DreDay

Good question. There have indeed been plenty of mislabeled pictures and videos that were used to back up the allegations of Russian involvement. Here are the two videos in question, you be the judge: It certainly does not look like some training exercise in Russia to me; but there is no way to prove it 100%

It's not so much about what the Russians need, or how it makes DNR/LNR look... Both of those airports were used as fortified fire bases and potential staging points for attacks into Donetsk and Luhansk metro areas - that is why the rebels found it essential to take them. Of course there was also a certain symbolic value to them as well. This is no different from what we see in other civil wars (i.e. Syria, Libya). You are absolutely correct about the Russian UAVs, but I don't believe that their operational usage has been intense enough to really aid the rebel artillery on tactical scale. Most of their missions still seem to be called by the land-based FOs. As for the Artillery pieces; the Ukrainians had lost a big chunk of their 122mm guns(D-30 and 2S1) in the "Sector D" border battles during the summer. At this point they seem to mostly operate 152mm corps-level guns (i.e. 2S3, 2S5, 2S19, 2A65) along with multiple MLRSs (BM-21, BM-27, Smerch). If anything, the rebels seem to rely on D-30s and 2S1s more than the government units. However, as always - there is an "X-factor" with the rebels of what is theirs and what is Russian proper. For instance - there was recent footage of a 2S19M1 battery and supporting vehicles moving somewhere around Debaltseve and it is pretty safe to assume that it was not a rebel unit, but rather Russian "vocationers"....

BTR, I agree with you in principle. The price tag of Rogatka was simply not worth it to Russian MOD, and they had chosen to go for a relatively cheap B3/B4 upgrade while waiting for Armata to materialize. We will know soon enough if their approach was justified. If not, we will probably see quite a few T-90s being ordered by Russian MOD again...

Interestingly enough, "Nakidka" appears to be very cheap as well; however Rogantka had a lot of other add-ons that were deemed to be frivolous by Russian military command. For instance it had a new IED/magnetic mine spoofer that was seen as "unnecessary for conventional conflicts" by Russian high brass....

I believe that you must have meant Donetsk Airport sir (known in Russian/Ukrainian as "AD"...aka "Hell") as Luhansks airport (or what's left of it) had been cleared by the "separatists" back in early September. As for the perceived artillery superiority by the rebels - I am not sure if there is such a thing. At best we can talk about the parity in artillery allocation and usage and the only reason that the rebels have been able to accomplish it is due Russian material shipments and training/advisors... no question about it. If "rebel artillery" is precieved as being more effective than their Ukrainian counterparts - it's for the same reason as any other "rebel" superiority - all volunteer highly motivated force fighting in their homeland against a conscripted force with low morale and poor operational command... Although, Russian operational support/command on the rebel side probably factors into it as well...

Nothing in life is constant, and autocratic governments sure as hell are not. That goes without saying. My point was that if the Russians (or Chinese, or Indonesians, or Saudis) value the stability and order that their government brings and are not particularly encouraged by the experience of their "democratic" neighbors - who the hell are we to judge them and to pitty them? When their societies are ready, they will make that switch... for now they are simply trying to keep things in order; which is more than can be said for most of their neighbors whom we have pushed into chaos under the guise of democracy and freedom. In theory autocratic governments are far from perfect; but in practice our notion of "one size democracy fits all" social modeling has been even more of a failure in the international arena...

More experienced players might correct me on this, but ideally (for the lack of dedicated FO) - you would want to have Lt. Doe sitting inside a command vehicle when calling-in the strikes.

Thank you for breaking this down John. I agree, they certainly should engage hellos (and maybe A-10). Realistically speaking, ATGMS (especially the faster/laser-guided ones) should engage incoming or hovering hellos as well, but that would be tough to handle with the game engine. However I hope that at least ACs and HMGs can contribute to fending off helos attacks in upcoming patches.

That is certainly true in real life, but has anyone seen AutoCannons (besides Tunguska of course) and HMGs engage helos in game? I don't believe that I have seen any, but I hope to be mistaken.

According to whom? There TONS of examples in recent history of autocratic governments being extremely successful in rescuing their nations from all kinds of economic, social, and military woes. Of course, autocracy is not an ideal form of government (and I sure as hell would not want to live under one), but there is certainly a time and a place for it. Russians seem to think that now is a time and place for it in their country, but we know much better based on what Bloomberg and PBS tell us, right? BTW, on a totally unrelated note - it was announced today that February 27th would from now on be celebrated as an SSO day in Russian military holiday calendar... wink..wink..hint..hint..

Rogantka had never entered Russian service. It was deemed to be too expensive for a "cheap" upgrade.

Do be quite honest sir, I simply do not have the time nor the inclanation to debate and to persuade those who are perfectly wiling to surround themselfs with blissful ignorance. It is your job (which I assume is not pro-bono) to host contreversial debates and discussions on this site in order to gain more trafic. I appreciate it and respect it, but please don't expect me (or any other soul) to waste hours trying to educate those who had been brainwashed for years (wether Russian, American, Polish, or Ukranian). However when I do see an interesting and original though; I consider it an honor to reply to it (even if I don't agree with it).

The position that professionals like this have no voice outside of closed door conversations that require national security clearance to enter is... rather odd. Safeguards... like the US misplacing a whole bunch of nukes and rampant test fraud within the strategic missile service? Sorry, I do not believe anything is foolproof. Having said that, I do NOT think a nuclear war is any where near close to happening. I've said as much several times now, but you seem to think I hold the opposite point of view. Taking comfort in the future by what has happened in the past is not very wise, IMHO. Though the past can give us guidance about where the future might go, it is no guarantee that it will. Do I have sources inside the Kremlin? No. Do I have sources inside the CIA? No. I am simply repeating what I have seen from credible sources of information. Yes, I am. Can they be wrong? Sure they can. So can people at Langley. It's been known to happen. I'm not sure what conclusions of mine you are referring to, but I have seen a few reports that say that recently Putin's inner circle has shrunk considerably and that Sukrov is not part of it. I found one source quickly and it states: The core group around Putin is led by Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev, Federal Security Service head Alexander Bortnikov, Foreign Intelligence Service chief Mikhail Fradkov and Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, according to Markov. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-22/putin-said-to-shrink-inner-circle-as-ukraine-hawks-trump-tycoons This could be total bunk. I have no way to prove it either way. But I have seen more reports than just this, some of which are from Russian sources including former "insiders". As for the "Grey Cardinal", I have not seen him mentioned in some time. I do not know what his status is within the Kremlin hierarchy. You say that now, and I agree with it now, but if there was a conventional confrontation and most of Russia's navy sunk, it's airforce shot out of the sky, and it's vaunted Red Army scattered on the battlefield... I hope that the decision makers in the Kremlin keep it in mind. This is what I don't understand. Where on Earth did you get the notion that I think we could survive a nuclear war with Russia? Because I hold the exact opposite opinion. I grew up in the 1970s a stone's throw away from a major USAFB. I knew, as a youngster, what nuclear war was and that in the event of one there were multiple warhead ICBMs aimed right at me. Even as children we understood that in the event of a nuclear war we wouldn't have to worry about the aftermath because we'd be burnt to a crisp in the first few minutes of it. Steve

And this is preciesely why I don't participate in political discussions on this board. I am lucky enought to have enough colegues and friends who offer fresh, rational, and original views on the current state of geoplitics; and I am sorry to say that whatever you've written in your last posts ain't it; so I gladly succeded this thread to you. Peaches and luv!

That is an original Arena, not Arena-E though... isn't it?

ORLY? Look, Arena, let alone Arena-E are still semi-experimental systems that have not been addopted for service in any country. They are works in progress and any technical details that we can find on them are dubious at best... my point though was that the setup of Arena-E allows for vertial take-off (and likely) interception of missles at top angles. We certainly don't know that for sure, but that seems to be where this design is headed... which is only logical afterall...

Thank you for your reply. I understand your logic, although again I have to respecrfully disagree. Just out of - curiosity do you happen to know a lot of folks at top positions in US Intelligence, Military, and Foregin Service? I am not talking about the political appointees, but real pros who CIA brass would go to for advice...I have been lucky enough to know a few and I can guarantee you tht there is absolutely nothing moranic about them. I don't know too many of their Russian counterparts, but based on recent history they seem to be just as shrewd and rational. Now I might very well be wrong, but when reading such threads it apperant to me that the majority of posters here have very little clue of the red lines that you simply can not cross when two giant nuclear powers are confronting each other. Luckily our leaders are a lot more aware of the risks involved in such confrontation.

Thank you for pointing out the obvious friend, of course the vertically launched explosive plates might very well change their tracjectory to intercept approaching missles from multiple angles, then again they may not and go straight for what is flying right above the turret. There are quite a few discussions of new Areana-E's capability to engage Javelins around the net; perhaps you might want to read up on a few before continuing this discussion? For the record, I am not 100% certain that it is effective anti-Javelin platform; but from the design standpoint - it is certainly much better suited for that role than the original Arena...

Bad things have alrady been happening for a while in this conflict and I fail to see how anything would get better in a new future; that is a bit implicit though. My actual interest lies in Steve's and any other rational contributor's prediction for a likelihood of a direct US-Russian military confrontation in a near future. For the record - I estimate it to be around 0.00000001 percent likelyhood...

Steve, I have sworn off not to debate politics here and I am still planning to walk a fine line on that; but there is one thing that I am genuinely curious about - do you honestly believe that Russia and US (two of the most dominant nuclear powers in the world today) would militarily confront each other over Ukraine? Don't get me wrong, I very much appreciate that storyline within the context of your game... but you are obviously a very intelligent and well informed guy (although I happen to respectfully disagree with most of your analysis on this matter) - Can you seriously foresee Russians and US risking an all-out nuclear apocalypse over Ukraine?

Even though this news source would have you think otherwise, AK-12 and AEK variants are still in the running. I am honestly not convinced that either one is exponentially better than the other; but they are major lobbying efforts at play to push AK-12...

Traditionally Soviets/Russians have been very conservative in using buttoned down tactics, largely for the fear chemical/nuclear weapon usage and associated decompression. This was definitely a limiting factor for them as their TC Sights were not nearly as good as those on advanced western tanks. Not sure what the case is now, since bio-chemical/nuclear threat is diminished and modern Russian TC Sights are much better now...

Note the positioning and natural ballistic path of protective elements - what direction do you think they are designed to fly at by default?

Are you sure about that? Regular arena is said to cover 20-40 degree vertical arch around the turret. From what I understand - Arena-E is fired at a straight vertical angle (i.e. 90 degrees) so in theory it should be able to engage anything flying above the turret...

That's a fair point, but in terms of the game scale - we are given the command of reinforced BTGs (more or less...). In that sense the Ukrainian battalions are not that different from their Soviet predecessors, although they have made some changes like 12-14 vehicle tank companies and such...