holoween
-
Posts
289 -
Joined
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by holoween
-
-
6 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
I agree that the key to AFV survivability and effectiveness as a weapons platform is to put stress on the ATGM team's ability to set up unobserved/unopposed at an extreme range. There are multiple ways to achieve this.
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.
-
35 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
Yes. Even with APS they aren't looking so hot.
In continuing with the discussion about predictive analysis, Combat Mission allows us to do some fairly easy testing of this theory. Take one player and arm him with light dismounted infantry with tons of Javelins, TOW-2s, NLAWs, and other top attack weapons. Allocate a bunch of observation drones. These guys are the defenders.
For the attackers give them the biggest, baddest, toughest tanks that exist in the game. Choose any terrain situation you wish to. Hit GO! and see how it turns out.
I doubt the attacking force will do much better with top of the line Abrams than if the force had been armed with T-90s *if* tanks are used the way Western doctrine states they should be used. If instead if the 10s of millions of Dollars worth tanks are used in a "gamey" way so as to avoid them being blown up, then the point that their useless is also proven
Tanks still have a place on the battlefield for now, but mostly because the substitute systems aren't fielded yet. They are definitely on the way in the form of UGVs and expanded UAVs.
Steve
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.
-
5 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
For example, one of the primary reasons I thought the Russian Army would not perform it's intended role very well is because of Javelin. You can take all the mechanized, maneuver warfare theories you want, make all the rosiest assumptions you can think of, but if a bunch of dismounted infantry squads can blow up 10% of the attacking force in the first few hours of a battle, and then do so repeatedly in subsequent engagements, well then... fat load of good all that doctrine, training, and equipment does. Putting the Jav gunners to Conscript and the tankers to Elite doesn't change the equation all that much either.
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.
-
1 hour ago, The_Capt said:
Ok, and here is another problem with Clausewitz, because his writing is incomplete it remains vague...like "Bible vague" in places, and believers are always trying to "fill in the blanks". When Clausewitz reduces war to the key principle of "decision of arms", I cannot assign Sun Tzu-esque nuance that is not there. He meant "kill them until they stop or cannot fight anymore"...nothing more or less should be expected from a Prussian aristocrat from his time. I have seen to many in the Clausewitzian priesthood go "well you must understand in the original German"...do buy it, never will. The man was an old soldier and knew his business. Problem is that we know this does not work universally - e.g. NVA and VC, never won a battle but won the war, same applies to the Taliban.
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.
QuoteThis speaks to the reality is that war is a multi-dimensional creature that often takes on many different characteristics between conflict. Knowing which one you are in, is likely the most important step.
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.
-
17 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
Problem with this is that is broadens the definition of “political” to mean everything which then really means nothing. So ISIL going to war with the west as basically a doomsday cult…is political. Barbary Coast pirates waging war as a vocation…political.
At this end of the spectrum, may as well say “war is an extension of human” because everything human is “political”. This is about as useful as saying “war is war”.
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
-
30 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
Some wars are commercial - a way to make a living.
so the political motive is making money. nothing unclausewitzian about it
30 minutes ago, The_Capt said:And others are cultural - “my god told me to go to war”.
again this is the political motive.
30 minutes ago, The_Capt said:In fact the Clausewitzian doctrine is what gets us into trouble on body counts (i.e. results of duels).
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.
-
29 minutes ago, acrashb said:
So, Russia lied about why Germany was getting so little gas, and we fell for it again. Lucy and the football.
Putin is doing this now because because he got the turbine in motion yesterday, and if he waits until winter the reservoirs, or whatever stores gas, will be full which reduces the value of any gas threats. Right now the gas reservoirs are very low. So by shutting it off now he is proactively crippling German industry and setting the public up for a cold and dark winter.
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.
-
6 hours ago, Halmbarte said:
It would be interesting to game out if the German's were on to something with the Leopard 1. Since steel armor can't keep out HEAT anyway keep the armor light and the tank fast. I'm thinking 70's era fire control would make that a losing proposition but it'd be fun to try it.
H
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.
-
3 hours ago, paxromana said:
How many 3rd Battalions has Russia committed? The more they have the less able they will be to train conscripts in a reasonable time frame.
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.
-
22 minutes ago, Grigb said:
Conventional military operations on the scale we see is war according to RU military science. But Putin does not want to make a formal declaration for various reasons. Because of that low level bureaucrats must follow peacetime formalities you mentioned.
Define what do you mean by accept. if we are talking about whether RU population would want to continue the fight - no, they do not want to fight and ready to accept anything short of retreat to Feb 24 border. Under specific circumstances they can accept even the retreat. Under very-very specific circumstances they can even accept full retreat to 2014 borders.
But the issue is not war or peace. The issue is the legitimacy of Putin. To be seen as legitimate ruler Putin must crash UKR. Anything less RU population will not accept > internal regime change.
Not escalating conflict will show to RU people that NATO is weak and fears Putin. That will increase Putin legitimacy and most likely ensure his survival. That will lead to the second round of war as independent Ukraine is not something RU will ever accept voluntarily.
RU patriotic fever is invention of RU propaganda to dupe anybody unfamiliar with RU people. In reality RU patriotic fever disappear as soon as there is danger to patriots lifes.
Putin already declared that they fight against NATO almost 10 years ago. UKR maidan was labeled as direct US intervention. UKR goverment was declared as US puppet like years ago. Yet, they still struggle to get people to enlist or call mobilization.
RU population cares a lot about losses. For example, I can describe RU reaction to Afghan war and Kurks submarine catastrophe. It very different from they do not care.
It is just RU population does not know the extent of losses. They know it is bad but they do not know how much bad it is. And they do not know because they do not want to know. Currently they are in the denial stage. Very little can be done about it.
You let Putin out > RU people will see that NATO is weak, Putin is stronk > Legitimacy of Putin will increase > there is no regime change > Putin lick wounds > Putin attacks again > WW3. Not a very good strategy.
You crash Putin balls > RU sees Putin is weak, NATO is strong > Legitimacy of Putin collapses > regime change > very good possibility of much softer ruler coming to power > various good and bad options West can work with. A good strategy.
It seems you're not familiar with RU street rules Putin and much of RU were growing up with.
The moment NATO says no, no we stop, we don't give anymore is the moment Putin wins internally. RU people will see it as glorious defeat of NATO by Glorious Leader Putin > Legitimacy of Putin will increase > there is no regime change > Putin lick wounds > Putin attacks again > WW3. Not a very good strategy.
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.
-
3 minutes ago, poesel said:
There were only 14 years between the Kaiser and the 3rd Reich. Not much to build a tradition on. Also the Weimar Republic was seen as a failure because of the economy which led to a view that democracy itself was a failure and wouldn‘t work in Germany.
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.
-
22 minutes ago, poesel said:
I don‘t want to disagree with you but I don‘t think that that is completely right.
I‘d like to take post-WWII Germany as an example how you can convert a fascist country into a working democracy. That was not Germany fixing Germany - at least not in the beginning. It was a decisively lost war, no questions open. Then there were trials which judged the most obvious criminals and especially those who ‚just followed orders‘.
After that, something happened what many probably wouldn‘t like to happen in Russia: there is a country to run and you need people for that. If every German who deserved it would have been hung or imprisoned, the country would have collapsed. So those got away because a functioning Germany was needed against the Soviets.
But: from then on it was impossible to publicly state nazi ideas so a new generation without those ideas could be raised. The old thinking died when the people who had them died.So, Russia can fix itself but only after some outside help makes this process possible.
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.
-
3 hours ago, The_Capt said:
That is powerful stuff. This is where Clausewitz breaks down - when government and the military become extensions of the people, a war of the people cannot ignore the deeply cultural and personal factors that drive the conflict itself well beyond a simple "rational extension of policy".
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 -
29 minutes ago, Vet 0369 said:
NOTE: My use of “The Russia” is not a typo. It is intentional. As Haiduk explained in a reply to a question from me long ago in this thread, regarding “The Ukraine” vs. “Ukraine,” using “The” indicates an inferior territory or region.
Thats not how this works at least in english. The US or the UK seem to disagree with this idea for example.
-
8 minutes ago, akd said:
Not it couldn’t, because…
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.
7 minutes ago, FancyCat said:And yet Putin when asked about the Swedish and Finnish attempt to join NATO, said it changed nothing strategically for Russia. Clearly now that the risk of NATO coming closer nears, Russia does nothing like push troops to the Finnish border, that it would do if NATO were really a threat to 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.
-
2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
I've still been waiting for a properly constructed pro-Russian argument to explain why NATO is a threat to a peaceful Russia. Probably 20 years since I started looking for one and still haven't seen it, so yeah... this is not likely to come about any time soon
Steve
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.
-
1 hour ago, TheVulture said:
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.
-
19 minutes ago, Los said:
It's becoming likely full on war between Russia and the West is right around the corner no matter how much we try and noodle around the logic of it not happening
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
-
2 hours ago, domfluff said:
Then he talks about the Bundeswehr and the Marder. What he claims here is something I've been unable so far to substantiate, but I'd be really keen to do so. In that article he discusses how the Marder would be employed in a manner more similar to a light tank - i.e., that the infantry would be dismounted at range, and then the Marders and Leopards would roam ahead by themselves, creating depth by attacking into the enemy position. In this scheme, the infantry would be supporting the Marder with long-ranged fires, rather than the reverse.
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.
2 hours ago, domfluff said:This does run counter to something stated on the current Bundeswehr website - that the Panzergrenadiers are "Mounted for as long as possible – dismounted for no longer than necessary.” That would imply more of a unit that would dismount on or past the objective, rather than early and in support.
This seems to be the actual employment most of the time
-
Just now, Lethaface said:
Ok, guess some of our politicians are a bit more generous with motions of distrust lol (mainly Wilders one of our local far right loons).
So, do you think it will come to a vote?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.
-
2 minutes ago, Lethaface said:
Don't ask how many 'votes of distrust' our Prime Minister has survived.
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.
-
Just now, Lethaface said:
While I think it's good that political pressure is kept on Germany to 'stay with the herd' ;-), I think people are too harsh on Germany. While this Scholz figure isn't my favorite politician (not that I have many about which I'm even positive lol), he barely had time in office when the invasion started.
Although parts of their arms industry has continued to flourish, from my experience many German people still have an open wound regarding the 'war' and as such they are vehemently opposed to any German participation in any war efforts.Probably it will take time for Germany to take leadership in these affairs. However plenty of German weapons have find their way to Ukraine. Also; it seems we're sending some of our (bought from Germany) PzH-2000 to Ukraine and Germany has offered to train Ukrainian crews and will provide ammo.
I think Germany has a good number of PzH-2000 in storage, maybe funds can be organized so various NATO nations can 'buy' these and forward m to Ukraine.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.
-
17 minutes ago, Ts4EVER said:
That's because the Greens aren't much of a leftist party anymore, they are a party for wealthy urban people who probably wouldn't end up in the firing line....
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.
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
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