Russian Motor Rifle tactics

[VladimirTarasov]

I think there was a thread opened like this a while back, But lately I've been making scenarios and playing them. And I've been using a variety of tactics to get through certain situations. I hope for a discussion on this. 

While assaulting positions held by both US and UA forces, The most trouble that has been given to me by BLUFOR is the Javelin missile and AH-64s. Javelins are very useful tools that turn the tide, I don't think its a good idea on advancing with armor onto blufor held areas without sending infantry only scouts first, As well as UAVs to scan areas of suspected enemy locations. As a Motor Rifle Battalion, Assaulting without artillery and air support against a full equipped US Combined Arms battalion is not recommended nor would it go well. Surrounding the objective with tanks and IFVs then using terrain to shoot and reverse to destroy urban areas where US anti-tank teams could be is a tactic I've found successful. In a match with a fellow Combat Mission player who played as a Combined arms US battalion, I've found that even in game it is possible to go head to head with the US. You have to time everything right, And micromanage units more than the US has too.

From doctrine, When doing a breakthrough; The Russian Motor Rifle battalion must analyze enemy locations (Recon) Points where enemy forces are expected must be barraged on with artillery support, In effort to break enemy defenses and morale. In ideal conditions, Where enemy AA is not present support by CAS helicopters should clean up enemy IFVs and Tanks, As well as infantry positions. Once entering a urban environment, Squads must advance together with their armored vehicles or superior firepower cannot be achieved against the enemy. In certain cases, A squad can expose itself unto enemy fire. And as a response the armored vehicle can rush up and engage the already concentrated enemies. RPG-7s already provide a squad with a huge advantage over US infantry, So staying closer to BLUFOR lines is indeed a better option in urban and open environments. BMP-2 equipped units should always keep close, Or they will be taken out by US superiority in target acquisition. In the tactical sense, Basically use terrain advantages to get closer to the enemy.

Hopefully this stuff gets a good thread started, Maybe it'll just be that thread with the one post  

[Kinophile]

I agree a lot. It's interesting how the RUS Inf heavy weapon (RPG) is so effective v infantry but near ineffective v. M1/M2 APS, whereas the US Inf JAV is strictly (unless you have ammo to spare,  and you NEVER do) anti vehicle. 

I find Arty is critical. I've posted previous about my paranoia re spotting - if I see a platoon &  bmp: Morty stomp. 1 Brad: Arty stomp. 1 Abrams: ARTY AIR T90 EVERY GODDAMMN TUBE STOMP STOMP STOMP STOMP STOMP. 

I don't care if the obj is a delicate flower shed or a cathedral, I'm flattening a 100m diameter circle. I've been burned too many times trying to out maneuver/quick draw an Abrams to even bother. I just area effect until I see a nice black smoke stack...

I'll still use the T90,  it's perfectly capable of killing an Abrams, I just also **** on that evil eyed bastard from a great height also for surety. 

In am urban fight I always take two Tunguska, and use them to cut openings in the street scape. Thus can have a terrific effect on US defences, destroying ambush lanes and punching holes in the line. 

I tend to advance by fire,  once I'm in it -  I don't wait to see if a house has HATO robot troops - it's suppress by light fire,  then IFV fire,  then Tunguska or MBT. And I close into the US fast; no point standing off,  that's just death by plink,  plink,  plink. UKR I reverse that,  but when/if the Oplot is fixed I'll have to seriously rethink. 

 

Edited April 8, 2016 by kinophile

[Aurelius]

I like adding T72's to infantry platoons. Those HE shells work better for me than those airburst ones. And yes, destroying every building in sight is a good way to increase the lifespan of your troops!

[Kinophile]

I use light fire to suppress,  and reveal. I'll only blow a house down if it's too serious a threat. Generally I was thinking such a good position for myself, me me me. But I'm plenty generous with LF,  lots of bullets to go around! 

[Aurelius]

3 minutes ago, kinophile said:

I use light fire to suppress,  and reveal. I'll only blow a house down if it's too serious a threat. Generally I was thinking such a good position for myself, me me me. But I'm plenty generous with LF,  lots of bullets to go around! 

That's probably a more sensible approach.

[A Canadian Cat]

I have had good success with using smoke offensively.  An artillery barrage is always a good idea but once the IVS get rolling I throw smoke in front and then move forward behind it.  The idea is to have the last smoke be close to the enemy (~100m - 150m or so) so that once you break cover any Javelin's will not be able to get a lock fast enough.

What it looks like from the defender's point of view is: IFVs supported by tanks break cover and moments later throw a line of smoke across the entire advance - no time for a javelin lock.  A while later they break the smoke cover and moments later they throw more smoke - still not Javelin lock.  Then they break the last smoke screen they area fire all across my lines with the tanks stopping just out of the smoke and the IFVs coming closer as they fire.  The infantry unload and overrun my positions while I am taking fire from all of those AFVs.

When I works it can work pretty well.  I just had a nearly perfect execution against a stryker equipped foe but I am not really sure how strong a force I was facing and my T90s did take a few AT4 hits but the shrugged them off OK. 

I have done similar against M1 supported positions and it worked pretty well too but it was bloodier.

[Aurelius]

1 hour ago, IanL said:

I have had good success with using smoke offensively.  An artillery barrage is always a good idea but once the IVS get rolling I throw smoke in front and then move forward behind it.  The idea is to have the last smoke be close to the enemy (~100m - 150m or so) so that once you break cover any Javelin's will not be able to get a lock fast enough.

I do something similar to that, though I sometimes forget that vehicles have a tendency to propel their smoke 60-70 meters away. Downside is that vehicles have two shots of smoke, but that can be mitigated by having a large number of them.

[Kinophile]

Tanks have 3, don't they? I'm not sure. That would be a useful table for reference!

 

[Kinophile]

It certainly works  IanL,  I've seen it and done it. But it's highly vulnerable to flank fire (what attack isnt). 

The hard counter is to drop fast Arty downwind of the smoke, as the smoke gives a very clear indication of the attacks target. I've used massed area fire (UKR gren launchers are amazingly effective for AF v BMPs)  to hit emerging vehicles and troops.

The handy thing is the AF still works if you set your target line *before* the smoke rolls over it,  so that your men are essentially firing blind into the cloud but at least at the right area. It's lovely watching a smoke cloud go pop pop with bmp  brew ups...

Edited April 8, 2016 by kinophile

[Aurelius]

11 hours ago, kinophile said:

Tanks have 3, don't they? I'm not sure. That would be a useful table for reference!

 

Did a quick check. Tanks too have 2 smoke charges/shots. Also, BMP-3M (ERA) doesn't have a Pop Smoke option.

Edited April 9, 2016 by Aurelius

[Jotte]

Are there any Russian eqvivalents of the US FM's available or are those secret documents?

Getting my hand on such would be a fun hobby related way to fullfil my plans to learn Russian. 

[VladimirTarasov]

In real life, AGS-30s and AGS-17s can provide indirect fire support. Would be cool if we could get them to fire indirectly.

[L0ckAndL0ad]

On 12.04.2016 at 10:30 AM, TJT said:

Are there any Russian eqvivalents of the US FM's available or are those secret documents?

Getting my hand on such would be a fun hobby related way to fullfil my plans to learn Russian. 

Secret. As far as I'm aware, this is as far as you'd be able to get:

http://militera.lib.ru/manuals/0/pdf/zaritsky_harkevich01.pdf

[Jotte]

@L0ckAndL0ad Thanks! 

 

[cbennett88]

On 4/8/2016 at 7:56 PM, VladimirTarasov said:

Surrounding the objective with tanks and IFVs then using terrain to shoot and reverse to destroy urban areas where US anti-tank teams could be is a tactic I've found successful. In a match with a fellow Combat Mission player who played as a Combined arms US battalion, I've found that even in game it is possible to go head to head with the US. You have to time everything right, And micromanage units more than the US has too.

I had this technique "taught" to me recently in the "Galloping Horses Downfall" scenario. He was able to eliminate all my Javelin teams by hiding behind the hillcrest, "popping up" long enough to shoot the building...and then quickly reversing back down. He never even had to change firing location. I will admit that it works well in the game, but IRL I doubt many tanks commanders would find it useful more than once against the same target. The game makes the Javelin gunner waste time trying to "scan and acquire" a target. Any decent Javelin gunner would be waiting for the attacker to "pop up again" in the same spot and drastically cut the time to acquire.

Will I be using it next time I'm up against a US opponent?? Of course. But I also am the first to admit that it is a pretty "gamey" tactic.

Which brings me to my other "gaming pet peeve"...the "forcefield of smoke".

The game allows you to use smoke to effectively prevent your opponent from using area fire to stop frontal assaults. Again...I'm just as "guilty" at using this to my advantage. But...let's be serious. Any soldier IRL is going to fire straight into that smoke at where he "knows" the enemy is. MG's are sighted by every platoon leader to fire an FPL in such circumstances. B/c the game doesn't allow area fire into the smoke, the tactic works. But...IF the designers ever fix that...

Don't mis-read my comments as being overly critical of CM. I absolutely LOVE this game!

But as a former soldier...I feel guilty when I know I'm using tactics that wouldn't apply in the real world. It's why I never play games like Call of Duty, etc. 

[Sublime]

In real life HMGs can be fired indirectly too... thatd be nice to have as well. I forget why but i doubt we.ll see these developments. I vaguely recall a statement abt indirect mg fire from BFC. However that may have been frm cmx1 days.

[VladimirTarasov]

15 hours ago, cbennett88 said:

I had this technique "taught" to me recently in the "Galloping Horses Downfall" scenario. He was able to eliminate all my Javelin teams by hiding behind the hillcrest, "popping up" long enough to shoot the building...and then quickly reversing back down. He never even had to change firing location. I will admit that it works well in the game, but IRL I doubt many tanks commanders would find it useful more than once against the same target. The game makes the Javelin gunner waste time trying to "scan and acquire" a target. Any decent Javelin gunner would be waiting for the attacker to "pop up again" in the same spot and drastically cut the time to acquire. 

In real life artillery is way more devastating than CMBS. Instead of poking out and shooting in real life a FO from a recon unit could sneak up onto that hill and grid in the entire town. In CBMS artillery is very underpowered IMO. Also the tank shoot and scoot tactic could work atleast once or twice as long as he isn't spotted how ever if he is spotted US troops could easily zero in on the hill and get artillery to pound it to nothing. Of course in real life things would play out very different how ever, it's not too far off from reality. I also wish in CMBS that infantry can run at a jog speed with weapons aimed and also be able to peak corners  also I'd love for them to fix the aiming of soldiers, especially for LMGs. LMGs in game fire at one spot in medium bursts, where as in reality (speaking for Russian army wise idk US training for LMGs) it would be long bursts over a small area to ensure suppression and fast kills. 

[Kinophile]

13 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

In real life artillery is way more devastating than CMBS. Instead of poking out and shooting in real life a FO from a recon unit could sneak up onto that hill and grid in the entire town. In CBMS artillery is very underpowered IMO. Also the tank shoot and scoot tactic could work atleast once or twice as long as he isn't spotted how ever if he is spotted US troops could easily zero in on the hill and get artillery to pound it to nothing. Of course in real life things would play out very different how ever, it's not too far off from reality. I also wish in CMBS that infantry can run at a jog speed with weapons aimed and also be able to peak corners  also I'd love for them to fix the aiming of soldiers, especially for LMGs. LMGs in game fire at one spot in medium bursts, where as in reality (speaking for Russian army wise idk US training for LMGs) it would be long bursts over a small area to ensure suppression and fast kills. 

@TheForwardObserver would you agree re artillery effects in-game? 

[cbennett88]

I'm in complete agreement w/you on the effects of artillery (IRL vs CMBS). Watching vehicles sit under a barrage of airburst without concern seems ludicrous. Could a real life artillery barrage have both airburst AND impact rounds? If so, I think that would be a great addition to the game, 

 

2 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

I also wish in CMBS that infantry can run at a jog speed with weapons aimed and also be able to peak corners

And maybe a command to throw grenades before entering a building. I have yet to find a way to clear buildings that doesn't cause at least 50% losses. I don't always have enough breaching kits to blast every wall.

[Kinophile]

25 minutes ago, cbennett88 said:

Watching vehicles sit under a barrage of airburst without concern seems ludicrous.

I dunno about that, at least re Mech Inf.- I played a game a few days ago, had 120mm mortars barrage ambush a BMP-3 platoon as it moved up a street, killed two of the poor bastards. I could probably recreate and screen here.

Now, with MBTs, it seems the Abrams is insanely well armored, suspiciously so. But I've often taken out T-64s and 72s with arty rounds, usually a single salvo on Heavy (to ensure something hits the damn target..)

Edited June 16, 2016 by kinophile

[cbennett88]

6 minutes ago, kinophile said:

I dunno about that, at least re Mech Inf.- I played a game a few days ago, had 120mm mortars barrage ambush a BMP-3 platoon as it moved up a street, killed two of the poor bastards.

 

Were they airburst(personnel) rounds? Or ground burst (impact) rounds?? 

Have seen impact artillery damage/kill vehicles. Have not witnessed airburst have any effect on Bradleys and M1s

[VladimirTarasov]

Artillery landing right next to a Bradley vehicle would atleast mess up the tracks, and I think 152mm precision rounds that I used against Bradleys or Abrams should be able to hurt the crew under or even kill. Especially on a Bradley, in the same scenario that cbennet played "galloping horse downfall" I called precision rounds on Bradleys and it reversed perfectly away how ever in other events I was able to detrack M1A2s. In Ukraine, I think it was 2 Ukrainian battalions that killed by artillery barrages in 2-3 minutes. How ever it might have been an MLRS strike I don't think that means regularly artillery wouldn't have the same effects. Artillery is basically a very important part of Russian offensive tactics, and it being underpowered compared to real life makes my job harder when playing as RU in game.

[TheForwardObserver]

As an approximation of the effects of a single 155mm HE/quick (what people call point det) round, the game does a good job-- the exception being maybe a slightly weak performance against the Abrams and the lack of unique types of graphical trinkets like turrets flying off or vehicles being cut in half.  Now this is somewhat understandable as we train Artillery on boneyards full of old vehicles so you witness plenty of the effects of Artillery on old vehicles, but there aren't loads of people running around with physical experience monitoring the effects of fired 155s on current platforms like the Abrams.  There are some, I'm not one of them, and those that have had better keep their mouths shut.

As far as what a single Observer can do if empowered in the sense that he has many assets at his disposal (rocket and missile artillery plus howitzers, CCA, CAS), has done his homework, is given priority and is operating under non-restrictive fire support coordination measures (similar in concept to ROE);  I can burn every hilltop from here to kingdom come.  Shake and Bake (a cocktail of HE plus WP that you save for other Observers).  Or why not a combination of HE/Quick and HE/VT because why provide some jerk that believes in stuff I don't believe with a place to hide? Or that town?  Perhaps we won't go to Camelot, tis a silly place.  Level it.  That dry field over there?  Illumination ground bursts-- hope that fire doesn't cause any problems.  The only limit on how many missions an FO can run simultaneously is the ability of the individual FO and the availability of assets.  I've run many missions simultaneously in training, but in combat have only ever managed to run two at once.  I had mixed results with that.

Obviously these aren't exactly the rules we play by when guests in a foreign land, trying to bring stability to a place we've only just destabilized but high intensity conflict between gentlemen is when the gloves come off.

The unofficial-official FOs creed is;

The destroyer that stands upon the hill, can't be stopped, kills at will, raining bloodshed death and pain, in the sun and in the rain.

Now If that sounds crazy and awful it's because it is.  That's why it's not stamped on any recruitment posters, but listen we really are a polite and friendly people, well travelled and notoriously quirky.  Usually possessing the subtle humor and pleasant disposition of the Saggitarius.  Do not get along well with attention seeking Leo or controlling Scorpio.

[Abbasid111]

@cbennett88, you can get infantry to toss grenades into a building before entering it. After you have suppressed the building continue the suppression while moving your assault team up. Have them do a pause at the entrance and give them a target briefly command. The grenades will fly. 

 

[Anthony P.]

8 hours ago, cbennett88 said:

And maybe a command to throw grenades before entering a building. I have yet to find a way to clear buildings that doesn't cause at least 50% losses. I don't always have enough breaching kits to blast every wall.