dbsapp
-
Posts
592 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by dbsapp
-
-
10 hours ago, Simcoe said:
I would argue that veteran has MORE realistic call in times but to each their own. Have you had any more luck with the campaign?
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.
-
1 hour ago, Simcoe said:
That's what I like about veteran. The battlefield is way more dynamic. If you read memoirs of WW2, artillery was a huge part of the battlefield. As soon as small arms fire picked up you could guarantee some artillery/mortars were incoming.
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"
-
4 hours ago, Jim Storr said:
Suvorov
Oh, no...
And welcome!
-
1 minute ago, Simcoe said:
Adjustment in Veteran is 3 minutes compared to I assume 6 on Elite.
Oh, that makes sense now.
The drawback of faster call times is they are also faster for the enemy.
-
On 1/7/2022 at 8:49 AM, Simcoe said:
I just played this mission for the first time. I placed my CRP in the cliff phasing Mansbach. I had a single M60 contact up on a ridge above Mansbach. I set up a preplaced bombardment set to heavy and maximum. Once my troops got there I spotted a tow vehicle on the mountain overlooking the town. I adjusted the artillery there. I immediately adjusted the artillery (which allows 3 minutes of fire) to Mansbach itself since I spotted a couple M113's. My FSE shows up 10 minutes in and spots one more hidden M60 on a hill and immediately kills it. None of my force is damaged in the process.
Of course, I could have gotten lucky but it seemed pretty fair to me.
I just wish they would fix the tactical map. I had to cheat and run the scenario through by clicking the go button as fast as possible to see where my forces spawned. If I didn't do that I would have no idea that the FSE shows up below Mansbach.
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.
-
13 hours ago, BFCElvis said:
This was so remarkable this morning that I've decided to share. I am a HUGE Bowie fan. To say "HUGE" doesn't even express it enough. Because today is his birthday I changed my Facebooks profile and cover pictures to pictures of Bowie. Less than 5 minutes after posting the picture below I started getting ads for Gibson Les Paul guitars. I don't play guitar. When I posted I didn't mention anything about guitars. I've never researched guitars.
The picture is Bowie with his old guitar player Mick Ronson who played Gibson Les Pauls.
I gotta admit. It freaked me out a little bit. Maybe Zuckerberg thinks I should take up shredding.
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.
-
-
9 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
As a nation it is essentially the leftovers; all the parts no one else really wanted.
Canada is not that bad
-
1 hour ago, Sgt Joch said:
One of the best movies of all times
-
10 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
The USSR had 600 nuclear weapons in 1960 and almost 10k in 1985..why?
LOL Maybe because US had 5500 when USSR had 600?
-
3 minutes ago, Armorgunner said:
A vast numerical advantige, I would say (not in terms of quality). And at a strategic level, They were behind. But trust me, that was a war with no winners anyway!
Exactly. And that is why the US didn't attack, despite having serious advantage. The cost would be too high anyway.
-
11 minutes ago, Armorgunner said:
What about IFV´s, and Artillery? And Subs, if we go down below?
All is year dependent offcourse. Coldwar was from 1945-1991
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?
-
21 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
And now we get to why I find the OP questionable in intent. @dbsapp has demonstrated, repeatedly, this pro-Russia/Soviet line.
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.
-
38 minutes ago, Sgt Joch said:
Many of the better Russian units switched to Shermans in 44-45.
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.
49 minutes ago, Sgt Joch said:CM modules often showcase new equipment, in this case lend lease.
Many of the better Russian units switched to Shermans in 44-45. Russian tankers rated the Shermans better than their T34-85s, more comfortable, more reliable with a better and more reliable radio. They also rated the 76mm gun as better against hard targets than the Russian 85mm gun.
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.
-
5 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
How about a variant background for late 2024.....After a series of unfortunate border incidents, the Mexican government purchases Iskander & S-400 systems from Russia and invites Russia to establish a series of military bases accross the country.
Wonder how that one might play out?
We don't have to guess - Cuba is perfect example.
-
6 minutes ago, ratdeath said:
Not winning any Oscars, but it's fun to play around with video editing and CM
Nice job! Edited videos are much better than raw recording.
-
15 hours ago, sawomi said:
Admittedly...with Psychic TV it went more and more downhill. But they still had a great album. - Towards thee Infinite Beat:
What about good old Boyd Rice and NON?
-
2 minutes ago, sawomi said:
Yeah... Throbbing Gristle.....
-
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.
28 Soldiers
in General Discussion Forum
Posted
It's one of those moments one myth is better in conveying the truth of history than documents.