Tux

c) missile malfunction..? d) accidental/mistaken launch? If it was a Russian missile there will be some response. At least enough of one that Russia should be quietly wary of risking it happening again.

It’s worth remembering as well that Poland isn’t some neutral neighbour who Ukraine have to avoid provoking. There are few countries in the world who are as supportive of Ukraine’s fight. In my opinion there’s no need to over-do the excuses, here: A plain, heartfelt apology and a high-ranking Ukrainian official visiting the bereaved families and willing to attend the funerals of those killed could easily undo the damage caused by yesterday’s premature denials and allow Ukraine to maintain its image as the mature and civilised party in this war. The Poles know very well why Ukraine had SAMs in the air. The best Ukrainian response now is to support Poland in their mourning and thank them for their ongoing support. If it was a Ukrainian missile, of course.

And if he’s surprised when that happens every time then maybe I’m wrong and the guy is just an idiot.

I recognise and agree with that narrative. For sure he has turned down better off-ramps in the past. What does he really think he can achieve *now*, though? There doesn’t seem to be any reason for even Putin to think his military campaign is still salvageable… But Occam’s razor, etc. I think you’re probably right.

Yes, as we know Russian propaganda has already used NATO involvement as at least a partial ‘excuse’ for poor performance to-date, despite the history of claiming they could flatten NATO on a whim. The problem is, as some have said before, ‘even Russians don’t really believe Russian propaganda’. Real footage of real NATO forces actually openly getting involved though? Withdraw what’s left of the armed forces (seven before they actually arrive) and cry foul play, deception and murderous intent… Anyway, I’m going to step back from the precipice of under-informed Muskian hubris and enjoy reading the ongoing gift that is this thread. As you were.

I’d argue this is already where things are headed, to be fair. Something needs to change the narrative somehow if it’s to be avoided.

Are we sure about 1.? Do we need to be careful about what we define as a ‘win’? Because the definition can and does change - he has already redefined it several times in this war. I mean I suppose he’s still trying to ‘win’ in the sense that he’s trying not to lose too hard… But I think at this point he may realise that staying alive and in power is the biggest ‘win’ still available to him. To my mind, if he has redefined ‘winning’ in that way then the answer to 2. may, in certain circumstances, have become “yes”. 3. If NATO used dirty tricks to win, then maybe? Is a long shot but he’s already lost, right? So *if* he realises that then the only choices he may have left are how to lose and who to. 4., 5.: being seen to *make* NATO enter the war with boots on the ground wouldn’t work. That would rightly be seen as his own foolish fault. NATO jumping in out of hatred for Russia, travelling to ‘Russian lands’ and going for the throat of a ‘distracted’ Russian armed forces however… that’s the stuff an oppression myth can feed off. I’m very aware I don’t (and can’t) have all the information needed to really make a case for this and I’m not sure whether I believe it myself. I just see so many people professing confusion at Russian actions that I can’t help thinking there might be another angle.

Noted, thanks AKD.

I mean, we all know that Putin couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks, right? I learned a long time ago (mostly from discussions on this forum, to be honest!) to look at basically everything Putin does through the lens of Russian internal politics because that is where his power comes from and therefore where all of his motivations are rooted. That is the only stage on which his moves need to make any sort of sense.

Hi, all. This is my first post on any forum thread for many years but I'd like to say I have been reading this one avidly since the start of the war and I very much appreciate the balance you have struck between as-it-happens commentary, critical analysis and (often extremely well) educated opinion. I agree with those before me who've noted that there doesn't seem to be a comparable resource anywhere else online. While I'm loathe to clutter the thread with idle speculation (I admit I occasionally find myself having to skim-read a few pages whenever someone revives the 'nuclear question') I thought this might be as good a place as any to ask a question that's been niggling away at me for a few weeks now. Apologies in advance since I'm pretty sure I'm going to find myself tumbling down the reverse slope of Mount Stupid as a result of this post... Still, here goes: Is there a chance that Putin is now trying to get NATO into this war? If Russia can probably-but-definitely-not blow up some gas lines; sabotage the odd power-supply cable to a NATO member; unleash a low-level cyber attack on a few airports and continually attack Ukrainian civilian targets can they goad NATO into an overt conventional confrontation that gives Putin the excuse he needs to withdraw from Ukraine? Can he then claim that Russia was forced to invade Ukraine by insidious NATO, who then sprang the trap, stabbing Russia's mighty armed forces in the back? Maybe that allows Russians to swerve the cognitive dissonance caused by a defeat to Ukraine and instead spit at the treachery employed by the Anglo-Saxon-dominated West to subdue mighty Russia? Most importantly, maybe all that keeps Putin in power? It has to be sold as purely NATO's plan to get involved, so provocations have to be relatively subtle and ideally plausibly-deniable. It will lead to Russia's total military defeat but that's basically already the case, if not now then imminently so. I also think it could be well worth NATO refusing to grant Putin such an excuse, even if it means this war lasting longer than otherwise necessary (I hate myself for writing it, don't worry). Our goal is to drive a long-term cultural change in Russia and for that reason we have to deny them the ability to cry foul and to resolve to try again or even to get 'revenge' in future. In my opinion it was the denial of such plausible counter-narratives to 1940s Germany and Japan which carried a lot of weight in the post-war period. The aggressors have to think, nay know that they tried violence, they threw everything at it and, in a square fight, they failed. I have half a dozen other directions from which to come at this and I really don't like the way it potentially 'justifies' NATO inaction but this post is already long enough and I'm interested in what you good people think.

Just what I was wondering. To be honest, though, in my opinion that whole piece reads as though it was written by a credulous adolescent. If it wasn't for the fact that it is (presumably) based on an official medal citation then I wouldn't bother believing any of it. Out of interest, and not wishing to cast doubt on anything in particular, what level of evidence/corroboration is/was required for a medal to be awarded for extraordinary acts? Presumably it varies depending on factors such as those described by Mr Emrys, above, but what is an acceptable minimum? Apologies if that should be for a new topic...

As a UK resident who has lived at various times in London, Liverpool, Peterborough and Doncaster (which basically represent the full range from high immigrant/liberal to low immigrant/conservative population) can I just inform you that this is the biggest pile of c**p I've read in a long time (and that's saying something in today's environment). Your post is literally the first I've ever heard of "violent Turkish gangs" and there is no more problem with "Eastern Euro gangs" than there is with any of our home-grown British ones. These subjects are NEVER the topic of day-to-day discussion in the UK outside extremist groups like BNP or EDL. To lend the slightest modicum of weight to your opinion, how many people from the UK have personally voiced this opinion to you and how many British people "flood" to NZ each year? How does that compare to the numbers of British people who "flood" to other European countries? Do the answers to these questions support your opinion? Sorry if I come across as short-tempered but being told by someone the other side of the world that he spoke to a guy who said we have an immigrant problem is beyond stupid. Edited for typo.

I wouldn't be surprised. I am reading this AAR from your side, only, to maximise the suspense, so I will be fascinated to learn why Baneman's attack is so infantry heavy so early. Given how little I assume he has known about your defenses (until very recently, at least) I am surprised to see such large numbers of dismounted infantry committed to advancing under their own steam. A few scout teams screening for/supported by a powerful complement of feline steel would have been my preference, I think, on such an open map. Then I'd have had some mounted Grenadiers and mortars held back out of harm's way but ready to dig out any defensive infantry positions you might have deployed. As it stands (and it is obviously still early days) it looks like Baneman might be going for a 'overwhelming pressure'-style infantry foot assault, with relatively light tank support to help with tough obstacles. It might be hard for him to find anything for such an attack bite down on against so mobile and 'slippery' a defense as yours...

Seconded. A cup of Kona coffee and Bil's AAR make for a very satisfying way to kick off a Sunday morning. Thanks for taking the time to write such engaging updates, Bil. I remember how much time and effort it used to take when I wrote a few AARs for the CMBB and CMAK forums; it is not a trivial task! Looking forward to the next instalment. Tux [Edit: typo correction]

Sublime just put [ img ] and [ /img ] (without the spaces) either side of the image url to post a proper screenshot. Example, using your first link at the top of the page:

Really sorry to hear that, Bud. Hope things go well for you both.

Have you definitely cancelled the rest of the barrage, Bud? The reason I ask is that rocket barrages come in salvoes, as mentioned earlier in the thread. The other half of your rocket ammo might just be being loaded onto the rails, ready to land in 2-3mins' time... Enjoying the read so far. Looking forward to when your units can properly sink their teeth into some meaty defensive positions!

Wiggum, it is often said that the definition of intelligence is knowing how much you do not know. With that in mind please re-read what you have just written and think again about how it makes you sound. Most people on these forums want all the same improvements that you do. They are not disagreeing with those ideas, they are pointing out that it isn't as easy to do as you keep asserting that 'you think' it is. If you don't like that, you have two interesting options: 1. Start a religion which teaches that, yes, the world is as Guru St. Wiggum (peace be upon Him) Thinks it is, that He has Thought that BFC represents the sinful twin heads of the Daemun of Coding Incompetence and Overpriced Wargames and then base yourself in Britain so that you can sue everyone on these forums who disagrees. 2. Learn how to code a game engine which is quick and easy to update seven years later and how to make AI pixeltruppen act like human soldiers did in the 1940s, then come back, prove that you were right and everyone else was wrong and bathe in the respect you earn for doing so. Every other option IS boring, because I think it is, so please keep it to yourself.

The most cursory glance at the games disproves this. Every new game has new content in it (vehicles, uniforms, weaponry, equipment variations, TOEs, environments, landscape types/features). The engine is common to most and no-one in their right mind remodels a Kar 98k for every new WWII game but, apart from that...? Back on topic, good catch. T90A hull remodelling strikes me as the sort of thing which might get caught in a patch so worth pointing out. [edited for punctuation]

Ouch! Excellent example of what happens when you let a Stryker get within range of a well-armed enemy. What sound mod are you using, btw, Rambler?

HMMWV gunners seem to survive ok the way I use them; providing covering fire and (generous) area fire from keyholed positions. I fairly frequently run them dry of ammo, in fact! In my experience, when they do die, it's rarely the enemy at 12 o'clock, being engaged by the HMMWV's weapon, which kills the gunner. It's the guys off to either side who are taking their time laying accurate, unsuppressed fire on him as a priory target. Good positioning/keyholing removes that threat and means that if anyone wants to shoot your gunner they need to brave a hail of Mk19 or machine gun rounds to do so.

Thanks, Kuderian.

Quick question: are those command lines coming out at an angle from your tank? How do you get them to show? I haven't noticed a shortcut for them in the Hotkeys list...

That screenshot was taken of the most extreme example I had found in order to make a point and was the result of several turns' frustration with the team positioned in other, more reasonable locations. To quote the relevant post of mine, with added emphasis: Also, I don't think I've ever had a unit unilaterally decide that it is going to stay quiet and not open fire on a dangerous enemy. If anything I often find I have to be almost paranoid in how closely I control my units' cover arcs to make sure they don't open fire in suicidal contexts. If I'm wrong and the AI can make a reasonable decision to refuse to fight (before taking any incoming fire, btw) then yes, the situation I posted a screenshot of is not ideal for demonstrating the problem! . If I'm right then, given that we are trying to demonstrate the absurdity of AT teams with clear LOS being unable to fight due to inappropriate posturing, I doubt that there are many better examples of this "out there" . Incidentally, I have had very, very few problems with this behaviour since the example I posted. In particular I haven't often found my teams kneeling with their faces pressed up against LOS-obscuring tree-trunks in any other scenarios, notably the US Campaign, thankfully! Impotent Javelin teams would be a serious hindrance in most of those missions.

I used my starting forces to make contact with the enemy on each flank and in the centre. Once contact was made I took my time obtaining keyholed firing positions for my Bradley to blow the substance out of the troops I had discovered. APS kept it safe from what RPG rounds did get through. At the same time I used UAV-assisted Excalibur rounds to protect my right flank since I had identified the tree line on that side as too powerful a spot to let the Russians park tanks on. Once the Abrams arrived I found remote, commanding positions for each one and it was game over. Eventually got a surrender having suffered a single wounded and buddy-aided casualty (got caught in the open by a Tigr while assaulting the Government Complex) and zero vehicle damage. I found it generally useful to remember two things about this specific scenario: 1. You are parrying a Russian attack, not attacking yourself. Once you've made contact don't chase the advance, just apply consistent, heavy fire and let the red forces dash themselves against your forces. 2. You will get a full ammo resupply after each mission in this campaign. Use it!