LUCASWILLEN05
-
Posts
1,591 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by LUCASWILLEN05
-
-
13 minutes ago, kinophile said:
Now KOREA would be an interesting scenario, for the terrain alone!
But I'd need to read up far more than my current base before I could start dropping idea bombs like turds in a punch bowl.
I'd argue it is. For me, personally, it frames my tactics in game and also frames the map designers' approach.
For example, as campaign RUS commander I understand that achieving my OBJ ASAP is time critical, civilian infrastructure be damned (other than militarily useful items like bridges, high points). This means I'll often simply blast my way through (never said I was a good RUS commander!...).
But as US/UKR commander I work under the framework that 1)ive limited forces 2)I must initally delay delay delay 3)i must kill as many hostile armor as possible. On the attack I must not level the town to save it.
All this because I'm fighting within the Ukraine itself. If I as NATO invaded Russia then I suspect the frameworks would flip, with speed being my highest priority.
As a map designer, as mentioned in my post above, the general operational/strategic situation informs what battles I set up and why. I'm developing a UKR v RUS campaign, positing an unplanned sudden deterioration in the front line which slips into a phase of fluid manoeuvring followed by some critical set piece battles. This is based on a reading of the current Donbass situation (and it's development) and also a VERY general understanding of Russian military priorities and current evolving doctrine.
13 minutes ago, kinophile said:Basically, I don't fight or map in a vacuum.
Quick battles are completely separate and independent. I view them as testing grounds for tactics, scenarios, etc.
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
-
17 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
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
-
1 hour ago, cbennett88 said:
Pretty sure you meant "June 15..." Otherwise...I really need to talk to you about buying some lotto tickets!
I'm curious as to how logistically they are going to pull this off? Will there be a 2-3 week overlap so that the new unit can get settled in? If so...where are they going to house/store all of them? Without that overlap, as CINCUSAREUR, I'd be concerned that the russians would exploit the "gap" as one brigade has already packed up...and the other one disembarks and unpacks. You'd basically have 2 units sitting helplessly at the docks so to speak.
Plus...I'd be sure to have the US Navy escort the convoy bringing them the whole way, as if it was wartime. Better safe than sorry...
@LUCASWILLEN05...Even Putin would pause before taking on Poland. Sure...much of their equipment is older and in need of replacing(especially their BMP-1s!!). But...they do have an decent size force of Leopard A2s (not the latest ones and yes, they are hand-me- downs from Germany). The air force is relatively well trained and the new JASSMs give them a serious punch that any russian military commander would have to consider.
Speaking of Polish military...
Do you think someone in the Polish army has played CM:BS and has learned a lesson or two about smoke dischargers??
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
-
12 minutes ago, kinophile said:
Yes yes a game, but one with a relentlessly daft premise and plot.
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
-
On 14 June 2016 at 0:34 AM, kinophile said:
This.
BS maps need to double in size, but I believe there's an engine restriction. Is it max 4Km x 4km?
The unforgiving lethality is actually a huge draw for me. It makes the game HARD.and that challenge, where screw ups can be disastrous so quickly, is a big plus for me.
I am actually quite interested in the Commonwealth forces, and a variation in elevation from Ukraine's pancake lands would be nice.
But the cost. The COST. Their prices are mental.
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,
-
8 hours ago, kinophile said:
The high school mentality of refighting WW2 with modern weapons. Everything he's describing is based off a secondary school level of understanding of how the world USED to work vs.how it is today (and why).
It's possibly the most pointless, worrhless What If base to work from. It's looking at the world like a game of Risk or Civ.
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
-
10 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
I don't know if you guys get any education in it, but the US built a series of broad strategies for conflict in the 1920's-1930's. They're known as the "rainbow" plans because they were all color coded (for instance, Warplan Black detailed a conflict with Germany as we understood them in that era). Warplan Orange, which detailed conflict with Japan actually was implemented to some degree with modification (the loss of the Phillipines undercut parts of it), but what's interesting is that Orange was built in a time in which US-Japanese relations were pretty good, it was simply seen as a sort of "We might have a problem with Japan one of these days, how would we win that one?"
Warplan Red is the most interesting for me, simply because it involved a war against the UK, and part of that involved invading Canada (and Canada actually had a counter-plan to attack the US in the event of US-UK hostilities). It seems silly now but there was a bit of a low spot in US-UK relations in the 1920s given the rising US power and waning UK economic strength.
Either way they're a neat study in planning decades out, and trying to write strategy for the world that may come vs the world that is.
Look, I've made it pretty clear. No. You are likely on crazy pills. Russian nuclear deterrence rests on going ugly fast, and they're not going to take an invading group of
GermansGermans and friends lying down. There is no realistic military value to occupying Western Russia, it's not far enough to damage the Russian ability to rebuild slowly, and it's just advancing the line the retreating forces have to cross a little further. The only thing it does is give the Russian government the GPW2 card to play.
It's bad strategy. Really, really bad strategy, and not understanding the strategic operating environment.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
-
54 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
One of the keys in getting people to do the things you want them to do with force is give them a way out. Once you've pushed them too far, you run the risk of them operating on "badger trapped in a root cellar" rules and it'll end poorly. If you invade Russia, this is no longer open for debate, discuss cease fire, etc, this is a full on war until the Russian state collapses totally, or NATO has to return over the border.
Neither of which is remotely on scale for defeating a limited war in Eastern Europe.
In regards to Iraq:
The Arab portions of the Coalition would have baled, as they did not support deposing Saddam, which would have cut much of the not-Arab force's logistics tail, and removed much of the international legitimacy of the entire operation. Looking back from now, we know it'd have saved us 2003-2010, but in 1991, there was no reason, or practical ability to continue the fight.
In regards to East Germany
East Germany through Poland was a buffer state. There's a big difference between liberating Leipzig or even Ponzan and making a go at Moscow.
In regards to rainbow plans
There's likely a "invade Russia" file somewhere. Just as there's still likely a "invade Canada" plan. Talking practically though the presence of these plans is not indicative of a desire to invade either, or the practicality of it, but instead purely a "what if we DID have to do this?" exercise intended to have some sort of plan to start from in the event Russia's nukes all hit their expiration date, Putin reveals himself to be an alien warlord, and he's fueled by virgin sacrifice and we're obligated to go in or something. It's not a default course of action for war, especially a limited war with Russia.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
-
11 hours ago, antaress73 said:
It's his job to be concerned.
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
-
2 minutes ago, Sublime said:
Id say this is already way worse than Libya 2.0 and there hasnt even been a regime change yet.
Oh and we supported the people overthrowing the government in Ukraine. Key thing there. We supported the PEOPLE. Thats different than supporting a state that broke up peaceful protests by mass murder. Assad brought this bs on himself. Barrel bombs and giggling about dead countrymen as a result of his actions. A despicable character.
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
-
21 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:
Exactly why Russia supports our ally Syria. If the Syrian government is toppled it is Libya 2.0, and Russia now lost its port and influence in the region yet again to groups that are supported by the US.
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
-
8 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:
That too, also we need an ally in the middle east, Iran is good and all but that's not gonna cut it.
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
-
1 hour ago, VladimirTarasov said:
Oh please, Murderous tyrant? Sounds alot like justifications against Saddam and Qaddafi. How ever the case here is very different, I'm not going to get into an argument over who is a murderous tyrant and who isn't but when Russia supports peoples against regime in Kiev its bad but when US does it in Syria its all good? Both these events are very different but what you are doing here is very hypocritical. No offense of course, I'm not insulting you, I'm just saying.
Sure, I don't get why the RT would hide the cluster bombs, they are needed against such large groupings of targets. As the article says 352 cassettes if it has a 1% dud rate it'll leave 4 non exploded cassettes. In a war where terrorists are holding people in cities which are war zones, and expecting the government of Syria to some how be able to fight them head on into a urban environment without the use of other support weaponry is very childish. If these rebel groups are keeping people in the area they operate then this is their fault. The US in the beginning claimed no civvies were killed by their coalition in the anti ISIS war look at this https://airwars.org/ it also shows their claim on Russian collateral damage, how ever the US coalition isn't clean on this too, even with their 100% "precision" munition usage.
I mean we are one country with 28 countries now going hostile towards us over us annexing Crimea with a popular vote... And then you have Russia being grilled over supporting Russian/Ukrainian people in Ukraine but US is actively doing or did such things in Libya, Afghanistan, Syria and where else? Oh yeah Yugoslavia. So of course if a ship is going to be going to a drill in the Baltics 70 kilometers away from Russian bases, you'll have a Russian plane flying around you in international air space. The Russian jet buzzed the US ship close with no on board missiles, and the radars on the US ship would be able to detect emissions from these missiles if they were on. The US naval ship did not feel threatened, so they did not engage the air plane. How ever if you felt more threatened than the US ship I don't know what to tell you. The captain of the ship probably felt "annoyed" more than threatened.
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
-
17 hours ago, BTR said:
My tactical training is all vehicle-centric, as in, how you operate a vehicle and how you integrate it into a formation. You'd need someone platoon level to start speaking proper command tactics. "Classic" attack formation for a company tactical group sandwiches infantry between MBTs (first) and IFVs (last). If recon is available, naturally it leads the way for tanks. MBTs come with superior sensory equipment, best available protection and the quickest way to neutralize any threat (in caliber terms). Beyond that, there is very few things that I can say since every scenario is different. I tend to advance heavy armor first because I feel that using infantry to draw fire is a: a cruel, gamey tactic and b: eliminates my ability to fight in the woods, urban terrains and scan on a wider area. I just recently completed (well, lost) a gagarina ave. scenario against a human opponent, and I think that scenario demonstrates best that "MBT first" is generally a great concept.
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!
-
20 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:
Guys I don't think one should worry about a incident like this, according to Russian MoD the US government didn't list that area in the no strike zone. And because of this incident the US and Russia will now increase cooperation in Syria further like mapping out areas. Obviously rebels backed by the US have been fighting Assad's regime, since the beginning of the conflict. And when these so called "rebel" groups are finished with ISIS they will eventually fight the SAA. So not listing zones that are being operated by US backed rebels will result in "accidents" like this. Russia has honored the US' call for halting operations in Aleppo to allow rebels to seperate from Al-Nusra. Thus making the SAA lose the advantage and even resulted in losses of territories. Either way, I don't see Russia or the US going to war against each other in Syria.
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?:-)
-
8 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
Oh Jebus.
Re: "Pay Grade"
I was a Tank Company Commander. We did not operate in Team configuration during peacetime, although we drilled with our Infantry and Engineer elements from time to time.
I was also:
Part of several Division, Corps, and Army level exercises on staff
A Battalion Planner
Brigade Planner
A graduate of advanced Army schooling.I
Good god am I ready for a Polish module. Za naszą i waszą wolność!
*I'm sure in a box somewhere there's a plan that allows for getting involved in a Russian civil war, or securing Russian WMDs after a total collapse of the Russian government from some crisis or the other. I imagine if it's a realistic plan it involves the Russians being on board.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
-
8 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
Oh Jebus.
Re: "Pay Grade"
I was a Tank Company Commander. We did not operate in Team configuration during peacetime, although we drilled with our Infantry and Engineer elements from time to time.
I was also:
Part of several Division, Corps, and Army level exercises on staff
A Battalion Planner
Brigade Planner
A graduate of advanced Army schooling.I also have degrees in Political Science with an emphasis in international relations, and a history degree with a decided military-political slant.
And I remain on a National Guard Brigade staff, and we're still working up contingencies with Russian involvement in Eastern Europe, and are building up to an NTC training exercise built around that contingency.
As a military officer, I think you're amazingly silly. As someone who's received college education in politics, international relations, and military history, I think you're profoundly silly. I am not likely the smartest man on this forum, but by god I'd like to think I am not the least prepared to discuss this topic, and I can say by far and away if I had to name events that were virtually NEVER a realistic element of US military, and NATO planning, it was committing conventional forces uninvited to Russian soil*
The US commitment to Korea was expensive (less so now that the Koreans underwrite every dollar spent on our presence there), but seriously broham, do you think the UN was prepared to fight and decisively win a war with China in 1953? Do you really think the various World War Two battered European countries would stick it out for another go at a massive ground conflict on the literal other side of the world? Do you think the American people, who were in near revolt over a never ending war in Korea would be on board to throw their sons at a never ending conflict against a country willing to bury millions of its sons for minimal gains?
The only reasonable outcome was to secure status ante bellum, break the Chinese forces to the degree they were unable to continue the offensive, and then enforce the peace. And it worked out likely better than any idiot larger war would have.
Bringing up Iraq is just as stupid. Iraq wasn't a realistic threat in reality (vs in the echo chamber that was the Bush cabinet circa 2002), it was broken in 1991. It was still broken in 2003. Was it out of compliance with international agreements? Sure. Was Saddam a bad guy? Yep. Was deposing him a good idea? Maybe?
But Iraq was not a realistic threat to anyone in 2003. "Finishing the job" in 1991 only makes sense if you ignore political (and like, large scale major issue political, not some quibbling "Bush Sr WAS A WUSS!" nonsense) realities.
I can't believe I'm still even trying to argue this. I mean, effectively turning things on their head, by Lucaslogic Russia could only secure a victory against NATO in a limited war by occupying Berlin, Paris, London, and select parts of the US eastern seaboard (we are being reasonable here! All of America would be silly, just realistically to the Mississippi!). As that's what it'd take to destroy NATO's offensive punch and secure a peace Russia would not have to police for decades afterwards.
Taking this further down the road, try this on for size:
Russia loses in the Ukraine. Several Brigade Tactical Groups cease to exist outside of Belgian, German, and Turkish run POW camps. The president of Donbass shoots himself as Ukrainian SOF elements stop his convoy from fleeing into Russia proper.
What do you think the Russian people's response to this is? Do you think it'll be to continue the fight, or perhaps, more realistically, shove as much blame as possible on the powers that be resulting in a catastrophic political crisis for the Russian ruling elite?
I would contend Russia would desend into abject higgeldy, pigglity in this situation, and would no longer be a threat to ANYONE for years to come while things are still sorted out.
However, let's go in Lucas mode and send some Panzers into Western Russia because it's not like that didn't effectively unify all Russians into a collective front that did not resist to the point of losing millions of people and still continuing the war until it ended in Berlin.
It's like attacking the US overtly. If you want to keep the US out of your hair, literally do anything but start unrestricted submarine warfare/bomb Pearl Harbor/9-11 and it's likely you might avoid the JDAM rain. You want to keep Russians fighting among themselves and their own worst enemy? DO NOT EVER INVADE RUSSIA LET THEM SLIT EACH OTHERS THROATS.
I really should just stop replying to these posts, but there's just something so offensively "wrong" about them I feel compelled to at least say "something."
In other news:
Good god am I ready for a Polish module. Za naszą i waszą wolność!
*I'm sure in a box somewhere there's a plan that allows for getting involved in a Russian civil war, or securing Russian WMDs after a total collapse of the Russian government from some crisis or the other. I imagine if it's a realistic plan it involves the Russians being on board.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
-
6 hours ago, Raptorx7 said:
Yeah but at least Clancy novels have cool stuff that happens in them like a US Armored division helping the Russians fight the Chinese in Siberia.
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
-
13 hours ago, womble said:
You have a very optimistic definition of "securing". The West simply doesn't have the capacity to "secure" any significant territory in an undegraded Russia. If the regime was in turmoil, with dissension within the ranks of the Russian army, maybe, but as a negotiating chip, somewhere like Kursk would be entirely worthless, because the Russians know we'd have to had it back eventually anyway, and they'd just make holding them painful and bloody to accelerate the process.
The West have long range rockets and superior air forces to destroy Russian offensive capabilities over the border; there's need zero to put boots on the ground.
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
-
50 minutes ago, BTR said:
Something like that. Basically
- Reaction times (time to drive back from laze detection) scales down with every veterancy level (represents superior crew cohesion);
- Reverse distance scales down with every veterancy level (represents superior crew composure);
- Laze duration scales down with every veterancy level (represents superior FCS handling);
- Laze-less engagement range scales upwards with every veterancy level (represents more nuanced FCS handling).
Current crew reactions to AT threat are rather binary, something I feel wouldn't be the case in real life. Naturally I have no idea how hard these are to code into the AI, so people are welcome to poke holes in this.
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 :-)
-
1 hour ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
You know what would destroy a reasonable portion of Russia's offensive capability?
Killing the hell out of their offensive into Eastern Europe.
This isn't 1981. There's no inexhaustible waves of Armatas and T-90AMs waiting to emerge from sekret bunkers below the steppes. If Russia did mount an offensive operation, and lost hard enough to allow NATO to be in position to cross the border in force, I've got news for you, Russia is out of the Army business for a few decades at its current economic levels.
The fact you can bring up Korea and not understand WHY Korea panned out like it did is interesting. We wound up with a Korea because our ability to contain the threat matched up well with a general lack of political will, and the promise of a wider war. Which is pretty much the same logic we have facing Russia only with nuclear bombs tossed in, so honestly I've moved beyond trying to understand "why" you think the way you do, and more wandered into a sort of fascination of the cognitive dissonance involved in the process.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"
-
1 hour ago, BTR said:
I find this behavior quite logical. After all that is why you couple smoke with LWR's, so you can shuffle out of the zone danger zone while not being seen.
I think lazing, duration of laze and minimal range at which the crew uses their LRF should depend on veterancy. Some time ago we exchanged some ideas around this in the armor thread and panzer seemed to support liking lazing to crew training. Reaction times I think should also be a function of veterancy since vehicle "training" represents overall crew training and synergy. A green crew therefore would, in my own service experience, respond much slower to all stimuli including all sorts of mechanical warnings when compared to more trained vehicle operators.
Maybe it is my tactics at fault.However the only way I have found to deal with it is to send ATGM infantry in ahead to locate and eliminate threats while the tanks support them from hull down or concealed positions. Similar tactics to those employed to deal with anti tank guns in the final years of WW2.
Regarding crew quality, are you suggesting that well trained troops (eg veterans) act in a more proportional way to a potential threat. I think that might work better. it could be more proportional if they reversed a short distance to the nearest cover r fired smoke. In the real world is that what you would actually do depending on the immediacy of the perceived threat In this case your professional experience and knowledge would clarify much and hopefully help me to improve from a gaming point of view. Dealing with this particular problem is something I find very frustrating. The solution i use seems t work most of the time but I am wondering whether there are better approaches that a professional like yourself would know. Thanks
-
1 hour ago, cbennett88 said:
Even though I had not noticed this specific happening, I totally believe it to be true. It does seem that M1's have almost perfect 360 vision at all times. Granted...the new commanders independent thermal viewer (CITV) does allow him to scan areas the gunner isn't watching. But, even combined...could that really be more than 180 degrees??
I find the way tanks act like frightened ballerinas and reverse as soon as they are lased quite irritating. I am not sure what is going on under the bonnet in software terms but a new patch that addresses the issue. perhaps by taking crew quality more into account would be an improvement in my view. as well.
However, we can choose whether our M1A2s have APS or not via the sceanario editor. Maybe it would be possible to add further orbat information that removes the laser warning systems. Personally however i would prefer to see a less extreme reaction
Any modules ? National Family extensions or patches in the works ?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
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