Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => The Conflicts that came in from the Cold => Topic started by: tomcat51 on August 03, 2015, 02:09:56 PM
-
I've been toying with the idea of starting up some wargaming in the Modern era as I like the equipment and technology, but I never fancied tying myself into an actual real world conflict for reasons of taste and of just allowing myself more freedom. I'm a Brit, so I wanted to wargame UK forces, but I didn't want to pit them against some third world insurgent force, or the obvious choice, Russia. So it was with this in mind that I chose the Chinese as my opposing force.
As I like my games to have a story, I started to think of hypothetical scenarios in which the UK could enter into armed conflict with China. Then I read about China's expansion of influence into the Pacific and its new diplomatic ties with African and South American countries, mainly as a source of farmland to feed its enormous population, and as a market to sell its exports. I then began to think about who has lots of farmland, and my thoughts led me to Argentina. From there the ideas flowed.
Scenario - With an economy bolstered by support from China and a new sense of national pride, Argentina makes another grab for the Falkland Islands in an attempt to seize the UK's newly established oil drilling operations and to secure its farming and fishing operations to supply China's demands. After a serious mauling by the islands defense garrison the Argentine Army gain a foothold. An increasingly aggressive and nationalistic Great Britain, spurred on by United States puppet masters, are unwilling to let such aggression stand and launch a task force to reinforce the island and attack the Argentine mainland with cruise missiles and air strikes. China, taken aback by the level of British aggression are forced to step in personally to protect the Argentine Military from complete annihilation.
The Falkland Islands are now the focus of a war between an emerging yet inexperienced superpower and the remnants of a fading imperial power that, despite its decline, is still able to punch above its weight.
This scenario gives me a good springboard for a range of different combat actions. It also doesn't paint any one nation as being the heroes or the villains. We're all just different countries with different politics and world views. We're all equally as good, and as bad, as each other in the real world. Anyway I'm planning to fight my battles in 6mm based on previous advice from a LAF member, with some skirmishes in 28mm so I can use the fantastic Empress Miniatures. I've got a small 6mm British Task force from GHQ and have ordered some PLA forces from Scotia Grendal and Heroics and Ro's. I've got a platoons worth of Brits in 28mm, plus an Airfix Jackal and Warrior. All I need is some 28mm PLA troops and a shedload of scenery. I am open to suggestions on rules, given that I am using latest generation military equipment. I have Skirmish Sangin and am looking at Too Fat Lardies new modern wargame, but neither of them cover PLA forces. I've also been looking at Sabre Squadron for the larger scale battles. I prefer rules that use a 1:1 scale for the models. Any suggestions?
I'll post pics of units and scenery as I paint them, and eventually some battle reports if I can find an opponent.
-
I suppose you could alter the rules of a Modern Russian force for use with a Chinese one, since the levels of tech are supposedly the same, and numerous Chinese weapons are essentially knock offs/adaptations of Russian equipment.
Chinese force composition is also supposedly very similar to Russian composition, although if you want the low-down on squads the recent PLA book by Osprey does provide details on how PLA squads/platoons are structured to some degree.
Most of my European stuff will stay in Europe, though I did wonder about doing a "what if" campaign where China attempts to seize Malaysia, threatens Australia, or even tries to take over the British bases in the Indian Ocean to accommodate its growing influence in the Mid-east/Africa.
You could potentially do a 1980s style Anglo-Sino war over Hong Kong. I recently played the Wargame: Dragon Rising take on that and it was quite cool. Chieftains vs masses of Type-59s.
Wouldn't be much in the way of an opportunity for full scale armour engagements with the latter though.
Rule wise I'm not sure what you can use, as I haven't really dipped into rules yet for 6mm moderns, just getting the figs :D
-
yet inexperienced
<disclaimer: bear with the quite harsh starting point, because the rest of the post has good information... I hope>
Well my dealing with both the PLA and the British Army led me to think the PLA is probably more experienced than the BA at unit officer level, their doctrine is much better. and no the current British military capabilites despite what RUSI says are below its weight. On the other hand I do not see China getting involved in the Falklands, not for Kirchener's sake and that will completely mess with its logistic abilities...
if you want a PLA vs UK conflict have fun, but the premise is a tad inconsistent. Plus I do not see the Falklands as this nice area for large scale battles. Julian had problem to keep a single largely foot brigade supplied in 1982. Also the Argentinian military is quite run down, their capabilities are far worse than in 1982. They lack amphibious lift for example... so I strongly doubt they can establish a foothold. They also lack a real air force at least until the new Kfirs arrive... if they pay for them... so I do not see any reason to cruise missileing or striking argentina mainland... all that with both sides at the end of an extremely long logistic chain (and we can argue UK is not anymore capable to support the same kind of logistic effort that was done in 1982).
Sorry but as much I like stories, this seems even more absurd of some of mine involving aliens...
Now if you want to have more interesting a plausible setting, at least one where an UK force can do some real fighting... Borneo. UK is still the security guarantor of the Sultanate of Brunei and it is also tied up to protect Malaysia and Singapore with the 5 Powers Defence Treaty. The UK military is conducting routine exercise in the region (and you can also use the excellent Australians both from Empress and GHQ...). It is not a mystery that the South China Seas, and the offshore oil rigs in the area, is a powderkeg. Brunei is rich mainly due to off shore oil revenue. Considering that there is some basis to almost everyone claims to the Spratly area (and how you define the Spratly's is another big point of contention...) you can easily concoct a story where escalation on both sides leads to a situation where Brunei, Malaysia, and Singapore invokes UK assistance against China. In such a situation you can assume China will try to establish a foothold in Northern Borneo (a thing it is in their current capabilities)... and then you have a little nice hotspot...
The advantage is that with a more constricted terrain you can have more scope for infantry skirmishes, you have a bit more variation in terrain (jungle, mixed, urban). As rules...
well fielding a PLA force is not that difficult in Skirmish Sangin, Force on Force, or even COC. Being infantry oriented you do not have to build detailed armor value for tanks. Just do a bit of research, more or less is what we have done for years in historical gaming before we started to be spoon feed with supplements... lol In force on Force you can even easily build Chinese tanks based on their guns and some basic research on the armor value.
For larger battles... well Sabre Squadron is an option, as is FFT (Fistful of Tows) 3. The latter has basic data on PLA vehicles and weapons anc can be played in 1 to 1 or platoon stand scale. Now you have expressed the preference for 1 to 1... allow me to suggest a broader look. ! to 1 is good if you field a company, but often the real maneuver units are battalions. You can have additional support, and better cross attachments at battalion level. IMHO battalion and brigade actions are better simulated with a stand equal a platoon. It does not overwhelm you with countless die rolls, and it give you a better top down view of the situation. FFT 3 is designed to be played at both level with minor adjustments and at this level also Modern Spearhead is quite good.
Ok here are my two pennies.
-
Wow, that's a comprehensive 2 pence worth. It seems like you have just tried to show me how knowledgeable you as much as offer suggestions but there are a few pointers in there that I can run with I think ;) I meant inexperienced as in the PLA have not been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for the past 14 years, I have no idea about PLA command structure and doctrine. The Falklands idea was just a basic scenario idea to run a fictional conflict from, but Borneo sounds like it could work. I may even go completely left field and take the fight to Australia. I don't mind absurd. I also can't see my battles going above company sized until I do more research.
-
I don't want it to sound like I'm putting the boot in as well... but the Falklands really is not good country for vehicles, even if you could move them there in the first place.
Most ground is very soggy when it's not actually frozen, there are areas of boggy ground which could swallow a Challenger whole and rocky outcrops dotted about to boot. While some road surfaces have been improved since 1982, many would soon be turned to a quagmire after a few tracked vehicles have been over them.
Vehicles also require fuel and when your over-taxed helicopters are being used to leap-frog your foot-sloggers forward and to feed them, adding POL products to the heap of things to be moved would overburden your supply line.
I presume the setting would also be some point in the future when the RN actually has some aircraft for its aircraft carriers too. ;)
As an alternative I might suggest the British Indian Ocean Territory as a setting. Not a big area, but worth fighting over for both your protagonists and somewhat more 'toy' friendly for wargaming purposes.
:)
-
I don't want it to sound like I'm putting the boot in as well... but the Falklands really is not good country for vehicles, even if you could move them there in the first place.
I presume the setting would also be some point in the future when the RN actually has some aircraft for its aircraft carriers too. ;)
:)
Yes, I had given up on the Falklands idea, I think Borneo sounds like it could be a good setting, but now I am seriously thinking about some kind of war on Australian soil. I'm still just in the ideas stage, thinking of a setting and scenario to then plan my purchases and modelling around. It would be a few years in the future so our carriers would be built and we would have our new toy warplanes (the F-35) flying from them. My idea was to have Britain be a bit more nationalistic and aggressive than I hope we would be in real life, trying to prove to the world that we are still a power. Not sure how relevant it is, but like I said, I like a background to play against.
-
Wow, that's a comprehensive 2 pence worth. It seems like you have just tried to show me how knowledgeable you as much as offer suggestions but there are a few pointers in there that I can run with I think ;) I meant inexperienced as in the PLA have not been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for the past 14 years, I have no idea about PLA command structure and doctrine. The Falklands idea was just a basic scenario idea to run a fictional conflict from, but Borneo sounds like it could work. I may even go completely left field and take the fight to Australia. I don't mind absurd. I also can't see my battles going above company sized until I do more research.
Well, as Arlequin notes almost every other piece or real estate is better than the Falklands from a gaming point of view.
Yes, I always tries to show how knowledgeable I am... otherwise how I can satisfy my egomania? :D What is the point of study a topic if all what I learn will die with me? o_o
As far as PLA vs British Army is concerned. Well I think I said somewhere in this forum, but once a friend of mine told me that some area in western China are really similar to Iraq. He is a PLA armor officer and some of his colleagues are deployed operationally with their tanks there. I think they have got some experience. Also I am not so sure how much experience the British Army is retaining (or even learning). My impression of them is mixed and in some case quite negative. There is a lot of drilling opposed to training involved and often when you speak with officers you realized that their training is awful. There is an underlying expectation that the enemy will conform to a model. On the other hand I had people who had no qualm of telling me about the problems and what they think is going wrong. Then you have the upper echelons (uniformed and not) that are trying to cope with changing priorities, funding, and expectations, but often ended up prey of the "toy of the day". I was discussing the medium cavalry regiments with a Cavalry squadron commander (heavy guy) and he was frankly stating he does not see the point. You have a bunch of vehicles that more or less were developed only as convoy escorts for Afghanistan and now no one really know what to do with them, but there is an infatuation with "medium" vehicles. Actually he was arguing Coyotes and Jackals are light not medium but...
Gunners and supply officer telling me that they cannot barrage anymore because they have no sufficient ammunition in the battery stocks and no sufficient trucks to haul it to the front line. It appears that in order to have an agile, lean, flexible army (and cheaper) they removed supply trucks here and there. OF course they promised more Chinook helicopters... but... said supply officer was ordered to plan for an one week battalion scale deep operation in Afghanistan. They told her she would have had Chinook runs every night. After the first night... no more Chinook runs.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, an unnamed senior colonel telling me that I have not to worry this is the British Army way and there is no reason to change... (I was, after having collated opinion from different officers, saying that, perhaps, considering how much expactations are put on platoon commanders, who often operate alone rather than in companies, it would be a good idea to move from less than one year in Sandhurst to something more akin to West Point or Modena). Nowadays training is often conducted with VBS because it is too expensive to go on the field. Even in operation having a full company is uncommon, and a full battalion very rare, it is all dibs and drabs. Comparing what Julian Thompson was telling me, and what people from Iraq and Afghanistan said was quite sad. I will give you an example, during a map exercise (for validation purpose, not training) I saw brigades deployed on 20 km+ frontages with the ability to defend in deep and no uncovered flanks and that was full scale conventional combat... the BLUEFOR (I was OPFOR) was defending the lower donbas (guess the scenario...) with 3-4 brigades in a continuous line. As Colonel Gian Gentile (US Army) points out we have fighting small wars for so much time we have forgot that we need to adapt to other threat too. I always hear or read that UK can punch above his weight, but my direct observation is that right now their actual effectiveness is well below the one you expect from the current inventories and force structure. The British Army it is not a joke like the Bundeswher (nothing against the German Army, but they have been run down so well by their government that they have big troubles). Call me nationalist but right now the Italian armed forces are much better than the British ones... when I was in , it was not the case.
On the other hand a PLA officer was complaining because they can put only a couple of divisions (older organization) or a corps (new brigade organization) per side in their field maneuvers! They know their stuff, they have a decent doctrine and it works at all level, their equipment maybe is not as shiny as ours, but fit precise requirements in their own force structure. Part of their forces have combat experience too. In the past 10 years my attitude toward the PLA has changed a lot, nowadays I tend to think they are bloody good. Maybe man for man the british army has still an advantage, but formation for formation... I will bet on the PLA.
Ok, sorry for the tirade... I am spending too much time on books recently... coming back at gaming the whole thing. Well, if you are going the 6mm road (I like it!) I suspect you want some combined arms experience, so probably battalion/brigade is better. I think FFT 3 will satisfy you. You can still do 1 to 1, it is not overly complex, the results are believable, and the vehicles have their quirks. The differences between tanks are more marked than in more abstract set like Cold War Commander. I also like that anti infantry and anti vehicle fire is different.
-
Yes, I had given up on the Falklands idea, I think Borneo sounds like it could be a good setting, but now I am seriously thinking about some kind of war on Australian soil. I'm still just in the ideas stage, thinking of a setting and scenario to then plan my purchases and modelling around. It would be a few years in the future so our carriers would be built and we would have our new toy warplanes (the F-35) flying from them. My idea was to have Britain be a bit more nationalistic and aggressive than I hope we would be in real life, trying to prove to the world that we are still a power. Not sure how relevant it is, but like I said, I like a background to play against.
Well you do not need to be aggressive. Britain depends on foreign trade, and in part there is a degree of connection between meeting treaty obligations and receiving trade. On the other side China has an interesting take on maritime commons (believe it or not I was discussing this with a PLA officer last week) and an tendency to assert rights on large body of waters. The South China Sea and its environs are a critical waterways. We depend on it even if we do not realize it fully (lot of stuff in Tesco/Sainsbury/Waitrose is coming from the area and not by plane). If China continues its 'land-based' approach to water it will create a lot of problems (first and second island chains idea). I have my own ideas on why the island chains are so important in Beijing military thinking (no cannot explain, possible article on the topic...) but I reckon there are some historical/psychological factors behind and a perception that does not take into account the different way maritime commons are viewed. If these trend does not change (it is not fixed in stone, I think there is some sort of debate) the risk of misunderstanding opposing strategies and requirement and go to war is high.
Once you are in the best way to control water is to take surrounding land... and if you look at a map of the broad region, Darwin is in an excellent position to allow strikes in the former NEI and, if taken, shield them. Of course it is not a simple undertaking, but... due to Australian transportation networks and geography the area around Darwin can be viewed as an isolated battlefield... of course you first need to secure Borneo, Sumatra and Java... and at tha point is not just UK vs China, but WW4 in full swing... but it can be done and gamed.
-
Arrigo, you have sent my mind racing after different possibilties. This seems to be your area of interest no doubt. In terms of what you say about the British Army, is it not just a case of an army training to fight its last war? Did we spend so much time fighting insurgencies where we were only facing light infantry forces and we had total air superiority that we have forgotten how to fight a non asysmetrical war? A bit off topic but its all fuel for the brain factory.
-
Arrigo, you have sent my mind racing after different possibilties. This seems to be your area of interest no doubt. In terms of what you say about the British Army, is it not just a case of an army training to fight its last war? Did we spend so much time fighting insurgencies where we were only facing light infantry forces and we had total air superiority that we have forgotten how to fight a non asysmetrical war? A bit off topic but its all fuel for the brain factory.
Well, I have my idea on the British Army. One one side they are even more technologically driven than the Americans. I have worked with people from the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, and chatting this has come up more than once. An Army Major who had worked with them doing what the British Army calls "wargaming" (but according to Major General Andrew Sharpe is not...) is more or less finding a technological answer to tactical and operational problem. No one say good kit is wrong per se, but their quest for the best kit of the world is producing monster. The Mastiff; fine piece of MRAP but... you cannot drive Mastiffs in UK because they are too heavy. So the whole training is done on VBS (AKA Arma 2 for the common people who cannot afford VBS). Then according to a Colonel who was in Basra 'well you cannot drive it around half of the city because it is too wide, you have a single .50 to fire so if you are in combat dismount. It is not an APC.'
Once I spent a day with a battalion preparing for a tour in Helmand. Nice day out, but it was more or less Nagl, Kilcullen, and Galula names repeated ad nauseam and then simply repetition of battle drill, I understand it is important for the squaddies, but when the Majors are just talking of the battle drill and clearly have little ideas of what to do outside the drill, you start to wonder... just one Lts had some idea 'oh well what if the Talibans pull out another Aden?' (He knew about Mad Mitch and the Crater!). In the evening at the officer mess I meet the regimental commander (not the regimental colonel, the actual CO)... and he started with a tirade against historians and archeologists... stating that they are not useful in military topics ( :o oh well... I am... both!) and that everything necessary is business administration. He was a number cruncher...
I have meet other regimental COs and a just retired Regimental Colonel (who plays miniatures too!) and they completely different idea. To a certain extent you can argue the Army is now a collection of regiments with little in common. Look at the brigade structure. 20th Armour Bde. One Tank (with 3 Charley 2 operationals...), one light tank, one Mech Inf, two light infantry regiment. Fine, it is a balanced force... but how this thing will work as a brigade in combat? No one as an answer because right now Brigades have become just administrative units. The assumption is that you will reconfigure brigades before deployment, but you are also losing cohesive training in peacetime. I think it is not so much fighting the last war, but an army driven by cuts rather than doctrine.
I think in part the fault lays in the army think tanks like the DCDC. Good people but, the head of DCDC changes every one or two years (he is a brigadier or major general) and the deputy head (more or less permanent, a civilian), is an OR obsessed by number crunching with not so much understanding of real operations. She does not like randomness... He had discussion about the so called black swans but she was not really realizing the point, namely that you need to plan for the worst case, not for the average best case. Also there is a problem with army mathematics. Everything is based on Lanchester's equations and then well... if your missile has an hit ratio of 50% you will get one hit every two missiles fired (according to proper statisticians there are around 75% chances that at least one will hit).
Couple this with their 'maneuverist' approach (we do not kill enemies, we create shock and awe through maneuver hitting the enemy center of gravity while he is not there! Ok but if it is their center of gravity maybe they will know it... ok never mind!) and an obsession with 'minimal force' and you have an army that expects to win quickly and cheaply against every threat. You expect that after the mess in Basra (and the less than perfect thing called Telic 1... with the 16th Airmobile ending up outgunned by the Iraqi and having to call Broken Arrow only because Jacko Page refused to admit the Iraqi 6th Armored Division was not running away and had better artillery) and the lack of progresses in Afghanistan they would have realized nothing is coming quickly and cheaply.
One of the big problem in the British Army is that they are not learning from history, but from an highly sanitized and self-celebrating revision of history. Despite the Army having been able to produce some really good historians (with good professional credentials, like Major General Mungo Melvin, or Major General Julian Thompson) the British Army at large (with notable exception) hates academics and proper research. They consider us some idiots who are good just for a bit of window dressing at Sandhurst and Shrivenam. They especially dislike historians (with the exception of regimental historians, but you need to be familiar with the specific regiment of the officer you are talking with).
The final nail in the coffin is personnel policy. If the system decides you are a rising star you are hectored toward a series of glamour assignments, changing job every 2 years and jumping up the ladder, often without really influencing things (two years are too short to implement anything long term). If you are considered bad you are left in your same position for decades (actually getting more powerful than the rising stars). You end up with 56 years old Majors and 55 years old Lieutenant Generals... During Telic to cycle promising Brigadiers to the front and give them 'combat experience' they were rotating brigade commanders in the Basra Box every couple of months in a specific period.
There is some hope, and I have seen people who are impressive, but some have already retired. The government is willing to sacrifice the land component even more, and there is a lack of real doctrine. It is interesting that in other armies doctrine is seen as a set of guidance to achieve some specific strategical objective and there is the assumption that it will change with evolving strategic goals from the government. British Army Doctrine is viewed as a blue print for a perfect victory.
Hopefully I have not been to boring.
-
Arrigo, would you mind if I pm'd you about something related to this current discussion?
-
Not boring at all. I'm currently working on an RAF base at the moment rebuilding a runway and i'm currently coming up against the bizarity of thr british military. It's good to know more.
-
Arrigo, would you mind if I pm'd you about something related to this current discussion?
why not?
-
Here are some links that might help if your keeping with the Brunei idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Brunei_Land_Forces
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/brunei/army.htm
http://www.mindef.gov.bn/Theme/Home.aspx
http://www2.mindef.gov.bn/rblf/
One of the cool things about the Brunei military is that you could very easily use Empress USMC with brighter green with no brown MARPAT pattern or old British DPM pattern camo.
And your Granddads armor with Sultans, Scorpions and VABs.
And some eye candy for the Chinese.
http://china-defense.blogspot.com/
Would be interesting to see what idea you come up with to keep the US out of this conflict. Because this is an area I have also been interested in. Maybe the US fleet and such is busy dealing with some thing the Philippines, Korea, or recommitted now drown down forces to Iraq and Syria. :P
-
And your Granddads armor with Sultans, Scorpions ...
Remind me to cuff you round the ears if we ever meet Chris, I remember them when they were the latest thing. ;)
-
Remind me to cuff you round the ears if we ever meet Chris, I remember them when they were the latest thing. ;)
I will pincel it into my day planer then. lol
-
A very interesting discussion.
Arrigo, you really know your stuff.
Seems like "bean counters" and
commanders preparing for the last war
are a major problem.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge.
-
Yes, very. It seems like corporate thinking is trying to creep its way into the military in order to save money. And where does an overeliance on technology leave us if it is at the expense of training and capability? A long war could soon turn into a slogging match as technological assets are destroyed and more traditional fighting has to be used. How would we cope then? It's unlikely we would ever get into another war on the scale of WW2 (I hope) so perhaps our streamlined and focused modern army is fit for purpose, but who knows where the next conflict will come from. Fail to prepare, preapre to fail.
I love how threads can change from one thing to another so quickly. I migh actually get some miniatures up on here soon.
-
I'm not so sure 'fail to plan, plan to fail' is quite accurate, 'plod along regardless' is somewhat more apt for the British, or if I was more generous 'make do with what you have'... which is somewhat in-line with the USMC's 'adapt, improvise and overcome' combined with a 'buy one get one free' mentality. ;)
-
Was interesting reading your thoughts on the British Army/Armed Forces Arrigo, I'd have to agree on most of them.
Despite the Army having been able to produce some really good historians (with good professional credentials, like Major General Mungo Melvin, or Major General Julian Thompson) the British Army at large (with notable exception) hates academics and proper research.
I've met Melvin (I called him Mr Mungo) at a Military History Conference in Wolverhampton. He is very interested in trying to get academics taking on military roles, especially taking up Reserve service, something I was interested in, and tried to query him about. He did not mention the Armies general distaste towards academics, I think he avoided it entirely probably in the hopes it wouldn't put people off. From talking to friends and acquaintances currently serving in military posts, even those currently working in "Intelligence" or "Green Slime" as they are apparently referred to, what work they have done academically tends to be put to one side, or dismissed (on a few occasions I was approached for advice on where to get information on particular hot zones because they weren't sure where to do their research lol).
However its worth keeping in mind the British army has NEVER really liked academics, during the Great War, the army preferred that their officers spend their time engaging in competitive sports rather than actually studying warfare. I wouldn't be surprised if this situation has existed long before then, and frankly its apart of a wider cultural issue in the U.K.
That said, the U.K is probably one of the only countries in the world that offers its civilian students opportunities to study warfare (of which I'am one) and build up quite considerable credentials in this field. It just so happens the military is largely not willing to use it, will rather recruit yes men (or politicians, just look at who is chair of RUSI now) and all the academics that want to continue doing some of work involving their interest, especially when it comes to contemporary conflicts, end up being recruited by security contractors and sent abroad.
However I digress from the topic at hand.
The thing is, regardless of whether a conflict between U.K and China happened now or during the Cold War, Britain wouldn't be able to win militarily (helped Maggie make the decision to back down over Hong Kong). At the very least it'd have to be as apart of a greater alliance, and even then we'd only play a minor role, due to the issue of logistics. So a task force in support of a local force is maybe the best way to go.
As for China, any of the potential conflicts mentioned would require it to rely heavily on amphibious forces which would be interesting from the perspective that the PLA is only really beginning to seriously develop that particular capability. Supposedly anyway, most of this stuff is classified so info is sketchy.
-
I would set my games "sometime in the near future" in a world similar to our own, but where hotter heads prevail. I think a real war with China, Russia, or anyone really, would be catastrophically costly, especially considering how intertwined we all are globally. It would take a mind blowingly stupid regime or government to actually instigate a conflict. This article touches on the subject and is a veiw I tend to agree with;
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/a-war-with-china-would-be-bloody-and-stupid-b1ab865b6126
-
Great article, you know. I would also like to have a go of having maybe India or China go at it. :D
In a war gaming since. Not really life.
-
Great article, you know. I would also like to have a go of having maybe India or China go at it. :D
In a war gaming since. Not really life.
GHQ will be doing 6mm Indian armour this year, so between them and Heroics and Ros you could potentially field pretty much the bulk of what you'd need for a Sino-Indian War.
-
That said, the U.K is probably one of the only countries in the world that offers its civilian students opportunities to study warfare (of which I'am one) and build up quite considerable credentials in this field. It just so happens the military is largely not willing to use it, will rather recruit yes men (or politicians, just look at who is chair of RUSI now) and all the academics that want to continue doing some of work involving their interest, especially when it comes to contemporary conflicts, end up being recruited by security contractors and sent abroad.
Well not just 'its civilian students' also Italian and foreign ones :D (shows his KCL MA degree and PhD in... War Studies!).
Well one of my past students (I was doing GTA jobs for Phil Sabin...) is now a Captain and in charge of the "Aldershot wargame" (the new incarnation of last year "Sandhurst Wargame") so nothing is completely lost. There has always been some form of exchange, the Defence Studies Department at Shrivenam is staffed largely by KCL people. There also people like MG Andrew Sharpe that think using academics is positive. I am more afraid of the people like the director of courses at Sandhurst who was of the "we do not like academics" field (and also "our cadets are stupid, we do not need to teach them too much"). My experience being leading historian for Operation Olive Fist (a battlefield study) was very good. I think a lot of problems arose more from the rear echelon people and less from the people in combat units who tend to be smart and bright. It is interesting that one of the QRH Squadron commander had an history degree from KCL too.
RUSI... well Commodore Clapp told me he dropped his membership because it was too expensive and quite crappy. I was not overly impressed by their conferences and, especially, by their papers. Their Russian army expert seems to have problems in understanding that artillery delivers area fire and it is not just because Russian guns are old. I remember last year they put out a paper describing how good the F-22 was in air to ground role (well it can drop JDAM, not self designate... just a little oversight...). RUSI is more or less a bunch of yes men who says how great the British Military is... but well... few years ago before the 2010 SDSR, professor Malcolm Chalmers (who put being a KCL lecturer in his CV but he was not...) wrote a RUSI paper on alternative methods of nuclear deterrence. Beside saying that the Typhoon were capable to carry nukes... he had a nice ide of using special forces to deliver nuclear bombs on retaliatory targets. I fear he saw too many action B-movies... and then we have an anecdote (I was not present, it has been told to me by a source that is not 100% reliable, and Phil Sabin assures me that it was unbelievable) of Dr. Lee Willet from RUSI onboard the HMS Bulwark, saying a goalkeeper was a 4.5" gun... :o
Ok back on topic...
I think you do not need to win militarily a conflict. At least not in the total war sense. Just make it too costly for the other side. PRC is not 1960 Vietnam, they cannot simply send people on the trail and accept whatever losses. Their citizens expect some accountability. I think in the 80s Defending HK would have been possible, also you would have had your back to the american lake and probably a couple of carriers pumping alpha strikes. No when the government decided to cede back the island (they were required by treaty to just give back the new territories) it was more or less because China was seen as a friend of convenience. It was before Tien An Men, same period when the Chinese got the L7A1 license from UK, they were in talks with Fairchild for the A-10, and the US gave them radars and ECM (and Blackhawks too). People forget we had a sort of honeymoon with them. By the time the honeymoon ended and there were people wanting to renege teh treaty, well US would have backed UK, but at the time reneging written treaty was seen counterproductive and there was still the hope to get in with the Chinese.
By the way, while US his right now bashing Beijing for almost everything real and imagined, there is still a lot of joint training going on between the PLA and PLAN and the Pacific Command.
As war you need to have hotter head to start a war... well miscalculation does not need instigation. More often than not wars start because you back your opponent ina certain position without even having realized what you were doing. I have read the article and while some part I agree with, some I think are more wishful thinking on the part of the authors (who are well know for some quite atrocious mistakes in the past) and the interviewer (who has an interesting background). My guess a potential war is 60% affair (60% US victory, 40% PRC victory chance). Now that Greenert is finally out, I assume the US Navy will clean house. It would be bloody of course... and I will have to pick sides (a thing I do not want to do). About it being stupid or not... depend on the situation.
On gaming term this would be akin to invent a world war from scratch just to have an idea of what to do, and probably will lead to mission creep (I just need this company to finish that formation for that scenario...). Plus it will be a large naval war and tomcat51 does not appear interested in ships... This is the reason why I advocate smaller conflict like the Confrontation as a model (and if you look at it from the Historian perspective it was a bloody good idea for both sides! Using military forces without escalation and practically denying everything by mutual consent).
-
GHQ will be doing 6mm Indian armour this year, so between them and Heroics and Ros you could potentially field pretty much the bulk of what you'd need for a Sino-Indian War.
It is one of my project... call me hothead, but after India kidnapped two Italian NCO I have started to see India as a bigger threat than China. Plus... I do not have friend or crushes in the Indian military... lol
-
It is one of my project... call me hothead, but after India kidnapped two Italian NCO I have started to see India as a bigger threat than China. Plus... I do not have friend or crushes in the Indian military... lol
and the truth comes out! lol
Just kidding of course.
I always seen the Chinese build up as a counter to the Indian navy . Oh and as a "hey look at us, we are a big power and are the world stage" thing.
Like how before world war one every one had to have a battle ship.
-
It is one of my project... call me hothead, but after India kidnapped two Italian NCO I have started to see India as a bigger threat than China. Plus... I do not have friend or crushes in the Indian military... lol
They're doing Italians too which I'm looking forward to, always had a soft spot for Italian kit. I want to do Chinese Vs Everybody and Anybody in the immediate neighborhood. Not Italians though, I've got a North African campaign in mind for them.
For now though I'm concentrating on the Middle East: 6mm Iranian and Saudis atm. I'll be posting pics when they're is something decent to show, and I'll probably set up a blog for background so forum rules are not breached.
-
(shows his KCL MA degree and PhD in... War Studies!).
Guessed as much, by some of the names you mentioned - one of my favourite lectures at KCL was Julian Thompson's on the Falklands
:)
Would agree the original premise was a tad far fetched - something in the South China Sea sounds more "realistic"...training a local partner, then getting drawn in/mission creep, eg by a stray missile hitting a warship in-theatre.
Either way the pendulum in the British Armed Forces has swung towards light mobile formations, special forces, drones and cruise missiles, rather than heavy armour. Fine for COIN ops or a regional conflict against a third rate power like Argentina (no insult meant) although even in the case of the latter we'd have to "make-do" until we have a carrier with actual aircraft on it.
Until the pendulum swings back the other way, HMG are unlikely to get involved in a shooting war without doing so in conjunction with the US (with the exception of The Falklands, or unruly Spanish fishermen assaulting Gibraltar).
-
After all that I'm now considering a conflict between India a China with the British being asked to step in and lend support to India, in an advisory role at first, then with mission creep setting in after India gets a mauling and loses territory. Plausible? Who would I use as Indian soldiers in 28mm?
-
bad idea... :o
no one is doing Indians right now in 28mm. and the best proxyes (Mongrel syrians, not perfect, but a good starting point... except that they are more or less defunct). Ok there was a guy who asked money to do a range on KS. But was really "give me money, then I will contact a sculptor then I will..." Even Rick Falch had at least some things to show... that guy only shown a miniature (1) from another brand...
Stick to Borneo... avoid mission creep lol
You know, today you are talking of advisors and infantry, tomorrow you will talk of armoured divisions... lol Also why the hell India needs UK? If the Indian army is not sufficient what a couple of brigades will do? Of course in 6mm it is an eminently doable project... but again what kind of games are you looking for?
-
Nothing major in size, company sized engagements in 6mm with the odd 28mm skirmish. Borneo it is then, India can take care of itself. This wargaming lark is a minefield, maybe i should just take out a second mortgage and play 40k instead, they don't even care why they are fighting or if it makes a lick of sense lol
-
tomcat I'd admire your style - you are a true wargames butterfly.... three pages of posts and one day later and you are already on your third idea (or was it the second one you went back to?)
Of course the danger is that you will have changed your mind in the period between ordering the figures, and them arriving in the post (something I've done only too often myself)
:D
-
As far as changing course goes, I'm the guy who lives in a glass house, so no stones being thrown by me. I see it more as testing ideas than procrastination in any case. :)
A notable thread though and I particularly like the 'soap opera' element Arrigo has thrown into the ring. Forget the rights and wrongs of British defence policy (which is drifting into current affairs in any case), I want to hear more about romance across the 'Bamboo Curtain'.
;)
-
Another idea is for a possible civil war in China. I mean in the future not now. Good excuse to get England involved if the new territory/ break away/ independent Hong Kong ask for humanitarian help or some such reason to go back.
And thus conflict.
Would be an easier sale to the public if Jonny was going to China to help with food distribution, not fighting with two major factions in Chinese civil war, will trying to secure the economic zone.
-
Yes! A Chinese civil war, Hong Kong want out and the UK happily obliges them. This wargaming butterfly is on the move again! I could go completely left field and take China back to the Five Kingdoms period, but in the modern day. I do know that China does has some internal issues with divisions along religious and ethnic linest hat could be played on, especially further inland to the west of the country, but I worry that it comes a bit close to the current affairs rules on the forum topic.
-
The 5 kingdoms concept is an easy one to do. Maybe us the military districts as the base of regional warlords.
And there are lots of reasons or things that could result in the party losing the mandate of heaven. Economic, social, environment..etc.
Just say the powers that be in Hong Kong did not want to get involved in the conflict but want independence from the now waring state.
The U.K. gets involved for humanitarian, economic reasons along with the old historical we used to own Hong Kong reasons.
The USA is busy securing other locations so this is a totally British affair.
They say for combatants you have loyalists government forces, rebel and war lord military units. And don't forget the urban insurgent forces that for one reason or another do not want the Anglo task force there.
-
As far as changing course goes, I'm the guy who lives in a glass house, so no stones being thrown by me. I see it more as testing ideas than procrastination in any case. :)
A notable thread though and I particularly like the 'soap opera' element Arrigo has thrown into the ring. Forget the rights and wrongs of British defence policy (which is drifting into current affairs in any case), I want to hear more about romance across the 'Bamboo Curtain'.
;)
Which soap opera elements? lol
-
2nd Chinese civil war:
https://shop.strategyandtacticspress.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=MW19
seems someone has prepared a strategic level game on the subject just in time... lol
but Tomcat, try to focus... even if in your defense you are keeping the same miniatures, just changing background! :D
-
:o very nice.
-
Sorry discussion of current affairs is not permitted. :)
-
Well,
<note to Arlequin, if I straddle just remove my post... :D >
You can have a look at the game rules on Modern War webpage. I think it is a valid scenario, even if do not think it is probable. You have historical precedents, a believable force setting. You can even rationalize the thing as: corrupt officials of the army and the party realized their best chance is to fire back with force. Happened in the past. The advantage of going this road is that you can have the game providing a satisfying strategic narrative and then write it up as the background. Of course there will be people who will suggest to create a metagame... but all the attempts I have seen have floundered in disaster. There was even someone who approached Phil Sabin asking if there was a way to use his Hell's Gate as a scenario generator for tactical games (once they suggested Panzergrenadier, another time ASL...). The thing happened on BGG, but it was term time so I was seeing Phil quite often so we discussed it in person and he told me "yes, I tole them do it if you want" (and he had his typical tone when he means "this is perfectly doable in theory but...)
It is better to play the game on the map, (as often happen with Ty's games it promises to be bloody and quick) then use it to write down a narrative and then create the setting for the actual miniature gaming. I once did it for a WW3 set of scenarios using boardgames to trace the narrative. Well, the first one who get the game (it has not yet shown up in UK so I cannot simply go to Leisure and grab a copy), can try it and post a narrative of his first play!
Otherwise you can try this one:
http://shop.strategyandtacticspress.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=MW012
I have it and I like it. I played it 3-4 times and the different preparation levels ensure you have a great deal of playability, plus the narratives I created were quite enticing and had several good idea for 6mm battles. I think it is one of the strongest games from Joe Miranda.
-
Okay gentlemen, I've edited your posts to conform to forum rules. Discussion of current affairs is not permitted.
I am prepared to accept a hypothetical future conflict between 'real' or imaginary nations, as long as discussion of the causes does not stray into real world events.
:)
-
I think I will be ordering some of those games when I next get paid. Give me an excuse to use the moderns I have. And to buy a few more to flush out the forces....When is Empress coming out with more Chines vehicles in 28s? lol
-
Empress have been threatening to release the ZBD-2000 for a while I think. I thall definitely be snaffling it up, I've only ever seen Chinese vehicle in 1:35 scale.
-
They need to hurry up, I feel the need for some east Asian action.
-
You could use Russian equipment and squint, it woul look more or less the same. Chinese armour has some great cammo patterns which would distinguish them as PLA once painted up. Or you could do an airborne force, no armour, just infantry with helicopter support.
-
Empress have been threatening to release the ZBD-2000 for a while I think. I thall definitely be snaffling it up, I've only ever seen Chinese vehicle in 1:35 scale.
We are currently sculpting two versions of the PLA amphbious tank. The MBT to follow but sadly nothing is ever as quick as we want it. Cos I want some as well.
Cheers,
Paul
-
You can use the BMP-1 as a Chinese IFV, they are still meant to have a large number of those in service, despite a number of them undergoing changes to weaponry/turret design.
-
We are currently sculpting two versions of the PLA amphbious tank. The MBT to follow but sadly nothing is ever as quick as we want it. Cos I want some as well.
Cheers,
Paul
very nice, and I am looking forward to seeing them when they come out.
And yes, the old bmp and btr are very well represented in lots of armories. Need to get some more to complement the BMP3S I got for my Russian force.
-
I've finally decided on a setting for my modern conflict between China and Great Britain. I've found that looking for a realistic scenario is too complicated and any likely engagement between the two countries would be naval before anything else. Plus making it too realistic reduces fun and veers too close to current affairs. It is with this in mind that I have decided to lift a scenario from Wargame: Red Dragon and bring it into the modern day.
Its the mid eighties. During negotiations between the UK and China over the lease of Hong Kong, the Chinese Premier tells Thatcher that he could simply take back Hong Kong in an afternoon. Thatcher, buoyed by her recent victory in the Falklands, invites the Chinese to try. They do not call her bluff and simply back down, leaving Hong Kong and the New Territories in British hands. Until now. No longer willing to accept its territories being in foreign hands and with more than enough military capability behind it, China is looking to make an example of a foreign military power, and the British are now in their sights. The Americans are staying out of this one, refusing to back the UK over what it views as its illegal occupation of Chinese soil. The only advantages the British have is their submarine fleet, the threat of which prevents the Chinese from risking an amphibeous invasion, and the support of Canada, Australia and New Zealand who all have a stake in the Pearl of the Orient.
The scenario is absolute nonsense I know, and the region does not lend itself to massed tank battles, but this setting does allow me to field Leopards, M1A1's and LAV's as part of the Australian and Canadian forces, which is great for me as I love the vehicles, and it should be easy to build a gaming board with a few hills and trees on it that could represent large regions of the New Territories. I've painted by first ever 6mm model, an AH7. Lynx, which I will post later tonight. I can't say it was the most fun to paint, but it looks ok for the table top. My initial PLA force has arrived from Heroics and Ros and I'm looking to get more painted soon. Once I move house I'm going to start putting a board together, then its game on for the first stages of the war!
-
I'm not sure I understand is the idea to set this in the '80s or now? Neither the Australians or Canadians had Abrams in the 1980s. Australia didn't have any LAVs until 1990 for that matter.
If the idea is to transplant the 1980s into now as some sort of alternative history, then you should probably factor in the prospect of Australia going to war with its No.1 trading partner is about as implausible as it gets.
By the by, the New Territories aren't/ weren't bad tank country, open rolling hills in part. Through to the late 1960s there was a tank squadron based in Hong Kong, at first with Comets and later Centurions. They exercised in the New Territories and there were tank gunnery ranges there.
If you wanted to use HK as a setting and fancy tanks why not consider the 1960s? There was some serious civil unrest in Hong Kong in the 1960s, in part inspired by the Cultural revolution taking place across the border. You could posit that some Red Guards go rogue and cross the border, forcing the PLA to follow. There are suitable British troops for the period and setting but the Chinese would pose a challenge. I've been doing some green stuff conversions to the Eureka WW2 Chinese but I'll admit that's a lot of work to do a platoon's worth.
-
I'm not sure I understand is the idea to set this in the '80s or now? Neither the Australians or Canadians had Abrams in the 1980s. Australia didn't have any LAVs until 1990 for that matter.
Modern, the seeds of the conflict go back to the 80's, but the battles will be present day.
-
If the idea is to transplant the 1980s into now as some sort of alternative history, then you should probably factor in the prospect of Australia going to war with its No.1 trading partner is about as implausible as it gets.
This is why I decided to throw plausibility to the wind and just have fun gaming a scenario using models that I like. Whatever scenario I come up with someone tells me it wouldn't really happen, the world is too interconnectd now. This war is unlikely, but it is just a fun gaming option, like the computer game I'm using as inspiration. I'm not an historical gamer, this is alternate history.
-
Fair enough. It wasn't meant as a criticism and I'm not trying to be a nay sayer, your toys your game. Your earlier posts suggested you were looking for a kernel of realism that's why I mentioned Oz and the 60s stuff.
-
Fair enough. It wasn't meant as a criticism and I'm not trying to be a nay sayer, your toys your game. Your earlier posts suggested you were looking for a kernel of realism that's why I mentioned Oz and the 60s stuff.
Sorry, didn't mean that to sound like I was biting, just explaining why I was giving up on the real real world. I'm just going for my own interpretation of the real world, close enough for government work, but not close enough to satisfy the history bods on this site. ;)
-
Sorry, didn't mean that to sound like I was biting, just explaining why I was giving up on the real real world. I'm just going for my own interpretation of the real world, close enough for government work, but not close enough to satisfy the history bods on this site. ;)
sorry it is not close enough for government work... lol you want this kind of close enough you have two options:
a) do your research seriously (but then overpower blue)
b) play games with the country names. For Example you can Kong Hong, Nachi, Oz...
If you take option B, when you describe the tropical setting.... remember to do it in January in Portsmouth with wind blowing in face of listeners
There is also option C: create your own world. After all you want to use specific miniatures rather than specific countries. I have created some settings that are more or less current nations and tech, but on "colony" worlds with some artificial constraints in technology to explain wht there are Abrams rather than sci fi tanks. If, as you told us, you like story telling this is a more interesting exercise. You can also create your own geography according to your terrain collection. Just my usual two pennies.
-
Not a bad idea tomcat
-
... or create an imagi-nation. I find myself agreeing with Arrigo once more (most unusual ;) ), in that it is the figures and vehicles that are important to you, not necessarily that they are actually 'British' or 'Chinese' forces.
There are few contemporary vehicles which are not on the arms market and while they may not have all the bells and whistles of the 'not for export' versions, they look the same.
:)
-
... or create an imagi-nation.
Kind of like the Ace Combat games then, a completely fictional world with the same level of tech as our own (except with planes that can carry infinite missiles).
OK, here goes scenario attempt number 27; "The year is 2020 and Margaret Thatcher has sat on the Iron Throne for nearly 40 years..."
-
... or create an imagi-nation. I find myself agreeing with Arrigo once more (most unusual ;) ), in that it is the figures and vehicles that are important to you, not necessarily that they are actually 'British' or 'Chinese' forces.
There are few contemporary vehicles which are not on the arms market and while they may not have all the bells and whistles of the 'not for export' versions, they look the same.
:)
and I was thinking we were usually in agreement... lol that was an evil maskirovka! :o lol
Tomcat,
just create the story you want, and then fit the actors and the kit. This also allow you to use ranges you were not considering in the first instance. Just knock out something believable. But I have detected a certain tendency to have over the top characters... :D
-
OK, here goes scenario attempt number 27; "The year is 2020 and Margaret Thatcher has sat on the Iron Throne for nearly 40 years..."
Was it a lack of dietary fibre that finally killed the old cow? Forty years is probably a harsher punishment than many of her detractors would have asked for, save maybe for those with a belief in an eternal afterlife. :D
-
You can also create your own geography according to your terrain collection. Just my usual two pennies.
This makes a lot of sense, if I set it in Asia I have to be specific with my terrain and scenery, if I make somewhere up then I have more freedom. So here goes my latest attempt at a workable setting.
The country is East Albion, about the size of Taiwan, a thousand miles to the East of that country and on the same longitude. Previously uninhabited save for small aboriginal fishing communities, it was claimed and colonised by the British in the early eighteen hundreds. It quickly turned into a rich agricultural colony, with green rolling farmlands making it look very much the same as rural England and earning it its name of East Albion, the England of the East. Chinese emigrants flocked to the country, situated as it was on one of the main routes to America, to work its fields and in its burgeoning mining industry. It was not long before the Chinese made up at least fifty percent of East Albion's population and the two cultures lived happily side by side, creating a country that was very much British, but with a strong oriental influence.
It was not until WWII that divisions began to set in. Japanese occupation of the colony first set the two communities apart, with the ethnically British population quickly capitulating to the Japanese whilst the Chinese, more resistant, were treated very harshly and massacred in their thousands. After the war, when many former colonies of imperial powers were seeking independence, East Albion, much to the chagrin of the Chinese population, chose to stay as a British protectorate, with the minority white population overruling the majority Chinese wishes. This cementing of the ethnic Chinese as second class citizens was the final straw, allowing communist rebels to thrive in the rural Chinese communities throughout the fifties, sixties and early seventies, tearing East Albion apart in a bitter and ugly civil war. Eventually, using the vast oil and mineral wealth discovered in and around the island nation, Colonial Government forces managed to bring the country under control, and years of prosperity followed, albeit with the wealth centred mainly amongst the white population.
It is now the present day and the country is still divided between the mainly white urban population to the industrialised West of the island and the rural Chinese population in the East. The Island has become vastly wealthy due to some of the largest oil deposits in the world off its coast, and has become a key strategic point in the control of the Pacific, with a vast American Naval base situated there. Civil war once again looms in the island nation however, with the East Islanders claiming that their side of the island has practically become its own nation and that they no longer want to be a part of East Albion, and the West Islanders refusing to give up an inch of their nation. The East Islanders, knowing that they can not win a war on their own, claim independence and invite the Chinese government to station their armed forces on the island as peacekeepers. The Chinese government, backed by popular support at home to aid its ethnic people, and keen to gain a foothold on this strategic position in the Pacific, as well as the access to the vast mineral wealth of the island they would gain, take up the request and position significant forces on the Island. Great Britain and her allies respond in kind, vastly bolstering the native East Albion forces with their own. Under the pretext of fighting a counter insurgency, and refusing to acknowledge the PLA forces as anything but an extension of the rebel army, the armed forces of Great Britain, East Albion, Canada and Australia invade the newly independent country of East East Albion...
The setting of East Albion will, I think, allow me a semi plausible setting and give me the opportunity for some interesting battlefields. As East Albion is basically England in the Pacific ocean I can build a board that looks like rural England, for which scenery is readily available, and I have an excuse buy the 6mm scale Tesco supermarket I saw for sale on Gamecraft Miniatures :D It also circumvents the unlikelihood of the belligerents actually going to war as all sides can refuse that accept that they are actually fighting each other and that in fact they are fighting either rebels or an invading force. It can be a bit like a certain former superpower and their activities in a certain Eastern European country at the moment. Plus the Britain of this world is a bit more wealthy and still more of a dominant power due to its possession of the wealth of East Albion.
-
Was it a lack of dietary fibre that finally killed the old cow? Forty years is probably a harsher punishment than many of her detractors would have asked for, save maybe for those with a belief in an eternal afterlife. :D
The Iron Throne, not the porcelain throne lol
-
After all this blathering on about scenarios for my toy soldier war I thought I would at least upload something to look at. This is my first ever attempt at 6mm scale painting and I am uninspired by my efforts. It will look OK on the table I hope, with a bit of generous squinting. This is an AH7 Lynx, looking for East East Albion Rebels.
-
Well, finally something that makes sense! lol and a nice Lynx to boot too
only one thing... I think sometime you confuse east with west... :D
-
After all this blathering on about scenarios for my toy soldier war I thought I would at least upload something to look at. This is my first ever attempt at 6mm scale painting and I am uninspired by my efforts. It will look OK on the table I hope, with a bit of generous squinting. This is an AH7 Lynx, looking for East East Albion Rebels.
Wouldn't i have been easier to have just nuked it? lol
Nice Lynx :D
-
Well, finally something that makes sense! lol and a nice Lynx to boot too
only one thing... I think sometime you confuse east with west... :D
Finally! Thank you for your suggestions Arrigo. And yes, I did get a bit confused towards the end of that rambling post, I will ave to come up with better names for the rebel portion of East Albion than East East Albion! Perhaps the PREA, The Peoples Republic of East Albion?
-
How about Peoples Revolutionary Union? "Quick hide! The man from the PRU is in the village". ;)
-
I'm now putting together a PLA mechanised infantry company. Could anyone advise me on the organisation? I have this info so far;
each Inf Coy has 3 rifle platoons plus 1 weapons platoon.
- The company HQ element has 22 men, which includes 6 snipers/sharpshooters (among the general public, the usage of those two terms in Chinese language is sometimes mingled).
-- Each platoon (40 men) consist of a command element (CO + radio op.), 3 rifle squads and a weapons squad.
--- Each rifle squad has 10 men, divided into two fire teams of 5, with the squad leader and assistant squad leader each leading one of the teams. Each team has 3 riflemen (QBZ95), 1 grenadier (QBZ95 with 35mm slung grenade launcher), and 1 squad support weapon (QBB95). The team leader is also the grenadier.
--- The weapons squad has 8 men with a MG team of 2 men (1 x QJY88 LMG), an automatic grenade launcher team of 3 men (1 x QLZ87 35mm AGL), and an AT team of 3 men (1 x PF98 AT rocket).
-- The weapons platoon (42 men) consists of a 2 men command element (CO + radio op.), 1 HMG squad, 2 mortar squads and 1 ATGM squad
--- the HMG squad has 2 QJZ89 HMGs with 10 men divided into two teams.
--- the mortar squads each has 2 PP93 60mm mortars with 10 men divided into two teams.
--- the ATGM squad has 2 HJ-9 "Red Arrow" ATGM system with 10 men divided into two teams.
Up one higher level, an infantry battalion has 3 infantry company, a weapons company and a 21 men scout platoon (I have no further details on this).
- the weapons company has 116 men, with a 15 men company HQ and staff element, 3 mortar platoons and one SAM platoon.
-- The mortar platoons each has 23 men, with a 2 men HQ element and 3 7-men squads each serving a PP87 82mm mortar.
-- The SAM platoon has 32 men with 6 QW2 shoulder launched SAM systems
-
WAR vs LEAD : West Albion Regime against Liberty for East Albion Dominion ?
Nice Lynx btw, maybe a bit too dark (picture).
-
WAR vs LEAD : West Albion Regime against Liberty for East Albion Dominion ?
Nice Lynx btw, maybe a bit too dark (picture).
I like it.
And yes, the picture is a bit dark. I don't have a camera, only my phone, I may have to do a bit of photoshop sorcery on it.
-
I've just quickly skim read this thread and it is very interesting in lots of ways.
Anyway...at the risk of a further diversion and relocation...
Linked below is an interesting paper on the possibilities of an NK civil war brought about by the unexpected demise of the leadership without a clearly designated successor. Generals return to their armies and set about trying to seize control of scarce resources to support their fiefdoms. US, SK and PRC all seek to intervene for a variety of reasons. US is principally trying to secure WMD sites but needs to call on allies to provide specialist teams to make these sites safe.
There's a mass of info in the paper, much of it probably irrelevant to the gamer other than as background but it is worth skim reading for the good bits:
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR300/RR331/RAND_RR331.pdf