So there are no airports in the Soviet Union?

[Mehring]

And where do I say anything about a "proper" road network existing or argue that "proper" airfields were commonplace?

Well, there have been some arguments in the thread, but they've pretty much been demolished by actual facts.

I've never known supposition of someone's argument to demolish it. Have you?

[fbs]

Very good, I think that everybody has placed good arguments here. I appreciate everybody's input.

My perspective was in a good part due to the fact that everywhere US engineers went they laid down Marsden Mattings (steel plates) for airstrips, and that was developed *before* WW2. So I always thought that there would be benefits for running aircrafts on hard surfaces (otherwise those plates wouldn't be developed). Now, it is true that I didn't actually see those devices in use in any soviet photos, but I assumed that was more an issue of having the resources for that, rather than having little benefits.

Anyway, I think that the common wisdom here is that either for lack of need or lack of resources, east front means by and large dirt airstrips, and that's fair. Thanks all.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: Mehring
Well, probably you could drive anywhere you liked, in any weather, but how long it would take you, and the condition your vehicle would be in at the end of your journey would depend not only on the weather and your type of vehicle, but the presence and quality of roads.

Roads, whether they are axle deep in mud or not, do not have trees, undergrowth, walls, houses, hedges, and any number of other obstacles naturally strewn accross them. The habit of travelling by them causes people to clear them of obstacles or not put them there in the first place. They are also free of abrupt elevation changes which can prevent completely, the movement of wheeled and even tracked vehicles.

Where roads meet rivers, gullies, streams etc, they will have a bridge of some description to pass the obstacle, in any weather. The quality of bridges is an important point as it determines how much weight it can take before collapsing, also the width of any vehicle wanting to cross it.

Bridges can also be passed under, for example, in the case of a road meeting an embankment. Again, the width of the tunnel will determine what can and cannot pass through the tunnel.

So, you may be able to drive all over Russia, but you will have to make a lot of time consuming detours, even in the hight of a hot dry summer, if you do not follow a road. That is why, even Russian style roads of the period, particularly "main" dirt roads, should be accurately represented on the map and give a movement bonus to units using them, in summer too.

And if you've ever walked anywhere, you will know the benefits of a dusty track over an open field.

I don't want to go on and on about the subject, but you could travel for hundreds of miles in Russia in the 1940's before you find a tunnel, the bridges were mainly wood for crossing on foot, or at most a horse and cart. I agree, any kind of track is better than nothing, but even crossing open country, after the first convoy has gone over the terrain, you have a dirt track, until it rains.

It is almost impossible in the 21st Century to portray how primitive Russia and much of Eastern Europe was, even Stalin recognised this (he said Russia must modernise, or be destroyed). The Germans, accepted as one of the most advanced military forces of the time, relied on 100,000s of horses. When the roads, such as they were, destroyed their transport, the 'Blitzkrieg' army is driving Russian panje carts (which was what most of the roads were made for).

The Russians were blessed with 500,000 lend-lease US multi-axle trucks and jeeps (off-road 4x4s of the age), when playing the Axis look how many trucks you loose, just to get around even when no one is shooting. Reading about Raus and 6th. PZ just now - after 6th. PZ had advanced towards Leningrad, they became isolated for several days because their passage had wrecked the roads and tracks so much, that following divisions could not move without laying mile after mile of 'corduroy' roads (felled tree trunks). Point is that there wasn't much to choose between the roads and the 'normal' terrain.

Think of the worst transport conditions that you can dream of, then double it, and you might get close. Apart from the main Highway through Smolensk to Moscow, very little of the Russian transport system could be called a road (often they weren't on the maps). The hedges, walls, etc., that you describe are are a feature of Western Europe, German soldiers described the land as an endless sea stretching to the horizon. Swamps, forests and hills are variations in the terrain, but they are represented in the game.[:)]

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: Mehring

And where do I say anything about a "proper" road network existing or argue that "proper" airfields were commonplace?

Well, there have been some arguments in the thread, but they've pretty much been demolished by actual facts.

I've never known supposition of someone's argument to demolish it. Have you?

You complained about no roads when in fact, they are irrelevant at the scale of the game. Pictures of the eastern front are abundantly clear that all those features you claim hinder off-road movement did not exist in any relevant quantity at that time.

You complained about no hard-surface airfields, when, in fact, they didn't exist.

And you had throw a jibe at 2x3 for spouting 'corporate bs to excuse the game'.

Pretty much demolished by facts, yep.

[Aurelian]

"ORIGINAL: Mehring

And where do I say anything about a "proper" road network existing."

In your first post.

ORIGINAL: Mehring

Good point. Like a proper road network, a disapointing omision from the map.

Looks like someone said something. How can something that didn't exsist be a disapointing omission.

[Mehring]

Rasputitsa, you're not telling me anything about Russia's backwardness I don't know, except you're making some broad generalisations and trying to apply them where they don't belong. A characteristic of the southern steppes, which I think you are describing, are gullies that, without bridges, make excellent obstacles, especially for wheeled vehicles. I don't think even the steppes are anything like as featureless as you say. Northern and central Russia are not as you describe, I've seen too many photographs.

The example you use to justify the non-representation of roads on the map actually insists upon their representation.

6. Pz followed a road. Why? They destroyed it, so did they just take to the fields? No, they found themselves isolated and had to re-build the road. Roads were necessary and everyone used them. Tanks churn up hard surfaces, I've seen it in the UK, so no wonder dirt tracks are torn up. You still need roads.

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: Mehring

Where roads meet rivers, gullies, streams etc, they will have a bridge of some description to pass the obstacle, in any weather. The quality of bridges is an important point as it determines how much weight it can take before collapsing, also the width of any vehicle wanting to cross it.

Just bridges all over? Really?

I know of several cases in just one county where roads come up to a creek and there is no bridge. You just drive through. If it has been raining hard or it is flooding, you don't go that way and this is 2011. No reason to think Russia would be any different in the 1940's as far as bridges go.

[Mehring]

"ORIGINAL: Mehring

And where do I say anything about a "proper" road network existing."

In your first post.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

Good point. Like a proper road network, a disapointing omision from the map.


Looks like someone said something. How can something that didn't exsist be a disapointing omission.

< Message edited by Aurelian -- 2/24/2011 8:28:19 AM >

Is that as far as you got? The one liner? What do you think I meant by that? Well, don't think, read on-

I'm not sure there were any hard serfaced roads in Russia at the time, and if there were, there were not enough to accompany every rail line. There were plenty of roads that could impact upon mobility, however, and roads that both belligerents followed for fairly obvious reasons. There are plenty of games that model various road types in Russia of the time, and they do not all follow rail lines. Clearly the designer would have to research their whereabouts and the relevance to the game of various road qualities in which weather condition.

and

Roads, whether they are axle deep in mud or not, do not have trees, undergrowth, walls, houses, hedges, and any number of other obstacles naturally strewn accross them. The habit of travelling by them causes people to clear them of obstacles or not put them there in the first place. They are also free of abrupt elevation changes which can prevent completely, the movement of wheeled and even tracked vehicles.

Where roads meet rivers, gullies, streams etc, they will have a bridge of some description to pass the obstacle, in any weather. The quality of bridges is an important point as it determines how much weight it can take before collapsing, also the width of any vehicle wanting to cross it.

Bridges can also be passed under, for example, in the case of a road meeting an embankment. Again, the width of the tunnel will determine what can and cannot pass through the tunnel.

So, you may be able to drive all over Russia, but you will have to make a lot of time consuming detours, even in the hight of a hot dry summer, if you do not follow a road. That is why, even Russian style roads of the period, particularly "main" dirt roads, should be accurately represented on the map and give a movement bonus to units using them, in summer too.

And if you've ever walked anywhere, you will know the benefits of a dusty track over an open field.

I'd say, that my reference to a proper road network might be ambiguous alone but in the context of all I heve written, is clearly and unmistakably a reference to the proper depiction of roads, not of some idea of "proper" roads.

Just a little time and trouble, that's all I ask.

[Mehring]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

ORIGINAL: Mehring

Where roads meet rivers, gullies, streams etc, they will have a bridge of some description to pass the obstacle, in any weather. The quality of bridges is an important point as it determines how much weight it can take before collapsing, also the width of any vehicle wanting to cross it.

Just bridges all over? Really?

I know of several cases in just one county where roads come up to a creek and there is no bridge. You just drive through. If it has been raining hard or it is flooding, you don't go that way and this is 2011. No reason to think Russia would be any different in the 1940's as far as bridges go.

Yes, they're called fords and you're right, they do still exist in 2011, even in the UK. Should we suppose because of this that bridges do not also exist? Does it have to be one or the other? Does the existence of a few fords mean that bridges are not needed and therefore do not exist?

[Mehring]

Soviet Precast Prestressed Construction for Airfields.
by Naum Sapozhnikov
http://www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov/NAPTF ... llings.pdf

"The Soviet Union began building its first concrete airfield pavements in 1931-1932. These
were constructed using unreinforced concrete hexagons 1.2-m (48-in.) long per side and 100- to
140-mm (4- to 5.5-in.) thick (6, 7). As aircraft became heavier, the hexagon length was
increased to 1.5 m (60 in.) and thickness increased up to 220 mm (8.8 in.). An example of these
hexagonal pavement slabs is shown in Figure 1. These unreinforced hexagonal slabs often had
problems with rocking and spalling, and as modern concrete placement equipment became
available after 1950, rectangular, cast in-situ pavement slabs became more common."

see Figure 1. Example of precast unreinforced hexagonal concrete slabs on an airfield
(approximately WWII era pavement and still in use).
common

[Rasputitsa]

This is not about winning, or loosing, it's about being comfortable with the way the game works and trusting the features of WiTE. There is much in the game that gets me wondering, but this issue is not one of them.

There were roads, a few hard surface highways, but mostly dirt roads and tracks, many unmapped, but whether they are significant at the scale the game is representing obviously is a worry to some. Looking back on extensive reading on this subject, I am comfortable with the game as it is on this issue, the importance of rail is very much more significant and the game reflects this.

There was not much fighting just to gain a section of road, there was almost always a way round, but much effort was made to capture, or cut railways, which shows the relative importance of these features to the commanders who were on the spot. I am happy to trust the judgement of those men and so does the game. [:)]

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: Mehring
see Figure 1. Example of precast unreinforced hexagonal concrete slabs on an airfield
(approximately WWII era pavement and still in use).
common

I said in my earlier post that I had no information on conditions of all airfields in Russia, but used the situation in the UK, a highly developed aviation nation, as an example. I also said that Croydon, London's main airport at the time, had paved apron parking areas, but a grass landing area. The point is that heavy aircraft can sink into grass areas, if left parked for long periods, but grass was the preferred landing area for tail wheel aircraft and still is.

I am not a structural engineer, but I would interpret the use of reinforced concrete slabs before the war, as being for parking areas, as at other aerodromes of the time. It is difficult to see from a picture of a few square feet of concrete, but I have seen countless pictures of grass landing areas in early wartime conditions.[:)]

[Mehring]

I could not agree more with your reasons for arguing the point, but I do not agree with your argument with regard to roads.

Yes, rail was much more important in the east than in the west. You might even argue for differentiating between single and double track line. But the relative importance of road and rail in a theatre does not militate necessarily for the exclusion of one when both existed.

Again, it makes no difference whether ways can be found around positions. That could be the consequence of alternative roads being found OR of open terrain, or both in different situations. The point is, roads are faster at any game scale, and that's why the armies used them and repaired them whenever they could. The poorer quality they are, generally the lower quality will their bridges be and the more restrictive to heavy and large vehicles. But all this just underlines their importance.

[SgtKachalin]

From here:

One factor prevented Aeroflot ordering the Tu-70, or the Il-18 – the state of Soviet airports. Both aricraft needed long concrete runways and not many airports in the Soviet Union of the late 1940s had hard runways or planned to have them in the foreseeable future. So the Tu-70 was ahead of its time. Even in the communist world, where economy was not given a high priority, the cost of updating a large number of airports was not even considered. It would take another Tupolv aircraft and at least six more years to make that happen.

From: Tupolev: The Man and His Aircraft, page 101. (Note that this references 1947, when the Tu-70 was being tested.)

[Mehring]

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

ORIGINAL: Mehring
see Figure 1. Example of precast unreinforced hexagonal concrete slabs on an airfield
(approximately WWII era pavement and still in use).
common

I said in my earlier post that I had no information on conditions of all airfields in Russia, but used the situation in the UK, a highly developed aviation nation, as an example. I also said that Croydon, London's main airport at the time, had paved apron parking areas, but a grass landing area. The point is that heavy aircraft can sink into grass areas, if left parked for long periods, but grass was the preferred landing area for tail wheel aircraft and still is.

I am not a structural engineer, but I would interpret the use of reinforced concrete slabs before the war, as being for parking areas, as at other aerodromes of the time. It is difficult to see from a picture of a few square feet of concrete, but I have seen countless pictures of grass landing areas in early wartime conditions.[:)]

You may turn out to be right about the airfields but your interpretation at this point is a choice, not evidence based. Given the weather conditions of Russia, which were well known to Russians, they might just have concreted the entire runway? I'm still looking for evidence here, before interpreting anything.

[Mehring]

Both aricraft needed long concrete runways and not many airports in the Soviet Union of the late 1940s had hard runways or planned to have them in the foreseeable future.

But some did, and if they existed during the war, would it not make them prize posessions during the mud?

[PeeDeeAitch]

Just a thought, how far would these runways be from major cities/urban areas? I do not know (nor do I see from the information here just how many paved/concrete runways there were in the Soviet Union).
&nbsp;
In game terms this would necessitate having the bases in the urban hex, problematic given the mechanics of partisan dampering from the Axis.

[SgtKachalin]

ORIGINAL: Mehring

Both aricraft needed long concrete runways and not many airports in the Soviet Union of the late 1940s had hard runways or planned to have them in the foreseeable future.

But some did, and if they existed during the war, would it not make them prize posessions during the mud?

Certainly. But that would make it even more important (game wise) to identify exactly where they were. For that we'd need data, which appears lacking.

[Mehring]

ORIGINAL: Sgt Barker

ORIGINAL: Mehring

Both aricraft needed long concrete runways and not many airports in the Soviet Union of the late 1940s had hard runways or planned to have them in the foreseeable future.

But some did, and if they existed during the war, would it not make them prize posessions during the mud?

Certainly. But that would make it even more important (game wise) to identify exactly where they were. For that we'd need data, which appears lacking.

Yes, I'm looking for information in the flight sim community. "IL-2 Sturmovik"? Somebody must know something.

Even concrete parking and grass landing strips would be an advantage over pure grass.

[Wild]

Roads are factored into terrain type. Clear terrain for example has a better road network.
This is the proper way to go for a game of this scale.