Combat Mission Cold War - British Army On the Rhine

[Millien]

On 3/8/2024 at 5:56 AM, The_Capt said:

So over all scope, scale and background are all defined.

Even if there isn't any images or models available to show at this time, would it be possible to share some of the broader strokes of what will be included? Such as the types of formations or vehicles included with the British or Canadians (Territorial or airborne forces with the British, Canadian reserves being present) or any new additions or changes to the existing factions in game (older equipment for the U.S., AT-7 no longer present in BTR MRBs before '79, VDV for the soviets? etc). It doesn't necessarily need to be any of these questions either, but I imagine many folks (me included) are very interested to see a glimpse for things that are going to be coming.

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Millien said:

Even if there isn't any images or models available to show at this time, would it be possible to share some of the broader strokes of what will be included? Such as the types of formations or vehicles included with the British or Canadians (Territorial or airborne forces with the British, Canadian reserves being present) or any new additions or changes to the existing factions in game (older equipment for the U.S., AT-7 no longer present in BTR MRBs before '79, VDV for the soviets? etc). It doesn't necessarily need to be any of these questions either, but I imagine many folks (me included) are very interested to see a glimpse for things that are going to be coming.

We won’t really know until final TO&Es are put in but we had planned pretty much the full gambit of UK units - if it was in the BAOR or had a chance to get pulled in, we put it in for submission to the game.  For the Canadians, I basically recreated 4 CMBG from the old ‘76 redesign - beefed it up some and tried to get some cool stuff put in.

Not sure I can post much more than this - BFC has a pretty uptight policy until we get the thing entirely baselined.

[Millien]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Not sure I can post much more than this - BFC has a pretty uptight policy until we get the thing entirely baselined.

Fair enough, thanks for the info regardless! Hopefully you'll be able to share more in the near future, but until whenever time that is it'll be wait and see.

[Halmbarte]

Chieftain isn't going to bounce ****e all from the Sov 115mm or better tank guns, is it? 

H

[Amedeo]

7 hours ago, Halmbarte said:

Chieftain isn't going to bounce ****e all from the Sov 115mm or better tank guns, is it? 

H

I doubt it.
 

 

Considering that in the assumed timeframe the 3BM21 should be available for all T-62s in the game, I think that the Chieftain will be vulnerable in its frontal arc to 115mm tank guns. Not to speak of the 125mm guns.

[Centurian52]

4 hours ago, Amedeo said:

I doubt it.
 

 

Considering that in the assumed timeframe the 3BM21 should be available for all T-62s in the game, I think that the Chieftain will be vulnerable in its frontal arc to 115mm tank guns. Not to speak of the 125mm guns.

It certainly seems unlikely at this point that the Chieftain will hold up better against 125mm or 115mm HEAT or APFSDS rounds than the M60. Though maybe once we have it in CM the various unusual angles that it might get shot at from in dynamic combat will show that it's actually more resilient than the youtube simulations suggested (maybe its frontal armor can bounce a 115mm APFSDS round if it comes in from about 30 degrees to the left while the tank is in a hull-down position that is tilting the hull up a bit to put the upper front plate at an even more extreme angle...or something).

In any case, I think one of the first things I'm going to do when we get the module is set up a Chieftain and an M60 on a shooting range and see if I can't find something that the Chieftain is more resilient against than the M60. It sure would be a shame if it turned out that all of that extra armor was nothing but a waste of steel and hp/ton. But based on what I've seen so far, my current guess is that the French and Germans probably had the right idea with their light armor/high mobility designs in the AMX-30 and Leopard 1.

Edited March 20 by Centurian52

[Halmbarte]

12 hours ago, Centurian52 said:

It certainly seems unlikely at this point that the Chieftain will hold up better against 125mm or 115mm HEAT or APFSDS rounds than the M60. Though maybe once we have it in CM the various unusual angles that it might get shot at from in dynamic combat will show that it's actually more resilient than the youtube simulations suggested (maybe its frontal armor can bounce a 115mm APFSDS round if it comes in from about 30 degrees to the left while the tank is in a hull-down position that is tilting the hull up a bit to put the upper front plate at an even more extreme angle...or something).

In any case, I think one of the first things I'm going to do when we get the module is set up a Chieftain and an M60 on a shooting range and see if I can't find something that the Chieftain is more resilient against than the M60. It sure would be a shame if it turned out that all of that extra armor was nothing but a waste of steel and hp/ton. But based on what I've seen so far, my current guess is that the French and Germans probably had the right idea with their light armor/high mobility designs in the AMX-30 and Leopard 1.

I suspect you're right. If thicker armor can't keep out typical threats why bother dragging it around?  More weight brings significant penalties to the entire AFV, both tactically and logistically.

H 

[DesertFox]

Stumbled across these. Might bring you in the 1982 mood..

 

[Thewood1]

In Steel Beasts, if using another game as a reference means anything, the T-62A with BM-21 takes 2-3 shots to completely destroy a Chieftain Mk5 at 1000m.  Now and then you get a single shot penetration.  Both tanks in hull down fighting position and the Chieftain set to not respond.

Going the other way, the 120mm APDS (L15) takes 3-4 shots on average to get a full kill.  Using APFSDS (L23A1) single shot kills are common.

I will point out that after the first hit, neither tank was fit to compete.  Damaged systems and crew casualties make the tanks unable to respond if they were set to.  Also, the Chieftain was generally faster to spot than the T-62.

Edited March 27 by Thewood1

[FlatEric999]

Nice little introduction to Swingfire, its development and capabilities, in this video from the Tank Museum:

 

[Erwin]

I can now better understand folk's enthusiasm for a BAOR module.  Thank you...

[Lieutenant Ash]

So as far as I can tell from the above video, during the timeframe of the module (late seventies) the swingfire atgms were under the control of the Royal Artillery, which makes me wonder how they would have been employed in action? Keep them togeather as a larger unit or split them up and dole them out to various other units. 

[Combatintman]

On 4/1/2024 at 1:53 PM, Lieutenant Ash said:

So as far as I can tell from the above video, during the timeframe of the module (late seventies) the swingfire atgms were under the control of the Royal Artillery, which makes me wonder how they would have been employed in action? Keep them togeather as a larger unit or split them up and dole them out to various other units. 

There was all sorts of jiggery-pokery going on with UK force structures at the time involving the usual suspects - cap badge rivalry and saving cash on the defence budget.  In essence this played out along the lines of all recce assets being owned by the RAC and anything that the RA could claim being owned by the RA.  Recce regiments are a good example - all armoured and infantry regiments lost their recce CVR(T) platoons/troops to RAC recce regiments and all infantry/MBT-equipped tank regiments lost their antitank assets to the RA.  In the case of anti-tank stuff, the RA formed independent antitank batteries (all RHA) followed by the inevitable discussion about how they would be employed - as batteries in their own right, parcelled out etc etc until ... surprise, surprise, everyone changed their minds again and all of the stuff returned from whence it came.  Have a look here ...

(69) Swingfire 1977-1984 | Army Rumour Service (arrse.co.uk)v

 

Edited April 3 by Combatintman

[Lieutenant Ash]

Thanks for the reply. Looks like anything was possible then, it will be interesting to see how they are deployed in game (assuming they make it in).

[Centurian52]

I can definitely see why so many people are so enthusiastic for Swingfire. I hope they can figure out how to get it working with a remote operator in-game. Seems like it might require a bit of extra coding. But hopefully not a prohibitive amount of coding.

Edited April 4 by Centurian52

[Thewood1]

You have a similar issue with a few other ATGMs.  The missile could be located away from the firing soldier.  Saggar comes to mind.

[Thewood1]

I think part of the same series as above.  Thought it gave a solid and simple layout of a Soviet offensive straurcture in the early 1980s.

 

[Halmbarte]

Chieftain V T-62 | Operation Nasr, Iran – Iraq War, 1981

H

[Thewood1]

You can play that exact battle/operation in Graviteam's Operation Victory as a DLC for Mius Front.  I think there is a Steel Beasts scenario for it as well.

[MikeyD]

"How reliable was the swingfire and striker?"

Swingfire, if I recall correctly, had a quite long minimum range. It was fired upward then had  to be gathered into the LOS. So a Swingfire missile could be halfway down a standard CM map before the gunner got proper control of the missile. Wiki says minimum distance is 150m. That would be arming distance, it could be 700m or more downrange before the gunner got the missile in the crosshairs.

[Centurian52]

1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

it could be 700m or more downrange before the gunner got the missile in the crosshairs.

I can see that being a bit of an issue in some circumstances

[db_zero]

Day 1 buy for me. Perhaps in the future we can see Norway with local forces and USMC. Maybe even the Southern NATO front with the Greek and Turk forces fighting alongside NATO.

Edited April 25 by db_zero

[Grey_Fox]

On 4/17/2024 at 8:34 PM, MikeyD said:

it could be 700m or more downrange before the gunner got the missile in the crosshairs.

Given how it was intended to be used, and how the Soviets intended to fight, that's not necessarily a weakness.

For comparison, M150s and M901s would have long displaced before the Soviets got within that range. Ideally the infantry supporting them would also have pulled back a fair while before the Soviets got within Dragon range (1km).

Edited Monday at 09:55 PM by Grey_Fox

[danfrodo]

On 4/13/2024 at 10:47 AM, Halmbarte said:

Chieftain V T-62 | Operation Nasr, Iran – Iraq War, 1981

H

Thanks for sharing this.  I knew very little about chieftain except that it had weird engine.  This was a really good primer.  I really like the sloped turret on the chieftain, nice design.  Looking forward to using it against them dang commies.  

[Halmbarte]

2 hours ago, danfrodo said:

Thanks for sharing this.  I knew very little about chieftain except that it had weird engine.  This was a really good primer.  I really like the sloped turret on the chieftain, nice design.  Looking forward to using it against them dang commies.  

I am too, but I know it'll probably be a bad as the M60 vs the Sov stuff. 

H