Commissar

Since we're talking about Tigers and Stalins, From Thomas L. Jentz’s Panzertruppen Vol. 2 P216 The September 1944 issue of the Nachrichtenblatt der Panzertruppen included a report from a Tiger-Kompanie that knocked out numerous Josef Stalin tanks in a short period: . . . . The Kompanie commander made the following observations that were derived from their experience in fighting Josef Stalin tanks: 1. When a Tiger appears, most Josef Stalin tanks turn away and attempt to avoid a firefight. 2. In many cases, the Josef Stalin tanks let themselves engage in a firefight only at long range (over 2000 meters) and also only when they themselves are in favorable positions on the edge of a woods, village, or ridge line. 3. The enemy crews lean toward evacuating their tank immediately after the first shot is fired at them. 4. In all cases the Russians strived to prevent a Josef Stalin tank from falling into our hands and with all means available attempted to tow the tank away or t blow it up. 5. The Josef Stalin can also be knocked out, even if a penetration of the frontal armor can’t be achieved at long range. (A different Tiger-Abteilung reported that the front of a Josef Stalin can be penetrated by a Tiger only at ranges less than 500 meters.) 6. An attempt should be made to gain the flank or the rear of the Josef Stalin tank and destroy him with concentrated fire. 7. In addition, a firefight with Josef Stalin tanks should not be undertaken in less than Zug strength. Employment of single Tigers means their loss. 8. It has proven to be useful, after the first hits are registered, to blind the Josef Stalin by firing Sprenggranaten (high explosive shells). p. 219-220 Experiences in employing Tiger II on the Eastern Front are revealed in the following report dated 25 November 1944 written by Hauptmann Fromme, commander of schwere Panzer-Abteilung 503: . . . . In tank-versus-tank combat, the 8.8 cm Kw.K.43 gun is effective in destroying all the types of enemy tanks, including the Stalin, at ranges up to 1500 meters. Under favorable conditions, the T34 and T43 tanks can also be knocked out at ranges up to 3000 meters. As previously experienced in the West with Allied tanks, it was most observed that the Russian tanks declined to fight Tigers or turned and fled after their first tank was knocked out. The same thing applies to the Russian assault guns as to the Stalin tanks. Kills at over 1500 meters have not yet occurred.

I've always kind of wondered, but what was the advantage or reason for the overlapping road wheels on the Panther and Tiger? Was it to support a wider track? Why not simply make an oversized wheel like on the T-34? Did the design make maintenance/repair more difficult? I can't recall ever reading a reason for it.

I'm kind of in the same situation as John Kettler. Played the CMx1 games since they first came out and played them to death. I did play CMSF when it came out and really didn't care for it. It had too many bugs that annoyed the hell out of me and I pretty much stopped playing it for a long time (like years). I just picked up CM: Normandy and Italy and can say much of what bothered me about the CMx2 engine in CMSF appears gone now. One thing that is seems to be missing though is a way to quickly and accurately see the contours of terrain so I can get tanks in a proper hull down position. In CMx1, you had a view line that followed the contours of the ground that helped you do this, but in CMx2 there doesn't seem to be anything that can help you do this. Am I just missing the command/function? Also, one could have all target and movement command lines be shown in CMx1. CMx2 allows all movement commands to be shown, but not all firing commands to be shown too. Is there a way to get CMx2 to do both? Sorry if this has been asked before, but I haven't been on these forums in several years. It's great to see some old names still around here like John.

This is what CMSF should have been in the first place. Nato vs. Warpac.....hell, yes! Heck, Russia vs. Ukraine would be good too.

Now that brings back memories. I actually had Avalon Hill's MBT. Of course I could never get any of my friends to play it. One look at the manual and they wouldn't even bother. Showing them the ASL rule binder would have given them a stroke. The best I could get them to play was Axis and Allies. Yeah, I know....lolAxisAllies.

Madmatt, got a problem here. I just received two copies of CMSF when I only ordered one. I received one yesterday, and then another copy today. Both are from the same distribution center. Actually, I'm assuming the 2nd package has another CMSF since I didn't open it. You may want to check to see if there is some glitch in your mailing system and it's sending two copies to other people as well. Can we just put "return to sender" and send the extra copy back? Actually I think this is what happened: it send one copy to my mailing address and then another to my credit card address or something like that. My first copy came with my address as normal. The second copy had my name printed twice and then my actual address under it. [ August 23, 2007, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: Commissar ]

That's not a Strykker bus. It's how new Strykkers are created

Played a QB round with Red v. Red (both armor) on a large battlefield. I won it in 20 seconds with a loss of one BMP and the other side being totally annihilated, well all their armor and vehicles were knocked out. What's the quickest fight you had so far in game?

You may want to read this then since the US Army came to John's conclusions after doing recent tests on Soviet MBTs: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=001566;p=1#000000 When I first came across this article, I thought it might be faked. I had to come to the forums to see if the article really appeared in Jane's and said what it reported. Kipanderson verified that it indeed is an actual article and not bogus (he has access to Jane's apparently). I had heard of these claims before, but frankly they sounded rather alarmist to me. For all I knew, it was just DoD making these claims to justify a larger defense budget, as some critics claimed. Turns out it wasn't. But who had better tanks, etc really doesn't matter. If the US/NATO and the Soviets went to war, the nukes would start to fly once one side or the other started to win and that would've been the end of us all. As for Russian/Soviet performance in Afghanistan and Chechnya, the reasons why those wars may not be indicative of Russian capabilities has already been stated elsewhere in these forums. I really haven't studied either conflict to really say much, but somehow I don't think it's as simple as saying, "they lost in Afghanistan, so they must suck and were no threat to us during the Cold War." It would be like someone saying the US military sucks and was no threat to WarPac because they lost in Vietnam to a bunch of technological primitives with AK-47s. Vietnam was hardly that simple and the US lost for a whole host of reasons. Yesterday I read something interesting that may give an indication on the Soviet attitude about the qualitative differences between themselves and the US/NATO. In the 1988 edition of Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army , David C. Isby, Jane's Publishing Co., p.55; Isby writes: Anyway, it's an interesting viewpoint. However, I don't really see how you can win operationally if you can't win tactically consistently. I'm assuming you have to win at least a few key tactical encounters in order to achieve operational victory. I think most of us would love to see a Fulda Gap CM, but it seems that Steve isn't interested in doing one. However, I recall claims that Steve wasn't interested in doing modern combat and low and behold we have a future, theoretical war with CMSF. [ August 16, 2007, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Commissar ]

Heh, there's something the Navy would love: motion wave gun.

The lower caliber produces a nastier wound. However, I wouldn't want to get hit with a 7.62mm either.

What a find interesting is that although the Russians are skeptical of the concept, they are still keeping a very close eye on it, according to the article. From what I understand, the Soviets didn't really believe in using lower caliber rounds for their assault rifles, but changed their minds once they saw how it performed when the US used it in Vietnam, etc. After that they switched to 5.45mm. Maybe the Strykker concept will be the same. Considering the article was in 2004 (opps), I am wondering if the Russian military still feels the same (or even stronger) or have they reevaluated their opinion. Has anyone seen anything current? I'd look myself, but I can't read Russian. [ August 04, 2007, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: Commissar ]

Yeah, I get it. All I did was refer to article with a contrary view. You dont' agree with it, fine. I don't care either way. And from this you claim I'm biased. Read it and agree, read it and disagree honestly I couldn't care less. If you think it's utter crap, then please go ahead and explain how the Russians viewpoint is wrong. I'm not being paid by Washington or Moscow so I have nothing to gain or lose either way.

assertion. </font>

"Russians appraise the Stryker brigade concept" doesn't sound too damning. Besides, isn't that article from a US Army magazine? So who knows what the Russian military really thinks of it. Edit: ah, it references a Russian article (I think). I think the discussion about whether Stryker is a missed strike or a homerun has been on this forum so many times that we might not go back to that again. A less considered point of view is that I don't think Stryker is good looking enough to be used extensively in movies. </font>

Unbunch your panties. I'm just pointing out an article of interest. Surprise, surprise not everyone agrees with one another. No need to be bitchy unless you're being paid by the Pentagon. You don't have to be personally insulted if some people have criticisms of whatever concept is out there. If anything the article helps give people unfamiliar with the concept and organization some idea outside of the game. And whether the Strykker concept actually works, the jury is still out on that one.

It appears the Russians aren't too impressed with the Strykker concept as well......at least not yet: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IAV/is_6_93/ai_n16085762 Gives a nice overview of the Strykker concept and organization although the article is from 2004. [ August 04, 2007, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: Commissar ]

I'd be happy with just a dot on the ground to let me know where all my units will end up in relation to one another so I can get my vehicles in the proper place relative to all my other units.

The old CMx1 games had an option in which you could see all the lines and waypoints that you gave all your units before executing a turn. Now while that made the battlefield look like a big bowl of noodles, it did let me see in one glance what units where moving where and what command I gave them to do. It allowed me to easily place my units with the move command exactly where I wanted them to be in relation to my other units. I noticed that this isn't in CM:SF. I checked the menu for the option, but I didn't find one. Has this also been thrown out of CM:SF? Without it, I find it a lot harder to place, for example, my tanks where I want them because I can't see exactly where I told my other units to go previously. Did I miss the option or has it been removed?

Yup, that sounds all too familiar. It's because of that tacAI that my force of BMP-2s and supporting elements wiped out an entire M1 platoon and their support force. I didn't lose a single BMP. As much as I would love to say it was because of my superior knowledge of Soviet combat tactics, it was most certainly the lack of AI from the other side. Looking at the tester list, it's full of old timers who have been playing CM since Beyond Overlord like I have. There is no doubt something like this was caught and pointed out, but it's also clear that Battlefront didn't bother to listen to them. Testers find "bugs" all the time, but that does not mean they actually get fixed. That's the decision of higher ups who may decide that the bug is so rare or difficult to reproduce, it's not worth wasting valuable time to fix. In other cases, the higher ups just decide to ignore the testers for whatever reason. I'm not going to give a long rehash of the problems with this game. It's already been said and then some. As an old CM vet, I am just appalled at some design decisions Battlefront has made in this game. QB has been absolutely gutted: no ability to choose equipment, no dynamic maps (although I can understand this decision), tacAI just abysmal, and no ability to even increase or decrease when a battle ends....all of which were in previous CMs. All this is just the QB part of the game. I've been wanting a CM dealing with modern combat for a very long time. In CMSF, I thought that finally came true. If I knew the game was in this state, I most definitely would not have pre-ordered. I hope that at the very least, the TacAI will be fixed. I'm just appalled that Battlefront decided to let this ship when the game is in this state. I could be wrong, but I haven't seen any of the testers post and explain....I guess there is no need to guess why. Oh and before anyone says I should just play battles, the AI there isn't all that good either. Yesterday, I played the second battle in the list and the US force just stood there. Didn't move one inch from their deployment zone. What's the point of these scenarios if the AI wont do anything? If the game is going to offer a choice of playing sides, the developers should at least make sure it's actually playable by either side.

For some reason, every QB that I've tried, the opposing side has all it's vehicles and tanks deployed with their backs facing me. I always played the Syrians so I don't know if this happens when you're the US, but when fighting the US apparently their TacAI tells them to expose their most vulnerable side to my guns from the get go. Definitely need to patch that up.

Just had to add that even the beta testers for WiC are already bored of it, its longevity is already decided. Much like GC2. </font>

Here is a bit of QB strangeness: On my very first QB, I was Syrian and the computer had all it's M1A1's facing opposite direction to me, their rears were facing my attack. Unless this was a simulation of a very surprise attack on US forces from the rear, AI messed up badly. The result is an entire M1A1 platoon and it's supporting elements were wiped out by my BMP-2 attack force without a single loss of any of the BMP-2s (I had zero tanks in my force, just BMPs and supporting infantry). Was pretty funny though.

Ironically, South Korea has more modern Russian equipment than the North as well. The Russians gave the South Koreans several T-80Us, BMP-3s, and I think some transport helos (Ka-32, Mi-172). The South decided to take them as part of Russia's repayment of their debt to S.Korea. Apparently they liked them enough to purchase more Russian gear while the North is still stuck with equipment two or three generations behind. [ July 22, 2007, 08:09 AM: Message edited by: Commissar ]

No need to give grief to Madmatt or other Battlefront people. They are too busy working on the WarPac module