Russian equipment and reliability

[Farnz]

In the good old days of ASL where you could get finger blisters pushing those little cardboard chits round mapboard 2 there were certain things you could rely on. 88's never failed, mortars where lethal (until we remembered area fire halfed the FP), Britsh troops never cowered and Russian support weapons might as well not have a rate of fire since they always bust after two rounds anyway. Or is that just me.

So the question is do we think that in CMBB that the Russians are likely to have higher jam possibilty or just a lower ammo load, as in ASL the Breakdown number (on 2d6 thats a 12 for Germans/US/Brits and an 11 for Soviet ie 3 times more likely) is sort of a reflection of both.

If that wasn't bad enough, my regular ASL/CM oppenent flat refuses to play Russians....I'll never play the magnificent Italians...

[Grisha]

While I loved SL it did have the Soviet 'magnetic AT mine'. I have no idea where that came from - probably the result of the 70's Soviet info gap

Anyway, weapons breakdown in the Red Army was more a function of the overall production scheme than any inherent inferiority in the weapons systems themselves. One could expect the years 1941 and 1942 to be characteristic of poor equipment in some areas. This was the result of hastely relocated production centers from western Russia to the Urals, followed by equally hasty resumption of these factories. It took awhile before the relocated factories were stabilized and smooth running. By 1943, most Soviet production was back to pre-war standards. And contrary to 'western' belief, Soviet equipment was quite 'robust'.

[ January 31, 2002, 08:32 PM: Message edited by: Grisha ]