Ultradave

I would submit that their submarine force is more professional and capable than what we've seen of the ground forces. They have at least one submarine that would be easily capable of this. There aren't NATO ships patrolling normally with active sonar, but listening with hydrophones. Modern subs are exceedingly quiet, especially when loitering, or moving slowly. And the mother ship doesn't have to be right on top of the pipeline. It can launch the minisub (kind of a misnomer - it's not like "Alvin"), from a good distance. Dave

I think that subject has been beaten into the ground. I'd encourage you to search this forum thread for some key words and review. I hesitate to get it started all over again. And I'm sure Steve would appreciate that too Dave

Unfortunately BF is stuck using what Matrix provides. It's their server, their PBEM system, and has to be meshed into any game that uses it. So there seems to be very limited opportunity to do any customization or adding more ease of use/streamlining. Since I use a Mac, I'm not even using it since it's PC only, and currently playing by email just using Dropbox and PMs back and forth, which works just fine. No reason anyone can't just still do this or use CM Helper or Who's Turn is It like before. And if you play anyone with a Mac or use one, you have to. I think the potential growth part is that some people would rather use a system built right into the game rather than have to deal with other programs to PBEM. There are many users who are not really that computer savvy and don't want to mess around, but would rather just start it up and play. So it fills that need, even if it could be better. Dave

This could be a Matrix thing and nothing to do with Battlefront. I'm play testing a different game and that's how it works there too. Have 2 games going at once, you have to back out and re-log in to get to the second game. My credentials are filled in but no getting around the log in for each game. As I recall, that's how it was in WiTW as well. Dave

This is not realistic. The only possible way for the US (or if you will, US, UK, France) to do this is with ICBMs. Russia is BIG and their nuclear sites are geographically diversified. We (those 3) don't have a bunch of conventional warhead ICBMs, (not any, really) and it wouldn't matter anyway. They could not physically destroy Russia's nuclear capability using only conventional weapons, HOWEVER, Russia would not stand by and watch it happen. They, like us, would interpret a targeted attack on nuclear weapon infrastructure as an existential threat and would have to respond immediately, before our missiles landed, with a full nuclear attack on the west. There's no other optional response. We would do the same. Use it or lose it. There's no way to know that the incoming missiles on a trajectory to eliminate nuclear sites, are "only" conventional, and either way - it's an attack to eliminate a country's nuclear response capability. Another wild card is that Russia has SSBNs out there too. Not as many, not quite as capable, but that's kind a moot point. Even ONE, is enough to cause catastrophic damage all across the US. Same as with ours. I'd not like to be the Admiral who has to guarantee that our SSNs could sink EVERY Russian boomer before they can fire. Our SSNs are good, but I kind of doubt that we have that guaranteed capability. I have no inside knowledge on that. I just design, build and test them. Dave

Russia's rhetoric about this has been dangerous. The last few days there were several statements, one by Lavrov, that it was the "West" making threats about using nuclear weapons against Russia that has forced them to make statements about "responding" with nuclear weapons. Dangerous because they are setting up a possible excuse. [edit] -- No such threats of first use have been made by anyone other than Russia Hopefully though, their nuclear command and control would prevent it. It's not the one man authorization that the US has. One thing that has always stood out to me is the surprise that the Reagan administration had after the Able Archer We Almost Blew Up The World miscalculation had. Weinberger stated that they were shocked to find out that the Soviets seriously thought we would make a first strike from maneuvers (it's what *their* strategy was) And more importantly, that they are paranoid about the US using nuclear weapons because of the fact we are the only country to have actually used them, and therefore have less hesitancy in using them again. I don't think that's true but it was how the Soviets felt then, which is what really counts. I don't know how that attitude has lasted to the present but it's worth keeping in mind. Hopefully saner heads will prevail. Dave

This right here is why nuclear submarines are very expensive. Quality has to be pretty much perfect. (for obvious reasons). Quality costs money, sometimes extra time as well, if something doesn't test perfectly. Dave

I'm 66. Not sure how long I've been playing, but it's since the original CMBO came out. Which seems ages ago now. Dave

Validating my reasoning why I already had him on ignore/mute for previous comments. Dave

They are. And they are good scenarios in themselves, increasing in complexity. You won't just waltz through them. You can, but you'll pay. Dave

Spent the day at our 82d Airborne Association Chapter "Rumble" (Annual picnic) . Guest speaker was Marty Schweitzer, from the McCrystal Group, former ADC of the 82d, among (many) various other things. He provided a few thoughts on Russia's invasion of Ukraine. He's had apparently a bit of contact with the Russian Army over the years. His evaluation: 1. "They are terrible. Really terrible" (meaning their competence). 2. They have a lot of artillery, always have, and they use it. 3. Their maneuver elements are "absolutely awful" at tactical maneuver ops. 4. If they ever get to where they are going they can't fight well -- because -- 5. They have nothing resembling western army' professional NCO corps. Their NCOs are NCOs in rank/name only, have almost no authority, are discouraged from exhibiting initiative, and even if they could, are not given the whole picture of the op - objective, assets. In his opinion this more than anything else cripples them. And the UA has quickly learned that by taking out as many officers and HQ units as possible, everything grinds to aa halt. None of this is any revelation, but another analysis by someone with experience that confirms a lot of what has been seen and said here. He discussed aa a few other things, but the rest were not really relevant to this discussion. Except maybe one. He spent time on the Joint Chief's staff. He said that when there is a crisis somewhere, the president (any president) has two questions. a) where are the carriers right now?, and b) how soon can the 82d get there if they have to? Other than that, it was a day of good camaraderie with a bunch of former paratroopers of all ages and really good food, on a spectacular afternoon. Dave

Oh, yeah, well aware of that. My body tells me every day because I'm stubborn and continue to run even at the age of almost 66. (The Army made me run and surprise! I found out I was good at it and like it) I do have friends with more recent first hand experience though. We started getting Blackhawks about a year after I arrived at the 82d Airborne. Man, what a ride after thumping around and jumping (falling really) in Hueys. It was like trading in your VW Beetle for a BMW 7 series. Not that there is anything wrong with a Beetle but what a difference. All this time later and the sounds of a Blackhawk, a C-130 and a Huey (don't hear many but very occasionally) are instantly recognizable and make you look at the sky. We have a couple of USCG C-130s that fly over south to north going to somewhere, or returning. I know them when they are barely audible - so used to the sounds. Dave

The point was to illustrate what I said at the end - the versatility of a lightweight 105mm howitzer to move and set up quickly, fire a bunch of rounds quickly, and then scoot somewhere else. The movement doesn't have to be by helicopter. A 105 isn't hard to tow around. Maybe I should have just said that. Dave

By TOE we were supposed to have 9, one detailed to the ammo section. We usually had 7, with one to ammo sometimes. Always a bit short of TOE at the time. Dave

When I was in the 82d, one mission we practiced over and over and over was the 2 gun raid, a fast quick hitting mission for a 105mm battery. I was the Fire Direction Officer for our battery as one of my assignments in the Army. Best job in Field Artillery (I may be biased). The "raid" was to move 2 guns forward by UH-60 to a position close to the front lines to fire at a lucrative target in the enemy rear. Since a 105mm is relatively short ranged compared to a 155mm, we needed to move up close, get dropped off, lay the two guns, fire the mission, pack up, call our rides and get out of dodge. In a hurry. But it was a quick strike at an important target of opportunity. These guys are firing at a leisurely pace. In a pinch, a 105mm can be fired almost as fast as a mortar. Almost. The gunner in the video is checking his sight on the aiming stakes to make sure the gun hasn't shifted with each round. We'd have a crew of 6 or so too, so the new rounds would come fast. It's cased ammo so loading is very quick, as you can see. Much more effective once we got UH-60s to replace the UH-1H choppers. 2 UH-60s could sling a gun under each with ammo strapped onto its trails, the gun crew, and me and my assistant one of us each in one of the choppers, and the "Smoke" (Chief of the Firing Battery - a SFC, the senior NCO in the battery next to the 1SG). As the FDO, I also had to act as XO on the spot and survey the guns while my "Computer" (E-5 SGT who normally calculates elevation and time), set us up a temporary FDC to calculate from - just me and him - and then after surveying in the guns run over and finish the calcs and safety check them. The XO stayed back with the battery of 4 remaining guns, and my FDC team sergeant (a SSG), stayed there to run the full FDC back in battery. A lot of action in a real hurry, we'd be in and out in about 20 minutes after slinging 10-20 rounds per gun out. I don't know what these guys are doing but a M102 and this comparable UK howitzer are highly mobile and versatile. The shells don't pack the punch (about 1/3 the weight) but this is what they shine at. Note: No one checked the barrel between rounds. Bad form, and potentially extremely dangerous, although a little less so with cased ammo than separate. Need to check there's no obstruction in the tube. Dave

@BFCElvis told us to go ahead and provide our impressions. George = Evil surprises lurking around every bend, and fantastic maps. This battle pack delivers on these in full. A number of the battles feature wide open spaces and room to maneuver. You'll need to make careful use of tree lines and folds in the ground. Engaging scenarios, with @George MC's typical "storytelling" briefings that put you there as one of the participants. $10 is an amazing bargain. You won't be disappointed. Dave

Used to be half. That program ended however. But it ended because we "burned up" thousands of nuclear warheads. See my post on this. Dave

We've done it before. (not crowdsourced of course, government funded) Look up "Megatons to Megawatts" for some interesting reading. It's a little known fact that for 20 years, HALF of all US electricity production from nuclear energy (So about 10% of total) used to be Soviet/Russian nuclear warheads decommissioned due to arms control treaties. The project was a solution to the maintenance of security over thousands of nuclear warheads to prevent diversion of the SMN (special nuclear material). Through various processes it was downblended into harmless (from a "go boom" standpoint) useable fuel for regular nuclear power plants in the US. Thousands of warheads. What better way to make use of old warheads than keeping the heat and lights on. Beats burying them somewhere. Dave

Expecting a poor reaction from the public to some very bad news perhaps? Dave

IAEA to visit Zaporizhzhya power plant this week. While they can't do anything, they can make a thorough evaluation of any damage and the integrity of safeguards and safety systems. Sounds like the offsite power supply TO the plant is back on line, which is good news. A couple of caveats - unknown how cooperative Russians occupying the plant will be with the IAEA, and the off site power of course is vulnerable to being cut off at any time. For now, all is well. Tomorrow? https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/iaea-support-and-assistance-mission-sets-out-to-zaporizhzhya-nuclear-power-plant-in-ukraine Dave

Listening to MSNBC talking about nuclear power plant in Ukraine. It would have been better to have some kind of expert to talk to and not just a reporter and the host discussing it. Their general mood was, OMG they are distributing iodine tablets because a leak could occur at any time. Potassium iodide (KI) is what they are talking about. It's actually standard procedure that people living in the immediate area of a nuclear power plant have them on hand. When I lived in Niantic, CT we had them in our dresser drawer because the 3 unit Millstone power plant was across the bay in Waterford, CT. Potassium iodide when taken in the immediate aftermath of a radioactive release involving spent nuclear fuel will flood the thyroid gland with stable iodine, leaving any radioactive iodine-131 no place to attach too. The biological half life of iodine is pretty short, so it's quickly excreted from the body if it has no place to attach itself. This is also the reason that it must be taken immediately, 1) before the radioactive iodine can be ingested, and 2) any remaining excess iodine of any isotope is quickly eliminated. Saying all this, it's a very good precaution to go around and make sure everyone has them. If they were ever issued, they may be misplaced, there may be refugees from other areas living there, etc. Or who knows, maybe they never had them. Thyroid cancers resulting from I-131 ingestion are the most common long term effect from exposure to radiation stemming from a spent fuel accident. "Fortunately," these days it's also one of the most treatable and survivable. Fortunately in quotes because cancer patients/survivors kind get peeved when you tell them how lucky they are that they have a "good" cancer. Cancer sucks, no matter which kind. Most of the rest of the spot discussed Chernobyl and how it was run by the Russians and look what happened to it (paraphrasing). Yup. It was on Ukrainian soil and they suffered for it. A lot. Still do. Chernobyl was caused by a combination of poor reactor plant design and incompetence. This reactor design is more robust. Russian competence? There is obviously still a severe problem there, Russia wide - nuclear, military. Chernobyl would have been much more vulnerable to combat damage had there been combat around it as an operating power plant. They have no containment. At all. Russia claimed no containment was needed since their stringent operating procedures would assure safety. Then they violated about 6 of those stringent operating procedures, did not understand the problem they were having and made choices that aggravated the problem, leading to the almost simultaneous steam explosion followed by hydrogen detonation. (there was no nuclear explosion - that's physically impossible), and release of millions of curies of activity to Europe. Dave

Decommissioned plants have been disassembled and the sites returned to green space successfully. One is only about 15 miles from me. The storage/disposal/conversion of spent fuel waste is a political problem and not a technical problem. And with that, I'm done with this, which Steve will be happy for. Dave

You might want to read over again what I wrote. Two subjects - cutting off electrical supply FROM the plant to Ukraine's power grid, which was what I was originally replying about, and cutting off grid supply TO the power plant which they need for cooling, which I also addressed. Dave PS - the condescending tone is quite unnecessary, especially considering things change day by day. You could even go read the IAEA report I linked to YESTERDAY instead of cherry picking something from a few days ago.

Some more about the power plant. Russia seems more likely to cause a problem through stupidity or ignorance than through malice (IMO) Dave https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/update-94-iaea-director-general-statement-on-situation-in-ukraine

The USAF may not have but as a (at that time, when they were first introduced) US Army FIST Chief and "occasional controller when no FAC around" my response to it, as well as all my peers, was, "Holy *(%#&*, that thing is the BOMB!!" Of course that was quite a few years ago and the air environment has gotten more lethal. But man, when they first showed up..... Dave