Sgt.Squarehead

Sounds familiar.

There is always that. On the bright side, getting to see the Vasilek do its thing might encourage more people to grab CM:A (it's worth the teeny price for that alone).

How does the game handle multiple battalion radio networks, I've never looked into it (don't think I've ever played anything that big)?

So presumably picking two or more formations then adding Single Vehicles & Specialist Teams to each is the way forward in Engine 4?

I did, repeatedly, but apparently you didn't notice: etc. etc. On all of that I think we can agree.

Once again you are trying to drive home a point that's not being contested.....I'm beginning to wonder what your angle is?

Use radar and defend the most likely targets, the same as everybody else, I'd expect.

Which argument I have, by & large, agreed with, if you recall. Part of the issue here is that I seem to be expected to defend statements that I didn't actually make. I'll see if I can find the quote. It's not that simple, you can't have everything at once, not even with the mighty B-29: Bombs: 5,000 lb (2,300 kg) over 1,600 mi (2,600 km; 1,400 nmi) radius at high altitude[83] 12,000 lb (5,400 kg) over 1,600 mi (2,600 km; 1,400 nmi) radius at medium altitude[83] 20,000 lb (9,100 kg) maximum over short distances at low altitude[83] Could be modified to carry two 22,000 lb (10.0 t) Grand Slam bombs externally.[83] PS - I never knew the B-29 could carry Grand-Slam.....You learn something new every day!

What possible relevance would an early war fighter have in 1945-48? You what? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavochkin_La-7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-3 Both had a service ceiling around 10000m (To be completely fair I must concede that the La-7 had issues above the 6000m you quote when initially deployed and that the Yak-3 was better at lower altitude, but neither fact rules them out for the scenario we are discussing). By 1948 this aircraft would have to be considered too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavochkin_La-9 You must be thinking of the Yak-9 (although that one was actually heavier built than the Yak-3, certain variants were used as bombers & tank-busters, including one with a 45mm AT gun firing through the spinner). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-9 Even that was still good to just over 9000m. FWIW, according to the same source, the B-29 had a service ceiling under 10000m: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-29_Superfortress There's also an issue with the B-29s range & payload.....Assuming they were based in East Anglia UK, by far the most likely basing option, they could only just carry a 5000lb bombload to Moscow, 'Fat Man' weighed 10000lbs & 'Tall Boy' 12000lbs.

Apples & Oranges fella.....MiG-3 was an early war type with a high-altitude role, it had 'issues' (but damn wasn't it pretty): Late war Yak-3s & La-7s were quite capable up to 30000ft+, more than adequate for the bulk of the US heavy bomber force.....I wouldn't argue about the probable end result of the conflict, but I think you might be a bit out on the timescale, Russia has proven remarkably resilient to conquest over the ages.

I've read the exact opposite. More proficient, no I'd agree the western Allies definitely held the edge there, but they would often be outranged and always be outnumbered, so as Stalin allegedly said...... As for my comment with regard to Stalin sending SU-76s & T-34s to Tito it was more a comment on the Soviets ability to supply their nominal allies than on Tito's loyalties. PS - According to Wiki the US produced 300,000 combat aircraft, the USSR just under 160,000.....What you are forgetting is that the US equipped many Air Forces other than their own (including the Red one), the USSR not so much. Country 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 Total U.S. 2,141 6,068 18,466 46,907 84,853 96,270 45,852 300,557 Germany 8,295 10,862 12,401 15,409 24,807 40,593 7,540 119,907 USSR 10,382 10,565 15,737 25,436 34,900 40,300 20,900 158,220 UK 7,940 15,049 20,094 23,672 26,263 26,461 12,070 131,549 Japan 4,467 4,768 5,088 8,861 16,693 28,180 8,263 76,320 Total 33,225 47,312 71,786 120,285 187,516 231,804 94,625 786,553 Now surely that suggests that the US Air Force(s) would eventually overwhelm the Soviets and I'm not denying that probability, nor have I done so, but once again that still doesn't let Enola Gay waltz into Russia on a whim. To remind you (once again):

Actually, there are a couple of points I have issues with: You are aware that The Soviets managed to equip Tito with tanks, during the war? The Soviets weren't at all kind to the remnants of Allied intelligence networks in occupied territories. Are you sure you got that the right way round? That is only ever going to end one way.....Pershing would be hard pressed to deal with an IS-2M, let alone a T-54. As for Super Pershing, I'm not sure it would have made much of a difference even if the US had deployed all twenty-five.

That's a bit depressing, but probably quite wise.

As for your perspective, I'm not arguing with any of it.....But it still doesn't mean Enola Gay could just cruise over Red Square unmolested, in 1945 or 1948.

Don't be daft dude, what I'm doing is mentioning another BFC product that will allow those who have a mind to, to play this out.....FFS give me some credit. That should answer your initial questions.....Lend-Lease etc. are not an issue and presumably the dastardly Commies have been planning. The weakness in the Soviet supply system is modelled into the game and it's one of the things I will seek to take advantage of.....As I said, I can't recommend these games highly enough, they have a simple elegance that I find irresistible. They haven't and as I said I can be fairly confident of holding it, but the situation on the mainland is utterly dire, I can probably hold out there for a while, but win? SC is turn based so I've just had to sit and watch while I got a pasting, I haven't made my first move yet.....I'll probably open a thread in the SC:GC Gold forum in due course and, if you have a mind to, you can follow the developing situation there without my derailing this thread with it.

Envelope please..... And the award for 'Understatement of the Year' goes to.....

BTW, for the benefit of those whose wargaming tastes extends beyond CM, a hypothetical 1948 WWIII scenario is available for Strategic Command Global Conflict Gold.....I've not played it before, but you can be damned sure I will now, from both sides! PS - Just started it as the Allies and I gotta tell ya, after the Commies' opening move things ain't looking great! A fortnight into the war & communist insurgencies are popping up all over the British Empire and the liberated territories, Denmark has surrendered, Hamburg is in Soviet hands already, light US forces are barely holding out in Munich and the lead Soviet armoured spearhead is just north of Essen. British forces in the north literally evaporated under the weight of Soviet firepower and their HQ will be forced to retreat immediately behind a very thin screening force. I'm probably going to have to abandon Germany completely and try to use the major river terrain to the north & the mountains to the south of the Swiss border to my advantage , hopefully forming a defendable line (D'you reckon they will invade Switzerland.....How much gold did they have stored there I wonder? ). With a bit of luck I can then crush them with my 'Silver Birds' by day & 'The Heavies' by night......Hopefully! As for the situation in China.....Well I should be able to keep hold of Taiwan, put it that way! The scripted messages in the campaign are very elegantly done and they set the scene beautifully.....Highly recommended. "Right you goddam commie pinko b******s.....It's my turn now!"

Dude credit where credit's due.....I've learned more about the minutia of playing CM from your threads than anywhere else I can think of. A lot of your techniques have become SOP for me in CM:SF & CM:A, they make these old-timers almost as playable as the newer titles. Outside 'The Old Banqueting House'.....Thank god your lot didn't get at the ceiling in there!

Yeah, don't go on a floor that has one. Goddam things are a nightmare, if you think they're bad in WWII try CM:SF! Having said that, IIRC @MOS:96B2P has figured out a fix (Man's a genius! ), but I don't recall where it's posted (it's definitely in the CM:SF section though) PS - Blimey multi-ninja'd!

I didn't say that did I? What I said was: And nothing you've said has really changed my mind very much, at best you face a bloody war of attrition on the ground and in the air against an opponent who has already demonstrated a considerable ability to fight and win such a war......While you might be keen to see the results of taking on the USSR head on at a 'temporal safe distance', you can be bloody sure the servicemen of the time would not have shared your enthusiasm one little bit. Ummmm.....The Soviets didn't control the skies overhead for much of their existence, but they survived. Indeed, a 'Dam-Busters/Doolittle Raid' type operation might have been doable, but once again: I think both of those missions would fit that description nicely.....Undertaking such an operation with one of the Allies' precious few nuclear devices aboard might be condidered a bit foolhardy, which brings us back to my original point: Which apparently was more than some of you could take.

Indeed, that is probably more accurate. But I find the indignation at my suggestion that the Red Air Force might not just let the USAF waltz up and nuke Moscow utterly comical. Not sure the B-17 would have the range to hit industrial targets in the USSR, heavy industry had relocated to the east.....The B-24 might with a reduced bombload and the B-29 could probably do it, but it would be a terrifying mission.

Sadly it really does look like the Vasilek is one for a future Vehicle Pack(?), I'm not finding any reports of them prior to the civil war.

AI usually plays better on defence.

Nah, he was right, the original was blocked for hot-linking, as were about a hundred other copies of it, took me ages to find the same picture in a linkable format. As I said, I blame WOT/WT/Other Game fanboys, they've made researching AFVs online a thoroughly miserable process.