As NATO prepares for a potential Russian invasion of the Baltic region, planners wonder how drones, hypersonic missiles, and modern kill chains might play out there. A new tabletop game, Littoral Commander: The Baltic, offers answers:
The game depicts a Russian invasion of the Baltic region around 2030. In addition to the Baltic states, the 11 scenarios in the game include a Russian landing to seize the Swedish island of Gotland, an offensive launched from the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad and missile-equipped U.S. Marines attempting to stop Russian warships from breaking out of the Baltic to hunt convoys in the Atlantic. There is even a humanitarian scenario where the U.S. has to evacuate civilians while Russia tries to disrupt the operation.
[…]
Platoons — represented by cardboard pieces on the map — are rated for firepower, range and speed. The American forces include a plethora of types: Marine infantry, amphibious combat vehicles, Army HIMARS rockets, M1 Abrams tanks, Stryker armored reconnaissance vehicles, Typhon long-range missiles, air defense and logistics units, as well as U.S. Navy destroyers and amphibious assault ships. Russian forces include naval infantry, T-90 tanks, self-propelled howitzers, mortars and multiple rocket launchers, paratroopers and airborne artillery, air defense and logistics, plus cruisers, destroyers, frigates and amphibious ships.
However, the heart of the game are the 277 “Joint Capability” cards, an abstract representation of the myriad force multipliers available to modern armies. By spending a limited pool of “Command Points” to buy cards from either a U.S. or Russian card deck, each side assembles a customized array of support forces. Players can choose from a wide variety of capabilities, including B-52 and Tu-22 bomber strikes, naval gunfire, special forces raids, drone strikes, laser air defenses, cyber warfare, psyops and electronic warfare (there’s even a “Public Affairs Officer” card).
“The cards feature a wide range of future, near-future and present-day capabilities to allow players to experiment and explore what capabilities can contribute to different scenarios,” Sebastian Bae, designer of “Littoral Commander,” told Defense News.
[…]
The key to winning “Littoral Commander” can be summed as: “What can be seen can be destroyed, so don’t be seen.” The fog of war always hovers over the game, with combat units on the map flipped upside down, so the enemy doesn’t know whether they are an infantry unit, an artillery battery, a frigate — or just a decoy.
“Littoral Commander” resembles a game of hide-and-seek. Both sides use ground troops and reconnaissance assets to detect and identify enemy forces, while trying to screen friendly forces from enemy detection. Once an enemy unit is located, it can be targeted by long-range fires such as artillery, missiles, aircraft and drones. Meanwhile, the target attempts to break contact and become concealed again.
[…]
Compounding the problem is that the U.S. and Russian forces have limited stockpiles of guided munitions, such as artillery shells, cruise missiles and — perhaps most importantly — air and missile defense interceptors. This puts a premium on judicious target selection.
And if battlefield problems aren’t enough, “Littoral Commander” players must also deal with public opinion. The game includes an “Influence Meter” that awards players additional resources for destroying enemy units and capturing key terrain — or rewards the enemy if you bombard urban areas (this is where the PAO card comes in handy).“Littoral Commander: The Baltic” is actually the second game in the series, following “Littoral Commander: Indo Pacific,” which covered a U.S.-China conflict over Taiwan and the Philippines. The games have been used by U.S. military staff colleges, U.S. Marine tactical units, the British and Australian armies, the Bundeswehr, the Philippines Marine Corps and others.
This is just as true of compartmented programs.
While US/NATO conducts actual invasions of peaceful countries left and right, we are treated to a pack of lies about Russia’s intent.
We need to remember: Since 1945, there have been about 250 military incursions and wars, and the US did more than 80% of them, and always, always against countries that were at peace with the US and its allies (slave states).
Somalia is our oldest ongoing war of aggression, now in its 4th decade, and stalemated against a lightly armed Muslim militia. Libya is our most egregious war to date, complete with the murder-by-sexual-mutilation of Gaddafi, who had submitted completely to the US and turned over his nuclear plans and materials (didn’t have a bomb).
But now we have Gaza, Iran, Yemen, and soon Venezuela, Egypt…
This country needs a thorough bitch-slapping.
“Limited supplies of precision munitions”
10,000 drones a month is, technically, a limited supply. But when you use the drones to spot for artillery, where the Russians are producing a hundred thousand rounds a month to our ten thousand per year…
Bob Sykes:
In fairness to the United State, there are no “peaceful countries”, least of all ones run by Arabs or Africans, excepting only Libya, because al-Qaddafi was a strong king for life at home and naïve fool abroad.
PR looks either a single fig leaf thin or poorly coordinated.
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/baltic-provocations-heat-up-estonia
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/nato-rhetoric-reaches-new-levels
Then again, Sweden is a new point, maybe there’s something more to it. Do they expect the great opt-out to start there? It would make some sense.
Bob Sykes, “lightly armed Muslim militia” Google “asymmetrical warfare” to find out how this works.
“Asymmetrical warfare” is pretty much nonsense. In Afghanistan and other countries the native militias, like the Taliban, had the support and cooperation of the people. The US was the despised invader/colonizer. Consequently, the US could not manufacture any stable, durable puppet regime.
The colonial era is over, but our elites don’t know it.