Sgt Joch

that is what the article says, unless you had trouble comprehending it... Going from "we will back Ukraine with whatever it wants" to time to think about trading land for a Korea-style ceasefire is a pretty big shift. There is a reason why they decided to quietly drop this during the holidays when no one is really paying attention. The only real question is whether this is a trial balloon to test the waters or a real shift in policy. Given all the other "stories" being leaked: "blame game" of who was responsible for the "failed" counter offensive, secret U.S.-Russia negotiations, "openness" of Putin to a ceasefire, etc. It is clear someone in the Biden WH is nervous about where this war is going and is looking for an off-ramp before 2024 really heats up.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/27/biden-endgame-ukraine-00133211 Biden admin getting ready to bail?

Well if you want to simplify things to the extreme: -Ukraine can fight the war how it wants if it wants to do it without western support; or -Ukraine has to adhere to certain basic rules if it wants western support. Remember there are two objectives as far as the West is concerned: 1) helping Ukraine to defend itself; and 2) preventing this regional conflict from spinning into WW3. I would argue goal 2 is more important than goal 1 to the West.

Well, 30-60-90 Abrams while nice would not be a “magic bullet”. As we know from CM and other conflicts, they can be immobilized by say mines and can be killed by ATGMs, direct tank fire to sides/rear. Even if they do manage to break through Russian lines, if they are alone because infantry is pinned by artillery fire, they will eventually have to fall back. As the Germans found out at Kursk, “Uber” tanks alone do not guarantee victory.

quite a good summary. I have for the past several months been ploughing through a fascinating 2,000 page book on Operation Barbarossa by two french authors. The book came out in 2019 and is based on the latest research from German and Russian archives. It of course gives a good summary of the pre-invasion political maneuvering and of the military ops in summer 41-winter 42, but what is fascinating is the extent of the atrocities committed by both sides which was in fact worse than what I had previously read. Barbarossa, Jean Lopez, Lasha Otkhmezuri | Livre de Poche Regular German army units were from the start regularly involved in civilian massacres, executing prisoners, wiping out villages, killing jews. SS units and of course, the einsatzgruppens were even worse. Russian army units were slightly better, but not by much. Anti-semitism was of course a problem throughout Europe at that time, but was worse in Eastern Europe and especially in the Baltic states and Ukraine where the Germans had no problem recruiting locals to kill Jewish civilians.

As I recall, this is not a bug but WAD. I would have to recheck the relevant threads in the beta forum, but the intent was to somewhat reflect the limitations of air power in that era which was still closer to WW2 in terms of targeting and weapons. maybe @The_Capt can chime in.

"Dawn Patrol" has been modified for the tournament. Everything, including mines, can now be moved around.

As I recall, what factors determine off road capability are kept deliberately "fuzzy" by BFC. The "Off Road" rating has more to do with the tank suspension design which is why the Panther has an excellent rating while the Sherman and T-34 only have an average rating even though the last two were more mechanically reliable than the Panther. I had run some tests a few years back, racing all three across a "muddy" map and the chances of bogging did not vary that much. Overall chances of mechanical breakdown are factored in, but as someone pointed out (maybe Steve), the chances of an AFV breaking down while moving less than 1 km in a 1 hour period (typical CM scenario) are fairly low. Mechanical breakdowns/fuel shortages are best handled by the scenario designer when choosing the number of AFVs available. That said, the chances of "bogging/immobilising" is a way to keep players aware of the fact that even tracked vehicles cannot go everywhere. In RL, tankers are very careful of where they go since even a small mechanical issue can immobilize the tank. I am always reminded of Anzio. The Germans had assembled a formidable collection of AFVs to wipe out the beachhead, but conditions were very muddy so the tankers were very reluctant to go off-road and stayed on the roads. Unfortunately, all the roads leading to the beachhead were copiously covered by allied AT assets so the big attack never came off.

As I recall, the original issue was that the TacAI is too accurate, I can recall early versions of CMBN where the AI would fire their Thompson SMGs like a mortar and hit targets 300+ meters away. Various tweaks were tried to get the AI to act more human like, but hey, it is an AI...That is why you have the current system with the hard range stop and reducing the accuracy of SMG fire. It works pretty well most of the time since SMGs are not a main infantry weapon. Where you have a problem is with units that are equipped just with SMGs, like Russian SMG squads, which are probably more effective than they should be at short-range, although there is not much than can be done without totally nerfing SMGs. I ran a quick test a while ago and at 150 meters, SMGs had to fire 200 rounds for each casualty they caused. This may also be of interest:

So, I have been reading the official U.S. Army history on the Vietnam War. Like all U.S. official histories, it is well researched and goes into a lot of detail on tactical battles. Anyway, I just finished the chapter on the Dak To Battles in November 1967. One thing I found interesting is there there are 8 photos taken of soldiers from the U.S. Army 4th infantry division and 173d Airborne Brigade taken during the operation, either in jungle patrols or during the fighting around Hill 875. One thing you notice right away is that no one in any of the photos is wearing a flak vest. The history also has no reference or discussion whatsoever as to why the vest was discarded. It certainly was not a supply issue since the U.S. had vast stockpiles of any piece of equipment as the history often points out. It seems to be one of those things which was such common knowledge that no one feels the need to discuss it. Here is the link: https://history.army.mil/html/books/091/91-15-1/cmhPub_91-15-1.pdf (photos are on pages 154 to 180)

I doubt anyone else had trouble understanding it....

I also do not think it is relevant to focus on squad size. A squad is not supposed to fight in isolation. If a point unit runs into a superior enemy force, SOP should be to retreat and bring up other forces to deal with the threat. For example in Vietnam, you had several situations where a U.S. infantry platoon on point ran into a NVA company/battalion. Typically, the platoon would retreat/go defensive, call in artillery/air strikes and bring up the rest of the company/battalion/other battalions, as required to deal with the threat.

Every military is different, but battalions in combat operations are almost never at full strength because losses almost always outnumber replacements. For example, recently been reading about Vietnam and U.S. Infantry Battalions were never at full strength because of the constant rotations of draftees coming in for their one year tour. ‘That said, there is not much of a difference in the combat effectiveness of a Battalion at 85-90% strength. A Battalion will derive most of its firepower from its heavy weapons, MMGs, HMGs, AFVs, mortars, artillery, air power. Having squads with 6-7 rather than 8 soldiers will limit some missions, but won’t have much of a material impact.

I would guess the reason why vests fell into disuse was based on the Vietnam experience. Even though they were standard issue, the vests were rarely worn by U.S. Army Infantry units in combat as you can see from photos of operations in 65-67. As to why they were not used, the two reasons I see most often is that: 1) they were uncomfortable to wear; and 2) they offered minimal protection since they would not stop a AK-47 round at close range, so were not useful in a typical firefight. USMC units were different since apparently they had a standing order to wear the vests.

just an a quick test, near miss from 155 mm HE will damage subsystems on a T72.

so had to dig out some old data, but always fun. U.S. did a test in 1960 detonating 105mm and 155 mm HE shells to see how fragments performed against armour plates. At a 20 feet distance, fragments from 155 mm HE were not able to penetrate a 2 inch plate. http://tanks.mod16.org/2014/03/10/report-on-protection-from-fragments-from-he-ammunition/ estimated armor protection of T72 turret/hull armor is estimated to be equivalent to a 13-46 inch plate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72 so the tank itself cannot be knocked by a near miss from a U.S. 155 mm shell (or presumably a Russian 152 mm HE shell). Whether sub systems can be effected by fragments would be another issue. I suspect most tanks knocked out in Ukraine by indirect artillery were the victims of cluster munitions.

I presume you are referring to the M483/M864 round? yes, that would be a nice toy to have, but they are not currently in use with NATO and officially, none of those in reserve have been sent to Ukraine. Another thing to keep in mind is that these have footprint of around 150 meters and being unguided have a potential CEP of 150-250 meters?, so the potential of collateral damage to friendly troops is high. If NATO would use cluster munitions against a Russian invasion, they would be more likely to use the newer GPS-guided GMLRS rockets delivered by HIMARS/M270.

I would be leery about making conclusions based on videos when we only have fragmentary info on what is actually going on and no or only vague info on what actual ordnance was used. Currently, the game only models conventional artillery with mostly "dumb" HE shell and a small number of GPS/laser guided precision rounds. From what I can see, the existing effect of indirect HE on AFVs in the game seems more or less correctly modelled. US 155 mm HE ammo, for example, will immobilize/damage Russian tanks with a direct hit and can destroy less armoured IFVs even with a near miss. When a conventional HE shell misses, even if it hits close by, only a fraction of the explosion is directed at the AFV, most of it is directed upwards if it hits the ground or 360 degrees if it is an airburst, so no reason why anything other than a near miss should cause damage. Even when a tank hits a mine, the usual result is immobilization from track damage rather than destruction. One caveat of course is that anti-vehicle cluster munitions like those which can be potentially fielded by the M142 HIMARS or M270 MLRS or equivalent Russian systems like the BM21 GRAD or Tornado G could potentially damage or destroy AFVs from farther away than conventional HE shells, but these would typically only be used to strike units deep behind the front lines because of the high risk of collateral damage to friendly troops. These are not modelled in the game, but would normally be outside the scope of a typical CM battle in any event.

@The Steppenwulf that is most unfortunate, I use your UI in SF2 and BS and very much like it and hope you will reconsider. However, having seen the other thread, I understand your reasons.

well I guess I am a bit disappointed. I think it would be important to have clear rules on what is allowed or not allowed in this discussion so that it does not degenerate into a free for all. I thought we were trying to keep this as an objective discussion of the war and strategy by both sides and not trying to drag domestic politics into it. What col. Macgregor as said in various interviews, basically that the U.S. has no vital security interest in Ukraine is an opinion held by a lot of people, both democrats and republicans. You can agree or disagree, but that does not mean he should be painted as a Putin stooge or as U.S. Democrats have been saying that there is a "Putin wing of the GOP", which basically means anyone who does not think we should back Ukraine 110%. also copying @BFCElvis, as moderator of the thread.

Just catching up on this thread, but I really have to react to this and am copying @BFCElvis. This kind of accusation is beyond the pale, col. Douglas Macgegor is a very well respected officer, he has written many articles that have influenced U.S. Army doctrine. Launching personal attacks just because you do not like his politics or agree with his politics is not what we do around here.

I am more the cranky old man "get off my lawn" type of guy.

you do know I was joking, right? don't tell me you thought that post was serious??? obviously, as I have said many times before, this is purely the Ukrainians decision, if they want to fight to the last man, woman and child, it is up to them.

obviously.

I would love to have the whole world be a paradise with no war, death, poverty, hunger, crime and everyone is kind to his fellow human and dog, but that is not the planet we live on, is it Sunshine?