My thoughts on Soviet Doctrine (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Modern] >> FlashPoint Germany



Message

CarnageINC -> My thoughts on Soviet Doctrine (3/3/2005 9:04:33 AM)

Hello, I thought I would bring what I wrote in "It is disappointing" out of a topic that is becoming extremely long and some people might not read through to where the topic has gone. My goal is only to help improve this awsome game, so I apologize for spaming what I wrote.

Here it is:

I gotta stick my 2 cents in here. After observing several scenarios, I noticed that yes the mortars and HQ's came up with the companies they were attached to.....but the ones not attached stayed around HQ. This seems to follow Soviet doctrine somewhat....of course the mortars should stay a klick or 2 back....but Soviet commanders are suppost to lead their forces. Here's a quote from an article I read.

Quote:
"The lack of western-style senior noncoms means that low level Soviet units key around their officers. Therefore a platoon almost always moves together, as a single unit. Company commanders normally join up with a platoon, often the leading one. Armored units are trained to keep moving, with infantry remaining aboard BMPs and BTRs as much as possible. Lines and wedges are favored formations in the battle area."
end quote

I don't have a problem so much as the HQ's coming forward....but the SP arty....yes...that is a problem. And the Hinds not engaging....another big problem. They use their Helo's like airborne tanks....they don't play footsy like NATO's...hiding behind terrian features....they come out of nowhere, low, fast, and in groups and do attack runs on your arse. All the while firing AT-3/5's, rockets, and 30 mm. I don't know how effect they would be, but I'm sure they would the would tear up the crunchies pretty good. I haven't a clue on how to program AI but it sure would be great if their helos could be tweeked to follow Soviet doctrine.

Now being a former Tanker back on the M1A1's I'm very baised about our equipment vs. their equipment. Iraqi's in the 1st Gulf War used mostly T-72's and Tungstun steel rounds vs. our DU rounds...no contest verus penetration ability. The Soviets would of used DU, but thier penetration values (even though there a larger calibur) are still lower than NATO's, not to mention their weapon sites, rate of fire, firing on the move and most important, their training. I think that the killing ability of early T-72/80's in this game is overrated. I liked Chelco's game study...but I think the ratio should be closer to 4-1 or 5-1 in perfect conditions ...i.e. range of about 1200 to 1800 meters, noon, not a cloud in the sky, not a hair of wind. Anything over 2000 is almost pissing in the wind for T-72's....and probably close for the early T-80s.

One last thing I noticed....or the lack there of....Soviet Artillery Preps! COME ON PEOPLE! The one thing the Soviets had to much of is Arty! The AI should be given and programed to have rolling barrages on key terrian...i.e. hilltops, towns, treelines....in their axis of advance. THIS IS A MUST! MORE ARTY FOR THE COMMIES! And when NATO is in the defense....just sitting there...after mopping up a tank company or 2 or 3....and they just sit there....and .....NOTHING HAPPENS!

The Soviets should be plastering any area that is known to contain forces. And if the going gets tuff....dump nerve, blood, blister agents all over the place. Not NATO doing that...not that they would...but it would be out of desperation...before nukes. And let me tell you....that stuff don't just go away....where talking about hours and hours for non-gas agents in "Clear weather". There should be 2 different Chem agents....gas and non-gas(persistent and non persistent). This would add a great deal more realism don't you think? And another cool thing would be there duration of bad weather...ie rain, snow....WOOT!

I'm sure....very sure that Matrix Games did research on NATO vs. WP, the equipment, weapons, but I'm not so sure how indepth they went into tactical doctrine. So please, Erik Rutins or any other Admin, please if you have any control over what they put into updates, please see if the AI can be tweeked and arty/chem adjusted just a bit to more emulate the Soviet Doctrine.

*Carnage steps off the soap box and looks back*

Woooah.... a little over board.... Thank you

And thats it....

I'm by no means an expert in Soviet tactical doctrine, but my former experience of being on and commanding M1A1's for 8 years has taught me alot on the subject, plus the numerous times I got my arse stopped by OPFOR at NTC! COMMIE BASTARDS! [:@] But seriously I hope that these issues can be looked into futher by the great guys who put this beast together. Once again, MEGA Thanks for this game. [&o]

CJ Wagner aka CarnageINC



CarnageINC -> RE: My thoughts on Soviet Doctrine (3/3/2005 9:31:29 AM)

Big cudos go out to themattcurtis for his web link.

Here are some FM's to help detail some of the actual factors in NBC

http://globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/army/fm/3-5/index.html
http://globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/army/fm/3-7/index.html
http://globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/army/fm/3-11/index.html

NBC decon is a major pain in the arse, and maybe should be looked into as an opition in the game. If so, maybe chem weapons....alltho fun.....should be limited almost to the nuke level.

My bread and butter is in armor warfare, here are some links:

http://globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/17-12-7/index.html
http://globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/17-15/index.html
http://globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/71-1/index.html

If need be I can reference certain material to help provied facts or tactics to help speed any research or development added into the game. There are more links but at this time I need to get some sleep, my passion for this stuff has taken be into the trouble zone with my wife [:-]



Nemesis -> RE: My thoughts on Soviet Doctrine (3/3/2005 4:25:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC

Now being a former Tanker back on the M1A1's I'm very baised about our equipment vs. their equipment. Iraqi's in the 1st Gulf War used mostly T-72's and Tungstun steel rounds vs. our DU rounds...no contest verus penetration ability. The Soviets would of used DU, but thier penetration values (even though there a larger calibur) are still lower than NATO's, not to mention their weapon sites, rate of fire, firing on the move and most important, their training. I think that the killing ability of early T-72/80's in this game is overrated. I liked Chelco's game study...but I think the ratio should be closer to 4-1 or 5-1 in perfect conditions ...i.e. range of about 1200 to 1800 meters, noon, not a cloud in the sky, not a hair of wind. Anything over 2000 is almost pissing in the wind for T-72's....and probably close for the early T-80s.


I think this was already discussed elsewhere. We shouldn't even consider Gulf War when talking about WW3 in Europe. The Iraqis lacked the training, the terrain, tactics, air-support and the equipment. Soviets in WW3-europe would be considerably better in every aspect. They would have superior equipment, more suitable terrain (western tanks shine at longer ranges (like in Iraq), but in hill-broken and forested central-europe, those extreme ranges would not happen as often), decent air-support and considerably better training. Not to mention that Soviets would considerably outnumber their western adversaries. While NATO would propably have an advantage in training, I don't think that the difference would the THAT great. At least, nowhere near the difference as observed in Coalition Vs. Iraq.

IMO there can't really be a rule of thumb that says "the ratio should be 5-1". I mean, if M1A1 and T-80 bumb in to each other and the range is something like 500 meters, who's going to win? In a situation like that, the two would be more or less equal, even though M1 would have an advantage at longer ranges. It would boil down to location, training and luck. And, of course, if that M1A1 bumbed in to 5 T80's at that range, I think it would be safe to say that the ratio would not be 5-1 ;). 1-1, maybe 2-1 (with luck). Or maybe even 0-1?



Real and Simulated Wars -> RE: My thoughts on Soviet Doctrine (3/3/2005 4:53:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemesis
While NATO would propably have an advantage in training, I don't think that the difference would the THAT great. At least, nowhere near the difference as observed in Coalition Vs. Iraq.


I agree with Nemesis. A question that hauntes me is how superior was NATO when compared to WP?
NATO commanders were VERY worried about the outcome of a possible invasion. ..



CarnageINC -> RE: My thoughts on Soviet Doctrine (3/3/2005 5:25:20 PM)

Well Nemesis there are probably alot of my points in other postings...I'm just condensing the one's I think apply here in one spot. I agree that WP would be better, by far, way way way better then the Iraqi's. Anything that happen in GW1 shouldn't even be looked at to hard. Also they (WP) would have numbers in far larger quanties to. I also agree with, if they bump into each other at 500 m there would be hell to pay, and yes, larger numbers would prevail. What I wanted to point out is that Soviet equipment doesn't have the accuracy that NATO does. As range increases, lethality goes down. So when that Soviet tank company at 2000 m is banging away at me, I should be getting mostly suppressed, not losing a 1 tank every other time. Soviets are good for 2 things, artillery and mass numbers. Thats why they should be hell bent on closing in on you. To use their numbers to make a difference. But I guess you could counter that arguement that if your time scale is 30 min.....thats along time when your engaged. So I'm not pressing that issue much...its just my opinion.

Now that I replied to that comment, I would like to add something. While I was sleeping it was easy to say "what if you do this, or that" and soon you get mission creep...or in this case, game creep, because everyone and their mother has ideas. We all don't want that.... period. I love the game as it is mostly. So if I'm pointing out things that I think need improvements, I should figure out ways to do them. Well...as far as my ability allows.

The ideas I'm all worked up are about arty and chem. These (or a version there of) should not be to hard to upgrade. Artillery prep's for offensive operations are must IMO and are in all the doctrine, for either side. After all...if you didn't have the supplies to aleast support one for a day you wouldn't be doing one! The AI can simply look at highest elevation and greatest cover and start simulaneously pounding multiple locations randomly for 10 to 15 min. in the sectors that give them, the AI, the highest victory points, after all, thats mostly where the enemy is sitting anyways.

As far as chem, only a tweek would do. Have 2 types: non-persistent and persistent agents. The non-P can stay as the chemical agents now are. But the persistent should stay for 2-8 at least. Another feature, similar to rest and refit needs to be added if you do this....decon. Except in decon you don't get rest and no new ammo but takes a similar amount of time. If your troops don't decon they should slowly lose fighting capacity i.e. fatigue, morale. Fighting in MOPP4 is not easy, ask anyone whos had to wear that stuff for any period of time. And if you move troops contaminated by persisent chems into a square of non contaminated troops, they to should also be slimed....that stuff isn't a joke.

One last thing, chemical weapons are viewed, by NATO, as a weapon of mass destruction. Yes, even back in the 80's. There use is to frequent use of it in this game, epecially in the early days. This is a weapon of desperation for both sides because a possible answer to a chem strike might be a nuclear one. So boost up lethality, add like ....a 1 time 50 pts deduction for its release, and allow the area commander (You the player...or AI) to decide when and where to use it, not randomly by the staff pukes....LOL...which would probably happen anyways.

As far as the helo's, anything over what their doing now would be an improvement....I'm not even going to get into the AI on that one.

These are just my opinions, but I will use doctrine, facts, quotes and any other proof...and give you links or places to look, to justify my opinion and I'll stand behind them. I'm only trying to make this game more realistic and a bit more challenging, after all, most people are complaining about the challenge of facing the AI anyways. Add some of these tweeks; make chemical weapons stronger; take away NATO's use of chem weapons in the early days; add a 50 pt. deduction for there use when anyone, WP or NATO, does use them; give WP more artillery, and give the AI on both sides the ability to do Artillery preps before offensive operations.



CarnageINC -> RE: My thoughts on Soviet Doctrine (3/4/2005 10:14:18 AM)

Okay....I admit I was wrong on one of my subjects. After looking into the matter, the Soviet Artillery numbers are correct and the Soviets don't need more arty. I guess I didn't take in account of how much actual different arty strikes and mission types you have avaliable. I WAS WRONG! [:(] So instead of adding arty, I think the AI just needs better use of it.

In reviewing my position I decided that I need to modify my stand on the chemical weapons topic. For the sake of simplicty, the chemical weapons types and durrations should be left alone, to stay as is. However, I'm very firm in adding a penality for the use of Chem weapons. Its to easy to throw them around. I'm also standing firm in my belief that there should be a decon option, similar in function as the rest and refit but your deconing not resting and refiting so you don't get that time to improve morale and ammo.



Real and Simulated Wars -> RE: My thoughts on Soviet Doctrine (3/4/2005 7:27:04 PM)

Ey CarnageINC!
I follow up your posts with the upmost interest. Good to have pros looking at the game!

quote:

I think that the killing ability of early T-72/80's in this game is overrated...
...but I think the ratio should be closer to 4-1 or 5-1 in perfect conditions ...i.e. range of about 1200 to 1800 meters, noon, not a cloud in the sky, not a hair of wind. Anything over 2000 is almost pissing in the wind for T-72's....and probably close for the early T-80s


I'm a bit shocked with such numbers. What was NATO so scared about then?
Cheers,



CoffeeMug -> RE: My thoughts on Soviet Doctrine (3/4/2005 7:45:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC
So instead of adding arty, I think the AI just needs better use of it.


Concur. But the player should so to.

Your idea about PREP FIRE missions is excellent, but for the human player, too.

Did I mention, that the player should have the option, too? (Attention, long work days result in strange self irony) :D

Cheers,

CM



themattcurtis -> RE: My thoughts on Soviet Doctrine (3/4/2005 8:52:01 PM)

The same thing that had the Germans so irked back in the 40s.

Numbers numbers numbers



Real and Simulated Wars -> RE: My thoughts on Soviet Doctrine (3/4/2005 9:08:36 PM)

Is like killing ants then? [;)]
How the intellectual fathers of "Deep Battle" thought they would apply their vision of an operation with such low-quality materiel?



CarnageINC -> RE: My thoughts on Soviet Doctrine (3/4/2005 10:20:12 PM)

In response to to Chelcos comment on why NATO was worried is ....here's a quote from Soviet Military Power -1984

"Out of a total of 194 active tank, motorized rifle and airborne divisions in the Soviet force, 65 are located in the western USSR, 30 in Eastern Europe and an additional 20 in the Transcaucasus and North Caucasus Military Districts (MDs). All these divisions would likely be committed to offensive operations against NATO. In addition to these forces, 17 low-strength divisions, centrally located in the USSR, constitute the Strategic Reserves. For operation in the Southern Theater the Soviets have in place six divisions in the Turkestan MD and four engaged in combat operations in Afghanistan. These forces would be reinforced by the 20 divisions from the Caucasus MDs if they were not engaged against NATO. Soviet forces for operations in the Far East are composed of 52 tank and motorized rifle divisions. The six Warsaw Pact Allies of the Soviet Union have a total of 55active divisions, which, collectively with Soviet divisions, amount to 249 combat divisions. Many of these divisions, most notably those in the interior of the USSR, are at low stages of readiness."

About half if not more of these units fall into there Catagory B, C, or D class. Ranking from modren to very old or not trained. This is compared to about 25-35 full strenght divisions and brigades that NATO could throw at WP in roughly a weeks time. I don't have exact numbers but the tank ratios were 10-1. A kill rate of 5-1 isn't good when facing those kind of numbers.

There is one myth that persists today....the quality of Soviet equipment. It may be crude...hard if impossible to work on....but it can take a beating and keep on ticking. They developed their weapon systems so morons could use them and take care of them. They were very mechanically reliable up to a certain point. I don't quite know, but after 10 or 15 years I'm sure there worn out?



Real and Simulated Wars -> RE: My thoughts on Soviet Doctrine (3/4/2005 11:20:07 PM)

Now that's scary! [X(]
Thanks for the quote.
Cheers,



NikalaiIV -> RE: My thoughts on Soviet Doctrine (3/26/2005 10:51:21 PM)

not to mention 7 well trained and well equiped mechanized airborne divisions



Paul37 -> RE: My thoughts on Soviet Doctrine (3/28/2005 10:41:01 AM)

apart from the discrepancy in iraq doctrine/training in the early 90's i have to agree with carnage. Artillery barrages is what we feared most. I'm currently serving as the 2ic in a Dutch artillery platoon and started my work as a M109 gun commander in the Dutch 41st armored bde in Seedorf in the north of Germany. That was in the late 80's. Our brigade had just on mission, slow the WP troops for 24 hours, to enable the 1st and 4th division to deploy in force. we had 2 tank bats, 2 amd inf bats and 1 topped up artillery bat, as well as a whole recce bat (with leopard 2's) and a small recce coy with M113 C&V. thats quite a bit of fire power. But even we knew that everything taht would be left after 24 hours was a bonus. We had a life expectancy of 8 minutes. as for the poor tankers and grunts, well lets just say it was measured in seconds. The purpose of an OMG (operational manouvre group) in soviet doctrine is to take advantage of any break they could find, and not favour commanders. Ill draw a graf from one of our threat maps we usedto get from british intell to show some of the tactics Iwan deployed, ie, rivercrossing, air assault bridge hedads etc.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.8125