Jump to content

fireship4

Members
  • Content Count

    115
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About fireship4

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Converted

  • Location
    UK
  1. Thanks John, from a fellow Shtrafbat watcher (currently about halfway). As to your post, I believe this is part of a 5 film series, as mentioned above. The rest can be found on same channel (the official "Mosfilm" Youtube channel) in the playlist I have linked below. In the first film, detailing operation "Citadel"/The battle of Kursk in 1943, which is all I have seen so far, keep an eye out for T64s/T72s (?) used in place of T34s, and the apparent mixing up of the Tiger/Panther (Tiger ("our newest tank") being sent back for more armour because it was penetrated from the front by Soviet AT guns?) at the start of the film.
  2. Thanks for the link, I understand about the Russian Army being partly professional partly other, I was just hoping the document would be telling me that and how it affects things - that is what it puports to be for after all.
  3. Thanks for the link. EDIT: At a glance this looks a much better/more serious document. Its got maps and diagrams up the wazoo as well. Man this looks like one of those 90s PC game manuals where the manual was better than the game. Wikipedia in fact has links to most or all versions of SMP in .pdf: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Military_Power
  4. I think you may have misunderstood me - the section you mention includes info about BTGs etc. as you say, however I was looking for information on the fielding and doctrine behind Russian non-strategic nuclear weapons, ie tactical/theatre nuclear weapons. There is a little in the below section: But that is basically it from what I can tell apart from the mention on pg 31. Since I'm already skimming and criticising, I have another couple of thoughts. Who is this document aimed at? Ok, fine, so non-military personell? Politicians/civil servants who don't have a military backround but would make better decisions with a bit more? The section I quoted above, apart from the new look program, a couple of other interesting things And then in another section: Wait but they are moving some back to divisions? Is that indecision or budget or what? What? Well anyway, I read there is a mix of volunteers and contracted soldiers? And it affects things to the extent that you want to separate them when trying to form a BTG? Ok great that looks like something interesting to read about - how much of the army is volunteers and how do they stack up to their "contracted" comrades? Again, I haven't read the whole document, but from my skimming (which may be all a civil servant may have time for) I would venture: The target audience seems unclear. There is a "New Look Motorized Rifle Brigade" TOE at one point, and every so often there are lists of the number of personel or tanks in this or that, or the aforementioned MiG29 is most capable table, which all seem pretty pointless without context, especially to someone who has not been to officer school. Several interesting narrative threads which look like they could have been followed to provide some insight aren't followed, and information that is mentioned tends to be scattered around the document. I never read SMP to my knowledge but I assume it was not like this. It feels as though what we needed was a book written by David M. Glantz, giving us a little history, a little 90s collapse and consequence, a little new look reform, a little differences in doctrine, a little dont assume they wont do this or that or use this or that - this is how they see this... etc. You know, what actually military analysts worry about. And then a lot of nice colour maps to show where things are and how big this or that is and what a division is supposed to do. To reiterate, I haven't read much of the document, just commenting on what I have in the mean-time. Apologies if I have over-stated a position on too little information, but I wanted to put the conjecture out there.
  5. Oh no, it just crossed my mind to check for it - I'm sure it's a good document otherwise. Thanks again your posts are always appreciated.
  6. Thanks Mr. Kettler. Edit: After a quick scan, it seems very little attention has been paid (1 paragraph on page 31) to Russian non-strategic nuclear weapons and doctrine - from what I understand the scenarios in which they may be used differ from the West, and I was hoping this paper would deal with this issue as it is one area where a flawed understanding could lead to escalation.
  7. Greetings, another old UO (and before that TG(!)) member here. Give them all my best, I'll be back one day.
  8. If I understand correctly, he means that the infantry aren't prioritising their HE rockets when they have them against infantry. This might be a good idea, as if you knock out the infantry you have more left for armour. Is this with the 1.03 patch?
  9. After losing a few units due to cover arcs, I now often use extremely wide/deep ones - this allows you to set facing (on two tanks bounding for example) without leaving them vulnerable to surprise.
  10. The post was modified in 2014, so I don't know if they had (or ever had - my boxed copy of CMSF was published by Battlefront) a separate publisher then.
  11. IIRC, the activation system does not apply to the boxed copy of the game - if you buy a physical copy you can install and reinstall it. I read this earlier today on their helpdesk site and have linked it below, but you should confirm with them to be sure. http://battlefront.mojohelpdesk.com/help/article/127981
  12. There is laser-guided artillery and GPS guided artillery. For the former the UAV (or spotter) needs to have a designator and have LOS. I think a UAV may also need to be set to point target on the vehicle if it is the spotter. There are game manuals in the game folder somewhere and it is covered to some extent at least in there.
  13. Hello Bil, enjoying your mod, thanks. In the spirit of constructive criticism, I find it makes it a little harder to see when an icon is flashing to indicate casualties etc.
×
×
  • Create New...