Tero
-
Posts
2,033 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Tero
-
-
If GM is paying pensions, it is no myth that the dollars are going out the door. This buzz I hear about '$70 being a big lie' is just another example of union spin. If a guy works for 30 years and takes a pension for another 20, it seems reasonable to work that into the accounting regarding hourly compensation. Once again the unions are trying to misdirect attention from themselves. Look at the corporate jet!
Here in Finland the calculated average life expectancy of a pensioner is two years after retirement.
Then again we have national health care with national pension funds. Private pension insurances have only recently come to the market with the adjoining scare-advertising about how your level of income drops ~40-50% when you retire.
-
The bliss of globalization: the US car manufacture gets saved (possibly ?) at the price of 140 000 jobs vanishing in Sweden if/when the US owned Saab and Volvo go under.
-
No, that was Diane Keaton and it was Finland, not Siberia.
Michael
Actually, I think the ride took place in Spain.
-
If it's anything like Bible Fraud (oh the irony!), then the amazing thing is that the reporter didn't recognize it as a poorly done conspiracy theory. Basically what Tony Bushby claims is that Jesus avoided crucifixion (you see, he had a twin brother!) and he became a British druidic priest. The more I hear stuff like that, the more I start to think that the conspiracy theorists are THE conspiracy.
Well, there is a person named Spitaler in one of the links. Just wondering if the full name of this person were Knecht Hos Spitaler.
-
How long do you think we get a new strain of virus which exploits this "feature" ?
-
Ok, the "Land-Ships" level was a good bit more difficult, some definite strategy to use there. If you pick a tank of your own to show right away, you take a big morale hit when it finally blows up. If you don't build it right off the bat, you won't get to build it later because the build time is so long. Not bad.
In the British campaign I had to replay the final battle several times over. It turned out the best strategy was to buy only tanks and then nuke the German infantry with gas and HE and the tanks with AP until they surrendered.
As German I won with fewer own infantry casualties than in the British campaign. The trick as German was to keep the pressure up and time the arty strikes so that the British reinforcements were hit at the same time with the troops in the trenches.
The gas is a mixed bag. Ill-timed hit with it will take out both the defenders and the attackers.
Addictive little bugger this one.
-
My understanding is that the M61 APC and the M61 APCBC are the same round using US and British nomenclature respectively - the US doesn't mention the ballistic cap in their abbreviation.
Came across a single remark which said that the British removed the HE filler from their US ordnance AP shots. Any corraboration to that ?
-
hmm...didn't think about the sex angle, but the blood, gore, mayhem and destruction would not be the same in both the PG and the R-rated versions.
Are you sure ? The old SW trilogy is way less violent (both in intensity and graphical representation) than the new trilogy. Yet the new trilogy rating was not R but PG. In Finland the old trilogy DVD's still carry K-15 while the new ones are K-11 which means the new trilogy is allowed for 9-year olds when accompanied by an adult.
-
The R-rated SW series is a kickass idea!
And that differs how from PG rated ? Glancing shots of bare breasts from an angle which does not show the nipple ? The blood, gore, mayhem and destruction would be the same in both the PG and the R-rated versions.
-
By Der Alte Fritz
Why exclude 1944 production because the war ended in 1945?The cut off for all the data seems to be the Kursk battles.
And the total production of 45mm is 56,742 not 79,000.So take production from 1941 up to and including 1944.
45mm total 57,742
57mm total 4,746
which equates to 57mm numbers being 7.6% of the total number of AT guns (45+57mm).
Sorry. I did the math off the cuff and wrote the first number down wrong.
Model 37 45 899 + 14 100 made prior to June 1941 + Model 42 10 843 = 70 842 and indeed not 79 000.
Substitute 57 742 with 68 778 (to count in the in service June 1941 pieces) and the ratio is 6,4%
Deduct the 39/40 production from the in service June 1941 number and the total number comes down to 66 508 and the 45/57 ratio goes up to 7,1%.
EDIT: just realized the 45mm M-32 production is not readily evident from the numbers given.
-
By Stalin's Organist
Production of 45mm & 57mm AT guns 1939-1945:...................1939..1940...1941..1942...1943...1944...1945....total.....in svc 22 June 1941
45mm M1937 4536 ..2480 ..1329 20129 17225.. .200 .....0 .....45899 ..14100
45mm M1942....0 ......0 .......0 ......0 ....4151 ..4628 ...2064 ..10843
57mm ............0 .......0 .....371 ....0 ....1850 ..2525 ...5265 ..10011
With the hostilities ceasing in May the 57mm production (which would not reach troops in time to be used) for 1945 is, say, 2 500 and 45/M42 1 000 pieces. That leaves overall ~7 500 57mm ATG's available as opposed to 79 000 45mm ATG's. From 1941 to January 1st 1944 the number of 45mm ATG's is ~60 000 vs ~2 100 57mm ATG's. That is, what, ~290% more 45mm than 57mm ATG's over that entire period.
-
By Bigduke6
This I believe is because 85mm AAA battalions were a Front and even a Stavka asset. Therefore, a reasonable explaination for why 85mm towed gun was rare in a direct-fire anti-tank role, was because the Soviets kept the weapons well behind the lines unless there was a really critical reason in favor - a Citadel and the massive German technical advantage in armor in June '43 and Zhukov's direct participation in the planning process, are pretty durn good reasons.Exactly why I can not see why on Earth the rarity value of the 85mm AA gun should be tweaked down. Just because it was used in Kursk (and other undiclosed special occasions) does not mean it was used from 1941 to 1945 JUST LIKE the Germans used their 88's.
Another point to keep in mind in why the 85mm doesn't show up frequently in the DF role in historical accounts is, the 76mm was considered by the Soviets capable of stopping pretty much all German armor. True as far as the Soviets were concerned say in mid '43 you had to let a StuG get in close, or hit a Panther from the side, or a Tiger close from the side, but the battlefield is big and ZiS-3 is incredibly common. So why bring up the 85mm?Exactly.
There is in the web copies of actual Red Army training materials showing AP ammo was expected to destroy German panzers at normal combat ranges - an impossible expectation if the ammo sucks as bad as it is supposed to per CMBB.Cue the story about the Finnish infantry with crowbars and logs.
But a simpler, "reality check" way to judge Soviet AP ammo quality is to look at the results of the Kursk and Orel battles, count the smashed panzers, and then ask yourself "How did those Commies manage that if their ammo sucked?"Before we ask that you should ask what the "normal combat ranges" were in Kursk and Orel.
Actually, the 45mm gun was probably about 10 times more common than the 57mm.All the way from 1941 (and before) to 1945 ?
But the thing to remember is that the 76mm almost as common (remember, it wasn't just for AT, they equipped the light artillery battalions with ZiS-3 as well, that thing I think probably the most-produced gun of the war) - and ZiS-3 was expected to defeat everything but high density attacks by Panthers and Tigers; and those were awfully rare. Remember, the Soviets considered ZiS-3 could achieve a maybe kill against a Tiger side at about 400 meters, and a sure kill at about 200 meters - and this in 1942/43. So dealing with a Tiger in real life was pretty far from CMBB.One of my pet peeves is how easy the guns get killed in CMBB.
The game's rarity factors are nice as far as they go, but as you can see with the 85mm they probably don't go far enough when it comes to special equipment, usually in independant battalions, the Front or Stavka itself would push down to the Army commander. My impression of CMBB is that the rarity compares basically what was in a Soviet Army vs. a German Korps; and without taking into account that the Soviet army would by doctrine have lots of stuff attached to it from higher, or have deployed in its sector; that had no real analogue on the German side. Or more simply put, Soviet Fronts had alot more units to throw into the battle than German Armees or even Armeegruppen.Very true. But on the flip side the Germans had more freedom to field their assets once they had gotten them. The Red Army commander could (and would) have the special assets pulled in the middle of combat leaving him with only the vanilla units under his command to do the job.
However, as noted in innumerable threads on this subject over the years, the real problem with CMBB - which is still a great game - is that it pretty much systematically lowballs the performance of Soviet AT weapons, as compared to historical performance. The worst victim is the Soviet 76mm gun, which historically was good enough that the Germans used thousands of them in the Wehrmacht; and that the Soviets figured didn't need much changing as a weapon throughout the entire war, and which the Soviets figure didn't much need hopped up AT ammunition until mid '43.IMO that has something to do with the heritage of the game. As it was based on CMBO the basic models were used. AFAIK in the case of the 57mm gun the Ami 57mm/British 6prd gun model was used as a base.
There are similar problems in the game with ISU-2, whose crews considered proof against non-Panther 75mm at all but the closest ranges, but which will routinely get killed by L48 75mm in the game.The Finnish army armour did not have 75L70, only 75/48 either on StuG or PAK40 format and they actually did kill IS-2's with them.
Part of the cause is the way the game deals with turret hits, part of it is a tendency to consider Soviet steel crappy when the record seems to show that plenty of times it was not, part of it is the game's tendency to simulate visibility a good deal better than on most battlefields, and part of it is the game's algorithm that makes the crew of most Stalin's refuse, at times, even flank shots against the better German tanks. Kind of shameful when you remember how scary and tough the tank was to come up against in real life.Still, one of the things I have found over the years is that the smaller the battle, the more pronounced the ueber-German advantage is. I find that if you get 5 or more 76mm firing at a German panzer, even a kitty, you're going to do something, something bad is going to happen to the panzer. I'm not sure how the logic works but the game is extremely good at simulating the effect of hail fire on a target - if there are a bunch of shells hitting even if they're not doing damage they throw accuracy off and buy your guys more time to get a damaging hit, or spook the thing into turning its flank, or just get the panzer to point its turret at one of your shooters on one end of your firing arc, and so exposing a turret side to another one of your shooters.
Which actually isn't so far from the Soviet experience. You pour enough fire on German tanks, they'll break. Lots of scenarios don't give the Soviets near the firepower or combat skill they had in the real deal; but that isn't BFI's fault.
This begs the logical guestion: how would you need IRL hail fire from top performing guns when one gun would take the target out with a single shot ?
-
By JasonC
Every tank and mech corps had a special heavy AT battalion attached (not the standard regiment of motorized 76mm, an additional asset), equipped with 85mm guns.As of when ? My edition of Red Army Handbook has only 25/37mm AA guns in the tank/mech corps OoB (incidentaly mech corps have only 8 57mm AT guns from Jan 1st 1944 on as opposed to 36 45mm AT guns from Sept 1942 on). It also states that the 85mm AA gun was rarely used in AT role and only on special occasions (like Kursk).
Which is what equipped those special heavy AT battalions in the mechanized corps.I can find data on these special heavy AT formations only around Kursk. What is your source on them ?
Just as the Germans had a Flak battalion with 88s in every Panzer division, the Russians had these 85mm AA battalions, meant to be used in a ground AT role, attached to every mechanized and armor corps. From late 1942 on.Sorry. The only organic AA regiment assets at Corps/Army level I can find is 12,7mm and 37mm. In fact no refrences to organic 85mm AA assets are in the organizational tables.
In 1942 the Russians produced 2761 85mm AA guns. In 1943 that rose to 3713 additional pieces and another 1903 in 1944. This was more than enough to put a battalion of them in every mobile corps, even with most used in army defense zones, fixed installations and rear areas in the AA role.That maybe true. The only thing is my edition of Red Army Handbook does not show any such 85mm AA gun equipped formation existing in the OoB.
There is no reason beyond German physics bias to regard its AT ability as any different from that of the more famous German gun. And the Russians used them for ground action, formally designating the involved formation as tank killing in mission.That is true. Except the Red Army did not use them in the specifically assigned AT role except on special occasions like the Kursk battles.
Tiger Is are no more heavily armored than KV-1s, they were more effective because they were much better armed, but that makes little difference against an AA gun.Well, the AA gun has to have dedicated AP rounds to be effective against the armour. IIRC only the Germans had their AA guns have ground fire suitable carriages and AP rounds available as a design feature from the conception.
The shell broke up treatment until 1944 is German physics.That is BS. Where is the data that supports the Soviet ammo quality was up to the task prior to 1944.
The Russians report instead only that shatter issues could limit the effective range against Tigers to 950 meters. In CMBB it is more like 500 meters against a 30+50 front StuG, which is what they were actually doing with 76mm.The 76,2mm or 85mm ammo ?
And no, Russian doctrine was not that heavier artillery pieces only chucked HE from the rear, it was instead that all routes passable to enemy tanks be covered by multiple overlapping AT regions, deeply layered, and incorporating every field piece in the sector regardless of command or caliber.And they could do that where but Kursk ?
Yes the lighter pieces were forward and the 76mm was the most numerous by far. But there were plenty of heavier pieces which were fully capable of holing a German heavy, and would fire direct if any approached them.The thing is the heavier artillery was not in the organic OoB. At Corps/divisional level they only had 82/120mm mortars, 76mm and in the case of infantry Coprs/Divisions 122mm howitzers and later on M-13 rocket launchers. The heavy stuff was in separate units not to be used as MLD units.
They also dropped HE on them certainly. There are dead Elephants at Kursk KOed by 203mm howitzer HE, and not every 152mm AP came from an SU. There is a reason they wanted that gun SP, they already knew what it could do. They made HEAT rounds for their 122mm divisional howitzers from May 1942, I doubt to toss over the horizon, and more than can have been used by the small SU-122 fleet. Their excellent A-19 122mm guns, whose staple work was long range counter-battery, had APHE made throughout the war (BR-471), and could penetrate 100mm sloped 30 degrees at 2 km, and formed the basis for the IS-2 and ISU-122 gun.True. But what about places outside Kursk ?
There were 10 57mm ATGs for every Tiger in the east overall, but the Russians pay 50% higher rariety costs for the weapon 10 times as common.The 45mm ATG was (say) 100-200% more common than the 57mm. That is what they had. And when did the 57mm ATG actually go head to head against a Tiger ? Sure as hell a lot less frequently than a 45mm ATG or a 76,2mm field gun.
Do you observe that ratio of their presence over all the games you have played of CMBB? Yes they were produced later in the war, from mid 1943 on. But that is because the threat they were needed against were late war items, too. The window when Tigers were present but this counter wasn't is all of 6 months long and all of 300 vehicles in size. But playing CMBB with cherry pickers you'd get the idea that every fight occurred in that one period and had a pack of Tigers facing 45mm and 76mm guns exclusively.That does not change the fact that the rarity factor in the game is based on what your side has, not what the other side has.
-
By Der Alte Fritz
85mm AAG KS-12 obr.1939. AA gun. RVGK AT units. (Red Army Handbook - Zaloga table 4.3):08/56 20 x 85mm AA gun Seperate Regt - 17 formed by Jan 1942
8/70 8 x 45mm 8 x 85mm Seperate Regt - 23 formed by Jan1942
You don't happen to have the number of Flak M39 ® on you ? That would give a scope on how many of the heavy AA regiments were overrun by 1943.
"The (seperate)anti-tank battalion with 12 x 85mm AT guns was an emergency measure to deal with the German Tiger tank."Did they actually get into combat?
Soviet Defensive Tactics at Kursk CSI Report No11 David Glantz:
"On the evening of the 5-6th July, the 25th GRC commander ordered his second echelon 73rd GRD to reinforce the 78th GRD... The latter was reinforced by a battery of 85mm AA guns and the 1438th SU Regt equipped with 122mm and 152mm SP guns."
That leaves a 2,5 year gap between June 1941 and July 1943 (Kursk) when the 85mm AA gun was NOT used as a ground support weapon on a regular basis. I have not found any data on the availability of UBR-365 AP rounds for the AA gun prior to the gun being converted to tank gun use.
Did the Soviets use heavier AT guns?"Even Stavka could not resist the urge to fine-tune the organisation. In June 1943 they ordered the activation of three heavy tank-destroyer AT regiments, each of 551men and 15 x 107mm guns in five batteries."
The 107 M1910 gun as AT gun was a stop gap measure.
-
By Stalin's Organist
1/ it isn't spaced armour. It is 30mm plate bolted on the front of the normal 50mm plateTrue.
2/ 2 plates of armour are not as good as 1 plate of the same total thickness vs AP (do a search for the topic on the CM1 forums - there's heaps of discussion on it...or see here)Nice little caveat though
: [DISCLAIMER: The following text is taken from the U.S. War Department publication Tactical and Technical Trends. As with all wartime intelligence information, data may be incomplete or inaccurate. No attempt has been made to update or correct the text. Any views or opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of the website.]3/ Spaced armour was designed to allow the jet from HEAT rounds to dissipate in the gap between - it can have some effects on solid shot (see the 2nd link above) or not, depending upon the exact configuration/spacing of the plates and the size and nature of the shot hitting them.Lets not forget the quality variations in the ammo.
4/ most spaced armour consists of a thin exterior to detonate chemical energy shells (HEAT, HESH/HEP), and a thicker internal plate to defeat kinetic energy projectiles - this is because the exterior plate has more area than the internal one, so making it thick enough to defeat any significant kinetic projectiles carries a significant weight penalty.Restored StuG used in the film Tali-Ihantala at http://www.andreaslarka.net/ps531014/ps531014.html
Note how the heavy StuG sinks into the grass.the thin exterior plate would normally have no effect on significant kinetic energy projectiles such as the 85mm.Too bad the 76,2mm gun/ammo performance is being debated.
Nevertheless
In one caliber the reduction of energy due to loss of the cap before reaching the interior plate may result in failure to perforate, whereas in a larger caliber the loss may have a less pronounced effect on the ultimate performance, resulting in perforation of 2 plates of the same quality and equally well matched.With the plates bolted together there is no one caliber gap but beefed up armour is better than not beefed up armour.
-
By dieseltaylor
The remark on the HMG's I thought was wrong. All the HMG's appear to be penalised to fall in with the changing of barrels on the German MG's. The British WW1 HMG's were famous for firing all day so that has been ignored with all HMG's being equally prone to "jams".I'll have to keep an eye out for the German HMG performance but I have a notion they do not "JAM" when they are changing barrels.
Also, IIRC in CMBO the British HMG's did not suffer anywhere near the stopage rate the Maxims in the CMBB suffer. I do not have the source on me but there was an issue during WWII with the British cloth belts (storage grease or some such). The Red Army cloth belts were notoriously unreliable (well, at least in the Finnish army circles
) if not handeled properly. Captured belts could be used as is straight from the box but whenever possible the ammo was transferred to metal belts.I think a generic model was applied across the game.Could be. I brought the thing up just to point out that compromises are common in the game.
-
By JasonC
StuG armor quality is not Tiger armor quality,In-game or IRL ? IRL specifically selected armour plate was not AFAIK slated for specific vehicle types. Hence armour plate quality should be treated as equal in both vehicles.
the game blends figures for BR-350A and BR-350B, the latter capped and significantly outperforming against face hardened armor as a result, and available from the summer of 1943 on. The game doesn't show the Russians getting APCR until 1944, but there are dead Panthers at Kursk with subcaliber holes in them.From http://www.freeweb.hu/gva/weapons/soviet.html
45mm APCR projectiles were available in April 1942. Source: Zaloga, Steven J. and Ness, Leland S.: Red Army Handbook 1939-1945.57mm and 76mm APCR projectiles were accepted into service in October 1943. In 1943 a maximum of 8 rounds per vehicle were issued to units deployed in defensive positions where the Germans were expected to attack. By the Spring of 1944 all vehicles had at least 4 rounds each. Source: Russian Military Zone. Zaloga in the Red Army Handbook 1939-1945 states that 76mm APCR projectiles were issued from August 1942, however Valeriy Potapov from the Russian Military Zone tells me that production was delayed until October 1943 due to their very low quality.No one ever reports 85mm AP failing against plain 80mm fronts, it overpenetrates it by 25% at least, but in game even the 85mm routinely fails against 30+50 StuG fronts due to overmodeled shatter gap and undermodeled Russian ammo, which doesn't correct until 1944.What is the problem with that ? The spaced armour was designed to expend its energy on the first layer of armour enabling the second layer to withstand that much less powerful impact. The quality issues with the ammo were real and that should reflect on how the layered armour works (the way it was designed to work).
A similar case could made when it comes to Finnish (Maxim) HMG stopage rate in the game. The Maxim stopage rate in the game is modelled after the WWI era cloth belt used by the British and the Red Army. The Finnish army had adobted the non-disintegrating metal belt before WWII which lowered the stopage rate considerably.
Then the Russians had many times more 57mm ATGs than the Germans had Tigers, but the way rariety is done it measures within categories on the same side, so the existence of a flock of Russian 45mm ATGs makes 57mm ones unaffordable with rariety on, while Tigers are available with +10 rarieties in periods where they were the top 2% of the fleet.Rarity in CMBB is relative to the armies own OoB, not what they were up against. Given the relatively low over all number of tanks in the German inventory as opposed to the huge number of 45mm ATG's in the Red Army inventory the rarities of both the Tiger and the 57mm ATG are good enough.
Russian field guns large enough to kill Tigers are not depicted in the game because they were supposed to fire indirect. So long 122mms they actually had in every corps artillery park aren't available until 1944 on AFVs.The weapon of choice for HE direct fire support in the Red Army was the 76mm regimental gun.
The Russian 85mm AA had equal AT performance to the German 88mm and was used by them in every mechanized corps as an AT weapon in game they suffer the same undermodeling in 1943 as the SU-85s plus high rariety.What is your source on this ? The captured 85mm guns were rebored to 88mm and used by the Germans the way they used their own 88's but I have not seen too many reports of Red Army having 85mm AA guns (nor their other AA assets like the Quad Maxim, 20mm, 37mm guns) in the front line doing direct ground support work on a regular basis.
The ammo issue is mute, the rarity is in line with the Red Army doctrine.
The Russians had 152mm gun-howitzers towed from the start of the war, but only a handful of SU-152 are depicted with them through the end of 1943.Artillery was not supposed to act as AT. The Red Army was more strict on following doctrine than the Germans.
Just as the Germans dealt with KVs and T-34s in 1941-2 using 88mm Flak, 105mm Kanone, 150mm howitzers firing HC, and 105mm likewise, the Russians regarded artillery fronts as the primary means of AT defense.Before Kursk they did not have a chance to put that into practise in any meaningful way.
In the game, a handful of undermodeled 85mm are the top of their gun park, and the bulk at neutered 76mm.That is how their doctrine worked. The bulk of the 76mm guns initially available were regimental IG with 45mm ATG to deal with the enemy armour.
The coincidence that a Tiger side and a StuG front have similar thickness, was enough to force the designers to create unhistorical uberStuGs in the process of trying to make Tigers invulnerable. It would be fair to say every single consideration in favor of Russian AT performance in 1943 was excluded from the game, and every possible consideration in favor of German armor performance at the same date was included.Lets remember the CMBB was built on CMBO. In CMBO the Allies got the preferential treatment (StuG only cosmetically hull down, never malfuctioning stabilizers "partially on at all times" etc). Design choices were made after debate.
StuG areas with only 50mm coverage - excludedIIRC to take into account the variable slopes in parts of the Stug armour. The center of mass aiming is used to calculate hits. These variations are significant enough to warrant cutting this particular corner.
Russian subcaliber ammo - excluded until 1944Given the facts a sound choice.
layered plate modeled as stronger than uniformWell, it is not significantly weaker when the quality issues of the Soviet ammo are considered.
Russian 85mm "shell broke up" endlessly until 1944It seems it did have quality issues IRL.
Russian "round" armor depicted as weaker than 30 degrees in practiceYou assume the round armour is cast. The weld seam was often located visibly in the round section of the armour making it weaker.
German armor quality rated 95-100What should it be then ?
Much harder Russian steel considered low armor quality (only true vs. overmatch, not when it counts vs. e.g. 50L42, 50L60)Hard armour plate is brittle.
Germans penetrate 1941 T-34s from the front at 900m with 50L42They do ? Man, I have been unlucky. All the long range kills I have gotten have been mobility kills.
In reality their documents say get within 300m from the side *and* use APCRIRL they preferred to lure them in the FLAK sights when ever possible.
Russians 1941 - don't use KVs without prior "no holds barred" agreement and rariety offGermans 1942-3 - don't use Tigers without prior "NHB" and rariety off
Germans 1942 - use Marders and Pz III longs or Pz IV shorts
Germans 1943 - use Panzer IV longs, not StuG longs
All in all sound advice. I'd allow StuG's though when it is appropriate ie. when the German force composition is infantry heavy. In Pure armour selection the number of StuG's should be limited.
-
Every contemporary tactical account says they routinely killed StuGs inside 500 meters.
They routinely killed StuGs inside 500 meters.
The rest is spin, rhetoric, and tail covering.
Yes. They killed when they could hit them. There is more in play than mere techspec of the weapons and armour.
IRL Stug/StuH got the upper hand due to their low profile when in hull down position. The Russian optics were not as good as the German. The Germans had different crew layout which allowed them to operate the vehicle more effeciently (T-34/76 commander doubled as the gunner as opposed to Stug having the dedicated commander and gunner). So the T-34/76 vs Stug stand off was not down to just how hard the gun could hit the other vehicle and how well the armour could withstand a hit.
In CM series the turreted vehicles get preferential treatment over the turretless vehicle when it comes to hit propability calculation, especially when in hull down position. And in CMBB the T-34/76 does kill the Stug at normal combat ranges. When it gets to score a hit.
-
By Joachim
And after flushing the enemy out, you gotta know (observe) his line of retreat. Stealthy FOs are another matter, but given the available radios in WW2 this is quite a risky business.By 1944 the Red Army had become quite proficient in triangulating and hitting practically instantly FO's using radios.
As the arty is stationary and the other arms are closer to the enemy - who should lead (as in: command) the op?That depends how expendable your infantry manpower is.
Will the arty fire at bad targets to prepare for the op?That depends on the enemy preparations. Defenders did/do use fake positions as arty magnets. Attackers did/do use diversionary fire missions to make the defender mask the true point of attack. And if the attacker is not sure how the defence is laid out he may use exorbitant amounts of ordnance to blast turf with rolling barrages just to make sure they hit something.
-
What is the nominal speed the ISP is promising ? If he has 2Mb promised it may still be that the ISP is not actually promissing anything more than 28,8 (if even that).
-
late war fish stories go more like "the defenders run out of Panzerschreck ammunition and thus were forced to just watch as the platoon of IS-2s stood at the battalion command post. as night fell the IS-2s withdrew."
You are forgetting "multiple shots (up to 30+) of PAK38 and PAK40 rounds were expended by a single AT gun to kill (ie. make catch fire) a T-34/SU-ISU152/IS-2."
-
By Der Alte Fritz
One issue is how did these free-wheeling recce formations fit in with Stalinist Soviet doctrine which emphesised control, following orders and a plan and close supervision?The thing is they are not by any means free-wheeling in the Western (German/Anglo-American) sense. While they may be named "Independent" their task was clearly defined and limited within the limits of the master plan the main force is following. The same goes BTW to the "independent" artillery formations. STAVKA stripped the basic formations of organic recce and fire support and allocated it according to their planned needs. They would pull resources if the attack was behind schedule eventhough the tactical situation would have warranted extending the timetable.
You described a late war make-up of a recce formation. By then the Red Army had adopted the sumo wrestler doctrine. Besides concentration of force it also entailed extensive preplanning and preparation with adjoining extensive intel effort and anticipation of enemy by-the-book response to tactical stimuli. The recce formations task included reconnoitering and precise fixing of enemy positions (down to individual emplacements) mine fields and clearing avenues through them, clearing enemy outposts ahead of the main attack, capture of "tongues" etc.
AFAIK late in the war the Red Army would rarely attack into the unknown in terms of inadequate intel about the opposing force composition and disposition. Once the MLD was penetrated their moves anticipated the enemy reactions and their preplanned objectives were set so that the enemy reinforcements would be expended piecemeal against the Red Army preplanned and allocated resources. If an attack was succesful beyond planned going beyond planned objectives rarely happened.
-
By Mord
I don't think, and never have, that backing the military, giving them the benefit of the doubt when under accusations on foreign soil, and honoring their service, is extremist militarism...I am just old fashion like that.Militarism (even extreme) is not equal to extreme religious fanaticism/fundamentalism.
The US military is FAR from being any kind of Goose Stepping Jesus Squad no matter how much the libs here or abroad want to try and paint it that way.IMO the troops are not (necessarily) motivated by religious motives. However, when presidential candidates who may wind up being responsible for the political decisions regarding deployment of said troops start spouting religious slogans it is time to review any and all political (and economic) decisions very closely. Roslin did take "Love thy neighbour" to a new level when she tried to get her sisters ex-spouse fired. "Just say no" did not seem to be good enough contraception for her teenage daughter. I'm sure your comics are supplied with enough materiel to keep them going for a while.
As far as it being a religious war for us...it's not, and you all know it. Big difference when a few say the US is doing God's work, than when everybody and his mother starts poppin' blood vessels and lopping off heads because some dumb ass drew a cartoon.Do not get mad, get even has been the American credo for a long time. Making prognom lists of countries who belong to "Axis of Evil" is not equal to lobbing off individual heads, it is far more effective.
If Republicans were all Bible Thumpin' Nazi there'd be no Liberals...LMAO...Proof.So far I have not or have not seen anybody claiming Roslin or Republicans to be equal to Nazis. Who BTW were anti-religious to the core.
-
Nah, I just thought it would be easier for some to accept the casualties in Iraq if they thought about it differently. There are a lot fewer deaths to worry about that way.
"You have to break eggs in order to make an omelette" could have worked just as well.
What effect did the stabilized MG have on rifles?
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
Lets consider at this point the ammo usage during Winter War. The Fininsh army artillery usage (at http://www.winterwar.com/forces/FinArmy/FINartiller.htm#shellsituation ) which come down to total of 508 966 shells and the casualty rates of the Red Army (at http://www.winterwar.com/War'sEnd/casualti.htm#soviet ) which come down to roughly ~87 000 KIA (counting in the DOW and not counting in the ~39 000 MIA) and 264 908 WIA (not counting in the sickness cases). I did not dig up the Red Army artillery ammo expenditure but if we allow 20 times the Finnish expenditure the total would be in the order of 10 million shells for 26 662 KIA and ~43 000 WIA.
In this example the writing is on the wall in favour of defenders using mainly small arms against deliberate assault causing heavy casualties to the attacker. (Even when disregarding the actual tactics used in executing the assaults which contributed to the casualty rates).