War on the rocks - hypothetical NATO-RUS

[LUCASWILLEN05]

2 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Just to throw it out there, ask yourself, was the Iraq war's outcome purely because the Iraqis were "bad" or because they were an average 3rd World army that suddenly found itself thrown at a military force designed to take on the best the Soviets had and win?  Consider that the Iraqi army was filled with folks who passed through a very long and bloody conflict, and was equipped about as well as your average non-Soviet Warsaw Pact military.

I've always taken the troop rating to be sort of a center of mass for a unit, with some percentage being better or worse than that standard (D/2-9 IN is "regular" because it's a normal well trained US Army unit, but tanks 14, and 22 are frankly excellent crews so they're actually veteran, while tank 11 is commanded by a moron so it's actually green).

In that regard, taking my own spin from the manual:

Conscript: Has been adequately informed where the bullets come from on their rifle and little else. Well represents units hastily trained.  Formations may include some veteran fighters, but since it's a rating for squads and  crews, this effect is often diluted.  Will likely still have some "green" teams that represent folks who just take to war better than others.  

Green: "Regular" military forces with problems.  Not a bad level to represent hastily activated reserve type units (again, there might be some very good combat veterans in the formation, but the squad they lead hasn't worked together in months if not years) or perhaps units poorly prepared for combat (say something like the Egyptian Army operating outside of an internal security role)

Regular: Most every normal every day Army unit, or reserve units that have had time to fully mobilize and complete train up.  Nothing special, but does exactly what's printed on the box.  Also forces that were "green" at the start of the conflict, not quite as wired as a regular unit would be, but no longer tripping over their shoelaces either.

Veteran: Regular units that are just a bit better for some reason.  Could be they've figured a lot out on the road to Donbass and they're pretty darn good at their job now.  Could be they're the elite of their nation's regular military.  Also good to represent a qualitative difference between two "regular" units (or a very well drilled and prepared ABCT coming off of a large exercise with the Poles running into a Russian armor Brigade that's been in garrison for the last six months.  The Russian unit isn't going to be bad enough to be "green" but there's certainly a qualitative edge to the American unit in this situation).  

Crack: Some folks are just great soldiers.  Every unit in combat seems to pick up those dudes who are just disturbingly good at what they do, and sometimes the rest of their squad/crew follows suite.  Good to represent a regular team/vehicle that's seen some combat and excelled, but frankly the number of truly "crack" organizations (so a crack platoon or company) should be quite small.

Elite: Should hardly be used outside of missions where you really want to set aside certain units as something special.  Perhaps tank D22 is manned by the greatest tanker to ever tank, and his prowess will make or break 2nd Platoon in the coming battle.  But again, elite should be virtually unheard of in peacetime regular military units, and very very rare even in veteran forces.

Arguably there is Gaurd and "Guard" There was a big difference between Napoleonic French Old Guard, tje 1813 Young FGuard and Spanish Walloon Guards. They all had the title of "Guard" but it does not follow hey are all really Elite troops. The Walloon Guards might be "elite" by the standards of the Napoleonic Spnish army but, bty the standards of Napoleonic Europe  they were actually pretty average troops.

The same goes for the Iraqi Republican Guard. They were the cream of the Iraqi Army under the Saddam #Hussein regime and they did stand and fight in both Operation Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom. Their equipment was certainly inferior and perhaps t a lesser extent so was their training. They had quite a bit of experience in the Iran - Iraq War. I would, on this basis, consider them as Regular with pretty good morale/motivation and a fairly average leadership.

The Regular Iraqi Army armoured and mechanized units, since they did stand and fight in ODS t least would probably be rated as Green but would be well motivated with a very average leadership.

Many of those hapless frontline conscripts who surrendered very quickly would likewise be rated eiher Green or Conscript  with poor or abysmal leaders (-1 or -2) and lousy morale.

As Panzersaurkrautwerfer says, the truly elite units are ging to be few and far between. Possbbly a USMarine Recon unit might qualfy as Elite though in most cases Crack might be more like it.

Elite is very excetional. Something like the best of the best in Special Forces or one of the WW2 German Tank Aces suc as Wittmann.

And remember you can still do a lot with the Motivation and Leadership ratings so don't ignore them. Some Green or Conscrpt units might be very highly motivated to the point of being fanatical and a handful of leaders could be exceptionally qualified eiher because of personal charima or because of theiir previous military service.

Even some irregular foces such as some IS units could get a higher training grade than you would give most irregular units in addition to good leadership and high morale. Maybe Regular Training, Fanatical Motivation and quite a few +1 or +2 leaders scattered around the force

[LUCASWILLEN05]

43 minutes ago, Abbasid111 said:

I don't believe it effects rarity but the cost of more for better trained and motivated troops

We have the points issue in tabletop war gaming as well. Personally I don't hve much tim,e for that method of gaming - it smacjks too much of competition gaming.How many points did 2nd Armourwd Cavalry hve at 73rd Easting? Havinfg said that,using points differently can be a hlpful scenario design tool as a means of checking game balance. You can have  mismatched force which might suggest a rearguard acion type scenario might be the way to go. Or you might need to introduce ther methods of balance through adding entrenchments, adjusting victory conditions etc

[Haiduk]

4 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

 Consider that the Iraqi army was filled with folks who passed through a very long and bloody conflict, and was equipped about as well as your average non-Soviet Warsaw Pact military.
 

Heh... Not ships make war, but people  Impossible to copare any arabic army with former Soviet. Military students from arab countries, which studied in Soviet military academies and colleges always were headache for teachers - most of them were very lazy. Future rank of officer for them mainly was just question of social status. Among Soviet advisors also roamed "legends" about mentality and combat behavior of arab servicemen. So even experience of 10-year war with Iran can't equalize Iraq soldier and post-Soviet soldier. Big role plays national mentality and nationmal military experience.   

[Vanir Ausf B]

2 hours ago, kinophile said:

I forget,  does experience level affect the rarity points in-game? 

If not, sounds like it should. 

Rarity cost = base cost x rarity multiple.

Anything that increases the base cost of a unit will also increase its cost in rarity points. 

[Kinophile]

I personally think experience level shoukd also affect rarity.

Everytime I go against US,  my T90 are ALWAYS, elite. I find its the only thing that gives me a decent chance, in terms of spotting and reacting, but I'll be the first to say it's totally unrealistic. 

Edited May 31, 2016 by kinophile

[Sublime]

Kino. Do whatever works for you. That said elite seems a little extreme. For one if BMP2Ms used their kornets Russ forces would be waaaay deadlier. But as it is skillful use of atgms, tank fires, local superiority and learning to ambush on the attack. The end sounds like an oxymoron but it can be done it just has to be done just so and you need experience.

But in a nutshell you advance, and stop your armor in good spots just before los of enemy armor. Usually you use bldgs or terrain features to block yoir armor. Then you either entice the enemy to move or wait. Veteran t90 crews no aps. If theyre sitting still and you get more than one on one abrams you got a really good shot at a kill. Even just one tank. Of course i dont play in a tank vacuum. So i have vet t90s and 2 vet khriz working with atgm teams.  Any time an abrams is engaged it should be engaged with what the Germans termed hail fire. Basicaly you let everything you got that can hurt the abrams at least subsystem.wise ( so no inf small arms but atgms, autocannons, cannon) go nuts on it.  With practice this can  work and devastatingly well. Of course just like real life you can do everything right and still fail.

[Kinophile]

Yah I've evolved the tactic also,  whatever I have takes a **** on the target. Then I move on to the next. No matter how bad the return fire I do NOT break the fire stomp until that damn Abrams is smoking, burning,  exploding. 

It's the spotting that kills me. Urban fights,  I have a chance for ambush but in countryside, God it's like those ****ers have xray specs. 

Maddening. But I still play RUS. :-)

[John Kettler]

Guys,

A most interesting and useful discussion on the Separatists and their, er, remarkable constituents. The discussions of rating their and UA troops is quite engrossing. When it comes to rating units, there's combat experience and combat experience, with the latter providing a significant edge. It's one thing to have been in battle as a grunt, and quite another to have major experience in modern mechanized warfare, with all the bells and whistles in play. There's also training, and of the three in the game, hands down the US is tops there, and I feel safe in saying Veteran would be entirely reasonable as a result, with some units better than that. Also to be factored into the overall rating is the general age composition of the US forces. It's not full of 18 year-olds serving 1 or 2--year hitches, but of people usually committed to 4 on active duty and 2 more in the Reserves. Many have served longer than that and have either reenlisted or were Stop Loss, a fate my brother narrowly avoided as an SFC and allowed him to retire. He sent me a breakdown of the typical ranks and time in service of those he served with in Scouts, but for unknown reasons, wouldn't let me use it. If I can finally use it, many here will be quite surprised. I certainly was!

kinophile,

Abbasid111 is entirely correct. If you wish proof, buy any Regular force in the QB Force Selector. Note the costs and then Raise Experience to Veteran. Note cost jump. Do the same for Motivation, and you'll have your answer. BFC has been doing things this way since CMx1's CMBO. Nothing is ever free when it comes to this stuff, making for oft agonizing decisions. For real fun, and this is with equipment costs in play, allocate X points and compare Russian vs US tank and IFV count for an Armor force buy. Having done that, see what else you can afford to purchase from leftover points. As the American player, I've had to reduce whole formations to remnants, reduce attributes or both in order to make weight, as it were. I've started with a  Bradley CFV Company)(+ because of attachments, but really - because of the gutted main force) the  battle with one complete tank platoon, one removed outright, and the other having, I believe, just the command tank and a wingman. Restating, I began the battle with a unit in shreds relative to what I should've had. BFC's mantra has always been "High combat capability--high cost." Nowhere is that, in my own experience, truer than with the Americans in CMBS. All that capability; all those bells and whistles; all those wonderful toys--cost dearly.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Kinophile]

I'm aware of the increase in cost. It's the rarity idea that I'm discussing. 

[Abbasid111]

I haven't noticed any change in rarity cost vis a vis increased experience and motivation. But then again nearly 99.999 per cent of the time I play with strict rarity. I think the rarity cost is equipment dependent only.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Strict Rarity setting

T-90AM with Arena rarity cost with Regular experience: 1806 pts

T-90AM with Arena rarity cost with Elite experience: 2343 pts

Keep in mind, however, that if a unit's rarity rating is "standard" it will never cost any rarity points.

 

[Abbasid111]

That is why I haven't noticed any impact in rarity cost, I almost always use standard (common) formations on strict rarity setting. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

6 hours ago, Haiduk said:

Heh... Not ships make war, but people  Impossible to copare any arabic army with former Soviet. Military students from arab countries, which studied in Soviet military academies and colleges always were headache for teachers - most of them were very lazy. Future rank of officer for them mainly was just question of social status. Among Soviet advisors also roamed "legends" about mentality and combat behavior of arab servicemen. So even experience of 10-year war with Iran can't equalize Iraq soldier and post-Soviet soldier. Big role plays national mentality and nationmal military experience.   

People certainly make war more than machines.  However to simply characterize it as a Turkey shoot, as if any military could have shown up and performed the same is simply not showing any level of understanding.  If it had simply been Abrams and GPS that won the day, then it would have been a much less straight forward conflict.

As the case was an average to good third world military got taken apart by the US military at what I would contend was its height of readiness and capability relative to the rest of the world.  It was a campaign that is worth reading into more than the Iraqis simply assuming their positions in front of a firing squad, and the Coalition forces simply assuming the rifles that had been laid out for them.

As far as Arabs at War, there's a few very good books on the topic I could point you at if you're interested.   It's not as simple as portrayed.

Regardless the post (and frankly when there was still a Soviet Union) Soviet soldier delivered unto us some pretty marginal performance so I am not sure exactly what your point is in that regard.  The Soviet model valued operational performance over tactical skill and it showed/shows in junior officer/NCO performance.

Re: Wider troop value discussion

Perhaps we're getting a bit off base.  It really doesn't matter if the Iraqi forces were "regular" vs "green," as one can make arguments for both (or I'd contend on the defense they at least were somewhat competent against peer to marginally better than peer threats, on the offense, total and utter lost causes).  What's more relevant is what the scenario designer wants to accomplish.  We are after all, playing a game, What's important is making the scenario "work" by far more than making it "real" 

[Kinophile]

I do like the idea of the variable quality, even within a company. I've been lazy and have been trying to game the game by giving everyone veteran or above. 

One place I WONT adjust that is the FO and drone -  with out crack or above,  Russians get the three finger shocker way too quickly. Arty is their best tool... 

It would also make for a tough campaign,  where you can't rely on all your troops,  and firefighting various retreats/fails will become a well honed skill! 

 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

46 minutes ago, kinophile said:

I do like the idea of the variable quality, even within a company. I've been lazy and have been trying to game the game by giving everyone veteran or above. 

One place I WONT adjust that is the FO and drone -  with out crack or above,  Russians get the three finger shocker way too quickly. Arty is their best tool... 

It would also make for a tough campaign,  where you can't rely on all your troops,  and firefighting various retreats/fails will become a well honed skill! 

 

It totally varies even within Platoons.  Like with my Company for the "first" wave of PLs from the real life*:
1st Platoon would have been at best a very shaky regular or even green.  It had a terrible platoon leader, one of the wing tanks was a totally new crew
2nd would be around regular, the platoon leader was experienced, but not especially inspirational or technically skilled (again, solid, reliable, diligent, but not like tanking flowed in his blood).  His platoon sergeant was a experienced NCO but very by the book.  His two wing tanks were well seasoned though and much more independent than other wing tanks.
3rd was hot.  PL was new but smart, a hard charger with a head for tactics.  Platoon Sergeant was your standard crusty tanker, knew all the tricks, totally unflappable.  Wing tanks were both experienced with prior tank commander experience before coming to the unit.  Easily a "veteran" platoon

But even within that, taking first platoon:

D11 would have been green.  Bad Platoon leader, who was also a bad tank commander.  Likely low leadership values.
D12 would have been regular.  Good tank in a bad platoon.
D13 green, brand new commander, with a new gunner.  They became regular later on in my opinion, but starting off was rough.
D14 crack.  The platoon sergeant was the only thing that kept the platoon from totally failing, and he was a highly experienced old school tanker.  Eventually turned the whole mess around with a new PL some months down the road.

If you're going to homogenize unit ratings, I'd contend  "veteran" "regular" or "green" are really the best.  Units that are universally conscripts are usually bad to play as, while rarely will a unit achieve a consistant level of crack/elite (or not without taking enough losses to ensure the surviving elements may be battle hardened and tested crack warriors.....but the replacements to bring the unit back up to strength would not be).

*This really a Koreaism.  The average soldier only stayed there a year, so while more senior NCOs and officers might be around for a while, there was constant flux in the tank crews.  A US based unit would likely be closer to purely regular across the board with 1-2 "green" new crews at worst for a company, with a handful of veteran crews that have been together for years, lead by highly experienced NCOs.  

[Haiduk]

6 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Regardless the post (and frankly when there was still a Soviet Union) Soviet soldier delivered unto us some pretty marginal performance so I am not sure exactly what your point is in that regard.  The Soviet model valued operational performance over tactical skill and it showed/shows in junior officer/NCO performance.
 

I meant some other... Not so combat performance as a set of tactical skills, accurate shooting etc. Soviet/Russian (and also Ukrainian, Belorusian) serviceman, which passed several long wars in very rough conditions (and not just private, but sergeant or officer) gains a couple of  increadible skills of surviving on battlefield (as well as on combat and household levels), morale and volitional qualities, which stay with him on the level of instincts despite on either it was 30 years ago, 20, or 10 and can be easily recalled, when man again turned back to the warfare. Exactly these qualities, magnified with need ideological belief were allowing to maintain fanatic resilence and gain success, when other armies failed. 

Edited June 1, 2016 by Haiduk

[John Kettler]

kinophile,

My apologies. I somehow got crossed up and missed the key part of your question.

Haiduk,

I've read similar things, from Russian sources, about Arabs and the way they operated. Wish I could find it again, but there was this article I read online which talked about how Egypt kept pushing Russia for modern arms to replace those lost in the 1967 War. It was clear to him that they wanted another war and that these were to be the tools. Suvorov/Rezun says the Russians stripped their own units practically bare (after Brezhnev said to "let the Egyptians have their war") in order to equip their "socialist brothers." There is no doubt Arabs can fight, especially a set piece, such as the super quick crossing the Suez Canal and smashing through the Bar Lev line, but history would indicate they don't function well in a fluid situation, especially a losing one, and break easily. A particularly telling example was the Syrian Air Force vs the Israeli Air force over the Bekaa Valley. There, with Syrian planes being blown from the sky, Syrian pilots in unhit aircraft bailed out rather than be hit themselves! The reports on this were solid, and we in defense circles found them shocking.

In the Valley of Tears, the Syrians were brave, but rigid, never varying in their by the book Russian attack against dug in Israeli tanks on the high ground. They were massacred, their tanks littering the valley floor. A recent example is ISIS: terrors on the offensive, but give them real opposition, and they flee. The problem has become so bad ISIS has executed a bunch of its own troops in order to cow the others. This in a force composed of fanatics!

The Saudis have very nice toys, but the Houthis have killed a bunch of Saudi Abrams because they park in a location and stay there--without infantry screening of any sort. Madness! You can find the videos yourself, but the Houthis have made short work of some with RPG-29 teams stalking them. These are teams which are rather noticeable on the move with that very prominent like nothing in the desert large long tube.  Wonderful weaponry when used by unmotivated troops commanded by officers more concerned with politics and a good military show rather than properly waging war doesn't do much in the face of a highly motivated relatively low tech force skilled in using what it has effectively. I gather things are much better in the Royal Saudi Air Force. There, it's very much about really being able to perform well. These are high profile slots which even include royalty. Things a ground commander can hide are readily apparent in the air, especially when exercising with peers or better, as in the US. Pride is very much a factor here. From what I recall the Royal Jordanian Air Force is thoroughly professional. 

panzersaurkrautwerfer,

Very much appreciate your by platoon and within platoon breakdown. Nothing like someone with direct experience to explain the realities. 

Regards,

John Kettler

[Sublime]

16 hours ago, kinophile said:

Yah I've evolved the tactic also,  whatever I have takes a **** on the target. Then I move on to the next. No matter how bad the return fire I do NOT break the fire stomp until that damn Abrams is smoking, burning,  exploding. 

It's the spotting that kills me. Urban fights,  I have a chance for ambush but in countryside, God it's like those ****ers have xray specs. 

Maddening. But I still play RUS. :-)

I play countryside way more. Thing is against the US any cover besides buildings you may as well give up on for ambush purposes unless its a hill 1000 meters away you tucked a kornet on with a trench hopefully. You have to forget most of your anti armor hiding in hedgerows deep forest etc tricks because the abrams or bradley thermals will always find you.  Instead of tryn for arty on tanks i pretty much have a constant Linus type dirt cloud over the US of airburst arty to degrade subsystems maybe but generally just kill infantry and annoy my opponent. Also experienced Russ players are rare dont be surprised if your opponent starts making dumb mistakes after losing a few abrams ive noticed it definitely shakes up some people.

So really you.ve got to use hills, forests between tanks and troops and troops in buildings ( which without US infantry coming in or recon by fire you can get away with being right next to US tanks before shooting.

Or tanks in a position that US armor will roll into their FOV hopefully flanks exposed. With tanks its a different ball game.

[Kinophile]

10 minutes ago, Sublime said:

I play countryside way more. Thing is against the US any cover besides buildings you may as well give up on for ambush purposes unless its a hill 1000 meters away you tucked a kornet on with a trench hopefully. You have to forget most of your anti armor hiding in hedgerows deep forest etc tricks because the abrams or bradley thermals will always find you.  Instead of tryn for arty on tanks i pretty much have a constant Linus type dirt cloud over the US of airburst arty to degrade subsystems maybe but generally just kill infantry and annoy my opponent. Also experienced Russ players are rare dont be surprised if your opponent starts making dumb mistakes after losing a few abrams ive noticed it definitely shakes up some people.

So really you.ve got to use hills, forests between tanks and troops and troops in buildings ( which without US infantry coming in or recon by fire you can get away with being right next to US tanks before shooting.

Or tanks in a position that US armor will roll into their FOV hopefully flanks exposed. With tanks its a different ball game.

I have noticed that killing one of 4 Abrams can make some people very cautious. Most go berserk.

It's like taking out a aircraft carrier - mega HVP kill,  huge morale boost, can crush a flank - but boy oh boy you better be prepared for the nutso manhunt on you afterwards. 

[Sublime]

Oh ya.

But also a lot go berserk and lose a lot more because of it. But youre right in its own funny way when I destroy an abrams in a close ambush I feel like Im play the Sh3 grey wolves mod amd i just announced my prescence bt sinkin the queen elizabeth in the middle of a convoy.

Still most attackers have a plan. Concentrate forces think abt defensive lanes of fire etc even if they dnt know theyre doing it.

If theyre not a good player theyll either toss the plan to the winds to hunt for the at team by diverting other forces. A lot of players dont understand the interior lines of comm concept ( behind cover ) for safe lateral movement of forces and often will present juicy flanks or concentrations fire brigading a dead bradley and crippled abrams or whatever.

It can really go either way. Even if I lose the battle every abrams I kill against  a human is about the most rewarding kill you cant get in a CM game esp since the BMP2m is nerfed, and possibly the at13.

The rival most rewarding kill is a KT or even panthers with US forces especially in BN. God. Even in FB i got a pbem where nidans got a damned kt and panther on my side of a creek and it just vaporized my last AT gun. If the cavalry doesnt show up and with lotsa m36s things will get rlly ugly.

 

[Kinophile]

No no no no no no,  stop stop! Panzer's fingers  are twitching already! 

@Haiduk (or Ivamov),  can you clarify about Ukrainian and Separatist use Of MBT's?  It seems to be in small packets,  primarily in support of Infantry -  ie bite and hold of territory,  rather than armor thrust?

Haiduk,  I know you're fighting a positional war now,  but is there an intention to develop a more focussed, armor heavy assault force? 

 

[Krater]

Some general opinions on problems in Ukrainian army and Separatist forces, gleaned from reading Ukrainian and Russian sources.

• Quality of soldiers continues to be uneven.  While many soldiers have notional experience of combat, for significant percentage of them this mostly translated into personal survival skills.  Those are not to be underrated, but they do not contribute to performance in high-intensity, mobile combat, in either defense or offense.
• Alcoholism continues to be a serious problem.  In many units, about 10% of soldiers are non-functional alcoholics, meaning that they cannot be relied to consistently do simple tasks.  Another ~10% are functional alcoholics, who will be OK most times but will go on binges periodically.  The procedure to kick them out of the army, or even to transfer them to a rear unit where they will do less harm is so laborious that most commanders don't bother with it, and basically try to sideline them.
• Ukrainian army has suffered significant losses in light armor - BTR and BMPs.  Those vehicles were both more vulnerable to enemy fire and had less resources devoted to their upkeep.  The industry has focused on heavy armor, and as a result infantry units are not well supplied with replacements.  This is especially true of motorized infantry battalions (former territorial defense battalions), but applies to regular army as well.
• Potential issues loom with artillery, as barrel life is exhausted

First two issues equally apply to separatist forces.  The separatists also face problem with low motivation of local recruits.  Many of them joined basically to get a paycheck, as LNR/DNR economy is in shambles.  Their desire to engage in combat is correspondingly very low.  And as cease fire continues, the amount of ideologically committed volunteers from Russia has shrunk - many Russian recruits are equally motivated by basic desire to get a paycheck.  The industrial base of LNR/DNR is clearly insufficient to maintain their armed forces, so their rear is extremely dependent on the Russian support.  On the other hand, ability of Russia to supply war material to LNR/DNR far outstrips Ukrainian capacity, especially as desire to maintain a fig leaf of deniability becomes less important.

[Kinophile]

Interesting note about barrel life. Does the UKR have the industrial capacity to adequately replace? 

 

[Krater]

11 minutes ago, kinophile said:

Interesting note about barrel life. Does the UKR have the industrial capacity to adequately replace? 

 

Not really, no.  The gun systems for artillery and tanks were never produced in Ukraine, so their production would have to be started from scratch.  I would expect that there would be more emphasis on conserving the life of existing artillery systems while moving to greater use of MRL.  Ukraine still has considerable stock of rockets for them (though they need to be reconditioned) and they are easier to produce and maintain.

[Kinophile]

Very interesting. 

It's almost not a bad idea to wear down the current stock of artillery and gradually replace with modern NATO compatible, but not NATO member supplied,  PGM. capable weapons.

Archer system,  anyone?

If anything,  PGM is what the UA needs versus the Separatists  - any increase in civilian casualties simply plays into Putin's hands. 

Of course,  PGM are just as much a cluster**** if the wrong target is ID'd.... 

Archer is probably too expensive for the Ukraine,  but the idea is there - wear out and force replacement with new. 

 

The underlying concept,  which seems to be the ultimate, RL aim of the Ukrainian Ground Forces,  is to NATO-ize the UA in all but name,  allowing much stronger integration with NATO in the unlikely event of a proper war. 

Fine King Putin, we won't join NATO. Here's a treaty and everything for you to pretend you'll adhere to.

Oh look,  every single critical aspect of our Ground and Air forces are NATO compatible.

BUT we're not in NATO.

So. YEAH. 

 

  

 

Edited June 1, 2016 by kinophile