Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Soviet Mech Units

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Soviet Mech Units Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Soviet Mech Units - 1/16/2002 12:48:00 AM   
Del

 

Posts: 123
Joined: 4/22/2001
From: Central USA
Status: offline 		Shouldn't there be Soviet Mech Infantry units? All I can find are motorized infantry and mech recon. Yeah sure, I can buy the stuff separately but the same could be said for all motorized and mech units in the game. Also, won't that take away formation slots from players? If it's a lack of ob slots for formations maybe Partisans could be eliminated after 1944 since the Soviets were no longer on Soviet soil and Soviet Partisans were not a factor.

_____________________________

Yea though I walk through the Valley of Death I shall fear NO evil for Thou art with me.
Post #: 1
- 1/16/2002 1:49:00 AM   
Grumble

 

Posts: 471
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Omaha, NE, USA
Status: offline 		There weren't any. The Sov's didn't develop an APC until after the war. What 1/2tracks they did get through Lend-Lease (some 7000 IIRC) were used for Recon units and HQs (so they could stay with the AFVs).
Infantry as seen in the propaganda reels, rode on the vehicles until contact was made. Or, infiltrated the evening before an attack.

_____________________________

"...these go up to eleven."
Nigel Tufnel

(in reply to Del)
Post #: 2
- 1/16/2002 2:37:00 AM   
Del

 

Posts: 123
Joined: 4/22/2001
From: Central USA
Status: offline 		Well paint me green and call me Gumby. All these years I've been looking at Soviet Guards Mech units with the mech symbols and they are actually nothing more than motorized units. If that don't beat all. Why is it no one has ever used motorized infantry symbols for them? Thanks for the info, you learn something new every day.

_____________________________

Yea though I walk through the Valley of Death I shall fear NO evil for Thou art with me.

(in reply to Del)
Post #: 3
- 1/16/2002 6:56:00 AM   
Grumble

 

Posts: 471
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Omaha, NE, USA
Status: offline 		IIRC, in the GDW series of games, they used "mech" to denote a series of capabilities, inside the game system.
So, Guards motor rifle units with more than the usual amount of Tanks/Assault Guns would be considered "mechanized" for game purposes.

_____________________________

"...these go up to eleven."
Nigel Tufnel

(in reply to Del)
Post #: 4
- 1/16/2002 7:29:00 AM   
richmonder

 

Posts: 158
Joined: 12/9/2001
From: Richmond, VA USA
Status: offline 		well, don't that beat all.. good - now I can replicate that in scenarios. I was using actual mech Soviet forces. well, I don't know if the SOVs referred to any of their WW2 formations as mech, but if they did it only goes in line with the East Front thing of sounding bold and daring when in fact it's just something ordinary.

_____________________________

Respectfully,
Richmonder
(formerly Gen. Richmond)

(in reply to Del)
Post #: 5
- 1/16/2002 12:38:00 PM   
tracer


Posts: 1865
Joined: 11/22/2000
From: New Smyrna Beach, FL USA
Status: offline 		Remember too that in SPWAW quite a few Soviet tanks and assault guns can accommodate 12-13 passengers.

_____________________________

Jim NSB

(in reply to Del)
Post #: 6
- 1/16/2002 6:20:00 PM   
Jacc

 

Posts: 265
Joined: 4/30/2001
From: Viikki Imperium
Status: offline 		Soviets tactics weren't that APC-related as in Germans - or US. First of all, they had numerical and air superiority; secondly, they used artillery a hell lot more than Germans; third, their infantry rode on tanks; fourth, their attack method was different.

_____________________________

Pain is for the weak.

(in reply to Del)
Post #: 7
- 1/17/2002 1:44:00 AM   
Grumble

 

Posts: 471
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Omaha, NE, USA
Status: offline 		Red Army designations were Tank, Rifle, Motor Rifle, and Artillery. (There were others but these are the most common and pertinent to the discussion.) "Not as APC-related", true but that's because they didn't have any; and didn't see the need to have infantry operate closely with armor until after Barbarossa began.
"Tank riding" was a pragmatic expedient that kept the troops with the tanks, and as the Red Army wasn't overly concerned with losses, vulnerability wasn't a concern...

_____________________________

"...these go up to eleven."
Nigel Tufnel

(in reply to Del)
Post #: 8
- 1/17/2002 4:26:00 AM   
Mikimoto

 

Posts: 511
Joined: 11/6/2000
From: Barcelona, Catalunya
Status: offline 		Hi. Most succesful Soviet formation of WWII was the "mechanized corps". Created in 1943, reached "perfection" in 1944. There were never enough of them because there were never enough halftracks to mount the infantry. Soviets actually used halftracks... mostly, if not all, from lend-lease origin.

_____________________________

Desperta ferro!
Miquel Guasch Aparicio

(in reply to Del)
Post #: 9
- 1/17/2002 11:48:00 PM   
Omegaunit

 

Posts: 27
Joined: 12/31/2001
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		So were the tank riders conscripts or elite troops? A tank with a bunch of anti-tank personnel on it
what a good idea

_____________________________

-// Enough with the arms of critique! it is time for the Critique of arms!!! //---

(in reply to Del)
Post #: 10
- 1/18/2002 12:33:00 AM   
Grumble

 

Posts: 471
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Omaha, NE, USA
Status: offline 		Both actually. Not really such a good idea tactically, as riders are extremely vulnerable to small arms fire as well as HE. This is compounded by the fact that in "real life" AFVs almost invariably attract all kinds of rounds their way whenever they appear.
However, if you don't have APCs, (again they were used for HQ and recon units-got this from the Moscow and ST Petersburg military museums) it IS one way to ensure your infantry gets to the start line...

_____________________________

"...these go up to eleven."
Nigel Tufnel

(in reply to Del)
Post #: 11
- 1/18/2002 4:28:00 AM   
Mikimoto

 

Posts: 511
Joined: 11/6/2000
From: Barcelona, Catalunya
Status: offline 		Hi. I believed Russians used some mech-inf inside their Mechanized Corps, since late 1943. But it seems I was wrong. By the way, Germans actually had only one batallion of mechanized infantry in the Panzer Divisions, acting as armored infantry... the rest were motorized, perhaps a company had halftracks, the rest trucks.
British dismounted from trucks and halftracks to fight on foot... American Tank Divisions had actually mechanized infantry, a regiment, but they improved the divisions manpower with attached truck-borne infantry...
Apart from Germans and US combat commands, were there any actual use of armoured/mechanized infantry?

_____________________________

Desperta ferro!
Miquel Guasch Aparicio

(in reply to Del)
Post #: 12
- 1/18/2002 7:21:00 AM   
Grumble

 

Posts: 471
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Omaha, NE, USA
Status: offline 		Good points Mikimoto, especially concerning German panzer grenadiers.
I would submit that British were mechanized: they used Universal Carriers and 1/2 tracks to keep their infantry up with the armor. The "proper" use of a 1/2 track is as an armored taxi, delivering the infantry close to the fighting-and maybe adding some MG support. But, the Canadians use of "Kangaroos" is probably closest to the textbook, post-war, example of mech-inf. These gave the infantry practically the same protection as a tank, so allowing the infantry to dismount almost on the objective-something not recommended with 1/2 tracks. Though the stated purpose was not protection so much, as 1/2tracks were underpowered and in the soupy conditions of Belgium/Holland lacked the cross-country mobility of fully-tracked vehicles.

_____________________________

"...these go up to eleven."
Nigel Tufnel

(in reply to Del)
Post #: 13
- 1/18/2002 9:01:00 AM   
Tombstone

 

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline 		I thought the Brits always dismounted in reasonably safe places from their APCs. They didn't go into combat. I think that German Panzergrenadier divisions (when they existed) had more half-tracks than panzer divisions. Even so, the overwhelming majority of mobile infantry was truck borne, and in most cases infantry with half-tracks dismounted well before combat. As far as the Soviets are concerned I think they had some recon elements in half-tracks. However, even though the Soviets had "mechanised corps" they didn't really have regular infantry with half-tracks. It just meant mobile formations with a mix of units leaning toward motorised infantry brigades rather than tank brigades. Real mechanisation existed only in US, and postwar armies. Playing SPWAW you can't help but used APC's like mad war-wagons catapulting poor squads of fleshbags into the midst of destruction. It can work really well at times, however I'm pretty sure no one was into doing that kind of thing in real life. The mechanisation of infantry is of interest and value almost totally at the operational level of combat. Tomo Tomo

_____________________________


(in reply to Del)
Post #: 14
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Soviet Mech Units Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.859