Project Reality Forums

What force are the British going to be based on?

Exsample; Royal Marine Commandos or the Army?

probaly a mixture.

But how can we base our maps on them if they are a mixture.

For exsample; The USMC on alot of the 64 man maps have a carrier as they are marines so i was thinking make the Brits Marines too, besides the Army seldom fights first its the SAS, Marines and the PARA's who fight first just like the USMC.

Well MEC is ficticious why not make a BEF (like in the olden days)

the_ultimate_maverick wrote:Well MEC is ficticious why not make a BEF (like in the olden days)

Bah, it has been outdated, if British armed forces are deployed they will be sent out a taskforce with Marines and PARA's fighting along side one another wile special forces troops do seperate operations. Troops under regular army will then "mop up" and if requred they will help the advanceing troops.

Pence wrote:But how can we base our maps on them if they are a mixture.

For exsample; The USMC on alot of the 64 man maps have a carrier as they are marines so i was thinking make the Brits Marines too, besides the Army seldom fights first its the SAS, Marines and the PARA's who fight first just like the USMC.

when i say mixture i mean diffrent maps will have diffrent forces probaly. Some maps with thave the army, others the marines

Pence wrote:Bah, it has been outdated, if British armed forces are deployed they will be sent out a taskforce with Marines and PARA's fighting along side one another wile special forces troops do seperate operations. Troops under regular army will then "mop up" and if requred they will help the advanceing troops.

Funnily enough I know as I'm a Mil. Advisor to a number of national and international bodies.

I suggested BEP as an idea to fit the game.

And your idea of an invasion strategy is a bit of kilt. In very simple terms, the country to be invaded is softened up with an air and then naval bombardment. Special forces at this time are also used to disrupt key enemy installations. Also, they can be used to 'decapitate' the opposing force by, for example, 'painting' Regimental HQs when the general is there - and also simple assasination by shooting/poision etc.

Then, a synchronised assault will be made: bombardment would be increased, immediately followed by a mutli positional landing - which is specific upon the terrain and circumstance. Marines could be used, as could paratroopers as could troops with mountain training. It all depends.

You are correct that Marines and Paras are used often as a figurehead for the assault but that is not the case all along the advancing line - one must consider mechanised units - logisitical troops etc. The mobile infantary always moves forward as one.

Special Forces can work alongside these troops at any point depending on which skills would be needed.

And yes you are right that Army units are used to mop up - but so are Special Forces - for example, raids on terrorist cells behind enemy lines or pockets of resistance etc. So the British Army should indeed be modelled on a Marine/Parachute Regiment idea. With a similar line to the USMC but they should be given a ficticious name as, due to the nature of the British Army, there is not a specific name given to a potential invading force.

the_ultimate_maverick wrote:Funnily enough I know as I'm a Mil. Advisor to a number of national and international bodies.

I suggested BEP as an idea to fit the game.

And your idea of an invasion strategy is a bit of kilt. In very simple terms, the country to be invaded is softened up with an air and then naval bombardment. Special forces at this time are also used to disrupt key enemy installations. Also, they can be used to 'decapitate' the opposing force by, for example, 'painting' Regimental HQs when the general is there - and also simple assasination by shooting/poision etc.

Then, a synchronised assault will be made: bombardment would be increased, immediately followed by a mutli positional landing - which is specific upon the terrain and circumstance. Marines could be used, as could paratroopers as could troops with mountain training. It all depends.

You are correct that Marines and Paras are used often as a figurehead for the assault but that is not the case all along the advancing line - one must consider mechanised units - logisitical troops etc. The mobile infantary always moves forward as one.

Special Forces can work alongside these troops at any point depending on which skills would be needed.

And yes you are right that Army units are used to mop up - but so are Special Forces - for example, raids on terrorist cells behind enemy lines or pockets of resistance etc. So the British Army should indeed be modelled on a Marine/Parachute Regiment idea. With a similar line to the USMC but they should be given a ficticious name as, due to the nature of the British Army, there is not a specific name given to a potential invading force.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I based it on the Falklands were the PARA's and Marines were the main fighting force wile the SAS conducted seperate raids.

Pence wrote:Thanks for clearing that up for me. I based it on the Falklands were the PARA's and Marines were the main fighting force wile the SAS conducted seperate raids.

Never base anything on the Falklands as that should not be considered a standard invasion template. It was an ad hoc operation from the start and the British were very very lucky more than once. I believe we have some Falkland vets here who can elaborate. For a good book on the subject I recommend:

The Battle for the Falklands
by Max Hastings & Simon Jenkins

It was printed not long after the war and provides and excellent summary of the war and the events leading up to it. I really enjoyes it and it was a surprisingly good read. I couldn't put it down.

In a nutshell, the British Army/Navy back in the early 1980's was organizing to fight a nuclear Cold War confrontation based on submarines and strategic bombers. Most if not all of their troop ships had been mothballed. Their carriers were all light and designed to assist in submarine hunting. The Harrier jet they used was completely outclassed by the Argentinean A4’s. The Brits had almost no local intel on the location and size of the Argentinean forces and relied almost exclusively on US assistance for various intel services.

The Brits won by shear force of will and the lady lion herself. (She reminds me a lot of a female Churchill.)

the_ultimate_maverick wrote:Special forces at this time are also used to disrupt key enemy installations. Also, they can be used to 'decapitate' the opposing force by, for example, 'painting' Regimental HQs when the general is there - and also simple assasination by shooting/poision etc.

Poison?? What national and international organisations do you advise?? I think you will find that;

1) Use of poison of ANY kind is against the Law of Armed Conflict.

2) That tactic is not one used by ANY UK Armed Force.

It MAY be used by breakaway allies within a region, ie) the Kurds before Op TELIC, although I have no knowledge of it's use by them, although I did work with them at this time. If we used it at all, we would find ourselves in front of a Court Marshal, or worse still, the War Crimes Court in the Hague

I think you've been reading too many Andy McNabb books, coz he hates the SIS too...

In a nutshell, the British Army/Navy back in the early 1980's was organizing to fight a nuclear Cold War confrontation based on submarines and strategic bombers.

not to mention that any war predicted to pop up they thought would surely have been Russia invading Europe at this time, which is why US and Euro militaries were suprised their tanks such as the Abrams and whatnot even worked in the mid-east desert...

BTW: cant remember which one it was, but one of Tom Clancy's older books is a scenario of Russia invades Europe war, IMO it was a good read...

Only if the Special Forces are part of the army - if they are not members of the military then the laws of armed conflict do not apply. Consider therefore a non-military organisation - any black bag op etc.

Anyway I didn't mean to write poison - was a lapse of concentration - but above argument shows method.

Oh and DU is a poisin

By the way, MI6 ARE the SIS, as I mentioned before J I’ll leave what they do to speculation and fiction from books.

Oh and DU is a poisin

DU isn’t poison. It’s part of a tank’s arsenal. It’s part of a SABOT Round used by NATO MBTs. It’s a rod of Depleted Uranium which greatly enhances the penetration of enemy armour. It creates a vacuum behind it, leaving a tank’s insides and it’s crew a pulped mess. I have seen first hand, the results.

Granted, DU does have it’s hazards, in the form of radiation poisoning, but this is SO far from it’s primary use, it’s neigh on impossible to class it as ‘poison’. Weapon Oil is ‘poison’ too if you look at it that way. I have to admit I have never witnessed a dodgy black-clad fella abseiling into a window, and sneakily plopping a DU shell into someone’s wine glass while they weren’t looking. A slight exaggeration I agree, but you know what I mean J

Only if the Special Forces are part of the army - if they are not members of the military then the laws of armed conflict do not apply. Consider therefore a non-military organisation - any black bag op etc

A non-military organisation? If they are not members of the military? Any uniformed group that carries arms openly is subject to the Laws of Armed Conflict. That could be a special police unit, or it could be Boy Scouts.

Anyway I didn't mean to write poison - was a lapse of concentration

Nps

Anyway, let's stay on topic here.

AFAIK, the British Forces within the PR mod will be based both on the Army (unsure as to which unit) and Marines (unsure as to which Commando Troop)

[quote="[R-PUB]Gaz'] It’s a rod of Depleted Uranium which greatly enhances the penetration of enemy armour. It creates a vacuum behind it, leaving a tank’s insides and it’s crew a pulped mess. I have seen first hand, the results.

Granted, DU does have it’s hazards, in the form of radiation poisoning, but this is SO far from it’s primary use, it’s neigh on impossible to class it as ‘poison’. [/quote]

Tests are currently being conducted...

'[R-PUB wrote:Gaz'] A non-military organisation? If they are not members of the military? Any uniformed group that carries arms openly is subject to the Laws of Armed Conflict. That could be a special police unit, or it could be Boy Scouts.

No that isn't true, to achieve lawful combatant status one must :


(a) Be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates"]Gaz']
AFAIK, the British Forces within the PR mod will be based both on the Army (unsure as to which unit) and Marines (unsure as to which Commando Troop) [/quote]
yey

'[R-PUB wrote:Gaz']
AFAIK, the British Forces within the PR mod will be based both on the Army (unsure as to which unit) and Marines (unsure as to which Commando Troop)

Wicked, so it would not be a trouble if someone made a carrier on a map? (HMS Invincable style)

(d) Conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

Woops You seem to have left your double quote icon in there from your copy-and-paste...

Any uniformed group that carries arms openly is subject to the Laws of Armed Conflict. That could be a special police unit, or it could be Boy Scouts.

The word 'uniformed' was used as a general term meaning it covers;

(a) Be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) Have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

Now let this thread carry on with the matter at hand, not the Law of Armed Conflict. Make a new thread if you want to argue this any further...

Pence, I am trying to find the Harrier in-game shots we had on the Homepage, but can't get em anywhere! HMS Invincible is in the background, as the Harrier has just taken off from it

'[R-PUB wrote:Gaz']
Pence, I am trying to find the Harrier in-game shots we had on the Homepage, but can't get em anywhere! HMS Invincible is in the background, as the Harrier has just taken off from it

Aw nice one, i never realised before, who made the ship?

So long as our carriers look like OUR carriers [i.e with the ski-jump]

the russkies have a ski-jump carrier also, looks kinda cool actually, something different than the regular US carriers - I expect to be impressed by this HMS Invincible you speak of. btw: how will that effect jet takeoff (as you would normally, via catapult, not vtol) with the bf2 engine - will it push the front of the plane up and launch it faster like ski-jumps are supposed to - or will it screw up the plane's momentum and 1) make it explode on ski-jump, or 2) make it roll past the ski-jump into the ocean?

Zantetsuken wrote:the russkies have a ski-jump carrier also, looks kinda cool actually, something different than the regular US carriers - I expect to be impressed by this HMS Invincible you speak of. btw: how will that effect jet takeoff (as you would normally, via catapult, not vtol) with the bf2 engine - will it push the front of the plane up and launch it faster like ski-jumps are supposed to - or will it screw up the plane's momentum and 1) make it explode on ski-jump, or 2) make it roll past the ski-jump into the ocean?

In real life it assists the short take off aircraft because there nosles are in a horizontal axis wile they take off so the flick of the ramp just boosts them up a bit.

Because this is the future is it ok to put the new CVF carriers on (They are massive but would carry more aircraft.