Dazed. Confused.

[Butschi]

43 minutes ago, Shady_Side said:

No doubt that you have at least 2 tones more experience with this game than I do. For me once I embraced truly using the Soviets has a blunt instrument ala the training scenarios. I never lost or really even felt challenged in a quick battle in 79or80. Gimme a Tank Battalion Task Force with mix of T64's (T-62s if I wanted to cut my opponent a lil break) BMP infantry, AA hopefully the more expensive SAM vehicle the name escapes me at the moment, a couple of 6-gun 122s arty support along with battalion organic 120 mortars. I would always have to do some trimming to this which I tailored to the map and opponent. I would line my T64's roughly the way Napoleon would his infantry. Let them bang it out with whatever was on the other side that wanted to play. Once arty or lack of targets would make me move I would move up 2or300meters fill in for whatever tanks I had lost. Sometimes with an odd BMP1P (their ATGM's are pretty good) Rinse and repeat one or two more times and game over usually without even having to go through the infantry mopping up phase....

If you have really superior numbers (like battalion vs company) and you don't have to care about force preservation that works. If the force ratio is closer to 1:1 then in my experience the blunt weapon approach doesn't work so well. Maybe I'm just doing it wrong, though.

I also don't think that is really Soviet doctrine. While doctrine emphasised mass and drilled maneuveres to offset their disadvantages due to e.g. their conscript setup, this whole dumb human/steel wave thing IMHO is a Western cliche and not what would have happened.

[Bagpipe]

On 1/13/2024 at 5:38 PM, Bil Hardenberger said:

Bill, take a look at my blog, gives a good basic run down on using real world tactics in CM. 

https://battledrill.blogspot.com/?m=0

Look for the Tactical Toolbox on the left side of the screen   

Edit: changed the link to the web version

Ahhh i did not know this was your blog. It is one of my bookmarked sites. Cracking stuff on there!

[billbindc]

So...if I may impose one more time...I'm looking at Stem the Tide as the American player and I haven't the foggiest idea how to think about it. Site lines are short, contact ranges look like they will be point blank and I don't have much in the way of infantry. 

I would be curious not for a how-to...but a this-is-how-you-should-thing-about-it approach to the problem. Thanks again!

[Halmbarte]

13 minutes ago, billbindc said:

So...if I may impose one more time...I'm looking at Stem the Tide as the American player and I haven't the foggiest idea how to think about it. Site lines are short, contact ranges look like they will be point blank and I don't have much in the way of infantry. 

I would be curious not for a how-to...but a this-is-how-you-should-thing-about-it approach to the problem. Thanks again!

Resign your commission and take a plane ride back to the land of the round doorknob? 

Stem the Tide is a tough ride for the American player. That one & Rumpenheim Rumpus are a hard row for the US. 

H

[billbindc]

7 minutes ago, Halmbarte said:

Resign your commission and take a plane ride back to the land of the round doorknob? 

Stem the Tide is a tough ride for the American player. That one & Rumpenheim Rumpus are a hard row for the US. 

H

So far, I’m only at the point of thinking I want the Sov’s to come to me first and then counter. 

[Halmbarte]

32 minutes ago, billbindc said:

So far, I’m only at the point of thinking I want the Sov’s to come to me first and then counter. 

I tried that vs the AI and got whipped. T64s & BMP2s are a rough ride for M60s & M113s.

Plus it's a tiny map with short sight lines so TOW & Dragon get spotted and ventilated very quickly after launching. 

H

[Bil Hardenberger]

1 hour ago, billbindc said:

So far, I’m only at the point of thinking I want the Sov’s to come to me first and then counter. 

Bill, classic delay op... the key will be to ensure your tanks are hull down and if possible in key hole positions... this will maximize your chances that you will spot the enemy before they can spot you.  If it looks like you are spotted (starting to receive fire) move under as much concealment as possible and get to a new position. Always try to set up with overlapping fields of fire

On my blog specifically look for the hull down, key hole, masked movement, and alternate firing positions posts... repeat this process as much as the terrain and enemy actions allow. If you see a chance to counter attack, or better to launch a spoiling attack, go for it, then fall back into your defensive positions.

Edited January 15 by Bil Hardenberger

[Shady_Side]

7 hours ago, Butschi said:

If you have really superior numbers (like battalion vs company) and you don't have to care about force preservation that works. If the force ratio is closer to 1:1 then in my experience the blunt weapon approach doesn't work so well. Maybe I'm just doing it wrong, though.

I also don't think that is really Soviet doctrine. While doctrine emphasised mass and drilled maneuveres to offset their disadvantages due to e.g. their conscript setup, this whole dumb human/steel wave thing IMHO is a Western cliche and not what would have happened.

Actually, I found that I took fewer loses doing it this way. It maximized the advantages the Soviets have baked into quick battles i.e. more tanks with better armor, a better gun and with massed eyeballs it compensated for the spotting disadvantage. Plus made an infantry assault to seal the deal totally unnecessary. This is exactly how the tactical doctrine scenario instructs you to use them and it works, every single time. To the point of increasingly restrictive house rules to try to balance the scales. 

[Shady_Side]

9 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Have you noticed the changes when you roll to '82 and M1s and M60A3s show up?  Did you have to shift tactics?

Actually we took a bit of a different approach. Our understanding of US doctrine at the time was to fight and fall back. Whittle the numbers disadvantage down as much as possible while looking for localized counterattacks to further nibble away at Warsaw Pact numbers. Rinse and repeat while trying not to go nuclear until somebody wised up and found a peace deal. Good luck on the last piece of that strategy. Back to the point. If the US was supposed to fight and fall back forcing them on a couple stand or die objectives seemed unfair. So we started altering some quick maps into quick scenarios where the US scored for all the kills they could get and gave them an exit zone to simulate the "fall back" part of the strategy. Giving the Russians a rough 50/50 split on available points for killing US units and terrain objectives. Usually with a fairly short game clock. This seemed well on the way to getting a more balanced game but honestly, we are lazy and have most all other titles covered and moved onto something else. 

[The_Capt]

23 minutes ago, Shady_Side said:

Actually we took a bit of a different approach. Our understanding of US doctrine at the time was to fight and fall back. Whittle the numbers disadvantage down as much as possible while looking for localized counterattacks to further nibble away at Warsaw Pact numbers. Rinse and repeat while trying not to go nuclear until somebody wised up and found a peace deal. Good luck on the last piece of that strategy. Back to the point. If the US was supposed to fight and fall back forcing them on a couple stand or die objectives seemed unfair. So we started altering some quick maps into quick scenarios where the US scored for all the kills they could get and gave them an exit zone to simulate the "fall back" part of the strategy. Giving the Russians a rough 50/50 split on available points for killing US units and terrain objectives. Usually with a fairly short game clock. This seemed well on the way to getting a more balanced game but honestly, we are lazy and have most all other titles covered and moved onto something else. 

It was half the US doctrine really.  The US knew that if all they did was fall back then the Soviets would be able to control tempo and initiative.  So there were c-attack plans with limited goals, more jabs really (but would not look like it on the ground), to disrupt Soviet tempo.   Also an operational fall back means some local tactical hard defensives on key terrain to prevent the whole thing becoming a rout.  So while kill count is a solid metric, it was not universal and some key fights would have been US offensives and hold outs.  

In game tactical advantage swings hard in the US direction by 82 as more advanced systems show up.  One thing I would very much like to see is a re-visit of artillery effects on tanks and AFVs.  The data used in the engine now is looking very shaky based on what we have seen in Ukraine.  General HE artillery can seriously damage armoured formations.  This would likely make 79-80 even harder on the US and return 82 to  more parity.  We do know that by about 84-85 the thing was done.  The Soviets were not able to keep up and their concepts of mass were in serious trouble.

[Shady_Side]

56 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

It was half the US doctrine really.  The US knew that if all they did was fall back then the Soviets would be able to control tempo and initiative.  So there were c-attack plans with limited goals, more jabs really (but would not look like it on the ground), to disrupt Soviet tempo.   Also an operational fall back means some local tactical hard defensives on key terrain to prevent the whole thing becoming a rout.  So while kill count is a solid metric, it was not universal and some key fights would have been US offensives and hold outs.  

In game tactical advantage swings hard in the US direction by 82 as more advanced systems show up.  One thing I would very much like to see is a re-visit of artillery effects on tanks and AFVs.  The data used in the engine now is looking very shaky based on what we have seen in Ukraine.  General HE artillery can seriously damage armoured formations.  This would likely make 79-80 even harder on the US and return 82 to  more parity.  We do know that by about 84-85 the thing was done.  The Soviets were not able to keep up and their concepts of mass were in serious trouble.

We knew kill count was not the only goal of real world US doctrine. But for gaming purposes it was one of the handiest things we had. Our interest tends to swing back and forth between the titles we play the most. So a refocus on CMCW is for sure going to be coming up and when it does a shift from playing in 80 up to 82 is on the agenda. As for the arty thing, this has been a long term gripe for a lot of CM players. In the back of my head though, it seems I saw an interview Steve gave some time back where this issue was brought up. If I am remembering right he said that one concern they had was increasing the effectiveness of arty might have the practical in game effect of shrinking the map which creates another set of issues. It makes sense to me. I don't know the first thing about how to make a video game work on these computer gizmo's but it does not surprise me at all that when it comes down to it there is a huge series of give and take issues behind it that players would never really consider.

[The_Capt]

9 hours ago, Shady_Side said:

We knew kill count was not the only goal of real world US doctrine. But for gaming purposes it was one of the handiest things we had. Our interest tends to swing back and forth between the titles we play the most. So a refocus on CMCW is for sure going to be coming up and when it does a shift from playing in 80 up to 82 is on the agenda. As for the arty thing, this has been a long term gripe for a lot of CM players. In the back of my head though, it seems I saw an interview Steve gave some time back where this issue was brought up. If I am remembering right he said that one concern they had was increasing the effectiveness of arty might have the practical in game effect of shrinking the map which creates another set of issues. It makes sense to me. I don't know the first thing about how to make a video game work on these computer gizmo's but it does not surprise me at all that when it comes down to it there is a huge series of give and take issues behind it that players would never really consider.

“Shrinking the map”.  It is one of the largest issues we have at this scale of wargaming.  One cannot employ the same map scales for WW2 in a modern title.  We will continue to work the artillery issue but the hallmark of CM games is tactical realism, maps will have to adapt.  In CMCW we pretty much pushed out to the outer limit of what the game engine can handle with respect to map sizes.  It wasn’t artillery that was the forcing function, it was ATGMs.  A system that can reach out 3kms with very high Pk forces a much larger map.  That, and Soviet formations needed room to manoeuvre.  As we move into more modern era, say CMBS, the maps will need to get even larger.  This reflects what we are seeing on the battlefield - dispersion and increased range and lethality per combat element.  I suspect that after seeing the Ukraine war unfold that CM artillery will be readdressed.  There is too much evidence of its effectiveness to ignore.  CMx3 will need to take into account much larger map sizes as a result.

[A Canadian Cat]

On 1/14/2024 at 3:22 PM, The_Capt said:

On 1/14/2024 at 12:20 PM, billbindc said:

Fair to say that at least in recon troops and fires they Sovs were far more professional than the Russian army of 2021?

Definitely more robust and better resourced than what we saw in '22. 

I think yes. In 1989 my father was in Afghanistan observing the Soviet withdrawal. Even though he was watching a force pulling out he was impressed by the professionalism and capability of the Soviets. That was the summary of what he told me. He had a lot more to say to his NATO colleges. He spent his initial years in battalion stationed in Germany in the 1960s so he spent his time then thinking about a possible fight with the Soviets. 

[The_Capt]

Just now, IanL said:

In 1989 my father was in Afghanistan observing the Soviet withdrawal.

Well now I know your old man and I know the same people.  I knew engineers on those missions into Afghanistan in the 80s. 

[A Canadian Cat]

1 minute ago, The_Capt said:

Well now I know your old man and I know the same people.  I knew engineers on those missions into Afghanistan in the 80s. 

Ah cool. Yep. He was in the first rotation. I forget how long the mission actually lasted but I am pretty sure he handed off before coming home. The observer teams rotated in and out between Islamabad, Pakistan and Kabul along other locations in the north of the country. I have a photo album he made of some pretty cool pictures.

I got to visit as a teenager but was not allowed to go to Kabul (their plane actually took fire on a number of occasions and their HQ in Kabul did have a close call or two with artillery fire so, stupid teen was rightfully denied access :-). We had an interesting time off in Islamabad and then Singapore. Great trip great memories. I know it changed his view of the capabilities of the Soviets.

[MikeyD]

At the timeframe of the game the Pentagon's warfighting doctrine for Germany was in flux. They had recently abandoned the 'tripwire' nuclear defense but didn't have the technology in place for 'deep strike' Airland Battle doctrine, which would come a few years later. Politics compelled them to maintain a forward defense policy because the alternative was abandoning West Germany and scurrying to positions behind the Rhine. Some Pentagon planners derisively called the official doctrine 'don't lose' and proposed an alternative 'aggressive' warfighting policy that made up in machismo what it lacked in feasibility. US policy in Germany was similar to Israel in '73. Absorb the initial blow then, after the Russians had outrun their supply lines and exhausted themselves, counter-attack with fresh reinforcements shipped over from the states.

[Butschi]

On 1/16/2024 at 1:03 AM, Shady_Side said:

Actually, I found that I took fewer loses doing it this way. It maximized the advantages the Soviets have baked into quick battles i.e. more tanks with better armor, a better gun and with massed eyeballs it compensated for the spotting disadvantage. Plus made an infantry assault to seal the deal totally unnecessary. This is exactly how the tactical doctrine scenario instructs you to use them and it works, every single time. To the point of increasingly restrictive house rules to try to balance the scales. 

I guess we are not entirely contradicting each other here. I mean, as I wrote above, I agree lining up your tanks and charging forward is the way to offset the disadvantages from worse spotting etc. Maybe I'm just now very biased from the tournament. My point is, the training scenario (referring to the first one here), is really an idealized scenario. You start at pratically optimal engagement distance for your tanks, you have an entire TB (or MRB) against a company(-), you have overhwelming artillery and the enemy is conventiently clustered such that you can make best use of the artillery.

I was thinking of Valley of Ashes as a counter example. The two hillsides are more like 3km apart, the force ratio is way closer to 1:1 and you don't have sufficient artillery to saturate the other hillside enough to suppress or blind a significant part of the opposing force. You also don't start out with all your forces at once. The tournament had the additional problem that it had a time limit of 40 min. So, of course you can wait until you have all your forces but then more than half the time has ticked down, already. All the while the enemy gets reinforcements and brings his units into position. What's more, you don't have an assembly area where you can line up your forces without the enemy spotting (and shooting at) you, like in the training scenario.

So it is quite likely to lose a few tanks to TOWs before you even spotted the enemy. Sure, at some point, your tanks will make the spot and shoot back. At that distance, don't expect to hit with the first, second or even third shot, though. The US side has M60A3s (TTS) tanks. These are more accurate at that distance and if the situation gets too hot for them they pop smoke. At that point they have several turns in which you can't see and kill them while they can see and kill you.

Still, you have a significant force there and while taking losses (probably without doing much damage in return) many of your tanks made it to within a distance more similar to the training scenario. But then you discover that the enemy forces aren't just conveniently sitting lined up and clustered in front of you. Instead your tanks come under enfilading fire from tanks and dragon ATGMs. Add some DPICM to the mix and you have a really bad day.

Now, of course this is all just anecdotic evidence and you may well have had a different experience. Coming back to what I said initially. IMHO, the lining up part is effective given the right circumstances - it is just necessary to get into a position/situation where these circumstance apply. 

Edited January 17 by Butschi

[Shady_Side]

On 1/17/2024 at 1:28 PM, Butschi said:

I guess we are not entirely contradicting each other here. I mean, as I wrote above, I agree lining up your tanks and charging forward is the way to offset the disadvantages from worse spotting etc. Maybe I'm just now very biased from the tournament. My point is, the training scenario (referring to the first one here), is really an idealized scenario. You start at pratically optimal engagement distance for your tanks, you have an entire TB (or MRB) against a company(-), you have overhwelming artillery and the enemy is conventiently clustered such that you can make best use of the artillery.

I was thinking of Valley of Ashes as a counter example. The two hillsides are more like 3km apart, the force ratio is way closer to 1:1 and you don't have sufficient artillery to saturate the other hillside enough to suppress or blind a significant part of the opposing force. You also don't start out with all your forces at once. The tournament had the additional problem that it had a time limit of 40 min. So, of course you can wait until you have all your forces but then more than half the time has ticked down, already. All the while the enemy gets reinforcements and brings his units into position. What's more, you don't have an assembly area where you can line up your forces without the enemy spotting (and shooting at) you, like in the training scenario.

So it is quite likely to lose a few tanks to TOWs before you even spotted the enemy. Sure, at some point, your tanks will make the spot and shoot back. At that distance, don't expect to hit with the first, second or even third shot, though. The US side has M60A3s (TTS) tanks. These are more accurate at that distance and if the situation gets too hot for them they pop smoke. At that point they have several turns in which you can't see and kill them while they can see and kill you.

Still, you have a significant force there and while taking losses (probably without doing much damage in return) many of your tanks made it to within a distance more similar to the training scenario. But then you discover that the enemy forces aren't just conveniently sitting lined up and clustered in front of you. Instead your tanks come under enfilading fire from tanks and dragon ATGMs. Add some DPICM to the mix and you have a really bad day.

Now, of course this is all just anecdotic evidence and you may well have had a different experience. Coming back to what I said initially. IMHO, the lining up part is effective given the right circumstances - it is just necessary to get into a position/situation where these circumstance apply. 

Yeah almost all my experience is in quick battles. Scenarios can be set up to tip the balance in a lot of ways. In the quick battles though I was always up against some ITOWs mixed in and they are the most dangerous A.T. weapon the US had. They almost never got a second shot off though. You are right aboutRussians  not getting first or second shots on target but once ITOWs fired usually 4or5 tanks would get the spot on them and of those 1 would get a first shot hit or close enough to damage them as they are fragile. Often quick enough to make the first missile miss.  As for tanks I was usually against Rise plus versions of tanks, which were not a lot more accurate then my mix of T64s were but here again the T64s had a couple advantages. One was even if hit there was a descent chance of staying in the fight. Most of the time a hit on one of the M60s was a kill. M60s are outgunned and outarmored by T64s.  Also I did not just line up and charge I would be on a terrain feature that I could retreat from if and when the cluster started falling (though rarity in quick battles largely ruled that out). 

This thread has got my CMCW juices flowing again.. Need to jump back in and see how the 82 match ups play out

[Centurian52]

So, after I learned more about how Soviet tactics are actually supposed to work from watching @domfluff's collaboration with Free Whisky, and giving FM 100-2-1 a full reread*, I found that Soviet doctrine actually works really well. I was even able to use it to good effect in CMBS, even against American forces.

One of the most important things to remember is that it's not about just lining up and charging forward (in fact I rather got the impression that the founding principle of Cold War Soviet doctrine was "let's not do things the way we did them in WW2" (more emphasis on maneuver and avoiding frontal attacks, and more emphasis on artillery)). The most important part of the Soviet army isn't the tanks, it's the artillery. The tanks come in 2nd place in importance after the artillery, and the infantry come in 3rd place (though the infantry are still important, they understood completely that tanks need infantry support**). It's true that the Soviet army is less flexible than NATO armies at lower levels. It's true that lower ranked leaders (platoon and company commanders) were not supposed to exercise the kind of initiative that lower level NATO leaders were expected to exercise. So from the battalion level down it was a very battle-drill focused army. But from the regimental commanders up there is considerably more flexibility to come up with detailed plans, which should account for multiple contingencies. The lack of emphasis on lower level initiative (in fact outright discouragement of lower level initiative) isn't about stifling flexibility, it's about ensuring the will of the commander is carried out. So how well a given Soviet force performs will depend very heavily on the quality of their regimental and division commanders.

Again, the battalions and companies fight according to battle drills. But the regimental commander had a lot of flexibility in how and where to employ his battalions. Assuming the regimental commander is competent (granted, a big assumption, based on what we've seen from Russian commanders), he would try not to just use his battalions as blunt instruments. He would come up with a detailed plan, using deception, maneuver, and overwhelming firepower. In Combat Mission terms, since you rarely have full regiments, you'll be wanting to do this detailed planning with whatever sized force you have available, even if it's only a battalion or company.

When it comes time for the main attack you should go all in with everything you've got. But you shouldn't send the main attack in until you're ready. You'll want to spend a large chunk of the scenario just preparing things for your main attack. Think hard about the avenue of approach you want to use for your main attack. The Soviets would try to attack from an unexpected direction (for example: they absolutely will attack through forests if they think their vehicles can get through and it might allow them to emerge on the flank or rear of enemy defenses). So if you think you see an approach that the scenario designer wouldn't have thought to defend, and which you can get your forces through, then that approach is in line with Soviet thinking. A key element of the main attack, when it is finally time to send it in, is overwhelming firepower. The artillery fire plan is one of the most important elements of the overall plan. The Soviets were an artillery army first and foremost. Every attack would be supported by mass concentrations of artillery. You'll want to time your main attack to coincide with a full barrage consisting of all of your guns (the main attack is not the time to save ammunition), hitting both known and suspected enemy positions that might interfere with your advance. And don't just leave it up to the artillery either. Don't wait for your tanks to spot targets, but give them a large number of target briefly commands to hit every potential enemy position you can think of, even if you don't know for certain that it's really an enemy position (my rule of thumb as the Soviets/Russians is that my infantry never storm a town until every floor of every building has been hit by at least two HE rounds, regardless of whether enemy troops have actually been spotted in that building). Again, the main attack is not the time to try to save ammunition. I'll generally chain up multiple target briefly commands for each tank to execute each turn by targeting them from waypoints, sometimes with a 15 second pause order at each waypoint for better control (though firing on the move is probably more in line with how the Soviets wanted to fight). Whether I intend to bypass a position or storm it with infantry, I want to make sure no point in the position remains unhit with HE. And I always endeavor to have my infantry, coming up in their vehicles just behind the tanks, enter the enemy positions mere seconds after the last HE round has hit them (the timing on this can be tricky, but it is possible). Mass is an important component of Soviet doctrine. But it's really about massing firepower, not massing platforms. Massing platforms is merely a means to massing firepower.

In a meeting engagement (or any attack that does not start with Soviet forces already in contact with the enemy), they would have an advance guard ahead of the main body, itself broken up into three parts. The first part is the Combat Reconnaissance Patrol (CRP), consisting of one platoon. Their job is to find the enemy. Ideally by spotting them, but if necessary by dying to them. The second part is the Forward Security Element (FSE), consisting of a company minus the platoon that was split off to form the CRP. Their job is to brush aside a weak enemy, or fix a strong enemy in place for the third part. The third part is the advance guard main body, consisting of the regiment's lead battalion, minus the company that was split off to form the FSE. Depending on the conditions set by the CRP and FSE they may try to flank the force that was fixed in place by the FSE, or pursue some other objective that the fixed force can't stop them from taking. In this sort of battalion-sized advance to contact the battalion commander has more of the flexibility and initiative normally reserved for the regimental commander. Technically the Advance Guard main body is still setting conditions for the regiment's main body to do whatever it intends to do (larger flank attack, breakthrough, exploitation). But in Combat Mission terms I think it's good enough to just think in terms of your CRP, FSE, and your main body (the regimental main body behind the advance guard main body is probably out of scope for a single Combat Mission scenario anyway). You may want to have an FO with your CRP or FSE to start calling in the barrage that will support your main attack. Or you will want to preplan your artillery (you can certainly have a more complex fire plan if it's preplanned), with your main attack timed to go in at the 15-minute mark, and the CRP and FSE expected to have done their jobs before the 15-minute mark.

When an attack starts in contact with the enemy (they aren't moving to contact, and they already know what's in front of them), the Soviets wouldn't have an advance guard. The attack would go in more according to the 'deliberate attack' training scenarios. Whether you choose to employ a CRP and/or FSE in advance of your main attack, the important thing is that you have a good idea of what you are facing so that you can decide how, where, and when you want your main body to spring the main attack. Again, you are trying to avoid a frontal attack (hit their positions from the flank or rear if such an approach is available), and go in firepower-heavy with everything you've got, when (not before) you are ready to spring the main attack. Do everything you can to prepare the way for the main attack before springing it (recon, fix any forces that need to be fixed, start calling in fire-missions timed to support the main attack).

*I had read parts of FM 100-2-1 before. But I had skipped to the parts about platoon, company, and battalion formations and battle drills. But those are just the building blocks of Soviet doctrine, not the actual substance of Soviet doctrine.

**In fact they apparently decided that they were a bit too tank-heavy at some point in the 80s. One of their late 80s organizational reforms (which I don't think they ever actually completed before the Cold War ended (the 1991 edition of FM 100-2-3 suggested they were still early in the process of implementing this reform)) was to replace one of the tank regiments in each division with another motor rifle regiment. So tank divisions were to go from three tank regiments and a motor rifle regiment to two tank regiments and two motor rifle regiments. And motor rifle divisions were to go from three motor rifle regiments and a tank regiment to four motor rifle regiments, with the only tank support being the tank battalions organic to each motor rifle regiment. One can imagine how this would have resulted in a much more sensible ratio of tanks to infantry.

[Anthony P.]

On 1/19/2024 at 7:57 PM, Centurian52 said:

in fact I rather got the impression that the founding principle of Cold War Soviet doctrine was "let's not do things the way we did them in WW2" (more emphasis on maneuver and avoiding frontal attacks, and more emphasis on artillery)

I've always had the impression that the Red Army too was an army focused around artillery, artillery, artillery, followed only fourthly by tanks and infantry (also, at least a few of the tanks should be armed with 152mm howitzers for good measure), so it might be more of a natural development of the late WW2 doctrine rather than a development away from them?

[Centurian52]

Just now, Anthony P. said:

I've always had the impression that the Red Army too was an army focused around artillery, artillery, artillery, followed only fourthly by tanks and infantry (also, at least a few of the tanks should be armed with 152mm howitzers for good measure), so it might be more of a natural development of the late WW2 doctrine rather than a development away from them?

The Red Army in WW2 actually used a lot less artillery than the western Allies in WW2. Someone, I think Military History Visualized, did a video on artillery usage in WW2 a while back. I'll see if I can dig it up. I don't think it had anything to do with them not wanting to use more artillery, and they certainly weren't lacking in numbers of guns. But they never had as much ammunition to fire as western gunners.

[Anthony P.]

I guess it can depend on what metrics you use. What I've read is that they concentrated a lot of artillery in preparation for breakthroughs, partly to compensate for poor fire control (a systematic lack of radios made adjusting and resuming fire as needed against intact enemy positions impractical) and partly to simply provide the weight of fire needed to facilitate the breakthrough.

That wouldn't contradict the claim that the Red Army had less artillery than the Western Allies overall, because they might have shifted it around to provide more fire along specific portions of the front. For example, I do recall that the Red Army had large independent artillery formations, which the Western Allies who concentrated almost all of their artillery in parent formations as organic fire support did not have.

[Centurian52]

29 minutes ago, Anthony P. said:

I guess it can depend on what metrics you use. What I've read is that they concentrated a lot of artillery in preparation for breakthroughs, partly to compensate for poor fire control (a systematic lack of radios made adjusting and resuming fire as needed against intact enemy positions impractical) and partly to simply provide the weight of fire needed to facilitate the breakthrough.

That wouldn't contradict the claim that the Red Army had less artillery than the Western Allies overall, because they might have shifted it around to provide more fire along specific portions of the front. For example, I do recall that the Red Army had large independent artillery formations, which the Western Allies who concentrated almost all of their artillery in parent formations as organic fire support did not have.

I've found a Battle Order video that goes into depth about Soviet artillery tactics. Basically they heavily concentrated their artillery for major offensives. Up to 150-200 guns per kilometer in a breakthrough sector. They also apparently made a lot of use of artillery in the direct-fire role (which helped to save ammunition). I can't find the video that I remember watching a few years ago which does a comparison between Allied and Soviet artillery usage. But I remember that, by weight of ammunition expended per year, the Allies used a lot more artillery overall. I'm working my way through James Holland's books right now, and he never misses an opportunity to emphasis how firepower-heavy Allied tactics were in WW2. My guess is that the Soviets probably concentrated their artillery more in major offensives, while the Allies probably made greater use of artillery in smaller actions.

 

Edited January 27 by Centurian52

[Erwin]

2 hours ago, Centurian52 said:

My guess is that the Soviets probably concentrated their artillery more in major offensives, while the Allies probably made greater use of artillery in smaller actions.

The Soviet arty performance is even more impressive when one considers how much larger their theater of operations was compared to Europe.

[Halmbarte]

My short version of the excellent write up by Centurian52:

Using Sov tactics to beat the Germans/NATO in RT/CW:

Time spent on recon is never wasted.

Time and resources spent killing enemy recon is never wasted. 

Have a plan and execute it. 

The artillery fire plan must support the maneuver plan. The maneuver plan dictates the fire plan and they must be mutually supportive. 

A company of Sov tanks spots better than any single German/NATO tank. 

Take away the better spotting offered by the German/NATO habit of fighting unbuttoned. Get them heads down to decrease their situational awareness. 

When you attack, attack! Don't poke him with one finger at a time. Make a fist and crush the enemy with overwhelming force. 

Use a platoon to crush a squad > use a company to crush a platoon >> use a battalion to crush a squad. Fair fights are for suckers.

Keep pressing attacks until they aren't feasible anymore, but don't reinforce failure. The Germans/Americans never have enough troops/tanks. 

Just because you have mass doesn't mean the only way forwards is a frontal assault. There are other ways to win that don't involve sticking your dick into the meat grinder until it jams. Recon routes that bypass the enemy, the Germans/NATO never have enough troops/tanks to cover every avenue of approach. Infantry infiltration is a thing.

If you're playing the Sov: Your man portable ATGMs (>AT3s) are scary. Use infiltration tactics to get the ATGMs forward into range to support attacks. Make sure to protect the carriers since they are stuffed with reloads and make big boom if hit. 

Take your time, don't be in a rush to die. You'll probably run out of people, tanks, and/or ammo before you run out of time. 
 
Urban warfare: 

Don't move in the streets. Mouseholing is optimum, then back gardens, then alleyways. Stay out of the streets. Use supporting weapons to create mouseholes and gaps in walls. 

Don't go in through the front door. If you can arrange it start at the top and clear down. 

Suppress every building that has line of sight to your maneuvering force. If you can't suppress or smoke it don't move that way.  
 

H