British Module

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

But reliance on allies is nothing new for Canada, which makes it unbelievable that it should draw so much political attention. Every single expeditionary force Canada sent overseas did it on British or American ships, including the contingents in the Boer War, the Canadian Expeditionary Force in the First World War, the Canadian Active Service Force in the Second World War, the Canadian Army Special Force in the Korean War, and unless I miss my guess, the 4th CMBG in Germany not to mention forces in Yugoslavia and now Afghanistan. We've always travelled on someone else's nickel.

And it has been largely ignored... at least until the recent strategic lift debate.

Sharing logistics and having gaping strategic holes in our military are not the same as becoming a niche military power as part of a greater force, is it? It is easy to say, ya, we just don't do strategic bombing, and if it ever came to it, the USA would take care of it. We ignore the scenario and move along. So we don't have enough transport. Once again we can ignore the shortfall by rationalizing that catching a lift with our buddies isn't a big deal. But in a C4iSTAR situation where you have many branches in a tactical operation, is it not better to have your own tanks, LAVs, Arty, Air Support etc... working in a comfortable cooperative system? Look at the friendly fire incidents over the past 10 years. How many were Canadian on Canadian?

Taking it to the extreme, if we're reduced to a light weight brigade infantry with no direct fire support, no air, no anything, and we are relegated to be part of a greater force, who is in command? Not likely us. History has shown how rough it can be for Canadians under British command for example. This is where the public gets upset. We've been there, done that, got the nice cemetary in France thank you.

I'm glad we do the best we can with the little funds we have. I'm proud at the level of training our troops, including trades and other non "front line" troops receives. If I were 19 years younger with no kids, and something significant broke out, I wouldn't think twice about signing up. Of course, being a total prick, I'd apply to RMC.

[Michael Dorosh]

I largely agree with you, Ruddy. At the tactical level, it is very much in our interests to have our own weapons systems. Would be much better if they were the same as our Allies. Planes that can communicate with American tanks or tanks that can identify themselves as friend or foe to an A-10 would be good things to have. Having read Friendly Fire, I was interested to see just how much clutter a US pilot would have on their situation displays.

But of course, buying off the shelf from the US does nothing to win votes in BC or Quebec, does it. If the weapon system is truly better (C7A2) then go for it here. If it is substandard and only bought because it is "Canadian" (LSVW, Iltis) then it's a dumb idea.

And buying it if we don't really need it is too; I do like the idea of having tanks for the reasons Steve suggested. I don't see a need for B-1 bombers, Stealth fighters, or helicopter carriers. The subs were a good idea, but the bargain was not such a bargain in the end.

Most of the stuff we are using now is pretty good though. I like the winter underwear. The radios are not user friendly but since I use them a couple times a year, I'm in no position to squawk. What do your buddies in the field say?

[mazex]

Originally posted by SSgt Viljuri:

Battlefront wrote: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> (snips) As Rudel said, it is about time. Already the smaller nations have cut back their defense budgets so much that they can't do much of anything without someone else's help, especially in the form of logistics.

Mostly true, but Sweden and Finland will head to opposite direction.

New centre-right government of Sweden will rethink their defence spending and force cut-backs. (which were absolutely ridiculous, supposedly they were left with 24 operational field artillery guns and so on)

Finland will increase significantly her defence spending after the March general elections. This has gained a wide political consensus, after two or so years of working behind the scenes. </font>

[J Ruddy]

Hey - I liked the Iltis... when it wasn't rolling over and killing people. I wouldn't mind one for hunting.

As I understand it, our standard agreement when buying US kit is for every $1 we spend, the company must spend $1 in Canada. Which is a pretty good agreement. I still have my winter underwear 15 years later. Getting a little holy, but I'll look for some surplus. I have a great surplus Canadian Forces rain coat which was brand spanking new. My brother in law's (Major) raincoat is a mess, man was he mad, he even tried to swipe mine. I told him where to go, then where I got it, and they did have dozens (brand new) and he can go and buy his own!

I have no experience with the new radios so I can't comment on them. I assume you're talking about the IRIS systems stuff?

What do they say about what?

[Carbon-14]

I miss driving the Iltis

IRIS was a (IMO) colossal waste of money. Radios weren't bad but the rest of the system was DOA. All made-in-Canada kit isn't bad but its tiring seening military projects turn into make-work for a Member of Parliment. Far too often we have to make due with substandard kit.

And I continue to push for inclusion of the LSVW in CM:SF. So I can watch them burn.

PS: Can you send me a raincoat? Mine leaks

[MikeyD]

An English module could have some VERY odd looking vehicles in it. Here's a much-reworked FV432 in Iraq:

[Battlefront.com]

There are quite similar mods on the Bradleys. Dan just finished up the model so that will be fun to see!

Steve

[gibsonm]

Looks like the IDF has been selling some of its M113 ERA kits.

[flamingknives]

Well, it is Rafael.

Minus the big go-forth-and-multiply gun.

[Cpl Steiner]

I thought I'd resurrect this thread as I've just learned on the News that Britain will be sending another 1000 troops to Afghanistan ahead of an expected Taliban Spring Offensive, largely due to the fact that other European NATO allies have failed to live up to their commitments.

Germany in particular was cited as an example. German troops in Afghanistan stay safely tucked up in the North of the country where there is little or no fighting, and even there, they have crazy rules of engagement such as not being allowed out of their bases after dark.

If I see the Germans in a module for CM:SF I think I will piss myself laughing as it would be totally unrealistic in the current political climate.

This is not meant to offend any Germans on this board as I am sure they are just as up for a fight as anyone else. It is just that they are unable to do so because of the ridiculous constraints put on them by their leadership.

This is another reason IMHO why the British should be the first and foremost NATO ally in any future modules, with maybe the Dutch coming in a close second, as the News report praised them for being one of the few European NATO allies to be doing their full bit in Afghanistan.

[SSgt Viljuri]

Mikko H wrote:

Defense Forces and Ministry of Defense advocate increased defense expenditure (as always), but that a significant raise is in making and politically worked out... Could you point me to a source?

Well, obviously I can't, since the composition of the next Cabinet and more specifically those "broader spending frameworks" for the next four years haven't been come out yet. This will come out as soons as the Government programme is being agreed upon.

But three of the biggest parties (of which two will form the governing coalition, depending on the general election results) have reached initial political consensus about increasing MoD's ministrial spending constraints. How significant the rise will be, is being partly decided on how those approximately five billion euros of extra Govt spending are to be divided between rival interests like welfare, tax cuts and MoD, but at least infrastructure spending has been put into specific terms.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

This is another reason IMHO why the British should be the first and foremost NATO ally in any future modules, with maybe the Dutch coming in a close second, as the News report praised them for being one of the few European NATO allies to be doing their full bit in Afghanistan.

ahem...

[SSgt Viljuri]

mazex wrote:

I get the point (and we have discussed this earlier), but still - in the 50:ies and 60:ies when Sweden actually had the forth largest airforce in the world (late 50:ies), and the risk for WWIII was iminent - where was Finland, and on whose side would Finland with Kekkonen in the lead have fought with your Migs and russian tanks?

We had English jet fighters in the 1950s, for your information. (two different types, IIRC

Because of our delicate position between the Evil Empire and Free World, "we decided" it was wise to bought jets from both "camps", so Soviet Migs, Swedish Drakens and English Hawks were in our inventory after that initial "only western" period.

Btw, even during the most awkward periods of international relations from our standpoint (which were in the late 1970s and early 1980s, according to up-to-date research and not exclusively in 1945-48 as previously believed), our military top brass, scientific community etc. were secretly cooperating with the Free World and NATO, just like you did (you weren't able to join NATO either).

They delivered intelligence and other information about the Soviet armaments and monitored their nuclear tests (we had the most extensive seismographic surveillance net in the World, even though earthquakes are unheard in Finland)

All this despite that notorious FCM-treaty with the Soviets. Finlandization? Yes, but it's not the whole picture. Kekkonen played "the game" well enough, up until into the late 1970's, when his health failed him, and "useful idiots" (Finnish politicians with pro-Soviet tendencies) put our international standing in jeopardy.

Sadly some of those are still holding political offices (supposedly reformed now), like our current female president and foreign minister.

Put even during those darkest times, it was highly unlikely that Finland would have cooperated with the Soviets, militarily. So those NATO-plans to protect Norway (reformed after the 1960's, thankfully) to A-bomb Helsinki for just in case (in order to prevent the Soviets to use our harbors) were MORE than unneccessary.

[Challenger 2]

I don't know how many people of heard but Prince Harry Wales is now going to do a 6 month tour of duty in Iraq as the officer of a Scimitar recon troop. What are peoples opinions on this? I think it is brave of him to do so but for the added danger for Scimitar crews in Iraq for possibly having a royal occupant is it really worth it. Also if he were captured it would be a very large hit on moral and a huge boost for the insegens.

[flamingknives]

He's a 2nd Lt. in a recce troop. It would be a farce to wrap him in cotton wool. If the insurgents want to go to the added trouble of targetting Scimitars then that's less Snatch Landrovers they can attack. I rather suspect that the Blues and Royals will be used along the frontier, so there's less chance of a bomb being targetted at them. (less chance of knowing where they'll be)

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Challenger 2:

I don't know how many people of heard but Prince Harry Wales is now going to do a 6 month tour of duty in Iraq as the officer of a Scimitar recon troop. What are peoples opinions on this? I think it is brave of him to do so but for the added danger for Scimitar crews in Iraq for possibly having a royal occupant is it really worth it. Also if he were captured it would be a very large hit on morale and a huge boost for the insurgents.

What added danger? I doubt he'll be wearing his crown or carrying his sceptre into battle...

Seriously, what difference would it make?

[gibsonm]

Well those big ears projecting out of the turret (remember who his father is) - classic combat indicator.

Seriously though, he took his mum’s commission so its only right that he deploy with his unit.

Personally I think he will be in far less danger than his uncle Prince Andrew was when flying a helo in an anti Exocet screen around HMS Invincible during the Fauklands.

[flamingknives]

Grandmother's commission?

I did note that in the news that Prince Andrew "retired to the safety of an aircraft carrier" compared to Prince Harry remaining in the thick of it.

That made me chuckle.

[gibsonm]

Oops!

Hopefully HM wont ask me to return mine after that gaff.

[jhmorneau]

To come back to the initial subject of the thread, I think it would be interesting to have french units in just for the Leclerc MBT. As far as I know this tank has never been simulated in any decent wargame, maybe because it was so expensive and an utter comercial failure (the only client so far being the United Arab Emirates).

For those interested to know more about the Leclerc :

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Char_Leclerc

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leclerc/

Another good ole' piece of equipment : 6 wheeled reco ERC-90 Sagaie :

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/ERC-90_Sagaie

Cheers,

JHM

[hellfish]

A lot of the French equipment is great - the AMX-10RC is one of my favorite pieces of kit.

[J Ruddy]

Without a word of a lie, the funniest thing I ever saw was a local militaria dealer a few years back had a huge supply of French WWII era rifles in mint "un-fired condition". If I didn't know the company I would have thought it was a joke... Not to say the French didn't fight, they fought their asses off. (At least until the government capitulated.)

But yes, I would like:

Brits

Germans & Dutch <-why not?

Canadians

French

What about Turkey?

[Imperial Grunt]

My vote is for the Brit module to also include the Canadians and the Aussies. (And I want some Gurkas with the Brits!)

Then a Euro module with the Poles, Dutch, Germans, and French forces, provided that the last twodo not get the option of not participating in certain scenarios. That would be frustrating for the players.

[Stuart Galbraith]

All I can say is that Im delighted the developers are taking the inclusion of British kit seriously. Ive long been trying to get them included in another tactical wargame, so far without success. Ive no idea if its any use, but ive been assembling information (primarily on older equipment like FV432) which might be useful.

It also strikes me that inclusion of Jordan would also be an interesting idea. If its of any use, Ive some data on the performance of the Jordanian Khalid and Challenger1 that may well be useful.

Regardless, best of luck on the project guys, I was a fan of Combat mission, and the possiblity of a modern version facinates me.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

you could add smaller nations like Swedes and Finns somewhat easily if you add the Dutch, Poles etc, because the equipment is basicly the same.