AAR: Not so welcome

[Aeraaa]

So basically, the MBT LAW is an ATGM that has all the pros and not the cons (no countermeasures). If this is the case, this is by far the best infantry AT weapon in the game, esp for close terrain defense.

EF2000s had decent rating against Tor and Tunguskas, although since in the game there are around 26 AA weapons (discounting MANPADs) in the scenario, after a while the shots become accurate (I don't know how it works in the code but I've seen that given enough missiles, the missiles accuracy increases. EW saturation?). Plus S400s are monstrously accurate. I really hope they are not that good as in the game IRL, since it is an OPFOR weapon as of last year.

British AA is mediocre, however the terrain of the scenario is good enough that you can hide vehicles, plus almost all AFVs have countermeasures that make them quite survivable vs. precision weapons. Funnily enough, in the 70ies-80ies scenarios that I played before, British AA is quite formidable (Rapier ftw).

You are right that I lost a great number of Warriors, but I strongly believe that the Eurofighters were the reason I got a draw. 10 aircraft lost are around 7000-8000 points down the drain and they did not fire a single missile. Honestly, I shouldn't use air strikes at all and I would have got a victory. Well, Hindsight is 20/20 as we all know...

[Aeraaa]

BTW, did I mention how much I HATE attack helos when on the receiving end?

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

First I have to say I really enjoyed following along as you fought this scenario. My thoughts are...

1. I believe if it ever shows up for the "regular" game in time, that what you described as to the performance and vulnerabilities of the T-14 Armata, shows that the tank as modeled is correct in the game.

2. As to the Challenger no surprises there either, it is still by many considered the best "protected" tank out there even in the environment of what is projected for the T-14. We might actually see the "new" Challenger (Along with the LeClerc) in the game before the T-14.

3. Rapier was an excellent system but the performance started to drop off by the mid-90's if not sooner. Originally had and optic system but has seen improvements sinceThe British are addressing these issues currently as Andy has pointed out.
https://www.army-technology.com/proj...-by-baltic-sea

4. S-400 NOT AT ALL SURPRISED. When I submitted it the thought at the time was it would be on par to the PATRIOT. In it's current state, operationally it's currently very close to the PATRIOT PAC-3 (Though like tanks, they continue to evolve, as PAC-3 has.).
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-S-400-Triumf.html

What's next for Russia? The S-500 PROMETHEUS which is not an upgraded version of S-400. I t is a brand system more along the lines of THAAD which is meant to compliment the S-400. Fortunately due to delays, the first
"production" units aren't projected until 2025 or 2026.
http://www.military-today.com/missiles/s500.htm

5. JAVILIN again not surprised by it's performance as it is one of the primer "fire and forget" and "top attack" ATGW in the world. There was a reason the British replaced their MILAN missiles with these (French doing the same over time with the MMP.).

6. Curious where those tank hits against the helos direct or indirect hits? The chances of a helo surviving a direct hit isn't very likely.

7. Did I miss it or did you not have SEAD?

Seemed like you had fun with this, again enjoyed your AAR's

Regards,
Pat

[Aeraaa]

@FASTBOAT thank you for the kind words. It is true that it was a very entertaining battle, as were all SaSTroop's scenarios.

Now...

1-Yeah, Armata is quite tough and it is up there with the T-90MS as the top tier Russian tanks. Standard way to fight them is massed missile fire or tank shots to the sides or rear (slight parenthesis here. Challenger gun isn't the greatest out there and I think it can penetrate the frontal hull of an Armata at around 500 meters. I guess an Abrams or a Leo-2A7 will be able to achieve that from further away and can even penetrate the turret at close ranges)

2-Challenger is the grandchild of a Churchill heavy tank. Heavy armor, meh gun (although it is quite accurate).

3-True that. The British have Stormer SAMs on the scenario but they did not fare much better. I shot down only one SU-24 out of around 4-6 that attacked me in total. This is definitely NOT great achievement.

4-No comment here, it shuts airspace completely.

5-Yeah, Javelin is well known, but the pleasant surprise were the MBT LAWs. These things give the British rifleman a significant kick compared to its counterparts.

6-About the helos, it is the neverending story of how they are modelled in the game. At first they were glass cannons. Now they are literal flying tanks. This is especially annoying with the Russian helos that are well armored as well. In the game, I hit two Ka-50s with tank rounds (and I think 3 more with Warrior 40mm), one of them from 13 hexes away. Didn't cause a single point of damage. Of course this is ridiculous if you think about it IRL, but I guess modelling helicopters is very hard.

7- I actually did have to Eurofighters on SEAD role. They were the first two ones that were blasted out of the skies by the S-400s. Grrr...

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by Aeraaa

6-About the helos, it is the neverending story of how they are modelled in the game. At first they were glass cannons. Now they are literal flying tanks. This is especially annoying with the Russian helos that are well armored as well. In the game, I hit two Ka-50s with tank rounds (and I think 3 more with Warrior 40mm), one of them from 13 hexes away. Didn't cause a single point of damage. Of course this is ridiculous if you think about it IRL, but I guess modelling helicopters is very hard.

The problem is a tanks main gun round, AP, Sabot, and quite probably HEAT and even HE aren't likely to detonate if they hit an unarmored helo, unless they hit something substantial like the engine. Punching holes in a helo may get lucky and hit something vital but as Vietnam (and WW II bombers) showed just making holes doesn't accomplish much.

The "problem" is the way armor is factored in WinSPMBT: 0 armor and a spitball can do damage, 1 armor and you're all but immune to infantry weapons, 2 and 50cals/14.5s pretty much bounce off, 3 and light AA (20mm-ish) becomes a non issue.

The MI-24 Hind was SPECIFICALLY designed to shrug off NATO 20mm AA.

AA missiles/MPADS are also effected by the armor rating of the target, even tho heat seeking missiles more-or-less fly up the exhaust thus should more-or-less ignore armor.

As great a job as WinSPMBT does it's NOT a simulation it's a game thus certain things are represented as best they can be, tho not "correctly".