SUPPORTING the v6.1 versus v7.0 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message


gorgias96 -> SUPPORTING the v6.1 versus v7.0 (12/19/2001 11:32:00 PM)

Well i like and enjoy the SP:WaW a lot of time ago. But Itīs obvius and mentally healthy not to be ALWAYS agreed with every change in the game as someones "official" flatterers (i donīt mean Matrix need or "pay" them in any way). The new v7 patch has good things and other ones very bad too. I admit that some "bugs" in the anterior version have been efficiently corrected (i. e. OOB for mortars in every army) but in the other hand the game is now clearly unbalanced in the OOB design.
I.e. the red army has been excessively weakened. I know only a bit about penetration/armor tables etc.. etc... and i donīt know if at present the new units statictics are better or worse than before but iīm sure in a point in wich concur every book about the WWII i have readed, the early medium soviets tanks overhelm clearly to their german competitors. Is this reflected in the new version??? I think NO.
We suppose that the new penetration/armor values are ABSOLUTELY correct, then there is another thing wrong. We would try to identify and upgrade them because i think that is fundamental to keep a balanced game. For this i support enphatically the v6.1 versus the new v7. I think the first version is more balanced and accurate historically. What do u think wargamer??
-------------------------------------------------- Para los ke hablan en cristiano. Bueno yo creo ke dejo clara mi linea de argumentacion jeje. Como no podemos discutir con ellos en lo referente a detalles muy tecnicos acerca de penetracion, blindaje y demas lo suyo es llevarlos a nuestro terreno, es decir al del rigor historico. Creo ke he dejado claro más o menos lo ke pienso, aunke con mi "macarronico" ingles no sé si ellos me entenderan. Así ke si vosotros los "bilingües" kereis repetir mis argumentos aunke mejor expuestos y explicados pues mejor ke mejor. Creo ke es fundamental para salirnos con la nuestra tener tb. un poco de mano izkierda. Es decir alternar una de cal y otra de arena. Por eso creo ke debemos dejar muyyyyyy claro y enfatizar mucho ke porke "amamos" desesperadamente al WaW jejeje es por lo ke lo criticamos con tanta pasion y no porke lo "odiemos". Así halagamos su vanidad ke por lo ke veo es mucha jejeje.
Por todo esto mi tactica se basa no tanto en machacar a la version 7 como en defender en su detrimento la 6.1 ke al fin de al cabo tb. es obra suya jejeje Hala espero vuestra opinión al respecto porke hay ke enmendar este desaguisado y ponerlos al menos por una vez en su sitio....




lnp4668 -> (12/20/2001 2:08:00 AM)

I have been doing a bit of testing, so if you could take a look at the result and then makes up your own mind. Basic setup: 1 on one, at 10 hexes with country characteristic and training off. Each tank only takes the first shot from non moving position to neutralize the bonus from subsequent rounds as well as suppression from counter fire. Test 1: Pz III J (s) vs T 34 m.41
25 shots by Pz III: 8 Pz III destroyed by counter shot, 2 T 34 destroyed
25 shots by T34: 2 T 34 destroyed by counter shot, 11 Pz III destroyed. Test 2: Pz III G vs T34 m 40
25 shots by Pz III: 9 Pz III destroyed by counter shot, 1 T 34 destroyed
25 shots by T34: 0 T 34 destroyed by counter shot, 14 Pz III destroyed Test 3: Pz 3H vs T 34 m40
25 shots by Pz III: 0 Pz III destroyed by counter shot, 5 T 34 destroyed
25 shots by T 34: 2 T 34 destroyed by counter shot, 7 Pz III destroyed. Test 4: Pz 3H vs T34 m 41
25 shots by Pz III: 0 Pz III destroyed by counter shot, 8 T 34 destroyed
25 shots by T 34: 3 destroyed by counter shot, 5 Pz III destroyed.
Basically, I don't think that the T 34 is severely weaken. I just thinks that the added armor on the Pz III h is not accurately represented since they supposed to be weaker than a single plate of armor.




Mikimoto -> (12/20/2001 2:24:00 AM)

Hola Camarada. I agree with Gorgias, as you can expect. Version 6.1 has some things that I dont like: I don't like mortars that doesn't work, or fragile infantry, but I can live with that... cause in most part it is accurate and balanced. And all this occurrences are against all countries. V 7.0 is unbalanced and unfair.




Charles2222 -> (12/20/2001 3:44:00 AM)

lnp4668: Hmm, radically different results than we've otherwise heard. Note, your tests were still at the range for the radical PZIIIH advantage, that of range 10.




lnp4668 -> (12/20/2001 4:23:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Charles_22:
lnp4668: Hmm, radically different results than we've otherwise heard. Note, your tests were still at the range for the radical PZIIIH advantage, that of range 10.
I thinks the way I setup neutralize the AI's tendency to charge head on and fire at point blank range. This shows that even with APCR, the German are not much more effective against T34. However, the Soviet guns seems to have trouble against the thicker armor of the III h.




Fredde -> (12/20/2001 4:35:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Mikimoto:
V 7.0 is unbalanced and unfair.

Let's look at the only thing we can turn to here to find a "correct" answer: The outcome of the early battles of WWII in Russia. If there ever was a "balanced and fair" situation, Germany would have been stopped much earlier instead of just about overthrowing the early Russian armies completely. Let's face it. War isn't fair. Even because you sit in a better tank, it doesn't have to mean that you fight better than the enemy in a poor one. There are so many other issues as well to consider and weigh in the total balance. Gunnery skills, initiative, tactics, etc etc. If (and only if, I doubt that looking at my personal experience of 7.0) these changes penalise the Soviet side, this is more than compensated by what the Soviets gain by letting skill mean much less than equipment when it comes to infantry. Despite the very low-quality Russian infantry, they will win the battle any day for the Soviets because number of barrels mean so much more than the skill of the men behind the barrels in SPWAW (Note: this has been the case in earlier versions as well. Nothing new to 7.0). These are the same undisciplined, inefficient, ill-trained, badly led infanterists that surrounded to the Germans in hordes in the beginning of Barbarossa. [ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: Fredde ]





asgrrr -> (12/20/2001 4:53:00 AM)

I vote for 6.1 over 7.0. I have already written extensively on this here so let me be as brief as possible. The "armor reform" is to my mind nothing but replacing one incorrect nominal value with another incorrect nominal value. The major deficiencies in the present assignment seem to be: 1)Late war german armor took a sharp downturn in quality, which the reform does not take into account;
2)The treatment of soviet armor seems biased toward thin, sloped armor. This leaves KVs, turrets and others in the lurch. This sweeping reform upsets many delicate balances in the game, exposing hidden weaknesses that were inconsequential before. Just a few I have discovered in this relatively short time: Tiger I is practically invulnerable to the T-34;
Pz3 is practically invulnerable to PTRD AT-rifle;
Already in june 1941 Pz3h,j (APCR) tear T-34s and KVs apart from the front at considerable range. With regard to the experiment above, 2 Pz3s lost to each T-34 at 500 metres is not the result I would expect in real life, not in 1941 at least. The T-34 losses should be much lower. There is no reason to believe that no more anomalies will surface in the future.
With regard to battle outcomes I believe that v7 is a poorer simulation than 6.1, not better. Not all my original discoveries of course.
Another thing that bothers me a lot is the downgrading of the F-34 gun (T34). After many attempts I have not received a full explanation of it, and this new value (80) is difficult to justify by any sources I have seen. So, I intend to stick with 6.1. Anyone for PBEM?




Redleg -> (12/20/2001 5:06:00 AM)

V 6.1 is dead and buried as far as I am concerned. V7 is current. The OOBs can be altered. The settings can be altered. A crash in V7 is a rarity..... I am happy.




Drex -> (12/20/2001 5:23:00 AM)

Every version that has come out goes through the same gauntlet of criticism. Each version was still playable and no version was ever expected to please everyone. I will play with V7 and like it.




asgrrr -> (12/20/2001 5:24:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Redleg:
V 6.1 is dead and buried as far as I am concerned.
V7 is current. The OOBs can be altered. The settings can be altered.

As I understand it this discussion only refers to the OOBs.




bud -> (12/20/2001 5:48:00 AM)

i have been waiting for the dust to settle -- but it look`s like some damage control may be needed -- i have noticed at the c+c league a very poor showing for the russian`s --(the 43 was so so --44 was less - and now cold war on v7.0 - well you can see)now hitting was better in v6.01 -- but unit`s cost way too much -- now the cost of the units look`s much better but they can`t even hit the hex the enemy is in .it`s very noticable now --perhaps a slight improvement over v6.1 hitting with the same unit costs might be the least line of argument and resistance to look at. Just a thought.




Red Baron -> (12/20/2001 5:55:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Redleg:
V 6.1 is dead and buried as far as I am concerned. V7 is current. The OOBs can be altered. The settings can be altered. A crash in V7 is a rarity..... I am happy.
Canīt say it more briefly..? Oh! Just might anyway..DITTO!
Michael.




achappelle -> (12/20/2001 6:20:00 AM)

Historically, the Russians suffered massive losses in tanks as compared to German tanks, even in the 1941-1942 era when it was PZ3 vs T34. I have the hard numbers at home and will post them later, but i remember being shocked. I guess it goes show that tactics and experience and training count for lots




Fredde -> (12/20/2001 6:21:00 AM)

Indeed.
quote:

Originally posted by Redleg:
V 6.1 is dead and buried as far as I am concerned. V7 is current. The OOBs can be altered. The settings can be altered. A crash in V7 is a rarity..... I am happy.




Fredde -> (12/20/2001 6:28:00 AM)

Aleksandr, I have the same figures somewhere in a book written by K.S. Kolganov at the Frunze acedemy and I had the same feeling as you when I read about it. Not many Russian books are translated to Swedish or English though.. that is too bad. In another year or two I will hopefully know Russian so I can read it first hand
quote:

Originally posted by Aleksandr Morozov:
Historically, the Russians suffered massive losses in tanks as compared to German tanks, even in the 1941-1942 era when it was PZ3 vs T34. I have the hard numbers at home and will post them later, but i remember being shocked. I guess it goes show that tactics and experience and training count for lots




Mike Rothery -> (12/20/2001 6:56:00 AM)

It would appear that the basis for the criticism is that folks have a feeling for the T34 being a real shock to the Germans and that the adjustments to the V7 OOb make it a mere mortal. In 1941 when the Germans first encountered the T34 and KV series tanks the 50mm armed Pz III's were a rare item. The bulk of german armour and AT gun units were armed with the 37mm. The upgunning of the PzIV F with the 75L43, the long barrelled 50mm for the PzIII and Marders with the PAK 40 were all responses to the difficulties in taking out the heavier allied armour. Whole Panzer diisions were still armed with the Czech 35T and 38T with 37mm gun, with the Panzerjager units only having the PzJgr I with the Czech 47mm gun. The T34 must have been a real problem to deal with at that time. The T34 was well respected because it was such a good all round package, and highly suitable to the Russian winter. It was quick and with its wide tracks was a good performer in mud and snow. The sloping armour gave it good protection for the weight, which allowed it to have a good power-to-weight ratio. It had an OK gun, and an air-cooled diesel that was more resiliant to the temperature extremes. The reason that the T34 is often praised as the best tank of the war is because is could be produced cheaply and quickly.....and it is that strategic consideration that made it a success. I have thought for many years now that Soviet equipment was over-rated on a comparitive basis.




gorgias96 -> (12/20/2001 7:01:00 AM)

For Imp:
Plz try that same test with the tanks moving and IA activated. I donīt criticise only the new armor/piercing values. Perhaps they are correct but the result is a poor performance with the T34. The anterior values maybe werenīt absolutely correct but the T34 was a more balanced unit. If u say OK OK then we must keep the presents A/P values and increase another T34īs caracteristics to get a more historically accurate tank. Than iīll be agreed with u.
I donīt want a T34 "russian tiger" only look for a tank wich support the historics dates. I.e. a T34 that be a very hard opponent to earlies german tanks. Itīs very amazing to see like Pz III destroy KV-1!!! from medium and long distance Do u want to tell me that this is historically accurate?????? I mean the same with every new "amazing" unit like Shermans "tigerīs hunter" etc.... etc...




asgrrr -> (12/20/2001 7:22:00 AM)

If you don't support 6.1 vs 7, I think you should not write to this thread. I see its length as a measure of popular feeling on this subject. Not that I don't want to hear other views, there are plenty of other threads where they are well at home.




gorgias96 -> (12/20/2001 8:09:00 AM)

????????????????? I SUPPORT clearly the v6.1 vs the v7. I LOVE the v6.1 I adore the v6.1 hehehe Is this enough??? hehe But if in a future there is a new version more balanced yet then WELCOME!!! babe




Figmo -> (12/20/2001 9:19:00 AM)

I agee version 6.1 is better than 7.0. One thing that really stands out is the PzKwIIF has better protection than the PzKwIVC - that has to be wrong. In my book the maximum on the IIF is 35mm and the max on the IVC is 90mm. Why then is the IIF better protected? I'll have to re-load Version 6.1 to see if it was this bad in that one. This is just one example.




mogami -> (12/20/2001 11:17:00 AM)

Greetings. In the first week of the War between Germany and the Soviet Union the bulk of the T-34 were located in the Kiev Mi;litary district. They launched a counter attack against AGS PZ group and succeeded in stopping it and forcing it to retreat. This was one of the reasons for Hitler stopping the drive on Moscow to encircle the Soviets down south. The very first Soviet success against German armour was in the first week. I will check and see what type of Tanks the T-34's were up against.
The counter-attack of the Soviet's begain on June 26 and transformed into a counter-offensive against the 48th German Motorised Corps, the 11th and 16th Panzer Divisions were pushed back. However, the Soviet's couldn't finish the operation with encirclement because of the situation on their flanks.
The point of course is that the Germans did not enjoy overwhelming success every where from the start. OK here is the lucky German Panzer division that first encountered T-34's in the offensive role. The 16th Panzer Division.
On 20 October 1940 the 2nd Panzer Regiment was reassigned to the newly forming 16th Panzer Division. On 6 November 1940 the 113th Schutzen Regiment was formed from the 3/1st Schutzen Regiment and assigned to the division. On 15 February 1941 the 2/69th Schutzen Regiment was used to form the 2/113th Schutzen Regiment. The 73rd Artillery Regiment formed a 3rd Battalion from the 2/56th Artillery Regiment. On 21 June 1941, the eve of the invasion of Russia, the division's panzer forces and their inventories were as follows: 1/, 2/1st Panzer Regiment
1 Regimental Staff Signals Platoon
1 Regimental Staff Light Panzer Platoon
Each battalion had
1 Panzer Staff Company
1 Medium Panzer Company
2 Light Panzer Companies
PzMk II -- 43
PzMk III (59) -- 71
PzMk IV -- 20
PzBefWg -- 11 So the T-34 was up against PZ-III's [ December 20, 2001: Message edited by: Mogami ]





Alexandra -> (12/20/2001 11:25:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Rothery:
It would appear that the basis for the criticism is that folks have a feeling for the T34 being a real shock to the Germans and that the adjustments to the V7 OOb make it a mere mortal. In 1941 when the Germans first encountered the T34 and KV series tanks the 50mm armed Pz III's were a rare item. The bulk of german armour and AT gun units were armed with the 37mm. The upgunning of the PzIV F with the 75L43, the long barrelled 50mm for the PzIII and Marders with the PAK 40 were all responses to the difficulties in taking out the heavier allied armour. Whole Panzer diisions were still armed with the Czech 35T and 38T with 37mm gun, with the Panzerjager units only having the PzJgr I with the Czech 47mm gun. The T34 must have been a real problem to deal with at that time. The T34 was well respected because it was such a good all round package, and highly suitable to the Russian winter. It was quick and with its wide tracks was a good performer in mud and snow. The sloping armour gave it good protection for the weight, which allowed it to have a good power-to-weight ratio. It had an OK gun, and an air-cooled diesel that was more resiliant to the temperature extremes. The reason that the T34 is often praised as the best tank of the war is because is could be produced cheaply and quickly.....and it is that strategic consideration that made it a success. I have thought for many years now that Soviet equipment was over-rated on a comparitive basis.
I agre with Mike, here. I think we, as gamers, often get a skewed idea of what was powerful and not based on how we game, which tends to be nothing but the 'best' units facing off against one another, which was not the most common of irl occurances. The T-34 was feared, not because it was overly scary to the best SS and elite Panzer units with the most modern tanks - though period writings do show it suprised them - but because it was lethal to the lesser units, i.e. 37mm Panzers - as Mike said - and, to a much greater extent, Infantry Units. The 50mm they used - when lucky - was pretty useless against the T34, and the 37 wasn't even tried against it. Yet, for all it's feearsomeness, the T-34 was not invincible. As one example, on Dec 11, 1942, the Soviet 5th Tank Corps was commited, against Army Group Center, as part of Operation Mars. At dawn, that day, it had 131 tanks, mostly T-34. At dusk on the 12th, it had 23. 108 dead tanks, 36 hours. Now, I have to admit I find the entire armor debate silly. Deciding that a version is 'good' or 'bad' based on some number on a chart strikes me as being wound a tad tightly. Instead, why not do what irl tank commanders had to do. They couldn't say "Dear Uncle Joe, please give the T-34m40 an extra 2 mm armor over here." or "Hey, OKH, how about 8 more mm here." They had to use tactics to defeat the challenge. Can't kill something from the front - shell the heck out of it, and kill it with infantry. Move, and hit it from the rear, or, swarm it with numbers - which, at least, the Russians should always have. Alex




Paul Vebber -> (12/20/2001 1:13:00 PM)

FIgmo - the 53@ 12 of the PZ 12 is a "kludge" becasue of the shot traps in its round front and interior matlet. 30/rouond can give an effective armor thickness of between 30 and 70mm. Using the higher "thickness" with te low angle makes it more vulnerable against small caliber weapons than the 30@42 that would correspond to the "regular" rating. Remeber the "6-slab" model makes you have to do some cartwheels sometimes with odd shaped things...




Fredde -> (12/20/2001 2:00:00 PM)

Moving tanks demand a lot more from the crew, and even more if the moving tank is shooting as well. This is difficult, and with WWII equipment very much so. Lets put the complete overall picture up here instead of focusing on hard values only (that is difficult for a wargamer, ain't it ). I truly believe that v. 7.0 is a better representation of reality than earlier versions. The German training, tactics and initiative more than well made up for bigger and nastier Russian tanks, which can, historically, be clearly seen when looking at statistics for kill ratios. To get a "balanced fair game".. it is fairly simple. If you do think that Russian tanks are too bad or too cheap in two-player games to get an interesting game, give the Russian player more points. For your own playing, if you don't like the values.. like Redleg stated, there is always the OOB editor. I've had the great pleasure of using 7.0 for quite a while now due to involvement in MC creation. I really enjoy playing with it for sure, and I think Matrix did a great job with it.
quote:

Originally posted by gorgias96:
For Imp:
Plz try that same test with the tanks moving and IA activated. I donīt criticise only the new armor/piercing values. Perhaps they are correct but the result is a poor performance with the T34. The anterior values maybe werenīt absolutely correct but the T34 was a more balanced unit. If u say OK OK then we must keep the presents A/P values and increase another T34īs caracteristics to get a more historically accurate tank. Than iīll be agreed with u.
I donīt want a T34 "russian tiger" only look for a tank wich support the historics dates. I.e. a T34 that be a very hard opponent to earlies german tanks. Itīs very amazing to see like Pz III destroy KV-1!!! from medium and long distance Do u want to tell me that this is historically accurate?????? I mean the same with every new "amazing" unit like Shermans "tigerīs hunter" etc.... etc...

[ December 20, 2001: Message edited by: Fredde ]





Scorpion_sk -> (12/20/2001 2:53:00 PM)

quote:

Instead, why not do what irl tank commanders had to do. They couldn't say "Dear Uncle Joe, please give the T-34m40 an extra 2 mm armor over here." or "Hey, OKH, how about 8 more mm here." They had to use tactics to defeat the challenge. Can't kill something from the front - shell the heck out of it, and kill it with infantry. Move, and hit it from the rear, or, swarm it with numbers - which, at least, the Russians should always have.
Heh, the prob is....weīre so concerned about enjoying MCLV....canīt tell the A-Idiot to "use tactics" unfort...
Thatīs why itīd be imperative that the AI has all the advantages it SHOULD have.




mogami -> (12/20/2001 4:26:00 PM)

Greetings. I really don't mind if the PZ-III kills T-34's. But the T-34 was not to be found every where on the front. Mostly in the Kiev Military District where it raised havoc on the 11th and 16th Panzer Divisions. The bulk of the available T-34s were lost to break downs during the move to their jump off points. The 16th Pz Tank Regt had outran it's infantry and ran smack dab into a large herd of T-34's. 2 days later it was still retreating. A player of the Russian side in June 1941 should not take T-34's unless he is claining to be in this area. I am testing June 1941 T-34 against German tanks. Soviet player2. At beginning turn 4 of 8k each all T-34 versus PZIII(eghj) PZIV edf 21 T-34 destroyed
10 Immobilized
3 abandoned
38 retreating 2 PZIIIe destroyed 1 immobile
5 PZIIIg destroyed
2 PZIIIh destroyed 2 immobile Now having a game that allowed Soviets to beat June 1941 Germans up and down the front would definatly have problems. But the Germans who ran into T-34's in June 41 had their butts handed to them. This kind of loss ratio would not have required any change to German Armour production (other then to just increase production of current models) And the Soviets would have been crazy to keep producing T-34's when BT-7's are so much cheaper (and just as effective from a SPWAW point of view). It not even the hot rounds at under 10 hexes PZ-III's are destroying T-34's at over 20 hexes In long campagins as German I used to be afraid of T-34's now I just have to make sure I am in 50mm PZ-III.
Soviets historical problems vis vis SPWAW untrained so low to hit chance and poor rate of fire, low morale so they run away/disperse fast. No matter what equipment used in 1941 this makes defeat hard to avoid (as it should be) No problem.
Are we now saying the T-34 also is a myth? and PZ-III cverrun it same as BT-5?
In long campaign as Soviet you try to counter this by gaining some exp against Finland or Japan and then being in tank with suriviality (your troops still run away but they gain a little exp)
Then with the few T-34 you have in core force they can help hold a few defence to allow infantry to train, not any more.
In testing today over 100 T-34's have been destroyed by PZ-III (even the e model has a few kills) while T-34's have killed around a dozen PZ-III (I might just have bad luck since 30 Sturmovik attacks have only netted a halftrack and some infantry)
In my nutty feverish brain I always gave T-34 credit for winning the war. To wit on June 26th it make counter attack that pushed 2 panzer divisions back. AGS had smallest armour commitment and was unable to handle situation alone. Rather then leave all these T-34's on flank and rear of AGC the Germans stopped the drive on Moscow while they concentrated on the Kiev pocket. After 1941 German field day against BT-5/7 T-26 et al crap; T-34 becomes main foe and Germany starts producing the 'beasts' not because of KV's but because they do not want to lose any tanks. Other countries build heavy tanks to counter German heavy. Germany builds the new tanks to fight T-34 with superiour tank. (Loss ratio of PZ-III and IV too high for Germans to win war so they must have weapon with clear superiour ratio) Anyway the ratio I am seeing would be acceptable for BT's and T-26 etc but it makes T-34 look like a mistake. [ December 20, 2001: Message edited by: Mogami ]





Mikimoto -> (12/20/2001 6:16:00 PM)

German successes against the T-34 and Russian Heavies were based in crew training and quality, tactics and good use of the mediocre material they had, AS WE ALL KNOW.
If you want to play "results", play OPERATIONAL GAMES, when each playing piece representing a company/batallion, and all the possible events during combat are inserted in the turn, tank combat, infantry and AT-support, CAS, etc..
But if you want to play the "making-off" of the "historical result", then you must play TACTICAL games, as my loved Spwaw is. But I don't like the new making-of I see in v7.




Mikimoto -> (12/20/2001 9:39:00 PM)

"Even under such constraints, though, one of the radio-telephone conversations between Hitler and Gen. Heinz Guderian in late December is instructive in showing how a good army can make one kind of supply serve another purpose. Guderian was complaining to Hitler about having trouble stopping the Soviet's T-34-led breakthrougs. The Führer asked why he didnpt use the 88mm Flak guns to destroy them as in previous encounters. The general explained the ground was now frozen so hard he needed to save his artillery rounds to blast holes for their infantry to sleep in at night. Experience has already shown if he didn't get his Landser below ground level they'd freeze to death." By Ty Bomba.
Command issue 27




Mikimoto -> (12/20/2001 10:48:00 PM)

"With 24,000 Soviet tanks versus about 3,000 German, the Red Army have repelled the invasion, but the new mechanized units proved entirely unable to stop, or even seriously impede, the onslaught. That was true even though, for the most part, the defender's tanks were as good as or better than those of the Germans. Though the excellent T-34 AND KV-I weren't present in significant numbers until the end of the year, the older models, such as the BT-7 and T-26, were more than a match for the German Mark I and II, and were the equal of the Mark III that made up the bulk of the panzer division's inventory.
The inept manner in wich the Soviet mechanized forces were led and operated -- at the start of the fighting the average in-unit driving experience of the crews before going into battle was two hours -- resulted in easy triumphs for the Germans who in many cases simply encircled and annihilated those units. That was the case with the 6th, 16th and 23rd Mechanized Corps, which were wiped out during their first engagement, while the 9th, 22nd and 19th had their tank strength reduced 95 percent by the third day.
By the end of August, the mechanized corps had for all practical purposes ceased to exist. The tank replacements becoming available were all sent to the rifle divisions, wich in many cases began to spontaneously organize their own tank battalions. Thus the role of the tank in the Red Army was once again shifted back to infantry support out of the sheer necessity of shoring up the rifle units. This reversion was also a reflection of the fact that at the time the battalion was probably the organizational limit of mobile unit Soviet commanders were capable of handling with any degree of competence.
The mechanized corps were officially disbanded in September, and the Soviet high command began forming independent tank brigades and battalions that continued to be used almost exclusively in the infantry close-support role. These new units were small, with only 48 tanks ans 1,000 men each.
Even during the Moscow counteroffensive beginning in December, there was no attempt to use the independent tank brigades to exploit breaches torn in the German line by the rifle divisions. This resulted in a slow, methodic offensive that entirely lacked the echelons and speed called for in Deep Battle.
Still, emboldened by the limited success the methodic approach had gained during the winter, the Red Army prepared to attack again that spring. By this point the high command (Stavka) realized if they were to wage an offensive truly strategic in scope some portion of the tanks would have to be reclaimed from the infantry support role and put back into independent mobile formations. As a result, the tank corps, and even a tank army, made their appearances on the Red Army's order of battle during April and May 1942.
The organization of the new tank corps was based on brigades rather than the divisions of the 1940 mechanized corps. As a result, these new units were rough equivalents of the German panzer divisions. The new tank army's organization varied from two to three tank corps, with several rifle divisions added for support." By Peter J.Vlakancic
Command issue 34




mogami -> (12/20/2001 11:34:00 PM)

Greetings, I heard tanks exploding in my sleep. I have to stop pulling these all nighters. Looking at the OB's I think we will be seeing the Soviets using the lend lease and captured tank formations more then we used to. Conscript and rifle infantry are not a good choice in 41 (no molotovs)
So it looks like SMG Companies will be good to use. The paras also have molotovs. I am going to experiment with a mix of Conscript/Rifle companies up front taking the heat while SMG's try to get close to the objective areas. On defend type battles it should not be too impossible to hold. On advance/Assault and meeting engagements it will be tricky. Don't forget mortars to fire smoke.
Russians in 41 or 42 have never been easy (nor should they be) In long Campaigns it will be a bit harder to train up but you should get to where you always have a large store of points for replacments. I'll miss sending my elite tank commanders to Tankhead. (none of them ever survived the war (darn Tigers) but I will always remember Sgt Petteroff (T-34 commander with 100+ kills) holding off swarms of Mk-III's while my infantry ran for the hills. [ December 20, 2001: Message edited by: Mogami ]





Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.045898