DMS
-
Posts
705 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by DMS
-
-
19 minutes ago, Erwin said:
After so many million Ukrainians were killed by Stalin in the 20's and 30's it seems quite believable that the Germans were welcomed as liberators. Look at how the Ukrainians still feel about Russia today.
It's a mistake to project modern political situation to history. I don't know much details about situation in Ukraine, but in the south of Russia, where many people died from hunger also, people blamed local party bosses and "saboteurs", not Soviet authorities in general and Stalin personally.
It strongly depended on class. Wealthy farmers (so called "kulaks", means "fist" because they used to beat their workers) hated communists and blamed them for everything, poor farmers were happy that they stopped being depended from "kulaks" and forgave Soviets for mistakes. Of course poor people were in vast majority.
In the South of Russia more cossaks were fighting for Red army, than served to Wehrmacht. Probably in Ukraine was the same.
-
12 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:
God could be on the side of the NKWD
NKVD were atheists.
-
On 8/7/2021 at 7:59 PM, danfrodo said:
Stalin did just about everything he could to help the Germans win before and during the summer of 1941. Stalin had mostly exterminated his officer corps. He put too much of his force too far forward and did not use defense in depth, despite having incredible depth. He had no plan for how to handle a German mobile offensive. he continually ordered hasty, ridiculous, piecemeal counterattacks that continually failed, resulting in terrible losses. He refused to let units retreat, leading to the costliest defeats in the history of the world. Yet despite all these utterly anti-competent choices, the Germans still didn't win. So if they couldn't win with all this help, could they really have won?
But maybe if they had gone straight for Moscow, they could've won? Maybe, I suppose it's best chance they had. Maybe taking Moscow, which was the communication hub for the country, could've caused some kind of collapse given how hated Stalin was in Ukraine & elsewhere? Maybe they could've held the loooooong southern flank of the Moscow drive against all those troops in the south?
Don't mix politics with history. You don't like Stalin, it is understandable, but if he was a bad person - it doesn't mean that all his decisions were stupid, he was hated by everyone e.t.c.
"He had no plan for how to handle a German mobile offensive."
It was no good plan while Germans had huge mechanised forces, 4 tank groups. (France was conquered by 1) Rifle units on foot would be outmaneuvered anyway. Defense in depth? They would be beaten by parts. And Soviet tank units had organisational problems, not enough trucks, artillery tractors. Industry couldn't produce enough of them. That's why Soviet tank counter attacks often lacked artillery and infantry support. Not because "oh, they didn't know that combined arms attack is more effective", but because of industry limitations. That's why German 88s could destroy KVs, T-34s and infantry easily throw charges on them. Everything has rational explanations, without this "ideology".
-
2 hours ago, dbsapp said:
They didn't want to deliberately starve people to death, but their neglect, inhumane policy and low level of understading of ecomonics, coupled with crazed communist theories, resulted in de fact horrible deaths of millions.
Some people think that they did want.
Forced preparation to world war. Build plants or get smashed by Germany (or England with Polish satellites). To build plants you need to free working hands in villages, creating modern agriculture industry. But individual farmers din't want to, resisted, sabotaged the process. This a bit more complex than just "idiots with stupid theories made brutal experiments". No one gave a chance to peacefully and slowly build an ideal state.
-
"Intentional starvation by bolshevik government" is a conspiracy theory. It can't be proved, it can't be disproved. By the way, NKVD investigators did the same, they used any mistake or negligence to blame a person as spy and saboteur. It's fun that anti communists use same logic as NKVD.
-
On 6/24/2021 at 4:38 PM, Erwin said:
Worse even... Under Stalin individual farming was outlawed and all food was the property of the state. It was the only major product he could sell for export to get the money to industrialize the USSR. As "Bloodlands" describes in gruesome detail, this led to many millions of Ukrainians being deliberately killed off due to dying of starvation.
That was in addition to the millions executed or dying while deported. Over 10 million were killed in this way in the 20's and 30's b4 Hitler got competitive.
You are nicely roleplaying German officer, talking to local peasants!
-
Does game engine allow to make gunner a squad leader assistant also?
-
German squads have a lot of MG ammo. You can just shoot forward randomly. MG team shoots, rifle team advances. Keep neighbour squads no more than 10-20 m away.
-
Shoigu finished exercises, units go back to bases. Cold war didn't go hot this time.
-
55 minutes ago, Bufo said:
No, Ukraine didn't declare war with Russia, Russia attacked Ukraine without a declaration of war.
Let's imagine that Germany attacks Poland, but Polish ambassador stays in Berlin, German in Warsaw. Polish business sell goods to Germany, German to Poland. Germans try to sell military supplies, but have to cancel only because of public opinion.
"Hybrid war" is comfortable for both sides. Soldiers fight and die for real, governments and business pretend to.
-
21 hours ago, Kraft said:
Europe is far too passive about this.
Guys, Ukraine didn't declare war to Russia. Ukrainian business trade with Russia as usual. Your government didn't nationalise Russian business. You buy Donbas coil, transit Russian gas to Europe. I can't understand you at all.
-
15 hours ago, Muzzleflash1990 said:
You are talking about danger spaces, most specifically the one closest to the target.
Yes! Thanks. Sorry for awful English, couldn't explain so long.
12 hours ago, chuckdyke said:Depends on bullet design a boattail projectile for accuracy some other design made to tumble. With an MG tumbling is desired after a certain range as you increase the beaten zone. The Bren for example shot the same .303 round it was too accurate for an LMG. Bolt rifles are much better for civilian use, as you can customize your rounds
As I understand, better stabilisation -> faster twist -> worse accuracy. Initially SVD had 320 mm twist, but than it was changed to standard 240 mm (to shoot long tracer bullets) and accuracy dropped.
-
1 hour ago, ASL Veteran said:
You mean 'Grazing Fire'?
No. Length of zone in front of target, where trajectory height is not higher that target's height. (Actually, just cotangent of descent angle х target height)
-
4 hours ago, chuckdyke said:
I can say .303 like all handloads you can get a much better performance than any intermediate round in production today. Doing my sums with the 5,56 NATO which is similar I imagine to the Russian 5.45 mm I just looked it up it is 55Grain going at 3000ft/sec. It gives you a performance similar as a 9 mmx19 at 25 meters at 300 meters. You can custom load any bolt rifle for any purpose. .303 with a scope you will be effective between 500 meters and 1000 meters depending on visibility and the weather. I gave you my insight as a handloader which I did as a hobby till about 30 years ago. Higher velocity doesn't mean better ballistics. I would prefer the 7.62 x 39mm rather than the more modern 5.56 NATO which used to be affected by brush or wind more than a slower and heavier projectile. It depends what your purpose is, for accuracy the .38 Special with a 148 grain wadcutter velocity 800ft/sec is more accurate than a 9 mm Parabellum with a 115 grain going at 1200ft/sec at 50 meters. Why that is? I don't know but I selected the .38 special for competition.
I'm just starting to reload x54 round! A bit expensive here, in RF, so I have small progress.
It depends, how great is velocity and how good is BC! According to Soviet fire tables, PKM (7,62x54, 825m/s) outperforms AK-74 (5,45x39, 900m/s) after 600m. But RPK-74 (960 m/s) is better up to 1000m. (Has flatter trajectory) But wind drift is better for PKM already after 500m. For .303 relation must be close to this, I think. Wind drift must be better, as bullet is heavier.
British could achieve 800 m/s, like Soviets did for "Д" cartridge with heavy bullet for HMGs and sniper rifles, but preferred to have low impulse (or better accuracy?). Interesting cartridge. Empty bullet nose for accuracy, high-tech of 1910-s.
-
9 hours ago, MikeyD said:
You can see this in CM:Afghanistan when Russian troops with their AKs are being outraged by Mujahideen using rusty old Enfields. Plus the big bullets pierce masonry walls that smaller assault rifle bullets don't.
Well, Mk.7 ammunition had 745 m/s velocity. 5,45 weapons had much better ballistic. Even 7,62mm RPK was close, having same velocity, but worse BC. May be Mujahideen used hand loaded ammo with light bullets? Or it is just a myth about "superior enemy weapons", that is always popular among soldiers.
-
Picture is better than words. In short, like beaten zone, but for rifles. (Without dispersion of shots, just mean trajectory) It is surprising that there is no equivalent English expression. At 600 m that "beaten zone" is 140 m long for AK-74. Man sized targets will be hit from 460 to 600 m. Shooter can make mistake on 100 m.
.jpg.00736c4d2d61f33b4bd0ed436ab5f988.jpg)
-
2 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:
Beaten zone applies to automatic fire.
In Russian it is called поражаемое пространство. Applies to semi-auto fire also. May be danger zone? Zone where trajectory stays in target height. If you aim at 600m below target, you hit 1m height targets in 90 m long area. (From 510 m to 600 m)
-
42 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:
Lots of people fire centre mass what you describe is holding the sights at the 6 O'clock position with which you can deliver much more accurate fire. Your higher group hits right in the centre at longer range when you hold your sights at 6 O'clock.
Right. It is standard method of fire in Soviet/Russian army. (As I understand, because beaten zone is larger than if you aim at centre. And ricochets.)
-
4 minutes ago, Haiduk said:
To be serious it's enough for many years to read Russian military and even game forums. Авиабаза, Отвага, even old Наш Комбат CM-forum. It's enough to read posts not even Russian politics, but just second-level propagandists and most of usual Russians from how "Putin lifted Russia from the knees" to big amount of children songs about "great Putin" like "Дядя Вова, мы с тобой". The cult of person on minimals. But you have still a room to grow.
I'm not sure are your sincerely mistaken or trolling. Really? Is that video with song "Дядя Вова мы с тобой" (boy sings "Vladimir Putin is a good guy") considered seriously in Russian internet? Cool song, nice boy, so touching words, like that? Isn't "lifting from knees" 2000-s era propaganda slogan (when relations with West were good, by the way) repeated with sarcasm nowdays? So you really think that people say or think that "Putin lifted Russian from the knees"? You must be well speaking Russian and should understand the sense. You must be intentionally "misunderstanding".
I see there evolution of Bandera-like 1930-s ideologemes about spoiled moscovites with ugly culture. Sad that western powers pursue far-right ideologies in their own countries but don't demand from Ukraine to stop encouraging local rightists... Though, I should mention that Russia does the same, helping to right parties in Europe. Sorry for politics, but really, I can't just skip that nonsense about naturally autocratic, violence loving Russians. -
1 minute ago, chuckdyke said:
There is also 'Stress Fire' it happens when the target shoots back. The performance of lots of people will suffer under these conditions.
Sure, but stress affects accuracy, not max fire distance. Unit will shoot as taught, but will miss more often. "П" sight was made to let soldiers forget about setting sight in stress conditions. Just shoot under the target. 400m is greater distance, than M16's 300m, but it has shortcoming - at 200-220m trajectory is higher than head sized target.
-
"П" sight (П - постоянный, constant or regular) for AK-74 is 400m, for AKM - 300m. (For targets with height 0,4m.) So, 400m is a regular fire distance for AK-74, nothing impossible or very difficult. Soldiers shoot at larger distances during training, 500-600m (but at larger targets, MG nest, ATGM e.t.c.)
-
On 4/15/2021 at 2:51 PM, Haiduk said:
He is also product of nation's menthality - Russians can be dissatisfied with rising prices, arbitraines of clercs, but they anyway want "tough hand", ruling them and defending the "wealth and spirituality of Russia from encroachments of the hostile West" and "Russian-speaking compatriots" in neighbour countries. This "величие" ("greatness" [of the state]) and "all around must fear us" are primary things for Russian society. Untill the system and menthality (additionally feeding by brainwashing TV-propaganda) will not be broken, this will be like heads of Hydra. Instead one Putin the next will come. Maybe the same Patrushev. Or Shoigu. Or Ivanov. They are all confess the same Putinism and maybe more than Putin himself - Russians like it.
I can't believe that you are serious. But you are, obviously. And western guys buy this.
-
On 4/10/2021 at 1:32 AM, Chibot Mk IX said:
Then the HMG section in the Company will advance together with Company HQ, lay down suppressive fire under the Company Co.'s command ? That will make command & Control much more easier.
Yes, I think so. HMG was only section with large ammo load, having own transport, having ability to sustain continuous fire for many minutes. But there was a problem, company formation often was tight and there were no large gaps between squads. So, it was a problem, where to place HMG so it could fire safely for own troops. In CM friendly fire is not modelled, it's good for players, or managing infantry formation in attack would be a nightmare.
-
22 minutes ago, Chibot Mk IX said:
Hi all. As I remember, one of the biggest change in FR is to correct the Sov’s Inf company’s OOB. Change the 4th platoon into a SMG heavy Assault Platoon, while the 1~3 platoon kept as regular Platoon, SMG in each squad reduced to two.
3-rd platoon became SMG platoon (but with MGs and snipers), 1-2 were rifle platoons. In rifle company were 3 platoons.
27 minutes ago, Chibot Mk IX said:That’s same as the 1942 OOB. But if a squad has only 6 men, will they still have a heavy squads?
I doubt that "heavy squads" with 2 MGs were really widely used. With exception to summer 43 near Kursk, where Guard armies were well prepared to defence and really had many MGs (>400 for division).
In the end of war platoons could have only 2-3 MGs. (With few magazines, by the way. With 1-2 47 round magazines for each DP in some "tired" divisions) So "heavy" squad was squad with 1 MG, not with 2 MGs.
31 minutes ago, Chibot Mk IX said:But the poor company Co don’t have radio.
And few messengers, unlike German Company CO. So company usually acted as 1 unit, having all 3 platoons in 1 formation. And platoons didn't have their own transport, unlike German platoons.
35 minutes ago, Chibot Mk IX said:The fire and maneuver elements split at Platoon level
Soviet doctrine gave more focus to maneuver than to fire. Fire elements were MG and mortar companies at battalion level, HMG at company level. (50mm mortars were mainly dropped by 44-45) MGs usually had few mags and were not expected to perform long firefight. Company had to get as close as possible after hits of own artillery, in formation with other companies.
Urban warfare doctrine was different, based around company level assault groups.
.jpg.00736c4d2d61f33b4bd0ed436ab5f988.jpg)
Operation Barbarossa Ever Winnable?
in Combat Mission Red Thunder
Posted
I don't like history fiction books