Hypothetical - NATO vs WP 1970s
- Thread starter parsifal
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #62
parsifal
Colonel
Day 4 5
NATO achieved air superiority after the arrival of a further wing of F-15s and 12 squadrons of F-4s. There are also two wings of F-111s and a wing of A-7s on strength.
WP were denied the ability to provide effective air support of any kind to their ground forces. The F-111s, A-7s, RAF Buccaneers and FAF Mirage B-IV bombers pounded the WP supply lines, causing supply shortages along the entire front. Cobra, B105 and S331 gunships pounded WP frontline formations for moderate cost.
However the WP doggedly continued their attacks, hoping to keep the NATO ground forces from regaining the initiative. In the far north , elements of 6 PG XX (WG) had been isolat3ed and trapped along the coast, near Bremerhaven on Day 3 of the battle. The Soviets now used 87 and 94 Gds Rifle XX to try and crush the defenders. Whilst they made some progress and inflicted losses on the beleagured Germans, they could not eliminate the pocket completely. On the following day, NATO forces built around three divisions, 5 PG (WG), 5th Mech (NE) and 4th Armoured (BR) counterattacked west and south of Bremen, with the objective of achieving a breakthrough and relieving 6PG XX. They were unable to break through, but they did inflict heavy losses on the WP. 9 Tk XX (EG) was destroyed, and 12 Rifle (PO) suffered losses and was forced back, and then encircled.
Further south, 20 miles SW of Osnabruck, 3 Shk Army attacked to envelope the city, but were heavily repulsed by 1 Mech XX (BE) and 7 PG XX (WG). The Soviets did achieve a small breakthrough south of the Lippe River, forcing back the 16 Mech XX (BE, and the 2 PG XX (WG), as well as a composite Task force composed of German Landswehr and US Recon elements defending on the edge of the Saurland Forest.
A determined assault along the Lahn River by a large WP formation built around the 31 Gds TkXX, 16 Gds Rfl, and 2 x Polish Rfl Divs was held by the Canadian 4 Mech Bde, supported by US artillery assets and 3 squadrons of US Cobra gunships. However the WP did achieve a lodgement on the right flank of the Canadians, which triggered a strong counterattack by 5 Pz XX (WG, but the Polish spearhead units held this attack at days end .
In the far south began mopping operations against the Austrians and continued to drive deeply into southern Germany. NATO is hard pressed in this sector, and the absence of the French army is being keenly felt. However the italians and some EG reserve units are now in position to resist the southern spearheads, and US and the single French division west of the Rhine are assisting.
NATO achieved air superiority after the arrival of a further wing of F-15s and 12 squadrons of F-4s. There are also two wings of F-111s and a wing of A-7s on strength.
WP were denied the ability to provide effective air support of any kind to their ground forces. The F-111s, A-7s, RAF Buccaneers and FAF Mirage B-IV bombers pounded the WP supply lines, causing supply shortages along the entire front. Cobra, B105 and S331 gunships pounded WP frontline formations for moderate cost.
However the WP doggedly continued their attacks, hoping to keep the NATO ground forces from regaining the initiative. In the far north , elements of 6 PG XX (WG) had been isolat3ed and trapped along the coast, near Bremerhaven on Day 3 of the battle. The Soviets now used 87 and 94 Gds Rifle XX to try and crush the defenders. Whilst they made some progress and inflicted losses on the beleagured Germans, they could not eliminate the pocket completely. On the following day, NATO forces built around three divisions, 5 PG (WG), 5th Mech (NE) and 4th Armoured (BR) counterattacked west and south of Bremen, with the objective of achieving a breakthrough and relieving 6PG XX. They were unable to break through, but they did inflict heavy losses on the WP. 9 Tk XX (EG) was destroyed, and 12 Rifle (PO) suffered losses and was forced back, and then encircled.
Further south, 20 miles SW of Osnabruck, 3 Shk Army attacked to envelope the city, but were heavily repulsed by 1 Mech XX (BE) and 7 PG XX (WG). The Soviets did achieve a small breakthrough south of the Lippe River, forcing back the 16 Mech XX (BE, and the 2 PG XX (WG), as well as a composite Task force composed of German Landswehr and US Recon elements defending on the edge of the Saurland Forest.
A determined assault along the Lahn River by a large WP formation built around the 31 Gds TkXX, 16 Gds Rfl, and 2 x Polish Rfl Divs was held by the Canadian 4 Mech Bde, supported by US artillery assets and 3 squadrons of US Cobra gunships. However the WP did achieve a lodgement on the right flank of the Canadians, which triggered a strong counterattack by 5 Pz XX (WG, but the Polish spearhead units held this attack at days end .
In the far south began mopping operations against the Austrians and continued to drive deeply into southern Germany. NATO is hard pressed in this sector, and the absence of the French army is being keenly felt. However the italians and some EG reserve units are now in position to resist the southern spearheads, and US and the single French division west of the Rhine are assisting.
Attachments
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #63
parsifal
Colonel
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
Wow, how long does it normally take to play one of these games?
- Thread starter
- #65
parsifal
Colonel
They can take a while. Remember however, this is classified as a "monster" and we have spent more time discussing the parameter and assumptions in the game than actually playing.
I estimate we have spent approximately 10 hours playing 5 GTs. There are 30 GTs to the full campaign so it would take approximately 60 hours to play the full game.
We hope to get back into a regular schedule in about two weeks, when hopefully it is not too cold to play
I estimate we have spent approximately 10 hours playing 5 GTs. There are 30 GTs to the full campaign so it would take approximately 60 hours to play the full game.
We hope to get back into a regular schedule in about two weeks, when hopefully it is not too cold to play
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
Wow, that's fricken cool!
- Thread starter
- #67
parsifal
Colonel
The game system is derived from the German "KriegSpiel", which literally translates to "wargame". Before WWI the germans developed a system of quantifying combat strengths, and developed means of assessing other military variables. It has obvious limitations, but its strength is evident in the thorough preprations that prededed most major military operations the germans were involved with. Even without the time to "playtest" a particular situation, those trained in its applicatiuon have the advantage of being able to visualise what will happen in a given situation.
"wargaming" is often criticised as not producing accurate result. True enough, and even more true if the variables affecting a battle are not taken into account. However this type of simulation has the best record in the pre-computer age, and really shows the limitation of modern commercialised computer simulations. The problem with many of these computer sims, is that they are inadequately researched, and not designed by people with military experience. The result is what you often see in this place....one sided, unbalanced assessments of a given situation
"wargaming" is often criticised as not producing accurate result. True enough, and even more true if the variables affecting a battle are not taken into account. However this type of simulation has the best record in the pre-computer age, and really shows the limitation of modern commercialised computer simulations. The problem with many of these computer sims, is that they are inadequately researched, and not designed by people with military experience. The result is what you often see in this place....one sided, unbalanced assessments of a given situation
Nice job Parsifal. Very nice.
It seems the WP attacks are losing some steam. Or at least not attaining the same results as earlier assaults. Any idea on why? If I had to guess, I would go with the assumption that supply losses, lack of air cover, extending supply lines, reaction from Nato are big factors. At least it seems that way.
How do you counter such a scenario? Your point about dogged attacks seems about all they can do. In short, hunker down, keep attacking and hope for the best.
I guess the basic question is, who will run out of ground reinforcements first? Failing that, can air power be decisive? It may have to be for Nato to have any chance of winning.
I don't see the French coming in until it is practically settled. If Nato really starts to lose, then they stay out. WP starts losing steam, they might come in. Is there a provision for this? It could be decisive. But with Denmark and Austria out of it already, it is hard to believe they will do anything.
It seems the WP attacks are losing some steam. Or at least not attaining the same results as earlier assaults. Any idea on why? If I had to guess, I would go with the assumption that supply losses, lack of air cover, extending supply lines, reaction from Nato are big factors. At least it seems that way.
How do you counter such a scenario? Your point about dogged attacks seems about all they can do. In short, hunker down, keep attacking and hope for the best.
I guess the basic question is, who will run out of ground reinforcements first? Failing that, can air power be decisive? It may have to be for Nato to have any chance of winning.
I don't see the French coming in until it is practically settled. If Nato really starts to lose, then they stay out. WP starts losing steam, they might come in. Is there a provision for this? It could be decisive. But with Denmark and Austria out of it already, it is hard to believe they will do anything.
- Thread starter
- #70
parsifal
Colonel
It seems the WP attacks are losing some steam. Or at least not attaining the same results as earlier assaults. Any idea on why? If I had to guess, I would go with the assumption that supply losses, lack of air cover, extending supply lines, reaction from Nato are big factors. At least it seems that way.
How do you counter such a scenario? Your point about dogged attacks seems about all they can do. In short, hunker down, keep attacking and hope for the best.
I guess the basic question is, who will run out of ground reinforcements first? Failing that, can air power be decisive? It may have to be for Nato to have any chance of winning.
I don't see the French coming in until it is practically settled. If Nato really starts to lose, then they stay out. WP starts losing steam, they might come in. Is there a provision for this? It could be decisive. But with Denmark and Austria out of it already, it is hard to believe they will do anything.
The WP are losing the initiative, and NATO are now able to mount effective counterattacks. You questioned the wisdom earlier about NATO counterattacking, but for a number of reasons it is necessary for them to do that. The winner in the game is decided by the number of cities and regions controlled at the end of the game. And at this stage WP have done just enough to claim a marginal victory. This is not total war. Unconditional surrender is not a realistic option for either side. What this hypothetical assumes is that at the end of a relatively short period, the hot war will cool off, and some peace settlement would be worked out. With two countries (Denmark Austria) completely overrun, and a third substantially occupied (West Germany), the WP leadership could argue that they have some bargaining power….perhaps to occupy Berlin, for example. It's a situation similar to that attained by Israel after the six days war, and the occupation of the west bank and Golan.
My prediction is that WP will need to endure some rough handling for about 4-6 days. The initial land grab is now over, and the superior NATO technology is starting to bite and their logistical depth and improving organization starting to have an effect. For NATO they receive a further 3 or 4 reforger divs from the US, the Canadian Brigade receives enough resources to upgrade to a division, and the West Germans receive the balance of their landswehr units. The Brits send in two of their "Field Forces"…essentially weak Divisions, but high quality manpower. However whilst there are relatively few new formations as such, NATO does begin to receive replacement fillers….manpower and equipment to replace losses. These are the first of the reservists. The West Germans receive the most, beginning in GT-6, the Brits and the Italians receive about half as much each, beginning on Day 10, whilst the US receives relatively few also beginning Day 10. This means NATO needs to be careful with the Americans, they are vulnerable to unrecoverable losses.
NATO aims at this stage, I think, will be to firstly halt the WP offensive, and make the initiation of chemical or tactical nuclear warfare unattractive. By attacking the supply net, they impose combat penalties on the WP. Given that NBC attacks are represented in the game by combat modifiers in the game, but at a huge political cost, the advantages of initiating NBC warfare are negated by the supply problems.
A secondary objective for NATO will be to mount limited counterattacks, to peg back the territorial gains made by the WP. NATO receive more "points" for liberating cities than WP does in taking them, so even if they capture only a portion of the cities lost they will neutralize any bargaining chips the WP have gained so far.
For the WP all hope is not gone, far from it. All that's happened at this point is that the initial offensive is grinding to a halt, but the battle has a long way to go from here. From GT 7 through to the end of the game, WP receive a steady flow of reinforcements as their category II and some III formations join the battle. In all they receive about 50 additional Divs, with artillery and AA support. These formations are not as well trained or equipped as the front line gds units, but in an attrition battle they may have a decisive effect. From GT-10, the WP also start to receive replacement fillers, to rebuild their shattered formations. In the air the WP receive a steady stream of reinforcements, about 60-80 aircraft per GT, mostly MiG-21s and 23s and Su-7s and 15s. In the immediate term they have a large number of damaged aircraft, and must leave the ground forces to their own devices for a few days whilst these damaged units are made airworthy again. They need to rebuild their air force, and await the arrival of reinforcements. If the NATO heavy bombers (the F-111s mostly) can be thinned or slowed in their primary interdiction mission, and supply returned normal, the situation can be reversed. The supply lines will be further protected by the arrival of additional ADA units in the near future.
The NATO players had some very bad luck at the beginning of the game, with regard to the French. Essentially a political "random event", the French have declined to allow their main forces to cross the Rhine, unless those main forces are attacked by the WP (this does not include the single Div currently in Germany). This has without doubt a massive effect on the game, and is the subject of much debate. My opinion is that whilst it might be possible for the French to decline their support, this would not necessarily be a final, or last decision. The French would surely realize that the WP would not stop at the French border if they are successful, and would be considering their position with each passing day. For that reason, we may instigate a game "fix"(ie a non-standard rule) that allows the French position to be re-checked every couple of GTs or so.
WP have captured Munich as indicated.
How do you counter such a scenario? Your point about dogged attacks seems about all they can do. In short, hunker down, keep attacking and hope for the best.
I guess the basic question is, who will run out of ground reinforcements first? Failing that, can air power be decisive? It may have to be for Nato to have any chance of winning.
I don't see the French coming in until it is practically settled. If Nato really starts to lose, then they stay out. WP starts losing steam, they might come in. Is there a provision for this? It could be decisive. But with Denmark and Austria out of it already, it is hard to believe they will do anything.
The WP are losing the initiative, and NATO are now able to mount effective counterattacks. You questioned the wisdom earlier about NATO counterattacking, but for a number of reasons it is necessary for them to do that. The winner in the game is decided by the number of cities and regions controlled at the end of the game. And at this stage WP have done just enough to claim a marginal victory. This is not total war. Unconditional surrender is not a realistic option for either side. What this hypothetical assumes is that at the end of a relatively short period, the hot war will cool off, and some peace settlement would be worked out. With two countries (Denmark Austria) completely overrun, and a third substantially occupied (West Germany), the WP leadership could argue that they have some bargaining power….perhaps to occupy Berlin, for example. It's a situation similar to that attained by Israel after the six days war, and the occupation of the west bank and Golan.
My prediction is that WP will need to endure some rough handling for about 4-6 days. The initial land grab is now over, and the superior NATO technology is starting to bite and their logistical depth and improving organization starting to have an effect. For NATO they receive a further 3 or 4 reforger divs from the US, the Canadian Brigade receives enough resources to upgrade to a division, and the West Germans receive the balance of their landswehr units. The Brits send in two of their "Field Forces"…essentially weak Divisions, but high quality manpower. However whilst there are relatively few new formations as such, NATO does begin to receive replacement fillers….manpower and equipment to replace losses. These are the first of the reservists. The West Germans receive the most, beginning in GT-6, the Brits and the Italians receive about half as much each, beginning on Day 10, whilst the US receives relatively few also beginning Day 10. This means NATO needs to be careful with the Americans, they are vulnerable to unrecoverable losses.
NATO aims at this stage, I think, will be to firstly halt the WP offensive, and make the initiation of chemical or tactical nuclear warfare unattractive. By attacking the supply net, they impose combat penalties on the WP. Given that NBC attacks are represented in the game by combat modifiers in the game, but at a huge political cost, the advantages of initiating NBC warfare are negated by the supply problems.
A secondary objective for NATO will be to mount limited counterattacks, to peg back the territorial gains made by the WP. NATO receive more "points" for liberating cities than WP does in taking them, so even if they capture only a portion of the cities lost they will neutralize any bargaining chips the WP have gained so far.
For the WP all hope is not gone, far from it. All that's happened at this point is that the initial offensive is grinding to a halt, but the battle has a long way to go from here. From GT 7 through to the end of the game, WP receive a steady flow of reinforcements as their category II and some III formations join the battle. In all they receive about 50 additional Divs, with artillery and AA support. These formations are not as well trained or equipped as the front line gds units, but in an attrition battle they may have a decisive effect. From GT-10, the WP also start to receive replacement fillers, to rebuild their shattered formations. In the air the WP receive a steady stream of reinforcements, about 60-80 aircraft per GT, mostly MiG-21s and 23s and Su-7s and 15s. In the immediate term they have a large number of damaged aircraft, and must leave the ground forces to their own devices for a few days whilst these damaged units are made airworthy again. They need to rebuild their air force, and await the arrival of reinforcements. If the NATO heavy bombers (the F-111s mostly) can be thinned or slowed in their primary interdiction mission, and supply returned normal, the situation can be reversed. The supply lines will be further protected by the arrival of additional ADA units in the near future.
The NATO players had some very bad luck at the beginning of the game, with regard to the French. Essentially a political "random event", the French have declined to allow their main forces to cross the Rhine, unless those main forces are attacked by the WP (this does not include the single Div currently in Germany). This has without doubt a massive effect on the game, and is the subject of much debate. My opinion is that whilst it might be possible for the French to decline their support, this would not necessarily be a final, or last decision. The French would surely realize that the WP would not stop at the French border if they are successful, and would be considering their position with each passing day. For that reason, we may instigate a game "fix"(ie a non-standard rule) that allows the French position to be re-checked every couple of GTs or so.
WP have captured Munich as indicated.
Last edited:
Bummer, I liked Munich. Great beer. No doubt the occupation will screw THAT up!
Thanks for the update Parsifal, great stuff. And thanks for the clarification of the rules/objectives. It helps a lot.
From what you've written, it looks like Nato has a window of opportunity to counterattack and get some points back. Given the situation with the WP, they are strung out, starting to have trouble with supplies, exposed to the air and hurting for troops. It might be a good idea for the WP to hunker down and await reinforcements. I am thinking that they've already won a pretty significant victory and Nato is bound to counterattack at some point. Better to hold what you've got than get strung out and destroyed in detail (thinking Tannenberg or 2nd Panzer during the Bulge).
WP already has two countries and a good chunk of a third. What more can they realistically expect to gain? The Rhine might be a bit far. From what's been posted about Nato, the French aren't in and aren't coming in, the Dutch are wavering, the Belgians are bleeding and West Germans are in for the long haul but there aren't enough of them. Everyone else seems to be in regardless of what happens (US, Brits, Canadians, Italians). About the only turf the WP might get is the Netherlands. And that probably wouldn't be worth it. They'd be very strung out.
If I were WP, I'd sit and consolidate. Even a couple of days might be enough to make your position impregnable. Send out spoiling attacks to confuse and keep the opposition thinking the attacks are still going forward.
Thanks for the update Parsifal, great stuff. And thanks for the clarification of the rules/objectives. It helps a lot.
From what you've written, it looks like Nato has a window of opportunity to counterattack and get some points back. Given the situation with the WP, they are strung out, starting to have trouble with supplies, exposed to the air and hurting for troops. It might be a good idea for the WP to hunker down and await reinforcements. I am thinking that they've already won a pretty significant victory and Nato is bound to counterattack at some point. Better to hold what you've got than get strung out and destroyed in detail (thinking Tannenberg or 2nd Panzer during the Bulge).
WP already has two countries and a good chunk of a third. What more can they realistically expect to gain? The Rhine might be a bit far. From what's been posted about Nato, the French aren't in and aren't coming in, the Dutch are wavering, the Belgians are bleeding and West Germans are in for the long haul but there aren't enough of them. Everyone else seems to be in regardless of what happens (US, Brits, Canadians, Italians). About the only turf the WP might get is the Netherlands. And that probably wouldn't be worth it. They'd be very strung out.
If I were WP, I'd sit and consolidate. Even a couple of days might be enough to make your position impregnable. Send out spoiling attacks to confuse and keep the opposition thinking the attacks are still going forward.
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
This actually is pretty fascinating, thanks for posting Parsifal.
HealzDevo
Staff Sergeant
Sorry this thread hasn't been posted in for a while, but I did have some views I would like to put out.
I really do think the Soviets stood a large chance of getting
away with a European War having large quantities of men and material to throw into combat.
A lot of Soviet Tactics were based on the fact that a large numerical advantage could be achieved
fairly quickly with large divisions. Also you are assuming that the Soviets will aim for the urban areas
with tanks rather than totally destroying the place with artillery and aircraft. The Soviets believed in the
use of less sophisticated technology in large numbers.
The Americans also have a large problem in that they are relying on being able to ship men and materials to
England and Europe. They lose Europe, they have to do a D-Day Invasion against modern radar, aircraft, infantry
and ships as well as submarines. Also you have forgotten that China would hardly remain totally on the sidelines but would
look for an advantage in the war. We know they supported North Vietnam in some ways during the Vietnam War.
So that is an unexpected wildcard that in real life would have to be answered. What would China do?
Whether it was fought in 1973 or 1990, a war with the Soviets would have been a very bloody and close fought
thing similar to WWII. We know that Germany had the upper hand in a lot of technologies at the beginning of the
war but still lost to Britain. Modern China has the ability to have the advantages of both tactics- Numbers and Technology.
A good book to read is "The Third World War: The Bestselling Future History" by General Sir John Hackett others,
published in 1975 about a European Soviet Invasion in 1985, published by Sphere.
I really do think the Soviets stood a large chance of getting
away with a European War having large quantities of men and material to throw into combat.
A lot of Soviet Tactics were based on the fact that a large numerical advantage could be achieved
fairly quickly with large divisions. Also you are assuming that the Soviets will aim for the urban areas
with tanks rather than totally destroying the place with artillery and aircraft. The Soviets believed in the
use of less sophisticated technology in large numbers.
The Americans also have a large problem in that they are relying on being able to ship men and materials to
England and Europe. They lose Europe, they have to do a D-Day Invasion against modern radar, aircraft, infantry
and ships as well as submarines. Also you have forgotten that China would hardly remain totally on the sidelines but would
look for an advantage in the war. We know they supported North Vietnam in some ways during the Vietnam War.
So that is an unexpected wildcard that in real life would have to be answered. What would China do?
Whether it was fought in 1973 or 1990, a war with the Soviets would have been a very bloody and close fought
thing similar to WWII. We know that Germany had the upper hand in a lot of technologies at the beginning of the
war but still lost to Britain. Modern China has the ability to have the advantages of both tactics- Numbers and Technology.
A good book to read is "The Third World War: The Bestselling Future History" by General Sir John Hackett others,
published in 1975 about a European Soviet Invasion in 1985, published by Sphere.
HealzDevo
Staff Sergeant
Sorry this thread hasn't been posted in for a while, but I did have some views I would like to put out.
I really do think the Soviets stood a large chance of getting
away with a European War having large quantities of men and material to throw into combat.
A lot of Soviet Tactics were based on the fact that a large numerical advantage could be achieved
fairly quickly with large divisions. Also you are assuming that the Soviets will aim for the urban areas
with tanks rather than totally destroying the place with artillery and aircraft. The Soviets believed in the
use of less sophisticated technology in large numbers.
The Americans also have a large problem in that they are relying on being able to ship men and materials to
England and Europe. They lose Europe, they have to do a D-Day Invasion against modern radar, aircraft, infantry
and ships as well as submarines. Also you have forgotten that China would hardly remain totally on the sidelines but would
look for an advantage in the war. We know they supported North Vietnam in some ways during the Vietnam War.
So that is an unexpected wildcard that in real life would have to be answered. What would China do?
Whether it was fought in 1973 or 1990, a war with the Soviets would have been a very bloody and close fought
thing similar to WWII. We know that Germany had the upper hand in a lot of technologies at the beginning of the
war but still lost to Britain. Modern China has the ability to have the advantages of both tactics- Numbers and Technology.
A good book to read is "The Third World War: The Bestselling Future History" by General Sir John Hackett others,
published in 1975 about a European Soviet Invasion in 1985, published by Sphere.
I really do think the Soviets stood a large chance of getting
away with a European War having large quantities of men and material to throw into combat.
A lot of Soviet Tactics were based on the fact that a large numerical advantage could be achieved
fairly quickly with large divisions. Also you are assuming that the Soviets will aim for the urban areas
with tanks rather than totally destroying the place with artillery and aircraft. The Soviets believed in the
use of less sophisticated technology in large numbers.
The Americans also have a large problem in that they are relying on being able to ship men and materials to
England and Europe. They lose Europe, they have to do a D-Day Invasion against modern radar, aircraft, infantry
and ships as well as submarines. Also you have forgotten that China would hardly remain totally on the sidelines but would
look for an advantage in the war. We know they supported North Vietnam in some ways during the Vietnam War.
So that is an unexpected wildcard that in real life would have to be answered. What would China do?
Whether it was fought in 1973 or 1990, a war with the Soviets would have been a very bloody and close fought
thing similar to WWII. We know that Germany had the upper hand in a lot of technologies at the beginning of the
war but still lost to Britain. Modern China has the ability to have the advantages of both tactics- Numbers and Technology.
A good book to read is "The Third World War: The Bestselling Future History" by General Sir John Hackett others,
published in 1975 about a European Soviet Invasion in 1985, published by Sphere.
- Thread starter
- #75
parsifal
Colonel
The game remains in limbo at the moment because two of the players are unavailable, and my shed is just too cold in winter to be comfortable. I also have had a young addition to the family which soaks up much time, something I like actually....its still set up and with a bit of luck might restart in the Spring. if not, well its been an interesting experience.
At the conclusion of the last GT, WP was consolidating and strengthening their lines of communication. NATO were hammering Soviet supply lines with F-111s and the Cobras were really starting to hurt the Soviet armour. Germans had taken a nasty pumbling but their territorials were filling gaps in the lines. NATO was counterattacking everywhere, but whether they could sustain was difficult to determine at the stop point that we reached.
Currently we are up to the 9th day of the battle. Soviet casualties are about 300000 men, to NATO 100K. Soviet Air force has lost about twice as many aircraft, but they have many more grounded due to damage. The US F-15 wings, and the West German F-4s are proving decisive in gaining air superiority. Soviets simply have nothing to combat them effectively. On the other hand Soviet SAMs are thickening up, more reinforcements are arriving and the Russians are reciving their Cat-2 and 3 divs whilst the Allies are not now seeing much further reinforcement. Similar to the Germans in WWII, NATO quality is high, but everything is in the shop window. hard to give units proper R&R in those conditions. i am one of the Soviet players, and our plan is to re-commence offensive operations in four game days time, if we ever restart.
The game is very even at this stage, and very intersting. there are possibilities for both sides.
We will see if things restart
Have read Third WW, is a good read, and a fairly accurate prediction IMO.
China is abstracted into the game by the Soviet reinforcement schedule, but rememeber this is primarily a "Central Front" sim, done at squadron/Regiment/Divisional level. Thats a massive undertaking, made even more difficult by the fact that we are using the optional Naval Game and air war rules. Makes things very slow, but accurate
At the conclusion of the last GT, WP was consolidating and strengthening their lines of communication. NATO were hammering Soviet supply lines with F-111s and the Cobras were really starting to hurt the Soviet armour. Germans had taken a nasty pumbling but their territorials were filling gaps in the lines. NATO was counterattacking everywhere, but whether they could sustain was difficult to determine at the stop point that we reached.
Currently we are up to the 9th day of the battle. Soviet casualties are about 300000 men, to NATO 100K. Soviet Air force has lost about twice as many aircraft, but they have many more grounded due to damage. The US F-15 wings, and the West German F-4s are proving decisive in gaining air superiority. Soviets simply have nothing to combat them effectively. On the other hand Soviet SAMs are thickening up, more reinforcements are arriving and the Russians are reciving their Cat-2 and 3 divs whilst the Allies are not now seeing much further reinforcement. Similar to the Germans in WWII, NATO quality is high, but everything is in the shop window. hard to give units proper R&R in those conditions. i am one of the Soviet players, and our plan is to re-commence offensive operations in four game days time, if we ever restart.
The game is very even at this stage, and very intersting. there are possibilities for both sides.
We will see if things restart
Have read Third WW, is a good read, and a fairly accurate prediction IMO.
China is abstracted into the game by the Soviet reinforcement schedule, but rememeber this is primarily a "Central Front" sim, done at squadron/Regiment/Divisional level. Thats a massive undertaking, made even more difficult by the fact that we are using the optional Naval Game and air war rules. Makes things very slow, but accurate
HealzDevo
Staff Sergeant
The casuality figures posted prove what I am saying that a 3:1 ratio is very close, especially
with an enemy that can reinforce with the way in their own backyard. I realise China is abstracted
into the game but in real-life China really would be a swinging element. NATO has to throw everything
at the front, because their potential reinforcement of fresh recruits is far away, Australia and the United
States are on the other side of the world and could potentially have their own problems with Indonesia and
Mexico at their doors...
with an enemy that can reinforce with the way in their own backyard. I realise China is abstracted
into the game but in real-life China really would be a swinging element. NATO has to throw everything
at the front, because their potential reinforcement of fresh recruits is far away, Australia and the United
States are on the other side of the world and could potentially have their own problems with Indonesia and
Mexico at their doors...
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Some opinions. I always felt that the 1970s would be the worst time for the Warsaw pact to start a war, certainly after 1975. My primary reason was the availability of combat trained and hardened troops from the Vietnam War, over 2 million. A vast number of these troops could be recalled and deployed with minimum training. War time command structures were well understood and could be manned with experienced officers. In 1974, the airlift pilots squadrons were 160% manned, and at that time, all AF pilots, on graduation, were considered trained and qualified and noted on their records as fighter pilots. That would be in addition to hordes of combat experienced pilots that could be quickly recalled from the AF, Navy and Marines. Weapons were still stockpiled with many operational aircraft being mothballed. Many could be quickly made operational. During the Yom Kippur War, old A-4s form all over the world were being quickly checked out for delivery to Israel. The Israelis only wanted the control surfaces and the weapons release systems to work! I would guess that in a deadly war time mobilization, massive US air force deployment could begin in weeks, including fighters, bombers, tanker aircraft, and airlift aircraft. While it would take months to deploy army equipment, the AF and ground based Naval Air, could make a quick impact on the airspace above Europe.
In addition, the weapons of the Vietnam War were maturing with increase counter SAM and AAA missions well understood. Aim-7 and Aim-9 missiles were now quite a bit more reliable than the poor showing early in the Vietnam War. Smart weapons had also become effective and more widespread. All those young military officers who learned war in the rice paddies and over the heavily defended skies of North Vietnam, and, in their General Officer periods, would develop the most power military the world had ever seen, were, in the 1970s, Field Officers, and quite capable.
After 1973, the West was well aware of the deadly capability of the new Soviet SAMs and were deploying counter weapons and planning strategy to defeat them.
Battle hardened troops are a valuable asset, something the Warsaw Pact did not have the mid 70s.
Also, Poland was mentioned as a problem for the Soviets, but so were the other Warsaw Pact countries. They all hated the Soviet Union, even some Soviet republics. They all would need to be watched by the Soviets. Would East German soldiers attack their Western brothers and cousins, or would they turn around and bite the hated Russians? At least NATO could reasonably not need to worry about an ally attacking them.
Of course most of this would occur past your time line.
In addition, the weapons of the Vietnam War were maturing with increase counter SAM and AAA missions well understood. Aim-7 and Aim-9 missiles were now quite a bit more reliable than the poor showing early in the Vietnam War. Smart weapons had also become effective and more widespread. All those young military officers who learned war in the rice paddies and over the heavily defended skies of North Vietnam, and, in their General Officer periods, would develop the most power military the world had ever seen, were, in the 1970s, Field Officers, and quite capable.
After 1973, the West was well aware of the deadly capability of the new Soviet SAMs and were deploying counter weapons and planning strategy to defeat them.
Battle hardened troops are a valuable asset, something the Warsaw Pact did not have the mid 70s.
Also, Poland was mentioned as a problem for the Soviets, but so were the other Warsaw Pact countries. They all hated the Soviet Union, even some Soviet republics. They all would need to be watched by the Soviets. Would East German soldiers attack their Western brothers and cousins, or would they turn around and bite the hated Russians? At least NATO could reasonably not need to worry about an ally attacking them.
Of course most of this would occur past your time line.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
In the 1970's, Indonesia was solidly anti-communist. Mexico being a border threat to the US? Hardly. The US and Mexico have our differences, but it sure wasn't at the point (in 1970's) where Mexico would cause troubles.
daveprlr .... interesting perspective. It is something to consider for time lines going past the 30 day mark. While having battle experienced forces is important, many were years past their experiences and would still need to be trained into workable units.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #79
parsifal
Colonel
These are all valid points though as you say, in the context of a 30 day battle, with little or no warning none of the issues about long term reserves are really going to matter much. And even in the context of a long haul war, stretching to say D+90, the Soviets have huge reserves of semi trained manpower and weapons. As far as experience is concerned, the US certainly brought with it a large amount of experience from the Vietnam War, but the US alone does not have the manpower or the machines to defeat the Soviets in a continental war on their own, and much of the NATO Allies have little combat experience and poor standards of training. The US forces in Europe probably represented the pointy end of the spear, along with the BAOR and the Regulars of the WG Army. But other nationalities....the italians, the Danes, the Dutch, the German reserve units, the Belgians, the Austrians, the French all had various problems that cannot be overlooked. Wherever the US forces would deploy, they would probaby do quite well, but if the other contributors of the the NATO alliance failed the US would be stretched thinner and thinner until the elastic broke. Unless NATO could be made to work as an alliance, not just individual countries, I have serious doubts that the US, on its own, could hope to hold a line anywhere in werstern Europe. Ive read in the early 70s the US army was looking into the planning needed for the Dunkirk evacuation, which sounds massively ominous to me.
And though the Soviets might be accused of a certain patchiness in quality, some of the National guard units, as well as some of the experiences of Vietnam were not great for the US.
I am not saying that the Soviets would win in the long term....I think they would lose, for precisely the reasons you are suggesting. I also think that if NATO could get their act together as an alliance, then there was a good chance, even in the context of a 30 day war, that the Soviets could be defeated. But to concede that the alliance would fail, but that the US regardless could prevail in a continental scale land battle, is over-estimating US strengths and abilities of the time. They needed their allies to win....this was not WWII...the US worldwide had perhaps 20 Divs, of which they could afford to commit perhaps 6 or 7 to Europe....the Soviets had 180 Divs, of which they would commit about 110 Divs to the Central Front within that 30 day time frame, and thats not including their WP allies. Sure there are numerous issues that make straight numbers comparisons a bit pointless, but by any standards thats a massive number to concede, and still claim victory is possible......110 to 7. I have serious reservations about the feasibility of such an undertaking
And though the Soviets might be accused of a certain patchiness in quality, some of the National guard units, as well as some of the experiences of Vietnam were not great for the US.
I am not saying that the Soviets would win in the long term....I think they would lose, for precisely the reasons you are suggesting. I also think that if NATO could get their act together as an alliance, then there was a good chance, even in the context of a 30 day war, that the Soviets could be defeated. But to concede that the alliance would fail, but that the US regardless could prevail in a continental scale land battle, is over-estimating US strengths and abilities of the time. They needed their allies to win....this was not WWII...the US worldwide had perhaps 20 Divs, of which they could afford to commit perhaps 6 or 7 to Europe....the Soviets had 180 Divs, of which they would commit about 110 Divs to the Central Front within that 30 day time frame, and thats not including their WP allies. Sure there are numerous issues that make straight numbers comparisons a bit pointless, but by any standards thats a massive number to concede, and still claim victory is possible......110 to 7. I have serious reservations about the feasibility of such an undertaking
HealzDevo
Staff Sergeant
I was just using those as places where trouble could come. With Mexico being a problem, I was referring to the potential for the Soviets to covertly sponsor drug-lords. They were always there as it was a convenient spring-board to the US markets. Perhaps in overall military terms it was the worst time davparlr for the Warsaw Pact but in terms of will to fight in the United States it could have been the best time. The US had just come out of Vietnam with a bloody nose where they had won every battle but still lost. I am saying that the numbers indicate that the Soviets could potentially have stood a real chance of achieving their goals depending on their tactics. A lot of these new weapons systems to counter Soviet AA and SAMs were just coming into service therefore realistically with some of them there would still have been a shortage in the 1970s. As well, there had been a peace movement in Europe that had destroyed a percentage of Europe's preparation for a potential East-West Conflict meaning that the US, Britain and France may have had to make the hard decision on whether to use nuclear weapons in the conflict, thus escalating it if the Soviets can't be halted by conventional means. Don't forget that at the height of the Cold War the Soviets had a large advantage in numbers but the United States and the Allieds had the advantage in technology and training. The Soviet plan was to use large numbers to grind down the enemy. They would throw troops at the enemy in various places until the enemy cracked and then exploit that crack. Even in a 30 day scenario, a lot depends on what China decides to do. China and the Soviets split from the 1960s through to the 1990s therefore the question for the Soviets is whether China would hold position and stay neutral, join the US and NATO in attacking Russia and the Warsaw Pact, or Join Russia and The Warsaw Pact in attacking the US and NATO forces. China had Russian republics it was eying off that it saw as being part of China... I would say that China might have decided it was the right time to seize those republics immediately and therefore a war between Russia and the US could easily become a three front war. In the Vietnam War, it was China that did a lot of the supplying to the North Vietnamese Forces. Even today, there is a very strong link between Pyongyang and Beijing....
