strac_sap

The idea of dropping munitions from planes to clear minefields was always a nonstarter in the past, for a number of reasons. As a new combat engineer private in the US army I remember watching a video (VHS I think) of Iraqi positions before deploying and the DoD wanted recommendations on how to breach them. Afterward I told the lieutenant we should just do a B-52 strike to clear a path. He didn't respond. The airstrikes were always too inaccurate and the ground could be impassible to vehicles. There are two different ideas here that should be clarified: breaching a minefield and clearing a minefield. Frankly both are scary. The explosives in mines is very stable, and the fuse is the key to setting it off. (when fatigued and stupid we would toss explosives around in really unsafe ways, but here I still am) So to actually clear a mine explosive needs to be placed directly on/next to it or it needs to be physically removed. Both of these require the mine to have been discovered by the persons doing the clearing. And then you have to be in the minefield doing stuff like, pop and drops, ring mains and line mains. To breach the minefield the mines simply need to be moved out of the way. This is where MICLICs and bangalore torpedoes come in, vehicles with plows, and maybe airstrikes if they can be precise and not destroy the ground rendering movement impossible. They are expected to blow the mines out of the way, and if they detonate them that's good. But not expected. So napalm could work if it was hot enough to ignite the fuses. Otherwise it would be very poor as it would not push the mines out of the way. I appreciate these discussions about the more modern state of mines and mine clearing, especially drones. My heart breaks to see the density of the minefields that are being laid. This will takes many years to clear and the cost to the locals will likely be extraordinary. Perhaps more and better automated mine clearing is the key, I feel like we have neglected this like many things as we thought these wars were a thing of the past.

And he (Luka) hedges his bets with Putin by making him sound tough.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/27/europe/lukashenko-wagner-rebellion-negotiations-putin-intl/index.html What would Putin have used to crush Wagner "like a bug?" Seemed like only rear echelon and security forces anywhere around, and they seemed reluctant to engage. And Wagner seemed to have combined armed assets that worked, including anti air.

This is a great game overall. Likely my favorite of the bunch. This scenario really stands out for its harshness and shows the consequences of the fog of war. I play real time as that is just my preference, and here it stands out as decisions need to be made quickly as the Soviets advance. The left flank is lightly held by engineers and got hit hard. Seeing what was happening an engineer lieutenant called in a strike on the TRP, but without eyes on the target no way of knowing what happened. Within minutes that flank was overrun and destroyed. The right flank's two M901 TOW vehicles would scoot forward, shoot, and back up quick. They survived but the infantry were hit hard. A sustained barrage on the Soviet advance slowed them considerably. A few more T-64A's moved up and were destroyed by the few remaining infantry and the M901. Most of the M113 survived, engaging the Soviet infantry and trucks. No more Soviet units advanced. Now the right flank waited for the Soviets who overran the left flank. Nothing. Then a few infantry units arrived and exchanged fire. Time ran out...tactical US victory Wow, what a match. It turns out the Soviet units that destroyed my left were pulverized by the barrage and dug in engineers and infantry. Their victory resulted in most of their units being shattered. Only a few remaining were shaken and they moved on the right flank ineffectively. The looey who called in the barrage had 19 infantry kills alone. Thanks for the fun game and scenario in particular, maybe at times too real...but better here than in real life.

Gary R Lukas, I've been wanting to do this, import silhouettes from SF and the associated mods. Would you be willing to share your work?

Definitely would be a quirk, and since I don't know how the AI actually makes decisions I assume its about the TC (tank commander) having the gun available even when buttoned and has a target. For a real engagement a TC wouldn't be firing the .50 (M85 on the ole M60) but keeping control of the crew and tank, in particular directing the gunner to the target. Unless he saw a target of opportunity to take out a crew member, and then that would be a chaos of war scenario. Also, don't want to give any ATGMs in the area extra data about your location, especially before the first shot. That said, in the game it does work. Especially the odd hits on crew and subsystems, and suppression of anyone nearby.

Given you were in USAEUR what can you say about the morale of the forces at the time '79-'80? Seeing the war in Ukraine reminds about the importance of this. I had a first sergeant who would lament the bad old days in Germany when they'd smoke bud out of their soda cans in the motor pool instead of PMCS in the mid 70's. This anecdotal evidence doesn't point to anything in general, but is a data point I've held on to over the years. I would disagree about the best equipment going to Vietnam. Notice their were no M60's there, nor other high tech equipment, and this was deliberate. So it isn't clear that Vietnam was a negative in that sense, but surely the budget took quite a bit away from Europe. This makes me think that morale would be the biggest factor... EDIT: should add that training and budget for training would be high on the importance list as well. Especially larger unit formations.