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

January 4th, 2012, 12:07 PM
|
Corporal
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 105
Thanks: 15
Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts
|
|
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
|

January 4th, 2012, 03:34 PM
|
 |
Lieutenant General
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 2,829
Thanks: 542
Thanked 797 Times in 602 Posts
|
|
Re: CCCP vs NATO long campaign (1948-1991)
Quote:
Originally Posted by -Luc-
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.
|
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.
__________________
Suhiir - Wargame Junkie
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
|

January 4th, 2012, 04:01 PM
|
Corporal
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 105
Thanks: 15
Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts
|
|
Re: CCCP vs NATO long campaign (1948-1991)
Hi,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suhiir
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.
|
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-
|

January 4th, 2012, 06:42 PM
|
 |
Captain
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 898
Thanks: 45
Thanked 60 Times in 54 Posts
|
|
Re: CCCP vs NATO long campaign (1948-1991)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suhiir
Quote:
Originally Posted by -Luc-
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.
|
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.
|
Little wonder,on why desant infrantry was deemed not a good idea anymore when the guns got to 90-120mm. 
|

January 4th, 2012, 06:53 PM
|
 |
Captain
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 898
Thanks: 45
Thanked 60 Times in 54 Posts
|
|
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 
|

January 4th, 2012, 11:00 PM
|
 |
Captain
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 898
Thanks: 45
Thanked 60 Times in 54 Posts
|
|
Re: CCCP vs NATO long campaign (1948-1991)
Quote:
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 
|
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
|
|
|
|
|