Skipper

It is not funny. For the fear of starting a flame war, i wouldn't dicsuss "sources" that start with caption "Soviet rapists", this photo:

Jeff, Shooting accuracy is one thing (concentration and calm of mind), rate of fire is quite another (moving quickly with force). I have no combat experience, but I do have some experience of fast, life threatening situations (6th grade white water rafting). Believe me, things were done faster than in training. However, when I was once going with the flow towards 6 meter high vertical waterfall, I do remember that safety line throwing accuracy was NOT to my liking in a big way Aint know if it is really relevant to combat, though. > Then I think we need to do the same for > every other vehicle in the game. Well, I dont say it is not so for the ROF. Maybe, it is.

> OBs for this small of a force are in > general very poorly documented. :confused: OBs of every unit from platoon upwards were documented in the end of every day.

Brr... looks like I mixed 122 and 152 mm in this thread a couple of times. Silly... However, another guy said that training standard for ISU-152 was 2 shots in one minute. "Training standard" means a parameter that a regular crew was expected to exceed. As a matter of fact, in my days training for a radiooperator, there were three training standards - "satisfactory", "good" and "excellent". I don't know which mark that guy was talking about, probably "excellent". In my own case, it took people 2 to 4 months of training to get "excellent" marks (iirc, 100 morse symbols per minute on receipt). Anybody could do that, if he wanted. I, for one, have eventually exceeded that standard by 60% margin - 2nd best result in the school. And that was the pace all professional radio operators I knew, those who did it for living, could do. [ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: Skipper ]

> But the book I'm looking at now says > Germany had 10 million military personnel > with 3,300,000 killed and missing. Throughout WWII USSR mobilised 34.5 million people to the armed service, and Germany mobilised 21.0 millon people. Soviet irredeemable military losses were, indeed, 11.4 mln people; 11.9 mln counting those who were mobilised but never reached their assigned units in 1941. At the time of german capitulation, there were 4.1 million german soldiers in active service and another 0.7 million in hospitals. 16.3 million were out of service this way or another. 11.8 mln of these were irredeemable losses (4.4 mln dead, 7.4 mln POWs). Over 2/3 of these were lost in the Eastern front. Plus there were minor axis powers and Japan. For accuracy sake, there were also minor allies powers in the eastern front, such as Vojsko Polskoe and Normandy-Neman GvIAP. > I don't think that the Russian figure > includes civilians - Beevor offers a final > total of 26 million, including civilians, > for the Russians. This 26 million figure is a separate matter altogether. This is population loss (ie, only those who died or left the country). On the contrary, irredeemable military losses include quite a lot (3 mln) of those who were reported dead or missing and were later found this way or another. Source: Col.-Gen. G.F. Krivoshein, report to the session of WWII Historians Association, 29.12.98. [ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: Skipper ]

That was another reason, but note that IS-3 has the same 122 mm gun, even though this model was produced when 100m gun availability wasn't a problem at all.

> Also they dug in hundreds in and around > Stalingrad. There never were "hundreds" of T34s available IN Stalingrad, and until the december '42 counteroffensive - around it (unless you count strategic reserves waaaay behind Volga as 'around').

> I also agree with another fellow's comment > that the best use of IS-2s was certainly > not tank-dueling with German heavies. Of course not! Late into the war that was a task for 100 mm AT and SPAT guns. Better AP performance, notably better accuracy and much better ROF. It wasnt put into the IS for several reasons, one of them was HE load much lighter than the 122mm.

I dont think anyone would, unless one's wife won the "me or computer" match.

> After submerging in those sites it becomes > apparent what kind of tyranny the USSR > really was. Hmm... www.jihad.to - great source of factual information you picked! Stalin's USSR was a tyranny, no doubt. But after, as you say, "submerging" in such sites as you posted, one surfaces totally misguided and covered in crap.

What do you mean "eastern front"? Ahh, you must be talking about liberation of China, Mongolia and North Korea in August 1945.

> Steve did say 1.5 shots per minute, not > one shot per 1.5 minuets Either way, 152mm SPGs (as opposed to tanks) could fire twice as rapidly.

iirc, normal AP loadout for an IS was something like 8 out of 28.

It is difficult to believe that such a mundane matter could give birth to a 5 pages thread

Heh... Moreover, this guy is stereotypical cossack - from the looks to the name (which means "gangleader") to the deeds. Dont you think using pzfaust as a club is gamey? [ 06-05-2001: Message edited by: Skipper ]

Out of those 21 Ferdinands in the report, only one is listed as "set on fire by the crew" and another four as "set on fire" without mentioning by whom. That 203 mm shell has actually hit TC hatch. 100 kg of HE going off inside the combat compartment - may well be the one in the photo.

I am russian, not "supporter". I posted this picture to see if anyone would argue that it was a mobility kill.

I am repeating myself: This man has been awarded for that action. And the award citation specifically mentioned him clubbing 10 fascists with pzfaust. Unfortunately, this is the only thing my source says. It was an article about various unbeleivable, but real incidents of the war. Perhaps, "beating to death" was a wrong translation. The actual russian verb does not imply a lengthy process, or a helpless victim.

Jason, I dont disagree with what you say, but every rule has exceptions. Out of 21 Ferdinands KO'd and abandoned around Ponyri (Kursk salient), 1 was destroyed by a direct hit of 203mm HE round in the roof. I think, it must be this one:

> Therefore, the book is not referring to > any specific vehicle, just the gun itself. With one or two loaders, regardless? Are you kidding me?

> I don't even want to know the answer. My > guess is they were non-combatants/prisoners/wounded... I know that this chap received a medal for this. So, they weren't.

> I used Roksovkiy, the name of a tanker Err... sorry then. But the name doesn't look right in any language, anyway. Can you tell somewhat more about that tanker?

> In this context there's reason to believe > that the document reflects actual Soviet > intentions. To form a meaningful opinion about this, it would be worth knowing the contents of that draft document. A copy, perhaps.

Some comments. D25T is a tank gun, not a field gun. That's what 'T' in the index stands for. >Okay, I am now in front of my > source "Russian Tanks and Armored Vehicles > 1917 - 1945" by Wolfgang Fleisher >... > 122mm 1943 Tank Gun (D-25 T): 2-3 RPM Obviously, IS-2's rate of fire should be different from ISU-122, as the latter had same gun but 2 (two) loaders. I repeat this here because this point is perhaps still not grasped by some. So, which vehicle is your book talking about? > Oh and about the Ferdinands...unless it's > a official battle assessment (and maybe > not even then), it's very likely to be > another, more common type of Assault Gun. Precisely. Those were 'ferdinands', not "Ferdinands', if you see what I mean. > I don't blame the Russians for avoiding > Tigers. Russians won - thus making 'blaming' themselves for anything like that largely irrelevant. > Don't think the mispelling of Roksovkiy > devalues one's opinion. When it's a nick, it does! As well as when it is in a printed article. The marshall's name was ROKOSSOVSKIY.

Tactical employment of various SUs in offensive operations, as I understand it, was as follows: During the initial assault to break through the first line of prepared defences, all of these machines would take direct fire positions in support of the assault. Then, they would follow about 400 m behind forward elements of the assault. After breakthrough is achieved, in exploitation phase, light assault guns would be semi-permanently attached to mobile groups as their own artillery, firing either direct or indirect, depending upon the situation. Key thing here is that they had approximately the same mobility characteristics as medium tanks. Tank killers (SU-85, SU-100) would be used to secure flanks against armored counterattacks. Heavies would be used as a supporting artillery in control of higher commanders. Of course, none of these statements here is cast in iron - fluid situation means a lot of improvisation. By the way, the best thing about SU-76 is not it's tank killing ability, but the fact tha it could go virtually anywhere a horse could, and much faster than a horse.