Lethaface

Imo Steve has argumented the fallacies of the RAND report very well. Given enough preparations are made NATO could very well thwart any invasion of the Baltics without seven brigades permanently there. I think that political influence on the actual text made public is pretty much a given in the present days of worldwide affairs. Living in Europe I have personally never lost sleep about a war with Russia (born in 82 ), this report changes nothing for that matter. Seven US/NATO brigades in The Baltics have more chance of disturbing my sleep than their current absence has. OTH I do wonder if your worst case is really worst case, as I have personally not absorbed conclusive evidence to deny Russia enough operational or even strategic surprise (even if NATO's decision making wouldn't be hampered like Pavel states) to overrun the Baltics the moment NATO starts realizing about it. Why can't Russia creep a small but very capable mobile force into place before any 'hybrid hints' are given? Unlikely indeed, but impossible? In the end I expect that if Putin does somehow goes for and actually manages to occupy the Baltics in any way shape or form, the 'forces of Democracy' will wake up and deal with Russia. Worst case being a second cold war that would only last a couple of years before Russia collapses again. I would lose sleep over a serious collapse in Russia, if only because of their Nuclear arsenal. I'd rather have Putin on the button then some criminal selling them off to the highest bidder. The great thing is that Putin is, like the majority of mankind, mainly interested in himself. His apparatus is more than able to realize that he has capitalized about as much as he can from the Western political weakness. He has already overplayed his hand, imo. Putin can't appear weak so he won't back down easily, but I don't see him throwing fuel on the fire that is mainly burning himself. Now for the important stuff: am I the only one that thinks a CMBS Baltics module/pack would be a great way to game out the various scenario's that have came up? Steve and Vanir could do the beta AAR :-)

I'm not into the specifics but thought the info on the 1GNC website is interesting: "[....]Assets Assigned to NRF 2016 Joint Force Command Brunssum (JFC Brunssum) is the lead headquarters for the NRF during 2016; it will be supported by the following command and control elements: Land – Spanish NATO Rapid Deployable Corps (NRDC);Maritime – United Kingdom Maritime Force (UKMARFOR);Air – Italian Joint Force Air Component Command (JFAC);Special Operations – United States Special Operations Command Europe;Logistics – Joint Logistics Support Group (JLSG) from JFC Brunssum;Multinational Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear (CBRN) Battalion led by Poland.Combat Forces. Air, land, maritime, special forces, and logistics troops from across the Alliance have been placed on a high level of readiness and are available to support NRF 2016 if required. For reasons of operational security, details of the exact composition, locations and readiness of these forces are not publicly releasable. Twenty-five Allies will contribute military forces to NRF 2016. The VJTF framework nation for 2016 is Spain. Current development of the VJTF concept: Exercises 2015-2016 Work on developing and testing the VJTF concept commenced in 2015, with the Land Component of the ‘traditional’ NRF 2015 acting as an Interim VJTF; this is the basis for VJTF concept development. The Interim VJTF in 2015 was led by Germany, the Netherlands and Norway, supported by other participating Allies, and was tested through a series of exercises, trials, and evaluations aimed at developing, refining and implementing the concept[....]"

Is the Polish tank battalion actually part of the VJTF or did it join the exercise because it was in Poland? From a video posted by the dutch mod I understood the latter. The VJTF in 2015 was formed by Germany, Norway and Netherlands and Spain will mainly take it over in 2016. At least that's what is said on the website of the '1GNC' 1 German/Netherlands Corps.

The Very High Readiness Joint TAsk Force (VJTF) concept is currently being developed. Last year it was 'interim-ed' by Germany, Netherlands and Norway and this year Spain is 'the framework' nation. The concept: "The VJTF comprises a multinational brigade (approximately 5,000 troops), with up to five manoeuvre battalions, supported by air, maritime and special forces. Once fully operational, the VJTF will be supplemented by two additional brigades, as a rapid-reinforcement capability, in case of a major crisis. If activated, the force will be available to move immediately, following the first warnings and indicators of potential threats, before a crisis begins, to act as a potential deterrent to further escalation. The rapid arrival of this small but capable military unit would send a very clear message to any potential aggressor: “any attempt to violate the sovereignty of one NATO nation will result in a decisive military engagement with all 28 allied nations”". Link: http://1gnc.org/the-nato-response-force/ Afaik Germany, Netherlands and Norway did actually have forces on high readiness, if only because I saw a report of a test rapid deployment on the news in which interviewed troops mentioned their being on high alert (deployment in 72hours) and how it affected their daily lives. Not sure how much of the 'concept' is currently practice.

Imagine enemy soldiers standing some 25m away with automatic weapons pointing your direction. Doesn't sound like a situation anyone on earth would actually stay 'calm' for good reasons. Average person better change their underwear afterwards hehehe. I suppose nerves and spray & pray factor go way up at close range, even if you are actually doing the ambushing. That's basically what I see in the game and it seems realistic to me, apart from upping the tension. SSSSHHHHhooooot m already *********!!!!!

Sure Russia has absolute overpower in all those categories but if the Baltics would be able to mount a defense similar in concept to what Hezbollah managed in 2006, things could get pretty nasty for an armoured spearhead invasion. Especially if NATO is giving a helping hand. Given the 26 years they had to prepare it is not impossible to imagine this possibility. However, I'm not in the position of knowing but, my impression is not that the Baltics have prepared for such a thing the way Hesbollah did or have the necessary territory. In my book they joined NATO for security and went for a full volunteer professional force like the rest of Europe. I do know that their economies, which are steered quite competently in my opinion, don't really allow for large military expenditures that would be necessary to field a strong defense force that can credibly face Russia in a conventional war. People wise the Baltics could be three low populated, (very) poor, provinces of the Netherlands. How in earth could they be able to pay for an army much larger than the current Dutch army and sufficiently geared up?

Will if he hired some ex Wallstreet risk managers he could be speculating the stock market rewarding the western defense industries for their increased order portfolio's linked to Putins cowboy adventures, which in the end will of course bite back viciously ;-)

Funny because last few years I haven't really run into these area fire problems (reverse slope no aim point & blocked center of AS). Remember that it bugged me a lot more when I first started playing CMSF. Like others stated it is often possible to find another AS where area fire is allowed that also suppresses the intended AS. I guess I have learned to recognize and workaround such area's in the game. Another thing is that I have found out that it depending on terrain it can be very difficult to notice slight terrain undulations that are having impact on LOS. With regards to your cornfield massacre: If you try to mentallly 'unsee' the corns there could be some sort of a crest in the terrain that is blocking area fire but allowing fire on units? In that case the bonus concealment offered by the hedge cover is a sort of multiplier. Another explanation could be that your units are effectively sticking their heads over a gradual crest which is limiting the distance upon which the hedge is visible (or better the bit of it that is needed for area fire) from ground or waist level and that the corn is concealing that fact. Although your taller vehicles should have the option to area fire from further away than your (cowering) infantry. Finally: it would obviously be great if grazing fire like the soldier having a go at the 'cornbuds' in your video would be possible ingame, but I imagine such changes will have impact on the inner workings of the engine core and are therefor not very practical. Generally I have learned to live with these limitations and have been enjoying the game since 2007, although they can obviously be at times very frustrating, especially when personal honor is at stake in a PBEM ;-P.

Adding that the PG7-VR warhead the Russians use in CMBS is the same warhead that the RPG-29 uses. Although the RPG-29 launcher should be more accurate at distance than the RPG-7 launcher, which is in my impression also in effect in CMx2.

Anyway I agree that a Baltic prepared for an invasion, with NATO being able to get involved in a timely fashion would mean Soviet mmm Russian spearhead running into serious defenses... and that CMBS is a nice platform for simulating what could happen in such a situation :-)

Fair points, although this time Russia also knows that it's under the microscope and realize that more operational surprises would have to be involved for a successful attempt to 'fait accompli' the Baltics into Russia. Besides my guess is that Nato would go on and kick Russia out again even if it manages to succeed taking all of the Baltics

Interesting discussion. I'd think that the matter of operational surprise the Russians will be able to gain are what will decide the outcome of a potential (and imo unlikely) Russian invasion of the Baltics. To have -or not have- surprise will be decisive. Will the Latvians/Estonians/Lithuanians be actually in in-depth defensive positions fielding their ATGMs with NATO trigger forces liaison officers providing accurate spotting for NATO long distance fires? In that case I'd imagine things will get rough for a Russian invasion up to the point where it fails to achieve success in a certain time-window which will allow NATO to reinforce the defense, defeating or stalling the invasion until a ceasefire is reached. At the same time I'd think that in the case Russia wants to go for an attack like this, it will put every effort in camouflaging it's intentions right up until the moment troops hit the borders, or even later in case of a successful green men insertion. Is it unthinkable that the Latvian/Estonian/Lithuanian defence forces would be primarily in their barracks/ on leave/ training, while their command centers turn into smoldering ashes from long range Iskander fires and an armored spearhead is racing across their borders. Throw in a heavy EW and SEAD attack with VDV assaults on strategic airports in the first hour for optimal effect. How much weight would a couple of companies of NATO trigger forces put in the scale? How long would it take for Russian spearhead to race across the country and occupy all relevant strategic positions? While I'm just letting my imagination at work here, I'd like to think the Russian army is more capable than me when it comes to devising a plan for a surprise assault. While soft factors are, imo, indeed very important when considering the combat power of actually fielded forces in conflict they do not make any difference for forces not effectively deployed on the frontline. If it was my job to deny a military invasion of the Baltics by Russia (and denying surprise advantage) I'd agree with Ken that stationing a couple of heavy battalions on the Baltic borders under loose ROE would be a better way of insuring the Baltics from the 'threat' of a Russian invasion. On the other hand I don't see a Russian military invasion of the Baltics as a feasible thing to expect. They are, after all, NATO members and I don't think Putin is that 'good' of a poker player to take the risk and go all in over the Baltics. I'm sure the Baltics are fine countries but I don't see how they are worth the hassle of a potential conventional war with NATO.

Isn't the adaptive half-refresh rate vsync influencing the fps setting?

Well nuanced. I think CarlWAW wanted to have this splendid AAR (both sides) continue much longer :-D As for this battle; while discussing from the armchair in the spoiler thread I suspected Bill would 'concede defeat' when the Jumbo's were doomed. With just the 2 M36's left the actual battle was, for all intents and purposes, over. Plus it's not that Baneman had to suffer through a boring experience or was withheld victory. Any chances for a quick rematch? Bill still has a white whale to hunt ;)

I agree with you if he is able to retreat his Jumbo's to fight another day. However, how I interpret the current situation is that one Jumbo is trading shots with the JT while the other is in LOS of both Panthers. In other words, they are in bad positions. Those M36's are indeed very potent and very dangerous to at least the Panthers, not sure about the JT. But without any escort left (Jumbo's / infantry) I don't see too much viable tactics left to pursue, except for selling one's life dearly (I like the Dutch version much better, 'To sell one's skin expensive'). Indeed a great game, let's see how those Jumbo's fare.

@Bil Hardenberger Are you having second thoughts about you naming your teams 'Pain' and 'Punishment'? :-P As always great AAR! You sure did create some excitement with your bold moves

Personally I don't see this tipping (back) into Bill's hands. He only has 2x M36 and 2x Jumbo, while both Jumbo's seem to be in a bad position. Even if Bill gets the JT, Baneman still has 2 Panthers, about a battalion of INF, some halftracks and mortars. I predict the Jumbo's will fall soon while the M36's will prove to be a challenge for Baneman. Wouldn't rule out the possibility of Bill admitting defeat if he loses the Jumbo's. Imo Bill gambled and lost. Credit to Baneman for the handling of his limited armor. One thing that wonders me is how Bill managed to, in effect, feed his armor piecemeal into jaws of (Big) cats. He is probably the one that taught me not to do that :-P I guess everybody can have a bad day, even the sensei. Unless I'm absolutely wrong I guess this is Bill's first proper defeat in an AAR, as I don't really count his CMBS loss against the Abrams Army.

I have an ambilight TV and while it surely adds to the atmosphere of a movie (as long as you switch off lights) and makes it easier to immerse in it and forget about the fact that you are sitting on the sofa in your living room, I'm not sure if a colored glowing abyss next to the battle map would make the abyss less obtrusive in CM ;-) That being said I would welcome any changes that make (or appear to make) the battlefield fade into the horizon more smoothly.

Well that's not what I implicated, or at least not what I intended to. I see a practical difference in negotiating with Assad vs IS and a practical difference living under Assad vs living under IS. But more importantly I think that keeping Assad's regime until a new 'status quo' arrives will save a couple of hundred thousands of lives, if not millions, versus if Assad's regime falls before a new 'status quo' is entered. I'm not advocating he should be allowed another Presidency stint. Hope to see him stand (fair) trial one day, whether in Damascus or at the ICC. From that point of view it seems I am taking the short view, although I'd rather see it as the helicopter view ;-). I could be wrong. However I don't want to find out what happens if Assad's regime falls. Perhaps that's shortsighted but that's what my mind has come up with as the best thing, based of the information available to me. Discussions with people originally from the area have probably influenced my opinion in no insignificant way.

Very simple: he was elected and Russia still has a parliament and other democratic institutions, although one can question how fair the elections were and how free the opposition is. P.S. have been unable to play CMBS last months, hopefully I'll be able to start returning turns soon. Your semi-democracy troops are doomed :-P

Well I agree that Assad is a large factor in the current situation in Syria. But the region is very destabilized and the West has a large hand in that. Assad might have been abusing the IS presence for staying in power ("see I'm fighting terrorists), I don't believe he is the one that have armed, trained and supplied them nor did he create the environment that spawned IS. But too busy watching the live feed from Paris :(. This is a new chapter in this conflict, I think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bazooka ;-P Wikipedia says the M9 and M9A1 made use of the better M6A3 rocket (102 mm penetration) vs the M1A1's M6A1 rocket (76mm penetration).

Well, smoke doesn't block a DU dart ;-P Just had to make that point hehe, although I agree that laser designating will become more unfavorable the more countermeasures get developed. Passive range finding and or target designation has big benefits.

While I can't deny your logic and have to agree that ethically it is only right to criticize Russia's support of Assad, I'm still thinking that it is better to keep Assad's regime alive till the end of the conflict. Even though Assad is not a sustainable factor for ruling Syria, the destruction of his regime will quite possibly lead to even (much) more murder than what he has already managed. Interested to hear your thoughts about that. So while I'm agreeing he is a mass murderer, he isn't genocidal yet. That can't be said of the forces that would fill up the void created when his regime would fall. Sometimes one needs to choose sides with a lesser evil against a larger evil. In WW2 nobody declared war on the Soviets when they annexed half of Poland and Stalin ordered the extermination of much of it's social elite. What do you think about the West (and other parties) supplying the rebels fighting Assad? While there might be a couple of decent folks between the rag tag bunch of rebels fighting Assad, it isn't clear to me whether the rebels (even without counting ISIS) are any less murderous then Assad? Would they not throw barrel bombs on Latakia if they had the chance? There are reports of use of chemical weapons by both the Regime and rebel forces. For me helping the Rebels is near the same page as helping Assad. It is a different page but i'm not sure whether it comes just before or after. I'm not so sure about this. Let's say it is true, is that because the West feels it is morally wrong or because there hasn't been situations in which this mindset serves our interests best? We still support Egypt and Saudi Arabia. On the hypocrite scale we also weigh in heavily, as the the Khaddafi's were welcomed guests from Oxford to Paris to Rome, just before we no-fly zoned their ground forces into oblivion and (in)directly supported the creation of chaos in Libya like there is no Iraq. Ethically I too think the West is best to keep it quiet, if only due to the plethora of clandestine (signature) drone strikes in our 'War on Terror'. We manage to do this as 'fully' functioning democracies, opposed to Russia's current semi-democratic regime. We're on the same page with regards to Russia's evil ways. I see Russia's leadership as a clique of dangerous power-hungry autocrats with Mafia aspirations. Now that I speak of those, Erdohan is moving in that direction too unfortunately I might add.

Even apart from just making Khloe cry this thread seems very interesting to me. Unfortunately I haven't had or have the time do read it in full. Imo the current EU refugee crisis is making this our problem, at least for Germany/Austria/Sweden/Netherlands and because of that, for the EU. I think poor Powell phrased it very well when he said 'you brake it you own it'. The west (US + EU + allies) have at least partial ownership of the problem in the Middle East, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the horn of Africa. Probably forgetting some ;-) Ousting Saddam and leaving a mess in Iraq didn't help the region forward. Supporting the ousting of Khadaffi did neither. Both have influenced the current civil war in Syria. Supplying various rebel groups, supposedly belonging to a secular FSA, with heavy weapons also wasn't a good idea. A lot of those weapons seem to have ended up in Daesh/IS hands. Bombing IS and helping the Kurds is necessary (imo), but will not change the fubar status quo. Now Russia is in with some airstrikes, trying to keep Assad in power. While I don't see how those airstrikes will bring a positive change for the average man in Syria, I think it is hypocrite to call Russia on it. They are merely protecting their interests in Syria/the region, as is the west. Now the refugee crisis is forcing the EU's hand. One might recall that the West had intentions of bombing Assad after the chemical weapons issue. Partly due to Russian diplomatic efforts those plans were shelved. One can ponder how much more people would have fled the Region if western airstrikes helped to topple Assad's regime? In my personal opinion any bomb on IS is a bomb well spend. In order to eliminate this evil group from the face of the Earth the powers that be should cooperate in it's eradication, which will need ground forces. The other (violent but less evil than IS) groups should form a round table and discuss a inclusive treaty for all of Syria's groups. Or better yet, the whole Levant. Could I have a two-state solution for the Palestine problem with that as well? You know what throw in a lottery ticket! I also don't see a solution for this mess. Perhaps a stalemate between all parties is realistically the least worse outcome indeed. Time will tell. PS is there no more preview option before posting? Edit to add the point that I was forgetting to make. Democracies tend to be effective only for part of the duration of their elected governments. At least, that's my experience living in one. This isn't helping 'the West' doing any good in the region. Bringing democracy to countries like Iraq is, again imo, inherently stupid to even imagine as something one should strive for. While Assad is not a sustainable player in Syria I think his regime is a necessary tool to bring the situation forward. Without the regime Syria will turn into Afghanistan 2.0. Russia saving Assad might be a good thing.