Snappy Serval H2H

Hello Panzerbataillon 911.
Forgive me for this language, and sorry for my English at all.
I asked my friend Duke to play with the Panzerbataillon 911, because the Panzerbataillon 911 was always the most professional team in the SteelBeasts.
Probably due to the fact that now it has become fashionable to play funny games, we are discussing this mission. But in any case we will play it, and my questions, I hope, will lead us to an understanding each other in the following serious games.
Now to the point.
My russian friend and me, we are not from RA, we are from steelbeasts.ru (steelbeasts.pro). So we can not understand why this mission have 1985 date, and the red on the offensive? Why all the current funny missions contain the offensive of the red? We had a defensive military doctrine. And I can not understand why DKs have equipment with thermal imagers in 1985?
In our preliminary discussions, my friend Duke used a powerful argument that under all circumstances, we have the numerical advantage considerably. I can not understand why the attack must be ensured losses of troops, but obviously we want to shoot the sheeps on the fire range and, therefore, we respect for the work done and will still play in it.
The main problem of the mission, it's difficult weather conditions and very limited visibility. In such circumstances, we can not go on the offensive and prefer to wait for the right weather conditions, even against your company we would have an entire division. We do not need the losses.
Besides. We do not understand what is the "capture of an object", we understand the "reaching of the frontier", and why we need to capture the Kalinka in this terrain, if above it rises the height of the most dominant to the west?
From a tactical point of view, we would have preferred to attack in the souther direction, or in the worst case, in the norther direction of this area. In general, we would prefer to choose offensive conditions ourselves, because it is our offensive. But much work has been done, and we offer a compromise.
It is necessary to exclude from the height of the game, marked in purple or revise the target of the attack.

We go to play and the goal of the mission is necessary to establish reaching the frontier listed below.

We are ready to listen the counterarguments and finalize the region details and the onset of the task of red battalion.

One of the main problems, that on the limited SB-mapsizes, the manouvering before the battle can not be played well. So the perfect preconditions for an attack can not be meet, also for the defenders, the perfect preconditions for a successful defence can not be meet.
So at the end, the steelbeasts scope of "gaming" we start with attacker/defender starting "wrong" and making the best of it. Otherwise the attacker would rush over weak and unprepared enemy and beat them up or the attacker would crush into a concealed mine-obstacle and be pulverised by an MRLS strike...both modes of game don't seem like much fun to me.

Besides, in the last battle against an hasty Blue defence, you guys punched trough pretty quickly...so I'm not worried about a onesided battle in favour of blue :;;D:

Ronin(911) schrieb:

One of the main problems, that on the limited SB-mapsizes, the manouvering before the battle can not be played well. So the perfect preconditions for an attack can not be meet, also for the defenders, the perfect preconditions for a successful defence can not be meet.
So at the end, the steelbeasts scope of "gaming" we start with attacker/defender starting "wrong" and making the best of it. Otherwise the attacker would rush over weak and unprepared enemy and beat them up or the attacker would crush into a concealed mine-obstacle and be pulverised by an MRLS strike...both modes of game don't seem like much fun to me.
Besides, in the last battle against an hasty Blue defence, you guys punched trough pretty quickly...so I'm not worried about a onesided battle in favour of blue :;;D:

Ypu are right. Usually when we play such missions, it occurs within an area of responsibility and we assume that on the flanks well and are synchronous by neighbors.In my messege, I share our point of view on the situation, in order to establish mutual understanding and get away from the fashionable missions.
A key question is justified adjustment task of the battalion in offencive. Just be a little shortened map.

Servus,

Zitat

greetings after my 12h dayshift.
I`m amused and become a little bit angry.

Wow!!! Please don`t!

Zitat

You red the briefing and our last mails?
I tried to explain it step by step, I failed.

Of course I red. You succeeded, do not rush to be upset. Just part of our agreements with you, I duplicated here.

Zitat

>>>My russian friend and me, we are not from RA, we are from steelbeasts.ru (steelbeasts.pro).
sorry for this, I will change this in the final version.

My dear friend, you can call me as you wish, even may be "Natasha", but the main point of this to make it clear that I have come to ask you to play a serious games.

Zitat

>>>So we can not understand why this mission have 1985 date, and the red on the offensive? Why all the current funny missions contain the offensive of the red?
I want to play red as offensive part, because in my opinion it was there doctrine.
>>>We had a defensive military doctrine.
lol

What the "lol"?
At 1989 all studying programs in Soviet Army was about defensive military doctrine only for desinformate German officers from DDR? It`s realy lol.
I will check for 1985. May be it was time of quick changes and you would be right.

Zitat

>>>>The main problem of the mission, it's difficult weather conditions and very limited visibility. In such circumstances, we can not go on the offensive and prefer to wait for the right weather conditions, even against your company we would have an entire division. We do not need the losses.
>>>>>Besides. We do not understand what is the "capture of an object", we understand the "reaching of the frontier", and why we need to capture the Kalinka in this terrain, if above it rises the height of the most dominant to the west?
>>>>>From a tactical point of view, we would have preferred to attack in the souther direction, or in the worst case, in the norther direction of this area. In general, we would prefer to choose offensive conditions ourselves, because it is our offensive. But much work has been done, and we offer a compromise.
>>>>>It is necessary to exclude from the height of the game, marked in purple or revise the target of the attack.
I can make sunshine and visibility 3000m, no problem good for our Leopards. I don`t wanted to write a novel in the situation reports.
The situation is like I described in the mission. Red found a gap in our defense and sent this MechInf Btn to take this key terrain and to develop the situation.
If you use google maps, you can see our Brigade is defending between Detmold and Paderborn. So if you can take your OBJ you have 2 options for future operations (we will not play these options).
1st you can go west or you can attack the deep left flank of our Btn or Brigade.
Back to the situation.
The blue Btn Cdr saw this gap and sent one PzGrenCoy to defend the area. Thats why it`s a hasty defense for blue.
It is not your offensive. You play a MechInfBN and you follow orders from your RGT CDR or DIV CDR. In good old red army doctrine a MechInf CDR has not the option, he follows orders, strictly.
If you like you can download the regulations in our download section.

Alles anzeigen

Welldone!!! Glad to read this.
But when we read the briefings, it seemed to us that you have not seen the map, and you simply whant a fire range. If you know our doctrine then why you propose to take an "object"? But mostly impotant: Why do you propose to take the town located in the bowl? The commander of our regiment (division) idiot?
I wrote all thise bulky duplicate texts to set up all for a serious game. But if we are discussing an important task for the division, and playing for the battalion at the same time can't properly put a local task and making so extremal weather under the beautiful legend, then the point is lost.

Zitat

To the south is the main effort of your division and our brigade because there are the main roads. I was not scripting this and I will not make a script.

Of course it is not necessary to script more. But if we can not agree on mutual concessions, the need broader understanding of the situation and the further we are away from the playing of initial mission of SB.

All we need is necessary to shorten the map from the west to the object Kalinka.

Zitat

You can use the missiles from your BMPs,

Of coure we cant in this visibility.

Zitat

our Marder can`t do this (in real life yes, but not in sb), we have to dismount squads. The only thing we have is the terrain. We have to find out your main effort and have to defend very flexible.

Do not complain about the SBMarders, they destroy SBT-72 tanks, but the SBtanks have time to sweat before destroy the Marder, and SBBMP-2 can`t to damage them even the stern. But we do not discuss this.

Zitat

We can speak about the time limit, but we need this in my eyes.

Yes.
Previously in such circumstances, we should be able to go through the "whole" map by foot, 80 minutes is not enough. The shorter the map, the faster play. In any case, timing is not ready yet.

Zitat

What we can do, we can play it and after this we change sides and see what happens.

We don`t like this idea.

Regards,

LAN

LAN(RA) schrieb:

What the "lol"?
At 1989 all studying programs in Soviet Army was about defensive military doctrine only for desinformate German officers from DDR? It`s realy lol.
I will check for 1985. May be it was time of quick changes and you would be right.

I really don´t want to discuss Soviet military doctrine in detail, but according to my information it was only updated - regarding the "defensive character" - for the strategical matters during the Gorbachev period, realising that there can´t be a winner in a thermo-nuclear war.
Thinking of the Red Army´s operational targets, according to the Soviet Military Encyclopedia and the Kommunist Vooruzennych Sil of the 1980s, the "´defensive character´ is expressed by the fact, that the Soviet Union is not attacking of it´s own accord, but forestalls any attacker. The defensive attitude contains, that the defensive power of the Soviet state and the combat readyness of it´s forces have such a high level, that a decisive extermination of any aggressor is guaranteed." (see Adomeit, H.; Höhmann, H.-H.; Wagenlehner, G. (Hrsg.); Die Sowjetunion als Militärmacht; Stuttgart 1987; p. 23)
This also fits with publications from late-80s. Better attack in advance, than repeating the experiences from summer 1941.
So, even if the NATO would have attacked the Warsaw Pact states conventionally, their armies would have changed to offensive operations as quickly as possible. And even then, that would fit the settings for this scenario.

LAN(RA) schrieb:

Welldone!!! Glad to read this.
But when we read the briefings, it seemed to us that you have not seen the map, and you simply whant a fire range. If you know our doctrine then why you propose to take an "object"? But mostly impotant: Why do you propose to take the town located in the bowl? The commander of our regiment (division) idiot?
I wrote all thise bulky duplicate texts to set up all for a serious game. But if we are discussing an important task for the division, and playing for the battalion at the same time can't properly put a local task and making so extremal weather under the beautiful legend, then the point is lost.

If I take a look on the map, I can find terrain, which is suitable for mechanized/tank operations. Perhaps also for a RED attack on the German flank and a further pursuit S-SE (see arrow 2). Although I probably would respect the doubts of a battallion commander, when I´d be in command of a RA Tank Reg. I personally would not like a batallion of Leopards flanking my main attack following arrow 1... in this case the proposed situation is understandable.
Counter-attacks towards open enemy flanks under good circumstances would be my tool of the moment :smile:
Rewriting the orders, own and enemy situation and general blabla should therefore be very easy.
BTW, if wars always would be fought at good or nice weather conditions, several losses would have been avoided. Perhaps in fact a plus for the chemtrail thesis :p

Zitat

I really don´t want to discuss Soviet military doctrine in detail, but according to my information it was only updated - regarding the "defensive character" - for the strategical matters during the Gorbachev period, realising that there can´t be a winner in a thermo-nuclear war.
Thinking of the Red Army´s operational targets, according to the Soviet Military Encyclopedia and the Kommunist Vooruzennych Sil of the 1980s, the "´defensive character´ is expressed by the fact, that the Soviet Union is not attacking of it´s own accord, but forestalls any attacker. The defensive attitude contains, that the defensive power of the Soviet state and the combat readyness of it´s forces have such a high level, that a decisive extermination of any aggressor is guaranteed." (see Adomeit, H.; Höhmann, H.-H.; Wagenlehner, G. (Hrsg.); Die Sowjetunion als Militärmacht; Stuttgart 1987; p. 23)
This also fits with publications from late-80s. Better attack in advance, than repeating the experiences from summer 1941.
So, even if the NATO would have attacked the Warsaw Pact states conventionally, their armies would have changed to offensive operations as quickly as possible. And even then, that would fit the settings for this scenario.

Thank you Falli, and is, defensive doctrine was associated with Gorbachev.
As regards other publications, they find it difficult to trust, untill present days. There is instruction and studying process of those time, did not give them a reason we can not. Let`s leave this theme.
The main thing that according to official documents, you and Duke are right, excluding the battle regulations of the Soviet army. Nevertheless I can not find any cause for laughter in history. Excuse me for offtopic.

Zitat

Rewriting the orders, own and enemy situation and general blabla should therefore be very easy.

I may be wrong to translate for me, but I do not see a problem in order to rewrite the local task too.

Duke(911) schrieb:

You don`t want to play this, we don`t play it.
Make a suggestion what kind of equipment you want to use, what terrain, weather conditions etc, COOP or H2H and I try to find a mission.

We want to play this. It`s still you've done a job and this map is interesting.
1.We suggest to take your Alamo line heights and this is the end of task.
2.Let`s keep all the equipment (ammunition separately discuss)
3.Map is good
4.Weather let it stay, but we both know why it was made so
5.The timing separately discuss

delete please

Duke(911) schrieb:

Servus,

I change the equipment.
I give Red a MechInfBn with Marder1A3 and a company of Leo1A5 and 2 patrols with Luchs and for Blue 3 platoons of BMP-2s and 1 platoon of T-72s.

Cheers

Duke

Alles anzeigen

What for? We must now learn all of this equipment? We do not need to do it. The problem of Kalinka? So it can not be the tactical purpose and you know it better than me. All tactical objectives you explained yesterday. But specifically Kalinka to them has no effect. And we have you already thought through conceptions. Why did things change? What is the problem?

Why don´t you make a Sce. to play, instad of spamming this Forum??

Greetings Eisenschwein, old soldier.
Question addressed to me I hope? Because Duke gave me sce a long time ago and I am sure that to you, too.
About SPAM I hope not to my adress. May be you help us get an answer to a direct question about the tactical sense of object Kalinka and we will continue to prepare for the game? Or do you also think that without ObjKalinka we could not play? Or it's time to take a break in this discussion?

LOL

0330 h at the Div HQ: "Good morning General. here is Captain LAN, he want to discuss the Divisional Attack Plan for today"

Did you ever serve as a Soldier ?

If YOU are not able to make a successful Plan to reach this Goal, what are we talking about ?
If you don´t like the Sce., what we are talking about ?
If you´re not able to fulfill the Plan of a higher Command, what are we talking about ?

So, what we are talking about ?

Eisenschwein(911) schrieb:

LOL

0330 h at the Div HQ: "Good morning General. here is Captain LAN, he want to discuss the Divisional Attack Plan for today"

Did you ever serve as a Soldier ?

If YOU are not able to make a successful Plan to reach this Goal, what are we talking about ?
If you don´t like the Sce., what we are talking about ?
If you´re not able to fulfill the Plan of a higher Command, what are we talking about ?

So, what we are talking about ?

Alles anzeigen

Oooh no.... . OK
First of all, we are not rude people.
Secondly, I wish to talk with a man who have the will and the knowledge to answer a direct question.
Third, we talking about game scenario, just made by civilian.
Fourth, students do not sit in the headquarters of the Soviet Divisions.
Fifth, if you do not understand the uselessness of the Object, then just nothing to talk about with you.
Because of this all, don`t SPAM your Forum, son! And personaly for you sergant Eisenschwein: Хенде хох! At ease! Свободен!

To all respected my German community, my apologies for this circus.

Сontact with me via private message on my website or email.
Salutierte