Thats and interesting Tactic for Assaults, but Soviet Doctrine has a heavy focus on Reserves. The first Assault is rarely expected to break through. Instead it is supposed to put fatal fractures in the enemy perimeter. Those are supposed to then be flooded by fast elite Motorized Infantry (Soviet Guards Formations and East German Troops), to exploit the gap as hard as possible and simply wreak havoc, so the regular 'backbone' army can consolidate territory easily. When lines are stable, refuel, rearm, reinforce, repeat.
3:01 i know you probably won’t see this or even have it apply to you anymore, but for anyone else, there is a function for making them end on a formation evenly spaced. You just need to hold down right click and drag to change the direction the units are facing.
Rocket artillery is important in this sssr strategy as you suppress while attacking. It works well against people if well executed thou napalm can ruin it very easily.
Great video and a fascinating subject; thank you for giving this a shot. I think you made an excellent attempt but I believe the game mechanics and the setup do not lend themselves to this type of test. Let me explain. Generally the Soviet combined armed doctrine that you describe was developed for a WWIII scenario between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. This would involve an invasion by the Warsaw Pact into Western Europe through Germany. The initial artillery barrage would soften up, stun, and panic prepared defensive positions. And then the armor and infantry would move in (aided by smoke by the way). In Wargame you really don't have "prepared defensive positions" per se. You have infantry occupying a building or a forest but not dug in (like real life). So the arty barrage to stun the defense is hard to do. Having said that, Wargame does model quite well the effect of arty on infantry, vehicles, and tanks by either stunning, panicking, or even killing them. Again, great test and a super attempt.
+Chess Knigh T-72BU Good read, the smoke is a good point. I want to try this out again sometime, I'm pretty sure I could organize it a bit better than this.
Great work. My only suggestions would be to use road movement to the jump off point and then spread out in line just before the assault - this is both more realistic and saves on fuel for the final attack. I would also use an assault line and a reserve line (as someone else pointed out) with the assault formation breaking up the enemy front and the reserve formation executing the breakthrough. You should also consider using lighter artillery (and thus lots more of it) and a lot more rocket artillery, especially BMP-14 or -21 - this is classic Soviet "Shock and Awe" artillery barrage. I think that the Akatsiya was reserved for Division artillery pools, a regiment (such as a W:RD formation) would use 122mm or lighter guns.
great topic, I really like this idea and hope to mess around with it myself. I am curious why you pit your soviet force against soviet instead of NATO?
I think it kind of does. I know the villages get pretty wrecked, but I'm not sure if that actually makes it so the infantry in those buildings have less cover. From my experience I don't think it does. I would love to see bridge destruction, maybe an ability of engineer infantry. Then each nation could have their respective bridging vehicles, such as that British Challenger variant that can set up a bridge in a short period of time. I assume the Russians have something similar. Would also be cool to have weight limits on bridges. During the Cold War the Soviets constructed their bridges so they were strong enough to support Soviet tanks, but not the generally heavier NATO tanks.
Mines. Also as was discovered at the battle of Monte Casino, Stalingrad, and Berlin to name a few, destroyed buildings are still perfect cover/concealment for infantry.
Hey I really enjoy this type of scenarios. I would love if you would test it in in PvP. ie. One player would be a defending NATO or US force while you would try to overrun him using this doctrine. Both players would use time appropriate decks of course.
Very interesting video and concept. I recommend reading "Armies of Sand" by Kenneth M. Pollack ISBN: 978-0-19-090696-2 where he analyse how the Arab armies used, or the lack of, Soviet doctrines and tactics. The Soviets put a lot of emphasis on all-arms cooperation and that the commander was expected to act aggressively and seize any and all opportunity, regardless of the battle-recipe, to achieve the overall goal of the campaign. Strategies over tactics and campaigns over battles. Thats why soviet vehicles often are faster, lighter and amphibious compared to NATO/western stuff. They can go more places faster, being less reliable on bridges and good roads, perhaps a lesson learned from the Germans during WWII (Ardennes offensive). Its my understanding that Soviet gear was not designed to win a battle alone, but together with all other available gear.
BMP-1s gun is 73mm not 76! Soviet doctrine after WW2! - 1st massive artillery barrage. 2nd IFVs and APC unload the troops from 500 meters to 2 kilometers away from the enemy positions(distance depends on enemy number, firepower etc). 3rd While the APCs are getting back from the front line, tanks are lining up behind the infantry, IFVs follow the tanks behind 100 to 200 meters, support vehicles like tank destroyers and SPAAGs and etc. join and following the line from 300 to 400 meters away if available. 4th Ground support aircraft and Helicopters joining the assault! This doctrine is called Deep Operations doctrine and has some similarities with Deep Operations doctrine from WW2! :):):) I have tried to use that doctrine on the game but the problem is that every units are going with its maximum speed, which means that the tank destroyers or IFVs are the 1st to contact with the enemy which are easily killed. Next are the tanks which fighting longer thanks to its armor but, that advantage goes off quickly when helicopters and bombers arrive. Infantry just cant survive on open terrain!
"T here's nothing like a good rush with a whole bunch of units." Um...that's the emphasis of the actual tactic you're showcasing here - rush with overwhelming force.
operation begration and the invasion of japan ww2 and maybe/probably the invasion of georgia and chechnia by russia and also probably wargames simulated by the soviet army and exercises and also used by wagner inside the city of bakhmut
you i thought this game would be Awesome , but all you really see and move are Little Blue boxes, you dont even have the time to really enjoy watching Ur units Duke it out, cuz its all about moving Ur units in a really fast Pace. And thats what makes it Unreal we all know War can be mildly slow. i bought this game but soon stopped for me is just something i cant enjoy.
cool video, as for how effective this can be against real players, having tanks move command forward (as opposed to attack move, where they stop to fire), is an underrated and kind of unexplored tactic. It can be quiet effective when properly supported. I'm not sure your aware but you can drag out formations in wargame. select your units then hold right click down and drag horizontally, your units will move command to the point marked in formation (not exactly what you were talking about but it works well for what your trying to do). I have a video where I did something similar you might want to check out, ruclips.net/video/m7JdXwl5E1g/видео.html
+LittleTinGod Gaming Yeah, I used to always have tanks stop and fire, but after trying this out it seems quite effective having them fire on the move. Thanks for the tip though, I'll certainly have to give that a shot. Might make another video on this to see if I can perfect it.
+LittleTinGod Gaming Another thing, is there a way of limiting the speed of units? I would like to make it so the IFVs and BTRs would move up with the infantry at more or less the same speed. I tried right clicking on the infantry with the IFV selected, as you can in some RTS games, to make them follow certain units. But it didn't seem to work. I modified my deck a bit for another shot at this, making sure that I have tanks that all have the same speed so hopefully they'll move up together a little better. Any other suggestions?
+CzarPeppers no, only thing you can do is select units that move at the speeds you want, apparently drivers in wargame only know how to floor it or slam on the brakes.
The game is good, too bad it has what i would call a fatal flaw, the haze inside the objective sectors, it has no purpose, the lines on the edges are preaty well defined and the haze just takes away from easily seeing units and theyr respective tabs. Also the writing in the sectors of the names and how many points they give, there is no button to toggle it off, you have to zoom in for it to disapear, i would say you actualy have to zoom in a bit too mutch for the game to be playable and not get the writing and the haze of the sectors. I recal the writing disapears a bit earlier, but there still should have been options for turing off the haze and some sort of key that you could bind to toggle the writing on and off ingame.
By the way, maybe someone knows a mod or something to be able to do that, or maybe can get the idea through to the developers or some respectable moders so they can make a patch or something.
It is well known that the Soviet Union didn't believe in recon, jeeze. Nah, just kidding. Yeah it probably would have been a good idea to dump some recon on there.
О Боже, ты меня узнал, пожалуйста, не говори Рейчел Мэддо, что она разоблачит меня точно! Hurry Chernenko clone #4 get me back to our Venus Soviet Moon base! Long live the USSVR!
They wouldn't have; Soviets were at a technological and strategic disadvantage. Their strategy solely consisted on knocking the United States' continental allies out of the war within a month to achieve favorable peace terms, rather than outright beat them to the punch. NATO naval and air capacity were at a better point than their Soviet counterparts and it would have been suicide as the Soviet economy was already buckling underneath the pressure of defense spending.
That does not mean, however, that NATO would have been more likely to start it. Just simply more favorable for them to win the conflict thus having a reason to preemptively strike.
Thats and interesting Tactic for Assaults, but Soviet Doctrine has a heavy focus on Reserves. The first Assault is rarely expected to break through. Instead it is supposed to put fatal fractures in the enemy perimeter. Those are supposed to then be flooded by fast elite Motorized Infantry (Soviet Guards Formations and East German Troops), to exploit the gap as hard as possible and simply wreak havoc, so the regular 'backbone' army can consolidate territory easily.
When lines are stable, refuel, rearm, reinforce, repeat.
3:01 i know you probably won’t see this or even have it apply to you anymore, but for anyone else, there is a function for making them end on a formation evenly spaced. You just need to hold down right click and drag to change the direction the units are facing.
Rocket artillery is important in this sssr strategy as you suppress while attacking. It works well against people if well executed thou napalm can ruin it very easily.
Some good points.
Great video and a fascinating subject; thank you for giving this a shot. I think you made an excellent attempt but I believe the game mechanics and the setup do not lend themselves to this type of test. Let me explain. Generally the Soviet combined armed doctrine that you describe was developed for a WWIII scenario between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. This would involve an invasion by the Warsaw Pact into Western Europe through Germany. The initial artillery barrage would soften up, stun, and panic prepared defensive positions. And then the armor and infantry would move in (aided by smoke by the way). In Wargame you really don't have "prepared defensive positions" per se. You have infantry occupying a building or a forest but not dug in (like real life). So the arty barrage to stun the defense is hard to do. Having said that, Wargame does model quite well the effect of arty on infantry, vehicles, and tanks by either stunning, panicking, or even killing them. Again, great test and a super attempt.
+Chess Knigh T-72BU Good read, the smoke is a good point. I want to try this out again sometime, I'm pretty sure I could organize it a bit better than this.
+CzarPeppers You could get some people to play with you so you can do more things at the same time
That's true, could have someone working armour, someone working infantry and possibly artillery.
The problem with "Tactics" is no plan ever survives contact with the enemy. Everything is adjusted on the fly.
Truth.
My man Clausewitz spitting fax
Great work. My only suggestions would be to use road movement to the jump off point and then spread out in line just before the assault - this is both more realistic and saves on fuel for the final attack. I would also use an assault line and a reserve line (as someone else pointed out) with the assault formation breaking up the enemy front and the reserve formation executing the breakthrough.
You should also consider using lighter artillery (and thus lots more of it) and a lot more rocket artillery, especially BMP-14 or -21 - this is classic Soviet "Shock and Awe" artillery barrage. I think that the Akatsiya was reserved for Division artillery pools, a regiment (such as a W:RD formation) would use 122mm or lighter guns.
great topic, I really like this idea and hope to mess around with it myself. I am curious why you pit your soviet force against soviet instead of NATO?
I thought I had it on confrontation. I've been wanting to do another one of these but against NATO forces.
I look forward to it.
i think this game could use a destructable map
I think it kind of does. I know the villages get pretty wrecked, but I'm not sure if that actually makes it so the infantry in those buildings have less cover. From my experience I don't think it does.
I would love to see bridge destruction, maybe an ability of engineer infantry. Then each nation could have their respective bridging vehicles, such as that British Challenger variant that can set up a bridge in a short period of time. I assume the Russians have something similar.
Would also be cool to have weight limits on bridges. During the Cold War the Soviets constructed their bridges so they were strong enough to support Soviet tanks, but not the generally heavier NATO tanks.
Mines. Also as was discovered at the battle of Monte Casino, Stalingrad, and Berlin to name a few, destroyed buildings are still perfect cover/concealment for infantry.
Hey I really enjoy this type of scenarios. I would love if you would test it in in PvP. ie. One player would be a defending NATO or US force while you would try to overrun him using this doctrine. Both players would use time appropriate decks of course.
Wonderful video! Really interesting to see this on Wargame for a realistic view! Compared to the spam that my friends really like to put out
Very interesting video and concept.
I recommend reading "Armies of Sand" by Kenneth M. Pollack ISBN: 978-0-19-090696-2 where he analyse how the Arab armies used, or the lack of, Soviet doctrines and tactics.
The Soviets put a lot of emphasis on all-arms cooperation and that the commander was expected to act aggressively and seize any and all opportunity, regardless of the battle-recipe, to achieve the overall goal of the campaign.
Strategies over tactics and campaigns over battles.
Thats why soviet vehicles often are faster, lighter and amphibious compared to NATO/western stuff.
They can go more places faster, being less reliable on bridges and good roads, perhaps a lesson learned from the Germans during WWII (Ardennes offensive).
Its my understanding that Soviet gear was not designed to win a battle alone, but together with all other available gear.
Interesting stuff, thanks for the recommendation. I always love reading about military tactics and that kind of thing.
@@czarpeppers6250 You are welcome!
BMP-1s gun is 73mm not 76! Soviet doctrine after WW2! - 1st massive artillery barrage. 2nd IFVs and APC unload the troops from 500 meters to 2 kilometers away from the enemy positions(distance depends on enemy number, firepower etc). 3rd While the APCs are getting back from the front line, tanks are lining up behind the infantry, IFVs follow the tanks behind 100 to 200 meters, support vehicles like tank destroyers and SPAAGs and etc. join and following the line from 300 to 400 meters away if available. 4th Ground support aircraft and Helicopters joining the assault! This doctrine is called Deep Operations doctrine and has some similarities with Deep Operations doctrine from WW2! :):):) I have tried to use that doctrine on the game but the problem is that every units are going with its maximum speed, which means that the tank destroyers or IFVs are the 1st to contact with the enemy which are easily killed. Next are the tanks which fighting longer thanks to its armor but, that advantage goes off quickly when helicopters and bombers arrive. Infantry just cant survive on open terrain!
Thought the ground support aircraft would be with the fighters for protection?
Footage of operation bagration 2
would love to see you do this for the US or NATO
+David Eason I was thinking of doing that since people seem to have liked this one. Suppose it is time for some research!
CzarPeppers cool
"T here's nothing like a good rush with a whole bunch of units."
Um...that's the emphasis of the actual tactic you're showcasing here - rush with overwhelming force.
great video sir and good luck in the future and hope you have a great day im from Sweden btw
+Alexander Bejermyr Thank you, and greetings from Canada.
I tried use usa military co cepts in battlefield heroes game, like "embotamento"
I know this is incredibly late, but could you link us the paper you found this all from? It seems really interesting.
Are there any video footage of soviet troops using these doctrines and tactics as training or whatever, I would love to see that.
Yes there is, it is a british film. Somewhere on youtube. look up soviet tactics and you may find it.
operation begration and the invasion of japan ww2 and maybe/probably the invasion of georgia and chechnia by russia and also probably wargames simulated by the soviet army and exercises and also used by wagner inside the city of bakhmut
Do you have a link to that Soviet Military Doctrine paper?
Do more of these
you i thought this game would be Awesome , but all you really see and move are Little Blue boxes, you dont even have the time to really enjoy watching Ur units Duke it out, cuz its all about moving Ur units in a really fast Pace. And thats what makes it Unreal we all know War can be mildly slow. i bought this game but soon stopped for me is just something i cant enjoy.
cool video, as for how effective this can be against real players, having tanks move command forward (as opposed to attack move, where they stop to fire), is an underrated and kind of unexplored tactic. It can be quiet effective when properly supported. I'm not sure your aware but you can drag out formations in wargame. select your units then hold right click down and drag horizontally, your units will move command to the point marked in formation (not exactly what you were talking about but it works well for what your trying to do). I have a video where I did something similar you might want to check out, ruclips.net/video/m7JdXwl5E1g/видео.html
+LittleTinGod Gaming Yeah, I used to always have tanks stop and fire, but after trying this out it seems quite effective having them fire on the move. Thanks for the tip though, I'll certainly have to give that a shot. Might make another video on this to see if I can perfect it.
+LittleTinGod Gaming Another thing, is there a way of limiting the speed of units? I would like to make it so the IFVs and BTRs would move up with the infantry at more or less the same speed. I tried right clicking on the infantry with the IFV selected, as you can in some RTS games, to make them follow certain units. But it didn't seem to work.
I modified my deck a bit for another shot at this, making sure that I have tanks that all have the same speed so hopefully they'll move up together a little better. Any other suggestions?
+LittleTinGod Gaming Holy hell you're alive!
+CzarPeppers no, only thing you can do is select units that move at the speeds you want, apparently drivers in wargame only know how to floor it or slam on the brakes.
Where’s the NATO version?
The game is good, too bad it has what i would call a fatal flaw, the haze inside the objective sectors, it has no purpose, the lines on the edges are preaty well defined and the haze just takes away from easily seeing units and theyr respective tabs. Also the writing in the sectors of the names and how many points they give, there is no button to toggle it off, you have to zoom in for it to disapear, i would say you actualy have to zoom in a bit too mutch for the game to be playable and not get the writing and the haze of the sectors. I recal the writing disapears a bit earlier, but there still should have been options for turing off the haze and some sort of key that you could bind to toggle the writing on and off ingame.
By the way, maybe someone knows a mod or something to be able to do that, or maybe can get the idea through to the developers or some respectable moders so they can make a patch or something.
4:42 I understand this is an experiment, but no recon units at all?
It is well known that the Soviet Union didn't believe in recon, jeeze. Nah, just kidding. Yeah it probably would have been a good idea to dump some recon on there.
nice vid. i'll try it out as a last resort before i delete the game. i cant win for losing
Is this "Deep Battle" or "Blitzkrieg"?
Deep Battle.
I hear you say that the soviets would never had started the wiii that shows your bias and therefore the validity of this vidieo
О Боже, ты меня узнал, пожалуйста, не говори Рейчел Мэддо, что она разоблачит меня точно!
Hurry Chernenko clone #4 get me back to our Venus Soviet Moon base! Long live the USSVR!
They wouldn't have; Soviets were at a technological and strategic disadvantage. Their strategy solely consisted on knocking the United States' continental allies out of the war within a month to achieve favorable peace terms, rather than outright beat them to the punch. NATO naval and air capacity were at a better point than their Soviet counterparts and it would have been suicide as the Soviet economy was already buckling underneath the pressure of defense spending.
That does not mean, however, that NATO would have been more likely to start it. Just simply more favorable for them to win the conflict thus having a reason to preemptively strike.
Mouse button poo? That's it my kid is never playing this game
i do multiplayer wargame, if you're interested in improving.
+mrwizard70 I may have to take you up on that. This is one game I've always wanted to improve on. Maybe some Wargame boot camp.
CzarPeppers my skype is mrwizard70, same with my steam. if you prefer teamspeak or discord we could use the PA servers
c-can..can I join :)
+Kael Raffar ofc. My contact is right there for anyone who wants it.
AFV isnt IFV just saying
IFB eh? ;)
Of damn nice typo from me this is awkward xD
But Lets be real that was really great video and you earned a subscribe.
Lol