NATO forces with our decision making.  In fact, a solid case can be made that we've biased in favor of the non US/NATO forces.  Especially since I've admitted we did that a few times :D

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Here you go:

Bahahaha!! You did read the whole article didn't you?? ;)

Look...

"The project was abandoned by the Army, but completed by the Soviet Naval Infantry to increase protection for about 250 older T-55 tanks in 1981–82 "

Last time I checked...there are NETHER T-55s or Russian Naval Infantry in this game...not to mention that the game isn't called "Height of the Cold War: Soviets vs NATO 1980's"! Lol

"Drozd APS was later replaced by the simpler non-APS Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour."..."AND... It was subsequently discontinued."

Thanks for doing the research to support my argument for me...;)

But hey...I would actually prefer that the Russians HAD deployed some sort of APS system in their Army, because I want to feel the game is justified in giving that side the option to "buy" APS if wanted. Why (and not the US side?)? Because the US already has a weapon that defeats it...the Javelin. And pretty much every squad has one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

1. On top of whatever comes along (USMC, VDV, whatever), having a "as they actually were" MTOE for the units already in the game.   This would only include equipment in service 2017 to basically let us play it out without APS, LWRs on vehicles that do not have them right now, no T-90AMs, BMP-3s, Oplots etc.  It wouldn't be absolutely effortless, but it doesn't seem to demand a lot of modeling nearly as much as a few formations assembled from existing assets, and some minor unit behavior changes.  Possibly having it as a setting in the lobby for multiplayer would be good to ensure no sneaky unit selections.

I rather like that idea actually. I doubt we would want them to add UI to make it a setting for QBs but adding the option into the force picker to be able to pick optional gear that was as 2017 actually was would be awesome.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Now, the fact that the military stalled the process does not mean we were wrong.  It means the coin landed the opposite way on the Pentagon's floor than it did ours. 

Yup! I hope you understood that I am in no way faulting you guys in my statement above. I am agreeing 100%.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, cbennett88 said:

Last time I checked...there are NETHER T-55s or Russian Naval Infantry in this game...not to mention that the game isn't called "Height of the Cold War: Soviets vs NATO 1980's"! Lol

You clearly don't play CM:A.  :rolleyes:

But I'll remind you that is not what you said.....You said show me another army that had deployed APS operationally, so I did.  :mellow:

41 minutes ago, IanL said:

I rather like that idea actually. I doubt we would want them to add UI to make it a setting for QBs but adding the option into the force picker to be able to pick optional gear that was as 2017 actually was would be awesome.

Surely that's adding work for the design team that might be better handled by the scenario designers/QB participants themselves.....Assuming the full array of vehicles etc. were available?

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

You clearly don't play CM:A.  :rolleyes:

But I'll remind you that is not what you said.....You said show me another army that had deployed APS operationally, so I did.  :mellow:

 

Yes...I only have CM:BS. Had to google CM:A. I stand corrected that there IS a version of the game where that equipment was definitely plausible. :)

And "technically" you are correct that an APS system was operational...for a very short time. My statement was too far reaching. I should have said..."Show me another army that CURRENTLY has deployed APS..." 

I concede the point to you even if you knew what I was trying to get across. :rolleyes:

Edited by cbennett88
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not 'plausible'.....It WAS deployed in combat, on both T-55AD & T-62D tanks. 

It was replaced by K-5 ERA simply because it's a bloody sight cheaper and more reliable than APS systems (as modern forces are about to discover when UnCons start plinking the APS sensors with anti-materiel rifles, before popping their ATGMs).  :mellow:

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

It WAS deployed in combat, on both T-55AD & T-62D tanks.

Now it was used in combat too? What combat was it deployed in?? You chose the word "combat"...and since it was only used by the Soviet Naval Infantry...what conflict were they involved in?? The picture you provided only showed 1 vehicle...in a "clean" motor pool configuration...with no indication that it was "in theater" or any signs of "combat". No gear hanging off it. Not even a single crew member standing nearby!

You ARE correct that it was "operational". You have yet to show that it was "deployed in combat". 

Words...they "cut" both ways. ;) I know what you meant...just as you knew what I meant when I said "plausible"

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was used in Afghanistan:

2mMEoubl.jpg

Drozd.jpg

Contemporary photos are naturally rare as this system was very highly classified at the time.  ;)

Having said that, I just tracked down some video, see 21:45 here:  https://my.mail.ru/mail/vol4onok-776/video/67/5437.html

Not sure where (or when) they were filmed, but these are apparently army tanks not naval infantry, which makes this an even rarer sight.  B)

Here's the even rarer T-62D:

Handler.ashx?UniqueID=620&Size=E

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
1 hour ago, IanL said:

I rather like that idea actually. I doubt we would want them to add UI to make it a setting for QBs but adding the option into the force picker to be able to pick optional gear that was as 2017 actually was would be awesome.

Surely that's adding work for the design team that might be better handled by the scenario designers/QB participants themselves.....Assuming the full array of vehicles etc. were available?

??

No, I meant that a reasonable ask would be to add the unit options (no LWR, no ERA, no APS) to the TO&E and as you said let the scenario designers QB players choose what units they want. What I was saying was that asking for an additional UI option to choose between "true 2017" and "hypothetical 2017" would be work we don't want BFC to be doing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotcha TC, sounds like a plan to me.  ;)

35 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Let's not forget that APS doesn't defeat top attack missiles.  There's some speculation that came up that the APS on the Armata family could do it, but IIRC after looking into it further we (the group here) concluded it does not.

Arena appears to provide some protection against top attack in a broad arc (centred on the turret), the fragmentation rings extend up to about 650:

T-80_Arena_KAZT_Active_Protection_System

 

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Arena appears to provide some protection on the frontal arc up to about 650:

Not the same :)  There is no APS in production or near production that can defeat a top attack.  Arena definitely can not.

There's also a difference between effectiveness against an attack along a horizontal approach vs a vertical one.  Horizontal is easier to defeat from what I remember mostly because the sensors and computing intercept have to work harder the higher the angle.

There's been a lot of APS discussions here that went into great detail.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

APS showed up on T55s in the CM:Afghanistan title so CM's been playing with (virtual) APS technologies for quite awhile.

I've wondered about the high speed millimeter wave radars being used to detect and track incoming threats. It would probably require commanders to stay buttoned, otherwise it would be like sticking your head in a microwave oven for extended periods. I (vaguely) recall reading a report that Abrams drivers who drive with the turret reversed receive, over their career,  the equivalent of a chest X-ray in additional radiation from the DU KE rounds stored just over their head.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Rinaldi said:

indeed in-game APS stands a fair chance of defeating the 2B as well.

Cool, I hadn't noticed that, so it's good to know.  B)

BTW - I'm kind of testing Drozd right now in a fictional CM:A environment, sadly the all too efficient Hind F Gunship has prevented me from getting a clear idea of the system's effectiveness!  ;)

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't another major reason that Drozd was dropped was its hazard to nearby fleshy infantry? Compared to Kontakt it would be very lethal. Since tanks in Afghanistan operated  very closely with infantry when not used as bunkers  one can imagine  that being troublesome!

Link to post
Share on other sites

That too.....As I understand it the problem hasn't gone away with more modern systems (you can see the fragmentation pattern on the ground at the end of the Arena video for instance), some extra training in tank-infantry coordination will probably be a must around these things. 

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HerrTom said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't another major reason that Drozd was dropped was its hazard to nearby fleshy infantry? Compared to Kontakt it would be very lethal. Since tanks in Afghanistan operated  very closely with infantry when not used as bunkers  one can imagine  that being troublesome!

Can't be that major of a reason since the return to this type of array in comparable calibers and launcher array installation happened not once but thrice with Drozd-2, Liven and Afghanit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...