M1 SEP v T90A and combined arms warfare :).

[kipanderson]

Hi,

CMSF has the scale, scope and features I had hope for. It also has a fun setting. However the setting does have its limitations, even Steve would have to admit that . There are very few viable scenarios one can build other than ones that involve the US attacking Syrian infantry of one type or another supported by their excellent Russian AT weapons. When it comes to combined arms warfare the limitations of the Syrian armour mean you watch a one sided slaughter. The good news is that it need not be like that .

If BFC were to give us the T90A tank, and the 3BM-46/48 long-rod projectile ammunition, combined arms warfare would become feasible. This is why.

Modern tank guns.

If you take the standard US and NATO smoothbore 120mm gun to have a muzzle energy of around 10 million joules then the Russian 125mm has around 11 million joules and the 140mm gun developed by all players in the early ‘90s, even the Swiss, has a muzzle energy of round 18 million joules. In the mid ‘90s the Swiss did a major series of tests to see what the long-term potential of the 120mm gun was. Their conclusion was that the 120mm gun, in its standard form, would never be able to penetrate more than 750mm of RHA/steel plate at 2000m. The 140mm gun, or any gun with a muzzle energy of 18 million joules, would be able to penetrate 1000mm of RHA at 2000m. The Swiss therefore conclude, and lobbied others of this need, that a new 140mm gun was needed. That NATO should field the 140mm guns.

The reason is that tank armour over the forward arc was moving beyond an equivalent 750mm of RHA. This is the back ground to what follows.

M1 SEP firing at a T90A.

Charles is likely to have modelled the M1 firing the M829A3 projectile/round. This is the latest standard round in use by the US. It has a penetration of around 830mm of RHA at the muzzle, 800mm at 1000m and 760mm at 2000m. This is straight on, at zero degree/ninety degrees.

The T90A is estimated to have armour equivalent to around 830mm on both the hull and turret front. Clearly, if the relative figures here are correct, the T90A does least have a fighting chance of some hits not penetrating. Remember that many hits in the real world, and therefore in CMSF, would not be at zero degrees/ninety degrees but would be at 30 degrees or more increasing the effectiveness of the armour.

T90A firing at the M1 SEP.

The T90A would be firing either the 3BM-46/48 projectile or the 3BM-42/44 projectile. Both date from the ‘90s. Penetration fro both projectiles is believed to be around 710mm at point blank, 680mm at 1000m and 650mm at 2000m.

The M1 SEP has front turret armour in the 900mm-1000mm class, but both the upper an lower front hull armour are believed to be no more than 600mm in effectiveness. Clearly a strike from a Russian 3bM-46/48 or 42/44 projectile would have reasonable, sometimes even good chance of penetrating. Added to this, the T90A would be armed with the latest “M” model of 125mm ATGM for longer range combat.

All those who are interested in these matters will have noticed that no side has an absolute advantage. At normal combat ranges out to 2000m either side may penetrate or often fail to penetrate the other. But we would very much have game on your hands. Combined arms warfare would be back .

There are a number of qualifications. One is that I do no know what figures Charles is using, the above figures are relative. Also remember that US Javelins could kill T90As at will, and Syrian AT14s kill M1s at will. But the armour v armour battle would take on a completely different character. Would be way more evenly balanced.

When you match Russian armour of the “same” generation against US/Western armour this tends to be case. With Russian armour often having had the advantage.

Both the T90A and the projectiles it would use have been around since the ‘90s and are not concepts.

Hoping BFC will give us the latest Russian toys, from the late ‘90s, so we can build battles with more of a OPFORs feel to them.

Once again enjoy watching armour clash .

All very good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[junk2drive]

I guess they're busy now.

Didn't we dicuss this kind of thing long ago?

Maybe an officer with a govt checkbook will change their mind...

[KNac]

We need Red OPFOR branch w/ new TOEs & OOB!

Not now but for the next couple expasions packs. This way once they head towards WWII these of us who would like to still play modern could expand the life of this game until modern is revisited.

[CommC]

The US Army already has its multi-million dollar armor simulator(s). The graphics are poor but servicable. They have no need for small-frys like BFC.

[Paper Tiger]

Quote <Hoping BFC will give us the latest Russian toys, from the late ‘90s, so we can build battles with more of a OPFORs feel to them.

Once again enjoy watching armour clash [smile] .>

I get the feeling that it would be a VERY short clash. But fun. I've suggested this too and been told that this has been discussed before. But the threads are VERY long and long-winded and I don't have the time to read them. I get the impression that if the Syrians don't have them, we can't have them.

[RT North Dakota]

Climbed all over the T-90 and talked to crews. It's crap. Stupidest thing anyone can do is attempt to confront Western CA Groupings with their own CA.

- BTW, stop assuming Combined Arms is a type of warfare. It's a type of grouping or operation. The UK used combine arms against the IRA - and no tanks were involved!

[Darkmath]

T90 is in fact a renamed T72 which has been improved in the 1990's.

The theoritical nomenclature is something like T72BV .

The current game features T72s (T72 2001) with latest russian equipment, including an improved gun.

I don't know whether this T72 have something in common with T90, especially the gun.

[thewood]

Isn't that T-72BV called the T-90S. The other T-90 is a much more modern AFV. I am speaking from partial ignorance.

[ChrisND]

I don't have all of the facts with me, but bear in mind that some "later" T-models were in fact basically T-72s that were re-named to avoid the stigma from their horrible performance in GW1.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Of course the T90 is a modernised T72… no surprises there .

When people slang off Russian equipment it always brings a smile to my face . To give an example.

In the mid ‘90s a T72 which had been fitted with kontakt-5 reactive armour was tested by the US over its forward arc and found to be impregnable against the 120mm M1 gun firing the then model of the M829 long-rod penetrator. The T72 with K-5 armour performed exactly as the Russians had claimed it would. Equally in ’96 when the AT14 was unveiled to the public the Russian designers said it could cope with western 4th generation tanks and as the Israelis found out it can. In the mid ‘90s I had lunch with the RAF officers who headed up their team inspecting the Mig 29s the East Germans brought with them and he confirmed what the military press had been full of… that both the Mig 29, and especially its missiles, were far superior to US F16s and F15s “of the time”.

Another example of Russian technology that some here may call “crap” is the Arena active defence system. Shoots down incoming ATGMs. This was demonstrated to the Germans in ’97 and… you guessed it …. worked as advertised. The Israeli version of Jane’s, Defence Update which is edited by the ex-head of the Israelis tank development program, recons Arena would have devastated the Hell Fire, TOW, Hot generations of ‘90s NATO ATGMs. So do not take my word for it.

If you go back and read the defence journals from the ‘90s you will find all of the above is uncontroversial. Also, one of us on the forum, John Kettle I think his name is, will confirm that amongst US military analysts it has always been known that when you compare like with like, that is same generation equipment, Russian AFVs tend to hold their own, sometimes better western tanks.

Because we are all so accustomed to seeing western armies fight Arab armies equipped with obsolete/ “monkey model” versions of Soviet kit, in the hands of very poorly trained personal, a myth has grown up that the US in particular has a huge technology advantage over all others. This is not the case. There are probably twenty nations that could produce, and often in small numbers do produce, equipment of all sorts that is very much the equal of US equipment. It is worth remembering that US designed equipment is not the worlds best in pistols, assault rifles, machine guns, mortars, towed and self-propelled artillery, tanks, APCs/IFVs and ATGMs. In each category some other nation produces what most would give the prize to as the “best”. But no matter…. US equipment is “good enough”… but so is that of other nations.

RT North Dakota….

I understand your point; I know what combined arms means and what combined arms warfare is. I know I am misusing the term. I use the term only to highlight there is an alternative to only modelling the US attacking Syrian infantry of some type… or just watching Syrian AFVs slaughtered.

All very good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

PS. Defence journals such as Jane’s are also of the view that current generation Russian air-defence systems would be just as effective against current western aircraft as their AT weapons are against current western tanks. There no magic to all this, all the major player know how to do this stuff .

[Lee]

It's understood that if we fought front line Russian troops with the latest Russian tanks, aircraft, etc. that it would be a much tougher fight than fighting these lame arab armies. We still would have the qualitative advantage, but it would be more of an even fight. Thankfully they are not the enemy.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I am hoping that as BFC “grow” the NATO options with added modules they will take mercy on us and grow the Syrian side by adding a Republican Guards option with OPFORs equipment. T90 with late ‘90s ammunition, BMP 3 and the RPG29 and AT14 already in the game and we have takeoff .

I think it will happen… but then I thought there would one day be a Fulda Gap game… so what do I know .

All the best,

Kip.

[rudel.dietrich]

The plan has always been to add in sprinklings of red equipment for every new module

I am not really sure where the communication broke down that we would never add in new equipment

Of course I cannot speak for BFC since I do not work for them

But when I did the TO&E for the Syrians all of this was disscussed

My plan for the modules is to first tackle things which Syria actualy has and then go spread into the hypothetical stuff

This means stuff like AT Guns, on map light AA guns, land mines, more fortifications, fortified houses etc etc

The Syrian airborne division is up for inclusion in the next module and that will mean BMP-3s since the Syrian airborne really does have 80-100 of them

That will probably leave room for a handful of other weapons

Again I am going to focus on realistic stuff and then work my way out to fantasy weapons.

And as I said before, I do not work for BFC and there is no reason to assume they will listen to me.

But every red weapon you see in the game now is our best guess as to what Syrian does indeed have and a bulk of the information was provided by me.

I will continue to provide that information to BF as long as they continue to listen.

As for future modules I will see what direction BF wants to go with reguards to red equipment and then suggest weapons to them in a way that seems most logical to me.

And that means I will prioritize weapons based on the likelyhood that Syria will actualy said weapon.

So plans are as of now to add in more red equipment.

The threads saying there are no plans too need to stop.

Also the 25 threads asking for the T-80/T-90 needs to stop as well.

Those have already made my list (and plenty of varients of each) of potential weapons to add assuming BF listens to me and that modules actualy do get produced.

My plan of operations as of now is closer to time is to ask Steve how many red weapons each module will have if any.

I will then come out here and do a series of polls asking for peoples opinions on what gets added and that way we can make the most people happy.

And for the final time, I do not work for BF.

Everything I just wrote is speculation on my part and is subject to never happen

[thewood]

Where are these 25 threads. I have seen a couple.

[John Kettler]

kipanderson,

Guilty as charged! Nice post! In the 1980s, the Russians, in mass fielded armor/antiarmor systems,

were way ahead of us. The Desert Storm "Hail Mary" play across the desert was fought using the latest fruits of our "get well" program from that shattering discovery.

rudel.dietrich,

Did you see the Pantsyr-S1E stuff I posted in the Syrian TO&E thread? Nasty!

Regards,

John Kettler

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

rudel.dietrich,

Did you see the Pantsyr-S1E stuff I posted in the Syrian TO&E thread? Nasty!

I do not think I saw that.

From what I have read the vehicles have not been as effective as first reported.

There appears to be a 'dead zone' where the 30mm rounds cannot engage and the missles effective engagement altitude.

And the radar on it has proven to be quite suspectable to SEAD flights.

How that has been proven I do not know...

But even with those problem I think it is a novel system that in another generation or two has alot of merit in that it will be able to fight the dual threat of fixed wing jet aircraft as well as attack helicopters.

Also the missle itself is very very impressive. Its speed is such that it a target cannot hope to out climb it and thus has to dive down into the range of those 30mm guns.

If the radar problems get worked out than it can be a very real threat to aircraft.

Even now the system from what I have read can almost completly protect a 3km zone from the threat of helicopters assuming it can keep the helo in LOS and does not get smoked by said helo.

As far as CMSF terms I do not know if it is something BF would want to spend time modeling or not.

Syria is supossed to receive shipment of said vehicles begining next month

[John Kettler]

rudel.dietrich,

Here's the link to the part of The New Syrian TO&E thread where I talk about the Pantsyr-S1E and other hot topics.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=001209;p=8

Believe you'll find the material worth reading. I think those fire units are going to be very high priority targets in any real encounter. I, for one, certainly wouldn't want to go up against even one, let alone a group. The Russian article (see engagement envelope plot) indicates this thing is quite capable against even Stealth aircraft and missiles. Just imagine tangling with it in, say, an F-16, F/A-18 or an A-10. Not good!

Regards,

John Kettler

Regards,

John Kettler

[kipanderson]

rudel.dietrich, hi,

You and your chums have done a great job on the Syrians. That is for sure. I would also like to reinforce how much I enjoy CMSF. CMX2, when fully debugged, will be away better than CMX1 and exactly what I thought it would be… and what I wished for. To me CM of all types is really ultra-Squad Leader… and CMX2 is just a far more detailed simulation than CMX1 but filling the same niche perfectly .

However, CMBB lasted me three years of top quality replay value until one day I could not cope with Absolute Spotting and never played CMX1 again. CMSF will not have the same replay value due to the fact that I can think of no scenarios to play other than variations on US forces attacking Syrian light infantry of some type… unless I want to what Syrian armour in a one-sided slaughter.

My reason for posting is to try and persuade BFC to “breakout of the straightjacket” of modeling Syrian forces as they really are.

Give us the option to model them as OPFORs with fully mature current Russian kit and CMSF gets way longer legs in terms of its replay value. After playing many a Syrian scenario as currently modeled many would migrate to trying some OPFORs/NTC type games. Watch mechanized forces clash on a more equal footing.

All very good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[flamingknives]

Kip, looks like you missed this:

The Marines Module is next and it will build on the existing game system. There will be three things to look forward to:

1. Full array of Marines equipment and organization. Should be a very different experience from a tactics point of view.

2. Inclusion of Syrian Airborne equipment and TO&E. For sure this means BMP-3 and Milan ATGMs. We will include at least one new Syrian tank, which we had intended to be a T-80 but we are now leaning towards a T-90. The reason is Assad went on a shopping trip recently and it would seem that they're changing their wish list from T-80 (they actually had evaluation units some years ago) to T-90.

3. Some new game features. This is TBD but there won't be a radical change in the core game system over what we've patched between now and then. Large feature changes won't happen until the WWII game is out.

As for opening up the game engine to modding I've been extremely frank and honest about our reasons. I can't help it if some people don't like the answer. It's not something we think is in the customer's best interests or in our own. If someone wants to piss and moan about it (again), please find one of the 2 dozen threads that exist and bump it instead of creating yet another one.

Steve

[kipanderson]

flamingknives, hi,

thanks for the heads-up… no I had not seen the above quoted post.

Good news .

All the best,

Kip.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

rudel.dietrich, hi,

You and your chums have done a great job on the Syrians. That is for sure. I would also like to reinforce how much I enjoy CMSF. CMX2, when fully debugged, will be away better than CMX1 and exactly what I thought it would be… and what I wished for. To me CM of all types is really ultra-Squad Leader… and CMX2 is just a far more detailed simulation than CMX1 but filling the same niche perfectly .

However, CMBB lasted me three years of top quality replay value until one day I could not cope with Absolute Spotting and never played CMX1 again. CMSF will not have the same replay value due to the fact that I can think of no scenarios to play other than variations on US forces attacking Syrian light infantry of some type… unless I want to what Syrian armour in a one-sided slaughter.

My reason for posting is to try and persuade BFC to “breakout of the straightjacket” of modeling Syrian forces as they really are.

Give us the option to model them as OPFORs with fully mature current Russian kit and CMSF gets way longer legs in terms of its replay value. After playing many a Syrian scenario as currently modeled many would migrate to trying some OPFORs/NTC type games. Watch mechanized forces clash on a more equal footing.

All very good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

You can be 100% assured that we are interested in putting in 'fantasy' weapons into future modules.

While I disagree with you about current play balance, you see what you see and there is nothing I can do about that.

Like the above post, so far the plan seems to be to include airborne forces in the next module.

I am going to push to get some weapons added that Syria already has like AT guns and the like.

Again I do not speak for BF

But the most logical plan to me would be to include a realistic Red formation in each module, and some real weapons that were left out, and some fantasy weapons.

A mixing of the three

I think that would be the best way to tackle modules for the Red side and make the most people possible happy.

When and if I am asked for my opinion that is what I am going to push for.

Also like I said, I would like you include the game players to give their input on the fantasy weapons they would like to see.

As far as formations, we still have several to add in.

Syrian airborne

Hezbollah

Possible Mujahideen

Possible expansion of unconvential forces equipment lists

So again

I just want to assure everyone that there is someone on the beta team who is a 'defender' of the Red side and as much as possible I will try and push for new equipment and make sure that the expansion packs do not only include Nato equipment