Playing the Soviet side in CM2

[kunstler]

I've read a number of the posts about the Soviets, and their military limitations, on the board.

It's been pointed out that their artillery is generally used for prepatory bombardments rather than as on-call in combat. Apparently they had little artillery of this type and what they did have was woefully slow and inaccurate.

It's also been noted that the Soviet command and control system is antiquated and that Soviet commanders essentially just planned a battle out beforehand, committed troops to battle, and hoped for the best; changes once it had started where almost impossible because the command system was unwieldly. :eek:

There's lots of stuff on the board on this line. Most Soviet tanks do not have radios, the panther kicks the T-34/85's ass, Soviet troops aren't well trained enough to do complicated battlefield maneuvers other than frontal wave attacks, etc.

So after reading all this, it begs the question: not just will playing the Soviet side be fun, but will there be anything to do at all?

Will it simply entail setting out troop orders at the start and then going for a coffee while the Nazis slaughter Soviets?

I remember reading that prepartory bombardments are outside the scope of CM and are assumed to have happened anyway prior to the battle. This leaves the Soviets in quite a conundrum: lousy command, lousy morale, no in game artillery, and superior German tanks, troops, and command systems to face.

On the Western Front, the Allies had the advantage of numerical superiority, something that CM does not take into account. The Germans get their bright spots (superior armour weapons and survivability) on the battlefield, but the allies principle battlefield advantage is absent.

Will the Soviets in CM2 be at an even greater disadvantage? If you can't issue direct orders to Soviet troops/tanks to do things, how will it be anything but frustrating? I know the simulation side of things is important to a lot of people here, but man, laying out orders beforehand and hoping for the best doesn't sound very involving.

Is the Soviet situation going to be as hopeless as some posts indicate?

a curious comrade kunstler

[lcm1947]

I'm sure it won't work like that. You will still place orders for the Russia's just like you will the German's. It's just with the Russian's every single aspect of their war machine sucked. Well, I guess some of the tanks were pretty tough and so were their troops just not as good as the well trained and hardened German's. I really looking forward to playing since then I'll be able to play using the German's for a change and have all those neat tanks. Did you hear there won't be horses? What ever will they eat?

[Maximus]

Well, the problem is here is that you're classifying the Red Army as a static entity over the course of the 4 years of combat here. The truth of the matter is is that the Red Army changed significantly throughout the years between 1941 and 1945. What you say is true for the early part, but actually half of that even.

You see, during the first phase of Barbarossa, the German War Machine did overwhelm the Russians in all combat aspects. However, when the T-34 came out, things changed. Granted they still didn't have radios then, but nonetheless, the Germans found themselves up against a superior tank. Because at that time, the top German tanks were tanks like the short-barreled PzIVD-F and PzIIIs with only 50mm guns. Even the early T-34s were better than the German counterparts.

The infantry situation was a little different story. This situation really didn't change until around Stalingrad in late 1942.

This is why BTS is adding another "quality" to troop squads. One of "morale" I believe it is. Such that you will now be able to have veteran troops with low morale, or poor troops with fanatical morale. This is necessary to simulate the longer span of conflict in the Eastern Front. Because you'll have veteran German troops, but with low morale of after being on the front for so long in bad conditions.

So basically, don't worry as BTS has figured out a way to model the change in quality of the two major combatants over the course of these four years.

[Panzer_Meyer]

Well most of this was true till mid 1943. By 1943 the soviets improved there tactics their C&C and others aspects.

The Soviets recieved thousands of radios for their tanks, from the allies as part of Lend-Lease.

So yes, 1941-1943(about June) the russians were still improving their C&C and tactics. They still had a long way to go as all of this is concerned. But they made good. By 1944 the soviet army was nothing like it was in 1941. It was totally different dynamic army, free of movement and it's generals had independce of thinking. Still Stalin had a word, but he let his commanders "try" to convince him, show themselves in battle. If they succeded, Stalin loosend his grip.

By 1944 the Russian tactics were very dynamic and more flexible, tactically and strategicly. No more did the soviets try to reach for huge and impossible goals, i.e encircle Army Group south in the dniper bend or Kharkov, in a single operation. They Learned from their mistakes and improved upon them.

When Operation Bagration came along June 22nd 1944. The Soviet army fielded 2.5 milion troops opposite the south of Army group centre and attacked. They broke the German deffenders and ahnilated or severly mauled the German divison in the Centre. The attack was launched from the Pripet marshes. This shows the soviet ability for improvasaiton and flexibility.

Hope this clears it up a bit.

[Mace]

The Soviets may have some limitations, but dont forget resources were readily available to them, and so what they lacked in tactical finesse they made up in numbers.

eg..their massed artillery could devastate German positions during a offensive operation.

Another thing, the Soviet Army modernized relatively quickly during the war, and by war's end tanks not equipped with Radios were the exception rather than the norm.

Mace

[Slapdragon]

There is a tendency by many wargamers to worship the German war machine, which is why you often get the "Russians sucked" Germans ruled" thing. But the game will be in no ways a German walk over, just as CM:BO is not a German walkover. The German deficiencies will also be modelled, and with the rarity factor, it will not be endless King Tigers sweeping up T34-76 who bumble along like idiots.

Contrary to popular belief, the Germans lost tanks, lost battle, and lost the whole war on the Eastern Front (well, they lost it on every front). Still there was lots of hard fighting by battalion level units on both sides. Something that will also become clear with CM:BB is why all the Marders, and Nashhorns, and AT units where needed by the Germans. Just remember that at times the Germans were hugely outgunned by the Russian T-34/76 models (which were fought by MkIIIs armed with 37mm and short 50mm guns at the start_ and that the JS and SU series of weapons were cabale, abundant, and useful.

I would not worry about Steve and Charles falling to much into an uberGerman mentality. They will first make a historically accurate game, then will beta test the heck out of it until it is playable, then scenario designers will go to work until you have some first class well balanced scenarios on the skids for it.

[Speedy]

I think you are not giving early war Soviet infantry the credit they are due. I have read many accounts of Soviet infantry in the early stages of the war putting up very stubborn defenses and not retreating until they were outflanked and threatened with being cutoff.

[gunnergoz]

Maximus hit the nail on the head. Do some reading about Stalingrad in particular and you'll begin to appreciate the tenacity and capacity for suffering that Russian soldiers displayed. They were in a class by themselves and I hope the new morale system can indeed do them justice.

True, theirs was a mixed lot, sometimes easily routed and at other times (often on the same battlefield) they could be found tenaciously fighting to the last bullet and Molotov cocktail. They are very difficult to classify at times and scenario designers will have to be very careful to give them their due.

No they're not the slick, stunning and shiny Whermacht, but by and large, I think that the Red Army's good qualities shine in ways that will give CM2 players a great thrill when they do overcome the feldgrau invaders.

As to their army "sucking" well again I have to agree that there were downsides to their organization and equipment at times, but that this was overcome as the war went on, and we see the Red Army climbing towards its apex at the same time that most of the German one was in decline.

What CM gamers will have to get used to is the great variability that they will see in Red Army combat capability at different times during the war. And while the gamer can attempt to throw masses of troops and tanks at the Germans, the greater challenge -- and fun -- will lie in making the best of what one is dealt. Russian commanders at all levels had to deal with the deficiencies of their system, their troops, their equipment and their doctrine. That they persisted and prevailed is one of the most awesome accomplishments of the entire war.

Go on and put down the Russians if you choose, but I think that many discriminating CM veterans will end up enjoying the Russian side of the coming game a great deal.

Sorry if this rambled on a bit, I'm beat from work...

[Panzer_Meyer]

They did fight to the last man and resist stubornly, but their tactics were primitive and still lacked radios. The Germans didn't expect the kind of resistence the Russians put up. The Germans were use to quick surrenders as on the western front and such.

Yes the russians were a tough bunchm they held out as long as humanly possibly, other times they ran at the first sign of a tank. The level of defense varied all over the fronts.

[Aacooper]

The Soviets changed over time, but the infantry didn't necessarily get more training. When they recaptured a Russian town, they would draft all able-bodied men, give them a day of training, and send them into the line. Even in 1944 and 1945 the Soviets didn't win all the battles (just like the Germans lost some in 1941), and poor training is probably one reason.

[Commissar]

If you want to have a good idea on how the Red Army fought, you better not just take the opinions on this board. Some grogs are pretty stubborn in their beliefs. The biggest is that the German Army did little to no wrongs and all their defeats can be attributed to Hitler's bumbling. While it is true that Hitler was probably a great helping cataylst for the Allies, the fact is that the Wehrmacht was ultimately outfought by the Red Army. While the prevailing view from the end of the War till the end of the Cold War is that the Russians just merely steamrolled over the Germans, this is increasingly being shown to be wrong. Unfortunately, many of the pro-German faction still blindly believe the Cold War propaganda that paints the Russians as basically inflexibly stupid and unimaginative who only use brute force to win. While there is some basis for many of these stereotypes very early in the War, it is also very true that the Red Army survived, matured, and refined their own concepts of Deep Battle to constantly trick and beat the Germans as the War progressed. While the Red Army did tend to outnumber the Germans in most major offensives, the Germans were almost always at a numerical disadvantage from the very start and that little fact didn't prevent the Germans from kicking the crap out of the Russians early in the War and serveral times later on. Russia did not have an endless supply of men and did not outnumber the Germans by large amount all along the front (they were starting to feel the manpower strain themselves as war went on). Many of the numerical advantages the Russians had from the latter half of the War was mainly due to successful maskirovka techniques. Ironically while the Red Army increasingly became capable, the Germans began to take on aspects that hampered the Red Army in the early days of Barbarossa. The Germans were still an enemy to be respected and there are many stories of German units doing some pretty amazing things despite overwhelming odds but these kinds of stories are hardly limited to the just the German side.

I love studying the Germans and I am always impressed by their training, tactics, equipment, and excellent officer corps. However, the Germans were far from perfect and they made some serious strategical blunders especially in industrial policy which ultimately lost them the war. While some of their equipment was impressive, not everything German was great and everything Russian sucked. The T-34 being one of the prime examples. Of course, the reason for their defeat is much more complicated but part of the reason was the increasing competence and skill of Red Army officers and soldiers on all levels. The Red Army of late 1943-45 was a far cry from the stumbling giant of early 1941.

Playing the Red Army is going to be fundamentally different. There is no escaping that. But like everything else in war, you find ways to use those limitations to your advantage and use your strengths to crush your opponent. Fact is any idiot can win with elite troops. Luckily, I believe that both Steve and Charles do not fall under the group that just blindly accepts the notion that all things Russian sucked. You can bet there are going to be a lot of people who are going to be complaining about how the Russians are "too good" or don't suck enough for "historical" reasons. Well, everyone has their opinion and luckily most of us live in a country where you have an absolute right to be absolutely wrong. Some people just exercise this right a whole lot more than others

Anyway, take a look at offical German reports but also take a look at Soviet ones as well. Read books that primarily use German sources but also be sure to read books that primarily use Russian ones as well. It's only by looking at both sides that you will ever have a chance of coming to any conclusion coming anywhere close to the "truth". Also, just be calm even if someone disagrees with you. It's sad to see some people really get huffy and puffy about trivial things like armor thickness of a tank that no longer exists or really matters. People have different opinions and if rational, logical talk can't convince them just let it slide. No point pressing an attack that gets you nowhere.

Anyway, just find some good books and start reading for yourself. Keep an open mind and not be quick to stick to any one conclusion. Even now, many things that were supposedly known about the War turn out to not be totally correct or we discover new information that sheds a better light on the issues.

[ 07-29-2001: Message edited by: Commissar ]

[StugIII]

Kunstler,

I can tell you for certain that even up until 1989 it hadn't changed much.

[gunnergoz]

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

Kunstler,

I can tell you for certain that even up until 1989 it hadn't changed much.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, you're welcome as usual to your opinion, but I think you may be overlooking the enormous changes that the Russian military went through in the years between 1939 to 1989. It went from being fair, to fairly hopless, to fairly unbeatable and then, most recently, to fairly incredibly incompetent (mostly thanks to politics than to the soldiers).

To equate the army of 1939 with that of 1989 is one thing, but to equate the army of 1945 with that of the last days of the USSR, or the first years of the CIS, is to me, unsupportable.

[StugIII]

After rereading what I wrote let my define what I said.

On the offensive the soviets believe in BIGTIME prep bombardment. They would (will) expend thier alotted ord. and then pack up and move forward with the assault until supplies caught up with them at which point they would hunker down and prepare for the next phase of the offensive.

On the defensive it's a mixed bag. Half of the arty will stay on station while the rest falls back to prepared positions in order to cover the withdrawl of the rest of the arty. They will play a sort of leap frog keeping the rear units fresh and able to cover the retreating units. When the retreating unit get into plact the now forward units will fall back and so on...

[StugIII]

gunnergoz,

You got me before I could explain myself. The various qualities of the soviet forces between 39 and 89 throw a small wrench into my original statement but the tactics (once realized in 41/42) didn't change until after the collapse. I can't honestly tell you exactly how soviet doctrine works now.

[ 07-29-2001: Message edited by: StugIII ]

[StugIII]

[ 07-29-2001: Message edited by: StugIII ]

[Scott B]

I actually wonder if there won't be the opposite problem. Submachinegun units of up to battalion size, plentiful artillery that was often and doctrinally used in direct fire, and cheap, effective armored vehicles... what's not to like? The Soviets had a very robust, centralized organization that should handle very well in the hands of a Combat Mission player.

Seriously, how will their real-life limitations play out on the Combat Mission battlefield?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> It's been pointed out that their artillery is generally used for prepatory bombardments rather than as on-call in combat. Apparently they had little artillery of this type and what they did have was woefully slow and inaccurate. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If this was the case, won't their artillery be cheaper to buy? Consider this:

American 155mm Artillery Spotter. Number of Rounds: 35. Blast Rating: 198. Cost (regular): 208.

German 150mm Artillery Spotter. Number of Rounds: 35. Blast Rating: 198. Cost (regular): 182.

American 4.5" Artillery Spotter. Number of Rounds: 40. Blast Rating: 125. Cost (regular): 144

British 4.5" Artillery Spotter. Number of Rounds: 40. Blast Rating: 125. Cost (regular): 123

As best I can tell, the only difference between the American and German or British spotters in these cases is the fact that the American will be firing for effect a full minute sooner in most cases. It would seem to me then, barring other differences that I am not aware of, that the extra cost is due to the response time; by extension, slower Red Army spotters will have even lower costs per round.

In a defensive position with a wire communications network, Soviet access to controlled fires should increase as well; I recall hearing something along these lines some time ago, but I'm not 100% certain it'll make the final cut. This is something that would help the Germans in their defensive efforts late in the war as well, but I'm not clear as to whether it will be coded or not.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> It's also been noted that the Soviet command and control system is antiquated and that Soviet commanders essentially just planned a battle out beforehand, committed troops to battle, and hoped for the best; changes once it had started where almost impossible because the command system was unwieldly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends on what period of the war; I'd have to say this is mostly unfair. Ironically, by the '44 period the lack of effective communications equipment may actually have helped in a few ways, as it essentially required a little loosening of the reigns and decentralization of command. Look at the forward detachment of an armored or mechanized unit--hardly the model of rigid inflexibility and antiquated command and control.

In any case, how is this going to play out on the Combat Mission battlefield? I expect the command and control problems will stem from low quality troops and lack of radios within vehicles; green and (especially) conscript troops out of command have a long delay no matter what army they belonged to - the Soviets will be no different.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There's lots of stuff on the board on this line. Most Soviet tanks do not have radios, the panther kicks the T-34/85's ass,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Many Soviet tanks in '41-'42 lacked radios, particularly of the two-way variety. Do you think this was the case throughout the war? Do you not expect that this will also be reflected in their cost?

I won't touch the Panther vs T-34 debate. Suffice it to say that for the price, I expect the T-34/85 to be plenty good enough, in much the way a Sherman 76 is good enough, their life-span in Chinese restaurants notwithstanding (sorry-- couldn't help it ).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Soviet troops aren't well trained enough to do complicated battlefield maneuvers other than frontal wave attacks, etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfair generalization. You're in for a shock when this game comes out.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I remember reading that prepartory bombardments are outside the scope of CM and are assumed to have happened anyway prior to the battle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Recent word is preparatory bombardments are "in."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This leaves the Soviets in quite a conundrum: lousy command, lousy morale, no in game artillery, and superior German tanks, troops, and command systems to face.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where did you get lousy morale? By and large the opposite was the case, in a major way-- the Germans killed millions upon millions of Soviet citizens, both soldier and civilian; what more motivation do you need?

Besides, as mentioned above, Soviet inferiority in tanks was a late war phenomenon, and even then I suspect it won't be such a crippling hinderance. Look at how it plays out in CMBO-- there's a lot more there than just tanks.

At any rate, I went and got long-winded to say that I don't agree that the Soviet player will be hamstrung in CM2 - if anything, I think they'll have a whole new bag of tricks to employ against the Germans. I'm looking forward to employing many of those Soviet systems in-game- the AT Rifle, the KV series of tanks, submachinegun companies (tank desant!), katyushas, the SU 152, the "Crash-Boom" 76mm field gun, the T-34, and the vehicle that won the war...

... the LEND LEASE STUDEBAKER 2-1/2 TON!

Woohoo,

Scott

[Freak]

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

There is a tendency by many wargamers to worship the German war machine, which is why you often get the "Russians sucked" Germans ruled" thing. But the game will be in no ways a German walk over, just as CM:BO is not a German walkover. The German deficiencies will also be modelled, and with the rarity factor, it will not be endless King Tigers sweeping up T34-76 who bumble along like idiots. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even with rarity factor off kingtigers are rarely seen due to the large expense already built in. So weather in rarity factor or not kingtigers are not very prevelant in the game. This is evident by CMBO. I have never seen one.

Contrary to popular belief, the Germans lost tanks, lost battle, and lost the whole war on the Eastern Front (well, they lost it on every front). Still there was lots of hard fighting by battalion level units on both sides.

Popular belief? I don't mean to pick a bone slapdragon, but just who's popular belief? National Socialists? Neonazi's? I think anyone who has studied or read books or even has an incling of WWII on the Eastern front knows that Gemany fought hard, and fought probably beyond what was expected with the availability of their numbers. The Waffen -SS especially, pluging holes and gaps in the east front like a firebrigade. I think everyone and their sister knows that the germans lost WWII unless you are in some sort of denial of written histroy.

[Mace]

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

I think you are not giving early war Soviet infantry the credit they are due. I have read many accounts of Soviet infantry in the early stages of the war putting up very stubborn defenses and not retreating until they were outflanked and threatened with being cutoff.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I..I'm surprised! :eek:

Not that the Soviets put up a good fight at the start of Operation Barbarossa, but that you can read!!!!

Mace

[Scott B]

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

The various qualities of the soviet forces between 39 and 89 throw a small wrench into my original statement but the tactics (once realized in 41/42) didn't change until after the collapse. I can't honestly tell you exactly how soviet doctrine works now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simply not true. Some of the most basic ideas, like the elemental components of operational art, were developed in the 1930s, but they made changes time and time again in doctrine and organization, and therefore by extension tactics.

Don't even try to say they didn't - few nations have understood so well the relationship between doctrine and organization and the importance of flexibility in both, and in learning from one's own combat experiences. To say there are some basic similarities that held true through the years is one thing; to say their tactics didn't change from 1942 to 1989 is simply incorrect by any stretch of your definition of "tactics."

[Panzer Leader]

It seems to me that (as so often happens) elements of operational and strategic victories are being mixed in with ideas of tactical combat.

In any war, the soldiers from both sides will fight with all the power and tools they have, whether it be tanks or training, whether it is their experience or their lack of experience. This, I think (to bring up a recent subject) is why BTS refuses to give national modifiers - and rightly so.

The great victories of the Wermacht in the early stages of Barbarossa were mostly due to the German experience and knowledge of warfare on an operational level, not because the soldiers were "better". Similarly, the losses the Soviets were dealt were mainly due to their inexperience and their surprise. It was at higher command levels than CM represents where the strict adherance to policy and the inabilty for dynamic change in the theatres of battle that cost the Soviets so much.

But on the battlefield, the troops fought with gusto and verve on BOTH sides. This was the same throughout the war. Weapons changed and fluctuated from being German supreme, to Soviet supreme and back again, but this will be all that is needed to make a CM-scale battle historically accurate.

Of course, there were factors with the troops that also mattered, these being their training (green, veteren, et al) their health (which I believe BTS is adding) and their morale. Also, factors like radios, and artillery will also affect the style of play, but these will also be added to give each side their own benefits and advantages.

To illustrate, think of a platoon, or a squad, or even an individual soldier. Was a Soviet platoon sergeant "worse" than a German one? Well, he had less training, had no combat experience, and probably didn't have much of the same quality of equipment as his German counterpart, but he could bark orders as well as a German, and he could see where the enemy was and direct his troops the same.

A squad will still act the same in the Soviet army as in the German. They will seek cover and fire at the enemy. they will charge when ordered and retreat when broken. This is no different ehan CM is now, and that is right.

That is the level of game CM is, and that is why the grand strategies that led Germany to their early success and which ultimately lost them their war and their soveriegnity (or most of it )... that is why it will have little affect on sending your company of red soldiers into combat. Sure the tanks might be a little confused, and it is damn hard to get that arty to fall when and where you want it, but when you tell your men to "Charge!" they will do it.

[ 07-29-2001: Message edited by: Panzer Leader ]

[StugIII]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott B:

To say there are some basic similarities that held true through the years is one thing; to say their tactics didn't change from 1942 to 1989 is simply incorrect by any stretch of your definition of "tactics."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess it depends on what level you're judging the tactics on.

From 42 until 89 the soviets haven't been on the defensive ( outside of counter attacks). If you want to count Afganistan, the Soviets went against their own doctrine and tried to fight against a foe that rarely marshalled more than a company sized organized element at a time (and that's even large for the afganies). Doctrine from 42 on said to bypass small elements and continue to drive to the prize. Mop up units would follow. Well there never was a prize, soviet doctrine did not adjust and they got atritioned(sic) out of Afgan land (in general terms). Verse the German offensive of 42 you say, doctrine stayed consistant with what they learned during the winter counter-offensive of 41/42, a collapsible defensive line with leap frog Arty. The problem was availible units. Once the units became availible they went on the offensive reverted back to their then, fairly new doctrine.

I agree with you that the principles were developed in the 30's but they were never put into practice until 42. Finland was like a snowy Afganistan, they didn't adjust tactic and doctrine to suit the situation. where did they end up?

They haven't switched doctrine and tactics since 42 because there hasn't been an opportunity that would force them to. Afgan land should have but didn't.

[StugIII]

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

I guess it depends on what level you're judging the tactics on.

From 42 until 89 the soviets haven't been on the defensive ( outside of vs. counter attacks). If you want to count Afganistan, the Soviets went against their own doctrine and tried to fight against a foe that rarely marshalled more than a company sized organized element at a time (and that's even large for the afganies). Doctrine from 42 on said to bypass small elements and continue to drive to the prize. Mop up units would follow. Well there never was a prize, soviet doctrine did not adjust and they got atritioned(sic) out of Afgan land (in general terms). Verse the German offensive of 42 you say, doctrine stayed consistant with what they learned during the winter defense of 41/42, a collapsible defensive line with leap frog Arty. The problem was availible units. Once the units became availible they went on the offensive, reverting back to their then, fairly new doctrine.

I agree with you that the principles were developed in the 30's but they were never put into practice until 42. Finland was like a snowy Afganistan, they didn't adjust tactic and doctrine to suit the situation. Where did they end up?

They haven't switched doctrine and tactics since 42 because there hasn't been an opportunity that would force them to. They were going with what worked. Afgan land should have forced them to switch but didn't.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[StugIII]

sorry about the above. I hit quote instead of edit

[ 07-29-2001: Message edited by: StugIII ]

[Grunto IV]

i'm looking forward to the soviets, simply to have batteries of 76mm field pieces in the direct fire role.

oh... then there's zverdoy... and that superlative 7.62x25 smg...

andy