Armour combat footage

[Los]

I'd agree with Sly Sniper here in that, for whatever big picture reason, this unit more than likely had to, or has been ordered to, cross this piece ground, and that's exactly what they did. (as had untold thousands of units in similar situations since the dawn of time). Time plays into the equation as well.   Also in real fights you spend a lot of time trying to figure out where the enemy is, and even when you are under direct fire, sometimes even from pretty close,  you do not see him or cant figure out where he is. A very cursory inspection of most any combat video will show you this.  The absence of icons and nice bright tracers in actual battlefields are a big deal!

How do you cross these open areas when you think you might be shot at and killed any minute? Two words come to mind, for me it came down to...oh well..."f**k it!"

 

Los

 

 

[Thewood1]

Typically, a unit like this is on a timetable and can't slow down or pause for tactical niceties.  If they stop to try an infiltrate, they might expose the flank of an adjacent unit.  So Higher levels of command know they will take losses crossing the field.  That is a decision higher command makes with risks considered.

This is all assuming communications is working perfectly and higher command is competent.  We as players many times lose sight of the decisions that impact small unit battles around a unit in real life...from arty allocation, to ammo supply, to flank protection, to higher-level recon, etc.  We work in a nice little cocoon with a set piece battle where our goals are clear and hitting reset is possible.

More scenarios should be developed where you lose your arty support, have your ammo misplaced, get hit on the flank, have enemy tanks show up unexpectedly, have the objectives change mid-advance, have delays in orders, etc.  It wouldn't be fun, but would give you a little more perspective on what small unit commanders in the Ukraine might be facing.

[Kinophile]

This would be my one and only gripe with the stick campaign and scenarios -  near perfect intelligence of the the OpFor  units and intentions. 

I'd prefer a much less accurate sitrep,  if not also one or two that are outpaced by OpFor movements. 

Somday I'll make such a campaign :-) 

 

[Battlefront.com]

Sorry, I totally disagree with you Steve as to one assumption with what this units tactical choices were.

Your comments were all spot on other than that.

If they had a choice to cross that field any way they wanted to. yes I would assume they might have liked to use your suggestions or something along that lines.

Absolutely no disagreement here.  That's what I meant with the "first lesson" part of my post.  Just because we, the armchair generals, see a situation that appears stupid, we lack the context to make that presumption.  There's any number of reasons that could be behind them getting caught out in the open, including something as simple as acting on bad and/or outdated intel as (Bozowans suggested).  More than likely, though, someone higher up put an X on a map and said "be there by this time of day" and that was that.

So what is my point after all of this. Real war sucks.

How do you cross these open areas when you think you might be shot at and killed any minute? Two words come to mind, for me it came down to...oh well..."f**k it!"

Yup.  I know military philosophers throughout the ages have put it better than what I'm about to say, but it boils down to if soldiers refused to do every stupid/risky thing they were instructed to do then there would be no war because most of war is getting soldiers to do stupid/risky things.

Steve

Edited November 3, 2015 by Battlefront.com

[MikeyD]

I recall an anecdote from WWII eastern front (real world). Textbook tactics for Tiger I was for the tanks doing infantry support to stand overwatch some 900-thousand meters back from the troops. A sound decision since they tended to attract artillery fire. The only problem with that plan was the (often green) troops tended to freak seeing their armor so far behind them and were prone to pull back to positions more in line with the tanks. So in order to anchor the front in place the Tigers were compelled to stay forward with the troops and suffer the resulting rain of AT rifle and artillery fire.

This situation in the video the best tactic may have been for the foot infantry to have been far ahead of the BTRs with the vehicles supplying heavy mg overwatch. The problem is convincing the infantry to do that. Advancing line-abreast feels safer even though it may be tactically foolhearty. They appeared to have thought of defense against unexpected armor but it was insufficient, the T64 simply shrugging off the hits.

Edited November 4, 2015 by MikeyD

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Advancing line-abreast feels safer even though it may be tactically foolhearty

It can also be the safest way to move with armor support though.  Machine guns especially are not laser guns, and you get a lot of stray rounds flapping around.  And a lot of larger cannons will throw debris kicked up by firing pretty far.  Then you start tossing in things like sabot petals going everywhere.

Realistically you don't want armor or support by fire to the rear of your forces, as much as on an offset so there's a general lack of friendly stuff with rounds literally going over them.  If you're forced to move along one axis, staying behind the armor, or forward and to the flanks is also a good option.  It's also worthy of note that some of the lower profile Russian vehicles (namely the BMPs) lack sufficient clearance to fire over the top of troops anyway so working abreast of the BMP is likely your better option.

[slysniper]

 

 

.

Yup.  I know military philosophers throughout the ages have put it better than what I'm about to say, but it boils down to if soldiers refused to do every stupid/risky thing they were instructed to do then there would be no war because most of war is getting soldiers to do stupid/risky things.

Steve

Yes, After my 6 years in the service this about sums up how I felt about it and decided I was done and to not make it a career move.

I still do believe it is a necessary thing to have troops and to be willing to risk ones life for principles and certain freedoms. I just was not wanting to be a part of it as to how I see our government making those decisions. I hate to say it, I don't trust our own government any more when it comes to how they are using our troops.

I have made it point  that my sons or grand sons are not in and will not be in any of our armed services unless the conflict is worth the sacrifice that will be paid.

 

[Battlefront.com]

I still do believe it is a necessary thing to have troops and to be willing to risk ones life for principles and certain freedoms. I just was not wanting to be a part of it as to how I see our government making those decisions. I hate to say it, I don't trust our own government any more when it comes to how they are using our troops.

Sadly, you can say this at any time for any nation without modification.  Even in WW2, a war which the US is rightly proud of, resulted in lots of dead citizens who died more for the stupidity of those above them than for any other reason.  As a long time student of WW2, I could rattle off a series of needlessly moronic events/battles which probably in total dwarf all losses since WW2 combined.  Other nations fare even worse in their records.  A gripping documentary, Black Adder Goes Forth, faithfully documents this truth

One of the reasons I never signed up is that even if I trusted the government in power on the day I signed, I might not trust the one that followed or the one after that.  Which means every 4 years I'd be wondering if now was a good time to quit.  Not a great way to go about a career that has life and limb in the balance.  Then, on top of that, there's no way to know if I'm going to get put under the command of a chain of competent, smart leaders who do their best to keep me from a useless death, or a chain with a broken link.  One broken link is all it takes.  You can be the best soldier in the best army in the best nation in the history of Earth fighting the most just cause ever, but if you are being ordered around by someone who is incompetent... dead for no reason is still a big possibility.

Police officers, firemen, inner city school teachers, 3rd world aid workers, and others who put their lives at risk every day have a lot more say in how they manage risk and still keep their careers on track.  You try to do that sort of stuff they do in the military and you get leg irons or a dead end career.  Yet it has to be that way.  Which is why I'm thankful there's enough people in my country willing to put up with the BS   IMHO that's the real reason to thank a vet.  Not only are they willing to die for their country, they're willing to put up with the rest of it.  As far as I'm concerned, the hash marks on the sleeve are as meaningful as the salad on the chest.

Steve

[Hister]

Slysniper, Steve, best statements of the month coming under your fingers! Share the same sentiments. 

[Haiduk]

13 Aug 2014 Ukrainian detachment from "Aydar" battalion with armor support (their own or possibly of 24th mech. brigade) advance to Khriaschuvate (Luhansk area) settlement. When UKR forces approached to the road curve, they encounter reckon group of LNR "Zarya" battalion (now a part of 2nd brigade of LNR) - 2 BMP-2 and some infantry on cars. Looks like that gun of UKR tank in the vanguard broken and it can fire only with MG. BMP-2 opened fire from close distance with HE 30 mm rounds - on the video well seen three hits in the front turret. Tank slowly fall back, infantry engage, operator of "Aydar" sligtly injured by explosion of 30 mm shell of BMP. LNR detachment retreat w/o losses, but BMP gun sight was damaged by MG bullet hit.

Skirmish started from 6:00. Story about LNR crew actions taken from Lostarmor resource. 

Edited February 4, 2016 by Haiduk