LukeFF

There's also Suvorov's debunked theory about soldiers being sent to Soviet aviation regiments to serve out their punishment as Il-2 rear gunners.

:D :D

I finally found the info that I was referencing in regard to the SVT-40. It's a good read (as is the whole site): http://mosinnagant.net/USSR/svt401.asp (Vic Thomas is a highly-regard source on the history of Russian firearms).

Hasn't Suvorov been shown to be...um...not a reliable historian?

Done (padding)

Download link?

And ironically, the Germans fitted a hand-cranked turret system to the Panzer IVJ so that more fuel could be carried, which of course was right at the time the fuel shortage for the Germans began to be really felt.

Yes, because thank goodness your skewed view of what soldiers look like in the field is not shared by everyone here.

Yes

And it's a good one at that. I just assume that the demo charges being used in a particular scenario were picked by the engineers before the battle based on the type of mission they'd be tasked with.

This effect goes all the way back to CMSF.

You take this stuff way too seriously.

Umm, I'm pretty sure he means Ernest King, COMINCH.

Actually, I like that and is how I approach things more or less as well. Regular-quality troops give a good balance between being able to withstand enemy fire and hitting the dirt when things get too hot. Sure, some may find Green troops more challenging, but IMO they require too much babysitting and don't fight like properly-trained infantry.

I was a medic in the Army for 6 years. The basic procedure for medics is to first suppress the enemy (i.e., return fire) and only then move in, get the casualty behind cover, and render whatever medical aid is needed. Otherwise, your standard non-medical soldier is still taught basic medical aid like back in WWII, which of course involves stuff like controlling bleeding and basic bandaging of wounds (provided time allows, of course).

Oh yes, definitely field maintenace was an issue as well with the SVT. It has a lot of small parts that can be easily lost in the field, and the rifle needs a specially-made tool to adjust the gas regulator (again, something that can easily be lost). In particular with the former, one has to be very careful with removing the bolt assembly, because the springs have a strong tendency to fly off into the wild blue yonder when their tension is released (as I found out with mine ). I've no doubt that better-trained troops (including snipers) would have had more success with the SVT than your typical Russian conscript. On top of everything else mentioned, it simply wasn't a weapon that could be mass-produced for an army as huge as the one the Soviets fielded. By comparison, the Mosin was a much quicker weapon to build and is far easier of course to field strip (remove the bolt, and you're done ). In regards to range, yeah, the much bigger problem was with vertical shot dispersion, which of course is magnified with longer target ranges.

True, while it was used as a sniper rifle all the way to the war's end, the SVT-40 had a couple of problems that made it a less-than-ideal sniper platform: -Vertical shot dispersion: This was related to the stock and receiver assembly design. As I noted before, this was something that the Russians deemed not worthy to fix, as the M91/30 was back in massive production by that time and didn't have the accuracy issues that the SVT-40 had. Range was never a problem with it. -Muzzle blast: the SVT-40 vents a lot of gas out to the sides when fired and is very loud. It's not exactly a great weapon for staying concealed, since all that vented gas will kick up dust/dirt, leaves, etc. I have an SVT-40 and can definitely attest to that. -Reliability: the SVT-40 has a somewhat finicky gas regulation system that can often result in it stove-piping. It's not exactly something a sniper would want to fiddle with in combat. By 1942, M91/30 PU snipers were in full production and would ultimately dwarf the number of SVT-40s produced as snipers (it was a couple hundred thousand). Also, note that until around 1942 SVTs were built with milled scope rails as standard. How many of those actually ended up seeing service as snipers is another issue altogether. You'll see in wartime photos and on postwar-refurbished Mosin snipers many SVT-40 scopes that were recalibrated to work with the Mosin. So it's readily apparent the Russians didn't really care all that much for the SVT-40 as a sniper platform once the M91/30 PU had proven itself a worthy successor to the PE and PEM-style scopes.

Regardless, my point was that they weren't mainly used as sniper rifles. The Russians much preferred the M91/30 PU for sniper work and the Germans the K98. The problems encountered with the SVT were deemed by the Russians to not be worth the time fixing.

The SVT-40 was a lousy sniper rifle and had been stopped being built as one by 1942. The G43 wasn't highly regarded as a sniper rifle, either.

The manual even mentions how British infantry formations will suffer on their own without artillery and armor support. I guess it's for good reason they developed infantry tanks like the Churchill. They make for good HE-chuckers, are well-armored, and they have a pair of .303 MGs.

That really is hideous shooting. Even lower-quality troops wouldn't miss by that much.

Oh, and as for this gem: What the hell do you think we've been posting? Reenactment photos? All of the photos I've posted above are of guys who had been in combat for at least a couple of days, if not more. And yet, there they are, with shoulder insignia intact. Armchair soldiers, gotta love them.

You really are not getting it. And, since I'm feeling generous, here's some pics to debunk your theory (all of them are 82nd Airborne, and were taken in either Sicily or Normandy): Now go ahead and tell us how these are not pics of soldiers who have been in combat.

One? Umm, no. I've done some random Google searches with terms like "1st Infantry WWII" and in return I've come back with countless pics of guys shown with their uniform insiginia, that aren't REMFs or a hundred miles behind the front lines. I'm not going to run the search again and post them here, because you'll just spout the same ol' excuses about how they're not pics taken in action. LOL, please don't be too precise now! What qualifies as "some time?" A week? Two weeks? A month? What if the unit has been at the front for some time but hasn't seen the type of combat that quickly tears up/muddies uniforms? What if it's a tanker or an artillery crew, i.e., the types of guys who wouldn't exactly always be crawling around in the mud and the dirt? I could go on, but I think you get my point.

One of the reasons Chris Wilbeck points to in Sledgehammers (a very good read BTW) for the large number of Tigers abandoned is that the Germans never designed an adequate recovery vehicle for it. Using another Tiger to tow a disabled Tiger was (officially) prohibited, due to the high chance that you'd end up with 2 disabled Tigers.