Hister

Pavlo Narozhnyi , the founder of "Reaktivna Poshta" and a military expert, gave an interview to the French publication Le Grand Continent.
 

Lead paragraph of a longer piece.
 
 

Huh?  The same legacy system that has kept Russia in this war far longer than they should have.  There is nothing militarily wrong with the Soviet system for the time it was in.  In fact a modernized Soviet system might just be better at modern warfare than the western one - massed precision, for example.
The Soviet military system demonstrated its full potential at the end of WW2 and frankly was highly effective until about the mid-80s.  If modernized there is no proof it could not be highly effective again.  We have a tendency to blame every failure on this “Soviet legacy” without really understanding what that military was, or was not.  The Soviet system had very high resilience, which the RA is demonstrating pretty much on a daily basis.  It also could marshal and project mass like no one’s business.  Problem is that the mass was “dumb” - and frankly I am not sure it was as dumb as we believed.
Problems in a medical system could be from many causes.  The “Soviet legacy” has become an easy-button for western analysts to explain pretty much everything.  

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP82-00039R000100110060-3.pdf
https://www.milbank.org/wp-content/uploads/mq/volume-40/issue-04/40-4-Highlights-of-Soviet-Health-Services.pdf
The Soviet medical system, for example, had its strengths and weaknesses but there was nothing inherently “wrong” with it (for example the Soviet Union had lower doctor to patient ratios than the US).  It was designed for a different baseline, much like pretty much everything else in the Soviet system.  The Soviet system was by-design aimed at supporting mass.  So failures in the current UA system buckling under the weight of casualties cannot all be thrown at the feet of Soviet legacy, when that legacy was designed specifically not to buckle under massive casualties.
 
 

And I thought I was blind not finding the bazooka.  

So much of war is about projecting dilemma.  So load up surface unmanned with air self loitering munitions.  Make it a surface/air attack.  Air stuff pops up basically where you see those MGs blasting away, so maybe 500ms out.  CWIS and point defenses will get some but even 1 or 2 getting through will cause chaos - especially if one employs incendiaries.  Add in good ol MGs, decoys etc and you basically have a swarming solution for probably in a few million dollars.  The SK was worth 65 million plus crew and this approach would work on larger ships.  Basically the entry cost for strategic sea denial just plummeted.

It appears that you have not kept up on this war.  We are not seeing a "few recon drones spotting" -  which will still be a serious problem with this sort of SHORAD system because LOS (with camera magnification) is much father than these systems can likely reach.  We are starting to see drones being employed en masse on the sorts of scales that these systems cannot deal with. They are not solely being used for recon, but now strike.  Production is reaching massive scales (e.g. reports of 100k per month).
This is not "perfect so we shouldn't bother", it is "expensive and not useful for the environment."  We have gone down this path before and wind up getting into trouble every time - let's send tanks to a COIN fight...anyone?  Massed UAS are not a SHORAD problem, or at least one it can solve.  But that wont stop big business from trying to convince us otherwise.
Here is a scenario - 100 FPVs being driven by 10 crews with repeaters.  These are not even fully autonomous, which we know is coming.  They are EW hardened but we can even accept 50% attrition, so now 50 FPVs are coming in and attacking a position.  These large SHORAD systems now need to track and engage small fast moving UAS capable of treetop and below.  Assuming you have submunitions (which there is no evidence of), and each missile can engage 5 drones effectively - hell give them 100 percent; based on the photos, 5 Coyote systems needed to counter this one attack.  Ok, doesn't sound too bad.  Except for the fact that these FPVs are not working alone.  They are linked into supporting fires.  So as soon as those Coyotes start firing they are going to get lit up and engaged by PGM indirect fires.  But these are trained crews and are scooting, so maybe you only lose half of them, lets say 2 out of 5.
So how many Coyotes do we have in a Bde?  Because the enemy has another 150 FPVs...for todays attack alone.  You basically need to stick one or two in every platoon...fantastic, exactly what Raytheon wants.  And here is the thing...it will not work.  First problem will be clutter.  The enemy will fill the sky with all sorts of junk to toss off detection.  Fire control and coordination will be a nightmare.  And now on a battlefield where everyone is whispering for fear of getting picked up by sound detection, we are going to have dozens of these missiles firing off all over the place.  So we have solved the recon UAS problem by making ourselves visible from freakin space.  And finally sustainment; the enemy is losing ammunition, we are losing platforms.  We cannot keep that up over any period of time.  Like other high end western equipment, we will run out and politicians will never sign off on massive "what if" production capacity.
But let's put this all aside or the moment, this approach will not only be challenged by current reality, it will not solve for what is coming next. UAS are going to get cheaper and more distributed.  They will combine with UGVs so you can lay them like mines and suddenly have them pop up a few meters away.  Drone swarms will be in the hundreds with EFP and launchable sub-munitions of their own.  So while we are investing billions in SHORAD as a solution, we are going to find out it was a half-measure, at best. 
We are so addicted to big, few and expensive platforms, that our solution to their possible extinction on the battlefield is, more big expensive platforms.
So what is the solution?  Cheap and many.  I want a C-UAS weapon that fits under the barrel of a rifle like a GL but has a 1-2 km range and high Pk - so better than a shotgun.  I want UAS, that hunt and kill other UAS.  I want direct fire support on lighter unmanned platforms that do not drink a swimming pools worth of gas per km, and are big and hot. I want infantry that can carry more, move faster and go for days without resupply.   What I do not want are more big, loud expensive platforms to protect my already big, loud and expensive platforms.

Things have already changed.  The modern CM2 games demonstrate that long range ATGM's dominate the battlefield and tanks are now very vulnerable vs a peer enemy.  The lack of usefulness of the Abrams and Leopards in Ukraine is a great demo. 
Secondly, we have drone warfare which is just getting started.  Imagine hundreds, even thousands of drones doing an assault - and driven by AI to independently and intelligently target enemy units.
Thirdly, we are in the era of increasingly effective cyberwar and the ability of enemies to devastate the "soft underbelly" heartland causing power, food and water shortages for civilian populations as well as disrupting the financial basis of a society.

Soldier (only survivor) passed the gun and set in the square next to it. Probably didn't trigger the touch objective. In all the havoc going on I wasn't paying attention, thought it did but aparently didn't.
 
Am inclined to replay this mission. I now understand what needs to be done with those opposing MG bunkers which mowed down both of my assaulting teams down to a man. 

So that there's no confusion, any changes I make to the campaign will not carry to an older version of the campaign. Once you start, you are locked into that particular campaign with OBs, artwork, AI plans etc until you finish it.
As for any chance of a revision, I'd say there is no chance of a new version any time soon. Unless something utterly egregious occurs (in which case I absolutely will fix it asap), this is the final version.

The thought did cross my mind briefly a while ago though. If they did want it as an extra, I'd be very happy for that to happen but I'm not pushing for it. It needs both the Market Garden and Vehicle Pack content to play so I can understand why that might not be appealing for them. 
The same will go for the revision of the Scottish Corridor that will come along some time in the future - it's going to need Market Garden and the Vehicle pack to work. I REALLY want a flamethrower tank or two in one or two of these missions as they were present in the real operation and there's no way that I'm redoing it without one. (Or at least trying it to see if it's as cool as I think it will be. I suspect it will completely destroy any existing balance in these missions but I want to try.)
 
Watching Hapless's Montebourg and Scottish Corridor series is what got me back into this. He did a really good job with his AARs - very professional. My wife was astonished when I pointed out to her that I made the series he was playing.

https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/combat-mission-battle-for-normandy/cm-battle-for-normandy-campaigns/the-road-to-montebourg-revised-for-v4-0/
Don't worry, this won't overwrite or otherwise delete the original campaign that came on the disk. IIt's a completely different file. This is substantially different from the vanilla campaign and the number of changes made is huge but the most important one to note is that you will need both the Market Garden module and the Vehicle Pack to play this.
 
Other important highlights are that the 2/8 INF core units are now mostly Green with High morale which means you'll need to manage them more carefully in a firefight.
All-new AI plans using triggers and most of the tricks that came with later versions of the game.
Flamethrowers are included in some missions.
Some maps have been revised, most notably the map for Turnbull's Stand which veterans of the original campaign will probably notice quite quickly.
A 'new' mission has been added although those of you who found and played the earlier revised version that was uploaded to BFC's old Scenario Depot will recognise it. The campaign has a prelude phase consisting of the new mission and then the old campaign opener Beau Guillot. You should notice quite a few changes made to that mission as well - some extra help to make up for the drop in experience.
There is air support in quite a few missions now and less artillery, at least the bigger guns anyway.
 
Anyway, let's post this and then I'll see what needs to be 'fixed' or not in good time. This is an old campaign so i'm not expecting a ton of feedback for it for quite a while but let me know and I'll fix things. Now I'm taking a break from CMBN. I haven't quite decided what comes next - finishing Hasrabit or a new version of Gung Ho! for the German forces. Later, I'll get to work on the two Scottish campaigns I'd mentioned elswhere.
 
Have a Happy New year.

dumbest he ever heard eh?  Guess he doesn't listen to his own broadcasts.

CM is unique and awesome.
That said, I think we all want better performance, cleaner UI, more fronts, era's and more.
I am happy that Battlefront has managed to stay in business selling Combat Mission games, and I choose to see the glass half full and enjoy what we have.

It's been a good couple of months to come back to CM. Already picked up BN Complete and RT Complete in the last two holiday sales. FI complete joined the list today.  
There's no way I have enough free time to justify buying all three, but it's nice to know they are there. 🙂
 

Scandinavian countries are top
 

I am mainly interested in Engine 5 development status.

This on Steam yet?

Sigh. I don't speak for Steve but I suspect he doesn't care much if some rando on the internet thinks he's not working and is bitching an moaning about it. I could be wrong. It's possible he'll pop in here right quick and show proof to you that he's still working. LOL Not

I'm not paid by the hour but I'm comfortable. Job is also quite a bit more secure than those type of casual/contract arrangements. Sadly, when you get to my level it's really no longer a 9 - 5 type of job. I also don't get overtime but time off in lieu at a ratio of 1:1 in hours so it's paid back eventually once there's a bit of slack in the work coming through. You aren't working more hours for less pay is what I'm getting at. There have been times where I've been owed effectively two additional weeks off at a point in time on top of annual leave due to overtime.
It's good to get payback after years of career progression but I'd drop it all in a heartbeat if I won lotto and could become a 'full time' wargamer and hobbyist with less cares in the world.  There's quite a few GMT made hex wargames I'd love to set up an play through over the course of many weeks. Would also drive my partner nuts.  

Yes.  
Please be aware that the Battle Packs are led and being made by volunteers who have day jobs/mortgages/bills/significant others etc. I can't speak for the others, so maybe they have less demanding jobs, are retired or have secretly won the lottery and are living an Armchair General's paradise I'm just not sure.  Just please be aware we aren't employed by Battlefront working full time on content creation.
The first half of this year virtually nothing progressed because of my real life work skyrocketed, dominating my waking hours. If you can pull a 10-12 hr work day five days a week and then back that up with an additional few hours a night in the editor let me know.   Progress jumped ahead as I took much needed extra time off work in August. Two of three planned campaigns are now in the testing phase. My own testing for my vision of the Carentan campaign also didn't play out as expected. It just wasn't fun. I had to rejig that. It all just takes time.
Maybe I'll be able to post a bone or two soon.
I keep @BFCElvis in the loop on developments as they occur.
My personal secretary trying to keep my life balanced and on schedule, seen here looking up at my monitor trying to work out the differences between a StuG III (mid) and StuG III (late).

Belgium expects to use $2.4 billion in tax on frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/belgium-expects-use-24-bln-tax-frozen-russian-assets-fund-ukraine-2023-10-11/

Probably not one answer:
1. Israeli- Saudi deal was reportedly in the making that would likely cut support from some Gulf players and move Palestinian question into second or third-rate case in ME world (if it is not there for a long time there, anyway).
2.Nice round 50 anniversary of Yom Kippur.
3. Hamas doesn't care about civilians in Gaza being bombed; in fact the harder, the better. All will go to jannah. They are in sick, masochistic synergy with Israeli extremists.
4. Despite massive intelligence failures being blame on leaders, Ben Gvir will likely have an golden opportunity now to exchange officers and internal ministry workers for his own. Netanyahu also finally have his white horse he can ride on. I am not suggesting anything conspiratory, but still cannot grab how intelligence failure of this scale was possible ... let's enumerate: anniversary, likely thousands of participants on Hamas side, latest settlers invading Al-Aksa (4th October), rocket launchers being put in the open by dozens...they should be on guard. There are just clips dropping of several Israeli bases reinforced with towers, concrete and full of top armour  being simply ridden down by 8 guys with kalashikovs and rpg's.
I think as military operation, Hamas actions will be worth to study closer, even in context of Ukraine war.

Oh even better, let’s double down shall we - now it is all the “West’s fault”.  The US did not “force” anyone to disarm.  Ukraine took the money happily and got rid of mountains of old USSR stocks that would not have shortened you current war at all. Or worse held onto strategic nukes that would have accelerated one.
Regardless, what is unfolding in Israel has nothing to do with their stance on Russia. Or the West not carpet bombing Moscow every time a suicide bomber goes off in Tel Aviv.  In fact beyond some pretty tenuous money trails from Russia buying stuff from Tehran to support their war, that in turn likely funded some Hamas, the link is non-existent.  We could have pounded Russia into sand and Hamas would still be doing this sort of stuff, or do you honestly think deterrence extends that far.
For the record it is in extremely bad taste to post video of slaughtered Israeli civilians and follow up with “I told you so”, especially when the “told” is so far off the mark it borders on John Kettler-level.  It suggests that in your opinion that Israel deserves whatever this is because they have not sent Ukraine enough whatever - statements like that make one wonder just who the hell we are supporting in this war.
Globally, basically the only way you appear to be satisfied is if the US and West essentially start behaving like Russia - that will somehow make the world a better place?  We tried a lot of hard power flexing in the 2000s, we invaded two countries and a whole lot of westerners are left wondering what the freakin point was.  Now we got new messes to deal with and do not need partners we are trying to keep above water telling us “you are doing it wrong” anymore than Ukraine wants us to tell you how to win your war.

Like most of your other theories, come up with one shred of supporting evidence.  Of course there was diplomacy but no one coerced Ukraine into giving up land mines.  The fact that Ukraine still has cluster munitions is proof that coercion was not the primary method of trying to get people to sign on to any of these treaties.  Prove it.
Again the West can’t win.  We somehow blindly trusted Russia and then violated agreements not to contain them through NATO expansion. We forced Russia’s hand and let them do dirty through inaction- at the same time.  Here is the truth and you can go back to the Budapest Memo debate we had on this…Ukraine agreed to all of the arms reductions the each step on the way.  Ukraine was paid millions for those reductions and signed off on every one.  Ukraine signed off on guarantees - weak as they were - as well.  So now that things have obviously gone sideways, you want to forget all that and put all the blame on the US/West for this mess?  You want to forget gross political corruption in defence - that is still happening according to some - that very likely would have seen all those MANPADs sold off to a highest bidder, many in those VEOs we faced for 20 years?  Are we to honestly believe that you are saying with a straight face that Ukraine would have held onto all that weaponry for a rainy day 20-30 years later?
The West’s failure was in not acting decisively and with unity back in 2014.  We definitely did not step up and push back hard enough.  That is a fair point.  Further we definitely could have moved faster in late 21.  The rest of your narrative is unsubstantiated, and frankly self-serving.  The West does not owe Ukraine a damned thing based on its failures.  
It owes you support because it is the right thing to do.  Ukraine is an independent nation that was minding its own business when Russia decided to invade and murder.  That is why we support Ukraine.  Not some bizarre construct of culpability pulling half the facts from the 1990s.