Der Zeitgeist

Just to clarify: With my post about the Bucha satellite imagery, I didn't mean to start an entire discussion about various Russian disinformation efforts. I just came across this yesterday, found it easy to debunk, and thought it might prove helpful as a reference for anyone getting into a discussion about this particular Russian narrative.

Just to clarify: With my post about the Bucha satellite imagery, I didn't mean to start an entire discussion about various Russian disinformation efforts. I just came across this yesterday, found it easy to debunk, and thought it might prove helpful as a reference for anyone getting into a discussion about this particular Russian narrative.

Just to clarify: With my post about the Bucha satellite imagery, I didn't mean to start an entire discussion about various Russian disinformation efforts. I just came across this yesterday, found it easy to debunk, and thought it might prove helpful as a reference for anyone getting into a discussion about this particular Russian narrative.

On the pro-Russian side, there's some stories going around that the satellite imagery showing the bodies in Bucha might be fake. This is mostly based on this "analysis" from "Southfront", claiming that none of Maxar's satellite had their orbits going over the region during the dates mentioned on the pictures: https://southfront.org/more-evidence-more-doubts-about-bucha-massacre/ .
I looked into that, and as expected, it's a poorly-made fake counting on people being too lazy to check the satellite tracks themselves, which can be easily done by using tools like this one: https://in-the-sky.org/satmap_worldmap.php
On each of the dates, March 21 & March 19, Maxar's satellites (specifically WorldView-1 & GeoEye-1) passed directly over Kyiv.

I think it's worth it. The Russian disinformation strategy is to produce as much bull**** as possible and just pump it into the internet. Each fake claim is not that hard to debunk, but the sheer volume creates confusion and overwhelms people. If people stop fact checking their lies, the Russians basically succeeded in their goal.

On the pro-Russian side, there's some stories going around that the satellite imagery showing the bodies in Bucha might be fake. This is mostly based on this "analysis" from "Southfront", claiming that none of Maxar's satellite had their orbits going over the region during the dates mentioned on the pictures: https://southfront.org/more-evidence-more-doubts-about-bucha-massacre/ .
I looked into that, and as expected, it's a poorly-made fake counting on people being too lazy to check the satellite tracks themselves, which can be easily done by using tools like this one: https://in-the-sky.org/satmap_worldmap.php
On each of the dates, March 21 & March 19, Maxar's satellites (specifically WorldView-1 & GeoEye-1) passed directly over Kyiv.

On the pro-Russian side, there's some stories going around that the satellite imagery showing the bodies in Bucha might be fake. This is mostly based on this "analysis" from "Southfront", claiming that none of Maxar's satellite had their orbits going over the region during the dates mentioned on the pictures: https://southfront.org/more-evidence-more-doubts-about-bucha-massacre/ .
I looked into that, and as expected, it's a poorly-made fake counting on people being too lazy to check the satellite tracks themselves, which can be easily done by using tools like this one: https://in-the-sky.org/satmap_worldmap.php
On each of the dates, March 21 & March 19, Maxar's satellites (specifically WorldView-1 & GeoEye-1) passed directly over Kyiv.

Following what Der Zeitgeist said, I checked Maxar satellite imagery search website (https://discover.digitalglobe.com). Between February 28th and March 31st, there have been 4 overflights by Worldview 2 and 3 and Geoeye 1 very high resolution satellites over Bucha (on February 28th, March 18th, 21st and 31st). So plenty of images to check, contrary to what Southfront claims
 

On the pro-Russian side, there's some stories going around that the satellite imagery showing the bodies in Bucha might be fake. This is mostly based on this "analysis" from "Southfront", claiming that none of Maxar's satellite had their orbits going over the region during the dates mentioned on the pictures: https://southfront.org/more-evidence-more-doubts-about-bucha-massacre/ .
I looked into that, and as expected, it's a poorly-made fake counting on people being too lazy to check the satellite tracks themselves, which can be easily done by using tools like this one: https://in-the-sky.org/satmap_worldmap.php
On each of the dates, March 21 & March 19, Maxar's satellites (specifically WorldView-1 & GeoEye-1) passed directly over Kyiv.

On the pro-Russian side, there's some stories going around that the satellite imagery showing the bodies in Bucha might be fake. This is mostly based on this "analysis" from "Southfront", claiming that none of Maxar's satellite had their orbits going over the region during the dates mentioned on the pictures: https://southfront.org/more-evidence-more-doubts-about-bucha-massacre/ .
I looked into that, and as expected, it's a poorly-made fake counting on people being too lazy to check the satellite tracks themselves, which can be easily done by using tools like this one: https://in-the-sky.org/satmap_worldmap.php
On each of the dates, March 21 & March 19, Maxar's satellites (specifically WorldView-1 & GeoEye-1) passed directly over Kyiv.

It was easy. And cheap.
But it was also politics that was in itself rational and reasonable at each step. In Germany, we had quite a few discussions about increasing the amount of LNG vs. Russian natural gas.
It was never really a viable option, and that goes through most of the political spectrum here. LNG was seen as a more expensive, envirenmentally problematic (because of fracking) and even politically undesirable option (especially during the Trump presidency).
So we stayed with the Russian gas because it always worked out fine until it didn't. 

Or as I like to say "I am interested in military history .....as history"
This live action kind of war makes me sick.  I mean, this is some really really sick stuff.  why do any of this?  Why why why why?  Russia has everything it needs to be prosperous.  (oh, except the will)

We do indeed have a road map... sorry but we can't share our plans yet beyond what Steve has hinted at.  If you can be a little more patient I think you will be pleased when we can make an announcement.
Bil

OSINT article using serial numbers of posthumous Order of Courage medals to estimate the number of Russian KIAs during the first week of fighting.
https://informnapalm.org/en/medal-count-osint-analysis-of-real-russian-losses-for-the-first-week-of-hostilities-in-ukraine/
TL;DR, they estimate the Ukrainian number of around 5000 KIA for the first week is pretty accurate.

There it is...moving the goal post.  I have avoided getting into "well here is how the Russian's could have succeeded" discussions too deeply as there is still a real war and it is kinda disrespectful to people still fighting and dying but maybe we are far enough along to offer a few ideas.
If Russia had made the Donbas and the infamous "land bridge" to the Crimea to sole operational objectives of this war, they may have actually achieved, or at least had a better chance at their strategic and political ones.  If they had focused their main efforts to 2 main axis of advance with a limit of exploitation pretty close to what we are seeing on the maps now in the SE, along with "shock and awe" strikes across Ukraine they could theoretically have:
- Achieved their objectives much faster by concentrating their combat power and logistical capability.  This would have prevented or at least mitigated the UA build up and influx of western support.
- They could have simply dug in, took Mariupol and the land bridge and declare "mission accomplished".  Russia would have demonstrated its "immense power" to the world.  A shortened war (and I am not talking 72 hours but maybe a couple weeks) would have lessened western resolve and shaped the negotiation table.
- A short hard modest successful demonstration would have left a lot of "doubt" on the table for the West and Ukraine.  This would have made a threat of "further special actions" much more effective on the calculus on the West.  It also would have kept a lot more strategic options open as compared to where they find themselves now.
- It may have fractured the west more than fused it.  If Russia could demonstrate restraint and humanity in a "internal border dispute" it immediately call into question the economic sacrifices the rest of Europe will be making in what has become an economic war with Russia.  Further, it would play on the ever widening political divides in just about every western democracy.  It would have kept China very happy, without risking becoming one of their provinces. 
- If Putin really was a "genius", his play would be to immediately call for UN Peacekeepers in a ZOS once he had gained what he needed to.  Not western troops but Malaysians or Brazilians, a crew he could keep in his pocket.  We would have crumbled into a hot burning mess if Russia, backed by China and India, called on the global collective diplomacy and security body to intervene...it would have broken us.  If we say "no freakin way", then who are the warmongers who are pushing their agenda and supporting a massive military industrial complex?  If we say yes, we are in for years of negotiation and diplomacy, likely false but we built the system now we have to use it, all the while those sanctions start to go stale and erode.  
But here we are on the possible threshold of some really scary stuff, led by an insulated and deluded madman surrounded by yes-men, who decided that he could pull off a modern land invasion on the scale of the Fall of France with a couple hundred thousand poorly supported troops and complete failure to establish pre-conditions or align his strategies. 

I think this is the best video of the Berdyansk explosions so far. Also shows the two Ropuchas hauling ass, one of them slightly on fire, too.
 

I think this is the best video of the Berdyansk explosions so far. Also shows the two Ropuchas hauling ass, one of them slightly on fire, too.
 

Interesting thread on who is actually doing the job in the russian army:
 
 

I guess it's safe to say that Shoigu's "heart problems" will intensify.

Apparently, this reworked campaign still isn't integrated into the Steam version. Can we expect this at some point?

Yeah, but how are they at breakfast?

I started with them closer to parity, again Soviets slightly higher, and then through playtesting we increased Soviet quality where it looked needed.  If anyone plays the US Campaign standalone scenarios as H2H, I would probably go in and tinker with the experience settings much closer to parity.
We really did it by feel, as opposed to any "realistic" metrics, largely because "realistic" metrics available were (and are) highly subjective.  The line in the West is that that the Soviets were largely nearly useless uneducated conscripts (which frankly has some truth) while NATO had highly educated professional armies.  The line in the USSR, was that the West was soft, weak and entitled (which frankly has some truth) while the troops of the Soviet Union were made of steel and sacrifice.  Which one is accurate?

Well I think I can answer some of these questions.  First off, let me say that the experience levels in-game are already a pretty soft concept to begin with, so trying to figure out what a "realistic" experience level is for anyone side is accepting a level of abstraction from the start.
So first, the in-game context as outlined by the backstory.  This is a desperate Soviet gambit, they are on a very tight schedule to break through West Germany as quickly as possible before the West can 1) move reinforcements to theatre or 2) collectively decide on a nuclear response.  As such the Soviets are going to put good troops in the initial attacks (as seen in the Soviet Campaign) and their best troops in the break out, which occurs during the US Campaign.  So basically these are the best troops the Soviets have in the entire theatre in this break out push down Route 66 to the Rhine (that is why you see T80s later).  This fits with Soviet doctrine, as well as the strategic/operational picture on the ground.  
The US side is different.  The US put its best troops (in this region, the 11th ACR and 3rd Armd) forward as a screen and held second ech in depth.  This makes sense as the strategy was not an offensive breakthrough but attrition and delay until the West could build mass (or agree on WMDs).  In the US Campaign the player has troops from the 8th Inf Div, that was very deliberate as this division was always considered a depth division in the grand scheme of things.  It had lead elements forward but that is not the 28th Inf Regt, which was actually based west of Frankfurt.  That is why the 28th get M60A1s and not A3s to M1s and is also reflected in troop quality - went with Regular-High-Fit.
So right off the bat, in this what-if universe (remember this is a fictional timeline) there would likely be qualitative disparity between Soviet break out forces and in-depth US ones as portrayed in the campaign due to strategic/operational context.  Now how does that translate to CM?  Good question, probably closer to Reg-Vet, but considering that the vast majority of combatants on both sides have never seen combat and none/very few (perhaps some that observed the Arab Israeli conflict) have ever seen mechanized warfare on this scope and scale, we would realistically be seeing a whole lotta shades of Green.
Then there is play balancing.  The campaign is single player, which means that a human brain is playing a machine.  As strong as the Tac AI is in CM it cannot compare to a human player, so to offset this very real abstraction, a level of tweaking had to be done to make things challenging.  So for some scenarios we went with Crack Soviet troops to ensure that the very unrealistic fact that this is not two human players did not throw things out of whack too far.
Hope that answers your question somewhat.

Indeed, in the context of scenarios tailored for a single-player perspective (i.e. the campaigns) it makes perfect sense to use gameplay parameters to drive the gameplay for the player, rather than be representative of real-world realities. Scenarios meant to be played from either side or multiplayer is a different story, in my opinion.
It's part of the simulation abstraction.
For example, in the first mission of the US campaign ("Racing The Moon") the US player is not at all meant to fight and eradicate the OPFOR, since the scenario depicts US forces pulling back from a rapidly advancing vast Soviet force. In theory there is an entire Soviet division pushing into the area, however it is unreasonable from a scenario design perspective to keep adding ever increasing amounts of OPFOR reinforcements (and creating complex coordinated AI plans) on the off-chance the US player manages to hold off the first wave. 
Instead, an abstraction has to be made - in this case setting OPFOR units to "Crack" experience - in order to represent an overwhelming force. The alternative (flooding the game map with Soviet battalions and expecting the AI to make use of them) would end up being far more "unrealistic".

I don't know. Sci Fi ground combat from some established franchise might seem interesting, but I haven't seen any of these that have a consistent framework of technology and tactics like actual real-world warfare does.