Foreigner

On the question of Cossack independence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cossacks Maybe, JasonC, you would like to enlight the whole Internet community with your insight on the Cossack nature and history. The format allows it; comments and additions are welcome.

JasonC Based on what historical research I know, until probably the XVI century you can't really speak of any "overlord" over the lands that the Cossacks then occupied - though some may have claimed it, few, if any, really controlled it. A more appropriate word would be "loose and shifting alliances". That independence was precisely was attracted so many serfs from neigboring feudal states. Cossack society had not all formal trappings of a "state", but since the very beginning it was one where all leaders were elected in a democratic process. Will you, please, remind me, when "civilized" Europe started doing that on a regular basis? During Catherine the Great's reign in the XVIII century, Cossak independence was abolished, and the Cossacks resettled. They formed the basis of light cavalry units; however, not all Cossacks were in the military - a lot of them were simply peasants with a strong military tradition and readiness to pick up arms if need be. Even if we limit the term Cossaks to the military term only, can you honestly claim that they were more bloodthirsty than, say, any of the sides in the peasant uprisings and the wars surrounding the Protestant Reformation, where wholesale slaughter and desecration of churches seemed the order of the day? Or less loyal than the mercenary bands of the period? Or less respectful of human dignity than societies that had slaves well into the XIX century?

Ye gods! Is that black tower thingy some kind of leftover from the filming of Lord of the Rings? It could also pass for something from Angkor Wat. Michael </font>

Sorry, Jason, I have to disagree on some of the points you make, or at least to argue that there were enough cases where your reasoning doesn't quite apply. Granted, I wasn't in the WWII trenches, nor do I personally know any snipers from that time, but I suspect you weren't and don't, either. My information is mostly from 70's Soviet memoirs - Cold War era, but a period cautiously characterized as a relative "thaw". It is also the period that saw the publication of very earnest and gritty (by Soviet standards, of course) recollections of the war. For snipers in particular, they were written by the surviving soldiers themselves (probably with ghost writer cooperation, but I doubt they will appoint a dedicated lying weasel of a spinmaster for a female sergeant that nobody really remembers). As with any wartime memoirs, there are inherent biases in their accounts - some probably inexcusable, some at least understandable - such as remembering the more memorable stuff. However, I doubt there was outright lying, and I doubt there was great exaggeration in their accounts, either. The picture they paint, though, is quite different from "get the highest body count the fastest way possible" approach. In fact, they often use it as a negative example. Zaitsev in his memoirs spends some time on the court-martial (or at least the Party Committee's grilling, my memory's not that clear) of a sniper that during a fight went for the easy pickings of enemy soldiers ignoring the machinegun nest he was ordered to destroy (as a result of which the Soviets suffered "unnecessary casualties"). A female sniper described as her most embarrassing experience the reprimand she got when on their first assgnment her and her teammate shot two foot soldiers after waiting unsucessfully all day for an enemy sniper (their target) to show himself. Starting their "personal body count" was deemed poor compensation for alerting the enemy to the presence of their own snipers in their sector. They also describe long and careful preparation of firing positions, and lying in wait for hours. Now, it really would be a waste of that effort to just shoot the first one to saunter by. Because no matter how good the position, a shot can give you away, two - almost certainly. So all memoirs I've read mention waiting for high value targets. Now, if nothing came by, at the end of the day they might shoot a grunt, since they seldom mention using the same position two days in a row. I'm not saying that "shoot the first in sight" didn't happen - but I have the impression this approach was strongly discouraged, and chances are, snipers that practiced it got killed fairly soon - by another sniper, more patient and selective. Which leads me to another contention of yours - that "It is a collosal waste of a sniper's talents to hunt a man who is deliberately hiding". Don't you think that a sniper's training in patience, observation and concealment make them uniquely qualified to ferret out a hiding target (to quote - probably inaccurately - "Fahrenheit 451", "To learn to find you must first learn to hide")? And to borrow your own reasoning about average effectiveness of weapons systems, isn't any specialized soldier that manages to take out a similarly specialized enemy soldier, in fact, "above average effective" combat system? After all, you remove not only a single person, but all the damage he/she could have done to your side. Now, to get to a more widely familiar ground, let's replace "sniper" and "man who is deliberately hiding" with "tanks", we have something that suspiciously resembles an official armor doctrine of the time. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that didn't quite work out, now, did it? Incidentally, most deaths of sniper comrades in those memoirs are attributed to enemy snipers, the second most frequent being the mortaring of discovered sniper positions. To recapitulate, it is my impression (with all possible caveats) that the descriptions of sniper hunts and duels (and not all sucessful) at least on the Eastern Front are simply too prevalent, come from too many independent sources (many of them quite unassuming and, at least to me, earnest), and are supported by fairly defensible battlefield logic (which, of course, you are free to question and argue against) to be summarily dismissed as pure fantasy and propaganda. I'd like to point out that that neither me in my post nor most of the memoirs I've read claim the sniper's craft is particularly noble and squeaky-clean - so I see no argument there. Now, the memoirs, of course, talk about the nobility of defending the Motherland (and the Socialist ideals), but nowhere do they claim they alone won the war or were superior to other miltary arms. They talk of simply doing their duty, of mastering a deadly craft. Real Bond-like, actually: "Not particularly proud of what I do, but I take pride in doing it well". Especially in the memoirs of female snipers, the claim (almost to the point of a universal cliché) is that hate (hardly a noble emotion) drove them to kill people whose faces they could clearly see in their scopes - something totally contrary to their "nursing female nature". Another point I think I made prominently in my post is that snipers are at their most effective in static front situations (which seem to cover your "quiet parts of the front"). What I should have also mentioned is that while they are probably less effective in active combat, they still seem to have sufficient value to warrant their inclusion especially in trying to stop attacks. In fact, Zaitsev's carreer as a sniper ended precisely in such a situation - but not because of wrong orders, but because in violation of all rules he rushed to take prisoners and was caught in an mortar barrage. All of the above, though, is probably more applicable to a "classic" war, not an "insurgency" type campaign. In the latter situation your logic does have significant merit. But, then, it would probably apply to any guerilla fighter, not to snipers in particular. And we are talking about a classic war, aren't we?

In response to MOS... countering enemy snipers is a major part of a sniper's job description. It's not so much how many they kill, it's who they kill and when they do it. High-value targets - officers, messengers, artillery observers, gun crews. How would the attacker feel if right in the middle of the charge snipers knock out their firebase providing covering fire? Plus, constantly "feeling" enemy crosshairs on your forehead has a very detrimental morale effect. According to memoirs, the standard indication of a sniper's presence is the increase in the rate of fatal head and neck wounds from rifle bullets, especially in a position of relatively good cover (like trenches). In fact, static front lines (like in Stalingrad) are where the sniper shines - partly because there's not much else going on, but mostly because it takes time and effort to prepare a concealed position, and persistence to lie and wait for a worthy target. And all this - for a sigle shot, rarely two - more, and the sniper is really pushing their luck. And as the most effective anti-sniper weapon is another sniper, sniper duels (or hunts - who said it has to be a fair one-on-one fight) seem to be pretty common throughout the war - at least in the words of those good or lucky enough to live to tell...

Sorry if some ideas are repeated - consider them my vote in support. 1. Treat bunkers/pillboxes like sturdy houses - able to man/abandon/reman with any units that fit inside (or leave completely empty). Like houses, have several options with different capacity, firing arc dimensions, and "sturdiness" - different point "prices" a given (fighting unit not included). 2. Give all infantry units some "engineer" ability - to have a chance (however small) to spot a minefield before walking over it, to remove wire and dismantle roadblocks (however slowly, and only when not engaged in fighting). HQs, Teams and crewed weapons should be a little worse at those tasks; dedicated engineers should be much more efficient, plus they would remain the only ones to clear a minefield (and not only by using their explosives). In all cases, higher experience level should mean faster and more efficient action. 3. Allow more flexibility in defensive formations/posture/orders - just like we have "move to contact", "advance", and "assault", let's have "skirmish and hightail", "hold your ground", "fighting withdrawal under fire". It can be realized by movement or formation commands. 4. Allow the assignment of "victory points" to the destruction/preservation of units and structures - now those "capture the building intact" or "destroy that KT" in the briefing become more meaningful. After all, we already have "should exit for points" for units. 5. Allow preview of map before unit purchase in QBs. Please, in addition to those Top 5, kindly consider those "honorable mentions": 6. Give at least squad infantry the ability to "swim" (cross water not at ford) - slow and dangerous (like sewer movement), but still... While we are at it, introduce "water state" to account for current, waves, etc, and make water more or less difficult to cross. 7. "Experience" for fortifications (except TRPs) - then more money would buy you trenches with better protection; minefields, wire, and roadblocks that are harder to detect/pass through/clear. 8. Even if we don't get "full battle replay", at least allow turn resolution movie recording a la PBEM turn for all types of games. 9. Ability to "draw" roads over terrain. 10. Ability to recrew abandoned weapons; if with the original crew, then with the usual "Broken!" handicap. Allow recrewing with "fresh" crews, but only if they are the same "class" - MG/mortar/field gun/AFV crew, etc., with a slight decrease in effectiveness. [ August 31, 2005, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: Foreigner ]

I have another theory - AFAIK, the rank of Lieutenant is denoted by two small stars, and the rank of major by one, but bigger, and Lieutenant Colonel - by two bigger. So, while Generals' stars are huge, a one-star general would resemble a Major, and a two-star general... well, you can't really call him "Lieutenant Colonel General", now, can you? Just my 2 euro-cents.

I would second the "nomination" of Gen. Pavlov as one of the worst generals of WWII for his mishandling of Soviet defenses in the opening stages of "Barbarossa" - sticking with the same deployment that had already been proven ineffective months before (in exercises). I also believe that character can make or break even the most intellectually gifted commander; as such, the combination of mediocre ability and cynical opportunism clinches my "worst" vote for Gen. Andrey Vlasov, probably the highest ranking "active turncoat" in WWII (note that while both Petain and Paulus "outranked" him, none actually lead armed forces agains their homeland, like Vlasov did). Now, some sources try to present him as a sworn enemy of Stalinism/Bolshevism; but before his luck turned he apparently had no problem enjoying the benefits of the system he was supposed to hate, and had excelled in igratiating himself with Stalin. He certainly didn't mind being called "one of Stalin's generals". He rose during the purges when many unquestionably talented leaders fell into disfavor. After he switched sides, he didn't remain loyal to his new cause for long, but instead tried to cut a deal the moment he thought he could get away with it. Opinions also differ about his military abilities. Many point out his role in the defence of Moscow in 1941; however, there are some indications that he commenced the counter-attack prematurely, against direct orders, and thus deprived the Soviets of a more decisive victory. What is often missed is his role in the disastrous defense of Kiev, which he had bragged to Stalin he would be able to hold. He slipped away while his army was being encircled. After the 1942 disaster at the Volkhov front, some say he let himself be captured by driving westwards, towards the enemy lines. In any case, it didn't take much time or effort to convince him to lead an active military formation against his countrymen. And the argument for a "principled" fight against Stalin, in my opinion, is seriously undermined by the fact that most of the time the "Russian volunteers" were employed not against Stalin's army, but partisans and the civilian population in the German-occupied territories. Well, Hitler and Himmler didn't trust Vlasov and his men, and apparently for a good reason - when the going got tough, they attempted to negotiate clemency with the Allies in exchange for a sneak attack at the Germans. By and large, that didn't work; Vlasov was captured without a fight, and ended his life on the gallows. In my mind, a fitting inglorious end to a conniving weasel.

Wasn't it a case of some guy persistently "researching" how one can deliberately flip a HumVee on even ground, and after the "successful study conclusion", neigbboring units striving to prove "they could do no worse"?

Just quick point to supplement Bigduke6's excellent post... According to Soviet memoirs I've read, the 71-round drum magazine was introduced (some claim - on the personal insistence of Stalin himself) as a result of the bitter experience of being on the receiving end of Finnish SMG fire in the Winter War, and was modeled on the drum magazine of the "Suomi" SMG. However, the major complaint about the drum seems not the weight, but the fact that it jutted sideways and thus impeded crawling - therefore, pre-1943 recon detachments of the Red Army had more preference for the German models. Starting in 1943, the Soviets actually had a choice of two box-magazine SMGs - the PPS-43 and the redesigned PPSh-43. The former, being lighter, simpler, and foldable, went mainly to vehicle crews; apparently, the mainstream infantry units by and large still preferred the large ammo capacity of the drum magazine, while the recon elements went for the box. One other thing to note is that for Soviet WWII small arms to come to Pittsburgh, that would have been a long, and probably tortuous, journey. The gun "Guderian" describe smost likely had taken part in at least one "proxy conflict" after 1945, and endured harsher than average treatment, which will probably degrade its performance. Unless, of course, it's a replica or a copy, but then all bets (and arguments) are off. Herr Generaloberst, it would be interesting to learn the history of that gun!

The 57mm ZiS-2 from the get-go was designed as an ATG, while the 76mm ZiS-3 was more of a general purpose divisional gun. By the way, the 51.6 caliber barrel length for ZiS-3 quoted on the website above is probably a typo, though it is repeated in several sources. That figure will put the overall barrel length at over 4m (around 13 feet), around the same as the overall barrel length of the ZiS-2, and you can tell from the pictures that's simply not true (both guns had almost identical carriages). The 41.6 caliber length for ZiS-3 listed elsewhere seems much more realistic. Now with a smaller and lighter round, significantly longer barrel, and similar (if not greater) powder charge, the 57mm ZiS-2 was bound to have a greater muzzle velocity and penetration ability than the 76mm ZiS-3. But apparently the longer barrel of the 57mm was also its curse, as it was much more expensive to manufacture and it wore out much quicker. So for the price of one 57mm one could get several 76mm guns, which couldn't quite match the kill distance but were "good enough" and could set a "killing sack", were generally more likely to have at least some survivors after an encounter than a lone gun and were much better against non-armored targets.

Dear tooz, I'm afraid not much comes up with Googling in English. Might try some in Bulgarian from home. This site is a general historical overview of Bulgaria in WWII. http://www.bulgaria.com/history/bulgaria/war2.html The next two sites, while not in impeccable English and not big on details, nevertheless seem pretty thorough. http://members.aol.com/bogdanovaslava/ http://members.aol.com/bogdanovaslava/BulgWW2.html The site below is the National Military Historical Museum in Sofia, Bulgaria. Couldn't find articles on it, but the pictures could be informative. http://www.md.government.bg/nvim/_en/index.htm Finally, two sites that deal with limited aspects of Bulgarian WWII equipment: One about the WWII Bulgarian airforce; http://www.geocities.com/bulgarian_aviation/english1.htm and one from "Achtung Panzer!", which used to have much better coverage on Bulgarian AFVs in WWII. http://www.achtungpanzer.com/axispzs.htm

I might be wrong, but doesn't speed of burning depend on temperature and humidity, among other things? Plus, mass production processes inevitably introduce variability - in this case, not every fuse is the same even from the start.

Indeed it is - about 70% of the vocabulary is practically the same (though the grammar is way off). But the similarity can land one in trouble by giving a false sense of understanding everything correctly. A Bulgarian direction to go "straight ahead" (NAPRAVO) could easily send an unaware Russian to the right instead. And there are some innocent words in each language that don't sound so innocent in the other. In fact, Bulgarian is a Southern Slavic language, together with Serbo-Croatian and Macedonian, IIRC, and therefore is much more similar to them. I'm curious, though - which country do you want to base the new mod on? Bulgaria, like Romania, in 1944 switched allegiance from Axis to Allies. On the other hand, the Bulgarian army had almost exclusively German equipment (with some Czech thrown in for good measure), while Romania had some of its own. Finally, AFAIK, prior to late 1944 Bulgarian ground troops were involved in the war exclusively as Axis occupational forces in parts of Greece and Yugoslavia. They saw major combat only in late 1944-early 1945 as Allied - part of the Third Ukranian Front, Yugoslavia and Hungary.

An excellent (if a wee bit concise) source for Soviet Union's awards seems to be the following site. And this is an even more detailed site concentrating on the different versions and visual identification of Soviet military awards. To summarize - the highest honor the USSR could bestow was the Hero of the Soviet Union. It could be granted both for military and civilian exploits, as well as for 'lifetime achievement' (there was a separate but similar "Hero of Socialist Labor"). The "Hero" honor was signified by a Golden Star medal, and came with an 'automatic' Order of Lenin, which was in fact the highest "order" (technically, a "Hero" is more like a title than an award). Although extremely rare, one could be awarded a "Hero" more than once. In fact, Zhukov was a "quadruple Hero" (plus a Hero of Mongolia); 'Joe' Stalin, Kozhedub, and Pokryshkin (the last two - the top scoring Allied fighter aces of WWII) were "triples"; IIRC some 100+ were "doubles" (including Field Marshals Konev and Rokossovsky), though I might be way off base on the count and/or names. The above were "general purpose" awards; others were much more strictly defined as to whom to and what for they could be awarded, but were noteworthy in their own right. The jewel-studded Order of Victory was reserved for top military brass only - for achieving major strategic successes. Only 21 were awarded - including one for Ike and one for Monty. Zhukov's the only one with two. "Mere" army commanders and other senior officers had to do with orders named after famous Russian military commanders of old; among those, the Order of Suvorov seems to had been the most prestigious. For soldiers, enlisted men and NCOs, one of the highest awards was the Order of Glory - for outstanding courage; you were a "Full Cavalier" if you had all three classes. The Medal for Valor also seems to be highly regarded.

The season "Dear Santa" letters is well over, but I guess for this community BFC/BTS is the next best thing... And I apologize if any of the questions and suggestions below have been addressed/discussed before. There's a couple of things I would be glad to see in the new CM installment(s). The main one comes from a question that's been vaguely, but persistently haunting me - why are we limited to MG/ATG bunkers only? I don't know how much complexity it would introduce (and whether it would be worth the trouble), but what if we had a pick of several types of bunkers ("empty shells" only) and then at setup choose to man them - with a squad and a HMG, an infantry gun plus a flamethrower, or any other combnination the sick imagination of a CM player can conjure ? This way, the attacker at least for a while will not know what to expect from the binker/pillbox. It might even be left unmanned (like a trench) to make the attacker expend time, ammo and effort. If it's not returning fire, is it empty, or is it "playing dead"? Do you feel lucky today? Do you...? Of course, there would be limits to what (and how many) units can be in a bunker at the same time. Mortars would definitely be out, AAGs would not be able to shoot at planes, squads would not be able to throw hand grenades/satchel charges out, etc. But why not FOs? So it might be worth pounding that 'empty' pillbox after all... Whether units inside of a bunker can leave it during the battle and other units move inside belongs more to the "abadon/recrew weapons" debate. Which reminds me - what if one was able to use/purchase extra vehicle/artillery crews to replace the worthless cowards that run as soon as a mere couple of comrades are torn to pieces in front of their eyes? I would also like a greater variety of bunkers/pillboxes with different protection levels and capacity (and different prices, of course). Some of the more expensive ones could be hexa- or octagonal, with wider fields of fire. Heck, it's wish-list season, let's also have two types of trenches - a "flimsy" and a reinforced one, but let them both be "collapsible" by HE fire, much like a light and a heavy building. That's how HE became popular in WWI, you know. Other items on my list: - the small possibility (depending on experience) of mistakenly identifying an enemy vehichle as knocked-out/abandoned (the shock when it comes to life!); and while we are at it... - 'small fires' and other minor damage to vehicles that disables them, but that could sometimes be repaired by crews during the battle when not under attack (this way even some immobilized out-of-enemy-sight vehicles can still hope to get into action). Maybe not that often, but it certainly happened IRL. Codename: Panzers repair trucks need not apply! - the ability of infantry (but not heavy support weapons) to "swim" across rivers where there's no ford - like sewer movement in cities, extremely slow and hazardous, but still possible; - the probability of an engineer unit detecting a minefield before someone steps/drives over one. Dependent upon experience and alert status, of course; - the ability of engineers to clear/blow up wires/roadblocks; - a 'stand-your-ground' command for defending units, similar to 'assault' - morale bonus, shoots more often, but takes casualties faster; - a 'fighting withdrawal' command - similar to 'advance' - slower, more tiring, but potentially taking less casualties. Thanks for reading! All comments and suggestions are welcome - as long as they agree with me!

Actually, caliber is not the only criterion for 'fitting' an opponent's ammunition to your own guns. Especially for self-contained cartridges, length and cartridge shape can be quite different between similar rounds, not to mention the possibility of drastic differences in propellant loads and rated pressures. But there are at least two possible reasons for the general tendency of Soviet/Russian weapons systems to be of slightly bigger size. First, design and manufacture tolerances need not be that strict, which translates into weapons that, while not so 'sophisticated' or finely made, are cheaper to produce and maintain, and are generally more reliable under adverse conditions. Second, if you are to adapt a captured round, it is always easier to 'pad' a small round than to 'cram' a bigger round into a smaller chamber - not to mention safer. Imagine filing away extra metal from a HE shell...

Dear MikeyD, Thanks for the kind words, but to be fair, most of the work was done by Google... As far as Soviet Panzerfaust use, I have never come upon accounts of their use against Axis armor - instead the preferred targets seem to had been strongpoints in built-up areas (like in the recent movie "The Pianist", a Polish resistance fighter fires a 'faust across the street into a window of the German headquarters or something). In other words, they were used as oversize antipersonnel "grenade launchers". My theory is, that by the time 'fausts became widespread among German troops (and therefore available for capture), the Soviets had achieved nearly overwhelming superiority in tanks, SP guns and tank destroyers, and AT guns. As a result, whenever the infantry encountered enemy armor, they generally had enough AT assets "on call", and man-portable AT weapons were not considered a priority.

Actually, some Soviet grenades were like soup cans, in particular because they are cheaper to produce. Anti-tank and "offensive" grenades were most often shaped like that. But don't take my word for that, see for yourself. The Soviets also employed grenade bundles, and from the public images the most common ones for the purpose were the RGD-33 (from the link above). They could also be (and were) used against non-armor targets. The main advantage of the Molotov cocktail is the ability to make it fast and on the spot even in the most miserable field conditions, although in some cases "upscale" models were factory-produced - those did not require a burning rag hanging from the neck, as they contained a phosphorus-based compound that ignited on contact with air (i.e. when the bottle broke). And don't forget that gasoline engines are fairly prone to fires (especially under prolonged combat strain and adverse climate conditions), and a little "help" from a Molotov mught just be the spark they need. IIRC, one of the most serious teething problems of the Panther was the poor ventilation of the engine compartmnet and leaky fuel lines combined to create spontaneous fires even before the tanks saw the enemy. Plus, there's oil and grease and paint and all sort of other flammable stuff in/on a tank, and I belive at a high enough temperature even steel starts to burn.

Signs look great! Love the slightly crooked and misaligned letters and the uneven background color of the board. In my experience, chalk lines in general are either fairly thin (when writing with the tip), or very thick (when you hold the stick flat on its longest side and drag it across the surface - in fact drawing a parallelogram instead of a line). But the final choice rests with you, Philippe. I would personally prefer the unachieved victory objective flag to be of a brighter contrasting color - easier to get the situation at a glance.

Should've done some more research beforehand... Philippe, I just saw an older posting of yours with US minefiled markers, and I must say I'm impressed - you've got the "hand-painted" look down cold. I guess part fo my advice was presumptious and useless, for which I apologize. Still, I think the darker board color of your current sign is better. And can you do chalk instead of paint?

Dear Philippe, Sorry to answer through the forum, but I'm afraid my e-mail client might mangle the Cyrillic text. Unfortunately, the "mines" in second version of your sign are of the "industrial hole in the ground" type. Mind you, they can also go "boom" (methane gas explosions), and are probably the most dangerous places men go into willingly, but redeploying them before a battle will be somewhat cumbersome... The "mines" you are looking for are Мины, and minefield is Минное поле - you got that right the first time, it's just Soviet soldiers saw no need to write those extra letters. Every language has it quirks; in Russian as a warning they use Осторожно all by itself, which (litterally translated) is "carefully" (the particular action is unspecified, but implied). The closest English equivalent in meaning, if not grammatical form, will probably be "Careful!", but I still find "Beware!" the closest translation in terms of usage, conveying warning and prescribing attitude. So the most likely minefield warning sign would be similar to Осторожно! Мины! I am not aware that the Soviets field signs differentiated between AT and AP mines, so if you leave both markers the same, you probably won't be far off. And, frankly, I doubt they bothered to draw the skull-and-bones, or anything else. Most likely it would only be text scribbled with chalk on a makeshift board (I think you got the uneven look right, now if you could only add jagged edges...), so if you want to go for "ultrarealism" you might want to consider imitating hand-drawn - uneven, slanted, crooked block letters not lining perfectly. Don't know if it'll be worth the trouble, though. Though not used in CMBB, a "companion" sign would be "Checked - no mines" Проверено мин нет . The person responsible for this would usually sign his name under it. Also often Внимание! would be used as a warning sign - this is absolutely equivalent to "Attention!" (not the miltary command, though). As far as "the missing letters", there indeed had been a reform withdrawing some letters from use, but AFAIK it was very soon after the Bolshevik revolution - might have been as early as 1918 - definitely before the Stalinist era. IIRC it mainly removed letters designating "variable", "double" and "mute" sounds - legacy of olden times that the modern everyday language had little or no use for, or could be expressed otherwise - I guess something like æ. It also abolished the rule of "keeping the syllables open" - putting a "mute" ъ at the end of words normally ending with a consonant.

Sorry, but I have to point out a glaring, if understandable error in the Russian term on the "objective" flag. It's an accurate translation ... but of "objective" as an adjective - in the sense of "impartial", "unbiased". Unfortunately, I am not aware of an appropriate Russiam military term short enough (or universal enough) to fit on a flag. The closest I can think of are the Russian word for "goal", or the expressions for "designated/assigned area/zone/target", even "designated frontage". The minefied marker translated reads: "Danger Minefield" As far as I know, Soviet combat engineers preferred the shorter "Beware! Mines!". Also, how difficult would be to have the trench walls lined with logs?

Just a couple minor points on the timing of the attack... June 22nd of any year is the shortest night/longest day, and even now armies prefer to fight in the daylight. In 1941 June 22nd also happened on a Sunday, and attacking during a holiday/celebration is a time-honored tradition. Too good a combination to pass up? I'm not sure about the effects of personal factors. Hitler (as quoted) wanted a war before he turned 50. Guess what - he turned 50 in 1939. "Beware what you wish for..." Those Chinese sure knew their one-liners.

Seems this site has some, but definitely not all of the answers about lend-lease aircraft on the Eastern Front. In a nutshell, I was left with the impression that A-20s were used mainly in naval aviation in the Northern TO, e.g. as torpedo bombers, and as medium level bombers for striking enemy communications and softening up defenses before a CM scenario kicks in. As far as the premier P-39 ace, he is A. Pokryshkin, one of the only two Triple Heroes of the Soviet Union in the VVS, officially credited with 59 kills (second highest only to Kozhedub's 62 among all allied pilots), although unofficially he is rumored to have a score over 100 (in particluar, towards the end of the war he was allegedly crediting some of his kills to his long-time wingman in an effort to get him a "Hero" as well). While the overwhelming majority of his victories were scored in P-39s, his first "Me-109" he shot down in a "MiG-3", and he finished the war in a "Yak". "Ground cover" mentioned in the previous post most likely refers to "air cover for ground troops", which mostly involved chasing away enemy bombers and ground attack aircraft. Success for the Soviets was judged not so much by the numbers of planes shot down, but whether the bombers were forced to abort their mission (preferrably forcing them to dump their bombload on territory occupied by their own troops). [ October 13, 2004, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: Foreigner ]