Cold War Soviet Army: A Guided Tour
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 06. 2024
- Learn how to recreate Cold War era battles in the game Combat Mission: Cold War with the Soviet Army. In this video, Domfluff will explain the core principles of Soviet military doctrine and show you how to utilize them in the game. From the formidable T-72 and T-64 tanks to the versatile BMP-1 and BMP-2 armored vehicles, the Cold War era Soviet Army had a range of powerful assets. Even if you're not interested in following doctrine, understanding these principles can help you get the most out of your units.
---------------------------------
TIME STAMPS
00:00 Intro
01:00 Mass and Tempo
02:37 Start of the Battle
04:04 Doctrine principle 1: Attack in Echolons
09:30 Doctrine principle 2: Centralisation
12:43 Doctrine principle 3: War as a Science
15:55 Soviet Use of Artillery
19:30 Dealing with taking losses
20:58 Achieving mission succes
---------------------------------
MODS
Sound - czcams.com/users/redirect?even...
Graphics- All in one mod package; czcams.com/users/redirect?even...
-----------------------------
MUSIC CREDITS
Track: Getaway car
Artist: Karl Casey @White bat audio
Download: whitebataudio.com/getaway-car/
Track: Universal
Artist: Revo
uppbeat.io/t/revo/universal
License code: MFHVIAQI5RQCQ4JA
Track: The Shape
Artist: Karl Casey @ White Bat Audio
Download: whitebataudio.com/the-shape/
Track: Dark Suspense
Artist: Soundridemusic
Link to Video: • Dark Suspense NoCopyri...
Track: Breaking Through
Artist: Calbed Fincher
uppbeat.io/t/caleb-fincher/br...
License code: DR7BPBWPUZSWHZEM
Track: Arcterra Music film score
Artist: Jeff Kurtenacker
Music link: • Arcterra Music film sc...
Track: Last Stand
Artist: SoundrideMusic
Music link: • NoCopyright Cinematic ...
Track: Dark Crimes
Artist: Soundridemusic
Link to Video: • Viking Cinematic NoCop... / @soundridemusic
Track: Dark Cinematic Thriller
Artist: Soundridemusic
Link to Video: • Dark Cinematic Thrille...
Track: Intermission
Artist: Kevin Macleod
Source: incompetech.com/music/royalty-...
Track: Nostalgic Synthwave no beat
Artist: Karl Casey @White Bat Audio
Download here: whitebataudio.com/solara
You always find another step up to forward your content. First a cinematic storytelling of your pvp matches, then your historical walk through games, and now a podcast with a visual aid. Absolutely amazing lesson on soviet doctrine
Thanks, glad you're enjoying my wanderings through the world of Combat Mission 😊
I just applied that military doctrine to a warno game. works very well especially when you have a player acting as a commander who uses artillery, heavy anti-aircraft missiles and air force well enough to suppress enemy fire (especially air force with carpet bombers). In A 5 vs 5 match, 1 person's mission is to act as scout and vanguard, 2 to act as the main force, 1 to act as a reserve, and 1 to act as commander and support. When our unit was able to push the main force to the rear of the enemy and round to their flanks, they completely lost control and only reacted to our movements.
That's like the Wargame series right. Very well done if you can get any kind of actual coördination going between team mates 😁
This is probably the single greatest demonstration of Soviet tactical doctrine I’ve ever seen, it really flies off of the doctrine manuals.
Describing it as magical would be poetic understatement.
Seriously, I’ve been blithely poo-pooing Soviet doctrine as inflexible for over a decade, but here it just clicks - and it’s less stupid than half a century’s worth of Western/American-centric history would have us believe.
Domfluff has a way of explaining these things, doesn't he. Makes it a lot easier for me as a creator!
@@FreeWhisky between both of you, you’ve succinctly and dare I say perfectly demonstrated/shown/taught an entire War College course worth of information in like 30 minutes.
I’m still clapping 👏 👏👏
Thanks man, I appreciate this.
It was damn-well-done wasn't it?! :)
What a well visualized video! I do have some thoughts though. Mainly, the discussion of Soviet principles is a little narrow and the discussion of echelonment falls into very common western misconceptions. The way Soviet quantitative approaches are described in this video is so far removed it's not even wrong, and there's some big issues with how artillery is described.
The combat action in this video is better described as an attack in a single echelon, not in three. Let's dive into echelonment first. I'm mainly going to discuss the use of echelonment in the attack, but keep in mind it was also used in the defense as well.
I hope this isn't too scatterbrained, btw, I had to re-write it because youtube ate my comment.
In this video the Combat Recon Patrol, Forward Security Element and Advance Guard are described as separate echelons. In fact they, along with the other various detachments, groups and parties (including the main body in one or more echelons), form the elements of the (combat, march or pre-battle) formation [poryadok] of a Soviet unit [chast'] (subunit [podrazdeleniye], formation [soedinenye], higher formation [ob'edinenye]). I know having transliterated Russian in brackets is really clunky, but it's (IMO) necessary to keeping the terminology coherent, given things like translating poryadok and soedinenye both as formation when one means "arrangement of troops and forces" and one means "military command of ~independent brigade/division/corps scale".
These elements, and the way they are arranged to fight, screen, reconnoiter, and move about the battlefield, are indeed designed to expose the minimum amount of RED to enemy fire while ratcheting up pressure on BLUE. But, importantly, these are not echelons.
In the Soviet definition (using Sovietskaya Voennaya Entsyklopediya. See Vol. 2. p. 421; Vol. 6 p. 392, Vol. 8 p. 617-619) an echelon is an element of the formation [poryadok] of a military unit (etc) with a specific mission assigned before its commitment. We can shed more light on this by looking at the definitions of the first and second echelons.
The first echelon is always formed, always task organized, always combined arms, and *as a rule* existed to fulfill the initial mission of a unit (etc), and may achieve the subsequent mission depending on battlefield circumstances. In the 1970s and 1980s the 1st Echelon might consist of 1/2 to 2/3 of the combat power of a unit (etc). If an enemy defense was incoherent, weak, or unprepared the Soviets would use a single echelon.
The second echelon is often formed, and exists to further the success of the unit (etc) in combat. It remains uncommitted at the start of combat like a reserve, but it receives a specific mission, alongside an intended axis of advance as well as details of the intended time/manner/place of its commitment. This is not locked in stone, the mission, commitment, objectives etc are all subject to changing battlefield circumstances. The second echelon is formed generally (in the attack) when the enemy's defense is reasonably coherent/dug in and allows the commander to flexibly develop the combat action by rapid commitment of significant combat power. In the 1970s and 1980s a second echelon generally had 1/3 to 1/2 of the combat power of a unit (etc). A third echelon was very rarely formed, generally only if the Soviets were fighting in restricted terrain like mountain valleys or something. Typical missions for a second echelon might include further developing the attack, achieving the subsequent objective of a Soviet unit (etc), conducting the pursuit, liquidating bypassed enemy groupings, defeating a counterattack, or replacing in part or whole first echelon forces rendered combat ineffective before or during their commitment (e.g. replacing losses to interdiction).
It is REALLY important to note that as a rule further echelons were used to reinforce the success of the first, NOT to redeem failure. The Soviets held that the best assistance to a unit (etc) struggling in combat was the headlong success of their neighbor. If the first echelon was having trouble the second would not charge in to reinforce them, but be committed on a different axis to envelop, pin, turn a flank, or even perhaps become the main axis of emphasis. As in all things with the Soviet military bold and sensible audacity should guide superior and subordinate. Creative and flexible adaptation to changing battlefield circumstances are necessary for success on a changing battlefield.
To recapitulate sizes: 1st echelon = 1/2 - 2/3 of a unit's combat power. 2nd Echelon = 1/3 - 1/2 of a units combat power. Combined Arms Reserve = ~1/9th of a units combat power.
What we can see from all of the above is that the video
Now, regarding Soviet principles, while mass and tempo are both emphasized they are among a broader swath of like seven or eight principles of varying importance. Note that they are flexible and change based on the nature, form and type of combat being discussed, as well as the material-technical conditions. Reznichenko's 1987 edition of Taktika gives (in no particular order):
---High Combat Readiness;
---High activity [aktivnost'], determination [reshitel'nost'], and continuity of combat;
---Coordinated and Joint use of combat arms and special troops (Spetsalnikh voisk) in combat and the maintenance of continuous interaction between them;
---The decisive concentration of the main efforts of troops in the main direction and at the right time;
---Maneuver by forces and fires;
---Comprehensive exploitation and use of morale, moral, political and psychological factors to further tasks;
---Comprehensive combat support;
---Maintenance and timely restoration of combat capability of troops;
---Firm and uninterrupted command and control of troops, unwavering commitment to achieving the intended goals, fulfilling decisions made and completing tasks assigned.
Now, Tempo and Mass are on this list, in the second and fourth ones listed, but they're not alone! And these break down further, you wind up with a list of like 20 principles which I don't want to bog down here. Read Chapter 1 of Taktika '87 (Fundamentals of Combined Arms Combat).
When it comes to understanding the Soviet mathematical / quantitative approach to war, I would really suggest the monograph "Calculating Combat Outcomes" by the Soviet Studies Research Centre, Sandhurst. The way it's described in this video is so far off base I don't even know where to start. Also, the scientific approach to the study of war isn't /just/ about quantitative methods, it's to do with creating a system of knowledge for understanding and analyzing war and armed conflict based on observations, experiments, data and analysis.
When it comes to the implementation of Soviet artillery in this video (and I suspect in CMCW in general) it's just wrong. Soviet artillery was (for one) directed quite differently, running on a supply-push rather than demand-pull model where the artillery commander would generally be in 'collar grabbing' distance of the commander they were attached to and be maneuvering their fires directly, rather than putting calls for fire through an FDC. There's also recon-fires-complexes, where C2, observation and fires assets would be lashed together in a specific cell to hunt down high priority targets with very short see-shoot loops. In general, fires would be phased but with flexibility. The phases were generally, Fire Support for Movement Forward | Fire Preparation | Fire Support in the Attack | Fire Accompaniment. The average time to shift between targets for soviet artillery in the 1970s and 1980s was ~2 minutes. I don't know what it is in CMCW, but a quick google showed that it's like... 8 minutes in CMBS? That's absolutely whack. Chapters 7 and 8 of FM 100-2-1 (1990) and Red God of War are helpful on this.
I will say, this video did a solid job showing off a Soviet combined arms attack, it just described them wrong. And that's not y'all's fault, most of the sources available are wrong and agree with each other. This is a pretty solid example of a soviet avangard attacking in one echelon.
Also, just some nitpicking, the US until 1975, UK until 1963, the West Germans, French, Danes, Dutch, Belgians, etc all had conscription. They were all just as much mass-mobilized conscript armies as the Soviets were. Shit, so were the Israelis. The idea that there was somehow some kind of innate difference between a West German conscript and a Soviet conscript is absolutely bizzare to me.
Sources:
Soviet Military Encyclopedia
Soviet Military Encyclopedic Dictionary
FM 100-2-1 (1990)
Reznichenko's Taktika (1987)
SSRC Calculating Combat Outcomes
Chris Bellamy's Red God of War
That was an excellent read. Quite a few things here I didn't know, so thank you for that. The point of the video is ofcourse to give the viewer tools to use what's given to them in CM in a way that resembles doctrine from the era. For this, we had to cut quite a few of the principles out as they don't apply to CM (high combat readiness, high maintenance, etc) or are not as important, we felt. The bit about the terminology I didn't know and I would have used that info if I had known. But at least the info is now here in the comments, so thanks for that!
Excellent explanation of the soviet military! If you don't mind me asking, why did the modern Russian army operate in a very disappointing manner in Chechnya and Ukraine?
Is it because of corruption and the expectation that a war with NATO was unlikely? Was it because the Russians wanted a force that was more focused on shock-and-awe style operations like in Georgia and in Crimea? Or did they drop the doctrine altogether after the Soviet Union broke apart?
@@andrewuy1294 it's a complex issue that I would say still can't be fully answered. There's many factors at play leading up to their failure in Ukraine, some of them peculiar to this conflict, some of them systemic. It's also a changing target - the Russians are learning and changing as they go (as are the Ukrainians). The Russian threat after the war won't be the same as it was before the war, and not just because they will have to rebuild it. They're changing and learning.
Reminds me of discussing Doctrinal Templates for Soviet forces in my MDMP classes as a LT in the late 90s at Ft Sill. As a non-intelligence branch LT, you get the distilled version. Our S-2s were highly versed in the doctrine and employment of the "Krasnovian Guards MRR" or whatever they called 11th ACR OPFOR back then.
So if I'm understanding this correctly, these three parts shown in the video are actually used in a realistic manner, but are actually groups within a single echelon, while an actual second echelon would be as a rule uncommitted but with explicit (though flexible) orders upon its committal.
Although I don't play Combat Mission, my friends and I have applied this form of fighting in our games of WARNO, and found it incredibly useful when playing PACT. Really great video, and I hope you continue to churn out these types of videos! Really good, high quality content, and hearing you talk and ask questions and discuss these doctrines and stuff really makes it relatable and understandable.
11:14 very cool application to what John Boyd called "getting inside the opponent's OODA loop" Forcing your enemy to perpetually be in a state of observing and orienting, you prevent or at least reduce their ability to decide and act.
Yes, I was constantly reacting to what he did and I was quite constantly lagging behind. You can't tell from the video but the main attack rolled in on turn 9 or 10... Not much time to adapt to anything that way.
Artificially compressed from the doctrinal timescales - you'd typically have 30 minutes for the CRP and 30 minutes for the FSE, or something like that. The compression is mostly as the map is tiny, and Quick Battles don't allow you to set reinforcemements, so they were just piled in the deployment zone. The decision when and where to release the main body was flexible, but I felt that I'd done all I needed to by that point.
I have a reflexive vomit reaction every time I read Boyd's name or OODA loop. Thanks. ;P
This is a great video that turns some of the less digestible field and tactical manuals into an excellent visual aid while still being entertaining. Great job Whiskey, really punching above your weight with this video!
Thanks! Punching above my own weight, yes, but that's why I brought my friend along this time 😉.
This "plans within plans" mindset was of a Russian master chess player kind of level.
It will take a while to install it to my mind but I am certain in the future it will prove useful and worthwhile. (even if I do not play the game, these advices can even apply IRL.)
Congratulations to you and Domfluff for producing one of the all time best CM videos. Very interesting analysis and I look forward to the in depth continuation.
Much appreciated!
Thank you Sir! I just got Cold War myself and have been doing a deep dive on Soviet doctrine for some time since I find it so utterly fascinating, reading all the relevant literature and now playing the in-game training scenarios is great but the thing I'm really grateful for with this, as well as Domfluff's 'Death Ride to Schweben' debrief with Hapless, is the explanation of *why* the doctrine works this way and the conceptual building blocks that join up at the back to produce the end result. Since understanding that makes it easier to execute as intended. I'm looking forward to that next video!
Glad that you found it of help! I was hoping it would give new comers some extra perspective, on top of the training scenarios, so it's good to hear it did!
Absolutely fantastic video, breaking down the why rather than just the how. I appreciate the use of non-ideal terrain as well; Hapless' MRB attack video is great as a textbook demonstration of a single element of this echeloned machine choosing to engage on ideal ground, but now we also have a brilliant example of the pointy end of the echelon itself being applied in a less sterile environment.
Also, the sight of those T-64s rolling into view en masse around 15 mins in, and then beginning to engage as they spot targets, tickles me in ways I can't quite describe in a CZcams comment 🥲
The masses of tanks rolling forward are the main attraction, aren't they 😉. Yes the idea was to show it in a 'real' CM environment. I have since tried it in other battles and it's definitely a learning curve outside of ideal conditions, but a fun challenge also!
When will the legend return? 🫡
Brilliant as ever. One of the best bits of CM is when you are able to get your opponent's perspective on what they did, where, when and why. This Video does that brilliantly. Thanks!
I agree, I think I ought to have more of that in my videos... Thanks for the cudos!
I don't really play Combat Mission but I hope you do a video in style on the western forces as well (US and French forces especially) because it's actually very interesting.
It would be, and we'll come to talk about why a video like that would be difficult, in my next video/podcast.
Amazing video! Loved to watch both sides and the different doctrines of each one. Great strategic value too
Excellent pieces of information, and excellent editing! Thank you so much for the time and energy you put into it. Cheers
Absolutely excellent video. Please keep making CM content, this is by far the best I've seen!
Your content is absolutely top shelf. Hope you find the time and/or motivation to make some more in the future.
Thanks
Great video, love your editing and style. Thanks to both you and Domfluff for creating and sharing this type of videos.
Our pleasure!
Looking forward for the next video. :)
Domfluff insight on the soviet doctrine is quite interesting. The combinaison of the theory and practice goes very well together.
He's a walking encyclopedia, isn't he. Very glad that he was on board with this idea.
The soviet approach to war as a science is a pretty fascinating topic. It almost feels like an engineer's approach to war with artillery normograms calculating shells required for given condition.
That sounds oddly specific 😉
Another great upload as always, I'd love to listen to more discussion on such a complex topic. Cheers to both of you!
Much appreciated! Already started working on it 😁.
I absolutely LOVE videos in this sort of style. Keep up the great videos Whisky it's always a highlight of my day
Thanks, that's great to hear!
Really great video, great direction and cinematography.
You know Whiskey it's funny that I was JUST thinking about making this exact video! Appreciate the efforts of yourself and Dom to make this happen so I don't have to! 🤣
I'm not planning a video about US Army doctrine, but I'd love to see one... Just saying 😉
@@FreeWhisky *gigga-thonk intensifies* 🤔
That was fabulous! Please do another like this explaining the doctrine of the NATO forces or US Army... This was more educative than anything I have read or watched before ever! Thanks great job! :)
Brazy, appreciate all your work on these CM videos
Thank you so much! It's great to see that this little project is appreciated, and all the more with your kind gesture!
This channel is truly a golden nugget. So glad I stumbled upon it!
Almost a year ago - glad you're still enjoying it!
Such a fantastic use of providing detailed information using a game. Definitely subscribing.
Thanks!
Incredible. The effort put into your videos is amazing.
Glad you like them!
Great video. Looking forward to the next one.
Cheers!
These well put together, visually pleasing, conceptually sound, yet not overly complicated or mundane make learning war doctrine so engaging!
Having a not too firm grasp on the subject matter helps me not making it too complicated - I'm Domfluff's filter in that regard 😁
Another excellent video. Your work is really appreciated and I'm looking forward to the next video. Thanks.
Thank you very much!
Thank you comrade, many BRDM-2s will die in recon but I will find targets for my artillery
Life is precious, rounds are cheap, always shoot twice, eh 😉
A wonderful video as always, I appreciate the deep dive!
Thanks! The fun for me is that I learn new things about these topics along with all of you 😊.
always a pleasure to see your upload
Thanks!
It is the best Combat Missions video i've ever seen. Thx.
Cheers!
Amazing video, loved it and I’m looking forward to the podcast.
Coming soon!
Fantastic Content. Excited to see more.
Much appreciated!
A nice tour of how 80s soviet doctrine would work at the company-battalion level.
Thanks!
Great editing as usual. Keep em coming mate.
Thanks, will do!
Dude! This is so insanely amazing. Thank you!
Glad you liked it!
When I was in the military, something I heard often was that in the West we fire to maneuver, in Russia they maneuver to fire. A gross oversimplification, but it describes it well.
Soviet recon elements would keep maneuvering till they found the path of least resistance, then their command would throw everything that direction.
Western recon elements would find where the enemy isn't, and exploit that.
Strictly the "shift axis to follow the path of least resistance" is an operational level thing, where the doctrine is significantly more flexible and fluid. That's what the Regimental, Divisional and Army recce units will be enabling.
On the CM level, that work should have been done, so you're already encountering the weak part of a line, with sufficient force to destroy it (at least in theory). That means that the formation reconnaissance is instead tasked with finding an enemy that you already know is there somewhere - typically I abstract that "you know the enemy is somewhere on the map".
So the tactical reconnaissance is forging ahead, a Command Push along the expected or ideal line of advance, where timing is of the utmost importance. The NATO equivalent of that is a more tentative Recon Pull - the main force is held in reserve, and the plan is derived from what the reconnaissance can find. This is significantly less risky for all concerned, but costs time, which means there's more chance for the opponent to do something about it.
Glad Domfluff is here to pick up my slack.... And he said it better than I ever could 😉. Nice to see you back on another video!
@@domfluff Right, as I said, a gross oversimplification
Really interesting and enjoyable watch. Thank you both.
Our pleasure!
Thanks for doing this, I really enjoyed it, and learnt something at the same time!
Glad it was helpful!
brilliant work gentlemen, thank you
Just stumbled upon your videos, these are really something else! please keep it up, its awesome stuff!
Glad you like them!
That was a great insight, thank you so much! Really looking forward to your next video about this topic. Quite intrested in potential counter moves to such an attack.
Thanks! Interesting question; I'd suspect that it would require a whole video about the NATO/US defensive doctrine though 😉. Hm maybe a few pointers can be wiggled into the next vid somehow... Let's see!
Yeah, one of the really fascinating things about CMCW should be that it can potentially demonstrate the differences in NATO doctrine. Classically the US, BAOR and Bundeswehr approaches were all solving the same problem, but attacking it from different angles - where the BAOR preferred a fairly static, defence-in-depth and counter-attack approach that relied on Chieftain as the core enabler, the US preferred an up-front, elastic defence (in Active Defence, at least), creating depth through manoeuvre and leaning heavily on TOW. The West Germans prioritised counter-attack and manoeuvre first, and looked to create depth in the enemy position, the mobile combination of Marder and Leopard 1. All "defence in depth", technically, but going at it quite differently.
Awesome video, I really enjoyed this.
Glad you liked it!
Love your videos, really cool style, quite unique.
I appreciate that!
Subscribed. Top quality content.
This is fantastic. Thank you!
Thanks!
Another excellent video
Thanks!
this was done so well really informative . Keep it up bro
Appreciate it!
Excellent outline of the Soviet doctrine. Look forward to the next installment!
Many thanks!
Soviet doctrine, nothing a wing of tactical nuclear armed F-111's couldn't handle or so we hoped at the time. I was stationed at RAF Upper Heyford during the early 80's as a crew chief on the F-111E. Almost all of our exercises started non-nuclear but ended with a mass launch of simulated nuclear armed jets. As part of the exercise, we always got gassed (good old MOPP 4) and or nuked. We had 9 jets on Victor Alert ready to go 24/7. Good times.
Combat Mission doesn't show it, but I believe the Soviet doctrine is centered around the assumption that WW3 would be fought in an apocalyptic wasteland - hence the mechanized focus and general lack of dismounting. Also, I've flown in DCS squadron with a cold war era veteran pilot. Wonderful stories he could tell about that time also...
@@FreeWhisky At least they were prepared to fight in the wasteland, but for what purpose? With millions of deaths and destroyed cities/countries what did you win? The question answers itself hence they never attacked. Taking nuke's out of the picture it would have made great reading 50 years after the war, much like WWII.
its truly a miracle that the world survived those times, and makes these times even scarier
Everyone knew there wouldn't be an invasion, not with the many nukes there were..
That was an incredibly informing and fun to watch video. Glad I stumbled upon it, definitely gonna sub!
Awesome, thank you!
This was very educational. You deserve more subs!
Thanks! And I'm not compaining 😊.
I cant understand why u dont have more subs, this is a masterpiece! Loved every minute of this video!
Glad you enjoyed it!
@@FreeWhiskyif there is a reason this doesn't have 288,000 views it's because it takes a tough dedication to historical realism to play the 1979-1983 NATO v WP WWIII scenario. Everyone wants overpowered American weapons king of the battlefield M1 M2 M3 Apache MRLS combination. Nope it's m48s and m60s starships and unprotected M113 gunners fighting numerous and better Soviet tanks and BMPs
Wow, this is an awesome video. Just found your channel and looking forward to seeing more.
Awesome, thank you!
Any day Free Whisky uploads is a good day.
Cheers, I appreciate that!
Great video as always dude
Appreciate it!
This is a fantastic video. Thank you
Glad it was helpful!
Whisky, you’ve done it again. This is the best CM video I’ve ever seen.
Glad you think so!
This was a very informative demonstration of Soviet Doctrine. Well explained and illustrated; imminently digestible compared to reading tactical and field manuals.
Fascinating to see what they came up with to maximize the strengths of a mass mobilized firepower centered conscript army. Theory and Practice come together in something that looks beautifully simple if it works well.
Ah, if it works well. My first hand experience tells me that that's the tricky part - but I'll nail it eventually 😉
Very interesting. Love to see researched real life tactics in CM! Thx a lot :)
Glad you enjoyed it!
Great content brother, got my sub.
Much appreciated!
Excellent Video
Thank you very much!
A very informative video👌👍
This is incredible. Can’t wait for the follow-up. This is a dream come true for a kid of the 80s ;)
Combat Mission Cold War is indeed the wargame I thought I wouldn't see. As an 80's kid also, of course 😉
Very nicely done!
Thank you! Cheers!
This was great. I love this kind of videos!!
The explaining kind, I take it? If so, you're still good for the next video. 😉
@@FreeWhisky I'll be waiting for it
What a joy this video was
Thanks!
Just really amazing!
Good to hear!
Can't wait to apply this in Wargame!
Great explanation of Russian Operational art and its prescriptive approach to war. I recently had to learn how to write a Soviet/Russian Op Order for a Btl Recon unit. These orders can be in depth and contain plans B/C already in them for exactly the reason you stated. There is so much myth based on propaganda , historical biases, and myth about Russian Deep Battle Operations and the way Russian Military Operates.
We are seeing the results today, and I will leave it at that.
Thanks for for showing people some reality as to why.
Super interesting. Subscribed!
Awesome, thank you!
This was great!
Thanks!
I love seeing doctrine applied in CM its so cool
Great video 👍
Cheers!
EXCELLENT!!
THANKS! 😁
@@FreeWhisky Aye its a really engaging video and superbly put together - having both sides of the hill explain how they are seeing things and the underpinning doctrine explanations from Dom really brought this to life.
Very excited to see watch, comment to boost the algorithm
You're the best!
Bravo!
Ura! 😉
great video
Thanks!
Don’t play combat missions but this video earned you a sub :)
Looking forward to the podcast length upload
Thanks! I love it when people who don't play CM enjoy the content non the less, as I like to think of CM videos as a way to tell a good story rather than a report of a game I played 😊. Welcome aboard!
This is going to be very useful to remember the next time I have a tabletop game too
Huh, hadn't thought of that. I suppose it could be.
Super cool video, thank you to both of you for taking the time to bring this to us! It's funny to see the doctrine of turning combat into a science litterally played on a computer that does just that, turning everything into numbers and dice rolls 😂
Edit: does Dumfluff have a CZcams channel?
Our pleasure! Unfortunately, he doesn't. He has a habit of showing up in other people's youtube vids, though 😉
You can find him on the CM discord
You've won yourself another subscriber.
Awesome 😁
Fun vid!
Cheers!
I would be interested to see videos of this nature for the US in CMCW and other factions in other editions of the game. Your video was clear, educational, and enjoyable.
It would be, and we'll come to talk about why a video like that would be difficult, in my next video/podcast.
@@FreeWhisky I'm guessing the US way of war is a bit more mutable/adaptable. I looked at your channel and didn't see any links to other media. Do you have a podcast outside of this or are you referring to the videos here? I would definitely check it out if so.
@@emmettochrach-konradi2785 I meant that my next video will be the bits of the conversation that Domfluff and I had and that didn't make it into the video, presented in a sort of podcast style, but here on CZcams.
@@FreeWhisky sweet!
Domfluff has once again bribed his way onto another channel to espouse the glories of tactical socialism while fighting monkey model M60s and troops demoralized after Vietnam. He can't keep getting away with this.
Otherwise, an excellent video that goes into some nice intro-level concepts and dispelling of some common myths in a relatively short, accessible, and entertaining time frame, as always. I'm really excited for a more in-depth look as teased at the end of the video as well. There is so much more complexity to soviet doctrine than a lot of people believe, even at the tactical level. And cold war has been the best tool ever made to actually practice or even display that in a way that allows the results to be easily shared and taught to a general audience. I cannot wait for the greater deep dive, and of course where ever else this channel goes in the future.
I mean, yes.
The best analysis of this video by far!! 😂
Haha I love the analysis also 😉. Thanks for the kind words!
Thank you for the video, can u do a soviet defense video please?
The problem with that is that Soviet defensive doctrine was not as well developed - the intention would have been to be on the attack as much as possible.
The broad concept though, was defence in depth (so mutually supporting islands, built around a mix of AT assets - recoilless rifles and ATGMs in pairs to compensate for each other's weaknesses, and dug-in infantry and vehicles), supported by wire and mines.
Then, as much as possible of the force was kept in reserve for a counter-attack, since that's the best way to maximise your mass and keep the enemy on the back foot.
The issue with a lot of that is that it's a lot harder to visualise in a CM battle, especially in this kind of abstract Quick Battle "typical combat mission" scenario.
I should probably add that 00000spoon00000 is our good friend Domfluff in disguise😉. We do talk about it for a bit in my next video, but what Domfluff wrote here is pretty much the gist of it.
@@FreeWhisky ok and thank you for the video I am currently reading weapons and tactics of the soviet army by David C Isby, I having a hard time imaging what soviet offensive would look like (rush to b meme)but your video help with that
very very nice vid!
Cheers!
I would love more such videos of doctrine in action
It's a nice format isn't it.
Great video! The only addition I would suggest is that Soivet's doctrine was heavy on strategic goals instead of tactical ones. If one division can break through the frontline, the enemy either has to retreat or risk being encircled. If the enemy is retreating they giving up their favourable positions and/or not have enough time to create a strong point of resistance. (A doctrine conclusion from the 2nd world war)
This is a brilliant piece of work.
I have seem media on Soviet Doctrine that is more precise and media that is more concise.
But this is the best video I have seen, so far, where so much is explained in so little. It's highly detailed but maintains a good pace, while being engaging and making a remarkable use of the media available (a game you just discovered to me).
Genuinely impressed by this video. It's extraordinary.
So nice to hear you enjoyed it! There are free demo's of this game at the Battlefront.com website since you just discovered the game, just not of this particular title sadly. Or just enjoy my content about it; I do that for other games, all good 😊
@@FreeWhisky I'll check it out
Thanks!
Amazing
Thanks!
ooo just found this channel 👀 time to binge the vids
Hope you enjoyed them 😊
Excellent vid. Played that game on CW as Soviets so v interested in your take on it.
I hope you did as well as Domfluff 😉
Think you could do some videos on other nation’s doctrine? Not many people in CZcams go in depth into war doctrine and this is one of the best that I’ve seen.
I'm sure I'll get back to it sooner or later!