Combat Mission Cold War - British Army On the Rhine

[LuckyDog]

On 2/1/2023 at 12:46 PM, The_Capt said:

I am working on a special Easter egg just for you, but let's see if we can pull it off.

How's the Easter Bunny doing with our treat?

[The_Capt]

3 minutes ago, LuckyDog said:

How's the Easter Bunny doing with our treat?

Still painting it.

[Aragorn2002]

5 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Still painting it.

No pressure. You did say you would try. That's good enough for me. 

[Sequoia]

Orthodox Easter is a week later, so that would still count if needed.

[Arjuna.R]

Extremely happy with this news! Definite pre-order for me. 

[Centurian52]

I'm sitting at work and I can only work on certs for so many hours straight before my brain just starts to shut down (no projects going on right now). Does anyone have anything interesting to share about the British, Canadian, or Soviet armies in the period from 1976 to 1982? @The_Capt We got any screenshots on the way?

[Centurian52]

I'm toying around with the Chieftain in the WoT armor inspector, and I'm considering revising my opinion of it. My initial assessment was that, despite its heavier armor, it would not prove any more survivable than the M60 on the late 70s battlefield, since late Cold War HEAT and APFSDS ammunition was so deadly. But although nothing the Soviets have should have too much difficulty penetrating it in this time period, it may nonetheless manage to bounce an appreciably higher proportion of the shots that hit it. So it may have noticeably better survivability after all.

Granting I'm not working with a particularly detailed data set. The only source I know of that has a listing of ammunition performance that is as comprehensive as I need is the Steel Beasts Wiki. But I went ahead and grabbed the following, on the assumption that this was all ammunition that the Chieftain might face from 1976-1982:

100mm BM-8 HVAPDS-T (1968) - 300mm
100mm BM-20 APFSDS-T (1976) - 390mm
100mm BM-25 APFSDS-T (1978) - 430mm
100mm BK-5M HEAT-FS-T (1955) - 380mm

115mm BM-21 APFSDS-T (1975) - 430mm
115mm BM-28 APFSDS-T (1978) - 460mm
115mm BK-4M HEAT-FS-T (1969) - 440mm

125mm BM-15 APFSDS-T (1972) - 350mm
125mm BM-22 APFSDS-T (1976) - 440mm
125mm BK-12M HEAT-FS-T (1969) - 440mm
125mm BK-14M HEAT-FS-T (1970s) - 500mm

I then clicked on the WoT armor inspector model a bunch of times from the frontal aspect, trying to be as random as possible in where each "shot" landed, and I recorded the los thickness that shot would have faced. I got the following:

1: 430mm
2: 343mm
3: 429mm
4: 551mm
5: 140mm (joint between the upper and lower front plates)
6: 554mm
7: 384mm
8: 141mm 
9: 407mm
10: 658mm (ended up getting a particularly steep angle on the hull armor on this one)

Ignoring range, forgiving the small sample size, and taking both the WoT armor inspector and Steel Beasts ammunition data at face value we get the following performance for the Soviet tank ammunition.

100mm BM-8 HVAPDS-T (1968) - 20% of shots penetrated
100mm BM-20 APFSDS-T (1976) - 40% of shots penetrated
100mm BM-25 APFSDS-T (1978) -  60% or 70% of shots penetrated (one shot is right at the cutoff, perhaps it would have only gotten a partial pen or spalling)
100mm BK-5M HEAT-FS-T (1955) -  30% of shots penetrated

115mm BM-21 APFSDS-T (1975) -  60% or 70% of shots penetrated
115mm BM-28 APFSDS-T (1978) - 70% of shots penetrated
115mm BK-4M HEAT-FS-T (1969) - 70% of shots penetrated

125mm BM-15 APFSDS-T (1972) -  30% of shots penetrated
125mm BM-22 APFSDS-T (1976) - 70% of shots penetrated
125mm BK-12M HEAT-FS-T (1969) - 70% of shots penetrated
125mm BK-14M HEAT-FS-T (1970s) - 70% of shots penetrated

So it would seem that every Soviet ammunition type is still capable of taking out the Chieftain from the front, but it isn't as certain as it was with the M60. Considering that it feels like more than 90% of shots that hit the M60 manage to penetrate, that might translate into noticeably improved survivability. But we'll only know when we actually get to see it in action.

[IICptMillerII]

Some quick points:

War Thunder and World of Tanks should not be taken seriously. Their armor modeling is, at best, a gameplay gimmick, and is not particularly accurate of a multitude of reasons. 

This image is regarding War Thunder, but it makes a point nonetheless:

This is a point that is made (and argued against a lot) both here and in professional circles, but the survivability onion strikes again. The best way for a tank to not get penetrated is for it to not get shot in the first place, even in direct combat. (Break out the bingo card) Things like hull down, berm drills, prepared positions, battle positions, engagement areas, and displacing to alternate firing positions (bingo!) all work in concert. The armor itself is the last resort defensive measure of a tank. 

Not trying to poopoo your post. I understand the anticipation. 

I will say this: I am very interested to see how the Chieftain ends up performing whenever this module comes out. As discussed in either this thread or elsewhere (can't recall at the moment) the Chieftain was fielding rather lackluster ammunition during this time period that (at first glance) appears to be even less potent than the early US ammo already present in the game. Given that, it'll be interesting to see how the Chieftain performs. 

 

[Centurian52]

57 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

Some quick points:

War Thunder and World of Tanks should not be taken seriously. Their armor modeling is, at best, a gameplay gimmick, and is not particularly accurate of a multitude of reasons. 

This image is regarding War Thunder, but it makes a point nonetheless:

This is a point that is made (and argued against a lot) both here and in professional circles, but the survivability onion strikes again. The best way for a tank to not get penetrated is for it to not get shot in the first place, even in direct combat. (Break out the bingo card) Things like hull down, berm drills, prepared positions, battle positions, engagement areas, and displacing to alternate firing positions (bingo!) all work in concert. The armor itself is the last resort defensive measure of a tank. 

Not trying to poopoo your post. I understand the anticipation. 

I will say this: I am very interested to see how the Chieftain ends up performing whenever this module comes out. As discussed in either this thread or elsewhere (can't recall at the moment) the Chieftain was fielding rather lackluster ammunition during this time period that (at first glance) appears to be even less potent than the early US ammo already present in the game. Given that, it'll be interesting to see how the Chieftain performs. 

 

I should have added more caveats. I had hoped that

4 hours ago, Centurian52 said:

Ignoring range, forgiving the small sample size, and taking both the WoT armor inspector and Steel Beasts ammunition data at face value

and

4 hours ago, Centurian52 said:

But we'll only know when we actually get to see it in action.

would be enough qualification.

I am aware of how flawed both my data and my approach are. I only have access to internet-searchable data, and this was meant to be a low effort exercise. Some problems that you didn't point out are that I only accounted for los armor thickness, assuming that no rounds ever deflect, I did not account for the fall of a shot over long range decreasing the angle of impact, and, most egregious, I used armor and penetration data from two different sources. Ammunition and armor data both vary enough from source to source that I usually only consider a direct comparison to be possible when the numbers come from the same source.

And I had though it was self evident that you should never rely on your frontal armor, especially when everything the enemy has has a 30%-70% chance of penetrating it. The survivability onion is an old concept to me by now. This was about the chances of surviving a hit, ignoring all the hits you managed to avoid taking thanks to good tactics (even if the armor does end up making a difference, the Chieftain's poor mobility means that it might take some hits that the M60 wouldn't have taken in the first place, so I shouldn't have used the word "survivability" in my original post).

While I'm at it I should clarify what I meant when I said that I'm considering revising my opinion of the Chieftain. Before my opinion was that we would see absolutely no practical difference between the chances of a Chieftain surviving a hit and the chances of an M60 surviving a hit. Now I wonder if we might be pleasantly surprised a significant minority of the time (say 30% of the time) to find that we still have a working Chieftain. Again, the flawed data and the simplistic analysis means that this remains nothing more than a tantalizing possibility until we get a chance to actually put it to the test when CMCW:BAOR comes out.

Edited April 20, 2023 by Centurian52

[IICptMillerII]

All fair points! Again, not trying to poopoo. 

56 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

Again, the flawed data and the simplistic analysis means that this remains nothing more than a tantalizing possibility until we get a chance to actually put it to the test when CMCW:BAOR comes out.

I get it, something to do with the anticipation generated energy. 

Like you, I am really interested in seeing how Chieftain ends up performing. It is a tank with quite a reputation to it, and I wonder if some may be a bit chafed by its in game performance. Or not!

I also agree that it should generally speaking be a bit more survivable than the M60. The ability to take one on the chin (even if its a marginal advantage over the M60) could end up being decisive. 

I think I am most interested to see Chieftain take on T-64 equipped Soviet formations.

[Centurian52]

4 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

All fair points! Again, not trying to poopoo.

In retrospect I think I got a little too defensive there

[Da_General]

Does anyone know how many new campaigns this expansion is going to net us? New missions as well?

[Centurian52]

42 minutes ago, Da_General said:

Does anyone know how many new campaigns this expansion is going to net us? New missions as well?

I think we traditionally get at least two new campaigns with new CM modules, one for each side (maybe three if more than one new force is introduced). I know in the WW2 titles, whenever a new module introduced new Allied armies, we'd get a new Allied campaign for us to see what it's like fighting with the new armies, and we'd get a new Axis campaign for us to see what it's like fighting against the new armies.

I'm going to guess that we'll get three campaigns. A British campaign, a Canadian campaign, and a new Soviet campaign in which we will be going up against the British. I'm also going to guess somewhere in the range of 10-20 new standalone scenarios, based on what seems to be typical for a new module.

[Sunbather]

All I know is that Cold War and Black Sea are my favourite CM games and yet, at the same time, both are in dire need of content.

So the modules can't come soon enough!

[Aragorn2002]

Is it perhaps please possible to have some screenshot for the upcoming British module?

[Centurian52]

On 4/30/2023 at 1:28 AM, Aragorn2002 said:

Is it perhaps please possible to have some screenshot for the upcoming British module?

I'm eager to see some screenshots too. But I don't even know how far along in development they are. I got the impression that Steve may have dropped the news a bit early. I'm sure @The_Capt knows how eager some of us are for a preview, and will be dropping a few teasers for us as soon as there is something to show off.

[The_Capt]

Working on it.  No screenshots yet expect for a bunch of maps, you guys want to see shots of German countryside?

[Aragorn2002]

5 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Working on it.  No screenshots yet expect for a bunch of maps, you guys want to see shots of German countryside?

Haha. Not really, Capt. I guess you have enough to do.

Edit: that sounds rather ungrateful, but I mean well.

Edited May 2, 2023 by Aragorn2002

[sawomi]

10 hours ago, The_Capt said:

...you guys want to see shots of German countryside?

Yes. Especially some Brick Gothic.

-> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brick_Gothic

-> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Gothic_brick_buildings_in_Germany

[Centurian52]

13 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Working on it.  No screenshots yet expect for a bunch of maps, you guys want to see shots of German countryside?

I was about to say no, we've already got German countryside. But then I remembered, this is different German countryside. What we've got right now is the Fulda Gap. This is the North German Plain. So I wouldn't mind taking a peek at the new ground we'll be fighting over.

[The_Capt]

On 5/2/2023 at 7:43 AM, Centurian52 said:

I was about to say no, we've already got German countryside. But then I remembered, this is different German countryside. What we've got right now is the Fulda Gap. This is the North German Plain. So I wouldn't mind taking a peek at the new ground we'll be fighting over.

Ok, pre-Alpha disclaimer so details are subject to change but this is the first map in the Canadian campaign "On the Weser" - got big plans for this one. A Pete Wenman original:

Just southwest of a little town called Boffzen and south of Hoxter (From Google Earth):

Blow up of Canadian AO with rough zone of this map:

[Sublime]

On 4/20/2023 at 2:01 PM, IICptMillerII said:

Some quick points:

War Thunder and World of Tanks should not be taken seriously. Their armor modeling is, at best, a gameplay gimmick, and is not particularly accurate of a multitude of reasons. 

This image is regarding War Thunder, but it makes a point nonetheless:

This is a point that is made (and argued against a lot) both here and in professional circles, but the survivability onion strikes again. The best way for a tank to not get penetrated is for it to not get shot in the first place, even in direct combat. (Break out the bingo card) Things like hull down, berm drills, prepared positions, battle positions, engagement areas, and displacing to alternate firing positions (bingo!) all work in concert. The armor itself is the last resort defensive measure of a tank. 

Not trying to poopoo your post. I understand the anticipation. 

I will say this: I am very interested to see how the Chieftain ends up performing whenever this module comes out. As discussed in either this thread or elsewhere (can't recall at the moment) the Chieftain was fielding rather lackluster ammunition during this time period that (at first glance) appears to be even less potent than the early US ammo already present in the game. Given that, it'll be interesting to see how the Chieftain performs. 

 

yeah sensors sensors sensors.  Thats what the US army found post ww2 and what my take on UA is now - doesnt matter if you got that honking 125mm if the guy with the 105mm can ping you 3-4 times without you even seeing where he is...

Its cringe AF to use a video game for real life but CMSF really opened my eyes to the javelin and wow it wasnt wrong.  This is a tangent, but the Russians failed hard totally investing on beam riders whether Kornet or Vikhr etc.  Even the UA Stugna at least lets the launcher sit away from the soldier.

Considering original T90As had an auto slew to lase option, these modern atgms that need you to literally fire it and guide it are IMO suicide if they require a laser x2

[DerKommissar]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Ok, pre-Alpha disclaimer so details are subject to change but this is the first map in the Canadian campaign "On the Weser" - got big plans for this one. A Pete Wenman original:

Impressive!

Hopefully, they won't mine that bridge -- but you never know.

[Centurian52]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Ok, pre-Alpha disclaimer so details are subject to change but this is the first map in the Canadian campaign "On the Weser" - got big plans for this one. A Pete Wenman original:

Just southwest of a little town called Boffzen and south of Hoxter (From Google Earth):

Blow up of Canadian AO with rough zone of this map:

Looks great!

[Halmbarte]

Brit AT weapons: 

 

H