A thread discussing Soviet combat engineers and river crossing tactics:
Organized underneath the control of the Front Chief of Engineers, these units are an integral facet of the Soviet combat support system. Interestingly, akin to artillery, these units are by no means static in their formation, and will disintegrate and regroup as the mission requires.
In offensive operations engineers are tasked with clearing and denoting terrain which will allow the main body to move and deploy in a concealed and effective manner, and maintaining the momentum of these units through the removal of natural obstacles. These aims are accomplished through the use of an engineer reconnaissance network, which works to observe and locate the most efficient route of advance, taking into account pathes the enemy may not expect or prepare to defend as heavily as a more conventional axis. Engineer reconnaissance patrols are often integrated into groupings with other reconnaissance elements subordinate to the army or front. These units will survey routes which are predetermined by operational staff, confirming the efficacy of employing such an axis in the advance. They will form complex reports on the natural obstacles present, including details such as the depth and ease of crossing rivers present along the chosen route. These efforts are strikingly similar to the attention to detail applied in the mapping of Western civilian infrastructure and terrain features, which the USSR went to great lengths to engage.
Engineers are also tasked with the construction of command observation posts (discussed in earlier threads), gun positions, bridges, and trench systems, as well as any other important actions in preparation for the operation to unfold. Engineers will also work to prepare alternative road access for armored systems as well as airfields for front line aviation. Engineers also play a vital role in establishing mock positions, and installations, which work to deceive the enemy, unlike previously discussed actions, which are engaged at night, erecting decoys takes place throughout the day.
Engineering units are often quite large, seeing as divisions tend to take two routes of advance at any given time, though the more important axis will always receive a larger allocation of engineers for route clearing. Generally speaking a company is expected to be capable of clearing and preparing up to 100 kilometers in favorable weather. In regards to equipment, a typical platoon of engineers would receive an attached motor rifle platoon, a chemical reconnaissance vehicle, often a BRDM derivative, an engineer platoon, equipped with mine detecting equipment and demolition explosives, as well as a tank affixed with a dozer blade, 2 bulldozers, a tracked crane, 2 tank launched bridges and two truck launched bridges.
The attached motor rifle platoon is quite important seeing as these units move well ahead of the main body, and therefore require adequate escort, the platoon may see use in manual labor if such a need arises.
Mine clearing is an exceedingly important task, as failure to do so not only puts the main body at risk but could lead to significant delays. Mine clearing is often engaged by tanks fitted with equipment to engage such a task, this comes in the form of attached systems such as the KMT series. Engineers will assist in these efforts with Bangalore Torpedos. Due to the vulnerability of units as such actions transpire (often at a crawl of 6 kilometers per hour), artillery and smoke is employed in excess, in an offensive operation where haste is of great importance, it is not uncommon to blow through the minefield with systems like UR-77.
Soviet estimations (as defined by studies conducted in the late 60s) expect to encounter minor water obstacles every 20 kilometers, medium obstacles (often 100 or so meters wide) every 60 kilometers, and larger obstacles (as wide as 300 meters) every 150 kilometers, water obstacles larger than 300 meters in width would be expected every 300 kilometers. This would in turn mean one major crossing each day, and many minor crossings, this is problematic, as delays are seen as the first deciding factor in the death of an operation, therefore, river crossing has become one of the most important facets in the eyes of the Soviet military.
River Crossings are broken into 2 distinct categories, those being an unopposed crossing, which denotes a situation in which the water obstacle is without defense, and opposed crossings, which are rivers with an established defense, these tend to be tackled by motor rifle units and forward engineers. Though regardless of the type of crossing, forward detachments equipped with BMPs are preferred, these units will often see reinforcement from a tank company. If the river is heavily defended, the application of airborne forces is not uncommon, these are often taken from the attached air assault unit native to the division.
In regards to equipment available to engineers engaging these tasks, the MT-55 can provide crossing capabilities for obstacles 20 meters in width, which is favorable seeing as an estimated 60% of rivers along the Soviet central front fall into this range, but a division must be capable of crossing rivers up to 100 meters in width independently, this task is accomplished by the Army Assault Crossing Battalion.
Due to the emphasis on overcoming water obstacles, the Soviet Military has paid great attention to the application of bridge laying systems, operating far more and with greater integration when compared to NATO, this capability is only increased by amphibious ability and deep wading afforded to almost every armored vehicle. The crossing of a river is to be done in expedient fashion, forward detachments aiming for an hour maximum in ideal circumstances, entire divisions being capable of crossing in a minimum of 5 hours, and the army in 12. Crossing is conducted at crossing points, which are broken into 4 distinct assault crossing locations, 4 crossings for heavy equipment and 3 (sometimes 4) deep wading points, accompanied by often times 2 pontoon bridges.
To establish such points for crossing, engineers must construct them at least 2 hours prior to the arrival of units which require such elements to make a successful crossing. Only if the river is defended by an established force will engineers move with the main body of forces. Engineer reconnaissance becomes increasingly important in these situations where understanding the composition and concentration of defenses is imperative to the missions success. During this time engineer commanders feed information to the army and divisional commanders as to where an advantageous crossing point may be actualized. If the river is large enough these units will be accompanied by a maximum of 2 construction regiments which will assist in establishing points of crossing.
Anyways the thread concludes here, thank you for reading!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵A thread discussing the troubled development history of the PMT-100 and PMT-150 series of field pipelines:
The Soviet Union's initial large-scale operational experience in supplying military units with fuel under combat conditions was acquired during the engagements near Lake Khasan (July–August 1938) and along the Khalkhin Gol River (May–September 1939). During these campaigns, logistical support for the 1st Army Group extended across a supply route of approximately 515 kilometers. Of this total distance, 260 kilometers were serviced by rail transport, 95 kilometers by motor vehicles, and 86.7 kilometers by horse-drawn carts. The final leg of the supply chain required fuel to be transported in specialized containers via pack animals and manual labor.
As military activity in the region intensified, the throughput capacity of the supply system grew to between 500 and 750 tons of fuel per day, delivered using a combination of transport modalities. The rising demand for fuel, particularly by armored units, emerged as a critical logistical concern. The concentration of tanks in the theater of operations increased markedly, resulting in fuel requirements measured in tons and millions of liters. This placed substantial strain on logistical capabilities and exposed significant operational vulnerabilities. These experiences were not only retained in institutional memory but were also subjected to detailed analysis by the Soviet military leadership.
The lessons derived from these campaigns played a decisive role in shaping the USSR’s approach to logistical support and directly influenced the conceptualization of field pipeline systems.
In December 1940, a meeting of the senior leadership of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Red Army (RKKA) was held. It was devoted to ways of further developing the military and conducting operations, taking into account the exercises and experiences of the war between Germany and France. Participating in the meeting was the head of the Red Army Fuel Supply Directorate, Major General of Tank Forces P.V. Kotov. By that time, information had already been obtained that the logistical services of the German armed forces, especially their tank and motorized units in the campaign in France, had used field pipelines to deliver fuel.
After the war began, engineers D.Ya. Shinberg and T.E. Khromov sent a letter to the People’s Commissar of the Oil Industry, I.K. Sedin, proposing the creation of a front-line collapsible gasoline pipeline 100 km in length, and longer if needed. For use in a fuel supply system, it was assumed that mobile pump stations mounted on truck chassis would be used.
Commissar I.K. Sedin approved the idea and, with the support of the leadership, allocated funding and authorized the design and development of the field pipeline. The proposal was adopted and approved in record time. The pipeline was planned to deliver fuel to the troops conducting defensive operations west of Moscow, in the area of the town of Khokhloma.
However, the front line in these areas in the fall of 1941 was quite unstable; the German forces, although suffering heavy losses, continued to advance. Plans to create and use a collapsible pipeline were not realized.
Over time, renewed attempts to supply fuel to troops using collapsible pipelines became more successful. For example, in April 1943, field fuel pipeline operations were launched. However, their broader use remained limited due to the lack of necessary equipment (pipes and pumping units) and, most importantly, due to a lack of practical experience.
During the war, significant experience was accumulated in building and using both permanent and field pipelines. One example studied by the USSR was the American fuel pipeline system laid along the Ploiești–Rhine route.
Modern (for the time) tanks, motorized vehicles, and field electrical generators, powered by gasoline or diesel, entering service in the Red Army, significantly increased the demand for fuel. To support an uninterrupted fuel supply, new approaches had to be found.
In early 1946, based on the Central Research Laboratory of the Fuel Supply Department of the Red Army, the Scientific Research Institute for Petroleum Lubricants (NII GSM) was established.
In October 1946, a new staff for the institute was approved. Eleven departments were created, including departments for logistics, containers, and transfer methods. One key area of focus was the development of field pipelines.
The institute carefully studied both internal and foreign experiences with collapsible pipelines during the war, substantiating the technical and operational requirements for such systems. This soon yielded concrete results. Under the leadership of A.A. Kazansky, in 1948, design standards were developed to deploy modular fuel depots.
Institute staff developed and tested several types of field pipeline systems, including the KMZ-4 aluminum pipeline and a 4-km-long soft pipeline created by the Special Design Bureau of the USSR Ministry of the Oil Industry (OKB-MNP).
The KMZ-4 pipeline became the foundation for further development of fuel transport systems. It included not only pipes and connectors but also mobile fuel pumping stations with electric motors.
A short history of the Il-76 concerning its role in the delivery of paratroopers:
The early Cold War proved to be a favorable period for the VTA (Military Transport Aviation). After just a decade of existence, they had seen the complete integration of equipment designed with the express purpose of meeting their needs and operated an impressive 650 aircraft. By the 1960s, 80% of VTA regiments were equipped with the An-12, which arrived in batches of 100 each year. Despite this, even with the introduction of the An-22, the VTAs' lift requirements had not been met. For all of the advantages offered by turboprop designs, the limitations experienced in speed were becoming a problem, especially when delivering paratroopers (an endeavor that favored expediency).
This was recognized internationally, and with the introduction of the C-141 Starlifter, the USSR were properly motivated to respond with their own jet-powered airlift. Furthermore, Ilyushin, after the failure of their Il-60 proposal, needed to get a new aircraft into military service, which led to unique importance being placed on innovative design solutions.
Ilyushin would first experiment with turbojet engines for use on a military aircraft via the Il-66. This aircraft would have a takeoff weight of 140 tons and employ the NK-8 engines, identical to those found on the Be-18 proposed in 1962. This aircraft would be met with little interest, as it was still believed that the An-22 fulfilled each requirement present within the VTA at this time. Unfortunately, the An-22's impressive size would be its undoing, as they were not only impossible to manufacture at scale but suffered from such extreme wing fatigue that flights had to be authorized by the Ministry of Defense, as the associated costs were so great.
Due to the increased need to conduct frequent air freight operations across the USSR and the desire to produce a more reliable aircraft that could deliver paratroopers at greater speeds, preliminary research that would lead to the development of the Il-76 would begin in 1966. A joint research resolution was reached in 1967, which was opposed by Antonov, who offered a deep modernization of the An-12 in return. This concept was almost immediately shot down due to its lackluster carrying capacity of only 25 tons.
A short thread discussing the individual parachute technology of the Soviet airborne forces:
The D-1 family of parachutes, initially developed in 1955, was an important step in the modernization of the airborne forces. Before the introduction of this system, significant skepticism surrounded the concept of a parachute with a round canopy. This configuration was believed to be unstable when compared to the traditional square canopy design employed by earlier models. Of course, after tests were conducted involving the D-1, it was found that this was indeed the superior layout, which led to its adoption shortly thereafter.
D-1 was originally designed to provide a simple parachute system that was accessible to those undergoing basic training. Including the paratrooper and all of his associated equipment, the D-1 had a combined weight of 120 kg. The system permitted jumps at a maximum speed of 350 k/h, from a minimum altitude of 150 meters, meaning the parachute could be employed from rotary wing aircraft. On its own, D-1, when stored, weighs 17kg and has dimensions of 595x385x240mm. The canopy has an area of 82.5 m2 when deployed and is connected to the individual by 28 SHKHB-125 cotton cords, which can each withstand up to 25 kgf.
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.