German-Soviet Strengths and Weaknesses

[Col Deadmarsh]

What is the real strength of the German army in this game? The Soviets?

At what time of the war do you think the German army was the strongest against the Soviets?

When were the Soviets the strongest against the Germans?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

What is the real strength of the German army in this game?

Better C&C. Somewhat better tanks and guns, depending on the period.

The Soviets?

Good question. Haven't played enough to give you a solid answer on that one. Maybe someone else will.

At what time of the war do you think the German army was the strongest against the Soviets?

June 22, 1941.

When were the Soviets the strongest against the Germans?

May 8, 1945.

Michael

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Hard to argue with those dates Michael.

Regards

Jim R.

[Martin Rapier]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

What is the real strength of the German army in this game?

At a tactical level, generally better troops, although their quality declined as the war went on. On some occasions their equipment was better than the Russians as well, on other occasions it wasn't.

The Soviets?

Pretty much the reverse, generally Russian troops were tactically less skilled than the Germans. Having a human in command of course means the Russians manouvre with the skill of SSLAH at their prime. The Russians main advantage as the war went on was the development of superior operational and strategic techniques which allowed to concentrate vast numerical superiority at the critical point and project mobile forces to great depths into the enemy rear. Conversely the Germans became less and less flexible, so more prone to piecemeal defeat.

At what time of the war do you think the German army was the strongest against the Soviets?

/QB]

At a tactical level, probably Summer 1942. All the newly raised units in 1941 had gained combat experience by 1942 & sufficient new equipment had been issued to close the technology gap (Pz IIIj specials, Pak 40s & PzIVf2).

The Russians best time was probably Summer 1944 when they were at the peak of their operational skill and again were just getting new equipment to close the temporary technlogy gap. Troop quality in their mechanised formations was at an all time high as they had not suffered repeated annihilation in combat (which they did in 41, 42 and to a degree 43).By 1945 they were running out of men and their force structures proved less suitable for fighting in the denser terrain of central Europe.

Cheers

Martin

[CombinedArms]

I'm still getting the hang of the historical facts as they are represented in CMBB, but it seems like there's an ongoing give and take when it comes to tank dominance on the Russian front (as opposed to the essentially consistent situation we had in CMBO, with few new weapons appearing after June '44--at least few that would alter the tactical balance either way.)

I'm going to say a few things base on seat of the pants observation--maybe the grogs could correct with more detail.

Seems like, early war, the Russians have some advantage in armor with the T-34 and KV-1 (which didn't stop them from losing bigtime because of other shortcomings).

By mid-42, the Germans gain an edge with the introduction of the long 75 on both the PzIV and Stug III. This gun is a great deal better than the Russian 76.2 at killing tanks and given the advantages the Germans also have in optics and tank crews, they'll easily win any long range encounters.

By mid-43, the Germans add to that edge with the introduction of the Tiger and, eventually, the Panther. The 76.2 is just not adequate to the new battlefield--at least in tank duel situations. It's great if facing only infantry.

By mid-44, the Russians reset the balance with the massive introduction of the T-34/85 as well as other heavily gunned tanks and assault guns, including the IS-2. The T-34 is not better than the Panther or Tiger tank for tank, but its gun is a good deal more effective than the 76.2, and it's present in massive numbers.

[ December 05, 2002, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

[Cpt.Kloss]

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

I'm still getting the hang of the historical facts as they are represented in CMBB, but it seems like there's an ongoing give and take when it comes to tank dominance on the Russian front (as opposed to the essentially consistent situation we had in CMBO, with few new weapons appearing after June '44--at least few that would alter the tactical balance either way.)

I'm going to say a few things base on seat of the pants observation--maybe the grogs could correct with more detail.

Seems like, early war, the Russians have some advantage in armor with the T-34 and KV-1 (which didn't stop them from losing bigtime because of other shortcomings).

By mid-42, the Germans gain an edge with the introduction of the long 75 on both the PzIV and Stug III. This gun is a great deal better than the Russian 76.2 at killing tanks and given the advantages the Germans also have in optics and tank crews, they'll easily win any long range encounters.

By mid-43, the Germans add to that edge with the introduction of the Tiger and, eventually, the Panther. The 76.2 is just not adequate to the new battlefield--at least in tank duel situations. It's great if facing only infantry.

By mid-44, the Russians reset the balance with the massive introduction of the T-34/85 as well as other heavily gunned tanks and assault guns, including the IS-2. The T-34 is not better than the Panther or Tiger tank for tank, but its gun is a good deal more effective than the 76.2, and it's present in massive numbers.

------------------------------------------

Exactly, but in CMBB 37mm "doorknocker" coudld easily kill T34 ( improved in patch), still short barelled L24 75mm mounted on early PzIV can make a job done easily. German frontline officers suggested copying T34 but you know - in CMBB it proves that T34 was a piece of junk and those german frontline officers were wrong...

Ask Andreas - guy with extensive knowledge and CMBB betatester -he will kindly expalin you why.

[Col Deadmarsh]

People, I appreciate the historical view of things but I should mention that I was mainly looking for tactical advantages in this game, not in the war itself. Still though, it's interesting to hear people's views on this from a strategic/real-world level.

I'm pretty much left with the same feeling as I go through and look at each side's units that in the beginning, the Soviets had their only advantage in armor. Two years later in 1943, the Germans invent the longer 75mm gun, gain advantages in armor and tank crews, and that's when the tide turns. After that, the Russians never catch up. Even though the Soviets had the T-34 which was fast, it only had a 2-man turret which is a big disadvantage. Going up against other German tanks seems to be an exercise in futility in that the Jerries not only had bigger guns and thicker armor in the front, but larger tank crews which means they don't have to button up to fire the main gun.

Not only are the Soviets not up to snuff in AFV's but their arty is weaker too. Running some tests, I've found that the Russians have to wait 4-5 minutes to aquire the coordinates before a fire mission.

It seems that the only area the Russians have an advantage in this game is in their cheaper infantry. Each man is about 2 1/2 points to their German counterparts of 3 1/2 (correct me if I'm wrong about this but that's what I remember seeing.)

Taking this into consideration, one looking for fair fight (read: ladder player) would be wise to lobby for a scenario which gives the Russians lots of trees to move their infantry around in and also allow their T-34's to gain cover from German heavies while whittling away at the opposition's infantry.

Discuss.

[kunstler]

I have found it difficult to find Soviet advantages, which has made it difficult to work out tactics.

The Germans have better long range guns for most of the war, and better optics for the entire war. This makes them more likely to win a long range stand off with Soviet tanks. But there is no Soviet tank that can resist even stug fire power at closer range, while Tigers, Panthers and KTs often can. I find this puts the Soviets at a disadvantage, I have to maneuver up (often over flat open terrain) against tanks with better optics, better penetration power, better armour, and longer range before I can effectively engage, and even then I'm at a disadvantage.

If I engage Nazi tanks at long range with Soviet tanks, I lose tanks faster, even when rolling them up and down behind a ridge line or hull down. The price difference is the only thing that makes up for this, and only when on 'variable' so Panthers and such are even more expensive.

Even so I don't think the variable factor varies enough. I have read that there were times when there were only 300 or so German tanks on the entire Russian front, compared to thousands and thousands of Russian AFVs. I'm not sure CMBBs variable rating skews things quite that far.

I played a scenario recently where I outnumber the enemy guns (88s) by 5 to 1 and I lost tank after tank, none of my poor russkie t34's could hit the broad side of a barn. The long range optics really do seem to make a difference.

I don't see any easy way to engage with Russkie armour. Even IS-2's get taken out by darn stugs, front on, medium range. The slow rate of fire of the IS-2 and some of the other Russian tanks, plus their low ammo places them an additional disadvantage. The T34 at least has an awesome ammo loud and good rate of fire. I have tried leap frog advance, like with platoons, seems to be the only hope. Sitting at long range is death.

Soviet artillery sucks in the game. Time for veteran spotters to aim a barrage in LOS can be 13 minutes even mid/late war. The much lauded Soviet artillery arm was good, more guns than any other army, but this goodness is on a larger scale than the one depicted in CMBB. German artillery is more flexible, faster, easier to use. Try catching advancing Germans with a Soviet barrage.

Soviet ATRs are great though. They are cheap and they can kill halftracks like crazy, at least in the hands of the AI!

Soviet infantry is an area I have no solution for, especially in open terrain. Conscripts and green advancing in full view across flat fields towards an enemy town? Talk about slaughter, chaos, and panic. The Germans have smoke most times, the Russkies don't. And that really hurts in open terrain.

Command delays make soviet infantry less responsive until 1944. The only area you can employ them with reasonable parity is in city fights, which is actually pretty spot on with history, where the buildings and short distances make maneuvre easier and reduce the German infantry advantage.

As far as I can see, the Soviets have nothing but greater weaknesses. The t34 has been debunked as the greatest tank, and it shows; its starts out good, falls to par by mid war, and goes down from there. Infantry SMG squads are good but low ammo loads make them hard to use. They run out of punch real quick. Tank hunter teams are cool but both sides have them.

The Germans have better machine guns (mg42), better response times and tactical flexibility, better tanks from mid war on, and before that radios vs. flag signal russians.

I hope somebody else has spotted uberSoviet points because I've missed them!

cheers,

kunstler

[jgdpzr]

I have to echo what others have said. My take on the situation is that, inherently, tactical-sized engagements favor the Germans. I think the most telling reasons for this are their superior C&C as represented in better artillery response times, and the use of three-man turreted tanks well-equipped with radios. After the widespread introduction of the longer 75s (L43, 48 and 70), the Germans pretty-much kept ahead of the curve in the tank vs. tank department. The importance of this qualitative balance of armor is exaggerated in tactical games because almost every battle has them. Further, the quantitative advantages enjoyed by the Russians are not always going to show on a CM-sized battlefield, since some of that advantage equates more readily to the ability to form more combat groups with tank support, rather than to arm the combat group on the board with more tanks.

As previously stated by others, the Russians' advantages stemmed from things that are largely not directly a part of a tactical simulation. Namely, better operational capabilites as the war progressed, simpler logistical trails for heavy assets (primarily tanks), and of course better resources both human and material. We also cannot forget about the advantage of fighting on friendly turf, although the situation in the Ukraine proved that was not always the case. Finally, the differences in artillery doctrines really play a part here. The Russians relied on massed, exremely heavy artillery fire to prep positions when on the attack and interdict when on the defensive. While this has a direct negative bearing on the tactical simulation (primarily in poorer response times for Russian artillery), the benefits of this are only accounted for if the scenario designer chooses to further reduce the number of or fitness of German troops at the start of an engagement. In sum, I suppose the Russians should have the ability to field more troops and support units, should start with better ammo stocks, and possibly could have better fitness ratings. Other than that, the chips must fall where they may.

Generally, however, the game seems to model my understanding of the qualitative differences between the two sides quite well. I have long heard/read about the dramatic disadvantages of the T-34/76 (primarily the two-man turrets and lack of radios), but I must admit I have never had this hammered home in a game quite like CMBB has done.

All is not lost for the Russian player, though. For example, unlike in the west, the Germans encounter SMG squads that are more than their match at knife-fighting. Tank-busting aircraft are more affordable and can be absolutely lethal (although I'm probably more aware of this in terms of comparison with CMBO than in terms of comparison between the Russians and Germans, after all, the Stuka is a real sombitch to the Russian player). I am also sure that the cost structures will eventually work out well for the player once he/she masters the subtleties of command of Russian units.

[Maxx]

In my opinion the Russian strength is in the mobility of their armor. This translates as faster speed and less chance of bog in scattered woods. Looking for nice hull down postions to face off with German armor simply doesnt work (with T34s) as you will lose most frontal engagements. Playing the Russians is much like playing the Americans in France. It's vital to close with the enemy armor, within 300m if possible, by using terrain to probe deep and flank. This is the Russian strength. In 1943, you can get 3 T34/76s for each Panther or Tiger the GE player buys. In 1944, you can get ~2 T34/85s per. I've spent most of my time in CMBB honing this skill, as I can't find any better one to win.

The Russians also have a very cheap (~30 pts) 45mmL66 AT weapon that can take out GE cats with side shots (at 800m+), and these have become my main frontal AT defense. Hidden until the targeted vehicle turns to engage the T34 approaching his flank.

Seems difficult to win with the Soviets at first, but by playing as them regularly, I believe you become a better overall player.

[MikeyD]

IMHO the German's real strength in the game itself is:

(1) 3 man turrets with commander's cupolas

(2) 1000rpm hmgs.

(3) 1000rpm lmgs at the squad level.

If you're talking early war they have an advantage in command and control (crappy Russian commanders) but that advantage soon goes away.

--

The Russian's real strength in the game would be:

(1) cheap armor firing lots of HE/canister

(2) more men per squad

[Warmaker]

The Russians may have had a huge numerical advantage in tanks. Even if they had those "thousands of tanks," in a region, don't expect the powers that be to throw them all at your disposal as a batallion/regimental commander. I would imagine that if you wanted a big part in deciding how much of what armor is going to be present on the usual game scales of CMBB, you'd have to be at least a divisional commander. Batallion and Regimental COs? You get what's given to you as part of your ToE and maybe some reinforcing units. It all depends on how important that battle/scenario is.

Unit costs for the Germans? How much do you want a German Panther to be in '44? 900pts for a single regular one while a T-34/85 be 90?

If you're designing a scenario or doing a game with a buddy, give the Russians a points boost if deemed necessary. You guys remember how much a big boost an assault does to your points total?

[ December 05, 2002, 09:01 PM: Message edited by: Warmaker ]

[Sarge Saunders]

Many people are focusing on armor and I tend to agree with much of what is said. This discussion is beginning to look at infantry for both sides so I will move it along with my observations.

Soviet infantry is cheap. One can easily by a battalion's worth of infantry in squads (18 squads) for 1200 points. Pioneer and recon companies give cheap manpower and usually one or two decent HQs. In most games I play, the soviet side ends up with a numerical advantage in infantry. I pad that by purchasing about 40% green infantry. Plenty of targets for the German player to worry about.

Soviet infantry numerical advantage in CMBB QBs seems reasonable in light of historical facts but it does not always translate to tactical advantage. Non-SMG soviet squads have pitiful firepower.

The more expensive german infantry has more firepower and is more flexible. I have accomplished more with a company of german panzergrenadier than I usually can with twice as many soviet troops.

Firepower or not, having extra platoons to manuever as a soviet commander is still worth having in many cases. CM models the (unit) morale effect of enemy infantry being fired on by the cumulative firepower of multiple squads from multiple directions.

There are many other things that can be said....I'll leave it here for now.

Cheers,

Sarge

[ December 06, 2002, 09:04 AM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Cpt.Kloss:

[------------------------------------------

Exactly, but in CMBB 37mm "doorknocker" coudld easily kill T34 ( improved in patch), still short barelled L24 75mm mounted on early PzIV can make a job done easily. German frontline officers suggested copying T34 but you know - in CMBB it proves that T34 was a piece of junk and those german frontline officers were wrong...

Ask Andreas - guy with extensive knowledge and CMBB betatester -he will kindly expalin you why.[/QB]

Remember this Kloss?

"Please accept my apologies

I do not want to insult anyone. I have a lot of friends in US. All I want is to see the game better. My first post was a bit aggresive - I was driven by emotions.

I will not return to T34/IS2/KT issue again - please someone do this however (someone more patient). "

Have you read the reasons why DB T-34 style Panther failed in the competition with MANs "German" Panther? Here are a couple of hints the turret would not be able to mount the new KwK 42 because the chassie of the DB/T-34 was too narrow. The T34s christe and DB leaf sprung suspension were dismissed as considerably poorer when compared with MAN/Wa pruf 6 interleaved torsion bars (the two former proposing dangerously at high speeds cross country).

Russian comparative trials with the T-34 versus the PIII pre war showed the PIII as faster, more reliable, quieter, better sights and mod coms such as internal comms and copulas. The only thing superior was the Armour and Gun. This trial was so damming that it almost killed the T-34 as a production veh. The gun/armour advantage pretty much disappeared with the mounting of KwK/Pak/StuK 40 7,5cm guns and general up armouring. So yes the panic reactions of “some” Field officers was incorrect.

[Frunze]

Soviet rifle squads have more SMGs than the Germans. At least in earlier years. Plus, the Germans don't have SMG squads early. Somebody was complaining about this on another thread - said the Germans didn't have a chance in Stalingrad urban combat.

I love the T-34/85 for urban combat too. Fast turret and big gun - a rare combination.

And I like Maxims. They don't jam so much.

In Combined Arms QBs, it appears the Allies can still spend more points on armor than the Axis can. ("Still" because this was true in CMBO as well. It may have been more necessary in CMBO, when us Allied players had to go up against Panthers with Shermans.)

[ December 05, 2002, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: Frunze ]

[Tarquelne]

In Combined Arms QBs, it appears the Allies can still spend more points on armor than the Axis can.

I've had some _great_ CMBB QBs in which we didn't allow the Axis player to take the full Armor points, or required the Axis player to use esp. Rare vehicles. Or a small horde of Russian armor (+ some inf.) vrs. German infantry is fun, too. More fun than I found similar CMBO battles to be, at least.

And, of course, such battles illustrate the Russian and German strengths...

[Redwolf]

Another thing you can seek to exploit is that the Germans often make heavy use of thin armor.

Anti-tank rifles, planes with 20mm strafing only, small AT guns or small-gun ACs/light tanks don't cost much but can decimate many Axis forces substancially.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

I started a thread along these lines when I first got the game, looking for the Russian advantage. Got some helpful responses, too: Canister for tanks, the wonderful M17 infantry-chopper, less bogging of Russian tanks....

Check it out here

[Gaylord Focker]

The PPsH is always good too.

[PeterX]

Soviet rifle squads have more SMGs than the Germans. At least in earlier years. Plus, the Germans don't have SMG squads early. Somebody was complaining about this on another thread - said the Germans didn't have a chance in Stalingrad urban combat

According to Anthony Beevor, IIRC, many German squads at Stalingrad were self -equipped with captured PPshS. They found it a survival imperative. Their inclusion, IMO, seems a no-brainer for 1.02. Along with Captured Panzerfaust teams for the Soviets.

[jgdpzr]

Originally posted by PeterX:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Soviet rifle squads have more SMGs than the Germans. At least in earlier years. Plus, the Germans don't have SMG squads early. Somebody was complaining about this on another thread - said the Germans didn't have a chance in Stalingrad urban combat

According to Anthony Beevor, IIRC, many German squads at Stalingrad were self -equipped with captured PPshS. They found it a survival imperative. Their inclusion, IMO, seems a no-brainer for 1.02. Along with Captured Panzerfaust teams for the Soviets.</font>

[Kanonier Reichmann]

I have seen the occasional smattering of PPSh's amongst German infantry squads but so far, never more than one to a squad. Not that I've played the game all that often yet so there may be occasions where more than one Soviet SMG may be included in a German squad.

Regards

Jim R.

[Agua Perdido]

Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

I have seen the occasional smattering of PPSh's amongst German infantry squads but so far, never more than one to a squad.

From what I've seen, the game seems to replace all the MP-40s in a German squad/HQ/Tank hunter team with PPD/PPSh. It doesn't replace any other weapons, of course, just the SMGs.

Agua Perdido

[Edited to add: I'd certainly second the mention of PPD/PPSh and more SMGs per squad in early-war Sov formations as an advantage for the Allies. Close-range infantry combat can be a real bear for Axis in the early war--unless they've got a few captured PPSh's of their own.]

[ December 06, 2002, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: Agua Perdido ]

[PeterX]

From what I've seen, the game seems to replace all the MP-40s in a German squad/HQ/Tank hunter team with PPD/PPSh. It doesn't replace any other weapons, of course, just the SMGs.

In the interest of realism I think you'd need the option to include entire German platoons equipped with Russian SMGs beginning in late '42. Read some of the accounts. The inability to portray this has reduced somewhat the accuracy of Stalingrad scenarios released so far.

[Phantom Captain]

I almost always play the Germans and you will definately see lots of captured PPSh's in their loadout. Usually not more than one per squad. I'm playing through the Stalingrad Pack and you definately notice them. Usually, as well, when a German squad does have 2 SMG's one is a PPSh and the other an MP40, I haven't noticed yet any German squad with more than one, but will keep looking.

[ December 06, 2002, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: Lord Dragon ]