Why did the Soviets not like smoke shells?

[Kanonier Reichmann]

I've been wondering for some time now why the Soviets did not equip their AFV's and mortars (on board at least as depicted in CMBB) with a supply of smoke shells? Surely they could see the benefit in being able to mask advances made by infantry with locally provided smoke screens. The only reason I can think of why there is this general dearth of smoke shells when it comes to the Soviet side is that they may have considered it not "manly" enough or too "wussy" to advance against entrenched defenders with the benefit of smoke cover.

I'm sure that's not the real reason but does anyone know for sure why they didn't rely on smoke alot more on the tactical level?

Thanks in advance.

Jim R.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

I've been wondering for some time now why the Soviets did not equip their AFV's and mortars (on board at least as depicted in CMBB) with a supply of smoke shells? Surely they could see the benefit in being able to mask advances made by infantry with locally provided smoke screens. The only reason I can think of why there is this general dearth of smoke shells when it comes to the Soviet side is that they may have considered it not "manly" enough or too "wussy" to advance against entrenched defenders with the benefit of smoke cover.

I'm sure that's not the real reason but does anyone know for sure why they didn't rely on smoke alot more on the tactical level?

Thanks in advance.

They did rely on smoke screens. A lot. But they deployed it using ground methods. (Much like the überFinns who BTW in CMBB do not have ANY smoke available to them ) That way the smoke screen was more controlable and not subject to deployment errors inherent to tube fired ordnance.

As for using them on AFV's: their tactics relied on overwhelming numbers and you can not overwhelm something you can not see yourself now can you.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Tero:

They did rely on smoke screens. A lot. But they deployed it using ground methods. (Much like the überFinns who BTW in CMBB do not have ANY smoke available to them ) That way the smoke screen was more controlable and not subject to deployment errors inherent to tube fired ordnance.

Fair enough - the western allies made extensive use of smudge pots too. But hopefully you can see that being able to project smoke forward of your foremeost postitions has its own advantages? From your post it seems like you think that smudge pots are better in all circumstances.

Regards

JonS

[Tero]

Originally posted by JonS:

Fair enough - the western allies made extensive use of smudge pots too. But hopefully you can see that being able to project smoke forward of your foremeost postitions has its own advantages?

Of course. It is a matter of allocating resources. Much like in the CB debate , it is the projected benefit and effectiveness of any given type of ordnance and how you prioritice its deployment as a part of your tactics that dictates your use of said ordnance/method.

The Red Army artillery was tasked more with a hammer-like missions rather than a veil type missions.

I think it is quite telling their "arty tunnel" method did not entail use of smoke as a primary means of concealing the avenues of advance. Instead they lifted the barrage and continued the shelling with direct fire weapons in an effort to keep the defenders heads down and mask the lifting of the barrage in the intended break through point.

At least later in the war their tactics as a whole were centered in the task of getting as close to the enemy as possible to deny the enemy its superior long-distance tactical firepower and capability. They also sought to draw in the enemy reserves to the focal point of the battle to drain them at the same time as the front line forces were drained. This is why their use of smoke was highly localized and concentrated to the very forward edge of the schwehrpunkt of the attack. The artillery was tasked with engaging the enemy defensive positions and projected counter attack routes.

From your post it seems like you think that smudge pots are better in all circumstances.

Not in ALL circumstances.

The Finnish army did not use tube deployed smoke screens, mainly because in the prevailing terrain type the dissipation of smoke deployed with tube arty was/is far more difficult to determine than that deployed by the infantry itself (with a degree of precision that is down to the infantry itself) on the ground.

In case you did not know the officer charged with the development of the Finnish artillery arm was an artillery officer in the Imperial Russian army before Finland became independent.

[Sergei]

It seems that Soviets also relied on night attacks in many occasions.

Btw. Tero, do you know what types of Finnish artillery had smoke rounds available to them, at useable levels (that is, more than a prototype in Nenonen's closet)?

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by JonS:

Fair enough - the western allies made extensive use of smudge pots too. But hopefully you can see that being able to project smoke forward of your foremeost postitions has its own advantages?

Of course. It is a matter of allocating resources. Much like in the CB debate , it is the projected benefit and effectiveness of any given type of ordnance and how you prioritice its deployment as a part of your tactics that dictates your use of said ordnance/method.

FWIW, I suspect that the Red Army relied more on visual signalling than Western armies, and widespread use of smoke might have had bigger penalties for them.

Does anyone know if Soviet artillery smoke was mostly bursting smoke, like the Germans, or base-ejectin smoke, like the Western Allies? There might also have been a difference in the effectiveness of the obscurants.

I suspect that the Soviet attitude to artillery as "The God of War" would have encouraged them to keep the atmosphere clear for observation purposes on many occasions.

All the best,

John.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Sergei:

It seems that Soviets also relied on night attacks in many occasions.

Concur. And IIRC they did use smoke even during the night.

Btw. Tero, do you know what types of Finnish artillery had smoke rounds available to them, at useable levels (that is, more than a prototype in Nenonen's closet)?

None spring to mind off hand.

IIRC according to pre-war doctrine engineers were responsible for the battlefield smoke in the first place.

[Tero]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

FWIW, I suspect that the Red Army relied more on visual signalling than Western armies, and widespread use of smoke might have had bigger penalties for them.

Concur. The forward infantry elements carried high visibility flags and panels to indicate their progress so the FO's could lift the barrages as needed.

This of course meant that while the Red Army artillery fire plans were on the rigid side they did have a degree of flexibility built in into the system.

I suspect that the Soviet attitude to artillery as "The God of War" would have encouraged them to keep the atmosphere clear for observation purposes on many occasions.

Not for observation only. There was also the airsupport element woven into their assault plans that called for clear skies. Litterally.

[ June 05, 2003, 07:37 AM: Message edited by: Tero ]

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Tero:

IIRC according to pre-war doctrine engineers were responsible for the battlefield smoke in the first place.

I wonder how it was later, though. The failed counter-attack on the Soviet bridgehead at Vuosalmi in 1944 was preceded by smoke missions by "sections from II/KTR 15 and Rask.Psto 14 and smoke mortars" (tämä siis Käkelän Laguksen miehistä, suomeksi "Savuammuntaan osallistuivat jaos sekä II/KTR 15:stä että Rask.Psto 14:stä ja savunheittimet (JPr:n savutusjoukkue ml).") Later it is mentioned that the effect of the smoke was lacking although at the parts where it worked it lasted until 7 o'clock (it was scheduled to start at 1.40).

[MikeyD]

I believe those small 'fuel drums' on the hull rear of the late T-34-85 were actually fuel for smoke generators. And the postwar T54/T55/T62 had a quite effective smoke generating system that dropped diesel oil onto the hot exhaust pipe (A technique eventually picked up by the U.S.?). I believe the Churchill also had smoke generating equipment. CMBB doesn't model smoke generating of that type.

But I know what you mean about the Ruskies lacking a smoke shell. That's why I'm so happy to get 75mm gun Shermans in random Quickbattles.

[JasonC]

Remember that CM undermodels the amount of dust thrown into the air by ordinary HE. Large arty barrages create a pretty strong obscuring effect even without smoke shell, particularly if the ground is dry. Hopefully we will see improved dust modeling - from vehicle movements and from shelling - in CM-AK.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Thanks for all the replies to date. I would guess the best reason was simply the Soviets predilection for artillery and lots of it so the need for clear observation was paramount. Seems to make sense to me so at least I can sleep easy now.

Regards

Jim R.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Sergei:

I wonder how it was later, though. The failed counter-attack on the Soviet bridgehead at Vuosalmi in 1944 was preceded by smoke missions by "sections from II/KTR 15 and Rask.Psto 14 and smoke mortars" (tämä siis Käkelän Laguksen miehistä, suomeksi "Savuammuntaan osallistuivat jaos sekä II/KTR 15:stä että Rask.Psto 14:stä ja savunheittimet (JPr:n savutusjoukkue ml).")

We'll have to dig up the OOB of said arty formations to determine the guns they were using at the time. My hunch is they were using German 105's and 150 guns.

The way I read it the smoke projectors and mortars were apparently under infantry rule. That leaves only sections of II/KRT15 and RP14 to fire proper artillery smoke mission. Which by my reconing is not very much given the number of artillery formations at hand at the time.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Sergei:

II/KTR 15

1.1. 1944 8/76K36, 4/114H18

1.10. 1944 8/114H18, 4/105H37

Rask.Psto 14

1.1. 1944 and 1.10. 1944 12/150H40

From Paulaharju.

[Grisha]

Just to elaborate on Tero's accurate comments. The Red Army had engineer troops who were in charge of chemical weapons in WWII. These were the guys who dealt mostly with the massive use of smoke pots. When clearing minefields or other defensive obstacles, smoke was very helpful in covering Soviet sappers (night time was good too, or in combination with). Also, for purposes of deception, the Soviets would employ smoke to cover regroupings when time didn't allow for night movement. Finally, it wasn't above the Soviets to deploy smoke to cover fake regroupings either.

Another thing just came to mind: river crossings. Smoke was used heavily in river crossings, often at night. Rifle troops would literally be rushing across the river at night in inner tubes and makeshift rafts - anything they could find handy - under a thick blanket of smoke provided by the chemical engineers.

Another thing to consider is that smoke from pots makes no appreciable sound, so it was a gradual thing that you might not notice right away (especially at night) as the defender.

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

I believe those small 'fuel drums' on the hull rear of the late T-34-85 were actually fuel for smoke generators. And the postwar T54/T55/T62 had a quite effective smoke generating system that dropped diesel oil onto the hot exhaust pipe (A technique eventually picked up by the U.S.?). I believe the Churchill also had smoke generating equipment. CMBB doesn't model smoke generating of that type.

Not sure which 'fuel drums' you're talking about, but if you're talking about the drums mounted on the flanks of the T-34 rear deck, those were actually fuel drums - their purpose was to extend the range of the tank, and they were generally dropped before combat.

And yes, a number of modern US military vehicles do use a system that drops diesel fuel into the exhaust to generate smoke.

I wouldn't be surprised if vehicle smoke screen generators and smudge pots make an appearance in CMAK. At least, I hope so - their use was more common (and important) in some of the wide-open desert fighting of the Med. theatre. Besides, BFC has already said that they're going to model dust kicked up by moving vehicles in CMAK, and a large smokescreeen would be very similar to a vehicle dust trail in terms of modeling - it would just be somewhat thicker.

Cheers,

YD

[Keke]

Soviet infantry advancing against Finnish positions on mid-July 1944. Note the use of smoke.