CCCP vs NATO long campaign (1948-1991)

[gila]

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

[gila]

Originally Posted by -Luc-

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.

Why not just walk your infrantry units,that way get the nasties (AT units) before they do in your AFV's?
It's the best way unless you are in a rush,in this game you should never hurry

[Aeraaa]

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...

[Suhiir]

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.

[gila]

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

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by gila

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

Truer words have seldom been spoken.

[-Luc-]

Hi,

I always believed that tanks were made for breaking the front.

They, as weapon system, have to be well protected, armed and fast... and, as objective, the domination of the battlefield.

They have to work with infantry, not to be protected by them!? If this is the case, SU-76/122/152 have been better choices.

I'm not a WW1 fan...

***

Speed ​​is a key factor in the success of a military operation.

That's why it is essential that all weapon systems are at the right time at right place.

If one of them does not follow, the rhythm is broken.

The first to reach/occupy objectives is favored.

***

I did some tests yesterday and I think I'm gonna remplace my T-34/85s by IS-3s.

The protection is good and, with their AT ammos, they can destroy any NATO tanks.

I have to plan a good logistic to reammo them...

Thank you,

-Luc-

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by -Luc-

Hi,

I always believed that tanks were made for breaking the front.

They, as weapon system, have to be well protected, armed and fast... and, as objective, the domination of the battlefield.

They have to work with infantry, not to be protected by them!? If this is the case, SU-76/122/152 have been better choices.

I'm not a WW1 fan...

***

Speed ​​is a key factor in the success of a military operation.

That's why it is essential that all weapon systems are at the right time at right place.

If one of them does not follow, the rhythm is broken.

The first to reach/occupy objectives is favored.

***

I did some tests yesterday and I think I'm gonna remplace my T-34/85s by IS-3s.

The protection is good and, with their AT ammos, they can destroy any NATO tanks.

I have to plan a good logistic to reammo them...

Thank you,

-Luc-

Come the 70's when ATGMs start to show up on the battlefield I think you'll find out that while speed and tanks have their uses the classic armored steamroller becomes more suicidal then successful. But since you're in the 40's enjoy it while you can.

[Aeraaa]

Although in the 80ies tanks become quite resistant to most ATGM again (with the exception of TOWs...)

[Roman]

Ok. thanks for responding. I will investigate to change the TO&E. Regards