Combat Mission Black Sea: T-72B3 Engagement Cycle

How fast can an M1A2 Abrams engage targets in CMBS?
This is a weapons effects demo: being capable of penetrating and knocking out static, unresponsive targets does not necessarily translate into battlefield effectiveness against a thinking, moving enemy who shoots back. The damage caused is representative rather than definitive- strange things can happen!

[@nbr1rckr]

If only the Russians were this slow to engage whenever I face off against them smh my guys must be ignoring the Battalion-wide standing order of no glowstick and strobe light raves outside the FOB

[@zanaduz2018]

Fascinating to see the difference in time on target in comparison to the Abrams: the Abrams had already killed the first target by the time the T-72B3 had finished identifying, and was complete with the engagement halfway through the T-72B3’s reload. Edit: My bad - mistyped T-90 when I meant T-72B3; though there is little functional difference between a T-90 and T-72B3 with regards to the reloading carousel.

[@doubleseven1463]

What t-90

[@drbadbrain4714]

The T-72B3 and T-90A both lack a crucial part when compared to the M1A2 SEP, that being the commander's independent thermal viewer. This device allows the commander to seamlessly engage a target just the same as the gunner can, overriding the turret's orientation when a target is spotted. These tanks both lack an equivalent to the BLUFORCE tracker that is present on every fighting vehicle in the US arsenal, which can also contribute to the increased targeting time. Of course you can discuss all of the features these tanks have all you want, but in the end the developer of the game made an arbitrary decision for how long it should take these vehicles to engage based on their own knowledge of the vehicle's systems. That isn't to say that their decisions don't make any sense, but it does mean the game is subject to all of their biases.

[@Someone-lr6gu]

​@@drbadbrain4714doesnt T-90 have an independent thermal scope for the commander? im pretty sure it does

[@napalm2134]

​@@Someone-lr6gui think thats the T90M, though im not too sure about its effectiveness and quality, probably not as good as NATO systems

[@Someone-lr6gu]

@@napalm2134 some russian optics are made using foreign components so i wouldn't say there's a reason to assume they're subpar unless we know for sure keep in mind t-90m has 3rd generation thermal sights for the gunner while m1a1, for example, has 2nd generation sights

[@Trve_Kvlt]

I was playing H2H against a friend of mine on CMBS, I was using a slightly stripped down Combined Arms Task Force (Bradley and Abrams), while he was using a stripped down Tank Battalion Task Force (T-72B3 and BMP-2M). I had a platoon of Abrams, one tank immobile, supported by 2 Bradleys, and 2 beleaguered inf squads with javelin. 5 T-72s, 6 BMPs and 6 infantry squads rolled over a hill, from what he told me he spotted the platoon (+) with a drone, and within 3 turns the entirety of the force he sent was demolished, the dismounted infantry were in panic and routed. I always feel bad playing against the Russians in CMBS because of how high of a skill floor they have. But they are satisfying to play as if you play your strengths right (cheap artillery is a big one).

[@robertkalinic335]

Americans play like all of the cutting edge tech and combined arms doctrine stuff while russians do geo engineering.

[@karlhungus545]

I'll assume you mean CMBS...not CMBN 😉

[@robertkalinic335]

idk if it makes test invalid but the long reload is cause he went from heat to sabot, i believe depending on how rounds are laid in carousel, it may take extra time if the shell you want is on the opposite side. Pay attention to the time to reach target for both rounds, second one is way faster.

[@usuallyhapless9481]

I don't think the game models that discrepancy- I just ran a quick test to see how fast a T72 could area fire a building and it was a consistent 14 seconds between every shot with the same type of ammo. So, the test isn't invalid... but it does look like the T72 has got the short end of the autoloader reload time stick.

[@robertkalinic335]

@@usuallyhapless9481 That sucks, they are already kind of shit.

[@usuallyhapless9481]

Yep. But on the other hand... the chances the T-72 would actually get a second shot off in this situation is, er, slim? Should we say?

[@glenchen5723]

Expectation: Reality: deded by abrumz

[@youdontneedtoknowwhoiam9612]

Cope and seethe, americoid

[@Arth0715]

​@@youdontneedtoknowwhoiam9612 the m1 is just a way better overall tank mean cmon

[@nicholasshaler7442]

I would like to see this test with light vehicles as targets to see the difference between two shots where the first one is a kill.

[@Tranceunion1]

What's the target?

[@usuallyhapless9481]

Some Abrams. If they were shooting back it would be a much shorter video

[@Bay_den_vu_tru]

mabey the t-72B3 doesn't have computer?

[@usuallyhapless9481]

It does, but it's much less user friendly than the Abrams

[@robingrewal8103]

​@@usuallyhapless9481the t72b3 uses the French made catharine FC gunner sight and the FCS it is connected to it and has a tracking unit built in Meaning the gunner should be able to see and shoot as quickly and accurately as the abrams

[@billybully4434]

Wow, 11 sec reload? For real? With IRL 4-5 sec. T-72 has mechanisms, not people reloading. Cringe, total cringe

[@zanaduz2018]

I suspect that some of that abstracted reload time is also reacquistion as well as observation of whether a second shot is required.

[@robertkalinic335]

Isnt there carousel with rounds that has to be rotated and if shell type you want is on the opposite side it will take more time, i am not sure but maybe more testing is required.

[@billybully4434]

@@zanaduz2018 nope, after reloading there is another "Aiming", watch again. This is why I cringed)

[@billybully4434]

@@robertkalinic335 target is the same, so no reason to change shell type.

[@Mynameismegalex]

Isn't it also manually engaged? As in, the gunner has to hit a button to load the next shell, and doctrinally I believe the commander has to tell him to do that (as well as which kind of shell to load), at least outside of combat. @@zanaduz2018

[@gerfand]

The funny thing with T-72B3 being a 2013 tank, is that it has one of the best FC computers possible with the current tech. no I don't mean "Russian Tech" its actually superior to stuff that was in Abrams, and well most Abrams besides probably SepV3 and stuff

[@tonyfu909]

The modern combat mission games have a noticeable NATO bias, the M1A2 is undoubtedly a better tank in terms of survivability and likely firepower as well, but I’ve had situations where it pull off impossible bounces like a shot in the noticeably weak upper front plate driver’s port.

[@gerfand]

@@tonyfu909 oh yeah, I know that, Abrams armor is good, honestly its probably because when it was make and the information they had. I mean T-90M has a variant with Arena-E, which does not exists, on other hand as far I know T-72B3 is still using Mango, probably because they did not thought it would get the new Sabot.

[@artemisfowl7191]

I am very dubious of these claims.

[@gerfand]

@@artemisfowl7191 just look at Sosna U

[@usuallyhapless9481]

Probably worth noting that the M1A2 in Black Sea is a SEP V2 with some extra off-the-shelf bits bolted on. Not sure where the idea that the T-72B3 has one of the best fire control systems comes from though.