Grisha
-
Posts
1,083 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Grisha
-
-
Lay down some suppression, either mg fire or artillery, or better, both, then run like a bat out of hell. If the distance is too great, then use smoke for cover at least until you can make a rush without getting tired. Exposure to fire is what you want to limit, so always run if possible when in open terrain, but make sure everybody does it at the same time. Having them dash out in ones and twos just gives the enemy the leisure of picking off your men one by one. If they all go at once the enemy will have a much harder time of figuring out who to shoot.
You are going to have casualties without a doubt, but if you limit the time your men are exposed to fire, and send them all out at once to blow enemy situational awareness, then you'll be doing your men no wrong.
As the Germans said, "Move fast, or not at all."
-
Well ... my only hope after seeing the kind of response people seem to have for the T-34 is that BTS doesn't fudge factor the poor thing to death. That would be a shame
-
John Waters,
Jeez, with the sheer amount of vehicles BTS will need to model for CM2, it would seem masochistic to simulate the derivations that resulted from production priorities
BTW, thanks for the elaboration on the Aberdeen vehicles. That turret is definitely earlier '40-'41 type, though I can't tell if it was cast or welded. My forte is aircraft, and I'm sadly lacking in detailed knowledge of Soviet vehicles.
I'm curious as to why these vehicles were sent to the USA to begin with. A little nudge to open the second front, perhaps?
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:
I thought this was kind of interesting. Found it on the Russian Military Zone by accident while looking for information on Soviet WWII Tank Optics.
{snip}
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Jeff,
While the tests were done in 1942 the T-34 used was a model 1940-41. You can tell this from the turret shape. By 1942 the hexagonal turret had been made with its numerous improvements.
-
Runyan99,
I hear you (CMBO is really just a 'training ground' for CM2 for me personally), but the fact is it was slated for CMBO. It's not a good idea to promise a major feature like TCP/IP, then delay it indefinitely. Better BTS implement TCP/IP now, then move on to CM2.
-
John,
You are absolutely right about the state of the newer Soviet armor in 1941. The T-34 and KV-1 were both fairly new, and many flaws needed to be addressed. Compounding that with lack of trained personnel, poor logistical planning, and outdated military doctrine (after the purges the Soviets re-adopted the nonmech-infantry approach to battle), and it was just one really long Soviet nightmare in 1941.
But things did get better after '41. Many of the flaws were worked out. True, engine reliability was never very high (Soviet engine technology was not on par with most other major industrialized nations at that time), but ease of repair and maintenance was very good.
I'm not saying that the T-34 was unstoppable in 1941. It definitely had some problems, a few which have been stated in this thread. But it wasn't so bad that Soviet tankers couldn't rely on it in combat. If you swiveled the turret, you would feel fairly confident it would perform as expected. If you needed to accelerate across a field to the next defilade position, you were pretty certain the engine wouldn't die midway. Any problems were usually recognized beforehand, and the T-34 in question was sent to a repair depot. So, in the scale of CM these type of problems would be a rarity.
Giving the T-34/76 a spotting handicap due to the two man turret makes sense too, but I've stated that above already. I do have trouble with giving T-34s breakdown ratings, because they just weren't as fragile as some allude to.
-
Hmm, well based on many peoples armchair insight into the actually SOP of the T-34, I guess it comes down to this for the ol' commie tank:<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI> Must remain in buttoned status always, because there's just no way anybody could look around that hatch ever. You could put your back out, you know.
<LI> Turret speed should be extremely slow, because the electric motor always broke down in seconds of being turned on, and even if it did work, you couldn't stop the traverse anyway.
<LI> Rate of fire should be extremely slow, because the two guys in the turret could never figure out who did what - "Hey, am I supposed to gun today, or you?" ... "I don't know, look at the regs."
<LI> There only should be one turn of movement, because after that you could bet there would be a mechanical breakdown. However, if tanks are carrying extra transmissions, then they can 'repair' the tank, getting another turn of movement.
Boy, good thing the Russians had enough people to human wave Germany to defeat
Come on, people! For crying out loud, get real.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hussar:
Hi Guys
I have been following this thread with interest, but it seems to have dried up so...
I would be hesitant about a lot of the "new" revisionist stuff coming out now. The German OOB at Kursk, and elsewhere, has been known for years and several good books have been written about this battle, particularly in the "high interest" period of the '70s.
Manstein in particular was heavily discredited in the 1950's, so much so that the first edition of his book was heavily altered by the time the second edition came out to cover some of his lies. The first edition is now a collectors item as a result. Whilst it is true that the Soviet records have opened up widely in the last few years, they have added little to what was known about Kursk, particularly from the German side.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but, Hussar, I think you miss the point of the 'revisionist' thing. Your post appears to me to imply that it is German material alone that should decide the truth of Kursk. Granted, past Soviet published works inflated German armor losses, but the German army was more than just Panthers and Tigers, much more. And while German heavy tank losses were quite small the same cannot be said of their medium tanks, their infantry, and their support vehicles. Without these assets German heavy tanks could not hope to hold any ground past dusk. The Soviets would have eliminated them in the night.
And, just how many Soviet troops were still out there? You see, this is where your train of thought collides smartly with 'revisionist' history, because the Germans never knew just how many Soviets were actually in reserve during the Prokhorovka action, or for the entire Zitadelle operation, for that matter. And we now know just how many there were due to the opening of Soviet archives. In fact, there were enough that after the carnage of Zitadelle, then Manstein's post-Kursk operation, the Soviets launched a major counteroffensive in the very same area a mere two weeks later! With that amount of reserves in the Kursk area, the Soviets could have lost Prokhorovka, and still the SS PanzerKorps would have run dry before too long. The Soviet archives prove that such was the thoroughness of STAVKA contingency planning that had the Germans won at Prokhorovka, the outcome of Zitadelle would have been no different than it was. And not only that, it also provides convincing evidence that even if the Germans had commenced Zitadelle in late May, or in June, their chances of success would have been no better than they were in July.
This is the key to 'revisionist' history wrt the Great Patriotic War. It fills out the other half of the picture, allowing us all to see just who and what the Germans were up against. The Germans had many tactical victories, but these victories spelled doom for them operationally, because the Germans could not recoup the losses they did incur, and in many instances either did not anticipate, or would not consider the consequences of such losses. In contrast, Soviet archives show that the Soviets were very aware of possible losses, and made extensive plans for worst case scenarios in order to ensure success of their operations. These plans were not only logistical in nature, but encompassed massive deception operations, and in depth intelligence on all levels. What the archives show is that while the Soviets would never be the equals of the Germans in tactical genius, they did do everything in their power that would give them an edge, and they literally left no stones unturned.
When one reads the memoirs of the German generals like Guderian, Mellenthin, and Manstein, then reads the new works coming out from the Soviet archives, one comes away thinking that on many levels, the Germans never really knew who hit them.
[This message has been edited by Grisha (edited 11-03-2000).]
-
Fantastic! I can't wait to d/l them myself. Thanks, Kump
------------------
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Mellenthln's work, written without benefit of archival materials, tended to treat tactical cases without fully describing their operational context. Opposing Soviet units, as in Guderian's work, were faceless.
David M. Glantz<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
-
John,
Exactly. I agree. One has only to think of Uran, and the tremendous losses suffered by the Romanians. To be honest, if only one nation outside of the Soviet Union and Germany were to be included, my vote would be for Romanians. Their participation in the Russian front was substantial. Finnish participation was limited during WWII, since they gave up offensive operations after 1941, and the Soviets didn't conduct any large operations against them until 1944. The 'Continuation War' was a much different thing from the 'Winter War'.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 109 Gustav:
Actually, no. The T34 had a crew of a driver, hull gunner, loader, and an overworked commander/gunner. The commander was responsible for picking out targets, shooting them and yelling instructions to the driver (Not positive, but I don't think many T34s had intercoms). If the turret traverse motor was damaged, which happened frequently, he also had to crank the turret around with a very poorly positioned crank.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
All T-34s had internal comms between commander/gunner and driver. So the commander would be yelling at the loader to hurry
-
WOW! This is great! WTG BTS!
-
I would like to see the Soviets, Germans, Romanians, Finns, Italians, and Hungarians in CM2. I think the percentage of participation from each of these nations was enough to warrant it.
------------------
Smert' ili Pobeda
-
One thing I thought of was about the driver in a T34. Say you're in a T-34, unbuttoned, and you've spotted a tank. Okay, commander goes under to gun, but the driver isn't going anywhere. He's still up there looking around, albeit with a limited FOV than the commander who was on top of the turret. While commander is under with the cannon, if the driver sees anything he could radio on the internal such an event, since driver and commander were the only ones with comms. It's a sort of limited, frontal unbuttoned situation, but it's not like the T-34 can't see.
The key for a T-34/76 is if it's engaged, or not, ie locked on a target. Should a T-34 be locked on a target, then it should have a handicap relative to other three-man turrets, buttoned or unbuttoned. That I agree with, and if BTS smacks such a handicap on T-34s with target locks, It'd be fine with me.
------------------
Smert' ili Pobeda
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Los said:
Anyway it goes without saying also that however "superior" the early T34/76 was to early was designs in some aspects, they were stll destroyed in the hundreds and thousands by infantry divisions that were stil wheeeling around cheesy 37mm AT guns. There are many elements that go into a superior tank besides a big gun and armor, heck if that was the case the French would have wiped out the germans in may, 1940.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, Los, most T-34s and KV-1s were lost in the summer of 1941, because they didn't have ammo/fuel/parts, and were therefore abandoned, not due to combat.
After all is said and done about the inadequacies of the T-34 (and KV-1) relative to the many merits of the Pzkpfw III/IV, the Germans still did not engage these two Soviet tanks head-on in 1941, but rather used maneuver to hit them from the flanks. Thus, in CM2 in 1941 the onus should be on the German player to use maneuver to take out T-34s, or pay the consequences of superior AP & armour.
BTW, where did you get that little piece about 37mm ATG taking out T-34s???
------------------
Smert' ili Pobeda
-
Good point, Snake Eyes. Does the Tiger make use of this ability in CM? I haven't played with Tigers too much, but I can't really recall seeing them doing this to get off a shot. It's usually just the turret that rotates.
------------------
Smert' ili Pobeda
-
Slapdragon,
I saw your comment about the backwards progression of the Soviet army wrt weaponry. In the case of the SVT -> Moisin Nagant, this is true, as well as with quite a few other weapon systems, and vehicles/aircraft. The reason for this had to do with production priorities.
The Soviets in WWII had one of the most efficient production programs in the world. They possessed fewer key raw resources than Germany, yet out-produced them in almost all categories. Unlike the USA, the Soviet Union was severely limited in machinery, and so it became paramount to get the most out of what tooled machines they did have. For instance, the PPSh 41 could be made out of the most basic tooling machines, and thus was capable of being made just about anywhere without requiring retooling(which is a timely process). Another example would be modifications to weapons. Usually, upgrades were produced in the very same line where the original types were being produced, so that production was largely uninterrupted. Thus, upgrades made their way out to the front in thin 'streams' at first, then gradually becoming more consistent and complete as the machinery was slowly retooled. The reason the SVT was discontinued during the war had to do with its complex design. For the Soviets to have pursued SVT production, they would have had to discontinue other weapon types that were using the same machines. This would have been too 'wasteful' of overall production, so it was discontinued.
------------------
Smert' ili Pobeda
-
Okay, I did some more wandering in the internet, and found some more information. According to another source, the Sherman's turret traverse was 360 degrees in 10 seconds! Also, I found another set of times for the T-34/76. For the model 1941 it was 13.85 seconds, and for the model 1942, 15 seconds.
So, the evidence is starting to show that while the T-34 may have had a faster turning turret than most German tanks, the Sherman was faster yet.
-
109 Gustav,
Wouldn't that happen to any tank actually? You blow it's motor, it's time to crank, regardless of tank, right? Or, are you saying that only a T-34 should have this sort of handicap???
PzKpfw 1,
I'm just stating what I saw at the Russian Military Zone(RMZ). And though the T-34/85 had a larger turret ring diameter than the T-34/76, the article at RMZ says that its turret traverse was 4.2 rpm. This equates to 360 degrees in 14.29 seconds. I'll post an inquiry there as to this information. BTW, my original post was in reference to the T-34/76, not the 85. But, now that you brought it up, I had to look ...
------------------
Smert' ili Pobeda
[This message has been edited by Grisha (edited 11-02-2000).]
-
You know, I love the IS-3 as much as the next Soviet player, but if it means modelling the Maus for the Germans, then maybe we better limit it to vehicles that saw combat.
-
From the Russian Military zone I saw that the T-34/76 had a turret traverse of 360 degrees in 14 seconds. A Sherman M4A2 had a traverse speed of 360 degrees in 15 seconds. Panthers had hydraulic systems, and were dependent on engine rev's. Initially, Panthers could rotate the turret at 360 degrees in 15 seconds, but when the engine rpm was lowered later on, time increased to 18 seconds. And, w/o rev'ing it took a Panther about 20 seconds to traverse 360 degrees.
Many of you already are very familiar with these specs, moreso than I. But what really caught my fancy, because I'm primarily a Soviet player was the T-34's traverse time, 14 seconds, which tops the Sherman. Actually made me giddy inside
------------------
Smert' ili Pobeda
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:
Sorry Gen. Petrovsky, I don't get it. "The iron fist of the Czar" during the time of the Communist government? The only fist the Czar could muster would be a skeletal ghostly one. However, I guess you could be likening Stalin to a Communist equivalent of a Czar I suppose. Is that what you meant?
Regards
Jim R.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Jim,
When Russia embraced communism in 1917 Lenin was the leader, not Stalin. Also, what many people don't know is that during the time of the Tsars there were gulags, and secret police also. In fact, that is where they came from originally. And Stalin was a great admirer of Ivan the Terrible - a Tsar.
------------------
Smert' ili Pobeda
[This message has been edited by Grisha (edited 11-01-2000).]
-
I still recall that story of a African American Arty spotter unit in Italy that held up German mountain troops. They finally called FFE on their position as they were terribly outnumbered. Very few got out alive. They were only recently given recognition by the Army for their selfless action.
And don't forget about the 'Red Tails', the Tuskegee Airmen who flew P-51 fighters. Not a single bomber under their escort was ever lost to enemy air activity. Not a one.
[This message has been edited by Grisha (edited 11-01-2000).]
-
Good idea
Never even realized it!
READ, very interesting Stuff!!!!!
in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)
Posted
I read somewhere of this method devised by the Soviets to defeat AWACS & its escorts:
12 jet fighters fly very low, hedge hopping, until they are right below the AWACS. Once there, they pitch-up, straight up, launching a total of 24 missiles and both AWACS and escorts.