Soviet MG teams?

[Phantom Captain]

What is the best way to utilize Soviet MG teams?  How do you get the most effect out of them?

[domfluff]

That formation (and the similar one for the BTR formations, that has MG teams and AT-7/SPG-9 assets) were intended to form a hasty defence after the objective was taken - it was a way to have something carried with you that could resist an immediate counter-attack, before you had a chance to be reinforced, resupplied and/or recovered.

So the intention is for them to be used defensively, generally split down and supporting individual platoon/squad positions.

Since that's the intent, the best way to use them would be to form the basis of your defence in defensive scenarios, supplementing the AT assets (which in BMP formations are the BMPs themselves), with perhaps some infantry set aside for that task, and the main effort being the counter-attacking element you've held back.

Outside of that context, they're more or less along for the ride. You can certainly use them as infantry or as your recon platoon or whatever, but that's not really what they're for.

[BeondTheGrave]

I find Soviet MGs to be very nasty if used right. Their MGs have a decent rate of fire, nice ammunition count, and pack a real nasty punch. Since M60 teams and M2 teams aren't standard in most US Mech battalions, its a capability the US lacks that the Soviet player can use to their advantage. @domfluff hits their defensive use pretty good, I'll just add that you can deploy them and use them also to reach out and touch advancing US infantry or suppress them if the situation allows. I, however, like to put them on the flanks of infantry positions and use them at closer range where their firepower can really overwhelm an attacker. One can lock down a flanking street, for example, while your infantry hold a row of houses. Or they can be added to augment a strongpoint position, the added weight of fire of the MMG team to a infantry squad is nothing to sneeze at. Naturally a bipod MG is a lot less flexible than the LMG team, and all around a lot less capable than the infantry squad itself. BUT they also do good work in an assault, especially if you use the MMGs as your base of fire. Good range can help get rounds on target while your infantry advance. Overall, while I dont have a lot of experience with the WW2 titles I would think the MMG team is about comparable to a German MG42 HMG team in those titles. 

The real issue is that in the Cold War era all those roles are also covered by other vehicles. A BTR, for example, can be a faster, harder hitting, more flexible base of fire for your infantry if thats what you need. Soviet MGs also would struggle against any kind of armor, though they might be decent at sniping M113 gunners. Since 90% of your CMCW battles in this Mech/Armor space, the MG seems a lot less useful. But it does things a BTR or BMP cant. First its not vulnerable to ATGMs. Well it is vulnerable to ATGMs, but your opponent will probably not want to waste a TOW killing an MMG squad while he might to kill a BTR. MGs can thus fight closer to the action and in more contested ground than a similarly placed vehicle. MG teams also move like infantry, they walk. So they can follow your troops much closer and through rough ground like woods, creeks, mud, etc. In heavy woods an infantry platoon might push forward for cover, but often the BTRs or BMPs cant follow. In comes the MG team. Thirdly MG teams can occupy buildings and hide making them very difficult to spot at range, while armor would be vulnerable. And lastly an MG team could hold down an area and suppress US infantry that moves through it, World War One style, while more important troops move elsewhere. Theyre support troops, not front liners, and they have a niche. But IMO Soviet MG teams can do good work in that niche.

Personally I really like to use those teams, and in many of my own custom scenarios I like to add a few extra MGs where I think its appropriate to spice things up for the Soviets. Theyre nice to have because IMO the fill the gap nicely between the IFV/Panzergrenadier style warfare and the reality that, sometimes, you just have to do it on foot. 

[Phantom Captain]

1 hour ago, domfluff said:

That formation (and the similar one for the BTR formations, that has MG teams and AT-7/SPG-9 assets) were intended to form a hasty defence after the objective was taken - it was a way to have something carried with you that could resist an immediate counter-attack, before you had a chance to be reinforced, resupplied and/or recovered.

So the intention is for them to be used defensively, generally split down and supporting individual platoon/squad positions.

Since that's the intent, the best way to use them would be to form the basis of your defence in defensive scenarios, supplementing the AT assets (which in BMP formations are the BMPs themselves), with perhaps some infantry set aside for that task, and the main effort being the counter-attacking element you've held back.

Outside of that context, they're more or less along for the ride. You can certainly use them as infantry or as your recon platoon or whatever, but that's not really what they're for.

Thanks @domfluff  Exactly what I was looking for!

[Redwolf]

I use the 2-man MG teams as buddies for AFVs, to get spotting reports.

[Phantom Captain]

1 hour ago, BeondTheGrave said:

I find Soviet MGs to be very nasty if used right. Their MGs have a decent rate of fire, nice ammunition count, and pack a real nasty punch. Since M60 teams and M2 teams aren't standard in most US Mech battalions, its a capability the US lacks that the Soviet player can use to their advantage. @domfluff hits their defensive use pretty good, I'll just add that you can deploy them and use them also to reach out and touch advancing US infantry or suppress them if the situation allows. I, however, like to put them on the flanks of infantry positions and use them at closer range where their firepower can really overwhelm an attacker. One can lock down a flanking street, for example, while your infantry hold a row of houses. Or they can be added to augment a strongpoint position, the added weight of fire of the MMG team to a infantry squad is nothing to sneeze at. Naturally a bipod MG is a lot less flexible than the LMG team, and all around a lot less capable than the infantry squad itself. BUT they also do good work in an assault, especially if you use the MMGs as your base of fire. Good range can help get rounds on target while your infantry advance. Overall, while I dont have a lot of experience with the WW2 titles I would think the MMG team is about comparable to a German MG42 HMG team in those titles. 

The real issue is that in the Cold War era all those roles are also covered by other vehicles. A BTR, for example, can be a faster, harder hitting, more flexible base of fire for your infantry if thats what you need. Soviet MGs also would struggle against any kind of armor, though they might be decent at sniping M113 gunners. Since 90% of your CMCW battles in this Mech/Armor space, the MG seems a lot less useful. But it does things a BTR or BMP cant. First its not vulnerable to ATGMs. Well it is vulnerable to ATGMs, but your opponent will probably not want to waste a TOW killing an MMG squad while he might to kill a BTR. MGs can thus fight closer to the action and in more contested ground than a similarly placed vehicle. MG teams also move like infantry, they walk. So they can follow your troops much closer and through rough ground like woods, creeks, mud, etc. In heavy woods an infantry platoon might push forward for cover, but often the BTRs or BMPs cant follow. In comes the MG team. Thirdly MG teams can occupy buildings and hide making them very difficult to spot at range, while armor would be vulnerable. And lastly an MG team could hold down an area and suppress US infantry that moves through it, World War One style, while more important troops move elsewhere. Theyre support troops, not front liners, and they have a niche. But IMO Soviet MG teams can do good work in that niche.

Personally I really like to use those teams, and in many of my own custom scenarios I like to add a few extra MGs where I think its appropriate to spice things up for the Soviets. Theyre nice to have because IMO the fill the gap nicely between the IFV/Panzergrenadier style warfare and the reality that, sometimes, you just have to do it on foot. 

domfluff's explanation on the defensive aspect and doctrinal use of the team was very helpful and does clarify things a lot.

Offensively, I think I tend to use them much like you.  Very much in the spirit of the German MG base of fire and maneuver tactics.  I seem to split them too and put one on either flank of my line and use them to suppress thereby supporting my infantry on the attack.

I completely get your point as well in that role being utilized by the Soviet/and or Russian IFVs which does free up all your infantry for maneuver purposes.  It is also nice to be able to port the MG with the rest of the infantry through terrain as you described and is an advantage.  I find that Soviet infantry up close do have a lot of teeth!

Edited February 14, 2022 by Phantom Captain

[Phantom Captain]

1 minute ago, Redwolf said:

I use the 2-man MG teams as buddies for AFVs, to get spotting reports.

This is a really interesting idea.  I am going to try this.

[THH149]

Sadly I know  I use them wrong as a recce unit, figuring its better to lose a 2 man team than a half squad. 

Remember the Soviets are always attacking so defending is defeatism 

[Simcoe]

20 hours ago, THH149 said:

Sadly I know  I use them wrong as a recce unit, figuring its better to lose a 2 man team than a half squad. 

Remember the Soviets are always attacking so defending is defeatism 

That is a good point. How often are you actually going to use the machine gun teams? Cold War is way too fast paced and long range to make use of them.

 

[Redwolf]

26 minutes ago, Simcoe said:

That is a good point. How often are you actually going to use the machine gun teams? Cold War is way too fast paced and long range to make use of them.

 

Flank protection come to mind.

[Phantom Captain]

2 hours ago, Simcoe said:

That is a good point. How often are you actually going to use the machine gun teams? Cold War is way too fast paced and long range to make use of them.

 

Except for when you have to dismount your infantry.  The infantry are there for the up close nasty work when you need it.  Use the MG teams as a base of fire for your squads to move.  Think WWII German tactics.  I like to keep them on my flanks and use them to suppress for my infantry to move.  

[Simcoe]

3 hours ago, Phantom Captain said:

Except for when you have to dismount your infantry.  The infantry are there for the up close nasty work when you need it.  Use the MG teams as a base of fire for your squads to move.  Think WWII German tactics.  I like to keep them on my flanks and use them to suppress for my infantry to move.  

Maybe I'm just looking at it from too much of a single player vantage point but if you need suppression why don't you just use your BMP's/BTR's? If you're doing WW2 fire and manuever you're probably getting shelled before you can even get in range. Besides, Soviet infantry squads have a fire support and manuever element baked in.

My experience is that infantry are used to quickly take wooded/urban areas. Drop off the infantry a few hundred feet and use BTR/BMP to suppress positions while the infantry clear it out. The MG teams are too small to take casualties and too slow to keep up.

(Not trying to put you down just challenging your theory)

[Phantom Captain]

9 hours ago, Simcoe said:

Maybe I'm just looking at it from too much of a single player vantage point but if you need suppression why don't you just use your BMP's/BTR's? If you're doing WW2 fire and manuever you're probably getting shelled before you can even get in range. Besides, Soviet infantry squads have a fire support and manuever element baked in.

My experience is that infantry are used to quickly take wooded/urban areas. Drop off the infantry a few hundred feet and use BTR/BMP to suppress positions while the infantry clear it out. The MG teams are too small to take casualties and too slow to keep up.

(Not trying to put you down just challenging your theory)

No, you are right on all points.  I actually do use my vehicles for those duties, much more so than the MG teams themselves.  In both Cold War and Black Sea.  It is interesting how integral the vehicles are to the squad in both Russian and Soviet formations.  That's why I was asking the question in the first place!  I think I am combining both Soviet MG teams and modern Russian MG teams in my head.  In Black Sea I do utilize the MG team more the old fashioned way as it is slower paced compared to CW and there is more opportunity to move into place and slowly set up an attack in BS.  I do see how Soviet doctrine morphed into what the Russians do now but it is very differently paced and thus my confusion.  I'm also still trying to figure out what best to do with the MGs in the much faster moving CW.  

So, I think what I am doing is looking to utilize my Soviet MG teams in much the same way as I use my Russian MG teams in modern but it really hasn't worked that way so far in hindsight because, as you stated, Cold War is just too fast.  

[domfluff]

So, a point on that - quite aside from the main doctrinal answer above:

CMCW is specifically about the Soviet army attacking into Germany, a highly mechanised force rolling over tank country. That's not true for all potential theatres - if Cold War becomes the most popular CM title and ends up with modules for everything possible, then fighting in Scandinavia, especially Norway, would be likely to be a lot more infantry-centric, dictated by the complexity of the terrain. The same formations would be expected to fight there, but there would be a lot more emphasis on lighter vehicles and the GPMG. 

[Simcoe]

2 hours ago, domfluff said:

So, a point on that - quite aside from the main doctrinal answer above:

CMCW is specifically about the Soviet army attacking into Germany, a highly mechanised force rolling over tank country. That's not true for all potential theatres - if Cold War becomes the most popular CM title and ends up with modules for everything possible, then fighting in Scandinavia, especially Norway, would be likely to be a lot more infantry-centric, dictated by the complexity of the terrain. The same formations would be expected to fight there, but there would be a lot more emphasis on lighter vehicles and the GPMG. 

True. Even in Germany there could be more forrested areas that would be useful for GPMG. 

Another scenario that would be pretty cool is taking over an objective like a bridge and having to immediately use your AT-7's, GPMG's and recoiless rifles to hold off an American counterattack.

[Simcoe]

2 hours ago, Phantom Captain said:

No, you are right on all points.  I actually do use my vehicles for those duties, much more so than the MG teams themselves.  In both Cold War and Black Sea.  It is interesting how integral the vehicles are to the squad in both Russian and Soviet formations.  That's why I was asking the question in the first place!  I think I am combining both Soviet MG teams and modern Russian MG teams in my head.  In Black Sea I do utilize the MG team more the old fashioned way as it is slower paced compared to CW and there is more opportunity to move into place and slowly set up an attack in BS.  I do see how Soviet doctrine morphed into what the Russians do now but it is very differently paced and thus my confusion.  I'm also still trying to figure out what best to do with the MGs in the much faster moving CW.  

So, I think what I am doing is looking to utilize my Soviet MG teams in much the same way as I use my Russian MG teams in modern but it really hasn't worked that way so far in hindsight because, as you stated, Cold War is just too fast.  

And part of the fun is experimenting and finding a use for them outside of doctrine. I've just been leaving them in a protected area and keeping the BTR/BMP's carrying them as backups in case one of them gets destroyed.

[Phantom Captain]

16 minutes ago, Simcoe said:

And part of the fun is experimenting and finding a use for them outside of doctrine. I've just been leaving them in a protected area and keeping the BTR/BMP's carrying them as backups in case one of them gets destroyed.

@domfluff

I do have to say I completely see how they are used on the defensive now along with an ATGM team.  They really are perfect for just dropping off and having them hold a location as the rest of the formation moves on.  I can see the same utilization for them in BS now too.

[Phantom Captain]

2 hours ago, domfluff said:

So, a point on that - quite aside from the main doctrinal answer above:

CMCW is specifically about the Soviet army attacking into Germany, a highly mechanised force rolling over tank country. That's not true for all potential theatres - if Cold War becomes the most popular CM title and ends up with modules for everything possible, then fighting in Scandinavia, especially Norway, would be likely to be a lot more infantry-centric, dictated by the complexity of the terrain. The same formations would be expected to fight there, but there would be a lot more emphasis on lighter vehicles and the GPMG. 

Oh we can dream can't we??  I'd just throw BS in there alongside please!

[A Canadian Cat]

21 hours ago, Redwolf said:

Flank protection come to mind.

Yep, this. I do that frequently. I'm playing Chezmate right now and they MG teams are doing just that now that I have broken past the bridge.

[IMHO]

On 2/14/2022 at 5:00 PM, Phantom Captain said:

What is the best way to utilize Soviet MG teams?  How do you get the most effect out of them?

I use them in suppressing suspected enemy positions in urban combat. They move through buildings, can hide in them up to the very moment of assault, can establish narrow fire lanes to cover the buildings they need to cover yet shield themselves from return fire and their suppression effect is quick to kick in and lasts considerable time. IMO in urban combat one MG team is as useful as another infantry squad and almost as much as BTR/BRDM. Compared to the former it is stealthier and provides more suppression effect over distance. As per the latter, MG teams are easier to navigate safely built up areas and more convenient with establishing keyhole firelanes.

Edited February 17, 2022 by IMHO