Black Sea US formations

[Sequoia]

There's been a lot of excitment at the possibility of CMSF being revived and rightly so, but we shouldn't forget CM:Black Sea, or whatever the final title will be, will come first. MikeyD pointed out in another thread that there are no more US heavy formations in Europe which leads me to think the initial release of Black Sea US contingent may consist of US Marine and airborne troops with heavy US Army units only arriving in further modules based on the premise that they are shipped in once a secure US presence is established at a port. Sure one could suppose the Russians wouldn't overrun all of the Ukraine right away and the Army heavy units could be shipped in anyway to Ukrainian held territory, but it still makes sense to me that the 82nd and at least a couple of Marine MEU's if not a full division would see action first.

Thoughts?

[ScoutPL]

Most exercises the Army conducts these days include a build-up of forces prior to the actual execution. Real world examples are the Gulf War, the almost war in Kosovo, and the 03 invasion of Iraq.

The idea of the 82nd and a couple MEUs deploying to the Ukraine and waiting for heavy forces (essentially from the continental United States) is fraught with issues.

Both would require a heavy commitment of air transportation assets (even the Marines if you are talking about 2 brigade sized elements - casevac, supplies, replacements, etc), but especially the 82nd. It would require a significant effort on the USAFs part to drop (or airland) the entire Division at once. (Sorry guys Market Garden just isn't in the defense budget anymore.) All of which would require a massive (and costly) air superiority and air defense suppression fight by coalition air forces.

Then, assuming you could get them all there in a mutually supporting role with adequate reduction of the enemy air threat you have the fact they would probably be overrun by massive amounts of armor within a week or so.

Its much more feasible to assume a build up of forces in Romania or Poland with a subsequent invasion by heavy and light forces (understanding that a build up like that would take months, with a simultaneous build up by the Russians). Or a build up in the Ukraine itself (assuming that wouldn't automatically kick off a conflict) with an attack at some point by the Russians.

Bottom line is there would be no reason to sacrifice light units in order to seize ground and wait for heavy units. And a huge sacrifice it would be! We deployed the 82nd to Saudi Arabia in 1990 to deter Saddam from invading SA. But we enjoyed a large air dominance (that continued to grow daily) that made that possible. That wouldn't be feasible against the Soviets (um, I mean Russians).

[ScoutPL]

I'm actually very interested in how BFC will model the current Russian armed forces. I have not received a threat briefing on them in a while (no reason to). I wonder how closely they are sticking to their old warsaw pact doctrine and formations.

[ScoutPL]

Studying the map.

Routes into Ukraine from Romania are greatly restricted due to mountain range.

Routes into Ukraine from Poland are greatly restricted by wetlands.

Quickest way to Kiev (which is right on Russia border) is actually through Moldova from Romania (which would require control of Black Sea).

The more I look at this the more I think they should just call it Combat Mission: We're All F'd.

[Sequoia]

Interesting, but could you see an intial Russian drive into the Ukraine being halted along the Dneiper and/or Crimean Isthmus for a time being and the US commitiing Airborne and Marine MEUs into the line as token forces more for political reasons rather than military until the US/NATO completes it's build up where ever that may be a counter offensive?

[ScoutPL]

Not really.

Half the country actually still thinks of themselves as Russian so I don't see the Ukrainian armed forces staying a viable force for long, especially against the Russians.

The US reached Baghdad (300 miles) in 16 days. The Russians would have to cover half that distance (through territory overwhelmingly in their favor, geographically and politically) to seize Kiev (probably doable in less than a week).

Belarus is an ally of theirs so its not hard to imagine they would send forces through that country to cross the Dnieper in friendly territory and invade Ukraine from the western side of the river. If that was really a concern of theirs, which I wouldn't think it would be.

I don't think they would be too worried about seizing control of the country's infrastructure. They would definitely have issues with an insurgency in the western half of the country and possibly a build up of NATO forces on the western borders.

One possible scenario would be a Ukraine that votes itself into NATO and then begins to fall apart as a result of the insurgency that is liable to spark (aggravated by Russia, of course). The Ukraine govt asks for assistance and NATO decides to send a task force for stability/show of force reasons. Lets call it Task Force Roadkill.

The Russians are then forced to decide to become directly involved in a fight with NATO (TF Roadkill) or stick to supporting an insurgency on their own borders. My guess would be they know how fickle western governments are and would decide to just wait and feed the insurgency as much as possible. Eventually, the west would lose interest and they could begin the whole process of destabilizing the pro-NATO faction again.

But, if they decided they had to force the issue then time would become of essence. They would have to strike as soon as possible to seize the country before NATO could effectively mobilize to reinforce TF Roadkill.

That would be a Russian decision to engage in open warfare and the gloves come off (highly unlikely), but it gets us where we want to go in the scenario. The finer scenario design points would be what TF Roadkill looks like (probably a mix of heavy and light units) and whether or not there is a similar build up of forces in Poland and/or Romania.

[Sequoia]

It'll be interesting to see what BFC comes up with for a backstory, not that a realistic one would be critical for enjoying the game but it would help me at least with the immersion. I wonder if some one in the inner circle will at least tell us if they put a lot of thought into the backstory. The CMSF story, although unlikely, at least seemed operationally credible to me.

[iMolestCats]

Im willing to bet the back story will be a civil war between the East and West Ukraine, as Gunhappy says the east is basically 100% Russian ethnicity. And it's actually a completely plausible scenario with the recent riots in kyiv and other western cities, and protesters wanting a complete resignation of the current government. BFC can just change it to the Ukrainian Pres sending in the military to crush the riots (Which he almost did, not to mention the startling reports from the city of Chernigov, i.e. tanks being marshaled, and complete shut off of internet in the city. The city was also the scene of some brutal fighting between protesters and berkut special police.) and a civil war erupting as result, with Russia then stepping in to help crush the west, leads to NATO intervening, and so on.

So not a completely unbelievable story.

[ChrisND]

We've written a fairly detailed storyline that at least sounds plausible on the face of it... at least long enough for you to get in-game and forget about all of it after seeing Abrams, BM Bulats, and T-90s slug it out.

Even more important than being realistic, though, is that the game storyline provides what we need for a good Combat Mission setting. That means a variety of interesting terrain that players can fight over, a variety of forces, an operational setting that gives suitably dramatic consequences for success/failure in campaigns, and structured room for expansion, both in terms of official modules and player-made mods. After all, this is a game and there's no point in crafting a meticulously realistic storyline that also happens to be limited and boring. I don't think anyone would want to play a Combat Mission game that consists of an invisible air/naval skirmish over Crimea while a few battalions clash in one town before both sides back down and settle it diplomatically.

Bottom line is that we've made serious efforts to make the storyline realistic, but only so far as it doesn't interfere with meeting the game's needs.

Somewhat disconcertingly, some of the backstory elements have actually come true since we wrote it many months ago. Which is not to say that I think that NATO and Russia are going to be openly fighting each other any time soon. Despite all the bluster, I don't think anyone in charge is that stupid.

[Sequoia]

Thanks for the info Chris. The discussion in this thread makes me wonder if we might see Ukrainian insurgents in the game.

[ScoutPL]

I think there would be plenty for all types of forces to deal with. Heavy as well as light. Unfortunately, the light forces (abn/marine) would be relied on for the heaviest fighting, i.e. seizing/clearing the urban areas. Just as happened in '03 they would be tasked with attacking or defending the severely restricted terrain that the mech units would want to avoid. And as in most populated areas of the world now, there are plenty of those in Ukraine.

And I would think there is plenty of opportunity for insurgent activity as well. Probably not in a full blown COIN environment (certainly not initially) but just as extra "players" on the battlefield.

[Stagler]

After discussing such events at work (from a british point of view). We came to the conclusion that a conventional conflict would be very short and very brutal, with emphasis on a large stage of pre-positional manouevering, before a very short battle with most of UK 1 ARMD DIV, and most of the attacking Russian/Ukrainian pro-Russian being depleted and an agreement being settled in Russia's favour.

I see the actual campaign set probably over the course of a week at most, with a campaign for each side.

That is probably fair.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

I think a conventional conflict would be relatively short but by short we are talking several weeks, maybe a couple of months. Possibly a war could go on for longer but that seems unlikely. I agree it would probably be hard fought and bloody. While Russian performance has not been great they did do well in Georgia although to be fair they were always going to win that one. Up against heavy NATO forces it might be a close run thng whn we take into account the impact of defence cuts and the mpaxct these have on Western mlitary capabilities.

In a Ukraine war it is quite likely there woud be a pro Russian breakaway faction siding with Russia and Belorussia. NATO nations such as Poland might be drawn into the conflict pulling in the rest of NATO assuming for example that Russia/Belorusssia attacked Poland.

A war need not draw in NATO immediately howerver. It may start with a war between Russia/Belorussia and Ukraine that later escalates into a wider European conflict involving NATO.

The scenario I would like to see is an escalating conflict lasting several months and allowing for winter warfare as well as continuing over the spring (rasputitsa) mud seeason and into the summer months (say a period covering late September to July/August the following year) This way several assumptions about a regional conflictcould be allowed for and tested within he game. For instance how would each sid perform in winter conditionas as opposed to a spring or summer campaign?

[whitehot78]

I think that a campaign which covers several months, with all the different effects on the terrain by the weather condition would be great from a "game" point of view, but rather unrealistic. I agree with the posters who believe that such conflict would be rather short and bloody, although one could elaborate that, on the grounds of political causes, all the sides could decide to make some sort of stand, and commit some additional operations. This could open up some interesting situations which could accomodate both gaming and realism requirements.

As I see it, for example, you could have the base game released with one campaign per side, covering, say, a summertime Russian offensive against NATO and Ukraine. At the end, you have a cease-fire. Subsequent modules could introduce new Units/Countries, for example, more NATO nations send their forces to the theatre and deploy a counter-offensive to liberate territorial gains made by the Russians, this time during winter.

I'm just making some guesses on how they could structure the whole thing, in the end everything should depend on the storyline they wrote, and I'm pretty sure that the one they made will suit this scenario right

[LUCASWILLEN05]

I think that a campaign which covers several months, with all the different effects on the terrain by the weather condition would be great from a "game" point of view, but rather unrealistic. I agree with the posters who believe that such conflict would be rather short and bloody, although one could elaborate that, on the grounds of political causes, all the sides could decide to make some sort of stand, and commit some additional operations. This could open up some interesting situations which could accomodate both gaming and realism requirements.

As I see it, for example, you could have the base game released with one campaign per side, covering, say, a summertime Russian offensive against NATO and Ukraine. At the end, you have a cease-fire. Subsequent modules could introduce new Units/Countries, for example, more NATO nations send their forces to the theatre and deploy a counter-offensive to liberate territorial gains made by the Russians, this time during winter.

I'm just making some guesses on how they could structure the whole thing, in the end everything should depend on the storyline they wrote, and I'm pretty sure that the one they made will suit this scenario right

Do we have to stick to the one campaign format though. We could for instance have a winter war and a summer war variant working on the same basic backgroud scenariio. Or we could have a longer conflict initiallly breaking out between Russia and Ukraine lastying for a few weeks or even a couple of months before NATO is drawn in (there are a number of ways this could happen) the latter would allow for a reinforcement of US forces n Europe and NATO mobilization as fears of a war in Europe grow. The actual war between Russia and NATO might only last, say three or four weeks though if NATO decided to push for Moscow it could last for longer (although the obvious risk in this case would be that the conflict ends in a nuclear exchange - very much beyond the scope of CM :eek:)

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Studying the map.

Routes into Ukraine from Romania are greatly restricted due to mountain range.

Routes into Ukraine from Poland are greatly restricted by wetlands.

Quickest way to Kiev (which is right on Russia border) is actually through Moldova from Romania (which would require control of Black Sea).

The more I look at this the more I think they should just call it Combat Mission: We're All F'd.

We could have a northern theatre covering fighing drawing in Poland and the Baltic States and a southern theatre of operations/ The Pripyat Marshes and the Carpathian mountains would be operationally significant in this war though niether prevented large scale military operations in WW2 though he geography would have an effect on planning and implementation. The geography would be no obstacle to airmobility and could be used to screen large scale ground movements by mechanized forces. For instance a NATO counter offensive might be based in Poland and sweep around the Eastern end of the Pripyat Marshes attacking the Russians in the rear having cut their supply lines. Obviously such a move would be opposed strongly by Belarus. And could lead to battles on some famous WW2 battlefields such as Kursk and Kharkov. There is also scope for a later NATO advance towards Moscow, which, despite the obvious real world nuclear risks could be worty of exploration in game terms. We could even end the war with a modern day Battle of Moscow. Just think of driving your M1A2s, Challengers and Leopards into the final battle for the Kremlin:eek:

[Skwabie]

Well...

My vote goes to Red Storm Rising 2. (the land combat portion ofc)

In memory of Tom Clancy!

[LUCASWILLEN05]

:eek:

Well...

My vote goes to Red Storm Rising 2. (the land combat portion ofc)

In memory of Tom Clancy!

Obviously the modern version would have to be fought as a NATO defence of Poland versus a revamped Soviet Union (perhaps a confederation of Russia, Belorussia and Ukraine. For some reason they decide to invade the BNalic States and Poland. Or of course the war in Ukraine might expand pulling in the rest of NATO in defence of Poland, a NATO member/ We might have a situation earlier in te war in which Russian and /or Belorussian armies drive into a Poland which has been dragged into the Ukranian War. NATO commits to help defend Poland and later the counter offensive to liberate occupied parts of Poland and Ukraine. Then NATO can push through Belorussia and into Ruassia itself. This is only a wargame of course and such an operation may not be mounted in reality for obvious political reasons :eek:

I think that for this game BF could allow for a number of different background campaign scenarios instead of just one as has been the case previously and we could have scope to game some interesting battles. For instance, this campaign could see a modern day version of Prokhrovka fought on the same ground but with 21st Century technology.

[ScoutPL]

We could have a northern theatre covering fighing drawing in Poland and the Baltic States and a southern theatre of operations/ The Pripyat Marshes and the Carpathian mountains would be operationally significant in this war though niether prevented large scale military operations in WW2 though he geography would have an effect on planning and implementation. The geography would be no obstacle to airmobility and could be used to screen large scale ground movements by mechanized forces. For instance a NATO counter offensive might be based in Poland and sweep around the Eastern end of the Pripyat Marshes attacking the Russians in the rear having cut their supply lines. Obviously such a move would be opposed strongly by Belarus. And could lead to battles on some famous WW2 battlefields such as Kursk and Kharkov. There is also scope for a later NATO advance towards Moscow, which, despite the obvious real world nuclear risks could be worty of exploration in game terms. We could even end the war with a modern day Battle of Moscow. Just think of driving your M1A2s, Challengers and Leopards into the final battle for the Kremlin:eek:

The problem with this is its way beyond the scope of NATO. The vast majority of any armor formations at NATOs disposal would be US and it would take months to get them to Europe (and we're only talking about a few divisions). The Brits have the second largest military in NATO and they might be able to squeeze together a division, at most. The bottom line is that the European nations have all cut back on their military spending rather steeply with the end result that a full modern mobilization would take over a year (think the US 1940-42) if it is possible at all.

The large, full scale, national wars of the twentieth century are in the past. Its just too damn expensive in capital, people, and the environment. Smaller wars are certainly going to continue to plague us but one with major world powers as belligerents is very unlikely.

I dont think CMSF/Back Sea should stray too far from whats possible/probable. After the game comes out you can create a Kursk map and fight it out with T-90s and M1A2s, if you'd like. Easy enough with the editor.

Really all BFC needs is a background scenario that provides a name, some cover art, and a location. And, I believe anyway, BFC has always put itself forward as wanting to be known for accurate, realistic simulations. Honestly the more plausible (like the original CMSF), the more relevant and well accepted it will be. And I am speaking as a military professional who deals a lot with simulations. We are always looking for the next great thing to use as a training tool.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Don't forget we can have heavy armour coming from various European members such as Germany, Poland, the UK. Add to that the Ukranian army of course. The US will probably still have a lot of equipment in storage rather like the old REFORGER sites. If so then it qwould be possible to fly the manpower over as was planned back in thwe 1980s, If this is indeed rthe case the US would not needto spend months building up a corps or mult corps force. Having said that with the current US army we are looking at a maximum of five or six divisions plus he NATO European forces, probably includingg te Polish and perhaps orther Easterh European contingents. Add to that the Ukranian army. Havingsaid that it would be the Europeans who would have to hold rthe line in the oeniing battles prior to the US arrival whch might still require several weeks.

[whitehot78]

The Brits have the second largest military in NATO

In fact the second largest military in NATO is the Turkish one. I'd also dare to say that France comes third although it could be a very close call with the UK.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

I don't see the Turks being involved n his one. Poland yes. Germany, Roumania, Hungary and Britain possible. France and maybe some of the smaller Western and Southern European nations (Italy, Holland, Belgium) might be persuaded depending on circumstancwes. The Baltic states mighr be invaded bty Russia or Belorussia at some stage in this warr but their armed foprces are tiny to say the least. So I casn see BF doing orbats for some of the larger Eastern European states (such as Poland,Hungary and Roumania) the Ukraine, probably the UK and Germany, possibly France, Holland or the Netherlands. US, Ukraine, Belorussia and Russia I would expect to be included from the start.with some/all of the above in expansions.

[ScoutPL]

OK I stand corrected, thanks. The stat I was thinking of had Britain with the second largest defense budget.

[Combatintman]

Which indicates the Brits don't get much value for money, but yes the Turkish Armed Forces are pretty large, although of course they do have more uncertainty on their borders.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

An inteersting analysis on the background to the ongoing, real world crisis. Hope this forthcoming game does not prove to be too prophetic. We do however seem to bre living in interesting times :eek:

http://www.larouchepub.com/hzl/2013/4050merkel_ukr.html