Skipper

> but I've always been amused on Soviet > historians who write about the "liberation > of the old Russian town Vyborg "Liberation" vs "conquest" was an official classification, used for example to name combat medals. Thus, there was a medal for "Liberation of Warshaw", but a medal "For conquest of Berlin". Criteria for "liberation" was that pre-war the place belonged to USSR or a country that was not officially at war with USSR prior to its "liberation". In this context, I always wondered how would Soviet leaders resolve this issue with Paris, if they had a chance to get there before Western Allies?

> These would be large in size, be available > only with conscript experience level (you > wont get to be a vet if you participate in > these wave attacks), and be unarmed. Yeah. And look like this: [ 04-18-2001: Message edited by: Skipper ]

How many 1/2 boxes do you have, by the way?

> Off-topic, but do you have a source for > these numbers ? http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=145020&article=3731 Primary sources are mentioned somewhere down the thread. > At the Heeresgeschichtliches Museum (sp?) > in Vienna I saw Russian dummy-rifles. These were made for basic tactical training in secondary schools and boot camps. They are quite heavy and totally useless in combat. Why would anyone give them to a frontline unit escapes me. Even the described above stick with bayonet would be a much better weapon. > And commissars shooting people not wanting > to rush forward was not uncommon. It wasnt, indeed. I've even seen some figures suggesting that germans executed MORE of their own soldiers in similar circumstances. > A human life simply was not worth much. Very truly so. > I would guess that the fate of the POWs > depended highly on who interrogated them > after release. Yup. Some "osobists" were bad pricks. But not "all", or even "most".

Your source is a nice storyteller. His favorite myth, obviously is "how gallant german knights bravely fought bolshevik hordes and were overwhelmed by sheer human mass in the end". See, population of USSR was not that much bigger than Germany and allies. And I posted loss figures sometime ago. We are talking roughly 6 million soviet troops lost vs 3 mln Axis troops between Dec 41 and Jan 45. Ie, not including the catastrophe of the first few months. > For example, the inhabitants of a > threatened city, or perhaps the entire > male population of areas which the Germans > had recently evacuated, were gathered up > quickly by means of excellent > organization. Note the use of words. The "areas that germnans recently evacuated" we will call "liberated occupied territories". The "gathering of civilians" we will call "drafting citizens to the army service". > Regardless of age, nationality, deferred > status, or fitness, they were used to fill > out these units People over 50, disabled etc were not drafted - only volunteered. And volunteered they did! > With no training at all, or at most only a > few days of it Every young soviet citizen had a basic infantry training as part of his/her school education, and good many of older generation had a combat experience from WWI, civil war etc. That's not much, but they all knew how to shoot a rifle (or an AKM later) and throw a hanfd grenade. > these "soldiers" were thrown into battle For all I know, they were used as replacements in regular squads. Ie, nobody was dumb enough to form separate units out of such troops. There was no reason to do so. There were also partisan brigades taking part in frontline operations (very common practice) - these would be strangely armed guys without uniforms. But that is another story. > During the fighting in a bridgehead > southeast of Kremenchug in September 1943, > the Russians at nighttime used to drive > ahead of their armed soldiers large > numbers of civilians whom they had > gathered up, so that the German infantry > might expend its scant supply of > ammunition." This particular bit sounds like a sheer nonsense.

Note the "several replacements" part. A few men.

> and I hesitate to quote hollywood products > as historic proof Wise man! Remember, there was a discussion on the destiny of liberated Soviet POWs? There was a widespread opinion that one would go straight to "Gulag" or shot on spot? Today I came across the following figures: QTE From October 1941 to 1 October 1944, a total of 302,992 former POWs had undergone filtration. Of that number 11,556 (3.81%) were arrested. Starting November 1944 liberated POW's were sent to reserve units without filtration. After the war, a total of 1,539,475 former POW's were repatriated. Of that number, 226,127 (14.69%) were transfered into NKVD custody (mostly Vlasovites and such). UNQTE These stories about unarmed wave attacks are of approximately the same quality. Ie, fairy tales. One man who for whatever reason had no hand weapon could have been ordered to join in attack without it (I've seen a photo of a bayonet lashed to a stick). A unit or formation??? As a tactical decision? No.

Bother to post any historical example of it?

Maybe it was not Zyclon - i dont remember the name of the stuff. But something was moved inside Russia.

Aint know about NATO, russian tankers are still using flag signals today, whenever radio silence is desirable.

> So they should have produced less? Huh? No. They should have produced more. If they could, of course. And they couldnt. Roughly speaking, there would be more dead tankers then, but considerably less dead infantrymen. > I am just pointing out each weapons > system, for its own design issues (either > a two man turret or a fixed gun) was > better at defensive ops. This point is quite moot. Any AFV is a lot better at tank killing when working from an ambush. > Why is that worth mentioning? Because in 1942 your average german would much more likely see a T-70 than a T-34. By the way, an impression that T34 turrets were always (or even more often than not) manhandled because of faulty electric motors is not correct. As it was, they were fast turrets.

Afaik, no chemical or bio weapon was used by any side on the Eastern front, although germans at some stage were seriously preparing to use some chemical stuff. Iirc, it was called Zyclon-B or some such. They even stockpiled of arty shells with this agent somewhere within Russia. Which has become known to the soviet intelligence. Whatever was the reason, the plans were withdrawn and the shells transported back to Germany. The source where I read this story was about soviet chemical warfare effort, particularly design and mass production of effective gas masks.

> The T3476 versions were much better suited > for the defensive role. Strictly speaking, they were not intended for such a role by the designer. However, soviet commanders noted that, indeed, when they switched from defensive to offensive operations in early 1942, casualties mounted. The main (and practically, the only) cause for T34 holding the record for KO'd numbers is that it was the most produced. If you look at annual production and loss figures of both German and Soviet tanks, you will see that they very closely correspond. Ie, almost all tanks that you build, you SPEND within a year. Comparing T34 with a StuG is incorrect. These machines had different roles on the battlefield. RKKA fielded several variants of SUs, from SU-57 to ISU-152. It is also worth mentioning that the focus of soviet tank production in 1941-42 was not on T34s, but on T-60, T-70 and then SU-57, SU-76.

yep. gamey is the word

Another fighting machine that needs to be modelled in CM2 then is Santa-Claus's sleg. It is 15 April, not 1st, you know

yes, but squad on squad may be completely different ball game on the same engine. Screw the realism, let;'s call it a CM paintball

ROFLMAO Or how to make it turn, to start with QTE KV-VI Specifications Crew: 15 men and one Comissar UNQTE Comissar!!! ROFLMAO

Has anyone tried something like: ME, small map, each team consisting of 5 sharpshooters and 1 LMG No, I am not a pervert, this is only a joke.

ROFLMAO! Talk about a synchronous thinking Just today I was reflecting on the fact that more often than not a commanding officer would roughly know what he is facing - before the engagement. And therefore, it would be nicer to discuss TCP/IP setups in terms like "motorized infantry batallion vs reinforced company" or some such. Or maybe make a 2000 pts ME and agree that about 75% will be spent on buying a pre-agreed standard TO&E formation, and the rest on reinforcements at player's free will. During the force selection I would definitely like to see the map.

44 it is - anywhere in the world. He will also have to drop the zero. > but in reality the 1941-42ish German Army > was as bad if not worse off in this same > regard. Yup. Just as any other army equipped with 30-s stuff. Pre-war theory was that infantry cannot do much to the tanks, and that arty must deal with them. Large armored formations were THE novelty of WWII - practical ways and means to fight them were developed "on the go".

RPG in that case stands for hand-held AT grenade. In fact, RPG in RPG-7 stands for almost the same - hand-held AT grenade-launcher. Also in common use were bundles of 5 normal grenades. The index escapes me - RGD-something, iirc - the cylinder-shaped kind, without not much fragmentation.

> the objectional material may be that it is > a "nazi" weapon lol... was it an NSDAP member? I hate political correctness.

Question is, how are you going to WITHDRAW to the side?

Malaya Zemplya was not the one with tanks - Yuzhnaya Ozereyka was. Further on the topic, there were multiple (ie, more than one) failed sea landings on russian front. Yuzhnaya Ozereyka already mentioned. Tuapse is another. There was at least one in Baltics, too. Of course, there were also dozens of successful operations of that kind by both sides.

> Member number one if the default > administrator when setting up the board. Just 1?!! Hmm... Compared to mine, that's REALLY short member. Arrgh... should have known better than posting on THIS thread. [ 04-11-2001: Message edited by: Skipper ]