"First Clash by Macksey" Topic

So I got myself a copy of First Clash and have read it over two days and I have some questions or those who have read it. I must say it was an excellent read and well worth having in your library if you are into Cold War gone hot scenarios.

1. Is the 4 CMBG essentially combat ineffective after just 48 hours of battle? It sure seems like it to me.

2. I expected the 4 CMBG to be larger than just 3 battlegroups. You really see how hard pressed the NATO defenders would have been despite their strong defensive positions.

3. I was surprised there was not more US Army support for the Canadians, especially air support. I understand that the Americans would be sorely pressed too but lack of fast air was evident in this book.

4. You really see the lack of a platoon based ATGM like the Milan as being a major hindering factor. The Carl Gustav while partially effective leaves too great a gap in ATGW coverage. The TOWS are great for support but when you drop to Gustav's and LAWS close in that is bad. When compared to a more layered ATGW defense like TOWS on vehicles, MILANS/Dragons with the infantry and the Gustav in close you would be better off.

5. It seemed like the artillery never really stopped firing outside of the times it was displacing. Was that much munition really stockpiled to keep the artillery going near on non-stop in support of the front lines?

Anyways thanks for the input guys. Have Red Thrust by Zalogda due this week to further my reading!

If I remember correctly the brigade is withdrawing because a neighboring unit is outflanked. The Patricia's had taken a pounding, but the Van Doo's hadn't been heavily engaged. They counter attack in the next book.

Although there are only 2 infantry battalions and 1 tank battalion they are large, especially the the three 19 tank squadrons, plus the recce squadron. there were enough tanks in reserve in Germany to field another, albeit smaller squadron. The engineer battalion is small, but adequate while the 4 battery artillery regiment is a pretty generous amount of fire support.

Most of the battle takes place at night and it was the early eighties

Maybe, Macksey explicitly makes that point. Having said that, each battalion had a platoon of 18 tows and each section was packing a Charlie G. That is a lot of antitank firepower.

They go over carefully keeping the artillery quiet, except z battery supporting the screen, until the main action commences. Damn right it was! Thats why gun crews are so big: You only need 4 guys to fire a gun the rest of them are prepping and humping ammo. Ammunition dumping programs were a major feature of any operation

g2mil.com/Arty.htm

Second book? Do you have the tile? I would love to see that.

Don't hold out hope of a good and accurate read re Red Thrust, friend.

Even for Zaloga its bad. I have read that book atleast 10 times since the early 1990's when I got it, and believe me, it will lead most people who have even a tiny bit of understanding of "modern" warfare.

And example of the bad that is Red Thrust(and Steve Zaloga)? He insisted that a Soviet Rifleman went into combat(not "once in a while". Not "when supplies hav'nt cought up". NEVER.) With only 2(two) spare magazines for his AKS-74(so 3 total. Thats 90 rounds).

I remember thinking,"that ain't right". I went into my arming chamber(what I call my weapons and reloading room)and low and behold! theres the Magazine pouch I bought at some gun show(it is stamped in those crazy russian cyrilic(sp?) and it holds 6(six) 30rd magazines.

Zaloga is a schill.

Anyone who has access to the RUSI Journal might do well to read Charles Dick's review of Red Thrust in vol 135 (1990), issue 3:

link

What next book?

Originally First Clash was intended as a training manual for the Canadian Forces, not a novel. First Clash covers the battle procedure and conduct of the defence and withdrawal. There is a second volume that covers the counterattack, but it never caught on like the first one. I don't think Macksey wrote and the name escapes me. Google isn't being very helpful but I think of it I'll post it.

Major general Stanley, interesting link. On our big games ammunition for the artillery is a big issue.
Seems we were not that far out. However I did not realise every big SP gun had an ammo vehicle with it all the time (reloading accepted).

Reloading is a pain and leaves you vulnerable for a good while. It's surprising how little coverage even 100 152mm shells give if the enemy is well dug in, even if to just suppress them.

The Canadians did acquire the Eryx near the end of the Cold War, but its range was only 900m IIRC.

The other error is the 81mm Mortar platoons. The M125 was never purchased, and the tube was carried in a stock M113 or a truck. It needed to be dismounted and surveyed in order to do indirect fire, so was more susceptible to counter battery fire.

The second book was only available as a training pam as far as I know, and included many projected weapons types. The most interesting was the Chimera, a TD based on the Leopard tank with a 120mm main gun. These were formed into a Brigade AT Squadron.

It was titled Counterstrike.

Brian