"Warpack Rate of advance" Topic

We are considering a post Lockdown winter "campaign" that is 24 to 48 hrs of battle concentrating on the FEBA (Forward Edge of Battle Area) to the (EA) Engagement Area and beyond covering several "Stop lines".

We will again use our unique approach of only modelling a frontage of 1200m on table and some 10's of kilometres depth on a partially virtual board; That is a huge board that we only represent an area 1200m by 2400m on tavble at any one time.. By ensuring the overall battlespace is all "useful" terrain the depth can be artificially reduced minimising the terrain generation overhead required before the game.

Logistics will be limited to the following:-
The available resources for both the attacker (Warpac) and defender (NATO) at zero hour will be defined (tanks, artillery and Logistics re supply limitations). The detail of the NATO positions known to NATO at the start will reduce as the attackers move into the defenders battlespace.

Re supply of both forces is the issue that is concerning me. Obviously there needs to be a level of abstraction as we are only covering a small area of the real battlespace.

My current thinking is that NATO will not have a supply issue. It will have shrinking supply lines so that this will minimise the impact of any far off enemy action outside the modelled battlespace.
I'm inclined to do the same for WAR PAC. The basis is that the concentration of the simulation is on the front end. Attacks on supply lines within the 10's of kilometres of the modelled battlespace can be modelled reasonable by the on table and remote assets. This still means units will have to pull out to rest refuel and re-arm during the campaign or do so more slowly if doing so in position.

I would be interested in opinions on these options and if they differ on what grounds. NOTE random events are to be completely ruled out, while they are a fact of life they do not enhance the learning experience this simulation is addressing, previous attempts have shown that pure random can result in games outside the boundary of interesting and useful games.

Finally as for the title; what is a reasonable expectation of the rate of advance for a successful WAR PACK advance over 24 to 48 hrs. Assume if relevant around 1980.

"Numbers, Predictions,and War" by T.N. Dupuy provides tools for calculating an estimated rate of advance for different division types, defensive options, terrain, etc. Analysis is based on 1970s data, but this might be a good starting point.

I wouldn't worry about logistics for the WARPAC either (perhaps with the sole exception of their artillery forces), since from what I've read, as units in contact are destroyed, demoralized, or run out of ammo and fuel, fresh units WILL be fed into the NATO meatgrinder in order to keep the attack rolling forward.

If I recall correctly, they had about a 3:1 or greater advantage in numbers of tanks, etc. over NATO, so no real need to worry.

WARPAC battalions, regiments, and yes, even whole divisions will advance forward to fill any void(s), much like water does in a flood, seeking the path(s) of least resistance as it moves on inexoribly.

Thresher, I current thinking is WARPAC having a 7:1 in immediate reddiness. That is to do what you describe.

The brits will have a defence frontage of about a Battlegroup in place at any one time so at least 3 battlegroups so that the units can be replaced as the Brits retreat from one Phase line to the next and are replaced.

Artillery may not be too much of an issue directly in this simulation. To KISS both sides will have to operate on shoot and scoot or risk significant losses. The limit then is the loadout of the vehicle. Once empty, quite qickly in some cases, they will then have to park up and reload, a relatively slow process as you don't want lots of ammo out in the open and the vehicle and ammo supply must not to be too close. Mutual destruction if something goes up is not an acceptable risk.

The 1200m is about the frontage of a battalion at the main point of attack. Source: Battle Book (Center for Army Tactics) 86-(ST 100-3)-2202 dated 1 April 1986 Ft Leavenworth, KS. The battalions depth of attack would be 5km. At this level supply is not going to be an issue. For NATO a battalion would be defending a frontage of about 5km with a depth of 3-5km. Source: Isby & Kamps, Armies of NATO's Central Front. Again, at this level supply is not going to be an issue.
See page 4-4 of this document for what the Soviets intended for their rate of advance
PDF link

It sounds like an interesting scenario. My take on it is you'll probably have good intel from observing past NATO rehearsals and HUMINT that has been in place for decades. The real opening stage of the battle will be when your battalion moves into their assembly area, most likely some woods or urban setting.

If detected by SigInt, HUMINT or satellite it will be pounded with whatever NATO has to reach it. This may reduce your strength and throw off your attack timing and coordination with flanking units. Your AAA units will be especially vulnerable.

Page 57 of the above link shows your battalion deployed in a march column. Your rate of advance will depend if you can maintain a march column or are forced to deploy. Once they locate you they'll drop FASCAM at choke points, intersections, and roads you'll need to take. This will slow you down even further. You may be faced with continuing to advance in a column and leave other units behind until they extract themselves. So either your timing is thrown off even more or your main force is weakened. You could split your force into 2-3 axis of advance to make them harder to engage but splitting them up may be a bad idea.

Hopefully, your recon patrol has found gaps to keep you moving in a road march column. However, it may be a ploy to channelize you and let you move into an ambush. There will most likely be NATO Recon and Spec Ops units that will be tracking your advance and probably making hit and run attacks or calling in artillery. Spetsnaz units should be trying to track them down. Ideally, they or other agents are just behind the NATO FEBA (dressed in NATO uniforms and other dirty tricks?) able to identify NATO screening units for a rocket barrage. However, expect a lot of EW and communications jamming which can also be targeted by both sides. Because of the expected communications blackouts, your artillery support from higher echelons may be timed. If you are running behind schedule it will arrive before you get there and not be much help. With any luck, you'll be able to land some airmobile units behind enemy lines to disrupt them and hold key choke points. Maybe using the enemy type helicopters with their national markings. The Russians like dirty tricks and deception. With luck, deceptions could put the front-line units out of position.

The first line of defense for NATO will be obstructions, ATGM's sniping at you doing Shoot & Scoot, and attack helicopters flying NOE and popping up to fire an ATGM. They'll probably have AAA to go after the Hinds. They are going to put up enough resistance to force you to deploy your main body, which slows your advance giving NATO more time to respond and counterattack.

At this point, you could put the figures on the table and start the real battle as you normally would. I'd suggest a massive rocket barrage and smoke as soon as you become engaged. This will negate NATO's advantage in range and limit their observation for calling in artillery and air. Then it's a mad dash at high speed with the smoke generators on to close with the enemy and hope your advantage in numbers holds up and you can flank or get past them forcing a withdraw. Don't get tied down in a shooting match. NATO will most likely have road choke points ready to blow with pre-positioned explosives which could be a nasty surprise as they'd most likely have that spot zeroed in for a ToT barrage.

NATO's main strategy will most likely be to let you advance and when weak enough mount a planned counterattack so it may be hard to engage their main body on your terms. That's when the next wave will arrive and exploit while you keep the main body engaged.

1980 assumes no thermal sights, drones, or internet. Of course, you could determine air superiority too.

Wolfhag

First of all thanks to williamb your link is invaluable. However like many manuals it fails to marry theory very well with practical limitations of the real world where the hoped for flank movements are much more limiting in the real world certainly at lower levels.

I have some maps of the Brits responsibility in Germany and its very dense terrain. So that effectively WARPAC can advance on multiple axes but they will be sufficiently apart separated by only small poor roads that there will be limited interaction between them. In addition any significant advance needs a major(ish)road to be able to supply the advance; There are few of them limiting the Warpac options at a local level. While flanking moves are possible they will be slow. willamb's link page 5-3 is enlightening.

Best road speed with a damaged surface (i.e tanks have chewed up especially Warpack ones (that is real, look at the issues with the tank in Moscow when filming when all roads must be protected by metal plates) is as low as 20kph. T be fair looking at the map the UK has similar roads and even in good conditions a car can only manage about 30kph and then at the bridge limits could be an issue even if as a matter of course you make double the peacetime limit normal. Here the Warpac has some advantage as their tanks tend to be a bit lighter. simply because of the need to slow down to pass tight curves. A column gets huge delays from even 1 curve as even a real road movement covers huge distance just a company can cover 500m. Trying to pass fast as a column will stretch out the column in places and risk fatal crowding in others.

Now the simulation will be VERY limited in scope to make the complexity manageable. But it does mean that perhaps we need a rules that trying to move too fast will result in attrition of forces, real world all kind of stuff like air attacks against easy targets.

Wolfhag, advancing in smoke has a lot of risks for the enemy. If it does not lift on time it can be counter productive as the Allies found in WWII. even in our simulations your own smoke can easily is counter productive. As it limits your own view and can result in the enemy ambushing you not the other way about. But its one string to the Warpack bow.

Its perhaps worth re-iterating this is a different sort of campaign. Effectively representing a VERY small slice in width of the battle but at least attempting represent SOME NOT ALL the aspects of the impact of depth of the attack and defense.