Soviet Baltic Front HQ Composition
 

I need some help coming up with a fairly detailed TOE for the Soviet Baltic Front HQ in Malbork. I need to come up with a breakdown of its component units- numbers and basic equipment allocations for its HQ staff, coms section, security detail, etc. I could just wing it, but I'm not sure I could do so and maintain a high degree of realism. Is there anything in any of the modules or sourcebooks like a basic TOE for a major HQ unit? Have any of you come up with something for a major HQ unit that you would be willing to share?

Thanks in advance.

There are several divisional HQ TOE's in Bear's Den but keep in mind this would be for a Feb/March of 2001 type unit

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-3.pdf <- that might help.

Also, FM 100-2-1 would come in handy as it has more detailed information about the composition of the actual HQ.

Nice find. Greedily skimming through these.

I know Google-fu. :cool:

Oh, man! I'd love to look at those two sites, Medic, but I keep getting runtime error messages every time I try to open them. Argh!

Let's see if we can work around that. I'll PM you shortly.

Have you tried Andy Johnson's Warsaw Pact Order of Battle 1989?

Unfortunately it won't go into detail for component units of the Baltic Front, but it does have a generic Warsaw Pact TOE including Front.

GDW's Combined Arms also has TOE for WP units as well.

and check out this thread

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=1417

What kind of SAMs do you think would be appropriate to be positioned near the HQ for AAD c.2000? There's also an airfield a couple of kilometers east of Malbork and I'm thinking that they would have a SAM battery as well. I don't want to overdo it, though. There's a huge list to choose from. I want this to be fairly realistic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...o-air_missiles

I'd say SA-17 for longer range, Igla family and ZSU-23's for close cover.

Single AA-squad (officer + 8 men). Two SA-16 launchers and six missiles.

Two squad members are manning AA-position in castle tower. Shooter has missile and spotter is trying to stay vigilant if it is daytime and there is risk that an officer is watching them...

Extreme boredom- waiting last NATO plane and same dull routines.

I am having a problem as well. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

My $0.02

Mike

I like this idea. I will add a light AA squad with a couple of SA-16s to the castle garrison. I also like Medic's suggestion of an SA-17 battery being nearby, and I already had a battery of ZU-23-2 just north of the castle, covering the river as well. This is a Front HQ and a prime target for NATO's few remaining strike aircraft/cruise missiles. There's also the nearby airfield. Would the single SA-17 battery stationed a couple hundred meters west of the castle be able to cover the airfield as well, of would the airfield have its own SAMs?

The airfield might have its own guns dismounted from aircraft as AA mounts, too.

If it's a Front, then it has an Air Army. If it has an Air Army, then it should have planes. They might even be in working condition, but out of jet fuel. Or nearly so-- just enough for a one-way trip?

Really good point. If the Ploesti oilfields were able to supply several Soviet armies for the year 2000 campaigns they must have provided some aviation fuels as well. It's been a long time since I last thought about that. On top of the rest of the difficulties that NATO forces were facing in Poland during the summer offensive there's every chance they would've faced Soviet CAS and other air assets too. What a nightmare.

Hm. You and the Admiral point out a major kink in my scenario setting. I suppose my C-2 shop didn't know about the amount of real fuel flowing into Poland. What do you suppose a Soviet Air Army looks like, c. 2000?

I'm not ADA, so I can not say for certain, but as far as I know, 9K37M BUK-M1 (actually not SA-17 but SA-11) can be decentralised and since the launchers are mobile, they can be spread out. As with any radar, the C&C unit needs to be somewhere, where it has the least obstructed view at all directions.

BUK is a system best used for low to intermediate altitude defense as it has the ability to engage targets between 30 and 22000 meters. The battalion consists of three batteries of two launchers and a reloading vehicle as well as the command post with both a command and radar vehicles.

The Igla-family is for close-in-defence, but depending on the age of the particular model in use, it might require a rear-aspect lock-on, so the target has to fly past first.

The 23-2 will not probably have too much success against cruise missiles or jet fighters, but it is a good weapon against both infantry and helicopters. Since most models are manually aimed using Mk.1 Eyeball, the battery can be deployed however the commander likes. Mutual support is nice but not mandatory.

SA-17 has a 30 kilometre range so that shouldnt be a problem! Its firing units can disperse in 10 x 10 km area. SA-17 is probably the best AA-system that Soviet armed forces has in Poland. Problem is that it is quite heavy burden (fuel, manpower etc.) in single battery there is command & control vehicle, radar vehicle, 3-6 firing units, 1-3 reloading vehicles + technical support & close protection infantry.

If you want use SA-17, use just one firing unit (its possible to use them independently) or C&C + Radar + 1-2 firing units. Its a bit unrealistic that a full battery would have survived?

Considering your observations and what Medic had to say about the ability of the launchers to operate in a decentralized fashion, I think one SA-17 understrength battery split between the castle/HQ and the airfield would be reasonable. MANPADs and AA guns would supplement the SA-17.

I think that's settled now. How about the composition of a Soviet Air Army c.2000 (prior to the infusion of oil-based fuels into Poland in the early summer of 2000)?