v42below

Russia did not "cowardly attack Finland". They simply used it as a sparing partner for a big military exercise. Not to mention the fact that prior to the revolution Finland was just another Duchy of Russia. Large countries tend to absorb or "neutralise" their smaller neighbours for strategic advantage - what Russia did was not nice or fair, but it was logical.

You have to remember that a lot of the factories producing T-34 were bombed and destroyed within the first few months of the war. Those that were not, had to be evacuated to the Urals and this took time. In any case, I was talking about how long it takes to build a tank, and what resources this requires. I think the T-34 was by far superrior. FYI - total production figures T-34-76 (1940-44) = 34780 T-34-85, including "commander" and OT-34-85 models (1944-45) = 23214 Total = 57997 source urls: http://www.battlefield.ru/t34_85.html http://www.battlefield.ru/t34_76_2.html

Yes - in the case of infantry, the ammo you see in CMBO is an arbitrary estimation of the average ammo the squad/team members have left.

The main reason why the t-34 was a better tank than the Sherman (and most other tanks, I must add) is because they were very easy to produce. By the end of the war, with the Soviet evacuated industry in the Urals going into full swing, the sheer numbers, rather than the quality of the tanks, did the trick. v42below [ July 07, 2003, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: v42below ]