Jump to content

CM Cold War - Beta AAR - Soviet Thread - Glorious Soviet Victory at Small German Town 1980


The_Capt

Recommended Posts

On 2/22/2021 at 11:25 AM, The_Capt said:

Generally yes, but made worse because Bil has EW.

The_Capt,

Do you mean to tell us the people who fielded a jammer against every radar and transmitter of importance, including using MRL fired expendable radio jammers, can't return the favor? Used to deal with their jammers as part of my threat work, and the BRICK series was flat out scary. Let me give you some idea of Red capabilities. When the Russians invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968, they deployed so much aerial and ground jamming (along with revolutionary radar absorbent chaff) that we couldn't see what was happening at all. 

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2021 at 2:30 PM, Sgt.Squarehead said:

You know things have changed in CM when 'Sagger' becomes a fearsome weapon!  ;)

Sgt.Squarehead,

The difference between AT-3 of the Yom Kippur War and the AT-3B of this fight is dramatic. Warhead penetration is considerably improved, but the devastating improvement is in missile guidance, for AT-3B is SACLOS, not MCLOS. Thus, all the, er, gunner has to do is put the crosshairs on the target and keep them there--just like a TOW does. Consequently Ph is on par with the TOW. Believe the AT-3B was also faster than the AT-3.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The_Capt,

That was a cracking good and amusing read, for which many thanks! Given the way you describe him, maybe it's Bil for "Bilious"?!

Ref the Dragon, it was useless against a T-64 frontally and also couldn't handle a rapidly maneuvering target because it steered by small thrusters, not fins, and rapidly exhausted them. Something almost certainly not modeled in CMCW is that the Soviets were already using IR-defeating graphite flakes in the T-64 and later model smoke discharger grenades. That's straight from a then SECRET and change threat briefing by a branch chief of US Army's FSTC (Foreign Science and Technology Center)in 1978 when I was at Hughes. The T-72 was the low end of the Red Army force updated force mix (T-62 replacement), and the T-80 was a simplified version of the T-64 premium tank as one British analyst called it. The T-64B was the first Russian tank with a cannon-launched guided missile. Its purpose was twofold: engage ATGM platforms operating outside of cannon range and also engage attacking helicopters. Yes, you read that second item correctly. The Russians subsequently developed similar weapons for FCS upgraded T-55s and T-62s.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, John Kettler said:

The_Capt,

That was a cracking good and amusing read, for which many thanks! Given the way you describe him, maybe it's Bil for "Bilious"?!

Ref the Dragon, it was useless against a T-64 frontally and also couldn't handle a rapidly maneuvering target because it steered by small thrusters, not fins, and rapidly exhausted them. Something almost certainly not modeled in CMCW is that the Soviets were already using IR-defeating graphite flakes in the T-64 and later model smoke discharger grenades. That's straight from a then SECRET and change threat briefing by a branch chief of US Army's FSTC (Foreign Science and Technology Center)in 1978 when I was at Hughes. The T-72 was the low end of the Red Army force updated force mix (T-62 replacement), and the T-80 was a simplified version of the T-64 premium tank as one British analyst called it. The T-64B was the first Russian tank with a cannon-launched guided missile. Its purpose was twofold: engage ATGM platforms operating outside of cannon range and also engage attacking helicopters. Yes, you read that second item correctly. The Russians subsequently developed similar weapons for FCS upgraded T-55s and T-62s.

Regards,

John Kettler

What your thoughts on vision capabilities of Russian vehicles in the game? 

Does it match their capabilities IRL?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, John Kettler said:

you say that the  TOW can fire through smoke

John,  well first off glad you enjoyed the AAR.  As to the TOWs, in game the thermal sight can see thru smoke.  In RL the jury was split.  Most refs state that the sight had “limited capability” assuming the smoke/haze was not too thick or treated:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=uPm_ohVUidIC&pg=RA2-PA27&lpg=RA2-PA27&dq=AN/TAS+4+thermal+sight+and+smoke&source=bl&ots=sw47xwM97F&sig=ACfU3U3kWIRxdZnJPJkyBBOnKCD7H8Tv0Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjFiaeW-onzAhUSd98KHUCKBm8Q6AF6BAgMEAM#v=onepage&q=AN%2FTAS 4 thermal sight and smoke&f=false

So for a Soviet commander this is a bit of a crapshoot with some vey high stakes if you make the wrong call.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, John Kettler said:

Do you mean to tell us

Not at all.  I mean to tell people that for this scenario Bil had EW and I did not..I actually think it got left on at setup…so my arty was really screwed.  In game the Soviets can (and do) put out EW as well as the US as a pre-battle condition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Not at all.  I mean to tell people that for this scenario Bil had EW and I did not..I actually think it got left on at setup…so my arty was really screwed.  In game the Soviets can (and do) put out EW as well as the US as a pre-battle condition.

The_Capt,

Am greatly relieved to know the masters of REC (Radio Electronic Combat) actually have it in the game. Bet that would've made Bil's life a lot harder, for the Americans are critically dependent on responsive timely fires. The Russians should have at least a few TRPs, too. Not like they didn't have time to analyze the terrain long before the war broke out and figure out how to support their advance by using them!

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, John Kettler said:

The_Capt,

Am greatly relieved to know the masters of REC (Radio Electronic Combat) actually have it in the game. Bet that would've made Bil's life a lot harder, for the Americans are critically dependent on responsive timely fires. The Russians should have at least a few TRPs, too. Not like they didn't have time to analyze the terrain long before the war broke out and figure out how to support their advance by using them!

Regards,

John Kettler

Definitely.  Dollbach is a bit deeper into the corridor but TRPs would have been a life saver.  Chalk that one up to me simply forgetting at setup…and I paid for it.  My biggest fear for this game was getting US DPICM dropped on a concentration of my troops.  Tanks may have weathered it but infantry get shredded (in or out of vehs).  I don’t think Bil had TRPs either so at least we were even there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, dbsapp said:

What your thoughts on vision capabilities of Russian vehicles in the game? 

Does it match their capabilities IRL?

Let me start by saying I've neither played with or played the game yet, despite having pre-ordered it. Ran into DL issues several times and then got massively sidetracked by life.

Doctrinally, the 115 mm armed T-62s would engage in solo fights vs tanks out to 1500 meters, use platoon volley out to 2000 and company volleys out to 2500 meters. 125 mm armed T-64s/72s/80s could go 2000 meters individually, 2500 for platoon volley and 3000 for company volley. MIssile armed versions could reach out to 4000 meters using the AT-8.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Definitely.  Dollbach is a bit deeper into the corridor but TRPs would have been a life saver.  Chalk that one up to me simply forgetting at setup…and I paid for it.  My biggest fear for this game was getting US DPICM dropped on a concentration of my troops.  Tanks may have weathered it but infantry get shredded (in or out of vehs).  I don’t think Bil had TRPs either so at least we were even there.

DPICM was clearly a Russian concern, for we saw the deployment of elastomeric turret roof protection (to stop the DPICM from detonating as HEAT, instead of relatively harmless HE frag) and also turret roof ERA to defeat an array of threats. As for TRPs, the screening ACRs know the ground intimately and have their TRPs long since worked out. Brother George was a Scout (successively, Bradley CFV gunner, commander and platoon sergeant) in the 2/11 ACR and used to send me sketches of the East German Border guards, towers, anti-escape measures, etc. He never talked about attacking but of bleeding Ivan white by delay from successive positions with longest LOS firing positions to maximize attrition from TOW. DPICM is bad enough. Part of my motivation in military aerospace was the knowledge I had family and family friends in harm's way if the weapons I worked on didn't work properly.

Be grateful Bil didn't have FASCAM, too!

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, John Kettler said:

Sgt.Squarehead,

The difference between AT-3 of the Yom Kippur War and the AT-3B of this fight is dramatic. Warhead penetration is considerably improved, but the devastating improvement is in missile guidance, for AT-3B is SACLOS, not MCLOS. Thus, all the, er, gunner has to do is put the crosshairs on the target and keep them there--just like a TOW does. Consequently Ph is on par with the TOW. Believe the AT-3B was also faster than the AT-3.

Regards,

John Kettler

Oops! Listed the wrong AT-3 variant. The correct designator is AT-3C for the SACLOS version. It entered service in 1969-1970. Tried to fix my mistake but waited too long.

http://www.military-today.com/missiles/malyutka.htm

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dbsapp said:

Does it match their capabilities IRL?

I don't think the Russians will give as the information required to play realistic Combat Mission games. The Germans were convinced the Panzer III was superior to anything the Soviets could produce. Like they say the rest is history.

Link to comment
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
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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...