For the CMFG (Combat Mission: Fulda Gap) proponents

[Sequoia]

Brains in a jar aren't very photogenic.

[Holien]

On 6/24/2020 at 11:51 AM, 3j2m7 said:

 

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

JM

A man sat behind a computer screen with a beer belly in his underwear is not very photogenic! 

[IICptMillerII]

What's this, another CMFG thread? Despite my original misgivings with the OP, it looks like its turned into a good discussion, so time for me to weigh in I suppose.

On 6/23/2020 at 6:29 AM, SimpleSimon said:

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! 

I don't disagree with you're macro point that by the mid to late 80s the Soviets were likely at a qualitative disadvantage in both equipment and training (some gaps being closer than others) due to a number of factors. However, its important to remember two things.
First, quantity is and will always be more important that pure quality in any conventional war. It is a simple truth of warfare that has stood the test of time. You are better off with two basically trained infantry companies that with just one super high speed special forces gurus. There is actually a lot of math and tested theory that supports this, but that is a bit too dense for me to get into at the moment. NATO accepted the fact that on the strategic level they would be outnumbered, but they made sure that they were only outnumbered by an acceptable level. As is, they could make up for their lack of numbers with various "force multipliers." The well known 3:1 odds is a good example of this. It was built into all tactical and operational planning that the Soviets would likely have a local numerical advantage of 3:1, but NATO forces trained for that and were prepared for it. However, a 4:1 or 6:1, etc would still have been unacceptable and would have given local NATO forces a real tough time. This is not exclusive to NATO and the Warsaw Pact, but all armies across history. Mitigating factors such as technology, tactics, and the always important terrain advantages come into play of course, but no military plans for or hopes to win a fight where they are critically outnumbered. 

Second, the Soviets were not a backwater military technology wise. In many areas they were ahead of NATO, or on par with at the least. For example, Kontact-5 ERA was capable of defeating at the time modern Sabot rounds, fire control on most category A Soviet tanks were just as good as NATO fire control, and some of the most top of the line tanks even had decent thermal imaging capability for the time (mostly the T-80U) and the ammo these tanks were firing was more than enough to take out anything NATO could throw at them. The Abrams didn't become comfortably "safe" from Soviet tank ammo until the introduction of the M1A1HA, and this tank was largely not available until after 1990 (many of the Abrams that saw combat in Desert Storm, such as the famous Eagle Troop of 73 Easting, only received their M1A1HA's after being in country for 3 months during the Desert Shield build up). Soviet SAM/AA weapons were more prolific and more capable than their equivalents in NATO. Further, the Soviets had "smart weapons" as we have come to know them, such as laser and TV guided bombs. They weren't quite as prevalent as they were in NATO arsenals, and they were arguably slightly less accurate than NATO equivalents, but they had them in sufficient numbers to have been tactically significant has the balloon gone up. (Quick fun fact on smart/precision munitions; the first major usage of them was during the Vietnam war, during Operation Linebacker II. Smart weapons were not a "new" weapon in Desert Storm, despite their depiction as such by the media at the time. Both NATO and the Soviets had them in significant numbers through the 70's and 80's, and they would have played a large role a war). Much of the tactical Soviet equipment was equivalent in capability to what NATO had. Their standard issue small arms were comparable to NATO, their hand held AT weapons were comparable, their IFVs and lightly armored vehicles were comparable, and a tactically significant part of their airforce (though not the majority) were comparable to NATO aircraft at the time. 
The Soviets did have a lot of category B and C equipment, such as older models of the T-80/72/62/55 in service, but that supported and served their doctrine. There is a much stronger argument to be made that other Warsaw Pact nations such as the East Germans and Polish suffered from a massive technological gap. For example, even in 1989 there was only 1 East German armored division using T-72M1's (a massively outdated tank by that time) while the rest were using T-55's. Same issue with the Poles, the vast majority of their tanks were T-55's, very outdated models. Same can be said for most other elements of the non-Soviet Warsaw Pact nations. Don't misunderstand, there were elements of these armies that were highly capable, but by and large they were not nearly as capable as the Soviets or on par with top of the line NATO equipment. 
A third quick point, its important to remember that even by 1989, the US was still operating more M60A3 Patton tanks in Germany than Abrams, and many of the Abrams were the older M1 and M1IP 105mm armed Abrams. There were only a handful of M1A1's in country. The same can be said for other NATO main battle tanks of the era as well (the West Germans were still fielding mostly Leopard 1 variants and smaller numbers of Leopard 2 variants). The majority of NATO equipment that Soviet forces would have encountered in a hot war even in 1989 were not what we would consider to be top of the line.

Soviet doctrine was also highly capable and modern at the time too, and the Soviet military was very proficient in executing said doctrine. So again, they were far from outdated in all aspects. 

On 6/24/2020 at 4:21 AM, Thomm said:

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

This game, and a few others. It would appear that games/wargames set during a hypothetical confrontation between NATO and Warsaw is becoming more popular. Which is great for me, because its one of the eras of military history I am most interested in. The more the merrier!

[SimpleSimon]

1 hour ago, IICptMillerII said:

Second, the Soviets were not a backwater military technology wise. 

I agree. Don't get me wrong, there was precisely no phase where a confrontation with the Warsaw Pact wouldn't have been a very frightening thing for NATO even if nukes aren't considered in the equation.  Groups Soviet Forces was just huge, whoever happened to be right where the hammer was going to fall was truly unfortunate regardless of what NATO could equip them with. I just think that up until around the 1980s it was likely if not certain that Paris would fall, leaving western leaders with no alternative but a nuclear exchange unfortunately. 

Quote

Soviet doctrine was also highly capable and modern at the time too, and the Soviet military was very proficient in executing said doctrine. So again, they were far from outdated in all aspects. 

Indeed. Deep Battle didn't lose much value in the years between 1945-89 overall. The way the Red Army was equipped they were poised to execute a tank offensive of the kind Guderian, Liddell Hart, and Tukhachevsky could've only dreamt of in their time. The issue I see is simply the enormous expense facing Soviet leaders over maintaining this force and its readiness, which crucially they were cognizant of. Red Army Commanders were also fully conscious of the lack of initiative and independence in field leaders, and were trying to encourage those concepts in the men. This proved rather difficult though considering the high turnover rate of Officers. Soviet leaders weren't blind though, they were fully aware of the challenges facing them.

The lack of a strong computer industry in the Soviet Union however left its forces with a new disadvantage as they crested the 80s. It was one for which they didn't end up coming up with a good solution for before the Wall fell and it became a moot point. 

On the technical side the BMP alone was a major shock to western observers. Nothing NATO had matched it or the T-62/64, and it turned out after years of confusion that the T-80 would have been a dangerous opponent for any western tank up to and including the Abrams and it for sure would've been tip of the spear. 

Quote

This game, and a few others. It would appear that games/wargames set during a hypothetical confrontation between NATO and Warsaw is becoming more popular. Which is great for me, because its one of the eras of military history I am most interested in. The more the merrier!

Years ago I used to really love World in Conflict but it was a multiplayer action game and there isn't much life in it anymore sadly. Wargame wasn't really the same, although it was often billed as a spiritual sequel. I had mixed feelings about the whole Wargame series games though. Those games at least weren't reliant on multiplayer. 

Edited June 26, 2020 by SimpleSimon

[Erwin]

Interesting points above.  I never thought that the Soviets were serious about  starting an aggressive war to "take Paris".  I can't see how their logistics chain could survive.  Seemed that their experience from WW2 was that it's better to attack than defend and that part of the world has long worried about being encircled and attacked - so it's a good deterrent if one can make the enemy think they'll be in Paris in a few weeks.

These days it would seem cheaper to field 10+ ATGM/javelin-armed teams for every enemy tank.  Once the AFV's are gone, you have a WW1 infantry slog - no blitzkrieg.  Am wondering if the Marines getting rid of some armor is the thin edge of the "tanks are obsolete" wedge.

[IICptMillerII]

1 hour ago, SimpleSimon said:

I agree. Don't get me wrong, there was precisely no phase where a confrontation with the Warsaw Pact wouldn't have been a very frightening thing for NATO even if nukes aren't considered in the equation.  Groups Soviet Forces was just huge, whoever happened to be right where the hammer was going to fall was truly unfortunate regardless of what NATO could equip them with. I just think that up until around the 1980s it was likely if not certain that Paris would fall, leaving western leaders with no alternative but a nuclear exchange unfortunately. 

Completely agree, I just can't pass up a chance to talk about the Cold War 

1 hour ago, SimpleSimon said:

Indeed. Deep Battle didn't lose much value in the years between 1945-89 overall. The way the Red Army was equipped they were poised to execute a tank offensive of the kind Guderian, Liddell Hart, and Tukhachevsky could've only dreamt of in their time. The issue I see is simply the enormous expense facing Soviet leaders over maintaining this force and its readiness, which crucially they were cognizant of. Red Army Commanders were also fully conscious of the lack of initiative and independence in field leaders, and were trying to encourage those concepts in the men. This proved rather difficult though considering the high turnover rate of Officers. Soviet leaders weren't blind though, they were fully aware of the challenges facing them.

The lack of a strong computer industry in the Soviet Union however left its forces with a new disadvantage as they crested the 80s. It was one for which they didn't end up coming up with a good solution for before the Wall fell and it became a moot point. 

On the technical side the BMP alone was a major shock to western observers. Nothing NATO had matched it or the T-62/64, and it turned out after years of confusion that the T-80 would have been a dangerous opponent for any western tank up to and including the Abrams and it for sure would've been tip of the spear. 

Agreed too! Although personally I believe that the fall of the Soviet Union had causes that ran much deeper than too much defense spending, but that begins to get too much into politics which I want to avoid. 

1 hour ago, SimpleSimon said:

Years ago I used to really love World in Conflict but it was a multiplayer action game and there isn't much life in it anymore sadly. Wargame wasn't really the same, although it was often billed as a spiritual sequel. I had mixed feelings about the whole Wargame series games though. Those games at least weren't reliant on multiplayer. 

World in Conflict is one of my favorite arcade games. I'm a sucker for the story, the time period, and the units. It probably wouldn't surprise you that one of my favorite technothrillers is Hunt for Red October and Team Yankee.
I'm a big fan of the first two Wargames, but I hate what they did with the third. Again, this isn't really the appropriate place for an in depth discussion about other games, though I will say that I have an embarrassing amount of hours in Wargame: Airland Battle on steam. And like I said, the more Cold War era games we get, the better!

[SimpleSimon]

8 hours ago, Erwin said:

Interesting points above.  I never thought that the Soviets were serious about  starting an aggressive war to "take Paris".  I can't see how their logistics chain could survive.  Seemed that their experience from WW2 was that it's better to attack than defend and that part of the world has long worried about being encircled and attacked - so it's a good deterrent if one can make the enemy think they'll be in Paris in a few weeks.

These days it would seem cheaper to field 10+ ATGM/javelin-armed teams for every enemy tank.  Once the AFV's are gone, you have a WW1 infantry slog - no blitzkrieg.  Am wondering if the Marines getting rid of some armor is the thin edge of the "tanks are obsolete" wedge.

Soviet planning rarely seems to have made much mention of Paris, or refers to it euphemistically but barring complete destruction in a nuclear exchange what choice did they have? Once you cross the Rhine why stop there? It's too easy to keep going, Europe's infrastructure is too excellent (home of the tank army) and you'd want to capture as much as of it as you could before it's wrecked in sabotage efforts. A NATO Allied France is simply intolerable for Warsaw Pact planners if they're at war. The Americans would flood the country with Minuteman ICBMs and B-52 wings if you didn't do something to stop that, on top of that France's own mobilization potential wasn't trivial either. 

Probably lots of Soviet planning didn't continue beyond this point because it was expected that a full nuclear exchange was center stage by this point, but without one I think the objective was implicit ie: keep going. Whether or not Red Army leadership would be able to decipher that (implicit interpretation of instructions was certainly not widely practiced in Red Army circles) I don't know, but stopping invites annihilation just as much as moving on does. Hold all of continental Europe and maybe western leaders will hesitate about turning all of their allies into irradiated craters. Fortunately the Kremlin was more sober in this assessment than many others might have been. War meant nuclear exchange and a nuclear exchange meant likely destruction of the USSR. So the Red Army was leashed, tightly. 

8 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

Agreed too! Although personally I believe that the fall of the Soviet Union had causes that ran much deeper than too much defense spending, but that begins to get too much into politics which I want to avoid. 

Oh yeah it's a complicated subject worth a thread in and of itself, it's just worth highlighting that the enormous burden of maintaining a World War 2 size Tank Army was costing the USSR anywhere from 10% to 18% of the state's entire GDP. Such was the legacy of permanent readiness requirements left by the infamous debacle of Barbarossa. 

[Bufo]

On 6/24/2020 at 12:21 PM, Thomm said:

Regiments is a Real-Time Tactics set in Germany 1989.

There are actually 2 upcoming Cold war RTS, one that you already mentioned: Regiments

The other one is: Cold War Game

I think the latter is going to be more realistic.

Edited June 27, 2020 by Bufo

[Erwin]

Looks like a more modern era "Company of Heroes".  That fact plus it's RT only will limit its interest to CM fans.  It is interesting that wargames of this era are still popular with new markets.

[Bufo]

3 hours ago, Erwin said:

Looks like a more modern era "Company of Heroes".  That fact plus it's RT only will limit its interest to CM fans.  It is interesting that wargames of this era are still popular with new markets.

No, its more akin to world of conflict (Regiments) and Wargame series (Cold War Game).

[Erwin]

Well, probably even less of interest then...

[IICptMillerII]

14 hours ago, Bufo said:

The other one is: Cold War Game

I think the latter is going to be more realistic.

Not to derail this thread but I am highly skeptical of Cold War Game. Most of the assets are literally ripped from other games. Some of the Soviet voices used are ripped out of World in Conflict, and Wargame. Plus, the game itself is literally a carbon copy of Wargame, just set a few years earlier. I'm surprised it has not been shut down for copyright infringement yet, and am still convinced it will be once it is released. Plus, I don't like the time period they focused on, and a lot of the gameplay I have seen so far appears paper thin at best. For example, I've seen M113's destroyed by enemy BMP's even though the M113's were behind a full sized building. Stuff like that. Very skeptical.

[MikeyD]

I looked on my bookshelf and located a (very dusty) copy of 'the Offensive' by AA Sidorenko (1970), a US Government Printing Office translation from the original Russian. It highlighted severe difficulties with defense and attack in the nuclear age. Namely the need for BOTH sides to remain dispersed in order to not be wiped out en mass from a single nuclear strike. And the need to locate and eliminate the opponent's in-theater nuclear assets in a timely manner. An old joke of mine (mentioned earlier in this thread) was Russia's idea of 'tactics' involves moving forward over the charred corpses of their enemies. In the event of an invasion of Western Europe that was literally their plan. The book was mostly familiar stuff about forcing river crossings and aggressively following up on a breakthrough but with the added concept of tactical nuclear strikes beyond the hills in front of them paving the way so they won't have to overwhelm local defenses with massed armor. Its a depressing read. NATO at one time possessed seven THOUSAND in-theater tactical nuclear weapons. The mind boggles.

Once Germany was allowed to rearm (last of the restrictions only ended in 1984) NATO started to feel more confident and, eventually, switched over to what it called 'Flexible Response'. Basically they told the Russians 'We think we can defeat you conventionally so we promise to not be the first in the conflict to pull the nuclear trigger.' with intimations that first use of WMD would bring a swift  'disproportionate response'. That had the effect of turning a theoretical western Europe battlefield back into a WWII style 'clash of titans' again. By that theory there's at brief window of time between the apocalyptic 'tripwire' defense and the Berlin wall falling where doing a CM-style cold war conflict wouldn't be too too absurd.

I can't imagine what the backstory would be, though. There's no reason for Russia to try to take Paris. Its more plausible they'd claim the state of Holstein for Easy Germany in an effort to turn the Baltic into a Soviet lake, much the same way they more recently  tried (and failed) to capture by coup de main the Ukrainian coast along of the sea of Azov for its railway links to Crimea.

 

 

 

Edited June 27, 2020 by MikeyD

[Erwin]

What puzzles me about this Soviet strategy is that after Normandy Invasion, the WAllies were running out of fuel etc to continue a fast offensive (eg Patton's 3rd Army).  That is with complete domination of the air and overwhelming logistical superiority.  Can't see how the Soviets would have been so much better at this sort of warfare with no air superiority.  The logistical tail would have been wiped out and its fast mech forces ground to a halt.  Did they think as did Hitler did re the BoB that they could refuel at German petrol stations?

If the Soviets used tactical nukes, they'd be capturing nothing but radioactive ashes.  Also, the Soviet Army would have been wiped out, leaving the US with most of its power still safe in the US.  To avoid that there would have had to have been a global nuke war to neutralize the US.  But, that would have wiped out the Soviets as well.  Not really a great choice and the intimidation bluff didn't work.  We are seeing something similar to the 1930's now with China and its attacks vs India, plus the seizure of most of the S. China Sea.