Vanir Ausf B

I can't say for sure, but all 3 hits look like "1200m Tiger" to me.

Flash Point Campaigns: Red Storm Modern Air / Naval Operations Command Ops

It looks to me that there is one obvious problem, that when the HT gunner unbuttons to fire the passengers do too. I don't know how hard it would be to separate the unbuttoned status so it's not all-or-nothing, although I suspect it may be problematic in situations where the gunner and the passengers are in the same unit. There are a couple of ways to mitigate so that you should be able to use Hanomags offensively. One is to place covered arcs on your assaulting (moving) HTs so they don't unbutton. Infantry will not even fire at buttoned HTs under most circumstances, rendering them (mostly) immune to small arms fire. Second, if you want to use a particular HT for fire support, disembark any passengers first.

Yeah, I mentioned that a few pages back

I think micro terrain usually applies to explosives and bullets. My comment was regarding the Rocky terrain type specifically, which may not be typical for the reason you mentioned earlier. Changes were also made to other terrain types. The effects are subtle. We beta testers have been playing with the changes in Final Blitzkrieg for a couple of months and they have not been controversial in the least, so take that for what it's worth

Some clarification on this after some testing. It appears the increase in micro terrain cover for Rocky terrain is only for bullets, so although Rocky terrain does not produce higher casualties than plain dirt it doesn't produce significantly less either.

Yes, but it doesn't work like that in the game. BTW, that item in the change log is worded incorrectly. The increase in cover values applies to bullets also, not just explosives.

152mm FSV sounds like a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, as others have pointed out. 152mm on a tank is, I suspect, a bridge too far until there is some revolution in tank cannon technology (railgun?), but the Germans are beginning development of a 130mm cannon for the Leopard 3 so I'm sure we'll continue to hear about Russian efforts along those lines.

And as others have said, because of geopolitical changes over the past decade I would expect a change of setting. Probably some hypothetical conflict in eastern Europe between Russian and NATO. I doubt it will even be called Shock Force 2. Maybe something like "Black Sea"?

Ain't happenin'. "Shock Force 2" will be a completely new game.

ATG movement in-game is more of an abstraction of every condition rather than just assuming level dry ground, because the speed is the same whether the gun is being push up a muddy hill or across a parking lot. Also, the crew never fatigues. Taking those factors into account the movement rate isn't as pessimistic as it appears at first blush.

"Sergeant, I don't think we're in Iraq any more."

My guess is the target had a damaged laser warning receiver.

It's a bug that will be fixed in the upcoming patch.

APFSDS should ignore slope effects up to around 80 degrees from vertical.

I'll be the sourpuss and say I'd rather they spend the time on a Black Sea module. EDITED to add: IIRC, BFC has hinted that UNCONS are on the list for Black Sea.

Interesting blog.

This is perhaps meant to be an anti-radiation lining, not a layer of actual neutrons? While the latter probably would make very strong armor it would weigh many trillions of tons

Grey = rolled homogeneous steel Yellow/gold = a fiberglass-like filler White: air gap The boxy shapes are various types of explosive reactive armor, I believe. I'm not sure about the blue and green layers off the top of my head.

OH MY GOD WHAT HAVE YOU DONE? Thanks. I'll take a look.

What!? You did not find the tete-a-tete on the proper construction of thesis statements entertaining? Writing it was a thrill a minute. Honest. Been lurking the whole time. These AARs are like the ancient battles in Hollywood movies where the combatants charge at each other screaming then hack at each other for a while. Fun to watch but not much to analyze

The thesis statement with your suggested corrections (that I agree with, which isn't all of them): In a series of wargames conducted between summer 2014 and spring 2015, the RAND Corporation examined the shape and probable outcome of a near-term Russian invasion of the Baltic states to determine if NATO is capable of defending the territory from occupation. As currently postured, NATO cannot successfully defend the territory of its most exposed members. Across multiple games using a wide range of expert participants in and out of uniform playing both sides, the longest it has taken Russian forces to reach the outskirts of the Estonian and/or Latvian capitals of Tallinn and Riga, respectively, is 60 hours. Such a rapid defeat would leave NATO with a limited number of options, all worse than defeating the invasion in it's infancy: a bloody counteroffensive, fraught with escalatory risk, to liberate the Baltics; to escalate itself, as it threatened to do to avert defeat during the Cold War; or to concede at least temporary defeat, with uncertain but predictably disastrous consequences for the Alliance and, not incidentally, the people of the Baltics. This is a more precise statement in a couple of places, but to analogize the original to something scribbled in crayon "using the vocabulary of a 10 year old who speaks English as a second language" can most politely be described as massively hyperbolic. How about 3. Writing thesis statements is a different skill set than running wargames. 4. Imprecise syntax is not evidence of deception. 5. Nothing is perfect. If perfection is the standard everything fails. What you are doing is akin to using inaccuracies in the Combat Mission manuals to indict Combat Mission and it's creators. I have very good reason to suspect flaws in Combat Mission's modeling. That doesn't make it a poor simulation. The report is a data point intended to help inform the discussion, which was in some respects unhinged from reality prior to the report's introduction. While you have questioned the unambiguous certainly of their conclusion there appears to be universal agreement that their conclusion is the most probable one. Mission accomplished, as far as I am concerned. Agreed that this discussion appears to be a tempest in a teapot. It does make one consider what is unique about this teapot... What you said was: "Because it presumes a massive and unprecedented military buildup right on Russia's border is the only way to ensure it won't invade the Baltics." This is incorrect because the report explicitly states it is not possible to ensure Russia never invades. Ah, more kvetching about syntax. What else? The report actually says "relatively cheap" but I grant you they don't define what it is relative to. Nevertheless, that does not negate the preceding sentence, which is more unambiguous: "It is unclear whether denial of the prospect for a rapid victory would suffice to deter Russia from gambling on an attack on the “Baltic three,” were it inclined to contemplate one." Which they admit. The phrasing is odd but they definitely have not concluded that threat of war with NATO is not itself a deterrent. They almost explicitly state otherwise: "Even in the absence of strong conventional resistance, attacking NATO nonetheless would represent a very risky course for Russia. Deterrence is a complex phenomenon that does not rest on any single element." Apparently they have. I doubt you stepped back from your initial position on a whim. If not because of the report it must have been my persuasive arguments

Debating proper thesis writing. You might as well criticize their choice of font while you're at it. I should just concede the point because I find it too trivial to waste time on. Emphasis added. I don't recall any non-military recommendations. Regardless of that, I have already said about 5 times that I am not in favor of the brigades, so this is not a point of contention and never has been. What odds would you place on the report released to the public being identical to the report given to the Pentagon? Oh? Pg 9 : "It is unclear whether denial of the prospect for a rapid victory would suffice to deter Russia from gambling on an attack on the “Baltic three,” were it inclined to contemplate one. What seems certain is that NATO’s current posture, which appears to offer Moscow the opportunity for a quick and relatively cheap win, does not." Pg 16: "Even in the absence of strong conventional resistance, attacking NATO nonetheless would represent a very risky course for Russia. Deterrence is a complex phenomenon that does not rest on any single element. Nevertheless, the lack of a credible conventional defense cannot strengthen it." As demonstrated above, you are misrepresenting what the report says. Actually, they did game out a second ABCT scenario, alongside 2-3 battalions of the 82nd Airborne (who probably DO have Javalins, BTW ), a battalion from the UK's 16 Air Assault Brigade (who probably also have Javelins), and others. They also allowed NATO fighter squadrons to base in Sweden, a non-NATO country, which helped them avoid the air defense network in Kaliningrad. I rather suspect it was "released" to the DoD long before the official announcement last week, the irony being that the report's increasing obsolescence over time is probably due in no small part to the report itself.

Try this one. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-PXQYVjbp6MC&pg=PA276&lpg=PA276&dq=casualty+rates+of+german+tank+commanders&source=bl&ots=qpRV1qfLvc&sig=lOvh64jyE3RR40dnM5A1Vt3k91Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQ4dyHs-PKAhWFkA8KHcdTBfQQ6AEIVTAJ#v=snippet&q=casualty rate german tank commanders&f=false

Briefly, RE: Northern Fleet. I would expect Russian SSNs to be primarily tasked with boomer protection. Assuming 50% deployable gives 6 or 7 SSNs plus 1 or 2 Oscar SSGNs. It's hard to see how they find the numbers to do anything significant in the Atlantic. RE: Black Sea Fleet. The primary impediment to US naval control of the Black Sea would be Russian land-based assets. I question if sea-borne access to Ukraine is critical enough to make that fight worthwhile to the USN. Russian interdiction efforts would be primarily via the various types of Iskander and Kalibr missiles. If Article 5 has not been invoked targets will be limited to inside Ukraine. In my opinion