Soviet Armor List in CM2

[Chief]

Well, I hate to mention this, and don't everyone yell at once, but how about . . . letting each side use some of the other's captured equipment.

I gather that the Germans used a lot of Russian artillery and at least some tanks, while the Russians used captured German armor to some degree. I recall a great photo of a T-28 and a captured PzK V parked nose to tail on a snowy Russian road. The Russian crew in the Panther must have thought they had died and gone to heaven.

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

Certainly CM 2 should model the more common captured equipment, including the captured 76mm AT guns, and, for that matter, the PzJg I. But WRT to the 76mm AT gun, I believe the Germans manufactured their own 76mm ammunition for this gun, and that the gun in German hands with German ammunition was superior to the gun with Russian ammunition.

WRT the PzJg I, the Germans probably just used French ammunition for the 47mm (?) gun it mounted, although I'm not sure of that. Certainly they would have had control of the factories.

[Guest KwazyDog]

Hi guys,

No final descisions yet, but the use of captured equipment was much more common on the Eastern Front, especially vehicles. Thus it is something we are looking at modelling to some extent

Gregory, thanks for the info. Ive read that in a couple of locations myself. My opinion is that they did see combat, but they are probably about the rarest vehcile to do so on the Eastern Front

Dan

[tss]

KwazyDog wrote:

My opinion is that they did see combat, but they are probably about the rarest vehcile to do so on the Eastern Front

There's also SMK and T-100 (one prototype of both being field-tested at the same time than the first KV-I (18-19 December 1939).

Also, one SU-14Br2 (T-35 chassis, 152mm naval gun) was used in February 1940 and again (or perhaps few) in defence of Moscow 1941.

The last T-35 chassis variant was SU-100U, with a 130 mm naval gun (muzzle velocity 960 m/s). It too was used against Finns and possibly against Germans at Moscow.

I would guess that the SU-100U could destroy _any_ tank of the war with that gun and most post-war designs, too,Too bad, that the vehicle was way too heavy, too thinly armed, and pretty unreliable even for a T-35.

- Tommi

[RudeLover]

I'd guess that the Grant / Lee is much like a Churchill Croc from a coding standpoint...turreted weapon and bow mounted weapon (same goes for a Char B1). But a T-35...yikes! You guys thought the Archer was a pain in the butt...

[Guest Mikey D]

How about German Allies? A few Hungarian tanks, a couple Italian tanks.

And how about German captured T34-76's? Paint 'em grey, give 'em a big white cross. Let the Germans use 'em. There were also KV1s in German service with pzIV commander coupolas fitted!

[109 Gustav]

Originally posted by Mikey D:

How about German Allies? A few Hungarian tanks, a couple Italian tanks.

fitted!

Not to mention Checloslavokian. The 38T was better than anything the Germans had in 1940-41, and so good that it kept being produced for a long time. The hetzer, flammpanzer, and Marder II(?) were both built on the 38T chassis.

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

Well my skiff's a twenty dollar boat, And I hope to God she stays afloat.

But if somehow my skiff goes down, I'll freeze to death before I drown.

And pray my body will be found, Alaska salmon fishing, boys, Alaska salmon fishing.

-Commercial fishing in Kodiak, Alaska

[Molotov]

How about the Czar tank??

[KMHPaladin]

Hey Kwazy, it's the resident "thinks he knows something about Max and is thus qualified to ask dumb questions" guy . Just out of curiosity, how do you guys animate the models? As I said before, I have a pretty good handle on the Halflife model system and the way they put stuff together. Do you use the animation tools in Max and create a set of animations that are referenced - i.e. "turret right" or "turn left" - by the game itself? That is essentially what the HL models do... they have a fascinating "bone" system that attaches the model and textures to "bones" that are physically manipulated by the game, which makes it easier and more realistic for both guns and "people" models to be animated.

For those wondering how I went off on such a monumental tangent, I was just curious as to how many darned anims would be necessary for all those turrets .

Thanks for humoring me .

[Panther G]

How about the IS-3? I know it come very late in the war, but I think it was used during the attack on Berlin. The IS-3 would be a match for a King Tiger if it's included in CM2.

Panther G

[Commissar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panther G:

How about the IS-3? I know it come very late in the war, but I think it was used during the attack on Berlin. The IS-3 would be a match for a King Tiger if it's included in CM2.

Panther G<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is a large debate on whether the IS-3 ever saw action on the European stage. They came out late in the war and there are conflicting reports on whether it saw action or not. I believe it did see action against the Japanese and they did appear for this big victory parade the Allies held after Germany surrendered. It gave the Western Allies quite a shock. I think generally most people are of the belief that it arrived too late to see battle in the European theater. However, it would be neat to play around with. If CM2 has the Maus, why not the IS-3? Play balance may be seriously affected though.

If you want something to take on the King Tiger, the IS-2 can take her on as well despite the fact the King Tiger is a great deal heavier. There is also the ISU-152. According the Russian Battlefield [url=http://history.vif2.ru/]

German armor composition had seriously degraded due to the lack of maganese sources so often times hits from the IS-2's 122mm often cracked the Panther or Tiger's armor even if it didn't penetrate. It seem the Russians were not very impressed with the King Tiger.

[ 04-26-2001: Message edited by: Commissar ]

[André]

The OT-34 is a must of course

[c3k]

Hmm,

Let me just open up my ASL rulebook to the Soviet listings. Uh, never mind. I'll just photocopy it and send it in to BTS!!

Ken

[Molotov]

[Stalins Organ]

KV-8 flamethrower

some one asked on page 1 of tyis what was the difference between the SU-152 and ISU-152 - ie was one a tank destroyer and hte other an assualt gun.

the answer is no - both were "assualt guns". Teh SU was based on the KV chassis, the ISU on hte IS chassis, and I think the ISU had heavier armour. appart from that their tactical ussage was identical.

[gunnergoz]

I vote for more variety in the T-34's, to reflect the different production runs and different qualities, especially armor flaws, etc. One generic T-34 just won't hack it.

Another vote for the OT-34 also.

Will we be seeing any of the AA trucks the Soviets were so fond of?

[ 04-27-2001: Message edited by: gunnergoz ]

[Skipper]

Sorry for nit-picking, but if memory serves, the IS-85 was originally referred to as simply IS, and with arrival of IS-122 they started to call the 85mm version IS-85. These are designations I've seen in actual soviet AARs. IS-3, on the other hand was indeed officially designated as IS-3, and I suspect that names IS-1 and IS-2 came to use at that time.

[Skipper]

On that "Komsomolets" artillery tow vehicle already mentioned here. During the defence of Sevasopol, they camouflaged these things as dummy tanks (complete with composite plywood/rubber armor, 76 mm log and a bow MG for firepower).

[Kanonier Reichmann]

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

On that "Komsomolets" artillery tow vehicle already mentioned here. During the defence of Sevasopol, they camouflaged these things as dummy tanks (complete with composite plywood/rubber armor, 76 mm log and a bow MG for firepower).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Geez, that sounds like a nightmare for BTS to model. Would there more chance of rounds bouncing off this rubberised armour?

Regards

Jim R.