Jump to content

Modern kill ratios v. CMBS


Recommended Posts

The problem with CM:BS may be the omnipresence of thermal imagers.....I'll have a play with US, Russian & Ukrainian Scout Teams on a couple of BIG maps in varying conditions, see how well they can see each other.

7 minutes ago, IMHO said:

Write me in advance if you please. I'll show you around

That would be awesome!  B)

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

The problem with CM:BS may be the omnipresence of thermal imagers

Float like a butterfly sting like a bee :) Not to sound too obvious but it's the same as for US forces just multiplied many times more

19 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

That would be awesome!  B)

When? FB/WA in PM?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a long way (by British standards, a tiny distance by Russian standards) from London these days, but let me know if you are coming and I'll show you round all the museums (& the nightclubs if you want).....Alternatively, if you want to see the bit of England that triggered Tolkien to write 'The Hobbit', well that's just over the hill from where I live.  :D

We should probably get back to kill ratios.  ;)

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/02/2021 at 9:52 PM, Sgt.Squarehead said:

That sounds excellent.....Could you point me to them please.

Unfortunately not yet. RL rudely intruded in 2019, then COVID, so my baby is currently still in the womb. It's short campaign tracing a single UKR battalion escaping encirclement. Some PvP testing has been done on the 1st map, which is VERY large and very dynamic. The following two maps are 80% mapped but not tactically "planned" or tested. One is a fighting retreat through a town, another is an assault into suburbs, the final one will be a full on city centre MOUTfest.

I'm trying to keep the scenarios dynamic, so for example the Town Retreat has constant threats of cut-off, each scenario starts already in serious contact and there is no build up of action. You're straight in. And the Russians have a LOT of artillery.

This experience is what spurred me to start this thread - the UKR and RUS casualties go crazy real fast if I build for the classic full contact, full assault fights.

Readups of Donbass, plus notes like @Haiduks above suggest I'm assuming too aggressive a stance.

But, Haiduk, how much of that low tolerance for casualties is a result of low reinforcement levels? 

WW2/GPW was a slaughter because both sides poured men an material in. In Fallujah 2, USMC and Insurgents poured/maintained numbers, so casualties mounted. Same with Mosul.

Donbass War had Debaltsevo but that was no Mosul. 

My thesis(?) is that the relatively low casualties threshold, from unit contacts, of the Donbass would evaporate in a proper big city fight, if the city is strategically/politically important.

I think...?

 

 

Edited by kinophile
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kinophile said:

But, Haiduk, how much of that low tolerance for casualties is a result of low reinforcement levels? 

CMBS is about full-scale war, Donbas is low intensity conflict with the most direct clashes is about company +/- level. It's difficult to say for me what level of casualties would be in full-scale war of regular armies. Even if we will assume battalion + arty level actions, w/o heavy surprises like cluster Smerches, Iskanders and raining bombs. Many will depend from motivation and training of trops. Also many will depend from casualties threshold level for goals achievment.

During two days assault of Luhansk airport UKR troops inflicted relatively small losses to Russian regulars (they had two platoons of T-90A), but even that with rugged defense was enough that Russians a day more didn't try even to enter to abandoned airport - they shelled it with heavy artillery and even 240 mm mortars. And even after airport was occupied, Russians didn't go furthter.

Examples of battles in big settlements... 2014 can doesn't take into account, though in some cases it was hot, like in liberation of Lysychsansk-Siverodonetsk agglomeration with 300 000 of population. There was two battles for Vuhlehirsk, the second in 2015 was enough fierce, but also didn't inflicted catastrophical losses. Something about 20 KIA and about 10 vehicles from both sides for two days of clashes. In Debaltsevo wasn't urban combat, like in Falluja. Several recon groups of enemy infiltrated to the town, they assaulted police building (they thought there UKR HQ), but were repelled. There was total muddle - diffrent units jumble inside the town, nobody neither UKR, nor the enemy didn't know who is where. So separs just pulled back and continued to shell Debaltseve with artillery, mixing this with recon probes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kinophile said:

RL rudely intruded in 2019, then COVID, so my baby is currently still in the womb. It's short campaign tracing a single UKR battalion escaping encirclement. Some PvP testing has been done on the 1st map, which is VERY large and very dynamic.

That sounds just my cup of tea, let me know if you need a tester against the AI further down the road.  B)

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, kinophile said:

My thesis(?) is that the relatively low casualties threshold, from unit contacts, of the Donbass would evaporate in a proper big city fight, if the city is strategically/politically important.

I think...?

I think history would support your thesis.....But city battles have changed to some extent.  The issue I had with Mosul was that most of the accounts were of smallish scuffles, each with fairly light casualties.  But there were lots of them, lots & lots & lots, often in the same area over a period of days or weeks. 

The end result wasn't unlike Stalingrad in casualty terms, but without all the massed assaults.  As we don't have persistent map damage, making a campaign to reflect that isn't really possible (much too high a probability of buildings un-collapsing between scenarios), so I decided to opt for something that would generate roughly the right casualty figures overall.....Which kind of made it feel like Stalingrad!  :rolleyes:

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, kinophile said:

WW2/GPW was a slaughter because both sides poured men an material in.

The nature of the fighting has changed. In WWII given enough low-level AT assets an infantry unit can make a last stand and still inflict high casualties to the enemy. But today no one's gonna bother for a hand-to-hand combat - such a unit will be simply annihilated by fire/air support with total impunity. If you take Artsakh-Karabagh War then the Armenian ASSETS THAT MATTER - long-range artillery, MRLS, SAMs - underwent a TOTAL destruction. They literally had not a single howitzer, Grad etc. and even more important - not a single men who knows how to operate them. It's just no one cares about "men with Kalashnikovs" on an open terrain if they have no heavy support. So the casualties are no lower than in WWII, you just have to count different things now.

Edited by IMHO
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, IMHO said:

But today no one's gonna bother for a hand-to-hand combat - such a unit will be simply annihilated by fire/air support with total impunity. If you take Artsakh-Karabagh War then the Armenian ASSETS THAT MATTER - long-range artillery, MRLS, SAMs - underwent a TOTAL destruction.

That still gets much more difficult in an urban scenario, it's harder to spot the target, ROE comes into play (human shields, civilian infrastructure etc.) and the targets are often much harder to kill (and confirm killed).

I'd suggest the Armenians agreed to terms precisely to avoid that sort of combat.

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

That still gets much more difficult in an urban scenario

Yeah, that's why with all the precision weapons and "low collateral damage" bravado Americans had to reduce Raqqa to total rubble to take it over. They know when to trade political posturing for military expediency :)

20 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I'd suggest the Armenians agreed to terms precisely to avoid that sort of combat.

There're virtually no built up areas in Artsakh - they had nowhere to have their Stalingrad. And Azeris were getting better by the day with coordinating infantry actions and fire support. Armenians really made EVERYTHING wrong this time - they had a chance to put up quite a decent fight. I.e. Artsakh had as many tanks as the whole UK or Germany has and more than France has at its disposal. And in armor Artsakh was a good match to Azeris in quality as well even without possible support from Armenia (actually Artsakh had more tanks than Armenian Army). Most Azeri tanks and IFVs are the same outdated T-72 and BMP-1/BMP-2 models that Artsakh had.

Edited by IMHO
Link to post
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
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...