Why do people give Soviet offensive tactics any credit when they were second rate at best?
>hurr lets drive our IFVs into RPG range instead of using overwatch
>hurr lets march our infantry in the open trying to run over kms of territory with tanks (and field exercises showed that they could never keep up)
>hurr lets lay smoke everywhere even though we're well aware that the enemy optics can see us through it anyway
Other urls found in this thread:
docs.google.com
docs.google.com
dtic.mil
drive.google.com
dtic.mil
20thcenturywargaming.wordpress.com
nsarchive2.gwu.edu
twitter.com
Can someone post that one story where that one dude used soviet spam tactics by the book in wargaming and then swiftly steamrolled over his enemies?
Because you're a brainlet, user.
Two major reasons: first, deep battle beat the German blitzkrieg. Two their strats and tactics are super effective in table top situations and war games because there is never a problem with command and control being bombed. Oh and third when fight8ng conscript army vs conscript army its supe effective, as it wasn’t until the 80’s that it began to be accepted that volunteer professional armies though smaller were significantly more effective than larger conscript ones.
because slavboos lack of high level military education user
they think soviet technologies like T-72 or BTRs are well thought out desings unlike relatively *conservative* western design philosophy
>deep battle beat the German blitzkrieg
no they did not, if they were, they should've been advancing since 1942, germans were simply outnumbered
I'm not particularly german tatics advocate, but nor the soviet tactics, they were both imperfect and flawed in many ways.
The Soviets were advancing in 1942, albeit with massive casualties
yes shortly after the stalingrad and that didn't last long until they were stopped at the third battle of kharkov and after the kursk it's all about delaying action
I asked a british old timer that was stationed in West Berlin during the cold war about the what ifs
He said that they all knew they were to be overrun in a very short time no matter how entrenched they were, the shock division appearing would mean they failed to engage the first harassment wave and it was all about popping tanks and vehicles until you die.
The Soviets were to be stopped with nuclear weapons and its game over from then on.
I’m convinced if the USSR attempted to rush the Fulda gap they would have gotten trashed like the Iraqis. They seemed way over confident while NATO was preparing defense in depth. They really believe their own hype more so then the Americans.
They also think WoT and warthunder are valid simulators. Irl crews would be wasting time trying to aim for weak points or “shot traps” while attempting to focus fire. Something competent tank crews would never waste time doing.
The reason why the Soviets would probably have won, is because there are people who are so stupid they think uneducated Arabs with 10-20 years out of date equipment, was a good representation of Soviet front-line forces and tactics.
where do they aim then? centermass?
>Muh discipline
this bullshit never dies
>hur lets put the gas tanks on the back doors so when an RPG hits all the gas goes into the troop compartment
all of my what
Those tanks are only filled up during long marches and are filled with sand instead when moving to contact.
>implying the ussr is anything like Iraq
Wargames don't represent reality at all because they rely entirely on abstractions. They often use dumb shit like turn-based movement which hilariously fails to represent real life mobility, and whether a unit hits a target is decided by a dice roll instead of their competence (and westerners were way more competent).
So yes, a T-72 Company will roll over an Abrams platoon in a wargame because the Abrams are static and miss half their shots they would have hit IRL.
IRL the Abrams would pop smoke and destroy every last T-72 before the Russians even knew what was going on, then drive to the next position and repeat.
The troops should have been dismounted before reaching front line though.
Why sand?
>What is Afghanistan
>What is the Khost highway
>What is Mujahideen sneaking onto hillside and hitting your vehicle from the rear
Believe it or not, extra protection. The rear doors can resist 12.7mm (Or .50) filled with sand whereas when they're empty, they are easily penetrated.
Eitherway, the gas typically vents outward. People really overstate the "danger" of the rear fuel doors.
Now the main fuel tank, which is in the fucking passenger compartment itself in the middle of all of the passengers...
BMP gets knocked out and is useless.
Infantry squad without a BMP is now also useless.
This way the BMP takes its squad with it into Valhalla. By incinerating them there's less cleanup required too.
>Infantry fire team in back of BMP
>BMP takes hit from RPG to rear
>Aersolized Gas fills troop compartment
>Ignites
>Roasted Russkies
>They somehow get out
>Fight
Thats what you're saying essentially.
>war games rely on abstractions, and this abstract scenario I wrote proved it wrong
>my knowledge of soviet military tactics is from hollywood movies: the post
Just stop, you're an embarrassment.
movies happen to be right quite often
>BMP takes hit from RPG to rear
Fuel in the doors or no, nobody would be walking away from that one.
they blitzkrieg with small and fast, thickly armored tanks and loadsa apcs with dudes behind. It turns out that using the principle of mass to overwhelm defenses works.
Reading comprehension. What I was saying is that when the BMP goes up in flames, it takes its squad with it.
doggone this thread is making me hurt to play wargame again
I know, right.
Yeah, that's a neat one. I like how he goes on about the pure psychological factor of it all.
Really though, the problem with the entire notion of Deep Battle is that it relies on having numerical superiority, rigid command hierarchy, discouragement of initiative at lower levels and a willingness to sustain casualties.
Thgere's actually a really good round table discussion with NATO commanders and Pact commanders of the 80's that really disputes this entirely. Chalupa amusingly says that if the BOAR had their way, then everyone would just sit behind the rhine.
Yes, at least here all Leo2 crews are taught to aim center mass. IRL hitting a target is not as easy as in games. There is no time or really even an oppoturnity to hit a "weak spot". Specially when we can't even know for certain what these weak points are.
>called wargame
>isn't a wargame
>its a shitty rtt
>volunteer professional armies though smaller were significantly more effective than larger conscript ones.
absolutely true, but highly effective units can still be overwhelmed by poorly trained and equipped enemies. Very recent examples in Africa where you have 6 special forces killing +50 before being overrun.
>NATO’s political concepts and plans were aimed, of course, at preventing a war. My mission was to prevent a war by a credible deterrent against this military option. I think the change of strategy from massive retaliation50 – the 1967 Harmel report in NATO51 – to forward defence and fl exible response was an important and decisive change in concept. Massive retaliation was no longer credible, because nobody believed that the US president would allow the employment of massive nuclear retaliation just because one battalion of the opposing forces had crossed the Meiningen Approach or the Fulda Gap. Let me recapitulate the concepts of “fl exible response” and “forward defence”: Forward defence meant that an aggressor must be convinced that he must expect the strongest conventional resistance once he dares to cross the border. He must be convinced. He must be certain of this. Flexible response meant that he must never be certain when, where, and at what time NATO would employ nuclear weapons. NATO had threatened the initial use of nuclear weapons. You mentioned the political forward defence requirement from a German point of view. Sometimes, I had a little difficulty or discussion with my British colleague who wanted to start the main defence at the River Weser and win the war at the Rhine. But how could we explain to the German population who were first told to stay put – this was the official NATO policy – that you must be reassured we will fight a little on the front and defend at the Weser and then be sure at the Rhine whether we have won the war. They would never have given their support to NATO’s effort for defence.
Except that happened because the Special forces ran out of their own without any support or idea of what was going on.
In a typical scenario where they DID have support, valid exit strategies, yada yada, they would have creamed the jihadis with few to no casualties.
>because RPGs (or NATO equivalant AT weapons) are magical mega accurate sniper fuel seeking weapons
You might be suprised to learn that unguided weapons tend to be aimed center mass against a moving target when fire at long range.
How it really happens
>Column of advancing armor and APCs
>some vehicles get hit
>column reorganizes into a attacking/fighting formation
>infantry dismount as part of the attack/counter-attack/charge
Vatnik doesn't care if they lose one of many troop-filled APCs. Those are acceptable losses.
It makes sense for the BAOR though, considering their sector. They had to defend on the wide-open North German Plain, where all you had for cover was a forest block here and there or a village here and there. You get absolutely hammered by artillery and then when it's time to withdraw - oops! You're now way out in the open and now the Grads are coming down on you, the hinds and frogfoots and floggers are raining on you, and even long range fire from enemy vehicles because there's no cover. And then at that, the Warsaw Pact's vehicles are all faster than the British ones are. Their units would have virtually no opportunity to retreat and so obviously sitting behind a river is attractive, because then you can just blow the bridges and run away that way. They would have had to rely entirely on their positions being so fortified that they either wouldn't have to retreat in the first place, or the air force would be their only hope for long-term survival.
>So yes, a T-72 Company will roll over an Abrams platoon in a wargame because the Abrams are static and miss half their shots they would have hit IRL.
the odds of the rolled dice are chosen to reflect reality as best the rulemakers can determine. Military wargaming attempts verisimilitude with the goals of:
>Training and evaluating commanders in an TEWOT (tactical excercise without troops)
>evaluating strategies, tactics and counters
wargamming allows for cheaper and time-compressed training compared to a more expensive full-scale excercise.
There is more than one BMP you retard.
how isn't it a wargame?
The least realistic part of Wargame is that reinforcements magically appear only a few seconds after you order them and you can custom order what you need rather than having an Order of Battle that's going to arrive/become available independent of how many capture and hold points you gained in the last three minutes.
>real time command at the battalion-regiment level when at most you'd have a WEGO system
>everything has arbitrary range caps
>everything has half the IRL chance to hit
>FUCKING HP BARS
>Infantry teleport
>HEAT mechanics on RPGs
>RPGs have too much range
>Just infantry in general
>Reinforcements come in instantly
>Jets come in instantly
>Jet sortie rate is way too fucking high
>Jet count is way too fucking high
>System where you "buy" units and reinforcements (Which is a big fucking deal, War is a come as you are party, not come as you want)
>Biggest offender of that is being able to buy army-divisional level assets and have them on the field in a battalion scale game
>Missile mechanics are trash in general
>Arbitrary assignment of other shit such as penetration values, optics, etc.
>Fuel system is completely retarded
I could go on, really.
Can you name a better wargame I can play on PC?
Do you like hexes?
I'll give anything a go.
I suppose some of those settings could be tuned to be more realistic in a custom game. It is a vidya gaem, can't expect too much. Ground Control II is my favorate RTT game.
>Closest to Wargame but much more in-depth
Men of War Series
Call to Arms
>Real time or turn based
Graviteam Tactics
Combat Mission series
Steel Beasts (Though more of a tank sim, fucking expensive)
DCS Combined Arms (Mostly shit)
>Real time Naval/Air sims
CMANO
Dangerous Waters
Cold Waters
Jane's Fleet Command
>Hex Turn-Based
Steel Panthers (WINSPMBT for modern)
Panzer Corps
OAW3
>Hex "Real Time" (WEGO System)
Flashpoint Campaigns
Armored Brigade (Grid based, but free for now)
And a bunch of others I don't remember.
Thanks user. This list should keep me busy for a while.
TOAW is the pinnacle of its kind
it has alternative history campaigns like second korean war
>omitting HARPOON
0/10
HARPOON became CMANO.
how prepared was the USSR/Pact to fight through the nuclear wasteland NATO forces would create in their rollback to the sea?
were AA/SHORAD assets included in the initial push to kill NATO strategic bombers?
from everything I've seen, if the soviets brought a war, NATO's plan was to hold the line and kill as many vehicles as they could until the bombers showed up, then run for the ocean.
I can't imagine dropping ordinance that low would be safe
>Graviteam Tactics
I want to learn this game so badly but I cannot wrap my head around it.
Shield of the Prophet campaign. Yes it's DLC. It's also the easiest campaign to understand as a noob.
Your command system works, the units react well, radios for everyone, and the Iranians, while not terrible, are good targets. It's all T 55s and T 62s on your side though.
Plus clear terrain.
Depends on the timeframe
Let's go 80's
Prevailing NATO strategy was AirLand Battle - they would open up with massive airstrikes from bombers and tactical aircraft including F117s to target and destroy Soviet logistics and C3 assets - main targets are communications, airfields, HQs, bridges, the hope was to "cut the head off the Soviet chicken" so that the inevitable red tide of tanks would be directionless and without command, at which point superior NATO weaponry could pick apart and destroy them. NATO had to be wary that the Soviets would try the same thing however against them, so this would be decided by whoever won the air war, which actually depends a lot more on who gets the first strike rather than which side (NATO) is superior in the air war. NATO armies differed in strategy.
Americans - Most flexible, would fight delaying actions on the defense and wage counter-offensives and flank attacks with their highly mobile, superior armor
Germans - Very fixated on forward defense as in WW2. Do not want nukes falling on the German heartland and are willing to accept very high casualties if it means most of the bombs are falling on the other side of the wire. Offensive arm participates with Americans and expected to protect their own flanks.
British - Hop from village to forest block, etc. Experts in fieldcraft and would have made their fighting positions into fortresses from which they could destroy the enemy with superior long range fire.
As for your questions
>how prepared was the USSR/Pact to fight through the nuclear wasteland
Almost every vehicle was equipped with NBC protection systems. The soviets didn't just prepare for nuclear war, they counted on it. They hoped to lay a "nuclear carpet" of tactical detonations through which their vehicles would drive through in battalion columns. The Soviet planners expected to reach the Rhine in just 7 days and then the Atlantic in 21. This plan however is assumed to be overly optimistic because it does not account for NATO countermeasures for one, and later on studies and think tanks found that nuclear bombardment would actually slow down the advance than speed it up as logistics were not protected like armor was and forest fires/road destruction would hamper progress.
>were AA/SHORAD assets included in the initial push to kill NATO strategic bombers
NATO bombers would be destroyed on the ground if possible, this task fell to Soviets own bombers, tactical missiles, and Spetsnaz. Otherwise all Soviet formations had organic anti-air assets. By the late 80's a highly ready regiment had six Tunguskas (SA-19) and six BMP-2s carrying MANPADS (SA-7, SA-16, SA-18) teams. Earlier on the organization was 4x Shilka and 4x Strela-10/1M.
Divisional AA consisted of a regiment of 5 batteries of 4-6 Kub/Osa (SA-6, SA-8 respectively)
Army level AA was organized into SAM brigades and consisted of S-75, later Krug, then Buk, and in some units, Tor (SA-2, SA-4, SA-11, SA-15 respectively). Buks from 53rd SAM Brigade are believed to be the culprits in the downing of MH17 in Ukraine. Some armies such as 1st Guards tank also had long range SAM brigades, which consisted of S-75, S-125, S-200, and S-300 (SA-2, SA-3, SA-5, SA-10)
Front level AA were S-200s and S-300s. The GSFG had 6 brigades and one Guards brigade of these. Soviets are credited with (and over-exaggerated by tankies/vatniks) the largest and most complex SAM network of any other nation.
sounds like typical made up bullshit
sand dust would get into the fuel pipes and clog up everything
Also forgot to mention that MANPADS saturation was down to the platoon level - every Soviet Motor-Rifle platoon had an SA-7 or SA-18 (So every third BMP had a team), and each Battalion had a MANPADS platoon that consisted of one BMP or BTR holding three teams of MANPADS.
In lower readiness units like those operated by Warsaw Pact, only one MANPADS team was present per company and sometimes they lacked the MANPADS Platoon.
Overall Soviets were very well equipped to deal with enemy aircraft from the ground because they recognized that it was NATO's major strength over them - Soviet Frontal Aviation couldn't hope to win the air war against an enemy with larger numbers of superior aircraft flown by superior pilots firing superior air-to-air weaponry - their only hope would be a hopeful first strike against NATO on the ground. Best Case scenario would be achieving the results of Operation Focus, but that is very unlikely.
RAND Corporation estimates that 40% of NATO Airfields would be knocked out by massive Soviet air strikes and tactical ballistic missiles, including nuclear. Once these airfields are knocked out however, they're also out of action for the remainder of the war, as the same airfields relied on a civilian pool to carry out repairs, and they would not be reliable especially with the threat of Soviet chemical weapons.
Your idea of NATO war planning is absurd and has no basis in reality.
Article also brings up a good point of how defensive both armies were in orientation.
What many people forget is that both sides leaders were old, they were infact all old enough to remember WW2 and how fucking awful it was. Nobody wanted another war in Europe despite their ideological differences which is why the Soviets were much more intent on political/cultural warfare than military.
The only way that the Soviets were going to start the war in Europe would be if they were afraid of imminent NATO invasion (As in Able Archer) or if rogue actors had duped them into believing that they were under NATO attack (such was the plot for the 1990 film Dawn's Early Light).
Soviet attitude was not of aggression but paranoia. Even in Yom Kippur when there was fear that the Soviets would reinforce the Arabs with their own troops, Brezhnev's response to the conflict was actually to tell Sadat to go fuck himself:
>We have offered them (the Arabs) a sensible way for so many years. But no, they wanted to fight. Fine! We gave them technology, the latest, the kind even Vietnam didn’t have. They had double superiority in tanks and aircraft, triple in artillery, and in air defense and anti-tank weapons they had absolute supremacy. And what? Once again they were beaten. Once again they scrammed [sic]. Once again they screamed for us to come save them. Sadat woke me up in the middle of the night twice over the phone, "Save me!" He demanded to send Soviet troops, and immediately! No! We are not going to fight for them.
They believed that a war with China was far more likely than any conflict with the West and their actions during the Vietnam era reflect this, where USSR support of North Vietnam was actually to avoid the Chinese picking them up than any concerns over the Americans. They feared that if the Chinese acquired SEA, then their numbers would be so overwhelming that not even the USSR's nuclear arsenal could stop the massive human wave from conquering Siberia.
They usually have a delay built in for low drop ordnance. Either fins like a Snake Eye bomb or delayed fuse. If you're that low your going fast. Drop bombs, hit countermeasures and speed off.
Soviet doctorine were much more intellectual than NATO/western, infact NATO didn't have an operational framework at all until the shallow deep battle clone in Airland battle and the weird pseudo clauswitzian EBO which I see as mostly an airforce targeting officer wondering what the hell to do with PGM...
NATO was forward deployed for political reasons, had large periods of average worse quality AFV, and always had less numbers (while having a larger population and economy)
You are so incorrect I won't even bother correcting you.
Is this a good time to start posting equipment statistics?
I love the game to death, but a lot of the mechanics sacrifice realism for gameplay
A lot of nationalism sacrifice gameplay for pandering.
Are you referring to the DLC?
I am referring to their arbitrary way of doing balance. Which is not based on reality, but based on memes. Mostly for the sake of pandering to nationalists who couldn't bring them selves to play their home country, if they didn't have something outrageously stupid unicorn unit, not to mention the basis of the statistics like accuracy and power, which made huge performance differences, in units which were supposed to be pretty close in performance.
Also, tanks home country is forests?
1 hit kill cross map artillery wonders.
No range tool
No sight area tool
The best part of wargame was the out of game memes.
post more
>the soviets were winning but their k/d wasnt good enough
Child
It means their k/d was so bad that if the ussr wasn't blowing the west for supplies, tanks, and another front, then the germans would have rolled them over in 1942
Why do you think Soviet peasants in the middle of their one year conscription are any more competent than veteran Arabs?
>Why do people give Soviet offensive tactics any credit when they were second rate at best?
They are still better than US defensive tactics (or lack of them).
The Arab problem is actually a cultural one, not a training one, but yes his argument is flawed.
However inferior their individual equipment was, IMO the Warsaw Pact at least always had the advantage in aesthetics.
Western soymale Russia bashing/envy thread?
Russians have a cultural problem too where they think they will overcome any problem by sticking to what the books tell them to do.
See:
War in Afghanistan
War with Chechnya
War with Georgia
Russian sub accidents
>The Arab problem is actually a cultural one,
So is the Soviet one considering how top heavy their command structure was/is.
>afghan
Removed 1.500.000, lost 15.000.
>chechnya
First != Second.
>georgia
Steamrolled in 5 days.
>First != Second.
It doesn't count if you get your ass handed to you right?
>Removed 1.500.000
You think we're fucking impressed by the massive amounts of civilians you killed in Afghanistan? Even giving you the highest estimate of Mujahedeen killed that's fucking 94% civilians.
>implying
>>afghan
Retreated with your tail between your legs, and your puppet government fell in less time then it took the government of South Vietnam. So if Afghanistan is a win so is Vietnam.
>chechnya
First got raped, lost massively to durka durkas.
Second, got raped, only won by cutting a deal with the biggest Durka, who still runs Checnya, has his own military, literally has a incense to kill any russian, and runs an independent country in all but name. Great victory that.
>georgia
Failed to establish air superiority over a country with no fighters. Again let me reiterate that for you, the RuAF which is supposed to be this godlike weapon failed to achieve air superiority when faced with no opposition that could shoot back. Crack troops failed massively at the platoon and company level, showing the hilariously outdated rigid command structure of soviet systems. Got bailed out by Georgian utter failure at Battalion and Division level.
>M17 mask donned
>no MOPP suit, gloves or boots
Why??
Look up Mius Front. You have to have Aspergers but it is fun once you've learnt how everything works.
its called mopp3 you know nothing
not all chemical agents are contact
they're alright
>volunteer professional armies though smaller were significantly more effective than larger conscript ones.
Not in my experience.
If your conscription is 2 years of service, you have just as much training as 2 years of volunteer service.
Actually conscription has the advantage you can conscript people with particular skills who wouldn't usually want to join the army.
Except conscript armies are generally lower budget than volunteer ones and volunteer armies enlistments are usually longer than 2 years and have higher retention rates.
>7.0 MB/s Peak
Are you living in Somalia? Seriously, where are you from?