ScoutPL

Ok, thanks for not making me "hurry up and wait." I would recommend (and you may have already done this) go back and look at the time lines for deploying an armored corps (mostly from Germany) to Saudi in 1990 (when we were still on our Cold War footing) and the timeline for pushing two mech divisions to Kuwait in 2003. Keeping in mind that even in 2003 our lift capability was better than it is now and there was at least a brigades worth of equipment already in kuwait, I think your estimate is a little optimistic. But what the hell, it's just a game. I noticed you said "reposition in Europe" in there a stipulation that we would have a significant armored force still in Germany?

I would be curious to learn how your COA wargaming concluded that NATO would actually be able to project forces (particularly heavy forces) into Ukraine. If we are talking about a shooting war starting before NATO is even really mobilized I could foresee the Russians launching a major air and sea campaign to keep Ukraine isolated, giving them time to consolidate and strengthen their positions in Ukraine (we all know how the Russians love their improved fighting positions). Of course, such a campaign could escalate the fight way beyond Ukraine, all without a single pair of Belleville boots setting foot in Crimea. I suppose if I am patient and wait, I shall find out... but do I really have to?

Oh, I'm pretty well informed. Get a brief every morning on where I might have to go tomorrow and spread my crazy American tyrannical ways. You made it sound like we should be suspicious of the revolt because is was suffering from neo-Nazi and foreign influences. I just don't see the same things you do in this report. An example: "The mainstream opposition leaders, like the former world boxing champion Vitali Klitschko, have faced growing pressure to distance themselves from Pravy Sektor, which the U.S. State Department has condemned for “inflaming conditions on the streets.” Increasingly marginalized, the group has grown much more assertive and, in some ways, has started going rogue." “Pravy Sektor has proved its loyalty to the ideals of freedom,” Yarosh says. “Now we needed to present this movement as a source of leadership.” In any kind of fair election, that would be nearly impossible. Pravy Sektor’s ideology borders on fascism, and it enjoys support only from Ukraine’s most hard-line nationalists, a group too small to secure them a place in parliament." TIME, FEB 4 That doesn't sound like a movement dominated by extremists and "covert" foreign support. It sounds like a group of democratically minded people decided to offer everyone a seat at the table and then (based on his actions) decided Uncle Dimitro wasn't going to fit in after all. Not indicative of extremists leading the revolt at all. Plus, in this case anyway, the foreign influence was actually very positive since it sought to keep the revolution from radicalizing. None of that was indicative of a valid reason why we shouldn't trust that the Ukrainian uprising isn't capable of producing a responsible, democratic government.

"a coalition that included a lot of neo-nazi's and foreign support." And the evidence for this is where exactly?

Given that argument I guess it depends on which thug you are willing to sleep with than doesn't it? I'll take the one who is legitimately elected by his people and faces a confidence vote every four years. Also, I would imagine the "propaganda" of an open society with a free press is a lot easier to swallow (or discount) than any others. Thanks for making this (once again) personal.

I think Putin's "pro-me" campaign has fallen flat on its face after the Olympics and now this. The Russian people may love him (though I suspect its just the same apathy that has plagued them for centuries, they seem to be collectively much more loyal to "Mother Russia" than a particular leader) but his standing (and therefore Russia's) in the world as a whole has fallen. Its kinda hard to present yourself as a legitimate leader or "world power" when you automatically resort to ordering troops to secure foreign territory and then do your best to convince the rest of the world that's not what happened. I suppose we are supposed to believe that the Crimean "militia" were just hording stockpiles of modern small arms, uniforms and equipment? I don't think anyone would try to deny the Russians a warm water port and as long as Ukrainian sovereignty is respected that's a win-win. That outcome still gives BFC a legitimate CMBS scenario as well. Russian backed Crimean insurgents cause instability in the region which leads to a gradual buildup of forces east and west that eventually leads to a limited armed conflict.

The worse thing that can happen to a tank crew (other than direct fire from another tank or AT gun) is throwing a track in restrictive terrain. Most "overruns" would occur in restrictive terrain (foxholes and AT gun positions in wooded areas) and due to the circumstances the chance of an immobilization or bog result is pretty high. Tank tracks, particularly in the early years (ie WW2) were probably the most vulnerable aspect of AFVs. It was very, very easy to throw one and most crews went out of their way (often followed by curses from the grunts) to avoid the opportunity. If you read a lot of histories you will see a pattern of tank attacks bogging down or "culminating" due to a steady loss of combat power. Usually not only due to enemy action but also simple "mechanical failures." Nine times out of ten that means "thrown tread." Get something stuck in a tread or a road wheel - thrown tread. Take a turn too hard - thrown tread. Take a turn and hit something hard with a road wheel or the tread - thrown tread. You can imagine how easy this might be when you think of driving cross country or even just down a rubble scattered street. And if you happen to be in the middle of a firefight when that happens you instantly become a sitting duck. Which is why most tank crews with disabled tanks can be found sipping tea back by the company trains an hour or so after the battle. No sane man (particularly one who's used to having a few inches of steel between him and the enemy) is going to jump out with the couple hundred pounds of equipment required to reset a track and get busy while in a firefight. Nor is he going to maintain his seat when his tank just became a stationary target on a gunnery firing range. I would argue that the player having any control at all after a tank is immobilized or bogged in a CM game is rather unrealistic. Yes you should be able to dismount for scouting before the fighting gets heavy, but historically the option tank crews always took after losing their mobility was to bug out. There are exceptions of course, as there always are. But if you think you deserve a Medal of Honor winner in every CM scenario, than you are really missing the point of the game.

Allow me to spin the globe for a perfect example of where this could (and probably should) end up. Guantanamo, Cuba. Major sea port existing within a small, poor country held onto (leased) by a major superpower with diametrically opposed political views. If that is Putin's real concern (a warm water naval port) and this isn't some sort of power grab, than I see no reason why it shouldn't be doable.

The EU countries went 50 years without Russian (Soviet) oil and gas. Or at least with the threat of losing what they were getting. They bought from the ME just like the US does. Actually the US doesnt have to buy from the ME, we just do that while hording our own resources. For later and for crises just like this one. When one source dries up (Russia, Iraq, or Venezuela for example) the market shifts and after a few months of price gouging it settles back down. I dont think the EU is as reliant on Russia as perhaps Putin would like to think. There have been plenty of analysts on the news today saying that economic and diplomatic sanctions would go a long way toward hurting Russia's standing in the geopolitical and economic arena. The real question is whether a coalition can be built that has the determination and strength to carry it out. What I would really like to see is an Independence Square type uprising in Moscow (hosted by PussyRiot, of course). We'll have to wait and see (and freeze a few thousand bank accounts).

John, seriously bro you are losing credibility fast. Well, what credibility an anonymous poster on a gaming forum can have anyway. Anyone with experience with the US/NATO security apparatus knows you would be in serious danger of losing your clearances you so vehemently insist you have, if not outright being fitted for a pair of handcuffs, based on your posts. Speculation about events is one thing but outright claiming to know more than anyone else (and posting said knowledge on a public forum) is simply bat dung crazy if you expect anyone to take you seriously. Is there a moderator in the house?

I think the best the west could manage now would be economic sanctions such as we have pursued (with some success) with Iran. Not being an economist, I dont know how effective sanctions against Russia from NATO and the EU (anything broader - UN - would be blocked by Russia or her allies) would be. Basically, Putin currently holds power because the people allow him to. Granted its not a full fledged "free" society yet but I can see him (and the west) placing himself on a rather thin tight rope, if we had the will to do so. A la' Cold War 1980-1993.

Here are my 10 characters....

I love how folks from outside the US pretend to know what the folks that actually live here are thinking/feeling. Granted the same can be said for the US at times but the instances where we are actually asked/begged to interfere with money/influence/trade agreements/planes, tanks, and guns far out number the instances we have acted unilaterally. The reason we are so often INVOLVED is because we simply have the capability and usually a common interest. Actually, the few times we have acted on our own accord we were attacked by outside forces or under the threat of that happening. The idea that the US people (who believe it or not actually do run the govt) support some sort of colonial, empire building conspiracy is laughable. Most of them cant get off the couch unless its to grab another Big Mac. I have certainly indulged in my own conspiracy theorizing about the military industrial complex in the past but experience has taught me they are just too far fetched. Yes there are money grabbing opportunists in our government. Its a free society with plenty of opportunity and when you ask yourself why one would want to become a politician you don't really have to look that far to find the answer. Some just instinctively wanted to attach themselves to the base of power in a society (regardless of whether that was a king, a church, a movement, business, etc). Iraq and Afghanistan, while well intentioned in the beginning, have left some deep scars on the American psyche. Much like post-Vietnam (though for very different reasons) I suspect the US will become more isolationist in the near future, hence the willingness to rely on a very slow diplomatic process re Iran and empty threats to Syria/Russia. I deeply regret we don't currently have the resolve or really capability right now to help in these areas. I think in the long term it would be very good for the west to do so. But on the other hand, I'd just rather they send someone else. Kinda tired (as is this nation) of wondering how much time I will have with my family before going overseas to help clean up someone else's mess. Also, I think you guys are giving our security/intel services way too much credit. If we cant/wont sanction a "get rid of" policy with Snowden (just as an example), how could we facilitate multiple coup attempts in the Russians back yard?

OK, last comment, feel free to reply but we are getting into territory that is way out of bounds of CM here. Precision marksmanship is the way to go when clearing a room when following a breaching charge or flashbang. Its required to clear confined spaces when the possible presence of friendlies exists. Its even a good way to go in a more open environment when the opportunity exists. But when the bad guys are firing machineguns and RPGs at you, that is steadily deteriorating your cover, you just aren't going to be able to take that 2-3 seconds required to acquire a target in your optical sights, check your breathing and squeeze. That's when you go to the hard sights on top of your optics and hope for the best, with a relative decrease in your marksmanship. The key here is the hostile fire coming back at you. No amount of conditioning, practice, or training can alleviate the physiological changes your body undergoes when confronted with that much threat/adrenaline. Once again, not disparaging the SOF community, just trying to paint a picture behind the snazzy press releases and Hollywood shootout glamour. Training and experience will give you the ability to react quicker, more efficiently, and more calmly than your average person. High physical conditioning will bring you a lot of advantages as well. But is a SEAL really going to be that much better at scaling a mountainside in eastern Afghanistan than an Afghan? NO. Anyone who has operated with the Afghans will agree with that simple answer. So the physical will only take you so far. The real discriminator is heart and motivation. Which a lot of SOF personnel have in spades. Unfortunately, I believe, due mostly to the hype behind their organizations and their willingness to embrace it, they become victims of their own confidence. The SEALs are particularly bad at falling to this mindset. The first indicator is the amount of reading material, movies, documentaries, etc that is available that is either written by, with, or with the cooperation of former/current SEALs. I can think of two prominent books about SFOD - one on its history pre 911 and one on leadership written for the business community by a former commander. I don't think anyone could accurately argue that the SEALs are executing more high profile missions than SFOD relative to size (the SEALs are a bigger organization overall). What explains all of that press vs quiet professionalism except perhaps a chest beating mentality and a lack of discipline? I don't know, it all falls in the category of things that make you go hmmm. The SEALs have a reputation within the community of being rather "risk assessment" averse, which is validated by their history. SEAL team drowns off Grenada in 1983 due to rough seas. SEAL team becomes mass casualty event when they try to assault across a tarmac against automatic weapons in Panama, 1989. There are a few examples in GWOT (mostly in Afghanistan where the environment was less forgiving than Iraq) of the same mentality causing them to overreach. We could get into the debate of whether you want the type of soldier who is going to overreach in these units, but like most debates it would become circular and is really just based on personal opinion. Based on my experience servicemen will sacrifice everything for their buddies. That's very noble and deserving of all the praise and laurels we as a society can provide. But its the leadership's responsibility to make sure the sacrifices are kept to a minimum. That can be a challenge when you believe your own hype.

Some thoughts: (I make these comments strictly from a professional perspective and not with an ax to grind or in any way wishing to minimize the accomplishments of the forces you speak of. I have personal experience working with a few "teams" as well as people in my personal life who were actually members at some point in their careers.) Hundreds of Taliban? How is that possible when most guys carry at most a couple hundred rounds? Marksmanship can count for a lot, but no one is good enough to make EVERY round count. And the slightest amount of suppression will burn through ammo super quick. Most of the casualties you refer to were probably inflicted by CAS, CCA, AC130, or arty. Is that attributable to a small teams Special Skills or perhaps just being in the fire when they thought they were in the pan (which happens all too often). Most of these high casualty (on both sides) producing ops are the result of ops gone wrong, not successful ones. Stealth recon missions blown sky high with terrible loss when all that was needed was a commo relay team. A deficiency that everyone in the planning recognized but decided to disregard. You are right that there are hundreds of successful ops that we never hear about. The key being we never hear about them. It is unfortunate that the ops that get the most attention and glamorizations are the ones that go horribly wrong. I don't know any SOF force that goes out looking to start a fight with a well armed enemy force that outnumbers it 100 to 1. As far as spec ops on a conventional battlefield there are issues with that as well. For the most part today's SOF are heavily reliant on air support. That would require fairly sufficient air superiority. Probably not going to happen with a near peer opponent. SOF operators are expensive. To train and maintain. They shouldn't be thrown away on "behind the lines" missions that while maybe successful would offer little hope of escape or continuous ops. If we have control of the skies it would be more efficient to drop a bomb or capitalize that capability to help conventional forces to seize the initiative. Once again, I am the first to agree SOF have their uses and missions. But it is easy, and it think most would agree, for them to be misunderstood and/or misused.

Everyone is adding to this with fairly accurate information. Allow me to put the bow on it. Mortars are "high angle" weapons. Drop the round down the tube it goes up in the air and falls almost perpendicular to your target. This is highly valuable when trying to damage an opponent behind a wall, hedge, trench, etc., when direct fire isn't doing anything but bouncing off their cover. It is also preferable for thus type of target over a rifle grenade (which has such a low trajectory it is practically direct fire) or artillery which fires "low angle" and might not land exactly where you want it (overshoot) or terrain might prevent it being effective (for example, the enemy position is on the back side of a ridgeline and the arty cant clear the ridgeline and drop steep enough to hit the target). "Direct Lay" vs indirect is more about the observer. In direct lay the mortar crew themselves are spotting their rounds and bringing them onto the target. Anything fired through a remote observer is considered indirect. Interestingly, company level mortar systems (the 60mm variety) are considered gold in Afghanistan. They were often the only weapon system that could reach up on a mountain top and behind that rock formation from which the Taliban was pouring small arms and RPG fire. Modern US 60mm mortars (which I think is actually manufactured in or a copy of a British mortar system) also have a trigger system included. That means the gunner can patrol with a round in the tube and fire it almost immediately.

John, Ack all. I am always reminded of the little bobble inside of a bobble inside of a bobble when thinking of the Russian mindset/peep show. Lots of bluster, a hard headed determination to be perceived as the baddest guy on the block, but with their fingers crossed behind their backs in hopes no one calls their bluff. Historically, you can see it in just about every other gov't under their significant military/political influence as well. As far as US SOF go, while they do have a better chance of maintaining their more experienced personnel (they often offer financial incentives to stay), their quality degrades just as anyone else's without real world experience. Plus taking down a building in the middle of the night defended by amateurs armed with less than "high tech" gadgetry or shooting a few pirates from the deck of an assault ship, hardly qualifies you for stopping a Russian MRR. Not to take anything away from those guys, they are the very best at what they do and recently have racked up a lot of experience (some good, some bad) but they probably wouldn't have a whole lot of impact in a Black Sea type scenario. db zero: Just playing devils advocate but I am pretty sure there were plenty of US mil analysts making the same argument in 1917 and 1939. Our agreements with foreign nations have always been the catalyst for sucking us into other nation's conflicts.

Sequoia: Unfortunately the combat experienced NCOs you are talking about are quickly moving up in rank or leaving the force. As the ratio of units deploying and seeing actual active combat grows smaller the pool of combat experience will decline sharply as well. And forget company grade officers. Even now there is a large percentage of LTs and CPTs without any combat awards. Actually, you could probably just get rid of the entire Green, Veteran, Crack etc ratings for a modern CM, at least until a later module or update. Neither side would have available what we would consider a veteran or crack organization in CMBN.

I'm sure all of that was based on their threat assessment. I cant imagine the Georgians being able to field anything close to what the Russians could, even in a rural border district. Going up against a NATO "show of force" or peacekeeping task force would be an entirely different matter. It just all depends on how they want to write it.

Category B and C units are welcomed! That way my Abrams and Bradley Platoons can roll up the same body counts they got in CMSF against T-72s and BMP-2s.

Also, the US military has put a lot of energy into shedding the COIN mentality it has been locked into the last 10 years. Our publications and forums look a lot like they did in the 90's, post cold war. Everyone is trying to predict what the next big fight might look like and the doctrine is melding into a hybrid that tries to cover all contingencies. Which is a pattern that has served us well in the past. All of our current training scenarios (those still not focused on Afghanistan) pit our forces against a "near-peer" hybrid threat that includes most if not all of the threats you outlined above. We are even going back and realigning our brigades and arty assets within the divisions to look more like 1995 in order to become more "conventionally" focused. The real linchpin though is cost. It will always be the bane of a professional force in a democratic society. See the above post for how we have traditionally dealt with that challenge.

John, Having come up in the late 80's/90's I am very familiar with the "awesomeness" of the Russian (Soviet) war machine. They have always touted equipment that is designed around a very different doctrine than western armies. And since it looks, smells and sounds different, some folks are led to believe it might somehow be superior. But historically that hasn't been the case. The last fifty years are full of all sorts of examples of armies using warsaw pact equipment and doctrine getting their butts stomped by other armies using western equipment and doctrine. And I think most historians and military theorists would agree that every time it came down to the quality of the soldiers, crews, tankers, etc rather than the gadgets. An experienced, well trained, professionally led and adequately equipped force will almost always prevail over an extremely well equipped, numerically superior conscript force led by the politically ambitious. My fear is that the Russians will move toward a smaller, more professional force. If that ever happens than they could become a real threat. They are still a very real threat that has to be respected and any fight with them would be very lethal. But any modern war is. That's why, hopefully, all of this will remain in pixel format for the rest of man's history.

Not an expert on the Brit Armed Forces but I would bet their Navy is significantly more robust (and expensive) than the Turkish one, which would help account for the disparity between cost and boots on the ground (the water as it were). As far as armies go I am sure it goes back to the same old debate about quality vs. quantity. Plus the whole western idea of financial security, proper health care, pensions, etc can run costs up as well.

Sure, I was offering FT and DC up as a possible reason since if you were going to attack a position known to have bunkers/trenchs those weapons were usually made available. And both weapon systems require you get within hand grenade range anyway. I was just brainstorming possible reasons, since we all know the designers are infallible! ;-)

Perhaps this is an abstraction that the designers had to compromise on. Since in RL most concrete bunkers were reduced with direct fire from heavy guns, flamethrowers or demo charges and FT and DC aren't replicated or have this ability in game, they had to give your average rifle squad the ability to eventually get a destruction result.