Bil Hardenberger

Something is afoot.  You don't start an air & naval campaign only to stop it after some success. The enemy just recuperates and hardens,making a round 2 much harder. I suspect UKR has properly begun its Crimea prep. 
 

If you know anything about me, you know that I will never argue with someone harping on the value of the wise use of terrain. 

Finally was able to read through this.. luckily for me, this is in line with what I do for a living so its billable.   I do have some feedback however:
I found it interesting that he defined "Fire & Movement" as what the assault squad is doing, where the standard historical definition is for an attack consisting of two elements, a Support Element providing suppressive fire, and an Assault Element closing with and destroying the enemy. True, the Assault Squad could be conducting a Squad level Fire and Movement Battle Drill during its Assault movement, so maybe it's right? Seems odd to me though. Platoon level assaults versus a 3 or 4 man position seemed excessive to me, but that is the American way of war! I would expect a Squad to be able to deal with an enemy of that size alone, without the rest of the Platoon. I am surprised that there seemed to be little to no reconnaissance to find the enemy, you know, the first F in the Four Fs (Find him, Fix him, Flank him, Finish him)... The assault was launched before the enemy was located, this led to more casualties than necessary. This premature launching of an assault is the one thing I preach against over and over on my blog... you must find the enemy before you decide how you are going to deal with him. In several of the runs the assault squad was caught by surprise, or suppressed in the open. Neither of these would have happened if a scout team (or three) had been sent forward to recon and locate the enemy... only THEN deciding how to deal with them. The Support element seemed to be really a separate part of the action, where to increase effectiveness they needed to be working as a team, and they needed to be mutually supporting, not something I thought was happening as I read through the AARs. All in all a very interesting series of posts, appreciate you linking it @MHW, but I can't help but think that I am left underwhelmed by this, and that I could have provided guidance that would have helped them close with the enemy with zero (or close to it) failed assaults, based on the forces involved and the support provided.
Bil

Nice analysis Bil, and the reason why I agreed with @IanL that the best thing he said was:
"Fifty percent of tactics is dirt. Your techniques are meaningless if you choose poor ground"

Finally was able to read through this.. luckily for me, this is in line with what I do for a living so its billable.   I do have some feedback however:
I found it interesting that he defined "Fire & Movement" as what the assault squad is doing, where the standard historical definition is for an attack consisting of two elements, a Support Element providing suppressive fire, and an Assault Element closing with and destroying the enemy. True, the Assault Squad could be conducting a Squad level Fire and Movement Battle Drill during its Assault movement, so maybe it's right? Seems odd to me though. Platoon level assaults versus a 3 or 4 man position seemed excessive to me, but that is the American way of war! I would expect a Squad to be able to deal with an enemy of that size alone, without the rest of the Platoon. I am surprised that there seemed to be little to no reconnaissance to find the enemy, you know, the first F in the Four Fs (Find him, Fix him, Flank him, Finish him)... The assault was launched before the enemy was located, this led to more casualties than necessary. This premature launching of an assault is the one thing I preach against over and over on my blog... you must find the enemy before you decide how you are going to deal with him. In several of the runs the assault squad was caught by surprise, or suppressed in the open. Neither of these would have happened if a scout team (or three) had been sent forward to recon and locate the enemy... only THEN deciding how to deal with them. The Support element seemed to be really a separate part of the action, where to increase effectiveness they needed to be working as a team, and they needed to be mutually supporting, not something I thought was happening as I read through the AARs. All in all a very interesting series of posts, appreciate you linking it @MHW, but I can't help but think that I am left underwhelmed by this, and that I could have provided guidance that would have helped them close with the enemy with zero (or close to it) failed assaults, based on the forces involved and the support provided.
Bil

Finally was able to read through this.. luckily for me, this is in line with what I do for a living so its billable.   I do have some feedback however:
I found it interesting that he defined "Fire & Movement" as what the assault squad is doing, where the standard historical definition is for an attack consisting of two elements, a Support Element providing suppressive fire, and an Assault Element closing with and destroying the enemy. True, the Assault Squad could be conducting a Squad level Fire and Movement Battle Drill during its Assault movement, so maybe it's right? Seems odd to me though. Platoon level assaults versus a 3 or 4 man position seemed excessive to me, but that is the American way of war! I would expect a Squad to be able to deal with an enemy of that size alone, without the rest of the Platoon. I am surprised that there seemed to be little to no reconnaissance to find the enemy, you know, the first F in the Four Fs (Find him, Fix him, Flank him, Finish him)... The assault was launched before the enemy was located, this led to more casualties than necessary. This premature launching of an assault is the one thing I preach against over and over on my blog... you must find the enemy before you decide how you are going to deal with him. In several of the runs the assault squad was caught by surprise, or suppressed in the open. Neither of these would have happened if a scout team (or three) had been sent forward to recon and locate the enemy... only THEN deciding how to deal with them. The Support element seemed to be really a separate part of the action, where to increase effectiveness they needed to be working as a team, and they needed to be mutually supporting, not something I thought was happening as I read through the AARs. All in all a very interesting series of posts, appreciate you linking it @MHW, but I can't help but think that I am left underwhelmed by this, and that I could have provided guidance that would have helped them close with the enemy with zero (or close to it) failed assaults, based on the forces involved and the support provided.
Bil

Finally was able to read through this.. luckily for me, this is in line with what I do for a living so its billable.   I do have some feedback however:
I found it interesting that he defined "Fire & Movement" as what the assault squad is doing, where the standard historical definition is for an attack consisting of two elements, a Support Element providing suppressive fire, and an Assault Element closing with and destroying the enemy. True, the Assault Squad could be conducting a Squad level Fire and Movement Battle Drill during its Assault movement, so maybe it's right? Seems odd to me though. Platoon level assaults versus a 3 or 4 man position seemed excessive to me, but that is the American way of war! I would expect a Squad to be able to deal with an enemy of that size alone, without the rest of the Platoon. I am surprised that there seemed to be little to no reconnaissance to find the enemy, you know, the first F in the Four Fs (Find him, Fix him, Flank him, Finish him)... The assault was launched before the enemy was located, this led to more casualties than necessary. This premature launching of an assault is the one thing I preach against over and over on my blog... you must find the enemy before you decide how you are going to deal with him. In several of the runs the assault squad was caught by surprise, or suppressed in the open. Neither of these would have happened if a scout team (or three) had been sent forward to recon and locate the enemy... only THEN deciding how to deal with them. The Support element seemed to be really a separate part of the action, where to increase effectiveness they needed to be working as a team, and they needed to be mutually supporting, not something I thought was happening as I read through the AARs. All in all a very interesting series of posts, appreciate you linking it @MHW, but I can't help but think that I am left underwhelmed by this, and that I could have provided guidance that would have helped them close with the enemy with zero (or close to it) failed assaults, based on the forces involved and the support provided.
Bil

Finally was able to read through this.. luckily for me, this is in line with what I do for a living so its billable.   I do have some feedback however:
I found it interesting that he defined "Fire & Movement" as what the assault squad is doing, where the standard historical definition is for an attack consisting of two elements, a Support Element providing suppressive fire, and an Assault Element closing with and destroying the enemy. True, the Assault Squad could be conducting a Squad level Fire and Movement Battle Drill during its Assault movement, so maybe it's right? Seems odd to me though. Platoon level assaults versus a 3 or 4 man position seemed excessive to me, but that is the American way of war! I would expect a Squad to be able to deal with an enemy of that size alone, without the rest of the Platoon. I am surprised that there seemed to be little to no reconnaissance to find the enemy, you know, the first F in the Four Fs (Find him, Fix him, Flank him, Finish him)... The assault was launched before the enemy was located, this led to more casualties than necessary. This premature launching of an assault is the one thing I preach against over and over on my blog... you must find the enemy before you decide how you are going to deal with him. In several of the runs the assault squad was caught by surprise, or suppressed in the open. Neither of these would have happened if a scout team (or three) had been sent forward to recon and locate the enemy... only THEN deciding how to deal with them. The Support element seemed to be really a separate part of the action, where to increase effectiveness they needed to be working as a team, and they needed to be mutually supporting, not something I thought was happening as I read through the AARs. All in all a very interesting series of posts, appreciate you linking it @MHW, but I can't help but think that I am left underwhelmed by this, and that I could have provided guidance that would have helped them close with the enemy with zero (or close to it) failed assaults, based on the forces involved and the support provided.
Bil

I am a veteran of two wars and have likely forgotten more about war and warfare than you based on your contributions to this thread.  
I see that you are taking a “self-imposed” vacation and will come back “when proven right”.  Well problem with that is that you have never really taken a clear position on anything.  At one moment you talk about “diplomacy and negotiation” the next “4 weeks to victory”.  You have not demonstrated any real research or citations in your contributions nor any level of recognizable expertise on the subject matter.  My, and other attempts, to explain are “too complicated” so you dismiss them.  Then when I sit down and actually try to unpack your position and why your assumptions are flawed, I get insults and name calling.  No facts.  No counter analysis.  Just “be quiet”.
So when you come back (and I am sure you will), what exactly constitutes you “being proven right”?  Have the courage to take a position and clearly define it and stop these politically motivated drive-bys.  The way you have ambiguously framed your position does not allow for you to be wrong.  If the war is still going on you can declare “I told you we should have negotiated/stated/invaded”.  If the war ends, you can claim it is because the US finally did whatever you were saying all along.
So I am calling you out.  Clearly give us three strategic “must dos” in order for this war to end.  Clear and measurable strategic actions the US and West must carry out in your deeply informed opinion.  Don’t weasel around it or try to build in wiggle room.  Here let me show you how it is done:
1.  Commitment to win the war. The US/West must continue to own the escalation ladder in this war.  They must continue steady, predictable and clear pressure on Russia through programmed support to Ukraine.  This commitment must be unambiguous and apolitical, we are in it until this is done.  No back doors or side deals.  No renormalization until Russia is out of Ukraine completely.  This is a slow steady path with no sudden movement as we thread a needle between uncontrolled escalation and stagnation/freezing conflict.  This is a long war of attrition and must be navigated as one…it will go slow until the RA collapses militarily or there is a major political shift in Russia.  Either way direct confrontation between US/West must be avoided at all costs - no hard fast win.  Further, victory must be clear and unambiguous as well.  No soft-wins for Russia just to end this. Russian defeat must be clear.
2.  Commitment to win post-war.  Reconstruction and post conflict defence and security mechanisms are a must.  No grey areas or open clauses.  We commit to rebuild Ukraine and pull it into a real security alliance that will guarantee long term security and investment.
3.  Engineer Russian negotiations with its own defeat.  Russia cannot become a failed state, yet it requires regime change.  That is very tricky to manage at the best of times.  A path to renormalization must be developed but it cannot ignore the egregious warcrimes and violations Russia has committed.  This will lead Russia out of being pulled entirely into a Chinese power sphere and provide some multipolar power manoeuvre room.
There you go.  I am on record with my position and advice.  Now if the US goes in hard next week and Russia withdraws with its tail between its legs I will be proven wrong.  If we can suddenly negotiate an end to this war that makes everyone happy, I was also wrong.  So what have you got?

I'm not sure about LtCol McBreen, but the Substack's main author is Bruce Ivar Gudmundsson, affiliated at various points with the Marine Corps University and the Modern War Institute. As an occasional reader, I would be that either writer would welcome a conversation.
https://tacticalnotebook.substack.com

Thanks for the heads up... haven't seen this and its now on my reading list... I can't help but think that he could have saved some time if he'd read my blog.   
Seriously, a study like this just hammers home how accurate and realistic this game can be. I wonder is the good LTC (retired) works at Quantico. I might have to reach out to him.
Bil

Thanks for the heads up... haven't seen this and its now on my reading list... I can't help but think that he could have saved some time if he'd read my blog.   
Seriously, a study like this just hammers home how accurate and realistic this game can be. I wonder is the good LTC (retired) works at Quantico. I might have to reach out to him.
Bil

Thanks for the heads up... haven't seen this and its now on my reading list... I can't help but think that he could have saved some time if he'd read my blog.   
Seriously, a study like this just hammers home how accurate and realistic this game can be. I wonder is the good LTC (retired) works at Quantico. I might have to reach out to him.
Bil

Cool  Also worth checking out @Bil Hardenberger's Battle Drill - has an excellent Tactical Toolbox series of posts all aimed at CM.

Looks like they have been hitting the Kerch birdge with naval drones:
 

@drewshotsfan I will be interested to pick your brain, after all of this experience with the Hard Cat Rules, in your impressions and thoughts on the system. Mainly how it worked, where it frustrated you, etc.
FYSA: @IanL

The Combat Mission Final Blitzkrieg scenario River of Blood, by PanzerMike, using Bil Hardenberger's and A Canadian Cat's excellent C2 Hard Cat Rules v2I
Human Axis attack vs AI Allied defence
https://youtu.be/040Cmx0Xx6U

This is a cop out line that gets tossed when people cannot think of anything else to say.  Training can always "be better" and combined arms "better coordinated", this applies to any military on the planet and you are going to see it in AARs almost universally. 
Problem is that it is essentially meaningless.  So what is the training standard that will guarantee UA success in their current situation?  "Well more until they succeed..."  I also suspect it misses the new realities that the UA (and RA) are facing, instead clinging to a superior way of western war that has never been tested in the environment these two forces find themselves within.  These narratives completely miss the trees because all they can see is forest.

It would be the part when you stepped on the slippery slope of seeming to suggest that an older persons life was worth less than a young persons life.  I don't even disagree but is opens up a major hypocrisy hole in the position of the "think of the children!" side.  If the value of life is indeed transactional in nature (e.g. old people are going to die soon anyway) then that universal principle applies across the board.  The loss of children itself become transactional as well = relative morality.
In reality landmines, napalm, cluster munitions and fully autonomous "killbots" are less about the cost/danger/morality of warfare, and more about political power.   If it were about existential danger of weapons in warfare then we would have banned all nuclear weapons years ago.  There is even a treaty from 2017 but as you will notice even though 92 states signed on there is a whole lot of cricket sounds coming out of the Western world on this one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Prohibition_of_Nuclear_Weapons
https://www.icanw.org/signature_and_ratification_status
I am pretty cynical about all this considering that the real existential threat to human survival - and yes that would be all the children - cannot get traction from anyone but the global South/3rd world.  Maybe this is a work in progress so starting small is the plan but considering our current situation the entire thing really feels hollow.  The landmine and cluster munitions treaty did exactly zero to prevent the Russian invasion, nor did it stop Russia for a millisecond in using these weapons with wanton abandon.  This should be a big hint that soft power/collectivism/whatever-the-hell-they-go-on-about is not a real thing without hard power to actually back up enforcement because people are the worst.  Our better angels have pointy tales and horns and no amount of pontificating or posturing is going to change that.  And here is the rub and why this whole thing is likely really upsetting so many in the liberal humanism/human security camp - if we were in Ukraine's position how long would our moral high ground be sustained? 
Maybe, just maybe, our righteous (and preachy) house is built on sand in the face of the old red gods.  We have just been rich enough and safe enough, for long enough to forget this.

12:30
https://telesco.pe/bolshiepushki/4397
Claim - another Wagnerite units is crossing the border
12:39
https://t.me/dva_majors/18924
Claim - Video Tanks are moving toward Moscow [probably RU MOD]. Tanks in Moscow is a very sensitive topic for RU.
12:40
https://t.me/horevica/12823
Claim Voronezh Oil depot was attacked by KA-52
12:42
https://t.me/elite_rezerve/21856
Claim exchange rate for dollar 1 to 90, Euro 1 to 100 (exchange rate with three digits  is very sensitive topic for RU)
12:46
RU Nats are discussing that both Prig and Putin live in their own realities
12:50
https://t.me/juchkovsky/3705
Claim  that kadirovci indeed started to move toward Rostov. Not very smart move for Kremlin
.https://t.me/natalia_maximus_ZOV/17528
Claim - Rostov support Wagnerites. They help Wagnerites with water nad food
 
I am off for some time

FFS how many of these guys have come out of the woodwork in the last 18 months?  1) his claimed experience is impossible to verify because - classified. 2) what in the hell does a Seal Team Six NCO know about high intensity peer-conventional conflict(?), and 3) if he was what he says he was, and is still hooked into western intel...he should know better than posting updates based on that, on freakin Twitter.
Claiming SF gets a lot of views but it that experience has little to do with the actual war unless they have served forward in Ukraine...and they cannot talk about it if they have.  I have watched a lot of guys with SF patches pretending thy know what they are talking about...and they do not.  Even the trail of former Generals are often off the mark because this war is so far outside the experience of any western military since Korea.  At this point all we can do is make best guesses by applying basic military assessments.  I have seen so much weird in this war that I feel completely lost at times.

Hmmm....

Gotta disagree, but not vehemently.  There is plenty of evidence of failure to translate the evidence of shifts in the wars prior to WW1 to actual changes in doctrine and structures that were not simply “missing details”.  For example the Austrian Calvary on the eastern front rode out in 1914 in parade dress complete with shiny breastplates.  The key lesson that was not taken aboard was the fact that warfare had shifted towards defensive primacy.  The evidence was hinted at in places like Gettysburg and more loudly at Petersburg.  They definitely should have gotten the memo by the Franco-Prussian War - the US commanders expressed the same reticence to digging in as a “morale issue and hindrance to the offence” in 1863, and had the massacres to prove it.  Further in places like Culps Hill where Union troops dug in, it was bloody obvious that this had a significant impact on force ratio calcs in favour of the defence on Day 2 of Gettysburg.
Your point on learning the wrong lessons is sound; however it also has to be considered in light of military culture of the day.  The militaries of the 19th century were still living under the shadow of 1812, which was a high watermark for formation manoeuvres and firepower all backed by the spirit of the offensive…in fact that was Jomini’s entire point on concentration.  Clausewitz gave it some breathing room but neither of the old masters can be considered as Defensive proponents. The militaries of Europe build an entire culture around offensive “press of the bayonet” that set them up to learn the wrong lessons as they unfolded in front of them - and we are not immune to this either.  They talked themselves into half-measures and failed to see the shift completely.  Your example of close versus extended order is simply rearranging deck chairs in a kill box.  It definitely hinted at from the slaughters of Pickets charge that the answer was “no orders of infantry…dig”.  Once machine guns and fast firing (and coordinated artillery) came into play what order ones infantry was in was an argument in relative obsolescence.  They slaughter millions on the western front learning and re-learning that one.
So, sure “wrong lessons and spotty implementation” but why that happened was built on a mountain of European military culture that had a lot of blind spots…and we have the same dynamic today.  Our culture creates lenses in seeing only what we want to see.  I have been in meeting where army officers are using observations from this war to double down on heavy formations, we are trapped in boxes of our own thinking.  I argue WW1 happened because western military culture created conditions for blind spots and learning wrong lessons.  As well as stifling any imagination on changing force structure or doctrine - and again, we see that today.

Ok, well I get the no echo chamber part but I also should be able to make professionally based observations without being accused of being a blind apologist hooked on “copium”.  And then when challenged by very weak counters and counter-challenge, I should not be accused of being a “commissar”.  You are of course free to have an uniformed opinion but I am not evil because I point it out.
This entire thing is an observation that on a UA mine breaching disaster - no debate on that, and trust me I have forgotten more about mechanized minefield breaching than just about everyone else you may meet - that RA artillery was tepid to the point of being odd for the context.  That suddenly turned into a crisis point of blind pro-Ukraine echo chamber building because in your opinion this observation was unmerited.  You did not back that up by any hard facts and have even admitted it is too early to tell.  Then when the freakin RA commander says through Russian MOD controlled media that his own artillery was very effective, your response is to crow on how that validates your own position.  When pressed your response was “why would Russia lie about such a thing?” To which I provided 4 different reasons…and now I am an echo chamber commissar.
FFS, you brought the weak arguments to the table and now we are to be punished for pointing that out…how is that not creating another echo chamber of its own?
We have been hearing reports of problems with RA indirect fire for months, this could simply be another data point - not a verdict on the entire Russian defence.  We will see in due time whether or not corrosive warfare will or will not work again.  Not every counter-RA observation is pro-Ukrainian or vice versa.  However, if you are going to start beaking off the least you can do is bring some actual facts or coherent observations to the party.  Unlike whatever social media, school or your friends/family or whatever told you, your opinion is not worth its weight in gold.  We do not respect it simply because you posted it.  It need facts, experience or something to support it.

The losses are concerning, but a lot of this Ukraine counter-attack force is green and they are still learning, mistakes are going to be made. I would only start to really get concerned if this trend continues.. but I have faith that they are smart enough to make the adjustments required in order to succeed.
This is a very small part of the entire force in action and is in a very concentrated area... I would suggest standing by and letting things play out; I suspect a lot of good news is going to come our way very soon.