Applying Cold War Soviet Tank Assault Tactics in Gunner HEAT PC!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 чер 2024
- Discord - / discord
Instagram / phanphantasy.gaming
Twitter - / phanphantasygg
Music - share.epidemicsound.com/u7bpd5
Timeline
Basics of a Soviet-style Attack and Formation 00:00 - 02:37
Planning a Soviet-Style Attack 02:38 - 03:47
Setting up our attack 03:48 - 06:39
Assaulting the Objectives 06:40 - 12:24
Hasty Defense & Enemy Counter Attack 12:25 - 15:25
AAR & Conclusion 15:26 - 18:51 - Ігри
I wouldn't quite call this doctrinal to how the soviets would fight, although its understandable due to just how much confusion and lack of solid info on the topic. The basic rundown on how a soviet attack at this scale (FSE sized) would look like this: the recon elements (divisional/regimental/CRP) would find gaps in the enemy defence (you can assume the briefings covers this part), the FSE would attack those gaps and tries to breakthrough by themselves (which spans the full content of the mission), if the FSE succeeds it would continue advancing forward (so, in this case instead of taking a reverse slope defence it would try to outflank the counter-attacking force instead), if the FSE fails, it would try to fix the enemy and the rest of the advance guard will try to manoeuvre and outflank the force that is attacking the FSE (outside the scope of the mission). The idea of how they fight is, when any element of the soviet force (echelons) encounters the enemy, the elements up from it would immediately manoeuvre to outflank the enemy, and if that element also encounters resistance, the elements up from that would attempt to outflank, so on and so forth, until they either envelop the enemy, bypass them, or find more gaps in which they can exploit. You'll always be limited by how the missions are structured but I think with this one there are just enough to do it the soviet way, you can attack in three phases: the deliberate attack, the meeting engagement on the counter attacking force, and the mop up after. Set your platoons in a battle formation (tank plt inline at the front, bmp company inline 400m at the back), crest the hill with your tanks, attack down one flank with support from artillery at the other flank and clear the path through one objective (and only one), when the path is cleared the bmps crest the hill and replace the tanks as the base of fire, the tanks then charge forward at the point of breakthrough (preferringly with a lot of smoke) and attempt to secure it at close range, then the bmps charge pass the kill zone, joins the tank and the entire FSE keep moving pass the breakthrough and ignore the other objective entirely (we'll get to that one later). At this point it will transition to the meeting engagement phase where you will slam head first to the counter attacking force, one platoon would attack it head on and keep it busy, the other two platoons flank around and destroy it from the side and rear. When the counterattack is dealt with, hopefully the 3rd bmp platoon should arrive, and that platoon would attack the other objective while the rest of the attacking force well behind the lines would flank around and attack the objective from the rear, essentially enveloping it from all sides, that would be your mop-up phase.
If I may ask where did you manage to get this info? Because I heard a similar or outright same tactic/doctrine from two UA-camrs discussing about this in a combat mission video.
@@ostellan Number of US field manuals go into this in some depth. IIRC the one youre looking for is FM 100-2-1, Soviet Organization and Tactics (not the equipment manual, which is 100-2-2 I *think*.)
The Meeting Engagement, The Breakthrough, and The Pursuit. Breakthrough operations were to be conducted when soviet commanders basically could find no way to outmaneuver/outflank or bypass an enemy force. Hey just noticed you’d already mentioned the stages by name more or less so I’ll add that in NATO/Western forces the term we use for the Meeting Engagement is “Movement to Contact.” There are a few differences of course, but in the overall since of what the term is meant to convey, just imagine a pair of horny college students making out in a dark closet and all the confused hand placing and moving around that takes place as they try to find one another. Basically it when a battle make go.
T-64 is one of the best tank designs of all time, because it is so sleek-looking, so I am glad they finally included it.
There's nothing that can be considered the best; it's all about how you use them and maximize the potential of their effectiveness capability, even leveraging advantages to mitigate disadvantages
@@Mechanized85 True, but it was truly the best when introduced in the 60's.
@@JAnx01 It wasn't. Gun depression was bad. Reverse speed was even worse. This rendered the T-64 considerably inferior to Western tanks. But it was (and is) better than T-72.
@@grigory82g Gun depression was just right for the eastern European theatre. Reverse speed was not much of an issue for 1960's doctrines. The tank enjoyed a massive armor protection superiority over all western tanks for over the next 15 years. The smoothbore gun meant the Soviet could manufacture their APFSDS shells from less exotic materials initially and still had superior penetration to western tanks.
@@grigory82g When it was introduced, the composite armor offered good protection and the 125mm gun did have excellent firepower.
It wasn't overwhelmingly great so that no western tanks could stand a chance, but versus an M60A1 I would take the T-64A
It was actually really cool learning a super quick rundown on Soviet attack philosophy! Never actually knew any of that!
I do find it hilarious that it basically boils down to “we’re going to smash you in the face repeatedly with multiple armored assaults that exponentially increase in size.”
You know i kinda found soviet tactics and also what's happening in Ukraine rn a bit more understandable once i realized that they were expecting to fight west of the urals. Ukraine especially being in the steppe but that whole area of western russia even all the way up to poland has like, zero terrain features whatsoever.
Besides rivers and the occasional villiage it's basically one giant open field, so fancy nato tactics are a bit superfluous when the only thing that's really effective in that environment is the whole "Suppress them with artillery, throw everything at them, try not to die" approach they have going on.
@@Kyuschi you really start to understand the need for trenches and other WW1 style tactics. There’s just no solid cover whatsoever besides trees and holes in the ground, but both are lessened in effectiveness when you have grenade drones trying to snuggle up with you
Actually, it isn't so much "smash in the face", but probe the defensive lines to find and exploit the weak points, and then concentrate main efforts there with intent to perform a decisive breakthrough, which would then be turned into deep penetration and encirclement of enemy forces that did not retreat in time. Achieving victory on the operational level, so to speak.
@@Kyuschi Except for the fact that there is nothing "Soviet" in Ukraine. except for vehicles. The backbone of Soviet doctrine is a mobilized country. That is why they made their equipment as simple as possible, suitable for quick production and repair: they knew that losses were inevitable and were prepared to embrace it.
For example, a arbitrary Major Tom from the NATO Air Force is much better than the average Soviet pilot from the Cold War. But as soon as he is shot down in a conflict, which is inevitable, that's when the problems start. The key to the whole system is its core. Therefore, the Soviet doctrine assumed the inevitability of forming regiment and division level units from scratch, but whether NATO, in which only West Germany experienced such total losses, counted on it is the question.
As for Ukraine, Russia in the 90s and 00s, having abandoned the system of mass mobilization, tried to move to the NATO standard of brigade level, a kind of "expeditionary warfare over the ocean", for this purpose the "Wagner Group" was created, and then they were put in the frontline framework of a regular army corps and this is what happened. This also perfectly describes the rest of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.
@@Ailasher Okay? None of this disproves anything that i said as far as i can see. The equipment is designed for the doctrine and the structure of the attack shown in this video Is the same (minus the addition of drones)whether it's in Avdiivka in 2024 or a wargame in germany in 1970.
The quantity vs quality axis is still mostly on the quantity side just simply because the soviet equipment is what they have, and i personally think the quantity side can be more reliable in a lot of situations anyway.
nice work :)
nice to see more people explain soviet doctrine as i think it is a very misunderstand and often time's oversimplified topic
That was fun BUT tank vs M113's......I look forward to actual Infantry threats in this game.
Good use of air support but I would say time it with your moving in open ground / cresting hills so you can advance.
I'll stick around for some more +1
For the record. The M-109 Palladin is an SPG. You were engaging the M-901 ITV.
I know, I said it wrong. 🤣
@@PhanPhantasy yeah, several times.
Love those videos
I really can't wait to see the infantry introduced in this game !
Can't wait for APCs to actually be a threat as a result
Very nice video.
The BRDM is likely from the Div or Regt recon.
The CRP is usually a MR Pl and a tank - the vehicle types depend on the Regt as they are taken from the main body units.
Not sure why the tanks aren't assaulting with the BMPs? The Tank Pl assigned to the MR Coy should be in front of it in the assault.
I wish you'd show a tactical map with the top-down placement of units because it's kinda hard to _imagine_ how it'd go down.
I have really hard time to used the range finder on t-64 from far away because for me it’s hard to see the split image, but still pretty looking soviet tank
I'm still puzzled as to why there's no in-game system (unless I've missed it!) to control (ie give orders to) other ground units - yes, we can jump to them and lead them, but that then leaves our previous unit sitting where we left it. There really should be a way for all these units to deploy and act simultaniously.
Have the developers said anything of the T80 coming eventually. Awesome videos btw to love watching them after work
They're working on it! And thank you!
Thats awesome. I've been loving GHPC playing the Bradley is probably my favorite
The Soviet style attack would mean 4-6 Soviet tanks for one NATO tank, but since you can't command all of them at once I somewhat agree. Excellent video
Oh I forgot the shit load of artillery
I'm interested in trying out this game. Do you play with just a mouse and keyboard, or do you have any special controllers?
Mouse and keyboard!
How did you hide the HUD during the end of the mission? Also great video!
Is it possible in the game's current state to create more in-depth, immersive and larger scenarios? Ie; playing as a platoon commander, with AI controlling other units as a part of a full company-battalion assault/Defense?
How do you see enemy units on the map when spotted!? My game doesn't do that!
They've removed it for now. There was a quick patch that came out not long ago because it was causing performance issues and memory leak.
Of note, your trace should show friendly forces as blue rectangles, and NATO forces as red diamonds (yes, using NATO 2525). Or, use Warsaw Pact trace icons for extra realism.
Why drop smoke while close air support is ordered on that site also? You could drop smoke between the vilage and your position instead.
Because the smoke isn't wide enough to cover the two areas, at least to my satisfaction, and I called in CAS, knowing there was still something over there in that vicinity. Either way, they'll find a target.
OK how realist is this game.. Closest tank sim I have played is on DSC and they are not close to getting it done.. still working on it.
GHPC is considered a "lite sim" genre. Meaning it's game with simulation mechanics. Such example can be seen in the After Action Review where round type and ballistics do matter but it's easy to learn and get into.
I'm assuming you're talking about "DCS", which is great at being a flight sim. At this point, the tanks are by far the worse- the controls are not very intuitive, nor do they have a proper fire control systems. If you want a full tank simulator, there's also Steel Beasts which I cover every so often on my channel.
TY bud!!! @@PhanPhantasy
Thank god in Soviet doctrine nobody fights back!
Same for Nato. Both are silly.
The Germans and the Soviets seem to have a lot in common!
At one time it was very effective, but this doctrine is already outdated!
To be still is to be dead
Sound effects are horrible.
Not realistic at all.
Simple YT search would prove you wrong lol
@@gotanon9659 simple reality will prove you wrong. Lol
Ha aha the Soviets had tactics! Good one.😂
They had a very intricate system, especially with armored units.
If anything their tactics were too rigid, not the other way around 🤣
A military had tactics 😱
Why are you watching videos like these if you have zero knowledge about military matters, and also have zero drive to learn something about them? whats the point of watching a video about a tank simulator if all you care about is propaganda?
No amount of butthurt will save you from your own stupidity.
Soviet tactics presented by western ideology in a video game. Lol.
Video games don't mean anything friends.
Except that the soviets have been using video games as away to do a simulatated attack which is then translated into an on the ground field exercise, Then again i dont expect much from a dumbass