"Artillery Levels for Support of Cold War Attack?" Topic
31 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not use bad language on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Cold War (1946-1989) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Movie Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Mako11 | 17 Aug 2016 9:58 a.m. PST |
Looking at setting up an attack/defense scenario, pitting a Soviet Tank Battalion against a reinforced, US Armored Cav. Platoon (really a light company, if you look at the number of vehicles – 10 – 12, depending upon the era), so want to balance artillery for both, appropriately. Depending upon how it goes, another US unit of similar power might respond to assist the defenders. Granted, in the opening hours of the attack, and/or pre-attack bombardment, the Soviet artillery barrage could be massive. I suspect I may want to forego that, since it could be very unbalancing to the scenario (at least for now – might be fun to try later, with a larger defending force, eventually, at least for the Soviets/WARPAC allies), so am thinking about giving the attackers (Soviets) 3 x battalions of artillery, with limited ammo (assuming that means 3 x batteries for each battalion, but will need to double-check that), in direct support of the tank battalion spearhead. For the defending armored cav. platoon, thinking about 1 x battalion in direct support (again, three batteries of 155s?). Might want to give them another battalion in general support, but will have to see (105s or 155s?). Perhaps the Americans have better access to ammo, having not participated in a huge artillery barrage, like the Soviets did at the start of the war. Does the above sound reasonable? I don't want the artillery to be too overpowering, but it should obviously have some role in the battle. Also, thinking about a meeting engagement of the above forces too, so do you think the above levels of support would be okay for that as well, or too much/too little? Balance the artillery levels more for the meeting engagement, or still give the Soviets a significant edge? |
79thPA | 17 Aug 2016 10:19 a.m. PST |
No, it doesn't sound reasonable. Two battalions of field artillery is the fire support for 2 brigades/half of a division -- not a platoon. |
freerangeegg | 17 Aug 2016 10:30 a.m. PST |
What rules are you using? Sabre squadron gives you pre game bombardment, which is potent without being overpowering, and allows varying levels of artillery during the game. |
nickinsomerset | 17 Aug 2016 10:52 a.m. PST |
The Sovs would have support of one Bn of Arty – 2S1. However elements of the Arty Bn might be in support of the other Bns in the Regiment. If it was part of a Div axis there may be Div Arty available – BM-21 & 2S3, but unlikely to see Div Arty in support of a single Bn, Tally Ho! |
Lion in the Stars | 17 Aug 2016 11:19 a.m. PST |
My usual assumption for US support is one battery of 155s (105s as anything other than towed pieces were out of service by the end of Vietnam), and one platoon of 4.2" or 120mm mortars. It's a little heavy, unless you assume that your Cav "platoon" in contact is the leading element of the battalion/squadron and therefore getting the lion's share of the support. |
Mako11 | 17 Aug 2016 11:21 a.m. PST |
Given they're the tip of the spear (Soviets – lead battalion of the regiment, of the division), in an attack, and/or one of the few defending units in the opening minutes/hours of the attack, I assume that both sides might have more artillery support than would generally be available once more forces are engaged in widespread battle. |
Vostok17 | 17 Aug 2016 1:21 p.m. PST |
If you act on the textbook (Tactics – company, battalion, Voenizdat, 1990, p.p. 27-29), it is necessary to look the distance at which there advance a battalion, as well as the approximate length and area of the enemy's defensive line. There are 2 types of artillery fire during the offensive – the consistent concentration of fire (sequential destruction of several major goals, objectives sizes – no more than 3 hectares for the 6-gun battery, and no more than 4 hectares for the 8-gun battery) and a barrage (destruction of the 1st, 2nd, etc. layers of defense of the enemy, here already is calculated not on the lesion area, and the length of the shaft – one gun should account for no more than 25 m). Accordingly, this is calculated and how many and what kind of artillery you need to solve specific problems. Something like this. |
47Ronin | 17 Aug 2016 2:54 p.m. PST |
I'm far from an expert on the subject, but it sounds like a great deal of artillery (for both sides) given the size of your scenario, Mako 11. FYI, I used to play NATO vs. Warsaw Pact at West Point with the Cadets back in the '80's using the "Combined Arms" rules. Those were the days. Great games, but when Soviet Div Arty (or the Regimental Artillery Group) showed up, it was usually "game over" for NATO. One year, the Cadets (who usually played the Soviets) hit us with a FAE strike. Then it was really game over for the Americans. Every "soft" target under the template took damage. Most of the "hard" targets were also affected. I suggest you start with the meeting engagement scenario and go light on the artillery for both sides. You might want to roll a die (D6, D10, D20) for one or both sides each turn to make artillery arrival "random," with the die roll tied to the turn number. If you feel that NATO artillery should be more available, give them a D6 or D10 and give the Soviets a D10 or D20. Depending on the result of the meeting engagement scenario, you can increase or decrease the artillery levels for the deliberate attack/defend game. Enjoy the game(s) and let us know the results. Just a guess, but I suspect that the Soviets will be hard to stop in both games. P.S.--I always enjoy your comments, Mako 11. Perhaps because I agree with them so often. |
Cold Steel | 17 Aug 2016 3:27 p.m. PST |
Real world WW3 in Germany artillery won't make for a fun game. The Soviet battalion making the main effort for the regiment making the main effort for the division making the main effort for the Army would have an obscene number of guns and rockets firing in front of it. Likewise, US doctrine is to never leave artillery in reserve, so given a few days of mobilization, an ACR would have 3-5 brigades behind it firing. Only a couple battalions would be DS of the ground troops with the rest firing interdiction, air defense suppression and counter-battery, but would be available if needed. When necessary, US artillery can lay a barrage that would make Zhukof jealous. |
ScoutJock | 17 Aug 2016 3:36 p.m. PST |
The level of support for the Cav platoon would depend on who the parent unit is and what the mission is. For example, an ACR squadron has one DS 155 battery under command to support all 3 or 4 troops in the squadron. The SCO will designate who has priority of fires in the OPORD so depending on the mission, any given troop may get all or none of the squadron's fire support capability. In the Cav covering force mission, a Cav platoon would probably have at least a DS battery level FPF as well as pre planned smoke and FASCAM to facilitate their defend and delay mission. DivCav does not have the luxury of artillery under command so they are completely dependent on DivArty for support. If the the parent Cav troop has been chopped to a maneuver brigade, they may receive support from that brigade's DS battalion but again, that battalion's batteries are probably committed to supporting the battalions in that brigade. Assuming your scenario, the fire support plan could give the Cav priority of fires until contact was made and the enemy main axis was identified, at which time the Cav would withdraw and fires would revert to the battalion in contact. So in theory, a Cav platoon tasked with finding and fixing the enemy main effort could get a battery in DS, but it would probably be pulled about the time they need it most! |
79thPA | 17 Aug 2016 3:42 p.m. PST |
And a mech platoon is not going to slug it out with an armored battalion unless they can't escape. |
Mako11 | 17 Aug 2016 5:47 p.m. PST |
Well, they're supposed to hinder, and delay, and it's really just waves of company sized units, and/or the Americans may not really know what they're up against, but I suspect they'll have strong suspicions. So, sounds like perhaps I should scale things back a bit, depending. I was going to limit their ammo supply pretty tightly, and I imagine without all the new-fangled, high tech munitions artillery can fire at tanks now, the artillery would probably be little more than harassing fire vs. the tanks. Perhaps a bit more effective vs. the recon vehicles and IFVs. The scenario(s) will probably be set back in the 1950s – 1970s, before the latest, greatest, A/T rounds became available. |
Rod I Robertson | 17 Aug 2016 6:42 p.m. PST |
Mako 11: Have a read here. PDF link Remember, unlike in NATO operations Soviet Artillery is not subordinate to combat formations but stands on a parallel footing and is firmly under the control of artillery officers. They decide what artillery an attack gets, not the commanders of the maneuver elements. Concentration of force and central control are the driving organizational paradigms of the Soviet artillery at this time. Your Soviets would likely have access to part of the RAG supporting the lead regiment's advance and would possibly have pre-planned fire missions from other elements of the RAG or DAG in support. I would suggest one battery of 2S1's on board, two batteries of 2S1's in direct support but off-table and perhaps more access to RAG or DAG resources as part of a pre-planned fire plan made by the referee or player before the start of the game. On call there should be just the one battalion and for special (DF or FPF) missions perhaps a battalion more. For your Cavalry Troop, squadron level integral mortars plus access to a dedicated battery of 155 How plus some registered fire missions from the rest of the artillery battalion. Finally some pre-programmed fire for DF or FPF missions would seem likely. I hope that helps. Cheers and good gaming. Rod Robertson. |
79thPA | 17 Aug 2016 7:46 p.m. PST |
It won't take long for your mech Lt. to figure out that he is outnumbered and outgunned. I suggest a delaying action played length wise across the widest part of the table. That way the mech plt can fire off some Dragons hoping to gets the Soviets to slow down and deploy to face an unknown threat. The mech plt drops back 500 – 1,000 meters to a another defensive position and does the same thing as the tanks advance. Rinse and repeat. The objective should be for the mech platoon to keep the tanks from exiting the US base edge for at least X amount of turns. It is your game to do with as you please. If you want to game a historically plausible scenario you have way too much arty on both sides. As noted by others, your mech plt will be lucky to have a battery dedicated in support. |
UshCha | 17 Aug 2016 11:49 p.m. PST |
Right, lets get a few facts straight. If you are a cavalry platoon in defence your job is to stay in contact and provide intelegence. If possible slow down the enemy. The enemy will be armoured proably with at least two small forces in front of the main armoured coloumn. These forces may be as much as about 40min in front of the main coloumn and the inner one pobably 20 min in front. All these are armoured. Despite the idiocy of many wargame rule writers, artillery will do minimal damage to armoured vehicales that are mobile. The cavalty will be in the FEBZ so proably 4 to 10km ahaead of the EA so will not have any fixed defences while they may have points pre-surveyed that would be ideall for Dragon launch points. So what could artillery do in these circumstances? It could put up a visual screen to allow one side or another to evacuate or deploy to battle formation from the road. It would also deter the enemy from parking for long periods (but they are unlikely to do do that anyway). On that basis excessive artillery is of no use in the initial stages. at the front line. There my be strikes on likely re-arming/assembly points well to the rear of both as these could be vulnerable to artillery strikes, but most wargames do not go back that far. So unless the game gets to the EA where troops will be in trenches and ready, where artillery will do little damage to them if they are in position. The fire will supress them to allow the enemy to advance and allow infantry to thake the ground. In return the defenders stikes will cause damage on advancing defenders. on that basis the artiller allocation for the game is best left at relatively low, plausible levels as it will have little to do. While in theory it may be possible to destroy roads using a concentrtion, like tanks it is very difficuly to obtain a cerible number of direct hits and the dammage can be repaired very quickly and is not a tactic used in the real world. Because of the minimal use of artillery in this phase the air power/conter battery situation is probably not an issue as protracted shoots, shoot and scoot requirements may be irrelevant. |
Cold Steel | 18 Aug 2016 6:43 a.m. PST |
One other point: everybody loves shooting FASCAM on top of the front wave of bad guys, but that isn't going to happen. FASCAM is a corps-level asset. Its use is carefully planned and integrated into the higher level fire support plan. A platoon leader may ask for it but he is wasting his breath. |
nickinsomerset | 18 Aug 2016 7:10 a.m. PST |
CS, sometime I suspect that the concept of subordination of different levels of command are lost, hence 3 BM-21 being assigned to support a Tank Company! Tally Ho! |
47Ronin | 18 Aug 2016 10:40 a.m. PST |
Great topic, great discussion. Many thanks to all those who have shared their comments. The discussion is also a good example of what I often saw in past NATO vs. Warsaw Pact games. Gamers (like myself) sometimes want to include everything in a scenario vs. what was actually available to the professionals in the field. The FASCAM example cited by Cold Steel is a great case in point. Just because something is covered in the rules doesn't mean that you will (or should) see it show up in a game. Much of what should be available in a game depends on the size and level of the scenario. But if that rule were followed, it would cut down on the sales of A-10 and Cobra figures. All this makes me want to dust off my John Antal books which I haven't looked at in years. Glad to see that NATO vs. Warsaw Pact gaming is alive and well. |
emckinney | 18 Aug 2016 10:42 a.m. PST |
Tests showed that 155s were surprisingly effective against tanks. The big, high velocity fragments went a long way, and even though they couldn't penetrate armor, they broke all sorts of things (radio masts, optics, anything else outside the armor). A lot of mission kills. |
Mako11 | 18 Aug 2016 2:50 p.m. PST |
Thanks for all the replies and suggestions. I really appreciate them. Lots to ponder, and looks like I can run a few decent scenarios with the same forces if desired, when/if the first unit(s) get wiped out, or successfully withdraw. |
Rod I Robertson | 18 Aug 2016 4:30 p.m. PST |
Mako 11: No more talk of defeatism! Retreat is not an option. Reward success and starve failure. The Red Army must push on to the Rhine and beyond. Cheers and good gaming, comrade. Rod 'Krasny' Robertson. |
nickinsomerset | 18 Aug 2016 11:54 p.m. PST |
Do not forget that one of the main roles of the BM-21 was the delivery of chemical weapons to make life interesting, Tally Ho! |
UshCha | 19 Aug 2016 9:20 a.m. PST |
emckinney, the M6 field manual notes that having been under artillery it may be necessary to replace aerials and possibly any damaged vision blocks. Certainly UK tanks can replace vision blocked damaged very quickly from inside the vehicle so I assume that would be typical for all well designed tanks and armoured vehicles. To the point getting a 1 55 shell close to a moving vehicle is very unlikely. The continous fire of the US 155 ( M109)is very slow 4 rpm burst 1 rpm continious so hitting a moving to get is unlikely to say the least. |
Mako11 | 19 Aug 2016 2:25 p.m. PST |
Well, of course, the Armored Cav have those little popgun nukes too, and there's a plan to blanket the Fulda region with 100+ nukes of various sizes, if things get bad, so…….don't forget to wear your sunglasses and apply plenty of suntan lotion, just in case. Yea, from what I've read, about a 1% chance of knocking out a vehicle with an artillery barrage, with a direct hit. A bit better chance of damaging them a little, but still pretty low. |
zaevor2000 | 21 Aug 2016 10:16 a.m. PST |
Remember you do not have to penetrate a tank to render it inop. That high explosive is going to tear off aerials, shatter sight glasses/gunsights etc. (kind of hard to hit something half a mile away when your gunsight's shattered). By far the biggest advantage we had vs. the Soviets in armor confrontations was that we fought unbuttoned which provides FAR superior awareness of what is going on around you. Hard to get a big picture of the battlefield when you're limited to seeing through the equivalent of binos. Try driving next time with 2 cylinders around your eyes to prevent you from seeing anything but what is directly in front of you. That's the best way for a layman to see what a HUGE disadvantage a buttoned up vehicle has opposed to a vehicle where you have crew members out of the hatches seeing everything around them. Also with no aerials you have no commo. How are you going to get order and direction from others? How are you going to give orders to others when you can't talk to them? Get out of the hatch with all kinds of shrapnel flying around and use hand signals? That's a Darwin award waiting to happen… Oh, and by the way, how are you going to get their attention anyways when you are to their side and they are buttoned up and only aware of what is going on in front of them? Arty doesn't have to kill you or penetrate your vehicle to render you pretty much combat ineffective ;) Just something to keep in mind… |
Legion 4 | 22 Aug 2016 1:43 p.m. PST |
In the Cold War, most US ARMY Divisions had what was called "DivArty" – Division Artillery. That was about in Bde strength, IIRC. So maybe @ 3-4 FA Bns. That unit was organic to the Division. Those assets would distributed based on the overall mission, etc., from the Division HQ on down … So generally an Infantry or Armor Bde may have an FA Bn in direct support. And FA units were assigned levels of support based again, on the overall Div/Bde mission/plan, etc., … An FA unit that was basically "assigned" to a Bde or Bn would be in Direct Support(DS). Then there was General Support(GS) and GS Reinforcing(GS-R) So as to prioritize the FA fire support. For a number of plans, situations, etc., … Above Div. level, at Corps level there were separate FA Bns/Bdes. That the Corps Cdr could assign their fires to support a certain Div. or even a Bde. These separate Bns, were many times, M110 8 inch SPs, MLRS, etc., heavier than what you'd normally find organic to the Div. Which in most cases were 155s, SP or Towed based on the type of Division. The separate Mech Bde at Benning, the 197th, that I was assigned '86-'90. Was part of the 18th Airborne Corps. And the Bde had an organic M109 SPFA Bn. Which was 3 Batteries of 8 guns[sometimes referred to as "tubes".] And before the Army reorganized in @ '86 or '87 ? It was 4 Batteries of 6 guns each. Now if any FA units that were assigned to Corps. It was possible the Corps Cdr could attach maybe another FA Bn [or 2] to the Bde based on again, the mission, etc. |
Apache 6 | 24 Aug 2016 11:25 p.m. PST |
Instead of a pure Tank Battalion, you might consider having the Soviets organized as the vanguard of a Tank Division. Total force would be a Tank Battalion reinforced with a Motor Rifle Co (in BMPs) and an Engineer Company. Have the Soviets enter the table in waves. Let the Soviet defender pick 3 artillery targets based on the map before the NATO forces are positioned. "Before turn one" execute fire missions against these targets. For each target roll a D8, 1-3 execute a 122mm HOW fire mission against the target, 4-5 execute a 152mm HOW fire mission against the target, on a 6 execute a BM-21 fire mission against the target, on a 7 no fire mission lands, on a 8 the fire mission is delayed, reroll next turn. Throughout the remainder of the game the only dedicated artillery would be the vanguards dedicated 2S1 battery. Three Combat Recon Platoons (3 Tanks and 1 BMP each) enter on turn one. These should fight as indepentent formations, seeking to find ways around enemy defenses. On turn two or three (I'd make that dependant on a coin flip) have a company (reinforced) forward security element. (10 tanks, 3 BMP and an engineer platoon) enter. One to two turns after the FSE enters have the remainder of the vanguard (12 Tanks, 6 BMPs, 6 2S1, and a engineer platoon) enter. Randomizing the masses of artillery that could be called in but not giving a lot of 'on-call' missions is intended to represent how the planning and allocation of RAGs and DAG fires was often planned ahead of contact. Having the unit enter in 'doctrinal waves' follows with Soviet guidance. A Tank Battalion hitting a cav platoon would rapidly destroy the Cav Platoon. |
Mako11 | 25 Aug 2016 5:11 p.m. PST |
Thanks guys. Yea, that's what I was thinking, e.g. with waves of Soviet and/or Warpac armor to deal with, and then perhaps, possibly reinforcement by another Cav. Platoon, or even the whole Troop, eventually, vs. a full battalion of Soviet tanks, and yea, probably a company of BMPs and other vehicles, just to make the scenario(s) a bit more interesting. Other reinforcement options would be tanks from the 3rd Armored Division. Also thought about a matchup with a Cav. Platoon vs. a Soviet Recon, or Advance Guard Company, the former of which has a very similar makeup to that of the US Armored Cav. Platoon, e.g. 3 – 4 tanks, 6 x BMPs, and 1 x BRM. Might go with the earlier Cav. Platoon, where it only had 3 x Sheridans, instead of the six, for play-balance. Then again, perhaps give them the full six, but have them roll for the 152mm gun/missile launchers being operational (usually, only about 67% were, from some of the reports I've read). Other options would be 3 x M41s, and/or 3 x M48s, instead of the Sheridans, for the tank component. The Advance Guard may be even a bit more powerful than that. |
Legion 4 | 26 Aug 2016 6:58 a.m. PST |
Have the Soviets enter the table in waves. Like at the NTC !!!! "We was assaulted by those" Russkies !!!!!! |
Mako11 | 26 Aug 2016 11:18 a.m. PST |
Been reading a bit more this morning on the subject. Always seem to get "Advance Guard" mixed up with "Advance Party", since apparently the AG is a full battalion force. Anyway, I ran across mention that in a single-axis, battalion-sized, Soviet attack, the AG battalion could have as much as a full battalion of artillery in direct support, and that a company would usually have a battery of artillery supporting it. |
nickinsomerset | 26 Aug 2016 11:48 p.m. PST |
Bear in mind Mako that a Regiment would only have one Bn of artillery in support. Tally Ho! |
|