| Fiveocommando | 21 Dec 2016 5:16 p.m. PST |
I'm not sure if this is the correct place for this post but since FOW owns the game I'll try here first. I've recently bought Tanks by Gale Force 9 and have played a few games of it. It's fun for a quick game but I'm wondering how well it would scale up to perhaps 8 tanks per side. Does anyone have any experience up scaling this game? Any tips or suggestions? |
| Mako11 | 21 Dec 2016 5:33 p.m. PST |
This is an interesting article, identifying various Russian army units fighting in Eastern Ukraine: link They use photos, social media postings, medal awarded, and other intel to identify which Russian units have served in combat in Eastern Ukraine, and Crimea. The photos of the vehicles and uniforms are useful for anyone interested in painting up forces for, and/or gaming the conflict. There are other interesting, and useful articles as well: bellingcat.com/tag/ukraine One I ran across even mentioned deployment of the T-90A in the conflict, and showed numerous photos to document that. |
| Mako11 | 21 Dec 2016 5:48 p.m. PST |
Here's a link to a couple of articles showing the T72B3 in Eastern Ukraine: link link Ukraine doesn't field or produce the Russian T72B3 model. The "separatists" used white circles on these tanks to denote which side they belonged to. Ukrainian forces use white stripes to denote their vehicles, in order to prevent friendly fire. |
pzivh43  | 22 Dec 2016 4:31 a.m. PST |
Clearly Ukrainian propaganda, as we all know there are no Russian Army troops in Ukraine. Putin has said so many times! :) |
| Mako11 | 22 Dec 2016 5:00 a.m. PST |
True, but then he later admitted that at least some were, before/after banning mention/discussion of that by Russian media, and others. |
| 15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 22 Dec 2016 8:35 a.m. PST |
After Yanukovych was deposed Putin had to keep the pressure on Ukraine to keep her from joining Nato and becoming a western puppet. It's geopolitics, nothing more. Had Putin really wanted to take Kiev he would have done so already. |
| GeoffQRF | 23 Dec 2016 7:43 a.m. PST |
It is geopolitics, but as there wasn't any realistic chance of Ukraine joining NATO or the EU in at least the next decade it was more about a punitive action that Ukraine could dare to make their own deals instead of the ones Moscow wanted. Sadly I knew people in eastern Ukraine who were convinced Russia was coming. I told hem from the outset there would be no large scale invasion and they were on their own. Nearly three years on… Yes, Putin could have taken Kyiv, but he'd have spent forever trying to keep his supply lines functional… ;-) |
| kiltboy | 23 Dec 2016 5:28 p.m. PST |
Ukraine wasn't interested in being robbed by Moscow any longer and wasn't interested in Russia's custom union for that reason.
The Sebastapol base lease wasn't ging to be renewed as Ukranian law now stated that foreign troops weren't to be based in Ukraine. It came down to Putin refusing to accept his puppet had been removed and annexed Crimea as Russian trroos were already based there.
He couldn't invade overtly as he had no diplomatic cover and by the time that was required the Ukranians had fought hard. Then he shot down MH17 and he was stuck diplomatically especially after all the easily exposed firgeries came out. He is now stuck in Crimea as supply to Crimea is a problem long term and it is a failing region. |
| GeoffQRF | 24 Dec 2016 3:57 a.m. PST |
The lease had already been renewed and extended, but it was paid for by a cheap gas contract. By seizing the territory he could wave the flag at home about resisting the west/Nazis/Banderas, and keep the base while defaulting on the gas contract. Ukraine now pays a lot more because the consideration was stolen. I still think it was an opportunistic land grab, ill thought out as to the long term costs, financially or diplomatically |
| Begemot | 24 Dec 2016 12:33 p.m. PST |
Says kiltboy:
[Putin] is now stuck in Crimea as supply to Crimea is a problem long term and it is a failing region. Says GeoffQRF:
[Crimea was] an opportunistic land grab, ill thought out as to the long term costs, financially or diplomatically Your collective analyses suggests that the smart strategic play by Kiev would be to let the Russians hold on to Crimea as it is a strategic liability to Russia and a continuing economic and diplomatic bleeding ulcer. |
| GeoffQRF | 24 Dec 2016 3:47 p.m. PST |
Absolutely. So much so that Russia isn't preventing Ukrainians from holidaying there, they are in that much need of the income to support the infrastructure. It has a high proportion of pensioners who are taking pensions out but not inputting taxes in, and the strategic advantage is only an advantage until Turkey says no Russian ships can pass… |
