Grey_Fox

Rumour has it that once upon a time there was discussion on something called Combat Mission...passed into legend now.
Yes, I think it's a lesson in the importance of walking the terrain; only the most careful of terrain reads will help glean what the enemy's likely COAs are. I think, and from what I've gathered reading from others who have shared their experiences, that a lot of individuals assumed the Soviet MRB would pound forward. The high ground to the American left dominates any route of retreat (if someone chooses a delay in sector), so that is obvious. Likewise, a 'straight in' approach to the main American position would never be a likely route in:

The washboard terrain and the forest tiles just make it a natural obstacle to movement; hence my selection of EAs being in the pass itself, and then to my extreme right flank. 
I saved the ENDREP file and I've had a look just now. Soviets gained 350 for their phase lines, and 1253 for dismounts. I'm unsure if that's intended or not, but whatever the case, I know from my own mission making experience just how esoteric the point allocations can be for units. I actually am okay with the minor defeat; I think that type of controversy captures precisely the early eras of the NTC. As we all know, the OPFOR always cheats and often wins ;). 

 
Now, I think this is a good segue into a brief discussion about the purpose of the campaign. In short: I have nothing but praise for the NTC campaign. I truly do believe it exceeds at some points the difficulty of the US campaign, which means its doing its job. I also think it is a perfect headshake to those who are used to 'look down, shoot down' equivalents for NATO mechanized units from SF2 and Black Sea. What surprises me is how slow the realisation can be for some as they play through the campaign. The first mission being a shock to most should be no surprise, by the second mission they should be experimenting for answers to the questions asked by the OPFOR. By the third mission they should be perfecting their methodology on how to defeat the OPFOR.
So I won't mince words, any vagaries of the scoring system aside, this is a rough result for the final mission; I think the execution at the platoon scale more so than the TF scheme is where I let myself down. The formula I learned here I will put on display as we turn to the shooting war in Europe in subsequent chapters of the AAR, and with much greater efficacy, if I say so myself. 
I spoke recently with @domfluff about why the fictional titles seem to be so focused in what points their campaigns are trying to make, and I do think it is because they aren't beholden to having to try to recreate a historical situation. That means, with artistic licence, they can make a point through a series of plausible scenarios. By contrast, Road to Montebourg is a massive, masterpiece-effort campaign, but it has no real thesis beyond "the bocage is tough" and capturing the actions of three separate battalions from three different regiments. The NTC campaign, by contrast, is a perfect example of our point that fictional situations can ease the task of a campaign maker to demonstrate something. It clearly sets out to prove a point: that technological supremacy is nothing without a clear tactical doctrine; the OPFOR have one, by the end you should too. 

I've said before, but I think the NTC campaign might be my favorite across all of CM, precisely because of that sharp focus. Each mission and decision point serves a cohesive purpose, and the whole doesn't outstay its welcome.
I do think the final scoring might be a little scuffed, but I'm not sure it matters really.

Some of us talk on other services (discord mainly), and there is a feeling of disappointment and something approaching disgust that this forum has become a Russo-Ukraine war rumour outlet where 99% of the activity is relegated to a single thread, rather than a CM forum. Sqook and Miller's comments should be seen in that context.

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.

Some of us talk on other services (discord mainly), and there is a feeling of disappointment and something approaching disgust that this forum has become a Russo-Ukraine war rumour outlet where 99% of the activity is relegated to a single thread, rather than a CM forum. Sqook and Miller's comments should be seen in that context.

Thanks for the clarification. Got confused myself. 

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.

Yo that's crazy but how does it relate to Ukraine

This is maybe a bit pessimistic but couldnt that take like a few more years? I know you guys dont want to release the DLC since you dont want to seem as you are making money of the war. ( if I got that right) But im pretty sure that most people who play the game already know that.
 

I think in reality that superiority might have faded faster than that - perhaps they had the edge in the seventies, and they probably did have the edge in the sixties.

CMCW represents this inflection point well - in 1979 the Soviets have some significant advantages, which are being eroded on a tactical level by 1982. Clearly the tiny number of Abrams, Bradleys and M60 TTS wouldn't have been *everywhere* in 1982, so the actual inflection point would have a longer tail in practice, even if the frontline would have been gnarlier than anticipated.
As an aside, I did come across an amusing/weak argument that the notable wargamer Paddy Griffith may have actually averted WW3.

He was a military historian, and participated in numerous wargames, both hobby and professional. A notable number of these professional, classified games were about Cold War doctrine, particularly with the US and modelling their policy of Active Defence - in particular the concept of an up-front defence, not giving up miles of West Germany to gain depth, as that wouldn't be politically viable.

We don't know the results of these games, or how extensive they were, but we do know that shortly afterwards the dial started to move, and the US policy position began to change (culminating in what became known as AirLand battle, but even changing the policy before that). This change in policy was then matched by a change towards a more defensive doctrine from the Soviet Union.

So... weak argument, but if we tentatively assume a direct line connecting all of the above, it's not impossible that a bespectacled British academic prevented an all-out nuclear war.

Yes, that's succinct and, generally, accurate. I would agree. You could nitpick or call it a generalisation but I think that would be ungenerous given this a forum.
Video games are generally player driven, so a good one will give the individual the tools to portray it accurately when they are the Soviets. This has been a source of fierce debate, mainly started by the OP of this thread (who, I note, has been conspicuously absent). He believes, among other things, that the ingredients are inadequately modelled, and therefore the recipe cannot be recreated. Tamping down his actual point is difficult, as he simply changes the topic of debate as and when he sees fit. No matter, there's a lot of evidence from other players that playing the Soviets as expected can produce results. That, of course, isn't as simple as "evolve from platoon columns to line 1 kilometer from enemy position" - though it often sounds like it is. It requires heavy dosages of common sense and understanding of the American way of war to create an effective fires plan to build that momentum. 
That's the first half of the equation. The second half is when the Soviets are AI. Now, is that up to the scenario designer. This is, again, realm of opinion, but we can object some objectivity into it. The campaigns' AI are basically textbook Soviet tactical evolutions (as we understand them): people lose these campaigns, and hard at that, routinely. So something must be right. Standalone scenarios are, in my view, a mixed bag. Some are excellent, others border on absolutely shambolic (Czechmate is a standout example of the latter). 
I would argue CW (and RT) do indeed depict their strengths, as much as their limitations. It is no different than people (correctly) despairing in CMBN that their American rifle company in, let us say, Road to Monteburg only has a few 60mms for a particular mission. The objective likely could justify more fire support. Well, that wasn't always an operational reality, and the Western allies often had to tighten their belts in the early part of the campaign re: ammunition supplies. The point, of course, is that the Soviets do very well when they can judiciously support an appropriate amount of force (or force multipliers) to the objective to hand. I don't think that is particularly unique; just that their equations are perhaps less optimistic, or more realistic, than others. 
A question of definition. Fighting 'toe to toe' insofar as fighting on qualitative or quantitatively equal terms would be considered foolish and likely to result in defeat. However, in short, and generally: Absolutely. Of course they believed they could win, and not without merit. They did not plan around winning every engagement, is the point. Only the engagements that mattered. I know that sounds trite, but its the shortest way to say it. 
 

Man, crickets on this? Really? Good to know Putin has won the PR war on the CM forums without even knowing this place existed. 
 
Another great chapter. I’m sure the performance of CPT Wren at the NTC is likely to make some heads explode. That is, if they touch grass and take a long enough break from Ukraine posting. 

Boeing Yard, Fort Irwin, California
CPT Wren could feel a very strong headache coming on. It wasn’t the unbearable, searingly-dry heat, (well, it was the heat in part) so much as it was the logistical nightmare his company, and his Battalion Taskforce writ-large, had been dumped into. They had just arrived at the Boeing yard, serving as an initial assembly and equipment collection point for their rotation at the National Training Centre. The officers and senior NCOs were in absolute, collective shock at what greeted them. They had left most of their equipment behind at Ft. Stewart, with the promise that they would be provided with well-maintained, pre-positioned gear on arrival at Ft. Irwin.
The sight of the Battalion XO standing amidst the metaphorical wreckage, hands on hips, with an evil countenance on his face revealed how stretched the truth of that promise had been. If looks could kill, the MAJ would’ve struck down every civilian contractor in the yard by now. The displeasure radiating out of the Battalion XO was echoed by the companies’ XOs. Wren’s second in command, 1 LT Booth, looked like he was contemplating homicide whilst talking with the civilian contractors mounting MILEs gear to the Company’s M150 tank destroyers.
They had left behind relatively cutting-edge equipment, which they had left in top shape, back at their home posting. What greeted them were older models of M60 tanks and TOW launchers, lacking the excellent thermal sights they had come to rely on. The TF’s sister battalion that had just come back from rotation had never warned them about this. They had been put through the wringer and had warned his unit that the infamous OPFOR didn’t play by the rules.
Looking over at the rundown, dated equipment in poor repair, Wren couldn't help but feel that this was part of an elaborate plot to put them off balance before the rotation even began...
Chapter 1.1: The Hasty Attack
 
Near Brown Pass, National Training Centre, Fort Irwin.
The operations group had gathered around a sand table, essentially a scaled-down presentation of local terrain, to plan how they would kick off the mock war for the barren, craggy desert. Wren could feel the sun beating down on his exposed neck as he looked down. He had wisely kept his steel helmet off for the briefing, preferring a patrol cap. It offered some slight relief to the sensation that he was in an oven, and that he particularly was being burned in the pan.
The immediate mission was straightforward, in principle. Brigade had informed them that the lead elements of an enemy Motor Rifle Regiment (MRR) had entered the area of operations and was suspected to be heading towards one of several passages through the corridor. The enemy’s general intent was not difficult to divine: secure one of these features and allow the regiment to debouch onto the desert and deploy for an attack. The TF was to establish contact with the enemy’s forward elements, fix them and, if possible, destroy them. Follow up operations would then commence against the main body of the MRR.  
These first fights would devolve to the companies. The NTC was intended to train the army to fight a step down, that is, a company was expected to go toe-to-toe with an OPFOR battalion, and a battalion with a regiment. It was a tough ask. It put a lot of pressure on guys like Wren, but it also forged these junior leaders into the backbone of America’s army.
The NTC’s entire concept was one big, tough, ask. It had thus far put units, sometimes inadequately trained, always under-equipped, against a dedicated opposing force, or OPFOR. The US Army had played around with the idea of an opposing force before. What had resulted was a hokey B-movie routine simply called the “Aggressors.” They had no foundation in reality, no equipment that bore any relation to something in service, and failed completely to reflect any one of the many likely enemies the United States would face. The Aggressors, like the men who were tasked to portray them, had nothing worth fighting for. Units that rotated in to display them liked getting killed early and often, so they could get a hot meal at the mock casualty clearing stations. It was schlock, and the army had known it.
Fort Irwin, it’s dedicated OPFOR, and the MILEs system (think one giant game of angry laser tag) had changed all that.

This OPFOR had one task: play the Soviets better than the Soviets themselves, and brutalize their enemy whilst doing so. The fact the OPFOR was also expected to meet training standards as a US unit made it a nightmare opponent: a ruthlessly competent enemy that knew your playbook back-to-front.  The first bunch of battalions that had rotated through the NTC had come away shocked, and not infrequently in tatters. Wren’s TF had the advantage of learning from these initial rotations. Two TFs from sister brigades in their division had already gotten their NTC-issued hidings and had diligently and openly disseminated their experiences. They were, theoretically, the best prepared unit yet to come prepared for the fight.
This was their first opportunity to prove that. The Battalion S-2, a highly competent officer with a Master’s in psychology, had put his money down on the idea that the enemy’s lead elements would head for Brown pass. Wren’s area of responsibility. Considering this, the TF Commander had indicated he was willing to throw significant weight behind his company team. Combat aviation, and armour retained under task force control for support of his team, if need be. There were two courses of action: let the lead MRB come through the pass and hit them hard in the bottleneck or push through and find them in the open. The resources his CO was willing to allocate would change depending on the decision, but he trusted his CPT enough to reach one on his own and held his peace as to which he would have preferred.
Wren thought for a moment…Allowing the enemy to come through the pass was the “textbook” solution. It was canalizing terrain and would allow him to get the most out of his company team. It would be a mainly defensive operation, greatly aiding his chances of avoiding heavy losses. Thing is, textbook was obvious. The textbook made for poor reading in this situation, thought Wren. The first option ceded initiative to an OPFOR he knew was lean and mean on the offensive, especially one going to plan. He interrupted his thoughts with a question:
“Are you able to allocate me any of the scouts?” he asked his CO.
“No can do. We need them to tie into the armour battalion TF operating in the Southern Corridor, they can’t put dismounts in those hills as readily as we can.”
If he fought in Brown Pass himself, he would need to seriously contest the high valley mesas, or else the OPFOR would get observers up there and make any type of hasty defence untenable due to artillery fire. He wanted scouts for that, rather than have to put too much load on dismounted foot patrols taken from his platoon. The CO’s answer settled the dilemma. Wren reached over and pushed the little blue block representing his company team through the pass on the sand table.

He could see in his mind, the actual terrain leaping up around him. Wren had always had an eye for terrain, and he knew he could make the most of it here. The “open” ground north of Brown Pass was anything but. It was a series of plateaus, a giant natural staircase, that provided good cover to all but the tallest of vehicles and would allow a commander (on either side) to switch from a long-range engagement to a close-in one at a moment’s notice. The exit of the pass also had a craggy pair of mountains, impassable to vehicles, but perfect for dismounts. Pushing through would make that terrain all his. He intended to use it to its fullest effect.

Preparing for tomorrow’s operations meant it was going to be a long night. Wren, his hard-pressed XO and the platoon leaders had a lot of work to do to make the plan a reality. Wren also had to find the TACP, frustratingly absent at the briefing, and try to integrate the combat aviation into the plan, as he wouldn’t be able to have it “on call” and flexible once the rounds were flying back and forth.
***
16th October, 0900 Hours

They were through Brown Pass, without any enemy air interdiction. At least, 1st Platoon was through. So narrow was the defile, so real the threat of OPFOR air attack, that the Company team was deliberately strung out. This meant that, for 2LT Bunting’s forward group, if there was a fight, it would be his alone for some measure of time. His job was to fix the enemy for the rest of the Company team to manoeuvre aggressively. It was an important, high-risk task and a sign of the trust Wren put in his senior platoon leader. With Bunting’s platoon was the two M150 TOW vehicles, on loan from 1LT Benner’s platoon. The group was moving in staggered column, along a sandy trail, towards a low ridge that denoted the northern mouth of Brown Pass.
Bunting, riding in the lead M113 with a Dragon team and the assigned forward observer, looked over his shoulder. A pair of Cobras was providing intimate support and were hovering just behind Hill 165.5. Suddenly, one of the Cobras raised itself up a bit more and fired off a TOW missile with a hiss and a pop. Contact?

Contact! Urging his track forward, his driver cautiously nosed the M113 in fits and starts up the ridge. Calling a halt, he could see high, hanging dust clouds in the vicinity of PL “Yazoo”, one of several reporting lines to help the TOC track the advance of both B Company and the OPFOR. It quickly became apparent that multiple enemy BMPs were moving fast towards the mouth of the pass. More than he could handle in an open fight. Bunting reacted fast, and with clear-headedness. They had expected this. The Cobras were making the enemy squirm and push with haste, that could play to his advantage. The little bowl his group was in was excellent defensive terrain from which he could pin the enemy. Signalling over the platoon radio, as well as with his hands from the cargo hatch, he ordered his squad tracks into an umbrella-shaped defence.

The flying column cover being provided by the Cobras was showing its worth. Behind excellent positions, the Cobras took turns launching TOWs, which raced at knee-height over the desert to slam into BMPs’ flanks. Wren, hearing Bunting’s contact report, got the word back to TOC quickly. The planned F-16 strike went in 5 minutes after the initial contact report, and they laid their clusters in, presumably with devastating effect.


The OPFOR recon leader stayed calm. He must have known his best bet now was to get forward and to grab the enemy by the belt. The BMPs surged forward. They would be in Bunting’s perimeter within minutes if the Americans didn’t react strongly.

The TOWs weighed in, however, at Bunting’s command. They fired from excellent hull down positions along the low ridge he established his fighting position from. To Bunting’s chagrin, their first few shots are wildly off target. The TOW crews were inexperienced and clearly a bit awe-struck at the sight of a company of BMPs ruthlessly pushing through air attack. It takes two engagements to finally find their nerve – and their targets. A BMP burns.

Then the enemy weighs in with their own fire support. A thunderous crush of artillery impacts just to the left of Bunting’s track. He buttons up to avoid the angry, buzzing shards of shrapnel. The OPFOR artillery is off target but still denies a large part of this excellent battle position to him. More alarmingly, it kicks up the high, hanging dust Bunting has already learned defines the NTC’s desert terrain. Soon his attached TOWs are telling them they can no longer actively engage threats through the dust. ****, this is going to get close and messy, thinks Bunting.
“Earl, get that ramp down and get your ass out with the Dragon, get up there!” he screams to the mounted Dragon team, ducking back down into the cargo compartment.  “Evans, get posted somewhere on this ridge and the Chucks going!” he continues, calmer now, to the attached FO.

The BMPs were only 600 meters or so away now. The vagaries of the terrain were making themselves felt. BMPs were flitting in and out of sight, and the TOWs continued to have trouble engaging, only managing to pick off the occasional BMP.
SPC Earl, the platoon’s Dragon gunner, calmly sets up on a bit of the ridge, determined to cover the short front of the Platoon’s BP. He ignores the artillery, as best he can, and adopts the awkward cross-legged firing position, waiting for the first enemy to pop up over the plateau. A pair of BMPs shortly obliges him, even halting momentarily, to his delight. One is shortly burning. The TOWs catch a lucky break soon afterwards and tally two more BMPs.

In a furious five minutes, Bunting’s small force and air cover appeared to have mauled an enemy company. There was no time to rest on their laurels, however. Another platoon of BMPs, seeing the carnage to their front, smartly pull to their left, disgorging dismounts and creating smoke, and then surge past Bunting’s right flank, towards Point 199.1. Through gaps in the smoke, Bunting is able to track the line of enemy dismounts, and he spots in the distance even more BMPs – the enemy’s main security element?
The Cobras have ceased fire, displacing so as to avoid enemy anti-air fire. A wise move, to be sure, but a poorly timed one from Bunting’s perspective. He has no way of raising them quickly again, lacking a direct communications line to them. It was entirely his fight now.  
Movement is key to any defence, but especially a hasty one. The TOWs were ordered to displace to cover the burgeoning threat on the right flank, but this takes them dangerously close to the enemy artillery fire. The TOW crews find themselves constantly ducking back down to avoid shrapnel.

Nevertheless, they can re-engage, picking off a few of the flankers. 

Then, out of the smoke - and through its own artillery - surges a single enemy BMP. Bunting, too focused on the immediate fight, had never strictly given orders to his squads to dismount in the reverse slope. Luckily, his experienced NCOs read in between the lines and dismounted on their own initiative and had liberally handed-out LAWs to their men whilst doing so. The BMP is engaged effectively by these disposable rockets and is swiftly knocked out.

 
***
This is a beefy chapter, and I don't want to bore you to death...bite sized chunks. To be continued (as for the Normandy DAR, the backlog of photos do was larger than thought, apologies). 

I have been slowly playing through Cold War's campaigns and standalone scenarios and have been completely blown away with the fidelity of the singleplayer experience. The AI plans have almost universally been some of the best I've seen in any title. It's been immersive. As I often do when I play, I started snapping pictures and making small gifs. When I arrived to scenario 3 in the US Campaign I thought "I should start making an AAR." So, I paused, went back to play the NTC campaign, a few of my favourite scenarios from the Soviet perspective, and started writing. 
I've learned two things: I can't write to save my life, and I really enjoyed it regardless. I already have 6 AARs completed of my experiences and will share them with you all, if only to distract. They strike a more narrative tone, but I have done my best to explain the tactics and decisions. I will label the scenario/mission at the start of every AAR. Without further ado...
 
Prologue:
Kiev Military District, Ukraine SSR.
It was a clear, late spring day somewhere south of Kiev. The open pastureland was starting to show the signs of recovery following the harsh winter. Grass grew tall and the sea of mud was firming up into dry terrain. To any casual observer it would seem a scene of idyllic pastoral calm.

It is a façade. The calm is shattered in an instant, and a brutish ballet begins.

A thunderous barrage deforms and rapes the landscape. It builds to a howling, shrieking crescendo. A cacophony of mortars, howitzers and “Grad” rockets form the orchestra. The impacts smother two wooded hills with a mix of high explosive, smoke, and chemical irritants similar to CS gas. It was all the fury and violence of war, at its apparent worst.
This was not war, however. Merely a facsimile of it. An exercise. To the stern-faced evaluators observing from several kilometres away, and the attached state TV camera crews, it was real enough. Real enough for citizens of the Soviet Union who would watch these scenes play out on their TVs, real enough for Western defence analysts who would pore over every frame of the video, and real enough indeed for young conscripts sat waiting in their tanks and personnel carriers a few kilometres away, in readiness behind a low ridge.

Belly crawling forward among tree, bush and scrub on this same ridge, were more of these young Soviet conscripts. These men were equipped with heavy weapons:  machine guns, recoilless rifles, grenade launchers and potent anti-tank missiles. They would soon make their presence felt, reaching out into the roaring inferno across the open field, destroying any target they could see which remained unharmed from the bombardment. Their missiles began reaching out, flying towards real and simulated targets. TV cameras panned, keeping up with the missiles, visible as green dots against the background.


The evaluators would duly note “hits” recorded by these weapons and, using an intricate set of rules and modifiers, adjust the amount of fire (and therefore casualties) the unit would be deemed to receive when they began their attack. The prospects were good: everything appeared to be within nominal parameters for this drill. The artillery was on target, the missile fire accurate.
As the artillery fire began to abate, the MRB commander – a tough, professional soldier who had been through several prestigious state academies and had seen service in Afghanistan – knew the time was right to begin his attack. Ensconced within his personnel carrier, his voice simultaneously filled the headset of every vehicle commander of this force: begin, armour forward, came the command.
A company of T-64s, a marvel of Soviet technology and a demonstration of its single-minded design philosophy, rumbled up the ridge they had sheltered behind. Taking effective hull down positions, their imposing 125mm cannons crashed out in volleys, striking targets on the forward edge of the forested hills.

The fire is deemed highly effective, scoring several “kills” of enemy vehicles.  With this report crackling through his headset from the tank company commander, the MRB leader issues the next orders, this time via pre-assigned codeword. Repeating himself so there could be no confusion, he tersely speaks: Hornet, hornet, hornet. The unit roars forward as one.
Again, the tanks lead, pushing up and over the ridge at top speed. They fire, with much less accuracy now, on the move, too fast for even the gyro stabilizers to compensate. It is no matter, movement now is key, rather than fire. 

As they pass the exposed area, their rate of advance slows again. Their fire becomes highly effective once more, volleys crashing out across the valley. The observers would note “losses”, of course, losses would always result as an attack neared an objective. They were well within normal parameters, however. What was expected, acceptable, in the science of the attack.

Then come the personnel carriers, surging over the ridge. They move with alacrity behind the armour, in two extended lines.

With pinpoint timing, the artillery fire redoubles on the wooded hills, once again smothering the MRB’s objectives. Any surviving enemy who would chance a shot at these vulnerable vehicles would undoubtedly be discouraged by the howling high explosives.

Again, losses are incurred by the observer/evaluators. Not enough, however. Again, everything is within acceptable parameters.
The MRB closes with shocking speed, crossing several hundred meters in only a few minutes. The momentum and impetus is irresistible. Most of the tanks halt 500 meters away from the wooded tree line, redoubling their fire into and around it. A handful of T-64s move forward with the personnel carriers to provide intimate support. They close the distance aggressively, moving through the final rounds of their own artillery. This particularly impresses the camera crews, still diligently recording, delighted at the realism of the exercise.


The vehicles rumble into the woods, their heavy machineguns thumping away at silhouette targets meant to simulate enemy infantry in their foxholes. Then, the orders come: “Dismount! Forward!” Soviet infantry scramble out of rear hatches and side doors, over engine decks, and into action. Units move in an extended line, firing bursts from their assault rifles. Occasionally, a squad halts at the knee, spraying down foxholes with automatic fire and rocket propelled grenades. They press forward, moving with astonishing speed, newer conscripts desperately sucking for air as they gallop forward.

Leaning out of the hatch of his command vehicle, the MRB commander witnesses his forward companies safely debussing on the objectives. Smoke, as planned, begins to land at the edges of the hills, isolating them from one another. Exultant, for he knows his unit is performing excellently, he urges forward the remainder of his force. Not onto these terrain objectives, these are not of the greatest importance, but beyond them. Breakthrough.
The tanks form into two columns and  roar through the hole ripped in the enemy’s defence, and the MRB commander pushes his command group, air defence vehicles and his third company through in the vacuum they create. They fire as they move, riflemen spraying the smoke-shrouded treeline from open cargo hatches on the rear of the personnel carriers.


***
“15 minutes.”
“What was that, comrade Colonel?” the TV producer asks, overhearing the supervising Colonel despite the dull thuds and crunches in the distance.
“15 minutes. That’s the average time it usually takes to complete this drill.” He explains.
“Is that good?”
The Colonel laughs, “Yes, 15 minutes is quite acceptable… this commander has done it in 12.”
The dismounted infantry may take hours, in reality, to comb through the wooded hills and defeat the surviving enemy infantry. That they would suffer heavily whilst doing so was not in dispute, nor was it of any particular importance. Even the uninitiated TV crewmen could deduce that. The real takeaway, the true objective, was that most of a tank company and an entirely unscathed set of motor riflemen were through the enemy’s defensive position. Havoc would ensue, and the destruction of the notional enemy unit was almost presaged. What the Colonel observing knew, and that the TV crewmen did not, was that inexorably, inevitably, behind this breakthrough would come a tank battalion, then another regiment, and then entire brigades. Victory would follow. It was as simple as that.
Notes/Thoughts
So, the scenario played here was "Soviet Tactical Doctrine 1 (MRB)" by Miller. I wanted to play because I thought it would make a great little compare and contrast piece to how the US would have to do things, especially in the NTC campaign. It's also just a solid concept for a mission, and a trend that I hope continues. For the absence of doubt, I played it straight, precisely as the briefing guides you to do. 
I also think there's some subtle criticism to be made, through the scenario, of how we know the Soviets trained in reality. Big, choreographed exercises. Useful for producing units that knew a series of SOPs and battle-drill evolutions, perhaps not as useful for producing units that know how to keep pushing through when BTRs and BMPs are exploding. They weren't organic like say, I feel the NTC was. Keep that in your minds for now. 

Everything should be under Orders at Battlefront.com
If you don't see your DL link next to - or when you click on your order - then you have to wait a bit for the payment to clear.
I think a DL link gets sent to your email right away though.
Also, that battle pack you bought should be built into the game already. It's already on your drive.
The only thing you need to do to activate your  Battle Pack - is copy the battle pack's code from the orders page, then run the application "Activate New Products - CMBS" (Found under Program files x86 -> battlefront -> combat mission black sea).
Paste the code in that box and youre good to go.

This is my view. Modern tanks will be rendered obsolete...by more advanced tanks. But until someone comes up with a better way to provide heavy direct firepower than a big-gunned armored vehicle, the tank is here to stay.
Like Nicholas Moran said, obsolescence is driven by capability, not vulnerability. Infantry are extremely vulnerable to bullets, and a bullet is a heck of a lot cheaper than an infantryman. And yet infantry have not been rendered obsolete because nothing else can provide the same capability as infantry (granting that in a century or so we may have robots performing the same jobs as infantry). The presence of weapons that the tank is very vulnerable to is not enough to render it obsolete. The development of something which does a better job of providing the same capability is what will render it obsolete.
I don't know if perhaps precise enough artillery with short enough call-in times could someday provide the same direct fire capabilities as a tank (hitting a moving target could be difficult). That's the only solution I can think of that would actually render the tank truly obsolete. Any vehicle that tried to take over the role of the tank would quickly start evolving to be very tank-like. Even removing the crew and making it remotely operated, or even fully autonomous, doesn't guarantee that it won't still be called a tank.

I'm going to take a minute before work to address this Twitter thread by Trent. I only caught the first part of his thread in my responses yesterday, and I think the rest of what he posted is a perfect example of him taking isolated situations and extrapolating them to create sexy scenarios for public consumption with little additional evidence. In this thread he takes examples of shell burst patterns to build this idea of Ukraine using a vast network of distributed, digital howitzers to shoot and scoot across the battlefield. The tactic is certainly feasible on paper - it's been around in doctrine since WW1, the US Army calls it a "roving gun" - but hardly unique to Ukraine. The AFATDS system and digital howitzers that we use are literally designed to facilitate this function. And while Ukraine may be using a digital system to route and process fire missions, but from what I've seen the vast majority of their howitzers (and definitely not the 122mm D-30s he references) lack the digital systems to make it truly effective to the extent he describes. Trent uses a lot of questionable assumption to build this idea of Ukrainian artillery supremacy that is honestly not backed by the data I'm seeing. If he has more sources to back his claims I would love to see them, because none of his thread passes the sniff test for this artillery officer.
Please don't take this as a slight on you Grey Fox or anyone who found Trent's thread interesting, this is just professionally frustrating to see someone the public "trusts" peddling such poorly sourced information in such a confident manner. Now I get to see his thread linked in every Reddit and Twitter thread featuring artillery, talking about something that is almost certainly not happening, at least not to the extent that Trent describes.

Why would you fight so hard to keep monuments for people who fought for the right to keep other people as slaves?

Why would you fight so hard to keep monuments for people who fought for the right to keep other people as slaves?

Why would you fight so hard to keep monuments for people who fought for the right to keep other people as slaves?

Why would you fight so hard to keep monuments for people who fought for the right to keep other people as slaves?

Why would you fight so hard to keep monuments for people who fought for the right to keep other people as slaves?

Why would you fight so hard to keep monuments for people who fought for the right to keep other people as slaves?

the General Forum just migrated here.

Why would you fight so hard to keep monuments for people who fought for the right to keep other people as slaves?