HerrTom
-
Posts
759 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by HerrTom
-
-
1 hour ago, Machor said:
There is a principal difference between causing massive collateral damage and deliberately targeting civilians. The last instances when the latter was openly practised by civilized nations were the RAF firebombing campaign against Germany, the US firebombing of Japanese cities, and of course the atomic bombings. It is worth noting that all three remain controversial to this day, and if you ask the Japanese (I have asked four Japanese) about the latter two, be ready for some very hard feelings.
For what it's worth, some Soviet plans involved causing massive damage and terror to German cities in order to produce massive refugee trains to disrupt NATO logistics. It's deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure for the purpose of furthering military goals. I find it difficult to believe that Syrian and Russian military planners decide that today they want to blow up a hospital just to make life difficult for civilians, wasting ammunition and time. Even though they're hitting civilian infrastructure - there's still a clear military purpose to it. Additionally, if you're at the point of dropping thousands of tonnes of nerve gas on a country, I feel the line blurs. The point I was trying to make was that the old Soviet doctrine (and to an extent the modern Russian doctrine) didn't seem to make it clear whether enemy civilians and targets. Countervalue, while definitely horrid, was and is still a very real thing.
1 hour ago, Machor said:Food for thought - perhaps if Moscow and Leningrad had fallen in 1941, many millions of lives would have been saved. Many Russians were willing to go with Hitler (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Liberation_Army ), and by 1941 he had killed fewer innocent people than Assad has. I don't mean to say I believe this 100%, but I can see a fairly compelling argument there, at least on the surface.
You're right to bring the comparison, which is why I posed it as the devil's advocate. It boils down to whether the ends justify the means, which clearly is a matter of contention and perhaps context. (Also... something something Godwin's law!
)
32 minutes ago, JUAN DEAG said:It would actually be in the Chinese interest to ally with the U.S. against Russia because the Russians have nothing to offer the Chinese except the the land they're sitting on (Sino-Soviet border conflict). Furthermore, the Chinese have a lot to gain from the magnitude of the U.S. economy. Russia can't even get China to recognize the seizure of Crimea and the growing military-industrial independence of China from Russia will further cut relations.
To boot, the Sino-Soviet rift still echoes to this day. There's still a fair amount of distrust and animosity between the states, even though regimes change and time passes.
-
36 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said:
Welcome to the face of Total War when there are no limits to what can be done to win. World War III would make this look like a picnic.
Michael
Indeed. This concept of "clean war" is probably pretty new to most people actually making decisions in many of these countries. I remember projections that up to a quarter of Germany's population would be killed in a conventional war, almost half with the use of chemical weapons, and I don't even want to think about Seven Days to the Rhein. All of this over the course of less than a month!
With respect to Russia in particular, its experience in war has historically been a very destructive one, and Soviet doctrine (and by extension modern Russian doctrine) was heavily based on experiences of the Great Patriotic War. This line of thinking goes to "victory at all costs" even though it may be counterproductive in the contemporary environment in the political sense.
Food for thought - perhaps this aggressive and destructive method may actually save lives in a perverted sense? If what they're doing allows them to capture the city in a month instead of a year, cutting short the death and destruction from daily fighting in a city under siege, more deaths now may be fewer total deaths overall? I don't mean to say I believe this 100%, but I can see a fairly compelling argument there, at least on the surface.
Edit: I'll have to find those papers. I think I found them on DTIC while searching for documents about hydrazine
-
1 hour ago, kinophile said:
You kidding? That kind of a flame intensity would flare nice and bright on any decent thermals.
Yes, but only if you're looking in its direction while it launches. The flames from the starter motor dissipate pretty quickly - on the order of a second or two. Then, if it's shot at you, the sustainer is going to be pretty well hidden by the missile itself. All you have left at that point is a small chunk of metal flying towards you at almost Mach 1 and a small amount of smoke (more if its cold outside) and a dust cloud if the environment is right.
-
John, I'm an aerospace engineer. While the stuff I have worked on isn't usually directly ITAR controlled, ensuring it isn't is also a big bucket of fun. I also wasn't aware of consumer electronics like Apple's computers in particular being controlled. Perhaps I need to brush up on my training, though it mostly says, "Don't talk to foreigners if you can help it!"
-
21 minutes ago, John Kettler said:
ITAR
Ach! ITAR is such a pain in the behind in my line of work! Just mentioning it gives me shivers
1 hour ago, hattori said:That's an easy one. As your tone increases in a dismissive and increasingly insulting tone, so does mine. Especially given that you are customer support, I find how you speak to others on this forum who disagree with you very surprising at times. I almost feel an obligation to speak up at times because you will hammer people relentlessly who disagree with you until they are bullied into submission.
Perhaps then it's worth trying to keep a level(er) head even in the face of it? Hate begets hate, or something like that. Anyway, Steve has made his stance pretty clear on this, I guess all we have left is to cross our fingers!
-
There also should be a fairly significant flash (at least in the case of Russian ATGMs). Here's a slowed-down gif of a Konkurs (AT-5) firing. The backblast and the fire in the tube doesn't seem too inconspicuous! With modern rocket propellants, you won't produce that much smoke, though if you fire it on dry ground, you'll kick up a sizable amount of dirt and dust that will hang in the air.
I think if you're not looking in the direction of the launcher when it fires, you may have trouble spotting it.
-
Thanks for taking the time to respond to me, Steve. I thought a lot of that regarding the squad leader is already handled by the game mechanics, but now that I think about it in your terms, you're pretty right. I thought losing the squad leader was a hit on C3 on the squad, but splitting squad as-is doesn't actually affect that.
-
*Excuse me, Steve. I'm having a bad day and probably shouldn't be on forums!*
Edit the Second: I still am curious why/how you think splitting a commander will be abused.
-
46 minutes ago, hattori said:
While I understand you cannot resist disagreeing with me on virtually every post, this is becoming comical.
So we already have a 'split scout team' function, 'split squad', 'split anti tank', but for some reason, a 'split commander' method would totally ruin this game and is a crazy corner case that is a totally unreasonable request. Okay then lol.
I have to agree with hattori on this one - it doesn't seem too unreasonable and Vladimir has kindly shared that the Russian army sometimes does this. I mean, if it's difficult to implement due to engine limitations or what have you, then great - it's an annoying little thing that we'll have to deal with. Comparing it to ASL's tinder feature to dismiss it entirely seems hyperbolic.
With regards to separation: @VladimirTarasov, correct me if I'm wrong, but Russian mechanised infantry generally fight in close coordination with the IFV, right? It's essentially a big heavy member of the squad and generally stays relatively close. At least, that's how I recall the Soviet Army operating.
I also agree with kino here, too. The game is hardly broken. In fact, it's one of the most bug-free (and enjoyable) games I've ever played! The only one that seriously bothered me was the BMP-2M LOD bug, and look! It's fixed!
-
I can see that being a minor issue! I guess all we can do is hope Battlefront finds a workaround.
-
3 hours ago, IanL said:
Attached is some light reading on the subject. The tldr version is this is a game limitation and BFC have experimented with various methods to improve it but none worked (aka performed) well enough to implement.
Excellent reading. Thank you, Ian. I jumped the gun to try the workaround and was disappointed to learn that it doesn't work anymore! I should work on my reading comprehension.
-
0921-0922
I'm getting reports that Ukrainian troops are laying down their arms and surrendering to 2nd Company. These reports are scattered at best and need to be confirmed.
Artillery continues to fall on the city, airbursts sending shrapnel onto the enemy from above.
2nd company makes its river crossing behind a smoke screen covering them from the housing complex.
A couple of APCs bog down, but are quickly able to power their way through the mud to the opposite bank.
They quickly dismount and take positions to fire upon the entrenched defenders. So far, the assault has received minimal enemy fire.
Sheverin's platoon engages and destroys the last known BTR in the city.
Nechaev's platoon rushes across the highway to reach its ready position for the full assault.
Byvshikh manages to land an RPG-26 round on the BTR, knocking its crew out.
Here's the situation as it stands now. I'm ready to assault, but if the defenders are indeed surrendering, it won't be necessary.
EDIT: Turns out the surrender was a false alarm! Now everyone gets to enjoy some blood!
-
1 hour ago, MOS:96B2P said:
Military Operations in Urban Terrain
That looks like it's quickly turning into Military Operations in Open Terrain. I guess the point is MOOT, though...
-
Figured I'd keep this beautiful thread going.
A Russian column advances out of some woods near Kiev, ready to meet the Americans nearby.
Russian motor rifle troops dismount to mop up the remnants of a Bradley platoon.
-
0918-0920
Now 100% more bandwidth-friendly! I figured out how to link through images, so click on them to go to the high-resolution one. The displayed ones are half resolution "thumbnails."
The mortar barrage on the housing complex begins. I don't envy those men in their foxholes. Bits of building are being strewn about as shells land on roofs and trees shatter into deadly shrapnel.
Another BTR! One of Sheverin's MTLB's comes under fire. AP-I bullets explode on its armour. Though none are able to penetrate, the crew is understandably shaken and pull back into cover.
If we've learned one thing in this engagement, it's that BTRs are nothing to scoff at, especially with these MTLBs that are only useful for blowing up buildings. The battalion's tank moves past the gas station to put an end to the BTR's threat.
One of Aushev's squads moves forwards to get a better angle on the defenders in the housing block. The rest of the platoon provide cover in addition to Chaikin's tanks.
1st platoon, 2nd company fires on an RPG team in the housing complex.
2nd company is in position and ready to assault across the river.
This brings us back to the plan.
The artillery barrage is scheduled to stop in the next minute. This means time to rock and roll. 2nd company will roll out. Sheverin's 3rd platoon in the north will advance under cover of smoke and fire from the platoon elements and the attached tank. A similar maneouvre will accompany 1st and 2nd platoon's assault across the river. They will unload once they're clear of the water, and the infantry teams will move to take positions to engage enemies. The APCs will move up as needed to provide heavy fire support.
Additionally, the Razvedka team has moved on its own to a position with a shot from their singular remaining RPG-26 on the BTR in the farming complex. I'm going to let them take it. Godspeed!
Edit:
@IanL that's pretty much what I've done, except mine are 1 action square wide. Channels make the ditch edges, +1 and +2, and the ditch is -1 inside. Even the way I've done them, they still look a little too wide to me.Thanks JohnO!
Especially thank you to @TJT for trying! I wonder what caused it...
-
Now it's easy to go hull-down!
That's it for the previews for now. Soon, we shall return to your regularly scheduled programming.
-
8 hours ago, TJT said:
Aww, dang and I was just going to write I was looking forward to see the map
Maybe upload the file and see if someone esle can salvage the map itself?
Yeah, I was pretty happy with how it was going. Can't hurt to upload it. If anyone can fix it, I'd for sure be grateful.
In the meantime I'm working on a real terrain on E97 heading out of Crimea. 4 km x 2 km with one bridge across the canal... it'd also be an interesting one for sure. I'm also playing with making tank foxholes or whatever you call them. Maybe more on those while I'm waiting for my buddy to send me his turn.
-
Well, looks like the highway map is not going to happen. Whenever I open it now, it shows me whatever map I previously had open, whether it be the empty default one or any other map. I guess it's kaputt (and I'm bad at backing up). Unless anyone else has seen this happen.
-
Because I'm impatient - here are some previews of a map I'm working on involving a Russian ambush on a BLUFOR column (I'm leaning towards US) which escalates into a pitched meeting engagement. All of this in close quarters, since most of the map has short sight lines due to the forest. I'd be the Russians on this one.
My other option is an armoured battle occurring on some real terrain in Ukraine. I'd be the Ukrainians with T-64s against a Russian assault using T-72B3s.
Views from the east side:
From the air:
It still needs a lot of detail.
-
25 minutes ago, Pericles said:
Your images and videos look great. What sort of mods are you using?
Oh man... now I gotta remember!
I'm using Kieme's faction textures, and ground textures. Vein's tracers, version A, Vein's special effects v3, and a sound mod which I've combined from three or four sources. Then, on top of everything, I'm running Reshade to add ambient occlusion and some post-processing.
@kinophile I agree, that mission is fun as hell. George (I think?) did an amazing job on it. After putting some thought into it, I started working on something special in the editor. Might post some tidbits as it fleshes out.
-
2 minutes ago, Nefron said:
And this is guesswork at best. What they say is entirely plausible, but it's way short of proving that this exact launcher shot down the aircraft. It's circumstantial. The launcher could have done it, but there is nothing directly linking it to the incident. Are we in agreement on that?
Just because it's circumstantial evidence doesn't discredit it as informative or even damning. It may not be the smoking gun one might be looking for, but if it was the only launcher in the area, one could argue that it's pretty likely that it was the one.
41 minutes ago, sburke said:Well for one I don't believe there were mitigating circumstances for either that Iran air flight or the Korean flight.
And neither do I. But there are clear reasons why such needlessly aggressive actions were taken, however mistaken they are. Mixed up radio codes, RYAN, etc.
15 minutes ago, sburke said:Anyone think Russia drove a highly sophisticated AA platform over the border and just turned it over to the first militia yokels it saw and said - hey new toy, want to try it out? Really?
Just like they've been supposedly doing with tanks and artillery pieces? One would presume that they had a crew selected in some manner. Or for that matter giving crates of highly sophisticated man portable air defense systems to some extremists fighting the USSR? It's hardly out of the question and there is some historical evidence to suggest that this kind of thing can happen.
-
As promised: A new plan!
Aushev is currently too heavily engaged to effectively maneouvre, even with Chaikin's tanks. This means any maneouvring that's going on is going to rest pretty solely on 2nd company. I've split 2nd company, 3rd platoon under Lt. Sheverin to move on the northern and western bridges. Known enemy forces are a BTR, machine gun, and RPG team. Hopefully this should be relatively simple for him to take on. Meanwhile, the rest of 2nd company, under Lieutenants Nasonov and Nechaev will cross the river using the MTLB's amphibious capabilities and unload to storm the southern end of town. Nasonov will focus his platoon on clearing resistance directly along E50, while Nechaev will carefully advance deeper into town. I expect 1st and 3rd platoon's fight to be relatively brief, especially due to the tank support from Chaikin's platoon on the other side of the river.
Once we're firmly in the city, Nasonov will wheel around to support Nechaev's attack through the offices and shops on the west side of town. Sheverin's platoon will capture the northern bridge and set up in the treeline north of the city to assault the apartment complex in sheaf N:4, supported by 5th platoon's tanks. At this point, Sheverin's attached tank may be diverted to assist in rooting out the final resistance in Zhorstokyy.
Meanwhile, Aushev's platoon, now freed from enemy fire, will move to secure and overwatch 5th platoon's left flank. The remains of Strygin's brave platoon will advance across the river to capture the farm complex and set up a new OP to better see the rest of town.
As a side note, we're considering what scenario to do next, and I was thinking another DAR (perhaps with a bit sparser updates than this one!) might be in order. Any recommendations/desires?
-
5 minutes ago, sburke said:
If you can explain how a BUK unit that crossed from Russia into Ukraine and then went back to Russia somehow had a militia crew somewhere along the way
Isn't it entirely reasonable that the SA-11 was sent as an arms shipment like many other equipments sent across the border? Upon realising what just happened, the arms dealers immediately bring it back? I'm with Vlad here, at least, that it doesn't seem particularly likely that the VKO purposely shot down an airliner. I mean, this isn't like the Iran Air flight or Korea Airlines, both of which had "reasons" which could be called mitigating under the right filter behind what happened.
-
Oh man kino, what a beautifully written and concise report! I wish my infographics looked that good. I can never get the perspective right...
I'm looking forward to when the lead really starts flying. I still request video, if it's possible.
)
Black Sea v1.04 released!
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Are you sure about that? I've counted 7 destroyed BTRs in my game so far. If only my opponent didn't get busy and would send me his turn so we can keep going to the bloody end!