What about Wargame, which first installment had more Soviet units than US+Brits+French+German altogether?
Steel Division: Bagration 44
- Thread starter denisKhan
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
WW2 Soviets did not disperse their artillery...they massed it. Their doctrine was to overwhelm and annihilate (the translation of their actual term is 'to annihilate').
yes yes... dispersed is used less in a literal sense however.... true artillery was massed.. but it wasnt integrated...they did not use firebases unlike the americans rather said guns were used in dispersed or decentralized around the battlefield
What about Wargame, which first installment had more Soviet units than US+Brits+French+German altogether?
wargame treats the soviets as the cold war boogeyman and tales of the resistance of the "hero" america against the soviets.....
meanwhile as per ww2 people abhor the idea of the soviets destroying the ww2 boogeyman... the nazis.... and would rather have more western front based "captain america fights the nazis" hollywood theatres instead of some actual theatres like france 40 poland 39 norway/denmark 40 or barbarossa 41 and bagration 44
What about indeed. Not a single word about it from December.
Is it abandoned? Is our last hope of removing p2w the community modding tool?
Few people realize it, but the Luftwaffe lost more planes during the Battle of France than during the Battle of Britain.
Can we have this list, or a link ?
1) And how many about Greece or North Africa in 41' (before the Americans, when there was still a lot of Australians and New Zealanders) ?
2) You can't on the one hand complain about the lack of eastern front and, on the other hand, dismiss any game where the eastern front is present because it is tainted by some installment in the West.
IL2 series is made of 4 games id my memory serves well : (IL2: Sturmovik, IL2: Forgotten Battles, Pacific Fighter, Cliffs of Dover). 2 about the eastern front, one about the Pacific and one about the Battle of Britain (not even the rest of the western front).
4) Those numbers are :
a) Without sourcing, when where they taken, what materials is accounted etc
b) Irrelevant, I was speaking of production. For each tank the Germans made, Soviets produced 7 T34. (and also lost them at a ration of 3 to one)
5) So do I, but I mostly do not care, I want a game to be fun and enjoyable
6) Sigh, I have be very consistent bout my wishes in several thread including this one. My preference would be North Africa in 41 with both Free and Vichy France, Brits, Australians and New Zealanders versus Germans and Italians (a lot of Italians). There is the invasion of Greece in the same time, so it might also have some Greek divisions.
Mostly, you seem to think on a very binary scale. All games are ok, we can have preference, but nothing force anyone to make a game in such or such context.
Aha at least you bring what is your problem with all this. You see those game as part of some kind of culture war where the Germans are the baddies, and fear that the Russians are shown as baddies as well or that their role is forgotten.
And honestly, that is not how Wargame was... You should stop seeing anti-Russian boss everywhere, it is becoming ridiculous.
Because this one is ? If you think so, I suggest that you study it.
Last edited:
Im not sure how else should I write "up to 300 guns on main axis of advance per square kilometer".
Im not exactly sure how else should they have concentrated them, maybe with stacking them on top of each other.
No not really, forgetting the huge weak spot in driver's hatch, armor on T-34 would react very poorly to even 75 mm gun because of poor thickness.
"Of particular note in getting the record straight on the importance of Lend-Lease aid to Russia is the new work by a zealous post-Soviet historian, Boris
Vadimovich Sokolov. He devotes a whole chapter to Lend-Lease in his book, Pravda o Velikoi Otechestvennoi Voine (The Truth About the Great Patriotic War),
published in St. Petersburg, R.F., in 1998. "
Data is as following:
Military aircraft: 30% of total domestic production.
High-octane aviation fuel: 57.8%. Before June 1941, Soviet domestic production contributed only 4% of total stocks.
Wheeled vehicles (trucks, jeeps, motorcycles, etc.):: 32.8% of the Soviet car park by the end of the war.
Railroad equipment (rails and ties, freight cars, locomotives, etc.): 92.7% compared to 5.4% of domestic production.
Ordnance (ammunition, artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives): 53% of all such material used by Soviets during the war was contributed by Lend-Lease.
Production-line machinery: 30% contributed by LL.
Metal goods (aluminum, rolled steel, lead, cable, etc.): The shares of these Lend-Lease goods as percentages of Soviet production varied anywhere
from 50 % to more than 80 %. For example, majority of V-2 engines for T-34s were not made from domestic materials.
4 Luftlotte never had 4000 planes.
Luftwaffe, in beween:
June 22 and December 1941: lost 3157 aircraft in combat and accidents, 2097 (66%) of that in the East.
June - October 1942 : 1756 (53%) lost in the east, 1586 (47%) in the west and med. sea. % of total monthly losses were lower January-May 1942.
November 42 - June 43: 4390 aircraft (63%) lost in the West and South and 2564 (37%) in the east.
July-November 43 : 4732 losses West/South (72%) 1841 (28%) in the East.
Average monthly losses until 1944 were around 4%-15% of Luftwaffe strength, with occasional 20% during El-Alamein, Stalingrad and Kursk.
During 1944, Luftwaffe sustained 20-50% losses monthly, and considering they had 75% of their aircraft in the west, you know who caused that.
1. what? no.. just no
"Overall, by 2 November, the RAF fielded 1,796 pilots, an increase of over 40% from July 1940's count of 1,259 pilots.[254] Based on German sources (from a Luftwaffe intelligence officer Otto Bechtle attached to KG 2 in February 1944) translated by the Air Historical Branch, Stephen Bungay asserts German fighter and bomber "strength" declined without recovery, and that from August – December 1940, the German fighter and bomber strength declined by 30 and 25 percent.[8] In contrast, Williamson Murray, argues (using translations by the Air Historical Branch) that 1,380 German bombers were on strength on 29 June 1940,[6][255] 1,420 bombers on 28 September,[256] 1,423 level bombers on 2 November[257] and 1,393 bombers on 30 November 1940.[257] In July – September the number of Luftwaffe pilots available fell by 136, but the number of operational pilots had shrunk by 171 by September. The training organisation of the Luftwaffe was failing to replace losses. German fighter pilots, in contrast to popular perception, were not afforded training or rest rotations unlike their British counterparts.[111] The first week of September accounted for 25% of the Fighter Command, and 24% of the Luftwaffe's overall losses.[258] Between the dates 26 August – 6 September, on only one day (1 September) did the Germans destroy more aircraft than they lost. Losses were 325 German and 248 British.[259]
Luftwaffe losses for August numbered 774 aircraft to all causes, representing 18.5% of all combat aircraft at the beginning of the month.[260] Fighter Command's losses in August were 426 fighters destroyed,[261] amounting to 40 per cent of 1,061 fighters available on 3 August.[262] In addition, 99 German bombers and 27 other types were destroyed between 1 and 29 August.[263]
From July to September, the Luftwaffe's loss records indicate the loss of 1,636 aircraft, 1,184 to enemy action.[255] This represented 47% of the initial strength of single-engined fighters, 66% of twin-engined fighters, and 45% of bombers. This indicates the Germans were running out of aircrew as well as aircraft.[264]"
"The battle for France had cost the Luftwaffe 28 percent of its front line strength, some 1,236–1,428 aircraft were destroyed (1,129 to enemy action, 299 in accidents).[4] A further 323–488 were damaged (225 to enemy action, 263 in accidents), making 36 percent of the Luftwaffe strength lost or damaged."
2. the fact of the matter is... most if not all games always have to involve the USA..... for once can a proper ww2 RTS game be made without being USA centric?
3. here we are... a link to the original forum
"https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ww2-game-without-soviet-union.1002326/page-13"
"
Excuse me but... there have been alot more western front/western allies only RTS games than eastern front ones
Western front games
5 out of 6 Close combat games
4 Combat mission games
CoH 1 and its 2 standalone expansions opposing fronts and tales of valor
Desert rats vs afrika korps
D-day
Officers ww2 overlord
4 The commandos games
Battle of the bulge (game)
Commad ops battle of the bulge
A grand total of 20 games not counting this one
Eastern front only games
Men of war red tide
Close combat russian front
Combat mission barbarossa to berlin and red thunder
Mockba to berlin
Icy hell
Stalingrad
A grand total of....7 games...
soo please mr "too many russians in ww2 games" people... please shut it"
4. Glantz & Orenstein 2004, p. 4.
5. too many western front games... the setting is getting stale and boring.... tell me when have you played a good RTS game that doesnt involve the western front.... tell me how many RTS games are good and are simply western front exclusive?
close combat goes to the western front especially for the new iterations
combat mission except red thunder
COH is western front
steel division is western front...
theatre of war gets north africa and caen.... meanwhile gets only 1 kursk setup
Battle of the bulge (game)
Commad ops battle of the bulge
and besides
6. ahh north africa 40.... ive heard you mention africa or the italian front... you never specified the date.... anyways the front is acceptable but out of personal preference id rather see barbarossa 41 or france 40... much larger scales... much better settings...personal opinion..... still though if the western allies are involved any setting immediately becomes cringe worthy....
7. the main issue here is that the USA always gets that undeserved attention... simply because it attracts the american market..... would it kill to feature fronts like the winter war barbarossa bagration or fall of rot/france in the limelight instead of making more america centric games?
simply put i ask why does america have to be in the limelight? why does almost every game involve the USA? now i ask another series of questions...
was the western front as bloody or well fought as the eastern front? was it the first front of the second world war? did the americans destroy the majority of the wehrmacht? were the americans first to fight in the second world war? did the americans contribute the most? suffer the most? or fought the most?
no just no...
the soviets french belgian holland polish norwegian finnish etc fronts were all just as important... hell even moreso for the soviets .... they all deserve that limelight far more than the USA does.... but apparently one gets all the attention... soo the answer is no to western front centric games.... and no to games that feature that overused front.... give the others a chance... as you said american bullshit jingoism has to end.... even moreso than the russians... after all they get alot LESS attention than american bullshit jingoism...
Last edited:
@EUG_MadMat
Do you think there would be a way to represent the Normandie-Niémen fighters in a Steel Division: Bagration 44?
Do you think there would be a way to represent the Normandie-Niémen fighters in a Steel Division: Bagration 44?
A Soviet plane with French acknows ... shouldn't be too complicated.
About them, I love that picture taken for the celebration of the (still active) squadron's 70th birthday:
1. 300 guns per square kilometer could mean decentralized guns without a proper firebase system as compared to the americans...
https://armyhistory.org/u-s-and-german-field-artillery-in-world-war-ii-a-comparison/
"
Part of the reason American artillery was so effective was good forward observation. During World War I, fire was adjusted by individual batteries. Battery commanders spotted the fall of their rounds, usually from a crude tower near the guns. In World War II, both German and American artillery fire direction was normally done at the battalion level. A fire direction center typically controlled at least a dozen guns, so better target acquisition and observation of the fall of the rounds than the Word War I practice was needed. In the fast-paced fighting of World War II, observers needed to be somewhere near or with the troops being supported, and they needed to have rapid communication with the fire direction center. When the troops were moving, landline telephones were useless. Even in static situations, the telephones, with their vulnerable lines, had serious limitations near the front lines. Radio was a possible solution, but early AM radios were fickle and often unreliable. Major, later General, Anthony C. McAuliffe studied the FM radios that the Connecticut State Police had began using and convinced the Army to develop FM vehicle radios. These provided a strong clear signal for about forty miles. Germany developed a family of high frequency vehicle radios for military use, but their radios were not nearly as effective as the American versions. By the last year of the war in Europe, Germany was deploying its own family of FM radios.
America added another element to forward observation: the light airplanes previously referred to by Rommel. Initially the Army Air Corps refused to listen to the to the light plane manufacturers’ pleas to be included in the war effort, so the manufacturers made planes available for free to generals conducting maneuvers. The benefits were so clear that, almost instantly, an irresistible clamor for their purchase arose."
"The ability to coordinate fire planning and execution with the troops being supported, to readily observe the impact of artillery fire, and to efficiently shift that fire as needed was extremely important. Prewar studies had made it clear that a synergistic effect occurred when infantry, artillery and armor fought as a closely coordinated whole. That was repeatedly confirmed during the war."
simply put american artillery doctrine was more integrated and coordinated.... russian and german artillery doctrines had greater volume of fire on em instead....
2. that hatch is no weakspot... that is still some 45mm sloped at 60 degrees..... the only disadvantage it gives is the reduced crew safety as the driver would have to run from the tank from the front... making him vulnerable to machinegun fire... accounted for quite alot of ww2 tank crew losses... and overmatch for 47mm of armor against a shot 75mm in diameter isnt much especially considering the slope.... what truly matters is muzzle velocity and shell capping.... as such only 2 75mm guns... the PaK 40 and PaK 42 had the penetration adequate enough to not ricochet off the armor of the T-34....
also mind you the sherman only has some 50mm of armor... with an even lesser slope thats not exactly thick either... regardless what penetrates the T-34 will penetrate the sherman... and in fact due to the greater slope the T-34 is more likely to shatter or ricochet incoming projectiles... giving it greater protection
3. the lend leased raw materials were there yes.... but as i said most ammunition made in the USA are not compatible with soviet weapons... the raw materials are from the USA... but the manufacturing right after still goes to the USSR..
4. the germans deployed 4 luftflottes each having 1000 planes.... a grand total of 4000 planes in the eastern front during operation barbarossa up to early operation blue....
Last edited:
You're Spanish ?
There is in this world a people so proud they neighbours says they are like the animal they chooses to represent them :
Standing proudly on a pile of dung, singing every morning to the sky, persuaded as they are that they are the ones making the sun rise
This jokes was actually served to me by an English a couple of years ago. Needless to say I threw a couple of anti-English jokes of my own before we could go drink some cider and discuss about the good old days of our grand-fathers who slained Germans together
Had the discussion lasted a bit, you could have moved on the topic of their own grandfathers' slaying each other in Spain & Belgium.and discuss about the good old days of our grand-fathers who slained Germans together
Had the discussion lasted a bit, you could have moved on the topic of their own grandfathers' slaying each other in Spain & Belgium.
Well we did, and since both my great-great grandfather and his great-grandfather fought on the same side in Crimea, we had much to discuss
I am by no means saying that there is more eastern fronts game that western, simply both had been done thoroughly and other fronts could have their time to shine :
The Franco-Siamese war
Malaysia and Burma
North Africa and Greece before America entered the war
The Winter War
The siege of Leningrad
East-African campaigns (with @EUG_MadMat camel rider
)Close Combat did : Normandy -> Market Garden -> Eastern Front (the third is my favorite btw)
Company of Heroes did : Normandy -> Eastern Front
I would be disappointed if Eugen did the same thing, they could try something new like France in 1940 (a lot to do despite common belief) or Burma or North Africa with or without Americans (interesting both ways, there are more French in 1943
) or something utterly new like Steel Division 16 : Somme Having so many Normandy game is the conjunction of three factors :
1) Many video games studios are based in the West
2) Saving private Ryan had an important impact in the West
3) There was a great deal of diversity in Normandy
4) It was one of the most important battle of WWII, after that and Bagration, the War was practically over, only german stubbornness made it last 9 more months. And both where of equal importance, but, for reasons that I stated before, Bagration do not lend easily to a video game (and is all but forgotten by the mainstream)
Personally id say france 40 poland 39 china japanese front winter war barbarossa 41 and bagration 44 need some attention...
However i will say Bagration can be balanced... the germans fielded the tanks the soviets had true.. but same can be said for normandy and the overwhelming corps/dividional level numerical superiority can be overlooked... in fact there would be greater proportion so long as numbers arent concerned as the soviets have the tools to pop king tigers... but ehh...
Eastern front wise id pay 50 bucks for a barbarossa 41 or bagration 44... kursk and stalingrad are the true normandies of the eastern front and are waaay overdone
However tbh... ww2 was lost by the battle of stalingrad... a victory at kursk would only have delayed the inevitable
However i will say Bagration can be balanced... the germans fielded the tanks the soviets had true.. but same can be said for normandy and the overwhelming corps/dividional level numerical superiority can be overlooked... in fact there would be greater proportion so long as numbers arent concerned as the soviets have the tools to pop king tigers... but ehh...
Eastern front wise id pay 50 bucks for a barbarossa 41 or bagration 44... kursk and stalingrad are the true normandies of the eastern front and are waaay overdone
However tbh... ww2 was lost by the battle of stalingrad... a victory at kursk would only have delayed the inevitable
Id also love a winter war scenario... simo hayha recon unit with the capability of sniping entire squads of infantry and tanks? Count me in!