THH149

I'm pretty sceptical about the PBEM++ feature tbh, as I've had several bad experiences of the game not continuing. I'm looking forward to successful tournaments and ppl in the game request saying theyre willing to use PBEM++ before I make a similar offer. But, new CM content is always welcome! (Oddly, i find CMBN more difficult than CMBS, 'cos I can't see **** before I'm dead from point blank fire!)

So things have got worse with PBEM++, not only does the system not send me email notifications when my opponent finishes their turn, but now when I do my turn and I hit the red button, the game stays with me on the "Continue" setting! Now I have two PBEM++ games where this is happening, and two disappointed opponents not getting their turns. I cant redo the same turns endlessly hoping for an end to ground hog day. Any insights into what might be happening? Any possible fixes that could be suggested? THH

Question about the PBEM++ system, I've ok'ed emails to go to my buddy when a turn is sent but I don't get an email when there turn is sent to me (not in spam or any other folder). Slitherine is set to share my email, is it a case of my game buddies not having their system set up properly (they say they have)? I'm thinking it's my settings though 'cos I'm the one not getting the emails (the PBEM++ needs my email!). Any thoughts on the settings we should check? All my Slitherine notifications are set to 'Subscribed'. I thought I'd post this here even though its a Slitherine issue, 'cos you'all are more likely to have answers or solid inputs! THH

Can't get the TOW to launch? geez, they need to play more combat mission!

I agree with your approach, and one scenario that demands something similar is Valley of Ashes. In VofA, its vitally important as the Soviets to give the artie and air time to reduce the critical defenders to ashes, and then assault with the full soviet force against whatevers left. Ironically, the Soviets have reinforcements that keep piling up and have to be hidden in the woods until the type is right to do the armoured assault while still using the terrain to your advantage.

Some of the assessments I hear about the Russians is how fast their Orlan to SPG Msta's firing takes, like less than 2 minutes. It raised for me a question about how the Orlans are used in the game, allocated to a battalion but also (IIRC) to the battery with the ability to do its own targetting. I believe the slow Russian targetting times is due to the assumed re-location to new positions to avoid counterbattery, but I'm not sure if that movement is included for American artillery eg M777s specifically. The motorised SPGs can relocated very quickly however. So, would it be realistic to shorten the firing times on the Msta's with drones, but also allow some independent drones choosing their own targets for themselves.

Yep, I reckon scenario designers need to be aware that not all Bradley crews are sighting and firing gods! And it realistic to have crews as green! The source btw was the Armour Winter 2022, so a credible source.

Yep understood. As a game, it can be played as a game, given the limits on what can be gamed eg in H2H and vs AI. As a process of applying some kind of doctrine or an exercise in applying reality, then I agree the situation and measures of success would be different. But I was encouraging Mr Halmbarte to understand he got a great result in the game, and not see it solely thru the lense of realism.

I think youre justified in your approach (concentrating your force while undertaking an artie barrage) as the results of the previous Soviet assault trying to take the town on the hop are strewn about the battlefied. And of course dont forget the more barrels and eyeballs there are they more likely there is going to be devestating return fire. There's nothing like clearing the way forward like eliminating the enemy in front of you. Plus I'd say if the designer wanted the Soviet player to emphasise continuing movement beyond the town, he could have included an exit point or further objectives on a larger map.

It's so that I can do this: The linear battlefield may be replaced by the fragmented, or nonlinear [очаговый], battlefield, where brigades maneuver like naval flotillas, deploying maneuver and fire subunits over large areas, protected by air-defense systems, electronic warfare and particulate smoke. Strongpoints will be established and abandoned, artillery fires will maneuver and difficult terrain will become the future fortresses and redoubts. (source: Grau Bartles Armour Winter 2022)

Is this modelled in Black Sea? Since (2001), the following objective observations of decreased lethality were seen at combat-training centers in Bradley crews: • A decrease in overall target hits during the past 20 years; • A requirement of more time for Bradley crews to qualify; and • The first-run crew qualification rates were not to standard.1 Coupled with changing conditions and the focus on the Global War on Terrorism and shorter dwell times in armored units, the lethality decrease and loss of proficiency inside Bradley crews have continued.

I must read this article in the Winter 2022 edition... The Russian Army and Maneuver Defense by Dr. Lester W. Grau and MAJ Charles K. Bartles

What's the Russain response to long range HIMARS etc fires? I presume there's some kind of countermeasures.

So, essentially, the Soviets plan for some serious artillery fires. In the CM world some things seem to be truncated - access to artillery pre attack is limited for instance. So CM is a reasonable but not a perfect analog of the real world. To make CMCW a little more realistic a player in a QB could spend more on artillery than they think is 'fun' so better emulate Soviet approach, eg a 1/3rd at least on artie, its cheap and plentiful. Some of the scenario's aren't great at CW soviet tactics, they limit the degree of artie. The pic below is perhaps extreme (IDK but its from the relevant US FM, but shows an artillery battalion taking on a platoon. A counterpoint is would US tactics work in the attack in CW? Given the defenders advantages and unreliance on artie, I'd be surprised if they did! Anyway, the lack of perceived success with the "Active Defense" doctrine (limited to the universe of the immediate battlefield itself) led to the Air Land Battle doctrine which expanded the battlefied to include the logisitcs train of the Soviets as the place where the US could win. But then long range fires is not the monopoly of the US either.

Here's some data to help reset the convo.... The Soviets plan to achieve certain density nonns for artillery, depending on the tactical situation. In the penetration of well-prepared enemy defenses, for example, high numbers of tubes per kilometer of frontage are desirable, even under nuclear-threatened conditions. However, modern artillery and methods of fIre control will allow lower densities than those which were considered standard during World War II. Some average guidelines for desired densities are• Attack of a well-prepared defense, in the direction of a main attack: 60 to 100 tubes per kilometer of frontage. • Attack on a hasty defense in the direction of a main attack: 60 to 80 tubes per kilometer of frontage. • Attack on a supporting axis: 40 tubes per kilometer of frontage. These densities include all calibers of guns, howitzers, and mortars. Densities computed in number of tubes may increase by 50 to 75 percent when multiple rocket launchers are included Based on the fIre plan, artillery is deployed to provide preparatory fIres and the initial fIre support of the attack. The fIgure below provides tactical deployment guidelines for Soviet artillery. Source: FM 100-2-1 Soviet Army and Tactics page 9-21

Its a Cold War discussion board, can we discuss the Cold War and soviet tactics therein?

I'm wondering if I should enter this, but I'm in the Australian time zone. What's ppls experience playing others across very different time zones? THH

Howdy This is embarrasing, but I've forgotten my password in a PBEM that has been on pause for a while, and a new turn has arrived. Is there a way to recover a forgotten password? Thanks THH

Agree, like in going over to the defense is merely a temporary pause before offensive operations are resumed...

Question for those that know about BTG and their mother Brigades or Regiments, how permanent is the BTG force as an allocation from the Birgade? I understand that the BTG is task focussed to achieve the Brigade's daily objectives on a mission say, but what happens if they take losses? Are these made up from the Brigade or does the BTG fold back into the Brigade to be recontituted again when ready/able once again to perform key missions for the Brigade? My only background here is my reading of the Grau/Bartles Russian Way of War, which suggests that the Brigade is the key formation, and it may creat a BTG to perform key functions on the way to the Brigade objectves, but the BTG lives in and draws forces from the brigade as a temporary arrangement. Eg a BTG would be created for breakthrough/exploitation but it wouldnt necessarily be the cas when the Brigade went into a defensive posture to loot etc. Also, the BTG could make up strength from Brigade forces, if the Brigade thought that was reasonable, so measuring losses of a BTG may be better thought of as losses of the mother Brigade.

Plus you can add to that list a frozen conflict along the Kherson Oblast to Karkiv Oblast, well beyond Donetsk and Luhansk, with fake referendums in those wholly occupied oblasts transferring themselves to RF (over Ukr objections and not internationally recognised) before November this year, plus I guess a ten year program to reform the RA into something more than an artillery park with the money it gets from selling resources to China and India etc, while it prepares for the next war. Putin will die an old man in office. Not what I'd like to see obv. but what I think is most likely.

Does the RA have the capacity to block the rail lines across the Dnepro? or otherwise seriosly interdicts UA logisitcs?

On the modern war institute podcast there was a discussion with this bloke who explains what some small countries should do if they cant defeat a superior aggressor. It seems his formula is being adopted to some degree by Ukraine on the open flanks of the RF and against their supply lines. https://mwi.usma.edu/mwi-podcast-on-resistance/

Ah, thats interesting. The C2 sharing actually facilitates other units targetting, rather than an everyman for themselves kind of idea. Which would mean the unit overall has more combat power when they share their C2. I must try this in a scenario I've played and try to get that to work for me.

https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/earmor/content/issues/2017/spring/2Fiore17.pdf Real world tactics on how to defeat a Russian BTG...