Jump to content

NBC?


Ryujin
 Share

Recommended Posts

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by chuckdyke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...