Spoiled by Abrams and other tanks with modern optics

[absolutmauser]

The inability of my M48s to see the Soviet tanks and BMPs while they are getting popped is infuriating! Somebody get these guys some thermal sights! =D

[Halmbarte]

You are running them opened up? 

 

H

[domfluff]

 Welcome to the Cold War.

For the last few months, something I've found useful to repeat quite a few times is "Shock Force teaches bad habits". The fundamentals of how you manage a tank platoon have not changed since the Second World War, but you can get away with being incredibly sloppy in Shock Force and to a lesser extent in Black Sea - the technological advantage carries a ton of weight for you.

The NTC campaign is a really good example of that. You're usually fighting an Opfor battalion, and you're doing it with a platoon of M60A1. A platoon of Abrams in the same situation would destroy all before them, but the M60A1 needs to be used carefully, masked by terrain, setting up flank shots, etc.

The Soviet optics are significantly worse than the ones on the US armour, but spotting is a percentage game, and if you're taking the kind of lopsided engagements that you can get away with in CMSF, you'll be spotted and killed easily in CMCW. Each Soviet vehicle will spot worse than yours, but the first vehicle to spot usually wins the fight, and the Soviets only need *one* of them to get the spot - if you're taking engagements where five of your vehicles can see twenty of theirs, you'll die very quickly.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Yes.....The fighting can get really quite close:

Anyone want to place a small wager on the outcome before I click 'Go'? 

[Centurian52]

10 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Yes.....The fighting can get really quite close:

Anyone want to place a small wager on the outcome before I click 'Go'? 

Hmmm, looks pretty 50/50 to me. But I'll go ahead and place my bet on the T62 as the winner. Although I would love it if they both fired at the same time and took each other out.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

OK, let's see.....

You were right:

[absolutmauser]

On 9/12/2021 at 12:27 PM, Halmbarte said:

You are running them opened up? 

 

H

Yes. That does seem to help them get out slightly faster if they survive the ATGM impact!

[absolutmauser]

On 9/12/2021 at 1:27 PM, domfluff said:

 Welcome to the Cold War.

For the last few months, something I've found useful to repeat quite a few times is "Shock Force teaches bad habits". The fundamentals of how you manage a tank platoon have not changed since the Second World War, but you can get away with being incredibly sloppy in Shock Force and to a lesser extent in Black Sea - the technological advantage carries a ton of weight for you.

The NTC campaign is a really good example of that. You're usually fighting an Opfor battalion, and you're doing it with a platoon of M60A1. A platoon of Abrams in the same situation would destroy all before them, but the M60A1 needs to be used carefully, masked by terrain, setting up flank shots, etc.

The Soviet optics are significantly worse than the ones on the US armour, but spotting is a percentage game, and if you're taking the kind of lopsided engagements that you can get away with in CMSF, you'll be spotted and killed easily in CMCW. Each Soviet vehicle will spot worse than yours, but the first vehicle to spot usually wins the fight, and the Soviets only need *one* of them to get the spot - if you're taking engagements where five of your vehicles can see twenty of theirs, you'll die very quickly.

I have been learning this the hard way! X D

[MikeyD]

M60A1/A2 commander's field of vision is provided by thick armor glass blocks embedded into the subturret armor. I'll leave it to those with actual experience to say if they were better or worse than periscopes for observing,

[Halmbarte]

15 hours ago, MikeyD said:

M60A1/A2 commander's field of vision is provided by thick armor glass blocks embedded into the subturret armor. I'll leave it to those with actual experience to say if they were better or worse than periscopes for observing,

What were they thinking with that design? 

We heard you like turrets so we put a turret on your turret...

H

[domfluff]

The nice thing about it is that it allows the commander to rotate and engage independently. The shot trap is an obvious concern, but giving you 360 degree vision and the ability to quickly engage a flanking unit is pretty nice in CMCW.

Edited September 16, 2021 by domfluff

[textanker]

Don't forget that the M60 had the finest weapon ever made for the commander: The M85

If you're ever talking to someone who claims to be an M60 crewman, ask them about the M85. If their eyes don't roll into the back of their heads and they don't start flopping around on the floor like they've been nerve gassed, then they're lying. 

[Phantom Captain]

1 hour ago, textanker said:

Don't forget that the M60 had the finest weapon ever made for the commander: The M85

If you're ever talking to someone who claims to be an M60 crewman, ask them about the M85. If their eyes don't roll into the back of their heads and they don't start flopping around on the floor like they've been nerve gassed, then they're lying. 

Ha!  You are being sarcastic?  Please do explain more!  Was it that terrible?

[Centurian52]

9 hours ago, Phantom Captain said:

Was it that terrible?

Having just looked up the M85 it looks like it might have been perfectly fine. Unfortunately, while it took the same ammo as the M2, it took different links. But the ammo came prepackaged in links, and relinking was not practical in the field. I got that from Wikipedia, which I realize not everyone considers reliable (it's a short article, which usually means not many people have contributed it, meaning not many people have fact checked it). But if true then I imagine most soldiers' experience with it really would have been that terrible, even if the weapon itself was basically fine.

[Phantom Captain]

1 hour ago, Centurian52 said:

Having just looked up the M85 it looks like it might have been perfectly fine. Unfortunately, while it took the same ammo as the M2, it took different links. But the ammo came prepackaged in links, and relinking was not practical in the field. I got that from Wikipedia, which I realize not everyone considers reliable (it's a short article, which usually means not many people have contributed it, meaning not many people have fact checked it). But if true then I imagine most soldiers' experience with it really would have been that terrible, even if the weapon itself was basically fine.

I saw the same thing but then saw that it was not really accepted into any national force after the fact.  And to this day we are still using the old reliable M2.  So, yeah, I was just really curious.  I've also heard and read many tales that the M60A3s optics were better than the new M1 and curious what the difference was there as well.

 

Edited September 17, 2021 by Phantom Captain

[SimpleSimon]

Comparing the M48 to the Abrams is putting the cart before the horse. The M48 was designed with the last generation of WW2 heavy and medium tanks in mind and is not a modern MBT. It is more like a Super World War 2 tank, and much of the thinking behind it is both literally and figuratively closer to 1945 than 1989.