"Soviet Canine anti-tank units" Topic

Legend has it that the Russians trained these trusting pooches to run under tanks, by baiting the tanks with food. UNFORTUNATELY… the doggies preferred to run under Russian tanks, whether that was due to being familiar with having been trained on/under Russian tanks, or having sussed out the unfairness of it all and taking revenge.

Since this was an Early War tactic, soon abandoned, will they be in the FINALLY ARRIVING FoW supplement Barbarossa?
And if not, how would one suggest their use? Obviously, a "normal" rifle unit except in tank assaults.
Perhaps an AT rating of 4.
And if there are Russki tanks in the vicinity, a Skill test to keep them from turning on their Comrades? Or use a Komissar rule?
Like a f;amethrower, use once and remove.
Attach to a Strelkovy company? A Sapper company?
Points?
Discuss.

I don't know why, but I have 2 packs of the Peter Pig kamikaze dogs. If on medium stands, that would give me four elements, each with one dog and handlers.

Wikipedia has an article on their use -

link

Looking quickly, I'd say 5 points per team, move as infantry. Use small stands for a handler team and the dog. Range 6 inches. When the dog handler is within range place the dog next to the target tank and roll a D6. On a 5 or 6 the dog inflicts an AT4 against top armour. Any other roll remove the dog as a failed attack.

They should be an add-on option to a Strelkovy co HQ, like an AT rifle. Maybe a maximum of 2 per co ?

The ASPCA and RSPCA will have a blue fit, but that just adds to the fun .

We ran a participation game about these a few years back (Sgt Pavolvs Dogs).

They are run as indpendant anti-tank teams, not sure how that fits into FOW organisations though.

The chances of a successful attack are low (Guthroths suggestion looks fine), although you may wish to make the target selection a bit more random (ie use scatter dice for movement and they will attack the nearest tank within X inches, friend or foe). Set X as you wish, it depends how much of a precision weapon you think they were, we decided they weren't.

Oh, and when the dog is removed so is the handler, and the Handler stand has no weapons capability on it's own.

I'm very tempted to paint some up just for a giggle ….

I guess I should paint them up, then.

Since in FoW, all kinds of guys become "rifle" units when not involved in their primary tasks, that is the only reason I rate them as "rifle".
I suppose if tanks are foolish enough to assault a platoon with visible dogs in them, they should suffer the results of a counter-attack. This would be done despite flamethrowers being unable to counter-attack.

Peter Pig has one, should BF fail you:

Minifigs 12mm has them as well.

That's just wrong man…..

They were not a successful weapon system. They were unlikely to run under a tank in the first place, and if they did it was more likely to be a Soviet tank.

First, even when a dog is very hungry they tend not to go seeking food when under stress. Being exposed to a battlefield, with explosions, gun fire, and shouting (all far more overwhelming to a dog's hearing) tended to cause the dogs to cower rather than race to the enemy's tanks looking for a meal. And if their trainers scolded them or yelled at them, they were half inclined to role over in submission, blowing themselves and the handler to pieces.

As a result, the dogs were useless on an active battlefield. Rather, they had to be released on a calm front, in the hope they would go search out some parked tank in the quiet and calm.

This highlighted the second problem with the idea: dogs orient on scent. They were trained on Soviet tanks. The smell of diesel (used in most Soviet tanks) was quite different from gasoline (used in all German tanks). So dogs trained without regard to the fuel type made a B-line for a Soviet tank. But even when the Soviets started training them under gas-powered Soviet tanks (BTs, T-26s), the smell of the tanks differed due to the types of rubber on the roadwheels, the types of oil and grease used to lube the fittings. Eventually they were trained under captured German tanks. Still, it was not a very successful approach, as the dogs could also orient on the types of rations, gun oil, or even laundry soap used by Red Army maintenance personnel. In general they sought familiar smells to find their food, and the Germans just didn't smell familiar.

And the final flaw in the idea was … it took very little time for the Germans to figure out what was going on. So orders were issued to shoot dogs on site. With that, it was not more likely that a dog would survive long enough to get under a German tank than a Soviet sapper, even less likely as the dogs did not know how to move stealthily on the battlefield.

A curiosity. Amusing to us now, in a twisted sort of way. But ineffective to the point of being worse than useless.

Or so I've read.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

An interesting footnote: some higher-ups in the US Army (or was it Marines?) convinced themselves that dogs could smell the difference between races. And so a program was undertaken to teach dogs … well, to eat the throats of Japanese men.

A unit of Nissei (first generation Japanese Americans) was recruited for the purpose of training the dogs. They were isolated on an island off the South-East Coast. The dogs were fed nothing but raw meat, which was always placed on the throats of the Japanese American soldiers. Then they were trained with a sort of hide-and-seek game, with white soldiers taking the dogs out to find the Nissei trainers hiding in the tropical forest, and the dogs trying to find them to get their meal (always raw meat, always off of the throat of the Nissei).

Again the program failed. Each individual smelled different (to the dogs), but race was irrelevant. A dog would track on it's individual trainer, but was no more likely to seek out a different nissei soldier than a different white soldier. The laundry soap and rations were the key factor. White or Japanese made no difference in the smell of a soldier. Eventually the program was quietly shut down, and the personnel re-assigned to other duties.

But the first-hand accounts make for interesting, if odd, reading.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Every time mine dogs are mentioned, the same reasons why they are a mistake are trotted out.

Yet, the Soviets continued with the program past the first employment, disaster or not. Surely the Soviets were in the best position to know whether the program was worth continuing or not.

Is there any actual documentation of the failures of the program other than German sources sneering at the concept for propaganda purposes? Because these same German sources show that the Germans did issue shoot to kill orders for dogs, indicating they were afraid of the mine dogs, and that fear had to be founded on something.

On the other hand, the Soviets were very successful training dogs to sniff out mines. One unit of such dogs got a "Guards" designation for their excellent work clearing Budapest of booby-traps and such.

Good points, tuscaloosa.

Having been around a dog that was a training aid I can say that a dog, as with horses, can be habituated to the battlefield. This dog considered the training area to be his domain, he had no fear of what occured like, petrol explosions in wrecked cars to represent IED blasts or RPG hits. Fake RPG explosions against buildings that could be substaintial, heck, the dog even liked to chase flash bang that were thrown, (before they detonated), towards crowds to clear and area or move the crowd back. The dog went where ever he wanted, but always had an eye for his handler/trainer, who with a word could get the dog to his side as the handler wandered about the "village". The Russian training of the dogs was probably rushed and they were throw into battle because there was a need. If they had performed well, all sorts of State run kennels would have been created to produce this effective weapon system. First use may not have been a success, but others that were still in training were probably pushed into use with the thought being that some good should come from the expense of training the animals until such time as the commisar or Comrade Stalin felt the resourses spent were not worth the results achieved.

Mark 1 wrote:

And so a program was undertaken to teach dogs … well, to eat the throats of Japanese men.

A unit of Nissei (first generation Japanese Americans) was recruited for the purpose of training the dogs.

Would you have a link to this?

tuscaloosa wrote:

Surely the Soviets were in the best position to know whether the program was worth continuing or not.

Very true. The Soviets did not continue the program. Evidently it wasn't worth the time or resources.

Ah, Mserafin has made an interesting point. I had rather wondered why they seem to be a commonplace in engineering packs but now I can file the silly bomb-pack off and have a use for them.

There are recorded accounts of German tanks being damaged by these canine kamikaze, so I think some of the posters on this thread are letting 21st C sensibilities get the better of them.

It is a reasonable tactic in 1941, but fell away after that apparently because there were better uses for the resources.

Say way that so many pre war 'good ideas' were abandoned once the shooting started.

On another smell related item, was reading that US veteran soldiers would teach new replacements that Germans could be smelled by their personal equipment belts/suspenders, which was leather instead of canvas. Dunno if that was done to seem mystical or if it was potentially real.

Alright, I'll claim the 21st century sensitivities, I have a service dog so , yeah, I'm guilty……… : (