mav1 Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Was the Soviet D-44 85mm anti tank gun/infantry gun made in ww2 or after ww2? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergeltungswaffe Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Development started in 1943 and it was in service during the war. Still quite a number of them in service today. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Originally posted by Vergeltungswaffe: Development started in 1943 and it was in service during the war. Still quite a number of them in service today. What's your source for saying they were in service during the war? All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergeltungswaffe Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Not at home to dig through my books, so just going on memory. I'm certain about development starting in 43, but I may be remembering wrong about them replacing ZiS-3's at the end of the war. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 mav1, Per BRASSEY'S ARTILLERY OF THE WORLD, Bonanza Books 1979 edition, page 166, the weapon was known as the M 1945 (D-44) and apparently entered service in 1945 in time to see war service, seeing as how the descriptive text reads ("...it dates from World War II..." It is clearly described as being a divisional gun and is the same gun as what arms the T-34/85. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mav1 Posted July 4, 2007 Author Share Posted July 4, 2007 So why did the d-44 not get in t0 cmbb? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigduke6 Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 I think because it falls into the category of "fielded so late in the war we can leave it out". ZiS-3 was the standard divisional piece in the Red Army for the duration of the war. D-44 is generally described as a wartime design that got fielded after the war ended. This is not to say that no D-44s were fielded anywhere, late war, but to do so would have been a pretty severe shift for the unit issued them, if the unit had been using ZiS-3 before that. Therefore, it is likely D-44 if it saw combat at all was in a specialty formation created from scratch, and fielded just so the weapon could get some combat testing before the Germans chucked it in. There is no evidence of widespread fielding of this weapon during the war that I can find, and there is anecdotal evidence (Gravin memoires) of ZiS-3 pieces serving all the way from the Volga to the Spree. I further would treat the Brassey citation as questionable; sometimes there was a substantial lag time between when the Soviet designers got a weapon accepted for use, and its actually getting fielded - the classic example being of course ZiS-5, and followed probably by ZiS-3. In other words, my guess is that for practical purposes the D-44 saw no combat during WW2. Perhaps a few participated in the Manchurian campaign, much as the fabled pair of IS-III regiments that also - supposedly - stuck it to the Japanese. Of course, Stalin 3 is in the game - but it is a game after all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 Bigduke6, Good stuff! As for anecdotal evidence of late war ZiS-3 use, who needs it when all you have to do is watch the Russian BoB documentary I posted a while back? You can see it in action there for yourself, along with everything else up through the B-4 203mm howitzer firing direct lay. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mav1 Posted July 6, 2007 Author Share Posted July 6, 2007 Good piece of information guys, my knowlege on warfare increases yet again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 Bigduke6 and mav1, Here's the post with the Russian BoB documentary links--plus some other great discussions. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=011976#000000 Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mav1 Posted July 11, 2007 Author Share Posted July 11, 2007 There is a few soviet guns missing. Where is the 122mm field howitzer for instance? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 You can only buy Soviet guns above 100mm calibre as artillery support, or mounted on tracks. All the best Andreas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mav1 Posted July 12, 2007 Author Share Posted July 12, 2007 Originally posted by Andreas: You can only buy Soviet guns above 100mm calibre as artillery support, or mounted on tracks. All the best Andreas Was the 122mm howitzer not used as a field gun like the 76mm zis field gun? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 mav1, Some of us pushed hard for the full spectrum of Russian towed artillery in an on board mode for streetfighting and the like, to include Katyushas, but we didn't do that great in terms of outcome. Don't remember, though, whether it was time, CD space, model building or some combo of same. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mav1 Posted July 13, 2007 Author Share Posted July 13, 2007 John you were at the forum long before me. So what's with the weak armour of the is-2 tank. I was just looking at an osprey book and it stated that Tiger tank could only knock out the is-2 at the side from the maximum of 1500m! In cmbb the panzer IV can knock out the is 2 at that range fromn the front! Its not only the osprey book that state this other books and website state virtualy the same. The is 2 is badly weakened in the game due to its weakened armour because if its natural low firing rate. There is also this long debate I have been reading from the past posts about the low penetration of the 76mm soviet tank gun. Has a conclusion ever been reached on it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Which Tiger tank was the book referring to? Discussion from 2004 relating to JS-2 vs. German Tanks Nothing in CMBB is going to change - so you'll have to like it or lump it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted July 14, 2007 Share Posted July 14, 2007 mav1, I remember heated discussions about that and many other topics, but details are fuzzy. (pauses to wait as Wicky rolls up and drops off a meaty thread link; John glances through it) That's a good thread, but I believe you'll find these of interest. Some excellent material here on IS-2 vs. Tiger & King Tiger. Stalins in combat (highly groggy) http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=44 IS-2 vs. the Panzers (not so groggy) http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=44 Wicky, If certain arcane rituals I've conducted work, and/or BFC takes pity on us in conjunction with the eventual release of CMC, which outputs CMBB battles, then I have some hope that we may actually see some much needed tweaks made to series of known problems with the basic game, such as the undermodeled 45mm gun, the super StuG, etc. As far as I'm concerned, the timing's ideal, it makes sense, it builds goodwill in the customer base, and is the ideal attractor for potential buyers. Get the new, improved CMBB today! Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 Originally posted by John Kettler: Some of us pushed hard for the full spectrum of Russian towed artillery in an on board mode for streetfighting and the like, to include Katyushas, Katyusha's should never be on-board IMO. sure there's video of them shooting from streets - but at 70-80 deg elevation to clear the buildings (and one video from berlin shows a rocket failing to do so...) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mav1 Posted July 16, 2007 Author Share Posted July 16, 2007 Iam surprised that the is-2 armour in the game is thinner than what a lot of other books and websites state. I wonder where BFC got the info for the IS-2 from? In comparison the armour of all the other vehicles match what is stated in other books and websites. [ July 16, 2007, 05:13 AM: Message edited by: mav1 ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Stalin's Organist, Katyushas WERE used during the War in a direct fire role. See Biryukov and Melnikov's ANTITANK WARFARE if you doubt this. This thread discusses a number of the issues raised here. http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=011015#000020 Here's a whole thread devoted to Katyusha performance, to include quotes from ANTITANK WARFARE on the Katyusha in DF mode. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=011079;p=1 Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.