Discussion of Soviet Offensive Tactics

[Vanir Ausf B]

Congratulations on having become a member of the beta test team, Vanir. That's very good news

Um, it's also news to me :confused:

[Vanir Ausf B]

Getting back to tactics for a moment, looking at it from the practical size of things I think I may amend my house rules for QBs so that only 120mm mortars and smaller ordnance can be used on-call. 122mm and up (and probably rocket artillery of any caliber) may only be used for pre-planned missions, as that appears (from the JasonC thread previously linked to) to have been how it typically was.

[BletchleyGeek]

Um, it's also news to me :confused:

Is it? Then I missed something about the edits and Bil's post of one of the "Careless talk..." World War 2 posters. :confused::confused:

Regarding Soviet artillery assets: delays should be such as to make only it only useful if TRP's are available. That would account very well for the Soviet practice of pre-registering targets as a precondition to employ non-divisional assets. Regimental 76mm field guns should be quite responsive.

[Bil Hardenberger]

Is it? Then I missed something about the edits and Bil's post of one of the "Careless talk..." World War 2 posters. :confused::confused:

Miquel, he had spilled the beans on force ratios in the AAR game, it was intelligence that I should not have seen.

[para]

There is nothing in CM so far that's comparable to the Soviet SMG Company. 10 guys with PPSh blazing away.

Steve

That is a scary image

[womble]

Back to Soviet tactics, how hard will it be for CM players to adopt the brutal logic of Soviet warfare? I always found myself in CMBB defaulting back to force preservation, so designed a series of forest scenarios, most of my lead platoons ended up down 60% and to win I had to keep on pushing. Time and time again, just when I thought the Germans would hold, the battered Soviets broke through.

I, too, find that force preservation is very important, even if there are no force preservation goals, implicit (like in a campaign's core units) or explicit (VCs), simply because taking casualties significantly degrades your force's fighting ability. After a platoon is eviscerated, the rest of that company is a hair's breadth from becoming Broken and unable to operate in the face of any resistance. Perhaps the poor C2 provisions of the Russian formations will assist in firewalling knowledge of losses sustained in other elements and help maintain the un- (or lightly-) harmed ones in fighting fettle.

I suspect how well we adopt and play those tactics is also an element of scenario design. If it is just kind of crafted with a particular situation in mind, it may not necessarily reflect on Soviet tactical methodology in which case many of us will fight the way we normally do with a force not intended to be used that way...and it could end up quite frustrating. However I suspect designers are just as curious to compare the different concepts of tactical deployment and will craft with that in mind. Gonna be real interesting when we all have it in our hands to toy around with.

One of the really cool differences between CMBB and CMRT is the Objectives. In CMBB it was just flags and points, in CMRT there's a lot more. A scenario can have the Germans whacked for losses and the Soviets not, or an objective for the Soviets worth a ton of points so that no amount of losses will matter if they get it, etc.

I get the feeling that Russians might be a bit of a nightmare in QBs, where such tools are unavailable...

[Thomm]

That is a scary image

Not from a distance!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Doug Williams]

Getting back to tactics for a moment, looking at it from the practical size of things I think I may amend my house rules for QBs so that only 120mm mortars and smaller ordnance can be used on-call. 122mm and up (and probably rocket artillery of any caliber) may only be used for pre-planned missions, as that appears (from the JasonC thread previously linked to) to have been how it typically was.

How do you enforce your house rules? Simply refuse to play anyone who doesn't agree to abide by them? I'm genuinely curious.

I would also like to see them, if you have a link.

[para]

Not from a distance!

Best regards,

Thomm

True, you do not want to let them get under your reach and into your body I am really looking forward to getting my mitts on this.

[Michael Emrys]

Back to Soviet tactics, how hard will it be for CM players to adopt the brutal logic of Soviet warfare?

Do as the Soviet commanders did: View your troops not as men, but as ammunition to be expended as necessary to achieve the mission's objective. Those who survive become veterans and more canny fighters. Win-win.

Michael

[A Canadian Cat]

And now can we get back to the Conspiracy Theory that is IKEA? I still bear the scars of my last attempt at building a bookcase.

Yes, great suggestion but I could not use the IKEA idea because I actually like putting their stuff together. Not that I get a chance to - my son had been doing it with only limited assistance since he was in grade 4.

[gunnersman]

I find this thread interesting. The Soviet style of combat just might play into my hands...not that I am proud of that.

I have a couple of questions.

Here's some examples of how this relates in CM terms. Imagine yourself as the Soviet commander of an assault on German positions. The Germans have a decent in depth defense backed by the usual combined arms support units. You are in command of a battalion sized force with a battalion of tanks (21 in total). Plenty of artillery and mortars too.

You'd first figure out where the enemy units are. If the scenario author is doing this correctly, Soviets should have a pre battle intel bonus since they would know this sort of thing in real life.

Artillery would be tasked to destroy the forward most German positions, suppress/destroy support weapons, and harass anything to the rear. As the battle progresses artillery is shifted to support weapons using Regimental and lower artillery assets (mortars and 76mm guns).

One company would be sent against the German trenches en mass. Their goal is to take the trenches, that's it. There is nothing in the game that prevents you from doing more, but here's why you do NOT want to plan on doing more:

Casualties

You need to assume that your first company is going to get shot up very badly in the process of taking the trenches. If you plan on using them for something else then your plan is likely to fail. So plan on them taking the trenches, but nothing more.

Second company is there as a backup for the first company in the event it can't break through. However, the primary goal for the second company is to open up a corridor through the German lines to something far back at the other end of the map. Depending on the scenario designer it could be a land feature (like a hill or a village) or it could be the map edge. Whatever it is, second company should be tasked with making sure this route is open. Again, like the first company... losses are to be expected and accepted.

If you have any artillery left, at this point it should be focused on breaking up any counter attacks and/or shifted deeper into the German defenses.

Third company is there as a backup for second company. However, it's main task is to reinforce the first company to make sure the corridor is secure and that German stragglers/counter attacks don't threaten it.

Depending on terrain conditions you would likely want some amount of your tanks to be allocated to one or more of these attacks. Probably a company of tanks with 2nd rifle company, but perhaps it should be with 1st rifle company. Again, that's more an issue of how much good you think the tanks can do. And again, you should plan on losing them so that you don't rely upon them for more than this.

Once 3rd rifle company is in place then the balance of your tanks should go straight through to the objective on the far side of the map. Anything that gets in their way should be engaged only to the extent that is necessary.

Steve

Does this mean that during scenarios or campaigns we will not see force preservation (Friendly condition %) as a requirement to meet victory conditions?

Im still trying to understand how the limitation is felt if the designated Company that takes the trenches but continues on to fight and advance. Is there something that happens "under the hood" when the objective is taken and the Company that first touches/occupies that objective? Or is just assumed that this Company is going to take enough losses that they will be combat ineffective and it will be pointless to use them further?

[BLSTK]

Yes, great suggestion but I could not use the IKEA idea because I actually like putting their stuff together. Not that I get a chance to - my son had been doing it with only limited assistance since he was in grade 4.

Ouch. That's either a commentary on my hand-eye coordination or general intelligence...or both.

On the other hand, our future generation might have a chance, after all.

Of course, that could also mean your son is part Swede.

[Vark]

The problem I foresee is that the Soviet style of warfare, requires a system that reproduces the command chain. Steve's description is pretty sound but it does not emphasise the forward deployment of the Battalion/Regimental HQ. In his example the battalion commander would be given the tank support, told to guard against the flank attack, but if he was attacked from another direction he'd be expected to deploy those assets, by the regimental commander, as the new attack threatened his main attack.

After getting chewed out by the RHQ, for not committing all forces (a bit unfair as the BHQ was probably unaware of the new attack), the BHQ would chew out the company commander of the tanks, who would leave in a cloud of dust, vulgar words ringing in his ears. The Company commander would be under no illusion, if he failed to carry out his new mission, as the battalion commander's neck was on the block. He would then be expected to use his training, not act as an automaton, but planning would be done very quickly, which is where the dedication to drill came in. For the Soviets, initiative meant following orders and conducting drills rapidly, though the commander was unrealistically, expected to adapt these to the situation. This though was more in hope than reality, as most of his soldiers would have been raw recruits.

Once the armour scooted off to attack the new threat it could not be recalled and re-tasked, as the command loop did not allow time, which is where the problem occurred. Even late in the war, the Germans exploited this rigidity to engage these units, who did not have the security of the painstaking planning of the original attack. The emphasis on higher echelon HQ's of being close to the front (look at how many accounts there are of RHQ security units beating of infantry attacks) was risky, but allowed paradoxically, a far quicker OODA loop, in a narrow sector, which the Germans could not hope to equal. Moreover a good RHQ, could move huge reserves quickly to a threatened sector or to reinforce success. Perhaps scenario designers could include these elements, when thinking of the deployment zones.

In short, the Russians are a regimental/battalion led force in a company orientated game.

[Doug Williams]

In short, the Russians are a regimental/battalion led force in a company orientated game.

That, IMO, astute observation sums it up nicely.

CM2 is a tactical, company oriented game. Sure, you can play with battalion sized forces, but I believe that is the exception, not the norm.

[Battlefront.com]

Does this mean that during scenarios or campaigns we will not see force preservation (Friendly condition %) as a requirement to meet victory conditions?

That's up to the scenario designer.

Im still trying to understand how the limitation is felt if the designated Company that takes the trenches but continues on to fight and advance. Is there something that happens "under the hood" when the objective is taken and the Company that first touches/occupies that objective? Or is just assumed that this Company is going to take enough losses that they will be combat ineffective and it will be pointless to use them further?

Nothing going on under the hood. That would require a massive effort as described above. If a player fights through to his Objective and is in good shape, there's nothing preventing him from doing something else. We're just thinking that, by and large, it will be a more difficult thing to do with a realistic Soviet force than it would be for a realistic German or Western Allied force.

The problem I foresee is that the Soviet style of warfare, requires a system that reproduces the command chain. Steve's description is pretty sound but it does not emphasise the forward deployment of the Battalion/Regimental HQ.

Actually, even that isn't the issue. You did, however, state what the main problem is pretty clearly here:

Once the armour scooted off to attack the new threat it could not be recalled and re-tasked, as the command loop did not allow time, which is where the problem occurred.

That's it in a nutshell. Even if we explicitly simulated a Regimental/Brigade HQ on the map, there would still be the same flexibility in the player's hands. As it is now the player can imagine that when he moves the tanks from the flank to a threatened area that it is the Regimental commander making that decision. It's fine and dandy, except that in real life there was often a significant time delay with this sort of thing and once committed the mission of the mobile reserves would be "locked in" until complete. If another threat showed up or the perceived threat was worse than expected, the newly tasked reserves would stick to what they were already doing. At least for the course of the CM battle.

Steve

[Sgt Joch]

CM2 is a tactical, company oriented game. Sure, you can play with battalion sized forces, but I believe that is the exception, not the norm.

Actually, since I have been playtesting this thing, controlling a Soviet Battalion is quite manageable, as long as you dont split the squads (which is the only proper way to play as Soviets anyway ).

In 44-45, a typical Soviet Infantry Battalion would attack on a 300-700 meter front and would have 1-2 Assault Guns/Tank companies and an engineer company attached as well.

[Los]

If you want to fight like the Russians then you will need to role play a commander following Russian doctrine....

Los

[Battlefront.com]

Los has a great point.

The issues here are that, for various reasons, CM allows the player too much flexibility. There is nothing in CM that prevents a player from "roll playing" the higher command structure. It takes some personal discipline, but if you go into the game thinking that way you will probably come out with a different experience.

Suggestion... write down your plans on paper during Setup. If you are so bold, include time tables. As you play check back with your written plans and make sure you're not deviating from them.

You can even correctly simulate Recon too. For example, send your scouts out and do not start your attack until someone returns to your main force to report in. Then wait around for a bit to simulate digestion of the information, then attack. That's how it works without radios, but it's impossible for the game to impose that sort of thing on the player. The player, however, can impose it upon himself.

Steve

[Doug Williams]

Actually, since I have been playtesting this thing, controlling a Soviet Battalion is quite manageable, as long as you dont split the squads (which is the only proper way to play as Soviets anyway ).

In 44-45, a typical Soviet Infantry Battalion would attack on a 300-700 meter front and would have 1-2 Assault Guns/Tank companies and an engineer company attached as well.

Thanks. No, I don't think I'll be doing much squad splitting as the soviets.

Hey, we've played before, right?

[A Canadian Cat]

Ouch. That's either a commentary on my hand-eye coordination or general intelligence...or both.

On the other hand, our future generation might have a chance, after all.

Of course, that could also mean your son is part Swede.

LOL I am pretty sure he is not part Swede

Not meant to be a slight on you - my son would make an even better engineer than I ever did but he wants to play chemist instead. From what I have seen of his friends the next generation is going to be pretty damn smart - at least part of it anyway.

[gunnersman]

Actually, since I have been playtesting this thing, controlling a Soviet Battalion is quite manageable, as long as you dont split the squads (which is the only proper way to play as Soviets anyway ).

Do the squads tend to still run in a column thus increasing their chance for one MG burst to nearly take out the whole column? That's the only reason why I split squads; so that my troops don't die in bunches. I hate splitting my troops. Its too much work but it is necessary.

[Lethaface]

Do the squads tend to still run in a column thus increasing their chance for one MG burst to nearly take out the whole column? That's the only reason why I split squads; so that my troops don't die in bunches. I hate splitting my troops. Its too much work but it is necessary.

Hoping for a change regarding the single file advance too! Although a squad running into a HMG field of fire will probably still get mowed down, no matter what formation they are running in

[Vark]

Regimental control might impose delays, but top down edicts, from a well placed RHQ, could move massive amounts of flesh and steel to a critical point at a critical time. Not all Soviet breakthroughs were because of attrition, the Germans were tactically more impressive, but they took an age to release operational reserves. Reading Soviet accounts, they moved operational reserves around like a board gamer moved counters.

Again the flipside being a poorly placed or less dynamic RHQ would loose that edge, by mid-44, due to a Darwinian whittling, most RHQ's (especially those of the GTA's) on critical sectors, were competent and dynamic. Another reason for the rapid breakthroughs and exploitations, which wrong footed the Germans, who sulked and blamed Hitler after the war, and sold the Allies a crock about their overall military superiority.

The Spearhead rules, for micro miniatures forces players to set those timetables and Soviet style armies need senior commanders to change them. Perhaps you could adopt that system. Roleplaying CM, what an intriguing idea.

[YankeeDog]

This is all good stuff, but I think it's possible to go too far in enforcing "Rigid Soviet Tactics" at the level of combat CM represents, especially since CMRT by definition deals with the Third Period of the Great Patriotic War (to use the Soviets nomenclature). As has already touched upon by others, I think most of the "rigidity" of Soviet WWII doctrine in this period was primarily at the Brigade/Regimental level and higher.

Soviet low level tactics developed a lot over the course of the war, so you really can't look at how things were done at e.g., Kursk or Stalingrad to get an idea of how things were done in Bagration. Mid-1944, the picture at the Company level and below is not really all that different from how the other major combatants did things. A Red Army Company commander assigned an attack objective still usually had the discretion to come up with his own plan of advance, etc., and in turn he would usually expect his Platoon commanders to use their own discretion in executing the intent of his orders, adjusting tactics and movements based on the changing battlefield conditions. Armored formations especially were expected to be able to react to new threats and changing battlefield conditions quickly, and their commanders were given pretty wide discretion to change things midstream if they saw a need.

IMHO, where the rigidity of Soviet tactics most applies to CM is in the kind of scenario objectives you might see. Much more so than other nationalities, a low-level Red Army commander was often expected to continue to attempt to achieve his assigned objective, regardless of cost. For example, if U.S. Company commander was assigned to attack a certain village and discovered it to be much more strongly held than expected, in many cases he could adjust the objectives and even possibly call off the attack entirely with confidence that his superiors would support his decision as long as his reasoning was sound (not always, but often). In contrast, a Soviet Company commander would be much more likely to be expected to continue the assault to the bitter end, destroying his entire Company in the attempt if it came to that. But in CM terms, this is more about scenario design (friendly casualty threshold, etc.), rather than tactics as such. And again, there are exceptions. While in many cases the Soviets were willing to accept higher losses to achieve a goal than other nationalities, Stavka did not appreciate the waste of soldiers' lives, and there are certainly examples of Red Army commanders being sacked (or worse) for taking needless casualties by pressing the attack too recklessly.

And the level of discretion and initiative given/expected of lower-level Red Army commanders depended a lot on their assigned role within the overall operation. Leading units of breakthrough/pursuit units were expected to show quite a bit of initiative and discretion. Indeed, a commander of a breakthrough cavalry or mechanized formation at the tip of one of the big penetrations of Bagration would probably me more afraid of getting shot for *not* taking the initiative and pressing forward to take advantage of a developing tactical opportunity, then he would of getting shot at for not stopping at his "assigned objective" for the day.

So it all depends; the Red Army was huge, and the sheer scale and variety of the combat on the East Front makes generalizing difficult. It is true that at times, and especially in prepared assaults of well-fortified enemy positions, Red Army planning was quite rigid and the low-level commander had little tactical discretion. But this is often true of assaults on well-prepared defenses in general, regardless of nationality. And at other times, the Soviet low level commander quite a bit of discretion, and was in fact expected to show initiative and take advantage of the opportunities presented.

IMHO, this is what makes Bagration such a great setting for a wargame.