ikalugin

I have already explained why supplying MBTs is a bad idea even without the political considerations. So did panzerkrautwerfer.

The letter that does not legally bind anyone to do anything in specific.

Infantry ATGM teams are not mobile and thus are not relevant post break through. Break through was to be achieved by a concentration of effort upon points of decision (and other means). Special techniques were developed such as the MFZ. In general I would refer you to the eastern front experience in that respect. Cities were to be bypassed (extensive road bypass network did help), adequate (ie calculated to be sufficient to cross all of the required water obstacles) river crossing assets were issued, you could look at the Soviet OOBs in that respect. The general idea was to defeat the NATO forces East of Rhein within the first week of war, to preclude nuclear escalation or meaningful reinforcements from continental US. The reason why it never happened was b/c soviet leadership remembered the GPW, believed in inevitable victory of communism, did not believe that there was a guarantee that the war would stay limited.

Why would anyone have a 20Gb download limit this day and age?

Lucas, I read military geography studies made by both sides in the 80s. North Germany plane was considered to be a better terrain for the attacker. Plus it was defended by weaker AG and weaker corps. And more importantly - it was the right way to reach Soviet objectives in Low Countries.

I think that Soviet Forces opposing BAOR had somewhere between 7 to 1 and 8 to 1 superiority in artillery at the time (less in other departments). So your battle may be rather painful. Ash, plus the enemy (3rd TA) had your defense plans at about the same time your commanders did and was using the new generation Soviet tanks.

It may be a game play issue, as the maps are not all that huge (compared to the max operating ranges of such systems).

Using the HMG station may be another reason.

Ain't even me.

Did you access the materials posted by the BTR?

That operational level scenario may be interesting, especially considering the likelyhood of me dropping mine.

Agusto, the mobilisation is failing and I don't think that they would be able to expand further than 250k VSU strength. However considering the separatists expansion, the forces ratios are not going to change even with the VSU expansion to 500k. Considering how "well" VSU performed in the recent times I doubt that this expansion would help (quite on the contrary - it would increase the burden on the country).

Depending on the time frame it could be more numerous and better equipped Soviets running into fewer and less equipped US forces. That said, the main attack would have been via the North German plane, where terrain was better and opposition weaker.

Could you please provide a more extensive criticism?

And that makes me sad.

We would see how events unfold, but in any case - you need time and effort/resources to rebuild an army, something that is present in the vanilla scenario (separatists crashed in 2014, Russia invades in 2017 I think), but from what I have seen so far, I don't see any indications of workable ongoing reform or such a pause (for rebuilding the Armed Forces) happening. The reports from the Kiev Loyalists regarding the new mobilisation have also been fairly conservative and that is again not a good sign. But, as I have said, I think it is best to wait and see how it goes, as the situation is a bit volatile at the moment. One of the key points would be the spring/summer campaign I think, as in my opinion the winter one is more or less finished (maybe the Debaltsevo pocket would be reduced, but otherwise there would be an operational pause I think).

The back story has already slid into the alternative history category, as the separatists were not crashed in 2014, nor does it look like they would be crashed any time soon. In fact if the current dynamic goes on (expansion of the separatist forces) such military victory would be impossible for the Kiev government without some extensive direct external support. Hence, in my opinion, the conflict would develop differently from what the current vanilla scenario has envisioned.

Infantry gear (ballistic protection, clothing, night vision, portable radios), infantry heavy weapons (ATGMs), specialist support assets (CB radars, light and medium UAVs, ELINT gear) are all good options. Maybe sending some older WP stocks of heavy equipment would be a good idea (though you could pay for the local stuff to be repaired/rebuilt, boosting the local economy). Heavy Western equipment is a big no no in current situation, as (should we forget political implications) those take longer time to train with, require extensive logistics/specialist support to maintain and operate and would decrease commonality (ie further increase the costs burden). However that would still not address the core issues that plague the Ukrainian army - poor command, organisation, logistics and so on. For that to happen you need a comprehensive military reform, a considerable advisory body too I would think. So far that did not happen, and should it - the pro Ukrainians should hope that the Georgian and Iraqi experience was studied, so that it is not repeated there.

Lester Grau is a good author. At least his indexes do not drive you mad. Grau/Glantz/Armstrong are/were one of the better authors on the Soviets.

Why does everyone always talk about RSR and Fulda Gap rather than The Red Army (by Peters) and north German plane?

Did Syrians get SADARM equivalent in their Grads? Not on Grads anyway if I remember it right:http: //rbase.new-factoria.ru/sites/default/files/gallery/s.gurov/12/04/28/spbe.jpg

I guess with Syrians you could do the late 80s Best Germany against Worst Germany conflict.

Back on track though - Grad with new munitions would essentially be a "remove enemy armour from the map" (Grad divizion would saturate the hostile side of the map even on the max size maps I think) button, thus not good for the game play.

M60A1/A3 against T64A/B? That would make me happy indeed.

Ah, British, that may explain the tactical bias. So tube artillery, MLRS platform, Spike derivative, tactical aviation. Did I leave something out? I see that you plan to use ATACMS as your direct support weapon, instead of using it where it is needed (ie hitting the enemy rear echelons as a part of recon/strike complex). We prefer to have seeking AT subunitions (as PGMs) in our rocket artillery systems (Grad and Smerch), as those maximise the strong points of those systems - ability to deliver killing blow in a single salvo and then displace. With GPS guided single shot salvo'ed rounds that ability is wasted by using it in peacameal fashion. We could agree to disagree though.