Combat Mission Units: T-72 in CMSF

[@AnAmericanDodo]

If CMSF simulates the unready ammunition too, then the T-72 will have a bunch of ammo stored throughout the turret, not just in the carousel. Basically it there would be ammo wherever they can fit it. I have heard that in reality after a period of time crews who have used them in some combat may get the idea that having ammo in places other than the carousel is highly dangerous in combat. TURMS-T is the same FCS as the Centauro uses from my understanding. So there should be some improvement in attacking a moving target due to there being a modern lead calculation system. For any other T-72 before the B version lead calculation is essentially Kentucky windage. I forget if CMSF has a version of the T-72B or S, but for the B versions the FCS tells the gunner where to aim for lead.

[@usuallyhapless9481]

The TURMS-T is Italian, so it would make sense for them to be putting it on their own hardware. It does feel more accurate than the non-TURMS-T T72s, but I haven't sat down and tested it. Not sure about ready-ammo simulation, all I've seen is that T72s explode a lot when they get hit.

[@mimir4965]

This aged like fine wine considering the amount of turrets being blown up in Ukraine lmao

[@SuperAwesome6969]

I find the best use of Syrian tanks in SF2 are as using them as big overhand punches in urban environments. Using tons of cheap infantry to infest every building in an urban environment and sucking the more expensive (and effective at range) NATO forces into short range exchanges and then rushing the tanks out of hidden positions into the flanks nullifying NATOs advantages in spotting. Edit: For example using a huge ied placed inside or next to a structure at an choke point waiting until a juicy target of a MBT or IFV with supporting infantry passes (after the scout teams have deemed it clear) then detonating and flanking. Leaving the screening unit isolated from their fire support.

[@lordbuntel792]

Ngl this is pretty nasty It's the almost the same strategy I use with uncon forces but I just flood buildings and roads with ied This strategy has caused my friend to be paranoid and to scared to play in urban games it has gotten to a point where he would use a lot artillery and helicopters if he was attacking a city.

[@h.m.stanley]

well.. this aged well...

[@2157AF]

i had a laugh at the intro.

[@igormsh14bidevisualizacoes45]

You can say the same about the abrams or challenger, oh well where are the challengers on ukraine really?

[@TheKsalad]

​@@igormsh14bidevisualizacoes45 butthurt in a 4 year old video over a year old comment lmao.

[@donnym3415]

​@@igormsh14bidevisualizacoes45now this aged poorly

[@matthewjones39]

What about it?

[@stardekk1461]

It is could be a good series, keep up the good work !!

[@usuallyhapless9481]

Should help broaden the content a bit

[@therealnaenae2012]

Its waffle night

[@zer9761]

btw in SF2 T72s are actually capable of tanking 105mm MGS gun reasonably well on the distances of 500+ meters.

[@ThePoutinePrince]

Now I'm wondering if this is the same with the L7A3 105mm on the Leopard C2 MEXAS. Have to do some testing.

[@nos0roz3c]

T-64+ series 3D models need rework. 5:13 Front hull plate in-game stands out from fuel tanks on sides. It looks like it's based on a T-55/62 model.

[@sunbather1576]

Coming back here in 2022. When you say that having cheap and lots of T-72 and a high range ATGM do not count in Shock Force 2 because the maps are too small, what does that mean for CMCW? Can the T-72 play out its strengths there?

[@usuallyhapless9481]

The T-72 in CMCW is a bit of a beast. Vs the earlier M60s, it's armour works (in the front at least), it can easily KO'd M60s from any angle, and the spotting capability gap is much smaller (until the TTS gets in on the act).

[@strafe8866]

Dude playing San Andreas with a t72

[@cherminatorDR]

Do Combat Mission games have a good single-player campaign?

[@usuallyhapless9481]

There are campaigns for the US, USMC, Brits, Canadians, Germans and Dutch, plus there are some community-made campaigns floating around (including some from the Syrian perspective). Whether they're good is a bit more subjective- I can remember the US and UK campaigns being good fun, the NATO ones tend to be much harder.

[@cherminatorDR]

@@usuallyhapless9481 I guess I'll need some practice before I try them then. Thanks for the reply!

[@jondoe6663]

I do wish that you had talked about the T-90SA, given that its based on the T-72

[@usuallyhapless9481]

At some point I intend to go over all the T90s, so it kinda made sense to hold off and lump it together with the T90A and T90AM in Black Sea.

[@sirfanatical8763]

@@usuallyhapless9481 good to hear bc I'd really like to see the T90s covered.

[@ТомасКатц]

14:10 not sure its possible in game at all. Can u check this? Just put 20 t72 and 1 abrams 4 km away and wait till they noticed it (also try to use recon spot it)

[@usuallyhapless9481]

They can do it at 5k, apparently: kzbin.infoUgy14StmHmO1GASIpIB4AaABCQ

[@ТомасКатц]

@@usuallyhapless9481 wow

[@ТомасКатц]

@@usuallyhapless9481 and what about older t72 , as I mentioned earlier they seems blind (as for me).

[@uberpotato379]

It seems that the leopard and the challenger are somewhat superior than the M1A2 SEP based by points that is quite interesting.

[@usuallyhapless9481]

The top end NATO tanks are all broadly comparable, though the Chally and the latest Leopard have nigh-on impenetrable turret cheek armour. Less so with the Abrams.

[@romanbuinyi]

I had impression in CMSF1 that Challenger is worse than Abrams.

[@ThePoutinePrince]

I have no idea why the T-72AV & T-72AV TURMS-T don't have smoke dispensers. In real life it has them mounted on the left side of the turret, including in syrian army service. Is this gonna get fixed anytime soon? Should I report it on the forums?

[@JacquesMayhoff]

"He who gets off the first shot almost always wins" Invalidated in the case of Italians and Syrians (without TURMS). *get the rare and precious first spot* *fire a shot* *either boink, splat, or woosh* *the Sherman/Leopard II/M1A1's vastly supperior FCS acquires its target and fires* *a single tear rolls down your cheeks as your screen violently shakes and thick black smoke starts pouring from every hatch of your beloved tank*

[@usuallyhapless9481]

Its based on the idea that the the side opening the engagement does so from a position of advantage- so for the Syrians here that pretty much means opening with a flanking shot, which should (in theory) penetrate... if it hits... if they actually spot the target... if they're on a map where you can actually get a flanking position. The AI can't do that and it can be tough for a human player to pull it off sometimes.

[@whya2ndaccount]

More generally (not just CMSF) it also relates to “combat calculus” say two Soviet era Tk Coys meet (10 vs 10). The side who fires first might hit 3 tanks, so now its 7 tanks firing back at 10, while the 10 also fire at the remaining 7 (likely to get say 5 hits due the numerical advantage). Very soon its maybe 7 tanks firing at maybe 2.

[@BarendJan]

Fennek next?

[@BarendJan]

I truly like the idea of this series

[@СергейШнайдер-я8н]

Хороший обзор на танк в игре👍

[@jimmehjiimmeehh9748]

Just as an aside, there's doubt as to whether the M256 is actually a Rh120, or if it is just "commonly accepted fact" that happens to be wrong like the idea the M68 is an L7. The US had a developmental combustable cartridge smoothbore cannon in the 60's called the 120mm L44 DART that was a development on from the smoothbore T208 cannon. The German government and Rheinmetall had access to it as part of the MBT70 program, since it in it's missile firing Delta-LASH form was one of the primary contenders for main armament on the vehicle. So there's doubt over whether the M256 is an Rh120 or a development of the delta and suspicion that the Rh120 itself is a development of the delta. As far as I know the US govt has never clarified which is true.

[@whya2ndaccount]

ERA only really effective against Chemical Energy (CE) warheads - HESH, HEAT, HEP, etc. as its designed to disrupt the jet / blast. Not so good against Kinetic Energy (KE) rounds - APFSDS, etc.

[@usuallyhapless9481]

Pretty much. You could argue that they function as a layer of composite armour- working as a differently dense material that might slightly alter the path of an incoming KE round- but that's pretty optimistic.

[@samargrewal929]

@@usuallyhapless9481 you know that their some era packages that decree the penetration of apfsds round like kontakt-5

[@haplessoperator]

@@samargrewal929 Turns out the performance of Kontakt-5 - as well as most other Russian war material specification claims - is built on a pile of lies, burnt wood, and sadness.

[@wheelcha1rman2]

It's interesting coming back to this 16 months into this phase of the Russo-Ukrainian war. The performance of Russian variants & crews has put the lie to the "export models and poor crewing" argument. At least somewhat. The nuclear battlefield exploitation role most cold war era Russian AFVs are based around (as well as doctrine and other difficulties in Russian military affairs) have hampered the T-72 quite badly.

[@serch3ster]

I don't think so, its also the same conflict in which Leopards and Bradley's are lost in droves. Less of the vehicles being bad and more of that the defending side has a huge advantage.

[@wheelcha1rman2]

@@serch3ster according to Oryx only 4 Leo 2s have actually been destroyed. With about six abandoned. Bradley's have suffered more heavily but that's to be expected. Given the battlefield conditions Ukraine is facing, their losses of materiel and personnel have been remarkably light in the ongoing offensive.

[@AUsernameWeShallMarchToKiev]

@@wheelcha1rman2 Personally, I believe the heavy T-72, T-90, and T-80 tank losses in this war to primarily be a result of poor tactics in combined-arms warfare. Russian forces started out the war horribly disorganized, with tank-infantry cooperation and combined arms basically being nonexistent. This, compounded with (in my opinion) a failure to understand the significance of handheld anti-tank weapons such as Javelin or NLAW, is the major cause of Russian tank losses in the Russo-Ukrainian war. While, of course, Western tanks such as the Leopard 2 have higher crew survivability than Soviet designs, as we’ve seen the counteroffensive, lack of proper combined arms cooperation (especially in breaching operations), and high amounts of enemy anti-tank weapons firing from relative safety (Ka-52s, Lancet, and Kornet) can still cause attacks to bog down. Granted, we’re not seeing massive tank loss rates on the part of Ukraine, but that may simply be to a reluctance (or even possibly inability) to contribute significant armored forces to battle.

[@aymanayad7230]

@@wheelcha1rman2 oryx is a propagandist that has been trying to get a job in the MoD for a while, and once that failed he quit

[@leokonings4836]

The 105 mm rifled barrel has the advantage of reliablity (I filmed one of my Leopard 1s when realising 3 hits on 3 targets in 10 sec. at distances from 2000-2500m, beeing capable of easily hit a stable target of 1m at 2500m with a capable crew : result : making shure of 50% hits with starting crews. Each tk had 60 shots in hull = 30 kills. Rifled barrels outgun easily the smooth gun of the T72 (50% less accurate) Whoever saw the Russian material closeby could see the lack of reliability and finesse. If the russian tanks would have been designed, build and maintained in West-Europe then there would be reason to fear T70 ...T90, but now its like compairing BMW and LADA. COMMENT : as ex TK-commander i feel Combat Mission as realistic as possible, where all other Wargames feel like designed without knowledge of tactics/strategy, they just fast click, overwhelm and win. Trained packed soldiers manage 10km/hr , Leopard 1 60+km/hr. Real Tactics = first think, then DO THE UNEXPECTED/ use the best terrain advantages. One more differance = all my crews up to the lowest rank knew mostly before everey attack the tactics and goals = whoever is killed can immediatelly be replaced until the last man standing. Russian subordinates do not even know where they are and why , beeing considered replacebel cannonfodder. To the developpers, continue the good work. 2LB26, over?

[@magnusred2945]

You commanded a Leopard 1?

[@leokonings6756]

@@magnusred2945 Yes, I even was an TK instructor , now i am retired.

[@magnusred2945]

@@leokonings6756 that is awesome!!!! What is your opinion of the KF51 Panther sir?

[@leokonings6756]

@@magnusred2945 you can check B325e05.22_Panther_KF51.pdf Based on the hull of the Leopard 2 it is the future NATO-TK, hi-tec, the fastest, allready prepared to use all new developments (closeby and distant protection and attack) As the Leopard 1 and 2 have proven their outstanding realiability, outclassing the competition, so will this one. The Leopard 1 hit a 1m target 100% at 1500m, the 2 at atleast 3000m, KF51 at least 4500m. In Bergen-Hohne my crew shot 3 hits in 10 seconds (3 targets). Surely the KF51 can do better (autoloader). Using drones and seeker-rockets the KF51 will last for at least 40 years. I only hope we will not need it. Greetings, Leo

[@magnusred2945]

@@leokonings6756 sir are you going to play the game Gunner, HEAT, PC!

[@dylanceresoli2078]

Pleaseee make more of these videos for Russian vehicles

[@Rimasta1]

Well we got to see the Russians use their T-72’s in action instead of the only Arab armies and…ouch.

[@-spook-2992]

Meanwhile in Ukraine: oof. Lots of factors to consider, of course, though it does not look good overall.

[@lewisyeadon4046]

To be fair, the results in Ukraine are not entirely unexpected. Soviet and now Russian doctrines emphasised massive formations of armour. Unlike NATO forces, their recon uses their MBT, their assault groups use their MBT, and the reserve troops use the MBT. T-72 is a relatively cheap, small crew system designed to be just good enough for the battlefield and cheap enough to be built in massive numbers so that your assault is never diluted enough to become unsustainable. T-72 is great for what it's designed for, it's just that what is was designed for was a very poor doctrine created because the technological deficiency the Soviets had.

[@brokenglass9814]

things blow up when you send them to war

[@beaverdam1199]

All of your points about T-72s performing worse in the middle east have now been proved wrong lol, they perform terribly in Russias hands, cough cough... Ukraine, with over 2000 T072s destroyed or knocked out it's safe to say they are just terrible tanks, great for their time and older tactics, but in the modern day and age are absolutely wiped out

[@kekistanimememan170]

I mean yea but Ukraine is operating virtually the same tank. So unsupported tank rushing is dumb regardless of the tank.

[@beaverdam1199]

@@kekistanimememan170 Yeah but using old tactics in the modern day is well... Less then optimal when 4-6 Javelins could be protecting a singular position with 60-100 guys, Javelins generally knock out T-72B3 with a singular hit, let alone T-72B1 which has also seen huge ammounts of use on the frontlines. In the Kharkiv region right now we see quite alot of armoured assaults which involve 4-6 T-72s and 2-4 BMP-2s or Btrs. As you said their common tactic is tank rushing. Also most of Ukraines taks are T-64s and T-80s, most of their T-72s where donated from Czech republic and older German and sweedish storages which still had some cold war models which where updated before reaching Ukraine.

[@c.j.3404]

Honestly considering how badly the t-72 is doing with the actual Russian army, I think it’s time we stop blaming bad middle eastern army’s for what is clearly just a bad tank.

[@usuallyhapless9481]

Some of the T-72s design features/priorities clearly aren't helpful, but I don't think the quality of the T-72 itself is likely to be as big a problem as- for example- doctrine, planning, training, maintenance etc, etc.

[@c.j.3404]

@@usuallyhapless9481 but if any country in the world knows how to use the T-72 it would be the Russian army and yet...

[@Rokaize]

@@c.j.3404 It’s just not a bad tank though. Once again, this comes down to terrible use. Would you say the m4 Sherman is bad because of how it was used in Italy? The Houthi rebels in Yemen have taken out numerous Abrams as well. Would you say the Abrams is bad? No. Your response will probably be “oh it’s not used right. It’s an export model”. Which applies directly to the t72. The T72 has been successful in the Iran Iraq war and other conflicts as well. How do you even classify bad? Russia is advancing into a more dangerous environment for tanks than any army has ever faced. The Ukrainians have been given tens of thousands of top of the line ATGMs. And they’ve been training and preparing for a Russian invasion since 2014. What did you expect? Tanks take a lot of losses in actual wars. They are at the front lines and are a vital target so you know everyone is going to devote a lot of time and energy into killing them. No tank could have done well with how the Russians started this war. But Wev seen way less goofy mistakes with their tanks lately.

[@c.j.3404]

@@Rokaize i mean I'm sorry but how many times is this tank going to fail before people get it? How many times is this tank going have to fail tank every war its been used in (the Iraq Iran war is a tarable example, not lest because the t-72 failed when ever they wint up agenst centurion that had proper matanince) before people realize it. Has the abrams had some difficulty in yemin and Iraq sure, nothing like the grave yard syria has been for there t-72s. A good tank is one that has proven it can handle high stress situations, the abrams has shown that even in the badly lead hands of Iraq, the t-72 couldn't even do that when lead by Russia.

[@Rokaize]

@@c.j.3404 That’s just not true though. You’re using a very surface level understanding of how this works. Generally speaking, you don’t build over 20,000 of something if it doesn’t work. You also failed to address the examples I used. People just like you, but who are Russia-boos got all excited when videos and pictures of Iraqi and Saudi abrams were knocked out. Saying the same stuff you’re saying, and they were just as wrong as you were. There’s even a video on KZbin of an insurgent drone dropping an explosive on top of an abrams in Iraq. Which killed the exposed commander. Is that the fault of the abrams? Or was the incredibly complex network of forces in a modern military to blame for that failure? War is more complicated then “this tank good. This tank bad” You sound like the same person who would say things like “the tiger has a better gun. And better armor than the Sherman. The Sherman sucked”. You boil things down to such an extreme that it’s useless As stated in the video, the t72 was designed for a specific purpose. It was never made to counter American or nato tanks 1 vs 1. It was made to be the armored spearhead in the Deep Battle doctrine. All of its design considerations are made with that specific purpose in mind. An iraqi t72, with a terrible crew, and training ammo, sitting in an open desert barely protected by a ditch is not the way the t72 was designed to be used. It was basically just a 1970s version of the t34. To be used in the same way.

[@paristo]

Would be better not to use the very generic classification "tank" when talking about MBT's (Main Battle Tanks, first one being T-54/55 that Soviets developed), as there are huge variation and different kind tanks, even the M113 is a tank, a BMP-1 is a tank, a M2 Bradley is a tank, all are tanks same way as the "Mother" or Wiesel are a tanks. But none of those are MBT's.

[@aleksaradojicic8114]

M-113 is not tank (same for other examples). You are mixing two similar words, tank and armoured fighting vehicle (AFV). T-55, M-113, BMP-1, M2 and Wiesel are all AFVs, but only T-55 is tank.

[@paristo]

@@aleksaradojicic8114 TANK is a vehicle that is 1) armored 2) tracked 3) armed against infantry. AFV is "Armored Fighting Vehicle" category where tank category belongs, every APC that is wheeled can belong to AFV but not to tank category. But it requires the vehicle to be armed, that example medical evacuation vehicles can't be as they are to be unarmed. You are mixing IFV and AFV.

[@aleksaradojicic8114]

@@paristo I am not mixing anything. You are mixing tanks and AFVs making them effectively same words when they are not. It is true that every tanks belongs to category of AFV, but not all (actually these days most) AFVs belong to tank category. Tank is AFV intendent as primary offensive weapon, with heavy firepower, strong armor and good mobility based on powerful engine and tracks . That is literarily definition of tank. Tanks is subcategory of AFV separated from IFVs, APCs and other AFVs.

[@paristo]

@@aleksaradojicic8114 You don't even know what s tank is, or what a AFV is historically or today. You are even now mixing tank with MBT.

[@paristo]

@@Arthsycz where did I say that T-54/55 was a IFV?

[@jimmydore8269]

you compare a light russian tank with a heavy western tank 👎 take a 55 tons russian tank as t90 or t14

[@usuallyhapless9481]

Well, heavy Western tanks are what the T72 is going to be fighting in CMSF2, so weight class is irrelevant. The T90 is basically a T72 anyway: it's not much different ingame except for thermal optics and more recent ERA. The T14 is still not in serial production 12 years after CMSF2's timeframe and if it was, I can guarantee you the Syrians wouldn't have any.

[@jimmydore8269]

@@usuallyhapless9481 i agree, weight is not important for people which never design something (recently i had a clash with my team leader on this subject) the others are counting every, fastener, in airspace 1kg increase, for the whole life of the airplane, is 100T usd, now probably more because of fuel rise

[@usuallyhapless9481]

Well, yes, but weight is just one factor. A chocolate tea-cup is lighter than a porcelain one, but most people would prefer a teacup that doesn't melt.

[@leokonings6756]

Leopard is the top of western know-how, best speed and armor. T72 is not even leopard 1 worth, that would be about the T80.