Great post-game analysis for Hapless' recent series

[THH149]

T62s were an OK decision, the players agreed to use them. Not the best tanks but bang for points make them of similar overall abilities as a group purchase.

Bigger issue is how to get the many T62 eyes on the one tree line or ridgeline, so once an M60 is spotted its outnumbered 3 to 1 or better.

 

 

Edited February 7, 2022 by THH149

[Monty's Mighty Moustache]

8 minutes ago, dbsapp said:

And maybe if he sent those 3 companies on the left flank they would be mercilessly slaughtered by invisible enemy? We are engaging in pure speculation at this point.

What are the facts? The facts are Reds were demolished, scattered to prices and blown away by enemy, who they didn't see. 

What should we discuss? We should discuss this spectacular failure and draw the conclusion that Red are blind.

What they are discussing? "How Soviet dictrine works". 

It would be easy to put all the blame on clumsy mr. Hapless and his "wrong' decisions and save the face of the broken system. But would it be fair? I believe that his major mistake was to select Red team instead of Blue.

What amuses me is that this thread and post-game discussion are framed in deductive reasoning, which is basically pre-Enlightment method of thought. Discussion goes from concept (Soviet doctrine works in CM normally) to facts (the fact that Halpless failed is him to blame). 

Where as post-Enlightment method is inductive, e.g. to construct concepts based on facts (the fact that Halpless's units couldn't see anything means that something is wrong). 

You are the one making sweeping statements that Russian doctrine doesn't work in CMCW, I was merely providing a viewpoint that shows that at the very least we don't know that for certain (based on this series of videos) and unless you have tried it and tested it extensively then that is the only fact that is relevant. Even Hapless said so himself, he didn't use Russian doctrine so he doesn't know if it would work.

But we can agree that Russian T-62s are not the best at spotting and have a distinct disadvantage.

MMM

Edited February 7, 2022 by Monty's Mighty Moustache

[domfluff]

3 minutes ago, THH149 said:

T62s were an OK decision, the players agreed to use them. Not the best tanks but bang for points make them of similar overall abilities as a group purchase.

Bigger issue is how to get the many T62 eyes on the one tree line or ridgeline, so once an M60 is spotted its outnumbered 3 to 1 or better.

 

 

I suspect the T-62 (1975) might actually be the best value-for-points in CMCW (Hapless was using the '72 versions).

It doesn't have the massive uptick in armour or the 120mm gun that the T-64 and higher have, but you can get 3 T-62 (1975) for 2 T-64B in a Quick Battle, and that adds up fast.

It does mean that to make use of that you need the terrain/plan to allow you to get multiple guns on target. Where things are more complex or fluid that will inevitably reward individual quality. I don't think it's a coincidence that the (late-CMCW) T-80 tripled the number of periscopes the Commander has to look out of since priorities and the relative value of things changed. 

[dbsapp]

29 minutes ago, Rinaldi said:

Perhaps T-62s perform poorly because they are poor tanks, an avenue worth exploring @dbsapp  . Alternatively, a poor craftsman blames his tools, do you consider yourself a decent handyman?

Well, it boils down to fact that in CM universe it is so. What Battlefront actually says is Soviet\Russian equipment is bad. 

Hilariously enough, at the same time they try to make an impression of some competition and challenge between fraction in CMCW (and in CMBS). 

My main claim is that Soviet equipment is represented in the game in a way that immediatly raises question, because units don't see something that they must see. 

Edited February 7, 2022 by dbsapp

[dbsapp]

1 hour ago, SergeantSqook said:

along with the lack of nukes and chemical warfare in-game.

 

@IICptMillerII

Pro-communist leaflets would make a major blow to the enemy. 

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, dbsapp said:

Well, it boils down to fact that in CM universe it is so. What Battlefront actually says is Soviet\Russian equipment is bad. 

Hilariously enough, at the same time they try to make an impression of some competition and challenge between fraction in CMCW (and in CMBS). 

My main claim is that Soviet equipment is represented in the game in a way that immediatly raises question, because units don't see something that they must see. 

Oh yay, another thread hijacked by @dbsapp , yet again without any proof beyond the same stamping of feet demanding that “Soviets must be able to see X”.  In case it hasn’t sunk in we are not going to redesign the game because “you think so”…seriously go play something else if this is causing you so much grief and sleeplessness.

As to players who make Soviets work, here is yet another video:

As to the original post, I really enjoyed UH’s play thru and post game analysis, I thought it was first rate.

[dbsapp]

13 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Oh yay, another thread hijacked by @dbsapp , yet again without any proof beyond the same stamping of feet demanding that “Soviets must be able to see X”.  In case it hasn’t sunk in we are not going to redesign the game because “you think so”…seriously go play something else if this is causing you so much grief and sleeplessness.

As to players who make Soviets work, here is yet another video:

As to the original post, I really enjoyed UH’s play thru and post game analysis, I thought it was first rate.

"Hijacked"? I merely discussing the content of the above-mentioned video. 

What happened is Soviets were crushed due to the lack of spotting abilities. 

The video itself is the evidence that you so crave to see, but you won't because you are as blind as t-62. 

I really don't have any naive illusions that you will change anything, because all the failures of the game are by design. But that won't spare you of well deserved criticism. Enjoy. 

[chuckdyke]

5 minutes ago, dbsapp said:

"Hijacked"? I merely discussing the content of the above-mentioned video. 

What happened is Soviets were crushed due to the lack of spotting abilities. 

The video itself is the evidence that you so crave to see, but you won't because you are as blind as t-62. 

I really don't have any naive illusions that you will change anything, because all the failures of the game are by design. But that won't spare you of well deserved criticism. Enjoy. 

Thanks @dbsapp I think I give Cold War a miss and settle for Italy WW2 instead. You're right, silly modelling is just frustrating. We don't have an idea about the capabilities of late Cold War Soviet design, it was highly classified. It could have been an interesting game if they had at least matching adversaries. Hypothetically more advanced armor  not meant for export.

 

[The_Capt]

11 minutes ago, dbsapp said:

"Hijacked"? I merely discussing the content of the above-mentioned video. 

What happened is Soviets were crushed due to the lack of spotting abilities. 

The video itself is the evidence that you so crave to see, but you won't because you are as blind as t-62. 

I really don't have any naive illusions that you will change anything, because all the failures of the game are by design. But that won't spare you of well deserved criticism. Enjoy. 

Ah, well and of course UH and Rice agree with you...wait a minute can you point to the timestamp in the video where they do?

The Soviet T62s did get pretty mauled due to spotting abilities....just like they did in the Gulf War:

"The lack of high powered optics, thermal sights and ballistic computers of Iraqi tanks compared to their adversaries made the T-62 and other Iraqi armoured fighting vehicles extremely vulnerable and unable to retaliate against Coalition vehicles. The Iraqi 3rd Armored Division alone lost about a hundred T-62 tanks" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-62...wiki no less, how hard is it to look up freakin wiki?)  Oh wait there is more:

"The turret also cannot be traversed with the driver's hatch open. Although the tank commander may override the gunner and traverse the turret, he cannot fire the main gun from his position. He is also unable to override the gunner in the elevation of the main gun, causing target acquisition problems."

"The tank uses the same sights and vision devices as the T-55 except for the gunner, who received a new TSh-2B-41 sight which has x4 or x7 magnification. It is mounted coaxially with an optic rangefinder"

And because I think amateur hour is finally over:

"As might be expected, the authority of the platoon leader is even more restricted. He is not authorized to transmit on the radio except in an extreme emergency or to request support. This communications posture is consistent with his role, which is to lead his platoon in the execution of the company mission. He does not have the responsibility to translate his superiors' mission into a platoon mission. The noncommissioned tank commander monitors and complies with his superiors' commands and follows his platoon leader in the execution of the company mission. Since he is not issued a map, he has limited capability to relay targets of opportunity to fire support units." (https://irp.fas.org/doddir/army/fm100-2-1.pdf)

So when one does game engine design one goes down to the sub-systems of each vehicle in question.  You then assign values to each of those sub-systems based on the available historical data that get incorporated into the design.  So for example for the T62 we could have:

Optics (see the target) - roughly inline with the T55, post WW2 but barely.  Noted historical poor performance in Gulf War.

Targeting (shoot and hit the target) - noted issues between gunner and crew commander, no targeting computer system

Crew Conditions - a brutally cramped and ergonomic nightmare

Command and Control (ability for target hand-off by others) - very limited by doctrine and training.

Ok, let's stack all that up and weigh it against one loud opinion on the forum who has not bother to post a single fact to back up his opinion...hmm.

[Bufo]

24 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

The Soviet T62s did get pretty mauled due to spotting abilities....just like they did in the Gulf War:

If you really took the year 1991 as a baseline to measure the T-62s performance, then it's no wonder they underperform since they were built for the 1960s.

You measured it to the M1A1 Abrams which were manufactured from 1985. T-62s were manufactured from 1961...

Edited February 7, 2022 by Bufo

[dbsapp]

41 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Ah, well and of course UH and Rice agree with you...wait a minute can you point to the timestamp in the video where they do?

The Soviet T62s did get pretty mauled due to spotting abilities....just like they did in the Gulf War:

"The lack of high powered optics, thermal sights and ballistic computers of Iraqi tanks compared to their adversaries made the T-62 and other Iraqi armoured fighting vehicles extremely vulnerable and unable to retaliate against Coalition vehicles. The Iraqi 3rd Armored Division alone lost about a hundred T-62 tanks" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-62...wiki no less, how hard is it to look up freakin wiki?)  Oh wait there is more:

"The turret also cannot be traversed with the driver's hatch open. Although the tank commander may override the gunner and traverse the turret, he cannot fire the main gun from his position. He is also unable to override the gunner in the elevation of the main gun, causing target acquisition problems."

"The tank uses the same sights and vision devices as the T-55 except for the gunner, who received a new TSh-2B-41 sight which has x4 or x7 magnification. It is mounted coaxially with an optic rangefinder"

And because I think amateur hour is finally over:

"As might be expected, the authority of the platoon leader is even more restricted. He is not authorized to transmit on the radio except in an extreme emergency or to request support. This communications posture is consistent with his role, which is to lead his platoon in the execution of the company mission. He does not have the responsibility to translate his superiors' mission into a platoon mission. The noncommissioned tank commander monitors and complies with his superiors' commands and follows his platoon leader in the execution of the company mission. Since he is not issued a map, he has limited capability to relay targets of opportunity to fire support units." (https://irp.fas.org/doddir/army/fm100-2-1.pdf)

So when one does game engine design one goes down to the sub-systems of each vehicle in question.  You then assign values to each of those sub-systems based on the available historical data that get incorporated into the design.  So for example for the T62 we could have:

Optics (see the target) - roughly inline with the T55, post WW2 but barely.  Noted historical poor performance in Gulf War.

Targeting (shoot and hit the target) - noted issues between gunner and crew commander, no targeting computer system

Crew Conditions - a brutally cramped and ergonomic nightmare

Command and Control (ability for target hand-off by others) - very limited by doctrine and training.

Ok, let's stack all that up and weigh it against one loud opinion on the forum who has not bother to post a single fact to back up his opinion...hmm.

And you dare to claim that somebody "hijacted" topic after posting the walls of wikipedia quotations?

I suspected that your knowledge doesn't go beyond wikipedia articles, but now my suspicions are confirmed. 

19 minutes ago, Bufo said:

If you really took the year 1991 as a baseline to measure the T-62s performance, then it's no wonder they underperform since they were built for the 1960s.

I was in process of writing exactly that when I saw this post. 

To make evaluation of Soviet Cold War might based on Iraqi permormace in early 90s is really amateurish level of expertise. Some guys are really "traumatized" by Gulf War - now every war is Gulf War, including imaginary wars with USSR in 70s or Russia in 2010s. It's endless repetition of beating child in CMSF.

Iraq war was a milestone in military art and marked a really historical event when US showed new age warfare potential. 

For sure it was not old t-62 vs modern Abrams collusion. Mainly the war was won due to overwhelming advantage in technologies and numbers of all sorts, but primary - advantage in aviation. Modern M1 and M2 which not surprisingly were far better than export variants of old Soviet tanks engaged already demorolized and bombed to the ground forces. This situation doesn't say anything about t-62 in Soviet Army during Cold War period. 

If anybody would like to dwell into Soviet\Western equipment performance, including t-62, they would undoubtedly turn to Iran-Iraq war that lasted 8 years and ended in stalemate. At least this war featured relatively equal sides. 

[The_Capt]

2 hours ago, dbsapp said:

I suspected that your knowledge doesn't go beyond wikipedia articles, but now my suspicions are confirmed.

Ok, we are done here.  So far we have not seen one wit of research or citations, even internet deep from you nor personal experience that points to you being in any position to judge.  Right now an average wiki reader is well ahead of your demonstrated knowledge level.  So you wanna whine and moan citing yourself as a leading expert on what you know, go for it welcome to the internet.  Personally, I am pretty sure I have forgotten more about the Cold War than you, having spent years researching for a game we actually published. Come back with some facts or do not come back at all.

2 hours ago, Bufo said:

If you really took the year 1991 as a baseline to measure the T-62s performance, then it's no wonder they underperform since they were built for the 1960s.

You measured it to the M1A1 Abrams which were manufactured from 1985. T-62s were manufactured from 1961...

It was the noted "lack of high powered optics, thermal sights and fire control computers" that I was highlighting.  Hell the 1972 version didn't even have a laser range finder.   In "M60 vs T62 - Cold War Combatants - 1956-1992" by Nordeen and Isby they also point to the Gulf War, more specifically the USMC M60A1s in Desert Shield/Desert Storm along with the Six Day war.  Results were very lopsided but the authors attribute training as much as anything "The results of the two kinetic tank were both tremendously one-sided.  Both at the Chinese Farm and in the liberation of Kuwait, Israeli and US M60A1s wiped out large numbers of T62s with minimal loss, with only a single possible M60 loss to a T-62." (pg 134).  Now I am starting to wonder if we have OP'd the T-62 based on in game results but authors have cited "training and doctrine" as the single biggest issue in these examples. 

For CMCW, I think T62s definitely perform better than they did historically but one has to consider that Soviet crews would be much better trained particularly on the front end of a western offence.  But I do not think for a moment that the ratio would have been 1:1 in any standard engagement - interestingly UH saw 4:1 losses in his game.   In our Beta AAR, I saw 1:6 to 1 losses but I also had a troop of T64s so they obviously made a difference.  My bet is that for trained, motivated crews 2-3 to 1 loss ratio for T62s makes sense, hell Soviet C2 and radio doctrine alone puts them at a significant disadvantage.

Edited February 7, 2022 by The_Capt

[Simcoe]

Combat Mission forum house rules: don’t feed the dbsapp

In regards to T-62’s, my experience is that spotting at close range feels very random. I’ve had a few instances where an M60 is 20meters away but no spot even when opened up. Farther than 200 meters and the spotting when opened up feels very natural and sometimes they spot faster than M60’s. I don’t think it ruins the Russians but it is worth looking into.

I want to see a rematch between Rice and Hapless and settle the score. 
 

a PBEM with Domfluff would be fun too. He seems to be the big proponent of Soviet doctrine. Does it actually hold up in multiplayer?

 

[domfluff]

11 minutes ago, Simcoe said:

Combat Mission forum house rules: don’t feed the dbsapp

In regards to T-62’s, my experience is that spotting at close range feels very random. I’ve had a few instances where an M60 is 20meters away but no spot even when opened up. Farther than 200 meters and the spotting when opened up feels very natural and sometimes they spot faster than M60’s. I don’t think it ruins the Russians but it is worth looking into.

I want to see a rematch between Rice and Hapless and settle the score. 
 

a PBEM with Domfluff would be fun too. He seems to be the big proponent of Soviet doctrine. Does it actually hold up in multiplayer?

 

200m is extremely close range. CM does unintuitive things with armour at ultra-close distances, presumably to model how bad the local situational awareness can be/the limited FOV of vision slits. That's true for all factions, but I wonder if that effects unbuttoned commanders as well. Speculation, certainly.

Honestly, I think I'm less of a proponent of the Soviets, and a more a proponent of doctrine in general, and trying to understand the context and intended use for everything - it's just that in this case the Soviet stuff was the focus, since the approach was misunderstood. I'd do the same thing for the US and their use of ATGMs, or the BAOR and Chieftain, as and when appropriate.

[Simcoe]

4 minutes ago, domfluff said:

200m is extremely close range. CM does unintuitive things with armour at ultra-close distances, presumably to model how bad the local situational awareness can be/the limited FOV of vision slits. That's true for all factions, but I wonder if that effects unbuttoned commanders as well. Speculation, certainly.

Honestly, I think I'm less of a proponent of the Soviets, and a more a proponent of doctrine in general, and trying to understand the context and intended use for everything - it's just that in this case the Soviet stuff was the focus, since the approach was misunderstood. I'd do the same thing for the US and their use of ATGMs, or the BAOR and Chieftain, as and when appropriate.

On your first point. Makes me wonder if opening up is a percentage increase in chance to spot. If the chance at close range is already low, a 25% increase doesn’t do very much.

On your second point, I still think it would be fun to see another PBEM with someone adhering to Soviet doctrine and see how it works out. Mostly because I’m too chicken to do it myself!

[The_Capt]

27 minutes ago, Simcoe said:

Combat Mission forum house rules: don’t feed the dbsapp

In regards to T-62’s, my experience is that spotting at close range feels very random. I’ve had a few instances where an M60 is 20meters away but no spot even when opened up. Farther than 200 meters and the spotting when opened up feels very natural and sometimes they spot faster than M60’s. I don’t think it ruins the Russians but it is worth looking into.

I want to see a rematch between Rice and Hapless and settle the score. 
 

a PBEM with Domfluff would be fun too. He seems to be the big proponent of Soviet doctrine. Does it actually hold up in multiplayer?

 

I would love to see a rematch with T64s or T80s but this wasn’t all tank on tank action, those US TOW did a number as well.  I think close range is worse for some tanks as the degrees of visibility shrink the closer one is to a target.  At 200m one is looking through a straw.  And before anyone thinks I am a T62 basher, let’s not forget about that gun.  I have seen a T62 kill an M60A3 from the front at 1200 meters, that 115 smooth bore is no slouch on the battlefield, once you actually get it sighted.

Interestingly the I am getting the sense that the T62 is a better defensive tank which may lend weight to the idea that no one was ever really planning to do it, but history is filled with examples of unintended or accidental wars.

[dbsapp]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

So far we have not seen one wit of research or citations

That's a lie, and you know it. I already cited this CIA report that clearly claims Soviet tanks had advantage, including advantage of all types of t-62 over M60. 

 

 

But this document - not the definitive answer to all questions or final truth immune to criticism of course, but quite serious document, that, at very least, had to seed some doubt on "Gulf war showed that t-62 was garbage" thinking - was memory holed and put under the rig, since it didn't fit the narrative. 

For sure the doc that I cited is much more reliable and serious source, than infamous  "M60 vs T62 - Cold War Combatants - 1956-1992" book that  I've read in Osprey edition, and I knew that it's just a question of time before someone will feed it to you and advice to quote as some sort of "proof". As a matter of fact its a poorly written and poorly sourced popular book based  on war propaganda. I can quote much more Russian books like that claiming that t-62 destroyed billions of m60s. I may open you a secret - not every book deserves to be cited. 

Anyway, Chinese farm is just an episode,  "liberation of Kuwait" - one sided conflict. They represent nothing, and the fact that the author of that book chose to use them as a benchmark clearly shows that he is biased. 

Researcher who is interested in objectivity would try to compare tanks performance in more or less equal situations with intensive usage of tanks, like Iran - Iraq war, that I've mentioned already, or Yom Kippur war of 1973.

The thing that Israelis didn't publish official record of their losses of 1973 is quite telling. Only estimates exist. I would recommend to read Edgar O'Ballance book on 1973 war (free online), which is quite objective and shows that neither side could win, and as in Iran-Iraq case, the war ended in stalemate:

"The truth is that the October War, militarily speaking, was a standoff. Even though the Egyptians gained some 300 square miles of Israeli-held Sinai on the east bank of the canal, the Syrians lost almost the same amount of terrain in the north. Politically speaking, the war drastically changed the situation in the Middle East from the almost crystallised one of No Peace, No War, to one of No Victor, No Vanquished. In short, both sides gained advantages and suffered disadvantages, the Arabs perhaps gaining far more than the Israelis. The next shock to NATO planners, the Soviet Union, and others was the incredible amount of material destruction that occurred in such a short period of time. Precise figures are still elusive, but it may be safe to say that not less than 500 aircraft and 2,500 tanks were destroyed, together with an untold number of guns, vehicles, and other equipment". 

Besides, every war is not restricted to "comparing tanks performance". In fact, tanks are just one piece of a broad puzzle picture, so comparing their qualities side by side doesn't solve any war history related questions. Good or bad performance, casualties or scores, usually are result of interplay of many factors, first of all, command quality, available intelligence and logistics. 

It's quite funny that you demand again and again some kind of peer researched PhD thesis from me (at the same time ignoring everything that I'm trying to say).  But all the evidence you need is at your disposal already. The only thing you need is to play this game, and everybody can make their own opinion. 

 

Edited February 7, 2022 by dbsapp

[dbsapp]

1 hour ago, Simcoe said:

Combat Mission forum house rules: don’t feed the dbsapp

 

You don't have to humiliate yourself by this pathetic bootlicking. It's only an internet forum and you can afford some dignity. 

[Simcoe]

49 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I would love to see a rematch with T64s or T80s but this wasn’t all tank on tank action, those US TOW did a number as well.  I think close range is worse for some tanks as the degrees of visibility shrink the closer one is to a target.  At 200m one is looking through a straw.  And before anyone thinks I am a T62 basher, let’s not forget about that gun.  I have seen a T62 kill an M60A3 from the front at 1200 meters, that 115 smooth bore is no slouch on the battlefield, once you actually get it sighted.

Interestingly the I am getting the sense that the T62 is a better defensive tank which may lend weight to the idea that no one was ever really planning to do it, but history is filled with examples of unintended or accidental wars.

For your point about under 200 meters. Me and others are saying T-62’s are sometimes not spotting enemy tanks at close range opened up. I have no issue with the spotting when buttoned.

[The_Capt]

22 minutes ago, dbsapp said:

That's a lie, and you know it. I already cited this CIA report that clearly claims Soviet tanks had advantage, including advantage of all types of t-62 over M60.

Can you point me at the thread where you cited this?  I have seen this report and, ok, we can take it into consideration, at least it is a start. 

Not sure what to do about the rest of this, but at least you are starting to use facts.  Hint: it is bad habit to simply discount facts that do not agree with your viewpoint as "propaganda", not without a fair amount of proof.  Isby is a pretty well recognized author on the Cold War, we used his Armies of NATOs Western Front and Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Union.  We can be critical thinkers of course but once these things become polarized, well we are back to simply arguing past each other.  I mean I am suspect as to that CIA report (it was actually done by US Army MSAA) but ok, let's take a another look at why they thought the T62 had advantage.

22 minutes ago, dbsapp said:

Anyway, Chinese farm is just an episode,  "liberation of Kuwait" - one sided conflict. They represent nothing, and the fact that the author of that book chose to use them as a benchmark clearly shows that he is biased.

You are going to have to back that up of course. I will read this piece, left me wondering whose 2500 tanks were destroyed, I get incomplete estimates from Israel but if it was 1 for 1 then I am pretty sure that would be pretty hard to hide.

22 minutes ago, dbsapp said:

Besides, every war is not restricted to "comparing tanks performance". In fact, tanks are just one piece of a broad puzzle picture, so comparing their qualities side by side doesn't solve any war history related questions. Good or bad performance, casualties or scores, usually are result of interplay of many factors, first of all, command quality, available intelligence and logistics.

Absolutely, on this we agree. Training, doctrine and leadership have more to do with superiority than individual equipment, but this started as a "T62s are blind, CMCW is broken" argument (by someone, not saying who).  I already offered a multi-sub system approach to the match up, which included much more than hard factors, but it did not seem to resonant based on the feedback.  At the tactical level the Soviet system is definitely unique and proxy wars show it had little success in conventional conflict (in unconventional no one seemed to see much success).   Let's unpack Iran-Iraq war a bit and see what comes up.

22 minutes ago, dbsapp said:

It's quite funny that you demand again and again some kind of peer researched PhD thesis from me (at the same time ignoring everything that I'm trying to say).  But all the evidence you need is at your disposal already. The only thing you need is to play this game, and everybody can make their own opinion.

Don't need a PHd thesis, but if you go back on these exchanges you are going to see that you have used very little outside information to back up your arguments.  You appear to be employing a large amount of confirmation bias here without really citing anything that proves your points - here that Soviet tanks were better at spotting than they are represented in the game.  Again, "what evidence?".  Sure we have some anomalies, every game has them.  I ran a lot of tests with T72s and T64s:

So did other people, none demonstrated "totally blind Soviet tanks" but that is not what you wanted to hear.  And here we are again now from the other angle looking at history, which also shows that T62s were not the best but also not the worst and the casualties UH received are probably not crazy...and again you don't want to hear it.

Look we have taken customer feedback very seriously for CMCW.  We saw the old M113 night vision bug, there is something going on with T64 armor that needs a look, the AT 6 on the Hinds is "broken" absolutely no argument there and recently the low-to-zero effect arty fragmentation has on tank systems.  All brought up by customers, with really good in-game and RL data we could use. They are all being reviewed (we fixed the M113 bug).  I have played CMCW a lot, kinda came with the territory.  And there have been times I have been frustrated with my T62s and they can drive one to distraction BUT I have not seen any evidence, in-game or in RL, that would lead me to think that a really cramped tank, with T-55 optics and a one-way radio is going to perform much better than it does and history, from what we can glean appears to back me up on this.  But I am open to being wrong.  

Lastly, if you read only one part of this post let it be this.  Stop telling us "its broken and wrong" because that point is not really been proven and start telling us what you think "right looks like".  If we fired Steve and put you in charge what would Soviet tank spotting look like, and very importantly "why?".

[The_Capt]

19 minutes ago, Simcoe said:

For your point about under 200 meters. Me and others are saying T-62’s are sometimes not spotting enemy tanks at close range opened up. I have no issue with the spotting when buttoned.

Ok, that is weird.  Has anyone run some test on this?  Or has an screenshot.  

[Vanir Ausf B]

49 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Has anyone run some test on this?  Or has an screenshot.

I have, and I do

Ran 10 tests, range 150 meters. I did not see anything out of the ordinary given the highly random nature of the CM spotting model. Tanks at 0° and 45° were spotted within 15 seconds 90% of the time but I did have one take 28 seconds and another 20 seconds. The tanks at 90° showed higher variability. Most were spotted within 30 seconds but a few took over a minute. I did not have any tank not spotted after 90 seconds.

Edited February 7, 2022 by Vanir Ausf B

[The_Capt]

8 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

I have, and I do

Ran 10 tests, range 150 meters. I did not see anything out of the ordinary given the highly random nature of the CM spotting model. Tanks at 0° and 45° were spotted within 15 seconds 90% of the time but I did have one take 28 seconds and another 20 seconds. The tanks at 90° showed higher variability. Most were spotted within 30 seconds but a few took over a minute. I did not have any tank not spotted after 90 seconds.

Over a minute for unbuttoned at 150ms does not sound right to be honest.  0 to 45 degrees and 15 seconds, sure, as spotting is not just spotting but identification.  The little crew guys do not automatically see the tank as an enemy tank so that takes a few seconds.  Regular crew and all I assume?  90 degrees also makes sense as I suspect that spotting is set to a template based on how tanks fight in formation, so unlike say our recent experiences in COIN, 90 degrees is someone else's problem.

Any chance you did the US (switched spots) as well?  

Edited February 7, 2022 by The_Capt

[Vanir Ausf B]

44 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Regular crew and all I assume? 

Yep. If you click on the pic you get a high rez version that is readable.

44 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Any chance you did the US (switched spots) as well?  

Yes. The longest time at 0°-45° was 26 seconds, the next longest 18. At 90° the longest time was 68 seconds. Times were broadly similar to the T-62 but a little quicker, maybe 10-20% difference. But these are small sample sizes with large variance so take all of it with a heap of salt.

Edited February 7, 2022 by Vanir Ausf B

[The_Capt]

13 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Yep. If you click on the pic you get a high rez version that is readable.

Yes. The longest time at 0°-45° was 26 seconds, the next longest 18. At 90° the longest time was 68 seconds. Times were broadly similar to the T-62 but a little quicker, maybe 10-20% difference. But these are small sample sizes with large variance so take all of it with a heap of salt.

Well it still feels slow but 10-20% (small sample etc) is not crazy as US crews were not conscripted by this point.  To be honest I am not sure the conscription argument equals "lesser trained all the time" but ok can't really get too excited about that.  My sense is that under the hood spotting is a beast and there had better be M113 night vision problems before they want to unpack it.