The Road Ahead - Operation Bagration

[JasonC]

A great list of LL tanks by formation in this time period can be found in post number 5 in the thread at the following link, from a fellow with the forum handle Sharposhnikov -

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=128930

Collected from various sources, he says.

I can independently confirm his types and roughly the same counts for the LL tanks in 3rd Guards Mechanized Corps (Sherman M4A2 (75) and Valentines), and all the numbers are credible in all other respects, so I'd say his report is credible.

I hope that helps.

As for heavies, besides the 80 odd IS-2s, the Russians also had about 250 ISUs (122 and 152 types combined count) for Bagration, which are on the same heavy chassis. (Heavier than the SU-152s, which are on the KV chassis). So they have quite a bit of heavier stuff for Bagration. They also have entire tank corps equipped with new T -34/85s. Sure, still mixed with T-34/76s in other formations. There are also lots of SU-76s, the light portion of the fleet is transitioning to those rather than T-70s.

About the only critter the Russians don't have yet is the SU-100.

As for Ferdinand reports, you have to understand the Russians used that term much more loosely than the Germans. They called Nashorns "Ferdinands", for example. (E.g they report Ferdinands on the south face of the Kursk battle, where only Nashorns can have been meant.

Same gun, same very long looking SPAT style vehicle - that is all the term meant to the Russians.

[Sublime]

Were SU-85s present in Bagration? Reading the link I see SU 85s in some of the formations listed, but not at all and only in very small numbers. Of course the list is only formations with Valentines as well.

I wish we had Valentines now =( The 6lber kicks ass I've found

[Vanir Ausf B]

I don't know about individual units, but it would be very surprising if SU-85s were not used during Bagration. They had been in production for nearly a year by that time. In fact, they were nearing the end of their production run as the Soviets would transition tank destroyer production to the SU-100 near the end of 1944.

[JasonC]

Vanir - more important is that once the T-34/85 came out, the SU-85 lost its reason to exist. The Russians no longer needed to "go turretless" to fit an 85mm gun on a T-34 chassis.

There were penny packeted, being assigned to SU regiments that typically numbered only 21 AFVs. Sometimes uniform SU-85s, but sometimes mixed types. SU-76s were being produced in numbers and could be assigned to fill up gaps below TOE in existing regiments. ISUs were the new production item and full strength new regiments were more likely to be equipped with those, and to be uniform ISUs if they were (to make parts for chassis maintenance reusable, etc). The only natural vehicle to "pair" with SU-85s would have been the SU-122, as also on the T-34 chassis - but those were rare by the summer of 1944.

So, I'd expect them to be scattered, with an occasional 21 gun SU-85 regiment and others mixed with SU-76s, for the most part. In comparison, both T-34/85s equipped entire tank brigades (and in at least one case, entire tank corps), and ISUs equipped entire heavy SU regiments.

[Der Alte Fritz]

However we must bear in mind that the Soviets liked to keep an SU AT version in production all the time as they introduced the SU-85M rather than have a hiatus when the SU-100 delivery was delayed. This may have had more to do with meeting production quotas than tactical need but is a factor none the less.

[Sublime]

Ah yes the SU 85M. Now I could dig the internet but I have real homework to do, and I'd rather ask people who are encyclopedic on the subject such as you guys - I remember the SU 85M and 85 as great AT assets from BB. Almost like 6lber Churchills when I cant have fireflies now.

Is this close to reality?

How did the Valentines fare historically?

Were Churchills present in Bagration at all? What model of Sherman were the Soviets using at this point?

Was Soviet canister still in use by this time? Or was it only 34/76s and early war? Finally - did the Soviets have HVAP or APDS, or anything besides AP/HE?

[Michael Emrys]

What model of Sherman were the Soviets using at this point?

Most likely M4A2, since those formed the great majority of what they were sent.

Michael

[Vanir Ausf B]

Ah yes the SU 85M. Now I could dig the internet but I have real homework to do, and I'd rather ask people who are encyclopedic on the subject such as you guys - I remember the SU 85M and 85 as great AT assets from BB. Almost like 6lber Churchills when I cant have fireflies now.

Is this close to reality?

Not exactly. The penetrative ability of the Soviet 85mm gun was slightly lower than that of the US 76mm.

[Sequoia]

Doing some digging, I found Dunn in Soviet Blitzkrieg mentions the 1823rd Assault Gun regiment , part of the Fifth Army during Bagration having SU-85s. Fifth Army also had the flamethrower equipped 513th Tank Regiment but Dunn doesn't mention the exact type of tank

[noxnoctum]

Soviet SMG squads will be fun seeing in 1-to-1.

Any chance we will see tank riding in Bagration or will that have to wait for a later module?

[JasonC]

Sublime - The Shermans were M4A2s with 75mm. They did not get 76mm types to the front until later. I've seen reports of those in the period of breakthrough into the balkans in late 1944, and certainly in the final drive across Poland in 1945. But not in Bagration.

Valentines did fine but were not super armor killers; the Russians praised them for how long they ran without breaking down, not for all the armor they killed with them.

As for Churchills, I've seen clear reports of them at Kursk but have not run across them for Bagration. They were assigned to independent regiments mostly, but with more tanks per regiment than the Russian heavies. (Russian heavy tank regiments were just 21 tanks; the Churchill formations I find at Kursk had more like 35-40 each).

As for canister, it was overmodeled in CMBB in effect and use. The Russians early on used shrapnel instead of HE for anti personnel fire. Shrapnel is not particularly more effective than HE for anti personnel fire, and it is notably less effective against troops that are dug in or in hard cover (e.g. stone or brick buildings, cellars).

As for improved AP, yes the Russians definitely had APCR type rounds, which they called "sub caliber", that used dense tungsten penetrators narrower than the full cross section of the shell. Those were especially common for their 45mm towed ATGs, and extended their useful service life considerably. They also used it in 76mm guns both towed ZIS-3s in anti-tank formations, and in T-34/76s, to improve AT ability against uparmored German tanks. It was more common than in CMBB and introduced sooner - there are plenty of dead "cats" with subcaliber holes in them from the Kursk time period, for example.

[Sublime]

Thanks Jason. With Tungsten rounds how much penetration (ballpark, I dont need a mm #) did the 45mms get?

So the Soviet lend lease Shermans blew up a lot huh? No wet ammo stowage?

Shrapnel is interesting. Do you think this would be worth the time to model? Is it that big of a difference? When did the West stop using Shrapnel rounds in favor of HE?

[JasonC]

The better late 45mm with APCR could penetrate 80mm, whereas with plain AP it would only penetrate 60mm. That is at around 500 meters. At long range there was no appreciable difference, but a huge improvement at close distances, making the 45mm comparable to the 76mm with plain APHE.

As for shrapnel, the western Allies especially Britain had extensive experience with it in WW I that showed it was not very useful. Basically to haul along metal projectile you give up bursting charge. Then you get a much smaller bang that throws nicely spherical ball, instead of a big whopping bang that throws jagged splinters much much faster.

What they found was that even small splinters were dangerous if driven fast enough. They had previously supposed that only large fragments of the shell case would be lethal or serious wounding projectiles in the case of HE, and that therefore the shrapnel would be better. But medical evidence showed otherwise - very small fragments, which HE produces in profusion, were still quite dangerous.

Also, the small charge of shrapnel was hopeless against entrenched infantry, below ground (also at cutting wire, a WW I specific consideration).

Basically only in the ideal situation of infantry out of cover and well set fuses, would shrapnel match the performance of HE. Against any kind of ground cover, brick or stone, the HE was vastly better. So pretty much nobody else bothered with shrapnel in WW II.

[Amedeo]

Speaking of Soviet 76mm shrapnel and canister ammunition... well, ten years ago, since there was no evidence of the elusive 76mm canister rounds, depicted in CMBB, despite the alleged veterans' statements about the use of this kind of ammunition not only for 45mm and 57mm AT guns but also for the ubiquitous 76mm field and tank guns, I guessed that the canisters the veterans were referring to, were, actually, shrapnel shells, fuzed for bursting right after leaving the muzzle.

See my old post here: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=498091&postcount=76

In recent years, I eventually discovered that there was, indeed, an actual canister round for the Soviet 76mm gun! See the attached images.

Just thought it's a piece of information worth to be shared with the CM community.

Regards,

Amedeo

[Der Alte Fritz]

So with CM Normandy 2.0 released and Fortress Italy with its final module released today there is a hope that we might see Bagration by middle of this year working off the list Moon published in June 2012.

[TheVulture]

So with CM Normandy 2.0 released and Fortress Italy with its final module released today there is a hope that we might see Bagration by middle of this year working off the list Moon published in June 2012.

It neither released today nor the final module, judging from what Steve said about the French forces coming along later. Gustav line in a few months (probably 6 judging by past experience ), then Market Garden. I'd be surprised if we saw Bagration before the end of the year to be honest.

[Wodin]

The Vulture..no way will it be six months from the announcement and webpage to when it's released. Not sure how you worked that out..CMFI was about two or three months if I can remember.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Steve said it will be out 4 months after CMBN 2.0 was released, which is the same thing as saying April.

[76mm]

It neither released today nor the final module, judging from what Steve said about the French forces coming along later. Gustav line in a few months (probably 6 judging by past experience ), then Market Garden. I'd be surprised if we saw Bagration before the end of the year to be honest.

Steve says Gustav will be the last module for CMFI, see Post #216:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=108136&page=22

But there will be additional content via packs...

[Der Alte Fritz]

I think that is what is confusing people as BFC said in their announcement that they had kept quiet about the 'pack idea' wich was to lump together a lot of unrelated new units and other extras which did not require a theme. So I imagine that the French will come out as a pack and not a modeule. Gustav is that last module and is due in April.

Going back to the earlier announcement of their programme for the next 18 months, BFC said Normandy 2.0, then CMFI and its modules and then CMBagration. If the latter appears between June then BFC will have completed the schedule as they outlined it in June 2012.

Which is great as I am still playing George Mc's CMBB scenarios while he has gone off designing for CMSF, CMN, etc, so with CMBagration on the horizon, he may come back to the Eastern Front?

[Lt Belenko]

Steve says Gustav will be the last module for CMFI, see Post #216:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=108136&page=22

But there will be additional content via packs...

Thanks! Yeah, lots and lots of stuff packed into this.

Gustav Line will be the last Module for Fortress Italy. We plan on at least one Pack, probably two, to extend forces up through to the end of the war.

Steve

A brief summary of the difference between release types. Prices are approximate.

Games = New theater and new year differences. $55

Module = new troops, terrain, locations. $35

Upgrades = new features $10

Patches = bug fixes and tweeking FREE

Packs = ????? combo of troops and ??? What exactly is the difference between pack and module?

[Rokko]

So no Tunesia prequel for CMFI?

[Vergeltungswaffe]

So no Tunesia prequel for CMFI?

Thus far, no. But, we desert aficionado's can only hope and pray for the chance to swan around, raising dust clouds and firing round after round at extreme ranges, mostly missing wildly.

[Battlefront.com]

Tunisia would be the logical end of the North African campaign, not a prequel to Italy. Not sure when we'll get around to doing NA, but we are interested in it.

Pricing for Packs is going to be quite flexible. We might make a very narrowly focused, not all that big, Pack available for something like $10. We might make a rather large one for $25 that covers a lot more stuff. That's the great thing about the Pack concept... it allows us flexibility that neither the Base Games or Modules allow for.

Some have suggested we go to an even greater extreme and allow people to purchase individual vehicles and formations. It's not a bad idea, however we'd have to invest a lot of resources into making that feasible from a delivery standpoint. We have no plans on doing that any time soon.

Steve

[Sequoia]

Some have suggested we go to an even greater extreme and allow people to purchase individual vehicles and formations.

Steve

What's the term-fragmentation of the player base?