Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kinophile

Hypotheticals of the CMBS game narrative

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Sequoia said:

Sgt S. What would be your take for the UK Government's willingness to contribute significant ground forces in this proposed Black Sea war (which is, as you say, quite flexible in how you imagine it)?

Oh they'd be up for it OK, assuming the same general politics as the real world, what we could actually practically offer might be the bigger question.....An armoured brigade type force would be the absolute upper limit IMHO.  There's also the RAF and our attack submarines (& their cruise missiles) to consider.  We do SoF quite well too.

1 hour ago, Sequoia said:

My own opinion is there would be a bit of war weariness after being the only other major Western contributor in Iraq.

That applies rather more strongly to the British general public than it does to Her Majesty's Government.....We told them 'no' to Iraq too, but did that stop them?  :rolleyes:

It would be fun to have a few of these to play with in CM:BS:

p1752105_main.jpg

https://www.janes.com/article/85918/iav-2019-rheinmetall-unveils-proposal-for-challenger-2-lep

While they've actually only just popped into existence (as a proposal), that makes them at least as plausible as Ukrainian BM Oplots IMHO.  :P

PS - All of this, of course, assumes the Russians don't Iskander the channel ports and tunnel entrance off the face off the map at the first hint of a hostile Union Jack.....Or if the units are forward deployed, their bases.  :unsure:

PPS - & No, Aegis Ashore won't do a bloody thing, that will go first.  :mellow:

PPPS - Unless of course Aegis Ashore's VLS were filled with Tomahawks (which they could be), but that would be a major breach of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty (INF), and America would never do that.....

 

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Vet 0369 said:

I read "Red Storm Rising" back in the 1980's and found it to be absolutely fascinating.

I read it and found it to be absolutely demented. It was completely unrealistic from beginning to end, said end obviously being the preconceived endpoint that the author intended to arrive at with no regard for the means of getting there. War porn of the trashiest sort.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strewth!  :o

You are right Michael.....I was confusing it with 'History of The Third World War' (& sequel), by General Sir John Hackett, which came out at around the same time.  :unsure:

 

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Strewth!  :o

You are right Michael.....I was confusing it with 'History of The Third World War' (& sequel), by General Sir John Hackett, which came out at around the same time.  :unsure:

And had a much better reputation. I was pretty well burnt out on WW III books by that point and never got round to reading this one. Maybe it's time I caught up to it. BTW, in case you missed it, Red Army by Ralph Peters is a much more honest look at the thing. Still fiction, but...

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/31/2019 at 3:18 AM, Michael Emrys said:

I read it and found it to be absolutely demented. It was completely unrealistic from beginning to end, said end obviously being the preconceived endpoint that the author intended to arrive at with no regard for the means of getting there. War porn of the trashiest sort.

Michael

Really disappointed to read that, I really liked Red Storm Rising, though yes of course like most WWIII alternatives it is always 'best case' for one side or the other. A similar criticism can be shared with Red Army, which I equally loved. The only real 'breaks' from reality as the authors knew at the time in both books is (a) the total denuclearization/dechemicallization of the battlefield and (b) the aggressive stance the Soviet Navy took. 

Each his own of course. From a purely literal perspective, Red Army is just a better book, with actual character development and depth.

Anyways, as for the actual hypothetical @kinophile I'm going to be revealing my power levels here, but I always figured the following:

  • Tensions remain high because the UKR has enclaves in the separatist regions, so it would be plausible that all belligerents have forces 'near ready' on the border with one another. When the balloon goes up following the 'Ambush' incident, things deteriorate rapidly as a result. 
  • By early July the first ABCT units are arriving - based on @George MC's standalone scenarios and the TF 3-69 campaign, the timeline goes in two ways: The Russian spearheads are either cut off and defeated in detail along E-95 (Attacking N-S) and  P-32 (Attacking E-W), which are roughly perpendicular to one another and form an obvious pocket; or
  • The Russians manage to maintain their momentum on the South-North axes and defeat and destroy the NATO counter-offensives.
  • August scenario diverges in a similar manner: If NATO win in July, they 'race to the river' to defeat remaining Russian forces across the Dnieper and push into the southeast, if Russia win they mop up south of Kiev and start banging on the bargaining table. 

I think the 'keep it simple' scenario was done deliberately, best not to overthink it beyond the above in my view. It also suggests why the game plays out the way it does, its bang-bang from the word 'go' without all the strategic preponderance everyone else is worrying about. It's a true flashpoint conflict in every sense of the word. Compelling stuff, really, hats off to Battlefront for it.

Edited by Rinaldi
Geography

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎31‎/‎2019 at 12:25 AM, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Oh they'd be up for it OK, assuming the same general politics as the real world, what we could actually practically offer might be the bigger question.....An armoured brigade type force would be the absolute upper limit IMHO.  There's also the RAF and our attack submarines (& their cruise missiles) to consider.  We do SoF quite well too.

That applies rather more strongly to the British general public than it does to Her Majesty's Government.....We told them 'no' to Iraq too, but did that stop them?  :rolleyes:

It would be fun to have a few of these to play with in CM:BS:

p1752105_main.jpg

https://www.janes.com/article/85918/iav-2019-rheinmetall-unveils-proposal-for-challenger-2-lep

While they've actually only just popped into existence (as a proposal), that makes them at least as plausible as Ukrainian BM Oplots IMHO.  :P

PS - All of this, of course, assumes the Russians don't Iskander the channel ports and tunnel entrance off the face off the map at the first hint of a hostile Union Jack.....Or if the units are forward deployed, their bases.  :unsure:

PPS - & No, Aegis Ashore won't do a bloody thing, that will go first.  :mellow:

PPPS - Unless of course Aegis Ashore's VLS were filled with Tomahawks (which they could be), but that would be a major breach of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty (INF), and America would never do that.....

 

You mean an armoured infantry brigade type force:

https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/formations-divisions-brigades/3rd-united-kingdom-division/12th-armoured-infantry-brigade/

https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/formations-divisions-brigades/3rd-united-kingdom-division/1-armoured-infantry-brigade/

https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/formations-divisions-brigades/3rd-united-kingdom-division/20th-armoured-infantry-brigade/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Cheers for the correction.  ;)

I was a bit lazy in my missile nomenclature too TBH.

The red mist had descended at the armoured brigade point so didn't/couldn't read any further ...😏

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sequoia said:

Multi-National Division Southeast:

I came across this today. I couldn't find any details on it's composition. This division is not to be confused with an Allied unit of the same name that operated in Iraq

 

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_125356.htm?selectedLocale=en

It will most likely not have a standing composition of teeth arm units but will probably have some specific divisional enablers permanently allocated such as a signal regiment and a logistics battalion or similar. Most of these NATO high readiness HQs are set up to provide a command framework and in the event of a crisis will get allocated a grab bag of teeth arm units/formations based on whatever individual NATO members offer up to solve that crisis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue here is with delays that can be caused by politicians which would nulify the usefulness of a quick response force if it doesnt have actual combat formations in it.

To be honest I think the cause for the current situation is simple - the meat of the Western armed forces is being cut while staff officers and HQs remain or multiply.

Edited by ikalugin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2019 at 7:25 PM, Sgt.Squarehead said:

...

PPPS - Unless of course Aegis Ashore's VLS were filled with Tomahawks (which they could be), but that would be a major breach of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty (INF), and America would never do that.....

 

good thing we finally called the Russians on their blatant violations of the same treaty and withdrew. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 2:02 AM, ikalugin said:

The issue here is with delays that can be caused by politicians which would nulify the usefulness of a quick response force if it doesnt have actual combat formations in it.

To be honest I think the cause for the current situation is simple - the meat of the Western armed forces is being cut while staff officers and HQs remain or multiply.

Management always breeds more management.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2019 at 4:55 AM, Sublime said:

good thing we finally called the Russians on their blatant violations of the same treaty and withdrew. ;)

https://thebulletin.org/2019/02/russia-may-have-violated-the-inf-treaty-heres-how-the-united-states-appears-to-have-done-the-same/

https://www.stripes.com/news/europe/navy-missile-defenses-in-eastern-europe-could-push-back-against-russia-cno-says-1.567918

Arms control is dying, I have few hopes for the new START extension.

Back to the topic of Iskanders, the primary A-A killer would be Kinzhal (MiG-31 deployed ALBM) not Iskander, with Kinzhal now being on pad alert in case there is a need to hit A-A sites (or other time urgent high value targets) promptly.

Edited by ikalugin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sublime said:

Interesting I thought Kinzal was more made to strike satellites in orbit?

Nope, Kinzhal is a hypersonic air to surface missile, it's basically a horizontally launched Iskander-M slung under a MiG-31, allowing it to use it's boost phase fuel (& launch altitude) for raw speed.....Cheap(ish) simple & deadly, very Russian.  ;)

For satellite killing you want S-500 Prometey

19 hours ago, ikalugin said:

Back to the topic of Iskanders, the primary A-A killer would be Kinzhal (MiG-31 deployed ALBM) not Iskander, with Kinzhal now being on pad alert in case there is a need to hit A-A sites (or other time urgent high value targets) promptly.

Don't forget Kalibr.....Now that INF has gone south, they can deploy that weapon from any TEL that can handle 3M54 or 9K728 (I've heard it suggested that the 'treaty-busting' 9K729 actually is a land based variant of Kalibr).

 

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yawn.  We.ve had Tomahawks since the 80s that are as good as Kalibrs IMO.

Please though I seriously wanna hear about the S-500. Its a SAM?!

TY for the Khinzal thing Ive been misinforming people who asked which is embarrassing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thread sent off the rails and burning at the bottom of the valley by our favourite bots. It's good to have consistency in life, it's an anchor.

Edited by Rinaldi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rinaldi said:

Another thread sent off the rails and burning at the bottom of the valley by our favourite bots. It's good to have consistency in life, it's an anchor.

Let me cheer you up with a joke, @Sgt.Squarehead might appreciate this joke as well:

the Russian Navy. 

 

Funny joke right? 

Edited by sid_burn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, Rinaldi said:

Another thread sent off the rails and burning at the bottom of the valley by our favourite bots. It's good to have consistency in life, it's an anchor.

Im a usual bot? Listen 'friend' Im not a bot. 2nd I find it a bit rich for you to call me a bot whem Ive been posting here since 1999.

We act snarky esoecially to new members at our own peril.  BFC needs more customers not ppl being driven off by jerk answers to questions.  RTFM used to be an answer but people still courteously would explain as well. Frankly I worry sending people here sometimes when I never used to because some of this board has gotten so elitist/rude to people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Tomahawk can't jettison its cruise section and make it's final attack at supersonic speeds.  ;)

True.  Then again tomahawk is much more reliable than Kalibr which a lot of the missiles seemed to jave failed and landed in Iran.

Anx Tomahawks we just have soooo many more. We could just swarm a target and theyd get through.  Also we've been successfully using them for 30 years. I dont think Russia eve rcombat used a cruise missile until the 2016 Syria incident. Correct me if Im wrong of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Sublime said:

 

Im a usual bot? Listen 'friend' Im not a bot. 2nd I find it a bit rich for you to call me a bot whem Ive been posting here since 1999.

We act snarky esoecially to new members at our own peril.  BFC needs more customers not ppl being driven off by jerk answers to questions.  RTFM used to be an answer but people still courteously would explain as well. Frankly I worry sending people here sometimes when I never used to because some of this board has gotten so elitist/rude to people.

lmao, I'll pray for you homie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Sublime said:

 

Im a usual bot? Listen 'friend' Im not a bot. 2nd I find it a bit rich for you to call me a bot whem Ive been posting here since 1999.

We act snarky esoecially to new members at our own peril.  BFC needs more customers not ppl being driven off by jerk answers to questions.  RTFM used to be an answer but people still courteously would explain as well. Frankly I worry sending people here sometimes when I never used to because some of this board has gotten so elitist/rude to people.

No offense friendo, but I think it was pretty obvious that Rinaldi was taking a shot at @Sgt.Squarehead. As the two don't like each other very much. Sadly I think you were caught in the crossfire between the two ornery Brits. No excuse for the rudeness of course, but they don't teach politeness and manners in the British Army, so its to be expected. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...