Matrix Games and Simulations Canada combine and completely remake two classic NATO vs. Warsaw Pact wargames into a new classic. Based on the original wargames “Main Battle Tank: North Germany” and “Main Battle Tank: Central Germany”, Flashpoint Germany is a new grand tactical wargame of modern combat. Every aspect of modern grand tactical warfare is included, from advanced armor, air and helicopters to chemical and tactical nuclear weapons. Step into the most dangerous war.. . that never was.
LTCMTS wrote:How is the use of smoke portrayed? I saw the impact indicators for artillery (though ICM using mines would not produce such an indicator), but I did not see any indication of the use of smoke as an obscurant as concealment for defensive positions and withdrawls, especially as standard Soviet practice at the time was to use the engine smoke generators during an assault to cover the follow-on echelons in the attack. I would have expected the US BN to cover a withdrawl to new fighting positions with WP from its supporting 4.2" SP Mortar PLT.
Yes, you can do just that in the game.
By 1989 many of the soviet tanks and vehicles had at least an nominal thermal imaging system going, but I don't really know how effective it was. Normally smoke is a 100% LOS blocker, but if you have ti it is only 15%. If there are meaningful differences in ~1989 between the different nationalities then I should know it now so that I can add it in! Any ideas?
As far as I know from "currently" unclassified info, no Soviet MBTs had thermal night vision or sights in 1989 (or before ~1995 for that matter). In fact, very few, the T-72B/B1 and T-80U, had passive night sights ("starlight"). Most had active IR systems effective to no more than 1500 meters at night and ineffective in bad weather or smoke. Passive night sights are better in that they don't reveal you location but are subject to "blooming" when a bright light source overwhelms the image intensifier. Thermal sights, on the other hand, can "see" through night, smoke and weather. They can even "see" through opaque concealment such as camo nets and foliage. An example is a battalion of T-72's dug in as ambushers. Approaching M1A1's would be able to spot the T-72's from the heat given off by their exposed surfaces, pop smoke to cover their movement and engage with TTS at 2,000 or so meters, beyond the effective engagement range of the T-72s, who are blinded by the smoke. Heat producing smoke devices such as WP shells can temporarily mask TTS, along with some high humidity, temperature inversion conditions, were the air becomes a defused heat source. In 1989, M1, M1 IMP, M1A1, M60A3 TTS, Leopard 2A4, Challenger, Chieftain Mk.11/12 w/TOGS, Leopard 1A5, AMX-30B2 were the MBTs with TTS/TNS/V.
Also there were 2 versions of the M1A1. The standard M1A1, produced from 1985-1988, with the armor package of the M1 IMP and the M1A1 (HA), produced from 1988, which incuded the DU mesh in the "Chobham" armor package.
Also, all your TOW, Dragon, HOT, Milan and Swingfire launchers should have TNS. Add in M2/3 Bradleys, M901 ITVs, Marder 1A2/3, etc. and NATO has a major advantage in poor visibility conditions.
Also ICMs using self-forging projectiles would also make a barely discernable visual/aural signature above the target formation.
Under the CFE, the SU declared in 1991 that there were 2885 T-80B, 182 T-80BK, 569 T-80BV, 22 T-80BVK and 0 T-80U physically located in Region IV-4 (ie. eastern Europe outside the SU). There were only 823 declared for the entire region west of the Urals. In 1989, the more probable force mixture would be T-80B in the TDs, T-64A/B in the MRDs in SGFG.
1 SIG CO @ 3 BTR-70, 5 UAZ-469, 3 GAZ-66, 3 GAZ SIG vans, 2 ZIL SIG vans, 3 motorcycles,
1 CHEM PLT @ 3 BRDM-2 RKhM, 4 decon trks
1 SPT CO @ 2 UAZ-469, 4 GAZ-66, 45 Ural-375, 1 ZIL Main van, 1 ZIL-131 water tkr, 15 5,200l POL trks
1 Main CO @ 4 RPG-7V, 1 UAZ-469, 1 ZIL, 1 Ural-375, 4 ZIL-131 Main vans, 8 ZIL-157 Main vans, 5 ARV BTR-4
1 RGT Med PLT @ 1 GAZ van, 2 ZIL-157, 1 DDA-66 Decon trk, 1 GAZ-66, 4 UAZ-452 ambulance
This is of course at 100% strength and readiness. Given this is a SGFG TR, probability is that 90% or better (but not 100%) of the combat and support vehicles and combat and support troops reach the LOD, if not interdicted by NATO missile, rocket or tube artillery or aircraft.
LTCMTS wrote:As far as I know from "currently" unclassified info, no Soviet MBTs had thermal night vision or sights in 1989 (or before ~1995 for that matter).
Went back to my research and found that I had in fact distinguished between mere infrared devices and the more sophisiticated thermal imaging systems. Over time though I had lumped them together in my mind and stopped drawing the distinction. I checked the code just now and removed infrared as a counter to smoke. Thanks!
I had also been showing all the T-80s as U variant and I have switched them to Bs based on your figures.
I'm not sure if you can, but you might want to distinguish between active infra-red (IR) and passive or image intensification (P/IIS, also known as "starlight") systems. The use of IR requires illuminating the target with an active IR source (the IR/white light searchlight mounted beside the gun in many Soviet and NATO MBTs), the reflections being picked up by the passive IR sight or vision device. The limitation on effective range comes from the range of the searchlight and sights, around 1300 m for Soviet MBT systems and 800m for BMPs and other AFVs (and on the cupola of MBTs). The IIS has a similar range, but is entirely passive in operation, intensifying available light, such as residual illumination or stars, to provide a picture of the viewed area. Because it intensifies normal low light sources, the IIS can be temporarily blinded or even damaged and destroyed by suddenly appearing high intensity light sources, such as muzzle flash, illumination rounds, fires, etc. On the other hand, IIS is indetectible by the enemy, where as most NVS/D using thermal, II or IR can detect active IR sources at ranges beyond the effective range of the system. Neither system, of course, is capable in daylight conditions or through weather and smoke.
Soviet tank production was estimated at 800 in 1991 and 1300 in 1990, basically split 50/50 T-80 & T-72. So work backwards from the above numbers to get the available fleet. Of course, the fall of Gorbachev and the rise of tensions would increase this total to the 3500 produced each year in 1987 and 1988.
I decided to not look at the screnies from my home pc last week, due to slow conection. Now, when I'm at a broadband pc, the screenies seems to be gone...
LTCMTS wrote:I'm not sure if you can, but you might want to distinguish between active infra-red (IR) and passive or image intensification (P/IIS, also known as "starlight") systems.
Thanks for the writeup! This is getting just a little too fine-grained for this type of game - if it was a tank on tank simulator then it would be highly relevant - but fora brigade commander maneuvering entire companies at a time, this is the kind of detail that merges into the background. There are so many other things going on that the distinction between passive and active IR gear becomes an impediment.
I'm keeping your note for future reference though. I was in fact toying with the idea way back when of maintaining a list of all sensors on each vehicle they way I do for all armaments. Getting detailed info on this less glamorous stuff was frustratingly hard. Having some handed to me on a silver platter is too good to miss.
M60A1 (Passive) (RISE), M60A3, Chieftain Mk.8/9/10, Leopard 1A1A2, 1A2, 1A3 and 1A4, Leopard 2A1/2, some Danish Centurions, Belgian Leopard 1A2B, Dutch Leopard 1-V, Canadian Leopard C1, M48A2GA2 (?), Swz Pz.68, some Austrian M47, Soviet T-80U and T-72B.
MBTs with active IR:
M60A1 (RISE), AMX-30, some Danish Centurions, M48A2GA2 (?), M48A5, some Austrian M47, earlier Chieftain marks, all other Soviet tanks
MBTS w/Lyran illum mortars
Swz Pz.61, some Danish Centurions
MBTs w/o NVS:
Some Danish Centurions, Belgian M47s, some Austrian M47
For a period of time there were two models of M60A3, one was the M60A1 (Passive) (RISE) w/the laser RF and new FCS and M240 MGs and the second was the M60A3 TTS, with all previous improvements and the TTS.
I can't pin down a good date for the Soviet transition from steel alloy to tungsten steel APDSFS penetrators. The first APDSFS for 115mm and 125mm were steel, with a lesser performance than tungsten and DU. The best I can come up with is that by 1989, perhaps 30% of the available APDSFS ammo was tungsten penetrators, mostly 125mm.
As far as NATO, the US should have replaced all stocks in Europe with DU APDSFS by 1989, though reserve stocks in the US would still have had tungsten and partial DU (staballoy) penetrators. The Germans should have tungsten APDSFS in 120mm and 105mm, as should the Dutch. The Brits could have DU APDSFS for Challenger, but the Chieftains could still be using tungsten APDS. I think the Canadians, the Danish Leopard 1A3s, the French AMX-30Bs, the Swiss Pz.68 and Austrian M60A3s would have tungsten APDSFS. The Belgian Leopard 1A2B may have had APDSFS, but the Danish Centurions and Swiss Pz.61s would still have APDS and the French AMX-30s and the Belgian and Austrian M47s would have been limited to HEAT only.
Has anyone ever seen an "unclassified" document delineating the equipment by division of the Soviet Ground Forces? Using the CFE and other data and the OOB by MD and Catagory, I can just about work backwards to an OOB where each division is assigned specific types of equipment, but it's still a rough guess.
Dagfinn wrote:I decided to not look at the screnies from my home pc last week, due to slow conection. Now, when I'm at a broadband pc, the screenies seems to be gone...
LTCMTS wrote:Has anyone ever seen an "unclassified" document delineating the equipment by division of the Soviet Ground Forces? Using the CFE and other data and the OOB by MD and Catagory, I can just about work backwards to an OOB where each division is assigned specific types of equipment, but it's still a rough guess.
None other than Sabre21 supplied me with just such a spreadsheet ages ago. Can't release it though without his permission - he has been working on this stuff for decades and he might get a tad steamed if I just tossed it around. Hope to include it in the final game though!
If he could find that kind of info though, there is a chance that you might be able to as well. I looked on the web myself and became discouraged after many wasted hours - it isn't easy to find. I'd rather be programming!!
I decided to not look at the screnies from my home pc last week, due to slow conection. Now, when I'm at a broadband pc, the screenies seems to be gone...
What gives?
Apologies to Dagfinn for the delay in replying but I haven't been back to this forum for a while.
It looks like Matrix made some changes with the way images are handled and they have disappeared
I think I have the originals on a back up CD somewhere so I will try to repost them. Busy testing a new build at the moment so may be a little while.
Apologies again.
Have you tried running your test scenario with T-80Bs w/o TNS and what was the outcome?
Not yet LTCMTS. Lots of other things to check with a new build that has just come out.
sorry for my questions but i am very interesting about figthing men and their power in battle. But in this after action report none talk about men and casualities. The game will focus only on machines? I hope not
Thank you ( i hope that this games will be out soon and not as other games like ca and cl )
triccor wrote:sorry for my questions but i am very interesting about figthing men and their power in battle. But in this after action report none talk about men and casualities. The game will focus only on machines? I hope not
Thank you ( i hope that this games will be out soon and not as other games like ca and cl )
Greetings. Casualties are indeed measured in vehicles in this game. The viewpoint is that of the commanding officer of a battalion / regiment / brigade, and in the heat of battle all he wants to know is the bottom line - how many 'runners' does he still have to fight the battle with? Beyond that losses are somebody else's problem until it is time to write the memoirs!
We do track important human factors that feed into combat performance like skill, fatigue, morale, and command disorganization so there will be lots for you to be interested in, but losses are in increments of machines.
Release date? Undetermined still, but Matrix has shipped a lot of big projects recently and the pipeline ahead of Flashpoint is a lot less clogged then it used to be.
"We do track important human factors that feed into combat performance like skill, fatigue, morale, and command disorganization so there will be lots for you to be interested in, but losses are in increments of machines."
How are losses measured for leg infantry units (or dismounted units)?
Right now I'm at vacation.