New Book: "Battlegroup!: The Lessons of the Unfought Battles of the Cold War" (Jim Storr)

[Vergeltungswaffe]

He hasn't been on this forum since February, so don't count on an answer anytime soon, if at all.

[Simcoe]

5 hours ago, jirik said:

Hi @Jim Storr,

I read your  book twice and I believe it is really valueable piece of work. I learnt a lot from it and it is definitely thought provoking material. 

I served couple of years in nineties in a former Eastern army and I had opportunity to speak to quite a lot of Cold War officers and I'd say that a lot (even if not all) your opinions and ideas about Soviet and Eastern armies is correct.

I loved the discussion about IFVs. What is interesting that I (as a gamer) progressively moved from IFV based infantry to prefer APC based one. The reason is that I feel that larger squad (usually +2) is more resilient and usually for the same amount of resource points you can obtain larger infantry force. For forest and urban work it seems to be indispensable.

From my side it was mostly subconcious process but it seems that it fits well to your analysis.

I'd like to ask you for one thing. As you mentioned you translated Middeldorf's books. Is there a chance you'd be able to publish the translations? It seems to me that they are really valuable source.

I was able to find them online in Russian in which I am very weak. At the same time publishing them in English would improve the English-language discourse as well.

Thanks a lot for your answer and I wish you luck in your future publication efforts!

J.

I'm not Jim Storr but your reflections on IFV's makes for interesting discussion. 

I think there's a reason that every country in the world has IFV's while APC's like Strykers and BTR's are getting autocannons too. In a fast paced environment like the Cold War you wouldn't get too many chances to use your infantry unless they are clearing out stragglers from a bunker that has already been blown to pieces. I think this may work more for the US since other nations don't have the firepower to punish them but for the Soviets they knew as soon as they stopped moving they were dead meat.

Finally, in an age of plentiful auto cannons what is the point of an extra couple rifleman? Your IFV is the majority of your firepower. It is now a combat vehicle that happens to have infantry rather than an infantry carrier that happens to be a combat vehicle.

[jirik]

Hi,

yes that can be very interesting debate but I am afraid it is very context dependent and it is also important to answer few basic questions in advance.

1) What is the difference between IFV and APC? In CW era the distinction is pretty easy, APC is tracked or wheeled armored vehicle with usually HMG armament whose task was to transport and unload infantry. IFV is a tracked armoored vehicle whose task is to escort tanks into the battle. Its armament is either anti-armour cannon or autocannon. The side efec was that IFV has usually 30 % less dismounts than APC.
So what makes IFV to be IFV? Its role or armament? Today the boundaries are blurred. Is Stryker with HMG APC and woth autocannon IFV? Or is it still APC just with upped weapon system? I suppose the latter and IMHO in this case you can eat your cake and have it too. There are sill 9 dismounts, you have bettwr firepower. Still the doctrine is the same as for APC.
2) What is the ability of armed forces to pay for hardware and its ability to field the manpower? If you have a lot of manpower then IMHO it is better to have less expensive APC but field more units.
3) What is the predominant terarain to fight in? I am looking at it from closed hilly terrain with forests, villages, visibility usually 1 km. Here the 30 % more infantry is more IMHO more valuable than autocannon. Of course Stryker with autocannon would be the best but that goes ack to question 1).
4) And now purely gaming PoV. What is the price ratio between APC and IFV equipped unit. If I can have for the same amount of points two platoons of APC infantry vs one of IFV what is more cost effective. I suppose comined arms deployments so infantry with tanks. In that case I have more eyes on the ground to spot the enemy allowing tanks to eliminate it. (One side note - I don't play CM as the 3D does not suit me but I am Armored Brigaed player)
5) And last but not least and it just dawned on me as I read your comment. What exactly is flawed - vehicles or doctrine and organizational structure?

J.

[Simcoe]

3 hours ago, jirik said:

Hi,

yes that can be very interesting debate but I am afraid it is very context dependent and it is also important to answer few basic questions in advance.

1) What is the difference between IFV and APC? In CW era the distinction is pretty easy, APC is tracked or wheeled armored vehicle with usually HMG armament whose task was to transport and unload infantry. IFV is a tracked armoored vehicle whose task is to escort tanks into the battle. Its armament is either anti-armour cannon or autocannon. The side efec was that IFV has usually 30 % less dismounts than APC.
So what makes IFV to be IFV? Its role or armament? Today the boundaries are blurred. Is Stryker with HMG APC and woth autocannon IFV? Or is it still APC just with upped weapon system? I suppose the latter and IMHO in this case you can eat your cake and have it too. There are sill 9 dismounts, you have bettwr firepower. Still the doctrine is the same as for APC.
2) What is the ability of armed forces to pay for hardware and its ability to field the manpower? If you have a lot of manpower then IMHO it is better to have less expensive APC but field more units.
3) What is the predominant terarain to fight in? I am looking at it from closed hilly terrain with forests, villages, visibility usually 1 km. Here the 30 % more infantry is more IMHO more valuable than autocannon. Of course Stryker with autocannon would be the best but that goes ack to question 1).
4) And now purely gaming PoV. What is the price ratio between APC and IFV equipped unit. If I can have for the same amount of points two platoons of APC infantry vs one of IFV what is more cost effective. I suppose comined arms deployments so infantry with tanks. In that case I have more eyes on the ground to spot the enemy allowing tanks to eliminate it. (One side note - I don't play CM as the 3D does not suit me but I am Armored Brigaed player)
5) And last but not least and it just dawned on me as I read your comment. What exactly is flawed - vehicles or doctrine and organizational structure?

J.

Thanks for the follow up. I want to respond but busy with work. 

What's your opinion of Armored Brigade? I heard once you figure out the AI it becomes too easy. Is that true?

[Simcoe]

9 hours ago, jirik said:

Hi,

yes that can be very interesting debate but I am afraid it is very context dependent and it is also important to answer few basic questions in advance.

1) What is the difference between IFV and APC? In CW era the distinction is pretty easy, APC is tracked or wheeled armored vehicle with usually HMG armament whose task was to transport and unload infantry. IFV is a tracked armoored vehicle whose task is to escort tanks into the battle. Its armament is either anti-armour cannon or autocannon. The side efec was that IFV has usually 30 % less dismounts than APC.
So what makes IFV to be IFV? Its role or armament? Today the boundaries are blurred. Is Stryker with HMG APC and woth autocannon IFV? Or is it still APC just with upped weapon system? I suppose the latter and IMHO in this case you can eat your cake and have it too. There are sill 9 dismounts, you have bettwr firepower. Still the doctrine is the same as for APC.
2) What is the ability of armed forces to pay for hardware and its ability to field the manpower? If you have a lot of manpower then IMHO it is better to have less expensive APC but field more units.
3) What is the predominant terarain to fight in? I am looking at it from closed hilly terrain with forests, villages, visibility usually 1 km. Here the 30 % more infantry is more IMHO more valuable than autocannon. Of course Stryker with autocannon would be the best but that goes ack to question 1).
4) And now purely gaming PoV. What is the price ratio between APC and IFV equipped unit. If I can have for the same amount of points two platoons of APC infantry vs one of IFV what is more cost effective. I suppose comined arms deployments so infantry with tanks. In that case I have more eyes on the ground to spot the enemy allowing tanks to eliminate it. (One side note - I don't play CM as the 3D does not suit me but I am Armored Brigaed player)
5) And last but not least and it just dawned on me as I read your comment. What exactly is flawed - vehicles or doctrine and organizational structure?

J.

1) The 1990 Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe defines an infantry fighting vehicle as "an armoured combat vehicle which is designed and equipped primarily to transport a combat infantry squad, and which is armed with an integral or organic cannon of at least 20 millimeters calibre and sometimes an antitank missile launcher".

2) I think that works when defending but in an attack infantry are just too slow. You need to be able to cover ground quickly, be able to defend yourself from infantry/armor and be able to clear out an entrenched position. Cold War does a great job of showing why we moved towards IFV's. In an American attack, if your tanks are destroyed the M113's can't keep the attack going. In a Soviet attack, the IFV's can continue the attack with the tanks but also support them with cannon/ATGM fire.

3) I think IFV's still take the win here. I think we can consider Finland "rough" terrain and the CV90 IFV is a key part of their warfare strategy.

4) I think IFV's are still better even if they are more costly. I have explained their benefits in attack but even in defense I would take them over an extra couple of infantryman. An IFV can take pot shots from multiple prepared positions, act as a mobile reserve and flank the enemy separate of the infantry. 

5) What I consider flawed is the tradeoff of using APC's for an extra 2-3 infantry over an IFV with fewer. The doctrine/force structure goes hand in hand.

[Artkin]

6 hours ago, Simcoe said:

Thanks for the follow up. I want to respond but busy with work. 

What's your opinion of Armored Brigade? I heard once you figure out the AI it becomes too easy. Is that true?

Terrible, total trash. Do not buy. I'd rather play Steel Panthers.

Edit: However, their mapper/map team did an excellent job. 

Edited August 17, 2022 by Artkin

[Simcoe]

17 minutes ago, Artkin said:

Terrible, total trash. Do not buy. I'd rather play Steel Panthers.

Edit: However, their mapper/map team did an excellent job. 

What don't you like about it?

[Artkin]

3 hours ago, Simcoe said:

What don't you like about it?

I was on mobile so I wasn't able to type a lot but now that I'm home I can delve a bit.

1. I pre-ordered armored brigade. When it shipped the game came with very few units. Like, less than CMCW on release. Which is straight up embarrassing for a 2D game. It came with very few, and very limited formations. The largest formation you can buy in Armored BRIGADE is a company. And they don't even come with a commander. For instance. You want a mechanized company. You will get 12 APCs, 4 per platoon (there are no platoons), loaded with infantry. All of these APC's are in 1 formation. So you have a blob of 12 units and the only way to distinguish between them is a Steel Panthers-esque menu at the bottom. Your troops will be named A1,A2, for A company and 1st APC. These will all be grunts with no HQ. When you buy the HQ it will be totally unrelated to your troops. The HQ and regular troops are next to each other in the buy menu set up like this:

I believe I am running a mod currently, more on that later, but the infantry page is pretty accurate for how sparse the unit selection is in this game. Also you can see how the HQ's are separate. That's nice when you're 12 I guess, but not when you understand tables of organization.... This is a "brigade" game.

Also, note the 6 categories spanning from left to right. They are: Recon, Infantry, Mechanized, Armored, Support, and Air. You are so very limited with this game.

2. No campaigns with base game release, no scenarios, no free content was added to make up for the pathetic amount given with the base game.

 

3. The UI is pretty tiny and horrible. Little tiny buttons so you can look at their retarded art in the background. Buttons spaced out all over the screen just for this tiny button aesthetic. So much of the screen goes unused. Reminds me of Steam going full children mode with their UI a couple years ago. Form ALWAYS follows function.

 

In regards to the UI:

When setting up a scenario, the tools are very basic. You're able to plot some objectives with some parameters which is neat, but the setup zones are locked to one edge of the map, and have limits on how far they can go.

Daddy Armored Brigade says you're doing it wrong.

4. Every game must be saved before you can exit. wtf? Did I buy an Apple product?

5. The combat:

easily the least satisfying part of the game. I legit have more fun exploring the magnificent maps they made. More on that later.

You can't tell who the hell is shooting who, people are dying way too fast, vehicles taking fire from obscure locations off screen etc. It's just a friggen mess. That's the best way to put it. Maybe if the game had a we-go feature then the combat could be useable. But in real time, good luck controlling anything more than a battalion. Even a company you lose track of, **** starts dying all over the place and you can't really tell what's going on. This isn't a skill issue or anything of the sort. The 2d design of the game, and the overly fast paced combat makes this game unplayable.

The spotting is borg-like. There really isn't much hiding you can do in this game. I can't really describe it too much because I obviously haven't played this game in some time. Tanks pretty much act like they have thermals, being able to instantly pick up tons of targets as if they were playing a 2d game as well.

I just remember troops getting pounded on from 100 directions at once once they opened fire. The game has a truly dog**** spotting/combat model.

6. the maps

the game did something right. It came with 4 totally massive maps. I forget how large but I think 15x15km each? One was desert and was meh. But the other 3 it was obvious there were many, many hours devoted to. They remind me of Altis from Arma 3, massive, built up, but still plenty of fields and greenery. One was Fulda and I forget the other. So it was nice terrain to fight on, and the developers absolutely did not skimp on the map design at all. I have considered porting some maps to CM, since it would actually be super easy.

Edit: maps are 60x60km*

7. The mods

they are the only thing that makes this game exist. Within the first few months, a full grozny city map was released, along with a sister map of a nearby region. Soon thereafter the unit mods came in. I haven't played in a long time, but last I did there was a ww2 mod (Which seemed of the highest quality), and there were some modern mods too, even expanding the game's timeline; which originally ended in 1989. The mods added new everything to the game. They just couldn't expand past the categories given in the buy menu.

Or whatever.

It's really poorly done, there's not much else to say. It just sucks. They took a simple concept (For a modern game) and made it horrible.

 

I could go on about small things, so if you're curious feel free to ask. This is the basic reason why I shelved Armored Brigade (I own the physical CD).

It just sucks

Edited August 17, 2022 by Artkin

[Artkin]

Like why play that game when I can just do the same thing in SPMBT (which I also paid for).

SPMBT is the same game (and so, so much more) but not real time. Which doesn't really matter to me if the best example of real time is ****ty armored brigade.

Edited August 17, 2022 by Artkin

[Aragorn2002]

Finally bought the book. Now find the time to read it.

[Simcoe]

16 hours ago, Artkin said:

Like why play that game when I can just do the same thing in SPMBT (which I also paid for).

SPMBT is the same game (and so, so much more) but not real time. Which doesn't really matter to me if the best example of real time is ****ty armored brigade.

SPMBT?

Thank you for the write up. I checked it out but didn't look very interesting to me either.

[Blazing 88's]

On 8/17/2022 at 2:09 PM, Simcoe said:

SPMBT?

Thank you for the write up. I checked it out but didn't look very interesting to me either.

winSPMBT: Main Battle Tank v.16

winSPWW2 v.15

Or just download the free versions to try them out. Links for those are there as well.

[Artkin]

Yeah true you can just get it for free, the paid version gives a lot of extra features (Nothing too game changing) like 1600x900 resolution. 

I like using a couple extra programs with SP. 

"X-mouse button control" so I can rebind my mousewheel up+down to minus and plus. So I can zoom in and out of the map easily. 

I also use "integer scaler" so I can run the game in full screen instead of windowed, since the former seems to be out of support for windows 10.