Please NO Marines or NATO forces module !

[Pablius]

I wonder if there is a super top secret NATO forum where they are planning an actual campaign by throwing around the same arguments put forward here??? 

[The Warrior]

I would like to see them. We never had France in Shock Force.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

 The real issue is access to the straits. If that is presumed to be allowed, then I think it is well within US Navy's capabilities to move into the Black Sea and pretty much do whatever it pleases. What is going to stop it? 

 

It does seem like a lot of risk from land based platforms to not a whole lot of gain.  I'm not really convinced that physically parking the USN in the Black Sea offers an advantage you couldn't gain through safer options.  

[sburke]

It does seem like a lot of risk from land based platforms to not a whole lot of gain.  I'm not really convinced that physically parking the USN in the Black Sea offers an advantage you couldn't gain through safer options.  

Possibly, but having to maintain a supply line for the Marines all the way back to the Med seems a bit much.  Take a look at a map, short of Crimean airfields, the Russian Air force trying to hit the US Navy would be constrained to bases comparable to the distances from Lebanon to Crete.  The 6th Fleet was fully prepared to operate in that area during the Cold war with the nearest Russian bases being in Syria.  If the goal is to land forces in Crimea one is faced with either the land bottleneck to contend with or a forced entry.  For the sake of the storyline a US Marine landing in Crimea is not an impossibility.

 

This is not WW 2.  Crimea would be a liability for Russia in the sense that they have no ability to reinforce it other than by sea.  If the US establishes air superiority over the Black Sea from bases in Ukraine, Russia would be hard put to move any decent forces there.  That in turn makes for some interesting scenario design options (which is all we really care right?)

[Pablius]

Possibly, but having to maintain a supply line for the Marines all the way back to the Med seems a bit much.  Take a look at a map, short of Crimean airfields, the Russian Air force trying to hit the US Navy would be constrained to bases comparable to the distances from Lebanon to Crete.  The 6th Fleet was fully prepared to operate in that area during the Cold war with the nearest Russian bases being in Syria.  If the goal is to land forces in Crimea one is faced with either the land bottleneck to contend with or a forced entry.  For the sake of the storyline a US Marine landing in Crimea is not an impossibility.

 

This is not WW 2.  Crimea would be a liability for Russia in the sense that they have no ability to reinforce it other than by sea.  If the US establishes air superiority over the Black Sea from bases in Ukraine, Russia would be hard put to move any decent forces there.  That in turn makes for some interesting scenario design options (which is all we really care right?)

 

I say that for the sake of storytelling the US, after achieving air superiority and bombing everything for a while launches  a combined assault, and amphibious landing and an airborne drop to cut the retreat and possible reinforcement in Crimea

 

There you have it, the two most dangerous military operations performed at once, just for bragging rights! And they do it on the 6th of June of course

Edited March 1, 2015 by Pablius

[sburke]

June 6th excellent idea!  LOL

 

Assume it isn't about bragging rights but restoring Ukrainian sovereignty.  Honestly I don't have any idea if BF plans to alter the existing storyline based on current events.  I guess we will know whenever the first module comes out.

[Sequoia]

I don't think the amphibious landing they posited in Shock Force was the most strategically sound move but it sure made an awesome campaign for the Marine module.

[Stagler]

One of the interesting things about the US navy coming into San Francisco during fleet week is when the navy decides a new policy and then flexes it's muscle during the party. Years ago they announced a new direction where the navy would no longer limit itself to deep ocean warfare but declared an intent and ability to go in harm's way. They then launched and retrieved aircraft right in the bay, awesome is the only word I can think of.

The Black Sea is pretty darn big and the Navy would have additional air cover from land based air. Crimea as a defensive air platform would be hit intensively by NATO air. I don't see any particular military reason why the navy could not project power in the Black Sea when the eastern Mediterranean is not really much bigger. The real issue is access to the straits. If that is presumed to be allowed, then I think it is well within US Navy's capabilities to move into the Black Sea and pretty much do whatever it pleases. What is going to stop it?

 

A f-ton of anti-ship missiles sadly - many of them on the newly launched "RFS Crimea".

Edited March 2, 2015 by Stagler

[sburke]

A f-ton of anti-ship missiles sadly - many of them on the newly launched "RFS Crimea".

Somehow I think that F-ton of missile launchers wouldn't survive long enough from the air campaign to be much of a threat.  Then what is left has to penetrate the Aegis network.

 

Is this the smartest strategy if the US didn't really have to do it.  Maybe not.  Is it possible, yeah I think so*

 

*note- I know exactly s**t in real terms.

[Scase]

Seriously???

Whats the harm if you dont want feature then don't use. Everyone else should suffer because you don't want something. No wonder we are having to fight wars IRL.

[VladimirTarasov]

Without getting into too much argument, S-400, S-300, S-350, Tunguska-Ms, TOR-M2U, Pantsir-S1, BUK-M3, advanced radar stations, Kilo submarines, Black sea fleet, KH-35 coastal systems, Oniks, Brahmos and many more assets including the air force I think you get what im saying, To say that NATO would risk sending that much lives against a scenario such as that is very ignorant. NATO is smart... it will operate through western Ukraine, Making Russia defensive is not a smart idea. Now please as I know a lot of you guys are Americans, Do not get offended by the weapon systems I've listed. Im just writing against the ignorance of some users on here stating NATO would have no problem through moving in a fleet where the opposing country has already planned for situations such as this, And does large scale drills practicing it, Not only that has full support of its country's armed forces.  Although for game wise why not put in the USMC 

Edited March 2, 2015 by VladimirTarasov

[sburke]

I hear all that, but no one has ever really felt the muscle that the US Navy can put into play either. Cruise missiles both submarine and surface ship launched, and a massive air arm.  Black Sea "fleet"  really? Those hulks wouldn't leave port.  Think Falklands war.  The missile threat is the maion one, but given the timeline in the story, there would be plenty of time to hammer those defenses with the combined airpower of several carrier groups that needn't necessarily even enter the Black Sea.

 

But it is all a mute point.  Would they?  Probably not.  Why bother if you have a wide open land frontier to fight from.  However it has to be questioned just how much of Russia's defenses would be used in Crimea.  Beyond the Imperial glory trappings that Putin has donned for it's seizure, it has been a huge sinkhole for Russian resources.  I do really wonder sometimes why either side is not trying to just foist it on the other.  "no you take it, no you take it, really I insist, No I couldn't, you are far too gracious, you keep it..."

[Stagler]

Russians are adept at hiding their mobile AShMs. All it takes is one Strobile or Sizzler to wreck a carrier groups day.

 

For the purposes of the game however, I would like to see the USMC storming the beaches of Sevastopol.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Stagler

[Rokko]

If you look at the backstory part of the manual there is a map that shows an arrow pointing at Odessa from the Black Sea, which indicates that there are plans for portraying a seaborne landing there.

[BTR]

Pre-staging marines as part of a training group in Ukraine isn't something far fetched and would probably be done given the developments in CMBS. How can it be done? Land marines in Greece, and ship them over by train to Odessa via Bulgaria and Romania. This means no mass landings and no massive presence of US fleet in the black sea. That gets us a solid US force in Odessa securing a potential naval supply route and putting pressure on Crimea via a land attack route. 

[Rokko]

Take a look at the Black Sea manual. I cant right now but from my recollection it looks definately like a seaborne landing, like the arrow comes in from the sea.

[Duckman]

Given shared Nato responsibilities and the likely involvement if a multinational rapid reaction force you can argue for any European army. Having the French and theit unique equipment would be fun, for example.

I guess it partly comes down to how much you can reuse from Shock Force. As for the USMC, they are always popular (look at the number of films about them!) so I expect them to show up.

[sburke]

Take a look at the Black Sea manual. I cant right now but from my recollection it looks definately like a seaborne landing, like the arrow comes in from the sea.

True, what I do not know is if the backstory might evolve before the module. But I agree. The larger issue of whether the U.S. Navy could, would or should enter the Black Sea is less important than having scenarios of Marines vs VDV

[nuzrak]

Personally I'd rather see NATO units before Marines purely because the US forces are already superior in the base product and adding an elite fighting unit will only make the creation of balanced / fun campaigns and individual battles that much trickier.

In Shockforce the Marines are simply devastating and there is little reason to think they would be any different in CMBS.  

 

I too would like to see separatists and partisans added at some point, but rather than as a late postwar mop up module as has been suggested, wouldn't it make more sense to add TOE's for them in both a post and pre-war module along with the potential of winter terrain that could be used to extend the conflict both forwards and backwards?

 

As for the US navy in the Black sea, why would they bother? Their primary role would likely be carrier and cruise missile support and they can perform both tasks from the safety of the Mediterranean and Aegean seas. I have little doubt they could push into the Black Sea and force total control of it but the tactical risk of losing a ship no matter how small still seems too great when compared to the marginal tactical advantage getting closer would provide!

[Stagler]

Personally I'd rather see NATO units before Marines purely because the US forces are already superior in the base product and adding an elite fighting unit will only make the creation of balanced / fun campaigns and individual battles that much trickier.

In Shockforce the Marines are simply devastating and there is little reason to think they would be any different in CMBS.  

 

I too would like to see separatists and partisans added at some point, but rather than as a late postwar mop up module as has been suggested, wouldn't it make more sense to add TOE's for them in both a post and pre-war module along with the potential of winter terrain that could be used to extend the conflict both forwards and backwards?

 

As for the US navy in the Black sea, why would they bother? Their primary role would likely be carrier and cruise missile support and they can perform both tasks from the safety of the Mediterranean and Aegean seas. I have little doubt they could push into the Black Sea and force total control of it but the tactical risk of losing a ship no matter how small still seems too great when compared to the marginal tactical advantage getting closer would provide!

 

Certainly, the US have brought their A team to this fight.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Perhaps a week or two to destroy the Russian Black Sea Fleet followed by a few weeks of air and missile bombardment. I see a Marine amphibious landing no earlier than early August. Alternatively the Mariines could do something like what they did in 1991. Make lots of noise about  big amphibious assauls on the Southern Crimeat. Meanwhile the Marines use Italian ports and move up by land though Roumania into Southern Ukraine, Sometime in early to mid August the Crimean operation takes place, probably using a combination of land assault and ammphibious cababilities. But the main assault goes in by land from the north

Edited March 3, 2015 by LUCASWILLEN05

[Thewood1]

The game Command: Modern Naval and Air Operations actually has a couple scenarios on naval and air operations in the Ukraine area.  Most of the operations are dependent on how much force US/NATO brings to the area.  But some of it also depends on how much the Russian economy allows Russia to build out its air defense capabilities.

 

One of the interesting things is if Turkey lets NATO ships through to the Black Sea.  There are scenarios where Turkey could refuse.

[Pablius]

The game is called Black Sea after all, I would be very surprised if no module touches on Crimea and/or some kind of amphibious landing

 

Also, I´m under the impression that the US Marine Corps not always gets all the new shiny toys the Army gets, at least from what I remember from CMSF I´m not sure their tanks were on par with the Army´s and I think they had less Javelins 

 

So, it may even bring a more challenging experience in some ways, given the setting against an enemy with plenty armored vehicles to throw around

[Stagler]

Neither do the Morpeh, I would assume they would still have BTR-80 in their inventory.

 

VDV on the other hand get all the shiny new toys.

[Mr0Buggy]

 

leopards 2A4 version we have 120 - and by the end of the year we will have 105 leopards version 2A5 -all will be upgraded  to version 2a5PL - additional armor, upgraded gun, electronics, etc. 

 

There are 232 PT-91 - are worse than t72b3 (weaker armor and ammunition) - will be upgraded to version t72eu - the equivalent t72b3

 

and about 500 T72 - to be withdrawn from service and replaced by Anders Light Tank (or something similar)

 

http://www.army-technology.com/news/newspolish-army-start-anders-tank-production

 

 

 

There is no such thing as 2A5PL. There are plans for a Leopard 2PL, which is expected to be an unified set of upgrades of 2A4's and 2A5's to Leopard 2A7 like standard. And the first tanks scheduled for such upgrade are the 2A4's already in service, which are in more need of an upgrade than 2A5's that are arriving from Germany. Once all 2A4's would be upgraded, then it would be 2A5's turn. It's all a bit moot, because of the current cluster**** between potential German suppliers and Polish. gov, chances of seeing 2PL in action before 2017 are almost zero.

 

What the heck is T-72EU ? The PT-91/T-72's are not scheduled for any major upgrades at this time. Ever since the Leo 2's became an option, funds stopped trickling onto Bumar and CO. for further funding for PT-91 related programs.

 

Personally, I'd put PT-91 somewhere between T-72B with K1 and T-72B with K5, their overall combat worth wise. Not much, but still can pack a punch in a pinch.

 

It would be interesting to have PT91s in the game but I can't imagine Poland committing them to a limited fight in Ukraine when they have Leo2's. I just looked up the Anders. Now that would be fun.

 

 

That depends. We have the super-duper F-16, and yet Poland is still sending only our Mig-29's for Baltic Air Policing missions.

 

Anyone interested in more or less accurate potential Polish forces of 2017, I invite you to my oldie thread.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Mr0Buggy