Lessons Learned from the Rus - Ukr war

[IronDuke99]

Originally Posted by Mobhack

Strange, as one of my standard anti-tank tactics is to dump arty on any irritating tigers (ww2) and on through modern times. Even 25 pounders do fine as long as you remember that artillery is best used concentrated.

So if a target is worth attacking, you direct fire-blows onto one target at a time with all (or most) of your field and heavy batteries. That includes 4.2in/120mm mortars.

"One target" means directed into one spot - with a spread of maybe 3-4 hexes max from the centre point.

It may only "blow their socks off" - but any de-tracked AFV stuck in the wrong place are likely to be irrelevant to the game, and can be finished off with tank-hunter parties in the mop-up phase if necessary. Or they may simply get demoralised and the crew bail, so all you then need do is park a little scout car in the same hex for a turn to ensure it burns = full VP for it, and possibly a kill marker for the little scout car if it spots the debussed crew returning and brasses them up as it does this. And tin-can APC have always suffered when subjected to concentrated artillery fires.

Therefore - nothing in the article is really surprising. UK artillery has after all been in the swift concentrations of fire business since c. 1942 (Uncle, Mike, Yoke etc. fire orders - concentrations of fire from regiment all the way up to Army Group Artillery level).

I believe a Royal artillery maxim is "Hit it, don't tap it."

[Paulus_PAK]

There're two quotes from Heinz Guderian himself, about concentration of forces (although not about artillery per se):
Nicht Kleckern sondern Klotzen! (Boot 'em, don't spatter 'em!)
Man schlägt jemanden mit der Faust und nicht mit gespreizten Fingern. (You hit somebody with your fist and not with your fingers spread.)

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

With the proliferation of cheap infantry AT weapons (LAAW, RPG) most APC/IFVs have even less business on the front lines then they did when 37mm AT guns were commonplace.

In the game, I have used IFVs: Bradleys and LAV's with success due to the short range of Inf-ATMs, thereby allowing the 25mm cannon on the IFV to hit Inf-ATMs with impunity.

This is true in Soviet era and updated Russian BTG tactics with the use of organic MLRS and FA guns laying down concentrated "fire strikes" in front of advancing mechanized forces.

This works in the game as well. See Pyro's discussion on artillery supporting advancing infantry.

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by wulfir

Not knowing anything about the author(s) I was surprised to read about the use of the SPA Gun 2S1 in the assault gun and anti-tank role by both the Russians and Ukranians...(?)

My comments taken from, "Lessons Learned from the Russo-Ukranian War - Personal Observation," Phillip Karber, 2015 July 8.

Dr. Phillip Karber is an internationally recognized expert in defense and national security matters as president of the Potomac Foundation; an accomplished business executive; and a university professor at Georgetown according to his Linkin account.

By whatever name: New Generation Warfare, Hybrid Warfare, or Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW), we would be remiss to discount the veracity to which Russia has committed her doctrine in Georgia, Ukraine, and the Baltic states; where we are seeing Russia lay the groundwork of her strategy as she did in Georgia and continues in the Ukraine upon the governments of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to harass, isolate, and cede territory "by any means necessary."

Wargaming scenarios in our game based on Russian tactics in Ukraine illustrates the use of militia and special forces, heavy rocket and artillery fires, and a concentration of heavy armor and IFV's in maneuver formations.

The use of UAVs in targeting for "fire strikes," and reconnaissance. The ratio of MLRS to FA increased to 3 rocket platforms to every four FA guns. The extensive use of SP Artillery pieces in direct fire roles attached not at regimental but at the battalion level. In particular, the absence of javelin and TOWIIs on the Ukranian side begs the question on the MBT as king of the battlefield.

Interestingly, Russian MLRS and FA guns attached to maneuver battalions in no small part is a significant substitute for dismounted infantry advancing ahead of armor. This allows the maneuver battalions to maintain speed towards the objective; Furthermore, the tank gun maybe used to deliver direct fires as well as the tank's machine guns suppressing if not obliterating Inf-ATM teams.

The mechanized maneuver formations (BTGs) closely resemble McMaster's Eagle troop where Bradley's outfitted with TOWs accompanied Abrams into the fight at 73 easting as Russia similarly used mechanized forces during her recent Zapad-2017 war games in Belarus. Now, with the Russians pairing T-14s and T-15s sometime around 2021, such formations would present a formitable foe for NATO forces in the Baltics, especially with attached SP-Artillery and MLRS batteries.

Finally, Karber offers several battles from the Georgian war that maybe built as WinSpMBT scenarios; either from the Russian or Ukranian side.

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by shahadi

In the game, I have used IFVs: Bradleys and LAV's with success due to the short range of Inf-ATMs, thereby allowing the 25mm cannon on the IFV to hit Inf-ATMs with impunity.

Assuming you have an infantry screen, or for some reason can see the AT units, yes, but in most situations when you're going from A to B your first indication AT weapons are present is one of your APC/IFVs blowing up.

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

Assuming you have an infantry screen, or for some reason can see the AT units, yes, but in most situations when you're going from A to B your first indication AT weapons are present is one of your APC/IFVs blowing up.

Read my post completely. Specifically, laying down artillery fires in front of advancing mech formations.

You should not advance more than 3 - 7 hexes a turn after an artillery barrage. With each end of and begining of turn have the leading elements scan ahead of the formation.

Lay your fires one after another on each sucessive turn in front of your mech formation. See Pyros' tutorial.

Additionally, each turn run UAV spotting runs.

An Inf-ATM may get off a shot, but it will be errant due to suppressive effects of the "fire strikes." Once exposed, he will die or tun tail and run following tank gun, auto canon, and arillery reaction fires.

Keep your logistics train close to keep the MLRS and FA guns loaded.

Possible con is the potential for artillery overload.

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by shahadi

Specifically, laying down artillery fires in front of advancing mech formations.

Additionally, each turn run UAV spotting runs.

All well and fine if you have virtually unlimited artillery and/or ammo and opposition AA is relatively ineffective (or you have a LOT of UAVs).

I was thinking mostly about average situations.

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

All well and fine if you have virtually unlimited artillery and/or ammo and opposition AA is relatively ineffective (or you have a LOT of UAVs).

I was thinking mostly about average situations.

False; Ammo not unlimited.

True; AA not a credible threat in Ukraine nor on an asymmetric battlefield, need only one UAV or possibly two, where the BCT element may have organic UAV with bridgate supplying an additional one. UAVs are ubiquitous on today's battlefield. However, Aeraaa's point, in an earlier post, about the player having too much awareness addresses this issue directly.

Not sure what you mean by "...average situations."

What is salient is the laying down of artillery fires in front of the mechanized force so as to maintain speed and tempo, that an infantry screen could not keep pace.

[Suhiir]

Most times artillery ammo is not sufficient to lay down a rolling barrage for the last couple km prior to contact with the expected opposition main line of resistance.

Artillery in generally used where you know, or VERY strongly suspect the the opposition is. That usually means you've spotted them with scouts/UAVs or taken fire from a position.

Now something like a pre-planned offensive you've spent months preparing for, sure, you've had time to stockpile trainloads of artillery ammo.

[Aeraaa]

I've played some games with a force composed of a small unit of tanks/armored infantry and a ton of artillery. While seeing the fireworks is great fun, the truth is that you don't defeat the enemy quicker than a traditional larger force composed of more maneuver elements. Most of the game is, make slow gains with your scouts/advance guard, spot the enemy and send him into orbit with your arty/air force. It is a slow, methodical kind of battle and needs extra attention and planning. In addition to that, you REALLY have to be careful not to take many casualties, the force is too small to be effective after losing a significant number of men. In reality, modern armies are casualty averse, hence these kind of forces make sense. But in the game, I've enjoyed games with a larger force more.