Just Some Basic Help

[Bozowans]

On 6/14/2021 at 4:33 AM, Ultradave said:

As for this comment, the Army back then was good. We were well trained, and we would have been fighting on "home ground".  We knew every detail of the terrain and had prepared fighting positions and detailed tactics on how to use them and how to fall back and make an invader pay a price. Every inch of West Germany was well surveyed and mapped, and we trained over and over again on the course of a potential invasion. The issue is more that the Soviet Army would have been larger, and their equipment was equivalent or slightly better, with the huge advantage of a head start in passing out ATGMs like Halloween candy. They were everywhere.

Dave

Not saying the US Army was outright terrible or anything. They did what they could with what they had. But certainly bad relative to my own expectations and pretty much every other depiction I had seen. Coming from games like Shock Force 2 and growing up in a culture that glorifies US soldiers as a bunch of heroic supermen, it's interesting seeing the US having a tough time during a period that really wasn't very long ago. Even other WW3/Fulda Gap games seem to have a tendency to depict the Soviets as endless red hordes that charge forward and get slaughtered by the vastly superior western forces.

I like that CMCW chose to have the two different alternate timelines, showing the huge difference going from the 70s into the 80s. Sometimes the US can do very well and cause a lot of damage, but other times I've seen the US get rolled over like they were little more than a speedbump.

I knew very little about this period of history though until recently. I didn't even realize that the Soviets had an edge over the US in some areas. Several months ago I had been reading about Cold War stuff and wanted to learn more about it. I tried playing games like Flashpoint Campaigns and WinSPMBT because it had a lot of WW3 scenarios and I wanted to see what that would be like. Funnily enough, this was just a few weeks before CMCW was announced.

[chuckdyke]

To accept the suggestions in PC games as fact is being out of touch with reality. The Soviet Union never intended to invade Western Europe and NATO never intended to invade the countries of the Warsaw pact. The retaliation would have been nuclear on the average CM scenario something unplayable. I won't buy the game till there is a complete NATO module. That there would be a Hot WAR without any input of NATO is also unthinkable. In this regards Shock Force 2 is closer to reality. If NATO had not existed an invasion could have happened in the 50's. 

[THH149]

This thread seems to ask the question How can my Shermans possibly beat Tigers and Panthers in France '44? but in CW, and the answer is similar: be clever/ambush, hit flanks, apply combined arms, and use numbers where you can....

I'm being flippant of course as an M60 isnt quite a Sherman and a T64 isnt quite a Panther but many solutions to old problems can be revised and updated for new ones, and we can enjoy trying the many suggestions others have provided...

But, does anyone have a source for a pdf of the FM 71-1 (77) field manual?

Edited June 16, 2021 by THH149

[Halmbarte]

1 hour ago, THH149 said:

This thread seems to ask the question How can my Shermans possibly beat Tigers and Panthers in France '44? but in CW, and the answer is similar: be clever/ambush, hit flanks, apply combined arms, and use numbers where you can....

I'm being flippant of course as an M60 isnt quite a Sherman and a T64 isnt quite a Panther but many solutions to old problems can be revised and updated for new ones, and we can enjoy trying the many suggestions others have provided...

But, does anyone have a source for a pdf of the FM 71-1 (77) field manual?

The difference being that the Sov tanks are actually pretty reliable and not likely to have broken final drives or caught fire while deploying, plus they have more tanks than you do. 
 

It’s a problem, especially in ‘79. The other shoe is that the Sov have good supporting weapons. The BMP was revolutionary and outclasses the M113, and the Soviet infantry has a very good AT weapon in the RPG. Hunting tanks with infantry is a thing that can be done. Plus there is the artillery. So much arty. 
 

H

[domfluff]

8 hours ago, THH149 said:

This thread seems to ask the question How can my Shermans possibly beat Tigers and Panthers in France '44? but in CW, and the answer is similar: be clever/ambush, hit flanks, apply combined arms, and use numbers where you can....

I'm being flippant of course as an M60 isnt quite a Sherman and a T64 isnt quite a Panther but many solutions to old problems can be revised and updated for new ones, and we can enjoy trying the many suggestions others have provided...

But, does anyone have a source for a pdf of the FM 71-1 (77) field manual?

Yep, the fundamentals are the same. The existence of TOWs does shift this equation to an extent, as well as DPICM and the like, but it's still "how can I best play a weak hand".

You can download it as a PDF from the same source.

Direct link to the download:

https://books.google.co.uk/books/download/The_Tank_and_Mechanized_Infantry_Company.pdf?id=My8-u2rYNVoC&output=pdf&sig=ACfU3U06Zb4xV8A0m8XvTa5ggK0pkajSZQ

[dbsapp]

11 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

If NATO had not existed an invasion could have happened in the 50's. 

It's very probable since US had 10 times more nukes, capable airfleet of bombers that Moscow didn't posess, while USSR had literally zero interest in invading, instead it was focused on rebuilding crippled economy when US economy flourished.

That's why they first created NATO and only after that Warsaw pact.

 

 

 

 

[Ultradave]

An accidental war was completely possible though. We almost had one in 1988 but saner heads prevailed, or at least made everyone pause enough to reevaluate what was going on. 
 

Dave. 

[chuckdyke]

13 minutes ago, dbsapp said:

That's why they first created NATO and only after that Warsaw pact.

I can remember it was a scare campaign. I crew up as a child in the Netherlands and remember the Hungarian uprising. People forgot that Hungary was allied with Hitler's Germany ten years previously. The Berlin airlift was still fresh in everybody's memory. The idea was that the Soviets and their allies could invade any day. So, our family made the decision in the mid-sixties to migrate to Australia. I can tell you nobody wanted a war with the Eastern Block. The Cuba crisis almost triggered WW3 in 1962. 

Edited June 16, 2021 by chuckdyke

[Badger73]

3 hours ago, Ultradave said:

An accidental war was completely possible though. We almost had one in 1988 but saner heads prevailed, or at least made everyone pause enough to reevaluate what was going on. 
 

Dave. 

Gosh, Dave, I should remember that but can't.  I only recall that Chernobyl was in 1989 and a lot of dynamics changed after that.  What was the 1988 incident you reference?

[Ultradave]

3 minutes ago, Badger73 said:

Gosh, Dave, I should remember that but can't.  I only recall that Chernobyl was in 1989 and a lot of dynamics changed after that.  What was the 1988 incident you reference?

“Able Archer” Big NATO exercise. Russians were worried about NATO attack because attacking from a large scale exercise is what THEY would do. Exercise also simulated raising DEFCON to a high level and the Russians saw that. They were quite worried at the time. 

[domfluff]

(Able Archer was annual, but the scary one was 1983. The point still holds, mind you).

[Ultradave]

6 minutes ago, domfluff said:

(Able Archer was annual, but the scary one was 1983. The point still holds, mind you).

Ah, right. Got the date wrong. I should remember. I have a good book titled “1983” that goes into much detail about that and a few other things. 
 

I just retired. Guess my brain cells started dying

Dave

[Howler]

29 minutes ago, Ultradave said:

I just retired. Guess my brain cells started dying

Congrats!

What happens is a de-cluttering of useless data. Like the day of the week. Every day is now a Saturday so why keep Monday around... that sort of thing.

[Amedeo]

52 minutes ago, Badger73 said:

 I only recall that Chernobyl was in 1989 and a lot of dynamics changed after that. 

1986, actually.

[Ultradave]

46 minutes ago, Howler said:

Congrats!

What happens is a de-cluttering of useless data. Like the day of the week. Every day is now a Saturday so why keep Monday around... that sort of thing.

Like coffee and donuts at the beach on a weekday morning. No one there yet. Just heaven. 

[Badger73]

7 hours ago, Badger73 said:

Gosh, Dave, I should remember that but can't.  I only recall that Chernobyl was in 1989 and a lot of dynamics changed after that.  What was the 1988 incident you reference?

 

7 hours ago, Amedeo said:

1986, actually.

Duh, I should know that!    1989 was when the Berlin Wall came down . . .

[dbsapp]

10 hours ago, Ultradave said:

“Able Archer” Big NATO exercise. Russians were worried about NATO attack because attacking from a large scale exercise is what THEY would do. 

Lol 

"Wo made large scale scary exercises that threatened our opponent and could  lead to thermonuclear war, but it something that Russian WOULD DO"

I like how you automatically frame it.

And Chernobyl happend in 1986. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[dbsapp]

2 minutes ago, dbsapp said:

 

Everybody is an expert in Chernobyl and nuclear power since HBO aired its tv-show!

Edited June 17, 2021 by dbsapp

[Combatintman]

4 hours ago, dbsapp said:

Lol 

"Wo made large scale scary exercises that threatened our opponent and could  lead to thermonuclear war, but it something that Russian WOULD DO"

I like how you automatically frame it.

And Chernobyl happend in 1986. 

Nothing automatic about it.  NATO forces in Germany were under strength and needed time to round out.  For instance most of the NL and BE corps were based in their respective countries.  1 (BR) Corps' 1 Armoured Division's peacetime locations were a good deal north of their wartime AORs and, depending on the time frame, two of the 1 (BR) Corps roled Field Forces and latterly one of it's divisions was based in the UK.  Same for the US, who had even further to move their reinforcements.  Soviet exercises plus the routine rotation of conscripts were watched closely because if GSFG/WGF went for the standing start option a lot of NATO would be in the wrong place.  It would be naive to assume that the Soviets didn't know this and didn't have a planning option for the standing start scenario.

[Ultradave]

6 hours ago, dbsapp said:

Everybody is an expert in Chernobyl and nuclear power since HBO aired its tv-show!

I have a PhD in Nuclear Engineering and a 38 year career in nuclear weapons, nuclear power and nuclear non-proliferation, so yeah, I'm an expert.

6 hours ago, dbsapp said:

"Wo made large scale scary exercises that threatened our opponent and could  lead to thermonuclear war, but it something that Russian WOULD DO"

I like how you automatically frame it.

And Chernobyl happend in 1986. 

That was their strategy back then. I didn't make it up. Allows mobilization and deployment under the guise of an exercise.

Dave

[dbsapp]

51 minutes ago, Combatintman said:

Nothing automatic about it.  NATO forces in Germany were under strength and needed time to round out.  For instance most of the NL and BE corps were based in their respective countries.  1 (BR) Corps' 1 Armoured Division's peacetime locations were a good deal north of their wartime AORs and, depending on the time frame, two of the 1 (BR) Corps roled Field Forces and latterly one of it's divisions was based in the UK.  Same for the US, who had even further to move their reinforcements.  Soviet exercises plus the routine rotation of conscripts were watched closely because if GSFG/WGF went for the standing start option a lot of NATO would be in the wrong place.  It would be naive to assume that the Soviets didn't know this and didn't have a planning option for the standing start scenario.

Theoretically each side must have all scenarios on the chief of stuff's table. 

It doesn't change the fact that Soviet side was the weakest part of this struggle, technologically, economically and geographically seriously inferior to US. 

It was surrounded by US bases from Germany and Turkey to Japan and Philippines. 

It didn't have direct land access to US territory, where as US had hundreds of ways to the terrotory of USSR.

By invading Europe (NATO wet dream)  it would achieve nothing at best and commit suicide at worst. 

Still, the myth of "mighty USSR invading weak NATO" alive and well till the present day, and made itself comfortable even in CMCW.

[dbsapp]

4 minutes ago, Ultradave said:

I have a PhD in Nuclear Engineering and a 38 year career in nuclear weapons, nuclear power and nuclear non-proliferation, so yeah, I'm an expert.

That was their strategy back then. I didn't make it up. Allows mobilization and deployment under the guise of an exercise.

Dave

Well, it took me 6 episodes to achieve what you made in 38 years

[chuckdyke]

7 minutes ago, dbsapp said:

Well, it took me 6 episodes to achieve what you made in 38 years

PHD stands for Pot Hole Digger. 

[Ultradave]

Your general comment is well taken. Everyone is an expert.

Actually BEING an expert in one very small area gives you a good perspective in how much you DON'T know. I was reminded of that every time I went to a technical conference. Even in my own field I sat there thinking sometimes everyone here is smarter than me. Not true really - everyone there has their own narrow area of expertise.

One of my favorite things when I was teaching at NC State was going to a post doctorate symposium where post docs would present their research. There were 50 presentations selected from all areas of the university. One or ours was presenting but I was so impressed with all the others. So much valuable and fascinating research being done in so many different things. A lot of it to me was "I don't really know anything about this subject but I CAN see why the research would be really important."

Most of my career was in industry though. But I loved the time I did teaching. It was great working with students.

Dave

[Ultradave]

12 minutes ago, dbsapp said:

Theoretically each side must have all scenarios on the chief of stuff's table. 

It doesn't change the fact that Soviet side was the weakest part of this struggle, technologically, economically and geographically seriously inferior to US. 

Hence the nervousness in 1983 when it looked to THEM like we were taking a page from their book. I read a while back that then SecDef Caspar Wienberger was shocked to learn later that the Russians even thought we would attack. Like, why would they think that? The US administrations did not understand the Russians. At all. They also didn't understand that the Russians were always worried about our nuclear weapons. Here in the US we always think we'd never use them first, just for defense. From the Russian standpoint, the US had already used them twice and they thought, we'd have no qualms about using them again. Again, Weinberger was floored when he found this out.

We are lucky we are alive with both sides not really understanding the other's mindset, and some of the glitches in early warning systems that happened. Too much paranoia.

Dave