Soviet Formations

[Megalon Jones]

How is the TOE going to be handled in regards to Soviet forces in the QMB?  This would be in regards to the Red Army mobilization scheme.  They put units into three types:  frontline (Category A), frontline and partially demobilized (Category B} and reservist (Cat C}.  Cat A groups got the best stuff, most training etc.  I suppose the whole thing could be coded to reflect existing CM convention.

Just wondering how this is planned on being implemented?  I know the whole thing could be covered in existing CM code, but would like to know how I'll be able to recognize a  Type A unit from a Type B. (If the tank companies are loaded with T55's, we'll know it's a Cat C.)

 

[Megalon Jones]

OK....I probably didn't word that very well.  Will the Soviet mobilization categories be reflected in the force selector?

[Amedeo]

My guess (and it's only a guess) is that mobilization categories will not be reflected (per se) in the force selector, simply because the game (at present) is designed to represent combat between first line Soviet and US forces in Germany in the first phase of a hypothetical WW3.

So, all of the units in the GSVG should be classified in what you'd call "A" category. 

Edited March 6, 2021 by Amedeo

[MikeyD]

'Partially demobilized' wouldn't be a thing in a full-up war of Russia's choosing. The West would've got fair warning that something was up simply from the Soviet army hoarding batteries, Diesel oil and medical supplies months beforehand.

[Ultradave]

There are choices in the TOE for several different kinds of Soviet battalions, both motorized infantry and armor. There are Reserve armor battalions that are equipped with T-55s an T-62s compared to the frontline ones with T-64s and T-62, and two varieties of those with 3 tanks per PLT or 4. For the motorized battalions, different selections of BMP equipped or BTR equipped, although they aren't specifically listed as reserve. That's taking one setup example from a 1982 quick battle selection. think you should be able to create whatever you want with all the combinations, as long as it falls in the years covered.

Is that what you were looking for with your question @Megalon Jones?

Dave

[Megalon Jones]

8 hours ago, MikeyD said:

'Partially demobilized' wouldn't be a thing in a full-up war of Russia's choosing. The West would've got fair warning that something was up simply from the Soviet army hoarding batteries, Diesel oil and medical supplies months beforehand.

Soooo...Brezhnev doesn't just wake up one morning, look out his window and say '#$%@ it!  Onward to the Rhine!' sending the Red Army marching 24 hours later? Our alternate history back story is taking shape! The 1979 timeline could be tied to the Carter grain embargo while the 1982 variant might have something to do with the deployment of theatre nuclear forces.

8 hours ago, Ultradave said:

There are choices in the TOE for several different kinds of Soviet battalions, both motorized infantry and armor. There are Reserve armor battalions that are equipped with T-55s an T-62s compared to the frontline ones with T-64s and T-62, and two varieties of those with 3 tanks per PLT or 4. For the motorized battalions, different selections of BMP equipped or BTR equipped, although they aren't specifically listed as reserve. That's taking one setup example from a 1982 quick battle selection. think you should be able to create whatever you want with all the combinations, as long as it falls in the years covered.

Is that what you were looking for with your question @Megalon Jones?

Dave

Totally.  Thanks for the input.

[MikeyD]

So many alternate backstories to speculate about what could drive Russia to attack the west. Like, off the top of my head, Thatcher gaining power in '79 and Reagan on the immediate horizon causing the Russians to panic and grab West German as a hostage, a bargaining chip to forestall the anticipated nuclear first strike against them when Reagan gains power.

[Sprocketman]

I think the most compelling (and plausible) scenario is an ailing Soviet Union goes to war as a pretext to rally internal support around the regime and the maintenance of the police state. 

Arguably the only reason the Union collapsed when it did is because a relative liberal (Gorbachev) was in power and all but refused to use Soviet conventional and strategic forces to maintain the empire in ways Brezhnev wouldn't have thought twice about. A different leader, or different ruling clique could've chosen a more violent way to paper over the cracks in the Soviet foundation.

[Erwin]

My sense was that nuclear war was unlikely as it would destroy all the super rich folks who control things - they'd be nothing left.  A biological attack was much more likely as it kills people, but leaves property/wealth untouched.  Thank goodness we have never been attacked by germ warfare.  

[sawomi]

2 hours ago, Erwin said:

My sense was that nuclear war was unlikely as it would destroy all the super rich folks who control things - they'd be nothing left.  A biological attack was much more likely as it kills people, but leaves property/wealth untouched. ...

Tactical neutron bombs where also on the table:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb

[DMS]

4 hours ago, Sprocketman said:

Arguably the only reason the Union collapsed when it did is because a relative liberal (Gorbachev) was in power and all but refused to use Soviet conventional and strategic forces to maintain the empire in ways Brezhnev wouldn't have thought twice about. A different leader, or different ruling clique could've chosen a more violent way to paper over the cracks in the Soviet foundation.

The only reason is that ruling class war tired of being communist leaders and dreamed to become real bourgeoisie, without limitations of socialistic country. "People of my rank have millions on the West". So, real war was possible only accidentally, because of misidentified rocket launch or something like this. In this case Soviet army wouldn't be well prepared, attacking only with the best units, with the best equipment. 

[Megalon Jones]

11 hours ago, MikeyD said:

So many alternate backstories to speculate about what could drive Russia to attack the west. Like, off the top of my head, Thatcher gaining power in '79 and Reagan on the immediate horizon causing the Russians to panic and grab West German as a hostage, a bargaining chip to forestall the anticipated nuclear first strike against them when Reagan gains power.

How about Brezhnev's health deteriorates much faster and the Central Committee can't come up with an acceptable majority bloc that doesn't include placating the hawks.  Poland isn't able to stem Solidarnosc with martial law.  Throw in a bad harvest, a tanked oil market and signs of ethnic troubles in the Asian SSR's.

That's a decades worth of bad news.  Now, compress it into about a six month time frame.

[MikeyD]

I'm trying to recall the 'Red Storm Rising' reason for WWIII. Its been 3 decades at least since I read that book. It somehow involve mujahideen slipping timed bombs into a Russian oil pipeline causing Russia to... nope, I can't remember.

[Amedeo]

23 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

I'm trying to recall the 'Red Storm Rising' reason for WWIII. Its been 3 decades at least since I read that book. It somehow involve mujahideen slipping timed bombs into a Russian oil pipeline causing Russia to... nope, I can't remember.

IIRC, islamist guerrilla manage to catastrophically disrupt Soviet oil production with a well executed (and lucky) attack on a refinery complex. Moscow realizes that the only way to save USSR from a collapse due to the lack of oil is to invade the Persian Gulf. And, since they fear that such an action might trigger NATO military intervention... they resolve to go to war with NATO just to avoid that!  Basically, being driven to suicide by the fear of dying.

Probably the lamest reason for a fictional WW3 ever, but at the time I liked the book. Honestly, I bought it only for the action, non for the plot.

[IICptMillerII]

On 3/7/2021 at 7:19 AM, Megalon Jones said:

How about Brezhnev's health deteriorates much faster and the Central Committee can't come up with an acceptable majority bloc that doesn't include placating the hawks.  Poland isn't able to stem Solidarnosc with martial law.  Throw in a bad harvest, a tanked oil market and signs of ethnic troubles in the Asian SSR's.

That's a decades worth of bad news.  Now, compress it into about a six month time frame.

Sure, why not! One of the great things about CMCW is that if you want to, you can create your own backstory to inform the context of your scenarios. Its all what you make of it. 

[BletchleyGeek]

On 3/7/2021 at 6:38 PM, DMS said:

The only reason is that ruling class war tired of being communist leaders and dreamed to become real bourgeoisie, without limitations of socialistic country. "People of my rank have millions on the West".

Thanks for that @DMS - always insightful to hear the point of view from the other side of the Iron Curtain

FWIW, I don't think either that a Red Storm Rising scenario of a desperate Communist Party leadership staging a "short victorious war", where in order to conquest the Persian Gulf one had to defeat NATO, ever made much sense. Power politics in the Central Committee were never an straightforward affair after Stalin, so it is not clear how a lunatic plan like that would have gone smoothly through the Soviet Union government decision making processes.

An accident or mistake, like shooting down civilian airliners (quite a few in the 1980s btw), or a missile test being confused as the real deal, both constitute more compelling scenarios. I want to think that the lesson that there isn't such a thing as a "short victorious war" was learnt after two pretty cataclysmic conflagrations.

Edited March 9, 2021 by BletchleyGeek

[Megalon Jones]

18 hours ago, Amedeo said:

And, since they fear that such an action might trigger NATO military intervention... they resolve to go to war with NATO just to avoid that!  Basically, being driven to suicide by the fear of dying.

Yeah, that definitely created a 'WTF?!?' moment for me reading that.

 

3 hours ago, BletchleyGeek said:

Power politics in the Central Committee were never an straightforward affair after Stalin, so it is not clear how a lunatic plan like that would have gone smoothly through the Soviet Union government decision making processes.

The Politburo ended up being far more risk adverse than was generally accepted at the time.