Codename Duchess

Regarding the percentage debate, remember that NATO countries are obligated to spend 2% of their GDP on defense but few major European countries do. There’s no obligation to spend it wisely but it’s at least a start. As for German military readiness, two examples painting a pretty bleak picture of the Sea and Air. http://www.businessinsider.com/german-military-fighters-jets-not-ready-for-combat-2018-5 https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2017/10/20/all-of-germanys-submarines-are-currently-down/

I *never* said the single artillery thing, I refuted it. The original quote was from MikeyD, in this post. The following italicized portion was my line by line response to the very same post in which I italicized his quotes to respond to (multiquoting from the same quote is annoying). I apologize if that wasn't clear but the entire post followed that style and I assumed that the readers would note the [exact] similarity to the previous post in italicized bits, as well as my framing and my general disagreement across the board between the italicized and non-italicized portions.

They also lost a TU-22M. Looks like the crew got out but the plane is a write off. I'm on my phone but it should turn up with a Google search.

This is getting off topic, sort of, but I will try and bring it back I promise: Again, I'm not a Tomahawk officer so I can't speak on exact employment anything past how I would use them and my own messing about with CMANO, but... A lot of these numbers for simplicity come from wikipedia but they pass the snuff test of more reliable sources I have read and checked out in citations on wikipedia. "The only people firing cruise missiles these days is Putin that one time in an ostentatious display of strength in Syria." Not true. First, Putin has used them multiple times and the general consensus has fallen somewhere between "saber rattling/showing off" and "they don't have any other precision munitions in theater". The US and UK have fired 264 Tomahawks since 2008 against targets in Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and Syria. That doesn't count air launched cruise missiles like the CALCM, SLAM, or JASSM from just the US arsenal, all of which have been used. Anyway if it was such an ineffective weapon we wouldn't routinely use it. The US learned a dozen years ago that cruise missiles are *expensive*, not entirely reliable, and not that simple to restock. The cost works out to about 1 million+ dollars for the equivalent of a single artillery shell. If you divide the stated approximate worth of the arsenal of 3500 missiles against the $2.6B quoted value that works out to around $750,000 per missile which is just so very capable. Even if you compare that to the appropriate price of the recent orders of $1.4m you're still getting a hell of a deal for a low flying ultra long range missile with the ability to be retargeted and also the capability to put a 1000lb warhead through a particular window. Compare that to the cost of operating an F/A-18E, it's carrier, it's tankers, and the JDAMs it drops and there are absolutely situations where it's the most economical. Reliability: The recent strike against Syria saw 59 missiles launched with 58 impacts according to the US military (you can believe RT if you want but if so just let me know and I'll stop responding to this thread). Independent sources noted 44 targets hit, several multiple times. Some random syrians tweeted pictures of a single Tomahawk warhead sitting in a field somewhere so 58 is certainly believable. The problem with this strike is it's simply not a great runway cratering weapon leading to calls that it wasn't the best weapon for the job, but as seen in the above picture it will mess up a bunker or hangar just fine. Resupply: This is actually beginning to be an issue in that orders have been curtailed, with funding going to upgrading the Tomahawks that exist. That said, the US Gov't is beginning to put out feelers for a lower observability replacement, countering really the only flaw the weapon has. As for the single artillery shell business, the unitary warhead is 1000lb and the cluster warhead is like 300 submunitions so that's a very very impressive artillery shell. I have a vague memory from ages ago of the US swapping out nuclear warheads for conventional in some of their strategic deterrence cruise missiles because they had depleted their conventional stocks and the assembly line wasn't churning out new ones quick enough. The Nuclear Tomahawk was officially taken off US weapons lists in the early 2010s, although most people suspect the actual denuclearization occurred much earlier. I think the need for more conventional missiles played a part of it, but really it was just the fact the Cold War ended and treaty business. As stated above, replacement rates are still generally lagging our historic usage rates but we still have several thousand in reserve. Now they're content with fighters dropping GPS-steered dumb bombs from 20,000 feet. Sometimes these GPS bombs are inert, just concrete ballast. Higher than that, but this is generally a true statement. Again, it's using the right tool for the right job. B-2 bombers were used last year to take out an ISIS camp in Libya even though there was no air defense network for them to sneak through. But those planes were able to drop something like 100+ JDAMs between the two of them on 100+ different targets. Hence the insane flight cost was justified and tomahawks weren't used. You wouldn't need to use Tomahawks against ISIS or what have you because the advantages of tomahawk don't justify the cost most of the time because you're right a fighter or bomber overhead loaded with a half dozen (or more) JDAMs is a lot more flexible for approximately the same cost. You also often don't want a 1000lb warhead going off in a dense urban environment (hence the concrete bombs). Russia uses cruise missiles because either saber rattling or it's really their most viable option for precision weapons in the theater (something discussed on here many times). Tomahawks wouldn't be used for CAS, they'd be used for deep strike. Going for primary radar installations and stuff, not an infantry squad holed-up in an apt block on the street you want to drive down. Like I said, this was speculative on my part and you're most likely correct (although I can dream). The point is, the vast majority of Tomahawks are going to be going downtown against air defenses and logistical and C2 nodes, absolutely. But if there is troops in contact on day 1 that absolutely requires close support then it's possible but unlikely that they could see a Tomahawk due to recent added abilities to loiter and hit moving targets with a 2 way datalink combined with imaging sensor. The point was that you're more likely to see a Tomahawk used in this role on Day 1 of fighting than you would an F-15 or F-16 which would be busy elsewhere like I previously discussed for the same reasons that you wouldn't see those same aircraft 100 miles behind the front lines bombing SAM sites. In conclusion: Day 1 of the fighting would absolutely see hundreds of Tomahawks heading towards anything that could threaten US aircraft so that they could be used against RUS ground forces. Remember that every Russian SAM or air to air missile fired against a Tomahawk likely costs on the absolute cheap end $500,000 (and likely much more especially for the most advanced stuff) against an already smaller arsenal and it's not an unfavorable exchange for the US.

To back up Raptor the Tibet thing was as panzer put it "bar math" from my source but looking at the more widely circulated and easily doable number of 1500nm from non-official sources the only part unaccessible by Tomahawk is eastern Kazakhstan/NW China. Of which there are RUS/Chinese bases in those areas. (All doesn't really work because you then have the issues of range limitations from their own assets.) The point is if it's 1000 miles or 1500 miles (or more), all of Ukraine is accessible by the missile from the Eastern to Central Med. This still leaves plenty of room for circuitious or terrain following routes to reduce detection. Tomahawks are deployed (in large number too) on every SSN, SSGN, DDG, and CG deployed and are designed for exactly the scenario I outlined above. If we will fire 800 at Iraq in 2003 you bet we will launch thousands on Day 1 of the Air war in Ukraine and still have a healthy reserve. Besides, the Navy is looking at stealthier replacements now so they are reaching the end of their useful lives. And as before every missile Russia uses to shoot one down makes it that much safer and easier for planes, and many will still get through. Edit: One source I saw said we have almost 4000 stockpiled. Not *quite* as many as I said hyperbolically earlier, but I'd bet that's more than all of the S-400 missiles Russia owns, and it's definitely more than the amount of Kalibr they own.

Slight exaggeration but not by as much as you think. I think the real number is close to 20,000. Google Ohio SSGN Their official range is "over 1000nm." A SWO once told me that Tibet is about the only part of the planet that we can't hit. But yeah Tomahawks are on every Navy sub and ship and they would not be withheld against Russia. And that doesn't include air launched conventional cruise missiles. You could probably walk from one side of the Black Sea to the other end, wide way, across Tomahawks if push came to shove.

Going to go ahead and call myself out on this one I'm not going to go too heavily into tactics and capabilities because security but here's how the air war would play out over Ukraine. This is pretty much just going to concern NATO vs. Russia because the Ukrainian Air Force won't exist after 12 hours. Note that I've hit this before but it's time for a refresher. Day 1-3 - Blunt Russian attacks, fight for Air Superiority. Any and all CAS operations will be conducted by organic rotary elements to Ground forces (i.e. AH-64 and AH-1Z). A-10 wouldn't survive the environment and fast multirole jets (even F-35) will be dedicated to counter air. F-22 Rapid Raptor package on station by the end of the day, if not sooner. Strikes behind enemy lines (not necessarily and most likely NOT across Russian border) would be done by Tomahawks, of which we have approximately 100,000 ready to go at a moments notice. These would primarily be SEAD and C2 strikes, although the Army might be able to ask nicely enough to get logistical dumps and troop concentrations to get hit too, maybe bridges. A lot of missiles will get shot down by fancy Russian AA systems (of which I remain skeptical of full claims) but I can't emphasize enough how many missiles we have. Plus every S-400 used against a Tomahawk is one not used against an F-18. You may also see Tomahawks acting as a bastardized version of dire need CAS because it can loiter and hit moving targets now. That role is speculative on my part though. Russia will be at the biggest advantage because NATO air forces in theater will be at their lowest number (assuming there isn't like a weeks warning). This is probably the only day where Russian fixed wing CAS exists. That's good though because they don't have a lot of PGMs, so use them while you got them. If NATO has enough warning to get squadrons in theater, or a carier in the eastern Med, before the fight Russia has no chance. Day 3-5 - Initial hodgepodge of NATO reinforcements (F-16s from Aviano, F-15s from England, European squadrons, Tankers, AWACS, other ISR/EW assets) start to arrive. NATO air superiority bubble grows, first SEAD strikes (on things that Tomahawks didn't wipe out on first day. Again, we have just soo many). If you want you can assume that Euro NATO types don't go on offensive but are more than glad to man the second line of aircraft. There's still more than enough USAF jets to own the front line skies. Russian Fixed wing CAS exists only in temporary bubbles provided by heavily escorted strike packages. Day 5-7 - Even more NATO reinforcements arrive, Russian attrition really starts to show. Fancy SAM systems are now most reliable counter to NATO air, either by surviving first few days or firing from Russia. Heavily escorted strike packages may push in now to hit ground targets, be they troops or strategic nodes. But these are going to have a very heavy anti air and SEAD escort, backed by EW and ISR assets. The only low level strikes would be against time sensititive fixed positions that for some reason a cruise missile can't hit, but those still remain the best option. NATO Fixed wing CAS exists only in temporary bubbles provided by heavily escorted strike packages. Russian fixed wing CAS ceases to exist. Day 7+ RuAF assets in theater no longer exist in being, are kept purely for homeland defense. Surviving fancy SAMs are the only real threat to NATO aircraft but it's not like NATO has no counters and there's a political element to firing them from Russian homeland. Fixed wing CAS makes its persistent appearance, dropping PGMs from high altitude to stay out of Russian SHORAD. Takeaways: As the fighting goes on, Russia simply doesn't have the fighter force to last against NATO. There are more F/A-18s in the US Navy than all types of Russian fighters in their entire armed forces. That's not to say that all of either will be employed, but there are so many more assets (and better ones with better trained pilots with more available better munitions) available to the US and NATO. The Russian Air Force is good enough though that NATO won't be able to provide CAS for the first few days (the above timeline can be modified lengthwise but that's the way it would flow) unless it's some super pressing need-it-now-or-we-lose-the-war need in which case it would require an Alpha Strike. It's simply too risky these days to risk aircraft down low where Russian SHORAD provides a solid defense, and multirole jets will be focused on winning the air war. All of NATOs PGM and ISR strengths are best employed at altitude where they are also less likely to be shot down. Russia on the other hand is a lot more likely to employ low level risky flights. NATO Shorad sucks enough to where they can get lucky dodging jets up high, and the Russians don't have nearly as many precision munitions or targeting pods available to get the best use of high altitude CAS. Conclusion: CAS in this game still makes no sense. Jets should never be at risk from any of the AA assets in game, and even helos (at least the AH-64E) have enough standoff that they should never be at risk.

Meh not really that wrong. Generally speaking in real life you have better SA than you would in a sim, but a low level to an unfamiliar target is still very challenging. It's all about planning ahead of time (I know this isn't done nearly as intensely in even the strictest of sim communities) with multiple checkpoints. But at the end of the day you'll probably only have a few seconds to see your target when you're down low. PGMs (lazed from someone else or GPS guided) can make a difference here but often your launch basket is so small that you may justify nonguided weapons and hope for the best. That's the complaint I have with aircraft in this game: they follow a very cold war mindset of low level "one pass haul ass" kind of runs, whereas that's not how this would go in real life, short of like A-10s.

But again this is a scenario issue, not a game issue. Also, can't jets target a building without it being observed by a unit? I recall this but may be mistaken.

1) Agree, although seeing as this game simulates low level fixed wing CAS, it's pretty freaking hard to spot a tank when you're hauling the mail at 1000' AGL or lower. I don't know what altitude exactly the fixed wing CAS is supposed to be at but it's apparently low enough to where SHORAD is a factor. 2) That's not really how controlled CAS works. One controller is going to control one strike, even if it's multiple aircraft. Simple example: Husky 42, 2 F/A-18s would attack tanks in the open at grid 123456. If Husky 421 is going to attack a tank while Husky 422 is supposed to attack a building, ~90% of the time they'd have entirely separate coordination efforts for their strikes. Again you get more flexibility as (fixed wing) aircraft altitude increases, but that's now how this game works. 3) From my understanding that's just Russian doctrine. Only the FAC is trained in how to call in a strike. American forces have learned a lot of lessons in the employment of force multiplication in the last 16 years, which gives them a wider access amongst ground forces. You'd still get best results with a JTAC, but if a platoon leader can describe his target to me in plain English I can figure it out. CAS can also be applied to buildings, woodlines, etc. It's simply in support of friendly forces currently engaged, so don't get hung up on the definition. As for pre-strikes, like artillery, if you have access to the planes at the start of the round you can use them for minute 1 strikes on buildings (I often do). If they don't show up until later that's the mission makers choice, not an inherent limitation of the game.

http://tass.com/defense/961838 Russia is now planning to buy just 100 T-14 by 2020 according to defense officials. Some of you may note that is 2200 fewer than claimed only two years ago.

This is heavily spearheaded by a single person who doesn't respond well to criticism. I think very few people here don't accept the limitations of the Stryker.

Just stop responding to him. I'm surprised BFC hasn't given him the boot yet.

If you say anything less than "I agree completely." to Lucas you will encounter exactly what is going on. Lucas, the primary weapon system of the Stryker is it's infantry squad and all their weapons. I highly recommend you check out "Pentagon Wars."

I think this thread is best left to die. Logic and reason have no place here.

You'll also note that World War I ended without landships driving through Berlin. Again, there is no conceivable reason for the US to invade mainland China, nor is it physically possible (there simply aren't enough ships to ferry/defend said forces, and they aren't built quickly.) Once again, any conflict that doesn't literally end the world would be settled in the air and at sea. You can say 1914 as much as you want but that doesn't change the terrain or political/economic nuances that exist in 2017. You can't just rely on a single article mentioning 1914 and a bunch of fiction novels. As for your second question in the CMBS universe Ukraine has joined NATO and thus the Russian invasion triggers Article V. That is entirely more reasonable (especially at the time the story was developed pre-Crimean crisis). Did you bother to read my previous post? Have you considered the Africa suggestion even remotely? Or do I need to write a fiction novel on it first.

Okay here we go. I'm a Pacific Fleet Rhino Driver (mine). I've sailed through the SCS in a Carrier Strike Group. I've literally intercepted Chinese Patrol aircraft (not my photo) and seen those ****ty little coral reef "islands" (also not my photo) they are building up with my own two eyes. I've flown with Malaysian Sukhois that were acting like Chinese Sukhois. And I'm going to do all of that again. Besides briefings on the matter, I've read countless (non-fiction) books, articles, podcasts, public and private speakers on the matter. If *anyone* in this forum has an appreciation for Chinese interest in the South China Sea, I'd wager I'm that person. I've even read your article comparing it to 1914. And I still don't believe for one second that there is a reasonable expectation of a US land engagement of the kind of scale you are envisioning. The US could not get ground forces to Taiwan in time to stop a Chinese invasion before the Navy did or the Taiwanese lost. The American taxpayer would not stand for a massive D-Day effort to recapture Taiwan if China was victorious Tanks aren't needed to capture any of the aforementioned reef/islands, nor do the Chinese keep tanks on the same. China has no reason to go into full on war with the US over North Korea. More realistic outcomes have been previously discussed. China is pretty sick of NK's **** by this point, if you haven't noticed. I defer to @panzersaurkrautwerfer The Chinese-Indian border is home to a mountain range that makes it practically impassible to large ground forces. There's a reason something like 98% of Chinese trade is done via the sea. China has no reason to invade Japan. America has no reason or means to invade mainland China. America certainly would not invade China via Siberia. Logistically it's a nightmare. Strategically it's suicide. Objectively there's no reason. If anything, China would be more likely to invade Siberia. Is conflict with China possible? Absolutely. There's a lot of pieces grinding against each other in that region, and not everyone is friendly. But the sheer leap you'd have to take from a realistic possibility (Chinese ship sinks a Vietnamese frigate, or something, leading to a nasty diplomatic crisis similar to the Turkish shoot-down of the Russian SU-24, but little else) to a full on, multi-year, full on invasion (you really aren't grasping how physically impossible, nevermind unnecessary this is) is out of this world. Any realistic conflict between China and the US would be largely confined to the Air and Sea domains. There's no reason or means for it to occur otherwise. It certainly wouldn't last 3 years because the world economy would utterly collapse, nor does either side have a strategic objective worthy of the effort. This has been backed up pretty much universally by those studying the possibilities. Here's the thing, I would live to smash Type 99s against Abrams as much as any of us in a Combat Mission setting. The problem is there's no realistic reason for it to occur in a manner that you have indicated. I have attempted to offer reasons why, and have presented my own alternate (a clash of expeditionary forces in Africa, think Pristina gone wrong). Battlefront has released two games now presenting future scenarios (at the time). They clearly did their research in building the back story leading to both conflicts (and note that both are fairly confined in their scope, a NATO curb-stomp of Syria as it was and a US-RUS slugfest of about a Division+ each in Central Ukraine). You're attempting to justify the invasion of the third largest by size and first by population country. It just isn't meant to be. If I were you, look into Chinese interests in Africa. Pick a country for them to send military advisors to. Pick a neighboring country for the US to send advisors to. Go from there. It's an area of the world given little interest in modern gaming, and a more realistic background for a terrestrial engagement.

If you want a (much more) realistic chance of American Tanks fighting Chinese Tanks, focus on a hypothetical clash between expeditionary units in Africa. Both countries have been expanding their roles in the region and it would be a much smaller jump of the shark to come up with a situation leading to a clash their than, once again, to come up with a reason for US Tanks to roll into Beijing. Re: "Only 100-2000 miles of Siberia to conquer" I don't care if it's 2000 miles of straight and level superhighway on a sunny day, that's a logistical nightmare. Now throw that into Siberia and you're talking complete nonsense. Even further nonsense if you think the Russians would somehow be okay with 2000 miles of Siberia getting conquered. That's also a *huge* range of distance you've clearly pulled out of thin air. Re: "2-3 years into the war" If you think the world would survive 2-3 years of a threeway (or even two-way) war between the US, Russia, and China I have a whole lot of beachfront property in Alaska to sell you dude. Re: "Second civil war" Don't give him any ideas. Look Lucas, you clearly want to see BF3/4 played at the RTT level rather than the FPS. You need to realize that the plot in those games are absurd and any number of fiction books you cite are just as crazy. This. Is. An. Impossible. Scenario. I just don't see BF taking the time to come up with a plausible situation for your scenario. There is no reason, nor reasonable capability for the US to invade China under any circumstances. A draft won't increase the number of amphbious assault ships needed to invade the most populated nation on the planet. A draft won't increase the number of highly-technical warships needed to escort those same ships into harms way, nor the missiles to fill their VLS cells nor the aircraft overhead. You cannot simply hand-wave away Naval engagements in a realistic war scenario with China, a naval power, fighting the US, a naval power. I suggest two courses of action for you: Look into coming up with a reason for US and Chinese expeditionary forces to clash in Africa. This is not an unreasonable thing to look at. Option two is to acquire Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations and wargame to your hearts content the many Naval and Air engagements much more realistically possible between the US and China. Hell, they're even releasing a standalone DLC on it next week set in 2020 that might be right up your alley.

There's also a substantial amount of recoil difference between a paintball and a 40mm going at the same velocity.

I'd go for a CCRP style: Shooter designates where he wants to hit, adds a meter or whatever, then holds the trigger. Weapon fires when it calculates that the weapon is aimed in such a way for it to impact close enough to area.

Lucas you've made plenty of good points for a possible sea conflict (again I echo @Vanir Ausf B in that Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations is what you're looking for) but there is no good reason for US ground forces to get involved in a land warfare of merit with China. In my profession as a Naval Officer we have to address the Asian boogeyman in the room and you bring up a lot of the issues. But the only defense for a ground conflict you've given is "in order for there to be a game there needs to be ground conflict" a true statement but not one supported by a reasonable expectation. Again, any potential conflict with China isn't going to involve Abrams in Beijing or the Battle of Anchorage.

Negative. The PRC has already promised not to engage in a military engagement if there is war meant to disarm Kim on the peninsula. They have a hell of a lot more to lose by war with the US than they stand to gain by propping up that regime further after hostilities begin. I think expectation of a Korean War 2.0 that is identical to 1.0 is not going to happen.

I'm very curious what realistic casus belli would prompt an even bolstered US Army to commit ground forces to a land war in Asia beyond the Korean Peninsula (which every day seems less likely that China would be involved, militarily, in). Seriously. Sure the Shanghai Pact sounds like a good boogeyman (although India is more likely to remain neutral or even pro-US than you think) but there's no good reason for there to be a land war component beyond Marine actions on islands. If you're interested in this I suggest you pick up CMANO which would much more realistically represent any hypothetical naval engagement. I don't think anyone would realistically expect to see an M1A4 in Tiananmen square... Now Combat Mission Fulda Gap...

Discussed in this thread, to an extent.

I never said it could. But comparing the two is apples to oranges. MOAB delivery is a secondary capability of the MC-130 whereas the Blackjack is a dedicated bomber. I'm also fairly certain if there was a need that a B-1/2/52 could be modified to carry them (B-2 can already carry MOP which is bigger by weight but not explosive content).