Interesting project. Just some notes/thoughts based on what I've read over the years on Soviet doctrine: 1) Your employment of artillery is somewhat off-model for a Pact force. Regular artillery guns are traditionally reserved for more accurate pre-ranged fire, or counter-battery operations - this due to their relatively higher rate of fire. For pre-assault suppression, rocket artillery would be used preferentially by Soviet forces due to their extremely low ROF, but significantly higher potential for suppression, with suspected hard-points (dependent on available intelligence,) being hit by the more accurate guns to ensure that HVTs are saturated with fire. Additionally, your lack of Mortars is odd for a Soviet force. Larger batteries of guns were not generally directly attached to relatively small sections of front such as this. While they might provide a couple of tubes to regimental fire support requests as possible, this wouldn't be guaranteed -- their orders generally were given from the divisional level, and so they were often unable to spare tubes for regimental requests. Mortars would thus be used to support assaults, and provide more mobile coverage than the larger guns realistically could. Additionally, Mortars were typically used to provide smoke support for friendly forces, while the larger divisional batteries would continue hitting HVTs and pre-ranged targets. 2) Your usage of smoke was incorrect. You rarely want to establish a smoke screen on top of, or in front of, your own forces. That impedes their ability to target enemy units, and makes it difficult to ascertain enemy hard points before you've broken through the smoke and silhouetted yourself as a target. Especially if you're launching an assault against an enemy in a defensive position, dropping smoke on them is generally more effective. It allows you to mitigate the advantages at range that most NATO units have, and allows you to maintain forward momentum. 3) Integration of VDV assets within such a force is extremely unlikely. Pact forces, especially the Armed Forces of The Soviet Union, were extremely compartmentalized and frequently competitive with each other to the point of hostility, something encouraged to a certain degree by the Presidium to prevent a military coup. If there was a shared objective, the units would likely take separate but complementary roles in the operation. Additionally, since the majority of the active VDV forces in the late 70's through to the 80's were primarily helicopter-borne air assault forces, air-dropped specialist vehicles such as the BMD-2 would be unlikely to be used here, or if used, would be deployed to support VDV operations primarily. 4) Although you partially address this, the lack of air support really limits how Pact operates. The involvement of frontal aviation is more or less key for Soviet forces. Helicopters and CAS provide a way for weaker armor like T-72s to compromise hard points held by NATO forces, prevent NATO from establishing new strong points, and allow VDV troops to be deployed to encircle enemy troops and take towns in preparation for the main thrust of an assault. While the deployment of air assets is similar to that of artillery, being limited by Frontal Aviation to targets of strategic importance, their presence is still extremely important. 5) This may be a misinterpretation of your main objective on my part, but (assuming your goal was a penetrating multi-wave assault,) you generally wouldn't want to hold the position that you took up in the village south of objective Echo. Not only would it allow NATO units to fire from an advantageous position overlooking the village, but it caused your attack to lose momentum. For example, the BMPTs you brought to support your attack, as well as a number of other IFVs and a bunch of infantry, sat back while a NATO counter-attack was allowed to move in from the north-west,. These units could also have been used to move north-east to encircle and cut off the remaining enemy forces. All that said, I think this was a great emulation of a Soviet style saturation assault. It'd be particularly interesting to see how this would play out as a 5v5 match with humans filling all the positions - as it is, the AI in the Wargame series is a bit dumb at times, so the unpredictability mixed in with the efficient doctrine developed by East and West would make for an interesting series of battles to watch. I know I'd certainly be interested in participating in such an experiment.
Agreed. I agree with several things you say: 1. You smoke the enemy during attack and in front of yourself if you are retreating. 2. I also noticed the missing MI-24 and MI-17s. They are used to frog leap Spetnaz and other units to hold key points until the main forces could take over or simply take out bridges and airfields e t c. They are extremely aggressive in their maneuvers with support from both the MI-24s and CAS. When I did my military service back in the 80s (in Scandinavia) the exercise almost always consisted of surviving that first attack by Hinds, Su-24s and Su-25s and of course chemical weapons such as aerosol bombs (which likely would be used to flush out defensive positions). The second wave would come via RORO and normal "civilian aircraft" when Spetznas and Airborne units had taken key harbours and airports. Tanks and mechanised infantry would also take the land route up north. The situation would be slightly different on mainland Europe of course, but without a doubt they would have used the same initial tactics but backed up by larger armoured forces. I really like this idea though. I know the game has some limitations where the AI simply just blobs you so it's difficult to set up a EAST-WEST strategy.
@@bababoey1433 Hey if you wanna connect for some Wargame sometime. I wrote the micro deck format 1.0 you can see on the steam guides. Feel free to add me if you can find the guide. Alias is Red Guardian.
dude, you and me could be best friends. I am absolutely addicted to 80s-90s cold war era. NATO! Soviets! the best book to ever read on this is Red Army by Ralph Peters. I actually got to be a crew chief of the West's prime cold war bird, the F15. Hit me up, would be cool to meet and yak about our shared interest.
I'm fairly new to the era myself. But you should add me on steam, I'm currently working on the NATO version of this and I could sure use someone who knows a bit more than I do. Same name as my channel.
From what I know, the offensive Soviet doctrine was based around pushing in all directions, with infantry being the main force and tanks the support, then achieving a breakthrough by wearing off the defenders (the weakest point of defence would collapse) and then sending the tank reserves through the gap, racing around the defenders' rear areas. Also towns and strongpoints would be completely avoided, with blocking detachments, which would be artillery heavy and mainly static, to contain them. Also all the reserves should punch through the breakthrough as fast as possible, creating more pressure on already pressured army. Always strengthen the successful breakthrough, never the unsuccessful one (always go for the path with the least resistance). And all of this should be done in a sector, where you have a higher concentration of forces. If you don't have it, then don't attack at all, and just carefully try to put some pressure onto the enemy with your lower-quality forces. It's not easy to do it in WG:RD, as the scale is still a bit too small. Something like Hearts of Iron could simulate it a bit better, but t it has the opposite problem, moving divisions is way too high in the command chain. So something like WG 10v10 should work the best. (Asgard looks the best) Don't forget the "doctrine" done here is mostly the strategical one, it shouldn't be done with 20, but with 200 tanks. Every lower officer should then use the tactics most suited for the job.
No, Soviet doctrine was not about pushing in all directions, that was NATO. By the end of cold war, NATO assimilated a mix of Soviet and (WW2) German ideas into its battleplans, as seen in Iraq, in 1991. Soviets were more focused in isolated thrusts (albeit in multiple places at the same time), trying to achieve more strategic objectives, usually to do with cutting off logistics.
@@19Koty96 attack across the front where there is most succes puch in the second echelon when it achievs its goals and when the time is best puch in the third echelon
Why do you smoke your own forces? Isn't it better to smoke the town you are attacking, so the enemy can't see your attacking forces? If you smoke your units they exit the smoke one by one and are attacked by the whole enemy front - but if they are smoked they need to exit the smoke to attack you, or are forced to wait for you to enter the town and dismount your infantry.
Another thing to remember is the optics on NATO tanks were able to see through smoke, the use of such tactic would've hindered Warsaw Pact forces, especially the initial waves where lower category units were the spearhead in older equipment. This would've given NATO time to implement their AirLand doctrine and striking Soviet Cat A units with air power before they had the opportunity to exploit any gaps in the line.
Hey I don't know if you've figured this out by now but you can rotate the camera by hitting CTRL + WASD for the direction you want to turn it in if you don't have a MMB.
for example an armored division of the USSR 1978 on the Eastern European front would be composed of 16 T-72A or T-64A in each company by 8 battalions accompanied by 4 anti-aircraft battalions shillka 3 for each platoon along with 4 buk.m1 along with 24 bmp-1 for each armored company resulting in a formidable battle group for 1978 by ussr and nato for that time only had the chieftan mk3 and the m60a2 patton and leopard 1a5
If you want to do some research on NATO doctrines during Cold War, search for "Air Land Battle Doctrine". Here some very interesting links: www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a202888.pdf modernwarmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/MW6-samparticle.pdf
The last thing you want to do as the WP commander from 1982 on is use smoke. Your AFVs use only active IR for night fighting. The best NATO units have thermal sights which see through smoke. You use smoke on NATO forces and you can't see targets while they can.
I don't think this plan of attack was meant to be carried out against an equal strength force. It seems way too optimistic for that. Another thing I noticed was that tanks lead the way through urban areas, whereas it should be infantry doing that. Tanks are sittings ducks for infantry when forced into close quarters, so whilst I like the idea of having infantry could out towns, they should get in there before the tanks do. Also, no recon?
Pretty much. I'll try to link am article that I had found... kind of interesting. "No recce" is perhaps a slight exaggeration, but by far less than the west 20thcenturywargaming.wordpress.com/2013/06/16/why-cold-war-warsaw-pact-tactics-work-in-wargaming/
I served in the US army during this time period and participated in the war games that were used to develop the doctrine called Air Land Battle 2000. I use this doctrine in the game and I can tell you that if you drove your tanks into the town without infantry support in a game against me you would lose all of them. Your tactics reflect Soviet mentality and are sound versus AI but would be suicidal versus a human opponent using NATO doctrine without the liberal use of smoke and better combined arms coordination. I'm not trying to be derogatory, just pointing out what I know to be true. If you doubt this I would be happy to demonstrate and school you on this. Consider this a friendly challenge. My game name is jachthund and my Steam name is wamtrucker. If you decide to accept this challenge send me a message on Steam. I'm available most weekends.
+Wayne Martin from your perspective was the soviet tactics from a standpoint of locating,closing with and destroying the enemy with as many men,armored elements, and cas in one punch asap from a disregard to combat casualties?
Nothing against the BMPT, it's a great Armored Fighting Vehicle. But I feel like the BMP-3 is just such a much better option and 5 points cheaper. You don't get 15 frontal, but you get 2800m Arkan missiles with a 35% base accuracy stabilizer with that 30mm and 100mm HE Frag shell. The BMPT can take hits, but the BMP-3 can dish it and can drop Motostrelki 90' to deal with securing the flanks. In this regard, I think the BMP-3 is great, if not superior, alternative to the BMPT platform in this scenario.
Really interesting, I have to figure some way to adapt this to multiplayer though, there's the problem of how many actual points you need to start something remotely similar to this D:
The really big problem for adapting this for multiplayer is the only way I could manage all these units and make them advance how I wanted them to was by slowing down the game. For example, if I tried to make the tanks advance without slowing the game down they would end up in one big lopsided line. It would be a problem even if I hot keyed them all and did it really quickly. At this point I'm not sure it would even be possible in a multiplayer game, at least not without some serious simplification.
OrginalCanadian Yeah, I tried that out. But it didn't really work how I needed it to. It may help though, would just need some more playing with it. I found in single player it was easiest to use the ultra-slow mode during which I could give the units their specific commands. Then when I resumed normal speed they took off more or less in line. I was thinking though, I may be able to do this online if I had a 10 v 10 game on a 1v1 map so everyone co-coordinating on team speak could control their little section of the attack so they could move up together...if everyone's communication is spot on. In this game, I had groups made up of two tanks set up in the line going across the front. So lets say each person would control 2 or 3 of those groups and maybe an anti-air gun. If everyone worked really well together it might be possible to advance in the manner that I did in this video. It isn't like the line was perfect doing it in single player anyways, so some messiness would be completely acceptable. Maybe have 4 people controlling the tanks and 4 people controlling infantry. Then 1 person doing artillery and maybe the last person doing air support once I do some research on how exactly each side preferred to employ close air support. I'll need volunteers though. CzarPeppers wants YOU!
A bigger problem of actually doing this in a MP game is that MP games are dominated by unicorns and meat shields made from World War 2 leftovers. This tactic would only work if everyone agree on using realistic decks or you end up getting destroyed by Type 90s and Dutch leopard 2A5s. WG army compositions are so insane I don't even.
Pretty much. But actually the infantry basically does the same thing, run their way over the trenches and keep going like the tanks. It is the job of the waves that come afterwards to really clean up after that first wave; dealing with any pockets of resistance that were left behind after the first wave, who have now been cut off from their supply lines and can't put up much of a fight because that first wave has likely moved far past them. I'm sure there is a lot more complexity to it, but that seems to be the fundamentals. It is sort of a modified version of the blitzkrieg tactic, the difference being that the Soviet tactic involves a fast advancing front of tanks and infantry. The German's basically let their tanks go ahead more or less on their own while the bulk of the infantry came up behind them on foot instead of in fast moving IFV or APCs. Well, I mean the German's had motorized infantry, but I don't think they used them on the kind of scale the Soviets did later in the war, that would afterwards form the basis for their military doctrine. throughout the Cold War.
@Magni56 Soviet troops were trained to follow orders and fight and NATO troops were trained to do something useful while following orders. Of course there are nuances in those views, but I think that is the basic difference.
You can TRY, but this absolutely will not win. A gunship rush, meta Maglans or meta superheavies would massacre this. Imagine the attack in this vid run into 2 M1A2 in the middle of the map, who will keep reversing ahead of the attack and take out 2 tanks per volley. the entire attack would be demolished in 2 minutes. Please keep in mind that in MP a soviet player doesn't have an overwhelming numerical advantage.
Good simulation but just stressed that time is between the units of the NATO vs. Warsaw Pact and the USSR if it is 1978 or 1982 or if it is 1985 or 1989 the years greatly increase the difference and explain what doctrine is used in combat
Oh guys, you living in Eu. US.Eng - nothing know about our (Russian) tactics, even dat old variation(USSR 43 - 69 variant:) that make me rly smile:) Propoganda made its work and your western spies are not (mean cold war period) :D good jobe, nice video, but this not even close to REAL old soviet tactic :D helo from mother Russia and have a good day.
In real life, each M1 Abrams crew would have eaten ten T-72s for breakfast before losing their own tank. Ask Saddam Hussein and you will understand what I am talking about. Oh wait, he is dead. Well, ask Wayne Martin instead.
Well you also have to factor in that the export versions of the T-72 differed from their Russian counterparts, not to mention how they compare to the modernized T-72 with explosive reactive armour and more modern targeting systems. That said I suspect the M1 would still come out on top, but it might not be the slaughter that we saw during the Gulf War engagements. I'm not that familiar with the Iraqi variants though, from what I've seen they were just the bog standard T-72 for the most part. But what do I know, I'm just some guy who likes reading about tanks.
Umm...now I read that T-72A was not the same as the initial Ural version. My bad. Sorry. Ural had nothing but thin steel armor while at least the non-export version of T-72A had some form of composite armor (nicknamed Dolly Parton by US intelligence). Therefore, maybe this would have come reality only with the "Ural" version: rolling my memory back some decades, I remember how, when playing Team Yankee and M1 Tank Platoon with Amiga-500, I used to laugh my butt off with quite a number of bonfires that used to be T-72 just a few minutes ago while all my four Abrams tanks were still fully serviceable.
M1 would probably still pwn them though. And before any Russians complain about bias I'm Canadian so if I'm going to have a bias towards any tank it'll be the Leo 2a6 and 2a4.
I too think M1 is better than T-72. It is all Russians own fault for the fact their tank planners always thought all other priorities are more important than crew survival (such as rapid advance in case war occurred so their tanks had to be small and light compared to NATO tanks....and to spare money, they did not put similar composite armor on many tanks that T-64 has). Apparently, Russians have had enough of the fact people are always laughing in Yahoo at the "bonfires" that are almost always their tanks (the only exception I have seen is that Saudi export version of M1 that was set ablaze by ATGM). They realize that in the age of social media (that counters much of how official medias mislead us), it is a major propaganda setback and a setback to the confidence of their own soldiers and allies/proxies if it is always their tanks that are burning wrecks: I have heard T-14 Armata would not be so easy to destroy at least due to active defenses. Even T-90 already has kinda similar composite armor than T-64. I think I saw a TOW slam on the side of T-90 and the only visible damage to the T-90 was that one crewmember freaked out so much he bolted out of the whole vehicle. (Poor fellow....he probably was the target of ridicule by his friends a long time after that).
Well, it really depends. M1 is not M1A1(HA), or even M1A1. You wouldn't see A1's in Europe until late 80's. The original M1, while having superior targeting equipment to T-72, would struggle, having next to no armor (at least compared to WP darts at the time). On the southern part of the frontline, they would be encountering mainly Czechoslovak T-72M and T-72M1 (better armoured) and Soviet A (identical to M1, A might be slightly better in armour compartment depending on variant), rarely a B. T-72M and T-72M1 has a chance of penetrating the M1. T-72A could turn the M1 inside out, since it was issued a lot better ammunition. Encounter with T-72B would be disasterous, as it was armoured enough to stop M774. Turret could take even M833, or the 120mm M829. Now on the northern line... T-80B with equal targeting to M1. Enough said. While having armour of T-72A, it had that nice ballistic computer and high-performance ammunition. By the time NATO started rolling out Leopard 2A4 and M1A1, well, there'd be T-80U waiting.
Interesting project. Just some notes/thoughts based on what I've read over the years on Soviet doctrine:
1) Your employment of artillery is somewhat off-model for a Pact force. Regular artillery guns are traditionally reserved for more accurate pre-ranged fire, or counter-battery operations - this due to their relatively higher rate of fire. For pre-assault suppression, rocket artillery would be used preferentially by Soviet forces due to their extremely low ROF, but significantly higher potential for suppression, with suspected hard-points (dependent on available intelligence,) being hit by the more accurate guns to ensure that HVTs are saturated with fire.
Additionally, your lack of Mortars is odd for a Soviet force. Larger batteries of guns were not generally directly attached to relatively small sections of front such as this. While they might provide a couple of tubes to regimental fire support requests as possible, this wouldn't be guaranteed -- their orders generally were given from the divisional level, and so they were often unable to spare tubes for regimental requests. Mortars would thus be used to support assaults, and provide more mobile coverage than the larger guns realistically could. Additionally, Mortars were typically used to provide smoke support for friendly forces, while the larger divisional batteries would continue hitting HVTs and pre-ranged targets.
2) Your usage of smoke was incorrect. You rarely want to establish a smoke screen on top of, or in front of, your own forces. That impedes their ability to target enemy units, and makes it difficult to ascertain enemy hard points before you've broken through the smoke and silhouetted yourself as a target. Especially if you're launching an assault against an enemy in a defensive position, dropping smoke on them is generally more effective. It allows you to mitigate the advantages at range that most NATO units have, and allows you to maintain forward momentum.
3) Integration of VDV assets within such a force is extremely unlikely. Pact forces, especially the Armed Forces of The Soviet Union, were extremely compartmentalized and frequently competitive with each other to the point of hostility, something encouraged to a certain degree by the Presidium to prevent a military coup. If there was a shared objective, the units would likely take separate but complementary roles in the operation. Additionally, since the majority of the active VDV forces in the late 70's through to the 80's were primarily helicopter-borne air assault forces, air-dropped specialist vehicles such as the BMD-2 would be unlikely to be used here, or if used, would be deployed to support VDV operations primarily.
4) Although you partially address this, the lack of air support really limits how Pact operates. The involvement of frontal aviation is more or less key for Soviet forces. Helicopters and CAS provide a way for weaker armor like T-72s to compromise hard points held by NATO forces, prevent NATO from establishing new strong points, and allow VDV troops to be deployed to encircle enemy troops and take towns in preparation for the main thrust of an assault. While the deployment of air assets is similar to that of artillery, being limited by Frontal Aviation to targets of strategic importance, their presence is still extremely important.
5) This may be a misinterpretation of your main objective on my part, but (assuming your goal was a penetrating multi-wave assault,) you generally wouldn't want to hold the position that you took up in the village south of objective Echo. Not only would it allow NATO units to fire from an advantageous position overlooking the village, but it caused your attack to lose momentum. For example, the BMPTs you brought to support your attack, as well as a number of other IFVs and a bunch of infantry, sat back while a NATO counter-attack was allowed to move in from the north-west,. These units could also have been used to move north-east to encircle and cut off the remaining enemy forces.
All that said, I think this was a great emulation of a Soviet style saturation assault. It'd be particularly interesting to see how this would play out as a 5v5 match with humans filling all the positions - as it is, the AI in the Wargame series is a bit dumb at times, so the unpredictability mixed in with the efficient doctrine developed by East and West would make for an interesting series of battles to watch. I know I'd certainly be interested in participating in such an experiment.
Agreed.
I agree with several things you say:
1. You smoke the enemy during attack and in front of yourself if you are retreating.
2. I also noticed the missing MI-24 and MI-17s. They are used to frog leap Spetnaz and other units to hold key points until the main forces could take over or simply take out bridges and airfields e t c. They are extremely aggressive in their maneuvers with support from both the MI-24s and CAS.
When I did my military service back in the 80s (in Scandinavia) the exercise almost always consisted of surviving that first attack by Hinds, Su-24s and Su-25s and of course chemical weapons such as aerosol bombs (which likely would be used to flush out defensive positions). The second wave would come via RORO and normal "civilian aircraft" when Spetznas and Airborne units had taken key harbours and airports. Tanks and mechanised infantry would also take the land route up north. The situation would be slightly different on mainland Europe of course, but without a doubt they would have used the same initial tactics but backed up by larger armoured forces.
I really like this idea though. I know the game has some limitations where the AI simply just blobs you so it's difficult to set up a EAST-WEST strategy.
Thanks for your input, it cleared up a lot of things I was unsure about. I'll be sure to incorporate it into future videos.
@@czarpeppers6250 *Stares at this comment 4 years later.*
@@CommanderRedVega same lmao
@@bababoey1433 Hey if you wanna connect for some Wargame sometime. I wrote the micro deck format 1.0 you can see on the steam guides. Feel free to add me if you can find the guide. Alias is Red Guardian.
dude, you and me could be best friends. I am absolutely addicted to 80s-90s cold war era. NATO! Soviets! the best book to ever read on this is Red Army by Ralph Peters. I actually got to be a crew chief of the West's prime cold war bird, the F15. Hit me up, would be cool to meet and yak about our shared interest.
I'm fairly new to the era myself. But you should add me on steam, I'm currently working on the NATO version of this and I could sure use someone who knows a bit more than I do. Same name as my channel.
@decimated550 That book is gold.
From what I know, the offensive Soviet doctrine was based around pushing in all directions, with infantry being the main force and tanks the support, then achieving a breakthrough by wearing off the defenders (the weakest point of defence would collapse) and then sending the tank reserves through the gap, racing around the defenders' rear areas.
Also towns and strongpoints would be completely avoided, with blocking detachments, which would be artillery heavy and mainly static, to contain them.
Also all the reserves should punch through the breakthrough as fast as possible, creating more pressure on already pressured army. Always strengthen the successful breakthrough, never the unsuccessful one (always go for the path with the least resistance).
And all of this should be done in a sector, where you have a higher concentration of forces. If you don't have it, then don't attack at all, and just carefully try to put some pressure onto the enemy with your lower-quality forces.
It's not easy to do it in WG:RD, as the scale is still a bit too small. Something like Hearts of Iron could simulate it a bit better, but t it has the opposite problem, moving divisions is way too high in the command chain.
So something like WG 10v10 should work the best. (Asgard looks the best)
Don't forget the "doctrine" done here is mostly the strategical one, it shouldn't be done with 20, but with 200 tanks. Every lower officer should then use the tactics most suited for the job.
No, Soviet doctrine was not about pushing in all directions, that was NATO. By the end of cold war, NATO assimilated a mix of Soviet and (WW2) German ideas into its battleplans, as seen in Iraq, in 1991.
Soviets were more focused in isolated thrusts (albeit in multiple places at the same time), trying to achieve more strategic objectives, usually to do with cutting off logistics.
@@19Koty96 attack across the front where there is most succes puch in the second echelon when it achievs its goals and when the time is best puch in the third echelon
I've actually employed this in 10v10s and it does tend to work pretty well. Really great if you've got a few teammates on vc.
Why do you smoke your own forces? Isn't it better to smoke the town you are attacking, so the enemy can't see your attacking forces?
If you smoke your units they exit the smoke one by one and are attacked by the whole enemy front - but if they are smoked they need to exit the smoke to attack you, or are forced to wait for you to enter the town and dismount your infantry.
Great video sir hope you have a great day
I always find the russian deep battle doctrine interesting but were unfortunately rarely get talked about compared to 'blitzkrieg'
fulcrum 29 Dude why haven’t you responded to me yet I’ve seen you literally everywhere are you stalking me?
Another thing to remember is the optics on NATO tanks were able to see through smoke, the use of such tactic would've hindered Warsaw Pact forces, especially the initial waves where lower category units were the spearhead in older equipment. This would've given NATO time to implement their AirLand doctrine and striking Soviet Cat A units with air power before they had the opportunity to exploit any gaps in the line.
Hey I don't know if you've figured this out by now but you can rotate the camera by hitting CTRL + WASD for the direction you want to turn it in if you don't have a MMB.
for example an armored division of the USSR 1978 on the Eastern European front would be composed of 16 T-72A or T-64A in each company by 8 battalions accompanied by 4 anti-aircraft battalions shillka 3 for each platoon along with 4 buk.m1 along with 24 bmp-1 for each armored company resulting in a formidable battle group for 1978 by ussr and nato for that time only had the chieftan mk3 and the m60a2 patton and leopard 1a5
It should be rocket artillery and it is too nerfed.
If you want to do some research on NATO doctrines during Cold War, search for "Air Land Battle Doctrine".
Here some very interesting links:
www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a202888.pdf
modernwarmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/MW6-samparticle.pdf
The last thing you want to do as the WP commander from 1982 on is use smoke. Your AFVs use only active IR for night fighting. The best NATO units have thermal sights which see through smoke. You use smoke on NATO forces and you can't see targets while they can.
I don't think this plan of attack was meant to be carried out against an equal strength force. It seems way too optimistic for that.
Another thing I noticed was that tanks lead the way through urban areas, whereas it should be infantry doing that. Tanks are sittings ducks for infantry when forced into close quarters, so whilst I like the idea of having infantry could out towns, they should get in there before the tanks do.
Also, no recon?
No recce was Soviet battle doctrine.
There's usually a maskirovka before doing the deep battle
@@michaelrex6948 Really?
Pretty much. I'll try to link am article that I had found... kind of interesting.
"No recce" is perhaps a slight exaggeration, but by far less than the west
20thcenturywargaming.wordpress.com/2013/06/16/why-cold-war-warsaw-pact-tactics-work-in-wargaming/
@@michaelrex6948 they used recce in battle but maybe not in the operational field
I served in the US army during this time period and participated in the war games that were used to develop the doctrine called Air Land Battle 2000. I use this doctrine in the game and I can tell you that if you drove your tanks into the town without infantry support in a game against me you would lose all of them. Your tactics reflect Soviet mentality and are sound versus AI but would be suicidal versus a human opponent using NATO doctrine without the liberal use of smoke and better combined arms coordination. I'm not trying to be derogatory, just pointing out what I know to be true. If you doubt this I would be happy to demonstrate and school you on this. Consider this a friendly challenge. My game name is jachthund and my Steam name is wamtrucker. If you decide to accept this challenge send me a message on Steam. I'm available most weekends.
Good points, although they're points I have pointed out myself in previous videos on the topic.
I'd love to see that match.
+Wayne Martin from your perspective was the soviet tactics from a standpoint of locating,closing with and destroying the enemy with as many men,armored elements, and cas in one punch asap from a disregard to combat casualties?
The BMP-T was developed specifically to counter infantry in towns.
Well, the doctrine Soviets had included not going into towns at all. And if, then using infantry.
Ouch, BMP-1 with a 76mm gun. Ouch.
this looks like a more modern version of Soviet deep battle tactics. there main doctrine in WWII
Nothing against the BMPT, it's a great Armored Fighting Vehicle. But I feel like the BMP-3 is just such a much better option and 5 points cheaper. You don't get 15 frontal, but you get 2800m Arkan missiles with a 35% base accuracy stabilizer with that 30mm and 100mm HE Frag shell. The BMPT can take hits, but the BMP-3 can dish it and can drop Motostrelki 90' to deal with securing the flanks. In this regard, I think the BMP-3 is great, if not superior, alternative to the BMPT platform in this scenario.
Really interesting, I have to figure some way to adapt this to multiplayer though, there's the problem of how many actual points you need to start something remotely similar to this D:
The really big problem for adapting this for multiplayer is the only way I could manage all these units and make them advance how I wanted them to was by slowing down the game. For example, if I tried to make the tanks advance without slowing the game down they would end up in one big lopsided line. It would be a problem even if I hot keyed them all and did it really quickly. At this point I'm not sure it would even be possible in a multiplayer game, at least not without some serious simplification.
Did you try selecting all the tanks and holding right click then dragging? It should create a line of tanks. Idk if they move up like that though.
OrginalCanadian Yeah, I tried that out. But it didn't really work how I needed it to. It may help though, would just need some more playing with it. I found in single player it was easiest to use the ultra-slow mode during which I could give the units their specific commands. Then when I resumed normal speed they took off more or less in line.
I was thinking though, I may be able to do this online if I had a 10 v 10 game on a 1v1 map so everyone co-coordinating on team speak could control their little section of the attack so they could move up together...if everyone's communication is spot on.
In this game, I had groups made up of two tanks set up in the line going across the front. So lets say each person would control 2 or 3 of those groups and maybe an anti-air gun. If everyone worked really well together it might be possible to advance in the manner that I did in this video. It isn't like the line was perfect doing it in single player anyways, so some messiness would be completely acceptable.
Maybe have 4 people controlling the tanks and 4 people controlling infantry. Then 1 person doing artillery and maybe the last person doing air support once I do some research on how exactly each side preferred to employ close air support.
I'll need volunteers though.
CzarPeppers wants YOU!
I'd be glad to try that, unfortunately my computer lags behind in most of the 10v10 I play due to "performance trouble" D:
A bigger problem of actually doing this in a MP game is that MP games are dominated by unicorns and meat shields made from World War 2 leftovers.
This tactic would only work if everyone agree on using realistic decks or you end up getting destroyed by Type 90s and Dutch leopard 2A5s.
WG army compositions are so insane I don't even.
So basically the soviet doctrine was to just run the enemy over with armor and let the infantry clean up the mess with their IFVs.
Pretty much. But actually the infantry basically does the same thing, run their way over the trenches and keep going like the tanks. It is the job of the waves that come afterwards to really clean up after that first wave; dealing with any pockets of resistance that were left behind after the first wave, who have now been cut off from their supply lines and can't put up much of a fight because that first wave has likely moved far past them.
I'm sure there is a lot more complexity to it, but that seems to be the fundamentals. It is sort of a modified version of the blitzkrieg tactic, the difference being that the Soviet tactic involves a fast advancing front of tanks and infantry. The German's basically let their tanks go ahead more or less on their own while the bulk of the infantry came up behind them on foot instead of in fast moving IFV or APCs. Well, I mean the German's had motorized infantry, but I don't think they used them on the kind of scale the Soviets did later in the war, that would afterwards form the basis for their military doctrine. throughout the Cold War.
@Magni56 Soviet troops were trained to follow orders and fight and NATO troops were trained to do something useful while following orders. Of course there are nuances in those views, but I think that is the basic difference.
@Magni56 It is impossible to say was Soviet doctrine worse. Never assume your foe to be stupid.
Also, in the 1990s, the US simulated this doctrine in OPFOR training and it was pretty effective when done properly.
could you try using these tactics (or at least some version of them) in a 1v1 multiplayer game?
You can TRY, but this absolutely will not win. A gunship rush, meta Maglans or meta superheavies would massacre this.
Imagine the attack in this vid run into 2 M1A2 in the middle of the map, who will keep reversing ahead of the attack and take out 2 tanks per volley. the entire attack would be demolished in 2 minutes.
Please keep in mind that in MP a soviet player doesn't have an overwhelming numerical advantage.
Good simulation but just stressed that time is between the units of the NATO vs. Warsaw Pact and the USSR if it is 1978 or 1982 or if it is 1985 or 1989 the years greatly increase the difference and explain what doctrine is used in combat
The battalion composition is not exactly accurate.
www.mediafire.com/folder/d9by7qqbtaakd/WPACT_structure_and_air_defense
So... This actually works in game also...
Did you ever manage to try the tactics versus each other?
How did you keep your tanks relatively straight during the advance? Were you microing each unit?
Yeah, I would pause and micro everything then unpause it.
Hey, you still around?
Too bad wargame players would call this "spam"
Oh guys, you living in Eu. US.Eng - nothing know about our (Russian) tactics, even dat old variation(USSR 43 - 69 variant:) that make me rly smile:) Propoganda made its work and your western spies are not (mean cold war period) :D good jobe, nice video, but this not even close to REAL old soviet tactic :D helo from mother Russia and have a good day.
...Did somebody say my name?
In real life, each M1 Abrams crew would have eaten ten T-72s for breakfast before losing their own tank. Ask Saddam Hussein and you will understand what I am talking about. Oh wait, he is dead. Well, ask Wayne Martin instead.
Well you also have to factor in that the export versions of the T-72 differed from their Russian counterparts, not to mention how they compare to the modernized T-72 with explosive reactive armour and more modern targeting systems. That said I suspect the M1 would still come out on top, but it might not be the slaughter that we saw during the Gulf War engagements. I'm not that familiar with the Iraqi variants though, from what I've seen they were just the bog standard T-72 for the most part.
But what do I know, I'm just some guy who likes reading about tanks.
Umm...now I read that T-72A was not the same as the initial Ural version. My bad. Sorry. Ural had nothing but thin steel armor while at least the non-export version of T-72A had some form of composite armor (nicknamed Dolly Parton by US intelligence). Therefore, maybe this would have come reality only with the "Ural" version: rolling my memory back some decades, I remember how, when playing Team Yankee and M1 Tank Platoon with Amiga-500, I used to laugh my butt off with quite a number of bonfires that used to be T-72 just a few minutes ago while all my four Abrams tanks were still fully serviceable.
M1 would probably still pwn them though.
And before any Russians complain about bias I'm Canadian so if I'm going to have a bias towards any tank it'll be the Leo 2a6 and 2a4.
I too think M1 is better than T-72. It is all Russians own fault for the fact their tank planners always thought all other priorities are more important than crew survival (such as rapid advance in case war occurred so their tanks had to be small and light compared to NATO tanks....and to spare money, they did not put similar composite armor on many tanks that T-64 has). Apparently, Russians have had enough of the fact people are always laughing in Yahoo at the "bonfires" that are almost always their tanks (the only exception I have seen is that Saudi export version of M1 that was set ablaze by ATGM). They realize that in the age of social media (that counters much of how official medias mislead us), it is a major propaganda setback and a setback to the confidence of their own soldiers and allies/proxies if it is always their tanks that are burning wrecks: I have heard T-14 Armata would not be so easy to destroy at least due to active defenses. Even T-90 already has kinda similar composite armor than T-64. I think I saw a TOW slam on the side of T-90 and the only visible damage to the T-90 was that one crewmember freaked out so much he bolted out of the whole vehicle. (Poor fellow....he probably was the target of ridicule by his friends a long time after that).
Well, it really depends. M1 is not M1A1(HA), or even M1A1. You wouldn't see A1's in Europe until late 80's. The original M1, while having superior targeting equipment to T-72, would struggle, having next to no armor (at least compared to WP darts at the time). On the southern part of the frontline, they would be encountering mainly Czechoslovak T-72M and T-72M1 (better armoured) and Soviet A (identical to M1, A might be slightly better in armour compartment depending on variant), rarely a B. T-72M and T-72M1 has a chance of penetrating the M1. T-72A could turn the M1 inside out, since it was issued a lot better ammunition. Encounter with T-72B would be disasterous, as it was armoured enough to stop M774. Turret could take even M833, or the 120mm M829.
Now on the northern line... T-80B with equal targeting to M1. Enough said. While having armour of T-72A, it had that nice ballistic computer and high-performance ammunition. By the time NATO started rolling out Leopard 2A4 and M1A1, well, there'd be T-80U waiting.
if your ever looking to do a game giving examples of tactics, pm me or add me on steam Vicente asaro.