Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Thonar

  • Rank
  • Birthday 05/17/1990

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I asked since you spoke of two fundamentally different things before your edit ("longest" and "longest effective"). Also you are missing here in terms of "effective". Only because a sniper killed an ISIS guy above 4km and a Challenger 2 killed another tank above 5km doesn't make it effective ranges. These are "just" the longest achieved kills. The theoretical maximum long-range kill possible is the theoretical longest range possible for a given system... you just need unlimited time, the right circumstances and some moron who actually tries it. Now the longest effective range of a given weapon system is... usually stated within army regulations and far below the actual kill ranges. See it like this: Take your average joe, give him a rifle, train him a bit, set him under combat stress... how high are his chances to hit something at certain ranges? Depending on what you want to achieve at the enemy, let's say a hit probability of 50% is enough for you, than the range average joe is hitting every 2nd shot is the effective range of the rifle you've given to him. Challenger 2s effective range isn't above 5km and neither are snipers shooting at targets above 4km effectively. Only because it was done, doesn't mean it's somehow effective. Thus your question sounds more like: Which weapon system of a certain category of which army has the longest effective range? And I can't answer you that question since I don't have access to all armies regulations.^^
  2. Is it now about "effective range" or about "longest possible range"?
  3. This picture shows the different area of operations in the year 1984 of the different corps. As seen, the only british corps in west-germany should have fought south of Hannover, left border I think is the mittelland canal with a german corps north of it, right border shouldn't be southern as Kassel, with a belgian corps as right neighbor. You shouldn't be wrong if you use todays Autobahn 2 as left border and the Autobahn 44 and 38 as right border. Maybe someone has a bit more detailed information. Greetings Thonar
  4. Ohh and before I forget: It is also possible to win the instant-mission!
  5. For 100% you have to hit all the targets with the first shot and every target in under 7 seconds. Greetings
  6. Marko, in this forum and in this whole world, there will be no one who could say: "Under this and this circumstances a night attack is possible and usefull". The only thing a military could answer you is: It depends on the situation. In some cases it could be helpful in others not. But yeah, daytime is a part of the decision-making-process. For sure are there possibilities when a nightattack is a good option but then the situation suits to it. A nightattack in a desert environment will be much more easier then through the forests and hills of Germany. And even with GPS or vehicle recognition systems are there enough examples of friendly fire during the day, that you can't say: It should be possible now... on paper the things may sound easy but the real world is different. I know an NBC-Defense officer who taught us: "Men who fight in NBC-suits, will fight 70% less effective as without." Why? Because you cant see as much, you cant go on a toilet, you just dont feel "comfortable". During the night it is the same, maybe not as extreme, but the same. For sure: When I have an army out of the 1950's/60's against my 2000er forces in an open field like a desert... for sure a nightattack isn't that bad... but still then I must remind myself: Even on day there will be mistakes done, and during the night there will be more. I think this is now the best answer I could possible give to you. Greetings
  7. In a more early cold war era, the Russian had the advantage with infrared, so during this time, the answer should be more a No. Later, with the thermal viewer, the NATO got the advantage. So here a night attack could be much more effective. For sure, it could be possible to attack during nighttime, I know some British attacks in the second world war, but you will always have many problems with an attack at night. 1. Orientation - Its hard to orientate during the night, even with thermal sights 2. Ambushes - Hard to identify at day, much harder during the night 3. Air-Support - Who is friend, who is the enemy? During the night it will be much harder to identify troops on the ground. 4. Often close range fightings - Artillery may hit the own forces In these are only 4 of many problems I imagine immediately. Some people may say now: But the enemy has the same problem. For sure he has, but not as much, as we, because he knows his own positions, so he can lead his own fire (from the rifle to the artillery) much more easily. An attack during the night cant be major attack, only limited targets could be reached, often as preparation for an upcoming greater assault on the next day. Also the night is the time of the reconnaissance. For sure a commander can chose the option of a night attack, but it is uncommon and difficult. If I had no other option, for sure, it can lead to victory, but it is very risky. Greetings
  8. Thonar


    The newest information I got is, that the PUMA only has 5.56 because at the time of development there was no new machine gun for the german army in 7.62. The MG3 is getting old, even when it is a great weapon, it isn't the future. Now with introducing the HK121 (a kind of MG4 in 7.62), I think it will replace the MG3. Also as secondary weapon in the PUMA. (they just have to change the weapons, because the systems allows to use both weapons within the same mount) Greetings Thonar
  9. I never read the first two books you mentioned. But both of these books are criticized and see in my opinion the problem from a too great distance. The way "Anglo-Saxons" fighting and thinking of wars is more in a logical way than for example the "German" do, which is seeing the war as a kind of art. (also like many Asian countries, in first place China (SzunTsi) and Japan) So even within these western countries seems to be a difference in there believe of war. After this I think I didn't get your whole argument right: In the first half you say, Germany and Japan lacked in technology, while in the second you said they were superior. You mentioned the book "Kampfkraft" by Martin van Creveld, a book I read and I think I get your point, but it seems you didn't read the book Creveld is refering to: "A Genius For War: The German Army And General Staff, 1807–1945" by Trevor Dupuy. He stated that the Prussian/German army, after the defeat in the battle of Jena-Auerstedt, and the reformations by Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Boyen, Grolman and Clausewitz were superior in every battle fought till 1945, in every situation: With or without Air-Superiority, being outnumbered or in superior numbers, in cold and hot weather conditions, with or without superior equipment... So, it was tactics and organisation which brought the victories of these armies. Creveld afterwards said, that Dupuy is right, but economic power is much more important. See for this "The Changing Face of War" by Martin van Creveld. The operation Babarossa was maybe a victory of superior tactics, but definitely not of superior equipment. KV-1, KV-2 and T34 were superior to all German tanks in 1941, the IL-2 the better CAS-plane and even in handguns the russian were equally equipped. So I still see may statement "equipment never won a war" approved. Greetings Thonar
  10. Also when I may sound now like a smart-ass, I have to argue further on: The Spaniards had high loses by the escape out of Tenochtitlan. Also the siege of the same city, together with the Tlaxcaltecs, needed more than 3 months. They didn't won the because of their superior weapons, even if this weapons were a huge advantage. They won because of superior tactics. With improvements in technology will ever also came improvements in society, tactics and the overall-intelligence. As result the Spaniards didn't only had the advantage of superior weapons. They also had many other on their side. So the question is: If superior weapons can win a war alone, are there wars which were won by superior weapons against equally advanced enemies? The answer is: No. Now we have to proof the counter-thesis: Are there wars, which were lost while using superior equipment? The answer is: Yes. Just take a look to WWII. And we could ask another question to verify this thesis more: Are there wars, which were lost while using superior equipment, even against not equally advanced nations: And again the answer is: Yes. Examples are like said: Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam or the Wars of the Scottish independence. Very often the side with the more advanced weapon systems will win, but not because of this superior systems, its because of the advantages heading with the research of this systems, like tactical advantages or advantages in training, but not due to the superior equipment in my opinion. Greetings Thonar
  11. The better equipment had never won a war. The better training and quality of troops did. But today: It's mostly economic power that wins wars. A few examples: 1. The battle of france 1940 - german troops with outdated and worse equipment wins over the much stronger forces of France and the British expeditionary corps. In the long run, the economic power of the soviet union and the united states brings the 3rd Reich to fall. 2. The first World War: The German troops were far superior in tactics and training (Stoßtrupp-tactics, flexible defense, ...), but it was again stopped by the economic power of the entente and the US. (ohh... by the way the first world war is IMO more interesting than the 2nd...) But there is no war that was won just by superior equipment, but many examples for the opposite: Vietnam, Afghanistan, ... For sure, superior equipment is an advantage, but only if you know how to use it. Greetings Thonar
  12. For sure you can make a plan within 30 minutes, but maybe you shouldn't think then, that this idea of battle you did in the plan is an example for changing a scenario. A H2H isn't, in my opinion, an COOP. Pre-Planning is decisive, not only for victory, also for a good fight and for a good leading. I didn't blame NATO for "better" equipment, but the 3:1 Attacker : Defender-Ratio is IMO given, due to the terrain and the equipment. Sounds smart, but isn't. There are at least 2 points I think instantly of, why this sentence can't be true: 1. 2 opposite sites, don't have the same mission or idea of operation. 2. A natural object could for sure be positive and negative for both sides, but this positive and negative effects aren't the same, nor are they equal. Maybe the effects of the terrain will come into a balance, but this balance doesn't have to be on the same level. A river, which is positive for the company, doesn't has to be positive for the battalion. And we can't simulate all these levels... Indeed I did, and more as you might think of... If BLUE had been played perfect, they would have won. And if RED would have NATO-Units, it would be a massacre. The main problem is: The last battle CAN'T be an example for this scenario, due to the carefully operating blue forces, using every single advantage of their equipment and the terrain, which I have to say again: prefers blue. Without the triggers, and with a longer time limit, BLUE would have crushed RED for sure. With the time limit the odds are back to be even. Because BLUE has to be under time pressure or to be careless. And a time limit isn't unrealistic, because the red battalion may throw another company into defense or the brigade arrives and starts a counterattack. For sure it is, but the last game, cannot be an example... (maybe for the EW, but definitely not for the rest...) Greetings Thonar
  13. Furia: 1. I took the artillery into count. But 3x3 isn't that strong. It's only strong if you guys stay still or when you guys getting blocked OR if your platoons haven't enough space to maneuver. But I expect from modern day tank drivers to change positions often enough to avoid artillery fields which cant be greater then 200x200 to be effective. 2. The M113 TOW doesn't have thermal sights, because they are disabled. 3. These aren't "spetnatz rambos", this is the disembark infantry of the red's recce-squads. The only 2 chances for red to win this scenario is: 1.: A slow-moving, carefully acting blue-force, to win over time(! because such a force CAN'T be stopped by red). or 2.: A fast advancing, well prepared blue force to compensate the own(red) disadvantages, but this is much more a coin-flip. If the blue platoon-leaders, and the CO is flexible, there will be even here no chance for red to win this scenario. The following is: To remove the timelimit means to remove the only real chance for red to win this scenario. Greetings Thonar
  14. I see the problem with the EW-triggers, and think 2 radio-triggers would do the job. These are actually 2 points: 1. No hint for the time-limit 2. The timelimit itself. To the first point I could only say: It's unlucky and it shouldn't be, but with a better preparation on blue, there wouldn't be this problem. 2. 90 minutes with the current forces on each side is definitely enough, because the red units AREN'T equal to the blue and the terrain prefers after a closer look the blue forces. I don't think that red needs more infantry, but you are right, if more infantry on red side is implemented, there has to be more time. They aren't equal, and you know that, due to your next statement On this map, they are FAR superior,just because of the optics and the terrain. With perfect play, on both sides, in the current version, and all vehicles manned by players, I would guess blues chances to win are over 90%.
  • Create New...