CMBB v CMAK

[Mad Russian]

The topic is too lengthy and is not related to CMBB engine directly.

I would advice you read more books and understand the merits of combined arms warfare. Sorry, if it sounds offensive, it was not my intention. But this is key for understanding of WWII warfare technology.

Tanks engage tanks on much more seldom occasions, than infantry and its AT weapons. Tank-tank battles happen extremely rarely, when specialised formations clash on operational level. And even in such cases, standard German practice was to meet attacking tanks with ATGs, artillery and tank fire from ambushes, perform maneuvre and then counterattack. That always resulted in high Russian losses. Be it battles of Mechanised Corpses in 1941 or attack of 5th Guard army in 1943 on the southern Kursk salient.

Meeting engagements of tanks were extremely seldom and Russian losses in such in 1941 were much higher. Surely, if in such cases one side had technlogical advantage, it played its tactical role. But this alone can not be trasformed into an operational factor and was always ultimately negated by combined arms effort.

The basic balance between tanks/infantry/supporting units ratio of Geman panzerdivision after reform was followed by all fighting armies at the end of the war with rather slight differencies. Surely any reform usually has opponents.

I suggest we finish discussion, or move it to Historical message board.

I see no reason to move it unless Red Devil wants it moved.

We have plenty of room here and anything about the Russian Front concerns CMBB. ESPECIALLY my original comments about the game giving the early war T-34's and KV-1's too much AP ammo.

ROFL!!! Okay, I'll read more books. I am trying to increase my WWII library every month. So far I only have about 2,000 books on WWII in it. But I'm always looking for another very good book to put onto the shelves. I agree that reading up on the subject is the key to understanding the history behind the game.

Meeting Engagements were determined after the war, by the Soviets, to be the most common form of combat. Tanks often met other tanks in combat.

I fail to get your point. You are saying that if CMBB were to correctly show the early war T-34's and KV-1's ammo load outs that this would not make a difference in the game? Or that it didn't make a difference in real life?

Either way I disagree.

Russian losses were high. So were German losses and they would have been higher if the Soviets best tanks had been fully equipped with AP rounds. I don't see how you can come to any other conclusion. I can start siting specifics if you like. The numbers of tanks destroyed per side in the early war battles. The numbers of operational German tanks at any given time during Operation Barbarossa. We can compare the gradual decline in combat effectiveness of the Panzer arm and see just how much difference a 5% increase in losses would have been. That's not much and I personally think if the new gun on the T-34 and KV-1 had been able to fight with full complements of AP rounds the difference would have been far greater than a 5% difference.

The Germans turned a tactical advantage into operational and strategic advantages for them during the time period 1939-1943. Why would the same not hold true for the Soviets? The Soviet Armed Forces were not the pushovers that the Germans thought. You should never forget that the poorly equipped, under trained, out fought, out maneuvered, bad tactics and all Red Army destroyed the best the Germans could field against them.

In 1941 the Red Army took everything the Germans could throw at them and then won the war. They must have been doing something right.

All combat formations were smaller at the end of the war basically due to better communications. Not because the German Panzer Divisions were such successes in 1941 after they were halved simply to give the German Army more tank divisions to play with.

The US for instance kept THREE of their tank divisions at pre-1943 levels. They were referred to as Heavy Divisions. These were the old tank heavy TO&E's and they kept them that way for just that reason. They wanted units with lots of tanks in them. Not all armies downsized their units.

The Russians downsized theirs, when they took too many losses to keep them at full strength, and about the same time they started getting better communications. This allowed better control over smaller units and gave them the mobility they needed to make their deep threat tactics work.

Good Hunting.

MR