Scenario: A War Between the UK and China

[tomcat51]

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.

[Brummie]

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 

[Arrigo]

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...   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.



 

[tomcat51]

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.

[Arlequín]

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.

 

[tomcat51]

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.

[Arrigo]

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?   What is the point of study a topic if all what I learn will die with me?  

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.

[Arrigo]

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.

[tomcat51]

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]

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 ( 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.

[Elk101]

Arrigo, would you mind if I pm'd you about something related to this current discussion?

[tomcat51]

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]

Arrigo, would you mind if I pm'd you about something related to this current discussion?

why not?

[commissarmoody]

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.  

[Arlequín]

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.