Perhaps Naval War chose the wrong geographical area for the current popular focus :P

[General Baker]

With tensions rising (albeit, perhaps with no future serious consequences) in the South Atlantic, and warships moving into the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz, perhaps the Naval War series started off with the wrong geographic area, considering the level of current public interest that could've been gauged

 

[unmerged(304178)]

not really. sure there are tensions there but iran does not have much of an navy.

 

[unmerged(255172)]

With tensions rising (albeit, perhaps with no future serious consequences) in the South Atlantic, and warships moving into the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz, perhaps the Naval War series started off with the wrong geographic area, considering the level of current public interest that could've been gauged

In a sense, yes, but those conflicts are going to pop up in a lot of games. NATO vs Iran would either be a ridiculously lopsided naval war, or you'd have to involve only the smaller and older western units. I remember the documentation for a Mediterranean battle-set for Harpoon, where they pointed out they had to leave out all the juiciest units, since a single Ticonderoga cruiser would alone lay waste to the entire Syrian air force.

If you want to have a game pitting large, modern navies against each other, it would have to be in North Atlantic "cold war"-like scenarios, the Pacific or the Indian ocean. We'll start here

 

[LodovicoAriosto]

The game takes place in 2030, doesn't it? For me it sounds like a plausible scenario because Arctis is going to be an important resource base in the future. We are going to see militarization of both Arctis and Antarctis - no more neutral, science-only territories. In case of Arctis Russia already has an advantage because it competes with Canada and Norway which don't have good icebreakers and submarines. So the intervention of countries like the US will be possible to counter the strategic and technological advantage of Russia in the region.

Israel alone cannot attack Iran without a, usage of its illegal nukes b, massive assistance of the US. Either case leads to WW3 because Russia and China cannot allow the US to spread war to their borders. I guess the US would not be calm if China invaded Mexico and Canada which is the situation Iran is in right now. Russia is now basically surrounded so they might lose temper if the US pushes further. So if Israeli and US leadership has any rational thinking left, they cannot attack. And I hope they have so the only explanation of the current threatening to Iran is the symbiotic relationship of two elites which needs to create an enemy to suppress domestic problems - in the US and Iran. It is the US which created and feeds anti-American sentiments in Iran and thus helps Ahmadinejad to get reelected.

This game reflects probable resource wars of the future which is great as long as it is only a game! So I welcome that the game puts attention to real problems than to fabricated "terrorist" propaganda and tales about islamization of Europe etc. Most people don't realize that this global war has already started and it is spreading. The ultimate goal of NATO is to further dismantle Russia because it is going to be an agricultural and industrial core of the world once temperature rises and other regions are depleted. And yes, Hitler knew this. NATO thinks it can do better than him or Napoleon and has been quite succesful so far.

The war over the melting Arctis will be a part of this scheme. The regions with little population density but many natural resources (which are not easily accesible so far) like Russia or Norway will become the most precious valuables - and targets too.

 

[General Baker]

Oh no, I completely agree Lodovico, and I can understand what Jan says. I'm v keen on the chosen NW setting, and I'd agree that without any untrue-to-life changes the realistic situation wouldn't hold much potential.

I'm just thinking from a profitability viewpoint of a current-day topical storyline, if the story was made a bit more balanced.

 

[Destraex]

I thought the main fear of the world is that Israel may use nukes on the iranians before their nuke sites go too far underground. Of course that is just rumour and scuttlebut though.
Pretty sure the americans tried to make it clear they had nothing to do with this alleged israeli underground nuke silo?

Do any ships that are not subs carry nukes these days on tomohawks and such?
In fact are most american ships nuclear powered these days?

 

[nimitz98]

I thought the main fear of the world is that Israel may use nukes on the iranians before their nuke sites go too far underground. Of course that is just rumour and scuttlebut though.
Pretty sure the americans tried to make it clear they had nothing to do with this alleged israeli underground nuke silo?

Do any ships that are not subs carry nukes these days on tomohawks and such?
In fact are most american ships nuclear powered these days?

No surface ships except aircraft carriers carry nukes, and most American ships are still diesel powered. Only aircraft carriers and subs are powered by nuclear reactors.

 

[unmerged(304178)]

correction only us submarines and aircaft carriers are nuclear powered. all the surface ships get rid of there nuclear tipped tomahawks a little after the soviet union fell. so far the only nuclear bombs the navy has are on its carrier which all the f-18s on board can carry.i the ohio class nuclear submarine can carry up to 24 trient icbms. each one of those icbms can hit 10 targets aand one ohio class sub by itself can end the world.

 

[unmerged(117319)]

I think the theatre is quite appropriate for the timeframe, and the timeframe itself seems a clever move given the long pre-order times for naval technology and new ship classes themselves, giving the devs a good opportunity at a fairly realistic unit composition. We'll almost certainly see new armoured vehicle classes not currently in development in 2030, more than likely we'll see a new class of multi-role fighter or two coming to completion, but the chances of a company/country turning around a whole new major surface combatant (CV(N)/CG(N)/DDG) from initial (official) enquiry to operational hulls in the water in 18 years is slim.

Re the Iranian theatre, as nielsenkc and JanH touched on, with the USN having at least a carrier group at immediate readiness, as well as their and the Royal Navy and Marine Nationale's DDGs/FFGs down there, not to mention the sizeable air complement in Afghanistan, suggesting that a conflict would last beyond the NATO forces first barrage is very improbable.

Much the same with the Falklands Islands area, the Argentine's ARA have but 4 light DDGs and 3 aging SSKs in terms of full combat ships/subs, of which 50% or less are likely to be readily deployable. The RN alone have 3 SSNs (1 which is brand new), 5 DDGs, and at least 7 FFGs readily deployable with another 2 FFGs on extended readiness. It wouldn't provide much of a challenge to any player or give the game any longevity I think!

After seeing the live stream I think having the major surface powers of the world come to blows in the arctic region is quite fitting and should make for an expansive game experience.

 

[unmerged(354224)]

Argentina Vs UK would be suicide politically and millitarily, the Argentine government doesn't trust the millitary as far as they can throw a tank. with inferior training and equipment & ships compared to the RN (although argentina is supposed to be looking into refiting one of thier diesel powerd subs into an SSN -or build one of thier own-).They wouldn't stand a chance on thier own. That said Argentina could rally support from it's other S american neighbours although i doubt that they would get directly involved, maybe provide spare parts like last time.
In the end Argentina would be destroyed in a conventional war

 

[Sakai007]

The premise of a war of resources in the arctic is scary in the way the mind can play out a realistic chain of events to reach that conclusion. Even before the game was announced I was constantly reading news reports about the Canadians, Russians, and the US investing more time, money, and training into arctic warfare. I think that the US and Russia are in the best position as far as experience and proper equipment go. It's not like the US and Canada will ever come to blows, so Allies of necessity we will be.

I really hope this doesn't ever become reality, not the least of which since I live in the far northern part of the eastern US and may be closer to the action then I would prefer. A shooting war is bad new for all parties, but thankfully it's great fodder for an outstanding naval war game!!!

 

[ikalugin]

Note that we are refitting some of our units into dedicated arctic ones (so called arctic brigades, they get specialist equipment) and all of our forces are trained in cold weather operations (as it is in continental Russia, not north pole, where the coldest place in northern hemisphere is).

But in my opinion it would be Far East, and the Pacific regions, where ground ambitions of China would lead to war (and yes papa Karlo would shit bricks like he does).

 

[unmerged(83789)]

The Royal Marines cold war role was to work together with the Norwegians and stop the Soviets in Northern Norway. I believe that although British defense policy is moving away from the idea that a war will be fought in Europe the Marines still extensively train for this role and are the UK's Alpine and Arctic troops.

 

[ikalugin]

Do they not train in desert warfare at the moment?

Also, what is the size of their constantly combat ready element, am I correct to estimate a brigade size force?

 

[unmerged(304178)]

the us is still got a division size unit that is training in alaska 24-7 not to mention all our spec ops teams are trained arctic conditions

 

[ikalugin]

Compared to all Russian troops that train in similar conditions (as we have the same geographical position as Alaska and Canada)? Also you have the issue of transportation, in a surprise conflict Russia would have more assets in the region consisting of:
- Naval infantry in Kola peninsular
- 2-3 Special arctic brigades (for extreme northern conditions of Novaya Zemlya and other similar areas, stationed on Kola Peninsular)
- 2-3 Regular brigades (who have normal winter training and equipment)
- Ready 1 paratrooper regiment (what we can airlift on moments notice), or 1-2 paratrooper divisions. Note that those units are fully mechanized and have integral artilery and anti air support.

 

[unmerged(83789)]

Do they not train in desert warfare at the moment?

Also, what is the size of their constantly combat ready element, am I correct to estimate a brigade size force?

The Royal Marines train to operate in all environments and climates, however they spend most of their time being trained on amphibious warfare, mountain warfare and Arctic warfare. In 2010 the Royal Marines 6,840 regular personnel and 970 Royal Marines Reserve, for a combined component strength of 7,810 personnel.

3 Commando Brigade are the troops that spend most of their time in Norway (although they were called away to operate in Afghanistan and Iraq at certain points) and the ones who would be able to make it there quickest. 3 Commando comprises of 8 battalions. I can't find any information of its current strength.

To answer your question the entirety of the Marines other than some 970 personal are combat ready. If we take this article:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/07/01/russia-arctic-troops-idUKLDE76017D20110701

to be correct Russia has two brigades dedicated to Arctic and Alpine warfare. On average a Russian brigade amounts to around 4,000 troops so if we assume 8,000 of Russia's dedicated Artic troops that are constantly combat ready vs the UK's 6,000 or so.

EDIT:

http://4gwar.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/special-operations-2/

An insightful article on war games in the North in 2010 in which 2,000 British troops and sailors took part.

 

[unmerged(452882)]

i hope there is no war cause it spoils everything

 

[ikalugin]

The difference here is that all of our troops essentially have the same winter training as yours marines. This comes from the climate. The special arctic units are trained to operate on polar ice and very deep snow, environment harsher than found in Norway. This gives use 2 dedicated arctic brigades in theater (stationed in the Kola peninsular), as well as 2 regular brigades, as well as a naval infantry brigade, as well as paratroopers. For the special mountain environments we ca get a brigade from the southern military district. Overall this is a superior force, trained in winter warfare and already in theater.

The coldest region in the whole northern hemisphere is in fact in Siberia, not the North Pole. Norway is quite warn actually (as is Kola peninsular) due to the golfstream ending there - Murmansk, unlike st Petersburg is a non freezing port (ie sea does not freeze there in the winter).

 

[unmerged(83789)]

Having see your comments here and in other threads I think that arguing with you is like trying to shift a mule. I will never get you to compromise on anything.

I do not think that the Russian's are better trained than those of NATO. That may have been so in the cold war but to say so now is laughable. How can a nation with a lower military budget than the UK expect to have greater quality of troops? Especially when Russian doctrine Deep Battle doctrine argues against this and the fact that Russia has to fund a army twice as large with less money.

I do not think that the Russian's have better equipment (although they are developing some nice stuff and some of it is just coming into service).

I think that NATO probably has more troops on the ground than Russia because of the fact that you have to take into account Norway, Sweden and the USA's troops rather than just the UK's.

The fact that Siberia is colder than Norway is neither here nor there. If the country can't afford to have better training, equipment or size compared to the opponent their facing then they are stuffed. End of.