Livdoc44

Thanks Capt.
I share your concern for western casualty sensitivities. They have and remain a major constraint on western operations. I worry politicians and the public in democracies will not adjust their thinking as fast as a successful peer level campaign would require.
I am hopeful in this war an eventual combination of new technologies, organization and doctrine will restore battlefield mobility, the ability to successfully execute offensive operations. I do worry it is possible the war could get stuck like Korea before this happens, leaving it to theory until conflict resumes in Ukraine or elsewhere.
I also hope none of the western democracies reach a Maginot conclusion. Adopting isolationist policies looks like that to me.

If you are watching the back and forth between Zelensky and Zaluzhny today, I would warn against the way in which most commentary is treating if as if it's a football game...as they do much of what has happened in the war so far. Shashank Joshi at the Economist is going to drop an article soon that looks more deeply at the reasons and the forces motivating the move. I would recommend it in advance. 

I've been thinking a lot about this. The physics of the battles in Ukraine feel like amphibious assaults everywhere all the time. In an amphibious assault you've got an illuminated battlefield (the attacker is a finite quantity of very visible ships and the defender is tied to a linearish boundary that the attacker can observe from offshore at leisure before the assault). The attacker can mass fires from behind the line of contact, but will have difficulty advancing those fires as their beachhead is in a pocket surrounded by defender's fires.
But the precursor to a successful amphibious assault is the isolation of the beachhead from its LOC, either by naval blockade for islands or by tactical and strategic air for larger assaults. Those are both unavailable in Ukraine, so even a high-tempo high-casualty assault doesn't produce meaningful operational effects (unless you chain them together over and over in a way anathema to modern western sensibility).
It'd be interesting to look at the ratio of troop density to weapon-denial-range. I think CM does a nice job of simulating that. Playing the CMBO beta Last Defense, I learned quickly that American bazooka armed infantry projected an armor denial zone about 75 meters in all directions. So if you want an impermeable defense, you need something like a squad every 150 meters of frontage in whatever depth you think you need. The first time I played CMBS Into the Breach I thought I was totally screwed because I was used to that sort of frontage. Then I discovered Javelins and had to reconsider. I'd say a modern infantry squad can project that denial zone hundreds of meters if not a kilometer or more. So has the troop density changed relative to the size of the denial zone it can project?
edit: Also, what the heck with all the videos of IFVs and tanks engaging trenches at ranges I'd describe as "pants on head"? Why does that work? Are there lots of videos I'm not seeing of IFV's getting destroyed by infantry light AT as they approach?

We should be clear about what's happening here...and note I am politically an opponent of and no fan personally of Mitch McConnell: 
 McConnell has been trying very hard to get a deal through that addresses the border 'crisis' and funds Ukraine. Trump has become the nominee in all but name and Trump is threatening Senators who make any deals with Biden that might hurt his chances in November. So, McConnell has realized his own caucus is weak at the knees and a linked deal might not get through. 
His solution is the delink the deals so that Senators can bow to Trump on the border but maybe get Ukraine money through...and he's done it in a way that makes it clear that the fault for all of it lies with Trump. In short, he's maneuvering to keep aid alive while making sure Trump pays a political price for his obstruction. 

Nothing to see here folks.

Two locked threads related to that topic attest to that.
This thread needs to stay open, as it is the damn source for following this war on the internet.

85% chance Haley loses by 15% or so in NH and will be out after she then loses in SC. 
14% chance she loses by single digits and then loses by double digits in SC. 
1% chance she loses by single digits/barely wins NH and then carries that momentum through SC. After that, who knows? 
It is very important to remember that Haley is middle ground...for the GOP. Her positions on abortion, spending, Social Security, etc is fairly far right relative to the general voting public. And her problem is that she's not in an election between her, Biden and Trump. She's in a GOP primary dominated by the 40% or so of its pro-authoritarian electorate. She's also not an elected official in any capacity. She has no ability to rally any votes in Congress and she has no political pull on any of them (as Trump does with that above mentioned 40%). 
In the end, politicians win by persuasion. Have we seen any evidence of Haley persuading anybody? Any fired up crowds? No and we haven't seen it for a while. Trump has his rallies that are mostly carnivals for the most hard core MAGA folks but you have to go back to early Obama to see a crowd being inspired in a positive way. That's what a game changer looks like. She ain't it.

I made this a few years ago, your screenshot brought it to mind

By the end of the war tank riding on American tanks was becoming more common. This was when  advancing forces were covering dozens of miles at a time being met mostly by surrender flags. Different circumstances than the Normandy hedgerows 9 months earlier. So not appropriate for that title, appropriate for this one.

It being the weekend, I thought I'd post another screenshot. This time of the much-requested Ram Kangaroo. This vehicle turned out to be a pleasant surprise in the game. Bullet-proof all-terrain troop transport and protected close infantry support with the mg subturret. The 14 man carrying capacity is a bit misleading, that number includes tank riders clinging to the engine deck too.

So, after I learned more about how Soviet tactics are actually supposed to work from watching @domfluff's collaboration with Free Whisky, and giving FM 100-2-1 a full reread*, I found that Soviet doctrine actually works really well. I was even able to use it to good effect in CMBS, even against American forces.
One of the most important things to remember is that it's not about just lining up and charging forward (in fact I rather got the impression that the founding principle of Cold War Soviet doctrine was "let's not do things the way we did them in WW2" (more emphasis on maneuver and avoiding frontal attacks, and more emphasis on artillery)). The most important part of the Soviet army isn't the tanks, it's the artillery. The tanks come in 2nd place in importance after the artillery, and the infantry come in 3rd place (though the infantry are still important, they understood completely that tanks need infantry support**). It's true that the Soviet army is less flexible than NATO armies at lower levels. It's true that lower ranked leaders (platoon and company commanders) were not supposed to exercise the kind of initiative that lower level NATO leaders were expected to exercise. So from the battalion level down it was a very battle-drill focused army. But from the regimental commanders up there is considerably more flexibility to come up with detailed plans, which should account for multiple contingencies. The lack of emphasis on lower level initiative (in fact outright discouragement of lower level initiative) isn't about stifling flexibility, it's about ensuring the will of the commander is carried out. So how well a given Soviet force performs will depend very heavily on the quality of their regimental and division commanders.
Again, the battalions and companies fight according to battle drills. But the regimental commander had a lot of flexibility in how and where to employ his battalions. Assuming the regimental commander is competent (granted, a big assumption, based on what we've seen from Russian commanders), he would try not to just use his battalions as blunt instruments. He would come up with a detailed plan, using deception, maneuver, and overwhelming firepower. In Combat Mission terms, since you rarely have full regiments, you'll be wanting to do this detailed planning with whatever sized force you have available, even if it's only a battalion or company.
When it comes time for the main attack you should go all in with everything you've got. But you shouldn't send the main attack in until you're ready. You'll want to spend a large chunk of the scenario just preparing things for your main attack. Think hard about the avenue of approach you want to use for your main attack. The Soviets would try to attack from an unexpected direction (for example: they absolutely will attack through forests if they think their vehicles can get through and it might allow them to emerge on the flank or rear of enemy defenses). So if you think you see an approach that the scenario designer wouldn't have thought to defend, and which you can get your forces through, then that approach is in line with Soviet thinking. A key element of the main attack, when it is finally time to send it in, is overwhelming firepower. The artillery fire plan is one of the most important elements of the overall plan. The Soviets were an artillery army first and foremost. Every attack would be supported by mass concentrations of artillery. You'll want to time your main attack to coincide with a full barrage consisting of all of your guns (the main attack is not the time to save ammunition), hitting both known and suspected enemy positions that might interfere with your advance. And don't just leave it up to the artillery either. Don't wait for your tanks to spot targets, but give them a large number of target briefly commands to hit every potential enemy position you can think of, even if you don't know for certain that it's really an enemy position (my rule of thumb as the Soviets/Russians is that my infantry never storm a town until every floor of every building has been hit by at least two HE rounds, regardless of whether enemy troops have actually been spotted in that building). Again, the main attack is not the time to try to save ammunition. I'll generally chain up multiple target briefly commands for each tank to execute each turn by targeting them from waypoints, sometimes with a 15 second pause order at each waypoint for better control (though firing on the move is probably more in line with how the Soviets wanted to fight). Whether I intend to bypass a position or storm it with infantry, I want to make sure no point in the position remains unhit with HE. And I always endeavor to have my infantry, coming up in their vehicles just behind the tanks, enter the enemy positions mere seconds after the last HE round has hit them (the timing on this can be tricky, but it is possible). Mass is an important component of Soviet doctrine. But it's really about massing firepower, not massing platforms. Massing platforms is merely a means to massing firepower.
In a meeting engagement (or any attack that does not start with Soviet forces already in contact with the enemy), they would have an advance guard ahead of the main body, itself broken up into three parts. The first part is the Combat Reconnaissance Patrol (CRP), consisting of one platoon. Their job is to find the enemy. Ideally by spotting them, but if necessary by dying to them. The second part is the Forward Security Element (FSE), consisting of a company minus the platoon that was split off to form the CRP. Their job is to brush aside a weak enemy, or fix a strong enemy in place for the third part. The third part is the advance guard main body, consisting of the regiment's lead battalion, minus the company that was split off to form the FSE. Depending on the conditions set by the CRP and FSE they may try to flank the force that was fixed in place by the FSE, or pursue some other objective that the fixed force can't stop them from taking. In this sort of battalion-sized advance to contact the battalion commander has more of the flexibility and initiative normally reserved for the regimental commander. Technically the Advance Guard main body is still setting conditions for the regiment's main body to do whatever it intends to do (larger flank attack, breakthrough, exploitation). But in Combat Mission terms I think it's good enough to just think in terms of your CRP, FSE, and your main body (the regimental main body behind the advance guard main body is probably out of scope for a single Combat Mission scenario anyway). You may want to have an FO with your CRP or FSE to start calling in the barrage that will support your main attack. Or you will want to preplan your artillery (you can certainly have a more complex fire plan if it's preplanned), with your main attack timed to go in at the 15-minute mark, and the CRP and FSE expected to have done their jobs before the 15-minute mark.
When an attack starts in contact with the enemy (they aren't moving to contact, and they already know what's in front of them), the Soviets wouldn't have an advance guard. The attack would go in more according to the 'deliberate attack' training scenarios. Whether you choose to employ a CRP and/or FSE in advance of your main attack, the important thing is that you have a good idea of what you are facing so that you can decide how, where, and when you want your main body to spring the main attack. Again, you are trying to avoid a frontal attack (hit their positions from the flank or rear if such an approach is available), and go in firepower-heavy with everything you've got, when (not before) you are ready to spring the main attack. Do everything you can to prepare the way for the main attack before springing it (recon, fix any forces that need to be fixed, start calling in fire-missions timed to support the main attack).
*I had read parts of FM 100-2-1 before. But I had skipped to the parts about platoon, company, and battalion formations and battle drills. But those are just the building blocks of Soviet doctrine, not the actual substance of Soviet doctrine.
**In fact they apparently decided that they were a bit too tank-heavy at some point in the 80s. One of their late 80s organizational reforms (which I don't think they ever actually completed before the Cold War ended (the 1991 edition of FM 100-2-3 suggested they were still early in the process of implementing this reform)) was to replace one of the tank regiments in each division with another motor rifle regiment. So tank divisions were to go from three tank regiments and a motor rifle regiment to two tank regiments and two motor rifle regiments. And motor rifle divisions were to go from three motor rifle regiments and a tank regiment to four motor rifle regiments, with the only tank support being the tank battalions organic to each motor rifle regiment. One can imagine how this would have resulted in a much more sensible ratio of tanks to infantry.

Get the whole FI package when you do. There's a LOT of variety in forces and equipment in, especially in the DLCs, and some great scenarios all around. It's a very different experience from the hedgerows and the steppes!
Dave

As a graphics programmer for a major studio who's worked on some AAA titles (Yes! This is my moment to be a grognard about something on here!), I think particle collisions like this are actually one of a handful of graphical effects that has actually gotten a lot more difficult to do over time.

To my mind, the best implementation of this was the original Halo, which came out over twenty years ago. Spark particles from bullet impacts on world geometry would actually correctly deflect off of other world geometry in their path. It was subtle, but really cool. I've obviously never seen their rendering code (I don't work for Bungie), but I think the combination of very simple geometry (by today's standards) and the fact that they still processed their world geometry into BSP trees for culling let them do accurate particle collisions for relatively low cost.

Interestingly, the remastered Anniversary Edition, which came out a decade ago and has much more detailed world geometry and a modern (at the time) game engine, doesn't do particle collisions. Sparks and stuff just pass right through geometry like they do in pretty much every other modern game.

This has potential to be huge: https://www.kyivpost.com/post/26885
Ukranians reaching leningrad by drone means they can strike ust-luga and primorsk, two out of three big oil export terminals on the western side of russia. Third being novorossisk, which, well ...
Ukraine might decide to go sanctions schmanctions at some point and truly bork russian exports for good.
At the very least russia needs to dedicate some resources to guard against careless smoking at the oil terminals, which is away from other uses ...

My background is Korean Peninsula analysis and I speak the language but I haven't really focused on North Korea professionally for a few years. That being said, I do try and keep up on news even if not to the level I used to. 
The timing seems off. If he waits a year it is possible that he may have his buddy Donny Trump back in the White House. Trump has repeatedly expressed his opposition to the entire notion of USFK and I suspect he would try to withdraw all our forces from there if he wins the election. 
Additionally, South Korea is going through a truly unprecedented demographic crisis. Their birth-rate is something like 0.78 kids per woman. That is existentially bad for society in general but also catastrophic for a nation that relies on universal conscription for its national security. If Kim waits even five years before making a move the ROKA will have a massive problem fielding enough soldiers to effectively fight the KPA. 
KJU is a relatively young (if unhealthy) man and he has time if he is truly dead set on re-uniting Korea by force. I think trying something now would be extremely foolish. 

Release next week
 

You bring up some good points.  I think it may come down to which shade of grey one chooses to view the conflict through.  I am going to pick on this one though:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_emigration_following_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2023/08/23/russians-have-emigrated-in-huge-numbers-since-the-war-in-ukraine
For a nation not physically being invaded…this is “not nothing”.  If mass exodus of a million people - most well educated and well off from what we can tell - is not a sign of a freakin sick duck I don’t know what is.  Now Google “immigration to Russia” and tell me what you see.
This is like sanctions - if one wants to see that nothing is happening…well then that is what they will see.  Russian isolation benefiting Ukraine…well isolation economically means no one is going to loan Russia money and that is what actually makes the world go around.  Russia has managed to keep its military afloat…barely - I would not be surprised at all this winter is we saw more mutinies and the like.  Just because the RA can sit in water filled holes and cover minefields does not mean they are a credible military force.  Until I see a real operational offensive from the RA that goes anywhere, I am not jumping in the “Russian military is still fine” camp.
The UA has engineered three successful operational offensives in this entire war so far.  Russia has had zero.  Closest Russia came was Priggy, who made the single longest advance  the war…towards Moscow.  Yet we are pointing to Ukraine like all is lost and Russia is waiting to unleash like a coiled spring.  
The reality is that things are bad for Russia.  Ukraine may not be able to break this deadlock but frankly I don’t know of a modern military that may be able to for some time.  So What?  Well Ukraine is free and moving west.  Even if the US balks - and that is a big leap btw.  Europe will have to step up and keep Ukraine in the game.
 

An older model of Bradley besting the Russians’ most modern MBT. Let that be another nail in the coffin for the myth of Russian technical superiority.
Also… Steve, is there a chance we’ll see a patch in the future where you can damage a tank in such a way that the turret will be locked in a non-stop spin?

Preorder  completed. First chance to play with Comets and Pershings again since CMBO can't wait.

Sherman hybrid did make it into the game, but in the guise of a very late M4 Sherman 75 on the US side. Let me fire up a QB.

That's going to make for some boring war games in the future.
But we'll always have CMCW.

Many thanks. Recovery is slow, but the girlfriend takes great care of me, and even listens to me waffling on about CM.

Here's screenshots #2 and 3. Maybe they'll eventually show up on an official screenshots site, maybe not. Late war M4A1 Sherman 76 and Pershing during some QB city fighting. Battling Jagdtigers
 

I had pulled a bunch of screenshots for the guys but I don't know which they're going to use. So I'll post a couple of my favorites here to whet your appetite.
First, a tank I lobbied hard to get into the game - uparmored Sherman! One of a number of late war M4A3E8s that went through a field modification program that literally doubled the bow armor (which is now thicker than the Jumbo's). They acted as substitute/additional Jumbos in field units.
 
 

When I first played Pershing in the Beta my response was 'Oh! We've bridged the gap between CM WWII and CM Cold War!"