Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

kipanderson

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,261

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by kipanderson

    How did the Soviets get their IS-2's so tough?

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    Hi,

    BTW..... quick note...

    I have crawled around inside both T34/85 and IS2. Both are roomy by WWII tank standards. When compared to German tanks they are just fine. They also have superb all round vision. Better than a German tanks. The commander, loader and gunner all have a Mark 4 , 360 degree general observation sight. The small “turrets...” that sit on top of the main turret roof on those tanks.

    The Soviets learnt their lesson with the cramped and poor vision T34/76 tanks. Starting with the KV1s turret they were very happy with their standard, three man turret design.

    Now.. the drivers position in T34s of all types and the IS2... that is cramped... ;).

    It is all relative of course, and the Soviets and Soviet trained armies I am sure did go for smaller crews. Better than larger for sure.

    But by ’44, as roomy as any and better all round vision than any.

    All interesting stuff,

    All the best,

    Kip.

    0

    How did the Soviets get their IS-2's so tough?

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    Rokko, hi,

    It’s all about the ballistic shape of the armour.

    Look at all those curves. Good thickness of armour, but nothing great, but then rounded in all directions. Compare with the Tigers and Panther and their “box..” like wasteful... weight – wise shapes.

    BTW... the Soviets the thought the King Tiger a joke ;). Fine gun, but laughably badly designed. By very late war they were messing about with thoughts of tanks with similar protection but around 40 tons... later to be T55.

    All good fun,

    All the best,

    Kip.

    PS. German tanks certainly did the business.. but as a result of “massive use of resources... “ With their petrol engines of patchy reliability and poor ballistic shape they were not good designs.

    0

    History of Battlefront

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    Hi,

    It is a great article.

    Makes me laugh that Steve’s photo is clearly taken in a pub.. and Charles looks as though me his about to go for a run;).

    We certainly are lucky Steve and Charles got into wargaming. A recurring nightmare is the thought that they had really gone off and developed Space Lobsters instead of CM... :).

    Tactical wargaming is a desert out there without CM. Scourge of War, Command Ops and now Flashpoint Campaigns are all fine games and importantly for them, by the only measure that counts, I clearly do think they are “good enough...” because I buy them.

    But the mix of historical accuracy and immersion... the extent to which is can hold the player “in the zone...” while within the limits of the single controlling mind delivering historical accurate outcomes is breathtaking.

    Long may the mass slaughter continue... :).

    All the best,

    Kip.

    0

    Discussion of Soviet Offensive Tactics

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    Hi,

    Actually the opposite is correct - a successful attacking force with local superiority will often inflict higher casualties on the unsuccessful defender. Furthermore more of an unsuccessful defender's casualties will be permanent missing in action (either WIA becoming KIA because unable to retreat or becoming prisoners) than the successful attacker's casualties, the WIA of which are more likely to be picked up, treated and returned eventually to the colours

    I am not sure that is true.. if forces are of equal quality ;).

    There is the “if you use it you lose it” rule....

    Having said that, the details matter. From memory, will have to look it up another day, you need to get to about 7 : 1 , attacker to defender, before aggregate casualties for the attacker fall below those of the defender. At say 4 : 1 the attacker will lose less in percentage terms but still more in number so individual casualties. And the above figures are at the operational level.

    But detail matters. When I have time will look up the figures. Kensal, Yankeedog and Womble can be correct depending on the detail/assumptions.

    However, at the overall level of the war in the east in ’44 YankeeDog is correct in that given the force ratio of say 3.2 : 1 and casualty ratio of around 1.3 : 1 does suggest that quality was in the same ball park. Soviets did things very differently, but probably equally well.

    Remember German ration strength in June ’44 in the East was, from memory, 2,089,000. Casualties from Nov ’43 to Nov’44 about 2,100,000. Soviet ration strength in June ’44 6,400,000 in Front Armies. Casualties over all of ’44 around 2,700,000.

    This clearly has big implications for quality amongst others.

    All interesting stuff,

    All the best,

    Kip.

    PS. did not see Steve's post.... will look up the figures... yes there is data on this sort of stuff no matter how imperfect.

    0

    Discussion of Soviet Offensive Tactics

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    Hi,

    One of David Glantz best...

    Soviet – German War 1941 – 1945: Myths and Realities: A Survey Essay.

    http://sti.clemson.edu/publications-mainmenu-38/commentaries-mainmenu-211/cat_view/33-strom-thurmond-institute/153-sti-publications-by-subject-area/158-history

    All the best,

    Kip.

    PS. Soviet : German casualty ratios were a lot closer than many like to believe by ’44. If you upgrade Soviet ’44 losses to account for Forgotten Battles and discharged due to disability and sickness you get a figure of 2,738,000. German losses for Nov’43 to Nov’44, counting the same way... including disabled due to wounds you get 2,100,000. Scarily close given that the Soviet Front Armies were three times the size. German frontline units were suffering far higher attrition rates than Soviet units, on average, from about August ’43 onwards. German frontline officers, NCOs and men of all ranks had on “average..” a far shorter shelf life than their Soviet opponents. From mid ’43 onwards.

    0

    Is CM dying?

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    Hi,

    Just noticed this..

    Historical or fictional is fine... but with me I do like the terrain to be real. It makes a huge difference.

    A lot of the nature of the fighting, the tactics.. come from the terrain. It is also very difficult to “fake...” terrain. So I always take the elevations, waterways, roads from the real world.

    That is why the Mastermaps are such a great idea. Real terrain you just cut to size. And then if you wish fight a fictional battle over.

    All good stuff,

    All the best,

    Kip.

    0

    Source for real world small action casualty rates

    in Combat Mission Fortress Italy

    Posted

    Hi,

    Just a quick supplementary to my above post.

    The way I enjoy playing and the best way to learn is very long very slow games. I always, near always anyway, whack scenarios into the editor and increase their game length to say two hours for a company attack on a village. This is historically far more realistic than forty minutes due to the pauses to reorganise and such between surges of violence and helps careful, low casualties play style. If you give yourself time, and are careful, it is scary just how much of a simulation CM is....

    All the best,

    Kip.

    0

    Source for real world small action casualty rates

    in Combat Mission Fortress Italy

    Posted

    Hi,

    Just saw this.. have not read all the previous posts, but just in case no one has mentioned it... the book you need for everything you want to know about casualty rates and much more than anyone could possible want to know ;)

    Attrition: Forecasting Battle Casualties and Equipment Losses in Modern War by Trevor N Dupuy.

    Is available out there... not expensive. Tables, rates, everything all in very straightforward format.

    BTW. The idea of “average.... “ loss rates is difficult. If you read the book you will find that at the battalion level daily losses were often at CM rates. By which I mean 30% or more a day. The reason why over a division and over several days “average..” loss rates may look low is that on a given day there are often some battalions doing very little. The classic example of this is Kursk.

    Buy the book, it is cheap and packed with historical data. No point arguing about it... read the book and make up your own mind.

    All good fun,

    All the best,

    Kip.

    PS. I... and my standard opponent when playing live... play very carefully... the life of every digital hero matters to us ;). If you play slowly and carefully CM casualty rates will fall to historical levels. I also find it more immersive that way.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...