Is this reasonable ?

[Geert Hooghe]

Hi all,

 

Looking at the theatermap op DCS-a10, it would be reasonable to imagine that when building a template-mission (by that i mean a mission that contains the air-, naval and ground defenses that are always needed and then start from there to build several A-10 missons) one should start from a certain position with certain assumptions which are :

 

Georgia and South-Ossetia are close to being attacked by insurgents en Russian air-, naval and groundforces. So the allies are building up forces in these two countries and protect the airbases, airspace and all the naval movements. I mean building up forces like this was the case in Irak and Afghanistan.

 

Is this the way most of the community is thinking while building MP missions ? I do not see myself building an allied base at Mozdok of Maykop or taking off from those airbases because in my thinking that is enemy territory. I could be very wrong here in my thinking and yes...it is maybe not simple to follow all of the above. Bear with me for an instance !! Why do we not have a port to deliver ground vehicles and troops ???

 

My question : how do you guys see this ?

[Speed]

More likely to see US side with Georgia, and A-10s could be taking off of any Georgian base. Depending on scenario, South Ossetia and Abkhazia could be in either Georgian or Russian hands; currently, Russia has de-facto control over them.

 

An allied base at Mozdok/Maykop doesn't make much sense unless you are either siding with Russia (seems highly unlikely, Russia will allow USAF to base planes off its territory the day that Hell freezes over), or the US has captured parts of Russia (also an incredibly unlikely scenario).

 

Russia has ports (Gelendzhik, Novorossiysk, Anapa), and the US/Georgia side would have ports (Poti, Batumi). Russia would be basing its Navy out of Novorossiysk and the Crimean base of Sevastopol (unless Ukraine has kicked them out already, I can't remember). Against superior American naval forces, I could see them keeping their surface fleet in port, and just using Kilos or whatever nuke subs they could get out there.... but against TLAMs and stealth fighters, keeping their surface fleet in port might ensure their destruction just as much as putting them to sea. Maybe they'd try to rush US naval forces... I'm no naval expert here.

 

Naval-wise, a blockade against western shipping and western naval ships passing through the Bosporus might be Russia's best move, IF the war started before US could get sufficient naval forces into the Black Sea. Subs are perfect for that, maybe even the surface units of the Black Sea Fleet could help take part, especially the smaller boats.

 

Anyway, regardless of the surface fleet, naval wise, it would be the the SSKs, SSGNs, and SSNs of the Russian navy that would be the real threat. It would be optimal for the US to directly bring in ground forces with ships, and subs are the perfect weapon to interdict such a move.

 

Anyway, most "likely" scenario would be either US and Georgia try to reclaim the lost Georgian territories of Abkhazia and/or South Ossetia, or the territories of Abkhazia/South Ossetia have already been reclaimed by Georgian/US forces and Russia is trying to get them back. Possibly through fueling insurgencies.

 

Keep in mind also that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are NOT part of Russia. They are break-away autonomous regions supported by Russia.

 

IRL, none of these scenarios are likely at all. USA and Russia have too much common sense to fight each other. USA intervening so directly in Georgia would probably be considered pretty much an act of war by Russia.

 

God, why can't we have an Iraq map :cry:

Edited October 7, 2011 by Speed

[WildFire]

Im gonna second speeds thinking. Also point in fact is that if the US were supporting Georgia AGAINST Russia, we would never station our planes there or if so only in the very furthest South bases. The border is just too close. In the event of a scramble Russian fighters would have penetrated far enough into Georgia to destroy most of the northern airfields and any aircraft stationed at them. It would take a lot of aircraft patrolling the border to keep the bear at bay. And the USAF is way safe when it comes to protecting their planes, often they will be stationed far out of range and supported by tankers to transit into and out of hostile airspace. This is why the Shore campaign is by far the most realistic, long transit times.... Also kind of sucks in the game world.

 

The Navy on the other hand, (I was stationed on a few carriers), well just park that thing in your front yard and launch every plane we got and keep em up all year (relative, in actuality usually about 100 miles from shore or more but thats not that far)... Navy and Marines dont screw around. A carrier fleet has enough firepower to stop a serious amount of planes.

[Geert Hooghe]

Wildfire...Speed...thanks for thinking this trough with me... but Speed's thinking is much complicater than Wildfire's point of view. So...i will read Speed's answer again for...let's say...5 times before i will post a reply...thanks for the mindbuilding thing. Come see this again !

[Speed]

The Navy on the other hand, (I was stationed on a few carriers), well just park that thing in your front yard and launch every plane we got and keep em up all year (relative, in actuality usually about 100 miles from shore or more but thats not that far)... Navy and Marines dont screw around. A carrier fleet has enough firepower to stop a serious amount of planes.

 

It's not the Russian air force that would be the real threat to a carrier battle group. Submarines are the real threat. The Russians aren't going to be impotent against the carrier battle group like everyone else has been. However, according to wikipedia, only one sub is currently active in the Black Sea fleet, a Kilo, the Alrosa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_Fleet

 

But I'm sure the Russians could scrape up an Oscar and/or Akula or two to send there if they needed a US carrier killed.

[WildFire]

I dont think a carrier can get into the black sea. Was thinking about that the other day when I was building a mission, I really wanted to put a carrier in there... lol.

[MagnumHB]

I dont think a carrier can get into the black sea. Was thinking about that the other day when I was building a mission, I really wanted to put a carrier in there... lol.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Turkish_Straits

[Speed]

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Turkish_Straits

 

Yes, I used to think that that might somehow prevent a carrier from transiting, but I think somewhere I read that in a time of war, you are allowed to take a carrier through.

[VFA41_Lion]

The great thing is that apparently its extremely difficult to impossible for a submarine to transit the straits submerged while trying to avoid detection.

[Speed]

The great thing is that apparently its extremely difficult to impossible for a submarine to transit the straits submerged while trying to avoid detection.

 

Yea, I would imagine... but perhaps subs could be stationed in the Black Sea ahead of any conflict?

[WildFire]

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Turkish_Straits

 

Could have just said yes..... So let me get this strait(unintended pun), were not gonna take our ships through cause a EU said we couldnt? Haha, like our navy doesnt go wherever the heck it wants...

[Geert Hooghe]

Im gonna second speeds thinking. Also point in fact is that if the US were supporting Georgia AGAINST Russia, we would never station our planes there or if so only in the very furthest South bases. The border is just too close. In the event of a scramble Russian fighters would have penetrated far enough into Georgia to destroy most of the northern airfields and any aircraft stationed at them. It would take a lot of aircraft patrolling the border to keep the bear at bay. And the USAF is way safe when it comes to protecting their planes, often they will be stationed far out of range and supported by tankers to transit into and out of hostile airspace. This is why the Shore campaign is by far the most realistic, long transit times.... Also kind of sucks in the game world.

 

The Navy on the other hand, (I was stationed on a few carriers), well just park that thing in your front yard and launch every plane we got and keep em up all year (relative, in actuality usually about 100 miles from shore or more but thats not that far)... Navy and Marines dont screw around. A carrier fleet has enough firepower to stop a serious amount of planes.

 

So, Wildfire, having played many strategy games and read a lot of info about it, the template that is inserted does match my view but not yours. But, i think that your a man who was in the field, so i let you be the judge of it (if you have time of course). Look at the miz and tell me what you think. Bear in mind : it is under construction !! Don' t be gentle in your comments because i want it to be as real as possible !! Thanks !!

Initial Placement of Blue Forces.miz