LUCASWILLEN05

# That is exactly the danger. Chris hits the nail on the head here. Perhaps though there are also some parasllels to the 1930s. Putin's Eurasian Project at least as we understand its' intent and purposes may appeasr similar to Hitler's foreign policy. It is often fear and misinterpretation that causes war. And, in the nuclear age, unlike 1914 and 1939 he stakes could become very high indeed.

Also maps for Russia itself might be of use, particularly in the boder regions with Ukraine (for example the 1943 battle areas covered by Operation Citadel and the River Mius. In the NATO win branch we might have a possibility that the NATO counter offensive reaches the Russia - Ukraine border and there are limited offensive operations into Russia prior to he end of hostilities. The NATO objectives in ths case would include an attempt to take the city of Kursk as a political bargaining chip (for example in exchange for any Ukranian territory still in Russian hands at this stage. Unless Putin does something incredibly desperate/stupid like using chemical weapos causing heavy civillian and military loss of life NATO would not wish to march on Moscow. for future expansions however one could alow for this possibility. And one could allow for possible Russian advances into Poland, Romania, he Baltic States, Belorussia in certain Russian Win variants s similar maps for these areas would also be welcome

Yes, i is very easy to veer off topic as Hister says when one is discussing modern conflict issues. Follow Hister's good advice on this one. And maybe we can discuss something else on which you will probably have some extreely valuable insigts. A few days ago posted a thread suggesting a replay of he 1943 battles of Kursk and the River Mius based on the assumption that, for military and political reasons (negotiating chips) NATO, in the final weeks of the war (NATO victory timeline) mounts limited offensive operations into Russia itself. This is primarily intended as a context for scenarios examining how these battles might be fought with modern forces and weapons with US and Ukranian troops obviously replacing the Germans. Maybe you and I could adjourn to that thread and discuss further. It would be very interesting and instructive to get a Russian perspective on the hypothesis.

Skinfaxi If you read the pinned thread regarding political discussion it might beyter help you to understand the forum rules. Obvoiusly, like yourself, I am a member, not an administrator but the rules seem pretty clear to me http://community.battlefront.com/topic/116643-politics-discussion-and-black-sea/ From my knowledge of history I understand that Russia has a fear of being attacked. Although sometimes it might border on paranoia most informed people understand why Russia and Russians feel that way. After all, during WW2 Hitler did attack the Soviet Union. However, it works the other way as well as seen during the Cold War when the West feared attack by hordes of Russian taks. And Russia very likely feared the same of NATO. And now, due to a confluence of issues and events we seem to be returning to those days. Obviously I don't know your views on Putin and, of course, have no wish to get you into trouble with your country's political authorities. Perhaps another good reason not to discuss the politics of the situation too deeply. However, I will say that it might be that Putin's actions are being viewed with a historical (Cold War era and perhaps even with the lessons of the 1930s in mind. It might be that Putin's motives are not sinister as Hitler's motives were. Perhaps both sides are in a veery defensive frame of mind and are mutualy hostile for historical reasons. Likewise Putin may be viewing actions in Kiev and actions of the West with similar historial fears in mind. Perhaps however it is better not to discuss these political matters here as reccomended by Chris as forum administrator. So you should really just drop it and get back to friendly discussion of the game and related military matters instead. OK

Thanks for the interesting links John. I found the piece on possible drone purchase of particular interest, noting that Ukraine does not have such a capability in game. Can a Javelin be vehicle mounted and, if so, on what? And might this be viewed within the context of a changing Obama administration that may, under certain conditons, evolve to the provision of more offensive weapons? I think it might very well prove to be the case given current trends and that would have highly significant European Security implications, As may the announcement of this apparent new NATO Task Force http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31137760

Skinfaxi A number of people, including the forum admnistrator have kindly requested that you drop it. Please do so. I could very easily pick holes in your last post if I were so minded and so could any of the other very well forum members here. However' this forum is intended for discussion of the CMBS wargame, not for discussion of the real world politics behind it. Everyone, including you, are, of course, entitled to hold poltiical views and I am sure you have some interestiing, if hightly controversial insightson the subject but that discussion is better helld somewhere else I am sure you have a lot of valuable insight from the Russian perspective but perhaps it is better to confine comments to the military and wargame spheres. It would be a real shame if you ignored the friendly advice you have been given and got your account suspended or banned by the forum adminstrator - which he can do! Let us hope that my country and yours never end up fighting this (or any other) war for real. Thank you for your courtesy.

Use smoke. And, if you have them your UAVs. Apart from that you need to be employing Fire and Movement tactics. To take a simple example. Let's say you have a mechanized infantry platoon approaching some farm buildings. You suspect enemy might be there but want to confirm this. So one option you could use is to dismount everyone to set up a base f fire. Then you select an infantry squad and pick a fire team from that squad to move up to the farm buildings while the other fire teams advance closer to he buildings to provide closer range fire support in the event an enemy is encountered. Use artillery, air and helicopter gunship support where appropriate. Consider how you use your tanks. In as certain situation are you better off using them in a fire suport role or should you use them offensively? Apply similar principles a company and batalion lwevel. For example you might lead with one or two platoons or companies. They encounter enemy positions. You mnouve with your reserves to try to outflank he enemmy contact or otherwise make their position untenable,

A good and interesting point there. Which might incline the Kiev government to procure Western models instead. Bu as already discussed the downside is the learning curve required to use the equipment effectively.

To be fair to the Russians, having been invaded on several occasions they may be feeling paranoid about being encircled or invaded again. However, perhaps Russians need to understand that their actions can be percieved as threatening from a Western point of view. If both sides are feeling this way that may actually increase the risk of a hot war that nobody wants. Anyway, perhaps we should all consider the game as being, at least partly, an educational tool for understanding and thinking about the conflict and what the consequences could be. Perhaps then it can promote better mutual uderstanding and peaceful slutions as the events portrayed in the game never happen for real. And that is the last political rmark I intend to make on this thread. So lt's all get back to playing the actual game OK .

Ukrainian troops would, as you say, require a lot of training to use the M1A2 as you say annd that would require US instructorrs. At firs we would likely be seeing a small number of vehicles for training. More vehicles would come later. It would be a long term program for obvious reasons. In the shorter term Eastern European nations might sell or donate their second hand Soviet era stocks. And of course there are the stocks of Ukranian tanks hel in storage. Hwever, I suspec many of these are being (or will be) brought back into service as war looms. There may be possibilities around oher high tech tanks such as the Leopard II or Challeger II but this would have similar issues to the procurement of the M1A2. The Ukranians are certainly likely to want something that can fight T90s on even terms and the Oplot does not seem to be quite up to the task in which case niether are Eastern European ex Soviet. Hence a probable need in Kiev to procure modern Western MBTs at some stage.

The idea was that the AGMs would fire a few missiles, get back into their vehcles and disengage while a similar team in the next village did the same thing. It would not have stopped the Soviet offensive, nor was it supposed to. It was a tactic intended to cause casualties and delay. Regarding the cities. In NORTHAG Hannover and Hamburg would have been diffcuylt for the Soviets to bypass without a serious fight. And, for the Soviets to use their bridgeing equipment they would have to force a crossng firsr. Which explains why many Russian IFVs are amphibious. The tanks however are nt, Which is why the Soviets needed the bridging equipment. And, of course NATO would hve been defending major rivers like the Elbe and the Weser strongly in order to hold, or at least severely delay the Soviet offensive. If the Russians were allowed to break out onto the North German Plain towards the French, Dutch and Belgian borders where the US REFORGER sites (where the heavy equipment intended for the first US reinforcements that would have been flown/shipped over the Atlanitic) were located. Another reason the war never took place, at least during the 1980s, was the Reagan military buildup including the post Vietnam rebuilding and modernisation of the US military. And of course the modernisation of key NATO states in particular West Germany and the UK. The Soviet leadersrealised that they could not win conventionally, either quickly or at all. An interesting take on how a war might have turned out circa 1990 is The War that Never was by Michael Palmer. Also Red Thrust by Steven J Zaloga which examines th tactical level of operations in Southern Germany

The point is though that policy is changing as shown by this link from the same article you posted http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/02/ukraine-us-considers-miltary-help-kiev-separatists-plan-mobilise-army This suggests the possibilities of heavy weapons from former Soviet equipment stocks held ny Eastern European stocks. Policies may well evolve further into a stuation where a US adminisration. likely post Obama, goes further and makes he political decisions neccessary to supply US tanks and IFVs. It is however a long way down the road and won't be something In would expect in 2015. In game back story terms such a decision might be made early in 2017 when Ukraine announces it is joining NATO. They might get a small number of tanks for training pre war and maybe some more supplied as replacements for Ukranian tank losses during the war itself.

Aparently there is going to be a detailed back story. Having said that one might develop alternative storylines developing from escalations such as Belorussia, Baltc States, a NATO "March on Moscow etc. Then there are possibilities around Red v Red situations (an anti Putin coup, a Second Russian Civil War going into 2018 following a NATO victory

It might not be that hard to cme up with a scenario pitting US and Chinese forces againt each other. Korea is the obvious one, followed by US itervetion n a Sino-Indian War. Other possibles are Chinese invasions of Taiwan or Japan thoug hese would be harder given US naval supremacy. Of course, such opertions might be feasible if the US were already engaged in a mjor war in anther theatre. Like Ukraine for example...

A Second Korean War, Taiwan or a Sino Indian conflict pulling China, the US and maybe een Russia in certain cases would, in my opinion, be a great subject for a future moderns game, As others have said it is woh taking the time to do a proper developmen job.

There is precedent. The US supplied offensive weapons to other countries such as Iraq and Egypt among others. It may not be to far fetched to supply MBTs to the Ukranians as the conflict continues as it probably will looking at current developments. For now at least it will remain a proxy war with Russia supplying arms and men o the seperatists and the US supplying the government in Kiev. Supplying MBTs would be a vbery signiicant stp though and is likely to be some way off at least. Any models supplied will very likely be export modells should th political decision be takn to go down hat route.

I can't wait to see the detailed storyline. And of course here is othing t stp anye wanting to genrerate alternative "hisories" uch as the Belorussian and BalticStates variants, a NATO "March on Moscow" or, for tht matter, a Russian advance into Poland an Romania. Much of this could well result in a longer warr. Which of courxsse creates a good excuse to legthen the period covered by the game into the winter and perhaps even into 2018.And perhaps an "earl start" to hostilities sometime during he winter of 2016 - 17 Allowing us to fight a winter war. And of course allowing for the possibilit of the war breaking out in winter or simulatng earlier border clashes and current events,

True. My point is that there was (and are) many small villages plus large urban centres such as Hamburg and Hannover. Then there are major rivers specifically the Elbe and the Weser the Soviets would have had to cross as a look at Google Earth would show. You can view historical maps back as far as 1930 so you can easily examine the geography for the 1980s era. As I understand it NORTHAG plans were to use the many villages as "sponges" with small units well eqipped with ATGMs posiioned in the built up areas to delay and attrite the Red army offensive. This does not prevent the Soviets from reaching objectves but it would impose significant delays and losses gaining time for the arrival of heavy reinforcements from CONUS that were intended to halt the Red Army and go over to the counter offensive. Thankfully we will never kjnow for sure if the plan would have worked. However, this was likely going to be one of the main axis of advance for the Red Army others being the Fulda Gap and the Hof Gap where terrain is more hilly andd heavily forested. Nevertheless, a CMFG would be a great addition to the series and one I would definately buy. Hope BFare paying plenty of attention to what we customers would like in the Moderns games - 1980s Germmany definately should be a future publication

I think this war is still unlikely to take place (rather like the Cold War was never likely to turn hot in Central Europe) However, it would be a mistake to rule out a hot war between NATO and Russia in Ukraine. Miscalculation and misunderstanding tend to be the most likely causes of war and there is plenty of scope for that in the Ukraine situation even if what both sides intend is a limited, proxy war. Should the West appear weak the risk is Putiin thinks he can get away with something he should not actually attempt resulting in a direct and very hot war. If such a conflict happens the risk that nuclear weapons will be used is certainly there. However, both sides are well aware of what the consequences would be and that should reduce the chances of a nuclear exchange. Although of course a conflict may end that way, again through accident and miscalculation

Probably an issue for scenario designers to consider there.

Mid to late 1980s would be the most interesting time frame considering the equipment mix on both sides. On the North German Plain isn't it good tank terrain only in theory. Lots of small villages and urban sprawl granting effective cover and concealmet for NATO ATGM teams.

Because it is a very interesting scenario. RSR is te best known. There are other technothrillers covring this subject matter such as The Red Army and, of course Team Yankee. More recentlytjhere is The Red Effect, the Blue Effecty and The ~Black Effect by Havey Black which cover a 1980s WW3from the perspective of the BAOR on the North German Plain

Not that there is anything wrong with battalion size scenarios or larger. We would see battles of that size frequentyl in 2017. However a Cmpany Combat Team sized engagemen is just as good for shorter, smaller engagements. The Russian seperatists these days seem to have quite a lot of heavier equipment (assuming they are not actual Russians there, le us say "unoffically" To represent these Motor Rifle units are probably as good a choice as any (and you can always delete the vehicles if you don't want them). GHowever, I hope BF will produce militia type units for the Ukranians,and the Russian seperatists in he first expansion. And, of course expand the time frame allowingg for winter conditions. Scenarios could then include actions during the Ukranian civil war and various incidents leading p to the outbreak of the full scale war in 2017.

There is a trick to placig your trenches and barbed wire. The point you have to remember is the map is based on squares. Les say you have a couple of trench sections. Place the first one somewhere. Then place the second section at an angle to your first section. Observe what happens. This will probably require some experimentation on your part but you pretty son will get the hang of it. I suggest you start by using the small flat map you see when you open the scenario editor first. Then , when you are comfortable with thaty, graduate to experimenting on actual maps

Most people in 2017 would probably consider the Ukranian War to be World War 3. Certainly the main theatre of ground combat would be Ukraine with likely combat elsewhere in Eastern Europe (eg Baltic States, Kaliningrad Oblast. possibly Belorussia, maybe Romania and/or Polandv if the Russians got that far. Most combat outside Europe would take place at sea or in the air. In particuar in the Atlantic, the Medditerranean/Black Sea and in the North Pacific.There are possibilies for ground combat if the Russians attemt to occupy Iceland to contribute to the Third Battle of the Atlantic which would certainly be fought as the Russins attempt to interdict the convoy routes An interesting possibility is the possible implementation of the Lehman Doctrine in the Far East. While the US mighrt not implement a full scale invasion of Siberia amphibious operations might well be mounted to occupy the Kuril Islands, Sakhalin and Russia's Far Eastern naval bases such as Vladivostok. Some interesting possibilities there for non European scenarios withn the context of the war as developed by the BF designers.