"Question about Soviet tactical formations" Topic

I'm sure this topic has been broached before and I have been searching and reading as much as possible but still can't find a straight forward answer.

I am working up a Soviet vs NATO (US Army) scenario, I'll be playing the Soviet side and wanted to play them as close to "historically accurate" as possible. I want to try to stay within the doctrine a Soviet attacking force would use.

Question: Would an attacking Soviet force advance using the following formation?
CRP: Combat Recon Patrol..FSE: Forward Security Element..AGMB: Advanced Guard Main Body

Yes I understand it is all situation dependent but given typical conditions would a Soviet commander choose this formation? I was always taught and trained to fight against that type of advancing formation and always wanted to know if it would have been the reality or if they would have done something completely different?

You need this, pricey, but I'm sure you can get one cheaper

link

Some light reading:
PDF link

They always did at Ft Irwin…
At least in movement to contact scenarios.

As suggested, read some of the FMs.

Go with the all three books.

FM 100-2-1
PDF link
FM 100-2-2
PDF link
FM 100-2-3
PDF link

Can't go wrong, or at least we did not in most cases at Fort Irwin.

I still use my copys after all these years.

As above, I also use the British Army's Tactics of the Soviet Army series of manuals that I rescued from the bin many years ago when the wall came down.

Tally Ho!

My Google-foo has just come across this one as well…
PDF link

Looks good for making up some scenarios.

There were actually some variations in the makeup of the columns, depending on the tactical situation and mission. But as noted above, it is all in the manual!

Got to love those Sovs.

Thanks everyone. Those were the sources I've been reading, found through many searches here on TMP over the years (TMP is a great resource for this stuff!).

So we get to the heart of the question: How accurate are/were the NATO threat OPFOR manuals? How likely, given typical conditions, were the Soviets to advance using the "book" formation? Was CRP<--FSE<---AGMB considered the base/default formation? (formation might be the wrong word here, doctrine maybe?)

An extension of that question is: how were the sub-tasks for that formation determined. Which company-platoon got the CRP task, FSE task, etc..?

Wot Nick said, though not so much 'rescued from the bin' as 'not handed back when we should have'.

;)

the isby book is good and a bargain @ £27.00 GBP used, seen them on ebay for at least double that.
I have this and them nato book, well recommended.

Question: Would an attacking Soviet force advance using the following formation?
CRP: Combat Recon Patrol..FSE: Forward Security Element..AGMB: Advanced Guard Main Body

To this point nobody has really answered your question –

While the answer depends on the mission of the unit and its knowledge of the enemy – but it is yes when:

the battalion/regiment is conducting an advance to contact without specific intel on the location and composition of the enemy.

Of course dedicated regimental/division recon assets will be moving well in front of the CRP.

You will want to be aware of the distances between the elements and the time it will take for the follow on elements to arrive.

The FSE & main body will be far enough back to allow them to react to the situation when each of the forward elements make contact

In game terms it means that you are looking at feeding units on to the table from off table as the game progresses – not the normal situation

of course the situation is different if the unit is conducting either a hasty or deliberate attack – in which case the units won't be as strung out as the location of the enemy & where the unit will attack

Soviet European units would have been very by the book. In the Soviet system innovation was allowed but only on the condition that it was successful. Even in veteran Afghanistan units they would usually still follow the doctrine for large units (companies etc weren't likely to be split into more than two disparate parts due to the threat of ambush and the lack of officers).

There was no chance of the Soviets changing this system on a large scale without the West being aware. The Soviet military relied far more on drill than general training.

As noted above, if it is a hasty or deliberate attack, things will be different (particularly a deliberate attack).

One thing to bear in mind is that Soviet attacks were designed to be conducted fast, and fast has a combat multiplier all of its own. David Rowlands analysed hundreds of battalion level NATO tactical exercises in Germany (usually company sized combat team vs Warpac MR Bn or Tank Bn) and very frequently (simulated) Warpac units succeeded in simply overunning NATO subunits due to the speed of their attack overloading the defenders decision/reaction cycle.

Drills do have some value, but clearly against a well established defence, run the risk of heavy losses. Which is what tactical nuclear weapons are for….

Another good reference that gives distances between CRP, FSE and AGMB under different attack profiles:
PDF link

Reading yahoo group, I think it was on Spearhead od FFT, ex soviet officers responses, from the caliber of their answers, our
They are by the book, unimaginative , no initiative etc, was pretty much battered down.
Lots of antonomy in organisation, units vehicle composition left to div. com.
and more stuff of the like, let me think they were not so Tom Clancy-like we would have believed. A "we lost because of adolf" German advisors syndrome post ww2 still too much into US thinking.

They did stress speed but bypass, infiltration ( 3D) and manoeuver just as much. Fortunately we never found out.

And this says it all!

"Would an attacking Soviet force advance using the following formation?
CRP: Combat Recon Patrol..FSE: Forward Security Element..AGMB: Advanced Guard Main Body."

Yes, everything I leaned says yes.

With very little exception and not much room for freelancing they conducted there operations by the book.

I was at Fort Irwin the NTC for 5.5 years and we did it by there book and in most cases (90+ % of the time) with great success.

There were times when there may be a small change in there TO&E (Organization) or equipment but for us to make that change it was verified by many Intel sources and approved at a very high level.

I was in both the Div and Regt Recon and at one point in 1989 we had SA-14 equipped on our BRDM-2's (very effective when you get in to the enemy's rear area. (I got me 11 AH-64's the first time the deployed them to NTC with the SA-14 in ambushes.

Also for period of time we had 3 T-80 with Thermals assigned to the Div and Regt Recon. Our T-72 did not have thermals so they were mainly day fighters. But with the 3 T-80's it made for a way to break a hole threw dedicated US counter recon.

So yes have them come on in the same way. Div Recon, Regt Recon, CRP, FSE: AGMB, Main Body.

I hope this helps.

What was the composition of the Division and regiment recon?

Ryan the easy way is to go to FM 100-2-3
PDF link

Recon Co of a MRR, Tank Regt, of a MRD or TD. Page 4-19.

Recon Bn of a MRD Page 4-73 and the next 4 pages.

Not all of the pages are not numbered so you have too work with it.

What we normally ran as an average for our Div or Regt Recon was as follows.

Recon Co.
4 x BRDM-2
4 x BMP-1
3 x BRDM-2/RKH (Chemical Recon)
1 x BRDM-2 (GSR Ground Surveillance Radar)
2 x BRDM-2 (MI)
1 x BRDM-2 (FIST Team)

Div Recon would normally insert 6 DRT's (Deep Recon Teams)
These were 6 x 2 man teams that dismounted a climbed up and called spot reports.

As stated earlier at times we could have 3 x T-80's
The big draw back to this was they were not used to moving in 0% elimination no black drives an try not to be seen or heard and keep up with us. Many times they got in a fire fight with a counter recon screen, And that was a good diversion for use to move threw and deeper in to the enemy's rear area. Also the enemy may think a CRP is moving threw there lines.

Also in the early to mid 80's the Recon Co's did have Motorcycles as per the Organization states above on page 4-19. But Blue Force would put concertina wire stretched very tight across a wash at chest level to dismount or scout teams. So they stopped using them do to safety concerns.

Hope this helps you question Ryan.

Great stuff, thank you for providing the reference material. I only had the FM 100-2-1 in hardcopy. The others will be great. Do all Soviet/Russian tanks that utilizeT-80 and newer have thermals? What is their capability, range to ID as compared to US, UK, German, NATO, etc.
Thank you, Chris

It's worth noting that while the "Soviet Robot Trooper" idea would have gotten a lot of people killed, if it had been adhered to, the Soviet system was intended to compensate for limited training in a mass army.

By giving soldiers fairly simple objectives that could be drilled thoroughly, you could make up for a lack of long-term training.

Of course, as the battle field gets more and more complex, that starts becoming a problem, which incidentally tends to coincide with the popular perception that the west would be in bad straits before the 80s and be superior post 80s.

This and the references may help all though many of the good ones covered above

link

I don't think the soviet soldiers were worse trained than the bulk of the French, NL, Italian, Danish or Belgian conscripts in the 80s.
And why should we think their officers should be worse?
Very potentially risky to underestimated your enemy ( assuming they really were) and thinking yourself very superior.

Fortunately for us the nazis thought so till the end.