Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Hacketäuer

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    28

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Hacketäuer

    How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    9 hours ago, poesel said:

    I feel a bit neglected: now that we deliver the tanks, nobody is interested in Germany anymore!
    ;)

    FYI, this is the aftermath of the 'Panzerdeal' here in Germany.

    Very unsurprisingly, all the pro-tank parties (Greens, FDP, half of SPD, CDU) are happy while the anti-tank parties are not (Left, AfD, other half of SPD). Of course, there's some grumbling from the opposition (and from some in the coalition, too) that that was too slow.
    But the main point of criticism from nearly everyone was, that the chancellor failed to explain his reasoning while he was doing it.

    Judging Scholz just by the results, most pundits (and I) have to grudgingly admit, that he did quite well.
    From an inner politic view, he was not too early and didn't rush it. He was also not too late, to create enough turmoil in the coalition for any lasting damage. Thus, he has appeased the reluctant half of the population, while also (finally) pleasing those who wanted to have sent tanks long ago.
    In the foreign politics field, he managed to create a broad coalition of nations who will send heavy tanks. Not only in Europe, but the US, too. Getting the US to commit Abrams is a success - no one knows who will be next in the Oval Office.

    OTOH he did aggravate a lot of people, especially in the EEC. Weighing this with the effects inside Germany, that is still a win for him. So he put the German interests before foreign ones - that kind of behavior is quite common for many nations, but not from Germany (in the past).
    I guess this will be some kind of 'new normal' that others have to get used to.

    So from a German perspective, Scholz couldn't have done it better (that is a strange sentence). Everyone is a bit upset, but the issue has been resolved.
    However, since he didn't explain himself (see above), we don't know if this is the intended outcome or just luck. And I guess we never will...

    How is this a win? He traded germanys reputation as an ally for (maybe) some inner-party peace. 

    After the announcement of the Marder delivery the Ukraine it was clear that western tanks would be next. Yet nothing was decided or prepared. 

    Plus, If the decision would have been made earlier replacements for the Bundeswehr would arrive sooner. One year after "Zeitenwende" the Bundeswehr is definetly weaker now.

    0

    How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

    Maybe that's because a behaviour in military matters that is characterized by visible slowness and restraint is exactly how most Germans like their country to approach these matters.

    I've said it before, many pages ago in this thread:

    The Federal Republic of Germany is not a country with any kind of military decisiveness, whatsoever. Military restraint has been the guiding principle of our foreign policy since the country existed. Sure, other countries might wish that we should finally "grow up" or "become normal" or whatever, but the idea that someone looking for leadership in military policy would ask Germany, of all places, is entirely naive. That's just the way it is.

    I would more or less agree if you mean germany since 1990. Throughout the cold war era the Bundeswehr was certainly not a weak link among the NATO members and I do not see any indecisive Bundeskanzler during that period either. 

    A chancellor like Adenauer or Schmidt would have never gambled with germanys trust and credibility as a reliable ally like Scholz ist doing right now. 

    4

    I Can't Wait For The East And West Germans To Arrive

    in Combat Mission Cold War

    Posted · Edited by Hacketäuer

    On 6/25/2022 at 8:34 PM, Simcoe said:

    How different would the East Germans be? Wouldn't it all be the same Soviet hardware?

    In contrast to the soviet OOB, we would see a number of T-72´s in frontline use with the NVA. No T-62, a lot of upgraded T-55 and only very few BMP-2´s. Interestingly, in contrast to german army tradition, "Auftragstaktik" (mission command) was not in use in the NVA.

    To have the NVA would be great. Those helmets for me epitomize the cold war. And as it has been said, they would have been in the forefront of an Invasion. There even was a "Blücher-Orden" (award) already prepared for the first units to cross the rhine. 

     

    1

    Any lessons from current Ukraine invasion mean anything to a 1982 Warsaw Pact attack?

    in Combat Mission Cold War

    Posted

    Yes, it is 2022 not 1982 but a lot of shortcomings that the experts predicted throughout the cold war would hinder soviet advances, show today in the russian army. F.E. the lack of low-level initiative and leadership. Some frontline troops appear hardly aware of the situation they are in. Mission command is a far cry in such circumstandes. Just like in Afghanistan and Chechnya we see troops attacking without proper recon, tanks and APC´s bunched up without infrantry support and overall poor logistics. 

    0

    !983 British training film on fighting the Soviet MRR Advance Guard

    in Combat Mission Cold War

    Posted

    3 hours ago, Halmbarte said:

    They may have got it exactly right in the video. The earlier BTRs didn't have the side doors. 

     

    https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/btr-80.html

     

    H

    You are correct. Wikipedia says it too:

    "Because of the engine placement (in the rear of the vehicle), transported infantry must mount and dismount through the sides in the BTR-60P or through the roof hatches in the roofed BTR-60PA, BTR-60PB, and BTR-60PZ variants."

    0

    1980's Tactics Question?

    in Combat Mission Cold War

    Posted · Edited by Hacketäuer

    Maybe not really a tactical question but what exactly was the role of Cavalry Units during that time? It is supposed to be lighter, more mobile then other armoured formations? So a kind of recon force? Yet still some Cav. Divisions also fielded MBT's. 

    0

    Pre-reading recommendations

    in Combat Mission Cold War

    Posted

    On 2/26/2021 at 11:44 PM, HerrTom said:

    Decided to pull out all my relevant books in case any have been missed in this thread.

    t73iJhN.png

    Since I realise now my picture isn't too great and I don't want to get them back out:, from top to bottom:

    • First Clash: Combat Close-Up in World War Three by Kenneth Macksey. World War 3 Canadian Style, shows a lot of nitty-gritty tactical detail that many other books find wanting.  Super detailed and a good ride too.
    • The Third World War by Sir John Hackett. I honestly found it pretty dry and hawkish, which I guess fits Hackett's objectives in writing it. Lots of scenario ideas though I found a lot of stereotypes (and worse, mirror-imaging!) that I don't think survive a retrospective look.  I got it as one of the "must-reads" but honestly am not too big a fan.
    • The Cold War: A New History by John Lewis Gaddis. The historiography is getting a little dated by now, but it's still a solid single-volume history of the cold war, a real credit to Gaddis and his editors.
    • Red Thrust by Steven Zaloga.  Reads like a cross between Clancy's work and First Clash. A good read, showcases some of the major technical gaps between WP and NATO equipment in the 80s.
    • The Offensive by A. A. Sidorenko (translated). I know I already mentioned this, it's a dry but very informative read. Can't get better than a primary source on Soviet military thought, though!
    • Soviet AirLand Battle Tactics by William Baxter. Intentionally misnomered, it's a surprisingly easy read on the complicated subject.  Definitely a good way to get started looking at the other side of the Iron Curtain.
    • The Soviet Conduct of Tactical Maneuver by David Glantz. Glantz is probably one of the best experts on the Soviet military in the west. Great historical context bringing the development of Soviet tactical manoeuvre to the modern day.
    • The Bear Went Over the Mountain by Les Grau and David Glantz. Largely a translation of a Frunze Academy report, drills down into specific engagements in the Soviet-Afghan war and identifies problems and failures in the execution of operations. Interesting and detailed commentary by Grau and Glantz ,too.
    • The Soviet-Afghan War by Les Grau.  Some duplication from above, includes information on other combat arms beyond tactical units like logistics and artillery.
    • Armies of Nato's Central Front by David Isby and Charles Kamps, Jr.  Really just an encyclopaedia of militaries in Europe, good info on OOBs and the like.
    • Kriegsschauplatz Deutschland by Siegfried Lautsch. Lautsch is a retired NVA Colonel, which allowed him some great insight into the Warsaw Pact side of the equation. Great diagrams, clear and detailed language. Honestly my favourite of the books.  Also showcases plans and wargames which aren't the much misunderstood Six Days to the River Rhine!

    That's an impressive list. I purchased the soviet counterpart to David Isbys book on the NATO forces. It is called:

    "Weapons and tactics of the soviet army". 

    So it also covers tactical aspects. The soviet way of war, so to speak. Btw quite funny to read that many westeners expected the auto- loader to be a weakness or kind of design flaw in the "new" T-64 and T-72

    1
×
×
  • Create New...