How many subcatagories of Russian Troops will there be

[Theron]

How is this for an insignificant contribution. I've been to St. Petersburg, which was called Lenningrad at the time. The city was under siege during WWII for about 4 years, if I remember correctly. What I do know for sure is at the memorial and mass graves for all the dead it says that the city was surrounded on 3 sides by the Germans and on the 4th side by the Finns. Maybe the contribution of the Finns was exaggerated for political reasons, but taken at face value the impact of the Finns on the people of St. Petersburg at the time was significant.

It also seems like the other nationalities were more incorporated into the German army. The Finns were independently fighting as a nation state against the Soviets.

Theron

[Bruno Weiss]

Actually, in hindsight I'll admit as I've said before that I am opinionated. Reason is, I'm an old coot and probably much more rigid in what I was taught, and came to undertand than the majority of the rest of the folks on here, who are younger and maybe more open to different views. That being said, a debate, or any debate of the Finnish inclusion or other exclusions is a bit off the point since the issue is, exclusion, not inclusion.

Which, takes it off the Finnish and puts it onto BTS. Now, one fellow said something that made a lot of sense. Which was, most of the German, and a lot of the Russian allies used mainly German and Russian equipment.

So, save for graphics regarding uniforms, and maybe small arms, AT guns, etc., the Finnish were the principle participants using their own equipment as well as German and maybe Soviet. (I'll leave that up to the Finnish historians). So, rather than us debate the nature of the Finnish participation, it would be much better to simply ask that BTS include the other principle allies of both sides, which I do not believe would require a real effort of investigation as to OOB's. Just graphic additions for uniforms. In some cases, even that would be limited. Most people seem to want that. I haven't seen anyone yet who was/is opposed to having the major participants represented. And I was and still am eager to command Finnish troops against the Russians. I forget which game is was, maybe SP1, but I always had fun with those scenarios. So, I'll back off of what I said earlier, whether I'm right or wrong doesn't really matter, and I'm sure it doesn't matter to BTS. Basically, my two cents then is; I want to see as many as possible of the allies of both the Germans and Russians in the game.

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

"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 11-01-2000).]

[Slapdragon]

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

- Tommi<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One of the reasons SL gave the 2-10 LMG a 10 break down was because it was not suppose to be the Degtyarev DPM which is what you are referring to, but the earlier DP, which had a heat distortion problem. The DP was truly a cow, and as an LMG was hopeless -- as two or three drums would bust it. By 1943 the problem was fixed, and the DPM had turned it into a nice little BAR type weapon. The DPM was almost never found on a sled or wheel cart, but did get mounted on AFVs.

The 4-10 MMG modelled in the original SL was a Maxim on a sled, also a heavy dog, which never should have gotten away with 4 or whatever portage points it had on anything other than brick roads. It was heavier than the M2HB and the later DsHk and twice as clunky. It was replaced by the SGM43 which was modelled in Cross of Iron as a regular 6-12 HMG but not in the first Squad Leader.

The Soviets had a DShK38 during WW2 that was modelled as a clone of the M2HB in Squad Leader with 8 Fire Power and 12 break down, but it also was a dog in some ways. This had a sled and a gun shield usually. The reason why it got the 12 breakdown in SL was that it was assumed that this gun was the same as the rock solid DsHK the GI's fought in Korea. In fact after the war and the problems with the 38, it was modified and called the 38/46 which is currently in service.

The funniest (saddest) thing about the Soviet war effort was the way their army was backwards during much of the fight. They started out with a full size self loading rifle that was pretty good, lost that to the shock ofr Barbarosa, and at the gates of their great cities were forced into human wave attacked armed with the SVT and the Nagnant, along with some SMGs. In the streets of Stalingrad and the edge of Moscow they literally built a new army. When the Army began to come back, and on the open plains after the life and death emergency was over, they were equipped with huge numbers of SMGs at the very time when the SVT may have actually been better.

[tss]

Theron wrote:

What I do know for sure is at the memorial and mass graves for all the dead it says that the city was surrounded on 3 sides by the Germans and on the 4th side by the Finns.

Apparently they don't mention that Finnish army advanced to the 1939 border and stopped there (though in few places they advanced few km more to gain straighter line, my grandfather participated in the final attack there that was aimed at Lempaala).

The decision to stop the attack was political. It is true that Soviet resistance would probably have stiffened because there was a pre-war bunker line positioned across Karelian Isthmus. But in any case, Soviets could transfer reserves from North side of Leningrad to South because of the decision.

but taken at face value the impact of the Finns on the people of St. Petersburg at the time was significant.

That is true, but in a different way. The life line of Leningrad went over Lake Ladoga and its end was on Karelian Isthmus, North of Leningrad. Had Finns continued the attack it would have been much more difficult to supply Leningrad. Also, Finns were ordered not to harass the supply transports to Leningrad, neither by artillery, air attacks, nor patrol raids.

During the war a grand total of four Finnish bombs fell to Leningrad. In 1942 one Finnish Blenheim got lost over clouds and suddenly found itself over Leningrad. When AA opened heavy fire against it, it dropped the bombs and dived to cover of a nearby cloud bank. The Soviets apparently didn't realise that the plane was Finnish as the Germans were conducting an air raid to Leningrad at the same time.

It also seems like the other nationalities were more incorporated into the German army. The Finns were independently fighting as a nation state against the Soviets.

Technically Finland and Germany were not allied at any point of the war. I say technically, because in practice there were agreements between the countries but none of them were official treaties. The closest thing was when president Ryti made promised to Ribbentropp in 1944 that he wouldn't make a separate peace with USSR. The catch here was that the promise was personal and when it seemed possible to negotiate a separate peace Ryti resigned and the Parliament and his successor Mannerheim had free hands to do anything they pleased.

- Tommi

[Grisha]

Slapdragon,

I saw your comment about the backwards progression of the Soviet army wrt weaponry. In the case of the SVT -> Moisin Nagant, this is true, as well as with quite a few other weapon systems, and vehicles/aircraft. The reason for this had to do with production priorities.

The Soviets in WWII had one of the most efficient production programs in the world. They possessed fewer key raw resources than Germany, yet out-produced them in almost all categories. Unlike the USA, the Soviet Union was severely limited in machinery, and so it became paramount to get the most out of what tooled machines they did have. For instance, the PPSh 41 could be made out of the most basic tooling machines, and thus was capable of being made just about anywhere without requiring retooling(which is a timely process). Another example would be modifications to weapons. Usually, upgrades were produced in the very same line where the original types were being produced, so that production was largely uninterrupted. Thus, upgrades made their way out to the front in thin 'streams' at first, then gradually becoming more consistent and complete as the machinery was slowly retooled. The reason the SVT was discontinued during the war had to do with its complex design. For the Soviets to have pursued SVT production, they would have had to discontinue other weapon types that were using the same machines. This would have been too 'wasteful' of overall production, so it was discontinued.

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

Smert' ili Pobeda

[Slapdragon]

Sure, but I think this "backward progression", or the way that the PPSh-41 was standard when they entered the open terrain of the caucasus is part of the reason for the "human wave" syndrome that existed past 1943 when lend lease provided more radios and wire phones to Russia. So CM2 will want to curtail or cut the rifle armed Soviet units by 43-44, restricting them to provide a more realistic sense of tactics, but make sure point values allow for a LOT of the SMGs. Then the trick will be to get the ones you have close to the few and proud, and armed to the teeth Germans.

[ASL Veteran]

SlapDragon is on target with the Soviet LMG. According to Ian Hogg, basically the drum was made of sheet metal and it was easily warped or damaged with rough handling. It also had a spring under the barrel somewhere and during prolonged usage it lost its metalurgical temper.

As far as the SVT40 and SVT38 goes I have to disagree with Slapdragon about the scale of issue/usage. I had all my references lined up last night with all the appropriate quotes all prepared, but alas, I could not access this message board from home for some reason so I am left with a less than perfect response from memory.

Basically, Ian Hogg and Peter Chamberlain say that the SVT 38 was a fragile design which required a great deal of maintenance. This drawback meant that it was not suited for the rough and tumble of everyday usage as a combat weapon so it was withdrawn from service in 1940. The SVT38's successor, the SVT40 was a more rugged design, but it still required excessive maintenance and was unpopular due to an excessive recoil.

Although the SVT38 was withdrawn from service in 1940, some were still in use in second line formations when the Germans invaded and these, along with the SVT40, were typically assigned to NCO's and to snipers since they were more apt to maintain the weapon properly and use it with the appropriate care.

So, the idea of whole Soviet squads running about armed with nothing but semi automatic rifles is misleading at best, unless I misinterpreted Slapdragons comments. The Soviet front line rifle was just as much a bolt action as the Mauser. If necessary I can cite chapter and verse.

[Slapdragon]

I based my comments on Ezell and Dockery, and I flat out disagree with Hogg on this. First - Hogg ignores that more SVT-38/40 rifles were issued to Soviet soldiers on the eve of Barbarossa than the US produced of M1 rifles during the entire 2nd World War. Almost 6 million of these rifles were issued to cat 1 and cat 2 formations, and most of these weapons were lost in Barbarossa (admitedly the SVT-38 was lost in some ways because it was more fragile). That does not mean that the M1891 was not used, it was used right next to the 38/40, it just means that 6 million rifles were not dumped in a lake the first day.

I think here Hogg et al, assuming it is the cite I think you are talking about, was failing to understand the sheer number of these weapons in USSR hands. That is not a harsh critique because even with two friends with access to ex-Soviet library records of the war and the ability to read them for me, and even for a researcher like Hogg who can afford to go to Moscow and poor through records, the Soviet Union is this big blank sheet with little parts of data poking through the covers.

So, lets assume Hogg is right, and the 38/40 was not used in the war, only the 1891. At some points in the first push of Barbarossa Russian units were going into battle only partially armed. My question is, why did they not issue the 6 million rifles that Hogg assumes they so casually discarded as unfit and use them? They issed Polish 91/98/25 bolt action rifles in Karelia because they were absolutely desperate for guns. They told Infantry to pick up German weapons if they did not have one themselves. I would never have stooped to this point with 6 million warehoused rifles sitting in big stacks.

Next, the Germans captured a lot of Soviet SVT-38/40. They really liked the SVT-40 even though they were unimpressed with how it was used. Are we to assume that these rifles were captured in such large numbers in wharehouses (actually we could, if would kill part of my theory -- as would one source that said they were thrown into a lake or demilled, but I have never heard of the Russians demilling anything!).

Finally, I take into account the China and Korea factor. Russia scooped up surviving second line weapons in 1945 and started passing them out to everyone they thought was a fellow traveller. China got a lot of SMGs, a lot of M1891s, some more modern stuff. They got some SVTs, but not that many, at least the US did not capture that many in Korea. I think this shows the SVTs were expended at the front in the early part of Barbarossa.

So I would consider having SVT armed rifle units available until winter when the SMG / 1891 / occasional SVT armed squads become the normal infantry unit.

Just to recap, I am not saying the 1891 was not used, or that the SVT was used past the first 6-12 months of Barbarossa in huge numbers. I just think that we should take a close look at Hogg et al and maybe credit the Soviets with looking more like US units in the first days of the conflict before the great change occurred.

[Slapdragon]

Also, let me kick a few holes in my own arguments though. I am basing weapons captured in Korea on US accounts that often go bolt action rifle, burp gun fired at us, etc. A US soldier could have encountered a SVT and not knowing what it was just called it a rifle.

Next, no doubt that the M1891 was issued in great numbers, just that there are too many SVTs to ignore them -- the USSR never had 6 million NCOs.

Finally, the Germans liked the SVT-40 so much, and encountered it enough, that parts of its design went into German autoloading rifle designs.

[Los]

As to whether the Finns had a role in the early demise (or whatnot) of the Russians I would say most definately YES. The Russians launched into a major series of reforms of their doctrine and regulations follwonmg he winter war. It was their first wakeup call that all the Purges and the complete redesign of their military doctrine after the Purges was absolutley the wrong thing to do. The began a series of reforms that lasted years but it was better tha this slow change began in early 1940 instead of mid to late 1941.

You can thank the bloody nose the Finns gve them for that.

[Bruno Weiss]

The misconceptions and misstatements just keep on rolling. No one said the Finns didn't have a role, the question asked was: Was it of major significance second to the Germans, who are the other ones in CM2 for sure? Ergo, was it more significant than the Italian participation, more significant than the Rumanian participation, etc., etc,.

Sorry, but no one reads the posts, they glance at a sentence, get their soccer team esprit de corps all fired up and proceed to scream "my teams better n your team, my teams better n yours".

The entire issue is not, and never was were the Finnish brave, or loyal, or nice fellers, or had good food, cute uniforms, or interesting guns. The entire issue is and still is who the devil else, (if anyone), besides the Finns are going to be in the OOB's besides then the Germans and the Russians? The silence from BTS is deafening!

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

"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 11-02-2000).]

[Guest Germanboy]

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

The entire issue is and still is who the devil else, (if anyone), besides the Finns are going to be in the OOB's besides then the Germans and the Russians? The silence from BTS is deafening!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bruno, it is not. BTS have clearly stated (don't ask me where, but it was in the last two weeks) that there will be Soviet, German and Finnish troops. I think it is a bit unfair to expect them to reply to all posts on CM2 that come about, they have better things to do, e.g. produce the game. I would provide you with a link, but I would have to search for it, and you can do that as well as I can if you don't want to take my word for it.

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-02-2000).]

[IntelWeenie]

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

The entire issue is not, and never was were the Finnish brave, or loyal, or nice fellers, or had good food, cute uniforms, or interesting guns. The entire issue is and still is who the devil else, (if anyone), besides the Finns are going to be in the OOB's besides then the Germans and the Russians? The silence from BTS is deafening!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think without a doubt the "Finns are in" (hee, hee!), but I want to know how BTS will handle them switching sides late in the war. I would like to see all the Axis troops represented, though if cuts have to be made I could do without the Italians and Spanish (Blue Division). I just hope they don't have generic "minor Axis" units like those in ASL.

Maybe the silence from BTS is because they haven't decided yet?

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

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

[Slapdragon]

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

I think without a doubt the "Finns are in" (hee, hee!), but I want to know how BTS will handle them switching sides late in the war. I would like to see all the Axis troops represented, though if cuts have to be made I could do without the Italians and Spanish (Blue Division). I just hope they don't have generic "minor Axis" units like those in ASL.

Maybe the silence from BTS is because they haven't decided yet?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nooooooo we have to have the Blue Division for the wonderful mod it will allow! Anyone read the story where they blew up condems and attached them to their hats to protest German women not "stepping to bat" often enough?

Actually, the minors are probably mostly the same as the German units, or can be generically handled in a similar manner to the 3-4-7 of COI, just have a minor category. I would rather loose some of the unique character of the minors than loose the T-28 or the Finns.

[Los]

"The silence from BTS is deafening!"

As someone intimately involved in CM2 development, if you are expecting every CM2 post to be answered to your statisfaction, by a representative of BTS, then we'll never get on with making the product. I can tell you that it's ALL being worked out now.

Everything here on this board is read by us. Anything that we haven't even already thought of and discussed ad infintum on the beta team (99.9% of everything being rehashed here over and over again) gets brought up and gone over.

For me personally doing the historical research/consulting on his project, there just simply isn't enough hours on the day to both gather and type up/present the freaking doctorate thesis like-level of research and explanation BTS requires for CM2 development,

AND come on here and rehash the same stuff with everyone on this board. SO don't expect it. Just rest assured that we are reading it for the occasiaonl rare gem that hasn't already been addressed by us.

Los

[tss]

Bruno Weiss wrote:

Was it of major significance second to the Germans, who are the other ones in CM2 for sure? Ergo, was it more significant than the Italian participation, more significant than the Rumanian participation, etc., etc,.

I would say that in 1941 Finnish participation was the next significant after German and Soviet. Finnish army was biggest of the minor axis armies (in 1941) and battles in Karelia tied up Soviet reserves that could have been used elsewhere.

In the years 1942-3, I'd say that Rumania was the most important minor participant. Finns stopped major operations in December 1941 and actually disbanded several hundreds of thousands of troops to civilian activities. Soviets did few offensives during the "Trench War" but they had mostly local objectives (capturing a cumbersome stronghold, etc.) after the spectacular failure of "Thaw Attack" of 1942.

In 1944 Finland once again raises to most important minor player. The Soviet Summer offensive at Karelian Isthmus was among the largest battles in 1944. (It was shadowed by Krimean, Bagration and Ukraine operations, and maybe few others but I don't have my sources available right now to check it). The Soviets lost about 100000 men (20000 KIA) and ~650 tanks during it (though they could repair a large portion of the lost tanks). Soviets broke through two defensive lines but were stopped before the third.

- Tommi

[ASL Veteran]

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

Also, let me kick a few holes in my own arguments though. I am basing weapons captured in Korea on US accounts that often go bolt action rifle, burp gun fired at us, etc. A US soldier could have encountered a SVT and not knowing what it was just called it a rifle.

Next, no doubt that the M1891 was issued in great numbers, just that there are too many SVTs to ignore them -- the USSR never had 6 million NCOs.

Finally, the Germans liked the SVT-40 so much, and encountered it enough, that parts of its design went into German autoloading rifle designs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If your argument rests on the assumption that 'if x number of weapons were produced, then that must mean Y' then that is a weak argument. How many assault rifles did Germany produce, and how many made it into the hands of the troops? I'm sure that America had millions of Springfield 08's in their inventories, but how many were used? Ian Hogg says the SVT38 was withdrawn from service. I have no reason to doubt a scholar as reputable as he is. Also, Peter Chamberlain, in a completely different work, is in complete agreement with Ian Hogg. I'm sure lots of Chauchat LMGs were issued to US troops in WW1, but if the weapon was a piece of crap then sure, why not throw it into the lake? The US troops did that with the Chauchat, why not the Soviets with the SVT38?

[Bruno Weiss]

Here we go again. A presumption that I think BTS has time to answer "my" posts. Where did I make any such assertion? The question of which forces are going to be included has been asked over and over and over again by many many posts. Germanboy says that apparently BTS did say something:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Bruno, it is not. BTS have clearly stated (don't ask me where, but it was in the last two weeks) that there will be Soviet, German and Finnish troops. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry it's a tough job LOS. Your right, doing the game correctly is a tough job. I would expect nothing less, on account of the Eastern Front was on a grand scale. I didn't choose the Eastern Front to do instead of the Pacific, Italy, or Afrika, you guys did. I don't really expect you to answer "my" posts, I certainly don't expect you to jump on here chewing me out because I'm asking questions either.

If you want some help, then let me know. I'm sitting ontop of the Library of Congress, and the National Archives. You want me to provide research on force structures of some of the other participants? Be happy to. What do you need? I can't help it if you didn't pick me for your beta team. That was your oversight.

If I touched a raw nerve by my statement of deafening silence, then I'm big enough to apologize for that. But if you'd like it that I just sit and be quite while someone goes about making decisions on something I care a lot about on account of I'm not on their little beta team and therefore not in the click, then your due for a reality check. That's your opinion not mine.

So fine, BTS is scouring all this. Good, then you should know then that a lot of folks have expectations of some allied representation besides the Finnish in CM2. No gems in that, just flat out levels of expectations based upon the level of quality demonstrated in CM1.

And lemme know if you need help?

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

"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 11-02-2000).]

[Los]

Nah you guys go right on debating, like I said we read all this stuff. No one is telling you not to. Just because we don't respond to all this as some expect from time to time doesn't mean everything's not under consideration. As for help, that's Ok, if we need help we ask for it.

And any front selected or time period requires tons of research, the eastern front being no more or less difficult.

So far there's nothing in this thread either new,thought provoking, or not already adfressed by us in detail.

And BTW not chewing you out just stating a fact.

Los

[Bruno Weiss]

Okay, (schmmooooch)! I'd a shaved extra close this mornin if I knew we was gonna meet like this.

And BTS "is" tops IMO (when you have time, or care to, read the statements I've posted about them). Far as I'm concerned, they have no competition.

I was serious though about being willing to access the Library of Congress or National Archives. I am there amigo.

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

"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)

[PzKpfw 1]

Concerning the SVT-38 & SVT-40 they were only issued to Sqd leaders & snipers, both rifles were considered to fragile for standard issue, so rifle squads trooped on with M97/30's etc.

The Germans were suprised to see that the Soviets even had the 38 & 40 in fact they got the false impression initialy, that these were the standard Soviet rifles after capturing several wharehouses of them. Many captured 38 & 40's were sent to Kummersdorf for testing.

As to the DP Soviet squads were built around it & most reports I have read say it was adequate & reliable while a few report problems with the feed initialy, as well as pointing out its effective range was greater then that of their 50mm mortar & this was one of the reasons the 50mm was unnoficialy removed in Rifle Div's in 1943 & officialy removed from the Shtat in 1944.

SMG's were not initialy a part of the Rifle Plts weapons as I have detailed in past posts on Soviet Rifle squad composition in another thread. SMG's were considered security wpns until after the war began. The Submachine gun Companies formed after the war began, were used as an Rifle Regt, Rifle Brigade, reserve, to seal penetrations etc, or commited where the effective range of their

SMGs was feasible with full support of the Regts, artillery etc.

In the March 1942 Rifle Div Shtat 9 - 12 SMGs were added to the the Rifle Co HQ, & Rifle Plt HQ structure. In May 1943 1/3 of the Rifle Regt's rifles were replaced by SMGs.

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 11-02-2000).]

[PzKpfw 1]

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

So far there's nothing in this thread either new,thought provoking, or not already adfressed by us in detail.

And BTW not chewing you out just stating a fact.

Los

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well give us some time Los I'm sure I'll find a few things concerning the Soviet's to nitpick after CM2 is out after all Bruno & I can nitpick with the best of em ...

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 11-02-2000).]

[Fernando]

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

I think without a doubt the "Finns are in" (hee, hee!), but I want to know how BTS will handle them switching sides late in the war. I would like to see all the Axis troops represented, though if cuts have to be made I could do without the Italians and Spanish (Blue Division). I just hope they don't have generic "minor Axis" units like those in ASL.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It doesn't make sense to exclude the Spaniards. They were dressed and equiped by Germans so they looked like any other German soldier and were organized as Germans were. BTS only needs to add a list of Spanish names (we, the Spanish residents on the forum, can supply it), the Spanish voices and a separate sleeve with the Spanish colors (like the Gebirsjäger have, I can do it in five minutes)to the game and you'll get the Spaniards. Other nationalities (Rumanians, Hungarians or Italians) need different uniforms, weapons and squad types but Spaniards don't.

[This message has been edited by Fernando (edited 11-02-2000).]

[Los]

Thanks to all!

Los

[Major Tom]

I don't think that the argument should be were the Italians, Rumanians and Hungarians important for the German cause. It SHOULD be, could the Italians, Rumanians and Hungarians be fairly modeled in a CM style game. The answer is no. Usually they were TOTALLY outclassed by the Russians, even in 1941. You might say that the Russians were totally outclassed by the Germans in 1941-42, but, at least they had some good weapons and sometimes put up strong resistance! Imagine fighting as the Russians using equipment the Germans wouldn't use in 1941!

Modeling a Rumanian battalion in action against Russian forces would be a forgone conclusion. They rarely lasted. The German Allies rarely had any tanks, and it would be constantly battling with poorly equipped Conscript troops.

This is primarily due to training and equipment, which the Rumanains, Hungarians and Italians had none of.

The Finn's on the other hand, may have been short on equipment, but, would be considered an extremely powerful enemy, due to their high experience. There are many notable small and large scale battles with the Finn's winning, but, I can't think of a single one won by Rumanian, Hungarian or Italian troops. They were rarely used in an attack function, and were only put in the front lines when German troops weren't availible for defensive duties.