Best route for the Soviet Union?

[unmerged(7206)]

Possibly the most interesting country to play as in HoI (and certainly the first one I will try out) is the USSR. The Soviets have probably more different paths open to them than any other country. While at the same time, they have the greatest number of countries out for blood. On one front you have the capitalist/fascist pig-dogs, and in the east, you may have to face the Japs as well. In spite of this, you have the potential to create a grand worker's paradise spanning all of eurasia. So there are literally infinite strategies that could be employed.

To start things off you have decent armor (in 1941 probably next only to Germany, and in some cases actually better than Germany). You have a huge amount of infantry, which is much considerably more ill-equipped than most of the other great powers though. You have an airforce that is large, but out of date by most standards. If managed sucessfully though, it could probably hold it's own with the best of 'em for quite some time. And you have the largest country in the world, and almost all the resources you could ever dare to want.
If you fight on the side of the Axis, you could employ a strategy of controlling Persia, and the Arab nations of the mid-east. In Asia, you could aide Comrade Mao overthrow the nationalists, and maybe even expand as far south as india, through your central asian provinces. If you are an ally, you are going to have to survive an all out German blitz, but if you do, and play your cards extremely well, you could perhaps extend all the way to France and truly make it a continental Soviet Union.

But as I said, the Soviet Union has always been the most picked on nation in any other world war II game I have played, and I don't expect that to change very often in this one either.

What do you all think?

 

[Petrarca]

I personally like Stalin's strategy- stay neutral, build up the armed forces (and modernize!), then strike against Germany around 1942-3. Barabossa in reverse (Operation Nevsky, anyone? ). Particularly I'd seek to desperately modernize the Red Army and Air Force.

 

[unmerged(5987)]

Playing the USSR will be interesting.

There *will* be a lot of options, including one that you did not mention: an attack on (already partly communist) China.

That's actualy probably where I'd start as the USSR; it would give me a bit extra manpower/industry/resources/cash to deal with the inevitable war with Germany (and possibly UK, US).

I'd do my best to put war with Germany/UK/US off for as long as possible. War with Japan is fine, as the USSR was much better than them on land, and the USSR was a stronger industrial nation with more manpower.


Yeah, I'd definetely start with a land grab into China very early in the game, whether I have to go to war with Japan or not. Assuming you take 1/5th of China or so, you should have plenty of muscle for a drive to Berlin and beyond later in the game.

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

this is just my opinion but all in all history could not have gone too much better for the ussr. and as far as joining the axis? if that is actualy possible as a full term allaince then this game will start with a major flaw. non of the axis really wanted a allaince with the ussr.(not like UK and US alliance)
successfully taking finland would be good. the baltic states. split poland like in the real war. and try to war the japanease towards the end of the war but not too late and annex mancheria direct to the ussr. no helping the chinease communists. same with invading china proper.... why do it? and if air power is strong like it out to be the ussr gots to wait till japan is fighting america or no russia mass-attack will work right with lack of air support due to the japanease planes.

that good?

 

[Mammut]

I think you will also have to fight an chronicly low stability. And I guess other things will also intervene in your attemts to make a workers paredise here on HOI earth

 

[unmerged(10352)]

I have the feeling that the USSR will have to play somewhat of a wait and watch game. It might not be so prudent to be very aggressive early (thus supposidly alienating the allies) and inviting a combined onslaught by Germ/Japan with

USSR, as in history, will have to play a shrewd political game. Making alliances and breaking them when most advantageous, sort of a buy low/sell high thing. Most of the major nations have strong incentives to be nice with USSR (either to keep them out of war or get them in) and the Soviet goal should be to play the other nations against each other and get as much gifts/loot from them as possible.

One 'path' I would like to try sometime is to provide 'support' (whatever the game allows money/production/treaties) to the communist chinese. Positioning strong forces land/air on the Manchurian and other far-east borders, building lots of Vlad. based subs, etc. Attacking Japan if the situation makes it favorable.

Try and remain 'Independent' never joining the allies


I won't ever attack Finland, what was/is the point in doing that other than past grudges? am I missing something? I guess a little buffer around that city up there, but not worth it IMHO.

I won't be pestering Rumania for Besserbia (sp?) either unless somehow politically that will sway more of the baltic to my side.

Wonder if there is any chance for successfull worker revolutions in Spain or France, Greece?

 

[Petrarca]

Playing the political game is, as robothelpermnky points out, necessary. I see everything in the game, though, for the USSR as the buildup to the final showdown with Germany. I don't think two such superpowers could continue to exist on the same continent without coming to blows.

 

[unmerged(5987)]

Originally posted by Petrarca
I personally like Stalin's strategy- stay neutral, build up the armed forces (and modernize!), then strike against Germany around 1942-3. Barabossa in reverse (Operation Nevsky, anyone? ). Particularly I'd seek to desperately modernize the Red Army and Air Force.

:shrugs:

The Soviet army was pretty capable at the outbreak of the war, particularly in the East; Siberian units were solid in almost every department.

The T-34 was at least as good as German early war tanks, and the Soviets stayed ahead of the Germans in that department for most of the war (a brief period after the introduction of the Tiger notwithstanding).

Modernization would not be a really important thing for me if I'm playing the USSR. I might be concerned about moving towards the 'quality' side of things instead of 'quantity,' but it won't be that urgent.

For the airforce, maybe, but the Soviet army was, unquestionably, the best army in the world by 1944.


And there is plenty of reason to invade both Manchuria and China proper; resources, manpower, limited industry, similar ideology, money, etc.

 

[Ming]

Originally posted by robothelpermnky



I won't ever attack Finland, what was/is the point in doing that other than past grudges? am I missing something? I guess a little buffer around that city up there, but not worth it IMHO.

The USSR actually attempted to reconquer Finland (It had been part of Tsarist Russia.) The effort bogged down and effective Finnish resistance resulted in the Winter War. A lesser known fact is that France and Britain were readying forces to send to the aid of Finland, but the units were sent to Norway when that country was invaded by Germany. If the Aid had been sent, a wider conficlt between Russia and the Allies would probably have developed.

 

[Petrarca]

Originally posted by Ming



The USSR actually attempted to reconquer Finland (It had been part of Tsarist Russia.) The effort bogged down and effective Finnish resistance resulted in the Winter War. A lesser known fact is that France and Britain were readying forces to send to the aid of Finland, but the units were sent to Norway when that country was invaded by Germany. If the Aid had been sent, a wider conficlt between Russia and the Allies would probably have developed.

Right, but is there any real reason for a human player to go after Finland, especially knowing what happened to the Red Army there? I suppose one would if it got the army in better shape after experiencing a disaster, but that's rather counterintuitive, and I'd say any improvements to the Red Army were probably a result of battles against the Japanese (divisions v. divisions, led by Zhukov) during the same time.

 

[Ming]

Originally posted by Petrarca

Right, but is there any real reason for a human player to go after Finland, especially knowing what happened to the Red Army there? I suppose one would if it got the army in better shape after experiencing a disaster, but that's rather counterintuitive, and I'd say any improvements to the Red Army were probably a result of battles against the Japanese (divisions v. divisions, led by Zhukov) during the same time.

Well, it never hurts to have more men with combat experience. However, I suppose the main benefit would be actually reconquering Finland. It should be entirely possible, at the time of the cease fire, the Finnish army was out of ammunition and near collapse. The only problem with this is that it will likely bring you into conflict with the Allies. However, if Germany is doing its job, the Allies won't be able to mess with you, giving you an excellent route into Norway and Sweden, with which you can hold the Scandinavian ore hostage to prevent a later German invasion.

 

[Darkrenown]

Originally posted by Upham

The T-34 was at least as good as German early war tanks

Lol! I now present you with the award for the biggest understatement of this thread!


And why would anyone think 'Japs' is offensive? Its the same as 'Scots' or 'Brits'. Although Fredricks post above mine is nasty... but I think hes joking.

 

[vertinox]

Originally posted by Petrarca
I personally like Stalin's strategy- stay neutral, build up the armed forces (and modernize!), then strike against Germany around 1942-3. Barabossa in reverse (Operation Nevsky, anyone? ). Particularly I'd seek to desperately modernize the Red Army and Air Force.

Why wait?

Hit Poland in 1938 and truck on through to Germany... I'm not sure about exact specs, but the what the soviets lacked in organization and equipment they made up in shear size...

But in 1941, when Germany invaded, the Soviets did have 4 million troops and 10,000 AFVs (although not really good AFVs which only 1% were T-34's being produced at that time).

Considering the strength of Germany in 1938-39 it's quite possible to pre-empt them.

This is on the thinking that putting Germany on the defensive, they would be unable to inflict the major losses that occured in operation barbarossa in which Russia had over 4 million and more killed, wounded, or captured... Basically that was almost their entire standing army except for what was in East Asia and new recruits thrown to the front.

If the Soviets can keep Japan at bay and indeed carry an offensive into either Poland or Romania...

Romania being the most hurtful to Germany with the oil fields but Poland being a direct route into heart of Germany...

Although that might get you into an Anglo - French - German Alliance against you and considering that the Russo-Finnish war didn't turn out too well for the Russians in the first place...

Perhaps that was more to over estimations, lack of organization, and the fact that Finland is a very defensiable land... Swamp, forests, and lack of manuvering room due to lakes and swamps and major forests...

Poland on the other hand... Much more open terriotry to spread out the forces...

Or even better... Wait for a German offensive against poland or the west and then turn your back on them when the Allies declare war on Germany...

Although you might not be able to totally overpower the German forces right away... There is not a way that they can win a two front war with the Allies and Russia in 1939-1940...

And without the suprise and the ability to manuver very far into Russian territory (since the allies are on the west at least there staring across the border in Sitzkrieg mode) you can turn the battles into hopefully a slugde match static battle of attrition which Germany cannot win cut off on both sides....

With victory in hand and research into major armor and weaponry and with the fact most of the Red Army is still in tact after Germany signs an armistace you can now persue other routes of victory....

Overrun Romania, Bulgaria.... Bomb the sturborn Finnish into submission and with enough industrial might take on the Western Allies...

Course another issue comes to mind... Will the Soviet Nation have the advantage of fanaticism of "The Great Patriotic War" with those at the factory...

If it's the USSR's war of aggression then the people in the factories may not be as inclinded to work as hard as they could as where when the German's were invading...

 

[unmerged(10868)]

Revolt Risk

What I wonder about the USSR is what kind of revolt risk you'll have.

With the Germans treating their Russian occupied territories better I could easily see those territories declaring independence, and likely war against the USSR.

Not to mention you'll have to deal with your soldiers not only surrendering, but in some cases defecting.

 

[unmerged(10352)]

I wonder how easy it will be for the USSR to get into treaties such as Gurranteeing independence of Poland. France, Denmark.

I also wonder how much that might deter Germany. I sure would think long and hard invading Poland if there was a chance of being at war with France, UK, USSR in 1939. yikes!

 

[unmerged(3168)]

Originally posted by Upham


The Panther *was* a good tank, and it was better than the T-34, but I don't think it was a lot better than the IS-2 or the JSU-152 152mm Assault gun that the Russians built.

The King Tiger was an amazing tank. ONly two problems: it required 300,000 labor hours to build and it did not appear until very late in the war. That means that if you were building it by yourself and worked on it mon-friday, it would take you 150 years to complete! Few King Tiger's ever saw action, and by the time they did it was really too late.

Video games always over rate them I think. They're not all that spectacular; they had the same gun as earlier, cheaper Tigers but more armor and a lot less speed and manuveribility. Another crazy idea from the fuhrer.

I'd agree with you about the Panther and King Tiger being expensive and add that the reason that the King Tiger didn't perform as well as it could have was that it was designed to fight at range in the steppes of Russia. Also its gun was an 88mm like the Tigers but it had greater killing power because of it's greater length.

Once you got into Western/Central Europe's rolling hills and towns Tank warfare became about getting your first or second shoot in before your enemy as the engagement ranges dropped.

 

[Maximilian I]

Originally posted by robothelpermnky


BTW Later shermans fixed (mostly) the brewup the are designated with a 'W' which stands for wet or water storage. Which is what they put the ammo in so it wouldn't blow up everytime the tank was penetrated.

that`s why the previous shermans were called "ronsons"... [edit: this was posted before , sorry]

yet, the american tanks were not as good as they COULD have been. the staff decided, that "good" tanks would be enough, the pershing tanks (which were a really a match even for heavy german tanks) could have been introduced into service some 1 and a half year earlier. the american tankers calculated that it would need 5-7 shermans to defeat a single panther. even the rusty Pz IV was more than a match for the sherman because of superior optics and long range hitting power. on closer ranges Pz IVs and shermans would exchange on a equal basis.

 

[Ming]

Originally posted by Maximilian I

yet, the american tanks were not as good as they COULD have been. the staff decided, that "good" tanks would be enough, the pershing tanks (which were a really a match even for heavy german tanks) could have been introduced into service some 1 and a half year earlier. the american tankers calculated that it would need 5-7 shermans to defeat a single panther.

The original plan (and this was very very achievable) Was to have Pershing tanks available for the Normandy landings. A number of adminstrative factors quashed this, and some of the blame rests with Patton, who spoke out (forcefully) against heavier tanks. He believed heavier tanks would not be able to as successfully exploit rear area breakthroughs and slow down the advance of the infantry. As was pointed out before, American doctrine was to use tanks to fight infantry and other soft targets (hopefully in rear areas after a breakthrough) and let the TDs and TacBombers deal with tanks.


It's a tragedy as Patton (and other opponents of the Pershing) were unaware that it wasn't operationally slower than the Sherman.

 

[Ming]

Originally posted by Upham


Patton was not exactly Ike's most favored general at this point. Methinks you overstate his importance in the decision.

I don't know much about the Pershing. Gun size? Machine guns? Speed? Tough to kill? Easy to build? Easy to maintain?

It's possible, however Patton was more highly respected among Tankers than Ike. It's very hard to gauge how much pull Patton had in this area, but he certainly had some.

Pershing had a 90 mm gun and was equipped with two 30 cal coax MGs, and a 50 cal, went 40 kmhr, and like most American tanks, it was far more reliable than the German counterparts.

Here's some detailed statistics.m26 Pershing

Don't know about how easy it was to build, but American industry would have been quite able to turn out superior numbers of the tank.

 

[vertinox]

Originally posted by Ming


The original plan (and this was very very achievable) Was to have Pershing tanks available for the Normandy landings. A number of adminstrative factors quashed this, and some of the blame rests with Patton, who spoke out (forcefully) against heavier tanks. He believed heavier tanks would not be able to as successfully exploit rear area breakthroughs and slow down the advance of the infantry. As was pointed out before, American doctrine was to use tanks to fight infantry and other soft targets (hopefully in rear areas after a breakthrough) and let the TDs and TacBombers deal with tanks.

I always thought it was ironic that Germany in the 1940-42 had undergunned tanks and had it greatest time of victory while the years of defeat in 1943-1945 they had some of the world's best tanks.

However on reading allot of books on the subject most of the defeats at that point were to bad strategy on the use of the tanks... Such as assaults on heavily fortified, swampy, or generally bad places to use tanks where they could be used quite better else where.

However a heavy tank can still be a fast tank to some extent with wide ground contact to spread out the ground pressure which the T-34 does...

Heavy tanks can be good for defensive and offensives in the right terrain... Such as the steppes, but in wooded or urban a faster tank might be more useful.

As a factoid, I heard the only Pershing KIA'ed was done by a Nashorn of all things

A PzIV with an 88mm mounted on it in an assault gun fashion.

(edit) From ye old Achtung Panzer:

Nashorn from 2nd Company of schwere Heeres Panzer Jaeger Abteilung 93 was also responsible for the destruction of the only M26 Pershing, destroyed in Europe. Pershing from the 3rd Armored Division was knocked out at the distance of 250 meters with a single shot. This engagement took place in the town of Niehl, north of Cologne on March 6th of 1945.

Otherwise, the Armor breakthrough idea only works when you attack the weakest points and if the enemy counters armor with armor then whoever has the best tanks (and sometimes better tank crews with slightly inferior weaponry... ) in a head on battle will determine if a break through will occur.

Of course you kind of have to know where the breakthrough is going to happen to be able to have your armor in a good position to counter such a breakthrough.