White Phosphorus
-
Posts
194 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by White Phosphorus
-
-
Weren't Soviet platoon and maybe squad level officers, regulars (read this in a memoir). Who had no qualms about shooting their men? And didn't they have blocking detachments following them around Enemy at the Gates style (in EATG the troops were regulars, so it didn't make any sense)? From personal accounts it appears that the Penal battalions were made up of volunteer convicts, although punished soldiers were forced to serve in them.
The Airforce's version of penal duty was to fly as the gunner on IL-2s.
-
The Soviets had different types of molotovs. One was the standard gas and diesel, and another was a self-igniting sulfuric mixture, with white phosphorus thrown in. The latter burned at over 1000 degrees C. The general practice was to throw the self-igniting one first, and then follow it up with two fused ones.
-
If one army is equipped with 50% riffles, and 50% SMGs, and the other is equipped entirely with ARs. Wouldn't the AR equipped army be at a numerical advantage at both long and close range engagements, since the AR can double up as an SMG.
-
There is a personal account on battlefield.ru of an AT-rifle gunner wearing a plate between his long coat and padded jacket. He talks about how useless and heavy it was, then German mortars start shelling them and shrapnel shreds his clothing, but fails to penetrate the plate, saving his life.
-
-
Wow, such an accusation, and not a shred of concrete proof. Could you provide a list of relevant devisions, so that we may study their history.Originally posted by OZ77:Because the German attack prevented these highly trained troops from being used as originally planned, Stalin converted them to "guards divisions," which he used as reserves and "fire brigades" in emergency situations, much as Hitler often deployed Waffen SS forces.
-
During the battle of Berlin, there is footage of a guy running down the street firing his DP bullets going every which way.
-
Suvarov is not a nazi apologist, he is a fraud and a scam artist. The only purpose of his books is to sell. His whole histography seems to revolve around shocking the reader with claims of facts, scary catchphrases, and circular logic.Originally posted by Walpurgis Night:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Soddball:
Again you are obscenely presumptuous Soddball. I have been to Auschwitz severals time. Straw arguments are nothing more than trolling.And yes, as I said I am only an amatuer . . . some good reason to shame me for that? I think not. I'm sure many of the people in here are only amatuers that are fascinated with history, as I am.
Suworov may well be some nazi-apologist-revisionist. I am certainly not an expert on this matter. But it would appear that the Russians were preparing for war. Why the massive industrialization leaning on muntions and tank factories? Why invade Finland? Why invade Poland? These are not the acts of a peaceful, non-aggressive nation. Again, this Suworov may be nuts, but I think the idea that Russia was preparing for an aggressive war is not so outlandish based on their actions leading up to Barbarossa. </font>
As for Glantz, I don't think he is unbiased. He seems to have quite an axe to grind with Zhukov. I read his book on Mars, and I still don't get what his problem is.
Germany wasn't the only country that got screwed after WWI. A well known German spy by the name of Lenin (the JEWS bombed the WTC, and CIA shot Kennedy), gave quite a bit of Russia away. And Stalin wanted to restore the Russian empire to it's former borders.
-
And how is it that you come to this conclusion soddball . . . nothing else for your petty little ego to indulge in?Originally posted by Walpurgis Night:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Soddball:
Sing a song of Nazis....
You people make me retch. Lock this one up, please. It belongs in the bin, with all the neo-nazi filth that it seems to summon in.
One of the first rules of being an academic is understanding that the pursuit of intellectual truth involves at least an *attempt* at objectivity. That means transcending presumptuous emotional whims, which you are obviously incapable of. As an amatuer historian I have found most of the posts, and the links extremely interesting.
No one forced you to click on this thread . . . so run along now. </font>
-
I don't get it, in the end the Soviets won their defensive war with an offensive army. Offense is the best defense. I mean their defensive battles against the Japanese were rather mediocre, the threat of a Japanese invasion wasn't eliminated until the Soviets took the fight to them in offensive battles. So they got a little overconfident, and thought they could do the same thing with the Germans. Are there any similarities between the Soviet troop deployment on the western and far-eastern fronts?
Also, there was an article that I can't find right now, discussing the invasion plan. The jist of it was that the plan was a one page handwritten paper, without any tables graphs or maps to accompany it. Plus, it was written not by Zhukov, but by Vassilevsky, and Vassilevsky was not an authority on such matters in 1941. It would not be possible for a man of his rank and position to write an actual plan of such magnitude.
And Schoerner, if Hitler was launching a preemptive strike against massing soviet forces, then surely he would have made plans to feed all those prisoners. I don't understand how the prisoners came as a surprise if the Germans were launching a preemptive strike against massing enemy forces?
-
Whenever I'm asked "What are you doing?" I always answer describing the operational situation from the scenario briefing. "Reducing a German bridgehead".
-
I go Balka hopping all the time. Especially in operations when the enemy morale get low after a lot of infantry casualties.
It really sucks when your tanks get immobilized when running across.
For particularly long drives, light artillery smoke is a nice way to minimize casualties.
-
I go Balka hopping all the time. Especially in operations when the enemy morale get low after a lot of infantry casualties.
It really sucks when your tanks get immobilized when running across.
For particularly long drives, light artillery smoke is a nice way to minimize casualties.
-
Is there any hard evidence of Soviet atrocities? You know, mass graves, bones everywhere.
-
The Stugs were called Artshturm. All other assault guns were called Ferdinands, kind of how all cannons were called 88s on the Western Front.
-
Did anybody notice that the actual frontal plate on the early T-34 makes up about 1/2 of the turret "front". Then why is it that every shot that hits the turret from the front, impacts the frontal plate? Shouldn't some of those shots glance of the side turret armor. Same thing goes for the panther btw.
RPG-43 may have been the first HEAT grenade, but there were also HE anti-tank grenades like the RPG-40.
I think the Soviets infantry should roll for a random non-molotov AT weapon in the early war, and random captured german AT weapon in the Late war. Kind of like how the Germans roll for the PPShs.
-
A lots of memoirs mention the Russians using greande bundles. Also The Soviet General Staff study on the battle of Kursk mentions them as well.
-
I think the easiest way to make the AI dangerous on attack is to give it more armor than you can handle. Make a Kursk scenarior with massed AT riffles vs Panthers. Always give it several vehicles that are just barely penetrable from any side, Tiger Tiger as the Soviets is a good example of a challenging defensive scenario.
-
This bug has been around for quite some time. If you move your MGs somewhere and then move them again without letting them set up fully, then the setup time is not reset.Originally posted by oneirogen:Umm, was just playing a QB, when I noticed one of my MG42 HMG's I was moving into position had 1 second setup time! The other one had normal setup time...I suppose this isn't normal behaviour, or did the crew just decide "F/#4 this s"/#, let's just carry the whole thing with tripod and all!"
Or have I really, really missed something fundamental in CMBB...I can't recall noticing this in previous versions.
Took a screeny and a save game, umm, nowhere to upload.
-
MCha. If you write the 4 with the angled part sticking strait up it looks like a russian letter Ch. So M4 became MCha.Originally posted by Cpt. Cook:What did the Sov.s call the Sherman?
-
What's Tankoi? It's TANK. The A is pronounced as u in cup.
-
This has been beaten to death by JasonC and others in the numerous "early T-34s are are too weak" threads. For some reason, the game treats all turret fronts as 30% of the hull exposure.Originally posted by IMP-22:Another minor gripe I have with CMBB is how often turret hits are made. On certain tanks it is understandable. Like the T-34/85, for example. The armor on the front of its large turret makes a pretty big target, but a tank like the Panzer IV should not get front turret penetrations as often. It's turret provides a much smaller profile. You would think that if this had happened as often in the war as it did in CMBB, they would have increased the front turret armor on the Panzer IV instead of leaving it at 50 mm. Another example would be those little German half-tracks with the 20 mm cannons. The turrets on those things are very small, and don't provide a big target. Yet they get front turret penetrations all the time. The same thing happens to those little Russian armored cars. It seems like the AI in CMBB always aims high or something. I suppose this is a bit too much to ask, but it would have still been nice if the size of the turret on vehicles was taken into account when modeling where the shells from tanks hit.
-
I use it to cross large open spaces, where it is too exhausting to just use run, and too dangerous to use a walk=>run combination. And where using advance is simply an impossibility because it is an extremely slow and tiring process. If you think none of the standard orders fit your tactical situation, you should consider the Human Wave.
The walking par of the HW is faster than walk, and actually raises morale instead of lowering it.
-
What is so gamey about that? :confused:Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sergei:
The reason BFC has stated is that it would encourage gamey behaviour, ie. rallied crews rushed towards their abandoned vehicles/guns during battles.
"Comrade Sergei, the great communist party doctrine and my Tokarev both order you to reman the field gun that you abandoned in a most immoral, bourgeois manner!" </font>
Canister in CMBB: Realistic or Hollywood?
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
[ May 30, 2003, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: White Phosphorus ]