John Kettler

Erwin, There was a stunning discovery made a few years ago by a US Army doctor that many soldiers and veterans diagnosed with PTSD didn't have that, but a previously unknown condition called blast brain, which is undetectable by both CAT and MRI, because neither has the necessary resolution. Once he understood he was dealing with actual brain trauma, he shifted his medication approach and got huge improvements in treatment success as a result. As for PTSD, our pit bull has it as a result of being nearly killed by two other pit bulls (abused, whereas he was rescued from abuse) which tried to kill his new owner, my landlady, a tiny Filipina. Even a slightly raised angry voice or being suddenly startled is enough to cause him to flee the area, and he'll abruptly start shuddering at times, too. Regards, John Kettler

This important video, by a lifer in the Australian Army (retired RSM) combat veteran, describes what PTSD is, his own experiences with it, how the Australian Army handles PTSD, and offers his thoughts on why warming is safe for those diagnosed with PTSD. He says in the video that he found Modern Warfare wargaming in miniature distressing (specifically mentioned MGs), so shied away from it and instead got into Napoleonics. These days, he also does WW II skirmish gaming. He notes that not only do and have combat veterans played wargames, but that some not only played but wrote rule books. The ex-RSM isn't the only one who shies/shied away from Modern Warfare, especially of the WoT persuasion. One retired Army lifer I know who did multiple tours in Iran and Iraq wouldn't watch video of a Ramallah skirmish done in miniature or CMSF2 video. Fine with WW II. Am of the opinion that this has a lot to do with WW II being emotionally and chronologically distanced in ways that WoT simply isn't. Believe WoT hits too close to home, especially when things like IEDs and VBIEDs are depicted. Also, would argue that, as far as computer games go, FPSs would be far more triggering than CMx2, unless played in RT. One of my previous neurologists was of the professional opinion that strobes, smash cuts and other highly dynamic imagery not only weren't good for people who'd had a TBI but anyone. To understand where I'm coming from, I've never served, let alone been in battle, but I have felt the wind of a bullet barely passing over my skull while out plinking, have looked at the wrong end of a loaded weapon pointed at me in a firing range incident (shooter had a jam and turned around, loaded gun in hand), have two TBIs, the second from a trip and fall last year and mercifully tiny; have survived four major wrecks (two of which required a year to recover from), one of which resulted in PTSD and left me so traumatized it took weeks of biofeedback treatment before I was car functional again, for I was deathly afraid of getting hit, flinched from car doors slamming and jumped from backfires. To this day simply getting into a car, truck or van makes me nervous. And in the same time frame of the car wrecks, I also had two nervous breakdowns from sustained hyper stress in my military aerospace jobs. I find FPS games (even short game review clips) overwhelming in terms of processing but also outright painful in my head, and when I was functional enough to play CMBS, my first outing with it when the turn played was so overwhelming and shocking that I despaired of ever being able to play it and felt I might've wasted a big chunk of change. What saved me was the ability to replay the turn and simply get comfortable with the lightning pace and lethality compared to WW II, for it was all I'd ever known in CMx1 or CMx2. Unfortunately, downstream cognitive effects from the first TBI have prevented me from playing CM of any sort for well over a year, and there have been protracted periods where even CoC was beyond me, too. These have nothing to do with PTSD, but they most definitely have massively affected my ability to engage in not only my favorite G-Rated activity, but to relieve a great deal of stress by playing and socializing. Regards, John Kettler

British ordnance manuals covering far more than WW II. Some pre-date 1900, but others go at least into 1970. Even better, some analyze foreign weapon performance. German grenades, anyone? http://www.bulletpicker.com/british.html Regards, John Kettler

Forgot to say earlier that the design requirement for the cannon end of the Tunguska and, by extension the Pantsir was, so help me, a Hawker Hunter, first introduced into service in 1954. Was in service until 2014. This was a transsonic aircraft. On the missile end, though, the design threat included the weapons named, as well as ARMs (Anti=Radiation Missiles). Shrike (M 1.8)was part of the defined threats, and HARM (High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile), is a negligible 4% faster at M 1.84. Regards, John Kettler

Erwin, Couldn't tell you, though this pic of Tsar Pushka (Tsar Cannon) shows one possible approach, albeit sup er heavy! This is a full article on the Turkish monster bombard. https://www.guns.com/news/2012/01/04/guns-that-changed-history-the-great-turkish-bombard But after you see this discourse and supporting illustrations, you'll likely think the Tsar Pushka carriage is sheer madness. This is a full-length article discussing the use of the great bombards against Constantinople. Had family stationed in Turkey, and Dad and sister Kate went to Topkapi Palace, where huge bombard stones, tops barely visible are some sort of pathway. Also, "Turkish bombards" on Images will show you a number of other surviving bombards and cannonballs, as well as depictions of the gun mounts for the bombards, which were firing at very low elevation angles. Regards, John Kettler

And if Mons Meg could handle a Tiger I, what could the gigantic bombard used to smash the walls of Constantinople do to a King Tiger? Regards, John Kettler

The Iraqi Army, post-Saddam was supplied with the, relatively speaking, monkey model of the Abrams, the M1A1 ,which did not have the HA (DU) armor array, but instead the original siliceous core armor array of the first production M1s. Given this, the computerized FCS is nowhere nearly as good as on the current US models, either. That said, what we delivered was to full US standards then, but then was a decade ago. The Chobham armor was compromised some 40 years ago by the agent in place aide to German minister Gunter Guillame. Even so, following the, er, wholesale transfer of these tanks to ISIS, the US mounted a determined effort to kill as many of them as possible, for they were still far more dangerous and tougher than the T-72s ISIS had. https://www.army.mil/article/64944/iraqi_army_receives_last_shipment_of_abrams_tanks Returning to Pantsir, the chief reason Pantsir exists is to protect mobile assets in the Russian homeland, starting with close AD )vs aircraft, cruise missiles and guided munitions) of strategic SAMS, which can be rapidly torn down, moved and set up. Trucks are much faster and cheaper than tank sized AFVs, so that was the principal design driver. Also, Pantsir helps protect mobile theater and strategic ballistic missiles. Regards, John Kettler

Saw this by a fluke, but figured it was worth sharing. Certainly, it was news to me. Given what I know about foreign weapon technology covert acquisitions and technical exploitation, am astounded this major military intelligence coup, achieved in 2020, was blown in early 2021. Since Pantsir is the exact same weapon system as on the Tunguska, this gave the US the keys to the kingdom for that, too, with the proviso that the ones the UAE supplied Libya likely are the export version, and only under extreme circumstances is the homeland version provided. The differences can be considerable, including countermeasure resistance, missile range, guidance system capabilities, etc. The other consideration would be the WRF (War Reserve Frequencies) like those that provided a terrible shock when the MIG-25 FOXBAT Belenko flew fro the USSR to Japan underwent technical exploitation. We discovered the radar had a whole set of frequencies we'd never picked up before. That had grave implications, since our threat receivers only had in their computer catalog the frequencies we had heard. In war, this meant the bombers could've been lit up by the fire control radar but the signal not processed as a threat, leaving the bombers wide open to attack and unable to jam the radar, either. With no threat detected, there would also be no chaff and flares deployed. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a35353691/air-force-acquires-new-russian-missile-system-pantsir-libya/?utm_medium=social-media&utm_campaign=socialflowFBPOP&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR3I3MoMWCOsnKYyJnduQnYIgQwE68cqUYieYwL7Zm8L6BRCbmtmv-w6Q8w Regards, John Kettler

Back when CMx1 was all we had, I quite often bought a sniper and did quite a bit of damage with each one, causing a run on replacement TC heads. This tended to discourage operating Unbuttoned. During my brief window in which I was able to play CMBS, I had great success with a .50 BMG M107 sniper team. Initially, I tried Cover Arcs, but found that issuing no orders at all worked great. Firing SLAP, my guys took out BMPs and BTRs one after another and took minutes, I believe, to be spotted. When tank fire started ripping into their vicinity, the deadly duo decamped in haste! I take your point about shadows and have in the past decried the damaging lack of contrast modeling as it applies to Spotting. Regards, John Kettler

This is the most detailed training film I've ever seen on the fieldcraft of sniping. While there are many tricks of the trade which simply can't be done in any CMx2 game, I think it does an excellent job of depicting how to make the best use possible of cover and concealment. Also, I think that a lot could be done to improve the appearance of sharpshooters. Finally, something I had a devil of a time finding stills of is there in abundance. This is the use of narrow slits in paper or other materials to block telltale lens glare. That phenomenon is called retroreflection and can easily get you spotted and killed on a real battlefield. In the GPW, the leading cause of Red Army sniper deaths wasn't counter snipers but mortar fire, because that was how to make snipers go away without own people getting shot in the head. IN German but translated on the fly in VO. Regards, John Kettler

Guys, Yes, you read the title correctly. What follows is a full-on terminal ballistics analysis of the huge Medieval bombard Mons Meg firing a solid granite ball at the upper front plate/driver's plate of a Tiger 1. How will Mons Meg's massive and very slow projectile do against the enormous armor protection of the Tiger 1 in a dead frontal hit? Regards, John Kettler

JulianJ, You're most welcome. Can't comment about the audio version, since have never heard it and only read the book, which I highly recommend you read, especially if nothing was said in the audio about a German secret weapon. Regards, John Kettler

Don't own it (budget), but Normandy Then And Now has recently been updated and reissued. This is focused on the various German regiments which fought there and is replete with visuals. Would also note Hamilton books has the complementary books for Normandy in the Visual Battle Guide series for huge discounts. There's an equivalent set for Kursk as well: Das Reich vs 5th Guards Tank Army. Money permitting, buy them all. the price is fantastic, and these are hardbacks done on enameled paper and with scads of illos, unit wiring diagrams and more. https://www.hamiltonbook.com/7th-armoured-division-at-villers-bocage-13-june-1944-visual-battle-guide-hardbound https://www.hamiltonbook.com/i-ss-panzer-corps-at-villers-bocage-13-june-1944-visual-battle-guide-hardbound Regards, John Kettler

JulianJ, Didn't think the book made the Germans look at all good. The Goliath unit's near total ineffectiveness being an excellent case in point. The German strongpoint built from a reinforced barn is another example. Who, in a super high air threat environment, makes a strongpoint with near zero overhead protection? But it did provide the only combat report I've ever seen of a Stielgranate armed PaK 36 in action. Shall take a look at the refutations, but, from the standpoint of a former professional military analyst and someone familiar with German secret weapons far beyond what's covered in the usual books, my view is that the book isn't some whole cloth fabrication. Rather, there is a great deal of solid material present, but most people don't know the tech involved, and that includes military writers. What I read was an account by someone whose then job was to present a certain image of the troops in the field, and the original writer several times says what he observed in his initial interviews but dared not submit for publication. The story of the secret weapon fits with other material I came across independently, and it makes eminently good sense for someone involved in such a project to ask the writer to stay quiet about it until his death, at which point he would no longer be vulnerable to reprisals or being snatched up by the Allies (minus USSR) or USSR and other Eastern Bloc entities. You can see the same thing happening with people who worked on any number of high security programs. Typically, people talk about such things not at all, only in the most veiled terms, or if something has been really troubling their consciences, on their deathbeds. The objection was raised that veterans don't typically talk about what they've seen, but Frontsoldaten and other books show that's not the case when a veteran is writing contemporaneously or talking to fellow soldiers, veterans, loved ones and such--or writing a war memoir. Frontsoldaten and Combat: Pacific War have both shown me that even in letters home soldiers would write the most horrific things, sometimes with a "Don't show this to Mom, Dad" request. The German ones I've read were so horrifying I'm amazed they ever got past the censor, and the descriptions of things like the full details of the Marines dealing with Japanese infantry in spider holes are enough to make you lose your lunch--and dinner. Burgett, in his second book, The Road To Hell, paints an unflinching picture of what he saw, experienced and did. Am not at all sure I wish to sign up for the enormous area of effect for the secret weapon, but I know for sure that even a modest strike of this nature would've been devastating, for the assembly area is packed full of fully unbuttoned tanks, munitions, gasoline, trucks, jeeps and hordes of men. Strike that with FAE, and you'd see destruction that, in terms of target coverage, not even carpet bombing could achieve. There'd be a spectacular initial blast and then a chain reaction of endless secondary explosions and fire. Equipment losses would've been immense, but the real unit killer would've been the personnel losses of highly trained tank crews and support personnel. An armored unit in the assembly area is the very definition of a soft target, however odd that sounds. Regards, John Kettler

JulianJ, Have the book and read it with keen interest. Frankly, I found it terrifying going in both directions (the shattering Aliied firepower, as described by its targets), and that was before I read about the super weapon. As it happens, I'm familiar with much of what's said there regarding the weapon and its nature. If you search out a book by Renato Vesco with the two word title Intercept ___, you will find considerable discussion, from cited formerly classified C.I.O.S. (Combined Intelligence Objectives Subcommittee) (sample here) and B.I.O.S. (British Intelligence Objectives Subcommittee) reports (sample here), on a dizzying array of German scientific and military R &D. The Germans made a deep study of the so-called coal damp/coal mine explosion and related matters. This became the basis for what we would cal the German FAE (Fuel Air Explosives) program. The claim is made in the D Day book that an early application of the powdered coal and oxygen weapon was in destroying the Maxim Gorky battery at Sevastopol. Here is some material specifically addressing what I just said about German FAE weaponry. The piece at the link specifically talks about pumping coal dust into the Maxim Gorky Battery. http://myth3.bravesites.com/german-atom-bomb-and-wmds-part-2

By sheer happenstance, I just learned of a new one to me called the French 75. Not only is it martially named, but it's an actual and hard-hitting WW I cocktail, having been invented in 1915. https://www.allrecipes.com/recipe/221890/french-75-cocktail/ The only one I knew of before that was the Depth Charge. The one I had wasn't chi-chi at all. Instead, it was a shot of whisky plopped glass and all into a stein of beer. https://cocktailsandshots.com/recipe/depth-charge/ Regards, John Kettler

Bubba883XL, HIghly recommend Panzers and the Battle of Normandy, by Bernage. Everyone who hasn't read it should read Frontsoldaten, by American history prof Fritz. This is the Landser's war told from interviews, letters and even Landser veterans who went on to write about their experiences in novels. Deem it not just one of the most important books about WW II ever written, but one of the most important military books ever written, for this is the distilled essence of men at war, mostly in the titanic struggle on the Eastern Front. If you would understand how the Gerrmans were able to understand how the German soldier was able to fight on and on and on, the answers lie here, and some are pretty shocking. Regards, John Kettler

Glubokii Boy, Demolishing the Myth is nothing short of phenomenal. It provides perspectives I've seen nowhere else, and has what I deem to be the most amazing missing unit story ever, for during the battle the Russians lost track of an entire division. Not a battalion, a division. The deputy commander of the owning army was sent out to find it forthwith and did so some four hours later or thereabouts. Not only is Zamulin an expert on Prokhorovka, but the runs the museum of the battle there and lives nearby. One of the more interesting tidbits is the frank assessment of a Russian general that the Germans had a qualitative edge over the Russian tanks and antitank guns, in that the Russian weapons generally missed the first shot, while the Germans, with their far better fire control systems, didn't when they fired back. If firing on an antitank gun, this usually wiped out the entire crew. Plan to buy all of his other Kursk books, too. Regards, John Kettler

When CMBB was in development and in a great deal of subsequent tweaks, there was much made, and rightly so, of defective Soviet antitank projectiles. But I just became aware of an issue with Soviet armor quality of great import to futures CMx2 games covering earlier parts of the GPW than does CMRT. Was watching an analysis of a German technical exploitation report for recovered Churchills from the failed Dieppe Raid. At 6:37 in the video, there were some bombshell revelations by a Russian tank engineer, Kavalerchik, of how severely defective the armor was on a whopping fraction of the hulls coming out of two different tank factories, a problem still very much major through summer 1942 but never fully resolved. This is relevant because the German report invidiously compared the Churchill armor to that of the deemed superior by the German metallurgists German and Russian armor steel, so the meticulous military historian who did the video dug out some Russian evidence against the supposed metallurgical superiority of the Russian armor steel. The initial book release was hardback, but this is for the now barely released paperback edition. https://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/The-Tanks-of-Operation-Barbarossa-Paperback/p/19040 Regards, John Kettler

This is currently the weirdest military jinx story I've ever read. Would love to get feedback on this piece from out current and former armored troops. https://www.militarytimes.com/off-duty/military-culture/2021/05/20/why-tankers-are-terrified-of-apricots/?utm_campaign=Socialflow+ARM&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR2BZ6i6OVwgVeTUkQUMaBVneayZ6B0ep_tzyJNZZlPnGmwzThtK6tsQvUw Regards, John Kettler

New ammunition drastically improves capabilities to reliably defeat personnel and other targets. So major are these advances that an M240B can now do .50 BMG level damage to personnel and APCs alike. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2021/05/20/sof-shooters-are-about-to-get-serious-upgrades-for-small-arms-ammo/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=Socialflow+ARM&fbclid=IwAR04xq6cEEPDW8_a6sUuwKeFOItrbVgcy7-AvP_0yFJQjqRhJQYLq43aH_w Regards, John Kettler

LongLeftFlank, Great info and hilarious, too! Know of Essame and think I read one of his books. The "Unspectaculars" is hands down the best bizarre sounding unit name yet. Reminds me of a list of rude RN ship names I once saw, with such gems as HMS Incontinent. HMS Incompetent, etc. While we're on humor, have you seen this? https://www.facebook.com/BritishMilitaryHumourToo Loads of fun and oh so very NOT PC! Regards, John Kettler

Artkin, Am looking at the pics I previously posted and am not seeing these gaps you describe. Aside from a small vertical clearance so the turret can rotate without rubbing the hull top, potentially causing the net to jam the turret, the full underside of the front of the turret, save the mantlet, has the net, as do the sides, save small gaps on both sides between back of turret and storage bustle, and rear. Regards, John Kettler

Hadn't seen this fine set of pics before and, frankly, am not really all that great on discerning the various T-72 and T-90 versions. AllI I sought to do was find a way to get those photos over here, especially after I noticed the new (to me) protective scheme. The article you provided was very good. It packed a lot of information into a small piece. Regards, John Kettler

Photo credit is on each pic. Though hard to see in the first pic because of poor lighting and deep shadow, the T-90M has a potentially vital new feature--in the form of an improved version of the chains and weight balls protecting the turret ring from RPG projectiles, shaped charge shells and maybe (?) ATGMS. On the T-90M, this has been turned into a far more extensive system of protection wrapping clear around the turret (except the gun mantlet) and shielding the turret under hang and turret ring from such attack. But instead of weighted chains hanging individually and swinging freely, this is more like a weighted metal net, with the weights every place the horizontal lines cross or intersect the vertical ones. Believe this development has real military significance that may well merit some tweaks in how protection of the T-90M is treated in CMBS. Regards, John Kettler