Modern Combat and Scale: Operational, Tactical or "Firefight"?

[Cary]

Oren_M's thread and the latest unpleasantness prompted me to pull out my old copy of Victory Games' Flashpoint:Golan, and think about CM:SF's topic.

In general, I think I agree with BFC's skepticism about re-theming to a contemporary Arab-Israeli conflict, though I think some of Oren_M's points are compelling.

But Mark Herman's notes in FP:G bring up another potential problem with modern tactical combat, particularly if it is focused on main-force operations. Specifically, it is that it's very hard -- harder than in WWII -- to distinguish between tactical and operational level combat, and therefore, it will be difficult to impose a "ceiling" on the scale of the game that doesn't leave out significant elements of modern combat.

In his game, which is admittedly strategic in scale -- Division regiment and battalion -- Herman tries to capture the fact that "long-range detection and firepower have dramatically increased the depth of the theater of operations in modern warfare." "Deep Battle" he argues "waged far behind the front lines can determine the outcome of a campaign even before the opposing ground forces come into contact." As he says, where "in World War II the frontline called the Forward Line of Troops ... is also the Forward Edge of the Battle Area" in modern combats, the two things are no longer the same.

It strikes me that this characteristic of modern warfare might be somewhat of a problem given the "ceiling" of scale that makes sense for a CM-styled game. The disjunct between "FEBA" and "FLOT" seems to imply that many of the factors shaping the tactical battle that players control would actually be decided off-board -- in the exchange of decapitating strikes etc. -- and, crucially, out of players' control:

In short, "Scuds have hit your divisional command center, game over." seems plausibly realistic as a game dialog. A rather unsatisfying way to end the game, though.

(Ok, given recent displays of the accuracy of Soviet-model rockets, perhaps "MLRSs" is more plausible.).

To put it more technically, I wonder if there might be real problems and objectionable abstractions in porting the 'grand tactical' scale of CM, where a player is pushing battalions and companies, to a CM:Modern, where it's much harder to separate out the actions and well-being of these mid-sized units from their parents.

[ July 26, 2006, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: Cary ]

[oren_m]

Maybe the new CM game should have some sort of a "chaos" engine that will produce the surprises that a real combat should produce.

Let's say that your company get hit by chemical warfare, and while they run away you call for air support and guess what happens? friendly fire! and each time you'll try to re-do the combat the results will be different, even the weapones the enemy uses against you will change.

Oren_m

[Cary]

That's a good way of putting it, Oren. I guess my question is whether this "chaos" is more prevalent in modern warfare -- counterintuitive, but arguably the case -- and if so, whether that makes modern warfare harder to model at the CM scale.

Certainly part of the issue is that much of the technology of modern warfare is optimized to (so to speak) inflict "friction" or chaos on the enemy. And that element of modern warfare is probably something gamers would be justified in wanting to control.

Not only that, but it may be that failing to incorporate this imposed friction will force BFC to skew it's depiction of (particularly) American hardware -- the M1A1 and Bradley, notably, to model historical results from the Gulf War or OIF. (Which would make for an awfully nasty CMSF Egyptian army).

[ July 26, 2006, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Cary ]

[vincere]

Specifically, it is that it's very hard -- harder than in WWII -- to distinguish between tactical and operational level combat, and therefore, it will be difficult to impose a "ceiling" on the scale of the game that doesn't leave out significant elements of modern combat

That's a really good point. I've been wondering lately whether the CMSF maps should be larger to take into account the longer effective ranges of tanks, attack helicopters, AT assets etc.

However, perhaps those who are more in the know might say that actual contact and firefight ranges are typically much less than specification ranges?

[dan/california]

To much chaos may make a good simulator but it is a large downer from a game perspective. For a scenario at this level to depend entirely on if a B52 or other large asset is in the right place or not will not be a lot of fun to play.

This doubly difficult for a mostly desert/open terrain game. The side with the better airforce is way, way ahead. Not a whole lot of Syria provides the natural defenses available in southern Lebanon.

[Cary]

Originally posted by vincere:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Specifically, it is that it's very hard -- harder than in WWII -- to distinguish between tactical and operational level combat, and therefore, it will be difficult to impose a "ceiling" on the scale of the game that doesn't leave out significant elements of modern combat

That's a really good point. I've been wondering lately whether the CMSF maps should be larger to take into account the longer effective ranges of tanks, attack helicopters, AT assets etc.

However, perhaps those who are more in the know might say that actual contact and firefight ranges are typically much less than specification ranges? </font>

[JT Fox]

Hi all,

As a matter of scale for modern combat simulation I would draw your attention to Avalon Hill's MBT game.

Unit scale is the same as CM games but the maps scale is bigger.

Each hex represented 100m x 100m with the map size approx. 50 x 50 hexs.

The biggest scenarios I can recall were company-sized engagements with support unit’s etc.

Now I'm new to CM games and only played it a few times but in order to get the kind of ranged fire you would see in AHs MBT then CBSF would need a 5km by 5km map. A lot of scrolling to get round one that big.

Cheer JT Fox

[Cary]

I don't know MBT at all well -- you'll have to fill me in: do you think it had an "edge of the world problem" simulating company-scale engagements? Part of the problem, I might imagine, is that you should be getting battlefield effects from interactions occuring at beyond the front-line units- tactical range: counterbattery fire, "counter-C3I" fire, and the whole panoply of engagements that occur over the horizon but that might critically shape engagements of the company level or higher.

I'm not sure if I've made clear what my concern might be, so I'll try to be more specific. I guess the question I might have is whether the 5km scale that you mention doesn't leave a significant amount out, basically because, arguably, there's a much tighter connection between the company and the division or corps in modern warfare than there was a half century ago. Because divisional assets can to the support of the company so much more easily now than 1/2 a century ago, essentially the battle area extends 20km back from the forward line of troops (in each direction....).

Is this relevant? Perhaps not, but it may be difficult to achieve the "historical result" of an engagement between a company+ of M1A1s and a company of T84s without either a) accounting for whats going on 20 km back, or "fudging" the data.

(One thing that suggests this might be in issue is the fact that the losses of Abrams and Bradleys in Desert Strom didn't seem to differ all that much: something else was going on than just good armor and good targeting). I may be misconceiving this fact, and perhaps this is a mis-guided concern, but it seems worth considering....

[ July 27, 2006, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: Cary ]

[dan/california]

Based on TACOPS 4 there are three very simple facts that explain much of the Iraqi armies complete failure.

The first is training, always has mattered and always will, and the Iraqis were lousy at it.

The second was thermal sights. The U.S. had them and the Iraqis did not. So at night the Iraqis were big targets with kill me signs in blazing neon. The sights also also lets you call smoke on on a position and then shoot at it while it is blind, you do not even have to breathe the stuff until you drive by the smoking wrecks. They frequently never knew what hit them.

Lastly the Iraqis did not have the latest generation atgms in quantity and their sabot rounds just bounced of of The M1's fronts at any range much past zero , so Abrams tanks felt free to drive forward to draw fire and then take their time killing what ever showed its head with the Bradleys in overwatch. This combination created an overwhelming overmatch. TACOPS when the other side does and does not have these abilities/technologies is two different games.

How many of these things the Syrians do better I don't claim to know. Ditto for how CMX2 is going to deal with all of the above.

Having both your unit and its supply lines bombarded by an air force with complete supremacy and ample PGMs obviously did not make it any easier.

[Cary]

ok.. fair enough... This was the case in GWI(II) as well?

Is OIF GWII or GWIII?

[dan/california]

Yes as I understand it, and the Iraqis took more battle casualties because the were forward deployed in the desert around Kuwait.

The factors discussed above reduced the Iraqis chances of a first round kill to a small fraction of the Americans. This of course massively affected the morale of both sides.

Th references to thermal sites above should probably be broadened to include the superiority of the fire control systems as whole. Remember these have to be maintained and calibrated as well as bought up front.

[Cary]

Good points... I had a friend doing a doctorate on technology transfers -- how it failed or succeeded.

Literacy, both literal and technical, seem to be huge variables...

It is one of the impressive facts about the Soviet Union that they managed to maintain a reasonably competent military force as long as they did.

[JT Fox]

Link to MBT images: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/browser.php?itemtype=image&gameid=3710&sortby=date

If I remeber right all aspects of modern combat are included although the long range artillery is "off board"

Air support had aircraft counters flying around the map with entry and exit points pre-planned, target could be laser targeted by ground units.

You could also use laser targeting with helicopters and ground units. One game I played had an infantry unit laser target a T80 and a ATGM from a hele' hovering behind a hill took the tank out. It was a blind moderated game and my opponent never knew where the shot came from.

I also believe AH produced a second game call IDF (Israeli Defence Force). Whether it was an expansion or a seperate game I don't know.

Slightly off topic of scale: Cold war central Europe would have been a good location for CMSF. All the major players are involed. Much of the equipment then is simply older version of todays stuff. I'm sure the modders out there would be able to transform such a game to anywhere in the world.

Example 1: Falklands 82-Goose Green, Historical infantry action with limited support.

Example 2: Falklands 82, as above but throw in a tank platoon for a "what if" battle.

Cheers JT Fox

[John Kettler]

JT Fox,

Welcome aboard!

I played MBT, which I'd long anticipated, being a Soviet Threat Analyst, but found it completely ridiculous. Why? At a time when even major magazines were openly discussing the U.S.-Soviet

armor and antiarmor gap, a problem so acute we spent billions to remedy it (Improved Dragon, Javelin, ITOW/TOW 2 various versions (worked for Hughes, the manufacturer), AT-4, XM-829, M1A1HA, etc.), the game was portraying some opium dream of the Army in which all of its weapons were super lethal, while our tanks were immune. As I recall, I couldn't get frontal penetrations on vanilla M1s at 2 hex range with a bunch of T-80s.

Unclassified Congressional testimony by Armor branch chief General Starry showed that the situation was just the opposite. We couldn't penetrate them, but they could fire right through us.

Don't confuse what happened when ex-Soviet monkey models were pitted against our best systems designed specifically to close the aforementioned gap and surpass the Soviets.

Turned out a 1960s vintage HEAT round of which we knew nothing until ~1975 (exploited after Yom Kippur War) was capable of blowing right through a standard M1 frontally. Seems the Soviets got scared by a later rejected tank design called a T-95 sporting an armor array of sandwiched steel and ceramic. Can you say M1? That's why all the M1s were replaced by M1AI HAs

before the Hail Mary of GW 1 was launched. Wound up giving the game to my nephews.

Regards,

John Kettler

[M1A1TC]

Just finished reading "Heavy Metal- A tank company's battle to Baghdad" by Capt. Jason Conroy and Ron Martz. It describes how different the fight was for his armor company in 2003 (OIF 2) versus Gulf War. This time around, the enemy wasnt sitting in battle positions out in the desert, there where hardly any POWs, and fanatical Muhajadin in black attacked his forces in suicidal attempts. He also desribes a tank battle in Mahmudiyah, where his tanks engaged and destroyed Iraqi T-72s and BMPs at point-blank range. Some T-72s where destroyed from 25 feet away.

I recommend this book, as it describes the change in tank-versus-tank combat. These tankers where never trained to fight MOUT combat, destroy tanks at close range, and clear buildings, yet they did