!983 British training film on fighting the Soviet MRR Advance Guard

[John Kettler]

Let the clamor for the British begin in earnest! This is an excellent,(and mercifully good res) British Army training film which shows, in impressive form, and on FRG terrain (I think), what life will be like on the sharp end when a Soviet MRR decides to drop in for a visit. The Soviet gear, and there's lots of it (possibly from Israel), is a real treat to watch in action, and it's supplemented by Soviet combat exercise footage. But let me tell you, a zillion directors would kill to have the FX in this film that's the result of live fire and believable visuals (no tanks or other AFVs exploding, though). The terrain is most interesting, and it's fascinating to see how much concealment the foliage provides, whether to hide under, in, or be festooned by. Target acquisition wouldn't be easy given this. Naturally, it's a treat to see the British in action, so much so I expect many will start baying for the BAOR, so to speak.

If there's any informational weakness per se, the chief one in my view is the failure to define and describe the point of the CRP (1 x BRDM-2 and 2 x MG armed motorcycle with sidecar), as well as the recon screens paralleling the Advance Guard. Do the Soviets in CMCW have MG jeep type vehicles as awkward (larger and taller) substitutes for the motorcycle recon troops? And while the RPG-7 is shown and the AGS-17 mentioned, the former, which provides critical squad firepower, isn't described, and the AGS-17 isn't shown at all, still less gone into ref the deeply disturbing capabilities it has. This all said, it's still at least a B+ overall grade for this training film. Believe it makes US equivalents look anemic by comparison, and I'm American.

If you believe someone who commanded both a Soviet BTR-60 based MRC and later, a T-55 TK CO, the best troops in any given Soviet formation will be in the first subunit and then within it, too, at successively lower levels. The commander's reserve will be from part of that first unit, for it is with this that he will ram home an attack or offer die hard resistance if counterattacked. To me, this offers some intriguing possibilities for scenario building, since this is not just great chrome but a real tactical consideration for the Soviet player. All units of a given type and size are NOT the same in combat effectiveness or combat stability, greatly complicating conducting the battle. 
 

Regards,

John Kettler 

Edited November 20, 2021 by John Kettler

[Simcoe]

Bookmarked! This is so good! Thanks for sharing.

[Halmbarte]

I want BOAR for all the cool OG heavy metal they bring. Germans would be my 2nd choice for the next module. 

 

H

[Codreanu]

I don't know much about the BAOR but they seem like they might be in the most precarious position in 1979-1982. They just barely miss out on getting the Challenger 1 and the Chieftain with Stillbrew, and I'm not even sure if it's late enough for them to get APFSDS rounds for them, I can only find evidence of L23A1 entering service in late 1984. Maybe a slight timeline extension would be in order? Unless the Brits have some special tricks up their sleeve I'm not aware of.

Edited November 20, 2021 by Codreanu

[Halmbarte]

1 hour ago, Codreanu said:

I don't know much about the BAOR but they seem like they might be in the most precarious position in 1979-1982. They just barely miss out on getting the Challenger 1 and the Chieftain with Stillbrew, and I'm not even sure if it's late enough for them to get APFSDS rounds for them, I can only find evidence of L23A1 entering service in late 1984. Maybe a slight timeline extension would be in order? Unless the Brits have some special tricks up their sleeve I'm not aware of.

(It's the tea)...

 

H

[John Kettler]

6 hours ago, Halmbarte said:

(It's the tea)...

 

H

Ha! Well played!

Regards,

John Kettler

[THH149]

The vid shows the Soviets dismounting from the BTRs under fire, which seems wrong to me.

 

[chuckdyke]

This was a subjective analysis we will never know what would have happened for real. The Soviets anticipated a Barbarossa style of campaign from the West. It would have escalated very quickly to go nuclear.  

[Halmbarte]

2 hours ago, THH149 said:

The vid shows the Soviets dismounting from the BTRs under fire, which seems wrong to me.

 

Being in a BTR that's being shot at is wrong. That armor will keep out toddlers with pointy sticks and that's about it. 

 

If I were being shot at in a BTR jumping from the frying pan full of ammo and fuel to the fire of being unprotected from bullets doesn't sound so bad. 

 

H

[THH149]

The fellas in the BTRs should've dismounted further back when doing their attack. The BTRs in the attack dont dismount that close, after all its not a surprise that the Brits are there. 

Even the BTRs in the patrol group shouldve dismounted before they got to look over the ridge and check what's on the other side of the valley.

The dismounting isnt wrong its the place where they do it is wrong.

THH

 

[Halmbarte]

2 minutes ago, THH149 said:

The fellas in the BTRs should've dismounted further back when doing their attack. The BTRs in the attack dont dismount that close, after all its not a surprise that the Brits are there. 

Even the BTRs in the patrol group shouldve dismounted before they got to look over the ridge and check what's on the other side of the valley.

The dismounting isnt wrong its the place where they do it is wrong.

THH

 

That was kinda a point of the video. Using western tactics the dismounts should have got out earlier and did a foot recon. But that costs time and momentum. The Soviet technique is more to dismount only when you'd take excessive casualties if you stayed mounted or if the place you need to get to isn't accessible by vehicle, like the other side of the minefield in the video. 

 

H

[chuckdyke]

This is a training movie of the British army to motivate their units that they are better trained. The tactic here is on the same level of putting your helmet on top of the barrel of your weapon. By shaking it you hope that an enemy marksman gives his position away. Basically the Soviets in this movie do the same with their rec-platoon. 

[THH149]

I understand the sentiment of what you'all are saying the Russian's are trying to do, but when its applied in practice it defeats its purpose, and I dont know that the Russian approach is based on actual evidence or their small unit TTP. It feels like they'll churn thru combat power regularly just to replace their CRP losses, which doesnt seem right. Even in a CMCW game I wouldn't expect an opponent to do that eg Czechmate or Valley of Ashes.

No one actually wants to just drive down the road until they get blown up -  as Patton once said to his recon troops - but their doctrine must be made to work. I would think an earlier dismount of the scout squad to check out the hiilsides and defences, are they assessed as being weak, then formulate a plan and cut thru them.  And of course the Russian's are aiming for 30km a day, which is about an hours driving, so the real time wasting is the finding and weasling through gaps by combat elements that is only done by living ppl not dead ones.

I think Chuck is right the vid aims to give the Brits a bit of courage, though the vid is not completely wrong either and is super interesting.

best

THH

 

[chuckdyke]

2 minutes ago, THH149 said:

No one actually wants to just drive down the road until they get blown up

It is basically what happened at Omaha Beach or going over the top in WW1. The more I play this game the more I come to realize it is a tactic which works. XXX Corps during the Market Garden Campaign did the same. Keep moving till you receive fire, attrition is the Queen make sure every unit you lose will be avenged two-fold. 

[Halmbarte]

1 hour ago, chuckdyke said:

It is basically what happened at Omaha Beach or going over the top in WW1. The more I play this game the more I come to realize it is a tactic which works. XXX Corps during the Market Garden Campaign did the same. Keep moving till you receive fire, attrition is the Queen make sure every unit you lose will be avenged two-fold. 

Keep moving till you receive fire AKA the PMD method has the advantages that it's simple, it maintains tempo, and it works if you know that you have another echelon behind you to capitalize on your success. 

 

Germany is a big place and they can't cover every approach in strength. A fast recon that maintains the advance and finds the gaps by surviving pulls the following echelons behind it. 

 

Playing as the Americans with Cav troops in '79 it's completely different. Tanks cover, M113s bound forward to cover, recon troops dismount and probe forwards. It's a method that causes less casualties and the inferior American tanks can't take 'surprises' like a T64 can. 

 

H

[THH149]

I reckon the fun thing is to try it and see what happens and best applied in a campaign where losses aren't replenished.

I completely agree both approaches have merit, just not sure how aggessively both doctrines were applied in practice. Especially hard to know from a Soviet perspective without primary sources, as opposed to propoganda.

Best

THH

[chuckdyke]

4 minutes ago, THH149 said:

in a campaign

You need to consider the quality of your troops. To breach you can use brute force or a Trojan Horse. Or a combination. Dismount your APC and let the vehicle advance with only the driver with a -2. This is a Trojan Horse in reverse but it has the same idea. 

[Hacketäuer]

Interesting film.

The BTR could also bei dismounted through both sides. Somewhat cramped between the tires is a small door. And I assume the backdoors were also an option. Kind of odd they got that wrong in the video. 

[Halmbarte]

7 hours ago, Hacketäuer said:

Interesting film.

The BTR could also bei dismounted through both sides. Somewhat cramped between the tires is a small door. And I assume the backdoors were also an option. Kind of odd they got that wrong in the video. 

They may have got it exactly right in the video. The earlier BTRs didn't have the side doors. 

 

https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/btr-80.html

Quote

The BTR-80 is an amphibious armoured personnel carrier, and is the successor to the BTR-70 and BTR-60 designs. Its inception was closely connected to the events unfolding in Afghanistan at the time, but the design of the vehicle had minimal innovation. The BTR-80 follows the traditional BTR layout; three sections of the vehicle, divided into the driver and commander's section at the front, passengers' and gunner's section in the middle, and the compartmentalized powerplant section at the rear. All the vehicle's occupants share a common space within the vehicle, and exit via side doors - a huge improvement over the side hatches of the BTR-70.

 

H

[Aragorn2002]

Great stuff, John. Very enjoyable. Thanks for sharing that.

[Hacketäuer]

3 hours ago, Halmbarte said:

They may have got it exactly right in the video. The earlier BTRs didn't have the side doors. 

 

https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/btr-80.html

 

H

You are correct. Wikipedia says it too:

"Because of the engine placement (in the rear of the vehicle), transported infantry must mount and dismount through the sides in the BTR-60P or through the roof hatches in the roofed BTR-60PA, BTR-60PB, and BTR-60PZ variants."

[EvilTwinn]

Not sure if this is the place for it, but I do hope the Swingfire missiles get the NLOS launcher capability with a dismount aiming team. Not sure if you can do that in engine, but it'd really give the British a very needed capability to try and gain parity in the dog days of the early 80s. 

[Halmbarte]

1 hour ago, EvilTwinn said:

Not sure if this is the place for it, but I do hope the Swingfire missiles get the NLOS launcher capability with a dismount aiming team. Not sure if you can do that in engine, but it'd really give the British a very needed capability to try and gain parity in the dog days of the early 80s. 

I’m hopeful but doubtful. The Milan and Sagger should be able to be dismounted from their IFVs but they never have been. 
 

The Germans in Shock Force get shortchanged on their long range AT fire power because of this. 
 

H

[EvilTwinn]

5 hours ago, Halmbarte said:

I’m hopeful but doubtful. The Milan and Sagger should be able to be dismounted from their IFVs but they never have been. 
 

The Germans in Shock Force get shortchanged on their long range AT fire power because of this. 
 

H

And indeed the M150 and M901 in CW should have a dismountable TOW tripod and sighting system to be used as necessary, but unfortunately the only vehicle with a dismountable ATGM is the TOW jeep, to my knowledge.

[THH149]

1 hour ago, EvilTwinn said:

the only vehicle with a dismountable ATGM is the TOW jeep,

At least this proves it can be done, so its BFC holding this back rather than the technology/software.

But of course the teams needs testing,  purchase points and listed in QB etc etc so a small thing becomes a bigger job.