Ultradave

It's pretty useful for your blood pressure. There are are number of unnamed individuals on my list, and for very good reason as I'm pretty tolerant.

Dave

That argument is akin to what we heard here in the US when some people, both within government and without, defended the use of torture (kindly described as "enhanced interrogation techniques").
The "feeling of reality" is that should Ukraine decide to not adhere to conventions on warfare, despite Russia spitting on them, you'd see public support for Ukraine evaporate. And quickly. Also evaporating would be any hope of Ukraine being admitted to the EU and NATO in the future. 
We had lots of debate about things like this during Iraq and Afghanistan. We are (or at least try hard to be) the "good guys." You *cannot* lower yourselves into the gutter of the opposition. Is it going to cost you to do that? Yes, it most certainly is, in money, time and lives. And I fully acknowledge that in Iraq and Afghanistan we were not fighting for the survival of our country, and I sympathize and support the fact that you are. A better example might be WW2. We (the Allies) for the most part, behaved, knowing full well the Germans and Japanese did not (I'm excepting Russian behavior as part of the Allies here, because after all, that's who we are talking about and some things don't change much).
You'll no doubt be aware that soldiers accused of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan were highly publicized, and many put on trial. And the reason we know about it is that it was by FAR, the exception, and the fact that mostly we police our own. We're not perfect - far from it. But we do try. And it starts at the top with the communicated expectation of what won't be tolerated.
Dave

That argument is akin to what we heard here in the US when some people, both within government and without, defended the use of torture (kindly described as "enhanced interrogation techniques").
The "feeling of reality" is that should Ukraine decide to not adhere to conventions on warfare, despite Russia spitting on them, you'd see public support for Ukraine evaporate. And quickly. Also evaporating would be any hope of Ukraine being admitted to the EU and NATO in the future. 
We had lots of debate about things like this during Iraq and Afghanistan. We are (or at least try hard to be) the "good guys." You *cannot* lower yourselves into the gutter of the opposition. Is it going to cost you to do that? Yes, it most certainly is, in money, time and lives. And I fully acknowledge that in Iraq and Afghanistan we were not fighting for the survival of our country, and I sympathize and support the fact that you are. A better example might be WW2. We (the Allies) for the most part, behaved, knowing full well the Germans and Japanese did not (I'm excepting Russian behavior as part of the Allies here, because after all, that's who we are talking about and some things don't change much).
You'll no doubt be aware that soldiers accused of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan were highly publicized, and many put on trial. And the reason we know about it is that it was by FAR, the exception, and the fact that mostly we police our own. We're not perfect - far from it. But we do try. And it starts at the top with the communicated expectation of what won't be tolerated.
Dave

That argument is akin to what we heard here in the US when some people, both within government and without, defended the use of torture (kindly described as "enhanced interrogation techniques").
The "feeling of reality" is that should Ukraine decide to not adhere to conventions on warfare, despite Russia spitting on them, you'd see public support for Ukraine evaporate. And quickly. Also evaporating would be any hope of Ukraine being admitted to the EU and NATO in the future. 
We had lots of debate about things like this during Iraq and Afghanistan. We are (or at least try hard to be) the "good guys." You *cannot* lower yourselves into the gutter of the opposition. Is it going to cost you to do that? Yes, it most certainly is, in money, time and lives. And I fully acknowledge that in Iraq and Afghanistan we were not fighting for the survival of our country, and I sympathize and support the fact that you are. A better example might be WW2. We (the Allies) for the most part, behaved, knowing full well the Germans and Japanese did not (I'm excepting Russian behavior as part of the Allies here, because after all, that's who we are talking about and some things don't change much).
You'll no doubt be aware that soldiers accused of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan were highly publicized, and many put on trial. And the reason we know about it is that it was by FAR, the exception, and the fact that mostly we police our own. We're not perfect - far from it. But we do try. And it starts at the top with the communicated expectation of what won't be tolerated.
Dave

I think we are going to see a practical test of this, quite soon.I think that sometime this year public support for Ukraine in countries other than Ukraine will cool down to the point where it will be as good as evaporated. Yet I am moderately optimistic and think that the Ukraine will still be supported by the Western governments - because of the underlying political interests. Public opinion support is not everything and not every war is 100% a moral crusade. 

That argument is akin to what we heard here in the US when some people, both within government and without, defended the use of torture (kindly described as "enhanced interrogation techniques").
The "feeling of reality" is that should Ukraine decide to not adhere to conventions on warfare, despite Russia spitting on them, you'd see public support for Ukraine evaporate. And quickly. Also evaporating would be any hope of Ukraine being admitted to the EU and NATO in the future. 
We had lots of debate about things like this during Iraq and Afghanistan. We are (or at least try hard to be) the "good guys." You *cannot* lower yourselves into the gutter of the opposition. Is it going to cost you to do that? Yes, it most certainly is, in money, time and lives. And I fully acknowledge that in Iraq and Afghanistan we were not fighting for the survival of our country, and I sympathize and support the fact that you are. A better example might be WW2. We (the Allies) for the most part, behaved, knowing full well the Germans and Japanese did not (I'm excepting Russian behavior as part of the Allies here, because after all, that's who we are talking about and some things don't change much).
You'll no doubt be aware that soldiers accused of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan were highly publicized, and many put on trial. And the reason we know about it is that it was by FAR, the exception, and the fact that mostly we police our own. We're not perfect - far from it. But we do try. And it starts at the top with the communicated expectation of what won't be tolerated.
Dave

That argument is akin to what we heard here in the US when some people, both within government and without, defended the use of torture (kindly described as "enhanced interrogation techniques").
The "feeling of reality" is that should Ukraine decide to not adhere to conventions on warfare, despite Russia spitting on them, you'd see public support for Ukraine evaporate. And quickly. Also evaporating would be any hope of Ukraine being admitted to the EU and NATO in the future. 
We had lots of debate about things like this during Iraq and Afghanistan. We are (or at least try hard to be) the "good guys." You *cannot* lower yourselves into the gutter of the opposition. Is it going to cost you to do that? Yes, it most certainly is, in money, time and lives. And I fully acknowledge that in Iraq and Afghanistan we were not fighting for the survival of our country, and I sympathize and support the fact that you are. A better example might be WW2. We (the Allies) for the most part, behaved, knowing full well the Germans and Japanese did not (I'm excepting Russian behavior as part of the Allies here, because after all, that's who we are talking about and some things don't change much).
You'll no doubt be aware that soldiers accused of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan were highly publicized, and many put on trial. And the reason we know about it is that it was by FAR, the exception, and the fact that mostly we police our own. We're not perfect - far from it. But we do try. And it starts at the top with the communicated expectation of what won't be tolerated.
Dave

That argument is akin to what we heard here in the US when some people, both within government and without, defended the use of torture (kindly described as "enhanced interrogation techniques").
The "feeling of reality" is that should Ukraine decide to not adhere to conventions on warfare, despite Russia spitting on them, you'd see public support for Ukraine evaporate. And quickly. Also evaporating would be any hope of Ukraine being admitted to the EU and NATO in the future. 
We had lots of debate about things like this during Iraq and Afghanistan. We are (or at least try hard to be) the "good guys." You *cannot* lower yourselves into the gutter of the opposition. Is it going to cost you to do that? Yes, it most certainly is, in money, time and lives. And I fully acknowledge that in Iraq and Afghanistan we were not fighting for the survival of our country, and I sympathize and support the fact that you are. A better example might be WW2. We (the Allies) for the most part, behaved, knowing full well the Germans and Japanese did not (I'm excepting Russian behavior as part of the Allies here, because after all, that's who we are talking about and some things don't change much).
You'll no doubt be aware that soldiers accused of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan were highly publicized, and many put on trial. And the reason we know about it is that it was by FAR, the exception, and the fact that mostly we police our own. We're not perfect - far from it. But we do try. And it starts at the top with the communicated expectation of what won't be tolerated.
Dave

That argument is akin to what we heard here in the US when some people, both within government and without, defended the use of torture (kindly described as "enhanced interrogation techniques").
The "feeling of reality" is that should Ukraine decide to not adhere to conventions on warfare, despite Russia spitting on them, you'd see public support for Ukraine evaporate. And quickly. Also evaporating would be any hope of Ukraine being admitted to the EU and NATO in the future. 
We had lots of debate about things like this during Iraq and Afghanistan. We are (or at least try hard to be) the "good guys." You *cannot* lower yourselves into the gutter of the opposition. Is it going to cost you to do that? Yes, it most certainly is, in money, time and lives. And I fully acknowledge that in Iraq and Afghanistan we were not fighting for the survival of our country, and I sympathize and support the fact that you are. A better example might be WW2. We (the Allies) for the most part, behaved, knowing full well the Germans and Japanese did not (I'm excepting Russian behavior as part of the Allies here, because after all, that's who we are talking about and some things don't change much).
You'll no doubt be aware that soldiers accused of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan were highly publicized, and many put on trial. And the reason we know about it is that it was by FAR, the exception, and the fact that mostly we police our own. We're not perfect - far from it. But we do try. And it starts at the top with the communicated expectation of what won't be tolerated.
Dave

That argument is akin to what we heard here in the US when some people, both within government and without, defended the use of torture (kindly described as "enhanced interrogation techniques").
The "feeling of reality" is that should Ukraine decide to not adhere to conventions on warfare, despite Russia spitting on them, you'd see public support for Ukraine evaporate. And quickly. Also evaporating would be any hope of Ukraine being admitted to the EU and NATO in the future. 
We had lots of debate about things like this during Iraq and Afghanistan. We are (or at least try hard to be) the "good guys." You *cannot* lower yourselves into the gutter of the opposition. Is it going to cost you to do that? Yes, it most certainly is, in money, time and lives. And I fully acknowledge that in Iraq and Afghanistan we were not fighting for the survival of our country, and I sympathize and support the fact that you are. A better example might be WW2. We (the Allies) for the most part, behaved, knowing full well the Germans and Japanese did not (I'm excepting Russian behavior as part of the Allies here, because after all, that's who we are talking about and some things don't change much).
You'll no doubt be aware that soldiers accused of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan were highly publicized, and many put on trial. And the reason we know about it is that it was by FAR, the exception, and the fact that mostly we police our own. We're not perfect - far from it. But we do try. And it starts at the top with the communicated expectation of what won't be tolerated.
Dave

If you want to be the good guys, you have to do the good things.

I can't remember if I posted this once before when CW first came out, but I have still a small pocket handbook that was issued to all FIST Chiefs in the 1/320FA back then. At the time I got this book I was a FIST Chief in A Btry, 1/320FA (Abn), later a Fire Direction Officer at battery and battalion level (in 2/321FA (Abn), and later still a Fire Support Officer (at both Bn and Bde level in 1st Bde). 
It's 5 separate pdfs. The first one has a lot of info on how a Soviet MRR would operate in the attack, which may help with tactics opposing them. It describes the recon element, the advanced battalion, with tactics and TOE. There is a nice table on how each element is organized and fights, along with (importantly!!) vulnerabilities. There is a lot of fire support information which will be more useful for background information, but does include a lot of specs of both US and Soviet equipment - rates of fire, shell weights, even airlift requirements to move a battery and supply it by air. In those tables DRF and DRB refer to the Division Ready Force, and Division Ready Battalion, referring to the artillery units associated with the infantry brigade that is on "Mission" cycle - the ones who are always ready to fly away at a moment's notice. One battery is direct support for an infantry Bn, one artillery Bn in direct support of an infantry brigade. Back then those direct support roles remained rigid, so that the same units batteries always supported the same infantry. For example as a FIST Chief, I supported C Co, 1-325 Inf (Abn). We trained with them in the field all the time, so we built a good working relationship. 
The TOE for US is specific to the 82d Airborne so you can't really apply it to a US mechanized unit. More men per squad, limited vehicles, etc. The 82d is kind of unique, and keep in mind that it's walking infantry, and the tactics for defense are described as the 82d being put in a position to oppose a mechanized Soviet advance, but in general terms, they still apply pretty well. 
Hope you find it useful. Feel free to download and save copies for yourself. This was freely given out, never classified in any manner, and we carried them around. 
They may help with tactics opposing Soviet advances, which in the AI scripting are pretty well based on how it's described here. Any fans of Flashpoint Campaigns (either Red Storm or Southern Storm) may also find them useful there - easier to see the larger scale Soviet organization unfold.
Enjoy.
Dave
Fire Support Handbook -5.pdfFire Support Handbook -4.pdfFire Support Handbook -3.pdfFire Support Handbook -2.pdfFire Support Handbook -1.pdf

Hey buddy. It is hard to resist I know. Forum SOP: Don't feed trolls.
I suggest to block people like him. I use the blocking option now for over 20 people on the forum. It just saves stress.
By the way, BFC UKRAINE THREAD needs no defense. It is of course a mixed bag but all the posts could be lashed together for a damn PhD thesis.
"Changing views on the Ukraine-Russia conflict of 2022~202X."

I didn't see that in the list of complaints in the article, which is why I asked. It seemed the loading, quality and type of powder all varied, but the pictures appear to show ALL the powder charge wired together, apparently as it was designed to be. One size fits all, or as someone else said, charge measured to reach Seoul.  🙂  There isn't even any visible means improperly installed to have distinct charge levels.
In any case, the end result is sketchy powder charges, with the possibility of a lot of banana peeled howitzer tubes in the future. I'd not want to be a Russian artillery crewman, knowing the ammo was suspect. Of course, the average Russian artillery crewman may not know this.
Dave 

This is interesting. Besides the obvious quality issues, I'm wondering how they actually work. In US, and UK artillery (although my UK experience was years ago), the powder charge is made up of separate bags of powder, usually 7. This is true whether cased like 105mm, or separate, like 155mm. You normally want to be in a position for range to the potential targets to fire charge 4 or 5. More accuracy, less wear. So part of the firing order from the FDC to the guns is "Charge 4". They cut the extra 3 and drop them in a pit behind the gun and put the case back on (105mm) or remove 5, 6, 7 and retie the 1-4 bags in a stack (155mm). Same thing, the extras are stacked, dropped in a pit, whatever, behind the piece. 
These appear from the picture to have one charge, with no options, leaving all the range variation completely to firing data. 
Does anyone know differently? I have no experience with Soviet era/ Russian artillery beyond seeing a D-30 set up and fired once from a distance at Fort Bragg (now Ft. Liberty).  The artilleryman in me is curious.
Dave

This is exactly what the Russian artillerymen are complaining about. He says that instead of balanced sheaves of gunpowder, in Korean charges the gunpowder is mixed, so there is no way to quickly change the firing range

DRNK shells have one setting: reaching Seoul.
They didn't tell the Russians about the feature. 

If a party signed onto the conventions then they apply to every conflict they will find themselves within.  This would be why even the IDF have not started using chemical weapons.  As to your list:
"Level a city that produces vicious terrorist by the 1000s"....well yes.  There are no provisions to wipe out an entire city just because it produces threats.  You can target legitimate military targets in that city but wholescale destruction is against the law.  This would be why the US did not simply carpet bomb Fallujah or any other Iraqi city in the 00's.  We also did not do the same in Afghanistan.  The law says we play be the rules even when the other side does not.  "It is a war", yes that is my point entirely.  WW2 was not a "good" example of how we wanted to fight wars.  I know we have a lot of WW2 fans on a wargaming site but the consensus at the end of that was was that things got way out of hand.  So the international community, the same one that created the state of Israel, elected to stand up the LOAC framework.
At this point if I was an IDF general I suspect I would be fired for moving far too slowly because I would be looking at very deliberate tactical operations that I could defend at The Hague.  I would remove and an all troops who could be considered emotionally compromised from a kill chain and then make damned sure I had a lawyer in the JOC for every major shoot.  I would not devolve authority for airstrikes below my level.  I would have some pretty strict interpretations on the ROEs and enforce them.  When engaged I would not simple throw HE at a problem.  I would try a scalable approach to prove I did everything I could to reduce civilian casualties.  None of this is "pie in the sky".  Hamas is not a conventional military.  It is very light and insurgency like. Hamas is not going to counter-attack.  We have been fighting insurgencies for 20 years and not once employed what we see in Gaza right now.  It is miserable and slow work but there we are.  A lot of terrorist base are also not suicidal.  So isolation and time can play.  If you take fire return it in kind.  Nothing wrong with overmatch, but it needs to be scaled.  Take fire from a floor, return it.  Even hit it with a tank round.  I may kill any civilians in the same room as the terrorist, but I do not drop the whole freakin building unless I know htere are no civilians inside.
Why I would care so much about this is because I know my country has to live in this world once this is over.  My code of ethics, beaten into me since basic, says I will be righteous in delivering violence and committing homicide on behalf of my people.  If I cannot do that, then I should not be in the job.  It may take longer and take risks.  If I have soldiers who would rather they live and 20 Palestinian children need to die to make that happen, I want them out of my outfit.  I would relentlessly pursue and kill Hamas fighters and anything supporting them, but I am not going to kill civilians indiscriminately.  It may take years of slow steady pressure.  The political crisis in Israel because the PM and cabinet completely sh#t the bed on security is not my problem.  Waging the war legally is.
Then I would be looking for the civilian agencies to support the humanitarian fight and ensure we get between the civilians and the fighters.  Again, long hard and thankless work. And it may even fail.  But that is better then waging a war of extermination on a bunch of innocent people in the long run. [Not saying that is what Israel is doing definitively, but as a senior IDF leader it would be my primary concern.]  I have fought in an insurgency war and this is the gig.  We did not slaughter people when we took casualties, we went after the bomb makers.  We went after the leadership and we tried to get in between them and the people.  We even failed in the long run (less tactics, more politics) but we came away about as righteous as we could.  I did not shame myself or my people - and we kept the bad guys busy for a few years, so saved some lives there...I will take that. 
So slow, painful and legal is the alternative.  There is no fast, painless and legal in a war like this. 

Used to subscribe, but won't even read it anymore after their Editorial Board article opining that step one to reducing the deficit is cutting back on veteran's benefits. Nope. 
The gist of their opinion being that veterans are getting partial disability but still able to work. Well, duh. It's not JUST about work. It's about life. What if the partial disability was that they lost a hand or lower arm and can no longer play piano, or they lost almost all of their hearing, or they were a marathon runner and lost a lower leg, or two....  I could go on, but it's about compensation for life altering injuries caused by being sent into combat. Sure, in *all* of those examples, the veteran can work, at some job, even good jobs, maybe even the job they were in before the service. But life overall has become different now, with great loss to the important things in life. It's not *just about work. As a former chief engineer who was our group leader told me once (and one of the smartest guys I ever knew), "You work to live, not live to work." 
Sorry for the off-topic but this is a huge sore spot with me. The WaPo got slaughtered in the comments for that editorial but they did not retract it or comment in any way. Someone pointed out that no one who wrote that garbage ever served. Not surprised.
We return you now to your regular warfare news.
To make an on-topic post, for myself, being essentially a Cold Warrior (although things in the 82d could occasionally get "interesting"), I would have *loved* to have the technology that is available for today's artillery. Watching all the videos of using drones to call and adjust artillery fire. These are real game changers in supporting fire. Imagine the savings in ammunition there has been because of the ability to see the enemy so much better, or to see him AT ALL, even when out of sight of any forward observer. And even at that, both sides burn through artillery ammo at a staggering rate. Coolest thing we had were the very first laser target designators and we thought that was Star Wars level stuff at the time. 
Dave
PS - I subscribe to the NYT and the Times of London, so if anyone wants an article gifted from those, let me know 🙂
 

I live in Rhode Island and my Senators (Reed and Whitehouse) are both very competent and reasonable men, willing to work to get things done. Sheldon Whitehouse, especially, is almost always the smartest and most prepared in the room. I would not want to testify in front of a committee he was on if I was on shaky ground. I'm happy with my representation. My House representative recently changed, as the old one, who I really liked, retired (Jim Langevin - the guy with the interesting wheelchair that somehow stands up on 2 wheels). The new guy is young and an unknown - Democrat - it is RI after all.
Dave

"Follow" command that works in terrain or on roads, and duplicates the waypoints for each following unit so adjustments can be made.

Used to subscribe, but won't even read it anymore after their Editorial Board article opining that step one to reducing the deficit is cutting back on veteran's benefits. Nope. 
The gist of their opinion being that veterans are getting partial disability but still able to work. Well, duh. It's not JUST about work. It's about life. What if the partial disability was that they lost a hand or lower arm and can no longer play piano, or they lost almost all of their hearing, or they were a marathon runner and lost a lower leg, or two....  I could go on, but it's about compensation for life altering injuries caused by being sent into combat. Sure, in *all* of those examples, the veteran can work, at some job, even good jobs, maybe even the job they were in before the service. But life overall has become different now, with great loss to the important things in life. It's not *just about work. As a former chief engineer who was our group leader told me once (and one of the smartest guys I ever knew), "You work to live, not live to work." 
Sorry for the off-topic but this is a huge sore spot with me. The WaPo got slaughtered in the comments for that editorial but they did not retract it or comment in any way. Someone pointed out that no one who wrote that garbage ever served. Not surprised.
We return you now to your regular warfare news.
To make an on-topic post, for myself, being essentially a Cold Warrior (although things in the 82d could occasionally get "interesting"), I would have *loved* to have the technology that is available for today's artillery. Watching all the videos of using drones to call and adjust artillery fire. These are real game changers in supporting fire. Imagine the savings in ammunition there has been because of the ability to see the enemy so much better, or to see him AT ALL, even when out of sight of any forward observer. And even at that, both sides burn through artillery ammo at a staggering rate. Coolest thing we had were the very first laser target designators and we thought that was Star Wars level stuff at the time. 
Dave
PS - I subscribe to the NYT and the Times of London, so if anyone wants an article gifted from those, let me know 🙂
 

It’s like expendable workers during the pandemic… wait I thought I said essential…
Meanwhile schmucks like me are working from tropical islands drinking light beer and diving.

sadly stories like this are too much the norm.  Look at the fight it took to pass the compensation fund for 9/11 responders.

Unfortunately, this concept isn’t new. My Father was severely injured while in the U.S.M.C. during WWII. His left leg was crushed from the hip to the ankle when a vehicle he was driving rolled over to the left, which threw his leg out and under it. My Grandparents received the telegram “We regret to inform you ….” He spent two years in the hospital, where they get him addicted to Morphine, which he had to kick. The U.S.M.C. discharged him on a medical discharge as a “Ruptured Duck” because his left leg was put back together with rods, pins, plates, and screws, and was 1 and 1/2 inches shorter than his right leg. He continued to work for the rest of his life as a fisherman, lobsterman, automotive body repair, and a Master Plumber. When he tried to get the U.S.M.C. to up his pension from 60 or 70% disabled to 100% disabled, they refused stating that they would up it when he couldn’t work anymore.