Russian dragon’s teeth

[Not Connard Sage]

There’s a post with that title elsewhere on t’internet from sometime TWW member Brian Handley asking about AT defences. A post that shows a complete lack of understanding about the concept of layered defence.

So if Brian’s still here and wants to discuss the subject. We’re waiting 🙂

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Monty Bob]

Sounds boring.

[Sane Max]

to what end Connard?

[Not Connard Sage]

Sane Max wrote:

to what end Connard?

 

I’m sure John and Guy are willing to school Brian on the concept, so that he may make his games more realistic. 🙂

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[John D Salt]

Never mind the other parts of the web, the mention of dragon’s teeth prompts me to ask the opinion of the assembled masses about obstacles more generally.

A set of rules I have been tinkering with lately (tactical WW2 because the world really needs yet another set of tactical WW2 rules, individual vehicles and squad bases) includes the following obstacle effects table, which is largely POOMA:

Obstacle 			Personnel or 	Wheeled or 	Fully-tracked 
				animals 	half-tracked  	vehicles
						vehicles
Anti-tank ditch,
rubble, abatis 			Bad going	Prohibited 	Prohibited
Czech hedgehogs,
dragon’s teeth, sea wall 	OK 		Prohibited 	Prohibited
Dannert wire
fence 				Bad going 	Bad going 	OK
Wire entanglement,
knife rests 			Prohibited	Prohibited 	Bad going
Mines,
punjis 				OK 		OK 		OK

“Prohibited” means that crossing the obstacle is not allowed, it must be breached first.
“Bad going” means the obstacle must be crossed at creep speed, and there is a risk of vehicles getting bogged or personnel getting hung up.
“OK” means that the obstacle can be crossed at full speed, although in the case of mines and punjis with a risk of casualties.

What do we all think? Any obstacle types I’m missing? Any disagreement on the effects? Contributions from people with assault engineering experience especially welcome.

All the best,

John.

[Jim Webster]

With regard to dragon’s teeth, during the second world war apparently US forces just advanced with a bulldozer leading and with the rest of the force providing fire support.

If they’re like the Russian ones which appear to just sit on the surface, then the bulldozer will just shunt them. If they’re probably set into the ground, then the American technique of pushing soil over them and burying them will work. (Apparently in the UK, after the war, that’s how some of them were quietly disposed of)
If infantry pass through the dragons teeth, with plenty of fire support, once the obstacle is no longer defended by observed fire, bulldozers are probably good enough

https://jimssfnovelsandwargamerules.wordpress.com/

[MartinR]

I believe Dragons Teeth are generally set into the ground, otherwise they don’t work, a tank can simply push them aside (rather like a bulldozer!).

There is an entertaining sequence in the old German training/propaganda film ‘Engineers Forward!’ where one technique for dealing with dragons teeth was demonstrated. The engineers attached demo charges, which blew the concrete apart, however all the steel reinforcing rods were left poking out of the ground. The mighty panzers were able to crush these under their tracks however. Cue triumphant national socialist music etc etc.

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

From photos i have seen i think Russian efforts mostly sit on top with cables connecting them.  No partial burying seen.

Mick Hayman
Margate and New Orleans

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

I am reminded as to what the real danger of dragon’s teeth are:  not to become impassable to vehicles but to merely slow them enough that the registered pre-plotted artillery and “bore sighted” ATGMs can easily engage a target with precise knowledge of both the range and azimuth. Reaction times need only be seconds compared to a freely advancing target.

Mick Hayman
Margate and New Orleans

[Guy Farrish]

I think that was what NCS was getting at.

The original thread in another place, and the related video ‘analysis’ which prompted it, is very narrow in focus. It led to a rather strange discussion about ‘Which is better: dragon’s teeth, mines or tank trap trenches?’ Which rather missed the combined nature of defensive belts, including the preregistered artillery and a/t  weapons you mention.

Sure you can send in a bulldozer, when you’ve filled in the tank trap and taken casualties, and recovered the bulldozer and sent in engineers to get shelled and then drive through the dragons teeth to get blown up by the mines and shot by the etc… It’s not usually an either/or.

John, like the obstacle table, remarkably elegant considering where you claim it comes from!

I am not now nor have I ever been anything to do with assault engineering, although I have lurked at times behind lots of wire, shamoolies, things that go bang and the like. They rarely went ‘whoosh!’ and never went ‘bang!’ I am pleased to say.

 

[Not Connard Sage]

Guy Farrish wrote:

I think that was what NCS was getting at. The original thread in another place, and the related video ‘analysis’ which prompted it, is very narrow in focus. It led to a rather strange discussion about ‘Which is better: dragon’s teeth, mines or tank trap trenches?’ Which rather missed the combined nature of defensive belts, including the preregistered artillery and a/t weapons you mention. Sure you can send in a bulldozer, when you’ve filled in the tank trap and taken casualties, and recovered the bulldozer and sent in engineers to get shelled and then drive through the dragons teeth to get blown up by the mines and shot by the etc… It’s not usually an either/or. John, like the obstacle table, remarkably elegant considering where you claim it comes from! I am not now nor have I ever been anything to do with assault engineering, although I have lurked at times behind lots of wire, shamoolies, things that go bang and the like. They rarely went ‘whoosh!’ and never went ‘bang!’ I am pleased to say.

 

Quite

Ignorance is not to be condemned, as long as one is willing to learn. Ignorance combined with a “I know best, the rest of you are only playing with toys” attitude gets irksome.

 

 

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Sane Max]

I cannot remember the exact quote, but the discussion in another place suggests they have never heard it – something like ‘an Obstacle not Covered with fire is not an obstacle at all.’

A two-wire wire fence is a good obstacle if it’s covered with a registered Machinegun. Lots of badly placed mass produced concrete Toblerones covered with artillery and AT will be an obstacle, especially if the best alternative your shoddy nation can produce is no toblerones at all.

[John D Salt]

U S Army doctrine (of which there is lots) recognises distinctions between tactical and protective obstacles, and between hasty and deliberate ones.

From the present discussion I wonder if we need a distinction between “proper” and “crap” obstacles. Proper dragon’s teeth are impassable to AFV and require a serious breaching effort by trained engineers; crap (Russian) dragon’s teeth merely slow progress, and can be breached and cleared by anyone. Similarly, proper buried minefields are a serious obstacle, surface-laid ones are easy to avoid if you pass through carefully at low speed, and easy to breach. One might similarly regard a wire fence as a crap obstacle (trained infantry lie down on it for their mates to cross, and wire-cutters will make short work of it) and a proper entangelement as a serious one.

I would speculate that anti-tank ditches, sea walls, Czech hedgehogs and knife rests all require sufficient effort to make in the first place that no “crap” version of them exists.

I’m also wondering how widely flame-traps were used in WW2. Mostly of the ones I’ve heard of (before the Iraq war) were British WW2 anti-invasion preparations, and never actually used. Any others?

It would also be interesting to know if there were any other distinct obstacle types not covered by the types mentioned so far — now is the time to share your research on anti-tank jelly barriers, Slovenian wasps-nest booby-traps, and red fuming nitric acid baths.

All the best,

John.

All the best,

John.

[Guy Farrish]

Just on the off chance there might be some anti- tank jelly barrier weapons in development I googled the term – no joy so far but for some reason third on the list of results was this:

M3 Multi-Role, Anti-Armor Anti-Personnel Weapon System

I was never aware the Charlie G had a jelly barrier round (I haven’t found it in the manual but it must be there surely or it wouldn’t have turned up in the search results, would it?).

Anyway, a fun read on a quiet evening after the rugby.

(Slovenian wasp nest booby trap feels more anti-personnel to me)

[Etranger]

Bee hives can be quite devastating https://www.westernfrontassociation.com/world-war-i-articles/the-battle-of-the-bees/

[Guy Farrish]

Andy Callan made us play the Battle of Tanga back in the early 80s. He revealed the bee issue as the game developed. We lost.

I’d like to say the experience prepped me for a real life™ wasp attack in Cyprus ten years later but we beat a retreat then as well, hence my anti-personnel comment about Slovenian Wasp Nest Booby Traps.

 

[Not Connard Sage]

It doesn’t matter how easy an obstacle is to move, the fact remains that usually some poor sap(per) has to go and move it. That will always cause delay, casualties and loss of materiel, and impetus.

Stick enough crap obstacles in the way, and any advance will stall.

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Jim Webster]

Not Connard Sage wrote:

It doesn’t matter how easy an obstacle is to move, the fact remains that usually some poor sap(per) has to go and move it. That will always cause delay, casualties and loss of materiel, and impetus. Stick enough crap obstacles in the way, and any advance will stall.

Stick enough Russia in the way and any advance will stall

trading space for time is a legitimate technique. Perhaps obstacles could be regarded as a way of ‘building space’ into a more constricted area?

 

 

https://jimssfnovelsandwargamerules.wordpress.com/

[Not Connard Sage]

He doesn’t appear to know who David Manley is…

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

They are more of a channeling thing, to make potential targets advance using particular avenues of approach, which also are also in a kill zone.

Relying  on obstacles as impermeable walls is poor tactics.

Often  gamers (and a few designers) i have experienced don’t really know how to handle minefields.  I remember one game in particular which flabbergasted a scenario designer…the defense was given so many square inches of hidden minefield to deploy, but the attacker was not given any sort of mine clearing capability within the rules (the expectation was that the discovery of the minefield would force the player to back up and find another avenue…and to possibly take the hits for entering and continuing through the field).  The defending players (myself included, proceeded to make a line of minefields 1/2” deep but nearly the whole table wide.  The designer (also on the attacking side) had assumed that minefields would be blobby rectangular things scattered across the front with some sort of hole between to find.  He thought the depth of a minefield was as important as the leading edge while we argued that it’s only the width of the edge that really matters and that even fake minefields (empty fields but marked with signs stating “Achtung, Minen” could be as much of an obstacle as real mines.

Mick Hayman
Margate and New Orleans

[Brian Handley]

Not Connard Sage – The ” passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously” is here sorry I’m late, we will proably get on as you are at least as bad as you claim I am.  However I am always happy to learn from the experts.  So to reiterate the questions not yet answered in the other oplace, I look forward to your answeres.  Please note waffle is not an answer.

One of the key issues in defence is the cost of those defences.  So which is the most COST EFFECTIVE of the three, antitank ditch,  hedgehogs or Russian Dragons teeth.   Note the video from “the other Place” shows some effectiveness of Russian Dragons teeth that are not dug in and can be laid by civiilian contractors.

Anti tank ditches can be dug very swiftly in the right terrain by specialist equipment, I suspect its more difficult and slower by civilian contractoies but as an expert on such things you can educate me.   Hedgehogs seem a bit problematic, the material at least currently (steel) is expensive and I’m not sure whether it’s cheaper to move the material and have specialists on site assemble them, or have them pre-made andytransported, as the expert you will know this answer in detail.

You can also enlighten me why say 3 anti tank ditches are not as good as 1 ditch, 1 hedgehog line and 1 line dragons theet,  all with or without associated minefields.  In theory 3 say anti tank ditches may be better, it puts a higher demand on a single resource so could be far harder to field than some of diffrent types.   General purpose Engineering vehicles like the Buffel could do all three agreed but a dedicated buldoser would be faster on an anti tank ditch.  Plus with 3 anti tank ditches the timescales may be too long and so very valuable Bridge layers may be needed and excelent issue to consider.

While any obsticle is best covered like many manuals and Russian over optimism, with hundreds of killometer of front, covering it all with limited resources would be impossible.  Hence the debate, is some limited delay by a cheap obsticle un covered by fire worth is as a slowing device and one wher its easy to spot enemy movement.

I look forward to your respoce given you stated expertise in these matters.

In case you are woundering why, well in any campaign resource is a critical issue so the cost, manpower and time are critical factors.   Even toy sooldier games need to have some credibity or else to me, its a huge waste of money on toys that give you no fun.

 

 

 

[Guy Farrish]

Brian, the ” passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously” is NCS himself – it’s his signature – it isn’t aimed at you.

There are a few of us about though, so welcome back!

Cost effective?

I’m going to explain why I can’t answer. It may sound like waffle but it’s not.

I don’t know the cost of the three methods you outline.

You’d have to know the cost of Russian concrete, producing the moulds for the dragons’ teeth, transporting them (what’s the current cost of diesel fuel in Russia?), hiring civilian contractors or the opportunity cost of using logistics corps or engineering units to do it rather than shifting ammunition and rations and shaping the battlefield elsewhere in other ways.

Then you have to work out the cost of digging an anti-tank ditch across a comparable line of defence – engineering vehicle, military or civilian, labour – civ or mil – diesel, repairs, etc. Are they under fire?

Same for hedgehogs – as you say, steel is relatively expensive, then you have to transport it, construct the things, cost of labour and placement etc see above.

That would be how much each costs.

Then how easy/possible is it to produce enough of each to cover the required frontage?

Then how effective is each of the methods? You can’t say how cost effective they are until you know whether they all stop tanks. Ditches do. Dragons teeth do (the jury appears to be asking the judge for more time re the current Russian version) and hedgehogs do. But how effectively? Is there a metric? Somewhere no doubt there is, but it will be from an older conflict. [John – re crap Czech hedgehogs there appeared to be quite a lot of them in Ukrainian photos near the beginning of the war – mostly being decorated by artists].

Time is a major concern as well as cost- no use having a Rolls Royce answer for a mile of front if you need to deter attacks on four hundred miles of front asap.

Three of one or one of each? Each produces a different tactical problem for an attacker. Bridging a gap or making the ditch sides traversable requires different kit and approaches from dragons teeth and hedgehogs.  You need to rotate your vehicles and engineers and kit as you approach each different task. (What happened to the Chieftain AVRE fascine tank?) all of whom are vulnerable as they approach and deal with the different obstacles. If you put all your eggs in one basket and have say three ditches, then the speed of attack is potentially greater as the same teams clear all three. (assuming they’ve got three fascine tanks per attack) However the defender might kill the only units capable of crossing the ditches in the first attack and then the attacker is stuck. The Russians got hung up on a river crossing early on like this.

I think the concern was that if you have time and sufficient resources you wouldn’t use just one a/t defence over another, you’d use layered defences as the Russians have – at least ditches and dragons teeth together with mines, pre registered artillery and interlocking fields of mg fire and a/t missiles. And you won’t be using all this to necessarily stop an attack, you’ll be seeking to channel it into killing zones.

As for claiming to be expert – I don’t think NCS did, and I certainly don’t, not re field obstacles.

I agree with you that playing with toy soldiers doesn’t have to mean abandoning any relation to what happens in real life. Tanks that hopped over ditches or wafted aside dragons teeth (although the Russian drop and forget variety may suffer that fate to an extent) would not be welcome on my table.

In a game you can allocate pioneer or engineering points and allow defenders to produce their own defensive solutions on the table. (and attackers select engineering assets). If you are replicating real world decisions and tactics it is an unfortunate truth that you never have enough of what you think you want beforehand and seldom any of what you need in the event.

Why the ‘scatterable’ dragon’s teeth? – don’t know, but perhaps availability and speed and a desire to be able to attack through them yourself later might be ideas.

What do you think? And how can you turn these thoughts into something usable on the tabletop?

PS – I’m pretty suspicious of any material publicly available during a conflict. We live in an era where winning the public perception in the media (social and mainstream) is a major front. Whether it is worth it strategically I guess is open to debate – but where? Try having a sane conversation about Ukraine or Israel online and see how far you get.

(Hope I haven’t been too passive aggressive!)

Guy.

[Brian Handley]

Guy,

please don’t think I take my self to seriously ;-).

This was a very interesting reply and as you say no waffle.

 

My take is this.  The trench diggres the Russians use are quite astonding in performance .

https://www.militarytoday.com/engineering/btm_3.htm

In and in terms of costy that will be dominated by the initial price and maintainance and capital cost.   At a rate between 250m and 1000m /hr it’s propably the fastest and in Ukraine on arrable land it may be in its element.  However this makes it in greatest demand.

As such a valuable asset it will not want to be anywhare near the front which adds to the issue of where it can be used.   Plus it would be interesting to know which machine dug the front line infantry trencehs, their positions indicate machine dug.

My guess is that the ditch is the “best” defence as it takes stores or most time to breach.

The dragons teeth have I suspect, two main advantages, cheap and plentiful supply of manpower to produce and lay.  There is an excelent video of them being laid by a civilian crane truck and they are after all just a concrete pyramid.   I was supprised to see that they were not dug in.  Even walking the beaches of the UK such defences are dug in and some in Europs are locked into concrete rafts.    However the video does indicate that a basic tank, no dozer blade can get grounded on them in the same way vehicles can be stuck on the stump of a tree.

However indications are thart they may be pushed asside by a sutable vehicle, a Challenger with blade can push them asside,

Hedgehogs, while effective, industrial grade steel is proably not as easy to get in the moderen world quickly and localy.  Every contry had their own steel works but even now in the industrial UK we only really produce high quality steel, importing the more basic versions.  This may be the case for russian and you need welding gear proably on site, which reqires specialist workers and gear.  Proabaly why they are not that popular and the steel will have to come a long way, say from india and that is a logistics  nightmare given Russian logistics for the last 100 to 200km to the front line.

I do like the idea that perhaps with two types of obsticle you need to swap round.  However IMR2’s and Buffles could proably do both jobs slowly,  particularly the anti tank ditch.

To do that fast you would ned Fachines the UK now used platic pipes not logs so you get long life and drainage  or a bridge layer.

It becoms moot if you can cover the hundreds of km of defences in Ukrain with the limited forces available to either side,  Hence either you hope to get a particular section covered before the enemy arrives else its usefullness is limited, but not perhaps totally useless.

Thanks for an interesting reply.

What is interesting as a side bar is how few of the newer minefileld are burried, this may indicate that both sides are short of specialist minelaying gear.    In addition the Russian were supposed to have sufficent mine roillers to equip 1 in 3 tanks, either thay have been rusted away, scapped or sold for scarp on the black market as they are losing far to many vehicles to mines.

[Guy Farrish]

‘New Russian’ Dragons teeth – technically deficient (crap) (probably). To lay concrete platforms and secure the teeth to them = massive increase in cost both financially materiel and time. I presume someone did the calculation and thought ‘chuck ’em down’ (or more probably ‘I can make a fortune out of this and who is going to come back and argue later?)

Anti tank  ditches dug by MDK-3s,  not BTM-3. The latter is an infantry trench digger.

MDK-3 Wagner anti-tank trench

As for crossing them – the Chieftain (pipe fascine) comment was a bit tongue in cheek. I presume somewhere we have some of the Challenger based Trojan versions in working order (big presumption). If not, someone can borrow the Kodiak (Leopard 2 based AEV).

Mines etc – if you want to make life ‘orrible for engineers then you attach anti-personnel mines to obstacles and in the path to them as well as anti-vehicle devices. However when you haven’t signed the mine ban treaty (as the Russians, USA and China haven’t – and frankly why the hell would you?) you can scatter them about and let someone else find them when they try and get at your defences. You should of course still be neat and dig your anti-tank mines in.

I suspect everyone involved has better uses for steel than hedgehogs (although it is worth noting that Russia is/was a major exporter of steel and one of the largest producers in the world).

Interesting planning game to be had I think – Wagner and Russian officials allocating resources (and costs) to devise the best (most easily milked without making it too porous) defensive layout on a front. Lay it out on the table and see how it works.

(Similar sub-game on other side – devising best strategy to breach using various kit mixes and tactical doctrines and available personnel- then try it one the defence).

[Not Connard Sage]

The quickest, easiest and most efficient way to lay mines is as sub-munitions in cluster bombs or artillery rockets. AP and AT mines can be delivered in the same warhead.

Obviously they sit on the ground rather than being buried, but considering they can be replenished without the need to physically lay them that isn’t a real problem – one CBU89 can deliver 72 AT and 24 AP mines. How many underwing pylons does an A-10 have?

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Guy Farrish]

If you’re deploying mines ad hoc to channel advancing armour in a fluid battle yes – artillery and air delivered work very well, but if you’ve got a few months to do it while digging tank traps and placing dragons teeth and siting your trenches to cover them you may as well lay the mines (dug in or surface, a/t or a/p) without having shell and rocket bursts and cluster bomb delivery overhead, thanks. Of course if someone breaks through then you can seal them off with the air and artillery delivered stuff.

[Brian Handley]

There is clear video evidence of Ukrainians simply laying down a surface minefield in a very regular manner, effectively two rows of mines in a staggered pattern so I assume quicly laid by had the night before and most likely anti-tank mines.  Neither side will have copious supplies of mine sub munitions so probably used for very specific purposes.  One the Ukraines used was to mine the road behind an assault group to prevent them retreating or slow down reinforcements.

As to dragons teeth being “Technically Inefficient (crap)” perhaps you should look at this video before making such bold statements..

Not perfect, but not useless without a vehicle with at least a dozer blade.

As to ease of laying about 6 seconds in on this video it shows how fast these can be laid.

Again you assume one or both sides have artillery to spare and air superiority.  In Ukraine at least that is not the case.  I suspect even Europe may be reviewing its artillery shell needs and how they may achieve air superiority.  The Ukraine’s proved to Russians, that air superiority is not achieved as easily as perhaps planners previously assumed.

 

[Guy Farrish]

Saw the first vid some time ago – inconclusive as most things are in propaganda war – Russian film shows they work brilliantly, Ukrainian video shows they are worthless.

Not seen second video  until now- very annoying commentary – again who do you want to believe? Lots of weasel words. Ukrainian losses  (as they say) may – or may not – be linked to pushable dragons teeth.

I suspect unfamiliarity with hastily learned western assault tactics with unfamiliar kit and Russia not running out of artillery shells as predicted by western ‘experts’ from day 3 of the conflict are more likely culprits  but we probably need to wait for proper analysis of ongoing battles to determine what – if anything – went wrong.

Obviously the superoptimistic manoeuvrist school just got a bit of a kicking (might need to rewrite those doctrine manuals about now – oh look! We have!) but the ‘facing the main enemy’ General Haig revisionists may yet be right if Russian logistics fall over eventually.

If dragons teeth (crap or otherwise) have played a part in slowing, channelling and stopping advances then they didn’t do it on their own and were never intended to. Layered, combined field defences covered by fire may have.

British Land Operations doctrine used to say: ‘The requirement for Mission Command and the Manoeuvrist Approach has not changed, however the latter is focused on the enemy – and in this complex and dynamic environment manoeuvre has to take account of a much broader audience than simply the ‘enemy’ WTF that means. It goes on to say – ‘Put simply, doctrine is not just what is taught, it also captures a set of beliefs – the beliefs that underpin how we practise our profession.’

Possibly realising this was based on management speak which didn’t actually say very much, the new up to date October ’23 version (no doubt taking into account the reality of Ukrainians trying to manoeuvre somewhere in accordance with western doctrine) tries to be a bit more practical:

‘3.14. The manoeuvrist approach is a blend of disruptive manoeuvre and
destructive firepower (attrition and manoeuvre).’ Shooting things is in favour again.

The new version is here: Joint Doctrine Publication 0-20 Oct 23

[Author]

Posts