Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Aurelius

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 09/12/1992

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:
    Ruma, Serbia
  • Interests
    History, wargaming, criminal law, criminal procedure, criminology


  • Location
    Ruma, Serbia
  • Interests
    History, criminalistics&criminology
  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. It is a very bad spot for tribal militia. Other units don't have the ammo or the necessary training to cover their withdrawal and the unit itself has limited fighting capabilities. All I did was take into account that you might send someone there and I was very lucky in the ensuing duel. The sniper fired 6 shots before hitting his first mark and in total fired some 15 rounds to take out 4 of your guys. Max distance of the shots was 25 meters. Who should stop giving vodka to the troops - I don't know! πŸ˜„
  2. Excerpt from an active PBEM game. Tribal sniper named Nur, armed with an SVD destroys one crack paratrooper squad. Fourth confirmed kill, byproduct of confirmation shots
  3. I am sure I read recon platoon performing scouting mission. Nevertheless, thanks for clarification.
  4. @Bil Hardenberger You asked for an example of battlefield leadership style. That's easy to answer: Π—Π° ΠΌΠ½ΠΎΠΌ!/Follow me! It is really not my business commenting on the state of Russian NCO's, considering that I served in the Serbian Army. We too have faced similar issues with "modernization" and "professionalization". As far as the rules and games are concerned, I would like to point out that Russian and Ukrainian formations all have hand held radios, so that even a common rifle squad with no visual or audio contacts with it's HQ, has a radio link to it's HQ. That link is gone with Medium Electronic Warfare settings, but that setting has no influence on manpack radio sets, so plt HQ have connection to Company HQ and Company to Battalion. Strong Electronic Warfare settings are needed to sever the link. Playing the game with Nation specific rules with no EW settings makes those rules redundant. Nobody plays CM A, so it's a non-issue. Syrians are the only one affected, though you could cheese it by adding FO's to platoons. For Red Thunder, I would argue that Recon Company (three recon platoon) and Support Company (two recon platoons and one sapper platoon) should be exempt from any restrictions. Candidates for recon platoons and companies have above average mental and physical capabilities and due to nature of their missions (goes beyond simple scouting) I suggest that they be exempt from movement rules.
  5. @IanL Am aware of those rules and commend you both for codifying them. Been playing under similar rules for some time. The post was merely an allusion to how the system of fire is created and sustained under the "Russian way of war" and that company commanders don't really bother themselves with it. That and being thrown into the same place with Italians. That rustled my jimmies. πŸ˜„
  6. To complicate matters a little. I don't know whether the issue of fire control for Soviet and Soviet-like armies was mentioned here or in the other thread. It concerns the statement that company commanders decide in creation of fire systems, along with the platoon commander. That statement is not entirely true. To elaborate further. Creation of system of fire is a task for the squad leader. He is the one that says to the rifleman this is your main direction of fire, this is your supportive. He creates it in such a way that at least two riflemen are covering the same direction. He says to the machineguner this is your arc of fire. To the designated marksman he says this is your sector of fire (either a rectangle or sqaure). He assigns to the marksman an area of observation, usually to augment his own observation capacity. Furthermore, he also must know the basics of engineering, mostly minelaying. Squad leaders do this in realization of platoon leaders plan, who in turn is realizing company commanders plan and so on. Platoon leaders can make changes, of course, but in most cases it is not needed, the squad leader is usually far longer in the army and is experienced. Most commonly, platoon leaders will directly influence the placement of and fire arcs of support weapons that were given to them (think of AGS's and heavy machineguns and AT assets), and that is natural, they were given to him to augment his fighting capacities. As far as soldiers are concerned, most orders to fire will come from the squad leader. Platoon leaders can override the squad leaders, but it is not common. Again, this is in realization of common plan, a system of fire, whether it is in defensive actions, offensive actions or ambushes. This is not to say that squad leaders have complete autonomy, of course there are situations where you wait for a command to issue orders for fire, but there are situations where it is almost weapons free at any time. Those who have served know the value of sudden platoon sized fires and understand that what is written is not set in stone. As far as company commanders, they really have no concerns about individual fire systems. They are to busy coordinating three rifle platoons and a fourth support platoon, and along company nco, worry daily about unit sustainment. As far as unit movement and C2 is concerned, I have no real issues with what was said. Still, might be too rigid, but staying in C2 is far easier in modern titles. I realize this may be nitpicking on my part, but it was bugging me. This is all written from my experiences in Serbian army. It is a successor to the Yugoslav Peoples Army, influenced by wartime experiences in 90-ies and current developments in cooperation with NATO forces and Russian Army. Most of my handbooks had a red star on it. On the field, we were taught that the best way to assault a dug in position is (after a lenghtly fire preparations and move and fire manouvers) to storm it after an URA shout. Then it is standard procedure, split into threes (security, grenadier and rifleman to shoot those that continue fighting after the grenades go off) and cleanse it. I don't know if that makes me Red OpFor commander, or if it does whether the Soviet-like ones will accept me as their own. πŸ˜„
  7. Anyone interested to give this game a go, send me a pm.
  8. Yes, buildings are a great way to increase the survival rate of ATGM teams. It is exactly what I used and exactly how that one AT 4C team has 4 vehicle kills. That and move, pause, target, move again. Essential if you want your ATGM to survive. At speeds of 800 km/h (that means that it covers 2 km in 9 seconds!), the Kornet is just too good to be left out. Instead, it should be used in tandem with AT 4C or Metis variants, if the distances allow it. That way you have a force that can engage any Blue Force armored unit and actually do something. The mobility of Kornet is not really an issue. If you have several firing positions for it and a little patience, even one Kornet can render an M1 platoon useless. After it fires its first missile, the team can move on Quick orders. Set up time is small price to pay for an 800 km/h missile that can knock out Blue Force tanks and then, because there is no packing up time, it can vanish, and pop up somewhere else.
  9. I am of the opinion that AT 4C is superior to both AT 7 i AT 13, simply because it has greater range. All of the missile move at approximately same speed ~600 km/h (~372 mph). All of them can reliably kill APC's/IFV's/ICV's, but AT 4C is not capped to 1.500 meters like AT 13 or 1.000 meters like AT 7. Even though both Metis variants can be fired semi-deployed, they are, at least for me, unreliable in that mode. Half of the time missile ends up in the ground ~100 meters away from launcher or it goes of course, in an unknown direction. Indeed it is. I can confirm that both from the in game experience and real life experience and training. During the engagements that are at least 1 km in distance, your troops have approximately 20 seconds of invulnerability. After 20 seconds, everything from .50 cal, through 25 mm to 120 mm HEAT shells start flying towards the position. Two and half minutes in= you're at risk from PGM's. Four minutes in= 155 mm shells will obliterate your firing point. But, in those 20 seconds any operator for AT 4, AT 7, AT 13 and AT 14 can launch a missile, guide it, destroy the target and start retreating. Testing the scenario against the AI, I have regularly destroyed M1A1's without a loss of life for my operators (with Kornets, was testing a concept) at ranges around 1 km. You simply find a position, wait for set up time, give a 20 seconds pause, a target and move order. Pretty soon you will have teams with at least two kills, with 0 or 1 casualty. 90% of the launches will be successful (missile hits the target). Your crews will be tired, but its better to be tired, than dead. With that I developed a concept in which Kornets should be used to destroy tanks and AT 4C's for other vehicles. It works pretty good. As for ATGM Strykers, from what I understand, they are a support asset and should be used as such. Mainly, to augment the firepower of the main axis of attack or to augment the firepower of the main resistance point in defense. To increase their survival chances, they too should be moved often. Coincidentally, the game counts them as tanks when you destroy them.
  10. Hello all and welcome to my first public AAR of CM games. As such, it won't feature complex analyses and orders, like we've all come to expect reading the AAR's on these forums. Firstly, I have personally vowed, after demobilization, that I will never write another standard order (applied for and served as part of ROTC for the Serbian Army in 2017, Infantry 2nd Lt) and, secondly, the idea for the AAR came late in the game, after heroics of certain units. As far as the scenarios goes, I made some modifications. Namely, instead of company of T 62 MV's, there were 6 T 72 M1's ( it is my personal preference, as it is closest to M 84A tank in service in Serbian Army). Soft factors for militia company were increased. Skill level was increased for anti tank platoon. BRDM's with ATGM's were eliminated fully. TRP's were added (still a 9 minute calling time for D30 howitzers). MANPADS were added . Nothing was changed for the US Army. I would like to give thanks and credit to the original creator of the scenario and to whomever edited it for Shock Force 2. Now for the main part. I was given the objective to hold at all cost the aforementioned factory outlet. For this task, I was given a militia company, two platoons of Special Forces, antitank platoon consisting of 2 AT 4 C's and 2 SPG 9's and 6 T 72 M1's. In support, I had a battery of D30 howitzers. Opposing me was a Stryker company (two platoons of infantry in ICV's, platoon of MGS and platoon of ATGM Stryker), reinforced by 3 M1 Abrams tanks and a platoon of engineers in Bradleys. They also had a lot of off map support, including two Apache helicopters. As you can see, the question was how badly was I gonna lose. πŸ˜„ So here it is: Now, you may ask: Aurelius, why are you posting an AAR about your defeat?!? Why isn't SlySniper posting about his hard won battle?!? My answer is: because of these guys I knew I had no chance to win. I knew my AT platoon couldn't do anything to Sly's tanks. So I devised a plan, a scheme of slowing down his advance and making him think twice about approaching the factory proper. Firstly, I had to destroy the Bradleys, cause they could wipe out all my fighting positions and easily interdict movement of my units through buildings with their 25 mm auto cannons. That would also mean that his engineers have to walk everywhere (the map is very elongated and there is a lot of ground to cover). Secondly, to take out any specialized Stryker (an FO vehicle, command vehicle). If any Stryker loaded with troops presented itself- to burn it and everyone inside. I managed to destroy all of the Bradleys, destroy an FO vehicle and burn two Strykers which I suspect were carrying troops. I achieved this by utilising mobility of my troops (only the SPG 9 was left in place, because it is too slow to pack up and decision was made to sacrifice it). I would crawl them to the roof, wait a turn, give an order to fire and retreat them by use of the pause command. As for my T 72's, this is how they ended up: The only excuse I can offer: I wasn't thinking how their placement in editor was exposed to the possible avenue of approach of my opponent. πŸ˜„ But, there is a bright spot. This guy destroyed a vehicle, killed a guy with a Javelin and was a general nuisance to Sly's plan: During the course of the battle, Sly tried to approach/probe my positions. This was the aftermath of any such excursion: To my surprise, I even managed to surprise him with a howitzer barrage. Waited 13 minutes for the call up time and additional 2 minutes for spotting and got this: There were more casualties, but it is a tedious process to document all of those. Both Apache's were shut down immediately on the first turn, giving me some breathing space. I hope you will enjoy this quick recap of what happened and I would like to give thanks to @slysniper for a fun and challenging battle.
  11. They are same, you can knock them out with 7,62x54R from the sides and the rear. Only BMP's and BRM's offer all around 7.62x54R protection, although if you get behind a BMP 3 with PKM, you are going to enjoy some fireworks.
  12. @Chibot Mk IX Did something similar with a PKM and an MTLB.
  13. Could be organisational, maybe you are going through so many levels horizontally, vertically and diagonally of the chain of command that it simply doesn't work. Sometimes highest HQ's of different formations on map "wont speak" to each other.
  14. To elaborate further: Some years ago, inspired by that C2 & Information sharing post, I did some tests in Battle for Normandy and it mainly concerns vehicle spotting . I made a small map in editor, put some German forces in a forest (Pak40 and some MG's and also one infantry squad), put an American scout team in another forest to observe the Germans. One Sherman tank was placed on the map and I made sure that there was no way for it to observe the Germans or the scout team. I also made sure that there was no radio contact between the tank and the scouts. With that set up I tested the spotting times and it was pretty conclusive. When the scout spotted German positions, I ran him to the tank, waited until the info was passed (waited a full turn). Then I moved the tank forward so it can have LoS on the forest occupied by Germans. When they were unbuttoned/opened up, they spotted almost instantly (less than 2 seconds). When they were buttoned up, they spotted in less than 5 seconds. I also did some tests with no info sharing, unbuttoned came to about 10 seconds for the spot and I was under the impression that the crew tac-ai prioritized spotting AT positions. Buttoned up was above 10 seconds and I didn't really test it that much, cause I felt like I was just asking for someone to come and burn my tank. So this was my conclusion: Unbuttoned with previous knowledge>buttoned with previous knowledge>unbuttoned with no previous knowledge>buttoned with no previous knowledge. So guys, make sure your AFV's have the information, unless you want them to end up like 131st Separate Motor Rifle Brigade in Grozny.
  • Create New...