HerrTom

One thing about a bunch of the pre-90s books on the cold war is how off the knowledge of the true capabilities of Warsaw Pact armed forces some of them were.

@HerrTom You missed "The War That Never Was" by Michael A Palmer (3rd from top) A favourite from my youth. 🙂 Wonder if I can find it in the attic ... 🤔
Anyway, thats a neat collection. 👍 Going to look into a few of those. 

Another book I used to have on my bookshelf was the US government printing office "The Soviet Theater Nuclear Offensive" by Douglas from 1976. I recall it was a pretty horrifying read at the time. Unfortunately, the book didn't survive several book purges over the years and a big move. You can probably find an e-book copy of it online.
 

Decided to pull out all my relevant books in case any have been missed in this thread.

Since I realise now my picture isn't too great and I don't want to get them back out:, from top to bottom:
First Clash: Combat Close-Up in World War Three by Kenneth Macksey. World War 3 Canadian Style, shows a lot of nitty-gritty tactical detail that many other books find wanting.  Super detailed and a good ride too. The Third World War by Sir John Hackett. I honestly found it pretty dry and hawkish, which I guess fits Hackett's objectives in writing it. Lots of scenario ideas though I found a lot of stereotypes (and worse, mirror-imaging!) that I don't think survive a retrospective look.  I got it as one of the "must-reads" but honestly am not too big a fan. The Cold War: A New History by John Lewis Gaddis. The historiography is getting a little dated by now, but it's still a solid single-volume history of the cold war, a real credit to Gaddis and his editors. Red Thrust by Steven Zaloga.  Reads like a cross between Clancy's work and First Clash. A good read, showcases some of the major technical gaps between WP and NATO equipment in the 80s. The Offensive by A. A. Sidorenko (translated). I know I already mentioned this, it's a dry but very informative read. Can't get better than a primary source on Soviet military thought, though! Soviet AirLand Battle Tactics by William Baxter. Intentionally misnomered, it's a surprisingly easy read on the complicated subject.  Definitely a good way to get started looking at the other side of the Iron Curtain. The Soviet Conduct of Tactical Maneuver by David Glantz. Glantz is probably one of the best experts on the Soviet military in the west. Great historical context bringing the development of Soviet tactical manoeuvre to the modern day. The Bear Went Over the Mountain by Les Grau and David Glantz. Largely a translation of a Frunze Academy report, drills down into specific engagements in the Soviet-Afghan war and identifies problems and failures in the execution of operations. Interesting and detailed commentary by Grau and Glantz ,too. The Soviet-Afghan War by Les Grau.  Some duplication from above, includes information on other combat arms beyond tactical units like logistics and artillery. Armies of Nato's Central Front by David Isby and Charles Kamps, Jr.  Really just an encyclopaedia of militaries in Europe, good info on OOBs and the like. Kriegsschauplatz Deutschland by Siegfried Lautsch. Lautsch is a retired NVA Colonel, which allowed him some great insight into the Warsaw Pact side of the equation. Great diagrams, clear and detailed language. Honestly my favourite of the books.  Also showcases plans and wargames which aren't the much misunderstood Six Days to the River Rhine!

Decided to pull out all my relevant books in case any have been missed in this thread.

Since I realise now my picture isn't too great and I don't want to get them back out:, from top to bottom:
First Clash: Combat Close-Up in World War Three by Kenneth Macksey. World War 3 Canadian Style, shows a lot of nitty-gritty tactical detail that many other books find wanting.  Super detailed and a good ride too. The Third World War by Sir John Hackett. I honestly found it pretty dry and hawkish, which I guess fits Hackett's objectives in writing it. Lots of scenario ideas though I found a lot of stereotypes (and worse, mirror-imaging!) that I don't think survive a retrospective look.  I got it as one of the "must-reads" but honestly am not too big a fan. The Cold War: A New History by John Lewis Gaddis. The historiography is getting a little dated by now, but it's still a solid single-volume history of the cold war, a real credit to Gaddis and his editors. Red Thrust by Steven Zaloga.  Reads like a cross between Clancy's work and First Clash. A good read, showcases some of the major technical gaps between WP and NATO equipment in the 80s. The Offensive by A. A. Sidorenko (translated). I know I already mentioned this, it's a dry but very informative read. Can't get better than a primary source on Soviet military thought, though! Soviet AirLand Battle Tactics by William Baxter. Intentionally misnomered, it's a surprisingly easy read on the complicated subject.  Definitely a good way to get started looking at the other side of the Iron Curtain. The Soviet Conduct of Tactical Maneuver by David Glantz. Glantz is probably one of the best experts on the Soviet military in the west. Great historical context bringing the development of Soviet tactical manoeuvre to the modern day. The Bear Went Over the Mountain by Les Grau and David Glantz. Largely a translation of a Frunze Academy report, drills down into specific engagements in the Soviet-Afghan war and identifies problems and failures in the execution of operations. Interesting and detailed commentary by Grau and Glantz ,too. The Soviet-Afghan War by Les Grau.  Some duplication from above, includes information on other combat arms beyond tactical units like logistics and artillery. Armies of Nato's Central Front by David Isby and Charles Kamps, Jr.  Really just an encyclopaedia of militaries in Europe, good info on OOBs and the like. Kriegsschauplatz Deutschland by Siegfried Lautsch. Lautsch is a retired NVA Colonel, which allowed him some great insight into the Warsaw Pact side of the equation. Great diagrams, clear and detailed language. Honestly my favourite of the books.  Also showcases plans and wargames which aren't the much misunderstood Six Days to the River Rhine!

Decided to pull out all my relevant books in case any have been missed in this thread.

Since I realise now my picture isn't too great and I don't want to get them back out:, from top to bottom:
First Clash: Combat Close-Up in World War Three by Kenneth Macksey. World War 3 Canadian Style, shows a lot of nitty-gritty tactical detail that many other books find wanting.  Super detailed and a good ride too. The Third World War by Sir John Hackett. I honestly found it pretty dry and hawkish, which I guess fits Hackett's objectives in writing it. Lots of scenario ideas though I found a lot of stereotypes (and worse, mirror-imaging!) that I don't think survive a retrospective look.  I got it as one of the "must-reads" but honestly am not too big a fan. The Cold War: A New History by John Lewis Gaddis. The historiography is getting a little dated by now, but it's still a solid single-volume history of the cold war, a real credit to Gaddis and his editors. Red Thrust by Steven Zaloga.  Reads like a cross between Clancy's work and First Clash. A good read, showcases some of the major technical gaps between WP and NATO equipment in the 80s. The Offensive by A. A. Sidorenko (translated). I know I already mentioned this, it's a dry but very informative read. Can't get better than a primary source on Soviet military thought, though! Soviet AirLand Battle Tactics by William Baxter. Intentionally misnomered, it's a surprisingly easy read on the complicated subject.  Definitely a good way to get started looking at the other side of the Iron Curtain. The Soviet Conduct of Tactical Maneuver by David Glantz. Glantz is probably one of the best experts on the Soviet military in the west. Great historical context bringing the development of Soviet tactical manoeuvre to the modern day. The Bear Went Over the Mountain by Les Grau and David Glantz. Largely a translation of a Frunze Academy report, drills down into specific engagements in the Soviet-Afghan war and identifies problems and failures in the execution of operations. Interesting and detailed commentary by Grau and Glantz ,too. The Soviet-Afghan War by Les Grau.  Some duplication from above, includes information on other combat arms beyond tactical units like logistics and artillery. Armies of Nato's Central Front by David Isby and Charles Kamps, Jr.  Really just an encyclopaedia of militaries in Europe, good info on OOBs and the like. Kriegsschauplatz Deutschland by Siegfried Lautsch. Lautsch is a retired NVA Colonel, which allowed him some great insight into the Warsaw Pact side of the equation. Great diagrams, clear and detailed language. Honestly my favourite of the books.  Also showcases plans and wargames which aren't the much misunderstood Six Days to the River Rhine!

Ach! I skipped right over it haha.  Agreed, though I recall it being fairly light in the area of land operations.
The other two I got some ten or so years ago, found Central Front hiding in the back of a used book shop in Boston.

Decided to pull out all my relevant books in case any have been missed in this thread.

Since I realise now my picture isn't too great and I don't want to get them back out:, from top to bottom:
First Clash: Combat Close-Up in World War Three by Kenneth Macksey. World War 3 Canadian Style, shows a lot of nitty-gritty tactical detail that many other books find wanting.  Super detailed and a good ride too. The Third World War by Sir John Hackett. I honestly found it pretty dry and hawkish, which I guess fits Hackett's objectives in writing it. Lots of scenario ideas though I found a lot of stereotypes (and worse, mirror-imaging!) that I don't think survive a retrospective look.  I got it as one of the "must-reads" but honestly am not too big a fan. The Cold War: A New History by John Lewis Gaddis. The historiography is getting a little dated by now, but it's still a solid single-volume history of the cold war, a real credit to Gaddis and his editors. Red Thrust by Steven Zaloga.  Reads like a cross between Clancy's work and First Clash. A good read, showcases some of the major technical gaps between WP and NATO equipment in the 80s. The Offensive by A. A. Sidorenko (translated). I know I already mentioned this, it's a dry but very informative read. Can't get better than a primary source on Soviet military thought, though! Soviet AirLand Battle Tactics by William Baxter. Intentionally misnomered, it's a surprisingly easy read on the complicated subject.  Definitely a good way to get started looking at the other side of the Iron Curtain. The Soviet Conduct of Tactical Maneuver by David Glantz. Glantz is probably one of the best experts on the Soviet military in the west. Great historical context bringing the development of Soviet tactical manoeuvre to the modern day. The Bear Went Over the Mountain by Les Grau and David Glantz. Largely a translation of a Frunze Academy report, drills down into specific engagements in the Soviet-Afghan war and identifies problems and failures in the execution of operations. Interesting and detailed commentary by Grau and Glantz ,too. The Soviet-Afghan War by Les Grau.  Some duplication from above, includes information on other combat arms beyond tactical units like logistics and artillery. Armies of Nato's Central Front by David Isby and Charles Kamps, Jr.  Really just an encyclopaedia of militaries in Europe, good info on OOBs and the like. Kriegsschauplatz Deutschland by Siegfried Lautsch. Lautsch is a retired NVA Colonel, which allowed him some great insight into the Warsaw Pact side of the equation. Great diagrams, clear and detailed language. Honestly my favourite of the books.  Also showcases plans and wargames which aren't the much misunderstood Six Days to the River Rhine!

Decided to pull out all my relevant books in case any have been missed in this thread.

Since I realise now my picture isn't too great and I don't want to get them back out:, from top to bottom:
First Clash: Combat Close-Up in World War Three by Kenneth Macksey. World War 3 Canadian Style, shows a lot of nitty-gritty tactical detail that many other books find wanting.  Super detailed and a good ride too. The Third World War by Sir John Hackett. I honestly found it pretty dry and hawkish, which I guess fits Hackett's objectives in writing it. Lots of scenario ideas though I found a lot of stereotypes (and worse, mirror-imaging!) that I don't think survive a retrospective look.  I got it as one of the "must-reads" but honestly am not too big a fan. The Cold War: A New History by John Lewis Gaddis. The historiography is getting a little dated by now, but it's still a solid single-volume history of the cold war, a real credit to Gaddis and his editors. Red Thrust by Steven Zaloga.  Reads like a cross between Clancy's work and First Clash. A good read, showcases some of the major technical gaps between WP and NATO equipment in the 80s. The Offensive by A. A. Sidorenko (translated). I know I already mentioned this, it's a dry but very informative read. Can't get better than a primary source on Soviet military thought, though! Soviet AirLand Battle Tactics by William Baxter. Intentionally misnomered, it's a surprisingly easy read on the complicated subject.  Definitely a good way to get started looking at the other side of the Iron Curtain. The Soviet Conduct of Tactical Maneuver by David Glantz. Glantz is probably one of the best experts on the Soviet military in the west. Great historical context bringing the development of Soviet tactical manoeuvre to the modern day. The Bear Went Over the Mountain by Les Grau and David Glantz. Largely a translation of a Frunze Academy report, drills down into specific engagements in the Soviet-Afghan war and identifies problems and failures in the execution of operations. Interesting and detailed commentary by Grau and Glantz ,too. The Soviet-Afghan War by Les Grau.  Some duplication from above, includes information on other combat arms beyond tactical units like logistics and artillery. Armies of Nato's Central Front by David Isby and Charles Kamps, Jr.  Really just an encyclopaedia of militaries in Europe, good info on OOBs and the like. Kriegsschauplatz Deutschland by Siegfried Lautsch. Lautsch is a retired NVA Colonel, which allowed him some great insight into the Warsaw Pact side of the equation. Great diagrams, clear and detailed language. Honestly my favourite of the books.  Also showcases plans and wargames which aren't the much misunderstood Six Days to the River Rhine!

I meant to add in my previous post that this map is one of the eight I completed for the US campaign. It is 2k wide and 2.5k deep, so not large, and  in fact the smallest of the 8 maps. Bil and Warren do have an awful lot of heavy kit in quite a small place on this one. Knife fight could well be an understatement !
As tease I can confirm for the US campaign that the average map size is over eleven square kilometres and so this one is less than half the average size.
P

My concern for Bil is that he will still be OOing when The_Capt DAs all over him.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like we can expect both main forces to run into each other in a nice clash of steel that the Capt might win due to his overwhelming firepower advantage. My read of the coming manoeuvres:
https://imgur.com/scpRyd
I'm not sure Bil is expecting a large push over the southern part of the valley, so it'll be interesting to see if he sniffs it out in time.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like we can expect both main forces to run into each other in a nice clash of steel that the Capt might win due to his overwhelming firepower advantage. My read of the coming manoeuvres:
https://imgur.com/scpRyd
I'm not sure Bil is expecting a large push over the southern part of the valley, so it'll be interesting to see if he sniffs it out in time.

Having made the map for this, I've got a good insight into the terrain.
The village sits in the valley bottom but Bil has covered routes through the woods into the village from his side, while Capt has to cover a lot of open fields to actually get there.
I think it is a clever move for him to already have infantry moving to the village as Bil can only really engage them with his own scouts of which he doesn't have many, or his M60's with HE. Neither is an attractive option for him, nor one his force is well suited to given armour dominates on both side. If Capt can get a foothold then all his other units can remain in the treeline and cover the village by fire so denying it to Bil. The reverse also applies for Bil but I think his lack of troopers here make it hard for him.
My money is on Capt (at least for the moment)
P

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like we can expect both main forces to run into each other in a nice clash of steel that the Capt might win due to his overwhelming firepower advantage. My read of the coming manoeuvres:
https://imgur.com/scpRyd
I'm not sure Bil is expecting a large push over the southern part of the valley, so it'll be interesting to see if he sniffs it out in time.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like we can expect both main forces to run into each other in a nice clash of steel that the Capt might win due to his overwhelming firepower advantage. My read of the coming manoeuvres:
https://imgur.com/scpRyd
I'm not sure Bil is expecting a large push over the southern part of the valley, so it'll be interesting to see if he sniffs it out in time.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like we can expect both main forces to run into each other in a nice clash of steel that the Capt might win due to his overwhelming firepower advantage. My read of the coming manoeuvres:
https://imgur.com/scpRyd
I'm not sure Bil is expecting a large push over the southern part of the valley, so it'll be interesting to see if he sniffs it out in time.

Capitalist trickery.

No, that was me in my first CMSF play with AAVs stuffed full of Marines: I found out that the game engine has no limitations on how many red crosses it can display simultaneously.  For that knowledge, I thank those Marines.
 
But, back to this AAR: the opening graphics defined the Soviet approach. Teeth and hands scrabbling at eyes...or somefink. I like the Maskirovka baked-in from the outset.
Remember, comrade, we can always send you more men and tanks: we cannot make more time.

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 
 

Nah, for the Soviet side of the time the idea was to get as fast as possible to the ports to deny the US the ability to reinforce/resupply NATO forces in Europe. So as such:
Attacking force is not expected to face a defence not thouroughly softened by conventional artillery or tactical nukes. Heavy fire support would be used against probable enemy positions BEFORE the attack. Not a concept of a move to contact, relay enemy coordinates and lay in wait to see them destroyed. However attacking units would expect a SWIFT fire support should they run into troubles. I'd say in 80s Soviet fire support would be WAAAAY quicker then US's. And even in CMBS Russian fire support is unrealistically retarded as compared to US IMO. At the beginning of the UKR hostilities UKR Army basically didn't exist yet today UKR fire support is world class. Attacking units would need to absorb whatever casualties happen in the process. If a unit is thouroughly degraded then it will be replaced by a reserve one yet the tempo of operations needs to be maintained. Nobody cares to cleanse fortified areas, rather you avoid a head-on fight, go around and leave the mopping task to rear echelons. No one's stopping for a "smart" tactical fight - keeping the movement tempo is uber alles. As such the TACTICAL direction of attack may be changed at the discretion of lower-level commanders. It's up to the rear echelons to keep up. Again tempo is uber alles. You achieve "overmatch" on the battlefield first and foremost not by putting up an overwhelming force to fight in direct contact but rather by avoiding the costly head-on confrontation, maneuvering around the enemy and degrading it by fires. Then annihilating the weaked enemy if it's required for keeping your logistics lines. If it's not - then leave it behind and move on. So:
No sure if CMCW will show it this way - it's totally different from previous CM titles IMO. Hope it may expain many things about Russian side in other CM titles. To understand the origins of the concept it's worth reading about the political/economy side of the equation for both the West and the East.

You guys are determined to be tricky about this NBC thing aren't you?
Trust me, it is no fun and as it is Feb 24 in Australia, here is me (vehicle commander in the helmet) 30 years ago in Australian time, 29 years ago and one day in the time zones that most forumites are probably living in, wearing an NBC suit about 10 minutes before we launched across the Iraqi border ... because yes it was that long ago ...

We spent three days in that kit and that is nothing compared to having the overboots, gloves and respirators on.  Want to see how much fun it is ....
Communicating .... put your COVID mask on.  Put a pair of gloves on and put a pair of washing up gloves on over the top.  Now try dialing a telephone number and speaking and being understood over that phone.
Writing ... as above but pick up a pen and paper and then try and write down what you can hear from your telephone call.
Using a keyboard ... as above.
Marking a map ... as above but also put on a diving mask.
Shooting accurately - COVID mask, diving goggles and two pairs of gloves - in your own time carry on.
Anything physical ... put on your normal clothes, then put another layer on, add COVID mask, diving goggles, both pairs of gloves and just try and do anything.
Or go for the full option - dare I call it 'Iron' with all of the above activities - COVID mask, diving mask, two pairs of gloves and twice the amount of clothes you'd normally wear.
Don't forget to check that your gloves, mask and goggles are on properly at all times and readjust them as necessary.
When you have done all of the above, you will see that there are more soft factors to be adjusted to simulate NBC than those being suggested.
So it might be 'cool' it might be reflective of the era and I do support the use of chemical weapons as an inclusion in the game as I know this would have been the most likely scenario in a tactical environment; however, it isn't going to happen as @Bil Hardenbergerhas pointed out.
 

And the morale impact of being told to go 100m downwind of where the NAIAD (a British chemical detection device) went off 30 minutes ago and do the sniff test ... yes I was that guy ...

When I served in the Bundeswehr 40 years ago, I always hoped that if this goes hot, it will be as during WW II. Everybody had chemicals and, therefore, nobody used it. Maybe due to own experience not even Mr. Hitler used them at the end of the war. And at least my unit was nearly not prepared for it. I did not have the impression to be well trained for the case. The British Army showed a different picture judging by the small insight I had at that time.
In a game like this it is most certainly a factor which can easily unbalance a scenario and a whole bag of new interdependencies which need to be researched, designed, and programmed. So, I can very much understand the decision to keep it out.

Re: NBC:
From our Design Document (and before you ask... no, sorry I won't be sharing it):
In our mind representing NBC was a rabbit hole best stayed away from.
Bil