Screening Elements

[VFRHawk]

Hi All,

Looking to build myself a scenario, where the initial phase is a screening unit battle before the main event. That's going to be M1's and T-80's, but I'm not sure what units would typically be used for the screen on the Russian side? I'm assuming M2's for the US side.

Would it be a mix or BRDM's and BMP's? Or would it depend on the nature of the follow up forces - in this case I'm looking at 2 or 3 Tank Companies of T80's.

Any help appreciated.

Graham

[MDF]

Hi All,

Looking to build myself a scenario, where the initial phase is a screening unit battle before the main event. That's going to be M1's and T-80's, but I'm not sure what units would typically be used for the screen on the Russian side? I'm assuming M2's for the US side.

Would it be a mix or BRDM's and BMP's? Or would it depend on the nature of the follow up forces - in this case I'm looking at 2 or 3 Tank Companies of T80's.

Any help appreciated.

Graham

Note that the term "screen" has a particular meaning in US doctrine and does not necessarily mean the same thing in Soviet doctrine. (For example, the Soviets' "Dictionary of Basic Military Terms" -- at least as translated by the US military -- does not have a term "screen" used in the same sense as US doctrine.)

If your Soviet forces are in a defensive posture, see Defending Forward: Soviet Activities in Front of the Main Line of Defense (PDF available at linked page), and also (US) FM 100-2-1 and TRADOC Pamphlet 350-16.

If the Soviets are advancing, then you're talking about layers of divisional/regimental recce and regimental security elements. That is covered in detail in the FM and Pamphlet cited above. Also have a look at A Commander's Guide to the Soviet Forward Detachment (forward detachments using recce/security methods somewhat similar to those employed by advancing first-echelon regiments).

The shorter answer is that, in either case, the Soviets might have combinations of BRDMs, BRDM-ATs BMPs/BTRs, tanks, engineering, NBC recce, artillery, and artillery recce vehicles. (Helpful, I know...) In a defensive posture, you likely would also see dismounted patrols.

Edited February 25, 2014 by MDF

[VFRHawk]

Thanks for the answer MDF, looks I've got some reading to do!

The Russians are on the advance in the scenario I've got in mind, so at least I haven't got to worry about dismounts too much... every little helps. According to Tesco, anyway!

Graham

[Gibsonm]

So the Soviets are advancing against a US defensive screen (or is it a meeting engagement type thing)?

Depending on how many layers you want (how far into the advance they are) you'd probably see:

- Motorcycles and a BRDM or two

then a little later

- BRDMs in pairs

then a little later

- A BMP Platoon (1, 2 or 3 - depends on the force) with a Tank

then a little later

- 1st Echelon of your main force (again what is in it depends on what you are modelling)

- HQ and air defence Elements

- 2nd Echelon of your main force

- Artillery displacing forward and combat service support elements

Oh and sorry but the dismounts in the 3rd grouping do get out "as required" to do close recce of points of interest.

[VFRHawk]

The idea was that a US force started at an airfield, and would then move forward to stop a numerically superior Russian tank force.

The first phase was a single US M3 Platoon (didn't realise the M3 was in the game, so not using the M2), moving forward to secure a village as an advanced assembly area against a recon group. That's about done.

Second phase was to be either a hurried defense back at the airport perimeter if you failed the first mission, or a much better prepared defense around the assembly area if you won it.

Then maybe a third phase if you won the first two where the US force pursued the defeated Russian one.

Currently looking into whether to make that one long scenario now we have mid-mission saves, or whether this new fangled operations thing would let me do the same job.

Graham

[Werewolf]

The idea was that a US force started at an airfield, and would then move forward to stop a numerically superior Russian tank force.

The first phase was a single US M3 Platoon (didn't realise the M3 was in the game, so not using the M2), moving forward to secure a village as an advanced assembly area against a recon group. That's about done.

Second phase was to be either a hurried defense back at the airport perimeter if you failed the first mission, or a much better prepared defense around the assembly area if you won it.

Then maybe a third phase if you won the first two where the US force pursued the defeated Russian one.

Currently looking into whether to make that one long scenario now we have mid-mission saves, or whether this new fangled operations thing would let me do the same job.

Graham

Go with the operation thang!

1) It would be a heck of a learning experience re: design

2) If you make it work you'd be a design hero

[GaryOwen]

http://1stusvcav.com/red_guards/Templates_The_March.html

[MDF]

In addition to the diagram posted by GaryOwen, which is from FM 100-2-1 and shows the typical deployment of a battalion acting as regimental advance guard, the AG battalion will be preceded by the regiment's recce company, which itself will be preceded by the divisional recce battalion. The same chapter in FM 100-2-1 will give you the typical distances/times between these elements. Depending on the timeline of your scenario, these regt./div. elements may already be amongst (or past) the US forces.

[mpow66m]

What would the MSD consist of?

[GaryOwen]

What would the MSD consist of?

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-1.pdf

See pages 14-1 through 14-4.

[MDF]

What would the MSD consist of?

GaryOwen beat me to the punch. Here is a quote from Pam. 350-16, at p.3-20 :

The movement support detachment

(MSD) moves either before or after the advance

guard and up to two hours ahead of

the regimental main body, improving the axis

of advance. It fills craters or constructs bypasses,

bridges minor gaps, and clears and

marks lanes through minefields. The work

of the MSD is vital to a rapid advance and to

security. If engineer tasks are not completed

in time, the main body will be forced to halt, disperse,

and seek another route. Once the first echelon is

committed to battle, the MSD

follows behind it to prepare the route for the

second echelon.

MSDs include engineer equipment

such as bulldozers, cranes, dump trucks,

tank- and truck-launched bridges, mine detectors

and trucks to carry explosives and

metal track. They may have motorized rifle

and tank troops attached for protection.

Chemical reconnaissance troops often form

part of the MSD. With organic resources a

division can form five to six MSDs of approximately

company strength.

An MSD will be organized in two or

three subgroups. They are the reconnaissance

and clearance group (which can be one

consolidated group or two separate ones),

and the road-bridge group. Grouping depends

on terrain and the tactical situation and

will vary during the course of operations.

And some more at p.5-66, in the context of pursuit operations:

In the initial phase, an

MSD prepares the line of march and supports

lateral dispersion of units transitioning

into the attack and the commitment of the

second echelon or reserve. First-echelon

maneuver battalions, supported by engineers,

form obstacle-clearing groups to breach enemy

minefields and other obstacles during

the attack. In the course of the pursuit, an

MSD's mission is to provide bridging and

road repairs.

And, there is yet more detail on MSD employment at pp.12-15 to 12-16.

Incidentally, Pam. 350-16, published in 1994, is the tactical doctrine guide for a generic high-tech mechanized OPFOR used at the National Training Center and elsewhere. The heavy OPFOR was to all intents and purposes a copy of the then-defunct USSR Red Army. The earlier FM 100-2 series (which explicitly described the Soviet Army) was published in 1984. A re-write of FM 100-2-1 was in the works when the USSR collapsed, and the manual (designated FM 100-62) was never published. That's a pity. Someone posted the draft chapter on artillery in the SB downloads library, and it's much more detailed than Pam. 350-16. I can't find the rest of it.

I have seen a few brief comments on the interwebz to the effect that Pam. 350-16 improved on the earlier manual by portraying the Soviet Army in a less stereotyped manner, but I have not seen detailed discussion of the earlier manual's infirmities and I'm hardly knowledgeable enough to do so. I also haven't had much luck in finding other NATO (or Western) nations' writings analogous to the FM 100-2 series (or at least not in English). It would be fascinating to compare their views with those of the US defense establishment.

[Gibsonm]

I also haven't had much luck in finding other NATO (or Western) nations' writings analogous to the FM 100-2 series (or at least not in English). It would be fascinating to compare their views with those of the US defense establishment.

Because by and large we don’t publish our doctrine on the Internet like TRADOC.

Most countries, I think, prefer the adversary to find out from harsh experience in the Engagement Area rather than reading about it 6 months before they commence offensive operations and incorporating the information into their plan.

But very fair of the US to give their enemies full transparency.

All of my OPFOR documentation has security classifications that prevent its publication but the information I posted earlier (post #4 above) is a rough synopsis.

I’ve even built doctrinal templates for this stuff in Steel Beasts for our Int guys to train with (Advance, quick attack, deliberate attack, etc.) but I suspect it will never make it to the downloads section.

[mpow66m]

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-1.pdf

See pages 14-1 through 14-4.

ahh thnx,very informative.

[mpow66m]

GaryOwen beat me to the punch. Here is a quote from Pam. 350-16, at p.3-20 :

The movement support detachment

(MSD) moves either before or after the advance

guard and up to two hours ahead of

the regimental main body, improving the axis

of advance. It fills craters or constructs bypasses,

bridges minor gaps, and clears and

marks lanes through minefields. The work

of the MSD is vital to a rapid advance and to

security. If engineer tasks are not completed

in time, the main body will be forced to halt, disperse,

and seek another route. Once the first echelon is

committed to battle, the MSD

follows behind it to prepare the route for the

second echelon.

MSDs include engineer equipment

such as bulldozers, cranes, dump trucks,

tank- and truck-launched bridges, mine detectors

and trucks to carry explosives and

metal track. They may have motorized rifle

and tank troops attached for protection.

Chemical reconnaissance troops often form

part of the MSD. With organic resources a

division can form five to six MSDs of approximately

company strength.

An MSD will be organized in two or

three subgroups. They are the reconnaissance

and clearance group (which can be one

consolidated group or two separate ones),

and the road-bridge group. Grouping depends

on terrain and the tactical situation and

will vary during the course of operations.

And some more at p.5-66, in the context of pursuit operations:

In the initial phase, an

MSD prepares the line of march and supports

lateral dispersion of units transitioning

into the attack and the commitment of the

second echelon or reserve. First-echelon

maneuver battalions, supported by engineers,

form obstacle-clearing groups to breach enemy

minefields and other obstacles during

the attack. In the course of the pursuit, an

MSD's mission is to provide bridging and

road repairs.

And, there is yet more detail on MSD employment at pp.12-15 to 12-16.

Incidentally, Pam. 350-16, published in 1994, is the tactical doctrine guide for a generic high-tech mechanized OPFOR used at the National Training Center and elsewhere. The heavy OPFOR was to all intents and purposes a copy of the then-defunct USSR Red Army. The earlier FM 100-2 series (which explicitly described the Soviet Army) was published in 1984. A re-write of FM 100-2-1 was in the works when the USSR collapsed, and the manual (designated FM 100-62) was never published. That's a pity. Someone posted the draft chapter on artillery in the SB downloads library, and it's much more detailed than Pam. 350-16. I can't find the rest of it.

I have seen a few brief comments on the interwebz to the effect that Pam. 350-16 improved on the earlier manual by portraying the Soviet Army in a less stereotyped manner, but I have not seen detailed discussion of the earlier manual's infirmities and I'm hardly knowledgeable enough to do so. I also haven't had much luck in finding other NATO (or Western) nations' writings analogous to the FM 100-2 series (or at least not in English). It would be fascinating to compare their views with those of the US defense establishment.

how about building a sce. along this line.?

[mpow66m]

Because by and large we don’t publish our doctrine on the Internet like TRADOC.

Most countries, I think, prefer the adversary to find out from harsh experience in the Engagement Area rather than reading about it 6 months before they commence offensive operations and incorporating the information into their plan.

But very fair of the US to give their enemies full transparency.

All of my OPFOR documentation has security classifications that prevent its publication but the information I posted earlier (post #4 above) is a rough synopsis.

I’ve even built doctrinal templates for this stuff in Steel Beasts for our Int guys to train with (Advance, quick attack, deliberate attack, etc.) but I suspect it will never make it to the downloads section.

would it be possible or even useful for a non clearance sce. to be made?

[Gibsonm]

would it be possible or even useful for a non clearance sce. to be made?

Not by us since the content automatically gives it a clearance.

[Tread_Head57]

Because by and large we don’t publish our doctrine on the Internet like TRADOC. ... But very fair of the US to give their enemies full transparency.

"One of the serious problems in planning the fight against American doctrine, is that the Americans do not read their manuals, nor do they feel any obligation to follow their doctrine..." - attributed to a Soviet officer :bigsmile:

[Gibsonm]

Well great close TRADOC and there’s a big slice of your budget cut sorted out.

No point developing or teaching it if they don’t use it.

[MDF]

Incidentally, in the wake of my post about the revision of FM 100-2-1, I did some Googling last night and stumbled on this cache of translated Soviet and AP military journal articles and Soviet General Staff Academy training materials:

http://www.foia.cia.gov/collection/soviet-and-warsaw-pact-military-journals

Members of the Cold War Appreciation Society, rejoice!

[Tread_Head57]

Well great close TRADOC and there’s a big slice of your budget cut sorted out.

No point developing or teaching it if they don’t use it.

That wasn't my point. Doctrine is like the foundation of a house. You need a solid base upon which to build, but the design of the house (execution of the mission) is only limited by the imagination of the architect (person planning the mission) as long as it conforms to the laws of physics/building codes (practicable/feasibile). Someone can read our doctrine, but we're encouraged to "think outside the box" when solving tactical problems.