From what I've read of Soviet tactics is that even if this assault was a complete disaster the rest of the frontline would be conducting similar assaults where possible to overwhelm the enemy and that's terrifying imo
Yes and no, in weeks leading up to the attacks several points of attack would be identified and picked out, either for their terrain or lesser enemy resistance. They would be something like every 10-20 km apart and might be spread over 100's of km Usually these point's would be assigned a breaktrough regiment where in this scenario only shows of the lead battalion. This is why he has access to so much artillery, these attacks would be supported by intense airforce covers and strikes to isolate the enemy at the point of attack, as for the artillery well... he has access to the complete artillery compliment of A: his own battalion battery, B: his barrallions complete regimental battery, C: additional divisional artillery (the BM-21's), D: any additonal air and artillery support not needed to defend outside the point of attack. this concentration of power could not be made litteraly all along the front, but several similar pushes would be done close to each other geographically aswell as timewise. For a real life example see the 1943 Orsha offensive, yes I know it's more CM:RT territory, but the offensive strategy was very much the same
@@ww3032 To some extend yes, however since they had sub-par equipment they where unable to rely on these tactics They used the cover of night to infiltrate behind enemy lines and set up roadblock to cut off the enemy, they also used the night to sneak up so close to enemy positions that air attack became impossible. From there they used human wave-like strategy These strategies where used due to the lack of mechanization within the Chinese peoples liberation army, remember they had just come out of a civil war and where still building from a political milita into a proper army.
@@nomennisceo6495 yes I was reading up on Chinese and North Korean tactics and it was pretty damn impressive. Can't imagine the meat grinder kind of battles both sides had to undergo. Its a pity the vets of that war don't get as much credit as they should.
What's critical to this success was the prep work that allowed for ID'ing many enemy positions and thereby providing large numbers of pre-planned artillery missions. This is the razvedka aspect of Soviet operational art and how it multiplies at the tactical. All this was systematically learned by the Red Army in WWII. Getting numerical superiority was from the maskirovka side of Soviet OpArt. You make great videos, Hapless.
th-cam.com/video/felcqDnfrGA/w-d-xo.html Not a bad overview of the modern Coy/Bn for CMBS and much of the tactics and doctrine such as mass hang over from the soviet era.
@@NickSLH Soviet doctrine + experiences from Afghanistan/Chechnya + better quality troops made the Russian Army significantly more firepower-based and a lot more flexible than the Soviet Army, although the conventional breakthrough is still very Soviet-based (since it's a good idea really).
Love these kinds of videos. Hopefully you can do more in depth explanations of the different doctrines in this and other CM games as some people, like me who is relatively new to the scene, want to play it as accurately as possible with respect to the sides we are playing.
I think this will be an interesting CM title seeing as this is the era when Soviet forces employ T-64, T-72 and T-80s while the US was still mostly relying on their Pattons with M1s being few and far between.
Well, there are lot of different Pattons: by the time you're getting to the M60A3 TTS you've got depleted uranium APFSDS ammo, a laser rangefinder and thermal sights which are significant differences to the older M60A1s. Plus, the T72s and T80s are relatively rare, the T64 was really expensive and there are loads of T55s and T62s hanging around. It's definitely more balanced than Shock and Black Sea though... if anything the US are on the back foot.
@@usuallyhapless9481 I think the biggest difference from Black Sea would be the US lack of Javelins. I find that most of the Russian armor in Black Sea no matter how scary they are could be reliably knocked out by those fire and forget missiles. Dragons on the other hand requires the user to guide them in, which won't be as accurate and allows the attacked an option to retaliate and knock out the operator before the missile hits.
Also keep in mind that for example TOW1 was incapable of penetrating the frontal armour of the T64A since its max pen was 430 mm and the T64 was rated 500 mm against HEAT and around 350 mm against APDS which made the M60 also hopeless since it only got APFSDS in the late 70 which where also incpable of penetrating the front of T-64/72/80. You could of course achieve mission kills on these tanks by destroying tracks, optics and luck kits on weakened parts of the armor although those hits would be rare at normal combat distances since ALL tankers of that era and now still are trainde to aim center mass. The soviets on the other hand had since the 60s APFSDS and ATGMs with longer range (AT-5) and far more powerfull warheads (530 mm penn), puls fully stabilized tank guns and gunner sights. Thank god it never got hot, i suspect nukes would have been the only way to stop them and then again, they had that posibility in mind and made their entire army mechanized with NBC protection for tanks/BMP/BTRs since the late 50s. Nice video.
This is incredibly simplified as MBTs do not have one single armor value along the entire front, or at any point. Bear in mind also that Soviet data is falsified upwards, while American data is falsified downwards. If this is based on public data then it's likely very wrong.
The TOW1 was not "incapable" of penetrating a T64 frontally; it just had a lower probability. Not everything square inch of the front profile has the same armor as the glacis. As to the M60 not being able to penetrate the front of Soviet tanks, it was found to perform much better than the math projected against Soviet-supplied tanks in the Iraqi army, though this was indeed with later (but not the ultimate designed) revisions of 105mm AP ammo.
@@bronco5334At the same time those M60s were facing downgraded export T-72s with no composite armor and with outdated APFSDS like 3BM15 ammunition from the 70s. Those M60s facing the Soviet T-72s, T-64, and T-80s would be a lot different in terms of how they were deployed, used, and they would most definitely have up to date ammunition and composite armor.
@@IceAxe1940 They did have composite armor. The turrets were full steel (very very thick steel), but the hull retained its composite config, which was identical to the T-64A's and T-72 Sans Suffix. The downgraded export T-72s were quite good for their time, and wiped the floor with Iranian Chieftains, which themselves were full-spec and equipped with LRF and other goodies from Britain. The reason they fared so poorly in desert storm was because they were completely outmatched, outflanked, and faced total air domination. In these circumstances, everything becomes a threat, even an Israeli 105mm Sherman could have scored kills against T-72s like that
@@thegenericguy8309 I know the Iraqi domestically produced Asad Babil T-72s didn't have any composite and only had steel plates, the T-72Ms and M1s did but they were from the early 70s and out of date by the time of 1991.
Thank you for covering this game! I've been trying to find gameplay videos of this game for awhile (I'm waiting for the Steam launch to buy it), but no one covers CM quite as well as you do. Hope to see more soon. As a side note, wouldn't it be better to keep your TCs buttoned up during the assault? I know it gives more situational awareness, but they seem very vulnerable when they are hanging out of the hatch exposed like that. Also, pretty sure based of a forum post by Capt. Miller that Soviet doctrine called for TCs to be buttoned up when in combat.
Yes, doctrinally they would apparently stay buttoned up and that makes a lot of sense. I'm used to opening up for better spotting though and for the most part figured the range (mostly 1k +) made it pretty safe.
@@usuallyhapless9481 Ah, that makes sense. The American doctrine apparently is to keep TCs out for as much time as possible, so there are benefits to both sides. Anyway, thanks again for the video.
Nice intro video Hap, and such pretty formations moving across the screen. I think fans are really going to like the game with it's own unique feel. We are beta testing the demo scenarios now, and the battles are shaping up to be quite fun that i'm sure people should enjoy. Not sure when free demo will be released, but for anyone thinking about getting the game they will be available at Battlefront's website, and will offer a nice free taste of the high quality the game has to offer.
THANKS Hapless. Adding to comments below, I suppose US side would withdraw behind the woods then move up once artillery was over. Like germans often did in WW2. Tough to do w the speed of the soviet advance.
Great video as always! I'd love to see more of these, and also some of your formation break-down videos where you cover the composition of a Motor-Rifle Battalion in depth, or an American equivalent.
The more I learn about Soviet doctrine, the more I have learned to respect it. We have this view in the west that our way of conducting warfare is the ONLY right way to fight and that every advancement should be only to further that line of thinking; How do we use less for more, how do we perfect every aspect of war on the smallest of levels. What makes Soviet doctrine so scary is that if you have no idea what Soviet doctrine is about, all you're seeing is mass and that can easily be interpreted as just a bunch of morons advancing across exposed terrain and it's just not that. It's about using mass to render weapon systems on a level playing field, a TOW is effective if it's hidden and/or outside of maximum range for things that can kill it, but what does it matter if your TOW is now vulnerable to heavy caliber machine guns or even AKM's? It's about reducing an engagement range to 0 meters so tank armor, stabilizers, high end ammunition, well trained infantry, good mobility, so all of that doesn't matter. I'm not saying that it's the best form of fighting a war or that it doesn't have problems and can never be defeated, but that it isn't just mindless chaos. It relies a lot on pre-planning and officer performance at the higher level, rather than a strong core of NCO's and junior officers where as it's seemingly almost the opposite in NATO countries that rely heavily on the on the ground thinking of NCO's and junior officers
This textbook version of Soviet doctrine is already plenty scary. Now imagine it executed by a competent commander not sticking by the book exactly but flexibly using its essentials. ATGMs to outrange the defenders and cover the attacks flanks Massing tanks to outfight the enemy and win the fight against enemy vehicles Overload enemy anti tank defenses with tanks and APCs Atry to supress and destroy the assault targets and later prevent reinforcements Combined arms assault into the infantry positions APCs following at safe distance to mass fire Basically the things that actually matter for winning the fight. Id actually struggle to see a more effective way to attack with armoured units. Only drawback is low trained officers executing it like a parade rather than somewhat more flexible and even then its powerfull.
This worked only because the US side was set up in a position to die. Nobody, but NOBODY, was ever trained to defend from a forward slope. Turret/hull down positions would be used. Why? Because it makes it harder to see your vehicle and improves its ability to withstand fire. The only thing on the TOW vehicles you would have seen was the TOW launcher. M60A1s would be turret down until required to fire, not sitting out in the open with the weakest armor (the top of the hull and turret) showing to the enemy. The infantry would have been dug into the ground, not sitting in rings of exposed sandbags. Oh, and thank you for parking your tanks. You made it so easy to hit them once they stopped. Also, hitting a stationery target at 2000m with an M60A1 is rather easy. I did it for four years.
I think like Hapless said it was to showcase a training scenario of the Soviet Doctrine in the deliberate attack, you are correct even a hasty defence would not take up these forward slope positions, but like all CM training missions, its to get you used to the units and their comparative strengths and weakness, easing you in so to speak.
that's the thing though - the Sovs wouldn't attack strong positions. Their doctrine did not assume a push on the entire frontline - that'd just bleed them out. Their doctrine relied on reconnaissance and finding positions on the front which had to be defended, no matter how bad they were. This is precisely why the Fulda Gap was so valued - but this sort of cherry-picking happened on an operational level too. So unless there's some important landmark behing our hypothetical NATO position, like a bridge, the Soviets would not attack it, at least not deliberately. I guess that's kind of hard to translate to video games, since you don't want to create a scenario that's lost/won from the start.
@@buckplug2423 it can translate to video games, the video game just not this kind of video game. there are ways to simulate cherry-picking attack points for example.
If I remember correctly, the motor rifle batallion is supposed to attack with 2 companies leading abreast and 2 companies behind. There are 2 objectives set, one after another and after the first objective is taken by the leading companies, the 2 following (and more or less full strength) companies leapfrog and take over the attack towards the second objective. The artillery support is massive because of the fire prepares movement doctrine of the time (in contrast to the NATO fire and movement). In short, you blast the enemy until there's no return fire. Then start moving. If someone fires back, get into cover and blast again. Repeat until won. ;-)
As far as I know, it was, at least for some time, doctrine that the first wave of infantery should arrive together with the last salvo of artillery in the enemy position. The reasoning was that the losses would be the same and that the poor guys who will get wounded or killed won't care if it was a Nato bullet or a Soviet shrapnell which takes away their health or lives.
I know I have a PDF copy of FM 100-2-1 The Soviet Army: Operations and Tactics (published July 1984) around somewhere (probably sitting on my overcluttered desktop somewhere). It goes down to the battalion level. As for below the battalion level I think I will have to fill in the gaps with WW2 sources. I have Soviet Infantry Tacics in WW2 (translated combat regulations of 1942, provided by Nafziger) covering infantry tactics from squad to rifle company, and Soviet Armor Tactics in WW2 (translated combat regulations of 1944, provided by Nafziger), covering tank tactics from individual vehicle to company. It may be time to break those out.
Soviet Cold War Principle of war "You must take casualties in order to create them.". For a deep look at Soviet Cold War doctrine and tactics see FM 100-2-1 The Soviet Army Operations and Tactics produced by the Department of the Army 1984. It's available from Amazon and can be ordered in from most book stores
Your first and most important step would be to establish a defence in depth. If your enemy's MO is to dump all of its artillery on your frontline at the start, make sure your frontline isn't what you rely on.
Alongside the defence in depth that Makro talked about, trying to "even the odds" between Ivan's and NATO's firepower is especially key. Hapless talked about it in the video briefly, but the last thing you want is for a "1 on 1 free-for-all." Soviet MBTs, because of inferior fire controls + inferior optics, generally struggle in single 1v1s in a vacuum. Combine this with a weaker morale state (a decent portion of soviets during this period were conscripted for a period of time, and while the scenario features a breakthrough platoon(these tended to be better trained/equipped in order to enable less equipped + less trained conscripted platoons to exploit the breakthrough behind NATO lines), the morale state of soviets is generally easier to shatter than NATO forces, especially considering the home defence mentality.) and you can more or less shatter the forces by opening up your anti-tank assets all at once. Rather than to open up one-by-one, where your tank assets will slowly be picked off, it's much better to open up all at once when the enemy is within a suitable range. Remember that the T-64 was revolutionary for its time, having the world's first composite armor layering that rendered NATO tanks practically helpless at long ranges to anything but ATGMs for a period of about a decade. This was countered by their extreme expense and relative unavailability, but they worked well with what they were intended for: smashing through NATO lines to enable the breakthrough. These tanks, however invulnerable they are, will panic much faster under sustained fire, even if the rounds don't penetrate. Not to mention, that fancy armor of theirs works far less effectively as close ranges of, say, 500m-1km. Even if your first line of defenses falls, not only have you left your enemy unnerved, but the defence-in-depth you've likely set up will squeeze the momentum out of the Soviets, and your individual prowess of MBTs will win the day. Soviet Artillery barrages are meant as a one time use: you pepper their known positions and disorient them before the massive push. This is far unlike NATO doctrine, which is much more flexible and easier to readjust due to both interunit (soviets had an attached artillery unit per battalion, while NATO has individual artillery units that can fire and relocate as needed per unit.) and logistical (soviets generally had less access to radios than NATO forces due to global resource access - this is part of the reason why doctrines developed this way, as availability of certain goods dictated how freely you could spend them) ease. While your frontline may collapse - your rear line is perfectly ready and even better off thanks to intelligence from the first line of defense. And the Soviets can't do anything about it with another artillery barrage - Soviet artillery is isolated within the battalion, and there's no easy mechanism for sending new target references towards the rear line. And why would they? If the first assault fails to shatter the line and to enable the breakthrough, then it's pointless to keep fighting at that particular spot - resources would be poured to another region of the frontline where gains had been made, again trying to exploit weakness and to push behind enemy logistic lines. The goal was to push deep and leave pockets of enemies behind them for weaker, conscripted battalions to finish off. To sum it up in a not-so-lengthy TL;DR -NATO tanks, through initiative, fire controls, and optics, will usually beat Soviet MBTs in isolated 1v1s. The main reason why the Soviets attack in such a fashion is to nullify such an advantage. -Soviets generally have a weaker morale state, and fighting them one-on-one will generally lead to the Soviets shattering first as a unit. - Having a defense-in-depth nullifies the artillery advantage that the Soviets typically possess (as soviet artillery's main purpose is on a single, shattering barrage rather than flexible position-by-position bombardment.) and allows you to retain the morale advantage that NATO will usually possess. -Also, having a defense-in-depth will allow you to chip away at the breakthrough force, protecting the back lines from the conscripted battalions that would usually follow the breakthrough battalion featured in the video. Hope my armchair historian comment helped you! :)
The typical way would be a delaying action followed by a counterattack ideally in the flank. The main focus has to be avoiding getting into the situation depicted in the video. The way an attack would develop over time would look something like this: th-cam.com/video/Z934vdTbbXw/w-d-xo.html The way to defeat that is to engage and stop the lead company forcing the entire brigade to deploy for attack and start its artillery preparation and then disengage before the artillery hits and the main attack starts. Repeating the process until the attack is sufficiently depleated to make a counter attack preferably into its flank.
Don't use a forward slope defense as was portrayed here. Clobbered by the artillery, then picked off one by one once the armor advances, results are disaster. Deploy on rear slope with some Observation posts on forward slope. Push into forward positions once the artillery barrage is over and the enemy armor begins their advance.
Again a great educative and insightful video from Happless! This video clearly shows how absolutely tiny the Combat mission maps are. Here we see a glimpse of the true distances that are used. Keep up the great work, Usually Happless! Enjoying all your videos.
US strategy was similar to boxing champ Muhammad Ali in the 1975 'Thrilla in Manila' versus Joe Frazier. Play 'rope-a-dope', absorb the blows until the opponent is exhausted, then come back and hopefully finish him off before he kills you.
Hello Usually Hapless, the training scenario you played there is exactly the soviet doctrine i was taught to fight against whilst in the british army back in the 80s, however the kit nato had in the scenario is heavily outgunned, m60s v t64's i presume and a few recoiless rifles had it been abrams or even chieftains the soviets would have been annihilated, at least that was what i was indoctrinated with way back then lol, also may i beg a question in the game what are the specific dates you can wargame it looks like 60's kit are there later scenarios set in the 80's early 90's,
Abrams and Chieftans would certainly change things! The time frame is 1979-1982, the US tank force is almost entirely M60s of various marks and there are even M48A5s still hanging around. The Abrams is starting to coming in by the end of the timeframe, but it's very rare. That said... all those tanks (and the Chieftain) mount the same L7 105mm gun and they can tackle Soviet tanks from the front. The problem is when the Soviets start shooting back! Like plenty of people have pointed out, the scenario would go a lot differently if the US defence used the terrain better... but on the other hand, it wouldn't be a very good demonstration of Soviet tactics if they lost.
@@usuallyhapless9481 thanks for the reply good stuff, however i have to point out that it was the centurion that mounted the 105mm, the chieftain equipped the L11 120mm from get go and was the big cat of its day the gun was so good it could knock the nuts off a squirrel at 3-8km, all best and love the channel.
Well done video and explainations (I'm just missing the moving of the fires into the depth to destroy or interdict NATO reserves) ...next level: obstacles and mines on the NATO side. :-)
I kinda want to try recreating this map and battle in Shock Force and Black Sea, and see if the Javelin and SEPv3 makes ten+ MBTs cresting a hill at the same time less scary, and to what extent artillery mitigates a more extreme BLUE tech advantage.
Question: Can you show how to use the controls to keep the infantry in line with the tanks since there are only about four options for movement speeds?
What is missing on the American defense are two things. One is obstacles and two none of the American vehicles were dug in. If one were to sow one block minefield, two disruption minefields and you dig in all the tanks and tows you will have a different outcome. The M60's, which are higher than a Soviet tank will move up to ot firing position, acquire, engage and then back away. A well trained American tank crew can fire one round every 7 seconds. Coming out of the hole, shooting and backing away will raise he'll with the Soviet attack. At 2000 meters the Soviets will have a hard time picking up the American tanks as they fire. The Soviet artillery barrage, though impressive, will have a hard time destroying the defense as the tanks will be in their hide positionms As the Soviets advance they will hit the obstacles and try to breach or by passing by turning their flanks. Not good for the Soviets. American indirect fire would pound the hell out of the two MRC's and most of the tanks would not reach 500 meters of the MLR. I have seen this done at NTC and been on both ends of this. It's a fearsome attack but can be stopped cold in its tracks.
US airpower could and would play an important role in real life and in game. However, Soviet doctrine never really used CAS. All fixed-wing aircraft were supposed to do deep strikes behind enemy lines, knocking out command posts, airfields, motor pools, and other important structures. They were never supposed to be used in close support of ground troops. The only CAS Soviet forces could expect came from helicopters, and I heard those were relatively limited at the time.
@@mikkykyluc5804 Command posts and the like. Instead of CAS, the Soviets relied heavily on massive concentrations of artillery fire like what is shown in the video.
@@bobtank6318 Ah okay. While spotting for arty isn't simple, I suppose that can be a little less complex sometimes, compared to trying to walk in a pilot onto a target? Any idea why they decided on this course? And thank you for the new info!
What about minefields and obstacles? Engineers to create obstacles and make a Soviet advance an exercise in demoralizing frustration? On the Arty side, what about FASCAM, DPICM and laser guided munitions? What about tactical smoke and WP? I have the game (just bought it) but it doesn't look good for the Americans if the previous things I've mentioned aren't represented. The Soviets must pay for every square meter of advancement.
This is just a training scenario to illustrate how Soviet doctrine works- they're not supposed to have it too hard ;) CMCW is also kind of the tactical crunch point. It covers 79-82... in 79 the Russians are on top. By 82 the US have at least recovered parity and may be better, depending on what toys they bring to the fight. DPICM is modelled (though it's not as effective as people think), FASCAM was apparently discussed but classed as more of an operational than tactical asset and beyond the scope of the game, laser guided munitions aren't in either- I'd imagine the air force would refuse to use it's PGMs to hit individual tanks on the frontline when it could be hitting bridges, supply depots etc. Minefields and obstacles are up to the scenario designer, engineers being able to do more engineer things on map has been long requested but not materialised.
@@usuallyhapless9481 Thank you for your prompt reply. I appreciate your perspective and valuable information that you brought to the table. Thank you. C. Thompson CPT, 5/41 FA
oh, so you drop off the infantry at 400m. For some reason I thought it was 150m to 100m from the target and then slowly advance the vehicle with the foot soldiers. This may explain why my BMPs and BTRs have M72 sized holes in them.
"The dismounting line is assigned as close as possible to the front edge of the enemy's defense, usually in places sheltered from the fire of his machine guns and melee anti-tank weapons." is what i found. I couldnt find the exact drop-off range stated anywhere
I suppose that was the doctrine for a meeting engagement, when there's no time to bring up the tanks - perhaps not 150 metres, but on line/slightly ahead of the BTRs.
Probably goes without saying, but the M113 should not be in a position to get shot. They are barely proof against arty fragments and rifle rounds. Definitely very inferior to the BMP, but they are APCs, not IFVs. Dismount your infantry before you are in range, which is easier said than done with the range on the BMPs. I too am interested to see him do videos on the US forces.
@@jsilva4595 I mostly try to keep the M113s in depth but the dismount inf can only do so much on the defensive. Plus the atgm version im not having any lucky getting hits.
Great and informative video! Would BMPs also stay behind in the dismounted assault like the BTRs or would they be in line with/slightly behind the tanks?
as I understand BMPs were prefered for cooperation with tanks while the BTRs were prefered in the flanking role/flank security. you could look at this in the manner of BMPs being heavy cavalry and BTR being light.
@@buckplug2423 i wouldn't compare it to heavy vs light cavalry as even heavy cavalry was typically a flanking unit. its more like BMPs are line (heavy) infantry and BTRs are (medium) cavalry, atleast in offensive operations...
I have not played this game since Normandy Pack. A really challenging Sim it needs to have a re-supply or even re-enforcement system. Any updates or changes since then?
It's out on Battlefront's own website right now (www.battlefront.com/cold-war/cmcw-base-game/) but the Steam release has been delayed so that Slitherine can add their PBEM system in, which is totally going to be worth it. If you get CMCW from Battlefront, you'll automatically get a Steam key when it comes out on Steam.
curious, how do you have this version to play? as a youtuber did you get an advance copy to test and promote? As of 7/3 /21 Cold War isn't ready for sale yet
It was released at the end of April, just not on Steam. www.battlefront.com/cold-war/ Slitherine are handling the Steam release and wanted to include an improved multiplayer system, which has delayed the Steam version a little. You can get it from Battlefront now though and you'll get a free Steam key when it comes out on Steam.
How are you able to view individual stats in the AAR? In most of your videos you usually break down which individual units got the most kills and I've been unable to find the solution as to how. Thanks!
A question on mods. I've generally preferred to play with historically accurate, faction specific map symbols for the unit icons. To this end I have generally preferred CatTacticalIcons for most titles. What I've done so far is I've taken the CatTacticalIcons mod for CMSF and dropped it into CMCW for the blue forces (I assume NATO symbols didn't change much from 1980 to 2008), and then done the same for the Soviet forces with the CatTacticalIcons mod for CMRT (I had to go in and change some file names for that since the Soviet forces are labeled as blue in Red Thunder). It works perfectly, but I'm a little unsure if it's entirely appropriate to the period since the icons that Canadian Cat made for the Soviet forces in Red Thunder are based off of the map symbols the Soviets used in WW2, which may have changed by the 80's. I don't suppose you have any idea how similar Soviet WW2 map symbols were to Soviet 1980's map symbols? And if they are sufficiently different might there be any word on when Canadian Cat might be releasing a Cold War version of their mod?
I honestly have no idea! The best I can do is say that the icons in the screenshot are not quite the same as those in the maps in "The Bear Went Over the Mountain", "The Other Side of the Mountain" and "The Soviet Afghan War", which I believe use Soviet symbology (of course, I could be completely wrong!). I know the Bil Hardenberger has already made an icon mod (community.battlefront.com/topic/139036-cmcw-floating-icon-mod-nato-symbols/) and that this looks pretty similar to what I've seen, plus he intends to expand it.
@@usuallyhapless9481 Ok, I have spent the better part of the day researching both NATO and Soviet symbols now so I think I have a decent handle on it. It's not actually that complicated, but some of the information seems to be pretty hard to find using google (at least to the level of detail I would like). But I think I more or less managed it. One of the things that threw me off is that Bil and Cat are using different icons for even the NATO vehicles. The resolution to this apparent conflict is that Cat is using the NATO symbols for the corresponding units those vehicles are a part of (a tank is represented by a rectangle with an oval in it, indicating an armored unit, while an APC/IFV is represented with a rectangle with an X over an oval, indicating a mechanized infantry unit), while Bil is using the symbols for the individual type of vehicle (a tank is represented by a square with brackets on either side and two lines in the middle, indicating a tank, while an APC/IFV is represented by a diamond with brackets on either side, indicating an IFV). The distinction between symbols for units and symbols for individual pieces of equipment is one that I wasn't previously aware of, but it means that Bil's approach is probably the more correct one, since Combat Mission is modeling individual vehicles. One issue with Bil's symbols is that he seems to be using the IFV symbol to represent APCs, which had their own symbol. He is also using the NATO infantry symbol to represent Soviet infantry. But I really like his use of the tan clover shaped symbols for unknown contacts (NATO unit symbols are contained in a rectangle for friendlies, diamond for enemies, square for civilians, and clover for unknown)! As for Soviet symbols it turns out that I was right to suspect that there would have been changes in the intervening decades. Most of the WW2 Soviet symbols are correct for the 1980's. The tank symbols have changed. In WW2 an empty diamond represents a light tank, a diamond with a line down the middle represents a medium tank, and a diamond with a dot in the middle represents a heavy tank. In the 1980's an empty diamond represents a tank, and there are no variations for light and heavy (as far as I've been able to find). The symbols for light armored vehicles have also changed. The bullet shaped symbol which used to stand for an armored car (and which is representing my BTRs in the above screenshot) stands for an unarmored vehicle in the 80's, while APCs and IFVs are represented by a slightly pointier version of the symbol. So mostly what Bil is doing with his icons seems to be correct for the Soviets, except that the Soviet infantry are being represented by the NATO symbol. I think at a certain point I am just going to have to download an art program and make my own symbols. I will need to learn some digital art skills, but I'm pretty sure I saw a Udemy course that fit the bill. But I'll be happy with Bil's icons for now. ce6nrkqeesdht2jxylpqct5aoi-ac4c6men2g7xr2a-army-armor-kiev-ua.translate.goog/tactik/msr_nastup.shtml (shows three infantry squads side by side, with the platoon hq a little ways back) www.awl.edu.pl/images/en/APP_6_C.pdf (pages 128 & 130 show the symbols for NATO APCs, IFVs, and Tanks) ce6nrkqeesdht2jxylpqct5aoi-ac4c6men2g7xr2a-army-armor-kiev-ua.translate.goog/hist/takznaki.shtml (a non-comprehensive list of Soviet symbols)
This was a battalion level attack. The scouts are a regimental asset. There is a scout company in the Motor Rifle Regiment table of organization, but there is no scout platoon in the Motor Rifle Battalion table of organization. Doctrinally the regimental scouts would have gone in before the battalion was committed to attack, but by the beginning of this scenario the recon has supposedly already been done.
TBH, it's modelled pretty accurately. The US force in this video is essentially a lower-tier unit, poorly deployed. Swap the M60s for Abrams and the M113s for Bradleys and this kind of doctrinal attack just evaporates.
Is there any particular reason you were having the entire formation of tanks halt in unison to fire, rather than bounding overwatch all the way forward? Seems like you're giving the enemy an easier time of killing you.
He's underplaying his skills so that viewers have a chance to do better. I agree with your assessment and would have bounded them 1/3 at a time. I also would have split the two halves with smoke and taken on one side at a time.
Hes demonstrating the way the textbook attack would go according to the missions description. IRL id expect all tanks to move forward at medium speed and individually or by platoon halt if they see targets and then catch up to the rest of the advancing battle line. That way they can balance firepower wih enough speed to overwhelm the defender.
Feel free to fact check this as my source is "half-remembered from something I read years ago", but IIRC they were not to bound below the company level for reasons of keeping things simple. The tanks themselves don't have a particularly good view of what's going on and all eyes would be looking for targets, rather than trying to spot what the rest of the company was doing.
What holoween said. Plus, it's important to remember that this is designed to be as simple as possible so it can be carried out automatically by conscripts under battlefield stress.
Very obliging of bluefor to string themselves out in the open without any kind of screening or depth. Would definitely fight motor rifle battalion with 100m of depth for my company group.
This might be useful, UK MoD contemporary training video: th-cam.com/video/Z934vdTbbXw/w-d-xo.html Also in theory the 1st echelon should be advancing as their artillery is still landing, to support them crossing the open ground / engagement area.
I used to have a copy of "The Encounter Battle" (the steps prior to a deliberate attack) but I've mislaid it. Found a copy: th-cam.com/video/jcYTM_PJ4rY/w-d-xo.html
Broadly speaking, the T64... though the later M60A3s and M60A3 TTSs arguably edge it out. The M60 is an iterative design with roots in the M26 Pershing while the T64 is more revolutionary.
T-64 has far superior armament and armour, generally quite good mobility as long as the engine isn't broken down, and comparable or better fire control and optics than the earlier M60s. Later M60s and especially the TTS gain a pretty significant advantage in the latter two (especially over the 64A) which becomes even more apparent at night, where the T-64s are near blind by comparison. The entire Patton family was just stopgap after stopgap, but the inclusion of thermal optics and a quite decent FCS really did help claw back some advantages.
@@rossmum I mean the t 64 overall was much better but the Soviets have always lagge d behind in optics they stopped putting there best optics on the t 64 as they started putting them on the t 80
@@usuallyhapless9481 that's fair enough as the Soviets lacked behind the USa in spotting capabilities but I think American m60s and soviet t 72s fought in the Iran Iraq war of course not the best models but they were roughly equivalent in terms of how much they were upgraded I m pritty sure t 72s easaly beat the m 60 couse there gun and armor was supirior and the t 72 at the time was vary simular to the t 64 with worser fcs but those weren't the m 60 with thermal sights
@@tonyjoka2346 i don't know about the iran-iraq war, but in lebanon in 82 T-72ms wiped the floor with Isreali M60s even in Isreali sources (killing dozens or even scores of M60s with no loses [atleast to M60s])
o boy more skills i can apply to my usual day to day life
На здоровье товарищ - (Drink up comrade)
That’s not even a joke anymore
From what I've read of Soviet tactics is that even if this assault was a complete disaster the rest of the frontline would be conducting similar assaults where possible to overwhelm the enemy and that's terrifying imo
Yes and no, in weeks leading up to the attacks several points of attack would be identified and picked out, either for their terrain or lesser enemy resistance.
They would be something like every 10-20 km apart and might be spread over 100's of km
Usually these point's would be assigned a breaktrough regiment where in this scenario only shows of the lead battalion.
This is why he has access to so much artillery, these attacks would be supported by intense airforce covers and strikes to isolate the enemy at the point of attack, as for the artillery well... he has access to the complete artillery compliment of A: his own battalion battery, B: his barrallions complete regimental battery, C: additional divisional artillery (the BM-21's), D: any additonal air and artillery support not needed to defend outside the point of attack.
this concentration of power could not be made litteraly all along the front, but several similar pushes would be done close to each other geographically aswell as timewise.
For a real life example see the 1943 Orsha offensive, yes I know it's more CM:RT territory, but the offensive strategy was very much the same
@@nomennisceo6495 Thank you for elaborating! The Soviets came up with fascinating ways of dealing with things
@@nomennisceo6495 did the Chinese follow the same doctrine in the Korean War?
@@ww3032 To some extend yes, however since they had sub-par equipment they where unable to rely on these tactics
They used the cover of night to infiltrate behind enemy lines and set up roadblock to cut off the enemy, they also used the night to sneak up so close to enemy positions that air attack became impossible. From there they used human wave-like strategy
These strategies where used due to the lack of mechanization within the Chinese peoples liberation army, remember they had just come out of a civil war and where still building from a political milita into a proper army.
@@nomennisceo6495 yes I was reading up on Chinese and North Korean tactics and it was pretty damn impressive. Can't imagine the meat grinder kind of battles both sides had to undergo. Its a pity the vets of that war don't get as much credit as they should.
What's critical to this success was the prep work that allowed for ID'ing many enemy positions and thereby providing large numbers of pre-planned artillery missions. This is the razvedka aspect of Soviet operational art and how it multiplies at the tactical. All this was systematically learned by the Red Army in WWII. Getting numerical superiority was from the maskirovka side of Soviet OpArt.
You make great videos, Hapless.
Ah yes the motor rifle brigade, the most illusive animal.
th-cam.com/video/felcqDnfrGA/w-d-xo.html
Not a bad overview of the modern Coy/Bn for CMBS and much of the tactics and doctrine such as mass hang over from the soviet era.
@@NickSLH Soviet doctrine + experiences from Afghanistan/Chechnya + better quality troops made the Russian Army significantly more firepower-based and a lot more flexible than the Soviet Army, although the conventional breakthrough is still very Soviet-based (since it's a good idea really).
Everybody uses arty. Air superiority though is much better
@@buckplug2423 Nah man, Soviet army relied much more firepower just with the sheer numbers
Maybe I’ll have to dust off my copy of “Soviet Air-Land Battle Tactics” now.
Love these kinds of videos. Hopefully you can do more in depth explanations of the different doctrines in this and other CM games as some people, like me who is relatively new to the scene, want to play it as accurately as possible with respect to the sides we are playing.
I think this will be an interesting CM title seeing as this is the era when Soviet forces employ T-64, T-72 and T-80s while the US was still mostly relying on their Pattons with M1s being few and far between.
Well, there are lot of different Pattons: by the time you're getting to the M60A3 TTS you've got depleted uranium APFSDS ammo, a laser rangefinder and thermal sights which are significant differences to the older M60A1s.
Plus, the T72s and T80s are relatively rare, the T64 was really expensive and there are loads of T55s and T62s hanging around.
It's definitely more balanced than Shock and Black Sea though... if anything the US are on the back foot.
@@usuallyhapless9481 I think the biggest difference from Black Sea would be the US lack of Javelins. I find that most of the Russian armor in Black Sea no matter how scary they are could be reliably knocked out by those fire and forget missiles. Dragons on the other hand requires the user to guide them in, which won't be as accurate and allows the attacked an option to retaliate and knock out the operator before the missile hits.
Well done on the video Hapless.. Captain Miller will be haopy to see it showcased like this I'm sure.
Thanks very much! Probably some NTC campaign next, which I'm sure you'll find interesting.
@@usuallyhapless9481 Looking forward to see what tricks NTC OPFOR has up its sleeve for you
Indeed I did!
I'm a Russian viewer of your videos and I want to translate your educational content's subtitles into Russian.
Also keep in mind that for example TOW1 was incapable of penetrating the frontal armour of the T64A since its max pen was 430 mm and the T64 was rated 500 mm against HEAT and around 350 mm against APDS which made the M60 also hopeless since it only got APFSDS in the late 70 which where also incpable of penetrating the front of T-64/72/80. You could of course achieve mission kills on these tanks by destroying tracks, optics and luck kits on weakened parts of the armor although those hits would be rare at normal combat distances since ALL tankers of that era and now still are trainde to aim center mass. The soviets on the other hand had since the 60s APFSDS and ATGMs with longer range (AT-5) and far more powerfull warheads (530 mm penn), puls fully stabilized tank guns and gunner sights. Thank god it never got hot, i suspect nukes would have been the only way to stop them and then again, they had that posibility in mind and made their entire army mechanized with NBC protection for tanks/BMP/BTRs since the late 50s. Nice video.
This is incredibly simplified as MBTs do not have one single armor value along the entire front, or at any point. Bear in mind also that Soviet data is falsified upwards, while American data is falsified downwards. If this is based on public data then it's likely very wrong.
The TOW1 was not "incapable" of penetrating a T64 frontally; it just had a lower probability. Not everything square inch of the front profile has the same armor as the glacis.
As to the M60 not being able to penetrate the front of Soviet tanks, it was found to perform much better than the math projected against Soviet-supplied tanks in the Iraqi army, though this was indeed with later (but not the ultimate designed) revisions of 105mm AP ammo.
@@bronco5334At the same time those M60s were facing downgraded export T-72s with no composite armor and with outdated APFSDS like 3BM15 ammunition from the 70s.
Those M60s facing the Soviet T-72s, T-64, and T-80s would be a lot different in terms of how they were deployed, used, and they would most definitely have up to date ammunition and composite armor.
@@IceAxe1940 They did have composite armor. The turrets were full steel (very very thick steel), but the hull retained its composite config, which was identical to the T-64A's and T-72 Sans Suffix.
The downgraded export T-72s were quite good for their time, and wiped the floor with Iranian Chieftains, which themselves were full-spec and equipped with LRF and other goodies from Britain. The reason they fared so poorly in desert storm was because they were completely outmatched, outflanked, and faced total air domination. In these circumstances, everything becomes a threat, even an Israeli 105mm Sherman could have scored kills against T-72s like that
@@thegenericguy8309 I know the Iraqi domestically produced Asad Babil T-72s didn't have any composite and only had steel plates, the T-72Ms and M1s did but they were from the early 70s and out of date by the time of 1991.
Thank you for covering this game! I've been trying to find gameplay videos of this game for awhile (I'm waiting for the Steam launch to buy it), but no one covers CM quite as well as you do. Hope to see more soon.
As a side note, wouldn't it be better to keep your TCs buttoned up during the assault? I know it gives more situational awareness, but they seem very vulnerable when they are hanging out of the hatch exposed like that. Also, pretty sure based of a forum post by Capt. Miller that Soviet doctrine called for TCs to be buttoned up when in combat.
Yes, doctrinally they would apparently stay buttoned up and that makes a lot of sense. I'm used to opening up for better spotting though and for the most part figured the range (mostly 1k +) made it pretty safe.
@@usuallyhapless9481 Ah, that makes sense. The American doctrine apparently is to keep TCs out for as much time as possible, so there are benefits to both sides. Anyway, thanks again for the video.
Nice intro video Hap, and such pretty formations moving across the screen. I think fans are really going to like the game with it's own unique feel. We are beta testing the demo scenarios now, and the battles are shaping up to be quite fun that i'm sure people should enjoy. Not sure when free demo will be released, but for anyone thinking about getting the game they will be available at Battlefront's website, and will offer a nice free taste of the high quality the game has to offer.
THANKS Hapless. Adding to comments below, I suppose US side would withdraw behind the woods then move up once artillery was over. Like germans often did in WW2. Tough to do w the speed of the soviet advance.
Sick. I've been having a blast with CW since it came out. Keep up the good work 8)
Great Video! I would love to see videos about the other doctrine scenarios as well.
I've been looking forward to your take on this. Most excellent!
Great video as always! I'd love to see more of these, and also some of your formation break-down videos where you cover the composition of a Motor-Rifle Battalion in depth, or an American equivalent.
That's the plan. Might take a while a though...
The more I learn about Soviet doctrine, the more I have learned to respect it. We have this view in the west that our way of conducting warfare is the ONLY right way to fight and that every advancement should be only to further that line of thinking; How do we use less for more, how do we perfect every aspect of war on the smallest of levels.
What makes Soviet doctrine so scary is that if you have no idea what Soviet doctrine is about, all you're seeing is mass and that can easily be interpreted as just a bunch of morons advancing across exposed terrain and it's just not that. It's about using mass to render weapon systems on a level playing field, a TOW is effective if it's hidden and/or outside of maximum range for things that can kill it, but what does it matter if your TOW is now vulnerable to heavy caliber machine guns or even AKM's? It's about reducing an engagement range to 0 meters so tank armor, stabilizers, high end ammunition, well trained infantry, good mobility, so all of that doesn't matter. I'm not saying that it's the best form of fighting a war or that it doesn't have problems and can never be defeated, but that it isn't just mindless chaos. It relies a lot on pre-planning and officer performance at the higher level, rather than a strong core of NCO's and junior officers where as it's seemingly almost the opposite in NATO countries that rely heavily on the on the ground thinking of NCO's and junior officers
Great breakdown! Glad you enjoyed it, and thanks for the showcase!
This textbook version of Soviet doctrine is already plenty scary. Now imagine it executed by a competent commander not sticking by the book exactly but flexibly using its essentials.
ATGMs to outrange the defenders and cover the attacks flanks
Massing tanks to outfight the enemy and win the fight against enemy vehicles
Overload enemy anti tank defenses with tanks and APCs
Atry to supress and destroy the assault targets and later prevent reinforcements
Combined arms assault into the infantry positions
APCs following at safe distance to mass fire
Basically the things that actually matter for winning the fight. Id actually struggle to see a more effective way to attack with armoured units. Only drawback is low trained officers executing it like a parade rather than somewhat more flexible and even then its powerfull.
So when did the soviet army ever excuted such doctrines as parades?
I really like this kind of videos.
you here too!
@@fallaciousfirm2524 Yeah why not?
@@WarLeakerhat was a nice one, we often forget that behind the screen there are also other people 😂😂
Your work on these videos is outstanding! I wish you got more views!
Weird to think that for some US generals entire 20+ year careers are dedicated to preparing to defend/counter this type of assault in Germany
This worked only because the US side was set up in a position to die. Nobody, but NOBODY, was ever trained to defend from a forward slope. Turret/hull down positions would be used. Why? Because it makes it harder to see your vehicle and improves its ability to withstand fire. The only thing on the TOW vehicles you would have seen was the TOW launcher. M60A1s would be turret down until required to fire, not sitting out in the open with the weakest armor (the top of the hull and turret) showing to the enemy. The infantry would have been dug into the ground, not sitting in rings of exposed sandbags. Oh, and thank you for parking your tanks. You made it so easy to hit them once they stopped. Also, hitting a stationery target at 2000m with an M60A1 is rather easy. I did it for four years.
Yes that forward slope defense made things kind of easy.
I think like Hapless said it was to showcase a training scenario of the Soviet Doctrine in the deliberate attack, you are correct even a hasty defence would not take up these forward slope positions, but like all CM training missions, its to get you used to the units and their comparative strengths and weakness, easing you in so to speak.
Think of it as a classroom demonstration rather than the NTC. It's how it's supposed to work, not how it would go down against a competent opponent.
that's the thing though - the Sovs wouldn't attack strong positions. Their doctrine did not assume a push on the entire frontline - that'd just bleed them out. Their doctrine relied on reconnaissance and finding positions on the front which had to be defended, no matter how bad they were. This is precisely why the Fulda Gap was so valued - but this sort of cherry-picking happened on an operational level too. So unless there's some important landmark behing our hypothetical NATO position, like a bridge, the Soviets would not attack it, at least not deliberately.
I guess that's kind of hard to translate to video games, since you don't want to create a scenario that's lost/won from the start.
@@buckplug2423 it can translate to video games, the video game just not this kind of video game. there are ways to simulate cherry-picking attack points for example.
If I remember correctly, the motor rifle batallion is supposed to attack with 2 companies leading abreast and 2 companies behind. There are 2 objectives set, one after another and after the first objective is taken by the leading companies, the 2 following (and more or less full strength) companies leapfrog and take over the attack towards the second objective.
The artillery support is massive because of the fire prepares movement doctrine of the time (in contrast to the NATO fire and movement). In short, you blast the enemy until there's no return fire. Then start moving. If someone fires back, get into cover and blast again. Repeat until won. ;-)
As far as I know, it was, at least for some time, doctrine that the first wave of infantery should arrive together with the last salvo of artillery in the enemy position. The reasoning was that the losses would be the same and that the poor guys who will get wounded or killed won't care if it was a Nato bullet or a Soviet shrapnell which takes away their health or lives.
@@johannesschroder1704 I have used that tactic in Black Sea and it is pretty effective assuming a significant artillery barrage.
I know I have a PDF copy of FM 100-2-1 The Soviet Army: Operations and Tactics (published July 1984) around somewhere (probably sitting on my overcluttered desktop somewhere). It goes down to the battalion level. As for below the battalion level I think I will have to fill in the gaps with WW2 sources. I have Soviet Infantry Tacics in WW2 (translated combat regulations of 1942, provided by Nafziger) covering infantry tactics from squad to rifle company, and Soviet Armor Tactics in WW2 (translated combat regulations of 1944, provided by Nafziger), covering tank tactics from individual vehicle to company. It may be time to break those out.
Soviet Cold War Principle of war "You must take casualties in order to create them.". For a deep look at Soviet Cold War doctrine and tactics see FM 100-2-1 The Soviet Army Operations and Tactics produced by the Department of the Army 1984. It's available from Amazon and can be ordered in from most book stores
It's also available as a pdf online. I still have my copies from back when I was in the service.
Yeah, I guess the battlefield wasn't big enough to bury or fit all of their graves when they lost and died so many in front.
@@Mechanized85 When they lost so many where exactly?
Usually Hapless
as always great video!
Great video!
What is the best way to counter the Soviet Assault portrayed here? Some kind of fighting withdrawal?
Could be your next video 😉
Your first and most important step would be to establish a defence in depth. If your enemy's MO is to dump all of its artillery on your frontline at the start, make sure your frontline isn't what you rely on.
Alongside the defence in depth that Makro talked about, trying to "even the odds" between Ivan's and NATO's firepower is especially key. Hapless talked about it in the video briefly, but the last thing you want is for a "1 on 1 free-for-all." Soviet MBTs, because of inferior fire controls + inferior optics, generally struggle in single 1v1s in a vacuum. Combine this with a weaker morale state (a decent portion of soviets during this period were conscripted for a period of time, and while the scenario features a breakthrough platoon(these tended to be better trained/equipped in order to enable less equipped + less trained conscripted platoons to exploit the breakthrough behind NATO lines), the morale state of soviets is generally easier to shatter than NATO forces, especially considering the home defence mentality.) and you can more or less shatter the forces by opening up your anti-tank assets all at once. Rather than to open up one-by-one, where your tank assets will slowly be picked off, it's much better to open up all at once when the enemy is within a suitable range. Remember that the T-64 was revolutionary for its time, having the world's first composite armor layering that rendered NATO tanks practically helpless at long ranges to anything but ATGMs for a period of about a decade. This was countered by their extreme expense and relative unavailability, but they worked well with what they were intended for: smashing through NATO lines to enable the breakthrough. These tanks, however invulnerable they are, will panic much faster under sustained fire, even if the rounds don't penetrate. Not to mention, that fancy armor of theirs works far less effectively as close ranges of, say, 500m-1km.
Even if your first line of defenses falls, not only have you left your enemy unnerved, but the defence-in-depth you've likely set up will squeeze the momentum out of the Soviets, and your individual prowess of MBTs will win the day. Soviet Artillery barrages are meant as a one time use: you pepper their known positions and disorient them before the massive push. This is far unlike NATO doctrine, which is much more flexible and easier to readjust due to both interunit (soviets had an attached artillery unit per battalion, while NATO has individual artillery units that can fire and relocate as needed per unit.) and logistical (soviets generally had less access to radios than NATO forces due to global resource access - this is part of the reason why doctrines developed this way, as availability of certain goods dictated how freely you could spend them) ease. While your frontline may collapse - your rear line is perfectly ready and even better off thanks to intelligence from the first line of defense. And the Soviets can't do anything about it with another artillery barrage - Soviet artillery is isolated within the battalion, and there's no easy mechanism for sending new target references towards the rear line. And why would they? If the first assault fails to shatter the line and to enable the breakthrough, then it's pointless to keep fighting at that particular spot - resources would be poured to another region of the frontline where gains had been made, again trying to exploit weakness and to push behind enemy logistic lines. The goal was to push deep and leave pockets of enemies behind them for weaker, conscripted battalions to finish off.
To sum it up in a not-so-lengthy TL;DR
-NATO tanks, through initiative, fire controls, and optics, will usually beat Soviet MBTs in isolated 1v1s. The main reason why the Soviets attack in such a fashion is to nullify such an advantage.
-Soviets generally have a weaker morale state, and fighting them one-on-one will generally lead to the Soviets shattering first as a unit.
- Having a defense-in-depth nullifies the artillery advantage that the Soviets typically possess (as soviet artillery's main purpose is on a single, shattering barrage rather than flexible position-by-position bombardment.) and allows you to retain the morale advantage that NATO will usually possess.
-Also, having a defense-in-depth will allow you to chip away at the breakthrough force, protecting the back lines from the conscripted battalions that would usually follow the breakthrough battalion featured in the video.
Hope my armchair historian comment helped you! :)
Countering this kind of attack is probably worth a video in and of itself!
The typical way would be a delaying action followed by a counterattack ideally in the flank.
The main focus has to be avoiding getting into the situation depicted in the video.
The way an attack would develop over time would look something like this: th-cam.com/video/Z934vdTbbXw/w-d-xo.html
The way to defeat that is to engage and stop the lead company forcing the entire brigade to deploy for attack and start its artillery preparation and then disengage before the artillery hits and the main attack starts. Repeating the process until the attack is sufficiently depleated to make a counter attack preferably into its flank.
Don't use a forward slope defense as was portrayed here. Clobbered by the artillery, then picked off one by one once the armor advances, results are disaster. Deploy on rear slope with some Observation posts on forward slope. Push into forward positions once the artillery barrage is over and the enemy armor begins their advance.
More of these on different sizes and types of formations please, great stuff 😎
Again a great educative and insightful video from Happless! This video clearly shows how absolutely tiny the Combat mission maps are. Here we see a glimpse of the true distances that are used. Keep up the great work, Usually Happless! Enjoying all your videos.
Superbly informative 👍🏻
US strategy was similar to boxing champ Muhammad Ali in the 1975 'Thrilla in Manila' versus Joe Frazier. Play 'rope-a-dope', absorb the blows until the opponent is exhausted, then come back and hopefully finish him off before he kills you.
it was a natural response to the Soviet doctrine, really, and was in line with the American/Western situation.
love to see more gameplay!
Hello Usually Hapless, the training scenario you played there is exactly the soviet doctrine i was taught to fight against whilst in the british army back in the 80s, however the kit nato had in the scenario is heavily outgunned, m60s v t64's i presume and a few recoiless rifles had it been abrams or even chieftains the soviets would have been annihilated, at least that was what i was indoctrinated with way back then lol, also may i beg a question in the game what are the specific dates you can wargame it looks like 60's kit are there later scenarios set in the 80's early 90's,
Abrams and Chieftans would certainly change things! The time frame is 1979-1982, the US tank force is almost entirely M60s of various marks and there are even M48A5s still hanging around. The Abrams is starting to coming in by the end of the timeframe, but it's very rare.
That said... all those tanks (and the Chieftain) mount the same L7 105mm gun and they can tackle Soviet tanks from the front. The problem is when the Soviets start shooting back! Like plenty of people have pointed out, the scenario would go a lot differently if the US defence used the terrain better... but on the other hand, it wouldn't be a very good demonstration of Soviet tactics if they lost.
@@usuallyhapless9481 thanks for the reply good stuff, however i have to point out that it was the centurion that mounted the 105mm, the chieftain equipped the L11 120mm from get go and was the big cat of its day the gun was so good it could knock the nuts off a squirrel at 3-8km, all best and love the channel.
Well done video and explainations (I'm just missing the moving of the fires into the depth to destroy or interdict NATO reserves)
...next level: obstacles and mines on the NATO side. :-)
I kinda want to try recreating this map and battle in Shock Force and Black Sea, and see if the Javelin and SEPv3 makes ten+ MBTs cresting a hill at the same time less scary, and to what extent artillery mitigates a more extreme BLUE tech advantage.
everything sounds so nice in theory but then you put it into practice and the dastardly enemy decides not to cooperate
Question: Can you show how to use the controls to keep the infantry in line with the tanks since there are only about four options for movement speeds?
excellent video
What is missing on the American defense are two things. One is obstacles and two none of the American vehicles were dug in. If one were to sow one block minefield, two disruption minefields and you dig in all the tanks and tows you will have a different outcome. The M60's, which are higher than a Soviet tank will move up to ot firing position, acquire, engage and then back away. A well trained American tank crew can fire one round every 7 seconds. Coming out of the hole, shooting and backing away will raise he'll with the Soviet attack. At 2000 meters the Soviets will have a hard time picking up the American tanks as they fire. The Soviet artillery barrage, though impressive, will have a hard time destroying the defense as the tanks will be in their hide positionms
As the Soviets advance they will hit the obstacles and try to breach or by passing by turning their flanks. Not good for the Soviets. American indirect fire would pound the hell out of the two MRC's and most of the tanks would not reach 500 meters of the MLR.
I have seen this done at NTC and been on both ends of this. It's a fearsome attack but can be stopped cold in its tracks.
US Field Manuals on Soviet TOEs and tactics fm100-2-1 to 3 would be a good start if you haven't seen them.
Thank u great vid
Great video!
The other caveat is airpower and the role it will surely play in real life.
US airpower could and would play an important role in real life and in game. However, Soviet doctrine never really used CAS. All fixed-wing aircraft were supposed to do deep strikes behind enemy lines, knocking out command posts, airfields, motor pools, and other important structures. They were never supposed to be used in close support of ground troops. The only CAS Soviet forces could expect came from helicopters, and I heard those were relatively limited at the time.
@@bobtank6318 I'm surprised to hear that actually. What role was the Su-25 supposed to perform then?
@@mikkykyluc5804 Command posts and the like. Instead of CAS, the Soviets relied heavily on massive concentrations of artillery fire like what is shown in the video.
@@bobtank6318 Ah okay. While spotting for arty isn't simple, I suppose that can be a little less complex sometimes, compared to trying to walk in a pilot onto a target? Any idea why they decided on this course? And thank you for the new info!
i love you hapless
TH-cam: yes this is men of war assault squad 2
the "algorithm" never fails hahaha!
oh now i'll look stupid because it changed
:P It does default to Men of War for some reason. It's easy enough to change, the option is just hidden inside a menu somewhere and I always forget.
What about minefields and obstacles? Engineers to create obstacles and make a Soviet advance an exercise in demoralizing frustration?
On the Arty side, what about FASCAM, DPICM and laser guided munitions? What about tactical smoke and WP? I have the game (just bought it) but it doesn't look good for the Americans if the previous things I've mentioned aren't represented. The Soviets must pay for every square meter of advancement.
This is just a training scenario to illustrate how Soviet doctrine works- they're not supposed to have it too hard ;) CMCW is also kind of the tactical crunch point. It covers 79-82... in 79 the Russians are on top. By 82 the US have at least recovered parity and may be better, depending on what toys they bring to the fight.
DPICM is modelled (though it's not as effective as people think), FASCAM was apparently discussed but classed as more of an operational than tactical asset and beyond the scope of the game, laser guided munitions aren't in either- I'd imagine the air force would refuse to use it's PGMs to hit individual tanks on the frontline when it could be hitting bridges, supply depots etc.
Minefields and obstacles are up to the scenario designer, engineers being able to do more engineer things on map has been long requested but not materialised.
@@usuallyhapless9481 Thank you for your prompt reply. I appreciate your perspective and valuable information that you brought to the table. Thank you.
C. Thompson CPT, 5/41 FA
Is it still like SF2 and Crimea?
LASER WARNING! Tank battalion halt! Pop smoke! Reverse! Abort attack!
surely no, this is cold war eontext.
oh, so you drop off the infantry at 400m. For some reason I thought it was 150m to 100m from the target and then slowly advance the vehicle with the foot soldiers. This may explain why my BMPs and BTRs have M72 sized holes in them.
Yeah, that's along the lines of what I thought before I did this. And yes, it went just as badly for me!
"The dismounting line is assigned as close as possible to the front edge of the enemy's defense, usually in places sheltered from the fire of his machine guns and melee anti-tank weapons." is what i found. I couldnt find the exact drop-off range stated anywhere
I suppose that was the doctrine for a meeting engagement, when there's no time to bring up the tanks - perhaps not 150 metres, but on line/slightly ahead of the BTRs.
Could you do one on the 1979 US? I find im having trouble with M113, damn bmps keep putting 73mm holes in my tin can on tracks
Also I have an old ass book from 1963 which goes in depth in Soviet tactics. It was originally intended for nato infantry officers
Probably goes without saying, but the M113 should not be in a position to get shot. They are barely proof against arty fragments and rifle rounds. Definitely very inferior to the BMP, but they are APCs, not IFVs. Dismount your infantry before you are in range, which is easier said than done with the range on the BMPs. I too am interested to see him do videos on the US forces.
@@jsilva4595 I mostly try to keep the M113s in depth but the dismount inf can only do so much on the defensive. Plus the atgm version im not having any lucky getting hits.
I'm certainly doing the NTC Training Campaign and the core unit is M113 based. How to avoid getting them shot is err... difficult at the NTC though!
@@usuallyhapless9481Yeah that's the one I'm having trouble at haha. Look forward to seeing more cold war stuff !
Great and informative video! Would BMPs also stay behind in the dismounted assault like the BTRs or would they be in line with/slightly behind the tanks?
I would think they would be slightly behind. The effective range on the ATGMs should be far enough that they are relatively safe from M60 rounds.
I would expect BMPs and BTRs to be essentially interchangeable in this kind on context... except the BMPs have a lot more firepower.
@@usuallyhapless9481 Thanks for answering!
as I understand BMPs were prefered for cooperation with tanks while the BTRs were prefered in the flanking role/flank security. you could look at this in the manner of BMPs being heavy cavalry and BTR being light.
@@buckplug2423 i wouldn't compare it to heavy vs light cavalry as even heavy cavalry was typically a flanking unit. its more like BMPs are line (heavy) infantry and BTRs are (medium) cavalry, atleast in offensive operations...
Who designed these Soviet doctrine scenarios? I thought your briefly mentioned him in the Death Ride to Schweben series.
I have not played this game since Normandy Pack. A really challenging Sim it needs to have a re-supply or even re-enforcement system. Any updates or changes since then?
CM Cold War is out now. *Checks Steam* : "Coming soon."
Wat?
It's out on Battlefront's own website right now (www.battlefront.com/cold-war/cmcw-base-game/) but the Steam release has been delayed so that Slitherine can add their PBEM system in, which is totally going to be worth it.
If you get CMCW from Battlefront, you'll automatically get a Steam key when it comes out on Steam.
curious, how do you have this version to play? as a youtuber did you get an advance copy to test and promote? As of 7/3 /21 Cold War isn't ready for sale yet
It was released at the end of April, just not on Steam. www.battlefront.com/cold-war/
Slitherine are handling the Steam release and wanted to include an improved multiplayer system, which has delayed the Steam version a little. You can get it from Battlefront now though and you'll get a free Steam key when it comes out on Steam.
Why is the emblem for the soviet campaign a modern Russian one? It even has the Russian imperial eagle on it.
Good spot. I can fix that!
How are you able to view individual stats in the AAR? In most of your videos you usually break down which individual units got the most kills and I've been unable to find the solution as to how. Thanks!
When battle ends can check map. Select any unit on map and its kills listed bottom left of screen.
@@fekkov5461 awesome thank you
I though T64s were supposed to be in tank divisions and the older T62s were supposed to be attached to infantry?
The tank units probably would've got preference for new equipment, but by the mid 80s, pretty much *everyone* in the GSVG had either 64s or 80s.
Y U no Davy Crockett?
A question on mods. I've generally preferred to play with historically accurate, faction specific map symbols for the unit icons. To this end I have generally preferred CatTacticalIcons for most titles. What I've done so far is I've taken the CatTacticalIcons mod for CMSF and dropped it into CMCW for the blue forces (I assume NATO symbols didn't change much from 1980 to 2008), and then done the same for the Soviet forces with the CatTacticalIcons mod for CMRT (I had to go in and change some file names for that since the Soviet forces are labeled as blue in Red Thunder). It works perfectly, but I'm a little unsure if it's entirely appropriate to the period since the icons that Canadian Cat made for the Soviet forces in Red Thunder are based off of the map symbols the Soviets used in WW2, which may have changed by the 80's. I don't suppose you have any idea how similar Soviet WW2 map symbols were to Soviet 1980's map symbols? And if they are sufficiently different might there be any word on when Canadian Cat might be releasing a Cold War version of their mod?
Here's a link to a screenshot I took with these icons for this very engagement ibb.co/tJtkm3F
I honestly have no idea! The best I can do is say that the icons in the screenshot are not quite the same as those in the maps in "The Bear Went Over the Mountain", "The Other Side of the Mountain" and "The Soviet Afghan War", which I believe use Soviet symbology (of course, I could be completely wrong!).
I know the Bil Hardenberger has already made an icon mod (community.battlefront.com/topic/139036-cmcw-floating-icon-mod-nato-symbols/) and that this looks pretty similar to what I've seen, plus he intends to expand it.
@@usuallyhapless9481 Ok, I have spent the better part of the day researching both NATO and Soviet symbols now so I think I have a decent handle on it. It's not actually that complicated, but some of the information seems to be pretty hard to find using google (at least to the level of detail I would like). But I think I more or less managed it.
One of the things that threw me off is that Bil and Cat are using different icons for even the NATO vehicles. The resolution to this apparent conflict is that Cat is using the NATO symbols for the corresponding units those vehicles are a part of (a tank is represented by a rectangle with an oval in it, indicating an armored unit, while an APC/IFV is represented with a rectangle with an X over an oval, indicating a mechanized infantry unit), while Bil is using the symbols for the individual type of vehicle (a tank is represented by a square with brackets on either side and two lines in the middle, indicating a tank, while an APC/IFV is represented by a diamond with brackets on either side, indicating an IFV). The distinction between symbols for units and symbols for individual pieces of equipment is one that I wasn't previously aware of, but it means that Bil's approach is probably the more correct one, since Combat Mission is modeling individual vehicles. One issue with Bil's symbols is that he seems to be using the IFV symbol to represent APCs, which had their own symbol. He is also using the NATO infantry symbol to represent Soviet infantry. But I really like his use of the tan clover shaped symbols for unknown contacts (NATO unit symbols are contained in a rectangle for friendlies, diamond for enemies, square for civilians, and clover for unknown)!
As for Soviet symbols it turns out that I was right to suspect that there would have been changes in the intervening decades. Most of the WW2 Soviet symbols are correct for the 1980's. The tank symbols have changed. In WW2 an empty diamond represents a light tank, a diamond with a line down the middle represents a medium tank, and a diamond with a dot in the middle represents a heavy tank. In the 1980's an empty diamond represents a tank, and there are no variations for light and heavy (as far as I've been able to find). The symbols for light armored vehicles have also changed. The bullet shaped symbol which used to stand for an armored car (and which is representing my BTRs in the above screenshot) stands for an unarmored vehicle in the 80's, while APCs and IFVs are represented by a slightly pointier version of the symbol. So mostly what Bil is doing with his icons seems to be correct for the Soviets, except that the Soviet infantry are being represented by the NATO symbol.
I think at a certain point I am just going to have to download an art program and make my own symbols. I will need to learn some digital art skills, but I'm pretty sure I saw a Udemy course that fit the bill. But I'll be happy with Bil's icons for now.
ce6nrkqeesdht2jxylpqct5aoi-ac4c6men2g7xr2a-army-armor-kiev-ua.translate.goog/tactik/msr_nastup.shtml (shows three infantry squads side by side, with the platoon hq a little ways back)
www.awl.edu.pl/images/en/APP_6_C.pdf (pages 128 & 130 show the symbols for NATO APCs, IFVs, and Tanks)
ce6nrkqeesdht2jxylpqct5aoi-ac4c6men2g7xr2a-army-armor-kiev-ua.translate.goog/hist/takznaki.shtml (a non-comprehensive list of Soviet symbols)
What kind of movement order did you give to these tanks and BTR
Almost always Quick. Fast means they won't react as much to enemy fire and Move is too slow.
is it me, or do they miss a scout platoon?
probably already wiped out or moved on after doing recon of the enemy position :)
This was a battalion level attack. The scouts are a regimental asset. There is a scout company in the Motor Rifle Regiment table of organization, but there is no scout platoon in the Motor Rifle Battalion table of organization. Doctrinally the regimental scouts would have gone in before the battalion was committed to attack, but by the beginning of this scenario the recon has supposedly already been done.
Why were the t 64 tank commanders constantly outside there hatch
Having watched this, perhaps it's time for wargame such as CM to review the general effectiveness of Russian armed forces.
TBH, it's modelled pretty accurately. The US force in this video is essentially a lower-tier unit, poorly deployed. Swap the M60s for Abrams and the M113s for Bradleys and this kind of doctrinal attack just evaporates.
Is there any particular reason you were having the entire formation of tanks halt in unison to fire, rather than bounding overwatch all the way forward? Seems like you're giving the enemy an easier time of killing you.
He's underplaying his skills so that viewers have a chance to do better. I agree with your assessment and would have bounded them 1/3 at a time. I also would have split the two halves with smoke and taken on one side at a time.
Hes demonstrating the way the textbook attack would go according to the missions description. IRL id expect all tanks to move forward at medium speed and individually or by platoon halt if they see targets and then catch up to the rest of the advancing battle line. That way they can balance firepower wih enough speed to overwhelm the defender.
Feel free to fact check this as my source is "half-remembered from something I read years ago", but IIRC they were not to bound below the company level for reasons of keeping things simple. The tanks themselves don't have a particularly good view of what's going on and all eyes would be looking for targets, rather than trying to spot what the rest of the company was doing.
What holoween said. Plus, it's important to remember that this is designed to be as simple as possible so it can be carried out automatically by conscripts under battlefield stress.
Soviets didn't do much fire and maneuver. They figured that it's useless in most situations, only slowing down an attack and dividing the firepower.
Very obliging of bluefor to string themselves out in the open without any kind of screening or depth. Would definitely fight motor rifle battalion with 100m of depth for my company group.
Do a team yankee Cold War mission like if you had red the book then do it and make maps and do a Series PLS
This might be useful, UK MoD contemporary training video: th-cam.com/video/Z934vdTbbXw/w-d-xo.html Also in theory the 1st echelon should be advancing as their artillery is still landing, to support them crossing the open ground / engagement area.
I used to have a copy of "The Encounter Battle" (the steps prior to a deliberate attack) but I've mislaid it. Found a copy: th-cam.com/video/jcYTM_PJ4rY/w-d-xo.html
Also lots of Blue units sky lined / on forward slopes?
@@whya2ndaccount he did say this was ideal conditions
casualties does not matter
Which tank is better t 64 or m60 in this game?
Broadly speaking, the T64... though the later M60A3s and M60A3 TTSs arguably edge it out. The M60 is an iterative design with roots in the M26 Pershing while the T64 is more revolutionary.
T-64 has far superior armament and armour, generally quite good mobility as long as the engine isn't broken down, and comparable or better fire control and optics than the earlier M60s. Later M60s and especially the TTS gain a pretty significant advantage in the latter two (especially over the 64A) which becomes even more apparent at night, where the T-64s are near blind by comparison. The entire Patton family was just stopgap after stopgap, but the inclusion of thermal optics and a quite decent FCS really did help claw back some advantages.
@@rossmum I mean the t 64 overall was much better but the Soviets have always lagge d behind in optics they stopped putting there best optics on the t 64 as they started putting them on the t 80
@@usuallyhapless9481 that's fair enough as the Soviets lacked behind the USa in spotting capabilities but I think American m60s and soviet t 72s fought in the Iran Iraq war of course not the best models but they were roughly equivalent in terms of how much they were upgraded I m pritty sure t 72s easaly beat the m 60 couse there gun and armor was supirior and the t 72 at the time was vary simular to the t 64 with worser fcs but those weren't the m 60 with thermal sights
@@tonyjoka2346 i don't know about the iran-iraq war, but in lebanon in 82 T-72ms wiped the floor with Isreali M60s even in Isreali sources (killing dozens or even scores of M60s with no loses [atleast to M60s])
Karantanski panter
Great video!