Matrix Games Forums

A draw by repetition works in chess. But here it is recognized as checkmate. 1-0.

You live in some imaginary world and play imaginary games with imaginary opponents. I don't think I have anything to talk to you.

"imaginary world"

Your location says USSR which dissolved 1991. Might want to file for a change of address.

Interesting read on this topic that includes relevant links.

https://www.justsecurity.org/83605/addr ... at-he-was/

Another one "expert". If this is a real CIA officer, it is strange that he does not know that Surovikin spent all his service before becoming Chief of the General Staff's Main Operations Directorate in the infantry.
How can we trust him if he does not know such trivial things and draws some conclusions based on his erroneous notions.

"trivial things"

Who cares where he comes from in the Russian hierarchy (as if you are better informed than the writer) and that does not change the rest of the thoughtful analysis posted in the link above. Armor, infantry, air corps - meh - we all know he comes from Hell anyway.

Here's one for the Sony Walkman while you wait on the conscription line:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS5_EQgbuLc

Additionally:

https://dnyuz.com/2022/10/19/where-have ... scow-gone/

Not here, the walls are closing in fast.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukrai ... e939f42a28

kevinkins wrote: Wed Oct 19, 2022 4:32 pm "trivial things"

Who cares where he comes from in the Russian hierarchy (as if you are better informed than the writer) and that does not change the rest of the thoughtful analysis posted in the link above. Armor, infantry, air corps - meh - we all know he comes from Hell anyway.

Yes, I have a better idea of the command staff of the Russian Army than the author. And I think I have a better idea of the state of that army than the author.
Based on the wrong premise, the author makes a conclusion about possible political activity, Putin's fear of a possible coup.
If the author does not bother to do a basic check, which can be done in two clicks, then we cannot trust him in his further reasoning.
That's why I was talking about the incompetence of the author.
But you can keep covering your ears and eyes and humming la-la-la. When reality doesn't fit your ideas, the easiest thing to do is to ignore that reality.

OK, please post your assessment of the USSR, oh I mean Russian Army. It would be very entertaining. You will receive extra points for maps, a chart of the real command structure, and relevant citations. Here is some advice - don't include the bombing of Ukrainian civilian infrastructure in your essay. That will ruin its entertainment value along with any positive assessment you can fabricate - oh sorry, I mean write about.

kevinkins wrote: Thu Oct 20, 2022 12:19 pm Here is some advice - don't include the bombing of Ukrainian civilian infrastructure in your essay.

Does strikes at power plants are bad or real evil?

FilitchM2 wrote: Thu Oct 20, 2022 2:04 pm

kevinkins wrote: Thu Oct 20, 2022 12:19 pm Here is some advice - don't include the bombing of Ukrainian civilian infrastructure in your essay.

Does strikes at power plants are bad or real evil?

Right in front of the winter season-uhhhh yeah

I don't think the conversation is really going anywhere guys.

M

FilitchM2 wrote: Thu Oct 20, 2022 2:04 pm
Does strikes at power plants are bad or real evil?

Illegal.

Read the Law of Armed Conflict - the bit about release of dangerous forces, then tell us its ok.

But wait, if you are happy with that, maybe you are either:

• Content that the fallout will spread over much of your claimed new Oblasts, as well as ones that really belong to you

• Completely and utterly unaware of which way the planet rotates with no concept of prevailing wind

FilitchM2 wrote: Fri Oct 14, 2022 12:33 pm

kevinkins wrote: Fri Oct 14, 2022 12:08 pm https://twitter.com/Aviation_Intel/stat ... 4949152769

If according to this "expert" the power plants are non-military targets, then I have bad news for you. This "expert" understands nothing about the military. You don't need to read any further set of words in this tweet.

They ARE non-military targets, by international rules of conflict that countries have agreed to abide by. Whether they do of course is a completely different thing.

Having spent a 40 year career variously in the field of nuclear weapons, nuclear submarine propulsion, and nuclear non-proliferation, the rest of this thread is pretty depressing with all the glib talk about actions to eliminate Russia's nuclear weapons infrastructure or their second strike capability. It's been policy for both the US and USSR/Russia that a valid attempt by the other to do so requires full retaliation. It's the "use it or lose it" scenario. And in Russia's case, there is no valid scenario where we could GUARANTEE the sinking of ALL of their SSBNs prior to them being able to retaliate. Even one surviving SSBN would be a catastrophe beyond imagination.

Dave

BDukes wrote: Thu Oct 20, 2022 4:18 pm

bsq wrote: Thu Oct 20, 2022 8:31 pm

ultradave wrote: Thu Oct 20, 2022 8:47 pm

You are so surely judging me that of course you can give an explanation for that as well, if you would be so kind:

Officials at the Pentagon and at NATO headquarters in Belgium said allied jets deliberately attacked the power grid, aiming to shut it down more completely and for longer periods than at any time previously in the two-month-old air campaign. U.S. officials estimated the attacks had shut off power to about 80 percent of Serbia.

Allied officials said the attacks were intended to disrupt operations by the Serb-led Yugoslav military in Kosovo, the focus of the conflict, and not target civilians. But by increasing the hardship of ordinary citizens, alliance leaders also appeared to be seeking to encourage public disaffection with the government of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/i ... 052599.htm

I think any of us looking through the lens of 2022 would say it wasn't a great call by NATO. That being said, it was late spring into summer, not fall into winter. Order of magnitude different, and you know that.

What is your point and goal? Really think anybody is gonna say Ukraine should be conquered? Likewise, are any of us going to change your mind?

This is a gaming forum. As you've rudely pointed out, people play the entertainment version of the game to escape reality (mostly). Perhaps there is a better place to twirl in circles endlessly.

As I've said before. Stay away from the draft and if you're sent, hunker down and be safe. Too many people are being killed by this.

Mike

Btw anybody doubt that while marching out of bone-strewn ruins of Kyiv, Baghdad, or Homlet some scribe in Genghis's army was writing..this was bad, but not like Carthage!

BDukes wrote: Fri Oct 21, 2022 12:07 pm Btw anybody doubt that while marching out of bone-strewn ruins of Kyiv, Baghdad, or Homlet some scribe in Genghis's army was writing..this was bad, but not like Carthage!

My message was somewhat different

And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”

FilitchM2 wrote: Fri Oct 21, 2022 9:17 am

BDukes wrote: Thu Oct 20, 2022 4:18 pm

bsq wrote: Thu Oct 20, 2022 8:31 pm

ultradave wrote: Thu Oct 20, 2022 8:47 pm

You are so surely judging me that of course you can give an explanation for that as well, if you would be so kind:

Officials at the Pentagon and at NATO headquarters in Belgium said allied jets deliberately attacked the power grid, aiming to shut it down more completely and for longer periods than at any time previously in the two-month-old air campaign. U.S. officials estimated the attacks had shut off power to about 80 percent of Serbia.

Allied officials said the attacks were intended to disrupt operations by the Serb-led Yugoslav military in Kosovo, the focus of the conflict, and not target civilians. But by increasing the hardship of ordinary citizens, alliance leaders also appeared to be seeking to encourage public disaffection with the government of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/i ... 052599.htm

AS I SAID, it's against international agreements on warfare. I ALSO SAID, whether combatants uphold those agreements is a different issue. It's wrong if anyone does it. Just because you can point to an instance (or even ten) where someone else did it does not make it right. You are simply wrong. Period.

I would also opine though, that an attack on a nuclear power plant is orders of magnitude worse than simply cutting off power by damaging various power plants. It has the real potential to not just affect civilians in the country in conflict but to inflict widespread and long lasting damage over other countries as well.

Dave

ultradave wrote: Thu Oct 20, 2022 8:47 pm

FilitchM2 wrote: Fri Oct 14, 2022 12:33 pm

kevinkins wrote: Fri Oct 14, 2022 12:08 pm https://twitter.com/Aviation_Intel/stat ... 4949152769

If according to this "expert" the power plants are non-military targets, then I have bad news for you. This "expert" understands nothing about the military. You don't need to read any further set of words in this tweet.

They ARE non-military targets, by international rules of conflict that countries have agreed to abide by. Whether they do of course is a completely different thing.

Having spent a 40 year career variously in the field of nuclear weapons, nuclear submarine propulsion, and nuclear non-proliferation, the rest of this thread is pretty depressing with all the glib talk about actions to eliminate Russia's nuclear weapons infrastructure or their second strike capability. It's been policy for both the US and USSR/Russia that a valid attempt by the other to do so requires full retaliation. It's the "use it or lose it" scenario. And in Russia's case, there is no valid scenario where we could GUARANTEE the sinking of ALL of their SSBNs prior to them being able to retaliate. Even one surviving SSBN would be a catastrophe beyond imagination.

Dave

“Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.“

Obviously, nuclear war would not be a good option. Perhaps the technology- stealth, ASATs, ASW warfare, better networking, and so on- are not enough for a completely successful first strike. Indeed, millions might die in the West as well as the casualties in Russia. But I think the options may exist and trying- even if the odds are horrible- is better than the alternative: MAD.

Because if we are going to give into MAD then the war is lost. All Putin needs to do is dust off his tacnukes and keep lobbing them until western Ukraine spasms and ceases breathing, because no one will help them at that point because of MAD.

The best option is peace with respect for sovereignty and resolution of issues through diplomacy. Realistically Russia will probably be restrained from nuclear use just as the US was in Vietnam and the Soviets were in Afghanistan.

But that may not be the case. We can’t go about assuming every person we pass on the street is going to be decent when there may be a mugger among them. Instead of scratching our (the people in power and various professional analysts, NOT the members of this forum) heads at how horrible and difficult the situation is, we may need to let go of our old understanding of how things worked before and look at other possibilities. Even if everything is horrible we need to find the least horrible instead of resigning ourselves to dogmatic doom. MAD was the solution for the existing threat of nuclear war via first strikes and massive retaliation, and as the Dr. Strangelove quote points out first strikes were a poor idea at the time. But it isn’t 1964, it’s 2022. In a peaceful world where the idea of a “full scale” Russian invasion of Ukraine is the subject of a satire and not actual headlines, perhaps staunch adherence to MAD is seen as dangerous and incompetent as massive retaliation was, and some other idea (not necessarily first strikes) is the attacked, yet logical, solution to the crisis at hand. Of course, in a situation where Russia has already used a nuclear weapon- not before.

In conclusion, I would like to clarify I am simply clarifying and explaining my previous thoughts, NOT trying to change your mind. Also, as the above paragraph is very bleak and hawkish, I will repeat the other as it is really the core of my realistic thinking. The first strike stuff is a worst case scenario hypothetical, and an outlandish one.

The best option is peace with respect for sovereignty and resolution of issues through diplomacy. Realistically Russia will probably be restrained from nuclear use just as the US was in Vietnam and the Soviets were in Afghanistan.

My first post never thought of a full scale nuclear exchange, but a NATO response to some limited WMD attack by Russia out of desperation. (In the news at the time) Nuclear or chemical shells or sending a bio attack into the trenches are pretty unlikely. However, this is a large active war and and any ideas for a CMO scenario are welcome. There is limited naval combat and air warfare as we normally wargame has changed and/or we don't have a lot of info on how each side is using manned platforms. I wonder how the professional users are using CMO to sim this war? So much is playing out on the ground.

kevinkins wrote: Sun Oct 23, 2022 1:14 pm My first post never thought of a full scale nuclear exchange, but a NATO response to some limited WMD attack by Russia out of desperation. (In the news at the time) Nuclear or chemical shells or sending a bio attack into the trenches are pretty unlikely. However, this is a large active war and and any ideas for a CMO scenario are welcome. There is limited naval combat and air warfare as we normally wargame has changed and/or we don't have a lot of info on how each side is using manned platforms. I wonder how the professional users are using CMO to sim this war? So much is playing out on the ground.

I imagine an issue is the ground model. I was trying out a couple platoons of BMPs vs. a fixed position awhile back at very close range (500 meters or so) and they were missing on an absurd level (as much that they may as well have been firing to the side or even backwards (away) from the target). The same wild results occurred when firing tank guns at similar ranges.

Tank/AFV guns and cannons, from 30mm to 125mm, appear to use a cannon and rocket artillery model at the moment. I wonder if we might see this improved in the future.

Besides the prospect of NATO response to a nuclear strike, I bet the start of continuous Geran-2/Shahed-136 attacks might cause need for CMO simulations in professional circles. Russia rumored to be acquiring Iranian BMs and their inclusion in this sort of “Vengeance weapon” style campaign would also be the perfect fit for CMO’s capabilities.