dbsapp

It's one of those moments one myth is better in conveying the truth of history than documents.

That's a complicated question I completed it about half a year ago, but I can't say that I had any luck with it.

Well, the Manual says "Veteran is a fair balance between realism and fun that does not burden the player with unnecessary details or long waiting times"

Oh, no... And welcome!

Oh, that makes sense now. The drawback of faster call times is they are also faster for the enemy.

It's a matter of luck indeed. I wonder how you managed to adjust artillery fire so fast. Usually it takes about 6-10 minutes+plus the time to get your spotter into position+time to spot target+and finally time to kill the target by the falling rounds. Considering that the first reinforcement wave shows up in 10 minutes you have to push your fortunes to the extreme.

Should it be counted as a sign of Big Data omnipotence or, quite contrary, as its failure? Big Data enthusiasts claim that Facebook algorithm can understand that a woman is pregnant before she knows it herself. But your example clearly shows that FB algorithms are still robust. Despite you've given them tons of your data (even if you create the simplest account they receive a lot), they still failed to understand that you don't play guitar.

Canada is not that bad

One of the best movies of all times

LOL Maybe because US had 5500 when USSR had 600?

Exactly. And that is why the US didn't attack, despite having serious advantage. The cost would be too high anyway.

To put it simply, USSR may had some numerical (not qualitatively) advantage in tactical equipment (like IFVs and artillery), but was inferior both numerically and qualitatively in the most important area - strategic arms. Subs are good example, because till the very end of Cold War Soviet subs were too noisy and couldn't detect US or British subs, where as Western submarines could easily follow them remaining unnoticed.

@BeondTheGrave At least you got my point. I wouldn't overemphasize "Soviets offensive operational posture". I'm not even sure how to define "offensive posture". What was the posture of dozens of US silent nuclear submarines with ballistics missiles swimming near Russian northern cost? Or military bases in Japan? Or ballistic missiles in Turkey? As for "infamous Operational Maneuver Group" why not recall infamous Able Archer maneuvers that were perceived in Moscow as the last step in concealed preparations for first nuclear strike?

The mere fact that you are framing it as something bad undeniably shows your own bias and subjectivity. For sure, as a human being, I'm not free from certain bias as well, but believe me I'm trying to be as objective as I can. Anyway, it's clear that having by the order of magnitude less nuclear warheads, nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, strategic bombers and so on and so on, and lagging behind in terms of military technologies the USSR was absolutely in no position to be aggressive. So yes, its strategy and politics were defensive in nature. No matter how hard it to comprehend after years of brainwashing it's just a simple fact that can be easily shown with numbers in hand. The only thing that USSR has advantage in was tanks, which as all the conflicts showed, didn't mean that much. Especially they couldn't play any role in intercontinental nuclear war. Ironically enough, the only thing they were good for, was Western propaganda, that used all this scrap steel to make a scarecrow out of it.

The Soviet Union produced from 70k to 100k tanks during the war (depends how you count them, do you include light tanks and mobile artillery etc.). About 4k Shermans were delivered to the Soviet Union. I never heard of "better Russian units" deliberately equipped with M4. Yes, there were some guard units that were partially equipped with M4, but Shermans were never seen as a better tank that should be kept for elite formations. Overall, the number of Shermans in Red Army in the end of the war was never substantial. There were different opinions on Shermans performance, including negative. But the majority treated M4 with respect and it became the most darling of all tanks imported under Lendlease program. Let me cite one of the Russian articles on the issue of Shermans (Google translated): "The attitude to American Sherman tanks was different among Soviet tankers. AS Burtsev and AV Zakharov call them “coffins”, since they were often “burned” [15; 16] because of their bulkiness (the "Sherman" had a rather high "height" - 2.7 m) and sluggishness. However, there were also those who respected the Sherman. These are D. F. Loza, P. V. Kurevin [12], I. I. Uritskiy [18]. Loza even wrote an autobiographical book called "Tankman in a Foreign Car" [17], where speaks very well of "Shermans", affectionately calling them "Emchi" (after the first letters of M4). Vine spoke of the Sherman as an excellent tank. Of the strengths of the Sherman, he singled out a very good radio station, talked about the advantage of the viscous armor of the Sherman - when a shell hits it the armor gave almost no fragments that could damage the face. He also mentioned rubber-metal caterpillars (like in "Valentine"), on which you can quietly drive up to the enemy. True, “with a strong When heated, rubber from such tracks flew around in shreds, ”says Loza [13]. But on the whole, D. F. Loza spoke of the Sherman tank more than positively. He liked "Sherman", like his "Airacobra" to Pokryshkin, otherwise both one and the other could switch to domestic technology, which was not prohibited during the war. In the attitude of our tankers to Lend-Lease tanks, several common points can be distinguished. Firstly, it is the internal structure. Many noted that foreign tanks were much more comfortable than ours because of the soft upholstery, comfortable seats - which is important during a long stay in the tank [19; twenty]. For example, about "Sherman" D. F. Loza said that from the inside it looks like some kind of euro-apartment [13]. You shouldn't be surprised here - Europeans, and then Americans, have always appreciated convenience. Although some of our tankers spoke directly about the convenience in the tank: “we are in a war, not in a restaurant” [21]. Secondly, the western tanks had very good communications equipment. And this is again the merit of the capitalist countries. Thirdly, it was warmer in foreign tanks than, say, in domestic T34s".

1) Most of things that are described as integral part of Soviet doctrine - concentration of mass, numerical advantage over the enemy, max pressure on the most important points - are not unique to the Soviet military thinking. Indeed, they are common, I would even say trivial, for all military strategies since the ancient times. For example, see Schwerpunkt. Strangely enough, this German word describes what is though to be Soviet doctrine. 2) The rest of the alleged Soviet doctrine image is formed due to the well known patterns of the military propaganda. Enemy is portrayed as dangerous animal\insect - there are hordes of them, they are stupid, they are not afraid of casualties and ready to throw on you waves after waves of steel and cannon fodder. But "our heroes" nevertheless can defeat them, because they are smarter, trained better and motivated better. 3) All of this "Soviet invasion" nonsense was pushed on poor European and American populations when US\NATO had absolute advantage in terms of number of nukes, missiles, carriers etc. To cite former US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara "Blundering into Disaster" (1986) the balance of nuclear warheads was as follows: 1965: US - 5550, Soviet Union - 600 1970: 4000 and 1800 respectively 1975: 8500 and 2800 respectively 1980: 10100 and 6000 1985: 11200 and 9900 If you count number of aircraft carriers, military bases and air fleet the differences would be striking. And we are not taking into consideration the technological advantage, which was enjoyed by US\NATO. Do you think that under these circumstances "hordes of Soviet tanks" were going to invade Europe? The second question is what they were going to do next. Basically "Europe invasion" was the road to nowhere and in no way could help Soviet Union to keep it safe or to defeat US.

Soviet initial spawn points are vulnerable to enemy fire both in Czechmate and SovM1.

Shermans in Combat Missions definitely see better and they are better against infantry than t34-85. But to tackle Tiger ir Panther you need t-34.

We don't have to guess - Cuba is perfect example.

Nice job! Edited videos are much better than raw recording.

What about good old Boyd Rice and NON?

I really appreciate CMFR content. One of the best - if not the best - campaigns among all CM games I played. But I absolutely agree with @Monty's Mighty Moustache that the amount of Lendlease equipment looks absolutely inappropriate and artificial. What even worse practically the majority of CMFR single missions are also made for Lendlease fans. So basically there is no way to play Soviets playing Soviets.