Does Soviet tactics work in Combat Mission?

[Simcoe]

34 minutes ago, dbsapp said:

It's a matter of luck indeed.

I wonder how you managed to adjust artillery fire so fast. Usually it takes about 6-10 minutes+plus the time to get your spotter into position+time to spot target+and finally time to kill the target by the falling rounds. 

Considering that the first reinforcement wave shows up in 10 minutes you have to push your fortunes to the extreme.

The key is to order a pre planned strike in the setup phase, then adjust it once you spot a target. It takes way less time to adjust than calling one in after the set up phase.

You're experience will vary. I play on Veteran because I feel that artillery is too slow on Elite compared to how sped up the game is compared to real life. If you're playing on Elire you wouldn't be able to adjust artillery more than once before the 10 minute mark. Adjustment in Veteran is 3 minutes compared to I assume 6 on Elite.

[dbsapp]

1 minute ago, Simcoe said:

Adjustment in Veteran is 3 minutes compared to I assume 6 on Elite.

Oh, that makes sense now.

The drawback of faster call times is they are also faster for the enemy. 

[Bufo]

12 minutes ago, dbsapp said:

Oh, that makes sense now.

The drawback of faster call times is they are also faster for the enemy. 

Yeah, basic is actually the hardest difficulty.

[Simcoe]

1 hour ago, dbsapp said:

Oh, that makes sense now.

The drawback of faster call times is they are also faster for the enemy. 

That's what I like about veteran. The battlefield is way more dynamic. If you read memoirs of WW2, artillery was a huge part of the battlefield. As soon as small arms fire picked up you could guarantee some artillery/mortars were incoming.

[dbsapp]

1 hour ago, Simcoe said:

That's what I like about veteran. The battlefield is way more dynamic. If you read memoirs of WW2, artillery was a huge part of the battlefield. As soon as small arms fire picked up you could guarantee some artillery/mortars were incoming.

Well, the Manual says "Veteran is a fair balance between realism and fun that does not burden the player with unnecessary details or long waiting times"

[Simcoe]

8 minutes ago, dbsapp said:

Well, the Manual says "Veteran is a fair balance between realism and fun that does not burden the player with unnecessary details or long waiting times"

I would argue that veteran has MORE realistic call in times but to each their own. Have you had any more luck with the campaign?

[dbsapp]

10 hours ago, Simcoe said:

I would argue that veteran has MORE realistic call in times but to each their own. Have you had any more luck with the campaign?

That's a complicated question I completed it about half a year ago, but I can't say that I had any luck with it. 

[Lethaface]

Recently completed a PBEM in which I was playing Soviets against USA, with an interesting force mix (1979, no T-64s).

Can't say too much about the details yet because it's part of a tournament and some matches still ongoing, but imo it certainly showed me what tactics can work for the USSR if you have some decent numbers.

Anyway I tried to mix some of the things I picked up in the USSR tutorials (and earlier reading) in my game. Worked quite well, although I adapted some things to the situation and my own preference/ideas.

Anyway keeping up the pressure all the time while closing the distance moving from position to position in force, committing all forces together as much as possible; especially in the final brawl and coordinated with artillery etc, did work out quite well (albeit bloody).

What certainly wouldn't have worked out good was long range sniping / shoot & scoot from hull down, committing platoons at a time while keeping others in overwatch.
It probably would have gotten some results, but I'd be playing in the hands of the USA forces which were just better suited for such a play.

 

[Grey_Fox]

5 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

What certainly wouldn't have worked out good was long range sniping / shoot & scoot from hull down, committing platoons at a time while keeping others in overwatch.
It probably would have gotten some results, but I'd be playing in the hands of the USA forces which were just better suited for such a play.

This is what my opponent transitioned to doing after crossing about half the map under smoke cover, and then it all went sideways for them.

[slysniper]

1 hour ago, Lethaface said:

Recently completed a PBEM in which I was playing Soviets against USA, with an interesting force mix (1979, no T-64s).

Can't say too much about the details yet because it's part of a tournament and some matches still ongoing, but imo it certainly showed me what tactics can work for the USSR if you have some decent numbers.

Anyway I tried to mix some of the things I picked up in the USSR tutorials (and earlier reading) in my game. Worked quite well, although I adapted some things to the situation and my own preference/ideas.

Anyway keeping up the pressure all the time while closing the distance moving from position to position in force, committing all forces together as much as possible; especially in the final brawl and coordinated with artillery etc, did work out quite well (albeit bloody).

What certainly wouldn't have worked out good was long range sniping / shoot & scoot from hull down, committing platoons at a time while keeping others in overwatch.
It probably would have gotten some results, but I'd be playing in the hands of the USA forces which were just better suited for such a play.

 

Running said tournament and having the ability to watch the battles, you are correct in the statement, that use of NATO type tactics just is a good way to get your head handed to you. At least in that battle anyway.

But learning how to move in mass and using Russian type tactics is also not a easy skill.  Its a situation of understanding that you have no advantage other than numbers, so finding a method to close in on the enemy and getting into a knife fight is your only good option on how to win the fight. And in knife fights, the losses are generally equal, thus the larger force wins the day. But its never pretty.

So in my mind Soviat doctrine has alot of that built into it.

[civdiv]

The original article that OP posted lacks scale. In the last test we have 24 155 tubes firing 108 rounds per gun (2,600 total rounds) against ‘an infantry team’ with vehicles, including armor in support.

How big was this team, how many vehicles, dispersed over what area?

Now throw in the fact that it is going to take almost two hours to fire those rounds, so very much against doctrine. Maybe in the opening salvo of the war but that is about it.

I am sure the actual test cited had the missing data; curious as to why it isn’t in the article.

[Grey_Fox]

4 minutes ago, civdiv said:

The original article that OP posted lacks scale. In the last test we have 24 155 tubes firing 108 rounds per gun (2,600 total rounds) against ‘an infantry team’ with vehicles, including armor in support.

How big was this team, how many vehicles, dispersed over what area?

Now throw in the fact that it is going to take almost two hours to fire those rounds, so very much against doctrine. Maybe in the opening salvo of the war but that is about it.

I am sure the actual test cited had the missing data; curious as to why it isn’t in the article.

If the soviets ran into a defensive position that they couldn't bull through with the FSE or Advance Guard then I don't see why it would be unrealistic to assume they would call in a full artillery barrage which would allow them to do a breakthrough with acceptable casualties and continue to advance.

[domfluff]

Yes, the lack of detail in that article is frustrating, especially as it gets posted every single time this comes up.

I actually tried to recreate it as best I could from the description (50x US 155mm shells versus a mix of M113, M577 and M48), and the end result in CMCW was actually significantly more devastating than the vague description in the article - 60% of armour was immobilised, and 100% of the light vehicles were destroyed. That's a lot better than the "50 percent suffered damage that would have prevented them from moving or firing" quoted in the article.

I'm still more than willing to believe that artillery damage against subsystems is too low, but I've yet to see any hard data that actually shows this. Instead, the same article gets posted over and over, which doesn't include any rigorous data.

[civdiv]

4 minutes ago, Grey_Fox said:

If the soviets ran into a defensive position that they couldn't bull through with the FSE or Advance Guard then I don't see why it would be unrealistic to assume they would call in a full artillery barrage which would allow them to do a breakthrough with acceptable casualties and continue to advance.

Yes, as others have said, point enough tubes at it and it will be erased.

My point is we do not know the composition of the target that was basically made combat ineffective by this barrage. Was it a company on a 100 meter frontage or a battalion on a 1km frontage? If it was a company then you just used your entire Brigade’s dedicated artillery ammo for the day to inflict 50% casualties on a company.

I think we can agree if it was a battalion it might make sense; if was a company, then less so.

And we haven’t even considered an artillery battalion firing for two hours w/o changing locations is kind of a bad idea.

[civdiv]

On 1/3/2022 at 10:36 PM, The_Capt said:

No it doesn't...what do they teach you kids in school these days?  Pointing out obvious biased and subjectivity does not automatically make one bias and subjective...what kind of logic is that?

You keep coming back to the nukes, which is a totally separate discussion but let's have it.  You own numbers demonstrate that the USSR was not content with a defensive set of options.  Nuclear deterrence is not a question of one-for-one.  All one needs to do is demonstrate that you have enough second strike capability to destroy an opponent and you have successful deterrence.  The USSR had 600 nuclear weapons in 1960 and almost 10k in 1985..why?  Well the West had exactly one card to play.  Based on conventional capability (remember all those Soviet tanks, guns and divisions) the West was very concerned that it was going to lose and had to have second/survivable strike capability to keep nuclear deterrence in play.  The Soviet Union which already had the conventional superiority was chasing strategically offensive options not defensive ones.  Of course the whole thing got farcical towards the end as both sides had enough to wipe each other out several times over.

So no, not "defensive only" by a long shot.  We had an aggressive empire which had actively tried to expand on the periphery for years, that already had conventional superiority in Europe chasing nuclear parity, if not superiority.  How does any of this smack of "defensive in nature"?  I argue the "brainwashing" is occurring at your end because I am willing to fully admit the West and US were doing the same thing globally.  The West was very offensive strategically, plenty of evidence to prove that one particularly in other dimensions of power; diplomacy, economic, information and definitely culture.  In the Europe, however, they were militarily defensive only because that was all they could afford to be.

In short from the western perspective the only thing keeping the Soviets at bay was the nuclear equation, which is a very precarious position to be in.  What is demonstrating your obvious bias (and agenda) is the fact that I will argue both sides, while you stick to Soviet "lambs and doves" armed with more tanks than god almighty as the victims here based solely on the fact that the USSR could not get its act together with respect to nuclear weapons...and it sure tried. 

Remember that Russia invading the Ukraine is defensive in nature. It must be true, Vlad said it.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

On 1/22/2022 at 3:59 PM, civdiv said:

Remember that Russia invading the Ukraine is defensive in nature. It must be true, Vlad said it.

From their perspective it was.....Sevastapol is massively important to Russia.

But I suspect you know that full well and that you are being disingenuous.

If China sponsored a Hawaiian revolution threatening Pearl Harbour, how do you think the US would respond?

PS - Once again, I felt that I should point this out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_War

Saying the Crimea is not historically Russian or that Sevastapol does not reperesent a vital strategic interest for Russia is lunacy, plain & simple. 

Edited January 23, 2022 by Sgt.Squarehead

[civdiv]

2 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

From their perspective it was.....Sevastapol is massively important to Russia.

But I suspect you know that full well and that you are being disingenuous.

If China sponsored a Hawaiian revolution threatening Pearl Harbour, how do you think the US would respond?

I was talking about Round 2, not Round 1 but invading a sovereign country is never the correct or legal option. And you are claiming that Russia invaded the Crimea because the Ukraine was fomenting revolution? Also, the Panama Canal is pretty important to the US; should we just go cease it? I mean, we did build it.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

12 minutes ago, civdiv said:

invading a sovereign country is never the correct or legal option.

Agreed. 

Have a list of culprits:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasions

You'll note that neither Russia, nor the Soviet Union are actually terribly prominent among them. 

 

Edited January 23, 2022 by Sgt.Squarehead

[civdiv]

20 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Agreed. 

Have a list of culprits:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasions

You'll note that neither Russia, nor the Soviet Union are actually terribly prominent among them. 

 

We are not talking about Rome invading Carthage. You know this.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Nor am I and so do you. 

[BFCElvis]

Man, this one went on a long time before getting political. Let's keep the forum open and keep the political stuff to somewhere else.

[Pelican Pal]

On 1/22/2022 at 9:40 AM, domfluff said:

I'm still more than willing to believe that artillery damage against subsystems is too low, but I've yet to see any hard data that actually shows this. Instead, the same article gets posted over and over, which doesn't include any rigorous data.

There is good documentation that artillery damage against subsystems isn't just too low but outright broken.

I'm not entirely sure why people continue to re-argue this again and again and again.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Artillery within CM has a few key problems that make it less effective than it ought to be and the linked article is useful for proving that point.

#1: Fragmentation does not cause subsystem damage outside of tracks/wheels.

The "dumb artillery article" proves that this is incorrect here:

Where near hits cause extensive damage via fragments. What is interesting is that even "blast kills" in CM do not cause subsystem damage. Now this leads into a discussion of the correct amount but currently all that we need to show is that in the real world its possible and that its not possible in CM.
 

#2: Artillery does not cause vehicle crew to button up sensitive sights.

Obviously tank crew will turn in but they won't close armor covers over sensitive sights during an artillery strike. This represents a reduced capability for artillery to actively suppress a target even if the long-term damage is nil.


#3: While the above two are known the third is my theorizing that the lack of projectile modeling from artillery fragments has some impact on tank crew morale.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The discussion always ends up circling the drain around kills when kills are likely fairly accurate. The real problem with artillery is that you are losing out on degradation of vehicles and short term suppression.

 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

7 minutes ago, BFCElvis said:

Man, this one went on a long time before getting political. Let's keep the forum open and keep the political stuff to somewhere else.

Quite how we made a mess in CM:CW (rather than CM:BS) I'm unsure. 

Apologies, either way. 

2 minutes ago, Pelican Pal said:

There is good documentation that artillery damage against subsystems isn't just too low but outright broken.

Direct hits do seem to be rather under-modelled.

[Pelican Pal]

1 minute ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Direct hits do seem to be rather under-modelled.

Yea Lethaface showed that in my thread but people are still failing to grasp the basic problem with fragmentation damage so I left that out.

[dbsapp]

21 minutes ago, Pelican Pal said:

There is good documentation that artillery damage against subsystems isn't just too low but outright broken.

I'm not entirely sure why people continue to re-argue this again and again and again.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Artillery within CM has a few key problems that make it less effective than it ought to be and the linked article is useful for proving that point.

#1: Fragmentation does not cause subsystem damage outside of tracks/wheels.

The "dumb artillery article" proves that this is incorrect here:

Where near hits cause extensive damage via fragments. What is interesting is that even "blast kills" in CM do not cause subsystem damage. Now this leads into a discussion of the correct amount but currently all that we need to show is that in the real world its possible and that its not possible in CM.
 

#2: Artillery does not cause vehicle crew to button up sensitive sights.

Obviously tank crew will turn in but they won't close armor covers over sensitive sights during an artillery strike. This represents a reduced capability for artillery to actively suppress a target even if the long-term damage is nil.


#3: While the above two are known the third is my theorizing that the lack of projectile modeling from artillery fragments has some impact on tank crew morale.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The discussion always ends up circling the drain around kills when kills are likely fairly accurate. The real problem with artillery is that you are losing out on degradation of vehicles and short term suppression.

 

There was an interesting topic here on why avtive protection systems on tanks don't contain more than 4 rounds. 

The answer: because the debris from destroyed RPG\ATGM and defensive projectile would damage APS system quicker than it can use more than 4 shots.

Now imagine what artillery can do.

 

Edited January 23, 2022 by dbsapp