womble

There were some images upthread of Brimstone systems that looked like they were mounted in exactly that way. This video has a sequence of it near the beginning. It's not quite a "grid-square-remover" MLRS; maybe you could pop a system that size on an 18 tonner rigid body, or a 40 ton artic. Shades of Transformers...

That's been mentioned here too. As has the fact that rail transport is being used to transport grain out of Ukraine, but hasn't anywhere near the capacity to replace the lost tonnage from maritime cargo. As has the fact that Ukraine's grain alone won't make up the shortfalls; Russian grain is also not getting out, because people are reluctant to buy it.

I think there's a difference between what the "REMFs" say on either side and what the gropos doing the pounding think. I would be surprised if the RUS grunts had quite the attachment to the land they're disputing that the UKR crunchies do. Just because the propaganda says it's so, doesn't mean the guys at the pointy end completely buy it.

There is nothing in scenario design which changes the spotting algorithm. It has to be to do with the specific tactical situation. Some buildings provide better concealment than others. There are myriad factors determining who can see what at any given time; analysing what's actually going on probably requires a game save.

SPR was the first film that really said to me (who's barely been in a bar fight, but played a lot of wargames), "You do not want, ever, to be in a firefight." While the details of how folks got up the beach might be played fast-and-loose, the visceral feeling it got across of the general chaos and cascading horror was like nothing I'd seen before. Anyone who's been in a firefight for real want to tell me it got that wrong? BoB was the next time I saw that, and you need to watch The Pacific if you liked BoB.

They are also flying without any worthwhile insurance. No reputable insurance company would touch misappropriated airframes with your barge pole. I'm sure the Russian Government has given assurances that they will cover things, but how much credence can anyone give that sort of promise?

Saving Private Ryan. Suppression is definitely a thing. BoB and The Pacific, generally. Some license is definitely taken in all these, but they largely stay in the grit and mud.

Perhaps. Even if it wasn't as firm as an explicit "directive", the desires of the Boss Man were pretty clear. The "mistaken intel" aspect is more an explanation of "why a full scale war". It wasn't meant to be a full scale war, but the level of force required to prosecute the "supporting a legitimate government" mission in a country the size of UKR had to be so large that when it didn't pan out as expected, RUS were already gonads-deep in a war they couldn't pull out of.

Because the Russian intelligence "massaged" their reports as to how deeply they'd suborned the establishment, and failed to present an accurate assessment of Ukrainian public sentiment to their superiors. Putin was expecting a collapsing adversary, crippled by betrayal and graft, but had to throw a lot at the problem anyway, because even if Zelensky's government collapsed and turned its coat, the target country would need at least a little pacification and control until the puppet government could be set up, and that would take a combination of riot police and soldiers, in fairly large number, just because it's a big country. As we can all see, this did not come about, and Putin had gambled his whole pile on the right outcome. Accepting this, early, and pulling out was not a survivable outcome for Putin, so he's "double-or-quits"ed a number of times now. And his marker is rapidly losing credibility.

The beeb has coverage: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61569560 Doesn't seem to go into much detail about ramifications.

The Beeb just caught up on this one. Interesting point in their "timeline story": "Several other countries were willing to send Harpoons to Ukraine, US officials and congressional sources have said, adding that no nation had wanted to be the first or only nation to send Harpoons, fearing reprisals from Russia if a ship is sunk with a Harpoon from their stockpile." Does anyone know whether the ammunition for the Danish land-based launchers are different from the ship-launched ones that everyone else will be able to offer? I'm hoping not, so the missiles from other powers will be useable by the shore-defense batteries.

[Looks out the window] No commotion here. Just because some clickbait outlet has captured some pointless vox pop doesn't mean it's the primary concern for anyone other than that ranting, self-selected, self-appointed arbiter of importance. Any more than your outrage over someone's (probably temporarily misplaced) sense of proportion is more important than the existential struggle for the life of the rules-based international order that's going on in Ukraine. People can be concerned about more than one thing at a time, you know.

"Not even" was the impression I got by the end... Two decades later? Even more so.

I'd be interested to see a direct quote from Steve that said that. My recollection is that they said they weren't going to sell on Steam for [reasons]. Those [reasons] changed. The reasons that they stopped developing CMx1 20 years ago (basically, "it's too hard to develop this spaghetti code any further", to be simplistic) haven't. You're making some assumptions about what would be "easy" that may well be far from reality, and you're forgetting that the outfit has a very small developer staff whose time is devoted to CMx2 now. Veering back into an abandoned code base isn't going to be on their list of things to do. And what you're proposing definitely requires coding updates. You're touching on the spotting engine and on the AI, and the updates needed for either of them to achieve the things you're proposing in the OP are way past "minor".

This. Quoting for emphasis. It's a "dead" product, obsolete and superceded. Asking for updates for it is like asking for security patches for Windows XP.

Where does the blockade sit in the scale of escalations? Given that there's been no declared war, what "right" do the Russians have to interdict shipping in Ukrainian waters? Beyond the fact that "they can", I mean. ISTR some reports of shipping (Bulgarian) suffering mishaps in the Black Sea in the early part of the war, but don't remember seeing those incidents clarified. What would be the consequences of the Russians sinking a Panama-flagged bulk carrier in- or out-bound for/from Odessa?

Not just a regular unit, but one with a "Guards" designation. I remember facing BMP-1s in the only game of 1:300th modern micro armour I ever played, back in the early eighties. I wondered how "new" it was at that point, so I looked it up. It's been in service a year longer than me. 1966. Jebus. I don't suppose there are any 56-year old examples actually still fighting (or even that there were any such before Russia came over the border), but even with a cannon upgrade, that's... dated. I also remember when "motorised" meant trucks, not APCs... But I guess if you've over half a century of hand-me-downs from the units that got actually modernised, you can replace your trucks with APCs to move your gropos around, and keep the trucks for the log train.

Jeremy Vine is a presenter who gets his ratings by inflaming contentious issues. His show should in no way be regarded as representing anything other than views cherry-picked to generate indignation, disgust, hatred and any other negative emotion that feeds his audience's atavistic needs. Sure, the view that we have no business in Ukraine exists, but just because the show presents it emphatically does not mean that it is widely held.

That isn't "carried by the NYT". That's the Asia Times "quoting" the NYT. And I trust the Asia Times "quoting" about as far as I could spit Vladimir Putin.

And then we'll know whose payroll they're on.

Currently, I'm optimistic that the Russians have done such a bang-up job of being the baddies (invading their neighbouring sovereign nation by force of arms, atrocities, threats of armageddon and broadening the conflict, atrocities, being lying liars, atrocities, oppressing their own press and people, atrocities on the ground, war crimes, effective nationalisation of international corporation assets and more atrocities) that "Europe" is belatedly remembering what happened last time an autocrat got spicy with their neighbours in Europe and everyone made excuses in order to carry on "business as usual". The flight from Russian energy is likely permanent, or at least the reliance upon that energy will be gone for good (so, at best, Russia will be competing in a more open market, as the supply issues from other locales will be "solved problems") and everyone will know just how scary it is to be reliant on the goodwill of a homicidal maniac. And, as Steve said, no one is going to be keen on handing said maniac a replacement gun for the one that the heroes of Ukraine have so ably taken off him.

Add: "We are doing X." == "We want to do X, but have screwed the pooch so badly that it's never going to happen now."

Wow. That's in "Pull up! Camels!" territory of NOE flying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1299 ERCA? ~70miles with the XM1113 RAP, according to that wikipedia page... Still a six-inch gun not eight, though

Going back to the flustercluck that was the recent multiple bridging fiasco. The reports of general firesetting by the Russians in an attempt to provide obscuration for their efforts definitely explain the large scorched areas that the overheads are showing in the aftermath. They provoke a thought about spreading fire in the CM titles... Last time it came up, I believe the rationale was that it's not modelled, because we gamey bastidges would be setting fire to every cornfield, copse and crib in the place to "shape the battlefield".... Does that make the Russians gamey as well as all their other faults?