When Should I Set my Cold War Gone Hot Project?

[Will Bailie]

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...)

[Col.Stone]

I read somewhere, that about 50-60% of european "possible engagements" would be at 200 m or so due to the terrain..

[The Worker]

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!

[Doc Twilight]

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

[Oliver]

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

[Col.Stone]

Thanks Doc T.

[The Worker]

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.

[voltan]

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

[Lowtardog]

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?

[Doc Twilight]

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

[Col.Stone]

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 )

[Tacgnol]

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.

[itchy]

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.

[Col.Stone]

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

[Doc Twilight]

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