Binocular icon - what's up with that? ... - Printable Version

Binocular icon - what's up with that? ... - Printable Version

+- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards)
+-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Tiller Operational Campaigns (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=11)
+--- Thread: Binocular icon - what's up with that? ... (/showthread.php?tid=60597)

Pages: 1 2

RE: Binocular icon - what's up with that? ... - JDR Dragoon - 01-03-2012

(12-27-2011, 08:14 PM)burroughs Wrote: What bothers me more is that neither of my SpetsNaz subunits nor units is recon capable; that denies most of my best knowledge of the subject.

Probably an oversight. When I revised the scenario I pretty much left the WAPA OOB "as is", since my primary goal was to actually make the scenario work for PBEM. That being said, having the Spetznaz, the polish or those East German special forces in the M113s as Recon capable is not really likely to add a lot of extra recon capability, since these units are infantry and thus have to go into travel mode in order to travel very far and thus render themselves vulnerable and each WAPA division has its own and much more capable reconnaisance battalion for this type of work anyway. The only practical use would be if yo used them Deployed, unmasking from a concealing piece of terrain, using the Recon Capability to scout the newly revealed hexes.

Quote:I know that some of them are either motorized or mechanized vanguards to perform a force recon, acting as a tip of the spear in front of the advancing main force columns

That would not be their doctrinal role. A role as the one described above would be filled by the divisional recon battalion (or the army level one in the more lavishly equipped soviet formations). Spetznaz or other special forces might be used ahead of the column in order to seize key terrain in surprise assaults and such or secure landing zones for airlanding troops to use. The deep recon role is more about localizing enemy HQs, FARPs, long range (nuclear capable) artillery systems, doing bomb-damage assassment and such. That being side, Spetznaz were used as souped up infantry during the Afghanistan conflict, due to a lack of infantry.

That being said, the number of WAPA (and NATO for that matter) Deception units are way too high in this scenario, because units are used here whose likely war mission was actually elsewhere. The baltic navy Spetznaz was much more likely to be used against the naval minelayers currently in port and minedepots of the german and danish navies or for scouting/securing beach and airheads for the invasion of the danish islands east of the Great Belt. This is ditto for the polish special forces, who we know for certain had the mission of storming the danish costal artillery position at Stevns prior to the naval landings proper. The gimmicky East German 40. Diversion Battalion with its M113s and M48s never actually existed (another one of the defector Suvorovs lies). On the other hand, each East German and Polish Army had a long range reconnaisance/raiding company, which is not currently in the stock game. So what we are looking at should propably 2-4 WAPA Army Level Deception units instead of the current 7.

This goes for NATO as well. The only Deception capable units here would probably be those inserted by the danish army, since the Bundeswehr did not have this type of unit in the LandJut Corps sector. So in all likely hood we are looking at 1-2 counters at best, instead of the current 7 (which includes 6 Deception capable belgian commando units).

I trust yo are playing it with both Explicit Supply and Artillery Setup Optional Rules in effect as NATO pro-balancing measures? Playing with Manual Defensive Fire might achieve the same effect I suspect, but I haven´t playtested this.

RE: Binocular icon - what's up with that? ... - burroughs - 01-11-2012

I am helluva short on time and that is why I have not responded in full capacity yet; however I think it's perhaps better to respond shortly if not necessarily promptly than not to respond at all.

If I can rememebr well, in some random order: yes, I am playing with explicit supply and artillery setting up as a rule of thumb in every and each of my PC / MC games as I think that is what promotes realism. Stupid mistake was to tick the nuclear scenario termination option ( I wanted my WarPact side to be hard-pressed to fulfil their task and mission quickly for the fear of NATO going desperate - now I think that - outside gameplay factors - they would not be that eager to offset their weakness in that - or any other - part of the theater with nuke strikes which would not be limited and tactical perhaps at best. Also ticking limited air recon was wrong of me, but that had been before I read the manual again and worked out a clear idea of what that particular stuff is. Well, I might still pay for that. I only left optional fire and assault results unchecked for a higher randomization ( on the battlefield anything goes and can happen ... )along with no low fuel effect.

2. Yes, Suvorov was a defector, but at least he saw certain things with his very own eyes. Could he be yet another Andy McNab of Bravo Two Zero, giving a falsified acount due to editors intervening? Yes, probably , with some other reasons in the back of the head. He definitely violated first three rules of SpetsNaz: 1,2,3 - do not, I repeat - do not under any circumstances talk about SpetsNaz. We are also violating that now. We also violate all rule no. 4: under no circumstances violate the first three rules.

3. SpetsNaz was no homogenic formation by no means; why did the Americans thought that a marine infantry brigade elements in Vladivostok practicing parachuting was odd?Because that was seaborne SpetsNaz, a distant equivalent of British SBS or SEALs( regarding their likely missions and not selection rules nor training etc.) Even within were some diverse structures; in the USSR all sports activities which were organized into clubs were military oriented and run so during the olympics in any given year the Soviet sportsmen would be actually soldiers.The sportsmen in case of Cold War getting hot would be assigned the most difficult and demanding missions like indeed the already mentioned assassinating the enemy key figures and striking at nuclear facilities, headquaters, coummunication and supply centers in order to paralyze the enemy strategic background.Nevertheless originally Spetsnaz evolved from "razvedka"/ "reconnaissance" with that function retained to a high degree, but the logic behind was that more of the Wehrmacht and SS "aufklarung abteilung" approach towards recon; reconnoiter the AO and seize it if possible. Namely it was meant to be force recon or recon by force ( not in force, but I may be wrong about the difference I see here) whenever possible.

4. After all SpetsNaz was a branch of GRU which was all about not only gathering intel, but also acting on the tips collected. Nevertheless, few people realize the difference between the areas of expertise and responsibility; even me used to think that the DRA presidential palace back in '79 in Kabul was stormed by SpetsNaz who also killed then president Amin.In fact that was OsNaz KGB. Today's ALFA anti-terror is also a part of Russian FSB( Federal Security Service ) being OsNaz rather than SpetsNaz GRU.