Ultradave

They do. They cut right through the aluminum skin of the vehicle like it's not there and explode when they hit the engine

Well, we'll never know, but being part of it all at the time, it was unthinkable that we would nuke West German territory, no matter the situation on the ground. But, we won't know, thank goodness. Dave

Those exercises were to test troops moving through an area that had just been hit, which is a manageable thing to do. My comment was about fighting with what was left on the receiving end, which won’t be much. There have been no instances of troops being in the receiving end of a blast (obviously) and knowing what shape they will be in ( it won’t be good). And to answer @mrzafka, no it wouldn’t be the same. The Soviets will be in protective gear but they won’t be the ones who were hit with a nuclear weapon. So while they have protective gear which slows them down, they actually exist, where those under the nuclear blast, well..... During this time there was debate over whether to issue soldiers dosimeters. What use would it be? Soldier reads his pocket dosimeter after a blast and realizes he’s a goner. Does he, a) sit under a tree and cry b) go berserk and charge the enemy, figuring he’s dead anyway. Neither is the response you want. No dosimeters for the troops was the decision. The discussion has changed from firing nuclear weapons (not happening, see my discussion) to simulating operation on a contaminated battlefield, which you could sort of do by setting every possible readiness, morale, experience, leadership setting to rock bottom, maybe don’t allow quick or fast movement by agreement. Don’t forget to have the US side fight with almost nothing. A few surviving tanks maybe. Everything else is toast. Go for it if that’s your thing. Scenario Editor awaits. Dave

1. The fact that we were prepared does not mean nil effect. Everything slows down. Everything you do is harder. As an artillery officer we found calculating firing data and firing the battery to be extremely slow. Everything took at least twice as long, a lot of constantly repeating to make sure we heard numbers correctly. Same on the gun line. Checking 4 times to make sure the correct data was set on the guns. Beyond game time scales, although this applies for a campaign: If you have to be in Mopp4 for more than say, 12 hours, how will you eat? How will you eliminate? Even drinking water. Yes there is a tube. Do you trust it and your canteen to not pass contamination? I never did. Theoretically you move that unit to a clean area for Decon and to eat and rest. Can they actually disengage? Is there someone to plug that hole? 2. Speculation. Tactical nuclear weapons have never been used. (Although by today’s standard Hiroshima and Nagasaki were pretty much tactical nukes). Sure, firebombing of cities by hundreds of level bombers caused more casualties in WW2. Those are cities, not battlefields. Soviet plans were to hit our front lines to blow massive gaps they could drive through. Traveling through a fallout zone is much more manageable than through nerve agents. But in the game do you want to fight with the few scattered, dazed, now in MOPP4, surviving remnants of your company team against that intact Soviet motorized rifle battalion? Sounds like no fun, although realistic if they were used. Dave

I'm reposting this here from the "new things" thread as my perspective on tactical nuclear weapons from an entire 34 year career in the military nuclear world, including actual US Army experience as a Field Artillery officer/Nuclear Weapons secondary specialist. (And Steve says no NBC, so there's that too ) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ My secondary specialty in the US Army was Nuclear Weapons - Field Artillery primary specialty, , commissioned coincidentally in 1979 (so nuclear warhead artillery shells, 155mm and 8" howitzer fired). Also spent a few years doing research in the field of nuclear non-proliferation, and about 30 years in nuclear propulsion and radiation protection. A few points: 1) Pointless to include them in the game as the blast would cover a whole CM map. (give or take, depending on whether it was 155 or 8" that was fired). 2) Mostly the projected use by the US was at 2d and 3d echelon troops assembling for continuing the attack, so way behind the Soviet front line unit you are fighting on the map, to isolate the front line units from reinforcements. 3) Conversely to 2), NO ONE thought that anyone in NATO/US would authorize nuclear strikes on anything inside West Germany, which made having them pretty pointless, really. 4) Considering the expected course of a Soviet invasion of West Germany, the most important thing I learned was exactly how to blow the warheads up into tiny little pieces so that they wouldn't fall into Soviet hands (blow them up conventionally - which you can do without setting off the warhead). 5) The consensus at the time was that any use of tactical/battlefield nuclear weapons would not remain contained and would rapidly escalate to a general nuclear exchange. It seemed both sides felt this was true (it later came out) which makes it unlikely they would be used. 6) Lastly, personal opinion (facetiously) - we're talking firing nukes out of artillery - you just don't want to be that close. Dave

What, and spoil all the surprises the scenario designers prepared for you? A better reason not to is that it's beta - not everything is finished/correct. The screenshots and the AARs are always carefully selected to show things that ARE correct, and not show pictures of stuff that still needs work. Dave

My secondary specialty in the US Army was Nuclear Weapons - Field Artillery primary specialty, , commissioned coincidentally in 1979 (so nuclear warhead artillery shells, 155mm and 8" howitzer fired). Also spent a few years doing research in the field of nuclear non-proliferation, and about 30 years in nuclear propulsion and radiation protection. A few points: 1) Pointless to include them in the game as the blast would cover a whole CM map. (give or take, depending on whether it was 155 or 8" that was fired). 2) Mostly the projected use by the US was at 2d and 3d echelon troops assembling for continuing the attack, so way behind the Soviet front line unit you are fighting on the map, to isolate the front line units from reinforcements. 3) Conversely to 2), NO ONE thought that anyone in NATO/US would authorize nuclear strikes on anything inside West Germany, which made having them pretty pointless, really. 4) Considering the expected course of a Soviet invasion of West Germany, the most important thing I learned was exactly how to blow the warheads up into tiny little pieces so that they wouldn't fall into Soviet hands (blow them up conventionally - which you can do without setting off the warhead). 5) The consensus at the time was that any use of tactical/battlefield nuclear weapons would not remain contained and would rapidly escalate to a general nuclear exchange. It seemed both sides felt this was true (it later came out) which makes it unlikely they would be used. 6) Lastly, personal opinion (facetiously) - we're talking firing nukes out of artillery - you just don't want to be that close. Dave

What is this sacrilege you speak?

Correct. Light infantry TOE. I was artillery so we had vehicles ( at least after I graduated from FIST Chief to Fire Direction Officer back in the battery). An infantry company usually had the COs Jeep and the 1SG goat ( which was used mostly to haul supplies here and there ). Infantry squads are a little bigger in light infantry - no issues with stuffing them all in an APC. 3infantry companies and a support company. ( 81mm mortars ) jumped with LAWs and Dragons also we didn’t do the cross attached company teams like mech did ( not enough armor to go around) We might get armor attached from 4-68th Armor battalion which was part of the 82d then. Back then those were Sheridans. 9th infantry and 10th Mtn divisions had similar TOE. Probably more vehicles, but pretty similar. We just arrived in style

You'll need Fire and Rubble to unlock all the fun stuff.

As a beta tester I can attest to this. Getting an email from Elvis asking if I wanted to participate in a hush hush project, and then finding out what it was when he added the right permissions, was a real HOLY **** moment. And wasn't that long ago! Before that we were all happily plugging away on FnR, except for the small bunch doing all the hard work on CW. Dave

I've been testing the US 79 campaign. It IS a challenge! A bit like having early Shermans and you are facing nothing but Pz Vs

Those FASCAM missions when I was in FA during this period were more to fire into the rear to prevent the second/third line units from reinforcing the lead regiment. A way to at least temporarily isolate the lead unit. That would be beyond the opposite "board" edge of the scenario.

The graphics are priceless.

Range was standard - they weren't rocket assisted or anything fancy. Blast - I actually don't know what, if anything, has been declassified about those now that they are no longer in existence. I've been working in classified land since 1977 (not always on nuclear weapons, mostly nuclear submarines). Just aim for the center of any CM map. Game over.

This is very true. Even worse, you won't always have M1s, such as they are. Many (most) times you'll be fighting with M60s of some variety, or even M48s. Dave

Yeah, not like that monster. 155mm and 8 in howitzer shells = you don't wanna be that close.

Born in '56, commissioned an FA 2LT in 1979. THIS is exactly what I trained for. Field Artillery primary specialty, Nuclear Weapons secondary specialty (designated very early since my degree was Nuclear Engineering).

Oh the other hand, having US units WITH thermal sights when the bad guys don't in heavy mist/fog..... satisfying payback from some of the other waxings

It had the advantage back in the day that 1) It could pull an M102 and a jeep couldn't and 2) it was air droppable and a deuce and half was not. You could heavy drop rig a M102 and it's Game Goat in one C130. And HMMVs were just a glimmer in someone's eye then. Dave

Don't think so, but all my play so far as been as US so I can't say for sure. [edit - this was an answer to wood1, in case there is confusion - snuck in there between us.] Dave

Better than a LAW. But seriously, a helpful hint. When your mech infantry dismounts to take up a position, they DON'T automatically take the dragon that may be in the M113 with them. First order of business is each scenario is to "Acquire" the dragon launcher, its missiles and then as many LAWs as each squad/team can carry from the M113s that have them loaded. Then when/if you dismount the infantry, they at least have some punch with them. And since the M113s are nothing like M2 Bradleys, if you want your infantry to fight tanks, you'll be dismounting and setting up AT firing positions, remounting your M113s that you left in nice protected positions, and moving to a new location. Dave

Ah. Ok. Carry on. It's a nice map.

I will be interested to see how you both approach this after play testing the 79 version.

I am partial to Goats. I was also field artillery, and in the 82d. We had M102 howitzers towed by Goats and my FDC was a Goat and trailer we used to lay a tarp across to cover the gap. Gave us some good "interior" room to work. Fun vehicles. Hard (but not impossible - don't ask how I know) to get stuck. And they swim. 6x6 Low-Low could conquer most terrain.