Nostalgia for the cold war

[kgpanzer]

Cold war child here also....we used cold war scenarios as I was growing up but when it ended I knew it would start again...and sure enough it did, matter of speaking it is in the early stages it is going to an interesting point.

I do not really see Russian tank armies invading europe in general but do see with the current treaty of Russia China and Iran and South america counties that have formed a war starting this way.....

Cheers
Anthony

[groundlber]

Everyone - I live in an area that has several targets worth destroying in case of an all out war. One night in the late eighties, I was driving home (after a sci-fi game, ironically) when I noticed a bright streak in the sky headed in the general direction of one of those targets. After a second, it MIRV'ed. The two thoughts that went through my head were: "At least most people are asleep, they'll never know what happened" and "Is the same thing happening right over my head?" . I also consciously decided not to pull over, turn off the engine, all that other 'stuff' from the films. A minute later, no flashes or booms. Turned out it was a meteor.
On balance, I don't miss the Cold War. I'm glad kids today don't have to worry about everyone they know being killed quickly in an atomic blast or slowly of radiation poisoning.
Just my two cents worth.
Groundlber

[WHM]

A further 2cents;

I think part of the intrest in WWIII wargaming is an extention of WWII wargaming.

Both offer armor battles, which I think have a big appeal. In addition there is of course amphip., naval, air to air. In short, all the features that WWII allows, but with different equipment. Plus since it never happened in Europe any scenarion is realistically plausible.

Additionally, the spread of vehicles you get to use! ISIIIs vs Pershings, M48s vs T55s, slick M6os, centurions, T34s. If you love King Tigers vs Stalins, then you might dig Conqueros vs ISIIIs. Your national Guard unit w/M48A5s going in.

Scenarios also. Why should there be nuclear war? A limited attack on West Germany made from a running start without a big build up extending to Siberia does sound plausible.

Another factor is the "that would have been my war" for those who were in the military then.

[DrBig]

Look at the depths Hitler had sunk to before he wanted to destroy Germany. He was sick...he was mad. That's the benchmark of the type of European that would have to rise to command to pull the nuke trigger. If a guy in Hitler'45's state of mind ever rose to command the USSR, then I can see someone worrying. And I can't imagine that happening in Europe ever again, or back in the 60's.

Now Asia or the Mid East is a different story. But that's not the Cold War. That's now.

[DrBig]

I give you (drumroll)


THE COLD WAR!



http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Picture-A ... 89&sr=1-10

There's a lot more in the series too

[Panzerleader71]

I grew up in the latter part of the Cold War, and never once thought that the nukes would fly. Each side knew what would happen when they pressed the big red button, and no one, with an ounce of sanity, would have considered it. I did, however, think that a "Red Storm Rising" scenaio was very possible, and we would have to deal with another conventional European war.

I am more afraid now that a nuke will be shipped to the US in a packing create, then I ever was of waking up one morning and finding a SS-21 (or whatever the Russkie nuke du jour was at the time) in my front yard. Personally I think the world leaders of today are more loopy then they ever were (or thought of as such) at the height of the Cold War.

To me WWIII wargaming is more an academic exercise to test "new" technologies. To see who really might have been the big man on the block if the balloon had gone up.


And can someone tell me were all those 50's "hide under your desk" films serious? Did they really think that would help if a mushroom sprouted near by? Or, was it just to make everyone feel better? Those films alway give me fits.

[dkolojek]

Well being a relatively new person her I apologize in advance if I ruffle any feathers. But leaving in Ohio I read the bbc news a lot. Guess what. The cold war is heating back up. The Russians are back in the picture. I also have to agree with modwar64 in his opinion of “Historical Modernâ€￾ wargaming. But again the cold war is back on so while the nuculear option is still present, we will be getting a better influx of new or updated equipment to play with. Now if only GHQ can keep up with new releases.

I am also currently reading Combat Team The Captains’ War by John Antal. The basic of the book is we are back to fighting a war in Asia. But the twist is not only do they have to fight a battle to relieve a pinned infantry unit but they also have to protect their supply train in the process. When you review the last couple of newsletters from GHQ and gaming with supply unites I think is more interesting then just creating a parking lot full of tanks and other equipment.

Also consider the Russians. They have full armories of WW2 surplus along with all their new stuff. And as we can see from other news sources both here on the forum and other places. The Russians have better equipment for themselves, so it would not be so easy for us to just walk over them. When you couple all their old stuff with their new stuff and their ferocity they very well could very well overwhelm us. I’m not saying they would win in the long run.

But in my humble opinion this is for fun it is called gaming. It gives me the ability to not only fight a historical battle but also what if’s. And those are the most fun.

[Mk 1]

I grew up in the latter part of the Cold War, and never once thought that the nukes would fly. Each side knew what would happen when they pressed the big red button, and no one, with an ounce of sanity, would have considered it.

I think the greatest risk came from potential mis-interpretations of the opposition, which were rife on both sides.

As unthinkable as it may have seemed to us ... the only scenario worse than "engaging" in a nuclear war was "receiving" a nuclear counter-force strike. If you were a Soviet national leader (military or political), you were well aware that your nuclear forces had a large component that would take time to be made ready for war. Liquid-fueled rockets, submarines in port, aerial bombs stored deep in the nation's center in bunkers, etc. Your risk was an attack that crippled your ability to bring these forces to readiness. So you would be prone to begin the "readying" process in advance during times of geopolitical stress.

The US, on the other hand, had very high readiness and quick response capability in our forces. We didn't feel the threat the same way the Soviets did. We also were very aggressive in our intelligence gathering ... not so much through human assets (spies) that could feed us info on intentions, as through technical means (recon planes and satellites) that could feed us information on actions. To us, any steps to "ready" strategic forces might well have been detected, and might have been read as preparations for a first strike. That would set our own hair trigger. We had the technical capability to prepare and launch our solid-fueled Minutemen rockets in less time than the span from detection of a Soviet launch to their missiles arriving. We also retained nuclear-armed B-52s on "scramble alert" for many years, so that they could get airborne in less than the time it would take for an attack to land. But it was/is a VERY dangerous scenario to be ready to "launch on warning", because there is only about 10 minutes to get the whole chain of command into communications, and to verify information and orders. I believe there was at least one occasion when NORAD command sent out a false warning of inbound attack -- had we been on "launch on warning" status that might have been a very bad day indeed.

I am more afraid now that a nuke will be shipped to the US in a packing create ... Personally I think the world leaders of today are more loopy then they ever were ... at the height of the Cold War.

Indeed.

And can someone tell me were all those 50's "hide under your desk" films serious? Did they really think that would help if a mushroom sprouted near by? Or, was it just to make everyone feel better? Those films alway give me fits.

Not just films. Don't forget the drills, too.

When I was in elementary school (in L.A.) we had "drop" drills, when the teacher would just say "DROP!" and everyone would scramble under his or her desk. We also had "Take Cover" drills, where a certain pattern would ring on the school bells, and we would all march out into the central hall of the building and stand facing the wall.

The drop drills were actually usefull, as they provided a sheltering method not only for un-expected nuclear attacks but also for earthquakes. The take cover drills, on the other hand, seemed rather pointless even to my 10 year old thinking.

That said, the shelter-in-place approach to civil defense did have some rational basis. The US had access to the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and these techniques were developed from interviews with those survivors. Anything between you and the flash of the bomb is a good thing -- even cloth is better than bare skin. And anything between you and the epicenter reduces the likelyhood that you will be cut to shards by flying glass.

The thought of facing survival in the post-appocolipsal environment may be very unpleasant, but as many challenges as their might be would be better faced if you weren't terribly burned or bleeding to death. At least that's how I always saw it.

[Mk 1]

Well being a relatively new person her I apologize in advance if I ruffle any feathers.

Don't 'spect no ruffles here. Just friendly discussion on topics of mutual interest.

Guess what. The cold war is heating back up. The Russians are back in the picture.

Not so sure on that. I don't doubt that politics in Russia may be cause for concern. But the impact of Russia on the world is unlikely to reach the levels that the Soviet Union could achieve.

You remember all those comments about the "endless reserves of manpower" of the Soviet Union? Match that against these simple facts:

Russia's population is less than half of the US population.

The EU's population is larger than the US population.
(Kind of changes the whole NATO mandate, eh?)

Russia's population is less than Pakistan's, less than Brazil's, less than Bangladesh's, less than Nigeria's.

Their economy is in a shambles. As strident as their political rhetoric might become, and as good as their tanks may be, it will be a LONG time, and it will require a LOT of small steps that will be very visible to us, before Russia can again achieve anything like the Soviet Union's status as a superpower on the world stage.

As an example, the latest version of the T-90 does indeed appear to be a very capable tank. At their current production rates, the Russians might finish equipping a second regiment with them within 3 years.

2 regiments? Not a superpower by a long shot.

They have full armories of WW2 surplus along with all their new stuff.

Not any more. They've been selling it off for hard currency for almost two decades, either by official acts, or through under-the-table deals by local commanders.

In fact I've bought a fair bit of it. At least I've bought my fair share of war-surplus Mosin Nagant rifles, accessories, and 7.62mm x 54r ammo.

Even the post-war IS-4s and T-10s are through -- not even usable as fixed-site bunkers anymore. What they have in storage anymore is the early/mid- cold war stuff. T-55s and AK-47s. And even that is going away as they put more T-62s and T-72s into storage. The WW2 stuff is all done.

I am also currently reading Combat Team The Captains’ War by John Antal. The basic of the book is we are back to fighting a war in Asia.

Ah, now we're talking. So many possible scenarios. Asia, South-East Asia, Middle-East, Africa.

But the twist is not only do they have to fight a battle to relieve a pinned infantry unit but they also have to protect their supply train in the process. When you review the last couple of newsletters from GHQ and gaming with supply unites I think is more interesting then just creating a parking lot full of tanks and other equipment.

Quite agree. Rather than a regimental charge through the Fulda Gap, modern gaming now may be better done with scenarios constructed with complex mission requirements ranging from protection of supply echelons, to evacuation of refugees, to looking good on CNN, and even multi-sided (>2) conflicts.

But in my humble opinion this is for fun it is called gaming. It gives me the ability to not only fight a historical battle but also what if’s. And those are the most fun.

The most fun, and in many cases the most enlightening.

[voltigeur]

I think the greatest risk came from potential mis-interpretations of the opposition, which were rife on both sides.

One of the situations that I find so fastinating was having the Soviet and US forces in close proximity and not get in a shooting match. THis is more a naval and air situation rather than Army but it happend all the time.

A good naval scenario would be you hand a Soviet sub commander sealed scenario brief telling him to set up a mock torpedo attack on an American carrier. Under no curcumstances is he to actually shoot at and American ship. Shooting at and American is a defeat.

The US player is the Capitan of an OH Perry class frigate. Under no circumstances is he to let anything get in shooting range of the carrier. But firing on a Soviet Sub will result in and immediate defeat.

The real life encounters were so interesting but I have never gotten wargamers to not turn this into a shooting mele.

[Hauptmann6]

I am more afraid now that a nuke will be shipped to the US in a packing create, then I ever was of waking up one morning and finding a SS-21 (or whatever the Russkie nuke du jour was at the time) in my front yard. Personally I think the world leaders of today are more loopy then they ever were (or thought of as such) at the height of the Cold War.

I have the same feeling. At least in the cold war, you knew who your enemy was, and that he was a relatively rational human being that wanted to be able to go home to his family at the end of the day.. The thread of MAD was enough to keep everyone out of too much mischief.

I used to live about 50 miles north of a SAC base in the 80s. B52s flew over very often. I much prefer that than the new normal of worrying about if someone is going to run into a mall with a bomb strapped to them.

[WHM]

Actually, I always thought the idea of satellites, overfilghts, etc., a to give warning of attack by conventional forces a bit dodgey as it could lead to the political leadership hesitating in taking action. Think of the generals tell the politicos the Soviets are moving up forces, units are not going back to cantonment after exercises, a lot of trains moving west, whatever. It is very possible the POTUS and the leaders of the rest of NATO not WANTING to believe what they are being told and hesitating because they do not want to be blamed for starting WWIII. Pre-emptive action??? Big debate going on now just because of such action.

Seems the concern in the past was more on a false read of intentions and resulting in a shooting war, never have I read a scenario where the civilain leadership refuses to believe evidence of a USSR/WP forces ramping up for war and do nothing.

There are a lot of cases where intellegence detected impending enemy action, but it was not heeded.

I do not mean to get politicol, but i also think there have been some past presidents who if presented with such data would not have acted decisively.

All speculation I realize, but never the less.