Quote:
Originally Posted by S-2
"Lead regiments provided, doctrinally, a combat reconnaissance patrol (CRP) of platoon size...".
That was my comment.
A Soviet Combined Arms or Tank Army would likely attack w/ two divisions forward and a MRD and TD in the army's second echelon. Each division would likely attack on two armored avenues of approach (if possible) w/ a regiment allocated along each axis. Thus, in a combined arms army you'd likely see four regiments of two divisions in the first echelon attacking along four axis of advance. In point of fact, two battalions from each division would likely lead the divisional assault. I'd assume that the CRP and security element would come out of the hide of the regimental advance guard battalion. In addition, IIRC, each division retained a divisional reconnaissance battalion.
|
You've allocated the bulk of the recon assets to by-pass missions rather than screening/masking operations needed in the r/cr fight. This leaves the maneuver units lead/scout elements unsupported and out numbered.
Quote:
|
Once you reach the combined arms army/tank army level, elements such as Spetsnatz and sophisticated engineering/signal/NBC reconnaissance assets begin showing up in the order of battle. These assets were pushed forward into the divisional formations to better enable their early utilization.
|
I am not so sure how spetnaz would work for recon work when your trying to move faster than a man can walk. IIRC Spetnaz and Soviet Airborne assets were assumed to be designed to create airheads behind NATO lines.
Quote:
|
I don't know. Your assumption ignores task-organizing. An MRR/TR combines an interesting assortment of vehicles. BRDMs, BRDM-2 (a superb ATGW platform), BMP-1/2, ZSU 23-4, BTR-70, MTLBs and (of course) tanks. My recollection is that the regimental security element (company-sized) and advance guard were task-organized according to mission expectations.
|
Lets stick with the recon assets, the BRDM, BRDM-2,BRDM-3 PT-76, and ACV. Once the MBT showed up the BRDM-2 AT became only marginally effective for suppressive/anti-tank roles with its saggers. This left most Soviet recon assets fighting with HMGs against Bradleys, Fuches and other cannon armed armored cars and of course tanks.
Quote:
|
Again, this is in addition to the divisional reconnaissance battalion and encompasses more than simply reconnaissance. Mission definition is important. A CRP or it's follow-on forces were expected to identify targets and bypass while extending into the rear. If unable, they were expected to engage and destroy by fire. If not, they were expected to engage and suppress by fire to facilitate the secure movement of the regimental main body. Eventually, that leads to a reinforced battalion in the regimental advance guard pinning opposition if need be.
|
Look at thier emphasis- 1st find and develop so you can by-pass. The US emphasis was find and destroy while developing. Perhaps not a big difference but an important one. Lets admit the relaity, the most common way a mounted recon trooper on the attack finds the enemy is when his buddy's track brews up. The defender is more than likely not moving, camouflaged and hull down and probably has bigger weapons to boot.
Quote:
|
It naturally continues upward, but in every case the intent is to restore freedom of movement into our defensive depth.
|
Great on paper, but I think the recon troops are the wrong ones to restore that. They are not themsevles heavy enough to affect an encirclement.
Quote:
Dedicated? To the extent of lifting Mk-1 eyeball above tree level, perhaps. My dad served in 3AD's divisional cav squadron in 1964/65. The lift available in a divisional cav squadron then was nil. Needless to say, the assets weren't coveyed away in the CAB. There just weren't a lot.
If there was one advantage to USAEUR in the post-Vietnam period, it was the plethora of platforms and accumulated aviation expertise which we'd acquired in SVN. The utility to Europe was obvious and the transition rapid. It's commonly acknowledged that we'd written the book in the use of aerial reconnaissance assets (particularly helicopters), but the Soviets weren't far behind and by the late seventies they were developing some SERIOUS army aviation related muscle and eyes.
|
Getting the Mk1 eyeball with a good pair of binos into the equivalent of a movable church steeple is a vast improvement over being ground bound.
Quote:
|
Zraver, that sort of thinking will get you killed in combat. If you think that GSFG was anything except top-notch, well-drilled, superbly equipped and manned you'd be wrong. We're talking reconnaissance forces along the IGB, not a CAT C division in Kazakhstan nor, truthfully, the security detachments of combat divisions (whose mission is not reconnaissance).
|
Unlike US or German conscripts, the Soviet Army had to deal with a plethora of languages. Even if half the platoon grew up speaking Russia, the other half didn't so the number of commands is limited by language. Even if everyone in the recon unit is a slav and shares a unified language the Red Army's combat units still got the bottom of the human barrel. The more skilled or more apt personnel went into more skilled trades (air defense, sig-int) or more skilled branches.
Quote:
|
So who were our soldiers before an all-volunteer army and how were they equipped so much the better? I'll happily state that any number of them were highly educated and patriots. Like I said, your arrogance and rote regurgitation of Viktor Suvorovisms would quite likely cause you much consternation. Soviet reconnaissance forces were generally among the best and brightest of the Soviet ground forces.
|
Unified language and heritage, being on the defensive, 3 vs 2 year tour, formalized basic and advanced training, better diet, proffesional NCOs. On the equipment side NATO does not begin to tip the balance until the mid-late 70's.
Quote:
|
Huh? Full circle to the top. A CRP per regiment, followed by a company (-), a battalion (-) and the main body. Two regiments likely in the divisional first echelon. You're way off here.
|
Covering scouts who lack their own heavy fire capability requires some close by direct fire capability. of course if you push your tanks up you limit your scouts freedom of movement and define the route of advance without scouting. If you give them freedom of movement then they are out from under the guns of the security element.
Quote:
|
Ranges? What exceptional difference in engagement ranges in the late seventies? I know that army well.
|
The M68/L7 and L11A5 could both paste recon vehicles well past 2500 meters. The M-60A3TTS and Chieftan both had night vision and laser range finders. The TOW fired from a behind cover M901 could hit past 3000M. Against a return fire of AT-3 and 14.5mm and 12.7mm HMG bullets....