Why are there no Russian 85mm ATG's?

[Matt May]

I would replace 'Perhaps' with 'It is unfortunately about as likely as the sky caving in that'

All the best

Andreas [/QB]

We can always hope, and this IS the proper venue for making noise!

[Andreas]

Good luck.

Originally posted by Moon:

Sergei is correct. While it's possible that some super-serious bug gets a fix (and super-serious means that it has to affect CMC specifically), it is very unlikely. To quote Charles: "0.0001% chance in hell"

Martin

To put this in context, Martin is the president of BFC, and Charles the programmer of CM. Sergei is a Finn, and therefore not relevant.

All the best

Andreas

[Bigduke6]

Newsreel footage was notoriously unreliable and in the majority of instances shot away from the front line. I would be loathe to use this form of "evidence" as concrete proof of any type of military practice. Given the vulnerability of artillery crews and camera crews alike to small arms fire, I'd suggest that additional sources would be necessary before accepting newsreel footage as indicative of actual practice.

Photographers from Izvestia and Pravda suffered casualty rates similar to tank rider infantry. It was one of the most dangerous jobs in the Red Army.

As to your arguement about vulnerability to small arms, since when have the Soviets worried about getting their people hurt? This was the Great Patriotic War, not the invasion of Panama or Iraqi Freedom of sumfin.

[JasonC]

"since they do not have an equivalent to the 15cm sIG33 on the regimental level"

Actually, the Russian equivalent at the regimental level was the 120mm mortar. Which is only available indirect in CM, not on-map.

[John Kettler]

Andreas,

The account came straight out of Biryukov & Melnikov's (two senior heavy hitters at the Frunze Academy, if memory serves) ANTITANK WARFARE, a detailed military analysis of the development of that capability. Before discussing then modern developments, the authors devoted considerable space to describing how antitank warfare was conducted during the Great Patriotic War. The book was part of my professional library, and rexford found it of such enormous interest that he borrowed it from me for a period of many weeks.

As for the rockets not being a real threat to the tanks, first remember that rockets, since they don't undergo 100Gs from gun launch, have much thinner warhead walls and carry far greater explosive charges than cannon projectiles for a given projectile diameter.

Second, from the recipient's view, imagine what it's like to near instantly shift from planned slaughter to having the ground ahead seemingly explode, and out of that explosion come hundreds of howling, flaming rockets, flying only feet above the ground--coming at you. There are very few vehicles in CMBB which can take a 120mm range direct hit and survive, and even if a hit didn't kill the vehicle, it would almost certainly stun and disorient the crew, while damaging all sorts of important goodies and wrecking crew gear stowed outside. Near misses would be wreaking all sorts of havoc, notably on running gear, and we've made no allowance whatsoever for the very real kinetic energy damage potential of even a dud rocket.

The point about massed fire needs to be reemphasized. What the Germans (in Panzer IIIs, I believe) ran into was the equivalent of dozens of CMBB FOs, firing all at once, on the same or closely spaced TRPs. Apparently, the overs merely landed deeper in the advancing column, which of course had quite a few trucks and the like in it, too. If you have the time, try analyzing something like that in a quick scenario. Even if you do, though, the game can't model the shock effects. History records, though, that the battle debut of the Katyusha caused German troops to panic, and that was in normal indirect fire!

I would've liked to see the items you mentioned included, but I absolutely feel that leaving out

Russian heavy and superheavy artillery was historically incorrect and somewhat damaging to the game's real potential.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Andreas]

Originally posted by JasonC:

"since they do not have an equivalent to the 15cm sIG33 on the regimental level"

Actually, the Russian equivalent at the regimental level was the 120mm mortar. Which is only available indirect in CM, not on-map.

True. I was just thinking about guns, since they can do some things that mortars can't when firing over open sights.

Originally posted by John Kettler:

I would've liked to see the items you mentioned included, but I absolutely feel that leaving out Russian heavy and superheavy artillery was historically incorrect and somewhat damaging to the game's real potential.

I agree to some extent - leaving out medium artillery was a shame. I really don't see much of a need for the 15cm class, and none for anything above that (even though at Uman the Germans used 21cm mortars in direct fire against the Soviet remnants).

I am still unconvinced about the value of including direct-fire rockets (especially since early war against lightly armoured vehicles we would be talking primarily about the 82mm Katyusha), other than that it looks impressive. All the accounts about them that I have read say that they were not seen as a great danger, after the initial shock wore off. Too inaccurate and not lethal enough I guess.

All the best

Andreas

[Mejsel]

So is there any news how the breakthrough-issue will be handled in CMC? It seems reasonable to belive that attacking units will make contact with defending arty-units of higher caliber than previously represented OB (especially russian stuff).

To me it seems as though howizers in ranges 12 and 15cm should be made avalible in OB-mode. Perhaps to be purhased only battery-wise (for appropriate fielding and historical accuracy.) in the same manner as tank-platoons can be?

As for the matter of the heavier caliber stuff, well, there are some practical/tactical issues that may be hard to modulate in the game.