Ukraine > NATO vs. Russia

[JonS]

Steve, can we all quote you on this when the BF.C Hegemony seeks to expand its (evil) corporate influence into every facet of life in 2050?

Sure you can, but I doubt his Space Lobster henchmen will find it amusing.

On the other hand, I do hear they love a good chowder. Unfortunately, it's not seafood chowder.

[Sequoia]

When I have enough spare time for reading... it's off to Sci-Fi I go. So yeah, if I had a magic wand I would create another development team and we would all be kicking some Space Lobster butts by next summer. But said magic wand has not fallen into my possession, therefore I don't see it happening any time soon.

Steve

Well I'm sure you're familiar with Kickstarter. Care to elaborate on why it wouldn't work for Battlefront?

BTW though I've heard lots of people think Avatar was preachy I think any point Cameron was trying to make was secondary to appealing to as wide an audience as possible with a simple plot.

[Battlefront.com]

Wow dude that makes three of us. Avatar struck me as a fairly common type of boilerplate American propaganda, The old "I'm working for the evil corporate machine now but my heart is pure and by the 3rd act I'll be the good guy" story.

Yup. Unfortunately there's only a few plots to choose from (11 IIRC) and evil corporations are definitely a favorite target. Unfortunately only for Hollywood directors, not of government leaders.

Though of course this was an anti-military movie because it had no military in it.

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

I'm saving up for Battlefront's IPO.

[John Kettler]

dpabrams,

Aside from Spetsnaz (GRU), Osnaz (KGB) and some Airborne units to seize the Palace, airports and other key points, such as the vital Salang Tunnel, the Russians invaded Afghanistan with their lowest readiness and poorest equipped Category C divisions, Muslim units from the nearby Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan Miltary Districts. This was done to obtain surprise, and it was very successful, but the downside was huge. The Russians made not one, but a whole series of disastrous mistakes, including a fundamental misread of the applicability of their style of warfare to the situation.

Vanir Ausf B,

The difference is that the Russians had thousands and thousands of T-64/T-72/T-80, whereas the Germans had but a handful of Tigers and Panthers by comparison. I left out that by static firing Russian HEAT rounds, as opposed to dynamically firing them, we understated their performance by as much as 40%! As for the unfortunate state of the Marine tank park, that comes from a sensitive intel type contact. It's not that the Marines don't want to operate M1s, just that there aren't any to be had presently, in my understanding. The Army, you see, has first priority on receiving repaired and reconditioned tanks (effectively brand new tanks with radically improved capabilities, to include digital vetronics). As always, the Marines remain the poor relative who gets handouts.

Regards,

John Kettler

[LongLeftFlank]

Wow dude that makes three of us. Avatar struck me as a fairly common type of boilerplate American propaganda, The old "I'm working for the evil corporate machine now but my heart is pure and by the 3rd act I'll be the good guy" story. I guess the intent is to assure those currently working for the 'evil corproate machine' that they're not really bad people, they just haven't got to their 'third act' yet.

Agreed. Self-hatred and idealization of other cultures, particularly "primitive" ones, has been a unique and recurring characteristic of Western civilization for going on 3000 years.

No, really, read Herodotus. It's all the same laments: Alas! how corrupt and petty our religious rites and civil life are here in Greece. Consider instead how much more wise, morally pure, attuned to nature and "sustainable" they are in (choose one): Egypt / Persia / Hyperborea / Aethiopia.

This self-critical instinct, however annoying, childish and self-centered it may seem at times, derives from the same healthy vive la difference individualism that has allowed the West repeatedly to evolve beyond status-quo-perpetuating "institutions" like the Inquisition, the Divine Right of Kings, slavery and Stalinism. Often at bitter cost.

Contrast pretty much all other human civilizations where it's Good to Be Da King and everybody else pretty much arrays themselves in terms of their relationship to the god-ruler. Until barbarians invade or the climate changes, or both, then everyone is pretty much screwed until the next God King overcomes the other warlords and ascends to the throne of Heaven.

[Battlefront.com]

Steve, can we all quote you on this when the BF.C Hegemony seeks to expand its (evil) corporate influence into every facet of life in 2050?

Yup! Though I personally think we'll deserve it because we'll be the only reason why the Buggers don't wipe us all out. I can't wait for our kickass space station to get launched (though I personally wouldn't have a bunch of naked kids housed in it).

Well I'm sure you're familiar with Kickstarter. Care to elaborate on why it wouldn't work for Battlefront?

Familiar and it's never something I'd rule out. But we have so much going on now it's not in the immediate future.

BTW though I've heard lots of people think Avatar was preachy I think any point Cameron was trying to make was secondary to appealing to as wide an audience as possible with a simple plot.

So you're saying he's a greedy Capitalist making money off of diss'n his fellow greedy Capitalists? What are you smoking? Just look at his other films, like Titanic! You're telling me that movie was a steaming pile of pandering poo that should never have been made, not to mention being one of the biggest box office takes in history? Wait... I think you might have a point.

Steve

(never seen Titanic, never, ever, ever will)

[Battlefront.com]

Agreed. Self-hatred and idealization of other cultures, particularly "primitive" ones, has been a unique and recurring characteristic of Western civilization for going on 3000 years.

Just saw Woody Allen's "Midnight in Paris" two nights ago. That was the basic theme in the movie as well. To the characters the time they were living in was crap, the time before was the Golden Age. When one character goes back in time to his/her concept of Golden Age, he/she finds someone there they relate to saying the want to go further back in time to their concept of Golden Age.

There's some pretty serious study of this psychological aspect of our gray goo. It's a standard part of Humanity. Witness all the Russians who say it was better under Communism. Hell, some say it was better under Stalin. If that doesn't prove the point...

Steve

[c3k]

And do we all know why Steve will never, ever, ever see "Titanic"? That's right: because he's "the king of the world!!!"

(Shh. This is when we find out that he secretly watched it one night, instead of making more game code. )

Ken

Edited: Gasp. Upon reading that, it sounds like pandering drivel. It's meant to poke fun at the man. Er, "da man". Crap. Now I'll be labelled a fanboi. Sigh.

[Battlefront.com]

It took me a while to warm up to Leonardo because of that movie. I associated him with that movie too much. I'm very happy to see I was wrong about him. Shutter Island was kick ass. Inception was a bit silly at times, but a good watch.

Steve

[LongLeftFlank]

He played a really good Howard Hughes too IMHO although "The Aviator" was an uneven film in other respects. I suppose diCaprio's own career is "outlier" enough (huge success very young) he could relate to HH.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Vanir Ausf B,

The difference is that the Russians had thousands and thousands of T-64/T-72/T-80, whereas the Germans had but a handful of Tigers and Panthers by comparison. I left out that by static firing Russian HEAT rounds, as opposed to dynamically firing them, we understated their performance by as much as 40%! As for the unfortunate state of the Marine tank park, that comes from a sensitive intel type contact. It's not that the Marines don't want to operate M1s, just that there aren't any to be had presently, in my understanding. The Army, you see, has first priority on receiving repaired and reconditioned tanks (effectively brand new tanks with radically improved capabilities, to include digital vetronics). As always, the Marines remain the poor relative who gets handouts.

Actually by mid-1944 the Panther was numerically the most common German tank, but never mind that. The Soviets still had thousands of T-55s and T-62s in service. And the Soviet air force was no match for NATO. And the Soviet army was a conscript force with less training and motivation. WW3 in Europe would certainly have been a disaster for all involved, but the idea that the Soviets stood head and shoulders above NATO and would have just steamrolled through is fantasy.

As for USMC armor, AFAIK no USMC armored force has even deployed to a combat zone since the end of the Iraq war with the exception of one company from 1st Tank Battalion, 1st Division that went to Afghanistan last year. And yes, they deployed in M1A1s. So I don't know why all the other USMC M1s would be destroyed or out of service. Sounds like Reptiloid propaganda to me.

[MikeyD]

If you are referring to Afghanistan I would challenge you to cite even one instance of a NATO force larger than a squad being defeated in battle.

I was referring to the Cino-Vietnamese war of 1984.

Talk about Vietnam, there's a famous story (that I'm about to butcher) about a Pentagon analyist meeting his Vietnamese counterpart during some symposium. They fell in to talking about the recently completed war in Vietnam war when the increasingly agitated U.S. analyist said rather heatedly "The U.S. never lost a battle!" to which his counterpart said "Ah, but that is beside the point."

Or words to that effect.

[LongLeftFlank]

Steve, can we all quote you on this when the BF.C Hegemony seeks to expand its (evil) corporate influence into every facet of life in 2050?

And I, for one, will welcome the (evil) corporate hegemony of our BFC overlords! (Prior to this year I might have appended a wisecrack about said hegemony actually occurring in 2065. But I'm sucking up now because I want the cabin on the yacht next to Cherlize).

[Sequoia]

I think the official Battlefront Yacht companion is Alizée.

[Michael Emrys]

If this movie was a commentary on anything it was about what happens when corporations are more powerful than government. This is a common theme in almost all Sci-Fi and there's good reason for it. We're already well down that road already and any sane person should be very concerned about that. The current economic disaster we've been suffering through for 5 years certainly wasn't caused by Communists, was it.

Amen, brother, amen. For 30 years now I've been saying that the present situation reminds me more and more of the Middle Ages when small principalities ruled Europe and warred on each other. Or closer to the present, Renaissance Italy of the Borgias and Medicis.

Michael

[JonS]

Talk about Vietnam, there's a famous story (that I'm about to butcher) about a Pentagon analyist meeting his Vietnamese counterpart during some symposium. They fell in to talking about the recently completed war in Vietnam war when the increasingly agitated U.S. analyist said rather heatedly "The U.S. never lost a battle!" to which his counterpart said "Ah, but that is beside the point." Or words to that effect.

"You know you never defeated us on the battlefield," said the American colonel.

The North Vietnamese colonel pondered this remark a moment. "That may be so," he replied, "but it is also irrelevant."

Conversation on 25 April 1975 in Hanoi between Colonel Harry G. Summers, Jr., then Chief, Negotiations Division, U.S. Delegation, Four Party Joint Military Team and Colonel Tu, Chief, North Vietnamese (DRV) Delegation.

quoted from this (page 1)

[John Kettler]

Vanir Ausf B,

That's what I get for making a hasty reply! Since you invoked Tigers and Panthers earlier, I responded to that. But lets compare the respective tank forces, shall we?

In 1985, the total Warsaw Pact (which from phrasing includes the Russians) tank strength was 51,500, this per The Hansard,

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1989/jul/13/soviet-tank-production

Lord Orr-Ewing My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in two recent BBC broadcasts and in an ITN broadcast as recently as last Friday publicity was given to the fact that the Soviets had reduced a few old Russian tanks to scrap and no publicity has been given to the fact that that leaves 51,000 tanks in their hands? Is it not strange that Gorbachev, who has talked of peace for four years, has taken no action to reduce the most offensive weapon in the Russian tank armoury?

Lord Trefgarne My Lords, my noble friend is quite right to point out that the Warsaw Pact tank fleet numbers something like 51,500, while the NATO tank fleet numbers approximately 16,400. Clearly the recent reductions in the Soviet and Warsaw Pact tank fleet to which he referred are but a fleabite compared with the whole fleet.

Similarly, page 324 of this CIA formerly SECRET/NOFORN/NOCONTRACT analysis

[PDF]

The Direction of Change

https://www.cia.gov/...of...soviet.../NIC90-10002.pdf

shows that by 1985, the Russians, at least, had some 16,000 of their higher end tanks (T-64/T-72/T-80) tanks in service, supplemented by around 17,000 lower end tanks (T-55/T-62). Who had what in the Warsaw Pact countries was a function of political reliability and intended military function in time of war. Recall Suvorov's demonstration of how the Russian and Warsaw Pact forces slotted together to form the Western TVD, or Theater of War.

By contrast, 2300+ vanilla 105 mm armed M1s were manufactured by the time production ceased in 1985, before production switched to the 120mm smoothbore equipped M1A1.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/direct.htm

That's nearly 8:1 superiority in their good tanks vs. the U.S. good tanks--without counting the Warsaw Pact countries, such as Czechoslovakia and Poland, armed with T-72s. Worse, the T-55 for sure and probably the T-62 underwent major ammunition and fire control upgrades in this same period, making them even more capable competition. and remember, until the M1A1HA arrives, even a PT-76 is a deadly threat to our best tank. The rest of it consists of M60A2/M60A3, both highly vulnerable to the PT-76 up.

Beginning to understand the scope of the problem?

Turning now to the Germans, Achtung Panzer credits them with 9148 Panzers in June 1944. http://www.achtungpanzer.com/divis.htm If we take your figure of the Panther fraction, 4574 of these are Panthers, and the rest are mostly Pz IVs, with a smattering of Tiger tanks, whose entire combined production was under 2000.

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzer-statistics.htm#ga

So, the situation here is radically different than in World War II. There are more hard hitting tanks, both relatively and absolutely, than the Germans ever dreamed of possessing and were being cranked out, per The Hansard, at 3500 tanks per month.

Hope this clears things up!

Regards,

John Kettler

[JonS]

It seems a shame the British, Germans, and French apparently didn't produce any tanks to try and reduce that deficit a bit. It's also a shame that apparently only half the total production of M1 Abrams would have been available to face the onslaught of 33,000 (or was it 51,500?*) Soviet tanks while the other half of the production run - and all the other US tanks sat things out.

I guess they had better things to do - maybe a ballgame?

Jon

* And, let it be known, British political debates are certainly the best possible source for production numbers of Soviet tanks.

[Battlefront.com]

I remember seeing some analysts in the 1980s deflating the "Tank Gap" notion that the defense industry and hawks were talking about as often as they could. The analysts walked through the likely scenario of how many Warsaw Pact tanks were serviceable vs. existing, how many could be expected to be employed and supported (logistics for tanks are a bitch!), how many would actually make it into a battle, the number which would be wiped out upon initial contact, the death toll from the NATO air forces (in particular attack helicopters, which were only then starting to gain a big edge), then what would be left to hit the primary armored forces if NATO.

The ratio was almost 1:1

Then they took into consideration the qualitative superiority and continued air superiority. This has what we all know about from CM... rapid change in battlefield dynamics due to statistical curves. 1:1 today, 2:1 tomorrow, 4:1 next day, etc.

Their conclusion was if there was a tank gap, the Warsaw Pact/Soviets were the ones on the wrong side of the gap. Or put another way, the Tank Gap was a bit of propaganda to scare the West into staying vigilant (the best face to put on it) or to spend lots more tax money. Either way, the end result was to spend a lot more tax money.

After the Cold War ended, making 1984 CIA reports fun bits of history instead of relevant information, the West found out that even their most optimistic assessments of a possible war were WAY off the mark in favor of NATO. I wish I could remember the quote, but when interviewed some big ex-Soviet general said something along the lines of "we were so badly prepared for war we always why you didn't just attack us".

Steve

[MikeyD]

Similarly, I was recently rereading Hans Delbruck's "Warfare in Antiquity". In it he has an entire book dedicated to Caesar, and in that book he spends much of his time systematically dismantling Caesar's estimates of the vertiable hoards of barbarians he claimed to have conquered. Population densities, agricultural capabilities, the needs of feeding and equipping armies, and even the lengths of baggage trains were calculated. Oftentimes he reduced Caesar's 'barbarian hoard' estimates by a factor of ten. Oftentimes he concluded that Caesar's victories 'against great odds' were in fact victories against a very much less numerous and less capable foe that Caesar's own professional legions. I guess even two thousand years ago these was a domestic political need to concoct 'barbarian hoards' to be victorious against.

[TrailApe]

Getting back to the space going smerfs.

I didn't go to see it, but my 16 year old lad went to see it, and was not impressed. He recounted the plot to me and I thought - hang on, that's the plot of 'Midworld' by Alan Dean Foster (1975).

If anybody likes science fiction its worth a read.

I'll not spoil it, but the actions of the 'hero' indigenent is nothing noble, it's just because he wants to show off to a girl in their tribe, so it's a much more plausible scenarion than the 'noble savage' which is so beloved of our film industry (as in Dances With Aliens ). Although at the bottom of it, the resources of environment is the driver for both opposing parties.

[sburke]

I remember seeing some analysts in the 1980s deflating the "Tank Gap" notion that the defense industry and hawks were talking about as often as they could. The analysts walked through the likely scenario of how many Warsaw Pact tanks were serviceable vs. existing, how many could be expected to be employed and supported (logistics for tanks are a bitch!), how many would actually make it into a battle, the number which would be wiped out upon initial contact, the death toll from the NATO air forces (in particular attack helicopters, which were only then starting to gain a big edge), then what would be left to hit the primary armored forces if NATO.

The ratio was almost 1:1

Then they took into consideration the qualitative superiority and continued air superiority. This has what we all know about from CM... rapid change in battlefield dynamics due to statistical curves. 1:1 today, 2:1 tomorrow, 4:1 next day, etc.

Their conclusion was if there was a tank gap, the Warsaw Pact/Soviets were the ones on the wrong side of the gap. Or put another way, the Tank Gap was a bit of propaganda to scare the West into staying vigilant (the best face to put on it) or to spend lots more tax money. Either way, the end result was to spend a lot more tax money.

After the Cold War ended, making 1984 CIA reports fun bits of history instead of relevant information, the West found out that even their most optimistic assessments of a possible war were WAY off the mark in favor of NATO. I wish I could remember the quote, but when interviewed some big ex-Soviet general said something along the lines of "we were so badly prepared for war we always why you didn't just attack us".

Steve

Is that why you guys seem to be completely uninterested in a 1970/80s version of Cmx2 or would that be a mis characterization of your level of interest?

As to Avatar I am just tired of a very stale plot where the colonial aggressor hero changes sides and has to lead the barbarian indigenous people to victory because they can't seem to get their act together. They are proud, honourable etc etc etc they just need a better leader who understands their opponent better. It is one of the reasons I like CJ Cherryh's work. Meetings between different cultures/species (Foreigner series, Downbelow Station etc although her Faded Sun Trilogy wasn't too far off that same storyline) are a lot more complicated just probably wouldn't make for a good mass market film.

[WriterJWA]

Similarly, I was recently rereading Hans Delbruck's "Warfare in Antiquity". In it he has an entire book dedicated to Caesar, and in that book he spends much of his time systematically dismantling Caesar's estimates of the vertiable hoards of barbarians he claimed to have conquered. Population densities, agricultural capabilities, the needs of feeding and equipping armies, and even the lengths of baggage trains were calculated. Oftentimes he reduced Caesar's 'barbarian hoard' estimates by a factor of ten. Oftentimes he concluded that Caesar's victories 'against great odds' were in fact victories against a very much less numerous and less capable foe that Caesar's own professional legions. I guess even two thousand years ago these was a domestic political need to concoct 'barbarian hoards' to be victorious against.

Boom! Head shot!

[Michael Emrys]

Getting back to NATO vs. WARPAC 1970s-'80s, I have to wonder how enthusiastic the non-Soviet armies would have been to play their part.

Michael