Imperial Grunt

How about for sniper teams. It is very frustrating in CM when snipers get ID'd at the first shot. A good sniper team in a good hide is very hard to find and they can cause more damage, physically and psychologically, than a HMG to an enemy unit. And modern US sniper teams would have both 7.62mm and .50 cal sniper rifles, not to mention their most powerful asset, their radio. One of the worst feeling in the world is to be shot at and have no idea where the fire is coming from. Especially when the first shot exploded the leader's head.

Here is an article dedicated about a friend of mine who was KIA in Haditha, Iraq. Red Cross Honors Fallen Marine with New Award Story by GySgt Julia L. Watson, 3RD CAG Camp Pendleton, CA -- (February 22, 2006)Jeanette was elegant and simple like most mothers would be when standing among black ties and fancy gowns. A hidden strength seemed to shine through her brown tear glazed eyes as her son’s accomplished life and sacrifices were relayed to a silent ballroom. She was beautiful and resolute with her son’s Marines in Blues by her side and his Police Chief, James T. Butts on her arm. The crowd rose to their feet and gave her a grand applause, an almost deafening applause that didn’t seem to end. Her son had become part of their families by giving of himself generously, now they were here to honor him. Her son’s friendship and love was immeasurable for those he revered as family. Her son’s family had spanned far past the home in which he grew up in, and farther than most could manage in a lifetime. Her son was Marine Corps Major Ricardo “Rick” Crocker, a law enforcement officer with the Santa Monica Police Department, and a key volunteer for the Santa Monica chapter of the Red Cross to name a few. As a friend and mentor for youth, Rick Crocker brought the communities he served closer together. Rick Crocker served as a Civil Affairs Team Leader when he deployed both with 3rd Civil Affairs Group during Operation Iraqi Freedom II, and when he volunteered for a second tour of duty with 5th CAG during OIF III. It was on May 26, 2005, during deployment with 5th CAG when Major Crocker died from a rocket propelled grenade explosion. Sergeant Raul Ramos, a member of Crocker’s team spoke of the selflessness of his leader when he said; “He had just finished boosting the moral of the Marines and Sailors before he died. He had wanted us to go home together, but if one were not to make it, he’d rather be the one to not come home.” By working with the community and provincial leaders of Iraq, Major Crocker helped the people communicate openly, and stimulate their economy to become self-sufficient and govern themselves. For his efforts and sacrifice in Iraq, he was recently approved for a Bronze Star Medal. Although Rick Crocker did not come home alive, his spirit and legacy of service did. It was his spirit of service, volunteerism and his ultimate sacrifice that caused the community and Red Cross of Santa Monica to select Rick for the Spirit of Volunteerism award. Bobby Schriver, of the Santa Monica City Council stated; “Rick Crocker had a tremendous empathy for people, which allowed him to establish a paved way for a free democratic society in Iraq. His impact was on everybody. To show Rick’s spirit they established a new award that will now be named after him. The fact that he is the first to bear this award makes it evident of the kind of guy he was.” It was apparent that Rick’s spirit of giving was present when the silent auction held that evening raised $15,000 in proceeds to benefit the Santa Monica Community Disaster Response Fund. At age 39 and a 10-year veteran with the Santa Monica Police Department, Rick was a genuine example of dedication and service to his community. “We wanted to honor Rick for his commitment and services that he provided,” commented Anna Keidrowski, the Development Associate of the Santa Monica Red Cross, “He volunteered much of his time working with the Red Cross, giving CPR and 1st Aid classes to many. The kids in the PAL program that he worked with loved him and looked up to him.” Rick had worked in depth with the Police Activities League (PAL), a program for disadvantaged youth. Many of the PAL youth showed their gratitude by being present during the ceremony. After the impassioned ovation, Jeanette Garcia received the award in her son’s behalf. She fought back tears to thank everyone for honoring her son, she continued, “As much as I miss my son, I know he died serving. Don’t forget we need to continue to fight to enjoy our freedoms. I hope when it’s my time, that I go doing what I love…and doing it with honor.”

This is not necessarily true. A single HMG, while dishing out alot of firepower, is not accurate. And it has to change barrels, reload, etc... Experienced infantry will quickly take cover below the grazing fire of the HMG and somebody will start picking off the gunners with precision rifle fire. Now if the infantry line up WWI style and charge, then the HMG should easily win. But CM does not seem to simulate the effects of MG's working together to create inter-locking sectors of fire. Two or three well-placed machineguns working together can be very difficult for an infantry platoon to overcome, especially when a squad recieved enfilading fire through its entire formation at once.

-Here is an interesting article that I read about Iraq: "Poll: Troops signal desire to come home Survey of US troops finds that 72 percent want to withdraw within a year. By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com A large majority of US troops think the US should withdraw completely from Iraq within a year. Stars and Stripes reports that the poll of 944 US troops in Iraq, conducted by Zogby International, found that only 23 percent of service members felt that the US should "stay as long as needed." Although the poll, conducted in January and February of 2006, was carried out without Pentagon approval, Zogby International said they did have the approval of commanders in Iraq. Of the 72 percent, 22 percent said troops should leave within the next six months, and 29 percent said they should withdraw “immediately.” Twenty-one percent said the US military presence should end within a year; 5 percent weren’t sure. The poll was funded by Le Moyne College’s Center for Peace and Global Studies, which received money for the project from an anonymous antiwar activist. John Zogby, the president of Zogby International, said the donor had no imput on the content of the poll, or how it was conducted. Of those surveyed, 75 percent had served multiple tours in Iraq, 63 percent were under 30 years of age, and 25 percent were women. One surprising finding in the poll is that 85 percent of those surveyed believe that the US's main mission in Iraq is to retaliate against Saddam Hussein for his role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Numerous commissions and studies have been unable to find that Iraq played any role in the 9/11 bombings. Meanwhile, 93 percent said that they did not think that removing weapons of mass destruction was the reason they were in Iraq. "We were surprised by that, especially the 85 percent [figure]," Zogby said. "Clearly that is much higher than the consensus among the American public, and the public's perception [on that topic] is much higher than the actual reality of the situation." In discussing the findings on its website, Zogby International said that when the troops were asked why they think that some Americans want a quick withdrawal of troops from Iraq, said : "37% of troops serving there said those Americans are unpatriotic, while 20% believe people back home don't believe a continued occupation will work. Another 16% said they believe those favoring a quick withdrawal do so because they oppose the use of the military in a pre-emptive war, while 15% said they do not believe those Americans understand the need for the US troops in Iraq." The Financial Times reports that the poll also shows strong differences between regular troops and reservists. While forty-nine percent of reserve and 43 percent of National Guard troops said the US should pull out immediately, only 9 percent of marines felt that way. Knight Ridder reports that some military officials questioned the validity of the survey, saying that troops in a combat zone are always going to give a more negative view of their situation. "The poll's findings certainly aren't reflective of the attitudes we see displayed by the majority of troops, who are performing in a remarkable manner in a combat situation far from home," said Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Pentagon spokesman. In its report, however, Knight Ridder noted that American soliders in Iraq have frequently expressed dissatisfaction with their situation. "They've cited too few soldiers to control the insurgency, a lack of equipment and pessimism about the success of the mission." Army Times also reported that the findings in the Zogby Poll have already been foreshadowed in previous unofficial polls undertaken by military magazines. Stars and Stripes, an independent publication produced under the auspices of the Defense Department, did an unscientific survey of thousands of troops in 2003, finding low morale and other issues. In January, the annual Military Times Poll - which surveys readers of the Military Times papers as representative of career-oriented troops - found support for the Bush administration’s policy in Iraq slipped significantly in 2005. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette interviewed a number of troops in its area who had served in Iraq, and found sentiments similar to the ones in the poll. Army Master Sgt. Michelle Michalak of Elyria, Ohio, who served in Iraq from January 2004 to January 2005, said she shares the majority sentiment. "I think we should be out now," she said. "There are people there who appreciate the Americans but there are also those who don't." She said the United States has accomplished much in Iraq but there also are problems here that need to be addressed. "We have our own people that are homeless, hungry and living on the street, and why should we provide for people over there before we provide for our own people here?" she said. Spc. Ralph Isabella of Slippery Rock, the subject of a Feb. 20 Post-Gazette story about divorce, domestic violence and child custody cases that proceeded while he was in Iraq, said he believes U.S. troops should remain until Iraq's own security forces can handle the job of protecting it. "I've lost friends," he said. "I think pulling out anytime sooner would be a dishonor to the men lost." The Syracuse Post-Standard reports that Zogby said he has been asked by senior military officials to give a presentation about the results of the poll, which he says he will do soon." -That is an interesting article. It is amazing that the Administration has not only poorly managed the national IO campaign at the strategic level, but even its own PR campaign to the average US citizen. Keeping a high level of popular support back home is a key principal of war for a democratically elected government when fighting a war, especially against an insurgency. I read this with the perspective of someone who has been there twice and have spent a significant amount of time training Marines for their deployments over to Iraq. I just finished leading the training cadre for 3rd CAG and completed their predeployment training. The Group has many veterans returning for a second tour and many for a third. And there is a high level of optimizism, sense of purpose, and motivation to excel. At the same time, everyone from the CAG CO and down does not have a grasp of the endstate beyond the deployment at hand. The CAG CE is struggling with supporting the MEF plan with macro-level CMO issues, which in my opinion, are so beyond the capabilities of the MEF, and the US military. The big picture of a nation is something that comes together from so many aspects and very few of them can rarely be controlled on a timeline. And it is completely dependent upon the will of the citizens that will live in this new nation. In the meantime, the CAG can focus on something it does well, which is tactical and operational level CMO and push success upwards, hoping that something forms at the national level in Iraq. But with all the reports of the various Iraqi ministries being corrupt, the Minisitry of Defense being reported as a "den of thieves", it can be discouraging. One thing to remember is that in a US point of view, any Arab government would be viewed the same. In Arabic culture, what Americans would call "corruption" is how things get done. This is very evident with the advisor teams working with Iraqi forces. Since the Ministry of Defense is horrible at providing logistics to the Iraqi military, the Iraqi troops have resorted to the time proven way of sustaining themselves-taking things when they find it. While this outrages Americans to witness it and we worry so about the impact among the Iraqis, it is actually something that outrages us more than it does average Iraqis. Sure, they get frustrated with it, but they understand it better than we do. And when soldiers searched your house under Saddam's reign, family members disappeared, in addtion to anything else they wanted to do. So having an Iraqi soldier go through a house and steal some cash or take a pair of boots, and not abuse people and take people away to be executed, is a huge leap forward for the Iraqi citizens. The goal of creating a Jeffersonian Iraq is almost unobtainable. But if some form of stable government can be formed that practises a free economy, then that condition will probably have the most chance of success. In my opinion, there is no need to completely secure the entire country. Secure the government, secure the natural resources, and let the Iraqis who want to improve their lives do so through a free economony and the ability to improve their lives on their own. That is one concept they do understand. Money talks. The insurgents and terrorists cannot compete with a free market economy. But this will take time. On the big picture, Syria and Iran cannot compete with a free market Iraq, so that is something those nations do not want to occur. Iraq has the conditions for a pro-Western Arab socieity that benefits from a free economy. It has the conditions to allow its citizens to pursue happiness and a better way of life if they choose to do so. A succusseful Iraq, where families could send thier children to college and live a good life, rather than to send them to a madrasa or to serve a brutal dictator, will be a huge step forward againt the war on radical Islam and make their position untenable. On another note, I liked the "only 9% of Marines" want to withdraw. Get some!

This is an interesting story. Maybe I am just being irrational, but it seems that the BBC and various British media seem to love to report that the American military stumbled again. Probably the one exception I have seen was the BBC reporter who was embedded with 1st Battalion, 8th Marines during Fallujah 2. BBC report about 1/8 in Fallujah 2 With the little info given, it is hard to imagine how it happened realistically. How a CH-47 pilot or crew chief could ID the individual Marine who fired at the aircraft, while the helo is in flight is hard to imagine. Unless the Marines lit the helo up with a barrage of machinegun fire with the accompanying tracers. Maybe that happened. Just as it is hard to hit a moving helo with small arms and machineguns, unless the fire is significant and there are tracers, it is very difficult for guys in a fast moving helo to even know that somebody is shooting at them with a rifle unless rounds hit the aircraft, or the shooter is using tracers. And then for the pilot to land and get out, approach a formation of Marines, who are in a combat situation and would be more than just a little alert and fired up, and then get into a fist-fight with offending Marine, with all of his buddies standing around, seems to be to be a stretch. Maybe that is just me and my bias.

Yes, he did. And he was not court-martialed.

The huge supporting arms advantage that the US player will have in CM:SF has to be offset with the Syrian player's ability to use asymetric tactics to some degree. Otherwise, the game will only be fun for the US side and not very challenging. Many modern day opponents have learned that a straight-up conventional fight is probably not the best way to fight the US. As great as all those whiz-bang systems are, they all need to be directed at a target before being utilized. So the harder it gets to find targets, then the less opportunities the US player will have to call in the might of "the world" on top of something. I guess we will have to wait and see. Simply restricting the use of US supporting arms to make the game more balanced will not make for a very realistic game. Some Syrian units will be caught in the open and will burn on their own "highway of death", but the smarter Syrian commanders will quickly learn that the US cannot kill what they cannot see. At least until it is too late. Friendly fire has always been an issue as well, so it would only be fair to model a very small chance of US vehicles being targeted by supporting arms vice the enemy, and after an occurance like that happened, then there would be a delay before any more of that kind of supporting arms were used to simulate higher unscrewing the fire support coordination/targeting mistake. 3rd LAR during OIF 1 lost an LAV to friendly fire from a Marine Cobra helicopter. The BN was in contact and the Cobras rolled in. There were alot of abandoned, or seeming abandonded, Iraqi BMPs and T-72s around and one of the Cobras mistook an LAV for an Iraqi vehicle and took the LAV out with a gun run. It became immediately apparent what had happened and the pilot quickly landed his helo by the stricken vehicle and apologized heartfeltfully to the seriously wounded Marines he had shot and walked with them to the CASEVAC bird. There cannot be a worse feeling in combat...

I wonder if the system has a "regular or extra-crispy" setting?

Here is a pretty cool thing about Iwo Jima. Hopefully BF will make a WWII Pacific Theater game one day as well. Iwo Jima

However - Congratulations to the 3rd, and hopefully the rest of the U.S. Armed Forces can achieve that sort of effectiveness else where as well. </font>

MLRS! Woohoo! I vote for them in a few scenarios, just to watch the impacts. I am really interested to see how supporting arms are modelled for the US forces. There are just so many platforms, JADAMS and other LGBs from just about every fastmover in the inventory, A-10s with their 30mm guns, Apaches and Cobras with Hellfires, TOWs, and guns, Heuys with GAU gatling guns, OH-58s, and, dont forget, the almighty AC-130 Specter Gunship. Then there is the MOAB bomb dropped from a C-130, 155mm artillery with copperhead laser-guided munitions, ICM, and FASCAM, 120mm mortars and below, javelin missles, etc... Certain scenarios could also involve naval gun fire. Get Some! Taliban Bodies That video is respectfully dedicated to Gunzel.

Can you explain what you mean by "started off by accident" The North Vietnamese specifically selected Hue as a city to hold because of its traditional importance in the culture and politics of the Vietnamese people. The fact that the "General Uprising" never occurred forced the PAVN to stay in the city while the political cadres went about settling old scores and generally intimidating the poplulace. There was no way the Americans could allow a major city to be occupied in the such a way. A battle for Hue was inevitable once the PAVN started building defenses. The Marines were totally unprepared for a city fight at the time. Needless casualties were taken, until they finally got their act together. For example, the order not to use heavy artillery or air power inside the Citadel for fear of destroying sacred structures, caused the Marines casualties that might otherwise have been avoided if overwhelming firepower had been brought to bear immediately. PAVN leaders thought nothing of the destruction of Hue, but many a young American's life was cut short to protect the sensibilities of the Vietnamese. It could be seen as an interesting parallel to the practice of not targeting mosques until they are identified as having armed men in them. </font>

"quote:Originally posted by GasMask: I will say that everything is changing. Believe it or not, my infantry unit in Iraq took a bunch of non infantry Marines and made a Civil Affairs group, and started building playgrounds and shook hands and played with kids. It's very strange to think that Marines are being given this mission and as I do think it is needed, I also don't feel that it's the Marines job. Marines arn't designed to be nice and gentle. Sure it's a different world, and a different war, but I wander if this will be hurtful or helpful to the Corps. Only time will tell. [/QB] Creating a civil affairs unit sounds like a great idea. One of my continuing frustrations with my unit was its unwillingness to reorganize and cross-attach based on mission needs. The attitude was pretty much that every battery had to make due with what it had, regardless of the mission. Also, you bring up an interesting point, about whether or not this experience will be hurtful or helpful to the Marine Corps. As long as this war doesn't go for too much longer, and the Marines and the Army don't continue to hemmorage talented, potential careerists, the experience gained will be useful. According to a military history professor I had, the military faced this same conundrum in Vietnam: the units that were most successful in a counter-insurgency fight became so at the expense of their conventional war-fighting capabilities. However, the units he had in mind when saying this were literally living in villages and thus controlling terrain, and my experience in counter-insurgency was nothing like this -- we maintained a very conventional war-fighting mentality, despite the schools we fixed and soccer balls we handed out. One last point: it doesn't matter if Marines are supposed to be nice and gentle or not. The most important thing is that they do as they're told - if their superiors tell them that they need to be nice, then that's what they do. The ability to control violence in combat is crucial, and especially paramount in Iraq. Discipline is the primary thing that separates a military unit from a frenzied, armed mob. I am very proud of my soldiers for their amazing fire discipline -- never did we light up the whole neigborhood, or anything like that - as has no doubt has happened numerous times throughout OIF (and I've seen it). Even our most hard-charging, aggressive NCOs were absolutely disciplined in this regard. I forgot -- one more point: it's the military's job to complete the mission that it is given irregardless of its organizational expertise (or proclivities): the military serves the mission, not the other way around. " Actually the Marine Corps has had civil affairs units for awhile and the Corps in general was the first US military unit to practise civil affairs as a doctrinal way of winning a "small war". The Small Wars Manual, published in 1940, officially made all the experienced gained in the "Bannana Wars" in Haiti and other places where Marines operated in the 20's and 30's into a doctrine for such "police actions". During Vietnam, the Marine Corps utilized the Combined Action Program and Combined Action Platoons (CAP) to start pacifying villages, one at a time, with a Marine rifle squad and a platoon of local militia which where raised, trained, and operated out of the village. This program was one of the Marines most successful operations in the entire war. On a side note, the Marines and the Army in Vietnam were always clashing on what strategy should be used to win the war. The Army, under Generals like DuPoy and Westmorland, focused on attrition warfare tactics and massive firepower to cause the enemy to stop their effort due to the cost. General Cushman, USMC, pushed for an "inkblot strategy" which focused on securing towns and villages over time, removing the support structure for the VC. If a NVA regiment challanged a Marine unit, then battle would be pursued, but Cushman did not want Marine battalions just moving through the jungle and hills of I Corps looking for a dug-in, expertly camoflagued, well trained light infantry force. But that strategy did not produce alot of body count, nor was it very measurable, something that the metric-centric US Army does not like. Westmorland even accused some Marine units of poor performance because they did not conduct so many search and destroy missions in a given amount of time. (And the Army is still very metric-centric today). In hindsight, it is obivious that the North Vietnamese had a much higher threshold of national pain, casualites, and destruction than the US did, so Westmorland's strategy was flawed. It makes no sense to me to send in a battalion to go forward into the jungle and hills, away from any MSRs or other operational areas, to seek contact with a force that will avoid contact until they have prepared positions and favorable terrain, simply because they are there. Just let the NVA sit out there, find them with recon teams, and bomb the **** out of them (another USMC stratagy). But once the enemy comes out of the jungle and hills to seize some operational objective, then send in the battalions to annihlate them on Marine terms and not the enemy's. Hue is an example of this, although that battle started off by accident and not on purpose. But Hue is an example of the Marines getting the battle they wanted-a straight up fight. Marine Civil Affairs grew out of the CAP and have been in the Marine Corps Reserves for some time. The two Civil Affairs Groups focus on expeditionary civil affairs to support Marine operations and are good at tactical level effects to "win hearts and minds" (that term was coined by the Marines in Vietnam). Many see Civil Affairs as shaking hands and being nice to kids but it is much more complicated than that. It is more like "community oriented policing" and the key is to establish a network of contacts and to empower the "good guys" that are favorable to the military's strategy and to reduce the conditions that lend support to the enemy. It really is the only way to win an insurgency, and for that matter, the War on Terror. The Army as developed alot of CA units as well, but they are much more trained for nation building and other strategic level effects. Probably more info than anyone wanted to know and it has no impact on the game, but I just wanted to throw that out FYI.

Been away for awhile... Read through the other Marine oriented topic. Lots of "my service is better than your service crap". That stuff is both good and bad and no service is perfect. The Army and the Marines complement each other very well as ground combat forces. And each has its own strengths and weaknesses. I have served in combat with both Army and Marine infantry battalions and the bottom line is that both produce results and they are all fine Americans. Gasmask, you said you were with 2/2 in Mahmuhdiya, I guess with their S4 shop. Did you ever run across Maj Devito and his CA Marines? (His team chief was Sgt Carreon.) Maj Devito and I are long-time friends (we were both rifle platoon commanders with 3/5 back a few years). Semper Fi

Did you take any of these? </font>

I would like to fight the following types of missions: 1) Combined arms assault aka..Fallujah 2 2) Movement to contact and offensive ops against specific targets 3) Clear in zone 4) Hammer and Anvil type clearing operations using both ground and heloborne forces. 5) QRF operations to respond to: a) troops in contact helo down c) kill/capture high value target 6)

Did you take any of these? </font>

The 101st pic didnt work. This should work: 101st in Iraq

Here are some pics of some American warriors with their Iraqi Army brothers-in-arms: US Army soldier US Marines US Army Strykers on patrol US Marines US Army soldiers (101st Airborne)

Here is some interesting info about the future of the US military: Quadrennial Review Allows DoD to Make 'Vector Changes' By Jim Garamone American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON, Feb. 3, 2006 – The Quadrennial Defense Review is a chance for the Defense Department to make "vector changes" on the transformation of the American military, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said during a recent interview. Navy Adm. Edmund Giambastiani said the QDR allows the department to assess the path it is on and move the emphasis from certain areas and place it on other more important areas. "For example, we're worried about disruptive challenges out there," Giambastiani said. "Some would call them asymmetric threats. We have to understand today's environment, and see these irregular challenges. We are trying to shape the department to be more flexible, adaptive and to think about and position ourselves to deal with these threats in the future. It's a stock-taking." The admiral said it is important to understand the review in terms of the transforming process the military is going through. He said that since 2001 DoD has been transforming to meet the threats of the 21st century. "We have tried to embed a culture of constant change, constant innovation (in the military)," he said. While the review has always been a chance for the department to take stock, this year the review comes out in conjunction with the president's 2007 defense budget request. At the heart of the review is what Army Gen. John Abizaid, head of U.S. Central Command, has called "the long war." This is the long struggle against terrorist networks. These networks "have no compunction about killing civilians, no compunction against causing collateral damage, because they see this as part of their extremist ideology," Giambastiani said. "How this QDR fits into this is that it recognizes this long-term struggle against these terrorist extremists." The QDR is aimed at emphasizing agility, flexibility, speed, responsiveness and pre-emption, the admiral said. "So what you would emphasize is special operations forces against such a threat." The review recommends substantially increasing special operations capabilities. "We're increasing capability in people, expertise, skill sets and also getting more equipment," Giambastiani said. In addition, the review calls for a force with better language capabilities, better intelligence-gathering capabilities, better human intelligence "and all those things needed to pursue a long campaign not operating against state entities, but terrorist networks." The Marine Corps has added 2,600 Marines to U.S. Special Operations Command. The Army is increasing its number of units assigned to SOCOM and is adding to the number of Special Forces units. The Navy is adding SEAL teams, and the Air Force is adding squadrons to the command as well. But conventional forces operational arms also will grow, Giambastiani said. This means conventional forces will shift people from combat service and combat service support jobs into combat jobs, the admiral explained. The services will do this inside their end-strength constraints - in other words, without adding to their authorized overall manning levels. The admiral said shifting emphasis "from artillery units to military police, civil affairs, engineers - those who can be helpful in this long war, the more irregular war." The conventional forces also will perform more special operations jobs, the admiral said. Conventional forces will train foreign militaries, as the Marines have done in the country of Georgia, for example. "In the long war, it's important to assist in creating police forces and armed forces like in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia and Kosovo," he said. The QDR looks not only at forces, but also at the business side of the Pentagon, Giambastiani said, and includes recommendations about defense acquisition process. "This looks at how can we produce the best for the least taxpayer dollars - or how do we get the biggest bang for the bucks," the admiral said. The review also stresses the way the services work together, the communications and intelligence networks that allow the services to be more joint and also looks at what America's allies bring to the long war, Giambastiani said. The admiral said the department is "not going to be shy about asking for or recommending changes to Congress. They have been receptive in the past." The themes of the review are uncertainty and surprise, Giambastiani said. "It's impossible for any of us to see the future; we can only speculate or use informed judgments about what is ahead of us," he said. "In an era of uncertainty and surprise, where we have these very devastating weapons that could be used anywhere in the world including the United States, you have to have an ability to defend the homeland." The review looked at the supporting role the department plays in homeland defense. "We created U.S. Northern Command for homeland defense," he said. The command showed its usefulness in DoD's response to hurricanes Katrina and Rita, he noted. The review also looked at the training and equipping of the National Guard and Reserve in support of the homeland defense mission. "The ability to have them properly trained and equipped to respond to such emergencies is a key component in making sure we are a more capable force inside the United States," Giambastiani said. "That is a major theme inside the Quadrennial Defense Review." And there is much more in the Quadrennial Defense Review, the admiral said. But the bottom line is that the review is a tool for building "a more useful, more capable military," he said. Biography: Adm. Edmund P. Giambastiani, USN

Thought I would wiegh in with my opinion... The M-1A1 and A2 tank is awesome but it is not unbeatable. Any tank can be beat. I never thought I would ever see a burned-out M-1 tank, but I have. Somewhat sobering to be going into the attack and moving by a destroyed US tank that was suppossed to be "unbeatable". The true source of the M-1's strength is tank's target acqusition equipment, weapons, and C2 systems, and the C2 systems of the platoon through brigade it is apart of. Same thing as for US fighter aircraft. Not to mention the high level of training that the crews get, especially when compared to possible opponents. I just wanted to point out that USMC armor tactics and doctrine is different from the US Army's. 1st MarDiv never conducted a "thunder run" armored raid down into the middle of Baghdad. Following USMC doctrine, the tanks of the division were parcelled out to the RCTs and infantry battalions. While 3rd ID conducted the armored raids on the west side, 1st MarDiv moved its 3 RCTs abreast on line, and began to push forward. The LAR battalions, with their LAV's, screened the flanks, but did not take part of the intial assaults into Baghdad. After Baghdad was taken, the division's three LAR battalions, a rifle company mounted on 7-ton trucks, a company of tanks, and some aviation assets, were formed into Task Force Tripoli. This quickly organized TF rapidly attacked north and siezed Tikrit. But this was done because the CG estimated that the enemy did not have the capability to put up an effective defense in Tikrit (and he was 100% correct). TF Tripoli was relieved by elements of 3rd ID about a week later. (And 4th ID relieved them). USMC tank doctrine has always been focused on tank-infantry tactics and they are an essential part of the Marines version of MOUT. Even a battalion landing team floating with a MEU has a platoon of M-1A1 tanks attached (in addition to the AAVs and LAVs). Just four M-1A1s can be a huge combat multiplier in any expeditionary operation. The USMC's Small Wars Manual, written before WWII, stressed the importance of armored cars and light tanks, both for firepower and armor and for psychological reasons. And throughout the Pacific campaign, Marine Shermans provided infantry support. Same in Korea and Vietnam. During Desert Storm, the tank battalions operated more independantly, which was an exception, but some tank platoons were still attached out to the infantry. The main armored strength of I MEF in Desert Storm was really an Army tank brigade which was attached to the Marines (called the "Tiger brigade"). This seperate brigade was kept intact and its tanks were not used in the infantry support role. Unfortunately, the Army de-activated that brigade after the war, I guess it got too contaminated with the Marine Corps way of doing things. A US Army Stryker battalion, operating independantly, has just as much mobility as a USMC LAR battalion, and more dismounts and firepower. But in an assault against a determined enemy dug into an urban environment, I would want to keep the Stryker units (and USMC LAR units) back and bring up tank reinforced infantry. And, of course, I am partial to US Marines, because who they are and their infantry-centric force structure. US Army armored cav and mech forces also have a lot armor and the neccessary dismounts for MOUT. But Army rifle squads are smaller than Marine rifle squads and mech soldiers prefer not to stray very far from their vehicles, which is something they have to do when conducting MOUT. So, with that said, I think that a Syrian unit with 1990's weapons and a will to fight would make a worthy opponent for a Stryker unit. Especially in an urban environment. If the game includes the professional jihadists, those Islamic soldiers that have fought in places like Chechniya, Afghanistan, and Iraq, then Syrian player will have some effective forces that are also fearless to along with the predictably terrible Syrian conventional forces and lackluster "special forces". And with the typical Arab military mentality, the best troops will be kept back to defend the capitol, and not go forward to attempt to engage the enemy at a decisive time and place. I am really hoping that the game's graphics look like the video shown in the History Channel's "Shootout-Fallujah".

Interesting thread. In another board I have offered my opinion about such a war, but all the strategy and politics is really not what the game would be about, just like the Syria scenario. So I say we vote for Peter's scenario and pressure Steve to get the game made! The US would not be able to commit 100% of its military (same for China), just like 100% is not committed to Iraq and Afghanistan so the US player would have to start off with a limited amount of forces that that made forced entry into Taiwan. The Chinese player would have alot of forces with a steadily dwindling state of supply. Taiwanese forces would be divided amongst the civil war. Overall, the US player has to win his battles as fast as possible to maximize victory conditions, to reflect the fact domestic political concerns. The Chinese player needs to last, to maximize a "political" solution. It would make for an interesting game, with alot of varying terrain and forces. Digging Chinese infantry out of the mountainous and urban areas would not be easy for the US and UK Marines, paratroopers, and follow-on forces. Quite a furball. CM is a ground combat sim. Let's stick with that.

Here come the machines...and the future war of mankind against them. killer robot

Me being accused of not listening? I resemble that comment... If the US could not use its own bases in Korea and Japan then that only slows the problem. And I highly doubt that the US would be denied to use its own bases in such a strategic situation. But, I am not a poly-sci wiz. The US 7th fleet (reinforced)and the US airforce operating out of Guam still would be a very potent force to be reckoned with. Guam is getting alot of Airforce attention now, even letting it be known that F-22's are going to be stationed there in open source reporting. The fleet and the Airforce would have to work in concert so that US Navy and Marine fighters protect US Airforce strategic bombers (B-2s, B-1s, B-52s). And the F-22s can get close to Taiwan from Guam refuel in air, and also provide CAP. Alot of Russian designed missles outrange US ones. Again, range alone is not really much of an advantage. Its the kill envelope of the weapons carried, maneuverability, tactics, pilot training, and targeting that is important. And the US has alot more experience in ACM, establishing air superiority, and in ground attack than the Chinese. I am sure there would be a few surprizes, like during the Korean war and Vietnam, but those will be exceptions and not the rule. F-16s and F-15's can have the range with in-flight refueling as well. Not as great as having an airfield close-by, but to achieve mass at a critcal time, it would be key. Marine M-1A1 tanks would be in the second assault wave, along with the LAVs and artillery. And the javelins and TOWs in the assault battalions would turn T-90's inside out when they are encountered. The assault battalions would not be completely helpless against an armored counterattack. Also, I do not think that the Chinese have their own GPS network in space. They might, but I do not believe they do. If they did, they would be attacked as well, as well as their other birds up there. The US has the ability to turn off and turn back on its GPS network during wartime. This would work both ways, but during initial strikes and maybe during the beginning phase of the invasion, some Airforce general with a remote in one hand and a cup of coffee in the other could seriously degrade all GPS guided weapons when the US wants them degraded. But the more we debate this, the more I want the game. Even using your scenario.

Same-same for Iraq. It's in the Arabic Dictator's playbook. And I would rather fight 100,000 Arabs than 100 N. Koreans as well in a conventional war. A war in North Korea would be very tough on the ground. Unless China intervened and the US did not escalate further (as the US decided to do the first time), then N. Korea could not sustain a war as long as the S. Koreans and the US could. It would be another great CM:SF scenario, along with Taiwan.