Europe Wishlist Thread

[twistking]

1 hour ago, YoYo said:

[...] I just hope it won't be divided in sectors and we won't get the Halfgermany option  .

Saar sector, French sector, British sector, American sector, Soviet sector. Early Access will be Heligoland only!

Edited July 10, 2024 by twistking

[SlipHavoc]

1 hour ago, MAXsenna said:

Joking aside. What was the doctrine regarding carriers in Europe? How close the mainland Europe would they bring them? Better discuss it now, right?  

I don't have any documentation on this, but I can't imagine carriers or carrier aircraft being used anywhere around the central Germany/Europe theater in a WW3 scenario.  I think in order to get close enough to do strikes, the carriers would have to be in the North Sea or the Adriatic, both of which are pretty small for carrier ops when your opponent has Mach 4 antiship missiles.  Also IIRC the F-14's RWR wasn't suitable for overland operations until the very late 1980s or early 1990s so that removes the main air-to-air platform.  The carriers are going to have plenty to keep them busy up north, assuming Norway gets invaded, plus protecting Iceland and the GIUK gap, and keeping the Backfires away from the convoys.

[Gunfreak]

Clearly the spherical earth will be of no use for historical maps. So any map from 1903 to 1990 would need it's own hand made map.

And if EDs spherical map is anything like the one in that civilian sim. It ain't gonna be much use except for long range high altitude stuff. 

[Rifter]

10 minutes ago, MBot said:

Of course you never know what would have happened under specific circumstances, but doctrinally the carriers had little to no role in central Europe.

Uh... excuse me, Mr. President? That's not entirely accurate.

https://archives.nato.int/force-comparison-1987-nato-and-warsaw-pact

 

[Rifter]

16 minutes ago, twistking said:

Saar sector, French sector, British sector, American sector, Soviet sector. Early Access will be Heligoland only!

Helgoland + Düne. So we will have 1 airstrip for the start on this map. That's not too bad...

[SlipHavoc]

3 minutes ago, Rifter said:

Uh... excuse me, Mr. President? That's not entirely accurate.

https://archives.nato.int/force-comparison-1987-nato-and-warsaw-pact

 

I note that it says "NATO Naval Forces", which are not just the carriers.  Also, the only one of those that directly affects "central" Europe is the Baltic Approaches, which at least according to Wikipedia, would have been mostly the German and Danish navies and air forces, plus some UK ground forces.

[Rifter]

At that time 9 US carriers were dedicated for NATO purpose. Further 6 carriers could additionally be deployed.

NATO doctrine for that time was 'all in'. Especially for the naval forces, since Warshaw Pact naval forces were seen considerably stron­ger in its assets.

[Lace]

Likely the carriers would have little to no involvement in central Europe.  6th Fleet covers the southern flank from the Med, 2nd Fleet plugs the GIUK gap.  2ATAF and 4ATAF looks after the dry bit in the middle.

[YoYo]

28 minutes ago, twistking said:

Saar sector, French sector, British sector, American sector, Soviet sector. Early Access will be Heligoland only!

 

Full Earth incoming, however when it will be released I will look like he  :

[Raisuli]

5 minutes ago, Rifter said:

At that time 9 US carriers were dedicated for NATO purpose. Further 6 carriers could additionally be deployed.

NATO doctrine for that time was 'all in'. Especially for the naval forces, since Warshaw Pact naval forces were seen considerably stron­ger in its assets.

Navy would have had it's hands full with the G-I-UK gap(s).  Have to bottle up the Russian fleet and keep the sea lanes open or logistics becomes untenable.  Naval air power would be there to support SLOCs, which includes defending against the long range bombers/ASMs.  Would have been pretty exciting, especially those first few days.

 

Trust me, in the early 80s that all anyone droned on talked about.

 

10 minutes ago, YoYo said:

Full Earth incoming, however when it will be released I will look like he  :

He deleted his computer, not his monitor.  Just saying.

[Rifter]

13 minutes ago, Lace said:

Likely the carriers would have little to no involvement in central Europe.  6th Fleet covers the southern flank from the Med, 2nd Fleet plugs the GIUK gap.  2ATAF and 4ATAF looks after the dry bit in the middle.

Well, German “East Sea” and Baltic Sea might not be the place for carriers, since those shallow waters make operations with larger aircraft carriers rather unfeasible. But German North Sea is feasible.

[MBot]

38 minutes ago, Rifter said:

Uh... excuse me, Mr. President? That's not entirely accurate.

https://archives.nato.int/force-comparison-1987-nato-and-warsaw-pact

 

None of that is adressing Central Europe (i.e. Germany).

[MBot]

27 minutes ago, Rifter said:

At that time 9 US carriers were dedicated for NATO purpose. Further 6 carriers could additionally be deployed.

NATO doctrine for that time was 'all in'. Especially for the naval forces, since Warshaw Pact naval forces were seen considerably stron­ger in its assets.

I don't have the document available right now but will try to post it later. There is a very nice overview of the US Navy Maritime Strategy in the 80s (internal briefing for officials). The Navy wanted at least (the more the better) 3-4 carriers into the Norwegian Sea, 2-3 carriers into the Med, 0-1 to deal with the Soviet Indian Ocean Squadron and the rest of the available Pacific Fleet carriers (I think 6-7) in the Pacific. None were initially foreseen for Germany.

[Rifter]

5 minutes ago, MBot said:

None of that is adressing Central Europe (i.e. Germany).

Off course not. It primarily addresses the military assets of that time and describes rough directions (like securing Baltic approaches).

We are not talking about a historical war, about which everything is known, including the use/place of specific assets. Cold War never became a hot war (thank God), so all we have is the former line up of military assets within NATO.

Sometimes I have the impression that everything that is not known from official sources or doctrines is automatically dismissed as nonsensical. DCS is a sandbox game. Why wantonly exclude something? ED will do that for us anyway. Our job here is not to restrict things. Our job is to demand.

7 minutes ago, MBot said:

I don't have the document available right now but will try to post it later. There is a very nice overview of the US Navy Maritime Strategy in the 80s (internal briefing for officials). The Navy wanted at least (the more the better) 3-4 carriers into the Norwegian Sea, 2-3 carriers into the Med, 0-1 to deal with the Soviet Indian Ocean Squadron and the rest of the available Pacific Fleet carriers (I think 6-7) in the Pacific. None were initially foreseen for Germany.

Looking forward to it!

[MAXsenna]

I don't have any documentation on this, but I can't imagine carriers or carrier aircraft being used anywhere around the central Germany/Europe theater in a WW3 scenario.  I think in order to get close enough to do strikes, the carriers would have to be in the North Sea or the Adriatic, both of which are pretty small for carrier ops when your opponent has Mach 4 antiship missiles.  Also IIRC the F-14's RWR wasn't suitable for overland operations until the very late 1980s or early 1990s so that removes the main air-to-air platform.  The carriers are going to have plenty to keep them busy up north, assuming Norway gets invaded, plus protecting Iceland and the GIUK gap, and keeping the Backfires away from the convoys.

Thanks! I don't remember what Tom cooked up in "Red Storm Rising". Might have re-read. Not that he was correct in any way.
I assume you meant the the Mediterranean and not the Adriatic?
Cheers!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[MAXsenna]

1 hour ago, Gunfreak said:

Clearly the spherical earth will be of no use for historical maps.

Come again? Of course it will. It will actually be the best tech for historical maps. Now ED can bring on the long range bombers, and we will be able to fly from map to map. Well, that's my wish anyway. I do hope they DID think about porting the current maps to the sphere, and that the whole idea was not just a response to you know what. 

Cheers! 

[SlipHavoc]

28 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

Thanks! I don't remember what Tom cooked up in "Red Storm Rising". Might have re-read. Not that he was correct in any way.
I assume you meant the the Mediterranean and not the Adriatic?
Cheers!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
 

Nope, I meant the Adriatic specifically, as that's the only way a carrier is going to get close enough to affect events in *central* Europe.  The Med will also be important, but that's a different theater.

As far as Red Storm Rising goes, I think he probably got more right than he got wrong.  People sometimes dismiss RSR out of hand, and often at the same time hold up Red Army as the most realistic, but that is a sophomoric stance for several reasons.

Someone mentioned the Dance of The Vampires chapter (although maybe deleted or edited the post, as it doesn't seem to be visible now), and here's an interesting article on the details of the wargaming sessions that were used to write that chapter.  The images are unfortunately missing now, but the article is still worth a read.

[flanker1]

The ´89 cold war warsaw pact vs. NATO scenario would be the best fiiting era and place for a most admired DCS scenario. . . historical data of all military installations and bases are given in masses, once a day a shot of each square meter was taken from outer space to document a minor change or movement of assets. Gemany, especially the eastern part was very well observed and known by agents and spy planes and later satellites. All historically data were given and no more confidential, even all reports from CIA. So, can´t wait. This will be the Crown of DCS, our most beloved simulation. Cold war scenario means high end and state of the art, best place for all simulated assets. Minor changes must be made (A-10, Su-25 etc. . . but at least, we need definitley the MiG-23 ML(D), MiG-25PD and RB(T) and Su-17M3 / M4 and the mighty MiG-27D and K, I would also like to see the Yak-28 and the Su-7.       

Edited July 10, 2024 by flanker1

[Gunfreak]

48 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

Come again? Of course it will. It will actually be the best tech for historical maps. Now ED can bring on the long range bombers, and we will be able to fly from map to map. Well, that's my wish anyway. I do hope they DID think about porting the current maps to the sphere, and that the whole idea was not just a response to you know what. 

Cheers! 

Don't help having long range bombers to places that don't existed anymore or have modern skyscrapers.

Vietnam today doesn't look like Vietnam in 1970. Tokyo today. Don't look like Tokyo in 1944 etc. So no spherical earth is of no help for historic maps. And Wags himself has said the historic maps(named Vietnam and Korea specifically) will need their own map. Separate from spherical each that will be modern. 

[SlipHavoc]

7 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

Don't help having long range bombers to places that don't existed anymore or have modern skyscrapers.

Vietnam today doesn't look like Vietnam in 1970. Tokyo today. Don't look like Tokyo in 1944 etc. So no spherical earth is of no help for historic maps. And Wags himself has said the historic maps(named Vietnam and Korea specifically) will need their own map. Separate from spherical each that will be modern. 

Something that was mentioned in the recent dev blog for "the flight sim named after a WW2 Soviet attack aircraft that is now working on a Korean War sim", is that since the war, South Korea has significantly altered its coastline through land fills, and so a modern map cannot be used even as an accurate outline or for some terrain elevation data.  That's something I had never even thought about; it's not just the types of buildings that have changed but the actual outline and topography of the country, especially around the cities.

[Gunfreak]

9 minutes ago, SlipHavoc said:

Something that was mentioned in the recent dev blog for "the flight sim named after a WW2 Soviet attack aircraft that is now working on a Korean War sim", is that since the war, South Korea has significantly altered its coastline through land fills, and so a modern map cannot be used even as an accurate outline or for some terrain elevation data.  That's something I had never even thought about; it's not just the types of buildings that have changed but the actual outline and topography of the country, especially around the cities.

Saw that too. 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

One thing to also consider about a Cold War gone hot in the Fulda Gap in regards to carrier forces in theatre is timeframe.

How long has that gone on for?
Who has come out worse for wear in that time period?
It could be that the GIUK gap is secured and then those Carrier assets could be committed for inland work.

These are things that must be considered by mission makers.

Edited July 10, 2024 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[Rifter]

2 hours ago, Raisuli said:

Trust me, in the early 80s that all anyone droned on talked about.

Oh, I’m old enough to remember that time and I experienced this in Germany in particular, which would have been simply wiped out in any possible version of a full scale conflict. That war would not have been about moving carrier groups around on the planning table. That war would have been about preventing the Soviets from occupying Germany at all costs. Nuclear landmines (Atomic Demolition Munitions) were intended to stop the advance of enemy troops. And thereafter the warhead size for the nukes used would have been gradually increased.

So what do you guys want with those NATO plans?

While I am quite sure that there were no specific NATO plans to employ carrier task forces in the near of German coastline,  I still don’t put any weight into that. Those were just plans. I mean...P L A N S ! We all know how big plans work out in big scenarios. They don’t.

Therefore I will happily and carefree and with a light heart use a future Fulda Gap map with carriers. Provided there is a bit of sea. Not even for a millisecond I will vote to keep the sea out of this map just because there were no concrete NATO plans for carrier deployments for Central Europe.

Our assets in DCS are limited anyway and I want to make use of them as much as possible.

[MAXsenna]

Don't help having long range bombers to places that don't existed anymore or have modern skyscrapers.
Vietnam today doesn't look like Vietnam in 1970. Tokyo today. Don't look like Tokyo in 1944 etc. So no spherical earth is of no help for historic maps. And Wags himself has said the historic maps(named Vietnam and Korea specifically) will need their own map. Separate from spherical each that will be modern. 

You missed the point, no worries. Not having historical maps on a rudimentary sphere will be a list opportunity.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Raisuli]

14 minutes ago, Rifter said:

While I am quite sure that there were no specific NATO plans to employ carrier task forces in the near of German coastline,  I still don’t put any weight into that. Those were just plans. I mean...P L A N S ! We all know how big plans work out in big scenarios. They don’t.

Therefore I will happily and carefree and with a light heart use a future Fulda Gap map with carriers. Provided there is a bit of sea. Not even for a millisecond I will vote to keep the sea out of this map just because there were no concrete NATO plans for carrier deployments for Central Europe.

Our assets in DCS are limited anyway and I want to make use of them as much as possible.

Europe was a problem for the Army and Air Force.  Do need Bittburg for that very reason, but that is a redonkulously dense piece of real estate.  I don't think there's a single point anywhere in that area more than 500 meters from a town, village, farm, train track, road, or substation.  Well, unless they release a post-apocalyptic central European map that's all desert.  I don't see that map happening in any kind of warm, fuzzy detail given the current limitations.

The Navy's job was to keep supplies from the US flowing into Europe.  Then again, we have carriers on the black sea.  Blow up a few bridges and we can launch aircraft from the Rhine, but watch out for Lorelei.