From: New Caledonia
But the soviet counterpart, as working at another scale, is as efficient I think?
I don't know well these sort of things, but if you have some links...
No, the Soviet C2 structure was not as efficient or as flexible as NATO, that's the whole point. Check out FM 100-2-1
This is all very challenging to accurately and "realistically" model in a game, I admit. If you don't account for NATO's qualitative C2 advantages over the Soviet numerical superiority, then that just unrealistically handicaps the NATO player and/or benefits the Soviet player. So yeah that's challenging in itself for this game but it's not how we trained IRL in the 1980's.
Thank you very much, it's really an interressing document. It help me to understand the scale and roles of the differents soviets "commanders" and what and how they "control" in the field ^^.
It's an interressing document for making scenarios too, as you can calibrate what sort of situations your regiment commander will encounter ^^
It look like the scale of FC:RS as a "regiment commander" is an interresing choice, as it have a staff of combined forces, control for exemple regimented arty and support arty, take his operationals orders from his division commander, has a advanced tactics training and was in charge of the tactics on the field. In FC:RS, you weren't in charge of operational warfare, just tactics as a part of a divison order. You have a "road" (a sector 10*25km in FC:RS), a force sized from a reinforced regiment to a brigade and operational orders to execute.
After receiving a mission from the division commander,the regimental commander, assisted by his staff, makes an estimate of the situation [...]
The regimental commander controls his subunits by issuing combat instructions over the radio. These fragmentary
orders change, supplement, or elaborate on initial combat orders as the tactical situation changes.
This is what a regimental commander do, and what we do in FC:RS.
But I don't get your point: FC:RS alway simulate a "lack of flexibilty" for the soviets as it have tactically to move his entires companies (mech, tanks...) instead of issuing tactical orders to individual platoons commanders as NATO can?
Ant it's exactly what your document says:
Company commanders also have the authority to transmit on the battalion nets. They have the. authority to call for supporting fire in combat, but such calls for fire normally are channeled through the battalion commander.
While Soviet tactical communications practices seem restrictive, they do appear to be adequate for the company commander's limited control authority, which normally is confined to fire control of his tanks and the deployment of his company in rehearsed battle drills
< Message edited by batteran -- 4/5/2015 10:28:41 AM >