PC Dome community gameplay of CMSF (Abrams against Syrian T-72)

[MrDavisCampbell]

what game is this.?

[bardosyl]

@MrDavisCampbell Combat Mission Shock Force

[bardosyl]

I enjoyed the discussion of this topic until now, when someone started to be rude. It's a discussion, dont be rude! And I want explain to everybody what this video is, so I updated the description. Please read before comment.

[whukid2]

I'm tired of all the bullshit excuses for why Iraq lost both Gulf Wars. "Oh their tanks weren't good enough." "Oh, their pilots didn't have the training the USAF did" You know why they lost? Because the US out fought and out maneuvered their numerically superior forces both times, with equipment which was often OLDER and operated by LESS EXPERIENCED soldiers. When we went into Kuwait in 1991, the US Armored forces were considered equal, if not inferior, to the Republican Guard.

[donebloneUP]

whats the game called??

[bardosyl]

@NitroDragster426 I didnt deny it. I deny the "one shot - one turret blowup" theory, what is a Hollywood fiction.

[Wesley95501]

The Abrams are design to live but not to die.

[Craig1168]

Also from this tankers own knowledge we could outrange a T-72 to the point they could never return fire and since we fought alot at night our thermal imaging sights ensured their demise since they didn't have that technology. Also consider the crew skills for Iraqi tanks was mediocre at best. During Desert storm I was part of 3rd armored division and we smashed any Iraqi armor or apc's that got into our gunsights. During operation Iraqi freedom it was pretty much the same.

[ozzirt]

People are arguing about this as if it was real,...

FFS it's damned kiddie game.

Next we'll be arguing about Yogi Bear Vs Daisy Duck. Go back to your computer games.

[DeeZanic]

This is a T-72 but the T-90 is more advanced and has the active defense system Arena. The tank has also the benefit to fire beyond visual range with laserguided missiles wich western tanks lack or are just recently starting to develope due to financial concerns.

[MrLeftfoot7]

T72 would never take 3 rounds from an Abrams and still be fighting. First round and the turret is flying. Anything after that is just for fun.

[bardosyl]

@MrLeftfoot7 In the holywood movies, yes. In the real life: no.

[usmarine845]

@bardosyl Actually it is true it isnt hollywood stuff. Russians way of storing ammunition they have it in a ring inside the crew compartment so with a direct hit will detonate the rounds and all that force will travel up to the turret knocking it off the body of the tank if the don't believe me click on this url it will show you.

[bardosyl]

@usmarine845 it's only happened in a very lucky cases, not every direct hit.

This game was designed by advices of acual tank engeneers and commanders (of yours, the US ones) and (no offense) I believe them and not you.

[aderandie2]

@bardosyl no right just about every knocked out t-72 ive ever seen had the turret blown off the Abrams system was specifically designed to kill soviet tanks

[SilentShadowOfDeath]

@bardosyl Wrong.

1-Most games do not receive direct advice from tank engineers or whatever military engineers.

Information such as the actual armour protection and firepower is usually classified.

Tough some advice and technical information are used, they hardly are accurate enough for conclusions.

None the less, the games are then balanced in order to give a fun experience, and measuring actual performance with that provided by a game is ridiculous.

*continues*

[SilentShadowOfDeath]

@bardosyl

2-A tank having it's turret blown off is neither Hollywood stuff nor uncommon. In fact, such effect can happen with any tank, be it Russian-made or not.

As for how likely a damage to ammunition will set a reaction chain effect, that depends on many factors, including but not limited to:

-Disposition/displacement of the ammunition.

-Ammunition technology (proneness to chain-effect on damage to propelling-charge or warhead)

-Existence of blast-proof or "wet" ammo-rack (Abrams has)

[usmarine845]

@bardosyl Half of the cases of T-72 reckage is with the turret off the body of the tank. The crew compartment is a very big target and tank engineers can't give advices to game developers about tank armor because they are classified especially if it's a russian tank.

[whukid2]

@bardosyl No, dumbass, it was created by a bunch of computer nerds.

[88Tomm88]

@bardosyl Actually he is right. But you have to hit where the driver is (left side) and its penetrate the armor, the thing some make the diffrence if you use a HE shell or an AP shell. Since the ammo is behind the driver it's explode and that make the turret fly off. Thats what happen during Operation Desert Strom 3/5 t72s turrets did fly off after the impact.

They took hits but after 2-3 shells they did penetrate and took it out.

[TheAcidNetwork]

@usmarine845 i think this guy is really stupid my dad was in the gulf war and was a loader for a m1 and he fought in the battle of 73 easting and watched all the russian tank soar

[usmarine845]

@TheAcidNetwork I wouldn't say he's stupid but just not well educated about military engineering.

[usmarine845]

@bardosyl sorry it didn't let me put the url but look it up its TOW Missile vs. T-72 Tank by dasblub

[NitroDragster426]

@bardosyl real life: desert storm 1991, most shots on iraqi t-72s were one hit kills, the shots that weren't went clean through,in theory it could take 3 shots to totally destroy one but with a competent Abrams crew and with it's superior optics most firefights only last one shot

[whukid2]

@bardosyl Shut the fuck up. You obviously have no clue about Armored Warfare. 

[2000mattking]

@MrLeftfoot7 If it had explosive reactive armour then it possible could. However it would need to be hit on different areas otherwise two shots in the same spot would take out the ERA and then take out the main armour.

[qusaisaher]

what is this game?

[jonezey119]

play world of tanks, it's a free MMO tank game, better graphcs too

[103035icle]

The abrams always got the duel turbine engine

[hernan267]

que juego es este?



[bardosyl]

@hernan267 Combat Mission Shock Force

[eatmy1911]

actually the only time that a m1a2 sep Abram has been put out of service by another tank was by a t-72. the m1a2 was hit by three kinetic energy piercing rounds. The KE rounds were unable to fully penetrate and stuck in the armor, but because of the external damage it was sent to a maintenance depot.

[senecavalley2010]

I have too say that a t 90 would be a hell of a match for an Abrahms. But the Russian tank would lose eventually from the lack of air cover that the Russian Airforce can provide... After that I'll take an A 10 or B 2 Spirit over either tank ;)

[TATARSTAN59500]

or to the new t-90ms 2011

[rejuised]

@TATARSTAN59500 We no longer get T-90 MBT. Instead we get new production T-95 EMT-7. We still do training in T-90, but it will be out dated soon. I looking forward to training in T-95.

[TATARSTAN59500]

t-95 is only prototyp for test

and t-90ms is fucking good 

[rejuised]

@TATARSTAN59500 No no, you thinking of Black eagle T-95. no no the T-95 we have is new model T-90, pretty much. I have fun driving it. T-90ms is good tank, but out dated soon, replaced by new T model or something else. 32nd armored will be the first to get new tank if make.

[TATARSTAN59500]

@rejuised yes but t-90ms is complrtly other tank too is totally modified is not only ameliored t-90 engine turret is completly other

so now t-95 for what ???

[rejuised]

@TATARSTAN59500 I ask my Tank commander. he say T-90ms and T-95 EMT-7 are same. very good.

[otester]

@rejuised

T-95 was cancelled back in May 2010, T-99 is going to be deployed in 2015 though apparently.

[rejuised]

@otester no no, we driving T-95 right now. T-95 that was cancelled is black eagle, had no purpose. T-99 in prototype and have seen.

[otester]

@rejuised

Don't you mean driving T-90 right now?

[rejuised]

@otester no, we testing T-95 right now. Normally we drive T-90. They chose 32nd armored and 145th specialists to test T-95. Cleared it up with commander, he say T-90ms is T-95 but with old engine, body design and other features are the same. It hard trying to explain in English, I am sorry if I am not making it clear.

[otester]

@rejuised

I think I get what you mean, the substantial upgrades have warranted a new designation (T-95), like when the T-72 was upgraded resulting in the T-90.

[TATARSTAN59500]

t-72 who i not t-55 pffffff

[fabiobima]

why don't u try the t 90 u twatt??

[ossie19681]

@fabiobima lol!

[bardosyl]

@fabiobima This scenario is for the base game and there is no T90. The expansion has the T90.

[buymeamic]

@fabiobima

T90 Is same shit as T72.

T72BM2 was called T90 for better advertisement. haha

[r4f4st4n1]

@fabiobima Err.. If the game's realistic, the T90 would kill the abrams before the abrams even detecting it xD

[ATallWhiteGuy64]

@r4f4st4n1 I'm not even going to comment on how stupid you're reply is. Like @buymeamic said, the T90 is "the same shit" as the T72. The US M1 Abrams series, the German Leopard 2, and the British Challenger are commonly viewed as the current greatest main battle tanks today. If you wan't a clunky, semi-adequate, toyish tank, you can keep the T90.

[r4f4st4n1]

@ATallWhiteGuy64 T72=T90? OK: M60=M1

Happy?

Also: /watch?v=8UzarbZXFVs

Ain't gona bother any more unless you successfully counter any of those valid facts in the vid.

[cockofdoody4ftw]

@ATallWhiteGuy64 Modern T90s fully kitted up aint nothing to scoff at, similar to an M1 vs an M1A1 or M1A2 seps kitted out with a TUSK. I'm just fucking with you, the T90 would get trashed. Desert Storm anybody? T72s vs M1s?

[smithraymond09029]

How cute.

[MrMarkless]

is that the T-72 THURMS? or whatever its called

[MrTacoface2]

They made an Abrams with an AA gun on it

[longlivebrasil777]

What kind of tank commander uses his machine gun against a main battle tank!?

[bardosyl]

This is Combat Mission Shock Force game. And thiis is not free.

[fox100cool]

is the game free

[Capt777harris]

What game is this?

[nunchuck19]

it may look good on paper but crew performance and safety is what matters. t72 cant be recycled now can it. NATO tanks are the best. Not those slow russian ones that even the t90 cant go 40

[starknight97]

@nunchuck19 funny t-84 go 40mph. the true fair fight is the t-80 vs the m1a1. though your games off. as the t-72 up use auto loaders and fire 12 rounds per min the m1 with a ace loader does 8 r/pm. the game show same rate fire. Game fail.

[nunchuck19]

@starknight97 aint that a game. not real life. realism fail

[starknight97]

@nunchuck19 yes you right the game failed at realism. which was a selling point of the game.

[nunchuck19]

@starknight97 i would say its the tank crew that counts because they operate the tanks

[starknight97]

@nunchuck19 sure they count that hard one too get wrong as how well you play. that vary just like a tank crew no question. look at the first gulf war that what happens when your crews have poor too no training.

[JumpingonYubTub]

@starknight97 An even fairer fight would be an M1A1 or M1A1HC versus a T-90 S

[starknight97]

@JumpingonYubTub lol yeah whats it gonna to do when the M1A1HC is getting hit 8+km from at-11 missiles when it tiny 120mm has about 2km max range?

[JumpingonYubTub]

@starknight97 AT-11 Sniper missiles only penetrate 750-950 mm of RHA within optimal range (which is 6 km silly), The Abrams' armor is many times stronger than RHA. Also, it being a second-generation missile the T-90 has to stand still as it guides the missile. The Abrams' M256 120mm gun's effective range 4 km, and if shooting LAHAT 8 km (I know the Abrams doesn't use LAHAT, but the US military may be making one soon, and if not they'll most likely finish their active countermeasure system).

[starknight97]

@JumpingonYubTub yeah old rating for them you don't think they have shaped charges now like the rpg-29/28 which have killed any tank hit. Including the highest armor tank out the Challenger 2. Though even old school ones will damage vision systems and pop tracks. if either happens the m1 is as good as dead. the m1 Abrams still has a rating in rha it around 1600mm in he or 1000mm in AP round front turret. it could use the LAHAT which be useless against the the t-90.

[JumpingonYubTub]

@starknight97 Of course they have shaped charges, just about everyone does. The M1 doesn't only have one vision system, the gunner and commander each have independent viewers. What are the chances both will be taken out?

Also; I understand that LAHAT won't work against a T-90, but Abrams tanks have had missile defense systems since 2004 (The Marine model).

[starknight97]

@JumpingonYubTub That kinda a active system SACLOS is just a cut down version of sorta-1 system the t-90sk also has 3 genaration Ainet remote-detonation. Making our m2 useless against them. Last i heard we still don't have the fine reflective smoke too block new lasers. So it now the t-90 vs the m1a2sep/tusk then? it was a t-80 vs a m1a1ha or a m1 vs a t-72.

[JumpingonYubTub]

@starknight97 Ainet remote-detonation is for HE-Frag rounds and range finding. We don't need reflective smoke when we already have an EMP burst to befuddle missile. Basically ATGM missiles are useless against both tanks. Both have similar gun range and fire similar shots, but the T-90 just doesn't have the armor thickness to out match an Abrams.

[starknight97]

@JumpingonYubTub timeing not gonna SACLOS is radar jamming not emp. As a emp would shut down the tank fry the computer and any near by Vehicals. then you have time it just right which be to late as it a old fashion impact fuss that the missiles use a physical reaction that a emp have no reaction on. yeas the the radar jamming is electromagnetic radiation but not the all killing pulse of a nuke we so use too. in sort they have to jam a laser and SACLOS isn't even a warning against them.

[starknight97]

@JumpingonYubTub as far as similar shots the 125 mm of the t-90 goes 1800 mps ours goes 1580 mps. they use tungsten or WA rod We use A DU rod. yes Ainet remote-detonation is any slow explosive round, rpg, he, missiles and so on.

The at-11 just goes were it pointed with a laser meaning you can jam all you want unless you break the laser lock reflective smoke it coming at you.

[JumpingonYubTub]

@starknight97 The T-90's muzzle velocity is 1700m/s, but its penetration is 800mm at 2km. That isn't enough to knock out an Abrams, but similar penetration can defeat the armor of a T-90 with Kontakt-5 (if not, it'll come really REALLY close). The US round moves slower, but has a bigger penetrator rod.

True, the AT-11 goes where the laser is pointing, but when an infrared burst (I said EMP last time, my bad) hits the missile it confuses the tracker inside the missile, not the guy directing it.

[starknight97]

@JumpingonYubTub with steel shot a WA or DU penetrate rod will go much deeper. ours in the best plat front turret is about 960mm ke = rh the Russian is about 920mm ke on it turret with ERA. Our l44 is even worse at penetration with the max speed 1580 mps. The higher speed was the l55 120mm still under the 125mm. as far as the speed look up this round it 1800mps 3BM-12 APFSDS-T. infer red burst effects lock-ons from IR laser or javelins system the at-11 uses a standard viable laser.

[starknight97]

@JumpingonYubTub the missile just goes for a the dot. So a ditch or reflective smoke is that current works or majorly bad fog. You could make a visible light burst on the laser frequencies but then you blind every human in the area.

[BitnikGr]

@starknight97 Why exactly LAHAT would be useless against T-90?

[starknight97]

@BitnikGr Because arena would just shot it down.

[BitnikGr]

@starknight97 Unfortunately, Arena has limitations in vertical hemisphere (just like Shtora). LAHAT is NLOS ATGM, which means that it comes to its target at quite high angle. Shtora and Arena are not capable of defeating top attack threats.

[starknight97]

@BitnikGr the newest arena has 280 forward and 280 deg up. in sort only the back is not protected then it only has too move it turret too move it protected area. Shorta could defeat this attack as well not by jamming but buy launching fine reflective smoke breaking the laser the lock. Unlike how it can jam very easily the u.s. javelin ATGM system. The sorta jamming system goes with a 90deg front of turret. The sorta system will also tell the location of the laser in directed attack.

[BitnikGr]

@starknight97 If I am not mistaken, there is no such thing as "new Arena". There wasn't any new version after Arena-E for BMP-3M. Yes, there is a new Shtora-2 since 2006, but if its vertical angles are improved is unknown. Again, if I am not wrong, it is about +15/20 degrees.

NLOS ATGMs are not laser guided. They have optical or IR guiding. Smoke aerosol grenades are only to cover a tank from horizontal threats in visible distance. Tanks launch them forward, and not upwards.

[starknight97]

@BitnikGr It just has more cover nothing new about the system. i link to it. For a jammier you don't need vertical as it jams the launch system and guidance case in point a javelin will not work becuase it can't see the target t90 with it up. Then smoke covers all sides with time up and jams the laser target system on merkava can move forward into it. LAHAT is a semi laser guided system. in sort it needs the laser at first till it own system can guide it in. I.R. be bad as sorta jam it easy.

[BitnikGr]

@starknight97 First, all soft-kill defensive systems are triggered by laser beam illuminating the target. So, if guidance is optical or IR, then soft-kill system wont react at all. LAHAT in NLOS mode is guided by UAV. Angle of beam is higher than Shtora is able to catch. You are correct about IR... it can be easily jammed... if soft-kill system will react.

...

[starknight97]

@BitnikGr LAHAT is angle attack not a true top attack like the Jaclin system. watch?v=N_Zyi1TluE4&playnext=1­&list=PL20298614B6A2F245 so area will work on it. as the t-90 is one the few tanks that can fight back against air targets it is not it job or designed to do so. so as with all MBT it weak too air attack be it UAV or a F22. As that is the job of Pantsir-S1 or the s-400/500 systems depending on the threat.

[BitnikGr]

@starknight97 ...

Second. Shtora-2 must have something new... more than just "more cover".

In 1998 in Greek MBT tender they discovered a very disturbing fact. T-80 and T-84 Shtora-1 were reacting only to each other laser rangefinders, but not to rangefinders of NATO tanks. Shtora-2 appeared in 2006. I guess, that they must have increased a range of laser beam power to which Shtora must to react. Otherwise it will be useless against NATO tanks...

[starknight97]

@BitnikGr the sorta system now tied into The EMT-7 electromagnetic-counter. Then it has a broader jamming capable soft kill systems. Details unknown yet. Yes the t80u was a fail project a lot bug were worked out laser were only part of sorta system I'd call that not even sorta 1 as it was the prototype system. Things like this happen a lot. you see much more when western active kill system come on line wash out like quick kill.

[BitnikGr]

@starknight97 The incident in Greek tender was not a bug. Both Shtora on T-80 and T-84 worked exactly as they were designed to work. But fact is that Shtora-1 wasn't reacting to NATO tanks laser rangefinders. 2 reasons are possible. Either Shtora-1 wasn't designed to react to laser rangefinders and to react only to laser guiding beams of ATGMs (which are more powerfull). Either Soviet engineers hadn't correct values of power of western laser rangefinders and so they build it to respond to...

[starknight97]

@BitnikGr the fact is they wanted it too that is a bug and shorta first run. i'd say it working better then hard hat or quick kill even on it opening day. as that were quick kill is now. Now it the low almost I.R. laser we use. they were just not ready for them since they went the other end. Honest a u.v. be more powerful then a i.r. laser. It only id loc and launches smoke for laser systems. it plan out jams I.R. systems like the javelin system. It a switch you turn it on itn the t-90k easy jam

[BitnikGr]

@starknight97 ... Soviet ones. Meanwhile power of western laser rangefinders was much lower than the lowest margin of Shtora-1 to which it had to react. I think that 2nd scenario is more probable.

[starknight97]

@BitnikGr Yes like i said they have too be tested nothing new sorta 1 does and sorta 2 more likely even easy. Hell most m1 are lucky even too get a hard hat system.

[BitnikGr]

@starknight97 Yes... First tests of Quick Kill were scheduled for spring 2011. True is that US is very late in this area. But also true is, that when they finish their system it will be better than Arena. 30years difference in available technology will play major role in it.

[starknight97]

@BitnikGr it all ready be tested and lost too the Israel system. By the time they make something that work the new T-xx will be out and it have sorta-6 a newwer ERA and a newwer active kill system. Oh yes the u.s. being 30 years behind will affect us badly.

[starknight97]

@starknight97 By the way the new Russian tank is now out it's the Armada vs m1a3

[starknight97]

@JumpingonYubTub Then the m1 120mm is not effect or even able too hit a stand still target at 4 km a pentatator would bounce off only he rounds be effective at max range. the m1 120mm l44 is 1 off the slowest rounds out their. 900 mps the l55 is about 1200 mps. myth the at-11 is laser guided as long as the the laser on target it hits it can more and fire yet why when a laser lock is easier to maintain and you get more free shot if you don't move. as the m1 at max speed it take 4 mins to range.

[JumpingonYubTub]

@starknight97 Sorry, but 4 km falls just within the Abram's effective range. The Abrams goes at a good 42mph on road and 30mph off-road. It's a little hard to hit a tank that can do 30mph at 6km. The L44's muzzle velocity clocks in at 1,580 to 1,750 m/s. With current APFSDS rounds that the Abrams carries it can defeat Kontakt-5 ERA with relative ease.

[starknight97]

@JumpingonYubTub Bs on muzzle velocitys. Not hard at too hit a slow target with a tracking missile. Yeah in your dreams at 4 km your velocity is about 1/2 like said ap suck against MBT at that range. 8k is a record shoot on at-11 like that CH1 that shot a t-62 in the first gulf war at 5.1k. If the gunner losses his your done as it aims the main gun and coax. Sure the commander can still see though so can the drivers. Nothing that will stop a at-11 as it laser guided it just jams radar systems.

[BitnikGr]

@starknight97 You are not correct. 1) Maybe the most advanced modern autoloaders are able to fire 12 rounds per minute. But only if consecutive rounds are of the same type. If operator chooses different type of round after each shot, time for reloading increases significantly. Anyhow, Iraqis T-72 hadn't such modern autoloaders. They could do 8-9 rounds per minute at best!

-

2) "Ace loader" at Abrams, Leopard, Challenger can do 9 rounds per minute... but this is only from full stop.

...

[BitnikGr]

@starknight97 ...

Of course moving off-road and after first minute rate of human loader will drop.

-

At 1998, there was a test for rate of fire, at Greek MBT tender. 6 tans were participating. M1A2, Leo2A5, Challenger2E, Leclerc, T-80 and T-84. From full stop tanks had to fire at 2 targets 1km away and 100meters among them. As you see 3 tanks were with autoloaders, 3 with human loaders. M1A2 did 8 rounds per minute. Every other tank did 9..

[BitnikGr]

@nunchuck19 LOL! T-90 can't go 40 at reverse speed.... yes. If this is what you meant. Because in forward all T-models are faster than Abrams of any model. Not that this is a very important and significant difference, but still...

[roachbreeder69]

@patrikasLTL and manned by even worse crews, most of them surrendered without firing a shot and the tanks were captured intact, but the bad crews were the most important factor in their defeat.

[stalingradComando]

Those T72s really sucked. They had monkey model T72M with downgraded armor, gun and sights or copied of them wich were even worse or at least 2 times worse than the T72A. It would have been a whole different story if they had T-72S or T-72M1M

[SecuR0M]

@stalingradComando TBF they weren't that much worse than the T-72BU.

[franknbeans4761]

@stalingradComando Probably not. With the poor training of the Iraqi Army & relatively good training of the US, the equipment wouldn't of mattered that much. Also, the overwhelming US air power played a big role, like in the battle of Nasiriyah.

[dogsbd]

Ridiculous, the T-72 should have brewed up after the first hit.

[firefatkid]

it would have dont worry

[BitnikGr]

@dogsbd True. Iraqi T-72M with homogeneous armor wouldn't withstand a sabot round of M1A1 at such close range. Maybe at distances more than 3km and only with frontal armor it had some chances...

[Adrenaline119]

MEAN

[TheguardianofIran]

what game is that?

[bardosyl]

Combat Mission Shock Force

[TheguardianofIran]

thank you

[TheMilitaryTactics]

@bardosyl next time move to the side whilst shooting if you are the blue team, the m1 can move and shoot and it reduce's the t-72's accuracy.