Cuirassier
-
Posts
555 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Cuirassier
-
-
The sad part is that Pilot will return to base claiming he killed 3 Hetzers.
Hetzers? Na, three King Tigers and a Maus. Shot down an Fw-190 too while returning to base.
-
Of the Soviet front commanders in WWII I have to tip my hat to Rokossovskii. He possessed finesse in his planning and execution and was much more conscious of casualties than someone like Konev or even worse, Zhukov. Chernovsky was also of similar mold to Rokossovkii but was younger. I do like Vatutin too though his life ended during the war from an ambush by Ukrainian nationalists.
Indeed, "Bandera's Bandits" did us military enthusiasts a great disservice by killing Vatutin. I've always wondered what post-war memoirs by Vatutin would have been like, considering he had a brilliance for mobile warefare right up there with Manstein. It would have been interesting, of course, to compare Vatutin's memoirs directly to Manstein's, as they were frequent opponents in south Russian and Ukraine. Alas, he did not survive long enough for this to happen.
-
There were several other Sov operations named after Russian military leaders, for instance the Sov counter-offensives after Kursk were called Operations Polkovodets Rumyantsev and Kutuzov.
Also, for what it is worth, at some point (not sure if before, during, or after Operation Bagration), Stalin called Rokossovsky, the Sov general in command of the front on the south face of the battle, his Bagration. I don't fully understand the reference, maybe because both Bagration and Rokossovsky were non-Russian (Georgian and Polish, respectively).
If memory serves me correct, this is only part of the statement. It went something along the lines of "I have no Suvorov, but Rokossovsky is my Bagration."
Stalin was stating that he had no military geniuses under his command of the Napoleon, Moltke, Suvorov, etc calibre. I wouldn't say this is true, (Vasilevsky and Vatutin were both excellent), but Stalin hated to give such praise. However, in comparing Rokossovksy to Bagration, Stalin was saying that he was a reasonably skilled commander that was extremely tenacious and courageous. That is what Bagration is known for, by the way. He held the Russian far right together at Austerlitz and was killed in action at Borodino, courageously facing the French main effort, if I remember correctly.
Again, going off memory, the comparison arose during the planning phase of Operation Bagration. Stalin wanted a less risky, straight push through Bobruisk. Rokossovsky favoured a double envelopment and then exploitation. After giving Rokossovsky some time to 'change' his mind, Stalin again strongly urged that Rokossovsky use a single thrust. Rokossovsky nevertheless stood his ground and said that a double envelopment was preferable.
Hence the courage and tenacity similar to Bagration. Note that during 1940 Rokossovsky had been imprisoned and tortured by the regime and suffered all sorts of trials during the early war period. So standing up to Stalin like this took considerable courage and resolve, and Stalin recognized this. Plus Rokossovsky had an impressive military record to back up his argument.
In the end, Rokossovksy proved to be correct and 20 Pz.D showed considerable confusion in response to Roksossovsky's duel thrusts. I hope this provides some insight into it.
-
Without putting too much thought into it, I would get rid of the T-26 and the Char B1 and put in the IS-2 and Pz. 38. I would also rate the Pz. III higher than the Tiger. The Pz. III was a fantastic early-mid war tank, when compared to other, competing designs. Five man crew, radio, cupola, reliable, etc.
-
Vanir Ausf B,
$1700 for a paperback?! And to think I found Bellamy's terrific The Red God of War ridiculous. I remember years ago on the CMBB Forum we had a Stalingrad grog (Renaud?) who had some great pics of Mamayev Kurgan and mentioned that Death of the Leaping Horse book by Marks. Sounded cool, but even then it was beyond my means. I've bought cars for less, but not recently.
Regards,
John Kettler
Maybe so, but what do cars know of Stalingrad?
Seriously though, I've always wanted to read Marks, but he was also out of my price range. And to make matters worse, my University library doesn't have any of his work.
-
Looks like one of Bil's recon squads stopped for a quick photo before the action begins.
-
Glantz, glantz and more Glantz.
-
He's been busy fighting the reptiloid hordes all that time.
Hordes that were only created due to the irresponsible Nazi decision to use tactical nukes at Kursk.
-
Your opponent clearly wasn't expecting contact that close to his front.
-
Nice to see you doing a defense AAR Bill. Any local counterattacks planned?
-
As far as I'm aware, no one has ever been "shot by martial court." What would that even look like :confused:
In the short term: very little.
In the medium to long term: very little.
If either the enemy's plan of battle of their plan of operations depend on capturing this AT gun: you've already won.
Your gun is worth substantially less than my life.
True. For example, the Soviet Union produced more tube artillery than it could realistically supply. It was extremely cheap to make and they never had a global shortage of guns. And they lost a lot, particularly during the German offensive periods of the war. But the real resources that were valuable and needed to be husbanded were manpower, first and foremost, and armor.
-
Returning, for the nonce, to tanks as bad places to operate cannon from compared to those in field fortifications, Clark (pp. 291,292) has some powerfully confirmatory data. A T-34 crewman at Kursk describes the interior of the (buttoned per military regs) became "excruciatingly hot." The crew is choking on the blue-grey cordite smoke, and he describes his iron steed as having "a lethal cocktail of toxic vapours." So dire did things become, that both the driver and the loader passed out. The driver's passing out was almost disastrous, because the T-34 accelerator is the inverse of ours. The less pressure applied to it, the faster the tank goes! With both the driver and the loader unconscious, the regs were ignored long enough to vent the tank by opening up the turret hatches, which shortly revived the previously unconscious half of the crew. While people passing out while on the move (tank was in combat and firing on the run) probably wasn't the norm at Kursk, it does give some idea of how bad it can get inside a buttoned tank there. Summing up, Vladimir Serinov, the man who was in that tank. He likens that July 1943 experience to being placed in a hot oven pumped full of toxins and suffocated."
If I wanted to kill something with a 76.2 mm gun, I'd take a dug in ZIS-3. Nikolai Litvin (45mm ATG gunner, 4th Guards AB Div) talks about how, from 500 meters, using a PP-9 telescopic sight, he could aim at, and hit, specific parts of the enemy tank. Of course, now I can't find that citation in Clark!
Regards,
John Kettler
That is not data. That is an anecdote.
And that is fantastic that Mr. Litvin could hit parts of a tank with his 45mm ATG at 500m. I'm sure Wittman could do the same in his Tiger. Who cares?
Practically all major armoured attacks (using proper combined arms eg early war Brits/Soviets don't count) were stopped by repositioning armoured reserves (tanks or TD's), not ATG's. ATG's never had the mobility nor durability under artillery fire to have much of an operational impact. They could give a bloody nose tactically here and there, but were too often simply avoided, suppressed by artillery fire or smashed through by more concentrated armour.
I would take the T-34 every day of the week, attacking or defending. CM and real life.
-
Not to be bloodthirsty, but for tactical reasons I wish enemy personnel could be crushed by AFVs in the game. I say "enemy" because with pathfinding challenges, we'd want to make sure our own troops aren't the ones getting accidentally crushed :-)
Maybe the arguments against it would be technical (much harder to do in the CM engine that it would seem) or just that it's too low a priority to be worth the time to do it. But are there any game reasons not to? I don't see any potential for gamey abuse. If a player dares to put AFVs close enough to crush infantry, the infantry may also have the means to kill the vehicle. But it would be good for overrun situations.
I forsee someone putting an infantry battalion in two action spots and driving a tank regiment over it.
-
Not really. Pillbox embrasures are specifically designed with large, thick concrete overhangs to block plunging fire. The plane would have to make an approach low enough to clip the grass with the propeller tips to have any reasonable of getting rounds through the slit.
Theoretically, I suppose it might be more possible in special situations, such as a pillbox on top of a hill with lower terrain to the front that would make it easier for the plane to approach at more or less at the pillbox's level. But in most situations, I'd say any pilot attempting this would have a better chance of taking himself out via controlled flight into terrain than he would of taking out the pillbox.
Never tested this in the game, mind you. Never occurred to me to even attempt it.
Indeed. Point hard targets do not become viable targets for aircraft until the advent of PGM's and modern targeting systems. I'm sure a Spitfire wouldn't even register as a threat to the crew of a pillbox. Just spotting the thing from the air with Mark I eyesight would be tough, let alone actually getting bullets through the embrasure (and those doing any damage if they do find a way through. Overall, its a poor, poor weapon for the job. It should be fighting Bf-109's and maybe strafing the odd truck convoy, not chipping concrete away from a pillbox roof. Leave pillbox busting to direct lay artillery and armor.
-
For the last four months I have been playing Unity of Command and its add-ons Red Turn and the recently released Black Turn. It is in no way comparable to CM, being on a completely different scale and type of wargame. There is not the vast depth of research that goes into CM, but neither is it grossly inauthentic. Play is simpler and faster, and all in all I find it great fun to play. A comparison for complexity might give HOI ten stars, CM nine, and UoC two or three.
Michael
I would give HOI a 50 on that scale. Not that that is a good thing. It always baffled me how a game covering the whole world and conflict would use divisions as the operational units, and be real time. Its a fun game, but I found the eastern front to be unplayable. Far too many units to keep track of and move around.
-
Yes they are online:
http://www.history.army.mil/html/bookshelves/resmat/ww2eamet.html
The Lorraine volume is quite good. However, it takes some combing through to find the specific actions involved, as the books cover lots of higher level operational stuff as well.
-
And have the Germans attacking.
-
I just noticed that the discussion was dedicated to the memory of Ian Daglish who died in an air crash. He was the author of those great Over the Battlefield series and his death is a great loss to military history.
Michael
Very unfortunate. His book on Epsom was excellent. His battlefield photos really helped one understand the terrain and how it influenced that tactics involved.
-
Interesting points. However, I thought that Normandy was an example of not defending at the beaches as Rommel wanted. Wasn't he bummed that so many forces were kept away from the beaches and had to take days getting there after the invasion?
It is true that Hitler and the OKW prevented the full implementation of Rommel's plan. However, 21st Panzer on the edge of the Brit sector, along with actions in Italy (eg Salerno, Gela) showed conclusively that Rommel's strategy was unworkable. Massing more PD's into Allied naval gunfire would not have improved the chances of success; it would only result in higher German casualties. The reason being the naval gunfire stripped German tanks of their supporting arms and rendered them quite vulnerable.
I think the only reason the 'drive them back into the sea' method is still kicked around as a viable tactic is because Rommel was its greatest proponent. If a less well known General had managed the defense of Normandy, and advocated the same tactic and it failed, it would probably not be as well regarded as it is today.
-
Hello.
If US attack Syria with tomahavk missiles, what response will be from Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and Russia. Russia send massive naval group into the Mediterranean Sea, in Syria we have many Russian citizens and naval base. WWIII possible?
Even Russia is aware that such a response equals a dead Russian naval group. Won't happen. Only Syria and non-state actors (eg Hezbollah) will actually engage US forces (and likely ineffectually). Iran and Russia will only support them indirectly as proxies. They would be insane to engage the US directly.
-
Also, as far as CM is concerned, he is dead wrong about the importance of capturing real estate. Usually the bulk of victory points comes from doing just that. We could argue that that is a mistake of emphasis by the game's designers I suppose, but there it is and it won't be going away soon.
Michael
I believe it was meant in the Napoleonic sense. In that if I destroy the enemy, secondary matters will take care of themselves. If you succeed in killing the enemy then you will get all of his VL's as a result; he can no longer defend them.
-
At first I thought it was nothing, but then I noticed the name in the story:
-
Empiricism is also a good route to take. Don't think that reading tactics articles is the only way to learn basic tactics. Play small scenarios and quick battles and try to really think about the tactical problem you are confronted with. Come up with a plan that seems reasonable and realistic to you, and then give it a try. Take note of what worked, what didn't, and why. Experience against the AI will give you the basic skills. From there you can start looking into the more nuanced bits of tactics.
-
usgubgub,
I recommend this thread to further flesh out the "superior operational play by the Soviets" thesis:
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=90838
FWIW.
Russian 85mm AA Gun
in Combat Mission Red Thunder
Posted
Given that the Tank and Mech corps are division sized units, yes, it is a fair amount.