TankHunter

The "3 tanks a day" figure comes from UK MOD which states "Russia can probably generate 100 MBTs a month" which would imply that these aren't all newly built tanks, and the figure unless backed by some good HUMINT is likely a very reasonable WAG. Russia has been involved in serious efforts to rehabilitate their stock of old tanks that have been sitting in fields since the end of the Cold War. The majority of these tanks being generated are likely of that type, this is a WAG but unless the Russians have solved their problems of production, it is a WAG that closest resembles reality I'd say.

My strategy was to make attacks at a limited point and then build up fortifications, something that doesn't factor into the unit values. This build-up was started at the very beginning with the idea that 1. We will be able to reduce our attrition by ensuring that our infantry are under cover and are better protected against enemy artillery than being in the open. 2. That if the enemy has found an efficient collection of forces to conduct successful attacks that we can stop them on a minefield belt that is covered by our fires. As it turned out that second part hasn't happened yet and seems unlikely to happen in the future. In any event we have fortifications throughout the depth of our line, which seemed to have bogged down the enemy assault last mission and helped to attrite them. How things usually went for us was that we would be defensive for a turn, then attack the next turn, and then be defensive again until we could bring back our badly damaged vehicles. During the defensive phase we would further build up our fortifications in expectation of an enemy counter attack. In the last mission we were in that defensive cycle. Originally I had planned on a limited attack but decided against it as it became evident that Red was intending their own attack, and I guessed wrong as to the location of that attack. I don't know how the next Blue CO will do things, but that's generally how it went under my tenure. In any event, the trend from the first 5 missions have been positive as we've steadily gained ground despite fierce enemy resistance. I expect that trend to continue.

Drones definitely quickened the OODA loop of the kill chains for both sides. This seemed to benefit Red more than Blue due to Red's access to TOS-1s that would allow for near instant engagements on found vehicle targets as opposed to Blue needing a target to remain stationary for 3 minutes to successfully prosecute it. This was something that we on Blue seemed to struggle to deal with and we lost more armor than we should have as a result. While this Red capability wasn't the source of most of our armor losses, it was the source of enough to be problematic. At the same time, Red struggled with conducting offensive operations due to the Blue kill chain being able to attrite Red infantry with prompt and accurate indirect fires when they tried offensive operations and at the same time, be able to reliably win vehicle on vehicle engagements. Red's partial success in the last mission was a result of this kill chain being degraded due to an inability to get our spotting drone into the air. The result was inaccurate and inefficient indirect fire on enemy attacks. Despite that the Red advance was still contained even in those areas that were unprepared for it. Who is winning? The losses of the two sides should indicate this. We have been killing more with less despite Red's advantages in indirect fires. If Blue can maintain their drone assisted kill chain and manage to conduct attritional containment then I expect that Blue will be able to grind their way to a win. As regards our side's case for the conflict...

The weekly propaganda effort

They will not shoot at things that they do not expect to penetrate. That is intended.

'tis reported.

Erk. Writing the entry up now for that. Thanks for the find!

The weekly propaganda effort

Our Lord and Infector, the Lord Nurgle has stuck his finger in my ear, so probably won't be up for it. That said I've been tempted to get into one of the co-op sessions recently.

For some reason the software looks somewhat familiar https://mil.in.ua/en/news/denmark-will-be-training-ukrainian-leopard-1-crews-until-autumn/

12087 is

"Page Down" key toggles between semi-automatic and full auto.

How big are we talking about anyway?

I remember playing with him years ago when I dropped into some Kanium matches, he seemed like a good guy. Sad to hear this. My condolences to his loved ones.

BM-42 would probably be around in some reasonably decent numbers as it was the last decent Soviet/Russian KE round to be produced until recently. Nils was probably referring to BM-59 and BM-60 as the "top of the line" ones.

From what I've seen, the Russians at least up until recently (and the Ukrainians too) have been using alot of BM22, with the Russians possibly mixing in newer but still Cold War era ammo. With the threat of Western tanks being at the front, I'd imagine that BM22 would be replaced with newer ammo. As I remember, I've seen it claimed that DM33 and DM53 have been sent to Ukraine.

That's not the AI TC, I don't know what that might be from. Which Leopard are you using anyway?

I don't know what the figures in parenthesis refer to, but the actual frame rate is outside of that. If it was dropping below 20 it would be very obvious as things would start to stutter some. About the jump at 30 seconds in, that might be the vehicle commander overriding your controls and laying you on target, even though you're pretty much on target already. The AI TC can certainly be irritating at times when it comes to that.

Nothing popped up using Windows Security.

As regards "A" I would suggest detail settings that are roughly at the default level and if people are still having problems, then start dropping them. Of course that's assuming that people are having troubles. That said, if there's no problem then there's no need for alterations to the settings.

The terrain detail settings for clients will get overridden by the host, which means that it's important for the host to have settings that will be appropriate for a wide selection of clients. That overwrite is intentional. As regards realism settings, I know that the network session will force the host's settings to be used, however I do not off the top of my head know if those settings are supposed to be changed for the clients post network-session or if it is only for the session that the clients join.