*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 03:44:19 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Donate

We Appreciate Your Support

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 1686665
  • Total Topics: 118120
  • Online Today: 817
  • Online Ever: 2235
  • (October 29, 2023, 12:32:45 AM)
Users Online

Recent

Author Topic: When Should I Set my Cold War Gone Hot Project?  (Read 18519 times)

Offline Col.Stone

  • Mastermind
  • Posts: 1864
    • The compound
Re: When Should I Set my Cold War Gone Hot Project?
« Reply #60 on: December 27, 2009, 10:31:50 PM »
I'm starting to wonder if we are talking about the same things  lol

When i say state of the art m1a2 it's that most people seem to compare the latest development in western design to a 40 year old soviet tank, wasn't a go at anything you said specifically :)

Quote

An odd statement from a wargamer. Anyhow, I disagree. I think it is possible to create a reasonable model for tank on tank combat...

Oh i agree, i meant that tanks aren't the only part of a force.
the soviets didn't build tanks that are supposed to go toe to toe with western designs, they're supposed to outnumber them 6-1 and have plenty of support  lol

Offline tbeard1999

  • Schoolboy
  • Posts: 9
Re: When Should I Set my Cold War Gone Hot Project?
« Reply #61 on: December 28, 2009, 02:13:21 AM »
When i say state of the art m1a2 it's that most people seem to compare the latest development in western design to a 40 year old soviet tank, wasn't a go at anything you said specifically :)

Warning, long post follows (sorry).

FWIW, I agree that it's hard to draw any useful conclusions about tank design prowess from a comparison of the M1A2 with the T-64/72/80. Effectively, the economic collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s (and the political collapse in 1991) deprived the Russians of a truly modern MBT. Had the Soviet Union survived into the 1990s with its economy in reasonable shape, I think we'd have seen a replacement for the T-80.

However, the same economic and strategic factors that applied in the 1960s would have applied in the 1990s. Thus, I believe that the replacement Soviet MBT would have been smaller and less capable than Western MBTs like the M1A2 and Leopard II. My guess is that it would have massed maybe 50 tons, been armed with an autoloaded 135mm main gun, with fire control and stabilization equivalent to 1970s Western technology (i.e., comparable to early model M1 Abrams or Leopard II). Armor protection would have probably been composite armor, again comparable to 1970s Western tech. Reactive armor is a useful expedient, but it has a host of problems (logistics, dangerous to use in training, etc.). I think that the Soviets would have been glad to ditch it in favor of composite armor. I doubt that the Soviets could have afforded to put thermal sights on its new MBT, but eventually, this would probably be done.

The resulting tank would be a significant improvement over the T-80, but inferior on a tank-per-tank basis to the latest Western MBTs.

Quote
Oh i agree, i meant that tanks aren't the only part of a force.
the soviets didn't build tanks that are supposed to go toe to toe with western designs, they're supposed to outnumber them 6-1 and have plenty of support  lol

Yep. That's why "A Fistful of TOWs" has always had a points system.

FYI -- here are some sample point values in FFT3:

Original T-64 -- 193
T-64BV (1984-85) -- 240
T-64bv1 (1997+) -- 263

Original T-72 -- 197
T-72A (1980) -- 217
T-72B (1986) -- 252

Original T-80 -- 200
T-80B (1985) -- 239
T-80U (1997+) -- 289

M60A1 (1963-71) -- 194
M60A1 (1979-82) -- 219
M60A3 (1979-82) -- 249
   
M1 Abrams (1981) -- 326
M1A1 (1986-89) -- 373
M1A1HA (1989) -- 390
M1A2 (2001-2005) -- 434
M1A2 SEP (2001+) -- 465

Leopard 1 (1965-70) -- 195
Leopard 1A1A1 (1974-79) -- 214
Leopard 1A1A2 (1980-93) -- 235
Leopard 1A5 (1994+) -- 279

Leopard 2A6 (2001) -- 445

Challenger 2 (2008+) -- 433

Chieftain Mk 2,3,3S,3/2,3/3 (1967-83) -- 243
Chieftain Mk 5/3,6/3,7/3,8/3 (1980-85) -- 283

Assuming our ratings are accurate (we believe that they are extremely accurate FWIW) and that the points system accurately models the comparative lethality of the tanks, a few useful conclusions can be drawn:

1. The T64/72/80 series was comparable in lethality to contemporaries like the Leopard 1 and M60A1. BUT notice that the Chieftain was noticeably better (~25%) than its contemporaries. Heavy armor and big damn gun...

2. The Russians have improved the lethality of their tanks by 25-40% over the last few decades. Unfortunately for them, NATO has done even better on average.

3. The T64/72/80 series is definitely inferior to modern Western MBTs like the M1 and Leopard II. They were only about 60-65% as good as the M1 when it was introduced. The same is true of the latest models of M1 and T-80.

So, assuming equal troop quality and no tactical advantages for either side, it takes about 1.5 T-64/72/80 to equal one M1 Abrams class MBT. However, troop quality has a critical effect on combat effectiveness. Our research (based in large part on Trevor Dupuy's Qualified Judgment Model) indicates the following quality levels:

US (1970s): 0.68
US (1980s): 0.80
UK (1960s-1980s): 1.00
West German: 0.80
Soviets (1971-1984) : 0.50
Soviets (1971-1985-90) : 0.45

So in a 1980s scenario against the Americans, the Soviets will be worth about 63% the value of American units (0.50 / 0.80). 63% x 60% [typical value of Soviet tanks vs modern US tanks] = 37%. This means that the Soviets will need almost 3 times as many tanks as the Americans.

In addition, computer models for FFT3 indicate that an attacking force against a prepared defense will require ~1.6 times the defender's point total for a scenario to be balanced. 1.6 x 3 = 4.8. In an attack on a prepared defense, the Soviets would need about 4.8 times as many tanks as the Americans.

So yes, the Soviets require serious numerical superiority, especially in the attack.

Quote
Oh i agree, i meant that tanks aren't the only part of a force. the soviets didn't build tanks that are supposed to go toe to toe with western designs, they're supposed to outnumber them 6-1 and have plenty of support  lol

As you can see, our numbers pretty much agree with you. And yes, there's a lot more to winning a battle than tank quality. (Let's recall that the Allies and Soviets defeated the Germans in WWII despite the fact that Germany had the best tanks in the second half of the war).
« Last Edit: December 28, 2009, 02:16:36 AM by tbeard1999 »

Offline Col.Stone

  • Mastermind
  • Posts: 1864
    • The compound
Re: When Should I Set my Cold War Gone Hot Project?
« Reply #62 on: December 28, 2009, 10:35:11 AM »
Nice , i even went and had a look at FFT now, seems you've done your numbercrunching, i guess it would work just aswell with  1/600? :)

I think the jury's still out regarding the T80 and how well it would perform (not 1 on 1, but in the bigger picture)
but that can be a bit of sentimentality on my part,, i think the BV models are the most beautiful tanks ever

Besides  south ossetia, i don't think they have ever been used against armour, and even there i find it's very hard to try to find any info on what the russians dragged over the border or how they performed.
(i've heard everything from T55's to black eagle on the news hehe)






Offline tbeard1999

  • Schoolboy
  • Posts: 9
Re: When Should I Set my Cold War Gone Hot Project?
« Reply #63 on: December 28, 2009, 12:46:29 PM »
Nice , i even went and had a look at FFT now, seems you've done your numbercrunching, i guess it would work just aswell with  1/600? :)

Although the game was originally designed for 6mm, it is really scale-independent. A number of our players use 1/600. I play with 15mm and 1/285. Paul (my co-designer for FFT3) plays with N-Scale. One guy plays with 1/72.

The game's figure scale is 1 stand = 4-6 vehicles. (The game also has rules to convert to a 1:1 scale). 1/600 would be ideal because you could (cheaply) show the entire platoon on a stand.

I hope it's okay to post this -- we have a pretty active FFT email group at http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Fistful-of-TOWs/ 

Quote
I think the jury's still out regarding the T80 and how well it would perform (not 1 on 1, but in the bigger picture)
but that can be a bit of sentimentality on my part,, i think the BV models are the most beautiful tanks ever

I think that tank beauty is definitely in the eye of the beholder. My current vote for coolest looking AFV is the Stryker Mobile Gun System. For MBTs, it would be the Merkava-1.

The Soviets are my favorite army in FFT. Ironically, I occasionally get accused of being biased against the Soviets :) But if anything, I give the Soviets a break. FFT does not model some of the "soft" problems found in Soviet tanks (habitability, poor ammo compartmentalization, severe gun barrel wear). I did this for two reasons -- (1) the Soviets should be fun to play, and at a certain point, crap becomes no-fun; and (2) I think that a tactical wargame can ignore such factors since they are likely to have minimal impact on a two hour engagement.

I originally designed FFT (in part) to illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of Soviet doctrine. In FFT, the Soviets can be hard to beat, as long as they fight according to their doctrine. But if they try to fight like NATO armies, they will lose, badly. The reverse is true of NATO -- they will get hammered if they fail to use their advantages. But in my experience, the Soviets are a bit more challenging to play well. (FFT does not force players to use any particular doctrine. But Soviet doctrine happens to be the most effective way to play the Soviets, while NATO forces work better when using US, UK or West German doctrine).

For grins, here's my post on The 8 Stages of Playing the Russians:

As I watched the Russians, I realized that there are several discrete mental states that Russian Players exhibit. In order of occurence, they are:

1. Euphoria -- "Wow, look at all this stuff I get. We're unbeatable."

2. Concern -- "Hmmn. I still have lots of stands, but I'm sure piling up casualties."

3. Despair -- "We're in trouble. We're taking horrendous casualties and those <bleeping> NATO units keep shooting and scooting. I wish *I* had M1's."

4. Bitterness -- "The Russians just suck. God couldn't win with them. FFT sucks. A-10's suck. Life sucks. Ty designed this game just to cheese me off."

5. Acceptance -- "Well, maybe I can close with him and kill a few. I've nothing to lose. I can at least get this over with."

6. Hope -- "Hey, I just routed a whole company of M1's. And I killed a couple of Leopard-2s as well. Well, at least it will be closer than I thought."

7. Elation -- "Whaddaya know! At close ranges, T-72s are pretty good. And I still have a lot of them."

8. Euphoria -- "We did it! We're unbeatable! They never had a chance. HUZZAH!"

A problem for all Russian players -- even optimists like me is that it's *so* tempting to throw in the towel at stage 4. But I pray you -- always wait to stage 6 before conceding.


Quote
Besides  south ossetia, i don't think they have ever been used against armour, and even there i find it's very hard to try to find any info on what the russians dragged over the border or how they performed. (i've heard everything from T55's to black eagle on the news hehe)

The miserable performance of the T-80s in Grozny was due (IMHO) to really poor tactics. It has long been axiomatic that tanks are poorly suited for city fights. Soviet MBTs are especially ill-suited to city fighting because they skimp on flank and top armor protection in order to maximize frontal armor. In urban combat, tanks will take a lot of hits on the flanks and top.

I note that the US Army is succesfully using M1A2s in urban combat. However, I submit that this is not the beginnings of a tactical revolution. Rather, it's successful because of certain isolated advantages: (a) well trained, lavishly equipped professional American troops; (b) poorly trained insurgents using obsolete RPGs; (c) excellent information warfare assets on the Americans' part; (d) well-considered combined arms doctrine; and (e) the Abrams is one of the best-protected MBT in the world against HEAT weapons--and that protection is strong on the flanks and top. The Russians in Grozny had none of these advantages and therefore they failed. The tank can't be blamed for bad tactics.

IMHO, the Russians have nothing to apologize for. They fielded creditable MBTs, despite laboring under very serious non-combat limitations that did not hinder Western tank designers. And while the current generation of Western MBTs outclass the T64/72/80 tanks, they equally outclass Western tanks of the same generation (the M60, Leopard 1 and AMX-30).


Offline Cory

  • Mad Scientist
  • Posts: 990
Re: When Should I Set my Cold War Gone Hot Project?
« Reply #64 on: December 28, 2009, 06:47:26 PM »
Ty, I appreciate your postings here as they are well thought out and informative.

I haven't played FFT since the rec.games.miniatures.historical days many years ago (my moderns group moved away) but fondly remember the games my group did play.
.

Offline The Worker

  • Bookworm
  • Posts: 80
  • In the streets of London, sinister deeds are afoot
Re: When Should I Set my Cold War Gone Hot Project?
« Reply #65 on: December 29, 2009, 09:29:26 AM »
Fistful of TOW sounds like it might be an interesting alternative rules set to Crossfire (moderns)...

I take it it's still in production?

Offline tbeard1999

  • Schoolboy
  • Posts: 9
Re: When Should I Set my Cold War Gone Hot Project?
« Reply #66 on: December 30, 2009, 07:48:22 PM »
Ty, I appreciate your postings here as they are well thought out and informative.

I haven't played FFT since the rec.games.miniatures.historical days many years ago (my moderns group moved away) but fondly remember the games my group did play.

Thanks! Rgmh was a lot of fun back in the Dark Ages (the late 1990s).

Offline tbeard1999

  • Schoolboy
  • Posts: 9
Re: When Should I Set my Cold War Gone Hot Project?
« Reply #67 on: December 30, 2009, 07:49:25 PM »
Fistful of TOW sounds like it might be an interesting alternative rules set to Crossfire (moderns)...

I take it it's still in production?

FFT2 is still in print. However, we are humping it to get FFT3 out in the first quarter of 2010 (but be aware that this deadline has slipped about 14,000 times).

Offline The Worker

  • Bookworm
  • Posts: 80
  • In the streets of London, sinister deeds are afoot
Re: When Should I Set my Cold War Gone Hot Project?
« Reply #68 on: December 31, 2009, 10:00:14 AM »
Well, I'll wait for FFT3 then - I've got other projects on the go at the moment and so I think I'll wait to start this one.

Out of interest, is anyone wargaming modern conflicts with RPG-heavy forces? The Chechens pioneered the concept of hunter-killer squads in 1995 comprised of an RPG, RPK, sniper and rifleman (carrying extra rockets and ammo) to pin down infantry and kill tanks, then modified it in the second war to two RPG gunners and an RPK or rifleman due to the higher level of protection offered by body armour.

It seems the Taliban are also trying to make greater use of RPGs to defeat NATO body armour. After all, where a 7.62 round fails an anti-tank round from an RPG won't.

Offline Col.Stone

  • Mastermind
  • Posts: 1864
    • The compound
Re: When Should I Set my Cold War Gone Hot Project?
« Reply #69 on: December 31, 2009, 11:27:03 AM »
I am going to, once i get them painted.
Syrian commandos for 1982, plenty of RPG's
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_279.shtml
They had the slight benefit of having gazelles to call on too ;)

Offline Doomhippie

  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • Posts: 2688
Re: When Should I Set my Cold War Gone Hot Project?
« Reply #70 on: December 31, 2009, 01:47:44 PM »
In German TV there was a fictional documentation called "Der dritte Weltkrieg" (third world war) about what might have happend if the german reunification had failed. The plot was, that there was a putch of soviet hardliners. The first hour is about how tension increases and the last half hour is how a war might have happend.

It features real german newsspeakers and they use a lot of real footage in a changed context. Real Politicians and real military, so it is very convincing. Even if you don't understand german, you might perhaps get an idea from the english footage or just enjoy the fireworks.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5019344230626951787#

Do you know if it is possible to order this film somewhere?
Roky Erickson flies my spaceship!

Offline Sky Captain

  • Assistant
  • Posts: 31
Re: When Should I Set my Cold War Gone Hot Project?
« Reply #71 on: January 01, 2010, 09:22:25 PM »
I think it was never released on dvd but there is a VHS version you might get second hand somewhere.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
1299 Views
Last post May 10, 2013, 07:50:47 AM
by Elbows
3 Replies
1578 Views
Last post June 07, 2015, 09:28:57 PM
by The Gray Ghost
16 Replies
5296 Views
Last post March 27, 2016, 07:31:23 AM
by Harry
19 Replies
2464 Views
Last post April 01, 2022, 09:20:46 PM
by CapnJim
23 Replies
2143 Views
Last post August 25, 2023, 10:04:11 AM
by bluewillow