German-Soviet Strengths and Weaknesses

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by White Phosphorus:

Soviet ATR penetrates 35mm at 100m

German ATR penetrates 42mm at 100m

True...though the "German ATR" you are referring to is the 28mm Heavy ATR (tapered bore) that is only available early-war and a higher rarity that the Soviet PTRD/PTRS?

[Guest Mike]

LOL - calling the 28/21mm squeeze bore an ATR is a bit like calling a 128mm field gun a rifle!!

It's technically correct, but not at all useful and seriously misleading in the real world scheme of things!

The 28mm was not what I think of as an anti-tank Rifle - it was not man portable (even in its lightened form for Falschirmjaeger use IIRC) and not fired from the shoulder.

When I saw the post comparing the 2 ATR's I though it was talking about the 7.92mm anti-tank rifle - it seemed that 42mm was an awful lot for that but I was waiting to get home to compare.

Mind you 42mm for the 28mm at 100m doesn't sem like very much either - I thought it was better than that....

[kunstler]

Numbers is the Russkie advantage. CMBB puts emphasis on qualitative differences, which is where the Germans put their emphasis, while the Allies put that extra little bit into numbers.

Up the Russian numbers and the advantage shifts from the Germans to the Russians.

Mar 1, 1945, in Pomerania, the 3rd Pz army had 70 tanks vs. 1600 tanks in the 1st Byelo. Front when the Russians launched their attack. If you do a CMBB scenario with 30 German tanks, following the odds on the front, you would face some 650 Russian tanks. A CMBB scenario where you lose 35 tanks removes half the German tank strength on that section of the front. If the Russians lose 35, they have 1565 tanks left. It really puts the German qualitative advantage into perspective; scenarios in that area will have an overwhelmingly larger number of Soviet tanks.

In the Crimea, 8 April 1944, 70 German tanks vs. 900 Soviet

march 4, 1944, Uman/Kirovgrad, 310 German vs. 2400 Soviet

River Niesse, 4pz army vs. 1st Ukranian Front, 200 German tanks vs. 2150 Soviet tanks.

These are all Soviet attacks. Other ratios run 95/1100, 400/3000, 200/1200, 250/1400, 770/6460, 174/550, 750/4100, 700/2040.

From what I have read, Russia was better at concentrating troops/tanks to achieve local superiority, at least on the attack. Overall ratios are somehwhat closer, (28,800 soviet vs 3671 german in june 41, both with lots of obsolete ones, compared to 14,000 soviet vs 5202 german in nov 44) but, at least from what I understand, attack ratios with soviets should be even higher due to better allocation/concentration of forces.

10 t34s vs. 1 panther is a lot easier to pull off than 2 t34s vs. 1 panther. Qualitative advantage is modeled in full, but is the Soviet qualitative advantage?

From playing CMBB my admiration for German commanders is lessened, and my admiration of their Soviet opponents greatly increased. A general who can beat trained troops with better equipment with a mass of illiterate peasants has to be doing something right. The loss ratio between the two I would think should be much higher for the Soviets.

I hadn't thought about it but I guess the restrictions on armour point purchases help to show the disparity in numbers. Interesting.

cheers!

kunstler

[ December 08, 2002, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: kunstler ]

[Grisha]

kunstler,

Your assessment is generally correct. Soviet skill at creating local numerical superiority in main attack sectors started to show itself from about 1943, on. This ability only increased in effectiveness until by Jan 1945 during the Vistula-Oder operation a full 50% of the entire Soviet forces slated for this huge operation were undetected by German intelligence. This was largely possible through extensive deception operations, generally termed "maskirovka" in Russian.

[White Phosphorus]

Originally posted by Silvio Manuel:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by White Phosphorus:

Soviet ATR penetrates 35mm at 100m

German ATR penetrates 42mm at 100m

True...though the "German ATR" you are referring to is the 28mm Heavy ATR (tapered bore) that is only available early-war and a higher rarity that the Soviet PTRD/PTRS?</font>

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by PiggDogg:

The IS-2s, SU122s, SU152 are not a good one for one match against the German tanks & TDs of the day.

[...]

(1) How many times has anyone seen any AFV hit another AFV on the first shot at range (maybe, 400-500 meters)? (2) How many times has anyone seen a 'Russian' AFV hit a German AFV on the first shot at range? Answers: (1) near zero; (2) less than zero (I'm exaggerating a very small bit, but not much ).

Which, if I might, is often the result of the TacAI withdrawing these vehicles before they shoot, so that they either shoot from the backward move or not at all.

[Brian Rock]

Originally posted by Nippy:

Flame throwers - The Soviet man portable type has the longest range in the game (45m) with the Germans at a far second (32m) and the Finns dead last (24m).

Yeah, but the Finns used flamethrowers as hand-to-hand weapons, so I figure that's 24m more then they needed. Besides which since they were only a secondary weapon they were held in the left hand, freeing up the right for their tank destroying MGs.

[PiggDogg]

Knustler & Everyone,

You have expounded the reason that the Russians won: numbers, large numbers of numbers, and more large numbers of numbers. :eek:

The Russians (and for that matter, the Western Allies) won by the application of vast numbers of adequate enough AFVs and vast numbers of arty & infantry which overwhelmed the Germans. Anyone who thinks differently is, to be polite, mistaken.

That was the way to win World War II. It is slow, costly, and certain, if the will is there to pay the price. The Russians (and the Western Allies) were willing to pay the price. In fact, by far, the Russians paid the heaviest price.

Ironically, CMBB shows that in the early Russian front years when the Germans had success, they were, at least AFV wise, outclassed. Subsequently, in the later years, when the Russians had success, they were, at least AFV wise, outclassed. In short, much of the time in CMBB, one side's AFVs cannot (easily) kill the other side's AFVs (at least from the front)

Therefore, in typical CMBB QBs (1) where numbers are relatively equal, (2) especially where players choose the best uber tanks de jour, (3) where the terrain is more open than northwest Europe [ouch, those steppes], and (4) if the opposing forces are correctly handled [that is, keep the enemy to one's AFVs' fronts], the Russians should win most early war QBs while the Germans should win most late war QBs.

Of course, this will not always happen, but it should happen a majority of the time. Further, there are some small times (possibly mid to late 1942) where the AFVs are in parity with expected equal QBs.

In contrast to CMBB, in the one year of CMBO, generally the QBs are more even because the terrain is generally closer than Russia, and the opposing AFVs (at least when the Allies get a good number of 76s & 17 pounders) can kill each other from the front.

I may be controverial here, but considering the above, many (and probably most) CMBB QBs will quite unequal. :eek:

The solutions to these unequal CMBB QBs might be increased numbers for the AFV disadvantaged side and closer terrain. How much, I don't know. Someone else, come up with some more ideas.

Cheers, Richard

[ December 08, 2002, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ]

[Redwolf]

If you want to do realistic early-war battle you would also have veteran-crack Panzers and conscript-green Soviet tanks. Makes a huge difference.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by PiggDogg:

Ironically, CMBB shows that in the early Russian front years when the Germans had success, they were, at least AFV wise, outclassed.

Unwarranted assertion. The only tanks the Reds had that can be considered to outclass the average German tank would be the KVs and the T-34s, and they comprised only a few hundred out of thousands, and their crews were usually poorly trained and unfamiliar with their weapons which possessed a number of technical faults. The Germans were at least equal, and more often significantly superior in the vast majority of their matchups in 1941.

Michael

[PiggDogg]

Mike E,

You are fully correct regarding real life.

However, in early war, CMBB human choose troops QBs, who is going to choose the Russian unter tanks? Few, and they woudld be making a bad decision.

In such games, any nearly sane Russian player is going to buy uber tanks (T34s & KVs) and maybe a very few unter tanks for scouting and because of the player's silliness.

Why buy something that can easily die when you can buy something that is nearly invulnerable from the front? There is little reason to do so.

I, for one, will buy early war Russian uber tanks and let the Germans try to outflank the ubers. Good luck to the German who try to do the flanking maneuvers.

Cheers, Richard

[Stalin's Organ]

And you'd choose the uber-tanks despite the rarity cost penalty because the alternative is a massacre!

[Michael Emrys]

PD, I read you loud and clear.

And that is why I only play the AI. I can, if I so choose, select the OB for each side and make it as historical (or anything else, for that matter) as I please with no complaint from my opponent.

Happy, happy, happy.

But if you found a human opponent who shared your interests, and who wasn't hung up on "winning" every engagement, but just to see how it would go, you could get along with that as well. Frankly, you guys are way too competitive for my taste, but that's neither here nor there I suppose.

Michael

[ December 09, 2002, 02:49 AM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Col Deadmarsh]

You only play the AI? You're a strange man, Emrys...

[Michael Emrys]

Never denied it. But then, most of you are pretty strange to me too, so I guess that makes us even.

Michael