LUCASWILLEN05
-
Posts
1,591 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by LUCASWILLEN05
-
-
1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
Just because the US & PRC don't want a fight in North Korea doesn't mean it couldn't happen, in that much OP's 1914 analogy has some validity IMHO, I still consider this to be the most likely (potentially CM:Title-worthy) 'flashpoint'.
FWIW
We are however looking at Korea in the context of a wider regional conflict starting in the Spratley Islands. An outbreak of hostilities at sea over that issue is widely considered a plausible scenario. Remember that the additional crises in Korea, the Indian subcontinent etc come over the following weeks. International crises do not always have to develop quickly or along simple lines. The crisis n the Middle East developed over months and years for example
Since we are looking at a situation that culminates in a World War 3 situation the scenario must be a complex one starting in this instance in the South China Sea and escalating with additional crises elsewhere. Unlike the crisis leading to war in CMSF or CMBS the Ring of Fir situation is far more complex involving multiple states and several developing crises developing across the region over weeks if not several months
This way, as well as Korea we can cover India-Pakistan. China-India, China Taiwan and include Russia as well resulting in many more scenario options than just limiting the scope of the conflict to Korea, The geographic region extends from Siberia to the Indian sub continent
-
53 minutes ago, Raptorx7 said:
You're kidding right?
He shoots down all your arguments with facts (not to mention the fact hes done tours in that region from a carrier no less), especially the one about an amphibious invasion of mainland China which is bonkers and you say hes being ignorant enough of you to ignore him?
I would read up on the technology of both nations and there capabilities so you would understand the naval and air aspect is what would decide things in the region, not the 1st MEU landing in China.
Jesus.
And I suggest you read up on your Geopolitics and your History. Also read what I wrote - invasions of China don't happen at the outbreak of this war. They happen several years down the line in the closing stages of the war. Youu kerep getting hung up on something that I have made clear, multiple times.happens only several years down the line towards the end of the war.
According to your "logic" that is like arguing something like D Day happens in 12940. It didn't - but you still had expeditionary forces deploying to France and Norway and fighting serious campaigns there I envisage something similar for the early phases of this war. So, on final time gt over this obsession about an early campaign involving an invasion of China!
At the outset we are looking at the US deploying expeditionary forces to places like Korea and India to defend against he PLA juggernaut. Much like the deployment of the BEF 1939 - 1940 to Norway and France. I suggest that we confine debate to the early phase for now and consider the initial expeditionary force deployments to Korea, India etc Ths future timeline's equivilants of Norway and France 1940. OK so the US suffers early defeats just as the Allies did in WW2 - but we can still have the PLA being halted somewhere in Central India. This timeline's equivalent to the Battle of Moscow could be a Battle of New Delhi
-
1 hour ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
The problem with that is that the DPRK is a terrible craphole. It's broken as a country, has massive problems with literally every measure of human health and services. If China swoops in to pick up the pieces, the DPRK becomes their problem. Right now they can just Alfred E Newman every time the DPRK does something dumb and the blame/attention remains on the DPRK because its the DPRK and no one expects them to do a damned thing right.
China takes over, even through a puppet, it becomes their albatross around their neck. They want nothing to do with "owning" the Korean problem, and by most understandings would rather it bankrupt the ROK.
Basically the value of the bufferstate is outweighed by the cost of having direct control over it. The old "priority" of keeping Korea divided doesn't wash in the face of the amount of trade and increasing ties between the PRC and the ROK. A better "long" game would be allowing reunification, using financial aid to the new Korea as leverage while conducting a campaign to highlight how pointless American forces in Korea would be post DPRK.
Basically the DPRK is a feces sandwich and no one but parts of the ROK really want a bite.The US military has 4 ABCTs, two SBCTs, and at least one SBCT, in addition to major reserve and guard assets all aligned in Texas facing down Mexico. Does it mean they're standing by to go to war in Mexico?
The positioning of Chinese forces in proximity to Korea has many different possibilities. However again, the expense of assuming the DPRK seems to indicate it's more likely they'll want to make it someone else's problem.My ultimate issue with most of your assessments is you might correctly identify friction, tension, or even a possible conflict, but your assessment is almost invariably the total national commitment to a full spectrum of warfare with all echelons fully engaged, ending with one country utterly destroyed by the conflict and the other running a victory parade through their capital (see your assessment of a Ukrainian conflict ending with a NATO invasion into Russia). In a Pacific conflict, outside of a ROK-DPRK type war, it's doubtful we will see ground combat between two near peer foes simply because if the various air forces/naval forces are so shot to pieces as to allow for such things....it's doubtful the US, PRC, whoever is going to keep fighting the conflict.
We've entered an era of limited conflict. This isn't to say a "big one" is impossible, but the treshhold for such a conflict has not been met, and we're still a few crises back from being on that much of a razor's edge.Like I said periods of limited wars is something we have seen befoore. The 18th Century was ne suc period. We saw the Spanish War of Succession which was a limited war n many ways. A few decades later it was followed by th 7 Years War and a few decades after that the Napoleonic Wars.
Since 1945 we have seen limited wars and short duration conventional conflicts and long insurgencies. How can you be sure that th international system is not going to change back again to high intensity Great Power Coalition Wars of the type we had pre 1945. The conditions for this are likely to be present already
We may actually be in a period where the pre-conditions for the next big one are being set. Maybe we are uin a period like the 1870s and the big one is a few decades away. Or maybe we are already in a situation more like the lead in to he First World War. I hope I am wrong about this but, given the current world situation I am reminded more of the latter period. For RoF purposes I am assuming the latter is the case.
-
Another matter we have not yet looked at is Mynamar
http://thediplomat.com/tag/china-myanmar-relations/
It may be hat Mynamar allies with China - relations have been good in the past or it could be that China occupies the country as the conflict in RoF escalates from regional conflict to World War
In he early stages all the US can do on th ground s send expeditionary forces, certainly to Korea, possibly to help defend Taiwan, certainly Japan and eventually to the Indian subcontinent which becomes a major theater of ground combat in the early to mid war phase. British forces, perhaps including armour eventually show up here to defend a member of the Commonwealth
-
15 minutes ago, Codename Duchess said:
You'll also note that World War I ended without landships driving through Berlin. Again, there is no conceivable reason for the US to invade mainland China, nor is it physically possible (there simply aren't enough ships to ferry/defend said forces, and they aren't built quickly.) Once again, any conflict that doesn't literally end the world would be settled in the air and at sea. You can say 1914 as much as you want but that doesn't change the terrain or political/economic nuances that exist in 2017. You can't just rely on a single article mentioning 1914 and a bunch of fiction novels.
As for your second question in the CMBS universe Ukraine has joined NATO and thus the Russian invasion triggers Article V. That is entirely more reasonable (especially at the time the story was developed pre-Crimean crisis).
Did you bother to read my previous post? Have you considered the Africa suggestion even remotely? Or do I need to write a fiction novel on it first.
And this scenario does not necessarily have to end with M1A2 tanks in Tianaman Square. This does not preclude invasion of some parts of China.
Furthermore a 1914 style crisis is the only way a big war like this is going to break out.
Now I am only going to give you one warning. Keep this up and I am going to have to use the "ignore" button. I really do not want to have to do this but I am getting to the point where I will have no other option.
As for the Africa option - yes, if you want to develop something on that please do so. I am sure you can think of something involving Djbouti
http://www.chinaafricaproject.com/djibouti-welcomes-china-to-build-a-military-base-translation/
However I suggest it makes more sense to work that one in to the wider Pacific Rim Crisis over the South China Sea.I find it hard to envision a Far East Conflagration over Djbouti but that would not preclude this issue from widening a war starting in thee South China Sea. Much the same as the India - Pakistan escalation and the Korea escalation we discussed earlier.
What I suggest we do is assume that the war starts in the South China Sea as I suggest and escalates with Korea and India-Pakistan. We work your Djbouti/\Africa idea into that. Fair enough?
-
45 minutes ago, Thomm said:
Would the one-child policy affect China's readyness for a conflict?
I just calculated how many men were there in my grandparents generation at the time of WW2: The number is 11 (my grandfathers plus all brothers combined).
End even more women.
This Youth Bulge provided a lot of manpower. Now China certainly has a lot of manpower herself, but with the majority of sons being single children (my guess) the readiness to sacrifice them must be comparatively low (in the spirit of Gunnar Heinsohn).
Best regards,
ThommThere are an awful lot of Chinese. Are there the jobs for them to do - and what happens if the economy contracts. What about feeding them? A lot of manpower as you say - and many of them will be young men of military age. The armed forces will provide something for them to do - but the military will also require a role. This could be holding down the people - or it might be foreign wars. Successful foreign wars are likely to be popular - as long as they are successful.
If we assume a massive regional conflict circa 2021 China is likely to enjoy massive early success at least on land. Prhaps a 21stt Century Asian version of the Blitzkrieg campaigns of 1939 - 1942 or of Japan's conquests from 1941 - 2. Except of course, in this scenario China's military expansion is on the Asian mainland, not in the Pacific. The latter is unlikely unless China finds a way to defeat US sea power. In the absence of that China must adopt a Continental strategy, not a Maritime strategy which is where CM games come in. China has the same problem the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany te Central Powers of the First World War and Napoleonic There is no way to beat the Maritime power at sea in the absence of some secret weapon hat China does not have
-
Yes it is complicated but international crises can get very complicated. Just look at the Middle East conflict in the real world and you should see that
Try using the July Crisis of 1914 as the model for a Far East Crisis leading to conflagration in the Far East. Consider the roles accident, misjudgment and miscalculation played in 1914 and recall that human nature has not changed. Assuming that all this begins in a conflict over the Spratley Islands which draws China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines, Brunei in through their competing claims. The US is drawn into th conflict to defend maritime shipping law. Military forces are maneuvering in close proximity. Someone miscalculates (say some hotshot pilot or a submarine captain exceeding his orders) turning an international crisis into a full scale war
Now is the time to start throwing in some wildcards. In North Korea Kim jong Un's regime finally collapses. A general attempts a partially successful military coup resulting in a North Korean Civil War and a massive civil war and humanitarian crisis results South Korea with some US military support enters North Korea. China has been backing the remnants f the regime. Seeing the US/South Korean crossing of he DMZ China sends units of the PLA into North Korea. With the US and China already at war over the South China Sea a military clash is inevitable.
Now, just to make matters even worse event start heating up on the Indian subcontinent. With tensions heating up over Kashmir due to inter-communal rioting and some insurgency backed by the ISI terrorists mount a huge terrorist attack, let's say it is Mumbai again. Hundreds of civilians die. The attack is blamed on the ISI. India decides to take out terrorist training camps in Kashmir and along the Pakistani side of the border. Inevitably the Pakistanis resist. To prevent a nuclear exchange China helps their Pakistani ally and uses force against India
Note that the above crisis develops over perhaps three or four months, not few days. Several weeks seems like a sensible minimum but a ccouple of months is probably more likely
-
4 minutes ago, exsonic01 said:
Well said, now the world is connected to each other more than ever. But that never means that PRC will give up their strategic plan of 1st / 2nd island chain, just because of economic reason.
It is well known that there are overall 2000+ tanks under Northern Theater Command (previously Shenyang Military Region), and ~1000 of them are supposed to be ZTZ 99 and their later variants like ZTZ99A2. Is anyone in this forum really thinks that that amount of 3~3.5 generation heavy armors and mechanized forces are there, just only for the refugee control and humanitarian missions? Really? Is this just really a coincidence, that major part of their annual drills and exercises are performed very close to PRC-DPRK border, instead of PRC-Russian border? They have very very clear intention and objective for their 'vital national interest' like Russians do now.
We need to understand PRC's intention is to build the buffer zone against western influence. They would invade into the DPRK border at the very first sign of coup against Kim regime or any other 'irregular' situation. I bet PRC already contains numerous spy networks and links inside the DPRK, they would know very fast if anything happens. First they will try to save the Kim's regime, try to keep the Korea divided as much as possible, saving DPRK head and system, and keep everything as same as possible. They really don't want change anything. They wish DPRK to alive, to perform the 'meat shield' role. If that option is not viable, PLA forces would occupy the northern part of Pyongyang, and they will try to make the new puppet government, easier to control than Kim's regime, but good enough to play the 'buffer role' as much as possible against RoK and US ally. Then PRC will withdraw their forces, after 'approve' the puppet as 'sovereign state', leaving several elements of 'advisory group' inside.
In part, you're right, there's not that much chance of land clash between US army vs PLA even in this scenario. However, if, only if, RoK + US demands PLA to leave from entire Korean peninsula, and demand them to cross the border and go back to China again, then there's some chance that we could see some action. It is one of the most possible and very plausible scenario. But, like I mentioned in the prior post, this depends on the economic ability and potential of PRC at the moment.
Vast amount of KPA forces are deployed south of the Pyongyang, as a result, northern defense line of Pyongyang would be relatively weak. Plus, western part of NK (including north Pyongyang) are not that mountainous, relatively flat. All of those conditions are perfect for the PLA mech/armors. Plus, I think PRC thinks that they would not need to face the US forces, if they are really really fast enough to occupy the north of Pyongyang.
Overall, from my knowledge and information gathered from here and there, PRC would not give up DPRK. If Kim's regime fails, they will try to build the new meat shield for them.
Yes, regarding the Korean element of th wider regional crisis we are developing I can go with you on something along those lines but bar in mind this is not happening in isolation - what we are developing is a wider crisis along the lines of the July 1914 Crisis model (see my next post)
-
4 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
@Codename Duchess
Speak of the devil, and he shall appear.
There's enough stuff I learned in classified boxes that I cannot share, but the jist of what I can share is China will not aid the DPRK in attacking the South, and in the event of a DPRK collapse and ROK/US intervention, it will fortify its border to keep North Koreans out because that's the last thing they want is North Korean refugees wandering around on its side of the border.
The DPRK's value to China is limited to being a captive market. Once it goes to war it loses all of that value, and China is more inclined to try to curry favor with the ROK to maintain regional influence.
This isn't a time of great powers and wars of national survival. A US-China land war in Asia is about as likely as a Chinese assault landing in California.maybe you would like to consider current world tensions in the very complex Middle East Crisis and the tensions in the Far East and in Eastern Europe. Since the end of the Cold War your view may have been correct but, looking at the multiple crises in the real world today all that could be about to change.I suggest to you that in many ways the real world situation in 2017 is actually more dangerous than the situation circa 1983 - 1985. Unlike then where we had a bipolar world we now have a multipolar world - and multipolar systems are more prone to war http://www.uamd.edu.al/new/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/A.Tomja-9.pdf
-
3 hours ago, db_zero said:
At one time the US and USSR faced off with MAD. Now the US and China face off in MADE (Mutual Assured Destruction of Economies). A war would really hose both economies. That being said there is a game going on over some reefs in the South China Sea. Huge reserves of resources is reputed to be under the ocean in the area and the Chinese fear the US could easily interdict the area and cut off the oil supply to China if conflict took place.
China would definitely fears any unrest or collapse of North Korea as they would not want a huge refugee problem on their shared borders. The world has changed since 1950 and the likelihood of another major US-China clash in Korea is remote.
An air-naval clash would be more likely, but once again a pretty remote chance of that happening.
North Korean collapse is another interesting possibility. A few months back I read Larry Bond novel covering the issue
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29211001-red-phoenix-burning
A crisis may be possible in which China, he US and South Korea get drawn into a North Korean civil war and a military clash follows. There are plenty of possibilities.
There is also the India - Pakistan situation which is needed to change all of this from a purely regional conflict to a full scale regional or World War situation. There is always a lot of tension between these two nations who have fought several wars in the last few decades most recently he 1999 Kargil War. Then there is the Kashmir issue which. in he real world seems to be heating up again
Perhaps the spark that leads to war on the Indian sub continent is another Mumbai style terrorist attack at a time when tensions on the sub continent are already high and US/Chinese forces are already in combat thanks to the existing crises in the South China Sea and Korea Multiple crises are coming together at once in a set of very unfortunate circumstances - which is how World Wars have been known to start. Pakistan is China's ally and Beijing decides to help its' ally (Beijing is worried about the India - Pakistan war going nuclear)
-
Shall we agree that a 1914 style crisis is the only way something like this could get started. Sure it is complicated but international crisis can be highly complex affairs as shown by the current real world conflict in the Middle East which, as all of us will agree is a real "Gordian Knot"
We currently have a game where the US commits ground forces into an unlikely and ill advised conflict. Exactly why does US/NATO commit ground forces to Ukraine? Despite the obvious risks. Why would the US and NATO take such risks in real life? For war gaming purposes we assume that the political decisions have been made - otherwise we can't have our war game!
-
12 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
I'm reasonably well informed on the subject, believe me, however as has already been repeatedly pointed out, that war would by & large take place at sea & in the air.....A limited fight in North Korea is possible, but invading mainland China or Siberia? You would have to be mad to even attempt it.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bernard_Montgomery,_1st_Viscount_Montgomery_of_Alamein
As I have repeatedly said ground fighting is possible on any part of the Asian continent. Korea is certainly one place but th US may decide to deploy to South East Asia in a (doomed) attempt o stop a Chinese Blitzkrieg - 1940 is my model for that. Also India which is a US ally .in this scenario. In fact much of the ground war in RoF might very well be there.
I agree there would be a lot of air and naval combat even early in the war nd, unless the Chinese have some sort of secret weapon the maritime war would quickly be won by the US. Which is why the US can deploy forces to the Asian mainland early in the war and why these forces could be "Dunkirked" if or when necessary. It is also why. later i the war once he US has the manpower and the equipment to do it invasions of China and Siberia are options. We are npt however talking about occupying he whole country. We are talking about defeating the PLA on their home turf which is what has to happen barring a political solution or a Chinese surrender. Occupying Beijing and some strategic coastal areas can be enough. The point of gravity is the PLA and the Communist regime in Beijing. Much the same point as regards Russia. You only occupy th bits you want like the naval and air bases (Sakhalin, Vladivostok etc) We are NOT talking about occupying all of Siberia which would likely be considered unneccessary and unafordable/ Very much like he WW2 Pacific War strategy which avoided certain large Japanese bases like Rabaul and big islands such as Formosa
-
On 5/8/2017 at 11:42 PM, Vanir Ausf B said:
You're doing this on the wrong game website. A war with China is not a crazy idea but it would involve very little ground combat. If you are serious about this look into Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations.
War with Russia is also not a crazy idea but it would not happen in southeast Asia.
I agree war with Russia would probably not begin in Asia though that does not mean Russian forces might not be fighting in the Fare East. I see Russia getting involved a little later in the conflict over something that happens in the Middle East or Europe. After all may Cold War 1980s scenarios did have Soviet forces fighting in the Far East - such as the War that Never Was, the 7th Fleet Board Game etc. Strategic reality has not changed very much since then. I o however see Russian ground forces fighting in the Far East as taking a lower profile role unless or until Siberia is invaded - very much a mid to late war scenario. Otherwise Rusian ground forces will be fighting mostly in Europe and maybe parts of the Middle East
-
2 hours ago, Codename Duchess said:
If you want a (much more) realistic chance of American Tanks fighting Chinese Tanks, focus on a hypothetical clash between expeditionary units in Africa. Both countries have been expanding their roles in the region and it would be a much smaller jump of the shark to come up with a situation leading to a clash their than, once again, to come up with a reason for US Tanks to roll into Beijing.
Re: "Only 100-2000 miles of Siberia to conquer"
I don't care if it's 2000 miles of straight and level superhighway on a sunny day, that's a logistical nightmare. Now throw that into Siberia and you're talking complete nonsense. Even further nonsense if you think the Russians would somehow be okay with 2000 miles of Siberia getting conquered. That's also a *huge* range of distance you've clearly pulled out of thin air.
Re: "2-3 years into the war"
If you think the world would survive 2-3 years of a threeway (or even two-way) war between the US, Russia, and China I have a whole lot of beachfront property in Alaska to sell you dude.
Re: "Second civil war"
Don't give him any ideas.
Look Lucas, you clearly want to see BF3/4 played at the RTT level rather than the FPS. You need to realize that the plot in those games are absurd and any number of fiction books you cite are just as crazy.
This. Is. An. Impossible. Scenario. I just don't see BF taking the time to come up with a plausible situation for your scenario. There is no reason, nor reasonable capability for the US to invade China under any circumstances. A draft won't increase the number of amphbious assault ships needed to invade the most populated nation on the planet. A draft won't increase the number of highly-technical warships needed to escort those same ships into harms way, nor the missiles to fill their VLS cells nor the aircraft overhead. You cannot simply hand-wave away Naval engagements in a realistic war scenario with China, a naval power, fighting the US, a naval power.
I suggest two courses of action for you: Look into coming up with a reason for US and Chinese expeditionary forces to clash in Africa. This is not an unreasonable thing to look at. Option two is to acquire Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations and wargame to your hearts content the many Naval and Air engagements much more realistically possible between the US and China. Hell, they're even releasing a standalone DLC on it next week set in 2020 that might be right up your alley.People thought World War 1 was "impossible" It wasn't - war broke out in August 1914. And a 1914 style crisis is how this could happen. In fact the ONLY way it can. Did you bother taking a couple of minutes reading this article??? I'll bed you didn't
http://www.cityam.com/245098/south-china-sea-powder-keg-disturbing-echoes-1914
Consider all those flash points along the Pacific Rim that could be a potential Sarajevo. This COULD happen
https://ericmargolis.com/2011/11/1914-deja-vu-in-the-south-china-sea-2/
The South China Sea is the most likely place - you need to look at the geopolitical aspects including al the states involved and you need to look at why the US would have to get involved. I really do not see why someone as informed an intelligent as yourself does not appear to get this fact which is so simple that I, a mere History and Politics graduate can see it
I am certainly not waving away naval and air engagements. If I were I could make ridiculous arguments about invasions of Australia, Alaska, New Zealand. I have made no such assumptions, I categorically stated stated hat the assumedd lansd war in this scenario woukld be fought in
SOUTH EAST ASIA
INDIA
KOREA
POSSIBLY SIBERIA
All continental areas that the PLA could invade as even a cursory glance at Google Earth and a cursory knowledge of wars China has historically fought. Either you have not bothered to look at a map or you have not read my posts or you have failed even to consider the History. With respect I see no point in wasting my time on continued discussion with you util you have done so. It takes a lot to get me annoyed.
-
2 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
I think a 2nd US Civil War scenario is equally likely to what you are describing above, probably set right about the time someone tries to reintroduce the draft.
I think you need to do some research into the possibility of war with Chna A reintroduction of the draft is only plausible udder the conditions of an extended conventional great power war
There are countries like Swedan who actually have reintroduced the draft and hat without being at war]
I grant you i would be unpopular now nd it could be unpopular at the ime. Which s why extreme conditions ie and extended conventional conflict of World War proportiions would be required, And it would be months into such a conflict before the legislation would be debated and implemented
https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/03/27/oppose-draft/
it won't happen in any situation short of this.
-
On 5/9/2017 at 5:08 AM, HerrTom said:
This is a hopefully simple question for everyone:
How do you utilize your fire support - do you use the whole gamut of options? Emergency, harrassment, medium, light, etc along with quick, short, medium, long missions? Under what circumstances do you use which combinations?
Do you use linear targets, area targets, point targets, and what do you use each on?
For me, effective use of fire support has always been my weak spot. One can always improve via vague forum questions!
Unlike DougPhresh I am not a gunner or a military man for that matter :-) However, from a game point of view it depends what you want to achieve. I prefer targeted missions against identified targets. Against tanks precision missions with specialist munitions seem to be the best way to go. If you want a pre assault bombardment perhaps you will want to consider locations that might conceal enemy positions which may interfere with your plan. Consider the artillery assets and air assets you have now and what you expect to have later, As regards target types
Linear and area targets - fire missions where I want to it a larger area
Point targets - Precision missions where I want to kill a specfic target, perhaps a Tunguska for instance
-
Note that my scenario does not go anywhere near as far as Dragon's Fury. I do not assume Supercavitating weapons such as those portrayed in his book so no Chinese invasions of Alaska or Australia in RoF! :-) Nevertheless Dragon's Fury is a fascinating and thought provoking read. Head has had a lot f experience in the defense. nuclear power and computer industries and clearly has great technical knowledge of future military possibilities
For RoF however I assume China lacks the capability of gaining control of the seas and instead mounts major land operations on the Asian mainland early in the war. This, I suggest, would be a far more achievable proposition for the PLA. Early victories and conquests in Korea, South East Asia and Northern India are far more conceivable possibilities for China in the early months of the war. Given the small size of the US army the weaknesses of mos of China's likely regional opponents and the other issues a 21st Century Chinese blitzkrieg like the German blitzkriegs of 1939 - 1941 might very wel be the scenario in the early phases of the RoF War
-
2 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:
Closer to reality than this game of Risk you're playing.
Come to think of it, if war with Russia did break out I think the one of the dumbest things the US could do is ship the bulk of their ground forces to Siberia of all places. There is very little infrastructure there but a vast amount of space and bad weather. If you think it's been historically difficult to take Moscow just try it from the other direction. It's really hard even in Risk
I suggest you take the time to read Dragon's Fury by Jeff Head and you also need to read my above post!http://jeffhead.com/dragonsfury/
-
2 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:
Closer to reality than this game of Risk you're playing.
Come to think of it, if war with Russia did break out I think the one of the dumbest things the US could do is ship the bulk of their ground forces to Siberia of all places. There is very little infrastructure there but a vast amount of space and bad weather. If you think it's been historically difficult to take Moscow just try it from the other direction. It's really hard even in Risk
Regarding Siberia I do not see this operation taking place early in an extended conventional war but rather two or three years into the war. In this scenario the US would have reintroduced the draft so by that point the army would be large enough for missions of this nature,
Regarding objectives, the reason for a landing in Siberia would not be to take Moscow. The real target here is not Russi but China As you say that would be done with an offensive from the West. No, the objective of the Siberia option would be the capture of Russian ports and naval bases in the Far East such as Vladivostok and to occupy an area that could be used to threaten or indeed mount air and land attacks on China from the north and to remove the Russian air and naval threat to Japan. We are not talking here about a full land campaign to conquer al of Siberia but an operation limited to regions within maybe 100 - 2000 mils of the coast at most. Much like the WW2 Pacific War strategy which avoided unnecessary operations against bases like Rabaul.
Russia is, in this scenario allied to China and those air and naval bases in Siberia would certainly be a threat to Japan, a vital strategic staging area for air, sea and possible amphibious assaults against the Chinese coast in the final phases of the war Likewise, if South Korea has been occupied early in the war US strategists might want to liberate that country and, again,, Russian bases in Siberia would pose a severe threat t that operation.
In the late war phase there my be very good reasons for same and operations in Siberia but only in the coastline, probably not a campaign in the interior. If you want to mount a direct threat against Beijing from the North you would want Korea as your base area advancing via Shenyang and then South West. Such big land operations in China are obviously not going to be mounted before the final stages of the war and this will be several years in.
-
There are a couple of novels by an Indian author Vivek Ahuja which are well worth a read
Chimera which is about a Sino Indian War in 2014
Fenix sequal to the events of Chimera. This is an Indo Pakistani war following a nuclear terrorist attack on Muumbai traced back to Pakistan
Both books include detailed ground combat
-
11 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:
...was a crazy idea. Even at the height of the Reagan buildup the US Army was far too small, and if sufficient numbers had magically appeared the force would have been nuked before it got off the beach, if not before.
Here however we are talking about a war where the US has to fully mobilize (draft reintroduced) And in this case the main theater of war is in the Far East.
Regarding nukes. Sure, in theory they might be used but, if the Russians escalated to nukes because of a landing in Siberia this escalates to a strategic exchange which is suicide for the Russians as much as everybody else. That is why we are assuming instead the scenario of an extended conventional war instead. If you think otherwise turn a blowtorch on your PC to simulate a nuclear explosion! :-)
-
11 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:
Deploying Japanese forces to Korea would go over about as well as deploying the IDF to retake Mosul
Any conflict that seriously threatens the NK regime is likely to go nuclear.
While Japan is unlikely to deploy forces to a second Korean War that my well change if orth Korea atacked Soutgh Korea - something likely to occur due to all those US bass in Japan. All it would take is for North Korean misssiles to go a little bit off course killing a large number of Japanese civilians
-
There are a number of other considerations. The Pacific Rim/Indian Ocean area is a setting for a number of interesting hypothetical high tech land wars such as
- India -Pakistan
- India - China
- Korea
- China - Taiwan (assuming China can carry out an amphibious landing
- China Vietnam
Most, if not all of these conflicts involve or could involve China. However, a CM game probably also has to include US forces so what is required is a Pacific Rim scenario involving a land war between the US and China. This might be possible in a Korea or Taiwan scenario but bh of these on their own are limited. It would also be nice to have Russia involved as well so we can try out the Armata. Being able to try out tanks like the Indian Arjuns and T-90s,, Pakistani Al Khalids and T-80s, South Korean K1s etc allows massive gaming possibilities. Many regional forces have their own UAV capabilities
This is obviously going to be a high tech scenario of major regional war, if not world war in scope (in this case he Pacific Rim is likely to be only one front of the conflict.At least as much scope for ground war possibilities as another Middle East game and, unlike the Middle East, a part of the world never before addressed in a Battlefront game. Perhaps also more evenly balanced depending on he mix of opponents - and still retains possibilities for insurgency/conventional/hybrid warfare
-
31 minutes ago, QuiGon said:
Combat Mission: Fulda Gap 85' would indeed be a dream comming true. I hope it will happen at some point.
It would be nice at some point - as it would be nice to have a near future Pacific Rim game. However we all know CMBS needs to be progressed first - as do the various WW2 scenarios
Combat Mission Shanghai Pact: Ring of Fire 2021
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Cyberwar is one part of the conflict and, at the tactical level is certainly an issue we should look at. What about the future possibilities of drone hacking and hacking into enemy command/battle management systems. Obviously we ned to abstract all of this much as we did with electronic warfare
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/drone-wars-uav-tech-transforming-future-war/