Attack Options

Following on from the last post, I'd like to describe a little more detail regarding the attack options outlined.  This is from the Intelligence report 'Warning of War in Europe', June 1984.

Option 1 - Attack from Peacetime Posture

• Preparation for Attack - 24-48 hours; Very little warning for NATO
• Only about a dozen divisions, with very few support units, available for the Attack

 Option 2 - Attack with Two Fronts

• Preparation for Attack - minimum 4-5 days, with 7-10 days being more realistic; Four or more days warning for NATO
• About 40 divisions, with some support units, available for the Attack

Option 3 -  Attack with Three Fronts

• Preparation for Attack - minimum 8-9 days, with 10-12 days being more realistic; Seven or more days warning for NATO
• About 60 divisions, with support units, available for the Attack

Option 4 - Attack with Five Fronts

• Preparation for Attack - minimum 15 days, with three weeks being more realistic; Thirteen or more days warning for NATO
• About 85 to 90 divisions, with support units, available for the Attack

 It was the judgement of the report that these timetables and force levels would be modified by whether there had been a period of tension leading up to the decision to attack.  Such a period of tension potentially allows Readiness levels to be raised surreptitiously.  The main effect of this is that more divisions may be available.

However, a particularly important comment made in the report about the time required to attain Readiness was the following:

“The time required for … low-strength units to train up to a standard … to be the minimum proficiency necessary to conduct effective offensive operations in Central Europe would extend … preparation times to about 30 days, plus time for movement.”

Finally, the report made the following comments about these attack options:

Option 1 - Attack from Peacetime Posture - highly unlikely because of the risk that Soviet forces will be shocked and surprised by there orders, and lacking important supports and command and control;

Option 2 - Attack with Two Fronts - minimum forces required to mount an attack but still lacking many of the important higher level supports and command and control;

Option 3 - Attack with Three Fronts - allows a more phased approach but may not have sufficient follow on forces to sustain the attack;

Option 4 - Attack with Five Fronts - an attack of this size fulfills the "Pact's conservative doctrinal preferences"

So interesting stuff.  Still trying to work out how this informs my plans for a Battle Generator but there you go ...

Till next time.

Battle Generator - Issues

I thought that I'd be further ahead.

Been reading "Warning of War in Europe" from 1984, which discusses how the US intelligence understood Soviet systems of Readiness, what sorts of plans that the Soviets might implement and the implications of these for the amount of warning that NATO might get of an attack.  I had previously considered a straight forward three-part set of categories to describe the warning that NATO might get and, as a reflection of this, the level of preparation by the Soviet forces.

The labels I was using were:

1) Strategic Surprise;

2) Just in Time Warning;  and

3) Telegraphed Attack.

Given what I've read so far, it suggests that I need to change that somewhat, to something like:

1) Attack from Peacetime Posture;

2) Attack with Two Fronts;

3) Attack with Three Fronts;

4) Attack with Five Fronts.

The gain is that I'll have a tighter link to the levels of forces that might be available to prosecute an attack.  This flows through to setting the scale of the battle, the availability of reinforcements for the follow-on battles etc.  All very inter-linked.

Of course, this is US intelligence thoughts on what the Soviets thought, so inevitably room for divergence.  Still interesting.

The next great puzzle is getting a handle on the ORBATs for the Soviets through time and space, especially what tanks went where and when.

Till next time.

The Soviets, Part 1

Well I'm back sooner than I anticipated.  Had a spot of time and some good sunlight, so I took photos of my Soviet Motor Rifle Division (MRD).

Now the organisation for this is based on the Modern Spearhead rulebook.  Recently, following up material suggested by Cold War Gamer, I've learned that for the period I'm interested in things were a little different.  I'll outline the organisation then comment on what should change.

As I've mentioned before I'm using FoB:Moderns for rules.  In terms of real to model scale, a tank, IFV stand represents between 12 and 15 vehicles, while AT guns, ATGW vehicles are 9 to 12 weapons.

This MRD has T72s, BMP1s and BTR70s.

First up, the Tank Regiment:

Regimental HQ group:

Regiment HQ std, BMP1 std, 2S1 (122mm) artillery battalion

3x Tank Battalion:

T72 HQ std, 2 T72 stds

Next, the BMP Motor Rifle Regiment:

Regimental HQ group:

Regiment HQ std, 2S1 (122mm) artillery battalion

3x BMP Motor Rifle Battalion:

BMP1 HQ std, 2 BMP1 stds

1 Tank Battalion:

 T72 HQ std, 3 T72 stds

 

And next, two BTR Motor Rifle Regiments (only showing one, the other is identical)

Regimental HQ group:

Regiment HQ std, 2S1 (122mm) artillery battalion

3x BTR Motor Rifle Battalion:

BTR70 HQ std, 2 BTR70 stds

1 Tank Battalion:

 T72 HQ std, 3 T72 stds

Finally, the Divisional Troops:

 Divisional HQ stand

Anti-tank battalion:

MTLB HQ std, T12 (100mm) ATG std, 2 BRDM3 (AT5) std

Reconnaissance battalion:

MTLB HQ std, 2 BRDM2 std, BMP-R std, BMP-SON std

(I'm missing the independent tank battalion of between 2-4 tank stands.)

So what's odd about the above organisation:

1) Given that I'm interested in the Group of Soviet Forces Germany (GSFG), the T72s should be T64s or T80s.  The T72s were mainly in Czechslovakia and the Western military districts.  Also this would have to be a mid-80s formation as it fully one type of tank, because between 1976 to 1985 the GSFG was transitioning away from T55s and T62s to the more modern T64/T72/T80.

2) I've given it two BTR70 Regiments when it appears that BTR70s and BTR80s were relatively infrequent and that BTR60s were still prevalent.

3) I've given all the regiments Self-Propelled (SP) artillery.  It seems that this wouldn't have been the case until the late 80s.  The Soviets progressively replaced their towed artillery with SP guns over the 80s starting with the tank and BMP Regiments.

4) The Divisional Recon battalion is too big.  I amalgamated the Recon companies with the Regiments to create the Divisional Recon battalion you see.  I'm thinking that I'll farm the BRDM2s back out to the Regiments, so I'll need to base a couple more.

5) Finally, I think that for late 80s MRDs I need to add an AT company to the BTR Regiments, plus increase the number T12 AT guns to two in the Divisional AT battalion.

Over the period from 1976 to 1990 Soviet MRDs and Tank Divisions (TD) grew.  The single BMP stand in the Tank Regiment became a battalion with 2-3 BMP stands, and the tank battalions of the Tank Regiments gained an additional stand.  Also, the BMP1s start to become BMP2s.  Another error would appear to be that the BTR Regiments should have had 3 BTR stands per battalion over all of this period, while the BMP battalions start to have 3 stands over the 80s.

As I noted last time, Soviet organisation was in a process of transition meaning that there was no absolute standard organisation that can be referred to.  This can be a creative situation, allowing a range of possible organisations to be fielded.

Now these models were painted some time ago and I think that my painting has improved some.  I plan to take them off their bases and repaint them.  This will allow me to increase the number of stands of BTR70s and the T72s.

So there are the first lot of Soviets.  There are more.  Next time I'll describe more of the Battle Generator.

The Bundeswehr

Here are my Bundeswehr forces.  Below is: a Panzer Grenadier Brigade with Leopard 1; Two Panzer Brigades with Leopard 1 and Leopard 2, respectively; Division Resources with Reconnaissance Battalion and Artillery Brigade; and Territorial Brigade.

I use a version of Piquet's Field of Battle:WW2 where a stand represents a company, allowing the fielding of a Division or more on the gaming tables.

1)  Panzer Grenadier Brigade with Leopard 1

Here we have:
Brigades HQ stand
Jaguar 2 stand
Luchs recon stand
M109 Battalion
- 2x PzGdr Battalions:
Marder HQ std, 2 Marder std      and M113 std
- Pz Battalion:
 Leopard 1 HQ std, 3 Leopard 1 std
- Mixed Battalion:
Marder HQ std, 2 Marder std      and Leopard 1 std



2)  Panzer Brigades with Leopard 1

Here we have:
Brigades HQ stand
Jaguar 2 stand
Luchs recon stand
M109 Battalion
- 2x Pz Battalion:
 Leopard 1 HQ std, 3 Leopard 1 std

- PzGdr Battalions:
Marder HQ std, 3 Marder std

- Mixed Battalion:
Leopard 1 HQ std, 2 Leopard 1 std and Marder std



2)  Panzer Brigades with Leopard 1

Here we have:
Brigades HQ stand
Jaguar 2 stand
Luchs recon stand
M109 Battalion
- 2x Pz Battalion:
Leopard 2 HQ std, 3 Leopard 2 std

- PzGdr Battalions:
Marder HQ std, 3 Marder std
- Mixed Battalion:
Leopard 2 HQ std, 2 Leopard 2 std and Marder std



4) Division Resources

Here we have:
Division HQ stand
- Divisional Reconnaissance Battalion:
M577 HQ std, 2 Luchs std, 
2 Leopard 2 std or 2 Leopard 1 std, and M113 combat team std (missing)
- Artillery Brigade:
FH70 Battalion, M110 Battalion and LARS Battalion






5) Territorial Brigade

Here we have:
Brigades HQ stand
2 M48GA5 AT stand
- PzJgr Battalion:

Truck HQ std, 3 M113 std

- PzJgr Battalion

Truck HQ std, 3 Truck std

- 2x Pz Battalions:
M48GA5 HQ std, 3 M48GA5 std







 I still need to do some more Leopard 2s so I can convert the Leopard 1 Panzer Brigade.  This of course are just forces for the period 1976 to 1985/7.  I still have to do units with NATO 3-colour camouflage.

Now these organisations are all nice and regular, great for wargames.  Now, after a very interesting recent exchange on the Yahoo ToE group about Soviet Independent Tank Battalions, It was brought home to me that these organisations are only representational and there can be significant variations.  This applies particularly when there are transitions to different organisational forms or different weapon systems.  So, within limits, lots of possible alternative organisations are possible - how about  M48GA5s in 1980s Panzer Grenadier Brigades of front line Divisions?

Well that's enough for now.  Next time some Soviets!