Further thoughts

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Further thoughts

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 >> Further thoughts

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Further thoughts - 6/17/2003 8:23:31 PM

LTCMTS

Posts: 300
Joined: 1/6/2003
From: Newnan, GA
Status: offline

The COHORT experiment of raising and keeping company sized units together throughout the enlistment period of the recruits was very successful in building cohesion, until most of the recruits opted out after their first enlistment. The return on investment just wasn't there, as moving units together across the world can be expensive. The US Army has been trying to workout a program of exchanging units between CONUS and OCONUS, everything from divisions in the early '60's to battalions in the late '70s. The British Army had some of the same problems in its imperial age, where first and second battalions were to switch off regularly between home and foreign service, but requirements always outran available units, so that some units remained overseas for decades. The difference between the US and British (and German) armies, now, is that the British and Germans no longer have to man extended forces committed to multiple theaters, allowing greater stability in tours for officer and NCO cadre. I was surprised (but not much) to meet a Major in a German partnership unit who had served 15 years in the same battalion. Another difference between British (and Canadian) and US armies is the length of tour for enlisted personnel. The US Army needed (and still needs) to replace 25-33% of its junior enlisted soldiers each year in peacetime. The British and Canadians run at less than 10%. This of course must be compared to the Soviet Army which had to replace 90% of its NCOs and 30% of its junior enlisted every year and train up 30% of its junior enlisted and 90% of its NCOs from scratch on top of that.
Side comment, British company commanders are junior majors. US and most other NATO companies are commanded by junior CPTs, moving on to battalion staff after there command tour.
One problem with the regimental system is that the "clans" don't tend to play well together. Many of the British Army's tactical failures in WW2 came out of the inability to execute combined arms training and execute coordinated tactical ops.
Compare this with the German Army's ability to create ad hoc "battle groups" which showed remarkably constant combat effectiveness. Part of this was that the soldier's loyalty was to his primary group (squad) and in his pride in his profession and the Army as a corporate group. This was also because there was a common tactical doctrine that was enforced for all arms, which allowed disparate elements to operate together.
A further comment on the Norwegians. As far as tactical skill, there is a definite difference at battalion and brigade level between Brigade "Nord", Brigade "South" and 9 other mobilization brigades, though there would be little difference in morale and the difference in readiness levels would coalesce the longer the other brigades are on AD and the further along they are in executing their training plans.
I can't emphasize realistic, coherent, productive training enough, as a major contributor to unit readiness, cohesion and morale. A major difference between the late '70's US Army and the late '80's US Army was task oriented, performance based training, train till you got it right, not linked to a time line.

(in reply to scarletto)

Post #: 61

Re: Further thoughts - 6/17/2003 10:43:57 PM

Dagfinn

Posts: 110
Joined: 1/20/2003
From: Western Norway
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LTCMTS
[B]A further comment on the Norwegians. As far as tactical skill, there is a definite difference at battalion and brigade level between Brigade "Nord", Brigade "South" and 9 other mobilization brigades, though there would be little difference in morale and the difference in readiness levels would coalesce the longer the other brigades are on AD and the further along they are in executing their training plans.[/B][/QUOTE]

You are definetley right about that.

Would you consider to ugrade your exel sheet on your homepage, so that every nato and wp nation gets listed there. I'm very interested in your opinion.

Maybe you could throw in the Sweedes and Finns too?

Btw. maybe we should start a new thread...

_____________________________

In our darkest hours all the shades are gray

(in reply to scarletto)

Post #: 62

Penny for my thoughts - 6/18/2003 12:45:17 AM

LTCMTS

Posts: 300
Joined: 1/6/2003
From: Newnan, GA
Status: offline

As for a new thread, mox nix, as we USAREUR types used to say. You spend 20 years practicing to defend the borders of Western civilization against the Evil Empire and then everything you've spent a lifetime studying becomes obsolete almost overnight, useful only for bugging and harrassing the designers of wargames.
I'll add the other NATO and European nations soon, I've been working on the Mod Armor spreadsheet. I'm going to add some possibles, like the 152mm M150E1 gun-launcher that fired both Shilleagh ATGMs and APDSFS mounted in the MBT70 and XM803.

(in reply to scarletto)

Post #: 63

Re: Penny for my thoughts - 6/18/2003 1:00:29 AM

Dagfinn

Posts: 110
Joined: 1/20/2003
From: Western Norway
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LTCMTS
[B]As for a new thread, mox nix, as we USAREUR types used to say. You spend 20 years practicing to defend the borders of Western civilization against the Evil Empire and then everything you've spent a lifetime studying becomes obsolete almost overnight, useful only for bugging and harrassing the designers of wargames.[/B][/QUOTE]

Well, that may be so, but it was obviousley not in vain.

You/we "won" you know... :)

I'm one of those who have not forgotten what you and your countrey did during the cold war. Even thoug many people forget fast and easely, I DO NOT.

So for what its worth, you should be proud...

_____________________________

In our darkest hours all the shades are gray

(in reply to scarletto)

Post #: 64

Re: - 6/18/2003 1:00:59 AM

LTCMTS

Posts: 300
Joined: 1/6/2003
From: Newnan, GA
Status: offline

Actually not true, the map, computer and force on force exercises, the planning studies, the educational staff courses which concentrated on Germany, and particularly the Fulda Gap, both at tactical and operational levels that I dealt with from 1980 to 1999 provided both experience and depth in the study and execution of modern warfare, at command and staff levels from company through corps levels (special thanks to the US 50th ID(M). The terrain, the weapons and the enemy may change, but there ARE historical truths that can be internalized and applied to multiple, even unforessen types of combat in the future.

(in reply to scarletto)

Post #: 65

Also - 6/18/2003 1:05:39 AM

LTCMTS

Posts: 300
Joined: 1/6/2003
From: Newnan, GA
Status: offline

Another point about WW3 type wargames is that we can safely (more or less) look back and see with some reasonable assurance of accuracy what the probable end states of alternative timeline-event matrices would look like. We can take the US-UK-Fr performance in the Gulf in 1990-91 and project it back to 1988-89 to see just how effective Air-Land Battle and the emerging technologies adopted by Western nations starting in the late 1960's finally matured and delivered on their original promises.

(in reply to scarletto)

Post #: 66

- 6/18/2003 1:18:27 AM

scarletto

Posts: 13
Joined: 5/3/2003
From: england
Status: offline

destructive inbreeding, an interesting comment, one that probably is true maybe the early 20th century, the use of battalion or regimental force moves to an area of conflict, whereupon the unit is replaced on mass, works well.

Take our own 'vietnam' northern ireland, by using whole units rather than replacing them as mens terms run out, we got a better feel and knowledge of the area, with the battalion we where replacing leaving cadres to guide us around the area and show us local hotspots and known 'faces'

the downside was when you knew the time was coming close to going, a unit whilst not slackning off would certainly not be operating 100%, why provoke trouble when your going home in a couple of weeks!

I am though a firm believer in the regimental system, whilst it does have its 'destructive inbreeding' it is far outweighed by its pluses, a russian general once said, give him British troops in defence, german troops in attack and american equipment and he could conquer the world ( though i think he meant just west europe)

I must admit without downsizing anyone elses armies he was probably right, our whole training in germany was based on defense, probably having the worst terrain to fight in, with our army and the west germans size having the best tank country for the russians to fight in, i wonder if anyone at the end of the war said, hang on, lets give the smallest army the biggest open plains in germany to defend, and give the biggest army the smallest. that will baffle the soviets!! :)

(in reply to scarletto)

Post #: 67

Re: - 6/18/2003 2:31:11 AM

LTCMTS

Posts: 300
Joined: 1/6/2003
From: Newnan, GA
Status: offline

It was said about Vietnam that the first three months of the one year tour, a "FNG" was more dangerous to himself and his own side, then for six months, he was actually dangerous to the enemy and then the final three months, he wasn't a danger to anyone. This of course depended upon age, experience, rank and unit of assignment. I doubt a SF SFC returning to the Higlands on his third tour would experience the same effectiveness timeline.

Actually, the Northern German plains were (are) studded with heavily urban terrain and stoutly built villages and dorfs. My wife was born and raised in Extertal, Kreis Lippe-Detmold, near Hamln and I have experienced the terrain situation in 1990 and 1999. Her farming village is placed in a valley among rolling hills covered with forest just two hours south-west of Hanover.

Since the Soviet norm for a successful offensive was a six to one advantage in combat power, placing the I NE, I GE, I UK and I BE Corps in defensive positions there makes sense as an economy of force action, allowing the SACEUR and AFCENT to use II GE to screen the southern IGB and FGR-Cz frontiers, while using V US, VII US (his two most powerful armored corps) and III GE as his "counterattack" force IAW Air Land Battle doctrine. If the Soviets sought to fix V US and VII US with attacks through the Fulda Gap, the forces required to prevent an American eruption would probably divert so much combat power as to render a successful penetration of the Northen German plains defenses a less likely outcome. Quite frankly, I don't think CZ 1 A, EG 3A and SU 8 Gds A would be enough to hold US 7A in a spoiling attack on the Wurzburg to Leipzig axis. You would find both the Front reserve, SU 1 GTA and the SU 20GA being drawn south.
At least that would be the theory under "AirLand Battle" as taught at C&GSC. Tuckachevski would have loved "AirLand Battle" and the "deep attack" doctrine and systems.

(in reply to scarletto)

Post #: 68

- 6/18/2003 4:19:32 AM

scarletto

Posts: 13
Joined: 5/3/2003
From: england
Status: offline

interesting points there, im wondering though, if the russians realised that the americans did or could wield a offensive capability, which would threaten their advance into BAOR territory, would they not have tried to pull the American forces teeth?

1/ how more likely where U.S forces to be dealt with or hampered by chemical attacks??

2/ or would they be used more against the BAOR theatre to try to induce a quick win.

whilst i can see that the advance of the soviets would be threatened by the American threat to them, surely they must have had plans to counter this, i cannot see that the soviets would have not realised this

question.. would they have had the doctrine to punch into BAOR then hook into your flank? thus stopping (albeit for a short time) the chance of your counter-attack, whilst allowing there attacks on Denmark and towards the Dutch Border

On a personal note id like to commend you on your postings, very interesting and informative, ive always seen it (ww3) from a small viewpoint i/e my tank turret! rather than actually think further, im just very glad we are discussing a 'game' rather than a veterans forum!! :)

(in reply to scarletto)

Post #: 69

BAOR and NATO Defense - 6/18/2003 5:08:30 AM

LTCMTS

Posts: 300
Joined: 1/6/2003
From: Newnan, GA
Status: offline

The thing to look at is that "deep attack" meant exactly that. The point was to delay the second and follow on echelons of a Soviet attack at the operational level. This would allow the NATO defense to attrition the lead echelon to the culminating point. Then US V and VII Corps would counter-attack through the exhausted lead echelon and into the second echelon, still stacked up in march formations in East Germany through the interdiction of the transportation choke points. The problem for the Soviets in going chemical was, for them, the uncertainty of the NATO response. NATO had always linked chemical and nuclear weapons together. Unless the USSR felt it could severely mitigate the ability of NATO's response, chemical weapons might provoke the use of British Polaris, US GLCM and Pershing IIs and German Pershing Is or nuclear armed Lances (even French MRBMs and Plutons), leaving the Soviets with little in the way of a second or follow on echelon or an OMG to exploit the lead echelon's success. Not to mention, large sections of eastern Europe and, possibly even western Russia, would be glass or radioactively contaminated. And the possibility that the USSR would no longer exist as a viable political-military entity after the escalation to strategic nuclear exchange. Destroying the US in exchange for the USSR was never a Soviet national strategy. Every study of Soviet strategy shows that the bottom line was the security of the Homeland and the strategic nuclear force. This is why the US maritime strategy of attacking into the Soviet SSBN "safe" zones in the Norwegian Sea towards Murmansk would have worked to clear the NATO sea lanes, as the Soviets would commit everything they had to protect the SSBNs, even though the primary target was the Soviet conventional naval forces.
The large buildup of Soviet strategic missile force in the 1960's was to eliminate the ability of the US to dictate the fight at the strategic level. The huge buildup of the conventional forces in the 1970's was to create a viable threat of attack and occupation of western Europe at the operational level. The NATO response in the 1980's maintained the stand off at the strategic level, while eliminating the ability of the Soviet Union of conducting a successful, quick, conventional invasion, w/o using WMD and re-establishing that "trigger" threshold that placed the Soviet homeland at risk.

(in reply to scarletto)

Post #: 70

Re: Soviet Doctrine - 6/22/2003 7:40:40 AM

Rune Iversen

Posts: 3630
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Copenhagen. Denmark
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LTCMTS
[B] I'd put the level of tactical and operational competence as the Bundesheer first, followed by the Brits and Canadians, the US and French tied in third, but with the Dutch a close fourth, followed by the Belgians and then the Danes. The best of the Soviets would equal the Belgians, grading down from there, with the best Polish, Czech and Volksarmee leaders at Dutch level and then grading down. The Hungarians would equal the best Soviets. [/B][/QUOTE]

I will take this as your own opinions and refrain from commenting on it.

Furthermore, what is your basis for those numbers. I would like to know, since I am working with Sabre 21 on integrating the Danish forces into FPG. And I will be quite frank in my opinion when I say that I do not belive the gaps were as large between NATO armies as you allude on your homepage.

PM me for further details since I would like to know what your reasons are for the ratings you have assigned.

_____________________________

Ignoring the wulfir
Fighting the EUnuchs from within

(in reply to scarletto)

Post #: 71

- 6/22/2003 1:13:40 PM

Dagfinn

Posts: 110
Joined: 1/20/2003
From: Western Norway
Status: offline

Please dont go PM with this.:(

I'm for one is also very interested in the reason for your ratings.

Btw. I will once again plea that we should open a new thread.

_____________________________

In our darkest hours all the shades are gray

(in reply to scarletto)

Post #: 72