Simcoe

Lol I wrote out a neutral, detailed analysis and concluded that the Russian offensive would fail. Sorry for not sugarcoating things enough.

I do not support the invasion of Ukraine and hope they regain their lost territory but if the Russians were as stupid as you say the Ukrainians would be celebrating in Sebastopol by now. You have to recognize that they have adapted and learned from their mistakes. I guarantee the Ukrainian generals are aware of this. I was hoping for more nuanced analysis but Ohh well.

Some thoughts on the Avdiivka Offensive. Timing: the fact the Russians can conduct a massive strategic offensive so soon after the summer offensive failed tells me they barely broke a sweat. I'm guessing the reserves from the south were used to reinforce this new offensive. It also shows they confident the Kherson region will continue to be a minor backwater. Preparation: I think Avdiivka is being used as a testing ground for new offensive strategies. for a month now the Russians have saturates the area with artillery, drones and now airstrikes. The FAB's with glide kits are being used as fast as they can produce them. All this in an effort to suppress the defenses from front to back. This is the first time we have seen this level of fires massed on a single area. The Ukrainians were able to briefly amass large amounts of fires to support tactical movements(even using Himars on individual artillery pieces) but never long enough to sustain for long periods of time. Execution: in the first days of the attack, videos were posted of long lines of Russian armor unmolested by artillery or drones. The losses were primarily from ATGM'S and other hand held AT weapons. This all allowed the Russians to make quick early gains. Evolution: those early victories were short lived. Even with the suppression of artillery the Russians are taking heavy losses and now footage of small drone attacks are trickling in. If they cannot close the noose today or tomorrow I think Ukrainian reinforcements will stop or cut off the spearhead and end the offensive. Conclusions: I think this offensive is showing that ATGM'S, mines and small drones can inflict incredible losses without fires support. Time will tell if the losses were worth it for the Russians but I think they will be going back to the drawing board on this one. This was a monumental expenditure of munitions to support failure. If so, what is the next option? Are major offensives a thing of the past? Will the war only continue as small groups of infantry passing trenches back and forth? Any other thoughts? As always, I do not support the invasion of Ukraine.

Thanks for sharing. How much of this depends on unit and circumstance? I've heard from foreign volunteers that the Russians never want to fight and others that they hold to the last man. What about on the Ukrainian side. Was my analysis correct? Are there any other nuances I'm missing?

Let's talk tactics. How is each side attacking and defending at the small unit level? Where are they similar and where do they differ. This is my analysis so far. Russians: In defense they are more willing to use quality troops to hold trenches but they will retreat to secondary positions in the event of a determined attack and counterattack to retake it. This means the defense is more capable against armor and more flexible but there's only so many quality units to go around. In the attack they seem to have adapted recently. They are very careful and use overwhelming artillery and more recently air power to saturate the defense before sending small groups of infantry and later motorized units to finish the job. Ukrainians: In the defense they are more willing to hold every inch of ground. Less likely to use quality units to hold trenches. In the attack dispersion is king. Small groups of infantry move through whatever cover is available and once enough troops are at point of contact they will attack after a short artillery preparation. Much more importance is given to counterbattery to negate the Russians advantage in artillery. Any other opinions? Am I wrong?

Honestly, you should save yourself a lot of heartache and save scum the opening few rounds. Make sure you take out a few of the Bradley's that have sight lines into your forces spawn points. Also, keep restarting if you lose any FO's. The rest isn't too bad. Use your fist wave to take out the brafleys on the left hill then use the next wave to move on the right. Have both waves mutually support eachother.

Probably not across the entire battlefield but I'm sure there are certain areas where Ukraine has gained artillery dominance. One thing I've been curious about. I've been seeing a ton of footage of HIMARS hitting basic artillery pieces and SPG's. Does this mean there aren't any more high value targets left or large enough to be economical(command posts, supply depots)? Does Ukrainian artillery have a hard time seizing artillery dominance without HIMARS? Do they sense a breakthrough and refocus their attention toward counterbattery?

Haha that's the joke.

Really interesting discussion so far. Honestly, I’m starting to think that depicting modern warfare is just beyond the engine at this point. Rather than change CMBS I’d like to see a brand new engine. the problem here is modern games focus on the worst mechanics of the engine. Drones in reality should be able to see the entire battlefield on any map. This breaks several mechanics. I can now call artillery on on the enemy deployment zone and angles of attack. Air support: Right now aircraft are either laughably useless when you have air defense or incredibly unfun when you don't. There's no real middle ground. Finally, the battlefield has grown so large yet so empty. Attacks are being carried out by a couple tanks and a squad at most of infantry. You either need to have a map as big as the donbass and game time of 5 hours or a small platoon sized map. The Russians recently conducted a larger company sized attack and it did not go well. I just don't see how you fix any of these problems using the same engine. Finally, with how slow Battlefront is I doubt we ever will get a new one. I would sooner wait on CMO to get good ground combat.

Trenches are the only way to anchor the front line. Otherwise you'll get pulverized by artillery. In a trench you can conceal ATGM'S and even more importantly a guy with a radio. You can try to get around the trench but they can call in artillery all day until you remove them. The Russian tactic is to use ATGM's and other forward teams to slow down AFU and when they get close retreat to a fallback position. Russians will bombard the trench before a counter attack occurs to retake the trench. The AFU in return has been taking trenches and falling back to avoid the bombardment. The Russians in return have started booby trapping trenches.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/06/11/the-ukrainian-army-has-already-lost-half-of-its-unique-leopard-2r-breaching-vehicles/?sh=681dbad786fe Agreed. It seems like AFU has already lost a good deal of specialized equipment already. Unless they have way more than we know about my guess is they will use the remainder to continue pushing on the main axis rather than spread them thinly.

The lancet seems to be the single most dangerous weapon in the MoD forces. The Russians seem to have figured out their drone defense. I've seen several NATO reports that Ukrainian drones are dropping like flies while lancet are everywhere. Anyone know what made the difference?

If it was that easy I imagine they would have done it already.

Per the Russians it sounds like even larger attacks happening right now. Really fascinating to see Ukraine facing the same issues with FASCAM mines as the Russians did at Uhledar. Also, seems like there was a lot of footage of Russian lancet drones hitting air defense systems this past month. I wonder if the attacks on Kiev and attrition at the front are hampering their ability to provide AA cover. With both of those in mind. How the hell do you get through a regenerating minefield and no AA cover?

I think the issue is the United States government was created at a time when coalitions were geographical and interests were not consistent within those coalitions. The framers assumed these coalitions/parties would never be coherent enough to threaten the political process. For the next couple centuries this held true and the activities of government were held together by tradition and common courtesy. Next, the executive branch started strong due to the failure of the Articles of Confederation and became stronger whenever there was a threat such as the Civil War or the World Wars. The framers figured that any president who overstepped would be checked by the other two branches. The problem is the two political parties have coalesced into coherent and ideologically driven coalitions that transcend the traditional checks and balances. A Republican legislature would never check a Republican president nor would a Democrat justice check a Democrat legislature. This is why Donald Trump was openly selling pardons for two million a pop. We are reaching the end game of democracy in the United States. With the judicial branch firmly controlled by naked partisans all the Republicans need is a president in the white house and a greater than 50% majority in the house and senate and the chains come off. If you thought the president has sweeping powers now, wait for 2024.

As long as you have sight lines longer than 2km. Any less and I find T-62’s can kill them before the missiles hit.

Double post.

Totally agree. M60 A1's/M-150's/M-1113's vs T-62's/BMP1's/BTR-60's is one of the most even match ups in the series while playing radically differently.

I'll have to find some screenshots but I finished a Cold War PBEM a while back as the US and I destroyed or tracked at least 8 Tanks/IFV's. Just make sure you have it on point target and keep your eyes and ears everywhere. All you need is one guy with a radio and good vantage point to do some serious damage.

Thanks!

Thanks!

Anyone know of a scenario that meets the following criteria? -Big and lots of room to manuever -Meeting engagement or an attack with reinforcements for the defender -Lots of vehicles

I'm guessing it falls into a weird middle ground between man portable and heavy weapon. Too heavy and a logistical burden for light infantry and too small/weak for a heavy mechanized team. I can also imagine it's not very accurate and could lead to collateral damage in the COIN heavy operation of the past decades.

For sure. Spotting is king. If the T-62 could spot like an Abrams it would beat every other vehicle in the game.

T-62's are the ultimate wildcards for sure.