Western OPFOR in Durango Valley
 

Has anybody here been involved in a Join Exercise between armored forces of various western countries? I have read something about a huge superiority of US crew/tanks http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif, I will post it, if I can find it again. It describes from the point of view of a US M1 gunner the "inferiority" of German and French crews. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif
I want to change Durango valley with western OPFOR

Re: Western OPFOR in Durango Valley
 

Professional armies should outperform conscripts, no?

Re: Western OPFOR in Durango Valley
 

Germany still has a conscription army, though I guess the amount of conscripts depends on the unit (likely less in armor batallions). French forces have been 100% professional for about ten years, so that's not the point here.

You can try patching up a Durango Valley: OPFOR Germany or France or UK, but for that you'll have to save the map and create a new scenario where you re-buy both forces, otherwise your new OPFOR forces will still have Russian or Chinese leaders and morale/exp ratings...

Re: Western OPFOR in Durango Valley
 

To PlasmaKrab:
Any idea how to keep the US unit list and remove the Chinese one? Or to take the map, buy new units for OPFOR and rebuy same US units? (without doing it one by one).

To Sarunas:
I found the post I was refering to. It was in a forum, so don't take it like direct report:
The guy speeks of Iraq, so it may have been back in the 90': he was, if I remember correctly on a M1A1. The opposing tank in 1990 must have been any Leo 2 type and AMX-30B2 but not Leclerc (error?). Other possibility, it was 1 to 3 years ago but I serously doubt about that: 1AD was in Iraq in 1990 but not in 2003.
Then both German and French units would include conscripts...

Re: Western OPFOR in Durango Valley
 

Maybe professional armies are better conducting war operations, but novadays it seems that the real war starts, when the operations are over. Then I might disagreee, because given the civilian nature of consctripts, they should be better at ending those wars, and getting people to side for them not against, as we see in Iraq.

Re: Western OPFOR in Durango Valley
 

I would say that when you come to involve conscripts in war, reason are such that nobody in invaded population will dare to resist... See what happened in Germany after 1945.

Re: Western OPFOR in Durango Valley
 

Loktarr, the French tank could have been a Leclerc early in the 90s, AFAIK the first ones came in service in very small quantities in 1992. Shortly afterwards you could have had enough of them in operational trials to conduct some multinational cross-training. And there's no way you can mitake a Leclerc for an AMX-30, particularly if the US visual recog training is the best as well http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gifHmm, no. As far as I've tried, the only way to make sure the leader names and ranks and ratings are consistent with the new country is to rebuy the units all over. Better yet save the map and restart one (don't forget taking note of the pre-deployed positions and reinforcement turns in the original). To do this, load the original scenario, click "edit map" hit the "save map" button so you can save the map alone as a stand-alone map, then start a fresh scenario, use your new map, and do what you want of the buy/deployment menus.

Re: Western OPFOR in Durango Valley
 

Ok, thank you Plasmakrab, I should have found this alone http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
About the Leclerc recog, you are certainly right, only pb is that that 1AD was back in germany in 92 if I'm not wrong. In my scen there will be AMX-30 because against M1A1 in 92, the Leclerc kills the balance of the game.

Re: Western OPFOR in Durango Valley
 

On LeClercs; when I was hitchhiking my way across southern parts of France with a friend of mine we at one time got a ride from a french army Colonel. Turned out he was in charge of the (only) french battallion with LeClerc's at that time. They were not yet 'operational' in the sense that the vehicles and crews were still being tested (as part of a larger formation and as they actually held up in the field) and trained. That gave us something to talk about... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
Anyway, that was back in 1994 AFAIK.

Narwan

Re: Western OPFOR in Durango Valley
 

OTOH the public miht be even more sensitive to the casaulties. After all today the agitprop types tend to say in 50% of cases (atleast here) "These mercenaries just deserved it, doing it for the money" and all that, while with conscripts dying it would be "you see they took this young man away from his family and now killed him"...

Re: Western OPFOR in Durango Valley
 

I have some balance problems now, because US troop are so expensive. Against one mixed M1A1/ M2A2 coy, EU can deploy one Leo 2A4 co, one AMX 30Brennus Co and one Italian light tank co. It's a bit to much for our poor US tankers.

Re: Western OPFOR in Durango Valley
 

IMHO you should think more in terms of force size. The OPFOR in this scenario gets one tank platoon, one mech platoon and complete infantry support units first thing, then a reduced tank co (9 tanks) with 2 mech plts as reinforcements.
In the various avatars of this scenario I have patched up in the past (good materials test range even if the morale is buggy) I tried to give the initial defense troops lower-end tanks and keep the top-notch versions for the reinforcements. E.g. you could use Leo2A4s and Leo1A5s (or AMX30B2s), facing only M1A1s which shouldn't be any more expensive than the Leo2s.

Re: Western OPFOR in Durango Valley
 

The price problem is mainly due to hight cost of M2AXs, but now, I think I have something correct...

Re: Western OPFOR in Durango Valley
 

Here it is. Maybe too easy, maybe not. I achieved major victory first time I played it.

But however this is difficult to get rid of the leopards 2A4 that are present. Infantery is now a key of the scen and not only armored forces.

Re: Western OPFOR in Durango Valley
 

Maybe these days conscript forces are inferior but quite frankly that was not always the case. The German army in WWII and WWI was a conscript force and it was good.
The Soviet forces were also conscripts and the flagship formations were good too. Same goes for the East Germans. The reason why conscript forces don't work these days is because they either belong to third world countries or they belong to pacifist or purely defensive countries who are trying to phase their conscription out.

Re: Western OPFOR in Durango Valley
 

Well, the Finns did also quite well in WW2 with conscript forces. I think we were the only warring country, that wasn´t occupied in Europe besides Great Britain (Russia not included). And the problem with professional armies is that in small countries they are too expensive to maintain in large enough numbers to make any difference in a serious large-scale conventional war. Conscript armies in small countries has numbers to make a difference.

Re: Western OPFOR in Durango Valley
 

Not sure I understand you correctly. Do you mean that it's more expensive to have a professional army? Just try to imagine germany having a 3 to 5 million people army like back in the 40': I think that giving all those brave men the modern equipement will be very hard even for the so good germanic economy.
For small countrys too, I would see that this way: modern equipement is so expensive that they have to maintain bigger armies, because they cannot aford a small one with last f-22, M1A2 and so on... Better to have 30 f-16 with semi-pro pilot than one f-22 with a crack...

Re: Western OPFOR in Durango Valley
 

Old, old discussion - Conscript VS Professional.

It depends on a number of factors.

How "technically literate" is the population?

During WWII the average American conscript could drive and maintain a motor vehicle. A good many of them were country boys that already knew how to shoot. America tends to encourage individual initiative, even in our armed forces, so when our soldiers ran into situations not covered by their training or orders they tended to improvise, not wait for new orders.

How complex is the military hardware they have to use?

It really doesn't take more then a few days to teach anyone how to fire a rifle, machinegun, mortar. Heck, even drive and fire a WWII tank. These days an M1 Abrams has more insturments and other gizmo's then a WWII bomber.
Artillery has always been a technical branch, but up until WWI most artillery was line-of-sight. These days you have to deal with many types of rounds (HE, cluster, laser guided, WP, illum, smoke, snti-armor, mines, etc) and fuses (surface burst, delayed, airburst) that just plain didn't exist previously. Much less computers that measure and allow you to correct for individual gun characteristics, take into account wind, air pressure, humidity, air density, heck even magnetic deviation. Then there's GPS and laser range finders for the FO - nice, VERY nice, but if you don't know how to use then they're very expensive trash.

How competent is your cadre?

As examples (and these are generalizations - NOT intended to be taken as "truth")
The Brit system tends to produce "professional" senior enlisted men, who train not only the troops but the officers.
The American system is to have "professional" officers who train the enlisted men.
The Soviet system tended to have "professional" officers and only required the enlisted men to do what they were told and ONLY what they were told.
The Germans had a cadre of "professional" officers and senior enlisted men so the officers trained new officers and the enlisted new enlisted.
Most 3rd World Countries have a officer class of folks with the "right connections" who look down on their enlisted men as scum.

Who are you fighting?

Germany VS Poland 1939?
Germany VS USSR 1941?
Germany VS USSR 1945?
Korean War 1950?
Korean War 1952?
France VS Vietnam?
USA VS Vietnam?
Gulf War I?
Your opponent is as important, probably more important then your own forces in a good many ways.

Do your conscripts "want" to be there?

During WWII the US Army was mostly conscripts, they "wanted" to be there,
During Vietnam the US Army was mostly conscripts, they "didn't want" to be there.

Is a professional army "better" then a conscript one?
Sure.

Can most nations afford the manpower, training costs, to pay, a large enough professional army to matter?
Nope.

Like many things, what you want or "should" have VS what you can afford is a major factor in the size and "professionaliam" of your army.

Re: Western OPFOR in Durango Valley
 

All you really need conscripts for, surely is to fire rifles, machineguns and lighter artillery, with a professional Cadre of officers and NCOs and professionals to use the heavier and more technical equipment in support of the Conscript infantry.

I am sure that the army has its way of teaching its soldiers how to use the more technically demanding equipment. In fact I am sure that the more modern Western nations can do just fine doing that.

If the military industrial complex in the west were not so keen on pumping out to toys for the politicians to gawp at and to keep the "safety conscious" media and civilians happy, then perhaps money would not be wasted so much as it is these days in procuring equipment for the military.

As far as I can see a lot of the so called advances in infantry weaponry seem to be little more than additional bells and whistles. Look at the G 36 for instance, a lot of money would have been saved if the G3 had been upgraded. Some troops seem to be complaining about it actually. Its derivatives are quite adequate but then a similar effect could have been achieved with the G3.

Russia, for instance, has been quite bright in this respect. They rely on the AK47/74 as their primary infantry weapon and I don't think that they regret it. They are easy to produce, even the older ones are still viable and they have a more stopping power than what we have in the West these days. I don't see the benefits in this policy of decreasing the size of our ammunition, beyond cutting costs where frankly it doesn't pay to do so.

If the Cold War was still going, then of course things would be different. If a weapons procurement system like the Soviet or German (both wars) one was in place then I am sure these problems would not persist.

Motivation is of course always a problem. Effective propaganda, shutting the liberal media up, setting the army up like they do in South America or staffing it with hardcore patriots would solve this problem. A few more things besides I suppose.

Re: Western OPFOR in Durango Valley
 

Loktarr wrote:

For small countrys too, I would see that this way: modern equipement is so expensive that they have to maintain bigger armies, because they cannot aford a small one with last f-22, M1A2 and so on... Better to have 30 f-16 with semi-pro pilot than one f-22 with a crack...

My point exactly. We couldn´t afford large enough standing army without conscription, as these conscripts are trained and then released back to productive tasks in the society and can be called back in time of crisis to fill the need for normal infantry, artillery tank and naval tasks. Fighter pilots are professionals, as are most of the first-line unit officers.

I´ve done it again, gone totally off-topic. Watch out in the cold war pack 2020-thread. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Re: Western OPFOR in Durango Valley
 

Suhir,
Here is my 2 cents as a senior NCO in the US Army.
I have to take exception to the following comment:
The Brit system tends to produce "professional" senior enlisted men, who train not only the troops but the officers.
The American system is to have "professional" officers who train the enlisted men.

In 22 years the only that has ever trained me was a uniformed lawyer who gave us "Laws of Land Warfare and Rules of Engagement" classes.
The US Army ,at least, is more like the description you have for the Brits, except that training is conducted more and more by junior NCOs or by "train the trainer" types of events where a team size element will train itself using computer based training or situational templates. All the senior NCOs do are supervise and guide the training to keep it on track. The benefit is that you get some very "out of the box" ideas from the new soldiers, the downside is that it takes longer than the alternative of "I talk, you listen."
I agree strongly with the rest of your comments.

Re: Western OPFOR in Durango Valley
 

Again, I did say my comments were generalizations.
Being a retired GySgt (USMC E-7) myself I also "take exception" to my own generalization *chuckles*.

Re: Western OPFOR in Durango Valley
 

Having worked some excellent Marine Platoon Commanders that were either E6 or E7, I will say that my comments hold true for USMC also, maybe more so.
Keep up the good work.
Will

Re: Western OPFOR in Durango Valley
 

I have been playing with the idea of a 1 game mini campaign linked to the Durango Valley map, but I have a steep learning curve. Does anyone know of a way to templatethe OPFOR so that whatever forces are selected they occupy the same positions or move to the same waypoints?
Will

Re: Western OPFOR in Durango Valley
 

Well...
You could take advantage of the games limitations here I believe. Tho you WILL want to test this to make sure.

In pre made scenarios the game takes the units by unit number from the appropriate national OOB. So you could substitute an altered OOB for the nation in question and the game will take whatever units are in the appropriate unit number slot and place them in the same starting location. And since the scenario and formation is not changed it should still use the same waypoints etc.

I wouldn't bet the house on this working but I'm fairly sure it would.