Simcoe
-
Posts
555 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Simcoe
-
-
1 hour ago, danfrodo said:
Or maybe it shows that RU decision makers are really, really f-ing stupid? Like w endless waste of men & material to take Bakhmut? Like every other offensive they've tried this year? They have basically gained nothing while burning out huge resources.
UKR hasn't gained much territory, but at least they are working toward something important -- cutting major landbridge east-west supply lines. If UKR can just get another 20km then RU in serious trouble -- but can they get another 20km?? But instead of ensuring this doesn't happen, RU burns up its reserves in pointless disasters.
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.
-
22 minutes ago, Haiduk said:
In this thread known UKR serviceman Serhiy Solon'ko, who now on Zaporizhzia front criticizes NYT article about Russian "elastic defense" tactic, which authors give like new invention. He says all what "experts" of NYT wrote is complete BS and they have no idea what's goung on here. (I hope Tatarigami soon translate it, but you can do it via Google)
So, he says this is Russians in defense fight for each inch, because they (I just add "their command") very painfully perceives any loss of territory, even this is tree-line.
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.
-
2 hours ago, dan/california said:
What he said, Ukrainians have reached the point where they can stand and fire in whole batteries.
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?
-
23 hours ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:
Don't hold your breath.
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.
-
1 hour ago, Audgisil said:
I've been watching a number of videos recently that have shown combat in the trenches from Ukrainian and Russian perspectives. I'm beginning to wonder if trenches are not more of a hindrance than a help to defenders. It seems that defenders in the trenches are trading maneuverability and situational awareness for increased cover. But to what advantage? Even though they have increased cover, they actually lose a fair bit of concealment as well. Sure, you cannot directly see a defender unless he pops his head up above the trench, but you where he's at and that he's not going far. Granted, the defenders have some degree of lateral movement within the trench, but that's it. The defender's maneuverability seems pretty restricted.
With the plethora of automatic weapons, large capacity magazines, grenades, and now drones. It just appears that what was a good idea during World War I may now be a deathtrap for defenders. Due to the loss of situational awareness for defenders, it just seems like the attackers are consistently able to close the distance to trenches and maneuver around above them fairly easily. The defenders in the trenches, on the other hand, seem limited to mostly unaimed fire whereby they are just raising their rifles above the trench, giving a short prayer, and then spraying in the general direction of the enemy. The assaulting troops are able to lay down well aimed suppression fire on suspected positions, close, and eliminate the threat? How often have we seen guys getting killed at point blank ranges as they have been forced to seek deeper and deeper cover in holes at the bottom of trenches?
Would a better option not be to have pickets forward of the trench lines? These pickets would actually form the main defense by giving enough warning for defending troops to actually leave the trenches and push forward toward the picket lines. Besides, why even dig trenches at all? Aren't they just a giant blinking neon sign to observation drones that says, "hey guys, our main line of defense is right here." Also the trenches just seem to be giant artillery magnets, and do they really help much against airburst artillery anyway?
In short, do defensive trenches give defending troops a false sense of security while actually robbing them of maneuverability and situational awareness while simultaneously compressing them into a tighter space that essentially becomes a kill box?
These are just some musings that I have. Who knows, maybe the trenches are also necessary because of the amount of thermal imaging on the battlefield these days. Maybe a better tactic would be dug in positions with defenders interspersed "out in the open" between them. Maybe a trench is just the best of many bad options when defending open areas where there are no tree lines or any other form of cover. I'm curious to hear your thoughts.
If trenches are a bad Idea, I advise the Russians to continue digging them.
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.
-
49 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
I'd bet heavily against this. However, I do expect a significant Ukrainian counter offensive to happen in Luhansk as a secondary action.
Note that I'm also a guy that still does not believe Kherson was the side show to Kharkiv. Kherson was the main act which made Kharkiv possible in the first place. The outcome of each is important in its own way, but I'd say that from a military standpoint Kherson was the more important of the two.
Steve
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.
-
1 hour ago, Vanir Ausf B said:
Could be. While I take it with a massive heap of salt, Rybar said as much.
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?
-
37 minutes ago, dan/california said:
You kill the MLRS that are regenerating it.
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?
-
18 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
So maybe a dumb question from an outsider but why not curb the powers of the presidency? The US has a lot of checks and balances but maybe not enough. I am sure there are a thousand reasons not to do this but seriously haven’t you guys had enough bad presidents to maybe rethink things a bit?
We have two types of pardons in Canada, one is done by the judicial system and the other is a royal pardon by the Governor General - normally ceremonial and rarely used. The PM cannot pardon anyone - a pardon cannot be politicized. The PM also has a lot less executive power - we do not have the executive order system in this country. We have an Order in Council but it is also done be a committee and technically has to go past the GG. In short there are political systems where one person can only do so much damage.
The ability of one administration to effectively hijack the democratic system is just a disaster waiting to happen. It would be hilarious except for the whole “empire we all bet on” part.
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.
-
9 hours ago, Artkin said:
Give me M-150s and I'll kill every soviet vehicle on the map.
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.
-
4 hours ago, domfluff said:
The TPN-3 is not a thermal optic. It does have passive night vision out to a decent range, which a lot of the earlier models lacked, but it's not comparable to a thermal optic.
Direct comparisons of those are always a bit deceptive - in the below case, this is looking at something a tiny number of metres away, which isn't really indicative of any kind of real situation, but it gives you an idea of how much of an advantage a modern optic gives you:https://packaged-media.redd.it/lqjq2oe3zzu81/pb/m2-res_720p.mp4?m=DASHPlaylist.mpd&v=1&e=1683761911&s=fce3986b5d013acede59eb3727f2b360cced2c80#t=0
(Ukranian T-64 with thermal sight, compared to the regular one).The thermals in CMCW aren't going to be of the same resolution to pick out details, but they'll certainly be similar in terms of contrast, and finding hot tanks against a cold background.
Of course, none of this minutia is actually the point of this post. The Soviet tanks do indeed have worst situational awareness than the US ones in CMCW. They also have significantly better fire control systems, a much scarier armament, and superior protection. They are in most respects superior to the US tanks, until the generational change that happens with Abrams and Bradley (and to a lesser extent, the M60A3 TTS). This naturally leaps ahead of the Soviet designs, and this was late enough such that it wasn't something the Soviet Union ever really caught up with.
I've mentioned before that I think the best way to approach CMCW is about 1980 or so, and with Strict rarity, if you're playing a QB. The more thermals you add, the more the game looks like Shock Force.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.
-
7 hours ago, George MC said:
Day of Wrath
Thanks!
-
9 hours ago, Chibot Mk IX said:
Studienka
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
-
1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:
Of all the Soviet weaponry, this is one of the systems I've always wondered why the West didn't copy. It makes so much sense to have an indirect fire weapon capable of rapid RoF. Having it on wheels is also helpful for avoiding counter battery fire. However, I have faith that the reason why this idea "never caught on" with the West is that there is some significant downsides I've not thought of or had explained to me.
Steve
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.
-
22 hours ago, chuckdyke said:
The Chieftain pointed out. A T-62 with thermals is more effective than a T-72 without it.
For sure. Spotting is king. If the T-62 could spot like an Abrams it would beat every other vehicle in the game.
-
10 hours ago, Lethaface said:
It all depends though, at closer ranges (0-600m orso) I have had T-62(1975) outperforming M60 TTS. Also Abrams in CMCW are far from invincible, I managed to actually destroy all of the Abramses fielded against me in the CMCW tournament (using T-80s).
But overall I agree that 1979 is more balanced and fun for both sides when playing CMCW PBEM compared to 1982.T-62's are the ultimate wildcards for sure.
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Lol I wrote out a neutral, detailed analysis and concluded that the Russian offensive would fail. Sorry for not sugarcoating things enough.