US Marines

[Imperial Grunt]

"We have no definite plans for follow up Modules, but it is highly likely that one of them will simulate US Marines."

About time. In my opinion, simulating a Marine Expeditionary Unit would open the game to alot of scenarios and most of them could be based on real-life events. And of course there is all of the large scale deployments, like OIF and OEF.

The Marines probably are the best combined-arms shock troops in the world with their air-ground tactics. It will be interesting to see how that is modeled in the game. The US Army employs combined-arms as well, but not usually down to the tactical level as much as the Marine Corps. And US Airforce CAS just is not the same as Marine CAS, where some of the pilots personally know some of the company commanders on the ground and have had infantry training in addition to pilot training.

I hope the overall game looks like documentary, sort of like the History Channel's "Shootout:Fallujah"

OOHH RAAHH!

[Seanachai]

Jarheads, Jarheads, Jarheads

Oi, Oi, Oi!

'Course, it'll all just make them get even more above themselves. Annoying buggers. Makes you sympathize with the whole desire to produce WMDs.

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by Seanachai:

Jarheads, Jarheads, Jarheads

Oi, Oi, Oi!

'Course, it'll all just make them get even more above themselves. Annoying buggers. Makes you sympathize with the whole desire to produce WMDs.

Semper Fi! Do or Die...kill kill kill!!!

Seanachai go to bed, a whole new year is beginning, you dont need to cram it in to one night.

[Bigduke6]

Marines...aren't they the Navy's Little Helpers? Or something like that.

[ January 02, 2006, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: Bigduke6 ]

[Battlefront.com]

Well, all I have to say is that the Marines are certainly taking more than their fare share of the casualties these days. Our County Manager is leaving tomorrow for 29 Palms before heading over to Iraq to head up a specialized Marines logistics unit. If you are in the reserves and under 40, it is just a matter of WHEN and not IF you're going over there. In his case he is a Major and he's surprised it took them this long to call him up.

Steve

[Imperial Grunt]

Well, I have been twice to Iraq as well, being in the Marine Corps reserves. Once with an infantry battalion for the push to Bahgdad (with RCT 1) and then again as a civil affairs team leader working with the Iraqi police and local Iraqi leaders.

I will be the first Marine to say that there are alot of fine soldiers in the US Army, especially in the light infantry and SF units. We are all warrriors for the United States fighting the same fight for our Nation. The Marines might have a different doctrine and use different tactics than certain Army units and vice versa, but they are more often complentary vice counterproductive.

The Marine Corps will never fight a war and win a war without its US Army brother's in arms, as well as the Navy and Airforce.

Each service has its strengths and weaknesses. The truth is that the USMC is a shock force to win battles, usually the US's initial battles. The US Army exits to win the Nation's wars. Sustained land combat. If the Marine Corps was organized and trained for that, then it would be just another Army unit.

But as far as CM:SF goes, I thing that MEU's and MEB's would be a great US force to play, especially against enemy forces in higher numbers. A scenario might entail the US player to control and airfield, a port, and an embassy simultaneously, thus dividing up his forces. The typical "this side versus that side" need not apply.

The battle of An-Nasiriyah would be a great CM:SF scenario. A very ambigious enemy force (the 3rd ID stated that the city was "clear"), an ambushed lost supply convoy, Marine units moving in under heavy fire, etc...) I can think of a hundred other scenarios about Iraq alone.

Had the Iraqi army shown half the spine of the NVA, then the initial invasion would not have lasted 21 days. Thankfully, no one in the regular Iraqi army wanted to die for Saddam. But war always boils down to test of wills. The insurgents and terrorists continue to be a problem, but their cause is lost. Time will tell, but once a few taste freedom and prosperity, it is a very hard fight to destroy that. I have no doubt about the outcome in Iraq, it is just a matter of time.

Anyways, I got rambling. Looking forward to the game alot.

Semper Fi!

[Imperial Grunt]

Does anyone know if players will get to kill Islamic Jihadists in the game?

Check this out.. http://multimedia.threatswatch.org/showflash.php?media=alqaeda&w=640&h=480

[Imperial Grunt]

This is also pretty cool, though it is general and, of course, derived from open source material.

Still, it shows how the US operations in Iraq finally got focused in 2005, after all the thrashing out during 2004.

http://multimedia.threatswatch.org/showflash.php?media=anbarcampaign&w=620&h=475

I do not know if it is possible, but a great aspect for CM:SF would be if the player had a chance to make some operational decisions before the game begins, thus affecting how deployments are made. Then a series of battles can be played out based on that operational plan.

Does anyone know if BF is taking any more suggestions or are they tapped out?

[TufenHuden]

You are right about if Iraq had any

will at all-and blew all the bridges

leading to Bagdad....It probly

be longer and nasty...

I served in the 1st Gulfwar in USMCR

H&S 2/24-sta-plt 0311-made it into

Kwaiti-the Iraq Army back then

where bombed into submission..

Then where told if they retreat the Republician

Guard would shoot them down...Not a good

stragety..Good for us though for them

to surrender....

Semper Fi-Sir

[Battlefront.com]

LTC West, did you happen to spend some time with a MAJ Baker (USMC, Active) while you were working with the Iraqis? IIRC he was there for most of 2004. [edit, not 2003!]

I agree that CM:SF would benefit from an infusion of Marines. I think it is pretty much a given, though we'll have to wait a while before we say for 100% sure.

Steve

[ January 04, 2006, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Cpl Steiner]

I would prefer some British forces, but having said that, I'm interested to know what the main differences would be between a Stryker company and a USMC company. What transports do they use, and what sort of firepower do they have? I remember from some board games I own that the USMC squad of WWII was bigger - about 13 men IIRC. Is this still the case today? I would appreciate it if some flesh was put on the bones of this idea.

Cheers.

[Splinty]

"The US Army employs combined-arms as well, but not usually down to the tactical level as much as the Marine"

I'd just like to point out that the U.S. Army has Tactical Air Controllers assigned at the Battalion level at all times. Including peacetime. These controllers live and work with their Army colleagues at the Army units home station, and are assigned to the S3 (operations) shop.

[Battlefront.com]

I think the traditional small unit differences between Marines and Army are narrowing. The main reason is that both forces find themselves fighting the same type of war. The Marines, without question, went into Iraq with a more established small unit emphasis than the Army. Not surprising since that's pretty much all the Marines have! The Army had itself distracted by all those purdy machines that make the big boom-booms against waves of Soviet junk

Oh, and we are hoping to do at least two Modules for CM:SF. Current favorites are USMC and NATO (probably Brits and Germans at least). But we aren't making any decisions for a while.

Steve

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Oh, and we are hoping to do at least two Modules for CM:SF. Current favorites are USMC and NATO (probably Brits and Germans at least). But we aren't making any decisions for a while.

Steve

Hooray! So there's a chance I'll get to see the SA80 rifle in a game at last. About time. I've seen the M16 and all its variants in so many games already it would be nice to see something different and closer to home. As for the Brit armour, I would imagine Challenger II and Warrior would have to be in, but there is also the Scorpion. Here's a nice link for British gear (don't know how up to date it is though).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_equipment_and_uniform_of_the_British_Army

As for the Germans, they were one of the main opponents of the Iraq invasion weren't they? I don't see why a future Syria invasion would be any different. It's all pretty academic now anyway, as I doubt even the Brits would be in for another middle-east adventure. Too many noses out of joint for it to be politically feasible, but that's another story.

[Battlefront.com]

I don't see why a future Syria invasion would be any different.

Well, if the US President and British PM stood in front of the cameras and spouted off a lot of half truths and unsupported reasons for going to war against Syria... I don't even think the US could rally support, not to mention Britain or Germany.

As a general statement...

For the 1000th time... people have GOT to stop thinking that the Iraq scenario is the ONLY possible thing that might happen ever. The short memories of people might remember a little something called Afghanistan, where there are currently US, British, German, Belgian, Norwegians, Romanians, and a dozen or more other countries currently involved in. Why is it that the ONLY thing (or at least the first thing) people can picture as a backstory is the half assed and devisive Iraq type scenario instead of the no-brainer unified Afghanistan scenario?

Sheesh

Steve

[Imperial Grunt]

"LTC West, did you happen to spend some time with a MAJ Baker (USMC, Active) while you were working with the Iraqis? IIRC he was there for most of 2004. [edit, not 2003!]"

Unfortunately I did not run across Maj Baker. My team and I spent most of our time during my second tour in Iraq with 1-32 IN, a battalion of the 10th Mtn that was attached to RCT-1 of 1stMarDiv, and then with BLT 1/2, 24th MEU. We operated in the North Babil area and the west and southwest side of Fallujah during the first Fallujah push. My tour was from March 04-Sept 04.

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

I would prefer some British forces, but having said that, I'm interested to know what the main differences would be between a Stryker company and a USMC company. What transports do they use, and what sort of firepower do they have? I remember from some board games I own that the USMC squad of WWII was bigger - about 13 men IIRC. Is this still the case today? I would appreciate it if some flesh was put on the bones of this idea.

Cheers.

There are alot of differences between the units, primarily in dismount strength and mobility. Marine rifle companies by T/O and T/E are like US Army light infantry companies, just bigger. Marine rifle squads by T/O consist of 13 Marines organized into 3 fireteams and a squad leader. US Army light infantry squads have 2 fireteams and a squad leader. Both services fireteams are identical, with a rifleman, SAW gunner, grenadier, and an assistant SAW gunner. The grenadier is also the team leader.

Marine rifle companies also have a seperate weapons platoon, which consits of an assault section with 6 SMAW teams, a machinegun section with 6 M-240Gs, and a mortar section with 3 60mm mortars. Light infantry companies have the machineguns, but they are not organized into a section and the mortar squad has 2 mortars. They do not use the SMAW.

Marine companies get around either by 1) humping, 2) on AAV's or trucks, or 3) helos (and by small boats if that counts). The rifle companies will also have assets from their battalion's Weapons company, which will be task organized out according to the mission. The Weapons company has a Heavy Machinegun platoon with 6 .50's and 6 MK-19s, an Anti-Armor platoon with 12 Javelin teams and 8 TOW's, and Mortar platoon with 8 81mm mortars. The Anti-Armor and Heavy Machingun platoons have HMMWVs and they are usually task organized into Combined Anti-Armor Teams (CAAT's). Marine infantry battalions are continually task organized with assets to suit the mission.

A MEU is a very typical way the Marine Corps task organizes a ground combat element with an avaiation element and a logistics element, but with that being said, nearly every MEU is slightly different. It all depends on the AO, the anticipated missions, and the MEU commander's input.

A Stryker company has its own armored vehicles and more mobility. But their dismount strength is less than that of a Marine company and a Army light infantry company. The Stryker units are also fully "digitized" which has several postive )and negative, in my opinion)effects regarding command and control.

Each unit has its own basic mission and this was probably alot more than you wanted to know.

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by Splinty:

"The US Army employs combined-arms as well, but not usually down to the tactical level as much as the Marine"

I'd just like to point out that the U.S. Army has Tactical Air Controllers assigned at the Battalion level at all times. Including peacetime. These controllers live and work with their Army colleagues at the Army units home station, and are assigned to the S3 (operations) shop.

I did not say that the Army does NOT uses air or combined arms, they just do it differently than the Marine Corps. For example, AF CAS usually never operates when arty is firing nearby. It is standard SOP for Marine TACP teams to control Marine air with arty and mortars firing simultaneously using deconficted max ords and trajectories and giving the aircraft either a stay above or a stay below altitude. That is what CAX at 29 Palms is all about.

I personally witnessed several occasions where all indirect fire (mortars and arty) had to cease fire before AF jets attacked. It might be different with the A-10 drivers, since CAS is their primary mission, like Marine air, but I have never worked with them. I LOVE seeing A-10's work though.

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by TufenHuden:

You are right about if Iraq had any

will at all-and blew all the bridges

leading to Bagdad....It probly

be longer and nasty...

I served in the 1st Gulfwar in USMCR

H&S 2/24-sta-plt 0311-made it into

Kwaiti-the Iraq Army back then

where bombed into submission..

Then where told if they retreat the Republician

Guard would shoot them down...Not a good

stragety..Good for us though for them

to surrender....

Semper Fi-Sir

The will to fight is an amazing thing. One of my favorite books is "Phase Line Green", it is about the battle of Hue. One chapter describes the fight for the citadel and how a Marine company took it, but then the NVA c/atkd and took it back. Air was called in and a pair of F-4's dropped "snake and nape" (500lbs bombs and napalm). The author (a platoon commander at Hue) said that green tracers raced up at the jets as they came in, paused for a second during the explosions, then green tracers chased the planes away. One F-4 even got some engine damage and had to RTB. After the airstrikes, another Marine company took it with another assualt.

That is the will to fight and you have to respect the NVA for that.

During OIF 1 I served with Echo Company, 2/23 as the XO. I had read "Phase Line Green" before heading over so I thought that Baghdad was going to be a real bitch. But God was definetly on our side. Even still, An-Nasiriyah got ugly and there were some good scrapes along HWY 7. But nothing like the fights in I Corps, RVN, or in Korea or in the Pacific.

[Imperial Grunt]

On a minor note, Marine rifle squads do not use the M-4,like Army light infantry and Stryker squads. The USMC chose to use the M-16A4 as its standard infantry rifle. When evaluating the M-4, the Marines decided that the M4 was slightly less reliable and, most importantly, lost too much muzzle velocity at 300 yards and beyond. In tests at Quantico, M-4's, firing standard mil ammo, would not reliably penetrate a steel helmet at the 300 yard line, while a M-16A2 and M-16A4 would, every time. I am not sure if there is a measurable difference in lethality in terms of squad on squad gunfighting, but all those wise Master Gunnery Sergeants and Marine Gunners at Weapons and Training Battalion in Quantico thought so....

Recon and LAR (Light Armored Reconaissance..ie LAV's) units do use the M-4, but their primary mission is usually not "close with and destroy the enemy" as the grunts do.

Plus, the Marine Corps would have to redo all those purty qual ranges it has had forever, since the standard Army qual course goes out to 300 yards and the Marine rifle qual course goes out to 500 yards. The M-4, with its shorter barrel, is not quite as accurate as a standard M-16A2 or A4 at that range.

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I don't see why a future Syria invasion would be any different.

Well, if the US President and British PM stood in front of the cameras and spouted off a lot of half truths and unsupported reasons for going to war against Syria... I don't even think the US could rally support, not to mention Britain or Germany.

As a general statement...

For the 1000th time... people have GOT to stop thinking that the Iraq scenario is the ONLY possible thing that might happen ever. The short memories of people might remember a little something called Afghanistan, where there are currently US, British, German, Belgian, Norwegians, Romanians, and a dozen or more other countries currently involved in. Why is it that the ONLY thing (or at least the first thing) people can picture as a backstory is the half assed and devisive Iraq type scenario instead of the no-brainer unified Afghanistan scenario?

Sheesh

Steve </font>

[TufenHuden]

When I was active-85-89-G-2/3 3rd plt-at

KMCAS Koneohe-we had this Plt-Sgt-he was

Vietnam vet-and he taught us some good

****-land nav-little stuff-ambush's..

He told us some battles in Nam-Hue was

one he didn't really speak of much-you can

tell they lost allot-but he respected

the NVA-they had the will-if there was

a will to take you out-they did it...

They where the most improvised Army-

they took anything US threw out and made it

destructive-master of camo-I was fortunate

to be in his PLT...

Another was SSGT-J.Johnnson in our

USMCR unit-Bronze star-was in the battle

Ke-Suan-hill 303...he new his **** too...

Talking about weapons-one was the M-60-the

1st version-that was a hell of a MG-had

heavey barrel-heatshield-then they changed it

to M-60E3-lighter barrel-no heatshield-

piece of junk....

I guess the M-240-or FNMag-big brother

of the Saw-been around since Nam to

in NATO-fired a couple times-decent

MG.

That M-16A4 new to me we had M-16A2/203/

SAWS/M-60-old and E3's M-40-sniper rifle...

When this game comes-we need to battle

SIR-2 Jarheads head to Head-lovely

fuken war"Cpt-Dan Dayle" from movie PLT-

USMC retired...=).

Semper Fi...

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by TufenHuden:

When I was active-85-89-G-2/3 3rd plt-at

KMCAS Koneohe-we had this Plt-Sgt-he was

Vietnam vet-and he taught us some good

****-land nav-little stuff-ambush's..

He told us some battles in Nam-Hue was

one he didn't really speak of much-you can

tell they lost allot-but he respected

the NVA-they had the will-if there was

a will to take you out-they did it...

They where the most improvised Army-

they took anything US threw out and made it

destructive-master of camo-I was fortunate

to be in his PLT...

Another was SSGT-J.Johnnson in our

USMCR unit-Bronze star-was in the battle

Ke-Suan-hill 303...he new his **** too...

Talking about weapons-one was the M-60-the

1st version-that was a hell of a MG-had

heavey barrel-heatshield-then they changed it

to M-60E3-lighter barrel-no heatshield-

piece of junk....

I guess the M-240-or FNMag-big brother

of the Saw-been around since Nam to

in NATO-fired a couple times-decent

MG.

That M-16A4 new to me we had M-16A2/203/

SAWS/M-60-old and E3's M-40-sniper rifle...

When this game comes-we need to battle

SIR-2 Jarheads head to Head-lovely

fuken war"Cpt-Dan Dayle" from movie PLT-

USMC retired...=).

Semper Fi...

TufenHuden,

I don't know if would say that I "respected" the NVA and the Viet Cong. The word respect indicates a lot of things. I think your SSGT used that word in hindsight and based on the tempering and aging of his memories over the years.

I hated the little ****s with a passion, I dont think I respected them, probably as a 20 year old I had no idea of what respect was really, or how it was earned or given. All I wanted to do was see them dead, they we trying to kill ME, after all.

The Marine Corps back in those days was given missions far beyond the capabilities or supply structure needed to properly support them. We were always living on a shoe string, stealing gear, hordeing stuff, because you never knew when the next supply mission would come along. We had gear left over from the Korean War, and we were told to make do because we were after all "Marines", we could do anything with nothing. The NVA were better supplied than we were in most cases, and they carried everything down the trail with them.

During 66-67 when I was there, it was always a case of "too little too late" . We would send in companies against battalions with predictible results. We very rarely initiated anything, we reacted to what they were doing. We tramped around in the bush hoping to pin down large NVA units to be pulverized by arty and airpower. It always ended up with us getting ambushed, lose a few guys, and by the time the arty and planes arrived they pulverized the surrounding ground, but no enemy forces.

The Marine Corps held the line in the northern provinces, but we were not geared for that type of mission. In the logic of the day "its the only war we've got" so no way was the Corps to be left out. By the time you learned what you were doing, you were ready to rotate home, or you were in the hospital or worse. There was very little in the way of passing down "lessons learned" If you were lucky you had a decent company commander who put your safety over his own career goals.

Looking at things today, I get the feeling that the Marine Corps is a lot better equipped and supported than it was in my day. Instead of being neglected and misused, there seems to be a little more thought taken before these fine young men are sacrificed, at least I pray that is the case.

BTW, its Capt. Dale Dye, he was a sergeant and a combat correspondent when I knew him, I dont know how he made Captain, but he's a movie star now.

[ January 05, 2006, 06:17 AM: Message edited by: Nidan1 ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Oh, and we are hoping to do at least two Modules for CM:SF. Current favorites are USMC and NATO (probably Brits and Germans at least).

I think you would be much more likely to see a large French contingent in a UN operation in Syria than German.

I also think the French would make for more interesting blue-on-blue games.

[hellfish]

I'd like Germany, UK and France. They've all got great tanks and interesting fighting vehicles. That German Dingo is pretty cool, not to mention a Fenneck would be fun to play with. The French AXM-10RC would be neat as well.

If anything, I'd love to see the Foreign Legion back in one of it's old stomping grounds.