CMBS PVP: Poking the Eagle I
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 сер 2018
- The first episode in a new series where I'm learning how to take on the US Army as the Russians in Combat Mission Black Sea. Its not pretty, but I'm failing forwards. Just don't tell the pixeltruppen.
The music is one of Ligeti's pieces- if you know who that is then you might be able to guess how well this goes.
Combat Mission is a game developed by Battlefront.com. One of the most realistic tactical simulations ever made, Combat Mission covers a wide variety of military settings, from World War 2 (Normandy, Market Garden, Sicily, Italy and the Eastern Front) to fictional modern conflicts in Syria (Shock Force) and Ukraine (Black Sea).
You can find out more about Combat Mission by visiting www.battlefront.com and especially the forums.
Conceived and written before the real conflict began in 2014, Combat Mission: Black Sea is a military simulation depicting a fictional 2017 conflict between NATO and Russia in Ukraine. Command American, Ukrainian, or Russian ground forces in the increasingly sophisticated and deadly environment that is modern combined arms warfare.
Buy Combat Mission - Black Sea here: www.battlefront.com/ - Ігри
the music when the Abrams attacked was fucking hilarious
Those poor T-72s got absolutely slaughtered.
Yep. Its cool watching the hunter-killer system on the Abrams work though: you can see the tank cmdr choosing the next victim with the .50 before the gunner switches target.
brutal
@@usuallyhapless9481 fun fact T72 have it to the commander has a small cupola turret with the option to hunter killer
t64 was the first tank ever made in production to have it i belive
aleast in realife
@@usuallyhapless9481 t 90 has hunter killer yet ain't as effective
@@johnkoneer7567 Why not? It is just a slewing system.
This was my favourite CM video back in the day, and was sort of an eye opener about the reality of modern warfare. Coming back to this AAR with a bit more knowledge about the game and plenty of hindsight however, I get the impression the failed t-72 charge was more a product of circumstances rather than the apparent technology gap as portrayed in the game.
On a top down perspective, although there were only 2-3 abrams and at most 2 bradleys covering the treeline, the t-72 failed to achieve local numerical superiority despite the large numbers of tanks, the initial treeline crossing was done with only 3-4 t-72s in front, and not at the same time, so in reality the initial spearhead lacked mass and as a result never managed to make the spot on the 2 abrams that were concealed by bushes and not moving, thus not affected by the spotting/detection penalty by doing so.
After the initial push, something even weirder happened, the smoke screen created by the tank/ artillery fire mission basically was in such a perfect way to screen the remaining t-72s from ever making the spot, period. The artillery called on the right-most map edge abrams obscured it from the 4 charging t-72s with a relatively thick smoke screen, and the left-immobilized abrams were obscured by a conveniently placed sliver of smoke that just so happens to conceal it from the 4 charging t-72s save from 2 t-72s that approached it from that direction, both of which lost the spotting fight and were promptly dispatched by the left-immobilized abrams piecemeal.
Now you might be thinking, didn't the t-72s have thermals and can see through the smoke, and this is when things get even weirder and partially might be to do with the way combat mission modelled these subsystems (although in real life something similar could have happened). The T-72, as stated in the manual, have the Sosna-U thermal sight of which the Catherine-FC is its thermal component. From looking at some catalogues online the FOV for the thermal sight is only about 9 degrees at the maximum, and it just so happens that the charging t-72s approached the abrams from such an odd angle that, quite possibly, the thermal imager never got the bead on the abrams because it was outside of its scan range. (It also meant the left Abrams is perfectly save from the t-72 thermals as it could only see through the smoke in its forward arc, and not its flank which was obscured by the smoke) Now much of all of this is speculation but it was quite likely that, because of a copious amount of luck and circumstances, the abrams were simply sitting in a convenient blind spot and happily seeing through the smoke with its CITV and picked off the t-72s one by one, it doesn't help the matter that some of the t-72s were slewing its turrets away from the abrams engaging distant targets from its flank, thus negating any spotting advantage it had to begin with even without taking the blindspot into consideration.
Even if the smoke screen weren't there, and that the 2 abrams were dealt with in quick succession, the t-72s still have to contend with 1-2 bradleys on its flank and a single abrams rolling up the sides for a perfect flanking manoeuvre, additionally an additional abrams and a few bradleys were nearby on that flank, meaning even if things went perfectly the t-72s simply cant cover every angles and are very exposed to a counterattack after the initial rush through the treeline.
That is not to say that there weren't a technical gap between the abrams and the t-72, in terms of spotting the abrams have two thermals of better quality per t-72's one, better turret armor that is resistant to sabot (at best the t-72 can only partial pen the abrams front), and as demonstrated here abrams can "mad-minute" the hell out of a wave of t-72s if given the ability to by the quicker reload speeds of manual loaders and much better engagement-after-spotting speeds. But even with that I don't think, point for point, the abrams couldn't have faired any better if the roles are reversed and the abrams were attacking.
I think you might be right.
Still, while having only one thermal with a limited FOV is part of the technological disadvantage the T-72 has when compared to the Abrams, it does seem like there was a series of circumstances that resulted in the T-72s being unable to spot the Abrams just sitting there and picking everything off. The smoke and the angle the T-72s were looking at just happened to create a blind spot where nobody could spot the Abrams.
Still, the Abrams would probably have done better as it has a CITV, it wouldn't have been limited due to the angle like the T-72s and would have probably made the spot through the smoke.
finally a channel that honors Combat Mission games as they should be. Congrats.
Nice touch with the Ligeti. I’ve watched and re-watched that T72 charge....wow.
Impressive. Know from Battlefront forums how to fight the US without heavily restricting procurement quite a conundrum. That you're willing to give it a go excellent news. Another fascinating series in the making.
Thanks man. It would be nice to shake the CMBS meta up a bit.
I really enjoy this type of content as well as the turn to turn AARs. Keep it up!
That was brutal but delightful to watch, I will say that caution is the rule of the day....
Wow, that T-72 rush was epic! I think i would have done the same, if I had chosen to attack. Really nice editing btw, love the 2001 theme - very fitting. ;)
8 out of 9 kills? "Whatever he hits, he destroys!"
Interesting, well put together presentation as always Hap! I think this is the first vid I have seen where you added some subtle music at times which added to mood. Don't be afraid to explore being creative that way. Keep up the great CM movie directing! You have an entertaining style with camera and narration. Explaining what is going on keeps the video engaging and more interesting. Nice work!
Cheers man! I'd love to get more music in- the hard part is finding music that's not copyrighted.
Very nice AAR. I noticed @ 3:25 you shot down an Aircraft.... :) I have to admit the eerie music when your attack was massacred and the US really suffered nothing.. Nightmare... complete Nightmare.
I agree, defense-in-depth is the best way to neutralize the US advantage in spotting and firepower. Especially on a map like this, where you can control the engagement by destroying bridges, multiple lines of defense to degrade his combat power will be a good fit for the structure and capability of your forces. For example, if you had let half a Bradley platoon across one of the bridges, you could have destroyed it in detail before your opponent would have been able to move forces to support.
I also like your idea of using lasers to force his vehicles to pop smoke prematurely. Finding good overwatch positions for your ATGM teams will be crucial to any defensive strategy.
I did notice some mistakes, though. Obviously, if you had given your tanks more than four rounds of ammo total, they could have made more shots on target. And perhaps it wasn't the best idea to put Mr. Magoo in charge of the assault force?
I'm looking forward to your next video!
Well now that I've gotten the urge to try something dramatic out of the way, its going to be defence in depth all the way. I could maybe have given different orders to the tanks, but fundamentally they barely ever *spotted* the 60 ton Abrams literally 50m in front of them, so... turns out T72s are cheap for a reason.
Defense in depth is nice, but it's still meaningless when the opposing side has Abrams (especially with APS). There's nothing quite like throwing two entire battalions of T-72s and Mechanized infantry at a single company of M1A1s only to watch them all go up in flames without as much as chipping a single Abrams' armor (in Shock Force - before the Abrams was gifted with the divine defense of APS and extra reactive armor). The only way to counter them is by using airpower or by throwing multiple companies of T-90s at them (and that only works if the T-90s have secured an advantageous defensive position).
from someone who is trying to learn how to play this game.... this post scares the living shit out of me from how much i need to know to play it
Literally just 5min ago came to check your channel if it had any new content out, but nothing... Then I come back to my subscriptions -page and you had just published this one like under a minute ago!
Gotta keep people on their toes, right?
Great vid
Well this is a nice surprise
Nice music choice at the 11 min mark.
Well played
this is pure murder
A costly lesson.
The best kind of lesson.
Really interesting. Do you regret not taking t90s instead? I wonder if the tank attack would have gone better? Also, could you have covered the attack with atgms?
I did do a test afterwards using the editor and yes, T90s would have been a better choice. But on the flipside, the T72 is a lot cheaper, so I would have had to cut back somewhere else. The attack was covered by the AT14s probably about as best I could- the problem was that line of trees at the edge of the plateau.
@@usuallyhapless9481 what do you think about the relative cost of Russian gear Vs American gear? Given how much the Americans had, it doesn't seem very balanced.
Well, everything has a points value based on its combat power and rarity- it was a meeting engagement and we had equal points to play with. The real challenge for the Russians in CMBS is that the US combat power is down at a tactical level and that the Russian combat power is higher up: we might have equal points spread over the entire map, but you need more cooperation and mutual support between units as the Russians because the Americans are going to have more combat power at the sharp end.
3km by 2km is maybe a little too small w/r/t moden weapon ranges, but you can see the engine struggle here already. I hope Battlefront does something about it in the future.
Yeah, modern warfare ranges are a bit much for CM's engine
this was awesome. i would have used recon before sending the entire tank company charging in, and instead of quick moving i would have either slow moved them or on a hunt order w crew turned out. but i'm just a newb as well :)
My take on it is that I had enough recon from the drone- I could see pretty much everything up there- and that moving in slowly would just give the enemy more time to shoot at me. The T72 might be getting long in the tooth, but it can still shoot accurately on the move. The problem is spotting things to actually engage and there's not a lot of clarity in CMBS over whether something like the T72 should be turned out or not- you kinda have a choice between narrow angle thermal sights and wide angle human eyeball. For the attack, half the tanks were turned out and the others were turned in. Either way, they simply can't compete with the Abrams for spotting and engagement cycle speed.
absolutely agree on your recon and the overmatch between Abrams and T72. Do you know the process of getting the tanks the information from the drone? Do you need to have the drone crew near a command squad?
I generally prefer my tanks turned out to get the extra spotting capability, even if some commanders might die.
The info-sharing link between the tanks and the drones is excessively complex here because the tank company is split between the motor rifle companies. So the chain is Drone->Air Controller->Battalion Cmdr->Company Cmdrs->Tank Platoon leaders->Tanks. Its not very reactive, but off the top of my head the tanks had some idea that something was up there... not that many of them actually spotted anything.
Interesting. Awesome vid
@@usuallyhapless9481 they can't compete with he abrams on long range they still have thermal how we're they unable to shoot the abrams from like 59 metres away like come on t 55s preform better this game is not realistic
Looking forward to this series. Za Rodinu!
Finally yaaaaaayyyy
You need to increase your mic's volume I can barely hear you.
11:30 why are all the t 72s lloking in the wrong direction
Why Abrams are so deadly here? They were more humble in Shock force. What changed between 2008 and 2017?
Best guess: 9 years of development in optics and computers vs the Russians missing out on a generation of military tech in the 90s- early 2000s. I'm definitely looking forwards to Shock Force 2- it should be a bit more balanced.
Usually Hapless
I dont think that it will be more balanced because not only Аmericans will be less advanced in SF2, but Syrian army will also be more backwards than Russian army :) It is interesting how would Chinese Peoples Liberation Army look in Combat Mission if it will ever appear in this game series...
No, the US vs the Syrians isn't going to be balanced. But there are so many modules and different factions: US vs UK would be more balanced, Germany vs Canada, Syrian National Guard vs Insurgents, Insurgents vs other Insurgents... there are a lot more options than CMBS has right now.
Superior optics and training. First spot, first kill.
Simple, the American Superpower of Money.
Do you and Josey Wales coordinate to release videos at the same time? It's honestly too much quality combat mission content to take in one sitting.
*frantically types Josey Wales in the search bar*
We don't coordinate, but obviously we both think that Friday is a good time to release a video. If anyone hasn't seen any of Josey Wales' CM videos, go watch them.
Enjoy your binge
Ha, nice thought Lemons!
Thanks for the plug Hapless, your vids are an education for me! You've learnt a lot here, I'm excited to see how that manifests in Poking the Eagle II
More combat mission black sea m99!
Great videos as always. The only way CMBS is fair in a PBEM is Russia vs Ukraine. The Abrams and Javelins just tip the balance too far to the Americans. T-72's are hot garbage ;-) Your alternate defense of reverse-slope in the town was your only hope...stay out of the open.
Not surprised at how the t-72's did agenst the M1A2's considering how well they did in 91'
T-72 models in 91' were downgread export model that had armour protection on level of WWII tank.
@@aleksaradojicic8114 that explains why Bradleys were getting kills with the .25 mm after expending TOWs
@@aleksaradojicic8114 I think most of us here who knew anything about the military never thought the Iraqiis had a chance in 91 they tried to hit us with all that nonsense about the elite Republican Guard and Iraq having the 4 th largest military in the world at the time. But I don’t think anyone knew just how badly they would fight I always assumed it was just the poor quality of the Iraqui soldiers not the equipment so much you could have given them Leopards or Abrams and result would’ve been similar. For example I’m sure the Soviets even with those t-72’s would’ve gotten some kills
Wtf 9 vs 2-3 and T-72 stil loses to abrams. I love abrams but I feel like the -72s would have been able to better see it irl and overwhelm with numbers. TAC AI kinda mid sometimes
The tricky part is that it essentially comes down to spotting and reaction time- certainly in game, the Abrams has a lot of advantages over the T-72B3, based on the hardware (ie. hunter-killer system, better ergonomics, better optics, higher-res thermals etc etc), as well as- in this case- being stationary while the T-72s are moving.
This game costs 3 million ruples yet doesnt have t80Us or t90s?
There are T90s
Kinda bullshit to be honest, Ukraine war showed how Abrams, Leopard and Challengers aren't as good as claimed.