John Kettler

Never saw this 1977 gem in my entire career as a Soviet Threat Analyst, a career which began in 1978. Not only does this show the ins and outs of the T-62 and how it operates with BMP-1s and AT-3 armed BRDMs, but it shows US capabilities, too, including the hulldown disparity, telltale reload indicator, low T-62 ROF and more. On the US end, everything from tanks to tacair and scatterable mines (by automatic minelayer or helicopter dispenser) are all there to see. Nor is the terrain the sere NTC, but someplace very European looking. Not only is there lots of great footage, but some remarkable model work, too. Of particular intetest to players will be the comments on open fire ranges, engagememt philoposophies, ammo selection and other game useful groggery. 

Offhand, I can't think of a better intro to the real world which CMCW seeks to depict.
 
Regards,

John Kettler

Battle of the Bands?
 

This is the drone we are looking for:
PS - Probably worth muting the commentary and just looking at the images TBH! 

Russian answer to Gray Eagle

SOF day showreel
The most interesting part (at least to me )- the use of kamikaze drones:
 

By a fluke, came across this video with the stunning story of an epic active defense by Israeli tank commander LT Zvika Greengold during the Yom Kippur War. What he did was so damaging to the Syrians that he may well have saved Israel from defeat. Am posting this because it shows the true killing potential of a good tank (Centurion) handled by real tank pros and what an aggressive, motivated TC can do, using terrain and calculated daring extremely well, against even a huge combined arms force of vastly greater power and far worse training and experience. What he did is the essence of what the US planned to do to the Soviets in Europe when fighting while greatly outnumbered. Through much of some 24 hours of almost continuous combat, and never having more than a handful of tanks at most, often fighting solo, he time and time again savaged the attacking Syrians in their T-55s and mercifully fewer T-62s, with much of the action taking place at night, with the foe having active IR and the Israelis no such help. During this action, he swapped tanks three times after they were hit. He fought on, even burned, until he could do no more. By then, reinforcements had arrived.

While the situation described is obviously not a typical CMx2 battle, I believe that it would be a fascinating scenario through which to explore the core situation, but while having no idea myself as to how VPs would be handled. If nothing else, it would be a real performance test in seeing how well players might fare as the defender in a similar situation. During this action, LT Greengold became a multiple tank ace and was awarded the Medal of Valor (Israel's highest military honor) for his timely incredible successful defense against overwhelming odds.
 
Regards,

John Kettler

Based on a number of translated Russian comments I've seen, this is considered by Soviet veterans of the Afghanistan War to be the most accurate Russian film depiction of the war ever. It's 1988, and a VDV regiment is trying to extricate itself from Afghanistan. Somehow, the film manages to distill an entire war down to roughly 2 1/4 hours. It's nasty, brutal, vicious, confusing, definitely not for people with weak stomachs, but it's an immersive experience which includes so many facets of the war, yet never straining to do so. It's unfortunately the Russian is translated, so much of what the Afghanis say has to be figured out from expressions, body language and behavior. The Aghanis are not ciphers, but rather are families caught in a whole series of plights, including their own internal forever war, if you will. The main war is a horror for both sides, and the Soviet Union, in its familiar form, is disintegrating while the troops are out of country. The young and ambitious contrast strongly with the long-suffering and battle weary old hands. Injury and death are everywhere and spare no one. Weaponry overall seems a great fit for the period, and in some cases is applied lavishly.

Don't know how this is handled in CMA, but the VDV guys, some minimally attired, are atop their AFVs, not in them. The AFVs are period correct, and there's a mod I never saw before in the intel reporting coming from Afghanistan. Believe there are lots of gaming possibilities here in the film.
 
Regards,

John Kettler

As much as I have been trying to stay out of this, I think this brings up a interesting background info point on "How to Research for a PC game". 
I am not going to weigh in on the specific argument, except to say I don't think we are going to see modeling of the current ammunition characteristics change dramatically - if for the reason alone that it basically feels about right.  We may see minor tweaks but right now we are not advocating for major mechanical changes to weapon systems (we would like to see some shifts in ammo types but that is another issue).
So as to these CIA documents.  Well first off, as impressive as the CIA is as an intelligence agency (and here movies and media have probably done more to promote the myth than anything), it is in the end a government agency.  Being government means that any information you glean immediately must take into account the broader context, and all of it with healthy grains of salt.
So John's first link I have actually seen before and it basically lays out the "threat" as they understood it in 1984.  It is a "memorandum" and as such is probably one of the better sources one could draw upon.  It really lays out the Soviet "tank position" and is not bad.  My only concern is that I am left wondering if it is a "say nothing new...because" report that sticks to the party line that the current administration wanted to hear...remember it was 1984 and the US was trying to attrit its way out of the Cold War, which turned out to be a good strategy.
The second link I take with a lot more critical eyes.  First off, it is a "thought piece" which the agency clearly puts at arms lengths ("the opinions of the authors"), so this is a trick that gets played all the time.  When one is trying to make a big argument, get some reputable senior folks to write an "opinion piece".  If it works, great.  If it creates blowback we just say "well it was their opinion".  Further, any "thought piece" sponsored by the agency that basically promotes "a modest improvements in intelligence..." (pg 2) set off that little yellow light. Was this real or was it a promotion piece to try and get more CIA funding. 
Then when one starts to dig a bit and open the aperture, I get more odd smells.  This piece was written in the Carter administration and that was not a great time to be in the CIA (we allude to this in the CMCW backstory), or National Defence for that matter.  Finally, the Director of the CIA at the time was ADM Turner ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stansfield_Turner) who not only was a big fan of technical intel (and put HUMINT in the back seat) but was Navy through and through.  This thought piece is very technical - play to the boss - but also very Army who were competing heavily to get their AirLand Battle concept off the ground and fighting for tenuous funding, all after Vietnam. 
In this context that paper really should be taken cautiously.  It does lay out what was a dangerous situation.  We know the US had fallen behind both technologically but also in over all mass, all the while with no offset strategy beyond nukes...not good.  But is it possible that an Army General is over-polishing the threat to simultaneously promote agency and Army funding...absolutely. 
In the end, when researching one has to remember that we can only see snippets of a much larger game being played at the time...and that matters.  Probably some of the best historical references that I found (and used) weren't locked away in TOP SECRET CIA drawers (and trust me, government overclassifies everything) they are in minutes from appropriation meetings: https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Department_of_Defense_Appropriations_for/llZ5mbGatSYC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=US+defence+spending+TOW+missile&pg=PA534&printsec=frontcover
These are not dark assessments, made in the shadows...this is the money trail of what actually happened.  The "truth" is far more mundane in reality and is largely guarded by accountants.

LukeFF,

You know and I know you're trying to bait me into responding in such a way that Steve comes down on me for violating his direct request regarding posting about certain matters. Not happening! If people want to know anything regarding any of the topics being brought up ref me  I'm not allowed to discuss, PM me.

All,

Now, how about we discuss the CIA intel docs I posted instead of trying to run me through an OT and verboten minefield? Notice no one's uttered a peep concerning them and their various confirmations of point after point I made earlier but no one wanted to accept from me. Did any of you bother to read what I had to dig hard for in the CIA FOIA Reading Room?

Regards,

John Kettler 

The_Capt,

Thanks for your calming words, understanding my very real limitations here and for reassuring the troops that BFC isn't going to rush out and make changes on the strength of just what I've said. All I've ever sought to do in my 21 years on the Forums is to have the games correctly model battlefield realities and to give the players the ability to do in-game what their real life counterparts could and did do in battle.

Regards,

John Kettler

Rice,

Showed you an award I got while working at Rockwell and W-2s for almost every year I was there. Had NO Unclassified docs to show you in terms of work product, for as I said, everything I did was at least SECRET--because it was sourced from SECRET or higher intelligence documents. Have gone into great detail about what I did, who I worked with, of whom my briefing audiences consisted and more. I gave you considerable details on what I learned at the Soviet Threat Technology Conference at CIA HQ and held under the auspices of the AIAA (American Institute of Aviation and Astronautics). And that PRIDE Award, as far as my contribution to that ABM program, was precisely for defining and analyzing the Soviet ballistic missile threats and secondarily for figuring out how to install the system in standard Navy vertical launchers. 

Where I did have Unclassified documents to present (from my work as a Soviet Threat Analyst at Hughes Missile Systems Group), I did so, showing you work I myself did on two identified programs. I also provided you with my start doc and one of my promotion docs. On the laser decoy program, I evaluated the laser-guided missile threat to US armor. In the ASSAULT BREAKER case, the task was to evaluate Soviet and Warsaw Pact follow-on forces in terms of specific target arrays and their vulnerabilities to use as ways of determining weapon system effectiveness for a variety of potential smart submunition payloads. In both cases, if you look at the charts and text, it is immediately apparent that the subject matter explicitly deals with Soviet threats. The bibliography I provided clearly shows multiple publications specifically referring to Soviet Army matters.

Don't know why you're so incredibly resistant to accepting that I was a professional military intelligence analyst, a well-respected Soviet Threat Analyst for 11+ years. Is it because accepting that I was those things means that my statements about intelligence matters carry a weight they otherwise wouldn't in your eyes and that you now have to deal with the possibility, even likelihood, that the armor-antiarmor situation during the Cold War was as I described it; that there was indeed an obsolete (in the Red Army, therefore exportable)) HEAT round which could frontally penetrate a Gen One Abrams because its armor array was vulnerable to a HEAT shell designed to pierce the canceled T95 and its steel-glass-steel sandwich armor AKA siliceous core armor, which is what the Gen One Abrams had? Would also point out that I not only named the CIA SME who told us about the dire armor-antiarmor situation, but the Abrams penetrating PT-76 HEAT round. You also were provided with a wealth of material showing that CIA HEAT SME Joseph Backofen was real and not just an expert on shaped charges but was also a co-inventor of specialized shaped charges that were patented.

Much of what we were told about about the armor-antiarmor situation, Soviet lead in explosives and other related matters subsequently was reported in Soviet Military Power. Have searched in vain for the relevant parts of the 1986 issue, where I believe the revelations of the 1985 conference were discussed.

While I can, at some point, produce declassified SECRET articles with charts, tables, histograms, etc., from the CIA FOIA Reading Room and elsewhere showing how dire the armor-antarmor situation was, I still won't be able to provide you with direct proof I was a Soviet Threat Analyst, for I simply can't show you what I do not have and would not have been allowed to keep. Believe or disbelieve the things I've said about Threat matters, but please stop attacking me over proof of my creds. Have given you all I have.

Regards,

John Kettler



 

And here we have a Cold War BAOR vet describing how the Soviet MRR would attack, drawing on a BAOR training film, some of which is terrifying. For example, a 100 gun Soviet 40 minute artillery prep would be 12,000 rounds, based on a rate of 2 rpm per gun. Let me provide a frame of reference. During the Vietnam War, North Vietnamese bombardment of An Loc was a staggering to us 1200 rounds per day. We're talking 10 times that, delivered in only 40 minutes. Some of the Soviet artillery footage in the impact zone will make you wonder how anything could've survived. The timing and sequence of force buildup as the MRR is fascinating, and this video is set later in time, so that instead of T-62s, the Soviets have the T-64, though mercifully not the AT-8 armed T-64B. People with epilepsy and other flicker triggered conditions should be aware that some of the Soviet imagery is full of flickering. The comments verge on incredible, for most of them are either by vets or children of vets who would've been in the thick of things.
 
Regards,

John Kettler

BFCElvis,

Had to go back and dig to find it, but it was worth the hunt! Really like the facial variety and voice variety being implemented (retrofittable to our CMx2 games?), but I would love to see height and build reflected, too. To put it in blunt terms, 6 foot tall Gurkhas are not on! Having everyone the same height and build is ridiculous in reality and really doesn't look right, either. This is one of my pet peeves when it comes to miniatures, too. Taking things further say, CMx4, maybe things like shoehorning bigger people into AFVs designed for smaller people would be worth addressing. Am 5'11, and my limited experience in Soviet AFVs was revelatory. I fit in a T-55 but had a horrible time in a T-62, for want of headroom and design that seemed calculated to effortless injure tank crew through overhead obstacles, sharp edges, rails with ends like tool steel cubes, etc. The back of the BMP-1 was hopeless, and I really tried to make it work. Too long in the torso. The back of the MTLB was doable. Barely. 

Here's the video to which you referred, and I think this is the first image I've seen of Steve in the best part of two decades. Never heard of getting a coin as an award, other than a military challenge coin. Congrats in any case!
 

In closing, something I'd like to note about the British that I've noted from UK and CW shows, as well as various overseas news coverage, is that it''s quite common for all sorts of ethnic groups to sound posh British--e they black rappers, an Indian (SW Asia) spokeswoman or even an OxCam educated Kenyan official. Absent visuals, fairly often it's hard to tell anything about the race or ethnicity of the person speaking. In other cases, you can't miss it. But if they want voice diversity, they really ought to look into depicting UK regional accents, for they stand out and are found across races. Would also note that, generally speaking, black people in the UK don't typically sound or speak like black people here in the US The differences are dramatic in idiom, word choice, pronunciation, pitch, pace, pause, etc. And on a separate puckish note, imagine a soldier with a thick Scottish burr making a call for fire and sending the grid refs--through jamming!

Regards,

John Kettler

Never saw this 1977 gem in my entire career as a Soviet Threat Analyst, a career which began in 1978. Not only does this show the ins and outs of the T-62 and how it operates with BMP-1s and AT-3 armed BRDMs, but it shows US capabilities, too, including the hulldown disparity, telltale reload indicator, low T-62 ROF and more. On the US end, everything from tanks to tacair and scatterable mines (by automatic minelayer or helicopter dispenser) are all there to see. Nor is the terrain the sere NTC, but someplace very European looking. Not only is there lots of great footage, but some remarkable model work, too. Of particular intetest to players will be the comments on open fire ranges, engagememt philoposophies, ammo selection and other game useful groggery. 

Offhand, I can't think of a better intro to the real world which CMCW seeks to depict.
 
Regards,

John Kettler

Am reading Volume I of Soviet Documents On The Use Of War Experience (Frank Cass publishers, translated by Orenstein and Foreword by Glantz) and came across two major shockers on page 21. Carrying over from Page 20, from 14-16 May 1942, in the Kharkov area the Germans threw some 400 Panzers, broken down into smaller echelons, into an attack on the 13th Guards and 244th Rifle Division. Usually, the Russians are at pains to specify tank type, e.g. T-IV, T-V, etc., but from what little was said elsewhere in the account, "tanks of medium size", I suspect Panzer IVs.

"The second group, consisting of 150  tanks, went over to the attack from another direction against the fire positions of the 244th Rifle Division Artillery (66 guns) from 3 directions; firing from the tanks was conducted  using armor-piercing and thermite shells. Artillery personnel whose clothes were burning extinguished fire by using dirt and continuing firing. 

Two paragraphs later, in the final sentence, there's a tactical bombshell.

"The sub-machine gunners advanced behind the third echelon tanks on armored personnel carrier; in the tanks themselves were also 1-2 sub-machine gunners who exited from the lower hatches of the tanks."
Have studied World War II since childhood and never crossed paths with either of these things. It would be easy to dismiss this out of hand, but this is a declassified SECRET document produced by specially designated staffs of the Armies and Fronts at the express direction of the Soviet General Staff and Stavka. The material in these books (have three volumes) consists of lessons learned in blood and is juicy beyond words. These small clothbound hardbacks were not cheap when I got them two years back at a gun show, but they are astronomic now, likely because so few copies were printed. If the Red Army is your thing, though, at least borrow them on inter-library loan and read them.
Regards,

John Kettler 

Don't claim to know how to depict this in CM, if it can be depicted in CM, but Breakthrough is all about the Russians in the Second Chechen War fighting a highly outnumbered desperate battle from a hilltop blocking position  trying to hold off an enormous force of Chechen and other fighters while waiting for reinforcements. This great war movie draws upon real events in the iconic 2000 Battle of Height 776. It's in Russian with English subtitles. Would post link, but YT won't allow this one to be embedded. Channel is called Epic Media English. Combat action is intense, and a wide variety of weaponry is shown. There's some excellent scenes of BMD-2s shot mostly from close range. 

Regards,

John Kettler



 

He took the name as a nom de plume because he greatly respected him. Suvorov/Rezun is a former GRU major who defected to the British. Before joining the GRU, he was successively a  Motorized Rifle Company commander and Tank Company commander. While in the GRU, he worked in the Carpathian Military District Intelligence Department and also as a SpetsNaz Training Officer. He authored a stack of books on the Soviet Army, Spetsnaz, the GRU, but is highly controversial in some circles for his (Soviet archive documented) views on the case that Stalin was going to preemptively invade Germany. Nevertheless, in 2009 he was invited to come to the United States Naval Academy Eurasia Forum and present his case, which I thought he did very well. Suvorov/Rezun's books on Soviet military and intelligence matters were so important they formed part of my work library.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Never saw this 1977 gem in my entire career as a Soviet Threat Analyst, a career which began in 1978. Not only does this show the ins and outs of the T-62 and how it operates with BMP-1s and AT-3 armed BRDMs, but it shows US capabilities, too, including the hulldown disparity, telltale reload indicator, low T-62 ROF and more. On the US end, everything from tanks to tacair and scatterable mines (by automatic minelayer or helicopter dispenser) are all there to see. Nor is the terrain the sere NTC, but someplace very European looking. Not only is there lots of great footage, but some remarkable model work, too. Of particular intetest to players will be the comments on open fire ranges, engagememt philoposophies, ammo selection and other game useful groggery. 

Offhand, I can't think of a better intro to the real world which CMCW seeks to depict.
 
Regards,

John Kettler

Thought I'd covered my credentials many times before, over a period of 21 years, but shall do so again.

Joined Hughes Aircraft Company, Missile Systems Group (now part of Raytheon) on Valentine's Day 1978 and worked there through September 12, 1984. My job was Soviet Threat Analyst, but my official HR slot was Mathematical Analyst. When I got my degree, I got the even more giggle inducing slot of Statistical Analyst. Was the only full time Threat guy in Operations Analysis. Worked threat for Phoenix, AMRAAM, Maverick,TOW, ASSAULT BREAKER, WASP, Anti-SUAWACS Missile, Roland, etc. Anything and everything Soviet and Warsaw Pact weapon and capabilities, current or projected, fell under my ambit, be they hand grenades or ASATs. Worked hand in hand with our weaponeer, a physicist, and an electronics engineer who had a CIA sponsor (whom I met personally at Langley) and functioned as a back door on up to date threat info. The latter individual and I put the highly accomplished program manager for that missile into a state of white as copier paper shock when we showed him conclusively his missile would NOT be able to home in on the SUAWACS radar because the programmed frequencies were wrong.

Not only did I support the work in my department but in other departments, and part of my job involved working on new applications and capabilities (such as a special SEAD version of the Maverick) for various Hughes Missile Systems Group weapons. Was also consulted by Dr. Hans Maurer, a Project Paperclip scientist who was our CTO. The result of one of those discussions was the Wireless TOW, which grew out of discussions of guidance mechanisms on several Soviet ATGMs. During my time at Hughes, I briefed an array of customers, including a branch chief of the US Army Foreign Sciece and Technology Center (FSTC). Twice he tried to hire me, only to be done in by hiring freezes. While at Hughes my investigations led to discovering critical vulnerabilities on one of our missiles. This got me shut down both by Hughes management and the customer. Was later quietly informed a fix had been produced and implemented.

Started at North American Rockwell, North American Aerospace Operations on September 24, 1989. Was originally hired to be a Member of the Technical Staff I, Soviet Strategic Analyst, but was done in by a reorganization while I was waiting to come in. Thus, wound up doing nauseating (ever seen a pic of a one foot diameter blister on someone or faced a nightmare decontamination program in which a CW gassed aircraft keeps outgassing for hours even after decontamination?) Operation and Supportability work on NBC and laser protection for aircraft and crew of the ATF (Advanced Tactical Fighter), the program that eventually yielded the F-22. Worked B1-B Conventional Capabilities, B1-B SA-10 Escape, provided detailed analyses of the composition of Soviet EW/GCI sites, radar types, operating frequencies, etc. Worked on a Stealth CAS (A-10 replacement). This was a SAP (Special Access Program).

Created and maintained a comprehensive bed down of Soviet and East German aircraft in East Germany, together with all fixed SAMs, filter centers, hardened HQs, etc. As part of a two-man group (the other being Air America's former threat briefer), created a Central American threat laydown for the AC-130U Spooky so dead on that we were told by the customer that validating it would exceed program security level! Was heavily involved with the MPA (Maritime Patrol Aircraft), a program which eventually yielded the super capable P-8 Poseidon.

One of my major activities a Rockwell was Soviet Threat Analysis for the military versions of the NASP (National AeroSpace Plane) and its endoatmospheric hypersonic versions. The program was an acknowledged SAP, and I held all four clearance levels for these craft. My work involved not just the direct threat side of things, including such concerns as Spetsnaz attacks while on the ground but the Soviet perception side, to include declaratory policy and doctrine. Worked in tandem, chiefly with a physicist who dealt with the nitty gritty aspects of lasers and particle beams weapons. While at Rockwell, was a co-founder of the DEWWG (Directed Energy Weapons Working Group), with particular concerns about the rapidly emerging HPM (High Power Microwave) threat. Sounded the alarm, too about Soviet hyperdimensional Tesla type weaponry (AKA scalar weapons) and associated breakthrough science called energetics.

The NASP Program Manager, Ed Brown (who earlier in his career helmed the X-15 program), told me that my threat briefings were the "long pole in the tent" for quarterly reviews. If they went well, we were good. Must've known what I was doing, because some lateral thinking I did about ways to hide the NASP once in orbit unmasked a black program when a pair of CIA types popped out of their chairs, demanded to know my source and blurted in front of about 100 people that this was compartmented information. That briefing was so well receivved by the various generals, admirals and suits that it's fair to say they wore my arm out shaking my hand afterwards. Somewhere in all this activity I was promoted to MTS II, and by the time I left, my health in ruins from hyper stress on the job (long story), was MTS III promotable and was offered my own projects and project team. By then, it was way too late.

Subsequent to leaving Rockwell on June 20, 1989, in the early 1990s I became lead researcher for The Empowerment Project's blockbuster documentary The Panama Deception, which won a stack of fim awards, including an Oscar for Best Documentary. My research activities covered the history of the US in Panama, US covert and overt activities to create an excuse for military intervention, US awareness of and involvement in narcotrafficking and money laundering in Panama, but the real discovery, in terms of evaluating what weapons were employed and what they did, was uncovering multiple evidences that the US combat tested several varieties of HEL (High Energy Laser) weapons there, as well as its use of some sort of chemical weapon.  

I have no doubt I left out a few things, but it should nevertheless show the depth and breadth of my 11+ year Soviet Threat Analyst career, as well as use of my intelligence analyst capabilities after leaving military aerospace and classified defense work. Suggest, too, that a search under my name might unearth other interesting items, but make sure you don't get the John Kettler who's an air conditioning engineer!

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Here is a first rate, unflinching, and intimate look at the 93rd Brigade alerted and called into action, for it was the most combat ready formation available. Doc has excellent extensive footage and extensive informative interviews with the Ukrainians in the fight.  There are many actions in here that would easily fit CMBS, too--if you ignore later actions at the Donetsk Airport deep into the fight there where five divisions' worth of Russian mortar, artillery and rocket fire rained down daily (15,000 rounds/day). By contrast, when the North Vietnamese Army did long range bombardment of An Loc, South Vietnam, the world was shocked by 1200 rounds/day. The interviewees are easily understood, and there is full English VO, too. Titles keep the viewer oriented as to the date and battalion being discussed. Supporting graphic is a large computerized map put up to show who was where, course of action, etc.

Part 1
 
Regards,

John Kettler

Never saw this 1977 gem in my entire career as a Soviet Threat Analyst, a career which began in 1978. Not only does this show the ins and outs of the T-62 and how it operates with BMP-1s and AT-3 armed BRDMs, but it shows US capabilities, too, including the hulldown disparity, telltale reload indicator, low T-62 ROF and more. On the US end, everything from tanks to tacair and scatterable mines (by automatic minelayer or helicopter dispenser) are all there to see. Nor is the terrain the sere NTC, but someplace very European looking. Not only is there lots of great footage, but some remarkable model work, too. Of particular intetest to players will be the comments on open fire ranges, engagememt philoposophies, ammo selection and other game useful groggery. 

Offhand, I can't think of a better intro to the real world which CMCW seeks to depict.
 
Regards,

John Kettler

Sadly for us, Part 3 is not yet done, so we all have is a trailer.
 
Regards,

John Kettler

Already intense combat at the Donetsk Airport escalates, and it's altogether too "You are there" to be remotely comfortable viewing. Much of the footage is blurry, jumpy or both, but what do you expect when fire is pouring in, the building is on fire, etc.? Nor is it just the Donetsk Airport where battle rages.
 

Regards,

John Kettler

Here is a first rate, unflinching, and intimate look at the 93rd Brigade alerted and called into action, for it was the most combat ready formation available. Doc has excellent extensive footage and extensive informative interviews with the Ukrainians in the fight.  There are many actions in here that would easily fit CMBS, too--if you ignore later actions at the Donetsk Airport deep into the fight there where five divisions' worth of Russian mortar, artillery and rocket fire rained down daily (15,000 rounds/day). By contrast, when the North Vietnamese Army did long range bombardment of An Loc, South Vietnam, the world was shocked by 1200 rounds/day. The interviewees are easily understood, and there is full English VO, too. Titles keep the viewer oriented as to the date and battalion being discussed. Supporting graphic is a large computerized map put up to show who was where, course of action, etc.

Part 1
 
Regards,

John Kettler