|
Are Abrams actually that good? I've always been under the impression that MBT design and practice were something that the US didn't really enjoy its usual overwhelming qualitative edge in.
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 08:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 01:33 |
|
|
I can't speak for anything outside the game, but within the context of Black Sea they're just miles ahead of everything the Russians and Ukrainians have in almost every regard. They'll spot units faster, shoot faster and more accurately, absorb hits better or simply avoid them altogether. It's essentially a fully modern MBT equipped with 21st century technology against a gussied-up T-72 with some bits added on. The most important part is speed with which they acquire and and fire at enemies. Getting off the first shot is crucial in armoured engagements.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 09:23
|
|
|
These are M1A2 SEP and likely one of the later variants with a good crew, so it can be assumed that they are as good as it gets with a tank. I believe the main issue with US tanks is that a lot of them aren't upgraded past the baseline M1A2 or the M1A1 HC and as such have older FLIR and armor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 10:48
|
|
|
The later Abrams also get that Battefield Command System (or whatever they ended up calling it) that's also supposed to integrate with the infantry's "Future Soldier" gear. It's intended to allow tank commanders, and infantry with the gear, to mark targets/friendlies on a map and have it shared automatically to local units. Not sure if the game is actually modelleing that, or just adding a flat bonus to the tank's target acquisition speed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 11:24
|
|
|
lizurcainnon posted:Not sure if the game is actually modelleing that, or just adding a flat bonus to the tank's target acquisition speed. It does. Targets already spotted by friendly units with battlefield management systems are much faster to spot. Also the M1A2 has a commander's thermal sight and much better thermal optics in general than the M1A1 variants or the T tanks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
I wonder if REDFOR is going to push more tanks up now that they've got a few kills but taken fire. A third of their armor is stalemated right now, it's not enough to take on the opposition tanks. On the other hand three BTR isn't too bad for nothing and as long as the Abrams is sitting there, it can't do damage at other parts of the map. Of course I know the force composition of both sides. There's also going to be a pretty interesting collision of troops in the forest soon. Whatever arty either sides intends to use needs to be dropped pretty soon or it's going to be too close to friendlies. REDFOR has a great advantage here, because they can drop it on the bloodied front runners right now as opposed to BLUFOR who don't really see anything yet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
Well, Willie Tomg is pretty on the money with his assessment, NATO managed to get off the field but their still moving slowly and the Russians and getting ready to get more and more set near the egress points. I feel like if the Russians can get some of their ATM troops dismounted and positioned they can really get a good lock down on the positions NATO will try and exit from.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
So what's the Russian counter to Abrams? Infantry AT and lots of cover?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
Air Support I suppose
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
Yeah maneuver and positioning are key, and in this scenario they have 10 T-90s against 2 Abrams and their Ukrainian friends. I also reduced the amount of ammo the Abrams start with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
So what makes the Abrahams so dominant? Is it just that it's capable of accurately firing at tanks beyond the effective engagement range of T-90s? I mean, that in and of itself is an extremely hefty advantage, but is there an advantage in terms of armor(or rather, the ability to absorb a hit)?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 12:11
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:So what makes the Abrahams so dominant? Is it just that it's capable of accurately firing at tanks beyond the effective engagement range of T-90s? I mean, that in and of itself is an extremely hefty advantage, but is there an advantage in terms of armor(or rather, the ability to absorb a hit)? It's also the speed and accuracy at which it can acquire and fire on a target. We've seen the difference first-hand already: The T-90, while stationary, took a fair while to start firing at a bunch of BTRs trundling around right in front of it in the open, and even then missed several times. Meanwhile the Abrams spotted the T-90 and while still moving fired a shot that only missed because of the T-90 backing out at just the right time, all in like five seconds. And in a tank duel, the general rule of thumb is that whoever shoots first generally wins. As for resiliency, both tanks should have a pretty good chance at penetrating each other frontally, though I think the Abrams gun is somewhat better in that regard. From what I've read the Abrams also has overall somewhat better protection than the T-90, though the newer russian reactive armour supposedly helps out with that. Dunno whether the game models that part, though. It's not like in the WWII game where you can park a Panther in front of a company of Shermans and feel pretty safe, but it's yet another small edge for the Abrams.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 12:57
|
|
|
I wonder how people like Baloogan arrive at these strengths and weaknesses for games. The exact answers to poo poo like this (how fast can a tank acquire a target, how good is a missile's seeker head etc) are probably pretty secret, but in terms of making a game you gotta put some number in there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 13:26
|
|
|
A lot of these vehicles and equipment have been around since the cold war, so it probably isn't as hard as it could be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 13:43
|
|
|
So it turns out that the Russian T-90 that freaked out and ran away did so while freaked out enough that it got bogged and immobilized by backing into a tree without me noticing   Bogged count: NATO: 1 RUS: 2
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
are immobilised vehicles in this game permanently stuck or will the crew be able to get them out at some point
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
"Bogged" represents getting stuck in the mud, and the crew can recover from that after being stuck for a certain amount of time. "Immobilized" means they're now a bunker and are permanently rooted to one spot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
Oh man it breaks my heart to see T-90s get immobilized like that, maybe one day Battlefront will model recovery vehicles  (I recall one of the developers mentioning they wanted to expand into combat engineering vehicles in the future during a livestream).Regarding the tank stats here are some screenshots I stole from the manual. Of note the Oplot and to a lesser extent the Bulat are superior to the T-90A in armor protection and speed/power. The Bulat lacks the EO jammer and laser warning receiver of the Oplot Note that the M1A2 and the T-90A have FBCB2 and Constellation2 battle management systems respectively (i'd be interested to know if these have in game differences or are just *generic communications system*) while none of the Ukrainian tanks have anything beyond a radio.  T-64BV (2x)  BM Bulat (1x)  BM Oplot (1x)  M1A2(2x)  T-90 (9x) 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
so that's basically a mission kill? i get the impression that that tank backed off far enough that it's basically useless
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Yep, and another T-90 bogged this turn in an even worse location! There's also a Ukrainian ATGM ~5 seconds away from killing a T-90 when the turn ends and an entire American Stryker platoon is about to walk face-first into yet another T-90!
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
You mean a good LAV can't kill a tank? Man Battlefield lied to me
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn1gNE4yaXQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCIkGwWlorg  Combined map:  Bogged count: NATO - 1 RUS - 3 Also sweet jesus take a look at that crossroads in the south-west of the map, within the next thirty second a whole bunch of tinned American soldiers are gonna drive straight into a surprised T-90. Since NATO has no idea whatsoever that a tank is there they're in for a hell of a surprise. On the other hand Russia has now lost two tanks to immobilization and look like they're about to lose a third to a Ukrainian ATGM. Since the Ukrainian one is an older model it doesn't actually have laser guidance and thus hasn't set off any alarms in the tank, it's all classic wire-guided. So we simultaneously have an engagement happening at a range of two kilometers, and one about to kick off within less than ten meters. I do like this map.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 07:27
|
|
|
pthighs posted:A Company Orders Ikasuhito posted:Well my first question would be what happens if they come down through Vodka Grove? I dont think we have anyone watching that area and they could roll right through Fist Forest before we new what hit us. Little they know the Russians are there already. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 11:34
|
|
|
 LAV
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Probably; but then again, they're so drat close that the tank could just as easily get popped by a missile, or even the T-64 if the tank is dumb enough to charge forward guns blazing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
I´m sure whatever happens it will either be extremely dissapointing or a murderfest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 10:21
|
|
|
Eastbound Spider posted:I´m sure whatever happens it will either be extremely dissapointing or a murderfest. RUS:  NATO: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 10:31
|
|
|
Mount Silver/Sideshow Forest might soon become a forest of gold. I'm surprised no one is utilizing the East side of the Map, especially NATO. There's a ton of territory that offers overwatch over the main highway there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 11:34
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:Mount Silver/Sideshow Forest might soon become a forest of gold. They're right on top of each other it's insane. The east side of the map is pretty lovely terrain generally since it's mostly dense forest cut off from the rest of the map by marsh and a river. I gave NATO an emergency exit through there in case they decide to try and go Soviet partisan in the event that Russia cuts them off completely, but other than that they have no real strategic reason to send anyone over there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmWwkEa082g  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaaskMVWiII  Combined map:  They're so close in the south-west that their icons are overlapping on the combined map Lots of contact about to be happening. I'm honestly surprised that Russia didn't get some snap-shots off on the Strykers, especially since they each drove directly in front of the T-90 twiceto get to their positions. Now that both teams know how close they are I can't wait to see what they decide to do, since there's no way out of this situation now without some serious fighting  Also Jobbo Fett's T-90, your tank may be dead but your commander lives on!
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 11:48
|
|
|
Generation Internet posted:Also First to die, the curse lives on According to the spreadsheet, that's another 7 months of non-participation
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 11:54
|
|
|
Yeah, it's pretty great how this is about to turn into one vicious knife-fight. I wonder how well those T-90s will do at a range that short. Speaking of T-90s, is the one hit by the ATGM dead for good? I think in the WWII CMs it was possible to re-crew a hit tank and possibly move or shoot with it as long as some of the modules still worked.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 13:38
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:Yeah, it's pretty great how this is about to turn into one vicious knife-fight. I wonder how well those T-90s will do at a range that short. I'm pretty sure it's a goner. Generally penetrating hits are more damaging in Black Sea, and T-90s only have a crew of three to start with, so at this point even re-crewing it is kind of out of the question because two dudes isn't enough to effectively run a tank that's under the watchful eye of a bunch of angry ATGM teams.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 13:52
|
|
|
I don't think there's armor in existence that can safely defeat a round fired at what can figuratively be called point-blank range. My guess is that the T-64 frags the T-90, than itself gets fragged by the other T-90. It's gonna be a glorious, beautiful clusterfuck.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 14:01
|
|
|
I cannot wait for the clusterfuck that is about to take place. Also, I wanted to chime in and say that I love these Combat Mission LPs. I really appreciate the time and effort that goes into making them work so thanks all involved!
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
Are... Are the Russians abandoning their keyhole position? Sure you may not kill everything with 2 tanks and an APC but Russia has a much higher tolerance for losses, especially since iirc they chose the numerous reinforcement option And I was thinking exactly the same thing about infantry and tank sides when I saw that reverse order
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
That keyhole will be a bloody pit in the next turn!
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
Yes but do they really expect to live with their plan? I'd be hunkering down and going down swinging
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
For some reason in all Combat Mission games people get crazy conservative and survivalist half the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
They should really try to use those units to stall long enough to start raining shells on that road/tree line.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 05:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 01:33 |
|
|
I'm still really curious about why Phi thinks a guns-blazing attack down the highway and into his village is imminent though, despite them having seen everybody veer off into the forest after killing a few BTRs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 11:31
|
|