LTCMTS
Interesting discussion, using any years you wish, I wonder if you would address the results of a suprise attack by Warsaw Pact short - medium range missiles, followed by Ground Attack AC, both using CB and especially Fuel Air weapons on the Airfields, with a view to catching the aircraft on the ground prior to a Ground Attack.
As an ex USAF guy, most AF planing/intel. papers that I have read generally consider that this would have rendered most if not all the NATO bases inoperable, if not destroyed outright.
Almost certainly this, combined with Commando missions against our C&C and airbases would have preceeded a ground attack.
Also IMHO, the considerable capabilities of the Warsaw Pact Army short - medium range Air Defenses and Air Forces are generally underrated in most, if not all " what if " scenarios based upon NATO Air Superority holding the line.
Finally, I`m not at all sure that if they had been insane enough to roll the dice and start WW III, it would have been that easy to stop them.
Perhaps, as you point out, the unreliability of some Warsaw Pact units, and the Poles ( who hated them ) across their lines of communcation would have been the deciding issues.
As far as games, you may want to look at LTC Lunsfords " Decisive Action " by HPS Sims, a modern war sim that is, even if not NATO vs WP based really quite superior to Fuda Gap `85.
Also the link to your site does not work ( for me ) ?
British units
Moderators: IronManBeta, CapnDarwin
Re
The operative point is whether the Soviets could "mask" their approach to the departure line sufficiently.
Use of Frogs, SS-21/23 systems with HE only warheads would require movement of missile units to launch positions closer to the IGB. Use of NBC warheads, would, of course, give longer ranges and greater effect on target. Use of NBC warheads would trigger the nuclear threshold (probably). By this time, I believe most of the GLCMs and Pershing IIs had deployed? The counter-threat the Pershing II deep penetrator warhead represented to the Soviet C2 infrastruture would have acted as a break on prolific use of NBC equipped missile/rocket delivered warheads.
The use of KGB inserted operatives is an interesting point. I believe the German counter-intelligence was penetrated by the STASI, but this would not impact their ability to monitor armed civilians gathering in any numbers near NATO C2 and NBC weapons storage or other important targets. These sites were fairly well guarded. The use of Guards Abn or AASLT units would require aviation support. By 1988, I believe there was at least 1 E-3A on station, so movement of SOF troops by air should be detected. Same for WP FGR/FGA aircraft. The US alone maintained three brigades of mixed Patriot/I-Hawk batteries along the IGB. I don't believe the Soviets had sufficient missiles with SGFG to cover all the targets needed to allow a successful air op and degrade NATO's C2, NBC weapons storage, support facilities and airfields at the same time. Also, given WP readiness capabilities, the need to withdraw equipment from storage and prep it should have been a blip on the event timeline of EUCOM commander's decision matrix.
As for Soviet low/medium altitude ADA systems, they would be as vulnerable (more so) to the attritional weapons on their approach march as the MBTs. US ATW doctrine was for the Apaches and Cobras to take out the ZSU-23-4 and SA-8 vehicles first from ambush in order to open the way for the A-10s, the Hellfire outranges the effective engagement range of both systems, while the TOW armed AH-1s would be more vulnerable. Use of artillery in close coordination would keep the SA-7/14/16's inside their BMP/BTR carriers and the use of ambush tactics by the AHs would restrict target acquisition in response by the ZSUs and SA-8s. Smoke would ahev denied the SA-8s the use of their optical FCS and "Black Hole" and IR flares would help against the IIR guidance.
Another impact would be when. The Soviets suffered a twice a year turn over of 33% of their troops as a new conscript class came in and the time-expired conscripts (inlcuding most of their NCOs) left. At the beginning of these cycles, training and maintenance readiness clearly suffered, and it got worse as the level of quality of the conscripts dropped from about 1985 on.
Of course, this is my analysis (opinion?) and I am open to discussion. What I hope is that the game (sim?) will allow the management of variables, start positions, OOBs and platforms that will allow the exploration of these themes.
Actually I do own "Decisive Action", though I haven't done much with it yet. I also own "TacOps", which is a fun sim, though a bit 2D.
As a comment, I liked the simpler, more elegant way, Norm Koger, handled operational level air warfare as a "combined" arms in his "Red Lightning" and other Conflict games. The process in TOAW seems clumsy by comparison.
Use of Frogs, SS-21/23 systems with HE only warheads would require movement of missile units to launch positions closer to the IGB. Use of NBC warheads, would, of course, give longer ranges and greater effect on target. Use of NBC warheads would trigger the nuclear threshold (probably). By this time, I believe most of the GLCMs and Pershing IIs had deployed? The counter-threat the Pershing II deep penetrator warhead represented to the Soviet C2 infrastruture would have acted as a break on prolific use of NBC equipped missile/rocket delivered warheads.
The use of KGB inserted operatives is an interesting point. I believe the German counter-intelligence was penetrated by the STASI, but this would not impact their ability to monitor armed civilians gathering in any numbers near NATO C2 and NBC weapons storage or other important targets. These sites were fairly well guarded. The use of Guards Abn or AASLT units would require aviation support. By 1988, I believe there was at least 1 E-3A on station, so movement of SOF troops by air should be detected. Same for WP FGR/FGA aircraft. The US alone maintained three brigades of mixed Patriot/I-Hawk batteries along the IGB. I don't believe the Soviets had sufficient missiles with SGFG to cover all the targets needed to allow a successful air op and degrade NATO's C2, NBC weapons storage, support facilities and airfields at the same time. Also, given WP readiness capabilities, the need to withdraw equipment from storage and prep it should have been a blip on the event timeline of EUCOM commander's decision matrix.
As for Soviet low/medium altitude ADA systems, they would be as vulnerable (more so) to the attritional weapons on their approach march as the MBTs. US ATW doctrine was for the Apaches and Cobras to take out the ZSU-23-4 and SA-8 vehicles first from ambush in order to open the way for the A-10s, the Hellfire outranges the effective engagement range of both systems, while the TOW armed AH-1s would be more vulnerable. Use of artillery in close coordination would keep the SA-7/14/16's inside their BMP/BTR carriers and the use of ambush tactics by the AHs would restrict target acquisition in response by the ZSUs and SA-8s. Smoke would ahev denied the SA-8s the use of their optical FCS and "Black Hole" and IR flares would help against the IIR guidance.
Another impact would be when. The Soviets suffered a twice a year turn over of 33% of their troops as a new conscript class came in and the time-expired conscripts (inlcuding most of their NCOs) left. At the beginning of these cycles, training and maintenance readiness clearly suffered, and it got worse as the level of quality of the conscripts dropped from about 1985 on.
Of course, this is my analysis (opinion?) and I am open to discussion. What I hope is that the game (sim?) will allow the management of variables, start positions, OOBs and platforms that will allow the exploration of these themes.
Actually I do own "Decisive Action", though I haven't done much with it yet. I also own "TacOps", which is a fun sim, though a bit 2D.
As a comment, I liked the simpler, more elegant way, Norm Koger, handled operational level air warfare as a "combined" arms in his "Red Lightning" and other Conflict games. The process in TOAW seems clumsy by comparison.
Mia Culpea
http://www.newnanbiz.net/msnyder/ is the correct web site address. It's pretty basic, but I'm still teaching myself.
Weather and Smoke
I'm trying to locate the reference, but how will you be handling the weather? I seem to remember there was a rare weather phenomenom in Germany where there was a weather inversion which trapped cold air heavy with water molecules into pockets in the terrain. These inversions which occurred in the morning in spring and autumn actually degraded thermal imaging systems. Also, are you allowing for the impact on passive night vision systems of new moon nights, where there is a lack of ambient light to magnify? I know that PNS equipped AFVs usually retained their white light/IR S/Ls to provide an IR light source for PNS magnification, but what about hand-helds? How is smoke generation handled? Are vehicle and structure fires considered in their effect as obscurents?
NBC, Smoke and Weather
Another thought. NBC, especially certain types of non-persistent agents and delivery methods are heavily impacted by weather conditions. Smoke, too. Are these modeled in the sim?
Re: 1988-89
Originally posted by LTCMTS
Truthfully, in my professional opinion, among others, the only way the Soviets had of winning a "come as you are war" in 1988-89 was to catch us in our kasernes the day after the Super Bowl or go "ugly early", ie. NBC. The scenario, if we got to our GDP positions, goes something like this.
1. The F-117As decapitate the WP air C2.
2. W/o AGC, the WP AD fighters fall like flies to F-15s guided by E-3s using BVR AAMs.
3. The F-111s and Tornados, escorted by EF-111s, and aided by Lance, ATACMS and SLCMs seriously delay or stop the 2d and follow-on echelons, dropping every bridge between the IGB and the Vistula.
4. ICMs using minelets and bomblets from 155mm, 8in, MLRS attrite the first echelon during its approach march.
5. At the FEBA, the A-10s, Apaches, Cobras, PAH-1s and Lynxs, with Copperheads, further decimate the first echelon.
6. As the survivors hit the MLR in front of the Germans, Dutch, US and Brits, they hit a fog of artillery generated smoke. While there're in there wandering around, they get waxed by 120mm and 105mm APDSFS, TOW 2, HOT 2, Milan 2 and Dragon 2 using thermal imaging sights.
7. Once the correlation of forces reached culmination point, the US V and VII Corps become NATO's OMG, attacking across the IGB into the southern flank of the 2d echelon and into their rear using J-STARS (E-8) to provide real time intell by D/L. They would roll the 2d echelon up to the Baltic and the rest of the NATO forces would advance behind them to the Polish border to establish a new FEBA against the follow-on echelons.
If the Soviets try to reinforce their GSFG with CAT A divisions from the western TVDs, NATO would also reinforce and maintain the balance of forces. Probably the best chance the Soviets had was in the mid to late 70s.
Anyway, I look forward to your game/sim. I like TOAW-CW and Fulda Gap '85, even Red Lightning, though Red Lightning over rates the Soviet equipment and doesn't factor in the German territorials, Fulda Gap '85 is difficult to adjust parameters and TOAW-CW doesn't allow you to modify or add platforms. Steel Panthers II and III with their third party add-ons is fun too, except you can't sim gun launched missiles like the MGM-51 or the AT-8/10 or 11. If I can help (and I work for free, as this is my hobby (and professional addiction), just let me know. I have a web site where I post a bunch of (incomplete) stuff, http\\www.newnan.biz/msnyder.
Seems pretty optimistic for NATO, but not totally impossible.
However, some of the weapons you mention would not be in the mix:
* JSTARS - The first prototype wasn't even completed until 1988, so any use in such a scenario (1988-1989 would be limited at best)
* ATACMS - I'm not even sure ATACMS was on the drawing board yet in 1988-1989! It certainly would not have been available!
You also mention SLCM's, I doubt you'd see much use of those in Central Europe, the platforms would be too busy taking care of business in the North Atlantic and GIUK gap to be worrying about directly supporting Central Europe land operations.
JSTARS
The maiden flight of the "fully configured" E-8A Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System was in Dec 88, so it could have been committed to combat in 1989, as was in its prototype form in 1990-91 during the Gulf War. Its initial service trials were in Europe in 1990. As you point out it would not have been available in 1988.
The first ATACMS missile was fired in early 1988. LTV completed 66 production missiles between mid-1988 and early 1990. As an ILO, the MGM-52C Lance carries a 454kg cluster warhead using DP bomblets to a range of 72km.
The T-ASM (Tomahawk Anti-Shipping Missile, BGM-109B) did not become available in numbers before 1987. The primary submarine launched Tomahawk was from the TLAM-C and -D, BGM-109C Block IIA and IIB. IIA had a unitary 1,000lb warhead and a range of 1234km which became operational in 1985 and the IIB a cluster warhead with 168 DP bomblets at a range of 863km, which became operational in Oct 87. The primary target of these systems would have been land based facilities mapped by satellites, such as above ground buildings, bridges, dams, airfields, installations, etc. They would have been entirely ineffective against a mobile target, unless that target was caught at a choke point which was an identifable target, such as a bridge. There was of course the TLAM-N, BGM-109A with the 200kT warhead. While the USN intended to attack into the Soviet SSBN "safe" areas north and east of Norway, this was not an attack on Soviet strategic assets per se (though a secondary effect would have been a low level attrition of a part of those assets) but to divert the Soviets from attacking NATO sea lanes in the Atlantic by forcing them to attack the USN CBGs attacking (or threatening) their strategic assets.
Of course, in order to get a conventional war in Western Europe in the late 1980's takes a different historical timeline and as we discussed before, any changes in history between 1985 to 1987 would also change the shape of the armed forces deployed in such a conflict. Defense spending had peaked for R&D and weapons procurement in 1987, as Gorbachev's policies reduced the percieved threat from the Soviets. A war in 1988-89 would have required that the perception of that threat remain at its pre-1987 levels or increase, leading to corresponding maintenance or increase in the levels of defense spending in NATO nations which would have seen an earlier entry into service of some weapons systems and the availability of others in more or less greater numbers. The Soviets were at "war" levels of production for their defense industry. It would have been difficult for them to increase their monthly/annual output, and they would have been reluctent to shift to newer weapons systems that would have reduced the output from their factories. The US, on the other hand, and as an example of NATO weapons production, had reduced M1A1(HA) production from 70 per month in 1985-87 from Lima and Detroit Army Tank Plants to less than 43 per month in 1991. Both production lines were single, eight hour shifts, 40 hour weeks. The US had the capacity to reach production levels of 120 M1A1(HA) MBTs monthly by Jun 1988. Mainz and Anniston Army Depots could convert 60 M60A1 to M60A3 TTS on a single shift line, and could have reached 105 per month by Jan 88. One or both plants could have been used to convert M1 and M1IMP to M1A1 configuration starting in 1987.
The first ATACMS missile was fired in early 1988. LTV completed 66 production missiles between mid-1988 and early 1990. As an ILO, the MGM-52C Lance carries a 454kg cluster warhead using DP bomblets to a range of 72km.
The T-ASM (Tomahawk Anti-Shipping Missile, BGM-109B) did not become available in numbers before 1987. The primary submarine launched Tomahawk was from the TLAM-C and -D, BGM-109C Block IIA and IIB. IIA had a unitary 1,000lb warhead and a range of 1234km which became operational in 1985 and the IIB a cluster warhead with 168 DP bomblets at a range of 863km, which became operational in Oct 87. The primary target of these systems would have been land based facilities mapped by satellites, such as above ground buildings, bridges, dams, airfields, installations, etc. They would have been entirely ineffective against a mobile target, unless that target was caught at a choke point which was an identifable target, such as a bridge. There was of course the TLAM-N, BGM-109A with the 200kT warhead. While the USN intended to attack into the Soviet SSBN "safe" areas north and east of Norway, this was not an attack on Soviet strategic assets per se (though a secondary effect would have been a low level attrition of a part of those assets) but to divert the Soviets from attacking NATO sea lanes in the Atlantic by forcing them to attack the USN CBGs attacking (or threatening) their strategic assets.
Of course, in order to get a conventional war in Western Europe in the late 1980's takes a different historical timeline and as we discussed before, any changes in history between 1985 to 1987 would also change the shape of the armed forces deployed in such a conflict. Defense spending had peaked for R&D and weapons procurement in 1987, as Gorbachev's policies reduced the percieved threat from the Soviets. A war in 1988-89 would have required that the perception of that threat remain at its pre-1987 levels or increase, leading to corresponding maintenance or increase in the levels of defense spending in NATO nations which would have seen an earlier entry into service of some weapons systems and the availability of others in more or less greater numbers. The Soviets were at "war" levels of production for their defense industry. It would have been difficult for them to increase their monthly/annual output, and they would have been reluctent to shift to newer weapons systems that would have reduced the output from their factories. The US, on the other hand, and as an example of NATO weapons production, had reduced M1A1(HA) production from 70 per month in 1985-87 from Lima and Detroit Army Tank Plants to less than 43 per month in 1991. Both production lines were single, eight hour shifts, 40 hour weeks. The US had the capacity to reach production levels of 120 M1A1(HA) MBTs monthly by Jun 1988. Mainz and Anniston Army Depots could convert 60 M60A1 to M60A3 TTS on a single shift line, and could have reached 105 per month by Jan 88. One or both plants could have been used to convert M1 and M1IMP to M1A1 configuration starting in 1987.
Other Thoughts
Have you checked the original combat factors and platform database? I know that "Red Lightning", among other previous sims overvalued the Soviet weapons systems.
How are you handling reserve forces? The German Territorial Army (a coll. trans into English) had a major role in the defense of Germany.
1. They augmented 21 TAACOM (US) with HNS, such as additional supply throughput, port ops and trans assets. They also provided company and platoon size units of light infantry to provide local and rear area security.
2. They provided almost all the EAC/national level CSS/CS in support of the Corps.
3. They provided over a hundered independent light infantry companies and platoons, armed with G3's, MG1's, PzF, Carl Gustavs to provide point, local and rear area security.
4. The German federal and state police agencies maintained disciplined units ("barracks" police) that would have performed similar functions.
5. The national police forces in France, Belgium and the Netherlands had similar functions and light armor, and these nations also had reserve forces to provide internal security.
6. These nations also had air force security forces for the defense of their bases, again equipped with some light armor, in the manner of the RAF Rgt for the British and the GC/ADF units (which were trained at Fort Dix) in the USAF.
How are you handling reserve forces? The German Territorial Army (a coll. trans into English) had a major role in the defense of Germany.
1. They augmented 21 TAACOM (US) with HNS, such as additional supply throughput, port ops and trans assets. They also provided company and platoon size units of light infantry to provide local and rear area security.
2. They provided almost all the EAC/national level CSS/CS in support of the Corps.
3. They provided over a hundered independent light infantry companies and platoons, armed with G3's, MG1's, PzF, Carl Gustavs to provide point, local and rear area security.
4. The German federal and state police agencies maintained disciplined units ("barracks" police) that would have performed similar functions.
5. The national police forces in France, Belgium and the Netherlands had similar functions and light armor, and these nations also had reserve forces to provide internal security.
6. These nations also had air force security forces for the defense of their bases, again equipped with some light armor, in the manner of the RAF Rgt for the British and the GC/ADF units (which were trained at Fort Dix) in the USAF.
Once More Into the?
How about MLRS? Systems like the MLRS, LARS and BM-21 produce emense firepower over a short period of time but then take far greater times to reload for the next salvoes. The end result is that over a period of time, a battery of tubes generates equivalent firepower to MLRs. The problem is depicting the momentary massive impact on indirect fire combat followed by the lull until reloaded or destroyed by counter-battery.
-
IronManBeta
- Posts: 4021
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: Brantford, Ontario
- Contact:
Re: Weather and Smoke
Originally posted by LTCMTS
I'm trying to locate the reference, but how will you be handling the weather? I seem to remember there was a rare weather phenomenom in Germany where there was a weather inversion which trapped cold air heavy with water molecules into pockets in the terrain. These inversions which occurred in the morning in spring and autumn actually degraded thermal imaging systems. Also, are you allowing for the impact on passive night vision systems of new moon nights, where there is a lack of ambient light to magnify? I know that PNS equipped AFVs usually retained their white light/IR S/Ls to provide an IR light source for PNS magnification, but what about hand-helds? How is smoke generation handled? Are vehicle and structure fires considered in their effect as obscurents?
We have a lighting and weather model but not anything this complex. I feel that this level of detail would be a little too fine for a simulation at the bn / reg / bde level. Also, the original design was for an game that was "introductory" for the hobby. My worry now is that it is getting too complex as it is. As with any game, a certain level of abstraction is necessary to keep things moving along.
Thanks for the ideas though!
Cheers, Rob.
-
IronManBeta
- Posts: 4021
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: Brantford, Ontario
- Contact:
Re: Once More Into the?
Originally posted by LTCMTS
How about MLRS? Systems like the MLRS, LARS and BM-21 produce emense firepower over a short period of time but then take far greater times to reload for the next salvoes. The end result is that over a period of time, a battery of tubes generates equivalent firepower to MLRs. The problem is depicting the momentary massive impact on indirect fire combat followed by the lull until reloaded or destroyed by counter-battery.
I was just boning up on the MLRS system again! They are in the game but I do not feel that we have modelled the overwhelmingness of their effects yet. I am visualizing a sort of 'carpet of death' effect here. Your comment has prodded me to move it up the list though.
Somewhere I read that the number of reloads for the MLRS was almost laughably small. Something like 36 and then the rest had to come from the US. Anyone else aware of this?
Cheers, Rob.
Robert
Glad to see your still adding features and hopefully fine tuning the game balance.
When introducing a " Death Star " type weapon system hopefully there will be the ability to kill it quick for the other side.
On another subject that I consider very important for " reality " is the hope there will be a Campaign style long scenario available at some point. Short, out of the full war, " scenarios" tend to result in total indifference to losses by players just to "win" the battle at hand, plus I`m not sure how much re-playability they provide.
Just a friendly thought......
Glad to see your still adding features and hopefully fine tuning the game balance.
When introducing a " Death Star " type weapon system hopefully there will be the ability to kill it quick for the other side.
On another subject that I consider very important for " reality " is the hope there will be a Campaign style long scenario available at some point. Short, out of the full war, " scenarios" tend to result in total indifference to losses by players just to "win" the battle at hand, plus I`m not sure how much re-playability they provide.
Just a friendly thought......
-
Mac_MatrixForum
- Posts: 198
- Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Finland
-
IronManBeta
- Posts: 4021
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: Brantford, Ontario
- Contact:
Originally posted by Mac
Are you going to consider the minefield effect from the dud bomblets?
I hadn't thought of that, but yes, we could easily add that too!
I was reading that this has become a very real concern in Afghanistan and Iraq. A MLRS requires a minimum range of 10 km but the software in it can be programmed to reduce it down to 5 km in a pinch. The penalty is that the number of unexploded munitions increases sharply. Even at normal ranges there were a surprisingly large number.
Lots of fascinating things to consider! How big an impact area would a MLRS battery (4 launchers) have? That is my research Q of the day.
Cheers, Rob.
MLRS
What I've got is that four MLRS launchers firing 12 rockets each would cover an area roughly 2800 x 400 m. The actual configuration of this impact area would conform to the placement of the launchers within the battery. The initial scale of issue and organization was nine launchers per mixed (8inSP M110A2/ M270 AMLRS) divisional support artillery BN in the DIVARTY of the AOE/DIV86 Heavy Div. So the firing unit of three launchers would produce a 630,000 sq.meter impact area for 1932 M77 DPICM bomblets with 76-102mm armor penetration and 100 sq.m frag casualty zone. Average dud rate is around 10-20%. The duds remain dangerous, but their casualty potential is limited by their positioning after hitting the ground., ie. if the bomblet is laying downward, the shaped charge will fire off into the ground if a disturbance fires it off.
An AT mine filled rocket begin delivery to FRG and UK in 1992, carrying 28 AT2 DM1399 mines to 40km. The dispersal area insures that there is mine for every 25 sq. meters. The mine penetrates up to 155mm.
The M270 can reload its canisters in 6-10 minutes.
Basic load at battalion level (UBL) is 6 canisters per launcher carried M985 HEMTTs with trailers. The UBL would be resupplied from ATPs in the div rear. The Corps ASP would hold six more and the TAACOM would have twelve for a total of 24 canisters per launcher in theater with predictive resupply from CONUS.
Too bad we have to stick to 1987-88, we'd have a lot of new stuff to use if the wat started in 1991 as a result of the US intervention against a Soviet client state.
An AT mine filled rocket begin delivery to FRG and UK in 1992, carrying 28 AT2 DM1399 mines to 40km. The dispersal area insures that there is mine for every 25 sq. meters. The mine penetrates up to 155mm.
The M270 can reload its canisters in 6-10 minutes.
Basic load at battalion level (UBL) is 6 canisters per launcher carried M985 HEMTTs with trailers. The UBL would be resupplied from ATPs in the div rear. The Corps ASP would hold six more and the TAACOM would have twelve for a total of 24 canisters per launcher in theater with predictive resupply from CONUS.
Too bad we have to stick to 1987-88, we'd have a lot of new stuff to use if the wat started in 1991 as a result of the US intervention against a Soviet client state.
Why 1990?
Another good point for 1990 is that we have the first verifiable figures on combat equipment in the WP thanks to the CFE Treaty, or at least for the stuff west of the Urals. You can extrapolate backwards from there, but your accuracy declines rapidly each year you go onto the past. Besides both the Iran-Iraq War and the Afghanistan Intervention reached their culmination points in 1988-89.
"Stillbrew" armor was fitted to the BAOR Chieftains between 1986 and 1988. Similar in concept to the "Brow" armor added to T-55AM and T-62M tanks, but a more effective technical solution, being a "Cobham" armor applique. TOGS (Thermal Observation and Gunnery Sight) was added at the same time. The program covered at least 324 Chieftains, Mk.5 and Mk.8, standardized as Mk.11 and Mk.12
"Stillbrew" armor was fitted to the BAOR Chieftains between 1986 and 1988. Similar in concept to the "Brow" armor added to T-55AM and T-62M tanks, but a more effective technical solution, being a "Cobham" armor applique. TOGS (Thermal Observation and Gunnery Sight) was added at the same time. The program covered at least 324 Chieftains, Mk.5 and Mk.8, standardized as Mk.11 and Mk.12
-
IronManBeta
- Posts: 4021
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: Brantford, Ontario
- Contact:
Re: Why 1990?
Originally posted by LTCMTS
Another good point for 1990 is that we have the first verifiable figures on combat equipment in the WP thanks to the CFE Treaty, or at least for the stuff west of the Urals. You can extrapolate backwards from there, but your accuracy declines rapidly each year you go onto the past. Besides both the Iran-Iraq War and the Afghanistan Intervention reached their culmination points in 1988-89.
"Stillbrew" armor was fitted to the BAOR Chieftains between 1986 and 1988. Similar in concept to the "Brow" armor added to T-55AM and T-62M tanks, but a more effective technical solution, being a "Cobham" armor applique. TOGS (Thermal Observation and Gunnery Sight) was added at the same time. The program covered at least 324 Chieftains, Mk.5 and Mk.8, standardized as Mk.11 and Mk.12
Even more useful info! Do you remember all of this off the top of your head or does it from a source that you can talk about?
Regarding you question, "1989" is a highly arbitrary date that was used because that was the date used by SimCan's Main Battle Tank game from 1980. Flashpoint Germany is actually a hugely fancied up version of that old game.
I used to write games for SimCan back in the day (not that I could live on that, mind you, but it was a ball nonetheless) and was thrilled to hear that they were hooking up with Matrix in the fall of 01. Nothing seemed to come of it though and I wrote in (very politely too) to inquire. Before I knew it I was in charge of bringing one of their premier series back to life. While I have considerable latitude in the treatment, it is still comes under the overall arrangement with SimCan and I need to be at least a little careful with what I unilaterally change....
My hope is that in time the game will grow to cover all nationalities from the Arctic Circle to the Dardanelles, and cover all eras from 1951 to whenever. Little did I realize just how insane a research project this would be! We quickly decided to keep it to the US / Brits / West Germans / Soviets in the late 80s for the first release and then find contributing researchers to help round out the rest afterwards. Believe me, there is more than enough work here for everyone!
More than a few military and ex-military types have passed through and expressed an interest in seeing 'their' forces in the game. The scenario editor has been set up with this in mind and provided they are willing to do a little bit of the grunt work, they should be happy with the result.
TTFN, Rob.
-
Mark Hemns
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 9:52 pm
MRLS
Not sure if this is of help on the MRLS question.
From the "NATIONAL TRAINING CENTER TRENDS , 3RD AND 4TH QUARTERS, FY 96" :
One M26 rocket has a 150 by 200 meter submunition dispersal pattern on the ground
Brigade planners often overlook the capability of MLRS to deliver high volumes of fire much faster than the direct support cannon battalion.
a. A single launcher can deliver the same amount of lethality with 12 rockets that a 155mm howitzer battalion does with 86.4 rounds (4.8 battalion volleys).
b. Each can deliver this volume in about the same amount of time. However, a single MLRS platoon, firing 36 M26 rockets, can deliver the equivalent of 10.8 battalion volleys. A MLRS platoon can do this in one minute, whereas a cannon battalion would take from 3 to 10 minutes.
From a Human Rights Watch report :
The standard M26 warhead for the MLRS contains 644 M77 individual submunitions (also called dual-purpose grenades). According to a Department of Defense report submitted to the U.S. Congress in February 2000, these submunitions have a failure rate of 16 percent. Thus, the typical volley of twelve MLRS rockets would likely result in more than 1,200 dud submunitions scattered randomly in a 120,000 to 240,000 square meter impact area.
From the "NATIONAL TRAINING CENTER TRENDS , 3RD AND 4TH QUARTERS, FY 96" :
One M26 rocket has a 150 by 200 meter submunition dispersal pattern on the ground
Brigade planners often overlook the capability of MLRS to deliver high volumes of fire much faster than the direct support cannon battalion.
a. A single launcher can deliver the same amount of lethality with 12 rockets that a 155mm howitzer battalion does with 86.4 rounds (4.8 battalion volleys).
b. Each can deliver this volume in about the same amount of time. However, a single MLRS platoon, firing 36 M26 rockets, can deliver the equivalent of 10.8 battalion volleys. A MLRS platoon can do this in one minute, whereas a cannon battalion would take from 3 to 10 minutes.
From a Human Rights Watch report :
The standard M26 warhead for the MLRS contains 644 M77 individual submunitions (also called dual-purpose grenades). According to a Department of Defense report submitted to the U.S. Congress in February 2000, these submunitions have a failure rate of 16 percent. Thus, the typical volley of twelve MLRS rockets would likely result in more than 1,200 dud submunitions scattered randomly in a 120,000 to 240,000 square meter impact area.
Oops!
Actually the three launcher firing section would place 23,184 M77 bomblets into the impact area. My math can be shakey at times.
I would start with "Jane's Armor and Artillery 1990-91 or 1991-92", but I have about a half a dozen other references and you can check them on my website in my Library spreadsheet. I use the 1985-86 edition, but I always cross-check it for Soviet equipment with the 1990-91 or 1991-92 edition, since much more accurate data on Soviets AFVs began to become publicly available, thanks to Mr. Gorbachev. I also use Isby, Zaloga and the FM-100-2 as a cross-check.
You might want to restrict travel through ICM (MLRS, tube delivered, air delivered cluster munitions) impact areas without mine-plows, rollers, etc.
I would start with "Jane's Armor and Artillery 1990-91 or 1991-92", but I have about a half a dozen other references and you can check them on my website in my Library spreadsheet. I use the 1985-86 edition, but I always cross-check it for Soviet equipment with the 1990-91 or 1991-92 edition, since much more accurate data on Soviets AFVs began to become publicly available, thanks to Mr. Gorbachev. I also use Isby, Zaloga and the FM-100-2 as a cross-check.
You might want to restrict travel through ICM (MLRS, tube delivered, air delivered cluster munitions) impact areas without mine-plows, rollers, etc.
MLRS
That comes down to on average, 1 bomblet per 27 sq.m., but density would be greatest within the center of the impact area.