Hapless

Hello guys, after days of work, is finally here, this is an high fidelity remake of Strike at Karand from BF2 to Shock Force 2, the map consists of an 1520 x 1520 City with Hills, Suburbs and an Factory, the outskirts were modified so it could fit well in Combat Mission Gameplay, there is 9 versions of this map, 1 Base version so you can do your scenario or your own quick battle objectives and setup zones, 3 Meeting Engagement, 3 Blue Assault, and 1 Meeting and Engagement and 1 Assault based on the original Battlefield 2 Flags that were on the conquest version on it, hope you enjoy !
 
Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VscLVSszzFhz7K5ZIhjc31blZW-Bo3Dw/view?usp=sharing
 
Gallery: 
 








 


 
Enjoy.
 

That's from January 2020

That's from January 2020

I don't think a flechette round is going to do anything that your basic 5.56/7.62 isn't- the problem looks more like drones are very difficult to hit, rather than current ammunition doesn't do enough damage.
It's got me wondering though- how big do jammers need to be to be effective? Could you stick one inside a 40mm grenade with a parachute and bloop them off into the sky a la instant EW barrage balloons?

I don't think a flechette round is going to do anything that your basic 5.56/7.62 isn't- the problem looks more like drones are very difficult to hit, rather than current ammunition doesn't do enough damage.
It's got me wondering though- how big do jammers need to be to be effective? Could you stick one inside a 40mm grenade with a parachute and bloop them off into the sky a la instant EW barrage balloons?

I don't think a flechette round is going to do anything that your basic 5.56/7.62 isn't- the problem looks more like drones are very difficult to hit, rather than current ammunition doesn't do enough damage.
It's got me wondering though- how big do jammers need to be to be effective? Could you stick one inside a 40mm grenade with a parachute and bloop them off into the sky a la instant EW barrage balloons?

What about a magazine fed AGL with 40mm HEAB in combination with new nifty sights for range acquisition?
https://soldiersystems.net/2023/03/01/enforce-tac-23-rheinmetall-squad-support-weapon-40/

I don't think a flechette round is going to do anything that your basic 5.56/7.62 isn't- the problem looks more like drones are very difficult to hit, rather than current ammunition doesn't do enough damage.
It's got me wondering though- how big do jammers need to be to be effective? Could you stick one inside a 40mm grenade with a parachute and bloop them off into the sky a la instant EW barrage balloons?

I don't remember seeing Abrams yet:
Hard to tell exactly what's doing the fighting later on in the video- or if it's Abrams shooting at stuff- but it looks a lot like Abrams in CMBS shooting straight through things.

Nothing like flying drones inside buildings:

Those UKR jet drones are UK supplied (if you weren't already aware). I assume each one carries a micro-clone of Boris Johnson. They don't do anything, but fun to watch them cackling across the sky, like floppy haired gremlins. 
https://en.defence-ua.com/weapon_and_tech/ukraine_utilizes_british_qinetiq_banshee_jet_80_uavs_as_long_range_kamikaze_drones-9571.html

 

A notable detail in this video that’s gone viral this morning is that every single drone feed shows that each on is down to about 3% of power. It’s a fair guess that the Russians imagined this warehouse to be beyond the range of FPV: 
 

All cheap nets would have done, assuming someone doesn’t figure out a tandem attack, is make this warehouse a HIMARs target. The FPVs just made it a lot cheaper to strike.
This is the real problem with these little things, the cost to protect goes up very quickly and won’t solve for other systems.  Up armoring was discussed, which will be the first play, but more amor and protective systems drive costs up.  They drive weight up dramatically, engine requirements and wear and tear, electronic systems - all impacting both capabilities and sustainability.  I am sure we will try to “bubble wrap” our existing systems to try and make them “drone proof” but it will not work.  We are going to need new systems.

Not a, BMPT, a BREM. 
 

Nothing like flying drones inside buildings:

[Edit: Ok, I missed that this popped up earlier in thread. But hey, looks like that video got deleted so at least there's a link again.]

Back to the Tactical problem- this is apparently from a foreign volunteer unit, so plenty of English being spoken. Clearing trenches, kamikaze drones, and at 7:50 some absolute mind-boggling insanity.
Seriously, that's the craziest thing I think I've seen so far.

[Edit: Ok, I missed that this popped up earlier in thread. But hey, looks like that video got deleted so at least there's a link again.]

Back to the Tactical problem- this is apparently from a foreign volunteer unit, so plenty of English being spoken. Clearing trenches, kamikaze drones, and at 7:50 some absolute mind-boggling insanity.
Seriously, that's the craziest thing I think I've seen so far.

To chip in on the WW1 front-
The interplay of tactics on both sides is important. The only reason the Germans could suceed with infiltration tactics in 1918 was because the Allies were reorganising to dispersed defence in depth. Infiltration attacks in 1915-17 would have found no gaps to exploit... hence the Allies doubled down on the scripted set piece.
And that's to some definition of 'suceed'. There were plenty of German infiltration type attacks in the Spring Offensive that were massacred to no effect.
But anyway, back to the war in Ukraine... I'm sure we'll see the same dynamic.

@The_Capt Not focused entirely in on Ukraine, but what John Antal thinks:
 

@The_Capt Not focused entirely in on Ukraine, but what John Antal thinks:
 

I've been thinking a lot about this. The physics of the battles in Ukraine feel like amphibious assaults everywhere all the time. In an amphibious assault you've got an illuminated battlefield (the attacker is a finite quantity of very visible ships and the defender is tied to a linearish boundary that the attacker can observe from offshore at leisure before the assault). The attacker can mass fires from behind the line of contact, but will have difficulty advancing those fires as their beachhead is in a pocket surrounded by defender's fires.
But the precursor to a successful amphibious assault is the isolation of the beachhead from its LOC, either by naval blockade for islands or by tactical and strategic air for larger assaults. Those are both unavailable in Ukraine, so even a high-tempo high-casualty assault doesn't produce meaningful operational effects (unless you chain them together over and over in a way anathema to modern western sensibility).
It'd be interesting to look at the ratio of troop density to weapon-denial-range. I think CM does a nice job of simulating that. Playing the CMBO beta Last Defense, I learned quickly that American bazooka armed infantry projected an armor denial zone about 75 meters in all directions. So if you want an impermeable defense, you need something like a squad every 150 meters of frontage in whatever depth you think you need. The first time I played CMBS Into the Breach I thought I was totally screwed because I was used to that sort of frontage. Then I discovered Javelins and had to reconsider. I'd say a modern infantry squad can project that denial zone hundreds of meters if not a kilometer or more. So has the troop density changed relative to the size of the denial zone it can project?
edit: Also, what the heck with all the videos of IFVs and tanks engaging trenches at ranges I'd describe as "pants on head"? Why does that work? Are there lots of videos I'm not seeing of IFV's getting destroyed by infantry light AT as they approach?

One way to do it:
 

One way to do it:
 

One way to do it: