The T-90SA is being added to the Marines Module . Why ?

[Hannibal]

I see that the t90sa is being added in the Marine module. With the addition of this tank and the bmp 3 can the Sryians engage the US at I know not equal term but say at the level of the Russians against the Germans in 1943 .Say t-34s vs Tigers and Panthers .Is battlefront adding the t-90sa because of complaints about the weekness of the red side.Also does t-90sa mean no t-80s

[Paper Tiger]

I believe that it's because the Ba'athist regime has been doing some shopping and they quite fancy the new T-90 so it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the Syrians will have some in the near future, ie time scale of the scenario.

I don't think that it's that big a threat to the US forces but it will certainly up the challenge for them and give those of us who like red on red another option for playing.

The Airborne units which are coming in the Marines module are already equipped with the BMP-3 so that's part of their existing OOB.

As for the T-80, some are of the opinion on these boards is that it's not that much better than the T-72 TURMS so the T-90 would definitely be better. Of course, BOTH would be good too.

[Paper Tiger]

Ps, I wonder how long it will take for this thread to turn into a 'Just how good were the Russians v the Germans in 1943' thread.

[Hannibal]

I hope is does start that kind of fight.I loved seeing the arguments about what tank was better or who had the best Squad .)

[The Warrior]

I think the T-90 would be cool. Also, where you finding this information?

[Taki]

Why it is in the Marine Module? Because you buy it then. ^^

[Hannibal]

"An interesting concept. Unfortunately, it won't work in CMx2 because the poligonal representations matter. The T-90SA (which is coming in the Marines Module) is significantly smaller than the M1 family. It's armor is arrayed in different ways in different locations, so a hit to one spot may be different than a hit 30cm (scale distance) to one side of that. Since these things are determined by the polygons, it isn't possible to mix and match. In CMx1 we could easily do what you suggest since the vehicle simulation was divorced from the visual representation. The trade off is systems like CMx1 (and I am going to bet America's Army) is flexibility at the expense of detail. "

Steve

Qouting Battlefront .

[Meach]

I don't care why it's there...I just care that it is there.

More grist to the mill, I say

[bodkin]

I don't know much about modern russian armour but I believe that the russians don't always supply the best of their latest AT projectile technology with their export tanks. Does this mean the T-90sa will come with an inferior Long Rod Penetrators etc, to what the russians would use?

[ January 27, 2008, 01:17 AM: Message edited by: bodkin ]

[gibsonm]

Sorry, there is a complaint because more vehicles are being included??

3BM-42M currently modelled.

3BM-46 was also being looked at.

[hoolaman]

Why not?

CM has always been a sandbox game, and although battlefront are moving to a more user-pays system, the more toys the better!

Don't forget the whole scenario is fictional so you can't argue its not a realistic addition.

The T-80 would be great too.

[bodkin]

gibsonm,

If you're referring to my post I'm not complaining. As I said I know little about russian ammo and thought maybe the in game T-90 might have less firepower than what some may believe because it dosen't have the best ammo available.

[gibsonm]

No sorry perhaps I was unclear.

The first part refers to those who seemed upset that additional vehicles were coming. I couldn’t believe that people would complain about that.

The second part relates to your question about which rounds were being modelled.

Hope that clears it up.

[SgtMuhammed]

Maybe we will also see the motorcycle recon battalions that everyone was always wishing for in CMx1.

[Holman]

It's never too late for a Bren tripod!

[Hannibal]

I am happy about any new veicles that are added just wondering if Battlefront had planned all along to give us the t-90sa? It addition seems to be a bone to those who want tradition force on force conflicts.Maybe it's like when your kids keep conplaining an you give in just to keep them quiet.)

[JasonC]

Ah, Kontact 5. Now that is a system with real tactical implications.

As for who has them, right now it is Russia, India (a few hundred with a lot more in the works), and recently Algeria. There are rumors about the Saudis also getting some, but just sniffing around so far. Half the cost of an M-1, and with the ERA an impressive vehicle.

On motorcycle recon, you can implement it in CMBB using jeeps. I do it routinely in my scenarios. Just give a Russian Recon C platoon 7 jeeps - or 5 jeeps and drop one squad for a reduced section. Add a couple of BA-64s to work with them. Works just fine.

On what the balance was between Russian and German tanks in 1943 (ha ha ha), that was actually the period of the greatest German dominance in armor tech terms. They had Tiger Is in some numbers, and Panthers in the second half of the year. The Russians were still almost exclusively in T-34/76s, plus some T-70s.

Yes, there were a few better vehicles out during the year, but the quantities were limited. They had KV-1s and KV-1S, but those weren't appreciably better against long 75 AFVs or better. Most of the lighter German Panzer IIIs dropped out of the mix that year, and those were the last items the KVs were seriously better against than T-34s were.

KV-85s, some were made, and the first saw action very late in the year (November and December). But a tiny number, and most of the limited production run weren't in action until 1944 (Dnepr bend Ukraine and then Crimea).

SU-85s were better and out by the fall. Undermodeled in CMBB but in reality a useful AT hitter, more because they could kill Pz IVs and StuGs without needing to close than because they were any match for Tigers or Panthers. There were very few SU-152s and their best role wasn't AT work; SU-122s were even worse at it, being SPA not SPAT.

By comparison, in 1942 the Russians had the edge, since the Germans were mostly still in Pz IIIs, some short IVs and short StuGs, and plenty of even lightly stuff (Pz 38s and Pz IIs) still hanging around from 1941. Marders were the heavier hitter, but eggshells with hammers. The first long IVs were thin front and also eggshells with hammers. Thicker front StuGs and IVs were only a handful until very late in the year (Winter Storm counterattack period e.g.). The Russians meanwhile went from having a handful of KVs and T-34s in 1941, in a see of useless prewar lights, to having 2/3rds T-34s, the balance newer lights (T-60 and T-70).

And on the other side, in 1944 the Russians get seriously improved types. The first IS-2s show up in the late spring, and they get T-34/85s in quantity by summer. The SPA SU varieties are replaced by dual purposes ISUs, much heavier vehicles. That is a better example of a period in which the Russians finally have stuff good enough to fight the Germans on equal terms again, in individual vehicle specs.

It is of course a wonderful paradox that the period of greatest German AFV tech ascendency was also the period in which they lost the decisive battles of the war, and were thrown out of the Ukraine. Proof if it were needed that larger scale strategic and operational factors trump tactical and technical ones.

[Hannibal]

I picked 1943 because the Germans had the greatest advantage at that time .I figure ww2 on th eastern front at its most imbalanced time was still was more even than t-72 vs m1.I assume a t-34 76 vs a panther is a more even match up than a t-72 vs a m1a1

[JasonC]

Um, you were talking about the match up that results *after* the Syrians get T-90s with Kontact 5. That is not like 1943. T-72s against M-1s might be like 1943, but T-90s with Kontact 5 against M-1s is more like dead even. T-90 ERA will defeat the M-1 main gun over the frontal arc as long as the exact ERA plate hit hasn't previously been hit. Meanwhile, its own tandem HEAT tube-launched missile can defeat an M-1. (Of course its gun can also defeat the M-1 through side aspects).

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Well I was one of the most persistent lobbyists for the T90… maybe the most .

I cannot speak for Battlefront but my motivation was for more balanced mechanised clashes. T90 is fully mature and has been the standard Russian tanks for nearly fifteen years. So why not have some clashed between “current” types of tank.

BTW… The T95 is very real and on its why to the Russian Army.

http://www.defense-update.com/newscast/1207/news/301207_bmpt_t95.htm

All the best,

Kip.

[Darkmath]

"T72vsM1 is like a 1943 engagement."

Hmmm... Not so sure about the latest T72 in the game, as they include an improved 125mm gun which can fire ATGM (just like T90).

It's not the caliber itself which matters, but rather the ammunition type used.

Would a T90 with obsolete Syrian 125mm shell be more deadly than say, a T72 2001 with the last russian ammunitions?

Still, I would like to see T95 too, while we're at it.

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by Darkmath:

Would a T90 with obsolete Syrian 125mm shell be more deadly than say, a T72 2001 with the last russian ammunitions.

If you have a look a few posts up you’ll notice my past where I list the penetrators being modelled.

These are current Russian munitions (not dumbed down with sub standard metals).

[JasonC]

Darkmath - it isn't the gun, it is the armor. T-90S means Kontact 5 explosive reactive armor above modern layered plate, means "defeats M-1 long rod penetrator over the frontal arc". That is the equalizer, and it has nothing to do with anything about rounds.

[Battlefront.com]

To answer the original question as to why the T-90 is coming into CM:SF...

The Syrians actually had a test platoon for a while to evaluate. But they couldn't come up with the cash so the deal got nixed. Then, very recently, Assad went to Russia on a shopping trip with clean slate on its previous debt and guarantees from a couple other states (notably Iran). T-90s were reported to be on their shopping list, along with (of all the crazy things) aircraft.

So the Syrians have shown a consistent desire to have this tank and now apparently have the means to acquire them. Therefore it's possible that they will have them soon in real life.

Having said that, as we progress with Modules we will be less and less concerned about "would Syria actually have this?" because we want each Module to have something interesting for the Red side and the Marines Module will pretty much fulfill Syria's actual and/or probable array of meaningful equipment. Sure, we could include things like the Czech OT-64... but I don't think thats really all that interesting to people

Steve

[luderbamsen]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Having said that, as we progress with Modules we will be less and less concerned about "would Syria actually have this?" because we want each Module to have something interesting for the Red side and the Marines Module will pretty much fulfill Syria's actual and/or probable array of meaningful equipment. Sure, we could include things like the Czech OT-64... but I don't think thats really all that interesting to people

Steve

Excellent. I've always believed that you should only take realism and authenticity so far. A game like this should enable authenticity, not force it.

CMBB allowed me to conjure up "Barbarossa II" scenarios where, in 1946, a Luftwaffe Tiger II/JagdTiger sPzAbt (from "Panzer Armee Hermann Göring") rolled into Soviet-occupied Poland and took on numerous but woefully unprepared (T-34/76-1942) Red Army units.

Personally, I would have loved to add something like the E-100 to that scenario. But as always the question of where to draw the line is as much a matter of personal taste as any "scientific" reasoning. And for BFC a matter of development cost vs. increased sales.

As for CMSF, I'd say that something like the MRAP vehicles would make a reasonable addition and some point, as would the Trophy active defence system on Strykers (providing it's being fitted as planned). I'd like to go quite a bit further (say, unmanned ground vehicles, some armed, of various sizes), but eventually it's up to BFC to draw the line.