Peter Cairns

flamingknives, Sorry, but if you look at the WS-1B, on the Web you'll see that it comes in 4 or 8 round versions, I didn't put that in post. Peter.

On the issue of the superiority of US artillery especially Mlrs are you aware of this WS-1B 4-tube 320 mm Multiple Rocket Launcher The WS-1B Multiple Launch Rocket System has been developed by the China National Precision Machinery Corporation (CPMIEC), based in Beijing, China. The WS-1B is a long range artillery rocket weapon and an advanced derivative of the 302 mm WS-1 in service with the Army of the People's Republic of China. The system fills the gap in firing range between a conventional self propelled artillery system and a surface to surface tactical missile. The system is operated in a defensive or offensive role for deployment against targets deep behind enemy lines including military bases, massed armoured divisions, missile launch site, airports and airstrips, harbours and military industrial bases. The rocket launcher system is mounted on a 6 x 6 flatbed truck on a turntable. The WS-1B rocket with a new high performance rocket motor and warhead, reaches a maximum speed of Mach 5 and maximum flight altitude of 60 km, giving a minimum firing range of 80 km and a maximum firing range of 180 km. The probability deviation is between 1% and 1.5%. The WS-1B rocket is longer than the WS-1, with length 6.182 m, and diameter of 0.320 m. The take-off weight is 708 kg with a 150 kg warhead. The ZDB-2 blasting warhead is loaded with steel balls and prefabricated fragments. The SZB-1 submunition warhead provides an effective high power weapon against massed tanks. When the SZB-1 submunition warhead detonates, just under 500 bullets are expelled under high pressure. Now if we are talking about a CEP of only 250yards at over 100miles, and a battery of say three trucks can fire a total of 24 rockets in under 30secs, each with 500 bullets (12,000) and we assume that to launch the new assaultreplacement for the LVTP the US has to bring the ir assault ships in to less than 30miles, well lets just say it could be pretty nasty. I know that Aegis is good, but from what I know it can't handle 24 rockets at Mach 5 in under 30'sec's, so you would need to be sure that absolutely nothing survived before the assault began. Peter.

Well we had a choice, go out and face it head on, or huddle inside and stay warm. Being pragmatic and inventive we decided to do both. We invented GOLF and WHISKY Peter.

Steve, I never said that the Us was living beyond it's means "BECAUSE" it was buying cheap imported Chineses, goods. I tthink that is a geneuine mistake on your part (probably because due to the clearly superior Scottish education system, I use the English language properly). The US is sucking in resources, goods, and increasingly services from all around the world at an unsustainable rate. driven by debt. The fact that China is now the major source, doesn't mean thAt China is the cause, though the fact that they keep their currency artifically low, and are buying US debt to hold the dollar up, does mean that they are clearly happy with things to continue as they are. As long as their economy grows and prospers, the damage it is doing to America doesn't bother them at all. Given that it can't go on for ever, that might be short term and blinkered, but then you can hardly condemn them for that when the US is doing the same. It's a bit like to guys falling off a skyscrapper, trying to pick each others pockets on the way down. I think we should all have a look at the CIA world book, On almost any statistic the Chinese look to be better placed to survive atrade war. Sure 20% of their exports go to the US, but as they just revalued their economy by 20% because of recalculated domestic demand, I don't see it breaking them. What is of growing importance is that if you look at the trade with the EU, then we could be approaching a point where China's surpasses the US. Because so much of US GDP is internal, the extent to which other countries depend on the US relies on the US continuing to live beyond it's means. So a US trade embargo means huge opportunities for european exporters to the US, (and japanese), but at the expense of exports to China. The problem is that if the dollar collapses as it might in a trade war, just what will an indebted US be able to buy, given that european goods will become far more expensive in US markets. I can evisage a situation where the volume of trade with China and the ability of the Chinese to pay and the opportunities for investment out way the advantages in the US. The CIA purchasing partity figures have China currently at about two thirds of the US, but on current growth it will be nine tenths, in ten years. In addition as one of the main drivers of Us growth is currently house prices, the parity gap might close quicker. As parity looks at what you can buy in your own country if US GDP grows because a house in the US costs fifteen years wages instead of ten, that shows in the headline figure, but not in parity. If one countries growth is driven by House and shares speculation to unrealalistic levels, and anothers by industrial investment and manufactured exports, in the long run I knoe who'll win, regardless of what the headline figures show. This probably isn't a good analogy, but after the discovery of America for more than a century Portugal and Spain where the economic centre of Europe as they used Inca gold to fund a lavish life style. The problem was that the production wasn't in the Iberian peninsula, but elsewhere, and when the gold ran out, the countries who's industries their goldhad helped to build took over. Oh one final point. In my China scenario, the majority of Taiwanese supported unification, not opposed it, and if you check the BBC world news site, you'll see that the more pro chinse current opposition could well win the next election. Taiwan is a recent democracy, and still a young one, many Taiwanese still see themselves as Chinese first, and as China closes the gap and then overtakes them, while it grows in power, the idea that peaceful unification can happen isn't that far fetched. My scenario had the antichinese faction having lost in exile or losing getting the US to intervene. Added to that with diminished US influence and fear of China, japan and the EU keep out of it. It's designed to have a straight US v China war for Taiwan, with the US invading without allies or allied bases, five to ten years from now. Peter

I am for an amphibious modules, as I've said, US Marines, Royal marines, French and Italians. In terms of Nations and forces thats enough for a module, ( although no Leopard 2's Iam afraid). I think water rules and amphib units would be needed if the module was to attract people rather than just new units. As to why not just WW2, I think BF really want to expand there product line and customer base, and are hoping that a lot of people will buy CM:SF that won't buy a WW2 game and will as time progresses want to give them more of what they want. Peter.

Dawg Bonz Well if they could make babies I suspect they would be freaks. Taking after Apple they'd look great, but couldn't walk without falling over because of XP. Peter.

According to Wikipedia it will be the third battalion Royal Regiment of Scotland 3rd battalion (Blackwatch) Peter.

Well I don't agree that Nato is cowardly, but as an alliance of soverign nations that acts by consensus and unanimity it unfortunately moves only as far and as fast as the most reluctant member, as does the UN. The problem for both isn't cowardice it's inertia, it just takes so long to get anything done, even when they can all agree to do something. When there was one obvious and simple threat that they could all agree on, ie the Soviet Union, it was fine ( though even then slow and piecemeal), but now in a rapidly changing and multipolar world, it's damn near impossible. Today, for meanyway, Nato's principle objective is the preservation of Nato and it's unity, Like many big organisations having lost it's purpose it simply tries to perpetuate it's own existance, it has gone from being a means to an end, to an end in itself. Thats why i think it would agree to let Turkey sit on the sidelines., It would put a higher value on the appearance of unity , even if in like Kosovo and, I feel Afghanistan in the comming years, it compromised military effectiveness. Peter.

Steve, What makes you think that Europe would join any any such embargo of China, we have a fortune invested their, you accused me elsewhere of a lack of imagination, but you are assuming if the US wants to change a regeme in Taiwan in what is effectively a civil war we will side with you. As to the oil, the US currently uses 25% of world oil, the Chinese, less than 10%, even without Venezula, and Iran, Russia, the worlds second largest oil producer can meet most of that, oh and in case you didn't know as well as expanding domestic coal production China is currently undertaking the largest civil nuclear programme in world history. As to the excesses of US consumers being down to the nasty greedy banks, sorry I don't buy that. Product prices have been dropping and if the US public and government have choosen to live for today, then don't blame the chinese or the banks. If yiy chooses to get high on crack and then shoots his wife, don't blame the pusher or the guy you bought the gun from, take responsibility for your own actions. The harsh reality of the growth of China is that within 10 years the choice to back America or stay on the side lines may well see most of the world, looking at their shoes when it comes time to stand up and be counted. Oh and it's hard to call China a parasite, when the US has printed more dollars than it can ever cover, is the worlds worst polluter, and is eating up more resourses than anyone else, on histories largest ever line of credit. We are close to the point where at least economically the US couldn't stop China even if it wanted too, and without doubt if current trends continue by 2020, a trade war is more likely to break America than China. Within twenty years China with 1.4bn population will have the largest domestic consumer economy in the world, big enough in terms of manufacturing and services to withstand global events at least as well as the West. By the same time, on the projections of US population growth, the US to sustain it's current level of energy use, will need to annually buy 40% of the worlds oil output (and thats if output doesn't fall), but will also be the worlds most indebted country. As the saying goes, " You need three things to fight a war, Money, Money and MORE MONEY", US military power is built on the strenght of the dollar and the US economy, and as both a eroded so to will the miltary capabilities. We could within only a decade see the start of a soviet style cancer where the US economy could not sustain US military expenditure at current levels without it rising towards 10% of GDP. LtCol West , 10 chinese divisions in Taiwan is in excess of 100,000 men, just as a matter of interest, assuming no use of japanese or Korean based ( both to close to China and sitting on the fence). just how many Marines can the US put ashore , how many strike aircraft can the Navy/Marines put off their carriers, and how does that compare to the combined Chinese/taiwanese air and land power. I've never heard of an amphibious invasion being launched when the enemy had air and land superiority. Peter.

Where I live we have single clouds that last longer than ten days. Peter.

Oleg, How can you be part of this debate and say Steve is Stubborn, it started with me questioning the probability of UN/Nato participation in Syria being probable, and Steve, defending the back story. All along the arguement has been about possibility v probability, with me for one never denying that it was possible but viewing it as unlikely. As you could go ahead with CM:SF with US and friends, without the UN/NATO, then they should for me drop them and go with a more realistic and believeable scenario. We now have Steve, saying that Nato could be pulled from the back story, and given that it's just editing the text not changing the game and can be done the week before it goes to the printers depending on events, thats hardly stubborn from where I stand. Peter.

Steve, I broadly agree that China has more to lose than gain, but not with the parasite bit, if anything it's now become symbiotic. US consumers live beyond their means buying cheap Chinese goods, this boasts Chinese growth prioits and wealth. In normal Times the US currency would fall and the Chinese rise. But the Chinese prevent this by doing two things. One, the lock their currency artifically at below market rates to the Dollar, and secondly they buy huge amounts of Dollars on the currency markets and the bond markets. In effect the US government deficet is currently being financed by the profits China makes selling to the US. It can't go on for ever, as there is a limit to how much debt the US can have, but it would hurt both as much as each other. Oh and as China just recalculated it's own GDP and found it 20% higher than it thought due to far higher domestic spending and activity, it's growing domestic consumer economy is making it less dependant on the US. As to oil, in five years it will have a pipeline to Russian and is already negotiating to create links to both India ( which has some oil but not a lot) and the former southern Soviet republic. It is now in partnership with India to join invest, including ( you'll like this one) only last month buying one of the largest oil companies in, yes you guessed it, SYRIA... Add to that the atractions to both Venezula (?) and Iran of doing long term deals with China, and you have to ask would the US risk domestic and global melt down for Taiwan. Peter.

Steve, If we are talking extrem Islamists who have access to Syrias chemical weapons and are actively giving them to groups so that they are used against US troops in Iraq, fired in to Israel, and against European tourists in Egypt and crucially TURKEY..... Then it's a possible, though I still think, it would take Nato and the UN a year to get it's boots on, (although you have said that the Syrians have six months notice). That could fit in with CM:SF 1 being Stryker, and the UK etc in CM:SF 2 set six months later. Peter.

I was thinking more on the lines of which is best, putting AT guns, on the edge with wide fields of view so they had plenty of targets but were vulnerable when sighted, or keeping them well back with limited fields so that they could survive longer. I know it won't be the same but given that what we are discussing seems to be mostly asysmetrical where as most CM scenarios are more balanced, people may well not have used these kind of tactics before. As far as I am concerned CM is still a good enough game to let you draw some basic conclusions and try some ideas out. A good example is setting up a game where the US has a clear numerical and equipment advantage but regardless of the game result is treated as the looser if the Syrians don't have five times the casualties. That might make people start to play in a way they haven't before. I am not saying that should be the criteriain CM:SF but it wouldn't necessarliy be the way we used to playing CM. Peter.

Steve, Top amonst them must be the quality and moral of the russian troops. I am struck but how easily the US has adapted to Afghanistan, compared to the way the Soviet union struggled. True it's too different wars and it makes a big difference replacing a hated regeme with freedom, as opposed to imposing a hated one by force, but I can't help thinking that it shows the 70-80's Soviet army for the paper tiger it had become. That's one of the reasons ( apart from it never happend) that I am quite cold on a "Cold War" CM game, I think the Redc Army just couldn't have pulled it off. On the other hand it makes you shiver to think what would be happening today if all the Iraqi's had loved there government. Peter

URC, I broadly agree but as I see CM:SF module one being Strykers from the east thats what I am focusing on, in effect by concentrating on population centres not route, given Syria,s geography we are saying the same thing, as most of the poplulation is west and north with it's back to the mountains. Give up the East except for your small SF teams and concentrate your army defending your people inthe main population centres and the rugged terrain around. As to the North and Western Coast, well thats for CM:SF 2, Us marines , backed by the Brits, French, Spanish and Italian marines. Peter.

Now heres a thought people, If in later modules BF succeeds in putting in civilians as they hope too, and bring out WW2 releases, then in the future anyone who wants will be able to create and "POST" scenarios where the SS do what the SS did. It's BF's choice as to what to do, but historical or not, I am inclined to go for an automatic ban for any sicko who does. Peter.

Steve, I am well aware of the security situation in Syria, but the issue isn't could the US take action (including military action) in the next two years. The issue is that, there is no realistic probability that the US could lead, let alone assemble a UN?Nato coalition to back a land invasion within two years. Hell this decade..... The talks to let Nato take over in Afghanistan, have taken a year and with only months to go, the Dutch haven't agreed to send troops to the south, and the French and Germans have refused. On the surface it will be portrayed as Nato acting in unision but the reality on the ground will be seperate forces with narrow national remits, a classic Nato fudge. Why for years did Nato have two Naval HQ's on the Iberian peninsula, one in spain and one in Portugal, The Soviet Threat, logistical need, no it was because the Spainish wouldn't serve under the Portugese and vica versa. Another Nato Fudge. The two highest defence spenders as a share of GDP in Nato are greece and Turkey, why, because the are staunch defenders of peace and freedom, no it's because although things have improved in the last few years they've spent the last forfty at each others throats. What does Nato say about that, nothing, why. because it doesn't fit in with the Public Face of the alliance. Hell when democartic ( if abit nutty) governments in both Greece and Turkey were removed in coup's what did Nato do, Nothing absolutely nothing. In the Balkans it took almost two years for Nato to get it's act together and take action, and when it did it was to late, badly planned and half hearted. Anyone who thinks that Nato could get it's act together in less than 18 months sufficently to react to a crisis come to an agreement and commit to military action is living in Cuckoo land. And as for the UN taking the lead, leaving aside the fact that current US/UN relations are almost non existant, well thats even more bizarre. Supporting Bush in Iraq, brought down the Polish and Spanish governments might still change the Italian one and has neutered Blair. The changes of any Western European force getting involved are unlikely, right now even the UK wouldn't probably commit ( though Blair might go for one last throw of the dice in an attempt to get a place in history). True it's only my view, but my view is that post Iraq, US/UN relations are in a mess, Nato is slow unwieldy and unresponsive and unlikely to be able to agree, there is no country in europe that would follow this US administation in too a war in Syria, sure a few politicians might, but not the public. Mostb of those in Afghanistan and Iraq are lookwarm about them and more likely to pull out of those than sign up for something new. Given all that and the fact that you can proceed with CM:SF exactly as it is without UN/NATO/EU support in the backstory, with any number of more plausible US and a few friends in Syria scenarios , why stick to it. It's a bit like the BMP-3 issue, I agree that it's not commercially viable to have very possible vehicle in, I can understand( and support) leaving out issues like helicopter landings, water and amphibious op,s or civilians because of there complexity, but to dig your heals in over the only vehicle that people have expressed a real interest in seems almost perverse. If there was a flood of sites for speciaslied versions of the T-72 ( although I accept your point that you can make a dozen variants for the effort of one unique), or if I had seen lots of post requests for vehicle after vehicle then I could understand it, but there haven't been. Two last things, I might start a topic on who thinks the Us could assemble a coalition within 18 months to go in to Syria, if you don't mind, and secondly, i don't want this to turn in to a fight, because a part from the fact that we agree more than we disagree, your a decent guy and I very much respect your views. But on this one I suspect that how most europeans percieve Nato and the US and how the US percieves Nato and europe are very different. and you telling me what my continent will do from your continent, well lets just say I'd be cautious about telling you what America would do..... Peter.

So Steve, just for a arguement/discussion, lets say in the next 10 years the pro chinese elements in Taiwan seek unification and invite the Chinese in. The pro US elements ( including the army) ask the US to intervene. Now I know the US could stop any Chinese invasion, but do you think it could invade, and "liberate" taiwan once the ~Chinese were in. Peter.

Steve, You don't need either Nato or the UN to have other nations. You seem to be keener on the Uk and Germany that Israel or Turkey, both of whom would seem at least as likely to participate. If the Syrians were to allow Iraqi insurgents to get sArin, that would be a good basis for intervention, as would the Syrians shooting down a US transport, or getting caught actively providing logisical for the insurgency. Equally re invading Lebanon, would currently be close to enough to build a coalition against them. All of these are far more likely and realistic scenarios than the one you have choosen. As I've said before the back story id just a box for the real game which is endless custom designed scenarios, ( and thats what the DoD would be interested in, from a training perspective). But why you seem to be sticking to such a "PC" and increasing unlikely scenario beats me. sure it's posssible but it's becoming increasing improbable". I know you started work on this ages ago and made the decision to go for Syria and won't change that. But since the decision was made. evem since the game was announced, the situation has changed. Given that we don't even have screen shots yet I'd have thought dieing in the sand over an increasingly dodgy backstory so that the US is "Squeaky Clean", isn't what the "Home of Superior War and Strategy Games", should be doing. For me restricting CM:SF to Eastern Syrian and having the US intervene to remove a combination of Iraqi insurgents and a Syrian Army that is supporting and protecting them, is just far more plausible, and should still allow you to put out exactly the same game. As to follow on modules, the " West Coast Landing scenario" non Nato with turkey on the sidelines, lets you bring in the US Marines and Uk Royal Marines ( which you seem to be pretty keen on) and leave out the Turks ( which so far you seem pretty lookwarm about). If it's to much for a module, you can leave out the Water stuff, and strt them on the beaches. Peter.

The great Princes bride, Quote, "And Never Never, Start A Land War In Asia". Peter.

Hell I just realised that i wrote depolyable and not deployable when i started this thread. Peter.

Yeh there are only "a few logical" routes, but to assume thats the ones the US will use is pretty dumb. In GW1 the Us thrust to cut the road to Basra wasn't obvious to the Iraqi's and it lead to them getting crushed. The whole point of the speed and mobility of medium weight forces like Stryker is that they can avoid the obvious routes. From my perspective the US has the option to cross and advance at from any point on the Iraqi border and the physical and logistic capability to choose any route it wants, avoiding the obvious choak points. Therefore don't defend where you think the US will pass through, defend where you think they are going. Peter.

Just a thought but given that there has been a lot of talk about possible Syrian tactics especially in MOUT, in CM:SF, has anyone thought of creating some CMAK scenarios with miss matched opponents to try these tactics out. Peter.

fytinghellfish, Well at least you knew it was a weapon..... Peter.