Typical Russian Defensive Position

[Der Alte Fritz]

What does a typical Russian company sized defensive position look like? One that a reasonable amount of time has been spent on. How did it fit into the overall scheme of defence?

cheers

[David I]

Where's JasonC? This is his cup of meat.

DavidI

[JasonC]

They designed around battalion defensive regions on the one hand, and a separate anti tank strongpoint system on the other. These overlapped, the idea being to have continual coverage, in depth, of both sorts - though the AT defense concentrated on avenues that were suitable for tanks in terrain terms.

In open country a battalion defense region could be 2 km wide. The minimum was more like 800 meters. Regiments and divisions might be 2 up 1 back at both levels, or at just one or the other - this results in 4 to 6 battalions across an RDs front, with 2 layers of positions front to back, and perhaps (in the narrower case) a maneuver reserve left over.

The battalion defense regions and AT strongpoints were typically staggered with each other in checkerboard fashion, with the infantry positions somewhat farther forward - typically 400 yards or so from the foremost AT strongpoints. Sometimes they would be co-located e.g. on an expected main effort axis (astride an important road e.g.). Sometimes the rearmost company of the infantry battalion region would be on the AT strongpoint.

The AT strongpoints were equipped with 45mm and 76mm ATGs, the latter including dedicated ATGs from attached anti tank formations, and divisional 76mm guns from div arty, which were typically attached down to the forward regiments. A single AT strongpoint had 2 to 8 ATGs with 4 being the typical number. Typically sited in pairs facing out and forward from the corners of the AT strongpoint.

An AT strongpoint also contained numerous ATRs, some medium machineguns, close assault tank killer teams or pioneers, and frequently but not always, regular infantry and their MG and mortar heavy weapons, as well. These were designed to interlock their fire with the neighboring AT strongpoints on either side, as well as covering the infantry positions ahead of their own. The other weapons gave the strongpoint a residual means of defense of its ground if directly attacked, while ATGs firing from both neighboring strongpoints were supposed to add their flanking fire etc.

The battalion defense region, on the other hand, was designed mostly as a soft enemy defense, and was meant to keep German infantry out of the AT network positions, or to strip tanks. It was typically designed as a group of separate company strongpoints, 2 up and 1 back being the standard deployment. The rear position might be on the ATGs or between two of them. Less often it might be farther back, behind and between them.

The rear position formed a rally point and a final defensive line for the battalion as a whole. It was also typically the battalion mortar position, or next to it, though sometimes some or all of the medium mortars would be parcelled out to the companies. Reserves supporting the battalion would form there, and release the rear company to move forward if the conditions farther forward allowed it.

Otherwise they would defend from their existing position, supported with whatever came, while the second line of battalions used the warning time etc. Army was expected to bring in a whole fresh RD to backstop the second line if it was being penetrated, the general self-sealing principle of depth deployments.

All that background explained, I can now describe one of the front line company positions, in the belt of them forward of the ATG strongpoint line. In addition to their organic rifle platoons, these would have their own heavy weapons and often another platoon's worth attached down from battalion. An antitank rifle squad was also a common attachment - there were enough to those to layer them at all infantry positions and the AT strongpoints, both. The battalion weapons attachments could include up to 4 Maxim MMGs and up to 3 82mm mortars. Their might also be a couple of scoped rifles.

Fire support from regiment might include 76mm firing from the div arty line, 120mm from regiment, and of course 82mm from battalion. Occasionally there might be 76mm infantry guns right in the front line, and less often, 1 or 2 45mm ATGs. But these were usually more like 400m to the rear. Tank support in the front line was extremely rare.

Occasionally you'd see dug in tanks in the AT strongpoint line, but more often it would be whole formations held off the front line by a km or more, reacting to penetrations.

Mortars, MMGs, ATRs always, and snipers and FOs if present, reach out to the next strongpoint on either side, and - if bypassed - back to the AT strongpoint line as well. These also cover the front at around 400m range. In a prepared defense, MMGs and LMGs would acquire separate firing positions with overhead cover (MG log bunkers or MMGs in trenches in CM terms).

All the above is designed to allow the regular infantry to stay as "small" as possible, in their holes, until enemy infantry are almost right on top of them. The infantry are dispersed in the available cover, well dug in, and camo'ed. They surround the heavy weapons without adopting simple linear deployments or using readily visible trench lines. Some of the men are trained tank killer groups, with ATRs, AT grenades or molotovs, and SMGs. Those intend to engage only when tanks run right over them.

The bulk of the infantry is to stay hidden as long as possible, emerge together to destroy enemy infantry at close range, continue the firefight until everything out to 250m or so is dealt with, and then get small in their holes again. The Russians placed much less emphasis on repositioning forward infantry in combat that other armies, and expected the men to hold in place until annihilated, or until nightfall, whichever came first.

Bypassed units were expected to escape and evade by night, rallying on the nearest intact friendly line. If they could not do so, they were to hide in place until German units were well clear. Generally no effort would be made to reach them, although night infiltration remained the rifle formations' preferred method of counterattack from midwar on.

Before heavy contact, the Russians tried to maintain a forward line of thinly manned listening posts. A single battalion in each RD might draw this duty. Recon formations did night patrols to gather intel in this region, which was forward of the main line of resistence by 200 to 1000 yards, and sometimes behind the front line German positions (where those were thin enough and terrain permitted). No permanent occupation was planned, but different LPs might be manned by single platoons each night. They would remain stationary, quiet, the following day, and return the next night. This is frankly beyond the ability of CM to portray, except as occasional platoon-sized night meeting engagements, I guess.

The last element to mention is the use of obstacles in the defense scheme. The Russians used mines extensively when they had the time to prepare defenses, especially AT minefields. They made extensive use of AT ditches, destroyed roads and bridges, and flooded low lying areas or artificial ditches. AT mines were laid along the line of the forward defensive positions and up to 1 km ahead of them. These were integrated with existing woods, marsh, and water barriers to channel tank attack to the locations with the thickest ATG and tank defenses.

A continuous trench was more likely to be an anti tank ditch than a place masses of Russian infantry sheltered in or fought from - they were thought to be too readily spotted and hit.

Wire obstacles were less used, but gaps between forward infantry strongpoints were often mined or wired, and sometimes the forward company positions themselves were fronted or completely encased in wire. But frankly it was a rare Russian position that was that well prepared.

[Der Alte Fritz]

Great stuff.

In another thread and at TPG we have been trying to build a typcial Kursk kind of defence based on a detailed map of the 375th RD and this ties in very well with it. On the map the main line of defence is two continious trenches with a third about 4-500m behind. This is a highly prepared position with lots of wire and mines. I have modelled this in a game at TPG and it works quite well.

Moving on from this project, I wanted to know what kind of trench system the Russian would dig if they had time to build more than fox holes but not the months that they had to prepared before Kursk. I have seen references to "star" shaped trenches. Patently it would follow the principles outlined above but what would it look like?

cheers

[JasonC]

Star trenches means strongpoints for all around defense, with the areas between them covered by obstacles and fire. Each is little "fort" of outer fighting positions and an inner reserve position to allow men to shift from one to another point around the perimeter.

The inner bit could be as simple as a junction, or in larger cases might be a ring. A ring is preferred as less likely to be cut by one cave in, and also offering better counterattack options if the enemy gets into the trench.

The outer arms extend off this ring or junction - in the latter case sometimes branching again - in at least 2 directions forward, and at least 1 toward the rear. The arms change direction ("kink") to prevent any one location from enfilading a whole trench.

At the outer front ends they turn to parallel the expected enemy approach, as a fighting trench. Each parallel at the extremity should hold a platoon. A typical case is in CM terms is an arc of 3 trench sections bending back slightly at each end, with a 4th connecting trench section running backward from one of the two ends (or less often, the center). Think of a question mark.

There are also dugouts for MGs along the outer bits, the communication trenches running to them, or just beyond (tunnels might connect the last part in the "beyond" case). In CM terms, these can be MG log bunkers within 20m of the trench (to left or right of the "platoon arc trench"), MMGs right along the communication trench (and so back a bit), or MMGs at the end of an extra "spur" trench section of the communications trench.

The rearward arms kink around the same way, and one may turn parallel to the whole front again. It acts as a fallback fighting position. Occasionally the back of the inner ring is the only fallback available, instead. At least one of these rearward arms should lead to dead ground or natural cover. (If the whole fort is bypassed, it has to be able to defend itself from all directions, however. So one has to be careful about this, or one creates a perfect route into the position).

Whatever serves as the back position, it should be beyond grenade range of the front trench, at a minimum, but able to see beyond them to prevent physical entry even if the front trench has been suppressed or the front trench defenders knocked out. (The other, if available, provides a retreat route from the whole position).

HQ dugouts and mortar positions are typically found back here, in defilade. Sometimes a single "final protective fire" MG position - which can see the front wire but is expected to be unsuppressed until needed. A reserve platoon can be either along a back arm, or in a bomb-proof dugout along the ring or near the junction.

In CM QBs, you generally can't afford a full company trench system like this, but you can make smaller platoon forts out of as little as 4-5 trenches, which are individually more like the front outer platoon positions, only. A real company fort of the proper dimensions, with all platoon positions fully connected, uses more like 20-30.

What about obstacles? Well, ahead of the platoon fighting positions you ideally want an arc of wire, at grenade range or just beyond. Occasional gaps can be left in the wire, and all but one of them covered by AP mines - this gives a sortie route. More wire can curve slightly around the flanks of the position, but at increasing distance. Those flank regions are then covered only by fire. This prevents easy massing around the trench perimeter and keeps the attacker oriented along the expected approach route.

Areas between such forts can be registered for arty, mines, incorporate natural and artificial obstacles like a flooded trench, etc. The forts try to deny access to available cover, too - wide open areas may be left to be swept by fire (including flanking AT fire if they are tank passable).

How is such a position "fought"? The forward platoon positions normally have only outposts (1-2 half squads) during quiet periods, with the MG positions more fully manned. The bulk of the infantry shelters in dugouts with overhead cover, meant to be proof from at least 105mm HE direct hits. To avoid giving positions away, single MGs, snipers, and mortars occasionally harass any enemy opposite, but move to a new firing location after doing so.

When under attack, the front platoons move to their trenches and man them. All MGs fire freely. A reserve platoon either stays in the center area (in a dugout if possible, those are in CM though) or the reserve position. The front line platoons might leave one squad each back near the ring too, at least at first. As losses are taken, positions are remanned from the central ring.

If the enemy attack focuses on one side of the perimeter, a single squad is left at the other positions and the rest draw back into the reserve center.

Supporting artillery, plus mortars and MG fire from neighboring strongpoints, try to keep the front wire swept even if the infantry within the position are suppressed or destroyed. If those clear the approaches and there is a reserve still alive, it counterattacks to reman the front positions if feasible.

Otherwise, if enemy get into the trench system, squads hold each route to the rear by grenading the next "kink" in the trench, while the rest fall back to the reserve position. From there they try to keep the above ground routes swept by fire, and gradually feed men forward to the "grenade barricades" as men are lost.

Meanwhile fire from outside or reserves may arrive to help. If not, the position fights on as long as it can, and decamps by the covered rear trench route if holding isn't possible and escape still is.

Most of these tactics date from WW I, but they were still used when sufficiently prepared positions were available.

[ September 03, 2007, 05:46 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[JasonC]

Now some caveats about those real world tactics in CM. CM doesn't have dugouts. The only bomb proof items are concrete bunkers, and they are fighting positions only. Since there isn't anything superior to a trench for infantry to shelter in during barrages, there is less point in keeping the front trenches unmanned until enemy attack.

Second, in CM moving infantry is readily hit and suppressed, regardless of cover. Specifically, you can see men moving in a trench if you can see ground level where the trench icon is placed. This isn't realistic - men actually reposition in trenches much more readily than this, with fire able to do far less about it. But because of it, infantry fighting from trenches is much more static in CM than it is in real tactics.

You can get repositioning ability in CM only from full defilade, "reverse slope" positions. Those can come from an actual hill or from sufficiently deep woods or pines. Using deep woods for it has the drawback that you are vulnerable to airburst artillery, but it can still be better than having no repositioning options at all. In town fighting, large heavy buildings work, but they can be knocked flat by sufficient HE.

For trench positions, the adaptation then is to have the ring part of the defense in a reverse slope location (e.g. past the "military crest" of a hill, but still on the hill mass), or to use a large body of woods as the center ring. There still then need to be positions behind the woods to shelter from artillery fire (by "dodging" there), whether they are trench positions or other cover terrain (rough, a couple of houses, whatever - but clear of the arty-magnet main forest).

Another CM adaptation is that MG fighting positions as actual log bunkers are rather weak. The MGs in them are basically LMGs, and they are readily KOed by any tank or other direct fire cannon. MMGs in trenches work better. MG bunkers are really only useful if sited where you expect only forward enemy infantry, in locations overwatch guns will not be able to see, and where tanks will not wish to come.

In practice that means positions behind slopes or other LOS blockages, that sweep open ground once the enemy has passed some "crest". And where a tank coming first would be vulnerable to infantry AT or flanking ATGs. Frankly, this is hard enough to do right that trench MMGs are nearly always superior to log bunkers. They also cost less.

Another quirk of CM is that the sighting range to trenches is about 175m. This makes trenches with 200m or more of open ground ahead of them radically more useful than trenches more easily approached. You can sometimes cover a few scraps of cover (AP mine a lone woods tile e.g., or put a TRP on one big block of scattered trees).

Similarly for fall back positions and supporting MMG positions, range matters for sighting the trench and full spot of the MG. An entrenched MG at 300-400m is more likely to remain sound than one closely approached. In the real deal, this would apply to MGs from neighboring strongpoints, whether company ones up the line or ATG ones behind it.

In CM, it sometimes makes sense to put a couple of MGs off in relatively isolated locations, in trenches or small bits of good natural cover, far from the main infantry position. This replicates the effect of flanking fires from neighboring positions that aren't put on the same CM map, and keep the advantage of remaining mere sound, longer than would be the case co-locating every MG with the main position.