Hapless

y'all have seen The Chieftain's video on US armor in WW2, correct?   He has some very interesting and surprising insights, much of it directly from US army archives and not just some mythology that we've all grown up with.  
 
 

Sloped armour reduces internal volume, which has some serious knock on effects on things like ergonomics, ammunition count and survivability.

The other question mark is whether it would have helped in any way: the frontal armour would obviously be more effective than the side armour (it would be both thicker and more angled) and when was the last time you saw the Sherman bounce anything off it's front slope?

CMFFS would be an unfortunate acronym, though I'm sure we've all felt it

CMFFS would be an unfortunate acronym, though I'm sure we've all felt it

CMFFS would be an unfortunate acronym, though I'm sure we've all felt it

(We'll gloss over Metz here).

Standing directly on an obvious, isolated point is handing the initiative to your opponent. You're giving them all of the time and the space in the world to plan for their attack, and you're making no effort to interfere with their decisions and processes.

There are still reasons to do that sometimes - co-ordinating an attack or a counter-attack is hard, and with low quality troops (e.g., Syrians in CMSF), you may have little option. That's partly why defence in depth is a good idea - if you can replace in-battle manoeuvre with pre-battle positioning, you don't have to worry about your troops pulling off something complex. Instead, if you're creating novel tactical puzzles at each layer, forcing your enemy to adapt and making them work harder than you
It's true that uber-tanks are very powerful (and easy to use). There's a reason why every version of CM ever has had competitive games held with "no tracks" houserules and the like. Certainly elite armour shortens the range of tactical options and limits subtlety. I do continue to reject that the above was impossible for the defender to win - I only have the screenshots to go on, but I do not believe that King Tigers on that map make for an unwinnable situation.

Nicely done @Bud Backer

Just trying to get into the defence a bit more: what were the conditions like? It looks pretty snowy in a couple of the screenshots. We're all talking about how the defender should have mutually supporting positions on the flanks, but if you're fighting in poor visibility and those positions can't see far enough to cover one another then despite its drawbacks concentrating in the town might have been the least worst option.

I think one of the things we're glossing over is that your opponent managed to generate so much uncertainty you felt like you needed advice . That's not a trivial achievement: CM is as much about attacking the enemy's decision-making ability as it is about killing his pixeltruppen. Its only a pity that he was unable to exploit it, but without going over the terrain and knowing the exact conditions and points available it feels a little premature to assume that he could.

Not that any of this diminishes your victory at all: there are always things to learn from both sides.

All right, so what I read above dovetails with what I thought.
When I went into this battle as the attacker, my purchases and strategy were based on the expectation my opponent would use an elastic, mobile defence. I bought King Tigers because I feared ATGs sniping at me from the woods and knew I could not keep my front to the enemy at all times, so a thick hide was needed. I bought quite a bit of artillery so that I could bombard the various hiding places in those same woods, and of course the town itself. I bought several recon teams so that I could scout the periphery of the map where he might hide in wait and then hit my tanks and other units in their thinner sides or rear. 
I kept my units back for a long time as I scouted, and that was a mistake. There was no reason to delay bombarding the town from a distance. That cost me 20 minutes and almost cost me the battle as I was under time pressure to destroy everything and kill all his units in the objectives. 
My biggest fear was that he would buy a pair of M36s and use them sparingly from the fringes. It would not be insurmountable but would post a serious threat and slow down my operations and limit my ability to maneuver considerably. His ATGs did not cause me much concern once I saw they were 57mm. Yes he had plenty but my recon spotted each one before he ever engaged me with them. When he did it was because I exposed my tanks deliberately to engage them, and progressively took them out one by one. His Hellcats were bottled up in the village, unable to exploit their one asset: speed. I located them with recon and then maneuvered to be able to destroy them one at a time.
Once recon was done and I knew there were no surprises on my flanks it gave me free reign to take his force apart with impunity from long range. He said yesterday “If this is so effective why would I not do it all the time?” We have not had a debrief yet but it seems obvious to me why this worked so easily for me: once I understood that the threats I expected were non existent there was nothing to worry about and he had no capability to slow me or damage me more than incidentally.
What I did not expect and what triggered this thread was his using short target arc range and hide commands to make his infantry quite difficult to spot in town. Once I used the ideas here and my own ideas it was actually shockingly easy to defeat and frankly, a puzzling move as he is actually a very good opponent. 
For my part, I think I could have reduced the KT’s to three and better spent the points on two Brummbärs instead.  

Urban warfare 101: Do you actually need to go into the village at all?

I would take a look at the time, the points allocated to each ground objective and the points available for destroying the enemy and decide off those factors.

If you don't need to take the village, then why take the risk? Occupy the two minor objectives, surround the village and chip away at him from a distance at minimum risk.

Urban warfare 101: Do you actually need to go into the village at all?

I would take a look at the time, the points allocated to each ground objective and the points available for destroying the enemy and decide off those factors.

If you don't need to take the village, then why take the risk? Occupy the two minor objectives, surround the village and chip away at him from a distance at minimum risk.

Urban warfare 101: Do you actually need to go into the village at all?

I would take a look at the time, the points allocated to each ground objective and the points available for destroying the enemy and decide off those factors.

If you don't need to take the village, then why take the risk? Occupy the two minor objectives, surround the village and chip away at him from a distance at minimum risk.

Urban warfare 101: Do you actually need to go into the village at all?

I would take a look at the time, the points allocated to each ground objective and the points available for destroying the enemy and decide off those factors.

If you don't need to take the village, then why take the risk? Occupy the two minor objectives, surround the village and chip away at him from a distance at minimum risk.

@Bulletpoint made a good question, by asking whether it would be possible to abstract the impact of good tactics and what passes by battlefield leadership and command and control in a "gamified" simulation as CMx2 is. So this post is not a dismissal of @Hapless observations, which I subscribe 100%. Still, sh*t happens all the time.
One interesting data point for this discussion is the following diagram, which I found the 2nd edition of this wonderful little book I bought recently
https://www.amazon.com.au/David-Rowlands-Stress-Battle-Quantifying/dp/0244203059/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=john+curry+the+stress+of+battle&qid=1573119600&sr=8-1

For this table/summary/statistical model they used data from 29 WW2 and WW1 battles (adjusting the latter to WW2 standards), where the attacker successfully forced the defender to vacate its positions, and indirect fires were not a factor (at least a documented one). To give a sense of the temporal spread of data points used in this analysis, the battles go from the 1918 Allied counterattacks after Operation Michael, to Operation Veritable in 1945.
I would love to hear what you guys think, but the casualty estimates seem to me to be on the lower side (not by much) of what I have come to expect from playing CMx2 either against the AI in well-crafted scenarios or a human opponent that has done the work to keyhole guns and check for micro terrain providing reverse slopes etc. 
The analysis of these results led to confirm the following tactical "verities" one can find discussed in memoirs, treatises on tactics and what not
- Well placed HMGs trump rifle/LMG fires
- Tanks trump HMGs
- AT assets "suppress" tanks, enabling HMGs to do their work on the attackers
What is evident is that AFVs are king... when it comes to keep suppressed the defender. I think that CMx2 does a reasonably good impression of these relationships (and Graviteam eventually got there too), from a statistical point of view. Which is admittedly, not the most fun point of view.
 

My quick 2p: I don't have any problems with tanks in CM, I think almost all of the issues you raise have tactical solutions. Or to put it another way, don't the situations you describe imply that something has gone wrong somewhere?
 
Why are defensive positions exposed to direct fire at all, never mind direct fire from tanks? If the defensive plan is to engage in a slugfest with a superior enemy force, what is the purpose of these positions (delay, attrite, destroy, bait?) and how are they sited to achieve that purpose?
How has enemy armour advanced to infantry close assault range? Is the infantry too far forward? Are the anti-tank assets not set up effective? There are plenty of infantry tools (bazooka, PIAT, faust, shreck) capable of dealing with enemy armour- are these weapons effectively distributed or protected until they are needed?
If all friendly AT assets are gone then something has definitely gone seriously wrong! But how would the enemy know that he can operate unopposed? Where was the AT reserve?
Why are underpowered AT assets engaging overarmoured targets? If they're underpowered, what was the plan to use them effectively? Cumulative subsystem damage from non-penetrating hits isn't a trivial problem: tanks with no optics and no radios are a lot less effective.

Maybe a different angle on the issue.

Fortification issues are a different kettle of fish, but from a strictly (potentially unrealistic) gameplay perspective I would rather have ineffective or overly expensive fortifications than time consuming trench clearing operations, map spanning minefields and impenetrable walls of anti-tank obstacles.

My quick 2p: I don't have any problems with tanks in CM, I think almost all of the issues you raise have tactical solutions. Or to put it another way, don't the situations you describe imply that something has gone wrong somewhere?
 
Why are defensive positions exposed to direct fire at all, never mind direct fire from tanks? If the defensive plan is to engage in a slugfest with a superior enemy force, what is the purpose of these positions (delay, attrite, destroy, bait?) and how are they sited to achieve that purpose?
How has enemy armour advanced to infantry close assault range? Is the infantry too far forward? Are the anti-tank assets not set up effective? There are plenty of infantry tools (bazooka, PIAT, faust, shreck) capable of dealing with enemy armour- are these weapons effectively distributed or protected until they are needed?
If all friendly AT assets are gone then something has definitely gone seriously wrong! But how would the enemy know that he can operate unopposed? Where was the AT reserve?
Why are underpowered AT assets engaging overarmoured targets? If they're underpowered, what was the plan to use them effectively? Cumulative subsystem damage from non-penetrating hits isn't a trivial problem: tanks with no optics and no radios are a lot less effective.

Maybe a different angle on the issue.

Fortification issues are a different kettle of fish, but from a strictly (potentially unrealistic) gameplay perspective I would rather have ineffective or overly expensive fortifications than time consuming trench clearing operations, map spanning minefields and impenetrable walls of anti-tank obstacles.

My quick 2p: I don't have any problems with tanks in CM, I think almost all of the issues you raise have tactical solutions. Or to put it another way, don't the situations you describe imply that something has gone wrong somewhere?
 
Why are defensive positions exposed to direct fire at all, never mind direct fire from tanks? If the defensive plan is to engage in a slugfest with a superior enemy force, what is the purpose of these positions (delay, attrite, destroy, bait?) and how are they sited to achieve that purpose?
How has enemy armour advanced to infantry close assault range? Is the infantry too far forward? Are the anti-tank assets not set up effective? There are plenty of infantry tools (bazooka, PIAT, faust, shreck) capable of dealing with enemy armour- are these weapons effectively distributed or protected until they are needed?
If all friendly AT assets are gone then something has definitely gone seriously wrong! But how would the enemy know that he can operate unopposed? Where was the AT reserve?
Why are underpowered AT assets engaging overarmoured targets? If they're underpowered, what was the plan to use them effectively? Cumulative subsystem damage from non-penetrating hits isn't a trivial problem: tanks with no optics and no radios are a lot less effective.

Maybe a different angle on the issue.

Fortification issues are a different kettle of fish, but from a strictly (potentially unrealistic) gameplay perspective I would rather have ineffective or overly expensive fortifications than time consuming trench clearing operations, map spanning minefields and impenetrable walls of anti-tank obstacles.

Hey Hapless! I love your videos. And I've linked your video about "Bunkers for dummies" many times in many forums.  Many of your questions are linked to each other, so let me present my thoughts summarily. 
Positions become "exposed" to direct tank fire once the enemy has beaten your long range AT assets and can therefore let his armor advance far enough to get LOFs on your enfilade defensive positions. Must something have gone "wrong" for this to happen? I don't know. Sometimes you lose the long range tank combat, sometimes you win. It's also (not exclusively, of course) a matter of luck and force selection. You've bought many smaller calibre ATGs and the enemy shows up with 1 Tiger. Good luck with keeping the Tiger at bay (if you find a way please tell me )! You've bought a single large calibre ATG? Now you are more of a threat to the Tiger, if your gun is positioned on what happens to be the right side of the map and can see the Tiger that is! Unfortunately, good ATG positions are preferred targets for speculative arty barrages, and you can't do a lot to protect the ATG. Fortifications are not reliably, and moving the ATG into position only once the shelling is over is bad as the gun loses its camouflage bonus (and also it might be too late!). And if your enemy brings 6 light tanks instead of 1 Tiger, then good luck with your single ATG. 
This is also the reason why underpowered AT assets sometimes need to engage overarmored tanks. As demonstrated above, sometimes your (A)T force selection is no match for your opponent's (A)T force selection. This doesn't mean that your force selection is neccessarily bad. Just that it is bad against this or that combination, and good against other combinations. (A)T force selection is often guesswork and can have a big impact on games. From my own experience and also from watching CM AARs, I often get the impression that (anti)tank duels are decided one way or the other at some point. There is hardly ever a stand-off that lasts until the end of the game - at some point the attacker will need to attack and both players have to show their cards. This decision then quickly shifts the balance of the game. The idea for this thread here is also to make games last and stay interesting beyond this point. If the attacker is out-armored by the defender, then it's obviously game over. But a defender could very reasonably keep kicking from his prepared defensive positions, try to seperate the tanks from the infantry. Under the current conditions, I think this is not possible.
 
PS: Forgot to add the american "Crack that tank" video: https://youtu.be/EngDMNRoqvE
 

Started some CM vids for AARs/DARs....
'Fortress Grosshau' is the subject of the first series.  Excuse my weak graphics card and awkward narrative delivery. I think I'm going to start writing scripts before recording narration. Score is original music (I'm a professional musician among other things.)  Try to watch in full screen for the full cinematic effect.
All inspiration comes from watching vids by Usually Hapless, Josey Wales, Ithikial and Double.  You guys set the bar!
 

Guys
This thread will be used for me to advise you of updates and latest uploads to the aforementioned areas.
Its an ongoing process that Im working through but a quick update for this first post is....
The Scenario Depot III : Ive totally redesigned this and am working on fixing thumbnails so that the grid format looks good.  When uploading scenarios be sure to use a square image (any size) for your featured image.

The CM Mod Warehouse : A huge task that Im still plodding away at. Im tidying up all the downloads from the previous site and have also got a HDD full of mods from the mists of time that will eventually all get uploaded also.
The Proving Grounds II : This site is dead but I am going to work on it to turn TPGII into something new... possibly a challenge site or something along those lines... still to be decided.
Any updates I carry out or content uploaded you will be notified about in this thread.  
Thats all for now.
Thanks
Bootie

LANDFALL
The Marines make landfall and as promised, its with a bang. Timed to coincide with the first wave hitting the beach, a host of Maverick AGM armed Hornets and Harriers are unleashed against Regime forces. In just one minute, the city is continuously rocked by consecutive explosions as Maverick missiles and JDAMs connect with targets throughout the city.

The Marines of the first wave pour out of their AAVs and onto the beach. Luckily they take no direct fire, and the engineers are quick to begin their work of screening the beach for obstacles and making sure there is sufficient access to the MSRs leading off the beach. Things proceed smoothly for the most part. One of the AAVs throws a track as it tries to return to the ocean. This is a headache and a nuisance, but not a game changer. Worst case scenario, the vehicle will have to be abandoned and destroyed in place.
A quick firefight ends as quickly as it began when two Regime MP’s poke their heads around the corner at the intersection of MSR Wiley and Market. The MP’s quickly lose their heads for their curiosity. Besides that, the beach is quiet. No obstacles are found by the engineers, and both breach points are found to be clear as well. The way is open for the Marines to advance into the city itself.
Loading A Company into the AAV’s took a little longer than expected, but the company is finally ready to go and steps off into the water. Unfortunately, another AAV becomes immobilized as it steps off. I’m hoping that this does not become a consistent problem.

As the AAV’s swim to shore, the Hornet that missed with its JDAM on the first pass of the enemy assembly area comes back around and drops another JDAM. This time, its on target and the Marines at breach point Elmer get a tooth rattling firework show.

After the dust settles from the blast, a few shellshocked MP’s are seen running away through the rubble and are engaged by the Marines. Hopefully this indicates this possible enemy assembly area as being thoroughly neutralized.

With the MP’s killed or fleeing, the Marines of A Company begin moving down MSR Wiley. As this is occurring, movement is spotted near the US consulate by Marine security. A few moments later, a group of Regime MPs are seen advancing down a side street towards the consulate. The Marines open fire.

This is a dangerous situation. The consulate can hold its own against the current threat, but won’t last long against a large determined attack. A Company must make all possible speed to reach the consulate and reinforce it before it is overrun.
Captain Amato, A Company’s commander is informed of the attack on the consulate and the new urgency to get to the consulate. A few moments later as his Marines are moving down MSR Wiley, they take fire from an RPG followed by small arms fire, and a firefight breaks out halting forward movement.

The situation gets more tense when Marines from 2nd platoon take a barrage of fire from a side street and suffer a casualty.

Regime MP’s fire at the Marines from intact buildings part of the Police Headquarters. The Marines take two more casualties, both wounded, before returning fire with small arms. Two LAW disposable anti-tank rockets are fired into the buildings, suppressing and hopefully destroying the MP position there.
The short but sharp firefight ends moments later. The Regime MP’s hold up in the Police Headquarters break under the immense small arms return fire from the Marines and flee their fighting position.

With the enemy fleeing, the Marines move up. They establish initial positions along blocking position Bugs and screen the Police Headquarters before attempting to clear it. Sporadic sniper fire is still coming from inside the Police complex which manages to wound another Marine. The snipers location is found and suppressive fire is poured into the position. More potshots are taken at the Marines, including another RPG round which slams into the wall just over the heads of an M240 team. Miraculously none of the Marines are wounded, or even hit. It all goes to show that even though the Regime MPs appear to be retreating, it is more orderly than not and they certainly have some fight in them.

With the firefight decidedly one sided in favor of the Marines, and the enemy fleeing or dying, elements of 1st platoon begin the treacherous task of clearing out the Police Headquarters complex. Though initially tense, it is soon apparent that the only occupants of the headquarters are corpses. 1st platoon clears the rest of the complex without incident and blocking position Bugs is officially secured and established. Back at the beach, the AAVs carrying B Company are nearing the beach.
 

This one I can answer:

One airborne squad, split into two.

The leader has NVGs, and is on the right. That team can see the enemy, but the other team can not.


Left hand team, no NVG


 
Right hand team, one NVG


 
Which means that it's a graphical bug, essentially. Only the leader should have Night Vision, and it presumably shouldn't manifest as NATO optics.
 

Combat Mission/Command: Modern Air Naval Operations AAR
Consulate Crisis
By IICptMillerII

 
INTRODUCTION
This is a hybrid after action report (AAR) using two simulators, Combat Mission Shock Force 2 (CMSF2) to depict the tactical ground combat, and Command: Modern Air Naval Operations (CMANO) to depict the naval and aerial combat. This scenario features a conflict at a US and Canadian consulate in the fictional Middle Eastern/North African city and country of Al Mout, Abbudin.  
The CMSF2 map was built by LongLeftFlank and then modified by MOS:96B2P for his scenario “The Coup” and is being used with his permission. All credit goes to LongLeftFlank for designing this excellent map and to MOS:96B2P for designing the scenario. I have modified both BluFor and OpFor forces as well as their respective objectives, as well as add in some relevant battle damage, but otherwise the map remains in its original layout.
Carrier Strike Group 12 is a historically accurate recreation of the USS Enterprise cruise to the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf from June to December of 2007. The USS Enterprise carrier air wing, and all supporting ships are accurate to the 2007 cruise.
This scenario is not designed to be balanced. BluFor is significantly stronger and more capable than OpFor in nearly every way. This is more a showcase of a hybrid AAR between two sims carrying out an operation that fully incorporates both sims strongpoints (CMSF2 for ground warfare, CMANO for naval/air warfare) and weaving them together to tell a story. It is also a proof of concept to see how viable creating hybrid AARs like this is. My advice is to treat this like a superhero movie; there is no doubt about the ending, but you still enjoy the journey.
This AAR features several mods. Chief among them are:
Veins Smoke and Effects mod Drakenlords Fire mod Regime Forces by myself playing the OpFor DISCLAIMER:
The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this AAR are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred.
CMANO DISCLAIMER:
CMANO is designed to accurately portray military hardware from real world nations, from the years of 1980-2020+ and 1920-1979 (not used in this scenario). It simulates the planet Earth using open source terrain data. While fictional factions can be created and named so, the globe itself cannot be edited. The real-world location of this scenario is located in Libya, however the above disclaimer still applies. This scenario is not meant to portray Libya in any way. It is entirely fictional.
 
SITUATION:
Over the past few months the Abbudin Regime has been increasingly belligerent. On numerous occasions they have used their large air force to intercept commercial aircraft and shipping in international territory. In response to this, the UN passed a resolution enforcing economic sanctions against Abbudin. The Abbudin Regime responded by increasing their interceptions, in a few notable cases forcing commercial aircraft to land at Abbudin airports and be subject to “inspections.” The so-called inspections were largely just the Regime seizing commercial property for their own. In response to the Regimes increasingly belligerent actions, the United States deployed the USS Enterprise carrier strike group (CSG) and the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Unit (2nd MEU) aboard the USS Wasp to the Mediterranean. Additional military assets in the Mediterranean have been put on high alert.
Two days ago, large numbers of Regime military units were seen moving into the city of Al Mout, the location of the US and Canadian consulates. They began heavily patrolling the city in what appeared to be a martial law posture. Last night, the Canadian consulate was surrounded by the Regime’s military forces. The Regime has demanded an end to the economic sanctions and for the US to recall the USS Enterprise away from Abbudin waters. A tense standoff ensued, with the Regime changing their ultimatum deadline seemingly at random. Finally, at 0200 local this morning the Regime’s military forces stormed the Canadian consulate. There have been reports of gunshots being fired inside the consulate and the fate of the consulate personnel is unknown.
Two hours later, US naval and Marine forces were given the green light to initiate combat operations in the city of Al Mout in order to evacuate the US consulate and rescue any surviving Canadian consulate personnel.
 
MISSION:
The primary objective is to evacuate US and Canadian consulate personnel from Al Mout, recover/destroy any sensitive material at both consulates, and withdraw from the city.
Mission Specific Tasks:
Carrier Strike Group 12 (USS Enterprise):
Establish local air superiority over friendly naval assets, the city of Al Mout and surrounding area Strike strategic targets in and around Al Mout Strike Al Mout International Airport in order to prevent Abbudin Regime air force from being able to sortie Conduct Suppression/Destruction of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD/DEAD) Provide close air support (CAS) to US forces in Al Mout Task Force Wasp:
Transport and deploy 2nd Marine Expeditionary Unit (2nd MEU) amphibiously to the shore of Al Mout Provide naval and close air support to 2nd MEU Receive US and Canadian evacuees Provide emergency medical care to casualties 2nd Marine Expeditionary Unit:
Conduct amphibious infiltration of Al Mout Secure both US and Canadian consulates Evacuate US and Canadian consulate personnel to USS Wasp Desired End State:
All US/Canadian consulate personnel recovered All sensitive materials recovered/destroyed All US ground forces withdrawn from city  
Area of Operations (AO) and Initial Deployment:

Close-up of Al Mout and Surrounding Area:

 
ENEMY:
Regime Military Forces:
The Abbudin military is typical of many Middle East/North African dictatorships. It has a large arsenal of older Soviet-era equipment, such as the T-72 and T-62 tanks, and BMPs for infantry fighting vehicles (IFV). The military is made up of roughly 6 divisions and a number of independent brigades, including special forces units that are primarily tasked with guarding key regime assets.
Enemy Air Forces:
The Regime has a large air force, mostly made up of old Soviet-era aircraft. These include the Mig-21, 23, and 25, along with a small fleet of Mi-25D gunship helicopters and Mi-8 helicopters for troop transport and logistics. Additionally, they have several SU-22M attack aircraft. These are capable of carrying the AS-9 anti-radiation missile with a range of 65nm, which can potentially threaten friendly ships. They have roughly a regiments worth of each fixed wing aircraft variant (20-25 aircraft per regiment) and about a squadron of each helicopter variant (10-18 helicopters per squadron) in range of the area of operations (AO). The Abbudin air force is not known to have any airborne AEW or EW aircraft, though they likely have some conventional reconnaissance aircraft equipped with cameras and ELINT equipment.
Al Mout International Airport is just outside the city and has a significant number of air force assets, including at least one full squadron of Mi-25D gunship helicopters and another full squadron of Mi-8 helicopters. Both the Mig-21 and Mig-23 can be outfitted in ground attack roles. The SU-22M is a ground attack aircraft, though they are expected to be tasked in an anti-surface warfare (ASuW) role. The Mig-25 variant operated by the Abbudin air force is an interceptor only. 

Enemy Naval Forces:
The Abbudin navy is essentially non-existent. They do not operate any craft larger than small patrol boats armed with small arms which are not expected to be a factor.
Enemy Air Defense Network (ADN):
Abbudin’s air defense network is extensive, though dated. In the vicinity of Al Mout, there are at least two groups of SA-6 Gainful SAM (surface to air missile) sites (roughly 10-14 launchers per group) and at least one battalion of SA-2 Guideline SAM launchers (roughly 3-6 launchers per battalion). These SAM sites pose the most direct threat to our forces, as they actively cover both the city of Al Mout and Al Mout International Airport.
Further, there are a number of SA-5 Gammon SAM groups. The SA-5 has a range of 150nm, meaning these sites will be a close second priority for SEAD/DEAD missions. There are multiple SA-5 sites that cover Al Mout airspace, one to the North of the city and another to the West.
There are also several radar sites, including the P-14 Tall King, P-18 Spoon Rest, P-40 Long Track, and P-80 Back Net air search radars. All these radars have sensor ranges in excess of 100nm with overlapping coverage areas. Many of the radar sites are located near SAM sites and thus will have some form of protection against air strikes.  
Enemy Ground Forces in Al Mout:
Regular Regime military forces wear a uniform that is part olive drab, part knockoff DPM camouflage in an arid configuration. Their helmets are tan colored with red triangles on the front.
The exact number and composition of enemy ground forces present in the city is not fully known at this time. From what intelligence there is, it is expected that the Regime has at least one company of mechanized infantry in the city, mounted in BMP-1’s. There have also been confirmed reports of both T-72M1 and T-62 tanks, though their exact number and location is not currently known.



Additionally, the Regime is operating a large military police (MP) force in the city right now. These are essentially dismounted infantry operating on foot or out of light vehicles such as the Russian made UAZ car and URAL trucks.  MPs can be identified by their white helmets, red armbands and plain olive drab uniforms. There are likely two companies worth of MPs operating in the region of the city that the consulates are in, though an exact estimate is not possible at this time.


It is expected that once hostilities commence and the Regime determines our objectives to be centered in Al Mout, they will attempt to reinforce the city from outside. There is at least a battalion’s worth of mechanized infantry that can be road marched to the city within a matter of hours. Other units are present but will take longer to reach the city.
Irregular Forces:
The Abbudin military is largely a conventional force. They are not expected to have paramilitary or irregular forces in any significant numbers.
 
 
TERRAIN AND WEATHER:
The city of Al Mout is located on the coast and is surrounded by desert. Temperatures during the day are expected to reach a high of 90° F. The weather is forecasted to be a mix of clear and partly cloudy over the course of the next three days and should not hinder aerial or amphibious operations.

 
TROOPS:
Carrier Strike Group 12 (CSG 12):
USS Enterprise CVN VFA-211 12x F/A-18F VMFA-251 12x F/A-18C VFA-136 12x F/A-18C VFA-86 12x F/A-18C VAQ-137 4x EA-6B VAW-123 4x E-2C 2000 VS-32 8x S-3B HS-11 6x SH-60F 2x HH-60H USS Gettysburg CG USS Arleigh Burke DDG USS Forrest Sherman DDG USS James E Williams DDG USS Stout DDG USS Philadelphia SSN USNS Supply T-AOE CSG 12 is the main aerial and naval effort of this operation. The USS Enterprise is equipped with its entire carrier air wing. She has 36 F/A-18C Hornet multirole fighters, 12 of the new F/A-18F Super Hornet multirole fighters, and a full complement of support aircraft including the E-2C Hawkeye Airborne Early Warning (AEW) and EA-6 Prowler Electronic Warfare (EW) aircraft. A carrier air wing carries an immense amount of firepower for both enemy air and ground targets.
Supporting the Enterprise is her primary air defender, the guided missile cruiser (CG) USS Gettysburg. The Gettysburg carries a suite of anti-air missiles that can shoot down both incoming aircraft and missiles at ranges out to 150nm. The extremely powerful AEGIS radar greatly enhances her ability by allowing her to simultaneously scan, track and engage multiple targets from multiple bearings, as well as hand off targeting info to coordinate air defense with other ships. Four guided missile destroyers (DDGs) provide additional air defense, as well as an overwhelming land strike capability. There are 224 Tomahawk missiles (112x RGM-109C, 112x RGM-109E) between these four destroyers.
Also in support is the USS Philadelphia, a Los Angeles class nuclear attack submarine (SSN) which brings with her an additional 8 Tomahawk missiles (4x UGM-109C, 4x UGM-109E). She is primarily assigned to Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) and is not expected to play a major role in this operation.
Task Force Wasp:
USS Wasp 4x AH-1W 4x CH-53E 4x MV-22B 6x AV-8B 2x CH-46E 4x UH-1N 2x HH-60H 4x SH-60F USS Ticonderoga CG USS Bainbridge DDG USS Oak Hill LSD Task Force Wasp is an amphibious assault group that carries the 2nd MEU and all assets required to support the MEU during amphibious operations. She is equipped with her own suite of aircraft, though these are primarily to support the MEU while engaged or perform logistical functions. The four AH-1W Super Cobra’s and AV-8B Harriers can provide the Marines with on call CAS, while the CH-53s, MV-22s and CH-46s all provide a heavy lift capability.
The Wasp is escorted by a CG and a DDG with the same roles as the CG and DDGs assigned to the Enterprise; defend the air space and strike land-based targets.
2nd Marine Expeditionary Unit:
A Marine Expeditionary Unit is a reinforced battalion capable of quickly responding to flashpoints around the world and conducting sustained amphibious operations. Due to the nature of this operation, no heavy lift amphibious craft are available, meaning the Marines will have to leave their tanks and Humvee’s behind. Two companies of Marines will secure the consulates and will be supported by the battalion headquarters, an engineer platoon, scout sniper platoon, reconnaissance platoon and the AAV platoon that will transport all personnel to and from the beach. This consolidated force is called the Marine Landing Party. C Company, the third rifle company of the MEU, will stay on USS Wasp as a Quick Reaction Force (QRF), responding if needed.
Marine Landing Party:
Battalion Headquarters Scout Sniper Platoon Engineer Platoon Reconnaissance Platoon AAV Platoon A Company B Company Quick Reaction Force:
C Company Naval Support Activity (NSA) Souda Bay:
1x U-2S 1x RQ-4B 1x EC-130H 3x KC-135R 2x E-3C A number of supporting assets are located at the NATO naval base at Souda Bay on the island of Crete. All of these are support assets. A U-2 spy plane and RQ-4 Global Hawk UAV will provide constant on-station reconnaissance of Al Mout and the surrounding area. The EC-130 Compass Call will provide offensive electronic warfare capabilities such as jamming specific enemy radar and SAM sites. KC-135s will provide aerial refueling capability allowing station aircraft to remain in the air longer, and E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Command System (AWACS) will provide additional AEW support if needed.
Due to the rapid escalation in Al Mout, some assets at NSA Souda Bay are still being prepared and will not be ready for at least a few hours, namely the AWACS and refueling aircraft. The U-2 is already airborne and flying a racetrack pattern waiting for the enemy ADN to be reduced, and the Global Hawk is ready to be launched.
TIME:
The date is 5 May. The time is currently 0500 Zulu, 0600 Local. Amphibious operations are templated to begin by 1000 Zulu, though this is subject to the reduction of enemy air and air defense assets.
 
CIVILIAN CONSIDERATIONS:
Al Mout is a populated city full of civilians. Efforts to reduce civilian casualties are being taken primarily in the form of weapon use restrictions. Only precision guided munitions are authorized for use within city limits. These weapons include JDAMs and Tomahawks but exclude weapons such as unguided bombs (ex. Mk82 without JDAM conversion, CBU cluster bombs) or naval gunfire support from 127mm deck guns.
Once troops are in direct contact, the use of unguided weapons for CAS is authorized (such as unguided rockets fired from Super Cobra gunships) but only against positively identified enemy targets. All other use of unguided munitions within city limits remains restricted.
Personnel not in uniform registering weapons cannot be engaged unless they engage friendly units first. All uniformed enemy combatants are free to be engaged at will.
INITIAL TASKINGS
CSG 12:
CSG 12 is initially the main effort. It is tasked with both establishing and maintaining air superiority, as well as carrying out strikes against enemy radar, air defense, and strategic targets.
USS Enterprise CVN is the flagship and will support naval aviation as well as being the primary command and control center for this operation USS Gettysburg CG will provide comprehensive air defense to the carrier and ships of CSG 12 USS Arleigh Burke will strike targets designated in Strike Package North USS Forrest Sherman will strike targets designated in Strike Package West USS James E Williams will strike targets designated in Strike Package Airport USS Stout will strike targets designated in Strike Package Al Mout USS Philadelphia SSN will provide electronic intelligence (ELINT) and maritime surveillance, and pilot recovery USNS Supply T-AOE will provide on-station replenishment if necessary and aid in pilot recovery if needed Map of Strike Packages:

 
Naval Aviation:
The primary conventional striking power of the US Navy, the entire carrier air wing will be tasked with establishing air superiority and striking enemy military and strategic targets in order to allow the Marines to conduct their amphibious infiltration and evacuate the consulates.
VFA-211 (F/A-18F) will establish and maintain a combat air patrol (CAP) over CSG 12 and Task Force Wasp in order to maintain air superiority over all friendly naval assets VMFA-251 (F/A-18C) will remain on standby, ready to perform CAS for the Marine landing party once it has been deployed VFA-136 (F/A-18C) will perform SEAD/DEAD strikes in cooperation with Tomahawk strikes from CSG 12 ships VFA-86 (F/A-18C) will conduct an alpha strike (entire squadron sorties) against Al Mout International Airport with the goal of destroying enemy aircraft on the ground and eliminating the ability of the airport to support flight operations VAQ-137 (EA-6B) will provide EW support in the form of ELINT and directed jamming VAW-123 (S-3B) will provide aerial support, such as aerial refueling, as well as maritime surveillance HS-11 (HH/SH-60) will provide anti-surface warfare (ASW), maritime surveillance and pilot recovery Task Force Wasp:
Task Force Wasp will transport the 2nd MEU close enough to the shores of Al Mout to conduct the amphibious infiltration, will support the Marines during their infiltration, and then will receive and care for all consulate personnel and any casualties sustained during land operations.
USS Wasp will support both aerial operations and Marine amphibious operations, and will receive all evacuated consulate personnel and casualties suffered during land operations 4x AH-1W will provide Marines with CAS while embarked on amphibious operations 4x CH-53E can provide heavy lift support of both land and naval operations 4x MV-22B can provide heavy lift support of both land and naval operations 6x AV-8B will provide Marines with CAS while embarked on amphibious operations 2x CH-46E can provide heavy lift support of both land and naval operations as well as pilot recovery and humanitarian assistance 4x UH-1N can provide logistical support to both naval and land operations as well as pilot recovery 2x HH-60H can provide logistical support to both naval and land operations as well as pilot recovery 4x SH-60F will provide ASW and maritime surveillance to Task Force Wasp USS Ticonderoga CG will provide comprehensive air defense to the carrier and ships of Task Force Wasp USS Bainbridge DDG will provide air defense and maritime surveillance, and is capable (though not initially tasked with) conducting land strikes with Tomahawks USS Oak Hill LSD will provide amphibious support to Marines and can receive Marines, consulate personnel and casualties as an alternative to USS Wasp 2nd MEU:
Upon arriving on station off the coast of Al Mout, the 2nd MEU will conduct an amphibious infiltration of the city. Using amphibious vehicles and supported by CAS, they will make landfall and proceed into the city to the US and Canadian consulates. They will evacuate all personnel and human remains (if/where applicable) and remove or destroy any sensitive materials before withdrawing from the city and returning to Task Force Wasp. A detailed landing plan and tasking follows in the next section titled “Amphibious Plan.”
 
Special Assets:
Special assets are designated as units not operating directly from either CSG 12 or Task Force Wasp. They are primarily reconnaissance and support units, providing constant direct intelligence gathering capabilities and EW support as well as aerial refueling and AEW
 
1x U-2S is tasked with providing direct imaging and intelligence gathering of Al Mout and the surrounding area to give commanders a better idea of the situation on the ground and to provide early warning and tracking to new threats, such as enemy reinforcements to the city 1x RQ-4B is tasked with providing direct imaging and intelligence gathering of Al Mout and the surrounding area to give commanders a better idea of the situation on the ground and to provide early warning and tracking to new threats, such as enemy reinforcements to the city 1x EC-130H is tasked with providing comprehensive EW support in the form of direct jamming of specific enemy radar and air defense assets as well as providing additional ELINT support 3x KC-135R is tasked with providing aerial refueling 2x E-3C is tasked with providing additional AEW Emissions Control (EMCON):
EMCON BRAVO
All ships will restrict radiation emissions (radars are off) but can still communicate and data transfer All aircraft are EMCON DELTA – unrestricted emissions
 
AMPHIBIOUS PLAN
Plan:

 
The amphibious plan is as follows. The engineers will land first and perform a quick sweep of the beach for mines and obstacles. Imagery shows that the beach should be clear and free of mines and obstacles, so the sweep should be quick. A and B Companies along with the scout sniper and recon platoon and battalion headquarters element will land when cleared to by the engineers.
The engineers will make breaches large enough for AAV’s to pass through at breach points Elmer and Fudd.
A Company will proceed through breach point Elmer onto MSR Wiley to MSR Market. At the intersection of MSR Market and Wiley, blocking position Bugs will be established. Then the company will continue down MSR Liberty to the US consulate. Similarly, B Company will proceed through breach point Fudd onto MSR Coyote to MSR Market. At the intersection of MSR Market and Maple, blocking position Bunny will be established. Then the company will continue down MSR Maple to the Canadian consulate.
Upon reaching the consulates, the Marines will secure the compounds and establish a security perimeter. Scout snipers will establish overwatch points on the roofs of the consulates. The Marines will first evacuate consulate personnel to the AAVs, then secure/destroy any sensitive materials on site.
Once the consulates are secured and policed, each company will withdraw to their respective blocking positions, recover the Marines manning those positions, and then withdraw to the beach. From there everyone will amphibiously embark and return to the ships of Task Force Wasp.
Taskings:
A Company: Establish blocking position Elmer on MSR Market, move to and secure US consulate via MSR Liberty B Company: Establish blocking position Fudd on MSR Market, move to and secure Canadian consulate via MSR Maple Engineer Platoon: Provide initial beach screening and breach points at point Bugs (for A Co) and Bunny (for B Co) to allow immediate road access to MSR Scout Sniper Platoon: Will provide rooftop security at both consulates once they have been secured Recon Platoon: Reinforce blocking positions C Company: QRF Landing Plan:
A MEU comes with 12 AAV-7s organic to the formation. Due to the size of the Marine Landing Party and the lack of use of other amphibious landing craft, there are not enough AAVs to land the entire landing party at the same time. The landing party will infil and exfil in waves, designated below:
Infil:
1.      Engineers, Scout Snipers, Recon platoon
2.      A Company, Battalion Headquarters
3.      B Company
Exfil:
1.      Engineers, Scout Snipers, Recon platoon, all consulate personnel and casualties not already evacuated
2.      A Company
3.      B Company, Battalion Headquarters
 
Supporting Fires:
Once ashore, and as long as the airspace remains clear, the Marines will have overwhelming air support. Both the USS Wasp and USS Enterprise will have on call CAS dedicated to supporting the Marines.
Wasp:
4x AH-1W Super Cobra’s 6x AV-8B Harrier’s Enterprise:
12x F/A-18C Hornet’s VMFA-251 (Marine aviation) Due to the restrictions on unguided weapons use inside city limits, the Marines will not have access to mortars or naval gunfire support. However, the Cobra’s will still be allowed to engage positively identified enemy targets with unguided rockets.

One of the big differences in real life is that AA isn't confined to the size of a combat mission map: when air support in game is circling the map at a few kms distance it can only be fired at by whatever AA the victim has brought along, whereas in reality the planes would likley be having to contend with more significant AA fire from other positions in depth.

I take planes as often as its sensible (strafe-only P-47s are 30pts in CMFB- so basically the only good reason not to take a handful is the weather) and I can tell you that while AA isn't hugely effective, neither are the planes. I've seen them strafe Panthers they can't destroy instead of halftracks full of infantry that they would collander, I've seen them strafe dead infantry in a wood instead of platoons of infantry running in the open... they're not exactly a reliable asset.

They are vulnerable to AA- my planes abort all the time, sometimes they get shot down- but I find the best way to deal with enemy airpower is to have a realistic appreciation of how effective it is, plan to account for it, then ignore it. My airpower does very little physical damage, but has immense psychological impact on human players... which you can discount if you choose to.

One of the big differences in real life is that AA isn't confined to the size of a combat mission map: when air support in game is circling the map at a few kms distance it can only be fired at by whatever AA the victim has brought along, whereas in reality the planes would likley be having to contend with more significant AA fire from other positions in depth.

I take planes as often as its sensible (strafe-only P-47s are 30pts in CMFB- so basically the only good reason not to take a handful is the weather) and I can tell you that while AA isn't hugely effective, neither are the planes. I've seen them strafe Panthers they can't destroy instead of halftracks full of infantry that they would collander, I've seen them strafe dead infantry in a wood instead of platoons of infantry running in the open... they're not exactly a reliable asset.

They are vulnerable to AA- my planes abort all the time, sometimes they get shot down- but I find the best way to deal with enemy airpower is to have a realistic appreciation of how effective it is, plan to account for it, then ignore it. My airpower does very little physical damage, but has immense psychological impact on human players... which you can discount if you choose to.

One of the big differences in real life is that AA isn't confined to the size of a combat mission map: when air support in game is circling the map at a few kms distance it can only be fired at by whatever AA the victim has brought along, whereas in reality the planes would likley be having to contend with more significant AA fire from other positions in depth.

I take planes as often as its sensible (strafe-only P-47s are 30pts in CMFB- so basically the only good reason not to take a handful is the weather) and I can tell you that while AA isn't hugely effective, neither are the planes. I've seen them strafe Panthers they can't destroy instead of halftracks full of infantry that they would collander, I've seen them strafe dead infantry in a wood instead of platoons of infantry running in the open... they're not exactly a reliable asset.

They are vulnerable to AA- my planes abort all the time, sometimes they get shot down- but I find the best way to deal with enemy airpower is to have a realistic appreciation of how effective it is, plan to account for it, then ignore it. My airpower does very little physical damage, but has immense psychological impact on human players... which you can discount if you choose to.