Peter Cairns

Steve, True but I'd argue their is a big difference between shipping supplies to a largely static paramilitary force in territory they hold and keeping a modern armoured or mechanised division on the move in an offensive. Peter.

We seem to have three distinct views; Me, Steve and Vlad the Inhaler ( He takes a sharp intake of breath every time one of us posts) The difference between me and Steve seems to be that we both agree they would struggle to mount a 100K combined arms offensive but he feels they have improved enough to field 50K effectively. Now I haven't had a head to head disagreement with Steve for about five years (and lost badly) but I'll lay out my reasons why I am not as confident that the Russia Army has improved as much as it needs to to mount an effective offensive even with a 50K force. Firstly a rough comparison with the UK. With a just under 300k Army, 50K represents about 20% of the total front line strength and that is actually quite a lot to assemble in one place from across the the worlds largest Country without stripping out every quality unit in the Country. The UK equivalent with an army of about 90k (and falling!!!) would be about 18k. Now in Steve scenario Russia is deploying into a near neighbour an unlikely proposition for Britain, although at peak we had about 14k in Northern Ireland all be it out of an army of about 115k at the time. But in every way I put the quality and effectiveness of the British Army ahead of Russia, the only advantage Russia has is in size, and yet Britain would struggle to effectively deploy as much as 18k, a Gulf war 1 & 2 plus force and if we can't do it without a struggle I doubt Russia could. Secondly After almost forty years of watching Russia, all be it not professionally, they have consistently over estimated their capabilities, underestimated their many difficulties and crucially over hyped their successes in improving their forces and overcoming things like graft and incompetence. Not one claim made about reforms made in the last decade or more has turned out as planned or lived up to the claims of success. The big difference between me and Steve is probably that I am more sceptical about Russia's attempts to tackle it's myriad problems bearing fruit. For me the reason for that scepticism is two fold; Firstly that If it had made real headway in the armed forces we would also see it in the civilian economy and we just haven't. There may be fewer murders in the news, but thats more because those they used to just kill rivals now have consolidated political and economical power rather than changed. Corruption hasn't been curtailed it's been institutionalised. In this respect rather than The Army being less ineffective and corrupt like civil society, the corruption in civil society has become more like the armed forces, a way of life widely accepted as the norm. The second reason for the difference is that I can't see a agent for change. Much as Putin might like to rule by decree and act like his word is law, I think he knows their is a big difference between calling for an end to the problems in the Armed Forces and actual change. You need an effective agency to deliver it and it needs to be motivated and resourced and for there to be a real will across the organisation it is tasked with changing to come on board. Like the Joke about how many psychologists does it take to change a light bulb.....Just one but the Bulb has to want to change! I can't see any evidence that there is with the Russian state, let alone the Army, a body with the strength, skill or resource to tackle a problem on this scale, which is why I take the view that recent reforms in the last five years haven't gone anywhere near as far as they need to raise the effectiveness of the Army to near where it needs to be to put 100k effectively in the field. Do I agree with Steve's figure of say 40-60K? I don't rule it out but I'd be inclined to put it at about 10% of standing strength being about the limit of what you could field without compromising effectiveness against a capable enemy....30K. Peter.

Vladimir Tarasov, Yes it really is in a dreadful state...... Peter.

Steve, Your earlier comment about Putin Blinking when he had a chance to Invade in 2014 is one I on balance disagree with. My own take is that he took a good hard look at what it would take to do it, what he had available and concluded that the Russian army just wasn't up to the task. I am with you in believing that it's not about Ratios but you start with the size of the force, what it is equipped with, where it is and their combat effectiveness and then build and assess capability based on that. So far we have looked a bit at forces and equipment and even deployments on this thread but not near enough about capabilities. My view is quite simple, with about 300k men the Russian Army could probably pull together no more than 100k to invade Ukraine and to have any chance of pulling off an modern combined arms invasion against a capable and determined opponent and for that you need more than units and tanks, you need; Good Accurate Intelligence, Good Planning and Effective Command & Control Structures, Good Well Trained, Educated Effective Officers with Experience, Highly Adaptable Well Led Units at Operational Level, A High Quality NCO Corp with Effective Junior Officers at Tactical Level, Well Trained and Motivated Troops on the Ground. A High Quality Effective, Logistical and Support Organisation. A Robust, Adaptable, Responsive and Effective Supply Chain to Keep the while show on the road. In every one of these crucial areas, the difference between whats on paper and a real fight, Russian despite years of attempted reforms, is inadequate. Report after report including those published by the Russians themselves, show rampant corruption, terrible equipment shortages and availability, terrible living conditions and treatment of soldiers, an almost total breakdown in respect and discipline between, offers, NCO's contract troops and conscripts and what might be termed logistical sclerosis. In short an army probably incapable of doing anything more than, well what it has already, in quick surprise actions in areas it has support and the opponent in weak like Crimea and supporting an ally against a low capability opponent like in Syria. Much like Iraq under Saddam, Russia can bully a weak neighbour and do a smash and grab, but can't fight a major war. In fact I'd go as far as to say Russia's recent actions, in the Ukraine, Syria and in increasing Air and Sea Operations in the Atlantic aren't so much shows of strength as attempts to mask it's weakness. Peter.

Steve, My scenario which I think is unlikely but realistic, is that Russia already knows that all it can ever hope to hold is those areas where half or more of the population are Russian and from this to except pressure on the Ukraine politically and economically to keep it weak or indeed dependant. In this respect Russia even if it had the military means to take them couldn't hope to hold any more of Ukraine as the provinces to the west are no more that 25% Russian and that falls rapidly as you move towards Kiev. It also means that you could see argue that the territory it's proxies now control is bigger than it can hope to retain in the long term, consisting of a high value high Russian industrial region in the East and the more diverse less populated areas to the West. So for me Phase two of Black Sea takes place in 2019-20 after the current game and a year of two of stalemate and involves a reinforced rearmed Ukraine trying to take back everything short of Crimea. Phase one is taking the Russian minority buffer areas and has the Current black sea Ukrainian TOE augmented by modern western systems like Javelin and UAV's plus some added long Storied nation surplus like old turkish M60A1's ( ulterior motive is that it opens the way for scenarios for 70's to 90's Arab Israeli scenario's). This phase actually is more like Shock Force in that the Ukrainians would be mostly fighting a proxy Russian "Free Ukrainian" army than the Russians itself. The next stage is where the advancing Ukrainian forces enter that majority Russian region to the East a week as it is militarily and economically the Russian army is forced to intervene openly deploying it's latest equipment ( with the proviso that BF has enough reliable information to model things like the T-14 & T-15 without guesswork!) In a way this turns Black Sea on it's head because this is a Ukrainian offensive not a Russian one, which stays hypothetical while incorporating elements from the real life situation. It's not true but is true to life if you like. Peter.

Steve, Not bad as a Summary of Russia under Putin, but it misses something....Dependency Theory & Cognitive Dissonance. Dependency Theory. This, as I remember it from 30 years ago is an alternative to theories of Colonialism, says that it's not about one nation v another, but that elites in Countries have a shared interest in ruling at the expense of the majority in both. Thus the "Our Country first" sort of popular nationalism both Putin and Trump rallies the people behind the flag because of fear, or more acutely Loss Aversion (we cling to what we have and will defend it). Meanwhile the billionaires in both Country act with impunity accumulating vast wealth while the standard of living of most in both Countries stagnates. I am no commie, hoping for Revolution or class war, but behind all Putins rhetoric against the Evil West or the threat from Nato, none of it stops him and his cronies robbing Russians blind, stealing billions and transferring it from the faltering Russian economy into Western banks and property. Meanwhile millions of Americans are backing Trump because he promises to make "America Great Again", but in policy terms is advocating more tax cuts for the wealthiest and policies that will almost certainly push up federal debt, one of his supporters biggest concerns. It's almost like the public in both countries are little more than playthings for the people at the top! Cognitive Dissonance. Peoples natural tendency to organise the facts to give them the desired result. Why to people believe Populist politicians and there simplistic solutions, sweeping statements and demonising "Others"....because they want too! The appeal of someone who can "Make It Go Away" those magic words everyone wants to deal with whatever their problem is makes it very appealing and so like being at the movies, we suspend "Disbelief" and are willing to believe that someone strong, or successful or different can solve those frustrating intractable problems that beset us. Peter.

Russia, partly on the pretext that there are many ethnic Russians their, believes it has the right to intervene in it's neighbours affairs, militarily if necessary to protect it's own interests or security. Most of us think, it doesn't! Even if that view has majority support in Russia that doesn't make it right. Your Democracy stops at your borders. I know that on occasions the US disagrees with Canada and Mexico, both of which have lots of US citizeans, but it doesn't interfere let along by proxies or force.....Thought it might build a wall!!!! Where the US is on soft ground is when it turns a blind eye to Israel's occupation of the West Bank for nearly fifty years to safe guard it's security. Peter.

Steve, "f the Scotts can behave as a civilized, rational, solid thinking people with a respect for the rule of law then it is clear to me ANYBODY can. Hell, even the Quebecois managed to do it... twice!" On the subject of Democracy and people who think they can just ignore things like the separation of the executive and the judiciary....are you having fun with The Donald! Peter.

One of the things this discussion highlights is the difference between Democracy and Populism, and Rule and Law. In most of the West we have Democracy and Law, a free press and speech and the rule of Law. we see that in the demise of Richard Nixon. When he told Frost in the famous interview that it wasn't illegal if the President did it, America including his own supporters said "Oh yes it is" and he had to go, pushed out by protest and a free press. In Russia we have Populism and Rule, Putin is popular so he rules above the law, his word is law, so if he says it wasn't shot down by a Russian Plane, then it wasn't. It might seem Alice in wonderland to us but it's really just a different mind set and tradition. From the autocratic rule of the Czars through the Soviet years where the operated "Democratic socialism "You are elected by your peers but once elected your decisions are binding" right up to Putin, the leaders word is true his views are just opinions, there are facts, not to be challenged or refuted. His word isn't just Law...it's truth. People brought up in that tradition and system will back the official line because being official it must be true. I had a friend who worked at Parliament in Edinburgh and he was showing round a group of Russian students for a while and explaining how the system worked. The Russians struggled with the concept of the opposition because in there eyes having two opposing views was odd. For them there was right and wrong and if we were the government we should have and use the power to silence our political opponents for spreading lies!!!! Peter.

Russia now follow the "Blackadder Doctrine!" "Deny everything Baldrick!" Peter.

As everyone else has gone loony toons I might as well join in. Oddly enough round about the time that Crimea was annexed I was heavily involved in an Independence referendum here in Scotland, the procedure here was; The SNP put calling a Referendum in the next Parliament in it's election Manifesto. The SNP won a majority in a proportional Parliament in an open multi party system declared fair and free by a selection of UN, EU, Council of Europe and Independent NGO's The SNP formed the devolved Scottish Government within the UK and announced it would call for the UK government to allow a Referendum on Independence and put this proposal to a vote in the Scottish Parliament where it was passed. The UK Government that still controls Elections, but which opposed both Independence and a Referendum, accepted the SNP had a democratic mandate and legislated to allow a Referendum it didn't want. There was an agreed Referendum date and a two year period to allow preparation and democratic debate. The conduct of the campaign was overseen by the independent UK Electoral Commission that set and inforced rules, covering campaign groups, funding, media broadcasts, advertising and the role of both Governments. The Scottish Government published it's White Paper on it's Independence proposal and preferred Question a year before the proposed election date. The Electoral Commission studied the proposed Question, cautioned that it could be perceived as pro Independence and suggested a change of wording. The Scottish Government accepted the Electoral Commissions recommendation without question. The referendum campaign was conducted peacefully with the most disturbing acts a Labour Politician kicking someone on the chin bone, someone throwing two Eggs at the Scottish Labour leader, some posters getting torn or stolen and some run of the mill, but still nasty twitter and Facebook Trolling! The Referendum was held on the 14th of September 2014, 85% of the electorate voted and it was deemed free and fair by and even larger number of independent observers. Unfortunately from my point of view the result was 55% to 45% to remain in the Uk and not to become an Independent Country! The Scottish Government immediately accepted the result! AND THAT'S HOW WE DO IT IN THE DEMOCRATIC WEST! Peter.

HUSKER2142, Point taken, but only from a Russian perspective given it's financial difficulties and the current political climate. Russia would need to make a fair investment to produce a new 30mm round to match the Belgian M929 and it would need to justify that in terms of the current one , which it probably has large stocks of, not doing the job against likely targets, currently Ukrainian national forces or ISIS. If what I think your are suggesting; that Russia has higher priorities it tough times your probably right. An M929 would be better against Bradley's but right now Russia doesn't expect to fight them. Although you could argue that given how ubiquitous ex-soviet 30mm's are around the world there would be a ready market for a round with more punch as many armies up armour based on experience in Iraq and Afghanistan and as better way to bring down helicopters and aircraft with fewer hits. However from a game perspective and a Ukrainian one, given Nato backing and support, getting a more potent ammo from Nato Belgium to use against a Russia opponent with more and better armour might be an available and attractive offer. Maybe in the next addition to Black Sea we could argue for things like the M929 and other "Light" Nato equipment like, Humvee's drones or even Javelin being made available to Ukrainian forces, all be it at a fairly high points cost. I wonder what Steve's view is as he usual nows more about both whats on the ground as well as obviously where the game is going. Peter.

Had a look at the Wiki for the Russian 30mm 2A42 used on the BMP2 amongst other and I came across the alternative Belgian Mecar M929 ammo. I am assuming the game simulates the two Russian AP ammos, 3UBR6 and 3UBR8, but wonder if as it's a future scenario the Mecar ammo might be added particularly for the Ukrainians with Nato backing. On the basis of the specs it could make quite a difference. Less likely the Russians could get it particularly with an arms embargo, which is just as well if your in a Bradley!!!! Here are the specs; 3UBR6 Solid shot with blunt penetrator covered by a hollow windshield cap. Tracer burn time 3.5 seconds. Penetration: 20mm thick plate at 60 degree impact, 700 m range, 14mm thick plate at 60 degree impact, 1500 m range. 3UBR8 A sub-caliber discarding sabot. No tracer. Penetration: 25mm thick plate at 60 degree impact, 1500 m range. M929 A sub-caliber fin-stabilized discarding sabot round with tracer from Belgian Mecar, with tungsten alloy penetrator. Penetration: 55 mm steel at 1,000 m, 45 mm at 2,000 m range. Peter.

I'll start by stating two things I am sure of before looking at my question. Firstly modern optics particularly in low light and obscured vision situations are far superior to anything that has gone before. There is really no comparison between what a commander came see now in the likes of BS compared to BN! Secondly US and NATO systems are a generation ahead of Russian and will still be ahead even when things like the Armata and Bumerang are fielded. Independent sights and cueing make responsiveness and accuracy better than ever before.... But..... Even with that, should a 25 tonne Bradley be able to repeatedly site infaVntry in a building before they see it? Six to eight eyes is better than one, and even if modern optics are highly effective, an MICV is still hundreds of times the size of a head at a window! In addition I walk my dog every morning and can hear a car approaching at a half mile, so even given the noise of battle, infantry should usually be alerted to exactly where to look before a tank passes by. Having played plenty of scenarios and been frustrated by both vehicles spotting Scouting teams in cover and also T-72's & T-90's covering small gaps with anti-armour arcs not spotting M-1's till they are half way across and often not getting the first shot, I am sort of now at the point where I think; All infantry should be better at spotting Vehicles. All Vehicles should be worse at spotting Infantry. US vehicles shouldn't be quite as good at spotting as they are & Russian &Ukrainian Vehicls should be better at Spotting. I am not saying Modern vehicles don't have great optics or that US optics are better just that too me the gaps are bigger than I think they should be. Peter.

Given the discussion about new Russian equipment I wondered what people thought about the idea that One solution for Russian would be to retro fit the "Epoch" turret to existing vehicles. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumerang-BM it would be a cheaper interim option and they could be removed and put on other vehicles at a later date. Adding it to a BMP 3 might make it a more capable platform as well as saving internal space and even allowing for a proper gunner rather than relying on the squad leader. In game terms it would probably be much easier to model than the likes of the Armata, because we already know mostly everything about the Cannon, MG and ATGM and could probably be pretty close on the APS system. Peter.

The Wood1, I hadn't thought of that and you could well be right. Stripping out everything that wasn't essential would certainly make a BMP quicker off the blocks in an exhibition event than combat. I seem to recall the Germans getting caught when the Leopard won a contest when it turned out they had entered three different versions; One with a precision set gun for the gunner test, a full one for an armour test, and a special light weight one for mobility.....maybe that's where Volkswagon got the idea from! Peter.

Vladimir, Your right about the Expo, like Airshows it's about showing off. What surprised me looking at the footage compared to the game was acceleration. Top speeds weren't that different and vehicles particularly the BMP's turned slowly like in the game, but from a standing start they seemed to get to top speed quicker and given how important it is in the game for Russian players to minimise exposure to the accuracy of US weaponry that could be a factor. Having said that it could be that the same applies to US vehicles and that a decision was made during game design that combat isn't a race and what the game shows is less than what can be done in reality but more representative of real life situations. Peter.

Had a look at this a day or so ago; https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_F6-MtZX8eU Some interesting footage, although with the usual Russian production values. i wonder what if any might get a future inclusion in BS. I Know the Russians seem to have decided not to introduce the support version of the T-72 or T-90 with the 30mm gun and move to new platforms, but if BS takes into account the recent financial impact of the oil price and sanctions it might be all they could afford or produce. Like wise they talked elsewhere about a Bmp3 with a 57mm gun option. I doubt they would have a roll in BS but I liked the Amphibious carrier a bit like an updated Duck or Buffalo and that huge articulated thing at the end. oh and was it just me or was everything faster than in the game...... Peter.

A bit naughty but I am posting this here because it's the most active thread! I had the idea that as well the existing four Foilage options, three densities and the grid option for things like orchards and vineyards it would be nice to be able to make Foilage follow fences or hedges. This is because if you look at most European fence lines you will see that there are often occasional bushes or trees interspersed. At present the two map tricks I tend to use to make field boundaries look more natural are mixing fences with brush and using dyke lock to slightly raise the fence line along part of it's length, but being able to mixing in tress or bushes would be nice. I'd also like at some point a good look at rural walls. They shouldn't be that straight and should have uneven tops like hedges and bocage. Also a tumbled down section or trailing end would be great too, as they often just Peter out rather than stop abruptly. Peter.

Just another passing idea! In most scenarios and when designing them you can set percentage victory conditions for things such as casualties and ammo etc. However when you look at the results at the end of scenario it gives you absolute numbers. like 13 wounded, 6 killed and one missing from a force of 53. I think it would be nice if in brackets beside the number you got both the percentage and a tick or cross to show whether it net the victory conditions. I don't think that would be a huge piece of work and i know ever time i finish a game I try to work out the proportion of casualties in my head. Another nice, but like the above in no way essential addition, would be allocating casualties or ammo carried inflicted to individuals in a unit not just the unit in general. Might be a bit trickier though, but I always thought individual rounds were tracked. Finally You get a casualty count for an on map mortar by clicking on a unit but not for off map or aircraft. i would be nice to be able to see exactly what assists did what if possible. Probably a trickier thing to do but I'd just like more info at the end on what ddd what even down to small arms, support, grenades, artillery rockets, missiles and mines. The more you know at the end about what did what the better you can plan for the next time. Just an idea for that ever growing list that BF have requests for. Peter.

What do people think of this as an option? Rather than the current system of getting a set number of points, Tiny to Huge and a balance based on Meeting to Assault points would be allocated to the second player based on the first! So you would simply create the force you wanted and the computer would work out what it cost and allocate that number of points adapted to for the scenario to the other side, be it a player or the AI. It would make creating a balanced force and scenario easier. As ever just a thought! Peter.

This has probably come up before but I noticed that some of the RS maps are also from RT but you can't select the wooden bridge from the map editor. Hopefully this will get added at some point partly because it is one of my favourites ( You can use it to make wharfs and pontoons) but also because is seems to be to weak and narrow for a Bradley but just right for a BMP! Peter.

From the point of view of the game the difference between the Armata and the Oplot is that the Oplot is an upgrade package to something we know a great deal about and so is probably a lot easier to produce a good estimation of it's capability given it is in essence an upgraded T-80! For the Armata everything is still pretty much guess work! Even if Russia can field more Armatas that the Ukraine can Oplot M, it won't be in the game till we have more reliable information on it's performance. If you put it in based on what the Russians are claiming it would probably be able to fly! Peter.

Sorry for going from APS to spending priorities but it isn't so much about what you can afford as what you choose to spend on or as Economists put it "Opportunity Cost". The issue for upgrading the M1 or building the new LRS-B is which is the better spend not which is the bigger. Right now it seems that the thinking is that with the B-52 still the workhorse and most over fifty year old the need for a replacement out weighs the need to make the best tank in the world the even bester tank in the world even though at £500m each cutting one bomber from a proposed 80-100 would upgrade about half your tank fleet! You are free to disagree with that choice, but the logic that each system stands on it's own merits based on need rather than doing lots of cheap things is better than a few big ones is sound. My point was more that what compounds defence spending is not prioritising at every level and making tough choices so you over stretch yourself because of lack of focus. Peter.

Steve, Fair point. I've always taken the view that you "Prepare for the probable and adapt to the unexpected" Rely on a combination of a good understanding of the capabilities of your potential opponent and having quality adaptable professional forces. One of the biggest mistakes politicians make ( and I say this as a low level politician) is to spread resources to thin by trying to address every possibility or to keep everyone happy. People are loss averse so once we provide something it's difficult to cut it back and people then want something extra. So be it defence of medical aid for seniors it just keeps creeping up over time. We make the armed forces make the tough choices politicians won't and then politicians fight the hard choices that effect them, And if it's not to political, no one on either list of potential future Presidents is going to change that, because not one is saying that you'll all have to suffer and get less! Peter.