Soviet tactics

[vitoal125 0]

anybody know where I can look up soviet tactics that would be used in 1985 in an island warfare campaign?

[EBass 0]

I dunno but you could probably get a good idea of general Soviet tactics used in actions if you could find some reports on Afghanistan. I'll have a lookround for you.

[drewb99 0]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws....ry=1127

You're welcome

[Dogmeat 0]

I noticed that the Russians like surrounding or ambushing their targets; prime example when they killed the commander when he was driving his jeep before the battle at Montignac. They also like attacking from a wooded area; prime example is After Montignac is when Morton was overrun, their infantry units came from the woods with the help of armored vehicles. Hope this helps.

[Hit_Sqd_Maximus 0]

And the ending to resistance

[Milkman 1]

General russian tactic: Rush huge amounts of Armor and Conscripts at an enemy position until it is overrun. Early in one of the CWC Campaign, when you go on partol in the Jeep, one of the other soldiers discusses soviet tactics as you drive along. He says "A Soviet attack would call for a huge tank rush in central europe blah blah blah...."

Basically, overwhelming numbers is how the Soviets planned on winning a war.

[vitoal125 0]

thank you all for your input, i'll examine that website a little closer. I kinda assumed that they liked the mass numbers attack but I was looking to see if anyone could give me the organization of a standard soviet squad. example: In USMC a squad consists of a squad leader (m16a2) three team leaders (m16+203) three automatic weapons (m249 saws, but I have to use m60s in my campaign), three agunners (m16) and three riflemen (m16). usually, at least one member in the squad would carry an AT4 and there would probably also be a claymore or two depending upon mission type.

[-k44- Obi Wahn 0]

Take a look at this document here; it's not dealing with 1985 USSR, but with todays North Korea. There are some chapters about tactics on different scales, HTH a bit.

@ Milkman: "Basically, overwhelming numbers is how the Soviets planned on winning a war." <<-- This was how they've planned to win THE war in central europe, do not underestimate their capabilities in developing other tactics for other scenarios.

[Milkman 1]

Obi Wahn @ June 13 2003,05:13)]Take a look at this document here; it's not dealing with 1985 USSR, but with todays North Korea. There are some chapters about tactics on different scales, HTH a bit.

@ Milkman: "Basically, overwhelming numbers is how the Soviets planned on winning a war." <<-- This was how they've planned to win THE war in central europe, do not underestimate their capabilities in developing other tactics for other scenarios.  

Im sure they are capable of more. But they have not show it. Look back at WWII, Chechnya, Afganistan...

[EBass 0]

http://www.bdg.minsk.by/cegi/N2/Afg/Arty.htm

http://www.bdg.minsk.by/cegi/N2/Afg/Waraf.htm

http://www.skalman.nu/history/afghanistan.htm

General Soviet tactics dictate never assault a fixed position unless u have a 10/1 advantage in numbers.

They also use HUGE amounts of Mortars and artilliary. The Soviet army has been called an Artilliary army with tank support.

[Gollum1 0]

I was looking to see if anyone could give me the organization of a standard soviet squad.  example:  In USMC a squad consists of a squad leader (m16a2) three team leaders (m16+203) three automatic weapons (m249 saws, but I have to use m60s in my campaign), three agunners (m16) and three riflemen (m16).

Me too, anyone got sources?

Looking mainly for 1985 era squad composition.

[Dogmeat 0]

When attacking a town, sometimes their infantry groups attack in echelon, as shown below.

-

-

-

[Guest]

Basically, overwhelming numbers is how the Soviets planned on winning a war.

That's one part of it but that's strategy, not tactics. The general Soviet tactics was a refined version of Blitzkrieg: much emphasis on combined, air, armor, infantry and artillery. The doctrine calls for high mobility: the idea is to with overwhealming force punch a hole in the enemy lines and then rush forward.

Unlike NATO doctrine which separates the different combat elements, the Soviets had a all-at-once ideology.

Basic attack form:

1) Artillery and MLRS shower the target area to kill off the infantry.

2) Frontal aviation (ground attack aircraft) engages tanks

3) Fighters provide overhead cover

4) Tanks, IFVs and APCs roll in. Attack helicopters engage tanks.

5) Mobile air defences (SAMs and AAA) move in with the armor.

The weak point of the system is logistics. For it to work all elements must have fuel and ammo. That's the historical background on the NATO development and deployment of precision guided munitions. The idea was to hit Soviet fuel and ammo depots causing a desync in the integrated assault.

[hellfish6 7]

To take the islands, I don't think the Soviets would have needed much more than a motor rifle division, maybe with some reinforcements. One motor rifle regiment per island would be plenty, especially when reinforced by independent and organic tank battalions. A reinforcing airborne or air assault battalion could be held in reserve to quickly deploy to trouble spots with Mi-24s and Mi-17-borne infantry. I really don't think you'd need much more than that to take and hold the islands against a determined counterattack. This would actually be a fun scenario to wargame. Too bad there aren't any games adequately capable of simulating that scale.

As for how the Soviets would have taken the islands, some declassified war plans and popular fiction can answer that. Soviet freighters disguised as merchant shipping could slip into the waters off the islands and land Marines. Aircraft disguised as chartered commercial flights overflying Malden could drop any of the Soviets' many airborne divisions. KGB and Spetznaz infiltrators would seize key facilities, like the bridge on Nogova, airports, government buildings, etc. and pin down defenders until assault troops relieved them. Follow on forces could come from nearby Warsaw Pact countries with Soviet garrisons, or flown in by transport.

At the squad level, Soviet tactics were generally no different from those of any other country with a disciplined army. It would only differ in how the squad was organized (8 man squads were ,I think, the norm for airborne and motor rifle forces). Whereas the US squad is 9 men divided into two teams of equal capability and a squad leader, I think Soviet squads had something like 7 riflemen and a machinegunner. One group of four, with rifles, would be the assault element while the other group, with three rifles and an MG would be the supporting element. It wouldn't be easy to maneuver that kind of unit. American fireteams are just as capable of assaulting as supporting, but Soviet ones loose their MG's firepower and point target capabilities when it has to move. And a supporting team with only four rifles cannot lay down a heavy, sustainable volume of fire like an MG (RPK or SAW, for example) could.

I think there's a general belief that the Soviets simply throw a bunch of conscript troops with little or no training at the enemy and expect their overwhelming numbers to prevail. This was true in the opening years of WWII, but by the end of that war, the Soviet Army was vastly superior in size, mobility, firepower and training. They learned that conscripts aren't a solution, they are a stop-gap measure of desperation.

Though the Soviets lacked any kind of technological edge on the battlefield throughout the Cold War, they were by no means a massively clumsy, backwards Army like the post-Purge Stalin days. They were indeed massive, but had learned many, many lessons. Until about the mid 1980s, when the Leopard, Challenger, and Abrams came on line and NATO AGTMs were potently deployed on attack helicopters and light vehicles, the Soviets had relative parity, tank for tank and infantry squad for infantry squad.

So while it has been demonstrated here in previous posts, Soviet strategy differred greatly from NATO-type strategies, the actual tactics and battle drills were really quite similar at the lower levels.

Long winded... sorry.

[EBass 0]

You got that landing ship idea of Red Storm Rising didnt you? eh? eh? But some nice points.

[vitoal125 0]

hellfish, longwinded, but uber-informative and it also reminded me of Red storm rising. I'll probably take a look in that book for some ideas. after all, iceland isn't that far off from where I plan on having the island chain located in my campaign.

[Gollum1 0]

To take the islands, I don't think the Soviets would have needed much more than a motor rifle division, maybe with some reinforcements. One motor rifle regiment per island would be plenty, especially when reinforced by independent and organic tank battalions. A reinforcing airborne or air assault battalion could be held in reserve to quickly deploy to trouble spots with Mi-24s and Mi-17-borne infantry. I really don't think you'd need much more than that to take and hold the islands against a determined counterattack. This would actually be a fun scenario to wargame. Too bad there aren't any games adequately capable of simulating that scale.

As for how the Soviets would have taken the islands, some declassified war plans and popular fiction can answer that. Soviet freighters disguised as merchant shipping could slip into the waters off the islands and land Marines. Aircraft disguised as chartered commercial flights overflying Malden could drop any of the Soviets' many airborne divisions. KGB and Spetznaz infiltrators would seize key facilities, like the bridge on Nogova, airports, government buildings, etc. and pin down defenders until assault troops relieved them. Follow on forces could come from nearby Warsaw Pact countries with Soviet garrisons, or flown in by transport.

At the squad level, Soviet tactics were generally no different from those of any other country with a disciplined army. It would only differ in how the squad was organized (8 man squads were ,I think, the norm for airborne and motor rifle forces). Whereas the US squad is 9 men divided into two teams of equal capability and a squad leader, I think Soviet squads had something like 7 riflemen and a machinegunner. One group of four, with rifles, would be the assault element while the other group, with three rifles and an MG would be the supporting element. It wouldn't be easy to maneuver that kind of unit. American fireteams are just as capable of assaulting as supporting, but Soviet ones loose their MG's firepower and point target capabilities when it has to move. And a supporting team with only four rifles cannot lay down a heavy, sustainable volume of fire like an MG (RPK or SAW, for example) could.

I think there's a general belief that the Soviets simply throw a bunch of conscript troops with little or no training at the enemy and expect their overwhelming numbers to prevail. This was true in the opening years of WWII, but by the end of that war, the Soviet Army was vastly superior in size, mobility, firepower and training. They learned that conscripts aren't a solution, they are a stop-gap measure of desperation.

Though the Soviets lacked any kind of technological edge on the battlefield throughout the Cold War, they were by no means a massively clumsy, backwards Army like the post-Purge Stalin days. They were indeed massive, but had learned many, many lessons. Until about the mid 1980s, when the Leopard, Challenger, and Abrams came on line and NATO AGTMs were potently deployed on attack helicopters and light vehicles, the Soviets had relative parity, tank for tank and infantry squad for infantry squad.

So while it has been demonstrated here in previous posts, Soviet strategy differred greatly from NATO-type strategies, the actual tactics and battle drills were really quite similar at the lower levels.

Long winded... sorry.

Gimme more!

For example, how could the U.S assault on Morton, the first mission in the 1985 campaign, be organized? What kind of armor and infantry would the Soviets have to guard a town the size of Morton? How many officers would there be? Etc.

I´d like to learn more about what this kind of stuff for my missions.

Btw the "realistic bases" or somesuch document on OFPEC is great, it covers base defenses, transport, patrols and more. Great stuff.

[hellfish6 7]

Well the Soviets would garrisson it according to their needs. Morton, while a big town in OFP terms, is not a big town. I can't imagine the population would be higher than 200, if that. You'd find at least a platoon of BMP or BTR-mounted infantry, stationed at the key points in the terrain - like the intersections or around any important buildings. Probably a military police squad to direct traffic and for security. Maybe a tank for intimidation. There would probably be a military base nearby where the rest of the BMP or BTR company would be located, and units would rotate in and out of Morton as they went on duty. A really poorly timed attack by the Resistance could find two BMP/BTR platoons and two tanks there (one platoon relieving the other, who is preparing to move to the base).

But if the population is actively against the Russians, there could easily be a company-sized unit based at Morton. If there is a supply depot or a field HQ at Morton, you'll probably find more defenses, with a company based in town but only a platoon on duty at a time (with another platoon as a reaction force, and the third platoon resting).

So, to break down the numbers:

A pacified Morton would have probably a platoon-sized force guarding it. Say, one officer, twenty-three men and three APCs. Maybe a tank as well.

A rebellious Morton, or a Morton with a supply depot or HQ would have a company protecting it, but only a platoon on actual guard duty during normal operations. The rest of the company would be located within the town, though, and able to quickly respond to emergencies. Say 4-6 officers, 100+ men, 10 BMP/BTR, 3 tanks, a ZSU, 3 Strelas, some supply trucks and UAZs (even if there isn't a supply depot because motorized units require significant logistics), some emplaced heavy weapons (like .50cal MGs, AT missiles, mortars) and various fortifications and bunkers.

And yes, I got that ship idea from RSR (but for the record, I don't like Tom Clancy's books, except RSR and HFRO). There is also an informal wargame we played while I was in Military Intel that we did for fun/training, where China was to invade Taiwan. There was a Chinese team, a Taiwanese team, a US team and some other people playing the UN and ASEAN, Australia, etc. The Chinese players came up with very interesting solutions to invading Taiwan.

They used chartered cruise ships to sneak in about two divisions worth of Marines and infantry, without heavy weapons. Car ferries were used to sneak some tanks and artillery pieces that would be unloaded minutes after the Marines left their cruise ships and used suprise to secure the harbors. Junks and tramp steamers brought in another division of infantry and there were so many of those little ships that it was impossible for the Taiwan team to tell the ones carrying troops from the ones that were civillian. And even when some of the ships were caught and sunk, the Chinese player only lost a relatively small number of troops per ship sunk.

Another trick they used was using chartered 747s from one of the Chinese airlines to sneak in a regiment of paratroopers. Some cargo 747s carried jeeps and 120mm mortars and ammunition. The Chinese airline (I forget who - Cathay Pacific, maybe?) had all of these airplanes parked close together on the tarmac and once the invasion began, all these heavily armed paratroopers stormed out of the planes and started shooting everything, causing a mass panic at the airport. Those people flooding out of the airport to escape the shooting prevented any organized, large scale response by the Taiwanese for quite some time, and the Chinese paratroopers managed to secure the airfield in a couple of hours and began landing cargo planes and fighters from the mainland for reinforcement.

I'm talking too much, aren't I?

[EBass 0]

I dunno. Probably for Morton I'd say one Mechanised infatry squad. With either a BMP or a BMD. Also a few mortars zeroed in on Morton in case it was overun. Maybe one tank for intimidation. If they brought air support they'd probably have a flight of 3 MiG-29s or so circling around the island. Which when they realised they were under attack would probably respond within three or so minutes. Maybe also a few Hinds on call.

The US attack would probably consist of a Naval bombardment to keep their heads down and fly a couple of blackhawks within about 100 metres of the objective. The troops would quickly storm the place as the bombardment ceased. After it was secure you'd probably have a couple of quick transports to take the heavy equipment onshore.

I dunno, that sounds pretty good to me.

[hellfish6 7]

You should rarely air assault directly onto an objective. It makes the helos vulnerable. Instead, you land a few KMs away and move there by foot. One guy with an RPG on the objective can ruin a Blackhawk's day.

[EBass 0]

Quite, as learned in Somalia. But you land a few KM away you dont know how concentrated the Soviets are and the squads could get tied up in combat miles from their objectives. Plus it just gives more time for the Soviets to whip them with overwhelming forces.

[hellfish6 7]

So you'd rather jump out of a helicopter onto a platoon of T-72s instead of landing a few kilometers away and ambushing them as they react to your air assault?

There are men called pathfinders who go behind enemy lines to find, secure, and support helicopter landing zones for just this reason. Air assaults are not done blindly, they usually have a good idea of what they're going into. At the very least, all potential landing zones will be scouted by Kiowas or attack helos before they are used.

There is a great game called TacOps that lets you simulate large scale air assaults. Try assaulting a platoon or a company onto your objective. You can do the same with OFP at the squad level. It's murder.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

With Morton, you reckon it would be safe enough to land behind the forest on the hill? Or would the forest be heavily patrolled, since it lets you sneak right up to the town?

[Gollum1 0]

The US attack would probably consist of a Naval bombardment to keep their heads down and fly a couple of blackhawks within about 100 metres of the objective. The troops would quickly storm the place as the bombardment ceased. After it was secure you'd probably have a couple of quick transports to take the heavy equipment onshore.

I dunno, that sounds pretty good to me.

I don´t know...as I understand it, the NATO base on malden didn´t have any warships, just PBRs for troop transport and some kind of transports for tanks (probably the LSTs).

About the heavy equipment...U.S forces had already established a beachhead, that´s where the two Abrams came from.

Anyway, I don´t think U.S forces would hit the town with an artillery bombardment, they have minimal information about the enemy and know that there are a lot of friendly civilians in the town! Besides, BIS don´t like artillery. (why didn´t they just shell the crap out of the first Scud site on Kolgujev, or add it to the radio support list!?)

So BIS got the number of troops in the town about right...except for officers, which there are a lot of for gameplay and identification reasons.

[EBass 0]

OBviously landing an infantry squad onto a platoon of T-72s is suicide but I seriously doubt the Soviets would bother with a serious armoured presence in Morton. One BMP maybe which is very easy meat for a Charlie G or even a LAW.