RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Flashpoint Campaigns Series



Message

bayonetbrant -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (1/1/2014 2:33:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MarneTanker
For the record, I was an M1A1 Platoon leader, S3 Staff officer (where I was the liaison with 12Pz Division). I was with 2/63AR in 2Bde, 3ID "Rock of the Marne".


Outstanding! My 8-1/2 years in Germany were spent as a brat, but my 14 years in a tree suit were spent mixed between active/ARNG across 4 states, including being a tank platoon leader, XO, CO CDR / BN rear set cdr, BN S2 and Dpty BDE S2, all in maneuver units. A bunch of that time was in the OPFOR, too



CapnDarwin -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (1/1/2014 3:50:14 PM)

Always great to have a lot of the first hand accounts from those who were there. On both sides too.



DoubleDeuce -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (1/1/2014 4:06:09 PM)

During my time at the Armor School at Knox we primarily taught they had no radio's below the PL but I had on many occasions been confronted by mostly middle eastern officers that they at least had the capability to have them added, along with a corresponding antenna with little to no modification. Keep in mind that these were top level officers leading the transition of their nations from WP to US equipment or upgrading current US equipment. Personally, never saw hard evidence this was the case but it wouldn't surprise me if some front line units weren't equipped or had plans in place to equip them that way. Would be nice if we had some WP peeps on these forums who could chime in with creditable first hand knowledge.



erichswafford -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (1/1/2014 11:56:34 PM)

It always amuses me when guys who were deployed in this time period are always wanting the game to better reflect how "they" would've totally wiped the floor with the enemy.

I can assure you that the Soviets felt equally confident, and I have no doubt that they would've refused to fight by the "rules". The Russians love chess, and they completely fooled a vastly experienced Wehrmacht in the run-up to Bagration. I've never believed that they would "fight stupid" or as expected.

This fantasy of sitting back in your dug-in M1, leisurely plinking T-80's at 2000m with your thermal sights is just that - a training fantasy. Do you really believe they'd have just lined up and allowed themselves to be slaughtered like in your training exercises? That sort of derision for Russia tactical acumen sounds just like the sort of misplaced overconfidence that cost Germany the war.



Akmatov -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (1/2/2014 6:01:17 AM)

Just something I'm noticing about the idea that the Soviets were better than we may think they were.

Military operations involve several different layers and the Soviets at levels above the scale of Red Storm might have been sly, cunning and genius generals; however, in Red Storm we are dealing with engagements at brigade and below. Here we are dealing with issues like quality of equipment and training at the gritty down-to-earth level.

Soviet equipment is something about which one could get into a long discussion, but the basic point is that it was adequate, at least, for the missions for which it was designed.

In my opinion the flaw in the Soviet Army of the 1980's was the quality of training. It was an army made up of semi-willing, short term conscripts, who would fight as ordered, but who were not well trained. I forget how many rounds were expended in Soviet tank gunnery training, but it was shockingly few, especially compared to the NATO armies. I do remember that an infantryman might fire an entire magazine in their version of rifle marksmanship during 'basic training' and maybe five rounds a year afterwards. If the rest of their tactical training was at this level, one can see why during the later years in Afghanistan missions in the field were exclusively conducted by the much better trained spetznatz and paratroops. In comparison, a US tank commander would probably be a Staff Sergeant. He would definitely be in his second enlistment with, at a guess, four to five years experience as a tanker. His Soviet counterpart was a two-year conscript.

My point is that at the platoon/company/battalion/brigade level the tactics would be fairly simple and 'by the rules'. Not only were all the officers, as good Party members, extensively trained to follow 'proscribed norms', but the troops they were leading were incapable of anything complex. Most missions at these levels would have used mass and simple tactics to accomplish their objectives. This would have reflected the techniques and experiences of WW2.

This is not to say that the Soviets did not develop some innovative and interesting operational concepts; however, these relate to levels above the scale of Red Storm.



pzgndr -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (1/2/2014 12:19:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kondor999
It always amuses me when guys who were deployed in this time period are always wanting the game to better reflect how "they" would've totally wiped the floor with the enemy.


Let me assure you that being there 87-90 with M113s, .50 cals and Dragons, that we had no such fantasies. Throw in electronic jamming, chemical weapons and nukes, and it would have been a brutal engagement any way you look at it. For a game, I don't want any fantasy results either. Keep it real and historically accurate. This game is doing well.

By comparison, the game TacOps was/is also very realistic. It was interesting to compare and contrast US tank/infantry Bn TF tactics versus different OPFOR deployments. It was easy enough to wipe the floor against a BTR MRR with battalions in column, but not easy at all against a BMP-2 MRR with battalions on line. Then throw in an option tank battalion in support. And of course toggling thermal sights on/off (ie, whether OPFOR has them or not) and whether thermal smoke is available or not, and things become very different and you as the player need to be flexible in your tactics or else the enemy (OPFOR computer opponent) will wipe the floor with you. If you don't understand IPB, your opponent will provide a block of instruction. As it should be. [;)]



Mad Russian -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (1/2/2014 12:52:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

...and you as the player need to be flexible in your tactics or else the enemy (OPFOR computer opponent) will wipe the floor with you. If you don't understand IPB, your opponent will provide a block of instruction. As it should be. [;)]


Since not everybody on these forums will understand all the acronyms we use, including me sometimes, those that need clarification should be able to find it here.

http://www.fas.org/news/reference/lexicon/aci.htm

Good Hunting.

MR



pzgndr -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (1/2/2014 3:06:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
Since not everybody on these forums will understand all the acronyms we use, including me sometimes, those that need clarification should be able to find it here.


Some things are best left as an exercise for the reader? LOL

Another handy reference is a thesaraus at Center for Army Lessons Learned. When I went through the Infantry Officer Advanced Course at Fort Benning in 1987, AirLand Battle doctrine and Soviet doctrine was beaten into our heads. The old joke is that "military intelligence" is a contridiction in terms, but I gained a lot of respect for how MI and Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield was crucial for success.

A couple of other terms deserve thoughtful consideration by players:

Named Area of Interest (NAI): A point or area along a particular avenue of approach, through which enemy activity is expected to occur. Activity or lack of activity within an NAI will help to confirm or deny a particular course of action.

Target Area of Interest (TAI): The geographical area where high-value targets can be acquired and engaged by friendly forces. Not all target areas of interest will form part of the friendly course of action; only target areas of interest associated with high priority targets are of interest to the staff. These are identified during staff planning and wargaming. Target areas of interest differ from engagement areas in degree. Engagement areas plan for the use of all available weapons; target areas of interest might be engaged by a single weapon.

"Don't use IPB and become meat in a death-sandwich." [:D]







bayonetbrant -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (1/2/2014 6:04:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
Since not everybody on these forums will understand all the acronyms we use, including me sometimes, those that need clarification should be able to find it here.

http://www.fas.org/news/reference/lexicon/aci.htm


also more here:
http://bayonetgames.com/wterms.htm



quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr
A couple of other terms deserve thoughtful consideration by players:

Named Area of Interest (NAI): A point or area along a particular avenue of approach, through which enemy activity is expected to occur. Activity or lack of activity within an NAI will help to confirm or deny a particular course of action.

Target Area of Interest (TAI): The geographical area where high-value targets can be acquired and engaged by friendly forces. Not all target areas of interest will form part of the friendly course of action; only target areas of interest associated with high priority targets are of interest to the staff. These are identified during staff planning and wargaming. Target areas of interest differ from engagement areas in degree. Engagement areas plan for the use of all available weapons; target areas of interest might be engaged by a single weapon.

"Don't use IPB and become meat in a death-sandwich." [:D]



Some info on the process, as we use it running the staff wargames at Origins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyzmTlgl9ls

Note to guys who really know how this works - this is the very simplified version of the process, designed just to give people a sense of initial direction in developing their IPB as a part of our staff wargames at Origins.



CapnDarwin -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (1/2/2014 6:13:49 PM)

Brant, do you still have the book on planning? I was looking for a link to post for those interested in seeing a more detailed version of the staff exercises.



bayonetbrant -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (1/2/2014 7:54:09 PM)

http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Staff-Operations-Planning-Handbook/dp/1934153400/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1388696038&sr=1-5&keywords=MDMP+planning

[image]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41oykq1pA8L._BO1,204,203,200_.jpg[/image]



bayonetbrant -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (1/2/2014 8:03:39 PM)

Here's some more things y'all might find useful:

http://grognews.blogspot.com/2011/11/battle-lab-recon-and-wargaming.html
http://grognews.blogspot.com/2011/11/more-thoughts-on-tactical-intel-and.html

and a bunch of charts / orders / trackers we used to use in the pre-digital world (click the images to enlarge)
http://grognews.blogspot.com/2011/07/platoon-operations-order.html
http://grognews.blogspot.com/2011/06/origins-prep.html
http://grognews.blogspot.com/2011/06/battalion-toc-charts-tactical-sitrep.html
http://grognews.blogspot.com/2011/06/battalion-toc-charts-logistics-sitrep.html
http://grognews.blogspot.com/2011/06/battalion-toc-charts-recon-sitrep.html
http://grognews.blogspot.com/2011/07/battalion-toc-charts-maintenance-sitrep.html
http://grognews.blogspot.com/2011/07/battalion-toc-charts-enemy-sitrep.html
http://grognews.blogspot.com/2011/07/battalion-toc-charts-adjacent-unit.html




Mark Florio -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (1/2/2014 9:39:22 PM)

Hey All: A couple of points to discuss:
1). We had the utmost respect and a little fear of the Soviet War machine. We had no allusions that we were dominant but we were confident that we were better. We also knew that we had to take out a larger force than ours and that our survival was measured in hours if not minutes if the balloon went up.

2). We also had no allusions that we could sit back and plink '80's from afar. that would be insane, especially when they starting hitting you with Arty. Our real strategy was a flexible defense followed by a deep strike into their rear when the 2nd echelon hit. At least that was the 3ID mission that I was privy to at the time.

3). We also know that with the auto-loading system the Soviets employed that they had lots of technical problems leading to the Gunner jumping into loader spot and manual loading, which reduced rate of fire to 2x/minute. Nato was routinely able to put down a round every 10 seconds with a good crew and targets.



Mark Florio -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (1/2/2014 9:45:34 PM)

It always amuses me when guys who were deployed in this time period are always wanting the game to better reflect how "they" would've totally wiped the floor with the enemy.

I can assure you that the Soviets felt equally confident, and I have no doubt that they would've refused to fight by the "rules". The Russians love chess, and they completely fooled a vastly experienced Wehrmacht in the run-up to Bagration. I've never believed that they would "fight stupid" or as expected.

This fantasy of sitting back in your dug-in M1, leisurely plinking T-80's at 2000m with your thermal sights is just that - a training fantasy. Do you really believe they'd have just lined up and allowed themselves to be slaughtered like in your training exercises? That sort of derision for Russia tactical acumen sounds just like the sort of misplaced overconfidence that cost Germany the war.


Kondor, I can assure you that we had no such allusions. Nor are we arguing to increase the NATO specs on this game! This game is really well done and the research is solid. I was just adding some color because I was there. And no, I don't believe that the US Army was invincible. We can talk all night about the history of the eastern front and the mistakes and miscalculations that were made by both sides but I don't think that we have the time! :)



british exil -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (1/2/2014 10:11:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kondor999

It always amuses me when guys who were deployed in this time period are always wanting the game to better reflect how "they" would've totally wiped the floor with the enemy.

I can assure you that the Soviets felt equally confident, and I have no doubt that they would've refused to fight by the "rules". The Russians love chess, and they completely fooled a vastly experienced Wehrmacht in the run-up to Bagration. I've never believed that they would "fight stupid" or as expected.

This fantasy of sitting back in your dug-in M1, leisurely plinking T-80's at 2000m with your thermal sights is just that - a training fantasy. Do you really believe they'd have just lined up and allowed themselves to be slaughtered like in your training exercises? That sort of derision for Russia tactical acumen sounds just like the sort of misplaced overconfidence that cost Germany the war.




My dad served with the British Army till 1985, my mum always said that if the ballon went up, then she would have taken us three children into the cellar and helped us sleep and after taken her own life.
My parents had no illussions that the Soviet machine would have been stopped, held up maybe. It would have been a matter of days till their first tanks would have rolled up on the Dutch beaches.

My mum was really paranoid about the the threat the WP posed. The families were expected to have been flown out of Germany, but there was no way that would have happened. Too many wives and children.

Mat



CapnDarwin -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (1/2/2014 10:57:00 PM)

I'm much happier this is a "what if" and not a historical game. I grew up in the shadow of a major SAC base with B-52s overhead every 10 minutes and waking up most mornings to the sounds of the 52s firing up engines. If the balloon ever went up and it all went pear shaped we lived in the middle of a triangle of first strike targets. Even our glowing ashes would have been vaporized. At least the world is a step or two less crazy these days and we can play a game about something that never happened. Thank God (or deity of you choosing). [sm=party-smiley-012.gif]



erichswafford -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (1/3/2014 12:35:43 AM)

Sorry if my missive was a bit harshly worded, but it really does get tiresome to hear about how much better "we" were than "them". It just sounds exactly like the German tank crews right up until the end.

I think the problem with trying to compare Soviet and NATO tactical systems is that, while we all have an excellent idea of what the NATO crews could do (and they certainly can/could do it extremely well), we haven't the same level of familiarity with Soviet crews. We've got the debacle that was the 1st Chechen War, which, by all accounts, is hardly representative of the crews of the GSFG (if you're not sure what I'm talking about, it now appears that local Russian commanders were "bought off" to substitute - at the last minute - untrained reservists for the experienced units that were supposed to go in. Apparently, some oligarchs wanted to embarrass the Military - but I digress).

The Soviet military machine was never really put to the test, unless you count Afghanistan. Again, drawing conclusions from that conflict is like drawing conclusions about American competency on the North German Plain from their performance in Vietnam (in both cases, the Superpower pretty much won every battle but lost the war).

What we do know is that the Russians planned for the worst. Every piece of equipment was designed to be repairable in the field with little technical knowledge. They've always assumed that, in war, everything will go wrong. The spare parts won't show up, the factories will get bombed, the skilled workers and engineers will be dead, etc. This is clearly not a great way to handle a modern, limited conflict. But in the case of a general conflagration, all of our fancy equipment might have just turned out to be an Achille's Heel.

A primitive tank that runs and shoots is better than a sophisticated one whose turbine is shot and for which no spares are available because the convoy got hit, etc.

It seems like, however, they began to question this judgment by the 80's. By '85, they started putting out increasingly sophisticated designs and were clearly worried about the widening tech gap with the West. I suppose we'll never know for sure how it would've worked out.

I happen to think we would've probably stopped them cold in most places. What I don't know is how long we could've continued to do so as each new echelon was thrown "into the breach", as our equipment started to wear out and break, etc.



Mad Russian -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (1/3/2014 3:13:11 AM)

I'm not so confident we would have stopped them cold. A huge issue is the time frame for the conflict. We have 1989 selected but there was the potential for anytime from 1960 through the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact.

What I am confident of is that NATO would have inflicted tremendous damage to their combat forces initially. But after several days of 24 hour operations at the speed of modern combat not sure how that would have played out. My gut feeling is that it wouldn't have been good for NATO.

quote:


3). We also know that with the auto-loading system the Soviets employed that they had lots of technical problems leading to the Gunner jumping into loader spot and manual loading, which reduced rate of fire to 2x/minute. Nato was routinely able to put down a round every 10 seconds with a good crew and targets.


The NATO tank crews only have an advantage for a short time. After less than an hour of ramming shells into the breech that loader is going to get tired. The auto-loader, when it worked right doesn't get tired. The first generation of auto-loaders were the butt of most of our jokes vs the Soviet equipment. But like most other things, the flaws were quickly worked out of the system. The T-62's had auto-loaders in 1973. By 1989 I would think they had been refined enough to work mostly as advertised. I could be wrong and if anyone can say for sure that they were still unreliable at that late date it would be good information to have.

Good Hunting.

MR



hfarrish -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (1/3/2014 3:31:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kondor

It always amuses me when guys who were deployed in this time period are always wanting the game to better reflect how "they" would've totally wiped the floor with the enemy.

I can assure you that the Soviets felt equally confident, and I have no doubt that they would've refused to fight by the "rules". The Russians love chess, and they completely fooled a vastly experienced Wehrmacht in the run-up to Bagration. I've never believed that they would "fight stupid" or as expected.

This fantasy of sitting back in your dug-in M1, leisurely plinking T-80's at 2000m with your thermal sights is just that - a training fantasy. Do you really believe they'd have just lined up and allowed themselves to be slaughtered like in your training exercises? That sort of derision for Russia tactical acumen sounds just like the sort of misplaced overconfidence that cost Germany the war.



This may be the best post I've seen on the thread. Some recent experience would also possibly encourage humility on our part in terms of our own confidence. No war ever goes according to plan...



76mm -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (1/3/2014 3:46:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kondor999
It always amuses me when guys who were deployed in this time period are always wanting the game to better reflect how "they" would've totally wiped the floor with the enemy.


While it might amuse you, I'd be surprised if you could find many guys deployed in this time/place that held this view; I don't recall seeing many posts to this effect on this forum.

I was a tanker in 1AD and can assure you that no one I knew thought we'd "wipe the floor" with the Sovs. Sure we thought that our weapons were better on a 1-to-1 basis, but that was hardly the whole story.

Also I'd be interested in seeing some sources about your claim that inferior units were deployed to Chechnya because of bribes; I've read a fair bit about Chechnya and don't recall hearing that before.



hfarrish -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (1/3/2014 4:05:24 AM)


I don't know about bribery, but I think it's pretty widely known that it was largely rear echelon units that were sent to fight in Chechnya, particularly early in the First Chechen War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War (see paragraph related to regional conscripts being sent rather than regular Army).



Hexagon -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (1/3/2014 9:55:05 AM)

Sure human loaders suffer in long combats but think that modern combats are shorter than in WWII and tanks ammo loads are smaller, in 2 minutes a NATO tank can use over 25% of his ammo load... and autoloaders... well, they are machines and machines dont win fatige... as a human but machines suffer fatige to in the form of mechanical problems, an autoloader add more chance in a tank to suffer a tech problem and well, in a tank of 3 guys need use the gunner to load 2 shells per minute at same time he do his job... a NATO tank with human loader has less options to blow up than a soviet tank with autoloader i see the advantages in autoloaders but i really think that NATO top dogs (Leo II, M1, Challenger) with human loaders where superior in all aspects but game give to T-80 excesive well performance in a tank never designed to be used with "elite" crews like these NATO tanks.

WP advantage was in the big picture (strategic, operational) but in tactical NATO was superior and well, flashpoint is more tactical, one thing is that WP has in scens more resources thanks to a good operational work and other is they dont suffer in the game the problems of the WP training methods and material design, i dont say soviet tactics where bad, problem is they have the tactics but not the soldiers with the level of training and command to use them 100%... think that WP forces use a great part of training time in political indoctrination, they use less time for real combat training than to learn how good was the workers paradise [:D]

I allways think that WP had a great chance to win but the top points for we where middle 50 and middle 60-70/early 80.



bayonetbrant -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (1/3/2014 11:38:16 AM)

Chechnya:

http://bayonetgames.com/nextarmy/0chechnya.txt



Mark Florio -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (1/3/2014 12:50:48 PM)

Hey All:
I think that this is a good discussion to have. There are many preconceived notions about the capabilities of the apposing forces in the late 80's.

One of the great debates is whether NATO could win a war that lasted 2-3 weeks. The answer is maybe. If our REFORGER forces were able to deploy within 5 days we probably would have been able to halt the Soviets. The REFORGER forces all had pre-deployed equipment all over Germany and France and we just had to fly the personnel over. Chances are that tactical nukes would be used aggressively if the advanced columns ever crossed the Wesser as well and that would certainly doom both forces and end the maneuver war.

And finally, to the performance of our Mech troops in real war. Read about the 3ID in the 2nd Gulf War. Their attack into Bagdad was classic deep penetration attack and the Abrams and the Bradley devastated the Iraqi's. I also think that 73 Easting showed what the Abram's could do against T72's at 3000 meters in a sand storm. that was no contest. Certainly we could say that the Soviet troops and equipment was better than the Iraqi's at the time and that they would put up a much different fight. No debate there. but to say that we haven't battle testing our armored forces is not accurate.

And on autoloaders. Back in 89, our Intel was that they still had problems with the autoloader as the tanks maneuvered, the rails would displace slightly and the round would not load properly. we were told that the soviets were still having teething problems and that seriously affected their ability to fire on the move. Remember that the T80 was their 1st generation modern tank and they still had many teething problems.

Also, with a 3-man crew, their ability to maintain the tank would be seriously challenged. NATO philosophy on a 4 man crew was based on crew fatigue and the ability of the loader to be an extra set of hands and eyes. A good crew could maintain continuous combat for quite some time, even in MOPP4, which we trained in constantly even though we would likely run out of ammo well before the loader passed out!. Furthermore, the Soviet tanks were very cramped and not very comfortable. The Abrams was also lots of sharp edges but roomy enough for comfort. that being said, knowing that we would be facing at least 1-5 odds or more against the Soviets was sobering.



erichswafford -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (1/3/2014 3:32:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm


quote:

ORIGINAL: kondor999
It always amuses me when guys who were deployed in this time period are always wanting the game to better reflect how "they" would've totally wiped the floor with the enemy.


While it might amuse you, I'd be surprised if you could find many guys deployed in this time/place that held this view; I don't recall seeing many posts to this effect on this forum.

I was a tanker in 1AD and can assure you that no one I knew thought we'd "wipe the floor" with the Sovs. Sure we thought that our weapons were better on a 1-to-1 basis, but that was hardly the whole story.

Also I'd be interested in seeing some sources about your claim that inferior units were deployed to Chechnya because of bribes; I've read a fair bit about Chechnya and don't recall hearing that before.


I never once suggested that every guy, or even a majority of guys, felt this way. I simply said that I find it amusing when I read or hear something like what the OP was asserting. That's it - everything else you're responding to are things I never said (or believe).

The OP basically feels like the game doesn't reflect, among other things, the ability of an M1 platoon to destroy (presumably, without loss to themselves) an opposing platoon within 2 minutes. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. So, when you say I'd have a hard time finding anyone who would say something like that, you need to look no further than the very first post. I was attempting to provide a counter-point and I never said anything like "Every guy over there feels this way". That's what you're (somehow) reading into it, but I never said anything even remotely like that.

BTW, Yes, rear echelon troops were sent in during the 1st Chechen War, despite the presence of many experienced (Afghanistan) units on-hand which were originally scheduled. I thought this was fairly well-known by now. Various conspiracy theories exist, of course, as to why. But, in terms of this discussion, what matters is whether we can draw any conclusions about GSFG units based on Russian performance in the 1st Chechen War. I would say not. And they did a lot better in the 2nd Chechen War.



76mm -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (1/3/2014 4:36:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kondor999
The OP basically feels like the game doesn't reflect, among other things, the ability of an M1 platoon to destroy (presumably, without loss to themselves) an opposing platoon within 2 minutes. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. So, when you say I'd have a hard time finding anyone who would say something like that, you need to look no further than the very first post. I was attempting to provide a counter-point and I never said anything like "Every guy over there feels this way". That's what you're (somehow) reading into it, but I never said anything even remotely like that.


First, just to clarify, I didn't mean to suggest that you said that everyone feels that way, but at the same time I didn't read the first post in this way at all; about as close as he got was saying that a plt of M1s should be able to destroy a platoon a T-80s in under 2 minutes @ 2 km, but frankly I don't find that very controversial--a stationary four tank platoon taking out a moving 3 tank platoon within minutes (under certain circumstances) shouldn't surprise anyone. The issue of course is how often, or if, those circumstances could be expected to occur.

Re Chechnya, yeah sure they were hardly crack troops but I was especially interested in the bribery allegations, as I'd not heard that particular conspiracy theory before.



Mad Russian -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (1/3/2014 5:26:45 PM)

The time I spent boots on the ground in NATO, 1974-1977, I knew very few that thought we were much of anything but a speed bump. The question was just how much we could slow them up. How much room would we give the follow up forces to deal with them. We all felt that our equipment and training was superior to the WP "BUT" the Germans had been in WWII as well and they lost the war hands down using that formula in the 40's.

Nobody realistically thought we could hold without the use of battlefield nukes during my time frame.

Good Hunting.

MR



erichswafford -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (1/3/2014 5:28:31 PM)

That bribery thing I got from my wife, who is from Minsk. According to her, "Everyone knows this" and she acted like I was a fool not to know it myself (and not for the first time, lol). I asked her mother, and she told me the same story. This past Thanksgiving, I went to a get-together where almost everyone was Russian. They all said exactly the same thing. So either this really happened or it's a widely-believed myth over there.

Berezovsky and Gusinsky supposedly paid off some Russian commanders to move all the experienced units out and replace them with low-grade units right out of training. It's worth noting that Berezovsky was Deputy Secretary in charge of Chechnya at the time, and so would've been well-placed to get this done. The motive for doing so was supposedly to embarrass the military leaders who were then vying for influence in the Yeltsin regime. By all accounts, that worked - even if the rest of the story is false.

Somebody should really investigate this. By the end of Afghanistan, the Russians had become quite good at unconventional warfare. They had started to seriously kick some ass (just like us in Vietnam), but it was increasingly obvious that military "success" would never translate into meaningful gains for the Soviet Union. So, with all that fairly recent experience, why was their operational plan so poor? Why did they send in these newly-trained kids? Why didn't they use the "Blue Berets" (paratroopers) who were historically tasked with this sort of job? None of it makes any sense. It's not surprising that conspiracy theories then gained traction in the wake of an otherwise inexplicable disaster.

Me - I got no idea. I'm just an American and I always figured they just didn't know what they were doing. But if you read about it, something starts to strike you. Normally, even inept planners get some things right. But it's like every decision was the wrong one. I guess that makes me a little suspicious as well, although that's far from what I'd call "evidence" of any sort.

This might be something interesting for you to research. I'm super-busy with work and newborn - otherwise I'd love to know for sure.



erichswafford -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (1/3/2014 5:31:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

The time I spent boots on the ground in NATO, 1974-1977, I knew very few that thought we were much of anything but a speed bump. The question was just how much we could slow them up. How much room would we give the follow up forces to deal with them. We all felt that our equipment and training was superior to the WP "BUT" the Germans had been in WWII as well and they lost the war hands down using that formula in the 40's.

Nobody realistically thought we could hold without the use of battlefield nukes during my time frame.

Good Hunting.

MR


I've heard the same thing from that time period. I always thought 1979 was when they had their best chance, when the "Correlation of Forces" was most in the Soviet's favor. By '85, I think we had started to really redress the balance and the chance was lost (Thank You God).



Mad Russian -> RE: A few points from a real 3ID Tanker from 88-90 in FRG (1/3/2014 7:56:33 PM)

Since you get to mingle with Russians. You might ask them what they think of the time periods we are discussing and see what their POV of the whole thing was. It would be very interesting to get the view on the other side of the fence.

Good Hunting.

MR



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8144531