Looking for information/plausibility check for Agger Valley Campaign

[Butschi]

I've had this idea since CMCW came out. A campaign that takes place in the Agger Valley, i.e. North Rhine-Westphalia, east of Cologne instead of the Fulda Gap. The main roads and railway go through the valley, the hills around it are a mixture of woods and farmland with only smaller roads and settlements. This is the area I grew up in and CMCW reminded me of the young boy I was back in the 80s with his regiment's worth of plastic soldiers and tanks, imagining things while looking out of the window. Recent events in Ukraine made me reconsider whether it is really that much of a good idea to see your home town being devastated by war. Then again, part of why I play wargames nowadays is to get at least an idea of how people must have felt or must feel in a war. So how better to explore this than having a battlefield where I actually recognize the features from my childhood?

I'm not much into Cold War force compositions and I'm no expert on how such a campaign would have been organized in reality (i.e. what forces would have been employed where and how and such). So this is where I would like to ask for your input. What forces would have realistically taken part in such a campaign, how they would have been equiped, their structure, OOB, you name it.

The Backstory

It is september 1980. Similar to what almost happened with Able Archer a few years later, the KGB had identified Reforger 80 - Certain Rampart as a disguise to actually start a war. According to Soviet strategic planning this had to be prempted with an attack of their own. Soviet tanks had suddenly crossed the border just a week before Certain Rampart was to start. The first few days had gone badly for NATO forces that had been busy preparing for the exercise. But now, about a week into the war, much of the frontline has become static as both sides are nearing exhaustion.

North Rhine-Westphalia had seen the fiercest fighting in and around the Ruhrgebiet, the industrial heart of West Germany and also the largest urbanized area. The southern part had been relatively quiet as the region east of it, Sauerland/Siegerland/Rothaargebirge was difficult terrain with little infrastructure. It was here where the Soviets had gambled: They had thrown in their last fresh reserves, Category C formations, beefed up with some remnants of some Category A and B formations that had been pulled from the frontline for reconstruction. Still they must have had help from either local supporters, sleeper agents from the GDR or SOF that enabled such a quick advance after the break through. Every German Autobahn had been prepared for demolition and in case of a Soviet advance, bridges should have been blown, roads made impassable, etc. They weren't and in a mad dash Soviet forces had rushed down Autobahn 4 up to Engelskirchen where they were finally forced to go by normal roads. The western part of the Agger valley lay ahead. It was narrow and there was not much infrastructure outside of it. But a successful advance down the valley would bring the Red Army to the river Rhine, just oposite of the West German capital, Bonn and close to Cologne/Bonn Airport.

NATO was hard pressed at this point as most of the reserves had been commited already. It was decided to take parts of US 5th Infantry Division to plug the gap. The Reforger reinforcements had been delayed and parts of the equipment had fallen prey to Soviet missile strikes and interdiction. Somewhat understrength and under equipped a battalion TF was sent ahead to setup in the town of Overath.

The Current Situation

While the battalion is still setting up in Overath, the scout platoon and 2 platoons of B Company are racing towards Loope to delay the Soviet advance and give the rest of the battalion time to setup.

Several things I'd like to explore here.

• Terrain that is different from Fulda Gap, dominated by hills around a long valley.
• Not AAA elite tank formations duking it out but understrength, second rate forces.
• Autumn weather, rain, mud and all that.

So, what do you think, is the back story plausible? I hope that noone feels offended by me calling any US troops second rate, but in the sense I described above, what would a second rate force look like (also in CM terms). I don't know much about National Guard formations, I was thinking about 256th Infantry Brigade, for instance. Is it realistic to view them as possibly worse equipped than formations permanently in Europe and less trained/fit? I'd love to have West German reserve units (Heimatschutz or something) for this but I have to take what I can get. What should Soviet forces look like?

Locations

I'm not very skilled at map making or am too impatient (or both), so that so far kept me from actually starting with this. This is part of why I've been busy developing CMAutoEditor (well work is still in progress). Which automates much of the map making for me (but also puts some constraints on the map making, like only maps with axes parallel to the coordinate axes).

Sorry for advertising my own tool here, it's just to give you the context for how maps are done. I use laser scans for elevation data and OpenStreetMap as starting point form map making (meaning I delete buildings that weren't there 1980 and stuff like that).

My Loope map so far looks like this:

I have some of the eastern part of Overath. Do you have ideas for other locations or missions that would make sense?

 

 

Edited December 9, 2022 by Butschi

[The_Capt]

So what I did is after studying the history and getting as much detail on the plans for both sides, I then did up a larger operational schematic of what the collision between the two forces would look like.  If you go into the CMCW manual you can see the Russian one.  When you do this for both sides the logical locations for most likely engagements just kind of jump out at you.  You can then string these together into a campaign (or campaigns) and still have room for single scenarios.  For example Valley of Ashes is a prelude scenario to the US campaign, happening out in the ACR screen.

Really nice looking map btw.

Edited December 9, 2022 by The_Capt

[Combatintman]

Ok so your narrative does not fit the commonly accepted 'how the Cold War gone hot would have played out' but ... so what ...  That basic narrative is that there would have been about a week's worth of fighting, and it would have gone nuclear.  The area that you're looking at is what was termed the Rear Combat Zone under that construct and sits at the back end of the 1st Belgian Corps (1 (BE) Corps) AO.  1 (BE) Corps was the southernmost corps of the Northern Army Group (NORTHAG).  The 1st British Corps (1 (BR) Corps) sat to the north of the Belgians and basically the line of the River Weser was deemed the ultimate backstop line for 1 (BR) Corps and I assume 1 (BE) Corps - once that was crossed it was time for instant sunshine.

If the Soviets managed to pull off an airborne operation then in the 70's or early 80s the Weser line would probably have been one of the target areas and if not committed there then the line of the Rhine.  By the mid-late 80s the army-level air assault battalions would have got the Weser and the airborne divisions the Rhine.  Not overly helpful for you right now as CMCW has neither Belgians nor Soviet airborne or air assault units and, as you have pointed out, none of the heimatschutzbrigaden which would be a good fit.

Like I said ... so what ... your narrative has no nuclear stuff going on ... maybe the politicians changed their mind.  Overall, it doesn't matter because the narrative you have is as good as any alternate 'history' and will work well enough for you to string a campaign together.

For the Soviets you would be looking at something that fell in the Western Theatre of Military Operations and the best fit would be formations from the Belorussian Military District.  As to how the thing would fit together, this RAND paper has some good stuff in it:

Soviet-Warsaw Pact Western Theater of Military Operations: Organization and Missions (rand.org)

Belorussian Military District here:

Belorussian Military District (ww2.dk)

I get the feel that you're looking at the lower end of the spectrum for kit - more T-55 and less T-80 so within that I would go for 28 Combined Arms Army:

28th Combined Arms Army (ww2.dk)

Within 28 CAA I would go for 50 Guards Motor Rifle Division because its listings (all of the listings have big gaps in them) show that in 1985 it was T-62, BMP-1, BTR-60 and BTR-70 so the assumption being that it probably had that kit in 1980 works well enough.

50th Guards Motorised Rifle Division (ww2.dk)

For the US side I have little expertise but dragging up some low-readiness division from CONUS sounds plausible and Wikipedia has it CONUS based in 1980.

Other than that, I can't help much ... 

[Butschi]

On 12/9/2022 at 4:24 PM, The_Capt said:

So what I did is after studying the history and getting as much detail on the plans for both sides, I then did up a larger operational schematic of what the collision between the two forces would look like.  If you go into the CMCW manual you can see the Russian one.  When you do this for both sides the logical locations for most likely engagements just kind of jump out at you.  You can then string these together into a campaign (or campaigns) and still have room for single scenarios.  For example Valley of Ashes is a prelude scenario to the US campaign, happening out in the ACR screen.

Very good advice, thanks. My bad, I had totally forgotten that your offical back story already has an Able Archer and unwittingly plagiated it. Oh well, it is one of the less Tom Clancy-ish scenarios, I guess.

So, I'll have to dig much deeper into the operational side of things. So part 1 of my homework assignment, looking at the very brode strokes from the Soviet point of view.

Assumptions:

• A "significant" force somehow made it to Engelskirchen.
• The goal is not to swing north from there.
• It is a mechanized force that per Soviet doctrine has keeping momentum as priority
  • => Avoid large natural obstacles like forests
  • => Avoid large built up areas that can't be isolated an obliterated with massed artillery.
• The overall goal is to reach the Rhine and to cross it.

From that we can derive two major goals:

• Seize the bridges over the Rhine at Bonn. The next one down river is near Cologne (17 km) and upriver near Neuwied (45 km).
• Seize possible sites for river crossings between Bonn and Cologne.

Cologne is to large and should be avoided. Going further south has no bridges and advers terrain.

Additional goals are taking Cologne/Bonn airport and Bonn itself, the West German capital with the government and ministry of defense.

With all this a two-pronged advance seems like the way to go:

1. Down Bundestraße 56 via Much and from there down to the southern part of Bonn.
2. Down Bundestraße 484 via Overath, splitting up near Lohmar, with one part to take Cologne/Bonn Airport and subsequently the river crossings. And a second part going directly towards the northern part of Bonn.

Before reaching the area around Siegburg both prongs go down the major road and possible parallel roads, especially on the B484 approach, to avoid being caught in the valley (which has the major infrastructure, though).

Does this make sense?

[Butschi]

On 12/10/2022 at 3:13 PM, Combatintman said:

Ok so your narrative does not fit the commonly accepted 'how the Cold War gone hot would have played out' but ... so what ...  That basic narrative is that there would have been about a week's worth of fighting, and it would have gone nuclear.

True. Although, as far as I understood Soviet war plans (from, for instance War Plans and Alliances in the Cold War), the notion that a war in europe could start out conventional and maybe escalate once the situation goes south for one side is a western idea that didn't exist (or maybe only late during the Cold War) on the Soviet side. According to Soviet doctrine, tac nukes would have been employed from day 1. They had to because, e.g. the army of the CSSR was supposed to take on the US army in Bavaria all by itself. So, I think the whole premise of CMCW is unrealistic in that regard - but it makes for a much more interesting game, so who cares.

I agree though that maybe stalemate for days with forces being near exhaustion is maybe overdoing it a bit. The story would still work after, say, four days, I think.

On 12/10/2022 at 3:13 PM, Combatintman said:

Other than that, I can't help much ... 

What an understatement, given that you delivered precisely the info I asked for. Thanks!

[The_Capt]

On 12/14/2022 at 7:20 PM, Butschi said:

Very good advice, thanks. My bad, I had totally forgotten that your offical back story already has an Able Archer and unwittingly plagiated it. Oh well, it is one of the less Tom Clancy-ish scenarios, I guess.

So, I'll have to dig much deeper into the operational side of things. So part 1 of my homework assignment, looking at the very brode strokes from the Soviet point of view.

Assumptions:

• A "significant" force somehow made it to Engelskirchen.
• The goal is not to swing north from there.
• It is a mechanized force that per Soviet doctrine has keeping momentum as priority
  • => Avoid large natural obstacles like forests
  • => Avoid large built up areas that can't be isolated an obliterated with massed artillery.
• The overall goal is to reach the Rhine and to cross it.

From that we can derive two major goals:

• Seize the bridges over the Rhine at Bonn. The next one down river is near Cologne (17 km) and upriver near Neuwied (45 km).
• Seize possible sites for river crossings between Bonn and Cologne.

Cologne is to large and should be avoided. Going further south has no bridges and advers terrain.

Additional goals are taking Cologne/Bonn airport and Bonn itself, the West German capital with the government and ministry of defense.

With all this a two-pronged advance seems like the way to go:

1. Down Bundestraße 56 via Much and from there down to the southern part of Bonn.
2. Down Bundestraße 484 via Overath, splitting up near Lohmar, with one part to take Cologne/Bonn Airport and subsequently the river crossings. And a second part going directly towards the northern part of Bonn.

Before reaching the area around Siegburg both prongs go down the major road and possible parallel roads, especially on the B484 approach, to avoid being caught in the valley (which has the major infrastructure, though).

Does this make sense?

That is perfect.  Now I would do the Blue defensive plan and see how they collide.  I can see a really good range of scenarios already.  That water crossing NW of Bonn looks epic.

[Combatintman]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

That is perfect.  Now I would do the Blue defensive plan and see how they collide.  I can see a really good range of scenarios already.  That water crossing NW of Bonn looks epic.

A mere two division's worth of bridging ... 

[Butschi]

Alright, I did some homework.

With CMAutoEditor now mature enough that I am confident I can do the map making part, I've planned out the first part of this operation, consisting of three phases from the red side. Since I'm still very much in the learning phase, I will start by doing a mini campaign consisting of 3 battles featuring the eastern prong, i.e. the advance of 2nd Battalion/148th MRR/50th Guards Motor Rifle Division.

Both sides will not me equipped with the latest and greates, however, both will probably have something "fancy". Story-wise, the 50th GMRD was a Cat III division and could probably not be brought up to strength in time. So, since this is a high profile operation, it is beefed up with what remnants of other formations could be found. I think an MRB could have a single T-80 equiped platoon. That would make for interesting decision. Use the more readily available T-55s or commit the T-80s which are powerful but rare.

Now, operational planning is really not my strong side, so if you think this would be done differently, feel free to correct me. Unused maps will and up as quick battle maps or something. So...

On 12/16/2022 at 3:18 PM, The_Capt said:

 I can see a really good range of scenarios already.

... by all means, do tell!

According to doctrine, a Soviet division would commit two regiments to the main effort, maybe another one to a supporting effort. A 4th regiment would be held back as "combined arms reserve". I consider this arm to be the main effort, 148th GMRR is the first echelon, 69th GTR the second echelon formation.

On the march, doctrine would usually have a MRR split into 2 MRB front and 2 MRB in the second echelon, however, depending on circumstances 3 MRB in front are possible, too. The Tank Battalion would give a company to each MRB with around a company being held in reserve.

I am struggling with how the US Army would play this. I assume that 5th Infantry Division has sent one brigade (with possible more reserves coming later) to stop or at least delay the 50th GMRD. For flavour, I currently assume this unit is the 256th Infantry Brigade (Louisiana NG). I think the better line of defense would be Cologne/Bonn Airport -> Wahner Heide -> Lohmar. I am assuming the brigade sends a Battalion Task Force ahead to delay the advance and give the rest of the brigade time to fortify the line. The 256th had E Troop, 256th Cavalry Regiment attached, which is sent in addition.

Phase 1 sees each company sending an infantry platoon ahead, reinforced with a cavalry platoon. In turn these are only supposed to be a trip wire and delay the advance to give the respective company time to setup. CM-wise, this first mission (and the others too to some extend) is not about smashing enemy units but about not getting delayed and to some extent force conservation for the following missions. The AI should be programmed to delay the player and give him a bloody nose but pull back instead of being annihilated. In the image below, the "camouflage colored" rectangle is an actual CM map, where the first mission takes place.

Phase 2 is similar in the sense that the main goal is to break through, not destroy the enemy force, with the other side trying to delay and withdraw. The other side has a full company + possible reinforcements. This time there is more place to maneuver, though. If the player managed to finish the first map in time this mission will be somewhat easier.

In phase 3 the mission is to prevent what is left of the US B and C company from withdrawing. On the "losing track", the brigade was able to send reinforcements which can hit the flanks of the MRB. Otherwise the way is clear for the 69th GTR to exploit the breakthrough.

Part 1 will take place on September 14th, I think. Historically, that day had, just like the previous days, light rain. So, I think the morning will see light to heavy rain, ground condition being wet.

Here as some images of the 3 maps:

Mission 1, Schlingenbachtal, view N->S

Mission 2: Marialinden, view SW->NE

Mission 3: Overath, Cyriax, view E->W

I think the area is tactially really interesting. It feels quite different from Fulda Gap. Although there are relatively long site lines, the terrain is more restricted and there are often sneaky approaches. So, this is not really tank country.  TOWs, for example, are - while still quite useful more to prevent the other side from reaching covered approaches. The Soviets may not be entirely happy with the situation, either, because there is usually no place to line a full company and advance.

On 12/16/2022 at 3:18 PM, The_Capt said:

That water crossing NW of Bonn looks epic

I also did a concept study of that one:

This is quite unplayable at the moment. Turns out, CM is not happy having to display 6000+ buildings...

On 12/16/2022 at 4:30 PM, Combatintman said:

A mere two division's worth of bridging ... 

350-400m. Don't worry, Comrade. By the time the Yankees wake up we will already be in Paris, drinking wine and dancing with French Ladies.

On a more serious note: This is place has the Mondorf Ferry Line, so it is probably one of the better suited areas for a river crossing. I read that the Soviets favoured river crossings at night but they were rarely trained... Would be interesting but without artillery illumination rounds this is a bit unrealistic, I guess. Anyway, I would probably want to take my chances here instead of trying to cross one of the bridges in Bonn... Then again:

Brigadier General Gavin:
What's the best way to take a bridge?

Maj. Julian Cook:
Both ends at once.

Brigadier General Gavin:
I'm sending two companies across the river by boat. I need a man with very special qualities to lead.

Maj. Julian Cook:
Go on, sir.

Brigadier General Gavin:
He's got to be tough enough to do it and he's got to be experienced enough to do it. Plus one more thing. He's got to be dumb enough to do it... Start getting ready.

U.S. captain:
What was all that about, Major?

Maj. Julian Cook:
Well someone's come up with a real nightmare. Real nightmare.

Edited February 23, 2023 by Butschi

[Butschi]

Apart from the operational planning itself, there a still a bunch of open questions. Maybe someone in the know can answer them?

• Is there any information about the TO&E of the US 256th Infantry Brigade (NG)?
• Are weather effects on air support simulated in CM?
  • I think the AH-1 was not all weather capable, especially earlier variants
    • Is it plausible to have the G variant for this operation?
  • How about air support?
• Both formations are reservists, as far as I can tell. What would be good settings in CM? Fitness "weakened"? Experience "green"?
• ... more that I can't remeber right now, as I am too tired...

[Combatintman]

Hi @Butschi - I keep looking at this thread and thinking ... must help - but have been a bit overwhelmed by RL stuff.  This is a shorter answer than I'd have liked but something's better than nothing.

First up, your MRR does have four battalions but once you task organize them by giving a tank company from the regiment's tank battalion to each of the three motor rifle battalions you end up with three manoeuvre elements.  Advancing three-up with all three of your battalions would; therefore, be extremely unusual. 

There's no mention of reconnaissance elements in the scheme of manoeuvre - if the finished campaign thing is going to do the whole regiment's advance, rather than just the southern axis you have scope for a series of recce battles employing elements of the divisional reconnaissance battalion and the regimental reconnaissance company.  In fact, even if you only stick with the southern axis you can still have some reconnaissance battles using those elements.

I absolutely wouldn't stretch your narrative to include T-80s in the ORBAT of a Cat III division.  This type of division would be rounded out by reservists who had probably finished their conscription period years and years before - it would be hard enough for them just to recall their skills and drills on the equipment they had used during their service, let alone learn to operate a newer piece of equipment.  Not only that, even Cat I divisions were not fully equipped with T-80 by 1980.  We don't seem to know what 50 GMRD was equipped with in 1980 but we know it had T-62, BMP-1, BTR-60 and BTR-70 in 1985.  I would suggest that in 1980, 69 GTR would have had T-62 and BMP-1, while the three MRRs would have had T-55 and BTR-60.  You can see how far down the food chain it was by looking at its artillery allocation in 1985, the 152mm D-1 which is a towed gun dating back to WW2. 

Regarding the US - I can't give a huge amount of detail but you'll see that the US 5th Division of which 256 Brigade was a part only had 3 tank battalions and 3 mechanized infantry battalions in 1978 - it was therefore massively understrength and I doubt that situation would have rectified itself much before 1980.  Link below, Table 35, page 38 refers:

Maneuver and Firepower: The Evolution of Divisions and Separate Brigades (army.mil)

I hope this helps.

[IICptMillerII]

Love this concept! Plus, your operational graphics look great too! I cannot wait for the full/final version of your map editor tool to come out. This is something that should have been done officially a decade ago. But then so are 100 other things at this point. Great to see this glaring capability gap being closed by someone in the community. You deserve a lot of praise and credit for it.

I'll try to help with the questions you posted most recently first:

On 2/22/2023 at 7:17 PM, Butschi said:

Is there any information about the TO&E of the US 256th Infantry Brigade (NG)?

I don't have any sources on hand that give a detailed breakdown of the 256th Brigades TO&E, but it might be possible to find something online with a real deep search. Finding detailed sources like that for the 70s-early 80s can be challenging. 

On 2/22/2023 at 7:17 PM, Butschi said:

Are weather effects on air support simulated in CM?

• I think the AH-1 was not all weather capable, especially earlier variants
  • Is it plausible to have the G variant for this operation?
• How about air support?

 

I'm not 100% sure on this but I don't think so. I do know that time of day restrictions are simulated (you cannot call in aircraft that are not night capable at night in CW). You could probably find out with a bit of testing, though I'm not sure if things like determining how easy it is for the aircraft to spot things would end up being. I can say that historically, at least during the early 80s, most CAS aircraft were not rated as being all weather capable, meaning they would generally not make their presence known unless weather conditions were good enough. 

On 2/22/2023 at 7:17 PM, Butschi said:

Both formations are reservists, as far as I can tell. What would be good settings in CM? Fitness "weakened"? Experience "green"?

So, if you are going by the game definition of reservist formations, that is simply a way for the TO&E to have the same structure but using older equipment, like the T-55. Its a technical difference, not one that reflects the quality of the actual formation. 

However, if you want to have your campaign follow category B units (units with lower readiness rates, made up by reservists, with less training and worse equipment) that is a different situation. In that case, its going to be a call you as the scenario designer makes. If you want the reservists to be in a bad way, then green and weakened troops is the way to go. Especially so if you are trying to simulate a unit that has been cobbled together and is generally ill prepared. However, it would not be unrealistic at all to give them decent soft stats either. More of a personal choice on your part depending on what you are going for. 

5 hours ago, Combatintman said:

I absolutely wouldn't stretch your narrative to include T-80s in the ORBAT of a Cat III division.  This type of division would be rounded out by reservists who had probably finished their conscription period years and years before - it would be hard enough for them just to recall their skills and drills on the equipment they had used during their service, let alone learn to operate a newer piece of equipment.  Not only that, even Cat I divisions were not fully equipped with T-80 by 1980.  We don't seem to know what 50 GMRD was equipped with in 1980 but we know it had T-62, BMP-1, BTR-60 and BTR-70 in 1985.  I would suggest that in 1980, 69 GTR would have had T-62 and BMP-1, while the three MRRs would have had T-55 and BTR-60.  You can see how far down the food chain it was by looking at its artillery allocation in 1985, the 152mm D-1 which is a towed gun dating back to WW2. 

I concur with everything here. I'll also add that generally speaking you would never see mixed equipment types like the one you proposed (a T-80 platoon being part of an otherwise T-55 equipped battalion). Soviet procurement was wonky to say the least, and is a rabbit hole of a discussion, but the short easy generalized answer is that each battalion was uniform in its equipment, meaning that if a battalion had T-62s, all the platoons/companies had T-62s. Same goes for BMP/BTR variants. 

Note: there are some examples of T-64 equipped tank battalions being a mix of T-64A and T-64B, broken down at the company level (meaning each company was uniform, but the battalion would have been made up of a mix of T-64A and T-64B companies) but that starts to dive down the rabbit hole I mentioned. I would recommend sticking with uniform battalions. 

 

[IICptMillerII]

Apologies for the double post here. Wanted to break things up for readability sake. 

On 2/22/2023 at 7:08 PM, Butschi said:

According to doctrine, a Soviet division would commit two regiments to the main effort, maybe another one to a supporting effort. A 4th regiment would be held back as "combined arms reserve". I consider this arm to be the main effort, 148th GMRR is the first echelon, 69th GTR the second echelon formation.

Generally speaking that is correct. This can vary as well depending on the mission. For example, you could conceivably see 3 regiments committed to the main effort if given high enough priority. There was some flexibility built in. 

Also, the echeloning you have is generally correct as well. As a rule of thumb, the Soviets planned to use tank units (regiments/divisions) as exploitation units, and for the motor rifle units (again regiments/divisions) to be the penetration divisions. So the motor rifles should (again generally speaking) be going in first. 

On 2/22/2023 at 7:08 PM, Butschi said:

On the march, doctrine would usually have a MRR split into 2 MRB front and 2 MRB in the second echelon, however, depending on circumstances 3 MRB in front are possible, too. The Tank Battalion would give a company to each MRB with around a company being held in reserve.

Combatintman is right, the Soviets would generally task organize the battalions to be combined arms formations, so the tank battalion would get distributed out to the motor rifle battalions, with each battalion getting a tank company. It is possible for that task organization to change though. If the regimental commander determines he needs the concentrated power of the tank battalion, there is nothing stopping him from concentrating the tank battalion. But generally speaking you have 3 maneuver elements as the Soviets in a regiment, the three combined arms battalions. (Same goes for tank regiments, tank battalions with a motor rifle company distributed to each)

Combatintman is also right (smart lad, him) in mentioning recon. At the regimental level and above, the recon battalion organic to each Soviet division would be playing a role, generally feeling the way forward in front of the regiments. Their tasks were mostly things such as making sure the maps are correct (is that road/bridge/terrain feature/farmhouse/etc actually there? Is there a terrain feature not accounted for?) You can probably get away with abstracting their job for the purposes of your campaign, especially at first for a mini campaign.

On 2/22/2023 at 7:08 PM, Butschi said:

I am struggling with how the US Army would play this. I assume that 5th Infantry Division has sent one brigade (with possible more reserves coming later) to stop or at least delay the 50th GMRD. For flavour, I currently assume this unit is the 256th Infantry Brigade (Louisiana NG). I think the better line of defense would be Cologne/Bonn Airport -> Wahner Heide -> Lohmar. I am assuming the brigade sends a Battalion Task Force ahead to delay the advance and give the rest of the brigade time to fortify the line. The 256th had E Troop, 256th Cavalry Regiment attached, which is sent in addition.

Hmm, this one is a bit more tricky and will inevitably come down to your narrative to set the stage. A lot will rest on how ready the US unit is. Have they already taken up defensive positions, or are they still arriving to the area of operations? If they have already arrived, then they will generally arrange the defense to cover the likely enemy axis of advance(s). If they are not prepositioned yet, then the engagement will start (at least initially) as a series of meeting engagements (a mix of spoiling attacks and delaying actions meant to make contact with the advancing Soviets to find and then slow and attrit them).

On 2/22/2023 at 7:08 PM, Butschi said:

Phase 1 sees each company sending an infantry platoon ahead, reinforced with a cavalry platoon. In turn these are only supposed to be a trip wire and delay the advance to give the respective company time to setup. CM-wise, this first mission (and the others too to some extend) is not about smashing enemy units but about not getting delayed and to some extent force conservation for the following missions. The AI should be programmed to delay the player and give him a bloody nose but pull back instead of being annihilated. In the image below, the "camouflage colored" rectangle is an actual CM map, where the first mission takes place.

Phase 2 is similar in the sense that the main goal is to break through, not destroy the enemy force, with the other side trying to delay and withdraw. The other side has a full company + possible reinforcements. This time there is more place to maneuver, though. If the player managed to finish the first map in time this mission will be somewhat easier.

In phase 3 the mission is to prevent what is left of the US B and C company from withdrawing. On the "losing track", the brigade was able to send reinforcements which can hit the flanks of the MRB. Otherwise the way is clear for the 69th GTR to exploit the breakthrough.

First off, love the graphics! I'm a sucker for these kinds of things. And I really appreciate the use of unit boundaries here. Throw in some phase lines and you've got a proper battle plan!

For the Soviets, the main thing I see is that the units proposed are too small and divided. The smallest Soviet maneuver unit was the battalion, meaning that units smaller than a battalion were not meant to perform independent combat actions by themselves, but as part of the battalion. Battalions advancing to contact (expecting a meeting engagement) would have a combat recon patrol (a CRP) and a forward security element (FSE) in front of the leading battalion, but once these elements hit contact they were not expected to fight on their own, but to set conditions for the coming parent battalion to break through whatever resistance was encountered. The important thing here is concentration. You do not want your companies to be so far apart that they cannot support one another, and by that I mean support via direct fire engagement. 

Its not unheard of for a Soviet company (or company sized task organized force) to take independent action, but their roles were more meant for things such as screening the regimental flank if other assets weren't available, or a special task such as a company sized air assault to seize a bridge or something like that. 

As for which route is best, general practice is to come up with a main route and an alternate route. You'll probably find from looking at the terrain that there are only a handful of viable routes to advance down anyways, especially when you factor in unit boundaries and terrain boundaries. Pick our routes, and from there it comes down to finding the best way through, using recon assets attached to the division/regiment and the maneuver battalions themselves. 

For the US, there would be a screen set up by recon (cavalry) units out front to act as a tripwire. The goal of the cav units would just be to determine the size, strength, and direction of the Soviet main effort. The real fighting would be up to the maneuver battalions (usually task organized into company teams, which were intended to work together). 

On 2/22/2023 at 7:08 PM, Butschi said:

Here as some images of the 3 maps:

Mission 1, Schlingenbachtal, view N->S

Mission 2: Marialinden, view SW->NE

Mission 3: Overath, Cyriax, view E->W

I think the area is tactially really interesting. It feels quite different from Fulda Gap. Although there are relatively long site lines, the terrain is more restricted and there are often sneaky approaches. So, this is not really tank country.  TOWs, for example, are - while still quite useful more to prevent the other side from reaching covered approaches. The Soviets may not be entirely happy with the situation, either, because there is usually no place to line a full company and advance.

These look great! More than enough to start putting forces down on the map and getting a better feel for how the fight will develop, and if anything on the map needs to be tweaked by hand. This is really good stuff!

Hope all of that helps a bit. I'll certainly be following along and would love to help out more however I can!

[Butschi]

@Combatintman@IICptMillerII Wow, thanks! There is a lot of good stuff here - that will take me some time to sift through.

On 2/27/2023 at 4:57 PM, Combatintman said:

First up, your MRR does have four battalions but once you task organize them by giving a tank company from the regiment's tank battalion to each of the three motor rifle battalions you end up with three manoeuvre elements.

On 2/27/2023 at 11:29 PM, IICptMillerII said:

Combatintman is right, the Soviets would generally task organize the battalions to be combined arms formations, so the tank battalion would get distributed out to the motor rifle battalions, with each battalion getting a tank company.

I was aware of the tank companies being distributed to the three MRBs that but... being able to read and count can be helpful I've been told. There are two things here: FM 100-2-1 says "Either regiment normally attacks with two reinforced battalions in its first echelon, and one reinforced battalion in a second echelon. A regiment could also attack with three battalions in a single echelon with a reserve of one or two companies." So, I read this as 3 MRBs in line instead of 2+1 are ok, if circumstances call for it. But I somehow thought that a tank battalion has 4 companies... so 1 company reserve = the remaining tank company. Which is still a far stretch to call Battalion(-), I'll admit (on the map those minus signs are very hard to read).

3 MRBs in a line seemed more reasonable for me, given the terrain: There is the valley with the Bundestraße and parallel but more minor roads to the left and the right. I have a hard time wrapping my head around leaving one flank uncovered, so 3 seemed like the way to go... But generally I have the feeling I am a little to obsessed with roads here.

On 2/27/2023 at 4:57 PM, Combatintman said:

I absolutely wouldn't stretch your narrative to include T-80s in the ORBAT of a Cat III division.  This type of division would be rounded out by reservists who had probably finished their conscription period years and years before - it would be hard enough for them just to recall their skills and drills on the equipment they had used during their service, let alone learn to operate a newer piece of equipment.

On 2/27/2023 at 10:49 PM, IICptMillerII said:

I'll also add that generally speaking you would never see mixed equipment types like the one you proposed (a T-80 platoon being part of an otherwise T-55 equipped battalion).

So here I guess my alter ego as Roll Playing Game Master came in the way. Have a convincing backstory and the rest will fall into place. My idea here was this (as I had sketched in the intro): WW3 has already raged for a few days and is basically eating up formations left and right. The main battlefield in the region is the Ruhrgebiet with the Sauerland/Bergisches Land being considered too adverse terrain to advance with a mechanized formation (I actually don't know about this). Anyway, instead of throwing one or two reserve divisions into the meat grinder, the Soviets use an opportunity they are presented by, e.g. GDR spies. I read a few fascinating stories about Wallmeister, generally one guy with another two guys attached being responsible for placing explosives and other traps at key infrastructure like Autobahn bridges. So turning one or a few of them could possibly give you the chance to go quite a few miles unmolested. Now, if such an opportunity existed, my thinking was that you wouldn't just throw an understrength reserve division at it. You would of course use that division, because it is what is available, but you would beef it up with everything you can grab that isn't directly at the frontline - similar to a German ad hoc Kampfgruppe in WW2. So, if a platoon of T-80s, probably a remnant of a smashed up Cat I formation, is available, why not integrate it? Point taken, though, this is not really important for the story.

On 2/27/2023 at 4:57 PM, Combatintman said:

Regarding the US - I can't give a huge amount of detail but you'll see that the US 5th Division of which 256 Brigade was a part only had 3 tank battalions and 3 mechanized infantry battalions in 1978 - it was therefore massively understrength and I doubt that situation would have rectified itself much before 1980.

True, what I could find so far indicates that 5th Infantry Division was made up of 2 Brigades (in case someone is interested):

• 1st Brigade:
  • 1-40 Armor
  • 3-77 Armor
  • 1-61 Mech Infantry
• 2nd Brigade:
  • 3-70 Armor
  • 3-10 Mech Infantry
  • 3-11 Mech Infantry

Plus 4th Squadron, 12th Cavalry. Apparently, ARNG Roundout Units aren't included in the Maneuver & Fire count, so 256th Infantry Brigade (consisting of 1 Armor and 2 Mech Infantry Battalions) comes on top here. Though given that so far I didn't find much about their equipment, especially which MBT, I am considering to use a different brigade. I just feel bad to let T-55s go up against M60s. At least some of the Battalions were equiped only with M60A1s, so that's it could be worse.

Question for the experts: Where Task Forces formed within Brigades or just as necessary/available?

On 2/27/2023 at 10:49 PM, IICptMillerII said:

I'm not 100% sure on this but I don't think so. I do know that time of day restrictions are simulated (you cannot call in aircraft that are not night capable at night in CW). You could probably find out with a bit of testing, though I'm not sure if things like determining how easy it is for the aircraft to spot things would end up being. I can say that historically, at least during the early 80s, most CAS aircraft were not rated as being all weather capable, meaning they would generally not make their presence known unless weather conditions were good enough. 

I ran a few tests and at least Downpour severly hampers finding the target. You will frequently get "Can't locate" as status for an AH-1, especially when the Air Observer doesn't have LOS to the target. So, while an AH-1 can be called likely won't find the target.

Alright, thanks again, I'll report back later.

Edited March 1, 2023 by Butschi

[Combatintman]

2 hours ago, Butschi said:

I was aware of the tank companies being distributed to the three MRBs that but... being able to read and count can be helpful I've been told. There are two things here: FM 100-2-1 says "Either regiment normally attacks with two reinforced battalions in its first echelon, and one reinforced battalion in a second echelon. A regiment could also attack with three battalions in a single echelon with a reserve of one or two companies." So, I read this as 3 MRBs in line instead of 2+1 are ok, if circumstances call for it. But I somehow thought that a tank battalion has 4 companies... so 1 company reserve = the remaining tank company. Which is still a far stretch to call Battalion(-), I'll admit (on the map those minus signs are very hard to read).

3 MRBs in a line seemed more reasonable for me, given the terrain: There is the valley with the Bundestraße and parallel but more minor roads to the left and the right. I have a hard time wrapping my head around leaving one flank uncovered, so 3 seemed like the way to go... But generally I have the feeling I am a little to obsessed with roads here.

That's what your flank guard is for.  Typically for a MRR in the advance that would be made up of elements (or all) of the anti-tank battery, counter mobility assets from the engineer company, a motor rifle platoon and possibly elements of the reconnaissance company.  About a company's to company plus worth of stuff.  I get the impression that your original scheme of manoeuvre has focused on the big handfuls (the MR and tank battalions) without really looking at what else is available.  If you look at the division as a whole, it will give you an idea of the divisional assets that would be in your sector, then look at the regiment as a whole which will achieve the same effect and then look at the manoeuvre piece, you will come up with all sorts of potential COAs and opportunities.

[IICptMillerII]

5 hours ago, Butschi said:

I was aware of the tank companies being distributed to the three MRBs that but... being able to read and count can be helpful I've been told. There are two things here: FM 100-2-1 says "Either regiment normally attacks with two reinforced battalions in its first echelon, and one reinforced battalion in a second echelon. A regiment could also attack with three battalions in a single echelon with a reserve of one or two companies." So, I read this as 3 MRBs in line instead of 2+1 are ok, if circumstances call for it. But I somehow thought that a tank battalion has 4 companies... so 1 company reserve = the remaining tank company. Which is still a far stretch to call Battalion(-), I'll admit (on the map those minus signs are very hard to read).

3 MRBs in a line seemed more reasonable for me, given the terrain: There is the valley with the Bundestraße and parallel but more minor roads to the left and the right. I have a hard time wrapping my head around leaving one flank uncovered, so 3 seemed like the way to go... But generally I have the feeling I am a little to obsessed with roads here.

A few quick general thoughts. 

Generally speaking the 2 echelon attack is the way to go for the Soviets. Single echelon attacks were more circumstantial. 

Terrain always dictates frontage. If you can spread out all 3 battalions to attack on line, great. But usually terrain will be too restrictive to do that (especially in the forested hills and valleys of the Fulda region of Germany) and so your frontage will have to shrink.

Roads are very important, especially for the Soviets. While combat vehicles can generally go off road, long supply convoys cannot (for extended distances). The roadways are always going to be vital. Cutting cross country can be done, but if you are traveling cross country for 10s of kilometers with no main roadway connecting your supply chain to your front line units, then its no good. This is another example of terrain dictating. Many times your maneuver plan was drawn by a civil engineer decades ago. 

5 hours ago, Butschi said:

So here I guess my alter ego as Roll Playing Game Master came in the way. Have a convincing backstory and the rest will fall into place. My idea here was this (as I had sketched in the intro): WW3 has already raged for a few days and is basically eating up formations left and right. The main battlefield in the region is the Ruhrgebiet with the Sauerland/Bergisches Land being considered too adverse terrain to advance with a mechanized formation (I actually don't know about this). Anyway, instead of throwing one or two reserve divisions into the meat grinder, the Soviets use an opportunity they are presented by, e.g. GDR spies. I read a few fascinating stories about Wallmeister, generally one guy with another two guys attached being responsible for placing explosives and other traps at key infrastructure like Autobahn bridges. So turning one or a few of them could possibly give you the chance to go quite a few miles unmolested. Now, if such an opportunity existed, my thinking was that you wouldn't just throw an understrength reserve division at it. You would of course use that division, because it is what is available, but you would beef it up with everything you can grab that isn't directly at the frontline - similar to a German ad hoc Kampfgruppe in WW2. So, if a platoon of T-80s, probably a remnant of a smashed up Cat I formation, is available, why not integrate it? Point taken, though, this is not really important for the story.

Not to beat a dead horse but another issue with this is logistics. If you stick some T-80s into a unit that is fielding T-55s, you are going to be missing spare parts, mechanics, and even fuel (T-55s used diesel while the T-80 used gasoline in its gas turbine engine). It turns into more of a headache than it is worth in my opinion. That said, the Soviets did plan on cannibalizing manpower and equipment and recycling them into follow-on units. It would have been an inefficient process to say the least. The best way to represent that in my opinion would be to maybe have a "reformed" battalion or two, using better equipment that is still comparable to the overall makeup of the division (say, some T-62s making up 2 battalions in the same regiment, and maybe the battalions are at something like 80% strength). Just an idea if you really want a mix of equipment. 

5 hours ago, Butschi said:

Where Task Forces formed within Brigades or just as necessary/available?

So, kind of. Task Forces for the US at the time were task organized. Meaning, they were on the fly formations, so they could vary a bit depending on the mission, available units, etc. CM cannot do this very well due to its rigid TOE structure (everything has to be "pre-baked") so it gets around it by giving you formations that are already task organized into the most common Task Force organizations used. That being either a infantry heavy task force or a tank heavy task force. Its a 2:1 ratio either way (2 infantry to 1 tank, or vice versa) though there are also some 2:2 organizations as well. Task Force usually refers to a battalion level formation, whereas the company level equivalent is a Team. This is where the book Team Yankee gets its name for example, as it follows a mixed company team of 2 tank platoons and a mechanized infantry platoon (with 2 ATGM vehicles attached at the company level, plus the company support stuff including a FIST vehicle).

It can get a bit confusing (I've gotten tripped up by it a few times myself) but the TOE in Cold War does a good job of giving you realistic task force organizations out of the box. My recommendation would be to roll with that. 

5 hours ago, Butschi said:

I ran a few tests and at least Downpour severly hampers finding the target. You will frequently get "Can't locate" as status for an AH-1, especially when the Air Observer doesn't have LOS to the target. So, while an AH-1 can be called likely won't find the target.

Good to know! Must decrease visibility, but I doubt it has any other meaningful effect (like weapon degradation or anything like that).

5 hours ago, Butschi said:

Alright, thanks again, I'll report back later.

Happy to help, and looking forward to more from you, be it questions or otherwise!

[Lethaface]

Recently discovered this thread @Butschi. Sure looking very interesting! 
Your script tool opening up map making for people (like me) who struggle with the effort of building a map from scratch but have some technical affinity seems like a potential great step easing the workload. 

When I have spare time outside doing my turns and following Ukraine (including reading 'the thread' :D), I'll have a look setting it up and see if I can produce something with it. 

[Butschi]

1 hour ago, Lethaface said:

Recently discovered this thread @Butschi. Sure looking very interesting! 
Your script tool opening up map making for people (like me) who struggle with the effort of building a map from scratch but have some technical affinity seems like a potential great step easing the workload. 

When I have spare time outside doing my turns and following Ukraine (including reading 'the thread' :D), I'll have a look setting it up and see if I can produce something with it. 

No need to hurry, currently only the elevation feature is publicly available (or supported, I should say, since you can always check out the corresponding branch on GitHub). I am trying to spin both plates at once at the moment, i.e. tool and campaign. I am using the maps I'm making for this campaign to find bugs and tweak the algorithm while gathering feedback and doing research in between. I can't code nonstop, anyway. I'll make an announcement over in the general forum once it's ready to be released (soon(tm) but that depends mainly on how long it takes me to make a tutorial video. No way I'll be releasing the new features without one, again, if only for the sake of my mental health).

Edited March 1, 2023 by Butschi

[Lethaface]

4 hours ago, Butschi said:

No need to hurry, currently only the elevation feature is publicly available (or supported, I should say, since you can always check out the corresponding branch on GitHub). I am trying to spin both plates at once at the moment, i.e. tool and campaign. I am using the maps I'm making for this campaign to find bugs and tweak the algorithm while gathering feedback and doing research in between. I can't code nonstop, anyway. I'll make an announcement over in the general forum once it's ready to be released (soon(tm) but that depends mainly on how long it takes me to make a tutorial video. No way I'll be releasing the new features without one, again, if only for the sake of my mental health).

Don't want to rush you either!  Just wanted to say wow that's nice.

RL (should) always takes precedence, as does mental health. I'll follow the thread and maybe have a look at github if I'm impatient. A tutorial video is always nice but some of us probably can make do with some basic documentation. Although some would probably not and create a flood of questions :).