U.S. Thread - CM Cold War - BETA AAR - Battle of Dolbach Heights 1980

[slysniper]

36 minutes ago, domfluff said:

One thing that's going to be very interesting about Cold War is where it falls on that spectrum - how much it feels like late-war WW2, versus how much it feels like CMSF.

It falls in the middle. There is a unique feel to the game. yes the AT weapons have some of the late war feel, but there is also more limitations. There is some things that have more of a WWII feel in things like tanks taking time to fire and having to make more than one shot to get range. You will find it is its own beast as to how it plays and the match up between forces are much more even in many aspects than other periods.

[markus544]

20 hours ago, MikeyD said:

The concept of hull-down has gained mythic status but at the end of the day you're still exposed. I recall playing with a hull-down M150 TOW vehicle. A sabot round sailed over the vehicle and launcher but, judging by the tracer trajectory and the '+' casualty icon, it took the gunner's head clean off. See attached. this is a common sight playing with M60A2.

That's gotta hurt....Ouch

 

[mjkerner]

5 hours ago, domfluff said:

The LOS tool (as in, the Target line, as well as the Hull Down command) uses a pre-calculated grid of different heights, which is generated when the map is created.

Good background, domfluff. I never knew that. Are you speculating, or was that information discussed at some point by BFC? Just curious.

[domfluff]

It's stuff Steve has said on this forum. There are five heights that the heightmap uses - crawling man, standing man, small, normal and tall vehicles, and the LOS table is built from each height to each other height, in each square.

[The_MonkeyKing]

Beautiful in its simplicity.

[mjkerner]

Thanks domfluff. I missed that; or, more likely, I read it at the time and managed to completely forget all about it bny the next day!

[Aragorn2002]

On 2/17/2021 at 1:54 AM, Bil Hardenberger said:

In case you missed it.. I put a Table of Contents in the original post.  Should help you orient and check if any new AAR posts have been posted.

Bil

This AAR made me decide to pre-order (couple of days ago). Great job. Thanks for making it to the both of you.

Edited April 25, 2021 by Aragorn2002

[John Kettler]

On 2/16/2021 at 6:24 PM, Megalon Jones said:

Yeah, I owned and played all those titles minus 'Air and Armor.'  Swap that one out for 'Gulf Strike.'

'NATO' was real fun.  What was the title whose instructions for nuclear exchange read "Dose game board in kerosene and throw a match?"  

What I know for sure is that it was an SPI  game and that founder Jim Dunnigan wrote that pithy rejoinder. Believe the game may've been WURZBURG, for I distinctly recall there was a flap after the city fathers discovered their beloved city was going to be bought in. Certainly, the response from Dunnigan to the depictic a tac nuke question was emphatic and definitely thought-provoking, but not as much as the revaltion of a REAL Soviet war plan after the Berlin Wall came down which revealed they would use 200 tac nukes to reach the Channel in TWO weeks. A terrifying read! International Defense Review once published a German military analysis of what a single aptly named MIRVED SS-18/SATAN ICBM could do to Germany. Bye bye Deutschland!

https://xenagoguevicene.wordpress.com/2018/09/16/wwiii-plan-soviet-army-planned-to-use-200-tactical-nukes-to-capture-western-europe-in-2-weeks-with-invasion-by-conventional-forces-by-zachary-keck-national-interest-16-sept-2018/

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

On 2/17/2021 at 12:51 PM, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Possibly of interest to Trackheads, in relation to Bil's armour:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj10v_qyfHuAhXURhUIHZA3DUIQFjAbegQIMxAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fapps.dtic.mil%2Fdtic%2Ftr%2Ffulltext%2Fu2%2Fa141935.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1N5jihvxwXayEZMMn7GOyb

Many thanks for this! Here's a gem of military understatement from that review.

 

5.8.3 Coaxial Machine Gun Trigger Switch
It was discovered that on a few M6OA1. RISE Passive tanks that inadequate insulation between

the trigger switch contacts was permitting the main gun or coaxial machinegun to fire without the trigger being depressed. 

Exciting, right?

In other news, have run down the designator for the Passive version sensor of the M60A1 RISE--AN/VSG-2. An image I located revealed unambiguously it's a thermal sight, and that same NARA image of a color slide says it operates in the Far IR. At least we can rule out Starlight Scope image intensifier gear. What's shocking is how much the tank cost in FY79 dollars, almost 1.3 MILLION, of which some $230,000 or so was just the cost of the thermal sights!

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

On 2/18/2021 at 9:49 AM, SimpleSimon said:

The key of issue is sort of the reflected by the depressing tone of thinking that went into design while the US was putting the M60A1 in service. ("We know it's a stop gap etc") IE: That there was no real solution as of yet to a Soviet Tank Army crashing through the Fulda Gap and that the best NATO tank forces could hope to achieve was likely to be a 1:1 parity or maybe 1.5:1 parity in kills to losses under favorable conditions. Unacceptable given the scale of the challenge. Desperation followed in the form of duct taped ATGMs on the back of M113s-literally the resurrection of the Marder and Jagdpanzer-and also the more promising stuff like the A10 and Apache but were still in limited availability...

Have read that after the Wall came down, western military types got to walk the ground through which the Russian horde was to come charging into the FRG, only to discover the shocking ground truth that what we took as gospel ref mass armor transit feasibility was in fact NOT feasible because the ground simply did not allow it! What had been clear invasion routes during the GPW became increasingly harder to find as the years wore on. The relentless urbanization of the FRG created a de facto deep defense with villages and towns now so close together they were mutually supporting interlocking ATGM firing locations. One A.V. Tonkikh, writing in his important work Overcoming Antitank Defense, described both the problems this posed to mass armor use and of how it would keep worsening over time. And as bad as that was, even worse would be the deployment of FASCAM type weaponry into the mix, not only causing all sorts of offensive-disrupting delays and wonderful targets consisting of huge traffic jams, but exposing vulnerable supply and repair vehicles to deadly fires not requiring observation to be lethal. Such capabilities from numerous US and NATO MRLs in particular were the nightmare of even the mighty OMG.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

On 2/16/2021 at 5:44 PM, sburke said:

well thank you for the dedication.  This was the focus of most of my boardgame purchases.  Gawd so many.  MBT, IDF, Air and Armor and those were just the tactical.  Went all the way up to The Next War and NATO.  Even went so far as to include 2nd Fleet to determine if NATO convoys would be able to cross the Atlantic....  This is my retirement year and you gave me the game I've waited decades for Bil/Capt.  Nice timing, how did you know?

MBT was so wildly out of touch with reality that even LSD couldn't be used to explain it. For example, a T-80 engaging a Gen One Abrams couldn't penetrate it frontally from one hex range. The reality was that a PT-76 could reliably kill one from effective 76 mm engagement range because the original Abrams armor design was siliceous core steel sandwich just like that on the aborted T95 program (beaten out by the M48 series). This was practically heart attack inducing when the CIA's top HEAT guy, Dr. Joseph Backofen, the dean of HEAT history, design and effects, briefed us at the SECRET and change (no notes or handouts) first CIA Soviet Threat Technology Conference in 1985. The munition was first recovered during the Yom Kippur War by Israel but not provided to the US until 1984 (great ally, right?), despite having been declared obsolete sometime in the late 1960s, thus allowing its export. As if that wasn't bad enough, the US found that traditional static penetration testing of cannon launched HEAT understated performance as much as 40% when dynamic testing (realistic impact velocities) was used. This was because these Russian warheads were specifically designed to take advantage of that kinetic impetus.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

On 2/18/2021 at 11:19 PM, MikeyD said:

In case anyone's wondering (which nobody probably is), the odd stowage racks on the M150 hull top are a stowed Kevlar tent that was designed to partially shield the TOW crew from artillery splinters. When erected it looks like the worst idea in the world so we kept i folded.

 

 

Believe the program was called TOWCAP. Remember reading about it in ARMOR magazine. It's chief purpose was to protect against airburst fire. Army testing found early versions greatly increased TOW crew survivability, which is why the initial field expedient was made a production item. It may look stupid, but in the days before the M901 Hammerhead was fielded, it was a big deal that helped preserve the hardest hitting and longest range DF antitank weapon the US Army ground forces had.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

On 2/17/2021 at 1:38 PM, Bil Hardenberger said:

METT-T Analysis

TROOPS

“We are an Army historically unprepared for its first battle.  We are accustomed to victory wrought with the weight of materiel and population brought to bear after the onset of hostilities.  Today the U.S. Army must above all else, prepare to win the first battle of the next war.”

FM 100-5 (1976 – Introduction to the Active Defense Doctrine)

 

 Troops:  My advantage over the Soviet force will probably be in available support.  His BMPs and tanks will probably out class my M113s, M60A1s, and M150s so I will depend heavily on my attached support assets to even the playing field.

My force for this action is task organized as follows (start formations are in blue text). 

Armored Cavalry Troop

• Troop HQ – Five minutes out
  • HQ Team on M113A1
  • FO Team on M113A1
• 1^st Platoon – Initial Formation on the map
  • HQ Team on M113A2
  • x2 Scout Teams on M113A2 – note, these teams have the ability to Call Artillery
  • x2 Tank Hunters (M-150 TOW)
  • x4 M60A1 (Rise+)
• 2^nd Platoon – Five minutes out
  • HQ Team on M113A1
  • x2 Scout Teams on M113A1 – note, these teams have the ability to Call Artillery
  • x2 Tank Hunters (M-150 TOW)
  • x4 M60A1
• 3^rd Platoon – Ten minutes out
  • HQ Team on M113A1
  • x2 Scout Teams on M113A1 – note, these teams have the ability to Call Artillery
  • x2 Tank Hunters (M-150 TOW)
  • x4 M60A1 (Rise)
• Mortar Section – Five minutes out
  • HQ Team on M577
  • x3 M106A1 Mortar Carriers
• Support (Attachments):
  • x2 Battery (x6 M114A1 guns each) – available at start
  • x1 Battery (x6 M114A1 guns) CLUSTER MUNITIONS – Available in five minutes
  • x2 AH-1F Cobra Attack Helicopters – Available in ten minutes

CMCW Feature:  New to Cold War, CLUSTER MUNITIONS!!  For both artillery and aircraft (if available historically).  Wait until you see these in action.

METT-T Analysis

TIME

Time:  There are 40 minutes available in this action.

Reinforcement Schedule:

• On map: 1 Armored Cavalry Platoon with x2 Heavy Artillery Batteries
• Five Minutes:  AC Troop HQ, x1 Armored Cav Platoon, plus x1 Battery with Cluster munitions
• Ten Minutes:  x1 Armored Cav Platoon, plus x2 AH-1F Attack Helicopters

Bil

Wow! A Cav troop with 2 x dedicated 155 howitzer batteries formerly making up the heavy side of WWII US DIVARTY--plus 4.2" mortars, then a third 155 battery with DPICM (how many volleys?). Simply astounding Indirect firepower + a brace of voracious  omnivorous AH-1s!  Your tracks may be eggshells, but they're tied to a hardware store's worth of hammers, to steal JasonC's Marder characterization.

On a separate note, it's a pleasure and great education to read yet another of your Beta AARs, despite again being left feeling like the village idiot of warfare. The rigor and depth of your analysis is simply beyond what my still mauled brain can do, and I love all your great quotes. If you served, I hope you at least made LT COL, and if you didn't serve, then would argue we're much the worse for the lack of your formidable military mind.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

On 2/21/2021 at 2:41 PM, akd said:

From FM 71-1 (1977)

akd,

These old friend graphs neatly reinforce the conclusions from both dueling models and historical experience. The first to shoot generally wins the duel--something like 80% Of course, it's really the first to shoot accurately! Some digging online will produce the original properly captioned SECRET level charts done by General Gorman in a CIA doc in which he compares weapon accuracy for US vs Russian. This was also the doc showing that at 1000 meters, it took 17 shots to get a hit on a fully exposed medium tank and that an M60A1 had a high probability with one shot and a near certainty with two shots.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Something I'd like to mention before I stop my headlong read and comment on the fly cycle for the night is that ref SPI's Firefight, which was supposed to portray the lethality of modern weapons, SPI cheated! The map was a part of Ft. Leavenworth but made TOW friendly by removing guidance wire breaking brush, guidance shorting water features and, I believe, telephone poles and lines, too (bad for helo fired TOW). Naturally, the effect was to greatly increase lethality over what it should've been. Had the game and played it intensively. It was the board game bloodbath equivalent of CMBS when I first tried it out.  It certainly drove home the whole "What can be seen can be hit..." message. It was, though, one of my wargames that taught me many useful things and helped me become a Soviet Threat Analyst.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Sgt.Squarehead]

8 hours ago, John Kettler said:

What I know for sure is that it was an SPI  game and that founder Jim Dunnigan wrote that pithy rejoinder.

Whichever game it was (I can't remember either TBH), it's up in my attic, along with a whole bunch of others. 

Edited September 19, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Artkin]

Wow John. That was an insane marathon of high quality information. What a fantastic read. 

(Between both AARs)

Edited September 19, 2021 by Artkin

[John Kettler]

10 hours ago, Artkin said:

Wow John. That was an insane marathon of high quality information. What a fantastic read. 

(Between both AARs)

Always happy to help, and I'm glad you found my input informative. In my 11+ years as a Soviet Threat Analyst, I worked on a host of programs directly relevant to CMCW (among them TOW, Maverick and GBU-15 cruciform wing) and had the military capabilities of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact as my beat, if you will. Small arms-ASAT and beam weapons! Have been sounding off on painful realities of the Cold War for nearly two decades, I believe. Searching my posts will turn up tons of material I may've written up on the CM Forums one or more times before--back when my memory was far better than now. 

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

On 2/24/2021 at 6:46 AM, Lethaface said:

Great action shots!

Had it kept reversing I guess it could have made it to safety in time?
With 3 of his BMPs reloading, they are vulnerable now - but I guess there's more than enough support with them to stop you capitalizing on it. 

In CMSF2 I've more than once lost a BMP (gunner) because they decided to fire an ATGM at a building ordered to area fire (with 73mm/30mm), after which the gunner starts reloading and suddenly becomes vulnerable to MG fire (rather unexpected).

 

Lethaface,

In order for us to follow what you're saying about BMP crew casualties to small arms while reloading, it would be helpful if you specified the BMP ATGM configuration, such as AT-3 on rail, AT-4 on turret roof, etc. The reason for this request is that  crew exposure while reloading can be brief and minor or more protracted and major. For example, reloading an AT-3 on the rail is accomplished from inside the turret by sliding the missile onto the rail, attaching the leads and unfolding the fins, all done through a small hatch. In order to reload a turret top launcher, a crewman must wrestle a much heavier ATGM (inside its tube) out through a roof hatch and expose something like half of his body in order to load the launcher. I don't have comparisons handy for reload times, though. 

Regards,

John Kettler

 

[John Kettler]

On 2/24/2021 at 7:18 PM, Bil Hardenberger said:

Eight Minute - BDA and Some Movements

I thought you'd be interested in seeing the battle damage from the two Saggers that hit M-150(1/4).  Very low on the hull front.. I am not usually that careless when checking Hull Down.. lesson learned!

M-150(1/5) is reversing slightly to improve its position... note that in the following image it looks like this vehicle can spot a T-64 on EAA-1.. but it cannot target it.. so with this reverse move he will pull out of any view on EAA1.

 

2nd Platoon

I have made some decisions based on what I have seen so far and with the Soviets movements and unit placement.. also remember I am getting my second and final reinforcement in two minutes. 

With what you have seen so far in this AAR as a guide, and after reading the following.. lets play a game, try to answer the following... 

What is Bil planning?   

• Clue the First, I am shifting all four of the 2nd Platoon tanks to my right:

• Clue the second, the two M-150s in this platoon are moving forward... note the location of their covered arcs:

Looking forward to reading your guesses... it'll be a few turns before I confirm or deny them, but light it up folks.

Bil

Bil,

Was going to express shock that your M150 wasn't K-Killed, but then I remembered that, like the Merkava, the engine is in the front. That, I believe is why your TOW missile packed and very weakly armored M150 wasn't blown to bits. 

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

On 2/24/2021 at 6:39 AM, stikkypixie said:

Never knew those saggers were that deadly. Did I understand correctly that their hit probability increases with range? @Bil Hardenberger the new TOE feature you were mentioning, do you mean that the game includes certain pre-formed formations out of the box or that is possible to make these kind of formations on-the-fly? I am guessing more included formations but just wanted to make sure.

stikkypixie,

ATGMs need to be gathered to the LOS as early as possible after launch, and it takes a bit of time to do so. This is especially true for early slow MCLOS ATGMs, such as AT-3, which until the SACLOS AT-3C, was MCLOS (fly missile by joystick throughout entire flight. Achieving MCLOS proficiency required thousands of engagements on the simulator, which is why, before the Egyptians attacked the Bar Lev Line by crossing the Suez Canal, the AT-3 simulator vans were right up near the front to keep the operators as proficient as possible. Also, the farther the ATGM is downrange, the smaller the control inputs have to be in order to hit the target. If you watch the below video, especially 3:36 on, you will understand everything I've said and so much more. You can see for yourself how the missile behaves in flight, vulnerabilities, and every model made or in development. Eye-popping stuff! Late model AT-3s can defeat ERA protected heavy armor frontally.
 

Regards,

John Kettler

[Erwin]

Very interesting video.  Thanks.

[dbsapp]

They have mobile game called 9K11 for Android phones (maybe for Apple as well) that gives good example of how hard first Staggers were to operate. 

[John Kettler]

On 3/13/2021 at 6:08 PM, MikeyD said:

Excepting the 'magic bullet' depleted uranium rounds for M60A3 and M1 Abrams which can get penetrations at 2k, sabot sucks. APDS is all but useless. Titanium core M735 APFSDS becomes increasingly useful the shorter the range. None of this stuff you want a hit squarely to a Soviet MBT's turret front because its likely to just scratch the paint. Its (almost) like WWII American guns versus Panthers all over again.

US live fire testing on a combat loaded T-72 found that even our experimental 105 mm DU didn't get the job done at typical combat range in a frontal engagement. No US 105 mm round had adequate performance, and it's a good thing that the ability to upgrade the 105 mm on the Abrams to the 120 was built into the tank from the beginning. It was the 120 and DU combined that made the Abrams the killer it was, in reputation and fact.

Regards,

John Kettler

[dbsapp]

17 minutes ago, John Kettler said:

US live fire testing on a combat loaded T-72 found that even our experimental 105 mm DU didn't get the job done at typical combat range in a frontal engagement. No US 105 mm round had adequate performance, and it's a good thing that the ability to upgrade the 105 mm on the Abrams to the 120 was built into the tank from the beginning. It was the 120 and DU combined that made the Abrams the killer it was, in reputation and fact.

Regards,

John Kettler

Tell it to CMCW developers.

Abrams 105mm kills everything from every distance no matter from front or rear.