Na Vaske

Hahaha I can only imagine...

Does living in Crimea and making missions for CMBS qualify for military service?   How about playing in large autonomous Arma community while using RL based TTPs?  
Haven't served, but it's nice to see that there are other Russians here, and large amount of them have actually served. Pity haven't gotten to that fact earlier this year. Well, I hope we'd get some time to catch up on that later.

2010-2011 BTR-80 Operator (Driver), western military district. 
 
If we go by "oh crap" moments, three APC's sinking into a bog one after another because our CO decided to play the tactician would be one of the best. Taking them out wasn't as fun as getting stuck though. 

Peeling potatoes is a supreme way to occupy a soldier. Everyone knows that a soldier with free time is a disaster waiting to happen. 

The problem with the claims of full units of the Russian military fighting openly in Ukraine comes down to the units that have been said to be fighting. By the very nature of the conflict Russian leadership would never commit regular contractors to fight in a clandestine war they want to have deniability about. I was a contractor for 6 years in a motorized infantry unit. We don't have any code of secrecy indoctrinated into us. We talk. A lot. Russians as a society is very guarded with secrets and the rank and file are not trusted. Regular army brigades are not going to be committed to a clandestine war. It just goes against the Russian soul.

Now, I am not an idiot - I'm convinced there was aid given by the military - training, planning, equipment, intelligence, probably leadership at the unit level. I have no doubt that men were probably granted leave to go to Ukraine and fight - though I also don't doubt that they were indeed volunteers. I don't doubt that artillery was fired into Ukraine - it was part of the mutual provocations on the border (the captured VDV guys were part of this) There were patrols by both sides beng done on both sides of the border and both Ukraine and Russia fired artillery (several incidents of Russian soldiers killed in Russia by Ukrainian artillery were ignored by BBC and the like).

My educated opinion:

Was the uprising in Donbass orchestrated by Russia - No, but inspired by Russian actions.

Were/are the Rebels controlled by Moscow? Um murky, but yes-no. Too many loosely aligned factions. Some were proxies, some were 'legitimate' rebels, some were volunteers from abroad inspired by the cause. The initial senior leadership was not. The current more than likely is.

Were/are the Rebels supplied with arms, equipment including tanks and IFVs, intelligence, leadership etc. by the Russian government? Yes.

Were/are the Rebels also funded, armed, and supplied by normal citizens of the Russian Federation? Yes.

Did Russian soldiers fight in Ukraine? Yes.

Did entire units of regular soldiers fight in Ukraine? No.

Did rebels train in Russia with the blessing of the government? Yes.

Were rebels trained in Russia by a cadre made up of active duty Russian soldiers? I can't say, but more than likely yes.

Did rebels stage out of Russia for their August counter-offensive? More than likely, though not certain if they started the march from inside Russia.

Was the counter offensive planned by Russian leadership? More than likely completely planned.


I've come to these conclusions based on my personal experience and reading countless reports from many different sources and watching hours up on hours of video in the original language. I'm not saying I'm 100% right, just my feeling about it all.

I live in Russia and am not what some one would call a supporter of the Russian government, and completely disagree with the annexation of Crimea- (it has nearly destroyed the Russian domestic tourism industry with the government trying to pressure companies to convince people to visit Crimea, it lead to the bankruptcy of several long standing tour companies.) As well as many other economic hardships that aren't even connected to the diplomatic spats over sanctions I must tell you - Yelena Vasilyeva is an awful, awful source to use, as well as censor.net.ua.

It seems that you are using sources that are definitely skewed one way that are not fully trustworthy (which is typical on all sides) It is the same as reading a report from Motorola that his unit destroyed 20 enemy tanks in 15 minutes (a common report) and taking it as the truth.

I could list plenty of stuff from the other point of view (with the same level of reputation of the sources you posted) that are going to say completely different things. I guess it boils down to this, if you are convinced of a certain narrative - you are going to believe those sources.

Edit: As a side, Steve since you are an administrator, could you tell me why to access any BF page no matter where I am trying to access it from I must use VPN software and change my IP to outside of Russia?

I'm completely lost in this thread.  I have games on Steam, I have games not on Steam, it doesn't effect me personally either way, or maybe it does and I realize it not.  I had no idea it was such a passionate subject.  Am I the only one whom feels this way?

I am a Russian whose cousin works in a circus. Is this a challenge? 

When you construct a fortified area that you plan to occupy for a an extended period, fixed HMGs are very useful.  I'm not sure what you are speaking on though, weapons squads in infantry platoons aren't assigned and don't carry 12.7mm MGs.  I carried  AGS-17 around the mountains for a time.  I am not interested in doing that again.

If you use your Stryker as a fighting vehicle, I'd imagine no, if you use it in it's intended role to transport and provide local support for the infantry...  I served for 6 years as an infantryman on BTRs and BMPs.  The BTRs just took us to dismount points and we did our mission on foot, our BTR was not trying to fight other vehicles.  I son't know te USA doctrine, but I don't think they are going to put a company of Strykers on line and assault through an objective with them.

If you use your Stryker as a fighting vehicle, I'd imagine no, if you use it in it's intended role to transport and provide local support for the infantry...  I served for 6 years as an infantryman on BTRs and BMPs.  The BTRs just took us to dismount points and we did our mission on foot, our BTR was not trying to fight other vehicles.  I son't know te USA doctrine, but I don't think they are going to put a company of Strykers on line and assault through an objective with them.

I'd just say in my army service, tanks supported me, I didn't support tanks.  Perhaps that is just doctrinal.  

Defensive positions are still practiced and planned for.  While the preferred employment of mechanized warfare is the attack, when you're building combat power, or need to defeat a larger enemy, the defense is a viable option.  Also it's not really static positions in the sense "THIS IS WHERE MY TANK WILL FIGHT AND WHERE IT WILL DIE" as much as it's where you'll take a few shots from, then displace to another position if available, or go to not your original hole as the enemy now knows where it is.
 
Either way the Army still expected me to be able to plan a company level defensive position circa 2012, with engineering considerations and all.  If my company was expected to hold off a Battalion or something, I'd really hope to have a chance to at least dig fighting positions for my initial position, and if possible additional ones in depth

It absolutely does approve of prepared positions (It varies obviously, the battlefield is a fickle beast!)  for modern armor, every combat engineer formation (As far as I am concerned, and my friend who is an US army combat engineer) has specialists who can dig prepared hull-down positions like the one above. If I am not mistaken (Again, pnzrldr will probably come in here and tell me how stupid I am hehe) US armored formations also have specially equipped vehicles for entrenching tanks. The Russians on the other hand have there tanks designed in such a way to where they can dig in by themselves, its hard to describe, but its got something to do with the shape of the front of the vehicle.

If you use your Stryker as a fighting vehicle, I'd imagine no, if you use it in it's intended role to transport and provide local support for the infantry...  I served for 6 years as an infantryman on BTRs and BMPs.  The BTRs just took us to dismount points and we did our mission on foot, our BTR was not trying to fight other vehicles.  I son't know te USA doctrine, but I don't think they are going to put a company of Strykers on line and assault through an objective with them.

If you use your Stryker as a fighting vehicle, I'd imagine no, if you use it in it's intended role to transport and provide local support for the infantry...  I served for 6 years as an infantryman on BTRs and BMPs.  The BTRs just took us to dismount points and we did our mission on foot, our BTR was not trying to fight other vehicles.  I son't know te USA doctrine, but I don't think they are going to put a company of Strykers on line and assault through an objective with them.

Having spent a lot of time in the area depicted in this game, I can assure you there are plenty of places where you can see further than you can engage with direct fire weapons.  Having spent 6 years in the army of the Russian Federation I can assure you that every option other than crossing such an open area with out obscuring the force would be considered before risking that type exposure, I'm certain the same can be said for the Americans and any other serious military force.

And "Zoom" or "View Height".
Ooo. Wonder if BFC could let you "unit lock" an ATGM in-flight?
 
 
 
Indeed. It's not like the opposition don't know  that they can be killed from kilometers off, so it'd be a most uninteresting scenario where you had a few smug ATGM platforms lined up hull-down behind a ridge overlooking a 3-click-wide valley and the enemy MBTs declined to roll over the other lip and be summarily destroyed (not that this is a given, with the advent of APS). And then the UAV spots you and the precision munitions start popping your missile trucks.
 
 
I'm sure such sweeping vistas exist. I'm also sure they won't be attacked across very often. And your other points mean ATGMs probably won't be taking "snap shots" at that range. What's the flight time for the missile, and how good are modern systems at spotting the incoming? The original article is quoting firing range accuracy against static, unaware targets. It's a given that there will be more misses at long range in a battlefield environment, because there's more chance for something to interfere with the missile's flight on a long reach. Yet more evidence that the poster Destraex is quoting doesn't actually know very much and has less critical faculty. Or is pushing an agenda.

Strongly agreed

Well, in Russia/Ukraine Christmas is January 7th, so perhaps you might still make your goal! 

Well, in Russia/Ukraine Christmas is January 7th, so perhaps you might still make your goal! 

No, this is more.. I don't even know the word for it, the idea of what Putin's actions would be or the kind of things he does gets greatly exaggerated and sometimes things are just said and believed because you know, he's Putin - of course he is a mainaical crazy man twirling his mustache waiting to nuke the world...

The truth about Putin and the way things work in my country are people like him are concerned about their personal power. Toss a nuke and his power is gone. Really being president is a show off thing for him. He's not an idiot and he is not going to destroy his kingdom by throwing a hissy fit and launching nukes, certainly not over Ukraine.

No, this is more.. I don't even know the word for it, the idea of what Putin's actions would be or the kind of things he does gets greatly exaggerated and sometimes things are just said and believed because you know, he's Putin - of course he is a mainaical crazy man twirling his mustache waiting to nuke the world...

The truth about Putin and the way things work in my country are people like him are concerned about their personal power. Toss a nuke and his power is gone. Really being president is a show off thing for him. He's not an idiot and he is not going to destroy his kingdom by throwing a hissy fit and launching nukes, certainly not over Ukraine.

The country is not running out of money.  The banker opportunists are taking advantage of a crisis to make a few billion Euro/USD.  While this is a bit larger than '08, the same thing happened then.  And happened before that...  I didn't panic then and I'm not panicking now.  This is nothing new in this country.