Why there are no mech for sov?

[Reiter]

Hello,

 

Simple question is, why there are no armored carriers, mg tankettes, lend & lease halftracks etc for sovjet?

 

When playing online, both mech inf, it feels like cheating, when Germans have halftracks, usually with gun-mounted versions, but most tech Soviets have is maxim and atr. Is it historically accurate? I remember in CMBB, Russians had thing or two in QB-mech inf. Even BA is in armor category!

Edited January 31, 2015 by Reiter

[womble]

Lend lease stuff will come in later elements of the family. I would guess, though, that the scarcity of transport vehicles would tend to keep anything with wheels more protected than even the US doctrine did. Which means giving us gamey bastidges half tracks to waste in frontal confrontation with ATGs and MANPAT is a low-priority development. Trucks, we get, because they're soft enough we try and keep them out of harm's way most of the time.

If you don't like the options available for Soviets under "Mech Infantry", don't play that way...

[Reiter]

Yes, no problem. I just miss battles, where both sides have inf + combat vechiles, but no tanks.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Soviet mechanized infantry is in the game. They are called tankodesantniki.

 

The Soviets did not have mech infantry in the same sense the Germans and Western allies did. What Lend Lease halftracks they did have they mostly used as prime movers rather than as battlefield taxis for infantry squads. For that reason it is difficult to impossible to get an apples to apples purely mech infantry game on the Eastern front, although once we get the Lend Lease stuff in a module there will be nothing stopping you from ignoring history and using the halftracks in a more Western fashion.

Edited January 31, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[Sgt Joch]

yes, lend lease equipment will come in another module.

However, during the Bagration period, the principal vehicle used by Soviet mechanised forces were Lend Lease 4WD trucks which are in the game, i.e. the "Studie".

[Reiter]

Ok, thanks for the info!

[kevinkin]

One way to look at it is both sides used trucks for operational movement of troops and supplies by-and-large. Then the infantry moved to the tactical zone on foot. The Germans with their half tracks could move closer to and operate within the tactical zone provided recon indicated little Russian armor close by.

Trucks and half tracks were very valuable to both sides and wargames have tended to use them tactically in situations that would find them protected

to the rear protected by specifically assigned detachments. You can use transport tactically in CM but I think the points awarded for their destruction should make that use rare. German half tracks are great at mopping up at the end if used carefully.

 

Kevin

[Reiter]

So historically halftracks were quite rare, expecially turret-mounted versions. In auto purchase CMRT tends to put 2-3 of them, (even 2 can be turrets) in QB, in small or medium battle when Soviets get 3 atg to shoot them off. That is the reason we are playing with mix, own purchase and some rules on them.

[womble]

So historically halftracks were quite rare...

No. But doctrinally, their use, in the late war, as infantry carriers in the actual bullets-flying space was heavily restricted.

...expecially turret-mounted versions.

The only german half tracks I'm aware of with "turrets" are either AA tracks or recon tracks. Which weren't precisely rare either, but were vulnerable. Perhaps you could say which versions you're actually talking about (251/9? 10? 17? 21? 23? 250/9 and other variants?) Precision like that can help overcome imprecision introduced by not writing in your mother tongue.

In auto purchase...

Disregard anything the AI picker buys when you're considering "proper" or "historical" usage. The AI picker is, at best, marginal.

[Reiter]

I mean halftracks with 20mm-75mm gun.

[womble]

I mean halftracks with 20mm-75mm gun.

Given there's a platoon of Stummel or thereabouts in every PzGr company, and a 37mm variant in every mounted platoon, potentially, they're hardly "rare". They are vulnerable to ATGs though, while being excellent for chopping up infantry that don't have ATGs from outside MANPAT range. That the AI force picker chooses them when they're likely to die in a fireball pretty rapid is pretty much irrelevant to anything, though, except the weakness of the AI force picker. I'm pretty sure the Russian infantry have ATG perfectly adequate to the task of killing the light armour available to Mech troops, and plenty of them. If the AI force picker doesn't choose them, that speaks to the force selection algorithms rather than anything else. They really could do with a more "army list" approach.

[Sgt Joch]

"rare" is a relative term. What you see in CMRT is the official TOE. However, German divisions were rarely at full strength and certainly not after a few weeks fighting.

In sept. 43, out of 226 PanzerGrenadier battalions, only 26 were equipped with halftracks, the other 200 were using trucks. In the official 44 Panzer division TOE, only 1 infantry battalion was using Halftracks, the other 3 were riding on trucks. However, certainly if a Panzer Division was going into combat, you would expect all available halftracks to be concentrated at the tip of the spear.

You can get a general idea by looking at global production numbers. During the war, the Germans produced a total of around 15,000 of the 251 model halftracks, including all variants, roughly the same as the total of PzIV and PzVs produced and 130,000 Opel trucks.

By contrast, the U.S. alone produced 900,000 4WD trucks. Out of that, 200,000 Studebaker trucks were earmarked for lend-lease, most going to Russia.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Sgt Joch

[Michael Emrys]

By contrast, the U.S. alone produced 900,000 4WD trucks. Out of that, 200,000 Studebaker trucks were earmarked for lend-lease, most going to Russia.

 

It has been my long held belief that a major contributor to Germany's losing the war was that its automotive industry simply wasn't even close to fulfilling the needs of the army.

 

Michael

[JasonC]

40-50% of the infantry of a Russian mech formation was motor rifle, using full infantry heavy weapons (MMGs, 82mm mortars, ATRs) and riding in American built trucks. Their primary role was to secure and defend ground taken by the tank elements of their formations, freeing up the tanks to proceed to the next objective. Their secondary mission was to fight - dismounted - in missions and locations where tanks could not operate effectively, to get their parent formations past such spots. E.g. a night river crossing, an infiltration mission, clearing a large body of woods before the next sector of open farmland, and the like. The trucks let them keep up with the tanks in either case, but nobody expected to fight from them.

Another 30-40% of the infantry of a Russian mech formation were tank riders, armed primarily with submachinegunsnand riding directly on the decks of the tanks. Their primary role was close battle support of the tanks, including scouting for them, rooting enemy infantry out of their holes, security around the tanks when halted and at night, and the like. As a secondary mission, they coukd take on the same leg infantry roles mentioned above on a smaller scale and over smaller distances. They expected to ride the tanks into actual combat, then dismount at contact to fight alongside them. The Russians considered this role and a few more true tanks far more effective in combat than light armor.

Another 10% of the infantry of a Russian mech formation were pioneers, riding in trucks, armed with light infantry weapons and supplemented with explosives. Their primary mission was to open and repair routes for the tanks through physical obstackes, including mines, roadblocks, blown bridges, antitank ditches, and the like. This also included bridge buidling and road repair. As a secondary mission, they could assist the other infantry types with special weapons and demolition teams when fighting through enemy fortifications and in urban areas. They were trucked to keep up, but were valuable specialists and thrown into direct combat less than the other infantry types.

The last 10% of the infantry of a Russian mevh fornation were motorcycle recon, riding on motorcyckes and in smaller trucks, typically American made pick ups (3/4 ton), working with modest amounts of light armor in the form of MG main armament armored cars (BA-64s), and light tanks. Their primary mission was finding routes fir the tanks and advancing to contact to locate the enemy. Their secondary mission was to screen long flanks of penetrations and patrol them until slower forces coukd catch up with the leading tank formations, relieving them along the way. They needed to be twice as fast as the tanks to run ahead, fall behind to screen, catch up tomthem again, over and over.

This last category, late in the war, started to get some amounts of lend lease light armor to carry the men. US scout cars, for example. They still also had motioorcycles - the scout cars replaced pick up trucks and raised their mobile MG firepower etc. This is as close as the Russians got during the war to formations similar to the post war role of armored infantry - which the US armored divisions wentnthe farthest to implementing during WWII, much farther than the Germans, by the way. But it was only in 1944 and after, and only for this recon role, which was a small minority of the infantry part of their mech forces.

Lend lease halftracks were not used that way, for the most part. They got other roles in Russian service.

- HQ tracks for company and battalion leaders in the mech forces, radio vehicles and similar

- carrying heavy AA machineguns, as mobile mounts, for column air defense

- prime movers for towed ATGs expected to advance to contact with the enemy, especially in the mech arm

- heavy weapon carriers for mortar teams and similar in the motor rifle formations

- general utility vehicles in the zone just behind the batle area e.g. field ambulance, ammo resupply, specialist taxi.

The last made use of their better off road mobility and their protection from shell splinters to do transport runs in places too difficult or too dangerous for trucks. But the didn't replace tank riders in working with tanks.

Edited February 1, 2015 by JasonC

[GAZ NZ]

Having played a game that was mech only i got slaughtered by my opponent who had 16 HTs. i presumed he wanted an infantry fight but got something else.

If i played again id take what the russians get lots of - cheap airpower.

Strafle the HTs to death or lots of artillery.

AT rifles are useless - pen after pen that does nothing to the HT.

As a suggestion perhaps agree with an opponent light tanks only? to keep it reasonable.

Else free for all with suggestions above.

And as stated above mech troops were tank riders.

Where are the tanks in the selection lol

[Baneman]

...

If i played again id take what the russians get lots of - cheap airpower.

...

 

Uhh, you might want to rethink that - in a current Attack QB I cunningly  bought 2 Il-2's - never really tried airpower in CMRT before.

 

One of them has so far destroyed 5 of my own vehicles  !      ( this is 4 more than the enemy have managed to kill   )

Lack of direct control means I can't even tell him to go away !

[JasonC]

As a spec for the perfect thing to happen on a "mech" fight, on the Russian side - distinguished from an "armor" fight -

 

The Russians would get recon infantry, a bunch of jeeps, a few trucks carrying heavy weapons, some BA-64s, and (crucially) a small point budget for actual tanks.
The tank type could be restricted to lighter models - T-70s in this period, also LL Valentines (which were 57mm varieties in the Bagration period, incidentally).

Earlier in the war they could also buy T-60s, BA-6 and similar 45mm armored cars, and MG main armament tankettes (1941-2 only).

They would also have US M3 scout cars, but would have to spend the same point budget on either light tanks or those and the BA-64s.

 

This winds up depicting the Russian motorcycle recon forces rather than the motor rifle.  But if they want to take true motor rifle, they just only buy infantry and trucks, and throw in more infantry heavy weapons and towed ATGs (2-4 76mm ZIS-3 towed by jeeps e.g.).

 

In an armor fight, a T-70 seems like a very poor tank for 1944.  But in an mech fight, facing only half tracks and armored cars, they are very effective...

[Bastables]

It has been my long held belief that a major contributor to Germany's losing the war was that its automotive industry simply wasn't even close to fulfilling the needs of the army.

 

Michael

Yeah you're not in bad company there, Len Deighton in his book (Blitzkrieg) on 39-40s pointed out even during the French Campaign the german army was losing trucks faster than it was making them just due to wear and tear, on actual networked tar roads. This was reflected in the Germans switching from preferred six wheeled truck to settling for any old 2x4 trucks. 

 

But in saying that the Russians did defeat the germans with even less motorisation and with T34's with 200km mechanical average life expectancy. By contrast "unreliable" panther, late war PIV, Hetzer were at 200km as well due to transmission failures. So it did play a part but it seems the Russians were better at later in the war planning offensives in line with their mechanical capabilities.

[GAZ NZ]

Uhh, you might want to rethink that - in a current Attack QB I cunningly bought 2 Il-2's - never really tried airpower in CMRT before.

One of them has so far destroyed 5 of my own vehicles ! ( this is 4 more than the enemy have managed to kill )

Lack of direct control means I can't even tell him to go away !

Thats what forward observers are for.

To put attack area for planes.

And if its mechanised game and you have a couple of trucks stripped for ammo its not an issue

[Reiter]

Forvard Observers? Attack areas? I did not even thonk about that. Now I do. 

[Baneman]

Thats what forward observers are for.

To put attack area for planes.

And if its mechanised game and you have a couple of trucks stripped for ammo its not an issue

 

Um, in CMRT, you have no control over air - which is why I can't even tell him to go home !

 

The first couple of victims were trucks stripped for ammo.

Then he started winkling out my mortar ammo trucks that are in the forest ! - because the german armour sitting out in the open would be too easy !   He really wants that Hero of the Soviet Union medal.

What he's actually going to get ...

[Reiter]

In ongoing battle, my Stuka dropped one huge bomb near enemy SU but did not manage to harm it. Next attack was in forest where Vasili and Ivan took some punishment by autocannon. Final strike was truck at the far end in the enemy side. Overall effectiveness: not so good. 

[A Canadian Cat]

But at least not negative like poor @Baneman

[Melchior]

It has been my long held belief that a major contributor to Germany's losing the war was that its automotive industry simply wasn't even close to fulfilling the needs of the army.

 

Michael

 

Germany wasn't even close to fulfilling the needs of its Army. Not for the herculean undertaking the Nazis set it on.

 

Guderian actually proposed limiting the size of the German Army to only what could be motorized. Disbanding all the regular infantry divisions or reassigning them to garrison duties. Not really practical in 1940 but has pretty much become reality today. 

[Michael Emrys]

But in saying that the Russians did defeat the germans with even less motorisation and with T34's with 200km mechanical average life expectancy. By contrast "unreliable" panther, late war PIV, Hetzer were at 200km as well due to transmission failures. So it did play a part but it seems the Russians were better at later in the war planning offensives in line with their mechanical capabilities.

 

Looking over the war as a whole, it seems to me that 300km was about as far as an offensive could go in one pulse before it would have to pull up and wait for its logistical tail to catch up. Even the Western Allies with their genius for logistics had to pause after crossing France and Belgium. So designing a tank that would only go that far before it needed major maintenance does not strike me as necessarily a bad idea. If you can build one that will go farther, that's nice but in wartime you might not have that luxury when the primary impetus is to roll them off the production line and get them to the front as quickly as possible.

 

Michael

Edited February 7, 2015 by Michael Emrys