The new Cold War turned hot wargame from On Target Simulations, now expanded with the Player's Edition! Choose the NATO or Soviet forces in one of many scenarios or two linked campaigns. No effort was spared to model modern warfare realistically, including armor, infantry, helicopters, air support, artillery, electronic warfare, chemical and nuclear weapons. An innovative new asynchronous turn order means that OODA loops and various effects on C3 are accurately modeled as never before.
I did not use the default settings for Soviet experience in the game scenarios. If you use those when you do your custom scenarios they will indeed get hammered. I think for the default they are a bit low. That's why I increased them for the scenarios I've created.
Crew quality makes a huge difference in the game.
Good Hunting.
MR
How do i know it is your scenario i am playing? Playing PBEM all you get is regular soviets as a punishment.
What use vet level and gear is if you get clubbed from invisible land anyway.
I can back up Stimpacks 3rd test, around a third of the m1s in my game where killed by the T-80Us AT-11 sniper at long range, they are a very dangerous and effective missile...
Good question. It tells who created them in the editor but not on in the scenario selection briefing. I thought I'd identified the designer in the scenario briefings. That's not the case. I'll have to see about making changes to the briefings to include in the future.
Playing PBEM all you get is regular soviets as a punishment.
My Soviet morale is consistant throughout. PBEM doesn't change settings.
Good Hunting.
MR
The most expensive thing in the world is free time.
Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.
Whew! It realistically takes several books of information to hash all this out, real-world-wise.
1. I've trained hundreds of crews and scores of platoons in gunnery. I've witnessed platoons where the crews were all over 90% (score of 900 or more out of 1000 possible points) on crew gunnery and the platoon failed platoon gunnery. "I look at that M1 and see 1000 points. Until the crew gets in." Quote from a Bn Commander at gunnery. The point here is the game does not bias by side. It has a huge bias with regard to Training and Readiness.
2. Thermals are all that. And a bag of chips. With those, you can detect enemy soooo much earlier than with eyeballs, binoculars, light amplification photomultipliers, or IR searchlights. That allows a unit to be prepared to fire as the enemy enters the firing envelope. It is a huge advantage. Thermals are the primary sight mode on M1s and M2/M3s. And it negates smoke, which is a big deal. I've done NTC and CMTC with and without thermals and it is so much harder to win without. You not only see them, but targets are much easier to find.
3. When it comes to stabilization systems, keep in mind the gun and sight may be stabilized, but the gunner is not. Opening time and accuracy is worse for a vehicle moving cross country that for a stationary firing platform.
4. Battlerbritain described what we Americans call the "Berm Drill". Starting from turret defilade (only the armored sight box is exposed), crew scans for and acquires targets. US crews drill to engage two or three targets. So, before exposing the vehicle, the gunner knows which targets and in what order he will engage. Gunner lays on the first target and the vehicle pulls forward and the presented target is only the turret. Vehicle stops, drive puts the vehicle in reverse, and the gunner fires. Vehicle is moving back to turret defilade while the round is in flight. Exposure time is typically 2-3 seconds. If there is a problem or the vehicle pulls forward before the gunner is laid on the target and ready, double that time.
5. Being in a defensive posture is a HUGE advantage and I really don't think the age-old "3:1 attacker to defender ratio gives you an even fight" applies as widely as it used to. These days, you want to be able to have sight lines well in excess of your weapon's max effective range. That means the terrain well away from your position and even away from your engagement area has an impact, because thermal systems enable you to detect (but not identify nor classify) targets so very far away.
Highlandcharge, I think it's appropriate. I've experienced a wide spectrum of both during my career. Given the choice of well trained and organized versus an edge in equipment performance, personally, I'll take well trained and organized.
It would be case by case. IRL, it is impossible to conclude who will definitely win or lose, or who will have definitive kill ratio. Like I mentioned in the one of the reply post, there are lot more than catalog specs.
T-80BV and Cheftain are comparable against each other with their own pros and cons. L23A1 APFSDS shell suffered from lack of punch power (500mm RHAe or less at 2000m) when compared to other NATO counterparts, but so as 125mm BM26 and BM29, and I don't think 89' Soviet army issued BM32 to all of their T-80BVs fielded in DDR. So, IMO their penetration ability are comparable.
T-80BV used cast+composite armor, and its Kontakt-1 is not the heavy ERA. More importantly, T-80BV only weighs 40~45ton, and this tells a lot about its defensive ability. Unless it is belted by Stalinum, 40~45t tank wouldn't have good defensive efficiency. L23A1 would have a chance to crack T-80BV's frontal. But Chieftain is also based on cast armor, and added more protection with composite armor which has better defense against HEAT rather than APFSDS. So, their defensive ability are also quite comparable.
Chieftain mk11 (which was fielded in 89) equipped the 1st generation thermal sight, but the TOGS was suffering from low resolution. IIRC, it was 320*240. (Even TOGS-2 had not-that-great resolution). It would really hard to tell what would be the white dots in the screen, especially if the target is 3km or more away. Gunner may told to leader "Sir, I can see something moving at 2 o'clock, 3.5km, but I can't recognize what is that". However, it would be better than nothing. At night, T-80BV even could not recognize anything more than 1km away. Rain would degrade the thermal, but still better than nothing. Chieftains would have great advantage at at night, on rainy day, or under smoke, and kill ratio would be greatly British favor. Plus, training and experience would improve the ability of recognition with TOGS thermal, and I expect 89' British tank crews would be more well trained than Soviet tank crews. That would be the moment where the harsh training shines - ability to recognize enemy tank from long range.
T-80BV equipped with gun-launching ATGMs, which guarantees the long-range fighting ability. However, it was not reliable weapon. Reflekt missile was better, but with the inferior FCS and crew experience, it is possible that only 0~1 gun-lunching ATGMs would hit among 5 shots. In addition, 1998 Greek tank test exposed the problem of Russian tanks - low accuracy. Rapira cannon has very fast muzzle velocity, which ensues the relatively straight ballistic curve until 1000~1500m. However, most of tank battle on German soil was expected to be at least 2km, or longer distance. Their weakness - inferior long range reliability - would induce very harsh condition for Soviet tank commanders and tank crews.
So, the battle between two battle group would greatly depends on terrain, weather/time, and commander - who has better understanding of pros and cons of their own tank and opposite's tank. Crew experience and training would be the serious factor, and IMO at 89' Germany, British crews would be better than Russian counterparts. We also need to consider that most of the battle during the cold war would be British defense / Russian attack, and British tank would be in the hull-down position, waiting for the march of Russians. Chieftain would have the advantage from better training and first-shot from defensive position.
If I were British commander, I would not command to open fire until at least within 3000m, where I could expect the penetration of T-80BV frontal armor with L23A1 APFSDS. Hasty shot from further distance would fail the penetration, and only expose the ambush position. I would command to shot carefully to maximize the accuracy, try not to expose our positions. Within 3000m, well trained British gunner and leader would easily recognize soviet tanks by TOGS or by optics. Smoke from friendly artillery would maximize the thermal sight advantage. Call artillery and airstrike if the number of tanks are overwhelming. I expect very optimistic result from the engagement.
If I were Soviet commander, I would not advance my tanks without recons. With the good idea of enemy defense line, there are two choices - flank the enemy position, or assault with fire support. Flanking would be the better choice since it would force British to give up their position, and force them to maneuver in open field. This would maximize the another weakness of Chieftain - not-that-great engine. Successful flanking will bring very Soviet-favor condition = engage within 1000m. Cheiftain's armor is not tough enough to defend the Russian APFSDS within that close distance, and accuracy of Soviet tanks will be maximized. If I forced to begin frontal charge (because of political officer or KGB agent or whatever), I will command to shoot Kobra/Reflekt ATGMS from 5km, try to interfere their aim and suppress them, and call air support or artillery support. At the same time, command my tanks to approach at full speed, but try to use cover at their best. From this moment, there's not much thing a commander could do - degree of training of tank crews will tell the answer.
Likewise, it is very hard to tell who will going to win or lose or who will going to have better KD ratio in real-life situation. And it seems it is well described in other people's answers.
ps) To OTS guyz : Is this possible to introduce an ability like "begin engage from 3000m, or 2000m, or any distance given by player" to SS? Sometimes I don't want to open fire from too far distance, because it would be waste of ammo and expose the ambush. Leave default option as it is now, but just offer an option to players to control engage and ambush.
It would be case by case. IRL, it is impossible to conclude who will definitely win or lose, or who will have definitive kill ratio. Like I mentioned in the one of the reply post, there are lot more than catalog specs.
T-80BV and Cheftain are comparable against each other with their own pros and cons. L23A1 APFSDS shell suffered from lack of punch power (500mm RHAe or less at 2000m) when compared to other NATO counterparts, but so as 125mm BM26 and BM29, and I don't think 89' Soviet army issued BM32 to all of their T-80BVs fielded in DDR. So, IMO their penetration ability are comparable.
BM32 and BM42 were standard issue by the late 80's in high readiness (read: units encountered in FPRS) divisions, according to the excellent Soviet Armour blog found here. Their penetration values are 500/450mm RHA respectively, but keep in mind that Soviet testing used VF80 in place of VF50, so some estimates place their penetration as high as 560/500 respectively. Eitherway they're around the DM13's effectiveness.
It would be case by case. IRL, it is impossible to conclude who will definitely win or lose, or who will have definitive kill ratio. Like I mentioned in the one of the reply post, there are lot more than catalog specs.
T-80BV and Cheftain are comparable against each other with their own pros and cons. L23A1 APFSDS shell suffered from lack of punch power (500mm RHAe or less at 2000m) when compared to other NATO counterparts, but so as 125mm BM26 and BM29, and I don't think 89' Soviet army issued BM32 to all of their T-80BVs fielded in DDR. So, IMO their penetration ability are comparable.
BM32 and BM42 were standard issue by the late 80's in high readiness (read: units encountered in FPRS) divisions, according to the excellent Soviet Armour blog found here. Their penetration values are 500/450mm RHA respectively, but keep in mind that Soviet testing used VF80 in place of VF50, so some estimates place their penetration as high as 560/500 respectively. Eitherway they're around the DM13's effectiveness.
Oh, thanks to let me know, but still, IMO it would be hard to expect 100% readiness with BM32 or better ammunition. It would be hard to achieve the 100% readiness for 89' Red army, considering the economy and supply situation of Soviet Union at the moment. For the very first wave, I would expect the 80BVs equipped with BM32 (maybe around 80% at max) , but 2nd wave and later resupply would be mix of BM32 and BM2x series. But anyway, thanks for the info.
Thanks Jeff, I feel happier knowing that a boatload of relevant experience is in the team [:)]
On Soviet tank gun accuracy they don't use an MRS (muzzle reference system) on their guns.
An MRS really helps with long range accuracy but also for maintaining accuracy after 10+ rounds have been fired.
But they choose not to fit an MRS as
a) it adds complexity, costs and you have to train your gunners to use them.
b) the Sovs don't think that the terrain in Germany would offer many engagement ranges over 800m let alone 2000m
c) the autoloader only holds 12 rounds of Fin anyway.
It would be case by case. IRL, it is impossible to conclude who will definitely win or lose, or who will have definitive kill ratio. Like I mentioned in the one of the reply post, there are lot more than catalog specs.
T-80BV and Cheftain are comparable against each other with their own pros and cons. L23A1 APFSDS shell suffered from lack of punch power (500mm RHAe or less at 2000m) when compared to other NATO counterparts, but so as 125mm BM26 and BM29, and I don't think 89' Soviet army issued BM32 to all of their T-80BVs fielded in DDR. So, IMO their penetration ability are comparable.
BM32 and BM42 were standard issue by the late 80's in high readiness (read: units encountered in FPRS) divisions, according to the excellent Soviet Armour blog found here. Their penetration values are 500/450mm RHA respectively, but keep in mind that Soviet testing used VF80 in place of VF50, so some estimates place their penetration as high as 560/500 respectively. Eitherway they're around the DM13's effectiveness.
Oh, thanks to let me know, but still, IMO it would be hard to expect 100% readiness with BM32 or better ammunition. It would be hard to achieve the 100% readiness for 89' Red army, considering the economy and supply situation of Soviet Union at the moment. For the very first wave, I would expect the 80BVs equipped with BM32 (maybe around 80% at max) , but 2nd wave and later resupply would be mix of BM32 and BM2x series. But anyway, thanks for the info.
In particular, BM42 was the standard round, with 32 being less common.
And what do you mean the poor Soviet economy would hurt their army? Ever wonder why all their citizens at home were starving? [:D]
BM32 and BM42 were standard issue by the late 80's in high readiness (read: units encountered in FPRS) divisions, according to the excellent Soviet Armour blog found here. Their penetration values are 500/450mm RHA respectively, but keep in mind that Soviet testing used VF80 in place of VF50, so some estimates place their penetration as high as 560/500 respectively. Eitherway they're around the DM13's effectiveness.
Oh, thanks to let me know, but still, IMO it would be hard to expect 100% readiness with BM32 or better ammunition. It would be hard to achieve the 100% readiness for 89' Red army, considering the economy and supply situation of Soviet Union at the moment. For the very first wave, I would expect the 80BVs equipped with BM32 (maybe around 80% at max) , but 2nd wave and later resupply would be mix of BM32 and BM2x series. But anyway, thanks for the info.
In particular, BM42 was the standard round, with 32 being less common.
And what do you mean the poor Soviet economy would hurt their army? Ever wonder why all their citizens at home were starving? [:D]
Nope, I never said the "poor", but it would be out of affordable line. Soviet Union had economic issues from the heavy expenditure at late 1980s, which was rooted from Soviet-Afghan war and Chernobyl incident. I assume and expect that those events would more or less hindered the overall economic situation of Soviet Union, and of course, to their military readiness as well. They could maintain full readiness to their strategic arsenal, but not sure about conventional forces. Plus, tanks are actually quite costly item on the battlefield, which must satisfy numerous maintenance demands to guarantee the full operational readiness.
Maybe I'm wrong, but for me, it is hard to believe that the 89' Red army was in 100% full readiness to meet all those demands from the front line. Maybe the first line of the wave would be barely possible to equip with the best ERA blocks and best shells, but the secondary waves and additional supplies? I would bet against that. They would have mix of old and new shells.
I just can't buy all of the claims from Russia/Soviet sources (and China as well), to me, it is very hard to differentiate what are the bluffing and what are not. So I'm usually very conservative when reading those references, but I maybe wrong.
@Battlerbritain: Good and relevant point on MRS. My understanding is that pre-combat boresighting of the 1A46 FCS included manual entry of the following data: ammo lot CCF (Computer Control Factor), air baro pressure and temp, propellant temp, tube round count.
re:stabilization systems. One thing I think that is overlooked is the benefit of stab systems to defensive engagements. Moving from the hide position in turret defilade to the hull defilade of the firing position results in a significant quadrant elevation change while climbing the slope to get into firing position. The worst case is the sight and gunner's eyes get so far off target that the target leaves the sight picture. Best case is the gunner goes to low magnification and manually compensates to keep his target in view. Difficult to do while fatigued. In either case, the precise gun lay is out the window (or gunner's hatch). So, the gunner must (possibly) reacquire the target and then do a precise gun lay. While exposed. And that is not healthy. Opening times (time elapsed from stopping at the firing position to round is fired) go from 2-4 sec to something more like 7-10 sec.
re: firing positions in the defense: US doctrine is a primary position, an alternate position, and one or more supplementary positions. Primary and alternate positions cover the same sector of fire, so they tend to be close together. When moving from one to the other, the drive will know he is going to do that before pulling forward to fire. So, the displacement takes well under a minute. We have made a reasonable simplification and don't model alternate positions. Supplementary positions cover different sectors of firefrom the primary and often are orient on different approach axes. It would take a couple of minutes to displace there. It won't take a real long time to execute that displacement, because if it did, you're not is the same battle position. The rule may end up something like this: while displacing to a supplementary position, the friendly unit may not fire except at enemy in the same hex. Enemy may not do direct fire, except for enemy in the same hex.
Anectdata: whenever conducting an attack as a gunner in an M2A2, I seldom saw enemy targets at ranges much more than 2000m if the positions were well camoflaged. You tend to scan faster will attacking a prepared defense and, so, spoil from improved positions is harder to spot. Even in thermals, the armored sight box is just oo small to see far away. If you were lucky, some vehicle commander was up with binoculars and you'd see his face radiating. Thermal backstab is trivially easy to achieve when defending, even against well trained, rested, prepared, and well organized thermally equipped attackers.
Sorry for the long post, but I want you all to know how much stuff we consider.
@exsonic: Various control measures are on the list for development in SS. Among them are the means to control units to efficiently execute a battalion size Engagement Area. Granularity (Plt or Co EAs) is undecided. I am working on enhancing the Arty model. We are looking at adding all the usual maneuver control items and the things necessary to make and execute an ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) plan. Along with that, think triggers and contingency plans and orders. Like establish a reserve and conditions/locations to commit it. If you look at that list and think about it, you can see there is mucho works for us there. Now a lot of that is in flux and discovery. We certainly don't want to sacrifice playability and outright fun on the altar of fidelity. And there are decisions to be made.
ORIGINAL: battlerbritain
Thanks Jeff, I feel happier knowing that a boatload of relevant experience is in the team [:)]
Great thread by the way [:)]
+1 Ditto.
I finally got the update downloaded yesterday and I'll get back into it one of these days. I generally don't have a gripe with the individual combats, except the Hinds on their sluggish gun-runs seem a bit too invincible at times.
My bigger gripe has been with the orders delays and scooting, and I'm waiting to see how SS treats all that. I'm also interested to see what may happen with C&C and limited orders and such. For me, that is a more important element of faith in this game but I'm done arguing about it. Again, I'm waiting to see how SS deals with it all. In the meantime, I'll enjoy playing the game some when I can. Having gotten myself into some code development myself for EIA, it's a tad bit distracting. [;)]
Bill Macon
Empires in Arms Developer
Strategic Command Developer
