LUCASWILLEN05

The big version is good too. I am a megalomaniac. I don't recognise any scenarios from the release version though - and I have played most of them :-)

Certainly interesting but it probably won't be in service for many years and mybe not at all. Russian developments havebeen cancelled before (eg Black Eagle) http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-russian-armys-secret-weapon-enter-the-armata-program-11711 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Eagle_(tank) Certinly an Armata, even a prototype seems unlikely in 2017

I find the graphics perfectly acceptable. If anything better than Red Thunder. My graphics card lets me run at pretty much the top of the scale and does so without any problems. My only minor issue is the waypoint lines could be slightly bolder so they are easier to see.

There does seem to be at least some demand for BF to do an expansion allowing for a modern winter war in Ukraine. Would they please at least consider it

Dealing in absolutes here. Rather you might say fixed wing CAS will not be considered a priority. The "ground pounders" will be needing it!

I don't know whether there is a probl;em with the stinger or not. I have definately shot down Russian fixed wing and helicopters wih it. But, to be fair I have not looked at it quite as closely as you have. Regardig the air campaign I suspect it might be 4 - 6 weeks before the USAF relly starts to wi he air bttle given the circumsances. Tw or threeweeks after that we might expect air dominance and significant progress aganst the Russin air defence sytems. By mid/late August he Russian air defence will likely still be there bu significantlyatrited. By this point the Russian airfrce will likely be largely destroyed as an effective force although still capable of mouting an occasional effective air attack - but NATO should be able to handle that with ease. It is however those opening days and weeks of the conflict that US tactical air defece might find hard.

I am more than happy with the graphcs. If anything they seem to have improved since CMSF although perhaps not greatly. What you get depends on things like your PC and graphics card specs. While not cheap the game ost is still a lot cheaper than the purchase of a new graphics carrd let alone a new PC

I agree. But could this be addressed by campaign designers in a way similar to that suggested by Kieme?

Yes please. A module extending the scenario to cover a winter war would be most welcome!

Effects of the defence cuts made under he so called "peace dividend" of the 1990s andthen 2he 2008 Financial Crisis. Informed people questioned the wisdon and extent of those cuts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31528981

Safe eventually. Once the USAF wins the air superiority battle. Unfortuneatly this may not happen right away. Re SSMs I recall somehing about 3rd Infantry Division HQ being hit by one during the final days of the Iraq War. You are not 100% safe and are unlikely ever to be so. (0 or 95% safe. Eventually, probably yes.

Re Vietnam The US lost quite a few planes over North Vietnam during the strategig bombing campigns. During OperatioN Rolling Thunder heUSAF lost some 184 aircraft IN 1968 ALONE over North Vietnam many to SAMS but 22% to Migs. The USAF was supposed to be tthe best in the world then too I understand Anyway, getting back to tactical and game issues. Yes, camouflage and cocealment will work well - particulrly when you are on the defensive. But the "Sir"orders youto counter attack and t some extet you have to come out of the woods t play as it were. Although naturally you would be using as much conceling terrain as possible. Which makes perfect sens even to a civvie like me But at soome point you will have to move through open terrain. A this point I am going to need my air defence. So how, in that situation do I best deploy my air defence. Clearly the principle of Fire and Movement stll aplies as it does to anything else. But given the limitations of my Air Defence vehicles (Stinger crews have to dismount) clear lines of sight are needed. Which means wooded areas arre unsuitable. But at the same time they need to be cncealed from the enemy. What other issues would you e taking into account whwen working with this type of weapon system or have I about covered it?

Hmm That's the attitude the IAF had prior to the Youm Kippur War. And did't the US lose quite a few pllanes to these "useless SAMs over North Vietnam. And even a few over Iraq in 1991? Sure a good CAP helps. A lot. But it still won't be foolproff. Let me ask you a question. As a professional tank compan commander what measures would you be using on the 2017 Ukranian battlefield would you be using to protect your command against any possible Russian air threat. And please don't tell me you would ignpre the air threat - that could get you killed along with many of your men.I really would be very interested in your proffesional advice and guidance on this as it would definately help me improve my CMBS tactics playing on the US side and even from the Ukranan and Russian perspective

I repeat. We are not talking about the Iraqi Air Force here. We are talking about the RUSSIAN AIR FORCE. Which is a modern and professional air force that is modernising http://www.ibtimes.com/russian-air-force-navy-receive-200-new-aircraft-2015-more-most-world-air-forces-have-1805100 An air force of a not inconsiderable size. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/av-orbat.htm With modern aircraft. It may not be in quite the league of the USAF (or at least the league the USAF thinks it is in - it may or may not prve to be the case when it comes up against a halfway decent oppoent. And, let;s see, the last time that happened was Vietnam I believe. OK so the US might not have lost militarily. But it did fail to win! As a US military officer you are the product of an institution. But institutions have been known to suffer instiutional arrogance and huris. Look at what happened to the Prussiamn Army in 1806, the Austrian army in 1866, the French army in 1870, the British and French armies in 1940 and evwen the US army in Vietnam. Oh, you can ignore what I say because I am not, like you, a military professional. Just a war gamer and miltary history buff. But that does not mean that I might not bee proven right. Telll you what. Let's reconvene at the Russia - Ukranian border and fight this war for real. Because that is the only way to establish for sure which of us is right!

I never said that would happen. We are talking about tactical situations involviing just a handful of fixed wing aircraft or helicopters are involved in a localized action. Hwever, if similar things happened in multiple local actions the blood price builds up. It may ot be s extreme as what happened to my Combat eam. That is a mistake I will probably only make once. But in the early days of a war thee are going to be plenty of mistakes. Sme of them my resemblee mine. And sometimes it may be the result of simple bad luck. Consider if you will what lessons apply from Bluff Cove and the loss of the Sir Galahad and the Sir Tristram.

What are the sprcific conditions of your trigger? I am an amateur at this bt it might help the experts to help you figure out your problem. Maybe somescreenshots might help as well. Just a suggestion.

Poking he Russian Bear is not usually conducive to continued good health!

Which is still intended to simulae tactical combat at the FEBA/ Tose aircraft each side has ARE the ones that got as fr as this tactical battlefield. Therefore they are the ones we, as those stepping into the combat bots of the tactical commanderwe are actually representing must actually worry about. The scenario designer will hve made some assumptions about the wider air war situation. Nothing bizzare about that

The reason the US Army skimps on AD is because when the US Army actually goes to war those assets end up sitting around doing nothing or get retasked to do something useful. It's an inefficient allocation of resources. Or at least they have done so in the past. Armies typically prepare to fight the last war, not he next one. Since WW2 the US army has not had t fight a war where it has had to face a serious air threat. Oh, it was prepared enough for the war it never acually had to fight, the one against the Soviet Union/ But what happened after that? Desert Storm, Bosnia/Kossovo, Iraqi Freedom, Afghamistn, the Islamic State War (it doesn't even have a name. No credible air threat in any of these conflicts - often no air threart at all. So, yes, in thee wars the AD boys have nothing to do. But you are assuming the next war or the one after that is going to be the same as the last few wars the US has fought. Complaisancy and hubris? What hppens if your assumptions about the next war turn out to be wrong. Not only that but badly wrong. And you are facing someone that has a decent air force that doesn't fold in the first few days or even the opening weeks of the conflict. In THAT situation the AD boys are going to have something to do. In fact they are oing to have raher a lot to do. Except you don't have them or hey lack sufficient capability because you cut the funding and gave them weapons systems unfit for purpose. In THAT situation the US military is going t end up looking pretty stupid and serious questions are going to be asked regarding whether all the resulting casualties (the price for peacetime neglect must be paid fo in blood in wartime If the military professionals are not prepared to fight the politicians for what they need in war then, in war, hey will pay the price for their arrogance and hubris - and it won't jus be the politicians to blame for the result. Remember that because one of these days I might well be proven right about this.Just as de Gaulle and Fuller were proven right. And, unlike them I am not a military professional. Just a military history buff and war gamer.

Some things lose you battles, wars or cause unneccessay casualties. You may have the best tanks in the world. Unfortuneately that does not help you against fixed wing fighter bombers or helicopter gunships, Anti aircraft weapons do that job (Combined Arms) and if yours aren't as good (because you invested the dollars in nukes perhaps) then that could end up losing you battles. And perhaps even wars. For the want of a nail the shoe was lost For the want of a shoe the horse was lost For he want of a horse the rider was lost For the want of a rider the battle was lost For the want of a battle the Kingdom was lost And all for the want of a horshoe nail (Benjamin Franklin)

So, given the high intensity armoured combat environment of CMBS how does the US company/combat team commander conduct tactical air defence against the Russian air threat with wwhat he does have. Stinger teams riding in HMMMVS with little or no armour that must operate on or shrly behind the front lines ad which must dismount in order to fight. And must be in a position where they can see aircrat aproach and then to engage them effectively. Which makes cover like buildngs or trees inappropriate for example. And in terrain that can be hilly in places Which factors make them potentially vulnerable to direct or indirect enemy fires

Let's see The Six Day War and Operation Desert Stoerm. Two examples of what happens to a modern arrmy that has no air cover at all. Extreme cases to be sure. Most modern conventional wars are ore likely to look like Yom Kippur or the Falkands. And both of these were nasty gutter fights and, for the victor, a difficult, hard fought and costly affair. The 2017 Ukrane War could very well fall int that category and not be quick and easy victories like Desert Storm or Iraqi Freedom. I am bnot saying the stinger itselff is inadequate. But the plarform on which it is carried such as an armoured HMMMV could very well be given the high intensity armourd combat environment this war is llikely to be

It would certainly take longer for NATO to achieve air dominance and more aircraft are likely to be lost both to Russan fghters and to heir air defence systemms. The Russians saw what happened to Iraq's air defence system and to Serbia, There was an interesting technothriller written some years ago entitled Ttal War 2006by Simon Pearson n which the West gets one hell of a shock when an enemy (in this case an Islamic Caliphate which gts some help from Russia stymmies Western airpower using conventionaal and asymetric methods The West does win a phyrric victory in the end but not before a uclear and biological exchange destroys much of the Middle East.

Paul Kennedy The Rise and Fall of Great Powers. Read it over 20 years ago while working on my History and Politics degree. it was one f the History Proffessor's favourite texts. it also made a great deal of sense - as I recall I often qouted from Kennedy in my histry essays - and some f my international politics essay as well :-) Ecoomics, as Kennedy argues is of the greatest importanvce to the ability o a Great Power to maintain that status and US military spending probably won't keep up with a weakening economy. Is the US even spending on what it actually needs? Nuclear weapons versus conventional systems. And which of these capabilities is most likely to be used?