OZ77

:confused: What are you talking about??? :confused: Maybe its your own opinion, but the fact that overwhelming majority of the CM community left CMBO and play ONLY CMBB. Barrett, you can get into CM chat room and you will see the confirmation of my words.

Someone(I cant remember who) posted here a few month before this: "The difference between CMBO and CMBB the same as the difference between masturbation(CMBO) and having a real sex(CMBB)." So you better think twice befor you buy CMBO. P.S. I think another disadvantages of CMBO that it is hard to find TCP/IP opponent(quite impossible) and it covers only last 10 month of the war in contrast to CMBB covers 47 month. In other words you get MORE units, MORE weapons, and much more real picture of WW2.

I think you forgot to mention France and Britain(1-30 September 1939).

They could if they were using ONLY tungsten ammo, but each 37mm ATG crew had ONLY 1-3 tungsten shells in 1941. And it was quite hard to damage T-34 with such a light (0.368 kg) shell, so ability of german infantry to stop T-34 was very low in 41. Resources: The book of German general Mickendolf"(sorry, maybe wrong spelling) "Russian company" In CMBB, 37mm ammo that called armor-piercing has penetration data of TUNGSTEN-64mm 0* at 100m(Pzgr40). :confused: :confused: though the penetration data of REAL AP was only ~37mm 0* at 100m web page As for Russian 45 mm ATG it is also the intresting point. It CMBB it is only 37mm 0*(until 31 december 1941) at 100m, though on Romanian and Finnish captured Ba-10 the same gun can penetrate 51mm 0*. :confused: :confused: Also found this: web page The main point of this site is: 51mm 0*at 100m. EXACTLY the same parametres as "Romanian and Finnish" Ba-10 This data change all game balance in 41 in favour of Axis. This also makes BT and T-26 extremely useless in CMBB , but in real 45mm(1941) could penetrate majority of the Axis tanks from the front.

BRAVO BRAVO BRAVO. :cool: :cool: It seems to be more "CMBB anthem" than a song

Maybe, I haven't seen.

The Russian live fire tests were conducted in the fall of 1944 at Kubinka, during the course of which the following results were obtained: "1. The quality of armor on the "Tiger-B" tank, in comparison with the armor on the "Tiger-I," and "Panther," tanks, as well as early production "Ferdinand" self-propelled gun, has sharply deteriorated. The first individual impacts caused cracks and spalling in the armor of the "Tiger-B" tank. Groups of shell impacts (3-4 shells) caused large-scale spalling and fractures in the armor. 2. Weak weld seams appeared characteristic of all hull and turret joints. Despite careful workmanship, the seams held up to shell impacts significantly worse than they did in analogous constructions on the "Tiger-I," and "Panther," tanks, as well as the "Ferdinand" self-propelled gun. 3. Impacts of 3-4 armor-piercing or high-explosive fragmentation shells from 152, 122, or 100 mm artillery pieces caused cracks, spalling and destruction of the weld seams in the tank's 100-190 mm thick frontal armor plates at ranges of 500-1000 metres. The impacts disrupted the operation of the transmission and took the tank out of service as an irrevocable loss. 4. Armor-piercing projectiles from the BS-3 (100 mm) and A-19 (122 mm) gun completely penetrated when impacting the edges or joints of the "Tiger-B" tank's front hull plates at ranges of 500-600 metres. 5. Armor-piercing projectiles from the BS-3 (100 mm) and A-19 (122 mm) gun completely penetrated the "Tiger-B" tank's front turret plate at ranges of 1000-1500 metres. 6. 85 mm armor-piercing projectiles from the D-5 and S-53 gun failed to penetrate the tank's front hull plates or cause any structural damage at distances of 300 metres. 7. The tank's side armor plates were notable for their sharply unequal durability in comparison with the frontal plates and appeared to be the most vulnerable part of the tank's hull and turret. 8. The tank's hull and turret side plates were penetrated by armor-piercing projectiles from the domestic 85 mm and American 76 mm guns at ranges of 800-2000 metres. 9. The tank's hull and turret side plates were not penetrated by armor-piercing projectiles from the domestic 76 mm guns (ZIS-3 and F-34). 10. American 76 mm armor-piercing projectiles penetrated the "Tiger-B" tank's side plates at ranges 1.5 to 2 times greater the domestic 85 mm armor-piercing projectiles." The final report of 16 February 1945 on the "Tiger-B" tests, stated the following: "The frontal hull and turret armor is low quality. Non-penetrating damage (dents) in the armor caused cracking through the armor and large scale interior spalling. The side plates were notable for their sharply unequal durability in comparison with the frontal plates and appeared to be the most vulnerable part of the tank's hull and turret. Shortcomings: The chassis is complex and is not durable. The steering mechanism is complex and expensive. The side running gear is extremely unreliable. The radius of action is 25% inferior to the "IS"-tanks. The ammunition (except in the turret recess) is awkwardly located. The excessive size and weight of the tank do not correspond to the tank's armor protection and firepower." So was the Tiger really "King"? :confused:

My little trick is T-70. It is my favorite tank in CMBB.Try to use them in small battles (QB).T-70 platoon(5 TANKS)cost is only....~210. The advantages are: 1. Radio (brief command delay) 2. Good armor(relatively other light tanks) a.turret 60mm curved b.upper hill 35mm/60* c.try to use them hull down d.I had three times T-70 survived close Stug's hit(ricochet) 3. 45 mm gun AP-63mm 0* 100m(it is enough to kill every medium German tank from the side and some of them from the front) 4. it has tungsten in 1943 T-97mm 0* 100m. 5. PRICE (~50) 6. silhouette -65 T-70 is also excellent Stug killer and they are good armor recon(if you have any heavy staff). I really enjoyed using this tank. You can organize fast attacks, break trough enemy lines(ask Huusko ),support your infantry(ask PJ )encircle enemy tanks,suddenly counter attack if you are a defender and etc. In short try them Early war Soviet tanks(BT, T-26)are not suitable for this because they have no radio(45 sec command delay) so they lose their mobility

10,11,18,37,38,39 guards corps. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36,37,38,39,40,41 guards divisions 8 airbone corps

Do you really believe Stalin amassed vast numbers of troops and stores of weapons to COW the inhabitants and keep tight control?

OK, this is your opinion, but there are many people who don't know anything about his "fantastic version". Of course you can't believe Rezun 100%. For example I don't believe Soviets were going to attack in July 1941, maybe later.But if he is essentially correct, as this reviewer believes, we have a perfect right to be bitter for having been misled and misinformed for decades. Especially relevant for CM community in Rezun's books are chapters about Russian early war weakness myth. As for the "song of Nazis" Rezun has ANTICOMMUNIST point of view certainly not pronazi and what Russian superiority has to do with Nazi propaganda? :confused: All of us are intrested in WW2 history and want to know the truth so let's stop to call each other Nazi and etc.

1. with certain gun, you have better capability of penetrating the KV - Good example is 5cm KwK 39 - with bad ammo it wouldn't have a hope of penetrating KV. However it can do it, thanks to the 'good' ammo for the gun. 2. with certain tanks, you won't get the field address changed to "6ft down" after the first hit by KV. - good example being the uparmoured PzIII's, which could withstand a hit from KV, without instantly breaking up. With well designed and manufactured ammo, there would be far lesser chance of surviving a hit. In any case, KV's had higher reputation than production numbers So you'd have to make the example with more common lighter tanks. </font>

Before the war, Soviet DB-3f and SB bombers as well as the TB-1 and TB-3 bombers (of which Stalin had about a thousand had been modified to carry airborne troops as well as bomb loads. By mid-1941 the Soviet military had trained hundreds of thousands of paratroopers (Suvorov says almost a million) for the planned attack against Germany and the West. These airborne troops were to be deployed and dropped behind enemy lines in several waves, each wave consisting of five airborne assault corps (VDKs), each corps consisting of 10,419 men, staff and service personnel, an artillery division, and a separate tank battalion (50 tanks). Suvorov lists the commanding officers and home bases of the first two waves or ten corps. The second and third wave corps included troops who spoke French and Spanish. 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.

www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n4p30_Michaels.html

web page

Try to find and read Suvorov's books. You will find the answers on all your questions. I am not going to recopy 9 books. I think you will be knocked out by Suvorov's facts

In 1930 on many Russians factories were established parachute circles. Untill 1941 they've prepared 500.000 young men.You are write only 50.000 of them were at the army in june 41, but the rest 490.000 were potential paratroopers. Soviet HQ just was needed to conscript them and after short time they could have huge number of well trainded paratroops

Schoerner Thanks for your replay. Yesterday my friend sent me an intresting article(11 pages) After reading it I was shocked :eek: :eek: I thik it is the summary of Suworov's book I'm sure that "will get no serious answers in here". It sounds incredibly and people will not belive it.

yes they still can have bad ammo.But does the "good ammo" help to German panzer crew then they meet KV?

I find many people talking on this forum about Soviets this way: "Soviet early war ammunition was notoriously bad" or "russians musvaloured". I think you should remember that even this amazing game cann't show us the real picture. Russians had very strong army in 41. Red Army was the only army in the world who had heavy tanks (KV-1 KV-2)And of course they had their excellent T-34. The best tank of WW2. More then that they had 1750 of this modern tanks(22june1941)!!!! Their atrillery systems were modern in contrast to German artillery, simply and cheap in production. For example the most famous are ZIS and 120mm mortar. I think it is not necessary to list the good skills of Russian infantry But this strong army has suffered a defeat in 1941 because they were preparing to ANOTHER WAR! Probably you will say... what the...? But russians had prepared themselves to ATTACK not to defend.Thats why they had such a big ammount of light tanks and 500.000 paratroopers. (there is no doubt that both of them are useless in defending war) The reason of Russian invasion was "desire to liberate the European proletariat from capitalistic and Nazi oppression".Hitler have broken this "red dream" Of course Russians were trying to hide their preparation. Thats why the myth of Russian weakness was born!! As a reult of this people think that "Soviet early war ammunition was notoriously bad" and Red Army was weak. My grandfather(he was lucky to survive this bloody war) was 120mm mortar platoon commander in June 1941(near Fastow) and he was saying to me that artillery officers had no maps of their own soil :eek: BUT THEY HAD THE MAPS OF POLAND AND GERMANY. :confused: I've got the other evidence of Russian aggressive designs. Look carefully on Soviet positions at june 1941. All Russians armies are as much as possible close to the wesrern border and the stongest Southern font were deployed only 250KM from the Axis heart-Romanian oil fields. :confused: (in june41 all this armies were surrounded and destroyed (3.000.000POW)) WHY???????? If you are afraid from your neigbor will you get close to him? The same reason Soviet air force was almost destoyed at the first day of war.

see the full version of this article on new topic

GERMANY :eek: