Soviet Divisions Defecting to NATO

[Mahatatain]

I'm currently putting together the background for a T2k campaign starting in the Ukraine in Spring 2001 and utilising information from the "Bear's Den" supplement.

My thought is to make PCs NATO soldiers who have been captured by the Soviet 27th Tank Division and then freed to join the 27th when the division has switched allegiance and defected to NATO. (In the Bear's Den module one element of the 27th is the "1st Armoured Brigade" which is made up of 100 ex-POW NATO troops).

When discussing this with a couple of friends however one of them pointed out that an entire Soviet division switching to NATO was unrealistic. His point was that the Soviet authorities ensured that the soldiers in a division were from a mixture of ethnic groups from throughout the Soviet Union and that a division would not contain any soldiers (ideally) from the Military District in which is was based (during peacetime). This was designed to make it hard for an entire division to rebel against the Soviet leadership and also meant that should unrest start in a particular region the troops there would be able to quell it without conflicting loyalties to the local population (as they wouldn't be from the local area at all).

Now there are numerous cases in the T2k official history where entire Soviet divisions have changed side and I wondered what other people's opinions were on this. Is it unrealistic to have an entire Soviet division change sides? In the case of the 27th in Bear's Den it has a current strength of 3,400 troops and only lost 300 when it defected to NATO.

Opinions please!

[Raellus]

I think that a mutiny where the division joins other Ukranian separatists is more likely. Defecting to NATO makes it sound like the division is actually following NATO directives. With a common enemy in the Soviet Union, this would put the mutinous division on the same side as NATO due to the prinicple, the "enemy of my enemy is my friend". With this in mind, Ukranian separatists and NATO soldiers may have some of the same broad strategic aims. This would give NATO ex-POWs and the Ukranian defectors reason to work together on some ops. At the same time, there could be some tension between the two because their objectives may not always line up. I hope I'm making sense.

[Adm.Lee]

I think the mixing nationalities element probably went by the board a year or so after the nukes started crashing down. The Soviet transportation net can't be in any great shape, much less the communications necessary. On top of that, it would take a lot of effort to draft in the farther-away republics, in order to split them up and ship them hither and yon. I'd bet by late 2000, the Soviet divisions on the western front are mostly "western" Russians, Belorussians, and Ukrainians.

Even if they were still mixed on paper, I'd bet a lot of soldiers would desert to nearby units, in order to stay nearer their kinfolk. Say, if 20 or so Uzbeks leave the 589th Regiment, the 589th's commander has a problem. If those same 20 Uzbeks show up in the camp of the 343rd (which already has a lot of Uzbeks), the 343rd's adjutant probably won't make a big fuss.

To my mind, however, if the CIA somehow convinced a division's leadership to defect, convincing them to march to Yugoslavia seems pretty tall. Keeping them together without desertion is a REALLY tall order for the leadership, unless they are holding out a desirable ideal, like going home. I'd think the division would run down to about one-quarter of its previous strength really quickly, shedding deserters as it went. Most of the leaders might stick to the division cadre.

Either way, starting them off as ex-PWs, picked up by the division on its march, sounds like a good idea.

[headquarters]

When the USSR in T2K mobilizes , I too would expect that the idealized set up of mixed nationalities ( or making men from Sibir serve in the west and vice versa ) would not be as feasible -and more homogenous ethnic units would be more practical considering the cost of shipping people from one end of the country to the other -its a wast place.

Nationalists defecting would definently be a major risk , and whole divisions crossing over could happen given the right circumstances.

imho.

[Mahatatain]

Thanks for your comments. I think that you're right - the ideal ethnic diversity of a Soviet division would change the moment a unit needed to find replacements as those replacements would have to be recruited locally.

[HorseSoldier]

I seem to recall there was some scandal in present day Russia concerning the fact that "multinational" recruiting was kind of a fiction, and what actually happened was a majority of one ethnicity would end up dominating a scattering of troops from elsewhere. If I remember right, the situation was bad enough that there were some suicides that attracted media attention.

So, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that by 2000, when 70-80% attrition has probably been more costly to "outsiders" than the core ethnic group, to think that the troops in a Ukrainian division (or other non-Russians) would mutiny against the Soviet government.

I'm not sure on the officer side of the house, where divide and conquer might have been more effective.

All that said, I do agree that going over to NATO is less likely than going over to a nationalist sentiment (unless, maybe, there are NATO forces close enough to march out to). That would not prevent them recruiting freed NATO POWs and such.

Rather than have the PCs be prisoners of the 27th TD, perhaps it would make more sense to be have them in a POW camp liberated by the 27th TD. Given the choice between throwing in their lot with the 27th, or making their own way with no weapons, equipment, or vehicles in the middle of the USSR, I'd think that there's only one good answer for that "choice."

[Abbott Shaull]

Now toward 2000, I don't see it being too far fetch. One has to remember that by 2000 many of the troops in units would come from limited number locales. In many units the limited number of recruits tend to desert... So no I don't think it would be unrealistic

At the out set of the war I don't see many units defecting due to the fact that they had good mix in the units to prevent this. The 2nd formation of many units, would be a mix bag, depending on how fast they were rushed to get troops to the front lines. Depending on how things get stress out in the Soviet Union, especially if you use V1 where the Soviets and China went to war. With the way thing went south in hurry, I don't see the Soviet worrying too much with the reserve and mobilize units getting mix so they don't rebel, but to get units who have common language that they understand and get them to the front to fight. Odds were with the meat grinder China was, the division would be consolidated with other units in short term.

With many of the Soviet units recruiting local or nearby in Soviet Republics it doesn't surprise me that entire units are defecting. Beside in many cases it is the Commander who decided to defect the unit. Many of the of the troops that serve under only follow order because they in their eyes he looking out for their best interest. The units who had soldier who felt they couldn't trust the command group, simply killed them off and various sub units went their own individual ways...

But has been pointed out, the Soviets had unit mix ration low so no one ethnic group was too large in any units. They also had a habit of moving the troops from the East to western district and in the other direction so to prevent any troop feeling loyalty at one time.

[Mahatatain]

Thanks for the comments and suggestions.

I like the idea of the PCs coming from a POW camp that has been liberated by the unit they're now a member of (I'm not tied to the 27th Division).

My plan is to end up with four major factions in the Ukraine, two larger ones and two smaller ones.

Ukrainian Communist Party - this will be the largest single faction (in terms of population controlled) and will consist of the remains of the original Ukrainian USSR authorities. It will be allied with the remaining Soviet controlled divisions.

Ukrainian Nationalist Confederation - this large faction will be pro Ukraine independence but not particularly pro NATO.

Ukrainian Democratic Movement - this faction will be smaller in size, will be pro Ukraine independence but will have links to NATO (though I'm yet to work out just how substantial and effective this support will be). This will be the faction that the PC's new "unit" is a member of.

The Red Bear - this will be a substantial faction based around the Warlord from the Bear's Den module.

There will also be other smaller warlords and independent cities as well.

[HorseSoldier]

Sounds like an interesting situation to dump PCs into the middle of.

You might want to give White Eagle, Red Star (http://www.amazon.com/White-Eagle-Red-Star-Polish-Soviet/dp/0712606947/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275211708&sr=8-1) a read for inspiration and texture for the setting. It's about the 1919-20 war Poland fought against the Red Army, a lot of which took place in Ukrainian territory (and which also involved several factions besides just the Poles and Soviets, since the Russian Civil War was still going on at the same time).

[Mahatatain]

Sounds like an interesting situation to dump PCs into the middle of.

You might want to give White Eagle, Red Star (http://www.amazon.com/White-Eagle-Red-Star-Polish-Soviet/dp/0712606947/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275211708&sr=8-1) a read for inspiration and texture for the setting. It's about the 1919-20 war Poland fought against the Red Army, a lot of which took place in Ukrainian territory (and which also involved several factions besides just the Poles and Soviets, since the Russian Civil War was still going on at the same time).

Thanks for the book recommendation - I will indeed check it out.

I find the Ukraine an interesting country, partly because it is actually a relatively recent country and used to be part of Poland. I'm no expert though so am trying to improve my knowledge as much as possible as quickly as possible!

[Abbott Shaull]

Poland in the past was very large footprint of influence. Ukraine especially centered around Kiev was no slouch either. All this was during the decline of the Roman Empire, into the dark and middle ages, when most of the Western Europe was in mist of chaos...Between the two they control or had merchant who travel over much which would be Eastern Europe.

[Rainbow Six]

With many of the Soviet units recruiting local or nearby in Soviet Republics it doesn't surprise me that entire units are defecting. Beside in many cases it is the Commander who decided to defect the unit. Many of the of the troops that serve under only follow order because they in their eyes he looking out for their best interest.

I think that's a very good point...in many cases it may only be a small number of senior officers who actually decide the fate of entire Divisions. I'd imagine that in many cases the rank and file of the Division would simply continue to follow those officers' orders, meaning that in many cases large numbers of soldiers might have "defected" without actually knowing that they had done so.

For example, the Commanding General of one Soviet Division decides to strike out on his own and orders his troops to attack a nearby formation that has remained loyal to the higher authorities (he could even put some spin on the situation by telling his men that it was the loyal formation that had deserted and his men were only doing their duty to the Rodina).

I hope that makes sense...the point I'm trying to get across is that very few people in the unit might actually know the whole story, with the vast majority simply continuing to follow what they think are lawful orders.

Mahatatain, you might find the novel "The Devil's Alternative" by Frederick Forsyth to be of some interest. Whilst it's quite dated now (I think it was originally published in the late 1970's) part of the plot centres around Ukrainian Separatists plotting to assassinate the Chairman of the KGB, and it has some interesting background information on the subject of Ukrainian independence.

[simonmark6]

In the "Bear's Den" background material, it states that after defecting, the 27th actually decided that their target was the Ukraine. It also talks about the division fighting against relatives and ex-members of its own unit.

The unit, in this case has defected but is still following its own agenda as much as possible. NATO is being used to provide what limited aid it can, plus the fact that the NATO POWs can add comat ability to the unit.

I think that you can argue the case that the leaders of the 27th have forged an alliance of convienience with NATO. It'll use the resources for its own eneds. In effect, the two organisations are less allied than following parrallel agendas that at present make co-operation viable. I'd imagine the 27th would abandon its NATO alliegence in a heartbeat should it become oppressive or even run counter to their own agenda.

As for deserters, the book states that something like 950 troops are being used to garrisson the Transcaucus region, this already erodes the combat ability of the division, but you could easily state that more have deserted. It may be the case however that even people considering desertion have stayed with the division because it provides food and shelter in a dangerous environment.

You may decide that a secret proportion of the troops are shakey and will start to desert if the division sees serious combat or attrition and the sum swings into the other spectrum where you have a better chance on your own than with a larger unit engaged in risky activities.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Don't forget too, that Soviet units were built within a system of constant resupply so that they always relied on the rear units (thus lessening their ability to break away from the Soviet Army).
Once the breakdown of Soviet logistics occurs, those frontline units will be seeing less of the essential supplies they need (food, ammunition, fuel etc). When a Soviet unit is no longer being supplied food by the Soviet Army, there might be quite a few members who decide that breaking away gives them a better chance of survival.
And during all that, NATO might not try to get them to defect but might simply be happy to bribe them with food in return for that former Soviet unit not fighting NATO.

[Abbott Shaull]

Once the Soviet go to an active war, the issue of resupply units at the fronts becomes a issue that the Soviets have never really dealt with. Take for instance during WWII units on the front-line were lucky if they received resupply of ammo and fuel for their units if a unit part of an offensive movement. In many cases, units that hadn't achieved breakthrough were left on their own.

In many cases once a unit that was part of the breakthrough would drive literally until they were no longer able to carry out offensive operations. Once the unit stop they would be reconstituted as unit, by either getting replacement, or being absorbed into other units. So in many cases, it would take the breakdown of supply chain after 1998 up to 2000 for many Commanders to get to the point where they may start to feel that switching sides may be alternative.

Another thing is the Soviet units in peacetime, were quite accustom to doing things for themselves and not relay on their chain of command to provide supplies they needed. They grow their garden, they have their own cottage industries in each unit where craft person in the unit use their skills to provide way for commander to generate money so they can go out to purchase items needed for this need or that with in the unit. Or the fact at times they will send troop into town to work as General Laborers as needed. Or the fact that in many cases when the Soviet Union had proclaimed they had larger than usually harvests in the Ukraine, it was due to large number of troop being used to help harvest said crops.

Another thing is the Soviet model always the unit relay on the Officers to carry out function that in many units of Western Europe, Canadian, and US units that were performed by NCO's and in some case almost every soldier was required to have basic knowledge to do. Such as map reading, land navigation, and calling in for fire support. In many cases when lead units have had Officers killed, with no one else left that knows how to read basic map or know where they are, units have grounded to halt.

Only units in the Soviet Union where the NCOs had much knowledge of doing things was their Missile/Nuclear troops and even this was 'treasonable'. Even though it common knowledge they knew how to perform their Officer duties if they weren't able to carry them out, the Officers who had shared such knowledge with their NCO could be court martial.

So in some cases the Soviets unit command element wouldn't be in too much of hurry to defect, but by 1999 and 2000 in t2k setting, I could see more and more commanders and their staff ready to change sides or to strike out on their own.

[Mahatatain]

Thanks for all the comments and info - it's helping a lot with the formulation of this campaign.