Probus
-
Posts
1,151 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Posts posted by Probus
-
-
8 hours ago, ALBY said:
I still have my holiday tournament games showing in there.
Me too.
-
27 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
We either apply the law universally or throw it out and we can go all Genghis. But I am pretty sure no one is going to like that answer either
@The_Capt you are much, much more knowledgeable about the legalities of war than I am, but does the Geneva Convention even apply to this conflict? According to what I'm hearing, it's ok for Hamas to use any methods available to them but for the IDF, it's a warcrime to:
- Flood Hamas' tunnels.
- Bomb buildings with Hamas fighters.
- Level a city that produces vicious terrorists by the 1000s.
- Attack sites launching rockets into Israel.
- On and on...
If you were the IDF general in charge of combat operations in Gaza what would you do? Risk warcrime accusations after the war or throw up your hands and say "I give up! - Cease fire"?
I don't think you can't put UN observers in there. That is just dangerous and counter productive. Hamas, for one, would just kill or take them hostage whenever the situation presents itself. And would the IDF have to ask UN permission each time they shoot?
I have no problem with folks disagreeing with some of the IDF's methods, it's a war, but they have to give alternative options for the IDF or it's all just pie in the sky. Wouldn't you agree or am I completely off base?
-
2 hours ago, The_Capt said:
This looks a lot more like - "take a few shots from a building = level the building with a JDAMs" but all the evidence is being held by Israel and the US at the moment.
The IDF is trying its best to reduce IDF casualties. If there is a sniper(s) in a building shooting at them, should they run in there and try to kill the sniper? That could mean dozens of casualties for the IDF. The Israelis are sick and tired of taking casualties. Calling in an airstrike is the obvious thing to do. Especially since it is a proven fact that Hamas is using tunnels. Hamas doesn't care about civilian casualties. The more the better as this will continue to sway world opinion against Israel. And since when do you ever want to make combat in war a fair fight? In WWII they didn't hesitate to flatten a building if it had German soldiers putting up a strong defense. I doubt anyone even asked if there were civilians in the building.
At least Israel is trying to persuade the Palestinians to evacuate N. Gaza until they can clear out Hamas. I wouldn't be surprised if they then ask the Palestinians in S. Gaza to move back to the North (or maybe to the West Bank) so they can clear out Hamas in the South. They will have to provide refugee camps at that point because there won't be much left standing in N. Gaza. Hopefully this will provide construction jobs to the Palestinian refugees that will allow them to rebuild and bring back some prosperity to the region. Something like Germany or Japan. But I'm prolly just dreaming here.
On a side note, some of these liberal colleges that have been having pro-Hamas rallies are starting to get a taste of what it is they are supporting:
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/12/6/chabad-screening-oct-7-hamas-attacks/
or this one:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67629181
The world shouldn't forget what Hamas did to start all of this violence. I think the IDF believe that using extreme force in the short term will save lives (Israeli and Palestinian) in the long run.
Anyways, Is there a way in SF2 to simulate civilians in a building with rebels, where you get points for not destroying the building?
-
Just as expected.
-
3 hours ago, The_Capt said:
Who on earth is claiming what Hamas did was not a terrorist action?! It absolutely was, meeting just about every version of the definition out there.
I stand corrected. It sounded like Israel was being blamed for war crimes in a situation that does not lend itself to the Geneva Conventions. I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir but, when you have combatants hiding behind and under civilians, it makes it hard to fight them and not kill civilians. High civilian Palestinian death tolls seem to have been part of Hamas' plan all along.
3 hours ago, The_Capt said:As to "What could Israel do strategically?" Good lord that is a loaded question. I am not even going to touch the political (2 state) options.
I couldn't agree with you more. But truly, what options does Israel have left to them now? You know that one of the reasons the attacks on Israel were so bad is that they were trying to make life better for the Palestinians in hopes that it would ease tensions. Opening doors that had been closed to the Palestinians. Hamas couldn't allow that. That's one of the reasons Hamas attacked.
3 hours ago, The_Capt said:Do not put yourself in a position where the only way to re-establish security of Israel is dependent upon the removal of all Palestinians. It puts you in dilemma spaces from hell, and carries a very real risk of Israel being accused of genocide - and we all see the absolute tragic irony.
Removal of Palestinians - no. Removal of Hamas - must be a yes.
You really are very eloquent @The_Capt. I can't disagree with anything you said.
I need to go back to quasi-lurking with my tail between my legs.
I just hope Elvis doesn't shut us down for getting too political and not discussing how this war translates into a wargame simulation.
-
22 hours ago, The_Capt said:
It has happened before but it is rare - Hamas/Gaza may have just done a suicide-state action.
Watch out guys. You may be starting to echo chamber yourselves into saying that the Oct 7 attacks were not terrorism when CLEARLY, CLEARLY they were.
If what Israel is doing now is considered a War Crime, just as Hamas knew it would be. Then I ask you this:
What, in your opinion should Israel do strategically to fix the situation in Gaza after being brutally attacked?
-
FYI, for those of us dunces who couldn't find the observer on the Soviet side, it's the 'jeep'. I almost ran the jeep straight into enemy lines on a scouting trip when I noticed he was the observer.
-
Multiplayer does add a new dimension to the game albeit on a different timescale. You just need to find more reliable opponents @Centurian52.
-
-
Sounds like the ceasefire is over.
-
-
1 hour ago, The_Capt said:
I think an Israeli occupation of Gaza is definitely in the cards - the whole damned thing is starting to look like a ghetto cleaning.
Gaza is and has been a quagmire. Nobody (except maybe the Houthis) wants any part of it. There is no good solution that will make everyone happy.
Yes. A Ghetto cleaning in which the occupants of the Ghetto were asked to go South or suffer the same fate as the terrorists. But even going south is just a delay because Hamas is there also. I know Israel will push into southern Gaza at some point. Maybe they can then allow the occupants/refugees of S. Gaza back into N. Gaza using some kind of military checkpoints cleansing (as best you can) Hamas from the population. Then start rebuilding Gaza from the ground up like the USA did Japan? Maybe? I'm not sure that would work either but Israel has to do something to protect themselves.
This conflict will be hard to simulate without tunnels and a number of other features. IEDs and drones just to name a few.
-
We have a whole thread dedicated to Ukraine in the Black Sea directory.
-
4 hours ago, Chibot Mk IX said:
Hi Whako
I am sorry, you are right. it must be in the scenario depot before but lost after one of the website update.
Try this one:
Where Forefathers Fought - Combat Mission: Red Thunder - TheBlitz
There is a download button that works
Wouldn’t it be better if players didn’t have early access to these scenarios before the rounds are played? My opponent last game just moved around behind where my reinforcements came in. No sense of fair play at all. After turn 5, i refused to play against an opponent like that, so I stopped returning turns. I'm sure he will 'win' the round, but I don't care.
This wouldn't have happened if the scenarios are kept secret. Or at least protected from pre-release. Or built so an opponent can't play the system. Takes all the fun out of the tournament.
-
It was discussed here:
-
11 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:
What I do expect are large investments in drones and maybe some unmanned and lightly armed weapons platforms for direct infantry support.
And mines. Lots of mines.
-
2 hours ago, Centurian52 said:
They haven't started using the Abrams yet as far as I know (at least none have shown up on Oryx yet), so no information on them just yet. But they should perform similarly to the Leopard 2s. What I've heard about the Bradleys and Leopard 2s so far has been glowing, emphasizing crew survivability. Overall my impression is that the usefulness of these vehicles is severely limited by the small numbers that they have been provided in. After nearly two years of war Ukraine just doesn't have enough tanks and IFVs left to be able to accept any further significant losses, and the small numbers of western tanks and IFVs being provided isn't enough to give them confidence that any losses taken now will be replaced. Regardless of how good a piece of equipment is on a one for one basis, numbers still matter. That's mainly why I really don't think that the 31 Abrams that have been provided are going to make any difference. The M1A1 Abrams that have been provided are good tanks, but no 31 of any tank will ever be enough to move the needle. I was hopeful back when the delivery of Abrams was first announced that the 31 reported merely represented the first batch, not the total number to be sent. But I have yet to hear of any further batches.
I seriously doubt that we are witnessing the end of the tank. Drones do represent a significant change in warfare. The battlefield is significantly more transparent now than it used to be. Drones have significantly changed how battles are viewed and coordinated by the leaders involved (company commanders in Ukraine now coordinate their engagements from a command post in the rear, from which they can see the drone feeds from each of their platoons (company commanders are relatively low ranking as officers go (only around 100-200 men under their command), and in earlier wars they would have been in the frontline with their men)). They have significantly enhanced the capabilities of artillery. They have increased the emphasis on overhead concealment and made tactical surprise far more difficult to achieve. But they don't really impact the relevance of tanks. They are an additional threat that tanks need to worry about. Drones can direct precision artillery onto tanks that remain stationary for too long in inadequately concealed positions. Loitering munitions are one more asset that can be used to damage or destroy tanks. But none of this has increased tank losses out of proportion to what we've seen in past wars, nor have they replaced the tank's ability to provide responsive and accurate flat-trajectory fire.
People who argue for the obsolescence of tanks point to the large numbers of tanks that we can see being knocked out in the abundance of available combat footage, and to the sparing use of tanks by the Ukrainians. I think people who bring up the first point have a poor understanding of military history. Tanks have always been lost in large numbers in every single war in which they have played a significant role. The anti-tank gun repeatedly proved its superiority over tanks in head to head engagements as early as 1941 in North Africa. The British lost huge numbers of tanks in the Battle of Cambrai in 1917 because the Germans had figured out they could be easily knocked out by artillery firing in the direct-fire role. Pointing to heavy tank losses alone can't prove the obsolescence of tanks in modern warfare, since such heavy losses do not set a modern war apart from any other war in history.
The second point, that the Ukrainians have been very sparing in their use of tanks, preferring to use small groups of infantry in most of their attacks, is much more valid. But I think it is easily explained by the fact that the Ukrainians cannot count on timely and substantial replacements for any tanks they lose. Heavy tank losses in earlier wars were acceptable because the armies involved could count on those losses being replaced. The Russians have also started switching to less mechanized, and more infantry heavy attacks. And I think it is for the same reason. They don't have the industrial might of the old Soviet Union, so can't produce new tanks at the rate they are being lost in the war. They've been counting on their large stockpile of stored tanks to replace losses. But a large portion of their stored tanks have already been used up, and it doesn't look like the war is going to end anytime soon. If they are going to make their finite reserves of tanks last as long as they probably need to, they need to be much more sparing in their use of tanks. If the US found itself in a major war today I doubt we'd have the same problem. Like the Russians, we also have thousands of tanks in storage (though not as many thousands), and unlike the Russians we have considerably more industrial potential. We probably couldn't scale up tank production to the tens of thousands per year that was achieved in WW2 (Abrams are a tad more complicated than Shermans), but I'd bet that we could probably scale up into the thousands per year. Not that anyone really knows for sure. No one in US industry in 1940 had the slightest idea of what US industry would be capable of in 1942 either, so we might be able to manage more than we think.
Frankly the line that the tank is obsolete is pretty tired at this point. People heralded the death of the tank after WW1, WW2, and the 1973 Yom Kippur War. In each case they turned out to be wrong. I think there is a long running assumption that tanks are the modern cavalry, and therefore must eventually suffer the same fate as cavalry. I wish I didn't need to point out how absurdly over simplistic that point of view is. Tanks and motorized infantry may have finalized the obsolescence of cavalry, but they are not cavalry.
To get things back on topic for this thread, I think the Israelis probably can afford tank losses on the scale we've seen so far. Even if the footage we've seen in Gaza so far really does represent actual knocked out Merkavas (which remains unclear, since none of the footage lasts long enough to show whether or not the hits actually destroyed the tanks (or even whether they were genuine hits, and not intercepted by the APS just short of the tank)). They have fewer tanks than the Ukrainians (I heard around 400 tanks at the beginning of the war, though I'm not sure if that was prewar active-duty tanks or total tank in their inventory). But they are fighting a smaller war, and they can count on their own domestic industry to replace losses without having to count on donations from allies.
That's a Steve ( @Battlefront.com ) and @The_Capt kind of answer! (Not to mention a few others)
-
-
6 hours ago, Seedorf81 said:
Just to show how stunningly horrible the numbers of deaths in Israel-Gaza conflict are, I calculated what those numbers would be for the USA with their 340 million population. Israel has 9 million, Gaza 2 million.
Let's steer away from this subject. All war is horrible for both the folks fighting and for the civilians. I don't want this thread to get shut down for discussing politics.
-
-
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/israeli-troops-chefs-hat-helmet-covers-explained
Isn't that a home grown machine gun?
-
2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:
What are those shells fallng in the last seconds of the video?
That's smoke of some sort.
-
I think, with the advent of drone warfare, tunnels and the like are going to become more and more relevant. Maybe we'll see one of these in the near future:
I wonder if tunnels can be detected with ground penetrating radar (GPR). They are already planning on using drones to detect mines.
This sounds like a good idea if they could swarm the front lines with these drones and be able to drop charges on each of the mines. Even if it can just detect the ones large enough to blow a hole in an AFV.
-
More footage from the IDF:
I just hope Elvis doesn't shut us down for getting too political and not discussing how this war translates into a wargame simulation.
Combat Mission Grand Tournament
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
I would say the tournaments are a work in progress. Each tournament uncovers bugs and inconsistencies and makes the next one better. This is only the second round of tournaments.