Request: British Army Officer for briefing help

[gibsonm]

So how do you replicate Cheiftan with Challenger?

Apart from some note to players to "never choose "FAST""?

Re MILAN agreed the Brits did have this but its not in the UK forces in the Module - they only have Javelin. Unless you are going to borrow some Germans from the NATO module?

As for replicating the M901, that is tricky but the closest is probably the LAV AT variant in the USMC module. Arguably that's not as important in a Bradley equipped outfit (where every IFV has a TOW capability)

But if it was meant to be basically a M113 force with M901s attached then you have issues replicating the M113 itself.

[hcrof]

Well the Chieftain can be represented by the Leopard C2; using the Challenger 2 would be a pretty one sided fight. You joke about not using FAST, but that might not be such a bad idea!

Milans can be represented by AT-4Cs, Its a hack but the results are ok (same range, similar penetration). The German Milan 3T is way too overpowered!

An M113 can be replaced with a FV432 and I suppose the LAV AT could be a M901, it would be very visually jarring though and for me it would break the immersion.

[snake_eye]

Actually, you can replicate the kind of rear guard action, that I told you about, designed for the Fulda gap with the Marines, UK and Nato addons. You can't replicate the sixties and early seventies weapons selected for that defence. The only thing to have in mind is that the Soviet forces armored thrust and closely following mechanized forces, rushing through the Fulda Gap were instructed to keep on going toward Frankfurt and farther at all cost. There they would have been able to deploy and threaten the US air bases and US deployment area.

You have to keep in mind what Gibsonm said, that is to engage at medium to long range with specific AT weapons. Then beat the hell out of there and re deploy in another prepared overwatching position. Don't get into a close range fight, the forces will be annihilated and the numerous Soviet will pass by at full speed at lesser cost, since they will be engaged during a brief short time due to the close range.

The artilley was extensively used as well as the Air forces on the approaches avenues. The Soviet did the same. The allied used quite a lot of AT weapons since it was a defence battle. As far as I think of it at the time, that was the weapons that was selected to slow down the Soviet armor, in predefined areas, to allow the Air forces to pound them. It had been decided to have just a small force of tank forward. it was though at the time that they would have been shot to piece by the Hind helicopters. So the main force was in the back. The tanks were used, more like a mobile reserve, in order to stop the units that might have gotten through and or bear their force at the decision point, when it will be known.. In last resort the David Crockett nuclear weapons would close the gap.

Since you are at the most using something like a 2.5 KM² map? you can't have, many units moving around within the ranges defined for the AT and fight a rear guard action on the designed map, with its 2.5 to 3.0 kilometers limitation. We would need more space to be able to deploy the forces with some degree of credibility.

The only way to get into it, is to my sense to reduce the forces to 1 or 2 companies , or have at the most a battalion. Considering that the troops will not be engaged at the same time and to be able to deploy them effectively.

Maybe I am wrong.

BTW you could look at ART of WAR II if it's around and to the Fulda scenario. It is a huge battle over East Germany, West germany.....

Cheers

[gibsonm]

Well the Chieftain can be represented by the Leopard C2; using the Challenger 2 would be a pretty one sided fight. You joke about not using FAST, but that might not be such a bad idea!.

Except the Leo 1's armour is far less than Chieftan and its even nimble than Challenger 2.

Leo 1 was the result of the German decision to focus on firepower and mobility with reduced protection.

Cheiftan was the result of the British decision to focus on firepower and protection with reduced mobility.

Milans can be represented by AT-4Cs, Its a hack but the results are ok (same range, similar penetration). The German Milan 3T is way too overpowered!

An M113 can be replaced with a FV432 and I suppose the LAV AT could be a M901, it would be very visually jarring though and for me it would break the immersion.

Without trying to through the baby out with the bath water (and depending how much work you have put inot Blue already) why not use the Germans?

They have early Leo 2 (or you could use the Canadian C2 if you want a Leo 1)

They have Marders and MILAN so its pretty much "as it was".

No Gepards but nothing's perfect.

Of course that would then mean you'd need a Bundeswehr Officer to help.

The other overall issue is the lack on DPICM and FASCAM for NATO to use to help break up these massed Soviet mech formations.

[hcrof]

gibsonm: I considered using the Bundeswehr but after a bit of research into their TO&E I gave up. I have absolutely no idea as to what sort of forces they could use. Any help on that front would be appreciated

The Marders in the game have a pintle mounted Milan on them which I am not sure they had in the '80s. Even if they did, it is a Milan 3T which is overpowered. I could then upgrade the Soviet tanks to cope (T-72M1V 2001 and call it a T-80) but that brings up a whole load of new problems. I would be happy to try it out but like I said, I don't have a TO&E for the Bundeswehr in the mid '80s.

At the end of the day, there is no way to exactly replicate a cold war battle but I can try and hack a solution as close as possible

As for the Leopard C2 - it has been heavily uparmoured since the old Leopard 1 days so the protection is similar(ish) you also have to remember that the Syrians use terrible ammunition so it kind of balances out.

DPICM and FASCAM on a CM size battle would be... interesting. Also, correct me if I am wrong but did the British even have that kind of stuff in '83?

snake eye: Thanks for the tip on operational art of war 2, I might check it out.

I chose the map because it looked interesting and a way to get a large amounts of units in one battle. I am kind of locked into it now seeing as it took me a very long time to make! The terrain is typical for the region - there are not many 2.5km long avenues of fire around Neuenstein so it would be difficult to fight the sort of rearguard action you describe. Like I said though, all the Blue force has to do is delay the Soviets for 2 hours. In this time a response can be organised - perhaps an airstrike.

[gibsonm]

gibsonm: I considered using the Bundeswehr but after a bit of research into their TO&E I gave up. I have absolutely no idea as to what sort of forces they could use. Any help on that front would be appreciated

It was hard enough trying to get hard data for the NATO module and I'm pretty sure the force structures there bear little resemblance to the 1980's.

But you could just go with 1 x Coy of C2 and 3 x Coy of Marders to achieve roughly the same effect.

DPICM and FASCAM on a CM size battle would be... interesting. Also, correct me if I am wrong but did the British even have that kind of stuff in '83?

Well didn't really matter as they would have access to US guns as well.

If the location is that pivotal then you'd get Div and Corps Arty assets no question. So you could count on MLRS strikes too.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure how you'd replicate A-10 strikes.

[snake_eye]

snake eye: Thanks for the tip on operational art of war 2, I might check it out.

I chose the map because it looked interesting and a way to get a large amounts of units in one battle. I am kind of locked into it now seeing as it took me a very long time to make! The terrain is typical for the region - there are not many 2.5km long avenues of fire around Neuenstein so it would be difficult to fight the sort of rearguard action you describe. Like I said though, all the Blue force has to do is delay the Soviets for 2 hours. In this time a response can be organised - perhaps an airstrike.

I am facing the same kind of problem with a scenario map and I am re designing my strategy to have it fit within the map size limitation. Since your dices are thrown, you have to use your map topography to the best, in preparing a tactical deployment of your forces.

The rearguard action being difficult to apply more than one tactical move at the most, I am thinking of something else.

Deploy AT weapons at medium to long range and have them shooting in diagonal and or flanks, in order that their front is protected. That is, being seen from the enemy advance. Have them able to bring mutual support to each others. Define a fire line and have right behind their firing site, concealed trucks and or tracks with ammo replenishment.

Position in the forward area dismounted infantry squads, with AT4's or similar, hiding low and being able to engage only from the flanks and or the rear the Soviet vanguard; If they engage it from the front, they will be disposed by the enemy and anyway pinned down. The number of squads depends of the ground they are in. They should have mutual support fire capacities between the squads. however, they should not be too close from each other ( Around a 100 - 150 meters intervals) You don't want them to make a too good target, by being spotted. What you want is to divide the enemy fire among them and not concentrate it on them.

After having fired their AT4's, they should remained in place and if feasible head fast for the back during an artillery barrage; More easily said than done.

The tanks should then be able to move forward, from their rear deployment area, only when the Soviet armored thrust is slowing down and or when its mechanized following troops are rejoining it. The tank, the "critical enemy point'" by then being known, would engage, from the longest distance they can on the map the BMP's and their mounted troops as well as the tanks as required. If at the same time, you have been able to set an artilllery barrage to halt and or slow down the enemy move, your tanks will have a better time moving to their firing position. If they can get to flanking position like the AT weapons, that will be better.

I think that doing so, you will be able to delay the Reds 2 hours, specially if you keep some reserve to be rushed at the hottest spots

Don't fight a front defence battle, but flanks defence battles.

Cheers

I am just thinking that the Germans used, in such eventuality to have in the forward line, only small parties. They had in the back, in position that would be normally shelled, like the forward area, small parties and alternate positions. As soon as the artillery barrage was lifted the troops and or tanks, that had move a little backward were moving to these positions as best suited.

The small forward parties, as a matter of fact were less affected by the artillery barrage than if they had been at normal strenght for the defence. Many times, they were able to slow down the enemy, to break contact and rejoin the bulk of the forces at the back. A variant for them was to stay down and wait for the counter attack made by the troops from their rear

[SelfLoadingRifle]

From memory...

Met (weather) First and last light times if appropriate. Overall situation/general outline. This is the tasking of the higher formation, for example, battalion tasks, if you are commanding a company. Next comes the nitty gritty; your specific task(s) set out in the following order.

Ground, (key features)

Situation Enemy Forces

Situation Friendly Forces (including attachments and detachments)

MISSION (what you are going to do - stated twice)

Execution (how you are going to do it)

Service Support, (cooks, bottlewashers, REME etc)

Command and Sigs. (radio frequencies etc)

Service support and Command and Sigs, are probably not essential in the format of a computer simulation.

Hope this helps.

SLR:)

[gibsonm]

Yes we use a slight variation:

Situation

- Met

- Enemy

- Friendly (who, attachments and detachments, etc.)

Mission

- Again said twice

Execution

- General Outline

- Groupings Missions and Tasks

- Co-ord instructions (timings, contol measures, etc.)

Admin and Logistics

- Fuel, Ammunition, Medical, etc.

Command and Signals

- Call signs

- Nicknames

- Seniority

- Radio Frequencies, etc.

The problem is that (or pretty much any nation's orders format) doesn't "match" the format for CM:SF and in any case people who want to play it as a "game" don't necessarily want the rigid orders structure more suited to the "simulation" side of things.

[JonS]

Ground, (key features)

Situation Enemy Forces (who they are, what they have, and what they are likely to be trying to achieve)

Situation Friendly Forces (including attachments and detachments) (also intentions of two levels up in outline, and one level up in detail)

MISSION (what you are going to do - stated twice) (Stated in mandatory language in the form of "WHO will do WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, in order to WHY" eg "2 PL will SECURE HILL 59 NO LATER THAN 1600 HOURS in order to COVER LEFT FLANK OF COMPANY ADVANCE")

Execution (how you are going to do it)

Service Support, (cooks, bottlewashers, REME etc) (also how much ammo and rats are to be carried, any specialist stores to be taken, for example mines, ladders, shovels, comms wire, sandbags, extra M72s, etc)

Command and Sigs. (radio frequencies etc) (also chain of command, and location of HQs)

Service Support and Command and Sigs, are probably not essential in the format of a computer simulation. But you might note if units are low on supply, or high on supply, or if there's resup/acquire available, etc.

Additional comments in Red. The tricky bit, now, is trying to mallet that into the pre-formatted straight-jacket CMSF forces on any scenario briefing.

[gibsonm]

Map of the battlefield.

I'm guessing the autobahn isn't modelled?

[hcrof]

Thanks guys, that is all very useful information. I shall write a brief for the blue force as soon as I am 100% settled on the mission and then I would be very grateful if I could send it to someone who can tear it apart and re-write it

Its all about immersion. I want the player to feel like they are actually commanding forces in Germany rather than trying to exploit a game system. Just my play style - people can make of it what they will

gibsonm - I took the autobahn out because I felt that it was too strategically important (the battle basically ignores it) but now I am considering whether I should put it back in again. It is not difficult to make the change though should people think it is a good idea. It makes the map visually more interesting and the trees on the verge offer some concealment on an otherwise bare ridgeline. Whether that is a good thing or not probably requires more playtesting!

What do people think? Should I try to include the autobahn or not?

[gibsonm]

Happy to review the draft, if you like.

I think the defender would like the autobahn "in" as no doubt crossing it probably creates a 3rd "ridge" (defile) and parts of it are possibly an obstacle if its cut into the side of a feature, etc.

It would at least give the Soviet player something else to think about.

However you'd then need to work out a plan for forcing the Soviet to cross it and keep going cross country.

If I were they, I'd push you back so you could no longer interdict it and then switch the axis of advance to use the autobahn as its no doubt the "high speed approach" through / past your defensive position.

Anything in Muhlbach becomes pretty much irrelevant as it looks to be in dead ground to the autobahn.

I as the Soviet would accept any indirect fire called in (or even fired from) there as a minor inconvenience (to be dealt with by following echelons) as I pressed on along the road.

[hcrof]

Yeah, that is pretty much what I thought at the time (I was trying to remember the reason I didn't include it in the first place but you summed it up pretty well!)

I am going to do a little initial playtesting tonight and I will keep the autobahn in mind. If it does get included I will need to think of that excuse to keep the Soviets going cross country!

Thanks for the offer. It may be a little while before it is ready though - playing a big 2h long battle hotseat against myself is time consuming and only when I have worked out last minute tweaks can I write the Blue briefing.

[gibsonm]

Well you could just say it was cut by a well developed and sited obstacle where it goes through the forest on the Left / West.

A bit of mucking around with tile elevations can make a great anti tank ditch () and then you can have the extra colour and decision item of the road without it derailing the whole scenario.

You could even have some sort of minor secondary role for some Soviet recce units to try and map the extent of the obstacle, etc.

[SelfLoadingRifle]

I would be very grateful if I could send it to someone who can tear it apart and re-write it

Always delighted to help.

1) It should be noted that writing orders is never an exact science, and no two people will agree on what should be set down.

2) The acronym KISS is useful. It stands for Keep It Simple Stupid.

3) Pitch your order to the correct level. As the writer of the orders, for example in the role of a Lieutenant Colonel - you are not going to be at all worried about how a player, perhaps ranked Major achieves his objectives, ONLY THAT THEY ARE ACHIEVED WITHIN THE OVERALL PLAN. The devil is in the detail, and that is pretty much entirely up to the player. However, timings, unit boundaries objectives and limits of exploitation should be clearly set down.

4) Intelligence can in real-life get things wrong, sometimes badly wrong, particularly with regard to 'situation enemy forces' If you, the scenario designer, have a nasty vindictive streak, you can use this to spring some unpleasant surprises on the hapless player;)

Again, good luck!

SLR:)