Does Soviet tactics work in Combat Mission?

[A Canadian Cat]

19 hours ago, sid_burn said:

19 hours ago, SergeantSqook said:

Okay? The Abrams is a subtantially stronger tank than a T-64BV, this doesn't seem particularly strange.

Source for this claim?

 

19 hours ago, Rinaldi said:

Going to require a source on that. 

 

I'm not really a tech spec wizard but you might want to consider these numbers:

T-64BM weight is 45 tonnes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-64)

T-90SM weight is 48 tonnes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90)

M1 is 61 tonnes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams)

M1A2C Sepv3 is 73.6 tonnes

The M1 series tanks are pretty damn heavy. Yes, I am aware that weight is not protection but for protection all else equal heavier is going to be stronger. Don't forget that all else is not equal but the armour technology advantage is with the M1 not the T series. No matter how good they are, and they are, the armour technology in the T series tanks is not on par with the M1 tanks of the same era.

[Pelican Pal]

There is an interesting discussion about how much fragmentation damage should be happening to vehicles. I've tried hunting down information regarding that and its generally hard to find. The closest thing to "useful" I've been able to dig up are some STANAG PDFs. But even if you know the chance of an artillery shell pushing out a fragment large enough to cause damage to a sight, ERA block, smoke launcher, etc.... you need to contend with the chance of that fragment actually hitting.

https://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Ballistics/Term/STANAG_A231.pdf

https://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Ballistics/Term/STANAG_4569_Ed2.pdf

The oft-cited "Dumb Artillery" article's key use is providing proof that artillery fragments can do damage to armor and then showing that fragmentation in CM is not. But using it as a tool for deciding where the correct rate of damage lies isn't in its wheelhouse. Although people have been trying to use it as such.


There is an older thread by @HerrTom

That might be of interest to anyone following along

[Pelican Pal]

Actually while eyes are on this thread. I may have stumbled upon another issue while testing direct fire.

Issue
When artillery shells impact an ERA block it shows the same effect as an air burst or near miss. Damage will only be done to the tracks and no other tank systems are effected. In the attached images/file you can see an Oplot take a hit to the ERA directly adjacent to the main gun and suffer only track damage.

Test
Game: Black Sea
Artillery: 203mm 2S7M
Target: Oplot

images and saved game

https://we.tl/t-J0iGUhNcgn

https://imgur.com/a/ynY0LkL



 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

On 1/25/2022 at 1:06 AM, slysniper said:

But I did do a test in CMBS with the Latest M1 with APS and ran the precision strikes from both 122 and 152 howitzers

and found you are correct in that a direct hit is not creating a kill, normally just substantial damage.

If the strikes are not direct hits, then as reported here, there appears no subsystem damage at all except for tracks.

This matches my own experience.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

5 hours ago, IanL said:

Which is why people saying that artillery never kills tanks became uninteresting to me. I saw it happen regularly and didn't think the numbers were our of line with expectations.

I don't actually recall saying that.....I believe my exact word was 'Undermodelled'.

Which seems like a pretty good match for @The_Capt's statement above:

11 hours ago, The_Capt said:

So what I think is happening here, and we are going to follow up on, is that fragmentation and blast HE damage on external sub-systems is a little anemic.

 

[Bufo]

11 hours ago, IanL said:

I'm not really a tech spec wizard but you might want to consider these numbers:

T-64BM weight is 45 tonnes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-64)

T-90SM weight is 48 tonnes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90)

M1 is 61 tonnes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams)

M1A2C Sepv3 is 73.6 tonnes

The M1 series tanks are pretty damn heavy. Yes, I am aware that weight is not protection but for protection all else equal heavier is going to be stronger. Don't forget that all else is not equal but the armour technology advantage is with the M1 not the T series. No matter how good they are, and they are, the armour technology in the T series tanks is not on par with the M1 tanks of the same era.

The Abrams is bigger in dimensions, with the same armor it is going to be a lot heavier.

You only look on one part of the equation to prove your right.

[dbsapp]

I know what will happen: 

Finally they will change how artillery damage works.

All subsystems of T-72 and T-90 will be blown away by near hit. If there is a direct hit on Abrams some of secondary subsystems will turn little yellow. 

That will be presented as substantial progress, realism and listening to community. 

I will quote this post.

[Artkin]

I can see an abrams surviving maybe 1 hit from a direct artillery shell. But after multiple? That tank is toast. 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

3 hours ago, Artkin said:

I can see an abrams surviving maybe 1 hit from a direct artillery shell. But after multiple? That tank is toast. 

I'd imagine the crew would be a bit worse for the wear too! 

4 hours ago, Bufo said:

The Abrams is bigger in dimensions, with the same armor it is going to be a lot heavier.

You only look on one part of the equation to prove your right.

  What complete & utter drivel! 

 

Edited January 26, 2022 by Sgt.Squarehead

[A Canadian Cat]

12 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

18 hours ago, IanL said:

Which is why people saying that artillery never kills tanks became uninteresting to me. I saw it happen regularly and didn't think the numbers were our of line with expectations.

I don't actually recall saying that.....I believe my exact word was 'Undermodelled'.

Which seems like a pretty good match for @The_Capt's statement above:

On 1/25/2022 at 9:37 AM, The_Capt said:

So what I think is happening here, and we are going to follow up on, is that fragmentation and blast HE damage on external sub-systems is a little anemic.

Just to clarify - for expectation setting. @The_Capt said that fragmentation and blast damage was "a little anemic". He did not say that tanks getting KO'ed was under modelled.

[A Canadian Cat]

6 hours ago, Bufo said:

The Abrams is bigger in dimensions, with the same armor it is going to be a lot heavier.

Dimensions are a factor too. Where do you get "with the same armor" from?

6 hours ago, Bufo said:

You only look on one part of the equation to prove your right.

Like I said I am not an expert on armour protection I was just pointing out it is unlikely that the T64 or T90 would have the same or better protection than the larger M1 variants of similar era simply because it does not have as much material.

[Pelican Pal]

Before we get more into a discussion about tank armor vis-a-vis artillery shells can one of y'all check out this:
 

It would explain why tanks sometimes seem overly resistant to artillery shelling. For example, you could drop two 203mm rounds onto a tank and if both rounds hit ERA that tank is still fighting fit.



Edit: So the in thread link seems weird and instead i'll just copy paste

Issue
When artillery shells impact an ERA block it shows the same effect as an air burst or near miss. Damage will only be done to the tracks and no other tank systems are effected. In the attached images/file you can see an Oplot take a hit to the ERA directly adjacent to the main gun and suffer only track damage.

Test
Game: Black Sea
Artillery: 203mm 2S7M
Target: Oplot

images and saved game

https://we.tl/t-J0iGUhNcgn

https://imgur.com/a/ynY0LkL

Edited January 26, 2022 by Pelican Pal

[HerrTom]

IIRC there are estimates that the engine area on the M1 has about 40mm of RHAe protection. Taking a chart from my super old thread since we're talking about 15Xmm artillery:

You're not fully protected from an artillery shell landing within ~25 meters of you, but it's important to note the spread - it's super dependent on the angle the shell hits.

For a direct impact, it's a different story. In that case, fragmentation is probably one of the lesser concerns and you'd have to guess the detonation wave pressure, which will yield or fail the material depending on how high it is.

Nonetheless, it's good to finally get some traction on fragmentation after all these years!

[The_Capt]

19 hours ago, HerrTom said:

IIRC there are estimates that the engine area on the M1 has about 40mm of RHAe protection. Taking a chart from my super old thread since we're talking about 15Xmm artillery:

You're not fully protected from an artillery shell landing within ~25 meters of you, but it's important to note the spread - it's super dependent on the angle the shell hits.

For a direct impact, it's a different story. In that case, fragmentation is probably one of the lesser concerns and you'd have to guess the detonation wave pressure, which will yield or fail the material depending on how high it is.

Nonetheless, it's good to finally get some traction on fragmentation after all these years!

I am guessing here that "axial position" is above and below the round?  This would make sense with those dead zones.

Ok, back to topic, here is an outstanding example of making Soviet tactics work:

 

[HerrTom]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

I am guessing here that "axial position" is above and below the round?  This would make sense with those dead zones.

Yes. IIRC positive is towards the base of the round, negative is towards the nose.

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Ok, back to topic, here is an outstanding example of making Soviet tactics work:

That's a great video. I think it demonstrates particularly well the key principle of closing with the enemy. Advance, advance, advance and shoot as much as possible! It's served me well in scenarios though I haven't had the chance to dig into the campaign yet.

[-SIBERIANWOLF-]

didnt read all coz late to the party but damn the arty just makes no damage to tanks in this game seems buggy to me atleast the sub system part but comon in a 5-10m circle from a 155mm you should be dead from the blast wave even inside of a tank no?? (saw video of guy knocked out from 120mm morters in bunkers)  atleast your scared but in these game m60 walk right through a 155mm line arty strike ?? and no damage nothing not one mobility kill and they start kill every thing it seems like no suppression also

Edited June 9, 2022 by -SIBERIANWOLF-

[MikeyD]

On 12/25/2021 at 8:02 PM, MikeyD said:

...You look at how the Russians currently covet the Ukrainian coastline along the Sea of Azov...

Heh, I was reading this old thread and I found a post of mine I forgot i had posted from back before Christmas, 2 months before the invasion.  

[Simcoe]

50 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

Heh, I was reading this old thread and I found a post of mine I forgot i had posted from back before Christmas, 2 months before the invasion.  

Yes officer, this is the one. Take him away.

[Simcoe]

3 hours ago, -SIBERIANWOLF- said:

didnt read all coz late to the party but damn the arty just makes no damage to tanks in this game seems buggy to me atleast the sub system part but comon in a 5-10m circle from a 155mm you should be dead from the blast wave even inside of a tank no?? (saw video of guy knocked out from 120mm morters in bunkers)  atleast your scared but in these game m60 walk right through a 155mm line arty strike ?? and no damage nothing not one mobility kill and they start kill every thing it seems like no suppression also

Ya it sucks. We can whine and get no where or adapt and overcome.

[Simcoe]

Since this thread was revived and I've done some more reading I've been thinking about Soviet doctrine in relation to Combat Mission and other games depicting the Cold War.

It seems like western doctrine is an extension of Prussian doctrine when muskets were still around. Find the enemy, engage or surround them and destroy them. The enemy then sues for peace. Advancements in doctrine and technology all facilitate this strategy. I think we can see it in depictions of war through videogames as well. Combat Mission, Steel Beasts, War Thunder etc are all set piece, decisive battles where skill and technology are used to defeat your opponent. 

The Germans used this strategy in WW2 with great effect, especially in France where the French army was surrounded and defeated decisively leading to France suing for peace. Then comes the invasion of Russia. Germany had the better training and technology, defeated their opponent decisively and... nothing, the war continued. Russia won but you couldn't attribute it to training, technology or decisive battles using the former. Their decisive battles were not on the Combat Mission map but on the strategic map. Their enemies were not tigers and stugs but logistics depot's and control centers. 

This long rant leads me back to the original question of this thread "Does Soviet Tactics Work in Combat Mission". Is it fair or realistic to depict these set piece attacks against dug in forces like the Soviet campaign? From my reading, the Soviets wouldn't care about losing these battles because for every regiment destroyed in battle there would be ten more and if even one snuck past the defenses they could cause chaos in the backline and force the entire defense to shift. 

Is it fair to compare the T-62 to the M-60 or the Bradley to the BMP? It happens a lot on these forums but are they really meant to go toe to toe with their counterpart? 

Are the reckless charges of entire regiments into prepared kill zones poor tactics or can we see it a different way? If an American regiment takes a couple hours to plan an execute an attack is that not just as stupid as a Soviet regiment that uses simple drills to attack from the march with little prior planning?

Figured I would write this rant to start some discussion. Also, I do not have any sympathies for the Soviet or current Russian government. Just a history nerd.

[chuckdyke]

7 minutes ago, Simcoe said:

Figured I would write this rant to start some discussion. Also, I do not have any sympathies for the Soviet or current Russian government. Just a history nerd.

We are prone to dismiss the set piece battle concept. But it makes strategic sense. Less dependent on communications and fewer casualties. It is probe by infiltration, attack, and assault. It is how I use Soviet tactics in the WW2 games. When they were defending, they were sitting ducks. Once they grabbed the initiative it was game over. Combat losses with the Germans 1944-45 were still terrible but not on the same level as the Blitzkrieg years. 

[Simcoe]

1 hour ago, chuckdyke said:

We are prone to dismiss the set piece battle concept. But it makes strategic sense. Less dependent on communications and fewer casualties. It is probe by infiltration, attack, and assault. It is how I use Soviet tactics in the WW2 games. When they were defending, they were sitting ducks. Once they grabbed the initiative it was game over. Combat losses with the Germans 1944-45 were still terrible but not on the same level as the Blitzkrieg years. 

Are you talking about Soviet attacks involving a massive bombardment followed by a massed assault?

To your comment about defending. I think that is what I’m trying to get at. The Russians SHOULD lose in a well balanced battle where all your units arrived on time and are ready to fight. This is what Combat Mission depicts. But what about those battles where a Soviet tank company broke through where the Germans didn’t expect and caught the battalion HQ by surprise. I think those were the battles the Soviets wanted. 
 

That wouldn’t be a very exciting game of Combat Mission or Steel Beasts or War Thunder.

Edited June 11, 2022 by Simcoe

[chuckdyke]

1 hour ago, Simcoe said:

assault?

Assault is the conclusion of an attack against prior identified units. My sequence in the game is. Probe (finding enemy units) Attack (establishing full contacts goal to achieve fire superiority) Assault (destroying enemy units seizing objectives). To dismiss a set piece battle as using unit's ad hoc is just not true. You need 3:1 in superiority to succeed and have acceptable losses. Modern warfare is different Norman Schwarzkopf summed it up. "One body bag is one too many." The Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces is always one election away to lose his position. Reason the Vietnam War was lost. It was Nixon's election promise to end the war. 

[domfluff]

I do think there's some confusion of ideas in here, but I don't think that's unusual for wargaming in general, especially when it comes to conflating scope and scale.
 

Quote

Since this thread was revived and I've done some more reading I've been thinking about Soviet doctrine in relation to Combat Mission and other games depicting the Cold War.

Thinking is good.

Quote

It seems like western doctrine is an extension of Prussian doctrine when muskets were still around.

What.

Quote

Find the enemy, engage or surround them and destroy them. The enemy then sues for peace. Advancements in doctrine and technology all facilitate this strategy.

Okay, Clausewitz is an important work on military thinking, but this, like many things that quote Clausewitz, confuse scale significantly. I don't know how you "sue for peace" on a CM battlefield, really.

Quote

I think we can see it in depictions of war through videogames as well. Combat Mission, Steel Beasts, War Thunder etc are all set piece, decisive battles where skill and technology are used to defeat your opponent.

Wargaming has a focus on the decisive battle. Especially with CM, you're only ever seeing the sharp end. You're not necessarily seeing the main part, mind you. That's definitely a good point to bear in mind.
 

Quote

The Germans used this strategy in WW2 with great effect, especially in France where the French army was surrounded and defeated decisively leading to France suing for peace. Then comes the invasion of Russia. Germany had the better training and technology, defeated their opponent decisively and... nothing, the war continued. Russia won but you couldn't attribute it to training, technology or decisive battles using the former. Their decisive battles were not on the Combat Mission map but on the strategic map. Their enemies were not tigers and stugs but logistics depot's and control centers.

Uh... sort of. CM's focus is the tactical level, and that's the kind of questions it can ask and answer. Focus is a good thing, because it means you can answer one thing well, not a ton of things badly. It does mean you're not so concerned with stuff outside of your remit.
 

Quote

This long rant leads me back to the original question of this thread "Does Soviet Tactics Work in Combat Mission". Is it fair or realistic to depict these set piece attacks against dug in forces like the Soviet campaign? 

It's not only realistic, it's vitally important.

Quote

From my reading, the Soviets wouldn't care about losing these battles because for every regiment destroyed in battle there would be ten more and if even one snuck past the defenses they could cause chaos in the backline and force the entire defense to shift.

"The Soviets" may or may not have cared, but the chap in charge of the regiment certainly would, as well as the people fighting. It turns out that Russians are also people, and a CM-scale game is concerned with people above all else.

There are also broader points here about the extent to which numbers actually matter - it's been very common to have ratio-based CRTs in wargaming, but it's not actually clear how important that is.
 

Quote

Is it fair to compare the T-62 to the M-60 or the Bradley to the BMP? It happens a lot on these forums but are they really meant to go toe to toe with their counterpart?

"Why do people compare BMP-1 and M60?" - playing Top Trumps is absolutely not useful in the broad scheme of things, but the two also have to engage. If you're looking at it in terms of "which tank is the best", then that's never going to end well, but it's no different from saying "Well, if the Sherman and the Tiger were on a flat field, and they don't see each other until 200m., and there's no air cover, and..."

"Fair" is irrelevant, and playing Top Trumps with AFVs is useless. Comparing capabilities can be a lot more fruitful, but you need to consider a level or two higher than "my tank has a really large gun". It's very useful to know that both the ATGM and the 73mm HEAT round of the BMP-1 can penetrate an M60 from all aspects, since engagements will likely happen, but "which tank is best" is not useful.

Quote

Are the reckless charges of entire regiments into prepared kill zones poor tactics

Soviet doctrine is not, and has never been, about reckless charges into prepared kill zones. The whole reason for the CRP/FSE/main body march sequence is to avoid precisely this - attacking off the march trades risk for tempo, and correct movement techniques reduce risk.

You're still accepting risk - you are launching an offensive operation after all, and that's inherently risky - but you're going out of your way to minimise that risk as much as possible, whilst working within the bounds of a scheme which you believe offers you the best chance of actually achieving victory.

 

Quote

or can we see it a different way? If an American regiment takes a couple hours to plan an execute an attack is that not just as stupid as a Soviet regiment that uses simple drills to attack from the march with little prior planning?

Attacks from the march would have been the most common, and typically the first engagements, because the emphasis was on speed. The Clausewitzian approach to war described above more accurately describes the Warsaw Pact approach than anything Western. There's a good argument to be made that the "bypass and force a capitulation" concept isn't terribly plausible in reality, outside of the 19th century context. There are a number of reasons for that, I suspect, but that's pushing the scope of this.

Prepared Soviet attacks would be something that would come later, especially if the attack from the march failed, or couldn't make progress otherwise. Maintaining tempo is the important thing.

Edited June 11, 2022 by domfluff

[Simcoe]

9 hours ago, domfluff said:

I do think there's some confusion of ideas in here, but I don't think that's unusual for wargaming in general, especially when it comes to conflating scope and scale.
 

Thinking is good.

What.

Okay, Clausewitz is an important work on military thinking, but this, like many things that quote Clausewitz, confuse scale significantly. I don't know how you "sue for peace" on a CM battlefield, really.

Wargaming has a focus on the decisive battle. Especially with CM, you're only ever seeing the sharp end. You're not necessarily seeing the main part, mind you. That's definitely a good point to bear in mind.
 

Uh... sort of. CM's focus is the tactical level, and that's the kind of questions it can ask and answer. Focus is a good thing, because it means you can answer one thing well, not a ton of things badly. It does mean you're not so concerned with stuff outside of your remit.
 

It's not only realistic, it's vitally important.

"The Soviets" may or may not have cared, but the chap in charge of the regiment certainly would, as well as the people fighting. It turns out that Russians are also people, and a CM-scale game is concerned with people above all else.

There are also broader points here about the extent to which numbers actually matter - it's been very common to have ratio-based CRTs in wargaming, but it's not actually clear how important that is.
 

"Why do people compare BMP-1 and M60?" - playing Top Trumps is absolutely not useful in the broad scheme of things, but the two also have to engage. If you're looking at it in terms of "which tank is the best", then that's never going to end well, but it's no different from saying "Well, if the Sherman and the Tiger were on a flat field, and they don't see each other until 200m., and there's no air cover, and..."

"Fair" is irrelevant, and playing Top Trumps with AFVs is useless. Comparing capabilities can be a lot more fruitful, but you need to consider a level or two higher than "my tank has a really large gun". It's very useful to know that both the ATGM and the 73mm HEAT round of the BMP-1 can penetrate an M60 from all aspects, since engagements will likely happen, but "which tank is best" is not useful.

Soviet doctrine is not, and has never been, about reckless charges into prepared kill zones. The whole reason for the CRP/FSE/main body march sequence is to avoid precisely this - attacking off the march trades risk for tempo, and correct movement techniques reduce risk.

You're still accepting risk - you are launching an offensive operation after all, and that's inherently risky - but you're going out of your way to minimise that risk as much as possible, whilst working within the bounds of a scheme which you believe offers you the best chance of actually achieving victory.

 

Attacks from the march would have been the most common, and typically the first engagements, because the emphasis was on speed. The Clausewitzian approach to war described above more accurately describes the Warsaw Pact approach than anything Western. There's a good argument to be made that the "bypass and force a capitulation" concept isn't terribly plausible in reality, outside of the 19th century context. There are a number of reasons for that, I suspect, but that's pushing the scope of this.

Prepared Soviet attacks would be something that would come later, especially if the attack from the march failed, or couldn't make progress otherwise. Maintaining tempo is the important thing.

Thank you, I always appreciate your responses. What I hoped to get across with my rambling was:

Soviet doctrine focused on simple well rehearsed drills to keep high momentum tactically and operationally. Their focus was not on defeating their opponents man to man but using numbers and momentum to catch combat units off guard and overrun command and control. 

Have videogames portrayed this accurately on the tactical level? 

Are people having issues with the Soviets because the type of engagements Combat Mission depicts does not emphasize their strengths?

I think the Soviet campaign in Combat Mission did a great job of showing the difficulties of attacking prepared positions as the Soviets. Would it be possible to make a Combat Mission campaign following a unit that DID make the breakthrough I described? Would it be any fun? I'm not sure if destroying backline supply depots and artillery would be very exciting.

Am I wrong? Did the Soviets think they could fight "toe to toe" and win each engagment?

Feel free to ignore my rambling but I thought it would be a fun subject to discuss.