How many subcatagories of Russian Troops will there be

[Bruno Weiss]

See there, what'd I tell ya's? Not disputing what Fernando says in the least. His sentiments are exactly what is gonna happen on a larger scale if the thing comes out with just the Ruskies, Finns, and Germans. We are now-a-days, an international community and not just a North American dominated internet anymore. And, ever one likes "their" soccer team the best.

I seen this coming...

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

"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).]

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

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 Ian Hogg says the SVT38 was withdrawn from service.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?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not all, my argument rests on:

Germans captured a lot of SVTs. Maybe some were in stacks but are we to assume a million SVT-40s were also stacked at the start of the war? Also, when the Russian Army was finding it hard to equip its soldiers with any weapon, so hard that some squads only went into battle partially armed, was the SVT allowed to sit in a big pile of 6 million weapons on the bottom of some lake or were they fished out and issued.

Vic Thomas Of Michigan Historical Collectables notes:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The German Army , or Wermacht, used captured SVT's extensively throughout the war. They were

used in such great numbers that the German High Command issued German ID numbers for them.

The SVT-38 was known as the SIG.258®, the SVT-40 as the SIG.259®, and the SVT-40 Sniper

Rifle was designated the SIG.Zf260®. On April 17, 1942 , the German high command issued order

number 1384/42-AHA/In(VII) pertaining to the , "Use and sighting of the Russian self loading

rifles." The order was in two parts, the first being regulation pertaining to captured weapons and

sighting in at 100 meters using the Soviet 7.62mm s.S.® ammunition with a yellow tip. The second

part concerned with special instructions on firing three shots and measuring the grouping for

acceptable tolerance. That tolerance was to be within 10cm. If after the first three shots further

sighting was to be done, only single shots totaling four were to be done for a total of seven

cartridges expended. If further adjustment was to be done, the rifle was to be sent to the

regimental armourer. Rifles that required repair or further adjustment were stamped with a

Waffenampt , or test eagle, on the receiver, bolt carrier, barrel, or the stock. The German troops

were very fond of this rifle and used them until they ran out of ammunition. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Second, Exell, every bit as good of a scholar as Hogg and much more useful for small arms scholars feels that this rifle has been given a bum rap, although not for the same reasons as I. Certainly the Finns felt the 38 AND 40 were good rifles EXCEPT they were over greased in cold weather (after Bardwell, SVT-38 faq on Usenet.)

Next, "  Samozariaduya Vintouka Tokarev 1938/40: SVT 38/40 History, Development, Technical Operation, Stripping, Cleaning" by Bob Beckwith, a primary source owners manual associated with collecting the SVT confirms its use and quality in service.

Next, my office mate complained loudly to me that the "propaganda" against the SVT was because the Americans did not want to believe that the Soviets could make a rifle as good as theirs as early as them. Well, Sasha is not exactly a scientist, except for his service in the Soviet Army as an officer, but he did point out to me that Soviet units were not completely armed at some points, that 6 million SVTs were made, and that Russia never throws anything away.

Next, we have to wonder at the fact that the SVT was more common for a while in German use than its own self loaders, and that more were issued than ever were issued of Russian self loaders, but think about the reaction to taking all German slef loaders out of the game. What I mean here is we need to research the use of the gun and recognize its wide use by the Germans as a sign that it was not as much of a dog as propoganda would have led Hogg et al to believe.

(That said, John may be right that the Germans, who thought they were very very common, may have been fooled by capturing a big bunch of them right away.)

[Slapdragon]

Now -- here is some more. Hogg really gets into his SVT bash in earnest in 1973 "Military Small Arms of the 20th Century", on p. 431. His later books do not change his view. We do have better sources though. Ezell, referring to the SVT in his in depth work "The AK-47 Story" published in 1988 on p. 89 has his thesis about how common the SVT was from Soviet sources. Finally, the Finnish respect for the rifle despite its poor handling, and its subsequent wide adoption by the Russians, is published in Bollotin on page 115 in "Soviet Small-Arms and Ammunition"

[Hamstersss]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As usual, my disclaimer about being a neophyte when it comes to the Eastern Front, but I thought there was a very well regarded Italian army that fought the Russians to a stand still? Was this not the case?

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

I've got far more annoying things than that up my sleeve.

-Meeks

You must wear awfully loose shirts to fit an oompah band up your sleeve.

-Chrisl

[ASL Veteran]

So the Germans captured so many of these weapons that they even designated them with a name? Well, it just so happens that the Germans designated every weapon that they captured with a name. I will just list a few for now, but I can list every allied weapon that was used by any nation the Germans fought and provide you with the German name for it. How about the MP717r for the PPSh1941 that was converted to 9mm or the MP 722 f for the French Pistolet Mitrailleur Type SE MAS 1935F and the Mitraillette MAS modele 38 (French submachine guns). How about the 8mm Selbstlade-Gewehr 310f for the French Fusil Mitrailleur RSC modele 1918 (French semi auto rifle). The Germans called the Soviet TT30 and the TT33 pistol the P615 r. The Russkaya 3-lineinaye vintovka o1891g, also known as the Mosin Nagant, was known as the Gew 252 r when used by the Germans. The SSSR 7.62mm vintovka o1891/30g which is a shortened version of the other Mosin Nagant and used modern sights rather than ‘arshins’ was named the Gew 254 r. The German designation for the Pulemet Degtyareva Pekhotnii (DP) was known as the 7.62mm leMG 120 r.

I could go on and on, but I think this should be sufficient to make my point. The fact that the Germans designated the SVT’s with a name does not mean that every Soviet squad was running around with 9 of them. Perhaps you are the one suffering from the propaganda of your office mate? Since you don’t seem to like Ian Hogg’s take on the SVT 38 and the SVT40, let’s just concentrate on Peter Chamberlain’s take.

For the Samozariadnyia Vintovka Tokareva o1938g:

“The AVS was replaced in service as a self-loading rifle by the SVT38 which was a design by FV Tokarev. The mechanism was another gas-operated system with the gas tapped off over the barrel, and a two or six-baffled muzzle brake was fitted. Like the AVS the SVT38 had several failings. Despite the muzzle brake the weapon had a heavy recoil, but its main failing was that so much attention had been concentrated on reducing weight that the overall construction was not up to the knocks and handling of normal service life. Also the mechanism was very prone to breakdown and maintenance was not easy. As a result production ceased in 1940, but not before some selected weapons had been fitted with telescopic sights for sniper work. Some numbers of the SVT38 fell into German hands as the S1Gew 258r and these were used against their former owners.”

For the Samozariadnyia Vintovka Tokareva o1940g and the Avtomaticheskaia Vintovka Tokareva o1940g:

“Experience with the SVT38 showed that the basic mechanism was good but the construction was too flimsy, so as many things as could be put right were incorporated into the SVT 40. This was basically the same as the SVT38 but the strengthened mechanism and components meant that the SVT40 was a much better weapon. It was still a rather unpopular weapon as it retained the heavy recoil but it did add to the firepower of the infantry, and most were issued to NCOs. Selected weapons were fitted with telescopic sights, and a further variation came with a carbine version which was either converted from existing weapons or manufactured on the production lines – very few of these carbines appear to have been made. Yet another variant was the AVT40 which differed only in having a selector mechanism to fire full automatic. Again, very few of these appear to have been made. The SVT made quite an impact on the invading Germans as they adopted the basic Tokarev mechanism for their Gew 43, but they also impressed numbers of captured SVT40s as the S1Gew 259r – examples with the telescopic sights became the S1Gew Zf260r”.

By the way, the AVS36, which predated even the SVT38, was also used by the Germans as the S1Gew 257r and this weapon was withdrawn from Soviet service in 1938.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

So the Germans captured so many of these weapons that they even designated them with a name? Well, it just so happens that the Germans designated every weapon that they captured with a name. I will just list a few for now, but I can list every allied weapon that was used by any nation the Germans fought and provide you with the German name for it. How about the MP717r for the PPSh1941 that was converted to 9mm or the MP 722 f for the French Pistolet Mitrailleur Type SE MAS 1935F and the Mitraillette MAS modele 38 (French submachine guns). How about the 8mm Selbstlade-Gewehr 310f for the French Fusil Mitrailleur RSC modele 1918 (French semi auto rifle). The Germans called the Soviet TT30 and the TT33 pistol the P615 r. The Russkaya 3-lineinaye vintovka o1891g, also known as the Mosin Nagant, was known as the Gew 252 r when used by the Germans. The SSSR 7.62mm vintovka o1891/30g which is a shortened version of the other Mosin Nagant and used modern sights rather than ‘arshins’ was named the Gew 254 r. The German designation for the Pulemet Degtyareva Pekhotnii (DP) was known as the 7.62mm leMG 120 r.

I could go on and on, but I think this should be sufficient to make my point. The fact that the Germans designated the SVT’s with a name does not mean that every Soviet squad was running around with 9 of them. Perhaps you are the one suffering from the propaganda of your office mate? Since you don’t seem to like Ian Hogg’s take on the SVT 38 and the SVT40, let’s just concentrate on Peter Chamberlain’s take.

For the Samozariadnyia Vintovka Tokareva o1938g:

“The AVS was replaced in service as a self-loading rifle by the SVT38 which was a design by FV Tokarev. The mechanism was another gas-operated system with the gas tapped off over the barrel, and a two or six-baffled muzzle brake was fitted. Like the AVS the SVT38 had several failings. Despite the muzzle brake the weapon had a heavy recoil, but its main failing was that so much attention had been concentrated on reducing weight that the overall construction was not up to the knocks and handling of normal service life. Also the mechanism was very prone to breakdown and maintenance was not easy. As a result production ceased in 1940, but not before some selected weapons had been fitted with telescopic sights for sniper work. Some numbers of the SVT38 fell into German hands as the S1Gew 258r and these were used against their former owners.”

For the Samozariadnyia Vintovka Tokareva o1940g and the Avtomaticheskaia Vintovka Tokareva o1940g:

“Experience with the SVT38 showed that the basic mechanism was good but the construction was too flimsy, so as many things as could be put right were incorporated into the SVT 40. This was basically the same as the SVT38 but the strengthened mechanism and components meant that the SVT40 was a much better weapon. It was still a rather unpopular weapon as it retained the heavy recoil but it did add to the firepower of the infantry, and most were issued to NCOs. Selected weapons were fitted with telescopic sights, and a further variation came with a carbine version which was either converted from existing weapons or manufactured on the production lines – very few of these carbines appear to have been made. Yet another variant was the AVT40 which differed only in having a selector mechanism to fire full automatic. Again, very few of these appear to have been made. The SVT made quite an impact on the invading Germans as they adopted the basic Tokarev mechanism for their Gew 43, but they also impressed numbers of captured SVT40s as the S1Gew 259r – examples with the telescopic sights became the S1Gew Zf260r”.

By the way, the AVS36, which predated even the SVT38, was also used by the Germans as the S1Gew 257r and this weapon was withdrawn from Soviet service in 1938.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, you need to take that up with Vic Thomas and not I, the comment was his based on the "used captured SVT's extensively throughout the war", but Sasha says less than 300,000 of them were used by the Germans, possibly making less common than the Lebel or others you mentions.

Peter Chamberlain is citing Hogg in the book I have were he mentions the SVT, so I do not know what individual work they have done. Nothing wrong with them, just they have a faulty view.

Note that I never said every squad was armed all with these weapons, just that with 6 million issues, 1 million used alone in the winter warm hundreds of thousands captured and used by Germans, they should be counted for early war units.

Also, note Ezell in Small Arms that "this weapon was used far more by the soviets than originally suspected" which he follows up in "The AK-47 Story" that, "This weapon was common in Soviet service" in reference to its use. Bollotin, who as a Finnish authority is closer than Hogg to this, states that the weapon was respected by the Finns (in this case the 38 model) who discovered it was grease that was to blame for many failures.

Now -- my position from my research. We should not ignore a weapon issued so extensively by the Soviets, so further research needs to be done to discover how the transition occured to the SMG / 1891 combo that later ruled and squads using this weapon should be designed in the game for both use in the Winter War and the initial Barbarossa campaigns.

Of course, if we do have a cut off for legitimacy for weapons, I would otherwise suggest we leave out the MP43 / STG44 since it was used in far fewer numbers than the maligned SVT, was only around for a couple of years, and was maligned by its own high command.

Of course this is silly. Both the SVT and the MP43 belong in the game, but we should be careful argueing for cut offs to keep legitimate weapons out from one side that may effect the addition of weapons on the other side of equal historical interest.

(PS ASL VET -- I have Hogg and have read Chamberlain, may I suggest you try out Ezel (both of his books), and Bollitin. and we may come to an agreement here. since they, especially Ezell, is writing after Chamberlain and Hogg and with an experts eye to USSR small arms)

[Major Tom]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks:

As usual, my disclaimer about being a neophyte when it comes to the Eastern Front, but I thought there was a very well regarded Italian army that fought the Russians to a stand still? Was this not the case?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was the Italian 8th Army. It was well equipped, and fairly well trained, but, Italy had absolutely no reason to send troops to Russia. Historically, I doubt that Italy and Russia had ever previously, or afterward had any major dealings with one another. Their economic, political and military goals were not at all affected by one another, and only fought eachother through chance (Italy's alliance with Germany).

Italian Armed forces could barely fight off British equipment, let alone Russian equipment! Their weapons were the bottom of the barrel when compared to Russia and Germany, but, when compared with the rest of the Italian army they were well equipped.

There was absolutely no motivation for the Italians to fight the Russians, unlike the Germans, Finn's, and even the Rumanians and Hungarians.

The 8th Army was virtually destroyed in the last part of the Stalingrad operation.

[Grisha]

I would like to see the Soviets, Germans, Romanians, Finns, Italians, and Hungarians in CM2. I think the percentage of participation from each of these nations was enough to warrant it.

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

Smert' ili Pobeda

[PzKpfw 1]

I have followed this debate over forces to be included in CM2 & am perplexed by some of the responses to this question as the majority want Finnish forces modeled I have no problem with this, but we also need to clarify the actual Finnish manpower/combat contribution compared to the actual manpower/combat employment of the Satellite nations.

This will probably unintentionaly ruffle a few feathers but, the Finnish combat involvement was actually minor in comparison to the satalite contributions, from June 1941 - 1944 with the Leningrad Front & geographic threat to Murmansk, and really only becomes major but again limited in scope in 1944 with the Soviet Karelian operations, to remove Finland from the war.

Yet Italian, Hungarian, & Romanian forces fought thru the campaign and manned the front lines & suffered huge losses Ie, the Soviets took 513,700 Hungarian POWs, 201,800 Romanian, 156,000 Austrian, & 48,975 Italian POWs alone, and listed another 464,147 French, Czech, Slovak, Belgian, and Spanish POWs as well, compared to 2400 Finnish POWs.

Yes due to inferior equipment & training etc, Satellite combat performance was way below the Finnish effectiveness but these countries forces were committed much more actively, despite their performance then Finnish ground forces. Their combat effectiveness or lack of, does not change their contribution to the Axis effort on the Eastern Front which arguably without it Germany could never have continued operations on the Eastern Front.

I have nothing against Finland, but to many attribute to much strategic importance, to Finland's actual combat role in WW2, from her handling of the Soviet's in their confrontations. Realistically an encounter with Finnish troops on the Eestren Front would be much rarer then it would with Hungarian's Romanian's etc. What I'm basicly saying here is all forces should be modeled.

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

"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 11-03-2000).]

[Grisha]

John,

Exactly. I agree. One has only to think of Uran, and the tremendous losses suffered by the Romanians. To be honest, if only one nation outside of the Soviet Union and Germany were to be included, my vote would be for Romanians. Their participation in the Russian front was substantial. Finnish participation was limited during WWII, since they gave up offensive operations after 1941, and the Soviets didn't conduct any large operations against them until 1944. The 'Continuation War' was a much different thing from the 'Winter War'.

[Slapdragon]

I think Winter War will get in because of popular demand and interest, but I would like to see some nationalities get in like Romanians even if they are not much different than Germans, just to allow some scenario variety. SL solved the Romanian dilemna by making the 3-4-7 Romanians usually serve next to Germans in scenarios, so they became dumb cousins, but I think they had some unique characteristics.

My only comcern is how many people will be willing to play Romanians in quick battles? I remember SL tournies at Skirmishes were 35-40 people were signed up to play Germans and a handful only to play US - UK - FR, with some hard core Ruskies always ready to tumble if it was a 43+ scenario. It would really be terrible for BTS to put a hundred hours on Romanians and then have no one ever play a game using them as anything.

[Cpt Miller]

They are all cannon fodder!!

[Guest tero]

Eventhough as a Finn I'd like to see Finns included in the game I can understand the points raised for our exclusion from the game.

In the intellectual level the question boils down to the question: what is significant contribution ? Agreed, in the great scheme of WWII we were not major players when it comes to mass armies ("only" 500 000 men in 1944) and great strategic manouvres. But it must be remembered that while we were in the shadows our presence was not totally inconsequential. Our forces were ordered NOT to attack Leningrad, our forces were ordered NOT to cut the Murmansk rail link. Were these orders inconsequential or was their impact inversely proportional to their obscureness ?

Washington DC had more impact in our foreign policy during WWII than Berlin. Our leaders walked the tightrope and managed to extract us from the turmoil relatively intact.

I must argue that as the CM2 will propably not be a strategic simulation so as a tactically minded game it should include the Finns.

When it comes to actual combat operations I think the Finnish dimetion will be a challenge to the programmers and it will prove to be a highly enjoyable experience to the players with quite unique challenges PROVIDED the programmers can pull it off. The Finns have been excluded from most war games because the actual actions and their results defy the need for the game engine to work with universally applicable, set rules with close to zero tolerance for deviations. Things like armour thickness and weapons particulars are easy, modelling the terrain and the characteristics of the participants more trick but if all forces conform it is no problem. Then there are armies like the Finnish the Japanese army. It is easy to model the Japanese as they were good at dying and frontal assaults or dying to the last man in a desperate situation. The Finnish army is not as easy as our troops did not die mindlessly in piles assaulting a lone HMG up the hill or defending a position.

On a related note: I may be wrong but if memory serves Dupuy calculated that 1 German equalled 2 Russians. If we take the Finnish axiom that 1 Finn equals 10 Russians (there were always problems if the 11th showed up it must follow that 1 Finn equals 5 Germans. Or was it 1 German equalled 5 Russians ? That would make 1 Finn equal 2,5 Germans. Not totally out of context as a supportive fact I hope.

[Bruno Weiss]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It was the Italian 8th Army. It was well equipped, and fairly well trained, but, Italy had absolutely no reason to send troops to Russia. Historically, I doubt that Italy and Russia had ever previously, or afterward had any major dealings with one another. Their economic, political and military goals were not at all affected by one another, and only fought eachother through chance (Italy's alliance with Germany).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sure of the point here, but the short answer is yes, the Axis Pact. The same reason the Japanese sent a few

I-Boats into the Atlantic, (about a half dozen being sunk there by the allies), and the Germans continued to shuffle U-Boats and LR Aircraft to Japan throughout the war (primarily for communications, not military action though). At one point discussing a potential joint attack on Madagascar. While the effectiveness of the Axis Pact is speculative, it was never-the-less a powerful motivator for mutual support.

The Italians had launched themselves into North Afrika and rapidly got embroiled with the Ethiopians. Germany was forced to bail them out. The Germans had no real political or military need to invade North Afrika save to pull the Italians chestnuts out of the fire, distract the British and threaten British interests in the Med. El Duce on the other hand would thereafter owe even further allegiance to Hitler. Very similar situation existed with regard to Franco's support of sending Spanish troops to the Ostfront. Primarily a debt repayment for German support during the Spanish Civil War.

I'm not aware either of any military historical or politically historical hatred of the Russians by the Italians, but the Italians fought the British in North Afrika substantially after being their Allies in the First World War. Whatever the motivation, political or military (and I believe the Italian presence on the Ostfront was certainly political), they were never-the-less fighting there in sufficient numbers to represent a participation of notoriety.

And yes Tero, I think 1 Finn is worth 6.5 Russians, unless you calculate the Cossacks, then the equation is recalculated to 3.6 Russians, divided by 2.3 Italians, multiplied by 6.5 Hungarians, and rounded off by the square root of 2 Germans. That of course, does not include Soviet support received from the US Lendlease Act

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

"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 11-03-2000).]

[tss]

PzKpfw 1 wrote:

This will probably unintentionaly ruffle a few feathers but, the Finnish combat involvement was actually minor in comparison to the satalite contributions, from June 1941

- 1944

I'd put the date at January 1942. But that is my biased opinion.

Soviets took 513,700 Hungarian POWs, 201,800 Romanian, 156,000 Austrian, & 48,975 Italian POWs alone, and listed another 464,147 French, Czech, Slovak, Belgian, and Spanish POWs as well, compared to 2400 Finnish POWs.

You have to remember that Finnish army was the only army in axis side that didn't surrender at any point. Those 500000 Hungarian POWs were pretty much the whole Hungarian army. The Finnish POWs were less than 0.5% of the army.

I don't have reliable figures available on the sizes of minor axis armies, but it seems that in 1941 Hungarians had about 100000 men committed to battle and Romanians about 350000 men. Finland had 650000 men in arms (~18% of total population).

Yes due to inferior equipment & training etc, Satellite combat performance was way below the Finnish effectiveness but these countries forces were committed much more actively, despite their performance then Finnish ground forces.

True. The main reason why Finns managed to stay out of large battles between May 1942 - May 1944 was that Finnish army was never incorporated in German command structure. Germans offered Mannerheim two or three times command of joint German-Finnish forces in Finland and Baltic but he always found excuses to refuse the offer. Mannerheim realised that had the command structure been unified, Finland would have been forced to take a more active role in the war.

The decision to stay out as much as possible was a wise one. Finland didn't have enough manpower to sustain a prolonged active war, even Hungary had at least 2 times larger population base. Practically all men of military age were conscripted from the start so there was no reserve pool available.

What I'm basicly saying here is all forces should be modeled.

I agree. I think that Romanian and Hungarian troops have worse reputation than they deserve. Both armies fought with astounding determination at times, facing a numerically superior and better equipped foe in terrain that favored the attacker. It is not surprising that they lost but they certainly went down fighting.

- Tommi

[Major Tom]

Again, the argument SHOULDN'T be wether or not the Rumanians, Italians, Hungarians ACTUALLY PLAYED AN IMPORTANT PART. The question should be, are they important enough on the SMALL SCALE to warrant representation. They didn't take part in any notable offensive action, in fact, I can't think of one action! At Stalingrad they only took positions formerly held by German troops, when attacked they immediately crumbled wherever they were stationed.

Occassionally in 1941 the Russians held. The weak German Axis forces never held on a CM level scale battle. It isn't worth all that effort to produce battles with forgone conclusions.

[tss]

Major Tom wrote:

They didn't take part in any notable offensive action, in fact, I can't think of one action!

Romanians captured Odessa in 1941, though with excessive casualties. The odds were something along 300000 Romanians (pretty much the whole Romanian army) attacking 150000 Soviets. Romanian losses were almost 100000 men in the 70 days of fighting. After this operation Romanian forces were incapable of major offensives by themselves for the rest of the war. The main result of this attack was that the Soviets were worn down so that German Panzer columns could later punch through Soviet lines with small casualties.

Earlier Romanian troops had crossed Dniepr succesfully against opposition. And later they participated in the siege of Sevastopol and captured some fortified hills in the area.

- Tommi

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

The question should be, are they important enough on the SMALL SCALE to warrant representation. They didn't take part in any notable offensive action, in fact, I can't think of one action! At Stalingrad they only took positions formerly held by German troops, when attacked they immediately crumbled wherever they were stationed.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was exactly the point of my posts concerning the Finns, other then the defensive Karelian operations they played no apreciable Combat role in the ground war on the Eastren Front, offensive or otherwise, yet they have to be modeled in CM according to some ppl because of their excelent performance in the Winter War etc. By your criteria no nations other then Germany or Russia should be modeled in CM2.

We also need to remeber that some Axis Satalite contributions did not end with that countries surrender to the Soviet's Ie, begining in 1944 Romania, Bulgaria, etc , troops served with Soviet forces until the end of the war as did Polish & Czech troops.

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 11-03-2000).]

[PzKpfw 1]

Hi Tommi & Tero I hope you both understand my position in my posts. I respect Finland's involvement in WW2 & understand why Finlands involvement was so little, yet on this board ppl want the Finns modeled because of their Winter war exploits & generally attribute an more important combat role on Finland then it actually played in WW2.

I hope BTS does model the Finns, but I also believe that all forces whom fought on the Eastern Front should be modeled as well. I also don't think anyone has ever suggested that the Finns not be modeled in CM2, but if its inclusion means the omission of other nations I believe that would be a mistake.

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 11-03-2000).]

[Slapdragon]

One of the problems was the Germans never provided much in the way of heavy weapons to her allies, or even permission to produce there own from German designs. I think the Romanians, Hungarians, and Italians have some good Grog value, but I still wonder if it will work adding them because people complain now about German tanks being wimpy, what will they do when they are playing the Romanians who are lucky to have a 38t, or rather, I can just figure they will be only lightly used. In ASL terms, they would be the counters you never punch out of the counter trees.

I would love to be wrong. I would personally find it fascinating to play Romanians well modelled with interesting historical facts brought to light, but how many others are going to punch those peices out of the box.

[tss]

PzKpfw 1 wrote:

Hi Tommi & Tero I hope you both understand my position in my posts.

Sure. Finland was a sideshow.

That was exactly the point of my posts concerning the Finns, other then the defensive Karelian operations they played no apreciable Combat role in the ground war on the Eastren Front, offensive or otherwise

I would count also the attack to Karelia in 1941 as appreciable. On the other hand, the effect of trench war and the patrol warfare in Northern forests in 1942-44 was miniscule on the grand picture of the war.

However, in the end CM in its all future incarnations is a _tactical_ level game and there a lot of interesting small scale battles were fought in Karelia, even during the Trench war (e.g. a battle on an unnamed hill during Summer 1942 when 500 starving and fanatical partisans (on this front partisans were all regular soldiers that only made patrols to Finnish territory) defended against an encircling Finnish jäger batallion over 100 km behind the front line and 20 km from the nearest road, a three day-long battle of stronghold Pallo near Rukajärvi in 1943, or a Soviet attack against a field guard outpost and the resulting counter attack at Kuusijärvi in February 1944, to mention a few).

The tactically interesting point of Finnish attack in 1941 was that there were many above average Soviet units facing Finns and tanks played only a minor role on both sides. (Of course, there was also a host of poor units, especially in the Isthmus area and the quality of replacements was really low). For example, when Soviets wrote a textbook on divisional level operations for their military academy after the war, they included only two examples of defensive operations. One was the Soviet 168th Infantry Division that defended the Sortavala area (I can't remember the other).

One additional nice feature is that there's material available from both sides of the front, thought Finnish sources outnumber the Soviet sources by a large factor. Also, topographicla maps are available for nearly all combat areas.

- Tommi

[This message has been edited by tss (edited 11-03-2000).]

[Guest rune]

Slappy Slappy Slappy,

What will I do with you? Hungary alone had the following:

Tanks bought from Germany

Year

Models / Quantity

1942 PzKpfw I 8

PzBfWg 6

PzKpfw 38(t) 102

PzKpfw IV 32

PzKpfw III 10

1944 PzKpfw IV 62

Panther 5

Tiger I 3

StuG III 40

Hetzer 75

As LOS has said, guys, you aren't covering any topic that has not already been covered by the beta group. Keep going tho...hopefully you will hit a gem and I will go forth and research.

Slappy, don't forget to email me any information you get on what we talked about on Matt's chat server. And thank you...

Rune

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

One of the problems was the Germans never provided much in the way of heavy weapons to her allies, or even permission to produce there own from German designs. I think the Romanians, Hungarians, and Italians have some good Grog value, but I still wonder if it will work adding them because people complain now about German tanks being wimpy, what will they do when they are playing the Romanians who are lucky to have a 38t, or rather, I can just figure they will be only lightly used. In ASL terms, they would be the counters you never punch out of the counter trees.

I would love to be wrong. I would personally find it fascinating to play Romanians well modelled with interesting historical facts brought to light, but how many others are going to punch those peices out of the box.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Bruno Weiss]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>At Stalingrad they only took positions formerly held by German troops, when attacked they immediately crumbled wherever they were stationed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Romanians held positions North and West of Stalingrad at the time of the Russian encirclement offensive in January '43'. Equipped only with AT guns and small arms they managed to hold up the hoards of Soviet tanks and men for over two days and IMO fought about as valiantly as anyone could have imagined under the circumstances. To state they crumbled immediately is a most biased statement that overlooks these type of examples. The Germans and the Soviets crumbled also many times at many points throughout the conflict, but they are in the game aye?

I suppose we could leave them out, and just have the Finnish and Cossacks in the game.

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 11-03-2000).]

[PzKpfw 1]

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

As LOS has said, guys, you aren't covering any topic that has not already been covered by the beta group. Keep going tho...hopefully you will hit a gem and I will go forth and research.

...

Rune<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Were we suposed to be covering something you all arn't? that would be hard considering were not privvy to inner circle discussion's . Hey how far did you uber beta ppl get with the SVT-38 40 debate internaly ...

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 11-03-2000).]

[Slapdragon]

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

Slappy Slappy Slappy,

What will I do with you? Hungary alone had the following:

Tanks bought from Germany

Year

Models / Quantity

1942 PzKpfw I 8

PzBfWg 6

PzKpfw 38(t) 102

PzKpfw IV 32

PzKpfw III 10

1944 PzKpfw IV 62

Panther 5

Tiger I 3

StuG III 40

Hetzer 75

As LOS has said, guys, you aren't covering any topic that has not already been covered by the beta group. Keep going tho...hopefully you will hit a gem and I will go forth and research.

Slappy, don't forget to email me any information you get on what we talked about on Matt's chat server. And thank you...

Rune

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rune!!!!! That is quite a fearsome armored force for what, 200,000 soldiers. Did they share those Tigers, each platoon gets one for a day or something? That is like less than one German armored diivision all told. My point nearly proven, except I bet in QB's we will face all three of those Tigers about 6000 times.