Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Grisha

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,083

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Grisha

    T34 Vulnerability

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    I don't have a problem with this. T-34s were pretty vulnerable to the newer 75mm cannons on the PzIVs by this time. Of course, PzIVs were not much better off either wrt T-34 and KV-1 cannon fire in 1943.

    But, I agree, Soviet tactics had changed by this point to a 'close then fire' approach. In fact, it was more of a 'ambush, then attack' if circumstances allowed for it.

    0

    Red Army hand held anti-tank weapons, part duo

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    Regarding the RPG-43, please correct me if I'm wrong. One pulled the pin and threw it, whereby the conical collar would unattach, and trail behind, connected by two cloth strips? The collar, by it trailing action and the fact that the strips were probably attached to the handle at the 'bottom', would stabilize the head of the grenade, insuring a reasonable chance that the grenade would function properly?

    If this is correct, what a neat idea. I knew the Soviet had antitank grenades, but I never knew what that meant until now. Thanks for the info, people.

    Kip Anderson, I live in Seattle, USA. Could you give me the number/address of this archive you spoke of?

    0

    Force Selection Idea (cm2?)

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    I like Thermopylae's idea as well. Reminds me of the way Talonsoft's East Front oob is done.

    As to CptSwampy's post, I also agree. An assault was definitely preceded by reconnaissance of some sort, whether LURP-type, aerial, or reconnaissance in force. One way of doing this in CM now when creating scenarios is to put text names on the map, such as '1st line of defense', or 'minefields', or 'enemy bunker'. In fact, you could do all kinds of things with this idea, including false information.

    0

    Elite HMG 42 opens up on a Pershing

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    Originally posted by Freak:

    Hey good points Leonidas. I agree with the over aggresiveness of the HMG squad. A command to control their aggresive mindset would be nice.

    I am hoping that for the future of CM (CM and beyond) that units such as HMG's are not as trigger happy as they are. I picture myself in a situation say the one I presented above and I cannot picture myself going up against those odds in any situation. I hope that presevation of units is emphasized more in CM 2 and beyond.

    Maybe this will be solved in CM2 for the Soviets, at least, with the addition of HMG Commissars! If one of these Commie gems is within Tokarev range of a subordinate HMG unit in hiding, then if the HMG prematurely opens fire it's - POW! POW! - no more HMG fire...

    0

    Soviet Weapons

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    Originally posted by Rommel22:

    The Russians suffered horrific casualties (as is known) in 41. But they ( Russians) lost HUGE ammounts of artillery pieces, HUGE number. So during 41 the russians almost had no artillery to counter the germans arty. They did have some but small numbers. Even as late as 43 they haven't fully re-covered. They still were well below the number of artillery pieces compared to 41 (before the invasion).

    Ofcourse some fronts like Stalingrad, Mosocow and Lennigrad had priority in recieving arty pieces. But they were in few numbers still.

    I don't know the exact numbers lost or gained back. Does anyone have some numbers concerning this!

    Neither 1941 or 1942 were good years for the Soviets. However, from 1943, on, things got vastly better. As far as artillery production goes, the Soviets produced more pieces than the USA in WWII. I have the figures at home, if you want confirmation.

    ------------------

    Best regards,

    Greg Leon Guerrero

    0

    The Great Patriotic War

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    The French and Czechoslovaks each both had a fighter air regiment. Not sure what sort of Soviet-equipped ground army the Czechoslovaks though.

    From a purely military history point of view, I'd say that the nations which should be covered(besides Germany & the Soviet Union) are:<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI> Romania<LI> Hungary<LI> Italy<LI> Finland

    And it would be in that order of importance too.

    ------------------

    Best regards,

    Greg Leon Guerrero

    0

    Life as a T-34 driver

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    Okay, this quote is from Charles C. Sharp's Soviet Armor Tactics in World War II. It also goes against the consensus of this thread. However, Mr. Sharp stated in his preview that "Combat is a life and death matter; once a method is found to work, regardless of what the regulation says, the survivors are going to be loath to abandon it for another technique. Most of the following examples from the Soviet tank unit commanders are from the 1944-45 period, because by then the men and leaders had survived long enough to develop a well-honed feeling for 'what works'." Below, is one of those examples.

    How to Keep an Advance Going

    Colonel(later Colonel-General) David Abramovich Dragunskiy was one of the premier armor commanders and tacticians in the Soviet Army. Twice Hero of the Soviet Union by the end of the war, during the Vistula-Oder Operation in January 1945 he was commander of the 55th Guards Tank Brigade, 7th Guards Tank Corps. In an interview conducted in Moscow June 1989 by Colonel David M. Glantz and Colonel Paul Adair he had this to say about how to advance deep into the enemy rear:

    "First, we refused to travel the highways. We decided to move only by ravines, there where they didn't expect us ... Second, we placed two tank battalions in the first echelon, we put a motorized rifle battalion, infantry, on the tanks and we still had a tank battalion in the rear for development of the success. Moreover, we already had self-propelled units (Dragunskiy's brigade had a self-propelled artillery regiment added). They were attached to (the rear) tank battalion. Thus, each battalion had its own infantry company along with the tanks, it had self-propelled artillery, had antiaircraft assets, and we provided it the capability of operating independently. So, each battalion operated independently but towards one goal. We told them that we must take that city. We wait for you there... And that is how they acted, just like an open fan, but toward one goal..."

    ------------------

    Best regards,

    Greg Leon Guerrero

    0

    CM2 - Can I buy NKVD Batallions to shoot my own troops?

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    Originally posted by Dr. Brian:

    Myth ... sort of.

    It was "common" for whatever that means, to palce NKVD behind "prisoner" battalions and other "suspect" units.

    Over all, the common Red Army soldier had no problems fighting the Nazi invader that raped and pillaged, and waged a war of extermination against the slav, or what the Germans called "Untermenschen" (i.e., subhuman).

    So, yes, they did exist, but not in the context you, or Enemy at The Gates, portrayed.

    Exactly, Dr.Brian! Some people in this forum are under the impression that by and large the average Soviet citizen was forced to fight! This is patently untrue. By winter of 1941, the Soviets knew what was in store for them should Nazi Germany defeat them. Certainly, the Stalin regime was at work, but this had very little to do with the level of commitment the average Soviet citizen and soldier was willing to go for their country. It's a terrible misfortune that in the case of the War of Russia the losers got to write the history books.

    ------------------

    Best regards,

    Greg Leon Guerrero

    0
×
×
  • Create New...