dbsapp

In technical literature they say that t-34-85 could traverse tower 4,2 times in one minute. It makes 14,2 second per turn. So 3,5 sec for 90 degrees sounds about right.

It's in Russian, but has plenty of video material.

I really doubt that they care too much about this (un)dead forum.

The list (not full, only which I aware of) of the Russian equipment that exist in CM only as a impotent and blind dummy for Blue forces: Khrisantema Shturm all BRDMs with ATGMs ISU152 ISU100 ISU12O "Hey, mommy, look I shot Khrisantema"!

Maps.yandex.ru

It's a really good idea to ensure that campaign\scenario is winnable. Sad that this advice is too often neglected. Player should have enough forces to sustain casualties and complete the mission in "natural" way, without reloading. But it's usual to see player is given as many units as enemy that he has to attack. You can win such mission, but not "naturally". Ok, I have lets say 10 tanks, and the enemy has 10 tanks and AT guns hidden in bushes. I lost 1 tank bogged in the woods or dirty road, 2 tanks were destroyed in the beginning. I'm left with 7 tanks and still has the objectives to capture and enemies to destroy. Is it real? Could it be winnable in real life? I doubt it.

P.S. Don't ask why I posted it! LIked Chinese language commentary and thermal video of the missile hitting the target.

It's the most frustrating mission in the entire campaign!

Some screenshots from very nice scenario "Zinzewitz":

That's too cruel!

Oh, now I see the story of little comrade Tolstoy! (Magic!) So, basically, you suggest to measure lines of fire by plotting movement routes?

That's strange! I watched it on mobile and PC and they were blurred on both( I'll try to negotiate with my PC, but sometimes it's too stubborn.

Let's be fair - there's some commonality. It was Freudian clause.

I don't know about the others, but I see the images attached in very low resolution, so the text is unreadable

Well, I read it and even pointed this mission as an example of "planned failure".

I'm glad too, Chuk looking forward for your update on Soviet CC.

Did you mean Bulat? Bulat is this: Borat is him:

The campaign is great indeed. I remember this mission, especially Tigers:)

Ok guys, you lit my fire and I decided to burn some bunkers...again. This time I took the proven route and went left side. I throw smoke on the trench right in front of me and to my right, thus creating a smoking "box". The smoke was ordered 5 min from the mission start to get my troops ready. I concentrated them all on the narrow left side behind railroad, except for 2 tanks, 1 HMG and sniper on the far right. The engineers were essential to blast through barbered wire. The snipers were responsible for a large part of enemy casualties, ranging from 16 to 6 casualties per sniper (green guy made six). For comparison - tanks made about 2-4 casualties per vehicle, but they were pivotal in terms of fire suppression. I used them as HMG\artillery platforms and leave them far away from trenches, because I knew from the previous experience that they would be booged or killed by flak or stug fire. Almost all of my flame tower guys made to the end and spectacularly burnt bunkers! This time my walkthrough was really positive and energetic. In the beginning on nomansland from the left side. The trick was to come as close as possible under the smoke cover: When my troops passed the first trench they stroke from the rear: This bunker was not burnt, but was exploded with dozens of hand grenades. The team from inside opened the door and tried to run only to be smashed by direct fire: The smartest guy gave up: The first flame: The next one please: Actually this bunker was bugged and didn't want to burn no matter what Landscape in the end:

How is the first Soviet campaign mission is meeting engagemen? It's a pure Soviet attack, US forces are in defensive, they retreat only and don't attack.

I tried concentrated human wave, but it absolutely fails under machine gun fire and mines.

Sometimes (well, every time) the real goal of "redfor win" is to get more funding. "Look, we proved that we need more money".