Bulletpoint
-
Posts
6,886 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
20
Posts posted by Bulletpoint
-
-
4 minutes ago, JonS said:
Even if "all" they did was 'have a big impact on morale' that would still be huge.
Demoralised troops surrender. Demoralised units collapse.
That's a good point. Also, drones provide excellent propaganda material because they film the damage they do up close in horrible detail.
Just still curious about the scope of drone casualties.
-
10 hours ago, kimbosbread said:
Think of a drone as a very cheap, accurate long-range NLOS ATGM, but for anything you want to attack.
Instead of a $100k Javelin, you pay $2-3k, and of course they are smaller, lighter, easier to produce, have much longer range, can loiter and/or chase their targets around (including into tunnels and around corners) and will in short order be autonomous. If that’s not a game changer, I don’t know what is.
EDIT: That’s just for the kamikaze variant.
I know all that.
What I'm saying is: Are the uploaded FPV / grenade drop videos just a few examples of many more such succesful attacks? Are several hundred troops on both sides really killed by drones each day? Or are the uploaded videos pretty much all there is?
In the latter case, the real drone casualty numbers would be just 10-20 a day. Nothing war changing.
Drones still have a big impact against vehicles and supply depots, and as artillery spotters, but that's a different thing.
My question is about the direct attacks on infantry. I am starting to think they are a bit like WW2 strafing runs. Scary, they do kill a few people, big impact on morale, but not really a factor in winning or losing the war.
-
By now, we all began thinking FPV drones are amazingly powerful weapons, and yes, against vehicles, they do seem to be making a big impact. But how many casualties do they actually cause against infantry?
Every day, there are about 7-10 new videos of drone attacks killing infantry on both sides - many more videos from the Ukrainian POV though. But since these attacks due to their nature are pretty much always filmed, what if those 7-10 videos are pretty much the whole story of all succesful drone attacks that day?
In that case, "only" maybe 20-30 casualties are caused by drone attacks. Bad if you're on the receiving end, but not a lot compared to the hundreds of thousands of troops killed in this war by all kinds of weapons.
So what I'm trying to get at here is that our perception of drones as game-changing weapons might be skewed by a strong selection bias.
Anyone here saw some credible estimates of the scale of casulties caused by drones (FPV kamikaze + grenade drops) compared to other weapons?
How many drone attacks fail and therefore never get shown?
-
1 hour ago, Seedorf81 said:
I knew that a "cheap" missile is 20.000 euro's, that one Javelinlauncher costs more than 100.000 dollars and so on and so forth, but I never understood the bigger picture until this little 155mm round calculation. The cost of war is incomprehensible.
I wonder how much of the cost is profit. If a single standard shell is 3300 euro, how much of that cost is actually for the steel, the explosives, the fuse, and the physical labour?
Of course a Javelin launcher is much more high tech than a shell, but still. 100,000 dollars. That's like the cost of a brand new Tesla, which is also full of technology.
-
11 hours ago, Vacillator said:
Worse than that George, at a comedy night in our village, the comedian asked if anyone had any Nazi books (whatever they are) and my wife shouted out that I did, based on such classics as Panzers in Normandy and The Battle of the Bulge Then and Now.
I am now the 'Nazi in the village'
.
More oddly, I was approached afterwards by a lady I knew, who offered me a copy of Mein Kampf. I refused, saying it is not a good read
.
I couldn't help but imagine this as an episode of "Keeping up Appearances"
-
1 minute ago, Anthony P. said:
I recall reading that they were either here on the forums, or elsewhere, but I can't say for certain since I hadn't played any game where there was a need to traverse minefields with AFVs before the engine upgrade.
One of the missions in the Task Force Thunder campaign has the briefing explicitly mention that engineers should be used to clear anti-tank mines on the near side of a bridge (every single bridge span is mined), and the Polish campaign in CMFI has a mission where you have a number of Sherman tanks which can only be brought into more than a tiny part of the fight by crossing a valley road which is entirely blocked off by anti-tank mines. Those examples have reinforced the idea that anti-tank mines used to be safe if marked (it seems strange that anti-tank mines actually can be marked since doing so seemingly has no effect).
I agree it seems strange that they can be marked if there is no effect, but to the best of my knowledge, marking AT mines has never had any effect for the last 10 years. At least not in the WW2 titles.
Some scenarios tell you to demine but mostly as an immersion thing. And other scenarios cheat a little by placing some barbed wire across the AT minefield. You can then blow up the minefield using engineers (who are also blown up in the process unfortunately).
-
1 hour ago, The_Capt said:
The real question is out of that 22k how many are actually Hamas?
Comparatively few. Because Hamas of course understands that anything above ground is going to get bombed. They are not likely to have kept anything of real value inside the buildings.
That being said, I do believe Hamas has taken considerable losses. And while Israel now talks about a long war dragging out through 2024, I think we are not that far from them taking control of the whole surface of Gaza.
Then it will be a long operation to clear out the tunnels. Maybe some kind of sedative gas will be used, just like the Russians did in the 2002 Moscow theatre siege. Probably mixed to be so strong that nobody wakes up again, but that of course was not the intention, just a tragic accident.
Most of the hostages are probably already across the border to Egypt though. I don't think they are really a main priority of the Israeli government, even though they are something that has to be dealt with from a PR perspective. Taking over the ground is.
The end state will be all Palestinians in a big refugee camp in the south of Gaza, with Israel and Egypt blaming each other over who is responsible for them. And then Israel taking over what used to be the cities.
The rubble (and any evidence of who is buried under it, militants or civilians) will be cleared with bulldozers and Israeli settlers will enter, creating new "facts on the ground". The UN might write a sternly worded letter, but Israel will shut them up with an accusation of anti-semitism.
Some years will pass to allow things to settle down, and then one day, there will be another 'surprise attack', this time from the West Bank.
All this is speculation, and I hope I will be proven wrong.
-
17 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:
I'm catching up on a backlog of ISW reports. It's been a while since I've seen a credible casualty estimate for IDF forces. But the December 26 report contained the following paragraph:
While the IDF may not be particularly transparent about their targeting practices, I doubt they're lying about their losses. If they have suffered 161 KIA (as of December 26th), then by the rule of thumb that there are always at least 2 wounded for every 1 killed that means they've likely suffered at least 480 casualties. Of course that 2:1 rule of thumb may be outdated, as medical technology has advanced over the last century. In Ukraine there seem to be at least 3 wounded for every 1 killed. And the IDF is an advanced military that places a high emphasis on the safety of its troops, and which is fighting a smaller and lower intensity war. So the number of WIA per KIA may be much higher. Still, I'd guess their casualties probably don't exceed 1,000. That would mean they're probably suffering 8-16 casualties a day, of which about 2.6 per day are KIA. Less than I would have imagined before the ground offensive into Gaza began.
Sounds like they just multiply the real damage by a factor of 10... so that would mean around 165 KIA and 75 vehicles destroyed/damaged. Which sounds credible, I think. Far from all those vehicles will be Merkavas.
-
11 hours ago, Anthony P. said:
I guess maybe also the change to AT minefields not being traversable for vehicles even after being marked?
Likely fairly realistic... but so far I know of at least two campaigns with missions which are somewhat broken because they pre-date that change and specifically rely on marking anti-tank mines to allow your AFVs to proceed.
I don't think AT minefields were ever safe to drive through, even when marked?
-
8 minutes ago, paxromana said:
Yeah, just deluded murderers.
Yes. Same thing with any faction. Russia, Israel, Hamas etc... They all think they fight the good fight.
-
32 minutes ago, danfrodo said:
Ye old RU stuff blowing up. It may be kinda sick, but I like watching those bent on murder getting blown up.
The sad truth is that Russian troops are not all evil people bent on murder. Some, yes. But far from all. Many are just deluded.
-
One more prediction:
If the winter turns into heavy frost, I think Ukraine might consider a frozen river crossing from Dudchany. If deepstatemap is correct, there are no fortified lines there, and nearly no enemy forces.
-
4 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
They really aren't. They want you all to believe they are getting stronger but that is simply not true. Now whether they get weak enough to buckle under the limited pressure the UA can project is another story. As to "pie in the sky"...why does everyone seem to forget the RA collapsed operationally 3 times in this war? Now strategic collapse is debatable but setting up another operational one is by no means a pipe dream.
First collapse was a result of a complete mess of an invasion plan... second was around Kharkiv, I think that was supposed to be a withdrawal but yes, it turned into a collapse with many losses of important assets. But what was the third one? I consider the Kherson episode a pretty orderly withdrawal.
But if they collapse operationally again in this war, I have a fresh crow here, all plucked and ready to eat
-
1 hour ago, The_Capt said:
Is the RA going to finally buckle?
No. They are growing stronger by the day, despite the losses. The idea of Russian collapse is pie in the sky.
1 hour ago, The_Capt said:Are they going to rally?
No. But they are going to be fed into the grinder as usual.
1 hour ago, The_Capt said:Is western support going to continue at 2023 levels?
No. The average politician in the West is a weatherwane that is very sensitive to the sentiments of the voter base. And the voter base changed opinion about this war when the 2023 Ukraine offensive failed.
1 hour ago, The_Capt said:Is there a technology game changer that will be introduced?
I doubt it. But I think both sides are feverishly trying to solve the drone problem, while also pumping out as many drones as possible. We might see more anti drone countermeasures, but then also anti-anti countermeasures. I think drones are here to stay.
1 hour ago, The_Capt said:Will Russian political will falter?
No. In the West, we are horrified when we see the casualties the Russians are taking. But it would take millions of dead Russians before Putin's authority starts to get challenged.
1 hour ago, The_Capt said:Will western will falter?
No, but it is waning. Western political will depends a lot on where the front line goes. Currently, Western leaders (and the public) are not too unhappy about where it runs.
We do care somewhat about the fate of Ukraine as a whole, but we care much less about Crimea and the extreme eastern Ukraine than the Ukrainians do.
-
1 hour ago, The_Capt said:
I have absolutely none. This war is hard enough to understand what is happening on a given day, let alone try to predict an entire year. There are too many factors- internal and external- play to make a valid attempt.
We can say with some confidence that there will be pressure on Ukraine to deliver an operational victory next spring summer but whether or not they will or if it will be successful is impossible to determine. Is the RA going to finally buckle? Are they going to rally? Is western support going to continue at 2023 levels? Is there a technology game changer that will be introduced? Will Russian political will falter? Will Ukrainian will falter? Will western will falter? Will someone solve for offence? Will Jebus return on a fiery chariot to a Black Sabbath soundtrack and really mess with our heads?
I have no idea.
Max points for honesty.
My predictions are of course also with the disclaimer that I have no idea and am just a layman observing this war, but I like to think along.
Anyone here is welcome to poke fun of me next year when my predictions turn out to be completely wrong
-
What are your predictions for the war in Ukraine in 2024?
Here are mine:
Increasing Ukrainian drone and missile strikes on Russian towns and cities.
Russia will take Avdiivka before spring, and also close the Robotyne pocket. Then the frontlines will not move much more before summer.
Ukraine will attempt a new offensive in early summer, and it will be in the north, east of Kharkiv, where Russian defensive lines seem less strong. The aim will not be to liberate key territory but to cause maximum losses and for the political objective to show Western sponsors that the war can still be won.
The drone war will enter a new stage where the off-the-shelves commercial drones are replaced with mass produced purpose built drones, and the numbers of drone attacks will increase massively. Instead of single drone attacks, we might see several working in cooperation. Increased use of drone-dropped tear gas.
-
Out of curiosity, when was the last time any there was any meaningful change/update to the game rules or fundamental features?
Not a battle pack or a module with some new units, but the kind of changes people have now been requesting for 37 pages in this thread. Which is far from the first feature request thread.
The last time I can remember new features were added were in CMFB (2016), when flamethrowers and mortar halftracks were added.
Both awkwardly and buggily implemented, but at least they were new capabilities.
There was also a patch around the same time that added some new features to the editor, such as a retreat mechanic and an area fire order for the AI. But that was still eight years ago.
-
14 minutes ago, Carolus said:
If some politically savy Chinese expats are to be believed, the view of Chinese leadership on Russia is actually very different than what we in the West would believe based on rational parameters.
Despite the incredibly obvious massive power difference in favour of China, the CCP sees Russia still as their big daddy, in terms of ideological tradition. They yearn for father's approval and present him what they drew in kindergarten today. They cower when uncle Putin stomps his foot and feel relieved when he bestows them with a kind word.
It is strange, but it is apparently a thing. Something something communist psychoanalysis and fatherlessness.
I don't think there's any truth to that.
-
4 minutes ago, JonS said:
China seems happy to use Russia as a cat's paw to mess with those things, and maybe thereby gain some maneuver space in the Pacific. But I doubt they care about Russia, or the outcome of the war, per se. Russia is failing and falling - it has been for a while, and the last couple of years has accelerated that. China might as well cash in while they still can. Sell their stuff at high prices, buy Russian stuff at low prices, and figure out WTF they're going to do about Siberia if/when Russia disintegrates.
I don't think China sees Russia as a failing country. They see it as a fellow autocratic country and ally against the world order led by the USA, and they (ok, "he" - Xi Jinping) wants to prevent Russia from collapsing due to this war. Probably China makes a pretty penny off their help, too, but I think they want Putin's Russia to continue.
-
2 minutes ago, JonS said:
I doubt that China is straight-up gifting billions upon billions of dollars in civil and military aid to Russia in the way the West has for Ukraine.
Why not though?
When we prop up Ukraine it's out of self interest. Why wouldn't China help Russia in the same way?
-
2 hours ago, Haiduk said:
Well... Citizens of Belgorod joyfully write a gloating posts, when S-300/S-400 from their city outskirts were launching on Kharkiv. Now Belgorod received the second, more tough strike since last night. Officially 14 citizens of Belgorod were killed (among them two kids), 108 were wounded.
The center of Belforod is in 58-60 km from northern Kharkiv outskirts and in 40-45 km from the border area. Somebody say this is "Russian false flag attack". I doubt (if this wasn't Grad). Let they feel the same that feel citizens of Kharkiv almost each week two uears so far and citizens of other Ukrainian cities.
Pilots of Allied bombers without hesitattion were pushing buttons to drop heavy bombs of German cities. This is a war for annihilation. To hell hypocritic humanity. Russian cities have to look like Gaza after all these two years, maybe this washed remains of their brain back. No mercy
Belgorod several hours ago
Mmmm... Do you scream? Scared? Really? Not so joyfully now?
Russian MoD made official statement, claiming Belgorod was shelled with two "Vil'kha" missiles and MLRS "Vampire" rockets (eeee.... Vampire has 20 km of range, are you kidding?). As if most of missiles were intercepted by AD. So, according to Russian logic in deaths of Belgorod citizens local AD is guilted. If they didn't intercet missiles, its fragments would not be fall on civilains and just peacefully hit military objects!
I don't think civilians should ever be targeted.
But even if we accept the argument that Russians need to be attacked and made afraid in order to make them oppose the war, you should not bomb some tiny border town where people have no say in anything.
The only thing their deaths will accomplish is to provide perfect fuel for the Russian propaganda machine.
You should attack Moscow, and especially the areas where the Russian elite lives.
-
-
23 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
Wow, that few? I am sure they had 10x that wounded, but I'm surprised 181 after all that intense fighting.
I would be surprised if it's really that few.
-
Sometimes in a campaign, I will take so heavy casualties that it makes it impossible to win the mission or even continue with the campaign (for example, key AT units lost, etc). What I do is not to reload the turn before it all went wrong, but to force myself to start the mission over from the beginning. Maybe it sounds masochistic, but I will then avoid targeting enemy positions I revealed in my last playthrough, at least not before I properly spot them.
Not saying my way is the "best" way of playing, but just my two DKK.
The year to come - 2024 (Part 1)
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
I completely agree, and I'm not German.