Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by db_zero

  1. Those 4000 Abhrams tanks are spread out and no way they could be concentrated at the point of attack in a timely manner. What matters is what you would have at the point of attack when you need it. The US would have to marshal those heavy forces and then ship them to ports in Europe and then reassemble them. For Russia reinforcing an initial assault with follow up forces is a simpler process. The Russians hold regular snap drills with sizable forces. As for cyber attacks the Russians wouldn’t have to target the USA. They could concentrate on selected targets in Europe. Crippling the infrastructure especially anything related to what would be needed to reinforce the NATO forces would suffice. There are a lot of other things they could do. The US Forces deployed to counter Russia are formitable but probably more of a deterrent in the sense that it would make Russia realize it would be starting a war with NATO and the US. I really don’t think it’s expected to stop a determined Russian assault. Another thing to keep in mind is if we get into a war elsewhere say Korea then we would really be hard pressed to halt a Russian advance should they choose to take advantage of the situation
  2. Any future war with Russia will be unlike anything we've seen IMO. Expect very heavy cyber warfare. The Russians know Western forces are highly dependent on agility and maneuver and crippling the networks as well as the command and control structures that direct and control the actual combat units is going to be a top priority. The Russians have already demonstrated a very advanced capability to use cyber warfare in support of their military and political goals. Recognizing this the US is making moves to counter this. Recently a top US Marine officer was actually visiting units and asking for volunteers who knew how to hack systems. He was offering signing bonuses to qualified recruits. The US Military is competing with private industry to attract qualified people. Even private industry cannot find enough cyber security personnel to fill existing positions that pay six figures. Its getting to the point where cyber warfare is going to start filtering down to the platoon level. Most of the battles in CMBS are relatively balanced which it has to be for play-ability purposes. In real life I find it hard to believe it will be so balanced. The Russians can bring far more forces to bear in a much shorter time against the small number of US Army forces actually deployed near the Russian border. They would also use a massive amount of indirect fire against US/allied forces. I don't know how fun it would be to constantly play battles with heavily outnumbered US/Allied forces that faced massive amounts of indirect fire being rained down upon them. Much of the US doctrine is the use of air power to be able to rain down precision guided munitions to help redress the numerical imbalance on the ground. This is where the cyber warfare/SIGINT comes in. Jam or degrade the communication network and you seriously degrade the effectiveness of airpower. Also the Russians have always been a leader in ground based surface to air technology. They don't have to completely stop US/Allied airpower-just degrading and attrition would probably be enough. The Russian air force too should not be discounted. Their 4th generation aircraft may not be as advanced as the latest US stealth aircraft, but they are good enough and there are a lot more of them. The older US and western aircraft while still capable are going to have their hands full. Aircraft like the A-10 which is highly popular and useful in the Mideast where it is a highly permissive environment is going to be in a much different environment in a battle near the Russian border.
  3. I just gt a new SSD drive so reinstalled all my Combat Missions. I had PBEM games in RT and BS so I had to upgrade back to ver 4.0 as that what we started the games on. After reading all the comments on Fortress Italy I'm just going to stay on Ver 3.0 for CMFI\Gustav Line I'm now on ver 1.0 for CMFB. Does ver 4.0 on FB have the same behavior that is causing a lot of comments in Italy? Mainly infantry fleeing to easily and running back and forth?
  4. I just gt a new SSD drive so reinstalled all my Combat Missions. I had PBEM games in RT and BS so I had to upgrade back to ver 4.0 as that what we started the games on. After reading all the comments on Fortress Italy I'm just going to stay on Ver 3.0 for CMFI\Gustav Line I'm now on ver 3.0 for CMBN and have all the add ons. Does ver 4.0 on CM Normandy have the same behavior that is causing a lot of comments in Italy? Mainly infantry fleeing to easily and running back and forth?
  5. I have seen some odd behavior in my 4.0 Campaign game like German troops running down the hill slope, being shot at. Retreating and then running down the slope again only to be shot at, retreat back up, then come back down. This is continuous behavior and seems to only stop then they get shot
  6. Perhaps the fleeing is somewhat realistic? I reading a book and around Villers Bocage a British platoon fled and was forced back into position at "gunpoint" only to flee again. It was pretty much accepted that many Allied generals would lose about a divisions worth of men before they finally began to catch on to the art of waging war and many never really did. Under those circumstances the largely conscripted armies of the day probably did melt away more than we think. They had been in combat for extended periods of time and there is simply so much one can take. Even in elite German SS units I'm reading form the same book "The Guns at Last Light" German commanders resorted to things like tossing live grenades at reluctant troops to get them to move forward and fight
  7. I started the American Campaign Road to Troina with 4.0 and notice the fleeing behavior. So far i don't see it as being completely unplayable but definitely different. I've had whole platoons flee from fire and then used my leaders to rally them. One thing I seem to notice in all of my 4.0 games vs AI so far is the AI artillery is awfully accurate and deadly. The FO's and officers who call down artillery fire are certainly crack. This is not just Italy. One other thing I've noticed and this has already been mentioned in the Black Sea section is the Bradley drivers are very touchy about being painted by lasers and retreat even of ordered to fast advance to a position that is covered from direct fire
  8. If at first you don't succeed... Guess to some the Stryker is the military's version of the Ford Pinto.
  9. I just reinstalled the entire Shock Force Marines, British and NATO. Restarted the TF Thunder again. What a contrast beating up on T-55s and RPG armed infantry from wide open spaces. It sounds like there will be an update to bring it up to Black Sea standards? Hopefully 4.0 and out by next week ? Since I now have SSD drives and more ram and a I7 processor I'll probably be able to try out some of the huge maps..
  10. From what I understand one of the biggest features of the Stryker is under the hood. It takes advantage of the revolution in advanced microchip, display, interface and networking technology. Like warships many look at a US Navy warship and compare it with a Russian one bristling with guns and missiles and comes to the conclusion that the Russians seriously outmatch us. Nothing can be further from the truth. The Javelin is also another example of a system that is a product of the revolution in advanced microchip tech. I would also venture to guess that the US Army and Marines while desiring new or improved weapon systems are placing as great a need for small, mid and large unit cyberware specialists who are adept at offensive and defensive cyber warfare and capable of deploying in combat and support units. Like the private sector the demand for such personnel is tremendous and growing. The recent ransomeware attacks and theft of sophisticated hacking tools from the intelligence agencies is making this a high priority everywhere... Re-Independent tank battalions: Almost sounds somewhat similar to the independent tank destroyer concept in WW2, then again there were lots independent tank battalions and some if not all US armored divisions were divided up into separate combat commands-CCA/CCB/CCC or something like that. I haven't kept up with things lately so I don't know if the Army still uses a divisional or brigade type org. I think the Marines use the regimental system? A few independent battalions at the NTC is an interesting concept. I would also have them rotated to Europe a year or 2 at a time as that's presumably where they would end up be needed. I also believe that the Europeans need to step up to the plate and provide a few independent armored units if they are going to be serious about defending NATO. Perhaps some creativity can be utilized. Perhaps the West can train some specialized tank hunter infantry units and arm them with Javelins or similar weapons to supplement AT capabilities. Of course the best approach would be diplomacy. Come to some sort of mutual understanding and agreement. The last thing anyone wants is a real hot war between the West and Russia, but at the same time you do need a credible deterrence to back diplomacy up.
  11. The Stryker is designed to occupy the middle ground between full scale all out war and small scale insurrections. It filled the need to give the Army enhanced strategic mobility. In an all out war against a power like Russia who presumably will field large number of tanks and other fighting vehicles the primary weapon will be infantry teams armed with Javelins. A typical Styrker brigade has about 90 Javelin launchers. In built up or other favorable terrain I also wouldn't discount the capabilities of infantry armed with other hand held AT weapons. You don't need to completely destroy an enemy fight vehicle to be effective. The Russians know this and would use artillery to suppress the infantry, so really the primary danger to a Stryker Brigade may not be tanks, but artillery. What sane Russian commander knowing the capabilities of a Stryker Brigade and its Javelin armed infantry would send tanks straight into a Stryker brigade without serious artillery prep? As a counter to this a Stryker brigade can use the mobility of the Stryker to move around using its mobility and armor give a good degree of protection from artillery. Also keep in mind the Stryker is just one piece of the puzzle. A brigade will also have its own organic artillery and could call on air support to help deal with tanks. The military even in these times does not have unlimited money to buy whatever it desires. The concept of independent tank battalions is an interesting one and could give some useful punch in a European style fight against Russia. A Stryker Brigade with an attached heavy tank battalion would be pretty formidable. If I were King I would also add independent armored engineer companies with CEV's to the mix. and if money were no object an attached AA company and electronic warfare assets....
  12. The debate rages...I think you would be better off putting the money and resources in arming the grunts that ride in Strykers with more javelins and other AT weapons than spending the money and resources into trying to turn the Stryker into a tank. In my laymans mind the Styrker is a fast high tech battlefield taxi who's main task is to deliver the infantry close to, but not into a battle. Aside from its strategic mobility, its wheels also affords great operational mobility. Once it drops off the infantry close to the battle line the infantry scouts and detects threats while the Strykers provide supporting fire to the infantry. if the threat is deemed to be a high threat to the Strykers and/or infantry the infantry mounts up and the Strykers will leave the scene or call up tanks, airpower or ICM to deal with an armored threat. The Stryker also has a low sound signature. What it is not is a tank and arming it like one always runs the risk of a commander thinking it is a tank and trying to use it like one. From what I've heard the Rangers and Special Forces have taken a liking to the Stryker, but that's outside this discussion. I saw a while back an attempt to find a 30mm system for the Stryker that is under consideration to arm some or all of the force eventually.
  13. WW2 was a long time ago. The average front line soldier was not so nearly well trained. Most were draftees. While I don't dispute the validity of WW2 studies the world and warfare has changed and perhaps it time to re-evaluate and change. Most Armies are volunteer-that applies the the US. Training is much higher. Effective and low cost optics is also available that makes fire from infantry weapons far more effective. In WW2 99% of the infantry used open sights. Today lightweight optics that turn every infantryman into a potential sniper is in widespread use. Optics issued to everyone can vary from simple red-dot, reflex to 2-6X+ variable. The revolution in optics is something that has gone largely un-reported but has greatly enhanced the effectiveness of small arms and now makes effective longer range shooting by juts about any trained infantryman possible. A round that is less affected by variables like wind, distance and humidity is desirable. In the future expect more of the same type of warfare where discriminant use of firepower is required. It may be too counterproductive to use artillery, mortars or other heavy firepower and more discriminant use of firepower is required.
  14. The leadership of China biggest worry is internal strife. The PLA and new tanks are first and foremost there to keep the people in line and if need be crush them if they get too ornery. Taiwain is next on the list as is North Korea if it collapses. Somewhere way down on the list of priorities is an actual land war with the west... Many view China as a homogenous country which is far from the truth. Lots of ethics groups who have thousands of years of disagreements, political intrigue and disdain for one another. Then there is the rural vs urban, costal vs countryside things going on. The war being fought is basically a cyber one.
  15. At one time the US and USSR faced off with MAD. Now the US and China face off in MADE (Mutual Assured Destruction of Economies). A war would really hose both economies. That being said there is a game going on over some reefs in the South China Sea. Huge reserves of resources is reputed to be under the ocean in the area and the Chinese fear the US could easily interdict the area and cut off the oil supply to China if conflict took place. China would definitely fears any unrest or collapse of North Korea as they would not want a huge refugee problem on their shared borders. The world has changed since 1950 and the likelihood of another major US-China clash in Korea is remote. An air-naval clash would be more likely, but once again a pretty remote chance of that happening.
  16. I've brought up the topic of Asia in the past and from the semi-official response will never happen. If you want a modern Asia fix there are a few. I stick to CMNAO. Next week a new DLC that will have things like EMP, rail-guns, high energy laser should allow some interesting US-North Korea and other Asia based scenarios to be tried out. There is a DLC out now that covers Korea. Of course CMNAO isn't an in the weeds type of game. The only other ones that come to mind that cover Asia is something like Wargame Red dragon which I could never really get into. I did play People's General and Force 21 back in the day...
  17. I think the chances both the Army and Marines will get a new rifle and round are quite good. The political climate is right. There could also be domestic politics that will come into play. The current administration is 2nd Amendment friendly as is the overall make up of congress and the senate. As a result many of the domestic gun manufacturers have an oversupply of AR type platforms and other guns. Sales are flat line to falling as the fear of a crackdown on guns has diminished for the time being. The recent election made that a fact. A new weapon system with the associated potential for lucrative government contracts in congressional districts may sweeten the deal. Save jobs and keep manufacturing in America as the new slogan goes and anyone with any clue to how the convoluted defense industry works knows this isn't a far fetched scenario. In addition there are many civilians out there who would jump at the chance to own whatever weapon the military has. As crazy as that sounds this is America and America is a gun culture. The Army and Marines are quite clever in bringing this up now and they should move forward and ask. The worst that can happen is they get told no, but there will probably never be a better climate to get what you ask for than now.
  18. I a little surprised by this. I don't agree with all of the reasons stated in this article-I think the AR is far more reliable these days, but the other reasons seem to have some validity. If the Army moved to a new round I would guess the Marines and other services would have to consider doing so. Its still not a done deal and Congress will have the final say. https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/why-army-thinks-needs-bigger-192100754.html
  19. I restarted GG WitW and Torch. I happen to like it. Then again I I can't think of a GG game I didn't like. You just have to be prepared to digest a full 20 course meal and dessert-it is a Gary Grisgby game and they are massive, complex and full of details. I'm now playing the Torch scenario. I played the Sicily scenario again to re-familiarize and the Rommel Attacks. I still haven't tried the full campaign against the AI yet. Don't know how challenging or difficult it is. I also played a little War in the East and looking at the forum most say as the Germans its not too hard to win the full campaign, but the first turn is critical. Playing as the Soviets is more of a challenge from what was said. There was an interview with GG and he said eventually a 1940-41 expansion for WitW would be added and eventually WitW and WitE would be linked. If that happens it would be insane. I'll stater a PBEM of WitW eventually and maybe WitE. I have played a full WitP and WitpAE PBEM campaign. I played a full Campaign game against the AI 3 times when the original War in the Pacific was released in 1992. I never played a full campaign against the AI in the newer versions. I'm not sure you could program a competent AI for that.
  20. I looked at Decisive Campaigns Barbarossa and it really looks good. The system seems like it would be great for other campaigns, but sounds like the developer isn't going to make any more. I'll have to get it when it goes on sale again
  21. It takes time and study to get the hang of the new system. It may be a while before I jump back into WitW. I got Torch mainly because of the sale. I did jump into SCWiE and was able to subjugate Poland in less than an hour-without having to play a tutorial or read the manual. I've stopped for now and will read the manual and watch some youtube videos so I hopefully won't make some early mistakes that will cost me later on. I've started researching amphibious warfare so I can invade Great Britain-after I take over France. Then I'll have to decide if I take over Russia or try to invade the USA. Gotta love the simple games now and then....
  22. Yup War in the West. The new air system is great and its too bad its not ported over to War in the East which I have, but not really played. I have WitPAE and spent 2 years of my life playing a PBEM grand campaign-we often did 2-3 turns a day and 4-8 on the weekends. The Torch expansion does have a hypothetical scenario that starts in 1943 and assumes Hittler was deposed and thus Germany has a more rational strategy... I wonder if they will expand War in the West to 1939. I also have the latest Hearts of Iron. Gary Grigsbys games are always a beast, I remember playing the original War in the West for hours
  23. You've cost me some more $$$ I took a look at the new Strategic Command War in Europe and decided to get it. I have the older ones that cover Europe and Pacific. A nice beer and pretzels game. Also got Gary Grigsby Torch expansion for the new War in Europe the exact opposite of a beer and pretzels game. At least I got the 30% discount that ends today so it takes some of the sting out
  24. Looks like I'll have to try this one next as I'm near finishing MM after a re-do. Im a bit sidetracked by Afghanistan 11 which surprised me. I'll probably need a break from the frustration of A11 and start this one for more frustrating times...
  25. Its been a long time since I've played Strategic Command, but SC is primarily about combat and waging war. A11 is about waging war and has combat, but combat and killing the enemy, while important isn't going to be enough. You have to make contact with the natives in town and villages, send them UN Aid, build things like water facilities and roads as well as protect them from attacks. Once you win the trust of the locals they give you intelligence. You're going out destroying opium crops, training the Afghan Army cause you have to turn the country over to them and they have to survive 10 turns. You can't be careless and neglect monitor the roads as they get mined with IEDs and that can easily ruin your day. Seeing trucks loaded with supplies or aid get destroyed by IED's or Taliban attacks will piss you off to no end. You have airstrikes, drones, special forces, Blackhawks, Apaches, Chinooks. Where you build your FOB's and how you supply them is critical as the Militia and Taliban will attack them as well as mine the resupply routes. You can expand FOBS with hospitals, repair facilities and artillery pits. They come with a mortar section and you can garrison them, but you must be able to keep them in supply. There are Presidential election you can influence and the candidate that wins affects the game. usually around the election time the Taliban will mass for an offensive and you have to avoid casualties and damage to infrastructure. If you start to suffer casualties you lose Political points which you need to buy things and perform certain actions. Its far different than SC
  • Create New...