Machor

Do you happen to have a source for this? Not trying to put you on the spot - I did a quick search and couldn't find an authoritative source for when the phrase became popular. (Merriam-Webster states first known use as 1921; I am not subscribed to the OED.)

Re: Militarization of Space On the Soviet/Russian side, I'm aware of the MiG-105, Almaz and Polyus. On the US side I know of the X-20 and X-37B, and I remember reading the space shuttle also had classified military capabilities.

I've been pondering (actually trying to come up with a reason to take on the learning curve of Children of a Dead Earth) if the reliance on satellites down to the tactical level and munitions guidance may not spark a second coming for SDI/militarization of space. With all the talk about air supremacy, what would be the consequences of space supremacy?

@SLIM Why the pessimism? I'm sure these two gentlemen are looking forward: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24638188

Interesting. I know Russians in the Chechen wars grew beards which were associated with a newfound Orthodox identity and the Russian troops who had fought Chechens in the 19th century. (Though the guy in the picture really doesn't look Russian/Ukrainian.)

Not sure where to put this so I'm dropping it here. I hope the OP doesn't come after me in the afterlife for taking his thread OT: "Adolf Hitler was the 'Fuhrer of drugs'" http://www.bbc.com/news/video_and_audio/headlines/37592253

I second kinophile's thanks, Haiduk, and also thank you for the info on PRP-4M in Oleg's thread. Is that a Chechen with the separatists posing?

As much as I love CMBS (and didn't enjoy playing CMANO), I find myself thinking the decisive weapons systems in such a conflict will be those of the operational level: [Nods to Vladimir's profile pic.] "Russia's missile deployment in Kaliningrad ups the stakes for Nato" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37600426

I was planning to drop a segment from The Day After here, and in the process discovered that the best footage from that film was taken from a 1979 documentary named First Strike. All acting by real life servicemen/women:

If you've been waiting to interact with a virtual Japanese schoolgirl, the day is nigh: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37548733

Firepower (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/3692/firepower ) has my respect. I think the problem with it today is that CMBS actually does a much better job of simulating modern infantry combat, not to mention when you have infantry interacting with armour. I have Warplan Dropshot (https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/147228/warplan-dropshot-cold-war-gone-hot ) and First Strike (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/38205/first-strike ), but unfortunately never had a chance to play them. They're certainly at the top of the list once I get boardgaming space.

"US officials have formally accused Russia of cyber attacks against political organisations in order "to interfere with the US election"." http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37592684 "Russia 'considering military bases in Cuba and Vietnam'" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37591756

I wish they made more games like Patton's Best (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/4556/pattons-best ). [This one's at least not OT for CMFB. ]

@John Kettler Incidentally, it turns out that today is Putin's birthday. I now suspect yesterday's 'Putin the Peacemaker' banner incident was a birthday present from the Bratva of Brighton Beach.

Thank you, Panzer and Ivanov. The last thing I wish to mention before I hopefully stop taking this thread OT is that the myth lives on not only because of the games from the 80s. Please take a look at World at War: Eisenbach Gap (2007) (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/25729/world-war-eisenbach-gap ), a very popular game and the winner of the 2007 Charles S. Roberts Award for Best Post-WWII Era Boardgame. You can see its counters here: https://boardgamegeek.com/image/2407414/world-war-eisenbach-gap?size=large . And lest one thinks the game is about fighting Soviet second echelon formations in 1985 (I don't own the game myself), this review suggests that the T-72s are in the game as the cutting edge of GSFG: http://coldwarhot.blogspot.ca/2011/02/eisenbach-gap.html . So, there is serious 'correction' that needs to be done in the wargaming community as a whole, which is why I am now rooting for CMFG. [Presses the brain reset switch.]

Everyone is welcome to share news in this thread. I knew I wouldn't have to wait long before the next one came up: "Giant Putin banner appears on New York's Manhattan Bridge" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37581450

Thank you for the clarification, Panzer. I suspect there may be additional factors such as the political games between tank factories and for post-Soviet Russia, the T-72 being easier to maintain than the T-80 (AFAIK). With "there were T-72s in Germany, they were just full of Germans" are you going with the 'no Soviet T-72s ever in Germany' camp? I'm just hoping we can finally nail the coffin.

Do note the quote from the summary that AKD found: "T-64As began arriving in 1976 in 16 and 35 divisions (and were mistaken by Western intel to be T-72s – hence the beginning of the myth that T-72s were in GSFG)." Sounds like the author is with the 'T-72s were never in GSFG' camp. And yes, even if we can come to a conclusion with this, I will also be left asking why the T-80 has shown up in post-Soviet conflicts much more rarely than the T-72, why so many T-72s were produced (assuming they weren't sent to Germany), and why so much was invested in upgrading that tank by the Soviets. Frankly, this discussion has moved CMFG to the top of my wishlist. My reasoning being: If we're having such a hard time with basic facts like these, how much more is there to learn (and unlearn) about the period? I would trust BFC to set the record straight. Never thought I'd find myself in a discussion of Soviet tanks as if we're discussing ancient chariots.

Thank you, AKD. The website you linked to at least made me happy that I wasn't the only military enthusiast who thought the T-72 was one of the main types the Soviets had in Germany. Again, if we conclude that T-72s were NEVER in Germany, I'll have to hit my brain reset button.

I wholeheartedly second this, and believe that if anything it would help the Ukrainians more than the Russians. I have come to think of the game as modelling a conflict between a superpower, a regional power, and a sovereign state, and thermals are the crucial force multiplier as one moves up that ladder. Illumination rounds would help even the playing field in night battles.

So, are we now saying that there WERE Soviet T-72s in Germany but they WENT somewhere by 1989? This would be a different picture altogether - and would raise Cpt Miller's questions above. I was under the impression that Ivanov's (and Zaloga's) point was that Soviet T-72s were NEVER there, which to me has the same impact as finding out that there were no Pz IVs on the Western front or that T-34/76s did not fight after 1943. I hope I'm not the only one learning from this discussion.

If this stands - and I'm not challenging it - it'll become one of the greatest corrections I will have had to make into my knowledge of military history - in which case I'm grateful.

Good new BBC article exploring the social psychology behind Russia's foreign policy: "Russia ups the pressure in search for US respect" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37558943

The more I try to find out about this T-72 vs. T-80 business, the more confusing it becomes... So, on page 36 of his Osprey book on the T-72 (1993) Zaloga states: "The T-72 was not expected to challenge the new generation of NATO tanks - the more expensive and sophisticated T-80 was given this assignment. Forward deployed elements of the Soviet Army in Germany were equipped with the T-64B and T-80, not the T-72." But before that on page 10 we get: "The turret armour on the T-72B was the thickest and most effective ever mounted on a Soviet tank, surpassing even the T-80B."

In Avalon Hill's Tac Air from 1987, of the three Soviet divisions that were supposed to spearhead the advance through the Hof Gap, only one - a Guards tank division - was equipped with T-80s; the other two with T-72s. I would appreciate if this matter could be clarified.