Jump to content

Companion

Members
  • Content Count

    263
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Companion

  1. Well, I do think throughout late 80s up to 90s NATO achieved enough quality and (relative) quantitative edge to move the conventional balance to its favor against the deteriorating Union. (And then angry T-80Us fired at parliament) Soviet literatures were not unaware of leaps in technology and its possible impact on battlefield. According to IIRC Glantz, one literature posited that "smart" weaponry has achieved lethality of tac nuke and argued for changes in paradigm.
  2. Damn, I cannot resist my bean counter self Are we getting post-1982 T-64B with turret revision and glacis applique too?
  3. Question for NATO will be if they are making right kind of attrition for dealing with the situation. NATO's numerically inferior fire support assets have difficult task of supporting line units to keep them alive while conducting CB and deep fire strikes to make enemy crumble and avoiding dedicated soviet CB batteries in the midst of all these. (similar for CAS too)
  4. How do you know that T-62 is mod. 1975?
  5. What we have here are applique-less variant, so they would fit anytime before 1982.
  6. You're right, just noticed 1G42 for skirt-less variant. Since this T-64B also lacks glacis applique, this must be either 1976 "basic" T-64B or 1979 variant when reportedly armor was upgraded. RE: mixed A and B regiments, AFAIK they were mixed not because A was cheaper but because development rate was faster than re-equip rate. (and I guess immediately retooling the T-64A factories wasn't feasible) But armor-wise, A and B produced in same period should more or less have same armor.
  7. OOOOoooooooh YEEEAAH T-64...! My fav tank! color me happy :biggrin: I think you're right. I see gill type skirt and coincidence rangefinder, and there's no glacis applique either. Do we have any crewable tank fit for early-mid 70s? Aside from T-62 that is.
  8. http://youtu.be/l_htIQaHqx4 First thing I thought of when I saw 2S1 (accidentally) placed under "playable" list.
  9. I'll just say things were not so simple as Clancy novels or Team Yankee.
  10. Now Soviets can finally retire their fleet of M113s :eek2:
  11. Row: Tanks attacking per kilometer of front (values 15-40) Column: Anti-tank weapons per kilometer of front (values 5-30) 5 10 15 20 25 30 15 50% 2% nil nil nil nil 20 75% 10% 1% nil nil nil 25 92% 30% 5% 1% nil nil 30 98% 50% 10% 2% nil nil 40 100% 75% 65% 10% 3% 1% From "Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army" by David C. Isby. I have 81 and 88 edition of the book and the table is mentioned in both. As for the original source, Isby just states "soviet source" While the table does not delve into specifics such as year it was published, types of AT weapon, etc., the bottom line is that
  12. It may be surprising to some of you but commies actually have proper brains and don't "zerg"
  13. reposting on correct thread :redface: Ssnake, I see that you've placed M109 and 2S1 under "playable" system. Could you elaborate on playable functions ?
  14. For what it's worth: Credits goes to dejawolf. Following quote is his comment when I found it in india defense forum
  15. So far, most of western kits are modern, esp. all western IFVs except for YPR are above capability of Cold war vintage eastern counterparts. That said, if you want parity at least in equipment terms, I suggest using exclusively "Russian" kits for missions, such as massed T-80U/T-90A with BMP-3 for mech element. But given that only two old model Eastern tanks - T-72M and T-72M1 - are crewable for now, there is nothing hindering you from simulating a hypothetical country transitioning from T-72M1 to T-90 fleet a la India.
  16. Sorry for necro, just saw your response here. Usually, when "T-55AM" is mentioned, at least in old sources, it means this: most notable features are LRF, BDD applique, and ATGM suite. I don't usually quote common wiki but checked nevertheless to search for any clue at information mismatch and found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-54/T-55_Operators_and_variants What I referred to is the latter, thus my reservation at using T-55 as is for 80s. I think currently it's best proxied by one of the Leo1 variants, which at least have a LRF.
  17. no cheating :decu: that's like making some weird shape during rock paper scissors and saying this wins everything!
  18. AFAIK GSFG never had any T-72 variants, only T-64/80 series there. Also, from what I hear, mixed tank battalions seems to have happened as new kits were distributed across vast Soviet forces, though there should be a pattern of distribution. i.e. initial T-80B delivery focused on forces opposite US sector (maybe because Fulda Gap looks more of a grindfest than mobile warfare compared to NGP and in grindfest, T-80's relative lack of operation range is less of a disadvantage)
  19. RE: Left handed Soviet loader I managed to remember something and dig this up from tanknet: Which is exactly what Soviets did not want to do, as their trials found out that loader on right will have better sustainable (vs peak) loading speed. http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=35786&p=927846 http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=34889&p=893482 It's somewhat strange that Sovs would prime sustained RoF over Peak RoF for those tanks with short life expectancy Or maybe sustained RoF was preferred in operational scope of view. (which envisions lotsa marching and H
  20. Nice, we now have some good ingredients for OP Telic missions A very well-made one might serve as a good marketing demo for UK MoD I think
  21. Sorry for constant nitpicking but let me just remind in passing that German inventory also has "Cold War IFV Gap" (need earlier marder models) Earlier Leo-2 models are also lacking but they can be simulated by disabling TIS (in case of very first production models) and using more advanced 125mm ammo.
  22. Wow So can I assume that different calibers of rounds will have different dispersion on target? Varying "hitting power" on target also? i.e. for larger calibers, larger suppression, more chance of damage on armored targets, larger smokescreen, etc.
  23. ok, just to clarify: 1. For now, (in 3.0) each shell fired by all artillery pieces have same destructive potential regardless of machine or caliber. i.e. a barrage by a mortar battery is essentially same in effect as a barrage by 155mm battery 2. that said, only difference between mortar, medium tube, and heavy tube is range. Rocket artillery is further distinguished by increased volume of fire per volley. I was thinking of a cavalry mission that forces the player to rely on organic mortar platoon while saving limited 155mm missions for armored/fortified targets but I guess that'll have to wai
×
×
  • Create New...