|
|
|
Notices |
Do you own this game? Write a review and let others know how you like it.
|
 |

December 28th, 2006, 05:35 AM
|
Major
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Kladno, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,176
Thanks: 12
Thanked 49 Times in 44 Posts
|
|
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
Quote:
Smersh said:
logistics of course always play a role in warfare, especially on the offensive. But I think its a myth to think that only a few blown bridges would have hindered a WP advance.
|
Depends. Look at what problems did the Germans have during Market-Garden when they needed to get reinforcements to Nijmegen and weren't able to use Arnhem bridge. Or trouble with getting reinforcements to Normandy over destroyed railroad and road network. Sure the destroyed chopeoints won't prevent all reinforcements/stuff from coming in but it would severely slow down this and will create more chokepoints susceptible to air or TacNuke strikes.
Anyway, all too glad the Cold War didn't break into Hot one as it would be for sure bloody for both sides.
__________________
This post, as well as being an ambassador of death for the enemies of humanity, has a main message of peace and friendship.
|

December 28th, 2006, 06:23 AM
|
 |
Captain
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Italy
Posts: 902
Thanks: 0
Thanked 55 Times in 51 Posts
|
|
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
"I won't use T-64B in here as it's more of a counterpart both on timescale and in capabilities) to Leopard 2."
I was commenting on mechanical reliability.Supposedly T-64 was very unrealiable initially (possibly some literally self destructed due to autoloader malfuctions, or so went the tale) but the issue was more or less sorted out by the time the main production versions A/B came online.I agree that the T-64B is later.
"Remember also that the mobility issue may not be as severe concerning Chieftain"
I agree that in principle the Chieftain had sufficient mobility.What concerned me was its reliability, that was my point with "if you can get there" comment. Unless of course all the claims about chronic engine overheating and transmission breakdowns were somewhat exaggerated.
|

December 28th, 2006, 06:41 AM
|
 |
Captain
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Italy
Posts: 902
Thanks: 0
Thanked 55 Times in 51 Posts
|
|
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
For what is worth I got the impression that the soviets took river crossing very seriously.All the APCs,IFVs and armored cars that could be made amphibious were so, even at the expense of others characteristics like armor protection.The tanks were capable of deep fording, even with all the limitations and the risks of such practice.Dedicated ambhibious tanks for establishing bridgeheads.Fast deployement GSP ferry to make tanks cross rivers when fording was was not an option.PTS-M and similar vehicles to ferry artillery, trucks and large amounts of foot infantry etc.
|

December 28th, 2006, 08:33 AM
|
Major
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Kladno, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,176
Thanks: 12
Thanked 49 Times in 44 Posts
|
|
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
The river crossing aspect is partly true but IRL it was being viewed as "not much practical" IRL... BMP's had sometimes a disturbing tendencies to sink and with deep fording I don't know whether our armz ever rained with combat schnorkels due to the risk of having no escape route while underwater (combat schnorkel wasn't passable for the crew).
Also there aren't so manz river banks suitable for deep fording/amphib crossing - it's about the same as with landing beaches on the sea coast.Plus of course trucks etc. would still need bridges.
__________________
This post, as well as being an ambassador of death for the enemies of humanity, has a main message of peace and friendship.
|

December 28th, 2006, 09:13 AM
|
 |
Captain
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Italy
Posts: 902
Thanks: 0
Thanked 55 Times in 51 Posts
|
|
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
Of course deep fording was rather unhealthy and while the others vehicles were amphibious some were just barely so.
I suspect that there was an underlying attitude along the lines "even if few percent are lost but the rest get through is worth it" but I cannot prove it. The banks will need preparation and only a few places will be suitable.
The point however is that just blowing up a couple of bridges in front of them will not be a show stopper. Ultimately of course it will come down to engineers bridging assets.
|

December 28th, 2006, 09:19 AM
|
 |
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: May 2006
Location: California
Posts: 245
Thanks: 0
Thanked 5 Times in 1 Post
|
|
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
Quote:
The point however is that just blowing up a couple of bridges in front of them will not be a show stopper.
|
exactly,
Quote:
Anyway, all too glad the Cold War didn't break into Hot one as it would be for sure bloody for both sides.
|
yes, who knows where even a conventional conflict could have escalated to.
__________________
Кавказ-Берлин
|

December 28th, 2006, 09:34 AM
|
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 303
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
|
|
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
Funny thing is that nobody didnīt start a war. If Red Army had such huge advantages, itīs kind of interesting that they didnīt even try to pressure the West more politically or something like that. Maybe the war wouldnīt be worth it anyhow, so the Soviet Union building policy of arms went to total waste, hence the collapse of the Soviet empire. They lost the cold war, so it doesnīt matter anymore what their equipment was like in 1980.
And doesnīt the game represent them as quite potent combat vehicles, considering the debate going on about their true quality?
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|