NATO and WP OOBs from 1985 to 1990

[Scrapper_511]

Did NATO and WP OOB's change drastically from 1985 until the Berlin wall came down?

I'm using HPS' Fulda Gap 85 (FG85) as a stepping stone to create scenarios for Steel Beasts. FG85 has older units not available in SB so I was wondering if it would be realistic to just substitute older units (in FG85) with newer ones (in SB) without the need to alter organizations.

For example, in the Kassel scenario in FG85, it involves a recon company of BTR-40s from 1st Guards Tank Army. Recreating this battle in SB would require a substition for the BTR-40s with BRDMs. Seems very logical to me, but it's only prudent I ask for 2nd opinions around here.

This lends to my other question of how realistic it would be for the BRDMs to simply adopt the unit designations of the BTR-40s.

My source of OOBs is limited to what's in FG85 and to be honest that's realistic enough for me. I think an Oporder with mention of actual NATO and WP units adds plenty of immersion. Again, I thought I'd ask around here first just in case there was an unforeseen red flag in my approach.

[GaryOwen]

Take a look at this:

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/Vehicle_timeline

It doesn't have information on when particular units were received new kit but it is generally helpful background info.

[Scrapper_511]

Thanks GaryOwen. I really ought to bookmark that timeline. It's not the first time it's been presented to me. In fact, I need to make a concerted effort to stop asking redundant questions and use the search function. Not gonna be easy given my memory banks aren't what they used to be.

[RecceDG]

Notwithstanding the "school solutions" published by various NATO 2 shops during the Cold War, Warsaw Pact ORBATS were nowhere near as homogenous and doctrinally bound as commonly portrayed. Different units in different areas frequently had different ORBATs, depending on things like: what equipment was readily available (which might mean - whose factory was nearest?) the personality of the commander, how well connected the local general was, and so on.

So unless you are trying to model a specific unit from a specific time period under s specific commander in a specific spot, any reasonable ORBAT is unlikely to be "wrong".

More important is that the distribution of forces be tactically and Soviet-doctrinally sound - which also was not necessarily as hide-bound as commonly thought. For example, the MRR in the advance need not break up one of the main body companies to provide flank and rear security platoons if the MRR commander didn't think contact from those directions was likely; he might instead decide to place that coy in the main body, or maybe keep it as a reserve.

One rule of thumb that does seem universal is that units kick up subunits to provide advance warning - so a regiment sends up a point battalion, the point battalion sends up a point coy, the point coy sends up a point platoon, and the recce formations lead the whole lot - so you get recce, CRP, FSE coy, vanguard battalion etc driven not so much by a sequence, but by each big element sending a smaller element forward - and lead elements requesting additional support (so the CRP might have an engineer and NBCW element attached, the vanguard might have arty forward to support it, etc)

Another good - but not universal - rule of thumb was that tank units as part of a combined arms formation were, in some formations, broken up tactically so as to place one tank with every infantry platoon - and in coys where there were 4 platoons (3 rifle one weapons) the tank platoons would have 4 tanks vice the more usual 3. Thus the tank with the CRP, etc.

Counter-moves forces were usually pretty large, on the regimental or divisional size, rather than coy or battalion sized - although there could be exceptions.

It was more usual to see good equipment assigned to good equipment - a unit with old equipment may have a commander out of favour so he got the old stuff - rather than mixing old and new; BMP should be paired with T64/T80, BTR with T55/T62/T72 - but again, "closeness to factory" counts too, so you might see BMP/T72 or BTR with T80 if that was what was handy.

DG

[DemolitionMan]

Hello scrapper,

this site provides an excellent array of OOBs, a combined effort over many years: http://www.microarmormayhem.com/

And here is my own try at the East German Army OOB for 1988/89: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ZBR9RBZE

[Big Nose Zero-Three]

One rule of thumb that does seem universal is that units kick up subunits to provide advance warning - so a regiment sends up a point battalion, the point battalion sends up a point coy, the point coy sends up a point platoon, and the recce formations lead the whole lot - so you get recce, CRP, FSE coy, vanguard battalion etc driven not so much by a sequence, but by each big element sending a smaller element forward - and lead elements requesting additional support (so the CRP might have an engineer and NBCW element attached, the vanguard might have arty forward to support it, etc)

Another good - but not universal - rule of thumb was that tank units as part of a combined arms formation were, in some formations, broken up tactically so as to place one tank with every infantry platoon - and in coys where there were 4 platoons (3 rifle one weapons) the tank platoons would have 4 tanks vice the more usual 3. Thus the tank with the CRP, etc.

Just curious as to whether anyone else things any of the above is a good idea(s) or not.