Thoughts on "Modern" Wargaming

Started by bayonetbrant, June 21, 2015, 07:24:45 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

BanzaiCat

Mirth! Back from the barf-brink, eh?

mirth

Quote from: Banzai_Cat on June 22, 2015, 08:52:24 AM
Mirth! Back from the barf-brink, eh?

Sorta. Dragged my sorry ass to work. Still trying to figure out why.
"45 minutes of pooping Tribbles being juggled by a drunken Horta would be better than Season 1 of TNG." - SirAndrewD

"you don't look at the mantelpiece when you're poking the fire" - Bawb

"Can't 'un' until you 'pre', son." - Gus

Barthheart

Quote from: mirth on June 22, 2015, 09:15:08 AM
Quote from: Banzai_Cat on June 22, 2015, 08:52:24 AM
Mirth! Back from the barf-brink, eh?

Sorta. Dragged my sorry ass to work. Still trying to figure out why.

This yer weekend Mirth?

Richie61

Well I grow up in the 70's/ 80's and the equipment around then wasn't what was used in Gulf War 1. Then add that equipment changed a lot from Gulf War 1 to Gulf War 2.  ;)

Ed
aka Richie61

"If You Don't Stand for Something, You'll Fall for Anything"

bayonetbrant

Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on June 21, 2015, 10:30:21 PM
Quote from: bayonetbrant on June 21, 2015, 07:25:07 PM
thoughts from the Grognut gallery?

Yeah, modern would be call the good old air force, plan to clean up after just about everything is broken.  ^-^

Yeah, 'cuz that worked really well in Kosovo...
The key to surviving this site is to not say something which ends up as someone's tag line - Steelgrave

"their citizens (all of them counted as such) glorified their mythology of 'rights'...and lost track of their duties. No nation, so constituted, can endure." Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers

Mr. Bigglesworth

Quote from: bayonetbrant on June 22, 2015, 10:11:37 AM
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on June 21, 2015, 10:30:21 PM
Quote from: bayonetbrant on June 21, 2015, 07:25:07 PM
thoughts from the Grognut gallery?

Yeah, modern would be call the good old air force, plan to clean up after just about everything is broken.  ^-^

Yeah, 'cuz that worked really well in Kosovo...

ualties and losses

Kosovo Liberation Army 1,500 insurgents killed (according to the KLA)[23]

United States 2 non-combat deaths[24]
United States 3 soldiers captured[25]
United States Two aircraft shot down[26][27]
United States Two AH-64 Apaches and a AV-8B Harrier crashed[28]
United States Three aircraft damaged[29][30]
NATO 47 UAVs shot down[31]
France Unknown number of DGSE officers killed[32]    Caused by KLA:
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia More than 300 soldiers killed according to Yugoslav Army[33]
Caused by NATO:
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 1,031–1,200 killed[a]
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 14 tanks destroyed[38]
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 18 APCs destroyed[39]
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 20 artillery pieces destroyed[39]
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 121 aircraft and helicopters destroyed[40]

How does that compare to nato casualty ratios in Afghanistan? 3 US soldiers captured, 2 planes shot down vs 35,000 dead.

Casualties and losses

Coalition:
Dead: 3,486 (all causes)
2,807 (hostile causes)
(United States: 2,356, United Kingdom: 453, Canada: 158, France: 88, Germany: 57, Italy: 53, Others: 321)[13]
Wounded: 22,773 (United States: 19,950, United Kingdom: 2,188, Canada: 635)[14][15][16]
Contractors:
Dead: 1,582[17][18]
Wounded: 15,000+[17][18]
Afghan Security Forces:
16,013+ killed[19][20]
Afghan Northern Alliance:
200 killed[21][22][23][24]
Total killed: 20,743+

Is somebody using the #winning measure of success?
"Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; "
- Shakespeare's Henry V, Act III, 1598

bayonetbrant

What was the tonnage of bombs dropped in Kosovo / numbers of sorties flown / extent of the air war to kill

QuoteFederal Republic of Yugoslavia 14 tanks destroyed[38]
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 18 APCs destroyed[39]
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 20 artillery pieces destroyed[39]
The key to surviving this site is to not say something which ends up as someone's tag line - Steelgrave

"their citizens (all of them counted as such) glorified their mythology of 'rights'...and lost track of their duties. No nation, so constituted, can endure." Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers

Mr. Bigglesworth

Quote from: bayonetbrant on June 22, 2015, 11:34:46 AM
What was the tonnage of bombs dropped in Kosovo / numbers of sorties flown / extent of the air war to kill

QuoteFederal Republic of Yugoslavia 14 tanks destroyed[38]
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 18 APCs destroyed[39]
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 20 artillery pieces destroyed[39]

Given the two extremes of air war vs ground war, what do you think is the max sorties, bombs per nato soldier life to spend? Personally I think a US citizen is worth a hell of a lot of jet fuel spent.

Of course there is some optimal combination of methods given achieving goals while countering enemy operations.
"Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; "
- Shakespeare's Henry V, Act III, 1598

bayonetbrant

The point being that "modern warfare" is not "blow the shit out of things with airpower and send in the grunts to clean up the mess" because airpower BDA is consistently over-rated and over-stated. 
The key to surviving this site is to not say something which ends up as someone's tag line - Steelgrave

"their citizens (all of them counted as such) glorified their mythology of 'rights'...and lost track of their duties. No nation, so constituted, can endure." Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers

Mr. Bigglesworth

More to the point, the strategic level is cost (not all monetary) to the country, to achieve an aim. What was the cost in world political power of a groung war like both Afghanistan wars USSR, modern, vietnam, current Ukraine cost for Russia, etc?

Despite the moaning of the press, Kosovo probably had a light prestige, political, economic cost to nato countries. The other wars have been devastating to national prestige, international cooperation, human suffering of winning troops, economic cost, etc.
"Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; "
- Shakespeare's Henry V, Act III, 1598

mirth

Quote from: bayonetbrant on June 22, 2015, 03:03:44 PM
because airpower BDA is consistently over-rated and over-stated. 

Not just a problem of  modern warfare.
"45 minutes of pooping Tribbles being juggled by a drunken Horta would be better than Season 1 of TNG." - SirAndrewD

"you don't look at the mantelpiece when you're poking the fire" - Bawb

"Can't 'un' until you 'pre', son." - Gus

Mr. Bigglesworth

If you look at the " modern" hybrid war russia is using, a lot is intelligence operations, cyber, local political agitation, to soften areas before siezing security control of the area with troops. Other countries will respond to this breaking of international norms with the same.

At some point Russia will have to take more territory to win prestige at home or walk away in failure. They may bet that Ukraine will walk away in failure first. They will still have to deal with long term repercussions to interations with other nations. Trust is much faster lost than gained. In the long term the costs will far outweigh any benefit of territory to such a big nation.

In summary I dont really think a wargame that only deals with military matters is useful for understanding these situations. You far more need a political, economic and country simulation.
"Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; "
- Shakespeare's Henry V, Act III, 1598

Jack Nastyface

#27
Excellent thread - would've made a great gametalk question.  Here's what I'm thinking:  in general, you are smarter than your average wargaming bear.  I like to think that I'm well edumacated on most things military, but I admit lotsa ignorance about new and emerging OOB's, etc.  So while I think I inherently understand that re-arranging type, size and availability of battlefield assets would have tremendous impact on the strategic side to how a set-piece force may respond to a threat, I really couldn't speak to what that re-org looks like vis-a-vis US, Russian, Chinese, Israeli, etc perspectives.
When it comes to game-play, these issues are relevant at certain levels (grand strategy); at another level (company, squad or mano-a-mano) they may be largely irrelevant.  Means...if I am playing a game about theatre-wide conflict, and everytime I pull a Div  out of reserve it has an impact on my nation's political will, then perhaps these questions are important.  I say "perhaps" because I most often assume that wargames of every scale exist in a silo-ed vacuum where the realities of time, space, political, social and cultural reality are somewhat or absolutely abstract.  So success is most often measured in units lost / ground gained / VP's earned, etc; diplomacy, domestic politics or socio-economic impact have little or no effect.  So if I need to send 12 combat battalions into battle, does it really make I difference if I send 3 units of 4 battalions, or 4 of 3, or 2 of 6, or even 1 of 12?  Only a few games (mostly large-scale computer stuff, like perhaps Civilization where democracies revolt if you send in to many units) bother to model this stuff.  Most games - even the grand-strategic ones, just want you to blow sh*t up in some way shape or form.

So, perhaps the real issue is "at a certain level, in a certain kind of game, which certain kinds of mechanics and victory condition influences" these matters are important.  But for my part, I tend to spend most of my gaming time down and dirty behind a barricade, rolling for hits with a Somali RPG team against a Blackhawk.

Yours in gaming,
Jack Nastyface
Personally, since I play mostly tactical stuff, I admit to general ignorance about these kinds of gaming concerns.
Now, the problem is, how to divide five Afghans from three mules and have two Englishmen left over.

bayonetbrant

in the context of the original reply over on the other site, the discussion was around wargaming with the current / modern orders of battle for the US under the "BCT" organization that is currently in use.

several people replied that the OP should just "adapt" any of the myriad "Cold War" games and call it 'close enough'
My reply is that it is obviously not nearly 'close enough' given the evolution of warfare over 30+ years and that "modern"<>"modern"
The key to surviving this site is to not say something which ends up as someone's tag line - Steelgrave

"their citizens (all of them counted as such) glorified their mythology of 'rights'...and lost track of their duties. No nation, so constituted, can endure." Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers

Mad Russian

So what gives you the heartburn? Are you thinking that the TO&E/ORBATS aren't being shown correctly? That the equipment evolution in their own time frames? The fact that the equipment has evolved over the years with new tactics and equipment levels all together?

Good Hunting.

MR
The most expensive thing in the world is free time.