Jump to content

CM games I'd like to see


Scipio

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Machor said:

So, are we now saying that there WERE Soviet T-72s in Germany but they WENT somewhere by 1989? This would be a different picture altogether - and would raise Cpt Miller's questions above. I was under the impression that Ivanov's (and Zaloga's) point was that Soviet T-72s were NEVER there, which to me has the same impact as finding out that there were no Pz IVs on the Western front or that T-34/76s did not fight after 1943.

I hope I'm not the only one learning from this discussion. :P

I can assure you that in 1985, there WERE T-72's deployed in Eastern Germany by the Soviets. Everything between 1986 and 1991 seems to be more of a crap shoot, with everything in near constant flux. 

@akd: Great summary! Still leaves a few questions unanswered however. It doesn't say anything about what happened to the T-72 in GFSG.

Panzer makes good points about the over estimations the West made about Soviet tank forces, commonly referred to as the 'tank gap.' If I remember correctly it wasn't until a few years after the wall fell that we got a much better understanding of Soviet tank forces, both their capabilities and the numbers deployed.

My question is still, what happened to all the T-72's? I don't have any sources that talk about this, and it seems that other sources such as Zaloga only mention them off hand, and in contradicting statements as well based on earlier posts here in this thread. The mystery continues...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 302
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Do note the quote from the summary that AKD found: "T-64As began arriving in 1976 in 16 and 35 divisions (and were mistaken by Western intel to be T-72s – hence the beginning of the myth that T-72s were in GSFG)." Sounds like the author is with the 'T-72s were never in GSFG' camp.

And yes, even if we can come to a conclusion with this, I will also be left asking why the T-80 has shown up in post-Soviet conflicts much more rarely than the T-72, why so many T-72s were produced (assuming they weren't sent to Germany), and why so much was invested in upgrading that tank by the Soviets.

Frankly, this discussion has moved CMFG to the top of my wishlist. My reasoning being: If we're having such a hard time with basic facts like these, how much more is there to learn (and unlearn) about the period? I would trust BFC to set the record straight.

Never thought I'd find myself in a discussion of Soviet tanks as if we're discussing ancient chariots. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Errata:

Re: T-80s

T-80s more or less only wound up in the Russian and Ukrainian successor states.  While the T-72 was always intended to be an export/Rest of Warsaw Pact tank, the T-80 was always a close hold piece of equipment.  By the time it was no longer something the Russians wanted, most possible T-80 customers had T-72s, and there never was he "aftermarket" upgrades or repair packages that occurred for the T-72 making the T-80 an unattractive choice...unless you're the Ukraine and happen to have T-80 factories.

As a result it's a much less common piece of hardware, and the poor showing of Russian forces in Chechnya found a scapegoat in the T-80 (which was likely doomed for other reasons anyway).

Re: T-72

Here's the problem the Soviets had:

The T-64 (and later T-80) was lightyears better than the mainstays of Soviet/Warsaw Pact tank forces in terms of possible performance, and NATO tanks were rapidly increasing in capability.  The more advanced Soviet tanks though were expensive, and difficult to produce.  There needed to be a cheaper option to arm people less important than the Soviets, and to round out lesser formations.  Some thought was also given to a simpler tank that would be easier to produce during wartime.

The answer was to take things that were super important in a new tank (larger gun, better armor, autoloader), while omitting things that were nice, but not critical (more advanced optics/FCS, simpler automotive designs).

The T-72 is much better than the T-55s and T-62s it replaced in many Soviet and allied military forces.  It does omit a lot of the things that made the other late model Soviet tanks so hard to make in bulk.  As a result it became a very popular item for people looking to finally ditch their T-55s (Poland, East Germany, etc) and a good answer to improving many non-"frontline" Soviet units that otherwise rode in increasingly outdated equipment.  

As a result it was the cutting edge awesome tank of Warsaw Pact countries (as there were T-72s in Germany, they were just full of Germans), but rounded out lower readiness formations back in the USSR proper for Soviet forces.

It endured largely because it hadn't quite suffered the reputation hits the T-80 had from Grozny, and it was a more economical choice.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the clarification, Panzer. I suspect there may be additional factors such as the political games between tank factories and for post-Soviet Russia, the T-72 being easier to maintain than the T-80 (AFAIK).

With "there were T-72s in Germany, they were just full of Germans" are you going with the 'no Soviet T-72s ever in Germany' camp? I'm just hoping we can finally nail the coffin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Machor said:

Thank you for the clarification, Panzer. I suspect there may be additional factors such as the political games between tank factories and for post-Soviet Russia, the T-72 being easier to maintain than the T-80 (AFAIK).

With "there were T-72s in Germany, they were just full of Germans" are you going with the 'no Soviet T-72s ever in Germany' camp? I'm just hoping we can finally nail the coffin.

It seems doubtful.  Basically NATO and the USSR crammed all of it's high tier all the cool stuff equipment into Germany.  For Soviet purposes, it appears they rotated out old A tier equipment (T-62, BMP-1, etc) for new A Tier (T-64/80, BMP-2) vs putting in the stuff they reserved for lower readiness units even if it was an improvement (so they seemed to favor the transition to the best or bust, vs interim steps).  

It's really weird just because it's such a fluke of Soviet design policy to have not one, not two, but three complete lines of MBT in service and seeing "first tier" type upgrades (while lesser older MBTs still saw improvements)*

As to politics, it plays a massive part but it's a huge rabbithole I don't recall well enough to recite accurately, or desire to read up on tonight.  


*Or putting it in perspective, the US only really operated with the M60/M1 as stablemates for a fairly short time, it was always intended to one day go to zero M60s and all M1s, just it was going to take a while so the M60A3 received service life extension upgrades and some modern kit like the TTS.  You can see the same with Leo 1 and 2, Chieftain to Challenger.  The Soviet model was simply going to have all three "modern" MBTs going along, then likely no T-64s sometime eventually after the 1999 party congress, and then T-72s and T-80 variants until whatever bipedal AI driven doom tank with quad 150 MM chain guns came along.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, akd said:

This is the most concise summary I have found:

Interesting. Certainly food for thought, although without knowing his source it is hard for me to take it as gospel. Although if that last bit is correct, it would certainly lend credence to my suspicion that T-80 numbers spiked between the late 1980s to 1990. In fact, that 800ish number matches extremely well with the 15% zaloga wrote in 1989. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On October 5, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Hellmann said:

Or, how about including a quicksand mechanic?

I don't think you would have found much quicksand in North Africa at all. Maybe in some parts of the Qattara Depression, but there wasn't much mechanized movement in there anyway.

BTW, bonus points for mentioning Ice Cold in Alex. I first read that in the summer of 1957 I think as a three part serialization in the Saturday Evening Post.* But the version there was shorter than the published novel. They cut about 20-25% off the beginning and I think they were probably right to do so.

*BTW, the Post called their serial "Escape in the Desert", which is a pretty good title for it too.

Michael

Edited by Michael Emrys
Afterthought
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Machor said:

Do note the quote from the summary that AKD found: "T-64As began arriving in 1976 in 16 and 35 divisions (and were mistaken by Western intel to be T-72s – hence the beginning of the myth that T-72s were in GSFG)." Sounds like the author is with the 'T-72s were never in GSFG' camp.

And yes, even if we can come to a conclusion with this, I will also be left asking why the T-80 has shown up in post-Soviet conflicts much more rarely than the T-72, why so many T-72s were produced (assuming they weren't sent to Germany), and why so much was invested in upgrading that tank by the Soviets.

Frankly, this discussion has moved CMFG to the top of my wishlist. My reasoning being: If we're having such a hard time with basic facts like these, how much more is there to learn (and unlearn) about the period? I would trust BFC to set the record straight.

Never thought I'd find myself in a discussion of Soviet tanks as if we're discussing ancient chariots. :D

The Soviet T-72's were newer deployed to Germany. As stated above, the T-64's were often confused with them. Many board games from the 80's feature GSFG equipped with T-72's, so the myth lives on until today. But honestly I've never encountered any serious publication, that would repeat the mistaken claim about the T-72's in GSFG. The Soviet follow-up, stationed in Soviet Union had them. These were those forces, that were supposed run over the smoldering, nuclear remains of Europe and eventually get to the Channel. Also the Soviet units stationed in Asia, deployed against China had T-72's. BTW, the fragment cited by akd is really, really good. The whole Soviet tank development story is very confusing for the logical western minds. As Panzer has already stated, the competition between various construction bureaus and factories played a major role in it. There's no doubt, that by the end of the 80's, T-80 was the major Soviet tank in Germany. However overall it comprised a relatively small part of the entire Soviet tank force. What happened after the Soviet collapse is a completely different story. As already stated, the T-80 was made a scapegoat for the Russian disasters in Chechenya. BTW some of the units that were badly hit in Grozny, were before deployed to Germany. It's worth mentioning, that through it's service T-80's had technical problems with the engine. Eventually the T-72 team prevailed in the late 90's, when the Russians decided, that the more reliable T-72's would become the main tank of their greatly reduced tank force. What happened with the T-80's in the 2000's? Overall about 5400 were produced. Most of them were inherited by Russia, some by Ukraine and right now they are being kept in the storages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, Panzer and Ivanov. The last thing I wish to mention before I hopefully stop taking this thread OT is that the myth lives on not only because of the games from the 80s. Please take a look at World at War: Eisenbach Gap (2007) (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/25729/world-war-eisenbach-gap ), a very popular game and the winner of the 2007 Charles S. Roberts Award for Best Post-WWII Era Boardgame. You can see its counters here: https://boardgamegeek.com/image/2407414/world-war-eisenbach-gap?size=large . And lest one thinks the game is about fighting Soviet second echelon formations in 1985 (I don't own the game myself), this review suggests that the T-72s are in the game as the cutting edge of GSFG: http://coldwarhot.blogspot.ca/2011/02/eisenbach-gap.html . So, there is serious 'correction' that needs to be done in the wargaming community as a whole, which is why I am now rooting for CMFG.

[Presses the brain reset switch.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Machor said:

[Presses the brain reset switch.]

Well there's one conclusion to be drawn here - enjoy the games but don't learn the history from them. Their authors are not historians but enthusiasts. The Eisenbach series is made by people who grew in the 80's and wanted to remake the games from their youth. 

Edited by Ivanov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Machor said:

Thank you, Panzer and Ivanov. The last thing I wish to mention before I hopefully stop taking this thread OT is that the myth lives on not only because of the games from the 80s. Please take a look at World at War: Eisenbach Gap (2007) (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/25729/world-war-eisenbach-gap ), a very popular game and the winner of the 2007 Charles S. Roberts Award for Best Post-WWII Era Boardgame. You can see its counters here: https://boardgamegeek.com/image/2407414/world-war-eisenbach-gap?size=large . And lest one thinks the game is about fighting Soviet second echelon formations in 1985 (I don't own the game myself), this review suggests that the T-72s are in the game as the cutting edge of GSFG: http://coldwarhot.blogspot.ca/2011/02/eisenbach-gap.html . So, there is serious 'correction' that needs to be done in the wargaming community as a whole, which is why I am now rooting for CMFG.

[Presses the brain reset switch.]

Well crap I'll have to take a look again, but I own most of those games.  You don't want for T-80/T-64s for sure, but I'm not sure which modules have which forces, and some of the modules happen at the same time, while others take place later in a fictional third world war.

I've really been meaning to actually play them, but I have a hard enough time getting people to play my less esoteric stuff.  

Also screw it, this whole thread is OT.  If it turns into the collection point for all wayward not yet CM game stuff, I think it's not the worst thing to happen to a thread.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Machor said:

I wish they made more games like Patton's Best (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/4556/pattons-best ).

[This one's at least not OT for CMFB. ;)]

I had that one. I think I bought it in '88. It went rather quick on ebay when I sold it about ten years ago.

The same cannot be said for Firepower. Never had any takers on that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Canada Guy said:

I have to 2nd Macisle's list with one addition.

  1. Korea 1950-1953
  2. Battle of France 1940
  3. Barbarossa/Eastern Front 41-43
  4. North African Campaign 40-43

That's funny because if I expanded my list to four, I'd have Korea there.

So, we have the same choices, just putting Korea as the opposite bookend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its true but ironic both sides crammwd germany with their best equipmwnt given the near certainty that within ten days almost every inch of germany would have been nuked about 5 times over from every nuke capable nation involved respectively. Nevemind the fallout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Macisle said:

The same cannot be said for Firepower. Never had any takers on that one.

Firepower (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/3692/firepower ) has my respect. I think the problem with it today is that CMBS actually does a much better job of simulating modern infantry combat, not to mention when you have infantry interacting with armour.

3 hours ago, Sublime said:

Its true but ironic both sides crammwd germany with their best equipmwnt given the near certainty that within ten days almost every inch of germany would have been nuked about 5 times over from every nuke capable nation involved respectively. Nevemind the fallout.

I have Warplan Dropshot (https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/147228/warplan-dropshot-cold-war-gone-hot ) and First Strike (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/38205/first-strike ), but unfortunately never had a chance to play them. They're certainly at the top of the list once I get boardgaming space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting but theyre both games. And board games. I dont even know enough people personally to make it happen with a board game. Nor the time. Thx though. I really dont think anyone can really predict exactly what would have happened if it had all gone hot. Im sure ppl have guessed close just a matter of degrees and the odd tjings that life does. Still i really dont see how many people would survive the next year in Europe, America, China, Russia, and basically large swathes of the world along a similar longitudal area from fall out never mind the outright devastation. The problem with the cold war is almost ineviteably icbms start getting used and quickly. But lets say they dont. Almost dor sure you have the worlds biggest war with thhe quickestt most appalling body count of all time (ww2s victors continually preparing and strengthening (weakening too in places manpower wize) their forces and always increasing by orders of 10s and hundreds their total destructive power with each generation of nuclear weapons.

I just dont see a war fought like that being settled by negotiations. I see things getting nuclear and very personal and think itd bw the heralding of a new ultra dark age for mankinds remnants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way things are going between Russia and the US, why not merge Black Sea and Shock Force. Move the venue closer to the Mediterranean. Who needs WWII when you can gear up a CMWW3? Final Blitzkrieg would have to take a back seat to a campaign centered on the plain of Armageddon.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...