Jump to content

What time will be best for you to attend 1st Clash?  

24 members have voted

  1. 1. What time will be best for you to attend 1st Clash?



Recommended Posts

  • Replies 343
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

It was known on the outset that Wasaw was a weak unit:wink2:.One wonders why some were placed in the battle roster:c:.

But you can't really blame them. Having been thoroughly brain washed with the Soviet doctrine of overwhelmeing force, and spending months sweeping across the steppes with multiple batallions they found themselves facing 1:1 odds with their pitifully inadequate equipment. No wonder so many ran away. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
But you can't really blame them. Having been thoroughly brain washed with the Soviet doctrine of overwhelmeing force, and spending months sweeping across the steppes with multiple batallions they found themselves facing 1:1 odds with their pitifully inadequate equipment. No wonder so many ran away. ;)

Against Leopard1"s and M113"s??:heu:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Against Leopard1"s and M113"s??:heu:

Yes.

Here's why:

(And this applies equally to the actual battles & the campaign overall.)

Sun Tzu's concept of attacking is referenced as saying you need 3:1 odds for the attacker to "guarantee" success.

and a minimum of 2:1 to "break even" for the attacker.

And those ratio's go back to the days when we were killing each other with sharp sticks.

(We are extremely well educated soviets. :biggrin: )

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes.

Here's why:

(And this applies equally to the actual battles & the campaign overall.)

Sun Tzu's concept of attacking is referenced as saying you need 3:1 odds for the attacker to "guarantee" success.

and a minimum of 2:1 to "break even" for the attacker.

And those ratio's go back to the days when we were killing each other with sharp sticks.

(We are extremely well educated soviets. :biggrin: )

If any of the Wasaw people had looked at the 1St Guards Tank Div you might have picked up on the amount of t-72's it has (325), and the amount of APC's also.

So for anyone on the red side to say they don't have the odds is completely false:confused:.

How you employ said units is your issue. I can thinks of at least 2-3 ways to defeat the 4CMBG with the sear amount of assets the Guards have:wink2:.

You need to take a look at what you have, and how best to employ them:c:. You talk of mass assault with numbers, however last mission when you had the tank advantage vs M113's, your armour were sent piece meal. Where as any section of recce on Nato's side would have been completely helpless from a coordinated assault by the available Soviets units in the mission. You talk of ratios and mass assaults, but don't employ them when given the opportunity.

Looking at the AAR one can see that your Recce units fail to report weak areas to which your forces could have broken through. On the other side , effective recce reported and even engaged reds units. Thous one side had effective recce, the other did not.One side used tanks, the other did not.:confused:

The mission was RECCE/SUPPLY phase. One has to wounder if it was successful in that regards, if it was, then and only then could (in my opinion) a assault to gain ground could be done.

The 4CMBG has a disadvantage in numbers, and is as I see it that CO is using HIS units to their attributes, given they are the ones with the inferior equipment.

Saying the Soviets will always have a 3-1 advantage is wrong, they know it, and so did Nato. Past history has also proven this, as well as a much weaker force being able to defeat larger Soviet formations.

Hopefully the new CO knows how to plan against a weaker force with the available units at his disposal, and under his leadership his members will be effective in their assigned tasks.:luxhello:

Edited by 12Alfa
Link to post
Share on other sites
Against Leopard1"s and M113"s??:heu:

Well, my post was intended to be taken in a light-hearted fashion. But now that you ask - the answer is yes. You forget to mention that the M113's were the TOW-equipped TUA version.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So for anyone on the red side to say they don't have the odds is completely false:confused:

Easy, the artificially imposed limit of 20 vehicles per side. That seems pretty mathematically even to me.

I can thinks of at least 2-3 ways to defeat the 4CMBG with the sear amount of assets the Guards have.

I would hardly call 20 vehicles a "sheer amount of assets".

Where as any section of recce on Nato's side would have been completely helpless from a coordinated assault by the available Soviets units in the mission.

A coordinated assault with what? This was a recce mission.

You talk of ratios and mass assaults, but don't employ them when given the opportunity.

What opportunity?

The 4CMBG has a disadvantage in numbers...

20 vehicles per side is not a disadvantage in numbers, is it?

Hopefully the new CO knows how to plan against a weaker force with the available units at his disposal, and under his leadership his members will be effective in their assigned tasks.

If the possiblity for success doesn't exist, it doesn't really matter who the CO is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, my post was intended to be taken in a light-hearted fashion. But now that you ask - the answer is yes. You forget to mention that the M113's were the TOW-equipped TUA version.

I think you need glasses. Those TOW's are not under armour, they are exposed on a pedestal on top. Yes we had those in this time frame.

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/sbgallery/main.php?g2_itemId=990

So, lets see if I got this correct. Calling a Leopard C2 a C1, then calling a M113 the TUA version.

And this in a light-hearted fashion as well:wink2::wink2:

56e83cf98319e_TUA-01a(72A).jpg.fe86d4dcb

Tow.jpg.70d5d95e7632000d8c81f81a20987d05

56e83cf98319e_TUA-01a(72A).jpg.fe86d4dcb

Tow.jpg.70d5d95e7632000d8c81f81a20987d05

Link to post
Share on other sites
That my friend is the spirit lacking on the Wasaw side.:luxhello::luxhello::luxhello::luxhello::luxhello:

The guys from SVU did not lack, Or do not lack fighting spirit.

When you take on an opponent in soviet equipment. there is a strong likelihood

Your Opfor will be in better equipment then you. We in SVU know this and accept it.

Unless you have a bigger force ratio You are at a disadvantage straight away. Also who ever heard of a soviet attacking force. Attacking with equal numbers never going to happen in RL.

You are at a disadvantage straight away.

Its very hard to motivate Guys when the odds are heavily stacked against them.

I am not looking for a flame war. Lets just agree to disagree on some of the issues raised.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't want to get into it, but...

1.

Leopard 1A5 w/M833 -vs- T-72M1 w/BM-32

T-72 should be 1:1 advantage on meeting engagement, 2:1 on attack, 1:2 on defense

Leopard AS1 w/M728 -vs- T-72M w/BM-22

T-72 should be 1:1 advantage on meeting engagement, 2:1 on attack, 1:2 on defense

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/AFV_Fair_Matchup

2. The last mission was a recon mission, tanks were held in the rear for

1. A support for the recon assets

2. For the aborted main mission

Of the attacking element there were

1. 9 BRDM-2

2. 3 BTR-80

3. 8 T-72 (of which 2 were not used as a result of inexperience with map updates).

The attacking element were tasked with

1. Attacking a force with 1 to 1 local material advantage.

2. Attacking a force with mines

3. Attacking a force with bridges which were rigged for demo

This with 20 vehicles, and 1 battery of artillery.

The defending force had M113s which could engage and kill PCs out to at least 1k frontally. The attacking PCs could kill those with flank shots at 200m.

The defending force had ATGM vehicles (which had TI and allowed for improved enemy spotting) which had TOW2A.

The defending force had RWS with TI, LRF and ballistic computers on their M113s.

The defending force had ICM.

The defending force had multiple artillery batteries

To screen/recon the area in front which was essentially no mans land that the enemy mostly gave up we lost 3 tanks, 3 btr, 6 brdm in a 90 minute mission.

The intent with the recon mission on red was to

1. Conduct the recon battle and attempt to do damage to enemy engineer assets that might be on our side of the river.

2. Provide an idea as to the nature of the enemy defense.

As part of this the tanks that we had were tasked with

1. Providing a defense (1 to 1 odds with the enemy having mines is not suitable to an attack)

2. Provide combat power for the recon if they get into trouble.

The attack phase would have lasted 30 minutes and we would have gotten no where. This is because of the force ratios involved and the frontage involved (3K). IOW there is NO ability to have a local superiority for red, which is something that is needed for even a chance of a half way successful attack. The other option would have risked attacks on the flank (blue with a 6k front, red with a 3k front).

As regards my resignation it has to do with three things.

1. The above

2. An unwillingness to deal with the more major issues with the above (I.E., force ratios)

3. The negotiations. Significant major issues as regards balance are up for negotiation. That should not have been the case.

These things have lead to a drastic reduction in players for red. The two new ones we had for the mission were probably rubberneckers. I expected a continuation of the trend a week ago, and continue to expect it.

As regards the narrative that the NATO force was inferior.

While the Leopard 1 and the T-72 are generally even they are vastly different in capabilities. The Leopard 1 has an advantage in ROF and long range engagements, the T-72's advantage is in armor. When you add in the ammunition involved (CMC) this means that there is a very good chance that the Leopard 1 will get the first shots off and kill what it is shooting at if it is within 2k or so. Add in the TOW2As and it makes things more problematic for the attacker. It allows for all the advantages to the Leos and TOWs and allows none to the T-72.

Add in all of these factors and the quantities of mech infantry and it makes things rather difficult to attack, let alone have a semi-successful attack. For such a thing you necessitate an advantage in combat power at the tip, which as the campaign is now it is impossible. Blue's equipment is of higher quality and in the battles it is as numerous as Red's. It does not allow for maneuver and it does not allow for a reasonable portrayal of an attacking Soviet force.

Quantitatively while Blue may have an even amount of combat power in the missions as Red, qualitatively Blue is actually superior due to the fact that naturally the defense is the stronger form of warfare than the offense is, blue has mines and other force multipliers and Blue has generally superior equipment as evidenced by the BRDM - M113 fighting in the north. While the balance is better than in the canned 1st mission (where Red wouldn't have been able to defend let alone attack) the balance is still not suitable for an attack in the 2nd. Something which should itself be self evident.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't want to get into it, but...

1. http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/AFV_Fair_Matchup

2. The last mission was a recon mission, tanks were held in the rear for

1. A support for the recon assets

2. For the aborted main mission

Of the attacking element there were

1. 9 BRDM-2

2. 3 BTR-80

3. 8 T-72 (of which 2 were not used as a result of inexperience with map updates).

The attacking element were tasked with

1. Attacking a force with 1 to 1 local material advantage. (4 leo's vs 1 coy of t-72=1-1?????)

2. Attacking a force with mines (no, mines from last mission were there only, but you knew that)

3. Attacking a force with bridges which were rigged for demo (and that would not happen?,)

This with 20 vehicles, and 1 battery of artillery.

The defending force had M113s which could engage and kill PCs out to at least 1k frontally. The attacking PCs could kill those with flank shots at 200m. (why attack then??)

The defending force had ATGM vehicles (which had TI and allowed for improved enemy spotting) which had TOW2A. (standard for the time, is it not, red had the ATGM's as well, did not pick them, why?)

The defending force had RWS with TI, LRF and ballistic computers on their M113s. (turned off for future missions, I engages the manual way)

The defending force had ICM. ( did not know that supply gave ICM to HE guns only, corrected for future missions)

The defending force had multiple artillery batteries (but did not use them, where as red did not even pick them, I placed them for you)

To screen/recon the area in front which was essentially no mans land that the enemy mostly gave up we lost 3 tanks, 3 btr, 6 brdm in a 90 minute mission.

The intent with the recon mission on red was to

1. Conduct the recon battle and attempt to do damage to enemy engineer assets that might be on our side of the river.

2. Provide an idea as to the nature of the enemy defense. (good plan)

As part of this the tanks that we had were tasked with

1. Providing a defense (1 to 1 odds with the enemy having mines is not suitable to an attack) (as I have said, no mines other than the ones you knew about from last mission)

2. Provide combat power for the recon if they get into trouble. As they should

The attack phase would have lasted 30 minutes and we would have gotten no where. This is because of the force ratios involved and the frontage involved (3K). IOW there is NO ability to have a local superiority for red, ( wrong, I'm going to give you something here, reduce your frontage, simple)which is something that is needed for even a chance of a half way successful attack. The other option would have risked attacks on the flank (blue with a 6k front, red with a 3k front).(wrong again, both had 3k front)

As regards my resignation it has to do with three things.

1. The above

2. An unwillingness to deal with the more major issues with the above (I.E., force ratios ( Wrong again, I had held numerous meetings with both CO's, and had adjusted in favor of red, and have stated I would further adjust)

3. The negotiations. Significant major issues as regards balance are up for negotiation. That should not have been the case. (all these issues were for the red side, Nato has given up UN-buried mines to mines that you can see)

These things have lead to a drastic reduction in players for red. The two new ones we had for the mission were probably rubberneckers. I expected a continuation of the trend a week ago, and continue to expect it.

As regards the narrative that the NATO force was inferior.

While the Leopard 1 and the T-72 are generally even they are vastly different in capabilities. The Leopard 1 has an advantage in ROF and long range engagements, the T-72's advantage is in armor. When you add in the ammunition involved (CMC) this means that there is a very good chance that the Leopard 1 will get the first shots off and kill what it is shooting at if it is within 2k or so. ( So you knew this and still move into the best engagment ground for them instead of the rest of the map of your choice??the Leopards were not used, mute point) Add in the TOW2As and it makes things more problematic for the attacker. It allows for all the advantages to the Leos and TOWs and allows none to the T-72.

Add in all of these factors and the quantities of mech infantry and it makes things rather difficult to attack, let alone have a semi-successful attack. For such a thing you necessitate an advantage in combat power at the tip, which as the campaign is now it is impossible. Blue's equipment is of higher quality and in the battles it is as numerous as Red's. It does not allow for maneuver and it does not allow for a reasonable portrayal of an attacking Soviet force. ( Others with knowledge in real world training would not agree)

Quantitatively while Blue may have an even amount of combat power in the missions as Red, qualitatively Blue is actually superior due to the fact that naturally the defense is the stronger form of warfare than the offense is, blue has mines and other force multipliers and Blue has generally superior equipment as evidenced by the BRDM - M113 fighting in the north. While the balance is better than in the canned 1st mission (where Red wouldn't have been able to defend let alone attack) the balance is still not suitable for an attack in the 2nd. Something which should itself be self evident.

The north as anyone can see in the AAR was open, had you identified this with your recce (their main role), you would have most likely punch through.

The campaign rules were posted well in advance of red saying they would provide. The changes to the map-updates were changed I agree, but his again was for red,blue has NP with it.

Red new ,or should have known the rules, now they are saying its not fair. Am I dealing with kids in the sand box not getting there way? You entered the sand box full well of what was there, now this, and even after I and Nato has given 90% of the changes you wanted.

I can fill the red side,leave, no one is forcing anyone here. I have had people saying they will join and even CO for red.

Its not easy running this as most of you know, but to have constant complaining is beneath most of you, suck it up!! Man up or simply leave.

You guys talk the talk, but we have yet to see you walk the walk.

All future coms will be through the CO's or their reps.

Have a nice day:bigsmile:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Easy, the artificially imposed limit of 20 vehicles per side. That seems pretty mathematically even to me.

So a M113 is 1-1 with a T-72??

I would hardly call 20 vehicles a "sheer amount of assets".

Look at the big picture, not 1 engagement

A coordinated assault with what? This was a recce mission.

My point exactly, blue got it

What opportunity?

20 vehicles per side is not a disadvantage in numbers, is it?

Depends which 20 I would think

If the possiblity for success doesn't exist, it doesn't really matter who the CO is.

But it does, just a matter of the right CO I'm seeing:wink2:

Link to post
Share on other sites
The guys from SVU did not lack, Or do not lack fighting spirit.

When you take on an opponent in soviet equipment. there is a strong likelihood

Your Opfor will be in better equipment then you. We in SVU know this and accept it.

Unless you have a bigger force ratio You are at a disadvantage straight away. Also who ever heard of a soviet attacking force. Attacking with equal numbers never going to happen in RL.( your right, Afstan never happened, as well as Grosney, odds there were in favor of who???)

You are at a disadvantage straight away.

Its very hard to motivate Guys when the odds are heavily stacked against them.

I am not looking for a flame war. Lets just agree to disagree on some of the issues raised.

Yes ok, let the fun continue:gun::luxhello:

Link to post
Share on other sites

These "complaints" are me trying to help you not have a complete cluster with this thing. I am sure you have heard the same issues from those who have ran successful campaigns. After all I could let you find out all of a sudden no one on red wants to play the campaign because of unknown reasons, as a matter of fact that would be easier. I would have sent these via PM but those apparently have a tendency to become relatively common knowledge anyway for some odd reason.

(why attack then??)
My point exactly.
I can fill the red side,leave, no one is forcing anyone here.

If red loses COs 3 and 4 you might very well have to.

You do what you will, as you will.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The same ground can be attacked in a following round By WP, again and again. The NATO forces would have to rearm and resupply, and repair, while facing a fresh WP force each time. That is what is meant by WP having superior numbers against NATO. This all takes place in 24 Hours so It would simulate wave after wave of WP attacking against the same NATO force in a particular area. If WP attacks in a different area each time then NATO has time to breath and bring up fresh forces.

This makes the choice of ground, and commitment to attacking it a big deal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The same ground can be attacked in a following round By WP, again and again. The NATO forces would have to rearm and resupply, and repair, while facing a fresh WP force each time. That is what is meant by WP having superior numbers against NATO. This all takes place in 24 Hours so It would simulate wave after wave of WP attacking against the same NATO force in a particular area. If WP attacks in a different area each time then NATO has time to breath and bring up fresh forces.

This makes the choice of ground, and commitment to attacking it a big deal.

And I though I was the only one see this........:wink2::luxhello::luxhello::c::c:

Link to post
Share on other sites
These "complaints" are me trying to help you not have a complete cluster with this thing. I am sure you have heard the same issues from those who have ran successful campaigns. After all I could let you find out all of a sudden no one on red wants to play the campaign because of unknown reasons, as a matter of fact that would be easier. I would have sent these via PM but those apparently have a tendency to become relatively common knowledge anyway for some odd reason.

My point exactly.

If red loses COs 3 and 4 you might very well have to.

You do what you will, as you will.

I may have been short fuzed up there:c:e.Of course I would like a worthy opponent for Nato:luxhello:, points taken.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't want to get into it, but...

The defending force had RWS with TI, LRF and ballistic computers on their M113s.

The defending force had multiple artillery batteries.

Not quite right (comments made in good faith - not trying to fan any embers into flames :))

- Yes the RWS had TI (but once discovered that it had not been disabled, I advised Brun and he confirmed that we were not to use it - as far as I know no one did). No LRF or computers though.

- We only used one bty of arty (missions had to be sequenced). Again unsure if Brun had access to more due to design oversight but he certainly only employed one at any given time.

- Oh and the bridges weren't rigged for dems, they werer dropped by using that one arty bty with small impact areas (hence part of the sequencing - otherwise we could have dropped three at once).

I'm not familiar with the WP ORBAT but given it was a recce mission, had you moved on to the cbt phase could you have done some assault bridging to get the attacking force across the river as opposed to what seemed to be a dash for the bridges. If that information is OPSEC just tell me you can't answer.

More generally because I know you didn't make the comment:

- As for the "TOW Equipped M113", we only had two such vehicles and as mentioned they were the pedestal mount (one would have thought a HVT for Red artillery).

Link to post
Share on other sites
There are one or two others who can move over if needed but hopefully the SVU's morale will hold.

I hope I am not considered a "turncoat" for asking this question, but I would like to see this campaign run its full course. So, the question: what are the rules for changing sides in the event that one side significantly loses their initial number of members? I've got some experience with the T-72 and a few other Soviet vehicles thanks to RED TIDE and a number of Finnish-based scenarios. If the Soviet side in this campaign is running short of members, and if they can use me, and if NATO concurs, is a transfer allowed under the existing rules? If not, fine. If so, I'll be happy to go wherever I can be used.

That said, I'm away from tomorrow AM to Thursday evening, but I should be able to access this forum while away. Let's keep this campaign going. :thumbup:

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...