Comparation of WP and NATO forces

[Artur]

Here is a comparation analysys of the WP and NATO forces to serve as an input to the operational planning.

First there is a comparation in the different force elements than an over-all conclusion.

Infantry
--------

WP: 33 inf companies (+11 weapon support companies) , 330 inf squads(without weapon supp companies), cca 2400 men(without weapon supp companies) 7,27man/squad(normal inf squads). 120XBMP2, 150XBMP1, 160XBTR = 430 vechicles. 270 IFV with ATGM, 160 APC

NATO: 26 inf companies 300 inf squads(without aux wepon sections), cca 2400 men(without aux wepon sections), 8 man/squad(normal inf squads). 20XFuchs, 72XMarder+, 24XMarder, 256XM113, 52XBradleys = 424 vechicles. 134 IFV with ATGM(52 with TI), 24 IFV 276 APC

Strengths:
-Advantage in number of IFVs.
-Number of men in a squad is more ballanced. 7-8 men againast nato 6-10 men. 6 men squads can be lost easily.

Weaknesses:
-Less accurate ATGMs
-Bradleys with TI
-Experience.

Remarks:
NATO has two very differnt kind of infantry companies.
-Against M113 companies long range combat is advised because our numerical IFV superiority and because the NATO M113 in company squads consist of 9 or 10 men while our squads have 7 men.
-Against Marder and especially Bradley companies close combat is advised because we have less acccurate ATGMs and Bradleys have TI capability. The Bradley and Marder squads have 6 men while our squads have 7 men.
-We have mostly BMP companies they are good at defense.It there is no armor threat BMPs can be used as offensive weapon. Our BTR companies can be effective following and supporting armor.

Result:
More or less equal. NATO accurate ATGMs and TI capability make up for WP IFV numerical superiority.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Armor
-----

WP: 23 armor companies. 30XT80, 60XT72, 70XT64B, 40XT64A, 30XT55 = cca 230 tanks (100 with ATGMs)

NATO: 11 armor companies. 30XAbrams, 34XM60TTS, 20XLeo2, 70XLeo1 = cca 155 tanks (64 with TI)

Strengths
-Numerical advantage
-Almost all have adequate punch at short range (125mm guns) which is effective against all NATO tanks.
-ATGMs?

Weaknesses
-TI(decisive)
-Better targeting
-Experience

Remarks:
-NATO has 85 very good tanks and 70 weaker tanks.
-Against the good tanks close combat&swarming is advised, against Leo1s long range combat is more effective.
(-NATO tanks are worth 43000 points while WP tanks are worth 35000 points)
-WP tanks have ATGMs but this advantage can very hardly used in SP engine. Relying on them is not advised.

Result:
NATO superiority.TI is the winner.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Artillery
---------

WP: 7 battalions (+6 tubes) 132 tubes. 18X155mm, 108X122mm and 6 SP rocket units. 18 mortars.

NATO: 3 battalions 60 tubes 12X200mm and 48X155mm. 44 mortars.

Strengths:
-Numerical advantage
-The BM21s

Weaknesses:
-Tube calibre
-Mortars

Remarks:
-NATO makes up a bit with tube calibres. NATO has advantage regarding mortars.
-We have heavy numerical superiority.

Result: WP superiority. Numbers count more when suppressing.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AntiArmor
---------

WP: 5 companies 45XBRDM/AT = 45 vechicles.

NATO 6,5 companies, 25XJaguars, 24XM901, 24XM150 = 73 vechicles. (48 TI capable)

Strengths.
-none

Weaknesses
-TI again
-numerical inferiority
-less accurate ATGMs
-exerience

Result: NATO superiority. No comment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Engineers
---------

WP: cca 3 Battalions 30 eng squads, 18 bulldozers, 20 engineer tanks 65 engineer units

NATO: cca 3 Battalions 38 eng squads 8 bulldozers 6 engineer tanks. 52 engineer units.

Strengths:
-Slight numerical superiority.
-Many engineer vechicles good for scanning for mines fast
-NATO will have a hard time using the engineers offensively.

Weaknesses:
-Vechicles are easily destroyed.
-NATO has infantry engineer superiority and they survive better.

Remarks:
NATO is better using the engineers defensively WP is better using them offensively though WP force is vulnerable to TI and anti-armor equipment.

Result: More or less equal. Need to clarify some engineering rules like can bulldozer units plant mines in OP turns.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recon
-----

WP: 9 companies: 45Xscouts, 15XSAM, 32Xinf-AT, 12Xinf squad, 96APC 12IFV = 104 squads 108 vechicles

NATO: 4 companies: 36 scouts 6 support 18 IFV(TI) 41 APC = 42 squads, 59 vechicles.

Srengths:
-Heavy numerical superiority both inf and vechicles.
-Better infantry quality

Weakneses.
-TI
-Better IFVs and APCs

Result: WP superiority. Force is bigger and fits more to observe and not fight task.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Helicopters
-----------

WP: 24XMi24 = 24 helicopters

NATO: 13Xcobra 9XPAH = 22 helicopters

Strengths.
-Can carry infantry
-PAHs are fragile

Weakneses:
-Much less accurate ATGMs

Result: NATO superiority. ATGMs are very much more effective.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air force
---------

12XMig23 6XSU17 = 16 planes (32 PGM loads/OP turn)
8XA-10 = 8 planes = (32 PGM loads/OP turn)

Strengths
-Numerical superiority

Weakneses
-A-10 are hard to destroy
-Less cluster bombs

Remarks. A-10 cluster-bomb attacks should be always taken into account.

Result: More or less equal. Standoff attacks(number of PGM rounds/turn) count as here we do not risk the planes.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Air defense
-----------

WP: 25XZSU23,2XZSU57, 8XSA9, 8XSA6, 3XSA4 = 27SPAA 21XSP-SAM
95 X inf-SAM

NATO: 8XVulcan, 8XChapparal, 4XHAWK, 8XRoland 6XGepard = 14XSPAA, 16XSP-SAM, 4XSAM
43X inf SAM

Strengths:
-Numerical superiority in SPAA (good against helos)
-Numerical superiority in inf SAM

Weaknesses.
-Very much more accurate NATO SAMs

Result: More or less equal. (Or NATO advantage need input from the Air comrades)




"Radar like" units
------------------

WP: none :(

NATO 4XOH-58

Remarks: Those helos can spot awfully lot, almost every moving or shooting vechicle.


Result: NATO superiority.No comment.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONCLUSION

Warsaw Pact
-----------

Warsaw pact is a rather homogenous army with advantage in numbers regarding tanks, IFVs, recon units, artillery, inf-SAMs and planes.
It has over-all advantage in artillery, and recon. It also has a lot of units with ATGM, but those ATGMs are much less accurate than NATO ATGMS. Unfortunately the SP engine makes it very hard to use the vechicles with ATGM.

NATO
----
NATO is a quite heterogenous army regarding Armor and Infantry vechicle quality. It has a tremendous advantage if the TI capability.
It has Over-all advantage in Armor, Anti-Armor, Helicopters and Air-Defense.It has a higher experience level.


Final conclusion.
-----------------

The WP army is best at fighting the "water" style. Withdraw where attacked, and attack in (very) weak spots. It has a lot of vechicles with ATGM, (but they are quite inaccurate) that is why most of the units are best suited for defense. The recon advantage may help find the weak spots in enemy lines.Operationally it has to be very flexible and avoid head to head combat with American units.It has to use the recon very well, maneuver aggressively and fight battles defensively most of the time. The WP army is much more effective in dense areas, but the parity in infantry forces denies that to be a decisive superiority. It can get advantage in fighting against the Germans as the Germans have no TI capability yet it does not have that huge infantry force like the Canadians.Germans have good Anti-armor and Air defense though.

The NATO army is best at fighting the "fire" style. (It can fight the"water" stile well too) It has the very effective Americans as a fist to strike in different places and crush the enemy in tactical battles, while the canadians and Germans are protecting the flanks and holding the line in general.Since the NATO army is very heterogenous the Canadians can be very effective in dense areas the Germans, and especially the Americans are effective in open terrain areas. TI capabilty has an effect in every aspect of the campaign.
They simply have to maintain a better kill/loss ratio in their battles.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT1: Corrected Engineer and ATGM unit numbers.
EDIT2: Added Inf-SAM numbers

[Artur]

Comrades,

The comparation above hast to be thoroughly discussed. Give your feedback please!

Artur.

[Tanker]

Very impressive analysis Artur. You have been giving this quite a bit of thought.

[wulfir]

I'd like to add one item I think weighs heavily:

Experience of the commanders

Who has the edge in player experience?

A M1 Abrams is a formidable tank, but poorly led can quickly become a dead tank. What kind of opposition can we expect? Do we know anything about the enemy, is there any weakness we can exploit?


An other thing that might need to be discussed is how to make the best of the 20 turns. Spontaneously I would have said that the low number of turns works against us when the enemy has TI units - BUT I'm not really familiar with how the system and setup of the battles will work.

It seems clear though that with less turns there is less chance of attrition of the enemy TI units through artillery fire, random hits, enemy misstakes etc.
Less time for us to manouver our forces - in this respect the TI units can cut corners to a certain degree by covering itself in smoke - crossing a field is a relatively safe manover for the enemy if covered with smoke, we'll have to use the ground for cover...

[Artur]

Interesting and valuable thoughts. Regarding enemy commanders I wish to give the intel department a task to collect and present information on enemy commanders. We have done the same in Red Snow :). See the forum...

You are right about the number of turns, but I cannot say anything but we have to live with it... (I suggest DD to make the op turns 24 turns long.)

Artur.

[Pannonicus]

Very interesting and thoughtful analysis!

Intel will gather some pieces of info on the enemy. For first blick, Shortreengage is the only person over there I would be afraid of. At least on operational level. For tactical, let me check things.

[Artur]

Very interesting and thoughtful analysis!

Intel will gather some pieces of info on the enemy. For first blick, Shortreengage is the only person over there I would be afraid of. At least on operational level. For tactical, let me check things.


Pannonicus, you have a task as an intel officer. Please make a new thread in the intel forum named enemy commanders. You will always edit the first post to hold info about enemy commanders. The ask everyone including me :) to post there what he knows about the enemy commanders. Then you summarize it and keep the list up to date.

Thank you.

Artur.

[mr_clark]

Just a quick note from the 'Air Department',
The ZSU23-4 are also quite dangerous against the A-10s at ranges around half a kilometer. Hit acccuracy is then 60%+, and two hits from the ZSU normally kill an A-10. If we combine that with short range attacks of MANPADS (remmeber of putting maximum firing range down a bit) we have good chances to kill A-10s, with single ZSU and some Strela, which should be 'abundant'.

[Artur]

Just a quick note from the 'Air Department',
The ZSU23-4 are also quite dangerous against the A-10s at ranges around half a kilometer. Hit acccuracy is then 60%+, and two hits from the ZSU normally kill an A-10. If we combine that with short range attacks of MANPADS (remmeber of putting maximum firing range down a bit) we have good chances to kill A-10s, with single ZSU and some Strela, which should be 'abundant'.

Has any of the sides advantage in Air defence as you see it?

Artur.

[Pannonicus]

Pannonicus, you have a task as an intel officer. Please make a new thread in the intel forum named enemy commanders. You will always edit the first post to hold info about enemy commanders. The ask everyone including me :) to post there what he knows about the enemy commanders. Then you summarize it and keep the list up to date.

Thank you.

Artur.

Yep, I know what my task is, dont worry. I just talked about my staff as "the intel." :D

[mr_clark]

Has any of the sides advantage in Air defence as you see it?

Artur.
Hmm, I would say that even though the Stinger is decisively better then the Strela, the numbers still make it.
IMHO the ZSU-23-4 is as good as the Vulcan, and for our Sam vehicles counts the sam as for the Manpads.

All in all I would say we are superior, because we can move more assets on one tactical battle, so we have a higher 'saturation' and thus (in the end) the higher chance to land more then one hit and actually KILL the enemy planes.

And that's the point. Stingers might hit an attacker one time but not often (as they are widespread) campaing rules say planes are ready again the next turn if not destroyed. We can kill enemy planes, with larger numbers of ZSU and Strela, with not so mcuh worse hit chance. Thus no change for the running battle but those to come.

Conlcusion: As with most other things, we are advantaged by our numbers. And the performance of our Air Defence is much better then in earlier versions of SPMBT.