**Correction:** 2:24 - This graphic is slightly wrong because although most Army Corps were made of divisions, the type that had a separate air assault regiment attached to it were actually made of brigades. The two Army Corps in question were specialized formations that worked for the front (army group) to exploit breakthroughs along the main offensive axis. They consisted of 2 tank and 2 mechanized brigades, plus supporting units. **Caveat:** 8:26 to caveat this point, the Soviets did have one mountain infantry brigade before the collapse, the 68th Separate Motor Rifle Brigade (Mountain). However, it was a very small part of the force structure and even that unit was half mechanized. It also had a different rationale from the Light Motor Rifle Division. Its legacy is continued in the Kyrgyz Army, which it transferred to post-collapse.
hey @BattleOrder i think you didnt make the second video for soviet artillery in ww2, the video that was supposed to compare soviet doctrine + employment with that of the german and US ones
Yep, that technology is absolutely crazy. Some good videos of it not working are online as well. It's basically a rod that dangles below the vehicle. When the rod impacts the ground (around 5-6' I believe) it fires all the rockets to basically stop the momentum of the dropping vehicle and let it "land" easier. It's pretty wild to imagine how much material went into outfitting a unit for a full drop like that.
I really apreciate that you pointed out the strategical/political focus of the VDV. The visualisation of the amount of sorties needed to deploy even this "light" formation, shows the near impossibility of modern air mobile, air assault , airborne operations. Even if you have enough cargo planes to land your troops, and air superioty to do so, you only have a delaying force with maybe air drop logistics or a guerillia force that lives of the land. Being able to operationaly deploy by road is pretty good though. This is kind of the cheap light infantry force most countries have for their defense,. If the terrain allows it, it works pretty efficient.
I mean tbh I think Hostomel Airport proves that air assault can work in the same niche roles as it always has, the failure there was on the relief forces not the VDV themselves
@@impguardwarhamer Under the premise, that Ukr is a revolting province with a local defense deforce to counter, maybe. The Problem starts if you have to engange Artillery, Aircraft and Armor. Because everything that is worth to be taken by airborn operations, is worth to be blown up by your own artillery to deny access to the enemy. 230 sorties to a singular location in a contestant airspace is doable, but redicolous costly. I mean the US has round about 250 each of C130 and C 5´s. So it would take half of the US airlift capablitie to deploy this light infantry division.
@@impguardwarhamer It's true that the VDV managed to capture the airport, but I don't see what the Russians gained from capturing it and doing it with an air assault. My understanding of the timeline is: VDV captures the airport manned by NGU conscripts and clerks, Ukrainian mechanised assault retakes the airport, Russian mechanised assault recaptures the airport but Ukrainian artillery destroys the runway and the Russians eventually retreats after some months when the whole Kyiv axis became unsustainable. As far as I'm aware, they didn't get to fly in any fixed wing aircrafts with heavy equipment, and they could've formed a helicopter bridgehead anywhere. And if the VDV needed armoured support to hold off the Ukrainians, why not just send tanks to take it in the first place? And if Ukrainian artillery could destroy the runways relatively easily, why even bother capturing the airport? To me it seems like airmobile operations are most useful to rapidly project power in COIN and possibly to deploy harassing troops behind enemy lines. But with all the vehicles and logistics the VDV needs, it seems like their focus is to capture some desolate airfield and form an airbridge to move in their vehicles, and then roam around the rear as light mechanised infantry. What did the VDV expect would happen after Hostomel was captured? Did they not think the Ukrainians would counterattack with their heavy units when Russian soldiers landed 10 km outside of Kyiv? I don't think it makes sense unless they thought the Ukrainians would fold after their show of force like in a COIN operation.
" I don't think it makes sense unless they thought the Ukrainians would fold after their show of force like in a COIN operation." Thats exactly what they planned for.
Makes you wonder if thr final report was written before the exercise, and they just ran the exercise as a formality to shut up some high ranking party members asking questions
Great Video Battle Order! I just have 2 questions: 1. If the Soviets had decided to keep developing this division concept, what may have the dvision evolved into looking like? 2. You mentioned that the division was well-suited to mountainous terrain like Afghanistan. Do you think that the Soviets' war in Afghanistan influenced the experimental division's design or development?
As far as I see, that could have been quite capable light mechanised/territorial defence division, designed solo to defend Soviet territory. At least in theory. However, since we are talking about Soviet/Russian military, of course they aimed for armoured offensive capability as priority.
To be fair though, in Soviet doctrine, if they ever had to fight a defensive war on Soviet soil, it would be fought with nuclear weapons (against NATO cities), not with an actual defensive force. To such as extent, it does make sense why a territorial defense division was not pursued - by the time it was needed, nukes would already be flying.
@@DIREWOLFx75 "Hardly! USSR was MUCH less easygoing about using nuclear weapons than the west was." The Soviet plan for WW3 was to literally glass West Germany with nuclear weapons and run over the remains, they certainly would've done the same if the USSR was invaded. "That would not happen until the existence of the nation was under threat. And an invasion by landforces alone does not such a threat make." The USSR, especially after the Great Patriotic War, saw an invasion of its soil as a threat to its national existence - certainly, the second NATO troops stepped foot on Soviet soil, the nuclear option would be used.
@@AUsernameWeShallMarchToKiev That claim isn't backed by any actual soviet doctrine I've read, including western translations. To the contrary, the use of ANY NBC is put as contingent on the enemy using them first, not ever using them first, especially since they considered themselves having an advantage in conventional war.
Seeing a force without much of a thing for generic light force's go at a light force is interesting. I wonder what it could have become like if it kept being developed under the USSR or if the Russians kept it around.
I can't help but think that unarmoured trucks would get absolutely slaughtered on the modern (or late Cold War) battlefield. A vaguely similar Russian unit would be the current 30th Separate Motor Rifle Brigade that have some units mounted in UAZ Patriot pick up trucks, which I believe was formed in 2016 based on experience in Syria with technicals etc. That unit would also make for a very interesting video. I think some videos about that unit circulated on UA-cam some years ago.
@@TonyBustaroni That's a fair point. But what I've seen the Ukrainians do was sending one or a couple of trucks at opportune moments. Even armoured units have truck based logistics, so rotating units with trucks is different from mounting your combat troops in them. I would think a Cold War conflict between NATO and the Warsaw Pact would be higher intensity and involve a lot more air power, especially by NATO. Any massed units in softskinned vehicles, like a convoy moving to the front, would be a huge target for air, artillery, even just a machine gun ambush, and the trucks have to stick to roads so their movements are predictable. If this unit is truly meant for complex closed terrain, I don't understand why it includes all the tracked and wheeled armoured vehicles. To me this unit looks more like a budget and airliftable version of motor rifles instead of a purpose built light infantry unit for closed terrain. There's a reason why mechanised infantry has almost fully replaced motorised, even convoys are being uparmoured. The VDV would also sometimes swap out their BMDs for BMPs etc. in Afghanistan and Chechnya, which was largely urban and mountain fighting like this unit was supposedly built for.
@@TonyBustaroni It's more out of necessities. There isn't enough protected transport like M113 to go around, nor military trucks. Plus, it's perfectly fine to have a civilian car to commute from the rear to near front. The US army have an insane number of trucks and tankers to keep it fed. Russian units are actually under motorised, tying them down to railheads as we have seen, making it difficult to impossible to get to the last mile.
Think of it more like US units driving in humvees and trucks in Irak. They didn't get more casualties than those in Bradley and when they got IEDed neither a truck nor Bradley would survive...
@@0jrhindo-907 I don’t think you can compare the relative power between the coalition and Iraq to NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Not to mention that Iraqi air power was destroyed before the ground campaign, and that the Soviets would face NATO that overwhelmingly rely on air power. I’m also not sure how much artillery the coalition faced, but I don’t think it would be comparable to WW3.
It’s interesting to me that the Soviets very much came at this with the idea of “let’s take the existing VDV structure and modify it to fit” rather than going in a different direction of “let’s make a more road mobile unit”. Because the latter idea, as I see it, might have worked better. If you go back to the 1950s, when they’d just started adopting APCs that were still at platoon strength, you can see that they were still very similar to light infantry forces. A structure with more towed artillery, and the infantry carried in something like an Ural 375 would have been more capable of mounting a defense against a tank formation and might have even cost less too.
MSD first echelon had plus one independent Tank batalion with five companies with 10 tanks plus 1 batalion's command tank. Division had 40+40+40+95+51 tanks = 266 tanks
There were only a couple of separate air assault regiments (1318 ODShP and 1319 ODShP) attached to a specialized type of army corps, whereas there were a lot of separate air assault battalions. The graphic is actually slightly wrong because while most Army Corps were made of divisions, the type that had a separate air assault regiment were made of brigades But the two army corps in question (the 5th and 48th) were basically operational maneuver groups working for the front (army group) that would exploit breakthroughs in the enemy's depth, so it makes sense why they'd have slightly more air assault resources. A regiment had two maneuver battalions and fires batteries in support as opposed to battalions, so it was like sort of a mini-brigade. Although the two corps were disbanded in 1989
You can extrapolate that they would be equipped similarly, if not exactly the same, as a standard motor rifle company, gear wise. They're not deploying by parachute, so no need for special rifles (e.g. AKS-74), and the unit's lighter equipment doesn't seem drastic enough to call for specialized gear (backpacks, web gear, etc). Only thing in question is whether the lack of BTRs means there would be more MGs or grenadiers. I would think not, though If anything, the official organization would be the same, but weapons units would be more likely to get farmed out to rifle platoons to bolster their firepower.
correction: the bulk of Soviet aviation in 1987 was IL-76 Candid. the Stryker brigade is a weird adaptation/copy from soviet MRR on BTR. It weird mostly to political reasons, not military. (US "patriots" in their best; but some of their points still valid) the idea was realized by Russian Airborne Force in the beginning of 21 century - the so-called Air Assault Division (DShD - ru) had two regiment - one on BMD and one on GAZ-66 truck. Normal Airborne Division (VDD - ru) had 3 regiments on BMD. it will be good if you cover the New Army Corps (1987) structure from Soviet Army.😀
Good video as always. Could we have some detailed videos American artillery organization? Maybe some videos on Australia and their logistics structure? I also really liked your video on US fuel logistics and HIMARS.
Really seems like they were ahead of the time with this concept. Replace the outdated equipment with a few light arty pieces and drone units and you got a real scary fighting force. Shame it was probably Canned by higher ups with no experience
It's a shame it was canned before the new soviet/Russian airborne support vehicle could be tested and inoperated. The 125mm and planned 152mm varients could have helped with the main identified defisionancies while still keeping it air deployable and lower logistical footprint.
The indian military is heavily based on british institutions and after 1960s india became more and more dependent in russians. It would be trally interesting to look how units (1) between 1947 to 1962-65 , (2) between post or around 1971- early 2000s and (3) laastly in 2020s is. Should provide an interesting look into what they kept from which side. Cheers another great video as always. From India
Yup the recognition of it all is that the difference between theory & action is just reality... But the only constant in reality is changing dynamics hence problematic changes & addressing those changes.. So is the military evolution..
Its like the 80s soviet equivalent to a QRF dedicated to traveling light and fast , without the logistic struggle of heavy tank battalions, or nearly as many airborne deployment (landing sorties), You can see the purpose it was supposed to serve.
hey @BattleOrder i think you didnt make the second video for soviet artillery in ww2, the video that was supposed to compare soviet doctrine + employment with that of the german and US ones
also if the argument you made was that soviets ended up using more bodies than TNT to solve tactical problems (compared to germans and US), its not really incorrect. Using massed short sharp preparatory fires to make up for laggard sensor-shooter cycle was also not incorrect. wish i could watch it@@BattleOrder
Well, making a final assessment on the lack of heavy firepower is turning the very point of the formation into a negative. It's not supposed to be able to slug it out mano-a-mano with an armored division. It's supposed to get there firstest with the mostest.
I was thinking the same thing. Sure it’s “underpowered” but it also takes a lot less resources to fully deploy this entire unit. Compare that to a NATO division still getting its gear together or still trying to deploy and the Soviets have a good advantage on their side.
that why they should have started yugoslav war style confict and invaded ukraine the moment it declared independece they had nothing to lose anyways by doing that becouse life is hell anyways
I guess soviets knew their lighter force arrangements would have won the battle at harder terrain, they just wanted to see its weak points in force on force play in the least accommodating environment which happened to b3 the highest priority for operational capability and with in the shallow pocket they actually had during the 80s.
Что означает слово "coy" в предложении "Light Motor Rifle Coys"? А так интересно. Не все понимаю, ибо знаний языка не хватает. Жаль, не хватает наших блогеров, что рассказывали бы об организации армии и войск. Могу вспомнить только одного - дорогого товарища Ёрша.
They didn't place a of trust or priority on signal units or MI. Was intelligence gathering above Corp or army group. It was the GIU or KGB's responsibility?
One of the first units to arrive in Saudi Arabia during the invasion of Kuwait were the 101st and 82nd airborne divisions. They were expected to hold off the Iraqi's just long enough until the armored and mechanized divisions arrived. So yes, a very rabidly deployed meat shield.
@@robertalaverdov8147And Iraq, due to the immense pressure of the coalitions combines arms was only able to mount a few counters attacks, and most of these went straight into armored forces, again if I recall, only one during the first few days against a command outpost was able to almost capture it, but was driven back. So I want to know what are you talking about.
@@kylezdancewicz7346 This was during the first few weeks or so in August 1990. You may have forgotten but the buildup lasted for 6 months before the air campaign. Then another month before the ground invasion. Prior to that there were attempts to get Iraq to leave Kuwait diplomatically. But even before then there were fears of an Iraqi invasion into Saudi Arabia, the northern Saudi oil fields were a stones throw away. Perhaps the Iraqi army was overestimated in its abilities, but there was a real fear that the Saudi army wouldn't put up much of a fight before the bulk of us forces arrived. Thus the 101st and 82nd were sent, to state that the US was serious, to reassure the Saudi's that they had their back. And if push comes to shove, to be a meat barrier.
@@robertalaverdov8147 Ok, your wording made is seem like they were deployed against an actual Iraqi attack and not a potential one. And from the 101st track record, they probably would have done there jobs, hold out.
As the recent conflict showed those light div's are only good for chasing down armed peasants. In a more intense warfare they get decimated by arty, granade launchers, mortals and now drones to.
pentagon looked at the pristina march and wanted that capability but GDLS had another idea and made an overweight LAV that couldn't drive out of a ditch
With the Sprut(I think the name) With the 122 on a BMD body, New Light machine guns, New Anti tank Rockets, Terminator BMP(that double 23m with At is deadly combo) and other systems I can see this today. The Technology just wasn’t as developed back then, against other Armor/Mech could be trouble but in the defence with irregular warfare and Anti tank weapons it would excel. That’s assuming if Air is dominated though.
It seems like Soviet formations, even the light ones, have so much "stuff" in them. No wonder NATO was paranoid and insisted on developing technology to go up, over and around Soviet fronts whenever possible.
I've often thought the Russians need exactly this type of light infantry to harry the entire north border of Ukraine from the Dniepr to Kharkov. They could also be used to cover flanks and rear area security for conventional forces
You are a fool. First of all, they need a government that will replace them, then there will be no need to realize geopolitical ideologies by sacrificing the lives of stupid people.
I think the closest thing is their militia and conscript units they use to man the trenches. The Russian/Soviet use of conscripts is to put them in the front to man a wide front, and then send in their experienced troops to counterattack, rather than to use conscripts for rear security which I think is done more often by their National Guard etc. Otherwise the closest the Russians have to light infantry is probably their fairly large GRU special purpose units (they have 8 Special Purpose Brigades) but it seems that they are mostly used to support and strengthen their regular forces instead of being used separately to penetrate into the enemy's rear like doctrinally intended.
@@fridrekr7510 Well they should get their shit together and work it out. It's not rocket science the 18th century Germans worked it out with Auftragstaktik. Let the officer on the spot make the decision. Otherwise it's a disaster like Ugledar and now Avdeevka.
@@fridrekr7510под лёгкую пехоту лучше всего подходят Внутренние войска, но у них задачи другие. ГРУ изначально предполагалось использовать, в случае начала войны с НАТО, как диверсантов которые будут формировать лояльные ячейки сопротивление из местного населения для подрыва линий снабжений и диверсий на военных заводах. В Афганистане ГРУ вело контрпартизанскую войну, а реализовать свою концепцию им удалось только вовремя войны в Таджикистане.
Soviet myopia was tank centric and offensive driven, a formation suited to defense or use outside of invading the rest of Europe was doomed to fail in the mind of army leadership. Too bad too, looks like a useful formation for many missions and a way to leverage the heavy forces.
irony is now everybody is rapidly movimg away from brigade sized formations ti bigger formations. the ukraine was has shown the problem with brigades vs divisions
The Soviets still amaze me even to this day. They were actually got so good at war since WW2 that they can simply say "Yeah, this shit ain't going to work in a REAL WAR", and it turns out to be true multiple times in the last 2 years. Even tho drones and new tech bring new complications to modern conflicts, many of soviet core war doctrine still proves to be correct in many situation, and striving from these core doctrine would only bring disasters in a real war. It makes you wonder how would armies that mock Soviet doctrine would even fare when faced with a real war. Sure they'll cope and reorganize after a while, but at what cost?
@@maksimfedoryak what He is obviously talking about the Order of Battle of Soviet Ground Forces, has _absolutely_ nothing to do with politics. irp.fas.org/doddir/army/fm100-2-1.pdf
It's funny, but a few days ago, I was discussing that the Soviet and Russian airborne forces suck. And we need to divide them into full-fledged assault units, with the structure of motorized infantry, and light infantry.
Почитал поментарии, много интересного узнал. Я конечно догадывался , что люди на западе имеют не очень высокие знания, но не думал, что насколько. Учите историю не по випипедии и школьной пргорамме или тупым фильмам.
please do a video on these (this is a copy and paste list for a few channels) units and tactics/evaluation of loadouts of troops (from different jobs (and other branches) the tank doctrine of countries evaluation of tank veiw ports evaluation of tanks/armored vehicles of different countries navil ship cross sections (all the rooms and how it all works) evaluation of types of ships or evaluation of navil warfare flag ship vs capital ship, battleship vs dreadnought air craft carrier strike group formations exsamples, ancient persan ships, ancient veneti ships (gauls that fought ceaser) better for squads to be 2 teams of 5 or 3 teams of 3, and probably the esayest, better to keep troops well feed or starved like an animal how dose age effect comsnders eg napoleon got older so took less risks, ancient urban warfare ww2 tactics in Asia, tactics in the Chinese age of warlords, tactics in the ruso jap war cold war navil tactics, Korean war tactics, strange tactics or unque battles from the American war of independence and America civil war why did the nazis never return (or a video on best occupations) why did the Japanese empire fall, dont just say "America" like things like how there army and navy argued alot
**Correction:**
2:24 - This graphic is slightly wrong because although most Army Corps were made of divisions, the type that had a separate air assault regiment attached to it were actually made of brigades. The two Army Corps in question were specialized formations that worked for the front (army group) to exploit breakthroughs along the main offensive axis. They consisted of 2 tank and 2 mechanized brigades, plus supporting units.
**Caveat:**
8:26 to caveat this point, the Soviets did have one mountain infantry brigade before the collapse, the 68th Separate Motor Rifle Brigade (Mountain). However, it was a very small part of the force structure and even that unit was half mechanized. It also had a different rationale from the Light Motor Rifle Division. Its legacy is continued in the Kyrgyz Army, which it transferred to post-collapse.
Wow 😲
RAD
hey @BattleOrder i think you didnt make the second video for soviet artillery in ww2, the video that was supposed to compare soviet doctrine + employment with that of the german and US ones
68 МСБр стояла в Оше.
66 и 70 МСБр воевали в Афганистане.
Airborne It is "light"
division
I've always thought the rockets that fire right before those Soviet vehicles reach the ground were pretty awesome.
Yep, that technology is absolutely crazy. Some good videos of it not working are online as well. It's basically a rod that dangles below the vehicle. When the rod impacts the ground (around 5-6' I believe) it fires all the rockets to basically stop the momentum of the dropping vehicle and let it "land" easier. It's pretty wild to imagine how much material went into outfitting a unit for a full drop like that.
Retrothrusters, they use them for Soyuz landings aswell
@@TonyBustaroni Orbital Drop Soviet Troopers
PRSM-915 rocket parachute
I really apreciate that you pointed out the strategical/political focus of the VDV.
The visualisation of the amount of sorties needed to deploy even this "light" formation, shows the near impossibility of modern air mobile, air assault , airborne operations.
Even if you have enough cargo planes to land your troops, and air superioty to do so, you only have a delaying force with maybe air drop logistics or a guerillia force that lives of the land.
Being able to operationaly deploy by road is pretty good though. This is kind of the cheap light infantry force most countries have for their defense,. If the terrain allows it, it works pretty efficient.
I mean tbh I think Hostomel Airport proves that air assault can work in the same niche roles as it always has, the failure there was on the relief forces not the VDV themselves
@@impguardwarhamer Under the premise, that Ukr is a revolting province with a local defense deforce to counter, maybe.
The Problem starts if you have to engange Artillery, Aircraft and Armor.
Because everything that is worth to be taken by airborn operations, is worth to be blown up by your own artillery to deny access to the enemy.
230 sorties to a singular location in a contestant airspace is doable, but redicolous costly.
I mean the US has round about 250 each of C130 and C 5´s.
So it would take half of the US airlift capablitie to deploy this light infantry division.
@@impguardwarhamer It's true that the VDV managed to capture the airport, but I don't see what the Russians gained from capturing it and doing it with an air assault. My understanding of the timeline is: VDV captures the airport manned by NGU conscripts and clerks, Ukrainian mechanised assault retakes the airport, Russian mechanised assault recaptures the airport but Ukrainian artillery destroys the runway and the Russians eventually retreats after some months when the whole Kyiv axis became unsustainable. As far as I'm aware, they didn't get to fly in any fixed wing aircrafts with heavy equipment, and they could've formed a helicopter bridgehead anywhere. And if the VDV needed armoured support to hold off the Ukrainians, why not just send tanks to take it in the first place? And if Ukrainian artillery could destroy the runways relatively easily, why even bother capturing the airport? To me it seems like airmobile operations are most useful to rapidly project power in COIN and possibly to deploy harassing troops behind enemy lines. But with all the vehicles and logistics the VDV needs, it seems like their focus is to capture some desolate airfield and form an airbridge to move in their vehicles, and then roam around the rear as light mechanised infantry. What did the VDV expect would happen after Hostomel was captured? Did they not think the Ukrainians would counterattack with their heavy units when Russian soldiers landed 10 km outside of Kyiv? I don't think it makes sense unless they thought the Ukrainians would fold after their show of force like in a COIN operation.
" I don't think it makes sense unless they thought the Ukrainians would fold after their show of force like in a COIN operation."
Thats exactly what they planned for.
@@DIREWOLFx75one ruble deposited in your account
Battle Order uploading on Friday is a great way to start the weekend!
Makes you wonder if thr final report was written before the exercise, and they just ran the exercise as a formality to shut up some high ranking party members asking questions
Супер! А я и не знал что в Союзе были "легкие мотострелковые " дивизии. 🙂👍
Считайте, что не было. Одна экспериментальная, и всё. Увы-увы.
@@AVPozdeev Жаль, что тема умерла..🤷♂
@@Евгений-ч1т4н Это было неизбежно, в связи с неприкасаемым статусом ВДВ. А такие инициативы рождались в СВ.
@@AVPozdeev А эти дивизии хотели на базе ВДВ формировать, как я понимаю? Но Десант не проникся идеей, они хотели всё сохранить как есть?
@@Евгений-ч1т4н нет, это проект сугубо СВ, как и десантно-штурмовые части. ВДВ не позволили бы себя реформировать.
Great Video Battle Order! I just have 2 questions:
1. If the Soviets had decided to keep developing this division concept, what may have the dvision evolved into looking like?
2. You mentioned that the division was well-suited to mountainous terrain like Afghanistan. Do you think that the Soviets' war in Afghanistan influenced the experimental division's design or development?
As far as I see, that could have been quite capable light mechanised/territorial defence division, designed solo to defend Soviet territory.
At least in theory.
However, since we are talking about Soviet/Russian military, of course they aimed for armoured offensive capability as priority.
To be fair though, in Soviet doctrine, if they ever had to fight a defensive war on Soviet soil, it would be fought with nuclear weapons (against NATO cities), not with an actual defensive force.
To such as extent, it does make sense why a territorial defense division was not pursued - by the time it was needed, nukes would already be flying.
@@DIREWOLFx75 "Hardly! USSR was MUCH less easygoing about using nuclear weapons than the west was."
The Soviet plan for WW3 was to literally glass West Germany with nuclear weapons and run over the remains, they certainly would've done the same if the USSR was invaded.
"That would not happen until the existence of the nation was under threat. And an invasion by landforces alone does not such a threat make."
The USSR, especially after the Great Patriotic War, saw an invasion of its soil as a threat to its national existence - certainly, the second NATO troops stepped foot on Soviet soil, the nuclear option would be used.
@@AUsernameWeShallMarchToKiev That claim isn't backed by any actual soviet doctrine I've read, including western translations.
To the contrary, the use of ANY NBC is put as contingent on the enemy using them first, not ever using them first, especially since they considered themselves having an advantage in conventional war.
Seeing a force without much of a thing for generic light force's go at a light force is interesting.
I wonder what it could have become like if it kept being developed under the USSR or if the Russians kept it around.
Interesting video, very much enjoyed!
Great video on such a particularity of the Light Division! Really enjoy your videos!
I can't help but think that unarmoured trucks would get absolutely slaughtered on the modern (or late Cold War) battlefield. A vaguely similar Russian unit would be the current 30th Separate Motor Rifle Brigade that have some units mounted in UAZ Patriot pick up trucks, which I believe was formed in 2016 based on experience in Syria with technicals etc. That unit would also make for a very interesting video. I think some videos about that unit circulated on UA-cam some years ago.
It would not. Point of trucks is to transport infantry from point A to before point B, from where infantry fights on foot, like classic infantry.
@@TonyBustaroni That's a fair point. But what I've seen the Ukrainians do was sending one or a couple of trucks at opportune moments. Even armoured units have truck based logistics, so rotating units with trucks is different from mounting your combat troops in them. I would think a Cold War conflict between NATO and the Warsaw Pact would be higher intensity and involve a lot more air power, especially by NATO. Any massed units in softskinned vehicles, like a convoy moving to the front, would be a huge target for air, artillery, even just a machine gun ambush, and the trucks have to stick to roads so their movements are predictable. If this unit is truly meant for complex closed terrain, I don't understand why it includes all the tracked and wheeled armoured vehicles. To me this unit looks more like a budget and airliftable version of motor rifles instead of a purpose built light infantry unit for closed terrain. There's a reason why mechanised infantry has almost fully replaced motorised, even convoys are being uparmoured. The VDV would also sometimes swap out their BMDs for BMPs etc. in Afghanistan and Chechnya, which was largely urban and mountain fighting like this unit was supposedly built for.
@@TonyBustaroni It's more out of necessities. There isn't enough protected transport like M113 to go around, nor military trucks. Plus, it's perfectly fine to have a civilian car to commute from the rear to near front.
The US army have an insane number of trucks and tankers to keep it fed. Russian units are actually under motorised, tying them down to railheads as we have seen, making it difficult to impossible to get to the last mile.
Think of it more like US units driving in humvees and trucks in Irak. They didn't get more casualties than those in Bradley and when they got IEDed neither a truck nor Bradley would survive...
@@0jrhindo-907 I don’t think you can compare the relative power between the coalition and Iraq to NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Not to mention that Iraqi air power was destroyed before the ground campaign, and that the Soviets would face NATO that overwhelmingly rely on air power. I’m also not sure how much artillery the coalition faced, but I don’t think it would be comparable to WW3.
"the light motorization improved the light motor rifle's ability" well, it certainly sounds like it should
It’s interesting to me that the Soviets very much came at this with the idea of “let’s take the existing VDV structure and modify it to fit” rather than going in a different direction of “let’s make a more road mobile unit”. Because the latter idea, as I see it, might have worked better. If you go back to the 1950s, when they’d just started adopting APCs that were still at platoon strength, you can see that they were still very similar to light infantry forces. A structure with more towed artillery, and the infantry carried in something like an Ural 375 would have been more capable of mounting a defense against a tank formation and might have even cost less too.
Motor rifle activities
Special motor rifle operations.
MSD first echelon had plus one independent Tank batalion with five companies with 10 tanks plus 1 batalion's command tank. Division had 40+40+40+95+51 tanks = 266 tanks
Gornostrelki anyone?
Gorbostrelki ‘90 gang
2:26 Should the air assault battalion and air assault regiment be switched, or did corps have larger air assault units under them than armies.
There were only a couple of separate air assault regiments (1318 ODShP and 1319 ODShP) attached to a specialized type of army corps, whereas there were a lot of separate air assault battalions. The graphic is actually slightly wrong because while most Army Corps were made of divisions, the type that had a separate air assault regiment were made of brigades
But the two army corps in question (the 5th and 48th) were basically operational maneuver groups working for the front (army group) that would exploit breakthroughs in the enemy's depth, so it makes sense why they'd have slightly more air assault resources. A regiment had two maneuver battalions and fires batteries in support as opposed to battalions, so it was like sort of a mini-brigade. Although the two corps were disbanded in 1989
Can you do a company organization for this with each squad member’s gear?
I do not have info that goes down to that low of a level
@@BattleOrder dang. Oh well.
You can extrapolate that they would be equipped similarly, if not exactly the same, as a standard motor rifle company, gear wise. They're not deploying by parachute, so no need for special rifles (e.g. AKS-74), and the unit's lighter equipment doesn't seem drastic enough to call for specialized gear (backpacks, web gear, etc). Only thing in question is whether the lack of BTRs means there would be more MGs or grenadiers. I would think not, though
If anything, the official organization would be the same, but weapons units would be more likely to get farmed out to rifle platoons to bolster their firepower.
Always nice to have some Coldwar here. About late west german Tank units next?
correction:
the bulk of Soviet aviation in 1987 was IL-76 Candid.
the Stryker brigade is a weird adaptation/copy from soviet MRR on BTR. It weird mostly to political reasons, not military. (US "patriots" in their best; but some of their points still valid)
the idea was realized by Russian Airborne Force in the beginning of 21 century - the so-called Air Assault Division (DShD - ru) had two regiment - one on BMD and one on GAZ-66 truck. Normal Airborne Division (VDD - ru) had 3 regiments on BMD.
it will be good if you cover the New Army Corps (1987) structure from Soviet Army.😀
love soviet military history, thanks!
Good video as always. Could we have some detailed videos American artillery organization? Maybe some videos on Australia and their logistics structure? I also really liked your video on US fuel logistics and HIMARS.
Really seems like they were ahead of the time with this concept. Replace the outdated equipment with a few light arty pieces and drone units and you got a real scary fighting force. Shame it was probably Canned by higher ups with no experience
It's a shame it was canned before the new soviet/Russian airborne support vehicle could be tested and inoperated. The 125mm and planned 152mm varients could have helped with the main identified defisionancies while still keeping it air deployable and lower logistical footprint.
The indian military is heavily based on british institutions and after 1960s india became more and more dependent in russians. It would be trally interesting to look how units (1) between 1947 to 1962-65 , (2) between post or around 1971- early 2000s and (3) laastly in 2020s is. Should provide an interesting look into what they kept from which side.
Cheers another great video as always.
From India
The British Army have had mechanised light infantry. For years they used the old 432, then Warrior , boxer, and Ajax soon
Yup the recognition of it all is that the difference between theory & action is just reality...
But the only constant in reality is changing dynamics hence problematic changes & addressing those changes.. So is the military evolution..
Lovely! Some of this footage is also used in the soviet song, “don’t play the fool,America!”
Its like the 80s soviet equivalent to a QRF dedicated to traveling light and fast , without the logistic struggle of heavy tank battalions, or nearly as many airborne deployment (landing sorties), You can see the purpose it was supposed to serve.
hey @BattleOrder i think you didnt make the second video for soviet artillery in ww2, the video that was supposed to compare soviet doctrine + employment with that of the german and US ones
I took it down years ago because the argument I made in it was flawed
also if the argument you made was that soviets ended up using more bodies than TNT to solve tactical problems (compared to germans and US), its not really incorrect. Using massed short sharp preparatory fires to make up for laggard sensor-shooter cycle was also not incorrect. wish i could watch it@@BattleOrder
This would be a fun division in WARNO.
Great, now do the experimental 90s division that WARNO based one of their new division on!
Well, making a final assessment on the lack of heavy firepower is turning the very point of the formation into a negative. It's not supposed to be able to slug it out mano-a-mano with an armored division. It's supposed to get there firstest with the mostest.
I was thinking the same thing. Sure it’s “underpowered” but it also takes a lot less resources to fully deploy this entire unit. Compare that to a NATO division still getting its gear together or still trying to deploy and the Soviets have a good advantage on their side.
@@turtlecheese8 Ukraine are spanking VDV troops everyday. I dont think any RUS troops would bother NATO.
@@DimBeam1 Due to Organisational, Logistical and Operational difficulties. Ukraine also keeps alot of it’s Soviet Military doctrine.
@@generaltom6850 Yes as back up. Bradleys are tearing the soviet junk the Orcs keep churning out. Oh and golf carts?!!?
Any info on units like those of the Leningrad MD/6th CAA that used MT-LBs and other amphibious APCs instead of BTR or BMP?
3:50 Antitank battery have mark platoon!
I think in 1989 soviet army powerful than in 2022 modern Russian army.
They are using the exact same equipment. Or what's left of it.
Wow is that your professional opinion?
I mean, yeah? 1989 saw so much more in terms of quantity of equipment and troops than the modern Russian army.
@@MardukTheSunGodInsideMethat equipment was good in 80's not now.
that why they should have started yugoslav war style confict and invaded ukraine the moment it declared independece they had nothing to lose anyways by doing that becouse life is hell anyways
I guess soviets knew their lighter force arrangements would have won the battle at harder terrain, they just wanted to see its weak points in force on force play in the least accommodating environment which happened to b3 the highest priority for operational capability and with in the shallow pocket they actually had during the 80s.
Что означает слово "coy" в предложении "Light Motor Rifle Coys"?
А так интересно. Не все понимаю, ибо знаний языка не хватает. Жаль, не хватает наших блогеров, что рассказывали бы об организации армии и войск. Могу вспомнить только одного - дорогого товарища Ёрша.
Это обычное сокращение слова Company - Coy, равно как Battalion - Bn или Brigade - Bde.
Coy is short for company.
They didn't place a of trust or priority on signal units or MI. Was intelligence gathering above Corp or army group. It was the GIU or KGB's responsibility?
So basically, a meat shield. Buying time with blood for arrival of serious force.
One of the first units to arrive in Saudi Arabia during the invasion of Kuwait were the 101st and 82nd airborne divisions. They were expected to hold off the Iraqi's just long enough until the armored and mechanized divisions arrived. So yes, a very rabidly deployed meat shield.
@@robertalaverdov8147I thought the 101st were deployed to blockade a main supply road, if I recall, not deployed to buy time against an Iraqi force.
@@robertalaverdov8147And Iraq, due to the immense pressure of the coalitions combines arms was only able to mount a few counters attacks, and most of these went straight into armored forces, again if I recall, only one during the first few days against a command outpost was able to almost capture it, but was driven back. So I want to know what are you talking about.
@@kylezdancewicz7346 This was during the first few weeks or so in August 1990. You may have forgotten but the buildup lasted for 6 months before the air campaign. Then another month before the ground invasion. Prior to that there were attempts to get Iraq to leave Kuwait diplomatically. But even before then there were fears of an Iraqi invasion into Saudi Arabia, the northern Saudi oil fields were a stones throw away. Perhaps the Iraqi army was overestimated in its abilities, but there was a real fear that the Saudi army wouldn't put up much of a fight before the bulk of us forces arrived. Thus the 101st and 82nd were sent, to state that the US was serious, to reassure the Saudi's that they had their back. And if push comes to shove, to be a meat barrier.
@@robertalaverdov8147 Ok, your wording made is seem like they were deployed against an actual Iraqi attack and not a potential one. And from the 101st track record, they probably would have done there jobs, hold out.
Hey could you do a video on Indian Army organization?
As the recent conflict showed those light div's are only good for chasing down armed peasants. In a more intense warfare they get decimated by arty, granade launchers, mortals and now drones to.
Lol, a standard motor rifle regiment in BTRs was more transportable than a modern stryker battalion
pentagon looked at the pristina march and wanted that capability but GDLS had another idea and made an overweight LAV that couldn't drive out of a ditch
"Form dedicate light units or draw 25"
The USSR/Russian Federation:
We need to start seeing single manned tanks and single manned helicopters...thats when shits gunna get sick.. mechanized scouts
With the Sprut(I think the name) With the 122 on a BMD body, New Light machine guns, New Anti tank Rockets, Terminator BMP(that double 23m with At is deadly combo) and other systems I can see this today. The Technology just wasn’t as developed back then, against other Armor/Mech could be trouble but in the defence with irregular warfare and Anti tank weapons it would excel. That’s assuming if Air is dominated though.
It seems like Soviet formations, even the light ones, have so much "stuff" in them. No wonder NATO was paranoid and insisted on developing technology to go up, over and around Soviet fronts whenever possible.
I've often thought the Russians need exactly this type of light infantry to harry the entire north border of Ukraine from the Dniepr to Kharkov. They could also be used to cover flanks and rear area security for conventional forces
You are a fool. First of all, they need a government that will replace them, then there will be no need to realize geopolitical ideologies by sacrificing the lives of stupid people.
I think the closest thing is their militia and conscript units they use to man the trenches. The Russian/Soviet use of conscripts is to put them in the front to man a wide front, and then send in their experienced troops to counterattack, rather than to use conscripts for rear security which I think is done more often by their National Guard etc. Otherwise the closest the Russians have to light infantry is probably their fairly large GRU special purpose units (they have 8 Special Purpose Brigades) but it seems that they are mostly used to support and strengthen their regular forces instead of being used separately to penetrate into the enemy's rear like doctrinally intended.
@@fridrekr7510 Well they should get their shit together and work it out. It's not rocket science the 18th century Germans worked it out with Auftragstaktik. Let the officer on the spot make the decision. Otherwise it's a disaster like Ugledar and now Avdeevka.
@@fridrekr7510под лёгкую пехоту лучше всего подходят Внутренние войска, но у них задачи другие.
ГРУ изначально предполагалось использовать, в случае начала войны с НАТО, как диверсантов которые будут формировать лояльные ячейки сопротивление из местного населения для подрыва линий снабжений и диверсий на военных заводах. В Афганистане ГРУ вело контрпартизанскую войну, а реализовать свою концепцию им удалось только вовремя войны в Таджикистане.
On paper armored units beat everything in reality 1 man with an anti tank weapon can crawl around any terrain and wipeout as much armor as he has ammo
Until the moment he is suppressed
Didn't the Russians just equip their light infantry with some kind of technical?
0:40 yeah sure soviets called it that
I devour every video as soon as I find it
Can you make a US 101st Airborne Division WW2 structure?
2:20
Make a vídeo about gafe mexican special forces
Soviet myopia was tank centric and offensive driven, a formation suited to defense or use outside of invading the rest of Europe was doomed to fail in the mind of army leadership. Too bad too, looks like a useful formation for many missions and a way to leverage the heavy forces.
By the way they're losing equipment, the russians may need to dust off these plans
Big difference between competency on paper and in the field.
🇷🇺🫡🪖⚓️
irony is now everybody is rapidly movimg away from brigade sized formations ti bigger formations. the ukraine was has shown the problem with brigades vs divisions
Comment for statistics
The Soviets still amaze me even to this day. They were actually got so good at war since WW2 that they can simply say "Yeah, this shit ain't going to work in a REAL WAR", and it turns out to be true multiple times in the last 2 years. Even tho drones and new tech bring new complications to modern conflicts, many of soviet core war doctrine still proves to be correct in many situation, and striving from these core doctrine would only bring disasters in a real war. It makes you wonder how would armies that mock Soviet doctrine would even fare when faced with a real war. Sure they'll cope and reorganize after a while, but at what cost?
Nice doctrine, but how to use it in non totalitarian states?
@@maksimfedoryak what
He is obviously talking about the Order of Battle of Soviet Ground Forces, has _absolutely_ nothing to do with politics.
irp.fas.org/doddir/army/fm100-2-1.pdf
Eugen pls!!!!!!!
Brocken brain? Сломайте мозг называется.
KEEV lmfao
t
It's funny, but a few days ago, I was discussing that the Soviet and Russian airborne forces suck. And we need to divide them into full-fledged assault units, with the structure of motorized infantry, and light infantry.
Please don't repeat the mistakes of World War 3 history
>why soviet *very advanced military equipment/strategy* is unknown?
>1987
Self-explanatory really. And it's sad.
Почитал поментарии, много интересного узнал. Я конечно догадывался , что люди на западе имеют не очень высокие знания, но не думал, что насколько. Учите историю не по випипедии и школьной пргорамме или тупым фильмам.
please do a video on these
(this is a copy and paste list for a few channels)
units and tactics/evaluation of loadouts of troops (from different jobs (and other branches)
the tank doctrine of countries
evaluation of tank veiw ports
evaluation of tanks/armored vehicles of different countries
navil ship cross sections (all the rooms and how it all works)
evaluation of types of ships
or evaluation of navil warfare
flag ship vs capital ship,
battleship vs dreadnought
air craft carrier strike group formations exsamples,
ancient persan ships,
ancient veneti ships (gauls that fought ceaser)
better for squads to be 2 teams of 5 or 3 teams of 3,
and probably the esayest, better to keep troops well feed or starved like an animal
how dose age effect comsnders eg napoleon got older so took less risks,
ancient urban warfare
ww2 tactics in Asia, tactics in the Chinese age of warlords,
tactics in the ruso jap war
cold war navil tactics,
Korean war tactics,
strange tactics or unque battles from the American war of independence and America civil war
why did the nazis never return (or a video on best occupations)
why did the Japanese empire fall, dont just say "America" like things like how there army and navy argued alot