Welcome to Cold War Gamer, a blog I am using to record my Cold War wargaming projects. These range from fictitious Cold War hot projects to historical conflicts that took place around the globe throughout the Cold War era, all modelled and gamed in 20mm. The blog includes links to various resources useful to the Cold War Gamer.

My current projects include: Central Front; British & Soviet. South African Border War; Angolans and South Africans. Soviet Afghan War; Soviets and Afghans
Showing posts with label TTP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TTP. Show all posts

Saturday, 25 July 2015

TTP - The Soviet Advanced Guard and March Security


The Soviet Army had well developed doctrine around march security and transition to battle formations from the line of march, this was critical to acheiving success in the encounter battles they postulated would be the most common form of engagement and in maintaining the rates of advance they envisioned.  This is an area where a degree of task organisation would occur and provides a good framework for Scenario development for smaller games.  The Advance guard is well documented across a variety of sources so it is straight forward to research, FM 100-2-1 is one of the best.



As an added bonus the Advanced Guard is a small self contained force that makes an excellent choice for a starter army.  So an interesting vehicle for exploration of the organisation and processes associated with its operation.  Its part of what most people would consider the classic Soviet steam roller and these elements rarely appeal to me, but for the reasons stated above and some interesting time and space problems associated with the relationship between the advanced guard and the main body that I think are less well understood its worth looking at.

The building blocks for creating the Advanced Guard are nearly all drawn from within the Motor Rifle Regiment or the Tank Regiment, details of their composition can be found in the post 1980s Soviet MRR and TRR, Part 1 deployment and Orbat, whilst details on equipment change, EngineerArtillery support and the Anti Tank Reserve can be found in subsequent posts.  The core element for the Advanced Guard is the Motor Rifle or Tank Battalion.


The Advanced Guard mission was to provide forward march security to the lead Regiment on an axis of advance, in the example we will look at here we will consider a MRR but a TR could equally be configured to fill this role.  Unlike the Forward detachment the purpose was to provide warning and an initial raction force to deal with enemy encountered on route as the MRR moved down its axis of advance.  The Advanced Guard was a key component in transitioning the Regiment effectivly from March Formation to Battle Formation.  In contrast the forward detachment was tasked with specific missions to take and hold terrain constraints or block reserves, the unifying purpose of both organisations however was the same, in order to allow the MRR/MRD to advance along the line of march at speed.

March formations in the British army were used for out of contact manouver, where contact was expected then the unit would be configured to advance to contact, a battle formation for which the manouver speed would be much lower as this was a tacticle deployment. Reacting to contact from a march formation would be an emergency procedure and certainly in my experience was seldom discused or practiced, advance to contact was, so the British and Soviet doctrine is very different.

The MRB would be reinforced and task organised to acheive its mission the level of reinforcement would be dependent on a number of factors:
  • Weather the Regiment was on a main or subsiduary access
  • The type of offensive action being prosecuted
    • March
    • Pursuit
    • Meeting Engagement
  • Enemy Posture and Strength

The Soviets adapted 2 Pre battle formations based  on whether they expected to encounter the enemy or not. If encounter with the enemy was expected then march security elements would be deployed to front, flanks and rear of the main body.  The Advanced Guard would deploy in three components on a single axis.  These were:
  • The Combat Recce patrol of a platoon of Infantry and a single tank
  • The Advance Party, the remainder of the lead Company reinforced by a range of  assets depending on the situation and what had been provided to the Advanced Guard these could include:
    • Morter Platoon, Morter Battery or Gun Battery, 120mm Mortar or 2S1
    • AT Section or Platoon, BRDM2 +AT5
    • Engineer Section
    • Tank Platoon, depending on formation T-64, T-72, T-80 marks being dependent on year.
  • The Advance Guard Main Body, the remainder of the lead Motor Rifle Battalion and the remainder of the reinforcement units that could include:
    • Air Defence Platoon, ZSU 23-4 or SA-9 or 2S6 or BMP2 + SA14
    • Battery or Battalion of Guns, 2S1 or 2S3
    • Up to an AT Company,
    • Engineer Assets, relevant to the opperation



The Advance Guard could operate in close co-operation with a number of regimental assets which for scenarios involving the advanced guard could easily be included, these are:
  • The reinforced regimental Recce Company, reinforcement would come from engineer, chemical and artillery reconaisance assets
  • The Mobility Support Group which would be a task organised engineer group reinforced with infantry and armour from second echelon formations, with the primary role of clearing and breaching obsticles identified by the reconaisance elements.
  • Regimental Artillery Group, assets in range would provide supporting fires as directed by the Regimental commander in the event of contact. Command and Observation Posts might be grouped with the components of the guard to provide coverage
  • Regimental Headquaters, frequently the Regimental HQ might travel with or just to the rear of the Advanced Guard, equally the Battalion HQ might travel just to the rear of the Advance Party, I have not represented this in the force as presented here
Additionally interesting scenarios might be constructed around interaction with in place elements such as forward detachments.  Passage of echelons might also be worthy of consideration although weather this would be done in march formation might be subject to situation and the proximety of remaining enemy.

Bearing in mind that I play based on Rapid fire the abstraction of the vehicles and personel used by this ruleset presents a number of challenges in representing these elements.  Looking at it from front to back I have currently decided to represent the Advanced Guard and the associated regimental elements as follows:

Reinforced Regimental Recce Company 


The purpose of the Regimental Recce Company was to gather intelligence and develop the information identified by other forward deployed asset such as the Divisional Recc battalion, it was not part of the Advanced Guard, it was key to identifying enemy and targets and can work well as part of a depth game.

I currently represent the regimental Recce Company with a BMP R as the HQ and a BRDM2 and a BMP platoon each represented by a vehicle.  The organisation included a motorcycle section which is currently un represented.  Reinforcement  comes in the form of a single BRDM2 Rkh platoon from the Regimental Chemical defence Company, and assets from the Divisional Engineer recce elements in BTR 60 and a PRP 3 representing artillery reconnaissance elements from a reinforced RAG.  I intend to operate these as three pairs each with a BMP and BRDM2/BTR60 in it.

The Advance Party.

The advanced party provided march security for the advanced guard and was in turn protected by a combat recce patrol that it would deploy forward.  Depending on circumstances terrain and visibility  it could work closely with the CRP providing support and overwatch, or stand off from the CRP to give greater reaction time. Distances between the two elements are quoted as between 1.5km and 5km depending on sources. On Contact the advanced party could block, strike or maneuver and strike depending on the size and disposition of the encountered force. The effects of these actions would be to fix or destroy the opposing forces lead elements.


The representation of the CRP is quite difficult given the Rapid fire approach to one APC to each company.  Because the BMPs are very under represented my personal preference here is to add an additional BMP effectively with no dismounts, as a Recce element. Where CRPs are required to provide flank guards the same approach would be taken.


The remainder of the Advance Party includes;
  • A Tank platoon, represented by a single tank, 
  • A MR Coy represented by a BMP 2 and the associated dismounts. 
  • An ACRV Command and Observation Post(COP) from the battery or battalion attached to the parent MRB.
  • The MRBs Mortar Battery, represented by 2 MTLB and 2 120mm Mortar.  These might also be grouped with the Advanced Guard Main Body.
The COP would be using the unit as protection and would be available to adjust fire to achieve the requested effect, if fires were allocated by the Combined Arms Commander at Battalion or Regimental level.  This is somewhat different to western use of Observation Officers. If more artilery had been attached to the Advanced Guard this could equally be a Battery of 2S1. If deployed these might be used in a direct or indirect fire role.

Additional elements that could be represented include the Advanced Guard battalion commander who would move forward if contact was expected an AT Section or platoon and engineer elements.  If your just starting out in Cold War this sort of force provides a great starter option with both vehicle variety and small size yet capable of realistic deployment in a number of scenarios,


The Advanced Guard Main Body.

The Advanced Guard Main Body is constituted from the remainder of the Advanced Guard and it provides march security for the lead regiment.  Depending on circumstances distance between it and the advance party could be between 1.5km - 10km this seems to be dependent on whether the advanced party is supporting the CRP or stood off from it as the distance to the CRP seems to be a fairly consitant at 10km.  


On contact it could block or strike and if striking would be highly likely to maneuver and strike in order to take an enemy in the flank.  The purpose would be to destroy the lead enemy company and fix or destroy the lead enemy battle group.  


The Advanced Guard MRB has been reinforced with a battery of guns, one AA Platoon from the regimental Air Defence Platoon, and a Platoon from the Regimental Anti Tank Company.  It is missing those elements already detached to form the Advanced Party. The Battalion commander has grouped his own Air Defence Platoon with the ZSU 23-4 platoon.


and the Tank Company Headquaters tank has been grouped with the AT - Platoon to form a small Anti Tank reserve. This element would be used to counter unexpected enemy tank action, or screen open flanks.  I am not convinced it would be formally committed as part of the immediate plan as that would leave no reserve.  


Each of the MR Coys is grouped with a tank platoon and the unit also includes the battalion HQ which could deploy forward  and the AGS 17 Direct fire support platoon. Close on the heels of the Advance Guard and located behind it in the order of march to deal swiftly with Engineering tasks identified by the Recce elements is a Maneuver Support Group based on components from the Regimental Engineer company together with some reinforcing elements.  The Advanced Guard could also find itself closely followed by the tactical elements of the Regimental Headquaters and other assets such as a COP from the Artillery Battalion.

The ability or inability of Junior Commanders to react would be compensated for by the forward positioning of the more senior headquaters although this can lead to confusion over who is directing what.  The doctrinal intent was for the senior headquaters to be in a position to rapidly assess the battle and deploy the follow on force elements rapidly and effectively.

The Maneuver Support Group


The Manouver Support Group 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 its own security. The detachment would include reconnaissance, security and engineer elements.  MSGs could be formed from the Regiments own Engineer company or be provided from Divisional Engineer assets. The main purpose is to facilitate the Regiments movement rather than the Advance Guards.

The MSG covers three capability areas;
  • Route Clearance
  • Minefield Breaching
  • Small gap crossing
Route Clearance

The route clearance capability is represented by 1 T-72A with an MTU dozer blade 3 of which were held by the Engineer Company.  The Platoon would be drawn from a 2nd Echelon element of the Regiment or Division.  


Minefield Breaching

The mine field breaching capability is covered by the provision of KMT mine rollers which could be fitted to vehicles as required. In addition and provided from the Divisional Engineer Regiment is an MTK 2 explosive breaching vehicle, this capability was also available on a T-55 hull and a BTR 50 hull.


Gap Crossing Small

A Regiment held a mix of Truck mounted TMM and Tank mounted MT-55 or MTU Vheicle Launched Bridges.  MRR would have a preponderance of the truck mounted systems whilst tank regiments would have more of the tank based systems, sadly no one makes a TMM in 1/72.


The remaining two elements can support any of the capabilities this was;

  • Infantry Company attached from a 2nd Echelon battalion to assist with route marking, security and provide additional manpower working under the guidance of the Sappers where needed . 
  • Engineer Platoon mounted here in a BTR 60 PB could equally be transported in a truck and can enhance any of the three mobility support capabilities represented.

Having looked at the composition of the advanced guard and associated groups it is worth considering how it was designed to operate.  The spacing of the components in the order of march provided time for early warning allowing commanders time to think and take action.  To understand how this worked its necessary to understand a bit about the movement characteristics of vehicle columns and also to set it in the context of the Regimental order of march as this would drive what support it could expect and how quickly.

Speeds on the march varied but columns were expected to achieve the following rates of advance    
  • Motor Transport on roads upto 40Km/h
  • Armor on Roads or X Country 25-30Km/hr
  • Under poor conditions Night or bad weather 20km/h
  • On foot 4-6km/h
Of more interest I think is distance per minute as this gives an indication at the time intervals between the different elements of the march groups. So at 25km/h you travel about 4km in 10min or 400m in 1 minute at 40Km/h you travel about 7Km in 10min or 700m in a minute.



In looking at this we also need to understand the lengths of the columns involved as they add to both the distances and the time taken to get an effective force to a point.  Pass time of the column adds time to deployment, it is the amount of time it takes the column to pass a point which is a function of its length, difficult to start a war with one vehicle.   

Vehicle Numbers for the Advanced Guard:
  • BMP Bn - 72 Vehicles including command and Echelon 
  • 2S1 Bty 15 Vehicles including command and Echelon, 
  • 2S1 Bn - 60 Vehicles including command and Echelon
  • Tank Coy 13 Vehicles
  • AT Platoon 5 Vehicles
so dependent on composition 105 to 150 vehicles

A Company Column of 10 vehicles with 25/50m between vehicles is 250 - 500m long and at 25km/h takes 1 minute from the first vehicle hitting a point to the last vehicle clearing that point.  With no space between units the 105 vehicles of the advance guard covers 2.5 - 5km so a pass time of 6-12 minutes at 25km/h with no choas and no gaps between the different components. Given the distances between the various components of the Advance Guard are longer this all takes more time. 



The references varies so a number of models for the spacing could be made, this one really serves to illustrates the point. The CRP is 5Km and 12.5 minutes ahead of the Advanced Party, which is composed of around 20 vehicles over 1km so a pass time of 2 minutes so about 15 minutes to bring the whole force into action. They in turn are 1.5 km and 3 minutes ahead of the Advance Guard which consistes of around 80 vehicles and a distance of 4km so a pass time  of 10 minutes so they would take an additional 15 minutes to come into action if the manouver to a flank this increases by an additional 2 minutes for every Km of maneuver before they get into action.  They are in turn 5-10km and another 15-20 minutes ahead of the main body around 300 vehicles around 15km so pass time is 30 minutes. If the enemy was weak or in a poor position the Soviet commander could commit units incrimentally to the battle if he wished, a suitable time table would need to be produced based on further analysis.


The impact of this is as follows:
  • CRP encounters enemy at H, 
  • Advance party can hit them at H+ 15, + 2min for every additional Km of maneuver. 
  • Advance Guard Main Body can hit at H+30  + 2min for every additional Km of maneuver
  • Regimental Main Body at H+75 + 1.5min + 2min for every additional Km
 The order of march also affected available artillery support

2S1 had a range of 15.3km or 21.9 km using extended range munitions. 2S3 18.5km and 24km respectively. Based on the scenario presented above a 2S1 Battalion with the Regimental Main Body is:
  •  21km  from the CRP, 
  • 16km from the Advanced Party
  • 13.5km from the Advanced Party Main Body 
Given that they are at the front of the Regimental main Body which could be spread over 15km. The doctrine was for the Regimental Artillery group to be held well forward together with the regimental HQ in the order of March, the RHQ so it could deploy forward when contact was expected and for the Guns to be in range of the contact point and deployable quickly.




on CRP contact available artillery support is as follows:
  • in Range of the Advance Guards Guns and Mortars on contact, these would take time to deploy and come into action 
  • in range of the Main Body's guns at extreme range, if deployed immediately this may put much of the ensuing action out of range, so keeping these moving until the advanced party is committed 15 minutes later puts them 5-7km closer to the action which probably makes sense. On top of this there is deployment time but for SPGs this should be short.
  • If the battle is moving in the direction of travel then the period for which the guns are available without displacing will also be affected although this is particularly difficult to represent on a 20mm table top battlefield.
 All this becomes interesting on a number of counts which can be played out in games
  • Time Pressure is a key element, if you wish to manouver and retain the initiative time to plan will be short, probably around 7-10 minutes, the plan needs to be simple and this is where templated drills work well to my mind.  Creating this time pressure in a game can be difficult ideas include the following:
    • Players might be restricted to this time limitation for planning followed by a fixed deployment time 
    • Players might be given no specific planning time and fixed duration move times. 
    • Players may only be given an overview map with a number of contact locations identified and no indicator of which will be played.
    • Players might be presented with an initial situation and troop deployment from which the game starts and fixed duration move times.
  • The arrival sequence, timing and grouping of the Soviet forces and the availability of fire support can be built in with variations available if the commander wishes to flank attack.
  • The relative directions of engagement, so whilst the CRP might contact from the front any of the other groups might hit from a flank.
  • A multi board game  would enable the manouver to play this would be more effective with blinds but would tend to decrease the time pressure as more elapsed time would be needed to move the force elements.
  • Scenarios could be built against NATO formations expecting or not expecting contact.


References:

Books:

Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army, D Isby, 1988
Soviet Air Land Battle Tactics, WP Baxter, 1986
The Race to The Swift, R Simpkin, 1985
Red God of War, Bellamy, 1986
Offensive Operations, Sidorenko, 1970
The Warsaw Pact Arms Doctrine and Strategy

Internet:

Tactics the Soviet Way, Rechinko, 1984 
FM 100-2-3 The Soviet Army Troops, Organisation and Equipment  
FM 100-2-1 The Soviet Army Operations and Tactics
The Soviet Motor Rifle Battalion in the Meeting Engagement DTIC
Tactics of the Soviet Army Regiment DTIC
The Soviet Tank Battalion Tactics DIA
The Soviet Tank Company Tactics DIA
The Soviet Mortrorised Rifle Company DIA
The Soviet Motorised Rifle Battalion DIA

Other Posts of Interest:

Wargames Unit - Soviet Late 80's MRB
Wargames Unit - Soviet MRR, Anti Tank Reserve
ORBAT - 1980's Soviet MRR and TRR, Part 1 Deployment and ORBAT
ORBAT - 1980's Soviet MRR and TRR, Part 3 Engineers
ORBAT - 1980's Soviet MRR and TRR, Part 4 Artillery
TTP-Soviet Forward Detachments and Tactical Air Assault



Friday, 10 October 2014

TTP - Soviet Breakthrough Attacks


Whilst there are a lot of references on how the Soviets conducted offensive operations a number of these present quite a confusing view as the different components tend to be presented together.  This post looks specifically at the Breakthrough attack and how it was conducted at the various levels of command.  This enables a range of games and forces for games to be considered that sit within the context of such opperations which makes structuring the opposing forces easier given the lack of historical example.   

The Soviet Army of the Cold War classified the offence into three different types of engagement.
  • The Meeting Engagement
  • The Breakthrough
  • The Pursuit
The meeting engagement and the pursuit were both conceived to deal with fluid situations in the abcence of a formed defence and would be led by the more mobile elements of the force primarily the Tank and BMP equiped Motor Rifle units and formations operating in close cooperation with forward detachments and heliborne forces of the DShV. These operations in the context of the NATO defence plan would initialy be conducted against the covering force and once the main defence had been breached. 



The Breakthrough was the least favoured of the three types of engagement from the Soviet perspective. It would be used when a formed defence was encountered with depth that could not be defeated by manoeuvre. The principal goal of the breakthrough was to create a gap and in their words restore a flank that allowed manoeuvre operations to once again commence.  



FM 100-2-1 has a variable number of armies in a front and the image below shows 5, the model I am using has 2 Combined Arms Armies, 1 Tank Army and 1 Air Army. A Front depending on its posture, size and the composition of its echelons could attack on a frontage of between 150km - 350km.   At 350km this would place all of the fronts Armies in the first echelon this would leave no 2nd Echelon, Reserve or exploitation force although elements to create these capabilities could be withdrawn from the armies.  At 150km this would see two armies in the first echelon leaving one Army to cover the other roles.   The Diagram below shows the variable frontage of the armies dependent on their role in the operation and illustrates how those with a deeper envelopment role would attack on a narrower front and be supported by Air and Aviation to achieve their goals.



The Breakthrough engagement was an operational level activity that would be planned and coordinated by an Army or a Front.  I assume therefore that either a Front or an Army had to be denied the oppourtunity of manoeuvre in order to trigger the action.  This would require a solid defence across a frontage of between 80km - 150 km as a minimum and probably anchored on some fairly difficult terrain.  If the Front were denied freedom of manouver then the Beakthrough opperation would be deemed to be strategic and would gain significantly more support from Front Artillery, Air, Aviation and other assets. If only the Army were denied freedom of movement then the level of support available from Front might reasonably be expected to be much less.



At Army level only one Breakthrough opperation would be conducted at a time this allowed a significant level of Force concentration in terms of Armour, Artillery, Air and Logistic assets.   The most likly force to be considered for such an action would be a combined Arms Army.  This concentration of force created an effective target for nuclear or conventional fire strikes hence its growing unpopularity as a method of conducting buisness.  As an example of the concentration required the Artillery density needed in for a Breakthrough I have seen variously expressed as 60 - 100 tubes per km or 350 tubes for the Breakthrough Division.  Whilst the overall frontage of that division may be 10-15km the attacks would be heavily echeloned and delivered over a much reduced frontage.



The level of concentration would be dependent on the depth and level of preparation of the enemys defence.  So a prepared defence in depth with obstical belts, prepared field and anti tank defences would be met with the more extreme levels of force



The Breakthrough operation doctrinaly would be conducted by a single Division on a 4km frontage attacking with two regiments in the Divisional first echelon each of which would be likely to constitute itself with two battalions in the first echelon and one in the second their would be a variety of options for the regimental and divisional reserves. Unlike the diagram below the first echelon would probably use the BTR regiments.  It is likly that at least one of the Army's other Division's would be engaged in an economy of force action holding the remainder of the Army's front and mounting diversionary attacks.  The armies total frontage could be as little as 45-50km, the Division conducting economy of force and diversionary operations covering over 2/3rds of that.


The level of support from Army in the holding sector would be much less than the Assault sector though sufficient to achieve the aim and deceive the enemy as to the Army Commanders intent. As such it would need to portray the right signature in terms of equipment and activity.  It seems likley that this Division would be reinforced by units from the Army and Front level Anti Tank Regiments in order to help cover its extended frontage but would receive lower allocations of other assets such as Artillery, Engineers and Chemical Troops.



As well as seeking to pin a proportion of the defending force it might also seek to draw the enemy reserve away from the main operation.  What is clear is that the missions and attacking force structures of units in this sector would be very different to those in the Breakthrough sector.  The Army conducting the break through operation would have a much reduced frontage but would be expected to break through to the operational depth of the enemy.



In the model of the Breakthrough I am developing for my scenarios the remaining three divisions would:

  • Form a second Echelon of two MRDs 
  • Form an exploitation force based on a tank division 
  • Form a reserve which might be based on the divisional anti tank Regiment and the independent tank Regiment. 
The precise nature of the echelonment would change to suit enemy and terrain and did not have to be consistent at all levels of command so considerable variety exists here.  Second echelon forces would be fed into the attack to maintain momentum and develop the gap.



Elements from the Second Echelon may well be designated to provide Forward Detachments for the exploitation force and or provide task organised elements to that force which would reduce their available combat power.   Their Divisional Artillery elements would be reduced to reinforce the first echelon as would artillery assets down to divisional level in the Fronts second echelon although these assets together with Divisional Level assets of the 1st echelon would be regrouped to the 2nd echelon as it was committed.  Depending on the nature of the defence and the level at which the operation was being conducted, Front or Army the exploitation force might be provided by either an Army or Front level Operational Manoeuvre Group.



The Operational Manoeuvre Group and its associated Forward Detachments would be held ready to exploit the breakthrough once achieved this would be supported by Army Front and Potentially strategic Air Mobile and Airborne assets ranging in Strength from Bn to Brigade.




Divisional operations would be feasible but toward the end of the period these were more likely to be Brigade level operations using assets from the Airborne divisions.  It seems likely that Attack Helicopter Squadrons, DShV and Airlifted Motor Rifle Companies would initially support the Assault before transitioning to the exploitation force.


As with all Soviet offensive opperations the intent was to engage the enemy simultainiously throughout his operational depth and through out the duration of the attack.  This would mean that the Soviets would simultainiously attack in depth with:
  • Air, 
  • Aviation, 
  • Air Assault, 
  • Long Range Artillery including the Scud Brigades and Frog battalions, 
  • Reconnaissance and Descent forces including Electronic Warfare assets 

Targets for the depth assault might include:
  • Mobile Reserves
  • Reserve Positions
  • Constraints in terrain that reinforcements might have to deploy through
  • Headquaters
  • Nuclear Capable Artillery
  • Artillery concentrations
All that is a lot to fit on a war-games table particularly when you game in 20mm. From the wargaming perspective the Brakethrough attack offers the oppourtunity for a wide variety of games focused on different asspects of the operation.


Games could be linked as part of a campaign offering the opportunity to explore different aspects of the ensuing action. Setting games in such an operational context would allow scenarios to be constructed with coherent force structures and victory conditions. Ideas might include:
  • The initial Assault by a reinforced Assault Battalion supported by elements of the Regiment and its second Echelon.
  • A Break through Attack by heavily reinforced Soviet units with Air and Aviation components opperating in the Soviet and NATO rear targeting reserves 2nd echelon forces headquaters and artillery units.  Whilst NATO air could target Soviet Artillery and follow on forces.  This could be fought across multiple tables with a number of players and would make a a good big game or mini campaign.
  • The committal of the first Echelon Regiments 2nd Echelon battalions in attacks on the subsequent objectives.
  • The commital of the 2nd Echelon through the fractured 1st echelon in order to widen or deepen the breach in the NATO defences. This would place the remnants of the first echelon on table in fire support positions as a reduced strength second echelon that had given assets to the exploitation force as committed through them.  This could be played at any organisational level, Regimental Divisional or Army, the nature and type of the opposing forces would change as the attack would be commencing at varying depths of the defence.
  • The exploitation of the break through.  The comittal of the Forward detachments through the remnents of the Soviet attacking force into the depth of the NATO defence.  This effectively would be the start of the pursuit a subject that will be looked at separately.
  • Counter Attacks by NATO reserve units as the break through progress into the NATO depth.
  • Diversionary Attacks by more lightly configured Soviet Units against entrenched NATO forces with Objective targets that would trigger the committal of NATO reserves rather than the taking and holding of ground.
  • Premptive counter attacks by NATO into the more lightly held Soviet Sectors.
  • Air Assault Raids on NATO depth targets HQs and Nuclear assets.

Some of the concepts expressed in the Big Force on Force Blog around their campaign would seem to provide a useful framework in which to run a series of linked games focusing on tactical action within the overall context of an opperaional scenario where the outcomes of individual games can have an impact on subsequent games.



This would allow the Breakthrough to be looked at in some detail whilst keeping the force levels down to manageable proportions an approach which is a lot more manageable than the big game.  The linked outcomes enables NATO players to achieve effect and be given victory conditions that permit the Soviet attack to progress, victory for NATO might be more than holding the ground and would acknowledge the unbalanced nature of the scenarios created.


There are posts on The fronts in the Western TVD and Fronts against NORTHAG that give a high level view of the disposition of Warsaw pact forces into fronts and looks at the different scenarios for their commitment and the possible plans the Soviets might have used to attack NORTHAG.  The operational context for the attack on CENTAG can be found within the Wissenberg counterattack  scenario description, download and the associated scenario posts.




The advantage of setting the operational context at a level of detail is that creating realistic force compositions for the Soviet force is much easier as they are more dependent on the Army and Front operational goals and allows a more credible representation of a war that never happened.

Friday, 26 September 2014

Review - Web Resources, The Essentials of Cold War Soviet Doctrine and Organisation for free


As a Change from my normal reviews of books I thought I would cover a number of the many Free ePublication resources available on the internet that can provide a comprehensive view of Soviet Ground forces from the 60s through to the 1980's.  My principal area of interest is in the 1980's as in this decade more than any other the pendulum of advantage see sawed between the major protagonists.

There are numerous web sites covering the subject area the ones I find most useful are nearly all US government sites, for which Historians every where should be eternally great full, these are:
Contained within the archives of this lot are some exceptionally useful documents and books.  The trick here is to try a variety of search terms around a subject to see what comes up.

FM 100-2 Series of Manuals.  


The FM 100-2 series of Manuals can be downloaded from the FAS site along with a large number of other US Army Publications.  They are  Published in 3 sizeable Volumes and cover the US Armys unclassified view of the Soviet Army as follows:
These pretty much cover the ground that Isbey does in Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army although I find him slightly more digestible, to read but less easy on the pocket.





FM 100-2-1 The first publication essentially lays out the doctrine of the Soviet Army with respect to Operations and Tactics.  It covers Offensive operations at the Operational and Tactical level and Defensive Operations including Withdrawal and Relief. It Then goes on to examine the doctrine associated with various supporting activites including:
  • Reconnaissance
  • Fire Support
  • Artillery Support
  • Anti Tank Support 
  • Air Defence
  • Air Support
  • Smoke
  • Engineer Support
  • Electronic Warfare
  • NBC
The book is comprehensive in it's approach and structured in a way that makes it a readily consumable reference. The document is an excellent first port of call on Soviet Doctrine representing the US Armys consolidated and Unclasified view of the Soviet Army, but is to say the least a dry read. Not one I have read cover to Cover, the publication was written during the Cold War and the latest version was published in 1991 so comes with the usual caveats on intelligence based documents.



FM 100-2-2 covers Specialised Warfare and Rear Area Support and is the volume I have used least it deals with operations under special conditions and variously covers:
  • Airborne Operations
  • Heliborn Operations
  • Amphibious Operations
The Heliborn Ops section is particularly weak and if you want to understand the development and deployment of DShV assets you will have to do a lot more reading.  The volume goes on to describe Unconventional Warfare and River Crossings before focusing down on operations in difficult environments, Desert Cold Weather Urban Operations, Night Operations and Rear Area control and Logistics.

This to my mind is the weakest of the three volumes, A useful start point on the understanding that you then need to delve deeper in other resources.



FM100-2-3 is probably my favourite and in truth my nose is rarely out of it. Its an excellent reference on organisation, and a reasonable reference on equipment.
  • Chapters 1-3 cover a general look at structure personnel and training, enough said.
  • Chapter 4 is by far the most useful outlining the organisation of Soviet Forces from Section to Front including some level of detail on the majority of Structures that fit into that space.  There are a few notable exceptions the Army level Flame thrower Battalion is one. The main caveat remains the unclassified nature of the data, equally some of the more esoteric units are covered fairly superficially with reference to only their main equipments.  At Division and below the coverage is comprehensive. 
  • The final chapter number 5 looks at equipment in this it does not cover Ships but deals with most other items. The picture quality tends to be very poor in the PDF versions although the information is reasonably good and is primarily focused on performance, it might be considered a little superficial when compared to something like JANES Armour and Artillery systems particularly versions published post 2000 however it is free.
All up an excellent series of references free to download if your interested in Cold War Soviets you really ought to have a set.

SOVIET Publications


The FM 100-2 series of pamphlets take a US perspective on the Soviet Army and their are a number of PDFs that can round out this view notably:

Tactics the Soviet way is a Soviet publication translated and published by the US Airforce in 1984.  This Copy can be found in the DTIC archive it covers the principals of modern combined arms combat including the Offensive, Meeting Engagements and Defence.  It really talks to the principals governing the different types of operations and is intended as a Guide to the Soviet Officer Corps as such it includes a wide variety of examples to illustrate the points raised.  It, I am afraid, is also a dry read but offers a different perspective to the US written offerings on the subject.  I find it useful when looking at specific operations for Scenarios.




Tactical Reconnaissance, A Soviet View.  This is a very comprehensive guide to a Soviet view of reconnaissance. It covers the full range of assets that may be deployed from Patrols to Communications and Radar reconnaissance before dealing with a variety of recconaisance skills and activities at a level of detail. It is very much a handbook for the Soviet Recconaisance leader discussing different types of patrols and the methods for gaining information.  In line with the Soviet definition of Razvedka it also covers the assembly processing and dissemination of Intelligence.  Some interesting perspectives but quite hard work extracting worthwhile gaming material.

The Rusian Army in the Cold War by Feskov sets out to articulate the ORBAT and the evolution of the ORBAT of the Soviet Army throughout the Cold War it does this in significant detail and is a Russian Language work.  Running sections through a translator can work particularly with the tabulated data where only the titles and the column headers need translating. These can yield a significant level of detail around what units were ware and what units they were comprised of although this can be labour intensive to extract, it will however reveal what regiments and units were part of a particular division at a particular time.  The Table below outlines the composition of regiments and units in Motor Rifle Divisions.



The Voroshilov Academy Lectures , a recent find and covered in its own review the Voroshilov Academy Lectures cover a wealth of detail on Front, Army and Divisional Operations that can provide a lot of context. They are available through an on line archive or as downloadable documents Links can be found from the review post.

Soviet Army Studies Office




Sitting within the DTIC repository is a whole set of work written by the Soviet Army Studies Office this includes the works of such notables as David Glanz and Leicester Grau.  Amongst the articles below are David Glanz,s original paper on The Role of Forward Detachments in Tactical Manoeuvre and J Holcombe's excellent work on Artillery. These Articles will enhance the views provided in the more weighty volumes outlined above.

Artillery
Recce
Defence
Operational Concepts
Force Structure and Organisation


British Publications (updated 02/0418)



I have recently come across a range of British publications on the subject of the Soviet Army a very useful TMP post by Tac Error produced links to most.  The principal document set is the Army Field Manual Volume 2, which was published in 3 Parts.


Part 1 provided an overview, whilst part 2 focused on Front and Army Operations and Part 3 on Divisional Tactics all were published in the early 90s and Part 2 is reviewed in detail here.



In addition the British published in the late 90's  a series of OPFOR guides heavily based Soviet Doctrine and Force structures which both provide a significant volume of useful information:
The Complete set of Genfor Handbooks are available here.