It raises the question of what color Ukrainian battle maps use. Externally, I see their official websites typically copy the Western maps, so Ukraine is blue and Russia is red. Makes sense. But internally, at least in the 2015-era Donbass battles they were still on the "Ukraine = Red, Enemy = Blue" system, which makes ALSO sense because legally and nationalistically Ukraine is supposed to be an equal successor to the Soviet Union, not a breakaway faction of Russia. I cannot imagine how annoying this must be for Ukrainians who actually have to deal with colored battle maps professionally.
Former Russia MI guy, I gotta say it's hard to overstate how remarkably accurate, well done and presented, and factually correct this video is. I can see exceptions in important units that are missing, but for a 15 minute presentation, it was fun to watch and easy to understand! Hell of a video!
Thanks! Anything you’d like to add? I can read the maps based on the literal definitions of the symbols but if there are exceptions/outside context I’m probably missing out
@@BattleOrder The only real big one would have been how their maps also line out what an attack is to look like. So you covered squads moving at X time, but there's also ones for fixing adversaries in place, isolating them or support operations. But covering them, as I said, would be a problem when it comes to keeping things as clear and concise as it is now I feel similarly about naval and air assets, which have their own symbology to land units, as I would electronic warfare units but again, I think you impact the delivery then. It would be interesting though to see you expand on some of this since they have symbologies for all sorts of attacks, or showing what an attack looks like, from our perspective, as in the West we're used to significantly more operational freedom than Russia allows it's small unit commanders
@@BattleOrder and regarding context, without actually showing a map that Russia would use, which his basically nonsense that takes time to familiarise yourself with, I think the overall context was great! Like you could if you wanted show a whole map and break down bit by bit, but I think in showing white space and small individual actions clearly, you did a much better job. For me, who is somewhat familiar with both types of symbology, clear and concise delivery of information is key and you did that with the Russian symbols
I’m guessing they make it so a battalion commander can basically sign off on one map and that’s the whole plan that can be given to the sub-units. So the system is more about comprehensiveness in the sequence of events specifically, with unit movements, the fire plan, etc all on there are once even if it gets really cluttered
@@BattleOrderIt’s terrible for opsec to have literally all the plans on a single map, but it seems the Russians are still very much pen and paper based
The Russian system looks fantastic for micromanagement. Now i understand why soviet generals had so much staff work to do. This system can probably create some fantastic and complex operations if operated by a genius commander, or a giant disaster when the average joe gets overwhelmed with so much information. I guess that the NATO system compensates that by delegating things to more divisional commanders so they have more agency to move their stuff but doesnt have such coordination that the russian system, if used right, can provide
I'm afraid that micromanagement =/= coordination, and NATO way coordination is delegated downwards. Also - NATO commanders with BMS or even BFT should have similar level of force tracking. In 5:16 it should be rather truck with a trailer than a tank.
I think how you put the russian doctrine as to the NATO doctrine, the main differences lay is that one leans to a planner versus a doer. A planner would be russia, the doer would be NATO. Though we should all know this quote right? "“Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth." - Mike Tyson.
@@ManhettenTransfer во время второй мировой войны немецкие лётчики имели при себе карты Москвы и важных зданий в ней. Поэтому русские рисовали на дорогах и крышах домов оптические иллюзии, важные здания маскировали под гражданские объекты, поэтому красная площадь полностью сохранилась. Немецкие лётчики просто не могли найти ничего по карте!
@@pavelolkhovoy113 The army is not just a kind word, but a very fast deed. This is how we won all the wars. While the enemy is drawing offensive maps, we are changing the landscapes, and manually. When the time comes to attack, the enemy is lost in unfamiliar terrain and becomes completely unready. This is the point, this is our strategy.
The Russian system is very comprehensive. It does lend towards a command centric approach where the unit leader keeps a tab on everything. Even if all comms go down, anyone with a map can still coordinate actions and get things done per the plan up to a certain point in time. The downside is - it gets cluttered quickly, which can quickly overload decision making when things get dynamic and plans go sideways. On the contrary, NATO maps lend itself towards staff centric leadership, where courses of action and unit predisposition aren't tightly orchestrated, but rather based on initiative and constant communication between commander, staff, and across supporting units. It cannot be used to pre-plan operations down to the T like the Russian system. That's why effective Western combat maneuvers are reliant on drilling in standard operating procedures and maintaining communications. If the latter fails, the former help keep things organized. If you aren't trained and/or don't know SOPs and comms fail, tough shіт. Make a guess unless the map has nonstandard markings to clue you in. Basically, Russian maps tell you everything that had and will happen - good luck clearing through that clutter though. NATO maps, meanwhile, doesn't tell you much about unit intent. You have to deduce them based on unit disposition, how combat effective they are, and which unit has the initiative. If you know SOPs and the status of each unit, then you can synthesize what NATO units will do once they're put on the map. The Russian system emphasizes directives and orchestration. The NATO system emphasizes ease of communication and quick recognition of essential parameters so staff and leadership can most easily synthesize the likely next course of action.
@@DIREWOLFx75 Because it is. I do like the level of detail on the Russian one but it isn't practical. Its very academic, so as someone interested in the subject; its nice that I can find out all the stuff about an operation. BUT if I had to use this in combat, I would hate it. Its so cluttered its easy to make mistakes looking at it. Good luck trying find the relevant information too. Also the concept of Mission Command is the more effective approach proven since the end of WW1. High level commanders planning sectors of fire and ranges of weapons is ridiculous. They are looking at a map, a report, and maybe some photos. They have no idea of how things are on the ground. There may be obstructions or other obstacles that can't be seen or missed during the reporting. Let the lower level commander decide, the higher level commander don't know crap about the front. And once there is first contact, the enemy won't be doing everything as you have planned so all those tiny details go out the window. The higher level commander would need to wait for communications to arrive and then reply with what to do next. That is slow and the HQ has to do that for EVERY subordinate unit. Unless there is some unique circumstances(ie. prevent friendly fire on a pre-planned maneuver), there is little reason to tell what range the weapons are to your subordinate. They should know their own weapons' capabilities. And if the commander really want to plot it out on the map, that's what measuring tapes are for. Less clutter, but still easily tell range by just measuring it.
@@neurofiedyamato8763 I find it interesting that both map styles communicate the massive gulf in knowledge a NATO officer and a Russian officer are expected to have.
@@neurofiedyamato8763 As soon as the video started with the explanation I knew the map was going to look like a mess. I also know, because I had to draw such maps before NATO STANAG was fully integrated and my older generation superiors were too lazy to learn the Western systems, thus our grades depended on knowing the old system so we can score better during Tactics exams.
While the enemies are drawing maps, we are changing the landscape. This phrase is taken from the film, but rather it is the "motto" of the engineering troops.
@@ManhettenTransferfull version: "While they draw maps, we change the terrain with shovels. When battle begins - they get lost on unknown terrain and we win the battle"
If you look at the Wehrmacht maps of the mid- and late-war, you will see a similar concept. This is due to the fact that there are only two countries in the world that have had the most modern experience of full-scale planning and command of armies of MILLIONS, where such centralization will soon be necessary. Western countries did not have anything similar, and the Wehrmacht’s experience in this regard was not in demand, so American planning design began to predominate. As a result, only Russia had the experience of planning for numerous battles and logistics. Ironic.
That just patently isn't true. The western powers for example had 1,5 - 2 million troops in northern France a month after d-day. That's to say nothing of the troop numbers for Asia, or Italy, or southern France. Central planning was just as important for the allies as it was for the Germans and Soviets.
@@pinkyfull having a million personnel, where some part of it is logistical support, is not equivalent to operating this million, where all the personnel take a direct part in hostilities, at the same time. These are completely different things. What is happening on the eastern front is a unique experience
@@pinkyfullDo you think that 2 million is a lot? The losses of the Red Army alone amounted to 18 million. If we add those who survived, it will be more than 30 million
it's actually so cool that you can besically assemble the symbols and describe any vehiocle you want by it's main attributes. an APC, with a plow, ATGM on top, pulling a trailer? no problem lol
These unit markers feel more intuitive to me than the NATO ones. I think it's because many of them are, at least vaguely, based on what they are meant to represent (like the mortar symbol being the tube and two feet). It's like basic logographs
very much agreed. i'm not amilitary professional but have had to do with NATO symbology in several games and they always confuse me. These are sort of clearer to understand i feel. though i do like the boxed design of nato symbols.
Армия - не просто доброе слово, а очень быстрое дело. Так мы выигрывали все войны. Пока противник рисует карты наступления, мы меняем ландшафты, причём вручную. Когда приходит время атаки, противник теряется на незнакомой местности и приходит в полную небоеготовность. В этом смысл, в этом наша стратегия.
@@шниперсон_228 нет. Наша стратегия - как обычно просрать начало, понести потери и учиться уже в ходе войны. К сожалению. И никаких "всех" войн мы не выигрывали.
As always your videos are amazing. For a brief video, the depth of information is comprehensive and informative. You've summarised weeks of instruction undertaken at officer training.
If there is a big ass circle with a smaller colored circle at its centre on the map, that means a nuclear strike. The direction of fallout will be shown as well as the type of explosion and time. The plan was, basically the whole front will be covered in these circles, then the formations will be taking what's left of the enemy positions, mainly by using tank armies waves. It was standard Cold war soviet era tactics.
@@Shurukkah. that never happened. The Prussian and later German officer core always had it's own culture. The only thing they did in the USSR was test and train with weapon systems banned by the Versailles treaty, like tanks.
@@NaturalLanguageLearning it's the other way actually. Russian Empire adopted the concept of modern army from Prussia. Also the concepts of police, firefighting, geology, governance and engineering. Many of Russian officers during the Napoleonics for example, were Germans. Therefore, Russians do many things Prussian style, and do share some things with Germans that the Americans don't. Germany is the closest western European country to us, not an alien, and we had had relationships with it since XVII century at least.
This video ...... what a pleasant surprise! Russian battle map symbology is quite fascinating. My first exposure to Russian battle maps was from reading books covering battles and campaigns from the Soviet-German War. Of course, at the same time, I was also able to find German battle maps. I would say that Russian battle map symbology was easier to learn than that of German's based on my early experience. My initial thought: the Russian symbology would be a pretty good fit for activities like working on operational plans, teaching historical battles, operational briefing/debriefing, etc. (All of them involve pretty much putting everything onto paper.) For the most part, it is logical and intuitive, thus easy to learn.
Hey, i know this is a bit late. But can you reccomend me some of those books? im looking to start reading into wars in depth and was hoping to start with the eastern front
Outstanding video, as always! And by the way, that blonde woman thinking math with a Russian cap, it's a Brazilian meme that became viral. She's a very famous actress here. Oh come and whatch it, Brazilian people! 🇧🇷 (yeah, they'll come in hundreds after that meme lol)
It'd be awesome if you could expand further on this with a seperate video about more mission and task symbology, assaults, TRP's, control measures and such. Great video though!
I quite like the Russian system in how units are depicted. It better clearly defines where they actually are and from command to its subordinate units. NATO symbols is a lot harder to differentiate where they exactly are and doesn't appear grouped so you know they are one larger unit. All the details is also nice but it really is a bit too much and cluttering the map so its hard to read. Just not practical when you go that extreme. It would make sense if some of these are used for lower echelon units (like range and fire sector) while not on higher level as they don't need that level of detail. But knowing how the Russian army is so top down, I wouldn't be surprised if higher echelon command already made such planned fire sectors for lower level commanders to follow. Which isn't very versatile as the higher level commanders don't know the exact geography and situation the front line units are facing. I can only see such a top down approach as valid if they want to prevent friendly fire for a planned maneuver and give explicit orders(marking on maps) to tell them to not fire beyond that line. Anyway it would be cool if you can put these unit marker systems on your website just like the NATO ones so we can make our maps or tables.
You just figured your way through the main advantages of each system! When shit goes sideways, a NATO map and a radio will you faster answers and an easier map to read ... but if you're planning an orchestrated attack across a thousand mile front, you want something like this so you can understand in detail what everyone is doing when.
@@RobinTheBot We have a joke in Russia because of those systems If NATO commander wanted his tank crew to fire at someone - he will say "unit 663, I'm giving you an order to fire at enemy tank positioned in sector 030 with anti tank shell, roger that?" While Russian commander will just say "663, fire at enemy asshole" to shorten the time between command and execution
For vehicles i'd argue it's even better than NATO in some ways, where specialized symbols can become hard to read. For units though, NATO is far easier than the shape of these little flags and can be modified to carry a lot of information easily
You might not understand that people use different symbols in different cases. Firing cards of platoon in defence have firing sectors, but regiment/brigade commander map does not.
Great video with awesome graphics. I wish this out while I was on active duty. Are you going to give PLA map symbology a crack? I bet that will be a nut to crack.
7:47 Im puzzled because PKP was counted as LMG despite being a gpmg, whilst PKM were putted as tripod mg, but the PKMS model (to fit into the tripod) is more rarer than general PKM
It all comes down to how it's being used - a pkp in an infantry squad is an lmg and a pkm on a tripod is an emplaced mg. Put the pkp on the tripod and give the squad the pkm and the same mg's have just swapped roles.
the notation is similar to Germany's classification of LMG or HMG, A MG34/42 or MG3 in a mobile state (infantry squad) is considered a LMG. A MG34/42 or MG3 in a fixed state (tripod or vehicle mount) is considered a HMG. Caliber and weight doesn't always denote if it's a light or heavy MG in other countries.
Love your content! Could you make a video about the hungarian army in the future? I think it would be an interesting blend of western and easter forces
наконец то ещё один англоговорящий ютубер, который будет обяснять мне русские вещи после того, как я научился произносить ы и crab-like д мне не составит труда посмотреть это видео
Accurate in general. But i have to make a little correction. Battalions symbols on 3:37 are wrong. They are actually like you showed at 1:07. Dismounted variant is exact like at 1:07. Mounted variant is the same lil flag but standing on an arrow
I've always associated the color red with "the enemy/the bad guys". I guess because of video games and such. But I wonder if people in Russia (and China) usually associate the color blue with enemy and red with friendly? And if that's not the case anymore because of Western digital media, what impact does that have?
I think the Russians very much still associate red with friendly and blue with enemy, but it's done a reversal in Ukraine (they used to use the same system until recently)
I've heard from somewhere that red is considered as good luck in China. So for this reason, they apply this to both their mapping and their stock system. I can guarantee the 1st, but not the 2nd. Of course, a heritage from communism with the symbolic color red might also play a role
Wow! That's fascinating! I always assumed Red and Blue were just colors for "enemy" and "friendly". I had no idea that the USSR/Russia actually used Red to identify friendly forces!
you should wear red symbology for friendly/allies, because of the effect called "the red bias" found in sport, which cause an increase probability of winning due to psychological factor.
Maybe it's because I consumed lots of western media but I am russian and associate red with the enemies. Although when I look at this maps I remember that they where designed in ussr and it just clicks. We are "reds" and nato is "blues". Russians in general tend to associate with red color partly because tradition and echoes of ussr, partly because its considered slavic color and it has the same root as the word beauty. Before the war I wanted to associate with red because its depicted as generic enemy or evil color and we associate ourself with red, and it kind of felt unfair. Now its a bit harder to justify because of the implications.
8:59 By the way that's a meme us Americans use what ever format of the year, time, date we like with no Standarization much like the whole US customary and metric thing.
This is wonderful. Thank you. Given the type of mind I have, I would automatically want to go and ask extraterrestrial species wether they have an equivalent to this type of symbology, and if so what it might be. For example, I would want to go and ask the Minbari, the Turians, the Klingons, the Narn, the Asari, the Yautja, and many others.
As Russian i want to say: I absolutely do not understand the symbols on the NATO Battle Maps, they just don't make any sense for me. I think in the west a mirror situation ;)
Both systems makes perfect sense once you you learn the basics, though they have somewhat different emphasis in their purpose. NATO maps are more about keeping track of where units that can be given orders are located, while the Russian style looks more about keeping track of what orders the various units has been given.
@@johanmetreus1268It also comes down to a different understanding of how orders are to be carried out. The Russian style is ideal for micromanagement, detailing everything for a commander. NATO style is, as you said, tokens representing who’s where because NATO relies more on mission type tactics, letting junior officers decide for themselves the ideal way of accomplishing their overall objective. No need to tell each tank squad where to go and what to do when the commander on the ground can do that themselves with a better understanding of what’s happening.
@@dingusdean1905 Only this works exclusively in ideal conditions with a weak opponent and in a local war, in fact, like all NATO wars. In a large-scale war with an equal opponent, this does not work. NATO training and standards are criticized even by Ukrainian soldiers, who openly say that all the methods they receive during training in NATO countries are absolutely not suitable at the front in the current war. The Ukrainian army still adheres to the Soviet system, although it tries to meet NATO standards, but understands that in this case it will be a total mistake and a loss in the war.
@@VHSKacceta Well, having tried simple and complex plans, ranging from small units to company sized units in Arma (with real people), I can tell you that all plans can be nice. What sort of plan you go for depends on the scenario you are dealing with. A highly detailed plan that micro-manages each unit can be useful, telling people where to go and what they should be doing to increase the chances of success. This is especially nice when dealing with less experienced leaders. However, such plans are not foolproof because unknown variables are introduced as more time passes, which means at some point the plan is not in-sync anymore with reality. Detailed plans tend to quickly become obsolete in complex scenarios where there are many unknown variables. If people then continue to follow the plan, they end up doing things that are not effective (or even suicidal). In such scenarios, it may be better to go for a less detailed plan consisting of general ideas and goals you wish to accomplish. Then, let people improvise and let people create new plans as they go. But this requires at least some people in lower leadership positions to be experienced/well-trained, or their improvisations will end up being ineffective. So, each type of plan has pros and cons. In the case of a large scale conventional war where you can't control all variables, there's a strong argument for a less detailed, more general plan. And then you must hope the people who are closer to the frontline (than you) figure out what the best way is to accomplish the objectives. The highly detailed Russian plans you see can be initial starting points. But over time, you'd need to abandon those plans and begin to improvise and create new, less detailed plans to allign yourself with the changing situation. Or maybe you get lucky, everything goes entirely according to your plan and there's no need to change anything, but this rarely happens.
@@VHSKacceta NATO battle doctrine would work in Ukraine if they had the combined arms. But since they don't have combined arms due mainly to a lack of a large Air Force. Then yes NATO battle doctrine wouldn't do too well.
In this wonderful video, the concepts are a little confused, which is excusable for a person from the outside. In the Russian army, the maps of combat operations differ in scale. The map on which the firing sectors are marked is called a "fire card". It is compiled by the squad commander on the spot (or slightly in advance of the start of the battle) based primarily on visual observation of the position and operational intelligence. When drawing up a "fire card", the real scale of the terrain is not taken into account. After that, this card is sent to the headquarters. And there it is applied to the operational map already in the form in which it should be. So how much the operational map will be overloaded (with sectors of fire and endless lines) depends on the commanders at headquarters and their desire to "clutter" the map. In the right hands, Russian military topography and planning is a very versatile and effective system.
Это видео, конечно помогает осознать основную номенклатуру обозначений, но карта с полным обозначением ситуации начинает появляться, минимум в кшп бригады, а не в окопе и тем более у отдельного 200
@@VHSKacceta там ещё надо инструкцию о ведении радиопереговоров между подразделениями, по типу: ворох, где бревно? : в 20-ке морковок набирает : ля, скажи этому дуплу что ещё карандаши нужны, а то он заебал : сам скажи, я его на ППД не видел уже месяц...
I just noticed after binge watching youre old videos that there are no videos about Africa or anything related to it Its interesting to see how the Africans countries organise their Armies
The "Renata Sorrah calculus meme" always gets me. Brazilian most important contribution to the collective mind. I have an actor friend that worked in some of her plays and he told me she loves it.
Despite being like a foreign language to us, it has proven devastatingly effective. With America's policy of "fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian", and Ukraine now drafting women and teenagers against their will, we all know where this is headed. I wonder what the Nato and Russian symbols are for "death by overwhelming artillery zone" is. Lets all hope for peace while Ukraine still has enough people to remain a semblance of a country.
A quick story about the fact *why* the Soviet/Russian doctrine and maps are so different. Russian command-centric map strategy is a child of 60s, designed for a rush to the English Channel in a total thermonuclear war. Just imagine. Ground communication is impossible, radio is dead either because of EMP or because of a series of high altitude thermonuclear blasts cutting any form of medium and long range communications for days if not weaks... So you unpack the plan and do everything according to it, in hope that every one who survives initial onslaught would do the same. Same reason why their plans (at least, if they had time and resources to) included multiple partial failure modes, as, because communication would inevitably be lost, your soldiers *need* to know what they should do even in case of a partial success. Everything shall go according to plan, even if it's not: the main lesson learned from WW2, where communication issue was also severe due to both lack of communication equipment and enemy sabotage. Which led to many defeats, especially early in war... Wouldn't say is it better or worse approach on a modern day battlefield, but it was, IMO, perfect for an era. And could be better even today in a real all-out war, where radio would be jammed to hell and wire communication through field phones would be somewhat possible only in defence. Not taking thermonuclear factor in equation. P.S. Fun fact. Expectation of lack of communication was also the reason why Soviet tactical nukes were deliberately issued with ZERO safeguards. Communication may be cut. Officer knowing the code (if warheads would be protected by one) could be killed during first strike... And even in such case, troops shall have the ability of using nukes to their favour. Insert the battery, flick the «idiot protection switch» and it's ready: no keys, no codes.
I think this also helps Russian commanders incase of an electronic warfare, since today's war are multi domain or net centric as experts call it. That way they can operate without the need for reliance of electronic gadgets to properly condict their army.
Yeah but it’s also hideously confusing and rigid, lower level commanders are often now allowed to take initiative. If the enemy does anything unexpected like using a Bradley in a manner of a tank then it’s hard for the Russian to react properly without being punished for breaking orders.
@@dannyzero692 you do realize that commanders have scouts yes? What punishment are you talking about? Today's battlefield most armored forces are seen beforehand. Applying electronic warfare is one way of ensuring to mask these type forces.
1:58 - Dislike for the term “separatists”. They never wanted or tried to separate. They didn’t accept the junta govt and for that they are being artillery shelled for 9 years now.
"...пока противник рисует карты наступления, мы меняем ландшафты, причем вручную. Когда приходит время атаки, противник теряется на незнакомой местности и приходит в полную небоеготовность. В этом смысл. В этом наша стратегия..."
NATO units marked in blue and Russian units marked in red on BOTH side’s battle map is hilariously convenient
I mean it wasent called the red army for nothing
It raises the question of what color Ukrainian battle maps use. Externally, I see their official websites typically copy the Western maps, so Ukraine is blue and Russia is red. Makes sense. But internally, at least in the 2015-era Donbass battles they were still on the "Ukraine = Red, Enemy = Blue" system, which makes ALSO sense because legally and nationalistically Ukraine is supposed to be an equal successor to the Soviet Union, not a breakaway faction of Russia.
I cannot imagine how annoying this must be for Ukrainians who actually have to deal with colored battle maps professionally.
being blue means being gay in russian so thats probably why
Even the Russians know they’re the bad guys.
@@ivankrylov6270So why is it on their flag....
Former Russia MI guy, I gotta say it's hard to overstate how remarkably accurate, well done and presented, and factually correct this video is. I can see exceptions in important units that are missing, but for a 15 minute presentation, it was fun to watch and easy to understand! Hell of a video!
Thanks! Anything you’d like to add? I can read the maps based on the literal definitions of the symbols but if there are exceptions/outside context I’m probably missing out
@@BattleOrder The only real big one would have been how their maps also line out what an attack is to look like. So you covered squads moving at X time, but there's also ones for fixing adversaries in place, isolating them or support operations. But covering them, as I said, would be a problem when it comes to keeping things as clear and concise as it is now
I feel similarly about naval and air assets, which have their own symbology to land units, as I would electronic warfare units but again, I think you impact the delivery then.
It would be interesting though to see you expand on some of this since they have symbologies for all sorts of attacks, or showing what an attack looks like, from our perspective, as in the West we're used to significantly more operational freedom than Russia allows it's small unit commanders
@@BattleOrder and regarding context, without actually showing a map that Russia would use, which his basically nonsense that takes time to familiarise yourself with, I think the overall context was great! Like you could if you wanted show a whole map and break down bit by bit, but I think in showing white space and small individual actions clearly, you did a much better job. For me, who is somewhat familiar with both types of symbology, clear and concise delivery of information is key and you did that with the Russian symbols
What do you think of the Special Military Operation that has failed spectacularly?
@@Dorae-ur-mom MI probably means Military Intelligence, not that he was part of Russian military.
It’s very interesting seeing the different ways information is placed on a map
I’m guessing they make it so a battalion commander can basically sign off on one map and that’s the whole plan that can be given to the sub-units. So the system is more about comprehensiveness in the sequence of events specifically, with unit movements, the fire plan, etc all on there are once even if it gets really cluttered
@@BattleOrderyou should add these annotations to your website same way you add the nato one's for reference
@@BattleOrderIt’s terrible for opsec to have literally all the plans on a single map, but it seems the Russians are still very much pen and paper based
Карандаш, а не ручку))
The Russian system looks fantastic for micromanagement. Now i understand why soviet generals had so much staff work to do. This system can probably create some fantastic and complex operations if operated by a genius commander, or a giant disaster when the average joe gets overwhelmed with so much information. I guess that the NATO system compensates that by delegating things to more divisional commanders so they have more agency to move their stuff but doesnt have such coordination that the russian system, if used right, can provide
>plays hoi4 once
I'm afraid that micromanagement =/= coordination, and NATO way coordination is delegated downwards. Also - NATO commanders with BMS or even BFT should have similar level of force tracking.
In 5:16 it should be rather truck with a trailer than a tank.
Да просто в российском ген. штабе одни душнилы 100-ого уровня сидят
Indeed, this map system is super complicated, but also super powerful at the same time
I think how you put the russian doctrine as to the NATO doctrine, the main differences lay is that one leans to a planner versus a doer. A planner would be russia, the doer would be NATO. Though we should all know this quote right? "“Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth." - Mike Tyson.
Russian's main tactical advantage can be described by the phrase: while the enemy is drawing maps, we are changing landscapes
what does it mean
@@ManhettenTransfer во время второй мировой войны немецкие лётчики имели при себе карты Москвы и важных зданий в ней. Поэтому русские рисовали на дорогах и крышах домов оптические иллюзии, важные здания маскировали под гражданские объекты, поэтому красная площадь полностью сохранилась. Немецкие лётчики просто не могли найти ничего по карте!
@@ManhettenTransfer it's a quote from a movie. A joke.
@@pavelolkhovoy113 also history
@@pavelolkhovoy113 The army is not just a kind word, but a very fast deed. This is how we won all the wars. While the enemy is drawing offensive maps, we are changing the landscapes, and manually. When the time comes to attack, the enemy is lost in unfamiliar terrain and becomes completely unready. This is the point, this is our strategy.
The Russian system is very comprehensive. It does lend towards a command centric approach where the unit leader keeps a tab on everything. Even if all comms go down, anyone with a map can still coordinate actions and get things done per the plan up to a certain point in time. The downside is - it gets cluttered quickly, which can quickly overload decision making when things get dynamic and plans go sideways.
On the contrary, NATO maps lend itself towards staff centric leadership, where courses of action and unit predisposition aren't tightly orchestrated, but rather based on initiative and constant communication between commander, staff, and across supporting units. It cannot be used to pre-plan operations down to the T like the Russian system. That's why effective Western combat maneuvers are reliant on drilling in standard operating procedures and maintaining communications. If the latter fails, the former help keep things organized. If you aren't trained and/or don't know SOPs and comms fail, tough shіт. Make a guess unless the map has nonstandard markings to clue you in.
Basically, Russian maps tell you everything that had and will happen - good luck clearing through that clutter though. NATO maps, meanwhile, doesn't tell you much about unit intent. You have to deduce them based on unit disposition, how combat effective they are, and which unit has the initiative. If you know SOPs and the status of each unit, then you can synthesize what NATO units will do once they're put on the map. The Russian system emphasizes directives and orchestration. The NATO system emphasizes ease of communication and quick recognition of essential parameters so staff and leadership can most easily synthesize the likely next course of action.
Fascinating!
a soft way to call NATO guerilla😂
@@DIREWOLFx75 Because it is. I do like the level of detail on the Russian one but it isn't practical. Its very academic, so as someone interested in the subject; its nice that I can find out all the stuff about an operation. BUT if I had to use this in combat, I would hate it. Its so cluttered its easy to make mistakes looking at it. Good luck trying find the relevant information too.
Also the concept of Mission Command is the more effective approach proven since the end of WW1. High level commanders planning sectors of fire and ranges of weapons is ridiculous. They are looking at a map, a report, and maybe some photos. They have no idea of how things are on the ground. There may be obstructions or other obstacles that can't be seen or missed during the reporting. Let the lower level commander decide, the higher level commander don't know crap about the front.
And once there is first contact, the enemy won't be doing everything as you have planned so all those tiny details go out the window. The higher level commander would need to wait for communications to arrive and then reply with what to do next. That is slow and the HQ has to do that for EVERY subordinate unit.
Unless there is some unique circumstances(ie. prevent friendly fire on a pre-planned maneuver), there is little reason to tell what range the weapons are to your subordinate. They should know their own weapons' capabilities. And if the commander really want to plot it out on the map, that's what measuring tapes are for. Less clutter, but still easily tell range by just measuring it.
@@neurofiedyamato8763 I find it interesting that both map styles communicate the massive gulf in knowledge a NATO officer and a Russian officer are expected to have.
@@neurofiedyamato8763 As soon as the video started with the explanation I knew the map was going to look like a mess. I also know, because I had to draw such maps before NATO STANAG was fully integrated and my older generation superiors were too lazy to learn the Western systems, thus our grades depended on knowing the old system so we can score better during Tactics exams.
This is very useful since I have been reading a couple of soviet and russian manuals for a research and I had troubles reading the symbology.
"While they draw maps, we change the terrain(landscape)". - iconic phrase from russian movie
what does it means
While the enemies are drawing maps, we are changing the landscape. This phrase is taken from the film, but rather it is the "motto" of the engineering troops.
@@ManhettenTransferfull version: "While they draw maps, we change the terrain with shovels. When battle begins - they get lost on unknown terrain and we win the battle"
@@ManhettenTransferэто значит, что за пару дней можно сделать вместо поля болото, а вместо дороги овраг.
@@тюленищеslava ukraini
If you look at the Wehrmacht maps of the mid- and late-war, you will see a similar concept. This is due to the fact that there are only two countries in the world that have had the most modern experience of full-scale planning and command of armies of MILLIONS, where such centralization will soon be necessary. Western countries did not have anything similar, and the Wehrmacht’s experience in this regard was not in demand, so American planning design began to predominate. As a result, only Russia had the experience of planning for numerous battles and logistics. Ironic.
Очень логично подметил.
That just patently isn't true. The western powers for example had 1,5 - 2 million troops in northern France a month after d-day. That's to say nothing of the troop numbers for Asia, or Italy, or southern France. Central planning was just as important for the allies as it was for the Germans and Soviets.
@@pinkyfull having a million personnel, where some part of it is logistical support, is not equivalent to operating this million, where all the personnel take a direct part in hostilities, at the same time. These are completely different things. What is happening on the eastern front is a unique experience
@@pinkyfullDo you think that 2 million is a lot? The losses of the Red Army alone amounted to 18 million. If we add those who survived, it will be more than 30 million
@@nick16569потери РККА 12 миллионов, включая пленных.
i read russian maps before, it genuinely gave me anxiety
The whole vehicle modifier system makes SO MUCH SENSE. Love it.
it's actually so cool that you can besically assemble the symbols and describe any vehiocle you want by it's main attributes. an APC, with a plow, ATGM on top, pulling a trailer? no problem lol
For an army with highly centralised command and control, this is a very useful system. Otherwise its just sort of hideously overcomplicated.
Joke's on you. Their army has neither.
@@whatsgoingon71mocking them doesn't help the Ukrainians gain ground.
@@dunnobored cry harder
@@MaxwellAerialPhotography nah I'm serious, underestimating them has lead to the failure of the Ukrainian Summer Offensive's Failure
@@dunnobored We used call it "Spring Offensive" didnt we?^^
These unit markers feel more intuitive to me than the NATO ones. I think it's because many of them are, at least vaguely, based on what they are meant to represent (like the mortar symbol being the tube and two feet). It's like basic logographs
very much agreed. i'm not amilitary professional but have had to do with NATO symbology in several games and they always confuse me. These are sort of clearer to understand i feel. though i do like the boxed design of nato symbols.
Содержательно. Никакой воды. У нас на военном факультете так хорошо не рассказывали. 😊
ты так учился просто. клоун
Армия - не просто доброе слово, а очень быстрое дело. Так мы выигрывали все войны. Пока противник рисует карты наступления, мы меняем ландшафты, причём вручную. Когда приходит время атаки, противник теряется на незнакомой местности и приходит в полную небоеготовность. В этом смысл, в этом наша стратегия.
@@шниперсон_228боянишь!
@@шниперсон_228 нет. Наша стратегия - как обычно просрать начало, понести потери и учиться уже в ходе войны. К сожалению. И никаких "всех" войн мы не выигрывали.
@@Leh159 Похоже на правду, но это может касаться всех, а не только нас. Вопрос в том, кто быстрее научится
As always your videos are amazing. For a brief video, the depth of information is comprehensive and informative. You've summarised weeks of instruction undertaken at officer training.
Battle Order may I say you is doin the lord's work out here!
I was waiting YEARS for an easy to understand source on Russian strategic maps reading like this.
THANK YOU
As a Russian general, i thank you for making this. I can now finally understand these weird battle maps.
LOL ! Ok mr. "Russian general " that needed YT to finally understand his map LOL
@@dannyt1705 Congratulations, you got the joke
@@firstconsul7286i think he got way too serious with the joke
And congratulations to you for getting my joke @@firstconsul7286
Haha we can't win even Afghan, haha, very funny
Most of it I knew from soviet's WW2 maps :D but I've still learnt something new, thank you for this video!
I would like to know how exactly this military tradition was developed.
If there is a big ass circle with a smaller colored circle at its centre on the map, that means a nuclear strike. The direction of fallout will be shown as well as the type of explosion and time.
The plan was, basically the whole front will be covered in these circles, then the formations will be taking what's left of the enemy positions, mainly by using tank armies waves. It was standard Cold war soviet era tactics.
Slightly reminiscent of German WW2 symbology
That is because a lot of Germans went through Soviet military academies in 30s
@@Shurukkah. there were a lot of Chinese as well, like former ROC President Chiang Ching-kuo.
@@Shurukkah. that never happened. The Prussian and later German officer core always had it's own culture. The only thing they did in the USSR was test and train with weapon systems banned by the Versailles treaty, like tanks.
@@NaturalLanguageLearning
He is correct though, Germans did go through Soviet officers training which included map reading.
@@NaturalLanguageLearning it's the other way actually. Russian Empire adopted the concept of modern army from Prussia. Also the concepts of police, firefighting, geology, governance and engineering. Many of Russian officers during the Napoleonics for example, were Germans. Therefore, Russians do many things Prussian style, and do share some things with Germans that the Americans don't. Germany is the closest western European country to us, not an alien, and we had had relationships with it since XVII century at least.
I'd love to see more content like this. Any chance of an equivalent video on Chinese battle maps?
It’s so relaxing to see, how some foreigners try to understand our maps and plans, when you are Russian and do it perfectly😁
This video ...... what a pleasant surprise!
Russian battle map symbology is quite fascinating. My first exposure to Russian battle maps was from reading books covering battles and campaigns from the Soviet-German War. Of course, at the same time, I was also able to find German battle maps. I would say that Russian battle map symbology was easier to learn than that of German's based on my early experience.
My initial thought: the Russian symbology would be a pretty good fit for activities like working on operational plans, teaching historical battles, operational briefing/debriefing, etc. (All of them involve pretty much putting everything onto paper.) For the most part, it is logical and intuitive, thus easy to learn.
Hey, i know this is a bit late. But can you reccomend me some of those books? im looking to start reading into wars in depth and was hoping to start with the eastern front
Outstanding video, as always! And by the way, that blonde woman thinking math with a Russian cap, it's a Brazilian meme that became viral. She's a very famous actress here.
Oh come and whatch it, Brazilian people! 🇧🇷
(yeah, they'll come in hundreds after that meme lol)
Rapaz brasileiro ta em todo canto na internet mesmo em kkkkkkkkk
@@insanex9778 total. Sempre tem brazuca!
Babe wake up, battle order just uploaded
Red = Friendly, Blue = Enemy was the convention on military maps globally for a long time.
Not really. Blue is friendly for US/NATO. Red is the Enemy.
F'ing French
It'd be awesome if you could expand further on this with a seperate video about more mission and task symbology, assaults, TRP's, control measures and such. Great video though!
I quite like the Russian system in how units are depicted. It better clearly defines where they actually are and from command to its subordinate units. NATO symbols is a lot harder to differentiate where they exactly are and doesn't appear grouped so you know they are one larger unit.
All the details is also nice but it really is a bit too much and cluttering the map so its hard to read. Just not practical when you go that extreme. It would make sense if some of these are used for lower echelon units (like range and fire sector) while not on higher level as they don't need that level of detail. But knowing how the Russian army is so top down, I wouldn't be surprised if higher echelon command already made such planned fire sectors for lower level commanders to follow.
Which isn't very versatile as the higher level commanders don't know the exact geography and situation the front line units are facing. I can only see such a top down approach as valid if they want to prevent friendly fire for a planned maneuver and give explicit orders(marking on maps) to tell them to not fire beyond that line.
Anyway it would be cool if you can put these unit marker systems on your website just like the NATO ones so we can make our maps or tables.
You just figured your way through the main advantages of each system! When shit goes sideways, a NATO map and a radio will you faster answers and an easier map to read ... but if you're planning an orchestrated attack across a thousand mile front, you want something like this so you can understand in detail what everyone is doing when.
@@RobinTheBot We have a joke in Russia because of those systems
If NATO commander wanted his tank crew to fire at someone - he will say "unit 663, I'm giving you an order to fire at enemy tank positioned in sector 030 with anti tank shell, roger that?"
While Russian commander will just say "663, fire at enemy asshole" to shorten the time between command and execution
Just because your math and vision is subpar does not mean that a lower ranked russian officer feels the same when he reads these maps
@@dicecorporation он обучен их читать, если он офицер
@@yellowtunes2756нет. В армии скажут "Ёбни по тому хую"
Russian soldier: "Comrade Colonel, what are our orders?!"
Colonel: * staring wide eyed at Russian map * "I HAVE NO IDEA!"
*Это они еще офицерскую линейку не видели)))*
Я только сейчас понял смысл всех трафаретов на ней🤭
The russian system is not even terrible. Relatively intuitive.
Too bad for them that higher leadership is
For vehicles i'd argue it's even better than NATO in some ways, where specialized symbols can become hard to read. For units though, NATO is far easier than the shape of these little flags and can be modified to carry a lot of information easily
@@constantinexi6489russian generals are just glorified oligarchs in trenchcoats with fancy symbols
Kind of has to be. Russia always counted with working with poorly trained personnel. Same reason they like autoloaders
@@RafaMiesesno no the autoloder has nothing to do whit " poor Personal" but to reduze the size of the tank to make it a smaller target.
I pray the NATO gods for making their order of battle symbology understandable
I learn Soviet stuff like this to make it easier to learn that
Need to learn english first lol
This is an amazing breakdown. Thank you.
Ah finally long awaited Graviteam tactics:Mius Front tutorial video!
I would imagine they read as something like "Ivan supposed to be here but Ivan not here, so Igor covering Ivan until Ivan return"
and where's denotations for the vital vodka storage
Пельменехранилище по угрозой.
Несанкционированная свадьба в грузии! Вас понял. Высылаю иванов на ми-24.
You might not understand that people use different symbols in different cases. Firing cards of platoon in defence have firing sectors, but regiment/brigade commander map does not.
Wow, super interesting!! Thank you !
So awesome bro!
Nice to see that both sides keep to their perspective colors Red v Blue
It would be strange if the Russians changed the red color to white-blue-red, like on the flag.
It would be stupid.
@@kommisar.vishnevsky that will simply make the map a massive unreadable mess
Great video with awesome graphics. I wish this out while I was on active duty. Are you going to give PLA map symbology a crack? I bet that will be a nut to crack.
Автор молодец, хорошая работа, видно что старался❤
Очень интересное видео, мне раньше по срочной службе доводилось изображать машины в некоторой штабной работе
As a Russian, I never expected to see such a video in a sentence. But judging by today's events, it will come in handy for someone
7:47 Im puzzled because PKP was counted as LMG despite being a gpmg, whilst PKM were putted as tripod mg, but the PKMS model (to fit into the tripod) is more rarer than general PKM
The infantry version is considered an LMG.
It's very light for what it is by the way, it weighs less than a BAR.
It all comes down to how it's being used - a pkp in an infantry squad is an lmg and a pkm on a tripod is an emplaced mg. Put the pkp on the tripod and give the squad the pkm and the same mg's have just swapped roles.
pkp weight like m249
the notation is similar to Germany's classification of LMG or HMG, A MG34/42 or MG3 in a mobile state (infantry squad) is considered a LMG. A MG34/42 or MG3 in a fixed state (tripod or vehicle mount) is considered a HMG. Caliber and weight doesn't always denote if it's a light or heavy MG in other countries.
Love your content!
Could you make a video about the hungarian army in the future?
I think it would be an interesting blend of western and easter forces
that video could have really used an example at the end, examining an actual map and pointing out the various features
наконец то
ещё один англоговорящий ютубер, который будет обяснять мне русские вещи
после того, как я научился произносить ы и crab-like д мне не составит труда посмотреть это видео
I'm curious now, what system does the Chinese army use? Does their system closely resemble the Russian or is it unique?
Considering that they love to copy everything...
Accurate in general. But i have to make a little correction. Battalions symbols on 3:37 are wrong. They are actually like you showed at 1:07. Dismounted variant is exact like at 1:07. Mounted variant is the same lil flag but standing on an arrow
Пока они рисуют карты, мы меняем рельеф
В этом цель, в этом наша стратегия
Одна бабушкина дача за другой
лучшее-детям
Разве что в мечтах. Только мечты и остались.
@@al-tamura3010 Что, ссымся?
I just have to compliment you on that excellent thumbnail xD
very interesting video and clearly explained for us clueless laymen.
I've always associated the color red with "the enemy/the bad guys". I guess because of video games and such. But I wonder if people in Russia (and China) usually associate the color blue with enemy and red with friendly? And if that's not the case anymore because of Western digital media, what impact does that have?
I think the Russians very much still associate red with friendly and blue with enemy, but it's done a reversal in Ukraine (they used to use the same system until recently)
I've heard from somewhere that red is considered as good luck in China. So for this reason, they apply this to both their mapping and their stock system.
I can guarantee the 1st, but not the 2nd.
Of course, a heritage from communism with the symbolic color red might also play a role
Wow! That's fascinating! I always assumed Red and Blue were just colors for "enemy" and "friendly". I had no idea that the USSR/Russia actually used Red to identify friendly forces!
you should wear red symbology for friendly/allies, because of the effect called "the red bias" found in sport, which cause an increase probability of winning due to psychological factor.
Maybe it's because I consumed lots of western media but I am russian and associate red with the enemies. Although when I look at this maps I remember that they where designed in ussr and it just clicks. We are "reds" and nato is "blues". Russians in general tend to associate with red color partly because tradition and echoes of ussr, partly because its considered slavic color and it has the same root as the word beauty. Before the war I wanted to associate with red because its depicted as generic enemy or evil color and we associate ourself with red, and it kind of felt unfair. Now its a bit harder to justify because of the implications.
8:59 By the way that's a meme us Americans use what ever format of the year, time, date we like with no Standarization much like the whole US customary and metric thing.
Americans sometimes write something like 20 February (although more often February 20th) but will almost never write something like 20/2
Спасибо, товарищ из НАТО, за полезную информацию. Хрен его знает, зачем я это смотрю в 4 часа ночи, но видимо таков путь
Wow 👏😮👏
And so... perhaps also one for NATO maps... please...
This is wonderful. Thank you. Given the type of mind I have, I would automatically want to go and ask extraterrestrial species wether they have an equivalent to this type of symbology, and if so what it might be. For example, I would want to go and ask the Minbari, the Turians, the Klingons, the Narn, the Asari, the Yautja, and many others.
As Russian i want to say:
I absolutely do not understand the symbols on the NATO Battle Maps, they just don't make any sense for me. I think in the west a mirror situation ;)
Both systems makes perfect sense once you you learn the basics, though they have somewhat different emphasis in their purpose. NATO maps are more about keeping track of where units that can be given orders are located, while the Russian style looks more about keeping track of what orders the various units has been given.
@@johanmetreus1268It also comes down to a different understanding of how orders are to be carried out. The Russian style is ideal for micromanagement, detailing everything for a commander. NATO style is, as you said, tokens representing who’s where because NATO relies more on mission type tactics, letting junior officers decide for themselves the ideal way of accomplishing their overall objective. No need to tell each tank squad where to go and what to do when the commander on the ground can do that themselves with a better understanding of what’s happening.
@@dingusdean1905 Only this works exclusively in ideal conditions with a weak opponent and in a local war, in fact, like all NATO wars. In a large-scale war with an equal opponent, this does not work.
NATO training and standards are criticized even by Ukrainian soldiers, who openly say that all the methods they receive during training in NATO countries are absolutely not suitable at the front in the current war.
The Ukrainian army still adheres to the Soviet system, although it tries to meet NATO standards, but understands that in this case it will be a total mistake and a loss in the war.
@@VHSKacceta Well, having tried simple and complex plans, ranging from small units to company sized units in Arma (with real people), I can tell you that all plans can be nice. What sort of plan you go for depends on the scenario you are dealing with.
A highly detailed plan that micro-manages each unit can be useful, telling people where to go and what they should be doing to increase the chances of success. This is especially nice when dealing with less experienced leaders. However, such plans are not foolproof because unknown variables are introduced as more time passes, which means at some point the plan is not in-sync anymore with reality. Detailed plans tend to quickly become obsolete in complex scenarios where there are many unknown variables. If people then continue to follow the plan, they end up doing things that are not effective (or even suicidal). In such scenarios, it may be better to go for a less detailed plan consisting of general ideas and goals you wish to accomplish. Then, let people improvise and let people create new plans as they go. But this requires at least some people in lower leadership positions to be experienced/well-trained, or their improvisations will end up being ineffective. So, each type of plan has pros and cons.
In the case of a large scale conventional war where you can't control all variables, there's a strong argument for a less detailed, more general plan. And then you must hope the people who are closer to the frontline (than you) figure out what the best way is to accomplish the objectives. The highly detailed Russian plans you see can be initial starting points. But over time, you'd need to abandon those plans and begin to improvise and create new, less detailed plans to allign yourself with the changing situation. Or maybe you get lucky, everything goes entirely according to your plan and there's no need to change anything, but this rarely happens.
@@VHSKacceta NATO battle doctrine would work in Ukraine if they had the combined arms. But since they don't have combined arms due mainly to a lack of a large Air Force. Then yes NATO battle doctrine wouldn't do too well.
Loved the thumbnail.
it's hilarious how one of the greatest actress of me country became a world wide meme 😂
now I'm interested in Chinese Army battle map!
In this wonderful video, the concepts are a little confused, which is excusable for a person from the outside.
In the Russian army, the maps of combat operations differ in scale.
The map on which the firing sectors are marked is called a "fire card". It is compiled by the squad commander on the spot (or slightly in advance of the start of the battle) based primarily on visual observation of the position and operational intelligence. When drawing up a "fire card", the real scale of the terrain is not taken into account. After that, this card is sent to the headquarters. And there it is applied to the operational map already in the form in which it should be. So how much the operational map will be overloaded (with sectors of fire and endless lines) depends on the commanders at headquarters and their desire to "clutter" the map. In the right hands, Russian military topography and planning is a very versatile and effective system.
Still laughing at the O_O unit designation.
Thank from student of University millitary studing center of RTU MIREA, your video is really helpfull!
China also use this system
Ah good to know
Good for them. It's clearly better then the NATO one.
Hey Brandon, great vid. Can we get a video on German ORBATs and symbology pre-NATO?
great video thank you
Ah, Mil Symbology makes me happy
What happens if all the crayons have been eaten and you need to change the plan? Red being the best flavour.
Это видео, конечно помогает осознать основную номенклатуру обозначений, но карта с полным обозначением ситуации начинает появляться, минимум в кшп бригады, а не в окопе и тем более у отдельного 200
Цссс, пусть они и дальше думают, что карты с полным обозначением у каждого бойца
@@VHSKacceta там ещё надо инструкцию о ведении радиопереговоров между подразделениями, по типу: ворох, где бревно?
: в 20-ке морковок набирает
: ля, скажи этому дуплу что ещё карандаши нужны, а то он заебал
: сам скажи, я его на ППД не видел уже месяц...
@@VHSKacceta товарищ Сталин, народ требует больше копиума
Very interesting video!
I just noticed after binge watching youre old videos that there are no videos about Africa or anything related to it
Its interesting to see how the Africans countries organise their Armies
Dshk (ДШК) 12.7 + Toyota Hilux + RPG
most african country doctrines are based of british army since most of them where former colonies
The "Renata Sorrah calculus meme" always gets me. Brazilian most important contribution to the collective mind. I have an actor friend that worked in some of her plays and he told me she loves it.
A very informative video. Have you produced a similar video about the modern NATO map marking system ?
the newest general out of the kremlin rapidly watching this on 2x and panting
Despite being like a foreign language to us, it has proven devastatingly effective. With America's policy of "fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian", and Ukraine now drafting women and teenagers against their will, we all know where this is headed. I wonder what the Nato and Russian symbols are for "death by overwhelming artillery zone" is. Lets all hope for peace while Ukraine still has enough people to remain a semblance of a country.
watching this as if i wouldn't forget everythin in 2 minutes
A quick story about the fact *why* the Soviet/Russian doctrine and maps are so different.
Russian command-centric map strategy is a child of 60s, designed for a rush to the English Channel in a total thermonuclear war.
Just imagine. Ground communication is impossible, radio is dead either because of EMP or because of a series of high altitude thermonuclear blasts cutting any form of medium and long range communications for days if not weaks... So you unpack the plan and do everything according to it, in hope that every one who survives initial onslaught would do the same.
Same reason why their plans (at least, if they had time and resources to) included multiple partial failure modes, as, because communication would inevitably be lost, your soldiers *need* to know what they should do even in case of a partial success.
Everything shall go according to plan, even if it's not: the main lesson learned from WW2, where communication issue was also severe due to both lack of communication equipment and enemy sabotage. Which led to many defeats, especially early in war...
Wouldn't say is it better or worse approach on a modern day battlefield, but it was, IMO, perfect for an era. And could be better even today in a real all-out war, where radio would be jammed to hell and wire communication through field phones would be somewhat possible only in defence. Not taking thermonuclear factor in equation.
P.S. Fun fact. Expectation of lack of communication was also the reason why Soviet tactical nukes were deliberately issued with ZERO safeguards. Communication may be cut. Officer knowing the code (if warheads would be protected by one) could be killed during first strike... And even in such case, troops shall have the ability of using nukes to their favour. Insert the battery, flick the «idiot protection switch» and it's ready: no keys, no codes.
Excellent video.
This was a super neat video! I still chuckle knowing Russians are Red force even on their maps. At least that's one constant between NATO/CSTO Lol
ua-cam.com/video/dRL_aNrvR98/v-deo.html
I think this also helps Russian commanders incase of an electronic warfare, since today's war are multi domain or net centric as experts call it.
That way they can operate without the need for reliance of electronic gadgets to properly condict their army.
Yeah but it’s also hideously confusing and rigid, lower level commanders are often now allowed to take initiative. If the enemy does anything unexpected like using a Bradley in a manner of a tank then it’s hard for the Russian to react properly without being punished for breaking orders.
@@dannyzero692 you do realize that commanders have scouts yes? What punishment are you talking about? Today's battlefield most armored forces are seen beforehand. Applying electronic warfare is one way of ensuring to mask these type forces.
Do you have a version of this for nato? I could not find it if you do. I would appreciate a video about that a lot.
Its very common. Seek NATO unit symbols and their training PDF's
@@comradeblin256 S2 Underground has a great video on NATO combat mapping
Yayyy finally the Warpac symbology video is here
The only one in english
12:52 modern art
That's actually a fairly readable and intuitive system, cool to know
1:58 - Dislike for the term “separatists”. They never wanted or tried to separate. They didn’t accept the junta govt and for that they are being artillery shelled for 9 years now.
"...пока противник рисует карты наступления, мы меняем ландшафты, причем вручную. Когда приходит время атаки, противник теряется на незнакомой местности и приходит в полную небоеготовность. В этом смысл. В этом наша стратегия..."
In the heat of battle it must be pretty difficult to transmit alterations to the plan using this system.
I doubt that is a priority ...
The map is needed to study the plan before the battle. In battle, no one looks at the map except the generals.
It is very detailed.
Я не знаю, зачем нашим Западным партнёрам читать военные карты, но думаю, что это для вас важно
потому что не партнеры
со времен вов ничего не поменялось и интересно читать карты тех лет
Being well versed in the NATO symbols, it was great to learn a bit more about the Soviet ones.👍
They even got it right with the colors, reds are always the bas guys.
the based guys indeed
Always funny to read about bad guys from nato butchers.
Bas guys vs godt guys
In my Johnny cash voice “I remember everything “
Спасибо, подучил названия на английском языке. Машина для скаутов очень 😂😂😂 улыбнуло.
Love your video's do you think you can do a video about Belgium?
"The Germans were very happy when their spies were able to steal the road map of the Soviet STATE...But the Motherland did not have these roads. We don't have roads, we have directions"
©Mikhail Nikolaevich Zadornov
Oh it’s like a giant fire plan sketch. For some reason I thought it would be something different.
Спасибо, а есть такая же, но с НАТОвскими значками?)
funny how i knew pretty much everything before watching this video because i read the grau/bartles book "the russian way of war"
Wow that sounds like an interesting book for russian like me
How did u come upon such book?
The books dated by now
@@horrorkek9340 only the Russian war doctrine part. But the organisation and military map symbols haven't changed.
@@synthilein Well they don't use BTGs anymore at least.
Еще смешнее от того, что эти обозначения похожи на значки гендеров. Вот теперь ты реально можешь стать боевым вертолетом