DreDay
-
Posts
477 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by DreDay
-
-
As far as the movie, the above comments are accurate, but I didn't go into the movie expecting much so it was easy not to be disappointed. The kit featured in the movie was pretty accurate to my knowledge of soviet equipment. GP-30's loaded from the muzzle like they should, and there were the usual assortment of Mi-24 Hind-A's, Antonov transports, BTRs, and BMP-2s. The acting was meh, but it was watchable. Loved the blonde..... ;D
AFAIK, the movie was filmed in Ukraine with an assistance of Ukrainian MOD - hence the presence of T-64BV that had never been deployed anywhere close to Afghanistan...
What's more important though, is that even though the movie claims to be base on real events; it has nothing in common with the actions of the 9th company of 345th VDV regiment during operation Magistral that it is supposed to be based on.
In real life the VDV paratroopers were able to hold their ground and to fight back multiple attacks with much smaller casualties (6 KIA) and their actions were not discarded or ignored by their command as the movie claims.
Peace,
DreDay
-
It's a strategic weapon, and therefore outside the scope of the game.
I agree. Those weapons were notoriously inaccurate and their response time was way too slow to be used on the tactical level. I tend to think of them (in game terms) as a land equivalent of the strategic bombers...
Peace,
DreDay
-
Just a quick note of thanks to BattleFront for addressing some of the issues that had been raised here with the latest patch. I am still playing around with it, but the OOB options look much more realistic and enjoyable now.
Peace,
Dreday
-
You would think that the need for replacements would be predicted and put in the chain (like supplies) so they are available when actually needed.
That's MUCH easier said than done. For that matter, it's pretty rare for all the supplies to be constantly available either... Overstrengthening is a more practical way of dealing with attrition.
Peace,
DreDay
-
Let remember when an in-theatre soldier is wounded or invalided a replacement can't magically appear from the general pool of soldiers back home. Even if the replacement systems is working optimally there'd be a chronic lag between losing a soldier and replacing a soldier. Especially as the attrition occurs day after day after day.
That's exactly right! One of the most obvious ways of combating such attrition involves overstrengthening the units so that they would maintain their expected size throughout the attrition. The Soviets were not willing to do that for both the organizational and political reasons - hence the chronically undermanned status of the 40th Army combat formations.
Peace,
DreDay
-
I think it's not misconception. But same as with LongLeftFlank's Vietnam example: There simply were less people getting into Afganistan because local conscription offices (or what ever they were called) got less man material from which they could distribute less man material forexample to 40th Army. This in potentially one of the factors, others being which you name hygiene, political reasons, organization and so on. Potential because i don't have solid evidence of conscription evading in massive scale back in 80s.
You are taking a wild guess here and you are generally incorrect. Like I've said, the Soviet Army was numbering 5.3 million men at the time - they were not running out of men! While the popularity of the army service was not particularly high in the 1980s, there was no mass evasion of the service either. That phenomenon was born in the 1990s.
Peace,
DreDay
-
I'd guess cost was a major consideration as well. Expensive just to keep that many troops in theatre, plus the equipment loss and the soviet economy was in bad shape at the time anyway.
The Soviets were simply unwilling to escalate their involvement in Afghanistan, which in my view was very smart of them. That partially explains why they did not overstrengthen their units there, but like I said, their small squad size in Afghanistan had a lot more to do with their organizational thinking and the lack of proper hygiene.
Peace,
DreDay
-
Very good discussion going on here. However, if I may add my 2 cents, I believe that there is a bit of a misconception... it seems to me that many people assume that the Soviets were running out of men to send to Afghanistan - this was hardly the case in reality. The Limited Contingent of Soviet Forces in Afghanistan had numbered less than 120,000 men at its peak; at the same time the overall size of Soviet Armed Forces was in excess of 5.3 million men. If the Soviets had really wanted to, they could have definitely sent more soldiers into the theater. The reasons for the undermanned status of the battle units in the 40th Army were mainly political, organizational, and.... hygienic; but the Soviets were nowhere close to losing the battle of attrition.
Peace,
DreDay
-
Not to mention that the Soviets had never fielded a rifle named "AK-47"...
-
Steve, we are talking about two different things here. Yes, Soviet units in Afghanistan were chronically undermanned (although it is more accurate to say that 75% of Soviet personnel were treated some sort of illness at some point of their service in Afghanistan, rather than "wounded"). However, what I am saying is that the 40th Army command had introduced some changes to MotorRifle Platoon TO&E whereby each dismounted squad had just 4 men in it.
Peace,
DreDay
-
As paradoxical as it might seem, the 40th Army had gone down the path of reducing the squad size in the mid 80s. One explanation that I've read for this is that the Soviets were lacking the professional NCO cadre and the smaller squad size had allowed for the higher ratio of professional COs to enlisted soldiers which made their command more effective.
Peace,
DreDay
-
Agree that this is an extremely common practice, although I haven't seen them do it on BTRs -- maybe because of the high profile and hull shape.
I distinctly remember the CNN footage from the 1991 coup against Gorby where the VDV paras were riding back to base atop their BMDs and flipping the bird to the Western cameras. Also ISTR when the VDV "peacekeepers" unexpectedly seized the airport in Kosovo they rode in atop their BMDs.
The practice of riding on top of the BTRs was/is just as common as riding on BMPs. In fact, the VDV paras in Pristina that you are referring to were riding on top (and inside) of the BTR-80s and not BMDs.
Peace,
DreDay
-
Thanks for reporting this! That sounds like a really nifty feature, I'm definitely looking forward to playing around with it.
Peace,
DreDay
-
DreDay, it would be great if you could provide more specific sources (preferrably original russian sources) that confirm they didn't use RPG-7's much in that war and instead had lot's or one-shot RPG-18/22.
http://www.ryadovoy.ru/militarizm/orgstruktures/inf&tank_sovet/sa_dra/msb_dra_1/msr_1.htm
Peace,
DreDay
-
G3 and AKM are bit different beasts. G3 fires fullsized rifle cartridge while AKM eats shorter cartridges. I can't see much reason to switch AK74 to AKM. In Urban warfare there might be good reason to do that due better penetration in structure and lesser concern of 7.62x39's much more curved trajectory.
Soviet did adopt their RPG-7 usage along the war. It's been years since i last time read about it, but if i recall right Soviets started to use them in massed "poor man's artillery", and also developed HE-grenades. Overall i've understood that along war RPG-7 was one of those weapons which role got much bigger than what it was at start. Afgans used both Chinese and Egypt made RPG-7s, which were very high quality and Egypt made even had bipods. For Egypt made there were many different warhead types from which probably most sophisticated was antiaircraft warhead with timed fuze and fragmentation warhead.
Also i've read that at late war Afgans tend to have 1 RPG-7 for each 2-3 guys in squads (which were easily over 10 men large). I'm still playing 1980 campaign and havent' much looked scenarios or other campaign so i don't know how things are in CMA.
I totally agree with your first point regarding the AKMs. Soviets were already deploying SVDs and PKMs at the platoon (and occasionally squad) level, so they did not have a need for the less accurate and less powerful AKMs.
Regarding the RPGs - I have read in several sources that RPG-7s and RPG-16s were mostly discarded by the Soviet infantry in Afghanistan. At best, they were deployed at a rate of one per platoon, but not really at a squad level. Soviets had already enjoyed the "poor man's artillery" in the form of AGS-17s, RPOs/RPO-As, disposable RPG-18s/22s; not to mention the fire support from their vehicles. In addition, they also had plenty of proper "rich man's" artillery and air support. The fact that they were only deploying the HEAT munitions for the RPG-7/16 (apparently the OG-7 grenades were developed around that time, but not deployed until much later in the second Chechen war) had made them even less appreciated. What Soviets had really needed were the riflemen; that's why the designated RPG gunners were normally used in that role. There is plenty of photo and video evidence to support the low rate of deployment for the RPG-7s by the Soviets.
The mujaheddin, on the other hand, were relying on the RPGs very heavily (as you have correctly pointed out); this was due to the fact that they were short on the other means of fire support that were readily available to the Soviets.
Peace,
DreDay
-
I know what u mean. However... If you read the rationale for the Soviet invasion it was a lot to do with crushing the backward Taliban and reducing the oppression to women and the more forward-looking political forces that were threatened.
I agree with what your points here. However, just for the sake of historical accuracy - Taliban were not even in existence at the time of the invasion; nor were they the main enemy of the Soviets after their creation.
Peace,
DreDay
-
As an aside, there are plenty times when I have been issued a side arm where I though a proper rifle would be better, Kosova for one.... But the powers that be decided I didnt need it... So, if we folow TOE for Soviets, then its side arms for Coy HQ, never mind what anyone else says...
In case of the Soviets in Afghanistan, the powers to be had decided that they did need assault rifles in place of side arms; that's why they were carrying them...
Peace,
DreDay
-
I think that a more poignant question is - why are they armed with pistols in the firtst place? No one, from soldiers to generals, would have taken a pistol as their primary weapon in Afghanistan. Even the fighter pilots had found ways to cary AKSs/AKSUs in their tiny cockpits...
Peace,
DreDay
-
Yes indeed, the mujahedin were known to recieve some quantaties of Milans, Dragons, and (I would assume) AT-4 knockoffs from abroad. It would definitely be nice if this was reflected in the game...
Peace,
DreDay
-
Dima,
There is plenty of evidence from the memoirs, AARs, ptographs, and video footage to indicte that the RPG-7s/RPG-16s were not normally used at the squad level. At best, Soviet soldiers would carry one per platoon. I would be very curisous to see what evidence you have found to the contrary.
RPG-18/22s are a whole different story, 40th Army command had recommended that they would be issued at a rate of 1 per every 2 soldiers (if operating on foot) towards the end of the confilict... BTW, has anyone seen those in the game?
On a whole different note, I have gone back to some of my sources and it appears the Soviets did infact institute the 4 man dismounted squads in the mid 80s. The mechanised (either BTR or BMP) squad of the 40th Army would have 6 soldiers in it, 4 dismounts + 1 driver + vehicle gunner. The driver and the gunner would normally operate on foot along with the rest of the squad if the vehicles were left at the base...
Peace,
DreDay
-
FYI
As i was looking through the units in the editor i noticed that an Airborne Weapons team (AT-7) uses it AT weapon as a rifle not as a tripod mounted weapon. It was in 2nd platoon that i noticed the error. I had deleted the others. It mat not be an error could just be the soviet version of John Rambo!
To be fair, the AT-7 does have ther provisions to be fired from the shoulder, and not just from the tripod...
Peace,
DreDay
-
I believe they had to add ribs to the front of the 74's mag's to keep soldiers from trying to insert them into 47's.
Monkie, the AK-74 magazines are made out of plastic while the ones for AK/AKM are metallic. They have different weight, curvature, and size... Moreover, the late model AKMs had plastic magazines that were very similar to those of the AK-74.
Peace,
DreDay
-
I greatly appreciate your response and the attention given to the issues that I have raised. Here are my humble comments...
My understanding is that, in fact, the weapons were mixed to some extent for the reasons Amedeo mentioned. Having said that, there were some limitations within the game system itself. It was fairly easy for us to set up the TO&E to be one way all the time, every time. It was a little trickier, but not that difficult, to have some variations within a single unit. But with the underlying game system that CM:A uses it's very difficult for us to have small arms variations be more widespread and yet follow some sort of directed logic (i.e. not random). The new TO&E system in Normandy and beyond has largely addressed this problem.
Mixing of the different weapon types at squad/platoon level was rare with the units of the 40th Army. GRU Spetsnaz and other reconnaissance units would generally have one or two AKMs/AKMSs per group/platoon. This was due to the fact that it could be fitted with the suppressor and use subsonic ammo, while the AK-74 had no such option. That's about it... It is true that some of the more experienced soldiers would occasionally prefer to use AKMs instead of AK-74s; but this was a fairly rare occurrence. For that matter, some of them had preferred to use the captured M-16s; but I don't think that the game benefits from trying to simulate that. Generally speaking, Soviet infantry units were equipped with either AK-74s or AKMs; but almost never both. Yet, they always seem to have both in the game. Perhaps there is a way to use the "mixed weapons" feature for the Mujaheddin, but not the Soviets?
As for them swapping out the BMDs for BTR/BMPs, this isn't surprising to me but I don't think Snowball wanted to take away from the uniqueness of the VDV forces by giving them the same vehicles as the others. At least not by default. I can probably address this in a patch. I'll have to look into the TO&E to see how I structured it. The TO&E was frozen in late 2009, so it's been a while since I've looked at it.
Your research into this would be greatly appreciated. As you probably know, Soviet airborne and air assault forces had borne the brunt of the fighting throughout the whole conflict. Unfortunately there is no way to create realistic scenarios reflecting their actions while they only have BMD-2s available to them. I don't mind BMD-2s being present in the game and I enjoy an occasional "what-if" scenario as much as anyone else; however I don't believe in doing this at the expense of the equipment that was actually used in reality.
The rest of your comments make perfect sense and I have absolutely no objections to them. Again, thank you for taking the time to hear out and to address my concerns.
Peace,
DreDay
-
Thank you for the welcome, bodkin! I agree, and I am not going to bin the game right away. There is still a lot of goodness in it (at least when recreating the earlier phase of the war), and hopefully some of my concerns can be covered by the future patches and mods.
I am fortunate enough to be able to spend $35 on a game without sweating it, and I am glad that a portion of my money would go to BattleFront to award their efforts. I just wanted to voice the concern of a person that is familiar with the subject matter, cares about the realism in wargaming, and thinks that this game could be so much more with a bit more research and care.
Peace,
DreDay
ukraine military vs russia
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
I am a bit new to this discussion and I have not had a chance to read all 33 pages of it, so please forgive me if I re-stating somebody's point; but here it goes...
While your supporting evidence for Russian military involvement in Eastern Ukraine (at least for a short period in August) and their efforts to deny it is spot on; your blissful belief in the accuracy and transparency of Ukrainian reporting on this crisis is naive at best and bypassed at worse. I would be very curious to know what sources you use to form your understanding of what's going on there. Are you fluent in Russian and Ukrainian? What exactly gives you an idea that the Ukrainians are any more honest and transparent in their reporting of this conflict than the Russians? I find it very difficult to see a good side to support here (and that includes the US and EU); I would be very curious as to what research you have done to form your opinion....