Sgt Joch
-
Posts
4,557 -
Joined
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Sgt Joch
-
-
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"FORT STEWART, Ga. — The pressures that the conflict in Iraq is putting on the Army are apparent amid the towering pine trees of southeast Georgia, where the Third Infantry Division is preparing for the likelihood that it will go back to Iraq for a third tour.Col. Tom James, who commands the division’s Second Brigade, acknowledged that his unit’s equipment levels had fallen so low that it now had no tanks or other armored vehicles to use in training and that his soldiers were rated as largely untrained in attack and defense.
The rest of the division, which helped lead the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and conducted the first probes into Baghdad, is moving back to full strength after many months of being a shell of its former self.
But at a time when Pentagon officials are saying the Army is stretched so thin that it may be forced to go back on its pledge to limit National Guard deployment overseas, the division’s situation is symptomatic of how the shortages are playing out on the ground.
The enormous strains on equipment and personnel, because of longer-than-expected deployments, have left active Army units with little combat power in reserve. The Second Brigade, for example, has only half of the roughly 3,500 soldiers it is supposed to have. The unit trains on computer simulators, meant to recreate the experience of firing a tank’s main gun or driving in a convoy under attack.
“It’s a good tool before you get the equipment you need,” Colonel James said. But a few years ago, he said, having a combat brigade in a mechanized infantry division at such a low state of readiness would have been “unheard of.”
Other than the 17 brigades in Iraq and Afghanistan, only two or three combat brigades in the entire Army — perhaps 7,000 to 10,000 troops — are fully trained and sufficiently equipped to respond quickly to crises, said a senior Army general.
Most other units of the active-duty Army, which is growing to 42 brigades, are resting or being refitted at their home bases. But even that cycle, which is supposed to take two years, is being compressed to a year or less because of the need to prepare units quickly to return to Iraq.
After coming from Iraq in 2003, the Third Infantry Division was sent back in 2005. Then, within weeks of returning home last January, it was told by the Army that one of its four brigades had to be ready to go back again, this time in only 11 months. The three other brigades would have to be ready by mid-2007, Army planners said.
Yet almost all of the division’s equipment had been left in Iraq for their replacements, and thousands of its soldiers left the Army or were reassigned shortly after coming home, leaving the division largely hollow. Most senior officers were replaced in June.
In addition to preparing for Iraq, the Army assigned the division other missions it had to be ready to execute, including responding to hurricanes and other natural disasters and deploying to Korea if conflict broke out there.
Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, who took command in June, says officials at Army headquarters ask him every month how ready his division is to handle a crisis in Korea. The answer, General Lynch says, is that he is getting there.
Since this summer, 1,000 soldiers a month have been arriving at Fort Stewart, 400 of them just out of basic training. As a result, the First and Third Brigades are now at or near their authorized troop strength, but many of the soldiers are raw.
The two brigades started receiving tanks and other equipment to begin training in the field only in the last month, leaving the division only partly able to respond immediately if called to Korea, General Lynch said.
“I’m confident two of the four brigade combat teams would say, ‘O.K., let’s go,’ ” General Lynch said in an interview. “The Second and Fourth Brigades would say, ‘O.K., boss, but we’ve got no equipment. What are we going to use?’ So we’d have to figure out where we’re going to draw their equipment.”
Meanwhile, the division is also preparing for deployment to Iraq on an abbreviated timeline.
The brief time at home does not sit well with some soldiers. Specialist George Patterson, who re-enlisted after returning from Iraq in January, said last week that he was surprised to learn he could end up being home with his wife and daughter for only a year.
“I knew I would be going back,” Specialist Patterson said. “Did I think I would leave and go back in the same year? No. It kind of stinks.”
Instead of allowing more than a year to prepare to deploy, the First Brigade training schedule has been squeezed into only a few months, so the brigade can be ready to deploy as ordered by early December. Though the unit has not yet been formally designated for Iraq, most soldiers say there is little doubt they are headed there early next year.
Some combat-skills training not likely to be used in Iraq has been shortened substantially, said Col. John Charlton, the brigade commander. “It’s about taking all the requirements and compressing them, which is a challenge,” he said.
The timetable also leaves officers and their soldiers less time to form close relationships that can be vital, several officers said.
And soldiers have less time to learn their weapons systems. Many of the major weapons systems, like artillery and even tanks, are unlikely to be used frequently in a counterinsurgency fight like Iraq.
The division has only a few dozen fully armored Humvees for training because most of the vehicles are in use in Iraq. Nor does it have all the tanks and trucks it is supposed to have when at full strength.
“There is enough equipment, and I would almost say just enough equipment,” said Lt. Col. Sean Morrissey, the division’s logistics officer. “We’re accustomed to, ‘I need 100 trucks. Where’s my hundred trucks?’ Well, we’re nowhere near that.”
Last week, in training areas deep in the Fort Stewart woods, First Brigade soldiers were still learning to use other systems important in Iraq, like unmanned aerial vehicles, which are used for conducting surveillance.
Standing at a training airfield with three of the aircraft nearby, Sgt. Mark Melbourne, the senior noncommissioned officer for the brigade’s unmanned aerial vehicles platoon, said only 6 of the brigade’s 15 operators had qualified so far in operating the aircraft from a ground station.
All of them are supposed to be qualified by next month, but the training has been slowed by frequent rain, Sergeant Melbourne said.
This week, the First Brigade began a full-scale mission rehearsal for Iraq.
Normally, armored units preparing for Iraq are sent to Fort Irwin, Calif., for such training, but transporting a brigade’s worth of equipment and soldiers there takes a month, which the schedule would not permit.
So the trainers and Arabic-speaking role players, who will simulate conditions the unit is likely to encounter in Iraq, were brought here to conduct the three-week exercise in a Georgia pine forest, rather than in the California desert.
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
):"That disclosure comes amid many signs of mounting strain on active Army units. So many are deployed or only recently returned from combat duty that only two or three combat brigades — perhaps 7,000 to 10,000 troops — are fully ready to respond in case of unexpected crises, according to a senior Army general."
-
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.Originally posted by akd:
by Spc. Christa Martin
September 20, 2006
3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team Command Sgt. Maj. Jeffrey Du chats with Iraqi Army Sgt. Maj. Muhammed during Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki's visit to Mosul. This photo appeared on www.army.mil.
-
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 campaignsOriginally posted by Battlefront.com:There is a thread somewhere on this Forum that discusses the Campaign system in general terms. Not much has changed from a design standpoint since the thread was made, therefore it is pretty much still relevant.
Steve
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?Originally posted by Battlefront.com:There is no Campaign Editor for CM:SF at all. Not even for us. We're going with text files, so the plan is to document how they are assembled and allow people to make their own.
Steve
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.“The big question for our Air Force was how to hit a series of hard targets in Iran successfully,” the former senior intelligence official said. “Who is the closest ally of the U.S. Air Force in its planning? It’s not Congo—it’s Israel. Everybody knows that Iranian engineers have been advising Hezbollah on tunnels and underground gun emplacements. And so the Air Force went to the Israelis with some new tactics and said to them, ‘Let’s concentrate on the bombing and share what we have on Iran and what you have on Lebanon.’ ” The discussions reached the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, he said.“The Israelis told us it would be a cheap war with many benefits,” a U.S. government consultant with close ties to Israel said. “Why oppose it? We’ll be able to hunt down and bomb missiles, tunnels, and bunkers from the air. It would be a demo for Iran.”
"The Israeli plan, according to the former senior intelligence official, was “the mirror image of what the United States has been planning for Iran.” (The initial U.S. Air Force proposals for an air attack to destroy Iran’s nuclear capacity, which included the option of intense bombing of civilian infrastructure targets inside Iran, have been resisted by the top leadership of the Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps, according to current and former officials. They argue that the Air Force plan will not work and will inevitably lead, as in the Israeli war with Hezbollah, to the insertion of troops on the ground.)" -
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:
Al-Hariri: Syria worse than IsraelThursday 17 August 2006, 14:48 Makka Time, 11:48 GMT
Saad al-Hariri: Lebanese reject Syria's attempt to sow discord
"The leader of Lebanon's largest parliamentary bloc has said the Syrian president's attack on Lebanese politicians is worse than the destruction wreaked by Israel.
Saad al-Hariri, the head of the al-Mustaqbal or Future, bloc and son of the slain former prime minister, Rafiq al-Hariri, said on Thursday that Bashar al-Assad had disdained Arab kindness towards Syria and his speech on Tuesday was like a "heavy strike" against Lebanon.
Al-Hariri was responding to a speech on Tuesday by al-Assad in which he accused Lebanon's anti-Syrian groups of allying themselves with Israel, which bombarded Lebanon for 34 days.
Al-Assad had also accused the anti-Syrian bloc of wanting to sow discord in Lebanon by demanding that Hezbollah, the Syrian-backed Shia resistance group, disarm.
"Lebanon's wound [inflicted by Israel] is deep and painful, but today it has faced a deeper one from a friend [syria]," he said.
Taking advantage
While the Syrian people showed the Lebanese love and support, the Syrian government presented hatred and lies to the Beirut government, he said.
"Lebanon's wound [inflicted by Israel] is deep and painful, but today it has faced a deeper one from a friend [syria]"
Saad al-Hariri, head of the Future bloc in Lebanon
"The Syrian people are like a support for Lebanon, but the Damascus regime is taking advantage of the Arab children's blood in Qana, Gaza and Baghdad to cause strife in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq.
"There is a neighbouring country that is threatening to shake the stability in Lebanon but we reject that.
"The victory is in Lebanese unity."
He said that those who forged that unity on March 14 would continue to protect it.
Hundreds of thousands of people rallied in central Beirut on March 14 last year against Syrian domination of Lebanese politics after the assassination of al-Hariri's father. It led to Syrian troops withdrawing from Lebanon after 29 years.
Unity versus aggression
Al-Hariri also attacked Israel in his speech to hundreds of supporters in Beirut.
"The history of Israel is full of massacres, but our history is marked by its steadiness," he said.
He applauded the resistance and the Lebanese people, saying that they were "much stronger than the Israeli aggression".
"The Israeli aggression may be able to destroy Lebanon [physically] but it cannot touch the Lebanese unity, which is what will help to rebuild the country."
[ 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.Originally posted by Edgarhaha:I was wondering if CM:SF will display each member of a team or squad? Is the engine changing so dramatically that 3 soldiers will no longer have to represent 12? Just curious.
-
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?
As we’re preparing to launch Hussar Game’s For Liberty – fittingly the release day is Idependence Day July 4 -some people are wondering if this is affecting our other releases, specifically Combat Mission Shock Force and Combat Mission Campaigns. It’s been said before, but I wanted to repeat it again – all of these games are developed by independent teams, and as the guys at Hussar Games are scrambling to finish the final QA for the release in a few days, Bruce Poon’s team behind CMC and our own guys (mainly Charles, Steve and Dan) behind CMSF are entirely focussed on these games and are doing nothing else.Steve is preparing to post a little update about CMSF shortly – watch this Blogfront space – and I’m trying to get Bruce to open a blog entirely dedicated to CMC at the moment so you’ll have much more day-to-day insights in the future.
This weekend I’ll be mixing free time with work and spend some time with For Liberty to test the current release candidate. For Liberty is a really classic wargame down to the bone and with a very elegant design, the kind of which seems to have been forgotten by many wargame designers who seem to prefer to stuff the game full with minuscle details and call it “depth” or “realism”. The mix of strategic decisions and tactical battles (I’m more of a tactical person, I admit) has a really unique touch to it. So this is one of those instances where testing can also be fun
And that’s not necessarily a common occurrence, believe it or not!Other than final QA, the game is complete. The game manual and other artwork (DVD box liner, CD face art) is already with the printer, and we expect to announce a formal gold master next week. As soon as that is done, Bulcsú and his team will begin work on the demo (which will be the US tutorial mission), so if all goes well, the demo will be available on or shortly after July 4 as well.
-
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:
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!Originally posted by MikeyD:Maybe a non-Assad 'legitimate government' backstory might work.
Free internationally-observed elections are held, Assad loses by a narrow margin. But he retains his grip on power by sending Bathist thugs into a key polling station to beat the vote counters and stop the vote, as the world looks on in horror. The decision is then thrown to the Syrian supreme court, which is coincidentally packed with Assad loyalists. The world's democracies rise up in indignation...
...nah, on second thought that scenario's just too absurd to work.
-
very cynical, I like it!Originally posted by MikeyD:Maybe a non-Assad 'legitimate government' backstory might work.
Free internationally-observed elections are held, Assad loses by a narrow margin. But he retains his grip on power by sending Bathist thugs into a key polling station to beat the vote counters and stop the vote, as the world looks on in horror. The decision is then thrown to the Syrian supreme court, which is coincidentally packed with Assad loyalists. The world's democracies rise up in indignation...
...nah, on second thought that scenario's just too absurd to work.
-
very cynical, I like it!Originally posted by MikeyD:Maybe a non-Assad 'legitimate government' backstory might work.
Free internationally-observed elections are held, Assad loses by a narrow margin. But he retains his grip on power by sending Bathist thugs into a key polling station to beat the vote counters and stop the vote, as the world looks on in horror. The decision is then thrown to the Syrian supreme court, which is coincidentally packed with Assad loyalists. The world's democracies rise up in indignation...
...nah, on second thought that scenario's just too absurd to work.
):
And that’s not necessarily a common occurrence, believe it or not!
AAR from an American tanker in Iraq
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
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...