Great analysis, guys. I'd like to add a few thoughts.
As I've stated here before- ad nauseum, probably- the Soviet military was scarily effective when it fought following the model established by the Red Army of the last two years or so of the Second World War- utilizing the blunt instruments of massive artillery prep, large-scale infantry attacks, and massed heavy armor. Historically, when the Russian army has tried to ape Western armies, it's failed pretty miserably.
In Ukraine over the last year, we've witnessed the rise and fall of the Russian Battalion Tactical Group. It's ironic, because I think divisions in 2000 (T2kU) would resemble BTGs, albeit on a slightly larger scale (roughly equivalent to 2 BTGs- what the Russians now call a brigade). This article does a good job of explaining the BTG concept, its evolution during the Cold War, and its apparent failure in Ukraine.
https://rusi.org/explore-our-researc...tactical-group
This excerpt is particularly germane to our discussion of warfare in the later years of the Twilight War.
Quote:
|
"Over time, divisions and regiments became fairly proficient in combined arms combat, but the nature of the battlefield was changing. Modern weapons forced units to spread out in order to survive. The future battlefield would be fragmented, with gaps between units, open flanks and combat not only at the front line, but also throughout the battlespace. The concept of the front line itself was being challenged. It thus became obvious that the battalion was a prime component of future war and battalions had to fight combined to win. The problem was how to combine branches into battalions and fight effectively."
|
A fragmented battlefield, with "gaps between units, open flanks, and combat not only at the front line" is almost a perfect summary of how canon describes the European battlefield in the last year or two of the Twilight War.
Before condemning the Soviet military of the late Cold War period based largely on the piss-poor performance of the modern Russian military in Ukraine, we have to remember that warfare has changed quite a bit over the past 30-plus years. One very big difference is the proliferation of UAVs/drones, especially small, relatively inexpensive off-the-shelf civilian models repurposed for combat roles. To say nothing of their direct strike capabilities, UAVs/drones provide real-time aerial reconnaissance capabilities- often down to the platoon level- that even the most modern NATO militaries lacked through the IRL 1990s. Combined with the more widespread availability/use of long-range precision artillery munitions (e.g. Excalibur), there's very little that can't be spotted with drones and hit by artillery within 10-20 kilometers of the forward edge of battle. Precision munitions aren't even necessary, as drones can still provide BVR spotting and corrections for unguided artillery. The drone-artillery team makes concentrating assault forces behind the lines for large-scale attacks without quickly coming under accurate artillery fires nearly impossible; likewise, ammunition and supply depots, headquarters, SAMs, and other rear area services are now much more vulnerable to destruction by accurate artillery fire.
None of this would be the case- at least to the degree that it is today- in a WWIII fought in the mid-to-late 1990s. Drones did exist of course, but in nowhere near the numbers that they are today. Corps and divisions would have had access, but not, as it is today, companies, platoons, and even squads.
-