Is Fulda Gap most likely never in the cards?

[JM Stuff]

20 minutes ago, sburke said:

who gives a s**t about Nukes.  I still want Fulda Gap.   

Team Yankee!!!!  (Funny enough in Team Yankee they do confront a nuclear launch by Russia taken from Hackett's World War 3 novel scenario and the corresponding response for units at the front line and it is eminently doable with CM )

This nuclear discussion is not helping to sway Steve's mind so if you are interested in a Fulda Gap game I suggest not bringing it up every time someone says let's have CM Fulda Gap.....

Me too dont care about a nuke conflict want only a typical strike between big nations or satellites nations, I would be reallly happy with FG but also in another scales view over Seven_Days_to_the_River_Rhine ...thinking to use the nuke weapons or chimical ,will be an act criminal hyprocrite and from low level , also in the real world, we have already these kind of men in the reallity so let these Ideas for the fools, CM is a game that we love, because responding to ours hungry wishes of tactics and strategy, including these weapons will stop all funny ways to play, I dont understand why we have to talk about these "economics  and devastator weapons" I dont think that we have some criminals members in CM world, ...isnt ?

Edited October 27, 2018 by 3j2m7

[John Kettler]

Sublime,

Suvorov wasn't discredited, and even if I cede the GPW side, certainly not when it came to his Red Army insights. Indeed, he rated a story in International Defence Review, a follow-up illustrated letter and an extensive discourse of what he had to say ref higher military organization (TVD, wartime missions, etc.) in an issue of SMP which was practically him verbatim, this time with colored maps, too. His information on SAM system undercounting ( as much as 50% in some cases) was extremely distressing to my colleagues and was shortly made official, with major impact on our aviation force attrition numbers. He revealed previously unknown Russian weapons (had Vasilek years before I ever saw a Classified image of it) and compromised Russian intelligence operations in a bunch of ways: sources, methods, approaches, personnel, training, etc. He outed someone so important Brezhnev got briefed on him! Can provide certain other specifics by PM if anyone's interested. Said specifics will tellingly show how hugely significant what he had to say during his debrief was and is. His public revelations on Russian war plans alone were a mighty blow to SpetsNaz war plans and showed how thoroughly the Russians had investigated, assessed and made concrete plans to deal with BMEWS, SOSUS, etc. Taking out French ballistic missiles on the Plateau de Albion was on the list, likewise attacks on boomers and other subs at Faslane. Hair-raising reads. 

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited October 27, 2018 by John Kettler

[Sequoia]

Please let's not turn this thread into another Suvorov discussion either. We've had those before.

[Michael Emrys]

3 hours ago, sburke said:

Team Yankee!!!!  (Funny enough in Team Yankee they do confront a nuclear launch by Russia taken from Hackett's World War 3 novel scenario and the corresponding response for units at the front line and it is eminently doable with CM )

Did you ever read Red Army by Ralph Peters? It came out in the late '80s, which is when I read it. It covered some of the same ground and I found it to be in many ways the most plausible book in this genre at the time. Of course a great deal has changed since then, but if we are talking about a Fulda Gap scenario, it would be well to study this.

Michael

[sburke]

52 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said:

Did you ever read Red Army by Ralph Peters? It came out in the late '80s, which is when I read it. It covered some of the same ground and I found it to be in many ways the most plausible book in this genre at the time. Of course a great deal has changed since then, but if we are talking about a Fulda Gap scenario, it would be well to study this.

Michael

yep another one for good scenario recreation ideas.  Especially the para jump on Hamelin (I think) and the German territorial units responding.  Good stuff.  And there is always First Clash which is my absolute favorite for a potential CM Campaign.

 

What I liked about Team Yankee is having this breakdown of a Tank Heavy team managed by a Mech unit BN commander and the disconnect in how to employ armor etc  Also the struggles the team had upon losing a FIST team, FOW issues, command breakdown etc.  Overall a very immersive experience not just in technical capabilities, but human failings.  Another one is Firefall.  Just finished that one on a Ranger unit in Germany and there is also Cauldron -pitting Germany and France against Hungary, Poland and the US.  The fun of a CM Fulda Gap game is there is a lot of material for a variety of scenario ideas.  Sandbox deluxe

Edited October 28, 2018 by sburke

[Bulletpoint]

On 10/24/2018 at 2:16 AM, kinophile said:

What was the rationale for not doing Arab Israeli wars? Danger of rapant politicization? 

Maybe those wars were just too one-sided. Also, they were pretty much a tank shootout in the desert. Over very quickly.

[Ultradave]

On 10/26/2018 at 7:56 AM, Sublime said:

OK so let me get this straight. So far HerrTom and a couple other people agreed with Capt Miller agreeing wirh Bil Hardenberger who agreed with me about the use of tac nukes? Geez you guys think if you.re gonna toss kudos out you could name the first guy in the chain.

Ok Bil H i think you may have me, and JK may be right I may be thinking of the Sheridan.  HOWEVER to remark on the service trials thing... Im certain youve heard the tales and seen the movies about the Bradleys development cycle and the pentagon/mil indust complex trying to just push through an inferior weapon system knowing it had major flaws..

DMS Gorbachev was ONLY in power in the 80s for about half the 80s. And I think thats a sorta "unique" view to say he "surrendered" to the west. i hate to see what you think him "winning" would have looked like.

Of course Soviet 60s plans had zillions of nukes. NATO plans until the 80s had nuclear response if you guys shat and didnt wipe enough with old Pravdas   (interestingly when you read BAOR yarns on Arrse.com the stories from the Brit SOXMIS mission - basically legit open spying - one of their absolute gold mine sources for info was old Soviet latrine spots after maneuvers. The socialist paradise didnt have toilet paper for the average folk I guess, nor even lower field grade ones.)

Ohh JK that was interesting to bad Suvorov has been thoroughly discreditted and I dont believe anything he says. Especially about WW2. ESPECIALLY.

None of us believed that we would actually use those tactical nuclear weapons. I was nuclear artillery qualified back then. The most important thing we learned was how to use the explosive charges to blow them into tiny pieces so they didn't fall into the Russians hands when we got overrun. 

NO ONE believed we would nuke West Germany to save it. Everyone believed that once any nuclear weapon was used, it would be impossible to contain it to a strictly "tactical" exchange. That was the entire reason for the INF treaty. The weapons covered by it are very destabilizing as they leave almost no reaction time for the other side to make a decision on what to do. And there were  A LOT of them. 10s of thousands.

[Sublime]

About 30 to 40k on each side if Im not mistaken?  I dont believe we would have gone nuclear immediately like we would have in the 50s or 60s... The Russians I really dont know. Their preferences aside... Plus whether or not none of the people in ground zero in Europe wanted to use nukes wouldnt it seem likely they would have been used if the Soviets were getting close to the Channel?

100% agree any nuke use would have led to armageddon world wide.

[Thomm]

Every time I had to handle conscript Syrian forces in the CM:SF2 demo I found myself longing for top-of-the-line Warshaw Pact troops ...

Just sayin' ...

Best regards,
   Thomm

[Thomm]

Some links for the future:

Cold War Tank Formations

NATO Northern Army Group OOB 1985

Steel Beasts Vehicle Time Line

Cold War OOBs

Best regards,
Thomm

[DerKommissar]

I thought Suvorov died before the Napoleonic wars. Did they res him with defib so he can give commentary on WW2?

I think NBC simulation would be a super-cool addition to Combat Mission. Something to put on the box -- a real selling point (especially in our current geopolitical predicament :S).

- NBC equipment for material/personnel.

- NBC contamination and decon procedures.

- Call-ins for tactical NBC weapons (ie. bombs, shells).

Anyone played the Cuban Missile Crisis game? That one attempted to do this.

On 10/27/2018 at 5:55 PM, Ivanov said:

There could be maps, that would represent nuclear wastelands and a new category of units - post nuke stragglers

Next pack: Mad Max uncons xD!

War..

War never changes...

 

[Badger73]

15 minutes ago, DerKommissar said:

I thought Suvorov died before the Napoleonic wars.

<snipped>

 

Alexander did - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Suvorov

Viktor did not - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Suvorov

[Ultradave]

6 hours ago, DerKommissar said:

I thought Suvorov died before the Napoleonic wars. Did they res him with defib so he can give commentary on WW2?

I think NBC simulation would be a super-cool addition to Combat Mission. Something to put on the box -- a real selling point (especially in our current geopolitical predicament :S).

- NBC equipment for material/personnel.

- NBC contamination and decon procedures.

- Call-ins for tactical NBC weapons (ie. bombs, shells).

Anyone played the Cuban Missile Crisis game? That one attempted to do this.

Next pack: Mad Max uncons xD!

War..

War never changes...

 

Don't forget the 50% degradation in combat effectiveness just for having to wear all that crap.

[sburke]

12 hours ago, Sublime said:

Plus whether or not none of the people in ground zero in Europe wanted to use nukes wouldnt it seem likely they would have been used if the Soviets were getting close to the Channel?

Really?... the Russians making it to the channel?  Is that just a hypothetical argument to say there just might be some example or do you seriously think that was ever gonna happen?

[Sequoia]

Any one else familiar with the quote from the rules on the old SPI board wargame NATO on how to simulate strategic nuclear warfare in the game?

[HerrTom]

42 minutes ago, Sequoia said:

Any one else familiar with the quote from the rules on the old SPI board wargame NATO on how to simulate strategic nuclear warfare in the game?

NATO Operational Combat in Europe or something like that? I forget that particular one, but I like a couple of others  

• Nuclear Weapons - Either player, feeling his position is hopeless, may overturn the game table. He forfeits the game, but we hope he enjoys losing so spectacularly.
• Use of tactical nukes: if one of the players resorts to the use of tactical nukes, spray zippo lighter fuel over the game and set it to fire. The effect is comparable to reality.
   

[Sequoia]

Your 2nd item is a paraphrase of the rule I was referring to.

[Michael Emrys]

53 minutes ago, Sequoia said:

Your 2nd item is a paraphrase of the rule I was referring to.

That's the one I had in mind too. I think it was in one of the Modern Battles Quad games, wasn't it?

Michael

[Sublime]

11 hours ago, sburke said:

Really?... the Russians making it to the channel?  Is that just a hypothetical argument to say there just might be some example or do you seriously think that was ever gonna happen?

A hypothetical example of something that if it happened would probably be shocking enough that it.d cause that.

Do I think it was possible? Depends on what year. Most of the army veterans Ive talked to or read stuff from, US and BAOR all expected to more or less be annihilated no matter what year it was except a slight uptick in confidence after 85.

I still say what year very much makes a difference - for example in the 1950s the US would have started lobbing nukes around regardless.  I think the 70s were a very dangerous time.for losing for the West if a war popped off, that said I dont even see all of the FRG  being overrun without a nuclear response.

Never say never though on whether say 'they could have reached the channel'

Some of their best military minds and ours were sure of Red victory in a conventional or at least non nuclear war - of course wars arent fought to cater to one sides preference.

Noone expected the Nazis to crush France in 1940 either.  That said though; no,  I just pulled a scenario outta the air that I felt would "force" the US hand as ReForGer would be impossible at that point.

Edited October 30, 2018 by Sublime

[DerKommissar]

17 hours ago, Ultradave said:

Don't forget the 50% degradation in combat effectiveness just for having to wear all that crap.

Aye, but it won't be a drill, this time...

But, yeah, I think it may be annoying for some players. Spotting, accuracy and movement would all take a hit. No turning out of tanks, either. But it would definitely create a unique game with unique challenges. Maybe similar to electronic warfare in BS, where you can set intensity or turn it off all-together.

[A Canadian Cat]

10 hours ago, HerrTom said:

Use of tactical nukes: if one of the players resorts to the use of tactical nukes, spray zippo lighter fuel over the game and set it to fire. The effect is comparable to reality.

LOL especially since that likely would lead to the house or building where the game is being played also burning to the ground as well, so - pretty comparable to the real effects on the globe too.

[DMS]

If BFC would make such game, it is no sence in making just 1 period. Only 80-s or only 70-s. Vehicles are the same in most part, uniform is the same, maps are the same. 3 different settings, 60-s, 70-s and 80-s would be fun to play. If in 70-s nukes were really unlikely, in 60-s it was rather possible. I agree, game in nuclear conditions would be unusual and interesting. More meeting engagements, dynamical, vehicle focused gameplay without long foot recce and artillery support.

[Ultradave]

6 hours ago, IanL said:

LOL especially since that likely would lead to the house or building where the game is being played also burning to the ground as well, so - pretty comparable to the real effects on the globe too.

There was an old computer game "Balance of Power" where you had to counter USSR Cold War aggression (playing as the US), and of course, implement your own diplomacy and aggression (military advisors, combat troops and such). If a nuclear war started at some point, you lose. Doesn't matter who escalated or started it. You lose. Decisive defeat. Good concept. You either did it or allowed it to get to the point where it happened. It was really hard to win because the Russian AI was very aggressive and wouldn't back down in a lot of cases. Invoke the Monroe Doctrine and try to force them to get their 150,000 troops out of Nicaragua and you are likely to start WW3. I lost a lot. Didn't find the magic formula of diplomacy, pressure (just enough but not too much), and luck. 

In the case of the real world it took some coincidences, timely turnover of Soviet leadership, and luck to avoid WW3.

Speaking of which, just finished reading "1983" a couple weeks ago. Good book, well researched with some recently declassified info. Having lived through some of what he writes about, it's even scarier reading about it now than it was at the time being there. Incredible how close we came to turning the Earth into a little cinder ball. Not just once either. 

[BletchleyGeek]

6 hours ago, Ultradave said:

Good book, well researched with some recently declassified info. 

Thanks for the implict recommendation Dave.

6 hours ago, Ultradave said:

In the case of the real world it took some coincidences, timely turnover of Soviet leadership, and luck to avoid WW3.

It also help that neither side had as doctrine "first strike": Chris Crawford - legend developer - point was that the first strike was pretty much the end of the road.

 

Edited October 31, 2018 by BletchleyGeek

[Michael Emrys]

8 hours ago, Ultradave said:

There was an old computer game "Balance of Power"...

Hmmm, that sounds familiar. I saw something much like that on an early Mac in 1986. A friend and I played a few turns trying without success to provoke Armageddon just to see what that would be like. The game looked like a lot of thought and work had gone into it, and I was sorry that I never saw it again.

Michael

Edited October 31, 2018 by Michael Emrys