Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

WW3 The Fulda Gap. Who wins it?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 12:42:01 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Ok. Many non-wargamers have recently told me the soviets could not have
steamrolled through in Germany 1985 and to succeed would have had to result
to nukes.

I disagreed based on playing some older board games (and computer) on the
subject and unless the allies do an exceptional delaying action (until major
reinforcements arrive from the USA) are pretty much easily rolled over.

I figured the soviets (and warsaw pact) had roughly 4:1 odds.

I was going to buy one of the more recent tiller or matrix games on the
subject to test it but they appear to tactical.

I'm just talking men and equipment here, not any fog of war or political
considerations.

Thoughts?

More about : ww3 fulda gap wins

Anonymous
June 30, 2005 12:42:02 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

HR schreef:
> Ok. Many non-wargamers have recently told me the soviets could not have
> steamrolled through in Germany 1985 and to succeed would have had to result
> to nukes.

> Thoughts?

The key to fighting WW3 imho is getting air superiority.

If Nato can get air superiority the Warsaw pact is toast as tanks are
just the land equivalent of battleships when operating outside
aircover.

I've read an article somewhere that though the Warsaw pact had a lot of
aircraft on paper, only a tiny percentage was actually servicable at
any given moment due to lack of spare parts, adequate maintenance, lack
of pilots etc.

The 4:1 advantage also didn't take into account the French army (which
is not part of Nato) and a bit contrary to what is usually believed in
here was actually pretty big and up-to-date on equipment. Add to that
the fact that Polish and East-German forces are just as likely to turn
*east* after shooting their political commissars and that by day 2 the
Hungarians and Rumanians are probably fighting each other I doubt a
Russian soldier would reach the Rhine.

It's been over a decade that I've read them, but the "History of the
Third World War" by that guy who jumped at Arnhem during WWII (Frost ?)
was a fine read on the subject

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 12:42:02 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Gustav Bjerke schreef:

> General Sir John Hackett

Thanks, that's the one !

(lesson learned today : If you're too lazy to look something up before
you post, someone else will do it for you)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Related resources
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 12:42:02 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Epi schreef:

> I remember reading that book in eighth grade. I think that's the one.
> Did England get nuked some in it?

Manchester or Birmingham or such - the book presented the reasoning
behind the choice along the lines of "important city, not the capital,
not a city of the principal partner in the alliance"

Nato retaliated on a city like Kiev ??? with more or less the same
reasoning.

I could probably find you the exact names of the cities involved, but
as you are probably well aware : I'm in a lazy mood today :) 

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 1:35:26 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

eddysterckx@hotmail.com wrote:
> HR schreef:
> > Ok. Many non-wargamers have recently told me the soviets could not have
> > steamrolled through in Germany 1985 and to succeed would have had to result
> > to nukes.
>
> > Thoughts?
>
> The key to fighting WW3 imho is getting air superiority.
>
> If Nato can get air superiority the Warsaw pact is toast as tanks are
> just the land equivalent of battleships when operating outside
> aircover.
>
> I've read an article somewhere that though the Warsaw pact had a lot of
> aircraft on paper, only a tiny percentage was actually servicable at
> any given moment due to lack of spare parts, adequate maintenance, lack
> of pilots etc.
>
> The 4:1 advantage also didn't take into account the French army (which
> is not part of Nato) and a bit contrary to what is usually believed in
> here was actually pretty big and up-to-date on equipment. Add to that
> the fact that Polish and East-German forces are just as likely to turn
> *east* after shooting their political commissars and that by day 2 the
> Hungarians and Rumanians are probably fighting each other I doubt a
> Russian soldier would reach the Rhine.
>
> It's been over a decade that I've read them, but the "History of the
> Third World War" by that guy who jumped at Arnhem during WWII (Frost ?)
> was a fine read on the subject
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx

I've read an assesment of the Soviet contingency plans in the 1980's
(years ago though).
IIRC if Invasion day came, the USSR would go allout on Bio, Chem and
Tacnukes - not just on the fronline but also on airfields, ports and
mobilisation sites (read civilian areas).
No conventional assault with a gentle escalation into ABC weapons, as
most games assume.
Of course, above situation might not be one which leads itself to an
interesting wargame...

von Schmidt
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 1:59:30 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <1120138055.841418.305530@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...

> It's been over a decade that I've read them, but the "History of the
> Third World War" by that guy who jumped at Arnhem during WWII (Frost ?)
> was a fine read on the subject

General Sir John Winthrop "Shan" Hackett penned THE THIRD WORLD WAR:
AUGUST 1985.



--
Giftzwerg
***
"[Natan] Sharansky spent nine years in the Gulag - the real one - and
over 400 of those days were in punishment cells. What he had to suffer
was almost inconceivably depraved. To read Sharansky, while Amnesty
International is squawking about Guantanamo, is enough to make you hate
Amnesty for the rest of your life."
- Jay Nordlinger
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 3:45:41 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <1120142471.560205.20700@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...

> > I remember reading that book in eighth grade. I think that's the one.
> > Did England get nuked some in it?
>
> Manchester or Birmingham or such - the book presented the reasoning
> behind the choice along the lines of "important city, not the capital,
> not a city of the principal partner in the alliance"
>
> Nato retaliated on a city like Kiev ??? with more or less the same
> reasoning.
>
> I could probably find you the exact names of the cities involved, but
> as you are probably well aware : I'm in a lazy mood today :) 

Birmingham and Minsk.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"[Natan] Sharansky spent nine years in the Gulag - the real one - and
over 400 of those days were in punishment cells. What he had to suffer
was almost inconceivably depraved. To read Sharansky, while Amnesty
International is squawking about Guantanamo, is enough to make you hate
Amnesty for the rest of your life."
- Jay Nordlinger
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 6:13:24 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <1120140077.525828.46100@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...
>
> Gustav Bjerke schreef:
>
> > General Sir John Hackett
>
> Thanks, that's the one !
>
> (lesson learned today : If you're too lazy to look something up before
> you post, someone else will do it for you)
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx

I remember reading that book in eighth grade. I think that's the one.
Did England get nuked some in it?

--

Epi

------------
It seems quite amazing to me that so many people
wish to harm part of what a symbol stands for in
order to protect the symbol.
------------
http://www.curlesneck.com
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 6:16:00 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <MPG.1d2dc4d2d5ed07b898a3e9@news-central.giganews.com>,
giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com says...
> In article <1120138055.841418.305530@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...
>
> > It's been over a decade that I've read them, but the "History of the
> > Third World War" by that guy who jumped at Arnhem during WWII (Frost ?)
> > was a fine read on the subject
>
> General Sir John Winthrop "Shan" Hackett penned THE THIRD WORLD WAR:
> AUGUST 1985.

hmmm...1985 would have been too late for the eighth grade. Are you sure
the date's right. I could swear that was the one I read.
--

Epi

------------
It seems quite amazing to me that so many people
wish to harm part of what a symbol stands for in
order to protect the symbol.
------------
http://www.curlesneck.com
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 6:16:01 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <MPG.1d2dc8a1aef10ebf98973a@news.east.earthlink.net>,
epicat1212@hotmail.com says...

> > > It's been over a decade that I've read them, but the "History of the
> > > Third World War" by that guy who jumped at Arnhem during WWII (Frost ?)
> > > was a fine read on the subject
> >
> > General Sir John Winthrop "Shan" Hackett penned THE THIRD WORLD WAR:
> > AUGUST 1985.
>
> hmmm...1985 would have been too late for the eighth grade. Are you sure
> the date's right. I could swear that was the one I read.

"AUGUST 1985" is actually in the title of the book, which is written as
a future history.

It was published first in 1980.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"[Natan] Sharansky spent nine years in the Gulag - the real one - and
over 400 of those days were in punishment cells. What he had to suffer
was almost inconceivably depraved. To read Sharansky, while Amnesty
International is squawking about Guantanamo, is enough to make you hate
Amnesty for the rest of your life."
- Jay Nordlinger
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 6:16:02 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:20:15 -0400, Giftzwerg
<giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:

>In article <MPG.1d2dc8a1aef10ebf98973a@news.east.earthlink.net>,
>epicat1212@hotmail.com says...
>
>> > > It's been over a decade that I've read them, but the "History of the
>> > > Third World War" by that guy who jumped at Arnhem during WWII (Frost ?)
>> > > was a fine read on the subject
>> >
>> > General Sir John Winthrop "Shan" Hackett penned THE THIRD WORLD WAR:
>> > AUGUST 1985.
>>
>> hmmm...1985 would have been too late for the eighth grade. Are you sure
>> the date's right. I could swear that was the one I read.
>
>"AUGUST 1985" is actually in the title of the book, which is written as
>a future history.
>
>It was published first in 1980.

And there was a sequel, more dry than the first. ("The Untold Story"
perhaps?) I have both in storage.

Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 6:21:53 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <MPG.1d2dc9a94a89a47a98a3ea@news-central.giganews.com>,
giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com says...
> In article <MPG.1d2dc8a1aef10ebf98973a@news.east.earthlink.net>,
> epicat1212@hotmail.com says...
>
> > > > It's been over a decade that I've read them, but the "History of the
> > > > Third World War" by that guy who jumped at Arnhem during WWII (Frost ?)
> > > > was a fine read on the subject
> > >
> > > General Sir John Winthrop "Shan" Hackett penned THE THIRD WORLD WAR:
> > > AUGUST 1985.
> >
> > hmmm...1985 would have been too late for the eighth grade. Are you sure
> > the date's right. I could swear that was the one I read.
>
> "AUGUST 1985" is actually in the title of the book, which is written as
> a future history.
>
> It was published first in 1980.

Oh ok...I didn't notice that.
--

Epi

------------
It seems quite amazing to me that so many people
wish to harm part of what a symbol stands for in
order to protect the symbol.
------------
http://www.curlesneck.com
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 6:26:15 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

I think NATO would have been overwhelmed if the Warsaw pact invaded. I
doubt if NATO forces could have kept the roads clear long enough to
either withdraw or advance to the front. In Germany there are hundreds
of small towns that usually are less than five miles from each other
and you would assume the people living in those bergs would be trying
to get out of town as fast as possible. Warsaw Pact forces would not
have any issue about clearing roads and highways of civilian refugees.
Whereas NATO forces would have been serverely limited regarding options
about clearing the roads of refugees.
There was a book called the Red Army by Ralph Peters describing a
meeting engagement between a NATO and Russian armored units amongst
civilian refugees. What he described was NATO forces hesistant to
inflict casualties amongst refugees while russian forces used NATO's
hesistation to engage to their advantage. That's why I wonder how games
such as north German plain, Fulda Gap and Flashpoint Germany not model
refugee columns on local roads and highways. I would think that it
would give a significant advantage to the Warsaw Pact forces.

Wayne
June 30, 2005 6:40:08 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Epi" <epicat1212@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d2dc80872622659989739@news.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <1120140077.525828.46100@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> Gustav Bjerke schreef:
>>
>> > General Sir John Hackett
>>
>> Thanks, that's the one !
>>
>> (lesson learned today : If you're too lazy to look something up before
>> you post, someone else will do it for you)
>>
>> Greetz,
>>
>> Eddy Sterckx
>
> I remember reading that book in eighth grade. I think that's the one.
> Did England get nuked some in it?
>
Seem to remember that it was Birmingham. And the UK hit Minsk in return.
Might be wrong, though.


> --
>
> Epi
>
> ------------
> It seems quite amazing to me that so many people
> wish to harm part of what a symbol stands for in
> order to protect the symbol.
> ------------
> http://www.curlesneck.com
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 7:58:33 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

<eddysterckx@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
news:1120138055.841418.305530@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> It's been over a decade that I've read them, but the "History of the
> Third World War" by that guy who jumped at Arnhem during WWII (Frost ?)
> was a fine read on the subject

General Sir John Hackett

http://www.nntk.net/arnhem_1944/john_hackett.html

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0553236377/qid...
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 8:02:12 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

<eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120138055.841418.305530@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> The key to fighting WW3 imho is getting air superiority.
>
> If Nato can get air superiority the Warsaw pact is toast as tanks are
> just the land equivalent of battleships when operating outside
> aircover.
>

Thats what many say. Again I am talking only about men and equipment at
hand. The games I've play the Red AF severly outnumbered us Remember we
weren't THAT hitech back them. Our biggest advantage was all weather
fighters. Like F16 squaron from Norway:) 

What I found was both sided Air Forces attrited themselves to the point that
by the time either side got Air Superiority (and it might have been the US)
1-2 weeks had passed and the superior numbers of Red tanks rolled through
the US positions like they were speed bumps.
June 30, 2005 11:07:32 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"HR" <HR@horizon.net> wrote in message
news:ErudnZvZOq8OdV7fRVn-jw@comcast.com...
> Ok. Many non-wargamers have recently told me the soviets could not have
> steamrolled through in Germany 1985 and to succeed would have had to
result
> to nukes.
>
> I disagreed based on playing some older board games (and computer) on the
> subject and unless the allies do an exceptional delaying action (until
major
> reinforcements arrive from the USA) are pretty much easily rolled over.
>
> I figured the soviets (and warsaw pact) had roughly 4:1 odds.
>
> I was going to buy one of the more recent tiller or matrix games on the
> subject to test it but they appear to tactical.
>
> I'm just talking men and equipment here, not any fog of war or political
> considerations.
>
> Thoughts?
>


Hmmm....by leaving fow and politics out, kind of a moot discussion.
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 1:37:41 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"JP" <jp@nicetry.com> wrote in message
news:BS%we.104$Dh2.521@eagle.america.net...
>
> Hmmm....by leaving fow and politics out, kind of a moot discussion.

Not really. FOW and political concerns are unknown hence the discussion
would be 100% opinion dragging down to the usual pits.

The question posed..by someone to me was..did Nato have the men and
equipment to stop the Warsaw pact.

>
>
July 1, 2005 1:37:42 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"HR" <HR@horizon.net> wrote in message
news:BOadnf0qjvzDA1nfRVn-ug@comcast.com...
>
>
> "JP" <jp@nicetry.com> wrote in message
> news:BS%we.104$Dh2.521@eagle.america.net...
> >
> > Hmmm....by leaving fow and politics out, kind of a moot discussion.
>
> Not really. FOW and political concerns are unknown hence the discussion
> would be 100% opinion dragging down to the usual pits.
>
> The question posed..by someone to me was..did Nato have the men and
> equipment to stop the Warsaw pact.
>


Seeing as fow and politics have decided the results of many battles/wars
in history, more so than any presumed men/equipment
advantages/disadvantages, I'd have to disagree.

But to answer your question, yes. Nukes. Of course, whether Europe would
have allowed their use is another question.........oops, sorry, politics <g>
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 1:41:59 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Good point.
Refugee counters. Thats what we need:) 


<wburn1353@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1120166775.926066.57570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>I think NATO would have been overwhelmed if the Warsaw pact invaded. I
> doubt if NATO forces could have kept the roads clear long enough to
> either withdraw or advance to the front. In Germany there are hundreds
> of small towns that usually are less than five miles from each other
> and you would assume the people living in those bergs would be trying
> to get out of town as fast as possible. Warsaw Pact forces would not
> have any issue about clearing roads and highways of civilian refugees.
> Whereas NATO forces would have been serverely limited regarding options
> about clearing the roads of refugees.
> There was a book called the Red Army by Ralph Peters describing a
> meeting engagement between a NATO and Russian armored units amongst
> civilian refugees. What he described was NATO forces hesistant to
> inflict casualties amongst refugees while russian forces used NATO's
> hesistation to engage to their advantage. That's why I wonder how games
> such as north German plain, Fulda Gap and Flashpoint Germany not model
> refugee columns on local roads and highways. I would think that it
> would give a significant advantage to the Warsaw Pact forces.
>
> Wayne
>
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 2:11:55 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

>
> I was going to buy one of the more recent tiller or matrix games on the
> subject to test it but they appear to tactical.
>
> I'm just talking men and equipment here, not any fog of war or political
> considerations.
>
> Thoughts?
>
http://members.shaw.ca/gcsaunders/gamesMC.html

HPS' Fulda Gap '85 is operational scale; one mile hexes with 3 hour turns.
Units are battalions that may be broken down into companies (depending on
scenario). North German Plain '85 is the north half of Germany, and there
is a free map and scenario that combine the two games to give you all of
Germany at that scale. No political stuff, just scenarios based on
theoretical what-ifs both stock and free ones designed by fanboys. If you
want one or both, your best price is here: http://www.nws-online.net/

You can see a review here: http://www.wargamer.com/reviews/fulda_gap_85/

I can't speak to Matrix' game. I never played it.

Dirk
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 2:11:56 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Nice link on the low prices. Thanks!


"Dirk Gross" <a@a.com> wrote in message
news:L6_we.26770$7X1.14347@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
.. If you
> want one or both, your best price is here: http://www.nws-online.net/
>
> You can see a review here: http://www.wargamer.com/reviews/fulda_gap_85/
>
> I can't speak to Matrix' game. I never played it.
>
> Dirk
>
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 8:43:54 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:40:08 +0000 (UTC), "Mike"
<thedevilsadvocaat@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Epi" <epicat1212@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1d2dc80872622659989739@news.east.earthlink.net...
>> In article <1120140077.525828.46100@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>> eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...
>>>
>>> Gustav Bjerke schreef:
>>>
>>> > General Sir John Hackett
>>>
>>> Thanks, that's the one !
>>>
>>> (lesson learned today : If you're too lazy to look something up before
>>> you post, someone else will do it for you)
>>>
>>> Greetz,
>>>
>>> Eddy Sterckx
>>
>> I remember reading that book in eighth grade. I think that's the one.
>> Did England get nuked some in it?
>>
>Seem to remember that it was Birmingham. And the UK hit Minsk in return.
>Might be wrong, though.



That was the book Team Yankee.
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 8:46:24 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 04:43:54 GMT, mike allegretto
<rallegre@stny.rr.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:40:08 +0000 (UTC), "Mike"
><thedevilsadvocaat@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Epi" <epicat1212@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:MPG.1d2dc80872622659989739@news.east.earthlink.net...
>>> In article <1120140077.525828.46100@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>>> eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...
>>>>
>>>> Gustav Bjerke schreef:
>>>>
>>>> > General Sir John Hackett
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, that's the one !
>>>>
>>>> (lesson learned today : If you're too lazy to look something up before
>>>> you post, someone else will do it for you)
>>>>
>>>> Greetz,
>>>>
>>>> Eddy Sterckx
>>>
>>> I remember reading that book in eighth grade. I think that's the one.
>>> Did England get nuked some in it?
>>>
>>Seem to remember that it was Birmingham. And the UK hit Minsk in return.
>>Might be wrong, though.
>
>
>
>That was the book Team Yankee.



Later on they released a comic Graphic Novel based on the novel.
July 1, 2005 11:38:06 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"mike allegretto" <rallegre@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:p fi9c11n7vb00l7nluqkem9qvaj72qb9h8@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:40:08 +0000 (UTC), "Mike"
> <thedevilsadvocaat@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Epi" <epicat1212@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:MPG.1d2dc80872622659989739@news.east.earthlink.net...
>>> In article <1120140077.525828.46100@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>>> eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...
>>>>
>>>> Gustav Bjerke schreef:
>>>>
>>>> > General Sir John Hackett
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, that's the one !
>>>>
>>>> (lesson learned today : If you're too lazy to look something up before
>>>> you post, someone else will do it for you)
>>>>
>>>> Greetz,
>>>>
>>>> Eddy Sterckx
>>>
>>> I remember reading that book in eighth grade. I think that's the one.
>>> Did England get nuked some in it?
>>>
>>Seem to remember that it was Birmingham. And the UK hit Minsk in return.
>>Might be wrong, though.
>
>
>
> That was the book Team Yankee.
>

I can't remember whether Team Yankee had a similar ending (not such a
memorable book as Hackett's) but TTWW definitely had Birmingham and Minsk
being nuked.
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 2:26:44 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 04:43:54 GMT, mike allegretto
<rallegre@stny.rr.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:40:08 +0000 (UTC), "Mike"
><thedevilsadvocaat@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Epi" <epicat1212@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:MPG.1d2dc80872622659989739@news.east.earthlink.net...
>>> In article <1120140077.525828.46100@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>>> eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...
>>>>
>>>> Gustav Bjerke schreef:
>>>>
>>>> > General Sir John Hackett
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, that's the one !
>>>>
>>>> (lesson learned today : If you're too lazy to look something up before
>>>> you post, someone else will do it for you)
>>>>
>>>> Greetz,
>>>>
>>>> Eddy Sterckx
>>>
>>> I remember reading that book in eighth grade. I think that's the one.
>>> Did England get nuked some in it?
>>>
>>Seem to remember that it was Birmingham. And the UK hit Minsk in return.
>>Might be wrong, though.
>
>
>
>That was the book Team Yankee.

No, it wasn't. The OP is correct.

Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 2:29:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 08:42:01 -0400, "HR" <HR@horizon.net> wrote:

>Ok. Many non-wargamers have recently told me the soviets could not have
>steamrolled through in Germany 1985 and to succeed would have had to result
>to nukes.
>
>I disagreed based on playing some older board games (and computer) on the
>subject and unless the allies do an exceptional delaying action (until major
>reinforcements arrive from the USA) are pretty much easily rolled over.
>
>I figured the soviets (and warsaw pact) had roughly 4:1 odds.
>
>I was going to buy one of the more recent tiller or matrix games on the
>subject to test it but they appear to tactical.
>
>I'm just talking men and equipment here, not any fog of war or political
>considerations.
>
>Thoughts?
>

I've read (somewhere, I have no idea) that at some point in the CW
permanently-installed nuclear land mines were present in the Gap on
the NATO side. Perhaps only in the early MAD period?

I doubt if these were ever officially acknowledged.

Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 9:20:23 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

No, they're there now. They're marked with street signs with a mushroom
cloud image. Boy, I sure hope terrorists don't figure that out and dig'em
up...

Dirk

"Steve Bartman" <sbartman@visi.com> wrote in message
news:D 6oac1581eqjlptv3uma4nlf4bgirbqelg@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 08:42:01 -0400, "HR" <HR@horizon.net> wrote:
>
>>Ok. Many non-wargamers have recently told me the soviets could not have
>>steamrolled through in Germany 1985 and to succeed would have had to
>>result
>>to nukes.
>>
>>I disagreed based on playing some older board games (and computer) on the
>>subject and unless the allies do an exceptional delaying action (until
>>major
>>reinforcements arrive from the USA) are pretty much easily rolled over.
>>
>>I figured the soviets (and warsaw pact) had roughly 4:1 odds.
>>
>>I was going to buy one of the more recent tiller or matrix games on the
>>subject to test it but they appear to tactical.
>>
>>I'm just talking men and equipment here, not any fog of war or political
>>considerations.
>>
>>Thoughts?
>>
>
> I've read (somewhere, I have no idea) that at some point in the CW
> permanently-installed nuclear land mines were present in the Gap on
> the NATO side. Perhaps only in the early MAD period?
>
> I doubt if these were ever officially acknowledged.
>
> Steve
> --
> www.thepaxamsolution.com
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 12:15:05 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 10:26:44 -0500, Steve Bartman <sbartman@visi.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 04:43:54 GMT, mike allegretto
><rallegre@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:40:08 +0000 (UTC), "Mike"
>><thedevilsadvocaat@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Epi" <epicat1212@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:MPG.1d2dc80872622659989739@news.east.earthlink.net...
>>>> In article <1120140077.525828.46100@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>> Gustav Bjerke schreef:
>>>>>
>>>>> > General Sir John Hackett
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, that's the one !
>>>>>
>>>>> (lesson learned today : If you're too lazy to look something up before
>>>>> you post, someone else will do it for you)
>>>>>
>>>>> Greetz,
>>>>>
>>>>> Eddy Sterckx
>>>>
>>>> I remember reading that book in eighth grade. I think that's the one.
>>>> Did England get nuked some in it?
>>>>
>>>Seem to remember that it was Birmingham. And the UK hit Minsk in return.
>>>Might be wrong, though.
>>
>>
>>
>>That was the book Team Yankee.
>
>No, it wasn't. The OP is correct.
>
>Steve



you sure? i got the book right here and the two cities mentioned here
get nuked the way they describe.
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 1:58:53 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On 30 Jun 2005 07:01:17 -0700, "eddysterckx@hotmail.com"
<eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> General Sir John Hackett
>
>Thanks, that's the one !
>
>(lesson learned today : If you're too lazy to look something up before
>you post, someone else will do it for you)

You REALLY have to be lazy to miss this one.

I went to Google typed Arnhem and Third World War and found it on the
third or four entry. (Now I _did_ remember Hackett's name and didn't
need to but figured it would be a quick Google and it was)
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 2:04:47 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:40:08 +0000 (UTC), "Mike"
<thedevilsadvocaat@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> I remember reading that book in eighth grade. I think that's the one.
>> Did England get nuked some in it?
>>
>Seem to remember that it was Birmingham. And the UK hit Minsk in return.
>Might be wrong, though.

You're not - essentially Russia attacked, got held, got driven back
slightly, nuked Birmingham along with an ultimatum that they'd start
pushing buttons if the Allies didn't accept a ceasefire.

Which they did after making sure Minsk was obliterated by 3 weapons -
one French, one British and one American which was a nice touch on
Hackett's part.
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 2:04:48 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <a5fbc19rqup4b2ik22rkhvjh0t0o9fsh9e@4ax.com>, lcraver@home.ca
says...
> >Seem to remember that it was Birmingham. And the UK hit Minsk in return.
> >Might be wrong, though.
>
> You're not - essentially Russia attacked, got held, got driven back
> slightly, nuked Birmingham along with an ultimatum that they'd start
> pushing buttons if the Allies didn't accept a ceasefire.
>
> Which they did after making sure Minsk was obliterated by 3 weapons -
> one French, one British and one American which was a nice touch on
> Hackett's part.

French? Don't recall that.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"[Natan] Sharansky spent nine years in the Gulag - the real one - and
over 400 of those days were in punishment cells. What he had to suffer
was almost inconceivably depraved. To read Sharansky, while Amnesty
International is squawking about Guantanamo, is enough to make you hate
Amnesty for the rest of your life."
- Jay Nordlinger
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 2:06:56 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:16:00 GMT, Epi <epicat1212@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> > It's been over a decade that I've read them, but the "History of the
>> > Third World War" by that guy who jumped at Arnhem during WWII (Frost ?)
>> > was a fine read on the subject
>>
>> General Sir John Winthrop "Shan" Hackett penned THE THIRD WORLD WAR:
>> AUGUST 1985.
>
>hmmm...1985 would have been too late for the eighth grade. Are you sure
>the date's right. I could swear that was the one I read.

That is correct. At the time it was written it was a 'future history'
- despite the title the book itself was written in 1978.
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 2:12:43 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:41:59 -0400, "HR" <HR@horizon.net> wrote:

>Good point.
>Refugee counters. Thats what we need:) 

I don't think even Jim Dunnigan had the nerve to do THAT - though he
did write about some of the things uncovered in play testing games in
MOVES.

There was one memorable story told about the playtesting of Sniper
(original title: "House to House Fighting Continues in Stalingrad...")
which was a game where each counter represented an individual soldier
and apparently was in the final proof-reading stage when someone
noticed that there was a rule saying "Erect men may expose themselves"
(as in they couldn't see out the window unless they themselves were
subject to fire but that's NOT how it read!) which was changed to
"Self-Exposure by Sighting".

This was probably my most memorable issue of MOVES other than the one
which published a semi-perfect plan for the Russian player in War in
the East (1st ed.).
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 3:41:12 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

<eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120138055.841418.305530@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> HR schreef:
> > Ok. Many non-wargamers have recently told me the soviets could not have
> > steamrolled through in Germany 1985 and to succeed would have had to
result
> > to nukes.
>
> > Thoughts?
>
> The key to fighting WW3 imho is getting air superiority.
>
> If Nato can get air superiority the Warsaw pact is toast as tanks are
> just the land equivalent of battleships when operating outside
> aircover.
>
> I've read an article somewhere that though the Warsaw pact had a lot of
> aircraft on paper, only a tiny percentage was actually servicable at
> any given moment due to lack of spare parts, adequate maintenance, lack
> of pilots etc.
>
> The 4:1 advantage also didn't take into account the French army (which
> is not part of Nato) and a bit contrary to what is usually believed in
> here was actually pretty big and up-to-date on equipment. Add to that
> the fact that Polish and East-German forces are just as likely to turn
> *east* after shooting their political commissars and that by day 2 the
> Hungarians and Rumanians are probably fighting each other I doubt a
> Russian soldier would reach the Rhine.
>
> It's been over a decade that I've read them, but the "History of the
> Third World War" by that guy who jumped at Arnhem during WWII (Frost ?)
> was a fine read on the subject
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx
>

that doesn'e even take into account that at least half of the pact tanks
are t-34/85s and js-3s
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 8:05:58 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 20:15:05 GMT, mike allegretto
<rallegre@stny.rr.com> wrote:


>>>>Seem to remember that it was Birmingham. And the UK hit Minsk in return.
>>>>Might be wrong, though.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>That was the book Team Yankee.
>>
>>No, it wasn't. The OP is correct.
>>
>>Steve
>
>
>
>you sure? i got the book right here and the two cities mentioned here
>get nuked the way they describe.

I have Hackett's books and the cities are the same. My copy of "Team
Yankee" went MIA years ago. It would be quite a coincidence if the two
targets were exactly the same.

Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 4:46:23 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 16:05:58 -0500, Steve Bartman <sbartman@visi.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 20:15:05 GMT, mike allegretto
><rallegre@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>Seem to remember that it was Birmingham. And the UK hit Minsk in return.
>>>>>Might be wrong, though.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That was the book Team Yankee.
>>>
>>>No, it wasn't. The OP is correct.
>>>
>>>Steve
>>
>>
>>
>>you sure? i got the book right here and the two cities mentioned here
>>get nuked the way they describe.
>
>I have Hackett's books and the cities are the same. My copy of "Team
>Yankee" went MIA years ago. It would be quite a coincidence if the two
>targets were exactly the same.
>
>Steve



See another posting that i made here pointing to a reference of Team
Yankee. The author of TY used hackett's book for much of his
background material.
July 3, 2005 12:20:28 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Abrams tanks have shown not to be the unstoppable machine that everyone
though. I may be able to find a US Army report on that fact and post it
here. Also remember in 1985 Not every US unit had the M1 many still were
equipped with the M60A3 and M113 APC's If American intelligence estimates
were correct...(I have lots of that in book form, this time from the DOD, it
would be harder but maybe not impossible to post.) The soviets in the area
would have strong front line Equipment and much reserves that would seem
more then adequate. Fulda Gap being important but not at all the whole front
other factors outside that area would come into play. If NORTHAG. Probably
the weakest of the NATO fronts collapsed you'd have most likely have a
situation where the Denmark and the North of West Germany would have to be
abandon in order to stabilize the rest of the front. Fulda being a
bottleneck of sorts was always thought of as opening blows. Essentially a
speed bump design to weaken the blow from the Soviets and buy time for a
solid defense further back to be enforced. It seems unlikely that a stand
could be made. While Americans and British did well in 1991 against Sov
tanks. These tanks were isolated unsupported in most cases and run by
soldiers with no experiences in most cases. The better Iraqi units had
combat experience and put up a hell of a fight that many don't know
occurred. Nonetheless the Soviets backed by Airpower and the unquestionably
huge amount of artillery and men at there disposal is quite different. A lot
would have to go right for victory in a scenario such as that. But for the
Americans at Fulda to make a stand is not at all likely. It really wasn't
even there plan to do so. With that said. If you put American cavalry units
which would have the latest and greatest equipment in the gap on day of
incursion local air superiority. Warpac units would take a good pounding
before getting through that bottleneck. The tempo of such engagements though
would require eventual retirement and surely complete exhaustion in manpower
and material for Americans in the battle. This was always what the Americans
expected in that area. The doctrine explaining this is also available in
many US Army publications. When preparing for a fight with the Russians, the
Americans studied the Eastern front of ww2 and patterend there ideas of the
Germans. This is something I find never received well by Americans whom
have some sort of prejudiced to Germans and are steeped in politics and so
on. But again many Army publications will verify they learned much for the
Germans and applied it to there doctrine for a potential war with the
Soviets. Stalling and mauling German units was the idea. Using Fire brigade
like tactics to establish local superiority in threat areas was there best
bet. IN one explanation they likened the American approach to a group of
smaller animals gnawing a one large one from different angles. 3 men and a
Jeep was something talked of a lot. The idea of sniping at large columns
with ATGMs in hit and run attacks and so on.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 7:10:58 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

I thought it was 4 SLBMs: 2 British and 2 American that hit Minsk.

John Noory



Giftzwerg wrote:
> In article <a5fbc19rqup4b2ik22rkhvjh0t0o9fsh9e@4ax.com>, lcraver@home.ca
> says...
>
>>>Seem to remember that it was Birmingham. And the UK hit Minsk in return.
>>>Might be wrong, though.
>>
>>You're not - essentially Russia attacked, got held, got driven back
>>slightly, nuked Birmingham along with an ultimatum that they'd start
>>pushing buttons if the Allies didn't accept a ceasefire.
>>
>>Which they did after making sure Minsk was obliterated by 3 weapons -
>>one French, one British and one American which was a nice touch on
>>Hackett's part.
>
>
> French? Don't recall that.
>
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 10:53:16 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <6LWxe.40018$DC2.19905@okepread01>, jnoory@cox.net says...

> I thought it was 4 SLBMs: 2 British and 2 American that hit Minsk.

I don't recall the numbers, but my recollection is that it was Britain
and America who retaliated, not France.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"[Natan] Sharansky spent nine years in the Gulag - the real one - and
over 400 of those days were in punishment cells. What he had to suffer
was almost inconceivably depraved. To read Sharansky, while Amnesty
International is squawking about Guantanamo, is enough to make you hate
Amnesty for the rest of your life."
- Jay Nordlinger
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 4:52:37 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Giftzwerg schreef:

> Perhaps it's useful at this point to discuss the tremendous impact that
> Hackett's book had. I'm not sure it's ridiculous or insane to propose
> that Shan Hackett's book had exactly the effect he sought.

Influence or coinciding with a pendulum swing, a mood swing in popular
opinion regarding in how to tackle "the Evil Empire" ? cfr. Reagan,
Thatcher getting elected in the same period. A harsh reality book in a
period when no-bullshit politicians got elected - sometimes a book or
movie just hits the sweet spot.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 5:00:55 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 18:53:16 -0400, Giftzwerg
<giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:

>In article <6LWxe.40018$DC2.19905@okepread01>, jnoory@cox.net says...
>
>> I thought it was 4 SLBMs: 2 British and 2 American that hit Minsk.
>
>I don't recall the numbers, but my recollection is that it was Britain
>and America who retaliated, not France.

I was working from memory - I know it was multiple weapons but would
have to go back to Hackett's book to verify.
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 5:00:56 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <8h2hc11lfu3v7nc6g0ngc073o84bcivti9@4ax.com>, lcraver@home.ca
says...
> >> I thought it was 4 SLBMs: 2 British and 2 American that hit Minsk.
> >
> >I don't recall the numbers, but my recollection is that it was Britain
> >and America who retaliated, not France.
>
> I was working from memory - I know it was multiple weapons but would
> have to go back to Hackett's book to verify.

Perhaps it's useful at this point to discuss the tremendous impact that
Hackett's book had. I'm not sure it's ridiculous or insane to propose
that Shan Hackett's book had exactly the effect he sought.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"[Natan] Sharansky spent nine years in the Gulag - the real one - and
over 400 of those days were in punishment cells. What he had to suffer
was almost inconceivably depraved. To read Sharansky, while Amnesty
International is squawking about Guantanamo, is enough to make you hate
Amnesty for the rest of your life."
- Jay Nordlinger
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 6:22:16 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Martin Rapier schreef:

>
> The force ratios improved through the late 1980s, the most vulnerable period
> was more 1980-84, but the Russian force superiority was overwhelming

Hardware : on paper only - spare parts, fuel, training were all lacking

+ the certainty that at least Polish and East-German units would
perform a "Vlassov" at the earliest opportunity

> it
> was the allies who would have to deploy nuclear weapons to stop them, which
> was the whole point of putting cruise & Pershing into Europe in the first
> place.

Well, I considered the whole cruise missile placement a *political*
message that when push came to shove, the US still had the capability
to make their unwilling allies accept their placement.

> Certainly no-one who was stationed in Germany in the 1980s had any illusions
> that playing 'space invaders on the Rhine' was going to result in anything
> other than the Russians on the Rhine in a few days and every possibility of
> an escalating nuclear confrontation.
>
> Presumably this is some modern revisionism that somehow the Warpac forces
> were a toothless tiger??

The troops stationed in Germany knew they would get the full brunt of
the attack and would have to hold the line for reinforcements
(ReForGer) to arrive. In case of war their particular outlook wasn't
too bright, but seen from the overall perspective Nato would have
prevailed in a conventional war.

And in a sense it is modern revisionism - based on the data that came
publically available after the Warsaw pact collapsed : Soviet fighter
bases with a TOE of 6 squadrons who IRL would only have managed to get
a couple of dozen planes airborne for want of spare parts, fuel and
maintenance.

What I'm wondering about is how much of that particualar information
would have been available at the military intelligence level at the
time ?

Did Reagan get tough because he *knew* from reports he was dealing with
a paper tiger who wouldn't be able to keep up in a
technology/industrial production race ?

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 12:16:39 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <1120463557.609303.154210@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...

> > Perhaps it's useful at this point to discuss the tremendous impact that
> > Hackett's book had. I'm not sure it's ridiculous or insane to propose
> > that Shan Hackett's book had exactly the effect he sought.
>
> Influence or coinciding with a pendulum swing, a mood swing in popular
> opinion regarding in how to tackle "the Evil Empire" ? cfr. Reagan,
> Thatcher getting elected in the same period. A harsh reality book in a
> period when no-bullshit politicians got elected - sometimes a book or
> movie just hits the sweet spot.

Specifically, American and NATO re-armament during the period of the
1980s. There was a sense during the Carter years that confronting the
Soviets was a futile exercise, but by Reagan's second term, the Russian
moment had passed.

Perhaps it was coincidence, but the scenario played out precisely as
Hackett envisioned - except that the war never took place.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"[Natan] Sharansky spent nine years in the Gulag - the real one - and
over 400 of those days were in punishment cells. What he had to suffer
was almost inconceivably depraved. To read Sharansky, while Amnesty
International is squawking about Guantanamo, is enough to make you hate
Amnesty for the rest of your life."
- Jay Nordlinger
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 1:21:14 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"HR" <HR@horizon.net> wrote in message
news:ErudnZvZOq8OdV7fRVn-jw@comcast.com...
> Ok. Many non-wargamers have recently told me the soviets could not have
> steamrolled through in Germany 1985 and to succeed would have had to
> result to nukes.

The force ratios improved through the late 1980s, the most vulnerable period
was more 1980-84, but the Russian force superiority was overwhelming - it
was the allies who would have to deploy nuclear weapons to stop them, which
was the whole point of putting cruise & Pershing into Europe in the first
place.

Certainly no-one who was stationed in Germany in the 1980s had any illusions
that playing 'space invaders on the Rhine' was going to result in anything
other than the Russians on the Rhine in a few days and every possibility of
an escalating nuclear confrontation.

Presumably this is some modern revisionism that somehow the Warpac forces
were a toothless tiger??

Martin
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 3:10:00 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Actually I meant the whole front not just the fulda gap. oops:) 


"jg" <wsafad@aol.com> wrote in message
news:gdNxe.7830$hV5.2631@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> Abrams tanks have shown not to be the unstoppable machine that everyone
> though. I may be able to find a US Army report on that fact and post it
> here. Also remember in 1985 Not every US unit had the M1 many still were
> equipped with the M60A3 and M113 APC's If American intelligence estimates
> were correct...(I have lots of that in book form, this time from the DOD,
> it would be harder but maybe not impossible to post.) The soviets in the
> area would have strong front line Equipment and much reserves that would
> seem more then adequate. Fulda Gap being important but not at all the
> whole front other factors outside that area would come into play. If
> NORTHAG. Probably the weakest of the NATO fronts collapsed you'd have most
> likely have a situation where the Denmark and the North of West Germany
> would have to be abandon in order to stabilize the rest of the front.
> Fulda being a bottleneck of sorts was always thought of as opening blows.
> Essentially a speed bump design to weaken the blow from the Soviets and
> buy time for a solid defense further back to be enforced. It seems
> unlikely that a stand could be made. While Americans and British did well
> in 1991 against Sov tanks. These tanks were isolated unsupported in most
> cases and run by soldiers with no experiences in most cases. The better
> Iraqi units had combat experience and put up a hell of a fight that many
> don't know occurred. Nonetheless the Soviets backed by Airpower and the
> unquestionably huge amount of artillery and men at there disposal is quite
> different. A lot would have to go right for victory in a scenario such as
> that. But for the Americans at Fulda to make a stand is not at all
> likely. It really wasn't even there plan to do so. With that said. If you
> put American cavalry units which would have the latest and greatest
> equipment in the gap on day of incursion local air superiority. Warpac
> units would take a good pounding before getting through that bottleneck.
> The tempo of such engagements though would require eventual retirement and
> surely complete exhaustion in manpower and material for Americans in the
> battle. This was always what the Americans expected in that area. The
> doctrine explaining this is also available in many US Army publications.
> When preparing for a fight with the Russians, the Americans studied the
> Eastern front of ww2 and patterend there ideas of the Germans. This is
> something I find never received well by Americans whom have some sort of
> prejudiced to Germans and are steeped in politics and so on. But again
> many Army publications will verify they learned much for the Germans and
> applied it to there doctrine for a potential war with the Soviets.
> Stalling and mauling German units was the idea. Using Fire brigade like
> tactics to establish local superiority in threat areas was there best bet.
> IN one explanation they likened the American approach to a group of
> smaller animals gnawing a one large one from different angles. 3 men and a
> Jeep was something talked of a lot. The idea of sniping at large columns
> with ATGMs in hit and run attacks and so on.
>
July 5, 2005 2:44:45 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

I think I will need to show my information I mentioned previously. How
technically I can put parts a book into a e-mail in any practical manner
I'll need to figure out. The info I have from the government starts in 1986
or 7 and continues into the early 90's. This information while not the "top
secret" type cloak and dagger stuff, was not something the general public
had access to. It was given to people whom did business( and ALLOT of it)
with the DOD. Could anybody get this stuff if they wanted to? I don't know.
But whatever the case this information paints no such pictures of a paper
tiger. Was there waist, incompetence and lacking in proper material..of
course. But not on such a scale that the entire Western Strategic Direction
was some bone yard laid out for the benefit of NATO spy satellites.
Inefficiency shortages and poor management plagued the USSR military in ww2.
There enemies were in most respects superior in experience training and
technology. Didn't matter. Even with the deficiencies in the USSR
military(there were many of them) they were a massive.

Info that came after the collapse is spotty and like anything coming from
the Russians government.which it does. They may call them capitalists but
not much has changed..look at there last election for an example. Soldiers
threaten and strong arming voters. . They lie and continue to stonewall many
things from us fro the past. They are reclusive and paranoid.
Perestroika(Sp?) or not.

Now granted the US DOD well overblow things to squeeze a few more bucks for
there budget every year. But the expense of 40 some years of Cold War
military buildup seems silly regardless of whatever politics come into play
if the Russians couldn't hold up the front and we had pretty good
indications of that from our Intel.

One other thing. I read some other parts of this thread where the French
were mentioned. Now I am not big on discussing politics at all. With
current events and the fanaticism surrounding it I hesitate to go to deep.
But as another mentioned. You cant completely remove politics from warfare.
The planning for NATO revolved around the French not getting involved as
they were never very enthusiastic or helpful for the most part. Yeah they
had there FOCH carrier and supposedly were to assist in the Atlantic. But I
from all perspectives I have ever read. The French wouldn't send any ground
troops until Ivan was ramming vodka and cucumbers down there throats. If the
Russians make it to the French border then of course its to late for those
AMX tanks to be any assistance as they[Ivan] would have already ran
everybody else over.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 4:39:07 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On 4 Jul 2005 02:22:16 -0700, "eddysterckx@hotmail.com"
<eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote:


>
>+ the certainty that at least Polish and East-German units would
>perform a "Vlassov" at the earliest opportunity
>
>
>Eddy Sterckx

Don't be too sure of it. The individual men, once they were taken
prisoner, could be easily recruited, but the whole units would fight.
Individual soldiers cannot change sides, they can at most try to
surrender, and that only in some situations. And the better soldiers
would prefer fight to surrender.

Only commanders can change sides, and they were carefully selected. Of
course, if you had a Polish division cut of somewhere in Denmark
(Polish forces were not thought reliable enough to fight in Germany
and were to land in Denmark) it would surrender, but you would have to
win first.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 4:39:08 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <idokc1tlniu6v59ct92rfhkv3e7d2ikvb8@4ax.com>,
straight.to@trash.us says...

> >+ the certainty that at least Polish and East-German units would
> >perform a "Vlassov" at the earliest opportunity

> Don't be too sure of it. The individual men, once they were taken
> prisoner, could be easily recruited, but the whole units would fight.
> Individual soldiers cannot change sides, they can at most try to
> surrender, and that only in some situations. And the better soldiers
> would prefer fight to surrender.

The real question isn't whether they would explicitly surrender or try
to change sides - like you, I find this fairly unlikely - but how much
real, practical zeal for combat they would display when called on to
invade western Europe at the behest of some beetle-browed Soviet
strongman. I see Polish or GDR troops as being indifferent soldiers at
best; not exactly the sort to display the kind of elan necessary to
charge towards the Rhine.

In other words, they might effectively "perform a Vlassov" simply by
showing no inclination to fight well; and that might be enough to save
their lives and upset the Soviet timetable.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"[Natan] Sharansky spent nine years in the Gulag - the real one - and
over 400 of those days were in punishment cells. What he had to suffer
was almost inconceivably depraved. To read Sharansky, while Amnesty
International is squawking about Guantanamo, is enough to make you hate
Amnesty for the rest of your life."
- Jay Nordlinger
!