Platoon units for USSR

[niemand303]

What I was wondering, is why NATO can use platoon-sized forces separately (allowing to spread out properly and evade large losses), while Soviets lack this ability. I was answered once that it's part of the Soviet doctrine to use companies as a tactical unit, so I decided to find any proofs for that by myself.

First of all, I must note that "doctrine" is rather a set of recommendations than rules, so that argument seems not that important.

Secondly, what I've found, looking through a 1984 handbook for Soviet officers called "Tactics" by Reznichenko (was translated in English under a title "Tactics, a Soviet way"), was following:

В связи с дальнейшим усложнением современного наступательного боя исключительное значение приобретают проявление командирами, офицерами штабов, политработниками широкой инициативы и творчества в выборе способов разгрома противника...

It says that: "Due to the complications of modern offensive combat initiative and creativity of field commanders, HQ officers and political workers, plays an exceptional role in deciding how to defeat the enemy..."

That basically justifies the divergences from the "rulebook".
Then, a couple of pages after it's followed by a scheme (not sure if forum will allow me to upload a picture), which clearly indicates that on attacking movements and meeting engagements the company should be split into platoons ("Рубеж развертывания во взводные колонны", "Line of [company] deployment into platoon columns"):

[WildCatNL]

IMO, use of platoon columns (so platoon vehicles trailing behind its leader / point vehicle) simply confirms the company is the tactical unit.
If the platoon would be the tactical unit, it would deploy in line, wedge, vee, but not in column, in order to engage.

William

[CapnDarwin]

As William points out, the basic level of command and control for most Soviet combat units is the company. The company also operates well within the 500m hex foot print. NATO doctrine provides independent operation and flexibility down to platoon level. That's how we modeled the restrictions in game. In the late 80s, the Soviets added operational maneuver groups (OMGs) to their formations and those setup are more NATO like in design and operation.

[76mm]

I don't believe that the quote from Soviet doctrine has anything to do with using platoons as a tactical unit. Even the tactical diagram shows platoons essentially being deployed within a company formation.

I would think that it might make sense for certain specialized units to have the ability to deploy as platoons (recon, AA, engineers, etc.) but not basic tank and mech units.

[niemand303]

Okay, well, maybe it's not wrong, but that still limits tactical abilities of WarPac to basically "zerg rush"-style tactics with no ability to perform any complicated maneuvers in depth given the size of maps (4 battle counters per battalion instead of 12), maybe introduce it with something like a buildup/breakdown order (WitE/WitW), which allows to spend one order point to form a unit out of platoons or break a company into platoons? Just a suggestion, seeing the abnormal power of NATO artillery it's pretty hard to play with Pact: one tanks company gets stuck on a minefield/obstacle -> gets shot once by arty -> loses a third at least of its subunits -> planes, tanks and other arty assets finish it up, while having them as platoons means that you can either "leave behind" a stuck platoon (seeing how they move in columns that would be logical that units moving behind won't make the same mistake) and act with other company assets.

[Mad Russian]

The main reason is control. NATO armies emphasize control of platoons with a single officer and with NCO's having the ability to maneuver squads. The Soviet system doesn't use NCO's to implement tactical employment. There was an effort to study US/NATO command structures by the Soviets in the late 90's, I believe, but they determined it wasn't possible with their level of participation by their NCO's.

This results in the officer in charge of the Soviet company being the one directing all the elements of that unit.

Good Hunting.

MR

[niemand303]

That's a good argument, okay, I think that might be wrong realism-wise, though I've surely heard of platoon acting separately in cases of special forces. Let it be that way. More challenge then.

[CapnDarwin]

There are a number of platoon units in the Soviet OOB . Mainly, recon, AD, and other support type functions.

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin
There are a number of platoon units in the Soviet OOB . Mainly, recon...

This works fine using the Bn/Regt recon platoon as the Combat Reconnaissance Patrol (CRP). The Forward Security Element (FSE) is a company, followed by the Bn(-) as the Main Force. I don't have an issue with the current OPFOR units in the game.

I've commented before about the command and control differences between NATO and Warsaw Pact and how this game could better simulate all that. I don't want to rehash all that again. For now, I'm waiting to hear what's going to happen in Southern Storm with all that, and what may happen with limited orders and such.

[Mad Russian]

This is a good time for you to list what you would like to see for the differences between NATO and the WP. Because the system is being looked at and getting closer to a final end game code it would be good to discuss now what you guys want to see in the line of Command and Control.

There is a lot going on but this is an important time in the development of the game code. So,if you have something you think should be in the code for the game going forward now is the time to bring it up.

We have all the things that have been gone over repeatedly, like movement order delays, scooting times, delays applied when you change orders, Waypoint unit modes, etc., but, it wouldn't hurt to have a constructive discussion about Command and Control. Much of that will be handled in the new system Jim is working on but it wouldn't hurt to touch base with you guys one last time to see if there is something else that could be added.

Good Hunting.

MR

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

This is a good time for you to list what you would like to see for the differences between NATO and the WP. Because the system is being looked at and getting closer to a final end game code it would be good to discuss now what you guys want to see in the line of Command and Control.

There is a lot going on but this is an important time in the development of the game code. So,if you have something you think should be in the code for the game going forward now is the time to bring it up.

We have all the things that have been gone over repeatedly, like movement order delays, scooting times, delays applied when you change orders, Waypoint unit modes, etc., but, it wouldn't hurt to have a constructive discussion about Command and Control. Much of that will be handled in the new system Jim is working on but it wouldn't hurt to touch base with you guys one last time to see if there is something else that could be added.

Good Hunting.

MR

Again, I don't want to rehash all that; it's all still there from a year ago at Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault!. It all depends on what you guys decide to do with having limited orders or not, how many are provided for the TOCs, what orders "count" against the limits versus what doesn't, etc. Assault! provided an interesting C2 game mechanic that could be emulated in whole or in part, but it wasn't perfect; nothing is. I think the general idea is worth considering, at least as a benchmark for whatever alternative(s) are being considered. At the end of the day we should be able to see some noticeable differences between NATO and Soviet/Warsaw Pact C2 that compels players/AI to adopt different tactics.

[Mad Russian]

Okay.

We offered.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Deathtreader]

Hi,

Not being an expert on how the command delay is being determined currently, I'm just going to put this out there......

How about a tiered set of command delays that varies by formation level as opposed to the "global" one size fits all that we have today. Depending on a host of factors (such as no. of HQ's) sections/platoons/companies/battalions/regt's could have their own unique variable command delay. Formation "A" could currently be at 21 minutes while formation "B" could currently be at 29 minutes etc. etc. Probably a programming nightmare .

I'm not complaining and am perfectly content with the current system but am just offering an alternative per your invitation. [:)]

Rob.

[CapnDarwin]

Rob,

We are looking at something like that for Southern Storm with more cause and effect of range of action to need to bump up to the next HQ to get approval and thus added delays on top of readiness, jamming, losses etc.

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin
We are looking at something like that for Southern Storm with more cause and effect of range of action to need to bump up to the next HQ to get approval and thus added delays on top of readiness, jamming, losses etc.

Somehow the game should account for planning, contingency orders, FRAGOs, etc. It's not like every new "order" is going to be a complete 5-paragraph OPORD from scratch requiring higher approvals and such. Which is one reason I was irked when we found out the "On Call" only works for arty and not as a means for regular units to be standing by to immediately execute a [pre-planned] order. Perhaps that will make it into Southern Storm. Or something along those lines? Just a suggestion...