US Marines

[Imperial Grunt]

Just found this. Pretty accurate and fair info about the USMC.

I would like to point out that the LAV-25 is not used as an APC. Its a reconnaisance vehicle and it only carries its crew and a 4 Marine scout team.

USMC-From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

[FAI]

Well in "tight urban settings" the US has the SMAW, SMAW(D), the AT-4, and the new HE LAW (I do not know the designation, but I know that at least the Marines are using it).

The Javelin has the capability to used direct fire , or in its normal top attack profile. And it has a "soft launch" so it can be fired from buildings. In my opinion, the RPG is a great weapon for forces that cannot afford anything better, just like the AK-47 rifle. It is simple and reliable. But it is not as effective, or as accurate as US rocket and missle systems.

Of course, funds and hardware availability permitting. It's not like RPGs are hard to get these days... Yeah, just like AKs.

[Imperial Grunt]

Here are some good pics of Marine infantry in battle.

Fallujah photo essay

Fallujah

fallujah

fallujah 1

fallujah 1

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, people need to remember that the Javelin is not like an RPG, it is like a portable TOW or a Kornet. The other weapons mentioned (SMAW, AT-4, etc) are like the PRG. The Javelin has a lot of advantages over these smaller, point and shoot weapons, but obviously it has some drawbacks as well.

As for Turkey... I think it is "daft" to presume there is no backroom linkage between NATO and EU. Sure, NATO and EU do not have the same membership lists, but politics (and BOTH are political instituations) is the name of the game. Turkey is heavily opposed by many EU members for membership. Turkey needs all the allies it can get if it is to get in. Turning off several of the most powerful members would pretty much assure a no vote. On the contrary, being highly supportive would likely assure a yes vote if Turkey linked the two together. Oh, I have no doubt the EU ministers would swear up and down that there was no linkage, either way, but to believe that would be to believe anything.

So, in a war against Syria Turkey would be in a pretty important position. Not so important that it could dicate its terms and not suffer if it went too far with its demands, but important enough that they could leverage some advantages from their participation. They could even be for domestic benefits, such as NATO members looking the other way on something. Plus, I am not sure Turkey would even want to say no. An openly hostile and dangerously Islamic neighbor to the south would likely make Turkey's internal problems all the worse. Unlike Iraq, there isn't a Kurdish issue with Syria, and it was the Kurd issue that really put a monkey wrench into the Iraq operation.

LTC West... thanks for the pics!

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I meant to mention the Coalition of the Willing (ugh, what a name!) participation of countries like Poland and the Ukraine. Anybody that thinks these countries put troops into Iraq because they felt it was in their direct national self interest are daft (I forgot how much I love that word ). These two countries went against popular sentiment, which was decidedly anti-Iraq war, by putting in token forces into Iraq. So why did they do it? Out of the goodness of their hearts because Bush and Blair couldn't get hardly anybody else to come on board? Or do you think that these two countries secured some sort of deal for their contributions? With EU and NATO issues swirling around the whole region, and Russia opposing such moves, it is a pretty good guess that both nations got something EU and/or NATO related in return. They got other things too, I am sure, but that's what International politics are all about. Favors for favors.

Back to Turkey for a sec. Austria, which is EU but not NATO, is pretty solidly opposed to their inclusion (mostly for population movement issues). The US, GB, and Germany (for starters) are both EU and NATO. They could, if they wanted to, put pressure and/or bribe Austria into changing its position. Not the people, of course, but the Austrian government. And when it comes down to it, the people don't have much of a say in what their governments do. So I can easily see Turkey saying "we'll do this, but you guys have to support our bid for EU membership and put pressure on those who don't to change their tune". Classic European style diplomacy at work.

Steve

[Cpl Steiner]

Anyone seen "Jarhead" yet, and if so, is it any good?

[Bigduke6]

Actually, I probably can contribute some solid information about Ukraine's commitment in Iraq.

Ukraine's government sent troops to Iraq for the following reasons:

1. The Americans were hammering the Ukrainian government for being corrupt (they were) for selling weapons including avanced ADA to Iraq (they didn't) and for murdering an anti-government journalist (they did probably).

After the Ukrainians agreed to send troops, the Americans shut up. Oh sure, mid-level State Department flunkies continued to whine about the need for aminstrative reform every once in a while, but meantime Rummie and Condi and the rest dropped into Kiev for face to face with the Ukrainian big shots, after which each ritually annouced Ukraine "was on the right track", or similar. This is a country with entrenched corruption, police brutality, the worst AIDs epidemic in the northern hemisphere, etc. No matter. If you send troop to Iraq, you "are on the right track."

The legal action, the economic pressure tactics; that went right out the window. For practical purposes, the moment Washington figured out they could get Ukrainian infantry, they blew off building democracy in Ukraine. I guess the logic is the Iraqis needed it more.

Anyway, as the Ukrainians are concerned the Americans only support democracy when it's interest.

2. The Ukrainian army is as poor as dirt and is raised in the Soviet tradition, meaning they want to fight, or at least be in a war zone. Iraq is a chance to go fight or at least be in a war zone, and the U.S. was paying for it. Even better, the U.S. pays the soldiers themselves about a grand a month, on average, which is almost 20 times what they would earn at home. (They don''t call it salaries of course, it's a "cost of living allowance or some such) So it's a great deal for the government, it picks the soldiers it likes to go to Iraq, they rake in the cash (by Ukraine standards) and then when they get back home they're loyal to the government no matter how repressive it gets.

3. The U.S. government types promised the Ukrainian government types that, if the Ukrainians sent troops, the coalition government would "look favorably" on Ukrainian companies trying to get in on the reconstruction effort. This was pretty tempting to the Ukrainians, as they are big manufacturers of steel pipe and heavy machinery for the energy industry, construction materials for, uh, construction, and bulk food products. Problem was, that message never got to the contractors like Bechtel, who had their own suppliers so screw the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians complained and got told "You want to work for Bechtel, compete for the subcontracter job like every one else." This did not seem like fair play to the Ukrainians. The Ukrainian Prime Minister went to Iraq, asked for a cut of the reconstruction pie, got told by the Iraqis to get stuffed, and very shortly after that the Ukrainian government stopped being enthusiastic about keeping troops in Iraq.

5. (And this is the biggie) Also, subcontracting is a great way to skim income, which the Ukrainians are probably as good at as the Iraqis, and no I'm not kidding.

NATO wasn't really an issue as the Ukrainians are pretty lukewarm on NATO; let some one else be Russia's enemy is the Ukrainian position. They train with NATO sometimes but they have Russian bases in the country, so no one is going to believe a fairy tale about joining NATO next week.

Now if the offer were the EU, that would be different, Ukraine makes all sorts of cheap stuff the EU can use and Ukrainians work illegally all over the EU, they're cheap. But the EU is even less likely to invite Ukraine in (what, and undercut the Poles and the Romanians) in the next decade or two, so some quid pro quo about EU membership in exchange for Ukrainian infantry in Iraq is science fiction.

The worst time for the Ukrainins was during the Shia uprising in 2003; the Ukrainians were in a Shia region, and when the Shia came out looking to kill Christians, the Ukrainians (predictably) called in U.S. air support and (also predictably) got told to wait in line, the U.S. air was busy killing Shia attacking Americans.

The Shia among other things attacked government buildings in Al Kut, which the Ukrainians were guarding, and the Ukrainians held them off until the buildings could be evacuated, which was the coaltion plan. Two days later the U.S. Marines or Cavalry showed up, "recaptured" the city center, and then told every one they were picking up the mess for the Ukrainians who deserted their positions. Two or three Ukrainians died in the firefight against the Shia, they had been firing when they were killed. One of them hadn't even been married, I remember.

The last Ukrainian (except a couple of dozen trainers) left Iraq about a week ago. During the deployment seventeen of them died and about fifty were injured. Two or three suicides, a turned over BRDM, a couple of weapons accidents, some bomb disposal errors, and of course combat.

U.S. Embassy has a nice pretty explaination about how no one's upset, the Ukrainian contribution is voluntary, and if the Ukrainians want to leave no harm done. Of course, the Embassy press office only needs to sing that song to Ukrainian reporters, and not to some U.S. taxpayer in the National Guard, and on his second or third tour to Iraq, because his government can't figure out how to get enough coalition boots on the ground.

So all in all a very sordid little expedition, a deal done between governments without much participation in the decision by the citizens of the countries, and when it was over not very much credit was due any one involved. It was actually pretty depressing to watch the U.S. goverment treat Ukrainians like expendable Askaris, but since it happened in Ukraine, the American public really could care less, and for practical purposes they never heard about it.

There are a lot of contingents so I can't speak for all of them, but for the ones besides the Ukrainians where I've done some reading or had cause to get information about them (Moldova, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Bulgaria) all are pretty much the same. The U.S. buys warm bodies with a combination of promises and access to the gravy train for leaders in poor countries. My view of this issue is far from complete, but from what I have seen of coalition forces, the idea any of them believe in the slightest that they are building democracy in Iraq, is a big fat lie.

From what I can tell, U.S. foreign policy is just as cynical as Europe's even in the bad old pre-WWI days, never mind today.

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

Anyone seen "Jarhead" yet, and if so, is it any good?

Did not see the movie, but judging from the trailers, I would like to see Jamie Fox's portrayal of a Marine Staff Sergeant.

Read the book when I was in Iraq for the second time and hated it. Basically its the story of a disgruntled Marine who was also a malingerer. A LCpl on my team also read it and thought it was completely bogus. I refused to go see the movie in the theater but will probably rent it to satisfy my own curiosity.

So I wrote it off as a book by a guy who had an a

n axe to grind and then some and sought to portray the Marines as he saw it.

I do not read alot of books written by Marines about the Marine Corps. They tend to be too far pro usually, and Jarhead is a book that is con. One of the best books about the USMC is "Making the Corps" by Thomas Ricks, a journalist with the Washington Post (pretty sure).

[Imperial Grunt]

Here are some pics of some LAV's with 2nd Light Armored Reconnaisance Battalion (2nd LAR) in Iraq.

2nd LAR

[Imperial Grunt]

OK, that was one pic.

[Wisbech_lad]

Looks to me that those things float for the same reason helicopers fly.

So ugly that the sea/ earth repells them

[ozi_digger]

Originally posted by LtCol West:

I do not read alot of books written by Marines about the Marine Corps. They tend to be too far pro usually, and Jarhead is a book that is con. One of the best books about the USMC is "Making the Corps" by Thomas Ricks, a journalist with the Washington Post (pretty sure).

I'm no expert on the USMC but I liked Evan Wright's Generation Kill - a portrayal by an embedded journalist who rode with Force Recon during the war in Iraq. A warts'n'all type of book. I especially liked how he wasn't politically correct - if a marine officer was a WOFTAM he didn't mind mind labelling him so. If that's not your cup of tea, then there is always Phil Caputo's A Rumor of War...

[juan_gigante]

Call me crazy, but I've always had a bit of a soft spot for Robert Kaplan's work. He spent a lot of time as an embedded journalist in Iraq and been in plenty of combat zones elsewhere. His writing is exciting, respectful of the soldiers, and both humble and willing to say an unpopular truth. Lots of his stuff is in the Atlantic Monthly, and I know he's done at least one piece with Marines.

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by ozi_digger:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LtCol West:

I do not read alot of books written by Marines about the Marine Corps. They tend to be too far pro usually, and Jarhead is a book that is con. One of the best books about the USMC is "Making the Corps" by Thomas Ricks, a journalist with the Washington Post (pretty sure).

I'm no expert on the USMC but I liked Evan Wright's Generation Kill - a portrayal by an embedded journalist who rode with Force Recon during the war in Iraq. A warts'n'all type of book. I especially liked how he wasn't politically correct - if a marine officer was a WOFTAM he didn't mind mind labelling him so. If that's not your cup of tea, then there is always Phil Caputo's A Rumor of War... </font>

[Battlefront.com]

For obvious reasouns I read Ambush Alley and No True Glory, both dealing with the Marines fighting in An Nasariyah and Fallujah respectively. The first book did a great job describing the war from a soldier's perspective. As far as I am concerned it did not glorify either the Corps or the battle. In fact, I would say there was quite a lot of room for criticism in there.

I'm not quite finished with No True Glory, which is written from a higher level for the most part. The number of people interviewed for the book is... well... stunning. Again, I think it is a fair view of events.

Both books are quite readable and give the reader a good idea of why CM:SF is going to be both interesting and difficult from a player's perspective, even if some of it isn't relevant.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

BigDuke,

Thanks for the perspective. Didn't know the details, but obviously I am not surprised one iota. The "Coalition of the Willing" will go down in history as one of the worst snow jobs in history. Compared with Bush Sr.'s Gulf War coalition and even the Afghanistan coalition, it was a pathetic sham that very quickly fell apart and was never mentioned again (the generic term "coalition" was used after from what I see). I mean, when you count a country like Costa Rica, which I think sent a couple cases of banans, on a par with GB and the US to make the number seem big... well... it just looks foolish and makes the people think they're being treated like idiots (which might not be too off the mark).

From what I can tell, U.S. foreign policy is just as cynical as Europe's even in the bad old pre-WWI days, never mind today.

Well, the US learned from the best. Not our fault that Americans are over achievers

Steve

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

joking aside, I have woundered to what extent the bwhole UN nato part of the CM:SF story , when the game will only have US forces is a bit PC.

Sorry for being cynical, but is it not the case, that whether it be endorsement let alone purchases the DoD won't touch a game where the back story no matter how realistic doesn't have the US government as the good guy leading the good.

Peter.

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by ozi_digger:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LtCol West:

I do not read alot of books written by Marines about the Marine Corps. They tend to be too far pro usually, and Jarhead is a book that is con. One of the best books about the USMC is "Making the Corps" by Thomas Ricks, a journalist with the Washington Post (pretty sure).

I'm no expert on the USMC but I liked Evan Wright's Generation Kill - a portrayal by an embedded journalist who rode with Force Recon during the war in Iraq. A warts'n'all type of book. I especially liked how he wasn't politically correct - if a marine officer was a WOFTAM he didn't mind mind labelling him so. If that's not your cup of tea, then there is always Phil Caputo's A Rumor of War... </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Peter,

joking aside, I have woundered to what extent the bwhole UN nato part of the CM:SF story , when the game will only have US forces is a bit PC.

Er... how have you missed all the discussions about other forces being part of CM:SF? Sure, only US Stryker centric forces will be in the initial release, but that is simply because we are never, ever again doing a "broad front" wargame. Therefore, by definition, each Title or Module we put out from now on will be "narrow". When we do WWII that means, for example, only US and Germans in one release. This does not mean that WWII was only fought by those two forces, right?

Sorry for being cynical,

Nah, you're not being cynical, you're being uninformed The military doesn't give a crap about the story. They want the units and the environment. They will also want tons of stuff that the general gamer would not want. Worse, the average gamer would not like many of the things the military would insist upon. We're quite clear on this stuff, and so should everybody else. We're making CM:SF for you, not the military. So not only will they not care about the story, but they won't care for the commercial version "as is".

Steve

[Imperial Grunt]

Here is alot of footage of 1/8 in Fallujah 2.

BBC-Fallujah

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

You don't need either Nato or the UN to have other nations. You seem to be keener on the Uk and Germany that Israel or Turkey, both of whom would seem at least as likely to participate.

If the Syrians were to allow Iraqi insurgents to get sArin, that would be a good basis for intervention, as would the Syrians shooting down a US transport, or getting caught actively providing logisical for the insurgency.

Equally re invading Lebanon, would currently be close to enough to build a coalition against them.

All of these are far more likely and realistic scenarios than the one you have choosen.

As I've said before the back story id just a box for the real game which is endless custom designed scenarios, ( and thats what the DoD would be interested in, from a training perspective).

But why you seem to be sticking to such a "PC" and increasing unlikely scenario beats me. sure it's posssible but it's becoming increasing improbable".

I know you started work on this ages ago and made the decision to go for Syria and won't change that. But since the decision was made. evem since the game was announced, the situation has changed.

Given that we don't even have screen shots yet I'd have thought dieing in the sand over an increasingly dodgy backstory so that the US is "Squeaky Clean", isn't what the "Home of Superior War and Strategy Games", should be doing.

For me restricting CM:SF to Eastern Syrian and having the US intervene to remove a combination of Iraqi insurgents and a Syrian Army that is supporting and protecting them, is just far more plausible, and should still allow you to put out exactly the same game.

As to follow on modules, the " West Coast Landing scenario" non Nato with turkey on the sidelines, lets you bring in the US Marines and Uk Royal Marines ( which you seem to be pretty keen on) and leave out the Turks ( which so far you seem pretty lookwarm about).

If it's to much for a module, you can leave out the Water stuff, and strt them on the beaches.

Peter.

[MikeyD]

Talk about backstory, if you want to guarantee NATO involvement and no Israeli assistance I'd suggest a Syrian incursion into Turkey (for whatever reason) would pretty much do the trick.

Y'know, Turkey's got a rather interesting looking military. I wouldn't mind seeing them in action. Okay, nobody would buy a Turkey-only module but a Marines & Turkish troops module would be tres cool! If only to see the good-old M60A3 in action again!

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

There are a lot of contingents so I can't speak for all of them, but for the ones besides the Ukrainians where I've done some reading or had cause to get information about them (Moldova, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Bulgaria) all are pretty much the same.

i guess it applies to most of the "small" nations who took part in the operations, though i think only Poles made a big fuzz about it. they really seemed to be seriously pissed.

[MikeyD]

Small change of topic (with apologies)

This forum has been filled with so many photos of soldiers carrying M4 carbines we've almost forgot what an M16 looks like. I'm not entirely sure the M16 is even going to make it into CMSF!

Here's a Marine using a long barrelled M16A3 (A4?). Note the flat-top reciever and removable carrying handle. Maybe M16s in-game would be one visual difference in a Marine CMSF module.

Marine/M16

[ January 13, 2006, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Battlefront.com]

Peter,

sure it's posssible but it's becoming increasing improbable".

I have no idea what you mean by this. The way I see it is action is becoming increasingly probable, not decreasingly so. It is looking more and more like high level Syrian officials were directly responsible for Hariri's assasination. That coupled with various plot elements we have in mind would make the US predisposition to take Syria out of the terrorism business more agreeable to other parties.

Given that we don't even have screen shots yet I'd have thought dieing in the sand over an increasingly dodgy backstory so that the US is "Squeaky Clean", isn't what the "Home of Superior War and Strategy Games", should be doing.

Well, it's your opinion and you're entitled to it. However, I think you're position is unsuportable and reeks of preconceived bias. Therefore, you want something that fits your specific and personal take on things and you don't appear to be interested in alternatives. Again, you can do as you like, but it would be more constructive if you weren't so narrow minded. For example...

As to follow on modules, the " West Coast Landing scenario" non Nato with turkey on the sidelines, lets you bring in the US Marines and Uk Royal Marines ( which you seem to be pretty keen on) and leave out the Turks ( which so far you seem pretty lookwarm about).

Having NATO involved and Turkey supportive of an action doesn't preclude amphibious landings by various naval forces (US Marines, UK Marines, Italian Marines, Spanish Marines, etc.). In fact, I'd say there is good, sound military reasons for having amphibious forces used (i.e. not a diversion like in the Gulf War) even if land forces were based in Turkey. On the other hand, I don't see how we could include German, Dutch, Danish, or other NATO forces in CM:SF without Turkey being host to a land invasion. Logistics and politics would make that highly unlikely.

Seve