CMBS: ATGMs vs Tanks (A Few Points)
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 10. 2022
- A bucket full of links to go along with this one:
Perun: • End of the Tank? - ATG...
The Chieftain: • A Visit to the US Army...
Military History Visualised: • Missiles vs Tank Guns:...
Chap's series of our game: • CMBS PVP vs Hapless II...
Link the thread containing Zveroboy1's Ukraine maps: community.battlefront.com/top...
And finally, BAE's referenced CV90 video: • Eldkraft! (Firepower)
Mods wise, its the usual mix of Vinnart's Unit Icons, Waclaw's HQS Sound Mod and Veins effects.
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.
Black Sea is on Steam here: store.steampowered.com/app/15...
#CombatMission #CombatMissionBlackSea - Hry
I feel gleeful whenever I see a new upload, and I've never even played any Combat Mission game. Good stuff, sir.
It's a really good, but tough, game.
Hapless makes the game look way more enjoyable than it actually is hahah, trust me i have 1000 hours across CMSF and CMBS
Are you gonna start your own war college? Coz every vid is basically a course in and of itself. Good stuff.
I know right? I've managed to get at least three heavy videos in a row. Far beyond time I just blew some stuff up!
Another factor (that might actually be a bit exaggerated in Combat Mission) is ammunition consumption. A Stryker Infantry Platoon really has only nine Javelin missiles, give or take, in their ICVs. That means even if everything goes right, with 100% accuracy and 0 casualties, they can kill 9 enemy AFVs before requiring resupply. That's a significant chunk of combat power, for sure, and the Infantry Platoon is highly unlikely to be operating on its own, but it's not difficult to imagine a determined enemy absorbing those casualties especially once you consider that ATGMs are also responsible for engaging the much more plentiful (and equally dangerous to dismounted infantry and ICVs) Infantry Fighting Vehicles. Suffice to say, AFVs generally carry enough ammunition to engage more than nine targets over the course of an operation.
I'm not nearly as skilled at terrain analysis so it's entirely possible I'm employing my troops incompetently, but I've been running a Blue-on-Blue quick battle in rough terrain where a dug-in, reinforced Stryker Infantry Company attempts to defend what seems like very favorable ground against an attack by a Combined Arms Battalion, and the CAB wins every time, usually inflicting 2-1 casualties and retaining combat effectiveness, while utterly wiping out the defenders. The vast majority of attacker casualties wind up being from fires, with my infantry and on-map AT assets being speedbumps at best. This is despite the attackers being commanded rather hamfistedly by the AI. The results are similar even if I swap out the reinforced Stryker company for an entire US Army Infantry Battalion Task Force with all the bells and whistles. It seems the gap in capability between the US Army HBCT and the SBCT/IBCT is pretty wide.
(If anyone's curious, I've been defending Huge Hills Rough Water (2512x1616) using a Stryker Infantry Company with the following attachments, mostly doctrinal from the Stryker Battalion Task Force: 1x Scout Platoon, 1x Engineer Platoon 1x MGS Platoon, 1x ATGM Platoon, 1x Howitzer Battery, 1x Heavy Mortar Platoon, 5x TRPs, and 2x F-16s with the Air Controllers to call them in. Because the enemy is commanded by the AI, all of its artillery is off map and I pretty much just gave them the four line companies from a Combined Arms Battalion so they wouldn't try and take an objective with their mortar platoon. Sometimes I spice things up by giving them a flight of Apaches, and giving the defenders a Section of MANPADs. I've also tried the same battle but with 2x dismounted TOW platoons. Most TOWs, regardless of platform, are lucky to get a single shot off before getting blapped by an Abrams, so my rationale is that more tubes means more people getting at least one shot off before dying, even if my overall ammo capacity and mobility is reduced.)
About that Abrams situation - although not in Black Sea but in CMSF2 rather, if the Gill (spike mr) was fully modeled it could have provided an interseting take on LOAL (lock on after launch) capability. However it does not have that modeled in unfortunately.
Those Gills are somewhat broken in CMSF2, many times it misses the vehicle, sending missile 10 m behind target.
Yep. There's a lot of smart people working on both sides of the dynamic here.
Tanks for the great video!
I see what you did there :P
Excellent video on the ATGM vs Tank discussion. This sort of thing is always a lot more nuanced than the average layman would like to think it is. Good stuff.
Thanks very much man!
@@usuallyhapless9481 Thank you for your contribution to the "conversation" that has been going since at least 1973. :) This comment is not meant as sarcastic / critical.
It's funny, I actually ended up learning these lessons on ATGMS vs. tanks in the game Regiments, there's an operation in which you're given command of a recon unit performing a recon-in-force mission, the force is light in armor and manpower with only ATGMs as the primary anti-armor weapons. It's incredibly difficult to complete the operation successfully without taking optional tanks along as well due to the slower response time of ATGMs.
You on about the Recon mission with the UK-Belgium forces, If so Yeah that one can get very tricky and nasty on the higher difficulties. Especially when the Soviet AI starts doing the T-55 swarm tactics. You run out of ATGM missiles before you get to hit the more lethal T-80s because the T-55 swarm absorbed them all first.
It'd be interesting to note, though, that newer generations of ATGMs (namely Spike and MMP/Akeron MP, so not portrayed in CMBS) are capable of LOAL engagements. So they are essentially able to defeat that tank behind the barn, either observed by a drone or just from the simple knowledge that it's there.
I love how quickly Perun has become a well known and respected source XD
He will be the next NATO secretary general
It should be noted as well that aps are generally limited to 4-8 rounds not because adding more is difficult but because even successful intercepts will generally damage the radar nessary for them to work. So more rounds won't increase protection untill people figure out a better way to renforce the direction system (probably by increasing the range at which the aps intercepts a target)
Another way to reinforce the aps would be redundant radar systems hiden under armour that pop up and replace the damaged ones after a few shots. (similar to how many tanks have redundant gun sights and what not) I think the reason this hasn't been done yet is the fact it would need to be built into the turret from the beginning rather than added to an existing vehicle.
As a Swede it'd be really interesting to hear your thought on the Cv90, it never crossed my mind that APS could be a reason to go with the 40mm cannon, but it makes a lot of sense to be equipped with it on a battlefield without reliable ATGMs.
current aps is not that good irl
The big deal with 40mm is mostly that increased size for fancy airbursting fuses. Though why the UK tried to upgrade Warrior to fit a 40mm cannon instead of just buying some off-the-shelf CV90s is beyond me.
@@usuallyhapless9481 I see, yeah I've always wondered why the export version mounts a 35mm instead, got any clue?
@@sproge2142 IIRC it's pretty modular and BAE has a selection of Bushmasters in different calibres to choose from
@@sproge2142 I can shed some light on this (months after the fact, though) after running into this video - for example, Finland operates CV9030 with the Bushmaster II 30mm cannon, while Norwegians operate the CV9035 with Bushmaster III 35mm cannon. Not sure behind Norwegian reasoning, but probably related to Nammo and 35mm cannon rounds, Finland I know for a fact because I've researched our Cold War arms development history extensively as a hobbyist. Finland had already been testing Bushmaster II on a Delco Systems turret mount (the same on LAV-III for Canadians) onto both our old BMPs and our wheeled APCs, and had found the gun and turret excellent, so we ended up asking for the gun on the CV90 as well.
There's plenty of reasons to choose a smaller caliber; the CV9040 has a relatively limited ready ammo at only 3 magazines of 8 rounds each, typically loaded with APFSDS / HE / 3P (last being the airbursting flak-type round) which greatly limits length of engagements since loading the magazine is done manually with clips of ammo. By comparison, the CV9030's 30mm Bushmaster is a dual-feed with AP and HE belts, 80 rounds each, plus a lot more in ready stowage that'll generally require disengaging for a minute or two at the very least.
Against the prospect of a Soviet motorized assault, the 30mm's longer engagement window is certainly welcome, even if the 40mm is more effective round-by-round. 35mm, from what I understand, sits kind of between these two with belts instead of magazines. Additionally, both 30mm and 35mm autocannons from the west have very little issue cutting through modern IFV front armor, something that the Bradley's original 25mm Bushmaster can sometimes struggle with if you're not slinging depleted uranium darts, which are pretty much only fielded by the US. Similarly, BMP-2s 30mm shells have trouble with many frontal IFV armors if you're not using modern western ammo.
No no no hapless, you’ve got it all wrong. Something something drone swarms, something something hull down bad, something something tanks obsolete 😂😂
In all seriousness, this is another great video, and highly relevant. Seriously great work. I’m sure this video will be used as a reference quite frequently, and I definitely appreciate it.
P.S Berm drills ftw!
Well, the Russians did unveil that Boston robotics dog with an RPG-18 stuck on it... that's clearly the future of AT warfare!
@@usuallyhapless9481 A drone swarm of RPG-18 equipped Boston Robotics hunter killer dogs, I cannot wait for the DoD acronym and threat assessment for that one!
@@MP6150 Fuck.
@@usuallyhapless9481I would not knock Drone swarms, both sides did use them quite well, there is good footage from both sides of Drones being used to knock out logistic vehicles, artillery even and just to harass armour and take out the more sensitive and vulnerable equipment on the vehicle.
Those Kamikaze drones do seem to be causing a lot of trouble for the lighter units and artillery crews though. Maybe NATO should copy it. Better than wasting an expensive missile if you can just use a few cheaper drones to do it instead.
@@Historyfan476AD except those drones might not be as cheap or effective as you think. The reason why NATO missiles are so expensive is due to advanced guidance systems, and long range capabilities. Both of those things are typically lacking in a drone.
That, and NATO has already invested in a system similar to the Russian Kamikaze drones, except smaller and more portable to be used by platoon level infantry units.
Technically for javelines its more of a cool off time where they press a button to release coolant into the seeker head which takes around 20 seconds and lasts roughly 3 minutes until that missile is practically useless unless they add a new coolant tube. This is my understanding of how it works at least, once the 20 seconds of cooling down is over it locks immediately.
Excellent video again. The best part is undoubtedly how you add human context to the simulation in the game, talking about behaviour (i.e. actively minimising your vulnerable time by doing peak a boo) is incredibly important because most of war is sitting around and not necessarily expecting that you will be engaged - combat mission (mercifully) strips that out and leaves us with the "fun" bit. Looking at only the "fun" part can skew your perspective on other kinds of battles that can and do happen in real life.
Side note: I'm another one of those people who watches your videos religiously despite never having played CBM and I was curious if there's any simulation of ambush situations and lower levels of readiness or if it's only pitched battles?
Thanks very much! CM can pretty much only do pitched battles of one type or another. There are some set scenarios with ambushes, but the only way to really pull these off is to have one side start out on the 'x' as it were, which means that you go in knowing that you're literally about to be ambushed.
@@usuallyhapless9481 not surprising. It would be extremely hard to simulate the situation that you get in real life - bored rear line troops who are at a low state of readiness/alertness being attacked by a totally unknown force with a commander who's busy playing poker or something in the barracks.
The artillery effects on tanks seem under represented but I recall it was underrated by US experts IRL. Likely because a 70s T72 had few systems to speak of in the first place - no optics/GPS dog house and no APS.
Also the 25mm rounds hitting short, I believe would blind the tank with dust kick up.
Awesome vid once again
That BAE clip was super interesting as well
Another excellent "Combat Mission" video. Any plan about making some videos of "Graviteam Tactics: Mius-Front" or "Graviteam Tactics: Operation Star" ?
I heard you mention it, but the Trophy APS system has an autoloader protecting the crew from exposure. If CMBS modeled that, which I don't think it does, then in about a second or two the APS system would be prepared to intercept more projectiles until reloads were dry.
Yep. The autoloader for Trophy is modelled and it is really fast, but it itself can't be reloaded ingame.
Another potential tank killer would be the networked AT mortar rounds that most modern armies now tends to employ as well, at least down to company level. Perhaps even to platoon level eventually. That means you only need a spotter (drone, infantry or vehicle) to find the target and then a few AT mortar round to take out the targets. Must be even cheaper than most ATGM... though ATGM have other uses than just destroying tanks so they are still going to be used. Modern ATGM such as the Spike missile can be used against helicopters as well if I'm not mistaken, and they are also used to hit fortified position.
As more and more modern armies are networked it means that information and target data is shared between all elements of combat formations in real time, this gives the commanders allot more options to engage. This make all weapon platforms more effective as it increases the chance your side fire the first round at a potential enemy targets.
Thanks for a great video. Excellent lesson to be learned
You put out amazing videos!
Excellent video in the CM construct. Three other points if I may. 1. A Tank round doesn't have a gather (or minimum) range (in part why IFVs tend to have a mix of gun/missile to cover both range bands) so a tk engagement range can be 0 to 3000 (or longer) which provides a lot of flexibility compared to an ATGM which often has an arming distance and a gather distance before it is effective (e.g. AT-3 Sagger 300 to 3000m - under 300m useless). 2. The TOW-2B Aero can engage targets in defilade if the gunner can guide the weapon over the target. In your example a human gunner would notice the routine of the tank jockeying fwd and back and once acquired guide the missile over the right hand side of the remaining building to achieve a "hit". Unsure if the CM AI is built to do this, but in reality and in other sim products you have used previously, a human gunner can achieve this. 3. A tank round, whilst expensive, tends to be cheaper than an ATGM, and a tk carries quite a few more rounds than the number of ATGMs carried by your average mounted Platoon. You can happily use a couple of tk rounds to say reduce a building, whereas using ATGMs for urban renewal is probably not the best match of weapon to tgt.
Thx a lot Hapless, for another good CM video. There's something I've thought about, how are we programming the Abrams to do shoot and scoot maneuvers in a We-Go setup? Is that setting a waypoint (let's call it Pop-Out) then Pause there for 5 secs and the set a reverse waypoint?
Pretty much exactly that: waypoint, pause for x seconds (possibly with a target arc to try and get the vehicle to focus at least in the right direction), then reverse back into cover.
thank you for another great video
Very interesting video. Good job.
Another factor is that this engagement was at very close range. ATGM units have a much better chance of survival when they have 2km+ of standoff distance. Hunting tanks at close range is still dangerous
Yes, but at 2km the travel time for the ATGMs is also much longer, giving the target more time to spot and engage the launcher or just take cover
@@usuallyhapless9481 My feeling is that most units have a hard time getting spots on longer ranged ATGM launches, even if they react. High quality troops with access to multiple thermal imagers are pretty hard to hide from, especially at close range. Shooting multiple times from the same location is a death wish except when facing either inept troops and/or troops with shite equipment.
Here’s an additional tactical consideration: ATGM vehicles/crews are more vulnerable to distractions. You could send out a target at 1km distance from the launcher, and have another vehicle then present itself at 200m 20 or 30 seconds afterwards.
What happens is the ATGM targets the first target at 1000m, which takes more time to guide or target. While it is busy with this target, your closer vehicle moves out and engages it. This gives you a sizable spotting advantage, and even older vehicles can now win a spotting battle against even some thermal equipped vehicles. And should the ATGM vehicle switch to the closer target, then when it fires your distraction vehicle will spot it and destroy it.
With a traditional cannon, the time to fire is much shorter, so those vehicles are much less vulnerable to this tactic.
Yep. This battle would have been even more humiliating for the ATGMs if there had been another tank there too!
Fantastic vid mate
It is a pain to reload APS in a warzone, ya good luck with that. The main issue is supply chain, even the u.s. army wouldn't be trucking around APS system modules to reload on the battlefield. so once gone they are gone for a good long time.
So I've spent some time thinking about the developments of APS and how we in the west plan to fight any hypothetical attackers using it and ngl I think we may see a change in priority. If taking out tanks with ATGMS is supposed to win through the number game then I wonder how that would work against active protection since firing any advanced projectile against the tanks means either that you managed to damage the tank depspite the APS or that the APS negated it, either way, you just spent your 1 shot trying.
I think we might see more lighter AT weapons that are perhaps more direct fire weapons but specifically reloadable.
On the other note, i think that a way to defeat APS is through volume of fire rather than any fancy weapons (well sure they may still work but the question becomes if its worth "wasting" it), which makes me think that we may see a return of the classic cold war style of AT volley fire. I think firing 2 or 3 rpgs or AT4s at the same target more or less at the same time would have a higher probability of getting past the APS as there is some delay between APS bursts to avoid wasting all charges at the same time. Combined with firing at slightly different angles and I feel like it would be the more effective way to deal with APS.
Your videos have never failed to interest me over the years and it's always a pleasure seeing the next one pop up. Keep it up man, channel is definitely a favorite of mine!
Also, I've always been curious as to what graphical settings and tweaks you may use to play Combat Mission, it's always been a very difficult game to run and I've spent many hours over many nights sometimes trying to optimize it decently. Any chance you can let us know your settings and any tweaks you may have made?
I think he is running in 4K resolution and using shaders. I was only able to get similar graphs with both aforementioned features.
I'm honestly pretty sure I've just gotten lucky- I haven't tweaked the game or anything else, I'm just running it in native 1920x1080. I do mess with the ingame graphics toggles a little if things are running too slow to get good footage, but that's about it.
Nice vid as always. What about Cold War Gameplay and Campaigns?
Another limitation of the CM games is that most maps are quite small so that range usually doesn't factor into this but I recall an interview with some Canadian volunteer in Ukraine stating that the Javelin's 2.5km range is too low and they couldn't get close enough to use the missile while tanks don't have this problem. TOWs can reach out farther but they're not as portable.
Do you think yoh could do a video on MOUT and urban warfare in combat mission, specifically with infantry? I excel whenever I have easy access to mechanized forces over open terrain, but for some reason I'm absolutely inept at solely infantry attack in urban areas. There's this one mission on a CMBS campaign that absolutely kicks my ass because it's just a slugging match between infantry and I can't move up without taking significant casualties to the point of being combat ineffective.
Really hot stuff, and most appropriate for what's going on in Ukraine. BTW what's the dead zone of the Javelin, in which the missile isn't armed? Some footage from Marinka showed Russian tanks closing quickly on Ukrainian positions, firing a few rounds then backing off. Apparently they were presuming to get inside those arming points, although the drive in must've been pretty nerve-wracking (ditto for the back-up).
Okay. That is very interesting and Helpful, but I still struggle with somethings. For example. In CM:Black sea, I was attacking a town held by my friend. I had a large Russian Force of BTRs with autocannons and a few tanks. He had and Abrams and 2 Javelin teams. The javelins basically killed about 80% of my vehicles before the game ended. Now the question is, how do I, as an attacker, deal with an opponent with technologically superior optics and AT capabilities without having hard kill APS or high tech optics myself?
Artillery and ATGMs.
destroy everything with arty
"how do I, as an attacker, deal with an opponent with technologically superior optics and AT capabilities without having hard kill APS or high tech optics myself?"
That's the neat thing thing, you don't. 😅
@@burningphoneix Get arty'd
Nice video. May I ask, what kind of commands should I use if I wanna shoot and scoot like Chap did?
Target arc in the direction you want to fire. fast move command into position with a pause at the end - time it such that the tank is exposed for less than 15 seconds.
If you want to order it to fire, use a target brief command from the furthest movement position.
Reverse command to get back into cover.
Would a pause of 10s be sufficient to acquire a target and get a shot off? What’s your recommended duration?
@@ww3032 entirely depends. If it's an infantry target, with the turret already pointed at the expected position due to the target arc 5 seconds should be enough for one main gun round. Ideally time it to be less than 15 seconds of total exposure.
What @GreyFoxGaming said
I do hope Combat Mission might soon upgrade to a new more flexible engine. So that then they could model in a lot more of the smoother movements and features.
You point out a very real life truth that is extremely difficult to replicate in a war game: In real conflict no one announces to the combatants “Standby for the start of Turn 1.” It probably would be quite tedious, but perhaps one way to replicate this uncertainty is a H2H campaign, where the aggressor has a finite amount of game time to traverse all of the many, many maps. There is too much ground to cover to always advance cautiously. The defender gets to pick which of the maps they will place defenders on, and how vigorously to contest any of them. This forces the aggressor to choose between speed and caution. Only effective reconnaissance and/or luck can save the aggressor from nasty ambush or heavy casualties from hasty and ill-prepared attacks.
7:08 RIP.
Man your voice sounds pretty similar to Perun's
Not adopting losat was a huge mistake
Considering all of the fake info that Ukraine has put out, all of the ATGM kills and the "Russian tanks have no armor!!" stuff is pretty sketchy. Though ALL of the info from any active war is sketchy by default.
What fake info in particular, and also how are ATGM kills sketchy when they film the whole thing and also have oryx reporting visually confirmed losses?
@@groblin6620 Are you serious?
@@jimmydesouza4375 Are you seriously asking that he's serious? Dude asked what fake information you are referring to whilst explaining ATGM kills are shot on camera, hard to argue with the top of the turret going for a high jump record.
@@Marth667 Yes i am. He's asking that while incredibly high profile (and obvious) lies like the ghost have been rumbled for months. Even if he is specifically talking about tank kill videos Ukraine has been caught using old footage, edited footage, footage from entirely different wars and even ITVing.
"What fake info?" is an insane question.
@@jimmydesouza4375 You could have better phrased your comment as in "All the footage we see of successful ATGM tank kills are just that, only the successful attack footage, But do not see or at least only rarely seen the footage when the attack failed. And so maybe a false image of overall results is created as a result". Just a suggestion of course.