Vark

In CM1 the only abstraction was the German magnetic mines, why are RPG's and the equivalent abstracted?

Those pictures take me back.

That's an Archer behind, is it not?

Well Steve, when I had the chance to climb into a WWII Mk II Humber AC, I got halfway and politely declined. I've been in priest holes that were easier to enter!

She'd probably have given you a more accurate reading, if you hadn't thrown precious metals at her!

Oh, I'm sure Russian tanks suffered ergonomically, though being 6' 3" I found both the T-34 and Pz IV a nightmare to be inside, what I am saying is what real impact did it have?

The Welsh pantie catcher is nothing to THIS crooner!

Like the Germans, in the Summer of 44', we know it's coming, just not exactly when. Unlike the Germans of 44' we have a pretty good idea what is coming our way and know exactly from which direction!

I think its the heavy frontal armour and even bigger gun that made it's reputation. Your right though, I'm always surprised at how 'small' the IS-2 is, in Duxford's Land Warfare museum, not much bigger than their T-34 85. Don't also forget, the tankers standing next to/on their IS-2 tanks were often picked for their small stature, which accentuates their relative 'size' and is often ignored when talking about the cramped interiors and poor ergonomics of Soviet tanks.

Feast your ears on Soviet diesel goodness!

So the Bradley did well against third rate opposition in an environment perfectly suited for its design, not saying much is it really. It was designed to take on a far tougher opponent in far more restrictive terrain, where full spectrum dominance was but a pipe-dream. Surely if the Germans has not wanted aggressive SPW tactics they would not have made the front proof against rifle calibre rounds. You don't angle armour plates, which take time and resources to make, just to stop the odd stray bullet. I talked to the son of an Arnhem veteran and he said the Germans were very aggressive using half tracks, so aggressive, he managed to lob a grenade into one at short range as it was trying to conduct an over run. Then again Grabner's dash was pure folly, so perhaps it was horses for courses, tactically. As for the SPW blitz, it really worked, but first you allowed your FO's to fire rocket projected smoke first into the majority of the enemy set up zone!

Are SMG's over modelled? I'd always assumed they were in their element in FIBUA and close terrain, as they could be fired on the move to suppress, or area fired at potential targets, so that the units could close to point blank, grenade/shovel range? I've ready plenty of accounts of SMG's driving infantry into cover, but rarely slaughtering squads in under a minute. Are their any accounts of SMG's acting as ballistic scythes? Did the Germans genuinely fear SMG armed units? Did they specify specific tactics to neutralise them? I was hoping the individual spotting would stop the barrage fire that made them ridiculously deadly in CM1. Brrr, brrrr! Squad epileptically twitches before a single pixel trooper marks a mini-slaughter.

There was also the crawl of death, in CM1, where the AI would crawl towards the nearest cover, even if that place was the location of the shooting The DoD was highly amusing/un-amusing when coupled with borg spotting. Often a poor squad would run hither and thither, as a veritable fire storm was directed at them.

The schizophrenic nature of German propaganda, alluded to by Jason, is highly revealing. Faced with an obvious decline in fortunes the Germans had to invent the myth that the Russians outnumbered them vastly, everywhere, in everything. Trouble was, during the glory days the mindless stoicism and bravery of the Slavs (everything was seen through the prism of race) had been constantly mentioned to accentuate the Teutonic victory. What to do? Surely if the Russian hordes descended, full of stoically brave soldiers the war would be over in months. Simple, start a new meme and develop an older one. The Russians are poor at attacking due to their simple peasant brains being unable to replicate the complex tactics used by the Teutonic warriors and they have been so badly savaged by the Ubermensch they have to resort to sending untrained soldiers to make up the numbers. Examples of T-34's driving off production lines in Stalingrad are not seen as exceptions but subtlety insinuated into the narrative to suggest a typical tactic and Soviet brutality and drunken stupidity looms over every battlefield encounter. In reality, the Soviets were more than aware of the importance of trained tankers and had specialist medical units who were experts at dealing with the unique combination of injuries common to armoured warfare.

Oh, forget the look of the thing, think about an infantry man hearing that sound as a company of them advanced on his shell scrape!

Don't forget to dismount some of the Iraqi crews, immobilise their T-72's (they took the tank battery to power their dugouts electrics) and have them shocked, they were sitting down for a meal.

And in the Red corner, weighing in at 46 tonnes, the IS-2! I always liked this Panther clip as the engine note reverberates off the walls.

15 KIA for a couple of turns, jeez, what will an ISU-152 be like in game!

Yes, it took my brother and I many months of saved pocket money and yes it has been reissued. Like most monster games, with a 6ft map and thousands of units it rarely was taken out and played to a conclusion, but the level of detail was truly amazing.

The Streets of Stalingrad had all Soviet and German units with their correct national symbols. http://boardgamegeek.com/images/boardgame/2236/streets-of-stalingrad I have the monster in storage, so might be able to dig up the rules to get a good look at them. IIRC, the telegraph poles were AT rifles and the small u shape in the infantry box is an SMG unit.

Once again, thank you both for all your efforts, it has been a highly entertaining DAR and highlighted the new features and amazing terrain of the game perfectly.

Read an insightful essay about the IDF's way of war being operationally Soviet rather than than Western but cannot remember where.

So, rather like the Germans in 44 then. Glantz used to warn in Military Review that to believe the stereotype of the unthinking Red Horde, studiously created by the losers of that conflict, was asking for trouble. I remember being fascinated by an article, written in 85-6 IIRC, about the operational and tactical flexibility shown by Red Army units in 43, which hitherto I was ignorant of.

Tough choice, gangsters or shysters!

So if it's so ineffective, why did the Soviets insist on it? I can't see them voluntarily making their commanders limit their SA and if they persisted with this doctrine into the Cold war there must have been a reason.