TTP - Forward Detachments and Tactical Air Assault

The Soviet Army had a doctrine of creating forward detachments to support ground manoeuvre and supporting these with Air Assault capability. Each division in the first echelon of an Army might establish one battalion as a forward detachment drawn from a unit in its second echelon in addition each army might supply a regiment for the same purpose from one of the second echelon Divisions On the main axis of advance it would be quite conceivable to find multiple forward detachments deployed across a Divisions frontage.

Their focus was on acheiving critical missions in order to maintain the momentum of the advance rather than in engaging all enemy met as such they would seek to avoid combat prior to their objective. Each Forward detachment would be task organised to allow it to operate independently of the parent formation and to achieve its objectives, objectives could typically be 30-35km beyond the forward line of own troops. This could only be achieved in relatively fluid situations following breakthroughs, during meeting engagements or in the enemy covering force zone and with appropriate task organisation and support by air aviation and depth fire assets.

Objectives would be focused on allowing the parent formation to maintain momentum towards its objective and as such could be focused on the ground or the enemy, typically these might include: 

• Securing River Crossings 
• Securing Defiles and Junctions
• Seizing and holding key objectives
• acheiving surprise through rapidity of manoeuvre
• Disruption of enemy defensive preparations and the cohesion of the defence
• penetration of hastily prepared positions
• Attack of Enemy HQs
• Blocking enemy counter attacks

The principal deduction is that a Combined Arms Army operating on a two division frontage could create 5 such battalions whilst on a three division frontage 6. 

DShV Units would routinly be task organised to support the forward detachments and on occasion act as forward detachments in their own right.  The DShV missions would be conducted primarily at company and battalion level as discussed in the Orbat Air Assault posts. Given that each BTR equiped MRD  could deploy 3 Companies capable of air assault (9 total in the Army)  and the army had 3 Companies in its Air Assault Battalion and the Front had 9 in the Air Assault Brigade the doctrine of supporting the ground forward detachments with Air Assault capability seems well resourced with regard to the combat assets.   Without Drawing on front level assets an Army could easily constitute 12 Air Assault Companies one of which could be BMD equipped.

The impact of this would be that the second echelon Battalions in each MRR would be minus a company, and the second echelon MRR would be short a battalion.  The First Echelon would be composed of fully formed regiments.

The role of the DShV elements in these operations would be to facilitate the forward detachment in the seizing of its objective, allowing it to maintain a high tempo of operations, this could include all the missions outlined above.  In esscance the Air Assault companies would support the manoeuvre of the forward detachments and or act as forward detachments in their own right.  In turn the forward detachments would facilitate the manouver of the regiments and divisions by clearing the path in front them or preventing enemy interference with their manoeuvre, allowing a high tempo of advance to be sustained on the principal axis of advance.  Critical to achieving this was the appropriate task organisation of the group to achieve the assigned mission which to my mind is the appeal of these organisations in wargaming.

Task Organisation

Lester Grau in his work the Soviet Combined Arms Battalion, Reorginisation for tacticle flexibility 1989, analised a variety of Soviet post war exercises and Military articles in order to construct a view of likly force composition.  In only 12 exercises of the 551 examined was task organisation absent, though what is not clear was the level of the exercise.  For Tank units attached to a Motor Rifle Battalion he noted the following:

• 1 Tank Company 80% 
• 2 Tank Companies 5%
• 1 Tank Battalion .2%
• 2 Tank Platoons 1%
• 1 Tank Platoon .7%
• No armour 11% Most likly in defence and mountainous terrain

Attachments of Motor Rifle Troops to tank battalions only occured 59% of the time with 44% being the attachment of 1 Company and the remainder being 1 or 2 Platoons. On 1 Occasion 2 Companies were attached attachments also included individual squads.

Motor Rifle Battalions frequently included attached Artillery battalions:

• 2 Battalions 0.5%
• 1 Battalion + 1 Battery 5%
• 1 Battalion 34%
• 2 Batteries 5%
• 1 Battery 21%

additional supporting artillery fire could be applied on top of this.

He provides similar statistics for engineers reconnaissance air defence and anti tank assets.  He noted that the most common grouping was an MR battalion grouped with a tank company, Artillery battalion and an engineer platoon and that this task organisation was most likly when the unit had been tasked to act as a forward detachment or advanced guard the attachments grew in number and size from 1975.  However the detail of the task organisation is always mission dependent and as can be seen there was significant latitude in the boundaries applied.

What this evidences is a Soviet doctrine of significant flexibility in task organisation particularly for the forward detachments,  it evidences a greater degree of flexibility than represented elsewhere and in some respects a more flexable approach than a number of NATO armies though to some extent the Soviet approach to command and control of Artillery made some of this inevitable .  David Glantz in The Conduct of Tactical Manouver extends the concepts covered in this paper to include the support of air assault components the detail of the task organisation of these assets can be found in Soviet Air Assault Capability Part 2

The Doctrine of employment of Forward Detachments offers significant potential for some very interesting games and our next game "Storming the Waidhaus Gap" looks at the interaction of these two soviet elements in the context of engageing the NATO covering force.

References:

FM 100-2 Specialised Warfare and Rear Area Support, Chapter 3 Heliborn Operations

FM 100-3, Soviet Troop Organisation and Equipment

Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army, Isbey, 1988

The Soviet Conduct of Tactical Maneuver: Spearhead of the Offensive, DM Glantze, 

A History of Soviet Airborne Forces (Cass Series on Soviet Military Theory & Practice)
The Soviet Combined Arms Battalion, Reorganisation for tactical flexibility
Tactics a Soviet view
Soviet Airland Battle Tactics
Soviet Military Operational Art: In Pursuit of Deep Battle (Soviet (Russian) Military Theory and Practice)

Related Posts:

ORBAT - Soviet Task Org, Fronts in the Western TVD

ORBAT Soviet Air Assault Capability,  Part 1, Part 2
ORBAT- 1980's MRR and TRR, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

Cold War Projects 2017

Last year was largely a year off from gaming and related activities hopefully this year will see a little more activity on the modelling writing and gaming fronts.  This post really sets out to explain the different projects I am working on and how they might progress this year.  All of them are fairly large multi year undertakings some of which have been running since I started this blog

I suspect the primary focus will remain the Soviet Armed forces as I have a number of fairly large projects in progress that I am keen to try and close out on or move forward depending on their current stage of development.  For those of you who have not had the time to fight their way through the amount of material in the blog these are:

• Forward Detachments
• Breakthrough Battle
• Deep Battle

Forward Detachment

The forward detachment project seems to be completing. The main components of the project are:

• BMP Motor Rifle Regiment that can be fought as an early 80s or late 80's force
• Divisional Anti Tank Regiment
• DShV Bn and Associated Airlift and Support
• Frontal Aviation Ground attack assets

whilst the topic has been fairly well covered there are a number of areas I have yet to explore in detail around the various force components of the BMP MRR and how they might be organised and deployed by the MRR commander and these have quite a bit of potential to spin out into a number of smaller scenarios around their use.

Principal Posts

TTP - Soviet Forward Detachments as a Covering Force

TTP-Soviet Forward Detachments and Tactical Air Assault

ORBAT - Soviet Air Assault Capability Part 1, Overview and Lift Assets
ORBAT - Soviet Air Assault Capability Part 2, Army Air Assault Battalion

ORBAT - Soviet Divisional Units, Part 1 MRD Anti Tank Battalion

Wargames Unit - Soviet Late 80's MRB
Wargames Unit - Soviet MRR, Anti Tank Reserve
Wargames Unit - Soviet MRD, Anti Tank Battalion
Wargames Unit-Soviet Late 80's, 2S1 Battalion
Wargames Unit - 468 MSB, Divisional Forward Detachment at Waidhause
Wargames Unit -Soviet, Combat Helicopter Regiment, Assault Helicopter Squadron
Wargames Unit - Soviet, Combat Helicopter Regiment, Attack Helicopter Squadron
Wargames Unit - Soviet Late 80's Independent DShV Battalion

Modelling - Scratch Building AT-7 Saxhorn (9K115 Metis)

Modelling - Converting a BRDM 2 Rkh
Modelling - Converting Hobby Dens BTR 60PB to a BTR 60PU

Scenario - The Wissenberg Counter Attack

AAR - Wissenberg Counter Attack, Part 1 Ground 

AAR - Wissenberg Counter Attack, Part 2 Opening Moves

AAR - Wissenberg Counter Attack, Part 3 Counter Strike

Scenario - Storming The Waidhaus Gap
AAR-Storming The Waidhaus Gap, Part 1 Ground and Deployment
AAR-Storming The Waidhaus Gap, Part 2 Soviet Air Land Battle
AAR -Storming The Waidhaus Gap, Part 3, Counter Attack

Breakthrough Battle

The Breakthrough Battle project has largely been researched and written up,  much of the required equipment has been bought although there is still a fair amount to go.  Currently the scope of the project  includes:

• BTR Motor Rifle Regiment
• Divisional Artillery Regiment
• Army & Front  Artillery reinforcing units
• Divisional, Army & Front Air Defence Assets
• Frontal Aviation Ground attack assets

This project should provide a number of posts around:

•  reviews of models, 
• ORBAT posts around the specific force components not yet covered, 
• Wargames units as I finish them 
• Possibly the odd scenario although in truth there is a lot of work here to do on building the force and a viable opposition before any gaming can really take place.

Principal Posts

TTP-Soviet Breakthrough Attacks
ORBAT - Soviet Late 80's Breakthrough Capability, Part 1 overview
ORBAT-Soviet Late 80's Breakthrough Capability, Part 2 Army Independent Flamethrower Battalions
ORBAT-Soviet Late 80's Breakthrough Capability, Part 3 Non Divisional Artillery Assets
ORBAT-Soviet Late 80's Breakthrough Capability, Part 4 Frontal Aviation
Wargames Unit - Soviet Late 80's, Flame Thrower Company Group

Deep Battle

I started researching Deep battle in 2015 and have yet to start to write the material up currently I think there will be a number of major operational elements:

• Exploitation and Pursuit forces, Tank Regiment & Army and Front River Crossing assets
• Strategic Desante, Spetznaz, VDV Regiment and Naval Infantry Battalion
• Deep Fires, Air, Rocket and Artillery, I think there might be the odd Scud Brigade in here

I hope to be blogging around each of these project areas over the next 12 months and probably over the next few years as these projects always take a long time to mature both from the perspective of developing an understanding of the subject and building up the requisite forces to fight the battles.

As this project has yet to get past the research stage I have yet to write anything significant, and like the Breakthrough project its a fairly large and complex and because of the distances and forces involved challenging to translate to the table top in 20mm.

I have bought the odd model and have some force elements already covered in a limited fashion, primarily the VDV and elements of the exploitation and pursuit forces which fall out of the Forward Detachment project.

Context

As well as the posts relating to the three main projects their is also a lot of material on the operational and organisational context to battles in the late Cold War period.

ORBAT - Soviet Task Org, Fronts against NORTHAG
ORBAT - Soviet Task Org, Fronts in the Western TVD
ORBAT - 1980's Soviet MRR and TRR, Part 1 Deployment and ORBAT
ORBAT - 1980's Soviet MRR and TRR, Part 2 Tank Change 
ORBAT - 1980's Soviet MRR and TRR, Part 3 Engineers
ORBAT - 1980's Soviet MRR and TRR, Part 4 Artillery
ORBAT - Soviet Unit Titles and Abbreviations
TTP - Soviet Advanced Guard and March Security

ORBAT - 1980s Soviet MRR and TR, Part 3 Engineer Support

Engineer support was provided to the Soviet MRR and TRR in a number of ways. The engineer company's assets could be grouped with other regimental or divisional assets to produce Manoeuvre Support Detachments MSDs, Mobile Obstacle Detachments MODs and specfic assault river crossing support dependent on the units mission. Engineer and chemical reconnaissance would be provided in support of these functions.

The MOD was covered in the Post on the Anti Tank Reserve and essentially consisted of minelaying capability for rapid obstacle creation in support of such groups as the anti tank reserve, and could include:

• The provision of Scatterable Mines from Trucks, Helicopters or MRLS (BM27),
• Cratering, booby trapping and hand laying of mines or other obstacles from an engineer platoon which could be reinforced by attached MR assets
• The provision of mine laying capability through either towed PMRs or tracked GMZs from division. The rates of laying that could be achieved by these assets make this very gamable. 1000m in 30 minutes by GMZ, 500m in 30 minutes by PMR. 

Interestingly the Soviets include the deployment of persistent chemicals as a means of channelling an enemy and the deployment of them can therefore be considered as part of the obstacle plan. The deployment of the Anti Tank reserve together with the development of obstacles would be triggered by the reconnaissance and march security elements of the unit or higher formation. At my 1:3 vehicle scale the regiment can support the creation of one MOD as can Division further groups could probably be generated from Army and Front assets. Groups would be allocated based on the priority of the mission, units acting as covering forces or dealing with flank protection of key forward detachments could receive considerable support, which makes for some interesting scenario options.

Big Game 2011, Rutgers MRR approaching the River Line

The Manoeuvre Support Detachment

The Manoeuvre Support Detachment was responsible within the MRR for the identification, clearance/breaching and marking of obstacles on the supported units route as well as the provision of route marking capability, the maintenance of the route and an element of its own security.  The detachment would include reconnaissance, security and engineer elements. Bridging capability was limited to small gaps crossable using either truck or armoured vehicle launched bridges from within the regiments own assets.

 The assets that could be drawn on to form an MSB include:

• AVLBS and VLBs the engineer company in a tank regiment deployed 3 AVLBS either MT - 55 or MTU  in a MRR this was 1.  The VLB being the TMM , this could have included the TMM6 toward the later part of the period but I am unclear on the in service date.
• Mine ploughs and rollers were the principal method of clearing mine obsticles. The Regimental Engineer company in a MRR could deploy 9 KMT 3/4, and 3 KMT 5 rollers/ploughs for the TR the figures are 28 and 9.
• Tank Dozer blades. 3 BTU are held at regiment, essential for filling small gaps improving and maintaining entry and exit points from bridging and breaching AT ditches. I will probably use these to represent general earth moving capability as there are limited models available for the other equipment.
• Explosive mine clearance devices were available based on T55, BTR 50 (MTK) and 2S1(MTK2) hulls.  The divisional Engineer battalion held between 2-6 depending on source. They had considerable utility on assault river crossings where the BTR 50 and 2S1 elements could swim and therefore begin mine clearance in advance of getting tanks across.
• Tank platoons/companies could provide both security and clearance assets when equipped with either dozers mine ploughs or mine rollers.
• Engineer Platoons. The Regimental Engineer Company fielded 2 Sapper Platoons 1 mounted in BTR 60 and 1 mounted in trucks. The divisional Engineer battalion had a further 2.  Against the Orbat shown above these were probably components of the Bridge and Mine warfare platoons, Isbey breaks them out as separate entities.
• Engineer Recce. Divisional engineer Recce fielded 3 BTR 60. The BTR 60 equipped sapper platoons could provide a similar function.
• Motor Rifle Platoons/Companies, provided security and additional labour for tasks such as hand breaching.
• Chemical Recce detachments provided chemical recce capability, 3-4 BRDM 2 Rkh existed within the Regimental Chemical Defence Company, and 9 within the Divisional NBC Defence Battalion.

Big Game 2011, Rutgers MRR commences the River Crossing

So for my Wargames MSD I intend to use at 1:3 with some poetic licence to maintain each capability and introduce some interesting models:

Engineer and Chemical Recce (Reinfoirced from Division) 1 BTR 60, 2 BRDM 2Rkh (These will work forward on the main march routes with Regimental Recce and March security elements)

Mine Clearance, 3 Tanks 1 per Company with KMT 3/4/5. The KMTs can be held on trucks (1) and be issued as required to the tank companies. Additionally I'll provide MTK2 to the MSD

Route Improvement Maintainence 1 Tank with BTU Dozer

Route Marking and Security 1 BMP Company.

Bridging 1 MT 55 AVLB

1Truck mounted Sapper Platoon 6 Figures

The Tank Platoon and MR Company will be drawn from the 2nd Echelon Battalion

Assault River Crossing group

If the unit was expected to meet a significant water Obstacle then an Assault River crossing group could be provided from Divisional assets. The composition would probably vary dependent on the type of unit being supported as wheeled MRR would have a lot more trucks because of there towed artillery, particularly in the earlier organisation options.

 The Divisional Engineer battalion had 6 complete GSP ferrys and 12 PTS2 Tracked Amphibious Load Carriers. David Glanz in The Soviet Conduct Of Tactical Manoeuvre sugests a grouping of 3 GSP and 2 PTS, given the numbers I am going for 3 GSP and upto 6 PTS. The assault crossing assets would be grouped with units and sub units acting as forward detachments as these would be the lead element and be responsible for creating the initial crossing of water obstacles.  Deliberate bridging would most likely occur once an initial bridgehead had been established and cleared to the point where the enemy could not bring the bridging site under direct fire.

For Wargames representation of this I will be using 1 GSP and 2 PTS

River crossings make for excellent scenarios as they allow considerable scope for task organising and could include;

•  An airborne forward detachment drawn from the Divisional or Army second echelon using helicopter insertion, 
• A ground based MRB strength forward detachment drawn from the divisional second echelon and supported by air and aviation to establish the initial bridge head
•  The Divisions first echelon MRR which would have the Divisional bridging capability grouped with it and if on the main axis could be reinforced by key divisional assets which could include Recce, anti tank, engineer and artillery. 

I am currently working up a post which will look in detail at the force composition the TTPs and a Scenario that could be played at a few different levels.

Significant additional engineer assets were held at Army and Front which would allow quite a number of such groupings to be formed if required.  Forward detachments would potentially be created at each level  such that an Army advancing with two divisions in the first echelon each with two regiments BTR in the first echelon, could have across the front two divisional forward detachments of Battalion Strength (BMP) and a regimental Strength Army forward detachment (BTR or BMP), effectively putting 5 Battalion sized reinforced groups across the frontage with the opportunity to put at least one in front of every regiment in the first echelon. Within the scope of the Army and Frontal engineer assets most could have significant MSDs and Assault River Crossing capability, without touching the MSDs of the first echelon regiments.

S&S PTS2 Amphibious Tracked Transporter

This video gives a reasonable impression of the sequencing of an assault river crossing, sadly no GSP ferries.

References:

The Soviet Conduct of Tactical Manoeuvre, Spearhead of the Offensive, DM Glantz
Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Union, D Isbey
Identify Engineer and Decontamination Equipment
FMSO Instant Obstacles Russian remotely delivered Mines
FM 100 -2-1 The Soviet Army Operations and Tactics
FM 100-2-2 The Soviet Army, Specialised Warfare and Reara Area Security, Chapters on Airborn, Heliborn and River Crossing Operations
FM 100-2-3 The Soviet Army Troops, Organisation and Equipment, Engineer and Chemical Sub Units and Units
Wargames Unit - Soviet MRR Anti Tank Reserve
Wikipedia Military Engineering Vehicles
ORBAT- 1980's MRR and TRR, Part 1, Part 2, Part 4

TTP - Soviet, Forward Detachments as a Covering Force

Soviet Defensive Doctrine called for the destruction of enemy forces in order to create the conditions for the offensive to be resumed as quickly as possible. In transitioning to a defensive posture the Soviets would create a security zone forward of the main defence in order to:

• Attrit enemy reconnaissance and main force units.
• Gain time to prepare the main defence.
• Deceive as to the location and structure of the main defence.
• Gain intelligence on the enemy.

As part of this activity they task organised Units and Sub Units to provide the covering force. These could be forward detachments based on Motor Rifle or Tank Battalions and Regiments reinforced by a range of Divisional, Army and Front Assets. Command and control of the assets would largely reside with the Combined Arms Commander in this case the Motor Rifle Battalion CO. Forward detachments would be provided from units with more able commanders, though what that meant in the cultural context of the Soviet Military I am less than clear on.

Recce. Divisional Recce would work forward of the Security Zone with Regimental, Engineer, Chemical and Artillery Recce and Locating elements working with in it, once contact with the enemy had been established these elements would pull back to the flanks and maintain contact with and monitor the enemy's activity as they moved into the security zone. In addition the recce components enabled early engagement with air aviation and indirect fire assets and continued engagement throughout the enemies depth as the battle progressed.

Engineers. Divisional and Regimental Mobile Obstical Detachments would construct the Obstical plan, enhancing natural obsticals and aiming to channel and slow the enemy as they moved through the security zone. Their efforts would be enhanced by the deployment of Scatterable mines from Mi-8s and BM - 27s. In addition the Soviets would consider the use of persistent chemical weapons as a means of enhancing the Obstical plan allowing rapid dynamic adjustment as the battle unfolded.

Each Regiment could generate a MOD and Division could generate an additional one from the independent Engineer Battalion, upto 2 MODs supporting a single Battalion deployed in this role would seem reasonable. The composition of a Mobile Obsticle Detachment is covered here.

Artillery. Routinely in this role the forward battalion would be reinforced with between one and two battalions of artillery in addition Artillery from the RAGs and DAG would deploy forward in order to provide effective fire support of the screening force and Recce elements, Given the passing forward of artillery between Division, Army and Front and the additional elements passed forward from the second echelon a representation of the Supporting Fires available would be as follows:

• 4 Bns of 2S1 ( 1 in each of its TR and MRR), organic
• DAG 2 Bn 2S1, 1 Bn 2S3, 1 Bn MRL BM21, organic
• From Army 2 Bn 2S5, attached,
• From Front 3Bn 2S3, 1Bn MRL BM 27, 1 Bn 2S4 240mm Mortar, 1 Bn 2S7 203mm Guns, attached

The detail of this would be dependent on the posture being adopted by the remaining units in the formations and where the commanders main effort lay. Most Fire Missions would be applied with a minimum of a battalion. The central control of the allocation of the fires would allow rapid concentration of significant fire where requiered, the Soviet commander could in the words of Maximus Decimus Meridius - Unleash Hell. In addition the Soviets would position artillery units to provide direct fire engagement on to routes on secondary axis and to the rear of the main strongpoints. This effectively gives Artillery a primary task of indirect fire support and a secondary task of anti tank engagement in their immediate vicinity and adding depth and density to the defence.

Motor Rifle Battalion. The Forward detachment would either be constituted from a MRB or TB depending on the situation. With an MRB the aim would be to set up a series of defended strong points supported by ambushes and fires from artillery and anti tank systems, coordinated within the context of the obstacle plan. The unit would then withdraw to its alternate positions as the attack develops with the intent on each withdrawal being to cause the enemy artillery to move. The final position is designed to convince the enemy that they have reached the main defence

The physical positions and obstacles are designed to lead the enemy into a series of fire pockets where a range of direct and indirect fire weapons can be used to best effect once the enemy has been fixed. Choice of positions will aim to exploit Natural obstacles and Company strongpoints will be situated along the most likely avenues of advance with other assets such as Artillery units, Anti Tank Units and obstacles covering the subsidiary approaches.

Tank Companies. Upto two Tank companies might be allocated to a single battalion and they are used to manoeuvre and mount counter attacks around the infantry strong points. In addition at critical stages in the battle such as the need for an in place unit to withdraw they can take over the fight from the in place force and supported by Artillery Air and Aviation assets create the conditions to enable withdrawal from the strongpoints.

Anti Tank Battalions. The MRR possess an Anti Tank Battery and the divison a battalion, additional assets may be allocated from the AT Regiments at Army and Front level allowing for upto 3 Battalions to support the forward detachment. As well as supporting the primary strong points these units can be used to cover the gaps between strongpoints and some part of the manoeuvre element. It was likly that the Anti Armour reserve would be provided by a single Anti Tank Battery.

The long range fire available from missiles either from the gun or GW batteries allowed significant concentration of fire from widely dispersed units, like their air defence the anti armour defence would be layered but in this case would be optimised to achieve maximum effect once the enemy was fixed in the fire pocket. So the MRBs anti armour weapons RPG, AT 4/5, and SPG 9 would be sited to allow them to maximise fire effect with the AT Battery and Battalion systems once the enemy had hit the obstical belts that restricted their exit from or movement through the fire pockets.

Air Defence. An air defence battery or battalion could be deployed to cover the area and supplement the battalions organic SA7 assets.

Aviation. Aviation from the Army Attack Helicopter regiment could provide significant flexibility and stopping power to deal with the main force once identified and fixed. The speed of deployment and manoeuvre allowing it to focus on the main need. The intent would be to fix and slow down with strong points and obstacles close down with artillery then clean up with anti armour systems, the range and speed of deployment of the air assets allowing rapid concentrations of fire to be built up.

Air Assault. Whilst I have no specific references siteing the use of air assault in direct conjunction with a security screen they are given blocking missions to flanks and in enemy rear it seems likely that in stabelising a fluid defensive situation they might be deployed at the forward end of the security zone to give the security zone time to establish.

The Soviets understood that in fluid situations you would have units in different states (offence, defence, transition) simultaneously and the bigger the meeting engagement the clearer this would be. I have assumed for the purposes of the Wisenberg Scenario which conceptualises an armoured brigade counter attacking into the flank of an MRD that had broken through the forward NATO divisional defence that the concepts outlined above for the security zone would apply equally to the blocking action that the Soviets would make against this threat.

This allowed me to build a Soviet hasty defence in the context of a Soviet attack and build the force structure for the Soviet element. The assumption being that the blocking force would be slightly less lavishly equipped than the task organisation described, would have less time to deploy obstacles and might have less supporting artillery available as other forces would be in contact on critical axis of advance.

The aspects of this that I find interesting is the level of force packaging done by the Soviets in this mission context which is far greater than I'd conceive for most NATO armies with the exception of possibly the Germans.

References:

ORBAT Soviet MRR and TR, Part 1, Deployement and ORBAT
ORBAT Soviet MRR and TR, Part 3 Engineer Support
ORBAT Soviet MRR and TR, Part 4 Artillery
ORBAT Soviet Divisional Units, Part 1 MRD Anti Tank Battalion
Wargames Unit - Soviet Late 80's MRB
Wargames Unit - Soviet MRR, Anti Tank Reserve
Wargames Unit - Soviet MRD, Anti Tank Battalion
Wargames Unit - Soviet MRR, Air Defence Battery
Wargames Unit - Soviet MRR, Recce Company
Wargames Unit - Soviet MRR, Regimental Artillery Group
The Soviet Conduct of Tactical Maneuver: Spearhead of the Offensive, D Glanz
Soviet Airland Battle Tactics, WP Baxter
Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army, D Isby
FM 100-2-2 Specialised Warfare and Rear Area Support, Chapter 3 Heliborn Operations
FM 100-2-3, Soviet Troop Organisation and Equipment
Defending Forward Soviet Activities in Advance of the Main Defence, DTIC 1989
Scenario - The Weissenberg Counter Attack