The Red Army, as seen by Paradox Interactive.

[AdityaMookerjee]

I am not sure, that this is the way it was before Barbarossa in 1941. Many mechanised headquarters have no divisions, for the Red Army, in Hearts of Iron 3. Almost all the divisions on the western front, have only three brigades. And these brigades are reserves. I am personally looking up every division and adding two extra brigades, at the front, a rocket artillery brigade, and an anti-aircraft brigade. Many strategically important headquarters, have no leaders, and then, no men apart from the headquarters. I guess, Paradox Interactive have done their homework, and made the game realistic. In which case, Comrade Stalin was the worst thing to happen to the Soviet Union, and the Red Army.
By the way, Barbarossa is a little way off. I have only given attention to multi-role aircraft for the Soviet Union, and the Lichvokin(?) seems a mean fighting machine, as a multi-role aircraft. I have made the aircraft as up to date as possible. I am going to add the two types of radars, (air to air, air to surface) to the aircraft. No wonder I was getting loosing messages from the game. Headquarters were fighting without divisions, in which case, they did a fabulous job, taking as many lives as they gave up.
For my air force, the idea is to concentrate on one type of multi-role aircraft. This aircraft will be a close air support aircraft, as well as a fighter. It makes it easier to have a multi-role aircraft, instead of different types of aircraft. I do not want to bomb Berlin. The idea is for the Whermacht to operationally fail in the theatres. The Whermacht must not have the perception of success, which makes them emboldened to carry on with Barbarossa. Man to man, the Soviet Union can make Germany loose all her men, in a war.

 

[unmerged(207443)]

Yes, I have experienced that same frustration when first opening up the USSR in 1936. But you are right. The Soviet Army was in complete disorganization in the 30's as a result of all the revolutionary purges of the previous two decades. Not sure if the exact details of placement and organization of the HOI units is historical, but the overall effect on play is.

 

[Forgiven]

Yes, the reserves is quite factual, as in most soviet divisions were understrenght...
I don't see the rocket artillery or AA either, reasonably it would be 2 Artillery regiments per rifle divisions rather than AA + Rocket Art...
... and the lighter artillery regiment might be seen as 'intergral' to the infantry regiments, as is with almost every countries order of battle (3inf instead of 3inf + art that would make sense for most countries division structure if looking it on paper...) in the game.

The leader assignment I think, is quite random, as in they get put 'where there is available room for this rank general' at start of scenario, so yea, that's bit flawed I suppose...

I'm however, not really an expert on soviet military, yet http://niehorster.orbat.com/012_ussr/__stavka.htm is awfully helpful as always.

 

[PsychoChicken]

At the opening gun of Barbarossa, Russia had one third of its army at the western front (eastern front to the Germans). Another third was out of reach of the Germans, even in places like Siberia. The final third was unmobilised reserves which dribbled out of the cities for a full month mostly as rifle battalions and brigades. Paradox may have put the empty HQ there to "catch" this swarm of reservists. Each third was larger then the entire German invasion force. The officer purge left the Soviets with so few senior officers that in short order, all division HQ were disbanded, and all subunits were under direct control of the Corps HQ. The Soviets did not send replacements forward as in other armies, just more and more battalions. Batallions were sent to the front and fought untill all were dead, the units never got replacement riflemen. Where the Soviets kept pushing battalions into the units, HOI kills the entire division. This is all outside what the game mechanics allow. To game the system as a Soviet, many prefer to just eliminate all HQ on the western front and then start over on day one. Build the HQ to make sense to you.

Your multi-role fighter idea is historic, the Soviets did concentrate on robust ground attack aircraft that could do reasonably well against fighters. The interceptor tech is similiar, so you may want to build some interceptors to let you fight on an even keel with the Luftwaffe. Historically, the Luftwaffe was still smarting from the drubbing they got in the Battle of Britain. Usually, the AI does not do this, so you will see a stronger Luftwaffe. I like to have interceptors early in the war to keep the Luftwaffe away, then build more multi-role once I own the skies. Start about 50%/50% and then add more multi-role later. It is your choice, interceptors that can cover a large area, or AA to protect just the one unit. Personally, I only add AA to the HQ units -- especially the mobile HQ. The Soviets fielded a lot on anti-tank units, you may want to put one in your divisions instead of AA.

 

[unmerged(3221)]

Leaders are automatically assigned at the start of a scenario. Paradox set up way too many HQ for the Red Army, so at the start of the game every HQ gets a commander. Later on you run out of commanders if you do not micromanage the HQ while consolidating divisions under Corps while rearranging the HQ. Playing a 1936 start you have plenty of time to do this, but in a 1941 start it's just such a mess that I can't be bothered to untangle it.

For aircraft against the German AI: you really don't need it all. Maybe some interceptors to occasionally take on German bombers. Historically it took 1.5 years for the Red Army to achieve air parity with Germany. If you have large groups on infantry, then bombing has little effect on them. Isolated units can get pounded, but Corps take only slight damage from bombers.

The Red Army's main bomber was the Ilyushin though the game does not represent the difference between the slow and vulnerable German Stuka vs the heavily armored Iluyshin [both are CAS in the game]. If you instead use MR as a substitute, then you have something that is more durable then a CAS in the game, but with much less ground attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-2

 

[AdityaMookerjee]

Thanks for all your responses. I am in the year 1940, and am in sight of Danzig, the Polish(?) port on the Baltic coast. The Whermacht is disintegrating, or rather, cannot match the strength of the Red Army. The Luftwaffe is non existent, as of now. Eight squadrons of my multi-role aircraft, have won me numerous battles in the ground attack role. How did Barbarossa start in early 1940? Well, I deliberately pulled back the Red Army, one province behind the border, so that my reserves could have the time to get up to normal strength. The first two months were pretty bad. Hitler decided on a 'limited war', when he saw my strategic withdrawal. I kept the two main headquarters on 'prepare stance' mode, till my strength was more than that of the German Army. Then I gave the 'attack stance mode' direction, and finally, when the strength was overwhelming, I gave the 'blitz stance' direction. I plan to direct the troops personally, the next time I play.
I do not know how far I will get with my multi-role aircraft. It seems there is no Luftwaffe on the German eastern front. I plan on developing jet aircraft, but I will have to construct a rocket site first.
My most interesting force is the navy. I have not done any development, but amusingly, apart from Orlov's indirect approach doctrine, there is a candidate for Navy Chief, who has a power projection doctrine! The Navy has done sterling work. they must have sunk about 10 convoys, and helped me out a great deal. All thanks to the 10th fleet of Kuznetzov(?) in the baltic. All the army personalities are endearing, especially the Admirals. Even under the direction of Stavka, and Stalin, the submarines were very sensible in choosing what to sink, and what not to sink. The Nazi convoys to Danzig started to be heavily escorted. These were left by the 10th fleet, but as soon as the Kriegsmarine put down the guard, the 10th fleet was back to it's sinister ways.
I think Danzig is in Germany, and not in Poland! So, I am very near the northern ports of Germany! If I can occupy Northern Germany, then I can starve out German Industry.

 

[unmerged(5323)]

Yes, I have experienced that same frustration when first opening up the USSR in 1936. But you are right. The Soviet Army was in complete disorganization in the 30's as a result of all the revolutionary purges of the previous two decades. Not sure if the exact details of placement and organization of the HOI units is historical, but the overall effect on play is.

That is not true. On January 1st 1936 the Red Army was in tip-top condition. The purges of the Great Retreat would not target it until later.

 

[1alexey]

Basically the point is that it is easier to simply assign generals to units than first unassign and then assign to where you need tham.
Simpe as that.

 

[bbasgen]

That is not true. On January 1st 1936 the Red Army was in tip-top condition. The purges of the Great Retreat would not target it until later.

Correct, of course, about the dates of the officer purge. Yet, Kirov's murder in 1934 is a seminal event, and while the purges were at their worst in 1937 - 1938, purges were going on long before. In other words, the military was already highly politically charged in 1936, they just hadn't had their heads completely chopped off yet.

On your other point, I do not agree that the Red Army was in "tip-top condition". While they obviously had some very bright generals and high quality tanks, standard issue equipment was outdated, and their logistics system was quite problematic.

Their experience in the Spainish Civil

 

[Rancher]

Your poimt that Comrade Stalin was the worst thing for the red Army is rather an understatement. He was responsible for more inhumanity than Hitler. Please dont misunderstand me, Hitler was an inhuman beast that should have been put down at birth but Stalin was even worse.

 

[Sayd]

Your poimt that Comrade Stalin was the worst thing for the red Army is rather an understatement. He was responsible for more inhumanity than Hitler. Please dont misunderstand me, Hitler was an inhuman beast that should have been put down at birth but Stalin was even worse.

You should always prove your words with correct citation from real archive documents. Nazy war criminals were blamed by Nurenberg Trials, give us real documents for "inhumanity" and prove your words. Without documents you looks like propagandist "no facts, only emotions".

 

[Loyt]

The Soviet Army was in complete disorganization in the 30's as a result of all the revolutionary purges of the previous two decades.

You are exaggerating. It's just red army did increase several times in numbers before the war.

 

[Iwin123]

Your poimt that Comrade Stalin was the worst thing for the red Army is rather an understatement. He was responsible for more inhumanity than Hitler. Please dont misunderstand me, Hitler was an inhuman beast that should have been put down at birth but Stalin was even worse.

and that is utterly wrong.

 

[binTravkin]

You should always prove your words with correct citation from real archive documents. Nazy war criminals were blamed by Nurenberg Trials, give us real documents for "inhumanity" and prove your words. Without documents you looks like propagandist "no facts, only emotions".

There is plenty of material unless you're ignorant.
For the sake of discussion I would say that if you are not acquainted of the subject of Stalin's crimes, you better hold off commenting until you are.

and that is utterly wrong.

No, it surely is not "utterly" wrong, unless you have proof GULAG, Holodomor, The Purges and other things never existed or took place.

Although I can agree that it's hard to say which one is worse and probably we shouldn't even try, just marking them both "the worst criminals of all times", in the same group with Pol Pot and others.

 

[timkoningskelp]

Have to agree with binTravkin on this. Hitler certainly was a mass-murderer of the worst kind, but so was Stalin. Although he and his henchemen were never tried as the nazi's were in Nuremberg, that doesn't mean they didn't commit murder on a massive scale. Just one single example should suffice: the mass starvation of the Ukrainians during the 1930's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor. Estimates range from 1.5 to 12 million victims, that's more Ukrainians that died at the hand of Stalin than there are Russians killed by Hitler, excluding Red Army soldiers ofcourse.

Just to be clear about the subject: both Hitler and Stalin belong to the most evil people that ever walked the face of the earth. Both should have been put down at birth, just like someone in this thread already remarked, but I think it's impossible to say one is worse than the other.

 

[=Mike=]

Have to agree with binTravkin on this. Hitler certainly was a mass-murderer of the worst kind, but so was Stalin.

I think, in general, history agrees - but that doesn't mean everyone else is going to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

However, it should be noted to those posting - this has previously been discussed and didn't go well with some contributors here.
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...ay-to-easy&p=12094549&viewfull=1#post12094549

I doubt you'll find any attempts at mature reasonable discussion will be met, and you wouldn't believe what terms were being thrown around at other members (by some currently posting here)

 

[Loyt]

No, it surely is not "utterly" wrong, unless you have proof GULAG, Holodomor, The Purges and other things never existed or took place.

Oh, please. This is a perfect work of propaganda. Take a thing and color them in black. What about GULAG? What do you think it is? A system of jails, prisons and colonies. So what? Do you know, that USA, for example, right now has more prisons and jails?

But of course - one thing are scary prisons of USSR, the other are cheerful prisons of USA. Feel the difference!

About holodomor. 12 millions - it's simply bull. Still, it was a tragedy, of course. Regular tragedy, i must add. Famines like that are frequent occurences in backward agrarian countries. There were regular famines in Russia almost every four years, even before "collectivization", before Stalin himself, before revolution 1917. It is reorganization of whole rural economy, that put an end to those calamities. But you only look on things, that you want to see.

 

[Oof]

I think Stalin is getting too much credit for the lack of combat readiness of the Red Army in June 1941. The purges and the totalitarian system certainly didn’t benefit the RA, but the Russian army was never highly trained and/or equipped. BTW this doesn’t mean I don’t agree with earlier comments about what Stalin did in Russia!!!

The RA was born during the October Revolution. Some of its soldiers were deserters from the army and some were volunteers, some capable, some incapable. It’s the same for the officers, some were volunteers, commissars for example and some were deserters from the army.

The army (of the Tsar) was poorly lead and equipped at the outbreak of WWI because of policies handed down generation by generation. This is illustrated by the fact that when Napoleon invaded Russia the same happened as in 1914 and 1941. Until the revolution it was normal, like in the entire world, that officers, higher officers always, were of noble birth or came from good, read wealthy, families. This didn’t benefit the army because in most cases officers were incompetent and/or corrupt.

In 1914 when Russia mobilised there were only enough guns for 1 out of every ten soldiers. Furthermore soldiers were mainly peasants without training. Most of the RA was formed out of these same peasants and officers.

So the RA started off with a poor equipped, trained and mainly incompetent cadre. They won the civil war against loyalist, and foreign troops though but were isolated after the war. Besides the secret German-Russian secret pact of the 1920ies, the Russians therefore had no excess to better training. Things hadn’t changed really anyway, since nobility was replaced for communist party members.

By the end of the twenties, Russia still had a large army, but the thirties finished off any chance of improving the quality and equipment of the army. This was mainly due to corruption and the Purges. But also by unrealistic production goals under the five year plans.

Another fact that is sometimes forgotten is that education until the 1950ies was a luxury. Most of the RA soldiers of WWII were illiterate.

In the end the fact is that Russia has never really had to try to have a well trained army until the end of WWII. Simply because Russia has two things no other country had at the time, space and man power! Russia can afford to lose territory and therefore has the time to create a large army in war time instead of peace time. Even if that means sending untrained soldiers into combat (which commonly happened).

The space factor is the most important factor though. German soldiers often got depressed simply because there seemed to be no end to the Russian plains and divisions. It seemed to them, that no matter how much territory they conquered, no matter how many soldiers they killed or took prisoner, there was always another division and another plain to conquer.

 

[unmerged(236136)]

Are you seriously arguing that Stalin was actually good for that region of the world and to say otherwise is propaganda?

Hello pot, meet kettle.

Oh, please. This is a perfect work of propaganda. Take a thing and color them in black. What about GULAG? What do you think it is? A system of jails, prisons and colonies. So what? Do you know, that USA, for example, right now has more prisons and jails?

But of course - one thing are scary prisons of USSR, the other are cheerful prisons of USA. Feel the difference!

About holodomor. 12 millions - it's simply bull. Still, it was a tragedy, of course. Regular tragedy, i must add. Famines like that are frequent occurences in backward agrarian countries. There were regular famines in Russia almost every four years, even before "collectivization", before Stalin himself, before revolution 1917. It is reorganization of whole rural economy, that put an end to those calamities. But you only look on things, that you want to see.

 

[AdityaMookerjee]

The ideal mix for a regular infantry division would be two infantry brigades, a rocket artillery brigade, an anti-aircraft artillery brigade, and the all important engineer brigade. I would give each division an engineer brigade, and give the latest bridging equipment, and assault weapons to the engineer brigade. One does not need to research mountain infantry, perhaps. Or then again, perhaps, yes. I did not research Marines. I do not intend to storm the beaches. One must research jungle equipment, desert equipment, and mountain equipment.
I research the fighter and the tactical bomber. It is easier to have the best naval bombers, than the latest technology for every type of ship. Then in these three types of aircraft, I try to be up to date with the pilot doctrine, the ground support doctrine, and the interceptor doctrine for the fighters, the ground attack doctrine for Close Air Support, and the general naval tactics for the Naval Bombers. These are enough, for a really good air force, I feel.