Help support TMP


"Warsaw Pact vs Nato Numerical Advantage in games" Topic


9 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.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Cold War (1946-1989) Message Board



705 hits since 9 Jan 2018
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Kropotkin30309 Jan 2018 2:42 p.m. PST

Hi Everyone,

I appreciate that this is a big subject, but I'm only really looking for guidence about playing unequal forces games.

What do you think would be "proper" for late 70s/ early 80s WP vs Nato games interms of unequal forces?

Would Nato defence be about a third of what was attacking it?

I understand that the terms battalion, regiment, brigade, division or corp are not mutually interchangable and that these are difficult to compare between WP and Nato so I'm just wondering about say:

3 Nato tanks vs 9 WP tanks and 4 Nato IFV vs 12 WP BMPS. Would they have equal numbers of man-portable ATGW or would there be a disparity?

Also would WP Air be more numerous than Nato.

I wonder if you guys play unequal battles and let terrain balance things out. From what I've seen in training videos of the time Cover, Concealment, Suppression and Teamwork between combined arms was Nato's way of stopping the WP, but that Nato fully understood that WP forces would use the same tactics.

Oh add to that mobility I guess.

In any case what would a good ratio be for attacking WP vs defending Nato?

Not looking at any particular game but I have 1/300th Heroics and Ros modern forces.

Any advice welcome.

David Manley09 Jan 2018 2:51 p.m. PST

We usually worked on a 3:1 ratio when we were running 1985 megagames at the school club. It seemed to work well

Lion in the Stars09 Jan 2018 4:24 p.m. PST

Pretty much.

The Soviets would run a Motor Rifle Regiment in about the same frontage as NATO would run a battalion.

Personal logo Saber6 Supporting Member of TMP Fezian09 Jan 2018 7:14 p.m. PST

2 or 3 to one based on what stuff we have on hand. A Soviet Regiment would have the same frontage as a NATO battalion, but would only put 1-2 Battalions forward at once.

Martin Rapier09 Jan 2018 11:42 p.m. PST

As above, a Soviet (four battalion) regiment vs one NATO battalion. NATO battalions are a fair bit bigger than war pac ones.

Aapsych2010 Jan 2018 12:43 a.m. PST

Also, Soviet operational and tactical manuals advised at least a 3:1 firepower and numerical advantage in critical attack sectors, even if others are stripped bare. So this is precisely what NATO forces would have seen if the Cold War had gone hot.

lincolnlog Inactive Member10 Jan 2018 2:42 a.m. PST

"As above, a Soviet (four battalion) regiment vs one NATO battalion. NATO battalions are a fair bit bigger than war pac ones."

Agreed, but most Battalion Defensive plans place one Company in reserve.

Tac Error10 Jan 2018 11:18 a.m. PST

What do you think would be "proper" for late 70s/ early 80s WP vs Nato games interms of unequal forces?

It really depends on the situation and planning considerations at army and army group/front level for the Soviets. While NATO's conventional wisdom is that of 3:1, I'd say it's more likely to see more pronounced superiority ratios of 5:1 or even 7:1 on the "strike/main attack sectors" they choose.

Another portion of Soviet planning is that they do not just take into account the forward-deployed enemy forces: They must include all forces on both sides involved in continuing the offensive to the entire depth of a planned operation, that is to the subsequent objective of the organization planning the attack. (So that includes dealing with reserves conducting counterattacks)

3 Nato tanks vs 9 WP tanks and 4 Nato IFV vs 12 WP BMPS. Would they have equal numbers of man-portable ATGW or would there be a disparity?

In beancount theory (and dependent on nationalities, the exact models of vehicles, the types of forces you have introduced into the game) you might be seeing anywhere from 4 to 8 ATGMs for NATO and maybe 12 ATGM platforms for WP.

You might be interested in this chart, translated from Yu. Kardashevskiy's article "Creative Planning for the Fire Destruction of Targets" published in the July 1978 issue of Military Herald.

Kropotkin30310 Jan 2018 5:00 p.m. PST

Thank you Gents,

Lots of good info here. I guess I need to buy a lot more Soviet tanks and BMPs to make up a 3:1 advantage. What you say Tac Error about 1:5 or 1:7 on a critical axis is truely frightening. Also it's interesting what you say about this ratio being for the breakthrough in depth to obliterate the counter-attack. I had not considered that.

Your chart is also interesting with 15 ATGW killing power on a 1km frontage. I will have to look at my frontages.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.