Dima wrote (View Post): |
that's a myth AFAIK. |
Dima wrote: |
do you understand what would it take to cross 17km inside the modern city that is prepared for defence and have adequate forces to defend it? Check how many kilometers did they cross in Stalingrad and how long did it take them? |
Dima wrote: | ||
In that situation that was a pure fantasy. |
Dima wrote: |
you better read somewhere when did they make breakouts and how many men and war materials did they land by then. |
Dima wrote: |
sure you've played CC5? could you prove that in CC5 there are only 2-5 companies per division? |
Dima wrote: | ||
most of the replies in this thread are off topic anyway 709.ID and 716.ID had 3 Ost-Bataillone each. Again why do you say 716.ID was the weakest? |
Stwa wrote (View Post): |
The SHIT is getting real deep in this thread ] |
johnsilver wrote (View Post): |
It's a game. Some of it is historical and some of it isn't going to be, just like the mods (or some) might have added for playability. |
johnsilver wrote (View Post): |
Lets maybe lighten up a tad and enjoy the one we prefer. |
AT_Stalky wrote (View Post): |
It’s sad that this “side issue” has become an "issue" for you. But none here seem to be interested in debating a “non issue” with you. Perhaps because this "side issue" is a “non issue” thus no "issue" for us ... |
Quote: |
Now please excuse me, please do tell
Whats with the CC3 Stangrad screenshot? |
Quote: |
Btw, there were never any StuG-III-Gs in Stalingrad, Dima? |
Quote: |
No its not. The argument about the myth is whether or not they may or may not have seen the Kremlin.Moscow was anything but a modern city (it is even debatable whether it is a modern city today given its economic disparities), it certainly wasn't the megapolis sprawl that it is today, the recon unit that made it the closest stopped at Khimki which was then still a rural town and in no way connected to Moscow city as a whole. In other words 8km away they had not even reached the suburbs before being ordered to stop. |
Quote: |
Pot calling the kettle black you better read about the Normandy landings, I have read about the Normandy landings and like I said 23,500 combat troops not chefs or clergy men landed in one day on Utah beach. |
Quote: |
Yep I'm playing it now and you can prove it just by starting the Grand campaign in CC5, day 1. 709th Static Infantry Division at Utah is represented by 3 companies, 2 actually at the beaches and one behind which fights the US airborne. The 91st Air Landing Division an Elite Division is represented by only 2 Companies which fight the US airborne troops, need I go on? |
Quote: |
I also noted I'm able to requisition a Stuart as a US Airborne unit far behind the beach landings! (I'm playing as veteran btw) Lol, thats really realistic I wonder how many parachutes that took, maybe they put seperate parts into gliders and built it on the spot? More utter bullshit in CC5 |
Quote: |
I was under the impression (if I recall correctly) that the 716th had more Ost truppen than the 709th which also had them, this and the fact they were mostly facing the combined forces of the British and Canadians meant the Allies there had an easier time than elsewhere, |
Dima wrote (View Post): |
you said that yourself, Khimki station was 17-19km from Kremlin. 8km myth came from P.Carell, and of cause it was impossible to see Kremlin even from that range. and yes, Moscow was a modern city in 1941 and, although i don't like it, it is a modern city today. |
Quote: |
ok let's count,
4th ID landed at Utah beach that had about ~6-8K combat troops, then we have 2 Tk Battalions (~500-700men), elements of 4th Cavalry (~200-300men), 1 TD Bat (~200men), so whom else did you add to get 23,500 of combat troops landed at Utah beach on June 6? |
Quote: |
actually squadron of 4th Cav did reach the Paras on June 6 and was supporting them with their 37mm and MGs.
so tell us about more CC5 bullshit . |
Quote: |
Utah landing took a toll of 200 US servicemen - no other beach had such smooth landing.
and as for easy landing of Canucks against 716.ID, google for Juno . |
Quote: |
you are wrong, that's why bayonet charge against static/suppressed enemy was the common combat infantry tactics for most of the armies.
so yes, infantry supression model is flawed in CC3 and was fixed in CC4 (2nd patch)-5. |
Quote: |
Whatever the case, Khimki was a rural town then, far from the Moscow suburbs. |
Quote: |
23,500 Combat troops landed on Utah beach, I'm not going to debate it with you pick up a history book. |
Quote: |
Really can you explain why a stuart managed to get dropped 3-4 sectors away from the Beach landings? |
Quote: |
A few battlegroups get them. An unacceptable excuse to what is bullshit. WW2 tanks flying through the air with parachutes. |
Quote: |
I happen to know that Utah was the easiest landing I never said that the Brits/Canadians had it the easiest I said that as whole they had it relatively easier than the US forces i.e. Omaha beach. |
Quote: |
Yes they got hit at Juno hard, nothing compared to the US losses |
Quote: |
Please stop with the misintepretations and strawman arguments, just pick up a history book, I have already and can't really be bothered to keep refering to it on your behalf. |
Quote: |
Er bullshit, some armies didn't even supply bayonets with certain rifled weapons towards the end of World War 2. |
Quote: |
Of all armies the ones probably doing the most fixing of bayonets were the Russians because only they could sustain the horrific losses required to get into close quarters |
Quote: |
even the Soviet "deep operations" strategy was designed to have mass russian hordes wielding submachine guns not rifled bayonets. |
Quote: |
German doctrine specifically hinged on the MG34/MG42 to keep Russian infantry out of close range and was specifically against close quarters fighting. |
Quote: |
Bayonet charges against a suppressed force is a World War 1 concept, by the end of World War 2 it was largely obsolete. |
Quote: |
So sorry I call absolute bullshit on that one. |
acebars wrote (View Post): |
Really can you explain why a stuart managed to get dropped 3-4 sectors away from the Beach landings? A few battlegroups get them. An unacceptable excuse to what is bullshit. WW2 tanks flying through the air with parachutes. . |
wehrmart (kopia).jpg | ||
Description: |
|
|
Filesize: | 155.26 KB | |
Viewed: | 9037 Time(s) | |
Quote: |
you did say 716.ID was the weakest. |
Quote: |
good that you accept that it was still too far from Kremlin when they reached Khimki. |
Quote: |
well thanks for clarification - looks like the only search you can make is open wiki... and even there they don't say about 23,500 combat troops but the overall number of men landed at Utah beach on June 6. |
Quote: |
nd SURPRISE!!! the brit Paras did land tanks with their gliders in Norm Wink. |
Quote: |
i repeat, B troop of 4th Cav landed at Utah beach and reached Paras at St.Mere Eglise by afternoon with their vehicles. |
Quote: |
Er bullshit, some armies didn't even supply bayonets with certain rifled weapons towards the end of World War 2.
example please.. |
Quote: |
open my eyes please - what is the total number of RA irretrivable casualties and how does it compare to the German irrretrivable casualties? |
Quote: |
ahha! another historical breakthrough, like the nature of Blitzkrieg? please tell us who was wielding SMGs in RA? |
Quote: |
and probably that's why it was the main infantry tactics of the CW Armies, USA, JEA and RA to mention some. |
Quote: |
no problems, it just proves your deep knowledges Smile. |
Quote: |
But when you react against that detail in CC5, how come that you don’t react against the point system in CC3?
What Company commander in the east front had a requisition point account from where he purchased units? Where was the Wehrmacht –Mart super markets located? Buy a tank or two, buy some guns, and buy that cool infantry team... ?? … I cant remember, was it even possible to buy FJ and SS!!! |
Stwa wrote (View Post): |
CC3 is not the first game to try to explain away what their nebulous point system actually means. Besides, earlier posts suggested these points were in fact just POINTS, like in a football or basketball game. But now, we are told points mean importance or reinforcement potential or military resources.
WTF |
acebars wrote (View Post): |
Also the reinforcement pool gives no indication of the availability of units at that particular time it just has a set values, so you have "x" teams and thats it, . |
acebars wrote (View Post): |
never has a conflict been such, never can a unit exactly calculate what its future reinforcements are or not, . |
acebars wrote (View Post): |
The system in CC3 is very similar to how armies have worked for centuries, for example a commander can request more tanks, mortars, reinforcements or whatever and depending on the avalibility of military resources and the importance of that unit at the time is either granted these units or not.. |
Quote: |
The force pool is the battalion directly combat ready troops that are under his command. A battalion commander definitely know the amount of available troops BEFOR the battle, and that what CC5 mimics. |
Quote: |
As each day may have different units and different numbers of units… So, you wrong again. You have not played CC5 have you? Or is it that you don’t get it? |
Quote: |
A Company commander talks to the battalion commander only. I doubt he can give him what he asks for, and if he requests what is available in the CC3 pool, he may instead get some weeks R&R, as the battalion commander most probable will think the CP commander has got some serious delusions, perhaps shell shock, or battle fatigue with some grandiose Napoleonic tendencies.
You just fantasising are you not? Making up things as you debates? |
Quote: |
You have not played CC5, or understood it have you? |
acebars wrote (View Post): |
it was 3 years ago [I played CC5], maybe its was such a boring experience that I forced myself to forget. . |
Quote: |
Yeh, it was so long ago you believed that CC5 was the whole Normandy campaign. When in fact its just one beach… The Utah beach.. |
Quote: |
You arguing and making so many mistakes about the CC5 game mechanics that either your suffering from some brain memory disorder, or you have not understood how it functions, or you just a forum troll. |
Quote: |
You’re a troll and a waste of time. |
Stwa wrote (View Post): |
Besides, earlier posts suggested these points were in fact just POINTS, like in a football or basketball game. ..But now, we are told points mean importance or reinforcement potential or military resources.
WTF |
output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT