Copper Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Here is a link to a new ARR! It looks good but...I can't read Russian!!! http://games.1c.ru/ww2ru/?action=tactics&id=92 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeP Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 I can read some Cyrillic, but not everything. Perhaps a native Russian speaker would be so very kind enough to translate it? (I've learned not the touch Russian to English internet translators with a 10 foot pole). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barkhorn1x Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 How about a translation from one of the 1C devs? Thanks, Barkhorn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Heroic Russians with a 57mm ATG and trenches use a combined arms defense to defeat adventurist fascist invader Hitlerites. The end. All the best Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Perhaps someone could explain just what the heck is going on in this pic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PanzerMike Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Looks like the southern shoulder of Kursk 1943. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Prokhorovka, the Paul Carell/Rotmistrov version of it. All the best Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hensworth Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Soviet and German tanks duke it out at realistic ranges while a well concealed ZiS-2 lies in wait to mop op any German survivors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeP Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 I believe the "grey" icon indicates an abandoned/broken tank, which would mean that the Russian SU 122 on the left and the T34 on the right are taking a cruise through a field littered with broken tanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hortlund Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Originally posted by Andreas: Prokhorovka, the Paul Carell/Rotmistrov version of it. All the best Andreas According to Franksson/Zetterling, that version is not too far off the mark. 334 Soviet tank losses at Prokhorovka vs 25 German. Or if you want to compare Zitadelle totals, 1600-1900 USSR vs 280 German. Edit: With "loss" Franksson/Zetterling means total write-offs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Carell/Schmidt and Rotmistov claimed ca 5-600 Soviet and ca. 400 German losses. I think that qualifies them as being 'far off the mark'. YMMV. But in case you disagree with me, I have a €100 note here that I would like to change into 5x€20, and 10x€10, and 20x€5. You wouldn't mind doing that for me, would you? Regards Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barkhorn1x Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Originally posted by Andreas: Prokhorovka, the Paul Carell/Rotmistrov version of it. All the best Andreas I think what Andreas is driving at is that nonsense about Tigers and T-34s duking it out nose to nose w/ T-34s ramming the Tigers on some occasions. Cool this AAR is, historically accurate it ain't. Barkhorn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Ah yes, the heroic Soviet tanker ramming a Tiger in his burning T-34. How could I forget. BTW - the figures from Töppel, who has used German and Soviet unit records, and uses a restrictive count of who was actually present at Prokhorovka, say maximum 3 German and ca. 200 Soviet TWOs at Prokhorovka. I believe the problem of Zetterling/Frankson is that they count in losses of units that were not actually involved in the battle. All the best Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hortlund Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Zetterling/Franksson see Prokhorovka as July 12th and 13th. If I remember correctly. I have the book right here, but only if you really want me to will I check that. I actually had no Idea Carell and Rotmistrov had those figures...but they are truly absurd. Ive never read their books on Kursk. Ive only read Carells book on Barbarossa, and while that was interesting and cute in a way, it was more along the lines of a childrens adventure-book (like Biggles or something) than something Id want to use in a serious discussion. Rotmistrov is russian, writing about his own actions, and his book was written during the good old days so...lets just say Im not totally convinced about his qualities as an impartial author on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 I, too, think it's a Prokhorovka scenario, but it looks to me as though the Germans took way more casualties than did the Russians. If gray tanks are nonfunctional tanks, then the Germans got clobbered, relative to historical experience, in this one. I see 4 x PZ IV/H, 1 x Tiger, 2 x Pz III/J for sure, and I can't identify several of the others. Russian losses appear to consist of: 1 x SU-122, 5 x T-34/M43, and according to the summary, 1 x U/I SP. This is hardly the Zetterling 25 German/334 Russian loss ratio! Note also that the Germans have NO functional tanks. Regards, John Kettler [ August 09, 2006, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Originally posted by Hortlund: Zetterling/Franksson see Prokhorovka as July 12th and 13th. If I remember correctly. I have the book right here, but only if you really want me to will I check that. Not really - I think it is just a definition issue. Töppel is very strict - he just looks at the actual Prokhorovka battle without any context. That was over by lunchtime on the 12th when the attacking Soviet formations 'went over to the defense' (code for 'had been slaughtered'). Originally posted by Hortlund: I actually had no Idea Carell and Rotmistrov had those figures...but they are truly absurd. Damn, I have to find somebody else to change that note now. Originally posted by Hortlund: Ive never read their books on Kursk. Ive only read Carells book on Barbarossa, and while that was interesting and cute in a way, it was more along the lines of a childrens adventure-book (like Biggles or something) than something Id want to use in a serious discussion. He was in charge of SIGNAL, so that is to be expected. Originally posted by Hortlund: Rotmistrov is russian, writing about his own actions, and his book was written during the good old days so...lets just say Im not totally convinced about his qualities as an impartial author on the subject. You, and most other sane people. All the best Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergeltungswaffe Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Originally posted by Canuck: Perhaps someone could explain just what the heck is going on in this pic. A gamey clusterf*** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuirassier Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Jeez, I bet those Prussian tourists wish they had mortar support to silence the Russian host's pesky 57mm AT gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
citizen Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 While I'm happy to see another AAR, I am disappointed that all 3 so far have been Armored scenarios. Still waiting for an all Infantry battle. I want to see some Inf fire and manuever to see how well the game simulates it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackcat Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Originally posted by Andreas: Ah yes, the heroic Soviet tanker ramming a Tiger in his burning T-34. How could I forget. BTW - the figures from Töppel, who has used German and Soviet unit records, and uses a restrictive count of who was actually present at Prokhorovka, say maximum 3 German and ca. 200 Soviet TWOs at Prokhorovka. I believe the problem of Zetterling/Frankson is that they count in losses of units that were not actually involved in the battle. All the best Andreas Andreas, Some clarification please. Are you saying that at the battle for Prokhorvka on the 12th July 1943 the Germans lost only 3 tanks? Now, I might be wrong, and if I am I am sure you will correct me, I thought the German attack was made by the II SS Panzer Corps, consisting of three SS Panzer Divisions (Totenkopf, Das Reich and Leibstandarte). That corps must have fielded about 600 tanks/assault guns. Are you saying that of that enormous strength they lost but three tanks? In which case why didn't they take the objective? With a loss ratio of 1:66 in their favour and as they only lost about 0.5% of their armoured strength, I fail to see why the Germans should actually have lost the battle, or at least have failed to take the village which, perhaps, is the same thing. Definately lost and confused at this end. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Easy - they did not lose the battle. I hope I helped you out of your confusion. Read this I rewrote it heavily so that it is closer to the latest research. The '3' only refers to total write offs (TWO) on the day by the way. The number of non-operational AFVs would have been higher. But the Germans held the field, so Soviet mobility kills would become TWOs for them. All the best Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus86 Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Isn't the infantry very vulnerable and helpless against tank? How I understand and what I have seen so far, the only infantry antitank weapons are Panzerfausts and Panzerschrecks. In the early war scenarios infantry seems to be without any chance against tanks. Oh okay Panzerbüchsen I forgot. But this seems to be all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParaBellum Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 I'm pretty sure we will see AT close assault weapons for the infantry like grenade bundles, molotov cocktails, Wurfminen etc... And I also recall seeing an AT-rifle somewhere. Infantry is far from being helpless against tanks, if they are modelled correctly and if they can engage the armour in favourable terrain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackcat Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Andreas, An interesting article, thank you. I am not sure why the actions of the Totenkopf Division should be excluded from the battle as they were part of the same German plan. To hold that the battle was just the assault of the Russian armour seems somewhat arbitrary, but no matter. In terms of who won; well neither side wholly achieved their objectives, but the German army did not take the village or significantly expand their bridgehead over the Psel. As they had to do both to achieve any progress for the overall offensive, they failed. Therefore, I would respectfully suggest that what happened was a Soviet phyrric victory. They stopped the Germans but at huge cost. Given the Soviet attitudes to losses, I can understand why they claim Prokhorvka as a significant victory. The article does mention that their were high losses on both sides. So I am not sure how significant the claim that Das Reich and Leibstandarte lost only three tanks as total write offs actually is. They may have been able to drag more off for repair/cannibalisation, but if they didn't have the strength left on the field to take ground that really doesn't matter. I suppose the key question might be, if Citadel had not been called off on the 13th would the II SS Panzer Corps have been able to continue with the offensive with any real prospect of success? On the information available about actual German losses on the day there seems no way of knowing. The Soviets, of course, took back all the ground they had lost during Kursk quite soon afterwards, thus probably converting many of the claimed German mobility kills into TWOs and many of their own TWOs into mobility kills. Thanks again for an interesting article. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daimyo Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 If you want the page translated into English, just paste the URL here: http://world.altavista.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts