Sgt Joch

nice video on the Mauser. I have a 60's Parker-Hale .30-06 rifle in my collection with a Mauser Bolt, same type as shown in the video, also with a 5 round internal magazine. Basically the same design as a Kar 98. The Mauser Bolt is heavy, precise and utterly reliable, but it does not like to be rushed. Personally, I would not go as quick as the shooter, I would be too worried about jamming a round or damaging the rifle. It is also not a natural movement to use the bolt when the rifle is at shoulder level, normal practice is to lower the butt to chest level to make the movement easier. When you bring it back to shoulder level, you then have to realign the target. In a pinch, yes, you can probably squeeze off 5 shots in 20 seconds like in the video, but it will not be carefully aimed shots.

yes, 1 in 27 does seem on the low side, even in a combat situation. I would also be interested to see the results with sniper teams. If you want to take the terrain completely out of the equation, use a paved road.

time to get the popcorn out...

On the bullet drop, these are all valid points, but given enough practice a good shooter can compensate. For example, video of Sterling MK 4 (L2A3) SMG being fired at a target 200 yds away: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYi9-gY6ymM granted it is single shots, but the Sterling is not that different in design from the PPSH. The shooter in the video seems to be getting 80-90% hits. In tests by Migo and me, the accuracy of the PPSH fired in 1-2 second bursts at 150-180 yds is in the 0.5-2% range, i.e. 1 shot out of 50 to 1 shot out of 200. That does not seem out of the ballpark.

Migo's tests piqued my interest so I have been running my own tests, same troops as described previously at 150 meters, but in various terrain. I suspect the issue of more casualties with foxholes has more to do with the fact that troops in wheatfield break LOF more easily. I ran tests in a low grass map, with and without foxholes and foxholes do seem to result in less casualties. I am not convinced SMGs are overpowered in game, I have had a fair number of tests where the Germans pretty much wipe out the Soviet SMG squad. You just need an early break where the Soviets get 2-3 casualties early and morale hit and suppression does the rest. It would be nice if we could get more accurate info on the accuracy of the PPSH so we have an idea what to look for. All I have been able to find is that it had an effective range of 125-250 meters, depending on the source.

yes PPSH and PPS43.

I made my own quick and dirty test to see if anything is wrong, German pioneer squad equipped mostly with Kar98 rifles against Sov 44 SMG squad, both behind a low stone wall facing each other across a grass field, green/normal troops/in command, 150 meters range. after 8 turns, the SMG squad fired 1890 rounds and caused 9 german casualties which works out to about 200 rounds fired for each hit. I also wanted to test at 200 and 250 meters, but I see there is a hard coded limit and the PPSH cannot be fired past 200 meters. The Kar 98 though can be fired at 250 meters. The results seem to be in the ballpark of what you would expect, unless we want to totally nerf SMGs past 100 meters.

Air force claims have always been on the high side. In Desert Storm 91, when visibility was good (i.e desert) and weapons a lot more precise than WW2. Coalition Air Forces initially claimed to have knocked out 50% of the enemy AFVs before the ground offensive started, postwar assessments found overclaims of AFV kills were very high and the vast majority of Iraqi AFVs had been destroyed by ground forces during the offensive. In Falaise 44, where German armour was caught in the open, stuck on roads and unable to maneuver, post battle assessment found the vast majority of abandoned tanks had been destroyed by their own crew when they ran out of gas or became stuck in traffic jams.

nice vid Jason looking at the specs for the PPSH and MP40, one interesting point is that the rounds are fairly lightweight and muzzle velocity is on the low side which probably explains the low recoil and ease of handling at full auto. mp40: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O38a_Bx18RU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFrM3PXOd9g so good for close in fighting, but you would expect mid-long range accuracy to suffer. The STG44 OTOH seems to be designed more like a modern assault rifle, heavier round/higher velocity, probably better at longish ranges, but you can see the recoil makes it harder to handle at full auto: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3rkBE1HYgA

thought this might be interesting. firing PPSH at the range, last group at full auto. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZ7W7BMbzMc and another one firing at various targets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaQHLjOcObI seems easy to control and aim even at full auto, although range seems short.

very interesting indeed: http://www.louisdimarco.com/doctrine_chapter_4.htm Although what they describe as "Offensive Missions" would be closer to what I was referring to as "recon", i.e. ranging ahead of the armored units to scout out where enemy units might be located and either deal with them or leave them to the heavier armor/infantry/artillery forces following behind.

OK, I misunderstood. I thought you were referring to the document I posted. I will check out your link.

Balanced/Balanced is the best compromise between graphic quality and speed. The difference between Balanced/Balanced and Best/Best is principally draw distance. I would not go below Balanced/Balanced unless your system cannot handle it. You can also try "Balanced" 3d model/"Best" textures, since textures seem to have very little impact on FPS. I generally play Excellent/Best.

interesting Kevinkin, could you post what pages those quotes are on, especially the second one. I would be interested in reading more on that.

I was re-reading the U.S. Army official history on the august cross-France dash: http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/007/7-5-1/index.html I see lots of references to cavalry/recon units ranging far out in front capturing villages or key terrain. I also came across this interesting quote about Gen. Grow's 6th AD during the dash to Brest:

Err, ok, I deny your denial. I have been doing a lot of in depth research on the 4th ADs drive north. The advance by each of the Combat Commands, CCA, CCB and CCR were led by a cavalry recon element composed of light tanks and vehicles. I can even give you the exact pages to check in the U.S. Army official history if you wish.

with all due respect, the U.S. Army did not go to all the trouble of establishing a combat doctrine, just so ground commanders could ignore it. The doctrine was followed, a march to contact was carried out by a recon element, the M4 tanks were held back and used as needed. For example, when U.S. 4th AD started its drive north to Bastogne on dec. 22, both Combat Commands were led by a recon element composed of M5 stuarts and cavalry vehicles. The medium tanks were behind in other groups and were only brought up to the front lines as needed.

Maybe I was not that clear in my post, but I was only referring to armoured units operating in the enemy's rear areas after a breakthrough, i.e. the "armoured spearheads". I have not seen detailed descriptions of WW2 Soviet tactics in english, if there is some I would love to read it. FM-100-2-1 contains detailed description of Soviet postwar tactics. Since from what I read, Soviet postwar tactics were heavily influenced by their WW2 experience, it gives us at least a general indication of what the late WW2 tactics were. http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/compoundobject/collection/p4013coll9/id/508 Regarding other combatants, U.S. armoured tactics were basically the same, as described in FM 17-33 on the tank battalion or FM 17-42 on the armoured infantry battalion, i.e. the march is led by a recon platoon, followed some ways back by a company strength "advance guard", followed some distance behind by the rest of the Battalion. http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/compoundobject/collection/p4013coll9/id/508

Authors use a lot of buzzwords to evoke sweeping images. When you actually dig down into the details, you often get a different picture. For example, you look at campaign maps and you see Army/Corps sweeping over large areas whereas the reality on the ground might turn on who controls a few key villages to control supply routes and dominate the surrounding terrain with firepower. "Armored spearheads" were usually combined arms units operating deep in rear areas, the bulk of which might never even come into contact with the enemy. If you look at, for example, Soviet postwar doctrine, the 1st element, the "tip of the spear", would be about platoon size, mixed AFVs and motorized infantry, followed some distance behind by a 2nd group with the rest of the company, followed by a 3rd group with the rest of the battalion, etc. This way if the 1st group ran into an ambush, losses would be small. Also, this gives the commander a lot of options if they run into enemy forces, the 1st group platoon leader can decide to: 1) push through; 2) go around and let follow on forces deal with the obstacle; or 3) wait for the other groups to show up. The platoon leader also relays the info to the company HQ in the 2nd group and the battalion HQ in the 3rd group, etc., so each commander has the time to formulate a plan before they arrive on the scene. AFAIK, all combatants operated pretty much the same way in 43-45.

Agreed. Totally off topic.

I havent seen anything on actual late war Russian tactics, but I would suggest you download FM-100-2-1 on Soviet tactics. It's based on 60's Soviet documents, but seems to codify 43-45 experience and it pretty much matches up with what you posted if you substitute Trucks for BMPs.

re: Russian artillery. For a lot of reasons, it was not as flexible as German/US/CW. Typically, most of the heavy stuff would only be used for prep barrages, while the "on call" artillery typically available during a CM battle would only be the units organic guns. That is why platoon-battalion HQs can only call in mortars/76 mm guns while a FO is needed to call in all the heavy stuff. The FO represents Corps/Army level artillery. The Russians relied very much on direct fire support either from towed guns or tanks/SPGs. During Bagration, attacking infantry battalions were typically organized as "Storm Groups" with Sappers, Flamethrowers and 2-3 companies of AFVs, usually SU-76s and/or T-34/76s attached. I designed the first mission of the Russian campaign and the attacking Russian force is structured this way. As to Russian attacking tactics, it is basically the same as US/CW, basically scout where the enemy is, pound his forces until they retreat/surrender/die and move on. The difference is more one of emphasis, the Russians were not as worried about casualties and would typically continue the assault in a situation where US/CW forces would be more tempted to stop and use artillery. In game, that is typically handled by giving the Russian more points for seizing objectives and less points for minimizing casualties. As I recall, that is the case with 1st campaign mission.

GhostRider - This deals with the western front, but summarizes well why U.S./CW tankers were content with the Sherman in 44-45: http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/us-guns-german-armor-part-2/

By 1944, pretty much every Russian, U.S. or CW infantry division had an attached Tank, TD and /or SPG unit. Most German infantry divisions had to make do with only AT guns at best, although some of the better equipped ones would have had an attached SPG unit. Even dealing with the "Big Cats", the standard Russian response was to pull back and go around them forcing the Germans to either retreat or be surrounded. From my readings, it seems the Germans lost more Panthers/Tigers through destruction by their own crews when they ran out of gas, broke down, were surrounded, etc. and unable to retreat than through enemy action. So yes, balanced armour vs armour clash like we tend to see in CM are the exception rather than the rule, but a "typical" scenario were a German infantry battalion with a few AT guns/Panzerschreks/Fausts is overwhelmed by 2-3x infantry regiments and a Tank Battalion with artillery/air support does not make for a fun H2H game.

QUICK is jogging, but they will stop to shoot at spotted targets. FAST is sprinting, but they will not stop to shoot. my default move is QUICK, units can go a fairly long distance without tiring out. I stop them when they reach "tiring" and let them rest 1-2 turns until they are "ready". Units in CMBS are presumed to be wearing body armour and full gear which has an impact. I use FAST when I want to get from point A to point B as quick as possible. For example, if you want your squad to cross a street that you suspect is covered by an enemy MG, use FAST. If you use QUICK, they may decide to stop mid-street and take a shot at the MG...