John Kettler

gunnersman,
 
I think those two are suitable for a quiet Estonian night, whereas Bradleys could be heard in the Kremlin. Only slightly more acoustically stealthy than a nuclear strike. Speaking of Bradleys, here's a niftly little toy.
 

 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Having carefully reviewed the entire thread, I can assure you that the reception which first your idea, then you after you repeatedly stepped in it here, has been restrained, gentle and polite. I say this as a veteran of myriad thread wars, some so vicious people have been banned, going back to January 2000. Since you invoked your MS, I should tell you we have a number of people here who are disabled or have major health issues. Indeed, for some, the CM Forums are their major connection to the outer world, for they're home ridden or even bedridden. I'm not supposed to be stressed myself, for I'm recovering from a brain injury and am on disability, but in your case, I think it fair to assert the stress you're feeling is self-inflicted. You may not have intended it, but you have, in fact, riled the troops. And to your evidently great discomfiture, they're expressing it strongly, yet courteously. In a sense, you have tracked mud into our living room--and now are defending having done it! Unsurprisingly, it's not going over well.
 
We welcome players of all ages and genders and are under no delusions whatsoever that we need to get some (not spill some; that's later and it'll be from pixels) fresh blood in here if our hobby cum obsession/E-crack is to survive. You may also be interested to know we have people here who play many popular games over and above the CM series. Contrary to what you might believe, this is not the Place Where Innovative Game Thinking Goes to Die™, but is a dynamic opinionated community which, if it could have thought controlled, 3-D, fully interactive Holo Cube displays using projectors the size of a quarter but creating a sim battle space, say, 100 x 100 km; with everything in it, including visible planes, horses, cows and motorcycles, perfectly rendered and functioning exactly as the real ones do--would be on that in about a nanosecond, particularly if it could be done for what our current CM rigs cost. Yet, you're essentially portraying us as using these and being unwilling to go beyond them. Not even remotely true!
 
Simply put, we welcome innovation here that improves combat sim fidelity and our gaming experience. We want to be able to do in CM everything those same units and weapons did and do in the real world. We are not there yet, and even if the coding resources were there, the computational horsepower simply isn't. As it stands, CM can't even take advantage of the widely proliferated multiple core systems, which inherently limits what can be done, since the game can use but one processor core, of n available. 
 
You seem to expect us to jump in and enthusiastically support your idea, but you don't have the perspective we have. Some of us have CM backgrounds going back to, I believe, 1998. What was true then, and still is now, is that BFC is a tiny and very busy firm. A firm with a whole two programmers who would have to devote a great deal of time and effort (and a substantial chunk of BFC's very scarce funding) to give you what you want, presuming it's even doable, at the direct expense of other important things which need doing, such as a Module for CMRT, which has none, and a whole Battle of the Bulge game, not to mention modeling of weapon depression and elevation limits, which we've been trying to get since CMx1"s CMBO, and CMBS's tactically significant and very galling inability to model mast mounted sights and weapons. You've been a member for a bit over two years, so you have no idea how thrilled we were when BFC announced it was hiring a (trumpets blare) second programmer. Before that, it was just Charles "Brain in a jar" Moylan, BFC's co-founder along with Steve, who was doing all the coding for all the CM games.
 
Having ideas is great, as is suggesting them. but how you go about presenting them, stating your case and asking for what you want is going to, for good or ill, have tremendous impact on what sort of response you get here, whether from the members, BFC or both. 
 
IanL,
 
Sadly, you probably could sell that to the networks. Might trigger a bidding war. Meanwhile, the basic concept's been done already. With a lower carbon footprint, too.
 

 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Having carefully reviewed the entire thread, I can assure you that the reception which first your idea, then you after you repeatedly stepped in it here, has been restrained, gentle and polite. I say this as a veteran of myriad thread wars, some so vicious people have been banned, going back to January 2000. Since you invoked your MS, I should tell you we have a number of people here who are disabled or have major health issues. Indeed, for some, the CM Forums are their major connection to the outer world, for they're home ridden or even bedridden. I'm not supposed to be stressed myself, for I'm recovering from a brain injury and am on disability, but in your case, I think it fair to assert the stress you're feeling is self-inflicted. You may not have intended it, but you have, in fact, riled the troops. And to your evidently great discomfiture, they're expressing it strongly, yet courteously. In a sense, you have tracked mud into our living room--and now are defending having done it! Unsurprisingly, it's not going over well.
 
We welcome players of all ages and genders and are under no delusions whatsoever that we need to get some (not spill some; that's later and it'll be from pixels) fresh blood in here if our hobby cum obsession/E-crack is to survive. You may also be interested to know we have people here who play many popular games over and above the CM series. Contrary to what you might believe, this is not the Place Where Innovative Game Thinking Goes to Die™, but is a dynamic opinionated community which, if it could have thought controlled, 3-D, fully interactive Holo Cube displays using projectors the size of a quarter but creating a sim battle space, say, 100 x 100 km; with everything in it, including visible planes, horses, cows and motorcycles, perfectly rendered and functioning exactly as the real ones do--would be on that in about a nanosecond, particularly if it could be done for what our current CM rigs cost. Yet, you're essentially portraying us as using these and being unwilling to go beyond them. Not even remotely true!
 
Simply put, we welcome innovation here that improves combat sim fidelity and our gaming experience. We want to be able to do in CM everything those same units and weapons did and do in the real world. We are not there yet, and even if the coding resources were there, the computational horsepower simply isn't. As it stands, CM can't even take advantage of the widely proliferated multiple core systems, which inherently limits what can be done, since the game can use but one processor core, of n available. 
 
You seem to expect us to jump in and enthusiastically support your idea, but you don't have the perspective we have. Some of us have CM backgrounds going back to, I believe, 1998. What was true then, and still is now, is that BFC is a tiny and very busy firm. A firm with a whole two programmers who would have to devote a great deal of time and effort (and a substantial chunk of BFC's very scarce funding) to give you what you want, presuming it's even doable, at the direct expense of other important things which need doing, such as a Module for CMRT, which has none, and a whole Battle of the Bulge game, not to mention modeling of weapon depression and elevation limits, which we've been trying to get since CMx1"s CMBO, and CMBS's tactically significant and very galling inability to model mast mounted sights and weapons. You've been a member for a bit over two years, so you have no idea how thrilled we were when BFC announced it was hiring a (trumpets blare) second programmer. Before that, it was just Charles "Brain in a jar" Moylan, BFC's co-founder along with Steve, who was doing all the coding for all the CM games.
 
Having ideas is great, as is suggesting them. but how you go about presenting them, stating your case and asking for what you want is going to, for good or ill, have tremendous impact on what sort of response you get here, whether from the members, BFC or both. 
 
IanL,
 
Sadly, you probably could sell that to the networks. Might trigger a bidding war. Meanwhile, the basic concept's been done already. With a lower carbon footprint, too.
 

 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Having carefully reviewed the entire thread, I can assure you that the reception which first your idea, then you after you repeatedly stepped in it here, has been restrained, gentle and polite. I say this as a veteran of myriad thread wars, some so vicious people have been banned, going back to January 2000. Since you invoked your MS, I should tell you we have a number of people here who are disabled or have major health issues. Indeed, for some, the CM Forums are their major connection to the outer world, for they're home ridden or even bedridden. I'm not supposed to be stressed myself, for I'm recovering from a brain injury and am on disability, but in your case, I think it fair to assert the stress you're feeling is self-inflicted. You may not have intended it, but you have, in fact, riled the troops. And to your evidently great discomfiture, they're expressing it strongly, yet courteously. In a sense, you have tracked mud into our living room--and now are defending having done it! Unsurprisingly, it's not going over well.
 
We welcome players of all ages and genders and are under no delusions whatsoever that we need to get some (not spill some; that's later and it'll be from pixels) fresh blood in here if our hobby cum obsession/E-crack is to survive. You may also be interested to know we have people here who play many popular games over and above the CM series. Contrary to what you might believe, this is not the Place Where Innovative Game Thinking Goes to Die™, but is a dynamic opinionated community which, if it could have thought controlled, 3-D, fully interactive Holo Cube displays using projectors the size of a quarter but creating a sim battle space, say, 100 x 100 km; with everything in it, including visible planes, horses, cows and motorcycles, perfectly rendered and functioning exactly as the real ones do--would be on that in about a nanosecond, particularly if it could be done for what our current CM rigs cost. Yet, you're essentially portraying us as using these and being unwilling to go beyond them. Not even remotely true!
 
Simply put, we welcome innovation here that improves combat sim fidelity and our gaming experience. We want to be able to do in CM everything those same units and weapons did and do in the real world. We are not there yet, and even if the coding resources were there, the computational horsepower simply isn't. As it stands, CM can't even take advantage of the widely proliferated multiple core systems, which inherently limits what can be done, since the game can use but one processor core, of n available. 
 
You seem to expect us to jump in and enthusiastically support your idea, but you don't have the perspective we have. Some of us have CM backgrounds going back to, I believe, 1998. What was true then, and still is now, is that BFC is a tiny and very busy firm. A firm with a whole two programmers who would have to devote a great deal of time and effort (and a substantial chunk of BFC's very scarce funding) to give you what you want, presuming it's even doable, at the direct expense of other important things which need doing, such as a Module for CMRT, which has none, and a whole Battle of the Bulge game, not to mention modeling of weapon depression and elevation limits, which we've been trying to get since CMx1"s CMBO, and CMBS's tactically significant and very galling inability to model mast mounted sights and weapons. You've been a member for a bit over two years, so you have no idea how thrilled we were when BFC announced it was hiring a (trumpets blare) second programmer. Before that, it was just Charles "Brain in a jar" Moylan, BFC's co-founder along with Steve, who was doing all the coding for all the CM games.
 
Having ideas is great, as is suggesting them. but how you go about presenting them, stating your case and asking for what you want is going to, for good or ill, have tremendous impact on what sort of response you get here, whether from the members, BFC or both. 
 
IanL,
 
Sadly, you probably could sell that to the networks. Might trigger a bidding war. Meanwhile, the basic concept's been done already. With a lower carbon footprint, too.
 

 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Michael Emrys,

The sum total of what I've read on WW II tank warfare says you're wrong. In battle, it was common for tanks to be hit and the crew be none the wiser until after the battle ended. And I'm talking main gun hits, not MG strikes. I've read recently in Taming The Panzers of multiple instances in which a tank was disabled, but this was only found when it was time to shift positions. I've read statements from crews in which they realized they'd been hit (not perforated) by tank cannon and SPG rounds during the battle only by the scars on their armor after the shooting stopped.

Regards,

John Kettler

Here are three pages well worth reading if you have any interest at all in China as an emerging military presence in the Pacific. I found it quite a read.
 
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/japans-master-plan-defeat-china-war-12338
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Appreciate this information and the vid, but concur with Oakheart on characterization of AK-12. Maybe it's the paint scheme, too, but to me, it looks butt ugly (and the weapon's butt does look ugly, too), elevating the AK-47 to the level of visual art by comparison. I'm not saying the AN-12 (also the name of an Antonov C-130 clone) isn't a tough reliable weapon. To get through State trials it would have to be, but I think soldiers prefer weapons that do their jobs well and look good. If both did well on the weapon end, I'd want the AEK-971, which not only gets the military job done but is scary looking (intimidation's always good) and has clean cool lines as well. And let's face it, if FMS figure in, sex appeal, if you will, is apart of the marketing equation. Aesthetics most definitely do figure in, and I now show this was an issue which concerned catapult designers in ancient Greece.
 
Philon, circa 250 BCE,  Construction of War Engines
Referring to a new type of catapult called the wedge engine, he has this to say, and it's very much marketing related, as is his prior listing of features and benefits for his innovative and more powerful version of a well-established key weapon:
 
"Finally, in appearance it is no less imposing than the others..."
 
Cited in Campbell's Greek and Roman Military Writers: Selected Readings, p184.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Ranger33,
 
Your reply cracked me up, yet makes a lot of sense, too. Wonder how Random can be fixed at the force selection logic level. What I got is awkward and potentially deadly, whereas your force makes sense, but the opposition's doesn't. That's not the same, because I'm talking about a hink in own force selection. So far, I've yet to encounter any Russian defenders. Attack scenario, which presumably explains why I have not merely a nasty main force, but heavy fire support, too. Why I'm schlepping a Company HQ into battle when there's no Infantry Company. One of my Abrams is the Tank Battalion CO's, who's evidently leading from the front.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Lee McLaughlin,
 
If you like, you can play part of the Petsamo-Kirkenes Strategic Operation, where you can have
 
(Fair Use)
 
General Meretskov also personally requested a fifth armoured unit from STAVKA, voicing the opinion that this should include a regiment of heavy KV-1 tanks to break through the German defensive positions. STAVKA approved the request and assigned: 

• 73 Guards Heavy Tank Regiment 
 o 21 KV-1 tanks 

to the Karelian Front.
 
The above is taken from a first rate two part military analysis reported here.
 
(Breaks away to check some more)
 
Regret to inform you you're screwed. The KV-1s listed are KV-85s, as described in James Gebhardt's The Petsamo-Kirkenes Strategic Operation, p. 20. 
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

I was doing some research when I fell into the endless diversion to be found in a sidebar. Turns out this was a lot more than a diversion. More like a mind expander. I took the test as soon as I came across it and found it demanding, forcing me to search the dim recesses of memory to resurrect words encountered, in some cases, decades ago. Some were easy, some required serious efforts at recall, while some I attacked via logical exclusion. I managed to get 20/21, was undone by a word I'd never seen before, but had I not worked as hard as I did, it would've been far less than that. Try it for yourself.
 
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/inspired/1241586-test-your-knowledge-how-many-of-these-words-do-you-know/
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler
 
 

slysniper,
 
In one the four vids, forget which one, that ChrisND did showing off the APS, he rolled a platoon of T-90AMs into hull defilade position dead front of a pretty exposed, full frontal aspect, Abrams platoon on a low hill. Range? 750 meters. The T-90s saw the Abrams force first and opened fire. Several US tanks died outright, while others were badly hurt. The Russian force never came under fire, I believe. Sure opened my eyes!
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

pnzrldr,
 
In a QB for which I have the Save, I observed a complete Kill Chain occur in four (4) seconds. NO LOS from anyone but my tank, which had zero LOS until it Hunted forward and cleared terrain mask and foliage LOS block. While moving, buttoned, it saw a T-90AM at what I subsequently determined to be a range of 654 meters, lased and fired. First shot kill. Veteran vs Veteran. T-90AM got no shot off at all. I know our guys are super well trained, but to me, that seems ridiculously fast, even with SABOT up the spout. And I'm not sure I believe that, either. I'd think AMP would be the default round. Would very much appreciate your thoughts on this. Original post is on CMBS Tech Support.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Na Vaske,
 
Interesting to see a Russian playing as a Ukrainian. Your formidable Tank Serzhant Popova (extra points for use of patronymic) brings to mind this singularly apt classic Queen vid. Pay attention to the lyrics at 0:32, and you'll understand why.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAf2S6ij2gk
 
Reiter,
 
The piece of art at the bottom of your #63 depicts, I believe, depicts Death, who's clearly German, playing away over the corpse of (shot by a German firing squad) British nurse Edith Cavell, indicated by both the nurse outfit and the draped British flag. Years ago, and I forget where, I got to see a bunch of WW I propaganda drawings. This one's pretty tame compared to those, such as the one of the bestial German soldier with a baby spitted on his bayonet. this was the result of lurid (false) stories emerging from Belgium.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

 

DMS,
 
Most entertaining and informative DAR/AAR. It was exciting watching your T-90AM blasting away. Till it got blasted, Unfortunately, you didn't get to clobber an Abrams. Still, you partially repaid the production costs by actually causing some damage. c3k certainly found it damaging. The death ride of the Hummers! Your lasing preyed on c3k's mind and perplexed mine. I really like the look of the BTR-82A, with that high menacing weapon mount. Rather SF, and it does airburst, something I never knew until you and c3k had at each other. Regarding disembarking, the BTR-82A is way better in that regard than the BTR-60's side hatch, but doesn't compare to the time honored going out the back, preferably with the rear screened. If the vehicle is stopped, does it offer cover if between the men and the bullets? Hope so! I know it didn't in CMBN (unless AFV's already a flaming datum), and I don't have CMRT, so don't know what did or didn't happen there.
 
Speaking of explosions, I thought you did a great job letting Bog Voiny (God of War, artillery) have his way with c3k. Because of firing delays, I wouldn't normally expect to see 152s in play, but you're causing me to rethink potential FS options. Very nice shoot. c3k should be grateful his Bradley seat cushions don't have buttons, for the round that nearly got one of his Bradleys might well have caused that sort of instinctive stress response, requiring the removal services of a gastroenterologist! The Abrams is a phenomenal killing machine. If you're on the same battlefield with it, as OPFOR, death becomes effortless. Have ruled out career in Motor Rifle troops after watching your battle. Did Krizantema actually kill anything, or was it just a target for the Abrams? Your Grach certainly caused some excitement, putting down a torrent of fire. This version would be far more exciting, what with 4 x Kh-25 and 16 x Vikhr! It shows what sorts of things can be done if the need's perceived and the will and resources are there. That version is designed to survive, not 23 mm fire, but 30 mm fire into critical areas, not to mention a Stinger direct hit! Loved the hunt late in the game, even if it didn't work out quite as planned. In closing, I think the house rules you guys had, and making it immersive in the "got a job to do and don't want to die in the process" way you played it, made for an even tenser clash. Quite the fight, and despite harrowing losses, you carried the day. Well done!
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Cpl Steiner,
 
Here you go. Hope your head doesn't explode. Mine nearly did. In this sea of info, there are two things vital to your question, one is a very elaborate multipart symbol which has far more elements than did SPI's Seapower & the State game counters. Happily for your sanity, all you need to know is that the Text Modifier for force strength goes in field "F" and is expressed as ( - ) reduced, (+) reinforced or + and - stacked,  reinforced, reduced. That's probably way too complicated, so showing the tactical symbol with just the Text Modifier next to the UR symbol corner ought to suffice. If you're brave/foolish, you can have at the elephant!  Or you can tame it somewhat via something really cool called MILSketch--CM player approved. CMer Steve Dixon talks about it, and there's a direct link to the Forums! Tutorial vid below. For PC only. 
 

 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

DMS,
 
Most entertaining and informative DAR/AAR. It was exciting watching your T-90AM blasting away. Till it got blasted, Unfortunately, you didn't get to clobber an Abrams. Still, you partially repaid the production costs by actually causing some damage. c3k certainly found it damaging. The death ride of the Hummers! Your lasing preyed on c3k's mind and perplexed mine. I really like the look of the BTR-82A, with that high menacing weapon mount. Rather SF, and it does airburst, something I never knew until you and c3k had at each other. Regarding disembarking, the BTR-82A is way better in that regard than the BTR-60's side hatch, but doesn't compare to the time honored going out the back, preferably with the rear screened. If the vehicle is stopped, does it offer cover if between the men and the bullets? Hope so! I know it didn't in CMBN (unless AFV's already a flaming datum), and I don't have CMRT, so don't know what did or didn't happen there.
 
Speaking of explosions, I thought you did a great job letting Bog Voiny (God of War, artillery) have his way with c3k. Because of firing delays, I wouldn't normally expect to see 152s in play, but you're causing me to rethink potential FS options. Very nice shoot. c3k should be grateful his Bradley seat cushions don't have buttons, for the round that nearly got one of his Bradleys might well have caused that sort of instinctive stress response, requiring the removal services of a gastroenterologist! The Abrams is a phenomenal killing machine. If you're on the same battlefield with it, as OPFOR, death becomes effortless. Have ruled out career in Motor Rifle troops after watching your battle. Did Krizantema actually kill anything, or was it just a target for the Abrams? Your Grach certainly caused some excitement, putting down a torrent of fire. This version would be far more exciting, what with 4 x Kh-25 and 16 x Vikhr! It shows what sorts of things can be done if the need's perceived and the will and resources are there. That version is designed to survive, not 23 mm fire, but 30 mm fire into critical areas, not to mention a Stinger direct hit! Loved the hunt late in the game, even if it didn't work out quite as planned. In closing, I think the house rules you guys had, and making it immersive in the "got a job to do and don't want to die in the process" way you played it, made for an even tenser clash. Quite the fight, and despite harrowing losses, you carried the day. Well done!
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

I have no idea whether this is possible by swapping things from CMBN into CMRT, but it's simply too amazing not to share.

In reading Bradley Smith's most informative Sharing Secrets with Stalin, I came across a Grade One bombshell. On September 28, 1941 Stalin specifically requested the British send several divisions to Russia to fight alongside the Red Army. Britain wanted to be in the Caucasus Front, so as to be positioned to wreck the oilfields should it come to that. Stalin said there was no war there; that Britain should instead go to the Ukraine Front--where there was a war.

On December 8, 1941, Stalin tried again, this time proposing the British troops he sought be sent to the Leningrad Front. When the British failed to jump, he instead proposed placing them on the Estonian Front, which he thought they'd find more congenial.

Britain obviously never took up the offer, but Bradley Smith deems this was a truly significant fork in the course of East-West relations, arguing that had Britain really put up and shared even a part of the direct combat burden, Stalin would've had a considerably different take then and post-war on Britain and, by extension, the Allies en bloc. I emphatically agree.

Be these as they may, my notion is straightforward but may well be utterly impractical. The idea is to port British forces into CMRT from CMBN and use them to create a whole new range of Op Bagration gaming possibilities, scenarios based on a British troop commitment to Russia circa 1942 which would then be projected forward in time, yielding , by the most convenient of circumstances, the very TO&Es which CMBN and CW have for the CW forces. Were such a thing doable, I believe it would be thrilling for the CW player to be freed of the terrain constraints bedeviling ops in both Normandy and Holland. Long range DF gunnery would become important, and artillery would perform more closely to historical levels, thanks to much greater map sizes. Tacair would become more effective because of the great openness of the land, making hiding from it harder and AA accordingly more important. AA Crusaders could actually do AA work. Of course, someone else will have to sort out the vexed Bren AA tripod mount business!

Regards,

John Kettler

Cpl Steiner,
 
Here you go. Hope your head doesn't explode. Mine nearly did. In this sea of info, there are two things vital to your question, one is a very elaborate multipart symbol which has far more elements than did SPI's Seapower & the State game counters. Happily for your sanity, all you need to know is that the Text Modifier for force strength goes in field "F" and is expressed as ( - ) reduced, (+) reinforced or + and - stacked,  reinforced, reduced. That's probably way too complicated, so showing the tactical symbol with just the Text Modifier next to the UR symbol corner ought to suffice. If you're brave/foolish, you can have at the elephant!  Or you can tame it somewhat via something really cool called MILSketch--CM player approved. CMer Steve Dixon talks about it, and there's a direct link to the Forums! Tutorial vid below. For PC only. 
 

 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

What an intriguing question and promising answer!  I freely admit the notion of using a shorter than the target arc to suppress lasing never crossed my mind. Yet, since the guns are so flat shooting, out to fairly appreciable range, battle sight setting ought, in theory, to work.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Tanknut Dave has a very good page on the T-84 Oplot, a term I now understand to mean "bulwark." This page goes into tremendous, glorious grog detail (manufacturer's sheet?) on the tank, to include the thermal sights (don't understand the magnification stuff at all; makes no sense--NFOV is 1/3 mag of WFOV), other visionics, signature reduction measures of which I knew effectively nothing, even how many grenades and AKS cartridges are carried. Part of this page is a mini tutorial on the nits and grits of the ammo carousel and its specific operating parameters. There is a full discussion of the CM suite on the tank, too, including the duration of the aerosol screen once deployed. Don't plan on staying long. Lasts all of a minute. The ballistic protection section seems impressive, but it's much easier to claim the ability to survive various threats and something else altogether to actually deliver on the claims. Vid of an Oplot on the Poligon is pretty cool. Amazing how little can be seen of it when running through the brush.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler
 
 

This thread, methinks, very much needs to be put back on the track. Am not going to attempt to respond by individuals, so am going to address this by specific issues.

Yom Kippur War IADs effectiveness
 
IAF CAS losses were so severe vs Egypt for days that Israel terminated them altogether. They didn't resume until IDF tanks, which had crossed the Suez Canal, drove into the SAM zones and systematically shot up the SA-2/3/6 SAMs and dense AAA, of which the most notable AAA was the "airplane eater" ZSU-23/4. DEAD Israeli style. Against Syria, the story was much the same, but in both cases, Israeli CAS was effectively out of the war until the SAM problem was addressed, of which the pacing element (and eye waterer to defense types in the US and) was the lethality of the highly agile, mobile SA-6, a weapon against which the IAF had no ECM capability whatsoever. None. The SAMs were sufficiently deadly to force IAF planes to fly low, placing them in the deadly embrace of radar directed AAA, not to mention a plethora of SA-7s. The US provided Israel with as many as 40 F-4s and definitely 46 A-4s as replacements for terrible air losses. What's not generally known is that the US provided Israel with numerous complete tail end assemblies for A-4s. Why? The planes were eating SA-7s, but barely getting back home. Spare part planners never envisioned such a situation, so the IAF suffered major virtual attrition as a result. The IAF started the war with 440 combat planes and lost, depending on which numbers are used, 107-387, but I don't know offhand whether the US supplied additional planes over attrition during the resupply effort.
 
Given the above, I'm having real problems signing up for the "lessons of the Yom Kippur War." Likewise, I'm having similar problems with GW I. There were other factors at work other than those enumerated including: precision destruction of a key Iraqi air surveillance radar, the removal of which allowed the entry of the Stealth fighters and more visible friends. Inter alia, this resulted in the pinpoint destruction of the key Syrian AD HQ, spectacularly shown time and again on strike vid broadcast worldwide. Even in unbroken state, the IADS had very little capability vs Tomahawks which are, many don't realize, pretty stealthy in their own right, let alone when whizzing down the boulevard so low details on the weapons were clearly visible. This isn't the famous footage, but it gets the idea across.


 
The US went into GW I with not merely with superlative intel on Iraq's IADS, it went into battle with a direct conduit right into the IADS situation center, thanks to a physical hack into the fiber optic trunk line from the front, a hack put into place by a brilliant US SpecOps mission. Reportedly, the US was able to show, or not show, IADS HQ whatever it desired, but the hack is believed to have been used as a generator of enormous numbers of false targets. I firmly believe it's dangerous to draw sweeping conclusions without a fundamental understanding of what was going on to begin with. I recall the mighty MOD himself came out from Russia with his experts to figure exactly this out. One such insight was a demand for a weapon capable of downing a HARM attacking a defending SAM site. Pantsir, anyone? Tunguska itself has substantial capabilities vs things like GBU-15, LGBs, JDAM, JSOW and Tomahawks.
 
Now, let's look at the Vietnam War, shall we? It's fashionable to deride NVN's IADS as ineffective. This is based on another faulty premise. That premise is that the aggregate performance figures reflect how the national IADS performed historically throughout. Not the case. What you're seeing are the effects of a lot of really bad outcomes late in an otherwise impressive career.  When the US first ran into the SA-2, the SA-2 was killing 0.5 planes per engagement. 0.5! Indeed, there were several cases of two planes downed in one shot. What broke the back of the NVN IADS was a masterful CIA op called HA/BRINK or HABRINK. What was that? The CIA slipped people into Indonesia's SA-2 warehouses and obtained the relevant guidance link frequencies, allowing the US to pretty effectively jam the SA-2. Why Indonesia? The Indonesian SA-2s were identical to the NVN's SA-2s! Sure, evasive maneuvering, Wild Weasel, Iron Hand played their part, but HA/BRINK was what undid the IADs as far as SAM coverage. By late in the war, Linebacker II, jamming, better tactics, SEAD and other means had so degraded and cowed the SAMs that they were blind launching (no radar at all, optical direction only)  dozens of SAMs at once, and that's why the overall numbers look so bleak. That wasn't the case through much of the air war over NVN and the DMZ. We lost a family friend and his WSO to an SA-2 over the DMZ. It came out of the clouds below, so they had no chance to see the launch and evade. Boom!  Two wall entries on the Vietnam Memorial.
 
For a more informed view of Russian SAM operational effectiveness than what I've seen in this thread, please see Carlo Kopp's analysis here. Kopp has some scathing things to say about how the Arabs not only fundamentally disregarded a throughly thought out Russian doctrine, but did some things which would've been comedic had they not been so hurtful to the using force! Suggest interested parties also look at what specific threats the newer generation SAMs were designed to defeat, what their tactical-technical characteristics are and how that applies to the ability to detect, localize, engage and kill them. Makes rather sobering reading. A Serbian captain with his ancient SA-6 unit not only survived a major SEAD/DEAD campaign, but also cost the US the stunning loss of an F-117, damage to a second one and an F-16.
 
As a longtime student of military history and a former defense professional, I deem it folly to expect the USAF to be able to so thoroughly control the skies that Russian CAS and similar can't operate. US AAA threat is risible, so there's no real dense AAG penalty for operating in the weeds to make it really hard vs both fighters and Patriot to engage it, and SU-25s have survived hits by things much worse than MANPADS. Russia's not going to sit idly by and let the US/NATO gin up its air power before striking, so the force ratios, for a time, at least, are not going to be pretty. Contrary to popular opinion, the AWACS supply is quite limited, and people need to remember that these vital birds can stay aloft only so long before they have to be replaced to keep a given area in coverage. The harder they're flown, the less reliable they become, and the worse the even more critical highly trained control crews perform. Tired radar operators miss things. That. of course, presumes the plane ever gets airborne to begin with, A single Russian sniper armed with, say, an OSV 12.7 mm rifle, could ruin NATO's day at places like Geilenkirchen, which when last seen, had a whole 5 E-3As. It's even worse with JSTARS, where there are but a handful of planes in total.
 
And this discussion is without taking into account Russian missile hard kill systems or jamming. Put it this way, for every long range sensor we deployed, the Russians deployed countermeasures. Jammers vs the E-3A, the TR-1's SAR, JSTARs. I used to have some SECRET diagrams of the E-3A radar display under jamming. Thanks to steerable antenna nulls, the system performed very well in the face of one or two jammers, but after that things progressively fell apart. It was entirely possible to jam the E-3A so effectively that entire (pizza slice wide) sectors were blind. Additionally, the more jamming energy received, the shorter detection range becomes, totally compromising the vast volumetric region a Sentry ordinarily controls. This allows even crude Stealth weapons a veritable free ride through the defenses.
 
If memory serves, the wartime scenario over West Germany envisioned only two E-3As up, covering the entire region. What happens if one doesn't show up, is shot down or is jammed so effectively it can't do its job? How many would likely be available to support ops in Ukraine, and how much coverage, even best case, would be lost just to keep things like S-300PMU and S-400 from simply devouring them? The Russians also have the Il-76 MAINSTAY, their Gen 2 AWACS. Nor, as a look at page 3, #46 in that thread will show, is that by any means the limits of what's going to be faced. The Russians are building a combined function aircraft able to handle everything but undersea warfare from an AWACS perspective. I'd argue that Russian force effectiveness will be greatly enhanced by even the vanilla MAINSTAY of the Cold War period, never mind what it's evolved into since. Patriot will assuredly be a key Spetsnaz target, and if it goes down, there's no way the Air Force can handle the flood which would ensue. SAMs are 24/7 systems, but planes, even with in-flight refueling, have to go home sooner or later. There is no in-flight replenishment of munitions, LRUs or crews. And who's to say that the planes keeping the Russians away in one place won't suddenly be retasked elsewhere, leaving the poor ground force commander in the denuded zone in a Heinz factory sized pickle?!
 
What are the MCRs (Mission Capable Rates) for the F-22A under high sortie conditions?  We already know the F-35 is compromised practically across the board when it comes to just about every combat metric, so why should MCR  or sortie generation rate be any better? It'll probably break a lot, not least because it'll be anything but a mature system. We know how those tend to be. As a mature system, the F-14 Tomcat was running ~65% MCR. This meant a two-carrier CVBG could use only one CVN on a given day for strike--because the other could do nothing but conduct FAD to keep both alive! Doubtless the numbers these days are better, bit I think they nicely illustrate the main issue. Complex things, and the F-35 is super complex and broken to start, are iffy at best to depend upon. The more you stress a complicated system, the faster it breaks, not necessarily in ways anticipated, either. Given this incredibly important issue, does it really make sense to make campaign success dependent on breaking the Russian Air Force via aerial combat, as seems to be the general expectation?
 
I don't have the latest numbers and all the tech specs for what I fervently hope are upgrades from what I knew of US capabilities, but I do know the overall situation should give serious pause to US/NATO planners, operations and combat personnel. There is a strong case to be made for a real integrated US tactical air defense a la Russe or similar. I close with a cautionary tale from my Hughes AIM-54 Phoenix days.
 
The FAD (Fleet Air Defense) Section Head vs His Boss, the Operations Analysis Department Manager.
 
My section head, Bill Knight, ran OPFOR--Tu-22M BACKFIRE & SOJs (Stand Off Jammers); his boss, Dave Spencer, had the FAD for a BLUFOR CVBG (carrier battle group). Site of battle? Navy tactical simulator in Monterey, California. Each side had its own war room, and there was a separate Control room where all was known. The stakes? A good bottle of wine and gloating rights on Monday. Event was part of a threat conference the weekend immediately before Monday.
 
OPFOR objective:
 
Penetrate FAD screen and launch long range Mach 3+ AS-4 KITCHEN ASCMs to hit and destroy CVNs (in the days before AEGIS was deployed)
 
BLUFOR objective
 
Use CAP and DLI (Deck Launched Interceptors) to destroy OPFOR before it can reach the missile release line.
 
Execution: BLUFOR
 
BLUFOR radar detects jam strobes on expected threat axis and gleefully commits both CAP and available DLI to attack OPFOR. Once in range, and operating in HOJ (Home ON Jam) mode, salvos of Tomcat launched Phoenix missiles kill the jammers, clearing the radar scopes. Dave Spencer exults, thinking he has destroyed the attackers and won a crushing victory.
 
Execution: OPFOR
 
Bill Knight fully anticipates BLUFOR commander's battle plan and uses it to destroy him. OPFOR demonstrates with SOJs, getting exactly the response he anticipated, but sends the actual striking force, without SOJs, around to the back door, conducting completely unhindered AS-4 missile attacks. The SOJs and crews blown to bits? Regrettable losses necessary to fulfill OPFOR commander, Bill Knight's, operational intent.
 
Battle Resolution 
 
About the time Dave Spencer was celebrating his great victory, Control informed him  his triumphant Tomcats would begin ditching shortly. Seems both of his carriers had been sunk by Bill Knight, and no fixed airfield, or even another carrier, was anywhere to be had. This was the end. I have no idea what the wine was, how expensive and delectable, but the wine of victory was thoroughly savored by my section head, for he had wiped the floor with Dave, who possessed an awe inspiring Ph.D. in Military Operations Research, from Harvard, no less. Come Monday, though, his customary arrogance and aura of superiority were gone. He walked about head down, visibly depressed and like a man in a daze. He couldn't believe what had happened to him; so catastrophically at the (perceived) moment of victory.
 
Summing up, I believe the expectation that the US would almost immediately own the skies over Ukraine to be on the scale somewhere from delusional clear up to clinically insane. Such expectations seem to be predicated on a largely incompetent opponent who hasn't a prayer of prevailing vs western military might and training. Additionally, this seems to be predicated on the notion that Russian pilots are no better than Arab pilots and would be flying planes just about as capable relative to US combat aircraft. Does the US have some nice toys? Absolutely. But how many will actually be usable--and stay usable--over the course of the envisioned campaign? Is it reasonable to assume that other US foes are going to lie doggo so the US/NATO can fight Russia absent other military crises? I think not. And has anyone here bothered to look at the Russian approach to BVR aerial warfare in a very heavy jamming and rapidly maneuvering target environment? Once you have, consider this notional engagement, but with as many as 4 x AAMs targeted on each Raptor. This engagement presumes, too, that AWACS isn't attacked and downed or badly crippled. Nor does it recognize the existence of a technology called forward pass, in which missile shooters simply salvo missiles on command of aircraft whose far superior sensors allows guidance of those weapons even though the shooters can't see the target. All of a sudden those numerous not Stealth planes become a real threat, making the already enormous missile loads of Russian Stealth fighters many times larger than can be carried. 


 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

panzersaurkrautwerfer,
 
Judging my your apparent reactivity to my post, I appear to have struck a nerve or maybe nerve plexus. To characterize me as a "man who thinks tanks are aircraft carriers" is pretty snarky, and "thread-Stalin" was even worse. The latter wasn't wry humor, for it "bit" the instant I read it.
 
You did a bang up job of misconstruing and distorting a whole series of things I said. I never said the US IADS is all, to the contrary, I depicted it as subject to multiple forms of attack, including SpecOps. I pointed out, in instance after instance, where the vulnerabilities lay and what the Russians had the wherewithal to do, having very carefully thought through what they'd be facing. I then essentially argued that a variety of frictions (ECM, anti AWACS and anti Patriot weapons, OPFOR SpecOps vs Patriot, AWACS and such, poor US MCRs and more) would significantly degrade expected US combat performance, in turn making Russian aircraft more survivable. That would likely reflect positively in the Russian CAS/BI side of things.
 
I very much appreciate the detailed force breakdowns. Things have changed past drastically from what they were during the Cold War. Back then, Russia and the Warsaw Pact held the numerical advantage, but now it's Russia vs practically everyone. I agree US and NATO forces are far better trained and get more flying time/month. The FRG may be gone, but that in no way invalidates the point I was making about AWACS coverage.  I do NOT share the views of some here who think the A-10 wouldn't be survivable in the campaign we're discussing. A-10s have flown as many as seven sorties/day in combat, too. Consequently, I'm very much of the same opinion regarding the SU-25's prospects. In one case during that Georgia business, a Russian Su-25 took an engine hit (SAM blew up under the plane) from an SA-6/SA-11 (don't recall which) SAM which destroyed one engine outright, but thanks to armor around the engines, the other one was fine, and the plane got home. Any such hit on a single engine plane is goodbye plane.
 
Nor was the wargame I cited irrelevant. It was relevant precisely because it spoke to how a single poor decision can unhinge a defense composed of the best of the best of everything a nation has at its disposal, which is exactly what Phoenix armed F-14s, with top notch highly trained crews, operating off CVNs, were then. Superior technology, even the revolutionary technology embodied in the tracks 24, simo engages 6 AWG-9 FCS and the associated ultra long range Phoenix missile, which was unique in AAMs, still failed to deliver the expected win. As I said, it was a cautionary tale. And how many here are blithely prepared to sign up for the "Russians won't be able to fly CAS" while at the same time proclaiming over on CMRT how the Russians beat the Germans at the operational and operational strategic levels? Do the chess playing Russian strategists now suddenly revert to tiddly winks just because it's air warfare and not ground combat? Somehow, that doesn't seem like a safe bet at all.
 
If the Russians perceive a need for CAS, they'll find a way to do so or get the same net effects some other way. One of the ways to get there from here is to, by one way or several, tear a hole through the SAM belt and do to the US/NATO what we did to the Iraqis in GW I. Create a corridor through which to ram further forces to wreck the SAM defenses and create a secure corridor through which to move the strike force proper. During the Cold War, we called this the Air Operation. This Air University Review article explains the enormous differences between how the Russians looked at conducting offensive aerial warfare and how the US thought they did. This Air Operation concept has doubtless evolved dramatically since, not least because strike aircraft can now do many times more damage /sortie than was previously the case, and they can do it from standoff ranging from minor to several hundred klicks. The latter case would involve such things as AS-4 and follow-ons launched from Tu-22M BACKFIRE, which is a theater level multipurpose aircraft; Putin has shown a willingness to use against NATO, as seen in his NATO interception challenged probes of NATO nations in the region.
 
blottes,
 
Welcome aboard!
 
The scenario I cited was played well before Red Storm Rising was ever heard of. What I described wasn't some wrongly credited memory from the book. The book wasn't published until 1986, and I was only at Hughes until late 1984, so there is no confusion on my end about what happened and whence the scenario came.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

GAZ NZ,
 
If it does all that, please send me one, for I'd love to see it. Somehow, though, I doubt the Pentagon would let me have it long, but first, the people there need to know I have it. I therefore urge discretion in packaging and shipping it. May I suggest "tractor parts," since so much of the domestic manufacturing base is now gone? 
 
Douglas Ruddd,
 
I remember that pic. First saw it, I believe, over on the CMSF Forum. I've never understood why so many SF movies and such insist on using such lurid paint schemes. Unless this is for combat on Mars, in which case it's in the same color palette as NASA's portrayal of Mars.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Target options for attacking Iraqi AD via its own fiber optic trunks. Note it's not just Kari under discussion. On the other end, a widely reported story regarding cyber warfare vs Saddam's AD does indeed appear to be a myth. For sure, I never heard anything about a virus infected printer. A bit bulky to drag along for digging up fiber optic trunks in the desert! 
 
http://archive.org/stream/AirpowerAdvantagePlanningTheGulfWarAirCampaign1989-1991/AirpowerAdvantagePutney_djvu.txt p. 299
 
"Only about a week before the start of the air war did new intelligence reach
campaign planners about Iraq's new copper telephone cables and a fiber-optic
communications network. The intelligence surprised its recipients because the
fiber-optic cable network was not, as originally thought, associated with oil
pipeline operations but was indeed a fundamental component of Saddam's mili-
tary C 2 system. A DIA analyst working with the Leadership Facilities Team
broke the news to Checkmate, and Colonel Howey immediately passed it to
Deptula. Meanwhile DIA began to prepare and send messages reporting the
information, which carried the caveat, "not finally evaluated intelligence." 147

When Captain Glock studied the incoming messages identifying elements and
facilities associated with landline communications, he informed Glosson that he
would have to consider targeting the Baghdad bridges. One message indicated that
cables were attached to the underside of the roadways of two Tigris River bridges
in Baghdad. Buried fiber-optic lines connected C 2 sites and the al-Rashid Hotel
and linked the Iraqi capital with the KTO. 148 News reporters from around the
world, including CNN, stayed at the hotel, a component of the military C 2 system.

Information on January 11 revealed new, ominous information about the
fiber-optic system: it transmitted Scud launch commands. 149 Because of the asso-
ciation of landline communications with Scud missiles, a raw truth confronted
the planners: some high-value military targets also had a clear, overt civilian
function, the targeting of which could kill many noncombatants, including for-
eigners, generating an international outcry and undermining the Coalition's
cohesion. "We weren't allowed to hit either the Babylon Hotel, which was where
a lot of leadership was staying, or the al-Rashid Hotel," Deptula noted. 150
Intelligence during the war did, indeed, reveal that fiber-optic cables ran beneath
bridges in Baghdad, and air strikes hit the structures to cut the C 2 landlines. 151"
 
Wicky,
 
Was unaware of that SBS op, which I thank you for bringing to my attention. The presence of the super secret even to SpecOps ISA makes no sense, since I'm sure SBS was quire capable of blowing up fiber optic trunks absent such assistance. ISA would make sense, though, if something either intelligence gathering related or information injecting were involved. In turn, this suggests not all the trunks were destroyed. If you think about it, wrecking most, but not all, the lines forces the Iraqis to put more data through the pipeline that's left and/or use alternative means, probably radio. 
 
Schwarzkopf also talks about the "snake eaters" and their "crazy plan" involving the fiber optic cables. I came across it in researching this, but got distracted by the sea of info in the Gulf War air attack planning history.
 
Guys,
 
I again appeal to you to stop bringing in prohibited topics. If I can't so much as mention them, why should you have any such license?
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Codename Duchess,
 
I never said they were. I don't. My purpose was to point out that, in my estimation, the ability of the US/NATO to dominate the CMBS battlefield was overblown, thus positively impacting the Russian CAS situation. Unlike Iraq, there will be no free ride for US AD when it comes to Russia. What used to drive me nuts, though, in my Hughes days was that we routinely modeled a whole series of degrades (P this and that x P something else detrimental x something  inefficiency creating x asleep at the switch = lousy PK) of Russian SAMs, yet didn't do so to our own. Consequently, this kept attrition down to (defense customer) acceptable levels, yet our AD shone, because otherwise NATO would've been overwhelmed. I'd point out, too, that Hughes had dogs in both ends of the hunt: AMRAAM for AD, Maverick and GBU-15 for CAS and strike and Roland mobile SAM for SHORAD.
 
panzersaurkrautwerfer,
 
Thank you for your self-censorship. The gibes do nothing, after all, to advance the core discussion. Hard kill of major C4 nodes is indeed hard to fix, particularly under rapidly unfolding combat conditions. I do find it interesting that the Air Force, at least, was so late to the party on the fiber optics, but wonder when the ground force intel and SpecOps types first noticed them?  
 
sburke,
 
Well said.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler