A BUNCH of answers to your questions!

[Blenheim]

Maybe they left the IS3 just in case a Pershing and a bunch of Shermans appear decide to play a "CM 2 1/2: Cold War goes too hot" scenario.

Cheat code "you gamey penger!!!" and you unlock the hidden American and British armies, letting you play cool "what if" scenarios.

I know, I am crazy...

[Tero]

>I am a huge fan of his analysis.

I would not say I am a big fan. But I do see that they could serve a purpose when you are modelling different nationalities for computer games.

>He was professor at Harvard and his work

>was used by both the British and the US for

>operational analysis. When is comes to

>operational analysis he has no equal, in my

>view.

Well... I think that since his is the only formula around that tries to assert qualitative values of different armies scientifically he must be the best.

>However, when it comes to the Eastern

>Front, although his formulas still hold in

>every detail, it must be remembered that

>the “data” he entered into his formulas was

>almost completely wrong, with regard to the

>Soviets.

Not his fault though.

>By this I mean that in order to use his

>formulas one has to “know” the force ratio,

>the size of the Soviet forces relative to

>the Germans, and, the causalities suffered

You mean casualties ?

>by the Soviets. In the 1970s and 1980s the

>only people who knew the true size of

>Soviet forces, and even more so, their true

>causalities were the Russians, and they

>were not telling.

But then again they were not denying the figures floated around very vehemently. There must be a reason for that.

>Now we know both.

Yes. We now know that the casualties they suffered during Winter War were as big or even greater than we Finns estimated after the war.

>As it turns out Soviet forces were far

>smaller than was believed in the 1980s;

>also their causalities were far less.

That is debatable. Even Glantz is feeling his way around in the dark. And the figures coming out of purely Russian sources are contradictory.

>The Germans were simply not killing as many

>Soviets, post Kursk, as had been believed.

Hmmmmmmm..... what does the term kill mean here ? The Finnish estimate for KO'd Soviet tanks during Winter War was 1 200. The actual figure of vehicles lost to all causes was over 3 000 (in the Isthmus alone mind you), with around 1 200 lost in combat. Irrevocable (total) losses were listed at around 300 tanks. And that does not include the hundreds of tanks captured north of lake Ladoga. After Kursk the Soviets had more opportunities to recover KO'd but salvageable tanks so the number of German kill claims is bound to be greater than the number of TOTAL reported irrevocable armour losses sustained by the Red Army.

>The average force ratio during the period

>July 43 to March 45, Soviet to German, was

>only 2.7:1. Not the 4-5:1 as had been

>believed. Also the causalities ratio over

>that period, Soviet to German, was only

>1.64:1, not 2-3:1 as had been believed.

>(Remember these figures exclude the round-

>up of April-May 45.)

One think that has always bothered me the most in the formula is the fact that when calculating tactical combat effectiveness the POW's are counted in the casualty figures, not only the actual combat losses. When the POW's are excluded the picture becomes a bit more non-congratulatory to the Western Allies as well as Soviets. In my view the POW's should be counted in only when you are calculating strategic effectivness.

>To cut a very long story short if you run

>the Dupuy formulas, using the new data, you

>get a combat effectiveness figure for the

>Germans against the Soviets, during the

>period given above, of 1.15, not the 1.8-2

>or 3 given in Dupuy’s books.

Was he using total German losses (including POW's) or reported German combat losses (KIA, WIA) ? I believe the most basic problem in applying the formula is the incompatibility of the opposing reporting. For example the Red Army "accounting" was often weeks behind the actual events.

>This is no criticism of Dupuy; the figures

>were just not available in his day.

>The conclusion is that the Soviets were

>very nearly as good as a Germans, battalion

>combat team V battalion combat team, post

>Kursk.

The Germans were often fighting battalion combat teams vs multiple divisions in the area where the Red Army was attacking.

>Note that is “post Kursk” not at

>Kursk. At Kursk the Soviets really fought

>in the “old” style for the last time.

Kursk was the last major German offensive in the east.

[Commissar]

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

Interesting stuff, thanks Username.

Regards,

Freak

[ 06-10-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Abandone all ye hope of seeing Panther 2 in CM2. Steve, I believe, has already made clear that it won't make it. Perhaps, in the new CM engine it will sometime. The IS-3 did indeed have bad transmission and reliability problems. That's probably why the IS-2 outlasted it. But that probably won't get modeled in CM2 and from the previous statments that Steve has made concerning the IS-2 and IS-3, he obviously feels that both are behemoths that are going to be bastards to deal with despite their drawbacks (and what piece of hardware doesn't have its shortcomings?). Disagree? Ha ha, what else is new. Despite the fact hard data exists on equipment that did see action during the war, there are still a multitude of opinions on whether it was "good" or not. If this can be with weapons we have hard data and plenty of eyewitness accounts of, can you imagine the debate on weapon systems that rarely or never saw action with little to no hard data? This thread alone should make it clear that modeling such weapons systems would be nothing but pure speculation for which BTS would probably get nothing but complaints from us "experts". I wouldn't want to deal with it either.

The King Tiger had severe problems with reliablity as well. It tended to break down a lot even if it was just moving from the dropoff point to the assembly area. As one person pointed out, many were abandoned rather than destroyed by the Soviets. Even if that is true, so what? The result is the same. A tank that can't reliably get to the battle or withdraw from it doesn't seem so great to me no matter how great the gun or how much frontal armor it has. Yet nothing like this is modeled in CM nor should it be. It's way beyond CM's tactical scope. Just think of the IS-3 as Russkies version of the KT: an unreliable pain-in-the-backside, mean motha that should for "realism" sake be rare to see and better off not seeing at all other than for modeling those rare battles that did exist or for fun. I like pitting KTs against Super Pershings. Did this ever happen? No, as far as I know. Is it fun to watch? you bet. Anyway for you IS-lovers and -haters, the IS-2 and IS-3 are coming and I am looking forward to having new toys to play with whether they are Russian or German.

[ 06-10-2001: Message edited by: Commissar ]

[Jarmo]

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

I'm concerned about the bonuses or similar modifiers you plan on using to implement the variables that make out the "national characteristics" aspects. Are you going to use the Dupuy formula for example to model the relative effectiveness of the various armies in relation to each other ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure there will be none of that. BTS has been pretty clear they will not go that way. The only factor affecting troop performance is the experience level. And apparently physical fitness in CM2.

You can simulate the differences with experience levels if you like to...

[Commissar]

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

I find it interesting that BTS would come scrounging for info about a "crappy" TD like the Elephant (and then get read the "Riot act" by people with info on its success) but feel that a uber-dinosaur like the IS-3 gets special attention and has to make it into the game.

The IS3 was a piece of crap. The age of the hollow charge was just beginning and slow large targets full of slow-loading ammo were in decline. The age of gun firepower and excellent ammo and rates of fire combined with automotive excellence ruled the post war years. Any tank with a decent transmission could out run the slow gun on the IS3. I dont know if these ponderous behomeths had any success in any endeavor. I think I recall that the Israelis even KO'd them in the early wars. I heard that they were dug in like static pillboxes facing china in their later years. Good riddance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I certainly hope the Isrealis could knock out IS-3. The tank came out in '45 and I am betting the accounts you refer to did not happen until at least a decade later. That's one old tank. The Soviets had a reputation of never throwing anything away and mothballing them or giving them to client states. You can find old T-34s fighting in Africa during the '70s or '80s. Using old, outdated equipment as pillboxes doesn't sound like a bad idea. I also heard that Cuba got some IS-3s and they are being used as pillboxes along the shore today.

[PzKpfw 1]

Need to clarify something here The Panther Ausf.F was NOT the Panther II. The Ausf.F was going into production in March 1945, while the Panther II project was abandoned in May 1943.

The Ausf. F was very similiar to the Ausf.G except for the new turret and increased armor protection on the hull roof & turret Ie, turret roof armor was increased from 16mm @ 5.5^ to 40mm @ 90^ & the front turret from 100mm @ 12^ to 120mm @ 20^ the mantlet from 100mm to 150mm & both the turret sides & rear turret to 60mm @ 25^ . So what BTS basicly would need to do for an Ausf F & for 'what if' scenerios; is an G hull & new turret model, with increased armor & removal of the muzzle break on the L/70 & am MG42 coaxle MG. Mechanichal performance was almost the same as the Ausf.G in fact the plan was to equip sall Panther's with the new Schmalturm as well by June of 1945.

Now i understand BTS is notgoing to model anything but what they choose to; but I also dont want the impression given,that modeling the Ausf.F is some big deal, Based on wild speculation etc, the Ausf.F is very well documented for CM's requirements.

Also I have have brought up the flaws of the IS-3, mechanichly myself as well as the T-34-85's but I would also add that in CMs scale none of these problems are relevant as CM covers the battlefeild manouvers, & does not model mechanichal flaws etc, that would have occured in transit to the battlefeild.

In CM every AFV operates at 100% effectiveness, so how the Maus etc, would have performed mechanichly on the way to the battlefeild is realy of no consquance in CM terms, wheras the IS-3's armor quality problems would be in CMs scope as in the random % that the IS-3 front hull weld seams will crack open vs impacts on the front hull etc.

And also i would add I am not even an 'what if' advocate IMHO if it never served in WW2 it has no place in CM, but at the same time if your going to toss in 'what if' vehichles then theirs no reason to not include vehichles that never saw service or were only in prototype stages Ie, the Maus, and/or PzKpfw V Ausf. F, neither the Sturmtiger, nor IS-3 realy fall into an 'what if' catagory under the definition as both were in service as the ST saw action while the IS-3 never did yet was sent to HTB units.

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-10-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Tero]

>I'm sure there will be none of that. BTS

>has been pretty clear they will not go that

>way. The only factor affecting troop

>performance is the experience level. And

>apparently physical fitness in CM2.

>

>You can simulate the differences with

>experience levels if you like to...

... and have only Elite force quality for the Finns ? How realistic is that ?

The current system is not quite good enough. A green rifle squad is a green rifle squad, no matter what which nationality. Will a green Red Army rifle squad act exactly the same way a green Finnish rifle squad would in every phase of the war and in all situations ?

As things stand the answer is yes. Which will result in a various outcomes in different tactical situations that are less than historically accurate.

Should the green Finnish rifle squad for example surrender as readily as its counter parts ? Or should it try to evade capture, lets say by dispersing and regrouping near a preset location or disengageing controlably before the tactical situation prevents evasion ? What would be the suitable level of suppression that trigers surrender or should the Finnish troops simply fade away in, say, 98,5% of the cases when everybody else would surrender ? Should a squad with only one or two men left be able to fuction as effectively as a half squad ? When should they fight to the death and when should they fade away to fight another day ?

Should the Finnish squad with casualties move slower when retreating because it is carrying its dead with it (or have its casualties doubled to simulate that evacuation process, depending on the mission)? Should the Finnish squads get a casualties evacuation detail attached to it ? If the answer is yes to any of these examples you need to have a set of modifiers that distinquish different nationalities with the same level of training but different tactics and doctrine.

Most of these traits can be calculated using the Dupuy formula to reach a fair set of modifiers that would leave the game engine itself intact while the modifiers handle the special "national characteristics" and the calculations they involve. IMHO.

[Freak]

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

Disagree? Ha ha, what else is new.

[ 06-10-2001: Message edited by: Commissar ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Look, lets keep it reasonable ok?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Despite the fact hard data exists on equipment that did see action during the war, there are still a multitude of opinions on whether it was "good" or not. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In Russia, the opinion of the IS-3 was not good. Thats why it didnt see any battle. There was a reason why it didnt see any battle. Thus, the Maus would be in the same catagory as the IS-3 to some extent.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If this can be with weapons we have hard data and plenty of eyewitness accounts of, can you imagine the debate on weapon systems that rarely or never saw action with little to no hard data? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Maus used the128mm KwK 44 L/55 gun, essentially the same gun mounted on the JagdTiger. AFAIK, the same penetration tables apply.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> This thread alone should make it clear that modeling such weapons systems would be nothing but pure speculation for which BTS would probably get nothing but complaints from us "experts". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Maus mounted AFAIK the same gun mounted on the JagdTiger. Same as above.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> A tank that can't reliably get to the battle or withdraw from it doesn't seem so great to me no matter how great the gun or how much frontal armor it has. Yet nothing like this is modeled in CM nor should it be. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Precisely why the Maus could be modeled in CM. The Maus's documentation is enough so, that it could be modeled.

I am not really for modeling these vehicles, I just want to point out that if we (BTS) models the IS-3 a tank that wasnt in service, why not model the Maus, or the Panther F? What I am saying is if we model a tank that wasnt in service for the Soviets, then I think we should model a tank for the Germans which wasnt in service. This allows the fun factor on both sides. Imagine the hypytheticals we can have with this . Seeing how, that the Maus was nearly indestructable from the front armor wise, maybe the Panther F would a better proposal. Afterall, it is overall design similar to that of the Panther G.

Regards,

Freak

[ 06-10-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]

[ 06-10-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]

[kipanderson]

Tero, hi,

I should just have said that all my comments referred to the German/Soviet fighting and not Finnish forces or the Winter War. I claim to know nothing about Finnish forces and the Winter War other than that the Finns are regarded as the best by all those that know.

When it comes to Soviet causalities I believe we are no longer in the dark. Both David Glantz and John Erickson, in my view the worlds top men on the Eastern Front, in the English language, regard the work by Colonel-General GF Krivosheev, Soviet Causalities and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century, as reliable and unbiased.

One way to express what I was saying it to illustrate it this way.

If the Germans had been defending against forces that numbered the same as Soviet forces “actually did” but, were in ever detail, “clones” of Germany’s own forces then the casuality ratio, attacker to defender, would have been 1.44:1. In reality it was 1.64:1, Soviet to German. This tells us that the Soviet forces performed nearly as well as German forces would have done in similar circumstances. All comments refer to the post Kursk period.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. If you use the casualties from the above book for the early period of the war you find that the gap between German and Soviet forces is just as great as the Germans claimed in the fifties. It is just that from about the autumn of 43 onwards the Soviets were far better soldiers, and far fewer in number, than the Germans liked to claim post war.

[Thomm]

I assume that the fact that the Maus carries a coax cannon (75mm???) rather than a coax MG would require custom code ... unlike the JS-3, which is a "conventional" tank ...

Regards,

Thomm

[Freak]

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

I assume that the fact that the Maus carries a coax cannon (75mm???) rather than a coax MG would require custom code ... unlike the JS-3, which is a "conventional" tank ...

Regards,

Thomm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, that would be the problem I presume. I don't know anything about it, but the Maus had a second coaxial 75mm KwK 44 L/36.5 gun. I suppose a soft infantry gun. However, as a side note, it also had a 7.92mm MG34.

Thats why I really don't belive the Maus could be modeled...yes this is contradictory, but I was trying to make a point that it could be done...maybe I am wrong.

I am not sure the Maus was consistent either. I have read information containing different sized guns and also two turreted Maus. The information is confusing at times, so in the end it's probaly not a good canidate for CM.

[Commissar]

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

Precisely why the Maus could be modeled in CM. The Maus's documentation is enough so, that it could be modeled.

I am not really for modeling these vehicles, I just want to point out that if we (BTS) models the IS-3 a tank that wasnt in service, why not model the Maus, or the Panther F? What I am saying is if we model a tank that wasnt in service for the Soviets, then I think we should model a tank for the Germans which wasnt in service. This allows the fun factor on both sides. Imagine the hypytheticals we can have with this . Seeing how, that the Maus was nearly indestructable from the front armor wise, maybe the Panther F would a better proposal. Afterall, it is overall design similar to that of the Panther G.

Regards,

Freak

[ 06-10-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]

[ 06-10-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll keep it reasonable as long as you do. But Steve has made it clear why some vehicles are going to be modeled and other not. That's where they are going to draw the line so just live with it. They had to draw it somewhere to get this game out sometime in Q4. The Germans are going to get the SturmTiger I believe so let that be your fairness vehicle. You're just going to have to wait for the new CM engine. With it they will be able to model more vehicles more accurately (like early night vision).

[Freak]

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

I'll keep it reasonable as long as you do. But Steve has made it clear why some vehicles are going to be modeled and other not. That's where they are going to draw the line so just live with it. They had to draw it somewhere to get this game out sometime in Q4. The Germans are going to get the SturmTiger I believe so let that be your fairness vehicle. You're just going to have to wait for the new CM engine. With it they will be able to model more vehicles more accurately (like early night vision).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Commissar,

I value your input as I have said before, but that still does not keep me from commenting or playing devils advocate if you will.

I just find it strange, if you will, that a tank which was not in service during WWII is modeled in a WWII tactical simulation. Nothing more nothing less.

Anyways...

It will be interesting to see how the IS-3 turns out.

Regards,

Freak

[Commissar]

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

Commissar,

I value your input as I have said before, but that still does not keep me from commenting or playing devils advocate if you will.

I just find it strange, if you will, that a tank which was not in service during WWII is modeled in a WWII tactical simulation. Nothing more nothing less.

Anyways...

It will be interesting to see how the IS-3 turns out.

Regards,

Freak<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. That's why I asked Steve why he was putting the IS-3 in when it likely didn't see service. He made it quite clear why. However, I think another reason might be that Steve just likes the darn thing. Anyway, I think the new engine (CM3+++) will be best for modeling the other vehicles people are asking for like early night vision. Perhaps BTS will put the Maus in another CM sequel. Anyway, we've probably roasted this issue to death.

[Username]

I fear that I know the answers but...

Is there going to be any modeling or abstraction to cover gun depression?

Will there be any TC view point or is it going to basically stay the same for CM2?

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

Just think of the IS-3 as Russkies version of the KT: an unreliable pain-in-the-backside<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As John has pointed out the IS-3 had more extensive problems than just breaking down on the way to the front. It's front hull welds tended to crack open when hit. This is a problem during battle, not before.

Taken from the Russian Military Zone:

"The IS-3 was in mass production until mid-1946. Overall, there were 2,311 tanks produced. Unfortunately, at the beginning of its career, the IS-3 suffered from many serious problems related to design flaws. The most serious were: an unreliable engine, an extremely unreliable gear-box, and defective hull elements. Thus, in 1946, a special commission was formed which analyzed the deficiencies of the IS-3, and offered a Program of Modernisation and Improvement, also known as UKN (this abbreviation means "Ustranenie Konstruktivnykh Nedostatkov" - Fixing Construction Faults).

During 1948 to 1952, all of the tanks were modernised. The engine and gear-box were strengthened, and the construction of the main friction clutch and side gears was improved. The roadwheels were replaced with new ones. The 10-RK radio was replaced with the more modern 10-RT.

After all modifications, the weight of the IS-3 had increased to 48.8 tones. Despite all the changes and expenses of modernisation, the tank still had many deficiencies and remained unreliable."

I have nothing against including a few "what-if" vehicles as long as their combat performance is properly modeled.

I also don't see any reason why the Panther F would not be included as a what-if. Note what John said about confusing the Panther F with the Panther II. They are 2 totally different vehicles. Panther Fs were being assembled as the war ended and it is possible a few saw combat. The Panther II never made it past the concept stage IIRC.

[Stalin's Organ]

There's a famous photo of IS-3's destroyed by the Israelis in 1967 that has one with it's turret blown right off IIRC. The caption says that they were destroyed by AMX-13 light tanks, which is kind of ironical, cos I think the 75 on hte AMX-13 was the same gun as the Panther used!!

Anyway - for my money:

-several hundred IS-3's were made before WW2 ended (I've seen figures up to 350)

-they WERE issued to real, front-line units expected to be battle worthy

Neither of these applies to such essoteric prototypes/one-offs/concept vehicles as the Panther 2 or Maus.

If you think that these should be in then I fully expect yuo to support TOG being in the next version of the CM engine for hte west - after all it would have been able to fight had the Germans invaded Britain in 1944!

[James]

Any changes on the drawing board in CM2 for infantry AI?

I would like threat analysis for infantry, simler to the existing tac ai of the AFVs. A Stuart naturally backs off from a Tiger, a squad should not advance against a platoon.

Infantry should aim to defeat the enemy by gaining advantages of cover & firepower in a firefight, not by blindly advanceing into incoming fire.

[Kwazydog]

Heya Guys...

Hehe, what a lot of fuss over one vehicle. Guys, I cant speak for Steve but Ill suggest that one of the reasons the IS-3 may make it in is that we already have a texture ready for the model, which will save us a bunch of time. That being said though, I havnt yet done the model for the IS-3 so it could just as easily be left out, especially if its going to cause a lot of stress

Id suggest that is was going to make it in purely for interests sake, and it wouldnt have any drastic effect on quick battles as it would only be available very late in the war and Im guessing it would be very 'expensive'.

Dan

[ 06-10-2001: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:

There's a famous photo of IS-3's destroyed by the Israelis in 1967 that has one with it's turret blown right off IIRC. The caption says that they were destroyed by AMX-13 light tanks, which is kind of ironical, cos I think the 75 on hte AMX-13 was the same gun as the Panther used!!

!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah I remember that from "The Tanks of Tummuz" or a book like that.

[Grisha]

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

Tero, hi,

I should just have said that all my comments referred to the German/Soviet fighting and not Finnish forces or the Winter War. I claim to know nothing about Finnish forces and the Winter War other than that the Finns are regarded as the best by all those that know.

When it comes to Soviet causalities I believe we are no longer in the dark. Both David Glantz and John Erickson, in my view the worlds top men on the Eastern Front, in the English language, regard the work by Colonel-General GF Krivosheev, Soviet Causalities and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century, as reliable and unbiased.

One way to express what I was saying it to illustrate it this way.

If the Germans had been defending against forces that numbered the same as Soviet forces “actually did” but, were in ever detail, “clones” of Germany’s own forces then the casuality ratio, attacker to defender, would have been 1.44:1. In reality it was 1.64:1, Soviet to German. This tells us that the Soviet forces performed nearly as well as German forces would have done in similar circumstances. All comments refer to the post Kursk period.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. If you use the casualties from the above book for the early period of the war you find that the gap between German and Soviet forces is just as great as the Germans claimed in the fifties. It is just that from about the autumn of 43 onwards the Soviets were far better soldiers, and far fewer in number, than the Germans liked to claim post war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, Kip. Especially wrt Soviet numbers there is no way the Soviets fielded an army that was 8:1 or 10:1 times larger than the Germans in Russia. Physically impossible, because the Soviet had neither that many men of military age, nor the equipment to arm such a tremendous host. From late 1943, on, the Soviets became very adept at deceptive redeployment of their forces along the front, thus creating the odds that German memoirs quote so often. The German memoirs weren't wrong, there really were that many Soviets in the main attack axes. But, those numbers were the result of redeployments done through deception operations, something the Soviets became second to none at. So, as far as the Germans were concerned every time the Soviets launched a major attack from late 1943 until the end of the war the Germans encountered heavy numerical odds in their disfavor. Naturally, it seemed like the Soviets were just swarming across the countryside, but nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the Soviets had developed the means whereby they could take substantial forces(which were never higher than 3:1 in numerical superiority, and that in late 1944), and redeploy them laterally along the front(along with STAVKA reserves from the rear) to weakpoints in the German line, and German intelligence was by and large unable to detect it.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

Hehe, what a lot of fuss over one vehicle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No problem KD For me at least it's not so much opposition to the IS-3 being in as it is wondering why not the Panther F (NOT the Panther II!)

[Andrew H.]

I can see the scenario: "In late April 1945, the Soviets decide to attempt to capture the Kummersdorf proving ground in a coup de main in order to seize the top secret German Maus tank before it can be destroyed. To do so without interfering with ongoing operations, the Soviets decide to use a company of the new IS-3 tanks."

[Freak]

Here is a picture of the Panther G:

And here the Panther F:

[ 06-10-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]

[Freak]

bump.