Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Guards Rifle Division vs Guards Airborne Division

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room >> Guards Rifle Division vs Guards Airborne Division Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Guards Rifle Division vs Guards Airborne Division - 7/7/2011 4:59:20 PM   
traemyn

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 1/21/2005
Status: offline 		Sorry if this has been discussed before.

You can buildup three airborne brigades into a Guards Rifle Division in March 1942, however you can also build three airborne brigades into a Guards Airborne Division in Jan 1943.

Is it worth it to wait until you can create the Airborne Divisions? Which unit has a higher combat strength? Are the Airborne Divisions useful (consistently) for airdrops? What are the big differences of TOE between an Airborne Division and Rifle Division in 1943?

EDIT: OK scratch the question about airdrop as you can only use a regimental or brigade size for that

< Message edited by traemyn -- 7/7/2011 5:14:06 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Guards Rifle Division vs Guards Airborne Division - 7/7/2011 5:38:13 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline 		One of the main differences is that converting them to Guards Rifle divisions limits the amount of Rifle divisions that can become Guards, as those airborne-turned-Rifle units do count against the Guards percentage. There's no limit on how many airborne units can become Guards.

The airborne divisions have fewer heavy weapons, and in their final version have primarily SMG squads and not regular Rifle squads.

Note that the airborne brigades would convert to 42a Guards Rifle divisions if you merge them in March 1942, the screenshot shows a comparison between the Guards Rifle and Guards Airborne TOE's in 1943-1945.






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to traemyn)
Post #: 2
RE: Guards Rifle Division vs Guards Airborne Division - 7/7/2011 6:03:34 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline
That's an interesting comparison. I must ask why the 45 rifle div doesn't have the 76mm AT gun anymore but keeps the obsolete 45 and 57 AT guns? And everyone still has anti-tank rifles?

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 3
RE: Guards Rifle Division vs Guards Airborne Division - 7/7/2011 6:12:00 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


That's an interesting comparison. I must ask why the 45 rifle div doesn't have the 76mm AT gun anymore but keeps the obsolete 45 and 57 AT guns? And everyone still has anti-tank rifles?


The '45 Rifle, though, get's Su-76Ms in lieu of the 76mm AT guns.

It's not easy to keep up, though with the dizzying TOE changes in the Red Army. Not sure who was in charge of that, but it seems they had a "flavor of the month" thing going

Also, GUARD AIRBORNE cannot airdrop at all. This is because only Brigade or smaller units can be air-dropped, and the Guard Airborne Div. won't break down. It's purely infantry.

I plan to hold-off converting them purely to get more Guards formations, and not count against the cap. You can use Division-size units even with Corps doing most of the heavy lifting.

_____________________________


(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 4
RE: Guards Rifle Division vs Guards Airborne Division - 7/7/2011 6:29:40 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline 		I agree. To save space for guards rifles I convert them in 43 to guards airborne.

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 5
RE: Guards Rifle Division vs Guards Airborne Division - 7/7/2011 6:46:46 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline 		Mynok, the Soviets improved the 45mm during the war and the 57mm is a superior gun to the 76.2mm in terms of penetration.






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 6
RE: Guards Rifle Division vs Guards Airborne Division - 7/8/2011 1:47:36 AM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline 		They just switched to an HVAP round. Still looks like the same gun to me. Wonder why they didn't make one for the 76?

Curious, I know what the German APCR round was, and the British APDS, but what kind of HVAP round did the Soviets use?

< Message edited by Mynok -- 7/8/2011 1:48:10 AM >

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 7
RE: Guards Rifle Division vs Guards Airborne Division - 7/8/2011 2:09:39 AM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

They just switched to an HVAP round. Still looks like the same gun to me. Wonder why they didn't make one for the 76?

Curious, I know what the German APCR round was, and the British APDS, but what kind of HVAP round did the Soviets use?


Soviet HVAP round was a copy of captured German rounds. Officially these rounds were not to be 'wasted' against light tanks or at heavy/medium tanks over max range (because of cost). They also copied the German shaped charge but did an inferior job of it.

Forgot. There was an HVAP for the 76mm and 45mm max range 500m. 57mm and 85mm max range 1000m. For the 85mm wasn't available till February 1944.

< Message edited by Panama -- 7/8/2011 2:12:36 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 8
RE: Guards Rifle Division vs Guards Airborne Division - 7/8/2011 2:30:14 AM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
quote:

They just switched to an HVAP round. Still looks like the same gun to me. Wonder why they didn't make one for the 76?


What looks like the same gun? The 45mm? It has a longer barrel and thus better range and penetration values than the pre-war variant.

The 76.2mm's used by mid-late war tanks and SU's have HVAP ammunition.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 9
RE: Guards Rifle Division vs Guards Airborne Division - 7/8/2011 3:04:13 AM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline 		Yes, but it's regular AP penetration is still less than the 76. I can certainly see why a smaller gun is more useful in most situations by being more capable of manhandling. I did miss the added SU-76's there so they didn't lose their anti-heavy ability. Certainly a self-propelled 76 is better than towed. That oversight was really the root of my question.

Was the 57mm basically a copy of the Brit/Ami 6pdr/57?


_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 10
RE: Guards Rifle Division vs Guards Airborne Division - 7/8/2011 3:07:24 AM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline
Just for the ole Martian's knowledge, was the 45 capable of penetrating the MkIV frontally? I know the 57 was if it was similar to the 6pdr. This is ignoring the HVAP round.



_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 11
RE: Guards Rifle Division vs Guards Airborne Division - 7/8/2011 3:43:10 AM   
corbon

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 11/11/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

Yes, but it's regular AP penetration is still less than the 76. I can certainly see why a smaller gun is more useful in most situations by being more capable of manhandling. I did miss the added SU-76's there so they didn't lose their anti-heavy ability. Certainly a self-propelled 76 is better than towed. That oversight was really the root of my question.

Was the 57mm basically a copy of the Brit/Ami 6pdr/57?



No, it was independently created, designed from scratch by the russians.

Smaller and lighter helps for combat as well as movement. Harder to spot, easier to hide, harder to hit. These are all much more important than movement for AT guns. However the 57mm zis2 is not much smaller or lighter than 76mm zis3, since they share the same carriage and gunshield.
But the higher velocity gives it greater penetration. 57mm seems to have been a sweet spot for balancing weight and velocity to deliver maximum kinetic energy to the target (at least within the 'light' gun parameters)

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 12
RE: Guards Rifle Division vs Guards Airborne Division - 7/8/2011 3:51:45 AM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline 		But lighter, high velocity shells also tend to shatter more easily. Is that why they went to the HVAP round?


_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to corbon)
Post #: 13
RE: Guards Rifle Division vs Guards Airborne Division - 7/8/2011 5:11:08 AM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: corbon


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

Yes, but it's regular AP penetration is still less than the 76. I can certainly see why a smaller gun is more useful in most situations by being more capable of manhandling. I did miss the added SU-76's there so they didn't lose their anti-heavy ability. Certainly a self-propelled 76 is better than towed. That oversight was really the root of my question.

Was the 57mm basically a copy of the Brit/Ami 6pdr/57?



No, it was independently created, designed from scratch by the russians.

Smaller and lighter helps for combat as well as movement. Harder to spot, easier to hide, harder to hit. These are all much more important than movement for AT guns. However the 57mm zis2 is not much smaller or lighter than 76mm zis3, since they share the same carriage and gunshield.
But the higher velocity gives it greater penetration. 57mm seems to have been a sweet spot for balancing weight and velocity to deliver maximum kinetic energy to the target (at least within the 'light' gun parameters)



The first 57mm M1941 ZIS-2 were rushed into production and about 400 were made before it was realized the rifling in the barrel had been calculated with 'gross mathematical errors'. Didn't help that the factory had to be evacuated too. Nice, eh? Obviously this stopped production. Production was resumed in 1943. Weight was about 2500 pounds or about 1150 kilograms. A little less than twice as heavy as the 45mm Model 42.

There were about 653 U.S. 57mm AT guns during the war. Soviets produced about 5400.

_____________________________


(in reply to corbon)
Post #: 14
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room >> Guards Rifle Division vs Guards Airborne Division 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

1.938