Lethaface

Interesting video. I'd seen some of it but now it was combined with drone footage. And happy to see those YPRs doing more work.

Not storming bunkers for pay either, but I thought there was still outgoing fire coming from the bunker and that was why they didn't move for the clear. Also 'they' was like 1 guy throwing the grenades around the corner, he threw them pretty nice though, with the rest of the troops being further back / dispersed. The bunker also turned out larger than I first thought it was; at first I also expected them to creep forward with grenades like they were doing, and storm/clear the bunker. One of those drone dropped grenade seemed to degrade the position but not necessarily taking out that guy with his mug on drone footage, even though he seemed to be exactly where that grenade went off and I thought I saw some blood on his face. But he was still fighting later.

Nice package. That's more RCH 155 than the total Pzh2000 Germany has send so far AFAIK.

In that case I guess add as many as K-1 ERA as is physically possible. Also good for the memers

I for one don't know whether adding Kontakt-1 would actually have much effect for a Chally-2, maybe on the sides for extra rpg protection? Sorry if I spoil the meme

Fortunately many of the footage has scrambled the 'less pleasant' bits. Anyway that related note sounds very interesting, at least to me. Psychological modelling of the battlefield effect on troops etc is imo an aspect which most wargames/sims don't have too high on their prio. While it is certainly a significant factor in the conduct of war. Good luck on the funding! I'd expect some professional customers to also be interested in such features.

Agreed. When I was younger I didn't mind to watch more gorey stuff war footage, but because of life experiences I now refrain to view too much of those type of stuff (my soul has enough scratches ). However watching footage of the war, not necessarily the gorey focused ones, does indeed provide more information than the ISWs etc do sec. Plus I always look to verify information from various sources and not only stick to one source, even if that's a good one like ISW. Especially in the early beginning of the war a lot could be learned from watching the footage posted all over the internet. Another drone video might not always add to the already established picture, but without analyzing them one won't know. Plus nobody is obliged to watch 'war porn' if they don't like to watch it. It's a bit of a holier than thou discussion imo.

Good points and I have the same idea although I don't want to expect too much. Although I do think it is fair to say that there is a correlation between 'not even throwing the dead bodies, of what were once ones squad mates, over the parapet' and developing an 'unhealthy morale' condition. I still have difficulty believing that a large majority of the Russian troops is really convinced that this is an existential war for Russia and will fight till the bitter end en masse. But the house of cards has held up almost magically. Why haven't they given up on their attacks while it is obviously not going to end in a victory anytime soon? How long will there be 'willing' to feed the grinder in never ending forlon hope attacks? Basically by now their operational efforts amount to a distributed forlon hope attack, while holding on the rest of the AO. It is not the most sophisticated way of fighting a war of attrition (although without caring for loss of life it might be), even though much of the study about war originates from Russia. Still rationally Russians are humans and everyone has a breaking point. When enough individual breaking points have been achieved, there are the conditions for a systemic collapse. I hope your observation of a psychological breaking point being reached is correct and this is one of the early signs of a larger collapse. It sure could be one.

One talking head I heard today was smirking (as well) and made a reference to 1941: even while the battle of Moscow raged rather close, Stalin held a grand Oktober military parade in Moscow. I thought it was very fair to do so given how Russia likes it's historical references ;-).

Interesting discussion. Unfortunately only have time for drive by posts, I just noticed some rumors about Ukraine having begun a counter offensive in Bakhmut. Could just be local stuff / rumors. But in my brain it kind of make sense to do so. Some of the better informed talking heads overhere predicted it a while back. Imho not necessarily from a classical 'maneuver to attrit' perspective, but from a perspective of attack where the enemy is the weakest, plus, perhaps more important, where success has the most effect (on 'National Ethos' or however one wants to call it). If UKR manages to undo the progress made by Russia over 3/4 year, at heavy costs, in a short time and at a fraction of the cost; how can RU nationalists still maintain they can win this war? Of course the easy answer would be 'the same ignorant way they have been doing for quite some time now', but not the only answer. Put in another way, what other result, achievable with equal or less resources, will have a larger impact on Russia's strategy of continuing this war until UKR / Western support gives in? (taking into account opportunity costs and maximizing effect per life put on the line). Even in a successful Bakhmut offensive Ukraine might not be able to destroy / encircle large parts of Russian/Wagner forces. But it will destroy the myth of Bakmuth/Wagner/Russia.

Hehe who else could it be ? Good job if you manage, I think I had a major Victory as Syrians. I noticed the issue with Anodia too, seems something weird with his profile if you click on it the page doesn't exist. He's on top of the list but his trophy is bronze colored.

Unfortunately I agree on all accounts.

Perhaps, but sometimes bad examples have to make do I had some interesting thoughts about binary choices between getting intermittently waterboarded for 15 years while being forced to listen to loud disliked music versus being conscripted/pressed into service as cannonfodder for the Russian Federation in Crimea. I came up with option C : Escape to Ukraine. Another bad example that will have to make do. I mean doing any kind of plebiscite in a territory one has recently annexed, as a form of justification for the annexation, is a good example of getting high on ones own supply.

One of the 'interesting' findings is that (some of) the worst of these units where 'ordinary men' (yes I have that book) mostly consisting of small boring village policemen with, probably, some power fantasies which turned into killing machines.

So if Cuba invades Florida and claims it is Cuba now because many Cubans live there, will a referendum, among the mainly Cuban people remaining in Florida after the invasion, be 'legitimate' ?

Normal is relative. If you live in war, normal is different compared to when you don't live in war. Regardless, (accidentally) killing people will usually be a traumatic experience for every person with a 'normal' functional psyche although it can be 'treated', either by the person itself or with support, so that the traumatic experience doesn't become a chronic problem. People engaged in brutal disturbing violence during wars usually have some mental condition, which either existed before they engaged in war or developed during. They will probably never become 'normal' again, if they ever were normal. Psychotherapy might help them deal with the issue. This by the way isn't 'new'. People have been brutally killing eachother since we evolved from apes.

I think the correct term is repeated 'forlon hope' type attacks.

Anyway obviously those in power should have been making plans about what NATO's reaction would be when/if China blockades or invades Taiwan. Biden was rather outspoken about it. I guess some people had some 'follow up' work about that.

No I'm not making that assumption. At the same time I'm not making any conclusions to the contrary. Both the general and military intelligence services over here are of the opinion that China is the 'main threat'. They are playing our game with their own rules. Perhaps it's just that we aren't as gun savvy / gung ho overhere, but we aren't looking to solve the issue in a 'saving private ryan' moment. China is steadily building up it's navy, but without power fantasies one can conclude that their prowess hasn't been put to the test yet. They don't have a dozen Carrier strike groups power projection. They have hypersonic anti ship missiles but their accuracy isn't assertable. Can they reliably sink/neuter an aircraft carrier (strike group) without nuclear warheads? For their own carriers, show me thousands of sorties and precision. Paper capability versus proven capability and experience (US has got plenty). That isn't to say that they (CN) are crap; nobody knows for sure really, including whether we'd be crap against them ;-).

Nice to see, I can imagine the people giving the training will feel rather involved with how the, often fresh volunteer/mobilized, 'trainees' will fare at the frontlines. They will feel a sense of responsibility. Hard and extreme sounds appropriate for such a (short) training. I hope it will make the difference!

Without trying to start a semantic discussion about what an arms race is, I have a different outlook. 'We' need to be able to posture a credible defense against a China imposing their will/narrative over Western interests. That mainly revolves around making sure they understand a blockade or even an invasion of Taiwan is a bad idea and harmful for China. Military build up to answer China's developments is surely a part of that. But most of it is (geo) political / diplomatical and economical. But an arms race to have a bigger and better military compared to China on every imaginable front is stupid. China might even win such an arms race without fighting a war, as they have the means of production in place while we might ruin our economies trying to outproduce China (with a different type of economy system. And yes I know and have known about China's policies both national/international and I'm not a fan). We need to have better / good enough tools to give China a bloody nose if they decide to try their luck. And enough of it / scaleable means of production, so China can't just calculate the losses as acceptable before we run out of pointy sticks. If US wants to start a war with China just to see who has the largest ......, I think that US will have to go for that one solo or without NATO at least. I would wholeheartedly opt-out on behalf of NATO if I could. And on Russia, more relevant for this thread, we need to have the capability to posture a credible threat against any Russian invasion of European (NATO) countries.Over the past few decades we f'ed up and lost that capability. It needs to be rebuilt, but with the lessons of the current war in mind and aimed at the next (defensive) war. But that doesn't mean we now need a big and military able to conquer a country like Ukraine or Russia against a foe being a clone of the current Ukraine and it's capabilities. Such differences matter because they influence the required capabilities and consequently the (conceptual) requirements coming from those.

The post-versailles wehrmacht had a large, well trained, cadre of (nc) officers, many of them fulfilling a 'life long' professional duty in a tradition predating the Nazi regime (not that I think that's new for you ). That allowed them to enlarge the cadre into a relative large and competent armed force pre WW2. So at the start of the war they were a rather formidable fighting force (compared to other forces at the time), although that also eroded over time for (among others) the reasons you mention. The same reasons dictate that a sustained war against the Allies was never going to end well. Still at a mid - low level parts of the German armed forces remained a force to be reckoned with until the bitter end, while national/military strategy, intelligence and command were passing around the crack pipe (fortunately). Some of the never ending research and discussions are about a zero sum game whether the WW2 Germans sucked or not. I think one don't needs so much extra research to conclude that in some aspect they sucked while in other aspects their performance was above par. The rest of the details are food for military history academics, but often consumed/regurgitated by people having some pride/ego on the subject without the proper context.

At the same time fortunately NATO usually doesn't have plans of the special military op type: a major war of aggression against a well motivated and decently armed defender, who has been preparing for war for 8 years. Featuring several axis requiring at least a million men (and other stuff), which weren't available. Topping it of with a brief 'preliminary bombardment - morning' for shock and awe, not mentioning the lack of plans regarding what to do about those pesky urban centers. I mean if we would think of starting such a war I'd hope someone would at least start worrying whether there is even the munitions / hardware etc for such a fantasy. In any case I'm sure US/NATO would come up with a different plan to tackle 'Ukraine invasion like 2022' then the one Russia came up with, if it had to. And actually prepare for it (it would take long). But tbh it wouldn't be 'nice', imo it would include bombing from standoff distance for a loooong time. If anything else even. When the stone age would start to kick in, boots on the ground. Although even then the task at hand would still be very different from OIF. Probably more like CMSF2 with decent-good trained and highly motivated fighters using Kornets and RPG-29s but then much better organized and with good comms, loads of IEDs, etc, defending guerilla style from hardened positions (so urban centers in CMSF2). It would still be ugly, because that's what fighting against a people always turns out. Even after the conventional phase ends, 'mission accomplished', and blends into an indefinite insurgency on steroids. One could mention Iran and US but the US had itself concluded 'bad idea' regarding a ground war in Iran, let alone a full scale invasion/annexation. I'm in the 'bad idea' camp as well, for various reasons, and leave it at that. TLDR, do we really need the capabilities and matching stocks for a war playing the role Russia is playing now? Not saying / thinking nothing should be done, it's definitely time for wakey-wakey but the goal is not to start a new arms race (or rather should not be).

That's the same glitch I had with the 'running score'. But don't worry it will correct itself and when you finish your games it will be the final score. Now just get on with suppressive fires and take those objectives!

I think every country has their own rules. Over here various types of employment have some form of 'job secrecy', implications differ between the jobs. Journalists have the right to protect their sources but the court can take them hostage as a witness. Doctors/psychologists etc usually also have protection, with certain limitations. For example if a patient/client tells them about a planned terror attack, she/he has to inform the proper authorities.