Ultradave

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 
 

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 
 

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 

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 
 

Admitted, i should have made it more obvious I wasn't being too serious with my request, rather curious.
Dave, thank you for clearing that one up - it's not always easy to find out the facts even with the modern internet unless you know exactly where to look for and which questions to ask. I was wondering how realistic the use of those weapons would have been.

Bless you for posting these words of sanity in an otherwise "nukes gone wild" speculative environment. 🤣 😁

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 😀

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 😀

Airborne is module material.

A lot of the bug testing to death was to get the TO&E to work. It's *possible* you may need to play around a lot with dates on QB setups to get the vehicles you want, because a lot of work went into not only having all the correct formations and vehicles, but also the dates that they would be available.
Playing around with some QB setups I don't see the "latest" versions either. Yet.
 

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.
 

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 🙂

I'll tell you what is fun though, is watching that Redeye plume streak off and then get the message of "Aircraft Destroyed"   
Dave

"Follow" command that works in terrain or on roads, and duplicates the waypoints for each following unit so adjustments can be made.

Not really answering your question, but the issue with ATGMs in game is one of their flight time. Its not unusual to be seeing missile flight times of 10-15 seconds, which is a long time when every second counts. If the launcher can be brought under kinetic fire while the missile is in flight there is a good chance it can be killed before it's own round strikes. It seems much more noticeable in CW than previous titles.
It's an interesting dynamic and really ups the tension
P  

Fairly secure against espionage too! 

Oh, my, is this on the money. My comment in one playtest was how people (including myself) are used to pretty much cruising around with almost impunity in M1's.  Well, not here. M60s, M48s....   it's a WHOLE 'nuther ball game. And let's not even get into the cracker box M113s 🙂
The mantra from when I was a young Army officer during this exact time (commissioned in '79) was "If you can be seen, you can be hit. If you are hit, you are dead"  This has been driven home to me any number of times very lately.
Dave

Oh, my, is this on the money. My comment in one playtest was how people (including myself) are used to pretty much cruising around with almost impunity in M1's.  Well, not here. M60s, M48s....   it's a WHOLE 'nuther ball game. And let's not even get into the cracker box M113s 🙂
The mantra from when I was a young Army officer during this exact time (commissioned in '79) was "If you can be seen, you can be hit. If you are hit, you are dead"  This has been driven home to me any number of times very lately.
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

Team Yankee for something on this level.
 

“Here, across death’s other river, the Tartar horsemen shake their spears.”
T.S. Eliot
 
This BETA game is being played against Warren (The_Capt), and we are very familiar with each other’s style, strengths and weaknesses as we’ve been playing CM against each other for close to 20 years now.
CM Cold War was our brainchild and has been on our wargame design table, off and on, for eight years now, but now it is a real thing.  You’re welcome.    With that said it is only fitting that Warren and I play in this BETA AAR.  We haven’t played in public since our original CMBN BETA AAR, Not your Father’s Combat Mission. 
I hope you enjoy the ride, and welcome to the COLD WAR!!

Sidebar!  I strictly use the Movie Mode when I play so all of my screenshots use that feature.  I don't mean it to insult anybody, but I just think the game looks better.
Meeting Engagement at Dolbach Heights, 1980
When Warren and I laid out the design for this game we wanted it to be primarily and ultimately a sandbox for experimentation and reflection.  A tool to test the tactical theories that were prevalent at that time.  Time… yes, we also wanted to be able to examine the different sides from different time perspectives, and this release, the base game in the CM Cold War series, contains the years 1979 to 1982.  We also only cover the months March to October, mainly so we didn’t have to generate winter textures and models which would have been one feature too many.
This particular scenario is one that Warren and I threw together that we thought would be fun to play and show off.  The map is from the US Campaign and when you play that you will see this map eventually.  I will start my METT-T analysis in my next post, but for now, sit back, enjoy the existence of this game, and don’t go away!
Bil

CONTENTS:
METT-T Analysis MISSION ENEMY TERRAIN TROOPS / TIME Tentative Plan The Action: First Three Minutes! Fourth Minute - First Contact! Fifth Minute - Return of the Blood Board! Sixth & Seventh Minutes Eighth Minute - One Meter Too Many Eighth Minute - BDA & Some Movements Ninth Minute Tenth Minute Eleventh & Twelfth Minutes - "...damn your eyes." Thirteenth Minute - The Board is Set Fourteenth Minute - Spoiling Attack Plan Fifteenth through Seventeenth Minutes Eighteenth Minute - Relearning Old Lessons Nineteenth & Twentieth Minutes Twenty-First & Twenty-Second Minutes - Beyond Here, There be Dragons Twenty-Third & Twenty-Fourth Minutes - Saga of Tank Section 1

Interesting revelation mate ... 😏

Satisfying "on target signal I am sure 😀
Buzz