Sgt Joch

It may still be possible to win the war, but it will require some hard choices by the US. The biggest problem in Iraq now is not the anti-US insurgency, but the ongoing civil war between Sunni and Shiites for ultimate control of Iraq. The US has been mostly sitting on the sidelines politically, officially backing the Iraqi government, while Iran has been aggressively funding and cultivating ties with various Shiite groups. We now have a situation where several key figures in the Iraqi government who are closely allied with Iran, are using their private militias to expand and secure their power base. If the US does nothing, it will wind up in a few years with a pro-Iranian government in Iraq, which is obviously not the result that the neo-cons in the Bush administration wanted. At some point, the Bush administration will have to choose its own faction, covertly back them up with weapons and money and let them fight it out for control of the country. The Iraqi Army may be one candidate, so far, it has not been infiltrated to the same extent as the police and several of its leaders would love to get the chance to "disarm" the private militias. A neutral, secular military government could also be acceptable to both the US and Iran.(Pakistan is a good example). In conjunction, the US should also try to negotiate a deal with Iran. It may be possible to get Iran to agree to reduce it's influence in Iraq if we can put a government in place which will be acceptable to both the US and Iran. We may also have to throw in approval of their nuclear program to sweeten the deal. None of these are very appealing choices, but they are probably the only realistic options which are left if the US wants to salvage something positive from the Iraq adventure. just my $0.02...

I wonder how much longer the army will be able to keep up this juggling act. Hopefully, the Bush administration will come up with a new approach in 2007 (depending on the results of the mid-terms) and not try to "stay the course" until 2009 and dump the whole mess on the next president. I'd hate to see what shape the land forces will be in if they have to go through another 2-3 years of this.

There is an article in today's New York Times on the toll the Iraq war is having on the readiness of the U.S. army. The Third infantry division, which is getting ready for a third tour in Iraq, is having a hard time getting all the equipment it needs and training its men up to the desired level. Unit makes do as Army strives to plug gap The article itself has obviously serious real world implications since it illustrates the serious strain which continuous operations are placing on units in Iraq. However, strictly in terms of CMSF, will the impact of the Iraq war on the US army, in terms of lack of equipment, shortened training schedules, be somehow taken into account in the modeling of the Blue side? I understand the Syrian/Red side is being modeled with all of its current RL imperfections, regarding poor training, poor leadership, poor equipment maintenance, therefore will the US/Blue side be based on the RL state of the US army in 2007, or on a theoretical, fully staffed, fully trained peacetime US army? [ September 25, 2006, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Sgt.Joch ]

"It is better to rule in hell, than serve in heaven" one of my favorite episode.

There is a good article in today's New York Times on the strain placed by Iraq and Afghanistan on the U.S. Army. Strained, Army looks to Guard for more relief Of interest, is the statement that the Pentagon could only scrape up a small contingent if another emergency came up (say, for example, Syria ):

It may be possible to get a stable government in Iraq, but right now, the situation seems to be getting worse, not better: Kidnappers use victims as unwitting bombers Iraq torture worse after Saddam To bring the situation under control would require a massive reconstruction effort by the west, which given the current political situation, is a non starter. The best we can hope for now, is that the Regime which is in power after the civil war will be pro-western.

I'm surprised that the Iraqi army is using woodland camo, but I guess they don't have much choice in the uniforms they can get.

And your point is? By the way, Jason C, I am playing through your Kursk scenario pack, (played the 0115 one PBEM and I am halfway through "1st SS initial assault", playing as Germans v. AI), and I am having a great time. Are you working on anything else?

That is excellent news. I am still using your sound mod for CMBB.

Dynamic/Semi-Dynamic campaigns I presume this is the thread. The ability for players to create their own semi-dynamic campaigns for CMSF opens up a lot of interesting possibilities. I assume we will also be able to create campaigns for the Red side, as well as Red v. Red and Blue v. Blue campaigns. John

How will the campaign work? Will it be a semi-dynamic campaign similar to the one in Jane's F/A-18 where: i) your success or failure in one scenario determines the situation in the next scenario; and ii) losses and damage are carried forward to the next scenario? John

Syria with Minor Backstory and Fictional Subsection sounds perfect. It will keep the "realists" like me happy since we have a real war against Syria, plus the flexibility to explore various "what if?" scenarios to extend the lifespan of CMSF.

I read the TIME artcle, but it is typical Air Force propaganda to think you can surgically take out Iran's nuclear program from the air. Since WW2, the Air Force has always overestimated what it can achieve. There was also a good article in the New Yorker on the same subject. Watching Lebanon: Washington's interests in Israel's war The U.S. Air Force apparently collaborated with the IAF to shape its attack plan on Hizbollah positions, partly to test the effectiveness of a similar attack against Iranian installations. As we know, the I.A.F. air campaign against Hezbollah was unsuccessful in taking out their positions, which required ground troops to go in. Apparently, the US Army and Marines are also worried that any air attack on Iran would inevitably lead to the commital of US ground troops.

Personally, I have little interest in a fictional setting, such as a US invasion of "Dumbassistan" or "Bitemestan". I also don't think having a believable back story is a prerequisite to a successful game. Falcon 4, Jane's F/A-18 and LOMAC, to name a few, all feature real world settings and minimal or no back story to explain their "virtual" war. We all agree that the chances of a real war between the US and Syria in the next five years, barring some unforeseen event, are slim to none, but so what? That would not detract from my enjoyment of an hypothetical invasion of Syria . I can, however, see the advantages to going generic, if we could get more goodies to play with on the Red side in future modules and if it would increase sales of CMSF. Have you thought about the following compromise: 1.make the game itself (i.e. interface, scenarios, quick battles) generic with US vs Red forces; but 2.make the single-player campaign in the first module a US/NATO invasion of Syria in the near future, with no back story and using Red forces, but with a Syrian TO&E and locations. I think that would keep both the "real" and the "fictional" sides happy.

I'm sure Syria is feeling pretty smug these days: 1.The UN investigation into prime minister Hariri's assassination was already losing steam before the war and now appears to be pretty much on the back burner. 2. The Syrian backed Hezbollah scored a "victory" against Israel, which again improves Syria's prestige in the Arab street; and 3. more importantly, the situation in Lebanon gives Syria an opportunity to sneak back in. This is the reaction of one of Lebanon's leading politicians to Assad's speech this week, it looks like they are worried about that possibility: [ August 17, 2006, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: JCH ]

This can be a tough board on new members, welcome aboard... and yes, each individual is supposed to be represented.

Regarding the 1973 push to Damascus, the objective was to seize the high ground just outside the suburbs to threathen the city with artillery fire. It was hoped that this would force Syria to accept a cease-fire. However, the operation was stopped short by stronger than expected syrian resistance and the arrival of fresh Iraqi forces.

Have you guys seen this? blogfront

The article was well written and informative and no one is denying that the British Army has it's good point, but the article has a certain "we should show the colonials how it's done" quality about it which rubs us "former colonials" the wrong way. Americans and canadians also, are a bit touchy when it comes to our former colonial masters. In my case, it's even more inbred, my father is of irish descent and my mother is of french descent, so it's in my genes to mistrust the British.

very intersting... The economist seems to think the British Army can walk on water...

I just finished Michael Oren's book "the Six Day War" and there are some interesting observations on the Syrian army of 1967 which could apply to CMSF. The Israeli army captured the Golan heights in two days, on june 9th and 10th. However, the IDF faced some of the toughest fighting of the war and took alot of casualties. One IDF tank unit started june 9th with 15-16 tanks, by the end of the day, it had two left. The Syrian army's performance was a mixed bag, some units fought bravely, some turned tail and returned to Damascus. There was wholesale desertion, especially by officers. One story which summarizes it best is one about a brave Syrian private who alone with an AT gun knocked out two Israeli tanks. When his platoon sergeant called company HQ to report, he discovered that the company commander and all his staff had deserted.

In theory the modern ATGM's in the Syrian inventory (AT-14, MILAN) should be able to knock out a M1A2 at any range. The AT-14 can penetrate up to 1.2 meters of armor and the MILAN up 5-600 cm. This site: M1 main battle tank has some interesting info. If you look at the armor protection tables, it looks as though a AT-14 or MILAN shot at the front of a M1 might not penetrate the armor, although it would probably knockout the tank for the rest of the battle.

very cynical, I like it!

very cynical, I like it!

very cynical, I like it!