The Commissar
-
Posts
1,498 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by The Commissar
-
-
I always thought that 2 was directly caused by 3. Before the purges, men like Tukhachevski were developing some of the most advanced doctrine in the world. Then Stalin got a wee bit jealous... *sigh*Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:2.) Blitzkrieg. The Soviets along with the rest of the world did not use this tactic or had time to learn how to defend against it.(dated tactics.)
3.) The Purge. Stalins massive purges of the military officer class of the 30's greatly decreased the quality of the Soviet military leaders, and functionality for many reasons.
I always wondered how Mr. T would fare up in the war if he wasn't executed.
"I pity the fool!"
OK, sorry.
Check my sig. It was 227Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:5.) Stalin. I beleive someone has the exact directive number the supposed man of steel issued to the armed forces of the Soviet Union (22?) Not a step back. Stalin had ot learn the hard way to let his Generals do their job.
-
Im pretty sure all of the nations during WW2 commited at least some "bad things" to various degrees. The Americans, for example, killed an estimated 240,000 Japanese civilians.Originally posted by IronChef4:I'd be interested to know if any other allied troops than the Russians were responsible for. . .um. . .bad things.
-
Originally posted by Captain Wacky:
Stuff.
-
You're a sick, sick man Michael.Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:Glass of milf, anyone?
-
Back when, I always thought CM2 = CMBB. However, in a recent thread, Madmatt said that CM2 and CMII were the same thing, the engine rewrite, while the sequel to CMBO is just CMBB.Originally posted by Captain Wacky:No, CM:BB is CM:BB. CM2 is the engine rewrite. I don't think there's a difference between CM2 and CM II. I've never seen CM II around the forums
Somebody help clarify!
So there.
-
Whoa, mama!Originally posted by Big Time Software:I just did a test scenario last night where a company of Regular Soviets were pinned down and beat up by German HMGs for 30 turns
An entire company by one MG!!!
MG's are worth buying again! Whopeee!
:eek:
:eek: -
Good catch Niles. Ive seen the site before, but Ill bump it all the same.
Note the immense number of Italian songs. Always struck me as funny that the country which did the most poorly fighting-wise had the most war songs (at least on this website).
Oh, and I recommend "Kammeraden"...uh, one of the songs with the word Kammeraden in them, that is. Can't remember which one it is :confused:
-
The one most often term heard in reference to the Germans is "nemtsi". It originates from the term "ne mestnie" which translates to "not from around here".Originally posted by The ol one eye.:Any good Russian slang for Germans or specific enemy units? That is the best stuff.
Thus the Germans who as invaders were not "from around here", became collectively known as "nemtsi".
-
Done with all my stuff for about a month. Bloody slow pokes, the lot of ye.
-
CMMC, my son.
-
*BUMP!*
Nice stuff, Tanks!
-
To tell the truth, I never had a problem with that. Smaller tanks go up even with just HE. When fighting Big Cats, I can usually afford to have 2 to 1 odds against them thanks to the Church's cheapness, increasing chances of a hit.Originally posted by Silvio Manuel:You forgot the Big If....IF you can manage to hit the targeted tank w/ the VIII's limited hollow charge ammo.
-
British tanks represent the best Allied armor in the game because of two tanks, IMO.
The Church VIII is the 'Allied Tiger'. It takes on absolutely everything and can go toe to toe with the big cats no sweat. Anything less is just spat at and tossed to the side as a burning wreck.
The Cromwells are both light and powerful. In fact, they represent the armor of choise for some of the better ladder players. They can suppress infantry and take out all sort of armor with equal efficiency.
While the Brits have other note worthy AFV's, in CM they are much too pricy for my tastes. The two above however offer the best in performance for the minimum in price. A perfect combination in a QB!
-
I don't.
The AI is much too dull to present a challenge in anything but the most masterfully crafted scenarios. PBEM/TCP all the way!
-
Aaaaand a wee lil' *BUMP*
-
It depends on how you define "honest". If you mean "realistic", its a lot easier to be realistic when you concentrate on one isolated event (a unit left behind to cover the withdrawl of the others, inevitably destroyed in the process) as opposed to brielfy describing one man's journey across the span of the GPW.Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:i think not only has a good sound to it, but is a more honest account of war IMHO
Both were meant to be tragic yes, but while "Tigers" concentrated on a small event that led to a man losing his father and hating the "high command" for this folly, "Moscow" was meant to illustrate the immense tragedy that befouled an entire country and its people.
-
I would e-mail it to you, but the damn song is 7 and a half megabytes in size. Even if I zip it my e-mail couldnt hope to fit that thing.Originally posted by 109 Gustav:Or email it to me and I'll put it on Last Defense.
-
Mord,
Sure, historically-themed songs would be a welcome addition to my ever-increasing MP3 folder! All I have now even resembling historical is the multitude of Russian Revolution/WW2 hymns and folk songs.
Thanks in advance,
Cheers!
-
Mord,
I was introduced to the song not more then a month ago in the General forum. LGMB started up "another worthless poll", asking people what sort of music they listened to.
One guy (for the life of me I cant remember who) posted the lyrics for Road to Moscow and another very good song, Pink Floyd's "When the Tigers Broke Free". I likewise recommend the later, by the way.
And yes, Roads to Moscow is very haunting at the end. I doubt a better execution could have been possible.
-
*BUMP*
Because the song is absolutely amazing.
Easy to find it on Morpheus, too.
-
You know, if you post your system specs, we can tell you if you have enough juice or not.
-
Small arms fire poses no harm to diesel fuel that the Soviets used. You can unload clip after clip into the stuff with no effect.Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:Also did the T-34's have a problem with getting their fuel tanks shot at? And if so what and how much detriment to the operation of the vehicle did it cause? I assume it would be bad, but to what extent and how common i have no idea.
Now a larger calibre gun may fare better, and any flame weapons would probably be very dangerous. Flares work too.
Small arms can only poke holes in the barrels, lessening the tank's operational use. Thats not in CMBO's scale however.
-
Of course he felt it was important! He was the little man on the ground (or in the tank, as the case may be) who had to live and fight in those things, not contemplate the fact that because his machine was uncomfortable, more of them could be produced.Originally posted by Berlichtingen:Dmitri Loza (Hero of the Soviet Union and commander of Shermans in the Great Patriotic War) seemed to think comfort was important...
Uhh, not sure about that at all. The T-34 had less components and was easier to manufacture. Thus, logic states that a tank with a simpler design would be simpler to repair.Originally posted by Berlichtingen:ease of maintanance,
They were very close in performance. Even Jason said so, so there! Nyuh-nyuh!Originally posted by Berlichtingen:better gun (US 76 out performs the Sov 85)
1. It didn't have lower ground pressure.Originally posted by Berlichtingen:and greater maneuverability over poor ground (Sherman has lower ground pressure than T34).
2. Ground pressure isn't everything when you have such goofy little thin tracks as the Sherman.
-
I would be interested just how much slope difference there existed between these two machines and how it contributed to their protection.Originally posted by ASL Veteran:I am not sure about the slope comparison of the front plates - but the Sherman in CM is something like 60 mm 47 degrees IIRC.
Just looking a t pictures of the two tanks it would appear to me that the T-34, being a lot better sloped, would thus have much better armor protection even though its armor thickness itself was comparable to the Sherman.
Other comparisons will show that things we do not always compare because we deem them irreleveant can may make one machine superior to the other in terms of use.
Like say, the effective range T-34 was almost half as much as the Shermans, allowing for more operational maneuver. The speed of the T-34 likewise outmatched the Shermans. Yes, and I do know that many times the T-34 could not exploit these superiorities due to extremely rushed production. I dont feel it is fair to 'deduce points' based on this, however.
:eek:
M-13 rocket launcher - in CMBB?
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted