Wicky

For your amusement, I will relate this story from my peacekeeping tour in Bosnia in '93.    It is funny (after the fact for me) but has a lesson in it.
 
I was doing OP duty and had around 10 soldiers under my command.  Our group was in a heavily sandbagged structure on a hilltop.  It was just the crack of dawn and the night shift was going to ground to catch some sleep while the soldiers just waking up were going on shift.
 
One of the soldiers was going to the latrine and only grabbed his weapon instead of also putting on the flak jacket and helmet.  Now in '93, the Canadian Forces didn't have modern body armor so we were provided with bulky flak jackets.  They were big, heavy and uncomfortable as hell to wear.  The rule was, you didn't need to wear it in hardened structures but if you were outside, a helmet (soldiers refered to them as pisspots) and flak jacket was expected to be worn.  Soldiers, including myself didn't like the wearing the flak jacket.
 
Back to my story.  So I look out the vision slit of the bunker and see this soldier heading for the latrine with just his rifle and blue beret.  This has happened a few times now and I haven't said anything.  Remember me saying there is a lesson here and that is the danger of complacency.  One can get too accustomed to the routine and short cuts happen.
 
The soldier come back and I dress him down for not wearing his flak jacket and helmet.  As the officer, I must lead by example so I don my flak jacket and helmet as I need to take a wicked dump at the latrine.  I head to the latrine, pants down and adopt the squat to push out the aftermath of last night's rations.  Just then a mortar round impacts about a dozen metres behind me.  I feel a hard hit in the middle of my back and I know I've been hit.  
 
I race for the safety of the bunker with weapon in one hand and trying to pull my trousers up from around my knees.  It was quite the athletic event according to the soldiers, as they were amazed that someone can run that fast with their trousers around their knees.
 
So there I am standing just inside the bunker door, my pants now fallen around my ankles but I barely aware of it as I am concerned that I am wounded.   Flatly, in a loud voice, I say "That gentlemen, is why we wear our f^%$#* helmets and flak jackets when we go outside this f%$#@ bunker!!"
 
I took about a two inch by half inch fragment into the flak jacket but was otherwise unharmed.  Other fragment cut a very shallow channel along the left side of my helmet.
 
Needless to say, for the rest of the tour, flak jackets and helmets where worn without complaint by the soldiers when they went to the latrine.

Then-Soviet Ambassador to Cairo Vinogradov's file, evidently a memo draft to the Politbureau, makes the word "bombshell" seem grotesquely inadequate. What he describes may well unhinge readers steeped in the story of the Yom Kippur War, its run-up and aftermath. Sure did a number on my head.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/22/what-really-happened-in-the-yom-kippur-war/

The Vinogradov shocker is particularly interesting in light of something which surfaced when the Soviet Union collapsed: ironclad proof of a highly successful Soviet/Egyptian strategic deception before the 1973 War began.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/forty-years-later-sovietarab-secrets-of-yom-kippur-war-revealed/

In turn, Brezhnev's scathing riposte (p. 2 of second link) speaks directly to what former Tk Co and MRC CO Suvorov/Rezun described in The "Liberators" based on firsthand experience and direct reports from his fellow officers: the stripping of the Soviet Army's frontline combat weaponry to provide the Egyptians with everything they needed to defeat Israel. Because Sadat wanted a war.

"After the war, Brezhnev discussed re-establishing relations with Israel. When he was told that this would make the Arabs upset, he responded:

They should go f— themselves! We’ve been offering them a reasonable method for many years, but no — they wanted a war. Okay, as you please! We gave them the equipment, the most modern one, unseen even in Vietnam."

Regards,

John Kettler

Commonwealth Forces: Buron - Sticking it Out :Part 1

Impressive - real life looking!
 
What program do you use for video editing, adding sound and cropping out user interface?

The Ukraine appears to disagree with that sentiment.  

WARNING!

In light of the very graphic imagery on the site, I've deliberately left the URL off these links. Nevertheless, should you choose to go to Kaotic, you will find two first rate, crisp clear set of large format stills illustrating the aftermath of WW II armored warfare, after which you may see hit decals in a wholly new light. Probably not good with meals, but many pics I'd not seen before or had seen only in small format on crummy paper.

Regards,

John Kettler

Raptorx7,

Thank you for sharing that post, which I carefully read. I also read a good chunk of the enormous number of comments, which seem to be thoughtful in the original sense of the term.

I have a love/hate relationship with war. I find it endlessly fascinating and intriguing. Equally, disgusting, nauseating and hideous. It at once embodies the very best and worst of our species; of single mindedness; of breathtaking innovation which has forever changed the course of our lives, both militarily and in terms of resultant tech. Of selflessness; of sacrifice; of sheer dogged persistence in the face of seemingly unending disasters and crushing defeats.

My father was a defense engineer (both parents were in the military during the Korean War), so I grew up not only surrounded by nonfiction pertinent books and magazines, but also read lots of military fiction, such as C.S. Forrester's fabulous Hornblower series. It's fair to say I was immersed in studying war and weapons--on a spectrum ranging from the Neolithic through nuclear--from early childhood.

Fundamentally, checkers and chess are wargames, with the last explicitly so and hailing from India. Chess didn't have a chance, though, when my wonderful maternal aunt and uncle gave me AH's Tactics II when I was 12. The subject matter, per se, didn't float my boat, but it alerted me to the existence of AH's historical wargames, an interest which fully flowered some years later. The call to see if you can outperform some major leader from history was irresistible. AH, in turn, was my springboard into modern tactical games, published by SPI and SimCan, to begin with, followed by others. Meanwhile, there was also SL, COI, but I drew the line with ASL. Too much for my budget. Besides, I had discovered many other engrossing games, including tactical warfare with miniatures.

My modern wargaming background was a major part of what got me a job in military aerospace, as was my immediately prior involvement in an intercampus elaborate WW II strategic level wargame.

While it's certainly true that, with either malice aforethought or with no context/support, wargames, especially shooters, can be used to create and foster belligerence, they can also be exceedingly valuable teaching tools, with or without an academic context, and can promote peace by creating a pretty deep understanding of what war actually entails. The counters removed from the table in a board wargame become something else altogether when you read the eyewitness accounts and watch the footage. Just yesterday, I read the initial German air attacks on Stalingrad killed 40,000 people, roughly 2/3 of the total fatalities at the Battle of Gettysburg. I'm much more at home with tactical matters than the broader swathes, but my mind is reeling over what I'm encountering in Bellamy's Absolute War, in which a single major operation could and did produce fatalities exceeding total US KIA in WW II.

I think people's enthusiasm for war has lots to do with excitement, whether genuine or cynically engineered, and young men coming of age are wired to prove themselves as a way of attracting desirable mates. As such, war is the ultimate test of people's and peoples' mettle.

All this is a way of saying that, the more I wargame, the more truly I find myself with a richer and deeper understanding of wars, weapons, those who plan and wage them, particularly on the sharp end of the spear or in the maw of a chipper which devours miliions. An understanding, may I add, not based on experiencing either military service or war directly. But my gaming, my reading and research, along with being slaughtered in paintball decades back, have utterly convinced me Tacitus had it right. Speaking of the Roman way of warfare he said: "They make a desolation, and call it Peace."

Since war is arguably the single greatest focus of mankind/not so kind, I find it entirely relevant and appropriate to explore it via wargaming. I will say, though, that at the level we play, I cringe over my mistakes, such as practically wiping out my 18 Platoon in CMBN:CW because I screwed up. But the martial punishment is nothing like what I feel when it comes to what I know aren't, but my heart and guts perceive, as my men, whose wellbeing and lives depend on me. My results to date suggest depending on me in such matters is exceedingly ill advised. Reading such harrowing accounts as that of the Hallamshires in France during WW II only drives home the reality of what we wargame, for the account below lists the losses individually: who they are, what they did, where they're from and who their parents were. This takes war out of the realm of statistics and makes it chillingly personal. I've long since reached the point, knowing what I know, where I find it incredible they can find people willing to fight war anymore. I think we should use war fomenters, war profiteers and perhaps their generally exempt from the wars offspring, as penal battalions. Were we to do this, I'd expect the conflict rates and scales to drop precipitously. It's easy to start wars when there are no direct personal consequences, but considerably more daunting when the war starter has to face the machine guns, artillery and bombs raining down!

http://www.irdp.co.uk/JohnCrook/yorklancs.htm

Other than those in the military or the supporting establishments, or in or affected directly by military conflict, wargamers probably have the best appreciation for the misery, havoc and unbelievable destruction war and its aftermath bring. They are, therefore, if we ignore the testosterone and caffeine fueled gore fest crowd, often very peaceful individuals. This is based on decades of gaming, game cons, online battles and attending two different CM Beta Demos. Another aspect I would like to bring out is that wargaming is a socially acceptable, albeit geeky to some, way of safely working out frustrations and aggressive instincts. For me, and I suspect many here, it is an intellectually stimulating form of stress release. Indeed, to play well, you have to focus on the game. Because of that, wargaming becomes a kind of meditation, substituting a few stimuli for the normal TOT we call modern life. This can and does create issues in other social interfaces, but for many, wargaming is an island of stability amid maelstroms.

Regards,

John Kettler

He would very bummed if one of those went off.  Although I bet the story he told when he got out of the hospital would bear no resemblance to reality.

LC-,

There have been repeated tirades on the Forums about the believability of Forgotten Soldier, but if you head over to Amazon, there is quite the review of the book by a GD veteran, a Funker (radioman) who was attached to a sIG-33 unit. Might force some here into a rethink.

Regards,

John Kettler

^^^
 
27 1/2 years of service in the USAF (active and reserve) and you've just hit the nail on the head. I'd type more, but the AF says I need 10 hours of sleep a night, and my aide has yet to turn down my bed. Sigh. Cutbacks suck. I'll probably have an unironed bathrobe in the morning.

Moon,

The connectivity issues are now resolved, I no longer have to deal with that Capcha, but I still have no BFC (from anybody) response to my request for a clarification of Forum Rules on links and the uniform handling of links from an enforcement perspective. I would further request that serious consideration be given to expanding the realm of acceptable links.

As recently as last night, I had to refrain from posting a link to a really useful site on the PTAB bomblet in the Russian CAS thread, but note many others feel no such constraint when posting the links to their finds. And though it's not my intention to do so, I'm certain my not posting proper links is making some of my colleagues unhappy, too.

Wodin and Baneman,

Your idea would be sound, but given my already demonstrated lack of techno savvy here, putting up my own site isn't going to fly. The only reason I have a site myself is because my longtime friend is a web wizard. I write the content. For me, it's an achievement presently to get the oft demanding comments handled and heavily researched posts out. If BFC were willing to put up some sort of a link repository on the Forum, that would be fantastic. Someone else could also start a site of the type you describe, and it could become an online access tool to the mounds of research we've in aggregate found and noted for our fellow gamers.

Regards,

John Kettler

76mm,

Not so. The Lend Lease Act was a legitimately passed and signed into effect law. It was intended to supply war materiel, not production means. It was intended to supply the fruits of science and technology, not the know-how underpinning them. Hopkins deliberately intervened in situation after situation and forced well-informed military authorities and civilian enterprises to hand over exactly those things. Hopkins stretched Lend Lease beyond all recognition, allowing Russia access to technology areas in which Russia had no real base; allowing Russia to conduct large scale military-industrial espionage (Major Jordan caught some particularly egregious examples but was overruled and forced to let them through) with impunity. In a very real sense, Hopkins helped create the Russian military-technical-manufacturing infrastructure which bedeviled us during the Cold War. This isn't to say the Russians weren't very sharp and ingenious in their own right, but life is so much easier when someone else has done the work already and you can capitalize on it. The Bell case saved Russia an estimated three years of development time and avoided any number of wrong radar engineering paths as well, over and above the huge ruble outlay which would've otherwise been required.

Clearly we disagree and will almost certainly continue to do so. I've made a strong case. You won't budge an inch. I'm still concerned Steve may opt to lock this thread. I therefore suggest we return to the issue of the Lend Lease AFV and their employment by the Russians.

Regards,

John Kettler

I think giving specialist squads a M203-swap simple laser 'illumination'-module (mounted under a rifle witch has also a sufficient optics to aim the laser) to fool tanks in the far out to exhaust their smoke and to disrupt them would be a good tactic.
Of course you do it out of a "Wechselstellung" ! or an observation spot that will be vacated then

JonS,

I didn't make the statement, the Air Munitions Data (Appendix 2) did.

"The distances listed represent the range at which a fragment from the particular munition will not penetrate the skin of an individual standing in an open field. The figures are based on a probability of kill of zero (Pk=0)."

Additionally, while it's fair to use the term blast radius in the cookie cutter wargaming sense, in reality, blast isn't much of a factor unless quite close to the detonation. Therefore, a more accurate characterization would be Radii of Casualty Effects vs Protected and Unprotected personnel.

Finally, it would be wise not to confuse the properly sourced message with the messenger, toward whom your animus has been heavily publicized.

Regards,

John Kettler

Steve,

I've been in a Sherman 76mm recently, and I can tell you, having looked at the world from that cupola, that I see no way at all it can come even close to the view from one of those German drum cupolas. The drum cupolas have their vision openings well above the roof of the tank, whereas the Sherman 76mm has what amounts to a bump on the turret roof. While the Sherman 76mm cupola is certainly a big improvement over having none at all, I'd expect German AFVs with drum cupolas to do significantly better in the spotting department.

Regards,

John Kettler

Rinaldi,
 
I believe things are getting out of hand, for those two insist on ordering chaos (which staff school teaches that skill?). We can't have that. Besides, all this exposition of tactical planning and combat application is giving me some sort of CM inferiority complex. These two fight their battles much differently than I do, for my style, if you can call it that, is more intuitive. Bil's approach seems all but mathematically rigorous, where pnzrldr's seems more fluid and aggressive. Am learning from both, but dealing with all this information is intermittently overloading my brain. And nobody's shooting at me, I get reasonable rest, eat mostly good food, am warm and dry, so I don't want to think how overwhelming the real deal would be with information (often confused or even wrong) flooding in (presuming the info channels work) or maybe trickling in; mayhem and chaos everywhere, hot, parched and hungry (other settings in winter) , while bearing crushing responsibility for those you lead and must care for, deal with higher, keep complex equipment fully operating and in the fight--all with terrible wounds or death potentially coming in an instant. Am quite glad I'm a wargamer and not a warrior.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

I think its in your best interest to stop posting for now.

The Javelin is a truly amazing weapon system, as demonstrated by British troops in this video (or perhaps not)...
 

I'd have left it with a negative point, but I already used my one for the day.  This was pretty darn ignorant. A good part of the team I work with is based in India.  A great bunch of men and women.  Referring to them in the way you have would get me in front of HR and rightly so.  It is rude and disrespectful.  You may want to watch comments like that as it is one sure way to get yourself banned off the forum.

BFC,

Regarding the Forum Rules, I feel trapped.

In seeking to comply with the Moon Dictum, it's a) hard to communicate effectively with my wargaming brethren, because I have to be ever careful to break links, so as not to clash with the "no commercial links," but this gets me numerous overt complaints on the Forums and even PEMs. Try as I might, I've so far found no viable solution.

Many have pointed out "BFC doesn't care about those kinds of (informational) links" and link without a second thought, but having gotten a Moon Rocket AKA Infraction, over just such an exercise, I don't feel safe in chancing another one. Moon takes an absolutist position on the matter, which is why I call it a dictum, but I'd like to request that the link policy be reviewed. Further, may I request that, once such a determination is made, it be notified to the Forumites and thereafter be consistently enforced? As things stand, some are linking with impunity, while others, who've stepped on a Rule mine as I have, are hobbling about and warily watching for tripwires and those little prongs! Now to that new vexed matter.

Recently, I was quite shocked to discover that, for unknown reasons, Search now requires an annoying Capcha type thing be done. It's hard to read (putting it mildly, and the replacement ones are often just as bad), and I pity the color blind. Why oh why do we have to deal with this IMO useless time wasting, er, feature? Were bots having their way with Search and consuming enormous bandwidth or what? I don't get it.

Thanks for your attention to these matters.

Regards,

John Kettler

I say John gets no answer until he learns how to post a picture...he's had fourteen years.


Mord.

A new study looks at the to-be-expected negative impacts of online gaming on marriages, as well as the unexpected benefits for some couples. As for you lot dating or canoodling under the same roof, no study for you!

http://healthland.time. (usual) /2012/02/16/is-online-gaming-messing-up-your-marriage/

Regards,

John Kettler

What? Not a single reply? Was the topic too daring; my thread title too shocking, or did I ruin it with the part after the em dash? Until someone responds, I can but speculate. Alone.

Regards,

John Kettler

Der Alte Fritz,

I appreciate the information you provided, but I must disagree with your 3). The quotes Suvorov provides regarding the fortification situation at the border in no way supports the assertion that the Stalin Line was, in a sense, being moved to the new frontier. Suvorov provides quote after quote from officers involved with minelaying, the creation of defensive lines and more, all of which contradict the assertion. This is what he said:

"Empty territory, even without any technical defence installations, would have served as a security zone after its own fashion, by allowing the main forces ime to get ready for action. But, according to the official Soviet account,

The armies . . . were to deploy directly along the state frontier ... in spite of the fact that its geographical outline was entirely disadvantageous to defence. Even those security /ones stipulated in our pre-war directives had not been technically prepared, (htoriya Velikoi Otechestvennoi Voiny, Voenizdat 1961, Vol. 2, p. 49)"

NOTE I believe "security /ones" is really "security zones." "Not technically been prepared" was actually "were nonexistent because the defensive scheme left them out altogether."

Armies right on the border--with no security zone as ordered in the regs! Not exactly a new Stalin Line. There's also this.

"The fortified regions of the Molotov Line were built right up against the frontier. They were not protected by a security zone, and in the event of a surprise attack the garrisons would no longer have time to occupy their combat installations and bring their weaponry to full readiness. Unlike those along the Stalin Line, the fortified regions of the Molotov Line were not very deep. Everything which could have been built on the frontier itself, was in fact built there. Defence positions were not built in the rear, nor was it ever planned to build any. (Lieutenant-General V. F. Zotov, Na Severo-Zapadnom Fronte, Moscow Nauka 1969, p. 175)"

The fortifications were not sited on positions which would favour defence, but followed every bend and twist of the state frontier. The new combat installations were not protected by barbed wire, mines, ditches, stakes, hedgehog entanglements or anti-tank tetrahedrons, nor were any engineered defences erected in the area of construction. Neither were the new installations camouflaged. For example, in the fortified region of Vladimir-Volynsk, 'out of 97 combat installations, 5-7 were covered with earth, while the remainder were virtually decamouflaged'. (VIZH 1976, No. 5, p. 91)"

Clearly, this isn't the way to build a defense, and that's being excruciatingly charitable. Further, it's clear from the accounts of those charged with building it that it would never be even a shadow of the Stalin Line. Indeed, the Molotov Line was arguably the antithesis of every tenet of sound defense. I'm no military engineer, but I guarantee that I could lay out a far better defense scheme than the one described. And I flunked the surveying field exercise when I took Archaeology in college! And while rational people would've been worrying about how fast and effectively they could erect border defenses for the frontier, look at the real agenda when it came to dealing with prepared defenses. It was overcoming German ones!

"Everyone had his mind on overcoming such obstacles on enemy territory. That is why, under cover of a TASS announcement of 13 June 1939, some Soviet marshals and leading experts on obstacle clearing made their secret appearance on the western frontier.

Marshal of the Soviet Union G. Kulik, who had secretly arrived in Byelorussia, discussed the situation with Colonel Starinov. 'Let's have mine-detectors, sappers and trawl equipment!' he demanded (Miny Zhdut Svoego Chasa, p. 179) The Marshal was thinking about German territory. All the mines on Soviet territory had already been rendered harmless, and all the obstacles dismantled. 'You have not named your branch correctly,' the Marshal went on to tell him. 'To be in accordance with our doctrine you should call it the branch for the clearance of obstacles and mines. Once we would have thought otherwise, and harped on defence, defence . . . but enough of that!' (Ibid, quoted by Starinov)"

There, again, is the unremitting emphasis on the offensive and not merely disregard of defensive issues but extraordinary animus toward them, as explicitly shown by the above quote and the one below.

"Practically all the Soviet engineering and railway troops were gathered on the western frontiers. Sapper units and units belonging to those divisions, corps and armies which were concentrated on the frontier itself, as well as other units from other formations which had begun to move up to the border, were all operating in the frontier zone before the war began. The Soviet sappers were busy preparing the departure positions from which the offensive would begin; laying down roads for columns to move along; surmounting and erecting engineered defences, creating tactical and strategic camouflage, ensuring that the infantry and tanks which formed part of the assault groups interacted properly; protecting forced river crossings . . . (Sovietskie Vooruzhennye Sily, Voenizdat 1978, p. 255)

Let not the words 'erecting engineered defences' mislead the reader. By the time that the decisive attack on the Finnish Mannerheim Line began, Soviet sappers had also built several sectors consisting of engineered defence obstacles similar to the Finnish ones. Before going into battle, the newly arrived Soviet troops were put through these defences, which had been put there for training purposes. After that, they went over to the real attack."

What I've presented is by no means the full array of intelligence indicators pointing, not to the creation of strong, combat stable defenses, but of assembly areas and jumping off positions for a massive attack against Germany. And as Suvorov notes, the, in a nutshell, defense killing things the Russians were doing, the Germans were likewise doing on their side of the border. Faster. There was no plan to recreated the Stalin Line to cover the frontier, for to do so would've tied up enormous manpower and resources building a very large set of installations smack on the approach route into Germany. As already noted, the most ruthless measures were being applied to clear the way, to include not siting the Molotov Line in strategic areas where it might hinder the offensive and even removing the barbed wire fence at the border.

Regards,

John Kettler

wow just wow