First follow up Module

[Scipio]

My vote goes to a German, French or British force (in this order) under UN mandate, what would make each nation or mix possible.

I don't like the idea the USMC. Looks a bit like 'After you have fought with a US force - woah-woah-woah you can now fight with another US force'...you know what I mean!?

[Vanir Ausf B]

Oh, I agree. French, British and German in that order. But they sell a lot more games in the US than France.

Maybe if Andreas can get his new friends in Paris to buy seveal thousand copies of the initial release...

[Cpl Steiner]

If the French or Germans get a module before the British I will be immediately writing to my Member of Parliament recommending an immediate British withdrawal from both Iraq and Afghanistan!

Seriously though, I'm sure a lot of Americans would buy a British add-on given recent history, never mind how many over here would buy it.

[Midnight Warrior]

My vote would be:

1. USMC first (only if it brought some amphibious capabilities with it)

2. British a close second

3. German and French last.

[Battlefront.com]

Amphib ops? You're joking right? First off, how many such scenarios can you imagine being plausible? I can't think of any where the landings were significantly opposed. As a matter of fact, can someone tell me the last time there was an opposed landing conducted on anything more than a raid scale? Inchon, Korea?

Seriously though, we have no plans what-so-ever to put amphibious ops into a USMC CM:SF Module. It would be a terrible waste of time compared to all the other things we could be doing instead. Plus, as I have said about 10000 times, Modules will not introduce any significantly new game elements. Such work defeats the purpose of Modules and therefore can not be undertaken without changing the entire strategy of releases. For example, delaying the WWII game. Since we don't want to be lynched, we're sticking with our strategy

Steve

[cassh]

Steve – correct.

Recent amendments to German law regarding Bundeswehr deployment in EU (European Security and Defence Policy) and NATO interventions specifically mentions the Middle East, Near East (Asia minor) and Med as some of the areas of “potential interest” and these are affected if either a member nation has been attacked or a significant threat to Germany or her EU/NATO allies is present. As you say the Bundestag still needs to ratify any action. Also the Bundeswehr is being restructured to meet changing threats and the need to support foreign interventions, with three distinct ground roles – rapid intervention forces (35,000), stabilisation forces (70,000) and support, logistic and homeland forces (145,000) being formally established to be in place by 2010 – in all a scaling down from just under half a million troops to about a quarter of a million.

However, the role can be best characterised as Germany playing a significant role in international peace keeping with her other partners in collective security structures providing the combat elements. This makes Germany a unlikely participant in ground combat in a Syrian in any plausible scenario (light backstory) other than “They’re there fighting, that’s all you need to know”.

Realistic Triggers?

Given that Syria is unlikely to have WMDs (significant threat) or attack Turkey (to trigger NATO alliance) then the only realistic deployment of German forces would be a significant act of state sponsored terrorism on German soil - which Damascus would never sanction – so we’re left we very few scenarios in which the Germans would get involved. This therefore makes them a very unlikely contender in a low/medium intensity conventional conflict that will be portrayed in CMSF. Whereas USA and UK could be drawn into a ground operation via Iraqi security issues in a highly plausible scenario given existing cross-border engagements already.

Germany is trying to facilitate a role in stabilisation and peace making/keeping and wants to be as useful as they can be in collective security structures (UN, NATO, EU, WEU) – however, this often does not sit well when things require a higher degree of force and combat operations.

Germany still has a considerable reticence regarding fighting in conflicts outside of western Europe and its constitutional arrangements reinforce this with strict checks and balances - so unlike the UK, they cannot go to war by executive decision alone.

The German role in Afghanistan with its stabilisation forces was to help bring security and allow nation building to occur. As soon as the requirement for significant combat operations became clear the Germans and Dutch requested their UN IFOR operation be taken on by NATO.

I think in many ways this is the point I am making – Germany is making considerable contributions in international and multinational collective security structures, but is an unlikely candidate to get drawn into ground combat operations. Regardless of what the other actors do, Germany is bound by the requirements of either a full UN mandate for intervention or a NATO/EU ally being attacked. This reality of the German constitution as I indicted above is the reason I think why a Bundeswehr is not a serious contender for a CMSF module – in realism terms the French, Dutch, Italians or even Poles are much more likely to be involved in combat operations than their German counterparts in any middle eastern regional conflict.

[Battlefront.com]

Cassh,

However, the role can be best characterised as Germany playing a significant role in international peace keeping with her other partners in collective security structures providing the combat elements. This makes Germany a unlikely participant in ground combat in a Syrian in any plausible scenario (light backstory) other than “They’re there fighting, that’s all you need to know”.

I strongly disagree....

Given that Syria is unlikely to have WMDs (significant threat) or attack Turkey (to trigger NATO alliance) then the only realistic deployment of German forces would be a significant act of state sponsored terrorism on German soil - which Damascus would never sanction –

Who said anything about Damascus sanctioning it? And who would care? Nobody even tried to establish whether or not the Taliban had even any knowledge of 9/11 before the attack. It wasn't relevant, nor would it be in the Syrian scenario we have in mind.

So again... if dirty bombs were detonated in London, Paris, and perhaps even on German soil by a group known to be HQ'd in Syria, you mean to tell me that the Bundestag would decline to authorize a NATO request for an armor brigade, or some other force, to deploy into Turkey to invade Syria as part of a UN sanctioned action? I find that rather hard to believe, unless the government at the time was both far left leaning and inept. Such a denial would basically amount to a withdrawal from NATO.

I think in many ways this is the point I am making – Germany is making considerable contributions in international and multinational collective security structures, but is an unlikely candidate to get drawn into ground combat operations.

I agree under most circumstances this is true. But CM:SF is not sketching out "most circumstances". We're basically going forward with "worst case".

This reality of the German constitution as I indicted above is the reason I think why a Bundeswehr is not a serious contender for a CMSF module –.

Uhm... the story we've had since the very beginning of CM:SF is that BOTH of these conditions exist, not neither not even just one. So you're talking about a different setting that we are, making your comments irrelevant. Relevant to other settings, yup... absolutely, but not the one we're going with.

Steve

[cassh]

Blue force modules I'd go for in order of preference and likelihood:

IDF (via Israel)

USMC (via Iraq)

British (via Iraq)

French (via Lebanon)

Turks (via Turkey)

Canadians

Dutch

Italians

Australians

Poles

Czechs

[Battlefront.com]

BTW, in reality the Germans are just about as likely to show up for a major ground war against Syria within the next year as the US is, so we're really debating how many pixies can fit on the head of a pin

Steve

[cassh]

So again... if dirty bombs were detonated in London, Paris, and perhaps even on German soil by a group known to be HQ'd in Syria, you mean to tell me that the Bundestag would decline to authorize a NATO request for an armor brigade, or some other force, to deploy into Turkey to invade Syria as part of a UN sanctioned action?

The German government (Kohl’s Christian Democrats – right of centre conservatives) wouldn’t even let USAF sorties use their airspace for the attack on Lybia when US service personal were slaughtered in a German nightclub bombing - so how is that any different? A panzer grenadier brigade is a much more significant contribution than mere overflight!

Uhm... the story we've had since the very beginning of CM:SF is that BOTH of these conditions exist

As you’ve only just decided on the level of backstory to proceed with and that it will actually be set in Syria could you indicate where you have previously mentioned the scenario is a UN mandated intervention arising from an attack on a NATO country? Have I missed something or was this all under wraps?

If you want to put in German kit and TO&E in because it suits marketing aims or you just like it, or as a doctrinal/tactical exercise and training device it makes most sense and makes for interesting battles then just say so.

I’m not saying a German module wouldn’t be cool; it just wouldn’t be realistic!

[Battlefront.com]

Cassh,

The German government (Kohl’s Christian Democrats – right of centre conservatives) wouldn’t even let USAF sorties use their airspace for the attack on Lybia when US service personal were slaughtered in a German nightclub bombing - so how is that any different? A panzer grenadier brigade is a much more significant contribution than mere overflight!

So you mean to say that nothing in the world has changed since the early 1980s? And that writing off a part of a major European capital for a few thousand years is equivalent to a disco being shut down for a few months for renovations? You're kidding, right?

As you’ve only just decided on the level of backstory to proceed with and that it will actually be set in Syria could you indicate where you have previously mentioned the scenario is a UN mandated intervention arising from an attack on a NATO country? Have I missed something or was this all under wraps?

Sticky at the top of this Forum. All I'm doing is watering down the details of the backstory. The scenario we sketched out when we first started this Forum is, for the purposes of this discussion, still 100% relevant.

I’m not saying a German module wouldn’t be cool; it just wouldn’t be realistic!

As I said, it is equally unrealistic that the US would go for another ground war of any significance in the next few years, so why argue about Germany? Instead, look at the story and follow the line of logic from there. Starting with a nightclub bombing nearly 20 years ago as if nothing has changed since then is really not the way to go.

Steve

[Midnight Warrior]

Amphib ops? You're joking right? First off, how many such scenarios can you imagine being plausible? I can't think of any where the landings were significantly opposed. As a matter of fact, can someone tell me the last time there was an opposed landing conducted on anything more than a raid scale? Inchon, Korea?

Seriously though, we have no plans what-so-ever to put amphibious ops into a USMC CM:SF Module. It would be a terrible waste of time compared to all the other things we could be doing instead. Plus, as I have said about 10000 times, Modules will not introduce any significantly new game elements. Such work defeats the purpose of Modules and therefore can not be undertaken without changing the entire strategy of releases. For example, delaying the WWII game. Since we don't want to be lynched, we're sticking with our strategy

I guess that means no.

[Vanir Ausf B]

German KSK commandos have conducted combat operations in Afghanistan, although the German government did try to keep the fact a secret at first.

[Battlefront.com]

Yup, but it was a lot more fun to say it my way than just "no"

Steve

[Scipio]

Cassh, I think the point is that you simply don't like Germany, for whatever reason.

The German Bundeswehr has forces in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Kongo and a half dozend other countries, including Lebanon. None of them has ever threatened Germany. Fact is, that it is still difficult for Germany to send soldiers to foreign countries because of the Germa history in WWII

While the USA has paricipated in many wars since WWII (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Panama, Grenada, to name a few), plus many "CIA actions", plus a lot of financial and logistic support for "US friendly regimes" (including the Taliban and Saddam Hussein). What I want to say is, the US is just more 'used' to have soldiers dying everywhere around the world.

[ October 02, 2006, 04:39 AM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Battlefront.com]

Hey Vanir, any chance of getting that KSK picture from another source? It appears to be corrupt.

Steve

[Scipio]

Steve, the faces of the soldiers are probably distorted with intention. KSK soldiers don't like to show their faces to the public, IIRC.

[Homo ferricus]

hmmm, are the German's using digital camo now too?

are all EU and NATO countries switching over to digitals now? I wouldn't be surprised, those things are effective as hell.

edit: now that i take a second, closer, look they appear to not be Digitals, kinda like pseudo-digital.

[flamingknives]

Nope, that's desert flecktarn, unless I'm mistaken.

Brits are still in DPM, French wear non-digital, Germans have flecktarn, Italians don't have digital.

Personally, I don't think that digital patterns are particularly effective, certainly not radically more effective than existing designs. Everytime I see pictures of "the super-effectivness" of digital cam, it's always rather unscientific. IMHO it's a bit of a case of the Emperor's Soldier's new clothes.

Plus, thirty seconds after debussing, all camouflage is the same colour anyway.

[aka_tom_w]

"Plus, thirty seconds after debussing, all camouflage is the same colour anyway."

This could not be more true of guys playing paintball.

Some guys of all new cool camo outfits. (oooh.... cool... more money then sense, or no kids and no mortgage.)

Other guys just wear sort of dark green "work" clothes.

Guess what?

By the end of the day they are all equally stained and muddy and they all look like dried Temperate Woodland Mud Pattern. (TWMP) FWIW

-tom w

[Battlefront.com]

Scipio,

No, for me the bottom 2/3rds of the image is garbage. No matter how I try to view it or download it, the same probem hits me.

As for "digital" camo, here are the only nations that are officially using it as far as I know:

Canada

USA (Army and Marines, soon to be Navy)

Finland

Jordan

Indonesia (one SF battalion, one time, only time)

There are several countries that are playing around with it, notably China. It is possible that the latter is using it officially for its airborne forces, though it would seem it is still experimental at this stage.

The Italians have a new (fantastic) pattern that looks like digital from a distance, but is most certainly not. Pretty much everybody has their own pattern, none of which are digital. The exceptions are the Danish use a modified German Flecktarn, the Dutch use US 3 Color Desert and British DPM, Luxembourg uses US Woodland and Belgian Desert, the Spanish Army use modified US Woodland and US 6 Color Desert, and Romania uses British Desert DPM. The Austrians were using US 3 Color Desert, but they now have their own monotone sand color uniform. Hungarians also used US 3 Color Desert experimentally. Note in all cases (except for the Romanians) I'm talking about the pattern, not the uniform itself.

Steve

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Scipio,

No, for me the bottom 2/3rds of the image is garbage. No matter how I try to view it or download it, the same probem hits me.

Maybe because the image is actually larger and is downsized by html, in which case your web browser may not antialias it properly. If you rightclick it and choose "View image" or something, you should see the picture in full glory. Or copy it to a image editor.

[Nicdain]

Italians don't have digital.

For what I know, the Italian Army has recently introduced the digital camo for its uniforms, both in the woodland scheme and in the desert.

[Nicdain]

The Italians have a new (fantastic) pattern that looks like digital from a distance, but is most certainly not.

I thought it was digital... but you are right Steve: the new pattern of the Italian Army is similar to the system used in some other patterns such as the German Flectarn and the newly studied computer scheme by Finnish Army. The italian micropattern (which apparently is not made by pixels) is generated by an algorithm different from the one used for the MARPAT or the ACU.

[SlapHappy]

From the earlier post promoting the Arab-Israeli wars module, I agree. For one, it's not hypothetical, which is a big plus in my opinion. Secondly, it follows along the lines of a traditional combined arms conflict which should heighten the tactical aspects of the game.