View Full Version : Warszawa Pact Doctrine
I need a little help with WP doctrine.
Now, the Mot Rifle Div's and Mot Rifle Reg's I know a little about, but I have some problems with the Tank Reg's in a Tank Div.
According to my info, a Tk Reg in a Tk Div consists of three Tk Btn's and one MR Btn (+ some other stuff:) ).
Do any of you people know how this MR Btn in a Tk Reg was/is intended used?
Is its three companies divided out between the three Tk Btn's
or is it supposed to operate independent
or is tanks from one of the Tk Btn's atached to it, so that it can operate like a regular MR Btn (in a MR Reg)?
From my own experiences in British Army exercises in Canada, the tanks always had mech inf attached to them when in actual combat. To clear away those pesky dug-in infantry, so my guess is company level attached to each Bn. Makes sense ? Doesn't it ?
Well, that is my guess to, because in a MR Reg, the Tk Btn is spread out to the three MR Btn's.
So I guess it makes sence that something along those lines will happen in a Tk Rg too...
BUT: a Tk Reg in a MR Div should not have inf attached, so I'm not so sure anyway... :confused:
Maybe the same thing applies, each TK Regt has an MR Bn attached...and so on...
A Tk Reg in a Tk Div has a MR btn
A Tk Reg in a MR Div has not
Panzerpelle
04 Dec 02, 08:07
See the link to Andy Johnsson excellent article:
http://orbat.com/site/data/historical/nato/oob1989.html
I know about that site, but I'm not interrested in OOB cause I'v already got that... :)
I'm looking to find out how I should deploy my OOB...
Major Banned
04 Dec 02, 08:33
Originally posted by Red
I know about that site, but I'm not interrested in OOB cause I'v already got that... :)
I'm looking to find out how I should deploy my OOB...
The MR Btn was intended to counter any enemy AT units and clean up any stragglers that could impede the forward progress of the main armor.
In a typical breakthrough, they would travel either interspersed or directly behind the main armor (kind of backwards, since you would want to take out the anti-tank fire first). But the Warsaw Pact counted on strength in numbers to overwhelm the opponent. If you lost 25 tanks before you took out the pesky Milan teams, oh well, you could always throw in 25 more.
Hope this helps somewhat.
Okei, thank you. I have a follow up question:
In TOAW terms at a Btn level scenario, what would be the right ting to do
1. Have them interspersed ie. one cpn to eatch Tk Btn
2. A separate MR Btn, kinda weak since it lacks tanks...
Panzerpelle
04 Dec 02, 17:05
Originally posted by Panzerpelle
See the link to Andy Johnsson excellent article:
http://orbat.com/site/data/historical/nato/oob1989.html
Sorry wrong link...andy has done one of the WP also..seems not to be working on the orbat site...
Originally posted by Panzerpelle
Sorry wrong link...andy has done one of the WP also..seems not to be working on the orbat site...
That site (one of my favorites) seems to be encountering big problems at the moment. I've sent the webmaster an email.
Major Banned
04 Dec 02, 21:23
Originally posted by Red
Okei, thank you. I have a follow up question:
In TOAW terms at a Btn level scenario, what would be the right ting to do
1. Have them interspersed ie. one cpn to eatch Tk Btn
2. A separate MR Btn, kinda weak since it lacks tanks...
Dependant on the scale of the scenario. If you intend on using division strength units, then I would add them into the unit. If smaller size units, then I would make the Motor Rifle Units a seperate entity. That would give the Soviet player (or any other country that utilizes Red Army doctrine) the flexablity to utilize them as they see fit (which would be a direct violation of Soviet Military Doctrine).
If you are working on a Btn scale scenario, then you would definetely want to make the Motor Rifle units seperate, but you would also want to be sure that the supply radius to the HQ is short, as the Soviet command structure had a tendency to keep subordinate units on a short leash (wouldn't want any free-thinking or ad-libbing occuring).
What would also be helpful and realistic in the scale you are talking about, would be the KGB units. No Soviet unit would be complete without it's political support battalion. Those fellows made sure that the Big Red Machine always kept moving forward, any form of retreat or deviation from the pre-destined axis of attack was not a consideration.
Originally posted by Major Catastrophe
..., but you would also want to be sure that the supply radius to the HQ is short, ...
Eh, am I missing something here :confused:
I tought HQ automaticaly only supplied units next to them. Is it possibel to further force players to keep subordinate units "on a leash" ?
Originally posted by Major Catastrophe
If you are working on a Btn scale scenario, then you would definetely want to make the Motor Rifle units seperate, ...
But would this be "right" according to doctrine? To my knowledge MR units seldom operate without Tk support if the terrain allowes Tk's. And wouldnt it give to mutch operational freedom?
In a MRR the Tk Btn is split among the three MR Btn's. IMHO there is no question about that.
Wouldnt a separate MR Btn in a TkR be ahistorical, or atleast give the WP player to mutch freedom? And if I do not split the MR Btn, I will often see two out of three Tk Btn's operating without inf support.
Yes I'm nitpicking, but I'm interested in discussing WP doctrine with someone that knows about it. Please do not take my questions the wrong way... :nervous:
Btw, I'm talking about TkR to a TkDiv. AFAIK TkR to a MRDiv does not have this MR Btn.
Major Banned
05 Dec 02, 11:48
Originally posted by Red
But would this be "right" according to doctrine? To my knowledge MR units seldom operate without Tk support if the terrain allowes Tk's. And wouldnt it give to mutch operational freedom?
In a MRR the Tk Btn is split among the three MR Btn's. IMHO there is no question about that.
Wouldnt a separate MR Btn in a TkR be ahistorical, or atleast give the WP player to mutch freedom? And if I do not split the MR Btn, I will often see two out of three Tk Btn's operating without inf support.
Yes I'm nitpicking, but I'm interested in discussing WP doctrine with someone that knows about it. Please do not take my questions the wrong way... :nervous:
Btw, I'm talking about TkR to a TkDiv. AFAIK TkR to a MRDiv does not have this MR Btn.
No problem, keep the questions coming. It's good to discuss Soviet doctrine with someone who seems to be interested.
The first question (and I'll have to admit that I have no idea of how you do it), is the supply radius. You are accurate in saying that a HQ provides maximum supply to units directly adjacent and as they move away the supply rate is lowered. You would want to make that range reletively short for Soviet units to force the Soviet player to keep the HQ unit close to the subordinate units to maintain supply levels. Also I think that would better simulate the fact that all Command and Control radiates from the HQ unit (the concept of deviation from the plan was nonexistent in the Red Army manual). There maybe a better way to simulate it, I'm not a designer, but too many of the NATO/Warsaw Pact scenarios tend to model it based on the NATO doctrine (where deviation was sometimes encouraged).
The second question (and I may have misunderstood the question) the Motor Rifle unit in a Tank division was support for the armor. If they kept up, fine, if not usually it was assumed that the KGB detachment would find the commander and explain the alternatives (bullet behind the right or left ear). The main thing to remember about Soviet Doctrine was that a Division was basically a fist. That fist was to be used until it no longer existed and the next fist replaced it along the advance axis (repeat until objective is reached). So I guess the answer would be you could do it either way, depending on how you handle the control issue. My personal preference would be to make it a seperate entity under tight HQ control (by supply?) to simulate it's true function as a support element in a tank division and allow it to take on any AT or mechanized infantry that has been bypassed and leaving the armored units to function as they were designed. You would have the issue of armor without infantry support, but the Soviet command structure had no reservations about that, since the only option was to move forward.
Another issue that hasn't been addressed is divisional or army level artillery. Where TOAW uses artillery in support of all attacks that are in the cooperative area, Soviet doctrine mandated that artillery assets, after the initial thrust, only be utilized in support of units that were gaining the most ground (kind of backwards since you could use artillery to supress an enemy that was holding up an advance). Another backwards issue was that all supply was only to be given to units that were maintaining the operational goals ("Sorry Comrade, you cannot have more ammunition until you advance another 10 kilometers"). This concept also went into replacements, once a unit was used up, if they had maintained the operational goals, they would get refitted first, so they could be thrown back into the fight.
Some ideas to replicate soviet doctrine:
- Build each division around 3 regiments of the main arm plus a recon Bn reinforced with a company of the main arm and an Artillery Battery (a forward detachment). The regiments should incorporate all the assets of the division, excluding supporting services which may be included in a HQ -Bridging Bn, SAM Bns, transportation Bn- (I prefer to have few HQs and usually consolidate at Corps/Army level). A regiment therefore will have 4 Bns (in our case 3 tank and one MR, and SP Arty Bn, SHORAD Bty and an Engineer Co.). Add too a helicopter Sqn of 10-12 Mi-24s Hinds and 10-12 Mi-8s Hips.
- Reconstitution and replacements: Built the units with low replacement priorities. The idea is to reinforce success. Broken units are left to fend for themselves and are rebuilt by recombining rather than refilling.
- Remember that the idea is to attack in waves. Define the Fronts, give the units the same color (to allow cooperation within the front) and put enough to create mass. Remember to add also Air units which were subordinated to the front (IIRC Usually an Air Division of 1 fighter and 2 F-B regiments). Remeber that SAMs and Air Defence installations usually were not subordinated to the front, so you have 2 organisations, an offensive one (the Front) and a defensive one (Air Defence Command, PVO,...)
- Supply radius can be set in the event editor
Or alternatively just pile 'em all up together and wade in..
Major Banned
05 Dec 02, 21:41
Originally posted by JMS
Some ideas to replicate soviet doctrine:
- Build each division around 3 regiments of the main arm plus a recon Bn reinforced with a company of the main arm and an Artillery Battery (a forward detachment). The regiments should incorporate all the assets of the division, excluding supporting services which may be included in a HQ -Bridging Bn, SAM Bns, transportation Bn- (I prefer to have few HQs and usually consolidate at Corps/Army level). A regiment therefore will have 4 Bns (in our case 3 tank and one MR, and SP Arty Bn, SHORAD Bty and an Engineer Co.). Add too a helicopter Sqn of 10-12 Mi-24s Hinds and 10-12 Mi-8s Hips.
- Reconstitution and replacements: Built the units with low replacement priorities. The idea is to reinforce success. Broken units are left to fend for themselves and are rebuilt by recombining rather than refilling.
- Remember that the idea is to attack in waves. Define the Fronts, give the units the same color (to allow cooperation within the front) and put enough to create mass. Remember to add also Air units which were subordinated to the front (IIRC Usually an Air Division of 1 fighter and 2 F-B regiments). Remeber that SAMs and Air Defence installations usually were not subordinated to the front, so you have 2 organisations, an offensive one (the Front) and a defensive one (Air Defence Command, PVO,...)
- Supply radius can be set in the event editor
In the late 70's, early 80's time frame, the Soviet Air Force over the European Central Region was defined as Northern, Central, and Southern (catchy names, eh?) Fronts. The Northern encompassed the area from the Baltic to the Low Countries. Central encompassed West Germany in the areas of suspected heavy British/American forces, and Southern encompassed from the Mediterrian into Austria and southern most Germany. The Scandinavian countries (except Denmark) were to be handled exclusively by the Soviet Navy and Marines. Denmark was to be occupied by Soviet Marines supported by main Category 1 divisions on their merry way to the North German Plain.
I'll have to go back through my resources, but it seems to me that the only units that actually contained an organic bridging unit, were the Category 1 divisions. The thought was that the Category 2 units that were brought on-line and railed into East Germany, bridging equipment would not be necessary.
Originally posted by JMS
Some ideas to replicate soviet doctrine:
- Build each division around 3 regiments of the main arm plus a recon Bn reinforced with a company of the main arm and an Artillery Battery (a forward detachment). The regiments should incorporate all the assets of the division, excluding supporting services which may be included in a HQ -Bridging Bn, SAM Bns, transportation Bn- (I prefer to have few HQs and usually consolidate at Corps/Army level). A regiment therefore will have 4 Bns (in our case 3 tank and one MR, and SP Arty Bn, SHORAD Bty and an Engineer Co.). Add too a helicopter Sqn of 10-12 Mi-24s Hinds and 10-12 Mi-8s Hips.
Not a good solution when my scenario is on the Btn Level... :)
- Supply radius can be set in the event editor
AFAIK this suply radius just determines how far 100% supply is maintained from an rail-line or suply node. It doesent affect suply in any other way, or... :confused:
Would a new "formation setting" help to imply WP doctrine?
HQ radius: the maximun distance in hexes a subordinate unit can be from its HQ
Maybe someting to think about in the ongoing discussion with Take2? ;)
There seems to be a bit confusion about the WP OOB. Here is my take one it:
Tank Division
------------3 x Tank Regiment
----------------------- 3 x Tank Bn
----------------------- 1 x Motor Rifle Bn (This is the unit I'm nagging about :) )
------------1 x Motor Rifle Regiment
----------------------- 3 x Motor Rifle Bn
----------------------- 1 x Tank Bn
Motor Rifle Division
------------3 x Motor Rifle Regiment
----------------------- 3 x Motor Rifle Bn
----------------------- 1 x Tk Bn
------------1 x Tank Regiment
----------------------- 3 x Tank Bn
Some sources also suggests that the TkR to a MRD should have a MRB, I'm not sure but I dont think it should be there.
Ok, I did a little checking:
Tank Regiment (TD or MRD):
* 3 tank Bns (HQ: 1 tank)
** 3 tank companies (10 tanks each)
* MR Bn
* Recon Company
* Air Defence Co. (4 ZSU, 4 SA-9)
* Arty Bn (18 2S1)
* Engineer Co.
MR Regiment (TD or MRD)
* 3 MR Bns
** 3 MR Cos. (10 IFVs or APCs)
** Mortar Co. (6 120mm)
* Tank Bn (40 tanks in 3 cos of 13+HQ)
* Recon Co.
* Air Defence Co.
* Arty Bn (18 2S1)
* Anti-tank Co. (9 BRDMs with AT-3 or 5)
* Engineer Co.
Some MRD had an independent Tank Bn of 40 tanks (presumably, those of Cat. A)
Unfortunately, the 3 sources I consulted do not agree completely. This are:
"Modern Land Combat", Portland House, 1987- The tank regiment only has 1 MR Co. (I think this is wrong)
"Warsaw Pact Ground Forces", Osprey, 1987 - Puts a chemical defence co. in the MRR
"Changing Orders", Facts on File.Inc., 1994 - no engineer co.
Regarding doctrine:
Attacker to defender ratios should be at least:
5-1 infantry
4-1 tanks
7-1 artillery
In the assault the regiment is deployed with 2 Bns abreast and one back as second echelon. Normally each company will have a platoon attached of the supporting Bn (tank in MRR, MR in TR). The lead Bns will also have attached an AD platoon, and SP Arty Bty of 6 howitzers (2S1) and a AT platoon, if it is an MRR. Usually, this kind of deliberate attack will be done by MRRs as the tank was primarily for exploitation of breakthroughs.
Hope this helps.
Originally posted by JMS
Ok, I did a little checking:
Tank Regiment (TD or MRD):
* 3 tank Bns (HQ: 1 tank)
** 3 tank companies (10 tanks each)
* MR Bn
* Recon Company
* Air Defence Co. (4 ZSU, 4 SA-9)
* Arty Bn (18 2S1)
* Engineer Co.
Are you sure about the MRB to a TkR in a MRD?
MR Regiment (TD or MRD)
* 3 MR Bns
** 3 MR Cos. (10 IFVs or APCs)
** Mortar Co. (6 120mm)
* Tank Bn (40 tanks in 3 cos of 13+HQ)
* Recon Co.
* Air Defence Co.
* Arty Bn (18 2S1)
* Anti-tank Co. (9 BRDMs with AT-3 or 5)
* Engineer Co.
Some MRD had an independent Tank Bn of 40 tanks (presumably, those of Cat. A)
Agreed
Regarding doctrine:
Attacker to defender ratios should be at least:
5-1 infantry
4-1 tanks
7-1 artillery
In the assault the regiment is deployed with 2 Bns abreast and one back as second echelon. Normally each company will have a platoon attached of the supporting Bn (tank in MRR, MR in TR). The lead Bns will also have attached an AD platoon, and SP Arty Bty of 6 howitzers (2S1) and a AT platoon, if it is an MRR. Usually, this kind of deliberate attack will be done by MRRs as the tank was primarily for exploitation of breakthroughs.
Hope this helps.
I strongly disagree with your last sentence about tank deployment in a MRR. The TkB in a MRR would deploy AFAIK alongside the MRB's on the ratio 1 Tk and 3 AFV's. Expl. of breakthroughs was taken care of by the independent TkB (if present) and/or the TkR
Obviousley I could be wrong... :)
That's what I was triying to say. Each regiment would be a self-contained unit, with the MRRs as the assault/defence force and the TRs as the exploitation/counterattack force.
Read my post again. You and I are NOT saying the same thing...:cool:
Please notice when I'm speaking of Div's, Reg's and Btn's. :)
Edit: Oops, maybe we were saying the same anyway if you by tank in "attack will be done by MRRs as the tank was primarily for exploitation of breakthroughs" were talking about indep. tk bn's or TkR's...
My wrong... :o
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.