Any modules ? National Family extensions or patches in the works ?

[General Melchid]

To be straight looking at the devastation that MLRS and large calibre artillery systems combined with accurate modern spotting systems can achieve:

there wouldn't be anything left to nuke if any conflict went conventional total war with 2 well armed antagonists.

I'm mean look at the state of parts of Syria or Ukraine where this stuff has been chucked about, there's little left to 'take' at the end of it.

[VladimirTarasov]

52 minutes ago, General Melchid said:

Illuminating response, so theoretically there could be a few days of conventional push and shove on a border before the nuclear option was deemed necessary?( after conventional forces collapse)

I highlight this is all just wind-bagging and I don't expect you to be official Kremlin spokesman

I can't tell you exactly, however the faster NATO formations are targeted the better, how ever I don't think NATO will be able to invade Russian territories, without having taken heavy losses, which will obviously not be supported by the general public of those countries. And if it does happen, and tactical nukes are not taken into account we have a large reserve of 2 million men. 

Edit: guess who wrote republic instead of public. 

Edited June 21, 2016 by VladimirTarasov

[VladimirTarasov]

41 minutes ago, kinophile said:

Do you have details on that exercise? What was the premise? What was the situation that lead to nuclear escalation? 

To be clear,  I wasn't saying Russia shoukd not run such exercises, from a moral standpoint or something. It absolutely should run such exercises,  in the military and political training sense. I'm certain the US/UK/FRA do. 

I'm not in the mood to go digging for a link, but it was a regular nuclear drill, nothing really special about it. 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

1 hour ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

You know what would destroy a reasonable portion of Russia's offensive capability?

Killing the hell out of their offensive into Eastern Europe.

This isn't 1981.  There's no inexhaustible waves of Armatas and T-90AMs waiting to emerge from sekret bunkers below the steppes.  If Russia did mount an offensive operation, and lost hard enough to allow NATO to be in position to cross the border in force, I've got news for you, Russia is out of the Army business for a few decades at its current economic levels.  

The fact you can bring up Korea and not understand WHY Korea panned out like it did is interesting.  We wound up with a Korea because our ability to contain the threat matched up well with a general lack of political will, and the promise of a wider war.  Which is pretty much the same logic we have facing Russia only with nuclear bombs tossed in, so honestly I've moved beyond trying to understand "why" you think the way you do, and more wandered into a sort of fascination of the cognitive dissonance involved in the process.  

You will still have to destroy a fair;ly large proportion of the Russian army to prevent them from trying another invasion. oesn;t matter whether we are talking about Kadesh, the Karbala Gap or Kiev. The decisions to be made as the war comes to its end are going to be political as well as military. Though you could decide to implement a de facto ceasefire at the point all or most Russian forces have been pushed back over the border there are going to be costs to that decision. Korea is a fine example of what happens when you have a draw or an incomplete victory. US forces are still there more than 50 years after the Korean ceasefire and there are large financial costs attached with that. And, if you want to find out what the costs of such extended military commitments can be read The Rise and Fall of Great Powers by Paul Kennedy

Let's say the US accepts a ceasefire at the Ukrainian border. Russia is likely going to be hostile for years. So considerable forces are going to have to be deployed there for years and probably decades. That costs money and a lot of it. The US has a lot of other military commitments elsewhere which also cost money. Billions of dollars. How long can the US economy continue to support the required expenditure. How long are the rest of the population going to be willing to pay their taxes? Can they indeed afford to pay their taxes as such a high level and what is the high level of taxation going to do to the rest of the economy/ No state can support high defense spending for long. That is one of the important factors that brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union. You need to consider the economic and political factors here, not just the short term and military factors.

At the end of our hypothetical Ukraine War the US president and NATO are at the very least going to need to ensure that Russia is not going to be able to do this any time soon. What if,for example a large proportion of the invasion force had withdrawn reasonably intact over the border? What are you going to do then? Accept a ceasefire that will require large and expensive long term deployments adding to the costs of your many existing commitments? And maybe having fight a new war in a few years Or are you gong to destroy some more of the Russian army first even if that means a temporary incursion onto Russian territory so they can't do this again any time soon. Don't forget, at the end of the 1991 Gulf War there was a great deal of criticism of the decision to stop at the particular time the decision was made. There were those who felt that the war should have continued for a few more days. It may be that the decision that was made, at the time it was made, set the ground work for the 2003 Iraq War. A consequences of that conflict are still unfolding to this day

I can imagine a huge debate within NATO like this towards the end of a war in Ukraine. The decision to be made boils down to two choices - finish the job despite the risks or agree to a ceasefire immediately (or just announce one) There are big risks and implications either way. It is a political decision to be made in the White House by the President and the Joint Chiefs and by the NATO allies. The hawks would likely go for destroying more of the Russian army even if that meant a limited invasion into Russian territory. I doubt anyone would be advocating a March on Moscow outside high;exceptional circumstances.

You need to look at this from the political. economic and strategic perspectives as well as the military situation,as a US President would have to do and as SACEUR would have to do  You commanded what a Combat Team if I remember qwhat you said correctly. A ceasefire decision or a decision to cross the Russian border (and if so how far that should go) is a decision far above your pay grade or mine for that matter

Now we can argue about this until long after the cows come home. Or we can simply agree that, if someone wants to do  scenario assuming some form of limited incursion into Russia that is their prerogative. This is a war game,not the real world. We don't include nuke and we both know that even the smallest tactical nuke would wipe out pretty much everything on a CMBS sized battlefield. Maybe we could simulate the effects of a chemical warfare environment by classing our troops as weakened or unfit to simulate the debilitating effects of having to wear NBC suits (maybe a few other fixes of a similar nature would get a bit closer - maybe use the electronic warfare functions for instance) if we wanted such a thing for a particular scenario.At the end of the day this is a war game scenario,nothing more and most certainly not the real world. We are stepping into the combat boots of a company team commander or maybe a battalion level commander if we are feeling ambitious. Anything beyond that is way over our "pay grade"

[womble]

10 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

You fail to consider the political issues here. We are not talking about a full scale "Operation Barbarossa 2" . We are talking about very limited cross border operations with the primary aim of destroying Russian offensive capabilities and maybe securing a few border cities like Kursk as political negotiating chips that can be exchanged for any territory the Russians occupied or for other Russian concessions. Very like the Israel crossing of the Suez Canal during the closing stages of the Yom Kippur War.

You have a very optimistic definition of "securing". The West simply doesn't have the capacity to "secure" any significant territory in an undegraded Russia. If the regime was in turmoil, with dissension within the ranks of the Russian army, maybe, but as a negotiating chip, somewhere like Kursk would be entirely worthless, because the Russians know we'd have to had it back eventually anyway, and they'd just make holding them painful and bloody to accelerate the process.

The West have long range rockets and superior air forces to destroy Russian offensive capabilities over the border; there's need zero to put boots on the ground.

 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

8 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

You will still have to destroy a fair;ly large proportion of the Russian army to prevent them from trying another invasion. oesn;t matter whether we are talking about Kadesh, the Karbala Gap or Kiev. The decisions to be made as the war comes to its end are going to be political as well as military. Though you could decide to implement a de facto ceasefire at the point all or most Russian forces have been pushed back over the border there are going to be costs to that decision. Korea is a fine example of what happens when you have a draw or an incomplete victory. US forces are still there more than 50 years after the Korean ceasefire and there are large financial costs attached with that. And, if you want to find out what the costs of such extended military commitments can be read The Rise and Fall of Great Powers by Paul Kennedy

Let's say the US accepts a ceasefire at the Ukrainian border. Russia is likely going to be hostile for years. So considerable forces are going to have to be deployed there for years and probably decades. That costs money and a lot of it. The US has a lot of other military commitments elsewhere which also cost money. Billions of dollars. How long can the US economy continue to support the required expenditure. How long are the rest of the population going to be willing to pay their taxes? Can they indeed afford to pay their taxes as such a high level and what is the high level of taxation going to do to the rest of the economy/ No state can support high defense spending for long. That is one of the important factors that brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union. You need to consider the economic and political factors here, not just the short term and military factors.

At the end of our hypothetical Ukraine War the US president and NATO are at the very least going to need to ensure that Russia is not going to be able to do this any time soon. What if,for example a large proportion of the invasion force had withdrawn reasonably intact over the border? What are you going to do then? Accept a ceasefire that will require large and expensive long term deployments adding to the costs of your many existing commitments? And maybe having fight a new war in a few years Or are you gong to destroy some more of the Russian army first even if that means a temporary incursion onto Russian territory so they can't do this again any time soon. Don't forget, at the end of the 1991 Gulf War there was a great deal of criticism of the decision to stop at the particular time the decision was made. There were those who felt that the war should have continued for a few more days. It may be that the decision that was made, at the time it was made, set the ground work for the 2003 Iraq War. A consequences of that conflict are still unfolding to this day

I can imagine a huge debate within NATO like this towards the end of a war in Ukraine. The decision to be made boils down to two choices - finish the job despite the risks or agree to a ceasefire immediately (or just announce one) There are big risks and implications either way. It is a political decision to be made in the White House by the President and the Joint Chiefs and by the NATO allies. The hawks would likely go for destroying more of the Russian army even if that meant a limited invasion into Russian territory. I doubt anyone would be advocating a March on Moscow outside high;exceptional circumstances.

You need to look at this from the political. economic and strategic perspectives as well as the military situation,as a US President would have to do and as SACEUR would have to do  You commanded what a Combat Team if I remember qwhat you said correctly. A ceasefire decision or a decision to cross the Russian border (and if so how far that should go) is a decision far above your pay grade or mine for that matter

Now we can argue about this until long after the cows come home. Or we can simply agree that, if someone wants to do  scenario assuming some form of limited incursion into Russia that is their prerogative. This is a war game,not the real world. We don't include nuke and we both know that even the smallest tactical nuke would wipe out pretty much everything on a CMBS sized battlefield. Maybe we could simulate the effects of a chemical warfare environment by classing our troops as weakened or unfit to simulate the debilitating effects of having to wear NBC suits (maybe a few other fixes of a similar nature would get a bit closer - maybe use the electronic warfare functions for instance) if we wanted such a thing for a particular scenario.At the end of the day this is a war game scenario,nothing more and most certainly not the real world. We are stepping into the combat boots of a company team commander or maybe a battalion level commander if we are feeling ambitious. Anything beyond that is way over our "pay grade"

Oh Jebus.

Re: "Pay Grade"

I was a Tank Company Commander.  We did not operate in Team configuration during peacetime, although we drilled with our Infantry and Engineer elements from time to time.  

I was also:

Part of several Division, Corps, and Army level exercises on staff
A Battalion Planner
Brigade Planner
A graduate of advanced Army schooling.

I also have degrees in Political Science with an emphasis in international relations, and a history degree with a decided military-political slant.

And I remain on a National Guard Brigade staff, and we're still working up contingencies with Russian involvement in Eastern Europe, and are building up to an NTC training exercise built around that contingency.

As a military officer, I think you're amazingly silly.  As someone who's received college education in politics, international relations, and military history, I think you're profoundly silly.  I am not likely the smartest man on this forum, but by god I'd like to think I am not the least prepared to discuss this topic, and I can say by far and away if I had to name events that were virtually NEVER a realistic element of US military, and NATO planning, it was committing conventional forces uninvited to Russian soil*

The US commitment to Korea was expensive (less so now that the Koreans underwrite every dollar spent on our presence there), but seriously broham, do you think the UN was prepared to fight and decisively win a war with China in 1953?  Do you really think the various World War Two battered European countries would stick it out for another go at a massive ground conflict on the literal other side of the world?  Do you think the American people, who were in near revolt over a never ending war in Korea would be on board to throw their sons at a never ending conflict against a country willing to bury millions of its sons for minimal gains?

The only reasonable outcome was to secure status ante bellum, break the Chinese forces to the degree they were unable to continue the offensive, and then enforce the peace.  And it worked out likely better than any idiot larger war would have.

Bringing up Iraq is just as stupid.  Iraq wasn't a realistic threat in reality (vs in the echo chamber that was the Bush cabinet circa 2002), it was broken in 1991.  It was still broken in 2003.  Was it out of compliance with international agreements?  Sure.  Was Saddam a bad guy?  Yep.  Was deposing him a good idea?  Maybe?

But Iraq was not a realistic threat to anyone in 2003.  "Finishing the job" in 1991 only makes sense if you ignore political (and like, large scale major issue political, not some quibbling "Bush Sr WAS A WUSS!" nonsense) realities.  

I can't believe I'm still even trying to argue this.  I mean, effectively turning things on their head, by Lucaslogic Russia could only secure a victory against NATO in a limited war by occupying Berlin, Paris, London, and select parts of the US eastern seaboard (we are being reasonable here!  All of America would be silly, just realistically to the Mississippi!).  As that's what it'd take to destroy NATO's offensive punch and secure a peace Russia would not have to police for decades afterwards.

Taking this further down the road, try this on for size:

Russia loses in the Ukraine.  Several Brigade Tactical Groups cease to exist outside of Belgian, German, and Turkish run POW camps.  The president of Donbass shoots himself as Ukrainian SOF elements stop his convoy from fleeing into Russia proper.  

What do you think the Russian people's response to this is?  Do you think it'll be to continue the fight, or perhaps, more realistically, shove as much blame as possible on the powers that be resulting in a catastrophic political crisis for the Russian ruling elite?

I would contend Russia would desend into abject higgeldy, pigglity in this situation, and would no longer be a threat to ANYONE for years to come while things are still sorted out.  

However, let's go in Lucas mode and send some Panzers into Western Russia because it's not like that didn't effectively unify all Russians into a collective front that did not resist to the point of losing millions of people and still continuing the war until it ended in Berlin.  

It's like attacking the US overtly.  If you want to keep the US out of your hair, literally do anything but start unrestricted submarine warfare/bomb Pearl Harbor/9-11 and it's likely you might avoid the JDAM rain.  You want to keep Russians fighting among themselves and their own worst enemy?  DO NOT EVER INVADE RUSSIA LET THEM SLIT EACH OTHERS THROATS.  

I really should just stop replying to these posts, but there's just something so offensively "wrong" about them I feel compelled to at least say "something."


In other news:
 

Good god am I ready for a Polish module.   Za naszą i waszą wolność!

*I'm sure in a box somewhere there's a plan that allows for getting involved in a Russian civil war, or securing Russian WMDs after a total collapse of the Russian government from some crisis or the other.  I imagine if it's a realistic plan it involves the Russians being on board.

[LukeFF]

Lucas's posts sure do make for good comic relief.

[Kinophile]

It's starting to Tom Clancy, Tom Clancy. 

[AttorneyAtWar]

Yeah but at least Clancy novels have cool stuff that happens in them like a US Armored division helping the Russians fight the Chinese in Siberia.

[Kinophile]

57 minutes ago, Raptorx7 said:

Yeah but at least Clancy novels have cool stuff that happens in them like a US Armored division helping the Russians fight the Chinese in Siberia.

Was it he who suggested giving the Swiss an entire Abrams division so they could peacekeep Jerusalem? 

I LOL'd for days over that one. 

Oh neocons. Nothing is too ludicrous because RAWR 'MURICA RAWR. 

[AttorneyAtWar]

17 minutes ago, kinophile said:

Was it he who suggested giving the Swiss an entire Abrams division so they could peacekeep Jerusalem? 

I LOL'd for days over that one. 

Oh neocons. Nothing is too ludicrous because RAWR 'MURICA RAWR. 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

13 hours ago, womble said:

You have a very optimistic definition of "securing". The West simply doesn't have the capacity to "secure" any significant territory in an undegraded Russia. If the regime was in turmoil, with dissension within the ranks of the Russian army, maybe, but as a negotiating chip, somewhere like Kursk would be entirely worthless, because the Russians know we'd have to had it back eventually anyway, and they'd just make holding them painful and bloody to accelerate the process.

The West have long range rockets and superior air forces to destroy Russian offensive capabilities over the border; there's need zero to put boots on the ground.

 

The key word here is "limited" I hacv made it perfectly clear /i am not talking about a "March on Moscow"

Asregrds an area like Kursk you fail to consider the concept of negotiating chips. Let's say.in our hypothetical scenario that the Rusins stil hold  chunkof Ukranian territory north of the Crimea between there and Melitopol  along the Sea of Azov. This is of value to the Russians as it forms a "land bridge" to the Crimea.The Ukrainian government will want that land back. NATO has occupied the area around Kursk for the purpose of our post war negoiations scenario. The diplomats can work on an agreement underwhich Ukraine gets to return to its' pre 2017 borders in exchange for NATO returning Kursk to Russia. It is a negotiation - if you want to make a deal you need something to bargain with like a bt of Russian territory.Tghe final settlement is up to the diplomats.

A for use of air power and artillery that is useful only to a certain extent. Look at the Kossovo Campaign. NATO did nt destry a particularly large prportion of Serb military capability.To do that you need a combined arms approach. Tjhat means combining air power with ground troops. Whether SACEUR decides to occupy Russian terriory is a political decision. Tha would be made taking into account the aboveconsiderations and the risks involved. An alternative possibility is a tempoy ground iincursionlasting for a few days aiming a the destruction of certain Russian conventional forces deployd,for example around Kursk in posiitons from which they could mount future offensive operations. Politically it could well majke Putinlook weak and, just possibly convince some general to try a coup. If he succeeds perhaps that general will be agreeabl to a deal with NATO at least to consolidate a new Russian government. Or, at some point Putin and  NATO will accept a ceasefire n which case the diplomats get to work

[LUCASWILLEN05]

6 hours ago, Raptorx7 said:

Yeah but at least Clancy novels have cool stuff that happens in them like a US Armored division helping the Russians fight the Chinese in Siberia.

That was a pretty good read. Another one has a US Nationa Guard brigadedefending Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from a combined invasion by Iran and Iraq

[LUCASWILLEN05]

8 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Oh Jebus.

Re: "Pay Grade"

I was a Tank Company Commander.  We did not operate in Team configuration during peacetime, although we drilled with our Infantry and Engineer elements from time to time.  

I was also:

Part of several Division, Corps, and Army level exercises on staff
A Battalion Planner
Brigade Planner
A graduate of advanced Army schooling.

I also have degrees in Political Science with an emphasis in international relations, and a history degree with a decided military-political slant.

And I remain on a National Guard Brigade staff, and we're still working up contingencies with Russian involvement in Eastern Europe, and are building up to an NTC training exercise built around that contingency.

As a military officer, I think you're amazingly silly.  As someone who's received college education in politics, international relations, and military history, I think you're profoundly silly.  I am not likely the smartest man on this forum, but by god I'd like to think I am not the least prepared to discuss this topic, and I can say by far and away if I had to name events that were virtually NEVER a realistic element of US military, and NATO planning, it was committing conventional forces uninvited to Russian soil*

The US commitment to Korea was expensive (less so now that the Koreans underwrite every dollar spent on our presence there), but seriously broham, do you think the UN was prepared to fight and decisively win a war with China in 1953?  Do you really think the various World War Two battered European countries would stick it out for another go at a massive ground conflict on the literal other side of the world?  Do you think the American people, who were in near revolt over a never ending war in Korea would be on board to throw their sons at a never ending conflict against a country willing to bury millions of its sons for minimal gains?

The only reasonable outcome was to secure status ante bellum, break the Chinese forces to the degree they were unable to continue the offensive, and then enforce the peace.  And it worked out likely better than any idiot larger war would have.

Bringing up Iraq is just as stupid.  Iraq wasn't a realistic threat in reality (vs in the echo chamber that was the Bush cabinet circa 2002), it was broken in 1991.  It was still broken in 2003.  Was it out of compliance with international agreements?  Sure.  Was Saddam a bad guy?  Yep.  Was deposing him a good idea?  Maybe?

But Iraq was not a realistic threat to anyone in 2003.  "Finishing the job" in 1991 only makes sense if you ignore political (and like, large scale major issue political, not some quibbling "Bush Sr WAS A WUSS!" nonsense) realities.  

I can't believe I'm still even trying to argue this.  I mean, effectively turning things on their head, by Lucaslogic Russia could only secure a victory against NATO in a limited war by occupying Berlin, Paris, London, and select parts of the US eastern seaboard (we are being reasonable here!  All of America would be silly, just realistically to the Mississippi!).  As that's what it'd take to destroy NATO's offensive punch and secure a peace Russia would not have to police for decades afterwards.

Taking this further down the road, try this on for size:

Russia loses in the Ukraine.  Several Brigade Tactical Groups cease to exist outside of Belgian, German, and Turkish run POW camps.  The president of Donbass shoots himself as Ukrainian SOF elements stop his convoy from fleeing into Russia proper.  

What do you think the Russian people's response to this is?  Do you think it'll be to continue the fight, or perhaps, more realistically, shove as much blame as possible on the powers that be resulting in a catastrophic political crisis for the Russian ruling elite?

I would contend Russia would desend into abject higgeldy, pigglity in this situation, and would no longer be a threat to ANYONE for years to come while things are still sorted out.  

However, let's go in Lucas mode and send some Panzers into Western Russia because it's not like that didn't effectively unify all Russians into a collective front that did not resist to the point of losing millions of people and still continuing the war until it ended in Berlin.  

It's like attacking the US overtly.  If you want to keep the US out of your hair, literally do anything but start unrestricted submarine warfare/bomb Pearl Harbor/9-11 and it's likely you might avoid the JDAM rain.  You want to keep Russians fighting among themselves and their own worst enemy?  DO NOT EVER INVADE RUSSIA LET THEM SLIT EACH OTHERS THROATS.  

I really should just stop replying to these posts, but there's just something so offensively "wrong" about them I feel compelled to at least say "something."


In other news:
 

Good god am I ready for a Polish module.   Za naszą i waszą wolność!

*I'm sure in a box somewhere there's a plan that allows for getting involved in a Russian civil war, or securing Russian WMDs after a total collapse of the Russian government from some crisis or the other.  I imagine if it's a realistic plan it involves the Russians being on board.

Then consider the post war political negotiations. That would be part of SACEUR'S job. Like I said he would at least think about the option of incusions over the Russan border for limited military and political advantage. Just as there was apparently a suggestion in 1991 that Coalition forces advanced onBaghdad. The uidea was rejected but it is clear somebody thought about it. Just as, in this case consideration would be given to incursions over theRussin border. Whether it would actually happen would be a political as much as a military decision. There are reasons it might bedone and there are factors that militate against it/ Likewise as in hackett's Third World Wa there were discussions regarding whether or not  NAATO coter offensive should advance into Eas Germany. In Palmer's The War That Never Was" the advance into East Germany actualy takes place. The same principle applies to our hypothetical future Ukraine War scenario

At CMBS these are matters far beyod the scope of the game. Let us just agree that there would be high level political and military discussons about the option which may or may not be implemented and just leave it at that

[LUCASWILLEN05]

8 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Oh Jebus.

Re: "Pay Grade"

I was a Tank Company Commander.  We did not operate in Team configuration during peacetime, although we drilled with our Infantry and Engineer elements from time to time.  

I was also:

Part of several Division, Corps, and Army level exercises on staff
A Battalion Planner
Brigade Planner
A graduate of advanced Army schooling.

I

Good god am I ready for a Polish module.   Za naszą i waszą wolność!

*I'm sure in a box somewhere there's a plan that allows for getting involved in a Russian civil war, or securing Russian WMDs after a total collapse of the Russian government from some crisis or the other.  I imagine if it's a realistic plan it involves the Russians being on board.

In war time however your company would have been organised into combined arms teams,

As depicted in CMBS. Sure there probably is a plan for securing Russian WMDs. here is probably a contingency plan for use in the event of a collapse ofNorth Korea. And there probably isa pla for conventional operations into Russia. . The military,as we are bothaware has toplan for all sorts of contingences. In the 1930s the US had plans like War Plan Red  for use ina war with the British Empire. There would have been all sorts of plans in he Cold Warfor instance an intervebnioninthe PersianGulf if Russia invaded Iran. Youy remember Harry Coyle's Sword Point novel?

Regarding a Polish module. That definately has my vote. Also British 9though aparently we would have difficulty putting together an Armoured Brigade according to 2017 War with Russia by General Sir Richard Shirreff. Bfore you start arguing aboutthat recall that Shirreff was Deputy SACEUR and was a senior British officer as well. Also the BalticStates armies such as they are. The Germans as well because I liked them in CMSF. Also the French bcause using the Leclerc would be fun. Maybe one or two other smal NATO armies such as Denmarck or Romania

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

3 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

Then consider the post war political negotiations. That would be part of SACEUR'S job. Like I said he would at least think about the option of incusions over the Russan border for limited military and political advantage. Just as there was apparently a suggestion in 1991 that Coalition forces advanced onBaghdad. The uidea was rejected but it is clear somebody thought about it. Just as, in this case consideration would be given to incursions over theRussin border. Whether it would actually happen would be a political as much as a military decision. There are reasons it might bedone and there are factors that militate against it/ Likewise as in hackett's Third World Wa there were discussions regarding whether or not  NAATO coter offensive should advance into Eas Germany. In Palmer's The War That Never Was" the advance into East Germany actualy takes place. The same principle applies to our hypothetical future Ukraine War scenario

At CMBS these are matters far beyod the scope of the game. Let us just agree that there would be high level political and military discussons about the option which may or may not be implemented and just leave it at that

One of the keys in getting people to do the things you want them to do with force is give them a way out.  Once you've pushed them too far, you run the risk of them operating on "badger trapped in a root cellar" rules and it'll end poorly.  If you invade Russia, this is no longer open for debate, discuss cease fire, etc, this is a full on war until the Russian state collapses totally, or NATO has to return over the border.

Neither of which is remotely on scale for defeating a limited war in Eastern Europe.

In regards to Iraq:

The Arab portions of the Coalition would have baled, as they did not support deposing Saddam, which would have cut much of the not-Arab force's logistics tail, and removed much of the international legitimacy of the entire operation.   Looking back from now, we know it'd have saved us 2003-2010, but in 1991, there was no reason, or practical ability to continue the fight.

In regards to East Germany

East Germany through Poland was a buffer state.  There's a big difference between liberating Leipzig or even Ponzan and making a go at Moscow.  

In regards to rainbow plans

There's likely a "invade Russia" file somewhere.  Just as there's still likely a "invade Canada" plan.  Talking practically though the presence of these plans is not indicative of a desire to invade either, or the practicality of it, but instead purely a "what if we DID have to do this?" exercise intended to have some sort of plan to start from in the event Russia's nukes all hit their expiration date, Putin reveals himself to be an alien warlord, and he's fueled by virgin sacrifice and we're obligated to go in or something.  It's not a default course of action for war, especially a limited war with Russia.  

[VladimirTarasov]

39 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

There's likely a "invade Russia" file somewhere.  Just as there's still likely a "invade Canada" plan.  Talking practically though the presence of these plans is not indicative of a desire to invade either, or the practicality of it, but instead purely a "what if we DID have to do this?" exercise intended to have some sort of plan to start from in the event Russia's nukes all hit their expiration date, Putin reveals himself to be an alien warlord, and he's fueled by virgin sacrifice and we're obligated to go in or something.  It's not a default course of action for war, especially a limited war with Russia.  

Good points in your argument, the alien warlord made my wife wonder if I was ok  good laughs. 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

54 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

One of the keys in getting people to do the things you want them to do with force is give them a way out.  Once you've pushed them too far, you run the risk of them operating on "badger trapped in a root cellar" rules and it'll end poorly.  If you invade Russia, this is no longer open for debate, discuss cease fire, etc, this is a full on war until the Russian state collapses totally, or NATO has to return over the border.

Neither of which is remotely on scale for defeating a limited war in Eastern Europe.

In regards to Iraq:

The Arab portions of the Coalition would have baled, as they did not support deposing Saddam, which would have cut much of the not-Arab force's logistics tail, and removed much of the international legitimacy of the entire operation.   Looking back from now, we know it'd have saved us 2003-2010, but in 1991, there was no reason, or practical ability to continue the fight.

In regards to East Germany

East Germany through Poland was a buffer state.  There's a big difference between liberating Leipzig or even Ponzan and making a go at Moscow.  

In regards to rainbow plans

There's likely a "invade Russia" file somewhere.  Just as there's still likely a "invade Canada" plan.  Talking practically though the presence of these plans is not indicative of a desire to invade either, or the practicality of it, but instead purely a "what if we DID have to do this?" exercise intended to have some sort of plan to start from in the event Russia's nukes all hit their expiration date, Putin reveals himself to be an alien warlord, and he's fueled by virgin sacrifice and we're obligated to go in or something.  It's not a default course of action for war, especially a limited war with Russia.

NATO could still do that by making it clear tha no NATO forces will not advance beyond the boundries of of Kursk and Belgorood provnces (oblasts?) See Google Earth maps. As previously stated NATO would have to have very good reason to take this step and the military/political  debate would be a heated one similar to the debate Hackett briefly discusses in his 1985 Third World War. In Hackett's book as you know that debate is never resolved, the war being ended following the nuclear destruction of Birmingham and Minsk followed by the coup removing the Soviet leader who started the war.

If you will accept that such a debate would very likely take place towards the end of the NATO victory timeline we could hen agree to a further branching of that timeline before the ceasefire comes into force. One where NATO forces halt at the Russian border as you suggest they will. Another branch where NATO forces do cross the border as I suggest either to occupy parts of Kursk and Belgorod Provinces as future negotating chips or to eliminate Russian offensive capabiliies deployed in that sector.

This allows us to develop scenarios based on modernised versions of II SS Panzer Corps during the 1943 battle of Kursk fighting over the same battlefelds but with modern weapons. Given current TOEs in game US forces will have to take the place of he Germans (but if or when we get Germans they can cerain;y be involved) This of course is intended as a purely academic tactical scenario As you jusy said this is purely a what if we actually did thiswith theworking assumpton that no nukes are used. We can compromise and akllow Russia to use chemical weapons fiddling wih the scenario editor options o get as close as the software will allow to simulating a chemical weapons environment (eg troops classed as weakened/unfit due to operating in NBC suits, maybe setting the electronic warfare settings to high to simulate the difficulties of trying to talk through your gas mask.

This is, after all, just a war game depicting a hypothetcal war

[Sublime]

Well i guess some people could mod some dcs planes so they looked like the alien ships from independence day and make some missions based on fighting them since its all a make believe game anyways.

Doesnt mean id be interested though. If I want realism I go certain places if I want make believe I go others. I find with games working within somewhar of the world the designers made of the game usually works best unless the game is specifically designed otherwise.

Therefore for me personally i cant just mod my cm games and suspend my disbelief with say t34 85s and pretend their t34/76s. Or like recreating ww3  - unti we finally get steve to cave and do ww3 1945 or 85 Ill stick to World in Conflict for it. Speaking of which i actually cant find the cd. Damn. Lol.

[Vanir Ausf B]

11 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

Asregrds an area like Kursk you fail to consider the concept of negotiating chips. Let's say.in our hypothetical scenario that the Rusins stil hold  chunkof Ukranian territory north of the Crimea between there and Melitopol  along the Sea of Azov. This is of value to the Russians as it forms a "land bridge" to the Crimea.The Ukrainian government will want that land back. NATO has occupied the area around Kursk for the purpose of our post war negoiations scenario. The diplomats can work on an agreement underwhich Ukraine gets to return to its' pre 2017 borders in exchange for NATO returning Kursk to Russia. It is a negotiation - if you want to make a deal you need something to bargain with like a bt of Russian territory.Tghe final settlement is up to the diplomats.

The return of Kursk or wherever in Russia only has negotiating value if Russia has reason to think they may not otherwise get it back. If Russia calls the bluff what does NATO do with Kursk? Keep it? What to do with the million or so Russians NATO is now legally responsible for? Shoot them? Grant them Ukrainian citizenship? I'm sure the Ukrainians would love that

[Kinophile]

5 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

This allows us to develop scenarios based on modernised versions of II SS Panzer Corps during the 1943 battle of Kursk fighting over the same battlefelds but with modern weapons.

THERE it is. 

[Sublime]

What was it? I missed it

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

10 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Good points in your argument, the alien warlord made my wife wonder if I was ok  good laughs. 

I don't know if you guys get any education in it, but the US built a series of broad strategies for conflict in the 1920's-1930's.  They're known as the "rainbow" plans because they were all color coded (for instance, Warplan Black detailed a conflict with Germany as we understood them in that era).  Warplan Orange, which detailed conflict with Japan actually was implemented to some degree with modification (the loss of the Phillipines undercut parts of it), but what's interesting is that Orange was built in a time in which US-Japanese relations were pretty good, it was simply seen as a sort of "We might have a problem with Japan one of these days, how would we win that one?"

Warplan Red is the most interesting for me, simply because it involved a war against the UK, and part of that involved invading Canada (and Canada actually had a counter-plan to attack the US in the event of US-UK hostilities).  It seems silly now but there was a bit of a low spot in US-UK relations in the 1920s given the rising US power and waning UK economic strength.  

Either way they're a neat study in planning decades out, and trying to write strategy for the world that may come vs the world that is.

 

 

9 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

NATO could still do that by making it clear tha no NATO forces will not advance beyond the boundries of of Kursk and Belgorood provnces (oblasts?) See Google Earth maps. As previously stated NATO would have to have very good reason to take this step and the military/political  debate would be a heated one similar to the debate Hackett briefly discusses in his 1985 Third World War. In Hackett's book as you know that debate is never resolved, the war being ended following the nuclear destruction of Birmingham and Minsk followed by the coup removing the Soviet leader who started the war.

If you will accept that such a debate would very likely take place towards the end of the NATO victory timeline we could hen agree to a further branching of that timeline before the ceasefire comes into force. One where NATO forces halt at the Russian border as you suggest they will. Another branch where NATO forces do cross the border as I suggest either to occupy parts of Kursk and Belgorod Provinces as future negotating chips or to eliminate Russian offensive capabiliies deployed in that sector.

This allows us to develop scenarios based on modernised versions of II SS Panzer Corps during the 1943 battle of Kursk fighting over the same battlefelds but with modern weapons. Given current TOEs in game US forces will have to take the place of he Germans (but if or when we get Germans they can cerain;y be involved) This of course is intended as a purely academic tactical scenario As you jusy said this is purely a what if we actually did thiswith theworking assumpton that no nukes are used. We can compromise and akllow Russia to use chemical weapons fiddling wih the scenario editor options o get as close as the software will allow to simulating a chemical weapons environment (eg troops classed as weakened/unfit due to operating in NBC suits, maybe setting the electronic warfare settings to high to simulate the difficulties of trying to talk through your gas mask.

This is, after all, just a war game depicting a hypothetcal war

Look, I've made it pretty clear.  No.  You are likely on crazy pills.  Russian nuclear deterrence rests on going ugly fast, and they're not going to take an invading group of Germans Germans and friends lying down.  There is no realistic military value to occupying Western Russia, it's not far enough to damage the Russian ability to rebuild slowly, and it's just advancing the line the retreating forces have to cross a little further.  The only thing it does is give the Russian government the GPW2 card to play.

It's bad strategy.  Really, really bad strategy, and not understanding the strategic operating environment.

[Kinophile]

5 hours ago, Sublime said:

What was it? I missed it

The high school mentality of refighting WW2 with modern weapons. Everything he's describing is based off a secondary school level of understanding of how the world USED to work vs.how it is today (and why). 

It's possibly the most pointless,  worrhless What If base to work from. It's looking at the world like a game of Risk or Civ.  

[Sublime]

Yeah. Civ 2. :/