It raises the question of what color Ukrainian battle maps use. Externally, I see their official websites typically copy the Western maps, so Ukraine is blue and Russia is red. Makes sense. But internally, at least in the 2015-era Donbass battles they were still on the "Ukraine = Red, Enemy = Blue" system, which makes ALSO sense because legally and nationalistically Ukraine is supposed to be an equal successor to the Soviet Union, not a breakaway faction of Russia. I cannot imagine how annoying this must be for Ukrainians who actually have to deal with colored battle maps professionally.
Former Russia MI guy, I gotta say it's hard to overstate how remarkably accurate, well done and presented, and factually correct this video is. I can see exceptions in important units that are missing, but for a 15 minute presentation, it was fun to watch and easy to understand! Hell of a video!
Thanks! Anything you’d like to add? I can read the maps based on the literal definitions of the symbols but if there are exceptions/outside context I’m probably missing out
@@BattleOrder The only real big one would have been how their maps also line out what an attack is to look like. So you covered squads moving at X time, but there's also ones for fixing adversaries in place, isolating them or support operations. But covering them, as I said, would be a problem when it comes to keeping things as clear and concise as it is now I feel similarly about naval and air assets, which have their own symbology to land units, as I would electronic warfare units but again, I think you impact the delivery then. It would be interesting though to see you expand on some of this since they have symbologies for all sorts of attacks, or showing what an attack looks like, from our perspective, as in the West we're used to significantly more operational freedom than Russia allows it's small unit commanders
@@BattleOrder and regarding context, without actually showing a map that Russia would use, which his basically nonsense that takes time to familiarise yourself with, I think the overall context was great! Like you could if you wanted show a whole map and break down bit by bit, but I think in showing white space and small individual actions clearly, you did a much better job. For me, who is somewhat familiar with both types of symbology, clear and concise delivery of information is key and you did that with the Russian symbols
@@ManhettenTransfer во время второй мировой войны немецкие лётчики имели при себе карты Москвы и важных зданий в ней. Поэтому русские рисовали на дорогах и крышах домов оптические иллюзии, важные здания маскировали под гражданские объекты, поэтому красная площадь полностью сохранилась. Немецкие лётчики просто не могли найти ничего по карте!
@@pavelolkhovoy113 The army is not just a kind word, but a very fast deed. This is how we won all the wars. While the enemy is drawing offensive maps, we are changing the landscapes, and manually. When the time comes to attack, the enemy is lost in unfamiliar terrain and becomes completely unready. This is the point, this is our strategy.
The Russian system looks fantastic for micromanagement. Now i understand why soviet generals had so much staff work to do. This system can probably create some fantastic and complex operations if operated by a genius commander, or a giant disaster when the average joe gets overwhelmed with so much information. I guess that the NATO system compensates that by delegating things to more divisional commanders so they have more agency to move their stuff but doesnt have such coordination that the russian system, if used right, can provide
I'm afraid that micromanagement =/= coordination, and NATO way coordination is delegated downwards. Also - NATO commanders with BMS or even BFT should have similar level of force tracking. In 5:16 it should be rather truck with a trailer than a tank.
I think how you put the russian doctrine as to the NATO doctrine, the main differences lay is that one leans to a planner versus a doer. A planner would be russia, the doer would be NATO. Though we should all know this quote right? "“Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth." - Mike Tyson.
I’m guessing they make it so a battalion commander can basically sign off on one map and that’s the whole plan that can be given to the sub-units. So the system is more about comprehensiveness in the sequence of events specifically, with unit movements, the fire plan, etc all on there are once even if it gets really cluttered
@@BattleOrderIt’s terrible for opsec to have literally all the plans on a single map, but it seems the Russians are still very much pen and paper based
Армия - не просто доброе слово, а очень быстрое дело. Так мы выигрывали все войны. Пока противник рисует карты наступления, мы меняем ландшафты, причём вручную. Когда приходит время атаки, противник теряется на незнакомой местности и приходит в полную небоеготовность. В этом смысл, в этом наша стратегия.
@@шниперсон_228 нет. Наша стратегия - как обычно просрать начало, понести потери и учиться уже в ходе войны. К сожалению. И никаких "всех" войн мы не выигрывали.
The Russian system is very comprehensive. It does lend towards a command centric approach where the unit leader keeps a tab on everything. Even if all comms go down, anyone with a map can still coordinate actions and get things done per the plan up to a certain point in time. The downside is - it gets cluttered quickly, which can quickly overload decision making when things get dynamic and plans go sideways. On the contrary, NATO maps lend itself towards staff centric leadership, where courses of action and unit predisposition aren't tightly orchestrated, but rather based on initiative and constant communication between commander, staff, and across supporting units. It cannot be used to pre-plan operations down to the T like the Russian system. That's why effective Western combat maneuvers are reliant on drilling in standard operating procedures and maintaining communications. If the latter fails, the former help keep things organized. If you aren't trained and/or don't know SOPs and comms fail, tough shіт. Make a guess unless the map has nonstandard markings to clue you in. Basically, Russian maps tell you everything that had and will happen - good luck clearing through that clutter though. NATO maps, meanwhile, doesn't tell you much about unit intent. You have to deduce them based on unit disposition, how combat effective they are, and which unit has the initiative. If you know SOPs and the status of each unit, then you can synthesize what NATO units will do once they're put on the map. The Russian system emphasizes directives and orchestration. The NATO system emphasizes ease of communication and quick recognition of essential parameters so staff and leadership can most easily synthesize the likely next course of action.
@@DIREWOLFx75 Because it is. I do like the level of detail on the Russian one but it isn't practical. Its very academic, so as someone interested in the subject; its nice that I can find out all the stuff about an operation. BUT if I had to use this in combat, I would hate it. Its so cluttered its easy to make mistakes looking at it. Good luck trying find the relevant information too. Also the concept of Mission Command is the more effective approach proven since the end of WW1. High level commanders planning sectors of fire and ranges of weapons is ridiculous. They are looking at a map, a report, and maybe some photos. They have no idea of how things are on the ground. There may be obstructions or other obstacles that can't be seen or missed during the reporting. Let the lower level commander decide, the higher level commander don't know crap about the front. And once there is first contact, the enemy won't be doing everything as you have planned so all those tiny details go out the window. The higher level commander would need to wait for communications to arrive and then reply with what to do next. That is slow and the HQ has to do that for EVERY subordinate unit. Unless there is some unique circumstances(ie. prevent friendly fire on a pre-planned maneuver), there is little reason to tell what range the weapons are to your subordinate. They should know their own weapons' capabilities. And if the commander really want to plot it out on the map, that's what measuring tapes are for. Less clutter, but still easily tell range by just measuring it.
@@neurofiedyamato8763 I find it interesting that both map styles communicate the massive gulf in knowledge a NATO officer and a Russian officer are expected to have.
@@neurofiedyamato8763 As soon as the video started with the explanation I knew the map was going to look like a mess. I also know, because I had to draw such maps before NATO STANAG was fully integrated and my older generation superiors were too lazy to learn the Western systems, thus our grades depended on knowing the old system so we can score better during Tactics exams.
If you look at the Wehrmacht maps of the mid- and late-war, you will see a similar concept. This is due to the fact that there are only two countries in the world that have had the most modern experience of full-scale planning and command of armies of MILLIONS, where such centralization will soon be necessary. Western countries did not have anything similar, and the Wehrmacht’s experience in this regard was not in demand, so American planning design began to predominate. As a result, only Russia had the experience of planning for numerous battles and logistics. Ironic.
That just patently isn't true. The western powers for example had 1,5 - 2 million troops in northern France a month after d-day. That's to say nothing of the troop numbers for Asia, or Italy, or southern France. Central planning was just as important for the allies as it was for the Germans and Soviets.
@@pinkyfull having a million personnel, where some part of it is logistical support, is not equivalent to operating this million, where all the personnel take a direct part in hostilities, at the same time. These are completely different things. What is happening on the eastern front is a unique experience
@@pinkyfullDo you think that 2 million is a lot? The losses of the Red Army alone amounted to 18 million. If we add those who survived, it will be more than 30 million
While the enemies are drawing maps, we are changing the landscape. This phrase is taken from the film, but rather it is the "motto" of the engineering troops.
@@ManhettenTransferfull version: "While they draw maps, we change the terrain with shovels. When battle begins - they get lost on unknown terrain and we win the battle"
@@Shurukkah. that never happened. The Prussian and later German officer core always had it's own culture. The only thing they did in the USSR was test and train with weapon systems banned by the Versailles treaty, like tanks.
@@NaturalLanguageLearning it's the other way actually. Russian Empire adopted the concept of modern army from Prussia. Also the concepts of police, firefighting, geology, governance and engineering. Many of Russian officers during the Napoleonics for example, were Germans. Therefore, Russians do many things Prussian style, and do share some things with Germans that the Americans don't. Germany is the closest western European country to us, not an alien, and we had had relationships with it since XVII century at least.
For vehicles i'd argue it's even better than NATO in some ways, where specialized symbols can become hard to read. For units though, NATO is far easier than the shape of these little flags and can be modified to carry a lot of information easily
These unit markers feel more intuitive to me than the NATO ones. I think it's because many of them are, at least vaguely, based on what they are meant to represent (like the mortar symbol being the tube and two feet). It's like basic logographs
very much agreed. i'm not amilitary professional but have had to do with NATO symbology in several games and they always confuse me. These are sort of clearer to understand i feel. though i do like the boxed design of nato symbols.
As Russian i want to say: I absolutely do not understand the symbols on the NATO Battle Maps, they just don't make any sense for me. I think in the west a mirror situation ;)
Both systems makes perfect sense once you you learn the basics, though they have somewhat different emphasis in their purpose. NATO maps are more about keeping track of where units that can be given orders are located, while the Russian style looks more about keeping track of what orders the various units has been given.
@@johanmetreus1268It also comes down to a different understanding of how orders are to be carried out. The Russian style is ideal for micromanagement, detailing everything for a commander. NATO style is, as you said, tokens representing who’s where because NATO relies more on mission type tactics, letting junior officers decide for themselves the ideal way of accomplishing their overall objective. No need to tell each tank squad where to go and what to do when the commander on the ground can do that themselves with a better understanding of what’s happening.
@@dingusdean1905 Only this works exclusively in ideal conditions with a weak opponent and in a local war, in fact, like all NATO wars. In a large-scale war with an equal opponent, this does not work. NATO training and standards are criticized even by Ukrainian soldiers, who openly say that all the methods they receive during training in NATO countries are absolutely not suitable at the front in the current war. The Ukrainian army still adheres to the Soviet system, although it tries to meet NATO standards, but understands that in this case it will be a total mistake and a loss in the war.
@@VHSKacceta Well, having tried simple and complex plans, ranging from small units to company sized units in Arma (with real people), I can tell you that all plans can be nice. What sort of plan you go for depends on the scenario you are dealing with. A highly detailed plan that micro-manages each unit can be useful, telling people where to go and what they should be doing to increase the chances of success. This is especially nice when dealing with less experienced leaders. However, such plans are not foolproof because unknown variables are introduced as more time passes, which means at some point the plan is not in-sync anymore with reality. Detailed plans tend to quickly become obsolete in complex scenarios where there are many unknown variables. If people then continue to follow the plan, they end up doing things that are not effective (or even suicidal). In such scenarios, it may be better to go for a less detailed plan consisting of general ideas and goals you wish to accomplish. Then, let people improvise and let people create new plans as they go. But this requires at least some people in lower leadership positions to be experienced/well-trained, or their improvisations will end up being ineffective. So, each type of plan has pros and cons. In the case of a large scale conventional war where you can't control all variables, there's a strong argument for a less detailed, more general plan. And then you must hope the people who are closer to the frontline (than you) figure out what the best way is to accomplish the objectives. The highly detailed Russian plans you see can be initial starting points. But over time, you'd need to abandon those plans and begin to improvise and create new, less detailed plans to allign yourself with the changing situation. Or maybe you get lucky, everything goes entirely according to your plan and there's no need to change anything, but this rarely happens.
@@VHSKacceta NATO battle doctrine would work in Ukraine if they had the combined arms. But since they don't have combined arms due mainly to a lack of a large Air Force. Then yes NATO battle doctrine wouldn't do too well.
I quite like the Russian system in how units are depicted. It better clearly defines where they actually are and from command to its subordinate units. NATO symbols is a lot harder to differentiate where they exactly are and doesn't appear grouped so you know they are one larger unit. All the details is also nice but it really is a bit too much and cluttering the map so its hard to read. Just not practical when you go that extreme. It would make sense if some of these are used for lower echelon units (like range and fire sector) while not on higher level as they don't need that level of detail. But knowing how the Russian army is so top down, I wouldn't be surprised if higher echelon command already made such planned fire sectors for lower level commanders to follow. Which isn't very versatile as the higher level commanders don't know the exact geography and situation the front line units are facing. I can only see such a top down approach as valid if they want to prevent friendly fire for a planned maneuver and give explicit orders(marking on maps) to tell them to not fire beyond that line. Anyway it would be cool if you can put these unit marker systems on your website just like the NATO ones so we can make our maps or tables.
You just figured your way through the main advantages of each system! When shit goes sideways, a NATO map and a radio will you faster answers and an easier map to read ... but if you're planning an orchestrated attack across a thousand mile front, you want something like this so you can understand in detail what everyone is doing when.
@@RobinTheBot We have a joke in Russia because of those systems If NATO commander wanted his tank crew to fire at someone - he will say "unit 663, I'm giving you an order to fire at enemy tank positioned in sector 030 with anti tank shell, roger that?" While Russian commander will just say "663, fire at enemy asshole" to shorten the time between command and execution
This video ...... what a pleasant surprise! Russian battle map symbology is quite fascinating. My first exposure to Russian battle maps was from reading books covering battles and campaigns from the Soviet-German War. Of course, at the same time, I was also able to find German battle maps. I would say that Russian battle map symbology was easier to learn than that of German's based on my early experience. My initial thought: the Russian symbology would be a pretty good fit for activities like working on operational plans, teaching historical battles, operational briefing/debriefing, etc. (All of them involve pretty much putting everything onto paper.) For the most part, it is logical and intuitive, thus easy to learn.
Hey, i know this is a bit late. But can you reccomend me some of those books? im looking to start reading into wars in depth and was hoping to start with the eastern front
it's actually so cool that you can besically assemble the symbols and describe any vehiocle you want by it's main attributes. an APC, with a plow, ATGM on top, pulling a trailer? no problem lol
It'd be awesome if you could expand further on this with a seperate video about more mission and task symbology, assaults, TRP's, control measures and such. Great video though!
If there is a big ass circle with a smaller colored circle at its centre on the map, that means a nuclear strike. The direction of fallout will be shown as well as the type of explosion and time. The plan was, basically the whole front will be covered in these circles, then the formations will be taking what's left of the enemy positions, mainly by using tank armies waves. It was standard Cold war soviet era tactics.
Outstanding video, as always! And by the way, that blonde woman thinking math with a Russian cap, it's a Brazilian meme that became viral. She's a very famous actress here. Oh come and whatch it, Brazilian people! 🇧🇷 (yeah, they'll come in hundreds after that meme lol)
You might not understand that people use different symbols in different cases. Firing cards of platoon in defence have firing sectors, but regiment/brigade commander map does not.
Despite being like a foreign language to us, it has proven devastatingly effective. With America's policy of "fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian", and Ukraine now drafting women and teenagers against their will, we all know where this is headed. I wonder what the Nato and Russian symbols are for "death by overwhelming artillery zone" is. Lets all hope for peace while Ukraine still has enough people to remain a semblance of a country.
I've always associated the color red with "the enemy/the bad guys". I guess because of video games and such. But I wonder if people in Russia (and China) usually associate the color blue with enemy and red with friendly? And if that's not the case anymore because of Western digital media, what impact does that have?
I think the Russians very much still associate red with friendly and blue with enemy, but it's done a reversal in Ukraine (they used to use the same system until recently)
I've heard from somewhere that red is considered as good luck in China. So for this reason, they apply this to both their mapping and their stock system. I can guarantee the 1st, but not the 2nd. Of course, a heritage from communism with the symbolic color red might also play a role
Wow! That's fascinating! I always assumed Red and Blue were just colors for "enemy" and "friendly". I had no idea that the USSR/Russia actually used Red to identify friendly forces!
you should wear red symbology for friendly/allies, because of the effect called "the red bias" found in sport, which cause an increase probability of winning due to psychological factor.
As always your videos are amazing. For a brief video, the depth of information is comprehensive and informative. You've summarised weeks of instruction undertaken at officer training.
1:58 - Dislike for the term “separatists”. They never wanted or tried to separate. They didn’t accept the junta govt and for that they are being artillery shelled for 9 years now.
Это видео, конечно помогает осознать основную номенклатуру обозначений, но карта с полным обозначением ситуации начинает появляться, минимум в кшп бригады, а не в окопе и тем более у отдельного 200
@@VHSKacceta там ещё надо инструкцию о ведении радиопереговоров между подразделениями, по типу: ворох, где бревно? : в 20-ке морковок набирает : ля, скажи этому дуплу что ещё карандаши нужны, а то он заебал : сам скажи, я его на ППД не видел уже месяц...
Great video with awesome graphics. I wish this out while I was on active duty. Are you going to give PLA map symbology a crack? I bet that will be a nut to crack.
Accurate in general. But i have to make a little correction. Battalions symbols on 3:37 are wrong. They are actually like you showed at 1:07. Dismounted variant is exact like at 1:07. Mounted variant is the same lil flag but standing on an arrow
Love your content! Could you make a video about the hungarian army in the future? I think it would be an interesting blend of western and easter forces
7:47 Im puzzled because PKP was counted as LMG despite being a gpmg, whilst PKM were putted as tripod mg, but the PKMS model (to fit into the tripod) is more rarer than general PKM
It all comes down to how it's being used - a pkp in an infantry squad is an lmg and a pkm on a tripod is an emplaced mg. Put the pkp on the tripod and give the squad the pkm and the same mg's have just swapped roles.
the notation is similar to Germany's classification of LMG or HMG, A MG34/42 or MG3 in a mobile state (infantry squad) is considered a LMG. A MG34/42 or MG3 in a fixed state (tripod or vehicle mount) is considered a HMG. Caliber and weight doesn't always denote if it's a light or heavy MG in other countries.
Reading the maps has never been as important as what you do with the information and the Ukrainians, as we see with all the NATO information, have no idea what to do because neither does NATO with its cardboard generals who are only good for TV commercials. Imagine what Russia could do with the military budget of the NATO countries, and then we wondered; Are they just incompetent or clumsy and corrupt?
8:59 By the way that's a meme us Americans use what ever format of the year, time, date we like with no Standarization much like the whole US customary and metric thing.
if it is needed, a Russian map can be as simple as NATO's. There is no such thing as embedded clutter in Russian system. Just use less details - it is not so hard to understand actually
Only one thing is certain, and that is that no one has ever conquered Russia and never will. Napoleon tried and broke his teeth, Hitler tried, he broke his teeth, so even today the Nato Pact will break its teeth and cease to exist.
1) Napoleon has never tried to conquer Russia. Even most patriotic russian scientists! admit it. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ja5E1Ew4IWA.html He only wanted to win a major battle and force Alexander III to help him against Britain and fullfill Tilzit peace conditions. "Napoleon came to conquer russia is ultrapatriotical fake" Also Russia lost previous wars to napoleon 2) In WW2 USA produced more weapons, steel than USSR+Germany+Italy+Japan. 2/3 soviet trucks were american made. Also USSR helped Hitler against west in 1939-41
наконец то ещё один англоговорящий ютубер, который будет обяснять мне русские вещи после того, как я научился произносить ы и crab-like д мне не составит труда посмотреть это видео
"...пока противник рисует карты наступления, мы меняем ландшафты, причем вручную. Когда приходит время атаки, противник теряется на незнакомой местности и приходит в полную небоеготовность. В этом смысл. В этом наша стратегия..."
К сожалению сфера научпопа всегда была на Западе более развита. Они умеют ярко оформлять и доходчиво объяснять идиотам в интересной форме. У нас все более систематично и фундаментально разбирается, но нужно вникать, иначе уныло получается.
In thew Soviet and Russian armies, maps are classified documents. Not only don't almost all enlisted ranks never see one, they aren't taught map reading. On warrant officers and officers are taught to read maps and maps are issued only to commanders and political officers in battalions and below. Back in the late 1980s when the Soviet CoS visited Fort Hood, he and his entourage went all ape shit when an NCO TC pulled out a map and showed them where they were and where they were going. It was so bad, Soviet Army units would get lost on the march in exercises that they would stop NATO and neutral observers for help.
I just noticed after binge watching youre old videos that there are no videos about Africa or anything related to it Its interesting to see how the Africans countries organise their Armies
Все так, но зачем вам эта информация? Подозрительно... That's all true, but why do you need this information? Suspicious... Armies from Europe repeatedly visited Mother Russia, it did not end well for both sides, in general I do not recommend repeating it. We communicated normally, what started?)
@@mathiasrrybaWhat exactly and when? as a result of the Second World War, only Kaliningrad retreated to the USSR, and the Warsaw Pact countries were not occupied, it was a military-political union of socialist countries, although then the USSR could afford to pass through Europe and the allies of fascist Germany to level everything to the ground...
Every soviet satelite state was brutally occupied. It was an "union" only after USSR installed USSR puppets in the government. The fact that it was occupation was made plainly clear in Warsaw pact's agression towards Czechoslovakia. And in the result of USSR's occupied territories standing up against the occupation USSR disintegrated completely.
@@mathiasrryba And do they teach you this at school? The events in Czechoslovakia took place in 1968, and the collapse of the USSR - in 1991, and not without great help from American and European "friends". In my opinion, the reason for all today’s events is the “fall of the Berlin Wall” and NATO’s promises to the USSR not to expand to the east, which were forgotten at a convenient moment
@@jekavirt5283 at the moment of Russian warmongering against its allies and threatening violence against countries in eastern Europe. You want nato to not envelop Russia further? Make Russia stop trying to be Cartoon level villains.
A quick story about the fact *why* the Soviet/Russian doctrine and maps are so different. Russian command-centric map strategy is a child of 60s, designed for a rush to the English Channel in a total thermonuclear war. Just imagine. Ground communication is impossible, radio is dead either because of EMP or because of a series of high altitude thermonuclear blasts cutting any form of medium and long range communications for days if not weaks... So you unpack the plan and do everything according to it, in hope that every one who survives initial onslaught would do the same. Same reason why their plans (at least, if they had time and resources to) included multiple partial failure modes, as, because communication would inevitably be lost, your soldiers *need* to know what they should do even in case of a partial success. Everything shall go according to plan, even if it's not: the main lesson learned from WW2, where communication issue was also severe due to both lack of communication equipment and enemy sabotage. Which led to many defeats, especially early in war... Wouldn't say is it better or worse approach on a modern day battlefield, but it was, IMO, perfect for an era. And could be better even today in a real all-out war, where radio would be jammed to hell and wire communication through field phones would be somewhat possible only in defence. Not taking thermonuclear factor in equation. P.S. Fun fact. Expectation of lack of communication was also the reason why Soviet tactical nukes were deliberately issued with ZERO safeguards. Communication may be cut. Officer knowing the code (if warheads would be protected by one) could be killed during first strike... And even in such case, troops shall have the ability of using nukes to their favour. Insert the battery, flick the «idiot protection switch» and it's ready: no keys, no codes.
Isn't that 'clutterness' rather a choice than a rule? Of course, using this system, you can place every tank of an army on a single map, but it will be just silly. If it is needed, a map can be drawn as simplistic as a NATO-style map. So, you can understand the NATO symbology as a subset of the Russian one. Maybe you would like a language analogy: Russian map vocabulary is much wider than NATO's. It doesn't mean though it is compulsory to use all 'words' at the same map, however it means that those 'words' were invented when existing vocabulary wasn't enoguh.
In this wonderful video, the concepts are a little confused, which is excusable for a person from the outside. In the Russian army, the maps of combat operations differ in scale. The map on which the firing sectors are marked is called a "fire card". It is compiled by the squad commander on the spot (or slightly in advance of the start of the battle) based primarily on visual observation of the position and operational intelligence. When drawing up a "fire card", the real scale of the terrain is not taken into account. After that, this card is sent to the headquarters. And there it is applied to the operational map already in the form in which it should be. So how much the operational map will be overloaded (with sectors of fire and endless lines) depends on the commanders at headquarters and their desire to "clutter" the map. In the right hands, Russian military topography and planning is a very versatile and effective system.
