fireship4

The 2017 document is supposed to be the spiritual successor to "Soviet Military Power" which was first published in 1981 as a public document for stated purpose of informing them as to the balance of power, and seems much more in-depth. The last long (164 pages) version I found was SMP1989: http://edocs.nps.edu/2014/May/SovietMilPower1989.pdf, with SMP1990: http://edocs.nps.edu/2014/May/SovietMilPower1990.pdf being a bit shorter, and the 1991 version being renamed "Military Forces in Transition": https://archives.nato.int/uploads/r/null/1/3/137881/0300_Military_forces_in_transition_1991_ENG.pdf and running in at 65 pages. If you could be a little more specific with your criticism we might learn something. When I first saw it on the forum we had a little discussion and it seemed to me to be a bit light on detail. I remember thinking that it lacked anything about tactical nuke doctrine, which had been mentioned elsewhere as something they had differences in doctrine on. Orders of battle at a low level like in "The Russian Way of War" linked previously are probably the closest in form to what was asked for - the sources linked within may also be useful. For higher level orders of battle I found another publication called "Russia's Military Posture: Ground Forces Order of Battle": http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Russian Ground Forces OOB_ISW CTP_0.pdf

The book "The Russian Way of War" I mentioned above references a document on a Russian hosting website "Motor Rifle (Tank) Brigade in Basic Combat" (2011) as a source, and it seems to have been drawn on a lot, with text translated and copied and the images redrawn, though it seems not to be a entire 1:1 copy (I noticed one drawing omitted after a quick look, and the book seems to draw from other sources). The original, again on a Russian website (beware), I link via (much worse) website translation by Google: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=https://studopedia.info/1-67757.html&prev=search

You're right, thanks, I didn't know (or forgot), there is a companion book "The Other Side of the Mountain", telling the Mujahideen side, the authors (one of whom helped edit the other book and who was a Colonel in the Afghan army, taught students who were part of the Mujahideen, fought himself, and was now working as a journalist) having travelled to Pakistan and Afghanistan to interview the Mujahideen at the behest of the USMC. Different times! I suppose this little book was widely distributed amongst those heading out to Afghanistan circa 2001... anyway I will add it to the list above. EDIT: Yes I found it in my unsorted literature folder as well, it seems I stuck it there 10(!) years ago and never read it. In fact to be honest "The Bear Went Over the Mountain" is the only one I had more than a cursory look at.

Firstly links which should fit you bill exactly, especially the first one: "The Russian Way of War" (2016): https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/Hot Spots/Documents/Russia/2017-07-The-Russian-Way-of-War-Grau-Bartles.pdf "Russian New Generation Warfare Handbook" (2016): https://www.multibriefs.com/briefs/rcaa/Russian_New_Generation_Warfare_Handbook.pdf "The Tanks of August" a set of essays on the Russia-Georgia war in 2008 (2010): https://css.ethz.ch/en/services/digital-library/publications/publication.html/119867 "'Lessons Learned' from the Russo-Ukrainian War (2015): https://prodev2go.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/rus-ukr-lessons-draft.pdf "Learning Lessons from the Ukraine Conflict (2019): https://nsiteam.com/social/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/NS-D-10367-Learning-Lessons-from-Ukraine-Conflict-Final.pdf "Lessons from Russia's Operations in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine" (2017): https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1400/RR1498/RAND_RR1498.pdf Secondly stuff that might be a little outside it: "Russia Military Power" (2017): https://www.dia.mil/Portals/27/Documents/News/Military Power Publications/Russia Military Power Report 2017.pdf "Cyber War in Perspective, Russian Agression Against Ukraine" (2015): https://ccdcoe.org/uploads/2018/10/CyberWarinPerspective_full_book.pdf "The Bear Went Over the Mountain" (1996), based on "Combat Actions of Soviet Forces in the Republic of Afghanistan" (1991), translated into English with additional commentary, was for internal use by the Russian military/military academia to learn lessons from the war, with information gleaned via interviews of military personell. It might be a useful primer on the problems they were trying to solve as they transitioned into the Russian Federation: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a316729.pdf "The Other Side of the Mountain" (1996, with thanks to Sgt. Squarehead for the suggestion), companion to the above book told from the Mujahideen perspective, again from direct interview and personal experience: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a376862.pdf "The Russian Way of War: Post Soviet Adaptations in the Russian Military" (2013): https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA599655.pdf "Russian Forces in the Western Military District (2020, posted in the forums recently by Ikalugin): https://www.cna.org/CNA_files/PDF/IOP-2020-U-028759-Final.pdf "Russia's Military Strategy and Doctrine" (2019): https://jamestown.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Russias-Military-Strategy-and-Doctrine-web.pdf?x30898&x87069

I have uploaded 69 of Kieme's mods to Google Drive, as well as a few others by Vein, BTR and Bil Hardenberger. Files will be taken down at request of author(s). Files were made JSGME ready (they were placed inside z, inside data, inside a folder with the same name) and then zipped. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1L_vto8k7s-AnIKR4VfAY1k0o3tGRTxox

Thanks Joh... er, Ikalugin.

The auto translate works ok it seems.

Although they don't look like they tell the story of the recapture, these two films (one is a remake of the other) are set there in 1945: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fires_on_the_Plain_(1959_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fires_on_the_Plain_(2014_film)

I have his CMBS Russians, his special effects, and "RA-regulation standard(markings)" which I think are markings for russian vehicles but I'm not sure, and not sure they are by Vein.

As far as I've seen, the highest setting for 3D model (?) gives the highest draw distance for things like trees. You can test this by changing it during a mission (check your hotkeys).

If I see a destroyer with a tribal tattoo I am going to give up on the UK.

John, the footage uses an auto-generated voice-over, and possibly an autogenerated script, and from the beginning is rather nonsensical. I think the tank is a MGCS/EMBT, basic details of which can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Ground_Combat_System.

While we're at it: https://inmoscowsshadows.wordpress.com/ https://russialist.org/ https://www.bellingcat.com/tag/russia/

Here is an RSS feed for the podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/show/4505622/episodes/feed

No thanks, very informative and interesting as far as I'm concerned.

Aaron Amick/Jive Turkey, an ex-US Navy submariner who makes youtube videos on naval warfare topics and livestreams mainly naval/air games, has just finished a sponsored live-stream of CMSF2:

Yes they can, but if I understand, they are saying that the retrieved weapon is not preserved for use in the next campaign mission, since e.g. the gunner is dead.

Just my luck. The chat box was responding so slowly I had to write it out in Notepad and paste it in! No matter it was just off the top of my head. Funnily enough I did hear Steve talking sometimes so it wasn't a complete waste of time.

Did my question get asked CptMiller? The tech problems I was having could have stunned a goat at thirty paces.

Two man scout team out front if possible using hunt and I would advance using fast, one or two action squares each time, in platoon wedge and using bounding (as opposed to travelling) overwatch, moving the centre two squads first and in line. You will be spotted first in terrain like that so best to be running and already down and in cover by the time you are.

You could try the 6 part "Original Uncut Version", released in 2004 on DVD and 2014 on BluRay if you've seen the original or directors cut.

Platoon commander level co-operative play is about number one for me.

It does however indicate whether a hit was to the weapon (barrel/muzzle break I presume) or to the weapon mount, via hit-text; and depending on what you include in "main gun system", the condition of sub-components (such as optics) are indicated in the damage panel.

Some very early testing results. These are based on a few quick tests in the quick battle generator. Loosing an Oplot main gun to a BMP-2/3 autocannon seems coincident with hits to the weapon as opposed to the weapon mount judging by the hit text. The BMP seems to target multiple areas on the tank to put bursts into (seemingly contradicting what was happening in the thread by RobZ mentioned above), but focuses on the weapon mount with the Oplot. If it by chance it chooses to put a burst into the lower front hull, the tank has a good chance of being knocked out. The Oplot seems particularly vulnerable, apparently similar hits to the weapon of an M1A2 have not put it out of action.

Discussion aside, can we avoid quoting pictures in our responses lest the thread become un-navigable. Statistics from WW2, pictures etc. will be of limited use - if they can tell us how the gun was rendered un-usable, and how representative this was of events in the field, that is useful in making sure the game reflects reality (our goal: admonitions to not put your tanks in dangerous situations miss the point), but I think it will be more instructive to see if there is anything about the way gun barrels, their subsystems, and projectile hits in general are modeled which would give large differences in results. Is there a problem with high angle-of-attack hits? Are the barrel and muzzle-brake modeled as one system? Etc. This is most easily done by Battlefront, it may even be a known issue which is a design trade-off. Apart from this the cause can be narrowed down by further testing in the editor.