Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => The Conflicts that came in from the Cold => Topic started by: The Worker on December 23, 2009, 10:22:47 AM
-
As the title suggests, I'm thinking about taking the plunge into 20mm moderns.
One of my possible periods is a 'hot' Cold War, and I'm having difficulty picking a period where both sides are at a fairly even balance of power.
I'd rather not play a game where the appearance of an M1 causes all the T-72s to spontaneously blow up, nor one where the Red Army effortlessly steamrollers across the German Plains only to get nuked into the stone age to stop them reaching Dublin.
Alternatively, I could do 1990s Eastern Europe/Central Asia, e.g. the Nagorno-Karabakh affair, or an Imagi-Nations version of the breakup of Yugoslavia.
Thoughts and recommendations, please!
-
I don't know much about the respective strengths and weaknesses of the East and West at various times during the Cold War, but I would hazard a guess that the era of the Korean War would have been the last time they were evenly matched as conventional forces before the nuclear race got too silly to allow ground conflict.
After that it seems like you'd be restricted to spies, black ops and third-party wars like in Central America up until the 1990s, when we all became "friends" again.
The only other option for me would be modern stuff, as various bits of the USSR split away and Yugoslavia disintegrated (and as you said yourself).
Of course, if you're not too fussed about keeping it strictly historically accurate, you could do pretty much anything you liked. Maybe there was an attempt to retake Alaska and the Aleutian Islands in the sixties? Think Ice Station Zebra...
Or the Poles decided to stand up against their Communist oppressors, and America supported the revolution, sending equipment and "advisors", like a European Vietnam or how they backed Israel.
Quite frankly, my office is very quiet today and I have nothing better to do than think up dumb ass scenarios for other people's wargames, so don't mind me... ;)
-
Eliminate the Abrams overkill by going with UK or West German forces as opposition? Chieftain is a great looking vehicle and somewhat more evenly matched against all of those T-64s and T-72s ;D Plus you can field all those cool FV432 variants... ;)
-
You could always try doing a 'semi-hot' setting along the lines of the Operation:flashpoint series of PC games...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Flashpoint
That way you don't need to worry too much about one side or ther other getting to great a military presence on the battlfield and have some chance of 'fiddling' equipment dates so that certain things (e.g. Abrams) are only of limited availablility?
-
Late 1970's, or early 1980's would give you a better mix of forces IMHO.
If not, then go for 2014, rejuvenated Russian forces, after Putin's increased military spend, western forces have pulled back from Germany - could even chuck the Chinese in (have a look at Colonel Stone's new minis!), and fight it as a Sino-Russian war.
;)
-
1950. Centurions get to play at being Tigers and have fun blowing T-34s to smithereens with impunity.
(Oh, sorry. That sounds a bit like your Abrams scenario above. But then again the Russians had bigger tanks than T-34s around too.)
-
Despite being a fan of Op: Flash (ah, the 'war stories' I have from that game...), I'd not thought about a semi-hot setting.
Perhaps something along the lines of larger Russian involvement in Serbia/Kosovo in 1999?
I'm also intrigued by the near-future 2014 Sino-Russian war idea, although I suspect that that would be more likely to 'go nuclear' than not due to the vast expanses of open space.
Thinking about it, here are my three options:
1) 1970 - with the US still heavily involved in Vietnam, the Soviet Union decides to sieze the moment and, after a series of staged skirmishes on the East/West German border, "with great reluctance" invades the West to "end cross-border raids directed at our fraternal allies in the DDR". This period gives me Chieftans, Leopard 1, M-48s, M-60s, T-55s, T-62s and T-64s, decent but not overwhelming kit, and a reasonable game.
2) 1980 - the US puts troops into Afghanistan, having learnt nothing from Vietnam. The Russians respond by invading West and moving more and more troops into Afghanistan. The Chinese rattle their sabres as well. Much more modern kit, but the Abrams Problem is present, although it's not as pronounced as it is today.
3) 1990s - breakup of the CCCP - Nagorno-Karabakh War (1988-94!), Chechen War (1994-96), Imagi-Balkans (1992-95). This has the advantage of providing a wide mix of equipment, diverse forces, and, if I feel like it, Russian peacekeeping forces coming to blows with NATO/UN peacekeepers.
Thoughts?
-
Did someone say cold war? 8)
I think akula is spot on, also remember that the russians have the t80 too, which is a bit more modern and loaded with ERA pretty well protected, also armed with kobra or refleks atgm which should be able to punch holes in an abrams,, don't quote me on that tho hehe ;)
-
Hrm, there is that (also the RPG-29 which has the proven ability to penentrate Challenger 2 from the front!).
Oh, I don't know...! Help? o_o
-
You might want to look at Computer Games for inspiration.
I propose this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%26C:_Generals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%26C:_Generals)
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%26C:_Red_Alert_II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%26C:_Red_Alert_II)
-
Arrrgh! nooo! Not C&C! I abhor them! Aieeee!
Although you're right, I should - what was that game released not so long ago that had the USSR invading the USA and players could use Tac Nukes?
-
Hrm, there is that (also the RPG-29 which has the proven ability to penentrate Challenger 2 from the front!).
In 2007, British officials confirmed that an RPG-29 round penetrated the frontal ERA and hull of a Challenger 2 tank during an engagement in al-Amarah, Iraq, wounding a crew member.
I did not know that, "impressive"...
I like the idea for afghanistan, i've balled with that one too, something that grows into a pretty much conventional war using another country as the playing field,
Could have the chinese or Western europe holding nukes hostage, ie, they stay out unless it goes ballistic, but they will strike down on whoever uses nukes, as one power..
it's all fantasy so,, :)
-
There was a board game based on Tom Clancey's novel "Team Yankee" that was called..."Team Yankee"! I haven't played it in years, but it managed to be a pretty fun and balanced game by sticking to the Soviets hitting the leading recce elements which were slowly reinforced as the scenarios progressed IIRC. If you want to go with the late '80s there is no reason you couldn't do the same.
-
Speaking of Tom Clancy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Storm_Rising (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Storm_Rising)
Maybe this gives you an inspiration why the Cold War gets hot
-
If you want to keep the M1 uberpanzers from dominating the game, put out LOTS of terrain. Germany has villages every couple of kilometres or so, and also has lots of woods and rolling hills. This should allow for ultra-modern battles without the Warsaw Pact losing each and every game.
-
I get the idea that you are looking for a game that features armour vs armour. That being the case, how determined are you to have it WarPac vs NATO? There were some real wars featuring tanks on both sides to consider, like Indo-Pak wars or Israel vs all-their-neighbours-simultaneously. Most of the armour in these wars was supplied by WarPac or NATO countries, so you get to use the same kit as you would have had on the North European plain, without having the nuke question to muddy the waters. (at least not at first...)
-
I read somewhere, that about 50-60% of european "possible engagements" would be at 200 m or so due to the terrain.. :)
-
Well, seeing as it's 20mm and I'd be using Rapid Fire Modern or a Crossfire! adaptation, I was looking at fielding only 3-4 tanks a side at most, more likely 1-3 plus AIFVs and APCs.
I'm not too keen on gaming Iran-Iraq, Indo-Pak, or anything else like that mainly because I like the Eastern-Central Europe zone (and it fits with the terrain set I already have access to).
I'm beginning to settle on one of two options now, which means I'll probably end up doing both:
1) Break up of the CCCP, 1990-2000 - Nagorno-Karabakh, Chechnya, Balkans etc
2) Georgian War 2008 - NATO intervenes!
-
I read somewhere, that about 50-60% of european "possible engagements" would be at 200 m or so due to the terrain.. :)
That's about right. Close enough, anyway. It was a NATO survey conducted in the 1980s. Essentially it proved that long range weapons would be at no distinct advantage.
I've gamed the Cold War myself several times. A couple suggestions to curb the power of the M1.
1. With all due respect, the M1 is massively overrated, particularly when based upon the little armored opposition it's actually faced. It's a beautiful weapon, to be sure, but not invulnerable.
First of all, all of the T-72s that have been used against Abrams tanks have been export models, and second tier export models at that. Poorly maintained, inferior armor, inferior gun to the standard 72. NATO ballistics tests (again, in the 80s) PROVED that the T-72 could kill the Abrams from the front at close range, and given the above...
Secondarily, by the time the M1 was available in any number, the Soviets had T-80s and T-64s, both of which are exceptional vehicles, and both of which are capable of taking on the M1 on better terms than the T-72.
Third, consider the weaknesses of the M1, especially the M1 version that would have faced the Soviets.
a) It has very poor wading capability
b) It cannot be easily repaired in the field, which makes even the most minor hit a very dangerous proposition for the crew in a true "hot zone"
c) It is not well protected against ATGMs.
2. Just leave the M1 alone, and use other NATO armor. If you want to use the Americans, then consider using the M60. Still a great tank, and still the majority of opposition that the Soviets would have faced, at least through 86 or 87.
That all said, I rarely use M1s. Mainly because available rules either overrate them, or because players who control them are terribly upset when they lose them to real battlefield conditions. On the other hand, I have a friend who enjoys using them in scenarios for -just- that reason. He's a veteran tanker who knows the ins and outs of the M1, and consequently knows how to kill it, as well as how to make it the true "beast" that it has the potential to be when competently used.
Most of my NATO troops are Danes.
-Doc
-
Arrrgh! nooo! Not C&C! I abhor them! Aieeee!
Although you're right, I should - what was that game released not so long ago that had the USSR invading the USA and players could use Tac Nukes?
World in Conflict?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_in_Conflict
-
Thanks Doc T. :)
-
World in Conflict?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_in_Conflict
That's the one, ta!
Doc T - that's actually very interesting, as it confirms vague suspicions I've held for a while. I'm more drawn to a 1980s Afghan Intervention Gone Wrong scenario now.
-
2) 1980 - the US puts troops into Afghanistan, having learnt nothing from Vietnam. The Russians respond by invading West and moving more and more troops into Afghanistan. The Chinese rattle their sabres as well. Much more modern kit, but the Abrams Problem is present, although it's not as pronounced as it is today.
well at that time the abrams had only just gone into production so would unlikely to even be in theater, but it's more likely that the only tanks there would be the M551 sheridan as it can be flown in rather than having to persuade some neighboring country to let you ship m60's through their real estate
-
That's the one, ta!
Doc T - that's actually very interesting, as it confirms vague suspicions I've held for a while. I'm more drawn to a 1980s Afghan Intervention Gone Wrong scenario now.
Hmm you could certainly link it in
What forces? Brits, Yanks?
-
If it's any help, I did forget one little bit.
The current thinking among many historians is that a war may never actually have gone nuclear, especially from about the mid-70s on. A little tired after a flight and a long day, so forgive me if I'm being overtly simplistic here, but essentially, it boils down to these three points.
1. The Soviets would not go nuclear:
The Soviet military had decided fairly early on (I can't remember the date, sorry), that they would not actually go nuclear, except in response to an American or NATO strike. Two reasons for this decision
a) There was no use in ruling a slag heap. Nuclear exchange in Europe would have been foolhardy at best - the only real reason for a Soviet push would have been territorial/economic gain, which would have been completely negated by any nuclear exchange, particularly in Central Europe. No use of tactical nukes, then, but what about long range?
b) The Soviets believed that the Americans would respond to any Nuclear attack with a Nuclear attack of their own, specifically on Russia itself. This was an unacceptable result.
Keep in mind that, with the recent declassification of information, one of the things we long suspected (that the Soviets had fewer nuclear warheads), was true. Also, it's also been said that, based upon Soviet deployment patterns of these missiles, they had been intended for retailiatory use. That is to say, they would have been launched in response, at specifically selected population centers and strategic targets, thus making the best of the smaller nuclear arsenal.
2. The Americans could not go Nuclear.
The American viewpoint was, for a long time, that the only possible response to a Soviet conventional invasion short of a miracle was to nuke the bejesus out of the Soviets. This began to change in the mid 70s, when NATO began to formulate a new doctrine based upon engaging the Soviets wherever possible, and only using nuclear weapons as a matter of last resort. That's part of the reason for the deployment of the M60, and for the development of the M1A1. They were no longer hoping for a "hail mary" situation, rather, they were hoping to contain and engage the Soviet threat long enough for its steam to run out, at which point, a counter-stroke could be launched.
There's a lot here that I haven't said, about Soviet doctrine, NATO and US perceptions of Soviet plans for Europe, essentially, but the basic reality is that the Soviet plans depended very heavily upon rapid, unchecked advance. At some point, they would run out of fuel, and that small window was where NATO hoped to take the initiative away.
There was also the very basic fact that the Americans felt the same way the Soviets did about the value of Central European real-estate. Nuclear exchanges would have made that pretty much useless.
3. NATO would not have tolerated a nuclear war.
Part of the reason for the change in attitudes (#2) above was West Germany. The West Germans were never happy with the possibility of a nuclear option. This was -their- home, after all, and they knew very well that the NATO contigency plans for the use of nuclear weapons devolved, at least partly, into targeting West German soil, as well as other areas where the Soviets would have advanced.
The Germans -always- advocated a more aggressive policy against the Soviets; in fact, even after the introduction of a more aggressive doctrine, the Germans had made it quite clear that they would be fighting for their homeland, possibly destroying themselves in the process, rather than submit to a constant retreat across the continent and into France.
The same was true of other allies, particularly the Central European Allies (Denmark, Germany, Belgium, etc.) who would have paid a very high price in the case of a nuclear war. They were fully dedicated to NATO, and were willing to shed blood for the cause, but only if that cause didn't involve nuclear weaponry.
The French are the wild card in all of this, of course. They always said that they'd nuke Soviet forces before they allowed them to cross into French soil. Not sure that's would have gone down, of course.
Anyway, these are some of the current talking points I've been privy too, for what they're worth.
In my opinion, it would have been far more likely to devolve into a chemical war than a nuclear war. After all, not all chemical weapons have a lasting effect upon the environment. If things had gotten desperate for either side, chemical weapons could have been used to break a deadlock, or stop an inexorable advance, with the added bonus that the occupied land (albeit depopulated) would be relatively unscathed, even liveable after a short period of time. Yes, it's quite morbid, but, I just don't see nuclear war happening, at least in the mid 70s through 91, and fortunately, I'm not the only one. (Though there are others who obviously feel differently).
So, I usually have no problem with continental battles in Europe and such:)
-Doc
-
Again thanks Doc, Very interesting to hear someone who shares my ideas, (you seem a lot more wellinformed than me, i just have a gut feeling that's what it would have looked like :))
-
How about a Soviet invasion of Britain in the 70s?
That way you'd rule out the heaviest Soviet tanks, at least at first, and have American backup perhaps limited to air support with the big American toys not arriving until a little later.
Also as a plus if you played it in 28mm there's all those awesome Geezers miniatures you could use as militia or undercover SAS.
-
we once payed a campaign based on Red Storm Rising with different chapters played in different scales covering naval engagements in 1/3000 , tank battles in 1/300 and 20mm and skirmishs in 28mm . everyone in the club got to use thier favourite fgures and scales and we had great fun.
-
Tank tracks to Trafford: how USSR planned to invade Manchester ;)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/aug/25/ussr-planned-invasion-manchester-exhibition
more about the maps here, and it seems you can buy reprints too :)
http://www.southampton.ac.uk/cartography/sovietmaps/info.html
-
Again thanks Doc, Very interesting to hear someone who shares my ideas, (you seem a lot more wellinformed than me, i just have a gut feeling that's what it would have looked like :))
Well, part of it comes from the fact that, when I'm not studying archaeology, the other part of my career is military history, so I tend to pick up a lot of weird and (somewhat) useless information;) Also, modern Soviet Armor modeling is a side hobby of mine, so I've dug deep into whatever information I can find. It's very interesting to read what the Soviets thought about the Iraqi use of T-72s during the first Gulf War, for example.
There's another good site, which may be gone now, that was done by a Russian tanker. Essentially, the guy's mission was to show that tanks are not invulnerable. I'm not sure of the personal circumstances for his crusade, but his thesis was that, by promoting armor as being invulnerable, we are making the lives of the crews trivial by comparison. He has talked about his feelings of the new fascination with heavy tanks (which were discarded with good reason in the 1970s), etc. But his main resource, which albeit morbid is equally fascinating, and that is a listing, to his knowledge of all M1s lost in combat. His contention is that we've lost more than the Americans have admitted. He is very blunt about pointing out just how vulnerable one of these big, expensive toys can be without proper support, especially with the "gung ho" attitude of many military planners. He did point out that he'd do the same tracking for Challengers, but apparently the British are -much- more tight lipped about Challenger losses.
He also had an excellent little article about how that supposed "five mile kill" during the first Gulf War was a complete falsification.
If I can still find the site, I'll post it here, but it's been a while. At any rate, it was a very interesting perspective. I don't recall what vehicle the guy crewed, or had crewed with the Russian/Soviet military. Always wanted to write him about his thoughts on the T-64, my favorite modern vehicle. Never had the chance.
There's a really great set of rules that I can highly recommend. Now, it's an old fashioned set of rules, and designed for "large skirmish" at the smallest, but the -reading- alone is worth it. It's called "Close and Destroy"; there's a companion volume "Close and Destroy II".
The military thinking and information in these rules is -amazingly- good, and really easy to read! The rules were designed circa 1986, which makes them a gem of a source for seeing what military planners were thinking at the time. Although some of their armor data and estimates are now wrong (for example, they buy into the myth that the T-64 was a "failure" from the Soviet perspective), ninety percent of the information holds up, and they even say that some of the numbers that are fuzzy because of the common military tendency to deflate or inflate the capabilities of various weapons systems in order to get what they want out of bureaucratic funding institutions..
Volume II deals with airpower, but is equally fascinating.
Interestingly, they took talk about the myth of super long range kills, and they do bring up that terrain survey (the one that came up in discussion earlier here).
You can still get both volumes. I believe the publisher (Timeline LTD) has a website at:
http://www.timelineltd.com/webstore/index.php
I enjoy the game, and have played it with 6mm many times, but it may not be quite what you're looking for. That said, the information alone is worth the price of admission.
-Doc
-
Worker,
for some good modern scenario ideas, Harold Coyle's books are worth a look, as he pits US forces all over the world in various Cold War and post Cold War settings. By the way "Team Yankee" was by Harold Coyle and not Tom Clancy.
Clancy's Red Storm Rising has some good ideas too, like an amphibious Russian invasion of Iceland. Also check out "The Zone" series. Not brilliant literatrue, but an interesting WWIII variant set in the 1980's. And of course don't forget Sir John Hackett's pair of WWIII books, or the brilliant "First Clash" by John Keegan, which has the Canadian Brigade pitted against the Russians in Germany.
Or, what about setting it in the late 1940's, after the German surrender. Both sides matched to a certain extent, but with Centurion and Pershing tanks coming on line, as well as the usual WWII kit, against T 34's and JS III tanks? Just a thought.
-
Super Doc, i've been looking at microarmour just the last few days, finally coming to terms with the fact i'll never be able to fit a full 28mm battalion on my table ;)
If you'd find that site again i'd be very happy to see it :)
It's very interesting to read what the Soviets thought about the Iraqi use of T-72s
I have one thing i really remember reading about NATO-tanks Vs iraqi T72,s
i can't remember exactly what it said bu it was
basically lots of laughter that they were proud to have blown up
20 or 30 year old tankmodels with their "brand new" kit.
-
Super Doc, i've been looking at microarmour just the last few days, finally coming to terms with the fact i'll never be able to fit a full 28mm battalion on my table ;)
If you'd find that site again i'd be very happy to see it :)
I have one thing i really remember reading about NATO-tanks Vs iraqi T72,s
i can't remember exactly what it said bu it was
basically lots of laughter that they were proud to have blown up
20 or 30 year old tankmodels with their "brand new" kit.
Have a look at the tiny ones Eureka sell I have been tempted a few times and used to play Spearhead WW2 but had heard Modern SH isnt too hot so it passed ;D
-
picoarmour 1/600?
http://picoarmor.com/
sooo small :D
-
picoarmour 1/600?
http://picoarmor.com/
sooo small :D
Thats the ones, I was toying with division sized games and up ;D :D
-
Darby over at Fields of fire ahs been showing off the stuff for vietnam,
very very impressive, and probably the size i'd go for,
to really get the HUUGE battles :-*
-
Super Doc, i've been looking at microarmour just the last few days, finally coming to terms with the fact i'll never be able to fit a full 28mm battalion on my table ;)
If you'd find that site again i'd be very happy to see it :)
I have one thing i really remember reading about NATO-tanks Vs iraqi T72,s
i can't remember exactly what it said bu it was
basically lots of laughter that they were proud to have blown up
20 or 30 year old tankmodels with their "brand new" kit.
No problem:) I'll see if I can find it.
I know that the Soviets kept insisting that the Iraqis were totally incompetent when using them. As for a WARPAC perspective, a cousin (who was lucky enough to crew a T-55M for the Hungarian Army during the Cold War... luck being a relative term) said that a "pack of drunken monkeys" could have done a better job.
;)
-Doc
-
lol
-
Wow! Loads of interesting information here - particularly the "We don't want to go MAD" stuff; I'd always thought that the NATO doctrine to counter the Soviet juggernaut was "Aiee! The Reds are coming! Nuke Germany!!" and as a result the Soviets would spearhead with 2nd-line formations and use 1st-line stuff in the second wave to fight through the nuclear slag.
Seems I was wrong! I've got a lot of reading to do about the Cold War primarily because my main 20th Century military interests have always been the Eastern Front and SCW.
A chemical war would be much more interesting (a bit like fighting games of Rogue Trooper - much higher rate of casualties as punctured NBC suits = dead men) than a LOL J00 R N00KED BAI game, so that's a plus.
I've decided - thanks to all your info, Doc T, and others - that my 20mm Moderns stuff will be:
Late 1984 - after years of Russian atrocities in Afghanistan, and leaked (and possibly fake) intel claiming that the Soviets have an eye on punching through Afghanistan and into Iran to the oil fields, NATO have begun to supply advisors to the Afghans. The CCCP decries this as "typical capitalist hypocritical moralising and interfering in the free peoples of the world" and responds with Spetznaz ops in Western Europe. NATO then carries out 'tactical strikes' in Eastern Europe, and it all escalates from there until in early 1985 the Soviets advance West, obliterating the Berlin Garrison in one day of vicious fighting...
And, of course, I'm going to get about a platoon of figures a side to do the 1990s breakup stuff, because the idea of militias and regulars and mercenaries in weird parts of the world are all too fun to pass up!
Doc, I'd love to see those links if you can find them, and ANY more details or info you have would be most welcome!
PS:
Red Storm Rising's my favourite Clancy book, although the stupid US ultra-stealth aircraft are annoying and predictable. Bah humbug.
-
For rules, i'd suggest disposable heroes with Socwad if you want a "single figure" game, has rules for NBC conditions, and is pretty fast and funny, there's also a shedload of free soviet/us content on their yahoogroup :)
-
1985 is a good date, I've used that as my cut off date for the equipment for my Dutch Army that I am building, as well as the VDV force to attack/oppose it. The secondary Russian force is 2nd rate and fits anywhere from 1960 till 1990, depending on the supoort I give it and the vehicles it rides in. 20mm, so you can have a decent table with nice toys that don't break the bank.
Mind you, the heaviest vehicle I have done for my Dutch against the Russians is a Jeep with a TOW mount, and my Leopards 1's and possible 1-V's are a long way off from being finished (Deadline 3rd quarter 2010)
It is a nice time for a lot of forces as they were peaking in terms of equipment and readyness, after this the Cold War thaws out and is over. Not sure what NATO force I wan't to build after I finish my Dutch, was looking at a German Territorial Army after that as I have a few boxes of old M48A2G2A tanks (how is that for a tank to fight T-64's and T-80's with :o )
-
That's great, a real reversal on the tank power role there :)
i've got quite a vietnam collection aswell as my more modern stuff, i've been thinking they'd make pretty good 2ndline US troops :)
-
Vietnam-period troops would work well as National Guard, I think.
-
First post here so Hi,
There are a couple of great things about the cold war from the soviet perspective. The whole army is immensly flexible, so Cat 1 units in the 50's carried similar equipment to cat 3 in the 80's. Client states fielded a lot of the 50's equipment whether in the middle east africa or centeral asia
from a core set of equipment you can fight across a very wide variety of conflicts and potential conflicts across quite a geographic and temporal range. The soviets kindly painted their stuff mostly green and supplied it to a lot of clients in that state.
So the core of my soviets was built for early to mid 80's Central front but can be rounded out easily to support intervention ops in Namibia afghanistan etc. You could consider a Histrorical "Soviet" force and a Fantasy insurgent/oposition force which gives quite a spread of conflicts that can be played. Equally the core soviet equipment can fill out client state inventories for the same period. So I currently play a fantasy arab state that was invaded by the sovs in the 80's and everyone else in the 00's doing duty for iraq and afganistan
as for the NBC options thought you'd like to see these, produced by Elhiem figures.
(http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh240/andyrix/Red%20Tide/RIMG0880.jpg)
(http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh240/andyrix/Red%20Tide/RIMG0881.jpg)
(http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh240/andyrix/Red%20Tide/RIMG0882.jpg)
-
Wow! I've never heard of Elheim and they're ace.
Hmm... Liberation Miniatures have a fantastically wide range of forces, and Elheim seem to do some good (and unique) figures too. Does anyone have any other suggestions for 20mm stuff?
Also, are there any good overview books (e.g. Ospreys) that cover NATO/WARPAC forces for the 1980s?
-
There are a number of MAA and Elite covering the period. I have a fair amount of unpainted Platoon 20 (East Germans, Russians etc) and Skytrex tanks/APC (T55, BMP1, M113 etc) that I can sell at 50% off listed price. Please PM me if you´re interested.
-
Greetings. I'm a long-time modern wargamer and generally find that the early to mid-1980s offers a nice balance. By the late 1980s, the later models of the M1 and Leopard II MBTs had clearly outclassed the Soviet T-80 series.
But the initial models of the M1 and Leopard II were *not* supertanks. They were (for the day) tough and fast, but they could be defeated by T-80s, especially at close range or from the flanks. Here are some sample armor ratings and main gun penetration ratings from my soon-to-be-released-someday wargame "A Fistful of TOWs 3". In general, a gun needs a penetration advantage of 2+ to have a good chance of killing the target. At close range (800-1200 meters, depending on gun and fire control), penetration is increased by 2.
M1 - front armor 12, pen 14
Leopard II - front armor 13, pen 14
Challenger 1 - front armor 13, pen 14
T-80 - front armor 11, pen 14 (by 1984, pen rose to 15) (The T-64 and T-72 has the same gun).
So, as you can see, the Soviets can do quite well against the Abrams and its stablemates.
That said, Sovet antitank missiles are essentially worthless against Western MBTs like the Abrams from the front (the Abrams, in particular, had excellent protection versus HEAT rounds).
-
I'm quite interested in how much if at all the smaller silhouette of the t80 is worth on a battlefield?
-
Actually, the T-64 has a better machined, more accurate, and generally more advanced gun, with superior optics, and a slightly higher rate of fire. The T-72's weapon is a mass produced weapon, with an inferior autoloader that has a tendency to raise the barrel up after each shot for a re-load, inferior optics, and a less accurate barrel with somewhat shorter range. They both have 125mm guns, but the guns themselves are different designs and model numbers.
The T-80 is a descendent of the T-64, while the T-72 and the T-90 are part of a separate family. The initial T-80s were actually T-72s with T-64 turrets, so sort of a hybrid design.
As for the smaller silhouette, I'm not sure how well it would work, Colonel. The Soviets seemed to think very much of the idea, and the Russians continue to work on designs with smaller turrets.
-Doc
-
Actually, the T-64 has a better machined, more accurate, and generally more advanced gun...both have 125mm guns, but the guns themselves are different designs and model numbers.
According to my sources, the T-64, T-72, T-80 and T-90 all use the D-81 125mm smoothbore. All fire the same ammunition. I can find no evidence that the T-64's gun is better. Depending on the specific model, the T-72's rangefinder was inferior or equivalent to the T-64. The original T-72 had a coincidence rangefinder. The T-72A and later models had laser rangefinders. The T-64 and T-64A had coincidence rangefinders, while the T-64B had laser rangefinders. I don't know that the T-64's optics were better; but since the T-64 was the "Cadillac", it's a reasonable inference.
...with superior optics, and a slightly higher rate of fire.
Yes, the T-64 was the "sophisticated" tank and the T-72 was the "cheap" tank.
While the T-72 has a different autoloader than the T-64, I can find no evidence that they are significantly different in rate of fire.
The T-80 is a descendent of the T-64, while the T-72 and the T-90 are part of a separate family. The initial T-80s were actually T-72s with T-64 turrets, so sort of a hybrid design.
According to Steven Zaloga, in "Soviet/Russian Armor and Artillery Design Practices: 1945 to the Present", the initial model of the T-80 was a new tank. All models of the T-80 have much smaller road wheels (much like the T-64) than the T-72 and they are distinctively grouped in 3 sets of 2 wheels (much more promimently than the T-64). So it's a different tank, though a lineal descendant of the T-64.
The lower profile of Soviet tanks gives them one main advantage -- it reduces the frontal surface area so that Soviet tanks can mount thicker armor on a ~40 ton hull than is found on NATO MBTs in the same weight class. Tactically, the lower profile prevents the main gun from depressing as far as Western MBTs. This means that in a hull-down position, a Soviet tank will actually have a *higher* profile than a Western MBT. The lower profile also markedly reduces habitability compared with taller Western MBTs. Finally, the lower profile requires Soviet tank crews to be 5'6" or shorter, which limited the armored forces to a smaller segment of the population. (Compare this to the M60, which could accomodate crewmen from 95% of the US male population).
The Soviets seemed to think very much of the idea, and the Russians continue to work on designs with smaller turrets.
Soviet tank design is an intriguing example of what happens when non-military considerations drive a military design.
The Soviet Union had a "command economy", which means that a tiny oligarchy controlled all economic output. They simply did this by fiat -- "make 1,000 toasters" and the orders were hopefully carried out. They didn't have a functioning monetary system in the sense that Westerners understand the term. Soviet money was merely a form of voucher issued to the workers by the government. The small scale "real" market transactions were carried out with real money -- US dollars.
So there was no Soviet military "budget" pe se. The Soviet oligarchs simply decided what was needed and ordered it built. The problem, of course, is that military spending is an economic "hole". Production output spent building a tank is sunk into that tank and cannot be recovered, leveraged or used to make more output. As part of his effort to keep Soviet military production from destroying the civilian economy, Khruschev ordered that Soviet tanks be limited to a certain mass. A tank's cost tends to correlate to its mass, so this was a crude but effective way of imposing a "price cap" on Soviet tanks in an economy that had no mechanisms for price caps.
Soviet designers, then, were faced with a rigid limit on the size of their tanks that had nothing to do with military effectiveness. To produce the most effective tanks within that limit, they focused on making the tanks and particularly the turret as small as possible, thereby maximizing armor protection. A tank's mass tended to increase with its volume, so this was a sensible solution. It also allowed them to maximize armor protection (a smaller frontal area meant more armor thickness for the same weight).
I think it is instructive that no one has followed the Soviet design philosophy. Indeed, when the Israelis designed their first MBT, their massive amount of combat experience led them to design a very Western MBT (despite having extensive experience fighting against and operating Soviet tanks).
-
Different soviet guns
2A26 T-64A APFSDS, HEAT, HEF, special rounds 1966
2A26M2, T-72 1969
2A46-1 T-64A,T-72A 1970
2A46-2 T-64B T80B +ATGM 1976
2A46M T-72AV,T-72B 1981
2A46M-1 T-64BV T-72B,T-80BV T-80U +high-energy APFSDS 1981
2A46M-2 T-72S,T-90 1992
2A46M-4 T-80UM 2005
2A46M-5 T-90A 2005
i was waiting for my coffe to get done :)
http://www.russianarmor.info/
another edit..
this was interesting.. :)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/rusav.htm
In my most humble opinion, the biggest drawback of the t80series seems to be they send it into cities with poorly trained crews and don't fit it with the ERA..
-
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# (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5019344230626951787#)
-
That looks very interesting Sky cap, i'm going to try and find a subtitled version :)
-
Like all of these movies and documentaries, rather unsettling. Good thing the balloon never went up.
-
I have found an english version on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO-BLggwqRU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO-BLggwqRU)
-
Nice one, thanks alot :)
-
Different soviet guns
The "2A46" is the same as the "D-81". While there are detail changes that create variants, it's the same 125mm smoothbore gun. The fact that they all fire the exact same ammo strongly indicates that it's the same gun. (Much like the British 105mm L51 rifled gun that equips the M60, the Leopard 1, late models of the M48, late models of the Centurion, the original M1 and IPM1 Abrams, etc. These guns were made by various nations and had detail changes that created multiple designations, but they were all the same gun).
And my data -- drawn primarily from Zaloga -- differs with this website somewhat. For instance, the T-72A has the 2A46M, not the 2A46M-2 (whatever the heck that is).
Anyhow, I don't see any evidence that the T-64 has different, better gun than the T-72. (I note that even in your data, the 2A46M-1 is listed as being in various models of the T-64, the T-72 and the T-80.) I'd add to the chart the original T-64, which had the excellent 2A21 (or D-68T) 115mm gun (a later model of the same gun on the T-62).
In my most humble opinion, the biggest drawback of the t80series seems to be they send it into cities with poorly trained crews and don't fit it with the ERA...
Of course, poor tactical use can doom any tank. However, the T-64/72/80/90 series of tanks has a number of serious deficiencies, compared with modern Western MBTs. In no particular order, they include poor ammunition compartmentalization, poor habitability, inabality to fully depress main gun and take full advantage of hull down defilade, mediocre fire control systems (until very late in the series, manual analog ballistic computers), lack of thermal sights until very late in the series), mediocre stabilization gear that made "fire on the move" highly theoretical, gun barrels that wore out far sooner than Western equivalents, propensity for catastrophic explosions when hit, and buggy and unreliable autoloaders. The T-64's sophisticated suspension was expensive, hard to maintain and apparently disappointed in the field. The T-80 inherited a similar suspension, along with a gas-guzzling, expensive, unreliable gas turbine engine.
Certainly, Soviet tanks have not performed well at all in various post war conflicts. Of course, many of these may be "monkey models" crewed by poorly trained crews. But this should be troubling nontheless.
As I said, I think it's highly relevant that no one -- not even the combat experienced Israelis -- has developed a new tank similar to the T64/72/80/90 series. The only folks still pursuing that design philosophy are those with a significant investment in the design (and the tooling, production infrastructure, etc.).
As I noted earlier, the T-64/72/80 design philosophy was imposed by the Soviet government, not by any novel theories of tank combat. In essence, Kruschev capped the maximum weight of all new Soviet tanks. What resulted was probably the best compromise available. But it was still a serious compromise.
-
The "2A46" is the same as the "D-81". While there are detail changes that create variants, it's the same 125mm smoothbore gun. and so on
I just wanted to show the progression of the gun, 2A26 for T-64A is exchanged for the 2A46-1 :)
-
Something i find strange generally, is that whenever this discussion comes up. (and it does lol)
The Tseries as they're so fondly called are clumped together as "one tank", not one of them ever performing better than monkey models with sub-standard ammo (iraqi t72's Zaloga's osprey iirc) whilst the abrams is the state of the art model.
I think if anyone's going to compare tanks, do it with the time they were put to use etc in mind
a t72 in 1971 is quite a good tank, in iraq 2003 it's a 65year old getting beat up by a gang of boxers ;)
Tank on tank is all nonsense tho, since the tanks are really just pieces of a puzzle, with the rest of the armed force.
especially for something like WW3.. :)
-
Something i find strange generally, is that whenever this discussion comes up. (and it does lol)
The Tseries as they're so fondly called are clumped together as "one tank", not one of them ever performing better than monkey models with sub-standard ammo (iraqi t72's Zaloga's osprey iirc) whilst the abrams is the state of the art model.
In terms of performance, the T-64. T-72 and T-80 are roughly comparable. What one would expect from 3 tanks having very similar mass, volume, armament and design philosophy. Indeed, one of the great mysteries of postwar Soviet tank design was the design of the T-80. Other than having an unreliable gas turbine engine, it was not an improvement over the T-64 in either firepower or armored protection. Yet it increased by 50% the types of front line tanks in service, with attendant complications in logistics and maintenance.
The reason that the Abrams is classified as "state of the art" is that it IS state of the art, at least compared to the T64/72/80/90 series (which are really contemporaries of the M60A1, Leopard-1 and AMX-30).
And while its true that the Abrams (and Leopard II and Challenger-2) are held to be superior to the T-series, this is because they ARE superior. And why would anyone expect otherwise? These Western tanks weigh 50% more, cost 5-10 times more and were a generation later than the T-series.
I think if anyone's going to compare tanks, do it with the time they were put to use etc in mind
a t72 in 1971 is quite a good tank, in iraq 2003 it's a 65year old getting beat up by a gang of boxers ;)
Noting that a weapon is inferior to contemporary opponents is not a moral judgement. Rather, it's a factual statement. But if it makes you feel better, consider that a lot of considerations go into a weapon system that do not appear on the battlefield. In the case of Soviet postwar tanks, the Soviets had several serious limitations that circumscribed what kinds of tanks they'd field:
1. The aforementioned maximum limit on the mass of Soviet tanks. This forced the Soviets into either fielding tiny, well-armored tanks, or larger, poorly armored tanks. The Soviets sensibly chose the former.
2. The need to defend far larger frontiers than the US/NATO. This implied a requirement for a huge number of tanks. With an economy only the size of (say) Italy, and saddled with a grossly inefficient manufacturing system, the Soviets had to build lots of tanks and these tanks had to be cheap.
3. An insufficient technological base, which made things like digital ballistic computers and thermal sights grossly expensive (and therefore impractical for the huge number of tanks).
The result of these constraints was a series of tanks that were small, cheap, well armed, well-protected and seriously deficient in things like habitability, sensors, ammo compartmentalization, etc. While en masse they could have matched up well against the M60A1, Leopard-1 and AMX-30, they were woefully outclassed by the next generation of Western MBTs.
Tank on tank is all nonsense tho, since the tanks are really just pieces of a puzzle, with the rest of the armed force.
especially for something like WW3.. :)
An odd statement from a wargamer. Anyhow, I disagree. I think it is possible to create a reasonable model for tank on tank combat...
-
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 :)
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
-
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.
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.
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).
-
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)
-
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/
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.
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).
-
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.
-
Fistful of TOW sounds like it might be an interesting alternative rules set to Crossfire (moderns)...
I take it it's still in production?
-
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).
-
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).
-
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.
-
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 ;)
-
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# (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5019344230626951787#)
Do you know if it is possible to order this film somewhere?
-
I think it was never released on dvd but there is a VHS version you might get second hand somewhere.