Hapless

Just turning to this development now.  Taking a modern reinforced concrete bridge is tough at a distance.  Doing it by air is normally a job for big stuff like JDAMs.  I don’t think anyone has tried to do it with an MLRS system.
Bridges are pretty tough but gravity is a harsh mistress.  If you punch enough hole in the deck you can definitely erode the bridge and effect crossing weight and speed.  However, the enemy can quickly over-bridge in these sort of situations.  If UA gets the longer range HIMARS missiles, they could do better hitting the bridge laterally from Odessa.  Hitting a pier a few times will definitely do damage to the bridge that is not easily repaired.  But that is a long precise shot on a small target…one for the history books if they can pull it off.
I am looking at the Kherson problem in detail now, more later.

That is not how military operations work...even in the Russian military.  You never have enough of anything, no matter how much.  Russians have a lot of old ammo stockpiles - a lot of that ammunition is very questionable and I would love to see the dud rates for Russian arty right now.  However, that is not what is important, it is their ammo production capability in relation to the burn/output rate.  In a longer war, which everyone is concerning themselves over, we are really comparing an ammo production competition between Russia, and the entire Western World.  Russian stocks, no matter how big, cannot sustain middle-chain attrition such as we are seeing for very long.  And this middle-chain attrition makes the production competition much harder for the Russian side as the West has no such interdiction in its supply chains - beyond the "knee shaking" at the political level.
The military operations are highly complex but the equation is pretty simple: the West needs to keep out-producing, out-supplying and overmatching qualitatively compared to the Russian military until it breaks, the only thing standing in our way...is us. 
The Russians are employing old-school iron mountain logistics, and once again demonstrating a major weakness in concentrated mass on the modern battlefield (Sburke...no!).  Iron mountain logistics has enormous redundancy built in but it relies on being far enough back, hidden or shielded enough from deep strike (see: air superiority).  On a modern battlefield where tactical weapons have ranges we used to rely on aircraft for, and ISR to the point that it is impossible to hide anything...well you see the results: 1 missile = 1 ammo dump.  We, in the west, have been moving to "just in time" logistics to try and remove the iron mountain concept, but that is highly sensitive to disruption...which again is almost a guarantee on the modern battlefield.  In short our concepts of mass are in just as much trouble in a near-peer environment because - logistics.  
All that talk about tanks is just noise, it is the refuelers, ammo trucks, depot system and maintenance that makes mass of just about anything but light infantry particularly challenging.  "But we will have APS and C-UAV!"  Sure, but you now need it the entire length of the operational system (e.g. every fuel truck), and even then we are not close to re-establishing the conditions we have been training and operating in since the end of the Cold War.  Hell, this does not even look like the conditions we trained for during the Cold War.  We have just scratched the surface of unmanned (UGS anyone?) and modern ISR looks like it s choking out at least one principle of war.
This is going to be one crazy ride. 

I had a much longer rambling post, but gave up on it, so TLDR:

How many tactical decisions does a junior officer make in a year? Not a lot. Exercises are expensive and time consuming, training objectives must be met, freeplay is rare, scripting is prevalent.
vs
How many tactical decisions do you make in an average CM game? How many do you make in an average CM turn? All that micromanagement from battalion to fire team level? Endless tactical decision making.
Naturally, decision-making and execution are very, very different. And CM is by no means 100% realistic. But it's probably realistic enough, especially integrated into a full on professional military syllabus. If nothing else, it's a lot safer and cheaper to 'fail forward' in CM than it is on exercise or- God forbit- the real deal.

I had a much longer rambling post, but gave up on it, so TLDR:

How many tactical decisions does a junior officer make in a year? Not a lot. Exercises are expensive and time consuming, training objectives must be met, freeplay is rare, scripting is prevalent.
vs
How many tactical decisions do you make in an average CM game? How many do you make in an average CM turn? All that micromanagement from battalion to fire team level? Endless tactical decision making.
Naturally, decision-making and execution are very, very different. And CM is by no means 100% realistic. But it's probably realistic enough, especially integrated into a full on professional military syllabus. If nothing else, it's a lot safer and cheaper to 'fail forward' in CM than it is on exercise or- God forbit- the real deal.

Nikishyne / Nikishino
North-east of Donetsk and south-east of Debaltseve.
map size : 2100 X 1900 m
type : village
Nikishyne saw a lot of fighting in 2015 during the battle for Debaltseve. I might post more in depth background info later. But at the end of the battle, it was basically a field of rubble with barely any house intact.
Google Earth view :


View from the South West :

From the North East :


Notes :
Again the setup zones aren't that big. They're sufficient for a small force.
I added objectives and setup zones for a meeting engagement so people could give the map a go and have some fun either as a pbem or a hotseat game. Historically the setup zones don't make a lot of sense though. I am aware of that. As far as I understand, the Ukrainian forces were reinforcing the village from the North and North-West and the separatists were coming from the South or South East. I picked these setup zones because I think they offer the most interesting tactical options and are more or less fair for both sides but they're not historical at all.
Download link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/j5vfid5og72t0c7/cmbs map nikishyne.rar?dl=0
 

The videos they show are live. They come from drones but also from surveillance cameras mounted on electric pylons (videos with a black watermark). They say they see everything, show the starting position of the drones (the one at the beginning of the report where they take cover and which is later marked with an X on the map) but also the position of the Russian tank on the map. To sum up the video, they express their frustration because due to the lack of ammunition they cannot shoot everything they want.

Another short video about drones from French TV: https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/vlmgk0/a_french_television_channel_report_on_the_uaf/
Shows what's going on back in the CP, which I don't think we've seen before. It's not clear if they're watching the drone feed live or playing it back for the reporter-  (probably clearer to someone who understands French!).
Maps are visible and unblurred, which apparently resulted in casualties and at least one death. OPSEC matters.

Acceptable casualties are pixeltruppen expended to good effect

Another friendly reminder that 99% of the internet is not a reliable source and anyone can write a caption. In the words of Sergeant Hamlet from the CM Discord, this is Shroedinger's Hind.

Never seen two blatantly contradictingly titled clips of the same footage pop up next to each other in the feed before.

Javelin team gets a missile off, then comes under fire.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/v8qoiq/the_fgm148_javelin_operator_hits_an_enemy_target/
Few things I thought were interesting:

They get spotted real fast- looks like the missile might have a bit of a vapour trail (don't think Javelin usually has one, so could be the local conditions?)

There are at least two Javelin teams.

Hard to tell, but they don't look like they're bugging out as soon as the missile is fired. In theory they should be able to due to the fire and forget capability- so maybe they think it's safe enough to hang around, maybe they need to keep the AT capability up or maybe it's really hard to *not* watch your missile hit the target.

And from the strategic to the tactical- if anyone wanted to see how drones can supplement basic soldiering skills:



Apparently Russian SF vs a Ukrainian patrol. Short sharp ambush, followed by snatching a wounded prisoner. Footage is here- NSFW.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/v6yjpr/pov_of_russian_sso_ambush_against_ukrainian/

Obviously it's interesting to see a small scale tactical action from this perspective, but I think it's important to see that the impact of the drone here isn't revolutionary. It certainly might make certain elements easier (we don't know how long they've been waiting there- it could be a snap ambush thrown on at a moment's notice because they spotted the incoming patrol via the drone) but the drone isn't doing the basics for them, it's complementing existing skills.

This is sort of drones writ large: they don't exactly bring any new capabilities to the table as a whole (drones aren't doing any missions that didn't get done in WW1 by biplanes (except any EW stuff)), but they do extend existing capabilities- more people at the table get the ability to carry out and benefit from those missions.

For example, aerial reconaissance is a thing- but there's a world of difference between trying to get an aircraft to fly over, take some photos and then somehow get them to a rifle platoon in a timely manner vs the platoon drone operator chucking a Raven in the air and getting a live feed a couple of seconds later. How to operate in an environment where everyone has airpower at their fingertips is the hard part.

The Bulldog's Make Their Stand

Life has gotten in my way of making another update, but I finally have time to conclude this AAR. Contrary to what I said before, I will not be making a Battle for Normandy AAR next but another SF2 one (I'm pretty excited about it). After the conclusion of these two AARs, I will be gone for a period of 5+ months, so enjoy my writing while it's still here! Anyway, it's time to witness some very intense combat, probably the coolest CM experience I've had in my year and a half of playing. 

The situation as of last post. 2nd platoon with the help of a Stryker MGS is able to suppress a sniper in Ar Sariya. Luckily, the two men that are hit by the sniper are still alive and we were able to evacuate them. Meanwhile, 3rd platoon holds the decisive terrain on the map and starts engaging whatever they can see in the valley. The first target engaged is a BMP-2 which is promptly smacked by a javelin missile. I was feeling pretty confident at this point, but little did I realize how serious things were about to get.

3rd platoon spots a platoon of T-72 tanks entering the battlefield from LOA Tennessee. This is obviously the SLA battalion's CAR (combined arms reserve), and I waste no time engaging them. 
 
A Javelin gunner from 2nd squad, 3rd platoon flings a missile towards the lead T-72.

In a excellent display of timing and SLA incompetence I am able to nail both tanks with one missile. #1's wingman made the mistake of trying to pass him and they both paid the price.  

3rd platoon fires another missile, this time from 1st squad. The result is extremely disappointing. 

(How many times have you had a Javelin fail to penetrate?)
Despite the dangerous threat the appearance of the CAR presents, I still feel very confident. After all, where can they hide? I can see everywhere into the valley. As always though, my overconfidence is soon checked by the enemy. 

More armor begins to appear, and I suspect the SLA commander's CAR has at least a company sized element of T-72s at his disposal. 3rd platoon also has another issue - only a single Javelin missile remains with the dismounts, with 2 more in 3rd platoons Stryker's below the hill. With the possibility of a push onto OBJ Bear, it's time for me to activate my reserve - 1st platoon. 

3rd platoon is able to hit the remaining tank again from the first tank platoon we encountered and destroy it, but now they have no means of dealing with the other T-72s. Spotting rounds are also falling, but I keep my men hunkered down in defilade. We cannot abandon this hill.


With a somewhat safe route cleared, I move 1st platoon up the hill mounted in their Stryker's. They dismount on the reverse slope and begin moving to reinforce 3rd platoon. Feeling I had control over the battlefield, I was oblivious to the nightmare about to unfold.

Those previously mentioned spotting rounds turn into a FFE call, likely air-bursting heavy mortars. It's not the most accurate fire mission, and I have decent cover from it, but the shrapnel exploding overhead does cause casualties. The rounds incapacitate a team leader from 1st Pl, 3rd Sq and give light wounds to various joes. The casualties are not good, but the worst part is that 3rd platoon is suppressed and unable to observe the CAR's movement in the valley. This scenario has turned into a good example of why IDF doesn't have to always kill to be effective. At this point I can surmise the SLA commander is likely coordinating his fires with his armor's movement in order to give himself some freedom to maneuver. After a couple minutes, the barrage ends and I move the Javelin teams from 3rd and 1st platoon back into position to observe the CAR's movement. My jaw drops at what I find.

I find a friend waiting for me, and a sudden feeling of dread hits me like a train. I am realizing now how bad this situation is quickly getting. I am about to have to fight for my company's life.

Yeah... this is quickly developing into a nightmare situation. Two platoons of T-72s are barreling towards my dismounts, the men have no choice but to brace for impact. Loosing OBJ Bear to armor would probably result in the destruction of my company, there is no choice but to stem the tide. The next few minutes will consist of decisive action, and friendly casualties will be inevitable. 

I am shown a beautiful flank shot on one of the tank platoons, which is going around OBJ Bear on my left flank. The MGS platoon is deployed in BPs below the hill and 2nd platoon is watching the left flank as well.

(Scratch one)

(I was watching this with my jaw dropped)
A bad situation is soon turned worse... a platoon sized element of BMP-2s crest over the hill to the north and begin suppressing OBJ Bear with their 30mm auto cannons, blowing a javelin gunner to a few chunks. The anti tank gunners retreat to the rest of their respective platoons in defilade between them and the BMP-2s.

In a role they were not intended for, the MGS can be quite useful against armor in a pinch. Two SABOTs from the MGS platoon take out a T-72. I can only imagine the intercom chatter during this, the T-72AV TURMS-T is a scary threat in an M1A2 SEP, let alone a Stryker MGS. 2nd platoon takes IDF and their PL and a Javelin gunner become casualties, severely wounded. I have no choice but to pull them off the hill, leaving the MGS platoon alone to defend the flank. 

The situation develops more, and another SLA mechanized infantry platoon reinforces the effort to push me off OBJ Bear. I am extremely worried about these BMPs, they pose the biggest threat to the dismounts on OBJ Bear. However, I am quite confident in my company's ability to win a dismounted fight. Communist armies never seem to excel in training effective infantrymen (they are good at cooking them in the back of their personnel carriers though). 

Another T-72 destroyed by the MGS platoon.

A 1st platoon Javelin team gets an angle on a BMP-2 and smacks it with a Javelin missile.

The situation after less than two minutes of combat. This fight is happening very quickly, and it's far from over. Much to my annoyance, I have a platoon leader and his HQ stuck in front of 1st and 3rd platoon's positions. However it's safer to keep them put than to risk those BMP-2s shooting at them. To make matters worse, a T-72 on my left flank is in an area where the MGS platoon cannot see it.

(Oh ****)

The shell hits 1st platoon's positions, killing a grenadier in 2nd squad. Looks like there is another enemy tank platoon exploiting my weak flank. 

This presents a very big problem. My company is unable to engage this tank platoon breaking through my flank, let alone see them. My whole company is now in a very bad spot, especially my Stryker's that are no longer in cover from the enemy with their flanks exposed. On OBJ Bear, I take another javelin gunner KIA from BMP fire, and two radio operators are casualties from tank fire, one killed and one wounded.

The MGS platoon gets an angle on a T-72 cresting over the hill, but I am still mostly blind to their movement.

A BMP crests over the hill and is promptly destroyed

The first round is shot back at the MGS platoon, fortunately it is way short. Annoyingly, the two SABOTs that impact on the T-72 do not penetrate it and it reverses into cover.

Concurrently, the first BMP-2 moves into OBJ Bear, right into 1st and 3rd platoon. It's an awesome slaughter that's almost an homage to the halftrack scene from SPR.

An AT-4 eliminates a BMP, killing everyone inside. We're in business!

The situation has improved in many ways, but I still have the problem on the left flank. All but two T-72s have been eliminated, but even one is a massive threat to my men. The MGS platoon is punching well above their weight, I had only intended to use them for fortification busting and sniping the occasional BMP. At this point in the battle I am also wishing I had a platoon sized element of anti tank Strykers equipped with TOW missiles to help me out. 

Another BMP is destroyed by an AT-4. You never know when you might need these things, it's worth humping the extra weight. Remember the lessons from the Battle of Mogadishu!

The SLA mechanized infantry platoons are quickly disintegrating, thanks to poor tactical employment of their vehicles and dismounts in typical 3rd world army fashion. Great for me.

Another great little victory for me - a T-72 I couldn't previously see is engaged & destroyed by a Javelin gunner on OBJ Bear. You can see 2nd platoon in the distance moving to engage this guy, luckily they didn't end up needing to.

"BMP, Cover!"
Both 1st and 3rd platoon light these guys up. So many rounds were fired at these poor bastards the game couldn't process the audio. The CAR is almost completely eliminated now, only two tanks remain and the mechanized infantry elements have been rendered CI, only stragglers remain. However, those two tanks now have spots on 1st & 3rd platoon's Strykers. I have no choice to push the MGS platoon out of cover to engage them. I am prepared to lose them in order to save the rest of the company.

The last two tanks are destroyed, but an MGS is destroyed, killing everyone inside. Kudos to the infantry for saving the other MGS with a Javelin through the top of the turret. The loss of the MGS is rough, but it was necessary to prevent further damage. Lots of medals will be handed out after today. 

The intense report of small arms and tank shells flying through the air dies down, replaced by the screams of the wounded and the crackle and fire & secondary explosions. In the span of 6 minutes of combat, the entire SLA combined arms reserve is destroyed. 3 platoons of armor, and two platoons of infantry disappear in minutes. I finally have some time to compose myself after some of the most intense combat I've had in Combat Mission.

Wounded & dead men are removed from the battlefield, while my platoon leaders get ammo & headcounts from their squad leaders. Considering the circumstances, friendly casualties were not high. I'm still angry that I lost so many men KIA, but we made those bastards pay. 

While decisive action may be over, there is still work to do. 2nd platoon will take over as the company reserve and hold OBJ Bear while 1st & 3rd platoon clean up stragglers. 

While waiting for their Strykers to arrive, 2nd platoon gets sweet revenge when they hose down a fleeing tank crewman with their SAWs. No mercy.


The battlefield looks like something you'd see in a Fulda battlefield, destroyed eastern bloc armor litters the field like trash thrown from a window. It's an awe inspiring sight.

The mop up operations move smoothly, the broken tank crews & infantrymen scattered around the hill offer little resistance. 1st platoon starts doing ammo runs up the hill with their Strykers. 

 
The Bulldogs are good shots, best in the battalion.

No SLA soldier can hide from the men on this hill.

The company's FSO calls for fire on a group of stragglers, the 120mm airbursts rip them to shreds. 

Annoyingly, SLA in-direct continues to be an annoyance. Waiting for their Strykers to arrive, a soldier from 2nd platoon is killed and another wounded from it. The craters in this photo illustrate how much ordinance was dropped on 2nd platoon through the scenario. Repositioning every five minutes does get old after a while. 

Another key-holed BMP-2 is destroyed in Ar Sariya, contributing nothing toward the SLA effort. 2nd platoon mounts up and moves out towards OBJ Bear.

Mopping up the stragglers is an easy affair, everyone gets some.


Even a Stryker is able to have some target practice.

The battle is just about won at this point. 3rd platoon is bounded up to hill 92, covering the rest of the valley. I move them dismounted for fear of ATGM ambush, the last thing I want is to get men killed for the sake of convenience. Eventually, 1st platoon joins them while 2nd platoon holds OBJ Bear.
 
The rest of the scenario consists of movement with no more fighting. I will spare the boring details, but the forest on the eastern side of the map proved to be an excellent infiltration route for my dismounts. LOA Tennessee is reached, and I call for a cease fire. 
Conclusion

The battle is a tactical victory, I was able to achieve my objectives outlined at the beginning of the AAR. Unfortunately, the Bulldogs lost 8 men achieving this outcome. Enemy casualties were far greater, with 31 vehicles destroyed and 128 personnel killed or wounded. The combat power of the SLA battalion in the area is severely depleted. They certainly do not have the ability to conduct offensive operations in their state. Hours after this battle, the Bulldogs will be reinforced and the rest of the SLA battalion destroyed in place.

Lots of SLA dismounts remain on the map, unable to contribute to the battle. Unsurprisingly, most of them occupy the various villages.
 
The most surprising find after the battle concluded was this platoon of T-72s & platoon of BMP-2s on the western slope of OBJ Bear. Had the enemy commander chosen to commit this element on my weak left flank with the rest of the attack, I am sure my company would have been destroyed. 


Moving dismounted to LOA Tennessee was the right call, turns out three AT-3 Sagger teams had eyes on the decisive terrain the whole time. Even with fancy thermal optics, the infantryman's ability to conceal himself will always be a lethal ability. Moving those platoons mounted through the open would have likely been catastrophic.

The MGS platoon leader deserves a congressional Medal of Honor for his platoon's role in the battle. Without them, I am sure B/1-24 would have been destroyed in place by Sahrani armor. The MGS platoon is accredited with four T-72 kills & a BMP-2 kill. The infantrymen punched way above their weight as well, with 4-8 AFV kills per platoon. 

The 2 F-16CJs tasked with destroying targets of opportunity didn't hit anything except this recon team. Not much is left of them. Supporting fires weren't utilized as much as I wanted, mainly being used to deny terrain. I am curious how the BMP attack would have played out if I was able to get the battery of 155s dropped on them, after all I had sufficient cover to do that. I was at least happy I got some mileage out of the 120mm mortars though. Usage of supporting fires will be something I continue to work on.
My Thoughts

"Stryker's Attack" ended up probably being the greatest CM experience I've had. My fundamentals were tested, along with my ability to use a SBCT formation against a near peer enemy equipped with armor. As he does with his other scenarios, GeorgeMC provides challenging AI plans that keep you on your toes and surprised at moments, like I was. It is very easy to tell when a scenario is play-tested well, and "Armor Attacks!" is definitely one. I was seriously impressed by the AI's suppression of the decisive terrain and subsequent thrust to drive me off the hill. I was literally giddy with excitement while the big battle for OBJ Bear took place.
One of my favorite parts of this experience was demonstrating the ability of the SBCT in the offensive. The Stryker gets a bad rap from those ranging from morons or to people who don't understand it's capabilities & correct usage. Here it was utilized in it's correct application, an infantry carrier and ammo hauler. It's not a Bradley with ****ty armament, it's a way for the infantryman to be taken to point A to point B with protection from shrapnel & small arms with plenty of ammunition resupply. Stryker infantry in real life can dismount up to 10 km away from their objective. It's a vehicle best concealed from enemy fire, much like the American half-tracks of World War 2. Operationally, the Stryker is an excellent rapid reaction force, with the ability to deploy to areas much quicker than their heavy counterparts.
Similarly, the Stryker MGS is a very misunderstood vehicle. It isn't a very good vehicle by any means, with a small ammo complement & notorious mechanical problems. However, that doesn't mean you can't use it in the way it was intended pretty effectively. That means engaging buildings, fortifications, and the occasional light vehicle. If you've ever taken Stryker infantry into urban areas in CM, you've probably gotten good mileage out of the thing. The 105mm round makes short work of enemy strongpoints. That being said, the MGS does have the ability to engage armor, but it isn't a good idea unless you absolutely have to. As evidenced by this AAR, the 105mm round struggles to penetrate modern T-72 tanks at times, although older tanks like T-62s or T-55s and light vehicles will be cut through like a knife through butter. The MGS also obviously lacks the armor to be engaged by anything bigger than 12.7mm. When you stop treating the MGS as a bad Abrams, it does have a role that can fit into the modern battlefield.

This AAR also demonstrates the punching power of the modern US Army dismounted infantryman, the firepower a single platoon can dish out will never cease to be incredible to me. The Javelin missile gives incredible capabilities to the infantryman, from the ability to engage armor at 99% kill rates, to the ability to destroy enemy strongpoints and weapons teams. The AT-4 continues to be a reliable killer of light vehicles & armor at close range, much like the LAW that the Cold War infantryman humped. When it comes to killing enemy personnel, the SAW will remain the #1 killer. Accurate, a high rate of fire, reliability and ammo combability with the rest of the squad makes it the best tool for the job. The two M240Bs the platoon's weapon's squad compliment the SAW with their ability to kill the enemy and/or keep their heads down. At the end of the day though, "There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men.” Even with the best infantry & armor in the world, CM commanders still managed to get their pixeltruppen killed in droves. I've personally rendered US Army heavy company teams combat ineffective as the Syrian/Red player. I've seen other red commanders to do the same on "Armor Attacks". It is insane to see the best of the best units in the world dominated by inferior enemies, but again, they aren't a magic win button. Poor employment of your assets will always result in good men dying, and embarrassing defeats.
In conclusion, I enjoyed the hell out of this scenario. Not only for the entertaining combat in provided, but also the excellent lessons it demonstrated. Your fundamentals are guaranteed to be tested. Play any of the versions of "Armor Attacks!", they are all great experiences, but "Stryker's Attack!" will test you in it's own cool way. Stay tuned for my next AAR, GeorgeMC's Passage At Wilcox with a light infantry company from 10th Mountain attacking the town.
 
 
 

The Battle Develops

It's go time! The men of Bravo company move out from their deployment area. 2nd platoon moves to the flank, while 3rd platoon begins their ascent up the hill towards OBJ Bear. In the distance, F16s drop bombs on targets I can't yet see while the artillery pounds OBJ Bear's reverse slope.

The enemy has rocket artillery they drop preplanned on my avenue of approach, slowing me down a bit. Luckily, no one is hit by the inaccurate fire. These rockets are also not very big either.
'
2nd platoon deploys on the flank and takes sniper fire from the town of Ar Sariya. They also immediately begin getting partial spots, armor and IFVs around the northern slope of OBJ Elk. The sniper fire is responded with suppressive fires from 2nd platoon's weapons squad. The return fire dies down and I resume 2nd platoons movement. 3rd platoon continues their ascent, nothing notable happening until they reach the top.

(The M240B in action)
The sniper fire dies down and the rest of the PL and the javelin teams move to engage the partial spots ahead. However, trouble arises when a key-holed BMP-2 surprises the platoon leader and his anti tank elements. 

(A bad situation)
The BMP-2 lays down horrifying amount of 30mm fire at 2nd platoon, but only one man is hit by it, severely wounded but alive. A moment later - the BMP-2 is silenced with a Javelin missile through the turret. My big mistake was underestimating the strength of the SLA picket forces in the town, that engagement could have ended a lot worse.

2nd platoon also develops the partial spot earlier on OBJ Elk into a BMP-2, and quickly destroys it with a Javelin missile. Finally, 3rd platoon gets some action in. The oasis develops into uh, a cluster ****. An extremely incompetent SLA commander has a bunch of tanks and IFVs bunched together in the oasis, stuck. 2 Javelins are enough to disable every vehicle in the cluster. Note that there are about 2-3 unspotted vehicles in this clump. 

(Yeah.... not the greatest employment of these assets)

The 3rd platoon reaches the top of OBJ Bear, with no resistance on the hill. So far, everything is going smoothly. A T-72 in the distance is also nailed by 3rd platoon. At this point, I begin to feel overconfident (a mistake not unnoticed by the enemy). During this action, 2nd platoon continues to engage targets of opportunity with the Javelins. Much to my annoyance, 2nd platoon is cut in half by SLA mortars and I am not able to maximize their strength where I want it. Luckily no one is hit by the mortar fire, but it serves it's purpose.


2nd platoon takes more sniper fire while taking cover from the SLA IDF. The sniper ends up severely wounding two men. Fire superiority is soon established and the fire begins to slacken. The platoon's medic is brought up to render aid to the casualties. To ensure to kill, the MGS platoon leader's vehicle is moved up and pours a couple of rounds into the sniper's building. The fire stops.  

The Calm Before the Storm
That concludes the end of this half of the battle, the next update will include lots of decisive action and conclude the combat in this scenario. Things might seem quiet now, but they really take off in the next few turns. I'll just say the SLA won't let me control the map without a fight....
In the meantime, enjoy some action shots



 

And from the strategic to the tactical- if anyone wanted to see how drones can supplement basic soldiering skills:



Apparently Russian SF vs a Ukrainian patrol. Short sharp ambush, followed by snatching a wounded prisoner. Footage is here- NSFW.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/v6yjpr/pov_of_russian_sso_ambush_against_ukrainian/

Obviously it's interesting to see a small scale tactical action from this perspective, but I think it's important to see that the impact of the drone here isn't revolutionary. It certainly might make certain elements easier (we don't know how long they've been waiting there- it could be a snap ambush thrown on at a moment's notice because they spotted the incoming patrol via the drone) but the drone isn't doing the basics for them, it's complementing existing skills.

This is sort of drones writ large: they don't exactly bring any new capabilities to the table as a whole (drones aren't doing any missions that didn't get done in WW1 by biplanes (except any EW stuff)), but they do extend existing capabilities- more people at the table get the ability to carry out and benefit from those missions.

For example, aerial reconaissance is a thing- but there's a world of difference between trying to get an aircraft to fly over, take some photos and then somehow get them to a rifle platoon in a timely manner vs the platoon drone operator chucking a Raven in the air and getting a live feed a couple of seconds later. How to operate in an environment where everyone has airpower at their fingertips is the hard part.

Javelin team gets a missile off, then comes under fire.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/v8qoiq/the_fgm148_javelin_operator_hits_an_enemy_target/
Few things I thought were interesting:

They get spotted real fast- looks like the missile might have a bit of a vapour trail (don't think Javelin usually has one, so could be the local conditions?)

There are at least two Javelin teams.

Hard to tell, but they don't look like they're bugging out as soon as the missile is fired. In theory they should be able to due to the fire and forget capability- so maybe they think it's safe enough to hang around, maybe they need to keep the AT capability up or maybe it's really hard to *not* watch your missile hit the target.

Thanks ) Just became some more of work, my wife turned back and often occupies PC because her work, also it's hard to live three months 24/7 as war news translator, so I took small vacations 

This is that first famous large column of Rosgvardia, destroyed in first or second day of war. All this did 6th company of 92nd mech.brigade near Kutuzivka village NE from Kharkiv. The company in Day 1 turned out itself in the rear of Russians, because they advanced forward too fast, trying to enter in Kharkiv. In first contacts the company lost 3 BTR-4E, but despite this company commander decided to break through back to Kharkiv. The company, heading toward the city, encountered with large columnn of Rosgvardia/OMON, which drove in the same direction. Commander immadiately ordered to attack them - as result almost whole column was destroyed, but from full elimination Russians were saved because two their tanks appeared on the road and engaged UKR company. Two more BTR-4E were knokced out by tanks, so rest of company broke contakt and on full speed reached Kharkiv.

Very interesting question but it needs some context:

So this graphic is interesting - it is built from some research done at Georgia tech, for the real nerds the excel sheets in detail are avail at https://brecke.inta.gatech.edu/research/conflict/.  We have had periods of "great peace" before as you can see.  What is missing from this graphic are the Mongol Conquests that occurred between 1200-1400 AD, which still ranks only second to the Three Kingdoms War (182-280 BC) as the most deadly in history as percentages of the overall human population at the time (and this does not give full credit to the Mongol Invasions contributions to the Black Death).  So before 1400 there was a major spike and then between 1400 and 1600 we basically had a lot of small wars between fiefdoms but overall deaths were kept low. (Also note that the deaths as a result of conquest of the New World are also not included, which by some estimates were obscene).
Then right about the time we had the "Peace of Westphalia" deaths by war went on a bit of a wild ride with spikes about every 50 years, right about the time the generations that fought the last major war died off.  This is pretty consistent, we get a big spike as the 3rd post-last-war generation tries to re-order things, then an exhausted peace, then another spike...and then the 20th century happened.  If we go with anything less than 10 deaths out of 100,000 globally as the "peace line", the 20th century was a Season of Mars, and this after one of the most peaceful stretches in the late 19th century, right after the US Civil War.  So for higher resolution of more recent history:

So we have the Chinese Civil war there, ending in '49.   Korea, and then things do start to drop as we enter into the time of intra-state wars and wars of intervention of the Cold War.  Still pretty active but below that 10 per 100,000 line...and then 1989 happened.  It is hard to believe, based on how busy our militaries have been but we definitely have been living a "great peace" between 1989 and about 2012 as the world enjoyed a single super power order and we basically only had small little savage wars to deal with, not unlike the much briefer period in the late 19th century.  Neither of these charts take into account the Russo-Ukraine War, which is vicious but still a smallish war by earlier standards.
So as to the original question...my guts says "yes" we are entering a new phase of something.  You can track all these charts directly to power competition, which has largely been dormant since the end of the Cold War.  We argued a lot but most of the nations who "won" the Cold War have not had a civil war, or engaged in a state-based one, we all got rich instead.  The dirty little wars on the margins continue but they were largely civil wars or nasty little regional affairs.  Russia has signaled that it is willing to pay a blood price to re-order things, and here we are today.  I am betting we will see more proxy wars and look more like the 60s and 70s and some state-on-state clashes.  Will we go back to the old model of great big wars every 50 years like we saw between 1650-1945?  Doubtful, as we will likely see the biggest spike in history in the form of an escalated thermonuclear exchange if we try that out.  My bet is some form of nasty power competition as East and West rebalance. 

Not wrong, but not entirely correct either.  Ukrainian defence was brilliant in the opening phase of this war.  We don't know much and likely will not get the full story for some time, however, the plan for the Phase I defence was decisive in itself.  If the UA had tried to fight the same way as the RA and sought decisive battle, it could have gone poorly.  Instead what we saw was a hybrid warfare campaign for the history books.
First Ukraine had (and still has) information superiority.  They are on their home ground and were also being fed western intel from before the war started.  This mean that in places like Hostemel, they could concentrate and defeat the RA initial moves in detail.  I think Hostomel is also a battle for the history books and was decisive in this war.  The RA tried to use SOF and Light in concentration and failed enormously, once again underlying that when misemployed SOF and Light are extremely vulnerable [aside: it is odd on all the talk of the "death of the tank" but we have not seen a lot on the "death of airborne/heliborne].  Russia made that airfield snap central to their main effort, it was their Plan A, and it collapsed in a couple days.
Second, Ukraine set up what I can only describe as an unconventional warfare defensive campaign.  This was hybrid in nature (a mix of conventional and unconventional forces) and looks a lot like what the Norwegians have set up in their Northern districts - for obvious reasons.  Basically, we had TD and irregular forces defending their local regions, backed up - and very importantly linked by UA SOF.  These forces were already in location along that very long initial front line and armed with next-gen smart-ATGMs, UAVs and comms.  Those comms linked them back to UA artillery creating an entirely distributed defence network - or at least that is my working theory.  The Russians sticking to road networks, lit up by ISR of all sorts were then hammered all along their own system - F ech, A ech, B ech and all the way back to SLOC nodes.  All that Russian armor/mech, the ready-force of the RA was cut to pieces in the first month of this war by that system; this wasn't "war amongst the people" this was war of the people. 
Third, Ukraine's political level, assisted by a massive social media effort allowed Ukraine to win the strategic narrative, even before the war crimes.  We all started to cheer for the little guy and realized that this war was an political and strategic opportunity.  All that money and aid, essentially the military industrial complex of Ukraine, was riding on getting this part right...and the Ukrainians did it very right.
I am not like Steve to be honest.  I had no idea how this war was going to go before it started.  It wasn't until about 72 hours in that it became very apparent that something was happening that no one in the business predicted.  That is when the sickness symptoms of the Russian system began to appear. 
Could Russia have won? Of course, no war is pre-determined.  Ukraine could have split or simply failed to resist - they could have ignored western intel, Zelenskyy could have run and/or capitulated.  Or the Russians could have had a much better plan - why they did not make the capture of Lyviv and disruption of all western support the main effort is beyond me.  But they did not, and now they really cannot.  No matter how this little dance in the Donbas goes, Russia has lost this war already.  There is no renormalization after this.  Sweden and Finland are not going to change their minds, those sanctions are going to stick as economies re-wire.  Ukraine is not going to "de-militarize" nor is it going to go quietly back into Russia's sphere with a friendly government.  Russian hard power is empty, to the point that I would not be surprised to see more disruptions in it near-abroad- Russia as a state might already be dead, it just does not know it yet.

Cheap and cheerful rocket artillery? How hard would it be to have 'mobilisation MRLS kits' to turn peacetime civilian pickups into an MLRS mosquito swarm?
 

There were some images upthread of Brimstone systems that looked like they were mounted in exactly that way. This video has a sequence of it near the beginning. It's not quite a "grid-square-remover" MLRS; maybe you could pop a system that size on an 18 tonner rigid body, or a 40 ton artic. Shades of Transformers...

A good start point.  I also have been mulling over a lot of these issues; however, I come to different conclusions.  My primary induction is that we are looking at this too narrowly; quality vs quantity is a one dimensional set of competitive metrics and we are clearly moving past it in this war.  To start these are somewhat vague as what do we mean by "quality"?  Is that training and equipment?  The amount of money invested prior to war?  Quantity, is that mass on the battlefield or broader strategic capacity?  Is it both?  These definitions muddle more than they really explain.
I think there are at least three more dimensions that need to be explored (and I say "at least" deliberately): "smartness" and "distribution", and "capacity". 
Smartness could just as easily be described as intelligence in the broader sense but the term is already in use.  By this I define smartness as: the ability of a force to competitively create usable knowledge in the prosecution of war.  This is effectively competitive theory building at all levels of warfare (i.e. the warfare enterprise) - [aside: I did have graphics but the "eeewww PowerPoint crowd" might get ruffled again].  So one can have a very well trained and equipped force but is it competitively smart?  Further, can you have a smart low-quality but high quantitative force?  Theorists say yes, they call it a swarm.  Smartness could easily be called C4ISR; however, I personally think that term gets boxed up as "HQ stuff" which does a disservice to the idea of the overall cognitive ability of a force as a sentient system in itself.   
In the opening phase of this war the Russian attacked on 5 main axis where they concentrated over 190k troops well armed and just coming off moths of exercises (how effective those were are in doubt), they had the local mass advantage as Ukrainian defence was 1) still mobilizing, 2)  in a state of shock at the first punch and 3) was spread out across a very long frontage as no one knew if Belarus was going to jump in or there were more axis the Russians were going to open up. So in the opening phase of this war we have seen a very smart Ukrainian force meet what I call a "dim" mass-based Russian one, and it appears the meeting was decisive in the opening phase of this war.
Distribution and capacity speak to mass but how one employs it.  Distribution is how we spread that mass around and capacity is how much depth we invest into it.  In this war, again in the opening phase, we saw the Ukrainian defence as very highly distributed mass, yet also highly connected and very intelligent.  It met a very high density mass, yet also "dim" of the Russian forces...and we saw what happened.  The Ukrainian defence created friction and attrition along the entirely of the Russian operational system leading to the collapse of that system on at least 2 operational axis, one of them the main effort of the whole war.   So now we can have high quality - smart - distributed/lower capacity mass meeting low quality - dim - concentrated/higher capacity mass, and we all saw what happened.  Western militaries will wring their hands over this one for at least a decade because we tend to put out high quality - smart - concentrated/low capacity mass and no matter what the military visionaries, revisionist or conservatives may say, we have no idea what happens when these types of forces all meet - Steve, has nearly shouted himself raw pointing out how wrong the pre-war modeling was, and still can be.  Particularly when we have seen what low quality - smart - distributed/high capacity (nearing endless) mass can do to our forces over time, in insurgencies over the last 20 years .
This brings me to my last point, which no one really seems to be talking much about either: speed of victory/loss matters.  Hypothetically Russia could win this thing if it manages to drag out this war for a century - I am talking Taliban style of constant low level cuts and bites across the spectrum that it somehow manages to sustain.  However, by then it may no longer matter.  Putin will be dead, the political landscape will have changed to the point that what ever mattered in this war, in this moment has become a complete sideshow.  Further, Russia may "win" but the victory completely breaks the nation, to the point that the victor is not even Russia anymore.  We know this because this is what happened in Afghanistan.  In Oct of '01 it was "a critical blow to terrorism", in Aug of '20 - "*sigh* let's just get this over with".  The USA of '01 is gone and the one in '20 was built upon it but did not have anywhere near the same level of investment as fundamental conditions had changed.  
Back to my main point, western militaries are built for either a quick victory or long loss.  We do not know what to do with a quick loss or long victory.  Further, the public that send us are not wired for the latter either.  Problem is that these could be the wars offered to us and this is a major strategic blind spot.  I think this was one of the authors main points, that is particularly insightful as it relates directly to what sorts of forces we have been building.
And finally, as if all that was not enough, I am still on the fence as to what is happening between defence and offence.  Is this conditions based or are we looking at something more fundamental?  Offence in the form the Russians are offering is clearly in trouble.  It has become incredibly difficult and costly with the type of force they have employing to prosecute it.  We have all been getting "scope eye" on a 2500 sq km postage stamp of terrain - in a country of roughly 604k sq kms - down in the south; however, the rest of the country is also pretty static.  The UA has made a couple successful offensives around Kharkiv and now north of Kherson, but these have been modest.  This could be, as the author suggests, due to the Ukrainian force and how it is being employed (not western enough?).  Or has technology driven us into a different warfare paradigm?  Frankly, I do not know and I am sure people have plenty opinions but let me be the first to break it, you don't know either...no one does.  We likely won't know until something breaks and one side in this war figures it out.  Or maybe they won't and it will take the next war for a side to come up with the answer. The only thing I can say definitively is that the question is in the air right now and the real experts are all watching and waiting.

Not sure if this has popped up here yet: everybody's favourite river crossing.

I have been slowly playing through Cold War's campaigns and standalone scenarios and have been completely blown away with the fidelity of the singleplayer experience. The AI plans have almost universally been some of the best I've seen in any title. It's been immersive. As I often do when I play, I started snapping pictures and making small gifs. When I arrived to scenario 3 in the US Campaign I thought "I should start making an AAR." So, I paused, went back to play the NTC campaign, a few of my favourite scenarios from the Soviet perspective, and started writing. 
I've learned two things: I can't write to save my life, and I really enjoyed it regardless. I already have 6 AARs completed of my experiences and will share them with you all, if only to distract. They strike a more narrative tone, but I have done my best to explain the tactics and decisions. I will label the scenario/mission at the start of every AAR. Without further ado...
 
Prologue:
Kiev Military District, Ukraine SSR.
It was a clear, late spring day somewhere south of Kiev. The open pastureland was starting to show the signs of recovery following the harsh winter. Grass grew tall and the sea of mud was firming up into dry terrain. To any casual observer it would seem a scene of idyllic pastoral calm.

It is a façade. The calm is shattered in an instant, and a brutish ballet begins.

A thunderous barrage deforms and rapes the landscape. It builds to a howling, shrieking crescendo. A cacophony of mortars, howitzers and “Grad” rockets form the orchestra. The impacts smother two wooded hills with a mix of high explosive, smoke, and chemical irritants similar to CS gas. It was all the fury and violence of war, at its apparent worst.
This was not war, however. Merely a facsimile of it. An exercise. To the stern-faced evaluators observing from several kilometres away, and the attached state TV camera crews, it was real enough. Real enough for citizens of the Soviet Union who would watch these scenes play out on their TVs, real enough for Western defence analysts who would pore over every frame of the video, and real enough indeed for young conscripts sat waiting in their tanks and personnel carriers a few kilometres away, in readiness behind a low ridge.

Belly crawling forward among tree, bush and scrub on this same ridge, were more of these young Soviet conscripts. These men were equipped with heavy weapons:  machine guns, recoilless rifles, grenade launchers and potent anti-tank missiles. They would soon make their presence felt, reaching out into the roaring inferno across the open field, destroying any target they could see which remained unharmed from the bombardment. Their missiles began reaching out, flying towards real and simulated targets. TV cameras panned, keeping up with the missiles, visible as green dots against the background.


The evaluators would duly note “hits” recorded by these weapons and, using an intricate set of rules and modifiers, adjust the amount of fire (and therefore casualties) the unit would be deemed to receive when they began their attack. The prospects were good: everything appeared to be within nominal parameters for this drill. The artillery was on target, the missile fire accurate.
As the artillery fire began to abate, the MRB commander – a tough, professional soldier who had been through several prestigious state academies and had seen service in Afghanistan – knew the time was right to begin his attack. Ensconced within his personnel carrier, his voice simultaneously filled the headset of every vehicle commander of this force: begin, armour forward, came the command.
A company of T-64s, a marvel of Soviet technology and a demonstration of its single-minded design philosophy, rumbled up the ridge they had sheltered behind. Taking effective hull down positions, their imposing 125mm cannons crashed out in volleys, striking targets on the forward edge of the forested hills.

The fire is deemed highly effective, scoring several “kills” of enemy vehicles.  With this report crackling through his headset from the tank company commander, the MRB leader issues the next orders, this time via pre-assigned codeword. Repeating himself so there could be no confusion, he tersely speaks: Hornet, hornet, hornet. The unit roars forward as one.
Again, the tanks lead, pushing up and over the ridge at top speed. They fire, with much less accuracy now, on the move, too fast for even the gyro stabilizers to compensate. It is no matter, movement now is key, rather than fire. 

As they pass the exposed area, their rate of advance slows again. Their fire becomes highly effective once more, volleys crashing out across the valley. The observers would note “losses”, of course, losses would always result as an attack neared an objective. They were well within normal parameters, however. What was expected, acceptable, in the science of the attack.

Then come the personnel carriers, surging over the ridge. They move with alacrity behind the armour, in two extended lines.

With pinpoint timing, the artillery fire redoubles on the wooded hills, once again smothering the MRB’s objectives. Any surviving enemy who would chance a shot at these vulnerable vehicles would undoubtedly be discouraged by the howling high explosives.

Again, losses are incurred by the observer/evaluators. Not enough, however. Again, everything is within acceptable parameters.
The MRB closes with shocking speed, crossing several hundred meters in only a few minutes. The momentum and impetus is irresistible. Most of the tanks halt 500 meters away from the wooded tree line, redoubling their fire into and around it. A handful of T-64s move forward with the personnel carriers to provide intimate support. They close the distance aggressively, moving through the final rounds of their own artillery. This particularly impresses the camera crews, still diligently recording, delighted at the realism of the exercise.


The vehicles rumble into the woods, their heavy machineguns thumping away at silhouette targets meant to simulate enemy infantry in their foxholes. Then, the orders come: “Dismount! Forward!” Soviet infantry scramble out of rear hatches and side doors, over engine decks, and into action. Units move in an extended line, firing bursts from their assault rifles. Occasionally, a squad halts at the knee, spraying down foxholes with automatic fire and rocket propelled grenades. They press forward, moving with astonishing speed, newer conscripts desperately sucking for air as they gallop forward.

Leaning out of the hatch of his command vehicle, the MRB commander witnesses his forward companies safely debussing on the objectives. Smoke, as planned, begins to land at the edges of the hills, isolating them from one another. Exultant, for he knows his unit is performing excellently, he urges forward the remainder of his force. Not onto these terrain objectives, these are not of the greatest importance, but beyond them. Breakthrough.
The tanks form into two columns and  roar through the hole ripped in the enemy’s defence, and the MRB commander pushes his command group, air defence vehicles and his third company through in the vacuum they create. They fire as they move, riflemen spraying the smoke-shrouded treeline from open cargo hatches on the rear of the personnel carriers.


***
“15 minutes.”
“What was that, comrade Colonel?” the TV producer asks, overhearing the supervising Colonel despite the dull thuds and crunches in the distance.
“15 minutes. That’s the average time it usually takes to complete this drill.” He explains.
“Is that good?”
The Colonel laughs, “Yes, 15 minutes is quite acceptable… this commander has done it in 12.”
The dismounted infantry may take hours, in reality, to comb through the wooded hills and defeat the surviving enemy infantry. That they would suffer heavily whilst doing so was not in dispute, nor was it of any particular importance. Even the uninitiated TV crewmen could deduce that. The real takeaway, the true objective, was that most of a tank company and an entirely unscathed set of motor riflemen were through the enemy’s defensive position. Havoc would ensue, and the destruction of the notional enemy unit was almost presaged. What the Colonel observing knew, and that the TV crewmen did not, was that inexorably, inevitably, behind this breakthrough would come a tank battalion, then another regiment, and then entire brigades. Victory would follow. It was as simple as that.
Notes/Thoughts
So, the scenario played here was "Soviet Tactical Doctrine 1 (MRB)" by Miller. I wanted to play because I thought it would make a great little compare and contrast piece to how the US would have to do things, especially in the NTC campaign. It's also just a solid concept for a mission, and a trend that I hope continues. For the absence of doubt, I played it straight, precisely as the briefing guides you to do. 
I also think there's some subtle criticism to be made, through the scenario, of how we know the Soviets trained in reality. Big, choreographed exercises. Useful for producing units that knew a series of SOPs and battle-drill evolutions, perhaps not as useful for producing units that know how to keep pushing through when BTRs and BMPs are exploding. They weren't organic like say, I feel the NTC was. Keep that in your minds for now. 

Not sure if this has popped up here yet: everybody's favourite river crossing.