What is your viewpoint? Soviet Tank Tactics in gaming...

[jb]

...after having a discussion today about how Soviet tanks operated tactically in WWII,a question arose as to how do some of you view Soviet tank tactics and apply them to your game. As for me ,I try to picture what is happening inside the tank. From numerous sources over the years one thing is agreed upon. The turret layout of the early to mid war tanks was a nightmare for profcient tank operations. The tank commander was the loader. Even in the KV tanks where there was a third member in the turret (assistant driver ) was no help. The tank commander would still be almost useless,even if this member took over the loading main gun duties. The reason; no all around sighting . the tank commander only had a sight such as the gunner had,and a slit or is it a pistol port...Anyways he (or she?) was ineffective as a vehicle commander when buttoned up.
What I do for my Soviet tank units in my game is give them a unit integrity. Each tank must be 1" from another in the unit. If they don't then they need to take a morale roll to see what they do. This in my view would simulate Tank companies being led by the company commander,waving his flags(through a hatch in the hatch) in a predetermined signal as to what the platoon leaders would need to do. Also getting back to the tank commanders being"blind" you ask yourself "how did they move as a unit?". I think that the driver would just keep an "eye" on the tank closest to him(or Her?)and just go in that direction. Ive read alot of German accounts where Soviet tanks would aimlessly "mill" about with no sense of direction,or that they would just drive by missing targets of opportunity that should have been theirs.
Cupolas were added with the newer T34s,KV85s and ISs. Did it change any of the tactics? Maybe I don't really know even with all the info I've read,I don't know.
Another thing,what about when the leaders were killed or eliminated in some way? A morale roll for me. Are Soviet NCOs as savvy or masterful as NCOs from the west?
Any ways whats your view? Please you don't need to be a Veteran or an expert. I really would like to see YOUR VIEW.

[Mk 1]

I've tried several mechanisms to simulate Soviet tank handling in my years of wargaming.

Some rulesets have good structures, some don't. But none of them give me all that I want.

One thing I tried was "herd effect" rules. A set of side-rules for tanks without radios (BTW NOT just Soviets), saying that they needed to move and act in ways that were pre-defined in writing by the own-side's commander. So for example, a company might have five formations defined (company-in-line-of-march, company-line-abreast, refuse-right, refuse-left, platoons-abreast-in-company-column). Then a dice-throw determines if the unit successfully changes from one formation to another.

I've also tried "do what the platoon leader does" rules for the platoon lackeys. So a Soviet company of 10 tanks actually behaves like 3 super-tanks (each with 3 guns and 3 hulls) and a CO.

The Mein Panzer rules have an intersting facility for simulating Soviet tank C&C limitations. Units "activate" by platoon, but by an optional rule you can have the Soviet tanks "activate" by company. This is a very simple, uncomplicated mechanism. While the effect is not immediately obvious (Gee, the Ruskies get to activate 10 tanks, when I only get to activate 5? What gives?), what you find it that the Soviets have notably lower tactical flexibility. A Panzer battalion gets about 13 activations per turn (3 platoons plus a 4th for the company CO, for each of 3 companies, plus the battalion CO). You get 13 seperate choices of who to move and shoot, and when. A Soviet tank battalion gets 3 (2 companies and a battalion CO). You get only 3 choices of who to move and shoot, and when. But each unit you move and shoot has more tanks. So you wind up weilding a cudgel instead of a rapier. Kind of interesting.

But remember, it wasn't just the Soviets. The French too should face all the same limitations (and more ... Soviet two-man turrets have half the ergonomic limitations of French ONE-MAN turrets!).

And what about the Italians? Anyone know what was the scale of radio-equipment in Italian armored formations?

[Mobius]

the 3rd man in a KV turret was not an assitant driver. He was the rear MG operator. He was stuck in a position where he couldn't help with loading or gunning the main gun.

Also, Soviet heavy tanks were in companies of 5 tanks. So there should be other limits on Soviets other than herd rules because 5 is the number of tanks in a platoon of other nation's tanks.

[GMills]

I also believe that the Russians and Soviets (French and Italians) should have tacticaly flexibility reduced. Companies or even BN maneuver forces compared to Platoons. Russians and Soviets communicated by flags and with the multiple language problems programmed maneuvers for the players are realistic. I use the same idea for their artillery support as well. This is the reason we learned to target commanders in the 80's.

[Sierra 19]

Flames of War uses an interesting rule called Hen and Chicks. I believe it works out that if Soviet tanks movemore than "x" inches, they can't fire their main guns. This was to simulate the fact that tank commanders were concentrating on directing their tanks to move in formation, so they didn't have time to acquire targets, load, and fire the main gun.

[Mobius]

We make the soviets give orders at the company level rather than the platoon level in other armies. In addition they are not permitted to bound.

[kgpanzer]

this is an interesting topic....I believe also that even russian tank companies of 10 tanks did have platoons within them the basic command core would be the company not the platoon level. I recall reading somewhere...that russian company commanders were linked via radio to there BN commanders and such

[Mobius]

="kgpanzer" this is an interesting topic....I believe also that even russian tank companies of 10 tanks did have platoons within them the basic command core would be the company not the platoon level. I recall reading somewhere...that russian company commanders were linked via radio to there BN commanders and such

Yes, after mid 1942 the medium and light companies contained 3 platoons of 3 tanks with one command tank. The heavy tank company contained 2 platoons of 2 tanks with one command tank.

[jb]

...I have some experience being a Tanker from the '70s,and being trained to deal with the Soviet herd. Even at this time period we were trained that the Soviets still didn't have radios in ALL of their tanks. We were to expect radios and operations from the company level. This company was also to be MOST likely in the form of a combined arms force i.e. 1 CIFV company (10 vehicle with infantry squads in each),1 tank platoon (4 tanks),an ATGM section,and possibly (and more likely) AA assets. These would operate in battalions of 3 companies. An organic 120mm Mortar Battery is organic to Mech Rifle Battalions.
If we ran into a tank formation it would be expected on the company level with a Battalion at a time. Most likely if the Battalion was deployed expect the rest of the regiment to be VERY close.These battalions would be 3 companies and a command vehicle. This unit might also be leading the previous mentioned mech Rifle formation. These formations were also expected to be "in depth" or one battalion after another. This would be like taking on the "Hydra",or cut one head off an 2 grow in it's place. Attacks of this nature would definitely be in areas of greatly needed objectives.
Looking at these tactics is no more than what the Soviets used in WWII,of course the weapons systems updated.
I always look at Soviet "company" sized formations as "arrows" or "spears" that are loosed from the "slinger". Aim,loose,and it goes where it flies,with no course change until impact...
...after more study of the KV series I discovered that almost all were outfitted with radios. One must question the precise reliability of these devices after what I authored precedently...

[Mk 1]

jb offered these considerations:[/b]

I always look at Soviet "company" sized formations as "arrows" or "spears" that are loosed from the "slinger". Aim,loose,and it goes where it flies,with no course change until impact...

You would enjoy the gameplay of the Mein Panzer rules in this case.

...after more study of the KV series I discovered that almost all were outfitted with radios. One must question the precise reliability of these devices after what I authored precedently...

The documents support radios in all KVs, and in all SUs. At least in theory. In practice, well, from the last quarter of 1941 until the fourth quarter of 1942 almost anything goes. The Soviet factories were in such a state of disarray, with dozens of sub-assembly factories relocating each in their own time, and new assembly facilities coming on line (and expanding), and almost nothing reaching the troops for critical months at a time. I don't doubt that some KVs or SUs went into action without radios. Heck, some T-34s went into action without gun sites!

By mid-war T-34 platoon commanders had radios, and some of the individual tanks were getting them too.

By the end of the war almost all T-34s had radios.

I have read many books, mostly of western origin and dating pre-1990, that assert many Soviet tanks had radio receivers, but no transmitters. I have never seen any support of this from Russian sources. Anyone else have info on the "half-a-radio" idea?

[jb]

...it would be nice to gather some pertinent info from the "other" side. I looked through the member list and see we have a few members from Belarus,Ukraine,and Russia. If they are able to be authoritive would be another question...

[Mk 1]

jb pondered:
...it would be nice to gather some pertinent info from the "other" side. I looked through the member list and see we have a few members from Belarus,Ukraine,and Russia. If they are able to be authoritive would be another question...

I have observed and participated in extensive discussions with folks from "the other side" on this issue.

Valera Potopov, webmaster of the Russian Battlefild site and forum, has hosted discussions on this from time-to-time.

TankNet has gnashed over this topic as well. Valera used to participate in TankNet discussions years ago, but is not seen there any more. Vasiliy Fofanov, webmaster of a site on modern Soviet and post-Soviet armor (http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/) and a noted source on Russian, Belorussian, and Ukrainian armor, is one of the Moderators at TankNet. He and a fellow from Russia who posts under the nic Harkonnen provide a great deal of detailed information from Russian sources.

One of the gamers we play with, Vladimir, also a TankNetter, is Soviet-born. He has been here since the mid-90s, but his interests in tanks (and ships) are still focused on Russian and Soviet vehicles. He is mostly a modeller ... we've only recently recruited him into micro armor gaming, but his research for his modelling (and his personal interests) is quite extensive.*

It is largely from these discussions, with fellows who often have access to primary documents from Soviet-era archives (Vasiliy, in particular, has had access to some amazing documents over the recent several years), that I have formed my impressions on this isssue, as well as many other unsolved questions from the history of Soviet armor (such as JS-IIIs in Manchuria). The heart of the matter is that it is difficult to come up with a definitive answer on any of these questions. One seeks information from as many sources as possible, and considers the quality of those sources as well as the disparate nature of the information, and comes to a "well, it was probably like this" kind of conclusion.

Or at least, I have.


*Note;
Vlad's photo websites provide some of the best pictures of Russian equipment you can get anywhere. (It was one of his websites we used for the pictures of the 85mm AA gun in the recent thread.) His pictorial essay on the Kubinka collection taken on his trip just a few weeks ago is fantastic: http://svsm.org/gallery/KubinkaMuseum

He has extensive connections with the workers at the Kubinka museum, as he is sort of their "unofficial purchasing agent" in the west. He uses his contacts here in California to find and buy parts for their restoration projects that are simply unavailable in Russia. He also provides the hard currency necessary to do purchases here in the west.

We gamed at his apartment one evening last year. The whole time we were playing, he had video of a 1936 Red Army Tank Brigade Services Training Film running in the background. It was great! Whenever it got interesting, though, we'd have to stop the game so he could give us a running translation. T-26s all in a row on the road... "OH NO! Here come the IMPERIALIST BOMBERS!" and a flight of Po-2 biplanes drifts into view, circles once or twice (giving enough time for the air-raid drill: "Every tank must prepare for the impending attack. All commanders must now remove their DT MGs from the hull mounts, and fix them into the AA cradles on their roofs"), and then we watch as all the planes, in line-abreast formation at about 500 feet, make a parade-ground fly-by over the tanks so that they can get shot down. We all chear. Time for a drink! Now, who's turn was it?

[GMills]

I read an interesting book from the "other side" that was about a Sherman BN Russian commander who's bn was part of a T34 regt. He was able to operate at night very easily while the rest of the regt could not. When the Regt CMD asked him why, he showed them his Sherman tanks. They had two radios each and a gyro compass. He promptly lost both except for his tank and the company commanders kept their receivers but lost their transmitters. Same thing for the gyroscopes. All of that went into the T34s and now the entire regtiment could operate at night. The Russians did not like the Sherman but they do have redeeming features. But the Sherman Bn commander LOVED the Sherman.

[jb]

I've looking into this subject on a daily basis. In doing so I've been coming up with alot of interesting info to include pictures. I 've noticed many antenni on T34s.I've read where there are 3 radios to a battalion to at least platoon leaders having such. I think with this in mind one could decide on a scenario by scenario basis as to what kind of communication a soviet player may have.