Combatintman

Decision-making and intelligence doctrine disagrees with you on that point. Any assumptions in planning should be covered by an IR/RFI to confirm/deny said assumption. Otherwise ... a very interesting post. In broad terms I work on the principle of "if it looks right then it probably is" and move from there by looking to prove/disprove the assertion. The point that you make about what is not seen is well-made and an-oft forgotten element of intelligence trade craft - I continue to be surprised at the insights that can be derived from applying this principle.

I'm no expert but there's' a few here which might fit the bill ... Hiss, Chambers, and Spy Mania in the 1950s - Cloak and Dagger: On Espionage and Intelligence Services. Part One (October 2020) - LibGuides at ALA Choice

No 'like feeding you units in dribs and drabs' at all - they arrived in dribs and drabs because that is how the Soviet Army was trained to operate. In fact most armies conduct tactical manoeuvre in this fashion in a fluid situation and when trying to generate or maintain tempo - a bit of recce up front, a fixing force and a main body with some stuff on the flanks and at the back to make sure they don't get caught unawares.

He decided not to include an exit point or other objectives in order to make it achievable for the Soviet player in H2H mode and because it would be a big ask to have further Soviet objectives in the time available. In this respect the scenario is; therefore, slightly unrealistic because the Soviet 'bridgehead' objective (or whatever I called it) on the hostile bank is too small and too close to the river to allow the notional committal of follow-on forces unmolested and the arrival of assault bridging and the establishment of snorkeling sites and ferrying sites. In reality, the whole of the southern bank of the River Main that is mapped in that scenario would need to be cleared to allow all of that good follow-up activity to occur unmolested by the US.

Reference the 'stans, somebody else was playing in that space recently ... READOUT: U.S. CENTCOM Commander meets with Tajikistan President, Defense Minister, and Chief of General Staff, June 17th, 2022 > U.S. Central Command > Statements View I wouldn't make too much of the Taliban being around the corner - they have plenty of their own problems to deal with right now. With their "Pashtunization" policies, all they are doing is alienating the non-Pashtuns in their support base. These non-Pashtuns would be the vehicle by which the Taliban would stir up trouble on its northern borders so the capability is just not there. In terms of intent, deeds speak louder than words. Both Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are being courted by the Taliban for trade, in fact there is an Afghan trade mission in the latter now. The outlier is Tajikistan with which the Taliban has a cool relationship because of a number of reasons. Tajik fears over one of its 'troubled' regions Gorno-Badakhshan which sits on the Afghan border. Massoud's National Resistance Front, although not overtly encouraged by Tajikistan, are using the country as a safe haven. Tajik President Rahmon likes to play the defender of the Tajiks card to whip up domestic support as well as spout ludicrous claims for the number of Islamic militants in Afghanistan's north east to get security assistance from China, Russia and the CSTO. In reality, Rahmon is faced with a tricky balancing act which does not involve actually stoking up tension and this is shared by the bearded folks here in Kabul. Russian weakness as a result of its 'special military operation' certainly has changed the dynamics in its relationship with the 'stans as it is clear that Russia is no longer the 'go-to' security backstop that Russia heavily promoted itself as in the aftermath of Kabul's collapse last year. It is certainly true that all three of Afghanistan's northern neighbours have security concerns about the regime here in Kabul but current reporting does not support the assertion that hordes of Taliban-sponsored jihadists are going to swarm northwards. For a start, they're not in Afghanistan in those sorts of numbers, the latest UN estimate puts the number at about 9,700 of which a large proportion are Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan and therefore not interested in going 'oop north.' Rather than worry about expanded Chinese influence or a mythical Taliban-sponsored Islamic wave, the US should see this as an opportunity to ratchet up pressure on Russia by parking in its backyard and to reestablish an intelligence collection footprint in Central Asia. By the looks of the June 17 CENTCOM visit, this is an opportunity that is being pursued.

Boots DMS for Light role, FV-432 for Mech Inf, CVR-T for RAC - no Warrior.

I wouldn't be in a rush to open any brown envelopes from the government for a bit though ... you might end up on your travels in a cheeky little green outfit.

I think you last left it in the Former Yugoslavia if that's any help finding it ...

The M-113 FSVs with the 76mm L5A1 were palmed off by the ARA to the chockos in 1979 who retired them in 1986.

Except as I have said, artillery does not trigger because the AI is incapable of using artillery with triggers. The reason artillery 'triggers' on Objective 1 is because an enemy unit with the ability to call artillery has seen your units and decided to call artillery in on that area. AI air and aviation assets behave pretty randomly. If you ever play a scenario in Scenario Author mode, as soon as an air/aviation asset is called by an asset that can call in air or aviation, you will see a blue circle that covers the whole of the map indicating that or those assets will target anything on the map that the air or aviation asset can see. In this case your setup location but, had those units not been there, they could equally have been targeted wherever you had moved them to.

I'm not spinning anything - try reading the treaty first ... INFCIRC/140 - Treat on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (iaea.org) As is clear from the treaty, the point you're making regarding Belarus is invalid.

Hardly proves your point about being in full berserk mode now. Crimea's a nation these days ... give your head a wobble.

Going to try using some facts to justify that statement? Nuclear proliferation is a big threshold to cross.

Sometimes you just have to accept that people die in war - if the opening barrage is targeting your setup zone there isn't much you can do about it. The mission was probably designed deliberately with that intent.

Artillery does not work with AI triggers. There is a trick with on-map mortars where it is possible but the big stuff fires a set plan.

I would say that supplying nuclear weapons to Belarus is unlikely - it contravenes various nuclear proliferation treaties/conventions which I doubt Russia would contemplate given all of the other sanctions it is already under. This is more of the same in terms of fairly empty threats to exert pressure in the Baltic.

Yes Someone's done an NVA Mod which looks pretty good - there's a link in this board somewhere for it.

Tracking the clergy now?

Never let evidence get in the way of one of your pet hobby horses eh ...?

You need to create AI plans for the German forces.

What - like the Bradley?

Double post.

Their drill and locker layouts will be up to scratch at least

Why are they saying that Russia retains escalation dominance and who are they claiming Russia has escalation dominance over - Ukraine, US, NATO?

Let's not go too far down that track - as I recall the M-113 owning side came second in that conflict.