Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'russia'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • CM2
    • Combat Mission - General Discussion
    • Combat Mission Final Blitzkrieg
    • Combat Mission Black Sea
    • Combat Mission Red Thunder
    • Combat Mission Fortress Italy
    • Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
    • Combat Mission Shock Force 1
    • Combat Mission Afghanistan
    • Combat Mission: Touch (iOS / Android)
    • Combat Mission 2 Archives
  • CM1
    • Combat Mission Campaigns
    • Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
    • Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
    • Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord
  • Repository Updates
  • Strategic Command
    • Strategic Command - World War 1: The Great War 1914-1918
    • Strategic Command - Assault on Communism
    • Strategic Command - Assault on Democracy
    • Strategic Command - GLOBAL CONFLICT
    • Strategic Command - PACIFIC THEATER
    • Strategic Command 2 Blitzkrieg and Weapons and Warfare
    • Strategic Command 1
    • StratCom Design Challenge
  • TacOps
    • TacOps 4
  • General Discussion Forum
    • General Discussion Forum
  • Opponent Finder Forums
  • Archives
    • CM Archives
    • T-72: Balkans on Fire!
    • Dan Verssen Games
    • Theatre of War
    • DropTeam
    • Assault Wave
    • Empires of Steel
    • PT Boats

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location:


Interests


Biography


Location


Interests


Occupation

Found 10 results

  1. Hello this is an AAR of my quick battle with @Oleksandr It's a Russia vs Ukraine medium size meeting engagement. I haven't played much Black Sea (I mostly play Final Blitzkrieg) and I went with what I figure would be a standard force. I have four platoons of mounted infantry, 5 T-90AMs, six mortars, a mounted grenade launcher platoon, and an igla platoon and a Tunguska for AA. I don't have a very advanced plan. Essentially move forward and see how the match develops from there. But I assume the major objective will be the main contest and the minor objectives won't be very contested. I send two platoons of infantry, the T-90AMs, and the grenade launchers to the center. I send a platoon of infantry on each flank, one to secure my minor objective, the other to contest his minor objective if possible. I dismount my platoon that is securing the minor objective since it is rather exposed, the BMP-3s will be first to the objective. Damn! I lose two BMP-3s at the same time and I don't even know what killed them, looks like tank rounds though. Good thing I dismounted. This doesn't change my plans but I do am now aware of how dangerous the area around the minor objective is. Going to move my infantry platoon in the forest next to the minor objective. I spotted a Tunguska while the rest of my units move forward uneventfully. Next post will be soon, either tomorrow or the day after.
  2. http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-leaked-audio-humiliating-defeat-by-us-forces-2018-2
  3. https://mwi.usma.edu/russian-ukrainian-war-understanding-dust-clouds-battlefield/ Nothing ground breaking,(or political, I believe). Still, useful for pointing out a possible Russian preference for sustained political pressure maintained by sustained military pressure. There could also be logistical/force sustainment considerations, but nothing Putin couldn't brush past if he so wished. When I started properly reading up in this nasty fight I'd initially wondered why Russia didn't go for a desert storm style strike. However it was described to me here and elsewhere, that choking an unfriendly regime, rather than can crushing it and dealing with a massed resistance, is better in many ways. Follow Up commentary: http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/blog/2017/01/21/an-additional-comment-on-the-link-between-operations-strategy-and-policy-in-russian-hybrid-warfare/
  4. Hey, I bought this game a couple of days ago and I really like it. The game has the best AI I've ever seen and the complexity vs simplicity is perfect, not too complicated but not too simple. Only thing I dislike is the shape of the "hexes". Are there any benefits of having squares instead of hexagons? Anyway, I'm playing the grand campaign 1938 (not sure of exact name) as axis, and so far it has gone pretty well. Countries I've conquered: Poland,France,Low Countries,Denmark,Yugoslavia,Greece,Egypt,Syria,Iraq,Iran,Sudan - All of which were conquered before the war with Russia. I'm fighting in Ethiopia with the Italians, and I have occupied about half of China with Japan. It is now April 1943 and USSR declared war on Germany in May 1942. So I've been fighting the Soviets for a year now and I was well prepared for the Soviet declaration of war, so I had alot of units stationed on the eastern front. I managed to gain the initiative from the start and began to push east. The problem however is that it is going extremely slow... In all other games I've played(Time of Fury, CeaW etc) I always managed to encircle the soviets, but in this game I find it next to impossible... Having squares instead of hexagons of course doesn't help(probably the reason why it's so hard)... I need 8 units to completely encircle one enemy unit and 8 units is almost an entire "Army Group" ... I'm getting alot of MPP's (about 400-600/turn), sometimes I have more than 100 left at the end of turn.. Here is current situation. It has been like this for maybe 5-6 turns now...(I also captured Baku with my forces in Iran, my goal is to drive towards Stalingrad and link up with my forces in Baku, then take care of Moscow and Leningrad): Surely after 1 year of fighting I should have atleast captured either Leningrad,Moscow or Stalingrad? I'm 100% sure my advance is waaay too slow.. So Basically what I wonder is: 1.What am I doing wrong? What do I need to do to increase the speed of my advance? 2.Should I try to encircle enemies and their cities or just grind my way through them? Encircling them doesn't seem to affect their supply very much and in the end they always seem to reestablish a connection somewhere... 3. Can I research something that lets me buy more inf. divisons for example? I really need more and faster units to be able to keep enemies encircled, but problem is I can't buy more units.. 4. Any other advice ? Thanks in advance!
  5. I am wondering if anyone else thinks the Russians are at a disadvantage. US vehicles seem to spot faster, react quicker and their APS systems seem to work nearly every time. Its getting to a point where I can always win when I play the US and always loose when I play as the Russians. It would be ok if the difference was close but Russian kit seems woefully inadequate. In nearly every respect the Russians seem disadvantaged, from infantry to armor. My experience with T90AM (APS) is bad. Their APS sucks compared to the US. I have played dozens of games where it just fails to even go off or be effective when it does, utter garbage... Also their armor seems bad compared to the Abrams. In my experience they are glass canons where the Abrams can soak up hit after hit! I'm tired of getting wrecked by US when I play Russia and I'm tired of wrecking the Russians when I'm playing as the US. It becomes very boring when one side has such a massive advantage over the other. Anyone else noticing this or is this the great un-spoken topic of the forum because I guess if everyone admitted to it no one would want to play the Russians... Has this always been like this or has V4 done this? It's starting to wreck this otherwise fine game for me.
  6. There I was reading Yahoo, when I came across this trenchant piece called "A Close Call in the Caucasus," which appears on The National Interest website. In brief, it says there was almost a war in Nagorno-Karabakh recently (early April) and that things could still easily go sideways. It seems to me this is an area ripe for CMBS Red on Red gameplay. This is super current, since the article is from April 22, 2016! I have no idea what either side has, this piece being but a target of opportunity I encountered. http://nationalinterest.org/feature/close-call-the-caucasus-15877 Regards, John Kettler
  7. BBC News recently ran an article following an interview with CINCUSAREUR LT GEN Hodges. He is concerned about Russia's ability, using interior lines, to rapidly deploy forces to Eastern Europe. Note well he's saying NATO needs to be able to do the same--on 3 days' notice. What's not said is how big that NATO force would be, but the time available to respond is eloquent on how small the dissuasion window is when it comes to countering a Russian buildup in preparation for an attack. In a March 7, 2016 DefenseNews interview, he had a lot to say about his plans, deficiencies and get-well program for his command. Finally, here is a July 15, 2016 interview he did with Jane's at Eurosatory 2016. In it, he describes a new US approach called Heel-to-Toe in which the current rotational model of leaving a Heavy Brigade equipment set in Europe and bringing in most of the personnel in a crisis will be replaced, come February, with a Heavy Brigade, equipped with all the newest gear and capabilities. Each such Brigade will be in-theater nine months and will seamlessly rotate back to the States, being replaced by another Heavy Brigade. This ensures a continuous deterrent presence. He also speaks of the recent Polish Exercise Anakonda, which saw some 31K NATO troops operating jointly and a 700-strong parachute drop by the French and British into Hohenfels, Germany. This is historic in that France has never done such a jump before with NATO. Regards, John Kettler
  8. In making one of my rare FB forays, I chanced upon a post I'd made detailing the remarkable, heart-warming, yet disturbing story of a group which finds and identifies the remains of a few of Russia's 4 million GPW MIAs, then passes word to their families for proper burial. Why disturbing? Read the BBC article! http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25589709 This is a related piece, and it contains video which might not be good to view while eating, by small children or maybe at work. BBC did a full doc called "Burying the Past," and I believe the video is an excerpt. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25495740 Regards, John Kettler
  9. If your browser's up to the task, you'll see a driver's view of the T-90 formation workup for the Victory Day Parade. If it isn't, you'll find yourself believing you're on some really potent drugs! Regards, John Kettler
  10. After encountering a new Foreign Policy article while reading Yahoo, I thought this would be of interest to the readers here, as well as those who'd love to see something done so CMBS weapons can be ported over to CMSF, allowing the rapidly expanding and already intense combat actions by Russia on behalf of Syria to be simulated. http://news.yahoo.com/helicopter-putin-weapon-choice-syria-110030372.html In order to survive in a heavy MANPADS environment, Russian attack helicopter pilots, operating what are/ have been made to appear to be Syrian Mi-24 HIND attack helos, are flying unprecedentedly low combat profiles. Profiles utterly unlike Cold War flight techniques. I've presented both for comparison. The tremendous level of flying skills on display in the first vid may be taken as the best level of performance a Russian combat unit can produce. Would say this is by no means typical, but with the latest strike aircraft in use in Syria, the Su-34 FULLBACK, it's obvious Putin's got his top forces in the fray. It's one thing to hedgehop over high tension lines while invading the Crimea but not under fire (video readily available online), but another matter altogether to come in ultra low and stay there with people shooting at you from all directions and disaster--via ground clobber--an eyeblink away! Notice these guys aren't executing one and done tactics, but are sticking around and working the target. Cold War https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAT-MEImJ9o New ultra low/extreme low level attack tactics are a big deal, in my estimation, as both a former Threat Analyst and student of modern warfare, and I believe this is how the Russians would fight in Ukraine as well. Indeed, in the sort of MANPADS threat they could expect there, I believe coming in on the deck or close to that would be an operational necessity, though quite fraught. By operating barely above ground or obstacle height, the Russians reduce Detection Probability and Detection Range for the defenders. In turn, this cuts into their reaction time, allowing the attackers to get much closer than was possible before commencing the attack run. The classic low run in, then popping well up, firing and remasking is dead, I believe. In game terms, it might be helpful to give players the ability to select the desired flight profile, thus allowing them to tailor risk levels for their "flying tanks." Regards, John Kettler
×