LUCASWILLEN05
-
Posts
1,591 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by LUCASWILLEN05
-
-
10 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
You should try 1/72, they're small enough for gaming and some of the kits are absolutely mind-bogglingly good these days, if you other chaps will excuse the quick veer off-topic, check this out:
Actually I do also use 20mm (1:72nd) - Vietnam and Modern Middle East. A number of my friends also game in this scale so we tend to pool resources. 6mm however is my primary scale for the larger company and battalion actions etc particularity when gaming tank b\ttles. I just think wall to wall 20mm tanks can end up looking very silly, I did look at 15mm as an option when I did decide to go into larger scales but I really liked the look of the Elheim Figures range
-
27 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
I like the Lardy rules: https://toofatlardies.co.uk/
I tried their WW1 rues three or four years ago but I wasn't that impressed with then and nor were other club members. so I didn't want to try anything from the same stable. I liked the Battlegroup WW2 rules and 3rd Generation has similar mechanics so I will probably like them. Interestingly infantry are represented at 1:1 scale which makes things slightly tricky in 6mm but I can use a similar workaround to his problem as for the WW2 Battlegroup Kursk rues so probably not such a difficult issue as it might seem at first sight Only drawback is that lists and equipment data is only available for the Cold War at the moment. Not that there is anything wrong with that. It is anybody's guess if/when more modern time frames will be covered. Nevertheless one should be able to game anything up to and including Desert Storm.
Sabre Squadron is anther nice and simple rule set which allows infantry their rightful place on the battlefield. Aimed at a company commander perspective the basic unit is single vehicles and fire team so quite reminiscent of CM in some ways
For moderns I feel simple but authentic rules work best. I also like rules that work with 6mm (the primary scale I use for the period) but I also have and use 20mm as do many of my wargaming friends - having rues that are usable inmultiple scales is something I have come to regard as a definite advantage. Though I used o use Command Decision quite a lot I tend to be more interested in gaming at company to battalion level these days - and this s he influence of the CM games on my tabletop miniatures gaming. Doesn't mean tha I don't like the occasional Command Decision Game. I also use he modern amendments to the Battlefront WW2 rules for larger Cold War era moderns gaming. A decent if slightly lower level alternative to Command Decision
-
12 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
I'm supposed to be building something Russian right now.....CM has done my modelling output no good at all.
I know this feeling......
-
12 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
3:1. Go big or go home.
Kidding. I do mostly 1:35 these days (I've got a Normandy era M4 that's about 80% done on the bench now), but I've done a lot of 1:100 and 1:285 too.
Figure scale is a matter of personal choice. As well as 6mm I sometimes also use 20mm. For rules, when it comes to moderns, I prefer something reasonably simple in my case Sabre Squadron. However I recently purchased 3rd Generation Warfare but have not played them yet. For skirmish level Force on Force. I know there are plenty of other rule sets out there but I don't want every "bell and whistle" - I want a reasonably authentic tabletop simulation that does not require too much effort to learn and play. Which rules do you use?
-
On 6/8/2017 at 6:43 AM, John Kettler said:
Was wondering whether or not the new CMBS Battle Pack finally is out on the steppe proper, allowing long range gunnery and missile fires, not to mention giving the Russians and Ukrainians the ability to use their mobile BSRs and such as they were designed to be used, capabilities severely constrained by short LOS distances in the core game? Right now, considering I've been in no shape to play CMBS for months, it seems like a bad idea to buy it, so I'm hoping someone who has will kindly answer my question.
Regards,
John Kettler
I don't think the Battle Pack includes any Steppe scenarios. But I agree scenarios set in Southern Ukraine on the steppes would certainly be good. Many of these would I think be relatively small ( company or so f tanks with supporting infantry and helicopters tank battle on large maps allowing maneuver and long range engagement.
Another possibility might be a modernized version of a small part of II SS Panzer Korps battle in the Rive Mius (ate July/early August as described in Nipe's Decision n Ukraine with the Germans replaced by US and Ukrainian forces. \This scenario will take pace towards the end of August as the war draws towards a close assuming here the US victory branch. The Russians will be well dug in with fairly extensive minefields As with the historical WW2 battles temperatures would be very high
https://opentopomap.org/#map=6/50.057/32.607
Anyway there s this very useful mapping app that you may be aware of which will be very useful. The only drawback is that the Ukrainian place names seem to be Cyrillic. I am not entirely certain either in regard o whether the 1943 battle to which I refer was fought in what is now modern Ukraine or, as I suspect may be the case, some miles into Russia. Assuming the latter to be the case, and I suspect this my well be the case there is the risk that Russia would go nuclear. However this is a game and we could explain it away by saying there are negotiations in progress while this fighting is on-going. The Russians are blustering and making threats about nuclear weapons and there is some form of nuclear standoff prior to the political solution that ends the war. Arguably this Cuban Missile like crisis does much to scare both sides into agreeing a settlement. The US agrees to withdraw their forces from any Russian territory in exchange for any parts of Ukraine Russia occupies. No march on Moscow here. just very limited advances into Russia for largely political reasons
-
6 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
What scale do you work in? I'm a Brailler, almost exclusively 1/72 stuff.
A brailer in 1/72nd scale - what would you make of my 6mm micro armour then?
-
19 minutes ago, John Kettler said:
Would like to point out the official Army training video shows both the Abrams M1 Assault Breachers and the Abrams AVLB employed in a Company level action vs a dug-in Reinforced MR Platoon strongpoint with MRL support. The first, under a hail of indirect and direct suppressive fires, are used to get through the obstacles and clear and mark safe lanes, which the AVLB, protected by the straight Abrams MBTs, advances through in order to deploy the AVLB to get the unit across the otherwise impassable antitank ditch.
Regards,
John Kettler
Assaults on fortified (to some degree) positions certainly d happen. Desert Storm is a good example both with the breaching of the Saddam Line and he later battle against the Tawakalna Division - in the latter case clearly a hasty defense. Of course the Iraqis were far less competent and, in terms of the hapless conscript infantry, far less motivated than the Russians are likely to be - and of course that Kuwait and Southern Iraq s very different - though perhaps steppe terrain has a few passing similarites
-
1 hour ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
The AVLB would be something interesting to see, but if put it well below mine plows (every US tank platoon has one), rollers, or the ABV. Also I think Lucas doesn't understand what the platform can actually do which mildly annoys me.
I keep pondering doing up an M4A3E2, but my stash o' kits needs to get smaller before I go for more.
Yes mine plows would be nice to have as well as other engineering equipment. It may however be more accurate to say that I don't have your professional understanding of the full capability of the equipment though I probably am aware of the basic principles as a civilian and a miniature wargamer. You can always find suitable youtube videos and open access sources to educate the civvies. Maybe that approach will work better with me though you can't assume I am going to understand all of it at your level. You can expect questions and yes you ight think some of them are dumb from a professional;peersecive. You have to bwear in mid that not everone here is a professional soldier
We can however agree it is a nice capability to have in game as an option for scenarios. This is probably a good time for all of us to agree on that principle From a computer modelling perspective I agree that there will be issues around the programming and graphics design as there must have been for the Sherman flail - but these issues are probably not insoluble. Who knows it might even accidentally result in a solution to your regular bridges issues
-
33 minutes ago, Rinaldi said:
I wouldn't have minded AVLBs, MICLICs and Mine Rollers for designing a classic breaching mission, but you can still do one without; given how fluid the fighting is meant to appear in the Black Sea game its easy to 'write-in' the fact that niether side has time to dig in so completely and wholly. Mine rollers are definitely still on my wish list.
Its tough to do a proper anti-tank ditch with how an action space is 8x8 anyways. That's pretty wide for a proper AT ditch. They're usually half that width.
Yes it would b nice to have proper anti tank ditches - and fr hat matter tank scrapes (In Desert Storm the Rebublican Guard Tawaklna Division was able to produce hasty tank scrapes nd lay some mnes n a matter of a few hours (See Jayhawk Stephen A Bourque for details
One suspects that he campaign in Ukraine would be quite a fluid affair. Bridging and relatively hasty defensive positions would however be needed by both sides at various points. Certainly to a similar scope to the defensive positions implemented by the Republican Guard for the climatic tank battles albeit far more competently implemented. Engineering equipment as Rinaldi correctly says would be required to deal with his although such equipment is relatively rare. However we have such equipment for Combat Mission Normandy and Final Blitzkrieg so no reason not to implement modern capabilities in CMBS
-
2 hours ago, Combatintman said:
I doubt JonS will do anything in the post above that starts with the word 'you' for reasons that ought to be pretty obvious but just in case see below ...
Serving Officer.
Author of scenario design manual.
Author of the CMBN scenario pack.
Author or contributor of scenarios and campaigns in most of the CM titles.
Putting that aside, I'm not averse to AVLBs being in the game but if you put this into QB or TO&E terms ... think of the rarity. As an example, a tank regiment in an old style Soviet division had about 3 x AVLB in its engineer company and the motor rifle regiment would generally have one. In those days they were rather keen on being able to cross obstacles or in your words, there to maintain the rate of advance.
I suspect they are less prevalent these days ...
I am not one for playing Quick Battles anyway - I prefer scenarios and campaigns and always have.
If we take the "Brutal" scenario a the basis strictly for illustration purposes one might assume something along these lines. The US are conducting a major counter attack planning to take the Russian forces defending in sector from the rear. They conducted a rapid river crossing further downstream and moved rapidly overnight with a bridging unit attached (probably several vehicles n fact) to the battle group. Your force is to be one arm of a pincer move on Russian forces in sector. The river must be crossed quickly which is why the AVLB unit was attached. Brigade Headquarters who for the purposes of argument are coordinating all of this need you to cross the river, eliminate the Russian Mechanizd Company holding the town and continue he advance with minimal casualties and ammunition expenditure and for the operation to be complete within let u say an hour to an hour and a half. This attack is to be made off the march by the leading company combat team who will support the bridging of the river which will assist with the capture of the road bridge. After the end of the scenario follow on company combat teams will conduct a Passage of Lines to continue the advance
i agree with you in regard of the rarity. The difference between he Russians and US is that Russian vehicles are swimming capable whereas US forces lacking such capability need to eithe capture bridges or they brig their own as n the example above
It would be interesting to either remake the Brutal scenario with US forces attacking Russians or to design a similar scenario. Without the availability of AVLB the US would be required to attack the bridge which in all probability is going to be heavily defended. I don't have a great deal of time just now owing to course work but perhaps we could work together on a scenario along the above lines. Obviously without the AVLB capability for the present. Something approximately Company Combat Team in size - I don't usually want to do anything much larger
-
This should be of interest
-
For a scenario of the size of that being discussed the artillery support (if available) s most likely going to be company assets only (ie mortars) Battalion assets will be a tot less likely but possible. This operation simply is no important enough to assign anything heavier to. Conversely a company or battalion scenario would likely be part of a wider battle and here a battery or two would be relevant and perhaps more if this is a major effort.
In this scenario however artillery support if used will likely just be a couple of mortars at most. You often have a choice as to whether you want them on or off table for the scenario you are designing. For example, in this scenario supposing you decided to use the Ukranian BMP battalion as the basis for your force. You are going to use say two platoons from one of the mech companies. Your available artillery support will probably be from e of the two battalion mortar platoons. One possible option might be to have one of the mortars on table and maybe bringing the other two in as reinforcements You can always limit supplies even down to individual weapons to simulate, in this case, the husbanding of mortar shells for what is a elatively unimportant mission in the wider scheme of things
-
11 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
Eight wheels is all the rage these days isn't it, still it does look a cool (and tough) vehicle.
And the Polish are one of the NATO nations participating in a war in Ukraine or indeed elsewhere in Eastern Europe (eg a defense of the Baltic States and of their home country against Russian invasion in addition to our "official" NATO intervention in Ukraine). The Polish have some pretty cool equipment as well which is another good reason for the Polish army to be included
-
17 hours ago, JonS said:
Now you're talking about a massive massive scenario, which is uninteresting for different reasons.
NoI am not. There are good reasons that modern armies have bridging equipment forward with the leaving units. They are there to maintain the rate f advance. The size of scenario need not involve more than a company or two. The battles we fight in CM, like their tabletop wargame equivalents represent only a fraction of a larger engagement
In my previous post the point I was making was that a well designed scenario should not have only one way to win. Let us take the scenario in Brutal for example Though this battle involves a Russian attack across a river against a defended Ukrainian town it does not involve large forces. Only a two or three companies on the Russian side. There is a major road bridge and there is a Russian river crossing employing their amphibious vehicles downstream.
A similar scenario to Brutal could easily be designed using AVLBs to allow US forces to attempt a similar river crossing option to that of the Russians except that the US method is different Such a scenario would, I suggest be highly instructive. If you take a look at the OpenTopoMap application (and you can zoom in to very small areas if you wish on this app) there are quite a few rivers in Ukraine including the Eastern half of the country. AVLBs would be of particular importance in the NATO counter offensive phase. In the defensive phase they are less prominent but still potentially useful in local counter attacks. You may like to take a look at the map using the OpenTopoMap application with an eye to appreciating the overall operational possibilities/requirements as well as for the tactical situations resulting from that.
-
Some rather good recent combat footage here
-
Apparently a licensed Polish version of a Finnish vehicle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KTO_Rosomak
-
In the real world there are very good reasons the military uses this equipment.
http://olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_avlb.php
Regarding their use in scenarios what you are describing is a badly designed scenario. Unlike the Russians most US vehicles lack amphibious capability - in te real world they use the AVLB instead but we don't have this capability in game, My contention is hat we should.
However a well designed scenario should not have only one way to win, If you do however have such a scenario you need to cover he crossing sight with overwatch fire, use smoke extensively and destroy as many identified enemy units as possible before you bring your AVLBs up.
In most scenarios there should be other ways of crossing a water obstacle than an AVLB but these options are likey to be wel defended. The AVLB lets you cross at a time and place of your choosing - and the place you choose will hopefully be less well defended than that bridge, The same principle goes for the Russian amphibious vehicle capability - and there is at least one published scenario n which they must attempt a river crossing - Brutal. Note that this scenario includes a road bridge in addition to the Russian amphibious crossing downstream A very similar scenario might designed using US forces were the real world AVLB capability to be available. To cross the river in a "Brutal" like scenario h US would in fact require several AVLBs allowing for possible losses and the width of the river,
Note also that AVLBs use tank chassis. There is an obvious reason for that - AVLBs are intended to be used .with the forward units so the advance can be continued rapidly. The current version uses the M60 chassis. The M104 Wolvrine and the future Joint Attack Bridge use the M1A2 chassis which reduces the vulnerability of such vehicles considerably
-
5 hours ago, Kaunitz said:
I think that most of my problems are related to my lack of understanding how a modern war works on the operational level. I think we can agree that full-contact situations between relatively evenly matched forces in which both sides have a chance to win make for the most fun scenarios in Combat-Mission games. Yet I wonder if and in what situations and on what level such engagements would occur in reality? Especially with all those fast, mechanized units, long range weapons and modern intel technique, and also the availability of hard counters (there are specialized weapon systems against each type of threat), also air power, one would assume that no side had an interest in or could be forced into evenly matched engagements, as these engagements bear the risk of defeat and almost certainly result in high casualties for both sides. Rather, each side (and especially the one who felt to be at a disadvantage) would prefer to seek a better situation more in their favour? This shifts our focus from the tactical to the operational level, which is not the focus of CM games.
And while I think that the "retreat if the enemy resists/stands"-idea is more relevant for small-scale scenarios, I wonder whether it also applies to engagements of larger sizes. If you're not really sure that all the operational parameters and your high-quality intel suggests that your brigade-sized attack will be a success, would you really risk it? Does modern doctrine include these kinds of griding/high casualty, full contact attacks determined to overcome an actual resistance by the enemy, or does it rather favour the path of the least resistance - i.e. winning the operational game rather than the tactical boxing-match? And here is where it gets tricky for CM-games: If modern war shifts more towards the operational level, situations that make for fun CM-scenarios are rather limited.
Things might have been different in WWII, when intel wasn't that good, forces not that mobile and fast to react to enemy manoevres, weapons not that powerfull over long ranges and/or specialized, and frontlines relatively clear, air power on the tactical level more a support than a decisive weapon? Such a setting might have produced more casualty-intensive (for both sides), griding engagements, in which morale and tactical execution played a greater role than in a modern, more technically and operationally driven war? So my gut-feeling tells me that modern war might be more about hard-countering the enemy by quality, not by wearing him down with quantity+manouevre (local superiority of force); and that this might lead to very technical, one-sided engagements that are not really very suitable for CM-scenarios.
Regardless of the size of the involved forces, I think that delaying/rearguard actions might be one of the very few plausible scenarios for two relatively evenly matched forces to engage more seriously. The attacking force would be larger of course, but a scenario is only a local and temporal selection of the larger action. You commit a small part of your force and risk its destruction in order to save a larger part of your force. So the smaller force has a reason to stand and fight, even against overwhelming odds. And the attacking side also has a reason to press on, as it is assured that the enemy is at a disadvantage and is likely to retreat any moment.
The other "full contact evenly matched"-scenario I can think of is urban warfare. Here you simply don't know how many enemies are hiding in the next block, despite all modern intel options, so you have no real alternative other than to attack and find out. But for me personally, urban warfare missions are not that enjoyable in CM games because the tactical options are rather limited.
As for the replay-value of CM-scenarios, I have no illusion that they're meant to be played one time (and a second time once you've forgotten all the details from your first playthrough
). If you already know the position of the enemy, a scenario is no more fun and unbalanced.
tt could help to read up on detailed accounts of modern conflicts.Before Desert Storm there were actually quite a few probing, patrol and diversionary actions of varying sizes
Regarding casualties whether you get high casualties depends on whether there is a technological mismatch and a training mismatch. Compare for example Desert Storm with te Yom Kippur War. In Desert Storm the iraqis training and technology were both inferior although the Iraqi Army could put up a good fight as was the case with the Republican Guard. Before the war I recall at least one newspaper article (it may have been the Sunday Telegraph suggesting an "ugly slugfest in the sand" Nt mention the vital role of Coalition air power.
Ukraine is different. Here the air war is contested, both sides have reasonably decent air defenses (though on the latter score the Russians may have an advantage with Tunguska) Training, morale and equipment are roughly equivalent. In this situation, unlike CMSF heavier losses are likely The terrain is also rather different. Except for steppe regions engagement ranges are likely to be relatively short which again raises the likelihood of increased casualties.
Actually armoured engagements in Southern Ukraine would be quite interesting and with your map link actual areas cou;d be more easily reproduced
-
6 hours ago, Kaunitz said:
Sorry I've overlooked your comment. I haven't found a way to change the names from cyrilian to latin characters/english transcriptions either, I'm afraid.
Thanks. I couldn't ether, One can work around with Google Earth bit it is a bit of a pain, Main issue is orienting yourself to the right place on both applications and getting the right place names. No problem with the Latin characters but cyrillics might as well b hieroglyphs as fas as I am concerned. there is the search function of course but this is till the oe drwback
However, that particular map will be perfect for producing maps for abletop gaming in the modern era and o some extent for WW2 battlefelds as well o thanks again for posting the link
-
I think this is a "must have" for Black Sea
-
9 hours ago, Combatintman said:
@Kaunitz take a look at this for your overall context:
This is how I did it ...
Zoomed out to get a feel for the overall area. This allowed me to identify the road over river bridge as a possible immediate objective and the road/rail junction to the NE as a likely subsequent objective. The town to the SW is a good concentration area for an attack.
So the overall premise and what is called the Two-up in military parlance is that your mechanised infantry battalion has been given the mission to secure the road/rail junction with a specified task to secure the river crossing.
I've then just fitted an enemy laydown to fit this narrative (note that they don't have to be motor rifle elements/mechanised reconnaissance - they can be whatever you like). This gives you a defensive line on the river crossings with an element in depth (at the road/rail junction). Like all good commanders, the enemy has deployed a reconnaissance screen forward of the defensive area.
So this gives you the overall mission design construct ...
Key points to note are:
The battalion main effort is the advance NE to secure the bridge and the road/rail junction ... this is where all of the artillery is going to be focussed and therefore solves your 'why no artillery' dilemma.
Your mission is that of a flank guard or guard mission:
Flank Guard = 'A security element operating to the flank of a moving or stationary force to protect it from enemy ground observation, direct fire, and surprise attack'.
Guard = 'A form of security operation whose primary task is to protect the main force by fighting to gain time while also observing and reporting information and to prevent enemy ground observation of and direct fire against the main body by reconnoitering, attacking, defending, and delaying'.
The detail for the 'why' of this mission is that there is an enemy reconnaissance element in the wood that is capable of providing overwatch onto the main attack route. The forward edge of the wood is 7km from the SW/NE road main attack axis which conveniently is the maximum range of the TALL MIKE radar on the BRM-1K for instance. So the blue force guard element (the mechanised infantry platoon or you can make it an element of a Brigade Reconnaissance Company) has to eliminate this enemy reconnaissance element.
With regard to solving the 'why not at night' question ... it really doesn't matter ... the battalion could have been late to the assembly area or there is political direction to secure the road/rail junction in order to give leverage for cease fire negotiations. Whatever you like mate.
Anyway have a think about all of the above and if you want to bat some more ideas around or tinker with this concept let me know. Once you're settled on the overall construct let me know and I'll change the attached graphic to whatever you want to use as the Operational Map graphic for your mission. Also by going through this process, I hope you can see that the Situation Enemy Forces and Situation Friendly Forces paragraphs are pretty much written.
One final thing ... how do we know they are there? SIGINT could have identified radio transmissions, a woodsman could have seen enemy soldiers or a vehicle in the woods and reported it to your forces or a previous reconnaissance element could have come under fire from the woods and reported being in contact before being destroyed (you could stage this by having a destroyed friendly reconnaissance vehicle on the approaches to the wood).
Simples ...
I like the look of your map overlays there. The entire operation as you outline it may very well have the makings of a good mini campaign . This is a localized operation in a defined area which may last a few hours in the real world. up to a couple of days including Ukranian counter attacks later.
The minefield is probably quite a hasty affair
-
Regarding the TopoMap is there a way of displaying the place names in English rather than he local language names? While it would be possible to use in conjunction with Google Earth and type the place names into the search function it would be much easier to navigate quickly.
I do however like the contour lines and other map details that are harder to discern easily in Google Earth
-
I lie the idea of small scenarios involving anything between a couple of platoons to a reinforced company combat team. Given the size of the maps anything more than a couple of company combat teams to a battalion is the likely maximum for force size.
The OpenTopo Map link you posted looks very good indeed - thanks for posting the link,. The contour lines make this one particularly useful though probably best used in conjunction with Google Earth if only too help navigate place names.
Map size is I think an important issue depending on force size and type. For instance I am keen on tank battles which milittes towards larger maps but if your scenario is a small infantry based action then, yes, a small map is best - the forces must be able to find each other. Also a map large enough for forces to manouver tactically
Regarding night attacks both the Russians and US have good night vision capabilities hence flares are probably not needed. Given that I don't feel a scenario would be any more unbalanced
-
5 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
Bridging under fire is an option with the AVLB assuming you've got plenty of fire support (in fact it's the whole point), but it's definitely not the safest way to do things. A plausible scenario for an AVLB would be to overcome an anti-tank ditch or berm at the beginning of an offensive (Desert Storm springs to mind), under cover of massive air, artillery and direct fire support.....Cool but not massively utilitarian and given the issues with normal bridges!
In Ukraine also streams and perhaps some of the smaller balkas. You can use several AVLBs to form larger bridges.
A scenario involving a forced river crossing of one of Ukraine's smaller rivers would be an interesting game in itself. One would have to assume degree of operational deception using only a portion of Russian defenders spread out to cover the line. Reinforcements for both sides might be available for both sides
AVLB
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Storage of 20mm can however become a problem