Amedeo

I doubt it. Considering that in the assumed timeframe the 3BM21 should be available for all T-62s in the game, I think that the Chieftain will be vulnerable in its frontal arc to 115mm tank guns. Not to speak of the 125mm guns.

This. Moreover, if you want to shoot at targets that won't return fire, pop smoke or try to flee, just dismount the crews and place them elsewhere.

Leopard 1s and M113s.

You are welcome. For what concerns the Kursk campaign, well, I have not the knowledge nor the competence to promote, or even partecipate, in such a project. Anyway, I would warmly welcome any 1943 CMRT expansion.

Ah, got it. Well, yes it may be that the fact that there's no detailed and comprehensive study for the Northern pincer as, for example, the KOSAVE II study (see here https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA360311.pdf, might also be due to the fact that some archive records are missing. But, in my humble opinion, the main reason is that the main show was in the South and, given limited time and resources, if one has to choose whether to study the Northern or Southern pincer, there's no contest. South was where the whole Operation was decided. Interestingly, the most detailed book (in terms of maps: there's one every other page!) about a tactical operation in Zitadelle that I have ever seen is "Objective Ponyri!" by M. Nevshemal, that is about an action in the Northern sector! This to say that, if one really wants to write about the North, there seems to be no severe lack of information.

What are you referring to, exactly? In my humble opinion, the idea that, to consider the whole operation successful, both the northern and southern pincers had to meet somewhere or, worse, had to penetrate the same depth, is flawed. The Germans (Hoth, in primis) were by July convinced that the original idea to cut off the whole salient was not totally realistic. Yet, the operation was not senseless as its main (achievable) strategical objective, other than the political one, i.e. to show Germany's allies that the initiative was still in Hitler's hands, was to inflict a crippling attrition to Soviet strategic reserves. In this respect, the southern attack was paramount and the role of Model's 9th Army was almost a sideshow. The relative allocation of AFVs to the two sectors speaks for itself.

Yet, for all the years it took to be published, I expected a lot of custom-made maps to be included. Moreover, for all the tables it contains, there's still more detail in the KOSAVE study, from which the book itself originated. Don't get me wrong, it's a great book and I do not regret buying it. But, give its size and scope, I expected it to be the definitive (i.e. containing all the available detail) book on the southern pincer of Operation Zitadelle. In my humble opinion. Glantz's book is good for a general overview of the entire operation, its origins and the strategic aftermath. Lawrence's book gives a detailed operational analysis of the actions in the southern part of the bulge, Zamulin's book is worth reading because, while accepting the fact that Rotmistrov's counterattack was a total disaster, it does try to explain why and how the Red Army managed to stop the German. I think that the above mentioned books are complementary and are all worth buying and reading for an Eastern Front aficionado. After reading them, I came to the conclusion that: 1) The Germans were not fools in deciding to launch Operation Zitadelle 2) The Soviet Army did indeed stop the Germans, although it didn't as it initially planned to 3) The redeployment of some German élite divisions to the West was an effect of Zitadelle's failure, not a cause Anyway, this is what I got from these readings. Your mileage may vary...

As far as I know, the only Soviet divisions equipped with T-80U/UDs were the Moscow garrison ones. So I guess the answer is no.

The T-72 was also considered to be the "easy-to-manufacture, war-production" tank. So it is perfectly plausible to have them as replacement tanks for Soviet units, even within GSFG. BTW, I don't know exactly why, but "Between Two Fahrbahns" is the scenario I played the most in CMCW. I played it, both as the Soviet and as the US Army, six times and I intend to have a go at it again in the future. Good work!

Also this Dutch intelligence report indicates 1976 as the year in which GSFG started getting T-64s: http://www.stichtingargus.nl/bvd/m/lamid-wpmodernisering.pdf

I recently found an intelligence summary from 1982 by the Dutch Army that fits nicely with the data for the years 1979 and 1985 that I presented in one of my previous posts in this thread. http://www.stichtingargus.nl/bvd/warschaupakt/intsum-82-2.pdf On page 24 of the report one can find which Soviet divisions in GSVG were equipped with T-62 tanks and which one with T-64 tanks. It is implied that the divisions are equipped with a single tank type, however, if we just assume that the report simply states what can be considered the predominant tank in a given unit, we see that the data is totally compatible with the numbers we get from Holm's site. In the following table I listed the most numerous tank model in each division. Data for 1979 and 1985 are from Holm's site (see my previous post for the detailed numbers) while data for 1982 is taken from the above mentioned report. This report not only is very interesting per se, and will be useful for CMCW scenario designers, but it also indirectly corroborates Holm's data since, as you can see, the fit is perfect: between 1979 and 1985 the listed units retained their equipment or upgraded it, no weird downgrades or inexplicable jumps. 1979 1982 1985 9 TD T-62 T-62 T-80 11 GvTD T-62 T-62 T-80 20 GvMSD T-62 T-62 T-62 16 GvTD T-64 T-64 T-64 21 MSD T-64 T-64 T-64 94 GvMSD T-64 T-64 T-64 207 MSD T-62 T-64 T-64 7 GvTD T-62 T-62 T-64 10 GvTD T-62 T-64 T-64 12 GvTD T-64 T-64 T-64 47 GvTD T-64 T-64 T-64 79 GvTD T-62 T-62 T-80 27 GvMSD T-62 T-62 T-80 39 GvMSD T-62 T-62 T-62 57 GvMSD T-55 T-62 T-80 25 TD T-64 T-64 T-64 32 GvTD T-64 N/A T-64 90 GvTD T-64 N/A T-64 35 MSD T-62 T-64 T-64

Just for the record. Yesterday, I got a Mac mini 2023 M2 to replace my old Mac mini 2014. I installed CMCW and gave it a try. Be warned, I didn't play a full game, nor did I spend more than a few minutes toying with it, anyway it seems that CM runs just fine on the new machine, even better than it did on my older Intel-based Mac. May be a little tinkering with the graphics settings is in order, but that's it.

Well, according to Wikipedia: "The M48A3 was withdrawn from Europe by October 1961, being replaced by the M60 tank. As US armored and cavalry units rotated out of combat deployments to South Vietnam most of their M48A3s were either directly transferred to the South Vietnamese Army or to Thailand. FORSCOM withdrew the M48A3 from combat service with both the US Army and US Marine Corps in 1973, replacing them with the M60A1. Some M48A3s continued in service with National Guard units until 1979." So, if this information is correct, there were no USAREUR units equipped with M48s during CMCW timeframe. Some 90mm gun armed M48A3 might be considered for the upcoming BAOR module (since it extends the game's timeframe back to 1976) in the same way as NG M48A5 tanks are included in the current base game. For what concerns the ability of the 90mm gun to frontally penetrate the T-55 tank, a member of the TankNet forum that had access to primary sources describing the results of the live firing tests carried on by the Yugoslav Army, posted there data that are relevant to the issue. Yu guns vs armor tests of 1960s... - Page 2 - Armor Scientific Forum - tanknet.org It's actually M47 vs T-54 but I presume that the figures given are comparable to the M48 vs T-55 matchup. Here's the relevant quote from the above thread: 90mm M36 gun from M47 tank firing AP, HVAP and HEAT T-33 AP fails to penetrate glacis even @ 100m M304 subcalibre fails to penetrate glacis even @ 100m M431 HEAT penetrates glacis, but fails to fuse if side angle is more then 20deg. T33AP penetrates front turret @ 350m M304 subcalibre penetrates front turret @ 750m M431 HEAT penetrates front turret T33AP penetrates frontal part of the side of the turret @ 850m M304 subcalibre penetrates frontal part of the side turret at any practical range M431 HEAT penetrates frontal part of the side turret All round penetrate rear part of the side turret at any practical range. Conclusion: Amount of M431 HEAT rounds in ammo load should be increased, and load of T33 AP be reduced. Frontal engagement of the new foreing tanks is to be done only with M431 HEAT round. Engagement from ambush position can be done with M304 subcalibre and M431 HEAT at any range and T33 AP at ranges less then 1000m. Problem of M431 round failing to fuse at angles more then 60deg is to be fixed with production of domestic HEAT. That round should be also capable of being fired from M3A1 gun mounted on SO-90 M-36. without sagnificent modifications to the gun or vehicle.

I presume it is, since no T-72s were actually deployed in GSFG and the USMLM crews were too experienced to confuse an older type tank (T-62, T-55 etc.) for something new.

The GSFG T-64s (misidentified for T-72s) were indeed first sighted by USMLM in 1976, see the Sept. 14th entry in uh1976cpr.pdf (coldwarspies.com)

I guess that on the typical CMCW battlefield one would see only Jaguars and Harriers.

Actually, as I said, the US did field a 105mm HEP round, and it was also used on M60s. See, for example, here: The M60 Thread - Page 14 - AFV Forum - tanknet.org

Indeed. BTW the US Army did field a 105mm HEP round, actually. So, IMHO, for 105mm armed tanks they had actually a selection of rounds available (including HE) that gave them enough flexibility for their loadouts. The problems of dual purpose rounds actually started with the advent of the 120mm armed M1A1 using APFSDS/HEAT only. And my point is that, having to standardize on a dual purpose explosive round, instead of a mix, just because Abrams tanks are intended mainly as AFV killers, HEP was a big no-no, since it was ten years (at least) they knew HESH-technology was a dead end against the newer Soviet tanks.

I've read a 1980 CIA report (now declassified) that said both T-64 and T-72 appeared to have "unconventional armor" over most of their front areas. Another report, dated 1975, speaking of the T-72, remarks that "the armor on the new tank probably is of either the spaced or sandwich type". So, during CMCW timeframe the US definitely knew, or was convinced anyway, that the Soviets were fielding composite armored tanks in mass.

If I'm not mistaken, simply because advanced HEAT rounds may have a chance to frontally penetrate tanks with composite/spaced/ERA/NERA protection. A 120mm HESH round should fail against the frontal protection of anything more recent than a T-62. P.S. It will be interesting to see how well HESH equipped Wombat will fare against Soviet armour.

You've got it backwards. Remember, as CMSF and CMBS showed, first there is a BFC game, then the war starts!

Yes, of course. The book is: First Clash: Combat close-up in World War Three.

Fantastic news! Chieftains, L1A1s and Mk IV helmets... And, hopefully, also... Sheridans! The Canadians will make possible some First Clash-style scenario or, better, campaign. I still have Kenneth Macksey's book, very informative and engaging. P.S. The Soviet Army maintained "border defense" units with obsolescent tanks in Germany until the end of 1976. I guess that it will be difficult to see IS-3M and T-10M tanks (although it would be interesting). But porting the IS-2M and the ISU-152M shouldn't be difficult (considering that similar models are already included in CMRT).

The T-64 was designed to be frontally protected against 105mm APDS at normal combat ranges so the T-64A and the base T-72 should be impregnable to M728 hits, save for weakened zones/lower hull or point blank hits. For what concerns the performance of 105mm APFSDS against Soviet tanks, there are a few older threads with many details. Just search the forum for M735.

Nice find!