Sgt Joch

Really? That is surprising, the exact amount sold was never divulged, but informed speculation was that at least 1,000 had been supplied to Ukraine, enough to equip several brigades. The PSRL-1 is lighter, more accurate and has greater range than the RPG-7, why would UKR prefer the Russian model?

it is hard to get exact info due to the ongoing conflict, most of what we know is what shows up on open sources. We actually have a thread in the Beta forum where we keep tabs on this stuff for the next module. Basically, the Ukrainian forces are like in CMBS, but they have received a lot of new/updated equipment from US and NATO countries: Javelin ATGMs, modern Drones, new artillery equipment, new vehicles, night vision glasses which should now put them on par with Russian forces. They have also been upgrading their T-64 tanks, the new model is a bit different from the one we have in CMBS. The most unusual bit of kit is that Ukraine is now getting their RPG-7s from the USA. For some unknown reason, Russia stopped supplying those so the US stepped in by producing an exact clone known as the PSRL. On paper, Ukrainian forces are more powerful than in 2014-15.

Ukrainian military convoy:

and this: Michael Kofman (@KofmanMichael) / Twitter

Meanwhile, back on the ground, it does not look like an invasion is coming anytime soon: Status-6 sur Twitter : "Pentagon assesses the Russian forces' grouping at Ukraine border isn't currently prepared for offensive operations, due to lack of evidence of the logistics, fuel and medical capability that would need to be pre-positioned, but situation may change quickly, officials add. (CNN)" / Twitter

Speculation as to what Russia may or may not do is just that, speculation. No one really knows. The theory that Russia wants to impose its rule on its neighbours and recreate the Russian Empire has been around for 30 years and is frankly getting long in the tooth. A more modern theory is that Russia is adjusting to the new reality that it is now just Russia and will take actions which are its own best interests. There was an interesting essay on this a few months ago: Moscow’s New Rules - Carnegie Moscow Center - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

I agree with Lethaface. Multiplayer PBEM is the only way to go, the AI is limited and nothing compares to playing against a Human opponent. Ukraine vs Russia in CMBS is also very popular in PBEM since both sides are pretty evenly balanced, although I think the new Cold War game will also be very popular in PBEM.

article in the Moscow Times on polls, public sentiment in Russia is decidedly against any new war, but this caught my eye: Why Russians Aren't Sold on Donbass as Another Crimea - The Moscow Times When does the "Rasputitsa" end in the Donbass?

as far as I can see, it is the same old song and dance we have heard for years now... -Ukraine is saying the escalation is Russia's fault while Russia is saying it is Ukraine's fault; -some analysts are saying Russia is planning a mass invasion while some analysts are saying nothing will happen; I guess we should know in a few weeks if there is anything to this new "Alert", although you can only scream "Wolf" so many times before people stop paying attention.

Ukraine is a bit weaker, yes, but not enough to make a difference. Russia and Ukraine have much of the same equipment and organization, although Russia has some newer kit. Tactics for both sides are the same, basically standard combined arms tactics. Whatever gets spotted first will usually get killed, so plenty of recon, plenty of overwatch, covering fire, etc.

Hi, bit late to this, but if you are still looking check here at the RAF photo archive, they have aerial photos of pretty much all of western europe in WW2: NCAP - National Collection of Aerial Photography | NCAP - National Collection of Aerial Photography edit: type "Malmedy" in the search bar and 3 photos are listed, all taken on december 24, 1944.

This may be what MikeyD was referring to: The AR15.com Ammo Oracle (razoreye.net)

"effective range" is hard to define. We have had veterans who said they have been able to hit targets reliably at 600 meters with 5.56 mm ammo with ACOG sights. 5.56 ammo can also, in theory, penetrate up to 3 mm of steel at 600 meters, so it has more than enough energy to wound or incapacitate someone at that range. The 300 meters effective range for 5.56 mmm comes from the fact that the round's trajectory is relatively flat out to 300 meters and then drops off rapidly, so out to 300 meters you can pretty much hit whatever you aim at. This is an important point since in a firefight, everyone will seek cover as soon as they hear gunfire so opportunities to actually target an enemy soldier are over very quickly. Note that using the same criteria, the effective range of 7.62 mm ammo is only 400 meters, after which the round drops off quickly. As to why 5.56 mm ammo was adopted, post war studies found that the average firefights in WW2 took place at ranges of 200 meters or less and that relatively few infantry casualties were inflicted by firearms, most were inflicted by mortars/artillery fire. The major role of infantry fire is to pin down enemy troops that can then be broken by mortar/artillery fire. 5.56 ammo weighs roughly half what 7.62 ammmo weighs so, in theory, you can carry 2x as much which gives you more time to fire and pin down enemy units. Now in theory, it is true that 5.56 mm firerarms can be outranged by 7.62 mm firearms, but in a typical combat scenario, your 5.56 ammo equipped infantry units will be backed up by sufficent longer range heavy weapons to more than make up for the difference. The problem with many studies critical of 5.56 mm ammo is that they compare 5.56 vs 7.62 in isolation

I was a very militant communist during the late 70s-early 80s when I was young and thought I could change the world, but that is another story. Most young "communists" back then were actually Marxists who thought of the Soviet Union as being only slightly better than the USA. Most Marxists believed the type of state controlled economy in the USSR set up under Lenin and Stalin had little to do with Marx's original concept and was just a different style of imperialism and capitalism with a governing class made up of top Party bureaucrats. The left-wing political filmmaker Costa Gravas released "The Confession" in the early 70s which was a powerful indictment against the Stalinist show trials in Czechoslovakia in the early 50s which had a big impact on many of us back then. The point is that it is extremely doubtful any of the Euro communists who were actually more social-democrats than real hardline communists would have seen a Soviet invasion as a "liberation". They would actually be more likely to want to defend western democracy which despite all its flaws is still better than Soviet style "People's Democracy".

I designed the 1st mission so I can give some tips on that one. The map is based on an actual map of the terrain and the force density involved for both sides is based on what was common in 1944 for that front. It was actually raining on the 1st day of the offensive. The area where you are attacking is less well defended than other areas. Because of the terrain, the Germans did not expect the Russians to attack there so their force is relatively small compared to the Soviet force. However, the Germans have been positioned there for a long time and have had the time to fortify their position, so expect the Germans to be well dug in and backed up by multiple support weapons. The Russians at that time use reinforced infantry groups with an infantry battalion being directly backed up by engineers to deal with any obstacles and SPGs to provide direct fire support. Your role is to use your numerical superiority to punch a hole in the German lines so that the follow on tank forces can exploit any breakthrough. The rocket artillery is supposed to represent to the tail end of the artillery barrage. Because of the time delay, it is only useful on the first turn, so use it to target where you think the German lines are. As to tactics, you can attack on a broad or narrow front, there are 3 fords as I recall. Get your men across the river, use scouts to find out where the Germans are and then blast them out of their strongpoints using infantry, MMGs, SPGs, etc. You have enough men that you can afford to take casualties. p.s. - JasonC and I did have one or two discussions about this scenario back in the day.

In terms of effectiveness in game, there is not that much practical difference between M60A1 RISE, M60A3, M1. All can quickly kill Soviet tanks if used properly and will quickly be killed by any Soviet tank if you make a mistake.

VR is still in the early stages, but yes, it is mind blowing. I have 1st gen Oculus Rift and playing flight simulators like IL-2 or shooters like Half-Life Alex is on another level. You are actually inside the game in a 360 degree 3D environment. Once you get used to it, it is hard going back to playing on a flat 2d monitor.

Any card from 3060 on up will be perfect to play pretty much any games over the next few years. If you are into VR, you may have to look at 3070 or 3080 to have good performance. I have been wanting to upgrade to a 3060ti/3070/3080 for a couple of months, but they are impossible to find unless you are willing to pay a huge premium.

Yes. Looks like a M1, but feels more like a Panther in game. You should be protected from the front, but don’t count on it. You should be able to spot first, but don’t count on it. Your sides are made out of paper so watch those, but spotting to the sides is poor...hmmm. You will never see what kills you... OTOH, if you do spot an enemy AFV first, it’s DEAD...

well no, the U.S. had much better nightscopes than the Soviets at this point, U.S. equipment was state of the art while the Soviets at this time were still using inferior IR sights. The advantage of the thermal sights, along with improved fire control equipment is much better first hit probability of the A3 TTS and M1 compared to older M60 A1/A3 variants

original equipment yes, but by late 70s, everything from base M60A1 on up was supposed to have been retrofitted with the same night scope.

I am old enough to remember when Nixon was President and the Vietnam war was still going on... ...but I digress. What I remember most vividly about the Cold War was the period in 1981-83 when tensions between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. were very high and a lot of people actually thought a nuclear war could break out. Not the good old days by any means. Back to the game, one thing which a lot of CM players will like is that the Tank vs Tank combat is very balanced. This is not WW2 where U.S. tanks are going up against much better German tanks or CMSF/CMBS where U.S. Abrams dominate the battlefield. M60/M1 vs T-62/64/80 is pretty well balanced. Each side has strengths and weaknesses and one side does not dominate the other which puts a premium on...wait for it...tactics! another plus for the red side...no Javelins!

sorry, I thought I was clear enough, IR Illumination is not modeled, the U.S. does not need it and it would be suicide for the Soviets to turn it on.

By this time period, all M60 variants were equipped with second generation night vision scopes and the M60A3 (TTS) and M1 Abrams had 1st gen thermal gunner sights. On those, yes, any IR searchlight turned on would stand out like a searchlight and be a perfect aiming point... I will let you guess how that turns out in game.

Even the M735 used by some M60 variants struggles to knock out T64s/T80s from the front. This will be a radical change for players used to UBER U.S. tanks from CMSF/CMBS. I have had to go back and dust off my WW2 U.S. tactics.