Machor

In the second war, residents of Grozny were given three days to evacuate the city through humanitarian corridors, and AFAIK, most did and it saved many lives. However, there was a huge strategic difference with Aleppo: Residents of Grozny, even if they were pro-independence, were not concerned about the borders of Chechnya, as they were at any rate defined as an autonomous republic within Russia. Therefore, they had nothing to gain by staying in Grozny. Likewise, the battle plan of the rebels was to hold out in Grozny as long as possible, and then to break out to the mountains to wage guerrilla warfare. Indeed, Russians scored a great coup by luring the rebels led by Basayev into a kill-zone through false intelligence about a breakout route that Basayev believed he was getting from a corrupt Russian officer. In contrast, the civilians and rebels in Aleppo are fighting for the very borders of their future Syria, as I think it's clear by now that the best they can count on is the partitioning of Syria. The regime offers them safe passage to the Idlib province, which is already over-populated with all the other rebels who have taken up the offer in other besieged areas. Therefore, they have every reason to try to hold on in Aleppo and hope for at least a partial Western intervention like a no-fly zone.

Easily the most touching take on war through the eyes of children that I've seen (and I've seen Come and See) is the 2004 Finnish documentary The 3 Rooms of Melancholia.

The finer argument is that visa-free travel to Turkey may have exposed ordinary Syrians to a Muslim-majority country that was living much better than them without oil. Of course, this does not preclude the possibility that some may have had the notion whispered to them. If you can link me to a reliable source that states ISIS has begun working together with other groups, I'd appreciate. Such a development would change the entire dynamic of the war. Yes, and since we're all tactical wargamers here, I suggest we focus on this. The tactical dilemma with not arming the rebels is that if conventional weapons are withheld from them, they have to switch to asymmetrical means, and both the know-how and (in the case of suicide bombers) personnel for those means are supplied by Jihadists: "Outgunned Syria rebels make shift to bombs" http://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-bombs-idUSBRE83T04U20120430 "Since the army routed them from their strongholds in cities, some rebels said they realized that even in guerrilla street battles they could not beat Assad's tanks or artillery. The Syrian Liberation Army's spokesman Qdemati said his group's fighters were now focusing most of their attention on "manufacturing facilities" for bombs. "You are going to start seeing an escalation as we improve our techniques of bomb-making and delivery.""

Yes, they were free to 'leave' the country but not free to 'go' anywhere. Even Turkey demanded visas from them until right before the uprising started - and there has been speculation that visits to Turkey by ordinary Syrians may have inspired them that they could live better. Do note that the ones who make it to Greece and beyond are those who have the money in the first place to pay human smugglers. Millions of others just try to survive in Turkey. +1 I dug up this BBC article and interview from 2013 that neatly sums up the dilemma the West is still facing today: "Syria: Islamist Nusra Front gives BBC exclusive interview" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-21061018 "Western governments, then, face a dilemma. If arms are allowed to reach the Syrian rebels, they could end up in the hands of radical Islamists. But if moderates in the uprising are not identified and supported, power will flow to the best organised and most disciplined fighters. At the moment, those are the jihadists."

Did someone say "war nutjob?" ... Behold Field Marshal Anton Ludwig August von Mackensen!

This - Democrats as warmongers and Republicans as peace lovers - was the dynamic during the Vietnam War.

Was Vladimir consulted for this? "Lithuania issues updated Russian invasion advice booklets" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37805970 " Lithuania has updated its civil defence booklet telling citizens what to do in the event of a Russian invasion. ... The government has also launched a telephone hotline for citizens to report anyone they suspect of being a spy. ... It includes guides to spotting Russian tanks, bullets and mines as well as surviving in the wild."

Again, given the fact that the invasion set off a predictable chain of events that led to Greece leaving NATO, one would need more than speculation for such a claim. The US does screw up - a lot - and I don't see why this would be any different. This was precisely one of the reasons I mentioned my opposition to the invasion's details. I could also add the vague policy about Greek Cypriots remaining in Turkish controlled territory (which effectively made them flee and become refugees) and some Greek POWs being turned over to the militia, probably with tragic consequences. +1 The only thing this forum is politically united around is a hatred of ISIS. Still waiting for some troll to take up their cause.

Very soon we'll be seeing a counterpoint to Vladimir's third point: "Mosul Iraq battle: 'Tens of thousands of civilians' used as IS human shields" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37797700 "Islamic State (IS) militants have abducted tens of thousands of civilians from around the Iraqi city of Mosul to use as human shields, the UN says. The group also killed some 190 former members of Iraq's security services and 42 civilians, apparently for refusing to obey its orders, the UN adds."

My apologies for the OT stuff - I hope forum members find it of interest. I know of this article. There are people who are much more knowledgeable about the subject on the forum: "Inside Tadmur: The worst prison in the world?" http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33197612 Are you suggesting that the US was behind the invasion? I've heard this before, and frankly it comes across as a conspiracy theory without further evidence. A better analogy would be Ukraine invading Crimea to counter its annexation to Russia. In the case of Russia, it had the option to wait and try other strategies. In the case of Turkey, if it had waited, Cyprus would have simply become a part of Greece. Please note that I'm cognizant of the suffering brought on by the Turkish invasion and opposed to many of its details. In a nutshell, the Greek leadership was outright stupid and instead of taking what was on the table, they thought that they could get a better deal by putting pressure on Turkey's application to EU membership. They never realized the extent to which Turkey's membership was categorically impossible for other EU members. Ironically, there's a very real chance because Turkish Cypriots are overwhelmingly secular, and worried about the direction of mainland Turkey. Yes, and this was just days ago. Which is again, why, I can't predict anything for certain with regards to Turkey's place in NATO and the F-35 deliveries.

I'd beware of showing a cavalier attitude towards Assad's human rights record because of this: https://www.hrw.org/report/2015/12/16/if-dead-could-speak/mass-deaths-and-torture-syrias-detention-facilities If Greek Cypriots had not violated the Cypriot Constitution of 1960 and Greece had not staged a coup on the island in 1974, there would have been no Turkish invasion. If Greek Cypriots had not rejected the Annan plan referendum in 2004, there wouldn't have been a single Turkish soldier on the island since 2005. Dunno, you guys read the news? There were LEO2s parked on the Bosphorus bridge this summer and F-16s hunting for Erdogan's plane, and now Erdogan and Putin are best friends again and Clinton has pledged to arm the Kurds. There's obviously much going on that's not being made public. Not sure how it's a 'superdeal' but Turkey joined the F-35 development program before Erdogan's rise to power. I can't even begin to guess what sort of future awaits it in geopolitics.

"Topless selfie student crashes into Texas police car" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37795008 "The Texas A&M University student also had an open bottle of wine in a cup holder by her, according to police."

The problem is that back in 1993 the West was not 'sitting back' - though that honour could go to China. From The Guardian ( https://www.theguardian.com/world/1993/oct/05/russia.davidhearst ): " Western leaders, warned in advance of the assault, promptly declared support, but urged a speedy return to constitutionality amid fears that the Russian leader could become a political hostage to the armed forces. "It is clear that the opposition forces started the conflict, and President Yeltsin had no other alternative but to try to restore order,' the US president, Bill Clinton, said. "The US supported Yeltsin because he is Russia's democratically-elected leader," he said. "I have no reason to doubt the personal commitment that President Yeltsin made to let the Russian people decide their own future in elections.' ... China was the only major power not to back Mr Yeltsin. "We are deeply concerned about the recent bloodshed in Moscow," the Chinese foreign ministry said in a statement. "As a friendly neighbour, we hope to see an end to the conflict and a proper solution to the current situation in the interest of the stability, unity and economic recovery.'" " These formative years of post-Soviet Russia were a window of opportunity, and IMHO the West blew it. I don't think it's constructive to point fingers and argue who in the West was responsible - Western academia and intellectuals didn't see the fall of the Soviet Union coming and were playing catch-up. But there's the need for self-criticism before going for Russian 'hearts and minds.'

With all the Russian troops who were already there, I don't see Kiev posing any threat to the locals at all. If Kiev had been so stupid as to crack down on any dissent with military force, Russia could have intervened immediately and held the moral high ground. This was exactly what happened in South Ossetia. I would contend that it was in Russia's interests to keep eastern Ukraine a part of Ukraine precisely as an instrument of Russian influence. We're obviously past that now. The only way this scenario can work is to talk Turkey into opening its border, and then accept all the rebels as refugees. Are you game? They're not, but they're in a position where their only options are to choose between Putin and the West. The last time they chose the latter, Yeltsin sent tanks to shell their legally elected deputies at the Russian parliament, and the West watched.

Area fire with HE will cause suppression. A human player could use area fire to suppress a suspected tank and simultaneously move something in for the kill. Not sure how it will work with the AI though.

And there's nothing surprising with this finding given the fact that the TC has binoculars. My personal 'rule' from experience is to keep any TC who has thermals buttoned. Also, consider that getting your TC killed by a sniper pretty much mission-kills the tank.

Russia could have played a cool hand and retained its influence in Ukraine, even quite possibly made a comeback once the promises of the Maidan were not fulfilled (see Yatsenyuk's resignation); it could've even legally gotten away with Crimea in the process. Instead, it now enjoys ZERO influence in most of Ukraine including heavily Russian speaking areas like Odessa and Kharkov, cannot get even China to recognize the annexation of Crimea, is subject to economic sanctions, has to finance rebuilding the breakaway republics and thousands of people are dead. If I were Russian, I'd be asking some very hard questions about Russia's policy in Ukraine.

There is a partial improvement to this on the way: " * AI can now be ordered to perform Area Fire in its AI Plan. This allows the AI to place fire on particular spots on the assumption that the enemy might be there. Woodlines, reverse ridges, buildings, etc. This is a compromise between the current system (absolutely no AI area fire) and everybody's fantasy system (the AI is smart enough to know when and where to apply Area Fire all on its own). Preliminary results indicate that this will be a rather nasty surprise for single player types "

Looks like Vladimir isn't alone in this: "Russia's different reality" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37766688 "Post-modernity shows that every so-called truth is a matter of believing." That's it! I believe there were T-72s with the GSFG, so that's the truth!

@HerrTom My pleasure. For anyone else who may be interested, let me also mention the film features outstanding cinematography. It pioneered several techniques, such as shooting with cameras moving on rails. [ @kinophile will hopefully drop by here when he's done playing.]

One film that went significantly beyond the accepted norms - and got lauded for it in the West - way back in 1957 was The Cranes Are Flying. It touched the taboo subjects of infidelity of soldiers' women back home and draft dodgers. Interestingly, in light of HerrTom's examples, it too is considered a liberty that could be taken thanks to The Thaw. According to the Russian Wikipedia, Khrushchev himself called the heroine a 'slut.' [No relation to my Rod Steiger quote above.]

Re: Fury It has truly grown on me with rewatching. I've noticed they keep playing chords from the SS march from the final battle throughout the movie - VERY sweet tie-in to the biblical reference before the battle. Only when I watched it the third time did I notice the young lieutenant blowing his brains out with his .45. I don't see a reason to call it 'propaganda,' as I don't see what information it disseminates that doesn't have truth value. They even show the GIs shooting prisoners. They could've shown them raping German women (the insinuation is there) but how far could they go without disrespecting the Fallen and veterans? Re: Bondarchuk's War and Peace He ruined the film by casting his 46 year old self as the early 20 something Pierre, and his 39 year old wife as the early 20 something Helene. [Fun fact: The Soviet ambassador in The Day After is named Anatoliy Kuragin like Helene's scheming brother.] However, I am sorry that his epic Waterloo - with the Soviet Army as extras as in War and Peace - is all but forgotten. It's a must-watch for anyone reading this... "There are two kinds of women and you, as we well know, are not the first kind. You, my dear, are a slut."

Well, because 'contacts' are not spotted. The colour of the icon indicates the degree of certainty, not spotting. From page 38 of the manual: "The opacity of a contact will tell you how confident your troops are that something is there: a very translucent contact is less certain than one that is fully opaque."

I have no wish to advertise here, but it seems the CMANO team have come up with their own counterpart to CMBS, to be released on November 2. And they're starting the action on November 8, 2016. I would be curious if Steve or anyone else would care to comment on their back story - that Moldova is the new Ukraine. Sounds like a stretch to me. Since we have CMANO players on the forum ( @Raptorx7 ), I would also be interested to hear how they matched the NATO and Russian air and SAM forces to give the Russian player a chance to win. It could serve as fluff for Russian air support in CMBS (they have a screenshot with Russian Su-25s going to bomb something with iron bombs).

@panzermartin You may want to read this interview with a Russian (ethnic Buryat) tanker who was wounded while fighting in Ukraine with his regular unit: https://www.novayagazeta.ru/articles/2015/03/02/63264-171-my-vse-znali-na-chto-idem-i-chto-mozhet-byt-187 Relevant highlights from the interview: "— Вы вместе с ополченцами воевали? Общие задачи были у вас? — Нет. Они просто... Займут один рубеж, и когда надо ехать дальше врага дожимать, ополченцы отказываются ехать. Говорят: мы туда не поедем, там опасно. А у нас приказ наступать дальше. И захочется — не прикажешь им. Ну и дальше едешь." [- Did you fight together with the militia? Did you have common objectives? - No. They just... occupy a boundary, and when it's necessary to advance and press upon the enemy, the militia refuse to do so. They say: "We won't go further; it's dangerous." And we have been ordered to advance. Even if we'd like to - we can't order them. So we press on.] "— Так вы вообще не координировались? — Нет. Ополченцы — они странные. Стреляют, стреляют. Потом останавливаются. Как на работу ходят. Никакой организации нет. Нету главы, боекомандования, все вразнобой." [- Did you not coordinate at all? - No. The militia are weird. They shoot, shoot, and then stop. As if their shift is over. They have no organization whatsoever. No leadership, command; total chaos.]