"Seven Days to the River Rhine" Topic
13 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not use bad language on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Cold War (1946-1989) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Profile Article
Current Poll
|
Tango01 | 13 Dec 2014 10:34 p.m. PST |
Have anyone wargame this? "Seven Days to the River Rhine was a top secret limited military simulation exercise developed in 1979 by the Warsaw Pact. It depicted the Soviet bloc's vision of a seven-day atomic war between NATO and Warsaw Pact forces…"
From here link Amicalement Armand |
HistoryPhD | 13 Dec 2014 10:38 p.m. PST |
You've already done a post on this topic: TMP link |
Tango01 | 13 Dec 2014 10:47 p.m. PST |
Also want to know if anyone has wargame this… (smile) Amicalement Armand |
Martin Rapier | 14 Dec 2014 2:36 a.m. PST |
Currently in the afternoon of the first day of the attack, 1981 not 1979 though. So far only two nuclear weapons have been used. |
Mako11 | 14 Dec 2014 3:40 a.m. PST |
I'm planning on trying to play out some tip of the spear battles, but not sure I'll permit nukes. Then again, I guess it could make for some interesting operational decision-making, for both sides. I was just reading up on some of the Armored Cav Regiment, and 3rd Armored Division info for Fulda, from your link. Interesting times back in the early 1960s, and with plans for Americans to deploy Davey Crocket nukes from jeeps, in order to halt/slow the Soviet hordes. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, apparently things got very tense in West Germany as well as in the Caribbean, and the US was heavily outnumbered in the region, by about 5:1 – 10:1 in armored vehicles, if authors of some of the articles are correct. |
Murphy | 14 Dec 2014 8:23 a.m. PST |
Destroying cities such as Munich and Nurnberg with nuclear weaposn, then "capturing them" afterwards…. What would there be left to "capture"… It would've sucked being a motorized rifleman tasked with this job… |
Tango01 | 14 Dec 2014 12:56 p.m. PST |
Hope to see that wargame Mako11! (smile) Amicalement Armand |
David Manley | 14 Dec 2014 1:33 p.m. PST |
"I'm planning on trying to play out some tip of the spear battles, but not sure I'll permit nukes." As we found out a few years back Soviet doctrine in this scenario was massed chem/bio in depth from the start. Messy, especially if they knew it was going that way and NATO didn't…… |
Mako11 | 14 Dec 2014 2:34 p.m. PST |
Yes, and even very small nukes might not stop armored units that are not affected directly by the blast, and heat, at least immediately, since theoretically follow-on forces can just drive right through the hot zones if their vehicles are properly sealed, or around them. Not sure what popping nukes would do to morale checks, but can't imagine they would help. The real issue with the Chem/bio, and nukes is what keeps the other guy from further escalating, assuming you didn't knock all his weapons stores of those out in the first strike? Definitely, a nasty business, especially for civilians and wildlife caught in the region, and for their ancestors for decades, if not more, to come after them. |
Hayden | 04 Jan 2015 1:02 a.m. PST |
both sides used eletronics so even david crockett was problem because of EMP, radios,infras and other things will be affected reducing combat capability espacially in large tank formations. |
Mako11 | 04 Jan 2015 6:47 p.m. PST |
On one of the maps, on either the linked website, or another one linked to it, actually shows the planned impact points for the Davy Crockett warheads. They are centered on eight crossroad points, near Fulda, in the hilly/mountainous region there. Not sure if they planned airbursts (probably, to lessen the radioactive fallout kicked up), or surface bursts, but they'd have been a substantial surprise for the Soviets/Warsaw Pact. Makes me wonder what the EMP radius would be, on little warheads like that? No doubt, probably certain to affect any battalions/regiments in the impact zone, and perhaps even some nearby. The Russians appear to have so many forces in the area though, that I suspect they'd still be able to force their way through, eventually, if they really wanted to, despite the use of the eight tactical nukes allotted to the ground forces there. Of course, then I guess, there are always follow-on, artillery shells, rockets, and nuke bombs dropped from tactical aircraft, since afterall, if you've popped eight nukes, what's a few more. Interestingly, I'd always assumed most of the T-55s, and later tanks were sealed against chem/bio/nuke contamination. However, I ran across a thread mentioning they were sealed against dust particles, but the crew still needed to wear their chemical suits inside the vehicles, for protection. Apparently, they can't eject spent shells outside the turret, without exposing themselves to contamination. Lucky for all, we never had to find out how an attack and defense like that would play out. Doesn't seem like there would be any winners, excepting the cockroaches, which are supposedly pretty resilient to radiation. Of course, perhaps even they might die if chemicals were used. |
Lion in the Stars | 05 Jan 2015 4:55 p.m. PST |
The real problem with Cold War gaming is that the Soviets considered nukes to be nothing but a big boom in a small package, while the US considered ANY nuke to be a strategic launch indicator. Soviets pop off a couple nukes in Fulda, the next thing they know there's a full strategic launch from the US! |
Mako11 | 05 Jan 2015 10:30 p.m. PST |
Yep, though the other issue is we also considered gas and bio attacks as being similar to nukes, as far as provocations go. I seem to recall the Russians being a bit shocked when the Cold War ended, and they found out how we might have really reacted to one of their "limited" attacks using WMDs in Europe. |
|