Matrix Games Forums

I am trying to wrap up my Soviet TOE for the early 60's period and facing a wide variety of options on divisional artillery organizations.

I have four sources already. They are FM 30-102 1959 & 1960, Barry Beldam at http://www.armouredacorn.com/#!russian-orbats/c101q, and the July 1962 edition of Artillery Trends, which is available on line at Fort Sill.

The variation is in the number of 122mm tubes. All seem to be in agreement on the number of heavy mortars, rocket projectors, and heavy anti-tank weapons.

Beldam and FM 30-102 1959 seem to agree on 36 122mm tubes in the divisions. FM 30-102 1960 reads to me as if there are only 18 tubes. The Artillery Trends article describes an artillery brigade with one regiment of two batteries of 12 122mm tubes and a battery of the heavy mortars. And then there is a second regiment of two batteries of 12 122mm tubes and 12 heavy anti-tank guns.

An interesting note on those heavy anti-tank units . . . I managed to google into some FOIA cleared CIA papers on the replacement of those AT guns by first generation Soviet ATGM's. Google FOIA ironbark or FOIA "iron bark."

Anyway,

18 122mm tubes?
36 122mm tubes?
48 122mm tubes?

What size unit are you looking at?

Good Hunting.

MR

I am looking at divisional artillery. So the number of 122mm tubes per motor rifle division and armored division.

On all the other topics my four sources are in the same ball park with minor variations. But on the number of D30/D74 they range from 18 to 48.

I am leaning towards the organization described in the article from Artillery Trends. But I am open to other opinions.

I think the reason for the big discrepancy is tubes supporting the MRR's may be counted in some of them. I'll have a look at my documentation next week. At the moment I'm busy with trying to get a campaign in the 2.04 release...[8D]

If I forget, remind me.

Good Hunting.

MR

Found this FOIAed CIA document http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/f ... -03-17.pdf That confirms one artillery battalion of 18 tubes was intended for the MRD. A companion document http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/f ... -03-14.pdf allows 36 to the TD. And indeed the Soviet army was much reduced during the Kruschev eras.

Of course, one is left wondering what the front-line troops were left with in East Germany. The author of the piece from Artillery Trends must have had some reason to be expecting to meet the force he described.

Since I have not defined any specific divisional forces seems like the easiest thing to do is to define various types of artillery units for the scenario designer to choose from.

Trolling the internet is so much more fun than typing in spreadsheets -- sometimes.

http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/f ... 10-01a.pdf

That is some interesting reading. Thanks for posting the links.

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin

That is some interesting reading. Thanks for posting the links.

First class procrastination too. [:D]

Another on the topic, this time a lot of Glantz courtesy of Google books:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Soviet+ ... channel=sb

Basically, for the period I am interested in (Berlin to Cuba) it would be hard to trim the Soviets too much.

Of course the premise on both sides at that time was tactical nuclear war. But that doesn't interest me. So make up your alternate timeline for why forces designed for nuclear conflict would fight a non-nuke war.

I favor alien intervention. [8D] Klaatu nikto barada, and all that.

Or maybe the detonation of a nuclear weapon at Goldsboro, North Carolina reoriented world attention. [X(]