Skipper

Watch the caliber. If it is lowly 75/81mm, and it falls towards the end of turn, and you have a feeling that the follow up is goping to be an assault, and you have secondary positions to fall back to (as you should!), running from under the barrage might be a reasonable choice.

Probably yes. Will try to look it up.

I was reading up on that story some more. 563rd Separate Tank Batallion took part in the failed landing in Yuzhnaya Ozereyka. By the time of landing they were fully equipped with M3 Stuart tanks. Beforehand they also had some Valentines.

Do you seriously think it had anything to do with the Geneva convention? You know, man, you are dead wrong. See, nazis were not terribly conscious about such nuances. Especially not in the "eastern territories".

For soviets in 1941, this was largely due to the fact that tank formations (mechanised corps) had to travel a lot (500-1000 km) before entering combat. This was really a lot for a tank at that time (heck, it still is today). I second the opinion that if you have a tank in the beginning of a scenario, it shouldnt suffer engine breakdown - it doesnt travel all that much during the engagament, so the chances are very slim, and that would be detrimental to the game balance. Grisha, I guess you might put a smile in your original post

Correction: Malaya Zemlya landing was supposed to be the "false" one. However, it suceeded, while simultaneous main landing failed. This bridgehead was about 30 sq.km., there were some 10-15,000 troops fighting on it, and they were holding it against heavy german attacks for over 7 months.

> I may be wrong, but didn't the Russians > attempt an amphib assault somewhere on the > Black Sea, and get pushed back? I guess you are talking about Malaya Zemlya. The landing was successful, but from there it did not go quite the intended way - soviet troops had to go on defensive and took quite a heavy beating. In the end of the day, however, they managed to hold on and stayed there for quite a long time, until relieved by advancing main forces. Iirc, there was another amphib operation in that area, which could not hold on, but it was supposed to be a bait.

> But was there alot of variability in T34 armor? Keeping in mind that we are talking about wartime production on many different metallurgy plants, some of them not even originally designed to manufacture armor plate at all, there should be.

{double post} [ 04-11-2001: Message edited by: Skipper ]

> But in WW2 it seems the Germans were the > only ones with senior officers in the > thick of it consistently enough to be > notable. Err... ahem... so, who won? I remember an awful lot of accounts of senior Soviet generals personally leading their troops in assault... most of these in the breakthroughs from cauldrons of summer 1941.

> Were not later models of the T-34 upgraded > with more reliable turret traverse, 3 man > turret, and other improvements? Was not EVERY SINGLE AFV that saw WWII service upgraded in the same way? Every machine has teething problems. Every machine was manufactured on many different plants, that had different equipment, technology, expertise and supplies available, at different time periods. If you start counting such things as problematic turret motors, you might just as well count in some more important factors, ie: widely varying armor plate quality, welding technologies, roller bearings vs bushings, end user modifications, ad nauseum. You will end up with several dozen modifications for T-34, as well as Pz-III, Pz-V, etc, etc, etc. More realistic (albeit voluntary) approach would be to have two or three "generic" T-34/76s - called something like prewar, '42 and '43 models. And price them accordingly. [ 04-11-2001: Message edited by: Skipper ]

I would also humbly suggest that the link from the main page goes straight to the board.

Here comes from an ex pro (yours truly). If you dont get freezes in normal Windows environment (Internet Explorer and such), there are 9 out of 10 chances that your problem is in the video card. Especially considering that you have already changed the MoBo. 1 out of 10 chances is that something screwed up your Windows installation. HDD, CD, FD and the sound must be alright (they are still the suspects, but very very unlikely ones). Try to get yourself a really cheap and simple video card. (if none of your friends have a leftover from an upgrade, and your comp assembly wouldnt borrow you one, you should be able to buy one for 20 bucks or less) and see if it works in 2D. If it does, you know that your individual video card is faulty (yes, it happens). Go to the PC assembly and moan for a replacement. Next thing to look at is how much empty space you have on the drive where your virtual memory sits - give it at least half a gig and defragment. The last thing to try is reinstalling the Windows. This is a big task and should be done from DOS mode, preferrably from a bootable flop.

LOL When are we going to see a CM version that will allow us to battle with aliens?!! The universe seems to be too vast, the distances between stars are long and the levels of energy required to transport something big from one star to another within a reasonable time are, in all likelihood, huge. Even trading, let alone wars, will probably be impossible. Exchange of knowledge, on the other hand... > The problem is that many tanks can't > elevate the gun enough to hit the top > floor at the short range available. Nevertheless, they could be used, and were used to a great effect in urban combat. SP guns were used as well. They have their own shortcomings in that setting, in melee situations a fast turret may be a real blessing.

By the way, "The Boss" is a wrong translation. In fact Stalin was commonly nicknamed as "hozyain", which means something between "The Master" and "The Owner". Like in "A bear is the master of the woods".

> Suvorov - the man is no historian, but > more an inciter of sensationalism. That's very much what he is. OTOH, "scaled down" versions of military hardware were exported to all countries, including the closest allies, such as Eastern Germany. Yes, the most combat ready and most reliable ally of Soviet Army was Eastern Germany, of all Warsaw Pact countries. Soviet generals considered them "as good as ourselves". And if crap hits the fan, these (together with the soviet forces in Germany) were the people to take the worst beating, too. Even they had export verions of everything - from planes to tanks to SAM systems. Apparently, it was not so much about keeping the costs down, but about keeping the best toys to oneself. However, I believe that North Korean T-34s were just what they were - standard, no frills, T-34-85. After all, by 1948 these were almost obsolete.

Today is 4 months since I first put my CM disc in the drive. !!! I HAVENT TAKEIN IT OUT EVER SINCE !!! Now, guys, as far as I recall, I have some damn good sims (Flanker 2.0, anyone?) and strategy games somewhere in the chest. To confess, there was a couple silly teeny 3D-shooters, too. I used to buy a new game once in a couple of months. Now, in the last FOUR MONTHS it had never occurred to me that I can plug another game in the darned CD drive, let alone buy another game. I have realised there was something wrong with me just a few days ago. Problem is, even now I cant think about firing up a Flanker or anything. I'll probably stall it on takeoff - forgot how to fly. Doctor, is it curable?

I probably missed that thread a month ago, but crews moved 76mm AT guns by hand as well.

> they wasted all of their money on their > space program and submarines. Space? You know, pal, life is not about money. Submarines? Not a major program. Much more money were wasted on tanks. > Their generals are piss-poor and so are > most of their equipment and tactics. Hmm... you know, it is not the best army in the world, but not the worst, either. Far from it. Apparently, it was good enough in Chechnya-99. Moreover, it was even good enough in Chechnya-95, all major centers in the province were taken. However, the country was not ready to go all the way through with the military solution. The only result was few thousand more dead people five years later on. Moreover, all three major peacekeeping (peaceMAKING, actually) operations of the russian army in the last decade were successful: Tadjikistan, Abhazia, Karabah. In all three cases we are talking about big conflicts, tens of thousand combatants, tanks, artillery and all such crap. All three wars stopped. How is that for a track record? > It was like they thought the rebels would > just say "OH CRAP, TANKS" and give up! It was exactly what they expected. Too much reliance on past experiences, such as Czechoslovakia. > It was pathetic, just PATHETIC..... Hindsight 20/20, anyone? Imagine yourself the same troops entering the city in assault formations and meeting no resistance.

> Would be interested in reading more about > them - is there a reliable online source > that discusses them? No idea. All I know is that there was more than one school that trained dogs for this kind of behaviour. Not sure if they worked throughout the war, or just in early days (when pretty much any low-tech means to kill a tank were tried and used). > I am still under the impression that they > were trained to go under tanks by using > the Pavlovian process of feeding them > only under running vehicles. Surely enough, it was not by subjectiong them to heavy doses of anti-nazi propaganda.

Grozny was a prime example of intelligence screwup, guys. Tanks entered the city in marching column formations, to assume controlling positions on crossroads and such. Most tanks carried no active armor. There were no dismounted infantry covering the tanks. They did not expect organised resistance at all. Red Army acquired a lot of experience in city fighting during WWII, and they did not shy away from using tanks in urban combat. Especially, in 1944-45. Normally, an individual tank, sometimes two, would be attached to an assault groop - ex, SMG platoon, tank, light AT gun. There is nothing like a 120 mm HE round to take out an MG nest on the top floor.

While it is hardly known who invented the recipe, pretty surely it was finns who invented the name. Btw, soviet infantry referred to these simply "bottles". Dogs were used as smart AT mines, in numbers sufficient to deserve notion. I thuink, we are talking thousands here.

The most successful tank program was T-34 hands down. I dont even see a subject for discussion here On lend-lease: supplies of US and British tanks were, of course, helpful, and since they were available, they were taken with gratitude and used. However, they were a fraction of soviet own tank production. If you want to know whch part fo lend-lease was critically important, here you are: trucks, jeeps and food. In 1942 american canned meat was already known as "The Second Front" - which was the russian name for Western Front. On the soviet navy during the war. It is an interesting topic. Objectively, there were not many things a navy could do for USSR in a large war. Supposedly, there were no crucial blue water communications to defend. Who could predict that the nest of communist revolution would receive heaps of stuff from the proverbial imperialists, ie US and UK? So, navy's strategic role was disruption of enemy sea traffic, and defence of coastal areas. Soviet naval doctrine reflected that by building a large fleet of submarines (over 200 in 1939, as opposed to some 60-90 for Germany, USA, UK and Japan each) and not building a blue-water navy (there were only a handful of capital ships and no air carriers at all). Ie, large resources were spent on building up the navy, although it was spent on subs, rather than big ships.

AT rifles, special AT grenades, molotov's, sticky mines (not magnet, but stuck with a goo); some lend-lease zooks, though not many. Basically, after stopgap AT rifle production in 1941, soviet war industry did not do much in the way of developing a light infantry AT weapon until the end of the war. Instead, resources were devoted to saturating the troops with generous quantities of AT guns and tank destroyers. Those did the job well enough.

> Their problem was poor training, tactics, > and leadership. Not always, not everywhere, and not for a long time, anyway. All that fancy equipment was lost in summer '41 disaster (mostly bombed out or ditched because of no fuel, no ammo, no spares, no transport etc). In 1942 the mainstream tank of RKKA was T-60. Only by 1943 it was T-34 again.