Jump to content

What time will be best for you to attend 1st Clash?  

24 members have voted

  1. 1. What time will be best for you to attend 1st Clash?



Recommended Posts

  • Replies 343
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Same here big family holiday weekend no go for NATO. Most NATO members are from non-Thanksgiving Nations so perhaps a training-briefing during what would be regular campaign time on Sat? If WP chooses their ground and C/C gets Me the scenario to plan by say Thursday, it will be good to go. With the extra week to get ready NATO should take the time to get familiar with the terrain to avoid the "I don't know where I am" Syndrome.:c:

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, lets see if I got this correct. Calling a Leopard C2 a C1, then calling a M113 the TUA version.

I stand corrected on the MII3, but I made no comment at all on the Mark of Leopard involved. Perhaps you too need to visit the optician. Even so, just two MII3s with pedestal mounted TOWs would have been capable of wreaking havoc with an attacking force limited to 20 vehicles DURING EACH MISSION, which would have had no chance of surviving the engagement, let alone 'overwhelming' the defence.

But I will comment on the serious criticisms of Tank Hunter's leadership. When he stated that he would command the recce/resupply phase and then stand down, a highly experienced and respected SB player was drafted in to take over. What happened after that is on the record - the combat phase did not happen.

Once again, I thank you for going to the considerable effort of putting together this camapaign. But I'm disappointed with the overall attitude that all and any problems are entirely the fault of SVU. Posts above, from non-members of SVU, show that we are not entirely alone in our assessment of the situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The same ground can be attacked in a following round By WP, again and again. The NATO forces would have to rearm and resupply, and repair, while facing a fresh WP force each time. That is what is meant by WP having superior numbers against NATO. This all takes place in 24 Hours so It would simulate wave after wave of WP attacking against the same NATO force in a particular area. If WP attacks in a different area each time then NATO has time to breath and bring up fresh forces.

This makes the choice of ground, and commitment to attacking it a big deal.

Please accept the following as genuine questions - not argument. I have only fought in one NATO vs WP multiplayer event - which was Red Tide.

Would the need for NATO to rearm and resupply be a big problem seeing as there is a recon/resupply phase prior to each combat phase?

Do you think it reasonable that WP forces should bee forced to attack 'in wave after wave', piecemeal with a 1:1 force ratio on each occasion? Surely that would not happen in RL?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In real life the attacking Soviets are in column formation till the CO decides he needs his forces in line (battle ready), at this point they leave their column formations and at a certain point on the ground the move into line formations.

Given that not all units can occupy the same piece of ground in the column, and even the line formations, they are separated by space and time. If i recall some 30-60mins. More for larger formations. So yes they would be in waves due to a time issue. They as all armies put spacing between units traveling down route as not to congest and cause issues (much like SB).

But the Soviet unit :wink2:knows this:wink2:

Disclamer:This is meant not as anything but informative.:luxhello:

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the supply/recon there is the possibility to disrupt/destroy, cause havoc to each sides supplies/dumps, and their log trail, so the answer is yes, there can be a problem. :gun:

Its up the the planner to plan for the other sides inability:luxhello: to resupply his units.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I stand corrected on the MII3, but I made no comment at all on the Mark of Leopard involved. Perhaps you too need to visit the optician. Even so, just two MII3s with pedestal mounted TOWs would have been capable of wreaking havoc with an attacking force limited to 20 vehicles DURING EACH MISSION, which would have had no chance of surviving the engagement, let alone 'overwhelming' the defence.

But I will comment on the serious criticisms of Tank Hunter's leadership. When he stated that he would command the recce/resupply phase and then stand down, a highly experienced and respected SB player was drafted in to take over. What happened after that is on the record - the combat phase did not happen.

Once again, I thank you for going to the considerable effort of putting together this camapaign. But I'm disappointed with the overall attitude that all and any problems are entirely the fault of SVU. Posts above, from non-members of SVU, show that we are not entirely alone in our assessment of the situation.

I apologize if it was taken as a seen as a criticize on TH:c:, it was not meant to be. It was on the plan that did not work, we have all made poor plans here, myself included, but the facts and the AAR speak for them selves.

AS for the TOWS, I stated in the beginning that 1St Clash is meant to be as realistic as the sim would allow.

4CMBG had the M113TOW with TI ( I fired with NODs equipped TOW's in Hohenfels 1974) just as the Guards had T-72's.

The Guards would have had to deal with them and so does the Red CO, much like the 4CMBG CO has to deal with 300+ T-72 coming his way.

Edited by 12Alfa
Link to post
Share on other sites
They as all armies put spacing between units traveling down route as not to congest and cause issues (much like SB).

And, from reading the book first clash they also are aware of the risk of massing armor as it may trigger the enemy to launch nuclear weapon against them.. :gun:

Link to post
Share on other sites

12A and KT - Thanks for the information contained in the above posts. I guess disruption of enemy resupply operations is dependent on the ability to penetrate into his rear areas with recon units carrying the necessary firepower? It is this ability - or lack of it - that seems to have been one of the causes of controversy. Personally, I do not have the experience or knowledge to make a judgement, so this is purely a comment/question - not an argumentative 'counter attack'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Both yes and no. getting recce behind enemy lines are the best option but you can still disrupt the enemy. Supply mostly drives on wheels, therefore prefer roads. They are big and cumbersome and vulnerable to anything of indirect fire. So analyzing the terrain in the combat zones "rear" area can give valuable TRPs to fire at whenever your artillery arent tied up on direct support of the combat troops.

A lucky fire mission in a road junction just as the supply is moving up can ruin your enemys day...

And just firing random at certain choke points make disrupt the enemy's supply just by forcing it to use terrain instead of road with all the issues that brings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12A and KT - Thanks for the information contained in the above posts. I guess disruption of enemy resupply operations is dependent on the ability to penetrate into his rear areas with recon units carrying the necessary firepower? It is this ability - or lack of it - that seems to have been one of the causes of controversy. Personally, I do not have the experience or knowledge to make a judgement, so this is purely a comment/question - not an argumentative 'counter attack'.

Both side have been given "Lay back ptl's" to do this. So for 20 some turns that would be 20+ sections who could do this, if they as last mission are not kia.

So for "one of the causes of controversy" I don't see this, can you explain, so I can fix?

I don't want to be argumentative, just trying to explain the details, that for the most part have been posted here. I am open to questions, comment on how to improve (within reason)

Link to post
Share on other sites

So for "one of the causes of controversy" I don't see this, can you explain, so I can fix?

I don't want to be argumentative, just trying to explain the details, that for the most part have been posted here. I am open to questions, comment on how to improve (within reason)

That was simply my personal impression - that Red command thought it was near to impossible to penetrate Blue's rear areas during the recce phase due to the vulnerabity of the BRDM and BTR80, while Blue thought they could have done it quite easily. But I may have got the wrong end of the stick, so I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. :clin: I'm certainly not qualified to suggest any 'fixes'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4CMBG had the M113TOW with TI ( I fired with NODs equipped TOW's in Hohenfels 1974) just as the Guards had T-72's.

Perfectly realistic then. It seems to me that NATO having TIS, even in small numbers, would been a very significant advantage. They would have been able to spot the where and when of the Soviet advance long before they got eyes on them, and thus marshal their forces well in advance to flank or blunt the attack. Those M113s would have been gold dust in the way of gathering intelligence - and that's before we even consider their long range kill ability. Comments?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Perfectly realistic then. It seems to me that NATO having TIS, even in small numbers, would been a very significant advantage. They would have been able to spot the where and when of the Soviet advance long before they got eyes on them, and thus marshal their forces well in advance to flank or blunt the attack. Those M113s would have been gold dust in the way of gathering intelligence - and that's before we even consider their long range kill ability. Comments?

As for long range engagements, you may have noticed the little open ground to be seen on. It would be wise for both sides to use the cover to avoid ATGM/Tank killing grounds.

The same can be said for earlier comments on how the Leo has the advantage in range, a detail map study is needed on both sides before any plan can be made, standard OPP.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As for long range engagements, you may have noticed the little open ground to be seen on. It would be wise for both sides to use the cover to avoid ATGM/Tank killing grounds.

The same can be said for earlier comments on how the Leo has the advantage in range, a detail map study is needed on both sides before any plan can be made, standard OPP.

Point taken. I am still trying to learn about armoured warfare, so had hoped to move away from discussing the campaign to what the situation in RL would have been.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The two M113TOW's that had success would have had the same success without TI. Our interdiction forces spotted the threat heading their way. As well as info from other m113g's South and North of the river. Duke(911), and His wingman Gladiator, knew exactly what was coming, including the direction enemy was headed, type of enemy, as well as area they would appear. Their sights where already pointed in the right spot long before WP forces got there.

Also on every one of those TOW kills the WP unit that got hit was looking West, or North, not South where the threat was. From what I see in the AAR Red vehicles got impatient with waiting for the foot soldiers to scout ahead. The result was drive forward until you blow up recon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say that it did seem an obvious Engagement Area (Killing Ground if you watch movies).

How to negate it, well perhaps not too much detail until after we a finished ;) but some random thoughts ….

Not go there - bypass (there were options both North and South).

Use dismounts to identify and neutralise with arty HE fire.

Use dismounts to identify and mask with arty smoke while crossing.

Use recon to prematurely trigger their firing and then use tanks in overwatch to destroy the launchers (ideally before the missiles hit the BRDMs).

Use blind (not spotted) arty fire to suppress likely locations to force them to move.

I'm not saying that Red was inept or anything like it, just there were a few different ways to solve that tactical challenge (some of which may or may not have worked better than the option chosen on the day).

Anyway, next week different tactical challenge … :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
The two M113TOW's that had success would have had the same success without TI. Our interdiction forces spotted the threat heading their way. As well as info from other m113g's South and North of the river. Duke(911), and His wingman Gladiator, knew exactly what was coming, including the direction enemy was headed, type of enemy, as well as area they would appear. Their sights where already pointed in the right spot long before WP forces got there.

Also on every one of those TOW kills the WP unit that got hit was looking West, or North, not South where the threat was. From what I see in the AAR Red vehicles got impatient with waiting for the foot soldiers to scout ahead. The result was drive forward until you blow up recon.

Dukes pictorial AAR from mission two.

Draw your own conclusions.

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3867753/PzBtl911_v_AAR_SBPro_PE_First_#Post3867753

Link to post
Share on other sites

Use blind (not spotted) arty fire to suppress likely locations to force them to move.

Thought the term was: observed or unobserved fire ?

Whats the use of painting spots on your artillery pieces?

English...confusing stuff that is ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...