holoween

Notice how i said vs infantry because if you have to rely on arty to get your anti tank work done tanks become a whole lot more difficult. should be far simpler as towards the sky there is less clutter to interfere with the radar just noone has really build it because javelin has been rare/on our side APS isnt exaclty beaten. ERA hasnt really been made obsoltet though. it at least pushes the minimum required warhead size up so fewer weapons carried around for an infantry squad. It does however work on one very important part the actually winning a specific fight which is currently ukraine and russias problem. If you have to rely on arty or other heavy assets to take out tanks they can at least advance until they have to resupply which can mean quite some distance. yea yet a tank works on its survivability. if that doesnt exist you dont have a tank. so even if it isnt perfect which it wont be it massively helps

Does everyone collectively keep forgetting that aps do exist but are currently not used in ukraine be either side? Because they do fix the core survivability vs infantry issue tanks currently have.

I wish him the best of luck but id recon there is a better chance that hell freezes over than him producing a better game than CM. Lets hope he pulls if off somehow.

Well the APS question is something CM would be amazing at representing. test your scenario with bare tanks, an APS that has a 50% chance to intercept top attack missiles, and one that has 80% chance. Id guess at 50% to somewhat reenable tank attacks and at 80%+ it practically invalidates infantry. As a sidenote id live to see how camoflage affects javelins hitchance and lickon time. At least for normal thermal imagers heavy camoflage does help a lot. couplet with smoke dischargers it could already significantly degrade their performance.

And the scary consequence of that being true is that western mechanized forces are basically just ass vulnerable to a such equipped oponent and the primary reason id argue tanks without aps are obsolete.

Being german ive only ever read it in german only really ever taking english quotes for such conversations. My background is also in sociology and political science though ive since gone on to become a soldier. I found his book(s) reasonably easy to read especially compared to some other sociology books and lets be clear that is where war studies belong. I need to start this another way though i think what is it you want to look at? Because what clausewitz provides is a framework on how to think about war. He then uses it to make several observations and then removes himself from that discussion and looks at tactics and strategy. His tactics and strategy are entirely outdated except for the very basics like concentration of force, logistics mattering etc. The how to think about war part though id consider basically timeles and ass close to the truth of the matter as were going to get for quite some time. War is the use of force by one group of people on another group to compell it to do its will Serves as a usefull check for a policy maker What do i want, what does my oponent want, how can i force him to comply with my whishes. And depending on each sides will and ability looking through this lense may sometimes lead to the conclusion that war may be unable to achieve what you want.

The definition of a war is the use of force by one group of people on another group to compell it to do its will. Sure you could narrow it down to make it only count if states are the key players but that would exclude a lot of wars. ISILs goal was creating a state of god in the middle east (and once established go further). Their means was straight military conquest where they could manage and use of terror to coerce western countries to leave them alone. Barbary Coast pirates goal is to make easy money. They fight only if one refuses to pay them

so the political motive is making money. nothing unclausewitzian about it again this is the political motive. But clausewitz doesnt consider simple body counting usefull. To paraphrase the war will be won if either side gives up or is put into a situation where it can no longer resist the other.

I dont know anyone who bought the technical issue excuse. But making an exception for a single turbine that russia cant use otherwise wouldnt help them much but basically forces them to either send more gas to fill our reserves or officially cut off the gas as has been expected.

I have yet to bounce anything with m60s so leo1 having the same gun performance (no idea about the fcs) but being smaller and faster should if anything be an improvement.

Given their performance so far their training units might simply be quite bad so not much is lost in training quality if they leave. It might even be a better idea for russia to take personell from the better working units at the front and create new training units from them.

You teally need to read up on how people react to outside pressure. Its literally never an overthrowing of their leader even if unpopular. Its always a move towards their leaders to protect them. The NATO is threatening us shtick has been putins biggest source of public support for a long time.

Ever heard of the 1848 revolution? Or aware that the individual german states and then the empire had parliaments? They werent in full power but the tradition was decades old when they overthrew the emperor. Also outside pressure doesnt turn a nation friendly. The weimar republic was also revanchist and wanted to reverse ww1. Economic wellbeing for the masses was the key differentiator. The marshall plan was far more important than the denazification.

While i generally agree youre ignoring some things. Germany had a democratic tradition. The biggest difference between the weimar republic and west germany was one git a major economic depression in its formative years and one a massive economic boom.

You either havent read clausewitz or chose to ignore important parts: "The military power must be destroyed,[...] The country must be conquered [...] But even when both these things are done, still the War [...] cannot be considered as at an end as long as the will of the enemy is not subdued also

Thats not how this works at least in english. The US or the UK seem to disagree with this idea for example.

Yet the us is investing significantly in missile defense possibly rendering the nuclear option void. Also a nuclear war would still mean the end of russia. Except the first thing he said was that it would be a problem. only later did he change that and id argue thats mostly because he cant make any credible threat to Finnland atm.

Youre not looking then. In international relations intentions cant be known and can change so you have to base decisions on capabilities. NATO massively outmatches russia in conventional military power so were they to decide to attack russia has little i could do except nuclear excalation. Having buffer states makes it harder for NATO offensive actions since no forward supply depos can be established early. Now you and i know that NATO has no intentions of ever attacking russia but as pointed out above that could change. Just like NATO was worried about the Warsaw pact because they did have the capability to possibly successfully invade europe even though they might never have wanted to.

If this plot is accurate then that would indicate incredibly inaccurate Ukrainian artillery and lends credibility to the idea a guided shell was used initially. For comparison ive seen a plot of PzH2000 with a 95%cep less than 200m long and less than 50m wide at 37km. If ukrainian arty was even at half the accuracy they could simply have a full battery strike the target and get multiple hits without guiding.

How does this in any way improve the russian position? Or what could they gain from it? Because i cant think of any upside not even in the short term and certainly not in the long term. And it would just be insanity to involve NATO directly

IIRC he was specifically describing a delaying action and in that case it could make sense. But more like -dismount infantry in a good defensive position and let them start to dig in. -move tanks and ifvs forward so they can start engaging early forcing the soviets to deploy then fall back -repeat until you reach the infantries positions for a proper defense timed well this could allow the attrition of the CRP and FSE of a soviet MRR and set them up attacking with the main body into your prepared defenses without much recon and preparation and then giving you time to withdraw during the night or prepare a counterattack. I have however never seen this discussed or put in practice outside of the article you mentioned and it would only be really usefull for this specific purpose. This seems to be the actual employment most of the time

No because neither the greens nor the FDP have a good enough incentive to switch to the union. Id expect them to simply keep pressuring Scholz with the help of the union in parliament and take the voter boost theyll get from it.

if it actually comes to a vote its practically guaranteed to succeed. A vote of no confidence has to simultaniously elect a new chancelor so by the time its launched the new coalition is usually already set up for it.

Scholz significantly lacks behind public opinion and is heavily criticised by all other major parties for it to the point a vote of no confidence has been brough up in the news. The only really defensible argument is that the german army doesnt have any more weapons to give out of its own stock.

Id say they are simply the most realist party around. Yes they have their ideology but when it matters they are willing to diverge and be prgagmatic.