Jump to content

General Topics Related To CMBS


Recommended Posts

Made this so that we can have a interesting thread, Related to the game, And militarys involved in game. I will start it off with something on my mind for a while, And there are quite a few "ex" military men on here. During a scenario I made, I realized that even if it is a game, My soldiers were acting good and bad, For example they would bravely fight the enemy, But then another unit would just cowards the second a machinegun sprayed around them. These troops in my scenario are all regular and normally motivated. 

Now from me serving, I know that if a machinegun sprays near me, My only chance of fighting would be to shoot back. I have been shot and hit by a bullet, I did not coward like the game has it but I shot back. I think all soldiers in game should have less cowarding when it comes to being shot at by LMGs, And Assault rifles. Of course if you see a tank shooting his coaxial machine gun at you, you will run or hide and scream. Sure the game is trying to be fair, Not putting any bias into it, But I am sure even Russian or Ukrainian conscripts would fight back. I have experiences with conscripts, They aren't as well experienced as us professionals were but they were still hard sons of mothers. I am sure US infantry won't coward either, I mean it's either shoot or be shot.

 

BTW I started this thread for discussing any topics related to the game, I don't feel like opening a thread for every thing I want to discuss about. 

Edited by VladimirTarasov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've thankfully never been shot at. But I often wonder, when playing CM games, how I might behave if placed in the positions of my pixeltruppens. I think everyone has a threshold of danger that they can perform under. Its different for everybody. I personally appreciate that some of my virtual soldiers, even so-called "elite" or "veterans" will eventually cower under fire. I've also had conscript soldiers heroically defend a position under withering fire. 

 

So sure, if one machine gun is bearing down on you, it's "easy" enough to shoot back. What if a second machine gun joins in against you? Eventually, its too hot for any (sane) person to stay in position. 

 

With the importance that modern armies have placed in machine guns and LMGs, I think it is clear that most modern tactics are based around the accepted psychological stress that suppressive fire can place on the enemy. If they aren't shooting or looking, your buddies are maneuvering to close and destroy them. It doesn't matter if they know that its happening - humans in general can't reason well under stress. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite true, But we are trained to react under immense stress. If I see bullets flying at me and I have no cover, I wont duck so he can kill me, I will hit the floor aim at the area the bullets are coming from and shoot back. My squad was ambushed at the post, We didn't have time to be scared. We ran to our positions and sprayed back. We even had a wounded guy who was still shooting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading a book right now on the Korean War "last stand of Fox Company" It is a Marine unit during the Chosin reservoir battles. The reactions of human beings, even highly trained and motivated units is not easily categorized. There were instances of incredible bravery, embarrassing levels of cowardice and everything in between. I think CM does a good job of reflecting those variations.

I have not been in combat, but have been in other very high stress situations that were life threatening. It is to be honest a very strange experience. I can't even say I would necessarily react the same way every time much less understand how others would react. Some of the situations I have been in were very immediate reaction type situations. Others were ones I walked into with my eyes wide open as they say. I'll take the first over the second any day

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vladimir have you been in combat? There are dozens of combat veterans memoirs talking about how the troops who did the best in training turned into whimpering cowards during combat. In CM all small arms fire has tracers. this is to aid the player and isnt how it is in real life. In fact in real life you were to come under fire you.d probably have a lot of trouble determing where it came from to begin with and thats if you overcame a pretty overpowerinh instinct of self preservation not to stick your head up and become a target. You.d also probably be ignoring NCO orders to keep your f'n heads down. Go watch some real combat footage of US troops some of the best equipment in the world fighting insurgents. Often several minutes of the beginning of firefights are Where the f is he? and people shooting everywhere while people yell at them to shoot at this or that and arguing about where the firings coming from.

Its easy enough to say if you were hit you.d continue blazing away like a Russian rambo or if fire came in react like a perfevtly trained machine but hundreds of years of warfare and millions of mens experience point to the probability of you doing so in reality is in the area of 0.000 range. same with me or anyone. Heroes are exceptional for a reason.

Its easy to say youd do this or that at home. Quite different in person. Especially once you see what these weapons do to your friends and your tired maybe hungry and have been essentially living like your homeless getting shot at for days weeks or.months.

Id also like to point out thees plenty of instances of known brave soldiers suddenly cracking and losing it and becoming raving 'cowards' or completely unresponsive to anything exvept to continue running away from gunfire or digging deeper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sublime, Appreciate your argument. 

Yes I have been in combat, Wasn't a large scale war but was a intense battle. Happened when I was deployed into Ossetia. We were stationed at a outpost, Just waiting having fun talking until a group of militants opened fire at us through vans. I witnessed the first impacts bullets landed onto the sand bag 5 meters infront of me and hit the pavement. I ducked then remembering that if I get supressed im done I shot back at the flashes of guns coming about 50 meters infront of me, I shot back. I felt my rib get crushed and I looked onto my chest and saw my ammunition holster had rips in it, I still didn't know I was shot. But overall, we had our guy with a PKM spray the tree line and after about a full burst of his ammo nothing shot back at us. After waiting for our local patrol to come back which was some guys on BTR, they investigated, And results were a few dead Georgian guys. Probably wasn't Georgian military but I don't know the details. Either way training does help, I was beaten, Starved, Trained intensively, Indoctrinated, Educated, In fighting a war with no limits. 

 

I've seen countless of US marines, When engaged instead of cowering and not aiming or shooting back calling out targets in a ordered form. Eventually coordinating with a vehicle. I am not saying that a soldier will not hit the deck, But he will still aim and shoot back. There are countless of stories from even Chechnya where some lads were engaged in hell, Hungry, Low supplies, Lost many comrades. Yet they didn't crumble under pressure and keep in mind these lads aren't special forces, But a mix of volunteers and conscripts. Let's look at another example, There is a video where US troops are engaged by a RPG (anti tank version or the US troops wouldn't be able to upload) And they got their squad into formation and engaged the enemy. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not having been in combat I can imagine that not knowing where the fire is coming from is probably what causes even brave soldiers to cower. At least when you know what you're facing you have some control,the unknown is very unsettling. Nothing worse than thinking a bullet may come from behind or to the side of you. Just read some accounts of soldiers in Vietnam. I'm surprised a lot more of these guys didn't lose their mind thinking "where are they?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vlad then you certainly know more than me about combat because i have been in combat. Militaries todaybtend to be better trained in the past and I think seeing the muzzle flashes helped you and your friends in Ossetia.

Whilst Ive seen countless videos of Marines fighting back Ive seen plenty of Marines or Army or Brits having a hell of a time knowing where the firing even was coming from. You had a very close call and its good your ribs werent penetrated by bullets. At least theres that.

But imagine if you.d been engaged by say US Marines? Soldiers at least on par with your men? After all the firing wasnt initiated by you guys. Or the same with all the insurgent vids of US troops in the Mid East. What if they were being engaged by more capable enemy troops who also dont shoot and run half the time but stand and fight if the odds are in their favor? I think a lot more panicking would result, especially as casualties mounted.

You also have the experience of the Soviet 40th Army in Afghanistan. Definitely not the premier army in the USSRs arsenal but plenty of special troops passed through.

You have incidences of heroism and also instqnces of utter disaster and a bunker mentality.

Same with US troops in Vietnam. Though overwhelming firepower meant that most tactical engagements were wpn by the US that doesnt mean there were plenty of f ups, cases of cowardice, and later 'fraggings' of officers or NCOs thought too aggressive, seeking glory at the mens expense, or inept. Every situation is different.

In a large scale war such as US vs Russia I think youmd see every case. Cowardice, heroism, confusion, order, etc. Every situation is different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how much awareness is programmed into our CM troops. Do they react more to impacting bullets and shells or do they first react to the sound of firing. They will quite obviously drop and cover when they are ambushed by small arms, and in some cases they will turn and run, thus exposing themselves to more fire. How many of you have experienced this in a game, where an entire team or even a squad is annihilated by MG or rifle fire because they just didn't immediately take whatever cover was available at the time? 

 

A sburke said human beings will exhibit many different forms of behavior when under conditions such as combat. Training, unit cohesion and the desire to perform well in front of your buddies, are all factors which will influence human behavior under fire. Fear is also a factor, but in my experience the fear of death or maiming becomes secondary to getting away from a bad situation or doing something that will mitigate it. Do our pixel men have a fear of digital death? They sure look like they do, and the "Cowering" mode is one way that they deal with it. In a squad under fire, initially some men are cowering and some may be spotting, I think that is about as realistic as this game can get. If they remain under fire, or worse, grenades or heavier stuff comes in, some will stay cowered and probably be killed or wounded, and some will seek to escape the torment. A frontal assault against a defended position is the best way to observe this behavior. This is the one factor that makes splitting squads so essential. Bigger units are unwieldy, they dont get into position as quickly as smaller ones, and they don't traverse terrain as effectively. They also present a smaller target to enemy units.

 

As to sound recognition. If a person is exposed to the sound of gunfire often enough the human brain, with practice, will be able to distinguish the general location of a shooter or shooters. There are always two sounds, the intial report of the weapon and the supersonic crack of a bullet in flight. With multiple weapons firing it becomes harder, but certain weapons have different distinct sounds when fired so a person could know that the fire was hostile by the sound. The legend of the 7.62 AK-47 having a distinct popping sound when fired at you is mostly true. Of course weather, and environment can change these situations, but the laws of sound moving through the air are pretty unshakable. An experienced unit could probably gauge the direction from which firing is coming from pretty quickly. They may not actually see the shooter or shooters, but they get the general direction. That is of course if they are all still alive and have survived the initial ambush.

 

In the early 20th century individual infantry weapons were designed for accurate, long distance, timed firing. MGs and artillery were meant to do the most damage which historically has been the case. The advent of the early submachine guns like the Thompson, MP40 and the Sten were attempts to get more firepower into the hands of individual soldiers. Then came the assault rifles, which gave a bit more range but allowed for increased rates of fire. Is was in Vietnam with the Marines at at time when we still had M-14s. The Army had been using M-16s since the beginning of their involvement. We had selector switches on our 14s, but hardly ever used auto mode, because it was nearly impossible to hold the rifle down, and the 20 round magazine was empty in 3 seconds. In the late 60s the US military decided that putting more rounds downrange at shorter distances was more important than accurate fire.  A good idea in the confines of jungles, but what about the open terrain of Afghanistan and Iraq. So now, sniper and sharpshooter teams accompany infantry troops in close combat, to provide standoff accuracy.

 

Funny how things evolve.

Edited by Nidan1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One has to remember that the second by second situational awareness of each individual pixel soldier is lower than what the player knows. A pixel soldier "cowering" when an enemy soldier is running in for the kill may not even be aware there is such an immediate and near certain threat. The pixel soldier next to him might, but in a split second it's hard to imagine consistent and accurate communications between team members.

Surprise is a major factor in warfare from strategic level all the way down to firefights. Nobody likes surprises on a battlefield. Even friendly surprises are often a bad thing. One of the fundamental reasons for this is that surprises shorten the decision making cycle by removing the luxury of planning. At the individual level a surprise tends to make a soldier do one of three things:

1. Take extreme offensive action (standing up and firing from the hip, for example)

2. Take extreme defensive action (running away despite being shot at, for example)

3. Take no meaningful action (cowering or standing against a wall, for example)

Which action an individual takes is very unpredictable. For sure the more experienced the soldier is, the more likely he's made the correct decision in the past. Otherwise he'd be dead or wounded. This means that he is more likely to make the correct decision in the future. It is Darwin's Laws applied to the battlefield. However, experience does not guarantee the correct actions are taken. Even for veterans (the "1000 yard stare" is but one reason).

Without simulating this there is no way to have a tactical wargame that is worth a darned from a real world standpoint. Soldiers that all behave either like perfect automatons or the most cowardly of cowards is a non-starter.

BTW, there was one documented incident in Ukraine that illustrates my point. A Russian GRU scout unit moved into a village they were told was abandoned by Ukrainians. They found a trench system and entered it to check for intel. Instead they found a very well prepared Ukrainian unit that was less surprised to see them as the GRU soldiers were to see the Ukrainians. After a quick exchange of fire the GRU soldiers did the sensible thing and ran away.

In the game the unit would have suddenly turned tail and run, which is what the GRU unit did in real life. And it was the CORRECT course of action because staying in the trenches would have meant certain death or capture, likely without gain. Running away offered a possibility of a different outcome, so that is what was chosen within a couple of seconds of contact.

As it turned out, two GRU were wounded and captured as they retreated, one was killed, a couple others were presumed killed, and several others were presumed to have made it back to friendly lines. The outcome was a disaster for the GRU unit, but it would likely have been worse if they did not try to run away. Instead of 2 captured GRU soldiers to put in front of the cameras, Ukraine might have had a half dozen either wounded or dead to show the world.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of all units the Ukrops say GRU? That sounds desperate, GRU isn't sent into stuff like that, It would be more of a recon run, Sabotage, Assassinations, Ambushes, Defenses, Infiltration. The rebels themselves have enough power to send a patrol into a trench for intel, Even so what valuable intel can it offer,  Even if so GRU would use hand deploy able drones to make sure it's safe to continue. Before going into a abandoned Ukrainian town, They will have a huge recon of the town before entering just like the US would. I don't get is that some sick of joke of making fun of GRU. Think of it as saying the US used Navy Seals to retrieve intelligence, From a "Abandoned" Iraqi village, Without using their recon assets such as the Raven, Or even regular old fashioned recon before entering the trench system.

Edited by VladimirTarasov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of all units the Ukrops say GRU? That sounds desperate, GRU isn't sent into stuff like that, It would be more of a recon run, Sabotage, Assassinations, Ambushes, Defenses, Infiltration. The rebels themselves have enough power to send a patrol into a trench for intel, Even so what valuable intel can it offer,  Even if so GRU would use hand deploy able drones to make sure it's safe to continue. Before going into a abandoned Ukrainian town, They will have a huge recon of the town before entering just like the US would. I don't get is that some sick of joke of making fun of GRU. Think of it as saying the US used Navy Seals to retrieve intelligence, From a "Abandoned" Iraqi village, Without using their recon assets such as the Raven, Or even regular old fashioned recon before entering the trench system.

First, a reminder that in every single discussion we have had about Russia's direct involvement in Ukraine you have disappeared as soon as some evidence is posted.  It doesn't matter what the source is, you don't even try to challenge it.  Then you come back in some other thread as if nothing ever happened.  I expect it will happen here again.  Either an American somehow knows more about what is going on in a place you have visited yourself or you are lying.  There is no other possibility.

Second, it seems you think that special forces never make mistakes.  That their officers never make mistakes.  That they can underestimate their enemy and overestimate their own capabilities.  That there are never any restrictions/constrictions on equipment at their disposal.  It's an interesting position to take, but one that you'll find as hard to defend as your view that Russia is not actively involved on the ground in Ukraine waging war.  Everybody makes mistakes, including GRU, Navy seals, SAS, or any other elite unit you care to name.  Everybody.  A couple of months ago it seems it was 3rd Spetsnaz's turn.

Since we're straying off topic (again), I'll simply show you that apparently you haven't been following the news very closely.  Because if you were, I can't even conceive of how you could have missed this.  Here are just a few sources of information about what happened and who was captured.  There's dozens of things I could post, so I just picked these at random.  I'll start with a Russian source just to get things rolling:

http://www.novayagazeta.ru/society/69819.html

https://en.informnapalm.org/research-on-unit-commander-of-the-russian-gru-whose-servicemen-were-captured-by-the-ukrainian-army-in-shchastya/

https://en.informnapalm.org/ukrainian-military-destroys-a-russian-spetsnaz-incursion-into-shchastya-and-captures-two-wounded-spetsnaz-troops/

http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-russia-captured-soldier-emotional-exchange-parents/27233017.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/30/world/europe/ukraine-russia-donetsk.html?_r=0

It was so high profile that even Russia Today had to cover it, but of course said the men were "volunteers".  The fact that the soldiers themselves say they are active GRU and  have Russian military documents on them to prove it is just Ukrainian propaganda, I guess.  But since the same news sources from the same country that denied invading Crimea said they are telling us that these men were "on vacation", I guess we should believe them.  You know, because the Kremlin is a completely reliable source of information.

http://www.rt.com/news/259817-kiev-detention-torture-russia/

 

Steve

Edited by Battlefront.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I have to agree. Vlad just because theyre GRU doesnt mean theyre supermen. For one Special Forces make mistakes all the time. Two US special forxes actually have been sent in to do basic recon before, have made huge mistakes before (Desert One incident to try and free Iranian hostages?) and special forces everywhere probably have entered basic trench systems other units could hace simply because of bad info. They were told so and so would be there or something they wanted was.

To argue the fact and then go on to say theres no way they would have done it without doing x y and z is silly. You dont know what resources were on hand, how much time they had to plan, or maybe they just sucked at their jobs compared to other units in the same organization.  US special forces get killed all the time. Remember all those helicopter crashes in Afghanistan? Those were covered. Imagine about the losses you dont hear about from the Seals, Delta, SAS, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most well known disaster of US Special Forces was this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Takur_Ghar

Bad intel, bad recon, bad plan, bad execution, bad contingency planning, and (not surprisingly) a bad end result.  The Seals even "left a man behind", which is not in their credo.  The fact that it didn't have a worse outcome is because of the superior quality of the special forces involved.  If it had been a standard infantry unit that was dropped off by standard pilots the outcome would have most likely been far worse.

So yes, any statement made that is based on the premise that special forces don't screw up need to be discarded as uninformed and, therefore, irrelevant to a well reasoned discussion. 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you could also add Operation Redwings as a Specops screw up with all the bad pieces you mention above Steve. This was the operation of "Lone Survivor fame. I have always thought that sending four men in to recon the village where supposed Taliban leaders were was asking for trouble. If a quick reaction force was established to come to the rescue if the team got in trouble, why not just send more men on the initial patrol. They also knew ahead of time that comms might be a problem in the mountains, that proved to be sadly true. Seals are no doubt badass, but how much real infantry and fire and manuever practice/training do they get? They are stealthy and highly motivated, but are they the right type of unit to send in where the likelyhood of contact with equally motivated and equipped infantry of the type that were encountered during the firefight on the mountain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Red_Wings

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, I didn't argue with you just because you kept providing sources from Ukraine, Or 5th columnist news to me, Or even US and British. You sound really convinced, So I won't argue with you on things like that just because it is not pleasant for me, And it will make no difference arguing. I won't argue on this one either, Call it what you want, But I am simply filled up, Same stories, Same propaganda, Same lies. It isn't healthy for me being a Russian citizen who has relatives who are directly effected by the war, Who have people in Crimea, Yet you as the American citizen you are certainly know about what went on in Crimea. Also I haven't provided any links solely because I know no one will change their minds. That is why I think we should keep the topic on track, Instead of fueling me by bringing up incidents in Ukraine. This is a good game, And fun topics to talk about, Why always fuel it into hate? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, I didn't argue with you just because you kept providing sources from Ukraine, Or 5th columnist news to me, Or even US and British. 

I understand that being told your world view has a glitch in it is hard - I have had to adjust mine a few times on various issues.  Not easy.  What you don't seem to see is that as sucky as journalism can be the truth and evidence eventually win out.  In paces where there is an actual free press there are actually people looking to find out and prove the other guys made a mistake.  They fact check each other, they scrutinize each other. So, it is true that you cannot necessarily be certain that a particular article in the main stream US or British media will be perfectly correct but you can be certain that if they got a fact wrong someone will point it out.  It might take a week or a year but they will.  Because of this those reporters carefully check things before they write them.  Just that alone sets the bar pretty high.

Note I am talking about the facts in the reporting.  Clearly opinion and choice of stories to cover etc can create their own skew on the world but they start from facts that have a good chance of being correct and if not of getting corrected.

It is also pretty clear that places that do not have a free press do not get that benefit.  What you get then is government approved stories, government versions of events.  In short total crap.  I heard about an excellent example this morning from China - that way I'm not seen as attacking you.  It turns out there is a pretty big child abduction and trafficking problem in China that has gone nearly unnoticed. There are a handful of citizens groups that are investigating on their own - and finding kids.  In this case there was no actual direct conspiracy of lies coming from the central government it was a case of a lack of a free press meaning that only stories the government wants to talk about are covered.  No one is looking for problems or other issues to report on.  Couple that with the bribery of various levels of local officials involved in registering the kids and the whole thing is off the central government's radar.  If there was an actual free press this story would have been covered for years and likely because the facts would be out people would be trying to make changes.

In the example here your government is lying to you but because you do not have a free press you cannot tell that they are.

Why always fuel it into hate? 

There is no hate involved - honestly none. Just because people are pointing out that you are not listening to the evidence of what your government is up to does not mean any one hates you or Russians.   It is just no so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, for people with a particular axe to grind this forum is a very convenient place to grind it.

As for the other off-topic topic:

 

Seals are no doubt badass, but how much real infantry and fire and manuever practice/training do they get?

From what I have been told, more now than they used to, courtesy of the Army Rangers. As you rightly point out, they are commandos, not light infantry.

During Redwings the mostly Marine QRF was kept waiting on the tarmac for several hours while JSOC rounded up enough SEALs to replace the Marines under the tragically mistaken notion that only the SEALs were up to the task (a pervasive attitude without which there would never have been a recon team to rescue since the Marines were opposed to that aspect of the operation but were overruled by JSOC).

 

 

Edited by Vanir Ausf B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most well known disaster of US Special Forces was this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Takur_Ghar

Bad intel, bad recon, bad plan, bad execution, bad contingency planning, and (not surprisingly) a bad end result.  The Seals even "left a man behind", which is not in their credo.  The fact that it didn't have a worse outcome is because of the superior quality of the special forces involved.  If it had been a standard infantry unit that was dropped off by standard pilots the outcome would have most likely been far worse.

So yes, any statement made that is based on the premise that special forces don't screw up need to be discarded as uninformed and, therefore, irrelevant to a well reasoned discussion. 

Steve

Battle of Mogadishu is another. They underestimated the enemy and we know how that turned out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

That's some truly impressive information, and in light of their own testimony, the two men captured are absolutely Spetsnaz. I am surprised, though, a captain was involved in terms of an officer. Would've expected someone in one of the lieutenant grades instead. I do find it interesting that the much reviled on the Forums Suvorov/Rezun was cited as a credible source on a Spetsnaz matter, and I would like to build on that a bit. The captured sergeant when interviewed said they were on no diversionary mission, a statement which immediately caught my eye. Why? Per Suvorov/Rezun, the mere existence then of Russian diversionary troops was highly secret in and of itself. In his Spetsnaz, he describes how he was clued in on this by way of a GRU officer's questions about his views of the Green Berets, to which Suvorov replied both from a political (communist Party) perspective (Green Berets as rapists and murderers) and from a military one (highly trained, dangerous, daring saboteurs and killers), to which he was informed that the Red Army might have something similar. The follow-up question was how many might there be, to which Suvorov/Rezun came up with the confounding right answers, based on similarity to a known formation TO&E. Given the above, that the sergeant directly proclaimed they weren't on a diversionary mission is a huge red flag, for who preemptively denies he, alone or as part of a group, did something unless there is in fact some potential exposure involved? The typical Russian infantryman simply isn't, from everything I can tell, trained in diversionary operations. Therefore, I believe there would be no awareness of diversionary operations as a possibility to be concerned about. Thus, we have direct statements unmistakably showing not only was this recon part of a Spetsnaz op, but that it was in the broader context of a 220 man Spetsnaz force operating inside Ukraine territory.  And the Spetsnaz connection is confirmed, in my view, by the preemptive statement made by the sergeant.

That same site presented a confidentially obtained Russian defense industry report which conclusively showed not only that what downed Flight 17 was a Buk, but that it was a Buk M1. The report is, in my view, a really impressive piece of military technical analysis which is so detailed that it goes into specific Buk M1 unique warhead fragments recovered! These are entirely different than those on the warhead for the baseline Buk missile. 

http://en.novayagazeta.ru/politics/68386.html

The report doesn't mention the considerable evidence the Russians imported a Buk M1 TELAR into the Donbass on behalf of the so-called separatists, instead asserting it was a Ukraine Buk that did the deed. 

VladimirTarasov,

While I know having your country called on the Forums over not just a covert op but a covert war is pushing a lot of your buttons, Russia has no monopoly on such matters. The US fought what was called the Secret War in Laos, and when it was eventually discovered, it was part of then-President Nixon's undoing. What hard-hitting journalist Hunter S. Thompson says of Nixon's actions in Laos ought to give just about anyone pause.

"He was a cheap crook and a merciless war criminal who bombed more people to death in Laos and Cambodia than the U.S. Army lost in all of World War II, and he denied it to the day of his death."

As for the Vietnam War, the American public was sold a total bill of goods, starting with that Vietnam was strategic and going downhill from there. During that war, I was, having as we say drunk the Kool Aid™, linking doesn't seem to work, very pro-Vietnam War. Years later in college when I read the by then almost unredacted Pentagon Papers I got to read the truth, and it seared me to my soul. Briefly, Vietnam was not strategic, the US government didn't care about the Vietnamese people, as it loudly and many time claimed to, and the real point of the Vietnam War was to, without resorting to nukes, show Russia we were tough. You can look up the various havoc and economic costs those decisions cost all concerned for yourself. And long before all, the US fought the Banana Wars, and has done all sorts of unsavory (kind characterization) things since. These things simply are; they happened, no matter how embarrassing or how I might wish otherwise. My country was so good at genocide that Hitler, inspired by what we did to the Native Americans, modeled his Final Solution on it.

We here recognize you are in a really awkward fix, both in terms of coming to grips with what evidently is unthinkable to you on one hand, but of likely feeling constrained in what you can say if you've realized that the evidence we've presented is credible, but the truth will out, and no amount of squirming or denial will change the objective facts.  I believe two quotes are apt.

Then-SecNav W. Graham Claytor

"Everyone's entitled to his own opinion; everyone's not entitled to his own facts."

Stephen Decatur


'Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong.'

The nature of special warfare is that the missions are high risk, high payoff. And the ideal is to get in clean and exit clean, but it doesn't always work out that way. A British SAS op  during ODS was blown shortly after it landed, resulting in a harrowing pursuit and horrible, brutal prison experience. Of eight men in one squad, one was KIA and two more died of hypothermia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bravo_Two_Zero

In another instance, a 60-man SAS force was blown by a young Iraqi boy, resulting in a chase for the ages and...

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/382999/Heroes-of-Operation-No-Return

And let's not forget the unmitigated disaster that was Extortion 17. 38 killed, of which 22 were Navy SEALs, and they were by no means the only special operators who died in that awful and fully preventable shootdown. 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/20/families-suspect-seal-team-6-crash-was-inside-job-/?page=all

These are but a few examples of Spec Ops missions gone wrong. Even when they go right, they can be horribly expensive in terms of casualties. Storming the Presidential Palace by KGB Spetsnaz at the beginning of the Invasion of Afghanistan Invasion was, despite intimate knowledge of the target, the training of the guards (Russian trained), even their schedules, a very expensive almost failure, but it got the job done. Watch this video, where you can see the direct participants tell their stories, and pay special attention to the almost annihilating casualties which resulted to the attackers.

Spetsnaz: Inside The Russian SAS - Killing For The Kremlin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l918ta0nylY

To me, what happened to that Spetsnaz squad in Ukraine doesn't strike me as unusual at all in the broader context of covert operations. Things can and do go wrong, and the odds of their doing so get much higher if key information is missing.

Regards,

John Kettler

Steve,

Edited by John Kettler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, I didn't argue with you just because you kept providing sources from Ukraine, Or 5th columnist news to me, Or even US and British.

So we should instead believe what?  The information from media sources that said there were no Russian forces in Crimea when Ukrainian, 5th Columnist, US, and British sources said they were there?  Or the ones that promoted stories of Ukrainian soldiers crucifying babies and didn't so much as apologize for doing it?

 

But I am simply filled up, Same stories, Same propaganda, Same lies.

I agree.  The problem is that we have a very, very different definition of which side is lying and propagating.  I think it is a single country controlled by an authoritarian oligarchy that controls the media and is progressively cracking down on individual freedom.  You think it is several dozen independent countries that are ruled by far more transparent governments and the last remains of independent voices inside of Russia.

 

It isn't healthy for me being a Russian citizen who has relatives who are directly effected by the war,

Which is why you should question your government's actions instead of blindly defending them.  Russians are fond of criticizing the US for the war in Iraq, but they conveniently forget that more than half the country vocally opposed it and caused the national policy to change (not that the current policy is great, but it is different at least).

 

Also I haven't provided any links solely because I know no one will change their minds.

If you had credible, vetted, multi-sourced links to explain how a Buyrat tank unit wound up fighting in Debaltseve, I'd certainly have taken a look at them.

 

That is why I think we should keep the topic on track, Instead of fueling me by bringing up incidents in Ukraine. This is a good game, And fun topics to talk about, Why always fuel it into hate?

No hate at all.   I wish nothing but good things for Russia and Russians.  As for me bringing up incidents in Ukraine to wind you up... not true.  If someone says there is a problem with a game depicting war in modern day Ukraine, isn't the most logical place to look for answers the actual war that is currently being fought in Ukraine?  At least if there is a relevant link between the two it seems the BEST way to talk about questions related to CMBS.

BTW, you could ignore my GRU example and address the many posts since which illustrate that your concept of what soldiers do and do not do in combat is based on some shaky concepts.  There's been plenty of discussion that has nothing to do with the topic you don't want to discuss.

I have to agree with Vladimir Tarasov on this one. I mean honestly why does every thread in this forum have to turn political?

See above.  I brought up the GRU example because it was 100% relevant to the discussion.  More relevant than any other example given in this thread so far.  I do not think that because a couple of people reading this Forum are in denial that we should avoid making direct comparisons between CMBS and what is going on in Ukraine when appropriate.  Or do you think we should dumb down the discussion because a couple of people can't handle the truth?

Steve

Edited by Battlefront.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I have been told, more now than they used to, courtesy of the Army Rangers. As you rightly point out, they are commandos, not light infantry.

Yup, what you both said.  Which underscores why that particular action I cited was such a screwup from the get-go.  One of the most fundamental principles of warfare is using the correct forces for a particular task.  You don't used armored forces in swamps, you don't use light infantry to fight armor, etc.  When you want a tin of vegetables opened you go for the can opener, not a sledgehammer.  But if you need to smash something big and tough, the can opener should not be selected as the preferred tool.

Getting back to the point... even the best soldiers are not automatons.  They make mistakes in combat, including killing one of their own by mistake and then covering it up only to have the inevitable truth come out and make them look even worse.  So when thinking about how CM's little pixel soldiers behave, let's remember to not hold them to a fantasy standard.

Battle of Mogadishu is another. They underestimated the enemy and we know how that turned out.

This one came to mind as well, of course.  And not just because it was the subject matter for one of the better war movies ever made ;) 

Another example is the Battle of Khafji where there was poor understanding on the ground on the Coalition side.  At first with the Marines believing they were being attacked by a probe instead of an all out assault many times larger and heavier than their own force.  And in the ensuing firefights the Marines caused more casualties to themselves than the enemy did.  But unlike some of the other examples, the end result was a major defeat for the Iraqi forces because, overall, the Coalition forces performed very well and the Iraqis didn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khafji

Steve

Edited by Battlefront.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...