G.I. Joe

I firmly disagree. In that situation triple Vickers and a Browning .50 cal was, is and always will be the best solution.
https://photos.stua.rts.co.tt/Holiday-pics/War-Tour/i-XW9jTGL/A
 

The British tried truck-mounted portee anti tank guns for a while. It was a terrible idea. About the same time there were a few ad hoc lashups of indirect artillery on truck chassis', generally one-offs for the likes of the LRDG.
In WWII trucks were pretty fragile, and recoil systems pretty basic. That doesn't makes for a reliable or good system - the recoil rapidly destroys the truck it's on. And that - along with limited traverse - is /still/ a major problem with truck mounted artillery.
Also, in a WWII context, CB response time was measured in hours and days, and fully predicted (ie, unobserved) indirect fire wasn't especially accurate - good enough to suppress batterys, but not really good enough to reliably destroy individual pieces of equipment. So there wasn't the same tactical need to shoot and scoot. Towed was usually plenty fast enough, in a tactical sense, to respond to respond to any CB threat.
Plus, for the US and UK they only had to deal with the Germans, who were artillery chumps anyway. The Germans, who could've used truck-mounted artillery more since they faced a competent artllery enemy in the US and UK, were still using horses to haul most of their guns. They /really/ couldn't afford to be wasting trucks like that.
Lack of tactical need + lack of technical reliability + lack of industrial means = why bother?

Interesting idea.

That change in rhetoric is really great to hear:
 

Regarding Tyra exchange scandal
Tyra is Azov linked civilian volunteer medic.

She was captured escaping Mariupol when RU were encircling it (She was not at Azov Steel). It seems in her car there were two kids those parents were killed (I am using RU sources and they are a bit sketchy). RU being RU outright declared that she is Super Evil Nazi who killed those (implied Russian) kid's parents to use kids as means for escape. They basically sentenced her for a brutal death.  What happened next is not clear but it appears a RU Chechen Mobster paid dozens of millions rubles to somebody higher up to make an exchange for his son who was in Ukraine. I do not know who came up with idea of exchanging Tyra but it was a brilliant move for UKR and extremely bad for RU. But RU corrupt guys being corrupt were dumb enough to think only about money probably because they hoped UKR will  be quiet about exchange.  UKR guys brilliantly declared that Tyra was exchanged but did not provide any serious proof. RU nationalists were flabbergasted at the news that RU government decided to release Super Evil Nazi RU journalists started asking their inside contacts about what is going on. They got semi-official reply calm down, nothing happened Tyra is still locked up. UKR closed the trap by releasing video of Tyra at home. RU journalists were extremely flabbergasted and released info that there was in fact exchange but not the official one but corrupt exchange for son of Chechen mobster.  Following spontaneous combustion of nationalists butts I think was seen from Mars. it was so serious that Chechen mobster made video declaring allegations are fake, his sone is in Ukraine and all these journalists are at risk unless stop spreading all these lies. He literally called female journalist and threatened her.  It did not help because nobody believed it. On the contrary it made things worse because not only was the exchange corrupt it looked like RU got nothing back, UKR untermensch easily screwed RU ubermensch. It is bad to be corrupt but much worse is to be corrupt loser who lost to despicable Ukrainians! Sensing big scandal RU government being RU government sent their propagandist to deal with the problem. And as you can expect from RU they managed to make it even worse because they basically said F*ck You, Nobody, it is none of you business, just shut up and go back to your peasant work. As result Nationalist combustions became so strong that had they real turrets they would easily win turret throwing competition.   Yes, sometimes it feels like I am watching Death of Stalin 2 as TV reality show.
Anyway, this scandal presented RU nationalist with huge problem how to explain what they just saw. It is not about corruption. It is about Propaganda and Moral High Group nationalist believed they had. The first explanation is obvious - RU government are pizdabols who cynically lied about Tyra. Given nationalist are on Glorious Crusade to Kill All Nazis the idea that the woman they were about to brutally kill is not Super Evil Nazi is scary. What else Ru government was lying about? The whole Glorious Crusade with a lot of blood spilled suddenly started to look very miserable.
So, nationalists declared a second explanation - conspiracy that RU governments are in secret deal with UKR government. It saves Glorious Crusade but throw RU government under the bus - for RU helping Nazis is equivalent of being Nazi. Nationalists just got perfect excuse to refrain from further activities helping RU government. 
RU government urgently needs something to district people from very bad thoughts about Tyra exchange.
 

Blast from the past  They were good when they were manufactured - 40 years ago
German engine - fast!
1983 Military Exercises Unity 1982, ex Yugoslav Army, Ovce Polje/Sveti Nikola, Macedonia (west of Bulgaria, east of Albania)
M80 shows up at 0:48.
My squad's (school for NCOs) trench is at 1:03:
 
1:58:
 

Ok, I found it now, it is that prisoner exchange, not some sort of financial scandal. The fact that Russian Telegram channels are are in a white hot rage about Putin NOT executing a female medic tells you all you need to know about which is the right side in this war. And that we need to send the Ukr a BLEEP TON more equipment.

While I do not have experience with RU Navy historically it is the most screwed up RU force. It is constant embarrassment for RU. 
Regarding the current RU push - it needs to be seen in context of two ongoing UKR political victories. RU is suffering noticeable and highly embarrassing cracks in Donbass collaborators morale due to Donetsk shelling. Also, RU is suffering noticeable cracks in RU nationalist morale and loyalty due to the ongoing Tyra exchange scandal.
Two Pressure Cookers (Donetsk area and RU home) started to display the first cracks and that greatly unnerves RU command. They desperately need something to mask their political failures.
It does not mean both cracks will lead to open rebellion, but it does mean that the human base of RU is shrinking and UKR is growing because indifferent RU activists are good for Ukraine.
For US guys, it is like hardcore voters are getting pissed off - they are not going to vote for other party anyway, but they might decide to stay home during an election ensuring other party victory. That's where we are heading right now unless RU pulls something out of it's butt.

Wanted to come back to this one as well.  I think we are muddling some issues here:
- Cost.  A strategic issue that many countries are wrestling with but a UAV with a Stinger was what I was talking about to deny manned aircraft and here the cost is upside down for the traditional manned aircraft.  Counter-drone, or drone-v-drone warfare needs a new set of cheaper weapons, which they will be because they don't need the same HE payloads to bring down...finding and hitting them is the primary issue.
- Unmanned warfare.  We are coming up to 120 days of this war and drones are not going anywhere.  In some areas it looks like Russian EW is cooking the sky enough to cause problems for everyone - I would love to see how many EW emitters have been hit.  A shooting drone-v-drone war is going to last a lot longer than a "couple of hours". Why?  Because if you run out of drones in a couple of hours and your opponent has not, you are basically screwed, this war has demonstrated that trend.  Unmanned systems will not be a niche layer we rub on the old one, that once "shot away" allows us to go back to the "good old fashion", there is too much competitive advantage in these systems.  So rapid production and deployment of unmanned systems (of all types), integrated across the depth of the battlefield is going to be a primary driver.
- Good 'ol CAS.  It brings payload and range, I will give it that.  However, it is big and visible - stealth may help but I do not think modern Stealth is built for the ISR environment we have found ourselves within.  So even if you manage to destroy an opponents UAV AD layer, which will not be an easy ask, you still have ground based systems in depth which is what the Russians are facing right now.  Those MANPADs are only going to get smarter, more lethal and able to hit higher.  This is likely why the Russians haven't found "air gaps" on such a large frontage, MANPADs everywhere means there is really no gaps unless you make a major push, which could get very expensive very quickly.  Back to cost, time is a resource as well and one can produce cheap lethal unmanned systems much faster than modern manned military aircraft.  I argue that it will go the other way...manned CAS/Strike/Air Superiority will rain down for the first couple hours - or basically get left sitting out - and then everyone will be relying on unmanned systems.
I keep getting the sense that the big powerful predators of the battlefield are in trouble.  And it is integrated small cheap nasty bite-y little things that are hurting them.

Thanks (I think),however, I am likely about as close to the political level as I am going to get.  I basically sit behind one of the guys “in the room”.  Any further though is in the opposite direction I want to go - which is into a quiet retirement making pc war games.  But events don’t always give us what we want… 

Don't hate me for saying this, but it is time for you to run for parliament. They need more smart people in that room who know what they are talking about.

An excellent response; I agree fully. I have my own thoughts on future that we are seeing play out in realtime, and they are quite close to what you discussed above (Smart ATGMs, MANPADs, drones and small unmanned systems, dispersed, aggressive light infantry). I agree that just buying more “MBTs, IFVs, F-35” isn’t the solution in and of itself, but I do think that artillery, used well and employed correctly, is going to play a major role going forward, as it does now. Only wanted to highlight that it wasn’t often talked about much prior but it is definitely being talked about now. Long and short range fire support is critical - - it hard to imagine the UA doing as well as it has without the expert use of artillery, as we have seen. 

No argument on firepower, in fact I suspect we are entering into a new firepower centric age of warfare.  Long range fires across domains is likely smart money, so long as it can be integrated into a smart system.
I have been wondering if there is not an add-on to Arquilla's three new rules of warfare:
-small many beat large heavy few
- Finding beats flanking
- Swarming beats surging
- Mass beats disconnected isolation, integrated precision beats mass, and mass integrated precision beats everything.

Another writeup for those of you who can pry yourselves from the Ukraine thread. This time, the topic is mission planning, specifically how to do it in relation to Combat Mission scenarios. 
The basic idea is:
Planning Framework for Combat Mission
The workflow for planning how to play a scenario in Combat Mission can be broken into four parts and are done in order. They are:
     1.      Receive OPORD/WARNO/FRAGO
     2.      METT-TC
     3.      OKOCA
     4.      Enemy Course of Action (ECOA)
Read along for the full breakdown and explanation! https://millerswargamingvault.blogspot.com/2022/06/introduction-planning-is-critical-to.html 
Feel free to discuss. Just remember that this is a very complicated subject if you decide to get really into the details. There are entire doctrinal publications covering each one of these topics. This is a more general overview meant to be easily digestible in a single sitting, as as such some nuance is lost.
Fair warning for my fellow rock bangers, there are no pictures in this entry besides the cover image.

In my opinion, you can never scout too much... it is something that should be a constant focus, from first turn to last. 
Bottom line, I rarely enter a game with a plan in hand.. I only form a plan after I have done as thorough a recon as possible and uncovered as much about the enemy disposition as I can... still I do not stop there, even after I have decided on a course of action... I continue to scout, as the enemy is constantly reacting, or being proactive.. with out a plan to gain intel on those activities you will be taken by surprise and take unnecessary casualties.
I have written a lot about this subject... here are some links to my blog posts that I think will help answer your questions.. or at least maybe get you to start thinking a little differently about what recon really means. 
Reconnaissance The Patience to See (written by @pnzrldr ) Command Push Recon Pull - my preferred method Platoon Scouts Listening Halts Masked Movement The Decision Process

Wargaming is stochastic, so nothing will ever give you perfect information.
The question then falls to you - if you look at your scheme of manoeuvre, see a piece of terrain and think "gee, it'd really suck if there was an atgm team hiding in there", then you really have a few choices:
 
You can get eyes-on and try to spot something in there.
You can arrange for a recon by fire, exposing your scout position, but perhaps forcing a response.
You can send a scout element into the terrain piece to actively clear it
You could arrange for indirect fires to proactively deny this terrain feature.
 
Each option involves accepting a different level of risk, and each provides a different level of information and result. Which is best is part of the Art of the thing - the probabilistic basis of wargaming decisions means that there usually won't be a best answer, just a least-worst one, and which one is correct for you will differ.
 
Ultimately, you can't spot everything, so the trick is to engage with the things that really matter - to read the terrain and identify the areas that are going to cause you issues, so that your limited resources can be leveraged to the greatest effect.

Very important point, this was a main reason the JGSDF's Type 10 MBT was kept down to 44 tonnes. At that weight it can use 84% of the bridges in Japan compared to 65% for its predecessor, the Type 90, which in peacetime could only be deployed on Hokkaido for this reason. A typical western MBT could only use 40% of Japanese bridges. (Ref: Japan MoD via Wikipedia).

Yes, that is still true. But does the Dutch army have ammo that can be exported?
For 30 tanks that is 10.000 shells each. At a rate of 1100 shots/min that is about 9 minutes of firing.
You sure this is an AI voice over? Because I'm getting this in English and wouldn't if that had been in German in first place.
 
About EU paying for the aftermath: that always sounds like that money is somehow lost.
What do you think the Ukrainians are going to do with their money? They are going to rebuild their country. That is streets & buildings, machines, cars, plants, ... Where are they going to buy it from? Right.
That money is not lost but a big part will come back to us and we all will be richer. That is the wonder of capitalism.
I'm very happy to pay for that especially if we get rid of that regime.

The idea that pulling out of Afghanistan was a sign of weakness was certainly a favorite trope for CNN journalists who made their careers there but what's never noted is that Afghanistan kept American resources (both diplomatic and military) tied up in a region that was completely removed from any strategic interest to the country. Worse, it forced the Pentagon into retaining a force structure that was not geared towards near peer warfare. 
The pullout was certainly not the US' finest hour but from a state competition standpoint, it was a net negative for Russia and China which would become more of a negative as the US reoriented globally. 

Of what costs are you talking about precisely? 
The economic cost of sanctions imposed of Russia? This is ours to bear because of decades of spineless politics aimed at short time economic gains, and unwillingness to stand up for European Values we are so proud of. 
Cost of rebuilding UA after the war? At that poin it equals to a few hundred billion Euro - it is a lot, but hardly unbearable for EU as a whole. Significant part of it will come back in form of contracts for European companies doing the work. And there's the ethical side of it of course... 
Cost of integrating UA into EU? It will take years before the will be able to join, and even then enlargin EU is in general mutually beneficial to everyone, new markets open, new workforce,etc. it isn't a zero sum game. 
Yeah, wars suck and are expensive, but it really could've been worse. And quite possibly all this money spend buys Europe a much better future for decades to come. 

Same as all heavy tanks can the local infrastructure cope? 50 tons is about the cutoff point. Main bridges are obvious targets if you don't have air superiority. 

Exactly. Insofar as early M4s had an issue with catching fire (I gather they were really not any worse than average to begin with) it was all to do with ammo storage. Once they introduced wet storage, the late model Shermans became one of the least fire-prone tanks of the war, diesel and gasoline variants alike.

There will be a democratic Russia, but not as Russia is understood today. Putin is ending his thousand year Reich in only twenty.
So stand up now, Belarusian, Novgorod, and Belgorod-Voronezh (Don-Volga) Republics!
 
These new republics, combined with Poland, Ukraine and the Baltics and fueled by copious Western (and JP-KOR) capital will create a medium-to-high tech manufacturing macro-region of some 120 million souls. All the infra and resource basics are there, and the human capital is good.
For numerous reasons, the global economy needs a second 'workshop' centre to (peacefully, we hope!) counterbalance a sharp-dealing China. This could well be it.
.... And Muscovy will either get with the program, or else become a geriatric ghost town within 10 years as its resource regions inexorably peel away and turn to China.
[/Hard yards ahead, but I reckoned we could use a little optimism for a change here]

It’s a coincidence that we had a similar discussion on a Chinese forum last week, identical questions.
Take this with a grain of salt. Regarding TB-2 reduced showtime, here is one of the theory. After a three months high intensity operation, these birds need to stand down, repair and maintenance. I guess  Baykar won’t hesitate to send a group of field engineers to do an field maintenance, but it is possible they need to be returned back to the factory to do the maintenance work. Another theory is Russian air defense capability improved in this static warfare. they have enough time build an air defense network supported by EW and AEW assets. One vs one, I will buy a Bayraktars’s win. But in a few vs many scenarios ,TB-2 is very likely to be detected and be shot down. Lack of a RWR system not only hurt TB-2 but almost all the drone on the arms trade industry. UAV operator has very limit situation awareness besides the narrowed FOV from the camera. A few destroyed TB-2 should deter Ukraine to use these precious assets for a patrol mission. But on the other hand it is not a big setback to Ukraine side, better to save them for something big, like a surprise deep strike.
For the drone swarm and artillery tubes, we still need lots of arty tubes. No one can generate a drone swarm at this moment, Chinese companies have occupied almost all the commercial drone market, but that doesn’t mean China has the capability to mass produce commercial drone independently, dedicate military drone has more trouble on mass production. Now for the portable commercial drones, they are lack of the range to do the punch. Most of the quadcopter drones are designed with positive static stability, so even a small payload will dramatically reduced the range. In some case DJI drone carrying a hand grenade will have less range than a 82mm mortar.
The discussion leads to one of the conclusions: in the near future at tactical level, drones and Arty are in a complementary relationship not a competition relationship. Let the Drones be the eyes, focus on the recon spotting, and let Arty do the punch.
Another conclusion is, CH-4 Rainbow is a better UCAV compare to Bayraktar TB2. Guess not too many people outside GFW are going to agree on that 😉

Which...it is? You're imagining a fight against an enemy that doesn't exist, and who has a goal that the real one is not pursuing?

Your job as an analyst is to get things right as much as possible, and to have a realistic appraisal of your enemy's intentions and capabilities. If you have a platform, your views have an influence on what governments may do based on your assessments. Why were people like Stanimir Dobrev or Kamil Galeev or O'Brien able to get a better picture of Russia, its military, and the likely course of the war?