Jump to content

Cogust

Members
  • Content Count

    202
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Cogust

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 12/19/1975

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    28657366

Converted

  • Location
    UmeƄ, Sweden
  • Interests
    Gaming
  • Occupation
    Computer Consultant

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. ikalugin, No they haven't got a positive ID on the identity, but since 100% of all found subs the last 40 years have been Russian there is a more than 50% chance that this one was Russian as well. It doesn't really matter where it cam from from me, it got the attention the Navy wanted and the politics have finally woken up which is good news.
  2. BTr, Media hysteria sounds like what we had here in Sweden, first time since the 80'ies so the journalists went all-in and over-the-top at the same time. They know that it was a sub there, they have even shown some of the evidence. I don't think that they wanted to catch it even if they could do it, and I doubt they could do it without helicopters as they have failed earlier when they used depth charges abundantly. U-137/S-363 was a bit easier to find, but they had apparently got lost as Russians tend to do when going abroad.
  3. BTR, You know that the Swedes found physical evidence that a sub had been there, right? But they couldn't tell if it was a Russian sub or just a Russian sub operated by local separatists though.
  4. It already works this way and if you have a cover armour arc on, then your unit will ignore infantry.
  5. Isn't the fact that the round penetrated through the entire tank, engine and all, a bigger realism problem than the round not wrecking the engine?
  6. You can buy an armored force in a Quick Battle, just not an entire battalion. Select a battalion and then delete all companies except one, that should make you able to afford the tanks, if not then you will have to either delete a platoon or a few tanks.
  7. Kip, I just wanted to highlight that there are quite a few 'fudge-factors' in the mix as you are comparing figures from different sources, counted in different ways and with a lot of different nationalities on both sides. The Hungarians did indeed fight during the second half of the year, but it is my impression that they were mostly used in the rear areas until just after Bagration. They fought the Romanians quite a bit after August too, but that is neither here nor there regarding this analysis. Btw are Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian units fighting with the Germans in the Baltic states counted as Germans or Axis allies? What about the Latvian 6th SS-Corps that fought with AG Nord? I think the topic is interesting, but the numbers used are all fraught with uncertainties. To get a clearer picture I would try to eliminate some uncertainties, try to get losses for January-July to avoid effect of Romania switching sides and try to ignore the whole Finnish front as it is not representative of the majority of the fighting (troop density, terrain, intensity of fighting and above all, the Finns). I understand that it is easier to use figures dug up by someone else, but combining figures from different authors run the risk of comparing apples to oranges as they might have different definitions of 'disabled' for example. The German casualties are also counted for 377 days (November 20th 1943 to November 30th 1944) while the Soviet losses are for 366 days (whole year of 1944) and the combat intensity might not be comparable between December 1943 and December 1944.
  8. Kip, I have a small quibble with your reasoning, regarding the 85% number you use for adjusting the Soviet losses. You state that the Germans represented 73% of all Axis forces on the Eastern front on May 1st and the 85% number is used so that we are 'on the safe side'. My view is that the minor Axis forces (outside of Finland) were used less extensively in the front lines than the German forces (especially in vulnerable sectors, not at all like November '42) and that they were much worse supported than the German forces. These two factors will both reduce the casualties that they inflict on the Soviets, though it is very hard to determine by how much. I also think that the Soviet loss percentage in Finland in 1944 were lower than the rest of the Eastern front (I am mostly pulling this from thin air and general 'feeling', so will have hard to come up with proper sources on this one), so I think it would be better if one could somehow take away all the combat in Finland from the comparison, though I imagine it is probably quite difficult to do this without access to good primary sources. Then we have the thing that the German/Axis ratio varies during 1944, it is definitely not 73% for the whole year, for example we have Romania switching sides in August and who, according to wikipedia, took over 50k German POWs only in August. The Finns switched sides in September, they gave the Germans time to get away so not many German losses were inflicted by the Finns, clear however is that the German percentage of the Eastern front was likely very much higher than 73% after September. My felling is that 85% may not be on the safe side, perhaps one should use 90% instead to be 'safe'. We can also not assume that 99%+ of the German losses on the Eastern front were inflicted by Soviets as the Romanians took 50k German POWs in a single month and that is 2% of all German losses on the Eastern front in 1944 without counting any other German casualties inflicted by the Rumanians, Finns, partisans etc. Perhaps the German losses should be reduced in a similar way to the Soviets?
  9. I would not imagine you to be a turning grog, why turn the tank when all you do with tanks is drive them right up to the enemy and bayonet them with the Rhino attachment? Zero radius turns could be nice if the enemy cower in trenches where the bayonet can't rech them though, must be that.
  10. Hmm, I think that Sergei is incorrect. The VLs can be worth different amount of points in a QB, it says so in the manual and it is also my experience from playing QBs.
  11. I am pretty sure he's read them, remembering them is a completely different thing at his age.
  12. I read somewhere that it is much more likely that it is your handgun that wounds yourself or your family rather than an outsider's handgun.
  13. The backblast thing would imply weapons with such backblasts being able to fire in situations where said backblast can cause harm to friendlies. If I'd only know where one could find such a place in an urban battle.
×
×
  • Create New...