Binocular icon - what's up with that? ...

[burroughs]

I am helluva short on time and that is why I have not responded in full capacity yet; however I think it's perhaps better to respond shortly if not necessarily promptly than not to respond at all.

If I can rememebr well, in some random order: yes, I am playing with explicit supply and artillery setting up as a rule of thumb in every and each of my PC / MC games as I think that is what promotes realism. Stupid mistake was to tick the nuclear scenario termination option ( I wanted my WarPact side to be hard-pressed to fulfil their task and mission quickly for the fear of NATO going desperate - now I think that - outside gameplay factors - they would not be that eager to offset their weakness in that - or any other - part of the theater with nuke strikes which would not be limited and tactical perhaps at best. Also ticking limited air recon was wrong of me, but that had been before I read the manual again and worked out a clear idea of what that particular stuff is. Well, I might still pay for that. I only left optional fire and assault results unchecked for a higher randomization ( on the battlefield anything goes and can happen ... )along with no low fuel effect.

2. Yes, Suvorov was a defector, but at least he saw certain things with his very own eyes. Could he be yet another Andy McNab of Bravo Two Zero, giving a falsified acount due to editors intervening? Yes, probably , with some other reasons in the back of the head. He definitely violated first three rules of SpetsNaz: 1,2,3 - do not, I repeat - do not under any circumstances talk about SpetsNaz. We are also violating that now. We also violate all rule no. 4: under no circumstances violate the first three rules.

3. SpetsNaz was no homogenic formation by no means; why did the Americans thought that a marine infantry brigade elements in Vladivostok practicing parachuting was odd?Because that was seaborne SpetsNaz, a distant equivalent of British SBS or SEALs( regarding their likely missions and not selection rules nor training etc.) Even within were some diverse structures; in the USSR all sports activities which were organized into clubs were military oriented and run so during the olympics in any given year the Soviet sportsmen would be actually soldiers.The sportsmen in case of Cold War getting hot would be assigned the most difficult and demanding missions like indeed the already mentioned assassinating the enemy key figures and striking at nuclear facilities, headquaters, coummunication and supply centers in order to paralyze the enemy strategic background.Nevertheless originally Spetsnaz evolved from "razvedka"/ "reconnaissance" with that function retained to a high degree, but the logic behind was that more of the Wehrmacht and SS "aufklarung abteilung" approach towards recon; reconnoiter the AO and seize it if possible. Namely it was meant to be force recon or recon by force ( not in force, but I may be wrong about the difference I see here) whenever possible.

4. After all SpetsNaz was a branch of GRU which was all about not only gathering intel, but also acting on the tips collected. Nevertheless, few people realize the difference between the areas of expertise and responsibility; even me used to think that the DRA presidential palace back in '79 in Kabul was stormed by SpetsNaz who also killed then president Amin.In fact that was OsNaz KGB. Today's ALFA anti-terror is also a part of Russian FSB( Federal Security Service ) being OsNaz rather than SpetsNaz GRU.