"Cold War expectations" Topic

Recently I purchased Brigade Commander and tried it out. I like the game mechanics and the fact you can get into the game with 12-15 units a side. As I was setting up a test scenario (with forces I had on hand) I got to thinking about expectations I had from Cold War battles. My first inclination is tilt the numeric balance in favor of the Soviets while making sure NATO gets the qualitative enhancements.I ended up putting more Soviets on the table than 12-15, but had them arrive in waves. After putting together a few solo scenarios I found that my NATO forces were inflicting about 1.5-3 times as many casualties, even though one game had the Soviets taking a beating but were able to punch a hole in the NATO line.

I deemed this to be 'historical' and makes it a rule set I will continue to play… obviously a laughable statement, but that has always what has been drilled into my head by everything I read and all those monster SPI games I played in the 80's.

But I am curious, since there are many on this forum who were on the front lines of a potential conflict—what were the expectations… is 2-1 or 3-1 casualty ratio what everyone expected.

I realize that it is all dependent on who was facing who at any point along the line but it just got me thinking about my assumptions of what made a set of rules for a hypothetical war 'real'.

Also as aside for further scenario development I know that many NATO brigades were the equivalent to a Soviet division for play balance. Which NATO forces would work best for brigade vs. division and which members would not be so robust on the brigade level.

I wasn't on the front lines, but from my reading, I understood that NATO had the target of being about 3 times more effective/responsive than the WP. It may be a circular argument though, and in reality/hindsight I expect there were times (1970s, early 1980s) where they didn't achieve it, and other times where they exceeded it (later 1980s).

So about 3:1 would be my baseline expectation.

I have BC too and look forward to getting some Canadians built, along with other NATO later. The 4CMBG would have needed some attack helicopter support, and I expect a lot of the air support wouldn't have necessarily been Canadian.

We expected to be fighting outnumbered 2-3:1.

At the NTC in '86 my platoon (4 M1, actually 2 were XM1) were credited with 34 kills during the Battalion Live fire (roughly 8:1) before we "died"

Saber6, glad to see that you have since recovered!

We worked on 3:1 (Which was also the standard ratio required in the attack). Much emphasis was placed on defence in depth, interlocking arcs at all levels and channeling the enemy into kill zones.

Tally Ho!

Boy Wundr,

When I looked at it in 1989, US VII Corps had a squadron of AH-1s assigned to 4 CMBG, along with some close-range air defence assets (Vulcan and Chapparal).

as an aside, a really dirty trick you can do to tweak the numbers further is to just treat the soviet units as battalions while the NATO troops remain as companies.

You'd need to fiddle with frontages though.

We were drilled to expect to be outnumbered 3/1 but 'expected' to inflict casualties at 5/1 minimum………anything less and we would lose………Saber 6 's 8/1 is not as 'out there' as it sounds………….getting ammo to the front ( that may have been falling back/in flux) was always the big elephant in the room………….

5core BC rules?

Gaz – link

I'll add that for gaming purposes, it is often beneficial to keep the "curve" a little flatter than it might have been by mid-late 80's.
If nothing else, it helps actually fit the miniatures on hte table while still looking reasonably realistic.

as for unit match ups

US Armored Cavalry Squadron (BN) vs a TR or MRR
US BN Taskforce (play with a mix of tank and infantry companies) vs a TR or MRR

Or try German units of abount the same size.

Expect the MRR Recon, followed by the Advance Guard then the Main body. of course there is probably another MRR or TR behind the first

I wonder. Most of our modern war games pitch the best nato kit against standard warpac.

I was intrigued by the Command Decision campaign Landjut which has a much more mixed NATO offering of Danes, west Germans, some not so well equipped UK and some very well equipped but a small contingent of US. A Heimatshutz commando or a Brit inf battalion is going to get pretty chewed up and probably not dole out the casualties particularly as our games don't really take account of just how much soviet artillery there is to rain down.

I'm an ex Fusilier and spent time digging holes in Germany planning to get rolled over by an MRR. I'm not so convinced we'd get time to dig in to Stage 3 trenches (overhead cover) before we started getting hit by 82 to 152 calibre rounds. Also Western Europe engagement ranges are pretty short for tank shoots.

Landjut also shows just how many helicopter assets Warpac was fielding in the early 80s. I hadn't realised the preponderance compared to NATO.

Command Decision is now test of battle and there is a modern conversion on the forums which I have been toying with however if you can pick it up I recommend the original campaign if only to look at a wider mix of forces that probably gives Warpac some softer points to attack and forces NATO to use armour more offensively to plug possible breakthroughs.

It;s the same reason all the WW2 armies are SS Panzerwarglgarbl :)

Everyone wants to field Americans in M1's with computers and laser gadgets.
Nobody wants to command a company of uncertain Belgian conscripts in M113's ;)

Actually I quite fancy fielding Danes in centurions and leopard 1s. Jutland Dragoons are cool.

I almost did my mandatory time in the Dragoons :) Soft spot for the Leopards too.

Weasel and IainJL, my plan includes using M60s and M113s

Most of my scenarios are because that was my sector. As for the WARPAC helo asset, be afraid. But then my gunner buddies treated HINDs as Main Gun targets

Though I prefer CD, I may be using 5Core as it is simpler to teach my sons

Thanks for the info Jemima, and for the input from everyone else, great discussion!

I started with BAOR and West Germans vs. Soviets for another project. I do plan on adding other groups including those aforementioned Belgians.

Saber6, my son has watched me run through the rules solo…so I can get my learning curve down… and he really wants to give the rules a try. For some reason I can no longer concentrate on lengthy or difficult rules. Maybe life is just too complicated otherwise and I like rules that I can quickly wrap my head around.

Weasel, I get what you are saying on the flattened curve… but it was really cool to put a lot of Soviet kit out there against the outnumbered Brits. Of course, I was running it solo so it was probably easier to do in that context.

Yeah. It obviously will level out MUCH more when its infantry vs infantry but then, that seems pretty reasonable since the tech difference wouldn't be particularly big there.

Besides, cold war gaming is mostly about tanks :) I prefer infantry fights but I am a distinct minority there. We want waves of armour clashing over Germany :)

Weasel, I will of course anxiously await you operational modifications so we can run the game as one stand = one battalion. :)

I do have some trepidations about the infantry…especially when the enemy is closing in and I am just rolling my trusty shock dice!

It's pretty commonly accepted that 3:1 is the usual ratio required to succeed against a prepared defense.

2:1, or 2.5:1 is a bit dicey, in many cases, unless the larger attacker has something else going for him, e.g. better quality, better intelligence, surprise, better mobility, etc., to act as a force multiplier.

5:1, or more, when attacking built-up areas is usually required to succeed. I suspect a lot of those, other than perhaps Berlin, would have just been bypassed, or flattened by artillery, or nukes.

In my recent playtest of the WRG 1950 rules, pitting a platoon of 5 x 90mm gunned M48s vs. a "heavy company" (not an official term) of T-55s against them, the Soviet tanks won. Part of that was the NATO troops rolled badly with their attack dice, and part was due to the Soviets having 13 tanks in their unit.

I think 10 x Soviet tanks vs. the 5 a NATO ones would have been a better matchup for the scenario I set up, with the NATO tankers being caught out in the open, and surprised by the assault, though spotting the enemy at long range. Also, I made a incorrect assumption about their ammo, so kills would have occurred at slightly shorter ranges (they shouldn't have APFSDS ammo), but I think the overall kill ratio for both sides would have remained about the same, using their superior HEAT rounds at long range.

If the M48 crews had been able to deploy at the edge of a forest, or hull down, to give them some concealment and cover initially, the 13 x T-55s vs. 5 x M48s might still be a good matchup. The 10 x T-55s vs. 5 x M48 tanks is probably better if starting the latter out in the open, without any hills, or ground undulations to give them hull down cover.

The WRG 1950 rules are free, so give it a go and let us know how the scenario turns out for you. They play pretty quickly. Once familiar with the rules, you should be able to run the above scenario in about an hour, or so.

There are lots of interesting matchups out there to choose from, including some of the lighter recon and screening forces, and/or infantry (Bundeswehr in trucks, or on foot, supported by West German Jagdpanzers comes to mind). Pitting those against the Soviet/W.P. recon and advance guard units would certainly be interesting. As mentioned, just because you defeat one battalion, or regiment doesn't mean you've won, if playing NATO. It's just a temporary reprieve until the next battalion, regimental, or divisional wave washes over you. Hopefully, you haven't used all of your best ammo rounds, and missiles defeating the first one(s).

Also, to really give NATO a challenge, pit the battles back in the 1950s, 1960s, or even 1970s, before all the latest high-tech kit was available, and the force ratios were more skewed in the communists favor, or while the Americans are tied down in Korea, Vietnam, or potentially in the Middle East as well, in 1973, or 1974.

I work with 33 (UK) Armd Bde in their role to be capable of supporting 1 (BE) Corps. This means CI as the RHD(G) with 432 equipped infantry, 86 or Chieftain ,84 although they were not a 3 (UK) Armd Div asset then.

It means I get to use Belgian kit and even Bundeswehr reserves with M-48.

Points to note:

Even to carry out a "Surprise" attack the logistics build up would have been massive and taken weeks. This would not have gone un noticed either sightings on the ground or space or denial of access to military missions.

TEWTs were carried out on a regular basis allowing the Commanders at all levels to get to know the ground on which they would be operating, down to Troop leader level. Obviously the other side would also be looking at the ground (Why did DDR lorries always have co-drivers?!!!!) so multiple plans, defence lines, hides etc would be planned and looked at. Then we also had the power of Herfy!!!

A good game may come with a counter attack against Soviet flank protection, now we need someone to produce 20mm T-12 and MTLB Blades!!

Tally Ho!

What would the battalion stand game be called? Corps commander? :-)

Hmmmmm, Weasel….. maybe…. No End of Tank Columns in Sight?

Not sure, but there's already a Corps Commander set of rules, or two by that name.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that title is already taken :)

I always thought "Reds Everywhere!" would be a great title for a cold war game.

Were the Sovieys and other Warsaw Pact members comfortable with the expected 2.5/1 or 3/1 loss ratios that NATO seems to feel they can expect to inflict?

I suspect some more than others, e.g. Stalin, and the guys in the rear, vs. grunts in the front lines, especially when they had a much higher advantage than 3:1.

You've gotta break some eggs to make omelets, or whatever the Soviet equivalent to that is, (e.g. mash and ferment potatoes to make vodka?).

During the 1950s and 1960s, and even into the 1970s, they had a much greater numerical advantage than later on, when the gap was closed a bit, IIRC.

@Winston

They Soviets weren't planning on a campaign of general attrition. Their plan was much like the later American concept of "maneuver warfare" where they planned to fix, bypass, and isolate major elements and push into the rear to attack strategic targets. If they had to grind through heavy NATO defenses the Soviets were planning on a 10:1 balance of forces to initiate the breakthrough (and would have reserve forces to actually exploit the breakthrough).

Now whether the Soviets had the communication and logistics ability to carry out that kind of warfare is another question.

Division Commander of course!

Remember the old Patton line? Give your orders to the guy below you, but know where the units on the next level are!

In company commander, you're running a company, but your "troops" are individual tanks and squads of grunts.

In brigade commander you're running a brigade, but your units are companies.

So it fits. Battalion stands? Division level game.

Ah, of course. I don't know why I mentally skipped a step.

I was already planning on modelling the Warpac battalions as only have two stands. Half battalion equivalents.

Not a fan of supertanks, my WW3 is in 1981, real mans tanks like Leo 1s and Chieftains.

Have you had a chance to play yet, Martin?

For me the "real mans tank" award must go to the Centurion, despite my Russophilia.

It's hard to imagine a tank that's fought harder, in more or tougher battles with such stellar performance.

There was an interesting thread either here or on the Guild from the Russian perspective. It transpires that the commanders of GSFG units were not actually very confident that there men and equipment were up to the task of reaching Calais in 3 days!

Tally Ho!

I agree with Weasel about the Centurion. It looked like a tank, fought like a tank and won like a tank. All without any of these latter day poncy gizmos.

REAL Tank? M60, until the M1s get there (but then the majority were M60

Well, if you are dead hard, M48s (for some reserve units).

"Have you had a chance to play yet, Martin?"

Just the odd playtest, real life has got in the way of running at game at the club. I already do WW3 at 1 base = 1 company with other rules though.

Heimatschutzkommando M48A2GA2s against T64BVs for someone who likes a challenge.

We were always briefed about 3-1 odds. But that was before an Artillery and Rocket Borage of approximately 12-24 hr's.

My assignments were Scout Plt. CSC, 2nd Battalion, 13th Infantry Regiment, 8th Infantry Division (Mechanized), stationed Mannheim, Federal Republic of Germany, August 1980 – August 1982. We had M113's and brand new M901's. We were positioned directly behind Fox Troop 2/11 ACR.

Then the Scout Plt. CSC, 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment, and B Troop, 1st Squadron 4th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division (Mechanized), at Fort Riley, Kansas, October 1982 – August 1984.

and

Scout Plt. HHC, 2nd Battalion, 16th Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Riley, Kansas, March 1988 – February 1989. Still had M113's and M901's. I cant remember were our Battle Positions were but we were reinforcements. So who knows what the situation would have been buy the time we jumped the pond.

Next was 3rd Plt, Anvil Troop, 1st Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fulda, Federal Republic of Germany, March 1990 – February 1993. We were running M3A1 Brad's. By this time the "Cold War was over, "Ha, Ha, Ha " but they still had a load of top of the line equipment in East Germany. Some of us went across the old Grenz and when you count 45 Hind gun ships at the airfield West of Weimar, and hundreds of BMP 3's. just North of town you start to think.

I was in Chieftains in the 70's we expected odds at 3 or 4 to one but in waves, so a SQN of 12 Chieftains could expect an attack by 45+ MBT'S not including APC's and their contribution. We would either conduct a Fighting Withdrawl using 100m bounds, expecting to lose 3/4 tanks every 800m, so at just over 3k we'd have a squadron's worth of casualties, or as Nick says, we'd try to funnel them in to a killing zone, though we sometimes wondered if the WP forces would allow themselves to get in to that predicament in the first place, and this wasn't really taking in to account WP arty strikes on our position or their 'Hinds'!

11th ACR, I was right down the street (Bravo 3/8 CAV) 11-78 to 10-80