Playing the Soviet side in CM2

[Scott B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I guess it depends on what level you're judging the tactics on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really. Pretty close to anything resembling the Soviet conduct of all things at the tactical level changed several times through World War Two, let alone in the years that followed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From 42 until 89 the soviets haven't been on the defensive (outside of counter attacks).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kursk was in 1943, and there were a lot of counter-attacks in the 1943-1945 period, but so what? What does being on the defensive have to do with adjusting one's tactics? Planning for offensive operations was motivated both by political concerns and realism. Tactics changed often, in response to new theories, technologies, or capabilities, in Soviet forces or those of their opponents.

Tactics define how a unit fights; they are guided to some extent by doctrine and organization. The Soviets considered "tactical" engagements at anything at or below the division level-- above that, and you're beginning to slip into the operational level. I agree that the Soviets paid somewhat less attention to the tactical level of war than their opponents (real as well as potential), particularly the Germans. This is primarily because the bulk of Soviet interest was in the operational level, which pertains to the fighting of larger scale forces (armies and fronts); their success in the Second World War demonstrated their aptitude in the operational art, as well as the shortcomings of the Germans at the same level (for more than one reason).

In any case, tactical level considerations change all the time. Sometimes there are small changes, and sometimes, with the advent of a major new system (helicopters, anti-tank guided weapons, nuclear bombs, ect) they change drastically. Since I don't think you're contending that the Soviets never changed how they fight right down to the squad level for a period of almost fifty years, I think there's an issue with the vocabulary.

Essentially I think you're trying to assert that the Soviets never changed their doctrine from 1942 on; this is also incorrect. The Red Army that stood atop the ruins of Berlin in 1945 was different from its 1941 counterpart in ways that only 4 years of bitter high-intensity conflict could enact.

Your contention that they were unprepared for Afghanistan is somewhat correct, but to characterize the Soviet Army in Afghanistan as incapable or unwilling to change is not. I suggest locating a copy of Lester Grau's The Bear Went Over The Mountain if you want to read first hand a translation of a Soviet General Staff study on changes in combat tactics by Soviet ground troops in Afghanistan. But in any case, sufficient evidence exists to refute your claim in the WWII period, and I prefer to stay with that so we can sort of stay on-topic.

So which is it? Doctrine or tactics? I say they both underwent changes in a big way throughout the Russo-German conflict, and I'd be flat-out astonished if you could show me how they didn't. Which doesn't mean I won't encourage you to try.

[Skipper]

> Afgan land should have forced them to

> switch but didn't.

But it did! "Maneuverable group" and all the other small unit tactics stuff. Some new features in arty tactics. Anti-manpad tactics in aviation. And so on. When people want to live - they learn fast.

[Richard Morgan]

One of the saddest film clips I ever saw on tv showed Russian soldiers being formed up and marched off after working in the fields. Every soldier carried a cabbage under each arm. These cabbages, we were informed, comprised their pay If memory serves, this was a few years after the Berlin Wall came down.

It seems to me that history has a habit of repeating itself. The Russian Army of today is in a woeful state and would get the crap kicked out of it in any major ground confrontation. However, much like their forefathers, they would reform, learn rapidly from their mistakes and transform themselves into something altogether more formidable. All honour to them.

[Commissar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Richard Morgan:

One of the saddest film clips I ever saw on tv showed Russian soldiers being formed up and marched off after working in the fields. Every soldier carried a cabbage under each arm. These cabbages, we were informed, comprised their pay If memory serves, this was a few years after the Berlin Wall came down.

It seems to me that history has a habit of repeating itself. The Russian Army of today is in a woeful state and would get the crap kicked out of it in any major ground confrontation. However, much like their forefathers, they would reform, learn rapidly from their mistakes and transform themselves into something altogether more formidable. All honour to them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The ironic thing is that a weak Russian Army may be much more dangerous today than a strong one. One can well imagine what a demoralized group of armed men might do to regain their pride and honor (or at least their due pay).

[lcm1947]

I can't remember the exact figures but someone posted the number of men killed in action some months ago and it plainly shows that the Russian's got their butts beat. So, I for one don't think much of the Russian's army abilities in WWII. Now, I certainly am looking forward to playing CM2 but nobody can say that the Russian army was that good and have me believe it. Had it not been for Germany taking on two fronts I believe they would have won over the Russian's. Now I don't have any facts to that statement but I have read some about WWII and that's what I got out of it anyway.

[Commissar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947:

I can't remember the exact figures but someone posted the number of men killed in action some months ago and it plainly shows that the Russian's got their butts beat. So, I for one don't think much of the Russian's army abilities in WWII. Now, I certainly am looking forward to playing CM2 but nobody can say that the Russian army was that good and have me believe it. Had it not been for Germany taking on two fronts I believe they would have won over the Russian's. Now I don't have any facts to that statement but I have read some about WWII and that's what I got out of it anyway.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The losses are relative like everything else in life. If I have large numerical superiority and can afford big losses while you have great numerical disadvantage and can't afford losses, I'll still win. However, even the Russians began to feel the strain. The Red Army was forced to reduced the authorized strenghts of infantry and tank units due to the growing manpower shortage. Luckily the Red Army had also learned some important lessons and integrated them into their tactics and strategy. The wasteful tactics that cost them a whole mess of infantry were seen less and less and more dependence on armor and vehicles became more common particularly in the last year or so of the war. They were still hampered by their shortcomings but successfully minimized them enough to push the Wehrmacht back into Germany.

However, the Germans managed to fight on the Eastern Front for about 4 years. That's pretty impressive. Even towards the end, the Germans were a force to be reckon with and taken seriously. In the end though, they ran out of men, supplies, and time. They just weren't prepared for a long term war while their opponents, Russian and Western Allied were. If they had been, we'd probably be living in a much different world.

[Enoch]

Don't forget that some of the early war soviet tanks besides the T-34 were difficult for the Germans to deal with. The KV-1 and Kv-2 were heavily armored and proved difficult for the Pz III's and Pz-IV's to deal with.

[Commissar]

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

Don't forget that some of the early war soviet tanks besides the T-34 were difficult for the Germans to deal with. The KV-1 and Kv-2 were heavily armored and proved difficult for the Pz III's and Pz-IV's to deal with.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True but the KV-1 and KV-2 were mechanically unreliable, especially their transmissions. Even the early T-34s had quite a few teething problems. I believe there are a couple of photos with T-34s with spare transmissions latched onto the deck. Yikes. Also many of the crews had little to no training and were unfamilar with their own tanks. However, the Russins were able to learn from their mistakes and become a lot more effective. Equipment quality also improved as they ironed out the early bugs.

[Skipper]

> I can't remember the exact figures but

> someone posted the number of men killed in

> action some months ago and it plainly

> shows that the Russian's got their butts

> beat.

Between June and October 1941 - surely, and in a big way. Afterwards it wasn't so anymore.

[Grisha]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947:

I can't remember the exact figures but someone posted the number of men killed in action some months ago and it plainly shows that the Russian's got their butts beat. So, I for one don't think much of the Russian's army abilities in WWII. Now, I certainly am looking forward to playing CM2 but nobody can say that the Russian army was that good and have me believe it. Had it not been for Germany taking on two fronts I believe they would have won over the Russian's. Now I don't have any facts to that statement but I have read some about WWII and that's what I got out of it anyway.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are certainly free to your opinion, and your broad statements have an element of truth - but only to a point. I am curious if you have read anything by Erickson, or Zaloga, or Glantz? Have you read anything from the Soviet point of view, or are your opinions based entirely from German materials? I'm almost certain that you are aware of the tremendous encirclement battles of '41, where Soviet prisoners were in the millions, but have you ever heard of the Belorussian campaign, or Kursk, or Stalingrad, or even the Vistula-Oder operation? Are you familiar with the unique, and extremely successful use of maskirovka by the Soviets? Are you aware that though the Soviets possessed overall numerical odds of 2:1 by Oct '43, and 3:1 odds by Oct '44, that somehow the Soviets were consistently able to create 5:1 to 7:1 odds at the weakest points in the German lines, beginning around late '43? Which brings me back to your knowledge of maskirovka. The Soviets were not the equals of the Germans in tactical fire & maneuver, but the Germans were not the equals of the Soviets in the use of deception. By 1944, when the Soviets didn't want German intelligence to detect Soviet redeployment, on whatever scale, it simply did not happen. The Soviets were that good at it. Tactically, the result was 8:1, 16:1 odds, massively overwhelming assaults that were precluded with little if any warning - of any sort and at any level, which translates to surprise. Hence, from late '43, and especially from mid '44 on, when the Soviets wanted to create an unanticipated assault at the ungodly odds of 10:1 or greater, they generally did so without any worries of a German response that would be in any form sufficient to the task. The Soviets got extremely good at what worked for them.

[Desantnik]

I'd like also to add several points concerning those "casualty figures":

1) During 1941-till med-1942 it were actually Germans who had 2:1 advatage in manpower on ACTIVE FRONTS.

2) Bulk of all casualties took place in 1941-1942 (some 6 million). Most of the died in German camps (camps for the Soviet POWs weren't the nice stalags provided for allied troops).

3) Total MILITARY casualty count for Soviet side was around 8 million, for Germans 3.6 million as KIAs. When people use the mindblowing 20 million figure, they seem to forget to add civilians into equation who Germans killed much more efficently than military.

4)Saying that "if Hitler didn't fight on two fronts he would win" is simple ignorace for several reasons. One, it is an "if" scenario and "ifs" are usually for people who didn't read or witnessed alot of facts and think they could have done better than someone else. Then there are numbers: only about 7-10% of German war machine was engaged on all fronts except the East (so those 10% had to be devided between France, Mediterranean and Afrika Korps). Now bulk of those troops were stationed in France and those were for the most part second and third line troops with next two nothing in experience and obsolete machinery (i dont think you would see something like Hotchkiss on Eastern front). All the crack troops Hitler used in Adrennes became crack by fighting in the East. So if going into "ifs" Hitler would probably win if he didnt open Eastern front (and he did actually) but statement is not true vice verca.

Oh and another BIG point to show your lack of knowledge. When did second front open? That is right, June 1944... What was happening on the Eastern front on June 1944? That is right, German general retreat. Kursk was lost, Stalingrad was lost, Sevastopol in a process of being lost (irnoically it took Germans a YEAR to take Sevastopol from a cut off Soviet army, Soviets took it back in less than a week!). Stalin almoast begged Allies to open a second front earlier which would dramatically decrease Soviet casualties and perhaps prevent horrors like Stalingrad, but Allies perferred to sit it out while German war machine gets weakened and then take the spoils... So Soviets and Germans were practically fighting it out alone for 3 years and in June 1944 it was dead obvious who would win.

[Mikael]

Hmmm... Desantnik, when you say it took the Germans a year to take Sevastopol and it only took the Russians two weeks, be aware that you're comparing an apple with a cherry. When Manstein's 11. Army attacked the Crimea peninsula it was around Oct-Nov 1941. Due to the winter and the strength of the Russian garrison he didn't launch any attack on Sebastopol itself until the spring. Then when he did purposely assault the city, he took it in a few weks, against very strong opposition(I think the Soviets had like 10 fortresses on the mountains surrounding the city). WHereas the Red Army, when it took Sebastopol a couple years later, had overwhelming odds and the Germans hadn't had any time to prepare solid defenses as much as the Soviets had done before.

[olandt]

First off, on another thread this was from steve on prep bombardment (I just bumped that thread as well, called "Pre-game bombardment")

From Steve:

CMBB now allows for a Turn One bombardment without any delay. This is primarily to simulate the rather inflexible Soviet artillery system of firecontrol, but it works for all nations. Basically, before the battle started the Soviets predetermined where they were going to fire, let loose, and then assaulted. Mortars were used during the battle and, to a lesser degree, timed preplanned artillery strikes in areas not actually being assaulted (like rear road crossings and such). In general, Soviet FO delays will be so bad that this will be the only viable means of using artillery. The player CAN opt to call down artillery during the battle, but it will much harder to do this because of the lengthy delays.

Steve

End quote

On another topic from this thread; another cause of the German collapse which tends to be overlooked is the inadaquacy of their supply system. Not to say that the germans were not skilled at supply, but that the size of the task was beyond them. Moscow is not exactly next to Berlin, and the Germans relied heavily on horse drawn wagons to get supplies from the railhead to the front.

[Pzman]

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

True but the KV-1 and KV-2 were mechanically unreliable, especially their transmissions. Even the early T-34s had quite a few teething problems. I believe there are a couple of photos with T-34s with spare transmissions latched onto the deck. Yikes. Also many of the crews had little to no training and were unfamilar with their own tanks. However, the Russins were able to learn from their mistakes and become a lot more effective. Equipment quality also improved as they ironed out the early bugs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But remember engine problems aren't modeled in CM so that wouldn't matter.

[Commissar]

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

But remember engine problems aren't modeled in CM so that wouldn't matter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mu ha ha! That's right. I forgot about that.

[TigerChow]

Maximus - In an earlier post to this thread, you mentioned BTS adding an additional quality to the squads, that of "morale" for CMBB. I don't recall any discussion to that effect in any previous threads. Hopefully, I am missing something, because I think it would be a great thing to add. The overall "Fanatacism" factor is ok, but I like the idea of having some troops that have great morale fighting alongside some troops that have crappy morale in the same battle. The overall fanatacism doesn't quite give you that feel (you don't know up front which are your good troops and which are your crappy troops).

What I do remember is that BTS is adding a "fitness" level. Can anyone confirm that they are in fact going to add both of these qualities?

[Panzer Leader]

Chech the CM2 FAQ man:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Will there be new orders options for units?

"We've added a new rating for troops: fitness. Low fitness leads to greater fatigue unless you stay put, which of course limits your tactical options. This is separate from experience, which now allows us to simulate poorly trained Russian conscripts who are young and healthy men straight off the farm, but who have received little to no military training. We can also simulate depleted elite soldiers, who are low on food and have been in battle far too long. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Username]

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

On another topic from this thread; another cause of the German collapse which tends to be overlooked is the inadaquacy of their supply system. Not to say that the germans were not skilled at supply, but that the size of the task was beyond them. Moscow is not exactly next to Berlin, and the Germans relied heavily on horse drawn wagons to get supplies from the railhead to the front.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you bring up a good point. That is, Russian war was railway war. I believe the russians also made war this way.

In the west, the amount of petrol available allowed to the US/allies to effect a "bum rush" of armor, planes, trucks, etc all carried forward by petrol. It was quite different from what the germans had experienced in russia and I bet they were envious. The US use of rubberized tank tracks, as opposed to steel tracks, made this easier still. The war in france became a smaller place than it was in 1940.

But railheads must have ruled in russia. Corp and army commanders made decisions around them. To breakthrough and cut a rail line or capture a rail head meant doom for all those cutoff.

Lewis

[ 07-30-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

[Gen-x87H]

it will not be endless King Tigers sweeping up T34-76 who bumble along like idiots. "

Huh? Who has the points to spend on endless KTs? I have played uber PBEM\TCP games and never used a single KT.

Gen

[Freak]

It will not be endless King Tigers sweeping up T34-76 who bumble along like idiots.

Thats slapdragon and his delirious attempts at elitism...

Sigh...

[ 07-30-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]

[Slapdragon]

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

It will not be endless King Tigers sweeping up T34-76 who bumble along like idiots.

Thats slapdragon and his delirious attempts at elitism...

Sigh...

[ 07-30-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Freak,

We just got over trying to slow down the amount of flaming on this board. Please refrain from casting flames in what were otherwise adult conversations. They do not improve the atmosphere of the posting, nor do they transmit any information of use to anyone. In addition, they make the flamer look a bit like an idiot if he strikes first, which you have just done.

Please reread Steve Grammonts comments on flaming and take them to heart. There is no nead for this childishness, it only gets in the way of good discussions, as this one has been.

In addition, note that what you are after is to censor conversations by choosing people who are acceptable to post, not discussing a valid point or refuting some idea I presented. You could have refuted my idea, explained how you differed, started a counter idea and supported it (or not), or done any one of a dozen things to keep the conversation positive. There is no need for this sort of thing.

[ 07-30-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gen-x87H:

it will not be endless King Tigers sweeping up T34-76 who bumble along like idiots. "

Huh? Who has the points to spend on endless KTs? I have played uber PBEM\TCP games and never used a single KT.

Gen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have never played PBEM with a T-34/76 either. What is your reason for pointing this out?

:confused:

[Freak]

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

Freak,

We just got over trying to slow down the amount of flaming on this board. Please refrain from casting flames in what were otherwise adult conversations. They do not improve the atmosphere of the posting, nor do they transmit any information of use to anyone. In addition, they make the flamer look a bit like an idiot if he strikes first, which you have just done.

Please reread Steve Grammonts comments on flaming and take them to heart. There is no nead for this childishness, it only gets in the way of good discussions, as this one has been.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slapdragon, I should have given it more of a Peng flavor to it or maybe put a " :D" or a " "(though that would take away its pengness) (and no I am not a penger)

Anyway, my post was just that, to be in jest. Not the other way around!

That being said , I had hoped you would respond to my original post in response to your comments. I was looking foward to it

[ 07-30-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]

[Freak]

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

I have never played PBEM with a T-34/76 either. What is your reason for pointing this out?

:confused:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point is simple. Kingtigers are rarely seen at all in CMBO because of its already built in expense. They are there, but very rare. Please refer to my original post on this matter.

[Slapdragon]

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

Slapdragon, I should have given it more of a Peng punch to it or maybe put a or a (though that would take away its pengness) (and no I am not a penger though)

Anyway, my post was just that, to be in jest. Not the other way around. Anyway I sorry if it was taken that way.

That being said , I hoped you would respond to my original post in response to your comments.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I bow my head and accept that I did not recognize the humor. That was entirely my fault.

As to your original comment -- Ever since tank modelling became big, there has been an odd fascination with the German side. With war gaming, it can be seen with the rise of urban legends about undefeatable tanks, steely eyed commanders, and a country that only lost the war because Hitler was a fruitloop.

I furst noticed this playing Advanced Tractics in 1979, when a person I was playing threw a **** fit because a Hellcat of mine killed two Tiger Tanks in a row. Well, the Suncoast Skirmishes judges said rules were rules, but quite a few people felt that a Hellcat should never be able to kill a Tiger from any angle at any range. Tigers are after all, by urban legend at least, unkillable death machines.

Enter the Squad Leader era. Greenwood was fairly neutral on the whole issue of the German war machine, and the first game, although not hugely accurate in how it worked, was not a bad little game.

Now Greenwood designed some odd things into SL. Artillery worked on the US model, which was not the most common model (giving an advantage to the Axis and Russians, who did not use this model at all). He split out the LMG from Russian and German units but did not create German units with the added firepower of assault rifles (he made then 4-6-7), and he inexplicably made Russian squads 4-4-7 when they should have also been 4-6-7. But this was not bias against any one country, just odd design work.

But in SL tournies, you could tell that the Germans were the favorites. If you played Russian or Amis you could always find an oppos, but if you played a German force is was much harder. In discussion rooms people always complained that this or that German tank was under modelled, too expensive, or not common enough.

(Note, here I am talking about a serious minority of people, and not a majority.)

So you come to CM. On this board you can see the uberGerman urban legends manifest by topics. Once in a while you get an Americans rule thread that asks for this or that capability to be added to US tanks, but for each one of these, you get 9 threads complaining that a Sherman killed a Tiger, change the entire game, or a US platoon outshot a German platoon, something must be wrong.

CM breaks urban legend myths by trying its best to be as scientific as possible. German tank superiority is well modelled for the reasons why they were superior, not because Charles decided to give them a +12 to hit lile some Dungeons and Dragons sword of something or other.

That does not mean the game is perfect by any means. Maybe light tanks are over modelled in their ability to shoot on the move. Certianly research into optics has led to a general consenus that while German optics would not have been enough superior to Allied late war to matter, early war they would have been an issue in targeting (effecting CM:BB). But Steve and Charles wont make an impossible to play Soviet because they were not a bunch of sad sack loosers.