Soviet Campaigns

[Smersh]

My school (university) library apprantly has a huge map collection. I'll give it a visit this week, and see what maps scans or copies I can make. I'm told they have historical maps too. I'll check out the crimea area, any other particular areas I should look into?

edit: are we talking about the crimea in 41 or 44? I personally would perfer 44. the early stages of the war, are always covered, alot less on the later stage. (heroes of the motherland, covers moscow battles in 41, russian steel mostly early war, ends in 43.)

[Double_Deuce]

Smersh said:
My school (university) library apprantly has a huge map collection. I'll give it a visit this week, and see what maps scans or copies I can make. I'm told they have historical maps too. I'll check out the crimea area, any other particular areas I should look into?

I would search for any topo's at 1:50000 scale and make a list on some paper. Then see what battle/historical info you can find on those areas. This way you can see what you have to work with and pick from that. Then the fun part begins . . .

[Smersh]

I havan't had a chance to check look at the maps yet, but here is some other info I found.

dealing with the invasion of manchuria in 45, this is also a something that isn't covered at all, and it could actually make use of the new Manchokou nation.

tactical level info (this includes alot of detailed maps, could be useful in map design)
http://www.cgsc.army.mil/carl/resour...z4/glantz4.asp
strategic level info
http://www.cgsc.army.mil/carl/resour...z3/glantz3.asp

if people want to cover lesser known areas, and not focus on more famous battles: stalingrad, kursk. Then this I think is a good candidate. paratroopers were used extensively, could be interesting.

edit: here is another peice of info, on tactical defense, prior and during kursk. (it includes regimental and battalion defense diagrams)
http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/car...bs/glantz2.pdf

[Charles22]

Isn't the '45 Manchurian attack one of the USSR attacking Japanese units? Some might find that interesting, but it's sure a very lopsided battle. There the IJA had to put up with their worst nightmare, that is a nation who didn't care that much about losses, whom had some of the best tanks.

[Smersh]

japanese and manchuko units.

when your playing as the german army attacking poland is that not also "lopsided"?

also both sides had nearly equal amount of men in the area: the combined japanese, manchuko armies where over 1 million men, and 1000 tank (yes, japanese ones), yes the tank forces were not equal, but a campign could focus on the infantry aspects, paratroop landing, limited tank breathrough.,since only one tank army operated during the campign in a relatevly isolated area. Not only that but the japanese defense was no push-over either.

I don't know what the comment about "who didn't care that much about losses" is about

But this is just one possibilty for a campign.

[Charles22]

Smersh said:

japanese and manchuko units.

when your playing as the german army attacking poland is that not also "lopsided"?

also both sides had nearly equal amount of men in the area: the combined japanese, manchuko armies where over 1 million men, and 1000 tank (yes, japanese ones), yes the tank forces were not equal, but a campign could focus on the infantry aspects, paratroop landing, limited tank breathrough.,since only one tank army operated during the campign in a relatevly isolated area. Not only that but the japanese defense was no push-over either.

I don't know what the comment about "who didn't care that much about losses" is about

But this is just one possibilty for a campign.

Oh come on Smersh, Japan was basically Poland in 1945; it's barely comparable and the Germans weren't with T34/85's and JS-III's either. Heck, I played Poland just a little while back and had just as many of my AFV's destroyed as he did (like 18 to 19). Think you can kill USSR armor at that rate as Japan? It's not even close. Poland is quite a bit stronger than it was in previous SPWW2's. Most of the Polish guns can now slice through the German armor, to say nothing of the extra effective 75mm HOW the Poles were using to destroy some of them. The Japanese basically have nothing to stop Soviet armor. Someone can build the game if they want, but I'm trying to tell you the game won't even be close if representing history in any way.

At least with Poland in that first battle I got only a marginal victory, but I had to walk on glass to keep from having tremendous losses. I guess if I knew in advance that the artillery I had would obliterate everything, and that none of it would counter-fire, I would have came out much better (I'm not saying the counter-fire is broken for Germany, but I sure had it firing in the previous version of SPWW2 [probably too much]).

As far as "didn't care much about losses" the USSR histroy is rife with throwing men away as cannon-fodder, such as clearing minefields with penal battalions. Now, in reality, I don't think much of the USSR attitude towards the survivability of their men was "very" excessive, but you have to pit that attitude against the other Japanese opponents. The USA and Britain, for example, were VERY sensitive to losses, way too much so in my opinion. When the Japanese mindset was to hope that causing high losses would cause enemies to sue for peace, they couldn't hope for that with the USSR, because though the USSR was growing tired of the war, and the losses hurt, they just weren't as sensitive as the western powers to losses, which with those nations was all they could hope for. You couldn't hope the USSR populace would overthrow the government due to high losses in other words.

From the Russia at War book I have, the Japanese suffered 80,000 dead in Manchuria compared to 8,000 USSR dead, not even counting the losses due to captured equipment. That doesn't sound like a very good IJ army. Buy then the emporer had already surrendered to the allies and the IJA surrendered in Manchuria shortly after their own army command surrendered too.

In any event, I think I've presented a strong enough case of '45 Manchuria being a very lopsided battle, and since it was that then besides all the other reasons you've heard about lack of USSR scenarios, that is the main reason for not having that one. I mean, the thing was over in like 3 days, right? How could that be representative of a quality USSR battle? If I were doing 100 USSR scenarios, that wouldn't even make it. If I even bothered it would only be because of the uniqueness of the battle being so one-sided.

[Smersh]

I did say this was just one possibility, the amphibous operations, the paratrooper use, the interesting terrain features, etc. would make it a fun campign.

Oh come on Smersh, Japan was basically Poland in 1945; it's barely comparable and the Germans weren't with T34/85's and JS-III's either.

If you look at the materials I provided it shows that equipment was not the cause of the lopsidedness (I do agree that it was lopsided), but superior tactics and the same reasons why germany was successful in poland and france. Also I already pointed out the scenarios wouldn't be tank heavy, and this is historically possible to do.

Heck, I played Poland just a little while back and had just as many of my AFV's destroyed as he did (like 18 to 19). Think you can kill USSR armor at that rate as Japan?

how many historical campigns have u played with poland fighting germany in pitched tank to tank battles?

As far as "didn't care much about losses" the USSR histroy is rife with throwing men away as cannon-fodder, such as clearing minefields with penal battalions.

this has nothing to do with the manchurain operations, and lets not get into a big discussion over this. taking only 8,000 casualties out a force of 1.5 million men for the whole of manjuria isn't a example of not caring for lives, in comparison the USA lost 6,000 men out of a 30,000 man force on iwo jima.

I understand its not perfect charles22 but it is a possible possibility . however being the first red army campign, it should probably deal with a better known more famous aspect of the war. my personal feeling are something involving kursk or stalingrad, but I'll go along with group consensus.

[PatG]

Smersh said:
I havan't had a chance to check look at the maps yet, but here is some other info I found.

dealing with the invasion of manchuria in 45, this is also a something that isn't covered at all, and it could actually make use of the new Manchokou nation.

tactical level info (this includes alot of detailed maps, could be useful in map design)
http://www.cgsc.army.mil/carl/resour...z4/glantz4.asp
strategic level info
http://www.cgsc.army.mil/carl/resour...z3/glantz3.asp
<snip>

I have been reading these and despite Charles22's valid observations there might be a Russian campaign buried in there.

[Smersh]

okay, I have checked the map repository.
They have a sporadic collection of maps at 1:50,000 scale of the western soviet union between I was told 1920-50.

Here are the locations I noted, that they have.

Crimea: -northern area around sevastapol, not the city itself
-Eastern area of the crimean peninsula, and the northern -crimean land bridge area. none anywhere else in the crimea.

Kursk:
-the city of kursk, and the near immediate area around the city.
-Belgorod area, Kharkov area also.
- Don river area, quite extensively.
Rostov:
-large part of the Rostov area
Ukraine:
-large part of southern ukraine, quite extensive but sporiadic.
Everything else:
again very spordiac everywhere else, almost nothing of the northern soviet union, no coverage of moscow, only some tiny areas of the leningrad district.

edit: I didn't check anything of manchuria, but in general china seemed to be covered well, from what I saw in passing.

[Charles22]

Oh, I wasn't saying that one couldn't do a campaign on '45 Manchuria, in fact I've seen some, but what I was saying is that it makes for a pretty poor one if you find some way to really reflect what happened. Fun for the USSR and pretty dismal for the Japanese.