Company Challenge: Soviet Motor Rifles 1 is out for Patrons!
Added 2025-08-29 12:41:18 +0000 UTCAnd... well. Very different from the Americans, but the interesting thing with these formations is that we have bare-bones versions and then combined arms versions. I know I'm looking forward to giving the basic Motor Rifle Company a combined arms injection and bringing it out as the Forward Security Element.
But of course, struggles are a lot more educational than just breezing through the scenario.
Comments
A great book on this is written by Glantz: The Soviet Conduct of Tactical Maneuver.
GLG
2025-09-15 19:00:03 +0000 UTCMy apologies for the belated(and spammy!) reply. Retirement has a way of drawing me here, there and everywhere, as it were. I really like this video and its implications, however, and feel compelled to offer a long-ish comment. It was important to watch this video from beginning to end(not that I normally do not, just that UH's ending comments are key). As UH states, this employment of a Soviet MR Coy is an anomaly. Not from a gaming perspective, but from a doctrinal one. Having said that, it is entirely possible for this sort of situation to occur due to poor recon/intel(razvedka), so it could realistically happen even if probability is low. The Soviets didn't play like its 'neighbors' when it came to warfare. Political and economic factors deeply influenced their military doctrine, and ideological factors insured this would remain locked. And while it may seem this is an explanation that extends far above the purview of small tactics, one has to remember all things Soviet were 'top-down.' UH mentions the forward security element as part of the tip of a moving Soviet formation. It is Soviet doctrine, but actually not that different from western military formation march columns. What is much more unique to the Soviets when maneuvering was the forward detachment. It was somewhat like the German kampfgruppe of WWII. A Soviet forward detachment's mission was different from a kampfgruppe in that it was a subunit of a parent formation, tasked with facilitating the advance of the parent formation. How it did that was open to a degree. If an obstacle was encountered, a determination would be made to clear it or find a way around. Obstacles could be natural or military, so forward detachments were formed to be independent, somewhat robust and well-rounded from the combined arms perspective. A Soviet forward detachment was scalable all the way down to the needs of a parent battalion. For example, a division's forward detachment could itself form its own forward detachment with subordinate detachments forming down to a company-based forward detachment. Anything smaller(platoon-based) would likely be limited to a forward security element. Upwards, the Soviet tank army was usually considered the forward detachment of a front formation. I'd like to see an MR Coy-based forward detachment formed from the nucleus of an MR division's forward detachment. Basically, using the assets of a regiment-based forward detachment to form a battalion-based one, and from there the coy-based one. I don't know if CMCW allows for that sort of flexibility however.
GLG
2025-09-15 18:54:59 +0000 UTCOne of the really great things about these videos is that we usually learn something even if I screw things up! Soviet 'one-level-up' being a case in point.
Matthew Redfearn
2025-08-31 06:26:09 +0000 UTCYeah, I've thought about making sure the ATGMs are in the first row of buildings, but then... I know they're in the first row of buildings.
Matthew Redfearn
2025-08-31 06:24:53 +0000 UTCOh, it's amazing. Even better in BS when it's hitting BTR-82s and BMP3s full of ammo
Matthew Redfearn
2025-08-31 06:24:14 +0000 UTCThe TOE of Soviet formations reflects their intended doctrinal use. I remember as a kid first playing board war games with Soviet WWII formations. Whereas American and German counters might represent battalions, regiments and division, the corresponding Soviet pieces were regiments, divisions, and corps … always one level “higher”. At first I attributed this to the manpower size of the unit, which is partly true. But later I learned that this also reflected doctrine. In other words, for a given mission assignable to an American or German company, the Soviets would assign a battalion. Similarly, a western regiment’s job would be assigned to a Soviet division. And so forth. This Company Challenge bears this out. An American company might have been undertaken the assault on Charlie using two axes of attack, each undertaken by one platoon. But a Soviet company is doctrinally comparable to a single American platoon, so would have only attacked along a single axis. The necessary firepower massing of its TOE is designed to support a single attack, and only that.
Ray L
2025-08-30 20:49:12 +0000 UTCThat American AI platoon commander deserves a commendation for his effective defense-in-depth deployment. That said, arming the outpost squads with Dragons would have resulted in earlier attrition of the approaching Soviets.
Ray L
2025-08-30 20:47:13 +0000 UTCOK, never thought the 40mm would be so effective as an anti-armor weapon honestly
Ben Kerry
2025-08-29 17:37:39 +0000 UTC
