Bil Hardenberger Posted December 29, 2014 Author Share Posted December 29, 2014 A bit of an update.. just spoke with Scott and I am going to pause my turn reports at this point to let him catch up. Phase II of the battle is beginning, or as I like to call it: The Beginning of the End. Any critiques of my play at this point would be welcome to fill up the time (I think 3 or 4 days). I will chime in and try to answer any questions or reply to any comments. For starters.. I think 2nd MRC is in for a world of hurt. Thoughts? Agree? Disagree? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 (edited) I think the best they can hope for is a quick end. They are to far forward, and you are a little short of the artillery that might buy them the time to get set. I am curious how their morale will hold when they realize they are holding the short end and their own tracks are blowing up like popcorn. What is the fatigue status of their dismounts? Your real problem though, is the damage to the T- 90s. You have one burning , one immobilized, and one with all the fancy bits shot off. The Ukraine boys have died almost to the last man, I think they did enough damage to matter though. Oh, and the other side still has active AA assets.... Edited December 29, 2014 by dan/california 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seedorf81 Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 A bit of an update.. just spoke with Scott and I am going to pause my turn reports at this point to let him catch up. Phase II of the battle is beginning, or as I like to call it: The Beginning of the End. Any critiques of my play at this point would be welcome to fill up the time (I think 3 or 4 days). I will chime in and try to answer any questions or reply to any comments. For starters.. I think 2nd MRC is in for a world of hurt. Thoughts? Agree? Disagree? Well, if you would have been able to avoid that Tungushka in your back, it would have been a near perfect battle for you so far. I admire the way you used 1MRC to cover 2MRC. Very nice and highly organised (organized?) move. Question: How do you feel about getting as much of your troops as possible in built-up area's, even if that means getting them back? (Oh boy, I can already hear c3k's indignation!) No modern day combat knowledge here, but I suspect that fighting the US army in the open would spell disaster for your troops. Many thanks for many days of fun. Just as during your earlier battle-reports the first thing I do when I get home from work is checking this site for new turns. Good luck with the oncoming slaughter.. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted December 29, 2014 Author Share Posted December 29, 2014 I think the best they can hope for is a quick end. They are to far forward, and you are a little short of the artillery that might buy them the time to get set. I am curious how their morale will hold when they realize they are holding the short end and their own tracks are blowing up like popcorn. What is the fatigue status of their dismounts? That's my thinking too.. though I am hoping they can be a distraction to Scott's US troops long enough for me to be decisive elsewhere. 2nd MRC's dismounts are in okay shape as far as fatigue goes.. but have suffered some casualties.. so that is problematic. Yes this formation is too far forward... but Scott has to now spend time to dig them out of the gullies they are in and that could take a while.. by the way, all of my air support is scheduled to come in (centered on center hill) in about 10 minutes.. so I need to hold out that long... not sure that'll be possible. Scott can't ignore them though.. they have enough combat power to be a pain in the ass if bypassed. Truthfully, I think Scott could destroy this company with one single platoon of Bradleys. 1st MRC however is a different matter... except for the T90 they are in pristine shape. Your real problem though, is the damage to the T- 90s. You have one burning , one immobilized, and one with all the fancy bits shot off. The Ukraine boys have died almost to the last man, I think they did enough damage to matter though. Yeah the T90 situation really is not ideal. In the zone that will have to fight the US forces I will have 3 operational T90s... the rest are going to the pocket. My goal here is to delay and stall him as much as possible while I attempt to take the pocket. Going to be very delicate without any man portable ATGMs... I would trade my dismounted MRC for 4 or 5 of those right now. Oh, and the other side still has active AA assets.... As far as I know Scott has two Tunguskas and at least one other AA asset in the pocket. Definitely not a good situation for my airpower. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted December 29, 2014 Author Share Posted December 29, 2014 (edited) Well, if you would have been able to avoid that Tungushka in your back, it would have been a near perfect battle for you so far. I admire the way you used 1MRC to cover 2MRC. Very nice and highly organised (organized?) move. Thanks... 1st MRC's support fire for 2nd MRC was opportunistic.. I was lucky Scott so exposed his Ukrainians on that flank of center hill to allow me to have a perfect flank attack by fire opportunity. Good tactics are all about being in position to take advantage of whatever the enemy gives you... rarely would it work out this well if you tried to plan it that way. Question: How do you feel about getting as much of your troops as possible in built-up area's, even if that means getting them back? (Oh boy, I can already hear c3k's indignation!) No modern day combat knowledge here, but I suspect that fighting the US army in the open would spell disaster for your troops. Many thanks for many days of fun. Just as during your earlier battle-reports the first thing I do when I get home from work is checking this site for new turns. Good luck with the oncoming slaughter.. Well I do have most everything under cover now.. Scott will either have attack into close terrrain to roll over 1st and 2nd MRCs or bypass one (or both?) of them... ignore one MRC and it can pop up and take him under fire from a flank or the rear. I think he will roll over 2nd MRC and attempt to pin 1st MRC in place as it is the strongest of the two formations.. then he will bypass with whatever he can spare to go after my units around the pocket at high speed. That's what I would do, and I'd attempt to do it with as few troops as possible. This could get ugly, and it could be over quickly depending on how strong the US force is. Truthfully, I would be comfortable, were I in Scott's shoes, attacking this Russian force with one US company team, two platoons of Bradleys and one platoon of M1s... that's all it would require. Edited December 29, 2014 by Bil Hardenberger 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agusto Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 A bit of an update.. just spoke with Scott and I am going to pause my turn reports at this point to let him catch up. Phase II of the battle is beginning, or as I like to call it: The Beginning of the End. Any critiques of my play at this point would be welcome to fill up the time (I think 3 or 4 days). I will chime in and try to answer any questions or reply to any comments. For starters.. I think 2nd MRC is in for a world of hurt. Thoughts? Agree? Disagree? I think you have done very, very well so far. But you should defniately not rest on your laurels, i dont want to spoil anything, but we are only like what 10-15 (?) minutes into the battle, and pnzrldr definately has an ace in the hole. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted December 29, 2014 Author Share Posted December 29, 2014 I think you have done very, very well so far. But you should defniately not rest on your laurels, i dont want to spoil anything, but we are only like what 10-15 (?) minutes into the battle, and pnzrldr definately has an ace in the hole. I certainly am not resting (see the above two posts). I know exactly what's coming, and I am not in a comfortable position. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 Spitting your T-90s seems to risk defeat in detail. The T-90s are the only thing that even might survive a single turn in LOF of the Abrams. If the first three have one bad turn your remaining vehicles are going to systematically overmatched. If you can't back him up in the first tank on tank it will not get better after that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holien Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 How many minutes for the scenario? Just looked at start and can not see it mentioned. It is all about 700pts and not about what is destroyed? (If I have read scenario correctly?) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 the way I read you guys.. the russians are not much better than the syrians against the US 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AttorneyAtWar Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 the way I read you guys.. the russians are not much better than the syrians against the US You haven't been watching, listening, or reading very closely then... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 (edited) Ukrainians were going to be easy prey... I expected that. You split your T-90s.. those 10 T-90s were more than a match for a platoon of M1A2 and now they are splitted... if you destroy the M1s you winthe battle.. with air power and all you should have been able to deal with the bradleys and their javelins .. especially with the Bmp3s under tree cover where the javelins are forced to use a direct attack mode where arena can handle them. Scott won the battle psychologically even before it began. Forget about losses.. they are going to be heavy anyway.. for both sides. This is not afghanistan or Iraq.. this is a real fight to the death between industrialized and technologically advanced nations. Losses are unimportant and life is cheap in this sort of setting. Edited December 30, 2014 by antaress73 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSj Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 the way I read you guys.. the russians are not much better than the syrians against the US A bit of an exaggeration, sure, but the Syrians were using Russian equipment and Russian combat doctrine, so... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 (edited) You haven't been watching, listening, or reading very closely then... Read the last paragraphs from Bill.. In his mind, one company team of US forces should be able to deal with 2 companies of BMP-3 borne infantry and one company of T-90s plus their air assets and a platoon of Krizantema ATGMs. Those are 1 against 3 odds and he would be confortable with it. Means he thinks they are pushovers or that the US is invincible. Edited December 30, 2014 by antaress73 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 I would not be confortable... not against a competent human opponent... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 (edited) A bit of an exaggeration, sure, but the Syrians were using Russian equipment and Russian combat doctrine, so... Soviet combat doctrine.. the Russians changed their doctrine. And a T-90AM with Relikt is much better than anything the syrians had.. even the T90S.,.. and the BMP-3s with arena are much better than BMP-2s .. infantry has full body armor and night vision.. thermobaric weapons and the latest RPGs ammo.. Their artillery has precision ammo capabilities. I would have dealt with those Tunguskas with precision artillery strikes and Bill didnt use that capability. Drones and precision artillery strikes where needed to destroy those Tunguskas and pave the way for much less opposed and effective air asset strikes Edited December 30, 2014 by antaress73 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 What ammo type are the US using ? M829A3 should have trouble against Relikt (T-90AM) . That's why they are developing the M829A4 which should appear in 2017. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 What ammo type are the US using ? M829A3 should have trouble against Relikt (T-90AM) . That's why they are developing the M829A4 which should appear in 2017. The game takes place in 2017, so M829A4 it is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 (edited) BTW.. Bill's platoon of Krisanthemas are way too close to the deployment area of Scott's US reinforcements. 1km... they are going to fire one salvo of two missiles each IF lucky and be destroyed. Scott talked about a battle against two Krisanthemas at 4000 meters where his two tanks took four hits each before spotting them .. that's four launches... before being spotted.. if they could have had flank shots that's four tanks destroyed or disabled... so at longer ranges they are potent... Edited December 30, 2014 by antaress73 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted December 30, 2014 Author Share Posted December 30, 2014 antaress73 I can't wait to read an AAR from you... seems you have all the answers. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 Destroying the Tunguska with precision artillery requires a FO to paint the target with a laser designator for as many turns as it takes for the strike to come. Easier said than done keeping your eyes on a mobile target that long. Also, using drones to call in a strike - to Tunguska that's called 'lunch'. Tunguska snacks on drones when its not eating helicopters. Maybe you could use drones as bait, run it our of ammo shooting them down. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 I wouldn't say it is a walk in the park, but the US equipment does have some significant advantages. Bil is also factoring in who he is playing. If it were me instead of PL, Bil would more than likely keep all his forces forward and contemplate the nice snack he would be about to chow down on. Keep in mind the US has had a lot of time and real field testing to develop it's equipment and tactics. The US army's level of professionalism is very high. Russia is struggling to overcome many years of neglect of it's army. It has some very good equipment and I am sure some very good officers, but that is undoubtedly a mixed deal. In a society so heavily corrupt and with such a high level of patronage, the number of officers who rise to the top based on who they know versus what they know is going to hurt, no two ways about it. Some of that is not reflected at all in CM unless you deliberately set morale and experience levels to try and create it. The equipment however is another deal. The optics suite on US vehicles and larger crew sizes are going to give you an edge and it doesn't take much for an edge to become the basis of slaughter. This game is very unforgiving. Yes you can defeat an M1, but it is not easy. Bil is looking at not just the unit capabilities, but also the abilities of a foe he has fought a few times. Combine good units with a good tactician and you need to treat them with respect. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waycool Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 antaress73 I can't wait to read an AAR from you... seems you have all the answers. Zing! Enjoying your AAR Bill. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 Destroying the Tunguska with precision artillery requires a FO to paint the target with a laser designator for as many turns as it takes for the strike to come. Easier said than done keeping your eyes on a mobile target that long. Also, using drones to call in a strike - to Tunguska that's called 'lunch'. Tunguska snacks on drones when its not eating helicopters. Maybe you could use drones as bait, run it our of ammo shooting them down. LOL exactly. Toss that UAV up and cross your fingers you can get the TG before it gets the UAV. You better have an FO with a 2 minute time to call in arty cause that is about how much time you can hope for. I have occasionally gotten longer, but not enough that I'd count on it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agusto Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 (edited) way too close to the deployment area of Scott's US reinforcements antaress73 I can't wait to read an AAR from you... seems you have all the answers. He has a point though, Bil. I am afraid too that you fast advance will put you too close to pnzrldrs reinforcements when they arrive. It would be quite gamey IMO if his reinforcements, all bunched up and in parade formation, teleport right in front of your guns and you open up at them with deadly firepower at the very moment they arrive. I am sure you are aware of this though and you wont exploit it. Edited December 30, 2014 by agusto 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.