pintere

Rather than escalate further I’ll just acknowledge that both sides did very well given the circumstances . Maybe I’ll change my mind once the ashes have settled and a more thorough analysis can be made.

I dunno. In Sinai 1973 the Israelis were caught totally by surprise, outnumbered, and up against an enemy that had spent 6 years preparing to counter Israeli tanks and aircraft. Despite all that they managed to blunt the Egyptian attack, regain the initiative, advance to AND cross the Suez before cutting off a whole Egyptian field army. By the time the truce was called they were within striking distance of the capital and had that same Egyptian army at their mercy. All this happened in less than 3 weeks. Make no mistake, Ukraine is doing fantastic, but they still have not yet achieved a feat quite as dramatic as that (keyword "yet").

First, yes about the news headlines. That’s a bit of a headscratcher. But I think you’ve forgotten all the magic that Israel pulled in the 6-Day and Yom Kippur war. Ukrainian‘s offensive is definitely up there in terms of impressiveness, but even that doesn’t quite surpass what the Israelis were able to pull in their wars.

Izium about to fall too? That’s crazy if actually true. Things must be going very badly for the Russians…

Would probably depend on the quality of the units there. Do we have a pretty reliable picture of which Russian units are present and what kind of quality they are?

Looks like the Nova Kakhovka bridge in Kherson might be out now. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62533670

Well you definitely shouldn’t be passing up capable soldiers who are willing to fight, male or female.

Amusing, if not a little sad. There’s no problem with kids playing with guns of course, but that every single one has a toy rifle is testament to the fact that war and militarism are an inseparable part of their lives. Better than submission or cowardice of course, but it’s still a shame they couldn’t grow up in a less violent world.

Classic Canada. Not always willing to walk the walk, but can definitely talk the talk! In this case it’s actually kinda awesome though.

A great example of how lots of firefights actually work. There’s a ton of gunfire, you never actually see the enemy (I don’t think you can see any Russians in the video?), and every now and then someone gets hit by a random bullet.

Well if the Russian army really has been holding back all this time (as many have stated) then now’s probably a good time for them to reveal their trump card. But if they can’t even handle Ukrainian tractor drivers I wouldn’t be hedging my bets on them.

Isn’t it a little weird that this number is the exact same as the number of volunteers for the Ukrainian foreign legion? Sounds more like a "well you might have that, but I have that too" propaganda ploy to me. Not that I doubt Syrians will enter the fight too, but matching the number of Ukrainian volunteers sounds like a bit too much of a coincidink.

So in Combat Mission Black Sea the Javelin is able to reliably destroy all Russian tanks, even those equipped with APS, as the Arena APS cannot engage top-down attacks. But have the Russians developed any counters to the Javelin by now? For instance, can the Afghanit APS on the new Armata tanks defeat it? If so then the Ukrainians may have no way to stop those tanks if they do make an appearance.

Both historically, as well as from a gaming perspective, I'd say the main issue is less of which force is better/easier to use as much as which side has more variability in their options. Let's take a look at how each side stacks up: Infantry Although the Germans do have their good machine-guns, almost all Soviet squads have a higher complement of automatic weapons overall, and their mix of light MGs and SMGs will usually overwhelm the typical German infantry unit that still is mostly filled out with soldiers equipped with Kr 98 rifles. If the German unit is equipped with StG 44s (i.e. Begleit, Sturm & Volksgrenadiers) then the balance swings in their favour, but most units do not have StG 44s. Although the German infantry does have a distinct edge in anti-tank weapons (Panzerfausts/Panzerschrecks are far superior to anti-tank rifles), most of the time it is fighting other infantry and not tanks, and so I'd give Soviet infantry the advantage overall. Mechanized Infantry This definitely goes to the Germans, with a catch. The German halftrack units have an excellent array of weapons and vehicles that gives them a considerable degree of flexibility on the battlefield. The Germans also have lots of special vehicles (e.g. AA vehicles) that the Soviets have no equivalent to. However, it should be remembered that both historically and from a gaming perspective, most German infantry (and even mechanized infantry for that matter) did not possess that many halftracks and other specialized vehicles. So this advantage usually doesn't mean all that much. Armour This comparison is interesting. From a purely technical standpoint, Panzer IV < T-34/85 < Panther, and Tiger < IS-2 < King Tiger. Thus, again, although the most powerful German armour is technically the "best", the Soviets have standard issue tanks/assault guns that outclass the more frequently encountered German armour (which is already rare enough as is). So I'd give this one to the Soviets as well, although only from mid-1944 onwards. In a nutshell, I'd say being the Germans is easier when you have the best they have to offer. A force equipped with Panthers, halftrack equipped infantry (especially Sturmgrenadiers), Sdkfz 251/21 AA vehicles plus armoured cars/scout halftracks represents a very powerful armoured fist that ought to be reckoned with even in the last days of the war. However the bread-and-butter Soviet complement of T-34/85s, IS-2s and SMG equipped infantry will usually be more than enough to deal with your average German infantry/armour. So I'd say that, for the period RT covers, the Soviets are easier to play when averaged across the board, but whenever the Germans can assemble the best mechanized elements they've got then they can absolutely tip the scales in their favour.

Alternate history is always a really tricky subject, for as long as one changes enough variables one can ALWAYS imagine a way one outcome or another could've been achieved. Could Barbarossa have been won? Yes, absolutely, provided enough variables are changed. However since most of us are probably far more interested in what could realistically have happened, I'll give my thoughts as to how German could have "won" Barbarossa while changing as few variables from history as possible. These are based off my own research as well as an extended campaign in Gary Grigsby's War in the East where victory was indeed achieved. 1.) How do you achieve victory in war? Two ways. You either break your opponents' will to fight, or you destroy their means with which to prosecute war. Germany lost WWII because of the latter reason, whilst Russia lost WWI because of the former. For all the damage the purges did to the Soviet military, it seems clear that they did help in that Stalin and his cronies had a very firm grip on their country, and given the German war aims it is unlikely that either the Soviet leadership or the Soviet people would lose their will to fight first. Thus, victory could only be achieved by destroying the means. 2.) In the case of the Soviet Union that is rather hard to do! It is a big country with a much larger population than Germany, and it is arguably the case that no single area in the Soviet Union was invaluable to their war effort. With all this in mind, for Germany to win they would need to appreciate these twin-fold difficulties in triggering any Soviet surrender. The challenge then is to formulate an operational strategy for removing the Soviet means to fight. I believe that for this two happen they would need to try to achieve two core operational aims: a) Reach the historical AA line (or close to it). b) Deplete the Soviet population and manpower reserves to the point where they cannot hope to reconquer their lost territories. Lend-lease could make up for a great deal of supply difficulties, but lend-lease cannot replace men! It is also stated in numerous places that Soviet manpower reserves were not inexhaustible, and that they too were taking extraordinary measures in this regard at a relatively early stage. The reason they did not ultimately bleed themselves dry historically is because they were eventually able to lower the casualty exchange ratio to a point in their favour whilst simultaneously regaining new manpower reserves from their reconquered territories (partisans, Poles, Romanians, etc.). 3.) So, from the start, Germany needs to be ready for a 2-4 year campaign. Industrial production would need to be adjusted for this expectation (and this was totally within the means of 1941 Germany to do), and operational aims would need to adjust to it as well. As far as Barbarossa is concerned, I believe just two things need to change for the first year to be considered a success: a) Take Leningrad (or at least guarantee its fall in early 1942). This firmly secures the north flank, helps alleviate supply difficulties in the north and definitively removes the Soviet Baltic fleet as a threat. I explore what is probably the most feasible way to do this in the following AHF thread. https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=255587 b) As soon as the first stage of Typhoon is completed and the Vyazma-Briansk pockets eliminated, stop. It's my understanding that the German high command debated the relative merits of digging in in late 1941 or trying to take Moscow before year's end, so there's no reason to believe that this option may have ended up being the one taken if more thought was given to the necessity of being in a good defensive position for the winter. If they had dug in at the start of November 1941 instead of later then they would've been in a far better position to deal with the Soviet winter counteroffensive and therefore sustain far fewer losses in men and materiel during the first winter. They thus would hold a line along the rough axis Lake Ladoga-Demyansk-Vyazma-Kharkov-Mius. 4.) This also sets them up well for 1942. In 1942, the goal should be to feign a threat towards Moscow (something the Soviets tried very hard to preempt historically) whilst achieving everything Blau did historically, with two exceptions: a) Don't bleed the 6. Armee dry in Stalingrad! b) Make sure that the extended flanks of Army Group South are well defended. This could probably have been achieved historically if enough equipment was shipped to the Axis allies and enough armour reserves were available to counter Soviet armoured breakthroughs. Again, this seems wholly within the realm of possibility. 5.) Now it's the spring of 1943. The Germans have suffered no catastrophic defeats, whilst the Soviets have suffered huge losses in territory and manpower through both German victories as well as failed attempts to achieve offensive success of their own (similar to how they did at Rzhev and Yelnya historically). Now the Germans can launch an attack to seize Astrakhan and Makhachkala (on the Caspian Sea) and thereby cut off the rest of the Soviet Union from Baku. It may also well be possible to launch an attack that will finally capture Moscow this year also. 6.) At that point it's simply a matter of continuing to attrite the Soviets until the Soviet leadership is forced to concede the loss of most of the western Soviet Union. I imagine this would happen no later than the end of 1944, for if the Germans still have a capable land force then they have the ability to both launch opportune encirclements of Soviet forces in either offense or defense. This, I think, is the most realistic pathway for Germany to achieve victory in the East as they had originally intended. Fortunately for the rest of us, such a thing never came to pass!

Looks like an awesome campaign idea! Kudos to you for getting it all made up

I just wrapped up the scenario "Valley of Ashes". Tons of fun! CMCW is definitely an interesting blend of both WWII and modern-era CM titles and I've had quite the time trying to figure out how to adjust to the cold war battlefield. One very interesting experience about this scenario though is just how LETHAL the Soviet aircraft and helis are. In the game I had a total of 13 tanks altogether (8 M60A3s and 5 M60A2s). Of these a total of 8 () were knocked out by enemy aviation (3 in one strike), most before they had even fired a shot. Quite a few other vehicles were also destroyed by aircraft. Although I did have some Redeyes on the battlefield they quickly ran out of ammunition and so for most of the game I basically had no idea how to deal with opposing airstrikes. You guys know any good tactics against aircraft? For instance, spreading out your SAM teams or keeping them closer to your vehicles? Do smokescreens help at all? And, in particular, does it help at all if I hide my tanks in forests? I would think that the latter tactic is surely a realistic option (and none of my tanks and other vehicles were knocked out whilst hiding in the woods), but I don't have enough game experience to be sure and I'd rather have a definitive answer before tackling the campaign.

The Soviet scout car never moved from it's spot in the whole game but still shot up my poor pixeltruppen like they were on range. And this in a blizzard at 500 metre range. I'm pretty sure even the most evil of scenario designers can't wrap that into an AI trigger...

I had the most interesting event happen while playing the fourth mission of the "Broken Shields" campaign (Snow Blind). Whilst attacking the observation post directly from the east I came under fire in the fields from an M3A1 scout car located just in the courtyard of the castle (the other main objective of the mission). And murderous fire at that! It took out my armoured car as well as 10 of my infantrymen, taking almost every squad under fire as they tried to approach the observation post. It was truly quite incredible. The car spotted and fired on my infantry teams almost every time they moved... this in blizzard conditions at a range of 400-500 metres! For point of reference, this was in a mission where my (regular-crack skill) infantry teams themselves could only see ahead 100-200 metres at most. My men for their part never even spotted, let alone shot at, the scout car. And I couldn't get any of them to get a LOS to where I knew the scout car was, even with reverse slope. Essentially, this Soviet scout car gunner either had the all seeing eye + aimbot... or there's a bug where the M3A1 scout cars don't have their spotting capabilities impacted by the weather for some reason. I lean more towards this theory, as the other scout car in the mission also had unholy spotting capabilities compared to my own veteran infantry.

After playing the first mission of the German Night at the Opera campaign (and a pretty epic one at that), the game consistently crashes after it starts to load the second scenario. Any idea why this might be? I really want to finish this campaign .

Yes but it would be good to get some additional comments on playability for those scenarios that are listed as "Best Played As". The following scenarios are listed as best played as Soviet: Zitzewitz Now or Never Block Buster Block Buster Redux Home Red Star A-Blazin Red Dawn These are listed as best played as German: The Last King of Berlin Rescue That Beast Out for a Schwimm Is it still a decent match when playing these scenarios against the opposite AI opponent (e.g. Zitzewitz as German or Rescue That Beast as Soviet), or is there no point for the reason that it would basically be a turkey shoot?

I haven't yet bought the game but would really like to read the manual that came with the release. If anyone would be down to share or send it then that would be most appreciated .

I was wondering if any of the game developers and/or experienced players could give a rundown of how the new scenarios in F&R can be played. Specifically, it would be good to know which scenarios are not possible to play against either Soviet or German AIs. There are of course some scenarios in which defeating an AI opponent is relatively easy to do, but it would be good to know exactly which scenarios either have no AI plans for a certain side or if defeating that AI is essentially a given for any experienced CM player. Thanks!

Looks like an amazing project! It's exciting to see so many quality Red Thunder campaigns in the works.

Right now I'm trying to modify some existing scenarios by changing the thumbnail picture that appears in the scenario select screen. I've downloaded my images, resized them to 170 x 170 pixels and converted them to BMP files, but when I try to upload them in the scenario editor it just says that they're 2 x 2 pixels and the image doesn't show up at all. I can't figure out what the problem might be, so any tips from veteran scenario editors would be appreciated.