"Wargaming Russia-Nato 2015: Conceptually too difficult?" Topic

For my 2015 project I've been planning to do Russia v NATO in Ukraine circa 2015-16.

I was going to use Force on Force rules and play at platoon/company level.

Now I like to game the period – focus on actual tactics, equipment and formations even if some of the scenarios are hypothetical.

And in this case NATO versus Russia doesn't work. In essence it's a case of ultramodern, numerous NATO force circa 2014 versus vestigial Warsaw Pact force circa 1986.

It results in a massive lack of balance.

1. NATO air superiority
- This is almost 100% a given. Russian air force is less numerous and for the most part outdated compared to NATO air power.

NATO has stealth fighters, extensive useage of precision guided munitions, lots of enablers such as AWACS and EW aircraft.

Russian AD has some modern SAMs but they're few and far between.

US/NATO AD is effectively ultra modern and very capable PAC-3 Patriot with some older units.

In all instances NATO has numerical, technical and tactical superiority

2. NATO armour and anti armour superiority

Again 100% guaranteed. Average Russian tank is a 1980s T-72 with more 1980s T-80 in reserve. There's about 800 T-90s which are essentially T-72s with T-80s upgrades.

Average NATO tank of the type most likely deployed is M1 Abram or equivalent (Leo II, Leclerc, Challenger II).

NATO has also been acquiring large numbers of modern ATGMs ala Javelin and have advanced aviation tank hunting capability (AH-64D/E).

The Russians are still using mainly older systems and have very few modern systems in service. Standard attack helo is a 1980s vintage Hind with 1980s vintage avionics and weapons.

Indeed the FOF rules for both Cold War Goes Hot supplement and basic ruleset indicate a massive imbalance between even more basic M1 or Leo 2 compared to a T-72/-90. And once the current advanced versions are taken into account, it's a turkey shoot for NATO armour.

In all instances NATO has numerical, technical and tactical superiority

3. Troop quality
Georgia was a poor showing for professional Russian soldiery – in essence they were no better than the conscripts. Luckily the Georgians were just as useless.

Russia seems to be suffering inordinate casualties in Ukraine too.

It's clear that NATO troops ar far more superior in tactics etc.

The officer corps was stymied in the 1990s and has never recovered. There is also still no capable NCO class.

In FoF terms, NATO would be at least D8 D10 quality whilst Russians would be closer to D6 D8. Upping tem to D8 would require some sort of limiting special rules to take into account poor command, control and communication.

4. All 1980s Warsaw Pact advantages/strengths are long gone

In essence all the Warsaw Pact advantages in numbers and stengths like massed artillery, air assault units etc are gone.

They've lost a lot of enablers like SEAD/EW capabilities, recce capability as well as logistics and command capabilities. Again Georgia was an excellent example of Russian failings and again liucky for Russians, the Georgians had no capability.

Virtually all Russian/Soviet weapon systems were compromised in the 1990s with US getting access to them one way or another.

So what kind of match up are we looking at?

From a FoF perspective:

1. Better NATO troops (D8 D10) v Russian D6 D8 (exceptions are Special Forces).

2. Better and more numerous NATO armour and anti-armour support (as seen in core and CWGH FoF suppliments).

3. NATO gets air support, Russians do not.

4. NATO command structure more flexible. Russians might have to use Insurgent Leader rules whereby a unit without leader cannot move forward. Similar rules exist in Cold War Goes Hot supplement for Soviet armour.

5. NATO artillery support more numerous and more precise.

The situation doesn't get better if you push it to 2020. Indeed Russian capability most likely declines further as they will still be using 1980s gear whilst US and co are constantly rearming or modernising. Putting in artificial limits on allies skews the system and doesn't necessarily result in playing the period.

The poorer troop quality works for insurgents cause of insurgent specific rules which are non-applicable to Russian regulars or even current insurgents (which are really just regulars for most part).

It doesn't sound like fun gaming for the guy playing the Russians and as such I'm thinking it's a no goer.

Seems 20mm WW2 is my next port of call.

Urban fighting would negate a number of advantages, and the air force can't be everywhere at once. In some scenarios you can say that the Russians actually have temporary, local air superiority.

I think you are overlooking one possible equaliser – how does NATO get to deploy it's much greater capability ?

Airpower isn't a problem – but are the Russians just going to sit there and let a large land force move into the Ukraine ?

The naval route means getting past Russia's sub's let alone their surface fleet and shore based anti-ship missiles. And potentially the land route could be a bit tricky – especially if Russia pre-empts any such attempt by a large land push of their own first. Will NATO's terms of engagement include flattening large parts of Ukraine's major cities ?

I think there could be more in this scenario than you're allowing for.

WWII is good too though….

Urban fighting requires a massive investment in terrain! Some WWII terrain is compatible but a lot of the architecture in Ukraine is modern as it was rebuilt after WW2.

Urban warfare also wouldn't negate Russian deficiencies in troop quality, logistics issues or command problems. In fact NATO units would continue to smash them for the most part.

As for airforce can't be everywhere, very true. But it would be applied at points of pressure.

In Force of Force terms it would mean that any Russian air support would face enemy air superiority, whilst NATO air forces would be facing light AD environment.*

*Russian systems are fine for smashing poorly defended Ukranian or civilian aircraft, but the Americans pretty much got to have a look in at how systems like S300 work through NATO partners like Slovakia, Greece and Croatia and clandestine means. Hence Russian AD is compromised from outset.

And the Americans and NATO still have massive SEAD/DEAD/EW fleets to shut down the generally 1980s vintage Russian defenders.

The naval route means getting past Russia's sub's let alone their surface fleet and shore based anti-ship missiles. And potentially the land route could be a bit tricky – especially if Russia pre-empts any such attempt by a large land push of their own first. Will NATO's terms of engagement include flattening large parts of Ukraine's major cities ?

I think there could be more in this scenario than you're allowing for.

Ukraine borders with NATO states – Poland Romania, Hungary, Slovakia – hence logistical routes are there.

In fact NATO forces could move relatively quickly through a friendly Ukraine seeking assistance and much quicker than Russian units that need to smash through Ukranian forces.

And we are discussing ground combat, not naval combat.

I don't know, I mean people game US vs Iraq and seem to do fine and I find it hard to believe that Russians would do worse than Iraqi army units. Equal or better kit as the Iraqis and presumably the Russians actually want to fight.

Of course, you can always play on the fact that war is expensive and western public opinion is anti-war.

If a battalion of NATO forces will trounce their opposition, send a company instead.
Swap out the NATO players units with minor allies. Taking that airfield with Royal marines is easy. Take it with Polish infantry and rusted out T55? Much more fun.

Alternatively, have NATO roll over the Russian border and refight the Vietnam war.

It's pretty straight-forward really.

Just assume a schism in NATO, where only a few countries from Europe support Ukraine, and the vast majority do not, militarily.

Oh sure, they might vote on your side at the UN, a time, or two, but beyond that, nothing…..

Say, perhaps Poland, or the UK, or France. With Poland, which has a lot of armor, assume they keep most of that at home, for their own self-protection.

You could even use the USA, but assume a dithering, leader, with little support at home. Perhaps he provides some weapons, and a token number of aircraft, or troops, but little else in the way of real support. Not too unimaginable.

As you can see, it isn't too hard to imagine Russia will have a pretty good chance at pulling more land-grabs off, especially given the little done after the Crimean invasion, and occupation, and what is going on now in Eastern Ukraine.

Therefore, since Russia can pick and choose where and when to use its forces, it should still have the advantage in most situations, and regions, so, they get at least air-parity, if not some localized superiority. The same applies to artillery, ground forces, etc.

The ball seems to be Putin's currently, and he can do what he wants with it, whenever he chooses to play, as well.

It appears others can do little to stop him, really, since they lack the will to do so.

You can make card stock or foam board buildings for next to nothing. Logistics really isn't going to matter in this scale of a game, and I think you are fooling yourself if you think a Russian platoon or company is going to be so devoid of leadership that it is going to be unable to function in action. Re. air power, you are assuming that your game is a significant "point of pressure" when it may not be. Since you have already talked yourself out of the period, I am not sure what the purpose of your post is.

Just assume a schism in NATO, where only a few countries from Europe support Ukraine, and the vast majority do not, militarily.

Even just assuming US involvement, it's a straight NATO win.

Problem is this is platoon/company level:

- You've got crap Russians versus at worst average Americans (and in reality a lot better). And the Russians further have poor communication and control as well as as recce capabilities (e.g. no RQ-11 type tactical drones).

It's essentially a turkey shoot for American troops.

- Americans have got massive technological superiority. In platoon/company this means a T-90, let alone a 1980s T-72 is dead meat versuses an M-1A2 Abrams.

- The air superiority factor. US doctrine emphasises it above all else. From a platoon/company level you can remove it but loss of assets like AH-64s or even PGM lobbing fast movers takes a lot of key US tactical components out.

I don't know, I mean people game US vs Iraq and seem to do fine and I find it hard to believe that Russians would do worse than Iraqi army units. Equal or better kit as the Iraqis and presumably the Russians actually want to fight.

There's a reason I never got into gaming Iraq 1991 or 2003. Too much of a turkey shoot and you have to stack odds in stupid ways to make the Iraqis have a chance.

You can make card stock or foam board buildings for next to nothing.

I've got a few of those in 15mm that I've built. They were quick jobs and look pretty bad.

I was hoping to up the quality of the terrain to at least this standard and that means lots of time required to make the buildings look decent:

I don't mind assembling a few buildings but a Ukrainian city circa 2015 is too much and an extremely long term project.

I think you are fooling yourself if you think a Russian platoon or company is going to be so devoid of leadership that it is going to be unable to function in action.

Even Russian assessments of their troop performance in Georgia was pretty dismal.

FoF CWGH rules limit Soviet/Warpacs leadership capabilities to represent C3 problems and all evidence is that for the most part those problems have not changed.

Indeed the Russian army went backwards in 1990s and early 2000s and had still not sorted its issues by the time Georgia 2008 rumbled by.

Make it a series of campaign games where politics keeps the NATO forces from being seriously resupplied. Sure the Ahbrams is great but what about when it's out of gas?

Make it a series of campaign games where politics keeps the NATO forces from being seriously resupplied. Sure the Ahbrams is great but what about when it's out of gas?

This is what I talk about when I mention going out of the way to stack odds to give Russians a chance.

I actually mapped out a campaign:

1. Initially a NATO blocking force put into defensive positions as peacekeepers (bare in mind modern NATO peacekeepers are heavily armed – they no longer send light infantry with no support. That stopped in 1990s after Bosnia and Somalia).

2. Russian offensive from northern Russian-Ukranian border.

3. NATO counteroffensive from Poland or even Romania.

Here's where the odd stacking got unrealistic:

A. I basically had to pretend NATO airpower doesn't exist due to no basing/overflight rights. Unrealistic as NATO would not engage without air cover.

B. I had to assume no NATO eastern European countries were involved or allowed transit rights. Again unrealistic – no one goes to war without some sort of logistics route.

C. I had to assume NATO would leave northern flank open and not bolster northern Russian-Ukrainian border.

D. I had to assume Russia didn't retain any real reserves and committed all their more modern equipped units into the fray. And even then these modern units aren't that well equipped.

E. Russian troop quality needed to jump to NATO levels to at least partially offset issues regarding equipment quality. Again unrealistic given all available info on performance of standard troops in other Russian wars. They've even sustained heavy casualties against poorly equipped and poorly led Ukranian troops.

And then the basics didn't add up in terms of platoon/company level combat and obvious NATO lower level advantages.

The US can't even win against various bands of stone-age thugs armed with little more than rifles and suicide vests, so I think you are giving the USA/NATO too much credit, especially if you hamstring them with political realities, decreasing budgets, anti-war media and citizenry, an uinspired, and/or incompetent leadership, etc., etc.

How many M-1 tanks are in Syria, Iraq, or Afghanistan to support our "boots on the ground" who aren't supposed to be there in the first place (mark my words, "…there will be no boots on the ground", he said, shortly before 6,000 of them for 3,000 troops were sent in-country to Iraq)?

However, as 79thPA has pointed out, it sounds like you really aren't interested in this, so I won't continue trying to convince you.

Perhaps you need to select another region, or period to game.

Mako,

Err we're not talking Syria or counter insurgency.

My goal was to do modern WWIII with Russia-US. I'd spent about 3 months actually researching everything from building and mini manufacturers to actual Russian and NATO TO&Es, military organisational developments, performance etc.

But reading into actual Russian operations, military problems and equipment has been a depressing and off putting experience.

The final nail in coffin was reading some of the analysis of potential WWIII circa 1985.

Given the general consensus that even with massive conventional numerical supremacy the Soviets would've struggled against NATO, I could then not envisage the current Russian army functioning any better. In fact given it spent the better part of 20 years going backwards, the situation is even worse than in it was in 1985.

I usually spend anywhere up to a year analysing the next gaming project. It took a year to plan out Afghanistan and two years to buy and paint everything up.

Limited budgets and limited time means it's got to be planned well – no pointless "shelf queen" units, ability to get into games quickly, painting has to be focused etc.

Hence it's disappointing to have got hyped about a period and a project and then for realities to deflate it.

Why not game the real conflict?

There are a variety of forces and equipment. They are well matched for company level games. There are regular forces and insurgents.

You could add NATO SF support to spice it up.

"The ball seems to be Putin's currently, and he can do what he wants with it, whenever he chooses to play, as well."

Really, are you following the price of oil?

He isn't trying to corner the oil market, but is winning in Ukraine.

To an extent, this is an issue with most present-day combat scenarios, it's not specific to this match-up.

State-of-the-art western forces have a massive edge over their counterparts and modern warfare doesn't produce the sort of mass warfare where you can wear down a technologically superior force.

You may have to either bite that bullet and just make it about the victory conditions. Run the US forces as a campaign game (Did I mention that No End in Sight totally has campaign rules? :-) ) without replacements on line and while they may lose relatively few men in each battle, each of those losses will hurt because you have to make do.

For more "balanced" gaming, client states and minor powers seem to be the way to go. Statistically, the most likely combatants in any conflict right now is:

"Guys with AK's and steel helmets versus guys with AK's and steel helmets plus a T55".

That doesn't do anything to satisfy the WW3 feel but I feel that is better done through games set in the 60s-70's, letting the reds do what the US military thinkers thought they could do.

Sorry to be a downer.

Are you playing this solo or with a friend? That will influence the type of scenario you can set up as well.

I think you definitely have enough to work with for interesting games. I don't think you should assume automatic NATO superiority. Here are some things you should take into account if NATO ever entered into a "hot" war with Russia over Ukraine.

1. Don't expect NATO to pour everything into Ukraine and leave their member nations defenseless. NATO will keep significant reserves in case of Russian incursions into NATO member lands. As already happening, Russia will definitely be threatening NATO territories, not just Ukraine.

2. Don't expect it to be easy to roll NATO forces thru Ukraine without difficulties. Distance (including the need to pass thru Eastern Nato lands), logistical issues, incompetence, corruption and Russian saboteurs will all disrupt, hinder and impede advance.

3. Russian AAD will be closer to the battlefront than NATO's. Assume Russian air defenses already in place and dug-in while NATO elements will need to deploy to the front (see #2 above). As we all are aware, Western forces do not fight without air support.

4. Most conscript Russian soldiers aren't well trained, motivated, led or equipped HOWEVER they are BEARs in defense. Russians will fight to the death in stubborn no-win situations. No Western European troops or Ukrainians are willing to sacrifice themselves.

5. Russia has shorter distances for reinforcements.

1. Don't expect NATO to pour everything into Ukraine and leave their member nations defenseless. NATO will keep significant reserves in case of Russian incursions into NATO member lands. As already happening, Russia will definitely be threatening NATO territories, not just Ukraine.

Same applies to Russia and their reserves are far smaller.

2. Don't expect it to be easy to roll NATO forces thru Ukraine without difficulties. Distance (including the need to pass thru Eastern Nato lands), logistical issues, incompetence, corruption and Russian saboteurs will all disrupt, hinder and impede advance.

The Americans are certainly not corrupt or incompetent when it comes to logistics or command – look at Iraq or Afghanistan or whatever.

And they still maintain massive air lift capability too.

Russians were far more incompetent in terms of logistics in Georgia.

3. Russian AAD will be closer to the battlefront than NATO's. Assume Russian air defenses already in place and dug-in while NATO elements will need to deploy to the front (see #2 above). As we all are aware, Western forces do not fight without air support.

And Russian AD is easily neutralised by American EW, SEAD and DEAD assets.

4. Most conscript Russian soldiers aren't well trained, motivated, led or equipped HOWEVER they are BEARs in defense. Russians will fight to the death in stubborn no-win situations. No Western European troops or Ukrainians are willing to sacrifice themselves.

Maybe in WWII. In Chechnya they died like idiots in defence.

5. Russia has shorter distances for reinforcements.

Yes, provided they don't break out of current area.

1. Don't expect NATO to pour everything into Ukraine and leave their member nations defenseless. NATO will keep significant reserves in case of Russian incursions into NATO member lands. As already happening, Russia will definitely be threatening NATO territories, not just Ukraine.

Same applies to Russia and their reserves are far smaller.

2. Don't expect it to be easy to roll NATO forces thru Ukraine without difficulties. Distance (including the need to pass thru Eastern Nato lands), logistical issues, incompetence, corruption and Russian saboteurs will all disrupt, hinder and impede advance.

The Americans are certainly not corrupt or incompetent when it comes to logistics or command – look at Iraq or Afghanistan or whatever.

And they still maintain massive air lift capability too.

Russians were far more incompetent in terms of logistics in Georgia.

3. Russian AAD will be closer to the battlefront than NATO's. Assume Russian air defenses already in place and dug-in while NATO elements will need to deploy to the front (see #2 above). As we all are aware, Western forces do not fight without air support.

And Russian AD is easily neutralised by American EW, SEAD and DEAD assets.

4. Most conscript Russian soldiers aren't well trained, motivated, led or equipped HOWEVER they are BEARs in defense. Russians will fight to the death in stubborn no-win situations. No Western European troops or Ukrainians are willing to sacrifice themselves.

Maybe in WWII. In Chechnya they died like idiots in defence.

5. Russia has shorter distances for reinforcements.

Yes, provided they don't break out of current area.

Once again, you are assuming complete dedication of forces into Ukraine. That would take the leadership of the USA, which is sorely lacking nowadays.

All Russia needes to do is to drop some SF into Poland, gunboat the Baltics, blow a few power stations in Germany and NATO would recall significant forces to "protect" their home countries.

Regarding Russians dying, that's what they do. IF Russia goes to war with NATO, this would stir up Russian patriotism and take-away the one real problem Putin has at home, hiding the dead from Russian mothers, as he has been doing so far in Ukraine.

The problem is even f NATO retained significant forces in Europe proper, the Russians wuld do the same.

And Russian military is massively outnumbered by even just Western European NATO forces. Throw in the USA and it's absolutely outclassed.

To compare to WW2, you have have the equivalent of elite Panzer units supported by Normandy level Allied air and artillery support equipped with ultra upgraded Panthers facing a smaller Russian force devoid of ideological fanaticism and equipped with T-34/76 at best and a whole heap of BT7s without any air support and same problems with command and control that they had in 1941.

That makes for poor wargaming. And stacking odds in Russia' favour with ever more fantastic assumptions is not really "gaming the period" – it's creating fantasies like Battlefront's "Vietnam was a Tank Wa"r fantasy.

Regarding Russians dying, that's what they do. IF Russia goes to war with NATO, this would stir up Russian patriotism and take-away the one real problem Putin has at home, hiding the dead from Russian mothers, as he has been doing so far in Ukraine.

This is not 1917 or 1941 when Russia had massive amounts of manpower.

This is a dying race of people with low birth rates and low male life expectancy.

Even by 1944 the Soviets started running out of men. This time it's a problem from the start.

Weasel,

1. Man opponent is my brother. He was not interested in CWGH circa 1986 or Bush Wars etc (I'm not to interested in Bush Wars either. He was interested in moderns an in particular Germans or other NATO allies.

But I'm not interested in playing useless Russians that stand little or no chance against a modern opponent.

2. My other modern theater is Afghanistan which works well thanks to insurgency rules in Force on Force.

Brother plays this as well and I'm trying to get a few guys t the club into it.

Well, if the period won't work out for you, it won't work. Move on and enjoy something different :)

That being said, at the platoon level, many of the strategic factors won't really be as big an impact.

Can the US air force destroy every T72? No. They couldn't in Iraq and they won't have an easier time of it in Eastern Europe.

Will every US platoon have an Abrams with them? Again, no. (and there are Russian RPG that can bother an Abrams though it's by no means an easy task).

A mechanized platoon crashing into a reinforced platoon of Russian troops with some T72 supporting them looks like a pretty good game to me.

Zooming in a bit more and things get a lot more gameable. Yes, on a large scale, the Russians are in for a rough fight but that doesn't mean that every single NATO platoon has a cake walk. Even during the second gulf war, there were plenty of Americans and Royal Marines who had some close calls.

Not sure how tied you are to the company level and up but I find if you ratchet things down to platoon+, you open up a lot more possibilities.

On top of that, as you scale down, the objectives become a lot more interesting:

House to house search to find an informant, defector or other vital civilian before the Russians do. That sort of affair.

With a lot of modern gaming, the real challenge is in the scenario writing I find.

What I'm saying is that a conflict with NATO would actually promote Russian patriotism and willingness to fight. Having an open war would also remove the one problem Putin has had with resistance to his "secret war", that of hiding the war dead from Russian mothers.

I don't get it Deadone, if you're all negative about this being playable, why are you even bothering with this post in the first place?

I´m with Weasel here, the level of the game will mean that the strategic picture is just the setting for your games, the levels above platoon or maybe company need not bother you.

Indeed, the local picture might be skewed the other way, if you have a small NATO detachment of, say, German troops organising a delaying action against a larger russian force, maybe inhibited by Rules of Engagement as they are fighting on Ukrainian territory. The Russians might even be Veteran or Elite formations, which suddenly provides a very different scenario to what you describe.

You could give the Russians options for bringing in reinforcement to spice up your game, or pit light infantry formations against superior Mechanized Forces.

Furthermore, I think you´re underestimating the russian capabilities a little, I don´t think it is a reasonable assumption to put Russian Infantry on the same level as Irregulars that never even got basic training. They are regular troops after all, the difference in performance can be modelled by awarding a different morale level or another confidence level to the troops. Franky, Force on Force is not designed to model the differences of C2-performance of different regular formations, so don´t bother with the distinction here – they are regulars after all. If you do want to model a difference, give NATO an extra initiative die.

"The Americans are certainly not corrupt or incompetent when it comes to ….command – look at Iraq or Afghanistan or whatever".

We have a totally incompetent CIC. Just look at how bad the two examples you've mentioned above are faring. They're so screwed up, and we don't have a SecDef, since the CIC won't listen to them, so there is a very high turnover rate – perhaps the highest in the history of America under one leader, I suspect (I don't know that for sure, but don't recall this kind of turnover in my lifetime, and I'm a dinosaur).

We've pulled out, but then have to go back into Iraq; telegraph our pullout date in Afghanistan, but then extend it, since the Taliban are gaining the upper hand again; etc., etc.

Deadzone, here's how I would do it:

Don't game the main conflict if you're working at the company/platoon level. The main conflict will be strategic, with massed artillery, airpower, etc. But it's not interesting as far as tabletop goes. What you play is the peripheral stuff, the small clashes, the ambushes, raids, and unintended meeting engagements. These small fights can have a surprising impact on the overall outcome of a war. They can snowball into larger actions, or have an outcome that changes policy. Just look at how the initial forays into Sadr City changed how the US operated during the rest of the time in Iraq.
In the smaller fights a lot of the strategic advantages wash out. Ya, the NATO forces might have some better intel, but 2 patrols bumping into each other point blank in a village is a lot different than tank battalions in open country dukeing it out. And AKs punch through cover much better than M4s…
Heck, game out the SF attacks on the foreign countries. Like suggested above, a Spetsnaz attack on a German power station could be fun!
Or do a blackhawk down thing where a NATO helo gets nailed and both sides have to recover the crew, or the Russians have them and only a very quick response from a small NATO force can reach them (which means they are going in without prepared support…)
I do this with scifi. Sure, one side has cruisers in orbit who can lay down orbital strikes, but they can't be everywhere at once, and not all force is appropriate for the situation going on down below. You're not going to be dropping huge JDAMs on a friendly village with women and children hiding in their basements just to flush out an enemy platoon when you have some grunts on hand to do it "less messily". After all, you have positive PR to look out for…

Maybe we could have a nice thread about platoon level infantry combat without taking time out of our busy days to complain about the president?

Well, not everyone is an American, so he isn't "the president".

Besides, I merely wrote that there is a lack of leadership with the USA. I doubt that anyone would argue against that. This itself, is part of the reason why Putin feels so emboldened.

Back on subject. Deadone, thinking you know the result doesn't prevent you from having an enjoyable game. We all know how WWII, the ECW, AWI, ACW, etc. ended, and yet we still replay the battles or create our own skirmishes. Even if you think a conflict in the Ukraine would result in a win for NATO (and I agree), it still needs to be fought by the companies, platoons and squads. Small scale action doesn't mean you get artillery or air cover. It's all about the "what if"…

I was addressing Mako who is indeed American. Should have been more specific.

I have never seen a set of war game rules that factors in the attitudes of the country's sitting president or high level military officials when statting up a platoon level skirmish.

What I love about this thread is how the underlying assumptions regarding relative effectiveness are so far out of kilter with my experiences discussing similar subjects with those who have a working knowledge of the subject :)

Seems like the enemy you've chosen for your next gaming experience in not good enough for you Deadzone, here's how I would do it:

Don't play it. It does seem that you have made up your mind that its going to be rubbish.

Go do something else that you most likely will enjoy, the reason I say this is that some people here did give you some practical and useful advice, this does not seem to have resonated and the tone here has headed in the wrong direction.

Point bullets of how good the 'good' guys are vers the 'bad' guys has me thinking this was just an exercise of flag waving.

On the other hand perhaps you should have a go it could see you and your brother having a great time (here you are lucky as my closest opponent is about 400 miles from me :(
Do a proper analysis of capabilities of real troops and how it could happen up close and their capabilities and you will find the fight in this hypothetical a lot closer.
Who knows you might have 3 years of investment well spent.
Cheers to all and Mako calm down I get your frustration, Nordic I'm working on a NEIS using two forces that both have great and woefully inadequate assets set in Africa. Here's hoping I get the mix right :) if not try again.

PS folks anyone know a place that gives a (noddy page) basic info on how to build a blog site? I'm OKish. Computer wise but it still gets a bit confuss-ing :)

As some have already made clear, at the platoon/company level logistics and politics do not matter. For the Russians to have a chance they'll need numerical superiority to overcome their quality disadvantage. Also, the relative training levels of the opposing forces need to be factored in to balance the game.

Of course, it can be driven by scenarios where the 'winner' isn't necessarily the side that killed the most.

- Americans have got massive technological superiority. In platoon/company this means a T-90, let alone a 1980s T-72 is dead meat versuses an M-1A2 Abrams.

I don't know if that is a reasonable assumption.

The Iraqi T72s were significantly downgraded export models, not anywhere near current T72BUs, and were not using Tungsten APFSDS, let alone depleted uranium APFSDS.

Yes, the Abrams and most other modern NATO tanks have an incredible fire-control system that allows them to shoot on the move. Such systems are not nearly the force-multiplier when you're in dense terrain with <1km lines of sight.

And we are discussing ground combat, not naval combat.

Sure – but those ground troops have to get there somehow. If you assume that NATO can deploy wherever and whatever it likes then maybe it is a walk-over.

If they have to use second tier airfields and airlift stuff in 'cos Russia pre-empted their attack and have made the border crossings into Ukraine difficult then it's suddenly a very different matter.

Zargon – If you are just after a pretty basic blog setup, Google's Blogger is pretty idiot-proof. (I say that in a good way)

If you already have a gmail account, just set that up and go for it.

They have some fairly decent built-in themes as well and when you learn more, its pretty easy to expand on.

We looked at the Moldavia region a few years back for mix and match scenarios (before Ukraine heated up). There's a lot of options for semi-balanced battles given the region's 2nd-tier militaries and militia groups, along with an assortment of intervening forces from outside.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldova
link
link

I don't know if that is a reasonable assumption.

The Iraqi T72s were significantly downgraded export models, not anywhere near current T72BUs, and were not using Tungsten APFSDS, let alone depleted uranium APFSDS.

Yes, the Abrams and most other modern NATO tanks have an incredible fire-control system that allows them to shoot on the move. Such systems are not nearly the force-multiplier when you're in dense terrain with <1km lines of sight.

Most Russian T-72s are not upgraded to any standard – they're standard 1980s variants. Upgrades as they stand have been applied almost ad hoc. T-90s were also built to varying standards.

Meanwhile USA has had 20 years of tank development incorporated into the Abrams.

Then there's the issue of command and control – Russian armour has never been operated well. Force on Force CWGH has retrictions on Soviet armour and these restrictions would still be in place as there's been no development in C3 on Russian side or fundamental military cultural, recruitment and tactical changes.

The other irreconcilable problem is that of infantry quality. The Russian infantry has constantly proven to be ineffective by modern standards.

And unlike 1941-45 or 1980s, you can't assume numerical superiority as the Russians no longer have such a large army nor are capable of fielding one.

I'm not interested in gaming Ukranianians/Moldovans versus Russians but it's a good idea.

As stated I think I'll stick to WWII for anything Russian/Soviet.

Shame as I was really looking forward to painting up some of those nice Elheim and War Time Miniatures troops for both sides.

Weasel, I am merely pointing out factual failings of the CIC, which have lead to the current debacle in Iraq, and Afghanistan, amongst other locations.

Those do extend down even to the platoon level, when overly restrictive rules of engagement, and lack of support, get troops killed, every day.

As we've seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other areas, the lack of FACs, ground troops, armor, helos, and CAS, not to mention the overly strict rules of engagement, all lead to less effectiveness on the battlefield, from minor skirmishes to strategic battles.

As we've seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other areas, the lack of FACs, ground troops, armor, helos, and CAS, not to mention the overly strict rules of engagement, all lead to less effectiveness on the battlefield, from minor skirmishes to strategic battles.

Doesn't reducing American efficiency then require a similar or even more drastic reduction in Russian efficiency?

After all their logistics and command and control systems barely worked in Georgia and Chechnya. And they seemed to be suffering a lot of casualties in Ukraine too, despite hypothetical superiority.

As stated the basics favour the Americans far more.

Crippling Americans to make it work doesn't make sense. I'm not a big fan of unrealistic or ahistorical tinkering. It's like crippling Allies or Soviets for 1945 wargaming to buff Volksturm.

And they seemed to be suffering a lot of casualties in Ukraine too, despite hypothetical superiority.

Can't be – Putin says they are not there.

I'd still game it though. On either side. It's a game.

If all weapons perform as on paper perhaps your analysis of the tech and logistics is correct.Of course that assumes that the Russkies can't do nothing to interfere?Your assessment is rather like the blue sky thinking of those Pentagon studies in the sixties which predicted the Vietcong would be defeated in months etc.
However apart from the US which Nato country has any real offensive capability or even the will to use its Military?
Are you suggesting that the Poles,Romanians and Hungarians are 'superior' in training to the Russians?Nato's weakness is surely that it would be made up of multi nationalities with very different abilities and objectives and has a command structure which has never been tested in battle against decent opposition.
It's not all about technology, it all comes down to the Grunts on the ground, would either side accept high causalities or even the risk?

OK it's platoon/company level yes?

Scenario

Putin decides that the anti war movements in the west will stop NATO reacting effectively and sends in the troops. While he,s wrong political issues cause a slow reaction and the Russians and separatists manage to take several towns including a major transportation hub which they reinforce with their best troops and equipment. NATO must retake the city to move deeper into the captured territory so most of the slowly arriving troops are fed into an urban battle the Battalion your company is part of is assigned flank security in the country side outside the city. The reason your battalion was given this job is because you were airlifted in from the states and are waiting for your heavy equipment to arrive. So when you patrol its in HMMV's not Strykers or Bradly's. When the Soviets launch a probing attack the Air Power and Artillery that's supposed to pound them to snail snot is fully engaged in the real battle and can't be spared for your side show. Your platoon is being attacked by a company of tanks? OK we will send you armour support ASAP. Errr it may be a while. Suddenly the fact that the Russians are deploying 1980's tanks doesn't seem such a major advantage does it? Oh and when the armour support does arrive it might be a pair of recently repaired Abrams with scratch crews or maybe a troop of M-60's from the NATO unit on your flank. Hows your Turkish?

Do you really think that the fact that the F-22's have a kill to loss ratio of 20 to 1 and that the Abrams have reduced the Russian armour in the city to smoking scrap is going to mean Jack to the grunt in your platoon who knows your company is covering a battalion sized front and wont be getting any real support because it's all been sent were the "Real" action is?

Just my two pence worth.

Fatman

Of course that assumes that the Russkies can't do nothing to interfere?

Not much unless they start physically attacking NATO countries.

ROE for scenarios was no offensive action against home bases so as to keep war limited to Ukraine.

From a gaming perspective this was done to try to level out Russian AF weaknesses. Allow Russia-NATO attacks and Russian air bases are being gutted by US strike assets. It was also an explanation as to try to neutralise NATO fighter responsiveness.

Instead Russian jets would be trying to do the same thing Chinese did in North Korea when the US was not allowed to engage north of the Yalu river.

And then they're still being swatted like flies by F-22s, F-15s or F-16s and PAC Patriots guided by modern AWACS and supported by modern EW aircraft.

The Russian EW force is either non-existent or obsolete. There is no stealth force. There's nothing equivalent to an EA-18G, let alone an F-22 or B-2.

However apart from the US which Nato country has any real offensive capability or even the will to use its Military?

Actually in my scenario I had US, France (a couple of brigades), Britain (a brigade) and for my brother a small German contingent caught as peacekeepers (basically the joint Franco-German brigade reinforced with heavy weapons).

I assumed a US reserve force in Eastern Europe as well as Asia Pacific. I'd even doled out the F-22s (basically 2 squadrons of 1st FW assigned to air superiority over Ukraine with the sole combat squadron of 325th assigned to NATO protection. Other 3 squadrons stay in PACAF).

The Russians on the other hand still had to maintain a reserve in Europe and one in Asia. They cannot commit even a fraction of the troops the US can.

I actually assumed Russians would be committing their better equipped units and not the garrison troop dregs that make up most Russian army units.

And the qualitative and quantitative aspects still favour America.

Are you suggesting that the Poles,Romanians and Hungarians are 'superior' in training to the Russians?

The Poles would be but in my scenario I assumed their forces would be assigned to homeland defence lest a Russian offensive.

Romanians and Hungarians also assigned to homeland defence.

Nato's weakness is surely that it would be made up of multi nationalities with very different abilities and objectives and has a command structure which has never been tested in battle against decent opposition.

Even that is massive level overkill against Russians who field smaller forces

Some other NATO states (Canada, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, more Germans and US) would bolster NATO border but again not all. I had excluded countries like Turkey, Greece, Spain and Portugal on basis on unreliable

Nato's weakness is surely that it would be made up of multi nationalities with very different abilities and objectives and has a command structure which has never been tested in battle against decent opposition.

As stated I actually excluded a lot of countries from committing troops – again to help the Russians in terms of numerical sides.

Also the British and Americans have extensive history of joint operations as do the French and Germans.

And it's all still far more robust than anything the Russians have. The Russians can mobilise quickly but lack the logistics or command structure for this kind of information.

It's not all about technology, it all comes down to the Grunts on the ground, would either side accept high causalities or even the risk?

That affects both sides.

In the end unless you stack odds to Russians at strategic and tactical level at fantastic levels, it's a turkey shoot in American/NATO forces favour at platoon/company level.

I'd still game it though. On either side. It's a game.

I hate gaming turkey shoots, be they a result of historical factors, player experience or unbalanced rules. I've won my last few games of FoW and they were turkey shoots despite balanced points lists etc. I hated those games.

A close game is a good game.

Fatman,

Thanks for the suggestion. However this is exactly what I've been talking about.

In your suggestion, we wipe out virtually every single American tactical doctrine and every single advantage out.

It assumes Americans learned nothing from Somalia, pretend Iraq 1991 or 2003 didn't happen or that in fact the Americans have no ability to assess threats and respond accordingly.

And at the same time it assumes Russians operating at peak efficiency.

I was wanting to game WWIII with modern American and German armour and with modern Russian armour. I wanted to do the equivalent of Fulda Gap in 2015-16.

But as I keep stating, it doesn't work unless we wish most of the American military superiority away.

I hate gaming turkey shoots, be they a result of historical factors, player experience or unbalanced rules.

Well that's more to do with the quality of the scenario. Any game can be a turkey shoot if poorly planned.

OK I am beginning to struggle with the point of this topic. Lets be honest at the current state of affairs ANYBODY who goes head to head with the US and lets them set up and fight the war on their terms is dead. Ask Iraq. Twice. That's why the enemy goes out of it's way to play the game under different rules on their choice of ground.

So as I said what is your point? I thought you were asking for a, not too far fetched, option to level the playing field. If not that, what?

Fatman

Given the table scale of Force on Force, I would have thought it was fairly easy to make it work. FoF is very much a 'localised conflict area', not really massed battles. There is one scenario that was written for a large (in FoF terms) battle, but even that is only based on two 3x2 tables (in 15mm).

I have one on the table at the moment, straight out the book. It's a 2' square, with 8 vehicles (Bradleys, BMP, a T-72 and a BRDM-2). Haven't tried it yet, but I could easily update and swap out the units for a more up to date approach.

As Fatman says, if I allow the full brunt of what 'could' be available then it's a bit of a turkey shoot, but sometimes not all assets are focused on one point – even the US military found that their superior technology, skill, training and discipline struggled in Mogadishu… (and the Fog of War cards can nicely cover that by pulling away a vital asset!)

It's just a matter of being a bit clever with your scenario writing.