Rinaldi

I'm not particularly sure what that actually has to do with anything. You are a past-master at sprinkling bulldust Squarehead. Were you aware that a few chancellors of the Germanies were formerly Hitler Jugend !!?!?!? By Jove! It has very little to do with the European Union's operations - in fact, it has nothing to do with them. You just threw that out there to what, get some sand in the air, de-rail another topic? Very Johnny K of you.

Sounds about right. Guys rarely brought digital stuff beyond the wire anyways, or at least disconnected.

This just in: People pushing a thesis have a bias and interest. News at 11. Seems like a persuasive book, and far from propaganda. I'll see if I can grab a copy.

Send him your preferences file; it sounds like for whatever reason its not present in documents. I had a mate with the same issue a while ago but I can't remember what was the cause.

The Russian media is also showing its main weapon system - disinformation. http://tass.com/defense/966304 "ST. PETERSBURG, September 19. /TASS/. Rumors of a fire attack on a group of journalists that allegedly happened at the Zapad-2017 exercise has been dismissed by the Western Military District as a falsehood and provocation. Earlier, some media claimed that a Ka-52 helicopter accidentally fired missiles at spectators near the Luzhsky proving ground near St. Petersburg." Still though I suppose its very good to see the Alligator can light up civilian vehicles during a CALFEX. I suppose I won't grumble about the one in a PEBM missing all its targets by 200m, evidently it is an accurate representation! Oh and of course, how could I leave out how their own military commanders undermining attempts to dodge the Vienna Document: https://rusi.org/commentary/zapad-2017-moscow’s-rules "In Zapad-2017, Russian Airborne Troops have not been declared as an integrated part of the exercise, while Colonel-General Andrey Serdyukov, the force’s commander, publicly admitted that his headquarters and three Divisions – the 76th Guards Air-Assault, the 98th, and 106th Guards Airborne Divisions and, probably, the 45th Guards Reconnaissance Brigade (no fewer than 19­–20,000 troops altogether), would all take part in the manoeuvres. On their own, inclusion of these troops would be enough to trigger international monitoring, since their numbers are above the 13,000 mark. However, the Kremlin has not uttered a word on this."

Fantastic, that slipped my mind. I use this when advancing and attacking in tall foilage/wheat as well.

I launched a counterattack on my Power Hour scenario with a small 5 vehicle Bronnegruppa against the Americans stalled breach attempt; and I kept two man teams with the BMP-3s in the group. I heard of the trick about spotting (I use it in CMA as well) but really do it for the PKs...it appears that it does actually help. I was getting spots off pretty quickly, managed to gun a few Bradleys. Anecdotal, but I will continue to use it and see if my hunch is correct.

v2 released: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bzk0WVH5NChWdlFVX2wzZE1HMWs (link in original post also updated). Will be updated on TSDIII when I can find it in my heart to pester Bootie again. Change log: Managed to figure out how to get ATGM ammo dumps for the REDFOR player - AT-14s should now have no issues with ammo.* Rationalized points for both sides a wee bit; Americans expected to take a few more losses. Changed recommendation that 'more experienced player' goes BLU. Win rate for BLUFOR is (as hoped for!) fairly low in H2H. Changed errors in Briefing, graphics, etc. * I play on Warrior and thus all my scenarios are designed around that - which means this ammo is automatically distributed. I am currently filming a PBEM of an attack (and a defense) and can tell you that the extra ammo only punishes the American if they lack the aggression to close distance. The extra ammo is more a realism factor for a prepared position. That about wraps up development on this one. Unless I can figure out how to get ammo dumps for Iglas to work, in which case a v3 will be released. Enjoy!

Area is a 'seek and destroy' - if the pilot spots something that fits the mission parameters (general/personnel, light - heavy) then they will fire. Point fire plus mission parameters means they will use that munitions bracket on that point, regardless of whether the pilot sees something. Missions except for pre-planned ones before the scenario begins have to be observed, yes. Again that's more of a scenario issue - with fixed wing support usually being reinforcements. I am not sure why that's the case when it isn't for Rotary wing support; but I'm willing to think Duchess has a point with low-flying CAS and actually detecting anything at that speed.

They can. Point strikes.

Do you think those frontages would shorten somewhat if the fighting was more intense? Company defensive zones, even if organized in platoon strong points, tend to be a wee bit shorter in frontage if my memory serves. At any rate, thanks again - this is all gold from a scenario design perspective.

Looking forward to this. Quick Q and excuse my ignorance - is this a battle pack scenario or another one of your own designs? You have a very organized fire plan. Stating the obvious but it will probably be the key to this battle.

Nice picture Haiduk, one that I will be saving for reference. Makes me proud of the trenches I put into Power Hour. Shame trenches are a toss up with defilade-defeating ammunition.

Context matters. Infantry centric defenses are excellent times to use Bronnegruppas to attack them.

What's the phrase for "No, you. I'm in the right" in Swedish? Seems like I learn that and I'll have graduated with top honor's at the AG crash course in diplomacy.

It's true. I hear that the US Army is also maintaining the hunter-killer concept; the battle prius's escorting IFV:

There's no need to quote specifics Armorgunner. In this thread you have been making incorrect assumptions generally, and I can therefore address everything said generally.

You keep speaking as if the Americans will maneuver and operationally plan like that against a real foe. Or that the average American general officer thinks every mechanized attack is going to be OIF. They don't, if you can't gather that for yourself. But I suppose you chose to ignore @panzersaurkrautwerfer's comments about how the NTC OPFOR are given every possible advantage imaginable to sober everyone up. You've been choosing to ignore most of the points raised, actually. In fact, can I ask if you actually have a point yourself besides saying "well actually?" You've just been a stubborn contrarian going "but what about" to every cogent point raised. Saying the US's conventional warfighting skills have eroded in the last 15 years is not precisely a hot take, but thanks for sharing. You left out the part where they are the only NATO country, with the exception of the United Kingdom, with conventional combat experience to fall back upon. Like yes, no one in the US Army has ever templated vertical threats to their LOC when it comes to a war in Central Europe. Or radio-electronic warfare, or the thought that the enemy is offensively capable. Ever.

I don't doubt it. Mish and myself speak near-daily so perhaps we'll report back on grudge match

Quite a bit of discussion generated, I'll try to address stuff from my side, then: Yeah thanks. It had been a while since I filmed something, this was a quick PBEM so I took the opportunity. Bigger videos in the works, perhaps more CMA among that. The small group I play with have taken a liking to CMA. The lack of dedicated H2H scenarios may be fixed by us soon too...no promises yet however. Fortuitous really. The briefing has a lot of context clues that the Soviets will use Hinds to support any units but naturally doesn't tell us when. I had been starting my fade-away (largely due to a lack of ammo) when I heard the choppers. Made me redouble my effort to get away quick. The scenario is one of the default ones - name is "The Cotton Route." I'm not sure if it was edited from the base QB map - probably the trenches. The Soviets get quite a few points for body count but the real winning move is getting the trucks through for them. It's a scenario where its more about denying the objective than achieving your own. I'm mighty tempted to do a swapped PBEM with Mish sometime soon. The BMDs proved themselves to be quite capable little vehicles; on the face of it pushing through the ambush isn't actually that poor an idea. Had he moved around the identified mines with a bit more care I think he would've done it. Ammo and ability to kill the BMDs are two things sorely lacking for the fighters in that scenario. If you circle the cattle as the Soviets and and put down enough fire I can see them being able to push through the fireswept zone with minimal loss of the light skins. Of course, dismounting Paras to occupy the heights should be a possible course of action depending on what's happening. Top marks for the scenario; the deployment zone for BLUFOR is quite wide and allows for a thousand different ways to ambush. There's a surplus of trenches too which prevents the Soviets from just plastering the pre-known fighting positions. Too many to do with the forces at hand.

Since photobucket turned this thread into a graveyard let's breathe some life into it. Hot off the presses; a good game from @Mishrae - though in hindsight it would've probably been fairer had the sides been reversed.

The really upsetting part is that people think precision artillery is pinpoint precise

My sweet spot is Battalion (-) (two or three companies with higher headquarters on the field, plus attachments) up to the full battalion level. I enjoy those the most, and tend to think of them as the best 'brain food.' They are though, as you point out, labors of love and frustration. Not at all. Micromanagement is the appeal of CM, when I want hands off stuff I play Graviteam. So you're not alone in this problem. Everyone plays differently, so don't take this as authoritative but I'll share with you how I go about doing this. In a nutshell the answer to your question is "both." 1) Plan backwards - It helps focus your thoughts. If you plan from the deployment box forwards you tend to start splitting attention and creating a thousand mini missions for yourself (and thus increase your workload of micromanagement). This will also help with disorganization. When I'm about to start a movement that requires a lot of team splitting and micromanagement I say to myself "When this action is done, we reassemble here." The last step. Then I move backwards from there. Having a clear picture of your desired end-state helps you keep a platoon in good order, in my experience. 2) One bite at a time. Assign intermediate objectives ("I want x platoon here, for x reason") after you have determined what your desired overall end-state is. Handle that like its own mission. When you watch a turn play out, go by companies or platoons, focus on their area, watch them play out. If I have two companies attacking in a turn, I may watch or at least scrub through the turn 2 to 4 times. Asides from getting 'in the weeds' to enjoy the action (I record a lot) I find I don't miss things that my PBEM opponents sometimes will. If you really want to be complex, assign natural boundaries to sub-units. Part of the disorganization of a lot of people is they will be handling one unit brilliantly at one time; the flank was fantastic, sure, but you just had three platoons all mixed with one another - now what? In a roundabout way, its a very immersive form of confusion to experience. 3) Conduct squad and platoon drill when there's a need to. In the smaller missions I know people like to keep the squads split up into fire teams constantly because it allows for them to do things such as traveling overwatch, etc. with much more ease. That's all well and good, but in larger scenarios it may not be necessary for every unit. If a company is marching, maybe only the lead squad of the lead platoon needs to be broken up. When you're attacking, consolidate and reform often. I only break into fireteams at the last possible moment if necessary, and am quick to reform afterwards. Generalized group orders can help during the lulls. Use your best judgement; if you have already crossed a danger zone unharmed several times with lead units, you can probably order the entire trailing unit to cross it briskly and all at once, etc. I find when attacking with infantry a very small percentage of my men are really needed for the final assault; one or two fire teams are usually sufficient for a position at a time. I leave the fancy minute micromanagement for those moments, when a misstep can wipe out half a squad rapidly.

Yes I imagine the events leading up to the success of Dynamo had very little to do with complex terrain, horrendous attrition and subsequent low operational ready rates in German spearhead formations. To say nothing of the suicidally stout rearguard. Rather it must be that Hitler and the Royals were playing footsies and batting their eyelashes at one another. Ah, but I have another theory: Proving once again to the world that the bonnie wee Island is in fact God's garden of Eden, John Bull and St. George -arms linked and riding little ponies- descended from the clouds to rampage through the German ranks, torching supply trucks and slapping away artillery and bombs; filling the second little Corporal with fear. Miracle at Dunkirk, indeed.

It is yes, a few force adjustments (forgot to give every Russian fighting position an FO team, a glaring oversight) resolved. The file on Scenario Depot is now the most updated one.