View Full Version : Initial deployment.
Comrades, here I post a uni file and a picture about one possible deployment. I have some wilder ideas as well but let's make it simple first.
We have several types of units. As I posted in many of my previous posts I would assign the BMP regiments to line-holding tasks. The Soviet regiment would be in the center bolstered with 3 SP-ATGM companies. In the east the East Germans would hold the line in the hills they would get an extra SPATGM company as well.
The Hungarians would hold the western flank. The BTR regiment and the Tank regiment would be our fist, they would be deployed in the center. that way the two offensive regiment can go anywhere there seems to be a good possibility to strike.
The line is built up as you indicated in a previous post. Engineers help bolstering defences.
I would make a bait of the Hungarians in the west. If NATO decides to attack on the western flank we withdraw the Hungarians and counter-attack with BTR/Tank regiments.
We can also fake somehow that we are preparing to flank in the Hilly-forested area in the east. It seems obvious they may believe it :devious:. Of course we would never commit there anything serious. :)
That would be in short, if the recon plan will be accepted put those two deployments in one.
Please post you opinions!
I have more alternatives as well :whist: ...
Artur.
EDIT:
Look for details at the end of the thread!
Gun_go_Boom
10 Dec 05, 16:52
Unless I am mistaken, aren't BMP's typically more suited to being offensive vehicles than the BTR's? If so, perhaps the Soviet BMP regiment should swap places with the BTR regiment to support the Tank Regiment.
Just my thoughts. I have been known to be wrong every now and again (just don't tell anyone, k? :) )
Unless I am mistaken, aren't BMP's typically more suited to being offensive vehicles than the BTR's? If so, perhaps the Soviet BMP regiment should swap places with the BTR regiment to support the Tank Regiment.
Just my thoughts. I have been known to be wrong every now and again (just don't tell anyone, k? :) )
It's good to hear different opinions. Let the rest hear their opinion as well.
Artur.
I would vote for a force consisted of 2 BTR battalions and 1 BMP battalion. That way BMPs could give some support with their guns if needed and protect flanks with ATGMs. The extra BTR battalion could be left as a mobile reserve.
Nice overall plan with good deployment.
How are the numbers of Tanks vs BTR in our Shock Army? If the ratio is too low I would second the idea to send in BMPs as Azog said.
Nice overall plan with good deployment.
How are the numbers of Tanks vs BTR in our Shock Army? If the ratio is too low I would second the idea to send in BMPs as Azog said.
Our shock units are: 3 BTR battalions 4 tank battalions. LOTs of Tanks.
Artur.
Set up seems quite good to me.
An idea for the fake which some one dropped earlier: swap a company of Russian mechinf with Hungarians and send those forward. This should give NATO a reversed picture of our deployment and if they decide to attack the weaker Hungarians they would instead end up attacking the whole Russian division.
Vesku
Ok. It looks like there is a debate about the BMP is a defensive or an offensive unit.
I would like input from more players whu have not reflected, especially our veterans like Pannonicus, Wulfir, Itimofey about that.
I have a personal opinion on this but will tell later.
Is there any other isdea about placing the units? Like placing the Soviets on the side or put tanks in the first line or whatever...
Artur.
I've tried my BMPs in different roles and they do work better in defence and are as useless as BTRs in advance.
Vesku
Ok. It looks like there is a debate about the BMP is a defensive or an offensive unit.
I've started a PBEM against a player from the Blitz. My force is a reinforced BMP Bn. 20 turns. I intend to use the Bn in an offensive manner, we'll see how it goes. My opponent will probably be better equipped than the enemy of this campaign..., but train hard, fight easy eh... :cheeky:
The BMP1 is definately no more offensive unit in 1984. The main gun that made it so until the late 70s is obsolete against the modern NATO tanks, and the ATGM is useless if advancing. Definately a defense weapon, because then we can hit them with everything we have and at least get 'firepower on target' kills.
The BMP2 can be used offensively against the Canadians, as they have only the M113. These cannot harm the BMP as marders and Bradleys can, and are easily destroyed by the 30mm cannon. Though that only counts as long as enemy (AT) INfantry is not dismounted in numbers, then the BMP2 is useless as well.
Conclusion: For the purpose of this scenario the BMP is a defensive weapon, as in offense it is just as vulnerable as the BTR and slower.
@Artur, on a 3:4 ratio I don't think we need the BMPs for additionaly firepower. I second the deployment with BTRs as you presented it.
These points are very true, BMPs have no place advacing in the front. But I was thinking leaving a few of them on flanks and rear for two purposes. First, to defend the flanks and artillery & ada units in the case of some fast Nato units could slip in to the rear of our main force.
And another purpose would finishing off damaged and harmless units after the main force has rushed with force and speed. That way we could make sure that more of their units gots killed, and do not return repaired/refilled later. BMP platoons could do this, so that tanks and BTRs wouldn't have to slow down.
The whole battalion of BMPs would be too much after all, but maybe just a company or two at most could be used for those two purposes perhaps ?
Pannonicus
14 Dec 05, 08:43
I would recommend to use BMPs as a defensive weapon. ATGM gives it a punch, while on the move they are not really more than a cannon/gun-equipped BTR. Yes, they have better mobility, but not really much - and Central European terrain is not that hostile to movement anyway.
I would recommend to use BMPs as a defensive weapon. ATGM gives it a punch, while on the move they are not really more than a cannon/gun-equipped BTR. Yes, they have better mobility, but not really much - and Central European terrain is not that hostile to movement anyway.
That's exactly my opinon as well.
Artur.
On the other hand we could use the BMP's for protecting flanks etc, but for that reason we can use our T64Bs in the Tank Regiment, they have rockets and they have thicker skin too.
Good idea mentioning the protection of the flanks. The problem what I see with it that we cannot gain that much in using the BMPs in attack than loosing AT capability in defense.
Artur.
Here I post a detailed layout what we can try to achieve after 2 operational turns. The initial deployment would be very same juts look at rows 5,6,7 and take them back to rows 1,2,3.
The main idea behind this deployment is the same as in the 1st post.
I included everything I posted previously:
-the main layout posted above
-the use of engineers
-the recon concept
-the ADA concept posted today
-the line composition we discussed erlier.
It is all here in one.
In order to do this I had to make some changes to the OOBs (only reorganizing which I post in the OOB forum.)
http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36230
Please review. If we accept this we more or less have an operational plan. however we still have to work out some cases depending on NATO actions.
One thing is not solved yet, we have a lot of ADA and artillery batteries but have no security with them. How should we do that?
Artur.
Hmm quite logical on the first look, though we still have to keep in mind that the enemy won't play by our rules or that we get Recon info that allows better deployment.
Hmm quite logical on the first look, though we still have to keep in mind that the enemy won't play by our rules or that we get Recon info that allows better deployment.
Absolutely :) . But it's good to know at least what we want isn't it? :devious:
If this layout allows us the flexibility to adapt to most of the situation that may be good enough. That is why I positioned our shock troops in the center.
Artur.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.