SBminisguy | 31 Aug 2021 1:15 p.m. PST |
I don't play a lot of modern, but when I do I prefer OPFOR from Hoplite, which is modern supplement for the operational level Panzer Korps game. Those rule rate Division and Army Group leaders on a rating from "H" Unreliable to A "Legendary." This determines their command/action points, command radius, die roll mods and so on. After seeing the confused scramble by senior US military leaders to avoid blame and focus on their careers above success or accountability, in a wargame it seems to me that senior US leaders all need to be downgraded to E "Career" or F "Despicable" (willing to make risky or stupid moves to avoid blame), or possibly worse. This puts US senior military leaders on par with those of 1939 France. Comments? |
smithsco | 31 Aug 2021 2:03 p.m. PST |
Seems about right. Father of a good friend is soon to receive his first star. He'd fall into that. Seems to be who is promoted nowadays. |
14th NJ Vol | 31 Aug 2021 2:14 p.m. PST |
F – political generals are terrible. Politicians promote allies based on their political leaning, talent has little to do with it. |
Waco Joe | 31 Aug 2021 2:19 p.m. PST |
BUt on the other hand there is a need for a new range of minis, Insurgents using US equipment |
Tortorella | 31 Aug 2021 2:22 p.m. PST |
I am not sure I could ever game this conflict. After Bin Laden was killed, it was hard to understand the objectives. |
Fitzovich | 31 Aug 2021 2:26 p.m. PST |
Rout? That's a stretch………as to what it means for wargames? Why would it mean anything at all. |
arealdeadone | 31 Aug 2021 2:30 p.m. PST |
Yes why would it mean anything for wargsming. I sold my 20mm Afghan War stuff a few years ago due to lack of opponents. |
shadoe01 | 31 Aug 2021 2:31 p.m. PST |
It should probably be a random roll with 'green' being the best and 'despicable' the worst. If you think about it, success as a flag officer in 'peacetime' is someone who can maintain the armed forces at least a level where they can mobilize in times of national crisis. So, skills include training, political astuteness, etc. (By 'peacetime' I mean when there's no existential threat to the nation and hence less of an imperative to maintain a military at high levels.) The problem is that those skills aren't necessarily the skills needed for (1) major combat or (2) 'small wars'. Supposedly those get sorted out in the first bit of a war – i.e., 'natural selection' to identify good wartime flag officers. When it comes to major combat, we have doctrine to rely on. The purpose of doctrine isn't to create great flag officers but to ensure a minimum level of competence. The big problem is 'small wars'. Most doctrine that's useful is tactical. There's not much on how you put it all together to be in a successful campaign. It's sort of like getting the skills of how to put paint on a canvas but only experience will make you an artist – i.e., the tactical doctrine is necessary but the rest is an 'art' that has to be learned in each campaign. However we have two factors that prevent a selection of 'small wars' winning flag officers – (1) the nation isn't facing an existential threat so there's no real incentive to remove poor performing generals plus there's still a need to preserve the military capability to fight big wars; and (2) rotation, which means commanders are only in theatre 6, 12, 18 or 24 months, which is hardly long enough to understand the complexity of the situation and learn the 'art' of combining the tactical bits into a coherent 'small war' winning campaign. Plus the operations tend to go on a lot longer than any commander's tour so if a potentially good commander he's not there long enough for a real benefit and if a bad commander – no worries he'll be sent back soon enough. To sum it up – yes, some despicable or career commanders but some with potential but inexperienced and only rarely someone who by some accident of fate really knows what to do. |
Gear Pilot | 31 Aug 2021 2:36 p.m. PST |
Agree with Fitzovich. I don't see how the US was "routed". We weren't militarily defeated. We lost interest and left, just like Vietnam. For translation to a wargame, how about setting the victory conditions so that if the US doesn't win a decisive/overwhelming victory in X turns, it takes it's toys an goes home. |
shadoe01 | 31 Aug 2021 2:37 p.m. PST |
Yes why would it mean anything for wargaming Unless you're gaming the withdrawal, nothing at all. I thought the OP just meant that there's a sudden realization that US senior commanders aren't as capable as people thought. I've seen a few things floating around internet ranking top commanders in history and occasionally I see Norman Schwarzkopf on such a list. Hmmmm….competent, but on a 'best of all time' list???? You can tell whoever made up the list didn't have much knowledge of military history and had a recency bias. |
14Bore | 31 Aug 2021 2:39 p.m. PST |
Surrender of base and equipment Well your US Force figures can be used on either side if doing a future what if scenario |
leidang | 31 Aug 2021 2:41 p.m. PST |
We are going to need models for Jingal Blackhawks |
SBminisguy | 31 Aug 2021 2:49 p.m. PST |
Unless you're gaming the withdrawal, nothing at all. I thought the OP just meant that there's a sudden realization that US senior commanders aren't as capable as people thought. Yep, that's my thought. We have this impression in our operational level wargames that is based upon US leadership performance during times of large wars -- WW2, Korea, etc. This carries over into leader "values" or rankings in games like OPFOR, because we focus on the later war military leaders who were successful as opposed to early war military leaders who were long-term careerists and political operators. Our wargames assume US leaders will be like Patton and Bradley, not like Fredendall and Rupertus… |
Gorgrat | 31 Aug 2021 3:14 p.m. PST |
Except that it wasn't a rout, which generally means an overwhelming and unexpected defeat. What it was, was a complete political shambles. Not quite the same thing. The Anwricans didn't advance like the British at Isandhlwana, joking about being home in time for tea while in fact ending up as ornaments on a spear, they just left because Uncle Joe told them to do so, and, like right now. Definitely not a rout. A national disgrace, yes, but not a rout. |
Editor in Chief Bill | 31 Aug 2021 4:22 p.m. PST |
What does it mean for wargames? Probably makes the subject distasteful, so a general decline in wargaming any of the Afghan War. |
SBminisguy | 31 Aug 2021 4:27 p.m. PST |
Except that it wasn't a rout, which generally means an overwhelming and unexpected defeat.What it was, was a complete political shambles. Not quite the same thing. Hmmm…a forced and chaotic retreat in which tens of billions of dollars of military hardware was left behind intact, along with entire databases of intel, thousands of enemy combatants liberated by the Taliban, mass chaos and suicide attacks causing the worst US single-day casualties in 10 years, people clinging to planes and falling to their deaths in the panic, at least 10% of US civilians left behind, the Afghan US puppet president fled the country with a hefty cashout while most of the Afghan military simply deserted to save themselves while senior US leaders blink into the cameras trying to spin it as an amazing job well done. Sorry, it was a self-inflicted rout caused by Senior leadership who panicked, and the panic rolled downhill into a rout. |
Herkybird | 31 Aug 2021 5:44 p.m. PST |
I agree 'Rout' is an inappropriate term for the withdrawal operation, the term to me gives entirely the wrong idea as to what happened. Sorry! |
Gorgrat | 31 Aug 2021 5:52 p.m. PST |
No such thing as a self inflicted rout. They did what the in command said to do. Precisely what do you think would have happened to the Taliban if Milley had called his field commanders and said, "Whoops! Sorry dudes and dudettes. My bad. I must've been snorting some white rage. I meant to say, charge." |
pzivh43 | 31 Aug 2021 6:09 p.m. PST |
To me, not much diff. I don't think we (US and Allies) ever lost on the battlefield in Afghanistan. So, at the level I play, it's about small unit movement and fire, not political maneuvers. |
79thPA | 31 Aug 2021 8:52 p.m. PST |
I don't think it has anything to do with gaming. |
David Manley | 31 Aug 2021 10:37 p.m. PST |
Are we allowed to say "Lions led by donkeys" yet? |
Martin Rapier | 31 Aug 2021 11:58 p.m. PST |
Afghanistan was a low level counter insurgency operation, and military actions were generally resolved at the platoon/company level. I can't see how the command ratings of division or Corps commanders has the slightest applicability to the outcome of those. The closest relevance to an actual Corps level military operation would be the initial invasion of Iraq, which went swimmingly well and I'm not aware of any huge failings among division or Corps commanders so rating them as 'E' seems a bit harsh. The post invasion COIN stuff is hard though. Bombing people to get them to like you has always been a hard strategy to pull off, and not really a military problem. |
Prince Rupert of the Rhine | 01 Sep 2021 2:11 a.m. PST |
Won't make any difference to my gaming generally I don't like to game anything that still has living participants though I have dabbled in WW2. |
Cardinal Ximenez | 01 Sep 2021 3:50 a.m. PST |
No impact on gaming here. Good friend of the family, USMA graduate, worked some of the most dangerous missions in some of the worst parts of the world. Has been home maybe twice 25 years. Somehow learned for whatever reason there will be no first star. Voluntary retirement seems likely. The actual warfighters are being purged by default. It's a little concerning. I have a good friend who was an attack sub commander. Retired in the 90s due to pretty much the same environment. |
SBminisguy | 01 Sep 2021 7:32 a.m. PST |
The closest relevance to an actual Corps level military operation would be the initial invasion of Iraq, which went swimmingly well and I'm not aware of any huge failings among division or Corps commanders so rating them as 'E' seems a bit harsh. That was 20 years ago, and since then it feels like climbing the ranks has become even more political than ever. |
Jcfrog | 01 Sep 2021 10:16 a.m. PST |
It become "historical games" instead of contemporary. All what-if to compensate any frustrations are allowable. You can play ISAf troops and have them fight not see Americans etc. It is just as historical than German successful offensives in 1944… A game, with good material and hopefully realistic rules, to avoid fantasy. And less unease of playing something where in real time good guys are maimed and killed. Yes the pisstime "soldiers" will take over the warriors…till next time needed. |
SBminisguy | 01 Sep 2021 1:55 p.m. PST |
A game, with good material and hopefully realistic rules, to avoid fantasy. And less unease of playing something where in real time good guys are maimed and killed. It's interesting to me to play "what if" scenarios -- what if India and Pakistan tangled. What is China invades Taiwan, etc. So the events in Afghanistan are making me rethink the quality assumptions of leadership represented in game. |
etotheipi | 01 Sep 2021 2:50 p.m. PST |
Internal Afgan civil war scenarios writing themselves every week until I die? … long after, actually. |
Prince Alberts Revenge | 02 Sep 2021 4:21 a.m. PST |
I am not sure I could ever game this conflict. After Bin Laden was killed, it was hard to understand the objectives. Internal Afgan civil war scenarios writing themselves every week until I die? … long after, actually. I admit that I have Afghanistan-inspired 15mm forces but they are more vaguely modelled on two warlord factions: a generic warlord and a religious warlord. Figures in Afghan dress with mostly soviet kit loosely based on the Northern Alliance and the Taliban. I use AK-47 Republic rules by Peter Pig. |
shadoe01 | 02 Sep 2021 8:06 a.m. PST |
After Bin Laden was killed, it was hard to understand the objectives. Exactly, that is the key to why this operation and others like it are difficult / nearly impossible. To quote from an email conversation with a retired colleague: "The objectives were never clear and always changing – with every administration, with every change of commander from 1 star up, and with every critical comment in a newspaper. Unfortunately, I have no clue how to keep that from happening in the future. Large strategic events have too many stakeholders to corral into a rational objectives structure." I totally agree with that. |
SBminisguy | 02 Sep 2021 8:38 a.m. PST |
Oh, we will probably be able to recycle terrain and figures, but will need to find a source of modern PLA miniatures. |
SBminisguy | 02 Sep 2021 10:16 a.m. PST |
Much of Afghanistan doesn't like or trust the Taliban, who were toppled in just a few weeks in 2001-2002 when various factions united against them. Now China has designated the Taliban as their local proxy partner, and after some "cooling off" period where the factions are waiting for the dust to clear, I would expect things to slowly start heating up again -- and this time with Chinese troops + Taliban locals in action. Taliban Announces China Will Be Their Main Partner link |
javelin98 | 03 Sep 2021 4:38 p.m. PST |
I lost friends in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I just don't think I could wargame either of them. |
Thresher01 | 04 Sep 2021 4:33 a.m. PST |
Weak, but fanatical organizations can beat a much better armed and more powerful opponent, regularly, especially when the latter is poorly lead, or not adequately committed to the fight. The Real Life, Global, "Risk" Game dice odds need to be adjusted accordingly. |
Thresher01 | 04 Sep 2021 4:40 a.m. PST |
Yes, not a rout of the US troops, since most were voluntarily withdrawn. Certainly, a rout of the Afghani Army in the last few weeks, and I'm not even sure that is an adequate description. Implosion comes to mind as a more apt one. |
Tgunner | 20 Sep 2021 11:37 a.m. PST |
"Oh, we will probably be able to recycle terrain and figures, but will need to find a source of modern PLA miniatures." Good luck with that in 15mm. QRF had them and Rebel Mike had infantry, but now nothing. It's why I'm moving over to GHQ and 6mm. They have a pretty solid selection of Communist Chinese kit and their infantry does look pretty good.
|
Wolfhag | 20 Sep 2021 6:29 p.m. PST |
I think it would make a good COIN board game. For miniatures a tactical room clearing game should be interesting with 28mm figures and building layouts. However, you'd need a game system that could give split second combat results, like a Wild West shootout. My son and his buddies are working on a game like that using his experience and the tactics they were taught. Wolfhag |
Wolfhag | 20 Sep 2021 6:48 p.m. PST |
"The objectives were never clear and always changing – with every administration, with every change of commander from 1 star up, and with every critical comment in a newspaper. Unfortunately, I have no clue how to keep that from happening in the future. Large strategic events have too many stakeholders to corral into a rational objectives structure." That's because it's not PC to state who the real enemy is that we are up against. You don't declare war on a tactic like terrorism, blitzkrieg, double envelopment, etc. Bombing people to get them to like you has always been a hard strategy to pull off, and not really a military problem. It worked pretty well for Bomber Harris in Iraq post-WWI. The defeat of the Iraqi uprising was credited in part to the deployment of RAF bombers. The embryonic RAF – attempting to carve out a permanent role for itself and avoid being consumed by the other armed services – took on command of all future military operations in Iraq. When troubled flared again, villages held by rebellious tribes were attacked from the air. link Wing-Commander Arthur Harris (later Bomber Harris, head of wartime Bomber Command) was happy to emphasise that "The Arab and Kurd now know what real bombing means in casualties and damage. Within forty-five minutes a full-size village can be practically wiped out and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured." It was an easy matter to bomb and machine-gun the tribespeople because theyhad no means of defence or retalitation. Iraq and Kurdistan were also useful laboratories for new weapons; devices specifically developed by the Air Ministry for use against tribal villages. The ministry drew up a list of possible weapons, some of them the forerunners of napalm and air-to-ground missiles: Phosphorus bombs, war rockets, metal crowsfeet [to maim livestock] man- killing shrapnel, liquid fire, delay-action bombs. Many of these weapons were first used in Kurdistan. A very good friend of mine is an Iraqi Christian that was an interpreter for the US (made it to the states). He told me that Afghanistan is tribal like in the 700's and they do not really recognize a central western style government. Their alliance is to their tribe, not a bunch of corrupt administrators from a different tribe hundreds of miles away.
The Taliban make up about 35% of the population so you can't ignore them and they exert their influence far beyond that. He said they are the bad boy on the block and when they came to Bagram air base and other locations the Afghan military was told by their elders to lay down their arms, resistance is futile, just like it has been for hundreds of years. That's why it fell so quickly. That's one opinion, I'm sure there are others. Wolfhag |