Parameters of the Game

[byron13]

Very tantalizing. I just picked up HPS Sims' Fulda Gap '85, which is based on their Panzer Campaigns series.

Not being familiar with the games upon which this one will be based, I've got some questions:

1. Scale? company/battalion/brigade sized maneuver units?
2. Period of time? Mid-Seventies? Mid-Eighties? It would be interesting to see several different periods presented from the mid-fifties through 1990. NATO should be a weak opponent in the late sixties/early seventies.
3. Scope of the map? I notice that the games upon which this is based suggest the game would be focused on northern and central Germany, which are certainly the best areas for manuever. Hopefully, you will include all of Germany since I was down south with the 1st Armored Division. Berlin would also be nice.

Whatever you do, make sure the MTOEs are accurate for your period. HPS really botched theirs and decided to give M1s and Bradleys to units that did not have them until well after 1985 and to others that became aviation units before they had a chance to convert. Also, I'm sure you've got a wealth of players that read your boards that served over there and could provide valuable resources or anectodal information. Use us!

[IronManBeta]

Originally posted by byron13
Use us! [/B]

OOOH, I love talk like that!

You have indeed pointed out an omission here - basic game parameters. I was working up a mental list to publish today but would like to run it by David Heath (long may he prosper) first before it goes to print. There is supposed to be an "official press release" next and I don't want to preempt it in my innocence.

Later, Rob.

[byron13]

Ah, yes. The press release. Can't preempt that, can we?

[IChristie]

Actually, I have one request.

I'm looking for high altitude air photos or satellite photos of Germany. If anyone knows where I can lay my hands on some, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

[Bernd Hesberg]

Iain,
could you specify the desired resolution for those photos?
I've done some web searching and found a pic covering all of Germany. Sad to say that it's obviously not public domain, and the jpeg graphic has been scaled down a lot.
Try this link for a glimpse
http://www.robas.nl/duitslr1.html

[IChristie]

Bernd,

You work fast!

Resolution of final graphic file is not important.

I was hoping to find imagery in the 20km x 20km range (since that is the approximate resoltion of the game maps). Generally imagery in the 10m to 100m per pixel is fine.

The attached image is very interesting, but much larger scale than I was looking for.

Thanks for the effort though!

[IronManBeta]

Although we haven't seen an official press release yet, I can tell you a few things about the basic game parameters:

- the game is "grand tactical" (not tactical, not operational or strategic). In practice this means that we are far enough removed from individual vehicles and men that unit facing does not matter. These subunits will either be 'mission ready' or not, there is no tracking of internal state at this level. Weapon ranges still matter though (so it is not fully operational) and logistics just barely matter (so it is not strategic).

- maneuver units are companies and specialist platoons (engineering, supply, recce, etc). Each player will typically command a brigade on the attack or a (reinforced) battalion on the defence.

- the map is a stretch of the German countryside extending about 20 km by 15 km. Position is resolved to within 500m and is handled via a grid rather than a hexmap. This is how the original SimCan did it, and indeed how the military actually does it now.

- the game can last up to 36 hours resolved in 30 minute turns (approximately!) but very few will last that long. In most scenarios the two sides will very cautiously try to feel out where the other side is located and then mount a rush to seize key terrain, get into the rear, or whatever. The unit density is way too low for a continuous line so the action is more reminiscent, say, of the swirling action of North Afrika in 1942 than of the WW2 western front. Given the super lethal nature of modern weapons, this period of close contact can be quite short. Then the players sort out what happened and if enough force remains try again. The game ends automatically when one side or the other drops below 20% of original strength. In the original game this could often happen within two hours of first contact!

- the viewpoint for the game is that of the overall commander. He is assumed to have a competent staff and is _not_ burdened with micromanagement of every little detail. (There are other games out there that do a fine job of that already.) We are trying to simulate the command experience in a way that is accessible to non-professionals and indeed makes for a fun and interesting experience for everyone. Anyone familiar with the old SimCan designs will know what I am talking about....

- darn, out of time. Please note that many of the parameters on the 'store home page' are not exactly accurate right now but we haven't had time yet to fix them. Soon!

Cheers all, Rob.

[Raverdave]

Very interested.....................I will wait for more details. Oh, and thanks for the post!

[IronManBeta]

Oh, I should also mention that the game takes place in 1989, right before the breakup of the Warsaw Pact and the great peacetime retreat that followed. As time goes on, we hope to be able to add other "flashpoint" years, but the immense research burden will likely make that impractical for the first release.

Rob

[U2]

Robert,

Will we be given nuclear/chemical options?

Dan

[byron13]

Hmmm. Interesting description of the game. Do I understand that, while the game may cover the entire central and northern sections of Germany (at least in the database), any particular scenario would be played in a 20km X 15km box without regard to one's flanks or, for that matter, the rest of the war? Does that mean that a "campaign" might look something like Close Combat series (only in the most general sense) with the war shifting through various terrain boxes?

If you really are planning on fighting battles in a box, I have to question that decision. I understand that you are improving an existing game but, given the capabilities of today's computers, I think players would expect to fight the entire theatre at one time. Constantly fighting in a box with a brigade on the offense and a battalion on the defense will get old in a hurry regardless of what terrain you're on. The only saving grace of Close Combat was that the OOB could vary significantly from game to game.

Iain, as for satellite pics, I can't help. I do think I have a mid-80's 1:500,000 map of East and West Germany that shows what the topographer deemed to be forested terrain. There may be elevation on it as well. This may assist you in developing your map. Let me know.

[IronManBeta]

Originally posted by U2
Robert,

Will we be given nuclear/chemical options?

Dan

Yes, although that part scares me a little! I have to think that these decisions would be reached with the utmost reluctance and at a level much higher than that of the brigadier general portrayed in the game.

The backstory would be that they have already been used elsewhere on the front and that the situation is sufficiently grave, and secure communications with supreme HQ sufficiently intermittent, that the local commander would be allowed discretion for their use. I still need to figure out how to handle this in a plausible yet elegant way though.

Good question.

Cheers, Rob.

[IronManBeta]

Originally posted by byron13
Hmmm. Interesting description of the game. Do I understand that, while the game may cover the entire central and northern sections of Germany (at least in the database), any particular scenario would be played in a 20km X 15km box without regard to one's flanks or, for that matter, the rest of the war? Does that mean that a "campaign" might look something like Close Combat series (only in the most general sense) with the war shifting through various terrain boxes?

As you have noticed, we have been a little slow getting out a proper description of the game to you! My profuse apologies. I was just talking to David Heath about it and it all has to to do with the series of back to back wargaming conventions that he is currently attending. It devoured all his time and will continue to do so for a few more weeks!

The game is grand tactical so the focus of each scenario is just one battle. It is not a campaign of linked battles, nor is it the entire hypothetical war. As interesting as these would be, they are completely beyond me at this point - first we walk, then we run. (I don't mind stealing the ideas though for future reference!)

The design is based squarely on the SimCan Main Battle Tank series of 1989-90. We will create all new scenarios but I would expect that they will be similar to the original ones in scope. These are my notes of the original Northern Germany scenario set:
· Advance to Contact: Soviet mech reg HQ, two T80 tank bns, large support package versus British bde HQ, Challenger tank bn, Warrior mech inf bn.
· Soviet Spearhead: Soviet tank reg HQ, three T80 tank bns, BMP bn, arty bn, small support package versus West German bde HQ, panzer bn, small support package, seven minefields.
· Soviet Assault: Soviet mech reg HQ, two BTR bns, 2 T62 tank companies, arty bn, large support package versus British Warrior mech inf bn, small support package, six minefields.
· British Screen: Soviet tank reg HQ, three T80 tank bns, BMP bn, arty bn versus a British Challenger tank bn and large support package.
· British Isolated Defense: Soviet mech reg HQ, two BTR bn, two T62 companies, arty bn, large support package versus British FV432 mech inf bn.
· German Forward Defense: Soviet tank reg HQ, three T80 tank bns, BMP bn, arty bn versus West German bde HQ, mech inf bn, small support package.
· German Counterattack: West German bde HQ, two panzer bns, mixed bn, mech inf bn, small support package versus Soviet mech reg HQ, BMP bn, two T80 companies, T62 company, small support package.

We will fancy these up some more, but they convey the gist of what we are thinking of.

My own interest is to delve into possible heliborne operations but I lack the research at the moment to know how mainstream they could have been in 1989. Just because you read about it, that doesn't mean it was really there! Rotor-based operations strike me as an enourmous jump forward in the technology of war and there is precious little out there that explores it.

I am also increasingly interested in the electronic warfare dimension, but I have a lot of other code to write before I can come back to it and really develop it some more.

Finally, you mentioned flanks and that was a very perceptive comment. I believe that this is one of the first things that any professional will look for. Ahem, in order to make this game accessible to new players we are going to de-emphasize certain complicating design factors such as flanking units(!). I was also told to keep the unit count reasonable above all else.

If it is any help, the general back story that I have in my head is that this is a snap campaign - 'a come as you are' war - and that NATO did not twig in time to close up to the frontier and form a prepared defense. The forces portrayed here are really only just clear of their barracks when the Soviets start to show up. Due to the lack of a general mobilization the force density is extremely low and continuous lines an impractical fantasy. The Soviets have broken through almost at will at selected points and are engaging the first real forces they meet in these scenarios. (This is all subject to change without notice however.)

BTW, in what capacity did you serve with the 1st Armored Div? It would be a pleasure to correspond with you further....

Cheers, Rob.

[IChristie]

Iain, as for satellite pics, I can't help. I do think I have a mid-80's 1:500,000 map of East and West Germany that shows what the topographer deemed to be forested terrain. There may be elevation on it as well. This may assist you in developing your map. Let me know

Very interested . Any chance of getting it to me in electronic format?

[Marc von Martial]

Iain,

**** I saw this too late. Mate you know I´m living in Germany. Why didn´t you drop me an email ? I think for the final stages I can get you nearly anything. I just need the scale you need and what parts. You know I´m working in geotechnical engineering too, plenty of contacts regarding maps and satellite images and then there are those fantastic german Army maps. Maybe I should ask my Uncle Colonel if he can get hand on some .

[byron13]

Originally posted by IChristie


Very interested . Any chance of getting it to me in electronic format?

Looks like Marc might be a better bet. The only thing I know how to do electronically is boot up a wargame on the computer! I would have no idea how to put it into electronic format. But I would be willing to send it to you in exchange for the promise to return it.

What I've got is an army 1:500,000 that would typically be a wall map. It's probably 6' x 6'. I took a look at it last night and it does have vegetation on it, but you are limited to clear and forested. There is also topographical relief, though it is an artistic rendering rather than terrain lines. There are different colors used for the relief, so it could be that different colors represent different altitudes. I can take another look tonight in greater detail. The real value may be the fact that it is a mid '80s map so the road network would be contemporary to the game.

Now if you all considered adding southern Germany and the area between Bamberg, Nuernberg, and the Czech border, I could provide you with my old 1:50,000 battle map. But, again, it would be in paper form, and Marc could probably lay his hands on something digital.

Speaking of which, I've been trying to find 1:50,000 maps of portions of the U.S. on the internet, but can't find them anywhere. Anyone seen any on line?

[byron13]

Originally posted by RobertCrandall


BTW, in what capacity did you serve with the 1st Armored Div? It would be a pleasure to correspond with you further....

I was a tank platoon leader, tank company executive officer, and brigade S-4 staff weenie from 83 - 87. I was stationed with the 2d Brigade (the "Iron Brigade" - hooah!) in Erlangen, just north of Nuernberg. I'd be glad to help in anyway I could, though it looks like you all are focusing on BAOR and areas north of the 7th Army area of operations.

I hope you do take EW into account. NATO was/is incredibly reliant on radio for fire and maneuver. Granted unrestricted use of the radio, NATO is the most flexible and responsive army the world has ever seen. Deny use of the radio, and the army is frozen in place. Given the speed and violence with which the Warsaw Pact was expected to attack and the reliance on the radio to coordinate coordinated withdrawals, counterattacks, and call for fire support, effective use of EW could effectively incapacitate a unit. I think that if Warsaw Pact EW was effective in the early going, NATO would have created workarounds fairly quickly, but the first several days could have been chaotic.

I'm no EW expert and certainly don't claim to know what Warsaw Pact EW doctrine was, but I would think that they would focus a great deal of attention on brigade headquarters. They would try to both jam its communications as well as RDF its location and target it for strikes. I don't see them expending much effort on battalion HQs unless the battalion was defending a critical piece of real estate through which the WP intended to roll through.

As for heliborne operations, I think that would be primarily a WP tactic. While I can't say for sure, I don't think U.S. divisions had any significant units in the TO&E that were airmobile - maybe a company. I would also bet that, being the poorer cousins, the British and Germans would probably have even fewer inherent helicopter assets. I'm sure you can find the TO&Es of the various units to confirm this. Corps might have had a battalion or two. Seems to me I recall a "tri-cap" experiment in the 1970s where the U.S. was going to make one brigade of each division airmobile. This was probably a bunch of hoopla based on experience in Viet Nam that wasn't relevant. I'm guessing (emphasizing guessing) that large airmobile operations were believed to be too vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire. But I would fully expect the WP to airlift companies or battalions to secure key bridges, etc.

[IronManBeta]

Originally posted by byron13



I was a tank platoon leader, tank company executive officer, and brigade S-4 staff weenie from 83 - 87

Very interesting....

The scenarios I listed were indeed from the North German game. There are just as many from your neck of the woods but they did not have the fancy names and I had not filled out all details as much for them yet. I just wanted to cut and paste something quickly to give you an idea of the scale. Rest assured that your brigade will be in the final mix somewhere!

Thanks for your comments on EW and heliborne assault. Each Soviet front had at least an airborne assault brigade towards the end, but the sources differ on the makeup. Each army had a battalion if memory serves. Not only were they brought in by helicopter, but light armour (BMDs) were to be brought in with them so that they would avoid the classic devolution to light infantry once they hit the ground.

Lots to think about.

Cheers, Rob.

[IronManBeta]

Originally posted by byron13

and brigade S-4 staff weenie from 83 - 87

Just remembered that the S-4 is the all-important supply officer!

Could you tell me a little about modern resupply at the company level. In particular, how often does 'topping up' occur in the field? All the time, at x hour intervals, only during the night, whenever the CO remembers to do it? How much logistic support is pushed forward and how much is pulled by articulated needs? Does the unit withdraw en masse to resupply, or just by individual vehicles, or do individual supply vehicles come forward to the combat positions, or is there no real rule? There is ton of important detail here that doesn't make it into the books....

My assumption is that combat units are monster users of POL even when they are relatively inactive. How vulnerable might the supply chain be to EW? It seems to me that any discontinuity in supply even for a short period could be all but fatal to a modern mechanized company, and the logisitics radio net would be my #1 target as a WP commander. Or am I way off base?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Cheers, Rob.

[byron13]

Originally posted by RobertCrandall
Could you tell me a little about modern resupply at the company level.

We used the M60A3s, so I don't know about the fuel consumption of M1s. I do remember, though, that the J series MTO&E did not include nearly enough tankers in the support platoon of each battalion to keep the M1s fed. They beefed the support platoons up prior to the Gulf War. You'd have to check somewhere to find consumption rates for M1s v. M60s. (Rats, I actually did a study on that when the brigade was transitioning into M1s, but it's been awhile, don't you know.)

That being said, you would want to keep your tanks above half full at all times, since you never knew when you might be committed to a long march or extended combat without the opportunity to top off the tanks. Obviously, how often you needed to be topped off would be dictated by how much maneuvering you were doing. With all of the electronics on board (computers, radios, and thermal sights) we would run the engines fairly regularly to keep the batteries charged, but idling didn't use that much fuel. Maneuvering obviously ate it up. I could see where, if you were maneuvering hard, e.g., in a fighting withdrawal or exploiting a breakthrough, you'd almost have to top off once a day, though you could make it two in a pinch (but you'd have no reserves). Sitting in a defensive position, you could go for days, but would probably top off every other day or so. As a side note, tankers cross-attached to infantry units relied on the infantry support platoon. Things may have changed with the introduction of the Bradley, but "in the day" the infantry battalions were hard-pressed to keep the tanks gassed up and, unless the infantry commanders had experience working with tanks, rarely planned properly for the huge increase in fuel required. But that's neither here nor there.

As far as how it was done, there really is no rule. The battalion has a support platoon that is supposed to keep the tanks fed. Since it is a battalion asset, they were pretty flexible. We tended to top off near a destination. In other words, if we were moving to the front or laterally across the front, you would top off near the destination. This would usually be done as part of the road march and at a predetermined point. The lead platoon would establish covering positions in all directions while the rest of the company just drove in. The tankers would line up on the side of the road (under cover like in the woods), and you would top off four tanks at a time. One of the trail platoons would provide security while the first platoon that initially provided security topped off. You could top off the company in probably fifteen or twenty minutes. Night time was obviously better but, provided there was sufficient cover, you could do it any time. I would think the biggest security risk was catching the tanks or the tankers on the open roads traveling to and from the refuel site rather than actually being exposed during refueling. In a road march situation where you had an entire battalion moving through, you'd often use division/support battalion assets to do the refueling.

So that's on a road march. I don't remember ever really practicing topping off in a battle position. Again, there really wasn't a rule. If you weren't expecting combat, you could probably drive the tanker to each vehicle. That's probably impractical, since the tank is probably in some kind of cover that would make it difficult to drive a tanker to - not to mention the tanker might be driving over nasty terrain. I would guess that for your purposes the more likely method would be to pull one tank from each platoon and send them to the tanker. If I were a company commander, I'd tell my platoon leaders where the gas was and have them rotate their tanks in and out as they saw fit. If they were spread out too far, I might move the tanker once or twice. I think you would simply use whatever system worked given the likelihood of contact, time of day, terrain, distance, the difficulty of moving the tanks, or whatever factors might be relevant.

Resupply of ammunition would work the same way. The ammunition - at least main gun ammunition - came in huge crates with each round enclosed in a cardboard "tootsie roll" canister. It was more unwieldy, and you were therefore more likely to either keep the truck still and let the tanks come to it or just dump the ammo at a central point, drive the truck away, and let the tanks pick up the ammo. Restocking main gun rounds always took more time than refueling.

Our battle plans called for the brigade's support battalion to drop caches of ammunition at subsequent battle positions. In other words, when we were in our initial battle position, a cache was supposed to be dropped near, say, our third battle position so that, when we moved to our third battle position, we could restock our ammunition fairly quickly. That's not something that you could really practice, and I was never convinced that it would work. I certainly wasn't convinced that the support battalion would ever get around to doing that in the chaos of the moment. In any event, I always assumed that we'd be pretty hotly pursued and wouldn't have time to have the entire company drive through the cache area. But, if the SB did drop off a cache, each company had some trucks so that, in a pinch, you could do some resupplying, but it would be a field expedient measure.

Since the companies are supplied primarily by the battalion's support platoon, resupply would be fairly flexible. In the heat of battle, though, I could see where each company would want to be resupplied at the first lull, and the support platoon would be overwhelmed. The support platoon would do what it could when it could. Priority would obviously be given to the company with the worst needs. Each company would provide a status report at least once a day. I think these were used as much for battalion ordering from higher up than deciding what to send forward. The battalion was small enough that supplying forward was just as easily done by an XO calling the battalion S4 and screaming about his situation.

Supplies were pushed up to the brigade support battalion. Given the limited capability of the battalion support platoon, I don't think you could push much to it. They would run their tankers back to the support battalion when dry. The support platton also had limited lift capability so that much of the heavy stuff like main gun ammo would probably be delivered to the unit or to a cache by support battalion vehicles. And, whenever possible, you'd refuel in the rear using division/support battalion assets. Since a company has no place to store excess, I guess you'd have to say that company resupply was done on a demand basis, though you would "push" supply to the company at each opportunity to top off tanks and ammo.

At the tactical level, I don't think the supply chain is affected by EW that much. The trucks don't have radios anyway, and coordinating a resupply took enough time that it was probably as efficient to just have the first sergeant drive to battalion to make arrangements. Once a plan was made, the first sergeant could be back at the unit to relay the plan before the resupply trucks rolled, so no time lost. Or, if battalion decided to set up a forward resupply point, it could just have somebody drive to each company and tell them where it was and when they were to use it.

Things might be more problematic at higher levels, though. I know that the support battalion was nothing but a huge antenna farm, and anyone RDFing would quickly find them. An artillery strike would have been pretty effective if they were in range. Though the brigade S4 track was supposed to co-locate with the SB, we always parked several hundred meters away to keep ourselves from getting caught in something aimed for them. But, in general, supply took so much time to coordinate and there were so many staff officers running around on the road all the time living off of coffee that I believe that most resupply stuff could be handled without the use of radios. Radios were needed a lot more for calling for fire or maneuvering units. If the situation was so fast moving that you needed radios to coordinate supply, you probably would have a hard time actually resupplying even if you did actually get the trucks and tanks together. Personal opinion, though.

If there were supply disruptions, I think the pinch would be felt with ammunition before fuel (assuming you're in contact). This may not have been true in the Gulf War where there was much more maneuver than targets. But I think (never having fought the WP in Europe) that some companies could have pissed off most of their ammunition in a day and still have plenty of fuel. Other companies, of course, may not have been seriously engaged and still have plenty of ammo when they start getting concerned about a fuel top off. Assuming that you are not running like hell forward or back over long distances, you should have enough fuel for two days, and you could top off fuel quicker and easier than you could ammunition. In other words, if combat is so intense that you can't resupply, you're more likely to run low on ammo than fuel.

I've always thought that the bigger problems were grand tactical or strategic. Did corps or army have enough assets to keep the divisions and brigades supplied? Were the strategic level depots secure from air attack, special forces, or chemical strikes? Were there enough supplies of critical things like Stingers in theatre? If supplies got to division, I think things would flow pretty well from that point forward. If they didn't, it was probably because of the tactical situation and not a problem with assets or coordination.

Blah, blah, blah.