Artillery fire types

[Bipman]

Any reason why you would use anything other than 'Neutralising Fire' ? Is it to save ammo ? I know what the other fire types do but if you can destroy rather than just harass .....

SPG

[CapnDarwin]

Saving ammo is the major aspect. It will be more important in later updates when targets are more functionally showing fog of war and may be of unknown composition and location. I generally harass moving targets and then use neutralize against large/high value fixed targets. I'll check, but I also believe the chance of getting found/hit from counter battery fire goes up with increased fire level.

[Bipman]

Ah, that makes more sense thanks.

SPG

[jenrick]

In theory a battery firing neutralizing fire should occupy more tubes, use more ammo, and take longer. All of the above would lend to counter battery fire being a bigger issue.

-Jenrick

[WayneBGood]

Why is it that their isn't more chemical weapon's fire? Thought WP relied on persistent and non persistent chemicals in front of their advance?

[CapnDarwin]

Badcat,

Depends on who you talk to. If it got used, it would have been used against rear area targets like HQs, supply areas, and such. If it got used by WP forces NATO would have been forced to respond with Tac-nukes against similar targets and at that point the wheel start coming off the nuclear bus. I think both sides had plans, were happy to share them to scare the crap out of the other side, but hopefully never wanted to push that button. That being sais we have a few scenarios with WMDs and effects and you can definitely make your own scenarios with them. The only limitation being the AI right now does not really know how to use them, so keep them in head to head and PBEM games or on the player side of single player games.

[Sabre21]

Persistant gas would have been used on the POMCUS sites, large Hq's, and nuc sites where as non-persistent would be used on front line units, arty, airfields. But by 1989 when the game takes place, Nato troops in Europe where pretty well prepared to handle it. The first time it got used, there would have been some military casualties, but once that line was crossed, military casualties would have been minimal. Our decon procedures were pretty effective and quick. The real big problem would be the civilian casualties.

One more thing to consider are weather conditions. If it is real cold, chemical weapons just don't really work well and if it is windy or sunny, they dissipate or burn off real quick. So the conditions have to be real favorable in order to gain any advantage by using them.

[Mad Russian]

Where the problem would have been would have been the logistics and support centers manned and operated by German civilians. They would not have done well with chemical attacks. No logistics support no combat. The Russians were far from unprepared to win. That was not a statement at your comments. It was a general comment about their preparedness vs NATO's ability to defend itself and field it's armies.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Sabre21]

It all would depend on the amount of notice the West had on the impending attack. There were 3 scenarios.

1. One was where the Soviets attacked directly from the barracks locations. NATO would only have about a 3 day notice and this was considered the greatest of the threats that gave the Soviets the best chance of success. With such a short notice, only the units in country would have made it to their GDP positions and few civilians would have been evacuated. Had chemical weapons been used, as I mentioned above, civilian casualties would have posed the biggest problem, not to mention tens of thousands of dead animals and in excess of a million civilians.

2. The most expected type of attack was where NATO had about 2 weeks of notice as Soviet reinforcements such as the 28th CAA would have been moved westwards along with many trainloads of supplies. With this amount of notice, most of the Reforger units would have been in place and many of the civilians would have been evacuated. POMCUS sites would be empty and the larger log sites would have been dispersed out to their respective areas. At this point had chemicals been used, their would still be a lot of civilian casualties depending on where they were used but their overall effects on combat opns would be minimal.

3. The 3rd scenario was the least likely where Nato had 30+ days of warning. In this case Reforger would be fully completed and in place, reserves would be fully up and most civilians evacuated from the danger areas. Chemical use in this case would be pretty negligible on the short term, the long term effects would be the problem here when using persistent agents considering there are fields in Belgium still contaminated from WWI.

As a side note, there were large caches of ammo, fuel, and essential supplies pre-positioned in underground locations through out the US sectors. Not many people knew of their existence let alone where they were located. I knew of 3 of them in VII Corps area one of which was located in the 3rd ID sector. This site contained well over a million gallons of fuel alone. We carried 3 days of provisions with us when we deployed and the division had about 7 days worth. it was made easier in the late 80's when all of the vehicles and aircraft used the same fuel type (JP-8). I didn't really like JP-8, it was heavier than JP-4 leaving us less weight for weapons, but it was a common fuel type so I could refuel from just about anywhere.

As for these hidden sites, I'm sure the other Nato allies had them too and there were no doubt many more than the 3 I knew of. Logistics beyond about a 2 to 3 week supply would have been the problem if the Soviets could have disrupted the convoys that would have been needed to bring the adequate supplies in. Supposedly Nato had 30 to 60 days worth but I figure the actual high rate of expenditure 2 to 3 weeks would have been pushing it. Again though it all depends on which scenario was used, if it was the 3rd, the Soviets had no chance unless they went nuc in which case we all lose.

[Mad Russian]

My next campaign involves a 'stay behind' unit of the Bundeswehr. I even went so far as to create a patch for it. I know that these units existed but not what their designations were. In any case, I think at least the West Germans had depots in lots of different places.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Sabre21]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

My next campaign involves a 'stay behind' unit of the Bundeswehr. I even went so far as to create a patch for it. I know that these units existed but not what their designations were. In any case, I think at least the West Germans had depots in lots of different places.

Good Hunting.

MR

Try looking at the Bundesgrenzschutz for that. They were the paramilitary border guard and it would fit right up their alley considering many spoke Russian.