For the CMFG (Combat Mission: Fulda Gap) proponents

[John Kettler]

Came across an ad for an Avalanche Press Fulda Gap game, which triggered a recollection of seeing an article in Armed Forces Journal after the Berlin Wall came down which said that when we got bots on the ground on the East German side our people were shocked to discover that it was physically impossible to funnel all those dreaded  Tank and Combined Arms Armies through the area, for want of enough usable space. Don't understand how something like that wasn't known long ago via multiple surveillance means (satellites, slant imaging from FRG side of border, etc.), but the article was unambiguous as to the impact of ground truth on what the war planners were expecting. In an effort to find something describing that, I found this 2017 thread on, of all things, a War Thunder Historical Discussion board. This is most interesting, since it involves a number of vets who served there. It has considerable material on how we planned to fight, how much better the forest roads were than what the maps showed, the vast number of river crossing sites in a 30 km sector, typical LOS ranges far higher than what we see where CM games are fought in Europe, a Fulda region map, even, so help me, an equivalent map of Finland showing how horrible it was for mechanized warfare generally. This thread would be even juicier if most of the missing graphics were restored.

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/377112-the-fulda-gap-real-world-observations/

Regards,

John Kettler


 

Edited June 16, 2020 by John Kettler

[Bufo]

I don't see why a cold war era game should limit itself to one small area. Its like saying Combat Mission Kursk instead of CM Red Thunder.

[Bulletpoint]

7 hours ago, John Kettler said:

physically impossible to funnel all those dreaded  Tank and Combined Arms Armies through the area, for want of enough usable space. Don't understand how something like that wasn't known long ago

I don't understand why people keep talking about Fulda Gap as if any real fighting could ever have taken place there before the whole area was obliterated by nuclear weapons.

[fireship4]

Another day another interesting post by John Kettler!

[Megalon Jones]

True.

That's why the Red Army would've put it's main emphasis on the North German Plains instead of Fulda.  Better tank country.  Way less US Army to smash against (III Corps/7th Army had a forward deployed brigade from the 2nd Armored for defense of the Weser.)

Fulda would've been a noisy side show tying down Vth US and III WG Corps. 

Of course....

On 6/16/2020 at 4:39 AM, Bulletpoint said:

I don't understand why people keep talking about Fulda Gap as if any real fighting could ever have taken place there before the whole area was obliterated by nuclear weapons.

....that was always a distinct probability.

[SimpleSimon]

Its hilarious to read some of the comments in that thread. "ID ATTACK NORTH CUZ MAH INDUSTRY!" lmao capitalists thinking of their businesses first.  

The guy who knows is like "uh why would the Red Army care about Hamburg". The Red Army's intentions were never hard to telegraph, and watching guys overthink what they were up to on the Fulda gap is amusing. It was obviously Paris or bust. 

[John Kettler]

A (there are always multiple plans) Soviet war plan for Europe was recovered after the Berlin Wall fell. My recollection was 200 tac nukes to reach the English Channel in six weeks. Absolutely shocked me when I read about that. But if such a notion seems far fetched, the self same Rotmistrov of 5 GTA notoriety wrote after the war (circa late 1960s, I believe) of a carpet of nuclear strikes paving the way for the tank armies, which would advance through the strike zones in tanks and BMPs equipped with radiation liners and NBC protective systems for these AFVs. Also, after the Cuban Missile Crisis thankfully ended with the planet intact, the US learned there were 200 tactical nuclear weapons on Cuba and no PALs (Permissive Action LInks) installed at all on the weapons. The general in charge could've used them if he felt threatened.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Bulletpoint]

5 hours ago, John Kettler said:

Absolutely shocked me when I read about that. But if such a notion seems far fetched, the self same Rotmistrov of 5 GTA notoriety wrote after the war (circa late 1960s, I believe) of a carpet of nuclear strikes paving the way for the tank armies, which would advance through the strike zones in tanks and BMPs equipped with radiation liners and NBC protective systems for these AFVs.

I don't think their military leadership believed for a moment such a plan would ever work. For the simple reason that they knew the other side also had plenty of nuclear weapons. But they were told to make a plan, so they made a plan.

[Erwin]

8 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

I don't think their military leadership believed for a moment such a plan would ever work. For the simple reason that they knew the other side also had plenty of nuclear weapons. But they were told to make a plan, so they made a plan.

It's the military's job to make plans for all contingencies.  Am sure the US has a plan to invade Canada for example.  How serious they are is a different question.  

[Bulletpoint]

31 minutes ago, Erwin said:

It's the military's job to make plans for all contingencies.  Am sure the US has a plan to invade Canada for example.  How serious they are is a different question.  

True. And it's part of war to be unpredictable. If US intelligence found out that the USSR in fact did not have any plan for the Fulda Gap, then they wouldn't need to worry about it, and they could focus on other scenarios.

Just like with American Football, sometimes both sides know that the guys they place in the centre won't make it far, because the opponents will do the same. But they need to place them there anyway.

[Erwin]

2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

If US intelligence found out that the USSR in fact did not have any plan for the Fulda Gap, then they wouldn't need to worry about it, and they could focus on other scenarios.

That makes perfect sense if one has 100% accurate intel - which is hardly ever the case.  Hence it's someone's job to plan for any and every eventuality no matter how far-fetched.  Eg:  One wonders what the plan is for US involvement in the event of India-China war?

 

[Bulletpoint]

28 minutes ago, Erwin said:

That makes perfect sense if one has 100% accurate intel - which is hardly ever the case.  Hence it's someone's job to plan for any and every eventuality no matter how far-fetched.  Eg:  One wonders what the plan is for US involvement in the event of India-China war?

 

I doubt the US has a current plan for the invasion of Antarctica...

The US likely has plans for how to influence the China/India conflict, but probably not for a Himalaya airdrop.

Edited June 18, 2020 by Bulletpoint

[MikeyD]

US was focused on Fulda gap because... that's where we were stationed. If the US army had instead been stationed to the north I'm confident the Pentagon would have concocted intricate tactical scenarios around defending route 1 between Hamburg and Bremen.

About Fulda, lets recall it wasn't that long before the cold war that Nazi Germany had staged a major offensive through the forested Ardennes... twice! So you pay particular attention to the 'They think we'd never stage an assault through here!' locations, because that's where they're likely to stage an assault.

About contingencies, I recall a story that in 2001 Cheney asked the Pentagon for their contingency plans for invading Afghanistan and the Pentagon said there weren't any. Because its frickin' Afghanistan! Step one, secure a port at Pasni Pakistan. Step two. Figure out how you're going to get 400 miles inland from there. Even when they established Camp Rhino it was still another hundred miles to Kandahar.

[Hapless]

17 hours ago, John Kettler said:

a carpet of nuclear strikes paving the way for the tank armies, which would advance through the strike zones in tanks and BMPs equipped with radiation liners

It's a lot harder for your troops to desert when they can't leave their vehicles. Plus, if the troops never leave their BMPs, they'll never see all the fancy consumer products in the average European house that only the party elite seem to have back home.

 

7 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

About Fulda, lets recall it wasn't that long before the cold war that Nazi Germany had staged a major offensive through the forested Ardennes... twice! So you pay particular attention to the 'They think we'd never stage an assault through here!' locations, because that's where they're likely to stage an assault.

There was an article floating around here somewhere with words to the effect that the Soviets were historically willing to accept a tactical disadvantage to gain an operational advantage (look at some of the terrain they attacked over in Manchuria, for example).

[MikeyD]

A drive through Fulda would at the very least tie up American attention and resources while their main thrust moved through the north.
One thing to remember about NATO planning. It was a recipe for disaster. After they abandoned the (suicidal) 'tripwire' nuclear-first defense, political consideration kept NATO from planning for a proper withdrawal to defensible positions (west bank of the Rhine, basically). All that was left was hoping to blunt the Soviet assault with attacks on second echelon forces and infrastructure. I once joked that the NATO plan was a 'Don't lose outright' strategy. Once the front had been stabilized, and the Soviets had lost the Big Mo, start thinking of how to take back what was lost. At least that was my interpretation of it (Yeh, you can tell I was a cold war baby)

[Sequoia]

Say what you will, the NATO strategy worked. I think there was a tendency which carries over to this day to overstate Soviet capabilities for obvious reasons.

[MikeyD]

I recall watching an hour long PBS special, perhaps as far back as 1984(?) hosted by an alarmingly young Steve Zaloga, who was already well known in hobby circles. The program popped then-current Reagan era myths about the Soviet Juggernaut. It included an interior inspection of a Soviet tank and a catalog of its weaknesses. I especially recall a chart of tank strength. The imbalanced looked fearsome against the US. But if you added all the other NATO member tanks it became more balanced. If you discounted the unreliable Warsaw Pact members who were as liable to shoot the Russians in the back as fight for them the tank imbalance disappeared completely.

[SimpleSimon]

Yeah what Zaloga couldn't tell you in that same program was the absolutely lamentable the state of western-arms. The French had cut all infantry divisions down to Brigades over the previous 20 years and the British were actively de mechanizing Armored Divisions back into Infantry Divisions. The Patton, and Leopard 1 tanks still made up a good number of vehicle stocks and even the Centurion was still around! Not sure if Zaloga was allowed to peek at a T-80 even. By the 1980s digital technology and smart munitions had gone quite a ways to balance the difference in all of this but in the 80s lots of it was still classified and no one could talk much about much and certainly not with any idea of capability. "Second window from the left" for a cruise missile was now truth but not widely known in 1984. That's why the rapid defeat of Saddam Hussein's Army sort of took even the informed western commentator by surprise. It was unclear until 1991 how profound the rise of digital technology had been for weapon systems. 

 

 

[Bil Hardenberger]

4 hours ago, SimpleSimon said:

Yeah what Zaloga couldn't tell you in that same program was the absolutely lamentable the state of western-arms. The French had cut all infantry divisions down to Brigades over the previous 20 years and the British were actively de mechanizing Armored Divisions back into Infantry Divisions. The Patton, and Leopard 1 tanks still made up a good number of vehicle stocks and even the Centurion was still around! Not sure if Zaloga was allowed to peek at a T-80 even. By the 1980s digital technology and smart munitions had gone quite a ways to balance the difference in all of this but in the 80s lots of it was still classified and no one could talk much about much and certainly not with any idea of capability. "Second window from the left" for a cruise missile was now truth but not widely known in 1984. That's why the rapid defeat of Saddam Hussein's Army sort of took even the informed western commentator by surprise. It was unclear until 1991 how profound the rise of digital technology had been for weapon systems. 

All good points.. however re: the Gulf War, it also took the planners in the US Army by surprise, as all wargaming predicted around 30,000 Coalition casualties during Desert Storm.. so even the professional wargame algorithms were miles off from reality even in the early 90s.

In my opinion Fulda would have been a Warsaw Pact blood bath (after 1983 anyway), and the North German Plain would not have been much better with all of the river crossings and village sized strongpoints the WP would have had to cross... fascinating subject though.

I also seriously doubt nukes would have been used, not at least until one side or the other was on the ropes.. but biological weapons? Oh yeah, those would have been used by the WP (Soviets mainly) and they were the one big trump-card the WP would have had in their toolbox that could really hurt the western allies... but would it have been enough?  Doubtful, though the cost in western military and civilian casualties would have been astronomical.

Bil

[MikeyD]

Playing CM:Afghanistan, I would joke that Russian military doctrine seemed to involve infantry advancing over the charred corpses of their enemy to occupy the disputed ground. If there's still someone shooting back at you the prep for the assault wasn't sufficient. You see some of that in late war CMRT too. So much artillery! So many heavy direct fire weapons!

Talk about Desert Storm, the casualty numbers are in some dispute. The allies either sustained remarkably light casualties for an operation that size OR, if that article in 'The Lancet' linking Gulf War Syndrome to dispersed Iragi nerve agents is correct, the US actually sustained a horrific 25% casualty rate from the war. 200,000 nerve agent casualties. But nobody counts the numbers like that. The 1991 war is still 'officially' regarded as the easy war that paid for itself.

[Bulletpoint]

2 hours ago, MikeyD said:

The allies either sustained remarkably light casualties for an operation that size OR, if that article in 'The Lancet' linking Gulf War Syndrome to dispersed Iragi nerve agents is correct, the US actually sustained a horrific 25% casualty rate from the war. 200,000 nerve agent casualties.

What article in The Lancet are you referring to? All I can find is an article that links Gulf War Syndrome to a substance given to soldiers as a preventive treatment for potential nerve gas, which was, as far as I know, never used by the Iraqis.

[John Kettler]

The French didn't use the experimental (as in never cleared for human use) anthrax vaccine the US did, nor the pyridostigmine nerve gas protectant tablet, and no French troops developed Gulf War Syndrome. This was from research compiled by former military nurse Joyce Reilly of Gulf War Veterans of America. It's been a long time, but my recollection is that US troops were definitely in areas where WMDs had been opened up by Allied bombing (have seen multiple reports from veterans of chemical detector alarms going off) and there was also considerable exposure to DU, chiefly when units operated in or drove through areas in which DU munitions had been used, but am unsure about the French. Apparently, GWS was also transmissible, for Joyce Reilly was never in theater and yet caught it, and my understanding is that some families of affected veterans also developed it. Believe something may've been said about pets getting it, too.

Regards,

John Kettler

[SimpleSimon]

On 6/19/2020 at 3:02 PM, Bil Hardenberger said:

All good points.. however re: the Gulf War, it also took the planners in the US Army by surprise, as all wargaming predicted around 30,000 Coalition casualties during Desert Storm.. so even the professional wargame algorithms were miles off from reality even in the early 90s.

In my opinion Fulda would have been a Warsaw Pact blood bath (after 1983 anyway), and the North German Plain would not have been much better with all of the river crossings and village sized strongpoints the WP would have had to cross... fascinating subject though.

I also seriously doubt nukes would have been used, not at least until one side or the other was on the ropes.. but biological weapons? Oh yeah, those would have been used by the WP (Soviets mainly) and they were the one big trump-card the WP would have had in their toolbox that could really hurt the western allies... but would it have been enough?  Doubtful, though the cost in western military and civilian casualties would have been astronomical.

Bil

I also think that by mid 1980 or so, the Warsaw Pact would've defeated itself in an invasion of Western Europe. I don't know if it'd be one sided, Group Soviet Forces Germany was simply huge. They were basically a 1945 "Front" but alive into 1989. One of the Second World War's absolutely titanic formations sort of anachronistically still around in a time where the sort of gigantic manpower commitment it represented was becoming increasingly questionable as sophistication and automation enabled downsizing in NATO. 

Crucially it was dependent upon all the same mechanisms of Command and Control that were vogue in 1945...and now extremely vulnerable to precision munitions. Originally it had been believed that destruction of a Soviet GHQ would require exorbitant firepower because of how heavily defended they'd be, leading NATO planners into the whole "tactical nuke" dead end of the 1960s. NATO was scrambling into the 1970s, and my own belief is that prior to 1980 or so NATO's situation was legitimately dire, and an attack on any part of West Germany would've been calamitous. NATO simply didn't have the size or sophistication to stop GSFG back then, but the digital revolution changed that. It didn't just lead to the Tomahawk, but also the Abrams, A-10, Apache, F-15 etc. The first complete generation of computerized weapon systems. The Soviet response to these computerized weapon systems was....to increase production of old stuff further exacerbating the military spending problem. 

By 1985 the tide was indeed against the East, without a shot having been fired. The extremely fragile Soviet C3 networks would find their own self defense questionable, and GFSG's unwieldy mechanized formations could quickly be immobilized by the many low-cost options now available to NATO to attack and destroy HQs, supply dumps, artillery bases etc. NATO weapon systems were actively practicing multiple-engagement concepts while Soviet Arms and formations were basically still oriented around overwhelming destruction of single point targets. It was fully expected of the Abrams to be able to engage a pair of T-64s, then another, then another, then another etc in rapid succession. Soviet thinking was still the 1945 notion of everyone bombarding and deleting a given grid square and then moving on in the proud All-or-Nothing tradition. That was just the position Soviet War planning had left itself in though. The sort of cost-efficiency stuff that had always been normal in the west now became crucial because computers meant that precision could legitimately substitute for power now in a way it had proven inadequate for in 1945. 

It's interesting now because as I look at it Group Soviet Forces Germany was literally a time-travelling Army. Teleported out of Berlin in 1945 to find itself in 1989 where it doesn't get the local customs and norms and sticks out. Get the time machine Marty! 

[Thomm]

Found a reference to an upcoming "Fulda Gap" RTS on Grogheads.

Quoted from Steam:

Regiments is a Real-Time Tactics set in Germany 1989. The Cold War has gone hot, and the inferno is raging. Lead your Regiment through the fires of conflict and the fog of war. Break through the lines, call in artillery, maneuver, feign retreats, stage defenses, counter-attack. Do not relent.

So the subject is worked on.

"CMFG" would be a must-buy for me.

Best regards,
Thomm

[JM Stuff]

Sometimes I would like to know what is going on in the head of Steve and BF Staff, when they read our posts, our desires, ...probably only a smile or simply a short nod, or they check togeher and writing a cross the different possible modules that they could  prepare us, with a date very very later in the futur, in some columnes YES, NO, CAN BE, GOOD IDEA, ...who know ! ! ! ? ? ? ...

Will be nice that send us pictures, of the staff and the work environnement !

JM