The Steppenwulf
-
Posts
650 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by The Steppenwulf
-
-
20 minutes ago, akd said:
Britain, in particular, perhaps reflecting the narcissistic personality of their PM, seems to have decided this is some sort of international competition that they (or rather Johnson) needs to win.
This is certainly true! Johnson's Govt is desperate to demonstrate that the UK is leading in Europe.
Brexit has been a disaster, exposing many short-comings of British policy introduced on the back of the change, although this hasn't been fully recognised by the electorate YET.... so the Govt is trying to head off the fallout now with any contingency measures it can employ to prevent the inevitable landslide in public opinion.
Very specifically, a strong criticism of Brexit, as pointed out by the remain camp during the campaign was the likely diminished influence of the UK at the European table. The current crisis has obviously threatened to expose this vulnerability. This explains the UK Govt's approach to the crisis, as it attempts to cover up this prevalent weakness in UK diplomatic power. It's a form of over compensation intended for domestic consumption. With that, and other issues that are currently plague the UK Prime Minister, he needs consistently good newspaper headlines. -
5 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
Ah, but you forget that in Russia there's nobody to challenge an official position. Therefore, Putin can spin this any way he wants. And so he did! The way it was spun in Russian media is that the attack on Kiev was only to distract Ukrainian forces away from the real objective, which is to liberate the Luhansk and Donetsk territory from the Ukrainian Nazis. Now that mission has been successfully completed, therefore Russia has no reason to keep its forces around Kiev. Plus the withdrawal is a sign of good faith for the negotiations which are seeking to get a cease fire.
Of course this is true but you took this out of context of the post.
The point I was making is that the whole world knew that RU was going to pull out of Kiev region 48- 24 hours before they did. That's not sound military practice because it invites the enemy to plan pursuit ops. The fact that UA did not exploit this advance knowledge may indicate that a RA withdrawal absent of UA military action was agreed as part of talks. Is it merely a coincidence that the Russian announcement about the withdrawal without UA response has all occurred after talks in Istanbul? I think not!
And Zelensky would agree to this, since it means Ukraine could swiftly but peacefully re-patriot the region (than they might otherwise), relieve the local population given the huge numbers of casualties, besides the fact that they are no UA maneuvre units in that area that are equipped to take advantage of such a pursuit and/or encirclement opportunity. -
23 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
I agree. I think the value of holding it was to buy time for the Ukrainians to create a new front and generally cause Russia heartburn. Salients almost always fail eventually, so better to pull out before getting snipped off.
Specifically, Ukrainian forces in Isyum are in critical danger of being cut off due to successful Russian river crossing further to the south of the city, this RA bridgehead is being reinforced by other Russian units and advanced to secure a number of villages expanding that bridgehead and cannot be dislodged due to insufficient UA units.
This explains the fall-back. The concern is how the RA might develop this breakthrough attack into a full exploit given that the whole UKR line is up against the Severskyi -Donents river all the way to Slovyansk.
Apparently, UA does have a couple of uncommitted units sitting deeper in defence in this area so I expect they will be thrown into this developing battle shortly.
Perhaps @Haiduk can provide more info on this development over the past few days. -
2 hours ago, Kinophile said:
This feels very much like a deliberate "golden bridge" strategy by the UA.
The NW forces could have theoretically been trapped harder & sooner south of Ivankiv, but this would have trapped them in with all the civilians, still in range of Kiev, turning the area into their own Mariupol.
I think the UA made certain to keep a golden bridge through Ivankiv, for humanitarian reasons (to shorten their peoples suffering, not the Russians), to avoid a large scale "classic" kettle which would have required heavy investment (and inevitable losses) and to shut the attack down sooner.
Yes I think this was a quid pro quo situation and as I alluded to in my post earlier this morning, I suspect a mutual commitment was agreed in Istanbul along the lines of effecting a rapid Russian withdrawal for a UKR guarantee not to instantly advance on Ivankiv and kettle in Russian forces. I just don't see why the Kremlin would have made this withdrawal public knowledge without something in return - it would have otherwise been a cataclysmic own goal inviting huge military losses.
Also for UA, those forces around NW of Kiev (being mostly militia units) don't appear well equipped for a mobile op, so on UKRs part, they probably didn't consider it realistic to advance and seize ground in the manner that would be required. -
19 hours ago, womble said:
I think the intent is to "boil the frog*", and hope there's a resolution before anyone gets desperate enough to do something thermonuclearly stupid.
* By which I mean incrementally ratchet the pressure in such a way that there's never an inflexion point where the new level of pressure is sufficiently different from the old level that restraint snaps.
This is precisely the strategic approach of NATO that I think has been adopted from the start and is being slowly played out, and to which I related some 3-4 weeks ago in this thread. I think you've expressed it much better than I did though in this sentence.
'Death by a thousand cuts' gives Putin time and space in which to realise that the course must change, his ambitions are devolved and slowly diluted, rather than suddenly be presented with a dramatic change in military circumstances, which being harder to swallow for himself (even undermining his own position), he might blame wholly on NATOs meddling, and react unpredictably as a consequence.
In short, if this is NATOs game plan, it's underpinned by a psychological profile of Putin and how he is likely to react in this situation. You consider how the Kiev drive has failed (slowly), took time for that realisation to sink in as such for Putin, and then time to secure an 'offramp' (possibly an arrangement fixed in the Turkey talks) and the gentle landing achieved in the first phase of this conflict, fits this hypothesis very neatly. -
On 3/28/2022 at 8:41 PM, womble said:
You realise that a PvP campaign would have to be specifically written for PvP use? And would be even harder to "balance" than either a PvP scenario or a PvAI campaign?
Playing something like Courage and Fortitude against a competent human would just mean you'd automatically lose if you take the side that the player gets given when against the AI. And if you tried to play a campaign that's balanced for PvP play, you'd either get a cakewalk or your caboose handed to you, depending purely on which side you chose in the setup turn. The end result of this certainty would just mean an unbridgeable divide between PvP and single player campaigns, meaning that there would be fewer campaigns that everyone can play.
I think it's fair deduction that campaign designers will develop campaigns tuned for PvP play. In fact most community players I know do not play many AI scenarios they only play H2H, so they probably aren't getting anything out of AI campaigns either. Implement this feature and H2H campaigns would fast become the dominant design, just as H2H scenario design already is now.
Asserting that they would be "hard to balance" is just that, an assertion and should not preclude the option even if it were true. -
Please lobby for Player vs Player campaigns. This would still be a significant step forward which would vastly enhance the CM experience. It would also be a lot easier and more realistic for BF to implement in CM2 (in the next engine upgrade ) than multiplayer.
-
37 minutes ago, dan/california said:
They can't count it fast enough. 12 pieces of heavy artillery, just for starters. You have to lose 500 men to lose this much equipment don't you? Either from actual casualties or desertion?
Jeez that's some list for just one day. How much longer can this go on for? Simply unsustainable losses! Mainstream media only just recognised that Russia might be losing this war.
-
3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
I saw the original question and figured someone already posted a good answer. Not surprised to find it was The_Capt
I studied the category of wounded over the course of the last 100 years quite a while ago. The rule of "thirds" for WW2 WIA is the starting point for me. A reminder to folks that "out of the war permanently" ranges from debilitating wounds to dying from wounds after evacuation from the battlefield. In very desperate circumstances some portion of that group might find their way back into the fight, such as with the Volkssturm, but generally not.
Korea saw a significant reduction in the permanent loss category and an increase in the amount of WIA in the mid and short term out of action categories. Vietnam accelerated it even more. Aircraft and better organized medical services are credited with this. More recent times it's shifted even more. In Afghanistan and Iraq a soldier could be wounded and in less than 24 hours be at a facility in Germany or even the US. Incredible.
Oh, but that definitely doesn't apply to Russia. Not even close.
First of all, to get better results you have to have good systems in place. Based on Russia's planning and assumptions, even if they had such capacity in theory, for sure it isn't operating in practice. And it's pretty clear that every other "Russia should have" is a "Russia doesn't have" situation, so why would expensive and technically difficult medical treatment logistics be an outlier? If anything, it's probably worse than some of their other failings.
This means Russia's WIA situation is probably akin to WW2, if not worse. That means a lot of guys in the light and medium term wounded category get bumped to the next worst condition due to infection, inattentive care, and/or unavailable care.
If we take 10,000 KIA this means roughly 30,000 to 40,000 WIA. I'd guess that fully 50% of the WIA will not be returning to service and another 25% unlikely to recover sufficiently to get back into service before the war is over. Which means Ukraine has probably removed upwards around 32,000 - 40,000 Russian soldiers from the war so far. That's about 10,000 a week!
Steve
In addition Putin will not want to see large scale casualty evacuations back to mother Russia. The true scale of the losses and resistance that troops are facing will quickly reach the escape velocity of the Kremlin's information control. Sound familiar? These are the exact circumstances that weighed in on US public opinion against the war in Vietnam in the late 60's onwards. But in this case, the Kremlin is lying wholesale about what the army is enduring - multiplying the shock factor when reality is finally exposed.
-
3 hours ago, Baneman said:
Nope, uh uh, sorry.
The lack of adjustment has been on pretty public display since 2016.Which strengthens your point.
+1 An Englishman firmly agreeing with a Scot!
-
3 hours ago, DesertFox said:
Nice one...
It's easy this: UKR ask the Poles what price (x) they want for their MiG 29s; UKR sell the Russian command centre to the US for x amount; UKR purchase air assets from Poland for x.
Everyone gets what they want .. and Russians get what's coming to them! -
3 hours ago, The_Capt said:
Steve has the excuse that the Russian's blew up his release schedule.
Wot... BF have a release schedule?
Sorry cheap shot, just couldn't resist! -
2 minutes ago, Kinophile said:
Yah, I'd a mini UKR campaign in progress about, jeez, two years ago, but life etc rather rudely interfered
Nice! Me too - 16 square km of city of Luhansk - shame it's not figured much in this conflict.
There's certainly a lot of stuff going on in this conflict to inspire some really interesting scenario and campaign ideas for a long, long time. -
24 minutes ago, Kinophile said:
@Battlefront.com I'm going to have a stab at your idea... I've already a partial UKR Campaign that I'm now revisiting so this could be a really interesting 2-3 parter climax.
What idea? For a CM campaign?
-
48 minutes ago, TheVulture said:
Al-Jazeera are reporting that Russian ships in the Caspian sea are now launching cruise missiles at Ukraine. Is that another sign that they've basically run out and the only socks left are those already deployed on ships in another theatre?
In which case they would be the Kalibr 3M-14 (long range versions) due to the sheer distances involving launches from the Caspian Sea. I think the Russians fired some during Syrian conflict from ships in Caspian.
I'd be surprised if they have too many of these, they are the best of the Kalibr range.
And yes, as I suspected a few days ago, this corroborates other evidence that they've run out in local theatre. -
21 minutes ago, BeondTheGrave said:
Welcome to 300 boys!
This is a warning to slow down! Once a thread reaches 999 pages the entire BF forum will become quickly unstable and descend into an irreversible crash.... this will spell a terrible omen for the world!
-
24 minutes ago, Zveroboy1 said:
And instead they have shifted their advance eastward on the north side of the Dniepr?
Those "retreating Rus forces" repositioned to form a shoulder against UA 17th Tank Batt. @sross112source suggests that this is Rus 10th Spec Forces and has moved in to occupy key forward areas in anticipation of a other Rus forces arriving for a northerly attack.
This could be wrong though, my take on situation is that the 10th Spec Forces moved recently to impede potentially dangerous counter attack thrust of 17th Tank Batt since Rus forces surrounding Mykolaiv in past few days would have found themselves cut off. -
53 minutes ago, sross112 said:
Ukrainian forces blew the floodgates on a damn and flooded the river to the west of Kiev,
Reminder that this is what the German defending forces did in the Cotentin peninsula in Normandy '44. It was a very effective tactic that greatly slowed the Allies advance.
-
2 minutes ago, chris talpas said:
One has to wonder about the motivation level of any Belarusian forces, especially if they run into the expected fierce resistance.
Big unknown - as I've previously queried, we simply don't know what functioning UA forces and TD battalions are out there in the west of Ukraine and, in this case, could move to form effective blocking force in Volhyn oblast.
-
2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
Taking the number at face value, we have to keep in mind that this only represents the KIA from the operations around Kiev, it does not include all the dead left on the battlefield (or scattered, as it might be), or those who die from their wounds later. And it might be that this is not the only facility that is handling dead coming out of the Kiev operations, though it probably is
A large number of whom have been incinerated in their vehicles, they will in most cases still be recorded as MIA.
-
40 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
Simplest answer could be that they were not ready. Lobbing a next-gen hypersonic missile (a strategic weapon) at a warehouse makes absolutely no sense otherwise. Even if Russian has completely fires off all its conventional cruise missiles, what was in that warehouse that was so important to fire from what is no doubt a much smaller hypersonic missile inventory?
The effect of the entire hypersonic cruise missile is intended to reinforce strategic deterrence - “look American dogs we have super missile from mother Russia that you cannot shoot down with your Stars War technology”. And based on the rattling going on back here at home, looks like the message was received.
But hey, been a lot of crazy-dumb goings on the Russian side in this one, so I guess we cannot totally rule out option B.
Yes point taken. On reflection perhaps there could be an answer to this that lies somewhere between the two. That is; on the one hand, the Russians are running low on cruise missiles and are fully aware that they have not been as effective as hoped, due to sheer number of interceptions.
So if the target is important to neutralise, why expend half a dozen Kalibrs (that are running low) with no certainty of success anyhow, when only a single Kinzhal can be employed and provide greater certainty. With the bonus of sending a powerful message about the advanced capability remaining in the arsenal. -
3 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:
a) Because they want to show they have that kind of missile and what they can do, and that next time there might be a different warhead on it. And they want to test the missile under combat conditions.
Or b) They are getting desperate and running out of everything else
If a) is correct then why did they not use them before now?
Leaves you with b) as the most reasonable answer, given all the other indications that Russian combat power is on the backfoot and there appears to have been a dramatic fall in use of Kalibr missiles. But "running out of everything else" also critically includes IDEAS.
In addition there are plenty of political indications that Putin knows full well that the special operation is not working out, and there could be all kinds of other ramifications coming down the track if it's not over soon. As posted by Steve:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/03/17/putin-russia-state-tv-news-00018304
And to underscore the point quoted from the article:QuotePutin understands that all is not going well for Russia, and they may even point to ways that Russia might be beginning to look for a way out.
-
5 minutes ago, sburke said:
gawd these guys need to do stand up comedy after the war.
Russia sets up no-fly zone over Ukraine's Donbass -Interfax (msn.com)
+1 doing their bit for the "humanitarian aid" effort
. The sight of flattened towns and cities must be getting some public attention in Russia then.
-
3 hours ago, Kinophile said:
I've been hoping to see more optics and imagers in UKR infantry hands. Not many vis with regular army show them. SOF doe, naturally.
Given that the battle initiative, especially around Kiev, appears to be slowly shifting in UA favour, supplies of TI equipment would support coordinated UKR counterattacks taking place under cover of darkness. If the Russians are not getting most basic stuff right, then there must equally be all kinds of tactical vulnerabilities that night attacks could exploit.
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Tiresome and boring! Stop trolling!