A thread discussing the Soviet concept of combat readiness throughout the Cold War:
A common misconception that is often peddled (especially in regards to force comparisons between East and West) is the notion that due to the lack of peacetime deployment the CCCP's military demonstrates a lack of combat readiness.
This couldn't be farther from the truth, while it is accurate that the various branches of the Soviet military (contrary to their contemporaries within NATO) greatly discourage the concept of unnecessary peacetime deployment.
In Soviet conscience readiness is defined by the readiness of the armed forces to deploy for war. This is especially apparent within the Soviet navy which functions as a defensive force as opposed to the US navy which exerts its force internationally during peacetime.
This in turn results in the Soviet navy by comparison being more than capable of fielding its entire fleet at a moments notice, around 60% of combat vessels, the rest being serviceable within just 20 days.
Unlike the US and British navy which send sailors to sea only partially trained (said training is completed at sea as they work up to maximal efficiency), Soviet sailors spend most of their time in simulators and exercises close to shore.
This principle applies to almost every branch of the Soviet military, a fantastic example of this practice is the conditioning of armored units. Soviet forces very rarely exercise within their premier equipment, crews often train on older systems.
Though this not a deficit, as due to the rampant standardization (mentioned in earlier threads) these vehicles operate much the same as their more advanced counterparts.
This has led to misconceptions as a result of faulty observation, one of which insinuates Soviet tankers seldom train to fire on the move. These inferior systems take the shape of T-72s for Category A divisions, T-62s for Category B divisions, and so on.
This has a number of advantages, though the primary value is that most if not all of the CCCP's vehicles are kept pristine, and in turn, as the Soviets would say, "ready for war".
It also allows for the Soviets to effectively replace large swathes of vehicles with relative ease in an incremental sense. Maintenance costs are more efficiently expended and industries can because of this maintain a steady line of production.
This contrasts favorably to the West, as NATO'S equipment is often used with increased frequency and is therefore less reliable. It is often argued that this cannot possibly be the case, and that regular use leads to higher reliability-
But this is ultimately a flawed and misguided argument.
This is due to the fact that it very much so appears to be true, though this is not a result of universal practice but the fact Western R&D tends to deliver systems before all of its features have been properly implemented.
Allowing the units who receive it to conduct the required experimentation in the field, giving the impression use scales favorably with reliability.
A result of this system is that the Soviets high initial availability improves the function of the Soviet logistical system in times of mobilization, demand is lowered considerably.
This is due to Soviet theory concerning itself significantly with the opening hours of a major conflict, and the outcome of those early hours being favorable.
This means that Soviet divisions are often manned unevenly, Guards divisions, populating the western terminology of Category A, are kept at 100% combat readiness, and will therefore make up the majority of actions during those initial hours.
Category B divisions, comprised of conscripts, are kept at 70% readiness, Category C is to be kept at 30% given they are comprised largely of border guard and internal ministry.
these divisions will rapidly arm themselves and pull from available reserves to reach 100% combat readiness in the event of conflict. This allows the Soviet military to field the large quantity of both men and equipment required to maintain is numerical advantage.
This provides a reliable and available line to fall back on in the event of failures along the central axis.
Anyways, the thread concludes here, thanks for reading.
@Leftyempire Carry a significant chance of actualization.
@RaytheonLeftist To address all of your statements, firstly, no, the US military did not rely on conscription throughout the early cold war, you are confusing the act of wartime drafting with that of compulsory service.
@RaytheonLeftist Your statement to the efficacy of 1980s equipment is well and good but you need to keep in mind the Bradley was not a functional platform until the mid 80s and the M1A1 would only enter service in 1985, leaving a considerable technology gap prior.
@RaytheonLeftist Third, I have no idea where you got the notion that the US "outproduced the CCCP", this is completely inaccurate and could be disproven with basic research, I believe you are speaking from hearsay and have not actually studied this topic.
@RaytheonLeftist From 1960 to 1985 the Soviet union produced vastly superior equipment and operated a more capable doctrine to actually employ them, your statement in regards to outproducing the CCCP with superior kit is fantasy, you unintentionally, or intentionally, fabricated
@RaytheonLeftist Next, you cannot compare the Soviet Union to Russia, you cannot compare modern US equipment and tactics to that of the CCCP, this is an unreasonable mistake and shows a lack of understanding.
@RaytheonLeftist And yes, you are correct that this thread is not to say which is better, but is to instead elucidate how the CCCP engaged these practices, im not sure why you felt the need to say this.
@varjag Ideologically motivated volunteers, and not standard conscripts.
@RaytheonLeftist
@RaytheonLeftist
@RaytheonLeftist
@RaytheonLeftist
@RaytheonLeftist NATO outproduced the Soviets though, right?
@RaytheonLeftist The Military Strategy of the Soviet Union, THE SOVIET CONTROL STRUCTURE: Capabilities for Wartime Survival, The Soviet Army: Troops, Organization, and Equipment, Soviet Military Thinking-
@RaytheonLeftist The Threat: Inside the Soviet Military Machine, and The Soviet Armed Forces: A History of Their Organizational Development, and others, if you want a generalist idea of where I get my information, these are great reads to start with!
@GriffenCastle The Military Strategy of the Soviet Union, THE SOVIET CONTROL STRUCTURE: Capabilities for Wartime Survival, The Soviet Army: Troops, Organization, and Equipment, Soviet Military Thinking
@GriffenCastle The Threat: Inside the Soviet Military Machine, and The Soviet Armed Forces: A History of Their Organizational Development
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A thread comparing the BMD-1 to the M551 Sheridan:
In regards to armament the M551 and BMD-1 are difficult to effectively compare, and present challenges unique to their respective designs.
BMD-1 has a clear disadvantage when speaking to the volume of missiles offered to each vehicle. Prior to receiving the more advanced 9M111 and 9M113 (of which 3 were carried), BMD-1 carried four 9M14 missiles, two of which were placed on a ready rack within the turret. The other two missiles were located in the troop compartment. Loading these missiles was rather easy and did not force the gunner to expose himself to enemy fire. To do this, the gun is placed at a 30-degree angle, which allows the gunner to access the launch rail. Here the 9M14 is mounted, the fins are deployed, and the missile is ready to fire. The location of the ready racks is convenient and allows the gunner to engage these actions from his seat. To prepare the 9M14 for firing, a 50 to 55-second period is expected, which includes preparing associated elements like the guidance equipment. It is possible for an exceptionally competent gunner to engage this process in 40 seconds. This is a rather long period, which could prove problematic in combat conditions, but is offset by the ability for BMD-1 to exploit reverse slopes via the use of its hydropneumatic suspension and exceedingly small size. An additional advantage presented by this configuration is found in the event of an ambush, where the BMD-1 can quickly re-engage the enemy with its main gun after a missile has been expended. In the first two minutes of an engagement, a gunner is expected to be capable of achieving two successful loading, launching, and guiding cycles before replenishing the ready rack. If the BMD-1 is employed in a prepared defensive position, three missiles within the first two minutes is possible if the turret is turned to the left to allow the gunner to access his reserve ammunition. The speed at which one can load the 9M111 and 9M113, later supplied to BMD-1 and BMD-2, is similar when compared to the prior figures. The issue presented with this upgrade was that the gunner had to expose himself when loading the missile.
The M551 carries 8 missiles (some sources state 10 missiles were carried), significantly more than the BMD-1. Due to the gun launched nature of these missiles, exposing oneself to enemy fire was not a possibility. This came with its own disadvantages though, due to the extremely cramped turret, and the frequent failures experienced with the electronic breech (caused by the ten removable separate circuit boards present within the turret being shook from their beds by the violent recoil of the gun) the loader frequently found himself operating a manual crank before loading the 27kg missiles. This left him exhausted and diminished his ability to perform his role in high-stress situations. Despite this, the M551 still maintained an advantage in loading speed over the BMD-1, with a reduced re-engagement capability. This is because the HE and HEAT rounds, upon being fired, resulted in a particularly violent recoil that had the unfortunate consequence of generating a great deal of dust and smoke, which could interfere with the MGM-51's guidance system, rendering it momentarily inoperable. This compounded on a reported MTBF of fifty shots for earlier models.
🧵A thread discussing the history of Maneuver (automated command and control system):
Overview:
In May of 1964, by decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU, and the Council of Ministers of the USSR, development began on the possibility of automating troop control systems within the Soviet military. Immediately, as a result of this request, a research group led by Colonel Fedotov at the Frunze Military Academy was established, aimed at determining if such systems would be functional from an operational + tactical standpoint. These studies concluded that if such an endeavor was to be seriously considered, automated systems and communication complexes could not exist separately. If Maneuver was to achieve complete superiority over enemy command and control, it had to be integrated alongside serious revisions to the entire C&C matrix of the Soviet Military. Work on a system that would harmonize Communications between strategic, operational, and tactical formations began at OKB-864 in Minsk. Due to the importance of Minsk Electromechanical Plant Number 864, the OKB soon became a part of the Research and Development Institute of Automatic Equipment in 1969, and in 1972, all of its efforts would shift towards R&D related to Maneuver. Yuri Dmitrievich Podrezov was appointed director of the Design Bureau and later Chief Designer of Maneuver.
Of course, at this time, autonomous command and control was nothing new within the Soviet military; each branch of the Armed Forces developed its own automated control systems independent of one another, and as a result, they soon found themselves struggling to organize and effectively interact. A herculean complication that the Maneuver system was to solve included unifying/harmonizing these systems into an all-arms network, which would allow for effective data transmission between ground forces, frontal aviation, and rear services. On top of this, Maneuver was to surpass foreign analogs, use entirely domestic technology, surpass domestic semi-automatic communication systems, and maintain the ability to operate in extreme temperatures between -50 degrees celsius and +50 degrees celsius. Throughout the course of fulfilling these requirements technology which was in many regards new to the Soviet Union had to be developed to facilitate the success of Maneuver, these included modern (for the time) computer graphics, digital coordinate acquisition devices, keyboards, display systems, modern data transmission equipment, codogram dialing consoles, and software for complex database management. These various sub-systems would then be unified in Maneuver and installed in divisions as well as regiments, offering 26 vehicles to commanders and their staff. At the front and army level, 100 such vehicles were present. Within regiments, Maneuver was mounted on MT-LBu, while at the operational level, Ural-375 saw use as the chassis of choice for the complex.
🧵A thread discussing the theoretical foundation of Soviet small-unit tactics:
The Soviet platoon is organized around the senior lieutenant, who commands the unit, and is relegated to an integrated control element, where he is assisted by a deputy platoon commander who serves to relieve certain duties. Each platoon has a sniper/marksman, who provides precision and limited reconnaissance to the unit, he is not attached directly to the control element. A medic is present within each platoon, he operates as apart of the control element. Three motorized rifle squads totaling 24 in strength round out the formation. In the late 1980s/early 1990s the platoon would be expanded to 30 with the introduction of a machine gun which was attached to the control element. Each BMP or BTR has a crew consisting of a commander, who serves as the squad leader, a gunner (deputy commander), and a driver, who is the vehicles mechanic. These individuals will remain mounted throughout the course of an engagement. Those who dismount to fight on foot include a senior rifleman, a machine gunner, a marksman, a rifleman, a grenadier (RPG), and the assistant grenadier (RPG).
Platoons are instructed to dismount and prepare for an engagement roughly 2-3km before reaching the line of contact. This is due to the fact that the enemies anti-tank systems will struggle to reliably engage BMPs or BTRs at this distance. Following this, the platoon will break a cautious march at 600 meters and assume an offensive formation, this distance is variable and based on the conditions of the terrain/nature of the engagement. 600 meters is chosen as the ideal distance as a result of the fact tactical nuclear weapons as well as chemical munitions are just as destructive to the defending party as the attackers, limiting the likelihood of their application. APCs and IFVs are to deliver fire in support of the offensive from positions that limit their exposure to anti-armor weapons (reverse slopes being favored). If the platoon is ambushed, or crossing a minefield/artificial choke point, transportation vectors will serve as mobile cover until the immediate threat has been eliminated, after which they will resume a position behind the infantry.
A thread discussing the theoretical framework of Soviet night fighting tactics (part 1) 🧵:
The foundation of Soviet night fighting tactics (similar to previously discussed concepts) center around predetermined "rules" for success. These include efficient light support, effective application of artillery/air attacks (fire support), sudden + decisive action, the use of varying "night conditions" to improve the actualization of surprise/stealthy maneuver, continuous cooperation between sub-units throughout the duration of the offensive, and increased tactical flexibility. These norms were defined as a result of studies involving both international and domestic experience, which demonstrated the advantages of engagements at night against an unprepared defensive force. Generally speaking units were capable of accomplishing their objectives with fewer losses when compared to similar endeavors at day, and could defeat significantly stronger enemy forces that would otherwise be impossible to reliably defeat. For this reason, night conditions were to be exploited to achieve the destruction of defensive forces, units advancing to conduct a counter offensive, or retreating formations (in a pursuit).
It is believed that under the most favorable conditions, the offensive should transpire at nightfall, this allows for darkness to be exploited for the longest period of time. Though it must be noted an offensive in the second half of the night (shortly before dawn) is considered equally as advantageous, as the vigilance of the defending force will be decreased and success can be exploited into the day. Normally these attacks would be conducted on the move, without pauses or breaks in the advance, this is done to maintain momentum and avoid the enemy preparing their defenses for a potential assault, withdrawing to occupy a secondary location or moving up reserves to reinforce the position. Conducting night offensives on the move has a number of secondary advantages, such as improving the potential for surprise, it is difficult to pinpoint where exactly the main body is, making fire support from artillery/aircraft harder to deliver accurately, and in general less engineering work is required at the front. The disadvantages of this method include a reduced window of organization, diminished time for units to study the terrain + prepared defenses, the importance placed on a covert advance, and greater vulnerability of sub-units on the march.
A thread discussing the theoretical framework of Soviet urban combat doctrine at the sub-unit level:
The organization and conduct of an offensive to capture a city or parts of a city are radically opposed to the means in which one conducts offensive maneuvers under normal conditions, and become increasingly unconventional if nuclear weapons have been employed prior to the battles transpiration. In Soviet writing about this concept, nuclear munitions are seen as the most efficient means to achieve a decisive victory over forces defending a besieged settlement, and allow for the location to be almost immediately occupied in the shortest period of time with the least manpower employed to do so, as defensive structures and resources which could aid the enemy in repulsing an incursion would be ablated. This does not mean Soviet units would be without resistance in this hypothetical, large zones of contamination, debris and other factors would create problems for advancing forces, though it must be noted that fighting within a city is generally regarded to be exponentially harder than preparing motorized rifles for fighting within a post nuclear battlefield. Tactical nuclear weapons may be used on the outskirts of a city, where the flank of advancing forces could be exposed to the enemy, as well as the epicenter of the city as to destroy reserves and units in depth. Before nuclear munitions are to be employed it is extremely important that the cities administrative, military, political and economic value be assessed, and that the attitude of its denizens to the Soviet Military be determined.
Within a conventional framework, cities become strongholds which require insurmountable resources to contest. Alongside the concern of commitment is the duration of fighting that is expected from such an endeavor, leading to a diminished offensive pace. If an occupied city must be attacked it is important that units are positioned in such a way that varying axis of advance become possible, this will allow for a simultaneous offensive from multiple locations, diminishing the effectiveness of defending forces. Strong advanced detachments (often reinforced motorized infantry battalions) will be employed to locate gaps in the enemies defenses within, and deny reserves the ability to reinforce its interior. Important facilities and highways are to be immediately captured prior to all other elements. These advanced detachments will make great use of fire support from tube artillery and fixed wing aircraft, and should be capable of capturing two quarters of the settlement as the main body approaches. Air Assault forces are to penetrate the rear of the enemy which works to disrupt defending forces as the forward detachment arrives, they will target primarily routes leading to the city. If the advanced detachment is unusually successful the main body will pursue the defenders as they retreat to ensure a lack of organized withdrawal.
A thread discussing the involvement of the Soviet Chemical Defense Troops in the CNPP liquidation efforts:
The accident at the CNPP (Chernobyl nuclear power plant) transpired while Colonel-General of the Chemical Troops, V.K. Pikalov, and his Chief of Staff, Major-General V.S. Kavunov, were at a training camp in Lviv. At 10:00 AM, Pikalov was ordered by Marshal S.F. Akhromeyev to fly to Chernobyl immediately. They landed in Kiev and traveled by car to Pripyat. The group arrived on April 27th, where a mobile detachment of Chemical Troops was authorized for airlift to the area of the accident. As they approached the plant, they observed the distinctive glow of Cherenkov radiation, raising concerns about the severity of the situation.
By the time Pikalov reached Pripyat, the mobile detachment had also arrived and immediately began identifying radiation levels in the area of operation and mapping safe routes for troop entry and civilian evacuation. At this time, Pikalov had access to only four patrols: one assigned to operations within the zone and another designated as a reserve. To minimize exposure for those working in contaminated areas, Pikalov personally set out in an RHM alongside a Kazakh mechanic-driver.
The safest route to Reactor 4 was from the eastern side, where radiation levels were as low as 5 R/h, compared to the dangerous southern and western sides, which reached up to 2,300 R/h. Therefore, all equipment and personnel were introduced from this axis. The northern side, with radiation levels between 13 and 140 R/h, was designated as a secondary ingress point for worst-case scenarios.
Between 7:00 and 8:00 AM on April 27th, the mobile detachment, with assistance from a separate reconnaissance company, prepared the first contamination map to support the operation. This map was crucial for drafting evacuation plans and determining measures to protect the population from the disaster's effects. As a result, the evacuation was announced and began at 2:00 PM that day.
Due to the inconsistent nature of the contamination, the possibility that fuel rods had been ejected from the reactor arose, making it of utmost importance to locate them. Another critical task was to determine the quantity of plutonium released from the reactor. It was assumed that the fuel rods would produce a distinctive glow, so aerial photo-reconnaissance was employed. Between April 27th and 29th, approximately 20 photographs were taken, revealing traces of fuel elements on black-and-white images.
The next step was to determine the extent of contamination across the region and provide accurate figures for daily emissions from Unit 4. Helicopters were used to roughly estimate the scale of the disaster and track the direction in which combustion products were spreading. As a result, large-scale, ground-based reconnaissance operations could finally be conducted. Some helicopters became contaminated and had to return to base for comprehensive decontamination.