All Activity

Hahahaha. They made those gaps, driving to and fro. As I suspect you knew from your wink. Joking aside. The only thing that I can think of to explain what your Pershing did, is that the "Low Bocage" was set on an impassable terrain tile such as "Heavy Forest".

The thing is, Putin could almost certainly done a smaller, less ambitious, version of the "SMO" and more or less gotten away with it. His epic mistake was to make a great show of his intentions to burn down Kyiv and crucify, or worse, anybody who looked at him sideways. This made it impossible for the West to ignore what was going on and continue business as usual. He really did execute the worst plan since at least Napoleon's march on Moscow with a complete absence of competence. As I have said a number of time a smart autocrat would have declared victory May 1st of 2022, and memory holed the whole thing. Putin is not very smart, he just a psychopath who very unfortunately snuck into the top job.

That's a painful one for sure! Lose the tank, lose the men, lose your well laid plans, all w one shell. Or was it an FPV drone? -- awfully precise for artillery. Thanks for sharing, as always.

Please, Putin straight up did his previous land grab in 2014 under the current guy’s old boss (both of whom I think are decent people and have done decent jobs). I think Trump absolutely gave people pause just due to sheer uncertainty and capriciousness of his presidency. And then, just as Trump leaves office, Spring 2020 rolls around with a giant kick to everybody’s collective nutsack. And then maybe Putin, sensing his own mortality, decides to roll the dice again, since the US just backed out Afghanistan, and the guys who let 2014 happen are back in town. And it’s not just the US. Look at France, where the traditional political parties collapsed over the last decade. Or England.

To restate the points I made earlier in this thread: Bolton and others have said directly that Trump had planned to pull out of NATO in a second term and there is no evidence that he now intends the contrary. Trump has also quite publicly rejected the Pentagon’s top generals who restrained him from this direction in the first term and there is no constituency in Trump world that has a stake in European stability. Quite the opposite, in fact, as they can anticipate making enormous amounts of money off of the Russian oligarchy should the US swing into acquiescence to a Russian dominated Eastern Europe. Don’t kid yourself. If he wins, NATO is very likely to die. It is also a canard that Putin was holding back on Ukraine before Trump left office. The reality is that Putin’s regime was involved in a full court press to pressure Ukraine into subservience with the willing assistance of political appointees in the White House. Russia hasn’t gone to war because Putin didn’t think he needed to and clearly the Russian government expected Trump to win a second term. War was decided when it became clear that Biden had won and the immediate focus of American power was going to be on containing Moscow. Putin’s clique imagined that the US was still too shaken politically from the previous four years and too involved in Afghanistan to reorient rapidly while the Ukrainian military wouldn’t be able to put up significant resistance. Virtually wrong on all counts.

ISW doing great stuff, as always.

The way I read the NATO stuff with Trump was that it was all about the money. That's how I read almost everything that he did and does. Now. I am not a fan. I know that many of you will be tempted to call me names or belittle me in some manner, but I'm going to make an observation anyway. There might be more availability of weapons and equipment under him, as he would likely see it as some sort of US MIC super Walmart. No doubt there will probably be an end to aid packages, but there is a good chance of actual investment into production and sales. As long as someone else was paying the tab, he could yell from the podium that he "fixed it" and that it was a "win" for his constituents, the tax payer, and the economy. It would certainly be a win for Ukraine if everything was for sale and it sure might be, as I believe he is very myopic when it comes to foreign policy and security.

Meh, the 2% thing is a weak metric and everyone knows it. I mean it is better than nothing but it is not a measure of effectiveness nor contribution. Greece is spending nearly 4% GDP - which is essentially an extension of workfare. When was the last time Greece led a multinational brigade in Latvia or took an entire operational province on in Afghanistan? Cynically 2% GDP is designed to drive NATO members to buy into American defence industry either directly or indirectly as opposed to really measure effectiveness. The reality does not often match the theatre. But we will bow and scrap. Roll in Coast Guard and VA funding and other creative accounting until the heat gets turned off. The US on the other hand cannot walk away from its position as a leader of the free world and expect everyone to forget it.

Where is it written that NATO countries must support nonmembers? AS far as I can tell they must only support each other in case a member is attacked. Governments which had an open checkbook are already voted out of office. That is the crux of the matter, that some governments cut back on spending.

Agreed Canada and most other NATO members could and should do more. But these guys below should show that Canada indeed was and is part of NATO. Fallen Canadian Armed Forces Members - Canada in Afghanistan - Canadian Armed Forces - History - Remembrance - Veterans Affairs Canada

Agreed. I'd rather have historical, like CMRT Barbarossa but I realise I may be in a diminishing client base in that respect.

I mean, really Canada has already basically withdrawn from NATO hasn't it? Can you be considered a serious NATO member when your government says that not only will they not spend 2% on defense but they will never spend 2%.

I would, and I'm pretty sure the Pentagon would be as well.

I interpreted it more like a mutual understanding. On a more lighter note (or heavier): I'd rather they publish more content on an existing conflict instead of releasing a game about a 'fictional' conflict. If for example they release Combat Mission: Tiger Dragon, three years later China will invade Taiwan! We've already seen it happening twice.

Day 1 buy for me. Perhaps in the future we can see Norway with local forces and USMC. Maybe even the Southern NATO front with the Greek and Turk forces fighting alongside NATO.

I've had that on at least two Panthers in recent games. One on a road under artillery fire so just one of those things. The other in a forest with no LOS in and a single round arrived, that was more .

Ah, the Commonwealth. Ian will appreciate that I'm sure .

@FlammenwerferX's luckiest artillery shot ever. Somehow this one landed right on the deck killing my entire SMG HQ riding on the tank in addition to KO'ing the tank and killing the entire crew as well. Ugggh.

And yet the narrative in Russia and the West is that Russia is advancing, a slow grind, but one that one could argue will result in breakthrough and collapse of the Ukrainian army. Certainly reviewing Russian news, where they were touting the hold up of aid to Ukraine via the U.S until just now, is part of the narrative that it is signalling to its domestic and international audience that dividends will occur with this costly advance, that the West and Ukraine is close to giving up. It is essential that Ukraine and the West defeats this narrative, both to ensure that Western audiences and elites are not convinced of the futility of further aid, and to spur further cracks in Russia. Continued, loud, assertive Western support to Ukraine is essential, the kind vocalized by Macron recently. But just to emphasize, I'm not saying focus on the bridge solely, but it takes time for a Russian operational collapse, and we don't exactly know what Ukraine has in terms of ability to immediately make that happen. But a bridge that symbolizes Putin's regime and Russia's connection to Crimea is a good way of telling the Russian civilian the war is not going well. And certainly one that won't potentially backfire on Ukraine and the West like targeting economic targets like oil and gas before the American election. (I believe analysis is finding that targets are being struck that focus on domestic consumption and not exports that might more severely drive up prices) and certainly not of the civilian harming, war crime potential. (In fact the first bridge attack probably acts like a way of defusing potential war crime objections in that Ukraine has been able to explain itself and gained western acceptance via normalization) Again I'm not saying focus on the bridge. I'm just saying that I'm not going to be surprised if Ukraine sends a ATACMS against it.

Hasn't this theory been discussed to death already in this thread like two years ago?

As I expected (although your nice pic has a lot of gaps in the bocage ), but why then would my Pershing shy away from the 'fence' aka low bocage? And drive slowly for a long way with its side exposed. Duh, as Billie Eilish would say.

I think Ukraine has already done this. There is an army's worth of scrap metal all over south-eastern Ukraine right now and at least 50k dead (likely more) and times 3-4 wounded. You know what would demonstrate the futility of the Russian cause even better...another RA operational collapse.

Being one of those who has warned of long term conflict not being instantly favorable to Ukraine and the West, it's always important to remind myself that Russian perspective is focused on portraying futility in opposing Russia, aimed at western audiences and Ukraine itself. (At least that's what I think) Actions like these piecemeal attacks, mounting losses, a focus on offensive vs defensive, but in a way that is wasteful and at opposition to the conception of modern warfare, signals to me that Russia is hoping on diluting Ukrainian and Western will, trading its personnel and equipment on the hope that either Ukraine breaks or the West breaks. Is Russia that changed from 40 years ago in the Soviet-Afghan War that it can continue to blink with no emotion at its losses in Ukraine? Certainly it is entirely in Russian advantage that Russia is mindlessly sending its forces to death, that it's supply is endless, and its will concrete. But is it true? In my opinion, Ukraine needs to focus on stabilizing it's front, and conduct signalling to both the Russian public, and internationally, that Russian advances have halted and will not occur, and will be a high tally for every attempt. Currently, despite these high losses Russia has convinced its public, and onlookers that advancing will be worth it. Ukraine must shatter that image, same as it shattered the images of Russia pre-invasion.