Something odd about that picture

[JAK]

Hi everyone, has anybody else noticed that in the pic with the 5-6 german infantrymen moving out of the tree line in that grain field, that 4 are holding Kar98's and the other two have MP40's. The odd thing here is that (A) they are not walking in a V formation like in CMBO ( while the scopeless Kar98's could just be a BMP switch to give these four a change from sharpshooter to rifleman it does not explain why there are two grenadire with MP-40 submachineguns walking as out of formation as well. Is it possible that this is a new way of representing squads? Or is this that new 1/4 squad division they were talking about? Just sort of got my attetion is all.

Jake

[Madmatt]

Hehehe, finally someone noticed!

Actually while a squad is still represented by three "figures" they are no longer 'locked' into the static V style formation that they used to be. Each man now moves within their base in a more fluid and natural way. Just another one of HUNDREDS (thousands even?) of little improvements we have made in CMBB.

Madmatt

[Madmatt]

Also, while the terrain shown are all new textures in those pictures, the uniforms, faces and small arms textures are vintage CMBO. We haven't stuck in the new textures for those yet.

Madmatt

[ March 05, 2002, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Madmatt ]

[MikeyD]

That's why I've given up making suggestions for CMBB. They're coming up with stuff I would've never even THOUGHT to ask for! Clever boys!

[themaltese]

Hey Madmatt. Speaking of formations and BMPs in CMBB, will the Russian troops be represented with the fact in mind that, a lot times, these guys went into combat with one rifle between two of them? Hence, will the Russian formations display this in their BMPs,and will their firepower be reduced accordingly within the "combat engine"?

[kipanderson]

themaltese, hi,

You want to take with a pinch of salt the stuff you hear about the Soviets not being fully equipped.

Between September 41 and, say, June 42 this sort of thing did happen. However, as early as by the second half of 42 the Soviets were fully equipped, more often than not. By which I mean that after a unit was pulled out of the line to be re-equipped, when it returned, it will have been with a full load out of equipment. Let me give just one example.

During 42 the Soviets produced 33,000 artillery pieces of 76mm or over, excluding mortars. The full divisional organisation for a Soviet Division was 36 pieces of artillery of 76mm are more. So, that is nearly 900 divisions worth. They had 450 divisions on the books by the end of 42. They could equip all their division twice over. Even in 42.

Having said that, they probably needed to, as equipment losses will have been very heavy. However, it is reasonable to assume that from around mid 42 Soviet divisions did go into the line fully equipped.

Side point. In the spring of 42 the Germans estimated Soviet output of artillery of the above type would amount to 7,500 during all of 42. Rather less than the 33,000 actual output. One very good example of why the Soviets won and the Germans lost.

My source for all of the above is Germany and the Second World War, volume VI. In my view, the Germany and the Second World War series are the finest military history books written. However, the above series is only the best by the thickness of a cigarette paper, as there are many other very fine books out there.

All the best,

Kip.

[themaltese]

Thanks, Kip. I'm not too informed about the Russian Front from the Russian perspective. Hence, I've been going by the generalizations assumed from German perspectives (e.g. German accounts of massive waves of half armed Russian soldiers charging German positions in the hopes of overwhelming them by sheer manpower.) As I mentioned in another thread (Michael D's "When Titans Clashed"), since Russia has "opened up", I'm hoping to read more accounts of the Russian Front from the Russian perspective as more and more writing trickles its way over here. However, from the infantry perspective, would you state that it would be correct to assume a one-to-one relationship between quantity of soldiers and the rifles and other firearms they had among themselves? Are the German accounts of massive human waves only half armed that inaccurate? I would really like to know the answers to these questions from Russian veterans, but still, what do you think?

Cheers

[JAK]

Wow, and I thought I was crazy! Good going guys, that is one I wouldn't have thought to put in the game. God bless mom and dad and fluffy and matt and charles and steve and....ect

Jake

[kipanderson]

themaltese,

you asked

“However, from the infantry perspective, would you state that it would be correct to assume a one-to-one relationship between quantity of soldiers and the rifles and other firearms they had among themselves? Are the German accounts of massive human waves only half armed that inaccurate? I would really like to know the answers to these questions from Russian veterans, but still, what do you think”

Wow, these are big questions and there is a risk of me ranting on, and on, and on,… However, I will keep it brief so as not to send you to sleep.

The answer to your first question on the relationship between the quantity of small arms and number of men is, yes. There would be a one to one relationship, as a general rule. There was a period between late summer 41 and mid summer 42 when there will have been occasions when units were sent into battle with less small arms then men. There reason is that after most of the units that started the war were wiped out in the summer 41 fighting, militia type units had to the raised almost instantly, factories had to the moved out of the path of the onward advance of the Germans, and general chaos meant there were shortages, even of small arms.

When it comes to the question of “human wave” attacks, the answer is yes, they did happen but mainly in the first year of the war. This is not so much a weapons question as a training question. Many of the units that started the war were not properly trained in infantry tactics. Many of the units raised during the first year of the war, and some later, were not properly trained in infantry tactics. Because they knew no better they tended to attack using what are often thought of as First World War tactics. And suffered accordingly. The tactic they should have been using, which the Germans used, were skirmishing or assault. The Russian military establishment was well aware of this. In Documents on War Experiences, “lessons learnt” documents put together by the Soviets in the second half of 41, they make clear the need to use, what in the UK we would call, skirmishing tactics. The Russian infantry manual for company and below dated November 42, is pure skirmishing. In CMBB you will find that it is only poor quality Soviet units that use “human wave”, higher quality units use assault. I would take late summer 41 to spring 42 as the low point. With a great majority of Soviet units using human wave. From the summer of 42 through to the autumn of 43 I would gradually reduce the number of units using human wave. By the autumn of 43 I would have close to no Soviet units using human wave. By the autumn of 43 Soviet losses, per 100 frontline rifle men, per combat day, were similar to those in American/ Commonwealth units. They generally fought using similar tactics to everyone else. Faced with the same problems, they had reached the same conclusions.

A couple of general facts and figures that I hope will give you a clearer picture.

1) Soviet “irrecoverable” losses, that is killed, missing/POW and wounded so badly they would never be able to return to the front, amounted to around ten million. These are military losses. Of the ten million, six million were suffered in the first year of a four year war on the Eastern Front.

2) Relative combat effectiveness of German/Soviet forces were in the first year of the war on the Eastern Front, 1:6 that is German to Soviet with the lower figure being best. During the period July 43 to March 45, that is “excluding” the round up of the last two months of the war, overall German /Soviet combat effectiveness was 1:1.15, German to Soviet. They were as good as equals.

Conclusion.

From summer 41 to summer 42 the Soviets were just as tactically “unsound” as the Germans claimed after the war. From the summer of 42 to the autumn of 43 the Soviet were generally fully equipped and slowly improving tactically, operationally taking the lead. From the autumn of 43 to the end of the war the Soviets were, even tactically, as good as any one. All the major players had learnt all the major lessons. The western allies, the Soviets and the Germans all had a very similar combat effectiveness.

All the best,

Kip.

[themaltese]

Wow, Kip! So I guess it will be up to scenario authors to include a shortage of weapons in the ammo count (just like in CMBO) only during the particular period you cite -- the beginning. Thanks for the info! I can't wait until CMBB comes out.

Cheers

[Ryan Crierie]

oooo......that was a nitpick with CMBO, how the squads

always walked in that...exact...same...formation...

and...fired...the...same...exact...way...

Whether they were fighting in cornfields or

in bitter hand-to-hand combat in buildings.

Betcha they have little animations of grenadiers

ducking prone and basically acting like real people

now...

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Ryan Crierie:

Betcha they have little animations of grenadiers ducking prone and basically acting like real people now...

Mine already duck prone when suppressed. You mean yours don't?

Michael

[Skipper]

> Wow, Kip! So I guess it will be up to scenario

> authors to include a shortage of weapons in the

> ammo count (just like in CMBO) only during the

> particular period you cite -- the beginning.

Err... yet another would be blonde knight itching to wipe out unwashed hordes of slavic barbarians, led by crazy comissars... Hopefully, you'll know better than that, eventually.

"In the beginning" RKKA was well trained and well armed. By the standards of peace time, anyway - not worse than Brits or French. I wouldn't even mention USA or smaller European armies here. It just so happened that Germans were in the league of their own, and had numbers, shock effect and air superiority on their side.

This regular Red Army was wiped out in several large encirclements during the first 4 months of fighting.

The year that followed has seen all kinds of drastic things, including ad hoc opolchenie (militia) formations, few of which (NB: not all, not even most) were very poorly armed. I've never actually heard about these formations used in offensive operations - this was a job for regulkar units, who were regularly armed (as far as small arms are concerned, anyway). Opolchenie doing what the ad hoc units are supposed to do - building field fortifications, covering what was considered unimportant parts of the front, sitting in second defensive echelons etc. In many cases, Germans reached those second echelons, too. Militias then paid terrible price, but played their role.

During the same period, there was even more drastic shortage of artillery and tanks. And competent commanders. Hence the dumb infantry tactics - often this was the only way to conduct anything offensive.

The attack portrayed in the Enemy at the Gate flick is horrible, utter fiction crap from one end to the other.

There are, by the way, some accounts of germans using human wave attacks. Not many of them, unless you start reading Soviet literature of the relevant genre. I understand, Soviet fairy tales were not quite as popular on your side of Iron Curtain as German fairy tales were... Well, germans had their share of below par commanders and drastic situations.

[Ryan Crierie]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ryan Crierie:

Betcha they have little animations of grenadiers ducking prone and basically acting like real people now...

Mine already duck prone when suppressed. You mean yours don't?

Michael</font>

[IronChef4]

hey hey hey. . .

remember that this is a tactical simulation and not a 3d shooter. . .

[Ryan Crierie]

Originally posted by IronChef4:

hey hey hey. . .

remember that this is a tactical simulation and not a 3d shooter. . .

Yeah, I've heard that one before, LOL, but I think

it would add to the realism by adding little details

to the standard animations, such as:

Tank Commanders holding their hands to their headsets

when they recieve orders, and perhaps gesturing

if infantry is near them.

MG-42 crews frantically trying to unjam their

MG...

you get the idea...It doesn't have to go all

the way of a Quake powered shooter, but a few

different "death" animations would be a bit

more immersive than seeing the enemy (or your

guys) instantly teleport from a standing position

to dead on the ground.

I don't really know if it's in CMBO (haven't used

air support much), but it would also be a nice

touch if a line of tracers and fountains of dirt

suddenly appeared in the ground and headed towards

a unit when a ground attack aircraft attacks...

[ March 12, 2002, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: Ryan Crierie ]

[edgars]

I was just thinking yesterday about that same wheat picture and was wondering what happens to the dead unit marker when it's in the wheat? Does it dissapears out of sight completely or is it possible to see it from top-down views? And what happens to the unit out of LOS marker? Is it high enough to be seen in the wheat?