Comparing echelons in the Red army

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[JasonC]

Adam - on column attack tactics, see this thread -

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=4377

On multiple roles, you are over-complicating a fundamentally simple idea. It doesn't matter in the slightest what terms are used. A FD actually fights and can therefore both block approaches to the main body and push through screens, but it does not conduct any main battle independently.

And overall, I again get the impression you are reverting to your usual form and pretending to lecture on subjects you clearly do not understand and are pretending to seek instruction about. It was tiresome the first 40 times. Give it up already.

[JasonC]

In the example in the other thread, I had all conscripts, no greens at all. I also had no off map artillery support at all. I also had extremely limited heavy weapons support - a single 82mm mortar where a real battalion would have 6 to 9, and 2 on map guns. No 50mm mortars, no tanks or SUs.

And I still had no difficulty whatever, not only attacking successfully but inflicting 3 times the losses on the defenders, that I sustained myself.

The first point in the full dress version as opposed to that cut down one (which was meant to show "you can even do it with just this...), is that the defense is not untouched at the moment of contact. Multiple heavy FOs are fired at the intended impact point of the column onto the defense, ahead of that impact by 5 minutes or so. Second, the main overwatch during the firefight by the first company is provided by the whole battalion's mortars and MGs from range. Infantry heavy weapons are the reactive organic firepower of an infantry battalion.

Third, the leading company has enourmous firepower itself, provided it holds that fire to reasonable ranges. Fire at longer ranges can delay an attack that doesn't have enough cover, but that is all it will do. Fire by only a few defending weapons and with the range long, and with the attackers halting in each scrap of cover to rally as needed, are simply incapable of shooting down the entire attack. They mess up a few men and they slow everything down. But there are more behind to address the first, and no rush whatever, to help the second.

Fourth, the leading company does not need to destroy anything for the attack to succeed, though generally it will. It is enough if it reveals the first layer of defenders and exposes them to the overwhelming firepower of the whole attack, while also absorbing their fire and thus leaving the rest of the attack unscathed during the first portion of the engagement. By the end of that first portion, the attack will be within good infantry fire range of the defense, with spots. The entire logic of depth attack is to exchange off the defenders. Their first row ablates along with your first row. And the same for the second. You have a third, they lose. In addition you are rallying the whole time, their ammo is not, etc.

It is really quite trivial to accomplish. It is enough to use all available weapons, on the correct targets, and to make no mistakes as to rushing or pushing the men too hard. The bulk of the combat will occur with most of the attackers stationary and shooting in the cover available ahead of the defenders, supplemented by the entire attacker ranged weapon arsenal. The superior weight of the attack will do the rest.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[John D Salt]

Adam - nonsense. Mere motorcycle scouts can't screen, because they lack the combat power to resist any push through their own positions. They meet any push by just getting out of the way. A forward detachment does not - it possesses the usual mix of combat power of its parent formation and it can and does stop enemy movement. Similarly it can and will fight for info more than scouts.

Mr. Picky would like to point out the difference between a "screen" and a "guard". The first observes and reports any enemy advance; the second fights it. Motorcycle scouts can screen, but they can't guard.

I think this doctrinal difference is usually the second thing cavalrymen tell you, right after the bit about "Lending tone to what would otherwise be a mere vulgar brawl".

All the best,

John.

[Der Alte Fritz]

There seems a little confusion about various units, functions etc. Having had a look at this and tried to work it out from the information in "Soviet Tactical Doctrine in WWII" by Caza, I came up with the following for recce forces:

Tank/Mech Corps = Motorcycle Bn

Tank Army = Motorcycle Regt + the Bn from the Tank/Mech Corps

There were other units listed on the TOE but according to the "Red Army Handbook" these were rarely available in practice. By the time of the Soviet advance in 1943/4 these were more complex formations with scout car companies and tank companies.

These recce assets were broken up to perform various levels of recconnaissence. The force size depended on what the recce target was. and the Soviets distinguished between "Recce Groups" which investigated large point targets likely to be defended; "Independent Recce Patrol" which investigated small point targets and "Recce Patrols" which did a big sweep.

So this is how I reckon it breaks down:

Reconnaissance Battalion 16th Tank Corps

1 x Tank Company (10 Valentines)

1 x Motorcycle Company (21 jeeps and Recon C company)

1 x Motor Rifle Company (10 Scout Cars and Recon A platoon, SMG platoon)

1 x Armoured Car Company (10 BA64 a/c)

1 x Pioneer Platoon

4 x 76mm/45mm guns

6 x 82mm mortars

disposed on map as:

RECCE GROUP

Battalion HQ in Half Track (HT)

Tank Platoon + HQ of 6 x Valentines

SMG Platoon of tank riders

Infantry Platoon of 2 x Recon A squads in 3 x Scout Cars

2 x 76mm Divisional guns

82mm mortar FO (radio)

Pioneer Platoon in lorries

plus

Point position of 1 Valentine and flank and rear guards of 2 BA64 armoured cars each.

INDEPENDENT RECCE PATROL

Tank platoon of 4 xValentines

Infantry Platoon of 2 x Recon A squads in 3 x Scout Cars

2 x 45mm AT Guns pulled by carriers

6 RECCE PATROLS

each comprises 1 x Recon C Platoon of 5 x jeeps (with half a squad in each jeep)

or 1 x Recon A squad in 4 x Scout cars

or 2 x BA64 armoured cars

from Motorcycle, Motor Rifle or Armoured Cars companies respectively.

Behind forces comes the platoon of T34 with Tank riders from the Tank Corps as an advance guard called a "Combat Recce Patrol" made up of

1 x pl T-34 (inc SMG tank riders)

1 x 120mm mortar FO

10km behind them comes the "Forward Detachment" of a reinforced Tank Battalion

1 x company T-34

1 x pl T34

1 x company SMG tank riders (some in lorries)

4 x SU152

4 x DP MG

3 x Tank Hunter

1 x 120mm mortar FO

Support troops

1 x pl Pioneers (in 3 x M3 HT)

2 x Maxim

6 x AT rifles

2 x 82mm mortars

2 x 45mm AT guns

2 x M17 HT

1 x 132mm rocket FO

Rear Guard

1 x pl T-34

Behind them comes the rest of the Tank Corps about 10km behind.

Combat application of Tank Corps from the manual:

“7. Tank crews conduct attacks at maximum speed, conduct intensive fire on the move (actually from a short halt) on guns, mortars and enemy infantry and manoeuvre on the battlefield using folds in the ground to attack the flanks and rear of enemy firing positions and infantry. Tanks do not conduct frontal attacks. I try to use "soot and scoot" in a straight line to represent this.

5. When enemy tanks appear on the battlefield they are primarily engaged by AT artillery. Tanks engage enemy tanks only when they have clear superiority and an advantageous position.

11. The main mission of the tank Corps is to destroy enemy infantry.

13. Terrain has a decisive influence on the choice of direction for tank corps operations.”

Note the use of Valentines as recce tanks, these could be T-70s as well. But the Valentine was the only UK tank the Russians asked for more of. They liked it due to the quiet engine, low silhouette, decent armour and good AT gun and did not mind about the slow speed. Perhaps this illustrates how tanks were used in recce, slow and stealthy?

[Der Alte Fritz]

Shameless plug: I have put these ideas in two scenarios available at the TSDII called Russian Offensive 3A and 3B

[JasonC]

John - semantics.

To conceal from view; block, hide. To protect, guard, or shield. To block the vision or movement of an opponent.

The leading element of an advancing force. The primary mission is to ensure the uninterrupted advance of the main body. It has the following functions: To find and exploit gaps in the enemy's defensive system; To prevent the main body of the advancing force running blindly into enemy opposition; To clear away minor opposition or, if major opposition is met, to cover the deployment of the main body.

The only non-semantic distinction is between a force in one definite location concentrated enough to prevent easy enemy movement, and forces scattered so loosely they cannot do so, but provide only information and warning about those movements. The more concentrated can be called an advanced guard, the less concentrated can't properly be so called (it is advanced, but its function isn't to guard, etc). Either can be called recon (e.g. when the more concentrated uses that to push past thin enemy scouts), but the less concentrated more properly so.

Either can screen a larger formation or movement, that is just english. To screen is a function or tactical objective sought, anything that accomplishes it can be called a screening element.

Nobody discussing this can possible require instruction as to the distinct actual roles or what is needed to accomplish them, making this all a pendantic distraction.

DAF - thanks for the substantive input and CM scale examples, they are fun.

Everyone else - sigh. What a wonderful way to encourage people to answer your questions at great length with CM implementable detail. For my next vacation I'll go to the dentist for a root canal.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Der Alte Fritz]

Thanks for the comment JasonC but is what I have set out correct? One issue is how did these free-wheeling recce formations fit in with Stalinist Soviet doctrine which emphesised control, following orders and a plan and close supervision?

[Tero]

By Der Alte Fritz

One issue is how did these free-wheeling recce formations fit in with Stalinist Soviet doctrine which emphesised control, following orders and a plan and close supervision?

The thing is they are not by any means free-wheeling in the Western (German/Anglo-American) sense. While they may be named "Independent" their task was clearly defined and limited within the limits of the master plan the main force is following. The same goes BTW to the "independent" artillery formations. STAVKA stripped the basic formations of organic recce and fire support and allocated it according to their planned needs. They would pull resources if the attack was behind schedule eventhough the tactical situation would have warranted extending the timetable.

You described a late war make-up of a recce formation. By then the Red Army had adopted the sumo wrestler doctrine. Besides concentration of force it also entailed extensive preplanning and preparation with adjoining extensive intel effort and anticipation of enemy by-the-book response to tactical stimuli. The recce formations task included reconnoitering and precise fixing of enemy positions (down to individual emplacements) mine fields and clearing avenues through them, clearing enemy outposts ahead of the main attack, capture of "tongues" etc.

AFAIK late in the war the Red Army would rarely attack into the unknown in terms of inadequate intel about the opposing force composition and disposition. Once the MLD was penetrated their moves anticipated the enemy reactions and their preplanned objectives were set so that the enemy reinforcements would be expended piecemeal against the Red Army preplanned and allocated resources. If an attack was succesful beyond planned going beyond planned objectives rarely happened.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

what a confusing thread. some late war Soviet terminology:

ground reconnaissance

- penetrates enemy reconnaissance and security forces and seeks to find out the location & strength of the enemy, where the flanks are and so forth

- besides utilizing observation, forces enemy to display his strength by combat action

- conducted at various levels, e.g. as detachments (combined arms battalions), separate groups (a company of tanks + some infantry), patrols (squad to platoon)

security

- aims to prevent an enemy surprise attack, enemy reconnaissance of the friendly forces and give the friendly forces time to react to the enemy

- does it simply by warning of the incoming enemy

- conducted as march security, halt security and battle outposts

screening forces

- used as a temporary buffer between the enemy and the friendly forces concentrating or employing for an attack

advance guard

- used when friendly and enemy main body are separated by a long distance or a series of obstacles

- defeats outposts and obstacles (enemy recon and security forces), and establishes contact with enemy main defensive line ahead of the friendly main body, with the aim of providing the friendly main body good positions for the actual attack

- very aggressive

- consists of breaching teams, lots of arty, tanks, combat engineers, CAS

first echelon of the main body

- in the context of advance guard, first echelon follows the advance guard, clearing and organizing passages for the main body

[undead reindeer cavalry]

after rereading some of the thread, i think Adam's questions still aren't answered. i'll speak of post WW2 Soviet doctrine, as this is what Adam is asking about.

in offense forward detachment (FD) secures key terrain locations revelant for movement of the main force. moving as fast as possible the FD avoids battle with the enemy security forces (and brakes contact with them) unless they are weak enough to be destroyed with ease. the FD acts independtly from the main body in the sense that it does not provide it any march security, doesn't have to move the route the main body will etc, but it does have specific given objectives. i guess all this is clear.

in contrast to the FD the advance guard (AG) moves the very same route the main body does and aims to destroy any enemy force / obstacle it encounters even if it is superior to itself. if it fails in destroying the enemy force it waits for reinforcements but keeps contact with the enemy and then attacks again. the difference between an AG and a FD is quite considerable.

in defence the FD acts as the outmost layer in the security zone with the mission of delaying the enemy force by destroying its recon & security elements in a fighting withdrawal. its delaying tactics are based around picking fights at alternate strongpoints consisting of reinforced motorized rifle companies located around the security zone, fighting a three phase battle consisting of indirect fires, ambushes, counterattacks and changes of positions utilizing the large space it has been given.

at first FD is located at the most likely enemy routes of advance, as strongpoints in scattered line formation. when the FD detects enemy forces it engages them at maximum range from the outer edges of the security zone both by indirect (arty in the security zone, CAS, fancy army level assets) and direct fires (ambush style). this in order to just cause attrition and delay.

next, elements of the FD move out to alternate positions to destroy advancing recon and security forces of the enemy. once those have been forced back the used elements of the FD return to their strongpoints.

next the enemy advance guard attacks the FD's positions. the FD repulses the attack but with considerable losses. the FD moves compromised units to secondary positions.

possibly bypassed units are still calling indirect fires at the enemy as he launches the main body against the FD. the FD fights back as much as it can (not much) while it withdraws and moves to cover secondary routes at the flanks, leaving the defence against the enemy main advance to the forward elements of the friendly main body.

so to answer the specific questions:

- the tactics used by the companies of FD are different from the ones used by the companies of the main body, as you probably can read from the above general description. e.g. when in offense the FD avoids contact with the enemy while the AG seeks contact with the enemy. e.g. in defence the companies of the FD are scattered in strongpoints that most likely are not mutually supporting and which are not even planned to "hold the line", while the companies of the main body are in positions that are mutually supporting and which are planned to stop the enemy. etc.

- the reason why FD exists in the portions it does is based entirely on the estimated strength of the various elements of the enemy. e.g. in defence the mission of the FD is to destroy enemy recon elements and halt enemy advance guard -- thus it requires forces that are capable of accomplishing that mission.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[undead reindeer cavalry]

I'm not sure why the recon forces are meant to engage in combat, my understanding being that recon patrols generally find the enemy by observation and "bumps" and the rest of the recon detachment as a whole tries to avoid what the CRP's find, with the overall mission of infiltration for information.

yeah, modern Soviet recon tactics are based a lot more in infiltration. the WW2 era tactics i was talking about were much more aggressive with raids and such. the reason why recon forces were meant to engage in combat is that it's the only way the enemy can be forced to show his force. of course observation was important as well, but it could provide only limited information.

The other quibble is about the advanced guard being very aggressive, I'm not sure that is necessary, but this depends on context. Feel free to share your thoughts on this.

the missions of advance guards are such that it is forced it to be aggressive. they are not a recon force. AG is what destroys those enemy forces the recon & FD forces bypassed. it destroys the outposts and clears obstacles. it's what enables the main body to deploy for the attack, and it does it by combat and it does it as quickly as possible. its actions are fast, bold and resolute. the only time it goes temporarily to defence is when it faces an enemy it fails to destroy, and even then it doesn't brake contact with the enemy. it is very different from a forward detachment or a recon force.

why not do away with the forward detachment? There are obvious advantages you get by detaching a part of your force, in this case roughly a tank battalion reinforced with an infantry company. You define those pretty well. So why do I ask? I want to know if this detachment is seen as a *sacrifice* of absolute combat power for the unit. What that means, is that if you take the same units in the forward detachment and stuff them into the first echelon of the regimental defense, entrenched and integrated with those co-units, they will be more powerful in raw combat power and survivability than if they were being used as a mobile detachment.

units fighting in the security zone of a motorized rifle division could be up to a regiment in size.

the individual strongpoints of a FD are build around a motorized rifle company, reinforced with assets like a tank platoon, engineers, ATGM and AA assets and some arty. these strongpoints can fight alone and surrounded. they are fortified and have multiple alternate positions (both as alternate strongpoints and as alternate positions within any given strongpoint). between strongpoints there are mines and such.

the FD does not fight the delaying battle only with its own assets, it also functions as the eyes of the weaponry behind it (up to front level). the strongpoints are located so that enemy is channeled into predefined kill sacks for these higher level assets (and of course to FD assets as well, e.g. AT kill sacks). also, the FD is not alone in the security zone -- there are stuff like Reconnaissance Fire Complexes, possible supporting elements of the main body and so forth.

besides the covered stuff, the FD has two additional roles which may now have come entirely clear.

a) it deceives the enemy about the actual location of the main defensive line. besides denying recon etc, the last defensive position of the FD imitates the main defensive line.

it gives time for the main body to react to the enemy advance. this is important in the Soviet doctrine, because, for example, the Soviets try to use mines in reaction to the actual route the enemy is taking at the very moment (they are laying and firing mines still just minutes before the enemy arrives).

so no, i do not agree that FD is a sacrifice of combat power. the way it fights is a valid tactic out of its own (as much as the defender has enough space). but besides that, it maximizes the combat power of the main body (utilization of indirect assets, engineering works, locations & preparedness of AT zones, reserves etc) and the utilization of higher level assets (arty, aviation etc).

If it is accepted that the idea is to sacrifice some absolute combat power (entrenched, defending, integrated vs. mobile, attacking, independent) then the next questions is: *Why* are the Soviets talking about making *every* combat formation into a "forward detachment-style" unit in their late doctrinal debates? The general answer is, "Nuclear weapons and precision weapons mean we have to spread out and stay mobile to survive..." But, specifically, is that accurate, and if so what specifically does the forward detachment have going for it that makes it *more* difficult to persecute by precision air and/or nuclear fire?

it being more scattered and mobile? just compare FD to the main defences of a motorized rifle division.

why would anyone want to make units FD style? because they can.

what's not to like in calling down front level fires 25 km in front of your first regimental defense line? having tiny company sized units work in cooperation (fancy comms) and ambush valuable divisional assets of the enemy, while still not offering the enemy any good targets to shoot at and making them run into further ambushes in mined kill sacks?

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[undead reindeer cavalry]

But there ARE penalties.

indeed.

A unit is less vulnerable to air and nuclear strike by being scattered and mobile - how specifically?

by being harder to detect and harder to hit.

No amount of separation from your parent will help - it's not like nuclear weapons are so scarce they can only be used against targets of division scale or higher, or are they?

the use of nukes against potential company strongpoints is not realistic. if the doomsday has arrived there are far better targets.

But the other element was airpower, and I know what will protect a formation from precision air-delivered weapons - air defense. A unit covered by S-300, or Patriot, is pretty safe while those systems are operational. All those other systems, the "formational SAMs" like SA-15 and SA-13 work better when grouped together, since hit probabilities are actually pretty low from what I gather against typical fighter bombers maneuvering. If that's the case, the creation of mobile detachments actually assumes some additional risk from aviation, as the unit gets further from the rest of the parent formation's air defenses.

which is why FD has additional AA assets.

BTW your take on air defense is quite "Western". what you see as a problem is what Soviets see as a solution.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[undead reindeer cavalry]

What is that specifically?

scatter the units. have alternate prepared positions. offer dummy targets. etc stuff that aims to conceal your force and guide the enemy fires anyway.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[undead reindeer cavalry]

effective air-to-ground missions require planning and intel. scattering and alternate prepared positions makes it hard for the enemy to aquire good targets (both as a force and as validity of info) and thus hard to plan missions.

the usage of battlefield nuclear weapons is a topic of its own and i'd rather not get dragged into a discussion about it. if you are interested in the subject i suggest you do some googling, as there are quite a number of papers about the subject around the net.

NATO force (depeding a bit on the era) would use battlefield nuclear weapons when available conventional weapons aren't good for the task. targets would be stuff like an enemy armored spearhead that has smashed your forces, an enemy reserve group or a specific high value target (like a located HQ or nuclear weaponry). the yield of the nukes could be anything from sub-kiloton to 100+ kilotons. typically they would be used in groups ("pulse"). theoretically a divisional sector could have hundres of kilotons of goods, depending on era and situation. individual targets could be battalions and regiments in size (each receiving one or two overlapping strikes). it all depends. anyway, the idea is not to use nukes on potential company strongpoints at enemy security zone but against high value targets.