But it was used, during the war, however, Deep battle was the main doctrine and even widespread use of the Airborne Forces. The Soviet-Japanese War is a classic example of the use ofDeep battle. When two attacks surrounded the Japanese troops and more than 17,000 soldiers in the Airborne Operations capture key points and accelerate the advance of tanks. And further post-war Soviet tactics are still based on the Deep battle concept - tank attacks with massive use of airborne forces. The canceled operation "Polar Star" in 1943, when the Soviets wanted to release Leningrad and for this the five Guards Airborne Brigades (this is about 60,000 paratroopers) was supposed to be parachuted in the German rear where the paratroopers were supposed to cut off the German supply (capturing the railway stations) Destroy headquarters and ambush German reinforcements. But the Germans went on a major attack and the Paratroopers had to defend the front.
Realistic Land Doctrine ideas
- Thread starter sekelsenmat
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Well, to prevent the wrong image that the Wehrmacht was crappy, I'd like to point a source to their superiority in other stuff:
>>>Yet amid all this, in northwest Europe the Allied leaders invited their ground troops to fight the Wehrmacht with equipment inferior in every category save artillery and transport. German machine-guns, mortars, machine-pistols, antitank weapons and armored personnel carriers were all superior to those of Britain and America. Above all, Germany possessed better tanks. The Sherman, which dominated the Allied campaign, was a superbly reliable piece of machinery. But it was fatally flawed by lack of an adequate gun to penetrate the Tiger and Panther; and by poor battlefield survivability in the face of German tank guns.<<<
And at 1941 the Soviet artillery was pretty bad, they were so short on ammo that they were allowed to do only direct fire. Their only superior tech here was the Katyusha, which was better than german rockets.
- 1
The "allied soldiers were ill equipped to fight the Wehrmacht" meme is a legend, If nothing else.
Advancing against a battle hardened enemy in dense Terrain costs a prodigious amount of tanks. The German tank losses in Kursk are not much lower than allied tank losses in north western europe, and in 1944, there wasn't much in the way of invulnerability, due to infantry and artillery AT.
Bottom line here: in war, tanks are destroyed and people die. No surprise. The Sherman was a medium tank and it did well in that role. The lack of a heavy tank on the US side does not take away from this.
I Wonder what makes WP think that German APCs were superior to the M5 halftrack? Or why they left out the M1 Garand or what their criteria for "better" even is?
Finally, if I sounded like making sweeping remarks over the 6 years of the war, that was not my Intention. German artillery was not "crappy" (I didn't say that) - but other armies' arty was better once they got their act together. Hence making German artillery the baseline is what I suggest. The " red god of war", 72-gun-regiments and TOT- Computers with proximity fuses are upgrades to that.
- 1
Anything better than POW stories?
Which is covered by equipment.
Pretty much all German guns had armor-piercing shell, and some had HEAT rounds. Not sure what superiority is there?
Because Soviets didn`t have enough radios to make it otherwise.
Again, this "more", not better used.
Nebelwerfer. In fact, I think Soviet usage of mass planed bombardments kinda shows their keen awareness of their inability to direct artillery strikes well.
So, I get it, US made great effort on artillery targeting, so what about the rest?
Yes, Soviets did use airborne. Then, Brits, US and Germans also have. But unlike Germans who had Crete, and Allies whom had Market Garten, Soviet ones are far less known, for lack of big operation to make them famous.
Again, Deep battle is not a novel concept. It flows kinda naturally from poor infrastructure in East Europe, where capturing infrastructure is far more critical due to far fewer redundancy point existing, unlike German doctrine, that emphases destruction of armed forces, because infrastructure is far better, and troops are more manuverable.
How many transports were actually available for the drop?
If you don't see the difference in british 8 gun batteries of smaller calibre and their regimental coordination, let me put it like this:
The brits used artillery that could fire faster and was double the number of comparable German formations, plus it was coordinated at the regimental level so that all batteries could quickly concentrate on single targets.
This is not the Hardware being better, it's the legacy of great war artillery tactics and an emphasis on artillery as one main weapon of a combined arms force.
Regarding the soviets: the Germans had to use field Telephone instead of radio as often as the soviets and ammo shortages plagued the Wehrmacht just as it did the soviets.
According to this, soviet artillery, when trained, was every bit as good as the Germans, did better Camouflage, had maps in 1:50000 scale which allowed for easy firing adjustments, and was well advised by codebreakers on the effects on the other side.
Given that the red army in 1941 was a different force than in 1944, I argue that doctrinal improvements are the way to go. The guns were the same, but they were well employed in the beginning and better at the end
- 1
Honestly, I do not know. But if five Airborne divisions were assembled for this operation, then significant resources had to be allocated for this operation, on the scales was the release of Leningrad with which people were starving to death. Perhaps only a part of the Paratroopers would be parachuted and the rest would be deployed on planes to captured airfields (this was the standard practice used by both the Soviets and the Germans), this gives more soldier in an airplane with more ammunition, moving trucks and guns in the same way will be simpler.
For example, the Mtsensky Airborne Operation of 1941, then the Soviet paratroopers were used as quick reaction troops, 80 TB-3 and Li-2 aircraft transported more than 6,000 paratroopers of the 10th and 201st airborne brigades over the air at a distance of 500 kilometers and passenger cars - 3 pcs., Freight - 35 pcs., Special - 1 pcs., Bicycles - 114 pcs., T-37 tanks - 8 pcs., 76mm guns - 6 pcs., 45mm guns - 10 pcs., 50mm mortars - 33 pcs., 82 mm mortars - 8 pcs., DShK - 10 pcs. plus double ammunition for weapons.
In the Dnieper Airborne Airborne Operation of 1943, the USSR could simultaneously throw out two airborne brigades and another was preparing to parachute at that time (the landing of this brigade was canceled) is about 10,000 people. Plus idle gliders that were supposed to be pulled by bombers.
Last edited:
- 1
Number of guns is template based, how was regimental level of coordination done?
So, according to your own document, in 1941 Soviet artillery was vastly out-classed in terms of equipment (no sound ranging, no wireless telephones, no counter-batter fire), in 1944 they kinda did what Germans were doing, and having 1:50000 scale maps of their own territory is kinda meh, Germans had 1:25000.Regarding the soviets: the Germans had to use field Telephone instead of radio as often as the soviets and ammo shortages plagued the Wehrmacht just as it did the soviets.
According to this, soviet artillery, when trained, was every bit as good as the Germans, did better Camouflage, had maps in 1:50000 scale which allowed for easy firing adjustments, and was well advised by codebreakers on the effects on the other side.
Given that the red army in 1941 was a different force than in 1944, I argue that doctrinal improvements are the way to go. The guns were the same, but they were well employed in the beginning and better at the end
Then, from what I can see, Soviets didn`t even practice rolling barrage.
So, I can`t see any proof that Soviet artillery was superior in organisation in 1944. Then, I only proposed buff for German mobile artillery, at which point, I will stop this debate, since it is not useful to continue.
- 2
Number of guns is not template based, number of battalions is. And a british battalion had twice the number of (lighter) guns.
And in the soviets, I di not see where you get your point from, as even the 1941 report commends the "flawless" bracket and ladder fire, and emphasizes both Camouflage and the speed with which coordinated regimental fire commenced.
The whole text goes on, giving flaws, but more importantly, the strong points of soviet artillery.
And in late war, soviet artillery barrages to the front trenches, then second line trenches and synchronous with infantry assault again on the front trenches were blunt, but highly effective tactics.
I rest my case.
- 1
Whenever I believe I could complement this idea it’s more industrial focus options
As a more stringent quality control it would provide better equipment ideal for countries with little manpower.
Or a quality control aimed at mass production to try to supply large exercises in countries with few factories.
As a more stringent quality control it would provide better equipment ideal for countries with little manpower.
Or a quality control aimed at mass production to try to supply large exercises in countries with few factories.
What exactly calibers and amounts of guns do you mean for British and Germans? There are so many different answers that I get totally confused.
Some sources say British used 36x 75mm per division and others 72x 75mm and for Germans 36x 75mm in some sources and 105mm in others.
I think everyone had 12x heavy art, right? Except I think Japan didn't have it and some minors. Not sure if Italy had heavy art.
The Germans lacked a sufficient self loading rifle the entire war. The argument about what the best SMG boils down to the late war pps43 or the earlier M3 Greasegun (1941.) I'm in favor of the M3, as ugly as it is the weapon is so incredibly gentle with the shooter and easy to use that even the ignorant conscripts of the day had to find it easy to keep on target. Seriously, full auto shot groups out of the m3 outdo modern SMG.
The K98k wasn't better in any substantive way than the Enfield. The Carcanco actually was probably the best thought out bolt action of the war but because of lack of industry Italy didn't get to use the intended cartridge. The M1903 was essentially an improved Mauser. Due to a complete lack of care picking rifles ect the German sniper corps complained at how inferior their K98k snipers were to Mosin Nagant sniper rifles of all things! Not kidding you, they were so desperate that they said "do anything! We don't care if you have to change cartridges if need be!" You have no idea how desperate they had to be to be willing to accept a different cartridge!
As for the mention about the Sherman. I facepalm *EVERY SINGLE TIME* I read that opinion...Tell me, why would you spend all the endless time and effort designing, manufacturing, shipping, and then building the titanic support network needed for armor only to pit them against the enemy tanks? This was the moronic mistake the Brits kept making the whole war. You don't pit your unit types against what they are weak against, you pit them against enemy unit types that they are strong against. It's like booting up mideival total war and training archers, frigging archers not cavalry but archers with the express intent of using them to counter the enemy archers. Sir that does not make sense.
The constantly complained about M3 gun on the Sherman was picked because it was exceptionally good at blasting INFANTRY out of their fortifications. In 1942 North Africa the Sherman also could destroy any armor the Germans deployed if need be but the key point was blowing INFANTRY up. No, if you want to stop an enemy armored advance the best idea is to use anti tank guns. They are cheaper in every conceivable way, including not requiring the massive support network simply to function. Think about 1940, when Germany invaded France the overwhelming majority of German armor was crappy PZII with 20mm cannon utterly incapable of destroying even the common "crappy" French R35. The few PZIV had a short barreled howitzer not intended for piercing armor and the rare PZIII at the time were fitted with a cruddy 37mm stopgap. The French had better tanks and more of them (not even counting the British forces), yet the Germans won. Why? Because the point of tanks is not to fight other tanks!
Think about it in game terms. Why would you spend 10,000 IC to train up one 40w armored division only to just use it to stop enemy armor? You could train two 20w mobile anti tank units for 3k each, they pierce the enemy armor and as 20w divisions each one has as many hard attacks as the one 40w tank division. Even if the enemy wins the initial battle (unlikely, but lets say you roll poorly on tactics) they will take so many expensive armored casualties that they STILL lose! Your AT unit is mobile and so it won't get over run and then you can turn around and chase the already crippled enemy armored unit just annihilating their super expensive tanks. It's quite a comical situation actually!
All this is why IRL German tank units were overwhelmingly infantry. The infantry are the eyes and ears of the unit finding threats like anti tank guns, tank traps ect then either clearing them personally or directing the (in early war) ever present air arm to knocking out the enemy threats. Then the German armor goes into action blasting a hole in enemy infantry formations so the infantry can then advance. The tank units of course had their own anti tank attachment to counteract enemy armor, especially when the main armored force had to withdraw to rearm and repair.
- 1
- 1