"Soviet Regimental HQ TO&E?" Topic
7 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 don't make fun of others' membernames.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Modern Discussion (1946 to 2013) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Workbench ArticleUseful 3D models for concrete barriers.
Featured Profile 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.
Extra Crispy | 29 May 2019 5:17 a.m. PST |
I'm building a T-72 regiment and trying to find out what would the regimetnal HQ consist of, doing Team Yankee 1985. FM 100-2-3 (The Soviet Army: Troops, Organization, and Equipment) dated June 1991 lists:
- 1 x Medium tank (T-64/72/80)
- 3 x SAM (SA-7/14/16)
- 1 x APC (BTR-50/60/70/80)
- 1 x BTR-60PA (FAC)
- 3 x Truck (UAZ-69/469)
- 1 x Truck (Ural 375)
- 3 x Van ZIL (Command)
- 1 x Sedan (GAZ-24)
Would this have held true in 1985? |
jekinder6 | 29 May 2019 1:30 p.m. PST |
The 1984 edition has the same entry so yes. |
Jcfrog | 29 May 2019 1:43 p.m. PST |
I would not stick to the old idea we have been fed upon that they were totally rigid and clone-like. It looks from discussions with former soviet that the allotment of the material was effectively relatively standardized, considering the locale where the units were and supposed mission, but then the actual detail organization and dispatching of hardware was left up to a point to the division commander and else. The country was huge, the army was huge and had a long history of being out of reach of centralized detailed control. It looks like they were de facto and by necessity (central planning never works, and never worked there even less because of the size) adapting everything to reality. I was very much surprised when I started discovering this. So your guy could have no armor as they want them more into combatant units, only one sam as they get dispatched in different amount because comrade general Ivan Olegovich Pukovich thinks it is better that way. a country where theory and reality were at odds. |
mckrok | 29 May 2019 2:54 p.m. PST |
Bear in mind some of the troops and equipment in the regimental signal company become essential parts of the headquarters. A regiment would normally form three command posts: forward (the command observation post), main and rear. pjm |
Barin1 | 29 May 2019 11:55 p.m. PST |
Mostly agree with Jсfrog here. deployment region will be influencing composition a lot, my unit had almost everything tracked, while the same D-30 unit in Europe had Urals to pull the guns. Also, the list shows what "should belong" to the respective unit. You would never see Gaz-24 in the field, the general will use it travelling to HQ or harassing nearby units with sudden checks (and where my unit was located general was using UAZ as there was no way that Volga will survive the roads. link |
seneffe | 01 Jun 2019 7:10 a.m. PST |
Jcfrog- I agree with your points above, but I would offer one supplementary point which tended towards ToE/organisational standardisation- based on various conversations I've had. While there were many reasons for units and commanders departing from the standard ToE, and as you say- many units did- the standard ToE provided a great degree of protection for a unit commander faced with a hard inspection. To deviate from official ToE and organisation safely (career wise) on his own initiative in the peacetime Soviet Army, a unit commander would need to have irreproachable general unit performance and equipment serviceability levels, and to be pretty confident in himself- or be very well connected (the last two often went together of course). |
Apache 6 | 05 Jun 2019 4:27 p.m. PST |
Surprising how small that HQ element is for a regiment. Also surprising that they had a sedan on the T/O. |
|