1980’s French Scenarios?

[Brian Handley]

OK for a change I am going 1/144 French 1908’sm, to start with a Rconnissance company.    These are starange units, light Vab (four wheels) and EBR 90 armoured cars, huge gun for an armoured car.  Anybody done any scenarios at this level using this unique amalgam of vehicles that playes to their strengths?  Jus feeling a bit lazy.

What about European cloloures.  I’v seen Nato coloures but the French arn’t NATO, so did they have their own as well?

PS the models are from AOTRS shipyards files.

 

 

[Not Connard Sage]

The EBR was phased out during the 1980s, being replaced by AMX-10, and the countries comprising NATO had their own camouflage schemes. Standard MERDC was almost uniquely American.

Anyway, paint colours and history.

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/france/

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Guy Farrish]

France was of course in NATO in the 1980s; just not in the Integrated Military Command Structure. They had been working their way back since 1967, the year after de Gaulle threw his teddy out of the pram. Didn’t do a lot for camouflage integration but by 1974 they were prepared to race eastwards under a joint French-NATO plan to maintain an integrated front against whoever might approach from the east. (USSR but don’t say it out loud).

By the 80s they were sneaking back into an integrated command structure by the back door (although it took until 2009 to finally reintegrate formally).

If you leave your rush eastward until the late 80s you can fit in some VBL which were designed to work with the AMX-10 in the forward light recce role- they have the distinction in my opinion of being the cutest light recce vehicles ever produced.

[Gaz045]

French military intervention in former colonies mostly, supporting Chad against Gaddafi’s Libyan army for example, gives most opportunity for deploying light armour formations.

A snazzy 2-tone brown and sand camo for vehicles and troops deployed to more arid regions…….Chad, Djibouti (early 90’s) Niger etc.

"Even dry tree bark is not bitter to the hungry squirrel"

[Not Connard Sage]

Guy Farrish wrote:

de Gaulle threw his teddy out of the pram.

  He did a lot of that…

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Aotrs Commander]

Guy ,    I looked thr VBL up alas I can’t relly use it my army is 1980 to 1985 a year or to too early for the VBL.

Interestingly the French only have the 4 wheel VAB the 6 wheel was only for export.   But they do have the Panard Armoured car with the 90mm.   Interestingly weird with its 4 rubber and 4 steel wheels, except in Africa where the steel wheels did not work and they used rubber tyered wheels, so a permanent 8 wheeler.

Does anybody use French?

 

OOOPS forgot to log Aotrs off before posting!

 

 

[Patrice]

I did my (then compulsory) military service in 1980 in an artillery regiment near Paris. All vehicles (including my VTT of artillery observer) were painted dark green (called “vert kaki“ or “vert armée“) without camo. I don’t think anything was provided to paint them differently if a war had suddenly happened in Europe.

Uniform battledress were in the same “kaki“ green (in French minds of the time a camo battledress was still associated with the attempted putsch of 1961).

http://www.argad-bzh.fr/argad/en.html
https://www.anargader.net/

[Splod]

If you want an idea of French military organisation in the 1980s, you could start by looking at the following Fire and Fury ORBAT: http://www.fireandfury.com/orbats/modcwfrench.pdf

Only thing to note is that Fire and Fury as a system is roughly 1:3, so each model represents more than one real life vehicle or soldier. You may have to compare against historical records if you’re looking for a 1:1 representation.

[Not Connard Sage]

A problem with wargame TO&E and Orbats is that they’re often designed around the rules rather than reality.

Isby and Kamp’s “Armies of NATO’s Central Front” is pretty accurate  for the first half of the decade. It’s also out of print, and rather expensive if you can find a copy.

Bruce Rea Taylor’s “Ultra Modern Army Lists and Organizations” is also useful.

However, neither should be treated as the last word on the subject. French lower level unit organisations were all over the place in the 80s.

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Guy Farrish]

You know I nearly wrote the last point myself but was too lazy!

That coupled with the rush to the front, late, after the Communists have been dealt with in the Senate and National Assembly, and then the unions sorted out, you could have a pretty free hand in your Orbat for an encounter game. Bit like the Franco Prussian train mess.

You may run into an exhausted Soviet corps about to break on contact after fighting their way through the rest of NATO or bump into an Operational Manoeuvre Group on the way to the Rhine (or the Channel) which might be unpleasant. But you could justify just about any combination of French units, but aim for the worst possible one for reality!

[Aotrs Commander]

Thanks for the list info but we are using our own lists.   The VBL suggestion was great but alas we are doing 1980 to 1985 too early for them, but it is a shame.

Vert Karki it is then, I love mon0tones so much less to do.  Spray black,  paint bits one colour,  done.

As for scenarios in the absence of detail I deceided to test my knowledge of the real world.  One mission for the recon is flank guard.   I am trying to visulise the task assuming a NATO Counter attack which is going for deep penetration so the flamks need protecting and possibly the shoulder of the enemy forces where the breakthrough occoured.  Famously Monty in the Addens Offensive went to the Sholder to get it reinforced whereas the US genereal went into hideing in a bunker at the back.  So in the reverse the flank guard of the penetration may have two missions.  Prevent the shoulder being a pain and also deeper in covering the flanks of the defender.  can I get a scenario with a bit of both a reall challenge.

One of my issues is its hard to find information on how the flanks are threatened/protected in a deep penetration.  Is there provision in the attack to drop off additional forces as the penetration progresses to protect the flanks.   I guess the penetration needs to be of the order of 15km to get at the stuff at the back like the shorter ranaged artillery so a reasonable amount of scope for some actions.  Especially with a steady flow of supplys down the cental axis of the pentration (assuming a max penetration width of 4 to 5km.

Help underestanding the real world situation welcome.

 

 

 

[Guy Farrish]

There are lots of things purporting to be about Soviet Deep Battle out there. Anything by Lester Grau is worth a look.

As for ‘real world’, fortunately it never happened (except a NATO version maybe in the Gulf)so you’ll have to look for tactical doctrine manuals and opfor assessments.

For what the Sovs would look like I would look for the British; ‘Army Field Manual, Volume 2, Part 3, Soviet Tactics.’

You should find various iterations knocking about the web – I have the 1991 revision which may be a little late for you – it has quite a lot on the Defence which, as it notes was not really a big thing in Soviet command eyes until the mid 80s. It does give a good idea of what we thought they would be doing and outlines the flank defences of an attacking formation. There should be earlier versions knocking about.

If you can’t find it – bung me a pm and I can send you a pdf copy of the 91 revision.

There is probably a US version knocking about – FM100-2-1 which does much the same thing from a US perspective of what the Sovs were up to. Again if you can’t find a copy online I can let you have a pdf – my copy is a 1984 version – probably more your era.

As for French doctrine in the counter attack…hmmm Not sure they would be the best for a deep battle counter offensive, although they were a bit light in infantry so might fancy a fast mobile armoured offensive.

The small armoured divisions they were using  by the 80s were supposed to attack on a broad front, broader that the NATO allies and search for enemy to outflank. They were based around combined arms regiments with permanently mixed tank and infantry companies.  They didn’t want to take anyone on head to head , except to fix and then outflank. I have not much idea of what their own flank defences would be like.

I don’t have any doctrine pamphlets or books about French forces for the period and most of the stuff I’ve turned up online tends to be about nuclear forces and the diplomatic shenanigans.

Of course the idea behind ‘Deep Battle’, Operational Manoeuvre Groups is to not get bogged down worrying about flanks – bit like Patton in that regard. You are supposed to bash on and destroy the enemy by taking out the support and logistic arms – airfields, planes on the ground, ammunition and fuel supplies, HQs,  and signals assets, weaker follow on forces behind the front lines. Your own follow on forces are supposed to safeguard your own supply and rear security. Soviet doctrine did not necessarily expect an OMG to be returning for vodka and pirogi. Maybe a Hero of the Soviet Union medal,(posthumous).

For a broader survey of ‘Deep Battle’ it might be worth a look at Deep Operations Theoretical Approaches to Fighting Deep

edited by Jack Kem.

What you need is John Salt to turn up and let you know everything there is to know.

[Not Connard Sage]

The Russians have always excelled at (someone else’s) self sacrifice. I don’t know why the Ukrainians bothered with counterattacks. Just dig in deep, create defence in depth and throw ordnance at the Russians until the populace begin to notice that there are fewer young blokes around.

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Patrice]

Guy Farrish wrote:

combined arms regiments with permanently mixed tank and infantry companies

Yes that was a RIMeca (Régiment d’infanterie mécanisée) with AMX-13 tank squadrons and infantry companies in VTT; in association with AMX-30 tank regiments (also including fewer infantry).

Guy Farrish wrote:

nuclear forces and the diplomatic shenanigans.

The whole idea was to fight in West Germany and try to slow the enemy advance as long as possible and at the same time repeat again and again that as soon as an enemy would cross the Rhine and put a foot on French soil they would receive tactical nukes (preferably on the eastern bank of the Rhine…) and to pray that this threat would suffice. I don’t think full scale counter offensives were really believed in.

http://www.argad-bzh.fr/argad/en.html
https://www.anargader.net/

[Guy Farrish]

Thanks Patrice. That fits in with my memory so you are obviously spot on! Oh and you were actually there and in it!

Not sure that helps Brian much, but French forces in a deep counter thrust not looking good for real scenarios. Accidental bumping into the flank of an OMG en route to Calais entirely possible however! (As long as they were east of the Rhine).

[Brian Handley]

To be honest I was thinking of a French Recon Unit supporting a NATO Deep strike.

Thanks for the links I will look into them.

[Author]

Posts