"Meat wave assault - Simulation - Version 1" Topic

Note this is of interest to simulators only.

If you consider the elements too complex or not to your style of wargameing please refrain from banal comments.

Picture of the ground note the tree line is about 500m from the trench system and the Battlefield is approximately 600m wide.

link

Introduction
This is an attempt to understand Meat wave tactic used in the 2024 Ukraine war. Based on my observations of the war this scenario is covering an unsupported assault by 20 to 30 Russian infantry.
No drones are used in this close quarters fight.
There are two main issues here; whether the existing Manoeuvre Group Rules plus the Beta Trench Warfare Addendum can deal with such a small number of troops and the basic boundary condition assumptions.
General assumptions
• The ground is considered flat so there are no blockages of LOS. However artillery damage means that troops that go into position count a hard cover to direct fire but not to indirect fire.
• Grenade supply is unlimited for both sides but standard rules apply. This had been adopted as it requires no monitoring and there may be few opportunities to use grenades so the quantities used are expected to be limited by the lack of opportunities, hence restriction of grenade supply is not expected to be a key parameter.
Ukraine Basic set up
• Ground and defenders For a meat wave to be even vaguely possible it is considered that probably the defenders are a section deployed in a trench system some 500m wide. The defending troops though competent and given a Leadership of 6. For the reasons above it is assumed that the Automatic weapon will behave as a SFMG (due to ammo located at the positions) with a pre-surveyed Fixed lines for each fighting position (i.e. a left and right line for each position).
• Given the very limited number of troops involved in this scenario communication between the Section leader and his SAW/SFMG team, and Supporting mortars was improved somewhat, as t5he situation is very easy to define.
• They are all considered to have radios (in effect mobile phones) and the Squad leader is authorized to call in pre-planned mortar fire in ¼ Stonk (2 rounds of 81mm mortar) areas with a 1 enemy phase delay (in effect it imposes a requirement that the enemy is forced to ground for the fire to be effective) and that there are 12 such areas pre-designated. This is a scenario rules and is twice the number normally available but in some circumstances the normal 6 value can be considered suspect. The mortars only have 48 rounds available due to ammunition restrictions. This may be a mix of HE and Smoke.
Russian Basic set up
• The Russians have been dumped at a tree line from 3 AFV's that have immediately retreated and so out of scope of the simulation. The Russians do not have details of where within the trench system the Ukrainians are. To this end the Russians may deploy anywhere on the opposite edge in the wooded strip.
• The Russians are considered to be very poorly trained and equipped (Leadership 8 as opposed to the normal Leadership 7)). Therefore they are only given small arms i.e. assault rifles and no support weapons. This may be harsh but giving them typical ammunition loads and all assault rifles is probably being a bit over generous but again its simple to define as a starting condition.
• The conscripts do not have radios, there is evidence the Russians confiscate mobile phones and general the Russians do not do well supplying radios and probably the conscripts do not have the capability to use them in a disciplined manner required for them to be effective.
Post game notes
Inevitably there will be a weak flank with only one SFMG and it needing to fireing to the flank to be best protected. Game Theory came in and the Russians picked the weaker flank by choosing at random he had no prior knowledge of my positions inside the trench system. This mad it difficult to suppress the advancing Russians sufficiently to get the artillery in effectively. This was made worse by the Ukraine commander decided to allot ammunition to all 12 positions at the minimum level. In hindsight this was a hindrance, practically the enemy could not be pinned down for long enough to call 12 different targets. The targets areas should have been larger at each call, even though the mortar would run out of ammunition before all 12 targets could be addressed. This was considered an acceptable solution.
The Russians sensing the Ukrainen issue threw caution to the wind and ran to the positions with minimal losses. At this point quantity becomes a quality all of its own. Despite killing far more Russians they can take the position so the Ukraines had no real alternative but to retreat to fight another day.
In speeding the game the Command function was tied to a fighting element by the definition of the forces in the set up. In hind sight this was a poor choice and both commanders would have preferred to have their commander operation independently. This offered more flexibility of command in real world terms and also to a limited extent it was more favourable within the rules and is more in line with standard larger ORBAT's.
There were issues with the Beta rules for trenches. We were advised by an ex serving soldier that exiting a trench while in disarray would not be practical. Thus this can only be done as a deliberate action not one to be done while retreating in disorder. In addition there was a further clarification added such that troops in a fighting position could turn inwards and protect the position in a way that allowed retreating troops to move through but offering significant resistance to enemy attempting to pass through this section. This does come at a severe restriction in situational awareness.

Version 2 will double the Ukraine forces to a whole squad with 2 SFMG's. This may actually be an overkill as this first version had room for better defender tactics, but we decided to go for overkill.

Constructive critism of the assumptions or the boundary conditions (start up conditions) welcomed.

To me this is part of the fun of wargaing trying to understand the real world by simulation even if imperfect simulation is used.

My reading on meat wave assaults left me with the impression that the Russians were suffering 40-70 KIA per assault. Knowing that men will break and run, it seems like these must be relatively brief assaults by multiple platoons simultaneously before the Russians break contact. Long enough to take some fire and then get hit with artillery in the open.

The whole purpose is to wear down Ukrainian units and exhaust their ammo supply. I would assume that the goal isn't to break into the trench but to exhaust the Ukrainians to the point that they withdraw from the position between Russian assaults. As you pointed out they won't exit in a disorderly manner in a fight. I think for this simulation to reflect reality you will need multiple waves. In theory ukrainians should beat back any single assault unless you weaken them on the supposition that they've already been hit with multiple attacks.

My take is that the armies are thinly spread, not that big compared to the frontage. Hence you can send in 20 to 30 men and get close. Close is where you get the enemy to use lots of ammunition. So to work you have to be a significant6 threat to the Ukrainens.

The first pass of the simulation, badly handeled by me, the Ukrainens let them through. A few more troops and they would easily hold off is my expectataion.

However in both cases the typical 1 platoon defends 500m is far higher than what we are seeing in Ukraine. A Platoon over 500m frontahge would take out a meatwave so efficently the ammo usage would be minimal.

So yes meatwaves proably need to be in waves to win generally but sending in 20 to 30 men in a single wave will have minimal impact, unless its a real threat, the ukrainen unit will get a resupply within the next few hours. Hence the attempt to see if a meatwave can succeed againt very limited opposition which it sometimes does.

Isolated meatwave attacks do seem to be a regular occourance.

Hmm, your "simulation" shows you're just another wokie prejudiced against Russians rather than someone trying to create reality. I note many reports by Ukranians that Russian artillery is typically 5:1, so why not include that in your "simulation"? What of the results of the bombardment before the Russian infantry close? You include Ukranian mortars, why not Russian artillery? Also, why do the Russian have only assault rifles and no support weapons? Do you really believe the propaganda that some Russian units are attacking "only with shovels"?

MilEFEX3030 – You are correct one of the few "decent" attcaks by Russians was true classic attacks with the works heavy bombardments and tanks and troops. These worked effectively for the Rusians,

However there are lots of accounts of 20 to 30 troops being dropped off and the armor support being withdrawn immediately and no preparatory bombardment. Th

is simulation was to see if there was any real logic to the attacks. Russian credibility is really strained after again their troops being hit when parading in HIMARS range. This is indisputable as there are videos of them doing this recently.

Version 2 Post Game Notes

Ground the same as version 1.
Defensive Positions were more sophisticated with 2 rear trenches see pics.

link

The troop numbers in the end were:-
Russians 6 off 4 man rifle teams plus independent commander.
Ukraines – Having reviewed the forces we settled for 2 SFMG teams while in position but dropping to act as a SAW If moved away from their placed ammunition and tripod.

1 3 Man rifle team and an independent squad leader.
The artillery was made instant response. The support would be th Battalion mortars so the flight time would be short ( ̴ 30 sec) so as its per-registered fire in reality in wagame terms it's an immediate fall of shot. This is a better assumption than the previous assumption.
Ammunition supply unchanged.
We actually played 2 games in the evening swapping sides. Paul went for a more close in disposition of the artillery (mortars).
I lost as defender, Paul moving more slowly but better protected than me. As defender my artillery was allocated in very large concentrations, too large in fact, many rounds wasted.
I also lost as attacker. I chose to move faster so spend less time crossing the field of fire but being more vulnerable. In the end this cost me too much though getting in faster. Paul also did a better job of using FDF fire from the SFMG's working particularly well as he chose to leave the artillery fire until I was close in and slowed by the FDF.
So the rules worked well there were no obvious inaccuracies, setting up defenses is clearly a complex issue and deciding when to call FDF's for the SFMG's is critical.

In terms of the initial study it does look like even a Meat wave attack with poor troops, no radio communications for them below platoon commander, can have a significant impact provided it is directed at small units of around 10 men (a big squad). Key however is the use of the SFMG's in defence in containing such attack. However the rifle team of the defender was key in counter attacking enemy elements actually entering the trench system. In such testing conditions troop quality advantages are significant. Is clear that there may be a small window of time where the Ukraines can fall back in good order with limited losses while inflicting significant casualties on the enemy. After that casualties on both sides increase significantly so with good troops versus poor troops the exchange becomes less favorable. This was not an unexpected outcome. An additional rifle team would have made the Meat wave almost always unacceptable and would have minimized Ukraine casualties making the Meat wave losses of very limited value.

UshCha,
I think you are on the right track.

I would compare the fighting in Ukraine somewhat to the hedgerow of Normandy except on a larger scale. The farmland is flat and up to 1 kilometer wide and bordered with treelines which are the only places to take cover. Roads normally run along the treelines. In an assault, you need to start from your treeline and cross an open area to get to their treeline normally under drone observation and terrain the enemy artillery already has registered (TRP).

The Z trooper's job is to locate the Ukie defenders by forcing them to fire and use their ammo. They can then be hit by tank direct and mortar indirect fire. Think of it as a probe or recon by fire and not an all-out assault.

If the Z troopers do get into the trenches it gives the Russians a chance to bring up more troops in APC and tanks for direct fire. The Z troopers normally carry 2-3 mags and 1-2 grenades. Giving them more is a waste because they'll most likely get killed before using up their 2-3 mags. They are mostly armed with older AKs and no heavy weapons.

As soon as a trench line or building has been lost, they'll attempt to counterattack to take it back. Much of the time this is led by Western units who are more experienced in offensive tactics than the Ukies and have NVG which is a great advantage at night. Most of the dead they find in the trenches are of Asian descent, not Russian. On the counter-attack, the guys will carry up to 16 loaded mags and 6-8 grenades. I've heard several comments that the side with the most grenades wins a trench fight.

The Z trooper tactics have switched to mostly night attacks. A Russian NCO with NVG and normally an AK-12 will lead a small group of Z troopers without NVG into position while the Ukie position is suppressed under 120 mortar, 152 artillery, and Grad bombardment (they are in their bunkers).

All of this is normally overseen by a Russian drone. When the Z troopers get within 200-300m of the Ukie trenches, the heavy bombardment is lifted and replaced by mortars and indirect AGL fire. The Russians will most likely bring up tanks and APCs at this point.

The Z troopers may get to within 30m before being detected and fired upon. When you are in a trench your eyes are at ground level so your Situational Awareness is pretty bad. Sometimes a defender will jump up on the parapet to get a better shot.

While the defenders are tied up fighting, the Russians will bring up the real assault troops and tanks. At this point, only Ukie artillery (mostly 155m) can stop them.

Grenades are not killing weapons like in Hollywood unless you are in a small enclosed area. When assaulting a zig-zag trench, the enemy may be only meters away. The tactic is to toss a grenade and then 1-2 guys pop around and fire their weapons. The most effective weapon for bunkers is a 1-kilo of C4 with a grenade fuse to detonate it.

Of course, there are different scenarios and tactics. Z units may be dropped off in small units. That's because large formations will attract artillery fire. The Ukies do not want to waste rounds on small units. That's why they've switched from a 50-man unit to multiple units of 10-12 sometimes in several waves.

A good friend of mine was an ISR Team Leader with 12 men as drone operators and artillery FOs in Bakhmut from Nov 22 to March 23 (he didn't lose anyone). He said the Russians took positions because they had worn down the defenders and the Ukie artillery ran out of ammo.

Once the Russians see a trenchline defenses have been worn down they'll send in a wave of 150+ men who are not Z troopers. There have been occasions where the Ukies have not put up much of a fight and retreated. This is normally because they do not have fire support. He said on occasion he's seen the Russians bring up 150-300 men for the final assault. At that point, there is no stopping them.

Most of the Ukie defenders are 35-45 years old with some up to 65. Most of the dead Z troopers they've seen are of Asian descent.

FYI: I spent 2 weeks in Ukraine touring the East with Western members of the Legion, Spec Ops, EOD, and ISR units. Most have been fighting in Ukraine for 1+ years and have defended and assaulted trenches and buildings, most during the Battle of Bakhmut and the Kharkiv and Kherson Offensive.

I saw some of the front-line trenches in Balaklayia and conducted hours of interviews with them regarding ops, weapons, tactics, and lessons learned. All of my comments come from them and what I observed, not my opinion.

Wolfhag

MilEFEX3030,
Yes, the Russians do have a 5+ to 1 advantage. However, defensive positions are not under heavy artillery fire while being assaulted but it has happened resulting in friendly casualties. Much of the Russian artillery is H&I or just taking out blocks of buildings. Units hiding in the basement are almost entirely safe. However, it is not rare for a building to collapse, killing almost all of the defenders.

Some of the Westerners I spoke to said they are alive because of Russian duds which are 10-30%. The artillery effectiveness is also reduced by soft ground and mud limiting shrapnel dispersion.

A 120mm mortar hit 15 feet away from the Team Leader in Bakhmut and only the detonator went off cracking the shell open. The markings said it was manufactured in 1973.

The 152mm rounds are especially reduced because they penetrate so far into the ground. Grads target 1k grid squares. The N. Korean ammo is even worse. The ISR Team building was hit by a 1000k bomb that was a dud and would have brought down the entire building.

Many of the Russian mortar rounds have 1-3 "+" or "-" markings on the shell. Each marking shows that the round is 1% too heavy or light because of poor quality control so the mortar team can make adjustments. The Russians are keeping their artillery barrels in service long after they should be replaced, making them even more inaccurate and eventually failing.

The FO in Bakhmut said it normally takes only 3-5 rounds of their 155mm to throw back a Z trooper assault of up to a dozen men. If you can knock out their vehicles they will normally stop sending in additional waves – for awhile. The 155s are devastating and accurate, stating he's observed many Russians turning into a "pink mist" from a round almost hitting them directly.

The Russians would normally infiltrate small numbers of men into a building or trench line as a staging area over hours. A good drone operator can observe this and have artillery ready to hit them before they can move out.

When units retreat, they'll fall back to a hidden command post or bunker, which can then be targeted. That's why you don't want them retreating.

During the Battle of Bakhmut, the US Marine vet ISR Team Leader would spend the night in his safe house going over the latest intel, sat images, and SigInt data. I saw a 46-page intel report he sent up to the commander of GUR (Ukie CIA) Gen. Budanov which had annotated sat images of Russian unit locations and strengths.

He'd prioritize the target list for his AO the next day and distribute it to arty battery commanders. They only wanted to fire at the target being observed by drones with a real-time live video feed and GPS coordinates. This meant the ISR team had to set up sat comm and StarLink.

This is the team I was with in December of last year. This is from Bakhmut in Dec 2022:
link

Wolfhag

Wolfhag,
alas you contacts had contact with Prigozhin's men, a competent commander and troops in some cases with some expertise to back up the Meat wave. In many cases of the main point of effort that seems not to be the case. There are many reports of 20 to 30 Russians being dumped without artillery of armour support. This was what I was aiming at. I agree that sending in a Meat wave assualt may identify positions but in many cases the positions are not camouflaged anyway as the are machine dug in the open. The the question investigated in the simulation is what level of Defence could such a poor unit take?

Impressive overview Wolfhag, really interesting. One point, Russian isn't a race, it's a vast country IN Asia. there are many asian looking Russians.

That dud rate sounds high. When I was on the Russian Telegram channels a year ago I observed daily high angle video from Russian drones of entire platoons of Ukrainian infantry caught in the open and creamed by Russian artillery, 155mm. Not many of the shells if any seemed to be duds. The main effect was either the man dissappeared in the blast or was flung sometimes up to about 100m like a ragdoll. It was bizarre to watch.

Keep in mind UshCha, any video like that will never be on Youtube. I recommend getting Telegram and following a channel called IntelSlavaZ. It's Russian government controlled and only shows one side of the story but it shows the side you seem to be oblivious to. You need to look at both perspectives before you design a game on a real conflict. You can keep hating Russians and Putin, but you need to understand reality. The term "meat wave" shows your bias. Getting dropped of in a treeline by a BMP and tactically trying to assault a trench line isn't a meatwave, a meatwave envokes mindless zombies marching across an open field. It's insulting to all warriors.

I'm sure The Ukranians themselves have more respect for the Russians than you do and the Russians haven't done anything to you, you're just jumping on the MSM bandwagon.

Wolfhag's learnings there reflect my impressions too that the main issue for Russia AND Ukraine is poor command and control. Neither side seems to be able to conduct combined arms warfare at above a company level. Actually I think that is the US militaries main trump card, they're the only military that has mastered it and proved it.

Sorry you're banned UsCha. Not sure why but I don't think you should be.

From: Meatgrinder: Russian Tactics in the Second Year of Its Invasion of Ukraine

Russia's disposable infantry should be considered fundamentally different and are drawn from three principal sources: conscripts from the Luhansk and Donetsk People's Republics (heavily attrited from early rounds of fighting); prisoners drafted by the Wagner Group; and under-trained mobilised Russian civilians. These troops were originally formed into companies of approximately 60 people,8 but have since been broken down into platoons of approximately
15. They are issued with small arms.

Ukrainian troops report that they often appear to be under the influence of amphetamines or other narcotic substances, with material recovered from the battlefield indicating that these are commonly taken in liquid form. In the attack, disposable infantry are the first to be employed.

Disposable platoons are assigned to those avenues of approach to Ukrainian positions that are deemed to offer some cover and thus could prove viable. Although these have been described colloquially as ‘human wave attacks', they no longer involve a dense concentration of infantry conducting an assault in a single mass. Rather, a disposable fire team of two to five personnel (sometimes composed of a Sapper, RPG Gunner, RPG and AK armed team) is sent from a forming-up position in the Russian front line and advances to contact.

There may be up to five fire teams pushed across an axis at any one time, but normally only one or two teams will be able to work forwards. The team will skirmish with Ukrainian defensive positions on contact, often until killed. Ukrainian troops noted that many continued to advance, even after being wounded.

On more than one occasion Ukrainian soldiers report that disposable infantry have been shot from Russian positions when attempting to retreat. As teams are destroyed by defensive fire, Russian forces will commit successive teams forward by the same line of approach.

Ukrainian forces must continuously defend their positions against consecutive waves, expending ammunition, exposing the locations of their defensive positions, and exhausting their personnel. If these attacks were executed by capable assault troops motivated by factors other than coercion and narcotics, they would be roughly equivalent to historical assault tactics such as the ‘short attacks' of the Chinese People's Volunteer Army in the Korean War.

The term ‘human wave attacks' is certainly misleading for probes by successive small assault teams against enemy defences. However, the way that they are conducted is not conducive to successful assaults nor to the maintenance of momentum. Rather, the continuous conduct of this activity, across all axes, is a form of reconnaissance that allows the Russian forces to do two things.

First, they find points of weakness in the Ukrainian defences where these troops make surprising amounts of progress or face very limited fire. These are then prioritised for deliberate assault. Alternatively, where the defence is strong, the revelation of Ukrainian firing positions allows specialised troops to begin targeting them.

Russian specialised troops are deployed as irregular groupings of snipers, artillery spotters and support weapon operators. While Ukrainian forces are suppressing disposable infantry, additional disposable troops are often pushed forwards as working groups to dig fox holes and prepare firing positions closer to Ukrainian defences. These personnel are withdrawn and replaced by specialists who can establish observation and sniping posts or set up heavy weapons. They can then be used to direct accurate fire against Ukrainian firing posts from a range of up to 2 km and inflict attrition

Conversely, if a weaker point is identified and a deliberate assault is planned, the approach is to move additional disposable troops to dig forward positions for specialised infantry. Rather than seeking to simply attrit the defence, this becomes a base of fire. Furthermore, artillery fire
shifts from harassment to barrage, enabling Russian assault infantry to attack – often favouring a flank.

Assault infantry tend to advance in company strength with the support of armour and, among better Russian units, utilising a mixture of artillery systems. 152-mm howitzers fire until the assault is 400 m from the target position, after which fire is taken over by 122-mm howitzer or 120-mm mortar fire until the assault closes to its final assault positions. The final advance is covered by infantry mortars and then grenades are used before entering the target position.

These troops tend to endeavour to turn the flank of a defensive position. On taking a position, they are often withdrawn and replaced by line infantry and additional disposable troops who set about fortifying the position so that it can be held as a base for further probing actions.

There appears to be a method to Russia's "madness." Based on the tactical situation and weapons available, I don't see how I could give them any other advice. However, it does appear that the success or failure of these assaults depends on how much artillery the Ukies can put on an assault. Drone control of artillery has been said to make it up to 250% more effective but for a variety of reasons they may not be available.

The long-term goal is to keep the defenders busy and expending ammo. It may mean a synchronized assault as described above or dropping off Z teams without support and forcing them to move to contact the defenders. I'm sure there are many variations.

Wolfhag

alas your contacts had contact with Prigozhin's men

The Wagner Group is not all meat targets.

The General Staff may have originally spawned the idea for the Wagner Group, and it has always been associated with the General Staff's GRU. Satellite data indicates that beginning in 2015, Wagner Group forces trained next door to the GRU's special forces (spetsnaz) 10th Special Mission Brigade, based at Molkino in the southern Russian province of Krasnodarsky Krai.

The core group of Wagner is a force to be reckoned with.

Wagner's first field commander was Dmitry Utkin, a former Russian special forces officer. The group was named after his radio call sign.

Most Wagner mercenaries initially came from Russia's special forces and other elite units, and in its early days the group was thought to number about 5,000.

However, in 2022, Prigozhin recruited prisoners from Russian jails to fight in Ukraine, in exchange for pardons. In June, he said the group had 25,000 fighters.

Don't underestimate the Wagner Group. They were better than many regular Russian units. He recruited criminals so he didn't lose his core group of professionals in Bakhmut who had been fighting in Syria and Africa. It was a very smart tactic I hope NATO and the US copy.

The ISR Team I'm talking about had CQC with Spetznaz in Bakhmut when the Russians entered the city. Or at least that's what their ID papers took off their corpse said.

Late in the battle, the teams were redeployed west of Solidar to stop the VDV Paratroops from cutting off the supply route from the north.

It appears Wagner troops played a large and important role in the eventual capture of Bakhmut, much to the dismay of regular Russian army commanders and Putin.

Here's a timeline of the battle. Wagner did not capture positions with Z troopers: link

The ground is considered flat so there are no blockages of LOS.

Not necessarily. When observing at eye level in a trench, it is easy for an attacker to conceal himself in micro-terrains or one of hundreds of shell holes, even if they are only 10m away. Also, prior assaulting units may have dug additional defenses just outside the Ukie trench line. Sometimes defenders will jump up on the parapet to expose themselves but get a better shot at the defenders.

If you watch the videos of Ukies in the trenches, when one gets hit 1-2 others will rush to their aid and attempt to stabilize him even if a medic is present. That's a significant decrease in firepower the Russians don't have to worry about. I think you should model that too.

There are so many variations of the tactics that anything you make up is most likely historic.

Wolfhag

Here's a good summary of Russian assault tactics: PDF link

Wolfhag