"So called Modern scenario 1965 v 1995" Topic

The so called definition of Moderns, 1950 to 2000, evokes laughter as regarding setting up a balanced game between a force, say of 1965, v a force of 1995. The technological differences are too much for the 1995 force, land, air or naval.A simple scenario to prove that 5000 points of 1965 ships would be easily defeated by say 500 ooints of 1995 ships. SSM v naval artillery.

Subdivide Moderns into more reasonable tme frames

Only a problem with tournament win at all costs types. Ant gamer with half a brain will pick forces from the same period. Anyone who doesn't isn't someone I would want to game with.

Why would you play a game with 1960s armed and equipped ships vs. 1990s ships? The solution is simple.

"Why would you play a game with 1960s armed and equipped ships vs. 1990s ships? "

You mean like roughly the Falklands?

I would add, not a very good naval game.

Same same on the ground war front with Gulf War I and II.

The time frames are grouped because gamers who game the 1960s might also game the 1990s and don't want to have to go to multiple boards. A good discussion for one might be valuable to another.

By the way, how would you divide it up? A scenario set in any year you pick will have kit from the prior 20 years?

+1 to Extra Crispy and some of the others. My T-55s have 60 years, and several nationalities, of potential and it's easier to ask about them in one place.

Those of us who game the Cold War know there is a world of difference between war fighting in 1955 and 1985.

Although at some levels, there isn't. I read one account of the assault on Wireless Ridge which could easily have been describing Verdun. Not much has changes for the boots on the ground in 100 years.

Late 1970's and early 80's bayonet training was disappearing until the Falklands and then came back with renewed vigor.

While it might not be balanced.

Technology 'penetration' is very uneven and often technology does not translate into improved capability.

I'd say that Desert Storm was an example of "1965" forces fighting 1991 forces. To add insult to injury, there were also great training and morale advantages for the "modern" forces. I suspect that had the morale and training aspects been reversed, the 1965 forces would have done better.

I'd bet that a 1965 USN task force built around 2 or 3 carrier battle group could defeat the air-forces of all but the top fifteen nations on earth today.

Similarly I believe a US Special Forces team, Ranger Battalion or Marine Battalion Landing Team from 1965 would likely be able to defeat equivalent "modern" formations from many (non top tier nations) today.

Even WW II kit was used in the gulf war. Some good, the Bren Gun and some not so, old Shermans. While our rules cover WW II to modern we do not recommend it Generaly for mixed age groups. In fact we now suggest a re-datum if playing only WW II. Points systems and unrealistic cross age group games to me are just fantasy and hence of no personal interest.

If the division regarding moderns is that tech had advanced, the same could be said of ww2 gaming. A Pz II is hardly a match for an IS-2. Why ww2 gaming?

If 500 points can beat 5000 points, you have an issue with either force creation or points cost for the units you are creating. 500 points doesnt mean anything with a strawman rule system. What ruleset are you talking about?

Similarly I believe a US Special Forces team, Ranger Battalion or Marine Battalion Landing Team from 1965 would likely be able to defeat equivalent "modern" formations from many (non top tier nations) today.

I would go with that scenario was well. Many "less than 1st World' countries, groups etc., would not fare very well at all, IMO.

As Apache noted Desert Storm was a good example of sorts. And good training, morale, etc., are critical factors. And not only do the weapons used don't always assure "victory". A weapon is only as good as the troop/crew behind it. That is an "X-Factor" …

Good training and morale are important, no doubt, but no-one is covering 'experience' – troops that have seen the elephant and know what to do when there's incoming. Training can only take you so far.

The other aspect not touched upon is situational awareness and battlespace intelligence, (different nations call it different things) – so the force multipliers are not so much improved weaponry – but drones, personal comms equipment, laser designators, NVG and so on.

I have always stated repeatedly training and experience are critical factors in a unit's efficiency and effectiveness in conflicts as in this topic's paradigm.

situational awareness and battlespace intelligence

Again I'd think that would/could or should be a given. Based on the scenario originally posted. Again in all cases I'd think that'd be taken into account. E.g. :

The so called definition of Moderns, 1950 to 2000, evokes laughter as regarding setting up a balanced game between a force, say of 1965, v a force of 1995. The technological differences are too much for the 1995 force, land, air or naval.

As noted, and obviously, many hi-tech devices used today were not around or as effective in the time frame mentioned here. E.g., the NVGs we had in '79-'90, are a older tech than today's versions. Again … obviously …

Again, I always state, training and experience in many/most situations are important if not critical to "winning".

Technical advantages could/should be as important as tactical. But again, it comes down to a weapon is only as "good" as trooper/crew behind it. "Good" includes training & experience, at the very least.

Khusrau: I agree with you that experience can be vital.

However; while we were preparing for Desert Strom we expected the Iraqis to be much better then they turned out to be, since they were assessed as being led by battle hardened commanders due to the then relatively recent Iran-Iraq war. We were prepared to fight combat hardened forces, with the Republican Guard expected to be as determined as the SS. It is of course preferable to be over prepared then the reverse.

To some extent experience can be irrelevant or maybe even counter productive. I did three tours in Iraq and one combat tour and one lessons learned collection effort in Afghanistan. The difference between operations during the march to Baghdad in 2003, the reduction of Falluja in 2004 and the COIN fight with the Iraqi Army starting to take the lead in 2005/6 were significant.

When shifting to Afghanistan, The USMC recognized that we had to retrain Marines who had been involved in combat in Iraq before we sent them to Afghanistan. Tactics that had been working very well against the Iraqis, were less effective against the Taliban, who were more willing to fight and effective in the use of small arms and ambushes. In turn the Taliban fairly quickly stopped initiating direct fire ambushes/engagements, and started to rely mostly (almost exclusively?) on IEDs to counter Marine, UK and Afgan National Army movements.

As regards the original discussion, the majority of weapons and equipment used by Iraqi insurgents and the Taliban were 1960/70s era Soviet weapons and equipment. Most of the IEDs were nothing the VC and NVA good not have used in Vietnam. We recovered some night vision equipment, and satellite phones, but mostly their equipment was of 1960s-1980s vintage.

Khusrau: The other aspect not touched upon is situational awareness and battlespace intelligence, (different nations call it different things) – so the force multipliers are not so much improved weaponry – but drones, personal comms equipment, laser designators, NVG and so on.

You are spot on that's the big improvements between 1965 for US and others. The basic weapons of a USMC rifle company have not fundamentally changed since 1965. Hoever; the capabilities of the unit have. As an example, the night fighting capabily of a modern USMC company is likely an order of magnitude better then a 1965 unit, with every Marine having NVGs and laser sights, small unit leaders having thermal sights, GPS, and laser designators and units being trained to a very high standard.

I've trained with several nations in 'recent' times, who's capabilities would be more akin to the 1965 unit, or worse. Some nations militaries, even today, have problems with maintaining accountability of weapons and ammunition, require officer level leadership to conduct even the most basic operations and are either not equipped with or cannot keep radios, trucks or weapons operational. Some nations cannot afford batteries, training ammo or fuel, and sometimes it is 'diverted.')

In the 'new Iraqi Army' it was a 'status symbol' to have a computer on your desk, but the officers did not do any real work (yes, I hear all the retired SNCOs on here joking and snickering. :)) Submitting tactical reports, ordering supplies, and tracking pay was seriously impeded by this 'social/cultural issue."

I am asked what rules cover so called Moderns and there are at least two miniatures and one boardgame. GDW produced a miniatures set covering 1950 to 1990 or 2000, and there is the use of Command Decision for moderns and the Chadwick design of his Battlefield Europe boardgame.
The scenarios presented by these rules are balanced because they have forces at the same hitorical years, such as 1950 Korea, yet, the 1992 Persian Gulf conflict is not well done cosidering all the circumstances.
Yet, it would be possible, paradoxically, to produce lopsided unbalanced scenarios using any of these sets, even though one side was given far more forces.
Yet the rules allow for this. Indeed arguments are made for all inclusive rules based on examples of the Zulus, the N American Indians. Yet we do have rules for discreet eras, Pz2 did fight JS2 in 1945. The counter argument is of T54 of class C units vs Abrams in 1986, a 1950s AFV vs a 1980s AFV. If we want to strech this, we could have a balanced game of WW1 AFV vs 1990s AFV, Really??

"Again, I always state, training and experience in many/most situations are important if not critical to "winning".

Technical advantages could/should be as important as tactical. But again, it comes down to a weapon is only as "good" as trooper/crew behind it. "Good" includes training & experience, at the very least."

Absolutely, a casing point is in the application of fire. An untrained/undisciplined mob/unit will not put down as effective fire as a well trained infantry section. This from training soldiers.

Tally Ho!

Well I can't agree more Nick !

Getting back to what I believe is the original intent of this topic, I believe that the term 'Modern' emerged in the Miniature Wargaming community during the formation of it as a recognizable hobby in the 1960's. I first experienced the term when I became interested in the hobby in the mid-1970's. At the time it refered to the post WW II conflicts and hypothetical what ifs of the Cold War era. I am happy with that broad definition, just as late 18th Century, covers a lot of ground as well. However 'Modern' is a relative term. It can be argued that at one point in time the evolution of battlefield tactics involving the independent maneuvering of Divisions and Corps during the Napoleonic period was considered 'Modern' as opposed to the strictly linear tactics that preceded it.

I would argue that it is the emergence of more asymmetric forms of warfare such as space, cyber, and information operations that represent a new form of 21st Century Warfare that is significantly different from the 1965-1990 forms of warfare that more closely resemble the 'conventional' WW II era. This then would represent the current 'Modern' era.

Yes, "modern" could be taken a number of ways, IMO also.

After WWII to the end of the 20th Century. Which encompasses any number of conflicts with ever evolving tech. Which in turn required tactical and even strategic innovations, "rewriting", updating, etc., on how things, etc., are done. To put it in simple terms I'd think(?).

Another way to put it somewhat is the "chicken & the egg" paradigm. Which starts the evolution ? Tech or tactics … I'm thinking in some cases it is almost "synergistic".

Possibly … Current could be anything from the beginning of the 21st Century on.

Even those could be further divided into Conventional and COIN.

And you can see the "old" & "new" coming together in a number of conflicts … E.g.: 1974 Invasion of Cyprus, with Cypriot T-34/85s vs. Turk M-48s.

And the broadest example, IMO. The T-54/55 or T-62 being still seen all over in many places on the planet. Especially in some less developed regions, e.g. Africa, the Mid East, etc. But as we see those are more and more being replaced by "better" MBTs as well.

Just because a set of rules covers a wide span doesn't mean any 2 armies covered should be pitted against each other. Who fights a 1940 army against a 1945 opposition?

I am a bit of a "fan" of this sort of thing. And examines some very interesting "What-if" for me.

A few years back a TV series on, IIRC the Spike network ? Had game designers, subject matter experts, veterans, IT gurus, etc., run computer simulations of two, about Squad/Fire Tm sized "groups" with period weapons etc., going "toe 2 toe" in a skirmish of sorts.

Some that I remember and found interesting from a historical, etc., aspect, were :

WWII German SS vs. the VC

IRA vs. Jihadists

US RANGERS vs North Korean Commandos

Lawrence & his Arab Guerillas vs. Teddy R & his Rough Riders.

Jesse James' gang vs. Al Capone's

Even Vamps vs. Zombies(!)

They put all the data, etc., in the computer, ran @ 1000 "battles" and see who "won".

From what I remember of those match ups, the "winners" were :
SS, IRA, RANGERS[of course !], Lawrence, Jesse and the Vamps.

*Disclaimer :
[I found out the hard way, about when mentioning something like this in passing on a TMP thread a few weeks back. I see these types of "match ups" from a strictly military history, weapons used, training, etc., standpoint, etc.

And not bringing anything about the "morality", good or evil, etc., of the forces involved. Like in any wargame, from, e.g. AH, SPI, GDW, Conflict, GHQ, any number of mini game companies etc., etc. It appears that mentioning this sort of thing on a site which primarily deals with wargames seemed to "upset" some on TMP. Who knew ?!? ]

As noted, and obviously, many hi-tech devices used today were not around or as effective in the time frame mentioned here. E.g., the NVGs we had in '79-'90, are a older tech than today's versions. Again … obviously …

But there's a much bigger difference between not having NVGs at all and only having the old Starlight scopes instead of modern PVS14s

Of course … a situation better to have than not. But again, PVS14s are magnitudes better than anything we had. I've never use any PVS14s. But have seen some things in the various medias. They are pretty darn good !

However, e.g. we were trained to call in illum rounds/parachute flares, etc. to "highlight" AFVs. For out M47 Dragons to engage in darkness. Before we got the night sights for them. I remember the Bde Cdr saying, "We'll have to do it the "old way", until then."

The VC generally had no NVDs until they captured some from the ARVN, etc. But still were effective.

And as I said, on another thread, A Mauser 98K 8mm round will kill you just as dead an AK-47's 7.62x39. So there are a number of "X-Factors" involved as always …

Like in the examples I mentioned in my post above. How did Jesse James' Gang best Capone's, in the simulations ? It basically came down to a simple reality, generally. A Winchester had a longer range and more is accurate than a Thompson SMG.