DMS
-
Posts
705 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by DMS
-
-
To all guys who said about Russia grabbing something.
Did you ever hear about Russian ship "Nord", that was captured by Ukrainians in Azov sea? Just because she visitited Crimia ports. Captain is still in prison. Ukrainians refuse to release him. I think that you didn't. Am I mistaken?
-
Just now, hobo said:
Wolfpack tactics with 2 boats and a tug? LOL. Yeah, right. Also, curious how you know the names of those on the UKR ships.
Well, when I heard that I wanted to laugh, yes. That guy is 31 years old... Too old for naive idealist. May be it was just a cool story for journalists.
That two ship commanders are local celebrities, they came and song Ukranian hymn during retaking Crimea by Russia in 2014. (Or "annexation", if you want) Ukraine have few such gunboats, commanders are known.
2 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:It was my understanding that Russia detained two SBU agents?
Yes, SBU admitted.
-
13 hours ago, hobo said:
Either plan to defend yourself or do not make the move.
Gunboat commander (Roman Mokryak) planned to use "wolfpack" tactics. He said that "Soviet giants can't track many targets" and 1 of "wolfpack" gunboats has a chance to break through and damage a big ship. Some time ago Ukrainian TV made video about that gunboats. Cynic admirals (or special services?) used him... By the way, on the gunboat was SBU agent. Politruk? :)
FSB claims that gunboats entered Russian waters that were Russian before 2014.
-
W. Schneider's "Panzer Tactics" is great book. Company formations, attack by bounds, armored infantry tatctics. Probably the best I read.
And... Read manuals! British one: http://wartimecanada.ca/sites/default/files/documents/Infantry Training Part I- The Infantry Battalion- 1944.pdf
-
Oh, Ukrainian presidential elections have stopped. They introduce martial law.
-
9 hours ago, cbennett88 said:
It's not like I don't see that tanks can be used in a variety of roles other than strictly tank vs tank fighting. And...yes...if they have nothing else they can be used for, then by all means, re-purpose them as "artillery", etc. But...(from my reading of the article) the "new tactic" seemed to be about tank vs tank warfare. I still hold that, while the technique of "area fire" to expose hidden enemy tanks/positions is valid...the job is much better done by artillery(which the Russians have never been in short supply of!).
May be they plan to use sort of semi-direct fire, when tank platoon fires from 3-4 (5? 6?) kms under control of forward observer or a drone? From open position. Enemy tank will have to show up and fire to cover infantry. At very large distance Russian tank armor has a chance to defeat modern projectile.
I think that Russian planners are realists and do not expect that tanks will suffer few casualties. If tank wores out barrel - it is a good case.
3 hours ago, Sublime said:Russians invented indirect tank fire or it came about in the 50s
No, I didn't mean that! It was used before, by Soviets too, but not just by Soviets of course.
I mean that Soviet generals planned to compensate low artillery numbers in tank divisions actively using indirect tank fire. It was not just a possibility, but a regular drill. For regiments armed with T-10 tanks and ISU-152 spgs.
3 hours ago, Sublime said:the Russian equivalent to NASA saying they wanted to check if the US really landed on the moon
They say it was a joke. Jokers...
-
So, Ukrainian presidential elections have started! We started to forget about Ukraine, time to remind...
-
Just now, cbennett88 said:
Because...those rounds are going to come in handy when you are fighting infantry in an urban environment.
Urban enviroment is a good reason to launch "carousel", reloading 1 platoon of 3. Classic Soviet tactics encourages to use echelones: 1-st echelone attacks enemy in the outskirts of the city, 2-nd goes in being prepared to urban combat. So 1-st echelone would go back to reload HEs, while 2-nd continues assault. Somewhat carousel of larger scale.
.
-
On 11/23/2018 at 9:06 AM, cbennett88 said:
Unless I missed something in reading it...it sounds like the "new" Russian tactic is...area fire of suspected enemy positions. Nothing revolutionary there. And extremely wasteful of precious tank ammo.
It is not really new. "Tank Carousel" was used in Chechnya. In fact it is just using of echelones. 1-st echelones fires, 2-nd covers, 3-rd reloads. Indirect tank fire is not new either. It was learned by heavy tank crews already in 1950s. But combining with drones and C2 systems it can be interesting.
Something like British "pepperbox", but more accurate thanks to modern technologies. Typical formation is BTG, 10 tanks, 30 bmps. Just imagine 40 barrels giving 5-10 shots at their objective ahead before attacking. Compare it to battalion's organic 6 82mm tubes and 6 AGS-30!
Why to save 125mm HEs if they explode in burning tank in case of failed attack?
-
17 hours ago, DerKommissar said:
Hope they don't attack from the sides, as well. I suppose many other nations shared the concern and loaded their WW2 tanks with pistol ports. Part of the reason I find it strange is that I'd expect them to put a few pistol ports and issue an SMG in that case. That DT looks like it has very limited traverse and would be almost entirely useless against infantry that is trying to flank the tank. I'm guessing later on they learned that a .50 call for the commander can get that job done.
In Soviet tanks also were pistol ports. Firing from pistol ports in the game would be nice... For Barbarossa game it would be usefull feature. In 1944 Germans used fausts instead of getting close and throwing explosives on engine. Another example of firing from vehicles - Su-76. Crewmen took more SMGs and fired to sides.
-
On 11/6/2018 at 11:20 PM, DerKommissar said:
However, it always puzzled me why the designers felt a demand for a rear MG. That's so crazy.
In 1941 many KVs were lost being left without infantry, sometimes at night. Destroyed by pioners, 88 or 105 guns, set behind or in flank, while main forces were attacking from front.
-
And headcount. For Red thunder it is more important - in the 1945 there were no 100% strength divisions in Red army. 6-7 men squads were normal. And in Wehrmacht too.
-
Just now, DerKommissar said:
Warsaw pact tactics
This is line tactics. Like in old times, but with wider intervals and vehicles. Company columns deploy there, platoon columns deploy here. I read textbooks, they are focused on right formation. Russian 2000 manuals are different, more fire and maneuver elements. In late Soviet - no. Infantry manual of 1938 is more sophisticated than manuals of 70-s.
Soviet style attack is attack in ideal line formation, perfectly timed. Infantry attacks behind tanks last 300m, bmps stand back and support by fire. (Squads maintain 50 m intervals so bmps wouldn't hit them in backs) In open terrain without big obstacles this tactics is very dangerous. But it can be ruined by defile or any obstacle that must be passed: corner of a wood, hill, town. Or minefield. One platoon will slow down, second will be too fast and line crashes... Bunch of bmps make ideal target for a ATGM battery.
-
Just now, MikeyD said:
From what little I know, there are two 'skeet' platter charges in the (real world) TOW body so when it fires downward it doubles the chance of maybe hitting something vital. Which means there's always the chance it won't hit something vital, like the fenders over the tracks. In my experience I've never seen TOW in CMBS fail to destroy the vehicle if it manages to make it to the target. Sound's like you've been lucky.
Interesting that slowly moving tank has more chances to survive (happens often enough in version 3.0), but fast moving is hit with almost 100% probability. Looks like simulation of lead mistake. Static target = zero lead, moving target - some average lead (may be 5 mils for example) for any speed.
-
Just now, MikeyD said:
In CMBS they're fielding the overflight TOW 2B missile which is utterly useless against anything except armor.
By the way, do this missiles work right in the game? If my tanks move slowly, they tend to miss with high probability, just damaging tracks. It is it reallistic?
-
12 hours ago, BletchleyGeek said:
My own experience with the scenario is that the Red player has a real chance to overcome the German defenders. Even if defeated, I would say it would be hard in an H2H game as the German to keep casualties within the strict parameters given.
The MILAN teams can be a distraction and cause some attrition, it would be funner if those guys came at a random timing.
Also interesting is the choice the Syrian player has to make about the infantry on the slope, giving a good impression that reducing surrounded enemy forces while defending the outer ring is the hardest of tactical problems.
Victory points are well balanced in this scenario - technically I lost (to AI
), but won by points.
It was easy to make decision about defending outer ring or attacking fortress: conscripts are just for defence! Or for mounted assault to closest possible range.
For me most interesting was armor - infantry coordination. Conscripts use to break down after few bullets passing by. And defenders had a lot of G36s. And veteran shooters. That's why I atacked on trucks. It worked! Interesting to try this trick in other scenarios. Application of German Pulk (Panzer und Lastkraftswagen) tactics to smallest tactical level.
-
If BFC would make such game, it is no sence in making just 1 period. Only 80-s or only 70-s. Vehicles are the same in most part, uniform is the same, maps are the same. 3 different settings, 60-s, 70-s and 80-s would be fun to play. If in 70-s nukes were really unlikely, in 60-s it was rather possible. I agree, game in nuclear conditions would be unusual and interesting. More meeting engagements, dynamical, vehicle focused gameplay without long foot recce and artillery support.
-
They are not so owerhelming! Playing for Syrians is even harder. That conscripts... Useless! But T-62s spot better now, unlike old SF.
My small AAR, in Russian, but with pictures:
-
Just now, IICptMillerII said:
It is quite possible to execute well timed and orchestrated maneuvers of large formations in CM, it just takes a bit longer and a bit of practice. The only way you would get Syrian-like behavior from Soviet forces in a CM game would be to set them all to green/conscript with low motivation and leadership, and give them category B equipment relative to their NATO peers. Otherwise you could expect a matchup that is at least as good as the one between the US and Russia in CM:BS, but likely even more competitive.
Yes, it is possible on company level! But controlling battalion is hard when you have 2 companies in 1-st echelone and impossible when all 3 are in 1-st... Some simple tools would help. Like setting waypoints in line with 50m intervals if you hold Ctrl. Or with 100m intervals if you hold Alt. Soviet manuals are focused on line formations with right intervals, so geometrically regular formations would be realistic, I think.
With right tactics good timed Soviet attack had good chances. In theory. When artillery shifts in depth in time, motor riflemen dismount in place and in time and follow tanks... But if unit has to pass a defile or gets flank fire, things turn bad. Or that hull down or keyhole positions... Were they so effective in real landscape? Interesting. Would be great to play such scenarios in the game.
-
Just now, Sublime said:
The nuke thing is another reason why I like the mid or late 40s (47 or 48 Airlift crisis) idea too. Of course for WW3 tac nukes could be used like insanely heavy bomber attacks (i.e. McNairs demise on day 1 of Op Cobra 1944) are figured tobhave just happened with the appropriate moonscape. Maybe add in some nbc models and penalties to troops fatigue etc etc. Add some effects to make a more desolate nuke scape for eaxh type of map i suppose.
Nuclear conditions would be interesting. So all units out of IFVs would be considered "WIA" if they stay more than few minutes in open air... With fatique, spotting penalties for wearing protection. With different levels of radiation... But it would be completely different game with vast ammount of new features that had to be coded.
Just now, Sublime said:Or simply the game could cover WW3 until nukes occurred. In the 80s besides the immediate start in 45 the Cold War had the best chance not to immediately go nuclear and perhaps at least last until one side or another began really losing, or a couple days or weeks. Just as likely not, tbh one of my earliest memories of my life was my dad explaining if the bad guys come I shouldnt worry about it because it.d end very very soon. I thought he meant we.d kick their ass didnt realize he meant we.d be vaporized probably by a spetnaz nuke or something. ( lived in West Germany, USAF officer dependent 85 to 91)
I don't know about 80s. I think that Gorbachev was preparing to surrender and would never start war. But in 60-s Soviet high staff really planned to massively use nukes. There was a discussion about artillery numbers in infantry divisions, and one of the arguments was nuclear war, when small mechanised forces would search and destroy remnats who survived nuclear strikes. It was considered like "normal" scenario, not just like a bad case of loosing the war.
-
The problem is nukes. In Soviet doctrine nukes would be used on tactical level, against company defensive positions. How to simulate nukes in the game?
And playing Soviet side would be a nightmare without formations options in the interface. (Or some waypoint placement tweaking, so waypoints would be set in line/column/wedge when you click) Soviet tactics was not just rush forward, is was sophisticated enough, with bmps closely following tanks, dismounting just in moment when last shell is falling, riflemen running just behind slowly moving tanks under covering fire from bmps...You don't want to see another "Syrians" with cooler tanks, do you?
-
Su-76s were used as ersatz-APC sometimes, tank desant loaded inside crew compartment, not outside. May be sometimes it looked like that picture! (Not really, but looks fun)
-
Kaunitz, thank you! Very interesting regulations. Very close to Soviet SMG platoon regulations, but much more detailed. In Soviet is said that SMG gunners (automatchiki) should attack enemy from flank and rear, but how? German manual develops Soviet (actually late WW I German) ideas in some way. I like German manuals for their focus on details. Soviets translated Kühlwein book about battalion tactics in Russian (Gefechtstaktik des verstärkten Bataillons) before the war, I really enjoyed reading.
-
Marines with that IARs are interesting. IAR vs PKP at 500 yards with strong wind! But they are too numerous...
)
More drama in Ukraine--Sea of Azov
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
-You Soviets shoot at our German planes!
-But... They bomb our airfields!
-It is whataboutism! We discuss how you shoot at German planes!