LUCASWILLEN05

Probably something like the infamous 1915 Shells Crisis for starters.

Another interesting example is the Falkands 1982. Britain's tactical air defence on the ground was pretty much limited to Rapier. This at a time when the Britisw army was gearing up to fight the Soviets in Germany where the air threat would have been much worse than anything the Argetine Air Force could have done. And they stil manged to sink a couple of amphibious landing ships at a place called Bluff Cove

The Russians are investing in their air force too. This fg for instance http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-russian-air-forces-super-weapon-beware-the-pak-fa-11742 My point abouut insurance was that some people don't insure or do not do so adequately. They risk coming up a cropper when their house burns down. As the US military risks ending up with egg on its face through failure to invest in adeqaute tactical air defences. Arethose HMMMV mounted Stinger teams really going to be enough in a high intensity conflict, unlikely as this may appear at themoment.

We are taslking about tactical air defense systems at the FEBA HERE. You argue that the Russians are not the A Team. Not compared to the Iraqis. Serbs, iranians, North Koreans they are not. And isn't your assessment undder estimating the potential enemy? The crime of hubris can also get you burned. While the emphasis will be on the air superiority battle early on CAS missions will still be flown and probably quite frequently. There is a ground warr going on an the "ground pounders" will be wanting air support Nobody is saying all air strikes will get through nor is anyone saying they will all be effective. But some will and some could turn out to be devestating. And like said he US will probably win that air superioriy fight eventually. But, and this is important it might take a few weeks. maybe more than a month. And during that time the air threat to US groud forces is still there wouldn't you agree? I suggest that it is dangerous and arrogant to assume the theat does not exist. Just as it is to assume your house won't get burned down. If you don't invest in the insurance of a proper air defense system you are going to get burned. I fear this is a lesson the US military is going t have to learrn the hard way, in war

Any chance of this scenario being made available in the repository please?

The point is though that the enemy we are talking about fighting here is not the Iraqis. It isn't Islamic State. It isn't the Serbs. It isn;t ever Iran or North Korea. It is Russa - ome of the USA's Great Power rivals. This is the Premier League we are dealing wit. Not the Second Divisio and it would be a very serious mistake to underestimate them As Charles XII, Napoleon and Hitler did. The Russian airforce is not equipped with the cast offs thhe Iraqis had. Their aircraft and pilots are probably pretty good. Sure, so are those of the US. But yiu are assuming that the air strike won't geet through. The Russians know how important your AWACS is. They are going to go after them in the air war. Russian fighters will be duelling your aircraft in the skies over Ukraine. It is going to be like that for at least the first couple of weeks. And Russian auir strikes are going to get through. It would be arrogant and stupid to assume they would not. Even Patriot won't get everything. That's why you need a tactical air defence. You need it to keep up with the tanks and you need it to be able to survive in modern armoured combat. It is like an insurance policy. Chances are that house fire you took out the policy against won't happen. You are a sensible guy and take lots of precautions. But if it does happen and you are not insured it is catastrophic. Likewise if that Russian air strike gets through your barely protected tank company that you did so much work training and mintaining is going to get gutted.

So why was this cut? http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m6.htm Other than to balance Congressional defence budgets of course? A question that, if I am right, could very well be asked during and post war if casualties to air attack are high in particular.

You are still not getting my point here. What lost France was neglect and complaisance. The same complaisance that is coming accross from you to me. I have to wonder whether this is symptomatic of the same kingd of institutoal complaisancy inherent in British and French armies in 1940. There were thse such as de Gaulle and Fuller who recognised That the problem,was and warned of it. But a complaisant establishment ignored the warnings (the classic "group think") and he price was paid in battlefield defeat. Problem is such new fangled weapons systems such as lasers might not work. And they probably won't be in service very soon. Which in our 2017 leaves a bit of a gap in US capabilities. Sure, you have HMMVs carrying Stinger crews and hey might even be armoured HMMVs but we are tlking high intensity war here. They can perhaps keep up. Is that real;ly going to be enough in the worst case scenario where the enemy contests the air battle for a considerable period and some enemy air strikes. And it could be your tank company that meets the same fate as my in game Combat Team. Caught by enemy air while moviing through open terrain. One probably should not do that but sometimes one has to get to a particular position quickly. Then fixed wing or helicopter gunships catch you at exacly the wrong time and your air defences, such as they are happen to be out of place or engaging other targets. Well, we all know what happens in circumstances like that.

Can it intercept and destroy the Doomsday Asteroid though? Bruce Willis move over!

If we represented them all we would have to restrict them to the pre assault bombardmentand severely limit ammunition s well.But I am sure it would look quite spectacular!

Yes but he Wes's/NATO's ability to fight wars are ot the issue here. Defence cuts and weakness of the tactical air defence system s. And so is the pricwe that might be paid for that in a future war.

In which case we both know the lessons of 1940 such as the dangers of defence cuts, neglecting key weapons systems, complaisancy and underestimaing the enemy. I suggest the US military and industrial/military complex has made the same mistake There is probably enough time to fix it and the fix is probably a quick and simple one such as bringing back the Linebacker system fitting some of the Bradleys with the quad Stinger Launchers some of them used to have and training the crew to use them (which I suspect would take the most time) That way the US army would again have a mobile and reasonably well armoured air defence systems. I expect suitable Stryker variant would a good idea for units equiipped with that vehicle.

In May 1940 the Germans did no need bunkers. They had the Siegfried Line. The French of course had someting called the Maginot Line which, for poliical and ecoomic reasons stopped at the Belgian Border. Thanks to a certain bright staff officer by the name Erich von Manstein (I believe you have heard of him" the German response went something like this "Achtung! Sehr gut! ve go around!" Right through the Ardennes thought to be impassable for tanks and a little fortress town called Sedan - while Anglo French Mobile forces had been diverted to Belgium to oppose what they expected to be the main Germn offensive. Because that is wha the Germanss did in 1914! It was complaisancy, defence cuts and under estimating the enemy that lost the 1940 Battle of France. And which could be the causes of a US/NATO defeat in a future war. You are a military professional. But hpefully you have read plenty of military history as well - as I am sure yu realise it teaches mny lessons relevant to the future. Perhaps your next read should be a good history of the 1940 Battle of France - and you might consider its' lessons with relevance to the US military and a future war such as the 2017 Ukraine War.

Exactly. It could be done with political negotiation. Given the natural resources andindustry located there Russia would have to offer Ukains something big in return. Such as agreeing to Ukraniam membership of the EU and NATO. Something like this would look like a Win-Win for both sidesthough there would be problems.

The maual also said that there would be a more detailed document ccoming! It is that document I am asking about See P9 of the manual!

How many battles and wars have been lost through complaisancy, neglect of key weapons sytems and underestimating the enemy. The 1940 Battle of France is a fine example of what can happen Problem is that, in this scenario "the next war" is the one that was least expected. The one against Russia. Sure, NATO countries (or at least some of them will commit their forces. But here's the elephant in the room. European countries have been slashing thir defence budgets as well in order to balace the books following the 2008 Financial Crisis. The same sort of thing that happened in the 1930s. And in 2017 the time has come when those cuts will have to be paid for. And the price will have to be paid in blood and quite possibly in early battlefield defeats. Just as happened in 1940. I am not saying NATO will lose the war. they probably won't as long as the political will is there. But it could prove a long and costly struggle and the risk of defeat is certainly there. Particularly if leaders and militaries are complaisant as they were in 1940. France and Briain had good equipment in 1940, sme of it as god or better than anything the Germans had. But t was the Germans who won the 1940 battleof France and in only six weeks. Indeed, theWehrmach had essentially won the campaign fter he first week.. France 1940 should be an object lesson.

Indeed. Putin is no fool and i don't see him making the same mstake Saddam Hussein did. The Russian army is not going to sit there for six months letting NATO build up ground forces and supplies. No, the Russians are already on the offensive once the clash with NATO occurs and they are then going to go all out to win the war before US reinforcements arrive from across the Atlantic, NATO countries mobilise and those forces are deployed. A Russian grab for the Baltic States might very well be on the cards at this point for obvious reasons, not least because it would enable Russian forcxces to directly threaten Poland, a key NATO cuntry in this scenario as the Polish road/ail network is essential to the supply and reinforcement of NATO forces operatig in Ukrane. Indeed, knocking Poland out of the war early could win the war for Russia. Hence NATO reserves intended for Ukraine would have to be diverted to defend a suddenly vulnerable Poland/Lithuania border. Which would be an immensely helpful diversion directly assisting the Russin campaign in Ukraine. And of course NATO cannot count on defeating the Russian air force anywhere near as fast as those of Iraq or Serbia. Indeed, US neglect of tactical air defences may very well prove to be a costly failure in the first weeks of the war. Once NATO gain air supremacy and air dominance the situation will beginto change. Russian ar defence systems still need to be tackled but, once that is done NATO airpower can of course blast Russian forces and supply routes. However, while that would be easy enough on the Steppes it would be harder in denser terrain such as woods, built up areas and hills as we saw during the Kossovo Campaign. Besides, the Russians would be using tricks similar o those used by the Serbs and even the Iraqis (in 2003) So it would be no cake walk. And the above assumes the Russians have not succeeded in winning n early victory presenting NATO a fait accompli.

In the manual BF promised us a more detailed description of the campaign (P9) what happened to this and is there any chance of it being made available soon. Please

I wouldn't count on the air war being as easy ay you think. The Russian air force are not the Iraqis of 1991 r the Sebs of 1991. And the Russians are upgrading their air force. http://www.ibtimes.com/russian-air-force-receive-fifth-generation-stealth-fighter-jet-1810796 It could well be several weeks or loger ino a coflict before the USAF has anything like full control of the air. And while the air battle contiues Russian air strikes will be getting through and ground forces with weak air defences thanks to pre war neglecty and complaisancy will suffer for that. I have seen this happen in many of the scenarios and it is not pretty. In one game I had an entre combat team moving across oen terrainwhenthey wee caught by twwo (maybe three Hinds. Before I knew what had happened had lst four tanks and almost a dozen Bradleys along with many of their pasengers. In part this hppened beccause the Stingers I did have were out of position and I had under estimated the Russian air threat. A mistake like that might very well be made by real world commanders on the batlefield and it could result in a serious tactical defeat and a failed mission. Which could in turn ruin an entire operation!

Back in the 1980s the US expected ground forces to come under Soviet air attack if the balloon went up in Germany but the wars fought by the US since the end of the Cold War lacked a credible air opponent, certainly after the first couple of days. It looks like a classic case of preparing to fight the last war. But what happens if the "next war " is against someone like Russia or China whose airforce coulsd put up a credible cotest for the air, at least for a while. I think both John and I agree hat this is a serious error by the US Defence planners, procurers and the military. Perhaps it was done to balance the books, perhaps for other reasons. But mistakes like this have often had to be paid for in blood. If this game highlights one real world lesson it is the danger to the US military of the neglected air defences and the price that could be paid for neglect and complaisance in a near future conflict. We all know what happens to armies that are not prepared.

How did I manage to do that? Must be the heavy cold I have been having for he last few days.

Some videos worth taking a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_xcbNv3uDQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_xcbNv3uDQ

I should hope not! Anyway, in terms of theinitial moves of the campaign I would expect some major fighting in the vicinity around the citybecuse of its' strataegic nature. A significant Russian push via the M2/M20 and a flnking move down he M03. The UKA would likely have to make some sortt of a stand here due to the city's strategic, econmomic and symbolic significance After Kharkov the Russias willl advance on Poltava and on the Dnieper crossings south of Kiev. A thrust up the E40 via Poltava, Lubny, Pyrytin, Boryspil, Kiev would make sense in order to join up with a Russian advance down the E351 via Hlukiv, Konptop, Borzna Nizhyn then down the E101 and E95 via Kozalets and Brovary. The forces emplyed in the above would join in the assault on Kiev. Dependig on the strength of Ukranian resistence 5 to 10 days would likely be requred before the Red Army can mount the attack on Kiev. By then the magority of the UKA may well have been destroyed in the field east of the River Dnieper.

Agreed. It is likely to mean contested ar control in the early days ansd week which means Russian air strikes are going to get through fairly often. Maybe it would be reasonable to suggest the US gets air supremacy/dominance in a month or so taking into account deployment of aircraft to theatre and win he air war. This is not going to be like Desert Strm where the US had months to plan and prepare the air campaign and won it on the first night. Nor is it ging to be like the Kossovo campaign where the air battle, such as it was was won in the first couple of days. The Russians are a very different prospect from the Serbian "B Team" And even the Serbs had some tricks up their sleeves if you remember. Once the ai to air battle is won the USAF still has t duel with the Russian air defence system. Sure, the US will more than likely win these fights. But it is going to take some time and, unlike the C Team Iraqis or the B Team Serbs the US will be playing against the A Team Russians.

If they are under such heavy fire they think the building is a deathtrap and the unit panics they might just decide to get the h""" out of there. Sometimes however I have seen infantry squads decide to simply stay put. I wouldn't worry too much about it. You are typically a Company or Combat Team commander in this game, not usually a 2nd Lieutenent commading a platoon.