A ramble....might be worth reading!

[Tim S]

This is a bit of a ramble!

Is it just me or does anyone else see the differences in Russian man power

usage as opposed to the US/Allied side in CMBO?

Now I appreciate that we only have the new demo to work with, but Russian

tactic differences, or lack thereof, become very apparent.

First off there is no smoke available to the Russians, so all attacks have to be done in the open! Come to think of it, the only smoke I could find in the demo is for German armor in the Kursk battle, the KV’s don’t have any.

The only real Russian tactical options become, a slow and methodical advance with green troops or the good old human wave approach. One can immediately see just how cheaply life was held on the Russian side.

While not assuming that CMBB is in any way a microcosm of WW II,

it does seem to unwittingly illustrate how cheaply life was held, and just how the Russians lost some combined 25 million people now becomes more obvious.

If I remember correctly the most well used Russian tactic, throughout the conflict, was too build up to odds of some 20:1 and plow forward!

Would we use this type of human wave attack with (our) allied troops in CMBO? Would we attempt a complex attack without smoke in CMBO? I think not. If we loose 500 Russians do we care as we did when we lost just a squad of the 101st or the Desert Rats? After all (in our minds eye) it could be our fathers or grand fathers we are looking after in those front lines!

The Western indifference to the east has plagued makers of all types of Eastern Front games since their introduction. Many have opted for accented English to be spoken by both sides to increase the “care” factor, something that does nothing for realism, but at least one knows what’s going on!

If CMBB was actually CMBO II, would we be more elated? I think I would.

Just my 2 cents….

[Fred]

Originally posted by Tim S:

This is a bit of a ramble!

Is it just me or does anyone else see the differences in Russian man power

usage as opposed to the US/Allied side in CMBO?

Now I appreciate that we only have the new demo to work with, but Russian

tactic differences, or lack thereof, become very apparent.

First off there is no smoke available to the Russians, so all attacks have to be done in the open! Come to think of it, the only smoke I could find in the demo is for German armor in the Kursk battle, the KV’s don’t have any.

The only real Russian tactical options become, a slow and methodical advance with green troops or the good old human wave approach. One can immediately see just how cheaply life was held on the Russian side.

While not assuming that CMBB is in any way a microcosm of WW II,

it does seem to unwittingly illustrate how cheaply life was held, and just how the Russians lost some combined 25 million people now becomes more obvious.

If I remember correctly the most well used Russian tactic, throughout the conflict, was too build up to odds of some 20:1 and plow forward!

Would we use this type of human wave attack with (our) allied troops in CMBO? Would we attempt a complex attack without smoke in CMBO? I think not. If we loose 500 Russians do we care as we did when we lost just a squad of the 101st or the Desert Rats? After all (in our minds eye) it could be our fathers or grand fathers we are looking after in those front lines!

The Western indifference to the east has plagued makers of all types of Eastern Front games since their introduction. Many have opted for accented English to be spoken by both sides to increase the “care” factor, something that does nothing for realism, but at least one knows what’s going on!

If CMBB was actually CMBO II, would we be more elated? I think I would.

Just my 2 cents….

There was a difference in doctrine between the western allies and the russians.

The soviet leaders at the higher commands were not interested in the wellfare of their troops.

So they stupidly ordered wave after wave vs. strong german positions.

All the western allies were democratic societies, so the loss of soldiers was a serious problem.

Not so in the ETO; Stalin simply don't cared about losses; he wanted to achieve his goals.

And so he did.

It was a brutal struggle, on both sides.

Fred

[MikeyD]

It's not the nationality of the troops that makes the difference, it's the generalship. Since YOU'RE the general in CMBB, you can care about your Russian troops all you want! I played the Russian side in Yelinin (or however its spelled) and substituted firepower for manpower during a gradual advance -- ain't that the American way? I managed to score a major victor with very acceptible losses. I remember an old CMBO post where one guy said if any of his troops (playing Brits I believe) ticked him off during the game he'd march the squad into certain death out of sheer spite. now that guy's going to LOVE playing CMBB!

[Fred]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

It's not the nationality of the troops that makes the difference, it's the generalship. Since YOU'RE the general in CMBB, you can care about your Russian troops all you want! I played the Russian side in Yelinin (or however its spelled) and substituted firepower for manpower during a gradual advance -- ain't that the American way? I managed to score a major victor with very acceptible losses. I remember an old CMBO post where one guy said if any of his troops (playing Brits I believe) ticked him off during the game he'd march the squad into certain death out of sheer spite. now that guy's going to LOVE playing CMBB!

Well,

that may work vs. an understrength german company, but what if you face real opposition?

In this case, you simply need your superior manpower, to oversaturate the enemy with possible targets.

And, btw, I made a draw at Jelnja (as it is spelled in german) while playing the defenders.

Fred

[ September 04, 2002, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: Fred ]

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by Tim S:

...If we loose 500 Russians do we care as we did when we lost just a squad of the 101st or the Desert Rats? After all (in our minds eye) it could be our fathers or grand fathers we are looking after in those front lines!...

I play with conscript russians in CMBB the same way I played with conscript germans, americans or poles in CMBO. I even care more for my poor russian conscripts because I know that they have to face deadly MGs and extreme FOW and will break and panic soon if I don't plan accordingly.

[ParaBellum]

[edit: double post, something strange is going on with this BBS today. First, a new topic disappears, then I post to a thread and can't see my reply, I post again and it's a double post...]

[ September 04, 2002, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]

[MikeyD]

Ah, and another thing. In CMBB if you zoom in really really close you can now SEE the fear in the eyes of the poor Russians! How could you care less for these men now?

:eek:

[Shosties]

I have to say that I actually find some disquieting similarities between Russian and American handling of infantry in WW2. Remember, we had the replacement system that continuously fed greens into units on the front line where they were often killed or wounded due to their inexperience very quickly. They started out as complete strangers to their comrades in arms and a common sentiment among front veterans was to not form any real personal bonds with them until they survived their breaking-in period (if they did, that is). Units were not often rotated off the front lines for bring them back to strength, refitting, and supplimentary training (as in Commonwealth forces).

How often do you hear German accounts of well executed inflitration of their positions by Americans? More often than not, it's: they came, we sent their advance units packing, they backed off, and then Jabos and arty made life hell for us so we withdrew that night to the next line (at least in Normandy and Italy).

[Redwolf]

A few remarks:

I think that BFC is in fact taking a substancial risk of doing this game with the Soviets modeld this way. This is hardly playable for a casual gamer, the Western front was much more approchable. Of course, the real casual gamer only runs around in high-quality tanks so that this isn't an issue, but I expect there will be a large class of gamers felt left behind by the demands of realistic CMBB play. In reality, many gamers prefer a balanced wrestling game based on reality.

Then, it is imporant to point out that the 10:1 superiority in Soviet attacks was not so much the result of the Soviets having 10 times as many soldiers. It was the result of superiour operational planning, so that the atack point would have 10 times more soldiers, and nothing else for hundreds of miles.

[Andreas]

Christ on a crutch! Does anyone here realise that you are playing a DEMO with a very restrictive troop selection? Play regular/veteran Soviet guards in 1945 in Berlin against green/conscript Fallschirmjaegers (sacrilege! he says there were conscript Fallschirmjaegers!! Burn him!!!), and see if your German Ueberhamsters do any better.

As for the Red Army not caring about its infantry, compared to the other nations. Bollocks. How much did Adolf care about his infantry that he left to be slaughtered in Stalingrad, or the ones who froze to death before Moscow? How much did the average German general care about their infantry who had to fulfill another 'hold to the last man' order? The point about the Americans and their crap Repple-Depple system was well made already. The Red Army used its 10:1 odds precisely to minimise casualties.

The amount of generalisation going on here from looking at a very small part of the game is quite frankly astonishing.

[ARRPEEGEE]

As for the Red Army not caring about its infantry, compared to the other nations. Bollocks. How much did Adolf care about his infantry that he left to be slaughtered in Stalingrad, or the ones who froze to death before Moscow? How much did the average German general care about their infantry who had to fulfill another 'hold to the last man' order? The point about the Americans and their crap Repple-Depple system was well made already. The Red Army used its 10:1 odds precisely to minimise casualties.

The amount of generalisation going on here from looking at a very small part of the game is quite frankly astonishing.

Yep!

Every nation did indeed use it's men in a rather cynical manner throughout the way, but...that's war. Some of the more blatant (and hence stereotype forming) instances were when the military got choked by political officials. And, in this area, Hitler was just as bad (if not worse) than Stalin..For every Smolensk, there's a coresponding Stalingrad. And I won't even start on the British, or Yanks...the 'soft underbelly' and Dieppe speak for themselves.

Also, this DEMO's inf battles take place in the early war...Every nation in WWII had it's slower starts, heck, the yanks got seriously embarrased all throughout their first combat meetings with the enemy on both fronts. It's not that the russians were just mindless automatons. On the contrary, they were a smart, determined, and overwhelming foe-The Germans considered going to the west front a vacation, of sorts..there's a reason why.

[Firefly]

Originally posted by mch:

And I won't even start on the British, or Yanks...the 'soft underbelly' and Dieppe speak for themselves.

Yes, Mark Clark throwing the Texas Brigade across the Rapidan river to certain death reads like something from the First World War. The brigade's CO protested the order to no avail. Churchills 'Stand or Die' order to the Aussies in Tobruk only escapes criticism because it worked (and the RN was better at re-supplying the besieged garrison that the Luftwaffe was at Stalingrad).

As you and Andreas say, people seem to be exrapolating a lot from a scenario based on a 1941 battle with pooly trained conscripts. A quick read of people like von Mellinthin will show how the Russians fought later in the war.

[ParaBellum]

Maybe BFC decided to include these scenarios for a certain reason?

Like showing certain key improvements of the full game without revealing too much?

I can only agree with Andreas- btw when are you coming to Mannheim for a short visit next time?

A pity you won't join us at Koblenz next Saturday.

[Fred]

Originally posted by Firefly:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mch:

And I won't even start on the British, or Yanks...the 'soft underbelly' and Dieppe speak for themselves.

Yes, Mark Clark throwing the Texas Brigade across the Rapidan river to certain death reads like something from the First World War. The brigade's CO protested the order to no avail. Churchills 'Stand or Die' order to the Aussies in Tobruk only escapes criticism because it worked (and the RN was better at re-supplying the besieged garrison that the Luftwaffe was at Stalingrad).

As you and Andreas say, people seem to be exrapolating a lot from a scenario based on a 1941 battle with pooly trained conscripts. A quick read of people like von Mellinthin will show how the Russians fought later in the war.</font>

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by Fred:

...as written e.g. in Paul Carells 'Operation Barbarossa'...

*cough*, I would take all of Carell's books with a big grain of salt...

[ September 04, 2002, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Fred:

The 'Guards' are a whole other story, but the run-of-the-mill units where sacrificed without any afterthought (as written e.g. in Paul Carells 'Operation Barbarossa').

So CMBB is right on target.

Fred

Yes, but not as you think. It makes an allowance for training deficiencies up to 1944, which is generous, and maybe too long. People here (and in other threads) are not talking about the demo scenario. They are extrapolating, so I have to correct you there.

If Paul Schmidt is your guide on eastern front history, and the use of Soviet infantry in the fighting, I strongly suggest broadening your horizon. You will be surprised. If you speak German, pick up the memoirs of Soviet officers that were published in East Germany, they go cheaply now (sold off by public libraries for next to nothing), and are very interesting. I own a good number of them, by various ranks. A good counterpoint to the German officer memoirs, particularly if you read up on the same operation in parallel. If you are restricted to English - Glantz is the answer (isn't he always...)

The ultimate word on this for me is still Koniev. In short he said: 'you achieve nothing by using infantry instead of firepower. Gain freedom to maneuver through firepower, and then insert your infantry. Which is what the Red Army did from late 1943. Guards, regular rifle units, anyone regardless of designation.

[ September 04, 2002, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

[MikeyD]

Ah, you can tell who in this thread has played more than just the demo. Poor Andreas is about to pop a rivet!

Boys, boys! Think of the demo as the first course of a sumptuous banquet. Don't like playing with Russian Concripts? Wait til you get to command a crack Guards unit on the advance in 1945! Don't like the T34's 76.2mmm wimpy penetration? Wait til you got hold of an ISU-122.

Playing the two demo scenarios means by the time you get the full game you will have mastered the new commands and will be ready for some SERIOUS ROCK-&-ROLL!

[Fred]

Originally posted by ParaBellum:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Fred:

...as written e.g. in Paul Carells 'Operation Barbarossa'...

*cough*, I would take all of Carell's books with a big grain of salt...</font>

[Guest Mike]

Sheeshthe Russians were far from ignorant about actics, employing infiltration, night and weather to conceal forces.

"Human waves" were only used where training was insufficient for "real" attacks - so during the dark days of Autumn 1941 (and for much of WW1 too, but even then Brusilov did better, and almost every one else used them too!!).

It's a gross generalisation to say the Russians didn't care about casualties - probably outright slander really.

[Fred]

Originally posted by Mike:

Sheeshthe Russians were far from ignorant about actics, employing infiltration, night and weather to conceal forces.

"Human waves" were only used where training was insufficient for "real" attacks - so during the dark days of Autumn 1941 (and for much of WW1 too, but even then Brusilov did better, and almost every one else used them too!!).

It's a gross generalisation to say the Russians didn't care about casualties - probably outright slander really.

Not at all...

here is a quote:

" 300.000 men (lost in the first few month; ed.)meant nothing to them.

Russia was 46 times as large as germany.

190 million people lived in Russia.

16 million soldiers could be mobilised."

Fred

[ September 04, 2002, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: Fred ]

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by Fred:

IMO Obersturmbannführer Schmidt (or "Carell", the alias he used for his books) isn't a serious historican. It seems that his work in the ministry of propaganda during WWII pretty much helped him to write his books...

His books IMO are just slightly above the level of the "Landser-Heftchen". Nice to read, but that's it.

It's always the same stereotype, especially in his "Barbarossa" book: it was a "clean" war, mass murder was only commited by the russians, the heroic germans fought a justified war, the SS was just an "elite" formation, etc...

In 1992 he still insisted that the german attack on the USSR was a "pre-emptive war".

PS: my grandfather, who fought as a Gebirgsjäger in Greece, Kreta, USSR and Italy really despised "Carell" as an autor of books.

[ September 04, 2002, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Mike:

It's a gross generalisation to say the Russians didn't care about casualties - probably outright slander really.

Which is just what you would expect from Paul Carell, erstwhile Paul Schmidt, chief of the propaganda department in the Nazi foreign office, and editor-in-chief of 'Signal' magazine.

The thing about it is quite simple. What to you looks like a human wave attack on the receiving end could just be the application of overwhelming force in a concentrated sector to achieve a rapid breakthrough with minimal losses. Of course the Germans never understood what happened to them post-1943, so they preferred to think they were outnumbered, and not outfought.

[Fred]

Originally posted by ParaBellum:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Fred:

IMO Oberstumrbannfürher Schmidt (or "Carell", the alias he used for his books) isn't a serious historican. It seems that his work in the ministry of propaganda during WWII pretty much helped him to write his books...

His books IMO are just slightly above the level of the "Landser-Heftchen". Nice to read, but that's it.

It's always the same stereotype, especially in his "Barbarossa" book: it was a "clean" war, mass murder was only commited by the russians, the heroic germans fought a justified war, the SS was just an "elite" formation, etc...

In 1992 he still insisted that the german attack on the USSR was a "pre-emptive war".

PS: my grandfather, who fought as a Gebirgsjäger in Greece, Kreta, USSR and Italy really despised "Carell" as an autor of books.</font>

Well,

maybe we read different books...esp. Operation Barbarossa showed a very neutral point of view, as the author showed the russion point of view in more than one instance.

No heroic german units, just the way it was. And no Ubermensch attitude in this book.

I have around 20 books about the ETO and I talked to some veterans.

Carell just don't talked about the bloodshed and horror in detail, and now wonder..it was another time when he wrote this book.

Fred

[Fred]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mike:

It's a gross generalisation to say the Russians didn't care about casualties - probably outright slander really.

Which is just what you would expect from Paul Carell, erstwhile Paul Schmidt, chief of the propaganda department in the Nazi foreign office, and editor-in-chief of 'Signal' magazine.

The thing about it is quite simple. What to you looks like a human wave attack on the receiving end could just be the application of overwhelming force in a concentrated sector to achieve a rapid breakthrough with minimal losses. Of course the Germans never understood what happened to them post-1943, so they preferred to think they were outnumbered, and not outfought.</font>

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by Fred:

...maybe we read different books...esp. Operation Barbarossa showed a very neutral point of view, as the author showed the russion point of view in more than one instance.

Maybe we read the same books with a different point of view.

And if you think "Barbarossa" was written from a neutral point of view, well...

maybe then "Signal" was written from a "neutral" point of view, too.

Among the first books I've read about WWII were some of "Carell's" books. Why? Simply because the way he portrays Germany's (the german soldiers') behaviour during WWII is exactly the way most Germans want them to be, which means you'll find a lot of Carrel's books everywhere and many other books quote from him.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to bash you, but if you base your knowledge about the german role in WWII mainly on (german) general's memoirs and Carell's books there's much to discover for you.

[ September 04, 2002, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]