Roman Walt | 25 Mar 2015 10:30 a.m. PST |
As per the title, have the recent events in the Ukraine, Chechnya etc changed the western view of how the Soviet (as opposed to export versions) tanks etc would have performed if the cold war had gone hot? |
Garand | 25 Mar 2015 10:45 a.m. PST |
IIRC the Russians were not much satisfied with how the T-80 performed in Chechnya. Also it seems a lot of the use of more current Russian equipment is vs other Russian/Soviet equipment, so I don't know if direct comparisons can be made… Damon. |
Weasel | 25 Mar 2015 10:47 a.m. PST |
To be fair, I don't think it'd have mattered if the Russians had used Challenger and M1 in Chechnya, they'd have been bloodied just as bad. It seems in general that the Russian kit is "okay". Not awful, not amazing. Just okay. That's what it was built to do. |
Saber6 | 25 Mar 2015 10:51 a.m. PST |
So "OK" kit with "OK" operators or "OK" kit with "so so" operators? How much of the performance is training based? I remember reading that part of the Cold war issue was "simpler" kit was actually harder to use/maintain |
Weasel | 25 Mar 2015 11:02 a.m. PST |
My mental rule of thumb is 3 to 1 as far as "operator" versus "kit". Put the Iraqi's in Challengers and the coalition in T72, and the Iraqi's still lose. I imagine simple kit will have more limitations. It smoothes off the edges of the curve. A complex weapon requires better training to use effectively but it also doesn't limit what can be achieved as much. A simpler, cruder weapon is easier to use if you have limited training but also can't be used to achieve as much. Effectively, the complex weapon can operate on a scale from 1 to 10, while the simple weapon operates from a 3 to 8. (this is all me talking out of my *** but it seems to hold out well enough. Wars nowadays tend to be won by whoever wants it the most) |
lkmjbc3 | 25 Mar 2015 11:35 a.m. PST |
It is much better than most considered in the 1980s. Many rules estimated 250mm armor for T72. The reality is 350mm for the T72 and 400mm for the T64 series. Of course most rules gave Sovs all T72… none of which was deployed in Germany. The same course is followed with Soviet rounds. The standard BM22 is still deployed and effective versus many tanks today. It would have killed an Abrams at combat ranges. Soviet weapons systems were just like their WW2 counterparts. They were tough, simple, and effective. 1985 would have been tough for Nato. Joe Collins |
Mako11 | 25 Mar 2015 1:59 p.m. PST |
Russian on Russian/Ukrainian kit battles really don't tell you much about how they would fair against Western armor. |
emckinney | 25 Mar 2015 2:13 p.m. PST |
I imagine simple kit will have more limitations. It smoothes off the edges of the curve.A complex weapon requires better training to use effectively but it also doesn't limit what can be achieved as much. A simpler, cruder weapon is easier to use if you have limited training but also can't be used to achieve as much. What's your definition of "simpler" vs. "more complex"? A Stinger is a lot more high-tech than the SA-2 was, but the SA-2 required a tremendous amount of training to use effectively. The Stinger is relatively simple to use. DOS vs. Win7? Manual choke vs. automatic choke? 3-speed manual transmission vs. 9-speed computer-controlled automatic? We see this a lot--early versions require a lot of skill to use effectively, while more advanced version handle things automatically. One of the biggest changes on the battlefield around the 80s was the introduction of reliable, effective laser rangefinders. The hardest part of long-range tank gunnery was rangefinding. It required excellent equipment, good training, and luck. Even then, there was considerable uncertainty in the results. Lasers didn't make things foolproof, but they vastly increased accuracy, made rangefinding much faster, eliminated many errors, and reduced the skill needed by gunners. |
Weasel | 25 Mar 2015 2:32 p.m. PST |
That's an excellent point actually. |
DS6151 | 25 Mar 2015 2:34 p.m. PST |
I've always thought they were viewed in the same way we viewed the Sherman's in WWII. They aren't great at anything, but we have a lot of them. |
John the Confused | 25 Mar 2015 3:37 p.m. PST |
"Quantity has a quality all its own" J. Stalin. |
Quaker | 25 Mar 2015 4:10 p.m. PST |
I think emckinney has the point about Soviet "simplicity". The M1 Abrams fire control system was pretty much point and shoot. Whereas many T-72 were still using a coincidence rangefinder, and the variants with a laser rangefinder had a much more complex to use ballistics calculator than the M1. You can see the same thing with the early Saggers. They required the operator to fly the missile to the target with a joystick. Whereas the US developed the TOW which just required the operator to visually track the target. The Western edge in electronics allowed them to develop much more technically complex systems that eased the burden on the operator. Many rules estimated 250mm armor for T72. That just shows they didn't do their research. FM-100-2-3 lists that as bout the T-62s armor, and the T-72 and friends were known to have much thicker composite armor. NATO didn't start to standardize on 120mm cannons for nothing. The only real surprise was the quality of late Soviet APFDS rounds (never exported). The Swedes got a shock when they tested those after the collapse of the Soviet Union and found they cut straight through an S-tank. |
Sobieski | 25 Mar 2015 4:18 p.m. PST |
Since when is "fair" a verb? |
Lion in the Stars | 25 Mar 2015 6:00 p.m. PST |
IIRC the Russians were not much satisfied with how the T-80 performed in Chechnya. Yeah, tanks tend to get blown to hell when you send them into a city without infantry support! |
paulgenna | 26 Mar 2015 7:44 a.m. PST |
Is there a FM that describes armor and weapon system penetration capability? |
Petrov | 26 Mar 2015 8:16 a.m. PST |
Yeah the Chechnya reference is meaningless, all the other tanks in Chechnya did just as poorly. There was an article recently about it, basically Soviets forgot the lessons of urban warfare, their plane for supressing urban areas was to roll large formations of armor through it to "cow" the population. If you send it a tank with no infantry support against VETERANS in urban terrain where they had months of preparation you better bring body bags. |
Petrov | 26 Mar 2015 8:24 a.m. PST |
I dont know what the Russians have now but the difference in "optics" between Soviets and NATO in 1980's and on was quite massive. Range finders alone were in a different state of development. By the time Soviets came with a laser range finders NATO had an integrated system. The soviets had to bounce the laser off the target and get the read out and physically enter that into a "ballistic computer". That took time, as one Vietnam veteran I know said "you die between the gaps", all you need is that couple of seconds delay to get blown to pieces. People looking through tank optics are going to see it and see where the beam came from, basically you are yelling shoot me first! As much as people like to disparage coincidence range finders they have their place on a modern battlefield with the current state of technology. |
Mako11 | 26 Mar 2015 10:50 a.m. PST |
I was surprised to see how short a range Soviet tanks had, in the 1960s and 1970s, for their "modern" weapons. I recall anything beyond about 1,500m being a very long range, low probability shot, for the T-54/55s, and the T-62s, which basically puts them in the ballpark of WWII level tech, as far as accuracy goes. Of course, as Petrov mentions, that improved with the laser rangefinders, but having to enter that data in manually while someone is shooting back it you is probably more than a little unnerving. |
Lion in the Stars | 26 Mar 2015 12:02 p.m. PST |
So "OK" kit with "OK" operators or "OK" kit with "so so" operators? How much of the performance is training based? The issues in Chechnya were definitely training. Tanks in an urban area without infantry support = dead tanks. Even the Abrams or Chally 2 are in deep trouble without supporting infantry. But the problem is that it takes a LOT of time to get troops trained up to the current US standard. IIRC, 2 years or so, though they're competent enough at generalist tasks after 12 months. The more unusual stuff like urban warfare or airborne operations takes longer. As I understand it, the Russian conscription term is 18 months to 2 years, so they're basically discharging the troops as soon as they're finally competent. The Russian unwillingness to extend the term of conscription or to go to an all-volunteer force with longer enlistments is why they've built weirdness like the BMP-T to serve as an anti-infantry "escort tank"… |
Petrov | 26 Mar 2015 12:13 p.m. PST |
Soviet weapons had a excellent range, their training/optics/rangefinding equipment/stabilizers what made their range short compared to NATO stuff. |
Mako11 | 26 Mar 2015 12:51 p.m. PST |
That's what I meant, Petrov. Sorry I wasn't clear. |
Quaker | 26 Mar 2015 3:10 p.m. PST |
As much as people like to disparage coincidence range finders they have their place on a modern battlefield with the current state of technology. I mentioned them just because they (and early Soviet laser range finders) are just slow (and require a high degree of training for good results) compared to the sort of integrated FCS that NATO tanks were using by the '80s. These days you could use computer vision to do the image comparison and it would probably be much faster than a human could do it. Though probably not quite as fast or accurate as laser range finding. Late Western tanks were based around findings from the Arab-Israeli wars were it was determined that target acquisition and the ability to accurately lay fire was what decided tank combat. The Soviets never seem to have integrated that knowledge. |
Kropotkin303 | 26 Mar 2015 4:39 p.m. PST |
I'm a bit of a novice here but I recently found out that some ww2/cold war tank crews were trained to fire on the move and others not. Were soviet crews trained to do this or did they have to stop to fire? I recall that British ww2 tank crew were trained to fire on the move without the benefit of hi-tech equipment. Apparently the Swedish 2 tank had to stop to aim. Did the soviet training in the cold war period enable them to fire on the move? I recall "somewhere" that Iraqi tankers had to stop/aim/fire but that may be just propaganda. Thoughts welcome. |
Mako11 | 26 Mar 2015 5:13 p.m. PST |
I've heard of both, and firing on the move, even for many Western nations with pre-M1 Abrahams, or West German Leopard IIs is pretty tough to do, accurately. Usually they'd advance, and fire from the short halt, if the accounts I've read are correct. However, they can fire on the move, just not very accurately. I'd say, based upon various rules I've seen, that there's perhaps a 5% – 10% chance of hitting the target, while firing on the move. The Soviets even used platoon volley fire, e.g. 3 – 4 tanks firing on one target, to try to counteract the above, a bit, especially at longer ranges. |
Quaker | 26 Mar 2015 5:40 p.m. PST |
Yeah, firing at the move against anything but point blank range isn't going to be very effective unless the tank has full stabilisation. It would only be practical pre-stabilisation if moving fairly slowly over very flat ground. Even MG fire generally can't be considered "aimed fire" while a tank is moving. Also I suspect the British example was with early tanks that had light turrets and small guns that were elevated with the shoulder of the gunner. In that scenario the gunner can compensate for the movement of the tank. It would be impossible with guns that needed to be cranked into position. |
Weasel | 26 Mar 2015 6:13 p.m. PST |
For ww2, firing on the move even with stabilization (Shermans pretty much) was a pretty dicey move. As a general rule, anything that can be attempted in war will be attempted and on occasion, it might even succeed. |
Karaz123 | 27 Mar 2015 6:09 a.m. PST |
@ Mako11 Regarding the perceived lower accuracy of soviet MBT's beyond 1500 m or so. (Well, I have friends that where tankers in Leopard 2's in that period. Leopard 2's and Abrams did have higher accuracy and higher ROF over soviet mbt's according to them. They trained accordingly) I understand that was a consious design decision on the part of the soviets. When analysing the European potential battlefield they found that typical line of sight there rarely goes beyond 1000 – 1500 meters. Therefore; why bother designing better. Make it cheap and simple. |
Klebert L Hall | 27 Mar 2015 6:35 a.m. PST |
It hasn't changed my perception, I haven't been terribly impressed by it since the 1980s. -Kle. |
Quaker | 27 Mar 2015 6:41 a.m. PST |
@Kazaz
they found that typical line of sight there rarely goes beyond 1000 – 1500 meters That is only true for central Germany. The Soviets knew they had issues with their effective gunnery ranges which is why they developed cannon launched missiles and improved the optics and FCS on later tanks. The T-55 and T-62 would be lucky to hit at 1000 meters under combat conditions. |
Petrov | 27 Mar 2015 8:35 a.m. PST |
Even 1500 under, the first one to hit wins the fight most often, NATO folks had integrated targeting systems, Soviets did not, those several seconds mattered a lot. |
Karaz123 | 30 Mar 2015 3:14 p.m. PST |
O absolutely. as the israelis very strongly proved i think. Just pointing out that soviet designers where/are not stupid and that simple comparison of stats is not the whole story. Soviet design has a knack for being brutal and efficient. Less concerned with the people that operate their equipment though. soviet tanks where cramped and where inferior in a lot of aspects. But there where a lot of them and they where build to keep going. Example of soviet design: the su25 frogfoot can even fly on diesel fuel! And has all its tools and spares standard on board with it in special pods. Half the price of an a-10 but same amount of hardpoints and twice as fast. |
monongahela | 31 Mar 2015 10:09 a.m. PST |
I still don't quite understand where the idea of quality or even superior Soviet equipment comes from. Certainly I have never seen a "modern" Soviet AFV so I cannot judge from that basis. But what I have seen / used of Soviet farm & construction machinery and oilfield equipment and techniques in the 1990's suggested a late 50-60's technological base. Worked? Sure. Mostly. Crude, unreliable, often defective, lacking in many important user features? Yes. |
Lion in the Stars | 31 Mar 2015 4:06 p.m. PST |
Example of soviet design: the su25 frogfoot can even fly on diesel fuel! Diesel fuel is basically kerosene. Most jet engines can actually run on anything flammable and liquid, from alcohol to gasoline to kerosene. The US got lazy-smart and demanded that all vehicles run on JP8, which is about half Jet A and half high-test Diesel. And everything runs on JP8 now, from Humvees to B2s. And has all its tools and spares standard on board with it in special pods. Now, that is a good idea! Half the price of an a-10 but same amount of hardpoints and twice as fast. Wikipedia says both the Su25 and A10 run about $11 USD or $12 USD million. The Su25 has a smaller gun (2-barrels instead of 7, and wimpier ammo) and only a little over half the bombload. 8800lbs for the Su25 and 16,000lbs for the A10. On the other hand, the Su25 *is* about 100-200 knots faster. (Depending on whether published "Maximum Speed" for the Su25 is "never exceed" or "straigh&level") |
ScoutJock | 01 Apr 2015 1:49 p.m. PST |
So at the end of GW 1 I'm tooling around in my chopper taking pictures of what used to be the largest army in the Middle East and there are these three T72s sitting in a wadi. I land, get out of the chopper with my trusty 9 mil and leather man pocket tool to see what I could salvage. They were intact and completely deserted. So I climbed on the first one and put about 30 rounds down range through the 12.7 on the top and it promptly jams. Looked into the turret and somebody had taken a dump in it so there was no reason to look any further for souvenirs. Checked out the other two and same story. The driver's hatch was open on one so I was able to wiggle in and using mr leatherman took out the clock and compass which I still have today. The clock is purely mechanical and is a complete POS. It loses about a minute per hour. No wonder they couldn't coordinate anything. So yeah their hardware is crap – literally. [URL=http://s53.photobucket.com/user/Cav-Dog/media/image.jpg1_zpsloixleob.jpg.html]
[/URL] Photo of said contraband. Notice time difference between commie clock and Bose radio behind it that was used to set it three days ago. |
Lion in the Stars | 01 Apr 2015 8:47 p.m. PST |
Cool souvenir, Scoutjock! As warped as it sounds, I would have been tempted to dismantle one of the sabot rounds and bring the sabot home with me… |
Mako11 | 02 Apr 2015 10:55 a.m. PST |
I was really surprised to see the armor ratings on the newer T72s, and to learn that they couldn't be penetrated frontally, in some of their later variants. The armor ratings of those with the ERA are just crazy good (check them out on Wikipedia), and the Super Dolly parton armor is impressive, as the name implies (better than the T80). Certainly would have been a rude awakening to NATO, if we'd had to fight against them. There are even reports of some TOW missiles not penetrating them frontally, during the Israeli battles with the Syrians. Clearly, most of the Cold War rules I own have got that wrong, so will need to consider new ones, and/or adjusting those to reflect the more recent info. |
seneffe | 04 Apr 2015 4:22 p.m. PST |
Actually, I'm not so sure. I'm not a post WWII buff by any means (though getting more interested reading some of this stuff) and conscious therefore that I'm outside my area of real knowledge. But I've had a little bit of possibly interesting input a few years back from former Soviet front line and staff officers- I've mentioned a bit of in a thread about BMPs recently. Essentially, there was a great deal of concern amongst officers charged with operating them certainly in the mid-late 1980s about the surviveability of their MBTs and other principal combat vehicles against NATO weaponry, and their reliability- not as basic vehicles but as functioning combat systems (a key difference which was explained to me). The surviveability concern was based on serious and never properly corrected design flaws running through all types up to the T80 related to dangerous fuel and ammo storage, dangerous electrics and hydraulics disposition -basically trying to fit too much 'stuff' into a very small space. Other problems were poor manufacture quality of armour- and especially the Contact explosive armour which the crews had little faith in the effectiveness of standard issue (as opposed to demonstration) fits. Don't have any further detail to add on why that was in fairness though. The reliability as combat systems point was about very poor manufacture quality of many vital components such as sights, rangefinders, elevation and traverse mechanisms, even crew intercoms. None of these could be relied upon to function properly for any length of time in the field on exercise. Spare parts and competent maintenance staff were in desperately short supply even in elite units, and many vehicles took to the field on exercise able to move but virtually unable to fight. NBC and wading provision was also judged by units to be ineffective on most standard issue vehicles, and not often used on exercise for fear of demoralising the conscripts. There is a joke I think I understood about a piece of paperwork required to sign off vehicles as safe for wading on exercise which was always referred to as the 'suicide note'. Overall, I got the impression that Soviet officers expected their AFVs to keep going and and going through everything- except combat against serious opposition. |
Mako11 | 04 Apr 2015 4:43 p.m. PST |
Oh, I agree with a lot of your points there as well. Seems the T-72s suffer from that also, where someone noted that of seven that were knocked out, five had their turrets damaged. I'm not sure if that was a translation error, but some of the pics I've seen have them blown off, and theoretically the turrets are supposed to be the most protected area of any tank, save perhaps for the very sloped, front glacis. I've read about a lot of turrets being blown off, due to hits that penetrate, and set off their ammo. I suspect though, in many cases, those may be due to side shots, or weapons with impressive penetration values. |
specforc12 | 05 Apr 2015 12:00 a.m. PST |
Regarding pre-3rd Generation tanks ability to fire on the move, having had discussions with actual American tank commanders/gunners, up to the M60A3, yes they had gun and turret stabilization, but the reality is that shooting on the move, until the advent of the M1 Abrams, was pretty dismal. Russian tanks even worse. An example that was described how, while in Germany these american tankers set up a bedsheet on the firing range and did a drive by from not that far away and missed the sheet completely. Running the very same course with the Abrams, they punched a clean hole right through the middle of the sheet, also while on the move. The fact of the matter is that especially, in WW2 all the way through to the newer 3rd generation tanks and their systems, simply needed to stop, aim, and fire to have any chance in hell of hitting the target. The accuracy and power of a tank like the M1 Abrams (incl the Challenger II, and Leopard II in this category) can be exemplified by the performance of tanks during the battle of 73 Easting in the darkness of night in the Iraqi desert, duing Operation Desert Storm (1991) where the task force stumbled upon dozens of T-72's nested in prepared positions. It seemed that the Iraqis never knew what hit them. One particular example was an Abrams switched to thermal and detected a T-72 at 2000 meters completely occluded by a sand dune. The Abrams fired a APFSDS (armor piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot) round that penetrated the sand dune struck the T-72 and penetrated the tank and went out the other side. The overarching axiom going back to the WW2 experience was that the guy that gets off the first shot has the overwhelming probability of a victory in a stand-off. That axiom is still taught today to all tankers that first shot ability translates statistically to the probability of success. The vulnerability of T-72's (include T-80's) can be seen in videos of the spectacular destruction of these tanks by RPG's. The ignition of closely postitioned rounds within the crew compartments produce spectacular, almost instantaneous and catastrophic explosions. They don't have the benefit of the modern western tanks that store their ammo in armored bustles separate from the crew compartment with pressure release "blow-off" panels protecting the crew and diverting the explosions out and away from the vitals of the tank and crew. |
latto6plus2 | 05 Apr 2015 12:27 p.m. PST |
This is a good thread! I reckon we're looking at this as wargamers though, looking too much at hardware, I think the tactics make the real difference. Soviet tactics were designed to compensate for crappy kit and poorly trained conscripts; platoon firing was mentioned earlier – thats a solution if your sights are unreliable or your gunners not up to scratch.Same with using tube launched missiles if you cant hit something with a gun at long range. Their emphasis in getting in close as quick as possible isnt just about avoiding ATGW, it neutralises those fancy nato sights and gives the advantage to the guy with the numbers. Ok soviet tanks arent built for survivability but why build a fancy state of the art tank if its going to get knocked out in 2-3 days max anyway? The differnce in nato/ warpac approaches is fascinating for me because theyre totally the opposite of each other, which is why the cold wars so interesting. I dont think most rules or gamers (me included)reflect russian tactics, or give them credit. I know I have to stop myself using fire and manouvre rather than find west and put your foot down. Hope this makes sense too many easter eggs today! |
Lion in the Stars | 05 Apr 2015 2:32 p.m. PST |
If you run the actual Soviet/Russian tactics in a game with pretty decent weapon/damage models, it tends to be pretty successful. Very hard for NATO to stop, too damn many targets for even an Abrams company to deal with. Most games don't really model the attack density and sheer number of tanks showing up on the Russian side very well. |
Mako11 | 05 Apr 2015 3:45 p.m. PST |
Yes, from a brutal, number crunching standpoint, their production and tactics do make sense. I suspect a lot of tanks and tankers' lives would be literally measured in minutes, when in combat with the enemy, so no need to "overbuild" each vehicle. You just need lots of them to swamp the enemy, when he runs out of ammo, or is otherwise preoccupied with lining up another target. Rather a bit like WWII, where Shermans and T-34s, while not the best tanks, were good enough to get the job done, with overwhelming numbers. Good points Latto, and Lion. I certainly have a plan to deal with the sheer numbers issue for the Soviets, and Warsaw Pact…….. |
seneffe | 05 Apr 2015 7:04 p.m. PST |
I think it's definitely right that we need to try to stop looking at this as wargamers if we want to create a wargame with some sense of the period. One of the things I picked up from talking to a former oficer was real concern that with society slowly changing that despite every exhortation, and the threat of the KGB detachments- the officers and men down at battalion and lower level might be a bit less eager to sacrifice themselves en masse for socialism than doctrine demanded they should be. The was a lot of unofficial concern that troops would let themselves slide off the main axes of advance and take cover to await others breaking through. Russian tactics were predicated against fighting an enemy who was presenting a basically pretty static (if well dug in) target for attack and who would be largely passive when bypassed. This might have been a realistic assumption during much of the cold war, and it is the way I see most modern wargames being fought- NATO forces largely dug in static with the Soviets presenting shooting gallery targets for the first few moves but then overrunning their opponents. By the mid-late 1980s these foot down and head West tactics weren't going to work so well any more. The command/control revolution allowing for something like real time integrated battle management and right place right time logistics, plus new leadership approaches and the generational leap in capability offered by the M1, M2, Leopard 2 etc gave NATO forces the chance to fight a differently, aiming to be both decentralised and well coordinated. We take it for granted now that advanced armies fight in this way with kit like this- and the Americans especially have evolved it enormously. It could present a way more mobile target for the Soviets than previously, aiming to dodge the big punches and take the pace out of an advance by repeatedly roughing up the spearheads and then dislocating follow on forces. As I understand it although the Soviets knew all about airland battle and its allied counterparts, and did a lot of thinking about how to counteract it, they didn't come up with any really credible answer by the time the Cold War ended. I think that would have taken a different military culture, maybe a different society, and way better command and control tools than they had at this time. Hard to know if it would have worked sufficiently well for NATO to hang on, but I'd say it evened the conventional odds quite a bit. I've never seen a cold war wargame where this type of dynamic is played out though. I guess it would need a pretty large table to enable it to be recreated, and a lot of mechanics focus on comand and control – esp commitment and disengagement of troops. Just my tuppence worth- prob not very relevant to the OP! |
latto6plus2 | 06 Apr 2015 8:38 a.m. PST |
Its all what ifs, thank God, but its a bloody interesting subject isnt it? Russian tactics grew out of WW2 experience – their aim is keeping total casualties down by finishing the thing quickly and keeping things fluid, so its not completely callous, unless youre the poor sap driving the lead tank. Im not so sure about the decentralised battle Seneffe, HQs and fuel/ammo dumps are still going to be vulnerable and an OMG running round the rear area would cause all sorts of mayhem and panic. Mind you you might be onto something – what worked in 1940 – 41 might not have worked in the 80s. I think it comes down to speed – if they get nato trying to play catch up then they win. Mako, your thinking about going nuclear arent you, you cheater? :) |
Lion in the Stars | 06 Apr 2015 10:34 a.m. PST |
As I understand it although the Soviets knew all about airland battle and its allied counterparts Knew about it, nothing. The Soviets invented airland battle back in the tail end of WW2. But much like how the Germans claim to have invented mechanized warfare, the Americans seem to have perfected it. One of the challenges I'm having with Cold War Gone Hot gaming is balancing the forces. Because it's looking like a mixed NATO battle group (infantry company or two, tank company, arty and air support) facing a full Motor Rifle Regiment with an attached tank battalion and the "Grid Square Removal Service" in support. |
latto6plus2 | 06 Apr 2015 1:11 p.m. PST |
Lion, Ive had some fun doing fighting withdrawal type scenarios. Soviets have to get off the board in X turns, Nato has to hold for Y and/or get Z % of their force off ahead of the russians. Take the terrain board from behind the Sovs and set it up behind nato so youve something to retreat onto. |
seneffe | 06 Apr 2015 4:07 p.m. PST |
I'm not sure how it's possible to conflate late Russian WWII tactics with air land battle- they are really quite a long way apart. Sure they both deal with tanks moving quickly with air support, but that's pretty much where the similarity ends. The deep battle concept of Tuchagchevskiy and his successors was aimed, as was it's Cold War offsprings such as the Operational Manoeuvre Group at dealing with a relatively immobile, even passive enemy. Soviet exercise scenarios generally provided for a heavily armed but obligingly sluggish defensive opponent. So Assuming the enemy didn't spoil the plan by moving about too much, fine. It did though come completely unstuck against real opponents who possessed a greater degree of operational agility- eg the Wehrmacht- until the latter temporarily threw it away at Stalingrad and permanently lost it after Autumn 1943. Air land battle is about is about the optimum utilisation of force right down to a low unit level to achieve tactical, operational and (hopefully) strategic success by dislocating the enemy at all those levels. There is a huge difference between Soviet deep battle and its successors, and air land battle. The former is a top down exercise based on (very sound) principles of trying to achieve strategic dislocation of the enemy- with hopefully the troops trying their best according to general principles to achieve local initiative if they are capable of it. But there isn't really any direct connection between those two very distinct levels of activity as the Soviet command and control infrastructure never enabled it. Not talking here about a recce patrol finding an unguarded bridge and radioing division the news- but division having knowledge of and ability to exploit the situation of numerous company level units in something like real time if required. The latter never made it into the Soviet playbook. Air land battle was born from recognising that technology combined with a real change (or straight theft from Wehrmacht practise depending on one's point of view) in Leadership culture would allow troops to do something a bit new- to get them closer than ever before to being in the right place at right time as consistently as possible down to sub unit level. No one ever thought/thinks that would be perfect , but it's way closer than anyone had managed previously. Because it's not built from top down, it is equally valid as a basic approach whether your side is strategically on the offensive or defensive. Logistics it is true are a headache for this, but they are for any mobile doctrine including the Soviets' version. What the U.S. Army and to some extent its allies managed to do was to incorporate 'lean' and 'just in time' practises from modern commercial logistics to supply combat elements using only a fraction of the effort and resource traditionally required. War obviously isn't like running a car plant, but those concepts and the technology that enabled them had a revolutionising effect on combat logistics still seen today. |
Weasel | 06 Apr 2015 5:44 p.m. PST |
For additional simulation, after every battle in your campaign, roll 1D6. On a 6, the front has been eradicated by nuclear weapons. Switch to a Twillight 2000 campaign and try to make it home to stateside/Mother Russia :) If you want to game with the top-of-the-line NATO forces versus the Red Horde, have one NATO battalion (or whatever) take on a Soviet battalion. Roll to recover a few casualties then the survivors face off against another Soviet battalion on the same battlefield.
NATO player wins if he comes out of both relatively intact. Of course, you can have fun with unreliable troops on both sides. Belgian conscripts probably aren't as tough as the USMC and Polish conscripts aren't going to be particularly eager to leave the country unless the Americans are bombing their cities. I'll also encourage a wider selection. I know gamers want to field T80 and M1's but the cold war stretches from 194something (whenever you want to start it) to 91. There's a lot of time to pick from. Personally, I've always wanted to do T34 versus Shermans in Europe with a few Pershing and T44 making up the wundertanks. |
Mako11 | 06 Apr 2015 9:47 p.m. PST |
"Mako, your thinking about going nuclear arent you, you cheater? :)". I'll never tell. Though, we do have to defend West German territory, in order to "save it" from the commies. Now, who makes M-38 or M-151 jeeps with those nice, little, popgun, Davy Crockett nuke launchers, or ground mounts, in 15mm, or 1/144th scale? With a maximum range of between 2 km. – 4 kms., depending upon the model, and a 10 – 20 kiloton warhead, what's not to love? link Might have to make the firing units pass a morale/gut check to fire them though, especially if the winds are unfavorable at the time of launch. |
Mako11 | 07 Apr 2015 2:38 a.m. PST |
The WRG rules do provide for the nuke option. Need to roll exactly 4 first, on 1D6, and then exactly a 6 after that, so only about a 3% chance of approval to use the nukes being given. Though requests can be made every turn. Of course, perhaps the commies may use gas, or nukes too. The former only needs a die roll of a 6 on 1D6 for approval, so that's a bit more likely during the game(s). |