RUSSIAN VS GERMAN? IS IT BEING MADE?

[Rupert_2]

I don't think so. The British know how much the Russians had to suffer.

And with out them, We all would be speaking German.

All Europeans.. Well most of them went through Hell......

Though I think without USA & the UK

we all could have been small states under Russia. What would be worse.......?

[:USERNAME:]

Soviet loss ratios tightened up towards the end of the war. Even with attacking they were giving as good as they got. Everything finds a balance and the russians found that numbers could put the germans off their game and then they could make up for the break through losses by encirclement.

CM2 will be interesting but it has to be done right. I wont buy if its just different vehicles and the same game engine.

The east front needs a good platoon/company game to really shine. Im waiting.

Lewis

[Saurkraut]

In response to Russian troop quality, it varied greatly throughout the war. At the outset, the majority of Russian troops would have to be rated "green." Many had never fired their weapons before, and some didn't have any weapons. Ammunition was in very short supply, some rifle platoons had as few as 6 rounds per man. The average tanker had less than 10 hours experience in tank, and the average pilot had less than 20 hours flight time in his particular plane. The Russians tanks were superior at the outset of the war, but inexperienced crews and lack of radios severly hampered them. This was a large factor in the German encirclement manouevers early in the war.(costing the Russians millions of troops and most of their front line aircraft)

As the war progressed, the Russians gained experience and became a cohesive fighting force. The Russians also called in their elite Siberian troops when they realized Japan would not invade from the east. The Russians had a superior amount artillery throughout the war.

Thus when the Russians were on the defensive early in the war, they had inferior troops, leading to high losses. Later, the Russians were more equal in troop quality but were on the attack. The Germans' later tanks (Tiger and Panther) were of similar (better?) quality to the Russian tanks, but never were produced in the needed numbers. CM2 will definitely be an awesome game.

[Guest Rommel22]

The most important battles did take on the eastern fornt. Kursk, where the Germans losst enormous amounts of armor. Moscow, never captured, disaster. 24 million casualties, not the most important but shows quite a bit. If it wasn't for Russia fighting a bvattle of attrition with the Germans, the U.S. would never succeded in landing at normandy. Russia deserves the most credit. Russia fought 80% of the war against the Germans.

The U.S. deserves credit too, they did tie up considerble amounts of German troops from the east, giving more advantage to the Russians.

Russia deserves the most credit!!!!

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

Russian tactics as said by von Mellenthin "Bridge heads everywhere"

[Seanachai]

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

Jeff Heidman wrote:

Well, I'll quote Terry Pratchett on that (not the exact words, but you get the idea): "For his kind of general the most important thing in a battle was that there should be lots of casualties. If they were on the enemy side, that would be bonus."

- Tommi<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Although I've enjoyed the wonderful profusion of Monty Python references on this site, I'm glad to see the appearance of Terry Pratchett, this decade's British contribution to the joys of humour.

And despite the significant contribution of the US's economic might, industrial base, and armed forces, I find that, as an American, it's very important to remind other Americans that the Mediterranean/ETO theater was a war where European/Commonwealth/&Soviet troops paid the true butcher's bill, and it was their sacrifices that truly won the war. As has been pointed out by an author whose name escapes me, Monty was maneuvering an army in Normandy/France that he simply could not afford to lose, because it was the last that Britain could field...Or, from the movie 'Chicken Run': "Damned rude Americans, always showing up late for the war..."

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

After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

[Midnight Warrior]

Granted the Russians suffered incredably and bore much of the brunt of the ground war. But there is a poetic justice here. For if Stalin hadn't abandoned his alliance with the western democracies and signed the non agression pack with the Nazis then Hitler, dreading a two front war, would have been hard pressed to launch the war to begin with. And the reason Stalin abandoned the West and cozied up with the Nazis is because the West wouldn't go along with him gobbling up the Baltic States. Churchill pointed this out to Stalin several times when Stalin was demanding a western front. There was a western front! it was called France 1940. Where was Stalin then? Sending congratulory telegrams to Hitler upon the occupying Paris by the the same "celebrated army" that one year later was to be unleashed on them. A month before Germany attacked them, Stalin was busy exploring with Hitler on how to divide up the British empire.

However, I think the real victim (and hero) was the average Russian peasant.

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

March To The Sound Of The Guns

[Von Brizee]

I am German and I know we thought the Soviets were the real problem. My grandparents always have told me stories of this. Towards the end of the war my grandfather in an SS division was hoping he'd get transferred west so he could get in the "friendly fight" because the Western Allies weren't as relentless and they weren't cruel. He also attests to the inferirority of Russian troops. He tells me of guarding a bridge in the Ukraine for several days. Every few hours the Russians would attack over it and get massive losses. Eventually after about a day or so the tanks couldn't get across since the wrecks on the approach were so thick, and infantry could not run through the piles of bodies. The Russian tactics did not change for over a week until his unit had to pull out since they were a rearguard. He also says that the Russians were better towards the end, but the veterans wouldn't push so hard in the final months because they didnt want to die when victory was so close. The fanatics at the end were the new guys, who were inferior.

[dumbo]

Actually I pity everyone involved on the eastern front germans & russians alike, nasty, nasty war. If reading about the Eastern front taught me anything it was compassion for the people caught up in it driven by two fundementally evil regiemes. Those who did surrender on either side had about a 10% chance of making it home after the war as prisoners were treated horribly (Stalins own son died while a german prisoner).

For casualties comparison its worth remembering that Soviet losses in Leningrad (one city) were greater than all the British & American losses for the entire war COMBINED. German losses were staggering as well. Makes me shudder to even think about it.

Truly the decisive front.

[Demangel]

All this talk about the russian front makes me wanna see a Cm version of the war in the pacific... Possibly complete with sea battles, as well as island hoping battles? MAYBe even some hypathetical battles for the japanese mainland?

Oh well...

As it sounds to me About this whole who did more thing in WWII...

The russians do sound like they took the worst beating and made porbably the biggest differance... But... As it's been said numerous times... Their personel wheren't the best... Kinda reminds me of something you'd see in starship troopers... or maybe robotech... All these bugs dying by the thousands... just to kill one guy... But their where so many bugs, Or so many Zentredi losing a thousand units to kill one better unit is worth it... Kinda like sacrificing a 44 rifle squad to take out a lone king tiger maybe?

Well whatever... thats my 2 cents...

[Guest Rommel22]

Actually German losses through the entire war only around 3 million. The first year of the Russian - German war 6 million Russians were killed or captured. That's stagering. The entire German army on the eastern front on the opening of Barbarosa were 3 milion. Just amazing isn't it???

The way Russians replaced their losses were by dafting local recruits. This means if they "liberated" a town they took all the men and sometimes women and put them into battle. No time for training i guess.

If you want to know a lot about the eatern frot get your hand on "Panzer Battles" by von Melethin. Very good book. He also talks about all other fronts, poland, France, Africa, Russia and western front 44 and Battle of the Bulge. Nice book, I highly recomend it!!!!

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

Russian tactics as said by von Mellenthin "Bridge heads everywhere"

[Guest grunto]

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

Soviet loss ratios tightened up towards the end of the war.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok... from what i remember of carell, if he is to be believed...

in june of 1944 the russians launched an offensive which would wipe out army group center. in those few months the russians were as quick to advance over this territory going west as the germans had been, going east during the same period in 1941.

in 1943 there were some slaughters in the south around the land entrance to the crimea, i think just west-northwest of there. from what carell said the germans were covering their noses and mouths as they drove through literal fields of russian dead.

it's the ultimate epic land battle of all time. the western front is slightly more 'high-tech' and definitely smaller scale... it might even be closed in by towns much more than in the east.

in the soviet union a town might be like 'an island' in a sea of forests and and countryside.

in the west the towns were probably closer together.

there were examples of vicious city fighting in both the east and the west. arnhem in the west, stalingrad in the east...

in my opinion the russians had the best, 'slug it out' armor at the end of the war. the js2 series was a great design. the su152 was the best vehicle of its type - assault gun - in the war. with 152mm HE it didn't matter too very much what kind of armor the target had.

i figure that in cm2 some of the heavier german armor might stand a chance for 2 or 3 shots but panzer 4s and below would be 'cooked,' or 'toasted' quickly as we used to say when playing squad leader. this all being at close range as my understanding is that russian armor will be most effective inside 500 meters.

after stalingrad in the summer of 1943, the german generals wanted to keep the armor back and try to blunt any soviet incursions to an infantry front. hitler wanted to attack at kursk. he told manstein or guderian or someone days before the battle, 'every time i look at this map my stomach turns.' the fool went ahead and launched it anyway.

earlier that year after kharkov the soviets' southern front had been shattered. the germans weren't aware of it. this still according to my recollections of carell.

the germans, not knowing the extent of the russian defeat had called a halt to offensive operations in preparation for kursk. another reason they'd stopped had been some fairly heavy mud conditions in the area.

yes the russian version is going to be a kick.

my favorite period is probably the summer of 1941. i like trying to kill the t34s and kvs using better tactics with my 'door knocker' 37mm at guns and pzIIIEs with medium 50mm guns. there would be stugs with short 75s and early panzer 4s with short 75s and panzer IIs.

and russian BT5s. i wish the russians would have mass-produced something like that during the war. swarms of BT7s with 76mm guns can turn a situation dicey when encountered by germans.

i wonder if the IIIJ will be in CM2. does anyone know if that ('50L') was strictly a western desert tank?

for the new game i would like to see:

1) personal leaders, which go from battle to battle and work their way up from green to elite.

2) a 'lock turret' order for tanks when moving or stationary. the player could specify 0-360 degrees.

i wouldn't expect this order to always be carried out, but would expect elite armor to carry it out better and more often than green

in the meantime it's a good thing cmbo is so rich in depth and re-playability. i never tire of attempting to execute an ambush using an armored car, or using multitudes of fast vehicles and 'panzergrenadiers' to roam along a flank.

andy

salute

[Guest grunto]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Midnight Warrior:

Granted the Russians suffered incredably and bore much of the brunt of the ground war. But there is a poetic justice here. For if Stalin hadn't abandoned his alliance with the western democracies and signed the non agression pack with the Nazis then Hitler, dreading a two front war, would have been hard pressed to launch the war to begin with.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

but the west failed too when they sold out the czechs. hitler wouldn't have gotten very far in a war with the czechs, brits, and french in 1938. in 1940 when germany invaded france 4 out of the 10 german armored divisions were equipped entirely with the 3xT series of tank. hitler gained a fine armaments industry from the czechs without ever firing a shot.

that same chassis was later used on the marder and hetzer.

so i guess anyway that the french and british got a little poetic justice of their own wrt to 35t/38t.

andy

[dumbo]

"Their personel wheren't the best... Kinda reminds me of something you'd see in starship troopers... "

Actually this isnt the case (not flaming you but you seem to be interested). Soviet troops quite often superior to their german counterparts man for man. German officers often remarked on the tenacity and skill of the trained soviet infantryman and thier uncanny ability to dig in with frightening speed. Unfortunately quiet often as has been mentioned before Soviets threw into battle untrained recruits simply to plug the lines. Similar measures had to be taken by germany later on in the war with similar results (massive casualties to the conscripts).

True "human wave" tactics were used in the early phase of the war and accounted

for horrid losses but Stalin (unlike hitler) realised his "hold fast" and "advance to the last man" orders were ruinous and slowly released command to his officers with greater freedom until 1945 when he started to grab back all control of the army in preparation for the post war purges of popular generals.

The Soviet army also changed dramatically in quality as the war went on and by late 1943 political commisars had been demoted, professional army officer structure had been restored (in contrast to the "peoples army" that had existed before) the Soviets even imported gold braid from England so they could furnish thier new officers with regalia. In addition the Soviet army by the end of 1943 and onwards was better equipped and had better aircover than their german counterparts.

The huge soviet losses were incurred substantially in the first year and a half of the war which was nothing short of a catastophe. From then on the soviets became increasingly sensitive to casualties (they were literally running out of men in 1944).

Of course civillians casualties were far larger than those of military personell. Germans massacred entire villages suspected of communist sympathies and shipped back to germany large quantities of civillians to work as slave labour, most didnt come back. After "liberation" by the Soviet forces the nightmare for the civillians didnt end, entire nations (such as the crimean tartars) were deported to Siberia for "collaboration" with the germans (often this meant simply being alive after the germans had left which implied collaboration). In sibera they were used as (you guessed it) slave labour, with similar results (namely death).

Stalin had a deep paranioa about Soviet citizens who had been exposed to western influences and so all civillians who had survived the German occupation were under suspicion with many being shot or deported.

The cruellest fate belonged to the Soviet prisoners of war. Those who survived the slave labour camps of germany (no mean feat) were often shipped straight to slave labour camps in siberia for cowardice and exposure to westerners. This terrible ordeal went on for some for another 15 years until they were finally released.

As the qoute has it "To read Russian history is to despair."

Cheers

_dumbo

[Milt Smegma]

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

Yes, CM2 will be East Front.

Hawk

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does this sort of comment mean that there will be no "official" CM add-ons and that we will have to buy an entirely new game to get anymore?

Whats the official word on add-ons?

[WendellM]

Below are a few excerpts from Alan Clark's Barbarossa to attempt to capture some of the feel of this war:

p. 181 - Regarding the German situation in the battle for Moscow

Those who could still eat had to watch "the axe rebounding as from a stone" off the frozen horse meat, and the butter was being cut with a saw.

"One man was drawing his ration of boiling soup at the field kitchen [but] could not find his spoon. It took him 30 seconds to find it, but by then the soup was lukewarm. He began to eat it as quickly as he could, without losing a moment's time, but the soup was already cold, and soon it would be solid."

p. 206 - OKH orders to commanders of rear areas

In line with the prestige and dignity of the German Army, every German soldier must maintain distance and such an attitude with regard to Russian prisoners of war as takes account of the bitterness and inhuman brutality of the Russians in battle [...] fleeing prisoners of war are to be shot without preliminary warning to stop. All resistance of the prisoners, even passive, must be entirely eliminated immediately by the use of arms (bayonet, rifle butt, or firearm).

p. 222 - From the 1942 diary of Wilhelm Hoffmann (267th Regiment/94th Division)

September 1st: "Are the Russians really going to fight on the very bank of the Volga? It's madness."

September 8th: "...insane stubbornness."

September 11th: "...Fanatics."

September 13th: "...wild beasts."

September 16th: "Barbarism... (they are) not men but devils."

September 26th: "...Barbarians, they use gangster methods."

October 27th: "...The Russians are not men, but some kind of cast-iron creatures; they never get tired and are not afraid of fire."

pp. 227-8 - From a Russian soldier of 3rd Company/42nd Regiment/13th Guards Infantry Division (under General Rodimtsev) regarding Stalingrad

We decided to raise a red flag over the building, so that the Nazis would not think we had given up. But we had no red material. Understanding what we wanted to do, one of the men who was severely wounded took off his bloody vest and, after wiping the blood off his wound with it, handed it over to me.

The Germans shouted through a megaphone: "Russians! Surrender! You'll die just the same!"

At that moment a red flag rose over our building.

"Bark, you dogs! We've still got a long time to live!" shouted my orderly, Kozhushko.

We beat off the next attack with stones, firing occasionally and throwing our last grenades.

[...]

From behind a neighbouring block stocky German tanks began to crawl out. This, clearly, was the end. The guardsmen said good-bye to one another. With a dagger my orderly scratched on a brick wall: "Rodimtsev's guardsmen fought and died for their country here."

Wendell

[This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 07-15-2000).]

[MH]

"The Soviets bore the brunt of the war...." Perhaps, but lets be clear on history. In a real sense they help START the damn war! The Hitler-Stalin Pack was a deal between two evil men which led Europe down the path of war. If the west let the Soviets "bleed" to wear down the Nazis it was in a way a poetic price paid for their "non-aggression pack." After-all, wasn't it better from the western perspective for Communist to die killing Nazis than Brits, or American. Rough you say.....now this was when politics was REALLY a blood sport!

PS - Stalin killed his share of his OWN people. Check out the Ukraine Famine for example.

[Midnight Warrior]

After-all, wasn't it better from the western perspective for Communist to die killing Nazis than Brits, or American. Rough you say.....now this was when politics was REALLY a blood sport!

I don't think the West was that coldly calculating. Marshall & Eisenhower were very fearful Russia would drop out of the war and leave the West to face Hitler alone. The reason for the long delay of starting the Western front was just the reality of the situation at hand. It took that long for the US to build up its ground and naval forces to a level that could challenge the Germans forces in the West. Eisenhower pointed out in his book, Crusade into Eurpoe, that at the time of Pearl Habor, the US army was smaller than the Polish army was in 39. Churchill said (if I remember right) it takes about 2 years to convert over from a peacetime to a wartime economy and about another year to build up a sizable forces. That is about what happened in that in 42 and 43 the US went over to a wartime economy and by 44 this econmy had procduced a warfighting machine up to the job of going on the offense in France. The West was able to fight with a different paradigm than the east. In the east there was little recourse but to spend lives for vistory; in the west spend $'s for victory.

In one sense WWII was a war of philosophies (Demcracy vs Fascism, vs Communism). And even though the physical realities are common (shell sizes, and armor thickness, etc) I don't think that you can completly seperate the day to day warfighting from the from the underlying cultures that produced the fighting forces. For this reason I think it will be very interesting how BTS handles CM2. Will it be just a CM1 with Russian equipment added or will it capture in some ingenious way the brutality of the colossal knock out fight between two rival totalitarian societies in a contest that was so savage that it tends to boggle the western mind.

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

March To The Sound Of The Guns

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Milt Smegma:

Does this sort of comment mean that there will be no "official" CM add-ons and that we will have to buy an entirely new game to get anymore?

Whats the official word on add-ons?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, not official from me, but from what I understand there will be new games, based on development of the CM-BO AI that cover the East (CM2), Mediterranean (CM3) and the early war (CM4). The latest I can remember is that there are no plans for a Pacific version. These would be distinct games and may not be backwards compatible. So AFAIK there will be no add-on packs like e.g. CM-Italy, which would contain new unit types and not change the AI as well. Hope I got that right. If you want to know more, do a search or hope for Jason and the Searchonauts.

Andreas (Searchonaut wannabe)

[Milt Smegma]

Many thanks Germanboy

[Gregory Deych]

Before we blame the USSR for "starting the war", it might make sense to take a look at actions of western democracies at the time. Both France and Britain were deeply suspicious of Soviet overtures. And of course, after the Czech debacle revealed that their aliance was not worth the paper it was written on, Soviet Union had very little choice but to reach accomodation with Germany. If anybody besides Hitler is at fault for starting WWII, it is Nevill Chamberlain.

[Törni]

A big question about Russians that has always intriqued me; is why they did not launch attack against Germany in 1940, when her forces were tied up in France?

Even in 1941 as the Germans launched Barbarossa the Soviet forces were grouped for offence, not defense. Russo-Nazi conflict was just matter of time. So what was Stalin waiting for???

[dumbo]

"If anybody besides Hitler is at fault for starting WWII, it is Nevill Chamberlain."

I would have to disagree here. Its worth remembering that FDR "appeased" the Japanese by not declaring war when Japan invaded China or the Dutch possessions. And quite rightly too. It is VERY hard for democratic leaders to get involved in a war which could endager his country to defend a country far away. This was Chamberlins problem with Czechoslovakia, no matter how much the British public supported the Czechs they were hesitant to go to war over it. In the same manner even AFTER pearl harbor FDR didnt beleive he had public support to declare war on Germany to fight a war in Europe, Hitler however releived him of that burden (much to the releif of churchill and FDR). Even after this had occured many American politicians still continued to ask (with some justification) why the US was concentrating the vast majority of its forces against Germany when Japan was the direct threat to the US.

If you are looking for a few folks to blame for WW2 apart from Hitler then I would point to the post WW1 leaders of France & Britian who despite American protests designed the versailles treaty to cripple Germany.

In addition the USSR may have had "little choice" but to reach an accomadation with Germany but it did have the choice when it invaded Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania ,annexed Besserabia and gleefully helped carve up Poland.

All that said its hard to underestimate the fears Soviets had after America, Japan, Britian and France had all invaded the USSR during the civil war in the 20's. With such "allies" many in the Soviet leadership regarded all other major players in the world as just waiting to help destroy the new soviet union.

cheers

_dumbo

[Gregory Deych]

In the summer of 1940, Soviet Union was still recovering from the Finnish debacle. Everybody at the top levels of goverment realized that performance of the Soviet army has been nothing short of atrocious. Only a year before that, during the relatively bloodless invasion of Poland, utter chaos reigned. The army was in no shape to carry out offensive operations (or defensive ones, as it turned out).

[Törni]

As a Finn do I know this

But Winter War was a small border clash, considering the mehalomannic scale of Barbarossa. The Soviets did not strike our contry with all their military might. The sheer numbers would have gotten our nation eventually annihilated.

Soviets had better weapons (T-34) and autobahns were wide open to Berlin.

No help from France or Britain to Nazis since they were in war with them!

[Sergei]

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

But Winter War was a small border clash, considering the mehalomannic scale of Barbarossa. The Soviets did not strike our contry with all their military might. The sheer numbers would have gotten our nation eventually annihilated. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to Russian researches, 2.268 Soviet tanks were destroyed during that war. Additionally 1.275 tanks were withdrawn because of damage. At the start of Winter War Soviets had about 24.000 tanks as a whole, so they had lost about 15 % of them! Think about what would have happened when facing German Panzer divisions... Stalin was not an idiot.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Soviets had better weapons (T-34) and autobahns were wide open to Berlin. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately they didn't have T-34's in numbers in 1940. And only one prototype KV-1, which was tested in Winter War. Even in 1941 half of their tank force consisted of miserable T-26's.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No help from France or Britain to Nazis since they were in war with them! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even if Soviets were capable of attacking in 1940, the Blitzkrieg in west was over too quickly. When Stalin agreed to the non-aggression pact in 1939, he indeed had envisioned backstabbing when Germany attacked France, but he didn't believe Germany would win. Instead he expected to see something like in 1914. Maginot-line was world famous...