1979 the next war -Combat results

[fulcrum28]

I was testing the first turn of the "The Next War 1979" scenario for TOAWIV, and I was surprised how bloody the combat is for armor forces. I was playing the Soviet side against NATO PO, and the first turn (consumed 60% only) already amount for more than 3200 tanks (t-62, T-72) destroyed.

I saw some battles in which almost an entire Soviet Tank division of 250 tanks loses more than 90% of its armor. Nato side also loses similar amount of tanks.

Is that feasible? or the parameters of this specific scenario are too bloody?

[Curtis Lemay]

And you haven't even gone nuclear yet! (Which this scenario tends to do).

AD is 4, making everything 2.5 times bloodier than normal to begin with. Lots of AT and air stuff makes this situation bad news for tanks.

[fulcrum28]

thank you for your feed-back. My question is whether this kind of bloody combat results for armor are expected in a real conflict at 1979 or it was increased for design reasons?

[fulcrum28]

"everything 2.5 times bloodier than normal" so why we dont play it with normal settings? or you mean 2.5 bloodier than WW2 tank battles?

[rhinobones]

ORIGINAL: fulcrum28

"everything 2.5 times bloodier than normal" so why we dont play it with normal settings? or you mean 2.5 bloodier than WW2 tank battles?

The TO&Es of modern armies are loaded with weapons specifically designed to destroy armor. Doesn’t help that armor is also the priority target. So, it doesn’t surprise me that in three and a half days (length of one turn) a significant number of armored vehicles are destroyed. After they’re gone it becomes an infantry war.

Regards

[cathar1244]

ORIGINAL: fulcrum28

"everything 2.5 times bloodier than normal" so why we dont play it with normal settings? or you mean 2.5 bloodier than WW2 tank battles?

I think he meant 2.5 times more than the standard TOAW scenario setting.

Cheers

[cathar1244]

ORIGINAL: fulcrum28

thank you for your feed-back. My question is whether this kind of bloody combat results for armor are expected in a real conflict at 1979 or it was increased for design reasons?

High losses of vehicles were expected. Lots of systems capable of firing antitank projectiles. I don't think I've seen any loss projections, though. T. N. Dupuy in his work "Numbers, Predictions, and War" modeled a Fulda Gap clash that may have included the projected losses.

Cheers

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: fulcrum28

"everything 2.5 times bloodier than normal" so why we dont play it with normal settings? or you mean 2.5 bloodier than WW2 tank battles?

Turns are half-week. So...if we use the default AD for Whole-Day turn length, these turns have, on average, 3.5 times the combat as Whole-Day turns.

Now wait for Ben to chime in and wag his finger at that. [:D]

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


Turns are half-week. So...if we use the default AD for Whole-Day turn length, these turns have, on average, 3.5 times the combat as Whole-Day turns.

Now wait for Ben to chime in and wag his finger at that. [:D]

I only even see this because fulcrum pointed to this thread from somewhere else.

Ultimately "design for effect" is my motto and if this produces the right effect for you then have at it. For myself I find the results become extreme when the AD is moved too far from the middle of the dial.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


Turns are half-week. So...if we use the default AD for Whole-Day turn length, these turns have, on average, 3.5 times the combat as Whole-Day turns.

Now wait for Ben to chime in and wag his finger at that. [:D]

I only even see this because fulcrum pointed to this thread from somewhere else.

Ultimately "design for effect" is my motto and if this produces the right effect for you then have at it. For myself I find the results become extreme when the AD is moved too far from the middle of the dial.

I agree with the first statement. But take a look at the first post above: 4.5% losses for squads shown vs. 16.5% losses for tanks shown. Of course, that doesn't account for all factors, but it sure looks like your old claim that armored combat is not affected by the AD is wrong, Ben.

[Meyer1]

I love those colors of the UI, which mod are you using?

[golden delicious]

I agree with the first statement. But take a look at the first post above: 4.5% losses for squads shown vs. 16.5% losses for tanks shown. Of course, that doesn't account for all factors, but it sure looks like your old claim that armored combat is not affected by the AD is wrong, Ben.

Is it? Did you test the scenario with a different AD value?

I haven't played a lot of modern scenarios but where I have armour seems to basically be toast regardless of the AD.

You may be right- my observation that armour losses seem to remain low even when the AD is low was not based on formal testing.

[Curtis Lemay]

I agree with the first statement. But take a look at the first post above: 4.5% losses for squads shown vs. 16.5% losses for tanks shown. Of course, that doesn't account for all factors, but it sure looks like your old claim that armored combat is not affected by the AD is wrong, Ben.

Is it? Did you test the scenario with a different AD value?

I haven't played a lot of modern scenarios but where I have armour seems to basically be toast regardless of the AD.

You may be right- my observation that armour losses seem to remain low even when the AD is low was not based on formal testing.

No. I still haven't done rigorous tests. It just looks like armor is not getting any special break in the above, and I couldn't resist making that observation.

[fulcrum28]

Bob, then the generic equation is like:

ADN=10 or ADN=14 as define as "normal" battle

parameter to be set for each scenario (AD)is always relative to this ADN value as follows

AD=ADN/(number of days)

so if ADN=14 and number of days is one week (7 days)

AD to be input in the scenario is AD=2

IS it correct?

[Curtis Lemay]

Bob, then the generic equation is like:

ADN=10 or ADN=14 as define as "normal" battle

parameter to be set for each scenario (AD)is always relative to this ADN value as follows

AD=ADN/(number of days)

so if ADN=14 and number of days is one week (7 days)

AD to be input in the scenario is AD=2

IS it correct?

I've attached a spreadsheet shot showing how it works out, mathematically. Obviously, we can't do fractional ADs yet.

I've also shown what I've used in all of my scenarios. Note that I only followed my own rules 7 out of 21 times.

Okinawa needed to model the Japs being in caves and practically invulnerable to bombardment. Hence the higher than standard divisor.

Naval ADs generally need to be set to 100, regardless.

Pre-20th Century topics tend to have long intervals of sitting on one's hands, with occasional very bloody clashes. Since the CW subjects were battles instead of campaigns, they were given much bloodier ADs. But Killer Angels was a campaign, so it is an exception. Waterloo and Leipzig are sort of campaigns as well.

[fulcrum28]

Thank you Bob, this table is very useful.

Btw, is the equation same as I wrote above?
I also posted a short AAR for the results of turns 1-3. I have a question on the data for the T-55 and T-72 tanks. T-55 seems to have stronger parameters, and I dont know why...