Mad Russian
-
Posts
1,100 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Mad Russian
-
-
Taking sign ups for the King of the Hill 2. The second KOTH tournament sponsored at The Proving Grounds! Both CMAK and CMBB scenrios will be played in the tournament.
The tournament will be closed at midnight June 5th, US Central Time Zone. After that I will accept alternates and reservists only.
To sign up email me at sro_cm@yahoo.com
I need a name and an email where you can be reached.
I look forward to seeing your name as the winner of the KOTH2!!
Good Hunting.
MR
-
In June 1941 the UK is going to send troops to Russia? How?Originally posted by tecumseh:The transfer of troops could be accomplished through Iran (not only by sea - directly from Britain, but by land too -from India and Middle east) and further through Central Asia using Trans-Caspian railway straight to the banks of Volga.
when?
Active arrangements could started to carrying out immediately after the 22nd of June 1941.
fighting with which soviet army and affecting which offensives?
By the beginning of winter 1942 we concentrate in the south of Stalingrad additional 300 - 500 thousand Allied troops. Released Soviet forces (one or two of soviet 51st, 57th, 28th armies or maybe all of them) are transferred to the north for strengthening the Don and South-west fronts.
In 1942, this guy thinks that there will be 300,000 to 500,000 Allied troops, from any and all sources, to send to Russia to free up as many as three Soviet Armies??
And soon after that the Martians land in Berlin and take over the German rocket program too!
MR
-
Could have also been at the time they didn't realize that the ship was still usable in it's location.Originally posted by Andreas:I think Rudel should be given credit for partially disabling Marat (teilweise ausser Gefecht gesetzt). Of course, that's probably too many words and syllables (particularly in German!) for the comprehension of the average Signal reader, so they went with Versenkt instead. I am sure there were no propaganda reasons for that.
All the best
Andreas
There is no question that nations create heroes. All nations do it. For the very same reasons.
MR
-
Could have also been at the time they didn't realize that the ship was still usable in it's location.Originally posted by Andreas:I think Rudel should be given credit for partially disabling Marat (teilweise ausser Gefecht gesetzt). Of course, that's probably too many words and syllables (particularly in German!) for the comprehension of the average Signal reader, so they went with Versenkt instead. I am sure there were no propaganda reasons for that.
All the best
Andreas
There is no question that nations create heroes. All nations do it. For the very same reasons.
MR
-
It happens to Allied CAS all the time, and that is only the most obvious example.Originally posted by JonS:In addition to what Jason said, and to respond to this question:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mad Russian:
Show me where it is applied to anything other than a German report or a German soldier in any post on this site.
Edit: Specific examples:
1) Jason casts doubt on USAF claims about effectiveness of a-10 in Kuwait/Iraq, 1991.
2) Most fun thread evah!. (Includes a diversion into CAS). </font>
-
It happens to Allied CAS all the time, and that is only the most obvious example.Originally posted by JonS:In addition to what Jason said, and to respond to this question:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mad Russian:
Show me where it is applied to anything other than a German report or a German soldier in any post on this site.
Edit: Specific examples:
1) Jason casts doubt on USAF claims about effectiveness of a-10 in Kuwait/Iraq, 1991.
2) Most fun thread evah!. (Includes a diversion into CAS). </font>
-
It happens to Allied CAS all the time, and that is only the most obvious example.Originally posted by JonS:In addition to what Jason said, and to respond to this question:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mad Russian:
Show me where it is applied to anything other than a German report or a German soldier in any post on this site.
Edit: Specific examples:
1) Jason casts doubt on USAF claims about effectiveness of a-10 in Kuwait/Iraq, 1991.
2) Most fun thread evah!. (Includes a diversion into CAS). </font>
-
It happens to Allied CAS all the time, and that is only the most obvious example.Originally posted by JonS:In addition to what Jason said, and to respond to this question:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mad Russian:
Show me where it is applied to anything other than a German report or a German soldier in any post on this site.
Edit: Specific examples:
1) Jason casts doubt on USAF claims about effectiveness of a-10 in Kuwait/Iraq, 1991.
2) Most fun thread evah!. (Includes a diversion into CAS). </font>
-
I would find that interesting too, if that were what was being said. </font>Originally posted by JonS:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mad Russian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonS:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mad Russian:
I find it most interesting that anybody that believes any German combat report at all is a fanboy.
-
I would find that interesting too, if that were what was being said. </font>Originally posted by JonS:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mad Russian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonS:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mad Russian:
I find it most interesting that anybody that believes any German combat report at all is a fanboy.
-
I would find that interesting too, if that were what was being said. </font>Originally posted by JonS:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mad Russian:
I find it most interesting that anybody that believes any German combat report at all is a fanboy.
-
I would find that interesting too, if that were what was being said. </font>Originally posted by JonS:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mad Russian:
I find it most interesting that anybody that believes any German combat report at all is a fanboy.
-
I think your statement here has been effectively demolished by the past few posts, but if you had any substantial reason to continue your view that Soviet internal record keeping was skewed heavily, I'd be interested in reading it. </font>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Shmavis:
I realize that a plethora of records were revealed, but I don't understand how you can be so sure of their absolute accuracy, much less their continued existence for such a vast conflict over almost 4 years. Surely you're aware that the Stalinist era was often a dangerous time to speak or display the truth. By the way, I'm not nationally biased.
-
I think your statement here has been effectively demolished by the past few posts, but if you had any substantial reason to continue your view that Soviet internal record keeping was skewed heavily, I'd be interested in reading it. </font>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Shmavis:
I realize that a plethora of records were revealed, but I don't understand how you can be so sure of their absolute accuracy, much less their continued existence for such a vast conflict over almost 4 years. Surely you're aware that the Stalinist era was often a dangerous time to speak or display the truth. By the way, I'm not nationally biased.
-
You mean that a Red Army Major, counting his losses at the end of the day as 20 tanks, marked this down as only 2 tanks lost to confuse the west? That kind of paranoia would explain why the Soviet bureaucracy never worked (and still doesn't), but I don't think it's quite the case. Yes, the loss reports were top secret, but nevertheless they were there. </font>Originally posted by Sergei:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mad Russian:
Which is true in almost every instance except where the Soviets are concerned. We know now, that for decades, they under reported their losses so the west wouldn't know accurate figures for their combat losses.
MR
-
You mean that a Red Army Major, counting his losses at the end of the day as 20 tanks, marked this down as only 2 tanks lost to confuse the west? That kind of paranoia would explain why the Soviet bureaucracy never worked (and still doesn't), but I don't think it's quite the case. Yes, the loss reports were top secret, but nevertheless they were there. </font>Originally posted by Sergei:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mad Russian:
Which is true in almost every instance except where the Soviets are concerned. We know now, that for decades, they under reported their losses so the west wouldn't know accurate figures for their combat losses.
MR
-
Which is true in almost every instance except where the Soviets are concerned. We know now, that for decades, they under reported their losses so the west wouldn't know accurate figures for their combat losses.Originally posted by JasonC:When side A claims kills of N against side B, you go to side Bs records of its own losses and find N/2 or N/50. Each side's records of its own losses are believable, of the other guy's are always, always wrong, and always, always in the same direction. National biases (who is A and who is
have exactly nothing to do with it. MR
-
Which is true in almost every instance except where the Soviets are concerned. We know now, that for decades, they under reported their losses so the west wouldn't know accurate figures for their combat losses.Originally posted by JasonC:When side A claims kills of N against side B, you go to side Bs records of its own losses and find N/2 or N/50. Each side's records of its own losses are believable, of the other guy's are always, always wrong, and always, always in the same direction. National biases (who is A and who is
have exactly nothing to do with it. MR
-
152mm shells were common in the Soviet army.Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:There is no possibility that there weer KV-2's in front line service in 1943. Productio was stopped in 1941, the type had unique ammunition requirements and only 334 were built.
It is nothing like a Pz-2 or the T-40 that was still in service in Leningrad in 1944 - it requires unique ammunition, it is unreliable, it is heavy so requires transporters.
Wiki says that 2 KV-2's were used by the Finns through the war and 1 was used by hte Germans vs US troops in 1945 - maybe he attacked one of those?
Pz-3's were still being BUILT in 1943 - their use at Kursk is not surprising in the least, while Pz 2's were used as training and recce tanks - the last was BUILT in 1944!! One or more still working in 1945 is not surprising either.
All manner of PzII's and PzIII's were used until they were destroyed. I'm talking about PzIII's armed with the 37mm and short 50mm guns.
The Red Army was known for sending obsolete or less capable armor to less important sectors of the front. A KV-2 could easily have survived until 1943. And he didn't say he attacked 20 of them...only one.
So, then, it's okay for the Germans to use any and everything they had for as long as it lasted but not the Soviets?
I see. No wonder the Red Army won the war.
MR
-
152mm shells were common in the Soviet army.Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:There is no possibility that there weer KV-2's in front line service in 1943. Productio was stopped in 1941, the type had unique ammunition requirements and only 334 were built.
It is nothing like a Pz-2 or the T-40 that was still in service in Leningrad in 1944 - it requires unique ammunition, it is unreliable, it is heavy so requires transporters.
Wiki says that 2 KV-2's were used by the Finns through the war and 1 was used by hte Germans vs US troops in 1945 - maybe he attacked one of those?
Pz-3's were still being BUILT in 1943 - their use at Kursk is not surprising in the least, while Pz 2's were used as training and recce tanks - the last was BUILT in 1944!! One or more still working in 1945 is not surprising either.
All manner of PzII's and PzIII's were used until they were destroyed. I'm talking about PzIII's armed with the 37mm and short 50mm guns.
The Red Army was known for sending obsolete or less capable armor to less important sectors of the front. A KV-2 could easily have survived until 1943. And he didn't say he attacked 20 of them...only one.
So, then, it's okay for the Germans to use any and everything they had for as long as it lasted but not the Soviets?
I see. No wonder the Red Army won the war.
MR
-
Nothing in Soviet or German inventory ever went out of service. They would go out of production but any modeler worth his salt can show you photos of vehicles that were fighting long after they were stopped being produced. My all time favorite is a PzII in the fighting in the Seelowe Heights area in 1945.Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:He mentions a KV-2 - which went out of service early 1942, but he didnt' start flying until 1943 by which time KV-2's had long gone....
I'm not saying what he hit. I'm just saying that a KV-2 in 1943 is entirely possible.
Another instance of later war use is the PzIII's at Kursk and long after. The war is full of such examples.
As for turrets being blown off...the Germans had a saying that a T-34 tipped his hat to a Tiger. Meaning so many turrets were blown off it was a normal occurance. I suppose you dispute the fact that Rudel put a bomb down the smoke stack of a Russian battleship as well? Or could that not have happened either?
Oh yes, and I would agree that the Hood didn't blow up with a single salvo from the Bismark.
Were any of you flying Stukas at this time? To have any first hand knowledge of this?
Military History magazine is a very reputable historical source. I'm not saying they are infallable, because nobody is, but they aren't going to just fabricate a story like CBS does.
It's too easy to dispute. And a story with that much detail in it would be disputed quickly by the experts.
Don't you think?
MR
[ February 21, 2007, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: Mad Russian ]
-
Nothing in Soviet or German inventory ever went out of service. They would go out of production but any modeler worth his salt can show you photos of vehicles that were fighting long after they were stopped being produced. My all time favorite is a PzII in the fighting in the Seelowe Heights area in 1945.Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:He mentions a KV-2 - which went out of service early 1942, but he didnt' start flying until 1943 by which time KV-2's had long gone....
I'm not saying what he hit. I'm just saying that a KV-2 in 1943 is entirely possible.
Another instance of later war use is the PzIII's at Kursk and long after. The war is full of such examples.
As for turrets being blown off...the Germans had a saying that a T-34 tipped his hat to a Tiger. Meaning so many turrets were blown off it was a normal occurance. I suppose you dispute the fact that Rudel put a bomb down the smoke stack of a Russian battleship as well? Or could that not have happened either?
Oh yes, and I would agree that the Hood didn't blow up with a single salvo from the Bismark.
Were any of you flying Stukas at this time? To have any first hand knowledge of this?
Military History magazine is a very reputable historical source. I'm not saying they are infallable, because nobody is, but they aren't going to just fabricate a story like CBS does.
It's too easy to dispute. And a story with that much detail in it would be disputed quickly by the experts.
Don't you think?
MR
[ February 21, 2007, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: Mad Russian ]
-
The scenarios for the tournament will also allow a designer to make a scenario that is not restricted by points but by size. Up to a battalion on each side. With 10 vehicles counting as a company. Support weapons and engineer obstaccles/fortifications not counting in the total.
So whether you want 2 companies of King Tigers and Company of PG, or 3 companines of recon infantry the scenario will be good. Points is not the issue but the number of units in the fight. Since normal support weapons like LMG, Snipers, HMG, etc....belong to a company sized unit they will not be counted either.
Now if you decide to put in 500 HMG's along with 3 companies of infantry I'm pretty sure that won't fly....but if you do the normal allotment of 3-6 HMG's per company I'm pretty sure that will.
The judges will determine what makes it into the tournament. If for some unforseen reason there is an issue the judges can't resolve I will resolve it.
Show off your skills! The scenarios can be about anything. And whether or not the scenarios are chosen you will get good experience and feedback from some very experienced judges. You will get direct feedback if you send in a scenario.
The feedback may be as simple as, "this is too big, cut a company on the Soviet side".
Or it may be something like, " the map is a bit too small and you need to add 3 turns."
Whatever it is we will get back with you. We want good quality scenarios and the way to get them is support your scenario making efforts.
Remember...you have until the last day of February to get those scenarios to me! Be careful who you use as playtesters! If the person you use as a playtester may enter the tournament and end up playing it again. That is not what we want. If you need playtesters let me know.
Good Hunting.
PC
-
The scenarios for the tournament will also allow a designer to make a scenario that is not restricted by points but by size. Up to a battalion on each side. With 10 vehicles counting as a company. Support weapons and engineer obstaccles/fortifications not counting in the total.
So whether you want 2 companies of King Tigers and Company of PG, or 3 companines of recon infantry the scenario will be good. Points is not the issue but the number of units in the fight. Since normal support weapons like LMG, Snipers, HMG, etc....belong to a company sized unit they will not be counted either.
Now if you decide to put in 500 HMG's along with 3 companies of infantry I'm pretty sure that won't fly....but if you do the normal allotment of 3-6 HMG's per company I'm pretty sure that will.
The judges will determine what makes it into the tournament. If for some unforseen reason there is an issue the judges can't resolve I will resolve it.
Show off your skills! The scenarios can be about anything. And whether or not the scenarios are chosen you will get good experience and feedback from some very experienced judges. You will get direct feedback if you send in a scenario.
The feedback may be as simple as, "this is too big, cut a company on the Soviet side".
Or it may be something like, " the map is a bit too small and you need to add 3 turns."
Whatever it is we will get back with you. We want good quality scenarios and the way to get them is support your scenario making efforts.
Remember...you have until the last day of February to get those scenarios to me! Be careful who you use as playtesters! If the person you use as a playtester may enter the tournament and end up playing it again. That is not what we want. If you need playtesters let me know.
Good Hunting.
PC
have exactly nothing to do with it. 
KOTH2 Tournament at TPG
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
Taking sign ups for the King of the Hill 2. The second KOTH tournament sponsored at The Proving Grounds! Both CMAK and CMBB scenrios will be played in the tournament.
The tournament will be closed at midnight June 5th, US Central Time Zone. After that I will accept alternates and reservists only.
To sign up email me at sro_cm@yahoo.com
I need a name and an email where you can be reached.
I look forward to seeing your name as the winner of the KOTH2!!
Good Hunting.