How many subcatagories of Russian Troops will there be

[Hannibal]

In theCombat mission 2 how many subsets of Russian troops will there be .I assume ther will be different grouping for Guards and for regular troops .Will there also be NKVD Paratroopers ,Naval ground forces .

[MikeT]

Interesting idea. I have been looking over some Russian uniforms over the weekend for a mod I want to do and it would be great if BTS could have different unifroms for different troops. The color of the shoulder boards would defferently change as would the head gear type. The naval units should keep the striped shirt. The cold weather gear will also be of interest since they used a pleated coat for the coldest climes as well as a white cloak.

MikeT

------------------

"Quando omni flunkus moritati"

- Motto of Possum Lodge

[Bruno Weiss]

Just one. Dead one's.

------------------

"Wer zuerst schiesst hat mehr von Leben"

Moto-(3./JG11 "Graf")

Bruno Weiss

[Gregory Deych]

There aint no such thing as NKVD paratroopers. Or Cossack Marines. Or Gebirgsjaeger Zeks. Or Militia Guards. Well, there might have been Militia Guards. But definitely none of the other ones.

[Disaster@work]

I was reading the Mitrokhin Archive, the big KGB document book that was smuggled to the west by British intelligence a few years ago and now available. The book indicates at one point that most of the partisan and irregular activities against the Germans during the Great Patriotic War was actually carried out mostly by Chekists (NKVD) and most peasants were interested mostly in avoiding been squashed between the German invaders and the not so nice Soviet authorities themselves. If this is true, then any units reflected in the upcoming CM2, if they are displayed as partisans, should actually have higher experience than what you would expect peasant guerillas should be, because they would actually be NKVD agents.

[Guest wwb_99]

One would need at least:

1) Regular Army

2) Guards

3) Marines (the fought well on the Black Sea)

4) Irregulars (i.e. Cossaks, Partisans, NKVD)

I would also suggest creating a separate category/ squad type for the "I just got impressed yesterday and I ain't got no rifle yet" crowd.

WWB

[Bruno Weiss]

Ah, the Partisians... Yep, I been pressing that issue but alas someone commented somewhere with a statement that I interpreted to mean they ain't gonna do em.

They are gonna have the Finnish. Don't mind that, it was an interesting prelude to Barbarossa, afterwhich however the Finns 15 seconds of fame was up.

The Partisians on the other hand struck fear into the Axis forces all along the Ostfront and it can be argued that they played a significant role in draining the Germans of much needed manpower and resources as well as periodically staging respectable sized firefights and skirmishes. They also played a role in several major battles. Leaving them out, were that to be the case, would bother me somewhat.

------------------

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[Chupacabra]

I'll leave it up to one of the Crazy Finnish Grogs to elaborate , but the Finns fought throughout the war, and after 1944 fought against the Germans. I'm glad they're being modelled, it's an important part of the war.

As for partisans, I don't think they regularly took part in large-scale engagements. IIRC, most partisan activity was centered in the Pripet Marsh, AKA the Wehrmacht Hole, so-called because it was completely unsuited for more than the most basic operations. Yes, fight between partisans and anti-partisan units did take place, but I'm not sure they're the kinds of things CM would model anyway.

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[NIX]

I also hope that we will find partisan units in CM2. After reading up on barbarossa and the impact partisans had I feel not having them would be a mistake.

[tss]

Chupacabra wrote:

I'll leave it up to one of the Crazy Finnish Grogs to elaborate

I guess that means me. But I'm not crazy, I just get those headaches.

Finns fought three wars during WWII:

- Winter War 30.11.1939-13.3.1940,

- Continuation War 25.6.1941 - 4.9.1944 (though Soviets continued the war for one extra day), and

- Lappland War 15.9.1944 - April 1945, against Germans.

Today I visited the local old books store and found one gem. Y.A.Järvinen's "Jatkosodan taistelut", printed in 1950. According to its preface, it is an analysis and comparison of Finnish and Soviet tactics during the Continuation War. Though, with a cursory glance it seems to be mainly on regimental level but at least there are some company level descriptions. Another find was "Summan savut" by K.A.Järventaus, printed in 1940, that contains an eyewitness account of the first phase of Summa breakthrough battle in February 1940.

- Tommi

- Tommi

[General_Petrovsky]

I can't wait to play as the Russians. I have a Russian heritage as my grandfather defected from the then Soviet (communist) government and escaped the iron fist of the Czar. Don't get me wrong, Im as American as apple pie, but I'll never forget my roots and I'm proud of them.

Dasvidonya

[Bruno Weiss]

I didn't say I wasn't glad that the Finns were being modeled, quite the contrary I said I was glad they would be in it. However, I do not believe that the Finnish role was a major contributor in the early demise of the Soviet Army, or the later defeat of the German Army. In general context, sure it played a part. The question is, to what extent, and weighed against what? The role of the various and numerous Partisans is well documented, ran the entire course of the war, and played a significant role in the demise of the German Army on the Ostfront. Their constant threat against the already over stretched German lines of communications, logistics, command and control, are undeniable. I have also read and heard many accounts of German soldiers who feared greatly falling into the hands of the Partisans. I do not remember (following the initial Soviet/Finnish conflict), either the Soviets or the Germans contributing anything which demonstrates an equal fear of the Finns. That does not dismiss their courage, their bravery, or their participation.

If BTS must, as I suspect, make choices as to what will and what will not be included, then I believe they should concentrate on the weight of the issue based upon what took place over the long term, and what played the most significant role. Certainly, the Romanians, the Hungarians, the Italians, the Spanish, and just about ever one including the French, Dutch, Norwegians, Danish, Bulgarians and Papa John's Pizza, took part in the German/Soviet War.

I think the point is, though they haven't said, is that it may be logically impossible, logistically impractical, or time wise unbearable to include them all. So, who then besides the Germans and the Russians, and based upon the greatest impact to the overall result of the war on the Ostfront, should they include? Again, I too look forward to the Finnish being included, but what I question is, to who's exclusion?

------------------

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 10-31-2000).]

[IntelWeenie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

If BTS must, as I suspect, make choices as to what will and what will not be included, then I believe they should concentrate on the weight of the issue based upon what took place over the long term, and what played the most significant role.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think there's too much consumer demand already to not include the Finns, no matter their actual role in the war. Wargamers generally like playing with "elite" forces much more than masses of poorly led, trained and equipped troops and this will be a factor in which cauntries' forces are included in CM2.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think the point is, though they haven't said, is that it may be logically impossible, logistically impractical, or time wise unbearable to include them all. So, who then besides the Germans and the Russians, and based upon the greatest impact to the overall result of the war on the Ostfront, should they include? Again, I too look forward to the Finnish being included, but what I question is, to who's exclusion?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think any of the major nations will necessarily need to be excluded. Aside from small arms, the axis allies used mostly German equipment or equipment that could be closely modeled by German equipment (arty pieces and the like). Still, BTS has their work cut out for them modelling equipment and TO&E for several nations over a 4 year period instead of the less than one year of CM1.

------------------

Cats aren't clean, they're covered with cat spit.

[Snake Eyes]

Cossacks! The Russian Front must have Cossacks.

------------------

It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by General_Petrovsky:

I can't wait to play as the Russians. I have a Russian heritage as my grandfather defected from the then Soviet (communist) government and escaped the iron fist of the Czar. Don't get me wrong, Im as American as apple pie, but I'll never forget my roots and I'm proud of them.

Dasvidonya<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry Gen. Petrovsky, I don't get it. "The iron fist of the Czar" during the time of the Communist government? The only fist the Czar could muster would be a skeletal ghostly one. However, I guess you could be likening Stalin to a Communist equivalent of a Czar I suppose. Is that what you meant?

Regards

Jim R.

[Grisha]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

Sorry Gen. Petrovsky, I don't get it. "The iron fist of the Czar" during the time of the Communist government? The only fist the Czar could muster would be a skeletal ghostly one. However, I guess you could be likening Stalin to a Communist equivalent of a Czar I suppose. Is that what you meant?

Regards

Jim R.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jim,

When Russia embraced communism in 1917 Lenin was the leader, not Stalin. Also, what many people don't know is that during the time of the Tsars there were gulags, and secret police also. In fact, that is where they came from originally. And Stalin was a great admirer of Ivan the Terrible - a Tsar.

------------------

Smert' ili Pobeda

[This message has been edited by Grisha (edited 11-01-2000).]

[tss]

Bruno Weiss wrote:

However, I do not believe that the Finnish role was a major contributor in the early demise of the Soviet Army, or the later defeat of the German Army.

That is pretty much true. Finland was a sideshow during the Continuation War. However, there were some quite big battles. For example, the battles in Karelian Isthmus June-July 1944 were as big as the second El Alamein in terms of men and material used.

I have also read and heard many accounts of German soldiers who feared greatly falling into the hands of the Partisans. I do not remember (following the initial Soviet/Finnish conflict), either the Soviets or the Germans contributing anything which demonstrates an equal fear of the Finns.

Well, that may have something to do with the fact that as a rule Finns treated POWs well (though there were few isolated cases of shooting surrendered Russians), while the best thing that a German soldier could hope if captured by partisans was a quick death.

Certainly, the Romanians, the Hungarians, the Italians, the Spanish, and just about ever one including the French, Dutch, Norwegians, Danish, Bulgarians and Papa John's Pizza, took part in the German/Soviet War.

Well, Bulgarians didn't join the Operation Barbarossa (but that didn't save them from Soviet occupation later). The French, Dutch, Norwegians, and Danish fought in Waffen-SS and they didn't have national troops.

- Tommi

[Guest tero]

>Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

>I do not remember (following the initial Soviet/Finnish conflict), either the Soviets or the Germans contributing anything which demonstrates an equal fear of the Finns.

That may just be because there is VERY few adequately accurate English langauage sources around on the Finnish Continuation War against the Soviets and Lapland War against the Germans. All you get are a few lines that are more often than not almost pure fiction that have almost nothing to do with real facts. That is (I believe) because indebth accounts would raise too many questions about the Western Allied "established" history of the war. It is much easier to bag us categorically with the Germans than having to explain some VERY suspect dealings of the American and British administration during the war.

A good source is Cold Will by Ries. That book gives a concise history of the Finnish armed forces.

BTW, there was no reason to fear being captured by the Finns. Both the Germans and the Russians respected the Finns (from what I have read .

On a related note: a German officer said during the war that the Finnish army in advance looked more like a disorganized rabble than the Western allies did in full, head long retreat. That maybe because the Finnish army collumns broke into "coffee groups" after it set off on a march. And that is because the Finnish mobilization system was territorial and most reservist companies were drawn from the same region, district (village or town even). The "coffee group" approach was not bad because of the covered terrain made its use even beneficial as recce planes did not see collumns, only a few men (if they were caught unawares). Also surprise barrages by the enemy artillery were less effective against such a "mob" than it would have been against a fully assembeled, proper collumn.

>I think the point is, though they haven't said, is that it may be logically impossible, logistically impractical, or time wise unbearable to include them all. So, who then besides the Germans and the Russians, and based upon the greatest impact to the overall result of the war on the Ostfront, should they include? Again, I too look forward to the Finnish being included, but what I question is, to who's exclusion?

CM now hosts US, British, Polish and Free French with subcategories on one side and Germans with subcategories on the other. If that is converted straight to CM2 the makeup could be Soviet with subcategories on one side and German, Finnish, Hungarian and Rumanian with subcategories on the other side. I exclude the Italians and the Spaniards because their involvement was limited to a few divisions while the rest commited all available forces. Which major players are left out ? The foreign volunteers fall most commonly in the SS subcategory and can be represented with a separate, distinct SS formation (a platoon or company with special characteristics to reflect their origin and anti-Soviet elan).

As for the Soviet troop categories I think at least the following need to be included:

sappers

engineers

regular infantry

penal formations

close support infantry for armour (tank riders)

partisans

recce formations (that goes for ALL sides)

[This message has been edited by tero (edited 11-01-2000).]

[Gregory Deych]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

BTW, there was no reason to fear being captured by the Finns. Both the Germans and the Russians respected the Finns (from what I have read .

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've read anecdotal reports of atrocities attributed to a battalion of Finnish ski troops attached to 5th SS Division. Take it for what it's worth.

[tss]

Gregory Deych wrote:

I've read anecdotal reports of atrocities attributed to a battalion of Finnish ski troops attached to 5th SS Division. Take it for what it's worth.

I've not heard of those but it is possible. As I mentioned, there were cases where Finns shot surrendered Russians. The worst that I'm aware of happened in 1941 during battle of Mantsi Island. One 2nd Lt. executed ~10 POWs after one nearly-captured Soviet soldier killed a finnish Staff-Sergeant with a hand grenade.

I'm not aware of any atrocities committed against civilians by Finnish troops. Some civilians were definitely killed during combat. Especially raids against Soviet rear-area supply centers caused civilian casualties because they were usually situated in some village and the civilians were not evacuated.

Do you have any details on those atrocities that you cite?

- Tommi

[Gregory Deych]

Not really, which is why I called strictly anecdotal. It was on the level of "My grandfather, who lived in the area, said XYZ."

[Bruno Weiss]

Guys, I'm not going to do cut and splice of quotes, no sense in it as most of the time it all gets misconstrued anyway. If your that interested, then please go back and read. But I'd submit that "respect" for the Finns, probably had little to do with anyone not worrying about being captured. No one wants to be captured by anyone, whether or not they are nice fellers has very little to do with it.

Tero, I guess you didn't get to read what started all this in the first place. It was due to posts being made that alluded to the fact that the "Finns" would be the "only" third party inclusion in CM2. There wouldn't have been any other post were that not the case. The entire question that I raised, was as I said and now say again. If the Finns are included, and everyone else is excluded then one would have to conclude that the Finns must have played the most major and significant role on the Ostfront aside from the Russians, and the Germans. Are you willing to say that is the case?

We all come from somewhere. Your particularly favorite folks are apparently the Finns, another fellow on here might like the Italians, someone else yet could be Hungarian, and so on and so forth. If a few Spanish fellows were on here and shouted the loudest about how the Spanish Blue Division was solely responsible for the early demise of the Soviet Army and therefore should be included in CM2, (to the exclusion of everyone else), making accusations that them nasty mean ole Westerners had smudged their history in some huge worldwide conspiracy, would you not take issue with that?

Should the basic forces provided in CM2 be determined by subjective sentiments as to who's homeland is the most popular, the bravest, or the most respected? I've read quite a bit about the Ostfront, and while I did not go rooting around in the library under the topic of, what was it, "The Continuation War", I haven't seen it pop up in general historical references either. You said it's on account of some bias about the Western Allied "established" history of the war. I'm sorry, but that is altogether a popular retreat now-a-days by anyone who feels their particular favorite Country, Army, vehicle, tactic, gun, tank, person, or uniform, didn't get all the credit it deserves. In many cases the accusations are well founded. Whether or not the Finns have been unforgivably slighted by the rest of the world and 60 years worth of accepted history is not IMO, sufficient reason to exclude everyone else for the sole inclusion of the Finnish. And, whether true or not, the rest of the world hasn't seemingly caught up with that particular viewpoint.

If history has determined, as I'm surely unaware, that the Finnish played the most significant role in both the early demise of the Soviet Army, and second only to the Russians in causing the defeat of the German Army, then fine. I'll stand corrected, but until that is proven and consequently accepted by that Western conspiracy you alluded to, then I'll rightly or wrongly stay with the generally accepted history of the last several decades. What makes CM a good and well balanced game is that they maintained commonality. They did not grasp at the rare, nor the uncommon, nor the isolated, and certainly not something based upon accusations of historical conspiracies, (whether we are talking about equipment, tactics, ballistics, National pride or OOB's), and that in and of itself keeps CM on historical track. That is why you don't see a myriad of rare equipments. I've seen posts asking; "well gee, why isn't the Orkney Island ten wheeled Gazoo in the game"? That is why.

So, in finality I would ask then. Try to separate yourself from your passionate interest in the Finnish participation and ask yourself the question; did the Finnish participation have a direct and major impact upon the early demise of the Soviet Army, or did the Finnish participation have a major impact on the German surrender second only to the Russians? If you can answer yes with a straight face and back it up with well established historical facts. Then fine, you've got a real case there. Trouble is, I don't think the Rumanians, Hungarians, Italians, and Spanish, or the various ethnic groups, i.e., the Ukrainians, would necessarily agree. And therein, once again, is my point. And once again I will yet say it again, yes I'm tickled pink that the Finnish are going to be included but I ask the question; to who's exclusion and based upon what objective analysis of the wars many participants and their individual contributions?

BTS has remained silent so far as I know about this. If the original posts about inclusions and exclusions was not true, then this is all a meaningless debate anyway.(Turning to the sidestage - Steve, care to clear this up)?

------------------

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[Slapdragon]

CM will likely do a better job on the Finns because Squad Leader basically simulated them on the basis of a single book, Winter War, and CM2 has the Internet to find Finnish grogs!

Russian units are more complicated than it seems. Squad Leader washed its hands originally with the doltish 4-4-7 or the 6-2-8 guard which had to charge to really kick butt (which is why they were given a 2, same reason engineers originally got a 3 range, to simulate the powerful short range weapons of the engineers).

In reality, the Russians had a wide range of powerful weapons. Russia entered World War two with the only other army other than the US which officially issued a standard autoloading rifle, the SVT-38, with something like 4 million on hand at the start of the war, the Moison Nagnant only being a second line weapon. They also issued an automatic rifle (the M1936) used like the BAR and a semiautomatic sniper rifle. These weapons formed the bulk of very American looking rifle companies.

The Barbarosa losses meant that the well designed follow on to the M1938, the SVT40 and AVT1940 was sort of push aside, but not before more than a million were made. This truly ushered in the age of the submachinegun as whole units formed around the available PPD, and the much improved and and extremely cheap PPSh.

Facing the MG34/42 was the DP, which was not much of a GPMG and was more in the BAR class even though it was deployed as a GPMG. At the start of the war the Russians were in trouble though with MGs since the sled mounted Degtyarev blew chunks and it was not until 43 that better guns came along.

This of course is just the beginning. Calvary, Partisans, and a changing weapons mix make this almost as tough to model as the Germans, especially the lousy Soviety AT weapons (AT mines!!! or worse, bottle of gas in the streets of Moscow). I am looking forward to it.

[tss]

Slapdragon wrote:

Facing the MG34/42 was the DP, which was not much of a GPMG and was more in the BAR class even though it was deployed as a GPMG.

Soviets did have two types of MGs in use from the start. The Degtyarev LMG and Maxim-based MMGs. Maxims had usually Sokolov wheeled mounts that were quite handy when walking on a road but terrible in just about every other terrain. The Soviet Maxims were WWI design and they didn't have "accelerators". I don't know what the correct English term would be to that gadget but it was something that was added to Finnish Maxims in 20's to increase the cyclic ROF by almost 50%.

The Degtyarev was actually a pretty good LMG. My biggest gripe against ASL was that they gave so poor malfunction number for the gun. In reality, it could take severe punishment and continue functioning. For that reason Finnish LMG gunners would exchange their Lahti-Saloranta m.26 LMGs to them as soon as possible. (Lahti-Saloranta acquired a nickname of "Combined Malfunctions m.26" by its users). Degtyarev's main shortage was that its drum clip was a pain to load.

- Tommi

[Snake Eyes]

Let us not forget the Russian Molotov Projector. Talk about a mix of ingenuity and desperation, geezsh!

------------------

It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop