If you don’t know what another person is doing, let them be.

In the Russian port of Temryuk, on the Azov Sea, a certain LLC collected fecal waters from ships in port. What it did with this treasure is not known.

This fact had soon drawn the attention of local customs authorities. They demanded that the entrepreneurs place this cargo under bond – 20 tons of it, at time of inspection.

The entrepreneurs – stunned of course by this action – thought very hard and eventually filed their goods as ‘voluntarily donated to the state’.

The customs officials realized their mistake, but it was too late.

H/T Vyacheslav Shilov

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Winkel Towers

WINKEL TOWERS – NAZI GERMANY’S VERTICAL BOMB SHELTERS
By MicroBalrog.

Typically when we discuss air raid shelters, we think of a fairly stereotypical construct – an underground facility, sometimes fortified with concrete, where people take shelter from enemy bombs, shells, or even chemical attacks. Some people, however, have more innovative conceptions. One of these people was Leo Winkel.

Winkel, a german engineer working in the 1930′s, had decided that there had to be simpler ways to shelter a given amount of people from bombs. He figured that an above-ground shelter would not need to be buried in the ground – saving the costs associated with an underground design, excavating the soil and then reburying the design, not to mention building a design that could bear the weight of the ground above it. But, of course, simply leaving an ordinary shelter aboveground would leave it exposed.

Leo Winkel came up with an innovative solution: a shelter in the shape of a vertical cylinder.

user posted image

The Winkel shelter had several advantages over a regular shelter of the same capacity: it took up a smaller area (therefore presenting a smaller target to attacks from above), and could have a very thick roof for comparatively low concrete expenditures (as the image shows, the top of the Winkel Tower is just a large, heavy concrete cone. In addition, because it had slanted, conical walls rather than a flat roof, bombs could richochet off the walls of Winkel Towers before detonating, where they would doubtlessly just explode on a flat roof.

The first Winkel Tower design – seen in the image above – was 20 meters tall, with a diameter of no more than 5.8 meters and could hold 200 men. The entrances were sealed with blast doors and the building equipped with gas-filtering equipment, allowing it to protect also against chemical attacks. Later Winkel towers were built with additional entrances higher than ground level, that could be used as emergency escape hatches.

user posted image

The first tower was built for testing purposes in 1935. In testing, conducted in January 1936, Stuka bombers dropped 50 bombs on the tower over several days, failing to hit it a single time. At that point, testing continued with 500-kilogram and 1500-kilogram bombs attached directly to various walls of the tower at the upper, medium, and lower levels of the tower, and detonated. Minor damage to exterior walls was noted, with no interior damage. The tower swayed and remained stable. Goats strapped directly to the interior walls during the explosion lost their hearing.

The towers, of course, were approved for construction in various models, ranging from 164 to 500 men in capacity. The first tower was built already before approval – and the first officially approved tower was built. It took 2 months to construct.

During the war, various modified designs of the Winkel tower were made, some with lighter protective capacity, or improved access capabilities. The Winkel towers served faithfully throughout the war – not a single Winkel tower was ever destroyed with bombings, and indeed there is only one recorded incident of a Winkel Tower being hit by a bomb.

user posted image

The bomb (as seen above) penetrated the wall and killed five air-defense servicemen standing guard on its sixth story. No other personnel were harmed.

This was the only example of one of the towers being hit by a bomb in the entire war. It should not be surprising therefore that the towers were built by their dozens, and made in various modifications, including towers covered in fire-proofed red brick.

user posted image

Based on Veremeev’s article on Winkel Towers

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Hasik, hold on!

 

I would like to apologize to my readers for the long hiatus in posts. Here’s a post by a Russian counter-terrorist law enforcement operative who posts by the handle of hardingush. The original can be accessed here.

Hasik, hold on!


“FSB and MVD operatives in Ingushetia neutralized a male with a suicide belt” – the Ingushetian Ministry of the Interior’s spokesman told Interfax. “Agents of the MVD Center of anti-extremist activites and agents of the regional FSB department detected Hassan Esmurziev, of Nazran, born 1981, and suspected of involvement with illegal armed groups”, the a representative of the spokesman’s office said.

“During the attempt to detain him, the male theatened to blow himself up with the operatives, after which he attempted to flee. During the chase, the LEOs had him blocked in one of the local properties. Despite the demands of police officers, the militant refused to surrender.”

“After Esmurziev’s attempt to close with one of the LEOs, issue weapons were used, and the male was shot in both hands”, the spokesman said. After this FSB agents neutralized and detained the man, confiscating a suicide belt with about 1 kilogram TNT-equivalent power, and an improvised explosive device of approximately 50 grams TNT-equivalent power. Currently the decision of whether to file charges is being made.

How it happened

Two of our agents visit this Esmurziev’s house for a prophylactic talk – there was no intent to detain him. They just wanted to talk, to feel him out about possible connections to militants – and then he tries to run off on them. He shouts: “I will blow you all up, stay away, you devils!” Of course, they don’t believe him – but then Hasik lifts his shirt, and there’s a suicide belt there. But the officers haven’t been born yesterday – they see the belt has no wires and no pull ring – it’s not ready yet. They tell him: “Stop bullshitting us, Hasik – how are you going to blow that up?”

Without hesitatoin, he pulls out a home-made grenade, presses it to his belt, and pulls out the ring. A shot in the arm – and the grenade falls. He catches it with his good hand and runs to a little shed nearby, getting shot in his healthy arm and leg. Nobody knows where the grenade is – has he lost it, or does he still have it?

By this time we are deployed on alert and run to the spot. Surround the area and start working with Hasik. We try to talk him into surrendering – but Hasik, the little devil, has no desire to do that. And evening is drawing near. Something must be done. Tear gas grenades don’t do the job – Hasik sneezes, cries, and holds on. Of course, we can shoot the shed to ribbons, but we can take him alive.

Then we see the grenade by the shed – it seems that he probably doesn’t have anything to blow up the shed with. We threw in flash-bangs and had the poor fellow tied up in 10 seconds.

A suicide belt and home-made grenade

20121026_164343


The EOD tech is cross with us, but we’ll take a closer look…

20121026_164356


Hasik is feeling very ill…

20121026_164437$


We inject and anesthethic and start bandaging him up…

20121026_164924


“Hold on, Hasik! You’ll feel better now!”

Hasik catches on to a fighter’s leg and clenches it tight, to make bearing the pain easier.
.

20121026_165241


Хасик говорит, что ему очень больно. Очень-очень… Поэтому приподнимаем его и делаем второй обезбаливающий укол.
На руке красная точка – это сквозное ранение. Кровотечения нет. 

20121026_165420


Hasik asks for a drink.

“Can we give him water?”

- “Well he’s not been shot in the stomach.”

They bring water. While Hasik drinks, the fighters put on a tourniquet.

20121026_165516


We stop the bleeding. Now we must write down the time the tourniquet has been put on. Everyone searches about for pen and paper.

20121026_165527


They wet Hasik’s face with water.

- “Help, please.” – he whispers.

- “And what do you think we’re doing, Hasik? Hold on, the ambulance is on its way.”

Once more he holds on to a fighter’s leg. Previously he held on to a man’s hand. An observer might think the fighters are rescuing a wounded comrade…

They put water on his face to ease his condition.

20121026_165553


The perimeter

20121026_170257


The ambulance has arrived. Hasik has been saved. We can go home now

20121026_170357

This post has been translated by MicroBalrog. Please keep an attribution and a link to this blog when reposting.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

German Group Shelter for swampy and forested terrain, Mod. 1942

German Group Shelter for swampy and forested terrain,
Mod. 1942, half-buried, double-walled
(Gruppenunterstand, teilweise versenkt Blockhaus mit Doppelwand fuer Sumpf- oder Waldgelaende)

user posted image
Shelter shown covered in soil, but not camouflaged

The current shelter is designed for the purpose of deploying in the area near the front command points and other control bodies on the Corps, Army, or Army Group levels where it is not possible or not profitable to deploy completely buried shelters.

The deployment of underground shelters is usually impossible if the aquifer is high and the shelter can be flooded. Alternatively, it is also impossible in rocky, near-rocky, and frozen soil, which is very hard to work in.

Author’s note: Rocky soil would be tolerable – you could, if nothing else, soften it up with explosives – especially given that you would immediately found a use for the broken rock. On the other hand, it is the most foolish thing in the world to make underground shelters in frozen soil, which is close to granite in hardness. As soon as stoves start working in the shelters, the soil around the shelter and under it will begin to defrost, and water will gradually begin flooding the room. Worse yet, often in the areas of eternal frost the soil is very saturated with water, and therefore moves when it unfreezes. It begins pushing against the walls, gradually destroying the shelter. Even a lack of heating does not help. Freezing water expands – and completes the destruction of the shelter.

Constructing underground shelters is usually undesirable in forested areas, as the earthwork needed there is far more extensive, while the likelihood of artillery barrages on major HQ points is either zero or very low. The forest, furthermore, provides quality natural concealment, which means that even if the opponent knows of the presence of a large HQ, finding it and accurately striking it is unlikely.

Author’s note: While many German generals (particularly Manstein) love telling in their memoirs of their spartan habits (sleeping in automobiles and tents, eating soldiers’ meals, hiding from bombs in slits with the men, headquarters working in the open air, and so forth), actual facts, including captured headquarters buildings, suggest that the Fuhrer’s generals preferred to fight in comfort. For examples, such shelters were found at the area where Paulus’ HQ was located near Stalingrad (near Golubinsky, near Nizhne-Chirskaya, in the shallows near Gumrak Station). And this is in an area with no woods, where every log needs to be ferried in – and yet timber is also fuel. It does not matter that troops are freezing in snow-trenches – Paulus and his staff require comfortable shelters – comfortable enough you can simply walk in to them, not merely descend underground on stairs!

In its design, the shelter is a wood cabin (Blockhaus in German) with double walls. The space between the walls, 1 meter wide, is filled with rocks. The outer dimensions of this frame are 8.5 by 8.5 meters. The logs are 25 centimeters in diameter. Inside it the frame has twoo rooms – 1) A main room 5.5 by 4.0 meters (22 square meters of useful area), with the ceiling 2.3 meters high, and 2) A corridor 8.5 meters long and 1.5 meters wide, with the ceiling 2.3 meters high.

user posted image

One gets into the corridor through two doorways on opposing sides of the frame. Both entrances to the corridor are closed with protective doors (1.2 by 1.8 meters). Access from the corridor to the main room is made possible through two doorways with protective doors in the internal wall. The corridor is intended primarily for guard posts.

Author’s Note: The very look of this shelter inspires certain thoughts. The main room is amazing in size. It might not be a hall, but it is a very large room. Our fortification manuals do not mention such rooms – and not a single support pillar, which is unusual for field fortification. The ceiling is 2.3 meters high – this is a wonderful, large room! And the doors? Normally in fortifications doors are sized just large enough to squeeze through without much comfort. Measure the rooms in your own apartment, dear reader – they’re likely to be a bit smaller.

And two separate entries, from different sides of the shelter? That’s no shelter, that’s some kind of conference hall for North-South Korea negotiations.

Therefore, the protective thickness of the shelter frame, horizontally, and excluding the soil coverage, is 50 cm. of wood and 1 meter of rock.

For illustration I am showing the shelter on the surface. From above the shelter frame is covered by three layers of logs, 25 centimeters in diameter and 9 meters in length. The roof and side walls are coated in pressed clay 30-40 centimeters roof, with the roof cover made with an incline from the center to the sides to allow rainwater or meltwater that seeps in to run off towards the edges of the structure. Then the walls and roof are covered in rock, with thickness of 1 meter at the walls and 50-60 centimeters on the roof.

user posted image

Author’s Note: Why two walls ( the front and rear wall) have no clay or stone cover, the author cannot tell. But this is on the drawing – the text does not explain or mention it. I can only surmise this is an error on the drawing, while the walls are actually supposed to have both clay and stone cover.

The shelter is constructed in a foundation pit 10.5 meters wide and long, and 1 meter deep. 111 cubic meters of soil need to be moved. At the entrances, stairs are to be dug and covered in boards (this is described specifically in the manul). In front of the stairs, drainage well are made in the floor for rainwater.

user posted image

Should groundwater levels allow, ceramic drainage pipes are installed in the floor to remove water from under the shelter. If the water won’t flow independently, preparations for a pump must be made.

While the drawing does not show this, the descriptions mentions that, for protection against cold, the main room is equipped with two stoves mounted near the internal wall with the doors. Provisions must be made for electric cabling for light, and if candles or kerosene lamps are used for lamps, two ventilation pipes must be installed. A flooring made from 10×10 centimeter section wood beams is laid on a sand bedding.

The complete shelter is covered with soil. On the roof, over the rock layer, one adds a soil bedding (including a layer of grass-turf) 30-cm. The minimal width of the soil level at the upper angles of the wood cover is 1 meter. The slopes are made as light as possible, based on the camouflage conditions, so as to make the resulting hill as little noticeable as possible, with the hill’s total height at 3.85 meters above ground. The protective thickness of the walls is, therefore, 75 meters of wood, 30 centimeters of clay, 60 cm. of rock and 30 cm. of soil. Total – 1.95 meters. That’s quite solid!

Internal fittings of the shelter are not defined in Manual 57/5.

Expenses in materiel and labor:

  • Digging the foundation pit – 111 cubic meters of soil
  • Covering the structure – 600 cubi meters of soil
  • 25-centimeter diameter logs – 130 cubic meters
  • Timber – beams and sheets – 54 cubic meters
  • Split rock – 190 cubic meters
  • Pressed clay – 22 cubic meters
  • Labor (exluding preparing and delivering materiel, camouflage and internal fitting work) – 1980 man-hours

P.S. In the 1960′s the author had visited such a structure about 20-25 kilometers west of Chernyakhovsk (former Insternburg) in Kaliningrad Oblast. The shelter was found by accident, over more than 20 years after the end of the war, even though it was in the forest, only several kilometers away from a village. IT was expected to be mined, so the village Soviet called out a sapper team. There were no mines. Inside, the ceiling and walls were covered with tarpaulin. Two metal stoves were present, as well as a small supply of coal in two crates. A large desk, as well as several chairs, were present, and another small desk in the corner, to which 3-4 dozen pairs of phone cables lead from the wall. Two empty metal cupboards were present. There was no electric lighting. The floor was covered in water to a depth of about 20 centimeters. It seemed the shelter was built and made ready, but never used.

Sources and Literature

1.Merkblatt 57/5 (Anhang 2 zur H.Dv.1a Zeite 57, NR.5). Bildheft neuzitlicher Stellungsbau.Von 15.9.42. Berlin 1943
2. Field Fortification Guide for the Engineering Forces [PF-43], Moscow, 1943
3. Shmelev, I. P. AFVs of the Third Reich, Moscow, 1996
4. Karelian Front Combat Engineer Commander’s Field Manual, Karelian Front, 1943
5. 5.H.Dv.220/4b. Ausbildungsforschrift fuer der Pioniere (A.V.Pi.). Teil 4b. Verlag “Offene Worte”. Berlin. 1939.
6. 6.H.Dv.130/2a. Ausbildungsforschrift fuer der Infanterie (A.V.Pi.). Heft 2a.  Die Schuetzenkompanie. Verlag “Offene Worte”. Berlin. 1941.
7. 7.H.Dv.316. Pionierdienst aller Waffen (Au.Pi.D.).  Verlag E.S.Mittler und Sohn. Berlin. 1936.
8. Temporary Manual for Winter Fortification Works, Moscow, 1942
9. The German Defense System, a Manual., Moscow, 1942
10. Weltz, G. The Betrayed Soldiers, Moscow, 2011
11. Guderian, H. Memoirs of a Soldier, 2003
12. Westphalia and other Fateful Decisions. The Journey to Stalingrad, St. Petersburg, 2001
13. I. Wieder The Stalingrad Tragedy, Moscow, 2004
14. von Senger, F. Neither Fear nor Hope, Moscow, 2003
15. Adam W. I Was Paulus’ Adjutant, Moscow, 2005
16. Army Field Fortifications, a Manual, Moscow, 1962

Translated by MicroBalrog from this page.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

A Little About Tank Ramming

A little about tank ramming
O. Losik, Hero of the Soviet Union, Marshal of the Armored Forces

Among the exploits of tankers, the tank ram takes a special place. Sadly, few men today know of the hero tankers that mastered the ram. But these occurred throughout the war. One of the first to execute a tank ram was a crew commanded by Lieutenant P. Gudz. This occurred on June 22, 1941, 8 kilometers away from Yavorovo: Gudz rammed a German T-III and an APC with his KV tank.

Especially many ram attacks were executed in 1943. At Prohorovka, Soviet warriors executed over 20 rams, while in the 50 days of the Battle of Kursk – over 50. These rams destroyed not merely light or medium armored vehicles, but sometimes even Tigers and Panthers. Hull blows devastated the German tanks, breaking armor, tearing tracks, smashing roadwheels.

Rams were usually done in emergencies, for example when a tank ran out of ammunition or its gun was disabled in combat. Sometimes they were done in urban combat or close combat, when our tanks broke into enemy formation. It was best to ram tanks from the side, which sometimes overturned the enemy vehicle. Sometimes enemy vehicles suffered fuel or ammunition detonations, which usually damaged both vehicles.

Sometimes, to carry out their mission, crews deliberately resorted to rams. This usually happened in low visibility or at night, when accurate cannon fire was impossible. Such deliberate rams were most useful against enemy columns. Tanks would burst into the column, smashing the enemy with hull blows and causing panic. This form of ramming is one of the peaks of bravery and skill for tankers acting in reconnaissance and vanguard units. These usually inflicted grave damage upon the enemy.

Such rams were carried out during war by the crews of Heroes of the Soviet Union Captain V. Bogachev of the 43rd Tank Division at Dubno (26.04.1941), Sr. Lieutenant A. Umnikov of the 50th Guards Tank Brigade at Kramatorsk (7.02.1941), Lieutenant I. Kiselev of the 65th Tank Brigade at Yusefuv, Poland (15.01.1945).

There exist several recorded instances of tanks ramming armored trains. On 24.06.1944, at Black Ford train station near Bobruisk, such a ram was executed by a tank commanded by Guards Lieutenant Dmitry Komarov of the 15th Guards Tank Brigade. On 04.08.1944, at Sandomir Grounds, by Captain Leonid Maleev, commander of a company in the 47th Guards Heavy Tank Regiment.

Bursting into enemy airfields, warriors rammed enemy aircraft. Drivers of the 24th Tank Corps, during the offensive in the Battle of Stalingrad, fought through over 240 kilometers of ground in 5 days and, on the morning of 24.12.1942, arrived at Tatzinskaya Station, where a rear-echelon base and two enemy airfields were located, with over 300 aircraft. The tankers were low on ammunition, and destroyed the enemy aircraft with rams. The men of the 1st tank battalion of the 54th tank brigade under Captain S. Strelkov and the 2nd Tank Battalion of the 130th Brigade under Captain M. Nechaev destroyed over 300 planes on airfields and 50 aboard trains. The tankers broke the ‘air bridge’ that supplied Paulus’ and Manstein’s forces.

Tanks rammed aircraft also on 11.01.1944, when the 49th Tank Battalion destroyed 17 aircraft at Lubek City Airfield, Poland. On 28.03.1944, the 64th Guards Tank Brigade destroyed 30 aircraft with rams and fire at Chernovtzy City Airfield. On 17.01.1943, a tank company under I. Kravchenko from the 47th Guards Tank Brigade destroyed 20 planes at Sokhachev with rams and fire.

Tank rams could occur during the day and during the night. On 26.06.1941, a night ram was executed near Dubno by tankers of the 43rd Separate Tank Recon Battalion. A column of an enemy tank regiment armed with T-II and T-III tanks stopped to refuel. At nightfall, Cpt. Arhipov’s tanks fired a main gun volley and burst into the column. The enemy took great losses, and a panic ensued. POWs were taken.

Tanks burst into enemy position, rammed artillery batteries, six-barreled rocket mortars, and other weapons. Sometimes, to save time, warriors crushed Berlin barricades or building walls.

Tank rams depended on the training of tank commanders and drivers. Such a blow depended on the crew, especially the driver, displaying high professionalism, the straining of mental and physical capacities, bravery and heroism. Thuse rams were mostly executed by experienced tankers, who trusted in the capacity of their vehicles and were ready to do their warrior’s duty to their Motherland to the last.

Most tank rams were performed by the crews of KV and T-34 tanks. They possessed meaningful mass, speed, and heavy armor, enabling them to use hull blows to devastate enemy tanks, APCs, assault guns and other equivalent targets. Sometimes crews utilized a last-ditch ‘fire ram’ in a burning vehicle. Sometimes a single crew used the ram multiple times. During the defense of Moscow in November 1941, 4 rams were executed by the KV crew commanded by A. Bosov, Hero of the Soviet Union. KV driver N. Tomashevich performed 3 rams in one battle on 12.07.1941, defending the tank of Lt. Colonel Vyaznikov, commander of the operational group, that was endngered near Luga. I. Rogozin rammed the enemy three times at Krivoy Rog, while the crews of Lieutenant I. Butenko and Sr. Lieutenant P. Zaharzchenko executed two rams each.

Should tankers be trained in tank ramming? The experience of the past war shows: yes! In several tank units at the front, and in fact at several academies, this was deliberately taught during the war – and rightly so. Tank rams sometimes allowed crews to triump in the deadliest situations, inflicting great damage upon the enemy.

The tank ram is a weapon for brave men. It combines limitless bravery with great warrior’s skill and ccuracy. Camaraderie and the sense of great responsibility for one’s warrior’s duty to the Fatherland were the main motive for tankers’ use of this weapon during the War.

1. Between 12-14 1943, Glazunovka. Vasily Porshnev Battery Commander of the 4th battery of the 1454th Self-Propelled Artillery Regiment and his driver, Afanasy Zakharov, use their SU-122 cannon to ram a Nashorn self-propelled gun at full-speed, throwing it for several meters and causing it to lose a track. This was the first ram attack in the regiment. Porshnev received no award. By that time his SU-122 had already 3 kill.

2. 28.08.1943, Veselaya Kalina. 1454th Self-Propelled Artillery Regiment Lieutenant Steblyaev’s and driver Grechin’s SU-122 rams a Tiger tank, causing it to throw a track. Another crew finishes off the Tiger with a turret shot. The tank does not burn, but the crew abandons the vehicle.

Translated by MicroBalrog from this site.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

My Book Is out – and even has its first review!

The book I’ve translated, Destroy the Enemy in Hand-to-Hand-ComBat by Major-General A. A. Tarasov of the Soviet Army, has finally come out, via DiLernia Publishing.

Here’s what David Kantrowitz, author of Reckless Faith, has to say about this book. It’s all true, too:

As a former infantryman in the US Army, this book covers familiar territory for me. It was very interesting to see many of the same tactics still being taught to soldiers after almost seventy years. As a primer, it is not bad, but of course its true appeal comes from a historical perspective.

Though weapons may have advanced over the decades, and the form of the enemy may change, certain traits of a warrior have not. Aggressiveness and tenacity will always be important, as will the need for close-quarters (and perhaps unconventional) weapons. Though today’s soldier should be lucky enough to be carrying a pistol as backup, weapons that are always there (and don’t need reloading) will always have their place.

Boris Karpa’s translation of the original text is excellent, and maintains a distinct tone. One can almost imagine a Russian accent as they read it. I appreciate how much work must have gone into this translation, and find myself hoping that Karpa finds the time to bring us other classic Soviet training manuals.

This was a fun book, and will be of interest to anyone who has ever wondered what it would be like to cross bayonets (or entrenching tools) with the enemy.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

S-13 Tulumbas Unguided Rockets

S-13 Tulumbas Unguided Rockets
user posted image

In the first hald of the 1970′s the skirmishes between Iraq and Iran and the Arab-Israeli war have shown the world that previous approaches to aircraft deployment and camouflage were outdated. Parking planes in long rows on open airfields might lead to all of them being lost to a strike just by a single enemy plane that bypassed one’s AA’s systems. Surrounding the planes with breastwork became impactical as well due to the increased effecitveness of aviation armaments.

This experience has led NATO command in Europe to deploy its planes inside various shelters. The simplest camouflage shelters were of a rapid-assembly type and were fairly well camouflaged. On open terrain, where such shelters could not be found, the shelters were simply made out of poured steel-reinforced concrete, utilizing an internal anti-spalling cover of 5mm corrugated steel. This would be then covered by a thick layer of soil, and formed into a fairly sturdy fortification that could withstand several direct hits from fragmentation and HE-F bombs.

The Soviet leadership required an adequate answer for possible NATO aggression, in the form of an unguided air-launched rocket capable of piercing arch-type shelters and effectively engaging vehicles and equipment deployed within them. While this could be already resolved using the high-caliber S-25-OF rockets, a truly giant amount of munitions was needed to engage a single airbase with dispersed and sheltered aircraft, especially given the presence of enemy AA and decoys. Existing aviation weapons could not be optimized for such tasks.

Meanwhile, based on an analysis carried out in 1969, Tochmash suggested that more attention be given to the 127mm caliber, which could later take up an intermediate position between 57mm and 240mm unguided rockets (broadly similar to the Zuni rockets used by NATO forces). These arguments later led to the work carried out at the Novisibirsk Institute for Applied Physics, related to the S-13 122mm rocket.

The Siberians began working on their rockets in 1973. By 1979 the S-13 Tulumbas rocket enetered state testing with its UB-13 universal six-barreled launcher. The chief engineer was Major Toropov, while Major V. Myzin was chief test pilot.

Naturally, the test targets chosen consisted mainly of reinforced concrete shelters made for the purpose. These were fairly large and easy to hit. The most impressive shelter, equipped with 1-meter thick concrete walls under a 5-meter layer of soil, was pierced easily by S-13 rockets, which went on to detonate in its earthen floor. After removing the soil from the reinforced concrete shelter, the test team discovered entry holes on the concrete, surrounded by craters 1-2 meters in diameter and 0.2-0.4 meters in depth. Inside the shelter, craters were discovered around the exit holes, 1.5 meters in diameter and 0.4 meters deep. The rocket was adopted for service in 1983.

user posted image

That said, Tulumbas had one disadvantage. When it was fired at copies of typical NATO shelters, concrete shrapnel from the entry hole was kept in place by the corrugated steel anti-spall cover. The rocket simply came through the soil, concrete walls, and even a concrete floor, detonating deep underground and not damaging the plane at all if it did not suffer a direct hit. Altering the fuze delay time appeared meaningless, since the depth of the soil covering was not uniform. The delay time would have to be altered for fractions of a second, depending on what part of the shelter was hit.

S-13 was still being tested when, in 1982, the Applied Physics Institute began developing an improved, concrete-piercing munition (designated S-13T) carrying two warheads mounted in tandem. On the new rocket, each warhead had its own bottom-type detonator. When an obstacle was encountered, both detonators exploded at different points. Therefore they performed as backups to each other – if the first warhead were to detonate under the floor of the shelter, the second would, inevitably, detonate inside the shelter itself. On the other hand, if the first one would detonate inside the shelter, the second would often be outside it. The ideal situation would be the detonation of both warhead modules inside the reinforce concrete shelter.

In 1982 the Air Force Science and Research Institute performed state testing of the S-13T rocket aboard the SU-17M4 fighter-bomber, with Lt. Colonel Sherstyuk as head engineer and Lt. Colonel Boroday as head pilot. 31 flight was carried out, and 99 rockets were launched. 31 rockets impacted reinforced concete shelters with concret walls 1 meter thick and soil cover between 2 and 6 meters thick, proceeding to detonate within the shelter.

user posted image
B13L launch block for the S-13 unguided rocket.

The rocket was also tested on runways. The unguuided rockets did not bounce off, destroying concrete 0.25 meters thick on an area of 15-17.5 square meters. When fired in volleys the rockets were spread in a pattern not more than 10 meters. After testing results the Insitute guaranteed each rocket could survive 20 take-offs and landings within its storage period without affecting its reliability.

Given the caliber of the new rocket system, the developers suggested creating on the basis of the rocket a weapon to combat ligthly-armored and unarmored vehicles in the open. This weapon was intended to consist of an HE-F unguided rocket, more effective than the S-8 rocket in use at the time, and sharing as many parts as possible with the existing S-13 rockets.

State testing commenced with Sr. Lieutenant Arhipov as chief engineer, and Colonel Pavlenko as the head SU-17M4 pilot.

Test-firing the rocket at BMP-1 vehicles with composite frontal armor 20-25mm thick demonstrated that, when impacts occured within 5 meters of the vehicle, shrapnel from the warhead penetrated easily, forming a ‘plug’. At a distance of ten meters the shrapnel would ricochet off some of the armor surfaces, leaving dents 5-10mm deep. Thus, lightly-armored vehicles would be guaranteed to be disabled within 25 meters, while unarmored vehicles would be disabled within 60 meters of the impact point. The damage done would be such that the vehicles could be restored to use no earlier than within 2 hours.

user posted image

When an S-13-OF impacted between the axles of a BRDM, near its side, sixty holes were found on the vehicle. The explosion ripped off the upper half of the hull along the welding line, as well as ripping off a wheel and its wheelhouse. The average area holes in armor plate reached 5-8 square centimeters, and 8-10 centimeters in duraluminum. A direct impact on an IS-3 heavy tank removed a guiding wheel and two road wheels, as well as 1.5 meters of track. The 50mm-thick armor plate over the engine was bent 25-30mm. The cannon, with its quality artillery-steel sides 20-30mm thick was pierced thrice. Finally, 12 dents and caverns with a depth of 8-15mm were also located on it.

Flight testing proved that the shrapnel damage of the S-13 during airburst increased by a factor of 1.5 when attacking exposed targets and by a factor of 2-3 when attacking entrenched targets. In early 1986 the unguided rocket was formally deployed with the Air Force.

The experience of local conflicts has demonstrated the high effectiveness of FAE munitions. Therefore in 1987 the Applied Physics Institute was tasked with developing an unguided rocket using an FAE warhead, designated S-13DF.

In 1993, the rocket, designed for engaging compact group targets on the ground and on the water was delivered to the Air Force Science and Research Institute, for state testing under Major Presnyakov as chief engineer.

user posted image
The B-13L launch block under the wing of a SU-25TK

The testing involved a SU-27 and SU-27UB plane, with the chief focus being on lightly-armored vehicles. During aerial shooting, two rockets from one salvo impacted a part of the target imitating 3 BMP-1s in a moving column. One of the rockets impacted a BMP-1 on its stern, completely destroying the crew compartment. The turret was ripped off and thrown six meters, three roadwheels were also torn away. Every hatch and shield was also ripped off. Another BMP-1 was struck on its front side, into the armor plate covering the engine compartment. The blast wave ripped out the 15mm-thick sheet of armor entirely, as well as forming 20mm-wide hole in it. The lower baseplate on which the engine rested was heavily deformed.

To this day there are not foreign equivalents to the S-13DF rockets. In early 1995 the S-13DF rocket was deployed with the Air Force.

user posted image

Specifications: S13/S13T/S-13OF/S-13D
Caliber [mm]: 122/122/122/122
Length [mm]:2540/3100/2898/3120
Mass [kilograms]:57/75/69/68
Warhead mass [kilograms]: 21/21/33/32
Explosive mass [kilograms]: 1.82/1.8/7/ N/A
Range [meters]: 1100-3000/1100-4000/1600-3000/1600-3000
Speed [meters/second]: 650/500/530/530

Sources:

E. Arseniev, N. Semirek, Time and Aviation, ‘Rocket Armaments for the MiGs’
O. Presniakov, M. Semivragov, Foxbat.ru, ‘Arrows of the Thunder-casters’
A. Shirokorad, History of Aviation Armaments
V. Markovsky, K. Perov, Wings of the Motherland, ‘Heirs of the RS’

Translated by MicroBalrog from this site.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

USSR: The Motherland of Battlemechs

USSR: The Motherland of Battlemechs

45 Years Ago the USSR designed Bipedal Combat Walkers.
Translated by MicroBalrog from Mordovia News

user posted image

Dense fog surrounded the positions of insurgents dug in in a small village. It was wet and cold. Most of the gang kept warm in the homes abandoned by civilians. Only the guards shuddered in the cold trenches. Every half-hour they reported in on radio. The milky-dense fog cut visibility so much some even dared to smoke – but cigarettes won’t save you from the cold.

Each man thought – if only they could get sooner into a house, near a crackling stove. The Russian forces surrounding the village from every direction turned on the engines of their vehicles every so often to heat them, the engine noises soon became a regular sound for the insurgents. Even now, somewhere deep in the Russian positions the engines of several BTRs roared. The guards tensed for several seconds, but the sounds did not draw closer, and they relaxed again.

And then, literally a few meters away from the trenches a strange sound sounded – like the buzzing of an electric razor, and then some strange clanking. The insurgent who poked his head out of the trenche froze, the cigarette falling out of his wide-open mouth. A strange bipedal monster approached, painted in tricolor camouflage and richly coated in dirt. For a brief second, a red laser targeting dot shone on the terrorist’s forehead, and he fell to the trench floor.

From every direction, about one hundred fifty combat walkers assaulted the village. The strange vehicles drove the insurgents to panic – and within an hour, those who had not been machinegunned by the battlemechs surrendered to Federal forces.

This is approximately how it might have turned out if Soviet engineers’ work were to be implemented.

Now from sci-fiction to science fact. In the first half of the 1960′s Soviet designers proposed placing our infantry in one-man, bipedal, combat vehicles.

The suggestion was made by the researchers of the well-known NII-100 (later, in 1966, renamed into “Transmash”.

As Grigory Pasternak, head of department at UNTK-GBTU (1966-1986) it is difficult today to say what advances were made by the designers – he himself saw only written documentation and blueprints of the vehicle.

It comprised a suit weighing approximately 500 kilograms, something between a medieval knightly armor and a Soviet cosmonaut suit. The “arms” were replaced with a machinegun and AT gun with relevant ammunition. The weapons could move freely in the front demisphere.

All would be well, but there were drawbacks. The project lacked vertical stabilization. Were the vehicle to fall over, God forbid, it would never get up. It had no means for righting itself in an emergency. There also was no communications gear.

Thus, says Grigory Borisovich Pasternak, the walker was unfit for the ground forces of the 1960′s. At this time forces expected to fight large-scale combat involving the use of meaningful quantities of nuclear weapons. In such warfare such a mech would not survive – it would be inferior in survivability not only to heavy and medium tanks, but even to IFVs and APCs.

On the other hand, law enforcement could do well with such a complex, for example to fight armed terrorists – but at that time there was not such a thing, and nobody could predict the emergence of numerous bands armed to the last word in military technology in our country.

Be it as it may, despite the imperfection of the design (after all, if the task were given, the designers would put together a stabilizer and install a radio), Soviet engineers have been decades ahead of their time. Today, as we know, combat walkers interest not only sci-fi writers and game developers, but real military engineers as well – and in this case, the USSR was ahead of the whole world.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Approaching the Opponent in a Frontal Assault

Approaching the opponent in a frontal assault

One can either approach the enemy with armor cover or in armor, or alternatively without such cover. The first case covers approaching both onboard AFV or directly behind them.

APROACH UNDER COVER OF ARMOR OR ABOARD AFV

Movement on board AFVs (whether APCs or IFVs) reduces the physical burden of the soldier, as he needs to walk less. This form of movement protects from artillery and mortar shrapnel (when a shell hits the vehicle directly, it is damaged or destroyed), as well as from frontal-arc fire from small arms and fire from low-power small arms to the vehicle’s sides.

One has to remember that anti-tank weapons – ATGMs, LAWs, HEAP and HE mortars – will destroy all contents of an AFV on impact, with the enclosed space playing its lethal role. When armor enters the range of OPFOR HEAP weaponry, it is more dangerous to be inside the vehicle than outside it. It is not possible to abandon the vehicle rapidly. Furthermore, the side armor of IFVs and APCs is vulnerable not only to heavy machinegun fire, but even to the fire of ordinary company-level machineguns, and sniper rifles firing AP rounds from close range.

It is possible to place a machinegunner on the armor, behind the turret, so that he could fire on the opponent. However, he must have hearing protection – the sound of the cannon or heavy machinegun is ear-shattering. In practice the machinegunner will only be able to fire when the vehicle is stopped – during movement his entire attention will be dedicated to avoiding falling under the tracks.

AFVs should be seen as mobile firing positions, not a means of movement during battle. The statements seen in Soviet-era manuals regarding assaults by mounted infantry, reflect the lessons of WW2, when the low concentration of AT means allowed the infantry to attack without getting out of their vehicles.

This does not mean that one should never attack aboard AFVs and fire from them. In some tactical situations, when the opponent does not possess effective AT weapons, is stunned by a surprise attack, or otherwise incapable to fire effectively at the AFVs, such a tactic is entirely permissible. Your decision should depend on the specific situation.

MOVING ON FOOT BEHIND AFVS

This method protects from frontal fire. One must remember, however, that, should the tank covering the infantry be damaged, the explosion of its ammunition can kill the infantrymen.

OPFOR fire that fails to penetrate a vehicle’s armor can still endanger the infantry with ricochets or shrapnel. Furthermore, infantry following AFVs cannot cover the entire distance to the opponent’s position. At some point the AFVs will have to stop, and the infantrymen emerging from behind the armor will become excellent targets.

It is useful to remember that only one side of the vehicle is protected from fire. Infantry can still be engaged by indirect-fire weapons or flanking fire. The fact the infantry concentrates behind the armor may attract the opponent’s attention to destroying it. The armor also possesses the quality of “attracting” OPFOR fire, which means that the infantry is best served moving at a certain distance from AFVs.

APPROACHING WITHOUT ARMOR COVER

As we have already said, AFVs can attract fire, as they are a visible, clear target. The AFVs in this case must act like infantry – move in rapid bursts of movement, from cover to cover, using their machineguns and cannon to support the infantry out in front.

That said, having vehicles fire overhead affects one’s own men psychologically, forcing them close to the ground. Furthermore, if a cannon is overheated, worn out or a shell is flawed, it is possible for the range of the gun to be cut short, resulting in friendly fire. If possible, it is best to fire in gaps between the infantry units.

When an AFV moves from cover to cover, it should not abandon cover by moving forward – this will expose its vulnerable belly to AT fire. It is best to reverse and bypass the cover from the side in a shallow, preferably in a direction that will surprise the opponent.

When armor cover is not available, movement can be carried out either walking or running without crouching, crouching, in brief bursts of running or crawling in various crawls. The rule is simple: the more intensive the fire, the closer you are to the enemy, the lower you must be. But one must not become too carried away with crawling. While it seems the safest form of movement, this is not always the case. Crawling wears out the men and is also very slow. One should not use it for moving from cover to cover, as it lengthens the time spent under fire, and the opponent will be able to literally dig up the front slope of the cover – the one on which the soldier will be crawling – with his fire. This increases the likelihood one will be hit.

We should pause to discuss a common tactical maneuver: creating no-fire corridors during artillery preparations. The corridor will be about 150 meters wide, leading from the attackers’ position to the opponents’ trench line. Along the center of this corridor, far enough away from shells detonating on each side, the attacker can approach the enemy positions, and sometimes even capture them.

user posted image
The no-fire corridor

APPROACH FORMATIONS FOR INFANTRY

The general rule is the closer one is to the opponent, the smaller and more dispersed (as compared to the marching column) the groups of infantry must be. The reason is obvious – dispersed targets are harder to engage. Of course wide formations are harder to control, but dispersion is necessary to reduce casualties from the opponent’s fire. This can be delayed if one can arrange for support fire over one’s formation. However, retraining the marching column during an offensive is dangerous as it allows the entire column to be eradicated with frontal small arms fire. For a machinegunner looking at the column from the front it becomes an excellent compact target, where each bullet can hit something.

user posted image

Echelon formations

Battalion, company, and platoon columns unfold into one or two lines, generally known as echelons. Soviet-era regulations books are based on a single-echelon formation. This has its own basis, but one must not look at this as the only solution. Generally, all types of formations can be summed up as the following three:

  • Forming equal echelongs
  • The front echelon is weaker
  • The front echelon is stronger

The advantage of a single-echelon formation is its firepower – all the weapons can be turned on the opponent. In a dual-echelon formation the second echelon is often practically uninvolved in many combat situations as it cannot fire over the first echelon, while long-ranged opponent fire forces it to move with the same difficulties, speed, and losses as the first echelon. In a sense a two-echelon formation effectively weakens itself by half.

The main principle of two-echelon formation where the first echelon is stronger is allowing a certain depth to your formation when the opponent counterattacks from the front or flank, carrying out auxiliary combat tasks such as ammunition resupply and evacuation of the wounded, as well as forming a reserve to replenish front-echelon losses.

A formation where front echelon is weaker and the rear echelon is stronger is utilized in order to have the front echelon carry out a preliminary reconnaissance, to draw out OPFOR fire and to reduce overall losses in order to preserve the main forces of the opponent for further actions.

The formation can be in a line, a range of wave-shaped lines, a wedge, a reverse wedge, a rhomboid, a square, a cross, a diagonal line or a left or right-facing slope. To evaluate the various formations one must remember the following rule – the wider the formation, the more fire you can deliver across your front line, but the lower the speed and controllability.

MOVEMENT METHODS FOR DISPERSED INFANTRY

This is based on the following principles. As we already noted in past articles, a simple rule exists: if other weapons cannot suppress the opponent’s fire effectively, the infantry must do it itself.

For this purpose, a fire-suppression group is deployed, known as a support group or fire group, so that the other group, known as the mobile group, will advance. This is a method called one foot on the ground. This works simply: the support group opens fire, suppressing the enemy while the other group advances, then the mobile group stops and the two groups trade places.

There can be variations – for example, one group can be kept constantly in the lead, with the other pulling up to support it, or the groups can trade it. The second method is more fair to the troops as they share the risk, while the first method is considered more correct, as it allows the lead group to better study the area out front when they stop and wait for the other group to pull up, therefore better preparing for the offensive.

In principle, one can use two fire groups or more to support the maneuver group, but one must remember, and avoid, the temptation to replace maneuver with fire with a pure fire battle, which can cause the offensive to fail.

The groups may be different in size. First they can be platoons – one covering the others. As groups approach they can separate – first to detachments, then to fireteams of two or three men, and eventually to individual men in fireteams.

Our next article will cover movement in groups of 2, 3, and individual men.

Translated by MicroBalrog  from the site of the Tula City Spetznaz Veterans’ Community Organization

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Suppressive Fire in Frontal Assaults

Approaching the opponent in a frontal assault

One can either approach the enemy with armor cover or in armor, or alternatively without such cover. The first case covers approaching both onboard AFV or directly behind them.

APROACH UNDER COVER OF ARMOR OR ABOARD AFV

Movement on board AFVs (whether APCs or IFVs) reduces the physical burden of the soldier, as he needs to walk less. This form of movement protects from artillery and mortar shrapnel (when a shell hits the vehicle directly, it is damaged or destroyed), as well as from frontal-arc fire from small arms and fire from low-power small arms to the vehicle’s sides.

One has to remember that anti-tank weapons – ATGMs, LAWs, HEAP and HE mortars – will destroy all contents of an AFV on impact, with the enclosed space playing its lethal role. When armor enters the range of OPFOR HEAP weaponry, it is more dangerous to be inside the vehicle than outside it. It is not possible to abandon the vehicle rapidly. Furthermore, the side armor of IFVs and APCs is vulnerable not only to heavy machinegun fire, but even to the fire of ordinary company-level machineguns, and sniper rifles firing AP rounds from close range.

It is possible to place a machinegunner on the armor, behind the turret, so that he could fire on the opponent. However, he must have hearing protection – the sound of the cannon or heavy machinegun is ear-shattering. In practice the machinegunner will only be able to fire when the vehicle is stopped – during movement his entire attention will be dedicated to avoiding falling under the tracks.

AFVs should be seen as mobile firing positions, not a means of movement during battle. The statements seen in Soviet-era manuals regarding assaults by mounted infantry, reflect the lessons of WW2, when the low concentration of AT means allowed the infantry to attack without getting out of their vehicles.

This does not mean that one should never attack aboard AFVs and fire from them. In some tactical situations, when the opponent does not possess effective AT weapons, is stunned by a surprise attack, or otherwise incapable to fire effectively at the AFVs, such a tactic is entirely permissible. Your decision should depend on the specific situation.

MOVING ON FOOT BEHIND AFVS

This method protects from frontal fire. One must remember, however, that, should the tank covering the infantry be damaged, the explosion of its ammunition can kill the infantrymen.

OPFOR fire that fails to penetrate a vehicle’s armor can still endanger the infantry with ricochets or shrapnel. Furthermore, infantry following AFVs cannot cover the entire distance to the opponent’s position. At some point the AFVs will have to stop, and the infantrymen emerging from behind the armor will become excellent targets.

It is useful to remember that only one side of the vehicle is protected from fire. Infantry can still be engaged by indirect-fire weapons or flanking fire. The fact the infantry concentrates behind the armor may attract the opponent’s attention to destroying it. The armor also possesses the quality of “attracting” OPFOR fire, which means that the infantry is best served moving at a certain distance from AFVs.

APPROACHING WITHOUT ARMOR COVER

As we have already said, AFVs can attract fire, as they are a visible, clear target. The AFVs in this case must act like infantry – move in rapid bursts of movement, from cover to cover, using their machineguns and cannon to support the infantry out in front.

That said, having vehicles fire overhead affects one’s own men psychologically, forcing them close to the ground. Furthermore, if a cannon is overheated, worn out or a shell is flawed, it is possible for the range of the gun to be cut short, resulting in friendly fire. If possible, it is best to fire in gaps between the infantry units.

When an AFV moves from cover to cover, it should not abandon cover by moving forward – this will expose its vulnerable belly to AT fire. It is best to reverse and bypass the cover from the side in a shallow, preferably in a direction that will surprise the opponent.

When armor cover is not available, movement can be carried out either walking or running without crouching, crouching, in brief bursts of running or crawling in various crawls. The rule is simple: the more intensive the fire, the closer you are to the enemy, the lower you must be. But one must not become too carried away with crawling. While it seems the safest form of movement, this is not always the case. Crawling wears out the men and is also very slow. One should not use it for moving from cover to cover, as it lengthens the time spent under fire, and the opponent will be able to literally dig up the front slope of the cover – the one on which the soldier will be crawling – with his fire. This increases the likelihood one will be hit.

We should pause to discuss a common tactical maneuver: creating no-fire corridors during artillery preparations. The corridor will be about 150 meters wide, leading from the attackers’ position to the opponents’ trench line. Along the center of this corridor, far enough away from shells detonating on each side, the attacker can approach the enemy positions, and sometimes even capture them.

user posted image
The no-fire corridor

APPROACH FORMATIONS FOR INFANTRY

The general rule is the closer one is to the opponent, the smaller and more dispersed (as compared to the marching column) the groups of infantry must be. The reason is obvious – dispersed targets are harder to engage. Of course wide formations are harder to control, but dispersion is necessary to reduce casualties from the opponent’s fire. This can be delayed if one can arrange for support fire over one’s formation. However, retraining the marching column during an offensive is dangerous as it allows the entire column to be eradicated with frontal small arms fire. For a machinegunner looking at the column from the front it becomes an excellent compact target, where each bullet can hit something.

user posted image

Echelon formations

Battalion, company, and platoon columns unfold into one or two lines, generally known as echelons. Soviet-era regulations books are based on a single-echelon formation. This has its own basis, but one must not look at this as the only solution. Generally, all types of formations can be summed up as the following three:

  • Forming equal echelongs
  • The front echelon is weaker
  • The front echelon is stronger

The advantage of a single-echelon formation is its firepower – all the weapons can be turned on the opponent. In a dual-echelon formation the second echelon is often practically uninvolved in many combat situations as it cannot fire over the first echelon, while long-ranged opponent fire forces it to move with the same difficulties, speed, and losses as the first echelon. In a sense a two-echelon formation effectively weakens itself by half.

The main principle of two-echelon formation where the first echelon is stronger is allowing a certain depth to your formation when the opponent counterattacks from the front or flank, carrying out auxiliary combat tasks such as ammunition resupply and evacuation of the wounded, as well as forming a reserve to replenish front-echelon losses.

A formation where front echelon is weaker and the rear echelon is stronger is utilized in order to have the front echelon carry out a preliminary reconnaissance, to draw out OPFOR fire and to reduce overall losses in order to preserve the main forces of the opponent for further actions.

The formation can be in a line, a range of wave-shaped lines, a wedge, a reverse wedge, a rhomboid, a square, a cross, a diagonal line or a left or right-facing slope. To evaluate the various formations one must remember the following rule – the wider the formation, the more fire you can deliver across your front line, but the lower the speed and controllability.

MOVEMENT METHODS FOR DISPERSED INFANTRY

This is based on the following principles. As we already noted in past articles, a simple rule exists: if other weapons cannot suppress the opponent’s fire effectively, the infantry must do it itself.

For this purpose, a fire-suppression group is deployed, known as a support group or fire group, so that the other group, known as the mobile group, will advance. This is a method called one foot on the ground. This works simply: the support group opens fire, suppressing the enemy while the other group advances, then the mobile group stops and the two groups trade places.

There can be variations – for example, one group can be kept constantly in the lead, with the other pulling up to support it, or the groups can trade it. The second method is more fair to the troops as they share the risk, while the first method is considered more correct, as it allows the lead group to better study the area out front when they stop and wait for the other group to pull up, therefore better preparing for the offensive.

In principle, one can use two fire groups or more to support the maneuver group, but one must remember, and avoid, the temptation to replace maneuver with fire with a pure fire battle, which can cause the offensive to fail.

The groups may be different in size. First they can be platoons – one covering the others. As groups approach they can separate – first to detachments, then to fireteams of two or three men, and eventually to individual men in fireteams.

Our next article will cover movement in groups of 2, 3, and individual men.

Translated by MicroBalrog from the site of the Tula City Spetznaz Veterans’ Community Organization

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment