MOS:96B2P

Over the years I've used the 2IC (XO team) most of the ways benpark described above and sometimes still do. 
After reading AARs on how units fight at the US NTC I have attempted to modify my use of the XO team somewhat.  I set up a Tactical Operations Center (TOC) staffed by the battalion XO.  Other XOs, especially from different battalions, and liaisons from attached units that are not in the vertical chain of command are also placed in this TOC.  In game mechanics this facilitates the horizontal sharing of information between units.  Also, If I have multiple FOs, I may place one at the TOC to handle fires on TRPs (artillery liaison).  The CO is generally with the Forward Command Post attempting to influence the battle at a decisive point and keeping subordinate units in C2. 
Various house rules can also be used to make game play more realistic.  So having a company and/or a battalion commander in voice C2 of a platoon fighting a decisive/critical action has a positive effect.  This also motivates the player to bring the Bn. CO forward, as in most real life circumstances, and not hide him in the setup zone. Of course this also risks the company and/or a battalion commander getting KIA which will negatively effect the actual game mechanics in addition to the house rules.
Lots of interesting tactical situations can be experimented with using the C2 system, scenario editor and house rules.           

Over the years I've used the 2IC (XO team) most of the ways benpark described above and sometimes still do. 
After reading AARs on how units fight at the US NTC I have attempted to modify my use of the XO team somewhat.  I set up a Tactical Operations Center (TOC) staffed by the battalion XO.  Other XOs, especially from different battalions, and liaisons from attached units that are not in the vertical chain of command are also placed in this TOC.  In game mechanics this facilitates the horizontal sharing of information between units.  Also, If I have multiple FOs, I may place one at the TOC to handle fires on TRPs (artillery liaison).  The CO is generally with the Forward Command Post attempting to influence the battle at a decisive point and keeping subordinate units in C2. 
Various house rules can also be used to make game play more realistic.  So having a company and/or a battalion commander in voice C2 of a platoon fighting a decisive/critical action has a positive effect.  This also motivates the player to bring the Bn. CO forward, as in most real life circumstances, and not hide him in the setup zone. Of course this also risks the company and/or a battalion commander getting KIA which will negatively effect the actual game mechanics in addition to the house rules.
Lots of interesting tactical situations can be experimented with using the C2 system, scenario editor and house rules.           

Ukraine isn't the only place where drone warfare is making advances. 
Not intended to derail, but we should stay aware of developments elsewhere, as we'll probably see them in some shape or form in Ukraine. 

Taking the Viking as the example, it comes to roughly 1 x assault boat per vehicle (plus driver):
 https://www.utvdriver.com/yamaha/viking/
https://shop.tacticalinnovations.ca/military-series-assault-boat-140/
You would have to adapt the boat but that is not a serious problem.
So 20 boat rides to get 20 of these beasts across.  Say another 20 for ammo, crews and supplies.  A 40 x boat crossing (say 50 - for redundancy and losses).  Now do you do them in a single lift?  Yes, if you can, but that is likely too big and will get picked up.  So this is likely a 2-3 trip operation.  
Given the width of the Dnipro:

Lets call it 1km on average.  Boat with a decent 40 hp motor and that kind of weight, we are looking at decent walking speed - so say, 5 km/hour - taking into account wood and Styrofoam silencers around engine which cuts efficiency.  So 20 min crossing (give or take).  Offload - 10 mins, trip back 20 mins.  If you want to shift sites (say a km or two up or down stream) you will have to relocate, which takes time.  I am thinking 3-4 hours to get 20 of those beasts over the water with crews using 20-30 assault boats.
So operation in phases:
- Combat divers and swimmers go first to link up with LRPs you already have in place.  They clear bank, setup offload points and beach management.  Need at least 3-4 sites.  They then roll into bridgehead force with what they can carry on their backs - so small arms, drones etc.
- Main body bridgehead force goes first.  So, vehicle crews etc, with heavier weapons.
- Then vehicles in waves, likely 2-3.  Offload and clear the beaches/landing sites.  Get em into hides and patrol bases.
Pick your night.  Foggy/rainy is best, stormy second best.  Sound will be a major issue.
Once you get them up and over the follow on support op gets a lot easier.  You can set up rolling far bank DPs and caches.  Troops can source water locally.  Ammo, food, fuel and medical will be the major issues but with this light a force, manageable.  Now you have roughly a light company with wheels who can make trouble up to 20-30 kms deep.
Now do that 3 more times and you have a raiding battalion.  Each of those small teams with FPVs and Javelins (and maybe some mines but they take weight) could make serious trouble in the Russian backfield.  Heavy UAS re-supply and casevec would make a significant difference. 
Russian troop density is in and around 100 troops per km, which is really thin.  Almost zero depth, no real rotations and thin c-moves.  Then you go conditions based on the planning - if the raiding bn is getting serious pushback, let them just make trouble (hit and runs etc).  If they can actually get RA forces to fall back, well you have a bridgehead for something larger, but that is a whole other thing.  
Risky and may not work.  But to my eyes it has a better chance in the risk/opportunity space than trying mechanized breaches over incredibly dense minefields with higher Russian troop densities. 
But...and it is the major one, you have to resource it. 

I read somewhere that Ukrainian males aged between 18 and 26 can't be mobilized / aren't draftable or something although they can choose to enlist if they want to.  I've also read / heard that the average age of a Ukrainian soldier is something like 44 years old - which is nuts.  You can't even enlist in the US army if you are older than 35.  If true, it sure seems like the individuals that you want most are the ones that can't be had for some unknown reason.  I'm with The Capt though - nobody has more at stake than Ukraine and if Ukraine can't even get enough recruits into the service then that's a big issue.  There are plenty of fingers that are getting pointed at various political parties, countries, and 'issues', but if Ukraine doesn't even have the willpower to get their 18 to 26 year olds into military service then I would think the biggest finger has to be pointed right at Ukraine.  Assuming that information is accurate.

Mobilization campaign failed + Russian PsyOps trageted on mobilization is working. Zelenskyi substitued all chiefs of oblast enlistment centers and appointed there mostly wouded officers from frontline. But this was bad decision. Corrupted chiefs didn't forget about opwn pocket, but on other hand mostly performed mobilization plan. They were "bureacrats", which knew all theses 100500 regulation papers. New chiefs not "bereaucrats", they are "warriors". They need a many time to understand all this inner "kitchen" how mobilization process is working. And substitiution didn't change such disgusting happens of abduction of people from the streets by enlistment offices patrols. 
These stories as well as stories from frontline about higher command doesn't carrying on about lives of soldiers, about typical soviet army "dolboyebizm", about enlistment offices, who don't interest that mobilized man would be effective soldier and send for example good specialist in radioelectronic as usual infantryman, protracted war, which contrasted with "stupid Russians" stories on TV, powerful Russian PsyOps cmapaign against government and mobilization - all this gave on fruits. Government really don't know what to do and where to take a people in order to do not cause social explosion. 
Now is upgrading for mobilization law is preparing, but from enough radical and tough project deputies removed many things, which can be dangerous for power stability. 
As a good news and right direction - military units themselves started to attackt motivated people on service via recruiting offers on different work finding boards. Some "new-type" and media-known units already have own recruitment centers ("Azov ", 3rd assault, "Da Vinci Wolves" etc) and wow - people come to them without forcing! And many young people go, which by the law can't be mobilzed (18-26 y.o), except own will. But on other hand we havn't recruitment law. And often enlistment offices and recruitment centers hadn't communication. 
So, now we started a way of enlistment tarnsformation, but now we at the point, when old Soviet type syetem already showed own insolvency in modern conditions, and new system is just appeared and can't maintain 100 % of army need in manpower. 
Other aspect - despite we have 880 000 in Defense Forces (jourmalists "rounded this number to million") - Army, National Guard, Border Guard, Police, SBU, GUR, State Special Transport Service, State Special Communication Service,  many of personnel never have seen frontline. Of corse we don't talk about AD crews or techniclal specialists, or logistic service. But now the audit started in Armed Forces and already spotted 8000 servicemen, which just mobilized "as disposal of General Staff", but in real they don't serve anywhere. And this is only beginning. There are also enough units, which never (!!!) were on frontline or were there for short time and more time sit in the rear or guarding Belarus border, than fighting with Russians in that time when the same 110th brigade spent 1,5 years without rotations in Avdiivka. And this probably was another reason to substitute Zaluzhnyi.   

Hi Diego, welcome.
Sadly @kohlenklau has taken leave of the forum for a while.  I'm trying to persuade him to come back, we'll see...

That's a very interesting idea that I had not thought of. I will see what I can work up. Since the map size is large I may cut it down for each scenario kind of like I did with the Operation al Fajr campaign just to reduce lag.

For anyone who hasn't played this scenario I can't recommend it enough.  Freakin masterwork on how to manipulate the TAC AI and scenario parameters.
New Scenario: Tactical Operations Center - CM Black Sea Maps and Mods - Battlefront.com Community
 

For those interested in Revolutions in Military Affairs (RMAs). I highly recommend:
https://www.amazon.com/War-Made-New-Technology-Warfare/dp/1592402224?nodl=1&dplnkId=2283fc77-c9c7-494a-9577-81de6b679ee6
What is interesting about technoplhilia, behind the cultural undertones, is that is it always wrong…until it turns out right.  Gunpowder weapons started out as dangerous hand-cannons that frankly made more noise than anything else.  Until they became muskets and rifles.  Indirect fire was originally a niche siege weapon until gunpowder but then was large, undependable and unwieldy..until they became artillery.
Cyber is an excellent case in point.  Despite the press, we really did not see it employ as a decisive capability (let alone military domain) in Ukraine.  That does not mean it won’t become decisive in the future but the advertising did not match real world demonstrations.  Unmanned systems have been around since the 60s and I have read/heard of them revolutionizing the battlefield since I was a cadet.  However, given the scope and scale of employment in Ukraine right now, this technology might be having its Constantinople moment.
The other thing about RMAs, which Boot outlines very well, is that they do not happen in a weekend…or even in a single war.  These are shifts in warfare that have taken centuries, and in more modern history, decades.  I can recall in the 90s the “RMA is upon us!” Followed quickly by “What Revolution?”  I strongly suspect that both sides of the debate were right and wrong at the same time.  We are not at the beginning or end of a Revolution in Military Affairs - we are in the middle of one.  And have been likely since the late 80s.  Information Technology’s full impact on the battlefield has yet to culminate but the trends are becoming undeniable.  
So in my experience RMAs are nasty sneaky affairs.  They wait until no one is really paying attention and then you wake up one morning and drones are chasing soldiers around trees while being watched in real time. 

Another update from Syrskyi

https://t.me/osirskiy/608
 
 

Thy can be useful doing things like tending to wounded soldiers/ammo scavenging, replacing a wiped-out higher HQ, or any other duties like relaying spotting information from squads/teams and higher HQ (like a "runner"). That last use is helpful for calling in artillery, when the radio unit doesn't have LoS and you don't want to risk them in an exposed position. Security uses also are another slot you can drop them in, and you could do some extra-self-imposed rules, like moving them near prisoners to simulate moving them to rear-areas, etc.
I'm always checking the visibility icons to see what the "range" is in the UI. The benefits of any HQ will be greatly lessened when out of any given C2 contact range.

Backup for the CO and/or liaison with the forward deployed company commanders if needed. 
H

Here are some preliminary screenshots of a master map I have been working on of the Arghandab River Valley in Afghanistan. It is roughly half done is by far the largest map I have ever tried to create. It will be 4160m wide and 2992m deep and it covers a variety of terrain including farm fields, waddies, compounds, villages, highlands and lowlands. There is tons of micro terrain to battle through and the map is for a future campaign for either the 82nd Airborne or Canadian forces, haven't made up my mind yet.
In Kandahar province, the Arghandab River flows south from the Afghan central mountains, passing just north of Kandahar City. Together with its various tributaries, the Arghandab irrigates the greater Kandahar area—including the Arghandab Valley, northern Panjwaii, Zhari and Maywand—before continuing westward to join the Helmand River immediately south of Lashkar Gah.  The Registan Desert lies south of Kandahar and the Arghandab. To the north, foothills and mountains of the Afghan central mountains separate Kandahar from Oruzgan province.  A highway runs southeast from Kandahar to the Spin Boldak-Chaman border crossing and thence to Quetta, Pakistan.  The Kandahar to Kabul section of the Afghan Ring Road stretches east and northeastward from Kandahar into Zabul and then Ghazni provinces.
Arghandab district is one of the most troublesome in Kandahar because of the level of insurgency and insecurity. The Taliban have taken control partial of complete control of the strategic district as they see it as a gateway to the city of Kandahar. It is strategic terrain given its proximity to Kandahar city (it is only fifteen kilometers to the north). It also offers natural defenses. Insurgents can hide from the air attacks of the ISAF Forces in the district’s fruit orchards. 
The map is as accurate as I can make it using satellite imagery and photographs though there will be some fictional farms and villages. The campaign I hope to create will hopefully be a different type of experience where the idea is your forces, based out of a FOB and a OP, are responsible to gaining control of the valley from the Taliban. The valley is a rich source of poppy harvests used to produce opium that the Taliban use to finance their insurgency. Your mission will be to secure the villages from the Taliban and win the hearts and minds of the local population.
If anyone has a preference of whether to have the 82nd or Canadian Forces you can chime in. Right now I am leaning towards the Canadians. The master map has a long way to go so it will be a future project.
Here is the link to the screenshots. I'll post more as it comes along.
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/utq8x5kmoyusg/Arghandab_River_Valley

Not me man, they got their pints of blood out of this old warhorse years ago (f#ck, that really sounds like a statement that could come back to haunt me.) 
Seriously, I saw some noise about "western boots on the ground in Ukraine".  Guys it has already happened.  We are moving from covert to overt.  Hell, someone I know very well turned down a tour in a J7 shop in Kyiv just last month.  They have positions posted for in-country tours up and are trying to pull people in.  This is all part of that slow boil strategy the West appears to be pursuing.  We will put in staff and supports into HQ first.  Then some sort of in country support mission on the western border.
By the time this is over we might have a freakin multi-national division in country.

Putin bans petrol exports as Russia runs on fumes (yahoo.com)
 
The Kremlin has announced a six-month ban on petrol exports after Ukrainian attacks on Russian refineries left Vladimir Putin’s regime scrambling to meet domestic demand.
The ban, which comes into force on March 1, was confirmed by a spokesman for deputy prime minister Alexander Novak who said it would allow for “planned maintenance” of refineries.
It follows attacks on Russian facilities by Ukrainian drones in recent months, which have harmed the country’s ability to refine crude oil into usable products such as petrol and diesel.
Russia previously imposed a similar ban between September and November last year in order to tackle high domestic prices and shortages.
Then, only four ex-Soviet states – Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan – were exempt. This time, more Russian neighbours will be exempt, including Mongolia, Uzbekistan and two Russian-backed breakaway regions of Georgia: South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Oil, oil products and gas are by far Russia’s biggest export and provide a major source of income for the Kremlin’s war economy.
Putin has been working with Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest oil exporter, to keep prices high as part of the broader Opec+ group, which includes the Opec cartel of oil producing nations and its key allies.
 
 

My fault. it is 30+50+10+10. Instead of getting regular sleep, I'm reading and translating at night. So, mistakes happen.

This is an interesting idea that I have been playing around with in CMCW for an NTC rotation (campaign).  This is to add an S4 logistics element that can be evaluated and has real implications in a campaign. 
The mechanics of the idea is that there are two supply trucks that are part of the core force.  The supply trucks only show up in scenarios where the scenario designer wants the player to have a possibility of refit, repair and resupply (or at least one of these three things).  In the chosen scenario(s) the two trucks are on the scenario map (either from the start or as reinforcements).  The player must keep these trucks safe and move them to an exit on the OpFor side of the map.  The exit is to prevent the player from simply hiding the trucks in the player's setup zone. No other unit needs to exit for the supply system to work.  The player has the challenge of preserving his supply trucks while having them follow the combat units across the map. 
The next mission is a supply scenario (referred to as a "mini mission" above).  If the supply trucks safely made the exit in the previous "battle" scenario they will appear on the supply scenario map.  A short distance in front of the supply trucks is an occupy objective worth X amount of VPs.  If at least one of the two trucks are present it drives forward to occupy the objective wining the scenario and earning whatever % of whatever Refit and/or Repair and/or Resupply the scenario designer decided was appropriate.  If the player has no supply trucks on the map he gets zero or some very low number of the three Rs as determined by the scenario designer.    
The player then hits cease fire and starts the next battle scenario with the three R's he earned (or didn't).  This rewards the player for thinking about and taking care of his S4 logistics. 
I conceptually decided on two supply trucks just in case a player had bad luck and one truck was immobilized from bogging while moving across the battle scenario map. Of course the number of supply trucks can be lowered or raised depending on what a scenario designer thought was best for the campaign. 
So many ideas, so little time .......   ......                  

This is an interesting idea that I have been playing around with in CMCW for an NTC rotation (campaign).  This is to add an S4 logistics element that can be evaluated and has real implications in a campaign. 
The mechanics of the idea is that there are two supply trucks that are part of the core force.  The supply trucks only show up in scenarios where the scenario designer wants the player to have a possibility of refit, repair and resupply (or at least one of these three things).  In the chosen scenario(s) the two trucks are on the scenario map (either from the start or as reinforcements).  The player must keep these trucks safe and move them to an exit on the OpFor side of the map.  The exit is to prevent the player from simply hiding the trucks in the player's setup zone. No other unit needs to exit for the supply system to work.  The player has the challenge of preserving his supply trucks while having them follow the combat units across the map. 
The next mission is a supply scenario (referred to as a "mini mission" above).  If the supply trucks safely made the exit in the previous "battle" scenario they will appear on the supply scenario map.  A short distance in front of the supply trucks is an occupy objective worth X amount of VPs.  If at least one of the two trucks are present it drives forward to occupy the objective wining the scenario and earning whatever % of whatever Refit and/or Repair and/or Resupply the scenario designer decided was appropriate.  If the player has no supply trucks on the map he gets zero or some very low number of the three Rs as determined by the scenario designer.    
The player then hits cease fire and starts the next battle scenario with the three R's he earned (or didn't).  This rewards the player for thinking about and taking care of his S4 logistics. 
I conceptually decided on two supply trucks just in case a player had bad luck and one truck was immobilized from bogging while moving across the battle scenario map. Of course the number of supply trucks can be lowered or raised depending on what a scenario designer thought was best for the campaign. 
So many ideas, so little time .......   ......                  

Please don't do the 'disband' thing, it will kill the attrition and the force preservation aspect of the campaign. Like I said previously the campaign is manageable with the force you get (especially after you replaced the T-72 turms by T-55MV's in the mission I mentioned  ). The infantry core of the campaign was more than enough up until the mission I mentioned in phase 3 and I got into trouble because it was the weakest company of all my forces (both two groups) that got that task. So again, it is a matter of only small tweaking to the core task assignment and rotation in my opinion.
By the way, after reading your last posts I came to the conclusion that I had a contribution to my force attrition on that map since I methodically  ignored your briefings on capture/win conditions (I achieved a surrender in all the missions before that mission that I believe was in phase 3). 
If I may suggest - you could do a "mini mission" before each of the two final missions where you only move/don't move a truck into a capture area and hit a ceasefire. If the player moves it in he gets a full/partial/whatever you decide Refit level. If the player hits the ceasefire without capturing the objective he continues with his forces as it is. 
P.S
I believe I read somewhere I can combine depleted different squads but I tried and failed to do it in CMRT since the combine button only works on the same already split squad.  Is it  CMSF thing only? How do i do it in practice?  
 
 

A-50 and IL-22 were hit in a previous incident.

 
Yesterday, only A-50 was hit:

Yesterday, there was confusion over the number of planes and helicopters hit because initial yesterday's videos showed two separate fires and one witness claimed that one fire was caused by a helicopter.
Separately, some UKR channels claimed that IL-22 was also downed but later these claims disappeared (probably confused it with previous incident). Nobody else claimed IL-22 or anything else was hit. 
There is a small probability that the second fire was from another plane. But it is small.
Ae you sure you are capable of judging other's work if you missed these basic things? 

Dude, take your meds or something.  You have come out swinging on a number of issues even when it was clear you were way off base.  You were going after folks on that A-50 when it was clear that you were looking at an older incident - and not the one with the posted video from the last 24-48 hours.  Now you are coming at someone else for whatever the hell this is about…gee you think Russian troops could not get their hands on Ukrainian coveralls?  Kinophile commented on how the Russian Army has brutal practices and you object…so your position is that the Russian Army does not have brutal practices?  Based what?  The sign translation?
You seem to be in a fighting mood for the sake of simply fighting.  Seriously go to a bar and get smacked around, get it out of your system and then come back.

Thanks for the clarification, but you might consider thumbing down the ad hominem attacks a bit.

@Grigb is one of the best contributors to this thread. Just sayin'.
****
VERIFICATION REQUEST. Is it true Russia only has one more A50 AWACS?  Or is this yet another Sushko disinfo special?
 

Gentleman. You can't fight here, this is the war room.
(Sorry I had celebratory drink.)