1980's;Modding potential?

[Noltyboy]

I would like to point out I would definitely pay for a CM:fulda gap style game. Especially if the do a BAOR (British Army of the Rhine) module! Mmmmm Chieftain Mk 10s!

[ikalugin]

I think that Soviet Forces opposing BAOR had somewhere between 7 to 1 and 8 to 1 superiority in artillery at the time (less in other departments).

So your battle may be rather painful. Ash, plus the enemy (3rd TA) had your defense plans at about the same time your commanders did and was using the new generation Soviet tanks.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Why does everyone always talk about RSR and Fulda Gap rather than The Red Army (by Peters) and north German plane?

 Because it is a very interesting scenario. RSR is te best known. There are other technothrillers covring this subject matter such as The Red Army and, of course Team Yankee. More recentlytjhere is The Red Effect, the Blue Effecty and The ~Black Effect by Havey Black which cover a 1980s WW3from the perspective of the BAOR on the North German Plain

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Depending on the time frame it could be more numerous and better equipped Soviets running into fewer and less equipped US forces. That said, the main attack would have been via the North German plane, where terrain was better and opposition weaker.

Mid to late 1980s would be the most interesting time frame considering the equipment mix on both sides. On the North German Plain isn't it good tank terrain only in theory. Lots of small villages and urban sprawl granting effective cover and concealmet for NATO ATGM teams.

[ikalugin]

Lucas, I read military geography studies made by both sides in the 80s. North Germany plane was considered to be a better terrain for the attacker.

Plus it was defended by weaker AG and weaker corps.

And more importantly - it was the right way to reach Soviet objectives in Low Countries.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Lucas, I read military geography studies made by both sides in the 80s. North Germany plane was considered to be a better terrain for the attacker.

Plus it was defended by weaker AG and weaker corps.

And more importantly - it was the right way to reach Soviet objectives in Low Countries.

 

True. My point is that there was (and are) many small villages plus large urban centres such as Hamburg and Hannover. Then there are major rivers specifically the Elbe and the Weser the Soviets would have had to cross as a look at Google Earth would show. You can view historical maps back as far as 1930 so you can easily examine the geography for the 1980s era.

 

As I understand it NORTHAG plans were to use the many villages as "sponges" with small units well eqipped with ATGMs posiioned in the built up areas to delay and attrite the Red army offensive. This does not prevent the Soviets from reaching objectves but it would impose significant delays and losses gaining time for the arrival of heavy reinforcements from CONUS that were intended to halt the Red Army and go over to the counter offensive. Thankfully we will never kjnow for sure if the plan would have worked.

 

However, this was likely going to be one of the main axis of advance for the Red Army others being the Fulda Gap and the Hof Gap where terrain is more hilly andd heavily forested.

 

Nevertheless, a CMFG would be a great addition to the series and one I would definately buy. Hope BFare paying plenty of attention to what we customers would like in the Moderns games - 1980s Germmany definately should be a future publication

[ikalugin]

Infantry ATGM teams are not mobile and thus are not relevant post break through. Break through was to be achieved by a concentration of effort upon points of decision (and other means). Special techniques were developed such as the MFZ.

In general I would refer you to the eastern front experience in that respect.

Cities were to be bypassed (extensive road bypass network did help), adequate (ie calculated to be sufficient to cross all of the required water obstacles) river crossing assets were issued, you could look at the Soviet OOBs in that respect.

The general idea was to defeat the NATO forces East of Rhein within the first week of war, to preclude nuclear escalation or meaningful reinforcements from continental US. The reason why it never happened was b/c soviet leadership remembered the GPW, believed in inevitable victory of communism, did not believe that there was a guarantee that the war would stay limited.

Edited February 4, 2015 by ikalugin

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Infantry ATGM teams are not mobile and thus are not relevant post break through. Break through was to be achieved by a concentration of effort upon points of decision (and other means). Special techniques were developed such as the MFZ.

In general I would refer you to the eastern front experience in that respect.

Cities were to be bypassed (extensive road bypass network did help), adequate (ie calculated to be sufficient to cross all of the required water obstacles) river crossing assets were issued, you could look at the Soviet OOBs in that respect.

The general idea was to defeat the NATO forces East of Rhein within the first week of war, to preclude nuclear escalation or meaningful reinforcements from continental US. The reason why it never happened was b/c soviet leadership remembered the GPW, believed in inevitable victory of communism, did not believe that there was a guarantee that the war would stay limited.

The idea was that the AGMs would fire a few missiles, get back into their vehcles and disengage while a similar team in the next village did the same thing. It would not have stopped the Soviet offensive, nor was it supposed to. It was a tactic intended to cause casualties and delay. 

 

Regarding the cities. In NORTHAG Hannover and Hamburg would have been diffcuylt for the Soviets to bypass without a serious fight. And, for the Soviets to use their bridgeing equipment they would have to force a crossng firsr. Which explains why many Russian IFVs are amphibious. The tanks however are nt, Which is why the Soviets needed the bridging equipment. And, of course NATO would hve been defending major rivers like the Elbe and the Weser strongly in order to hold, or at least severely delay the Soviet offensive.

 

If the Russians were allowed to break out onto the North German Plain towards the French, Dutch and Belgian borders where the US REFORGER sites (where the heavy equipment intended for the first US reinforcements that would have been flown/shipped over the Atlanitic) were located.

 

Another reason the war never took place, at least during the 1980s, was the Reagan military buildup including the post Vietnam rebuilding and modernisation of the US military. And of course the modernisation of key NATO states in particular West Germany and the UK. The Soviet leadersrealised that they could not win conventionally, either quickly or at all. An interesting take on how a war might have turned out circa 1990 is The War that Never was by Michael Palmer. Also Red Thrust by Steven J Zaloga which examines th tactical level of operations in Southern Germany

[ikalugin]

The problem is that they won't retreat, as Soviets would make those villages go away before going over their ruins.

Those cities have extensive bypass road networks (it isn't like we even need roads, but still).

Tanks have deep wading equipment, the shores would be prepared by engenier/sapper teams.

Sure, the III corps and such would be there, but in the probable scenarios they would be fighting meeting engagements with Soviet OMGs and then the Soviet 2nd operational echelon armies (from Baltic and Belarussian MDs).

Late 80s, sure NATO forces in Europe did receive a lot of shiny toys, but if we are talking about the early 80s it was the Soviets who had the technological advantage on the ground.

Edited February 5, 2015 by ikalugin

[Noltyboy]

And this is why I think the Era would make a brilliant game. Modern equipment but at a time that both sides are fairly equally matched. And we dont have the modern day 1 shot 1 kill insta death the present day has.

[Stagler]

The problem is that they won't retreat, as Soviets would make those villages go away before going over their ruins.

Those cities have extensive bypass road networks (it isn't like we even need roads, but still).

Tanks have deep wading equipment, the shores would be prepared by engenier/sapper teams.

Sure, the III corps and such would be there, but in the probable scenarios they would be fighting meeting engagements with Soviet OMGs and then the Soviet 2nd operational echelon armies (from Baltic and Belarussian MDs).

Late 80s, sure NATO forces in Europe did receive a lot of shiny toys, but if we are talking about the early 80s it was the Soviets who had the technological advantage on the ground.

 

Russia stronk and the US capitalist fools and their HATO soft bodied lapdogs will fall under glorious Soviet iron tracks?

I forgot this was Eugen System Forums

 

In all seriousness though, this couldnt be modded in. Current platform capability is hardcoded and too different. As I said before, maybe a few people could come together like Snowball did with CMA and get a liscence to the engine to utilise CMBS assets in creating a CMFG.

 

As for dates it would have to be 1985. No questions asked, that is the quintessential Cold War setting.

Edited February 5, 2015 by Stagler

[Noltyboy]

Plus A10s!

[ikalugin]

Good lord, is every single new user here from those forums too?

The problem with any tactical game, where one side fights on operational level and the other on the tactical, is that there is a very small amount of playable scenarios.

I mean playing as a battalion, just to be smashed by the enemy arty and have a division- roll over your corpse is not fun.

Edited February 5, 2015 by ikalugin

[womble]

Good lord, is every single new user here from those forums too?

The problem with any tactical game, where one side fights on operational level and the other on the tactical, is that there is a very small amount of playable scenarios.

I mean playing as a battalion, just to be smashed by the enemy arty and have a division- roll over your corpse is not fun.

That's probably a big drag on any BFC effort to go "Back to the Future": finding an operational/strategic scenario where the battles are not one-sided affairs (either way). Both sides know they have to fight the bigger picture, have the logistics tails to feed their artillery and/or air force and the cpacity to gain local operational initiative (and won't attack where they don't have the advantage). If it is the case at a given point in time that one side has a strong operational advantage, the actions at CM scale become very much secondary, and the ones where a player's intervention could make any difference to the outcome would be interesting side notes, because the main focus would be a foregone conclusion.

[DreDay]

Couple of quick points:

1. The term "Red Army" has not been used since the end of WW2 when referring to Soviet Armed Forces
2. Ukrainian equipment and OOB is pretty similar to mid-late 1980s Soviet Army formations; However both US and Russian formations are a lot more advanced than what you would have seen at that time..

[ikalugin]

OOBs are different, as Ukraine (and Russia with 2008-2012 OOBs for that matter) went through a shift towards independent BDes.

[MOS:96B2P]

Plus A10s!

 

Also the iconic cold war M113 APC.  Not that they would be a very robust vehicle with T-64s around.  It would just be cool to see this cold war vehicle in a CM game.     

[DreDay]

OOBs are different, as Ukraine (and Russia with 2008-2012 OOBs for that matter) went through a shift towards independent BDes.

 

That's a fair point, but in terms of the game scale - we are given the command of reinforced BTGs (more or less...). In that sense the Ukrainian battalions are not that different from their Soviet predecessors, although they have made some changes like 12-14 vehicle tank companies and such...

[ikalugin]

In that sense they could be equated to Soviet pattern detachments, yes, but not line battalions (which were to operate within the framework of the regiment).