Abrams tank

[zmoney]

Steve

P.S. Yes, WWII is certainly going to be covered. Just won't be the only thing we do.

Ah. Good news thanks for response.

[Dillweed]

Obviously you guys put a lot of thought into this. I remember hearing about how urban warfare is where modern combat is at. Based on the fact that it has been stated that the 1st game will be team (not squad) centered I think I've figured out the time period and general location of either first or second game.

[Battlefront.com]

Urban warfare is "where it's at" for two reasons:

1. It is the "equalizer". If you don't have armor, or even a decent military, to go up against a NATO force in open combat... well, don't US Forces have shown that they are some mean street fighters, but you can't tell me that we'd be short about 8000 soldiers (KIA and my own est. serious WIA) and a slew of equipment if we were fighting a Soviet style open map terrain engagement against a 3rd world nation.

2. Look at any population study of the world and you'll see that bulk of the world's population is urbanized. Hard to bypass built up areas when there isn't anything but! Plus, an enemy's center of gravity is unlikely to be found in the open desert, steep mountains, or rolling stepps. Control those areas only and you control nothing.

Steve

[juan_gigante]

Hence all the fancy-pants new building stuff. I like it!

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

[ Why oh why must you Finns make everything so difficult? Why don't you all move to France? I'm sure you'd feel perfectly at home there.

Nononononono :eek:

Not France. Please, errr, you wouldn't like it. How about Outer Mongolia? You'd like that. The food here in France is horrible, the girls ugly, the public transport does not work, it is friggin' cold, there is nothing to do in Paris in the evening, and the street cafes suck. It is just like Helsinki. No point in moving here. Go to Winkler County, Tx. You'll like it.

Honest.

All the best

Andreas

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Where in my post or the post I was responding to (your own in fact) was anything said about Abrams tanks? Huh? Huh?

Nitwit.

Michael

Wait, Michael - are you telling me that you have been posting off the topic of this thread? Jeezh, I dandy-doo wouldn't have believed!

(Hint: this thread is titled "Abrams tank")

[Peter Cairns]

Another possibility is "Proxi" scenarios, where the US is invoved but not as a principle combatant. Afghanistan is a case in point, as is the UK in sierra leon. Then there are situations like Somalia.

As to Steve comment on the ability of the Chinese or Russians to have air superiority, at least in part that depends on the theatre. As we saw in the Gulf, allies can often be reluctant to let their territory or airspace be used, If we were talking about the former Southern Soviet Republics or even Mongolia, even carrier airpower or Air to air refuelled aircraft would be limited.

Politically I think it would be hard for the US to muster the will to act anywhere it couldn't guarentee air superiority, so that makes any "deep" engagement unlikely.

Another factor is that China in particular is moving up on the inside as a major armes exporter. It's current export Tanks are getting much better, It's just announced it's own indigenous attack helicopter, and the Type 98 assalt rifle is very highly regarded. Politically it is out there making alliances with anyone with Oil or Gas ( including the Canadians, now Reds to the North is a wild Scenario).

For Russia, it is moving it's entire Armaments industry to exports with the likes of Mig now virtually a design house for hire, see the new Iranian fighter ( I think it's the Shagaq?), Kazan who make Mi-17's have just announced at the moscow airshow, a new light attck helicopter designed for export.

One way to get all these in a Game would be a sort of "Peacekeepers" game where you had options to play forces from Major Allied Armies (US, UK , France, Austrailia, Canada) but were pig in the middle between factions or forces equiped with a range of stuff from around the world.

Somalia, Darfur, Bosnia, East Timor, Congo, Iraq, Afghanistan, it's not as if we are short of theatres of operation.

Peter.

[Drusus]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

A couple of US Infantry Platoons on the defensive, without any other support than Javelin, have a good shot at wiping out a company of the best tanks Russia and China have to offer.

Finnish infantry doesn't need javelins for AT combat. We have toothpicks for that. We do use javelins though they are reserved for AA purposes only.

[Sergei]

Yep, beware up there!

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

You guys need to stop thinking in terms of ARMOR

Dang! I guess that rules out the 'War of the Roses... '

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Steve posted,

“A couple of US Infantry Platoons on the defensive, without any other support than Javelin, have a good shot at wiping out a company of the best tanks Russia and China have to offer.”

Well…no not quite true..Steve is forgetting the active, hard-kill systems both Russian and Chinese latest generation tanks would be using today…. not tomorrow, but today, in a war against any 1st World nation. All the major players now have mature, active, hard-kill defensive systems. The Russians have had a mature system since the early ‘90s.

Steve also posted…

“What does this mean? You guys need to stop thinking in terms of ARMOR and in terms of PARITY cuz we aren't ”

hmmm… worrying stuff… we are most likely talking small groups of Islamist, low quality light-infantry being hunted by fully equipped US, 1st World professional forces. If truth be told, probably not my cup of tea But I am always posting that all of us, including myself, must harden ourselves for some of the settings in CMX2 not being on our individual favorites list. I will of course buy any such game and no doubt enjoy it for a while. But Third World v 1st World just does not do the trick for me, as a general rule

If we have to go this route, my vote would be for Vietnam.

My reasons for not being a fan of Third World v 1st World are largely two fold. One is indeed the lack of balance over lapping with a lack of toys In CM the equipment, the tanks, the toys, matter

Secondly… historically the great majorities of Third World Armies have been, and are, of a very poor quality. The Vietnamese being an honorable exception. Even the Afghans of the ‘80s were in fact of a very low quality with causality ratios in infantry clashes often between twenty and forty to one. Very similar to the US forces in Iraq today.

Related to the second point is the fact that I will find it very difficult to empathize with any such Third World force. At least when playing the Germans in WWII I find can tell myself “they were at least very good at what they did”… not the case with Third World forces other than Vietnamese.

Even for a contemporary setting my vote would be for near future with Germans and French v Anglo Saxons… lots of great toys…1st World v 1st World But I am clearly not going to get what I wish for

Anyway…. an Islamist style light-infantry game will pull in the crowds and make BFC lots of money which I regard as a very good thing. The more money they make.. the more games I get to play

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[Wicky]

CMx2 - Basra to Baghdad :eek:

No winter mods

[hellfish]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

Hi,

Steve posted,

“A couple of US Infantry Platoons on the defensive, without any other support than Javelin, have a good shot at wiping out a company of the best tanks Russia and China have to offer.”

Well…no not quite true..Steve is forgetting the active, hard-kill systems both Russian and Chinese latest generation tanks would be using today…. not tomorrow, but today, in a war against any 1st World nation. All the major players now have mature, active, hard-kill defensive systems. The Russians have had a mature system since the early ‘90s.

If we ever get a game that lets us simulate this kind of engagement, I'd happily take two US infantry platoons against you with any company-sized tank formation. I'd be willing to bet you'd be walking, not riding, off the battlefield, active defense or not.

So let's make a date, Kip.

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

Even for a contemporary setting my vote would be for near future with Germans and French v Anglo Saxons… lots of great toys…1st World v 1st World But I am clearly not going to get what I wish for

hmmm.. Combat Mission: Harry Turtledove?

[stikkypixie]

Sorry to be a bit off-topic. But I've been away for 3 weeks and I just read something about PBEM I don't understand. Is it still in or not?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

Secondly… historically the great majorities of Third World Armies have been, and are, of a very poor quality. The Vietnamese being an honorable exception. Even the Afghans of the ‘80s were in fact of a very low quality with causality ratios in infantry clashes often between twenty and forty to one. Very similar to the US forces in Iraq today.

So why did the Afghans win? And why haven't the Americans won yet?

Related to the second point is the fact that I will find it very difficult to empathize with any such Third World force. At least when playing the Germans in WWII I find can tell myself “they were at least very good at what they did”… not the case with Third World forces other than Vietnamese.

So you sympathize with the Army that conquered all its neighbours, sold millions of people into slavery, and helped exterminate 10 million civilians outright "because they were good at it", but feel nothing for soldiers from a poor nation fighting to defend their own soil or way of life. you're entitled to your point of view (no need to thank me), but forgive us for thinking that it is an interesting one to take...

Doubtless you are speaking solely from a military point of view and how well it would translate into a game (read: 'fun') but you may want to watch how you use words like "empathize" - one could draw pretty sinister conclusions from statements like that.

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

And why haven't the Americans won yet?

Hey Dorosh, don't you watch CNN? The US won the war in Iraq on May 1 2003! What's been going on since then is simply 'civil unrest' by a small group of militants who are determined to undermine freedom and democracy!

idjit!

[Edit - oh crap, I think the CIA mind control rays are operational again]

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Michael Dorosh posted,

“So why did the Afghans win? And why haven't the Americans won yet?”

Because the Afghans were willing to accept losses of around 1,000,000 to the Soviet 14,000- 20,000. (Depending on whether you take combat or total losses. )

The Russians saw no sane reason to be there… so got out.

And, no… playing the part of low quality Third World troops does not do anything for me. But everyone to there own. I look at CM as a form of military history, maybe in the “future” history for some of CMX2. (If I am an enthusiast for any particular side in CMX1 it is the Red Army… must interesting player in WWII… in my view.)

fytinghellfish,

Defense-Update… a type of Israelis Jane’s, described the Arena first generation active hard –kill Soviet defense systems as able to “decimate” the contemporary US generation of ATGMs. To closely paraphrase “Arena would have decimated the TOW and Hellfire generation of ATGMs in the mid 90s”.

The Germans also were given a full demonstration of Arena and confirmed it does all it was advertised to.

Of course… we are now talking diving attack ATGMs, but all also have systems a click on from Arena.

All the best,

Kip.

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

Hi,

Michael Dorosh posted,

“So why did the Afghans win? And why haven't the Americans won yet?”

Because the Afghans were willing to accept losses of around 1,000,000 to the Soviet 14,000- 20,000. (Depending on whether you take combat or total losses. )

The Russians saw no sane reason to be there… so got out.

Maybe because the Soviets ended up reading a little history about how the Brits got on there in the latter part of the nineteenth century. I suspect the yanks are still to find those shelves in the military history library.

fytinghellfish,

Defense-Update… a type of Israelis Jane’s, described the Arena first generation active hard –kill Soviet defense systems as able to “decimate” the contemporary US generation of ATGMs. To closely paraphrase “Arena would have decimated the TOW and Hellfire generation of ATGMs in the mid 90s”.

All the best,

Kip.

Are we talking about the Roman basis for "decimate" where one man in ten was selected for a punishment or the new bastardised term which is the reverse?

[kipanderson]

Hi,

For those with an interest…. From Defence Update…an Isrealis publications,

“Russian Active Protection Systems were matured much earlier than the west's, as they were designed to counter the threat from the west's anti-tank systems such as TOW, Hellfire and HOT missiles fired from ground and helicopter platforms, as well as airborne launched anti-tank missiles (such as the Maverick). Although the Russian systems were much heavier than their current Western counterparts, they provided the countermeasures that could decimate the western threat. These heavy countermeasure systems were designed to protect the most important elements in the heavy armored divisions - and were applied to platforms such as the T-55, T-72, T-80, T-90 tanks and BMP-3 APCs. The Drozd systems entered full scale development when as Russia was no longer planning to confront NATO, but was deeply engaged in a war of attrition in Afghanistan and later - in Chechnya, where defensive these countermeasures were required to protect much older T-55 tanks against Russian made RPGs and AT missiles. The Russian APS systems introduced innovative and proven defeat mechanisms against CE and KE threats. First was the Drozd, which protected the tank's forward arc. This system was later followed by the Arena-E system, which introduced 360 degrees protection from side, front and partially top attacks.”

All very good fun ,

All the best,

Kip.

[hellfish]

Who said anything about fighting with ATGMs?

[Thog]

It'll be about Battlemechs. Definately.

[roqf77]

but how effective are these "hard kill" systems realy?

As all the countires with the choice of these systems and chobbam take chobbam?

[Wicky]

Hi Kip,

Any reports on how these defensive systems fared in operational use? When it seems they are also very capable of decimating (to please the purists ) friendly troops out to 50-150m.

Snipers, grenades and flamethrowers come to mind

Cheers

edit - found this article which describes it was the use of combined arms teams that negated RPGs - <a href="http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:oE7hnyzXjg4J:www.defence.gov.au/army/lwsc/AbstractsOnline/AAJournal/2004_S/AAJ_Dec_03_Insights_Andrews.pdf+Chechnya+lessons+learnt+tank&hl=en" target="_blank">The Russian Experience of Urban Combat

</a> . Seems to be the same rock, scissor and paper exercise, strip of the escorting infantry (which the active defence will do all by itself) and then get close and personal with low speed & low tech or overwhelm it from stand-off range.

Originally posted by kipanderson:

"...The Drozd systems entered full scale development when as Russia was no longer planning to confront NATO, but was deeply engaged in a war of attrition in Afghanistan and later - in Chechnya, where defensive these countermeasures were required to protect much older T-55 tanks against Russian made RPGs and AT missiles. ...”

All very good fun ,

All the best,

Kip.

[ October 06, 2005, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: Wicky ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Wait, Michael - are you telling me that you have been posting off the topic of this thread?

But of course. It's de rigueur. In the forum rules somewhere, you silly Finnish person.

Michael