LUCASWILLEN05

I'd rather it was a bit less extreme than it is. Maybe the earlier suggestion (I think from BTR) of tying reaction to troop quality might work better How this would be coded in the software and whether it would be possible I don't know. It is annoying, it may or may not be realistic but one must adapt tactics to deal with it. For me the best solution is to send infantry "tank hunters" out in front locate and eliminate the threat while the tanks suit back on overwatch. Not ideal, could well be realistic, being similar in concept to the way late WW2 armies dealt with the Anti Tank gun threat. Indeed, I have used a similar approach in the WW2 games as German manuals quoted in Jentz' two volmue Panzer Truppen Essentially combined arms But what would you professional tankers do? Is it anything like what I am trying to do? This is your department :-)

Definitely agree. Poland should be included in a NATO module. Regarding smoke and dust In some WW2 tank battles in the region we do hear of large mounts of smoke and dust being kicked up and obscuring vision, It might not be that unrealistic when using he sand ground type (not sure what the effects of the dirt ground type)combined with the very dry ground condition and a gentle or no wind condition in tne scenario editor. My expectation would be for vehicles to kick up dust which might be the effect we want for a particular scenario, set on a hot, fry day in the Steppes. In CMBS e often saw tanks kick up dust in desert terrain,hence the same shold happen here under the right conditions

Regarding Korea, yes Iwould love to see CM Korea 2020. Not keen th historical Korean War- I doubt most people would like that as a scenario just as we are not keen on Vietnam.The Arab - Israeli wars particularly 1967, 1973 and a modern day scenario would be great but might be considered too politiclly controversal. I suspect a lt of people would like a CM Fulda Gap 1985

Fine but I am thinking more along the lines of whether the nukes fly or not Putting that issue aside assume any NATO operations are t be conducted in Kursk and Belgorod provibnces. NATO won't be operating around Bryansk (forested and poor road networks looking at Google Earth. No"March onmoscow is planned. Assume a secondary operation in Southern Ukraine in the Donetsk and Luhanska region to be conducted by Ukranian forces supported by NATO alies. Assume the initial Russian invasion has been repulsed and the NATO counter offensive is ongoing. A decision has been taken to conduct limited advances into Russia with the objective of reducing Russian forces prior to a negotiated ceasefire . Washington and SACEUR anticipate that ceasefire as being in place roughly ten to fourteen days from now. at about that time a ceasefire proposal is intended depending on military progress in the forthcomig operation Assume at the major operation is to be conducted in the Kursk and Belgorod region and assume that this will be a limited operation lasting a week to ten days with the objective of destroying or pushing back mobile Russian forces to prevent a new Russian invasion. Politically assume that Moscow has been informed that limited advances into Russia will be made and warned of the consequences should they use nuclear weapons. The use of nuclearweapons is not expected but has not been ruled out. NATO forces are to avoid urban combat in places like Kursk

If the Russians had decided on war I would think that they would most likely use the summer exercises to cover preparation and deployment as was expected that they would back in the days of he Cold War.The question is would Maskirovka deception methods be effective in delaying a NATO political response nd mobilization. General Sir Richard Shirreff in his recently published 2017 War with Russia argued that the mechanics of getting an Article 5 would delay a NATO response. The deployment of NATO forces into the Baltic states might very well leave them vulnerable to encirclement. A quick Russian thrust from Russia linking up with an advance from the Kalliningrad Oblast in a pincer movement seems like yhe obvious thing for the Russian army to do. Maybe NATO would have to write off the Baltic Sates for the early sages of a war and deploy to defend Poland initially. Later on a counter offensive to retake the Baltic States can be launched. hat said, if is possible to mount some form of defense of the Baltic States without undue risk to th forces involved this might be attempted for political reasons but it might n prevent a temporary lossof these NATO nations

That is why I used the word "might" Personally I agree with you. I think Putin in this scenario would be wiser to halt on the Polish border and dig in presenting NATO with all sorts of problems.Or he might decide not to.As you say it would pobably be a mistake. But it might be considered as a way to win the war quickly if NATO is still mobilizing, If, however, the Russian army were to advance into Poland they could well over extend themselves as they did during the 3rd Battle of Kharkov making themselves vulnerable to something like a modern day version of Mantein's "backhand blow" or Pilsudskis 1920 Battle of Warsaw. Whichmay verywell happen once NATO gets its' act together. Putin would be gambling on a quick victory to knock a major EasternEuropean country (Poland) out of the war fast, before this hapens. Just bcauuse NATO tanks re superior tomost of the Russian arsenal is not neccessarily a problem. look a France 1940.Though Germn tanks were actualy inferior toFrench and British was still the Germans who wonthe campaign because they moved faster. Things are a bit different in he case of NATO. UnlikeFrance and Britain in 1940 NATO operational commanders are highly capable inmechanized warfare. No,NATO's problem is a political one - getting agreement on the need tomobilise and deploy which may well tyake some time. General Sir Richard Shirreff, fomer Deputy SACEUR pointed this out in hirecent publication 2017 War with Russia. Shirreff is clearly in a position to know, All of this could be interesting background for hypotheical scenaros using the game engine. What would an armoured engagement against over extended Russian forces near Warsaw look like? What would a battle fought during a NATO offensive to take Kaliningrad or to liberate the Baltic Sates look like. All this is a purely hypotheical game that involvessomething slightly different than the existing Ukraine 2017 back story but still assuming a 2017 war in Eastern Europe

Not really. Just assume a decision was made to cross the border. It is simply another possible branch of the campaign. In CMBS we are not responsibl for such high level decision making. We command a company or a batallion in game and no more. At that levvel we are simply following the orders of our "superiors" Maybe the war does indeed gonuclear later onbut at the point he scenario is played that has not happened yet. And as I said earlier a Russian use of chemicalweapons happens first. in this case the back story can either end with an agreed ceasefire or it can end with a nuclear exchange. It might be a tactical exchange or it might be Armgeddon. For strict scenario purposes how the back story develops and endsdoes not seem that important - thouugh obviously it maters a lot in he real world

It would be nice to have huge maps but, as you say here is the ngine restriction. Someobody sill needs to create on the maps. Having experimented myself with mp creation it is no easy or simple task. Then of course there is tyhe questionof whether computer processors and graphic cards cancope. However, in an ideal world maps two or three times the size would be great o have and not just for moderns. Maybe existing maps could do with more concalment and cover. In Ukraine we could have areas of balkas 9ravines). areas of low scrub,more undulations and so forth. Evven the steppes are not he flat billiard tabl they migh first appearto be,

It is a war game. Set up a scenario based on one of the actions fought at Kursk, in Army Group South/ The game is fought on the same ground Years ago there was a concept of the Disguised scenario discussed in a issue of a tabletop war gaming magazine. You used different forces from another period to set up a abletop game. In this case one would be doing something very similar. It is no more than a war game What you see is how an action durng the WW2 battle of Kursk would be fought today on the same ground using modern weapons. You may well need take some compromises using modern platoons and companies instedof the WW2 companies and batalions. All this is is another way to design a scenario for a GAME

Like I said this is a war game and if I or anyone else wants todo a scenario based on the premise that isall it is

From what I have seen it depeds what you hit them with and the size of the building/contruction material used. Maybe an ordinary sized houuse micht collpse at leas partially after a few 120mm gun rounds, Your bigger buildings, sucj as he large apartment block multi story effects, I have not seen a 5 storey block collpse after a few minutes of mortar fire, Mybe you jus saw a lucky hit.I am not sure

NATO could still do that by making it clear tha no NATO forces will not advance beyond the boundries of of Kursk and Belgorood provnces (oblasts?) See Google Earth maps. As previously stated NATO would have to have very good reason to take this step and the military/political debate would be a heated one similar to the debate Hackett briefly discusses in his 1985 Third World War. In Hackett's book as you know that debate is never resolved, the war being ended following the nuclear destruction of Birmingham and Minsk followed by the coup removing the Soviet leader who started the war. If you will accept that such a debate would very likely take place towards the end of the NATO victory timeline we could hen agree to a further branching of that timeline before the ceasefire comes into force. One where NATO forces halt at the Russian border as you suggest they will. Another branch where NATO forces do cross the border as I suggest either to occupy parts of Kursk and Belgorod Provinces as future negotating chips or to eliminate Russian offensive capabiliies deployed in that sector. This allows us to develop scenarios based on modernised versions of II SS Panzer Corps during the 1943 battle of Kursk fighting over the same battlefelds but with modern weapons. Given current TOEs in game US forces will have to take the place of he Germans (but if or when we get Germans they can cerain;y be involved) This of course is intended as a purely academic tactical scenario As you jusy said this is purely a what if we actually did thiswith theworking assumpton that no nukes are used. We can compromise and akllow Russia to use chemical weapons fiddling wih the scenario editor options o get as close as the software will allow to simulating a chemical weapons environment (eg troops classed as weakened/unfit due to operating in NBC suits, maybe setting the electronic warfare settings to high to simulate the difficulties of trying to talk through your gas mask. This is, after all, just a war game depicting a hypothetcal war

And he couldwellbe right given the length of time it could take o get the politicaldecision for NATO to mobilie. A point Shirreffmade in his recentlypublished book. Even a tripwire force might not be deployed to the Valtic States in time. And here is tat 40 mile gap between Kaliningrad and the Belorussan border. If Putin had decided to invade the Baltic States he mght aswell invade Poland while he is at it in n attempt to nocj them out of the war. Alternativey he could stop at the Polish border and dig in. Much harder for NATO to launch a later ground offensive given the short border between Poland and Kalingrad/lithuania. Only about 140 miles. Only a couple of major roads from poland into Lithuania that are not in Kliningrad. The Kalingrad Oblast will of course be heavily defended. Any NATO counter offensive to liberate the Baltic States would be a tricky operaton to say the least

I would call the Middle East a "Devil's Brew" and untangling it will be harder than trying to unpickthe Gordian knot (without a good sharp sword) As for Assad he will have to goas part of any peace deal but we may have to swallow hard and hold our noses while we work with him in theshort term. Later he could be allowed to go off into a comfortable exile in Russia with immunity from, war crimes charges to sweeten the pill

Or groups hostile to both the US and Russia like ISIS. Russia however seem to concentrate on groups other than ISIS but are oppoosed to Damascus Would it not be better if Russia and the US brokered a ceasefire between Assad and the rebel groups not associated with ISIS and preferably fighting it. After that negotiate a political settlement based onpartition of Syia and Iraq beween the main religious and ethnic groups. Since Latakia is held by the Alawites some form of deal allowing Russia to continue access to the naval basing facilities in a new countryI shall call South Syria. Essemtially this will be the territores around Damscus and up the coast to include Latakia. The rebels get their own country North Syria. A similar split in Iraq essentially between th Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds. Maybe anindpendent Kurdistan but the Turks will ate that idea

Syria has been an ally of Russia/Soviet Union for a long time, certainly since he 1960s. From a Westrnpoint of view Syria might in many ways be regarded as a client state. Maybe you would regard a country like Souh Korea in the same wayalthough the US regards them as an ally. In the Middle East Syria gives the Black Sea Fleet naval basing facilities at Latakia and other port. From a wider perspective Russia lost Iraq as an ally following he fall of addam Hussein..Perhaps certain diplomatic approaches have been made to Baghdad with a view to re-establishing an allianc.The Maliki government may not be too keen on the US but perhapsnot keen on Russia either. However thir Shi'ite bretheren in Iran seem to be a differen matter. Iran also tends to support Assad and goups like Hezbollah. It is all a very tangled and volatile scorpion's nest at the moment

Putin has been known cwrain deeply unpleasent methods. Poloium for example.While Putin mightnot be amurroustyrant comparedto someone like Kim Jon un or AbuBakr alBaghdadi he is aruthkess operator and is prepared to use overt methods beyond the recognise normz. Regarding Yugoslavia you forgetthet that the Serbs were close to committing genocide inKossovo whenNATO intervened. The Russian annexationof Crimea is only one of the reasons the West has become more hostile in recent yers. Russian aovert actions in support of the pro moscow seperatists, hreats to invade Poland and the Baltic States (all NATO member states whethe Moscow likes it or not. Part of thismight be explaied by Russian paranoia dating fromOperation Barbarossa 2 but some kindof unprovoked Barbarossa 2 isn't gong to happen. If there were a Russian attack on NATO the most ha would be attemted durin a counter offensive is limited operations over the border. Cerainly there will b no "March onMoscow" orattempt at regime change. Maybe war ams might change were Russia to employ chemical weapons but such a Russian approach would likely achieve very little militarily givenmodernNATO NBC suits. A lot of Ukranianand/or Russian civillians would die though in the circumstances

Hmm Sendig in infantry ahead of the anks was pretty common towards the end of WW2 in order to deal with the strong anti tank gun defenses.From my point off view a smilar situation applies here. The infantry might draw fire but their real job is to idenify enemy positions. Hopefully without getting shot.Tey will have to use all available cover. Often they will have ATGMs - I make a point of loading em up wih Javelins and LAWS before sending them out. i have tried sending the heavy tanks out ahead but,as soon as hey get lased they turninto ballerinas 9so to sppeak) and start reversing nto cover out of the LOS essentially becoming useless to me.Far better o keep them back overwatching the infantry. Regarding the use of infantry. one does not have to send entire squads out. We can splt them into teams. For nstance I could ju send a couple of scout teams out to recon, let's say, a wooded area as I would in a WW2 CM normandy or ed Thunder scenario. Then there are the UAVs but hese have a distressing tendncy to be shot down if those pesky Ruskies havwe decent AAA capabilities. Problems, problems,problems!

Wars can easily be startedby mistake. There may be no intenon or desire for war but one could start over an incident like this given the current tensions However,both sides as you say seem to understand this and have probably already tken measures to prevennt another incident like this. The point is that Russian actions are perceived in th west as bing aggressive and provocative. Just as Russia views certain actions by Turkey (the shootdown ofRussian aircraf) as provocaive. In that atmosphere there is great potential for a small incident, no matter which side caused it.to escalae out of control very quickly. That us whhat people like Steve are saying. What youappear to be saying is that you don't think Russia intends anincident that could esclae into a magor war. I think everybody here undersands Russia is trying to prop up Assad and secure your naval basng rightsat Latakia.Let's be honest thoseare Russia's reall motives for intervening in Syria. Perhaps however we should be discussng this on the CMSF forum?:-)

In war time however your company would have been organised into combined arms teams, As depicted in CMBS. Sure there probably is a plan for securing Russian WMDs. here is probably a contingency plan for use in the event of a collapse ofNorth Korea. And there probably isa pla for conventional operations into Russia. . The military,as we are bothaware has toplan for all sorts of contingences. In the 1930s the US had plans like War Plan Red for use ina war with the British Empire. There would have been all sorts of plans in he Cold Warfor instance an intervebnioninthe PersianGulf if Russia invaded Iran. Youy remember Harry Coyle's Sword Point novel? Regarding a Polish module. That definately has my vote. Also British 9though aparently we would have difficulty putting together an Armoured Brigade according to 2017 War with Russia by General Sir Richard Shirreff. Bfore you start arguing aboutthat recall that Shirreff was Deputy SACEUR and was a senior British officer as well. Also the BalticStates armies such as they are. The Germans as well because I liked them in CMSF. Also the French bcause using the Leclerc would be fun. Maybe one or two other smal NATO armies such as Denmarck or Romania

Then consider the post war political negotiations. That would be part of SACEUR'S job. Like I said he would at least think about the option of incusions over the Russan border for limited military and political advantage. Just as there was apparently a suggestion in 1991 that Coalition forces advanced onBaghdad. The uidea was rejected but it is clear somebody thought about it. Just as, in this case consideration would be given to incursions over theRussin border. Whether it would actually happen would be a political as much as a military decision. There are reasons it might bedone and there are factors that militate against it/ Likewise as in hackett's Third World Wa there were discussions regarding whether or not NAATO coter offensive should advance into Eas Germany. In Palmer's The War That Never Was" the advance into East Germany actualy takes place. The same principle applies to our hypothetical future Ukraine War scenario At CMBS these are matters far beyod the scope of the game. Let us just agree that there would be high level political and military discussons about the option which may or may not be implemented and just leave it at that

That was a pretty good read. Another one has a US Nationa Guard brigadedefending Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from a combined invasion by Iran and Iraq

The key word here is "limited" I hacv made it perfectly clear /i am not talking about a "March on Moscow" Asregrds an area like Kursk you fail to consider the concept of negotiating chips. Let's say.in our hypothetical scenario that the Rusins stil hold chunkof Ukranian territory north of the Crimea between there and Melitopol along the Sea of Azov. This is of value to the Russians as it forms a "land bridge" to the Crimea.The Ukrainian government will want that land back. NATO has occupied the area around Kursk for the purpose of our post war negoiations scenario. The diplomats can work on an agreement underwhich Ukraine gets to return to its' pre 2017 borders in exchange for NATO returning Kursk to Russia. It is a negotiation - if you want to make a deal you need something to bargain with like a bt of Russian territory.Tghe final settlement is up to the diplomats. A for use of air power and artillery that is useful only to a certain extent. Look at the Kossovo Campaign. NATO did nt destry a particularly large prportion of Serb military capability.To do that you need a combined arms approach. Tjhat means combining air power with ground troops. Whether SACEUR decides to occupy Russian terriory is a political decision. Tha would be made taking into account the aboveconsiderations and the risks involved. An alternative possibility is a tempoy ground iincursionlasting for a few days aiming a the destruction of certain Russian conventional forces deployd,for example around Kursk in posiitons from which they could mount future offensive operations. Politically it could well majke Putinlook weak and, just possibly convince some general to try a coup. If he succeeds perhaps that general will be agreeabl to a deal with NATO at least to consolidate a new Russian government. Or, at some point Putin and NATO will accept a ceasefire n which case the diplomats get to work

Yes. That sounds reasonable to me. In regard to my tactics would you say advancing the infantry ahead of the tanks with the aim of identifying Armour and anti tank threats and to eliminate these with ATGMs while keeping my own tanks back on overwatch in a similar spirit to the tactics used in late WW2. Add to that of course artillery and air support using precision strike capabilities. Essentially what I am trying to implement is combined arms - a particularly difficult approach to master in the environment of a high tech 21st Century battlefield. I am just wondering what, if anything I could be doing better bearing n mind that, unlike you, I am not a trained professional. I am a military history buff and keen war gamer who wants to learn and to do better and so would welcome the tactical advice of a professional :-)

You will still have to destroy a fair;ly large proportion of the Russian army to prevent them from trying another invasion. oesn;t matter whether we are talking about Kadesh, the Karbala Gap or Kiev. The decisions to be made as the war comes to its end are going to be political as well as military. Though you could decide to implement a de facto ceasefire at the point all or most Russian forces have been pushed back over the border there are going to be costs to that decision. Korea is a fine example of what happens when you have a draw or an incomplete victory. US forces are still there more than 50 years after the Korean ceasefire and there are large financial costs attached with that. And, if you want to find out what the costs of such extended military commitments can be read The Rise and Fall of Great Powers by Paul Kennedy Let's say the US accepts a ceasefire at the Ukrainian border. Russia is likely going to be hostile for years. So considerable forces are going to have to be deployed there for years and probably decades. That costs money and a lot of it. The US has a lot of other military commitments elsewhere which also cost money. Billions of dollars. How long can the US economy continue to support the required expenditure. How long are the rest of the population going to be willing to pay their taxes? Can they indeed afford to pay their taxes as such a high level and what is the high level of taxation going to do to the rest of the economy/ No state can support high defense spending for long. That is one of the important factors that brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union. You need to consider the economic and political factors here, not just the short term and military factors. At the end of our hypothetical Ukraine War the US president and NATO are at the very least going to need to ensure that Russia is not going to be able to do this any time soon. What if,for example a large proportion of the invasion force had withdrawn reasonably intact over the border? What are you going to do then? Accept a ceasefire that will require large and expensive long term deployments adding to the costs of your many existing commitments? And maybe having fight a new war in a few years Or are you gong to destroy some more of the Russian army first even if that means a temporary incursion onto Russian territory so they can't do this again any time soon. Don't forget, at the end of the 1991 Gulf War there was a great deal of criticism of the decision to stop at the particular time the decision was made. There were those who felt that the war should have continued for a few more days. It may be that the decision that was made, at the time it was made, set the ground work for the 2003 Iraq War. A consequences of that conflict are still unfolding to this day I can imagine a huge debate within NATO like this towards the end of a war in Ukraine. The decision to be made boils down to two choices - finish the job despite the risks or agree to a ceasefire immediately (or just announce one) There are big risks and implications either way. It is a political decision to be made in the White House by the President and the Joint Chiefs and by the NATO allies. The hawks would likely go for destroying more of the Russian army even if that meant a limited invasion into Russian territory. I doubt anyone would be advocating a March on Moscow outside high;exceptional circumstances. You need to look at this from the political. economic and strategic perspectives as well as the military situation,as a US President would have to do and as SACEUR would have to do You commanded what a Combat Team if I remember qwhat you said correctly. A ceasefire decision or a decision to cross the Russian border (and if so how far that should go) is a decision far above your pay grade or mine for that matter Now we can argue about this until long after the cows come home. Or we can simply agree that, if someone wants to do scenario assuming some form of limited incursion into Russia that is their prerogative. This is a war game,not the real world. We don't include nuke and we both know that even the smallest tactical nuke would wipe out pretty much everything on a CMBS sized battlefield. Maybe we could simulate the effects of a chemical warfare environment by classing our troops as weakened or unfit to simulate the debilitating effects of having to wear NBC suits (maybe a few other fixes of a similar nature would get a bit closer - maybe use the electronic warfare functions for instance) if we wanted such a thing for a particular scenario.At the end of the day this is a war game scenario,nothing more and most certainly not the real world. We are stepping into the combat boots of a company team commander or maybe a battalion level commander if we are feeling ambitious. Anything beyond that is way over our "pay grade"