Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 8:39 pm Post subject: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play
In an effort to keep the "Bugs and Mistakes" thread from getting cluttered up with "ideas", please place all recomendations and non-bug issues here.
moved from previous thread
Another point on game play: The average Russian infantry is at an obvious disadvantage with morale and expierence, and most weapons. But such was their plite in history. However, it seems that the Russian teams should be bigger than the German teams. I could be wrong on this, but I was under the impression that the Russians had giant sqauds roaming around. The three man teams that the Russians have don't really do any good, and there seems to be quite a few of them.
I'm wondering if the mod team designed the size of the Russian teams with the fact that there were large limitations on weapons and ammo, so some of the troops in those Red squads were just waiting to pick up the rifle of a fallen comrade. But even if this is the case, I personally would still like to see a 10 man unit, even if 2 of those sprites only had knives, at least they could scavage for weapons.
Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 10:58 pm Post subject: Women warriors at Stalingrad
The 16th Panzer Division recorded in their history that, "around Gumrak, enemy resistance became stronger and anti-aircraft guns began firing widly at our armoured vehicles from the north-west corner of Stalingrad". This resistance came from the batteries operated by young women volunteers, barely out of high school.
According to Captain Sarkisyan, commander of a heavy mortar battalion, "the girls refused to go own into the bunkers". One girl, called Masha, is said to have "stayed at her post for four days without being relieved.".
I think it would be great to hear a few random female voices (perhaps these could be pinched from Age of Empires I, II, or III) among the AA crew.
Quotes from "Stalingrad - The Fateful Siege: 1942-1943" by Antony Beevor. A fantastic book.
I just finished the first 2 turns in multiplayer as Russians. I've taken quite a pounding as can be expected, but still loving it. The sounds, maps and overall ambience is right on target. This mod is a work of art.
I have to agree with Mac that the small teams don't seem to bode well for balanced game play. Given the fact that the russians for the most part have low experienced/low morale troops to face off against the german teams with high experience/high moral, I am getting creamed in any head to head encounter. I do have lots of reserves to bring in, but the game is always 15 units versus 15 units, and all things being equal, I am getting driven back fairly quickly. Basically I can't compete with the german infantry, who are easily able to suppress my Russians in a firefight (both sides are playing without support as the game kept crashing whenever it was implemented, so that might be a factor).
I don't know how things will evolve as the days go on, so I can't really say for sure if this is a playability issue or not. These are just my initial thoughts. Maybe I will wear down the german machine enough so that 3 man teams become more of a factor. Either way, I've never had more fun getting destroyed in CC
note that all the women were killed. They had been instructed for AA defense but had no formation to fight against tanks.
nah not all ,
have watched interviews with some of them on TV.
They told they had no AP shells for their 85mm .
Quote:
I dream only about better (like in cc4 Vetmod) weapon sounds --- escpecially MG34, MP40.
if iam not mistaken kamfe used authentic sounds for these weapons .
And imho MP.40 sound in Stal is the best in CC community but it should sound bit louder(will be fixed in update).
MG.34 sound is awesome also!
As for me i played both sides(line/line) and i can say it's hard to play both sides:
germans: as there is no REINFORCEMENT button and all teams/vehicles u lost can't be retrieved.And then comes those nasty T34 and KVs.
Have anyone of u played until at least 17th vs human?
russians: as first couple of days u have only depleted BGs, but u have several tank brigades to fill the gaps in yer defence.Yer main goal these days is to KO as many german vehicles as u can.
Since 15th reserves cross Volga and join battle.These BGs r at good strength with good infantry teams(7men,2-3 SMG) but lack of tanx and hvy guns.
I recommend to play Line/Line as it is most balanced and historical setting.
But if it is too hard for u, play on Recruit .
I can also say that there is a complete strategic option here : the mod was done with the intention to reflect what it really happened; Russians were quickly repulsed in south and suburbs of Stalingrad but hold the center and the factory to the end! So you have to wait the end of the game to give a good advice on the gameplay and balance and don't limit yourself to the first rounds. My tactic as Russians is to make so many looses as possible to Germans, in first rounds and open areas (use low morale and basic troops there) and once there are in the city use all your elite troops. Don't hesitate to withdraw from first maps if the situation is too difficult even after one turn! And don't forget to counter the panzer division with your tank brigade. Normaly, Germans must reach the Volga but with tanks depleted BG!
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 5:47 am Post subject: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play
Where did you learn that Red Army had worse weapons than Whermatch?
Whermatch crew loved the Tokarev PPsh for example. They also found very suitable for their tank crews the T-34. Then about training and morale, it's also arguable. Soviet crews usually received enough training, but their commands were less modern than Whermatch commanders in military doctrine. This lack of understanding of Blitzkrieg early in the war, earned the Red Army a reputation of "bad trained crews", but the reason was the doctrine, not the training.
And about morale, I would like to know of a large mass surrendering example of soviet troops that weren't encircled.
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:12 am Post subject: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play
yes and having a Radio helped as well only 1 in 4-6 russian tanks had one in the early war it inproved over time!
1 of the biggest problems for there armor...not knowing were fire is coming from were the germans are driving up at U hang on ill get up and wave flags at the tank 200m away thats what they did in 1941, russian fighters had the same problem only the leader had the radio so it was follow the leader.
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 2:35 am Post subject: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play
Yes, their doctrine and "modern equipment" was really disappointing early on. Even though they learned the hard way and suited their equipment later on, for a more modern style, some german commanders still had some aces under their sleeve, and that's why guys like Manstein, Model or Hoth still found ways to cripple huge soviet offensives in Kharkov, Orel/Bryansk and Narva river. Even Guderian, in late 1944 managed to halt Bagration before the Red Army got a safe cross on the Vistula. If it weren't for the great understanding of armor tactics that had the most of german commanders, the soviets would have reached Berlin before Christmas 1944.
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 7:46 am Post subject: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play
Quote:
Where did you learn that Red Army had worse weapons than Whermatch?
do you think they had better weapons than WH?
Quote:
Whermatch crew loved the Tokarev PPsh for example. They also found very suitable for their tank crews the T-34.
PPSh is a Shpagin design, not Tokarev .
They didn't find T34 suitable for the German doctrine and hence only a very little number was used by the Germans.
Quote:
And about morale, I would like to know of a large mass surrendering example of soviet troops that weren't encircled.
thing is that until Stalingrad the Germans didn't surrender even encircled.
No, in fact I think the thing was pretty balanced, excepting in fighters squadrons. Me-109 in all its variants, and especially the 'k' model, is usually elected by most of the contend's participants as the best fighter due to it's all round capacities that made a high altitude fighter still a match for it's opponents in low altitude. The 'k' model also stood as an excellent fighter vs flying fortresses. So the low altitude soviet fighters didn't even have a chance, especially due to the fact that Me-109s dived on them with ease and pace most of the dogfights.
But taking apart fighters, the soviet air force did have long range level bombers, and had a strong but lacking doctrine tactical bomber force. They also had numbers in the air, and their AA Flaks were decent. Their doctrine and organization in AA warfare was in my opinion adecuate, and proof of that are Luftwaffe failures in dominating skies late in 1941.
Speaking about armor and especially blitzkrieg based armor, the Whermatch never had a good match until mid 1944, and they didn't have enough numbers, as in 1943 the 2k Pz Kpwg V D and A produced by their industry had well known mechanic problems. Only the G model proved mechanically reliable, and there were only other 2k produced against what? 80k T-34s of all types. An also, comparing Pz kpwg V G with T-34/85mm we will have a hard time to decide which one was superior. The T-34 had it's advantages in angular plates, weight, height, and grip.
Then if you want to compare contenders in heavy armor, the IS-2 was a really good tank, well armored, very well gunned despite it's poor rate of fire and its autonomy and pace were superior to german Tiger tanks. There are of course many cases were one would like to be sitting in a Tiger than in a IS-2 (especially in ambushes or above a hill with good fields of fire), it's rate of fire was terrifying for Whermatch's enemies. But the IS-2 was much more suited to blitzkrieg than an ambush tank like the Tiger. As Whermatch got on dedicated defensive in late 1943, the Tiger found itself in it's proper scenario, and that's why Tiger's crews had such kill rates. The tank was doing the job that it was designed for.
Then artillery. Both armies had it's strongs. 88mm piece was probably the best all rounder artillery piece in warfare history, but high caliber soviet artillery and Katyushas had their strong points also. Soviet artillery doctrine and preparation was decent, despite I think that german understanding of barrages and especially understanding of how to defend against a heavy barrage (here I mean especially Heinrici's tactics) was superior. Again doctrine but not the weapon.
They didn't find T34 suitable for the German doctrine and hence only a very little number was used by the Germans.
Yes they did. Little numbers are for an obvious reason: the tanks were captured. There are a lot of evidence of T-34 successful usage of Whermatch, especially in Barbarossa's early days (the only timeline there were massive T-34 captures).
Thing is that until Stalingrad the Germans didn't surrender even encircled.
I may argue situational environment inflicts a great deal in your point. Red Army had huge losses in late June and July (so the Whermatch considering it's smaller force, especially in armor -600 tanks approximately-), and they didn't have a suited force pool available for a sustained offensive maneuver until late 1941. So after those losses, encircled soviet troops in Byelorussia and Ukraine wouldn't be rescued for months (worse than Stalingrad, where before a month of encirclement, 6th Army could have escaped).
German pockets after the soviet counter-attacks of winter 1941-1942 are a good example for crippling my arguments, but the truth is that excepting Demyansk (where terrain favored a lot the defenders), all of them didn't last more than a month or so. And Army Group A didn't suffer such losses of Army Groups B and C and was in condition to assemble a task force for the rescue.
On the other hand I thing everybody knows that in a certain point, when encircled without hope of relief, surrendering is not a choice but a consequence. If the soviet army really had a lack in morale, Operation Typhoon would have been a success as they should have been so demoralized after their great losses of Barbarossa. And they stood on the ground and fought the invader to the death.
I think that speaking of bravery or weapon quality both did a great job, with pros and cons.
Only two things turned the tide for one or other side: german military doctrine (even when 1941-1942-1943 Whermatch equipment was not good for it -especially their trouble to close the exterior ring of kessels-) and soviet huge industry (supported by americans also) and manpower. I'm also of the opinion that even when Whermatch was sure to lose against Red Army at some point, american intervention in war accelerated that a lot. I don't see Model's Army Group B being overwhelmed in the way it was during Operation Bagration without it's best men traveling to France for the battle of Normandy.
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 8:31 pm Post subject: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play
Quote:
Speaking about armor and especially blitzkrieg based armor, the Whermatch never had a good match until mid 1944, and they didn't have enough numbers, as in 1943 the 2k Pz Kpwg V D and A produced by their industry had well known mechanic problems. Only the G model proved mechanically reliable, and there were only other 2k produced against what? 80k T-34s of all types. An also, comparing Pz kpwg V G with T-34/85mm we will have a hard time to decide which one was superior. The T-34 had it's advantages in angular plates, weight, height, and grip.
T-34 in 1941 was same or less reliable as Panther D. In average it was taking T-34s to drive 300-400km to get fatal engine failure.
Due to critical shortage of 76mm AP ammunition the main AT ammunition was HE and cannister set on impact that made all the German tank with 50mm frontal armor virtually impenetratable for the RA 76mm guns. Such situation remained till 1943 and by then the German tanks mostly had 80mm frontal that was impenetratable for 76mm gun even at 200m.
45mm AP ammo design was flawed and couldn't penetrate 50mm at even 100m. That situation remained till mid 1942.
The German tanks circa 1941 were absolutely fit in the Blitzkrieg doctrine. And with a 50mm frontal armor even Pz38t was a die hard for most of the RA AT weapons. In comparison to T-34 or KV, PzII/III/IV were reliable working horses in 1941 with little or no teething problems and great autonomy. Actually PzIII was one of the best tanks that time and influenced further versions of T-34.
Quote:
Then artillery. Both armies had it's strongs. 88mm piece was probably the best all rounder artillery piece in warfare history, but high caliber soviet artillery and Katyushas had their strong points also. Soviet artillery doctrine and preparation was decent, despite I think that german understanding of barrages and especially understanding of how to defend against a heavy barrage (here I mean especially Heinrici's tactics) was superior. Again doctrine but not the weapon.
why is that? Flak18/36 was an ad-hoc solution until proper ATG was developed and issued in masse - Pak40- and it had weak HE shell to be real artillery. Very high silhouette and very vulnerable even to mortars.
In 1941-43 the Germans have been shooting 2,5-3 heavy shells (>105mm) against every Soviet heavy shell.
Quote:
Yes they did. Little numbers are for an obvious reason: the tanks were captured. There are a lot of evidence of T-34 successful usage of Whermatch, especially in Barbarossa's early days (the only timeline there were massive T-34 captures).
do you have any sources for that?
when in October (?) 1941 Guderian was asking for more tanks to attack further, GHQ offered him to use hundreds of captured Soviet tanks but he refused asking for more German tanks.
T-34 in 1941 was same or less reliable as Panther D. In average it was taking T-34s to drive 300-400km to get fatal engine failure.
I'm aware that was due to oil shortages. The engines were in constant overheat. Finally the metal melted. The germans had a similar problem in Operation Spring Awakening, where they lost some tanks to engine overheat, some others to fuel starvation, before they reached battle.
Due to critical shortage of 76mm AP ammunition the main AT ammunition was HE and cannister set on impact that made all the German tank with 50mm frontal armor virtually impenetratable for the RA 76mm guns.
Well Dima, it was a logistic problem, not a flaw of the gun. German 50mm L60 could not penetrate 50mm frontal armor with HE either. Even, it's proved that frontal armor is not all in tank vs tank battles. Positioning, rate of fire, and skillful aiming are more important, and the german crews were better than soviet in this because of their doctrine.
Such situation remained till 1943 and by then the German tanks mostly had 80mm frontal that was impenetratable for 76mm gun even at 200m.
That's not true. The muzzle velocity of F-34 gun was 680 m/s. Maybe it could not penetrate an 80mm plate in 60º, but definitely was able to penetrate an 80mm plate in 90º from 500m. Pz kpwg IV had an 90º plate in the front. If you look at the spec of the BR-350P
model of the gun, it states that it can penetrate 90mm at 90º from 500m.
I think that by 1943, only the Tiger was invulnerable from the frontal plate to soviet medium tanks, so was the IS-2 for german medium tanks in 1944.
45mm AP ammo design was flawed and couldn't penetrate 50mm at even 100m. That situation remained till mid 1942.
Yes, T-26 and BT-7 were obsolete. Still, some german Panzer Division fielded Pz-II and Pz-35t obsolete tanks with certain success due to their doctrine and crack crews.
The German tanks circa 1941 were absolutely fit in the Blitzkrieg doctrine. And with a 50mm frontal armor even Pz38t was a die hard for most of the RA AT weapons.
Like the 76mm AT gun? This gun had the same logistic problem that had T-34, but it's specs clearly allow it to blow the shit out of a Pz 38t.
German tanks fitted Blitzkrieg doctrine for the first phase of a common attack. They were fast, mechanically good, well gunned against infantry and fielded a radio. But when the "kessel" was closed, this tanks had to continue their drive further, having also to form an exterior ring. If they were charged by T-34s or KV-1s tank that intended to open the "kessel" they were in trouble as they were no match for this kind of tanks. They lost many tanks this way.
German Panzer losses in 1941 (without counting Pz kpwg I): 558 tanks (112 Pz kpfw II, 182 Pz Kpwg 38t, 155 PzKpfw III and 109 Pz kpwg IV) in July, and 429 tanks (104 Pz kpwg II, 183 Pz kpwg 38t, 74 Pz kpwg III y 68 Pz kpfw IV) in august.
Then, while on defensive, they only lost 325 tanks (70 Pz kpwg II, 102 Pz kpwg 38t, 113 Pz kpwg III y 40 Pz kpwg IV) in december.
source:
Horst Boog et al, Germany and the Second World War: Volume IV: The Attack on the Soviet Union, (Oxford University Press, 1999) pp. 1120-1122.
And these situations during german drives, often force infantry to fight close quarter against soviet armor, determining great losses for both sides, but unrecoverable for Whermatch side.
In comparison to T-34 or KV, PzII/III/IV were reliable working horses in 1941 with little or no teething problems and great autonomy. Actually PzIII was one of the best tanks that time and influenced further versions of T-34.
Yes Pz kpwg III was a good tank, I've never said that german armor was worse than soviet, I've said their were balanced, with pros and cons from each side. T-34 on the other side, inspired some Pz kpwg V features.
why is that? Flak18/36 was an ad-hoc solution until proper ATG was developed and issued in masse - Pak40- and it had weak HE shell to be real artillery. Very high silhouette and very vulnerable even to mortars.
Range (for a relatively small caliber)? Rate of fire? May be HE power and silhouette don't mind a lot when you have a one hit knock out gun for any enemy threat. This gun caused havoc in american infantry men during Hurtgen's hell an so did against soviet armor. All this without considering it's great capability to defend the skies. Also, the germans had decent numbers of these.
do you have any sources for that?
when in October (?) 1941 Guderian was asking for more tanks to attack further, GHQ offered him to use hundreds of captured Soviet tanks but he refused asking for more German tanks.
I don't remember where, but I've read that following battle of Brody, a column of the 8th Panzer Division, fielding 2 T-34/76mm on the lead, captured a bridge over Dnieper river in a nightly infiltration. Then I've read about a heavy street combat in Rostov, in fall 1941, where a captured T-34 was involved and destroyed 3 soviet tanks.
Guderian intended a drive on Moscow in August. According to acthungpanzer.com the firsts Panzer Divisions to field the T-34 in small numbers were 1st, 8th and 11th, all in Army Group South, not under Guderian command, and it was in that August. So I believe there weren't more T-34 ready for battle (you have to give the tank ammo also, which was different from any produced by III Reich) in that time. I always thought that Guderian rejected undergunned tanks like T-26 or BT-7 mostly. You also have to think about the fact that germans would have to add a radio to each one before usage.
Because of this complications, many of them were modified as flakpanzers or other kind of stuff.
Aside from this, there are three very good quotes from protagonists in the struggle:
"We had nothing comparable", Major-General F.W. Mellenthin, Chief of Staff of XLVIII Panzer Corps.
"The finest tank in the world", Field-Marshal Ewald von Kleist, First Panzer Army.
"This tank (T-34) adversely affected the morale of the German infantry", General G. Blumentritt.
I already told you that Pz kpwg IV J or Pz kpwg V G may have been better in some aspects, but T-34 certainly was a very good tank and had it's advantages over it's enemies'.
Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 4:51 pm Post subject: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play
Yes Russians had better, much better, armour than the Germans. The Germans simply copied the sloped armour design in their late war designs. Machine guns were better suited for close combat. MP40 was not as flexible and could not be easily fired from prone position. Russians had vastly better industrial capacity and simple designs that could be massed produced. Russians had better uniforms that were not as nice looking but much warmer and more functional. Russians had better defensive tactics that had never been seen before by the Germans and their allies. The Russian got up close and rendered the German blitzkreig tactics useless in house to house fighting.
Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 7:11 pm Post subject: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play
Well, Blitzkrieg doctrine does consider that last fact, and that's why in the manual, towns and cities are supposed to be left behind forming "kessels". The Whermatch didn't always follow the manual in practice, and that's why some soviet cities ended being Verduns.
Then, not every soviet tactic was superior. Figure Model's and Heinrici defensive tactics from early 1942 to mid 1944 in Byelorussia. Army Group B deflected 2 massive soviet attacks (1941-1942 winter soviet counter-attack and then Operation Mars during the summer 1942). During 1943 the Red Army tried the front again several times, without success. These attacks, especially Mars, involved more men, tanks and aircraft than Operation Uranus (soviet counter-attack in the low Volga and Caucasus). The Army Group B halted all of them, most of the time with less than 1k of tanks and with shortages of all type.
Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 1:02 am Post subject: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play
Fiestita,
Quote:
I'm aware that was due to oil shortages. The engines were in constant overheat. Finally the metal melted. The germans had a similar problem in Operation Spring Awakening, where they lost some tanks to engine overheat, some others to fuel starvation, before they reached battle.
actually that was due to problems with design of engine and filters that were solved only in late 1942.
Quote:
Well Dima, it was a logistic problem, not a flaw of the gun. German 50mm L60 could not penetrate 50mm frontal armor with HE either. Even, it's proved that frontal armor is not all in tank vs tank battles. Positioning, rate of fire, and skillful aiming are more important, and the german crews were better than soviet in this because of their doctrine.
There were huge problems in producing 76mm AP shells in 1940-42 and that's why HE and Cannisters were mainly used.
Despite German doctrine of not wasting tanks in tank to tank combat 5cm gun had alot of ammo types issued in abudance ranging from HE to APCR so they didn't need to use HE against tank armor.
Anyway, by June 22nd 1941 there were approximately 140.000 AP shells for the Soviet 76mm guns so it was like 10 AP shells per gun both towed or tank. Check how many AP shells there were in WH.
And an AT gun without AP shells is a flawed gun.
Quote:
That's not true. The muzzle velocity of F-34 gun was 680 m/s. Maybe it could not penetrate an 80mm plate in 60º, but definitely was able to penetrate an 80mm plate in 90º from 500m. Pz kpwg IV had an 90º plate in the front. If you look at the spec of the BR-350P
model of the gun, it states that it can penetrate 90mm at 90º from 500m.
That's true and was proven by the Soviet tests and was well known.
Muzzle velocity is a good thing but quality of steel is another and the Soviet 76mm rounds circa 1940-1943 were flawed and just shattered on impact against FHA armor of higher thickness.
Quote:
I think that by 1943, only the Tiger was invulnerable from the frontal plate to soviet medium tanks, so was the IS-2 for german medium tanks in 1944
Panther's and PzIV's frontal hull was invulnerable to a fire of the Soviet tanks at more than 200m in 1943.
German medium gun in 1944 is Pak38 which was pretty rare in comparison to a heavy Pak40.
Quote:
Like the 76mm AT gun? This gun had the same logistic problem that had T-34, but it's specs clearly allow it to blow the shit out of a Pz 38t.
again that was not a logistic problem but the problem industry that could not manage to produce AP shell for a gun in time.
The Germans had pretty same problems with AP shells when they massively fielded pak40 but due to advanced industry they were producing alot of HEAT shells to compensate it in 1942-1943.
Quote:
German tanks fitted Blitzkrieg doctrine for the first phase of a common attack. They were fast, mechanically good, well gunned against infantry and fielded a radio. But when the "kessel" was closed, this tanks had to continue their drive further, having also to form an exterior ring. If they were charged by T-34s or KV-1s tank that intended to open the "kessel" they were in trouble as they were no match for this kind of tanks. They lost many tanks this way.
good that you understand a Blitzkrieg doctrine but most of the time T-34/KVs were repelled by ATGs and Stukas as tanks were too precious for the Germans to combat enemy tanks.
Quote:
German Panzer losses in 1941 (without counting Pz kpwg I): 558 tanks (112 Pz kpfw II, 182 Pz Kpwg 38t, 155 PzKpfw III and 109 Pz kpwg IV) in July, and 429 tanks (104 Pz kpwg II, 183 Pz kpwg 38t, 74 Pz kpwg III y 68 Pz kpfw IV) in august.
Then, while on defensive, they only lost 325 tanks (70 Pz kpwg II, 102 Pz kpwg 38t, 113 Pz kpwg III y 40 Pz kpwg IV) in december.
source:
Horst Boog et al, Germany and the Second World War: Volume IV: The Attack on the Soviet Union, (Oxford University Press, 1999) pp. 1120-1122.
this stat is actually showing that when the Germans were against regular RA units they were loosing more than against ad-hoc and reserves.
Quote:
And these situations during german drives, often force infantry to fight close quarter against soviet armor, determining great losses for both sides, but unrecoverable for Whermatch side.
In comparison to other armies, the German infantry had huge amount of ATGs to deal with enemy tanks those years and that was a main reason of great losses for a tank losses of other armies.
Quote:
Range (for a relatively small caliber)? Rate of fire? May be HE power and silhouette don't mind a lot when you have a one hit knock out gun for any enemy threat. This gun caused havoc in american infantry men during Hurtgen's hell an so did against soviet armor. All this without considering it's great capability to defend the skies. Also, the germans had decent numbers of these.
range, RoF was nothing special and pretty same as for other AA guns like the Soviet 85mm 52-K or US 90mm M1 or UK 3,7" AA.
Quote:
Also, the germans had decent numbers of these
yeah 8 per PzD :)
Quote:
Source? Was it in every battle? It's arguable. The Red Army had to field ammo for the triple of guns than Whermatch.
that's a statistics for 1941-43.
Well, 3 76mm guns would never substitute 3 105mm shells .
Quote:
I don't remember where, but I've read that following battle of Brody, a column of the 8th Panzer Division, fielding 2 T-34/76mm on the lead, captured a bridge over Dnieper river in a nightly infiltration. Then I've read about a heavy street combat in Rostov, in fall 1941, where a captured T-34 was involved and destroyed 3 soviet tanks.
ok, just for deception at Brody, why not?
ok, another single incident, so no evidence of using captured T-34 in masse?
Quote:
Guderian intended a drive on Moscow in August. According to acthungpanzer.com the firsts Panzer Divisions to field the T-34 in small numbers were 1st, 8th and 11th, all in Army Group South, not under Guderian command, and it was in that August. So I believe there weren't more T-34 ready for battle (you have to give the tank ammo also, which was different from any produced by III Reich) in that time. I always thought that Guderian rejected undergunned tanks like T-26 or BT-7 mostly. You also have to think about the fact that germans would have to add a radio to each one before usage.
So no They also found very suitable for their tank crews the T-34. any more?
FYI T-26/BT were the working horses of the RA in 1941 and were falling victims to the German ATGs most of all while alot of T-34/KV were captured due to minor damages or mulfunctions.
Btw, all the KVs had radios .
Quote:
Because of this complications, many of them were modified as flakpanzers or other kind of stuff.
actually 1 or 2 .
Quote:
Aside from this, there are three very good quotes from protagonists in the struggle:
"We had nothing comparable", Major-General F.W. Mellenthin, Chief of Staff of XLVIII Panzer Corps.
"The finest tank in the world", Field-Marshal Ewald von Kleist, First Panzer Army.
"This tank (T-34) adversely affected the morale of the German infantry", General G. Blumentritt.
yeah, i've already understood that you like achtungpanzer too much .
i can tell you that's a Cold War propaganda, same as crazy Fuhrer lost a War while the German commanders were winning all the battles, especially in EF - in reality the Germans didn't notice T-34 until October 1941 when they were exhausted and didn't have enough tanks/ATGs to deal with a fresh Soviet tank brigade fast.
Quote:
I already told you that Pz kpwg IV J or Pz kpwg V G may have been better in some aspects, but T-34 certainly was a very good tank and had it's advantages over it's enemies'.
why PzIVJ? that was a worse tank than PzIVH in most of aspects.
T-34 became a formidable tank in 1943 after numerous upgrades but the first versions of T-34 was thought as combat inefficient already in 1940 and it was proven in 1941-43 by alot of blood.
Last edited by Dima on Wed Dec 26, 2012 1:21 am; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 1:15 am Post subject: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play
DJ,
I do believe you have to start getting knowledge about topics you reply to.
Quote:
Yes Russians had better, much better, armour than the Germans.
that's not true.
Quote:
The Germans simply copied the sloped armour design in their late war designs.
I will tell you a secret - T-34 shape was very much copied from the french S-35 so the Germans knew about advantages and disadvantages of sloped design even in 1940 .
Quote:
Machine guns were better suited for close combat.
what?
Quote:
MP40 was not as flexible and could not be easily fired from prone position.
what?
Quote:
Russians had vastly better industrial capacity and simple designs that could be massed produced.
you know USSR could not copy high-tech PzIII although they have tried to (T-34M) but anyway T-34 was very complicated for the Soviet factories in 1940-1943.
funny but there were pretty same number of workers working for the Germans and Soviets during the WW2. So I can't see vastly better industrical capacity.
Quote:
Russians had better uniforms that were not as nice looking but much warmer and more functional.
haha, funny, so you've read some of Mellentin?
Quote:
Russians had better defensive tactics that had never been seen before by the Germans and their allies.
of course and that's why the Germans could break 1400km into the Russian territory.
I do believe you the Germans had never seen such defence before!!!
Quote:
The Russian got up close and rendered the German blitzkreig tactics useless in house to house fighting.
yes! they also have taught mices to eat german wires!
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 12:58 am Post subject: Re: Stalingrad: Thoughts on Game Play
Something happened to me last night while playing the AI in Stalingrad with Real Vlad sub mod.
Never happened before in all my years of CC5.
It was at Banny Gully on Day 2 (Sept14) PM turn. Morale Off.
Germans (me) had battered the Russian Tank BG 189 to one VL at the Bridge. Time running down almost all Russians destroyed... but one tank crew was on the VL after leaving their tank nearby around several others. I couldn't maneuver my Stugf into position to shoot them... and several infantry teams were decimated trying to take them out with only two casualties for the crew.
I manage to kill one of the guys remaing, but their leader was still alive. Across the board I took all the other VLs and killed everybody. This guy would not die... but usually even with morale off the computer will 'give up' when almost everybody was dead. Not this time. Although I had dudes all around him, a Stugf about 5 yds away, and EVERYBODY ELSE DEAD... this ONE GUY held onto the VL. Amazing.
I didn't have any reinforcements scheduled to come in there for Day 3... but it still shocked me a bit. Did manage to finally wipe them out the next turn... but there were some losses like two captured Paks. Darn it.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
In August of 2004, Zappi, Homba, Bambam887, RedScorpion and MOOXE all pitched
in to create this Close Combat site. I would to thank all the people who have visited
and found this site to thier liking. I hope you had time to check out some
of the great Close Combat mods and our forums. I'd also like to thank
all the members of our volunteer staff that have helped over
the years, and all our users that contributed to this site!
,
.
.
.
