Russian Supermen?

[Monter_Trismegistos]

Yes, as I said: there wasnt much fightings on Gobi.

[Wallymanowar]

I've fired the C-7 (which is the Canadian version of the M-16). It is still capable of firing in fully automatic mode and I have used it in full automatic. While you end up with barrel creep, usually your first two or three rounds will be on target. It is drilled into you that in order to use it properly in full auto you need to fire in short one second bursts and to keep on target you have to brace yourself. My instructor (who was a trained infantryman with the PPCLI) gave us a demonstration of what could be achieved with full auto - the result: a full magazine of thirty rounds through the chest of a man-sized target at 100 yards. Needless to say we (a bunch of Navy Pukes) were considerably impressed.

That being said, it is necessary to remember that we are comparing weapons like the Garand and the SKS to the SMG's like the Soviet PPD and PPsH, not M-16's and other modern assault rifles which were developed using the combat experience of WW2 - a lot of which was based on the comparative combat effectiveness and firepower of weapons such as the Garands and PPD's and PPsH's used in WW2 and Korea.

There are several other factors to consider as well:
A) The standard training for a weapon capable of automatic firing is not to continually fire in automatic since this will result in your barrel overheating with resultant jamming and other stoppages. Soldiers firing automatic weapons are trained to fire in bursts of one to three seconds. This has been standard principle of training for automatic weapons since Maxim developed the first Machine-Gun which operated on the blowback principle.
B) In a weapon such as the PPsH, capable of firing 600 rounds per minute, a one second burst is six rounds. An M-16 in auto with a 30 round magazine would be capable of firing 5 one second bursts. A PPsh SMG with a 71 round drum would be capable of firing 12 one second bursts. Thus a PPsH would have more than twice the firepower of a M-16, if the M-16 were fully automatic. If you consider the M-16 in single round bursts then the M-16 has more than twice the firepower of the PPsH - but I have to go back to comparing it to other weapons of that age - and comparing it to the 8 round mag of the Garand means that under these circumstances the PPsH still provides 50% more firepower than a Garand.
C) Firing a Garand or an M-16 in single round bursts requires a degree of aiming which an SMG firing an automatic burst does not. It is easier to train someone to fire an SMG in automatic mode using short bursts than it is to train someone to fire a weapon like the M-16 or the Garand using one round shots where accuracy is more important.
D) A short burst of 6 rounds is statistically more likely to hit a target than a single round - especially if the fire is unaimed. If the fire is aimed then not only is the chance of a round hitting increased but there is a chance of more rounds hitting.
E) SMG's can far more easily be fired from the hip and while on the move than a weapon like the Garand, the SKS, or even an M-16 - which means that it can be more easily used for suppressive fire while simultaneously advancing on a target. This is something that the Soviets learned when fighting the Finns - the Soviets being on the receiving end of Finnish Soumi SMG's.

[Wallymanowar]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Are you saying you think a rating of 62 for a squad is RIGHT for the Russians - and NO ONE ELSE? when ratings are like 24 for US army - to 34 for good units late in the war?

I remember reading about an American comparison of the MIG-15 and the Sabre Jet fighters which faced each other in Korea. American experts concluded that the MIG-15 was at least the equal of the Sabre and in some ways (such as manoeuverability) superior. This conclusion obviously doesn't jive with the fact that the Sabres shot down MIG's at a ratio of something like a 10 to 1. The reason that this ratio existed is that the American pilots were far more capable than their counterparts in the Chinese Air Force. This is so obvious when you note that most of the Chinese pilots had recently learned how to fly while most American pilots were veterans of fighting the Japanese. This is even more evident when you compare the top Chinese flyers - they were mostly veterans of the Soviet Air Force who had fought the Germans.

Having looked at the ratings myself, and comparing them to other units (BTW the best American units are the USMC Rifle Squads at 44 not USA Rifle Squads) I would conclude that these units probably represent Soviet Guard units which can be considered the elite of the Soviet Army, at least on par with the USMC squads, if not better. They are recent veterans of the European Theater and may have just finished capturing Berlin. Their experience, morale, and leadership need to be factored in as well as any relevent firepower. Remember that the ratings are an abstract number, not a concrete number based on weaponry.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

(The posts about the Soviet Mechanized Squads are correct, there were not enough APCs in Soviet TOE's to justifiy their inclusion).

There are also some unused soviet squads in the game. Namely The Soviet Guards Squad and the Airborne Squads. Or is there a soviet unit that used it. Otherwise are this then 3 extra slots.

Only someone who has played 1945 knows. What units show up magically? I know there are some.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

Well from excellent Soviet war movie about their offensive against Japanese in August 1945 I learnt that entire area (maybe with exception of Gobi, which had no natural obstacles so wasnt defended, only lightly screened so it doesn't count) was mountainous, with small narrow passages... I forgot the title of that movie.

You surely could not tell it from the WITP map. But I agree - there are lots of mountains. Forrested mountains - with significant river barriers too. And some big lakes. None of it SMG country.

[el cid again]

The US M-16 now does not fire full auto - either true semi-auto or burst is your choice. But the Marines taught "set the cyclic rate of fire at the minimum and try for one round bursts - if you get 2 it is OK" - and I find that works just fine. Sort of a "burst" mode without any built in burst selector - and it works on guns as diverse as the BAR and the Thompson.
The point is, it is no longer believed that full auto is wise. Bursting is best. The Marine concept of trying for a short burst - and if you are not that good you still don't get a long one - is now institutionalized to the extent many weapons have it built in. What is not done is teach what the Russians were doing in WWII - more or less play fire hose with your guns. It is typical of the Russians - who sometimes put 400 artillery pieces under 1 FDC - giving it awesome firepower - but no efficiency.

[el cid again]

The Marines taught us to fire the Garand in two modes - rapid fire for surpression or deliberate fire - the latter not more than one round per two seconds - or 14 seconds for the entire magazine. We also could fit BAR magazines to the Garand - using Baretta modifications for the Italian Army - yielding 20 round capacity. In rapid fire mode it is SOP to fire only one or two bursts per clip - in 2 or 4 seconds. This is actually more ammunition efficient - in spite of the larger rounds - than the SMGs are.
And it works for surpression - they stick their head (or anything) up it gets hit.

Put another way - do you think 100 squad actions - USMC vs Soviet - in 1945 - would indicate the Soviets were better off - assuming identical morale - training level - etc? I don't. If I had to do it for real (real bullets, real wounds, real death) I would not want to be on the Russian side - even though I have great respect for Russian soldiers - and even though I am not willing to be political about such an opinion. There is more to the equation than ROF - and the high ROF is actually a DISADVANTAGE.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Mike Tremblay

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Are you saying you think a rating of 62 for a squad is RIGHT for the Russians - and NO ONE ELSE? when ratings are like 24 for US army - to 34 for good units late in the war?

I remember reading about an American comparison of the MIG-15 and the Sabre Jet fighters which faced each other in Korea. American experts concluded that the MIG-15 was at least the equal of the Sabre and in some ways (such as manoeuverability) superior. This conclusion obviously doesn't jive with the fact that the Sabres shot down MIG's at a ratio of something like a 10 to 1. The reason that this ratio existed is that the American pilots were far more capable than their counterparts in the Chinese Air Force. This is so obvious when you note that most of the Chinese pilots had recently learned how to fly while most American pilots were veterans of fighting the Japanese. This is even more evident when you compare the top Chinese flyers - they were mostly veterans of the Soviet Air Force who had fought the Germans.

Having looked at the ratings myself, and comparing them to other units (BTW the best American units are the USMC Rifle Squads at 44 not USA Rifle Squads) I would conclude that these units probably represent Soviet Guard units which can be considered the elite of the Soviet Army, at least on par with the USMC squads, if not better. They are recent veterans of the European Theater and may have just finished capturing Berlin. Their experience, morale, and leadership need to be factored in as well as any relevent firepower. Remember that the ratings are an abstract number, not a concrete number based on weaponry.

I have an account of a Chinese Ace in MiG-15s of that period - vs Americans - he was in the air for his first combat with a mere 15 HOURS of flight time in his log! Surely you are right about the experience part!

I am not following your reasoning. There is no reason to assume these guys are veterans of capturing Berlin. We are modeling a Soviet Army in 1941 - not in 1945. In fact, the army of 1945 is completely different - hard coded - invisible to us - and quite a bit more powerful. [Divisions are replaced by corps, things like that]. We ONLY are designing units for the possibility of fighting early or mid war - BEFORE the code changes the units on us. And if we WERE talking about the units that took Berlin - remember they didn't do very well even then. The overall average was 3:1 losses in favor of the Germans. They won due to numbers, not because each squad was a baby platoon firepower wise. Also because they had very fine tanks in numbers Germany never could compete with. And by 1945 they owned the sky.

Given superior numbers, superior armor, air control, and an enemy decimated by war to the point children were in the field, suffering awful log shortages, the performance of the Red Army in Germany in 1945 is not very inspiring IMHO. It is MUCH more impressive at Stalingrad. And even there, its advantages were largely ones of scale. The Germans were barely able to compete because of the numbers issues. Not because each weapon or squad was inherently superior on the Russian side. If anything a case can be made the German gear was better. It was not clear the Russians were better tactically - on the contrary they were often quite a bit worse. But overall it was competative - only the numbers make the German situation untenable.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

(The posts about the Soviet Mechanized Squads are correct, there were not enough APCs in Soviet TOE's to justifiy their inclusion).

There are also some unused soviet squads in the game. Namely The Soviet Guards Squad and the Airborne Squads. Or is there a soviet unit that used it. Otherwise are this then 3 extra slots.

Only someone who has played 1945 knows. What units show up magically? I know there are some.

Enter 1st July 1945 as start date for RHS in the Scenario Editor, start campaign head-to-head and you'll know - somewhere in this thread there is a list that shows which units will appear.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Put another way - do you think 100 squad actions - USMC vs Soviet - in 1945 - would indicate the Soviets were better off - assuming identical morale - training level - etc? I don't. If I had to do it for real (real bullets, real wounds, real death) I would not want to be on the Russian side - even though I have great respect for Russian soldiers - and even though I am not willing to be political about such an opinion. There is more to the equation than ROF - and the high ROF is actually a DISADVANTAGE.

Not disputing this generally, but the Soviet assault doctrine was completely different from Allied or German doctrines. Soviet infantry was supposed to go into close action regardless of losses taken - infantrymen were expandable - and for this doctrine SMG were the perfect weapon. Has nothing to do with concepts of urban warfare, only with close action (just think about the use of Soviet "tankriders"...).

[Wallymanowar]

Sid, I don't want to get into a long discussion about the relative merits of different armies at different time frames. I believe I have demonstrated that the ratings of the Soviets may be justified, what position you take for your mod is your own.

[Big B]

Well Cid, get your calander back out and circle todays date - we agree once again.

I was an infantryman, who trained on - and was issued - the M-16A1. I don't think much of it - period. I would prefer a Garrand or an M-14 to my dying day, forget a sub machinegun

We trained at Ft Benning Inf School with the M-16 and I know for a fact that full-auto fire is worthless if you intend to hit something more than 50 yards away. Sure - you can hose an entire mag and hope you get lucky - but that is wasteful, bad tactics, and likely to get you nailed when you run out of ammo quickly.

We used bi-pods from the prone position on the standard head/upperbody target at only 75 meters away using full auto bursts, and no one ever got more than one hit that way ...yah - but I can can pick a man off at 350 meters in two seconds flat using single aimed fire.

You tell me which method is more effective....why do you think they call it "spray and pray?"

Full-Automatic fire weapons have their place as a belt fed support weapons, but they sure are limited in usefulness as infantry weapons (unless all your battles are under 20 yards).

B