The Commissar

Umm, isn't that the case for any tank design from almost any country? The real world and the crap it throws at you in the middle of a battlefield tends to produce some stark revalations. I saw a report (probably on the Russian battlefield or some other such site) where it had an Ami analysis of an early T-34. The 2 man turret one. The Americans were impressed by the armor and armament but didn't much care for lack of comfort and poor quality of runnign gears/engine. I forget if this was prior to or during the war. My relatives in Russia own a Volga. If I could, I would ship it here to the States. Truly a "Born and Bred a Red" car - damn quality though.

Crew comforts are besides the point. Its a part of doctrine, not "engineering skill". Soviet doctrine began to form in the post WW1 years, continued through the 30's, when the purges momentarily halted it, and reappeared again as WW2 raged on. Soviet doctrine called for their AFV's to be above all, fighting machines. If cutting out "cushioned seats" resulted in more over all tanks produced, or descreasing the room in the turret resulting in thicker armor, the choice which benefited its purpose as a fighting machine above all else would be chosen. Let me just analyze one of your sentences. "I hope you don't honestly believe that in the area of crew comfort, mechanical reliablity, or adaptability, that the Russians were in the same league as the Americans." Crew comforts: If this is a category which is supposed to elevate a tank above the rest, then sure, Americans and even the Germans were above the others. However, while I do understand that crew comfort would place the crew in a better atmosphere, perhaps even making them fight better to a degree, I would rather take thicker armor or perhaps a larger calibre gun opposed to, say, a roomy turret and a clean interior. Reliability: That depended in a large degree on the effects of the war on Soviet production. The T-34 series, starting out as a poor fighting machine with a 2-man turret and crap mechanics evolved into a tank still used by many armies today. When the Germans pressure was taken off Soviet production at least to some degree, Soviet factories and engineers were allowed to produce a tank a lot more reliable then the early '41 designs they had to push out the factory gate to stop the German tide. Adaptability: Ill class the Sherman-variant examples you listed with the stuff about Sherman Jumbos Marlow said in a previous post. It is of my opinion from reading on topics of Soviet armored production, and grogs may feel free to correct mistakes, that the T-34 really reached the end of its design with the introduction of the T-34/85. After this machine was produced and yielded good results, the Soviet staff was happy enough with it to discontinue upgrading the T-34 line. They had other projects to concentrate on, like further T designs that yeilded promising results. The Americans on the other hand did not do this. Look at how many variations of the Shermans they had to go through for the tank to go from a "luxurious" (by WW2 tank standards) AFV to a truly effective machine. They had the upgraded gun Shermans, the upgraded armor shermans, the HVSS, the Jumbo's, the super Jumbos and a million others. Oh, and as far as engineering tasks/mine rolling, etc., I believe that the T-34 could have been easily converted to similar versions if not for doctrine, once again. I think most of us know some of the Soviet mine clearing methods. I suppose lack of supplies and later in the war priority of all available supplies to roles of COMBAT over convenience/comfort/customability kept the T-34 mainly as a fighting machine instead of a "Dozer/Tractor/Lawn Mower/ AT-Infantry support All in one Wonder" type which happent to the Sherman. Oh, and as a side not Marlow, I also seem to hear contradictory reports from many sources about the supposed 'easy time' the Jumbo had against T-34's. Most of these sources went on to say the Americans really only achieved armor superiority with the arrival of the Pershing. [ February 11, 2002, 10:39 PM: Message edited by: The Commissar ]

Surprise surprise, I really had nothing more to contribute that these other fine gentlemen before me already posted. So I decided to just have fun with a statement I found much fault in. Hah! No other nation had the safety of the USA. They could sit back, in perfect peace, and build away undisturbed by such bothersome little factors like, oh I don't know...invading forces. When the USA is invaded, millions of its people butchered, its factories forced to be relocated hundreds of miles and STILL be able to produce a top-notch quality tank with all the doo-hickeys and cup holders attached, I will consider your argument as valid. As it stands, it can be assumed that the Soviets indeed had the best production and design with the resources and time they were given. Americans could afford to sit on a Sherman for months, making sure everything was in proper order. Not so for the tanks being produced say, in the heart of the Stalingrad battle.

*snort* *cough* ROFL!! Thanks for the laugh!

Lord General, I guess Fionn won't mind too much, eh? Speak up if you do mind, Fionn? What? Silence? Oh well! BTW, what ever happent to our game MB? I may have spooked you off with eery silence, but that's because I was quite busy with boring real life stuff for a couple of weeks. Right now Im awful bored and with too much time on my hands. If you still have our unfinished PBEM file, send it round my neighborhood again.

Its not the real movie, but a frame-by-frame annalesis. Shows the highlights of the movie pretty well though. http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/default.asp?target=jslide1.htm Modern war is scarry. Thank goodness for anti-missile systems. [ February 10, 2002, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: The Commissar ]

Well, Fionn is a well known character. His AAR's are always well done and it would be perfect for him to lead the way of introducing us to CMBB like he did with the Alpha battle of CMBO. His opponent? Well, if no beta tester steps up to the plate I will be obliged to take up this heavy burden upon myself - all for the good of the CM community!

Something tells me BTS is past the Alpha stage of progging. Oh well, a Beta battle would be just as good!

An off topic reply to a slightly off topic post: That test of the Javelin against the T-72 was supposed to replicate battle field conditions (the tank was stocked full of ammo and fuel) but was inherently flawed. The major flaw being that the tank in question was not using any of the modern Russian anti-missile systems like Shtora for example. It would be interesting to see how a modern missile like the Javelin would cope with modern anti-missile systems the Russians are mounting on their tanks to give them much higher chances of survival in a TOW-heavy enviorment of the modern battlefield. Other flaws include the tank standing nice and still in the open with no cover for miles. Still, the fireworks display was pretty damn cool! [ February 10, 2002, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: The Commissar ]

That would be rather silly, IMO. I guess you don't play multiplayer much, Tiger. You see, in many QB's, there are times when an AT gun with a small caliber and high ROF (or maybe there's a few guns firing) gets a lucky hit on a tank it cannot hope to destroy and immobilizes that tank. Churchills VIII are prone to this, especially, from nasty things like 20mm flak guns. If my Churchill crew decided to abandon its tank just because it threw a track to a little pop gun I would throw a fit and come on this forum to curse BTS' name. An immobilized tanks is still perfectly fit to fight, just not to move. In fact, I doubt many crews would even KNOW if they were immobilized or not unless they tried to move, so an immediate "abandon tank" role just wouldn't make any sense. Now granted, there won't be any Churchill VIII's on the Eastern Front. However, Im sure there will be other tanks that will be prone to immobilization from light weapons (or bad weather) but still perfectly able to carry on the fight and play a part in winning the battle. [ February 09, 2002, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: The Commissar ]

Tee-hee-hee...*dreams about CQB with these puppies* Does unit experience influence fire power? Or perhaps just accuracy?

LOL. Here comes ICS with his "factz". While I don't pretend to be a gun wiz, I do remember there was a significant technical reason that proves Kalashnikov did nothing of the sort. Ill just wait until a real grog posts that reason, but Ill be laughing at you while I do so. Hyuk-hyuk-hyuk

Wouldn't it be from that Simpsons episode? The Fightin' Hellfish was the unit "Grandpa Simpson" commanded in WW2. Oh, and BTW, when are the results for this whole thing coming out?

My current theory states that to play CM truly well like the TH top rankers do, you not only have to have a good mastery of picking the right units for the job (as many suggest to be the only reason TH'ers like swamp succeed), but you also have to become very, VERY good at thinking ahead. I do not have mastery of this skill yet (or I would be up there). I believe it requires a good deal of practice to form. You have to play many, many games. People like swamp, skelley, Ghost, all play several games a day. Im mentally (and sometimes physically) exhausted after one harrowing TCP/IP match most of the time. In any case, this thinking ahead allows the best use of artillery, avoiding trouble spots, and formulating a loose but efficient plan about how you will use your men to capture and hold the objectives and/or destroy the enemy. This thinking ahead emphasises excellent analysis of the terrain you do battle on. The best players go for hills with a commanding view, not open patches of ground with a major VL on it. They also seem to have almost psychic powers, because the top players seem to know where and when you will advance to a given position. You know they guessed right when amazingly precise arty fire demolishes your carefully planned formations. I guess the only real way to get better is to practice *shrug* Oh, and BTW, swamp is registered on this board if Im not mistaken. I guess he just doesn't want to make an appearence.

CMBO by itself can get you only so far. Mix CMBO with CMMC however and you get a much juicier taste of warfare. By juicier I mean more complex. And by more complex, I mean more realistic. And by more realistic I mean more fun...or I think I mean more fun! I have to read like 150+ pages of rules in font 10, dammit! LOL, seriously, its great. I think there's still open positions and if anyone wants to experience a level of war above the "battlefield", give CMMC a try. Great people, great fun (and I didn't even get to do anything yet!!)

Hah! PCG UK. What a sorry excuse for a magazine. They gave the game Braveheart a 90+% review when it was so buggy and down right crappy nobody else gave it a review of about 60% I suspect they are buyouts and hacks. Bah, Bah I say!

[mutter under breath] ...No one ever gave me no stinkin' paintball tournament and no tacops either...[/mutter under breath] Seriously though, I envy your students. What subject is this far, anyway?

Im reading a very good book right now called "The Art of Maneuver" by Leonhard. In his "Origins of Maneuver" section he devotes several pages to the two most important schools of maneuver in the 20th century, the Soviet and German schools. This ties in to your point in this way: What you described, the Germans not "having a plan" yet usually performing very well at the tactical level is due to a concept called Auftragstaktik, or "directive control". Basically, the Germans emphasized maneuver that allowed and encoraged their officers to innovate and take advantage of opportunities presenting themselves in battle. This allowed the Germans their excellent combat performance. The Soviets practiced something the Germans called Befehlstaktik, or "detailed control". The officers were not given room to innovate and were not encouraged to do so, unlike their German counterparts. Instead, they were told to stick as rigidly as possible to the original plan command had decided for them. This is where the difference lies. The Germans fought to win battles, the Soviets fought to win operations and later wars. The Soviets emphasized extensive planning before the commence of any operation or strategic movement. While the Germans would go into battle and expect opportunities to present themselves for their officers to exploit, which happent many times, the Soviets instead insured through planning that opportunities would present themselves. They created gaps, by force if necessary, where as the Germans took it in stride that such gaps would open as the battle wore on. Its all very interesting stuff, and Im just learning all of this recently, so I felt excited enough to share PS: Please forgive any of my spelling mistakes!

Incorrect. Read below. Yes, if it was 700,000 it would have been and insane ammount. Thankfully for the Soviets, most figures point at less then half that number. You might find this thread at the Soviet Union Factbook interesting. The third and last posts in this thread provide casualty statistics with reliable sources. http://pub19.ezboard.com/fussrfrm5.showMessage?topicID=6.topic

Whooo-boy. 1,000,000?? Where did you get that number? From my sources, it was several hundred thousand, not a freakin' million. Cornelius Ryan sites the figure at 300,000. Still a large number, but your facts, as seems to happen quite often to you, are a long way off. Even this was only because of the competition between Koniev and Zhukov and the "race for Berlin". Otherwise the Germans would have been annhialated slowly, with more care and with less Soviet casualties. Oh, and the Germans were no where as determined as the Soviets when it came to conquering the USSR. When defending your own land, the defenders will eventually win if the attacker cannot achieve victory quickly. Germany could not. It bogged down. History has proven this many times both before and after WWII. [ February 04, 2002, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: The Commissar ]

Ill just chime in my agreement nice and quick. As Kutuzov once said, "Moscow is not Russia". Sure the government was there. Doesn't mean it could not be moved. Sure it was a communication center - but any other city could become an equally important comm center relatively quickly. When it comes to out-lasting the enemy, the Germans wouldn't have had a chance.

yah im having some problems myself with "CMX: cold war" my m1 abrams opened up on a commie t-55 and the round bounced off!!!!!! WTF?!??! :eek: :eek: :eek: Plz fix or do sumfink!!!!!!!!! [ February 04, 2002, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: The Commissar ]

Got that right. I even think Steve has a degree in Soviet history studies. Or something of that sort... :confused:

Jackie, Buy this game first, and when you are so addicted you lose any and all sleep for the next week, immediately begin saving up for the 2nd game by performing excessive whining and begging! CMBB will be a major improvement in all aspects and will be helluva fun, but CMBO is still a classic and you owe it to yourself to play it. Oh, and the only newbie guide I know of is this one: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=000846

LOL! I know the feeling!! My teachers soon started to refer to me as the "history professor" and checked any points they were trying to make against my knowledge to make sure they had their facts right All this despite the fact that I probably know only about .005% of what some of the grogs on this forum know!