Jump to content

Bil Hardenberger

Members
  • Posts

    4,974
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    63

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Bil Hardenberger got a reaction from Bud Backer in Once Upon a Time on the Western Front   
    I believe you are referring to my work... see:  King of the Hill  

    Sorry Bud, now back to the regularly scheduled programming.
  2. Like
    Bil Hardenberger reacted to billbindc in How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?   
    I would strongly recommend Paxton's "Anatomy of Fascism" or John Ganz's online writings about anti-Dreyfusard and/or Boulangiste France. The model of fascism represented by Mussolini or Hitler is not quite what's happening to the GOP, subject as it is to the cultural and political mores specific to the United States. On the one hand, that's a good thing because the essentially immigrant/moderate/revolutionary/democratic foundation of the state makes blood and soil dictatorship a much harder prospect. But on the other, the United States also contains within it strains of racism and violent action that, should they ignite fully, can be positively Balkan. 
    Luckily, there's one simple and decisive thing Americans can do. Vote. Vote for the current administration even if it isn't your cup of tea. Because if nothing else, it will remain within the normal bounds of politics. And (to remain on topic)...because it is far more likely to see the war in Ukraine to a positive conclusion. 
  3. Upvote
    Bil Hardenberger got a reaction from MOS:96B2P in Open or Closed Hatch, That Is The Question   
    Rule of thumb that I use..
    Tank has thermal sights: STAY BUTTONED - do NOT expose the tank commander (TC) NO thermal sights: UNBUTTON - expose the TC
  4. Upvote
    Bil Hardenberger got a reaction from A Canadian Cat - was IanL in Q on using the hull down command...   
    Here is my post on the subject:
    https://battledrill.blogspot.com/2013/09/movement-technique-005-hull-down.html
  5. Like
    Bil Hardenberger got a reaction from Magnum50 in Q on using the hull down command...   
    Here is my post on the subject:
    https://battledrill.blogspot.com/2013/09/movement-technique-005-hull-down.html
  6. Upvote
    Bil Hardenberger got a reaction from A Canadian Cat - was IanL in Open or Closed Hatch, That Is The Question   
    Rule of thumb that I use..
    Tank has thermal sights: STAY BUTTONED - do NOT expose the tank commander (TC) NO thermal sights: UNBUTTON - expose the TC
  7. Upvote
    Bil Hardenberger got a reaction from A Canadian Cat - was IanL in Dazed. Confused.   
    Bill, classic delay op... the key will be to ensure your tanks are hull down and if possible in key hole positions... this will maximize your chances that you will spot the enemy before they can spot you.  If it looks like you are spotted (starting to receive fire) move under as much concealment as possible and get to a new position. Always try to set up with overlapping fields of fire
    On my blog specifically look for the hull down, key hole, masked movement, and alternate firing positions posts... repeat this process as much as the terrain and enemy actions allow. If you see a chance to counter attack, or better to launch a spoiling attack, go for it, then fall back into your defensive positions.
  8. Upvote
    Bil Hardenberger got a reaction from A Canadian Cat - was IanL in Dazed. Confused.   
    Bill, take a look at my blog, gives a good basic run down on using real world tactics in CM. 
    https://battledrill.blogspot.com/?m=0
    Look for the Tactical Toolbox on the left side of the screen   
    Edit: changed the link to the web version
  9. Like
    Bil Hardenberger reacted to The_Capt in Dazed. Confused.   
    “Shrinking the map”.  It is one of the largest issues we have at this scale of wargaming.  One cannot employ the same map scales for WW2 in a modern title.  We will continue to work the artillery issue but the hallmark of CM games is tactical realism, maps will have to adapt.  In CMCW we pretty much pushed out to the outer limit of what the game engine can handle with respect to map sizes.  It wasn’t artillery that was the forcing function, it was ATGMs.  A system that can reach out 3kms with very high Pk forces a much larger map.  That, and Soviet formations needed room to manoeuvre.  As we move into more modern era, say CMBS, the maps will need to get even larger.  This reflects what we are seeing on the battlefield - dispersion and increased range and lethality per combat element.  I suspect that after seeing the Ukraine war unfold that CM artillery will be readdressed.  There is too much evidence of its effectiveness to ignore.  CMx3 will need to take into account much larger map sizes as a result.
  10. Like
    Bil Hardenberger reacted to Bagpipe in Dazed. Confused.   
    Ahhh i did not know this was your blog. It is one of my bookmarked sites. Cracking stuff on there!
  11. Upvote
    Bil Hardenberger reacted to billbindc in Dazed. Confused.   
    Just finished Brauersdorf after doing a little research and realizing I was up against 20+ armored vehicles. Won a major victory as the US, killed all but one Sov armored vehicle and was just about to go on the offensive to take that one out and sweep the dregs of Sov infantry off the field when it called the game on me. The ways in which Dragons, LAWs and TOW change the field was quite a revelation. 
  12. Like
    Bil Hardenberger reacted to Haiduk in How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?   
    Youtube video on normal speed of two Bradleys and T-90M engagement with English comment 
    Just on 2:01 author mistakingly says "T-90M is detonating", but in comments other people write this were smoke screen charges, shot by tank.
     
    After Russian tank has stopped on obstacle it was finished with FPV - Russian crew abandoned the tank (at the second half of video)
     
  13. Upvote
    Bil Hardenberger reacted to billbindc in Dazed. Confused.   
    Excellent. Thank you. 
  14. Like
    Bil Hardenberger got a reaction from Vacillator in Dazed. Confused.   
    Bill, take a look at my blog, gives a good basic run down on using real world tactics in CM. 
    https://battledrill.blogspot.com/?m=0
    Look for the Tactical Toolbox on the left side of the screen   
    Edit: changed the link to the web version
  15. Like
    Bil Hardenberger got a reaction from Ultradave in Open or Closed Hatch, That Is The Question   
    Rule of thumb that I use..
    Tank has thermal sights: STAY BUTTONED - do NOT expose the tank commander (TC) NO thermal sights: UNBUTTON - expose the TC
  16. Like
    Bil Hardenberger got a reaction from Bannon in Open or Closed Hatch, That Is The Question   
    Rule of thumb that I use..
    Tank has thermal sights: STAY BUTTONED - do NOT expose the tank commander (TC) NO thermal sights: UNBUTTON - expose the TC
  17. Like
    Bil Hardenberger got a reaction from chuckdyke in Open or Closed Hatch, That Is The Question   
    Rule of thumb that I use..
    Tank has thermal sights: STAY BUTTONED - do NOT expose the tank commander (TC) NO thermal sights: UNBUTTON - expose the TC
  18. Like
    Bil Hardenberger reacted to Carolus in How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?   
    Ukraine remembers how everything began 10 years ago.
    When the diplomatic takeover of Ukraine did not work, Putin pulled out the guns.
    The EU parliament and EU commission seem generally working on pulling Ukraine in quite diligently, but the EU council always has a veto, and the council is made up of all the heads of government of the EU members. This is where Hungary can throw wrenches into the gears. There are also, however, a lot of paperwork processes the council is actually not that involved in.
    The bureaucracy of the EU is like an elephant. Its starts very slow and never gets fast, but once it set its sights on something, it is generally picking up almost unstoppable momentum.
  19. Like
    Bil Hardenberger got a reaction from GhostRider3/3 in Combat Mission Cold War - British Army On the Rhine   
    We wanted to concentrate on the British Army of the Rhine and Canadians first, mainly for selfish reasons and also because we have a couple people on the team who are experts on the British Army so it was the obvious choice for us.
    We do have plans for the German Army too, but that will unfortunately have to wait.
    Bil
  20. Like
    Bil Hardenberger got a reaction from Centurian52 in CMSF as a tool for simulating USMC squad assaults   
    Finally was able to read through this.. luckily for me, this is in line with what I do for a living so its billable.   I do have some feedback however:
    I found it interesting that he defined "Fire & Movement" as what the assault squad is doing, where the standard historical definition is for an attack consisting of two elements, a Support Element providing suppressive fire, and an Assault Element closing with and destroying the enemy. True, the Assault Squad could be conducting a Squad level Fire and Movement Battle Drill during its Assault movement, so maybe it's right? Seems odd to me though. Platoon level assaults versus a 3 or 4 man position seemed excessive to me, but that is the American way of war! I would expect a Squad to be able to deal with an enemy of that size alone, without the rest of the Platoon. I am surprised that there seemed to be little to no reconnaissance to find the enemy, you know, the first F in the Four Fs (Find him, Fix him, Flank him, Finish him)... The assault was launched before the enemy was located, this led to more casualties than necessary. This premature launching of an assault is the one thing I preach against over and over on my blog... you must find the enemy before you decide how you are going to deal with him. In several of the runs the assault squad was caught by surprise, or suppressed in the open. Neither of these would have happened if a scout team (or three) had been sent forward to recon and locate the enemy... only THEN deciding how to deal with them. The Support element seemed to be really a separate part of the action, where to increase effectiveness they needed to be working as a team, and they needed to be mutually supporting, not something I thought was happening as I read through the AARs. All in all a very interesting series of posts, appreciate you linking it @MHW, but I can't help but think that I am left underwhelmed by this, and that I could have provided guidance that would have helped them close with the enemy with zero (or close to it) failed assaults, based on the forces involved and the support provided.
    Bil
  21. Like
    Bil Hardenberger reacted to Grey_Fox in Tanks are blind in CM   
    It is completely broken. Just look at this they get within 50 meters of each other in broad daylight and be doesn't even see it. It's laughable that anybody would consider this to be realistic behaviour.
    Completely unplayable, I want a refund.
     
  22. Like
    Bil Hardenberger got a reaction from Lethaface in How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?   
    My day job is developing wargames for the USMC, and I wanted to address the bolded part above. Computer simulations are great, but they do not answer all the objectives of professional wargames, in fact many time the result is not even that important, many times the discussion and insights learned from going through the process are all that we are after. Computer sims also have a way of stifling this conversation, trust me when you have 50 professional Marine, Army, and/or Navy officers in a room, a table top game is the best tool for the job if you want to invite conversation and in-depth topic discussions.
    There is also a dopamine hit players get from the tactile nature of a map and counter wargame and rolling dice that you rarely get from a computer simulation. That also has a value to get player buy-in, interaction, and enjoyment.  
    Simulation based professional wargames are great when the results are important, testing a new tactical organization, weapon system integration, etc., but they usually turn into a series of in-depth planning sessions with a simulated vignettes occuring for flavor. There is also a stovepipe mentality with these types of games with different player cells huddled around their machines that is absent in table top games.
    I've seen it all and there is value for all types of wargames in the professional setting and which is used depends on the objectives and research questions we are trying to answer. Table top games in professional wargames will not be going away anytime soon.
    Bil
  23. Upvote
    Bil Hardenberger got a reaction from Zatoichi in How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?   
    My day job is developing wargames for the USMC, and I wanted to address the bolded part above. Computer simulations are great, but they do not answer all the objectives of professional wargames, in fact many time the result is not even that important, many times the discussion and insights learned from going through the process are all that we are after. Computer sims also have a way of stifling this conversation, trust me when you have 50 professional Marine, Army, and/or Navy officers in a room, a table top game is the best tool for the job if you want to invite conversation and in-depth topic discussions.
    There is also a dopamine hit players get from the tactile nature of a map and counter wargame and rolling dice that you rarely get from a computer simulation. That also has a value to get player buy-in, interaction, and enjoyment.  
    Simulation based professional wargames are great when the results are important, testing a new tactical organization, weapon system integration, etc., but they usually turn into a series of in-depth planning sessions with a simulated vignettes occuring for flavor. There is also a stovepipe mentality with these types of games with different player cells huddled around their machines that is absent in table top games.
    I've seen it all and there is value for all types of wargames in the professional setting and which is used depends on the objectives and research questions we are trying to answer. Table top games in professional wargames will not be going away anytime soon.
    Bil
  24. Like
    Bil Hardenberger reacted to The_Capt in How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?   
    So basically older capabilities took a long time to die?  And yet they still died.  I know the myths of Agincourt but in the end cheap mass won out that entire argument.  And kept winning it right through to about WW2.
    The fact that cavalry held on by fingernails in WW1 is not proof that they somehow were still a viable arm of manoeuvre.  In fact the narrowing of cavalry over the centuries could be what we are seeing in armour in much quicker time.
    Firing line formations died at the Civil War, and yet militaries held onto them (and their ridiculous bayonets) for decades (we already argued this on that other thread).
    One can “whatabout” it all one wants but military capabilities clearly have a failing trajectory.  There are elements of cost, effectiveness, utility and decisiveness at play in that calculus.  Large armoured cavalry as an example.  Its decisive role began to fade, arguably, in the Middle Ages.  Its utility was definitely compressed by the 19th century and by early 20th century they had been relegated to logistical support and flank security.  By mid 20th they were pretty much only logistical and after that ceremonial.  
    You can trace any obsolete capability along similar tracks.  They take time to die…but they do die.  Cost effectiveness is a significant factor and cheap that can kill or deny expensive is on the right track to render it obsolete.  However, it is not the only factor at play.  Tanks look to me like they are in the beginnings of a death spiral, particularly if we are talking long term attritional warfare.  They take too long to produce, and cost too much for what they are able to deliver right now.  As Steve notes, they are also being supplanted by a lot of other things that are a lot cheaper to manufacture.
    ”Well infantry are easy to kill and have not gone obsolete”.  Well 1) they are a lot cheaper than armour, 2) they are actually really hard to kill.  They may be soft squishy humans but they are like sand and get into everything.  Hard to find and fix, and extremely replaceable. 3) They are also nearly impossible to fully deny..see sand, and 4) they have not been supplanted, in fact they have been dramatically augmented with modern UAS and ATGMs.  
    Tanks on the other hand are really expensive, getting more so just trying to keep them alive. East to spot…big lump of hot metal and ceramic. Easy to deny.  Hard to replace at scale.  And now they are being supplanted.  However, like a lot of military capabilities they will take some time to die.  On could argue that have been dying since the 80s but I am not so sure.  This war has definitely not been good news for amour or mech and everyone knows it.  In fact it has not been good news for manoeuvre warfare itself.
    Now modern militaries have a couple choices: adapt or hang onto legacy capability for “reasons”.  We are really good at that last one.
  25. Like
    Bil Hardenberger got a reaction from Panserjeger in How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?   
    My day job is developing wargames for the USMC, and I wanted to address the bolded part above. Computer simulations are great, but they do not answer all the objectives of professional wargames, in fact many time the result is not even that important, many times the discussion and insights learned from going through the process are all that we are after. Computer sims also have a way of stifling this conversation, trust me when you have 50 professional Marine, Army, and/or Navy officers in a room, a table top game is the best tool for the job if you want to invite conversation and in-depth topic discussions.
    There is also a dopamine hit players get from the tactile nature of a map and counter wargame and rolling dice that you rarely get from a computer simulation. That also has a value to get player buy-in, interaction, and enjoyment.  
    Simulation based professional wargames are great when the results are important, testing a new tactical organization, weapon system integration, etc., but they usually turn into a series of in-depth planning sessions with a simulated vignettes occuring for flavor. There is also a stovepipe mentality with these types of games with different player cells huddled around their machines that is absent in table top games.
    I've seen it all and there is value for all types of wargames in the professional setting and which is used depends on the objectives and research questions we are trying to answer. Table top games in professional wargames will not be going away anytime soon.
    Bil
×
×
  • Create New...