Are MG-artillery battalions a good buy?

[Tarhunnas]

These Soviet support units seems to have a reasonable mix of what's available in the pool in 41. Above all they provide some AT-capability, which should come in handy, one might think. They also have some digging capability, and they don't use up many trucks. I think they are a nice unit, but I haven't really evaluated their efficiency. What do you others say, are they a good buy in 41?

The 41a AT artillery regiment BTW seems to only have AA-guns in its TOE, so I would say the name is somewhat misleading. Or might it be a bug?

[cookie monster]

Buy a su which will always be used

even better if it keeps on upgrading and getting stronger

Think big, loadsa guns, an su 'for all seasons'

[Q-Ball]

I think the Soviets are going to run out of Armament points in 1941 if you are not careful. I am not sure, someone more experienced should weigh in please, but I think you shouldn't spend alot of Arm Points on SUs, save them for Divisions.

Artillery SUs burn alot of armament, and you really need all those points to fill-out the Artillery in Rifle Divisions, I think.

I like the Sapper Regts; you will use those the entire war

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

The 41a AT artillery regiment BTW seems to only have AA-guns in its TOE, so I would say the name is somewhat misleading. Or might it be a bug?

85mm AA gun is a good AT gun. The 76mm AT gun is actually the 76mm 'Field' gun you seen in other units. Not sure if the 'Field' guns have the same AT capability as the 'AT' gun but it should.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Panama

85mm AA gun is a good AT gun. The 76mm AT gun is actually the 76mm 'Field' gun you seen in other units. Not sure if the 'Field' guns have the same AT capability as the 'AT' gun but it should.

Yes but will the game engine use it as an AT-gun when it is classed as an AA gun in an AA-unit? And IIRC the Soviets didn't use their 85 mm AA guns the same way the Germans used the 88.

[Aurelian]

IMHO, the only SUs the Sovs should be building in 41 are construction units.

The RR Construction brigades.

Like cookiemonster says, think big. Which to me means regiment/grigade size.

[ComradeP]

I tend to avoid anything battalion size as the Soviets aside from the Tank battalions (which evolve into regiments). I also avoid support units using a number of different ground elements, such as motorcycle regiments and the MG-artillery battalion you posted.

The RR construction brigades and sapper regiments are your best buy. Sapper regiments are quite economical too, you can fill each Rifle corps you create with 3 of them, which still only uses about 300k manpower in total (only 1051 men per regiment), and have some nice fort busting units. It's also in my opinion more efficient than buying the assault engineer brigades, as those are on-map units.

I'd avoid creating artillery regiments for the reasons others specified. However, if you do want to create artillery regiments, create 41b corps artillery regiments or (from September 1941 onwards) army artillery regiments (which the 41b corps artillery regiment evolves into). The army artillery unit is equipped with 36 152mm ML-20's. The ML-20 has good range and nice damage potential, even though its accuracy isn't too good. It also has an acceptable build cost of 79.

In or prior to June 1943, you can disband those regiments to fill up Heavy Gun Artillery divisions.

To each his own, but I prefer to keep the Soviet army as "small" as possible in terms of the number of units (which doesn't mean that it's actual small, just that I focus on the unit types that give me the most bang for my buck and prefer to limit the amount of on-map units).

You should also avoid creating units you can't really use later or that are really fragile. Battalions simply don't have enough punch compared to the alternatives in my opinion.

[Q-Ball]

That's a good point, if you build a unit with 45mm AT guns, those guns eventually are just going into the garbage; a waste of Armament points. If you build 122mm or 152mm artillery pieces, they will at least be in use the entire war; they don't become obsolete.

Initially you have more men than Armament points, so I would focus on units that are Manpower-heavy and Armament-light, like Construction and Sapper.

I hate the Motorcycle Regts, I am tempted to just disband them entirely

[mmarquo]

IMHO the jury is still out on the SUs...different armies need different capabilities and the SUs should reflect that. I have seen AT SUs hurt panzers.

[Klydon]

I usually disband the motorcycle regiments when I get the chance. I will build regiments, etc but not battalions and will look to get rid of them as I can. I would rather have 1 sapper regiment than 2 sapper battalions.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

ORIGINAL: Panama

85mm AA gun is a good AT gun. The 76mm AT gun is actually the 76mm 'Field' gun you seen in other units. Not sure if the 'Field' guns have the same AT capability as the 'AT' gun but it should.

Yes but will the game engine use it as an AT-gun when it is classed as an AA gun in an AA-unit? And IIRC the Soviets didn't use their 85 mm AA guns the same way the Germans used the 88.

Yes, they used 85mm AA guns as AT guns in AT regiments. Late June, early July 20 AT Regiments were formed with five batteries, each with four guns. Then 15 more in July. There were not enough 76mm guns so they used the 85mm AA guns instead. Powerful but clumsy and vulnerable since the profile was higher. Please note that by October these regiments had been destroyed in front of Moscow. After this group had been raised an additional 36 regiments were formed with four batteries, each with four guns. Two of these batteries had 85mm AA guns and two batteries had either 45mm AT gun or 37mm AA gun.

In October there were again enough 76mm guns for AT units (76mm F-22 USV field gun and in 1942 76mm ZIS-3 field gun)). As with most other Soviet units, the TO&E (in Russisn Shtat) changed many times.

Forgot, when the Germans introduced the heavy tanks the Soviets temporarily used 85mm AA guns in AT service until larger towed AT guns could be fielded. Not sure if there was an official TO&E for this.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Panama

Yes, they used 85mm AA guns as AT guns in AT regiments. Late June, early July 20 AT Regiments were formed with five batteries, each with four guns. Then 15 more in July. There were not enough 76mm guns so they used the 85mm AA guns instead. Powerful but clumsy and vulnerable since the profile was higher. Please note that by October these regiments had been destroyed in front of Moscow. After this group had been raised an additional 36 regiments were formed with four batteries, each with four guns. Two of these batteries had 85mm AA guns and two batteries had either 45mm AT gun or 37mm AA gun.

In October there were again enough 76mm guns for AT units (76mm F-22 USV field gun and in 1942 76mm ZIS-3 field gun)). As with most other Soviet units, the TO&E (in Russisn Shtat) changed many times.

Forgot, when the Germans introduced the heavy tanks the Soviets temporarily used 85mm AA guns in AT service until larger towed AT guns could be fielded. Not sure if there was an official TO&E for this.

Impressive, now I learned something new! Thanks for the info! [:)]

[ComradeP]

IMHO the jury is still out on the SUs...different armies need different capabilities and the SUs should reflect that. I have seen AT SUs hurt panzers.

Certainly, opinions will differ greatly. Personally, I focus on primarily offensive units or units that are good at offensive and defensive action (like artillery). The AT regiments might destroy a couple of extra Panzers when the Germans are still using light tanks, but retreat attrition will destroy more, and those AT artillery regiments are not made for attacking. I also expect them to take pretty brutal retreat attrition losses themselves due to their nature.

[mmarquo]

I am learning how to stock offensive versus defensive fromations with the proper SUs; one size does not fit all...
 
Marquo [:)]