Roksovkiy

In a recent university talk, David Glantz said the total russian military casualty numbers are still unknown with many archives closed. He said a minimum of 14.5 million military casualties, however the number is constantly increasing with new releases and discoveries from the archives. He said Krivosheevs numbers are not complete and do not include casualties from mars and many other operations. A Russian historical firm named SEARCH who toured the battlefield and and sifted through soviet documents, condemn Krivosheevs numbers as a relic from soviet secrecy. Glantz gives the total German losses from (1941-1944 december) on the eastern front as 2,742,209 million.

The germans could have achieved a victory in the south. The IISS Panzer Korps suffered small tank losses and even had more tanks available after prokhorovka. The soviets had no reserves left in the south after, without shifting from other fronts. The 5th Guards tank army WAS the Steppe fronts armoured reserve and it was smashed on the 12th. Army Group South's still had three panzer divisions in reserve that could have finised off the Fifth Guards Tank Army and the First Tank Army as Manstein wanted it would have had the same effect. Kursk in the south was actually very expensive for the Soviets

The Russian had bulit up a tank park prior to Kursk. The Germans could have destroyed every soviet tank around Kursk and within a month 2000 new tanks would be back at the front.

No, numbers had no effect whatsoever on the Germans. It was the brilliant soviet operational skill that enabled them to win battles after losing 6 times as many casualties than the Germans in 1943.

Resources had a decisive influence on the outcome and in the end the massive difference in resources was greater than the differences in efficiency. The soviet odds were much greater than 4:1 in weapons fielded for. The idea that soviet strategic/operational skill was used to negate German tactical skill from 1943 onwards is an old myth perpetuated by so called “Soviet Experts”.

The Panther - kubinka story has been adapted and changed in various books since the event. The only fact that remains is K.E.Voroshilov nearly having is head blown of with the muzzlebrake accident. It’s amusing how events change over the years to glorify what happened. The front glacis-engine out the back, makes a much better story that the measly 40mm side turret.

If the new data by rexford on armor is being used in CMBB, then tanks using cast armor should not get 100% quality ratings, unlike CMBO where the M-26 pershing with it’s cast glacis and turret armor having a 100% quality. The panther rating is severe after reading that it used RHA armor and was over-armored from the spec sheets according to UK and US test data rating the glacis as 85mm, compared to soviet vehicles produced with armor under the spec sheet measurements. Rexfords book has test results of high hardness flawed cast armor on the latest T-34/85s and IS-2's recorded by the U.S after the battle of Berlin. With this type of under spec high–hardness cast armor even a 60-70% armor quality would be better than historical.

Does the Armor model differentiate between cast armor and rolled homogenous armor. Rexford said good cast armor is 10-15% less resistant than RHA armor. Most Allied tanks used cast armor and it is not reflected in game armor ratings, without even taking bad armor into consideration. The M-26 pershing used a cast armour glacis and turret, yet it still gets 100% armor quality. It should get 90% quality at best. The Tiger II made of rolled homogenous armor, with no hard evidence of bad quality armor, is given less resistence in the game than if it was made of cast armor.

The Limeys must be up there for the ugliest WW1- era design tanks of the war. From the matilda, churchill, cromwell to the firefly. Awful tanks in combat as well as looks.

Rexfords new book has given the King Tiger's side plates better quality than US standard 240BHN. Up to 10% better. The new beta OOB's in SPWAWv7 is based on rexfords new book. All armor values are treated as their equivalent to US 240BHN. The King tiger side hull is rated as 88mm RHA armor.

Can the CM team cite some of the obscure sources used to justify the King Tiger having 90% side armor quality. Or was it included for gameplay concerns. Not one ounce of evidence has been quoted as to why this has been done. All ‘known’ evidence of failed 57mm and bazooka hits recorded in combat reports suggest the side hull was either over-armoured or of 100% armor quality. I’d also like to know what perplexing sources were used to model the accuracy of the 88mm guns at below 1km ranges. Is it not plausible that the game is geared towards the US market.

Where in CMBO is the King Tiger's armor rated at 90%. In the 1.12 patch its armor is rated at 100%. The English rated the side armor of the King Tiger tested at the Aberdeen proving grounds as equivalent to 88mm US 240BHN plate, without including the slope. The armor with the 25 degree slope was rated at 98mm resistance. The rear hull's 80mm with the 30 degree slope was rated as equivalent to 100mm US 240BHN. There was no mention of inferior quality armor for the side hull plates. Bazooka and PIAT tests failed to penetrate the rear and upper hull side plates.

Posted by Germanboy You are of course right regarding the validity of Jary's account, and it should also be remembered that 43rd Wessex was one of the best infantry divisions in the 2nd Army Well according to Saunders book ‘Hill 112: Battles of the Odon-1944’, the Wessex suffered severe losses against the 9th and 10th SS divisions. 43rd Wessex Division lost more than 2,000 men in the first 36 hours of operation JUPITER to regain Hill 112. The Odon River was dammed with corpses. Extensive replacements managed to bring the Wessex back up strength after 2 weeks. Jary seems to have ignored this experience of German troops.

So really - I have had it up to here with some people who are totally clueless, and substitute an attitude and an opinion for learning and reading, butting in crap. To use a much-overused phrase, sometimes a 0-tolerance policy towards such idiocy is going to benefit the quality of discussion on this board in the long run. A superb and accurate description of yourself, affix the word 'wanker' and 'biased' at the end and it would have been perfect. Try and read my original post first, then if you can, how it relates to your post. If you can manage that then there is nothing more to say.

I originally said the western allies were fighting “predominantly the dregs of the German army”. Of course there was a small number of good divisions left. 1st SS was still of a high quality and 12 SS was motivated and fanatical, but compared to the total army strength in the west, they accounted for less than 10%. The majority of divisions in the west were of markedly poor quality.