DreDay

Call it what you will sir. This (i.e. your “debate” style) is absolutely the last thing that I want to digest at this point. No sir, a pm (or rather public) correspondence allows both parties to address the other side’s arguments and beliefs at their own time and leisure. For instance, I have had a lazy Sunday today and I have enjoyed browsing and contributing to this board. I can also tell you that next week this board would be the absolute last thing on my mind due to my hectic work schedule. If you and I were to exchange messages at each other’s leisure, I would be much more inclined to stay consistent and to address your points in an orderly matter. Right now (or rather 8 hours from now), I simply would not be able to afford such luxury due to my other commitments. Now I do understand that you don’t like PMs and that is your prerogative, but please understand that this (and most other) forum format benefits those that have the most time to dedicate to thme, and unfortunately that ain’t me… Right, I see that break down as the opposite (i.e. 70% local and volunteer/ 30% Russian regulars) but I think that we will both agree that these numbers are highly speculative based on our understating of the situation on the ground - that is something that we could discuss at our leisure, but again – I simply cannot commit to 24 hour (or even 7 day) turnaround time. By the time that I will have another lazy Sunday to post here, our old discussion would be completely outdated… I understand your point, but I will counter this by saying that I do not see this forum as some kind of catalyst for foreign affairs discussion, the format and content here is simply not suited for that (as opposed to a quick and factual BMP-3 vs. M2A3 debate). I try to offer my knowledge and my (however subjective) understanding of the situation on the ground in these threads. I also try real hard to only speak about things that I have a pretty decent understanding of. Unfortunately I cannot always follow up on my statements or go into more detail due to more important (to me) time commitments and priorities. Somehow, I have a feeling that I am not the only one in that predicament. Personally, I feel good about my (however limited) contribution to this forum (with an exception of my last couple of posts in the Debaltsevo thread last week that were unnecessarily rude to you). I am human and I am man enough to say that I regret those. However, this is your board sir – so if you do find my style to be counter-productive; I will gladly respect your wishes and avoid posting here. It’s your board and your rules sir.

You are correct, this should certainly be a factor when calculating the damage from lighter fragmentation munnions (i.e. AGLs and UBGLs), but RPO and other thermobaric charges operate on a different principle and body armor has no effect on their effectiveness… Agreed. I have seen the same results in my testing as well. The problem though, is that a crack operator (with no outside pressure) should be able to get his RPO round into a window at 300-400 range… if not on a first try, then certainly on a second – and that is not something that I saw in my trials. Moreover RPO-M (used by the Russians in CMBS) has a tandem warhead with a HEAT precursor charge that is designed to penetrate light armor and most buildings – so accuracy (as in hitting the window or other opening) is much less of an issue with it. No argument here. We are definitely on a same page when it comes to this.

Oh for sure, that's why I do not want to make a big deal out of this... just something to look at when BF devs have the time and budget for it.

My personal CMBS testing has shown both RPOs and OG-7/TBG-7 to be quite underwhelming both in the open field and particularly in closed spaces where they should be quite deadly. I also find in-game RPG/RPO accuracy to be much lower than in real life (even when used by crack troops with no wind or other limitations). At the same time, I find US anti-personel infantry munitions (i.e. M25) to be much deadlier which would seem a bit questionable given their much smaller caliber. Those are just my personal observations, but I have heard others voice the same concearns here as well. Again, I don't blame BattleFront devs for any kind of biass; but perhaps more play/balance testing can be done with those before the next patch comes out..

While I realize that this was not your original intent, you have pretty much described the Russian military procurement strategy that has been in place for the past 20 years. What you suggest that they do, is precisely what they have been doing up until now.

Sorry Steve, I have seen how your debate style goes...and while I completely understand and accept it; I simply have neither time nor the interests in getting into minute arguments on this board. As I have said before - If you want to take it to a PM conversation (which I totally support being made public), that would give me some time and flexibility to carry on our discussion (it does not have to be a debate, as I feel that we agree at least on 50% of our analysis); but I simply cannot commit to being present and cognizant on this board nearly as much as yourself. I have a job and a family to take care of (as you probably do as well), but the difference is that my job has nothing to do with this board and yours does. I do not expect you to agree or to accept my arguments, but I do ask you to be cognizant of the fact that most people (myself included) simply don't have an option to post here nearly as much as you can...

Right, I get you what you mean now and I agree. OG-7 (and perhaps TBG-7 which I have not seen live) is a very useful round against the enemy personnel out in the open (the effective fragmentation radius during the demo that I saw seemed to be around 30-40 meters which is no joke at all); but it is definitely not some major force multiplier (a-la Javelin) either... I feel like the current version of the game somewhat nerfes the Russian anti-personnel infantry HWs (i.e. OG-7, RPO-Am) while buffing the American ones. I don't believe that this is due to any particular bias, but rather the lack of play testing. Hopefully the next patch would address this.

Are you refering to regular HEAT RPG ammon (i.e. PG-7N, PG-7V, etc..) or dedicated anti-personnel grenades (i.e. OG-7). I have actually had a chance to observe a demonstration on OG-7s back in early 2000s and was quire impressed by their accuracy and their fragmentation damage radius; but yeah they certainly not going to bring any building down and should not be seen as any major force multipliers - just pretty useful anti-personnel projectiles...

Not just BMDs and BMP3s, but BTRs as well. That concept works well if you look at those vehicles simply as light tanks; but it significantly complicates the the comfort and the exit capacity for the dismounts. Russian MOD seems to have come to the same conclusion and that is why they had vetoed the deployment of BTR-90 and other rear-engine based APCs/IFVs.

Fair enough, the BTG concept allows for the dynamic creation of battle groups based not only on the combat needs but also on operational restrictions; so there is nothing stopping the Russians from deploying lighter BTR/MTLB BTGs as a rapid reaction force while their heavy organic assets are still on the way...Although, realistically speaking that is what they have VDV for in a first place...

C'mon Steve, do we really need to rehash the old arguments again here? You know as well as well as I do that there is absolutely no solid evidence that has been presented to back up that 80% claim. I think that you would also agree that NATO is by no means an objective third-party force in this (or any other conflict)... so do we really need to go down that path again? Totally agree with your observations on the "tin-foil hat crowd", btw...

Thank you for your break-down Raptorx7. It makes a lot more sense (to me) now based on your explanation.

The primary reason for BMP-3 and BMD-4/4M "crawling" tunnel is that those vehicles have an engine positioned in the back of the hull which significantly complicates the ergonomics and the rear exit arrangements. That does not seem to be the case with T-15 (which has a front-facing engine - a la T-14 reversed). That being the case, the rear dismount arrangements are probably more intuitive than those on its predecessors... We will know for sure in a couple of months, but I find it unlikely that the Russian military had commissioned a vehicle with poor rear exit setup - as that was their major gripe with BTR-90 and BMP-3...

Vincere, sarcasm (as I am sure you know) is a lot more difficult to convey in online forums, than in real life conversation. So just out of curiosity - did you mean this seriously or was that more of a joke? You are certainly entitled to your opinion either way, I am just curious as to what you had meant when you wrote this...Also, I apologize for my ignorance, but what is the significance of 42 in this context?

Exactly, while a standard Russian BTR-based Motor-Rifle brigade does in fact include a Tank battalion, there are several Russian Army formations (i.e. 15th Peace-Kepping brigade) that are purely BTR-based and don't have any tanks or heavy artillery in their OOB.

I wish I could be as optimistic as you sir; but unfortunately (as Steve has pointed out) there would be plenty of those that take these reports seriously just because it fits their agenda... much like there are those that believe that most of DNR/LNR fighters are actually Russian army "vacationers" or that Polish mercenaries make up a major part of Ukrainian federal forces in Donbas. You and I can see the fallacies in that line of thinking, but a lot of less scrupulous people would accept it as it fits their model/perception of reality. Still, I very much commend you for pointing out these logical fallacies, so that more analytical observers of this conflict don’t get suade by these types of reports. rces.

Right, I get that part. I was just wondering if there is some general SOP as in - spot, identify and engage staright from TI out to 1200m; use the procedure that you've mentioned above at larger ragnges... sort of how there were SOPs to engage enemy tanks with HEAT rounds out to (say) 1200m and to use SABOT at higher ranges back in the 1950s and 60s...

I actually did not know that, but it certainly makes sense. Just out of curiostiy - what ranges does this apply to? I am not an expert on this at all, but it would seem that they should be able to engage straight from the TI sight at ranges below 1200m or so. Is that not the case?

Steve I honestly don't have the time or the interest to go through your multi-page tirades (75% of which seem to be self-reflective notes and are of no value to me what so ever). My point is pure and simple – your "analysis" (which IMHO is not a right word to use for what you do) is biased and slanted. Every single one of your arguments on the subject that I've read is formulated with intent of making excuses for the Ukrainian side; marginalizing any of our (Western) responsibility for the mess that’s going on there, and accusing the Russians of all the ills. You speak on those matters with position of authority, which is definitely backed up by extensive research; but not by any kind of original ideas or conclusions (which is why I propose that you follow a formulated model). This wouldn’t be too bad on its own (especially if you were writing this on a Russian forum), if your model and your conclusions were not the exact replicas of what we are already fed in our mass media… so I have to question the value and overall benefit of all the research that you have done. That’s my personal take on it (and let’s just say that I am no scrub when it comes to this subject matter either), but it appears that many other forum members who have tried to take you up on this (many of whom are actually from the areas in question, have studied the conflict no less than you, and happen to have first-hand exposure to what you read about on Google-translate from some blogger-de-jure) ; but you either shut them up as “Russian Propaganda” (thankfully you have not put me into that bracket yet), or drag them into your endless debates where you never allow yourself to deviate from the model and dismiss other people’s views (including personal accounts) as less relevant than your beliefs (that’s where I see myself fitting in right now). This makes for a very dull and one-sided debate that might be enjoyable to you, but few others. I have been warned by several forum members (who are obviously smarter than me) to avoid getting into debates with you on this subject due to their complete fruitlessness, but I saw it otherwise. Now I hear their point loud and clear. So if you consider someone bowing out of the debating you because they see it as fruitless and don’t get any enlightenment from it, then by all means call it “avoiding the tough questions” and “running away”… as I’ve said to another poster here – I certainly would not lose any sleep over it… I am sorry if the above sounds harsh, but that is my honest take on your self-imposed status of an expert and a moral authority on “All Things Ukraine”. I do very much enjoy your games and I hope that our disagreement here would not lead to your (and your colleagues’) response to my (technical and much more tangible) suggestions in game-related threads - which in the past has been stellar and is very much appreciated and valued by this loyal customer. Peaches and luv!

Very interesting indeed! Thanks AKD!!

Good catch! There are all kinds of weird with that BMP... Note the unconventional frame around the rear doors. Do you happen to have a clip to the full video? BTW, on a interesting side note - the original Soviet factory for ERA plates (Kontakt-1 and Kontakt-5) is actually located in Donetsk and supposedly it is still production-ready. This is not as big deal for the rebels as it is for the Ukranian army which still uses old Soviet-make Kontakt-1 blocks on their T-64BVs and those are way past their expiration date by now... PS: Personal "Thank you" for trying to get us back on track here

Again, I have already explained my original point twice. I don’t feel like doing again, especially to someone who does not seem to offer anything new to this debate… If that does not satisfy you - then God Bless you and have a great Sunday… peaches and love friend! As to your second argument - We all have biases. I am certainly no exception to that rule. What I am calling Steve out on (now that I have had some time to observe his MO and to gauge his understating of the subject matter) - is his dogmatic and stubborn inability to consider the fact that his analysis (which is actually more of what we would call a model rather than true analysis) is biased (again, just like mine or anyone else's) and his unwillingness to consider the other side of the debate in order to try rectifying his model with reality (something that most scholars have to do, even if it means swallowing their pride - myself included). If you think that I was trying to doge his contrived True/False question (something that I have not seen in a debate since high school) I certainly would not lose any sleep over it… what I will not be willing to do though - is to get suckered into answering provocative and short-sited questions with a Yes/No answer. If you wonna do that – be my guest – “Have you stopped cheating on your taxes or do you still do that?” True or False?

Steve, my point (perhaps not formulated clearly enough) is that those are highly controversial topics that evoke completely different viewpoints and emotions based on which side you happen to be addressing. As time goes by, history tends to sort things out (more or less) based largely on the works of the historians who have access to local archives, personal accounts, and overall cultural and political context that they fit into. That’s all fine and well when processed in hindsight; but you are simply not going to have that luxury in real-time developing scenarios… so you better have as much access and understanding of the local happenings as they go on, or have someone else whom you trust do that for you… Again, that is what foreign studies (and yes - intelligence processing which is a part of them) are based on. As for your “demonstrably strong gasp of the subject matter” and your predictions…. I’ll just politely choose to not comment on that. This is not a True or False question as it is formulated in a highly subjective matter that ignores much of the origins of this conflict and shows nothing but your personal biases (which is something that we are all guilty of). In the same vein one could ask “Would we be talking about all the horrors of this war had the new Kiev government (again with full approval of US and EU) had not chosen that its own selfish interests are best served by violently suppressing a sizable regional and cultural minority instead of embracing the dialog with them?” Or how about “Would we be talking about (feel the blank) if the US and EU governments had not supported a violent and divisive overthrow of Ukraine’s legal and democratically elected government?” Those are all highly ambiguous questions that are formulated with a politicized agenda in mind - so there is no True or False answer to them. I am sorry but I am not going to play that game here and give “direct answers” to provocative abstract questions. As I’ve said – you are entitled to your views and they are certainly not without basis, but your unwillingness to acknowledge other factors and views that don’t fit into your model makes this for a rather predictable and dull debate.

Perhaps I did not make myself clear in my original post. I personally don't care to debate the controversial topics that I had pointed out. They were brought up to simply highlight how highly sensitive and politicized matters like these tend to be presented and documented completely differently by the opposing sides; and one better have a thorough understanding of the culture and history of those sides, along with access to sources in their native language in order to analyze them...

AKD makes a great point. I personally believe that this is one of the main reason why we have not seen RPG-27/28 embraced by the Russian Army (the primary main reason being that they have not faced any type of armored force that would have required them to use that type of a heavy LAW). However, on a flip-side - these disposable launchers do offer certain tactical flexibility that you would not get with a designated RPG-7. For instance, you can have several RPG-27 operators covering multiple directions while a single specialist with RPG-7V1/PG-7VR would not have that option. At the end of the day, it appears that the future of Russian RPGs lies with the RPG-32 project and its proposed upgrade to a guided warhead; however I don't believe that it would fit the CMBS timeline.