"NATO Cold War - Battalion Strategy plus Game Design" Topic

This post is part questions about historical info and part questions about a game I'm brainstorming.

I posted a thread last week asking about "Divisional Scale" WW3 games and got some good suggestions. Most agree that a battalion should be the base manuever/combat unit, whether thats one large stand or a set of company stands acting as one unit.

Skimmed through the various rules and decided to hack up my own (I like Euro-game style point management, which fits well with a higher scale game) for home games.

Basics of the game would be:

2 Hour Turns
1":500m ground scale
1" x 1" company bases, combined into battalions for all game actions.

The core of the game would be attritional, as each unit would have a pool of Operational Points that they use to activate, to gain more dice for attacks, to move further, to call in support, and especially to take damage. It'd be a tad abstract but overall loss of points would represent everything from combat losses to morale degredation to getting lost or misunderstood orders. Divisional and Regimental commanders generate points and can pass them on to their subordinate units.

This scale gives a standard Soviet battalion a 1.5 KM to 2 KM direct frontage.

A couple questions came up:

1) I've read through the FM-100-2 series on the Soviet Army and that along with a similar British Field Manual has given me plenty to work with in terms of Frontages, Rates of Advance, etc. But similar info is lacking for American and NATO armies. I've got Isby's Armies of NATO's Central Front which gives me German and British Frontages but from skimming Field Manuals (both period pieces and current) it seems like the US purposely doesn't state these. What numbers would be plausible?

2) At the battalion level, looking through FMs, it seems like all combat should be "close assault"? Engagement ranges for tanks could be 3ish KM in good terrain, which would be six inches at my chosen scale, but almost all reference to combat I've read involve closing with the enemy and taking objectives. There is a reference to "shaping operations" in more modern manuals, which might involve less of the full on assault.

I'm thinking of having "Ranged" combat have less of an effect than Close combat, representing recon and forward forces engaging. Or would it have been common for two battalion sized forces to stand off a few KM from each other and engage?

It feels like you'd want almost an Ancients type thing where one stand pushes the other back after combat.

3) Are there any guidelines out there for the expected date of attrition expected in combat? I'm sure there were studies done or plans made around it. Could a battalion handle two hours of heavy fighting in a day, or four, or more? How many days could they be expected to go on with minimal resupply?

Happy to get book or especially PDF sources for any of this stuff.

Thanks!

So are you looking for responses for a fun game or more expected historical?
For example, the company bases for one combat arms type will need to be platoons for another. An armored Cavalry company was supposed to cover the frontage of a brigade. We were B Troop so we did maneuvers with 2nd brigade.
Other attached assets would have to be squad or sections like GSR, CeWi and ADA.

You could go with 2Km squares as movement areas. Close combat would be entering the square and be decisive. Standard combat would be a Square to Square fire and less decisive.

Joe Collins

For example, the company bases for one combat arms type will need to be platoons for another. An armored Cavalry company was supposed to cover the frontage of a brigade. We were B Troop so we did maneuvers with 2nd brigade.
Other attached assets would have to be squad or sections like GSR, CeWi and ADA.

Rudy: Sounds like company skirmishers covering the frontage of a brigade in 19th Century conflicts.

From my reading a platoon would Normaly defend about 500m so a company would face off over about 1.5 km. Now you may need a battalion to defend in depth on that frontage but you would need several battalions in depth to take the battalion defending in depth. Typicaly intavisibility limits direct fire to typically for tank warfare to 500 to 1500 although some pre surveyed favorable areas may allow 3km range.
A motor rifle regiment is proably some 20km in depth in an advance. Google Motor rife regiment in advance. The lead element is about a platoon then 5km behind that is the Vanguard and behind that is the main body followed by the rear guard. So you need a way to achieve a Forward edge of battle some 10 km deep and model say a regiment being 20 km deep. At your ground scale a regiment would be about 40 ins long. Artillery has a range of 15 to 25 km range so at 50" it's feasible to have them positioned favorably on table.
Certainly battalion level artillery will be on table and suitably represented. As would the MRR organic artillery. At this level logistics is a big issue and I would be interested to see how you model this.

It might be worthwhile to check T.N. Dupuy's "Numbers, Predictions, and War"

@Joe, yeah that's what I had imagined (using inches and ZoC instead of squares but it's functionally equivalent). But I was wondering how big the case for "Ranged" combat at this scale would be. I think it should be possible, to represent recon, advance groups, probing attacks and the like, but agree with the lack of decisiveness.

I'm trying to come up with something that feels different than my go-to Company and Battalion level games (FFT3 and CWC respectively).

@Rudy, yeah that was one of the issues I was thinking about. Probably need to find some way to represent the small units that truly operated outside of a battalion sized forces.

@khanscom I will look into that. Purely from the title it sounds useful.

@UshCha yep looking at the estimated widths of a Soviet Armored Division attack I figure I can get a full force in on an 6x4 with the defenders around the mid-line of the long edge. With plenty of room for manuever and counter strikes etc.

Regarding logistics, I still need to do more reading, but I was figured either some sort of supply locations that units could retreat to or having supply companies that could move around and resupply units. Still in the early brainstorming there.

SPI's Nato Division Commander covered this, might be worth looking at on Boardgame geek.

As stated above, NATO Division Commander is the game for this, but be warned, it is complex and difficult to get through. The "controller" option in that game is a unique gaming experience as you command a NATO division while the other player acts as umpire and runs the Soviets, so everything is hidden. Very difficult on the NATO player and pretty realistic.

SPI's Central Front series is at this scale and introduces the concept of friction points, so as one division fights itself out, another is passed through the front to continue the action. Detailed games, but they take some effort to finish.

1) link page 232 gives Width and Depth of Combat Zone of the US Army. The whole of "Chapter 8. The Armed Forces of the Imperialist States" gives information on several NATO nations.

1":500m ground scale

2) From memory: In West Germany 50% of engagement ranges are 1000 yds/meters (or less?). At your ground scale 2 inches.
(Assault) Rifle range, half of 500 meters, your Infantry fights will be at 1" or less. Melee.
3000m (scale 6") will be your long range shots, less than 10% due to terrain.

3) Ammunition (Class V) expenditure is higher than expected in combat. Troops will want that after each battle.
POL (CLASS III) depends on how much maneuvering goes on. Refuel overnight?
Fighting a division takes days, the other Classes of Supply will start to phase in.

Try the boardgame Air&Armor.
It's on this scale.

You assign missions to Regiments or Brigades. The ission determines how fast your units move.

It uses 1hex to 1 mile and combat is between adjacent units but you could use long range direct fire and same hex close combat.

Other rules, eg Kalt Kriege Ohne Hass, uses similar combat. And close combat is fun .

I had been playing around with taking the board game, Corps Command: Dawn's Early Light to miniatures. The base unit is a battalion. There are some neat ideas in the game but there would need to be some tweaks… artillery is abstracted out and I would like to represent those units on the table.

aegis47 has it. At this level the game is going to be comple, and logistics is what its about. Timescale as has been said will be in days. If you have a big urban area it will take days as in the real world to clear. There is not enough ammo to "flatten it" as some "games" players imagine.

You need to think very carefully about what you really want.
I consider myself a very keen simulator. Even with our simple rules and a very simplified and constrained board I have run through several companies, re positioned artillery (mortars only have 6000m range) so as they are not at the front they have to move regularly and re-supply regularly. Defining artilley targets, finding new places for them to assemble (an M109 battery) needs somthing like a 700m radious area to deploy in (it uses inertial navigation so its shoot and scoot is within 700m of a specific accurately surveyed point is not that simple. This deployement is vital before GPS becomes commoanplace. Credible maps are needed as at this level most uniots will be constrained to a large extent by the road network, lots of material is required way more than for WW2 so close in capable logistics routes are critical. You won't run a division easily on a 50 tonne limit bendy (and slow) side road.

It may be a good idea to review the game aegis47 suggested and see what you are up against. It really depends whether you really want a fantasy game or a credible game. The latter can be a simple as you want but it won't be real world credible.

Me my brain hits a limit with 2 or 3 battalions, working out how to keep up momentum as units run out of men and material and have to be re-armed. Outr game is up to about 60 bounds and is only just getting started.

swammeyjoe,
check out the so called "Smart Books" published by Lightning Press thelightningpress.com. I half jokingly suggest their motto should be "we've RTFMed so you don't have to!" Snark aside, they have done a pretty decent job of distilling the essence of US doctrine and tactics, techniques, and procedures into an accessible set of hand books. Pay particular attention to "The Battle Staff Hand Book" and "The Sustainment and Multifunction Logistics Smart Book" as they provide some handy planning factors (read time lines and time/space relationships and fuel/ammo consumption factors).

BTW, if you upgrade your membership, message me as I'm working a very similar project.

Mike

2) At the battalion level, looking through FMs, it seems like all combat should be "close assault"? Engagement ranges for tanks could be 3ish KM in good terrain, which would be six inches at my chosen scale, but almost all reference to combat I've read involve closing with the enemy and taking objectives. There is a reference to "shaping operations" in more modern manuals, which might involve less of the full on assault.

I'm basing my comments on being a former Rifle PL in the 101 Air Assault Div. '80-'81, then Bn Air Ops Ofc '82-'83. Then in '87-'89 an M113 Mech Co Cdr.

Most firefights take place a @ 250m. Or less based on terrain and weather. To a Grunt without a scope on his M16 a human target at 300m is tiny.

We fight combined arms, using supporting fires from direct and indirect assets, e.g. mortars, FA, Gunship and CAS.

Infantry and Tanks fire & maneuver using terrain for cover and concealment. Trying not to become a target.

Infantry assaults an enemy position using fire & movement, overwatch fire, covering bounding/moving elements. Moving from cover to cover. After but not always mortar/FA/ CAS prep. E.g. usually a dismounted night attack you rely on stealth and surprise. So supporting fires may not be used/needed.

Are there any guidelines out there for the expected date of attrition expected in combat? I'm sure there were studies done or plans made around it. Could a battalion handle two hours of heavy fighting in a day, or four, or more? How many days could they be expected to go on with minimal resupply?

Attrition is avoided at all costs. You want to out maneuver your enemy, cut off his supply lines, destroy his C3, etc. We fought battles of Attrition in WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam. We don't do that today. Or very rarely do forced entry operations, e.g. Normandy … But daily losses depends on the tempo of operations, as well as a number of other factors. E.g. is he willing to die no matter what, i.e. WWII IJFs.

A Bn can handle two or more hours of heavy fighting based on resupply and replacements. For both sides. The same goes for a day, or more. In the US Army we were resupplied daily sometimes twice a day. Depending on the situation. The Army has a very good system for running resupply ops. I did it in the ROK and the Desert at NTC.

Studies indicate the if WWIII broke out in Europe, units might run out of supplies, especially ammo. In a month or so based on the tempo of combat. By the time the rest of the US forces got there from the USA, it might be over.

Modern forces require a lot of ammo of all types. As doctrine calls for suppressive and supporting fires. Very modern 1st World forces require not only fuel but spare parts to keep going as well.

If you have a big urban area it will take days as in the real world to clear. There is not enough ammo to "flatten it" as some "games" players imagine.

Cordon and by pass most large urban areas. Especially today with the big concern about collateral damage to non-combatants and infrastructure.

Fighting house to house, room to room is difficult enough with prep/supporting fires. Smaller villages and towns, with structures no high than 2-3 floors. May be obtainable, but no Grunt or Tanker wants to fight offensively in a urban terrain. Or a very large city like Seoul.

Tanks, IFVs, AT missile, etc., can engage targets if they can see them @ 1000-4000m. Based again, on terrain and weather. You may only have 1000m or less engagement ranges. E.g. in many parts of Germany you have small villages and towns every 4000m of so. And many times with farmers fields in between. I.e. could have a lot of ground clutter.

Or e.g. in the jungles of Central America or the terrain of the ROK. Ranges will vary greatly. As in the jungle to a couple of feet. Or next to an ROK rice paddy you may have a clear long shot. Of 200-300m or more. Or in the desert even farther of course …

Generally no matter where you are –
If you can be seen you can be hit, if you can be hit you can be killed.

SPI's Nato Division Commander covered this

Yes, I highly recommend this. As well as a number of other game companies have done WWIII in Europe in the past. Also SPI's Red Star-White Star too. But there have been many others since then.