Combat Mission Shanghai Pact: Ring of Fire 2021

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Some more useful info covering territorial claims, natural gas an oil reserves which could result im a very big international conflagration starting here

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/28/asia/china-south-china-sea-disputes-explainer/index.html

While such a war my begin at sea and whil the maritime conflict will be important a Combat Mission game must, by definition portray a ground war which is why it needs to include South East Asia, Korea, Taiwan etc. The India - Pakistan element requires a wild card (a Mumbai style terrorist attack) and China supporting their Pakistani ally - something that could happen a little later in the war. We don't have to involve all the belligerents from the start and he same goes for Russia which ight enter the war due to a crisis somewhere else in the world

[LongLeftFlank]

Oh, I think I get you clearly enough. I just find your thinking rooted in Cold War / European Great Power analogues that simply aren't appropriate to contemporary Asia, even the backward bits, excepting the Norks and the peripheral Islamic flashpoints. And please notice, Cold War never went hot, cuz nukes. That wasn't an accident.

Since Confucian fundamentalism isn't on the menu in China, you'd need to believe in a fascist Han ethnic supremacism to trigger the kinds of aggressive escalations you posit.

Sure, that isn't impossible, although not a very natural thing for Chinese, but it would take quite some doing: pandemic plus global depression, probably. Plus a similarly cold and brutal set of actions by the West.

Edited May 8, 2017 by LongLeftFlank

[LongLeftFlank]

By the way, shipping routes aren't pipelines. When Abu Sayyaf threatens the Sulu sea routes, they just sail into the Pacific. If bunker is expensive, they steam slower.

Which raises another pretty big question: isn't most of that shipping volume going to and from China? (hint: yes) So they are gonna cut off all their Walmart trade for the sake of the Senkakus and Spratlys? I am pretty sure Shanghai and the entire coastal "belly" of China secedes at that point, maybe pledges allegiance to the Kuomintang ROC. And then you get your civil war. ?

Anyway, I'm off back to Ramadi. Come visit sometime.

[Artkin]

You guys have practically written the storyline already for BF!

[LUCASWILLEN05]

1 hour ago, LongLeftFlank said:

By the way, shipping routes aren't pipelines. When Abu Sayyaf threatens the Sulu sea routes, they just sail into the Pacific. If bunker is expensive, they steam slower.

Which raises another pretty big question: isn't most of that shipping volume going to and from China? (hint: yes) So they are gonna cut off all their Walmart trade for the sake of the Senkakus and Spratlys? I am pretty sure Shanghai and the entire coastal "belly" of China secedes at that point, maybe pledges allegiance to the Kuomintang ROC. And then you get your civil war. ?

Anyway, I'm off back to Ramadi. Come visit sometime.

You clearly underestimate the importance of that international shipping route. While a lot of the trade will cfleary be from China a lot of it will be other trade such as Persian Gulf oil and produce from Japan and Taiwan. The interest of the United States will very obviously be at stake if there were a crisis or a conflict in the area. Why do you think the US Navy maintains a presence there

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/us-navy-plans-new-strategy-counter-beijing-south-china-sea-report-1606406

Why do you think there is a Chinese military buildup in the area?

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/12/chinas-military-and-naval-buildup-in-south-china-sea-threatens-the-us.html

Why are both sides talking so tough?

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-administration-keeps-talking-tough-152453691.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/27/asia/us-china-south-china-sea/index.html

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2017/01/13/China-warns-of-war-after-Rex-Tillersons-South-China-Sea-remarks/7511484317185/

Could it be that the Spratley Islands and the South China Sea is sme of the most important pieces of geostrategic real estate on the planet right now, certainly as far as China and the United States is concerned.

Now supposing here were a shooting war in the South China Sea. Yes, shipping could be diverted but consider the economic costs of that

http://tradeinmagazine.com/economics-finance/trade-news/the-economic-impact-of-the-south-china-sea-conflict/

What will the impact of that be on the markets and on the Western economy?

Like I said wars have been fought over far less than this! The 1990 - 1991 Gulf War for example!

Now hopefully this never turns into a real shooting war but, for war gaming purposes we have to assume the worst case scenario which in this case meas the US and China do end up in a shooting war and hat war involves extensive ground combat

[LUCASWILLEN05]

4 minutes ago, Artkin said:

You guys have practically written the storyline already for BF!

And I might not even invoice them for the service :-)

[Vanir Ausf B]

You're doing this on the wrong game website. A war with China is not a crazy idea but it would involve very little ground combat. If you are serious about this look into Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations.

War with Russia is also not a crazy idea but it would not happen in southeast Asia.

[Codename Duchess]

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

[LUCASWILLEN05]

5 hours ago, Codename Duchess said:

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

While there is at least on technothriller that does include a Chinese invasion of Alaska (Dragon's Fury by Jeff Head) I deliberately did not suggest Alaska as a theater of land warfare in this scenario. I also excluded Australia for the exact same reason.

The areas where large scale land warfare might be a possibility are South East Asi, the Indian sub continent, Korea, possibly Taiwan and Japan (if PLAN can control the ea long enough for a landing to be attempted - and it would probably fail) Maybe Siberia and China late in a multi year long war) The above, given US seapower is what might b achievable for the PLA.the US would send expeditionary forces to support Korea and probably Taiwan. Conceivably also India if that nation were a US ally.

There is more than enough here for a hypothetical land war in Asia. Of course all this is probably unlikely - but no more implausible than a game depicting a US intervention in Ukraine!

The point is we have to suspend disbelief here and consider what might happen if a scenario actually happened. We get to game with new high tech armies in a new theater(like the PLA) and we get a wealth of new equipment like the Russian T-14 Armata and  proliferation of 3rd Generation ATGMs available o both sides. We have a fine range of potential opponents such as India v Pakistan, India v China, North Korea v South Korea, China v Taiwan, China v Japan. And intervention forces from the US and Russia. All of which is virgin territory for Battlefront.

It would certainly be possible to develop a back story for the involvement of US ground forces in a ground war. Korea, Taiwan and even India assuming for our purposes that the latter ends up allied to the US for this scenario - there are good reasons India may be hostile to China so there can be at least a temporary "alliance of convenience" if nothing else. t the end of the day it is a wargame - and no more "unrealistic" than mid 1980s "Sci Fi on the Rhine!" or NATO intervention in the Ukraine!

 

 

 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

11 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

You're doing this on the wrong game website. A war with China is not a crazy idea but it would involve very little ground combat. If you are serious about this look into Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations.

War with Russia is also not a crazy idea but it would not happen in southeast Asia.

 

US ground forces would be fighting in Korea and maybe Taiwan, Possible intervention in the Indian Sub Continent.and perhaps forces deployed in an attempt to stop a Chines blitzkrieg into South East Asia early in the war. It is entirety possible the US suffers early defeats as the Allies did in 1940 with China overrunning much of the Asian mainland. For scenario purposes the Chinese advance could be brought to a halt somewhere in Central India thanks to the arrival of significant US reinforcements. For the next year or two the war in India effectively becomes a stalemate. Both sides can launch offensives which can gain (or retake) ground but neither side can win a decisive victory for the time being. Tactical level RoF games of course are representative of local actions against this operational and strategic framework. We get to play with often high tech forces in a previously untapped theater  . We have never had a CM game depicting a war in Asia and perhaps it is time that changed.

Regarding Russia, you may recall consideration of a US invasion of Siberia during the 1980s Cold War (the Lehman Doctrine) Since RoF covers a WW3 timeline it is only one front of the conflict. At some point the Lehman Doctrine might be implemented with an amphibious assault on the Siberian coastline aimed at securing the Far East Russian naval bases and perhaps natural resources in Siberia. Remember we are assuming an extended conventional war here with no nukes! f you want to simulate a nuclear war I suggest turning a blowtorch on your computer to simulate the effect! :-) Otherwise assume the war leaders are too scared of the consequences to risk using nukes!

There are probably US War Plans for intervention in the sub continent, likely against Pakistan and possibly China. While most Wat Plans never get used one still plans for even the more unlikely scenarios

[Rinaldi]

4 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

There is more than enough here for a hypothetical land war in Asia. Of course all this is probably unlikely - but no more implausible than a game depicting a US intervention in Ukraine!

...it is a wargame - and no more "unrealistic" than mid 1980s "Sci Fi on the Rhine!" or NATO intervention in the Ukraine!

 

 

 

A couple of bold statements to make there.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

There are a number of other considerations. The Pacific Rim/Indian Ocean area is a setting for a number of interesting hypothetical high tech land wars  such as

• India -Pakistan
• India - China
• Korea
• China - Taiwan (assuming China can carry out an amphibious landing
• China Vietnam

Most, if not all of these conflicts involve or could involve China. However, a CM game probably also has to include US forces so what is required is a Pacific Rim scenario involving a land war between the US and China. This might be possible in a Korea or Taiwan scenario but bh of these on their own are limited. It would also be nice to have Russia involved as well so we can try out the Armata. Being able to try out tanks like the Indian Arjuns and T-90s,, Pakistani Al Khalids and T-80s, South Korean K1s etc allows massive gaming possibilities. Many regional forces have their own UAV capabilities

This is obviously going to be a high tech scenario of major regional war, if not world war in scope (in this case he Pacific Rim is likely to be only one front of the conflict.At least as much scope for ground war possibilities as another Middle East game and, unlike the Middle East, a part of the world never before addressed in a Battlefront game. Perhaps also more evenly balanced depending on he mix of opponents - and still retains possibilities for insurgency/conventional/hybrid warfare

[Peter Cairns]

For me the best base Scenario for this would be the internal collapse of the North as a result of a political crisis like the cultural revolution or just famine.

In this scenario, as the North Imploded, all of it's neighbours would either be drawn in or face attack.

Therefore it's not US v China or China v Russia, but as series of Campaigns;

South; US/SK & Japanese forces in the South are attacked by NK units or need to cross the border to create a buffer zone or sieze nuclear weapons.

North; Chinese and Russian forces both cross into the North to neutralise the threat to themselves and gain control of parts of the North.

The Campaigns or Battles wouldn't have East v West but all the stuff would be there to create your own.

Peter.

 

[Vanir Ausf B]

9 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

attempt to stop a Chines blitzkrieg into South East Asia early in the war. It is entirety possible the US suffers early defeats as the Allies did in 1940 with China overrunning much of the Asian mainland.

Quote

(the Lehman Doctrine)

...was a crazy idea. Even at the height of the Reagan buildup the US Army was far too small, and if sufficient numbers had magically appeared the force would have been nuked before it got off the beach, if not before. 

Edited May 9, 2017 by Vanir Ausf B

[Vanir Ausf B]

31 minutes ago, Peter Cairns said:

South; US/SK & Japanese forces in the South are attacked by NK

Deploying Japanese forces to Korea would go over about as well as deploying the IDF to retake Mosul 

Any conflict that seriously threatens the NK regime is likely to go nuclear.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

11 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Deploying Japanese forces to Korea would go over about as well as deploying the IDF to retake Mosul 

Any conflict that seriously threatens the NK regime is likely to go nuclear.

While Japan is unlikely to deploy forces to a second Korean War that my well change if orth Korea atacked Soutgh Korea - something likely to occur due to all those US bass in Japan. All it would take is for North Korean misssiles to go a little bit off course killing a large number of Japanese civilians

[LUCASWILLEN05]

11 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

...was a crazy idea. Even at the height of the Reagan buildup the US Army was far too small, and if sufficient numbers had magically appeared the force would have been nuked before it got off the beach, if not before. 

Here however we are talking about a war where the US has to fully mobilize (draft reintroduced) And in this case the main theater of war is in the Far East.

Regarding nukes. Sure, in theory they might be used but, if the Russians escalated to nukes because of a landing in Siberia this escalates to a strategic exchange which is suicide for the Russians as much as everybody else. That is why we are assuming instead the scenario of an extended conventional war instead. If you think otherwise turn a blowtorch on your PC to simulate a  nuclear explosion! :-)

 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

There are a couple of novels by an Indian author Vivek Ahuja which are well worth a read

Chimera which is about a Sino Indian War in 2014

Fenix  sequal to the events of Chimera. This is an Indo Pakistani war following a nuclear terrorist attack on Muumbai traced back to Pakistan

Both books include detailed ground combat

[Vanir Ausf B]

23 minutes ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

a blowtorch on your PC to simulate a  nuclear explosion! :-)

Closer to reality than this game of Risk you're playing. 

Come to think of it, if war with Russia did break out I think the one of the dumbest things the US could do is ship the bulk of their ground forces to Siberia of all places. There is very little infrastructure there but a vast amount of space and bad weather. If you think it's been historically difficult to take Moscow just try it from the other direction. It's really hard even in Risk 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

2 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Closer to reality than this game of Risk you're playing. 

Come to think of it, if war with Russia did break out I think the one of the dumbest things the US could do is ship the bulk of their ground forces to Siberia of all places. There is very little infrastructure there but a vast amount of space and bad weather. If you think it's been historically difficult to take Moscow just try it from the other direction. It's really hard even in Risk 

Regarding Siberia I do not see this operation taking place early in an extended conventional war but rather two or three years into the war. In this scenario the US would have reintroduced the draft so by that point the army would be large enough for missions of this nature,

Regarding objectives, the reason for a landing in Siberia would not be to take Moscow. The real target here is not Russi but China As you say that would be done with an offensive from the West. No, the objective of the Siberia option would be the capture of Russian ports and naval bases in the Far East  such as Vladivostok and to occupy an area that could be used to threaten or indeed mount air and land attacks on China from the north and to remove the Russian air and naval threat to Japan. We are not talking here about a full land campaign to conquer al of Siberia but an operation limited to regions within maybe 100 - 2000 mils of the coast at most. Much like the WW2 Pacific War strategy which avoided unnecessary  operations against bases like Rabaul.

Russia is, in this scenario allied to China and those air and naval bases in Siberia would certainly be a threat to Japan, a vital strategic staging area for air, sea and possible amphibious assaults against the Chinese coast in the final phases of the war Likewise, if South Korea has been occupied early in the war US strategists might want to liberate that country and, again,, Russian bases in Siberia would pose a severe threat t that operation.

In the late war phase there my be very good reasons for same and operations in Siberia but only in the coastline, probably not a campaign in the interior. If you want to mount a direct threat against Beijing from the North you would want Korea as your base area advancing via Shenyang and then South West. Such big land operations in China are obviously not going to be mounted before the final stages of the war and this will be several years in.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

2 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Closer to reality than this game of Risk you're playing. 

Come to think of it, if war with Russia did break out I think the one of the dumbest things the US could do is ship the bulk of their ground forces to Siberia of all places. There is very little infrastructure there but a vast amount of space and bad weather. If you think it's been historically difficult to take Moscow just try it from the other direction. It's really hard even in Risk 

I suggest you take the time to read Dragon's Fury by Jeff Head and you also need to read my above post!http://jeffhead.com/dragonsfury/

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Note that my scenario does not go anywhere near as far as Dragon's Fury. I do not assume Supercavitating weapons such as those portrayed in his book so no Chinese invasions of Alaska or Australia in RoF! :-) Nevertheless Dragon's Fury is a fascinating and thought provoking read. Head has had a lot f experience in the defense. nuclear power and computer industries and clearly has great technical knowledge of future military possibilities

For RoF however I assume China lacks the capability of gaining control of the seas and instead mounts major land operations on the Asian mainland early in the war. This, I suggest, would be a far more achievable proposition for the PLA. Early victories and conquests in Korea, South East Asia and Northern India are far more conceivable possibilities for China in the early months of the war. Given the small size of the US army the weaknesses of mos of China's likely regional opponents and the other issues a 21st Century Chinese blitzkrieg like the German blitzkriegs of 1939 - 1941 might very wel be the scenario in the early phases of the RoF War

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I think a 2nd US Civil War scenario is equally likely to what you are describing above, probably set right about the time someone tries to reintroduce the draft. 

Edited May 10, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Codename Duchess]

If you want a (much more) realistic chance of American Tanks fighting Chinese Tanks, focus on a hypothetical clash between expeditionary units in Africa.  Both countries have been expanding their roles in the region and it would be a much smaller jump of the shark to come up with a situation leading to a clash their than, once again, to come up with a reason for US Tanks to roll into Beijing.

Re: "Only 100-2000 miles of Siberia to conquer"
I don't care if it's 2000 miles of straight and level superhighway on a sunny day, that's a logistical nightmare.  Now throw that into Siberia and you're talking complete nonsense.  Even further nonsense if you think the Russians would somehow be okay with 2000 miles of Siberia getting conquered.  That's also a *huge* range of distance you've clearly pulled out of thin air.

Re: "2-3 years into the war"
If you think the world would survive 2-3 years of a threeway (or even two-way) war between the US, Russia, and China I have a whole lot of beachfront property in Alaska to sell you dude. 

Re: "Second civil war"
Don't give him any ideas.

Look Lucas, you clearly want to see BF3/4 played at the RTT level rather than the FPS.  You need to realize that the plot in those games are absurd and any number of fiction books you cite are just as crazy. 

This. Is. An. Impossible. Scenario.  I just don't see BF taking the time to come up with a plausible situation for your scenario.  There is no reason, nor reasonable capability for the US to invade China under any circumstances.  A draft won't increase the number of amphbious assault ships needed to invade the most populated nation on the planet.  A draft won't increase the number of highly-technical warships needed to escort those same ships into harms way, nor the missiles to fill their VLS cells nor the aircraft overhead.  You cannot simply hand-wave away Naval engagements in a realistic war scenario with China, a naval power, fighting the US, a naval power.

I suggest two courses of action for you:  Look into coming up with a reason for US and Chinese expeditionary forces to clash in Africa.  This is not an unreasonable thing to look at.  Option two is to acquire Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations and wargame to your hearts content the many Naval and Air engagements much more realistically possible between the US and China.  Hell, they're even releasing a standalone DLC on it next week set in 2020 that might be right up your alley.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I think a limited war scenario in Korea remains plausible & TBH might tick most of OP's boxes if set around 2020.

Having the option to have Chinese Forces on either side might allow for some entertaining scenarios.....US & allies can push, but not everywhere and not too hard. 

Just a thought.

Edited May 10, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead