Ryujin Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 While obviously challenging to implement, no cold war WW3 scenario is truly complete without it. Contamination making any casualties KIAs, forcing vehicles with NBC overpressure systems to stay buttoned up, reducing non-radio communication, and quickly tiring troops in NBC gear. Seems like it would be more impactful for scenarios than EW (as you always have perfect command and control anyway). I don't think it'd need to be more detailed than a battlefield being "contaminated" or not. Isn't critical but seems like something that could be an interesting aspect to the setting for possible expansions, but seems like it'd need some thought as to how it's implemented. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankHunter Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 I was wondering about this too. As far as I'm aware the Soviets certainly intended to use tactical nukes early in a war. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_MonkeyKing Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 No there won't be. But this could be simulated with a combination weather, troop starting soft factors and electric warfare. I am sure we will see this in community scenarios. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 This is around the time the US started to believe they could win a standup fight so they moved away from the old 'tripwire' nuclear-first defense and told the Soviets 'If you don't start dropping a-bombs we won't start dropping A-bombs'. Proper Airland battle doctrine was still a few years down the road. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerner Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 9 minutes ago, MikeyD said: This is around the time the US started to believe they could win a standup fight so they moved away from the old 'tripwire' nuclear-first defense and told the Soviets 'If you don't start dropping a-bombs we won't start dropping A-bombs'. Proper Airland battle doctrine was still a few years down the road. Thanks for that. Gaming- and reading/study-wise, I was never too interested in Cold War wargaming, mainly because I assumed it would go nuclear very quickly. So, other than the Mutual Assured Destruction concept, how did Clancy and other Cold War warfare writers get around the nuclear thing? Or did they? Looks like I have some fun reading ahead! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 1 hour ago, mjkerner said: Looks like I have some fun reading ahead! Definitely recommend reading them, rather than finding out here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commanderski Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 In the Soviets plan of 7 Days to the River Rhine they intended to use 96 nuclear missiles and 35 nuclear bombs but not on France or England as they also had nukes. the plan was developed in 1964 and was never updated or terminated so they could have used that plan at anytime. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Combatintman Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 Go nuclear all of you ... we trained against the chemical threat more than anything else. Any Soviet indirect fire asset 122mm and above could fire a chemical munition - think BM-21 - every Division had a battalion of 18 of those suckers. Put another way - 720 chemical rounds landing in a grid square in one go - non-persistent nerve would have been the way ahead - forces the target to mask up and lose their defensive advantage and the effects dissipate by the time the time the main body rolls up - with any luck not having to dismount from their BMPs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 10 minutes ago, Combatintman said: Go nuclear all of you ... we trained against the chemical threat more than anything else. Wasn't there an issue with the prevailing winds, that made this scenario less than fully appealing for the Soviets and especially the East Germans? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Combatintman Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 Check me out - I still have the pamphlet ... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Combatintman Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 43 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: Wasn't there an issue with the prevailing winds, that made this scenario less than fully appealing for the Soviets and especially the East Germans? Not in a tactical chem attack - see the aide memoire above, 10 klicks max was the norm. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freyberg Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 I was a child at this time, but this sort of apocalyptic war scenario was something we all feared. Having this feature (at some future date) would certainly bring those those nightmares to life 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 If you want to simulate nuclear you can always pull the plug on your computer halfway into a battle, watch the screen abruptly go blank, and say to yourself 'And then they all died'. You can build abstracted affects of a chem attack into a scenario. In the orders say a half hour earlier your forces got hit, your head count dropped to 60% and those remaining are 'unfit' and low morale. Now, let the game begin! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted February 18, 2021 Share Posted February 18, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, Combatintman said: Check me out - I still have the pamphlet ... I'll just bet you have all sorts of fascinating knick-knacks! 1 hour ago, MikeyD said: If you want to simulate nuclear you can always pull the plug on your computer halfway into a battle, watch the screen abruptly go blank, and say to yourself 'And then they all died' I had a contemporary (to the new game) company level board game that offered the following rules for tactical nuclear strikes (I'm paraphrasing here): Deploy your counters as normal. Set fire to one edge of the map-board. Play as normal. Edited February 18, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freyberg Posted February 18, 2021 Share Posted February 18, 2021 3 hours ago, MikeyD said: If you want to simulate nuclear you can always pull the plug on your computer halfway into a battle, watch the screen abruptly go blank, and say to yourself 'And then they all died'. Lol... I'm not complaining if nuclear conditions are not included, because this period is gonna be exciting anyway, but for me simulating nuclear warfare would mean battles including radiation suits, blasted landscapes, and weather settings for extreme overcast 'nuclear winter' and black rain... It sounds fanciful, but at the time I really believed that would happen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckdyke Posted February 18, 2021 Share Posted February 18, 2021 (edited) For what it is worth. The USSR would have reacted with a massive nuclear strike if they faced a Barbarossa type campaign by NATO. There is no evidence they ever planned a Bagration type of operation against the West. Both sides adopted the doctrine if you want to keep peace prepare for war by MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Let's keep the game interesting, we all know it can be over inside 30 minutes. Edited February 18, 2021 by chuckdyke 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryujin Posted February 18, 2021 Author Share Posted February 18, 2021 I'd argue it makes it more interesting and different than just not touching on it at all in cold war turned ww3. Both sides expected that any conventional warfare would realistically be happening often in nuclear and chemical contamination. A hypothetical soviet invasion would be crossing nuked terrain, a lot doctrine and equipment from the time is based around that. While yes obviously a tactical nuke is outside the scope of CM, battles happening in the aftermath aren't. It isn't critical but would add a different dimension from the other settings. Of course if you want to be accurate to how MAD turned out you can play the NTC campaign, then close the game and say to yourself 'And then nothing happened'. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 18, 2021 Share Posted February 18, 2021 In my mind the conflict makes more sense if you drastically reduce Russia's ambitions. My scenario: Imagine political chaos of some sort in West Germany. Russia takes to opportunity to make a land grab for the Schleswig-Holstein coastal region with the intent of turning the Baltic into a Russian lake. They could use the excuse of 'returning these lands to their rightful owner, East Germany' (think the annexation of Crimea 2014). Under that scenario an attack into the Fulda gap is merely a spoiling operation meant to keep the Americans from redeploying to assist the fighting in the north. That objective may be sufficiently limited to keep from triggering all-out tactical nuclear war. I always thought the 'take over all of Western Europe' scenario was a bit unbelievable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baneman Posted February 18, 2021 Share Posted February 18, 2021 5 hours ago, Freyberg said: ... battles including radiation suits, blasted landscapes, and weather settings for extreme overcast 'nuclear winter' and black rain... 2000 AD comic's Rogue Trooper setting you mean ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freyberg Posted February 18, 2021 Share Posted February 18, 2021 8 minutes ago, Baneman said: 2000 AD comic's Rogue Trooper setting you mean ? Lol - well I was a kid at the time... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blazing 88's Posted February 18, 2021 Share Posted February 18, 2021 (edited) Did someone say DAVY CROCKETT! https://armyhistory.org/the-m28m29-davy-crockett-nuclear-weapon-system/ On another note. I assume a Red Dawn campaign or scenario or two could be possible down the road with some modules (Soviet paratroopers, maybe Cubans, etc)?? Edited February 18, 2021 by Blazing 88's 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratdeath Posted February 18, 2021 Share Posted February 18, 2021 19 minutes ago, Baneman said: 2000 AD comic's Rogue Trooper setting you mean ? The Cursed Earth! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blazing 88's Posted February 18, 2021 Share Posted February 18, 2021 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Baneman said: 2000 AD comic's Rogue Trooper setting you mean ? Or Twilight 2000! There is already a campaign at the depot for that though. Edited February 18, 2021 by Blazing 88's 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubba883XL Posted February 18, 2021 Share Posted February 18, 2021 7 hours ago, chuckdyke said: For what it is worth. The USSR would have reacted with a massive nuclear strike if they faced a Barbarossa type campaign by NATO. There is no evidence they ever planned a Bagration type of operation against the West. Both sides adopted the doctrine if you want to keep peace prepare for war by MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Let's keep the game interesting, we all know it can be over inside 30 minutes. you need to watch the documentary someone shared, lol they had planned to nuke alot of city's in the first wave, and strike deep within Germany within the first week, and then within 2 weeks have continued that push through France all the way down to the southern border with Spain, also another front was planned after nuking parts of checoslovaquia, even tho it was a neutral state with the war and push up from there also... it truly was a bit of a misguided and over ambitious plan.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckdyke Posted February 18, 2021 Share Posted February 18, 2021 Just now, Bubba883XL said: you need to watch the documentary someone shared, lol they had planned to nuke alot of city's in the first wave, and strike deep within Germany within the first week, and then within 2 weeks have continued that push through France all the way down to the southern border with Spain, also another front was planned after nuking parts of checoslovaquia, even tho it was a neutral state with the war and push up from there also... it truly was a bit of a misguided and over ambitious plan.. It comes from freedom of information as released by the respective governments. YouTube documentaries are entertaining, but historians go over the archives. Germany is united for some time and they have not found anything spectacular in the former DDR's archives. They fell asleep more likely. We all knew Europe wouldn't have been worth living in. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.