RVT2403

It's the Orbx way of doing things, immune to advice.

Good points here. For Fulda, i don't think it would have been impossible, but the price imo would have been to high. True that short engagement ranges negate NATO advantages of thicker armor and longer range to some point, but on the other hand let me throw in FASCAM and (DP)ICM (like the M483) which multiply their effects in confined spaces like you find when advancing along roads nested in between hilly, forested terrain. Put on top the terrain limited range and reaction time of soviet SAM and SHORAD systems in combination with the presence of A-10s. (I btw put the idea of tactical nuclear options aside for all these considerations, since it makes everything a different cup of pudding.) The confined space also makes movement very predictable when you go by vehicle and creation of chokepoints/killzones very easy. I think overall the price for taking Fulda/Hof/Frankfurt would have been immense and way too high "just" (relatively speaking) to have a relatively thin pocket cutting through the center of Germany. Frankfurt was and is an important hot spot for aerial cargo... Northern Germany though, with Hamburg, Bremen, Wilhelmshaven (only options to get in masses of fuel/crude oil that then gets distributed by pipeline systems south) and the river mouth' of Elbe and Weser (which both are important for inland shipping cargo including fuel down south) as well as the Mittellandkanal, were and are the backbone for resources in West Germany. You can fly in so many armored vehicles via Frankfurt Airport, but with no fuel... so i still think it would have been more favorable for the Soviets to do a major strike along the Lüneburger Heath and along the coast. The terrain favors NATOs longer ranges*, but on the other hand, the numerical advantage of the Soviets was written in their doctrine (of the 80s) in a way which favored wide fronts and using numerical superiority for (out)maneuvering. See FM-100-2-1. You don't do that in the confined hilly terrain down there. With use of pontoons or bridge layers, movement and tactical possibilities would have been way better too - you can pretty much go in a straight line wherever you desire. (*and in fact, the terrain in Lower Saxony was in parts planned and shaped with these engagement ranges in mind, measure the distances between all the little forest patches that break up the open fields of the north. I once had a web resource that went into this but lost the link sadly.) With NATO dominating the North Sea, the open plains of North Germany would not have been taken easily, that is for sure, but i think the risk/reward would have been way, way better than rushing Frankfurt. Once the relevant harbors would have been taken, it would have been hard to get the Soviets out again, and even if: destruction of port and pipeline infrastructure would have crippled the NATO supply situation significantly for a long amount of time. Which in consequence had made a later breaking through in the south way easier. All this is more relevant for mid-late 80s btw. Early 80s would have given the Soviets a good advantage since NATO usage of thermal imaging was not that wide spread, while around '85 lots of TI were implemented (especially in the Bundeswehr vehicles). Wargaming post-'85 against NATO in bad weather/night becomes a real pain since you are sitting, blind ducks until you are in non-thermal visual range. Huge factor. So a pre-'85 rush through the Fulda gap in bad weather conditions might have looked way different. If i had to develop a plan, i would have gone all-in in the north with tank heavy pushes. And in the center (Fulda) would have deployed paratroopers (with Mi-8/Mi-26 zipping through the valleys) forward to shield an advance of (even leg)infantry elements to dig in in the hills and fight a slow advance battle to keep the US busy down there and prevent a counter-push towards Thuringia. Once limited resources from the north would have cut NATO mobility, it would have been easier to break through with mobile units through Fulda and the southern regions. If you want to wargame that stuff, i really recommend FFoT3 - bit more expensive (well, not really since you do not need any supplements. It is an all-in-one book that covers WW2 through 2010s) and complex, but gives really realistic results (as far we can tell) when using the correct real-life tactics.

I too never really understood the hype around Fulda/Hof and think it was more due to US pop culture than other reasons. Frankfurt/Main was important, but the terrain south of Kassel mostly favors the defender and is a pain in the rear for mechanized troops in the advance. Would have been an eastern graveyard if it was pushed as a main objective imo. Think this area would have been more of a pressure point in the first days to support the main advance in Lower Saxony and a slow push south in Bavaria. A pincer, one north from Hamburg to Bremen heading west and one south along Hannover, Bielefeld route to the Ruhrpott (Dortmund, Essen, Düsseldorf) would have been way more favorable due to terrain and also cutting off the coast - effectively denying resupplies via the West German coast. Amphibious landings in Kiel and Flensburg could have supported this and put pressure on Denmark. Schleswig-Holstein and Denmark are barely 100km wide and, due to the flat terrain, can be used well for long range SAM once taken to cover the baltics and north sea. Pushing further west through Netherlands, Belgium, the supply situation would have been terrible for NATO since everything would have to be landed in France, which is a couple days to a week travel at least under war conditions (considering eastern agents sabotaging railways and bridges). Fulda/Hof imho would have been a slow advance by WarPac probably to keep the US busy and later act as a staging point for a push on Frankfurt/Main, but not that important in the first chapter. Infantry heavy mechanized elements digging in in these mountainous regions, Lower Saxony should have seen tank heavy elements for aggressive and brutal pushes over the open plains. My two Pfennige zu dem Thema null

Cross posting this here, especially for the Relikte files. Pretty much all you need for late 80s West and East force structure, locations, equipment. Plus the Relikte documents list a heap load of primary sources.

If you still need (re)sources: Relikte got a very well researched and detailed set of documents listing all the units in West- and East Germany including foreign troops for late 80s based on 1989/90 data including equipment, barracks, remarks. Coordinates are in the appendix as well as primary sources used. These documents are on scientific level and well reliable. Cold-War.de is THE forum for this kind of research - sadly seems to be down for some time now, but might be accessible via Internet Archive. Can also try Geschichtsspuren. Guys on these forums can tell you all about cold war stuff down to which Sprengschachtdeckel (special lids found on most West German bridges covering the shafts for demolishing charges. To slow down Soviet advance) had been used when and where. Images and GPS files are visible for registered users only. If you use infos from these sites, please value the excellent work these guys do by mentioning them as your sources. Cheers!

"97 Luftballons" chapter title gave me a good laugh, haha. (Balloons are destructible)

Thanks for making this come true, Ugra

It would need a matrix-like system, where you could add virtually unlimited additional factions. Each with its own unique ID. Syria is a good example of how limited DCS is right now: Turkey being part of NATO and bombing Daesh, but also fighting the Kurds, while the US, which are based at the same airbase, protect the Kurds. Kurds being enemy to Syria and Turkey but also fighting Daesh, like Syria and Turkey do. Add Greece to this which are not good with Turkey... Also the variety of Islamic groups that have a spiderweb like relation to each other. It is a complex conflict and it would be great if DCS could model this.

Agree. I really love all the details that bring life to the map. The map overall looks gorgeous (apart from all the dry patches already mentioned). But these billboards, especially the Syria one are really out of place. I would prefer mock ups of ARAL, Shell and similar icons brands from back then. Cheers guys!

Lots of text, pretty much no sources mentioned. Hearsay, i've been there, yadda yadda. Not worth reading imho. Proper source: https://www.relikte.com/literatur.htm

Soviet 163rd Anti-Air Brigade had two SA-5 battalions with six launchers each (late 80s). Peace time location should be Möckern-Wendgräben. As far as i know, the 1982/83 planned replacement of further battalions was not finished until 1989. So this should the the only SA-5 within the GFSG? Rest of the Soviet 157th and 164rd Anti-Air Brigade should still be SA-3 with four launchers each per airfield.

(edit: haha, i feel so sorry. All these excellent map features, so many custom buildings,it looks all so great. And i get excited over a firefighter truck)

I just can't wait to drop bombs on that

No, i don't have that one Love all the civil stuff incorporated. Makes everything way more believable and life-like!