Were the Soviet forces really that bad?

[Placebo]

Just bought CMA so coming to this a bit late, but I am really stuggling with the losses I am taking compared with CMSF. 3 missions into the first campaigne they seem to rout, panic and generally get killed quicker than the opposition. Also their spotting skills are none existant mostly my forces are getting gunned down before they even realise who is shooting at them!!

Any suggestions on winning a mission with the Ruskies?

[Erwin]

Gotta go a lot slower. Stop and spend a lot longer just trying to spot for enemy contact. I am told it's also good to fire at enemy contacts even when unknown.

In CMSF the western forces have all sorts of gadgets for seeing at night and spotting the enemy that the Russians in that era did not have.

[Sakai007]

You need to play CMA like you would play CMBN with everyone rocking Stg44s!!! The weapons are light years ahead of WWII, but the Mk.I eyeball is the best spotting tool in your inventory. That means it's hard to see the bad guy, but real easy to die if he sees you first.

[Phantom Captain]

Oh and it makes it just that much more satisfying when you do win! Tactics, tactics, tactics and PATIENCE.

I love playing with the Soviets for all these reasons.

[WallysWorld]

I too just bought CMA and I'm finding it a different story playing as the Russians than as the NATO forces in CMSF.

The NATO forces can bring overwhelming firepower on the target while the Russians have to be way more cautious to advance.

But I'm really enjoying CMA.

[Phantom Captain]

I've mentioned it many times, but honestly, I really think CMA is my favorite era and theater of the bunch.

[Bootie]

We are looking to start a little CM Afghanistan ladder at www.thefewgoodmen.com if anyone is interested.

[Sergei]

Just bought CMA so coming to this a bit late, but I am really stuggling with the losses I am taking compared with CMSF. 3 missions into the first campaigne they seem to rout, panic and generally get killed quicker than the opposition. Also their spotting skills are none existant mostly my forces are getting gunned down before they even realise who is shooting at them!!

Any suggestions on winning a mission with the Ruskies?

Pay attention to your force's stats because they can provide you important hints for how to play them. Russian rank and file troops tend to be low on morale and not too greatly trained either. The Spetnaz and Airborne, on the other hand, are better motivated and trained. Try to adjust your play style accordingly - don't press the basic grunts too hard!

Use any heavy weapons and AFV's you have - PKM's, BTR's, BMP's - as much as possible to cover the infantry advance. Save blood, not ammo. Get the rifle squads to within 300-200 metres of the enemy, beyond that the enemy's numerous bolt-action rifles and Brens have an edge over your assault rifles.

[Vark]

Brens and bolt action rifles? Thought most used captured AK-47's, RPD's, RPK's, PKM's etc, or Chinese copies of the same from the CIA logistics operations in Pakistan. I know the Chinese RPG variants had a different stadia for their sights, based on Russian vehicles, not western ones (typically changed from an M-60 type tank to a T-62).

[stikkypixie]

Pay attention to your force's stats because they can provide you important hints for how to play them. Russian rank and file troops tend to be low on morale and not too greatly trained either. The Spetnaz and Airborne, on the other hand, are better motivated and trained. Try to adjust your play style accordingly - don't press the basic grunts too hard!

Use any heavy weapons and AFV's you have - PKM's, BTR's, BMP's - as much as possible to cover the infantry advance. Save blood, not ammo. Get the rifle squads to within 300-200 metres of the enemy, beyond that the enemy's numerous bolt-action rifles and Brens have an edge over your assault rifles.

I have noticed in the campaign battles I have played that the Soviets are quite limited on ammo. A PK only has around 200-500 rounds, which for me is not enough to provide sufficient cover. And unless there are enough BMPs around you can't resupply.

[Vark]

I'm sure the Russian infantry carried more than the official loadout. Seem to remember photos of a squad all carring belts of ammo for the PK, and more than the official 120 rounds for the AK. Early on they might have stuck to received tactics but as you watch in the photos, the later the date the more adhoc the equpment is, as the true nature of the conflict began to dawn on the Soviets.

[Sublime]

In response to the title question.. yes and no.

I seem to remember hearing somewhere that the Soviet Forces had more troops in East Germany during the height of the Cold War than the US military had worldwide. Massive military.

So you get the full spectrum. Some elite troops. Lotsa decent ones. And a buttload of conscripts who are more interested in torturing their squaddies, getting drunk, and sniffing out local hash dealers and whores..

[Sergei]

And a buttload of conscripts who are more interested in torturing their squaddies, getting drunk

Oh you mean like this:

http://youtu.be/NaaP7bQglcU

[Sublime]

haha cool. I wish I could find it, I saw a great documentary online (in parts on youtube) a few years ago about recruitment in the Russian military etc etc. All the way from them kicking out draftees with needle marks on their arm, to the barracks where they talked about the Army subculture. Which is brutal as anyone could imagine. Hazings, beatings, fights for the veteran soldier's amusement.. etc

[Sixxkiller]

Well you can look at like this. They had about 3 times as many troops as the US and COA forces did, lost a hell of a lot more men, had a lot more soldiers wounded from battle, had a butt load more wounded due to diseases, but also killed a massive amount of Afghans compared to us.

Whats strange is no one ever wins there especially since the Soviets or US never really lost a major battle. And the Afghans never win because well they have to live and die there.

As far as the Soviets being good or bad, there really is no easy answer and while CMA is a great game (And best balanced of the CMx2 games) it really cant help answer a question that really doesnt have a real definitive answer to be honest. I guess while I served almost 5 years of my life there and think my countrymen and allies were the best to ever fight, we really in retrospect accomplished exactly the same thing there as the Soviets did.

[Erwin]

And the Brits suffered the same fate, as did all invading armies all through recorded history starting with Alexander the Great (who apparently had to kill 10% of the population to subdue them - and that lasted only until he left).

The biggest problem is nations refusing to study history, and believing that everyone else was stupid/incompetent and they will "show em" THIS time...

[Vark]

It would be interesting to have a 1980's western army (Nato) fighting instead of the Soviets, fighting from 79-89. A lot of the reduction in Western casualties is a result of technology and a tiny footprint, though remember most Soviet troops were used for garrison duties.

I recommend "Afghantsy" by Rodric Braithwaite, gives a different perspective than the usual Western accounts and the realisation that even a stupendously brutal, by Western standards, campaign failed. If the West are going to take down countries like Afghanistan, which are really 7th Century civilisations, then we will have to abandon all that which makes us 'enlightened'. Nietsche had it so right.

[hcrof]

Well you can look at like this. They had about 3 times as many troops as the US and COA forces did, lost a hell of a lot more men, had a lot more soldiers wounded from battle, had a butt load more wounded due to diseases, but also killed a massive amount of Afghans compared to us.

Im not going to contest the fact that Soviet casualties were higher, or the fact that many of them where due to easily preventable deseases but they actually had less troops than NATO and they were fighting a lot better funded and supplied enemy, using 70s equipment (even at the end of the war).

Most of the Soviet forces in Afghanistan were pretty bottom of the barrel troops as the good ones were in Europe and they never had the resources to do a proper job (the second part sounds familiar ). The VDV and Spetznaz on the other hand were effective but there just weren't enough of them.

It is not impossible to make a comparison but the differences in the conflicts do have to be pointed out.

[MikeyD]

Brens and bolt action rifles?

Don't forget the British Raj administered India/Pakistan for generations. So every police precinct and local armory would be stocked from floor to ceiling with British weaponry left behind when they departed. And don't knock the old Enfield. I recall one scenario my special forces with their AK74s were trading shots across the street with Mujahideen fighters. Their assault rife rounds were bouncing of the muji buildings but enfield hvy bullet rounds were penetrating the building wall where my Russians were hold-up. They didn't win that fight.

[Vark]

I thought they only really used the Lee Enfields as sniper weapons (the Russian's had a healthy respect for their accuracy), but Brens? Interestingly, some in the Ministry of Defence suggest a solution to the current woes for the Brits, in Afghanistan, would be 10 man sections with Brens and Lee Enfields!