holoween

add a guidding kit to the naval shell and that suddenly doesnt work any more.
Time between weapons employment and effect seems to better predict defensibility

And yet between the 2 HEAT shells are being phased out in favour of time fuzed HE while APFSDS is being retained.
Thats because HEAT doesnt have the required effect against MBTs and is significantly less accurate then APFSDS.

The typical drone attacks tend to be:
At least 1 (usually more like 3+-1) spotting drone to find targets in the first place and to allow coordinating
When a target has been found the fpv drones get send out to attack usually limited by operators. Depending on target and availability arty and drone bombers are also used.
Where SHORAD helps significantly here is in pushing back those spotting drones or shooting them down.
 
The tanks in COIN is funny to me because ive seen them or more exactly IFVs be highly useful and well worth their money.
 
So as per this scenario the SHORAD would be able to deal with an attack that otherwise has the potential to take out an entire battalion. So even taking your scenario at face value that seems like great value.
This also Throws up a dilema. If youre defending against an attack do you attempt to attrit the air defense first which means the attack might go through mostly unharmed by your supporting fires or do you focus on the attack itself which leaves the air defense free to do its job.
 
 
So we bring FPV drones and SHORAD and our enemy brings just FPV drones. As per your example we lose a few vehicles while they lose a battalion. This seems like a reasonably sustainable attrition rate.
And as per your scenario you dont need 2 per platoon but more like a platoon per battalion so 15 vehicles per brigade.
This entire calculus also get a whole lot better once you actually enable your normal vehicles to engage drones aswell which isnt that much of a problem either.
It gets even better when you include your own drone operators hunting down enemy drone operators and fire support.
 
 
UAS at the current capability will become cheaper. Those for military use will become more expensive.
Want them hardened against EW? Thats another hundred bucks for each.
Want them with more than a few km range and still good payload? You just doubled the price.
And all that is only necessary because you introduce countermeasures.
 
Your ideal counter uas weapon simply doesnt work with physics.
For ballistic weapons youre looking for a 30mm gun with a good fire control system so a few tons at least.
For directed energy weapons you need the emitter itself and a power supply to sustain it aswell and thats another few tons.
For infantry to carry more, move faster and go longer without resupply you need an external powersource. The most effective way to provide what you want is to give the infantry a vehicle. And if youre thinking exoskeletons then you might aswell forget about cheap in the first place.
 
And while im not trying to understate the effectiveness of drones and i absolutely see them as a vital part of combat there are ways to mitigate their effect.
Starting from low level simply having someone as a dedicated air observer to spot drones and getting them a shotgun or mg on an aa tripod gives a slight chance to deal with them.
Provide each vehicle with a weapon capable of shooting down drones. Already starting btw
Get some dedicated SHORAD vehicles for more effective fire and to protect vital points
 

I dont think this has found its way here yet.

https://en.zona.media/article/2024/02/24/75k
This is an article primarily trying to estimate russian losses but does a comarison with ukraine aswell.
Its a russian news org so take with a grain of salt but from a read through and a quick glance at their other work it at least isnt an obvious propaganda site.
 

Scholz annoys me to no end and I definitely hate to feel I should defend the man. Why I do it in cases like this: I may not agree with Scholz on the details and reasons but it is absolutely our right to decide which weapons we want to send and especially which weapons we don't want to send. By extension, it's Scholz right to make that call as our elected chancellor. Acting as if any other nation would handle this differently is disingenuous. I mean, there are lots of countries that are selective in what they give to Ukraine, so calling out only Germany irritates me. I have to admit that Scholz is quite gifted in setting himself up as a target, though...

NATO is a defensive alliance. Which is why when the US triggered Article 5 after 911 all of NATO joined while it didnt participate in the 2003 Iraq invasion.

NATO is a defensive alliance. Which is why when the US triggered Article 5 after 911 all of NATO joined while it didnt participate in the 2003 Iraq invasion.

NATO is a defensive alliance. Which is why when the US triggered Article 5 after 911 all of NATO joined while it didnt participate in the 2003 Iraq invasion.

They are awefully modeled in SF2.
The muzzle velocity is far too slow and they are less accurate than at4s somehow even though they have proper optics for aiming and rangefinding rather than just iron sights.

They are awefully modeled in SF2.
The muzzle velocity is far too slow and they are less accurate than at4s somehow even though they have proper optics for aiming and rangefinding rather than just iron sights.

What message politically does that send the US? If you won't supply Ukraine to defend your own national interests, we'll reward you by paying you billions of dollars and do it for you?
Defending Ukraine is in Europe's interests too of course, which is why they are spending money on it.  But for things like artillery shells it is better to invest the money in their own production capacity,  not throwing it at the US as a temporary solution and ignoring the long term one. 
Particularly true if the US is going to become an unreliable ally that is going to abandon allies because of internal ideological politics.

The tropps from position 1 are not in a position to threaten my flank. They can reinforce the other positions, move to the objective or stay put. If they tey to flank they run right into my fire support. If they reinforce the other positions they fight where i want to fight and so can concentrate my fire and that is if they arrive in time. If they move to the objective ivcan defeat tem in detail. if they stay put i dont even need to fight them.
Now this approach requires good terrain analysis or it will become difficult.
If the enemy deploys vastly different he isnt conforming to the terrain and simply wont be much of a challenge to defeat.
Id also challenge the idea that there is less freedom to manouver with my approach. I have an uncomitted platoon so i can react while broad front approach may find itself engaged everywhere at the same time. That might work in its favour if you have a massive firepower advantedge but id rather not count on that.

TBH thats not at all how i think about it.

I know this image is just supposed to be an illustration but if i look at it with this plan overlayed it looks to me like a failed attack. Specifically 3rd pln will be unable to advance due to flanking fire while 1st and 2nd pln will both get pulled into the same forest and get artied.
This is what id expect the defensive setup to be. assuming the brown line marks a hill and the green area is forest.

Id also expect position 2 to be lightly defended but have a trp on it to destroy attacking units there and then run a counterattack from position 3 hugging the north west side of the hill.
So for a plan id go with something like this

1st platoon attacks position 3 with 2nd platoon following behind and supported with all arty. 3rd platoon runs a supporting attack on position 2 to tie it down.
this automatically takes all troops on position 1 out of the fight, hits the likely highest troop concentration with arty, clears the way to the objective and cuts the fallback path from position 1 and 2.

TBH thats not at all how i think about it.

I know this image is just supposed to be an illustration but if i look at it with this plan overlayed it looks to me like a failed attack. Specifically 3rd pln will be unable to advance due to flanking fire while 1st and 2nd pln will both get pulled into the same forest and get artied.
This is what id expect the defensive setup to be. assuming the brown line marks a hill and the green area is forest.

Id also expect position 2 to be lightly defended but have a trp on it to destroy attacking units there and then run a counterattack from position 3 hugging the north west side of the hill.
So for a plan id go with something like this

1st platoon attacks position 3 with 2nd platoon following behind and supported with all arty. 3rd platoon runs a supporting attack on position 2 to tie it down.
this automatically takes all troops on position 1 out of the fight, hits the likely highest troop concentration with arty, clears the way to the objective and cuts the fallback path from position 1 and 2.

TBH thats not at all how i think about it.

I know this image is just supposed to be an illustration but if i look at it with this plan overlayed it looks to me like a failed attack. Specifically 3rd pln will be unable to advance due to flanking fire while 1st and 2nd pln will both get pulled into the same forest and get artied.
This is what id expect the defensive setup to be. assuming the brown line marks a hill and the green area is forest.

Id also expect position 2 to be lightly defended but have a trp on it to destroy attacking units there and then run a counterattack from position 3 hugging the north west side of the hill.
So for a plan id go with something like this

1st platoon attacks position 3 with 2nd platoon following behind and supported with all arty. 3rd platoon runs a supporting attack on position 2 to tie it down.
this automatically takes all troops on position 1 out of the fight, hits the likely highest troop concentration with arty, clears the way to the objective and cuts the fallback path from position 1 and 2.

even without the bug making tcs more easily targetable cm has essentially a parade unbutton. IRL you poke your heaad out just far enough for your eyes to clear the turret roof so good luck to any infantry man trying to snipe at that.

In CM commanders who have thermals available should be buttoned up so they use them.
IRL its unbuttoned all the way. The extra situational awareness makes it easily the default option. Especially given that at least for the Leopard 2 a6 and a7v its still possible for the commander to look at the display of the periscope so it isnt a choice between the optics. Also loader is always unbuttoned to aid spotting unless actively firing.

Absolutely.
Deocraty is by far the best societal organisation over long timeframes.
They keep educated people, have the easiest time to deal with korruption, make best use of their population and as a result have the best economies.
But short term autocracies can absolutely outperform them. Which is why democracies turned autocracies are incredibly dangerous.

Its a good concept if you have enough spare parts and the logistic capacity to bring them where needed. But spare parts like ammunition stocks have been where the last 30 years of saving on the military have been applied.

Can we separate the weapon recovery and first aid? Every German player should have experienced this. The squad that cover a vital crossroad lost the machine gunner Karl to a stray bullet. Karl is incapacitated. Now his comrades begin the first aid to Karl. In the next two minutes , since the MG firepower is gone the whole squad sit there helpless. And, as the first aid almost done, guess what, a spotting round landed nearby so the first aid stopped. That makes your blood boil and all you want to do is yelling at the screen "damn it! grab the MG42 and fire!". In this kind of frustration situation, I would rather to have the poor pixeltruppen Karl killed instantly. At least the MG42 can be recovered in less than 1 min.

Meh just be happy your oponent is playing. My first two didnt show up and my last one stopped sending turns curiously just as my t34s broke into his backfield when attacking and when i wiped his right flank company on the defense.