mrzafka

The problem will be with manpower - recent plans point to armed forces numbering around 300k, which is not that far from the levels at the end of communist era. And at that time conscription was a thing, not to mention dismal economy that made miltary service an option worth serious consideration. Now, even with the war around the corner, the army is just an emplyer, specific to be sure, but it doesn't seem that reaching the 300k level will be easy (if at all possible) in Poland.

You’re right, but if memory serves me right air support was one of community favorites. I think anti-aircraft fire was added as a new feature in the Market Garden (or even earlier?) module, so it seems Battlefront perhaps will develop this part of the game in the future.

What about Su-25? I always thought they were primarily CAS aircraft.

I always considered this book as a compilation of some sort, not a 100% accurate account of a particular soldier’s war story. Still a good read.

This figure also shows that designing tank weapons and fire control systems for extremely long-range fighting might not be cost effective, at least for ETO. Better focus on other aspects, like fire on the move capability etc.

Desert Rock exercises were conducted in the 50s. There were some significant tactical and technical changes in the following decades. Besides, exercises are just that - exercises, real life usually brings some surprises, especailly with virtual no previous experience of troops fighting after nuclear strike. Wouldn't the Russian battalion be treated the same way? I mean retaliation with chemical weapons after first use of chemical weapons by the Soviets. Then all the things you wrote about - everything taking twice as much time, huge difficulties in performing even the simplest tasks - would equally effect the opponent. Wouldn't it be World War one again, equally miserable for both sides with no one getting significant operational advantage?

I don't think using chemical weapons would have been certain, as this wouldn't give any operational or strategic advantage after immediate retaliation in kind. AFAIK the Germans during WWII had access to nerve agents (tabun, soman etc.) that the Allies didn't have, and yet they didn't dare using it. And the war wasn't going particularly well for them.

Use of chemical weapons in World War One was not decisive, it just made life of all participants more miserable. And it was used on very large scale, both in terms of quantity and variety. Using chemical weapons against a well-trained peer adversary in 1970s IMHO would yield similar results as 6 decades earlier.

The efficiency might be better only when the higher command knows the situation and is able to keep up with the friction and fog of war. However, we could discuss relative merits of each system ad infinitum, as this problem is old as warfare itself.

I'm afraid we can't just discuss strategy here without at least mentioning the bigger picture, i.e. politics. Every thread about strategic layer will have some political component, simply because strategical aims in war stem from political decisions. Good ol' Clausewitz.

Recovery time for Arena is about 0.3-0.4 seconds. Of course this is data from the manufacturer so it might be optimistic. However, it seems likely that simple voice synchronization won't do the trick. Not to mention that saturating voice comms this way is probably bad idea.

I agree it is useless against tanks, but an APFSDS round fired against Bradley or Stryker (or Russian equivalents) would probably hurt. I guess reactive armor won't help much and the projectile is way too fast for APS. However, I estimate the combat life expectancy of this gun would be about five seconds after opening fire. You just can't miss it with modern optics and thermals once it fired,

Making river crossings as smooth as possible, thus not losing the operational tempo, was always important in Soviet doctrine. There are a lot of rivers in Central and Eastern Europe, moreover quite a few flow the south to the north (or vice versa). So you can either cross them or find a gap between them, for example the Smolensk area in Russia which witnessed some heavy fighting in WWII. However, making vehicles able to amphibiously cross rivers comes at a price of course. It usually means that weight must be realtively low, sacrificing some survivability. I find it interesting that, even though Poland is member of NATO for some time, it was decided that Polish Patra AMVs should be amphibious.As far as I know Strykers, being roughly similar to Patria vehicles, are not amphibious. And when time came to send AMVs to Afghanistan, the swimming ability was removed (not many rivers there) and additional armor fitted to make the vehicle resistant to 14,5 mm AP. As a result, many argue here that insisting on amphibious capability is simply some leftover idea from Warsaw Pact times. I don't know who is right though

Wheeled vehicles are supposed to require less maintenance, they are potentially faster on operational level if there exists a road net...They are also cheaper, or so I've heard. Wasn't the Stryker result of experiences from the Cosovo conflict in '99? Something packing more punch than a Humvee, yet way easier to deploy than a Bradley. The result being that you have considerable force on the battlefield quickly and you are able to hold your ground until armor arrives.

I always thought that when a round is loaded in combat situation, it always leaves through the muzzle. The idea being that it's better to send something downrange than wasting time reloading. That BMP would be dead if hit by APFSDS too. Keep up the good work!