Charles22
Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline
|
Mogami: You seriously believe the Russians built more T34s than the Germans built halftracks? I wish you could provide evidence for such claims (this is beside the fact that this game isn't attempting to echo production figures). Anyway, with your viewpoint, they would need to produce more than two times the T34s to halftracks. Also, to use your logic, since the Germans probably "produced" more trucks than the Russians (the Russians didn't produce many, they got them on loan from the US), the Russian trucks and supply sections should be very expensive therefore or German ones 1 point or so (assuming the entire point structure is based solely on the war in Russia, which it isn't).
It may interest you to know that you seem hooked on this myth that the T34s were produced at a 8-to-1 (or greater) ratio to every piece of German equipment. You see, the problem is that not only are you believing exaggerated Russian claims but you are also taking your beliefs simply from concentrated battles, not the total composition of both forces. I'm currently reading "Russia at War 1941-1945" which this evidence should make you at least wonder. Page 953 from the Soviet History these figures are for the great attack launched which the Germans weren't expecting in such force (1/14/45 after the Germans had lost so much already), while the Germans had concentrated more in Hungary, so it's not indicative of the entire front, just on a concentrated attack. If the general entire front were an 8-to-1 Soviet advantage, then certainly the great attacks given from the Soviet figures themselves (almost always grossly exaggerated), would shown concentrations of 16-to-1 or better, and yet the following doesn't show that..
quote:
The First Belorussian and the First Ukrainian Fronts had 163 divisions, 32,143 guns and mortars, 6,460 tanks and mobile guns and 4,772 aircraft. The total effectives were 2,200,000 men. Thus we had in the Warsaw-Berlin direction [at the beginning of the offensive] 5.5 times more men than the enemy, 7.8 times more guns, 5.7 times more tanks, 17.6 times more planes.
I must point out that the book lists the 5.7 figure on tanks, with the point being not on the bottom of the figure, as I type it, but higher up, so that, perhaps, the point means not a point, but an estimate, so as to say "5-7 times", but I doubt that, for when this applied to the aircraft figure it would say "17-6 times" and that makes no sense, since the lower figure always goes first (In other words it would read "6.17 times" instead).
If you want to compare a tank produced to the entire war to one that wasn't produced till late 1944 (King Tiger), sure you might find an 8-to-1 advantage or larger, but even so, you aren't taking the reality a "tank class" into consideration. You're comparing a medium tank to a very heavy. Try comparing Russian production of the KV series to the Tiger and see there isn't that big of a difference. Even so, the KV was produced at least twice as long as the Tiger (if we include the regular Tigers) was produced. The only relatively fair comparison that can be made between Russian/Soviet tank classes, would have to be over the same periods of the war. For example, one could compare the T34 to the PZIV series to some extent since they were both produced throughout the war.
Also, you have to figure that a lot of the Soviet total equipment was lost without a fight in 41-42 in Russia and Finland both. So how do you emulate the early effects of a Russia which was quite different from the late Russia in tanks? You can't just take concentrated battles and paint that as a Russian production advantage throughout the war for tanks, and even more absurdly for just the T34 class in particular. Weren't there only allegedly like 35,000 T34s produced the whole war? Seems I've seen that figure. If that's so, we know the German figures to be reliable. If you just account for the Panthers and Tigers you come between 4,000-6,000 tanks don't you? The 4,000 figure would "barely" make the 8-to-1 ratio you claim for T34s, and that's not even making the somewhat fair comparison of T34 vs PZIV, even if you can believe the Russian figures.
(Through www.achtungpanzer.com, they put the production of Panthers at 5,796, while the Tiger is 1,844. The show the PZIV at 8,544. If you compare T34 to Panther/Tiger for the 2+ years they were produced you have a rough 4-to-1 T34 advantage, while the T34 vs. PZIV is roughly the same.)
[This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited November 15, 2000).]
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
- 
Often when I play campaigns I will do the same as you and buy units and formations that are more historic.
Im sure if you want to play online like this you could set it up with someone so you would be limited in what you could buy 
- 
- 
- 
.
By the way, try looking at the actual unit costs (which are affected by True troop cost setting) in buy screen instead of encyclopedia numbers. A T-34 M42 in June '43 costs 95 points. A regular T-34 M43 in October '43 costs 106 points.
When you buy a Tiger in June '43, you could have bought 7 rifle squads with the same points. When you buy a Tiger in June '43, your Soviet opponent gets to buy 9 rifle squads. Are you telling me one Tiger will consistently beat 9 rifle squads? Well maybe so if it's on a tall hill with clear fields of fire and the Soviets who come at it don't use forests and smoke for cover. Not a chance otherwise.
[This message has been edited by Kharan (edited November 16, 2000).]
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