Codename Duchess

For localized defense, yes this is true (Tunguska, Pantsir, TOR, etc). The US simply hasn't focused on this area apart from Stinger and Avenger (which uses Stingers). That said, Stingers are excellent MANPADS but are still limited as MANPADS. US air defense doctrine is focused more on Air Superiority through fighters supported by strategic SAMs. The downside of this is a weakness (as in less favorable, not a hopeless situation) to helicopters. However on a wider scale, I would say Patriot is greater than or equal to any of the big Russian systems, and is fielded in larger numbers than their newest stuff. If this is applied to Sea to Air defensive missiles, then US takes a clear lead.

Everytime you guys post in this thread and I come back to the new posts notification I get all excited until I realize its not a release announcement. So stop posting!

The GAU-8 was great against tanks when it was designed, and yes it will mess up BMPs and the like, but against modern Russian MBTs against anything less than a rear attack (not as guaranteed as you'd think), penetration is unlikely. True it will mess up all the "soft" sensors and the like on top, but it probably won't even get a mobility kill with the gun alone. This post links to a semi tongue-in-cheek coloring book for A-10 pilots on where to engage T-62s. Another noteworthy quote from this article which cites Combat Aircraft magazine regarding 1980s Germany: "According to Combat Aircraft magazine, the flying branch predicted that, if the A-10s went into action, seven percent of the jets would be lost per 100 sorties. Since each pilot was expected to fly at most four missions per day, each base would in theory generate more than 250 sorties daily. At this pace, a seven-percent loss rate per 100 flights equaled at least 10 A-10s shot down at each FOL every 24 hours — and that’s being conservative. At that rate, in less than two weeks the entire A-10 force at the time — around 700 jets — would have been destroyed and the pilots killed, injured, captured or, at the least, very shook up." Also, if it were to go into battle against a modern force, it would not load up every single pylon with every single weapon it could take because that would be suicide. You'd get maybe 4 Mavericks and a laser guided bomb on a heavy loadout. Any more and maneuverability is severely compromised, which is a death sentence in this theater. A loadout like that is much more comparable to faster jets with better defensive measures. Including, and I hate myself for saying it, the F-35

I see no disagreement here. I'm not trying to argue the real life politics here, simply analyzing the story as it's given in this game, which says that NATO does get involved and we do land Marines in Odessa to counter a Russian push out of Crimea.

Agree, the Kherson brigade is a speed bump. However a couple days delay is enough for NATO reinforcements to land in Odessa, which they do according to manual canon.

The manual lists RA forces crossing the Dniepr in force between Dnipropetrovsk and Zaporizhia, however from diagrams that force proceeds West and then NW to Kiev. Meanwhile there does appear to be a separate assault out of Crimea through Kherson and Mykolaiv. So this force appears to operate largely on its own, although there is a sizable air contingent in Crimea for CAS as well as air assault purposes. Both cities represent the southernmost bridges to cross the Dniepr and Inhul rivers, respectively. The Dniepr is several thousand feet wide for essentially 150 miles and lined with what looks like some pretty nasty swampland. The Inhul isn't really any better, although the banks look better. I think that UA Brigade dug into Kherson could pose a lot of problems for the RA, especially if DreDay is right in that the city is supportive of Ukraine (as opposed to the outlanding area). With enough luck, the UA could drop a few bridges farther upriver, forcing the RA to confront Kherson. I would air assault over the sea and use VDV to attempt to seize Mykolaiv behind Kherson. Even then, the heavier forces out of Crimea would pretty much have to deal with the UA defenders in and around Kherson in order to press to Odessa. East of the Inhul, there are small towns every 1-5 miles surrounded by farmland and gentle slopes here and there. Artillery could hammer each of these towns (not great for hearts and minds, but still) which are the obvious defensive positions. IEDs along the few East-West roads and highways could slow down forces considerably (What has the Russian experience with IEDs been lately? I remember watching Bomb Squad: Afghanistan of USN EOD in which it would take 4-6 hours to clear 1 mile of road, and this is a force that had been directly confronting IEDs for years). It's 60 miles from Mykolaiv to Odessa. There's one more sizable river that would need to be crossed. I can't seem to find the name of it, but it is the border between the Odessa and Mykaloaiv'ska Oblasts. In short, I don't think this would be a quick assault. Edit: There are also landing craft in Crimea that could be used to bypass Kherson. However, as the manual explicitly states NATO lands Marines in Odessa from the sea, this Russian amphibious force either only lands forces a short way along, does not sortie, or is destroyed before traveling the much shorter distance to Odessa. If all 7 landing craft sortied, they could get about two battalions ashore. However speaking from experience, like planes, not every ship would be prepared to get under way.

In an attempt to get us back in the spirit of the original posts, what do you, who can theorize these things better than I, suspect the rate of advance from forces in Crimea heading to Odessa would be? I haven't gone over the terrain in any great depth down there, given the worldwide pattern of denser populations along coasts, combined with an entire flank impassable, progress would be much slower in the face of opposition.

We (over a dozen communities of flight sim pilots from all over the world) recently completed a several week long campaign simulating hostilities in Georgia in DCS World. This included SU-25s and -27s on the Russian side, with A-10s, SU-25s, and F-15Cs (plus helos on both sides) opposing them. To the disappointment of most people flying ground attack, 90%+ of fixed wing attacks were turned back or destroyed by interception. This was in a very light SAM and SARH only air to air environment. While the balance of the campaign was built around gameplay rather than realism, the accuracy of mechanics and modeling of the systems is quite high. A modern conflict such as CMBS would be FAR more lethal on A-10s and SU-25s, and I'm presuming Battlefront took this into account. I for one was a big supporter of the A-10 up until the campaign, but after flying the F-15 and shooting down countless attackers while seeing their general ineffectiveness, my resolve was shaken. The argument is sound that since SU-25 is in, A-10 should be in. But I honestly think neither should be. Both aircraft require very controlled air spaces for the kind of effectiveness seen over Afghanistan. The aircraft should only be included in scenarios with a back story of temporary air control, and if this is the case, then the other side should not get their reciprocal attacker for that scenario.

Tomahawk can be launched from outside the Black Sea by a healthy margin, and the missiles would fly low and over NATO countries. I'm not saying a backfire raid wouldn't be scary or effective, but it would need to fly over NATO countries to reach any surface ships. Nevermind our more than capable submarine fleet which is also equipped with Tomahawks. We would be talking hundreds of missiles here. Yes Russian systems are quite capable and would detect and destroy many of them. But strike plans account for this, and now you've exposed the launchers and depleted their magazines, leaving them very vulnerable to SEAD/DEAD from aircraft. As a USN pilot I have a lot of respect for Russian SAMs (really all your missiles, you guys do an excellent job) but the economy of war means you can only shoot so many.

Weer, if there are no Russian soldiers In Ukraine under orders, then you guys have a SERIOUS desertion problem.

I agree whole heartedly, the construction of my CMAN:O ceremony is mainly an excuse to introduce an amphibious front, as a bunch of gators in the pond is the only reason for the USN to enter. And I figured down the road we're probably going to get those Marine units, so they have to come from somewhere I'm also totally biased as a USN member, but thanks to the orbat I was given this should be a proper fight.

For gameplay and future module reasons, we'll hand waive a full blown nuclear response (CMAN:O CAN handle that, but I can't). My scenario will task the Blue forces with attempting to (at least temporarily) negate Russian Naval defenses in the Black Sea for a Marine group to follow on and invade somewhere in South Ukraine/Crimea. (Yes these amphibs would negate the Montreux convention combined with the SAG, so why not use a CSG instead. My response is: reasons.) In an effort to not clutter this thread too much, perhaps PM me the specifics of the orbat. I have located just a single Brigade of K-300 launchers near Anapa, plus a squadron of SU-24s in Crimea.

If the USN only struck targets in Crimea, (and shot down any hostile aircraft from Russia proper without targeting their bases) would that satisfy your escalation criteria? In that case, wouldn't ANY attack into Crimea by land forces be the same thing? I'll set it in 2017, if you give me as close to modern as you can I can fudge an increase for a surge of A/C given the conflict heating up. To keep in the spirit of the Montreux Convention, I will limit Blue forces to 45000 tons total. This would mean a SAG of a Ticonderoga Cruiser, 3 Arleigh Burkes, and either a British Type 23 or French Aquitane class. I'll simulate as what's left of the Ukrainian Navy as having been sunk. Not sure how I'll model Turkish, Bulgarian and Romainian naval forces, or handwave them as not interested. Might model them as non-beligerant, blue aligned AI and see if they get dragged in. Blue will get some USAF support but I will postulate that most will be busy over Ukraine itself and that air war. For the same reason, Russian air forces will be primarily anti-ship oriented aircraft with a squadron or two for CAP.

Both of these are very true points. Any USN push into the sea would by necessity be accompanied by a thorough bombardment campaign of Crimean defenses and airfields by Tomahawk, USN, USAF and NATO aircraft. While these would fail to destroy all systems, Aegis ships would probably be able to deal with the survivors. I could see only two reasons for this to occur though, especially due to the abundance of ground based options. 1) to stage an amphibious assault (an incredibly costly one to both sides) or 2) to establish a blockade of Russian ports, Crimea, or the Dniepr. I'm not too convinced either of these would be that likely, although both are in the realm of our capabilities. This has actually inspired me to make a CMAN:O scenario. Are there any good orbats for Russian defenses of the black sea, especially as pertaining to # airfields and their aircraft and coastal defense ASHMs and SAMs? I'll probably be generous and give the Black Sea Fleet a 50% operational status for surface ships.

The US Navy could only send a couple ships actually into the black sea, it's true. But then again it doesn't need many in order to put a serious hurt on the Black Sea Fleet, which is far from the Russian Navy's finest formation. A CSG in the eastern med could still have an impact on the Black Sea, especially with NATO tanker support. And if it really became necessary, I would imagine the treaty regarding warships in the sea would be renegotiated (I forget the specific one and am on a phone) or outright ignored in a heavy conflict. In short, a strong case could be made for a protracted and deadly air war, but the USN would have no problem in the Black Sea, provided Russian strategic level aircraft (backfire raids) did not intervene. That would be a huge escalation as a Russian attack on a US Carrier would not be treated lightly.

The kind of lasers these systems detect are already attached to weapons that can threaten the vehicle. If you have the ammo, use it. Most receivers also face the turret towards the threat, so if you already can't hurt it then you're going to have a bad time if you lase it. As for lasing near a target, there is enough diffusion of the energy in a laser beam for the warning receiver to detect any shot nearby.

Hell, a D or E model Apache can fire hellfires from behind a hill unmasking only the radar. Going to assume that's not implemented, but stands to reason that a Tank is a very bad thing to be near when modern attack helicopters are around.

The MRAP proves programs can get fast tracked, and that was a mostly from the ground up endeavor. Also historically weapon systems get through much faster than say vehicles/platforms (Trophy being closer to a weapon than a vehicle) so I'd say this is totally feasible. Hell given the Russian economy, I'd say that even with the late start, the US would be able to field more APS to deploying units than the Russians would have already set up. I have a couple questions about Trophy in this game. First, it was mentioned you only get two shots per side. That seems so low for high intensity conflict. How many shots in a given arc does Arena have? I know they're totally different in methodology, but I know you can deplete an area with multiple shots in close proximity. How many shots is that? In game, is there a reload function modeled for the APS, like how crew transfers ammo from stowage to ready? Surely a tank crew would have spares stowed. Unless it's a much more complicated reload than I've inferred in videos of Trophy operations. Also, let's say that both my charges on the right have been used, but I still have one on the left. If Trophy detects an inbound and counterable launch towards the right side, will it slew the turret to the point where the left launcher can cover that area? Or will it just allow the impact?

Will aircraft continue an attack if the spotter is killed before they get on station?

Even if World of Tanks was the most realistic simulator, which it isn't even close to, the Abrams isn't in it. Also that precise of a shot under combat conditions won't happen. Real life isn't like a free to play video game. If you want a closer approximation, try Steel Beasts. You'll soon learn A) Abrams can take a pounding B ) Abrams is not invincible and C) Precise gunnery is impossible