Grisha

Whole thing sounds suspect to me. The Soviet Union was much more restricted in production capacity than the USA. Their entire MBT production was based on only two chassis, the T-34 and the KV/IS. Yet, in 1943 it was determined that the T-34 needed a bigger gun, and there was need of a replacement to the KV-1. By 1944, the Soviets designed, then began serial production of the T-34/85 and IS models. Now, it's very hard to belief that a country with even more production potential, resources, and the gift of total isolation from the war couldn't have made a better medium tank by 1944. Either somebody was looking to make more money, or the US Army Command wasn't listening much to their soldiers' opinions.

Was just thinking about this in a solitaire game this week. Hope it happens in CMBB.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gatpr: thanks they probably fought on foot 90% of the time. But lots of East Front artillery was horse drawn so how do they plan to model that?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is certainly true, but again if any artillery pieces need towing, they'll have to locate a truck in CMBB. Practically speaking, a scenario in CMBB where an artillery piece is being towed would usually be in either an ambush, or a meeting engagement. Since, artillery are rarely engaged in frontline positions their mere presence in a scenario should be few and far between. Now, in 1941 artillery pieces were used as pseudo-AT guns during the desperate times of Barbarossa, but other than that artillery would best be represented by the FO calling it in. Btw, I like your sig, "Make haste slowly." Wasn't it Emperor Augustus who was quoted as saying that?

BTS have decided not to model horses in CMBB, so if there are cossacks, they'll be dismounted.

Kip, I also tend to favor longer games with more game turns, but my primary reason for that is because in most games enemy defenses are almost completely unknown. Thus, I want the time to do reconnaissance, even though such a task is unrealistic at this stage in planning a battle. But, what is equally unrealistic is not having any idea of what to expect in an assault-type battle where the intent is to take an enemy position from set frontline positions. For the Germans, and Soviets from 1943, tactical knowledge of enemy trenches/positions, mg bunkers, pillboxes, minefields, and artillery/AT-gun positions were generally known with up to 80% accuracy, generally speaking, when conducting a set-piece assault of this nature. My only solution to this will work in the single scenario setup alone, and that is when making the scenario in the editor, one make the defensive setup orange(unmovable) for 70-80% of the force, then enter landmarks that label those orange defensive positions.

The Soviets were renowned in their use of maskirovka VF redeployment. By late 1943, Soviet VF's could suddenly reappear in a totally new location, usually in the last 2-3 game turns. Sometimes, there was even the use of a number of fake VF's that were either moved or emplaced in more accessible areas to entice German reserves in a direction advantageous to the Soviets. The Soviet technique of maskirovka VF redeployment is little known, and much more work needs to be done to expand this information in the West.

"... a brilliant cross. Barthez is stranded. Oh, MY! It's a GOAL! A powerful header by Rivaldo put it in the back of the net by the far post! Great goal!"

Thanks, Desantnik

Does anyone know the address, phone number, and/or email address for the (Ekaterina) Zelenko Museum in Kursk?

Just give me BM-31s. Plot it in the middle, and you've got the map covered

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947: I can't remember the exact figures but someone posted the number of men killed in action some months ago and it plainly shows that the Russian's got their butts beat. So, I for one don't think much of the Russian's army abilities in WWII. Now, I certainly am looking forward to playing CM2 but nobody can say that the Russian army was that good and have me believe it. Had it not been for Germany taking on two fronts I believe they would have won over the Russian's. Now I don't have any facts to that statement but I have read some about WWII and that's what I got out of it anyway.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are certainly free to your opinion, and your broad statements have an element of truth - but only to a point. I am curious if you have read anything by Erickson, or Zaloga, or Glantz? Have you read anything from the Soviet point of view, or are your opinions based entirely from German materials? I'm almost certain that you are aware of the tremendous encirclement battles of '41, where Soviet prisoners were in the millions, but have you ever heard of the Belorussian campaign, or Kursk, or Stalingrad, or even the Vistula-Oder operation? Are you familiar with the unique, and extremely successful use of maskirovka by the Soviets? Are you aware that though the Soviets possessed overall numerical odds of 2:1 by Oct '43, and 3:1 odds by Oct '44, that somehow the Soviets were consistently able to create 5:1 to 7:1 odds at the weakest points in the German lines, beginning around late '43? Which brings me back to your knowledge of maskirovka. The Soviets were not the equals of the Germans in tactical fire & maneuver, but the Germans were not the equals of the Soviets in the use of deception. By 1944, when the Soviets didn't want German intelligence to detect Soviet redeployment, on whatever scale, it simply did not happen. The Soviets were that good at it. Tactically, the result was 8:1, 16:1 odds, massively overwhelming assaults that were precluded with little if any warning - of any sort and at any level, which translates to surprise. Hence, from late '43, and especially from mid '44 on, when the Soviets wanted to create an unanticipated assault at the ungodly odds of 10:1 or greater, they generally did so without any worries of a German response that would be in any form sufficient to the task. The Soviets got extremely good at what worked for them.

Actually, Zhukov used the same 'trick' during the assault on Berlin. While it was initially successful, the Germans anticipated its use when Zhukov attacked the Zeelowe Heights. Basically, they had the 88s target any search lights. It was a mess. What the hay, I like Rokossovsky better anyway

"A wonderful goal from 30 meters!"

Amazing solution, and so typically Russian

According to Glantz in his book Soviet Military Operational Art, the defense system at Kursk is really best thought of as 'bubbles' that were connected to each other. The density of these systems varied, and were designed to channel the German advance in specific avenues where the main AT zones lay. These prime AT zones were placed in areas that it was felt the German advance would focus on, like junctions, bridges, etc., and were packed with AT guns, as well as dug-in tanks.

Have to agree with Jeff here, winning at war has long been a matter of logistics. Sure a battle can be turned by a sudden rally that takes hold and spreads, but more often than not it's the planning that goes into not only extended combat operations, but also redeployment, supplies, replacements/reinforcements, air-ground liaison, intelliegence/reconnaissance, and I'm still probably missing a few. Generals are really managers of all this. While they make their own key commands for specific parts of a combat operation, it's usually the task of the General Staff to make sure that it all gets done. One way of looking at it is that a General is a small units commander - of his staff. The type of staff he possesses and how that staff responds to their General is the crux of the whole matter.

There were no hard and fast arrangements. Parabellum's OOB is for the beginning of Barbarossa. In the summer of 1942, 1943 & 1944, most of the panzers were in AGS.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Johnson-<THC>-: I don't think it would be very fun to play a game just simulating an opening barrage of a massive offensive. Maybe the follow up battles after a breakthough, Germans rushing firebrigades to the scene of the crime..so to speak.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't know, Mr.Johnson. I've been playing Soviet since the late 1970s, and one of my favorite moments is laying in that initial barrage. From time to time I'll make a QB in CMBO, playing Germans and giving them rocket artillery. All I do is play the initial turns until the rockets come in. I love it

My personal slant in RTS games is that while they can be very entertaining, they do not simulate reality, and are more game than wargame. The reason is simple: one mind cannot be expected to function as many minds in many places in realtime. Only by implementing a planning phase that is timed to allow one mind to act as many minds in many places can realism be simulated. While good RTS players are able to make quick decisions in many places over a given time, in the RL rushing into anything is usually fraught with peril unless sufficient thought is given to the situation.

rexford, Thanks, I'll have to take a look at that. Jeff, I'll get it to you, grrrrr!!! Now that you mention it, I think I remember seeing that chart in Zaloga's book(yeah, I bought through abebooks).

rexford, It would be interesting to see if the Soviet military archives have any collection of data wrt Soviet AFVs and what percentage were taken out by various Axis weaponry. I'd be very surprised if the War Experience commission didn't do such a study. Do you know anyone in Russia with access to the archives?

Yeah, definitely. I never even thought that the CS Roberts Awards had a category for computer games. I mean these are hard-core wargame awards, ie counters, maps & lawyer quality rulebooks. Since I frequent the consimworld site often it's a shame I never bothered to check if there was a computer wargame category, otherwise I would've voted for CMBO. However, I can see why SPWAW won it, since the sheer amount of scenarios and OBs available make it almost possible to simulate every conflict in WWII.

rexford, Very interesting point regarding Soviet AFV armour hardness, and Soviet armor doctrine. There may be something to that if enough data exists to back it up.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: Thanks for the info. on "Maskirovka". I can see that I was way off! Regards Jim R.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi Jim, The previous posts in response to yours are pretty much correct. Maskirovka means 'Deception' and 'Camouflage' all rolled into one. In Army combat operations maskirovka was implemented by doing any and all of the following:<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI> Secret redeployments either by road or rail of units, usually at night, or under heavy smoke during daylight hours. <LI> Simulations of troop movements into specific areas for diversionary purposes. This could include dummy tanks and artillery placement along with special 'maskirovka' units used to 'animate' the area. <LI> Actual troops concentrations in specific areas for diversionary purposes. This could be followed by real attacks from these 'false' assembly points to trigger enemy reserves. Much would be done to 'broadcast' the development of these areas to the enemy: sloppy radio discipline and march movement. There are many other details that make up maskirovka like leaving the very first echelon of the original units when new units secretly deploy into the area, but suffice to say maskirovka was extremely detailed, and was the instrument that allowed the Soviets to make effective use of their numerical superiority by adding the element of surprise.

Wrt a western audience one can't help but wonder if the entire Soviet Army General Staff has been underrated ... with the exception of General Winter and General H.Wave Okay, it's a jib. My apologies