Kommissar
Posts: 20
Joined: 11/4/2013
Status: offline
|
The lowest level the Soviets generally worked with were companies. Entire companies would work as one, towards single objectives rather than the more "flexible" NATO practice of using smaller formations. Another thing to consider was the Soviet use of at least two echelons at operational and tactical levels. NATO forces not only had to contend with one mass punch, but also the follow up punch following closely on the heels of the first. Should the first echelon succeed in breaking the enemy's line, the second echelon would then exploit the breach. If the first echelon failed to crack the NATO nut, the hope was the enemy line was weakened enough for the second echelon to break through and succeed. In situations in which NATO resistance was weak or fear that NATO was ready to use weapons of mass destruction, a single echelon would be used to simply overwhelm and destroy the weakened enemy force and prevent NATO from successfully targeting fast moving Soviet tank or combined arms forces with weapons of mass destruction. If an assault on a heavily reinforced position could not be avoided, the Soviets could use 3 or more echelons in the ensuing assault.
In addition, the Soviets would also have other reserves they could use to reinforce either echelon or exploit breakthroughs (reserves were a completely different group of forces from echelons).
As others have said, using speed and mass attack at the critical weak point of the enemy line achieves the double objectives of destroying the enemy while keeping casualties to a minimum. From what I've seen playing this game, these kind of tactics work very well for the Soviet player. Soviet doctrine is to keep on the march as much as possible and avoid being forced to fully deploy. It's important to keep a high tempo in the rate of advance and only stop and deploy in cases of major assaults that are unavoidable.
If you want to make NATO pay, hammer and anvil tactics work extremely well. One forces acts like an anvil holding the bulk of the NATO forces down while an armored hammer punches through an exposed flank. The armored force then exploits the breach by driving deep into the rear of the NATO force causing absolute havoc and envelops the main NATO force, pushing it into the anvil holding it down. Hammer smashes the NATO nut against the anvil.
Theoretically, the Soviets planned their attacks with the parent organization sending out recon and forward detachments (typically two levels lower than the parent organization that sent them). This would continue down to the lower levels so that when a NATO force engaged with a smaller Soviet one, the bigger parent formation would not be far behind which would create a situation of NATO increasingly facing bigger, fresher combat groups within a few short hours of each other which would prevent NATO forces from disengaging, reinforcing, or replenishing themselves until they were simply crushed under the weight and mass firepower of this rapidly moving force. It's not simply weight of numbers though. It's also taking advantage of numerical superiority and the flexibility this provides to seek out, find, and exploit any weakness in the NATO line or strategy and rapidly reinforcing that success.
< Message edited by Kommissar -- 11/12/2013 3:44:11 AM >
|
Printable Version
RE: Helos and scenario balance - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread