Jump to content

Combat Mission : Cold War


Stuart Galbraith
 Share

Recommended Posts

It depends what scale. On a Company/Battalion level, I think the idea was to debus the BTR's a couple of hundred feet from the objective, with the tanks providing fire support from their rear . On a Regimental/divisional level, i think the idea was to commit the divisional tank battalion for exploitation.

You might find this useful for thinking Commie....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 5/18/2021 at 10:09 PM, Stargrunt6 said:

The doctrine seems to be absolutely ruined by the onset of thermal imaging.

BTW, regarding said training scenario:  After the majority of my tanks were destroyed and their defensive line was adequately softened up, I just bullrushed my BTR's and ordered fast movement to assault the line.  Was that the doctrine of the Soviets as well? 

Yes, but the tanks would have been supported by BMPs if available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive got an original copy of that, sold in a Tank Museum clear out. It had charming rude captions to the pictureds that some bored squaddie on radio stag had pencilled in.  :D

This is pretty good too, too bad he stopped updating it.

https://coldwargamer.blogspot.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The arty doesn't do much against armor. :/ 

I'm kind disappointed with that aspect.  That's a pet peeve of mine in modern era gaming.  I mean, how effective was Syrian arty on IDF tanks in 73'?  

Two games I respect a ton, Steel Beasts ( @Ssnake, you've been summoned!) and the tabletop boardgame World at War 85 handle arty vs armor very well IMO.  

In CM and another fave, Steel Panthers, even 152mm/155mm just tickles tanks unless it's DPICM. 

Funny enough, WaW85, DPICM is crappy HE because there's a chance of it failing.  The creator's research showed that clusters can be pretty inconsistent.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Artillery is a bit tricky to get right. It starts with the fact that there isn't much literature to find on the subject. Typically the terminal ballistic effects of HE vs armored vehicles are classified to begin with. Then 1960s...1990s "NATO literature" seems to grossly underestimate the effect of plain HE vs AFVs, so the Soviet manuals are probably a better reference from that age.

Some of you may remember how I happily gave up my place riding the Luchs at the German I&I on that day near Berlin. While you were having fun my reward was recovering (East German) NVA artillery manuals (top secret rated) after sifting through a three cubic meters pile of smelly army manuals.

But that wasn't enough. You then need to pick the proper models for fragment formation in artillery shells - not too difficult if you're willing to invest a few hundred bucks in specialized literature. Next you have the models (you need to combine at least three) but still need to get the parameters right. And when you have the parameters in a useful range, you need to the model to perform reasonably well in a real-time environment, which is where it gets really interesting. One grenade is one thing. But a massive artillery barrage at battalion level could have several dozen rounds forming many fragments at the same time; DPICM is the worst of the lot with potentially 150,000 fragments per second for a sustained period if delivered in large quantity by rocket.

We aren't quite there yet with SB Pro (and there's other things to work on too - so many tanks, so little time...). But at least we got to the point where the advantages are showing. One could make the case that this is classic German overengineering for a wargame. The problem is, you don't know if you're overengineering until you can compare the results of the complicated model with a simple one and still get comparable results (and at least for us, the simple model did not deliver the same results) ... or if you have access to classified data, but then you can't make the work results public.

I wouldn't go so far to say that the collapse of East Germany was worth it just for getting the artillery model in Steel Beasts right. But I'd call it a fringe benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Some of you may remember how I happily gave up my place riding the Luchs at the German I&I on that day near Berlin. While you were having fun my reward was recovering (East German) NVA artillery manuals (top secret rated) after sifting through a three cubic meters pile of smelly army manuals.

You were the happiest German guy I've seen in my life, hugging that manual against your chest, and probably murmuring something about "My preciousss...".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

I wouldn't go so far to say that the collapse of East Germany was worth it just for getting the artillery model in Steel Beasts right. But I'd call it a fringe benefit.

☝️😄

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Artillery is a bit tricky to get right. It starts with the fact that there isn't much literature to find on the subject....

If you need them I can try to dig out some local "destruction coefficients" for arty (105mm, 122mm, 152mm, 155mm and 128mm MRL) firing certain amount of ammo. It is highly "gamey", but you can see how it compares to other weapons (very well IIRC). IIRC 122mm howitzer battery was more "dangerous" than T-55 tank company, through efficiency came from expenditure of ammo.

Edited by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Stargrunt6 said:

...In CM and another fave, Steel Panthers, even 152mm/155mm just tickles tanks unless it's DPICM. ...

 

Due the low penetration and a fact there is no "secondary damage" model. While I was still bothering with SP I have increased HE penetration for arty so that at least roof armor hits would be dangerous to tanks (it did not help that most tanks had overstated roof armor, IIRC C2 had something ridiculous as 10cm...).

Edited by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ive a USMC manual from 1968 that shows the effect on given formations (largely through blast) of Atomic weapons of various sizes, tactical up to the near megaton range IIRC. I must sit down and scan that one someday, if anyone was seriously going to model that it would be an excellent starting point. I can only assume it was data assembled from the Nevada tests, and tweaked so you could use it for military wargame use but not necessarily be classified on other effects. I found a ticket in it finding a thank you from Blandford Forum Camp, the Army School of Signals.

There was fantastic bookshop in Salisbury that used to get all the cast off books from the weapons establishments in the South East of England, Aldermaston, Farnborough, the Underwater Weapons establishment at Portland for another. I once found a volume in it showing the effect of detonations underwater, of different sizes and depths. I REALLY kick myself for not having bought that one.  Sadly the place has long since gone, as have all those find bookshops on the UK highstreet that had volumes like that. They are probably stil there but its primarily online. The only way you will find stuff like that is going to militaria fairs. Ive found a fair bit of my collection there, including a Royal Observer Corp manual on Atomic weapons, and of course the tank manuals which ive scanned up on the Tank forum.

Challenger 2 had additional protection against top attack weapons, but yes, that probably is overdoing it a bit. Most strategy game engines dont seem to model hits through the engine deck or upper hull which would be just as lethal.

 

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blast is not primary kill mechanism, so nukes are "easier" to survive against than regular arty.

 

Most of the C2 roof is 3cm thick steel, same as Leo 2 and M1 (well, M1 is 1", but close enough...). T-xx are somewhat better with 5cm, but that all is pointless since direct hit by any artillery weapon at the turret roof is going to put tank out of action.  Later Merkavas and Swedish Leo 2 (Strv 122) are only who have substantial roof coverage of the additional roof armor, and even then it is mostly designed to counter bomblets with their 8-10cm penetration and would be of the questionable efficiency vs direct hits by artillery.

Crew might survive (I know of the instance where T-55 crew survived 130mm HE hit to the turret) but tank will be out of action 100% in practically any case of hit on the turret roof, no matter the armor.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And even that does not extends to a whole roof above crew compartment. Like Russian's 5 bricks of ERA on the roof and South Korean one on K2 it is one of those "we kind of made an effort but we really did not" things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bojan said:

If you need them I can try to dig out some local "destruction coefficients" for arty (105mm, 122mm, 152mm, 155mm and 128mm MRL) firing certain amount of ammo.

Like I hinted at, I found such a manual on that day, from the East German Army. :)

Thanks for the offer, I think I'm set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Like I hinted at, I found such a manual on that day, from the East German Army. :)

Thanks for the offer, I think I'm set.

No really, don't deprive us, Bojan please do look this up :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I have noted it, but it is optimized vs bomblets, and would present very little obstacle to a 152/155mm HE impacting on the turret roof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So here's an experiment done by someone else for CM. It's for Shock Force 2 but it's the same engine.

The best I got was a direct hit pen with HE which damaged a few systems on an m60 RISE.  I did score a few TC kills as well, but they could always button up. 

https://community.battlefront.com/topic/138062-artillery-broken-against-sub-systems/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...