Preparing to order a Soviet battalion, advice needed!

[Mk 1]

upon further study into the FM,I came across some info regarding the MTLB hauling the 120mm mortar. It states that there are some reports of 120 mortars "put upon" the MTLB. Don't know for sure if they fired it while it is on the back deck or just threw it on there to transport it,kind of sketchy.
Also the battery was compossed of 2 platoons. I guess the platoon size depended on if it is a 6 or 8 tube battery. There are also 5 low powered radios to the battery, and an FO section of 4 individuals. Don't know if FOs went seperate ways or not?? just don't know...

I have been looking for further comfirmation of my own statement in this regard.

There are several references available to both 120mm mortars and 82mm "Vasilek" auto-mortars being mounted on MTLBs. But these were as often as not lash-ups in Soviet service. Hungary (?) did produce a 120mm mortar-carrier varient of the MTLB, but it was not used by the Soviets.

I was not referring to mortar-carrier mods, nor to piggy-back lash-ups. Rather, just to the application of the MTLB as a prime mover. It was initially designed to serve as a tractor for the D-30 122mm howitzer. I have the impression that it also served as tow vehicle for the BMP motor rifle regiments. In general, my impression is that the tracked (mech) rifle formations upgraded from the BTR-50 to the BMP. There was a version of the BTR-50 which carried the 82mm mortars for the rifle regiment. WIth the move to BMPs, the mortar company moved to MTLBs.

First was the need to balance the mobility of the forces. Wheeled tows were for wheeled APC-equipped forces. Infantry in tracked carriers needed tracked tows for their support weapons.

But the biggest reason for the creation of the BMP, and so also for the move to the MTLB as a prime mover, was the need to provide forces for an NBC-contaminated battlefield. The whole Soviet concept of the MICV (mechanized infantry combat vehicle) was to give a means for infantry to accompany and fight with the tanks when they could not de-bus due to contamination of the battlefield. This was also the primary motivation behind moving from towed howitzers to the 2S1 and 2S3 SPGs (contrary to assertions of NATO counter-battery capabilities). Even though MTLB-mounted mortars could not deploy on contaminated ground, they could at least traverse it. Truck-mounted mortars could not.

That was my impression, gained over 30 years of reading and studying Soviet theory. Now ... well, I'm not so sure anymore. I have been chastized many times about not relying on cold war era sources and perceptions of the Soviets. So I am looking for more recent sources to confirm my notions. Quite honestly, since the question was raised here, I have not been able to find reasonably current sources that validate my assertion. At least, not yet. Still looking.

[jb]

That was my impression, gained over 30 years of reading and studying Soviet theory. Now ... well, I'm not so sure anymore. I have been chastized many times about not relying on cold war era sources and perceptions of the Soviets. So I am looking for more recent sources to confirm my notions. Quite honestly, since the question was raised here, I have not been able to find reasonably current sources that validate my assertion. At least, not yet. Still looking.

I know what you mean. I hope you didn't think I chastised you,if I did I didn't mean to. I look to you as one of the most reliable sources on this forum. Any ways the only sources I have are all the manuals from the period and the day to day experience from back then,and thats getting to be a longer time every day...

[Mk 1]

I know what you mean. I hope you didn't think I chastised you,if I did I didn't mean to.

No harm, no foul.

I am most often chastized by my contacts from the FSU. Those who grew up and served in the Soviet military, and/or who study Russian and FSU military history "from the other side of the table", are often quite amazed at some of the myths that emerged on the US side during the cold war, and that even persist to this day.

I've been told many times, in other discussions with such friends and associates, to simply discard everything I learned prior to 1992 or so. And to check sources and footnotes to ensure I am not re-reading the same old wives' tales again.

While I understand that perspective, I must confess that it is an entirely impractical bit of advice. If I discarded all of my pre-1992 information, tomorrow I won't even know what a T-34 is!

I look to you as one of the most reliable sources on this forum.

Better to look at me as one of the most verbose. That, at least, can be verified empirically.

Any ways the only sources I have are all the manuals from the period and the day to day experience from back then,and thats getting to be a longer time every day...

I'm impressed by the information that the US managed to gather on the Soviets during "the day".

But again, I would caution against too much reliance on those sources. Even Soviet military manuals are not to be taken prima facea. I remember sitting next to an oil-industry exec on a Pan Am flight to London (kind of dating myself by naming the airline), who was on his way to the Soviet Union for a "map negotiations" session with his oil-exploration joint-venture counterparts. "Map negotiations" you ask? Yep. Several days of discussions about who's maps to believe. Is that mountain really THERE? Is there a road to that location, or isn't there? What IS this collection of buildings on the satellite image, if there is no town here? (This last issue was a delicate one, as satellite images of the nation were held as state secrets in the Soviet Union, and were bought mail-order through the USGS in the US.)

[jb]

[
I've been told many times, in other discussions with such friends and associates, to simply discard everything I learned prior to 1992 or so. And to check sources and footnotes to ensure I am not re-reading the same old wives' tales again.While I understand that perspective, I must confess that it is an entirely impractical bit of advice. If I discarded all of my pre-1992 information, tomorrow I won't even know what a T-34 is!

...and to consider the source that is telling you to disregard it...I'm kind of lost about these "wives tales" you write about
The doctrine that the Soviets used (if its one of those wives tales) for their military was not, I beleive it was really the way they would have used it. If there was a wives tale it was about how "great" their armor was. We had one of their T-62s and in running order,very, very uncomfortable and I'm not just talking about the human amenities. It was really a hard system to fight eficientlty with. Very cramped, ammo (what little there was that could be stored) was everywhere,very bad seating(the loader had a handle to hang onto with one shell in one hand and the other on the handle!), the gunners sight reticle looked like a page out of a "bad" math book, suspension had a "dead" system that threatened to throw off in the concrete motor pool,multiple times noisier than ours,etc,etc. I still respected what capabilities it had, but truthfully I felt better knowing firsthand what the T-62 really is
So Mark, they told you to forget about everything,but what does that exactly mean to you? I'm kind of curious about these wives tales too,