Hello, I am asking this question because recent conflicts (Ukraine, but before that, Irak, middle east) showed that soviet weapons were not that efficient. Guns had shorter ranges than described, and fire control systems were far less precise than occidental ones, even in 1989. Specially at night (most of the time no more than a few hundred meters).
How can we reflect that in flashpoint ?
yours
are soviet units overrated ?
Moderator: MOD_Flashpoint
Re: are soviet units overrated ?
I think that we need to be careful that we don't make the wrong Comparisions between what is happening today in the Ukraine and the Soviet military of the cold war. They are in many ways apple and oranges.
That being said, we may have overestimated the Soviet equipment and their military somewhat, but not as much as some are trying to suggest. My 2 cents.
That being said, we may have overestimated the Soviet equipment and their military somewhat, but not as much as some are trying to suggest. My 2 cents.
Charles Belva
On Target Simulations LLC
On Target Simulations LLC
Re: are soviet units overrated ?
While I agree that it's apples and oranges to a certain degree, I will say that I am asking the same question too. I am new to the Flashpoint games (and I am really enjoying them 
), but I am not new to the cold war/modern genre. My biggest question comes specifically from T-80's and M1A1's squaring off. Yesterday for instance a Plt of M-1's were 1 or two elevations higher, and dug-in at a range of 2.5km while a Co of T-80's were advancing down a road. My understanding for decades is that situation is near optimal for M-1's, especially since the M-1's were engaging with oblique and side shots. Much to my surprise the T-80's roll into sight, get the first shot off, and knock out 3 of the M-1's before any response. I experience T-80's doing this with too much frequency to suggest it was a complete statistical anomaly. I would understand if the M-1's were closer, and/or moving. Perhaps I am missing something? Interestingly in the same battle the same company advances to a victory point location which is within range and sight of dug-in mech inf. The inf never engaged despite full ammo and sight (and the proper SOP).
Overall I am loving this game and have few issues with what I have seen, but the front line Soviet tanks seem a little too effective at ranges over 2km based on my understanding.
), but I am not new to the cold war/modern genre. My biggest question comes specifically from T-80's and M1A1's squaring off. Yesterday for instance a Plt of M-1's were 1 or two elevations higher, and dug-in at a range of 2.5km while a Co of T-80's were advancing down a road. My understanding for decades is that situation is near optimal for M-1's, especially since the M-1's were engaging with oblique and side shots. Much to my surprise the T-80's roll into sight, get the first shot off, and knock out 3 of the M-1's before any response. I experience T-80's doing this with too much frequency to suggest it was a complete statistical anomaly. I would understand if the M-1's were closer, and/or moving. Perhaps I am missing something? Interestingly in the same battle the same company advances to a victory point location which is within range and sight of dug-in mech inf. The inf never engaged despite full ammo and sight (and the proper SOP).Overall I am loving this game and have few issues with what I have seen, but the front line Soviet tanks seem a little too effective at ranges over 2km based on my understanding.
Last edited by choppinlt on Mon Dec 05, 2022 6:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
cobexlaw888
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:57 pm
Re: are soviet units overrated ?
same thing, any western tank in a favorable firing position gets shots from far distance soviet tanks. It is quite impossible to setup a simple ambush in this game
-
CapnDarwin
- Posts: 9515
- Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 3:34 pm
- Location: Newark, OH
- Contact:
Re: are soviet units overrated ?
There are a couple of things with long-range fires. First, we fixed a bug dealing with long-ranged fires and the hit chance and aspect being engaged. This is in the update coming this week and will tone down the long-range kills, on both sides, but more noticeable to the Soviets due to equipment differences. Next, we fixed long-range fires and a flank aspect bug that gave way too many flank shots at long range.
The next issue is the perception of kills. Were the M1s fall-outs or kills? Did the Soviets use ATGMs to get long-range hits and fall-outs? There are a bunch of factors. If you have an odd case like that, please grab a screenshot and save game and post them here for us to review.
The next issue is the perception of kills. Were the M1s fall-outs or kills? Did the Soviets use ATGMs to get long-range hits and fall-outs? There are a bunch of factors. If you have an odd case like that, please grab a screenshot and save game and post them here for us to review.
OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!
Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LTD
Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LTD
Re: are soviet units overrated ?
Don't hesitate to post save games which reproduce those situations, along with a description of which units demonstrate unexpected behavior. We're happy to double check, and address any problem that might be there.choppinlt wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 5:46 pm ...
Interestingly in the same battle the same company advances to a victory point location which is within range and sight of dug-in mech inf. The inf never engaged despite full ammo and sight (and the proper SOP).
Overall I am loving this game and have few issues with what I have seen, but the front line Soviet tanks seem a little too effective at ranges over 2km based on my understanding.
William
William
On Target Simulations LLC
On Target Simulations LLC
Re: are soviet units overrated ?
Not sure I literally meant "double check", CapnDarwin...
William
On Target Simulations LLC
On Target Simulations LLC
-
byzantine1990
- Posts: 169
- Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2022 8:14 pm
Re: are soviet units overrated ?
My impression is Soviet hardware is rugged and effective when maintained/used proficiently.
The Ukrainians use Soviet hardware all the time to great effect.
The real killer is corruption and antipathy. Commanders are selling off tanks and spare parts while soldiers sell plate carriers.
In my headcanon, this is an alternate history where the Soviet Union was much more successful and emboldened. The military highly motivated.
The Ukrainians use Soviet hardware all the time to great effect.
The real killer is corruption and antipathy. Commanders are selling off tanks and spare parts while soldiers sell plate carriers.
In my headcanon, this is an alternate history where the Soviet Union was much more successful and emboldened. The military highly motivated.
-
Rake
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 3:53 pm
- Location: The blue waters of the Chesapeake Bay to
- Contact:
Re: are soviet units overrated ?
I had a similar question wile playing the scenario Brothers in Arms I did play with the Beta patch installed.
I knew fairly early that I was facing a bunch of T-55's and I had 3 long-range kills against my M1A1's that I didn't think were feasible with the T-55 without thermals. At the end of the scenario, I find out that these were T-72's, not 55's. Also, every one of the 4 M1A1's that I lost were fall-outs, not hard kills.
I think folks today are possibly a bit prejudiced by what we are seeing as a complete failure of the Russian mission in Ukraine. There are many differences between then and now, not the least of which has to do with equipment maintenance. I also think that the Soviets (and the rest of the WP) spent far more time in training.
I've been taken aback several times with the speed a ferocity of the WP assaults in the game. I've made a habit of saving games and going back at the end of the scenario to check WP SOP's. Orders have been "Assault" with "Holds" and SOP's of "Do-or-Die" losses and Never Relocates.
I don't think the game is far off now... I certainly think so while I'm in the middle of a scenario
I knew fairly early that I was facing a bunch of T-55's and I had 3 long-range kills against my M1A1's that I didn't think were feasible with the T-55 without thermals. At the end of the scenario, I find out that these were T-72's, not 55's. Also, every one of the 4 M1A1's that I lost were fall-outs, not hard kills.
I think folks today are possibly a bit prejudiced by what we are seeing as a complete failure of the Russian mission in Ukraine. There are many differences between then and now, not the least of which has to do with equipment maintenance. I also think that the Soviets (and the rest of the WP) spent far more time in training.
I've been taken aback several times with the speed a ferocity of the WP assaults in the game. I've made a habit of saving games and going back at the end of the scenario to check WP SOP's. Orders have been "Assault" with "Holds" and SOP's of "Do-or-Die" losses and Never Relocates.
I don't think the game is far off now... I certainly think so while I'm in the middle of a scenario
Re: are soviet units overrated ?
Thanks Capn Darwin and WIldCatNL for your responses on this. So I can't say for sure if the hits were ATGM's or AP, but I can say that the fire appears to be too effective. I went back and checked and I understated the range...it was 3.5Km, not 2.5Km.
Capn Darwin, the M-1's were almost all fallen out, with few if any actually destroyed. And while I understand what is going on with all of that, I think your proposed patches will most likely address what I am primarily concerned about. I agree that ALL long range non-guided munitions appears a little too effective.
So I don't digress too much on this thread, I will start a new one with posting a save game to show the infantry issue I discussed earlier. Thanks again!
Capn Darwin, the M-1's were almost all fallen out, with few if any actually destroyed. And while I understand what is going on with all of that, I think your proposed patches will most likely address what I am primarily concerned about. I agree that ALL long range non-guided munitions appears a little too effective.
So I don't digress too much on this thread, I will start a new one with posting a save game to show the infantry issue I discussed earlier. Thanks again!
-
byzantine1990
- Posts: 169
- Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2022 8:14 pm
Re: are soviet units overrated ?
It would be interesting to see how PBEM'S are going.
The Soviets do feel very strong. I've only done single player so far but I find I win pretty easily as the Soviets but struggle as NATO.
The Soviets do feel very strong. I've only done single player so far but I find I win pretty easily as the Soviets but struggle as NATO.
Re: are soviet units overrated ?
Calling Russia A Weak State With A Garbage Military Is A Mistake
By Daniel Davis Published November 22, 2022
Daniel L. Davis is a Senior Fellow for Defense Priorities and a former Lt. Col. in the U.S. Army who deployed into combat zones four times. He is the author of “The Eleventh Hour in 2020 America.” Follow him @DanielLDavis1.
Is the U.S. underestimating Russia? We Westerners often fancy ourselves as having the most brilliant, experienced, and capable militaries in the world. In America, we believe our economic might, backed up by our status as the world’s top oil producer, enables us to dominate all regions of the globe. Yet beneath the surface, there is a growing danger to our country that few recognize: uninformed confidence, lack of knowledge, and dangerous hubris.
Ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu famously wrote, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” America arguably epitomized the first sentence following World War II, fueling our rise as a global superpower; we’re now in danger of embodying the last sentence.
In some instances, over the past few decades, the U.S. has genuinely demonstrated a superior capacity to wage war. Yet as often happens, long stretches of success can produce, not more excellence, but hubris – and hubris often leads to laziness.
When I was a young second lieutenant in 1990 serving in the 2nd United States Cavalry patrolling the Cold War border between East and West Germany, our military leaders were relentless in compelling us to study our potential Soviet opponents ad nauseum. We had to commit to memory their tactics, doctrine, and capabilities of all major weapon systems.
We were never afraid of the Red Army, but we had a very healthy respect for what millions of Soviet troops and tens of thousands of armored vehicles could do if we waged war against them. Knowing our own tactics and abilities as well as those of our would-be Soviet enemies, gave us the confidence to believe we could defeat them if it ever came to war. Today, whether in the U.S. military, diplomatic corps, or in the political arena, there appears precious little interest in putting in the work to know anything about “the enemy.”
To the contrary, we presently believe our side is vastly superior to that of nearly any possible opponent. We routinely mock, ridicule, and condescend on the Russian army, routinely describing them as “incompetent,” “garbage” and in danger of outright “collapse.” There is little evidence that more than a precious few in the think-tank world, on Capitol Hill, or in the Administration – and even the U.S. military – spend sufficient time studying our Russian adversary.
Instead, we love to turn them into a caricature of the “evil” side, devoid of any valid points of view, and of little more than use as a media punching bag. We only seek information about Russia to confirm our existing bias that they are wicked to support our preferred outcome that they be defeated. Such attitudes result in the development of a dangerously inaccurate assessment of our opponent. The reality of this war, in contrast, is that there isn’t a “good” side and a “bad” side, there are just the Ukrainian and Russian sides, each with their own strengths, weaknesses, flaws, and attributes.
By refusing to study and understand the Russians in an open and honest way, we fail to arm ourselves with the information and knowledge necessary to create policies that have a solid chance of attaining outcomes beneficial to the United States. One does not need to love Russia or condone anything they’ve done. But by clinging to the arrogant view that Russia is a weak state, with a garbage military, led by evil men, we stumble into policies that may, through sheer ignorance, inadvertently produce outcomes antithetical to our interests.
We also don’t know ourselves. We believe that our military technology is the best in the world, and it is our sovereign choice as to how much of it we’ll give Ukraine to achieve the outcome we desire, believing the results are fully within our ability to control. We believe that we can force-manage all economic aspects of warfare, in that we consider ourselves brilliant enough to manipulate with a fine instrument measures intended to harm Russia but believe we can simultaneously insulate our own markets from any ill-effects or harm.
We believe we can successfully blunt Russia’s energy resources while maintaining oil prices for our oil that suits our preferences; we do the equivalent of thinking we can drain one end of a pool to deprive our neighbor of water while keeping our end of the pool happily full. By continuing to make policies based on too little knowledge and too much hubris, we play a very dangerous game of, pardon the intentional pun, Russian roulette, with the security and viability of our economy and national security at stake.
In the condition where we know neither our enemy nor ourselves, we are headed to a bad outcome – and if carried far enough, to catastrophe.
By Daniel Davis Published November 22, 2022
Daniel L. Davis is a Senior Fellow for Defense Priorities and a former Lt. Col. in the U.S. Army who deployed into combat zones four times. He is the author of “The Eleventh Hour in 2020 America.” Follow him @DanielLDavis1.
Is the U.S. underestimating Russia? We Westerners often fancy ourselves as having the most brilliant, experienced, and capable militaries in the world. In America, we believe our economic might, backed up by our status as the world’s top oil producer, enables us to dominate all regions of the globe. Yet beneath the surface, there is a growing danger to our country that few recognize: uninformed confidence, lack of knowledge, and dangerous hubris.
Ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu famously wrote, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” America arguably epitomized the first sentence following World War II, fueling our rise as a global superpower; we’re now in danger of embodying the last sentence.
In some instances, over the past few decades, the U.S. has genuinely demonstrated a superior capacity to wage war. Yet as often happens, long stretches of success can produce, not more excellence, but hubris – and hubris often leads to laziness.
When I was a young second lieutenant in 1990 serving in the 2nd United States Cavalry patrolling the Cold War border between East and West Germany, our military leaders were relentless in compelling us to study our potential Soviet opponents ad nauseum. We had to commit to memory their tactics, doctrine, and capabilities of all major weapon systems.
We were never afraid of the Red Army, but we had a very healthy respect for what millions of Soviet troops and tens of thousands of armored vehicles could do if we waged war against them. Knowing our own tactics and abilities as well as those of our would-be Soviet enemies, gave us the confidence to believe we could defeat them if it ever came to war. Today, whether in the U.S. military, diplomatic corps, or in the political arena, there appears precious little interest in putting in the work to know anything about “the enemy.”
To the contrary, we presently believe our side is vastly superior to that of nearly any possible opponent. We routinely mock, ridicule, and condescend on the Russian army, routinely describing them as “incompetent,” “garbage” and in danger of outright “collapse.” There is little evidence that more than a precious few in the think-tank world, on Capitol Hill, or in the Administration – and even the U.S. military – spend sufficient time studying our Russian adversary.
Instead, we love to turn them into a caricature of the “evil” side, devoid of any valid points of view, and of little more than use as a media punching bag. We only seek information about Russia to confirm our existing bias that they are wicked to support our preferred outcome that they be defeated. Such attitudes result in the development of a dangerously inaccurate assessment of our opponent. The reality of this war, in contrast, is that there isn’t a “good” side and a “bad” side, there are just the Ukrainian and Russian sides, each with their own strengths, weaknesses, flaws, and attributes.
By refusing to study and understand the Russians in an open and honest way, we fail to arm ourselves with the information and knowledge necessary to create policies that have a solid chance of attaining outcomes beneficial to the United States. One does not need to love Russia or condone anything they’ve done. But by clinging to the arrogant view that Russia is a weak state, with a garbage military, led by evil men, we stumble into policies that may, through sheer ignorance, inadvertently produce outcomes antithetical to our interests.
We also don’t know ourselves. We believe that our military technology is the best in the world, and it is our sovereign choice as to how much of it we’ll give Ukraine to achieve the outcome we desire, believing the results are fully within our ability to control. We believe that we can force-manage all economic aspects of warfare, in that we consider ourselves brilliant enough to manipulate with a fine instrument measures intended to harm Russia but believe we can simultaneously insulate our own markets from any ill-effects or harm.
We believe we can successfully blunt Russia’s energy resources while maintaining oil prices for our oil that suits our preferences; we do the equivalent of thinking we can drain one end of a pool to deprive our neighbor of water while keeping our end of the pool happily full. By continuing to make policies based on too little knowledge and too much hubris, we play a very dangerous game of, pardon the intentional pun, Russian roulette, with the security and viability of our economy and national security at stake.
In the condition where we know neither our enemy nor ourselves, we are headed to a bad outcome – and if carried far enough, to catastrophe.
-
cobexlaw888
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:57 pm
Re: are soviet units overrated ?
interesting post, but I was posting about technical issues. 2 years after, operation desert storm, soviet hardware was annihilated by us hardware. Lebanon before that, same thing. There is not a single exemple in history where soviet weapons outmatched us weapons (mays SAMs in vietnam). And corruption, bad motivation, bad management, existed in the time of USSR too.
Re: are soviet units overrated ?
I suggest digging more on different opinions and analysis, such as from McGreggor below, specially on an ongoing war, before naively making assumptions on russian hardware.
There are even more updated analysis on his channel.
"I think folks today are possibly a bit prejudiced by what we are seeing as a complete failure of the Russian mission in Ukraine."
Too soon too early...we dont have the clear picture yet, not the real intentions and strategies, besides what we see on the mainstream media. If there is a notion that the objective was to occupy all of ukraine, then of course, we might think that we have a failure. But this is an assuption only...no more than that.
I do tend to agree with Cbelva statement and this certainly can be extended to Russia currently: "That being said, we may have overestimated the Soviet equipment and their military somewhat, but not as much as some are trying to suggest."
There are even more updated analysis on his channel.
"I think folks today are possibly a bit prejudiced by what we are seeing as a complete failure of the Russian mission in Ukraine."
Too soon too early...we dont have the clear picture yet, not the real intentions and strategies, besides what we see on the mainstream media. If there is a notion that the objective was to occupy all of ukraine, then of course, we might think that we have a failure. But this is an assuption only...no more than that.
I do tend to agree with Cbelva statement and this certainly can be extended to Russia currently: "That being said, we may have overestimated the Soviet equipment and their military somewhat, but not as much as some are trying to suggest."
Last edited by Rinco on Wed Dec 07, 2022 12:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: are soviet units overrated ?
Who's not trying to study and understand the Russians? I think we could point to a ton of people in the west, from pros to us amateur's that have spent a lifetime fascinated by the world's largest country and its vast array of people. I think the LTC is a little presumptuous.
Flashpoint Campaigns Contributor
https://twitter.com/22sec2
https://twitter.com/22sec2
Re: are soviet units overrated ?
Agree...just be careful...we are not talking about Iraq, nor Lebanon...I am just saying there are a lot of too assertive and conclusives statements here on very complex issue...too soon too early... Specially regarding modern russian equipment and current events.cobexlaw888 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 10:00 pm interesting post, but I was posting about technical issues. 2 years after, operation desert storm, soviet hardware was annihilated by us hardware. Lebanon before that, same thing. There is not a single exemple in history where soviet weapons outmatched us weapons (mays SAMs in vietnam). And corruption, bad motivation, bad management, existed in the time of USSR too.
Re: are soviet units overrated ?
Based on the western coverage of this war...I disagree with you...besides that, this was a post for a reflexion Sir. Not me neither the LTC is pointing the finger to any one here in particular.22sec wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 10:17 pm Who's not trying to study and understand the Russians? I think we could point to a ton of people in the west, from pros to us amateur's that have spent a lifetime fascinated by the world's largest country and its vast array of people. I think the LTC is a little presumptuous.
"I think folks today are possibly a bit prejudiced by what we are seeing as a complete failure of the Russian mission in Ukraine."
Thats my point and the LTC's...This is presumptuous.
Re: are soviet units overrated ?
Besides that, as yourself have mentioned...want to compare performance and capabilities machine X machine, you should put them against in equal terms...as moral, training and several other factors rake place. So why are you mixing apples with oranges in the analysis? Lebanon and desert storm don't add much. Specially for any parallel, more less conclusive, for the current conflict in Ukraine.Rinco wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 10:20 pmAgree...just be careful...we are not talking about Iraq, nor Lebanon...I am just saying there are a lot of too assertive and conclusives statements here on very complex issue...too soon too early... Specially regarding modern russian equipment and current events.cobexlaw888 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 10:00 pm interesting post, but I was posting about technical issues. 2 years after, operation desert storm, soviet hardware was annihilated by us hardware. Lebanon before that, same thing. There is not a single exemple in history where soviet weapons outmatched us weapons (mays SAMs in vietnam). And corruption, bad motivation, bad management, existed in the time of USSR too.
Re: are soviet units overrated ?
Rinco wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 10:22 pmBased on the western coverage of this war...I disagree with you...besides that, this was a post for a reflexion Sir. Not me neither the LTC is pointing the finger to any one here in particular.22sec wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 10:17 pm Who's not trying to study and understand the Russians? I think we could point to a ton of people in the west, from pros to us amateur's that have spent a lifetime fascinated by the world's largest country and its vast array of people. I think the LTC is a little presumptuous.
"I think folks today are possibly a bit prejudiced by what we are seeing as a complete failure of the Russian mission in Ukraine."
Thats my point and the LTC's...This is presumptuous.
You know what really has grown for me watching this war unlike any other. As an American I think we often picture the average Russian (and Ukrainians) looking European. I know better now. The influence of Asia on the Russian people and culture is now so obvious. It's truly fascinates me and generates lots more thoughts about what else was missing in my perception of Russia and the USSR.Flashpoint Campaigns Contributor
https://twitter.com/22sec2
https://twitter.com/22sec2
Re: are soviet units overrated ?
I just genuinely hope we don't risk biasing the game. This is a great simulation.
Too strong, too weak...I do still think it depends on the side you are playing. I play mostly with the reds, you can imagine based on my avatar...
...and I feel hard as hell playing with them. Can't see much, can only hit hard close, I lose a lot of my men...have to plan way ahead because of the long C&C cycle, have to overly think on the terrain to have a fighting chance....I don't see where the soviets are strong...perhaps in numbers, SAM and arty...but SAMs and Arty are also strong on the NATO side...
If the devs downgrade the reds even further it will be impossible to play with them...
Just my amateurish opinion.
Cheers to you all.
Too strong, too weak...I do still think it depends on the side you are playing. I play mostly with the reds, you can imagine based on my avatar...
...and I feel hard as hell playing with them. Can't see much, can only hit hard close, I lose a lot of my men...have to plan way ahead because of the long C&C cycle, have to overly think on the terrain to have a fighting chance....I don't see where the soviets are strong...perhaps in numbers, SAM and arty...but SAMs and Arty are also strong on the NATO side...If the devs downgrade the reds even further it will be impossible to play with them...
Just my amateurish opinion.
Cheers to you all.