Jump to content

db_zero

Members
  • Content count

    1,071
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About db_zero

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. db_zero

    Who's winning the tank war?

    Is that a good thing or a bad thing or both? Networking capability is a great thing when it works, but it also adds a new vector of vulnerability. Hack or degrade it and you're back to the "stone age". Sure there is the old school way, but if you trade numbers for advanced tech and don't practice the old tech ways enough and you get degraded you're hosed. The question becomes do you have the money and resources to concentrate on both or just one at the expense of the other? As an example, before all the fancy tech of today cashiers used to be able to count change. Today the fancy networked cash machines at a store does all the work. If they go down sales stop as the operators stand around not knowing what to do, nor do the managers.
  2. db_zero

    How accurate *is* CMBS?

    You're right about that. I should not have put that in.
  3. db_zero

    How accurate *is* CMBS?

    What you are referring to is the way it was 74 years ago! By 1944 the allieds had a massive army already deployed and had sorted out numerous logistical and organizational kinks. We no longer have a large standing army in Europe and Western European countries don’t have the same military posture they did in the 80’s. You have to fight with what you have deployed and then reinforcements will then have to move and be deployed a very time intensive process. Look how long it took to build up from Desert Shield to Desert Storm-and the Kindom of Saudi Arabia was very well suited to be reinforced quickly as during the 70’s there was a massive infrastructure buildup in the Kingdom-New and modern airfields designed for military operations, highways, ports enlarged and equipped to offload heavy equipment and a Command and Control Center at KKMC. I know-I was there when this buildup took place in the 70’s. The US also had a much larger Army, Navy and combat air force and had forces still in place in Europe where they could easily deploy. Today the picture is much different. Our infrastructure is much different and heavely dependent on the high speed digital nervous system. The military and its dependency on digital technology has grown by leaps and bounds. Thats about all I have to say on this.
  4. db_zero

    How accurate *is* CMBS?

    There are very knowledgeable people who believe the Russians can overwhelm the Baltic States in 60 hours and there is little the West can do. Just do a search and decide for yourself. I agree with it on most parts that the Russians would have a good probability of over running the Baltic states should they choose to do so. I don’t think they have any intentions at the moment and don’t plan to do so in the future. As for cyberwarfare it’s quite capable of destroying things. Don’t kid yourself. Just ask the Iranians. Even if it doesn’t completely destroy things it could easily require a restore from backups and archives. Aside from the chaos and confusion it causes it forces you to take countermeasures which not only take resources it also can cause delays and serious disruptions. You can also track down and know the location of key individuals by their electronic footprint. That can be used to ones advantage. Just about everyone has a smartphone these days. It’s been sold as a way to have a window on the world. It’s also a window for others to keep tabs on you. I have no doubt the Russians-and others are collecting data on US and NATO military and other key personnel and have built a database to keep tabs on there whereabouts. We probably do the same too
  5. db_zero

    How accurate *is* CMBS?

    Those 4000 Abhrams tanks are spread out and no way they could be concentrated at the point of attack in a timely manner. What matters is what you would have at the point of attack when you need it. The US would have to marshal those heavy forces and then ship them to ports in Europe and then reassemble them. For Russia reinforcing an initial assault with follow up forces is a simpler process. The Russians hold regular snap drills with sizable forces. As for cyber attacks the Russians wouldn’t have to target the USA. They could concentrate on selected targets in Europe. Crippling the infrastructure especially anything related to what would be needed to reinforce the NATO forces would suffice. There are a lot of other things they could do. The US Forces deployed to counter Russia are formitable but probably more of a deterrent in the sense that it would make Russia realize it would be starting a war with NATO and the US. I really don’t think it’s expected to stop a determined Russian assault. Another thing to keep in mind is if we get into a war elsewhere say Korea then we would really be hard pressed to halt a Russian advance should they choose to take advantage of the situation
  6. db_zero

    How accurate *is* CMBS?

    Any future war with Russia will be unlike anything we've seen IMO. Expect very heavy cyber warfare. The Russians know Western forces are highly dependent on agility and maneuver and crippling the networks as well as the command and control structures that direct and control the actual combat units is going to be a top priority. The Russians have already demonstrated a very advanced capability to use cyber warfare in support of their military and political goals. Recognizing this the US is making moves to counter this. Recently a top US Marine officer was actually visiting units and asking for volunteers who knew how to hack systems. He was offering signing bonuses to qualified recruits. The US Military is competing with private industry to attract qualified people. Even private industry cannot find enough cyber security personnel to fill existing positions that pay six figures. Its getting to the point where cyber warfare is going to start filtering down to the platoon level. Most of the battles in CMBS are relatively balanced which it has to be for play-ability purposes. In real life I find it hard to believe it will be so balanced. The Russians can bring far more forces to bear in a much shorter time against the small number of US Army forces actually deployed near the Russian border. They would also use a massive amount of indirect fire against US/allied forces. I don't know how fun it would be to constantly play battles with heavily outnumbered US/Allied forces that faced massive amounts of indirect fire being rained down upon them. Much of the US doctrine is the use of air power to be able to rain down precision guided munitions to help redress the numerical imbalance on the ground. This is where the cyber warfare/SIGINT comes in. Jam or degrade the communication network and you seriously degrade the effectiveness of airpower. Also the Russians have always been a leader in ground based surface to air technology. They don't have to completely stop US/Allied airpower-just degrading and attrition would probably be enough. The Russian air force too should not be discounted. Their 4th generation aircraft may not be as advanced as the latest US stealth aircraft, but they are good enough and there are a lot more of them. The older US and western aircraft while still capable are going to have their hands full. Aircraft like the A-10 which is highly popular and useful in the Mideast where it is a highly permissive environment is going to be in a much different environment in a battle near the Russian border.
  7. I just gt a new SSD drive so reinstalled all my Combat Missions. I had PBEM games in RT and BS so I had to upgrade back to ver 4.0 as that what we started the games on. After reading all the comments on Fortress Italy I'm just going to stay on Ver 3.0 for CMFI\Gustav Line I'm now on ver 1.0 for CMFB. Does ver 4.0 on FB have the same behavior that is causing a lot of comments in Italy? Mainly infantry fleeing to easily and running back and forth?
  8. I just gt a new SSD drive so reinstalled all my Combat Missions. I had PBEM games in RT and BS so I had to upgrade back to ver 4.0 as that what we started the games on. After reading all the comments on Fortress Italy I'm just going to stay on Ver 3.0 for CMFI\Gustav Line I'm now on ver 3.0 for CMBN and have all the add ons. Does ver 4.0 on CM Normandy have the same behavior that is causing a lot of comments in Italy? Mainly infantry fleeing to easily and running back and forth?
  9. I have seen some odd behavior in my 4.0 Campaign game like German troops running down the hill slope, being shot at. Retreating and then running down the slope again only to be shot at, retreat back up, then come back down. This is continuous behavior and seems to only stop then they get shot
  10. Perhaps the fleeing is somewhat realistic? I reading a book and around Villers Bocage a British platoon fled and was forced back into position at "gunpoint" only to flee again. It was pretty much accepted that many Allied generals would lose about a divisions worth of men before they finally began to catch on to the art of waging war and many never really did. Under those circumstances the largely conscripted armies of the day probably did melt away more than we think. They had been in combat for extended periods of time and there is simply so much one can take. Even in elite German SS units I'm reading form the same book "The Guns at Last Light" German commanders resorted to things like tossing live grenades at reluctant troops to get them to move forward and fight
  11. I started the American Campaign Road to Troina with 4.0 and notice the fleeing behavior. So far i don't see it as being completely unplayable but definitely different. I've had whole platoons flee from fire and then used my leaders to rally them. One thing I seem to notice in all of my 4.0 games vs AI so far is the AI artillery is awfully accurate and deadly. The FO's and officers who call down artillery fire are certainly crack. This is not just Italy. One other thing I've noticed and this has already been mentioned in the Black Sea section is the Bradley drivers are very touchy about being painted by lasers and retreat even of ordered to fast advance to a position that is covered from direct fire
  12. db_zero

    The next war in Europe

    If at first you don't succeed... Guess to some the Stryker is the military's version of the Ford Pinto.
  13. db_zero

    Updating Shock Force

    I just reinstalled the entire Shock Force Marines, British and NATO. Restarted the TF Thunder again. What a contrast beating up on T-55s and RPG armed infantry from wide open spaces. It sounds like there will be an update to bring it up to Black Sea standards? Hopefully 4.0 and out by next week ? Since I now have SSD drives and more ram and a I7 processor I'll probably be able to try out some of the huge maps..
  14. db_zero

    Stryker - Pros and Cons

    From what I understand one of the biggest features of the Stryker is under the hood. It takes advantage of the revolution in advanced microchip, display, interface and networking technology. Like warships many look at a US Navy warship and compare it with a Russian one bristling with guns and missiles and comes to the conclusion that the Russians seriously outmatch us. Nothing can be further from the truth. The Javelin is also another example of a system that is a product of the revolution in advanced microchip tech. I would also venture to guess that the US Army and Marines while desiring new or improved weapon systems are placing as great a need for small, mid and large unit cyberware specialists who are adept at offensive and defensive cyber warfare and capable of deploying in combat and support units. Like the private sector the demand for such personnel is tremendous and growing. The recent ransomeware attacks and theft of sophisticated hacking tools from the intelligence agencies is making this a high priority everywhere... Re-Independent tank battalions: Almost sounds somewhat similar to the independent tank destroyer concept in WW2, then again there were lots independent tank battalions and some if not all US armored divisions were divided up into separate combat commands-CCA/CCB/CCC or something like that. I haven't kept up with things lately so I don't know if the Army still uses a divisional or brigade type org. I think the Marines use the regimental system? A few independent battalions at the NTC is an interesting concept. I would also have them rotated to Europe a year or 2 at a time as that's presumably where they would end up be needed. I also believe that the Europeans need to step up to the plate and provide a few independent armored units if they are going to be serious about defending NATO. Perhaps some creativity can be utilized. Perhaps the West can train some specialized tank hunter infantry units and arm them with Javelins or similar weapons to supplement AT capabilities. Of course the best approach would be diplomacy. Come to some sort of mutual understanding and agreement. The last thing anyone wants is a real hot war between the West and Russia, but at the same time you do need a credible deterrence to back diplomacy up.
×