panzersaurkrautwerfer
-
Posts
1,996 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
31
Posts posted by panzersaurkrautwerfer
-
-
If you seen the women and children crying there in person you would not be talking this way.
They'd have less to cry about if a certain someone to the East hadn't started a war I imagine. I imagine there's some very sad Dutch women and children, and some very dead ones that would have been more joyful had someone kept BUKs out of the hands of terrorists.
-
I think we've totally hijacked this thread by now.Was it going anywhere good though?
When Longbow 2 & iM1A2 came out I was a 1LT tank company XOChrist. Most game forums I feel like a dinosaur. This is the one forum I've run into where there's more than a few posters I have to address as "sir" if I ran into them offline.
The first version of Steel Beasts came out just a couple years later and I put way more time into that than I did iM1A2.To be fair, at that point in time I wouldn't have known what was authentic or not, I just knew tanking was cool, and it was less fruity than Mechwarrior (and as much as I liked Mechwarrior, the setting was something that always annoyed me deeply). Roaming through Iran or Bosnia turning T-72s inside out was pretty awesome.
On the other hand, ripplefire Hellfires is pretty much as close to an apocalyptic event as a flight simulator will give you, so Longbow 2 was good for that much.
Re: Sims in general
I lack the patience for them these days. Especially flight sims with all the fiddly physics and systems. What I liked about the old Janes sims was you could adjust how real intense the simulator was going to be, so if you wanted Firehawks: The Game, Longbow would do it for you, or the other way around.
That's also the bigger gripe I had with Steel Beasts. If I just wanted a tool for my LTs to practice things in it, it felt like they had to genuinely know what they're doing with both tanks and the sim, while stuff like Combat mission you need a little guidance, but something straight forward like platoon vs platoon movement to contact is pretty intuitive once you know what the buttons mean. (Which is why I shared CMSF with thems all) If I could have turned the realism down more on Steel Beasts to focus more on the "higher" level stuff, I'd oddly have gotten more training value out of it.
At least that's how I remember it. Honestly haven't touched it in years.
-
I don't think the worry anymore is about identifiying yourself to friendly aircraft, their optics are so good they can tell the difference visually.I used to think that too.
Did the tanks and IFVs also use those or is it just the hummer drivers that are scared of the USAF?Depends. We started doing it because the Iraqis also had HMMWVs when I was in Iraq, so being the "five HMMWV element at the intersection of Jackson and Miami" or whatever was no longer a giveaway of which HMMWVs (and it didn't help some of ours had been painted up in Iraqi police colors as a sort of urban camouflage) I was referring to when talking to rotary wing.
VS-17 panels are more or less used how the unit sees fit. They're less common on AFVs because at this point nearly all Bradley/Abrams have "CIP" (Combat Identification Panels) that are obvious under thermal (basically they adjust the emitted thermal signature, so if you're looking in white hot, they'll appear as black boxes on the outside of the tank). Some units use them to mark "important" vehicles like the PSG's vehicle. Other units specifically do not mark single vehicles with them for fear of giving some indication that one vehicle may be more important than the others, while others reserve it only as a signal (I only put the VS-17 out to indicate I have wounded on board/the vehicles is abandoned and doesn't need to be searched/whatever the SOP is for us).
They're not uncommon on HMMWVs though so having them as something to add flavor to the HMMWVs isn't the worst idea.
-
1. No APS is perfect, and there will be occasional leakers. Remember you're basically shooting bullets at bullets*, even a small failure might totally bugger the intercept. Also Russian APS is unable to deal with high angle approaches like the Javelin.
2. Shtora in game is only reliable against Ukrainian systems. It is simply not even capable of confusing a Javelin given the methodology of the jammer and the seeker (shtora confuses SACLOS type systems that use a flare to track missile location, Javelin "remembers" the thermal profile of its intended target** and tracks it accordingly), and the TOW-2B has been updated after someone got a shtora into US hands (which doesn't make the TOW-2B immune, nearly as much as it makes it much less likely to accept the shtora's jamming as legitimate signals)
*Okay not quite bullets, but it's still fast moving pieces interacting, even fairly modest problems or delays can cause an APS to totally whiff.
**It is not a heat seeker in that it is not looking for any source of heat, as much as it's like if I showed you a picture of a person and then told you to go find them in a room.
-
Also, didn't want to show any kind of disrespect to US military, in case that was somehow felt about that name mod.I at least did not think it was disrespect, and Dildo is totally something a tank crew might try to name their track, I'm just saying CPT D Co commander type would have rejected it.
Whenever you got an occasion and remember a detail, let us know about a dumb name you rejected, out of curiosity.Dracul (Dracula would have been sort of lame, but Dracul just looks like a typo, and after Twilight, vampires are lame)
Dragon's Breath (NERD ALERT. Also our sister Battalion had a Dragon on its unit crest, so I generally shot down Dragon related names to avoid the confusion)
Daddy (just weird)
I can't remember the rest too well, this is a conversation I had nearly a year ago. One of my PLs was rather attached to the game "Bioshock" and I remember having to tell him "dude, just no" over some name related to that game, but I can't recall the name now. I also rejected anything that was just "Da' XXXX" on principle.
On the other hand I did allow an appeal if the entire crew wanted a name I considered dumb. I just did not want the crew to be stuck with a stupid name their LT dreamed up. I made sure my dudes were okay with it when I renamed my tank just because at the end of the day, they're the one doing most of the work on it.
Now that I am at it, is there any kind of markings ever used by the hummers?Here's some markings that sometimes occur:
1. Driver's and vehicle commander's names on the front window (this is common on all trucks, but it's done in black so it's not super-obvious. Honestly think it's more of a way for the Battalions CSM to know who to yell at if the truck is parked poorly)
2. Bumper number and Battalion number on the front/back. Also worth skipping unless you're making a mod to spectically put C Company 1-72 Armor into the game though.
3. Sometimes a "VS-17" Panel will be displayed on the "trunk" lid. It's a two sided canvas deal that's got an orange side or a pink side, and is a very common recognition symbol, usually mounted on the top of a vehicle to ensure the USAF doesn't shoot you.
I have not seen a named HMMWVV.
I am also zero help on Strykers. I spent my entire career in the armor type recon units, or combined arms battalions.
You do know you can easiely remove files you dont like?Yep. Dildo is already out, but it had more to do with I had a QB with an entire platoon of Dildos. I'm just contributing what I know in the hopes it's useful.
-
Iraq used export model T-72s and their own production "Asad Babil" wich was ever worse.Minor pet peeve of mine. The Iraqis used the Polish/East German level export tanks, not some sort of mythical subgrade pure cardbonian T-72. There's some pretty strong doubts that the Asad Babil was anything more than one of those T-72M or T-72M1s from earlier shipments that had been modified locally.
A lot of the confusion might come from the fact that many of the tanks were locally assembled, but it was locally assembled from effectively the world's biggest model tank kit, the actual armor protection would not have been worse than again, any other T-72M or T-72M1 that at the time represented the top shelf of the Polish or East German military.
Which is not to say it was as well armored as a T-72B or something, but there's this sort of myth that Iraqi T-72s had sabot attracting cardboard plating, when their armor protection was equal to what anyone who wasn't a Soviet T-72 operator had at the time.
Re: 25 MM vs tank
I've heard claims of people killing T-55s and T-62s frontally from sources I considered reliable (guys who were kicking around in 1991/2003 on Bradleys vs "guys who knew a guy who totally did it") but never heard the T-72 story.
We had a grizzled old timer who'd been a Bradley gunner with 2 ACR at 73 Eastings. He came up over a rise, spotted T-72, engaged with TOW, T-72 exploded (he used hand gestures to express to the degree it exploded). Then they spotted another T-72, engaged with TOW, and the missile went out about five feet and then plunked nose down into the sand. He then engaged the tank with 25 MM AP while the the driver attempted to back up. The T-72 had already started to draw down on them before the first 25 MM left the tube, but likely because the crew was operating in manual to keep their heat profile down, was still traversing when it too, exploded in a high order explosion, with bits of turret and tank splattering about the desert. The guy I knew popped the hatch to get some fresh air, likely convinced he was the best Bradley gunner on earth to have killed a T-72 with 25 MM.
Then he saw a wire tangled up over the front deck of his Bradley. Then he realized while he was engaging the T-72, his wingman had seen what was happening, and made a shot with HIS TOW right over the front deck of the Bradley.
Dude was pretty awesome. He'd also done a lot of stuff in Afghanistan (there's no seperate MOS in the US Army for "light" scouts or "heavy" scouts, so you can easily be a Bradley crewman, guntruck commander, Stryker section leader, and then a Bradley equipped Platoon Sergeant), half of Fort Riley knew him or owed him favors. All the same, engaging a T-72 frontally with 25 MM didn't seem to make an impression on the tank, and he was hoping at best to knock out optics, maybe chew up the gun tube which is about in line with what we expect to happen.
Re: Topic
I think it's a bug too. The sort of frontal impacts I can see a 25 MM DU doing doesn't lend itself to killing the driver outside of some magic bullet stuff (impacting surfaces under the tank and bouncing back up through the bottom of the hull, striking the driver's vision device in a way as to cause it to cause the device to fragment and kill the driver) are pretty doubtful.
It'd be cool to see some sort of "CSI mode" for replays that shows a line of penetration. The "problem" with CM is the damage model is so detailed that it can be hard to tell if you put a round through the driver's heating duct and the materials of the duct were enough to direct the penetrator right into the driver's gonads, or if there's some sort of odd glitch with smaller penetrators.
-
For 30 years the Pentagon has been dancing around the notion of providing the army with a simple direct fire low pressure gun like the 90mm Mecar for infantry support. But every time they approach the topic 'committee think' sets in and they go off on some weird 'high technology' tangent from hyper-velocity 75mm guns to overhead-mount 105 NATO tank guns to exotic vertical launch missile systems. When all the infantry wanted was something that could put HE rounds into a building while in close proximity to friendly units.Which is cool and all, but again anything on a Stryker should not have "direct fire" as part of its job description. If you want an assault gun, you really need something that'll take being shot a lot better.
Conversely by god canceling the XM8 AGS was a stupid choice. There'a light tank shaped hole in our IBCTs, and with the add-on armor it'd be great choice for the assault gun type role elsewhere.
-
The little "boop" mixed in with the radio chatter is enough to give me flashbacks.
*edit* This is a compliment, not a complaint.
-
One teeny, tiny quibble for future naming of names type mods:
Names that are too profane or sexual will get shot down by their Company Commander (I also shot down names because "They were dumb" but I reserved that judgement only for Platoon Leader's tanks). It's not really a prude thing nearly as much as the last thing you need is an irate phone call from the Brigade's SHARP (basically your sexual harassment person) representative because "Dildo" drove by the BDE HQ on its way to the washrack.
That's like my one complaint, just played a QB to ogle all the pretty eyecandy. The dirt level is awesome, and honestly the game's visuals are much improved by your efforts. I check this thread whenever I come on the forums to see what's about to get improved.
-
Which is funny because I am addicted to Steel Beasts and all things Tank too. At a cross branch event with the Army, I spent about 3 hours talking the ear off an E-6 who was showing off his tank. He was taken quite aback by my interest as a squid. If I hadn't lucked out and gotten my dream job, I would have pursued Army armor all out.HA! As a high school student I spent hours playing Jane's F/A-18*, dropping dem' JDAMS on Russian ultra-nationalists. Ultimately my poor eyesight and so-so math scores led me to realize I wasn't likely to become a pilot, but found that I still wanted to be in the military which led down its own winding road.
Re: Steel Beasts
It's a good training tool, but it's really built to have a trained operator building your scenarios or missions that are fairly basic exercises. It breaks down when you approach it like its a simulator-game.
Which is why I'm sad, because looking back at the mid-late 90's simulators like Longbow 2 and iM1A2, those were much better sims in terms of being "playable" vs being the civilian version of CCTT.
*To be fair, middle school I played iM1A2 like it was a religion.
-
Even less capable than the MGS then I suppose.
-
USN F/A pilot (the cowardly flyboy who carries the bombs and missiles) saying how this would go down.Just as an aside, you have a mighty sweet ride. Wouldn't trade a tank for it, but always like the F/A-18 line.
-
I do believe they trialed a 40mm Kongsberg RCWS on a Stryker recently. There was pictures somewhere.That's the MGS replacement I alluded to earlier. Something better scaled to what the platform is capable of.
-
The Army needs to put 120mm smoothbore direct-fire mortar Strykers in as support for each companyAlready have two of them per rifle company.
mini-gun mountsNah. ,50 cal and MK-19 are better in terms of damage potential. Also given the external mount of the weapons system and limitations on how much you can strap onto a CROWS, your crew would be at risk pretty often to reload.
It would be nice in future modules (NATO?, hint,hint
)You'll see all the US LAV models if there's a USMC module, Canadians also use the 25 MM equipped LAVs.
-
I think this is something Battlefront needs to address. ADA vs Helicopter needs a defiant "re balancing" in order to be realistic, AH-64s specifically are way way too vulnerable. Adding the option to make fast jets immune to ADA during scenario creation is also sorely needed.Pardon the double tap, but I missed a not SHORAD silliness post that was worth talking about.
I agree right now it's very "if any ADA piece is in the game, you better park the planes until further notice." As a stupid idea:
Have a new set of strike options. Like how you set "heavy medium or light" you'd have another tab that would be something like "close" or "standoff"
Close is what happens now. The platform closes to attack and destroy things and enters the ADA envelope.
Standoff is the platform launching weapons from outside of MANPAD range. For rotary wing, only helicopters with standoff type weapons (like the radar guided Hellfires) can do this, and weapons like cannons or rockets will not be employed. They also can no longer self spot (picture it that they don't see enough of the battlefield to engage targets without someone being able to talk them onto it) Fixed wing is similar, "dumb" weapons are not employed, missiles and guided bombs only (assuming idiots loop type attacks for the bombs). Fixed wing will only do point targets (again, at standoff they're going to struggle to spot a tank motoring around, they need the spotter to find the target, and likely designate or feed GPS coordinates to them).
In standoff, MANPADS would simply be useless. Vehicle ADA (missiles only) would engage at a much reduced efficiency.
The counter to this would be something like the EW level. There'd be an "air threat" level, with settings like "Blue Air Dominance, Blue Air Superiority, Air Parity, Red Air Superiority, Red Air Dominance" to simulate the fighter and larger SAM effects. Dominance is basically one side owns the sky and can fly whereever it wants. Superiority means the side that holds it has an advantage, but the other side can still push out strikes and attacks occasionally. Parity means the battle is ongoing and it's no man's sky.
The effects on air strikes would be one of the following:
Successful Strike. Bombs away!
Evasive. Airstrike is aborting to avoid being engaged, will be available again later.
Engaged. Airstrike is under attack, it is no longer available for the mission as it has jettisoned munitions and is bugging out
Destroyed. Some F-22/SU-27 pilot is smiling like an idiot right now.
The different air threat levels would dictate which one of these was more likely. Under Blue Air Dominance, unless a MANPAD or on map ADA piece gets a shot off, Blue Air Strikes will arrive. Under Air superiority there's like a 10% chance of engaged, 20% chance of evasive, while under air parity it'd be 5% Destroyed, 15% Engaged, 25% Evasive, with it getting worse under the Red superiority/dominance (launching an airstrike in enemy Air Dominance should be something nuts like 20% destroyed, 30% engaged, 30% Evasive).
Edit: I do have to add, those numbers are just as examples. It's not like I did any more to come up with them than think for a second and ask "what sounds good?"
It'd allow for a more realistic Blue-Red air strike dynamic.
-
Dealing in absolutes here. Rather you might say fixed wing CAS will not be considered a priority. The "ground pounders" will be needing it!If it's a hole in the ground in July, means you can't do anything with it in August, or it's not something you can threaten Estonia with later.
-
Re Vietnam The US lost quite a few planes over North Vietnam during the strategig bombing campigns. During OperatioN Rolling Thunder heUSAF lost some 184 aircraft IN 1968 ALONE over North Vietnam many to SAMS but 22% to Migs. The USAF was supposed to be tthe best in the world then too I understand
The point isn't how many USAF planes were lost over North Vietnam, the question is why, given the total absence of tactical or strategic ADA (again, minus obsolete M42 type platforms being used as anti-infantry weapons) in South Vietnam, did the North Vietnamese not simply bomb the US out of the war. By your statements the lack of this air defense should have been decisive. They could have been sinking US ships left and right, and taking out whole companies at once if only they'd done so by your assertions.
Re SSMs I recall somehing about 3rd Infantry Division HQ being hit by one during the final days of the Iraq War. You are not 100% safe and are unlikely ever to be so. (0 or 95% safe. Eventually, probably yes.SSMish, not TBM. The 9K52 type rocket that hit in Iraq was effectively just rocket artillery. It has a range of something like 43 miles. Anything coming from Russia to NATO bases outside of the Ukraine (which was the question asked) would have to be a much larger system, or some matter of cruise missile. Additionally again, in talking about air bases, that's exactly the sort of thing that's going to receive a PATRIOT battery to defend it.
So an errant FROG landing somewhere near US forces? Wouldn't rule it out, although the CEP is something crazy. A Scarab or Scud type weapon flying towards Poland? That's doubtful.
-
I was somewhere within about 10 feet of the photographer when that shot was taken. I had no idea that stupid river crossing was going to generate like 90% of every M1A2 SEP v2 photo on the internet.
-
Here's some names from my last unit's Infantry Companies
Able and Ready
Awesome
All American
Apocalypse
Bieber Fever
Baker Boys
Beast
Beastmaster
Here's some tank ones from my company and our sister company
Canifex
Carnivore
Chingon
Cobra King II Cobra King was a famous World War Two tank. I'm sure there's actually closer to Cobra King XXXIII at this point
Chaos Driven
Can't Miss
Calvin n' Hobbes
Choot em' Choot em' The commander had a super-thick accent
Darwinian Selector
Democracy Inaction
Darling Gray Eyes
Dr. Evil
Dr. Jekyll
Dr. Feel Good
Demented Dr Seuss
Dante's Inferno
Downeaster Alexa
Dropkick Murphy
Dracula
Darts
Degraded
Dereliction of Duty
Dennis Rodman Note this one changed after he turned traitor and started hanging out in the DPRK
Damage Control
Display Only This was the original name for the Company Commander's tank
Desmadre
Das Boot
Deus Irea I almost went with this, but did not want to have to explain what it meant on a daily basis
Just some off the top of my head.
-
Would air fields remain safe, or would one side eventually cave and attack?I think they'd be safe. The Russians wouldn't likely be able to get aviation that deep, and using TBMs would be very risky in terms of possibly triggering some massive escalation/the French uncork a nuke or something because This Is It, and Patriot stands a good chance of shooting down that sort of missile. NATO likely has the political will to fight in the Ukraine, but not to start a shooting war with Russia, in Russia, and no one wants to find out if Russia is serious about the whole "get on Russian soil and we're shooting nukes" stance.
I think the bigger issue will be Russian artillery and long range SAMs on the Russian side of the border, and that'll be a more interesting question in if Russia would threaten retaliation for counter-battery fire, or a HARM missile through aS-300's radar. Most NATO artillery and SAMs will be in Ukraine proper to do their job so that's less of an issue.
-
Sure you can add your own tank names.Sweet. I'll give it a whirl once I figure out how to make mods work in the first place! (reading manual, part of my brain just isn't quite wrapping around it!)
Tank/IFV name addendum:
1. The name is supposed to match the Company the tank belongs to. Given that tank companies now only exist as the second two line companies in a Combined Arms Battalion, I hope you like C and D names (I went with Darwinian Selector myself). There's H names too, but that's generally the Battalion Commander's tank.
2. Bradleys if they have names (this is uncommon) have them across the rear bustle rack under those ammo cans. Infantry companies in a CAB (so all Bradley infantry companies) are all A or B companies (most awkward name combo goes to "Beast" and "Beastmaster" in the same platoon)
3. Tanks are rarely un-named as a rule. Bradleys are rarely named, but there's nothing forbidding it.
4. Some units buck the names having to follow the A/B/C/D convention entirely, and especially when it comes to deploying, a vehicle might be "Dauntless" in the motorpool, but "Murder Inc" when it's about to cross the berm into crapastan.
-
Just goes to show you what cease fires mean these days.
-
I repeat. We are not talking about the Iraqi Air Force here. We are talking about the RUSSIAN AIR FORCE. Which is a modern and professional air force that is modernisingHere's my issue with this:
Just because the Russian Air Force is not the Iraqi Air Force does not ensure they will be successful somehow as WAVES OF NEVER ENDING PAK-FAs USE LASERS TO CRUSH AMERICA.
No one here is claiming the hapless Russian Air Force will be handily swept from the sky over the course of 20 minutes. What we are saying is the Russian Air Force as a smaller, less technically capable force, in the face of a larger, more experienced, more technically advanced force is not likely to be able to conduct air strikes in numbers dangerous enough to require building a dedicated ADA platform to be built. And further, given this reality of the Russians being the high-tier threat, and not being likely to be able to penetrate the CAP without punishing losses, with the remainder of threats falling far, far, far short of even this modest threat, makes an SHORAD vehicle a huge waste of money and time.
Oh, you can ignore what I say because I am not, like you, a military professional. Just a war gamer and miltary history buff. But that does not mean that I might not bee proven right.I want you to take that attitude to any other job, and not get laughed at.
YOU ARE A DOCTOR AND A PRODUCT OF THE MEDICAL INSTITUTION. I WILL CURE THIS WITH THE MAGIC OF GEMS BECAUSE I READ IT IN A BOOK AND I HAVE PLAYED VIRTUAL SURGEON SEVERAL TIMES GOOD SIR
Or possibly:
I have built many model planes, and you sir, are a product of the engineering insitution and do not understand the genius of a jet powered biplane. I've read books, and I own all the microsoft flight simulators.
Hmm That's the attitude the IAF had prior to the Youm Kippur War. And did't the US lose quite a few pllanes to these "useless SAMs over North Vietnam. And even a few over Iraq in 1991?The amount of effort and time spent on those IADS networks, vs the ability of them to stop the bombing force was pretty far out of proportion. They made the attack uncomfortable, and sometimes lethal for individual planes, but like all passive defenses they could be reduced (and destroyed in the case of Yom Kippur and Iraqi in 1991) or simply are unable to inflict enough damage on the attacker to preclude continued attack (again, SAMS or not, Hanoi had a lot of bombs in the weather forecast, shooting down one or two bombers a night didn't effect that).
But I'm glad you brought up Vietnam! Please explain to me how the helpless Americans were not bombed into submission by the NVAF despite a lack of US ADA (well, Dusters aside but they had other jobs)?
Let me ask you a question. As a professional tank compan commander what measures would you be using on the 2017 Ukranian battlefield would you be using to protect your command against any possible Russian air threat.Camouflage. Taking halts in locations with concealment. Hoping the USAF is doing its job. If Stinger teams are attached to the Company locating them in the most advantageous terrain. In terms of being a tank/infantry system, your best defense is the enemy doesn't see you. If it's a leaker SU-27 being chased by F-22s it's likely not going to live long enough to take the time to find me from 20,000 feet, or acquire me if he's bobbing up and over hill masses.
This would even be true with a more robust ADA asset like a Linebacker. I don't want planes to see me. They will see me if I pop off missiles or put rounds in the air though, which could bring the harm my way. Stinger, or even older systems like Vulcan and Chaparral are low enough p/k that unless I am 100% in danger, enemy is coming for us, I'm not going to draw attention to us.
If we're talking about helicopters same drill, unless they're coming my way/obviously are attacking my position. If that's the case we'll volley fire MPAT, a kill is doubtful (especially given the limited elevation of a tank gun) but the amount of crap that'll put in the air runs a good odd at causing a mission kill, or strongly encouraging the enemy to leave. Even sabot wouldn't be a bad choice, it's short shot to hit time makes it attractive, and the FCS can hack a helicopter at speed.
If the helicopter is on approach and outside the engagement window of the tank gun, massed .50 cal fire will do in a pinch, again the FCS on the CROW can hack if. If we've got SLAP loaded it'll ruin faces pretty well, but even standard .50 cal will do a lot of damage if massed on a helicopter (while Hinds and the like are armored against that sort of weapon in places, the fourteen or so of those coming off the company is enough to knock out weapons, shred rotors, brown pilot's pants, and generally encourage them to leave right now.
But otherwise the best thing for a ground unit to do is stay out of sight, out of mind, and report REDAIR to higher and hope you're about to make a USAF Pilot's day.
-
Consider if you will what lessons apply from Bluff Cove and the loss of the Sir Galahad and the Sir Tristram.That SAMs are worthless and that a good CAP is the only thing that will keep you safe.
Polling about peacekeepers
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Peacekeepers unless they're Russian invaders with "peacekeeper" written on their PCs are pretty outside of reasonably likely outcomes.
Not to mention peace must exist in the first place for there so the peacekeepers are peacekeepers vs peacemakers. And from that, looking at the recent "peace" it's pretty doubtful anything short of a military combat deployment by an outside force with a mandate to shoot the everloving hell out of separatist or Ukrainians I guess if they acted up first for a change would be able to change the situation at all.