VladimirTarasov
-
Posts
817 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by VladimirTarasov
-
-
29 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
The BMD still isn't enough vehicle for the job. It's too light to handle a direct fire fight, and even a disorganized rabble in Afghanistan proved too much for it with direct fire type weapons. The BMD-4 isn't much better protected or capable.
BMD-4 is still better than the BMD-2 by alot. And it'd help the VDV out immensely. I don't like the BMD-2 at all, it's too old... In Afghanistan the armor was not coping well with the terrain there. BMD-2s were being jacked up by ambushes, especially since they had thinner armor than BMP-2s.
31 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:A good parallel we're facing right now in the US Army side of things is how to take a Stryker unit on the offensive against an enemy with modern to semi-modern armor and weapons. The BMD isn't much better off in this case, and relies on the same sort of tools to overcome the enemy. BMD is a little better for direct fire weapons (for now) but worse off as a unit in terms of supporting tools.
Thing is, with the Stykers you guys have better sensors, and essentially better targeting. The good thing about BMD-2s is that they are amphibious, and have great firepower. For airborne forces the BMD-2 answers the firepower, but the armor is too weak. It has no thermals, and also it's outdated. Another plus to the BMD is it offers AT capabilities to the VDV, so in a defensive operation you have long range AT capabilities. You can dismount the ATGMs ontop of the BMDs and use those. However, those ATGMs in particular against US forces would only prove effective against your IFVs. Unless lucky side shots, or lucky shots period are achieved, against heavy armor such as the ones some NATO countries field.
35 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:1. Against a Near-Peer (mostly China) or NATO type conflict, Russia is too weak to gain the sort of air control required to keep it from being a suicide mission. VDV is deployed as inferior capability (although perhaps not training) motor rifle troops.
True to a certain extent. If used before the war gears off into the US starting large scale air missions it is still viable. Especially if it is deployed under our aerial denial zones, close to the area of operations. However, deploying the VDV outside of aerial denial zones is indeed suicide.
37 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:2. Against an inferior enemy, air drop is possible, but the inferior enemy are weak enough that there's no need for paratroopers given the high operational losses incurred by air assault type missions. It's solving a problem that doesn't exist. Russia does not have the global reach or influence to reasonably conduct operations outside of its immediate border area, or already deploying into permissive environments.
Could still serve some mission objectives, against inferior enemies.
38 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:1. Against a near peer threat the air drop is out, but light infantry still has a clear role that cannot be better filled by "heavy" type forces. In complex terrain, dismounted troops are very powerful. Failing that, they offer economy of force capabilities given the relative "cheapness" of the force relative to staying power on the defensive.
Of course, light infantry can be a headache to even heavy forces. However keep in mind, the VDV could be used as "light infantry" in complex terrain.
39 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:2. The US does have the influence and global operations capability, and the requirement to rapidly push troops to support allies, or intervene in developing crisis situations. The Airborne IBCTs are perfect for this force, and can conduct forced entry operations as required, and can be augmented by fly-in SBCT or even assets from ABCTs once the airhead is established, negating the need for bad IFV that can parachute.
Quite true, but again the VDV can be used like this as well depending on the conflict.
41 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:We had an exercise a few years back in which a platoon of National Guard armor held off an entire Stryker Battalion for hours before falling back because they ran out of ammo.
I wouldn't send the VDV in a death assault towards armored positions either. Light probes, harrasments, and setting up perimeters near such a objective so the army can advance without trouble. If we have a MLRS or artillery attachment nearby, FOs can call it in to unleash hell onto an objective if must be.
Don't the Stryker battalions have ATGMs with them? What happened to the Javelins and TOWs?
that's crazy how a armored platoon held off a Stryker battalion.
-
BMD-2 is definitely not modern by today's standards, that's why the BMD-4M is being brought into service. That's not to say the VDV still can't be used in its respective roll. The US airborne forces cannot be compared to the Russian VDV, we operate by totally different ideas. We have forces that can be paradropped where required, capable of mechanized operations. If I'm the high command and I have mechanized units capable of airdrop deploying on large scale, and then self moving 200-300 plus kilometers without needing to fuel, that provides me with more options, and gives me flexible units. On top of that, my vehicles are amphibious. Drawbacks of the VDV currently are the lack of armor, and lack of sensors on our BMDs. Until the BMD-4M enters in standard service, we will still lack in those regards in the VDV.
-
6 hours ago, Sublime said:
Haha i almost said ten at first but I figured Id give em the benefit of a whole nother squad or two.
Hehe, being a gentleman.
15 hours ago, John Kettler said:Okay. I got that part wrong. But I am dead certain the BTR-4E does have thermals fitted. I've shown the proof in two different videos.
It's a TV-optical sight. It's not a thermal, maybe as Oleg said, it is black and white picture.
-
Before the locking of the thread comes, I'll move back to topic because this is really getting out of hand now.
2 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:As to the original topic as has been conclusively shown, there's no reason to doubt the Russian forces in game lack for anything that might reasonably have in 2017. They're actually quite a bit better equipped in many ways (as the US is fairly better off).
Yeah, in some cases the game over represents the Russian military. (T-90AMs, BMP-3Ms, BMP-2Ms) however it is fun to use those vehicles just to see how they would be if it were in service.
-
Here we go again with the false nit picking of what I wrote.
-
7 minutes ago, JUAN DEAG said:
Walk outside and say and hold a sign saying, "путин чмо". I dare you.
You live in a country where a woman that likes a picture on social media that doesn't fit the government's dogma will be punished. http://nypost.com/2016/05/31/russians-are-getting-years-in-jail-for-their-social-media-likes/
This is also another good read. Russia got a press freedom score of not free, for comparison Ukraine got partially free, and the U.S. is completely free. I would recommend skipping to Part D Freedom of Expression and Belief.
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2016/russia
Western lies! Western lies everywhere!
Legally, Russians are obliged to freedom of expression. However it is a reality that Russia is not known for having safe journalism in the world. This is a fact, and issue we must focus on. Murders and attacks on journalists happen, corruption is still out there. But in terms of not being able to curse Putin, this is totally wrong. I know many Putin haters that openly speak about his mistakes. There are many anti government outlets out there like Novaya Gazeta, Dozhd, and RBK. Imprisonment usually happens when social unrest is being sought out. And in those terms, yes Russia is strict when it comes to social unrest. Freedom of speech is not as free as in the US to say, but don't buy into the over exaggerations. The Russian government has indeed done wrongful things in terms of freedom of speech for unneeded social unrest. Sometimes, this power is abused by officials. But this is more of a corruption issue.
-
15 minutes ago, Sublime said:
All 20 of them
Don't quote me but I think it's like 10 or so
still it is a very capable machine,.
-
28 minutes ago, kinophile said:
I think at this point we can safely say that yes, the Russian Army is under equipped with the weapons systems and organizational wherewithal it would need to defeat/stalemate NATO.
It certainly has some effective systems, but not in the numbers required, at least until 2030.
Depending on the scenario. The Russian army will not be driving into Germany, or Poland trying to take on forces there. However, 135K plus forces 2K tanks and many other assets can be deployed into Ukraine. Under heavy defense bubbles, NATO will have to focus hardly on those assets, and in what time? How long will it take for NATO to be able to have the forces it needs to destroy this 135K plus Russian force. As NATO builds up, how much of Russia's reserves will be activated?
28 minutes ago, Sublime said:Yes but Vlad once again its a whataboutism. The subject was WW2. The western powers tried to aappease Hitler and what happened to Czechoslovakia was criminal imo, but so was the westen powers fear and appeasement of Stalin breakin agreements made with the west almost as soon as they were made at the end of ww2. However Vlad appeasement is a lot different than an outright secret clause in an agreement that allows the carving up of neighboring territores including letting the RA "have" the Baltic States.
The fact is the sacred Stalin didnt have some holy deep seated knowledge of his ineviteable death struggle with hitler. No he merely was wollfully ignorant of a threat and allowed himself to believe germany would get so bogged down in the west that he.d be able to just drive tk the english channel in the aftermath. He thought wrong
What whataboutism are you talking about. Before the USSR signed the Molotov pact, the UK was already "appeasing" long before. Keep in mind, the Molotov pact is condemned in Russia. And Russia has officially apologized to Baltic nations for it. Anyways, my point was not if the Molotov pact is justified or not, but I'd like you to say the Brits deserved it as well, and not only say the 30 million Soviet people who've died in the war deserved it.
16 minutes ago, John Kettler said:Here, as far as I'm concerned, is the single most important effect Lend-Lease had on Russia's winning the GPW. "Without Lend-Lease, the Red Army would have starved." Nikita Khrushchev. During the GPW, he was Stalin's direct emissary to the Front commanders. As such, he was in prime position to know this vital truth. You may be interested to know that the highest US casualty rate during WW II was in our Merchant Marine, which had a higher loss rate than the US Marine Corps.
Have you not read what I've said, the lend lease has provided tremendous help to us in terms of logistics, and even combat vehicles. I've even listed the help it has provided. The Red Army would have suffered from logistics without the lend lease by a considerable amount. Maybe misunderstandings?
-
4 hours ago, Oleg said:
No
It has first generation thermals. Its more like thermal photo camera than video. Its give thermal scans of target with slow update rate. In game i think it works. PRP-4M and BRM-1K spots further then any other ex-soviet vehicle like btr-70 and bmp-2. But less then modern second generation thermals like on t-72b3 and t-90 and Oplot (Oplot currently spots less cause of bug, realistically it should spot as good as rusian tanks)
Quite true, Oplots should be spotting equal to Russian tanks. Oplots are definitely more capable machines than T-72B3s.
-
6 hours ago, Sublime said:
Lend lease provided hordes of weapons and equipment especially when Russia needed them most. Never mind that deep operations would have been impossible without all those Western vehicles. Its just a fact. Your nation wouldnt have been able.to focus on weapons and leave hundreds of thousands of vehicles, food, logistical planes, and more advanced fighters until you got your own without the massive lend lease effort and thousands of Westerners who died helping Russia. And there was also the Iran route.
The lend lease was very helpful indeed, and I'm grateful to the Western Allies for helping us in those regards, let's look at the facts:
-
58% of the USSR's high octane aviation fuel
-
33% of motor vehicles
-
53% of expended ordinance in terms of shells, mines, and explosive ordnance.
-
30% of military aircraft
-
90% of railroad equipment
-
50% rolled steal, coil, lead ect.
-
43% of garage facilities (blueprints)
-
12% Tanks and SPGs
The lend lease provided this for us. The logistical boost it gave us is undeniable, however most of it was logistical help more so than combat vehicles. We could have beat the German army without it. But do not get me wrong, the lend lease helped us tremendously, logistics were hammered badly by the Germans in the start of the war. Without the lend lease, quite a few offensive operations might not have been achievable. In this regard, one cannot disrespect the Allies for helping us in such a manner.
6 hours ago, Sublime said:And even if the odds were much more in doubt when Russia and England were alone, I say the Russians deserved it. You made a pact with the devil. Ww2 wouldnt have began the way it didwithout the Soviet agreement of a German invasion of Poland and then after 3 weeks snapping a third of the nation up.
Before you start disrespecting Russians for the Molotov Ribbentrop pact, let's look at the agreements the UK, and France signed. Letting the Germans freely do whatever they pleased till the Germans arrived into their lands. At least Stalin signed the agreement in an attempt to build up his armed forces to get ready for the Germans. So PLEASE do not act like the USSR had a say in what the Germans were doing. Look up the term "appeasements" on wiki.
6 hours ago, Sublime said:Shall we discuss Katyn?
Shall we discuss the murdering of tens of thousands of Soviet POWs by the Poles after the Polish-Soviet war? Should we discuss the Poles and the Imperial White armies crimes against Jews? Yes the USSR has committed crimes, however you are looking through the lenses of one side, please also look through our lenses for once. It's as if all of Europe's hate is adjusted against Russia. It is quite frustrating. I for one am not denying what is true, yes Katyn was very brutal. But you also look over other historical events, and automatically look at the atrocities committed by one side.
-
-
8 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
Germany was at its height of power in the summer of 1942. The US entered the war in early 1942. It took Germany 3 years to get to that point and it took roughly 3 years more to get rid of it. Germany was not even close to defeated when the US started to engage it. And as far as motivation is concerned, the American people had no problem supporting two huge wars on both sides of the globe, concurrently, while also producing weapons and munitions so its allies (including the Soviet Union) could help in the fight to rid the world of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. The entire population was mobilized and enthusiastic, if not fanatical, about the wars.
I know, that the entire population was mobilized and fanatical, I've studied on it. That's why I'm saying important people for example heads of states did not doubt the US forces when they came to the front. Germany was already being bogged down by summer of 1942, and their momentum on the Eastern front obviously was slowed down to a grinding scale. They had 80% of their army in the Eastern front, and throughout the war it just scaled down to 60%. However this does not belittle the western allies one bit, things went smoother for us because the Germans obviously had to concentrate also another portion of their army against the west.
8 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:Adolf Hitler - January 7, 1942
And yet, somehow it didn't work out so well for the Third Reich
Foolish man.
8 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:What do you make of this? The West has been pretty slow to discuss it because it is uncomfortable for them as well. Not that this is "news" to me because it was crystal clear what Russia was doing at the time. The evidence, if one "researched it" was all there at the time it was happening. Note the English translation here sucks, but it's the best that is available. There's plenty of copies of the original Russian version out there.
Well you know, Russia has supported the uprising against the pro-EU government since the start. But if you'd like to see who started this whole mess I'll provide you a quick link that might open up your eyes hopefully to how this conflict started. http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mccain-meets-oleh-tyahnybok-in-ukraine-2013-12 John McCain meeting Oleh Tyahnbok far right leader, his group is very racist especially against Russians. Also the good ole Yatsenyuk. Threating the Ukrainian government that there will be consequences if force against these violent protesters are used. And yet again, if we look at the sponsors for the EU image, you will western interfering everywhere. The media supporting the EU image, are all backed by European countries. You can't just blame Russia for countering this. Sure, we could have sit and watch as Ukraine is taken far away from us, leave all the loyal Ukrainians and Russians in Ukraine to their new government which they've had no say in.
9 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:I think Russia's short supply lines do give it an advantage in some circumstances. But it's the sort of advantage that only works if everything else is going pretty much OK. For example, in 1945 Germany had the shortest logistics distances of the entire war since 1939/1940 and its enemies, on all three fronts, had the longest distances ever. Much further than Germany ever had. Yet it didn't amount to anything more than lengthening the war and causing its enemies more suffering. It did not change the course of the war because by itself it wasn't the most important factor.
No you're right, If NATO breaks Russian aerial denial bubbles, logistics are screwed. And Russia has no hopes on being able to win the war, if NATO controls the air, it's game over.
9 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:What Russia faces in a war with NATO more than anything else is massive, sudden attrition. Even Russia's current best equipment is no match for NATO's in most categories. Even when the equipment is good or perhaps even better, there isn't a lot of it. Once it's destroyed it can not be replaced. So very quickly Russia will find itself with lower and lower quality equipment across the spectrum. No matter how many casualties Russia causes NATO, this dynamic will not change because even NATO's 2nd rate stuff is better than most of Russia's 1st rate stuff.
Attrition sure, however let's keep in mind NATO will have to break Russian area denial assets, and don't expect quick work done. Even if NATO achieves breakthrough (which is possible) they still have to worry about other factors. As in regards to NATO's second rate stuff being better than our first. That's not true at all, but of course countries like the US has more advanced tanks than ours in service, more advanced IFVs, ect. But Russia can still do some work even with BMP-2 forces, if used right. In Desert Storm however, Iraqi's got destroyed at the superior coalition forces. Our vehicles lack the advanced thermals you guys have, so indeed NATO does have great first rate stuff, compared to ours. But still, T-90As and T-72B3s can still pose a threat (well T-72B3 not as much as a T-90A) but we also have alot of non upgraded soviet vehicles like T-72Bs which obviously on a one on one engagement stands no chance against modern NATO tanks. I understand what you mean however, you guys do have more better first rate stuff, I cannot deny that. In combat mission, I never advance without making sure no pesky Javelins are somewhere. And even then I advance scared that my tank platoon is about to be teared up.
9 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:All dictators have their supporters. Many support Putin under the long standing Russian concept of "better with the devil you know than the one you don't" mindset. But the problem with this is that Putin is still not good for Russia or the world. And increasingly his actions on the Russian people are getting more autocratic and punitive. The days when you could speak out about Putin and not have the FSB show up and harass you are growing ever dimmer. As a historian I've seen this cycle before and I can promise you this will not end well for your country. I feel sorry for you, but I also feel sorry for everybody else that has to deal with the messes made by his regime.
Steve, you do understand that we can freely criticize Putin? Why do feel sorry for us, sure I understand our economy got hurt badly but don't worry we aren't under a dictatorship
9 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:"Whataboutism" at play here, again. The facts are still facts... Russia is waging a war of aggression against Ukraine and is refusing to admit it. You also refuse to admit it.
Steve, before we look at Russian intervention, we must look at the events prior to Russian involvement. For example, the coupe against the president of the time. Russia and Ukraine are tied to each other no matter what, well not so anymore. But whatever happened in Ukraine, effects us too. So imagine your ally being ripped away from you by western supported far right groups, that's a total geopolitical loss, and we basically lost our brothers our allies since Russian history.
9 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:Of course there was more too it. However, without Russia there would be no war. Period. End of story. Therefore, the war and all of its results are 100% the responsibility of the Russian government.
Quite true, but all of this wouldn't have started if the west did not support the coupe in Kiev, and basic international rights were not denied to the people of eastern Ukraine.
9 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:It wasn't the first time and it probably won't be the last time either. The US has been within its legal and moral rights to shoot down several of your planes for their activities. It is irresponsible for Russia to tempt such things. And blaming the pilot is crazy... these situations do NOT happen because of the decision of an individual
If it hopefully makes you feel better, I'm glad no one got hurt by the incident. And I hope no one does. It would be shame if Russian and US pilots were to die from a unprofessional stunt. However, I'm impressed that the Russian pilot was skilled enough not to make a freak incident happen flying that close. Flying near our borders without a transponder on is not a smart move by the recon plane.
-
1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:
I understand that Russians feel their contribution to defeating Nazi Germany is underappreciated by those in the West, but I'm not one of those people. But your comments show how absolutely ignorant you are about the contributions of the other Allies, in particular the United States. The fighting in North Africa, Italy, and the Western Front was brutal. In fact, one of the reasons Bagration did so well was almost all of Germany's armor was in Normandy getting slaughtered.
No friend you misunderstood me, I very well appreciate the contribution of our western allies of the time, especially for the lend lease. and the effort as Allies we've put together fighting a common enemy of the time. I just meant that the odds were in the US's favor when they came into Europe in the grand scheme of things, as a counter to you saying it was thought the US would not fair well in World War 2. You're probably right during the period of that time, but one who does research can see that all the odds were on the Allies side especially when the US came to the Western Front.
1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:In my opinion the evidence was solidly at 100% and you still denied it for a year.
I denied because I didn't do research like I should have. I have admitted that I was wrong, and I never did deny Russia at some point sending in advisors and training the DPR/LPR.
1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:That is nuts. What sort of evidence could I possibly show you?!? It's a CYBER WAR! The evidence is something that only hackers understand. And that evidence isn't even being shared for obvious security reasons. So... a man that took a year to believe thousands of pieces of physical evidence (pictures, satellite photos, voice intercepts, videos, etc.) is going to be swayed by some computer code that he doesn't have a prayer of understanding?
You see, I've changed my mind on what forces were in Ukraine or not. If the US government can show evidence of Russian troops operating in Ukraine, I'd also like some critical piece of evidence that it was indeed the Russian government which was hacking. If provided, I will also change my mind. For the time being, I don't see any evidence other than someone hacked, and the blame is pivoted towards the Russian government.
1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:Again, you do not understand how America fights wars. The conditions that would cause the US to go to war with Russia would be sufficient to motivate Americans to fight. I do not think there would be any tangible difference between the motivation of US and Russian forces. At least to start with. Losses might change things for one or both sides.
I'll agree.
1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:While I agree it is possible for X US unit to fight poorly and Y Russian unit to fight amazingly well, the odds are that a US unit will fight better most of the time in most situations. Motivation is not enough to balance out everything else. Especially when the side with superior training, experience, and weapons is also motivated to use them
Of course this is true but you're still underestimating Russian capabilities, especially since we'd be so close to our borders in the hypothetical Ukrainian conflict of CMBS. In no means am I trying to convey the Russian military being able to swiftly crush a viable US force in Ukraine, I'm saying we wouldn't fair poorly either depending on the situation.
1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:Of course this has nothing to do with the facts. Russia created the war from the very beginning. This was never a civil war, ever. Buit I understand why you can not admit this. It should make you ask very uncomfortable questions. Though you already should be asking those questions since you do seem to understand your President illegally invading Ukraine and had NO PROBLEM lying about it to you and everybody else. It should make you think about what else he's lying about.
I'm not in the mood for a further continuation of Ukrainian politics, however I have nothing that I haven't admitted already. Anyways, I have my trust in Putin. Just like alot of Russians. I know in the west he's viewed as our problem. But more so we consider the West to be a problem to us. Sanctions for doing something the countries in question have been doing on a more brutal and horrific scale than compared to events in Ukraine. And then putting the full blame onto the Russian government. I don't despise any western government or country, but it is totally unfair on what they do.
1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:Ukrainians did not want to be ruled by a corrupt dictator. Why should Russia have a say in that? Why should Russia be able to not live up to its treaty obligations because it doesn't feel like it? Why should Russia be able to murder thousands of people and destroy billions of Dollars worth of infrastructure and lie about it every single day?
A dictator to a chunk of Ukraine, but a elected leader to the other (smaller but viable) chunk. If the balance of power is removed from under Russia's grasp, and Russians in Ukraine which have been there, are being effected, it fully justifies Russian intervention. I personally wish Putin did not lie about there not being Russian troops in Ukraine, as it lowers credibility to folks like you. And it's understandable. But there's more to it than a Russian intervention.
1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:And yes, I have a "dog in this fight" because my country has to deal with the mess your country is making of the world. My country has to deal with your country flying planes within 3m of our planes. We have to deal with the threats of you using nuclear weapons. We have to deal with cyber attacks and your money being used to fund fascist groups in democracies.
The Russian pilot IMO did get too close however. It wasn't very professional of him to do so. I can understand why NATO would be mad about that.
-
14 minutes ago, sburke said:
Unless global warming turns it into something else.. yeah
It does have mountains and urban facilities, but the point of the whole facility is large scale unit training and you can't just move that around. There are other facilities for training in specific environments. (for example in Okinawa)
Roger that, looks cool anyways. Invite me over I'd like to participate in a training drill
-
2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
Vladimir, here is a short video that summarizes what NTC is:
I like what I'm seeing in that video, it is very impressive. Is it always desert environment?
-
18 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
Again, you don't know what you're talking about.
Steve, I mean let's look at history. US helped the allies greatly in the first world war with the same type of isolationism it did during the second world war. Just by looking at the odds, with Germany already lost its momentum and taking losses, it was very plausible for US forces to add onto the hell that was given to the Nazis. (well atleast in the Eastern front, the western front wasn't doing so well till America came along)
18 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:Interesting. So what do you consider "evidence"? Obviously your government won't admit to anything. It lied to the world when it's forces were invading Crimea, so why do you think it's going to admit to waging cyber warfare against the West?
I consider evidence to provide atleast 80% back up, such as evidence of Russian troops at critical times being inserted into Ukraine. I didn't believe this based on the Russian government's denial of being in there. After doing some research on my own, I have personally come to believe that there were Russian troops in Ukraine, during critical times. If you can provide evidence the same way, you've brought forth against Russian troops being in Ukraine, I will gladly believe it. However, without any evidence being needed from my end, It to me looks very obvious that this is just another media frenzy, and just to blame Russia. It is insanely hard to figure out who hacked who.
18 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:By your logic a US soldier invading France couldn't be as motivated to fight as a German invader defending it. If you understood history as it really happened you would know that logic is wrong. Therefore, you should not be so sure about a match up in Ukraine between US and Russian forces.
Let me rephrase what I've been saying. I'm saying that the Russian trooper will be more motivated, and feeling more at home, than US troops in Ukraine. I did not say US troops will coward at fighting Russian troops. Of course they wont, they're soldiers they are trained to kill, and follow orders for their country.
18 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:We've already been over this and you were wrong then as you are now. Georgian forces were in no way "superior" to Russia's armed forces. Which is why Russia so easily crushed them
Well I was being sarcastic in terms of the superior training, because Georgian forces were receiving training from NATO countries. I believe the US provided them with training too, if memory serves right. What I was getting at is, there are many factors that can play into a tactical scenario. I know you know this, I'm just saying btw. US troops on average are of course, receiving more advanced training than the Russian counterpart, however what I've been getting at this whole time is that Russian units can be equal to US troops as well, in tactical situations. Depending on other factors, the US unit will come on top, or the Russian unit will come out on top, or it could be a stalemate. But we cannot determine without maybe discussing a detailed scenario.
18 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:You are missing the point. Russia has a history of overestimating it's capabilities,
Every country overestimates its capabilities IMO. Russia does have some cases in history where we have overestimated our capabilities in a war. The most recent one being the First Chechen war. But I'm very sure Russia knows its capabilities now, after a few recent wars.
18 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:And what do you say to the Ukrainian mothers on the other side of the front line who have lost their sons to Russian Army artillery shells?
No Russian invasion, no war. No war, no death. Therefore Russia bears responsibility for *ALL* deaths.
I also feel very bad for Ukrainian soldiers whom have to die because of that God forsaken maidan revolution. I feel bad for the state of Ukraine as whole, suffering through horrible economy, and no recovery in sight for a while. However, this is not Russia's fault. To see who is at fault, we must look at the videos where violent riots start chaos amongst the country. Where the president of the time rather let his government be toppled than to sign an order for the army to crack down on the riots. I blame not only the Ukrainian government, but also the supporters of the riot. Spending money on media to ensure riots go more bloody and violent.
18 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:Vladimir, you seem like a good person who is comforting himself with the lies of your government instead of facing the unpleasant reality that the rest of the world so plainly sees.
Steve, with respect, you have nothing to lose from this conflict. You look through the lenses of the US which is 100% for Ukraine being taken out of Russian influence. You will see the truth in some areas in which my government propagandas over. And I will see the truth where your government propagandas over. I am not comforting myself with any lies, I comfort myself with being Russian, and defending what is right to us as a people. In a sense, what Russia did in Ukraine is just as illegal, as the brutal riots in Maidan, which ousted the former president. You justify it, but you also know it is illegal. The same way I justify Russia taking Crimea.
18 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:I did not compare Putin to Hitler.
I know
-
32 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
But guys! The Armata was in a parade! It WILL be in regular service shortly, and will destroy all HATO tonks because supreme design!
Yes, T-destroyallnatoTanks will enter service in the expected numbers at a later date. Time to roll back the sanctions now, it's starting to hurt our tanks. This is crossing the line
-
12 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
Just no. You have literally nothing like NTC, JRTC, or even YTC. The Russian military does not conduct the same sort of exercises, with the same degree of difficulty, and it shows in your leadership. On a list of things the US Army worries about if it has to face Russia, the ground based direct fire component of your forces does not rank highly. You guys have come some distance from 2008, but it remains to be seen how far you will come.
Simply because you conduct exercises does not mean you have the same end product.Actually, we have academies that train soldiers even to the junior ranks in Russia. However you would not know about it, and assume that our troops are trained out of the air. Again, we've had this capability since the Soviet Union, just after the fall the standards weren't as good. Now it however, not knowing Russian can surely limit one's view of Russian related topics. And sometimes lead to bias views.
15 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:The National Training Center is pretty much in Death Valley California. It was selected as a training installation for anti-aircraft units at first simply because it was a howling terrible open nothingness in which god neglected to place anything of value. The Joint Readiness Training Center is in Fort Polk Louisiana in which every body of water on post is labeled with alligator warnings. Either environment will generate no small amount of unhappiness, and it tends to lead to an opposing force with no concern for morality or fairness, and observer-controllers who have gone somewhat feral (I had an instructor who once served as an OC at NTC. Rather than bother driving back to main post from the hinterlands so he could get in his normal human car and drive home to sleep for three hours to go back out again, he simply pimped out the back of his HMMWV nearly went Colonel Kurtz out in the desert).
LOL crazy.
16 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:Our paratroopers still exist because there's several realistic global missions that could call for a brigade of light infantry overnight. When they're not airdropping, the Airborne BCTs are standard IBCTs, capable of air assault operations, or just operating as "leg" troops.
The missions you have listed are frankly, marginal. If you're bolstering friendly forces, simply flying into existing airports, or using ground transport to bring in more conventional mech-armor type forces makes sense, or even just landing the VDV as is on a runway given the increased risk and complications of airdrops. Dropping over the Ukraine is suicide given how large aircraft fair against stealth SU-25s, or failing that there's still enough ADA threat to make it high adventure for the super awesome advantage of...yeah something? I mean I know you're big on the whole "havoc behind the lines!" line, but what are you going to accomplish that a conventional land based attack wont for cheaper?The Air Force will be conducting SEAD missions on the git go of such a war, it is very plausible for a VDV paradrop into safe zones in Ukraine. But anyways, we're just going back and forth. I'll just agree to disagree.
17 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:Same deal. Also if you're a Chechen and an ethnic Russian who is obviously in the military, or similar organization asks you your opinions on their relationship with Russia, they're not going to give you the most honest answers. Steve covered it pretty well, Chechnya is something you can hold onto, but there's some pretty strong doubts you can keep it.
Knowing many people from the the "Kavkaz" especially Chechnya, most of them tend to support the government. One lad however was very critical, so I'd like to think from my point of view that Chechens are okay being under the Russian Federation. Not like they're gonna be better off without. I know a Chechen lad when I was in the army, he was a contract guy, the dude was more of a patriotic Russian than me
good lads they are.
20 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:NATO was not part of the Iraq mission. Afghanistan was a NATO mission because it involved a direct attack against a NATO member. Iraq was the US and people who opted to come along too. Some of whom were NATO members, quite a few were not.
My bad, I should have said US led coalition instead of NATO. I just generalized because when I think of NATO, US, UK, France ect come to mind. I had a total slip, so apologies for bashing NATO for Iraq. I should have been more specific, that's what happens when you don't get enough sleep.
-
3 hours ago, kinophile said:
@VladimirTarasov NATO did not invade Iraq. Basic fact.
What did it do? Magically destroyed the Iraqi military, and alot of civilain infrastructure?
EDIT: Freudian slip, NATO did not invade Iraq, coalition did
my bad in that case you are correct.
-
15 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
You also went to Donetsk and were convinced there were no Russian forces there. If you had explored more, talked with more people, gone to more places, approached things with more skepticism... you might have come to a different conclusion in both cases.
I've explored and talked to many people there, however I did not participate in any form of battle. I did hear the grandmothers crying that their sons and daughters being killed by shells. I'm very convinced that a certain side of the war has been committing bloody murder. Of course we can sit here and shout out the evil Russian army was in Ukraine, and ignore totally other topics that show some interesting facts about a certain "legitimate" government.
15 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:Not to get us off on a political track, but Kadyrov is a murderous thug who hold power through corruption and violence. Of course he has supporters, and apparently you met some of them. But the average population lives in fear and the insurgency is starting to gain more strength because of it.
Eh of course reading articles that provide no actual evidence that Kadyrov was involved with any "murderous thug" things, are to be taken serious. Kadyrov is very much supported in Chechnya, and I won't change my mind about it, unless you have legitimate evidence of him being a "murderous thug". Or a Putin crony. Or whatever name calling you guys have to offer.
5 hours ago, hattori said:I'm not sure you appreciate that with Putin's saber rattling, it has revived some of those old feelings from the cold war when Russia was THE threat to future existence. The west also sees a lot of Putin's actions as being similar to Hitler's in the 30's when he was constantly pushing the boundaries. I don't think there would be any problems with motivation in the west fighting any Russian aggression. Oddly, we might be even more motivated than you should Russia attack.
Sorry, did I miss the hell NATO has brought to the world in the past 20 years???? I don't know for example, going to Afghanistan and causing massive damage to infrastructure there, going to Iraq killing a dictator but while at it destroying Iraqi infrastructure. Supporting illegitimate rebellions against "dictators" and making the country a worst place than when the Dictator was in charge? I for one believe that Russia is not to be blamed for threating world security. NATO calls us weak, then calls us strong? Can you please make up your minds? Are we really a threat, or are we just another way to get your propaganda off to yourselves. This is seriously ANNOYING. If what Putin is doing is saber rattling than I'm all for it. Atleast my country does not go half way across the world and destroy whole countries. Seriously comparing Putin to Hitler is the most ignorant thing to do, and I feel bad for people who think so.
-
15 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
You do not know your history well, so I will help educate you.
Thanks
15 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:The US in the 1930s and 1940s was about 25% German heritage and therefore deep cultural, industrial, and political ties with Germany. The US was also extremely Isolationist, which meant it did not want to go to war in Europe a second time in 20 years
This heritage and industrial ties with Germany did not effect the results US troops delivered in world war 1 for the allies. I am very confident everyone knew the US will be able to help the Brits and French in world war 2 after the huge losses they were taking in the Eastern front. I am very familiar with the US's isolationism during the period lol...
15 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:Do not be very sure about that. If there are conditions which lead to a military conflict the United States Armed Forces will have motivation enough to do their job. Especially now that Russia is clearly attacking the United States through cyber warfare. Today more people in the US think Russia is a threat to the United States than on September 10th, 2001 thought Afghanistan was a threat.
There is obviously NO EVIDENCE to support that. You guys are the epitome of causing what is known as provocations, Show me evidence that we are waging a cyber war. Statements from the truthful US government does not count, if it is not backed up by any evidence. Again, I said the US can still face off against Russia in Ukraine, but I am more than damn sure they wouldn't be as motivated as a Russian soldier in Ukraine. As even the troops that may have fought in there fought dead motivated, we can look at the recent conflict, in Donbas.
15 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:The tactical engagements will mostly go in favor of US forces.
Inferior equipped Russian troops made very short work of "Superior" trained and equipped Georgian forces, without having the numerical superiority as said by some military experts. So until I actually see US troops fighting Russian troops, I'm not going to jump to conclusions like you other than compare what we can.
15 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:Yes, for sure Russia has some advantages. However, on balance those advantages are not on the battlefield in a direct way. The advantages also are "brittle" in that they can be degraded through continued military action
That's to say if Russia's opposition isn't crippled enough to change their mind on a full scale attack onto Russian defenses. What the US does have to worry, Russian defense is Stealth planes. Of course, these planes are not as dangerous to advanced modern AD networks, they can still cause damage to exposed forces. However, I will not jump to conclusions rather just get points out on certain capabilities.
15 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:It is why the Soviet Army was defeated by tiny Finland during the Winter War.
We weren't defeated but we also didn't get the results we wanted, we got the territories we wanted, however the heavy losses we took were a defeat on its own. Many good men died because of poor leadership. Anyways the Soviet army of the 1930s is not comparable to the Russian army of 2016. Totally different leadership, different standards, and different era. To say Russia still suffers from the same issues it did during then is basically "pulling" a Napoleon about the Russian army. And I mean underestimating.
-
3 hours ago, TheForwardObserver said:
If ya'll had the power to make tweaks/upgrades/fixes/additions, what would they be?
Infantry stuff first, for example squads peaking corners tossing grenades into rooms before storming it, squad formations. Second, MLRS please. I'd love to flatten a town before sending my troops to take whatever is left of it.
-
27 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
Look. Your idea of tough training is someone shooting bullets at a safe distance from you. My idea of training is putting a unit somewhere, against a real thinking "enemy" role playing an enemy force that is given capabilities well in excess of what anyone has,* on their home turf where all they do year round is beat the best trained military forces in the world.
You go to NTC or JRTC (the major training centers) you will lose 75-80% of the time. Your administrative officer will file paperwork in full chemical weapons gear in 38 degrees C weather because GAS GAS GAS....but the paperwork must flow. You will face an enemy who cheats, and is encouraged to cheat, you will face insurgent ambushes on the Company level against your platoon, and then you will be instructed to place your assembly area in literally the stupidest place to set up on the planet because CONGRATS YOU WILL DEFEND YOUR PLATOON AA FROM A BATTALION TACTICAL GROUP.
Again, we had drills like this even during the Soviet Union, however up until the 2008 modernization after the collapse of the "mighty" USSR training was poor. Now, we have advanced drills the same way you've tested your men. I mentioned the instructor spraying half his clip randomly a meter or so away from me in reference to being a cadet. We've had advanced drills, especially my unit. We were drilled day and night to be super soldiers, so president Putin can send us onto super scary communist missions, that threats world security. (joking of course) But that's crazy about a platoon defending against a battalion tactical group, I'm sure your men made quick work of the poor BTG.
32 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:And you will have to find a solution. Your little doctrine book means very little because your enemy has read the same book, and is using it as a planning aid to beat you. You Mr Squad Leader Man will have to attack and clear a complex of buildings specially designed to make you lose if you use the book answer**. You will have some angry, sunburned, wreck of a man, likely brought back from the depths of hell, given a rank from a hat, and told to take out his anger at his failed marriage and numerous STDs on you deciding who died.
Exactly why I hate MOUT things.
34 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:And he will pick the smartest, strongest leaders. Failing that he'll pick the biggest, tallest guys you've got, and he'll make the only available LZ for pickup 700 meters dismounted across sweltering desert. Because he hates you. He hates everyone and everything.
I'm sure those bullets were scary. But what did it do besides make it stressful to go in the preordained right direction?Well I wish he wouldn't hate everyone
well those bullets was to get us use to being shot at I guess, you can't just compare that to advanced drills, Sir.
36 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:You guys have given Chechnya thug president, leading a thug government, and chechens keep disappearing into places. So long as you hold on tight, you may yet keep it, but if you slacken that grip, I think it will end poorly for you. Which is not so much winning, as much as what is usually defined as a "dilemma."
Chechens I've spoken with are quite happy with mr.Kadyrov. Anyways he keeps things in check and so do we, we couldn't have asked for a better guy in office there. Better than the radicals in the 90s if you ask me.
44 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:So again, why do large scale drops at all? You've agreed the large scale assault drops are suicide, and the best you can come up with is rapid deployment on internal lines...but then why have a mechanized unit with terrible IFVs (as the BMD is a good airborne vehicle, but not at all a good fighting one), and only the armor it can fly onto a runway? The way you're describing it is frankly if you cut the whole airborne element out, and just became an elite mechanized infantry force, using the same vehicles as the rest of the army, you'd have a more useful force for a whole lot cheaper.
I never said that they are suicide, but no one is going to send a large scale air drops where long range AA possess a large threat. It is very plausible to large scale drop VDV units into regions in eastern Ukraine, where possible, or to reinforce the rear areas, or deploy in regions where the enemy does not have substantial defenses, in order to disrupt their lines. I will agree that the BMD-2 needs to be sent to hell, it's 2016, and BMD-4Ms are coming into service, so that is a huge boost, and best part about it is that they have thermals. So the VDV can still pose a threat to the enemy if used as a paradrop force, but no one is going to send IL-76s over AD, same as no one is going to send C-130s over AD.
-
22 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
Good motivation gives leadership a chance to be effective, it can cause the enemy casualties where it doesn't expect them, and it can help a flawed attack work if the enemy isn't as well motivated. However, good motivation without good leadership or good circumstances can result in larger numbers of casualties.
The early Waffen SS units fighting in Poland, France, and Yugoslavia were exceptionally motivated. Perhaps higher motivation than any standard Heer combat unit. However, their junior officers and NCOs were not very well trained even though they did have combat experience. The results were very good combat results in some cases, but at a very high cost of men.
True, you can't just have good motivation and horrible leadership.
22 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:This is the part you don't seem to appreciate. In a NATO force if the sergeant leading the squad is wounded and can not continue, the corporal can take over within seconds and theoretically lead with just as much experience and knowledge as the wounded sergeant. The private-first-class is also likely to have the knowledge and training to take over the duties of the corporal, which means that (in theory) the squad's only penalty is being short one weapon. In other respects the squad functions the same as it did before.
I never said I don't appreciate it. And if the squad's morale does not drop after a loss of a squad leader I'd say they can still function almost as good as if the sergeant was leading.
22 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:There were many that doubted that US soldiers would be willing to fight and die to defeat Nazi Germany. They were very wrong.
Even with all the horrible mistakes made in Afghanistan and Iraq the US forces have (generally) maintained high motivation and professionalism despite year after year without a clear victory.
I don't think many doubted US soldiers in world war 2, as they did in essence help the allies in world war 1 against the Germans. US troops did enjoy successes against the German army, without disrespect of course, there are many factors that also eased it for the US, in world war 2 against the Germans. But in terms of Ukraine, you can't motivate US forces against Russia in Ukraine, the same way you can motivate troops against Fascists killing millions in Europe. Anyways, I don't doubt US troops could engage in Ukraine against Russia, but if high casualties and stiff resistance is met, I don't think US troops would be as determined as Russian troops.
22 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:Sure I agree. The US forces fighting in Vietnam were largely conscript and they fought very hard many, many times. Conscripts in all WW2 nations were also capable of fighting very hard. But that doesn't mean that a conscript force can fight as well as a well trained volunteer force. The two are not equals.
I agree, they lack the training/experience to be effective in offensive operations, if there is a conscription majority, and the leadership is poor.
22 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:I do not disagree. However, wars are a series of battles and battles are a series of individual engagements. All else being equal, the force that wins more individual engagements and battles will win the war. If you had to place money on who would win more engagements and battles, which would you choose... a partial conscript force with less flexible doctrine and less experience *or* a volunteer force with more flexible doctrine and more experience?
I'd bet my money on the volunteer force of course if we were talking about a blunt comparison. However, Russia and the US slugging it out in Ukraine has many other factors that could tip the advantage towards Russia's side. First being that Russia will operate near our borders, infact very near. All our important assets like cruise missiles, long range AA, EW systems will be under a chain of security. Reserves can be deployed in the country to fill up gaps in our border defenses while we can use our active troops for other roles. We can deploy a larger force, and launch operations quicker than the US can (not capability wise, but look at the units in Europe and the time it would take to ship in enough troops to be a viable force) as you've said when I was new in the forum, the quicker Russia does operations in such a conflict the better chance it has at winning. And I agree with you on this. Also there are many other variables at play, which NATO countries will want to fight Russia? Will those countries' populace agree with it.
As for our doctrine, if you've been following up on our modernization program, there are many changes in our doctrine. I am not familiar enough with it to be able to tell you enough to be able to compare to US doctrine, but we can assume it has improved just like everything else in the Russian Armed Forces. Of course don't get me wrong, I know the US has a flexible doctrine, and has exceptional command and control.
-
1 hour ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
Brutality in training is rarely the hallmark of good training. When combined with good training, tough or grueling training can indeed be useful, I'm not making the argument that it should all be fluffy sunshine and puppies. But again, ask yourself, what did someone firing bullets into the ground accomplish? Did it add more risk to the exercise? Unless the instructor was a moron, no. Did it make the exercise harder? No, the conditions you faced were likely just as terrible. Was it any more effective than the US manner in which Drill Sergeant Staff Sergeant Spearman gets real low and whispers in your ear that if you're still on this spot in 10 seconds, he's going to unzip your neck and have sexual congress with your windpipe, before counting down from 10 in that freakish booming voice of command only DSes seem to master? Likely not.
Well our training was good, I don't get why you think our training is inadequate. I'm not familiar with the training Company commanders and platoon commanders receive, but I led a squad at my peak. But being infantry, we were trained for our roles, and that's war. If you ordered my platoon to defend an objective, I'd know where to position my men, tell them to survey at, and communicate with. We'd be ready to engage the enemy, trigger discipline, radio discipline ect.
1 hour ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:When training, and pairing in brutality it needs to have a purpose or a function, especially one proportional to the "cost" of the action. When I was a Company Commander I did 22 hours straight of attack-defend drills with my Company.* I took away all phones, made the Koreans who followed our field exercises leave, ruthlessly enforced noise and light discipline, demanded all those sketches and hand drawn overlays for maps that no one ever has to do once they've left school, and variously added in things just to make it harder (lots of chemical weapons attacks). I also started it within an hour or so after the last night's training,
We've done similar drills, in my unit. But you guys probably did other stuff, being an armor unit. Is there any interesting events that happened during such an exercise?
1 hour ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:And I would contend in the sort of agile, hyper lethal environment, centralized control is obsolete. If you're always 1+ choices behind your foe, he will have the initiative, and he will win all other factors being even. Also it's not like you are the only guys capable of jamming communications. I was reasonably comfortable with nearly all my platoon leaders**, that if I told them to do a thing I could walk away and let them do it, and also adapt to mission changes fairly well. Same deal with when I was a scout platoon leader and my scout sections.
Well we need to go into detail here, a company commander can make decisions for himself, if he needs to flank an enemy he doesn't need to ask the brigade commander. If the platoon leader needs to change positions after the recon unit sees a heavy attack forming, he can do so without asking the battalion commander. He can make decisions for himself, as long as he obviously communicates with his higher ups. In regards to jamming, our field is obviously advanced in jamming and we can do all sorts of limitations on enemy formations with it. Be it heavy EW or light EW. For example in counter battery tasks, jammers are set to work to deny the enemy the ability to counter-battery, and UAVs overhead work together with any artillery unit assigned to the task to deal with the enemy. So in essence, we can deny the enemy the ability to counter-battery, as long as our EW is up, and we can work on them while they are denied their role. There are many other things EW has that gives us advantages, however of course, no one is saying EW is God, other than say EW stronk fan boys.
1 hour ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:Your response indicates you still don't "get it." Russia's loss in the 1990's was a conventional military defeat against an asymmetrical threat. They met you in battle, and you lost. When you came back, you met them in battle, and like all good insurgents, they went to ground after you started flattening villages.
Looking at the fact you all are still doing raids, still finding caches, still having random attacks, and we're still finding chechens inside major islamic terrorist networks, I think you guys are riding a tiger vs having tamed it. There's more to COIN than shooting terrorists. As sburke actually reminded me, try reading "A Savage War of Peace" for the lessons about Algiers I was trying to pass onto you when I got a movie and book on the same subject matter all cross-wise.You're talking about totally eradicating terrorism? I don't think that is possible unless we set up a total police state in the region where the issues are happening. And as you can see, our intelligence picks these groups up fairly quickly before attacks can take place, and the units are taken out. In the counter-terrorism role, we have special units that take care of it. In the second Chechen war, fighting an asymmetrical enemy was done by the army, it was successful in the end and many experiences were picked up from it. We even have Chechens in rebel groups in Syria we are bombing. But that really isn't our fault to say, there are even Canadians in ISIS.
1 hour ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:That's....suboptimal really. Like in that role you'd have been better off just bringing conventional mechanized forces forward, and in both of those roles you wouldn't even really have to train the drop portion extensively as it's troops basically falling out of the plane and collecting on the LZ. It doesn't really answer the mail in why you need a massive dog and pony show, or justify having a large airborne vs airmobile contingent.
As I've said, if the mission does not require a paradrop, we can be moved into the area as mechanized forces would. And we are trained to fight as mechanized forces as well, we aren't light infantry, we do have armor.
1 hour ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:*So like the first platoon would attack, half of second platoon would defend against first platoon while the other half established defenses elsewhere, while third platoon did all the reset, maintenance, and mission prep for when it would attack after first platoon had assumed second platoon's defensive mission. this took something like 50 minutes to an hour and ten to go total reset.
Sounds cool, second platoon must have been overwhelmed.
that's crazy how a armored platoon held off a Stryker battalion.
Russian army under equipped?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
The Russian air force wont go in on its own against the US air force ever, unless the advantages are our side in a limited engagement. That's why we've developed advanced SAM systems, so our air force can coordinate under aerial denial zones, so it isn't so lopsided. I think you said you played DCS? Set up a true to life Russian AD zone and try doing strike missions with those threats out. You cant. Until the USAF destroys aerial denial, it is very plausible for airborne drops to happen atleast 100 kilometers away from the objective. I honestly forgot how far the BMD units can go on their own after a drop, but depending on terrain I believe it was atleast 200 kilometers. I'm not saying the VDV is going to paradrop men right ontop of enemy lines, that doesn't work out so well. It can drop the forces a distance away and work to it. Secure routes, open up defensive positions, probes, and you know other headaches. I never said IL-76 stronk is going to drop troops over heavy AA threats.