Designer's note - Scenario Design Center

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Originally, the NATO OOB would be left on the battalion level exactly like the Warsaw Pact forces. However, we discussed the composition of the OOB for some time and finally decided it would be better to be given more freedom of action to the NATO and to break the battalions down to companies. Also this level mirrors NATO’s doctrine of flexible defence. As you can see, the US V and VII and German III and II Corps are the dominate NATO forces defending the "Fulda Gap". The two corps in the Fulda sector had five divisions plus the 11th Armoured Cavalry regiment and the Canadian 4th Mechanized Brigade. Approximately 18.000 men and 4400 vehicles were ready for the defence. The Warsaw Pact fielded three armies: the Soviet 1st Guard tanks and 8th Guard Army and the East German 3rd Army. These armies accounted for altogether 12 divisions plus an airmobile division or approximately 66,550 infantry and 5000 vehicles. In addition, a large number of artillery pieces and attack helicopters were available to both sides. The Warsaw Pact enjoyed a 3:1 superiority in men and a similar superiority in vehicles. The numbers like this are no surprise, above all the number of vehicles. When speaking of "vehicles", I mean tanks and armoured personnel carriers. Before I researched the equipment of the two sides, I always thought the Warsaw Pact to be vastly numerically superior in all weapon types. Surprisingly, I determined quickly that matters had evened out over the years and that NATO had more or less erased the tank deficit of the 60’s and 70’s. This resulted from a restructuring of the land forces of an "infantry army "to a "mechanized army ". The NATO members always developed their weapon systems independent of each other, although striving for a measure of compatibility. For example, the American M1A1 Abrams tank and the German Leopard II use the same main gun and can consequently fire the same ammunition. At this point, I want to mention that in Fulda Gap '85 the first M1 Abrams variant with the 105mm cannon is used. Therefore, the M1 compares unfavourably with the Leopard II and its 125mm cannon. NATO developed the same calibre ammunition for different infantry and artillery weapons, thus enhancing logistic capability. The Soviet military power was one of the most highly sophisticated and modern armies of the world (at least on the paper). The backbone of the Soviet tank armed forces and other Warsaw Pact countries since the early 70’s was the T-72 tank of which approximately 18.000 were built for Pact requirements as well as for export. Beginning in the 80’s, the Soviet government introduced the T-80 tank that would replace little by little, the T-72 which would take on the back-up role of the T-64. A replacement spiral began, which has only stopped recently. Most Warsaw treaty states didn’t get any T-80s since the Soviet’s own requirements had priority. They still had to be content with the T-72 and its modernized variations. The Soviet Army came after China as the biggest in the world. With masses of reservists, it was the spectre of NATO. However impressive it seemed on paper, it had critical quality problems. The soldiers were badly trained, some of them had shot only a few times in their entire military career and had, moreover, very low morale. IIIa. Helicopters ( by Glenn Saunders ) Page 10
Helicopter rule changes was a given when the Modern Campaign Series was extended for Fulda Gap as helicopters by the mid 80’s were a key part of both sides. Here in the <strong>note</strong>s we will not repeat what is documented in the User Manual, but I think it appropriate to share our views one how these rules have been designed. In creating rules that fit with the game we had to balance the overall effect of the presence of the chopper on the battlefield with how players would and could use them in game terms. The unit had to be effective, offer unique capabilities that they possessed but yet be not too dominating in their effect either. The most central concept was that a flying helicopter was essentially a Air Unit and as such Air Units cannot hold ground unless they disembark men to fight in the hex. To accomplish this we needed to introduce two main types of choppers in Game terms; 1) Gunship and Scout helicopters which are measured in Vehicle and 2) Transport type Helicopters that carry soldier that disembark and fight like ground troops. This second type are measured in Men. Men type helicopters while on the ground, function like any normal ground unit, so they are most often the exception to the general rule and discussion below. In this case the men and the helicopters are inseparable just like a mechanized Infantry unit cannot be split into its men and vehicle parts. Helicopters move in Travel mode and are then said to be flying and as such do not pay terrain cost. While flying they can move through enemy Zones-of-Control (ZOC) without stopping and can even fly through an enemy occupied hex. On the flip side, Helicopters exert no ZOC. If assaulted, the Helicopter unit will retreat. Keep in mind the guiding principle that considers them to be aircraft and so the machines themselves cannot hold ground. If they can’t hold ground, than they cannot capture ground and thus is the justification for the rule that says they cannot assault enemy hexes themselves. One could argue that the only way a helicopter can attack is by assaulting, but you have to keep in mind the scale of the game here – 1 mile per hex, 3 hour turns – so essentially part of the direct fire helicopters perform in a turn would really be a series of rushes and small scale assaults along the edge of the hex designed to inflict casualties on the enemy and not an attack to take the ground away from the defender like a game assault. So in game terms we feel the net effect is a helicopter model that works quite well. IV. The scenarios Fulda Gap ‘85 has two completely differently bases representing a possible conflict between East and West. The first focuses on a "surprise" attack while the second assumes both sides are prepared for the conflict. In both scenarios we assume that there are heavy battles in Northern and Southern Germany of course. In the north, British, Germans, Danes, Belgians and Dutch are trying to hold against the assault of the Warsaw Pact, mainly Russian soldiers. In the south Americans, Germans and Italians are fighting against the Czechs. In the later conflict, we assume that NATO gains the upper hand in the north and especially in the south. So, parts of the VII U.S. Corps and II. German Korps become free as reinforcements for the Fulda Sector. I would like to comment briefly on both scenarios: IVa. Surprise Variant Page 11
Page 1 and 2: Designer’s note - Modern Campaign
Page 3 and 4: schrittweise an die Truppe ausgelie
Page 5 and 6: Unmengen an Reservisten war es das
Page 7 and 8: Befestigung des rückwärtigen Raum
Page 9: Thus, we determined 1985 a good rep
Page 13 and 14: through there. Given the immense am
Page 15 and 16: Central Germany, June 10th 1985: Th
Page 17 and 18: second echelon 1st Guards Tank Army
Page 19 and 20: #23_01: Return to Fulda Town of Ful
Page 21 and 22: Heilbron area, 27 miles southeast o

Designer's note - Scenario Design Center

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?