ORBAT - 1980s British BG, NATO Reinforcement Part3, Type A Mech (Wh) and Light

This post looks at the organisational structure of the Saxon equipped battalions and how that changed from their introduction through to the end of the Cold War. My primary interest is 19 Brigade which was a core component of 4 Armoured Division in the later part of the Cold War period. 19 Brigade originally under command 3 Division shifted to 4 Division in April 1986 where it routinely deployed into the Bockenem area south of Hildershiem and west of the Sibbesa gap in Lower Saxony.

In the closing years of the Cold War the Brigade included the Kings Own Royal Border Regiment, The Argyl and Sutherland Highlanders and the 3rd Battalion the Royal Anglian Regiment.  Other Infantry Units in 19 Brigade over the period were:

• 1 STAFFs 1983-1986
• 1 RANGLIAN 1983 - 1987
• KOSB 1983-1887
• 1A&SH 1986-1989
• KORBR 1987 - 1992
• 3 RGJ 1987-1989
• 3 RANGLIAN 1989 -1991
• 1 GLOUCESTERSHIRE 1990-1994

The Type A Infantry Battalion was the basic organisational structure for the infantry units in the BAOR reinforcement role  whether these were Mechanised or light it was similar in structure to the Armoured and Mechanised Infantry units based permanently in Germany.  From a gaming perspective once you have the figures for one type of unit variations in the vehicle fleet let you play quite a wide range of British capability.

AT105 Saxon equipped units were known as Mechanised Wheeled Battalions all the Mech (Wh) units were UK based and due to the incremental nature of the Saxon procurement their structure changed a number of times. The original intent of the procurement was to provide protected mobility for deployment to Germany and only regular battalions were equipped with the vehicle. The TA Battalions of 2nd Infantry Division and 1 Infantry Brigade remained truck borne although they had originally been considered for an equipment upgrade.

Over the period of the Saxon production run from 1983 - 1989 two distinct orbats were supported for the Mech (Wh) Battalions the first used 43 Saxons and the second 64 Saxons I have referred to these units as follows:

• Mech (Wh) Bn Type A (43)
• Mech (Wh) Bn Type A (64)

Following the end of the Cold War the Saxon Battalions were subject to further restructuring, so quite a confusing picture of their organisation is presented.

Throughout these changes the unit remained based on the Type A Infantry Battalion it was  comprised of:

• HQ Company, covering Battle Group HQ, Logistic, Medical and Administrative functions
• 3 Rifle Companies each of 3 Platoons and an HQ
• 1 Support company including Milan, Mortars, Recce and GPMG SF.

Prior to the introduction of Saxon the Type A Battalions were Light role battalions which would have moved the rifle companies in 4 ton trucks but otherwise were organisationally similar to the Mech (Wh) battalions that were to replace them.

The initial scale of issue of Saxon vehicles was 43 to each Battalion, the Mech (Wh) Bn Type A (43). In this configuration only the 3 Rifle companies were equipped with Saxon each had 13 APCs and 1 Repair and Recovery variant making for a total of 14 Saxon.  Additionaly the rifle companies were scaled for 2 3/4 ton Land Rovers, a 3/4 ton ambulance and 1 4t Truck. The rifle Company composition was:

• Company HQ, Company Commander, Company 2IC, Company Seargent Major and a detachment from the Signals platoon providing communications experts. 1 Saxon and 1 3/4 ton Land Rover.
• Rifle Platoons.  Each of the 3 Rifle Platoons consisted of 3 sections of 8 and a platoon HQ, each section would deploy a Carl Gustarv AT Weapon, a number of 66mm AT Rockets, 7 SLR and 1 GPMG, they converted in the late 80's to 2 LSW, 6 SA80 and a number of 94mm LAW. Throughout the period the Pl HQ would deploy a 51mm Mortar in addition to thier personal weapons. The platoon was equipped with 4 Saxon.
• Company Aid Post, 3/4 Ton Landrover ambulance with Driver and Medic.
• CQMS Detachment, normally a Land Rover and 4 Ton Truck which provided Resupply together with elements of the battalions A1 Echelon. The CQMS was supported by a small staff of store men and drivers.
• REME Repair and Recovery Detachment.  A Single Saxon crewed by REME personel who provided the immidiate repair capability for tasks that could not be handled by the crews.

 The Battalion CO was also provided with a Saxon allthough the rest of BG HQ remained in Soft skin vehicles.

The remainder of the Battalion initially remained in soft skin vehicles, together with the majority of any supporting arms. The primary vehicles used included 1/2 ton, 3/4 ton and 1 ton Land Rovers together with either Bedford Mk 4s or the leyland DAFs that replaced them in the early 1990's.

Both Milan and Mortars used the 1 ton Landrover as their primary means of transport.  

The Milan Platoon consisted of: 

• Milan Platoon HQ, 
• Milan Sections, each of the 4 Milan sections deployed 5 Milan firing posts, 1 with the section commander and the remainder in 2 Detachments each of 2 firing posts. 1 3/4 Ton Landrover, 2 1 ton Landrover and Trailer.
• Milan Mobile section, the Milan Mobile Section fielded 4 Firing posts. 4 3/4 Ton Landrover

The 1 Ton Land Rover was modified for the Milan Platoon to provide stowage for 15 Milan Missiles in a rack immediately to the rear of the Cab, this could be accessed by rolling up the tilt or dropping the sides on the left hand side of the vehicle. With 2 two man crews and two firing posts this left little room for the detachments personal equipment, rations, spare gas bottles and other essentials  as such these vehicles would routinely deploy with trailers.  In good weather tilt sides might be rolled up but seldom completely removed as the roof of the vehicle provided a stowage position for the camouflage nets. 

Whilst racking was provided for missiles and firing posts in the 3/4 ton Landrovers of the Section Commanders and the Milan Mobile Section the weapon could not be mounted and fired from the vehicle. The 110 land rover started replacing the series 3 from 1983.  

With the increase in scale of Saxon the Milan platoon received 14 Saxons, 2 in the Platoon HQ and 3 per section with the section commander having one vehicle and each of the detachments also having one.  Milan mobile remained in 3/4 ton Land Rovers.

The Mortar Sections also deployed in 1 Ton Landrovers with the MFCs and section commanders in 1/2 ton land rovers.  When the battalion was upscaled the 3 MFCs all recieved a Saxon each whilst the remainder of the Mortar platoon retained its soft skin vehicles.

The remaining Saxons provided in the 21 vehicle upgrade, of which their were 4 went to Battalion HQ. Based on the production analysis model outlined in the Reinforcement Brigade post it seems likely that the Milan and Morter platoons could be equipped with Saxon from 1987 although units with all support elements in soft skin vehicles could be fielded through to 1988.

As originaly configured it would appear that the SF Guns were grouped with the Companys the orbat for the later part of the period shows an SF GPMG platoon constituted as part of support company. This include an HQ in a 1/2 ton land rover and 3 Sections of 3 GPMG SF mounted in 2 3/4 ton land rovers with trailers. I suspect how this was used varied considerably between units.  If SF were grouped with either the rifle Company or Milan it would be reasonable to shift them in the Rifle Platoon or Milan Section Command Saxons.

The Recce Platoon deployed 8 Recce vehicles generally in 4 sections each of 2 cars. In the light role units in the early 80s these were in Landrovers. The Saxon battalions were intially equiped with the Fox Armoured cars these were initially replaced by Scimetar around 1990 and these in turn were replaced by Sabre but this probably occurred after 1994.

The Mechanised Wheeled Battalion could be task organised with or supported by a range of organisations although these would vary depending on whether a unit from 24 Brigade, 19 Brigade or 1 Brigade was being represented. The following options are covered in detail in the brigade post but represent a credible group for use with a 19 Bde mechanised wheeled battalion or light role battalion:

• Cheiftain Tank Squadron The Brigade included a Type 43 Tank Regiment which could have elements grouped with the infantry units or have infantry sub units grouped with it.
• A Recce Squadron, from the Divisional Recce Regiment. QDG are shown as being part of 19 Bde but I suspect this was administrative,  this grouping was more likely in the deployment phase rather than any other.
• Army Air Corps HELARM task group from 657 Squadron also shown as a component of 19 Brigade in some sources.
• Army Air Corps Air Observation Post also from 657 Squadron.
• Artillery Tac party from FH 70 Regiment. The Tac party I assume would deploy in Saxon, whilst the FH70s would be towed by Foden 6x6 tractor/limbers.  The Artillery Regiment supporting 90 Brigade was originally 40 field but they were replaced by 45 Field Regiment.
• Regular or TA Javalin Troop. Regular javalin in Scimeter, TA in Landrover.
• Tracked or Towed Rapier Troop, this would either as part of the divisional Air defence plan  or as part of the Corps rear areaAir defence plan in both cases Rapier would provide area cover than be a specific attachment to the unit
• Engineer Section/ Troop or Engineer plant, 3 Ton truck and a range of engineer plant usually diggers of 1 type or another.

As with Mechanised Tracked battalions the Companies would form company groups which would include, Milan SF and supporting arms including tank troops and Squadrons, Engineers, Artillery Tac Parties, and under certain circumstances Air Defence assets.

Once deployed to the Bokenham area the brigade used the villages and woods that dotted the land scape to enable a matrix of dug in Infantry and Milan positions around which the attached armour could manoeuvre.

Killing areas would be selected into which the enemy would be channeled and the exists from which would be enhanced with obstacles to slow their exit.

The Anti Armour assets provided by the Armoured Corps, Army Air Corps, Royal Artillery and the Infantry could all then be coordinated to achieve the maximum destructive effect on the enemies armour.  It would be reasonable to involve any or all of these assets in a structured scenario

So what might all this look like from a wargaming perspective, for our Rapid Fire modern games we tend to use a vehicle scale of 1:3 with the traditional under representation of Infantry transport .  For the Mech (Wh) Type A (43) Battalion I will be using the following:

• BG HQ 
• 1 Saxon, 4 Figures, 1 Command, 2 SLR, 1 Sniper, 1 3/4 ton Land Rover
• Rifle Companies x 3 
• 1 Saxon, 8 Figures,  1 Command, 1 GPMG 4 SLR, 1 66mm, 1Carl Gustarv.
• Milan Platoon 
• 4 Milan sections of 1 x 1 Ton Landrover & trailer, 2 Milan Firing Post 4 Figures.
• 1 Milan Mobile section of1 3/4 ton Landrover, 1 Milan Firing Post, 2 Figures.
• Morter Platoon 
• 2  Mortar Sections of 1x 1 Ton Landrover, 1 x 81mm Mortar, 3 Figures,
• 1 MFC 1 Land Rover 3/4 ton, 1 OP, 2 Figures
• SF Platoon 
• 3 sections each 1 3/4 Ton Landrover and trailer, 1 GPMG SF, 2 Figures
• Recce Platoon
• 2 Sections each 1 Fox Armoured Car
• A1 Echelon
•  4 Ton Truck, 1 UBRE
• 1 Foden wrecker, 1 Landrover 3/4 ton Ambulance

Notes:

• Infantry companies may be  SA80 equipped, 1 Command, 2 LAW 80, 2 LSW, 3 SA80
• For  Mech (Wh) Type A (64); Milan Sections, BGHQ and MFCs may replace Land Rovers for Saxon
• For Type A Light Role; BG HQ and Rifle Companies become 1 Land Rover 3/4 Ton, 1 Truck 4 Ton.
• SF Platoon may drop their transport and travel as part of Milan Sections or Rifle Companies.

I would like to thank Andy (AT) of the Guild who supplied much of the information around the Milan Platoon and their vehicles.   Many of the photos shown here are from the excellent Military Database site which contains a large number of photographs of NATO exercises in the Cold War and is an excellent resource.



References:

Books:

• Staff Officers Hand Book (SOHB) 1988, amended 1990, in Basil Lidel Hart Collection, Kings College London.  SOHB as amended was showing transition to 1993 HVM organisation and potentially reflected some options for change end of Cold War reductions.
• Armies of NATO's Central Front
• The British Army in Germany, an Organisational History 1947 - 2004
• Forces 80 BAOR overview
• Iron Division, The History of the 3rd Division 1809-1989
• Jane's Armour and Artillery 2002/2003
• Encyclopedia of the Modern British Army

Web:

• 1A&SH History
• Staffords post War History
• BAOR July 1989 Orbat
• 4 RTR on Lionheart
• British Army Units since 1945
• NATO Orbat 1989
• TMP posts
• Modern British TOEs
• Fire and Fury, BAOR Orbat
• Military in Scale, Milan 1 Ton Land Rover
• 101 Land Rover Club

Other Posts of Interest:

• ORBAT 1980s British Battle Group, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7
• ORBAT - 1980's British, Army Air Corps Aviation Regiment
• ORBAT - The RAF in Germany in the 1980s
• ORBAT - 1980's British BG, NATO and BAOR Reinforcement, Part 1 General
• ORBAT - 1980's British BG, NATO and BAOR Reinforcement, Part 2 The Infantry Brigades

Posted with Blogsy

Review Book - Red God of War, Soviet Artillery and Rocket Forces

Red God of War is not surprisingly a book that focuses on the history and development of the Russian/Soviet Artillery Arm. It was written in 1985 by  Chris Bellamy a Royal Artillery officer, it draws extensively on Russian language sources and is published and edited by Brasseys defence publishing.  Red God of War is a comprehensive review of Soviet Artillery written by a proffesional military officer for a proffesional military audience, despite that it is a very readable book.  The book covers its subject in four chapters the first two being:

• A Tradition of Excellence
• An Arm of Service

These chapters were of lesss interest to me and set the modern Arm of Service in the context of its historical development. They articulate the evolution of doctrine procedure and culture and the pre eminence of the Soviet Artillery Arm in the Soviet Armed forces as well as providing a view on the men that shaped it. The remaining two chapters are where the real meat of the book lies from the perspective of the modern wargamer, these are:

• The Deadliest Weapon
• Artillery in Modern War

The deadliest weapon examines the development of post war artillery systems in a conversational style that tries to look forward from 1985 to future developments and emerging concepts as well as covering current systems.  For a book published in the 1980s this is a comprehensive and useful review of the subject although more and better data can be found in books published since the cold war ended.  Having said that Bellamy provides useful and insightful comment into Soviet design clearly articulating the strengths of their systems. 

The book covers the full range of Soviet Artillery capability including:

• Munitions
• Mortars and Gun/Mortars
• Guns and Howitzers
• Multiple Launched Rockets
• Free flight Rockets and Missiles 
• Command and Control Systems

He also discusses the relative merits and uses of nuclear, chemical and conventional weapon systems although Air Defence Artillery is not covered.  In his final chapter we get to the heart of the book which is an excellent review of Soviet Doctrine on the employment deployment and use of Artillery. 

This section clearly sets out the concepts for the use of artillery in the different phases of support and looks at both offensive and defensive operations.  This includes a detailed look at the different types of offensive operations and an informative if mathmatical review of Soviet Fire planning norms.      More importantly he includes a detailed discusion on fire planning, types of fire and fire effect together with Soviet methods of allocating fire and fire units.  He goes onto review the progression of an Artillery battle and sets it all within the  context of the organisational structure of the Arm of service.

Bellamy unlike many authors starts to identifies the reasons for the varience in Soviet and NATO use of Artillery. That being a fundimental disparity in numbers at nearly all levels of command.  The Soviets had sufficient for their purpose and NATO did not, requiering by necessity NATOs Artillery to be more flexible in its use. 

As for value for money this is a difficult one, I picked my copy up for £35 and at this price and given my interest in fighting the Soviet Army with its attendent integrated Artillery, Air and Aviation support, it is a very useful text however this is not everyones cup of tea.  The current going rate is £65  and at £65 its a harder decision or put another way there are a list of other books and toys I'd probably put the mony towards first.  

If you are interested in Soviet Artillery deployment and want to understand it better and can pick up a copy for less than £30 I don't think you will be disapointed with what is an excellent contemporary treatise on the subject much referenced by a range of other authors including the US Armys Soviet Army Studies Office.

Red God of War: Soviet Artillery and Rocket Forces @ Amazon

Other Book Reviews:

The Essentials of Cold War Soviet Doctrine and Organisation

Iron Division, The History of the 3rd Division 1809-1989
Jane's Armour and Artillery 2002/2003

Rats Tales and Royal Scots in The Gulf

Warpaint, Colours and Markings of British Army Vehicles 1903-2003, Volumes 1-4

Air Battle Central Europe, Alfred Price

Confrontation, The Strategic Geography of NATO and the Warsaw Pact

Mil Mi 8/Mi - 17 Rotary Wing Work Horse and War Horse

A History of Soviet Airborne Forces 

Soviet Tactical Aviation

A History of Soviet Airborne Forces

Soviet Tactical Aviation

Armies of NATO's Central Front

Red Thrust, Central Front

The Soviet Afghan War, How a Super Power Fought and Lost

Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army

Soviet Air Land Battle Tactics

The Military Balance

Encyclopaedia of the Modern British Army

The Soviet Conduct of Tactical Manoeuvre

First Clash

The Third World War

The British Army in Germany

The Cold War Bookstore contains links to over 60 Cold War titles 

ORBAT- Soviet Late 80's Breakthrough Capability Part 3, Non Divisional Artillery Assets

This could be a bit of a long post as it looks at both evolving capability and concentration of Artillery fire power in respect of artillery support to the Breakthrough Attack.

The Soviet Army over the 1970s and 80's significantly increased the amount of non Divisional Artillery held at Army and Front level.  In the West the main purpose of  units at Corps and Army Group level would be deep fires and counter battery.  Whilst this was a consideration for the Soviet systems these units would also be used to create the concentrations of tubes required by Soviet planning norms to support a break through attack and to focus combat power on the main axis of advance.

The TTP post Breakthrough Attack covers the detail of this and shows how an attack would be mounted against a formed defence in depth or an enemy fortified region.  A Breakthrough attack required heavy concentrations of Artillery, expressed in various sources as between 60 - 110 barrels per km or 350 across the frontage of the attack. Isbey reports this as follows:

• A minimum of 100 tubes (4/5 Battalions) per km for Breakthrough, he further refines this based on the nationality of the target.
• 110 against German or American Divisions, 
• 100 against British 
• 90 against Dutch or Belgium
• 80 tubes for Hasty Defence 
• 40 tubes per km on a minor axis of advance 

The Breakthrough operation would focus considerable force on a single portion of the enemys line in order to force a flank and restore manoeuvre which was the preferred method for doing business.  The non divisional Artillery units would be massed to achieve that effect.  These units could either be allocated under command by cascading units forward from higher levels of command for the operation or in support for particular aspects of the operation in line with the Artillery doctrine discussed in more detail in the post:  1980s MRR and TRR, Part 4 Artillery.

The Non Divisional Artillery units deployed a number of capabilities not available at divisional level and below.  These capabilities when cascaded forward would significantly enhance  the support  available to the attack and offered alternatives to WMD. Some key systems are worthy of discussion in a little more detail, primarily these are:

• BM 27 Uragan Bomblet, Scatmin and  Thermobaric.
• BM 30 Smerch Bomblet Scatmin and Thermobaric
• 2S4 Tylupan PGM 3OF25 Smel'chak, 
• 152mm PGM 2K25 Krasnopol complex deployed by 2S3 and 2S5
• Nuclear Capable Artillery; 2S7, 2S4 

Other than significant weight of fire from concentrated artillery assets the Soviets introduced three other technologies into the mix in the mid to late 80's period:

• Precision Guided Munitions, 
• Thermabaric rounds  
• Improved Conventional Munitions

all of which improved the performance of artillery attacks against formed defences. Expence of munitions precluded their blanket use but units would generally hold stocks on wheels and would receive specific supply for specific missions.

Thermobaric Artillery Munitions

The principal evidence for the Thermobaric capability is based on the demonstration of weapon systems at the 1993 Nizhny Novgorod arms show and deployment in Chechneya and Afghanistan.  The effects of these weapon systems are covered in the first post on Soviet Breakthrough capability.  Thermobaric munitions were available for:

• BM 22/27 Uragan. The system came into service in 1977 the capability was developed later; capability displayed 1993, assumed available from 1985.
• BM30 Smerch came into service 1987 (Janes) with thermobaric rocket capability, capability displayed in 1993.  Smerch would have been deployed to the front level Artillery divisions initially. The BM30 used the 9M55S rocket ; containing100Kg of Fuel Air Explosives.

Thermobaric weapons have proven to be effective against the following types of target.

• Personnel in the open
• Individual field defences
• Strong points and bunkers
• Minefield clearance
• clerance of landing zones

Thermobaric munitions are most effective when used with either precision guided munitions or Multiple Launch Rocket Systems which enable pin point delivery or rapid saturation of areas. Conventional artillery systems would fail to get close enough to the target or deliver sufficient quantity to an area rapidly enough to acheive effect.

Precision Guided Artillery Munitions

The Soviets initially deployed Precision Guided Artillery munitions to effect in Afghanistan in the mid 80's fielding both the P30F25 Smal'chak and the 2K25 Krasnopol systems at about this time based on a common set of technologies.  The artillery deployed precision guided munitions relied on the deployment of the 1D15 Laser Targeta Designator with the OP team.

All of the references on these munitions highlight them as more robust and effective than comparible US systems such as Copperhead having a much lower illumination period for aquisition and more robust ammunition amoungst other differences.  The 2S4 system was primarily deployed to engage and destroy bunkers and strongpoints whilst Krasnopol was seen as an option against more mobile targets including Armour and Artillery systems.  The paper on  Krasnopol covers the system, the organisation of units and its employment constraints in significant detail with capability being consolidated in selected batteries in divisional Artillery Regiments.

The deployment of precision guided munitions against dug in enemey would signicantly improve the performance of the attacking force as being able to reliably place a 130kg HE round onto or within meters of the target will almost certainly ensure its destruction. Ensuring the destruction of bunkers and positions that were proving difficult to deal with enables the attacking force to disassemble a defence.

There are some excellent examples from Afghanistan covered in the High Precision Tulip 240mm Mortar paper which amply illustrate the effect.  In these cases a high rate of fire is less relevant to destructive capability though weather can be a limiting factor.  Elements of the soviet procedure and the performance of the systems meant they were somewhat less vulnerable to this than others.

Normal scales of PGM ammunition outlined in the FAS artillery article would be  5% of unit stocks on wheels but this could be increased for specific missions.

Improved Conventional Munitions

The Improved Conventional Munitions primrily employed by the BM-22 Uragan and BM -30  Smerch provided both bomblet and SCATMIN capability.  These provide a means for area denial and  more effective destruction of soft and armoured targets. Such capability could be used to disrupt mobile elements manouvering in depth to engage the breakthrough such as reserves and artillery systems.  This is not dissimilar to Soviet concepts for the employment of persistent Chemical weapons and provided a viable alternative to this level of escalation.

BM 27 could engage to a range of 30km and its munitions included;

• 9M27K1; containing 30 N9N210 anti material Bomblets
• 9M27K2; containing 24 PGMDM AT mines with 3 - 40 hour Self Destruct time
• 9M27K3; containing 312 PFM-1 APMines
• 9M59; 9 directional charge bottom attack mine (developed later)? 16- 24 hour self destruct time, I assume this was developed later due to the munition id number.

BM-30 could engage to a range of 70km and its munitions included:

• 9M55K; containing 72, unguided fin stabilised HE-Frag submunitions
• 9M55K1; containing 5 Para retarded MOTIV-3F top attack Anti Armour sub munitions.
• 9M55K4; containing 25 AT Mines with a 12-24 hour self destruct

Whilst similar capabilities now exist for the BM-21 these seem to have been a post cold war development. These munition types and firing systems were in some cases in extremly limited supply but the concentration of capability down on a very small sector for the execution of a breakthrough would mean that at that point they would be inevitably deployed.

Nuclear Capable Artillery Systems.

By the end of the Cold War 2S3, 2S5, 2S4 and 2S7 all had nuclear munitions available I have yet to find data for these which does more than to state; munition name, range and for some yield.  So I have assumed these are all in the Kiloton yield range. In terms of control the High Powered Artillery Brigades deployed from the strategic reserve to front level certainly possessed this capability as did the various SSMs which are in plentiful supply throughout the Non Divisional Artillery elements.  The SSMs I assume would largely be used by Front and Army to prosecute deep targets.  Leaving Nuclear support to the Attack to the Artillery systems.

The munitions deployed were as follows:

• ZBV 2, 152mm 1 Kiloton Yield 17.4 Km Range
• ZBV 3, 203mm 2S7 assumed 1 Kiloton yield range 18-30km
• ZBV 4 assumed 1 Kiloton yield 9-18 km

In addition to the unique capabilities that non divisional artillery assists could deploy a significant proportion of assets at army and front level would also be deployed to support the Breakthrough operation adding mass to the effect.  A review of what was available from what units will give a good feel for the numbers of systems.

Army Artillery Assets

The Assets that could be drawn upon from Army included  upto 320 guns  and launchers in 16 - 20 Battalions as follows:

• Divisional Artillery Regiments from the Army 2nd Echelon Divisions 1 - 2  Divisional Artillery Regiments, unto 152 Guns and Launchers from 6 Artillery Battalions and 2 SSM Battalions.
• The Army Artillery Brigade 96 Guns from 4 Battalions
• The Army Rocket Launcher Brigade , 54 launchers from 3 Battalions of 18 Launchers BM 27
• The Army Scud Brigade 12-18 Launchers from 3 Battalions of Scud B

The Army Artillery Brigade comprised 4 or 5 Artillery battalions as follows:

• 2 152mm Gun battalions equipped with 2S5 or 2S3/130mm M46 towed gun 
• 2 or 3 Gun Howitzer battalions equipped with D-20 ML 20 or M1987 Towed Gun Howitzers. 
• In the 4 battalion configuration 24 guns would be deployed per battalion 
• In the 5 battalion configuration 18 guns would be deployed per battalion

Front Artillery Assets

The Fronts artillery assets could include the assets of any Army and its Divisions in the Fronts second Echelon but I have not included these but they could add over 300 additional systems.  The dedicated Artillery Units included the Front Artillery division, the high powered Artillery Brigade and the Front SSM Brigade which between them could muster a further 402 Guns and Launchers.

The Front Artillery Division comprised 6 Artillery Brigades around 19 Battalions and a reconnoissance battalion as follows:

• 1 Gun Brigade in WGF 2S7 , 72 Guns in 4 Battalions of 18 Guns
• 2 Gun Howitzer Brigades in WGF 152mm 2S3 or M1987 towed, 144 Guns, each brigade 4 battalions of 18 guns
• 1 Howitzer Brigade in WGF 122m D-30 or M-30 towed, 72 Guns in 4 Battalions of 18 Guns (this is what happened when D-30 got replaced by 2S1)
• 1 Rocket Launcher Brigade in WGF BM27/22 or BM30 (from 1989), 72 launchers in 4 Battalions of 18 Launchers. In BM30 Brigades, Battalions were reported to contain 12 Launchers.
• 1 Anti Tank Brigade 4 Battalions each of 12 ATG and 9 BRDM 2 + AT5 (not included here)

The nuclear capable High Powered Artillery Brigades, 4 Battalions would be allocated to a front from the reserve of the supreme high command and included:

• 2 Battalions of 12 2S7
• 2 Battalions of 12 2S4

The Front SSM Brigade was as the Army SSM Brigade so another 12-18 SCUDs depending on battery size.  The Broad policy for attaching artillery is shown in the diagram below.

The net effect was a large concentration of Artillery systems and a range of capabilities that would either exploit WMD or use weapons with similar effects.  The preferred option for dealing with a formed defence was WMD which would inevitably restore a degree of freedom to manoeuvre quite quickly although with a whole range of other consequences.  It would be dependent on political clearance and was less likely to occur the later one went into the period as Nuclear parity was achieved, Soviet doctrine evolved and other options became available.

The next question to pose is how would it all have been deployed.  The Soviets were masters of the operational level of warfare and were very capable of concentrating force whilst deceiving the enemy as to their intent.  The need to maintain the remainder of the line and too deceive would inevitable draw off some of the available combat power. To look at this I allocated 1/3 of the available firepower to units involved in economy of force operations and secondary attacks and 2/3 to the assaulting unit.  This policy was applied at both Army and Front level which dissipates the ability to concentrate assets further putting roughly 50% of the reinforcing assets in the breakthrough sector.

The other factor thats not really covered in the "norms" is the allocation of fire assets throughout the enemies depth so of the 50% available is a proportion dedicated to or time sliced to depth fires.  This would include the longer ranged systems such as the SSMs BM-27s, BM-30s, 2S5s and 2S7s together with the fronts Air Army, Air Assult and EW assets.

On that basis my assaulting divisions DAG could contain 110 Guns which would be split across the 4km frontage, supporting assaulting battalions and providing depth fire tasks:

• 2 Battalion 2S5 (36)
• 1 Battalion 2S7 (18)
• 1 Battalion M1987 (18) 
• 1 Battalion BM 27 (18)
• 1 Battalion BM 30 (12)
• 2 Battalion SSM (8)

each of the Assault Regiment RAG could contain 132 Guns focused on support to the 2 assault battalions and across the regiments 2km frontage:

• 4 Battalion 2S3 (96)
• 2 Battalion MRL (1 Regiment supported by a battalion BM27 and a battalion BM 21) (36)

each of the 4 Assault Battalions could contain 36 Guns including their organic mortars, these would support the immediate assault and the assaulting companies and the suppression of the immediate enemy depth, It is likely that the 2S1 battalions might support using direct fire:

• 1 Battalion 2S1 (employed in the direct fire role) (24)
• 1 Battery 120mm Mortar (8)
• 1 Battery 240mm Morter firing PGM (4)

This achieves around 129 Tubes per Km in the assault sector of the assault division so meets the top level planning model, I have used a mix of 24 and 18 gun Battalions at all 18 gun battalions this would be closer to the model.  Each battalion in the assault would see supporting fires from the RAG and elements of the DAG for the assault phase this could look like:

From Own Resources

• 1 Battalion 2S1
• 1Battery 120mm Mortar
• 1 Battery 240mm Morta

From RAG

• 2 Battalion 2S3
• 1 Battalion MRL

From DAG

• 1 Battalion MRL (50% of the time)
• 1 Battalion 2S5/2S7/1987

These numbers would fluctuate based on phasing and situation with more effort going into the depth as the battle progresses.  Superimposing Fires were also available from Front and Army assets but these were more likely to be focused on the depth targets and the simultaneous engagement of the enemy throughout the depth of his defence,  something that the Soviet force was well organised to do.

All this would place the full range of Conventional and Improved munitions at the disposal of the assault battalions who would also be supported by the direct fire Thermabaric capability discussed in  last months post on the Army Independent Flame Thrower Battalion

Given the frontages described this was probably falling on a Single NATO Battle group maybe a little more dependent on boundaries an interesting challenge for NATO and one that would require a mobile and rapid response if it were to have any chance of halting it.

Having said that this is a deep battle not a wide one and it is important to plan the engagement with the Soviet forces having to fight through to the depths required taking on multiple layers of the NATO defence in either a series of games or over a number of tables and for NATO to be able to cause attrition in the Soviet players depth. The key is I suppose that the Breakthrough Battle was not about manoeuvre but about brute force in the first instance, its aim was to restore manoeuvre.  With thought balanced games could be created they just might not play out in an evening.

My goal here will be to represent the systems available to the regiment and some elements of the DAG just to introduce some different models.  So the 2S1, 2S3, 2S4, BM21, BM 27, BM 30 and probably 2S7 and M1987. I have a desire for a Scud but that might have to wait and I have yet to find a 2S5 and don't fancy scratch building a battalion.

References:

Internet:
Krasnopol a laser guided projectile for tube artillery @ FAS
Artillery in the digital age Airpower Australia

The High Precision Tulip 240mm Mortar

Technology and the Second Chechen Campaign

2S5 Weapon description
Artillery Guns and Howitzers @ FAS

BM27 Weapon systems.net

Books:
Jane's Armour and Artillery 2002/2003
Soviet/Russian Armour and Artillery Design Practice 1945 to Present
Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army, D Isby, 1988
Red God of War, Bellamy, 1986
Offensive Operations, Sidorenko, 1970
Tactics the Soviet Way, Rechinko, 1984
FM 100-2-1 The Soviet Army Operations and Tactics
FM 100-2-3 The Soviet Army Troops, Organisation and Equipment  


Other Posts of Interest:

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 4 Frontal Aviation
ORBAT - 1980's Soviet MRR and TRR, Part 4 Artillery
ORBAT - Soviet Divisional Units, Part 2 MRD Artillery Regiment
TTP-Soviet Breakthrough Attacks
ORBAT - Soviet Task Org, Fronts against NORTHAG
ORBAT - Soviet Task Org, Fronts in the Western TVD
Wargames Unit - Soviet Late 80's Flamethrower Company Group