Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

What you seem to be talking about is WarPac losing an unrealistic equipment. Still waiting to show some baloney. Go on. Show for exmple some TI-equipped Hind example from 1980's.

Oh point allocation cheating? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif You were complaining you can't get !real! circumstances, well, if you want to drop in real numerical superiority on the side of USSR, I'm afraid you have to resort to the so-called "cheating".
And where do I claim my OOB's being revolutionary? Seems you do resort too often to derogatory talking when your beloved side is hurt by reality...

Claiming whoever disagrees with you is a teen who don't know squat is actually behavior I see mostly in the ranks of... Teens. Just FYI, haven't played PBEM with a teen yet, rather
with older and experienced players. As for "better tactics", that's what I think a tactical-scale game is all about, no? If the unreal TI EastBloc units are so crucial for YOUR tactics, I encourage you to change the tactics, not the reality.

In a way, as every such discussion has (when taken seriously and not in fanboy fashion) aim to improve representation of real world in the game. Once again I ask you why is it better for you to leave units with unrealistic values of vision in the OOBs instead replacing them with realistic ones? Just because your favourite side loses capability it didn't have in reality? Well, world is cruel, learn to use another tactics.

My friend, YOU are acting exactly as a child that loses his favourite toy (TI Hinds). Now talk about teens http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Erm, ever tried to fight against NATO TI units without TI, and against a human opponent instead of AI? I encourage you to do so. It IS doable, you just have to quit *****ing about how the world is unfair to good old USSR and have to try to implement proper tactics. The "professional" players you were talking about have no problem with this.

As I already said I most of times (even in PBEM) tend to play Czechoslovakia, IE Eastern Block country with equipment on lower level than USSR, YET I don't feel like desperado - and the battles are far from one-sided.

And again, a question, simple and easy, which you seem to fail to respond: How can bringing the game closer to reality by removing unreal capabilities of some units turn the game into "arcade for teenagers"?

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

lol, teh pwned

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

How exactly can you give yourself more points then the ai? I always thought ai purchase points where based on your own purchase.

Tucan since you talk about superior tactics, what are your tactics then of fighting a TI opponent with no TI? or you don't want to give away your PBEM secerts. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gifI don't know of any Soviet tactics designed to counter TI. Other than don't expose yourself what can you do. hiding isn't exactly going to kill the TI unit.


I also like playing with Czechoslavia, and East Germany in addition to the USSR. Czech and E. German equipment is much 'simplier' and I like that. It really impresses me when a 100mm BS-3 cannon from WW2 is knocking out Leopards and Pattons in the 80s (with modernized ammo of course)

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

By setting points for both sides in Preferences to suit your needs http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

It's hiding up to the point you are in a good position http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Generally my infantry and tanks made advance through forest not feasible so the advance after losing some vehicles to ambushes and pointblank gun fire shifted to more open terrain where my tank reserves were able to play shoot and scoot from two sides and ATGM's were able to harass Marders (though they did seldom hit, more Marders fell prey to my T-55's). Also while moving to the open and towards objectives there was a small screening infantry platoon that was wiped out completely, but managed to knock out several tanks. Also had to fight for flank shots as 125mm ammo had problems with defeating Leo's front (but on several occassions my 72M1's survived front hits by 120mm as well).
Heavily used tactical redeployment of the screening forces once they made their part - delayed enemy long enough etc.

EDIT: Of course this works just as long as there's a place where to seek cover, the map was a map of real are in Middle Europe and was pretty confined at places, though it offered opportunities for long-range shots as well. If it was flat desert it won't work http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Of course loses on my side were rather serious as well, lost lots and lots of grunts and took heavy losses among screening T-55's and IFV's, but numerically the losses were roughly comparable with the difference the enemy lost rather expensive stuff.

Yup, T-55 is even in 1980's great tank to be used as flank security or for ambushes or to counter enemy IFV's and APC's.

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

Heh, I was more used to US-licking trolls until now (the ones who go waah-I-cant-beat-T80s-but-I-know-Abrahams-is-teh-best-tank-evar!!!!!!!)http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rant.gif

Kuklinovsky, could we all hold back the personal attacks here please? Do you have verifiable info about the fact that Soviet-era Hinds had any kind of equipment allowing them to see through battlefield smoke?
In case you didn't read the whole thread through, that's what Don has been asking for since the beginning.

If you haven't, please stop the pointless *****ing.
You want an illuminated battlefield? set the visibility over 50 or so. That'll never prevent the other player to smoke you. If you can't win the game as it is, improve your tactics until you can: even with better hardware the IA is blessedly clueless and vulnerable to delaying or flanking.
And from all the figures I've seen (yes, from both "sides"), the game is still pretty fair-minded with lte Soviet units.

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

Do you give WP forces even more points than the balance? After all we're talking value points here, so higher quantity always balances lower quality and reverse. You want to achieve the legendary 3-to-1 ratio? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif I thought that was why there was a 'quality differential' in the first place, because of the heaps of decades-old units kept running in the rear areas...

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

Kuklinovsky i also think your tone of voice in the very least is a bit questionable and also would perfer a more moderate debate. This aggessive posting culture is deplorable and is mark of a very poor community - i would suggest anyone interested in a more mature and intelligent enviornment check out the forums run by paradox.

on more interesting matters (engagement ranges, relevant to TI):

My handbook (Austrian military, published early 1980s), states engangement ranges "under 1000m". The terrain is however only marginaly comparable with Bavaria (east of the country much more open, west of the country much more mountainous), so this could well be inaccuate for Germany.

Also an interersting statement from memory: "faced with a superior foe, the mobile anti-tank defence should be conducted as close as possible to negate enemy technological superiority, while simuatenously allowing for proper displacement." The example is given with the Kurassier JgPz (light tank), which was specifically designed for rapid engagements of 400-800m (2-4 shots) and retreat.

A side note, in another thread we talked about "TI-defeating smoke" which does exist, and (i speculate), could have formed an important part of WAPA strategy in the final period (1985-90).

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

From JANE'S, do the analysis yourself:

Mi-24B (Izdelie 241 'Hind-A'): TOP

Up-gunned and improved model with new 12.7 mm Yakoushev/Borzov YakB (TKB-063 or 9A624) 12.7 mm four-barrel machine gun in USPU-24 powered chin turret, traversable through 120° in azimuth and from +20 to -40° in elevation/depression, and slaved to KPS-53AV sighting system. Manually controlled ATGMs replaced by 9M17P Falanga-P and Falanga-PV with SACLOS guidance. Traversing radio command link antenna moved from centreline to below port side of nose, with gyrostabilised collimated LLTV/FLIR under starboard side in fixed fairing. Passed company trials 1971-72 but overtaken by Izdelie 246 ('Hind-D') and abandoned. Full-scale mockup produced from pre-series Mi-24 with undrooped wing, prototype from early Mi-24A with normal anhedral wing. Retained fully retractable landing gear like all previous Mi-24 variants.

Mi-24D (Izdelie 246; 'Hind-D'): TOP

Interim gunship version combining 'old' weapon system of Mi-24B with new airframe designed for planned Mi-24V due to delays with that aircraft's Shturm-V ATGMs with SPS-24V fire-control system, consisting of KPS-53AV weapons control unit and KS-53 gunsight; design began 1971; two prototypes converted from Mi-24A, with starboard-side tail rotor; entered production at Arsenyev and Rostov plants 1973; about 350 built 1973-77. Basically as late model 'Hind-A' with TV3-117 engines and port-side tail rotor, but entire front fuselage redesigned above floor forward of engine air intakes; separate armoured cockpits for weapon operator and pilot in tandem; flight mechanic optional, in main cabin; transport capability retained; USPU-24 gun system, with range-finding; undernose YakB-12.7 four-barrel 12.7 mm machine gun in turret, slaved to adjacent KPS-53A electro-optical sighting pod, for air-to-air and air-to-surface use; long air data boom with DUAS-V pitch and yaw vanes; Falanga P anti-tank missile system; nosewheel leg extended to increase ground clearance of sensor pods; wing pylons plumbed for 500 litre (132 US gallon; 110 Imp gallon) drop tanks; nosewheels semi-exposed when retracted; S-13 camera moved from port wingroot to port wingtip/endplate junction. Mi-24DU (Izdelie249) dual-control training version has no gun turret. (See also Mi-25.) Mi-24PTRK was testbed for Shturm V missile system of Mi-24V.

Detailed description applies to Mi-24D, except where indicated.

Mi-24K (korrektirovchik: corrector) (Izdelie 201 'Hind-G2'): TOP

Dedicated artillery spotter/fire correction aircraft to replace Mi-8TARK. As Mi-24R, but with large A87P or AFA-100 camera in cabin, f8/1,300 mm lens on starboard side; six per helicopter regiment for reconnaissance and artillery fire correction; gun and B-8V-20 rocket pods retained. No target designator pod under nose; upward-hinging cover for IRIS wide-angle IR and optical sensor system. Rita reconnaissance and spotting system with optical target identification, computer and data processor. About 163 built 1983-1989.

Mi-24P (Izdelie 243; 'Hind-F'): TOP

Development started 1974; about 620 built 1981-89; first shown in service in 1982 photographs; P of designation refers to pushka: cannon; as Mi-24V, but nose gun turret replaced by GSh-30K twin-barrel 30 mm gun (with 750 rounds) in semi-cylindrical pack on starboard side of nose; bottom of nose smoothly faired above and forward of sensors. Alternative Mi-24G has gun on starboard side.

Mi-24P-2: TOP

Upgraded version of Mi-24P with OPS-24 targeting FLIR and GOES-342.

Mil Mi-24PM: TOP

The upgraded Mi-24PM programme began at the Rostov Helicopter Plant in 2003. The upgrade includes fitting of new night vision equipment and new weaponry. New composite rotor blades and engines also included.

Mil Mi-24PN: TOP

Night capability upgrade with preliminary tests underway in mid-2000. Night upgrade of 30 mm cannon-armed 'Hind-F' with Geofizika FLIR, new laser range-finder, Raduga III sighting and aiming system, mission computer and NVG-compatible cockpit. Joint state testing completed in summer 2003 at Akhtubinsk. A state defence order for eight Mi-24PN (cannon, night) upgrades to be completed in early 2004. The updated variant is also equipped with Global Positioning System (GPS), a five-blade glass fiber main rotor, X-type tail rotor, and 2,400 shp (1,790 kW) Klimov TV3-117MA-SB3 power plants and fixed landing gear. Testing complete by the end of 2002. The Mi-24PN upgrade is being applied to Russian Army Mi-24P.


Mi-24PS (Patrul'nospasatelny: patrol/rescue): TOP

Transport/law enforcement/SAR variant for Russian Ministry of the Interior. Production or series conversion status unknown. First prototype converted from Mi-24P, retaining 30 mm cannon and wing endplate pylons. Undernose LLTV/FLIR replaced by downward-pointing loudspeaker group, ATGM guidance antenna by FPP-7 searchlight. Nose cut away to allow installation of weather radar and EO turret. LPG-4 winch (120 kg; 264 lb capacity) installed aft of starboard cabin door, grab rails, foot rests and rappel attachment points around sides of doors. Four of six-man squad carried can rappel from the aircraft simultaneously. Satellite communications, secure encrypted voice radios and special police-band radios. Second prototype similar (albeit painted white, with blue cheatlines and Militia titles) but converted from Mi-24V, with USPU-24 turret replaced by FLIR ball. Marketed as Mi-35PS for export.

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

Good point about infrared smoke Siddhi, I've been wondering for a while how widespread that thing was, and since when.
After all that's what the "IR" is about in VIRSS. AFAIK VIR smoke is based on suspended metallic particles and so should also screen from radars.

Since enough smoke will eventually block TI sight now, would it be possible to create a second smoke dispersers category which would (totally out on a limb here) create maximum-density smoke clouds or several simultaneous smoke clouds to simulate thicker, impenetrable smoke?

Re: Warsaw Pact and TI
 

Siddi: Very interesting, thanks for that.

Note that it claims the MI-24B would have featured a FLIR (which is TI as the FLIR definition is normally used ,isn't it?) But then there's no direct reference on that system with the Mi-24D, so was it used or not? I.e. had the Hind D a FLIR (TI) system or not?

Smersh/Marek_Tucan: Yeah I had some fun experiances with T-55s, my favourite being in an AI GDR/US campaign, where a T55 engaged a M1A1 on 100 meters landing a 'critical hit' with +40 penetration, catastrophically killing the Abrams with it's first shot...