Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

British units

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Modern] >> FlashPoint Germany >> British units Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
British units - 5/3/2003 7:42:42 PM   
scarletto

 

Posts: 13
Joined: 5/3/2003
From: england
Status: offline 		what units of the BAOR are going to be used in the game? are they being represented as battle groups (which where standard) or at least when i served there.
Post #: 1
- 5/7/2003 1:17:25 AM   
IronManBeta


Posts: 4132
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Burlington, Ontario
Status: offline 		I know a fair bit about the BAOR OB generally in the late 80s but have a certain number of gaps in the research too. We would open to suggestions for particular units to use. We haven't done those scenarios yet.

How much TOE info do you remember? I have maybe half of what I need at the moment. If you have an interest I could post what I am looking for and maybe you (or any of the others) could help out?

Cheers, Rob.

(in reply to scarletto)
Post #: 2
- 5/7/2003 2:32:17 AM   
sprior


Posts: 8596
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Portsmouth, UK
Status: offline 		Let us know what you need and we'll see what we can do!

_____________________________

"Grown ups are what's left when skool is finished."
"History started badly and hav been geting steadily worse."
- Nigel Molesworth.



(in reply to scarletto)
Post #: 3
brit orbat - 5/7/2003 4:31:24 AM   
scarletto

 

Posts: 13
Joined: 5/3/2003
From: england
Status: offline 		well my regiment though back in england by 89, had been split into 2, 1 armoured recce sqn with scimitars supplied a 8 vehicle troop to each of the battlegroups 5 in total, the other two sqns where kept as divisional recce, these sqns where armed with scorpions of 4 troops of 4 and 1 assault troop.. please tell me what you have and i will see what i can do, the main thing is the battlegroups which where behind the div recce

(at a threat meeting in 80, we where told we had a lifespan of 5 minutes when the balloon went up, as being recce and in nice thinly armoured tanks, even the 12.7s would rip us to bits)

(in reply to scarletto)
Post #: 4
- 5/7/2003 7:35:38 AM   
IronManBeta


Posts: 4132
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Burlington, Ontario
Status: offline 		That confirms my suspicion that the Brits had this wonderfully inventive way of dividing and redividing their units to make it seem that there were more then there really were. Also, a lot of new equipment was bought but the old stuff was not actually replaced very quickly. A bit like Japanese naval air groups in the Pacific really. I find it horribly confusing at this distance but am eager to take you up on your offer.

This requires me to organize my thoughts first, but hopefully that will not be a complete waste of time!

Let me go dive into my spreadsheets and see what I can find first to set the stage.

Cheers, Rob.

(in reply to scarletto)
Post #: 5
- 5/7/2003 8:41:47 AM   
IronManBeta


Posts: 4132
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Burlington, Ontario
Status: offline 		OK, here is a spreadsheet that contains most of what I have so far on the British forces. Virtually all of this info, by the way, was kindly provided by none other than Sabre21 who has frequented these forums since the beginning. Two of the most widely distributed OBs on the web for NATO and WP pact are, in fact, also his (I found them on my own) but he has updated and revised them extensively just for Flashpoint.

I have collected the British snippets into a file called "Brits 89.xls".

Page 1 has the BAOR, I Corps, the divisions, the brigades and if you hover your mouse cursor in the right place, all the regiments too. The little Excel memo red corner ticks are submerged in the general sea of red but you will see how it works if you are adventurous. Some of the key equipment is mentioned too - awesome!

Page 2 has the regimental TOEs for some (but not all) of the most common units down to company / squadron level. Missing are the arty units and probably many others too. This is all that I have that relates vehicles ("platforms" in the Flashpoint world) to the larger organizations, and so is of critical importance.

Page 3 is the list of platforms that I have identified that are unique to British forces. M109s and such are in the American list even though the British forces use them. I have a lot more platforms than are actually called for just for 1989, but this allows for future expansion too. Or maybe they were all used and I would know that if there were more unit TOEs than just the ones shown on page 2....

I feel that I have 95% of the info I need to create a scenario based on a British task group but lack the confidence to actually go ahead. If this is something that you or anyone else would like to tackle then by all means chip in.

My legacy scenarios are these:

· Advance to Contact: A reinforced Soviet battalion sized force takes on a British force of roughly the same size. The Soviets begin in the east, the British in the west. Victory is achieved by imposing disproportionate losses upon the enemy. Soviet mech reg HQ, two T80 tank bns, large support package versus British bde HQ, Challenger tank bn, Warrior mech inf bn.


· Soviet Assault: British mechanized infantry in battalion strength hold the area around the city in the west center of the map. A Soviet mechanized regiment has been given the task of holding the same positions. But, first it must fight for them. Soviet mech reg HQ, two BTR bns, 2 T62 tank companies, arty bn, large support package versus British Warrior mech inf bn, small support package, six minefields.


· British Screen: Soviet tanks in regimental numbers are exploiting across the map in a south-westerly direction. A British tank battalion seeks to exact a cost without suffering unacceptable losses of its own. Soviet tank reg HQ, three T80 tank bns, BMP bn, arty bn versus a British Challenger tank bn and large support package.


· British Isolated Defence: Cut off, a combat team of British motorized infantry makes a last desperate stand in the city in the west-center of the map. Victory for the defenders will be realized if any of the British units survive the attacks of the Soviet mechanized regiment trying to mop them up. Soviet mech reg HQ, two BTR bn, two T62 companies, arty bn, large support package versus British FV432 mech inf bn.


Based on these scenarios, can anyone come up with a plausible OB and a scenario TOE to get me started? The line units (mech inf, tank, arty) are company / battery sized. The specialists (AD, AT, recce) are platoon sized. What I would like to hear is that the forward brigade of X division was Y Bde composed of regiments 1, 2, 3, ... each of which in turn had the following subunits, each of which had the following platform lists. Not for the faint of heart, but not impossible either.

Of course, if you want to craft a new idea from scratch that would be good too. The game will have a scenario editor that will allow you to create anything that ships with the game - or at least it will when I am through with it. Now that I think about it, making a few more scenarios would be a good test of how it is coming along.

BTW, if you make your own scenario with this game you can include your own name and design notes seamlessly within it. Better yet, you can password protect it so that nobody else will be able to steal it and pass it off as their own later on. They can look at it all they like and marvel at your expertise, but it will be completely non-editable without the password. Matrix wanted that as feature #1 way back when this was all still gleam in the eye stuff.

Back to debugging, cheers all, Rob.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to scarletto)
Post #: 6
british battlegroups - 5/7/2003 8:46:41 PM   
scarletto

 

Posts: 13
Joined: 5/3/2003
From: england
Status: offline 		yes we did split up our units, so here goes, there are two types of battlegroup, 1 armour heavy and one infantry heavy

Armour
battlegroup hq
Two squadrons chieftans/challengers
one hq troop 2 mbts rest sultans and fv432
4 troops of three though for war reinforced to four mbts

one troop recce...8 scimitars

one company infantry warriors or 432s

one a/t troop 432variants (438s?) or striker 4 vehicles


one engineer platoon

one a/d platoon rapier

artillery one battery

for inf heavy substitute two infantry for armour

also if lucky a helicopter troop or equivalant usually gazelles though lynxs where being introduced

i can dig a lot out but im away on holiday for a week, do you have first clash?? book by kenneth macksey? about the canadians?
whilst i know its nowt to do with the brits, its a good book.

Also if your looking for an area to use for the Brits, try wolfenbuttel/braunschweig area, we where based there near the old border, lots of hills etc, where are a abd c squadrons would be to blunt the soviet adavance, before hitting the battlegroups, probably 5 minutes after war started!!!!!

simon
ex-16/5th The Queens Royal Lancers
an you got to have us in the game :)

(in reply to scarletto)
Post #: 7
- 5/7/2003 9:46:51 PM   
IronManBeta


Posts: 4132
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Burlington, Ontario
Status: offline 		Thanks for the info! I will try to set this up and see where the gaps are in the next few days.

Yes, I read First Clash and enjoyed it a lot. Lots of detail that I could use. I was going to base one of the scenarios on it come to think of it and then forgot.

Who were your opposite numbers across the border? Would you have faced Soviets or others? Tank or inf divisions? Were you expecting a cloud of recce followed up by the BTR regiments, or do you think that an armoured thrust would have come directly your way in hour 1? So many questions....

Cheers, Rob.

(in reply to scarletto)
Post #: 8
- 5/8/2003 5:05:00 AM   
scarletto

 

Posts: 13
Joined: 5/3/2003
From: england
Status: offline 		well the basis of the fighting in our area was to slow the 3rd shock army down till the mittleland canal, noone told us what to do after that! not sure if that was a good sign!

initial soviet thrusts where by tank heavy units, all category one units, latest kit, supported by mass artillery,air and helicopter, very little recce was expected in our area

remember the northern forces of nato, mainly the Brits and Germans had got the short straw defending ideal tank country

one thing which was to be done, each village and i mean each village would be defended by a platoon of infantry with a-t support, now funnily enough between each village was 1000-2000 metres, so one village would have tanks and infantry, as the russians bypassed the village, they would be caught between two fires, however i always looked on the village bypassed by the russians as the alamo

have you the book chieftans by bob forrest-webb? its a fictional account of a tank commander in a battle group fighting around braunschweig against the soviets, also has the americans, besides the cheesy vocalubary, it actually gives a good insight to the aims and tactics

seeing i was based there, i thought it was written by an ex-squaddie but turns out he was,nt. And with no disrespect nice to see a book about us Brits over there

(in reply to scarletto)
Post #: 9
- 5/9/2003 1:13:38 AM   
IronManBeta


Posts: 4132
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Burlington, Ontario
Status: offline 		Putting a handful of Scimitars up against masses of T80s doesn't sound very attractive to me! On the other hand, were you set up to call down devasting arty and air strikes from a hidden position? Terrain such as you describe tends to channel the attacker and force him to concentrate - perfect for a mass fire if you have someone on the ground nearby to spot it on a timely basis. Of course, that presupposes that a lot of other things are going right for the defender at the same time....

I can't find the book you mention on Amazon - it must be long out of print now. Would it have been published in the 80s?

So you were 4th Armoured Div, right? I'll see if I can set up a scenario....

Rob.

(in reply to scarletto)
Post #: 10
- 5/9/2003 1:39:56 AM   
IronManBeta


Posts: 4132
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Burlington, Ontario
Status: offline 		The one vehicle that seemed unbelievably plentifuly was the Ferret armoured car. Looking at the specs though, did it have any combat power at all? Should I be including it in the game or was it more like an armoured jeep than a combat vehicle. I don't model trucks explicitly and the Ferret does not seem that far removed from a glorified truck. Or am I way off base here?

Please let me know!

Cheers, Rob.

(in reply to scarletto)
Post #: 11
- 5/9/2003 1:53:54 AM   
IronManBeta


Posts: 4132
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Burlington, Ontario
Status: offline 		This is a start on a tank heavy battle group drawn from 20th Armour Brigade in 4th Armoured Division.

Blues and Royals Battlegroup HQ – 2 Challenger, 5 Spartan (Sultan?), 2 FV432.
- Blues and Royals Recce Troop - 8 Scimitar.
- A Squadron / Blues and Royals – 18 Challenger.
- B Squadron / Blues and Royals – 18 Challenger.
- C Company / 2nd, The Royal Irish Rangers – 14 Warrior IFV.
- AT Platoon – 9 (or 4?) Striker.
- AD Platoon – 4 Javelin.
- ? Platoon / 37th Royal Engineer Squadron - 5? CEV.
- ? Battery / 27th Royal Artillery Regiment – 8 M109.

Is this nomenclature correct as far as it goes? What would the engineers and arty have been called? Did they use numbers or letters? Also, what are acceptable abreviations for "Blues and Royals", "2nd Bn, The Royal Irish Rangers", etc. Is there a website somewhere?

Lots of questions today. Rob.

(in reply to scarletto)
Post #: 12
- 5/9/2003 4:35:25 AM   
scarletto

 

Posts: 13
Joined: 5/3/2003
From: england
Status: offline 		Firstly, i have the book chieftans, set in the 80s, when we were just introducing Challenger,(actually the shir tank, we where selling it to iran before the shah got overthrown, so when he went we thought hey lets keep it, another fact about the shir/challenger was the first ones had to run their engines for 20 minutes in the morning or the tracks came off!!!!)

If you want to read it i can send it you, but im away on holiday for 10 days so it will be after that.

we had lots of ferrets, infact still using them in the Gulf now!!! great to drive,lousy to survive in. i would not bother having them in the game, as a russian with a water pistol could knock it out!

Regarding scimitars, as the eyes and ears yes we were not expected to be a main fighting unit, and did rely more on calling down artillery, but we where also to be used for bridge defense, convoy protection and flank guards, where it was expected to be up against light armour and infantry, such as if we had to keep the route open to Berlin,with american and french forces, which we did a exercise each year for.

Our regiment did disable t62s in gulf war one, but as i said by disabling them by shooting out main drive units.


Blues and Royals Battlegroup HQ – 2 Challenger, 5 Spartan (Sultan?), 2 FV432.
- Blues and Royals Recce Troop - 8 Scimitar.
- A Squadron / Blues and Royals – 18 Challenger.
- B Squadron / Blues and Royals – 18 Challenger.
- C Company / 2nd, The Royal Irish Rangers – 14 Warrior IFV.
- AT Platoon – 9 (or 4?) Striker.
- AD Platoon – 4 Javelin.
- ? Platoon / 37th Royal Engineer Squadron - 5? CEV.
- ? Battery / 27th Royal Artillery Regiment – 8 M109.

Is this nomenclature correct as far as it goes? What would the engineers and arty have been called? Did they use numbers or letters? Also, what are acceptable abreviations for "Blues and Royals", "2nd Bn, The Royal Irish Rangers",

I do not know how but that is my battlegroup circa 80/81!!!!!!
except that the recce was 16/5th QRL and the infantry the Cheshires

AT Platoon would be 4 vehicles
Artilley could be Mons Battery(artillery batterys always have a name such as waterloo, assaye, or any other battle pre 1939) though i think some of the later had names such as tobruk)
Engineers was 7 Platoon (always a number)
Blues & Royals is Correct
Infantry would be R.I.R

though i suppose you wanted official names and not squaddie names :) such as blues & screws and the fightin paddys:)

Yes we were 4div but as i said i was 70s early 80s in germany, i will try to dig out some more info from my brain, and ask around, if you want the book or any other stuff robert email me on [email]warhound45@aol.com[/email] like i said though i go on holiday Sunday and am in the process of finishing my book on Arnhem44 so a bit busy too, but not as busy as you i guess:)

One thing id say, its obvious that you and the team are wanting this to be correct, which i applaud you on.
simon

(in reply to scarletto)
Post #: 13
Re: Chieftains - 5/29/2003 8:34:34 AM   
LTCMTS

 

Posts: 300
Joined: 1/6/2003
From: Newnan, GA
Status: offline 		Did the Chieftains have "Stillbrew" armor?

(in reply to scarletto)
Post #: 14
- 5/29/2003 11:40:26 PM   
scarletto

 

Posts: 13
Joined: 5/3/2003
From: england
Status: offline 		no they did,nt at that time, though chieftans could take heavy damage, a few where in the iraq-iran war and took upwards of 5 or 6 hits off iranian tanks before brewing up

(in reply to scarletto)
Post #: 15
Game Sims for the 80s - 5/30/2003 3:00:33 AM   
LTCMTS

 

Posts: 300
Joined: 1/6/2003
From: Newnan, GA
Status: offline 		The problem with any war sim of the late 1980s is that to get a war going, you'll have to significantly modify the event timeline of our history. Gorbachev was the KGB's choice, with support from the "Young Turks" in the Army and Party, when he began to consolidate power from 1985. The "hardliners" in the Party and Army were finessed by his programs, because they were intended to redirect and improve the USSR's ability to produce high technology for the national defense. This required the reduction in production of conventional and other weapons systems and a reduction in force structure to free the capital needed for re-investment. By 1987, the "hardliners" had their backs to the wall. If they had executed a successful coup (ala Kruschev), it had to be done in 1987 and it would have destroyed the peace movement in Europe and any chance at strategic weapons or MRBM reductions. In fact, the result would have been a gradual increase in readiness and force structure by NATO, including calling up reserves, as the "hardliners" tried to end the Afghanistan intervention "victoriously", probably with incursions into Pakistan and Iran, and having India put pressure on Pakistan over Kashimir (thereby involving the PRC). War would have broken out in 1989-1990, probably in Central Asia and spreading outward. The bottomline is that the OOB for both the WP and NATO would be very different to that used in a "flash" war scenario applicable to the early '80s and late '70s. The US would have 10 and 2/3 "divisional equivalents" in Germany, and with two years of production from two tank plants and three arsenals/depots (one in the FRG), the US could have added 2,000-2,500 M1A1 (HA) and converted 1,000-1,500 M1 and M1IMP to 120mm M256 guns. Similar situations would arise in other NATO nations, such as FRG (two tank plants building Leo 2A4, one building TH 301, one converting Leo 1A1A2 to 1A5/6 and one that could convert M48A2GA2 to A3 versions. The USSR and the WP would be unable to make such adjustments as they were already close to war production levels.

(in reply to scarletto)
Post #: 16
- 5/31/2003 12:38:10 AM   
IronManBeta


Posts: 4132
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Burlington, Ontario
Status: offline 		Interesting comments - thanks! Working out a convincing backdrop to a hypothetical war is a lot tougher than it looks. I had thought early on that I could wing it off the top of my head but when I started to examine the facts it proved far tougher.

The central Soviet premise was that war had to 'pay for itself' - understandable given their experience in WW2 - and the only real motivation that I could see was a dawning realization that they were in the same economic trap that the Japanese were in 1937 - 40. In a nutshell, I would describe this as rising economic expectations versus a declining ability to satisfy them leading to massive social unrest and oblivion for the ruling class.

The correlation of forces wasn't nearly as good for the Soviets in the late 80s as in the late 70s for a number of reasons, but that would not have been dispositive. Given the failure of yet another harvest (remember how those were near annual events?) combined with a hypothetical collapse in oil production due to capital spending starvation (thanks to military allocations), plus a general disgruntlement with how things were going in Afghanistan and maybe a few juicy scandals in Moscow and you would have had ample grounds for a coup by the hardliners promising to make things better the old fashioned way.

They, of course, would have had no better luck either and would have grown desperate pretty quickly. Turning internal anger against the outsiders is a trick known to many governments, and within a year or two the temptation to do a 'smash and grab' of West German economic assets would have been irresistable.

A lightning war to capture the FRG intact, followed by the dismantlement of NATO to allow restoration of humanitarian contacts and repatriation of prisoners would yield two huge benefits: the enourmous economic and manpower assets of West Germany itself, and the release of tensions sufficient to allow the build down of Soviet conventional forces and free domestic capital to service the rest of the economy. Not a perfect solution, but not a bad one either assuming all went according to plan.

The keys would have been to keep it non-nuclear (to preserve FRG as intact as possible) and short (less than a month or the Soviet domestic enconomy would crater so completely that no victory could make it up again). The diplomatic war would have been crucial - more so than the military one to my eyes - as only a deeply divided NATO could expect to be defeated so quickly. Fortunately that is outside the scope of the game!

Lots to think about. Glad it never happened...

Cheers, Rob.

(in reply to scarletto)
Post #: 17
Alternate Future - 5/31/2003 4:30:49 AM   
LTCMTS

 

Posts: 300
Joined: 1/6/2003
From: Newnan, GA
Status: offline 		In fact, you're running along the lines of Clancy's scenario w/o the oil fields burning. What I'm suggesting is that there could have been a variance in force availability depending on the West's response. If the Soviets ran a good "maskorova" campaign, exploiting the peace movement in Europe and the greed of Western capitalists and the West's politicians and generals were are sorry lot then a "flash" war might have been possible with a "come as you are" or worse (say 10-20% decrementation in combat readiness) force structure for NATO. But as you pointed out, the Reagan re-armament program peaked in 1988-89 and the correlation of forces was no where near what the Soviets needed w/o extensive use of NBC weapons. I've spent my last 22 years as a professional soldier studying WW3 in Germany, both as a student within the US Army's officer educational system and as a participant in several exercises up through strategic level. It would take a multitude of scenarios or game parameter flexibility to cover the spectrum of force structures that the game's "storyline" would emply. If the Soviets sought to bring the balance of conventional forces into line with their requirements dictated by "Marxist-Leninist military science", say at least 3 to 1 across the board, they would have had to move units forward from the western MVDs. This would give NATO around six months. So the OOBs could be anything from the standing force minus 10-50% for personnel on leave, pass and readiness distractors, reserve round outs, etc. to a full mobilization if NATO had a year or two. The same for the Soviets, as they were having more and more problems filling out their TOEs, by 1988, as many as 25% of the conscripts would have been rejected by the US Army for criminal records, language problems and mental and physical disabilities. They had still not resolved their mobilization problems from 1979 as their mob for Poland in 1987-89 showed. The reason I would expect that the standing forces in NATO would have been reinforced is that with the inferiority complex the Soviets felt toward the West and the need to ensure victory w/o (or at least, minimal) use of NBC would have impelled them to beef up the SGFG, something that could not be done unnoticed. You're right in that the real threat to NATO was disunity caused by Soviet manipulation and "wishful" thinking. However, the impact on you game would be such things as US ANG divisions deployed forward to German, more M1A1(HA), Leo 2A4 and Challenger 1 Mk.3s available to NATO, etc.

(in reply to scarletto)
Post #: 18
- 5/31/2003 8:56:35 AM   
IronManBeta


Posts: 4132
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Burlington, Ontario
Status: offline 		22 years! Holy doodle!!

I always thought from casual reading that the WP had overwhelming conventional strength positioned in the SGFG, and that the forces in the mililtary districts back home were just the icing on the cake. Then I started this project and dug out the actual peacetime deployments to visualize a 'come as you are' snap campaign and realized they didn't have nearly as much usable power up front as I thought after all.

I believe that their divisions contained a host of deficiencies that would have robbed them of considerable staying power in a war. I figured maybe a 5-7 day 'half life' in combat. After a mere 10 days or so they just wouldn't have that many attack ready assets any more. Of course NATO would be reeling too, but the burden of attack was on the WP and for that you need the numbers.

This was also ignoring the Polish problem and assuming that they were still willing allies - a staggering assumption by 1989. Without a secure and helpful Poland to the rear an attack is hopeless.

I also believe that the WP peacetime deployments were not necessarily indicative of anything that would happen in wartime, and we are trying not to be limited to that, but I have had trouble digging out reasonable looking war plans on the web. By any chance can you point us in the direction of any open ones?

The game engine is very flexible - it goes down to individual vehicles - so we can model darn near anything we set our minds to. We can juice up the equipment levels or water them down along the lines you suggest, for example. The problem is getting the flash of inspiration and finding the time to do it right while you still remember it(!). Mercifully, it will be possible (although not necessarily quick) for the players to create and share their own scenarios though and this should be a bonaza of variants and alternate histories. I'm really looking forward to this part of it.

Tired and starting to ramble so I should pack it in....

Cheers, Rob.

(in reply to scarletto)
Post #: 19
1988-89 - 6/1/2003 6:38:16 AM   
LTCMTS

 

Posts: 300
Joined: 1/6/2003
From: Newnan, GA
Status: offline 		Truthfully, in my professional opinion, among others, the only way the Soviets had of winning a "come as you are war" in 1988-89 was to catch us in our kasernes the day after the Super Bowl or go "ugly early", ie. NBC. The scenario, if we got to our GDP positions, goes something like this.

1. The F-117As decapitate the WP air C2.

2. W/o AGC, the WP AD fighters fall like flies to F-15s guided by E-3s using BVR AAMs.

3. The F-111s and Tornados, escorted by EF-111s, and aided by Lance, ATACMS and SLCMs seriously delay or stop the 2d and follow-on echelons, dropping every bridge between the IGB and the Vistula.

4. ICMs using minelets and bomblets from 155mm, 8in, MLRS attrite the first echelon during its approach march.

5. At the FEBA, the A-10s, Apaches, Cobras, PAH-1s and Lynxs, with Copperheads, further decimate the first echelon.

6. As the survivors hit the MLR in front of the Germans, Dutch, US and Brits, they hit a fog of artillery generated smoke. While there're in there wandering around, they get waxed by 120mm and 105mm APDSFS, TOW 2, HOT 2, Milan 2 and Dragon 2 using thermal imaging sights.

7. Once the correlation of forces reached culmination point, the US V and VII Corps become NATO's OMG, attacking across the IGB into the southern flank of the 2d echelon and into their rear using J-STARS (E-8) to provide real time intell by D/L. They would roll the 2d echelon up to the Baltic and the rest of the NATO forces would advance behind them to the Polish border to establish a new FEBA against the follow-on echelons.

If the Soviets try to reinforce their GSFG with CAT A divisions from the western TVDs, NATO would also reinforce and maintain the balance of forces. Probably the best chance the Soviets had was in the mid to late 70s.

Anyway, I look forward to your game/sim. I like TOAW-CW and Fulda Gap '85, even Red Lightning, though Red Lightning over rates the Soviet equipment and doesn't factor in the German territorials, Fulda Gap '85 is difficult to adjust parameters and TOAW-CW doesn't allow you to modify or add platforms. Steel Panthers II and III with their third party add-ons is fun too, except you can't sim gun launched missiles like the MGM-51 or the AT-8/10 or 11. If I can help (and I work for free, as this is my hobby (and professional addiction), just let me know. I have a web site where I post a bunch of (incomplete) stuff, http\\[url]www.newnan.biz/msnyder.[/url]

(in reply to scarletto)
Post #: 20
- 6/2/2003 11:25:47 PM   
Black Cat

 

Posts: 615
Joined: 7/4/2002
Status: offline 		LTCMTS

Interesting discussion, using any years you wish, I wonder if you would address the results of a suprise attack by Warsaw Pact short - medium range missiles, followed by Ground Attack AC, both using CB and especially Fuel Air weapons on the Airfields, with a view to catching the aircraft on the ground prior to a Ground Attack.

As an ex USAF guy, most AF planing/intel. papers that I have read generally consider that this would have rendered most if not all the NATO bases inoperable, if not destroyed outright.

Almost certainly this, combined with Commando missions against our C&C and airbases would have preceeded a ground attack.

Also IMHO, the considerable capabilities of the Warsaw Pact Army short - medium range Air Defenses and Air Forces are generally underrated in most, if not all " what if " scenarios based upon NATO Air Superority holding the line.

Finally, I`m not at all sure that if they had been insane enough to roll the dice and start WW III, it would have been that easy to stop them.

Perhaps, as you point out, the unreliability of some Warsaw Pact units, and the Poles ( who hated them ) across their lines of communcation would have been the deciding issues.

As far as games, you may want to look at LTC Lunsfords " Decisive Action " by HPS Sims, a modern war sim that is, even if not NATO vs WP based really quite superior to Fuda Gap `85.

Also the link to your site does not work ( for me ) ?

(in reply to scarletto)
Post #: 21
Re - 6/3/2003 2:33:27 AM   
LTCMTS

 

Posts: 300
Joined: 1/6/2003
From: Newnan, GA
Status: offline 		The operative point is whether the Soviets could "mask" their approach to the departure line sufficiently.
Use of Frogs, SS-21/23 systems with HE only warheads would require movement of missile units to launch positions closer to the IGB. Use of NBC warheads, would, of course, give longer ranges and greater effect on target. Use of NBC warheads would trigger the nuclear threshold (probably). By this time, I believe most of the GLCMs and Pershing IIs had deployed? The counter-threat the Pershing II deep penetrator warhead represented to the Soviet C2 infrastruture would have acted as a break on prolific use of NBC equipped missile/rocket delivered warheads.
The use of KGB inserted operatives is an interesting point. I believe the German counter-intelligence was penetrated by the STASI, but this would not impact their ability to monitor armed civilians gathering in any numbers near NATO C2 and NBC weapons storage or other important targets. These sites were fairly well guarded. The use of Guards Abn or AASLT units would require aviation support. By 1988, I believe there was at least 1 E-3A on station, so movement of SOF troops by air should be detected. Same for WP FGR/FGA aircraft. The US alone maintained three brigades of mixed Patriot/I-Hawk batteries along the IGB. I don't believe the Soviets had sufficient missiles with SGFG to cover all the targets needed to allow a successful air op and degrade NATO's C2, NBC weapons storage, support facilities and airfields at the same time. Also, given WP readiness capabilities, the need to withdraw equipment from storage and prep it should have been a blip on the event timeline of EUCOM commander's decision matrix.
As for Soviet low/medium altitude ADA systems, they would be as vulnerable (more so) to the attritional weapons on their approach march as the MBTs. US ATW doctrine was for the Apaches and Cobras to take out the ZSU-23-4 and SA-8 vehicles first from ambush in order to open the way for the A-10s, the Hellfire outranges the effective engagement range of both systems, while the TOW armed AH-1s would be more vulnerable. Use of artillery in close coordination would keep the SA-7/14/16's inside their BMP/BTR carriers and the use of ambush tactics by the AHs would restrict target acquisition in response by the ZSUs and SA-8s. Smoke would ahev denied the SA-8s the use of their optical FCS and "Black Hole" and IR flares would help against the IIR guidance.
Another impact would be when. The Soviets suffered a twice a year turn over of 33% of their troops as a new conscript class came in and the time-expired conscripts (inlcuding most of their NCOs) left. At the beginning of these cycles, training and maintenance readiness clearly suffered, and it got worse as the level of quality of the conscripts dropped from about 1985 on.
Of course, this is my analysis (opinion?) and I am open to discussion. What I hope is that the game (sim?) will allow the management of variables, start positions, OOBs and platforms that will allow the exploration of these themes.
Actually I do own "Decisive Action", though I haven't done much with it yet. I also own "TacOps", which is a fun sim, though a bit 2D.
As a comment, I liked the simpler, more elegant way, Norm Koger, handled operational level air warfare as a "combined" arms in his "Red Lightning" and other Conflict games. The process in TOAW seems clumsy by comparison.

(in reply to scarletto)
Post #: 22
Mia Culpea - 6/3/2003 2:37:21 AM   
LTCMTS

 

Posts: 300
Joined: 1/6/2003
From: Newnan, GA
Status: offline 		http://www.newnanbiz.net/msnyder/ is the correct web site address. It's pretty basic, but I'm still teaching myself.

(in reply to scarletto)
Post #: 23
Weather and Smoke - 6/4/2003 11:40:13 PM   
LTCMTS

 

Posts: 300
Joined: 1/6/2003
From: Newnan, GA
Status: offline 		I'm trying to locate the reference, but how will you be handling the weather? I seem to remember there was a rare weather phenomenom in Germany where there was a weather inversion which trapped cold air heavy with water molecules into pockets in the terrain. These inversions which occurred in the morning in spring and autumn actually degraded thermal imaging systems. Also, are you allowing for the impact on passive night vision systems of new moon nights, where there is a lack of ambient light to magnify? I know that PNS equipped AFVs usually retained their white light/IR S/Ls to provide an IR light source for PNS magnification, but what about hand-helds? How is smoke generation handled? Are vehicle and structure fires considered in their effect as obscurents?

(in reply to scarletto)
Post #: 24
NBC, Smoke and Weather - 6/5/2003 1:40:35 AM   
LTCMTS

 

Posts: 300
Joined: 1/6/2003
From: Newnan, GA
Status: offline 		Another thought. NBC, especially certain types of non-persistent agents and delivery methods are heavily impacted by weather conditions. Smoke, too. Are these modeled in the sim?

(in reply to scarletto)
Post #: 25
Re: 1988-89 - 6/5/2003 3:55:09 AM   
Beckles

 

Posts: 128
Joined: 4/9/2002
From: Kansas City, MO, USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by LTCMTS
[B]Truthfully, in my professional opinion, among others, the only way the Soviets had of winning a "come as you are war" in 1988-89 was to catch us in our kasernes the day after the Super Bowl or go "ugly early", ie. NBC. The scenario, if we got to our GDP positions, goes something like this.

1. The F-117As decapitate the WP air C2.

2. W/o AGC, the WP AD fighters fall like flies to F-15s guided by E-3s using BVR AAMs.

3. The F-111s and Tornados, escorted by EF-111s, and aided by Lance, ATACMS and SLCMs seriously delay or stop the 2d and follow-on echelons, dropping every bridge between the IGB and the Vistula.

4. ICMs using minelets and bomblets from 155mm, 8in, MLRS attrite the first echelon during its approach march.

5. At the FEBA, the A-10s, Apaches, Cobras, PAH-1s and Lynxs, with Copperheads, further decimate the first echelon.

6. As the survivors hit the MLR in front of the Germans, Dutch, US and Brits, they hit a fog of artillery generated smoke. While there're in there wandering around, they get waxed by 120mm and 105mm APDSFS, TOW 2, HOT 2, Milan 2 and Dragon 2 using thermal imaging sights.

7. Once the correlation of forces reached culmination point, the US V and VII Corps become NATO's OMG, attacking across the IGB into the southern flank of the 2d echelon and into their rear using J-STARS (E-8) to provide real time intell by D/L. They would roll the 2d echelon up to the Baltic and the rest of the NATO forces would advance behind them to the Polish border to establish a new FEBA against the follow-on echelons.

If the Soviets try to reinforce their GSFG with CAT A divisions from the western TVDs, NATO would also reinforce and maintain the balance of forces. Probably the best chance the Soviets had was in the mid to late 70s.

Anyway, I look forward to your game/sim. I like TOAW-CW and Fulda Gap '85, even Red Lightning, though Red Lightning over rates the Soviet equipment and doesn't factor in the German territorials, Fulda Gap '85 is difficult to adjust parameters and TOAW-CW doesn't allow you to modify or add platforms. Steel Panthers II and III with their third party add-ons is fun too, except you can't sim gun launched missiles like the MGM-51 or the AT-8/10 or 11. If I can help (and I work for free, as this is my hobby (and professional addiction), just let me know. I have a web site where I post a bunch of (incomplete) stuff, http\\[url]www.newnan.biz/msnyder.[/url] [/B][/QUOTE]

Seems pretty optimistic for NATO, but not totally impossible.

However, some of the weapons you mention would not be in the mix:

* JSTARS - The first prototype wasn't even completed until 1988, so any use in such a scenario (1988-1989 would be limited at best)

* ATACMS - I'm not even sure ATACMS was on the drawing board yet in 1988-1989! It certainly would not have been available!

You also mention SLCM's, I doubt you'd see much use of those in Central Europe, the platforms would be too busy taking care of business in the North Atlantic and GIUK gap to be worrying about directly supporting Central Europe land operations.

(in reply to scarletto)
Post #: 26
JSTARS - 6/5/2003 7:45:11 AM   
LTCMTS

 

Posts: 300
Joined: 1/6/2003
From: Newnan, GA
Status: offline 		The maiden flight of the "fully configured" E-8A Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System was in Dec 88, so it could have been committed to combat in 1989, as was in its prototype form in 1990-91 during the Gulf War. Its initial service trials were in Europe in 1990. As you point out it would not have been available in 1988.

The first ATACMS missile was fired in early 1988. LTV completed 66 production missiles between mid-1988 and early 1990. As an ILO, the MGM-52C Lance carries a 454kg cluster warhead using DP bomblets to a range of 72km.

The T-ASM (Tomahawk Anti-Shipping Missile, BGM-109B) did not become available in numbers before 1987. The primary submarine launched Tomahawk was from the TLAM-C and -D, BGM-109C Block IIA and IIB. IIA had a unitary 1,000lb warhead and a range of 1234km which became operational in 1985 and the IIB a cluster warhead with 168 DP bomblets at a range of 863km, which became operational in Oct 87. The primary target of these systems would have been land based facilities mapped by satellites, such as above ground buildings, bridges, dams, airfields, installations, etc. They would have been entirely ineffective against a mobile target, unless that target was caught at a choke point which was an identifable target, such as a bridge. There was of course the TLAM-N, BGM-109A with the 200kT warhead. While the USN intended to attack into the Soviet SSBN "safe" areas north and east of Norway, this was not an attack on Soviet strategic assets per se (though a secondary effect would have been a low level attrition of a part of those assets) but to divert the Soviets from attacking NATO sea lanes in the Atlantic by forcing them to attack the USN CBGs attacking (or threatening) their strategic assets.

Of course, in order to get a conventional war in Western Europe in the late 1980's takes a different historical timeline and as we discussed before, any changes in history between 1985 to 1987 would also change the shape of the armed forces deployed in such a conflict. Defense spending had peaked for R&D and weapons procurement in 1987, as Gorbachev's policies reduced the percieved threat from the Soviets. A war in 1988-89 would have required that the perception of that threat remain at its pre-1987 levels or increase, leading to corresponding maintenance or increase in the levels of defense spending in NATO nations which would have seen an earlier entry into service of some weapons systems and the availability of others in more or less greater numbers. The Soviets were at "war" levels of production for their defense industry. It would have been difficult for them to increase their monthly/annual output, and they would have been reluctent to shift to newer weapons systems that would have reduced the output from their factories. The US, on the other hand, and as an example of NATO weapons production, had reduced M1A1(HA) production from 70 per month in 1985-87 from Lima and Detroit Army Tank Plants to less than 43 per month in 1991. Both production lines were single, eight hour shifts, 40 hour weeks. The US had the capacity to reach production levels of 120 M1A1(HA) MBTs monthly by Jun 1988. Mainz and Anniston Army Depots could convert 60 M60A1 to M60A3 TTS on a single shift line, and could have reached 105 per month by Jan 88. One or both plants could have been used to convert M1 and M1IMP to M1A1 configuration starting in 1987.

(in reply to scarletto)
Post #: 27
Other Thoughts - 6/6/2003 9:22:43 PM   
LTCMTS

 

Posts: 300
Joined: 1/6/2003
From: Newnan, GA
Status: offline 		Have you checked the original combat factors and platform database? I know that "Red Lightning", among other previous sims overvalued the Soviet weapons systems.
How are you handling reserve forces? The German Territorial Army (a coll. trans into English) had a major role in the defense of Germany.
1. They augmented 21 TAACOM (US) with HNS, such as additional supply throughput, port ops and trans assets. They also provided company and platoon size units of light infantry to provide local and rear area security.

2. They provided almost all the EAC/national level CSS/CS in support of the Corps.

3. They provided over a hundered independent light infantry companies and platoons, armed with G3's, MG1's, PzF, Carl Gustavs to provide point, local and rear area security.

4. The German federal and state police agencies maintained disciplined units ("barracks" police) that would have performed similar functions.

5. The national police forces in France, Belgium and the Netherlands had similar functions and light armor, and these nations also had reserve forces to provide internal security.

6. These nations also had air force security forces for the defense of their bases, again equipped with some light armor, in the manner of the RAF Rgt for the British and the GC/ADF units (which were trained at Fort Dix) in the USAF.

(in reply to scarletto)
Post #: 28
Once More Into the? - 6/6/2003 11:38:41 PM   
LTCMTS

 

Posts: 300
Joined: 1/6/2003
From: Newnan, GA
Status: offline 		How about MLRS? Systems like the MLRS, LARS and BM-21 produce emense firepower over a short period of time but then take far greater times to reload for the next salvoes. The end result is that over a period of time, a battery of tubes generates equivalent firepower to MLRs. The problem is depicting the momentary massive impact on indirect fire combat followed by the lull until reloaded or destroyed by counter-battery.

(in reply to scarletto)
Post #: 29
Re: Weather and Smoke - 6/7/2003 9:41:49 PM   
IronManBeta


Posts: 4132
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Burlington, Ontario
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by LTCMTS
[B]I'm trying to locate the reference, but how will you be handling the weather? I seem to remember there was a rare weather phenomenom in Germany where there was a weather inversion which trapped cold air heavy with water molecules into pockets in the terrain. These inversions which occurred in the morning in spring and autumn actually degraded thermal imaging systems. Also, are you allowing for the impact on passive night vision systems of new moon nights, where there is a lack of ambient light to magnify? I know that PNS equipped AFVs usually retained their white light/IR S/Ls to provide an IR light source for PNS magnification, but what about hand-helds? How is smoke generation handled? Are vehicle and structure fires considered in their effect as obscurents? [/B][/QUOTE]

We have a lighting and weather model but not anything this complex. I feel that this level of detail would be a little too fine for a simulation at the bn / reg / bde level. Also, the original design was for an game that was "introductory" for the hobby. My worry now is that it is getting too complex as it is. As with any game, a certain level of abstraction is necessary to keep things moving along.

Thanks for the ideas though!

Cheers, Rob.

(in reply to scarletto)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Modern] >> FlashPoint Germany >> British units Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.031