THE REAL 1980s SHOCK TROOPS OF THE SOVIET ARMY

 

When Battlefront published WORLD WAR III TEAM YANKEE SOVIETS https://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=7154 four years ago, they introduced Soviet units with NATO capabilities – the Shock T80 company.  The backstory was that one of the regiments of 4th Guards Tank Division was permitted to experiment with Western-style tactics.  The regiment created a special ‘shock’ battalion pairing shock tank companies with shock motor rifle companies.

Some consider the story inflated or perhaps fantasy.  The truth is the Soviets had units that trained beyond the NORMs for motor rifle and tank formations and some that mimicked NATO tactics.  The problem is that they weren’t equipped with T80s or BMP-3s.

This is their story, and PART II will be discussion of how to represent these units in casual gaming.

T80 Shock Platoon

Independent Regiments for Border Screening

Soviet troops patrolled the Inner German Border (IGB) from 1946.  When the East Germans established their own military, they quickly established their own border troops – the Grenztruppen.  These were lightly armed paramilitary police units.  While effective at patrolling the border, they offered no security against a NATO attempt to forcibly reunify Germany.  The Soviets backed these troops up with tank battalions augmented with their own infantry.  These were called border screening troops, and distinct from KGB units.  Their purpose was to protect the Soviet (and later Volksarmee) units deploying from garrison.

After Khrushchev ended the Soviet heavy tank family, STAVKA had the problem of repurposing heavy tank organizations.  Many retained their original identities, even as they were re-equipped with Standard Tanks (the Soviet name for what the West called Main Battle Tanks or MBT).  However several became parent HQ for collections of border screening units.

Some heavy tank battalions were fed into the screening organizations or used to give independent tank battalions to motor rifle divisions in the Group of Soviet Forces Germany (GSFG), Central Group of Forces (CGF) and others. By 1980 this process was complete, leaving GSFG with seven Independent Tank regiments for Border Screening.  5th Independent Tank Brigade’s conversion into the 138th Independent Tank Regiment ended the process.

Figure 1 GSFG Independent Tank Regiment

These new regiments initially retained their old tanks until fielding of the T64 made T62s available.  When T62s were withdrawn, they were re-equipped with T64As upgraded in East German workshops to T64B armor standards.  According to ex-Soviet tankers corresponding on TANKNET, the T64s were in place by 1983.

These units’ peacetime function was providing collective training for other Soviet units in their area.  They were encouraged to adopt Western style tactics, so that the beneficiaries of their attention became familiar with how NATO forces would respond.  While not as sophisticated as the National Training Center experience, it was different than the typical Soviet exercise.

The incidental effect was these units were better trained than the typical Soviet unit, and able to copy NATO tactics.  Put differently, they were virtually a match for BF’s description of ‘shock’ units.

In wartime, the role of the border screening regiments mirrored NATO’s covering forces with one significant difference – in short notice scenarios these regiments were expected to roar across the border and screen it from 20-30 kilometers deep in NATO territory, preventing NATO artillery from shelling border crossing points.

T64A, mainstay of Border Screening Regiments in 1985

The organization differed from the standard tank regiment.  Each battalion had FOUR companies with a total of 41 tanks each, giving the regiment 124 tanks.  The regiment had a full BMP battalion with 45 BMPs (BMP-1P after 1983).  Some sources claim the reconnaissance company had an extra tracked recon platoon.  One oddity was the absence of an artillery battalion.

To keep Western intelligence guessing about the wartime purpose of these units, the artillery battalions stationed separately and the TANKNET correspondents claimed they would be augmented by 2S3 Acacia battalions (Coincidentally, seven Soviet divisions in GSFG had an extra 2S3 battalion).

A New (Old) System of Maneuver

In the late 1970s Soviet military thinking focused on two concepts designed to break up NATOs evolving Forward Defense/Active Defense strategy.  At the tactical level the concept was called Forward Detachments (FD) and at the operational (Army and Front) the method was the Operational Maneuver Group (OMG).

These techniques had been the cornerstone of Soviet success in WWII.  However, as the Soviet Army mechanized, the techniques seemed less relevant.  Both techniques exploited the speed differential between motorized units and the largely foot-mobile and horse-drawn formations fighting on the Eastern Front.

Soviet military theorists reconsidered the relevance when NATO moved from MASSIVE RETALIATION to FLEXIBLE RESPONSE in the mid-60s.  NATO’s operational level implementation was Forward Defense – essentially lining the IGB with conventional forces using fixed defenses punctuated with large reserves to contain a Soviet breakthrough.

This system’s weakness was displayed during the Yom Kippur War in 1973.  Both the Syrians and Egyptians broke through Israeli fixed defenses.  The Israelis ‘won’ the war suffering heavy losses.  The USA observed the war and concluded Forward Defense would fail.  They began moving to a different operational method – Active Defense.

Active Defense visualized the Soviet breakthrough being ‘swarmed’ by thinning the Main Line of Resistance (MLR) to commit local reserves in small packets.  Soviet strategists saw opportunities in the Active Defense technique.  This raised potential for smaller Soviet forces to penetrate the remaining cordon on the MLR, as well as counter elements of the ‘swarm.’  This was the job of FDs.

The other opportunity was penetration in operational depth – i.e. to the NATO corps rear boundary – of a large, combined arms force while the main breakthrough was contending with the ‘swarm.’  This penetration would disrupt NATO logistics over a wide area and be too big for the remaining local reserves.  This was the mission of the OMG.

FDs were combined arms units created at the division and regiment level as opportunities arose.  Ideally, the units had teamed together in training.  An OMG had to be preplanned.  Training exercises in the mid-70s showed that ad hoc ‘Corps’ comprising two divisions had the combat power necessary for the mission, but the long logistics tail of the corps and the ad hoc nature of the arrangement reduced efficiency.  Also the bigger the OMG, the longer the response time.

Ultimately the Soviets created specialized units to perform as OMGs at the TVD level, but at Front/Army levels repurposed existing formations to improve response time.  This gave new life to independent tank regiments and independent tank brigades.

I’ve already discussed the border screening regiments of GSFG.  Once their screening mission was complete, they assumed the role of normal independent tank regiments – a quick response OMG for their army.  Each GSFG army had at least one.

Frontal Tank Brigades had disappeared from the GSFG by 1980, but the resources remained.

Hiding In Plain Sight – Tank Training Centers

By 1980 GSFG had consolidated most of its tank training units into two tank training centers operated by the 41st and 101st Tank Training Regiments.  These were large organizations, providing both individual and collective training to GSFG units.

They each had several battalion sets of tanks, although most were T55s – cheaper to operate.  They also had advanced tanks for familiarization and transition training.

With hostilities imminent, they would close.  Western intelligence theorized that they could become the missing Frontal Tank Brigades, operating a mix of advanced (T80 or T64) tanks and T55s.

Figure 2 GSFG Independent Tank Brigade

The Tank Brigade TOE (Table of Organization and Equipment) was like the tank regiment, with tank battalions having five companies instead of four, for a total of 154 tanks.  Both tank training centers easily met this threshold, and 101st Regiment had two training areas and could easily have fielded a fourth tank battalion.    These centers had a mix of self-propelled artillery, likely fielding a mixed battalion.  Again BMPs would provide the transport, although the riflemen would come from reserve units activating in the USSR.

While T55s seem odd in this role, remember the OMG’s purpose was a quick penetration of the NATO MLR and exploitation into the logistics areas.  The T55 was easily a match for the equally old M48s that populated the West German Heimatschutzkommando brigades charged with Rear Area Combat Operations (RACO).  Any tank – including the airborne ASU-85 – was deadly to the logistics units targeted by the OMG.  And T55 fuel requirements were significantly lower than T64 or T80.

These units would have a high proportion of experienced praporschik (warrant officers) to command platoons thus being better able to operate independently.  If the GSFG transitioned to war maintaining this proportion, these units could also qualify as ‘elite.’

T55 with Laser Rangefinder – typical of gunnery training tanks

Combined (Unified) Army Corps

In 1980 the Soviets began experimenting with a new formation, variously called the Combined or Unified Army Corps.  This was a revival of the Soviet mechanized corps of World War II, not a Corps in either the Western sense or the Soviet usage (Soviet corps of the late Cold War were multidivisional territorial commands directly subordinate to a military district, and usually found protecting the external borders.  They lacked most of the support services normally found in a combined arms army).

Three divisions initially participated in this experiment – the 24th (Iron) Motor Rifle Division (MRD) at Lvov, the 120th (Rogachev Guards) Guards MRD at Minsk, and the 5th Guards (Don-Budapest) Tank Division (TKD) at Kyakhta.

In 1982 STAVKA authorized the 120th Guards MRD and the 5th Guards TKD to proceed with the next phase of the experiment.  The 24th MRD was frozen.  Western intelligence theorized that this was because the Soviets couldn’t afford the attack helicopter and air assault regiments demanded by the new TOE.

120th Guards MRD now became the 5th Combined Army Corps (CAC).  5th Guards TKD became the 48th Guards CAC.  The organization developed through 1983.  The CIA reported that the new organization was four brigades of five battalions each.  Figure 3 shows the Corps organization around 1985.

The brigades had an organic BM-21 rocket artillery battalion, doubled the size of their air defense company and later added a battery of eight SA-8 Geckos changing the ADA unit into a battalion.  The Corps air defense regiment eventually had five batteries of SA-11 Gadfly.  The Corps had a BM-27 battalion in addition to ‘divisional’ BM-21s.  The Artillery Regiment expanded to three 2S3 Acacia battalions.

Figure 3 Combined Army Corps c. 1985

The other unusual feature of these units was the Combined Arms Battalion (CAB).  There were at least two in each brigade.  Originally, two tank and one motor rifle battalion completed a Tank Brigade, and the companion Mechanized Brigade added one tank and two motor rifle battalions.

Both Corps had organic air assault capabilities, with a Landing Assault Regiment (including a BMD battalion) and an Independent Assault Helicopter Regiment.

T72A – primary tank for 5th CAC 1983-1985

The number of CABs and subunit organization varied between the two Corps and from year to year.  The baseline CAB appears to have been two tank companies and two motor rifle companies, but at times there were as many as five companies with Tank CAB having 3 tank companies plus 2 motor rifle companies and Mechanized CAB having the reverse.

The baseline organization would have 462 tanks and up to 566 BMPs, 45 BMDs, 72 2S1, 54 2S3, 90 BM21s, 18 BM-27s, 32+ ZSU-23 or Tunguska, 32+ SA-13, 32 SA-8, and 20 SA-11.  As the organization fluctuated, the tank strength approached 500 tanks.

One feature of this experiment was NATO-style task forces combining tanks and BMPs on a habitual basis, to the extent of putting them in the same motor pool.  Training exceeded the norms for the regular forces.

T62M in Desert Camouflage primary tank for 48th Guards CAC until 1987

Initially the 5th CAC fielded T72s and the 48th CACs fielded T62s. As experimental units they had first call on newer equipment (T72B and T62M) and trained intensively.

The Soviets started the experiment with other units (notably 32nd Guards TKD and 90th Guards TKD) but they did not get as far as 24th MRD.

Next article will cover the ways to represent these units in Team Yankee.

 

 

THE REAL 1980s SHOCK TROOPS OF THE SOVIET ARMY – PART II

T72s on parade

By Jim Naughton

When I originally contemplated writing this article, data points were hard to find.  But BF’s expansion of the game has added additional data beyond the original unit in WWIII TY Soviets.

In RED DAWN  we find  ‘VDV’ and ‘VDV Afghantsy’ units, the first being a battalion with improved skills and assault ratings and the second being veteran paratroopers with NATO-like ratings.

From NORDIC FORCES  we find Finnish troops using (mostly) Soviet gear with ratings like the VDV Afghantsy companies.

MIA – PACT Airborne Forces

MIA – PACT Airborne Forces

When Battlefront published RED DAWN and the Airborne Assault Missions Pack 18 months ago, I found one casual comment disturbing.  Page 46 says “WARSAW PACT armies (Czechoslovakian, East German, and Polish) lacked dedicated airborne infantry (as opposed to airborne raiding troops) …”

6th Polish Airborne Division Patch

This is a distinction without a difference, and a dismissal.  I intend to correct the record and give some ideas how these MIA units can be incorporated into the game in casual play.

I’m going to follow the sequence in WARSAW PACT in this discussion but start with a unit found in all PACT armies.

Dynamic Points Come to Team Yankee

Opinion Piece By Jim Naughton

DYNAMIC POINTS: IF ENOUGH CUSTOMERS WHINE, THEY’RE RIGHT

A recent FACEBOOK post called attention to a BF plan to introduce DYNAMIC POINTS into Team Yankee.  It referred the reader to the Team Yankee website.  Since then, there has been a lot discussion in the various TY Groups on social medium.  

Couple years back, dynamic points were invented for Flames of War. The ostensible ‘reason’ for this was FOW tournament players had reacted to the Army Point (AP) values of the bread-and-butter tanks of MIDWAR by choosing Lend-Lease Tanks for the Soviets and spamming armored cars. Armored cars worked because they had enough armor and lots of machine guns to tank-assault many infantry units. Lend-Lease tanks like the M3 medium had an extra shot compared to T34s.

D-Day Upon Us – D-Day+10 Battle Report Part I

By Michael Rafferty

This year marks the 80th anniversary of Operation Overlord and the Battle for Normandy. To commemorate this my local group, the Nerds of War, wanted to run a D-Day themed mega battle. It’s been a few years since we’ve run a mega battle at our FLGS The Game Room and not at AdeptiCon, so we wanted to start things off with something big and flashy.

We have a logo and a banner, we’re official!

I really enjoy running large games for people and I’ve always enjoyed playing in something larger and more cinematic. It’s a good feeling to be maneuvering whole tank companies about the battlefield instead of a platoon. That’s what got me started running big games a decade or so ago.

If other people weren’t going to run the kind of games I like, I would do it myself. These games also motivate me to complete modeling projects. Setting a date means I need to have things ready by then and I work better with firm, external deadlines. Big games both keep me recharged in the hobby and progressing along my projects, a win-win!

Move to Contact – Flames of War fun

By Tom Gall

The folks at Hard Knox Games in Elizabethtown Ky are on to something for Flames of War and you probably want to know about it. With Flames of War (FOW) (and TY) I’m sure you’re more than familiar with the current matrix of missions that dot the competitive and casual landscape.

Part of the fun of FOW is showing up with a list, and not knowing what mission you’re going to play. You and your opponent each pick a stance (Attack, Maneuver, or Defend), reveal which gets you to a table to roll a D6, and decide the mission to play. The mission of course determines where you place objectives, where you deploy your forces, if you have reinforcements and other situational rules that’ll give your game extra flavor.

It’s a great system and thankfully Battlefront has been refreshing it approximately yearly. Sometimes tho, you want a little more variety. This is where the Move to Contact format you’ll find is interesting!

The folks at Hard Knox have run this format of missions 5 times now. Locally we’ve been using the missions for casual play, we’re fans.

AAR : LW Dreamers Vault 95pt Dec 30th Tournament

By Tom Gall

This past Saturday December 30th the usual suspects in Minnesota gathered to play a 3-round tournament at DreamersVault in Minneapolis Minnesota. This time was a 95pt LW contest with 15 players gathered. A number of the crew are bound for LVO at the end of January so they were eager to try some lists out.

Were I in the same state of mind my list would have been trying to balance between something competitive with what can I fit on the airline. It’s extra hard especially if you’re playing both Team Yankee and Flames of War that week!

I ended up taking my Brigade Armoured Assault Company. It’s one of those lists where almost all the units are hit on 3s, most everything is reluctant 5 motivation and skill tends to be a 4 for most units. Those basics are not a solid set of fundamentals to build around, the list is trash and has all sorts of issues so …. hold my beer.

Great War – Flames of War

Great War Book CoverBy Tom Gall

Flames of War Great War has recently been re-released by Battlefront. Let’s take a 2023 look at the product line, what it offers, and what it takes to get started.

Great War takes Flames into the WWI period. Tanks are in their early infancy. Due to trench warfare, the mortar was refined and saw a great amount of use. The machine gun and light machine gun as infantry support weapons came into their own.

You might be thinking WWI was all trenches and mud, and certainly there was a whole bunch of that, but in 1918 especially as the front became more fluid, fighting both in and out of the trenches occurred and this game reflects that  Battlefront in my opinion really nailed the feeling of WWI in this variant of Flames of War, but only for 1918.

Nam, Fate of a Nation, and Great War are in many ways close cousins in that they’ve taken the core Flames of War rules and adapted them to each period to give you more fun gaming options.

Flames of War 2023 Masters Preview

By Tom Gall

If you like to play Flames of War you’re probably aware of what are the two modes of play, casual and competitive play. There is a fairly healthy tournament scene for Flames in the US, it’s been coming back since COVID.

Competitive play isn’t for everyone but it does make for a fun day of getting in a few games,  pitting your skills against other players, and as a result learning how to play better. Often people at tournaments talk about how to play better, make better lists, unit recommendations, painting suggestions, and so on.

Will the Real Milan 2 Please Stand Up?

By Jim Naughton

WILL THE REAL MILAN 2 PLEASE STAND UP?

A regrettable Team Yankee tendency to hand-wave the difficulty of introducing new systems in the middle of a come-as-you-are war has been reinforced by NATO FORCES, the latest offering in the World War III-Team Yankee universe.  The source of this is apparently customer pressure to jump into ‘90s technology to counter the appearance of Soviet ERA.  Where once tanks immune to defensive fire were the sole province of NATO players, now the Soviets had them too.

So Battlefront has introduced several upgraded missiles as retrofits to the existing lists.  The problem is that some of these missiles were the output of several years of research only made possible by the compromise of Soviet KONTAKT-1 technology following the end of the Cold War.  Others would require retrofit of surviving combat vehicles with new launchers, and the last would require missiles to be sent back to the United States to return a couple of months later – missiles that already were in critically short supply.

I want to clarify what actually existed in 1985, and show how unlikely these changes were.  Players with a historical bent can choose to have ‘mutual and balanced forces’ based on actual 1985 technology.