RE: What new scenarios would you like to see?

RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III

Message

ColinWright -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/6/2005 11:42:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright As Ben notes, you're mistaken about US industry prior to 1930. Ben's point is a red herring. What's important is potential, not actual output. quote: Okay, so it is selling oil to the US in peacetime. Then I fail to see the major impact on US ecomomic development. Indigenous oil is NOT necessary to economic development. Ask Japan. Maybe if I repeat this enough it'll stick. That's not what I'm saying. In a nutshell, without oil, I don't see the US as being the 300 pound gorilla that she was in World War II. She can't build this massive mechanized army and stomp all over the South- what's it going to run on? The US Navy bought most of the oil that Mexico historically exported to the US. What are its ships going to run on? Without widespread civilian autmobile ownership, what factories will churn out aircraft and tanks as was done historically? What the hell? Evidently now we ARE supposing the South somehow impedes peacetime oil supply. Else we've GOT the 'widespread civilian automobile ownership.' There are your factories. You keep trying to retroactively apply the wartime oil shortage to US pre-war development. We'll hit the war with just about the factories and industrial potential we had. Yes, there'll be a severe oil shortage -- but only after war breaks out and it'll be one that hopefully we've foreseen. The oil isn't going to win you the war. You've got to realize that. quote: That's what I'm driving at- the US military is going to be outmoded, and the Union is going to be reliant on long maritime supply lines. The first hopefully you can see is nonsense. It's going to be outmoded because a shortage that materializes in 1930 is going to cripple development in 1920? The second depends upon a US that completely fails to anticipate war with the CSA and doesn't plan accordingly. quote: As for Japan, she declared war on us because we placed an oil embargo on her, then promptly seized the Dutch East Indian oilfields for her use, and was ultimately crippled by attacks on her shipping. I think this proves my point quite nicely- not that I think that same fate would have befallen the North, but obviously this is a less than ideal situation to be in. quote: Sure. Now invent a North that lacks the technology to synthesize oil, has no domestic sources of supply at all, and is faced by a South with overwhelming sea power, and you're cooking with gas. Otherwise, you might as well compare us to Ethiopia faced by Italy -- your comparison is quite irrelevant. The better comparison would be with Nazi Germany from 1939 through 1943. Yep, that petrol shortage really knocked her out. She never figured Britain would cut off those overseas supplies...

ColinWright -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/6/2005 11:47:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright We should write the scenario with a blatantly pro-Southern briefing. Mad-dog Northern Amero-Nazis decide to crush Southern independence. Britain winds up being the 'arsenal of democracy.' Heroic Southern tankers equip themselves with Matilda II's -- latest product of British military technology. Part of your problem is that you react to any hypothetical I put forth on this subject as me wanting a "glorious CSA". All I've said is that I see a South which is still independent, partially industrialized, and had engaged in the typical spate of colonialism in the late Victorian era. I thought it was someone else's hypothetical. Anyway, have your CSA be a quasi-Nazi state that practices cannibalism if you want to.

Fidel_Helms -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/6/2005 11:56:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright What the hell? You keep repeating that you're not talking about peacetime oil supply. In that case, we've GOT the 'widespread civilian automobile ownership.' There are your factories. No. I kept repeating that I didn't think the Confederacy would decline to sell oil altogether during peacetime. What I did think it would do is sell at high prices to the Union, thus retarding the development of the US automobile culture. If gas is so high in the 1920 that cars are a luxury item, Union industrial output come a war in 1930 will be affected. You'll say that this oil could have been bought elsewhere, but it's got to get there from farther away, which makes it more expensive than it historically was. There's also the point that these alternate sources(Venezuela, the Middle East, the Dutch East Indies) were largely undeveloped at the time.

ColinWright -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/7/2005 12:07:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright What the hell? You keep repeating that you're not talking about peacetime oil supply. In that case, we've GOT the 'widespread civilian automobile ownership.' There are your factories. No. I kept repeating that I didn't think the Confederacy would decline to sell oil altogether during peacetime. What I did think it would do is sell at high prices to the Union, thus retarding the development of the US automobile culture. If gas is so high in the 1920 that cars are a luxury item, Union industrial output come a war in 1930 will be affected. You'll say that this oil could have been bought elsewhere, but it's got to get there from farther away, which makes it more expensive than it historically was. There's also the point that these alternate sources(Venezuela, the Middle East, the Dutch East Indies) were largely undeveloped at the time. Iran certainly wasn't underdeveloped. In any case, see the Volkswagen -- folks want cars, and the reason it costs so much in Europe is that governments tax the hell out of it, not that it comes from far away. Ford will make Model T's whether gas is $0.29 a gallon or $0.35 a gallon. Furthermore, the South is going to have to sell its oil at the market price. If it DOES manage to somehow restrict its sales to the US and only the US, all that will do is accelerate development of wells elsewhere. US oil geologists will be poking around in Saudi Arabia ten years earlier than they were. So the South can do nil to impede or affect US economic development before the outbreak of war. Barring incredible US stupidity, all it can do as far as the war itself goes is limit American options somewhat. Can we motorize the whole army? Good question -- what held Germany back was a shortage of vehicles, not a shortage of fuel. The oil's not going to be a logistical atom bomb, that should be clear. IF the war is prolonged, and IF the Confederacy can defend Texas, and IF she can prevent overseas supplies, and IF the US military's demands for fuel are so great that they outstrip domestic supply and reserves, then Southern possession of Texas oil could be a significant factor -- but still not in and of itself a war winner.

ColinWright -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/7/2005 12:19:17 AM)
I got to thinking about the timeline here. Let's suppose the South has won the American Civil War. Perhaps she forms an alliance of convenience with France -- supports Maximilian's regime in Mexico and gets French sanction of her designs on Cuba in exchange. Given her aristocratic romanticism and notions of ruling over a racially distinct underclass, the South quickly forms ties with the various white aristocracies around the Caribbean rim. Mexico's gone that way -- add Central America, Columbia, Venezuela. By the 1890's the South is more the mistress of the Caribbean than the Southern half of the former United States. This has progressively estranged such border states as Arkansas, Tennessee, and much of Virginia and North Carolina, which are not dominated by aristocracies, are not oriented towards the Caribbean, and are not benefitting economically from this new orientation or participating in the merging of South Carolinian and Columbian gentries. West Texas could go the same way. It's the teeming industrial masses of the Northeast that will eat her beef -- not planters in Cuba. Perhaps they secede and rejoin the Union politically. Perhaps there's our war. The Union meddling in Tennessee politics. In any case, we could wind up with a 'Confederacy' that consists primarily of loosely linked aristocratic republics around a Caribbean that functions in much the same way that the Meidterranean did for the Roman world. Perhaps war comes when all these states rally to the defense of a Venezuela faced with Yankee or British aggression.

Fidel_Helms -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/7/2005 12:26:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright In any case, see the Volkswagen -- folks want cars, and the reason it costs so much in Europe is that governments tax the hell out of it, not that it comes from far away. You can't seriously argue that transportation costs do not affect prices. If you're in Cleveland, it oil from the Dutch East Indies or Mexico(via California!) does indeed cost more than Texas oil. quote: The oil's not going to be a logistical atom bomb, that should be clear. IF the war is prolonged, and IF the Confederacy can defend Texas, and IF she can prevent overseas supplies, and IF the US military's demands for fuel are so great that they outstrip domestic supply and reserves, then Southern possession of Texas oil could be a significant factor -- but still not in and of itself a war winner. And I'm not saying that it is. What I think this example does is highlight ways in which the US is likely to be a more maritime, foreign oriented power which is more vulnerable than she was historically.

ColinWright -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/7/2005 12:45:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright In any case, see the Volkswagen -- folks want cars, and the reason it costs so much in Europe is that governments tax the hell out of it, not that it comes from far away. You can't seriously argue that transportation costs do not affect prices. If you're in Cleveland, it oil from the Dutch East Indies or Mexico(via California!) does indeed cost more than Texas oil. Sure, it affects prices -- but it's hardly the major determinant. See again the Volkswagen -- however much more gas cost in Hamburg than in Dallas, the difference wasn't enough to kill the desire for cars. Lately, gas has about doubled in price. Seen anyone reverting to horse and buggy? So go ahead -- figure that somehow the South manages to NOT sell oil to the North (how and why they would do this remains unclear). Have your gallon of gas it Cleveland costing $0.31 instead of $0.25. You won't change anything. I think that if you look up the cost of buying a car in 1925, look up the cost of fueling it, and work out how much the South could change that cost, you'll discover that the net impact on the total cost of auto ownership will be nil, nada, zippo.

ColinWright -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/7/2005 1:02:38 AM)
Anyway, on to the cause of our war. I don't see any revanchist upsurge in the North sixty five years after the defeat at Gettysburg as being especially likely - not as a sole cause, anyway. Naturally, a lingering desire to have a rematch would influence many, but... I'm starting to like West Texas as the spark in my Caribbean-oriented South concept. First off, I have the impression those cowboys were as often Yankees as Southerners -- certainly the trail was celebrated as a place where Yankee and Rebel mingled in amity and equality. Secondly, the economic ties are going to be with the North, not with the South. Every year, those drovers are going to go up to Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, talk to Yankee businessmen, meet nice girls from Iowa... They'll be Yankeefied. At any rate, tied to the South as much by the accident of being part of Texas as by any real ties of either interest or culture. Then comes oil. Gee, where DO the oilmen come from? The heart of all evil...Ohio. The Yankeefication of West Texas deepens. The situation becomes analogous to that obtaining in the Boer Republics before the Boer War. The ostensible, 'native' Texas government will be viewed with impatience and a creeping lack of loyalty by a population that is often Yankee or wouldn't especially object to becoming Yankee -- just as British gold miners in the Boer Republic had little patience for being ruled by a lot of Dutch farmers. So we've got a bomb on our hands. The Northern military of course realizes the value of the oil. Their pro-West Texan sentiments are nicely tinged with self-interest. At some point, trade war breaks out between the South and the North. This is fine with the rest of the South -- but doesn't sit at all well with the West Texans. Half of them are Yankees to begin with, they've no market for their cattle, and grant notwithstanding, most Texas oil is naturally going to flow to New York. Now it doesn't. In the North, gas prices do the same number they did during the oil embargo. Even worse, so do meat prices. They're starving our children (and what a great chance to get that oil). Insurrection breaks out in West Texas. The Southern government moves to suppress it. Northern newspapers start working overtime to crank out atrocity stories. Southerners insist it's all the work of Yankee agitators... April 23, 1930. South declares embargo on trade with North in response to northern tariffs on Central American coffee. June 17, protest march in Waco turns violent. Newspapers in Chicago report 'slaughter.' Two later confirmed as dead. June 25. As unrest worsens, governor of Texas appeals for CSA troops. July 7. 3rd Havana Gendarmarie arrive in Waco. July 9. Chicago Tribune decries 'Nigger occupation troops.' July 17. Company of Gendarmarie, surrounded by mob, opens fire. Unfortunately, they had a machine gun. 47 killed. July 28. US President Turner meets with delegation of protestors demanding intervention. August 10. CSA rejects Northern demands that it conduct a plebescite under US observation as 'an intolerable infringement upon our sovereignity.' CSA delegate's remark that 'you would think they had stopped Pickett' generally viewed as unfortunate. August 24. CSA demands US stop arms smuggling into Texas. US says it refuses to prevent anyone from exercising his rights as a free citizen. August 25. CSA mobilizes. USA mobilizes. General MacArthur intones, 'we must have oil within six months or we will lose the war without a shot being fired.' Senator Heeber of the Manifest Destiny Party demands that President Turner 'act before it is too late.' August 28. US Destroyer depth-charges CSA Submarine Cabo San Lucas after alleged torpedo attack. September 3. 'Topeka incident.' Alleged Confederate attack on 'Radio Free Texas.' Six bodies in CSA uniforms produced for press. September 5. In stormy session, USA Congress declares war.

golden delicious -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/7/2005 1:05:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms Right. You can see how this is less desireable than getting that oil from Texas, correct? Not to mention that US companies couldn't drill in the Dutch East Indies for most of the 20s. I also don't see why Confederate raiders wouldn't be able to get to those convoys. Does it really make any difference whether it's US companies drilling the oil? Confederate raiders might be able to get to the convoys. One or two of them, anyway. But one or two raiders won't mean anything to a major oceanic shipping route. To have any chance of affecting it, the Confederacy would have to be able to throw a fleet of submarines into the North Pacific. They can't do that.

golden delicious -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/7/2005 1:44:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright The WORST CASE sees the US unable to motorize all its infantry divisions. She's probably able to mount barely twice the war effort of Nazi Germany circa 1941. Well, probably about the same. Our reduced USA has about the same number of loyal citizens as Nazi Germany, access to about the same natural resources. The USA probably has more domestic industry- but Germany's got all these French factories and so on working for it. Still. That's 150 divisions at a pinch. 250 if you really set your minds to it.

golden delicious -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/7/2005 1:47:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms As for Japan, she declared war on us because we placed an oil embargo on her, then promptly seized the Dutch East Indian oilfields for her use, and was ultimately crippled by attacks on her shipping. I think this proves my point quite nicely- not that I think that same fate would have befallen the North, but obviously this is a less than ideal situation to be in. Right. a) the CSA is not going to be able to build a fleet the size of the 1940s USN b) the CSA has no bases for this fleet to operate from c) the USA is going to have a better fleet and larger merchant marine than Japan did.

ColinWright -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/7/2005 1:52:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms As for Japan, she declared war on us because we placed an oil embargo on her, then promptly seized the Dutch East Indian oilfields for her use, and was ultimately crippled by attacks on her shipping. I think this proves my point quite nicely- not that I think that same fate would have befallen the North, but obviously this is a less than ideal situation to be in. Right. a) the CSA is not going to be able to build a fleet the size of the 1940s USN b) the CSA has no bases for this fleet to operate from c) the USA is going to have a better fleet and larger merchant marine than Japan did. (d) even the truncated USA won't have the total reliance on overseas resources that Japan had. (e) they will presumably have more sophisticated convoying and anti-submarine practices than the Japanese did. (f) they'll certainly have more sophisticated anti-submarine technology.

golden delicious -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/7/2005 1:56:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms You can't seriously argue that transportation costs do not affect prices. If you're in Cleveland, it oil from the Dutch East Indies or Mexico(via California!) does indeed cost more than Texas oil. Yeah- but not by much. Take a look at matters today. It's cheaper to produce some consumer item in China and ship it over than it is to produce it domestically. Transportation does cost, but production and retail is where the real expenses are.

golden delicious -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/7/2005 2:04:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright September 5. In stormy session, USA Congress declares war. There you go. The American army was sort of exotic and interesting at this point in time, so it could be fun. You'd also need to figure out where the rest of the world is at this point- but that's a whole other argument.

palmdogg -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/8/2005 7:53:31 AM)
My personal favorite scenarios are Attu, Kiska, Cuba, and Grenada. Any scenario that gives its generals as much latitude as possible and has a lot of random events is going to win major kudos from me. I guess if I had a wish list, the scenarios on it would be: 1904-1905 - The Russo-Japanese War (Manchuria & Port Arthur) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_war 1918 - Allenby's Conquest of Palestine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Megiddo_(1918) 1920 - Russo-Polish War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-Soviet_War 1942 - Stalingrad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad (WHY WAS THIS OMITTED?!?!) 1945 - Gotterdammerung: Conquest of Germany http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berlin (I know one already exists, but it's WAY too detailed; was thinking something a little more informal, like the Panzer General scenario) One of the Indo-Pakistani Wars or the Sino-Indian War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War 1990-1991 - Gulf War (With options for Saddam to invade Saudi Arabia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War#Diplomacy 1998-2002 Something African. Either Congo or Ethiopia-Eritrea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrean-Ethiopian_War I would also suggest modifying the Cuba 62 scenario so the US has more latitude in deploying its forces and the Cubans can actually use their tactical nukes and anti-ship weapons.

JMS2 -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/8/2005 10:48:37 AM)
I think you already have scenarios for most of this: quote: ORIGINAL: palmdogg My personal favorite scenarios are Attu, Kiska, Cuba, and Grenada. Any scenario that gives its generals as much latitude as possible and has a lot of random events is going to win major kudos from me. I guess if I had a wish list, the scenarios on it would be: 1904-1905 - The Russo-Japanese War (Manchuria & Port Arthur) http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenarii/display_scenario.php?Id=631 quote: ORIGINAL: palmdogg 1918 - Allenby's Conquest of Palestine http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenarii/display_scenario.php?Id=226 but it's TOAW-I quote: ORIGINAL: palmdogg 1920 - Russo-Polish War http://media.miks.uj.edu.pl/~jflis/pasje/TOAW/toawseng.htm quote: ORIGINAL: palmdogg 1942 - Stalingrad http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenarii/display_scenario.php?Id=360 quote: ORIGINAL: palmdogg 1945 - Gotterdammerung: Conquest of Germany http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenarii/display_scenario.php?Id=168 quote: ORIGINAL: palmdogg One of the Indo-Pakistani Wars or the Sino-Indian War There's several hypotheticals for 2002 and one for 1948, but none for 1965 or 1962 quote: ORIGINAL: palmdogg 1990-1991 - Gulf War (With options for Saddam to invade Saudi Arabia) I know there's one covering this but can't find it at the moment. quote: ORIGINAL: palmdogg 1998-2002 Something African. Either Congo or Ethiopia-Eritrea I am pretty sure they haven't been done.

bluermonkey -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/8/2005 11:55:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: palmdogg 1990-1991 - Gulf War (With options for Saddam to invade Saudi Arabia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War#Diplomacy You should be able to find a scenario covering this at http://www.toaw.co.uk/. It's either John Gallion's 'Oil War' or Al Sandrik's 'Saddams War', I forget which. I toyed with the idea of designing a scenario to cover this starting from the Iraqi player moving into Kuwait with the option of moving on Saudi Arabia. I got about 25% of the way through designing a map and then lost interest.

golden delicious -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/8/2005 4:30:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bluermonkey I toyed with the idea of designing a scenario to cover this starting from the Iraqi player moving into Kuwait with the option of moving on Saudi Arabia. This could be sort of interesting. Naturally, Saddam eventually gets smacked down by the USA- but there'll probably be a half-decent fight while they struggle to deploy the army.

bluermonkey -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/8/2005 6:14:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: bluermonkey I toyed with the idea of designing a scenario to cover this starting from the Iraqi player moving into Kuwait with the option of moving on Saudi Arabia. This could be sort of interesting. Naturally, Saddam eventually gets smacked down by the USA- but there'll probably be a half-decent fight while they struggle to deploy the army. That's what interested me as well. It's sort of a race against time for the Coalition to deploy before the Iraqi's capture Saudi ports and airfields.

golden delicious -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/8/2005 6:38:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bluermonkey That's what interested me as well. It's sort of a race against time for the Coalition to deploy before the Iraqi's capture Saudi ports and airfields. Well, I don't think there's any danger of the coalition actually losing. Not at all. First off, Saudi must have had a fairly formidable army of their own at this point. Second, substantial coalition forces (paratroopers and marines) could be deployed and supplied without locally available ports or airfields. 82nd Airborne, for its part, was supposed to be capable of deploying in a few days anyway. It's more a matter of seeing just how much a nuisance Saddam could make of himself in this time. Trouble is one gets into questions of how much force Iraq was capable of projecting beyond its borders, how far it was willing to risk denuding its interior, how far it was prepared to outrage the rest of the Islamic world (bin Laden was busy organising an Islamic army to resist the invasion at this point), etc.

bluermonkey -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/8/2005 8:02:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: bluermonkey That's what interested me as well. It's sort of a race against time for the Coalition to deploy before the Iraqi's capture Saudi ports and airfields. Well, I don't think there's any danger of the coalition actually losing. Not at all. First off, Saudi must have had a fairly formidable army of their own at this point. Second, substantial coalition forces (paratroopers and marines) could be deployed and supplied without locally available ports or airfields. 82nd Airborne, for its part, was supposed to be capable of deploying in a few days anyway. It's more a matter of seeing just how much a nuisance Saddam could make of himself in this time. Trouble is one gets into questions of how much force Iraq was capable of projecting beyond its borders, how far it was willing to risk denuding its interior, how far it was prepared to outrage the rest of the Islamic world (bin Laden was busy organising an Islamic army to resist the invasion at this point), etc. Well certainly it's difficult to envisage a situation where even a well executed advance into Saudi Arabia could actually win the war decisively for Iraq. As you rightly point out the US had many rapidly deployable units, the Saudi army can put up a fight, and US airpower would be devastating. However, in TOAW terms, you could even things up by giving the Coalition player a strict timetable for pushing the Iraqis out of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. If they begin to fall behind you take points off them. Interesting that you say Bin Laden was preparing an Islamic Army to repel anysuch invasion, I never knew that.

golden delicious -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/8/2005 8:34:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bluermonkey However, in TOAW terms, you could even things up by giving the Coalition player a strict timetable for pushing the Iraqis out of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. If they begin to fall behind you take points off them. Yeah. I'd say this would make a pretty interesting scenario. Go make it.... quote: Interesting that you say Bin Laden was preparing an Islamic Army to repel anysuch invasion, I never knew that. Well, he certainly wanted to. I don't know if he actually got anywhere with it. But there's no reason that something similar to what was done in Afghanistan couldn't be repeated in Saudi Arabia. This is actually at the root of things. Until 1990, al Qaeda was essentially an international support network for Islamic fighters in Afghanistan. Then, when Saudi Arabia invited the coalition in to fight Iraq, bin Laden began increasingly to see both the Saudi government and the USA (through it's 'occupation' of the land of the two holy cities) as the principal enemy. Even though American troops are now out of Saudi, the damage has already been done- radical Islam is not about to forgive the Saudi government any time soon.

Pippin -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/8/2005 8:54:07 PM)
One thing that bugged me with the Kasserine map. How the hell do you prevent the allied airforce from getting obliterated?!

golden delicious -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/8/2005 9:05:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pippin One thing that bugged me with the Kasserine map. How the hell do you prevent the allied airforce from getting obliterated?! This from a disk scenario? Most of them are junk. I wouldn't get too worked up about it.

palmdogg -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/9/2005 6:01:55 AM)
quote: quote: ORIGINAL: bluermonkey That's what interested me as well. It's sort of a race against time for the Coalition to deploy before the Iraqi's capture Saudi ports and airfields. Well, I don't think there's any danger of the coalition actually losing. Not at all. First off, Saudi must have had a fairly formidable army of their own at this point. Second, substantial coalition forces (paratroopers and marines) could be deployed and supplied without locally available ports or airfields. 82nd Airborne, for its part, was supposed to be capable of deploying in a few days anyway. It's more a matter of seeing just how much a nuisance Saddam could make of himself in this time. Trouble is one gets into questions of how much force Iraq was capable of projecting beyond its borders, how far it was willing to risk denuding its interior, how far it was prepared to outrage the rest of the Islamic world (bin Laden was busy organising an Islamic army to resist the invasion at this point), etc. Yeah, that's what I was thinking. In the years after the Gulf War, Saddam always said his big mistake was not going for broke and invading Saudi Arabia. This scenario would take as a given that Saddam's offensive was actually to secure the Kuwaiti-Saudi Gulf Coast. (Where the bulk of their oil production was). At the very least, Iraq can raise havoc for a few weeks while the US gets its airpower and rapid deployment force into the theater. Regarding the Saudi Army, I've never heard anything good about it either in books or from the Army and Marine officers I've talked to who served in Desert Storm. I know that US commanders, especially USAF General Chuck Horner were terrified about an Iraqi advance before US forces were deployed, and some people described the initial 82nd/Marine deployment as little more than a "speed bump". What would have happened if the Republican Guard had engaged or destroyed a US battalion, or even brigade? Historically, US forces have usually done poorly in defensive campaigns (Kasserine, Ardennes, Task Force Smith, Yalu River, Tet Offensive), especially when unprepared. Also, Operation Desert Shield (1990) was controversial enough without any shooting going on. How much more controversial would it have been if President Bush had to commit US troops to battle without a Congressional resolution or while debate was ongoing? The US had Midterm elections coming up in November and historically President Bush waited until they were over before deploying most of the US forces. These are just some of the issues a scenario could deal with. The possibilities are endless. In other words, I was thinking a Grenada type scenario where you know the US will almost definitely win in the end, but Iraq can in theory gain a political victory if it plays its cards right. Anyone thinking of doing this should get their paws on "The Generals' War", which is a pretty good (though not perfect) study of the high level political and military issues in the Gulf War, especially the US contingency plans for an Iraqi invasion of Saudi. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0316321001/qid=1131508281/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-8300640-6308104?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 JMS2, thanks for putting up the links to all the scenarios. Yes, I know we won, but with a victory like that God help us in defeat. :)

*Lava* -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/9/2005 12:16:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: palmdogg In the years after the Gulf War, Saddam always said his big mistake was not going for broke and invading Saudi Arabia. Hi! Well, a fanciful scenario at best. It's one thing to invade Kuwait, its quite another to invade Saudi Arabia. The difference is not tank battalions, or "speed bumps" in the way. The difference is logistics. The Iraqi forces have historically lacked sufficient logistical support for its army. I have seen various reports indicating that the tanks that invaded Kuwati had a full tank of petrol and nothing more. While that may allow you to beat up a small neighbor very close to your border, it places a scenario of attack Saudi Arabia in a completely fictional context. Not a very interesting what if to me. Ray (alias Lava)

bluermonkey -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/9/2005 4:22:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lava quote: ORIGINAL: palmdogg In the years after the Gulf War, Saddam always said his big mistake was not going for broke and invading Saudi Arabia. Hi! Well, a fanciful scenario at best. It's one thing to invade Kuwait, its quite another to invade Saudi Arabia. The difference is not tank battalions, or "speed bumps" in the way. The difference is logistics. The Iraqi forces have historically lacked sufficient logistical support for its army. I have seen various reports indicating that the tanks that invaded Kuwati had a full tank of petrol and nothing more. While that may allow you to beat up a small neighbor very close to your border, it places a scenario of attack Saudi Arabia in a completely fictional context. Not a very interesting what if to me. Ray (alias Lava) As a hypothetical I think it has some merit. There are lots of variables and 'what ifs' to play with using the event editor, and clever scenario design could even things up between the two forces without doing ahistorical things like making the Iraqi's fight harder than they would in real life, etc.

golden delicious -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/9/2005 4:27:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: palmdogg Yeah, that's what I was thinking. In the years after the Gulf War, Saddam always said his big mistake was not going for broke and invading Saudi Arabia. This scenario would take as a given that Saddam's offensive was actually to secure the Kuwaiti-Saudi Gulf Coast. (Where the bulk of their oil production was). At the very least, Iraq can raise havoc for a few weeks while the US gets its airpower and rapid deployment force into the theater. Regarding the Saudi Army, I've never heard anything good about it either in books or from the Army and Marine officers I've talked to who served in Desert Storm. I opened a discussion on that subject here; http://www.tdg.nu/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1131468420 Although it's pretty clear the Saudis were bad soldiers, so too were the Iraqis. It's like comparing the Italians and the Yugoslavs as of 1941. quote: and some people described the initial 82nd/Marine deployment as little more than a "speed bump". Mm. I'd say that 82nd Airborne, backed up by substantial air assets which would also have been available, would have about the same combat value as the entire force the Iraqis would be able to project into Saudi Arabia. quote: Historically, US forces have usually done poorly in defensive campaigns (Kasserine, Ardennes, Task Force Smith, Yalu River, Tet Offensive), especially when unprepared. With the exception of Tet (which whilst it precipitated the withdrawal, was itself quite a resounding military success for the US), those are all cases of poorly-prepared and inexperienced troops in action against confident and battle-hardened forces. If you want a comparison, look at the Ardennes- but look at 101st Airborne's performance. That's a pretty good analogy. They were thrown in at short notice to stop a flood, and they did damned well. Note that the 1990 Iraqi army was very much less competent than the 1944 German army. quote:* How much more controversial would it have been if President Bush had to commit US troops to battle without a Congressional resolution or while debate was ongoing? Well the pacifists in the USA were able to convince themselves that Iraq's cause was just over Kuwait. They would have a much harder time doing so over Saudi. There goes the debate. quote: but Iraq can in theory gain a political victory if it plays its cards right. I dunno. By this action Iraq loses all sympathy from the Islamic world. She massively overstretches her forces, and leaves herself open to exactly the kind of Cannae-style defeat which she managed to avoid historically. It may well be that Bush will be politically damaged by this war more than he was historically- but what difference does that make? As it was, he was immediately shunted out of office by the Democrats anyway.

palmdogg -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/10/2005 8:41:13 AM)
Woah! I wasn't trying to make the case that Iraq should have done this, I was just suggesting the possibilites for a scenario. I think Ray (alias Lava) brings up the most interesting criticism, and I must confess I'm not a professional military officer, and while I know a little logistics I wouldn't even know how to set up those kinds of calculations. However, just to keep things interesting, I found a 1994 paper from the National Defense University on Desert Storm that may still keep things plausible. I make no claim as to its accuracy, and it was written close enough to the event that it may reflect conventional wisdom more than the better research that's been done over the last decade. http://www.ndu.edu/inss/McNair/mcnair32/mcnair32.pdf Pages 33-34 actually use the phrase "speed bump" when describing the 82nd Airborne. Page 37 says, and I quote "If Iraq had continued its attack in early August, prior to U.S. presence, Saudi Arabia would surely have been lost. Sufficient American forces could not have been brought to bear quickly enough to defend it" In other words, if Iraq had serious logistical problems, so did the US. The author even says on several occasions that Iraq could have brushed aside the initial US deployment. He talks about a window of opportunity for an Iraqi attack closing in early October, so if this scenario is done, a good time frame might be from August 2 - November 3, with one day turns. Another site I found has this useful US timeline, which suggests that the Saudi Army would have faced Iraq alone for almost a week: 2 Aug - Iraq invades Kuwait. 7 Aug � Two squadrons of USAF F-15s are first US forces arrive in Saudi Arabia. 9 Aug � First elements of Ready Brigade of 82nd Abn arrive in Saudi Arabia. 25 Aug 1990 � UN authorizes use of force. 31 Oct � President Bush gives go ahead for two corps offensive and authorizes doubling of force. 29 Nov - UN Resolution 678 authorizes all force needed to expel Iraq if they are not out by 15 Jan 1991. 17 Jan 1991 - Air war begins 23 Feb - Ground war begins 28 Feb � Cease fire takes effect I'm guessing the 82nd deployment is set in stone since the US tried to 'plant the flag' as fast as possible to dissuade Iraq from continuing South, but the US might have been able to get air forces into the region a day or two earlier.

bluermonkey -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/10/2005 11:40:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: palmdogg Woah! I wasn't trying to make the case that Iraq should have done this, I was just suggesting the possibilites for a scenario. I think Ray (alias Lava) brings up the most interesting criticism, and I must confess I'm not a professional military officer, and while I know a little logistics I wouldn't even know how to set up those kinds of calculations. However, just to keep things interesting, I found a 1994 paper from the National Defense University on Desert Storm that may still keep things plausible. I make no claim as to its accuracy, and it was written close enough to the event that it may reflect conventional wisdom more than the better research that's been done over the last decade. http://www.ndu.edu/inss/McNair/mcnair32/mcnair32.pdf Pages 33-34 actually use the phrase "speed bump" when describing the 82nd Airborne. Page 37 says, and I quote "If Iraq had continued its attack in early August, prior to U.S. presence, Saudi Arabia would surely have been lost. Sufficient American forces could not have been brought to bear quickly enough to defend it" In other words, if Iraq had serious logistical problems, so did the US. The author even says on several occasions that Iraq could have brushed aside the initial US deployment. He talks about a window of opportunity for an Iraqi attack closing in early October, so if this scenario is done, a good time frame might be from August 2 - November 3, with one day turns. Another site I found has this useful US timeline, which suggests that the Saudi Army would have faced Iraq alone for almost a week: 2 Aug - Iraq invades Kuwait. 7 Aug � Two squadrons of USAF F-15s are first US forces arrive in Saudi Arabia. 9 Aug � First elements of Ready Brigade of 82nd Abn arrive in Saudi Arabia. 25 Aug 1990 � UN authorizes use of force. 31 Oct � President Bush gives go ahead for two corps offensive and authorizes doubling of force. 29 Nov - UN Resolution 678 authorizes all force needed to expel Iraq if they are not out by 15 Jan 1991. 17 Jan 1991 - Air war begins 23 Feb - Ground war begins 28 Feb � Cease fire takes effect I'm guessing the 82nd deployment is set in stone since the US tried to 'plant the flag' as fast as possible to dissuade Iraq from continuing South, but the US might have been able to get air forces into the region a day or two earlier. This is interesting stuff. Thanks for the link, it will come in handy if I ever decide to dive in and try and make this.

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.625