John Kettler

This is well worth watching, though it may a) drive you mad and/or inspire homicidal impulses regarding the (insert nasty noun) who decided the combination of heavily blurring the actual footage plus extreme overexposure looked cool. Improved only by accursed sepia! More like burning eyes! Doc follows the combat careers of six tankers of 5 RTR, starting with France. Some remarkable footage, plus various weapon gaffes, a problem much worse later in the Western Desert. Host is former tanker Mark Urban, and there are lots of actual period tanks in the doc, some of which he climbs into to show various design and ergonomic details. By splendid irony, considering his former job, he says "shell" describing German AP ammo, then goes on to describe the terminal effects of shot. Interviews with survivors are fascinating and even horrifying. You can see the men choke up as they discuss the grim realities of armored warfare, a situation somewhat alleviated by leave in Alexandria. This two-hour-long doc is on YT.
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONYlWeRKAhY&spfreload=10
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Judging from the utter lack of response, it appears there's no interest in the Battle of the Bulge, which, given the ever growing chorus demanding the game, I find distinctly odd. Consequently, the fact that Robert Capa, who shot the iconic D-Day pics, did these really doesn't matter.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

The Teacher,

I find your maniacal cackling to be distracting. Please confine expressions of evil glee to rubbing your hands together vigorously! I congratulate you on putting together such a clever tactical situation. To my mind, it treads new ground in terms of originality.

c3k,

Coming from you and your oft expressed sanguinary views, I feel as though I've suddenly entered the "Twilight Zone"™ and find my brain is melting. Which is bad, since I need the what's left of it currently on hand. Do you really believe that with gunnery accuracies while shooting on the move that exceed most Cold War static firing accuracies, terrifyingly accurate, presumably responsive support support fires, ERA, APS and more that this crowd is suddenly going to become a collection of Bil Hardenbergers scrutinizing the map with greater concentration than a Zen archer? Somehow, I doubt it. Will some follow that model? Certainly, but I think we'll see a lot of freewheeling maneuver, of gun while run, but I fervently hope it doesn't start to produce WoT type ridiculous visuals. Neither Bil nor pnzrldr is acting with abandon, yet the havoc is already considerable--with combat barely begun. When they really get cranking I expect we'll see a lot of flaming wrecks in very short order. Of course, there won't be enough to satisfy your bottomless need for blood (which rivals zombies' hunger for brains), but it should cause others to quail a bit and turn bilious green. And if those two create carnage while playing prudently, imagine what happens when the mere mortals have at it!

Regards,

John Kettler

Sublime,
 
What a wonderful story! Bravo Zulu to those who made it possible! Unfortunately, they're now blushing to such effect that Rudolph is about to sue. Why? because their crimson glow outshines his famed nose. We do indeed have some great people here--from all over the world. The Forums have been tremendously effective in broadening not merely my gaming horizons but my overall ones, and I know this to be true for others as well. Sorry your vacation was really a strictly enforced staycation, but here's hoping you get your life sorted out. And now when you're stressed out, you can take it out on the pixeltruppen, whether the AI's, your opponent's or yours (by mistake or in a cowardice correcting rage). Regardless, c3k will be happy. And you'll feel better. As a result, you'll be better able to deal with the peculiar institutional joys of phasing back into so-called civilized society.  Happy nonrecidivism!
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Ketz,
 
Welcome aboard!
 
pnzrldr,
 
There's a simple, very effective and nasty trick that can be used to defeat thermals and visual detection if back in a wood line. I learned it from my dad, who honchoed the technical side at Hughes EDSG (Electro-Optical and Data Systems Group) of the DTV for the Abrams and the TWS for individual and heavy weapons. The approach goes like this. Build a wooden frame wider and taller than the tank. Cover it with aluminized Mylar. Erect in front of tank. Visual observers will see trees. Thermal devices won't see the tank, but will instead see the thermal background of trees and soil. Wait until the enemy gets close enough (spotters), then drop the screens. Holy deadly surprise engagement, Batman! This has been tested in the field and worked great.
 
MikeyD,
 
You wouldn't be drawing any conclusions from the veritable annihilation of pnzrldr's Ukrainian BMP-2s, would you? It's like watching a master class in massacre! As for Ukraine's drones, if they're COTs, then they're effectively wide open to jamming, with crashes being the likely outcome. 
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

This is an exclusive article on what happens when cluster munitions leave the inventory in 2019 and is from the site of pnzrldr's employer, ARCIC. The discussion of what we have, what's lacking and where we're going or need to go is most interesting. What I found of particular value, though, were the integrated charts and graphics for DPICM M483A1, HE PD (Precision and Near-Precision) and HE VT (Near-Precision, Area). This material goes into target classes, radius of effect, target posture and many other pertinent matters. Call it JMEM very light. Well worth your time.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Michael Emrys,
 
Absent terminal guidance, and there is such a thing as a JDAM with laser terminal guidance, allowing it to hit a moving target, a GPS guided munition goes to a specified coordinate set. The munition cares not how that information is supplied to it, only that it receives that information timely. Here's what happens when, for whatever reason, the munition gets the wrong data.
 
Excalibur is much better for killing static targets, such as deployed artillery, bunkers, CPs and such than it is for killing mobile targets. Let's say a drone gets into the target area and isn't blown out of the sky. The drone shows where the target is relative to it, can measure the range precisely with its LRF, and the position of the drone itself is accurately known via GPS. Or the drone can simply send back what it sees, and recourse may then be had to computerized maps, allowing target location w/o emitting. From one of these methods (maybe others, such as HUMINT), if everything's working properly, the information on the target's location is passed back up the chain and this, in turn, is sent to the artillery battery, where the shell has the coordinates programmed in.
 
If firing against a static target,  proper coordinates = death from above, but engaging a target moving about the battlefield is much trickier. This is an integrated system with built-in GPS and laser rangefinder/designator specifically for FOs and JTACs (Joint Terminal Attack Controller)s. Since the HAMMER knows where it is, it then becomes trivial to determine where anything within visual range is. The reality, though, is this: If the target moves much, the Excalibur is screwed. Several times. The baseline shell is a penetrating unitary munition, so pretty much needs a direct hit. Depending on degree of projectile burial before detonation, there will be some frag hazard radius which wouldn't be good for personnel or vulnerable equipment. In vs armor firing tests of regular 155 mm HE that I've seen, a large frag penetrated the turret side of an M60 tank, hardly a trivial outcome. There are GPS guided Excalibur projectiles w/terminal laser guidance and a smart round in development, but neither is in any kind of production, so may reasonably not be expected for 2017. Nor is any operational, planned or developmental version of Excalibur reprogrammable in flight. Thus, you need a dedicated SPH. preferably close to the target, with everyone primed and ready to go and preferably some means of fixing the target in position (downed bridge, roadblock, fallen tree, mines, etc.). Excalibur is a much better weapon against a defender than it is vs a fast moving attacker. Excalibur can easily get into zones otherwise masked from standard artillery fire (not so much from the 75 degree elevation capable M109 series,~  halfway through mortar elevation coverage) because it can alter its trajectory to get there, rather than being merely a ballistic body once fired.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler 

Mord,
 
Wanting to play and having the means to play CMSF are two interrelated issues, at least for me. The subject most definitely interested me, especially since my brother was in the first SBCT ever deployed into battle; was mortared,rocketed and nearly blown up by a VBIED while out patrolling Anbar Province in an armored Hummer. My computer (800 MHz iMac) back then lacked the cyber horsepower, which was moot, since there was no Mac version of the game. Given my Cold War intel analyst background, not to mention the current excitement there in Ukraine, I'm quite interested in CMBS. But since my 3.06 Intel Core 2 Duo iMac is wheezing along, while dealing with CMBN 3.1, I doubt it'll be able to hack CMBS, where my anemic 256 MB of VRAM may well die of overwork!  Meanwhile, I can't run the latest browsers (YT keeps telling me mine is obsolete and makes a face at me) or Mac OS, and Wordpress just kills me in terms of demands it makes on my rig. Sadly, Santa didn't bring me a new iMac. Consequently, am pinning my hopes on the Cyber Fairy!
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

10 minutes of great close-in footage of firing tests, ammo loading (still haven't figured out where the AGS-17 ammo fits in), vehicle on the move in digital camo and apparent in-vehicle CCTV display of fair size on which crew appears to be doing a Shoot-Look-Shoot gunnery engagement. Don't know whether this is some special rig for State trials or standard fit.
 

 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

pnzrldr,
 
In light of the proliferation of first, TV backup systems on SAM systems for operation in jamming environments, and now, FLIR to do the same thing, I decided to look into the question of FLIR on Tunguska. I think some corrections may be in order. From the amazing Dr. Carlo Kopp and his Australia Airpower site.
 
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-96K6-Pantsir-2K22-Tunguska.html
 
Optical Sensors
Early variants of the Tunguska series introduced an electroptical tracker to provide silent angle tracking in jamming environments. The electro-optical tracking system includes a longwave (8 - 14 μm band) thermal imager for target acquisition and tracking, and a dual band short (3 - 5 μm) / midwave  (0.6 -1.1. μm) IR tracker for angular measurement of the missile beacon.
 
The Tunguska has a full-on FLIR, and by 2017 likely a better one than above, which allows it to conduct gun and missile engagements without any radar emissions. Said FLIR would presumably also be usable vs. ground targets, thus giving your horribly cut up Ukrainians two FLIR equipped AFVs--nasty ones at that. In short, you may be able to do to Bil's AFVs and infantry hiding in foliage something like what he's done to yours. Savage them when they think they're concealed. With something of the order of a 5 meter blast radius per shell, I'd think it would be pretty easy to grease infantry, even sans FLIR.
 
While we're on Tunguska, I was wondering whether the system and subsystem modeling is granular enough to permit multiple hits on the Acq/Track radar antenna, without killing it outright? The key component, after all, isn't the antenna per se, which is pretty projectile damage tolerant, but the small feed horn via which the radar does its thing. Also, can you stow the radar for ground engagements when not under air attack threat?
 
MikeyD,
 
I think you misunderstand how laser designation for weapons work. You don't have to lase continuously, but only in the far shorter period immediately preceding weapon launch and TOF to the target. Thus, the lasing unit might get a "two minutes out" warning for CAS and a "shot out" call from artillery. this makes tracking the target and lasing it a much easier proposition. Also a laser guided weapons these days doesn't have to be precisely aimed. Rather, it simply has to arrive in an acquisition basket in which the seeker's FOVs allows it to see the reflected laser spot from the now-designated target. When I worked at Hughes, we made a laser-guided version of Maverick for Marine CAS, and I'm thoroughly familiar with how these weapons work.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler 

pnzrldr,
 
In light of the proliferation of first, TV backup systems on SAM systems for operation in jamming environments, and now, FLIR to do the same thing, I decided to look into the question of FLIR on Tunguska. I think some corrections may be in order. From the amazing Dr. Carlo Kopp and his Australia Airpower site.
 
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-96K6-Pantsir-2K22-Tunguska.html
 
Optical Sensors
Early variants of the Tunguska series introduced an electroptical tracker to provide silent angle tracking in jamming environments. The electro-optical tracking system includes a longwave (8 - 14 μm band) thermal imager for target acquisition and tracking, and a dual band short (3 - 5 μm) / midwave  (0.6 -1.1. μm) IR tracker for angular measurement of the missile beacon.
 
The Tunguska has a full-on FLIR, and by 2017 likely a better one than above, which allows it to conduct gun and missile engagements without any radar emissions. Said FLIR would presumably also be usable vs. ground targets, thus giving your horribly cut up Ukrainians two FLIR equipped AFVs--nasty ones at that. In short, you may be able to do to Bil's AFVs and infantry hiding in foliage something like what he's done to yours. Savage them when they think they're concealed. With something of the order of a 5 meter blast radius per shell, I'd think it would be pretty easy to grease infantry, even sans FLIR.
 
While we're on Tunguska, I was wondering whether the system and subsystem modeling is granular enough to permit multiple hits on the Acq/Track radar antenna, without killing it outright? The key component, after all, isn't the antenna per se, which is pretty projectile damage tolerant, but the small feed horn via which the radar does its thing. Also, can you stow the radar for ground engagements when not under air attack threat?
 
MikeyD,
 
I think you misunderstand how laser designation for weapons work. You don't have to lase continuously, but only in the far shorter period immediately preceding weapon launch and TOF to the target. Thus, the lasing unit might get a "two minutes out" warning for CAS and a "shot out" call from artillery. this makes tracking the target and lasing it a much easier proposition. Also a laser guided weapons these days doesn't have to be precisely aimed. Rather, it simply has to arrive in an acquisition basket in which the seeker's FOVs allows it to see the reflected laser spot from the now-designated target. When I worked at Hughes, we made a laser-guided version of Maverick for Marine CAS, and I'm thoroughly familiar with how these weapons work.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler 

pnzrldr,
 
In light of the proliferation of first, TV backup systems on SAM systems for operation in jamming environments, and now, FLIR to do the same thing, I decided to look into the question of FLIR on Tunguska. I think some corrections may be in order. From the amazing Dr. Carlo Kopp and his Australia Airpower site.
 
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-96K6-Pantsir-2K22-Tunguska.html
 
Optical Sensors
Early variants of the Tunguska series introduced an electroptical tracker to provide silent angle tracking in jamming environments. The electro-optical tracking system includes a longwave (8 - 14 μm band) thermal imager for target acquisition and tracking, and a dual band short (3 - 5 μm) / midwave  (0.6 -1.1. μm) IR tracker for angular measurement of the missile beacon.
 
The Tunguska has a full-on FLIR, and by 2017 likely a better one than above, which allows it to conduct gun and missile engagements without any radar emissions. Said FLIR would presumably also be usable vs. ground targets, thus giving your horribly cut up Ukrainians two FLIR equipped AFVs--nasty ones at that. In short, you may be able to do to Bil's AFVs and infantry hiding in foliage something like what he's done to yours. Savage them when they think they're concealed. With something of the order of a 5 meter blast radius per shell, I'd think it would be pretty easy to grease infantry, even sans FLIR.
 
While we're on Tunguska, I was wondering whether the system and subsystem modeling is granular enough to permit multiple hits on the Acq/Track radar antenna, without killing it outright? The key component, after all, isn't the antenna per se, which is pretty projectile damage tolerant, but the small feed horn via which the radar does its thing. Also, can you stow the radar for ground engagements when not under air attack threat?
 
MikeyD,
 
I think you misunderstand how laser designation for weapons work. You don't have to lase continuously, but only in the far shorter period immediately preceding weapon launch and TOF to the target. Thus, the lasing unit might get a "two minutes out" warning for CAS and a "shot out" call from artillery. this makes tracking the target and lasing it a much easier proposition. Also a laser guided weapons these days doesn't have to be precisely aimed. Rather, it simply has to arrive in an acquisition basket in which the seeker's FOVs allows it to see the reflected laser spot from the now-designated target. When I worked at Hughes, we made a laser-guided version of Maverick for Marine CAS, and I'm thoroughly familiar with how these weapons work.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler 

BruceK,
 
Welcome aboard! 
 
Terrific post which, with the succeeding one, was most enlightening.
 
All,
 
What a great thread. I'm learning a great deal about issues I'd never seen discussed before and am thoroughly enjoying the erudite discussion, the respect for differing viewpoints and some delightful humor, intentional and not. I, too, have seen the statement the route to the infernal regions is "paved with good intentions," and I believe the intentions here are good. We seem, though, not to merely have departed the road, but have plunged over a precipice, providing a direct route to the previously mentioned destination. Let's hope that we, like Bugs Bunny in the famous gremlin episode, will manage to come to an abrupt halt, while in a vertical power dive, before outright disaster ensues.
 
On a topical note, did you know that a former NBA basketball star co-wrote a seminal, highly rated book on the 761st Tank Battalion? The star was Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and the book was called  Brothers In Arms. Here's a look at the book and how it came about. Don't know how many of you noticed, but in one of the quotes about a 761st company in combat, it says the company's strength was 5 Shermans. I read it, kept reading, and then it hit me. The strength of the attacking company was only that of a full strength platoon. There should've been 17 tanks in the company! This speaks volumes both to casualties generally and why the Americans sweeping to victory felt they were losing, one of the themes which informs "Fury" but is reflected in such books as Irwin's phenomenal  Another River, Another Town, in which a 19 y.o., with only two weeks' gunnery training, arrives in Europe, is sent straight to a repple depple in Germany, then winds up in practically the lead tank, as gunner, with no time to settle in, just as the 3rd AD begins a major attack. 
 
Overall, I'd like to ultimately see correct colors for the various races and ethnic groups, but also the right sorts of heads and bodies as regards height, size, shape, etc. There are some sterling examples of what I mean in wartime Russian photographs in which a squad looks something like a UN meeting in terms of racial and ethnic diversity. 
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Buzz,
 
I'll be the first to admit I know nothing useful about building a Hackintosh, or any other rig for that matter, but two weeks ago, I got to go to an electronics store that's blue and see the new iMac, notably the SAN removing 27.5 inch version. I don't love the price, not that I can afford it anyway, but man, do I love that huge Retina display. If I had that machine, I think my battlefield would look much nicer, I wouldn't be limited to small battle maps, my machine wouldn't bog, load times would plummet, and I'd no longer be in therapy over screenshot envy! And yes, I'm aware I'm not exactly setting Europe ablaze with what I have. The take of the guys working there on the killer iMac? It's a tremendous display, with a computer thrown in for free! I suspect, though, that Apple's designed this thing to require a neurosurgery license to do anything later on to upgrade it. The very problem your approach so nicely handles.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Am putting this here because this Forum is where the Master Installer is being addressed already. Since BFC has committed to making sure the base game is always current, what about the various Demos? Seems to me that it makes good business sense to give the prospective buyer a true picture of how the games work, rather than, shall we say, the obsolete versions of the game. The differences these days are quite considerable, and the absence of certain features now in the games may be a big turnoff to someone trying to make a purchase decision via the game as portrayed in the Demos.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Am putting this here because this Forum is where the Master Installer is being addressed already. Since BFC has committed to making sure the base game is always current, what about the various Demos? Seems to me that it makes good business sense to give the prospective buyer a true picture of how the games work, rather than, shall we say, the obsolete versions of the game. The differences these days are quite considerable, and the absence of certain features now in the games may be a big turnoff to someone trying to make a purchase decision via the game as portrayed in the Demos.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Michael Emrys,
 
Very cool! Thanks for posting the vid. I'd vaguely recalled some mention of it, but had never heard it. And since you did all of us a favor, here's one back.
 

 
BletchleyGeek,
 
I had no idea Spanish had an umlaut. But then, high school was a long time ago. Also, I've read the new movie about Alan Turing "Imitation Life" is spot on. Given your handle, this seemed like something worth mentioning to you. If you don't already know.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

ChrisND is all over the Forums and YT and is an Admin, as I can attest from direct experience, but I don't see him listed. Is he an employee or a super productive volunteer? Are we missing anyone else from the About Us? I see that at least one listed guy, Fernando Bull, is in Spain, so must be telecommuting, and there appear to be others. How many people are physically there, who are they, and where is there?
 
I looked for this information in vain on the site, and from what I've read in aggregate, I got the impression Steve lives in a log cabin in the Vermont (?) boonies, surrounded by tall things both deciduous and coniferous. And, yes, I read the warning, so shall not elaborate upon what those things might be! Since I doubt BFC is in a log cabin, I'm puzzled why there is no pic of the firm's digs, which presumably are in something altogether less rustic than a log cabin or, worse, a lean to. Speaking as someone who visited AH shortly before the Great Massacre, which was part of the Epic Betrayal, and was absolutely horrified by the terrible state of the workplace there (stupendous shock to someone who cut his wargaming teeth on Tactics II), courtesy of Dott the Miserly, I could understand why you wouldn't want to show something like that, but you guys are entirely too squared away on all fronts to operate in such a continuously disintegrating pit. Not to mention having been around for over 15 years, by which time you've presumably upgraded your workplace from doubtless humble (or is it humbling?) beginnings. Would imagine many Forumites (not to be confused with stalagmites, cheese mite or even catamites) would love to see the "Here's where we started" and "Here's where we are now" pics, especially those of us who've been your customers from the earliest days. This is where the likes of Polygon and RPS have let us down in their reportage, being several "W"s short of the standard five in journalism, though Polygon did by far the better job on BFC's history.
 
I shall await your response with bated breath, coupled with the firm hope it doesn't lead to oxygen starvation! Who knows? Maybe this post will actually put some eyeballs on the GDF, a once flourishing place (pre-Cambrian hothouse), but where even the rare tumbleweeds are now lonely and forlorn. 
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

SeinfeldRules,
 
I used to work for Hughes MSG (Missile Systems Group), Canoga Park, and a sister organization, Hughes GSG (Ground Systems Group), was in Fullerton. GSG made both the TPQ-36 and TPQ-37 radars. We used to have Thursday afternoon tech briefs, sometimes classified, and one such was from GSG tech experts for the Firefinders. Using Los Angles City Hall as a thought model, we were told that enemy fire could not only be localized to City Hall, but a specific corner of the building. Additionally, we were told that with a dedicated battery, counterfire could be backplotted (backplotting done practically as soon as projectile cleared radar mask) and en route to the enemy before the hostile round even landed.During the Cold War, Russian doctrinal pubs specifically planned around taking NATO counterfire in four minutes. 
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

CPC922,
 
Welcome aboard!
 
Bil's posts are indeed excellent, and I find the way you looks at things tactically to be pretty scary. He seems to have a brilliant military mind and operates from a rigorous approach. My playing style is more intuitive than analytical.
 
I expect CMBS will be a blast. On many levels. It is a bit surreal to see the kinds of US weaponry in use my brother used in Iraq before he retired.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

pnzrldr,
 
Great battle coverage, engrossingly written and quite disturbing at times. What I want to know is when Bil's AFVs start exploding en masse? The slaughter of your force is becoming rather dreary, though it's doubtless worse for you. Russian thermal sights are, I think, winning the battle for him. They provide an enormous acquisition and targeting  advantage over the Ukrainians, one Bil's using to telling effect. Thank heavens the Russians didn't have this tech during the Cold War. Could've been disastrous had war come. Are IR-suppressing ghillie suits in the game? Seems to me they're desperately needed. Don't know whether you've ever encountered one of these (starting 2:00), nor do I know what it does to IR emissions, but it looks real to me, makes tactical sense, builds on known US work (not the misdirect in the front end of the video, which presents it as a possibility) and has been confirmed to me as real by a retired four star (who still is operationally involved on several fronts), one of my contacts. Also, YT has suppressed this vid, was only the combat footage, at least once already, on an unsupportable pretext.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zKQe-1BUFQ&spfreload=10
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

pnzrldr,
 
Great battle coverage, engrossingly written and quite disturbing at times. What I want to know is when Bil's AFVs start exploding en masse? The slaughter of your force is becoming rather dreary, though it's doubtless worse for you. Russian thermal sights are, I think, winning the battle for him. They provide an enormous acquisition and targeting  advantage over the Ukrainians, one Bil's using to telling effect. Thank heavens the Russians didn't have this tech during the Cold War. Could've been disastrous had war come. Are IR-suppressing ghillie suits in the game? Seems to me they're desperately needed. Don't know whether you've ever encountered one of these (starting 2:00), nor do I know what it does to IR emissions, but it looks real to me, makes tactical sense, builds on known US work (not the misdirect in the front end of the video, which presents it as a possibility) and has been confirmed to me as real by a retired four star (who still is operationally involved on several fronts), one of my contacts. Also, YT has suppressed this vid, was only the combat footage, at least once already, on an unsupportable pretext.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zKQe-1BUFQ&spfreload=10
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

akd,

The problem was that Gen One ERA turned even a T-55 into a big problem, especially if it had the Kladivo radical upgrade for the T-55 I discussed in the Russian and Ukrainian weapon thread. Gen One ERA alone effectively nullified much of NATO's antiarmor capability, and thereafter it would've gotten worse. The nastiest ERA configurations would've been on the Sunday punch best tanks held in the Western Military District and Carpathian Military District under strict secrecy and far away from prying eyes, waiting for a disrupted defense to drive home the Tank Armies and win the war. Meanwhile, the ignorant would naively presume that what the GSFG had in its sheds was the worst threat to be faced. Nyet! I remember quite well reading with horror in Armed Forces Journal International about the Russians stacking ERA to defeat even precursor charges. At the time, TOW-2A was the best we had in the TOW family. Consequently, TOW-2B was created because smashing through the ERA was simply not viable anymore. While you blithely dismiss the M829 problem, the fact is the XM829 "silver bullet" of ODS fame was already characterized and countered before the round could even be standardized. Indeed, the CIA briefing I attended in 1985 directly addressed the issue of ERA with moving plates which defeated HEAT and long rod penetrators. The latter was accomplished by generating shear loads the projectiles simply couldn't handle. Not to mention the Russians had DU the fielded two years before us and that lots of other nastiness--Krasnopol, laser-guided Grad, laser-guided lots of stuff, Granit SFW and more--were also in service. They could kill our HAS with air-delivered 240 mm rockets and several types of guided munitions, while all we could do was jam the massively protected hangarettes' heavy doors. No I-2000 then! They had rocket-boosted runway busters deployed en masse, while we were trying to get Durandal from France. Thanks to hexagon standard sections, they could fix bomb cratered runways at rates which were embarrassing to us, and they were far less dependent on them in the first place. The MiG-27/D ground attack aircraft had specially shields to keep the dirt out of the intakes and had rough field landing gear.The MiG-29 had sealable primary intakes and secondary topside intake slots, allowing it to ignore FOD as an engine hazard altogether. To operate our birds, we needed a minimum clear stretch 5000' long and 50' wide. A meticulously clean swept down stretch at that. This was for tactical aircraft only and with light loads. I know, because i spent many weeks investigating the rapid runway repair issue, to the point where I practically dreamt about it. In closing, I'd note that in Hackett's Third World War August 1985, as originally written, NATO lost. HM the Queen personally intervened before publication, turning the book into a "We barely scraped through and urgently need to fix, well, everything" clarion call to action.

dan/california,

I don't know what you're talking about. Please explain. Did I miss something?

Regards,

John Kettler

Bil,

Here's a great piece on Russian micro tactics. Quite the read. This is but one of several such battles depicted, complete with sketches. The resource represented by the Tankers portion of IRemember.ru is simply tremendous. Combat accounts by the score.

http://tinyurl.com/pprfw2u

Regards,

John Kettler

From time to time I go rooting around in the CIA's FOIA Electronic Reading Room. Here is a link to a now declassified 1980 SECRET article in the classified CIA quarterly Studies in Intelligence. Written in Summer 1980 by then MG Paul Gorman of the US Army, this speaks directly to how dire our situation was then and what the IC (Intelligence Community) could do to help deal with a crisis which had already influenced multi-billion dollar decisions regarding TOW, XM-1 and tank ammo programs. When this was written, neither the M60A3 "Starship" nor the XM-1 had entered service and things were looking grim indeed.
 
US INTELLIGENCE AND SOVIET ARMOR
 
http://www.foia.cia.gov/document/0000624298
 
Starting on p. 22, there is a series of charts which I saw in one of the UNCLASSIFIED FMs circa early-mid 1980s at Hughes. The charts summarize a whole series of technological and performance improvements, comparing them to both a US tank (Sherman 76 mm) in WW II and Korea (Pershing). In WW II, it took 13 rounds, from a standing tank to a standing tank at 1500 meters, to obtain a 50% chance of a hit.  By Korea, that dropped to 3 rounds. By the mid 1970s, it was only 1. 
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler