LUCASWILLEN05

If bogged try reversing out of that area. This will sometimes get you out. If you are already immobilized then there is nothing you can do - you are now a pll box! :-)

I cam second he mouseholing technique. While gamig the Gauntlets Crossed scenario yesterday I advanced the engineerr platoon to the wall where a Breech Squad had already blsted a hole. In the mentime a US infantrry sqaud in the building provided covering fire while other squads on my right flank which had manouvered and fought thei wy into the housing estate and what looks like an industrial estate provided additional fire support. Having achieved a high level of dominance in the fire fight by employing effective Fire and Movement the enginees were used to blast their way into the buidling and proceeded to clear the three apartment buildinggs usinng a combination of Assault and Blast orders, Total US Casualties 10 dead and 15 wounded mostly from the two rifle platoons (room for improvement there0 but, with the Russian defenders virtually wiped out) I had still earned myself a rare Total Vicory. Urban combat is one of the most difficult forms of combat we can exect to encounter in this game. It takes a lot of skill and practive to get it ight. The Gauntets Crossed scenario is a very instructive one to practice on

We are most likely into Article 4 an 5 territory as soon as NATO and Russian forces clash. Certainly if Russian units fired the first shot. Maybe the NATO intervention started with NATO aiming to halt the Russians by drawing a "~Line on the Sand" and things got out of hand somehow as almost happened in KossovoAfter that we are probably on a cycle of escalation it would be rweqally hard to stop. As the computer in Wargames concluded "Sometimes it is better not to play" Anyway, what I said as a NATO buildup in the Baltc States is something Russian coomanders would fear. so hey take pre-emptive action out of fear of a Barbarossa II even though NATO actually has no such plan. I am looking at this from he Russian persp[ective here you see

That would suggesrt Russian and Ukranian attitudes would be considerably laxer than NATO even if NATO ROE were more relaxed thn elsewhere

Probably NATO would aim to avoid targetting specific targets such as hospitals, schools and, obviously nuclear power staions.They would probably try to avoid a large civillian death toll.But, s yu say, in a large scale conventional war like ths ROE would be condsderably laxer than COIN operations in Iraq/Afghanisrtan,

Mate Drop it. I ubnderstand perfectly well that there are two issues here. Scenario design and real world issues beyond the game battlefield I am also going to have to drop out of this discussion because it seems to be going nowhere and I also am getting pretty frustrated with it as well as putting morwe time into this than I want to or indeed have time for. So I suggest we all agree to disagree and wrap this up here. Fair enough?

There are people who just should not be in a particular job. In real war you would have most likely tried to reassign that officer before he got a lot of people killed. I an not a professional military man like yourself but I think I understand at least that much. Anyway, as you say we are moving off topic here. Nevertheless it was interesting as a management issue.

Listen Jock. I am trying to explain what, IN THE REAL;WORLD might result in such a situation. Like I said maybe 1 There was concealing terrain such as a wood or a balka just off the map tjhat the enemy used for ambush. Maybe enemy units were so well hidden it was impossible to spot them 2 There was an intelligence failure and the enemy force was just missed or the information did not get passed down in time for it to matter. Or maybe i was just something the scenario designer did not anticipate and, because of that the scenario is actually flawed. We are going roundf in circles on this matter. I have explained what I think might have happened and, assuming that it was a scenario design decision, not a simple design flaw, how such a decision might be justified. We have also discussed ways a scenario designer could make such a sitation fairer if it were a deliberate design decision. And now I really don't wish to waste any more of my time on this issue.So end of discussion.

7th Corps was also coming from an unexpected direction much earlier than the Iraqis thought possible. he Tawakalna Division din't have a clue what was about to happen to them. And 2nd ACR didn't expect the Iraqis to be where they were. It is just that the ACR were professionals and held the initiative. The Republican Guard, whle being capable enough by regional standards at least were unprepared, surprised and out of position. Even if they gad not been they wyuld have lost anyway as accounts of other battles being fought art the sam time or over the next few hours. day or so clearly demonstrate Accounts in Scales# Certain Victory and other sources indicate this pretty clearly Would you agree with the basic premise here that surprse and the unexpected is still quite possible in modern warfare? Perhaps because of an intelligence failure or the enemy ding something commanders failed to anticipate. Even with the best techmolgy in the world human error can still happen in the fog of war. It happened in the Kuwait War and it happened in Iraq 2003, even to an army with the training, experience and technology of the US military. Indeed, over reliance on technology could even be a factor here.

That makes sense. If someone ignores that then whatever happens istheir own fault

Yep. Wuld be a nice thing to have if BF can program it. And perhaps an alternate position if the entry area has been taken. Or the reinforcements don't arrive at all. They see enemy forces have occupied the intended arrival location, take up defemsive positions and don't intervwene unless they have an alterate enry location. Which results in a delay. May not be s easy to implement this but, if they can work it out then great!

Ok so you feel hard done by that the scenario designer didnitwarn you about the arrial of enemy reinforcements. Lookng at what has been said by those close to the scenario designer that they did not expect what happened to you when they designed and ested the scenario. And it may be that off map there was some concealing terrain like a wood or a balka (ravine) So as the battle developed the combination of circumstances resulted in you being the victim of a surprise attack. These things happen in combat. Take the Battle of Chacellorsville May 1863 for instance. Or the Battle of the Bulge. The point is anyone can make a mistake. The point I was making regarding neglect of my air defences and the consequences of that error (being caught in a Hind killing zone which had effects of similar seriousness (I lost te or eleven tanks anf IFVs in that. Why can't you be honest, even if only with yourself and admit, if only to yourself, that you fouled up. I am happy to admit I fouled up in my battle which means I may learn from my mistake. Can you not do the same if only to be honest with honest with yourself? You don't even have to admit to a mistake here. So for Pete's sake will you just quit moaning! For the rest of it pretty much everybody, myself included, agree that scenario designers should consider giving more warnings about pssible arrival of enemy forces. particularly when their arrival might be in an unexpected location. Or maybe you just advanced to the position where the reinforcements arrived far more quickly than the scenario designer expected. And how do you know that there isn't some cncealing terrain (a dense wood or a balka) just off the edge of the map? Maybe there is! I suggest you take it up with the scenario designer!

Baltic States armed forces http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_Land_Force http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_Land_Forces http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_Land_Forces The above will not amount to much even if partially moblissing over he outbreak of war between Russia and Ukraine. If Russia moves fast this would be pretty much a walkover. At worst abut as difficult as Georgia 2008/ But only idf the operation is mounted quickly before NATO can deploy reinforcements. A quick and brutal Russian offensive wuld very quickly acomplish the military and political objectves ordered by Moscow.

Who mentioned nukes? We are talking about a situation where war has just broken out between the Russians and NATO. The Russian General Staff would have very grave concerns about Kalingrad and a possible NATO buildup later which would enable either 1 A NATO attack on St Petersburh 2 A NATO offensive out of the Baltic States in the direction of Smolensk right acrross the supply routes of the Russian forces operating in Ukraine and threatening Moscow. Such a move could be a war winer for NATO. A senior Russian general woud anticipate such developments a couple of months into the war. Pre-empting this NATO option by occupying the Baltic States would be a smart military move on top of the other benefits (militarily relievng and securing Kalningrad, threatening NATO supply lines in Poland). Plus the political benefits (accomplishing a Russian foreign policy goal vis a vis the minority Russian speaking population in the Baltic States - and this is probably the only chance Russia is going to have of doing that any time soon) and of course being able to use the Baltic States as negotiating chips. Russia is already a war with NATO anyway over Ukraine. So the argument for not occupying the Baltic Statesbecause that would cause a war with NATO is obviosly and fatally flawed. Militarily the Baltic States have very weak forces that would not last more than a day or two. NATO is not gong to be able to deploy forces to the Baltic States fast enough for it to matter very much. At best they might hold on to some of Southern Lithuania while Russian forces seize everything else. Hence, considering the political, strategic and operational benefits combined with the ease of conducting a speedy occupation against minimal opposition from local forces why woul Russia not conduct this operation now they are at war with NATO? Particularly given that not conducting such an operation in early to mid June leaves Russia vulnerable to a very nasty NAYO counter ffensive launched in late July or earl August. Like I said there is a very strong military and political case for Russia to occupy the Baltic States as soon as war breaks out with NATO. And I see very little reason for them not to do so given the circumstances.

Definately for NATO players. As with CMSF a scenario designer can set a Preserve condition for anobjective. For example you need to Preserve tat twn from damage. He could set further preserve objectives in the town, say fr a school or a hospitl. And to reflect the importance of thse objectives they could be worth a lot of points. But the gamer might be frced t balance his preserve terrain objectives with other objectives he is required to meet. Which might be a big problem.

Thankyou for sharing your interesting and highly informative professional insights with us. In particular regard to the management of subordinates who one would probably apply a negative leadership rating at that point in their careers. Sounds like that last guy would be a -2 or even a -3. Your White and Blue leaders obviously knew what they were doig. Red Leader sounds very inexperienced and lacking in confidence and probably lacked a good sergeannt to take the new officer under his wing. Maybe that is how you eventuallly resolved the problem. Things like that happen in every workplace and sometimes buddying the poor performer up with an experienced member of staff is the way to go. You as the manager (or in your case Company CO) cannot be spending all your time nursemaiding a weak subordinate - tht takes you away from other vital roles you have. Your job was ultimately t lead your company in battle and, if you are shheperding a weak platoon leader, effectively doing his job for him you are doing your own job less effectively than you should be in consequence of the problem you are having to address. Would this be an accurate assessment of your problem in the circumstances you have outlined?

What do we consider as being typical ROE in Ukraine? Obviously Russians prbably won't bother anyway. For Ukraine they are defending their own country (unless fighting in Russian Seperatist areas) so theyare likely to have some interest in minimising civillian casualties. For NATO units ROE might well be stricter, certainly in the opening days and weeks of the war. NATO might be unwilling to use artillery or air against civillian occupied area and would want to avoid damaging structures such as schools, hospitals, power stations, churches and government buildings. It is quite possible that, later in he war NATO ROE will change bbecomiing more or less restrictive.

Classic Fire and Movement tactics. Let's say you have a Bradley platoon. One option might be to employ the three Badleys and an infantry squad as your base of fire while two squads attack the position on Assault orders. That enables your two assault squads to employ squad level Fire and Movement. Your Base of Fire units might be given Fire orders to suppress suspcted or identified enemy positions or you might use fire arcs to specify areas where covering fire will be used. In fact you might be using multiple methods in the same attack. If you have mortar, artyillery or even air support use it to try to suppress the enemy as much as possible. And don't forget smoke screens. Not so effective if boh sides have Thermal Imaging but still of some help,

Absolutely everyone needs a quick and decisive victory, But as Clauswitz said "War is the extension of politics by other means" As soon as NATO and Russian forces clash on a Ukranan battlefield the North Atlantic Treay, specifically Articles 4 and 5 comes into force particularly if Russian units fired the first shot. Estoniia, Latvia and Lithuania are all NATO members., not neutral states. Their territory is within a very short striking distance of St Petersburg. Look at this from the Russin perspective. If the Russians hang about NATO might build up a large strikng force in the Baltic States over June and July, then make a strike at St Petersburg. Taking tht city or even esieging it would bwe a devestating blow for Russi on top of a possible or indeed probable capture of Kaliningrad. Russia would be forced to make huge concessions to get that land back even if they win a military victory in Ukraine. And, as I ointed out the chances of thaat are improved by a quicj russian prre-emptive strike to occupy the Baltic States. As I also pointed out a succesful Russian occupation of the Baltic Staytes gives Russua some very useful negotiating chips. They could agree to withdraw fom the Baltic States if they leave NATO and Kalingrad, is returned to Russia. Concessions such as a commitment that Ukraine drops the move to NATO membership and NATO will drop any such moves in the future could well be Russias price Militarily speaking Russia can occupy the Baltic States very swiftly before NATO can deploy forces to stop this move. And look at the map (Google Earth) A strong Russian force reinforcing Kaliningrad is within 80knmof Gdansk, a port that is likely to be very imortant for the supply of NATO forces operating in Ukraine. Plus a stong Russian force in occupation of Lithaania woud be within 270kn of Warsaw, the capitl city of a major NATO state. Now look at the Polish transportation network and consider how it relates to the routes that would be needed to supply and reinforce NATO forces operating in the Ukraine. For the reasons indicated NATO would need to divert forces that might otherwise have gone to Ukraine if the Russians occupied the Baltic States. Which obviusly helps russian forces fighting in Ukraine. So we could actually see the Baltic States - and indweed Poland as being an important part of the theatre of war in Ukraine. And both sides are likely to see this. The issue will be whether NATO can get organised fast enough, politically and militarily to prevent a Russian move into the Baltic States. here could be significant fighting within the Baltic States and, ptentially in North Eastern Poland if the Russians felt pushing further was a militarily feasible option.. It would certainly be a fine diversionary operation if nthing else. Or of course Russia, having occupied the Ballticc States could just dig in there posing a threatto Poland and diverting NAT forces away from Ukraine either for defensive purposes or for an operation to retake the Baltic States which, given their NAO membership, would be important for political reasons.

Could depend on a range of factors. Does Ukraine lose a lot of casualties including experienced small unit leaders. In which case quality could actually fall as new conscripts come to replace the fallen and they don't getthe benefit of experienced veterans who are no longer there being dead or too seriously wounded to continue in the army. That said units that experience more heavy fighting might well improve. There usually comes a point where a decline sets i as with Hitler's Wehrmact, Napoleo's Grande Armee and even the US army in Vietnam.

Sounds fair enough to me. CM takes command & control into account. And it takes leadership abilities of our unit commanders ito consideration. While I have not looked to closely under the bonnet these factors are likely to have some significant impact (delay i implementing orders, ability to rally units in poor morale and soon) So what Panzersaurkrautwerfer says here makes a lot of sense to me. Supposing he had a n inexperienced platoon leader holding his first command after officer training. (say a 0 or -1 rated officer) Panzersaurkrautwerfer as an experienced company commander would probably want to kee a closer eye on that inddividual while he is learning his trade. And there might well be other factors involved as well such as the tactical situation

So we will both be well aware of what happened to the awakalna Divivision in Februarry 1991 for example. Let's face it, commanders and intelligence staffs mess up sometimes whuiich isd the point I have been trying to get accross. That said I have also always agreed that the scenario designer should give warnings either in the briefing or by employing another method such as use of the reinforcement buttons to provide further warnings.updates (these might represent messages from brigade HQ or off map recon forces. Unless of course the scenario designer really wants to be mean and simulate a surprise attack Panzerkrautwerfer, have you stopped to consider the possibility that we both might be right here? That said a briefing might still give a subtle hint that a surprise attack might be in the offing. Perhaps a cryptic comment about the situation in the wider area being "unclear" or "confused" If someone has read the briefing carefully they should pick up on hints like this and plan accordingly in tghwe knowledge that someyhing unexpected might well be in the offing. I suspect we have some rather cunning ad extremely sneaky scenari designers out there and I would not put a stunt like this past them

Spitzenhund Come on. You do understand what a reserve is for don't you? Ideally a mobile force held in a position such that it can be moved rapidlyto the point of crisis. If the briefing indicates the enemy will be ooming from a specific direction I might position a UAV if available or a security force (perhaps recon units in hide positions in order to overwach what I believe wll b the area the eneemy will arrive at. This shuld give me as much warning as possible enabling me to redeploy the reserve in a timely way. It seems to me that you committed all your forces to your attackand perhaps did not carefully read the briefing. That would explain why you were caught by surprise and tok the heacvy losses you are so upset about. What I am saying is that, rather than blaming the scenario for being "unfair" you take responsibility for yourself. Maybe your plan was badly flawed as I suggest. Sometimes we all make mistakes as I freely admit I did in my las game in that I neglected air defence. I am realistic enough to admit my mistakes. Only by admitting mistakes to yourself can you hope to learn from them. So I suggest you take an honest look at the way you fough your battle taking into account what I am saying to you. Then you improve your chance of avoiding the same mistake in the future, thus increasing the chances of future victories. That is all I am going to say because I really don't have much more time to spend on trying to help you.

As the finance minister said Russia can't afford defence spending http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/07/us-russia-economy-spending-defence-idUSKCN0HW1H420141007 But Putin wants to do it anyway http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/russias-military-back-9181 And so does NATO http://www.ibtimes.com/ukraine-crisis-update-nato-proposes-biggest-military-expansion-cold-war-combat-1806446 Russia may not be the Soviet Union but they can field a big army http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=russia However, only a portion of that strength would be used. Most likely to be in the Russian orba (including contingency plans) would be the forces belonging to Western Military District. Souhern Military District and Central Military District.. Which clearly includes a large portion of Russia's ground forces. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/army-orbat.htm It must aso be clear that NATO is not the NATO of 1985 any more than Russia is the old Soviet Union of that era. And, given the way the 2017 crisis develops NATO will be far from mobilised. To wi Russia must do so quickly and decisively before NATO can fully bring its' militaries to bear. An attack therough the Baltic States once the first clashes with NATO starts can succeed if mounted with alacrity given the miniscule armies of the Baltic States and the fact most NATO unts will be out of place, either moving int Ukraine or still mobilising. The Russian 6th Army, the force I am suggesting would most likely be used for th Baltic Offensive is based around St Peersburg. Russia needs to seek a quick and decisive victorywithin the first few weeks. If that does not happen the likely result will be a nasty armoured slugfest.

Ignoring Belorussian neutrality brings that vcountry in against Russia. The Baltic Stats, unlike Belorussia would already be at war with Russia (North Atlantic Treaty). Besides, Belorussia could be a potential Russian ally, not a potential enemy. And even if there country is more pro West in 2017 why majke it into a real enemy by invading it. Besides, the Baltic Sates armies are very weak by comparison wih that of Belorussia, Hence Russia can obtain a very quick vctory and, at the same time, acvchieve some long cherished political objectives as well Putin may have stated the war as a limited war against Ukraine But, as soon as NATO forces clash with Russia then Russia is legally at war with NATO. If it was clearly Russian forces that fired first then Articles 4 and 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty very likely apply (though naturally a deision for NATO governments. If Articles 4 and 5 d apply according to the political decision of the NAO Council then NATO, including the Baltic States who are NATO members are, de facto, at war with Russia, Now, are the Russians goingg to wait and give NATO time to act and deploy reinforcements to defend the Baltic Sttes against invasion over andabove any tripwre frces deployed as a contingency when NATO decded to intervene in Ukraine. Which, givethe speed the crisis developed is probably not much or indeed nthing at all. he Russians aren't going to hang about, not with Kaliningrad a stake. They are going to move. And move fast , probably with 6th Army arounsd St Petersburg. The Russians will already have implemnted a War Plan to invade Ukraine. Tha War Plam will have a Kaliningrad contingecy Plan. The Geeral Staff sends coded rders. 6th Army commanders open their sealed orders under watever War Plan is being used. And within hours or a couple of dys 6th Army crossess the border. The Baltic States armies have about as much chance as Kuwait in 1990 or Geogia in 2008 and will quickly be swept aside. NATO might get something into Lithuania if they are quick on their feet but that is probably the best NATO can do. More luikely the /baltic States are ocverrun in a day r two. Russia secures Kaliningrad and threatens to nvade Poland. Gdansk is nt far from the Polish - Lihuanian border and Warsaw to might well be threatened if Russia follow on with an invasion of Poland. And, unlike the Iraqi Army in Augst 1990 the Russians probably won't stop a the borde. As a NATO state Poland will by this time be atwar with Russia and NATO forces reinforcing Ukraine must come through (and be supplied via the Polish transportatin network. Another way Russia could win a quick victory against NATO.