Some thoughts on Soviet OOB. And questions.

[maicol]

Greetings, fellow wargamers!


First of all, I'd like to thank the developers for their hard work and exceptional patience! Guys, you did enormous amount of work and deserve a praise and nice bronze monument! And a special guy with vulcan cannon to protect the monument from those commie pigeons attack runs.

I've noticed that USSR OOB discussions were pretty flamy sometimes and, surprisingly, people were fussing over issues that looked quite irrelevant to me. So I decided to express my opinion on few thing which i consider to be important.

Also, I'm aware that next patch isn't arriving any soon, so this is more of discussion invitation than a reasonable suggestions.


1)First point - if there is any chance that in future WinMBT releases number of Soviet tank company variants would be increased? Right now experience values of T-80 and T-55 are equal, but I'm quite sure in RL their crews training levels would be completely different. I believe, T-80's fellas would actually practice driving, firing and spotting, while those who got an unlucky ticket to Mongolia border would perfect their paradeground-cleaning-with-toothbrush skills.

I think it would be totally awesome to have three company types:
"A" grade/shock/guards or whatever they are called - with experience increase and hot and juicy T-80s and T-64s;
"B" grade/second wave/backbone - with no exp modification, T-72s and maybe newest T-62s versions;
"C" grade/reserves/mongolian border garrisons - with old, but still capable T-55, T-62s - and exp decrease, of course, unfortunately WinMBT doesn't simulate parade-ground scale engagements.

After all, the USA have National Guard, Israel has Reserves and even that camelfkcing jerktard Saddam has Republican Guards! Putin is way cooler then Saddam! And Brezhnev and Khruschchev are funny too! And, moreover, Russia has some Democracy and Freedom of Speech and Liberal Values and stuff, so why cant we have those fancy shock battalions after all? It does make no sense!

And if someone would think that Russian OOB would have too many companies, developers can always get rid of those strange "tank company plus an infantry platoon" conglomerations. Quite sure nobody cares about them anyway.


2)I wonder, if in RL all newer Russian MBTs have ATGM? There is ATGM-less version of BMP-2, maybe a T-80 without them would be okay too? There are people without limbs, buttcheecks, testicles and - most frequent case - brains, so why not?


3)There is a little mistake in OOBs - some CS T-55 and T-62 modifications have Arena (or some other counter-missile stuff) installed, which is already suspicious by itself, but it gets even more suspicious with the fact that they are aviable in 80s. What is absolutely 100% suspicious, is that i'm quite sure i've saw them in classic DOS-based SPMBT long time ago. Apparantly, this fact logically proves that I'm the only person in whole civilized world who ever considered using the CS tanks.


4)Another thing that makes me curious - whats the point of RPG-18 and RPG-22? In game, they are inferior to RPG-7v in every single aspect, apart from model number. If I'm not mistaken, in RL, they are much easier to carry and use, as they cannot be reloaded. Also, I've read some memoirs of soldier fighting in Chechnya, and, if my memory doensn't fail me, he wrote, that during assault every soldier in his squad carried a "Muha" (aka RPG-18) and they were using them against enemy troops covering in buildings. So maybe it should have higher ammo rate and could be used against infantry? Or maybe an morale boost to represent lesser weight to carry?

5)Little question - if there is a single reason i should use an indirect fire when enemy is in LOS? In previous versions there were no OP fire in this case, which IMO made perfect sense if it was infantry who fired indirectly - i guess they were hiding in their cover and spitting lead in enemy's general direction, delegating aiming to God's will.

6)Soviet motorised infantry is inexcusable waste of Motherland's resourses! Each platoon gets 3 medium trucks, while whole platoon can comfortably travel in a single medium truck causing less gasoline usage, road jamming and air pollution. Well, two others still can be used effectevily as combat recon. But I'm quite sure its not what those poor conscripts expected when they were told at enlistment office that URAL driver is a honorable, yet very dangerous duty!

7)Spetsnaz... NATO troops' darkest nighmare... Yes, they are really tough guys, they eat green berets for breakfast and navy seals for lunch and they can crush bricks with their head and still be able to cite Karl Marx "Capitalism" by heart, but why can't their mighty Battle Group fit in Mi-8 or at least Mi-17? I believe spetsnaz are way too cool to jog aroung the frontline in those plebeian BTR's!

8)A little whining in the end. Why, oh Lord, why TOWs are so made of win? Why, oh Lord, why Soviet ATGMs are so for the lose?

Fact that TOW jeep costs one point more than foot TOW, while having same TI and improved capability of making less experienced Soviet commanders' pants wet, logically proves absolutely nothing, but still is quite remarkable.

Although, fact that BRDM-2 with Konkurs, which, frankly saying, has hard time hitting a urinal even when he's perfectly dry and which ultimately has three functions in the game - bumping into something fast and armor piercing after its first missile misses, bumping into something fast and armor piercing after its first missle manages to score frontal no effect hit and bumping into something fast and armor piercing after its first missile goes for good, but few seconds before its first missile realises that the world is a cruel place and not everybody going to succeed in life... Err, What i was talking about?

Oh, yes, fact the BRDM-2 with Konkurs sucks miserably and costs exactly one point more then TOW jeep logically proves that Batman would kick Spiderman's butt anyday and George W. Bush jr. is, actually, the same person as Christina Aguilera's left tit.

[Marcello]

"T-80's fellas would actually practice driving, firing and spotting, while those who got an unlucky ticket to Mongolia border would perfect their paradeground-cleaning-with-toothbrush skills."

AFAIK the deployment of the �lite tanks did not follow an entirely linear patterns. Generally the GSFG got the better stuff first but that was not always true: for example T-64s were shipped to the Odessa military district while armored units belonging to motorized rifle divisions in much higher priority sectors had to make do with T-55s. And from what I read I got the impression that situations like that were rather common.

[Marcello]

"There is a little mistake in OOBs - some CS T-55 and T-62 modifications have Arena (or some other counter-missile stuff) installed, which is already suspicious by itself, but it gets even more suspicious with the fact that they are aviable in 80s."

T-55s of the naval infantry were the first tanks to be fitted with Drozd, so if you see a T-55 with
counter-missile system before any other tank it is correct.

"If I'm not mistaken, in RL, they are much easier to carry and use, as they cannot be reloaded."

Well, the basic idea is that each of them is a weapon in itself, so every soldier has antitank capabilities instead of having a single RPG gunner in the squad. As far as weight goes I would guess that all else (meaning range, penetration and stuff) being equal a launcher and a bag of rounds would weigh less than the sum of the weights of an equivalent number of disposable launchers.

[maicol]

"AFAIK the deployment of the �lite tanks did not follow an entirely linear patterns. Generally the GSFG got the better stuff first but that was not always true: for example T-64s were shipped to the Odessa military district while armored units belonging to motorized rifle divisions in much higher priority sectors had to make do with T-55s. And from what I read I got the impression that situations like that were rather common"

Its true, but still, wasn't top-notch T-64 crews training better then that of T-55? Haven't you got any information?

"T-55s of the naval infantry were the first tanks to be fitted with Drozd, so if you see a T-55 with
counter-missile system before any other tank it is correct"

Not Naval (but them too), it were CS Tanks - which stands for Combat Support, I guess. But I did some research, indeed, some T-62s and T-55s were fitted with Drozd. But, actually, they are not first but the only ones who had it in mid-late eighties, which draw my attention. Will check sources before posting next time!

"Well, the basic idea is that each of them is a weapon in itself, so every soldier has antitank capabilities instead of having a single RPG gunner in the squad."

How do you think, if there's a way to represent it in game? Looks like in game every soldier of any squad with any at rocket already has AT-capabilities.

[PlasmaKrab]

Some good discussion points here.
I've done some extensive modding of the Soviet/Russian OOB, and not so surprisingly, it looks like we got some concurring ideas.
Just for the sake of running it down :

1)Three tank unit series is what I ended up with. There always has been a "reserve tank" series (using "obsolete tank" unit class). On top of that I switched the T-64/80/95/whatever top-notch tanks to a separate class, which is used only by "elite tank" formations (with sizeable morale/exp bonuses), which are only picked by the IA against Central Europe opponents.
Logical continuation is that I erased nearly all of the high-end tanks from the "standard" tank class (give or take some hybrids like T-72Bs or T-90s), which rightly serves as second-line tanks on the most prosperous theaters and as only tank available elsewhere.
Now that Marcello mentions it, I may switch most Far-East countries (at least Japan) to my "elite" opponent list or create a dedicated Pacific Theater picklist.
Now that's only my personal version, no idea if it would have any future in the game proper.

2) Talk about concurrent thinking again...
There again, take a look at the Cold War Mod OOBs: I have given most WP countries two separate IFV classes and several formations. There's one IFV class that gets the full kit including missiles, and more chances of picking gun-heavy types like BMP-3s. Other are more roomy older types, generally with less or no AT weapons. Motor rifle platoons get a mix of both, from 0 heavy versions in third-line units or third-line countries like Libya, to 3 heavy and no light versions for GSFG troops and comparable. Morale bonuses as suited, of course.
Same with tanks, even the common "hybrid" models mentioned above get more missiles and high-end AT rounds in the elite formations.

3) I have to agree with Marcello on the Drozd tanks. I think we can assume from several sources that some T-55s and T-62s were equipped with Drozd modules from the mid-80s onwards (I have 1983, but who knows) for Afghanistan ops. Not much point doing field trials of such a system in 1988 when the war was almost over. Given that the next-generation Arena system was available at least from 1994 or so, 1983-85 sounds like the right timespan for the Drozd.
Also remember that most of the other upgrade packs (BDD armor, LRF, Bastion missiles) were available from the early 80s.
I agree that most or all of these tanks were from Naval units, which were heavily involved in Afghanistan. Now if you look at the formations available, you'll see there is no naval CS tank platoon. Since CS variants were bound to be overused in Afghan battles in the game (not much point in wasting heaps of perfectly good sabot rounds when they'd be so much more useful sitting in their depots in Germany) it's understandable that these (rare) variants be featured in the CS tank class.

4) Same as an M-72 LAW or similar. Actually, I've often read that Soviet sections carried both one RPG-7 and a lot of discardable RPG-18/22s, but go figure that in the game.
Given how the old RPG-7 is still a staple food of Russian infantry, I tend to give the one-shot weapons to lighter units (light infantry, scouts, low-end mech...) only.
Now about how to model the fact that LAWs can be fired by anyone at short notice, how about reducing the weapon size value? Should give more fire opportunities. Don't talk about raising accuracy (e.g. to represent two-shot volley fires or such tactics),there's been enough hot blood about how light nobrainer AT weapons were too much efficient at any range
Also, v3.5 upgrade allows units to fire HEAT weapons at infantry targets, save for the last 4 shots or at close-quarters ranges.

5) I'm not sure i get the idea here. You mean when firing in the general direction of a hidden target? To me "indirect" fire means lobbing shells at an out-of-LOS target through the eyes of a forward arty obs or something. There's not many ways a basic infantry unit can do that, except if you're talking mortars or other dedicated unit classes.

6) Good point, but I think the one-truck-per-squad is the surefire way of OOB designers to cope with unpredictable variations in squad size and truck capacity. That's if you don't want to spend hours building countless new motorized platoons for each time there's a new truck generation or a new infantry doctrine around the corner. And anyway the real Russian motorized platoons (assuming there are any left to this day) are certainly such an improvised mess there's not much point trying to figure out the variants.

7) Well, how about using two helos then? Are you sure you want to put all your SpetsEggs in the same basket when you have MANPADS and AAMGs lying around in dozens?
I'm thinking about adding a dedicated heliborne SpetsNaz platoon, and I'll probably squeeze it in one Mi-17 and one or two lighter helos carrying scout teams.
FYI, I have tweaked the BMD units so that a full 3-squad platoon complete with vehicles and infantry fits into one single Mi-26. I'm not that proud of the idea when one of them comes out a canyon to face a full SAM platoon...

8) Don't tell me about this... Among other things, I've also tried to rationalize the ATGM accuracy ratings over the whole of the OOBs, e.g. to prevent identical weapons to get 10-points differences from one country to another. You know when you start modding, you never know when it will end...
Anyway, using either average velocity or travel time (i.e. depending on range or not) I get about the same accuracy values for a Konkurs and an I-TOW (and a Fagot and a Milan and a HOT). TOW-2 and onwards get a bonus for better CCM (e.g. xenon bulb instead of IR flare).
SPATGMs of any kind are bloody sitting ducks if you don't spend your time micromanaging retreat routes and firing sites, which will make them available one turn in three at best. And since BRDM-2s have no armor to speak of and no TI, they're quickly limited facing US armor.

[maicol]

Nice to hear that we have similar ideas! I'm really intrigued by your Cold War mod, just downloaded it and going to try right away.

5)Well, i meant using "z" key to fire instead of clicking mouse or targetting. Covering fire or something like that, not sure what's the right word. When you don't see your enemy, but you know that, for example, they are hiding in the building or behind that bush and you fire not to kill, but rather to suppress them.

6)Anyway, I don't care much about them - if I feel like using trucks, I always buy them separately.

7)Honestly that point was a result of recent frustration when i bought same number of Spetsnaz groups and choppers. I'll surely get a Mi-2 for a scouts next time. And BMD platoons idea sound really nice, at last they can be used properly.

8)Sounds like a really boring thing to do! I wish I had that much patience.

[KraMax]

From the middle of 80th years of the USSR has made the general modernization of all park of the tanks. "Drozd" has really appeared in a batch production since 1983. Also there were tanks T-80 without ATGM - referred to T-80B1. In game it is a lot of discrepancies. About them I shall write later.

[Spike11]

Does anyone have anything new on the T-95(?)? Is it ever going to be introduced? I have mobhacked a version with a bad-*** 152mm gun, just like I've made some NATO tanks with the 140 already included in the game. It would be fun to see a few future IFV systems introduced in the game, particularly ones that are reported to enter service in a few years...

[Marcello]

That is hard to say. At the present time they are buying some T-90, modernizing some T-72B to roughly T-90 levels and IF money can be spared they want to modernize some
T-80BV as well. No serious plans to produce T-95 anytime soon.
Foreign customers are lining up for the T-90 but the more advanced Black Eagle was snubbed, probably because anybody willing to buy something more sophisticated than the
T-90/T-72 would be heading West anyway. This isn't a big incentive to begin the production of a new high tech tank in the current climate. Speaking of which while the economy is improving the new emphasis placed upon strategic weapons (missiles, submarines etc) is not going to make a lot of resources available for tank building anytime soon.
Bottom line, the T-95 might be produced at some point, but not,let's say, within the next five years for example.