Soviet AT

[Corvidae]

The whole board is buzzing with bullsh*t.

And it all boils down to the Wittman mission.

And more specificly to the historical inacuracy of its depiction of soviet AT methods.

Never mind all the crap about nazi fanboys, its just crap. We are talking about the SOVIETS.

Therefore , will the resident experts PLEASE, gather forward and observe.....

the SOVIET force, has 2 45mm AT guns, it needs 4 to 6 to be historicly reasonable,

there are 4 AT rifles,

With a company, there ought to be at least 12

2 50mm mortars instead of the 4 to 6 needed

The 76mm infantry guns are both useless and pointless, trade them for 45mm AT guns,

there is 1 81mm mortar spotter, he has no TRPs, THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN A PREPARED DEFENSE,

Give him 3 TRPs, and trade his 4 tubes for 6 tubes, plus extra ammo, (600 rounds?)

This is a soviet company in 1943, in a well prepared defense, ADJUST TRENCHES ACCORDINGLY,

So, the force available is

1 soviet company of 3 platoons infantry,

plus organic 12 AT rifles,

plus organic 50mm mortars

plus organic maxim mgs

Plus from battalion

1 81mm spotter, several AT infantry teams

Plus from brigade,

additional 50mm mortars, additional maxims, additional AT rifles, and 4 to 6 45mm AT guns

*****************************************

So what did i get wrong here ?

[Cuirassier]

Corvidae,

I am certainly no expert, so I don't know much about historical TO&E, or what typical defenses looked like down to individual weapons in WWII, but if I could change something in your force selection, it would be this.

1.The Soviets should get heavier arty (122mm maybe, which would be very useful with TRPs)

2.Some 45mm AT is ok I think, but the Soviets should get some 76mm longs so Pz.IV's can be dealt with frontally (they are also could against infantry). Or, perhaps 1 or 2 57mm AT guns could be added, to deal with the German uber Tigers.

3.Soviet armor should be tank-killing armor, not HE chuckers (like the Su-122s), and should arrive in the game concentrated and at an earlier time, so the infantry doesn't get smashed before they can come to help

[Corvidae]

Cuirassier,

You list a very ideal and plausable organization,

however.......

1)the 122mm is a fairly high level formation, (division or army i think?)

The 81mm is battalion level,

2) the 76mm AT is still fairly rare in early to mid 43, as is the 57mm, Both are fairly high level as well,

The 45mm is endemic,

and even the upgraded version is common, and fairly low level, (regiment or brigade i think?)

3) Agreed, the SU122 has no place on that map, maybe a KV platoon instead,

Also agreed, the tanks should start arriving earlyer, (turn 5 through 10)

Still , your choices are exelent,

Lets get the nit pickers in here,

[JasonC]

There is nothing rare about the 76mm ATGs. They are the standard weapon of the dedicated AT regiments and brigades, and of the divisional artillery. They formed the majority of anti-tank strongpoints and the most important part of the gun AT network.

45mm ATGs were a lower level thing, pushed well forward, and used for preliminary screens and such. They were emphatically not the main AT weapon. AT mines and tankhunters and anti-tank ditches formed physical barriers, supplementing woods and rivers and other impassable ground. And 76mm nests overlapped their fields of fire over everything else.

As for 82mm, yes they would have them but no, battalion mortars firing indirect in battery were not their main use nor the most common form of Russian fire support. You would instead see 2-3 on map 82mm for a company position. Their major fire support would come from regimental 120mm mortars (and higher level versions of those attached downward), and from divisional 76mm guns. Behind those in rariety you would get 122mm howitzers supporting RDs.

The bigger stuff was not rare and not restricted to special uses, either. 122mm guns and 152mm gun-howitzers were used in separate regiments and in artillery divisions - which also had extra 120mm mortars and 76mm field guns, usually 132mm rockets as well, and in the case of "breakthrough" artillery formations, 203mm howitzers or 300mm rockets or both, in addition.

You would not find every type of those supporting one battle. But it would be entirely normal for one type to support any given tactical engagement, particularly anywhere the Germans concentrated significant forces to attack, and the like. In CM terms, the typical use of these would be for "map fire", not TRPed shots by individual volley, "on call". Instead take 1-2 of the above types as conscripts, and order their barrages in turn 1 of the scenario. Delay them with QQQ or fire them as prep fire "spoiling barrages".

Many people apparently have the impression that the lower the echelon level, the more likely an FO type is to be present and used, as though battalion mortars were firing all the time, divisional guns rarely, and corps and higher stuff only on rare special occasions. This is not remotely true. The higher echelon guns were *less reactive* when they fired, because their use was centralized. But they were not rare. Most of the Russian heavy artillery was in higher formations assigned to an army, and by it down to particular divisions in accordance with their tactical mission and where the targets were best or the situation most critical.

And div arty fired the most of all, in all armies. Corps level fires were somewhat rare in the German army, which mostly let divisions fire in support of their subunits. Indeed, to the Germans the division was the natural integrated combat formation because it was the size all the guns could work together to support.

But that was not the US practice, nor the Russian. US practice put most of the 155s at corps level, and had as many of them as 105s are division level. The Russian practice was to spread different weapons over regiment, division, and army, depending on their range and the importance of centralizing their use. Regiments got a portion of the division's 76mm assigned to them, plus their organic 120mm mortars. Divisions had 122mm howitzers, might retain some 76mm as a reserve, and might have additional 120s etc attached from army. Army had regiments to brigades of the bigger stuff, plus the rockets.

In a scenario like this, supposed to show an infantry company in position and an associated anti-tank strongpoint, you would see something more like the following -

Rifle company.

additional Maxim MGs totalling 4-6 all told, perhaps with platoon leader.

6-8 ATRs

2-3 82mm mortars in additional to 2 50mm mortars.

a sharpshooter or two, improved unit quality.

3-6 tank hunters.

Possibly a pioneer platoon with demo charges, perhaps 2 flamethrowers as well.

Extensive AT minefields, extensive trenches.

2 45mm ATGs with 6-12 tungsten ammo each

4 76mm ZIS-3 guns, plus a commander for them.

76mm or 120mm FO, one or the other. Regular to veteran quality to shoot small, called missions. Usually *not* with TRPs (it was not that reactive). Just call the fire ~5 minutes ahead and walk onto the target with 100m adjusts.

Additional heavy fire support as conscripts for map fire. 2x122mm gun or 1x152mm gun-howitzer or 1x132mm rocket - pick one of those, just the one type. Pick a time and a location and fire area wide for the tube types (rockets get that regardless).

As for armor support, the most common thing would be a single platoon of vanilla T-34s.

Compared to what you see in the scenario in question, the obstacles and the guns are dramatically more powerful. The armor is not. This makes the defense much harder to *spot*, above all. It is dangerous to Pz IVs at range. Only the mines and close assault are a serious threat to Tigers, and only if they close rather than standing off.

But if they stand off, the defense will stop lesser vehicles, trading guns for tanks, and will pin attacking infantry, using stripping artillery fire and stealthy infantry heavy weapons (MGs and mortars and snipers) from range.

They would certainly not send SU-122s, and to counter Tigers (if they knew they were there) they might have 2 SU-152s at some point. But they did not have that many of those to go around. Occasionally they might have 2 hidden 57mm ATGs instead, or a Sturmovik in the air. All of those are rare wildcards, though, not the typical thing. The Germans just can't be sure one of them isn't out there, and don't know which one it could be.

You can see numerous examples of such defenses in my Ponyri and 1SS First Day scenarios. Without given them unhistorical force mixes just for balance's sake, but also without the "nothing that can penetrate 50mm of armor" nonsense in the scenario under discussion.

[Corvidae]

Je$u$ phuquing H christos JasonC, I'm bleeding here,

I stand corrected and savagly mauled.

so the 76mm AT and 76mm ziss are a normal sight in mid 43,

45mm AT not as common

and just 1 platoon of T34s,

and add a conscript heavy gun or rocket spotter.

Trade my 81mm for 120mm, and have 81mms ON map,

A platoon of pioneers with flame.

And sharp shooters.

(you realize I'm gonna want to pbem you with this)

ok, I got that,

and I've adjusted the terrain slightly,

So who else wants to beat me over the head with facts?

Get your shots in now , and be prepared to face my revenge in a PBEM game with a force based on your suggestions,

[JasonC]

lol. Send me a set up, you get a game out of it at least.

[Corvidae]

JasonC, I'll be finishing the details tonite , expect the first e-mail tomorow ,

[Cuirassier]

Hey, if you two are up to it, could you please report the results of your game. I would like to see how it turns out.

[JasonC]

We are underway. One turn played. No contact yet.

[John Kettler]

JasonC and Corvidae,

While I think you both make some excellent points regarding revisions to the scenario OOB, I disagree with JasonC that TRPs should be excluded. My reading indicates that extensive registration of the approaches to the troop positions proper took place, specifically the integration of mines, direct infantry MG fires, AT fires and indirect fires covering the mine belt. From what I've seen, one of the major tasks of supporting artillery at Kursk, for example, was to finish off German armor immobilized by mine damage. The link provides several examples of exactly this kind of thing having occurred. See "Destroyed German AFVs" under Additional Stuff.

www.battlefield.ru

I freely grant that the CM approach to modeling artillery fire is less than optimal when it comes to modeling preplanned defensive artillery concentrations, but even so, TRPs are as close as we can get to such concentrations, which historically were called in via codeword over field phone/radio or via specified flare cluster.

Per Rokossovskiy (quoted in Caidin's THE TIGERS ARE BURNING, chapter 11, p. 116), artillery open fire times were under a minute for preplanned concentrations. That chapter is well worth reading and detailed study, not just for the textual description but for a most useful schematic of a typical battalion strongpoint at Kursk, to include obstacles, trenches, MG, ATR, and ATG firing positions, pillboxes, reserve positions, CP locations, etc. I count at least 19 ATG positions (not counting alternates) in the battalion strongpoint. The Glantz article on Kursk defenses, which I don't happen to have handy, may have something useful to offer. Would also suggest investigating pertinent articles from VIZh at Red Army Studies.

Biryukov and Melnikov's ANTITANK WARFARE, p. 66 says that a company strongpoint at Kursk had " 3-4 antitank guns, 2-3 antitank rifle squads, one sapper and one submachine gun squad, and tank destroyer detachments with incendiary bottles." I highly recommend this book for its insights, schematics and anecdotes on the organization of Russian antitank defenses.

Offhand, I'd suggest somehow chaining the TRPs to relatively small zones to reflect how the defenses were actually set up. Depending upon which defensive belt has been penetrated and where,

I believe consideration should also be given to

122 and greater in direct fire mode (not sure how to model this) or given the right zone, SU-152s firing from dug-in positions with/without Katyushas firing en masse on TRPs.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ April 23, 2006, 02:56 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[Corvidae]

Red star comics presents

Comrade Vladimir

hero of Kursk

Movie at 11

[JasonC]

JK - Russian artillery was not remotely as responsive as CM artillery with TRPs is. Depicting it that way just gets it wrong. Most of the heavy stuff was fired according to large scale fire plans approved by major generals, not as reactive fires ordered by any lieutenant with a phone.

The regimental FOs put fire down in 5 minutes. That is quite fast for historical artillery coordination. Defenders can order their barrages well ahead of time and walk the aim point around, getting adjust times from actual placement to shells landing of 1-2 minutes. Which is as fast as anybody ever got with registrations.

The big stuff, order it on turn 1 and time it, and fire not 1-2 flights of shells at single platoons, but entire modules or even two or more of them concurrently. Use target wide for the tube stuff.

German artillery coordination was by all accounts considerably better than Russian. Yet one regularly hears of battles that go in phases, first wave had to be dealt with by local forces, later waves were stopped by artillery fire. Which arise because it frequently took not under a minute, not five minutes, but 15 to 30 minutes to coordinate serious artillery support.

I show such things in some of my scenarios by FOs who arrive as reinforcements. You can show registration readily enough just by putting FOs on the map at the start. Because the player can pick where they should have LOS to, and order the first shells on turn 2 if they like.

I've seen attempts to show vanilla steppe fighting in which the Germans are given 14 TRPs for 2 modules of artillery (and their PAK), and Russians 5 TRPs for 3 FOs. It is utter nonsense. US forces in Vietnam didn't have artillery that reactive, let alone Russians in WW II. More shells, less godlike micromanagement of the timing and placement of tiny parcels of them.

[Corvidae]

[John Kettler]

JasonC,

In a fluid situation, I agree with you, but not when it comes to the prepared, dug-in defense with preregistered defensive concentrations. The accounts I've read, from Russian sources, would be quite familiar to an American used to the modern dedicated battery concept, i.e. the guns are already loaded and aimed at the primary defensive concentration and revert to that setting immediately after any intervening shoots. Under those conditions, I believe a minute is perfectly manageable. What, after all, is left to do--other than execute the fire mission as soon as the flare cluster is seen or the code word is heard? Please note that this is the three sigma exception to the general response curve for Russian artillery support. Are we going to believe, though, that all of the accounts which describe such procedures as being implemented are incorrect? The major unknown in the scheme is who has the authority to

call in these fires. Per Rokossovskiy, it is a CP level function, because that's where the inspectors went, and the schematics I describe have only two types of CP on them, company and battalion. I can't imagine that the fire request could come from any command level lower than company.

Got some new info!

It appears from the Monyushko's memoirs (parts 2 and 3) at link that a ZIS-3 battery operated one each forward observation post in addition to what was physically on site with the battery. This post was then connected to battery CP via several radio links, but more commonly wire of one sort or another, some astonishingly crude. The battery was fully capable of delivering both direct and indirect fires. Part 2 describes the DF antitank role at the Sandomiercz bridgehead, and Part 3 is more about indirect fires through the end of the war. Extremely meaty material!

Here are some insights from a Katyusha crewman. Note particularly how fast the unit displaces after firing and the fact that it moves into what seem to be presurveyed positions.

http://www.iremember.ru/artillerymen/chumanov/chumanov.htm

Here's an account of what must be characterized as uber ballsy gun handling. JasonC, note the use of your "favorite" projectile type.

http://www.iremember.ru/artillerymen/abaulin/abaulin.htm

Regards,

John Kettler

[ April 24, 2006, 03:49 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[John Kettler]

Corvidae,

Found you a bunch of goodies! The Glantz paper "Soviet Defensive Tactics at Kursk" is here under Soviet Perspectives, but there is much outside of that section which will also benefit your endeavors.

Recommend that you download the PDF version, seeing as how the site indicates the HTML version has corrupted graphics.

http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/kursk/3.html#SovietPerspectives

Regards,

John Kettler

[JasonC]

No, sorry, not remotely correct. The authority to make a Breakthrough Artillery Corps open fire was not with Lieutenant Ivanov up at the pointy end. They never got such responsiveness.

In CM, when you give multiple TRPs per FO what happens is the player steers individual flights of shells in the air. Every minute he decides where this minutes 8 shells shall land. What a Russian got in reality was, after he said "start the barrage", the whole other side of the field disappeared in a big cloud of dust - usually within the right half an hour and the right kilometer.

CM arty with TRP enhancements is just plain wrong. It amplifies borg, it exploits minute by minute command, it encourages ridiculous levels of micromanagement and ridiculously small shoots, to stretch hyper-expensive shells into multiple casualties each. In the real deal, if 10 heavy shells fired caused 1 WIA it was an above average mission.

Ignore your imaginary ideas about how it should work and try it the way I recommend. Read a few hundred AARs, and see if you ever see a battle narrative run "and so I picked up the phone and the attacking battalion evaporated a minute later." It's unhistorical nonsense. Whereas, all the time you will hear "after 3 hours, the barrage lifted to deeper targets, and the infantry advanced".

[Corvidae]

Turn 5,

We have property damage

[John Kettler]

JasonC,

I'm not talking about planting TRPs willy-nilly and then pretending we're firing Copperhead rounds. I was talking about predefining zones within which TRPs could be deployed and only there. Nor was I talking about your almost perversely hyperbolic lieutenant Ivanov whistling up RVGK assets at will; I was talking about employing assigned, organic to the RD, DS assets (possibly reinforced from Front) executing preplanned missions on preregistered defensive concentrations.

To further confuse matters, you give an example of how things ought to work defensively, then "prove" it using the case of artillery in the attack. In the Corvidae case, we're talking about artillery in the prepared defense.

BTW, I'm rereading A BRIDGE TOO FAR by Cornelius Ryan in the part where he describes the 350 gun barrage which preceded the attack by XXX Corps. It was a rolling barrage which, unlike your Russian offense example with its 3 hour dwell on the target, moved forward at 8 mph, the same speed as the tanks advancing behind it. I'll have to take a peek at my limited Russian artillery shoot data, but what ISTR was fire on successive lines coupled with successive intense concentrations on targets such as CPs, artillery positions, assembly areas, troop and/or armor groupings, etc.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JasonC]

Not just on the attack. There was a breakthrough artillery corps behind the forward army in the line of the Kursk northern offensive. They started their counter-barrage at around 2:30 in the morning the day of the attack, and delivered it over wide areas.

If you know where you are going to fire because it is pre-planned, then order the fire mission on turn 2. You can time it by walking the shells tiny distances. If it is the organic weapons you are talking about you get a 5 minute response and the slightest planning ahead makes that 2 minutes. What you don't get is instant fire on any of a dozen locations by any gun available. TRPs are simply overmodeled in CM. Grock already. A registration and a TRP are not synonyms. Try it.

[Corvidae]

John and Jason,

the solution is;

Restrict TRP Usage, Use low quality spotters,

and pre-plan any artilery above the regimental level.

It not the best solution, but may ease the problem.

Yes giving any side a VAST number of TRPs is wrong, 15? 10? 5? Try maximum 3TRPs for defenders, 1 for attackers. And defenders only use them for aiding ON map guns, not off map guns.

Of course you can never be sure if the other guy is playing by the rules ,, but you gotta trust someone.

[JasonC]

There is a much more basic problem here, C.

In CMBO, the artillery was way too powerful. It didn't help that infantry was "uber", didn't care if it got shot in the open, MGs were weaker than squads in every respect, etc. Making anything that could counter a tight fist of them massively important.

The real issue was in the modeling itself. You could literally adjust the shells in flight. A 155mm barrage with time listed as 30 seconds could be walked around to drizzle in 4 fat shells exactly where wanted. The response times were like 2 minutes. You could only miss if you were so flicted you ordered the shot at a moving target and didn't bother to adjust it.

It was obvious if they left artillery like that and gave the Russians anything like their real guns, nothing would ever close with the other guy, alive.

The mark of an expert player in CMBO was how well he could play "dodge balls" with incoming shells, with his individual infantry platoons. People were firing tiny flights with the tightest sheafs at pinpoint targets, and then had to get the timing right within half a minute or they'd miss, because infantry were crazily jinking around the field trying to fool the eye in the sky. This was not WW II tactics.

So they made extensive changes. All times got bumped up seriously. The big Russian stuff was given too high rariety (solution - turn rariety off) and monster response times. But prep fire was added as a way to use it. The key feature added in discussion of that change was the QQQ delay to allow full "fire plans", rather than prep fire on turn 1, or reactive with 7 to 15 minutes times.

That was the right answer. Then they turned it over to the players and the scenario designers. The early designers put warnings about how long the delays were into their briefings, because players used to CMBO were going to expect godlike control. Players sometimes didn't listen and convinced themselves Russian arty was useless. Or they restricted themselves to the popgun 81mm 82mm stuff that had "old style" response times.

What they didn't do was learn the new system and play according to it.

Designers began compensating. Now everybody got TRPs. Attackers never got TRPs in CMBO. Now anybody considers his artillery pointless unless he is given TRPs. Which is absurd.

The designers went to the trouble to make properly unresponsive, blunt instrument artillery fire to get the balance between maneuver elements and firepower arms correct for the eastern front. And players didn't want to learn it or deal. So designers give them crutches. Now they use artillery the old way, except they have to think out where they might want it beforehand.

As a result, the Borg detects a half squad crawling through the floor of a brush lined gully a kilometer and a half from any forward observer or for that matter, anybody with a phone. 45 seconds later, half a corps worth of artillery lands within 40 yards. The only thing that saves any of it is the shells run out because most people can't resist lopsided slaughter and fire it way too early.

The times are there for a reason, the map fire features are there for a reason. Learn the system and use it. Don't deliberately break it by smothering the board in TRPs.

In CMAK, they thought artillery was still too powerful and they made it much more touchy. Big plus, it now makes dust. Big minus, they serious overprice giant and highly reactive western allied modules, as a result making them basically unaffordable in QBs and strongly deterring designers form using them. (They also did things like make every US 105mm module 6 gun, as though fired by the regimental cannon company, and other "misses").

We had long threads based on expert testbeds to see how to deliver a mission without getting it flubbed and off target. Really really touchy. I doubt the average CMAK player can deliver a barrage without missing half the time even in clear weather with good observation - unless he is given a flock of TRPs, naturally. They went overboard in CMAK.

Of all the artillery systems in the series, the one that got it right was CMBB without TRPs. Those plus dust produced by them, and we'd be golden. The best a scenario designer can do is to give realistic amounts of the stuff - and that means lots - but systematically eliminate opportunities to use it with godlike borg responsiveness.

Artillery should be fired in large quantities at wide areas, preferably a massive target but if lots of them miss to get a few in the right ballpark, who cares? They should not respond to every ATR's slightest sighting with slight second timed 4-8 shell "missions", which is what TRPs encourage. It should feel like there is nowhere to go to get away from the possibility of it, but when it lands it lands, and is done with.

[Cuirassier]

Turn 5,

We have property damage

What type of property damage has occurred? A large HE storm perhaps...

[Corvidae]

Cuirassier

JasonC's evil facisti hordes shot up grandmother Kasovich's chicken coop, and killed her prized rooster,

And with all the young men away at the front,

how is an old granny supposed to find a decent co*k these days,

ask Jason for the details

[JasonC]

Three Panzer IVs fired 3-4 rounds apiece at a small village like area of ten or so huts on my right front, just behind some strands of wire. They rubbled the 3 huts facing the center of the map in about 30 seconds. Nice dust screen there now.

Meanwhile about 100 82mm mortar rounds are landing around the Panzers, which are buttoned. A lone ATR has pinged the lead Panzer IV a couple times.

[John Kettler]

JasonC,

Was not aware RVGK assets were used that way at Kursk, though the long range stuff would obviously have been very useful vs. German fire suport and other deep targets identified.

JasonC and Corvidae,

In game terms, I'm seeking an effect in modeling Russian fire support in a dug-in defense. I keep hammering away at that point, but somehow it's not registering on your end. I'm certainly not talking about handing the Russian commander a (gasp!) dozen TRPs, only enough to simulate a preplanned defensive concentration like the ones we've all seen on artillery planning maps. Since none of the CM games has such an obviously needed feature, I was trying to devise a suitable workaround. From what I've read, the usual Russian practice was to target the physical approaches, paying special attention to dead ground, draws, etc., where the enemy could mass without being seen.

I agree that artillery was ridiculous in CMBO, though very exciting to use when in close contact under reduced visibility!

I don't have much experience with it in CMBB, but did manage to do some damage during the Beta Demo

(met Michael Emrys et al.) with astutely targeted prep fires and have run some tests on Katyusha effectiveness and the like.

In CMAK, it's a bear, because the guns apparently magically lose their ability to execute continuation fire on the last set of coordinates

when faced with dust. For this reason, the entire North African campaign was fought using special

target wetdown detachments, a tradition continued in certain college bars by their successors to this day.

Am hazy on the details, but the loss in some of the games of the shockwave made it much harder to see where impacts were occurring. In one of the ROWs (moi vs. Ace Pilot), fought under overcast skies in rain, I had a devil of a time seeing spotting rounds and had whole barrages land way off target. In reality, the FO could not have missed the treetops exploding because of the geysers of branches and leaves which would've been flung skyward.

Regards,

John Kettler