Has anyone made a Cold War mod?

[flamingknives]

I think I'd better clarify my point. We'll take the LAW80 as an example. Any quick search will tell you that it will penetrate 600mm+ of RHAe.

But...

How much does the '+' signify?

What effect does Soviet composite armour have on it?

What difference does ERA make?

Behind armour effects?

How often does it go wrong?

[aka_tom_w]

OK

But What about ALL the hype about the NATO Chopper delivered anti tank missiles that were "supposed to" level the numerical playing field for armour?

The Warsaw pack nummerical tank advatage was supposed to have been stopped cold by anti tank missiles from NATO attack choppers, PRESUMING air superiority...

no?

-tom w

Originally posted by kipanderson:

Hi,

When it comes to the question of the possible of dominance of air power, had there been a Hot War in the ‘70s or ‘80s… the answer will surprise many.

When the Cold War ended in the early 90s the “west” suddenly had its hands on a couple of squadrons of Mig 29s. In the former East Germany. All the major western players sent teams over to asses them. The results were a major shock and “the” talking point through the early and mid 90s in military journals such as Jane’s and Monche’s Military Technology. I will not leave you in suspense, as most will have guessed what is coming next. In a series of mock combats and dogfights F15s and F16s were shot out of the skies. It was a massacre. The Mig 29s had a bigger flight envelope, their engines a higher power to weight ratio, “and” their missiles were way ahead.

You can imagine the shock this caused. It was assumed that in the most hi-tech of all military equipment the west would have the edge. There were endless articles on the subject in all the Jane’s journals for two or three years. In around ’96 I found myself having lunch, at one of the EDS sites in the UK , with a recently retired senior RAF officer. Of course, I asked him if the Soviet aircraft were really as good as the hype in the arms trade journals. It turned out that this guy had headed up the RAF team sent to Germany. Yes… they did perform as advertised, way head of their western counter parts. I then asked him about reliability. His answer was that they were designed for a short life, major overhauls were way more frequent than in western aircraft. Major engine rebuild every 600 hours as opposed to 6000 hours…. that sort of thing. However, within their designed, wartime, life cycles, as opposed to western peacetime life cycles , they were reliable enough.

There is more. About 4 months ago, over central India, SU30s and F15s took part in a series of simulated dogfights… you guessed it again… 9:1 in favour of the SU30s. I even read a defence from the US commander that the fight was not “fair” as the SU30s still have more advanced air-air missiles than the US. Note, by now, more than a decade later, most of the parts under the skin of both F15s and SU30s differ from their F15 and SU27 predecessors.

Coming back to the Cold War, the Soviets did also have the most extensive air defence systems and network. Add it all together and the most likely result is very heavy, and very early, losses of aircraft on both sides. With air assets spending the great majority of their time just trying to survive against the enemy’s air defence assets.

The dominance of air that you saw in the small wars of the ‘90s is due to the one sided nature of the wars. Largely 1970s air defences against aircraft with 1990s EW aids and such. Very like the land warfare in these small wars, “1970s” T70s against 1990s western tanks. From the point of view of the US and Britain this was all very good news. But it is not an indication of how a Cold War in the 70s or 80s would have gone.

The Soviets called the models they sold to countries other than Warsaw Pact members, “monkey models”. i.e. they tended to sell them without the more cunning bit attached.

BTW. flamingknives and I agree about most things, share the same enthusiasm for the Cold War.. but I disagree that not enough is known about 1980s equipment but we will leave that argument for another day…

One thing that is very much on my wish list is a weapons data editor. BFC have done a great job with CMX1, but currently one has to launch long campaigns to get weapons data changed in patches. This is a shame.

All the best,

Kip.

[gibsonm]

Yes but that assumes you have air superiority.

It one thing to take your Cobra‘s (or Apache’s) in against a mass of ZSU 23/4 and SA whatever to get at the tanks or MICVs.

Its a hell of a lot harder to do that AND avoid a mass of MIG’s.

That’s why you didn’t see a lot of Hinds operating during Desert Storm in ‘91, they would have been blown out of the sky before they got anywhere near an Abrams.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

Yes but that assumes you have air superiority.

It one thing to take your Cobra‘s (or Apache’s) in against a mass of ZSU 23/4 and SA whatever to get at the tanks or MICVs.

Its a hell of a lot harder to do that AND avoid a mass of MIG’s.

That’s why you didn’t see a lot of Hinds operating during Desert Storm in ‘91, they would have been blown out of the sky before they got anywhere near an Abrams.

Yes indeed it assumes you have air superiority

No doubt about it.

and that was my whole point

As soon as you start to talk about the Cold War going Hot, doesn't it really JUST boil down to an air superiority duel???

Nothing happens on the ground until one side has air superiority and then the war on the ground is pretty much over? (lose air superiority and ALL your armour is just target practice for the other side's fighters and helicopters, as per the highway of death exiting Kuwait City in Gulf War I )

So how will BFC model the local air superiority battle which IMO is REALLY what the Cold War gone Hot is all about ?

But I could be wrong?

:confused:

-tom w

[gibsonm]

I think the issue would have been twofold:

Firstly the Nato and Soviet Airforces weren't large enough to achieve superiority over the entire front but would need to choose sectors (I'm not a pilot by trade but an old SPI game I had "The Next War" - huge, took Easter to setup) let you resolve air and naval battles as well as ground. In that you only had enough resources to focus on one sector at a time (North German plain Vs Bavaria say) achieve superiority there and then escort your airborne divisions in to act as a forward detachment). It was only once the ground forces started to overrun airfields (some aircraft only able to operate from some fields) that you could look at achieving broader superiority.

Secondly, its unlikely that you would have seen two separate phases (like 1991). While the airforces were trying to achieve air superiority the ground forces would have been engaged. There is no way the Berlin Bde for example could sit tight waiting for the air phase to end (there was no where to hide).

While the fighters were thrashing around at X thousand feet, I'm sure 3rd Guards Shock Army would have been "pedal to the metal" aimed at the Fulda Gap.

So there's at least two time periods where ground forces could fight with limited interference / support from air units.

If the Soviet aircraft had indeed prevailed (as per previous posts) I suspect little mushrooms (and perhaps not so little) would have started to appear and I suspect CMX2 would have issues dealing with those.

[ January 26, 2005, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: gibsonm ]

[Darryl]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

If the Soviet aircraft had indeed prevailed (as per previous posts) I suspect little mushrooms (and perhaps not so little) would have started to appear and I suspect CMX2 would have issues dealing with those.

Correct, Remember the enhanced radiation weapon (The so-called Neutron bomb)?

Remember the soviet backed outcry over American plans to develop and deploy it to western Europe?

We knew even then in the late 1970's that if the soviets came pouring through the Fulda gap, we were NOT going to be able to stop them with conventional weapons alone. The E.H.R. would've been our ace in the hole. That's why the soviets worked so hard to turn world opinion against it's deployment. It was a perfect example BTW of what Lenin called the "useful fools" of the west ie: the peace movement. Well the milquetoast Carter administration caved in, hence the west was once again at a major dis-advantage.

The soviets, and their useful fools tried again when Reagan (along with another great leader, Mrs. Thatcher)deployed medium range tactical nukes to western Europe. But all their wailing, and moaning did them little good as the Reagan-Thatcher team was made of sterner stuff. The missles stayed. The soviets realized that they could now not mass their forces without risking losing them. And the only alternative would be smaller thrusts which would give our ATGMs, and M1 battle tanks (I hope my NATO brothers will forgive my Amero-centric viewpoint)a chance to defeat them in detail. This was (IMHO) the begining of the end for the evil empire.

Have a wonderful time

Darryl

[flamingknives]

heh, tactical nukes, now there's an oxymoron if ever I heard it.

A nuclear warhead is, almost by definition, a strategic weapon, regardless of the delivery system.

It's also worth noting, with an eye on the vaunted neutron bomb, that Soviet armour was specifically designed to move through radiation, both direct and fallout. The much maligned BMP1, with it's fuel tanks in the rear doors, for example. While bad news in conventional warfare, the fuel within is a very good beta-radiation blocker. Dropping a radiation based weapon on them would have been mostly counter-productive.

[Amedeo]

The ER weapons were designed to delivery an istantaneously incapacitating radiation dose to a T-72 crew. The Soviets anyway quickly devepoled a boron lining for their tanks and the fast neutron radiation capacity of the N bomb was wastly offset, and... yes, the outcome of WW3 in Central Europe would have been mainly a matter of air warfare. Take a look at this interesting thread:

http://www.acig.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1195&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Regards,

Amedeo

[Darryl]

>

Originally posted by flamingknives:

> heh, tactical nukes, now there's an >oxymoron if ever I heard it.

>A nuclear warhead is, almost by definition, a >strategic weapon, regardless of the delivery >system.

So you see no difference between a 1 KT nuke used to stop a division sized breakthrough (tactical). And a multi MT sized nuke used against a major population center to disrupt an enemy's economy and civilian infrastructure (strategic)? Interesting....May I suggest you look up the words "tactical" and "strategic" in a dictionary?

>It's also worth noting, with an eye on the >vaunted neutron bomb, that Soviet armour was >specifically designed to move through >radiation, both direct and fallout. The much >maligned BMP1, with it's fuel tanks in the rear >doors, for example. While bad news in >conventional warfare, the fuel within is a very >good beta-radiation blocker. Dropping a >radiation based weapon on them would have been >mostly counter-productive.

I believe you have confused your radiation types and effects...

E.R.W.s give off GAMMA radiation not beta. And gamma radiation will penetrate an AFV quite nicely fuel notwithstanding I suppose they could've built AFV's with a very thick shielding of dense material such as lead. But good lord how heavy do you want your AFV's to be? While it is true that an immediately incapacitating dose of radiation might not be recieved most research reveals that the majority of personnel inside an AFV will be dead within 24 hours or so. Depending on proximity to ground zero of course. This knowledge alone would certainly not have produced the highest morale among any soviets who would've been exposed.

I believe you could've made a more interesting and relevant objection by making the supposition that the soviets, expecting us to use an E.R.W. against their forward elements would utilize their category B and/or C formations as a spearhead. Then once the west had shot it's bolt, so to speak. Sent in their category A formations without fear of losing them to mass destruction type weaponry.

Also do not forget that the soviets fully expected to use non-persistant chemical weapons against us. One shudders at the thought of the havoc that would've caused among NATO units back in the late 70's/early 80's.

Anyway it's good to hear opposite viewpoints. And of course thankfully we will never know EXACTLY what would've happened. But it's stimulating to speculate. Have a great day Flamingknives.

Sincerely,

Darryl

[Darryl]

Originally posted by Amedeo:

The ER weapons were designed to delivery an istantaneously incapacitating radiation dose to a T-72 crew. The Soviets anyway quickly devepoled a boron lining for their tanks and the fast neutron radiation capacity of the N bomb was wastly offset, and... yes, the outcome of WW3 in Central Europe would have been mainly a matter of air warfare. Take a look at this interesting thread:

http://www.acig.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1195&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Regards,

Amedeo

I'm not familiar enough with the shielding qualities of boron vs the gamma radiation from an E.R.W. But I do know that you can only shield so much without incurring a prohibitive weight penalty, as I alluded to in an earlier post.

As for WWIII being essentially decided by airpower..I really don't think this is so. Witness the emergence during the time period in question of effective MANPADS. These alone could've caused prohibitive losses against soviet forward air forces (ie low level strike aircraft). Along with Chapparal, vulcan, and hawk air defense units I doubt the soviet air assets would've had things their own way for long.

BTW anybody remember the aborted "Sgt. York"?

One wonders why the soviets could field effective multi barrel anti air units (ie ZSU-23) while the west could not. Too many bells and whistles perhaps?

Great discussion though! And I still want A CM WWW III game! LOL

Sincerely,

Darryl

[Amedeo]

Originally posted by Darryl:

The main incapacitating radiation effect from ER warheads derives from neutrons and not gamma rays. For further info see the Nuclear Weapons FAQ under the heading "neutron bombs" here:

http://www.milnet.com/nukeweap/Nfaq1.html

For what concernes the capacity of NATO air defenses to allow for high (and decisive) attrition losses on the attacking WP air assets, please have a look at the thread linked in my previous post.

Kind regards,

Amedeo

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by Darryl:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Amedeo:

The ER weapons were designed to delivery an istantaneously incapacitating radiation dose to a T-72 crew. The Soviets anyway quickly devepoled a boron lining for their tanks and the fast neutron radiation capacity of the N bomb was wastly offset, and... yes, the outcome of WW3 in Central Europe would have been mainly a matter of air warfare. Take a look at this interesting thread:

http://www.acig.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1195&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Regards,

Amedeo

I'm not familiar enough with the shielding qualities of boron vs the gamma radiation from an E.R.W. But I do know that you can only shield so much without incurring a prohibitive weight penalty, as I alluded to in an earlier post.

As for WWIII being essentially decided by airpower..I really don't think this is so. Witness the emergence during the time period in question of effective MANPADS. These alone could've caused prohibitive losses against soviet forward air forces (ie low level strike aircraft). Along with Chapparal, vulcan, and hawk air defense units I doubt the soviet air assets would've had things their own way for long.

BTW anybody remember the aborted "Sgt. York"?

One wonders why the soviets could field effective multi barrel anti air units (ie ZSU-23) while the west could not. Too many bells and whistles perhaps?

Great discussion though! And I still want A CM WWW III game! LOL

Sincerely,

Darryl </font>