Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Slowly circling over soviet troops in a cargo plane would be a real short flight. 

For the US, they were essentially strategic screening forces. They were meant to absorb the initial Soviet attack (even if it was a complete surprise attack) and buy enough time (slow down the Soviet

Nah, for the Soviet side of the time the idea was to get as fast as possible to the ports to deny the US the ability to reinforce/resupply NATO forces in Europe. So as such: Attacking force is n

Posted Images

1 hour ago, chuckdyke said:

 The most significant features of the T-80 over the T-72 are its gas turbine engine and ability to fire anti-tank guided missiles (T-80B and later variants) in the same manner as ordinary rounds. 

IMHO the most significant feature of the T-80B compared to the 72 is the more advanced fire control system.

 

"Unlike the rather outdated 1A40-1 fire control system used in the T-72B, the 1G43 features fully automatic lead calculation and automatic gun superelevation. What this means is that the aiming chevron at the center of the sight picture remains static as the FCS adjusts the elevation to account for ballistic drop and adjusts the orientation of the turret to account for lead. The sight is not displaced sideways as the gun is adjusted for lead, thanks to the 2-axis stabilizer in the 1G42 - the horizontal stabilizer rotates the sight aperture to compensate for the shifted orientation of the turret, thus allowing the gunner to maintain an unchanged view of the target."

https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2016/02/t-80-gambol.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Chibot Mk IX said:

Yes, but I think IR blocking smoke is not available back in 80s 

Quote

The M60A1(RISE) Passive featured the implementation of all previous updates plus Kevlar spall liners for the turret, AN/VVS-2 passive night vision block for the driver, a deep water fording kit, the capability to mount Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA)[70][62] and the AVDS-1790-2D RISE engine with CD-850-6A transmission and a Vehicle Engine Exhaust Smoke System (VEESS) that visually obscured the area around the vehicle. The VEESS smokescreen system does not provide protection against infrared, thermal or laser detection. The two six-barreled, electronically fired M239 smoke grenade launchers, one on each side of the main gun and replacement of the coax machine gun with the M240C were implemented in late 1978. The smoke grenades contain a phosphor compound that masks the thermal signature of the vehicle to the enemy. They were denoted as M60A1(RISE) Passive.[55]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M60_tank

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

but spotting to the sides is poor...hmmm. You will never see what kills you...

This I think will be the big difference.....I've learned a bit more about the updates to the M1 over the years, at first it's spotting abilities in CM:BS seemed supernatural, mostly because I was still in an 'early Abrams mindset'. 

53 minutes ago, akd said:

Vehicle Engine Exhaust Smoke System (VEESS) that visually obscured the area around the vehicle.

 I'd really like to see this implemented at some pont.

 

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

Some of those listed M60A1 RISE (passive) features sound like Marine add-on that are outside of our scope, like spall liners, deep water wading and ERA attachments. I don't know if the description of the smoke bomb thermal properties would be 1978 or later.

The endnote points to this document from 1980:

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a141935.pdf

 

Edit: perused it, and says the smoke grenades were Red Phosphorus based.

Edited by akd
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Chibot Mk IX said:

Thank you for sharing. 

ahh, too bad there is only one "smoke" command in game. 

Just a wild though how this could work without a separate command: 'smoke' combined with a target launches the smoke canisters in the direction of target. Smoke without target create the vehicle smoke from the exhaust.

Now from a design point of view I would usually not be in favor of such 'magical' behaviors behind 1 button, however I think most people playing the game and actually using smoke would be able to figure it out easily (the visual indication of where smoke comes from will also help to make clear what kind of smoke is being deployed of course).
Also, 'smoke' would always create smoke so for the 'newbie' user it wouldn't be that confusing. 

Edited by Lethaface
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chibot Mk IX said:

For NATO player, I guess checking how many units have Thermal Sights is an important procedure before the first turn.  Then use smoke smartly, as the thermal sights can "see" through smoke. 

guaranteed you'll be checking.  And you'll be backing your tanks up with M113s to take advantage of their smoke dischargers as well.  ...be sure to check wind direction otherwise it could be quite embarrassing..

Link to post
Share on other sites

one item I have learned the hard way is micro manage your anti air assets.  There is very little as demoralizing as watching in horror as your 6 stinger guys all launch missiles in a turn wiping out your reserve... and not hitting anything.  And now you just have to sit and take it as enemy air relentlessly bashes your force.  I typically park 2 Stinger/Igla guys near their vehicle and the rest mount up so only those 2 can fire and they will replenish from the vehicle on their own.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, sburke said:

one item I have learned the hard way is micro manage your anti air assets

also just to add as the US player be very careful about engaging ground targets with the M163 Vulcan. That thing burns through its ammo when not firing controlled bursts at aircraft targets.

P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure none of the soviet equipment. The US on the other hand should have access to some thermal sights from the start of the time frame on the M60 TTS and all the TOW launchers (I think), becoming more common later. So pre M1/M2 that should be a big advantage for the US to counter the latest soviet armor. I feel like you're going to be relying on your TOWs a lot. 

Edited by Ryujin
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ryujin said:

Pretty sure none of the soviet equipment. The US on the other hand should have access to some thermal sights from the start of the time frame on the M60 TTS and all the TOW launchers (I think), becoming more common later. So pre M1/M2 that should be a big advantage for the US to counter the latest soviet armor. I feel like you're going to be relying on your TOWs a lot. 

Presumably the quality of the thermals would be significantly less than those in CMSF? I would expect that is modeled in game. Not sure how much of an improvement over passive IR (soviet/American) they would have? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems soviets will get something almost as good. Ground surveillance radar! 

CM: COLD WAR TO&E has "BRM-1"
https://www.battlefront.com/cold-war/cmcw-base-game/?tab=toe

more info on couple of variations of BRM-1
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/brm-1.htm

Video demonstrating BRM-1K in CMBS (K just means the command version):

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2021 at 12:13 PM, AlexUK said:

Presumably the quality of the thermals would be significantly less than those in CMSF? I would expect that is modeled in game. Not sure how much of an improvement over passive IR (soviet/American) they would have? 

The spotting ability in CMSF should be substantially more capable than the vehicles present in CW, many of the Thermal equipped vehicles in SF such as the Leopard 2 and M1A2 have both higher quality thermal imagers multiple generations ahead and independant thermal sights for the commander to use independent of the gun sight greatly increasing the tanks awareness. With that said the vehicles here equipped with thermals should have a massive advantage over any armour that lacks them, thermal sights made target acquisition in most terrain and weather conditions far easier than most day or night scopes that came prior. It’s also purely anecdotal but i read that the ANVGS-2 sight on the M60 was considered very high quality for the time period.

Sadly not real images but Steel Beasts does do a fairly good job of showing off a theoretical comparison between thermal imaging (daytime, no night shots sadly) and the nightsight present on the M60.

 

T2.jpg

T3.jpg

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...