Re: CCCP vs NATO long campaign (1948-1991)
 

Hi,

Turn 29-END

In our progress towards the 3 village, a Churchill tank threat Soviet forces that have almost no AT munitions.

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/...T3011-1948.jpg

Fortunately, the infantry succeeded in eliminating the tank.

Another Churchill appear to our southern flank but falls into an ambush prepared by ours engineers.

This is a bad surprise for the soviets who are exhausted.

****

Meanwhile, a few infantry units attacked the village to the southeast. They are easily destroyed.

The decision to bring the T-34/85 BTU as reinforcements on the main front is taken.

It will be a good decision...

***

THE CENTRAL HILL IS UNDER ATTACK!!!

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/...T3111-1948.jpg

The situation is critical... 2 Centurion MKII.

A White scout car is lost and soviet forces retreat.

This is a big threat, we have to reorganise ourself fast!

We plot an ambush with what we have...

***

After fierce fighting, and some losses, the enemy is destroyed and the victory is ours.

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/...CPF11-1948.jpg

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/...PSC11-1948.jpg

That was a good fight!

Thank you,

-Luc-

Re: CCCP vs NATO long campaign (1948-1991)
 

Hi,

ANALYSIS:

UK forces were better organized than others.

They had:
- RECCE elements;
- Good and mordern armored force (Centurion MK2);
- Infantry support;
- Artillery support (3 inches mortars, 40mm AA guns);

Their strategy was not bad et well executed.

The combination tank-infantry-mortars caused most of my losses early in the game.

Their reserve forces (Churchills) was an unpleasant surprise ...

Their Centurion are better than our T-34/85. They are practically invulnerable from the front while our tanks cant resist to their main gun. This is a real problem... I want to change them, but by what... IS-3? I have important choices to do for the next battle.

Their infantry was not bad but inferior to our. 1 SMG section per platoon was a good idea. Unfortunatly they all died. We can say that our infantry saved us by destroying many tanks with RPG-6 AT genades, satchel charges and flamethrower. The addition of the RPG-2 in 1949 will be much appreciated. Our enginneers were very brave and effective. The problem of coordination between tanks and infantry remains. I think I should carry some units on the tanks to be have them on the front at the right time. Is it a good idea? Until we get BTRs, I see no better choice.

Our Regimental 152mm D-1 worked very well; they eliminated 2 of 3 mortars in CB fire. I realised that our 76mm Zis-3 FG are not enought powerfull. I'll probably change them for the 122mm M-30. Untill now, I am satisfied with my mortars.

I think adding a reserve platoon to liberate my regular forces...

Despite my modest losses, the battle was difficult.

Thank you,

-Luc

Re: CCCP vs NATO long campaign (1948-1991)
 

Infantry riding tanks works fine till the tanks receive fire, then the infantry gets hit hard as they have no cover at all. Don't place infantry on the lead tank, when it's fired on the rest know it is time to unload their infantry.

Re: CCCP vs NATO long campaign (1948-1991)
 

Hi,

And... on which tank do you think they should ride? ;)

T-44 was a transition tank built in very small number.

T-54-1 was full of technical problems and was never fielded.

IS-3 is the last option but I dont really like heavy tanks for many reasons...

Maybe they have a good protection, but they are slow and dont have a lot of ammos.

I'll do some experiments tonigt.

Thank you,

-Luc-

Re: CCCP vs NATO long campaign (1948-1991)
 

I played only 1 game with a Soviet force in 1946 and my views on heavy tanks is exactly the opposite. Soviet heavies are BEASTS, they can survive close range hits from 90mm guns! If you ever play an assault scenario, I'd recommend them...

Re: CCCP vs NATO long campaign (1948-1991)
 

Little wonder,on why desant infrantry was deemed not a good idea anymore when the guns got to 90-120mm.:)

Re: CCCP vs NATO long campaign (1948-1991)
 

Seriously,

I would suggest never using tank riders at all,except the first .
turn or two,maybe.

Very vunerable to small arms fire.

The AI "will" target them and in pbem also they make a juicy target.

Thats why there is APC's,albiet, they are choice targets also;)

Re: CCCP vs NATO long campaign (1948-1991)
 

Really just a matter of getting off before you get fired on.
IFVs/APCs/trucks all have their uses, as do tank-riders. It's merely a matter of weighing the advantages vs the disadvantages of each.

Re: CCCP vs NATO long campaign (1948-1991)
 

I find it is almost always true,the time to dis-embark,was the last turn:p

Re: CCCP vs NATO long campaign (1948-1991)
 

Truer words have seldom been spoken.