Does Soviet tactics work in Combat Mission?

[chuckdyke]

3 minutes ago, Grigb said:

But in reality you are redaboo with little knowledge about Red Army.

You don't know me, nor do you know my family. All your trolling makes you look ridiculous. The topic is Does Soviet Tactics work in Combat Mission. For WW2 they do. 

 

Edited June 14, 2022 by chuckdyke

[Grigb]

2 minutes ago, George MC said:

Yeah.... No.

Don't confuse the current war in Ukraine with the Red Army in the SWW.

Quote from report by The head of the Operational Department of the 33rd Army Staff, Colonel Tolkonyuk Illarion Avksentievich about 33 Army battles during 43-44 Winter.

Quote

 

As a result of heavy and prolonged fighting, accompanied by heavy losses, the army had an advance from 2 to 13 km into the depth of the enemy's defense, and in some operations it had no advance at all...

Given the large amount of effort and money spent and completely insignificant successes at the same time, many of us are oppressed by failures, some are rushing, "tearing their hair", nervous and worried, not getting satisfaction in battle, with chagrin and disappointment curse the situation that has developed on our part of the front, often using the fatal word "bad luck".

What are the main reasons for the failures that led to the disruption of well-conceived operations and to large losses in manpower and equipment and the desired results...

2) Shortcomings in the planning, preparation and conduct of operations...

The troops were brought into battle with undeveloped and untrained reinforcements making up the bulk of the combat units. The officers took the units on the move and went into battle with him, not knowing the people subordinate to him, who also did not know their officers.
The divisions entered the battle semi-armed: they had few automatic weapons, each division had from 16 to 30 machine guns, there was one magazine for manual machine guns and submachine guns.
If we take into account that most of the fighters were armed with rifles and this, and already a small amount of automation, people owned poorly, then it becomes clear that the firepower of the division was extremely low...

Untrained units and officers did not undertake any maneuvers on the battlefield, but lay down under enemy fire and allowed themselves to be exterminated, thereby destroying the enemy, who got satisfaction by shooting our lying infantry with impunity, which, to all that, did not even have shovels for digging in. In one or two days of battle, the advancing division lost almost all of its infantry and did not achieve results. There were 10-15 infantry left in the regiments, and the high chiefs all demanded an offensive and were looking forward to the results. The losses in manpower were mainly from the enemy's mortar fire. This is confirmed by the fact that from the total number of wounded, shrapnel wounds account for 70 to 90%...

4) The practical preparation of the upcoming operations was carried out very clumsily, in full view of the enemy: a few days before the start of the operation, troops intended for a breakthrough were put on the front line (at the breakthrough site), and then, within a few days, material resources were accumulated. It would be necessary to do just the opposite: first accumulate material resources, reconnoiter the enemy's defenses, reconnoiter the enemy's defenses, put artillery in position and prepare, and bring the troops to their starting position no earlier than a day before the attack. This is one of the important guarantees of surprise.
It would be possible to cite a lot of facts confirming the above provisions, but I believe that it is not advisable to do this in this letter.

 

Sounds familiar? Change few words and you will fool people into believing it is written about current war.

 

[Grigb]

2 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

You don't know me, nor do you know my family. All your trolling makes you look ridiculous. 

Except I am quoting facts and you don't. All you do is posting unrelated photos and primitive trolling comments without substance.

Tell me what was the official AT gun of Soviet infantry division until about 45? 

[chuckdyke]

4 minutes ago, Grigb said:

Tell me what was the official AT gun of Soviet infantry division until about 45? 

Stay on topic. Do they work(Soviet Tactics) and if they do not substantiate it. 

[Grigb]

10 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

The topic is Does Soviet Tactics work in Combat Mission. For WW2 they do. 

 

You do realize that this is game have to idealize forces otherwise it would be unplayable?

Remove AP rounds from 76mm guns, adjust small arms ammo and leadership modifiers according to provided report and try to defend against German panzer attack. Then come back and report.

[Grigb]

1 minute ago, chuckdyke said:

Stay on topic.

So, your panther photo was on topic but my question about your knowledge of Red Army is not. Still your lack of knowledge is duly noted. 

1 minute ago, chuckdyke said:

Do they work(Soviet Tactics) and if they do not substantiate it. 

They do not mostly work because Soviet made mistake analyzing WW2. Based on that analysis they believed that massed mechanized attack under massed artillery barrage will allow them to quickly penetrate AT defenses.

They underestimated AT defenses both in WW2 and Cold War. Also they overestimated their artillery ability to suppress AT defenses.

We know it for sure because Soviets put it to test with Syrians against modest Israel AT defenses and it failed spectacularly. 

[chuckdyke]

3 minutes ago, Grigb said:

You do realize that this is game have to idealize forces otherwise it would be unplayable?

Idealized is the Sherman. A Panther requires 4 shots at 800 meters before it scores a hit. The Sherman has a far higher first hit probability hit. To defend against a German attack requires a human player. Let the AI play out its trigger and it is a sitting duck. The Germans liked the 76 mm Soviet field gun too. A compliment if your enemy likes it. The strategy of the Red Army was that of attrition the same they use in the Ukraine. No way I condone their invasion, but attrition works. Attrition in the west is a dirty word, but not in other cultures.  

[chuckdyke]

3 minutes ago, Grigb said:

Still your lack of knowledge is duly noted. 

I got you down as a subjective thinker, not fit to waste my time on. 

[Grigb]

8 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

The Germans liked the 76 mm Soviet field gun too. A compliment if your enemy likes it. 

As a quick expedient to give their infantry assault gun capable threaten some tanks, yes. As dedicated AT weapon against armored attacks, No. They had better guns.  

15 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

 The strategy of the Red Army was that of attrition the same they use in the Ukraine. No way I condone their invasion, but attrition works. Attrition in the west is a dirty word, but not in other cultures.  

It is a dirty word in Russia as well. It is just everything else they try usually does not work due to sheer political and military incompetence and at the end they fall back to simplest one - throw everything and kitchen sink at enemy and hope it sticks. 

By beginning 44 SU faced grim outlook due to their inability to deal with German panzer reserves. But fortunately, by 44 Germans had inadequate panzer reserves (and abysmal Luft forces) on Eastern front due to Allied pressure (check Panzerlage 15.6.44). 

It is not Attrition Strategy. It is Rely-on-Allies-to-distract-enougth-Germans-to-beat-them strategy. This strategy indeed worked.   

[Grigb]

40 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

I got you down as a subjective thinker, not fit to waste my time on. 

But you wasted my time with your irrelevant photo, with your lack of relevant knowledge and with your ignorant baseless opinion. 

[chuckdyke]

11 minutes ago, Grigb said:

This strategy indeed worked.   

They lost something like 250000 men for the battle for Berlin. Politically they made life miserable for Eastern Europe for the next generation. Sad but true Europe imploded in the 20th century, it started in 1914 and ended in 1991. Here we go again empire building. This is my ignorant and baseless opinion. What really helped the Soviet Union in WW2 380,000 field telephones and 956,000 miles of telephone cable. 35000 radio stations but here as a rule they discuss tanks, cannons, and airplanes. Studebaker trucks enabled the logistics 200,000 of them. In the game field telephones are not even modelled, a sapper platoon with no radio can call in artillery. I just play it with some house rules. 

Edited June 14, 2022 by chuckdyke

[Grigb]

Just now, chuckdyke said:

They lost something like 250000 men for the battle for Berlin. 

Never said strategy to rely on Allies to distract enough Germans is not costly. It is just a different strategy from Attrition. 

Just now, chuckdyke said:

Politically they made life miserable for Eastern Europe for the next generation.

 You forgot Asian catastrophes + Africa and Latin America suffering.

Just now, chuckdyke said:

Sad but true Europe imploded in the 20th century, it started in 1914 and ended in 1991. Here we go again empire building. 

It will continue until the West learns the lesson that you do not live with the evil. You crush it the first suitable opportunity. Otherwise it will grow and attempt to crash you.

West could crash Russia in 90s with little to no problems. West could crash Russia in 14 with some problems. West still can crash Russia at considerable cost to itself. We will see whether the West will do right thing or it will decide to wait till Russia brings nukes to the party.

There are two friends Russia hopes to bring to a party - Army and Nukes. Army will not be able to attend the next one. That leaves Russia with the only choice...

[chuckdyke]

2 minutes ago, Grigb said:

Asian catastrophes + Africa and Latin America suffering.

Which part of Asia? South Korea infrastructure in Seoul at least on par with San Diego and San Francisco. Public transport is far better in South Korea. ASEAN countries are clean and have an educated population. Vietnam now you hardly notice it is a communist country. Not much different compared to Indonesia or the Philippines. I will just give the information about the countries I have visited in the last 20 years. 

[Grigb]

10 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Which part of Asia?... I will just give the information about the countries I have visited in the last 20 years. 

Start with China. Tell me about Yugurs. Proceed to NK and finish with Taiwan and other countries having to contend now with ChinaBear.

[chuckdyke]

8 minutes ago, Grigb said:

Start with China.

I have only been in Hong Kong when it was still under British administration. I have never been to the Chinese mainland so I can't give my opinion. Better stay on topic about Soviet tactics in Combat Mission. I play only WW2 not BS for the time being. Mountains of the Moon and Red Dawn are typical for me Soviet set piece attacks IMO. 

Edited June 14, 2022 by chuckdyke

[Grigb]

1 minute ago, chuckdyke said:

I have only been in Hong Kong when it was still under British administration. I have never been to the Chinese mainland so I can't give my opinion. 

I have not visited China as well. But I have a close friend who made business trip to HK like 10 years ago. He was happy European who seems to be faced totalitarian regime for a first time. After the trip for a couple of days he was smoking constantly and tried to tell me about the horror of forced abortions. 

Poor guy. Never heard about forced famine when parents were forced to feed their families with their kids.

[chuckdyke]

1 minute ago, Grigb said:

forced abortions. 

Tom Clancy wrote in one of his books. if you regard forced abortions in their 8 months as murder, then China killed more Chinese than Hitler killed Jews. Still its economy forces the world to do business with them. Very similar with 19 century Great Britain. People being forced to the colonies for stealing food and flooding the world markets with cheap products. The days that you could claim territories by planting your flag are over. We just need to tell the rest of the world that.  

[dkchapuis]

On 6/12/2022 at 1:39 PM, domfluff said:

if we tentatively assume a direct line connecting all of the above, it's not impossible that a bespectacled British academic prevented an all-out nuclear war.

My new angle for why I need to spend more time wargaming!!
 

More war games equals less war. 

[Rinaldi]

[Eeee]

What a wonderful conversation we're having here

[chuckdyke]

5 hours ago, Eeee said:

What a wonderful conversation we're having here

The topic is do Soviet tactics work in Combat Mission? In regards of WW2, I think they do read the scenarios carefully in regards objectives and parameters. The overall strategy is attrition. 

[THH149]

Its a Cold War discussion board, can we discuss the Cold War and soviet tactics therein?

 

[THH149]

Here's some data to help reset the convo....

The Soviets plan to achieve certain density nonns
for artillery, depending on the tactical situation. In the
penetration of well-prepared enemy defenses, for
example, high numbers of tubes per kilometer of
frontage are desirable, even under nuclear-threatened
conditions. However, modern artillery and methods
of fIre control will allow lower densities than
those which were considered standard during World
War II.
Some average guidelines for desired densities are•
Attack of a well-prepared defense, in the direction
of a main attack: 60 to 100 tubes per kilometer of
frontage.
• Attack on a hasty defense in the direction of a main
attack: 60 to 80 tubes per kilometer of frontage.
• Attack on a supporting axis: 40 tubes per kilometer
of frontage.
These densities include all calibers of guns,
howitzers, and mortars. Densities computed in
number of tubes may increase by 50 to 75 percent
when multiple rocket launchers are included
Based on the fIre plan, artillery is deployed to
provide preparatory fIres and the initial fIre support of
the attack. The fIgure below provides tactical deployment
guidelines for Soviet artillery.

Source: FM 100-2-1 Soviet Army and Tactics page 9-21

[THH149]

So, essentially, the Soviets plan for some serious artillery fires. In the CM world some things seem to be truncated - access to artillery pre attack is limited for instance. So CM is a reasonable but not a perfect analog of the real world.

To make CMCW a little more realistic a player in a QB could spend more on artillery than they think is 'fun' so better emulate Soviet approach, eg a 1/3rd at least on artie, its cheap and plentiful. Some of the scenario's aren't great at CW soviet tactics, they limit the degree of artie. The pic below is perhaps extreme (IDK but its from the relevant US FM, but shows an artillery battalion taking on a platoon.

A counterpoint is would US tactics work in the attack in CW? Given the defenders advantages and unreliance on artie, I'd be surprised if they did!

Anyway, the lack of perceived success with the "Active Defense" doctrine (limited to the universe of the immediate battlefield itself) led to the Air Land Battle doctrine which expanded the battlefied to include the logisitcs train of the Soviets as the place where the US could win. But then long range fires is not the monopoly of the US either.

[Halmbarte]

1 hour ago, THH149 said:

So, essentially, the Soviets plan for some serious artillery fires. In the CM world some things seem to be truncated - access to artillery pre attack is limited for instance. So CM is a reasonable but not a perfect analog of the real world.

To make CMCW a little more realistic a player in a QB could spend more on artillery than they think is 'fun' so better emulate Soviet approach, eg a 1/3rd at least on artie, its cheap and plentiful. Some of the scenario's aren't great at CW soviet tactics, they limit the degree of artie. The pic below is perhaps extreme (IDK but its from the relevant US FM, but shows an artillery battalion taking on a platoon.

A counterpoint is would US tactics work in the attack in CW? Given the defenders advantages and unreliance on artie, I'd be surprised if they did!

Anyway, the lack of perceived success with the "Active Defense" doctrine (limited to the universe of the immediate battlefield itself) led to the Air Land Battle doctrine which expanded the battlefied to include the logisitcs train of the Soviets as the place where the US could win. But then long range fires is not the monopoly of the US either.

Depending on what exactly is meant for 'defensive position or emplacement' that's not an insane tasking. If the defenders are entrenched with overhead cover and with bunkers dug in for supporting weapons and armor the artillery will need to be concentrated to get good suppression on the defenders so the attack can go in. 

I know we don't get overhead cover and good bunkers in CMCW but...

H