Russian Supermen?

[el cid again]

Deep inside Matrix there must be some Soviet agent
or an Olympic class RFB:

Russian infantry squads put the rest of the world to shame,
with values as high as 62! And I thought their record 49
for engineers was high.

[DuckofTindalos]

What the hell is a Soviet "mech" squad, anyway? Tankodesantniki? Maybe they're counting tankborne MG's in that obscene value...

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

What the hell is a Soviet "mech" squad, anyway? Tankodesantniki? Maybe they're counting tankborne MG's in that obscene value...

Interesting question..

[DuckofTindalos]

The Red Army had nothing that compared to German Panzergrenadiers or US Armoured Infantrymen; they did get some US halftracks delivered, but the vast majority of Soviet "mechanized" infantry rode on tanks.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

Yeah and in Russia people ate each other. Riding on tanks was ability, tanks were not used normally as APCs. And all infantry was trained to do that, not only mechanized (which used trucks normally).

[DuckofTindalos]

Well, yeah... People in Leningrad did eat each other, but what's that got to do with anything? Soldiers who ride in trucks aren't "mechanized infantry", they're "motorised infantry"...

[Monter_Trismegistos]

I was talking about myths which was showed in too many films.
Soviet rifleman were able to ride on tanks for short during assaults or parades but tanks couldnt serve as their transport.

Soldiers who walk on foot are infantry not cavalry. Look at 1st US Cav Div. This has to show you that name does not actually depict of structure of unit.

Yes, their name should be "infantry from mechanized brigades". Note difference between Mechanized Infantry Brigade and Mechanized Brigade.

[pad152]

Did you ever hear of the Soviet Infantry that rode on the wings of old bombers and then jumped (rolled off the wings) with no parachutes into the snow![8|]

I think the Soviets should be rated lower then British and US Amry forces, they shoudn't be rated higher than the US marines. By 1945 the marines had more experinces against Japanese forces than anyone else.

The Soviets did well in border clashes against Japanese forces throughout the war.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Deep inside Matrix there must be some Soviet agent
or an Olympic class RFB:

Russian infantry squads put the rest of the world to shame,
with values as high as 62! And I thought their record 49
for engineers was high.

High number of automatic weapons = high Anti Soft value in the game. Squad strength is a measure of firepower, nothing else.

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

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Deep inside Matrix there must be some Soviet agent
or an Olympic class RFB:

Russian infantry squads put the rest of the world to shame,
with values as high as 62! And I thought their record 49
for engineers was high.

High number of automatic weapons = high Anti Soft value in the game. Squad strength is a measure of firepower, nothing else.

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

Anyone who believes that an SMG is so powerful should contemplate that SMGs are no longer used in any army. The Russian (and German) concept of a medium power rifle round - introduced for the SKS with 7.62 by 39 mm round - is now dominant. SMGs simply lack the range to be effective - and firefights do not all take place at their statistically significant range (which is 7 meters if you want to know). The US M-1 Garand was a fabulous weapon - it still existed in USN in my day albiet in a different caliber - and Elmer Keith said "no one who used both the M-1 and M-16 in combat ever preferred the latter." He may be right. I don't think anything justifies giving Russian squads twice the rating of late war US and CW units, or three times the early war ratings. I like firepower calculations, but this is silly.

[DuckofTindalos]

What do you call the MP-5, then? Or the AKSU-74? Or the Beretta Model 12S?

[Wallymanowar]

Several Points

1. Because of their simpler construction methods SMG were produced at much higher rates in countries such as the Soviet Union and thus are much more available than the more capable Soviet SKS automatic rifle which is roughly on par with the Garand for stopping power.

2. The firepower of an SMG is much greater because
A) they are capable of fully automatic fire - which means they are firing as long as the trigger is pulled and there are rounds left in the magazine, as opposed to an Automatic Rifle such as the Garand or the SKS (which can actually be classified as self-loading rather than automatic) where the trigger has to be released before you fire a new round.
B)they carry a far larger magazine (71 round drums in the case of the Soviet PPD's and PPsH's versus 8 rounds for the Garand or 10 rounds for the SKS)

3. SMG's were still used in combat units extensively well after WW2 - the Uzi SMG was standard issue to many Israeli units during the Six-Day war in 1967 and Owen SMG's were still used by Australian Units during Vietnam. The main reason for this is that despite their relatively short range they are very effective at delivering firepower in situations such as urban and jungle fighting where ranges are often less than 7 meters - not only that, they (and their ammunition) are lighter and thus the soldier can opt to carry more ammo to increase his firepower even more or, at the very least, lessen his burden in combat.

4. SMG's are still extensively used by para-military, police forces, and even elite specialist troops in preference to modern Assault rifles specifically because of their lighter weight and greater firepower.

5. Most SMG's are not in use anymore, by the regular military, not because of their short range, but because of the development of body armour by other nations. Simply put, if your expected enemy has body armour capable of stopping an SMG round then you should develop a weapon capable of penetrating that body armour.

In short, a Soviet Squad (armed with SMGs) of the same size as an American Squad (armed with Garands) will deliver more firepower but at shorter range. I leave it you how you want to translate that in your version of the game. BTW if you want to research the exact differences I suggest you fully explore Ian V. Hogg and John Week's "Military Small Arms of the 20th Century"

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

What do you call the MP-5, then? Or the AKSU-74? Or the Beretta Model 12S?

Fine weapons. But pistol caliber SMGs are no longer infantry weapons. You find them in police work - and sometimes in special operations - where even bows and arrows (or my favorite - slingshots) are used. But never in the line infantry - not even in darkest Africa. For cause.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Mike Tremblay

Several Points

1. Because of their simpler construction methods SMG were produced at much higher rates in countries such as the Soviet Union and thus are much more available than the more capable Soviet SKS automatic rifle which is roughly on par with the Garand for stopping power.

2. The firepower of an SMG is much greater because
A) they are capable of fully automatic fire - which means they are firing as long as the trigger is pulled and there are rounds left in the magazine, as opposed to an Automatic Rifle such as the Garand or the SKS (which can actually be classified as self-loading rather than automatic) where the trigger has to be released before you fire a new round.
B)they carry a far larger magazine (71 round drums in the case of the Soviet PPD's and PPsH's versus 8 rounds for the Garand or 10 rounds for the SKS)

3. SMG's were still used in combat units extensively well after WW2 - the Uzi SMG was standard issue to many Israeli units during the Six-Day war in 1967 and Owen SMG's were still used by Australian Units during Vietnam. The main reason for this is that despite their relatively short range they are very effective at delivering firepower in situations such as urban and jungle fighting where ranges are often less than 7 meters - not only that, they (and their ammunition) are lighter and thus the soldier can opt to carry more ammo to increase his firepower even more or, at the very least, lessen his burden in combat.

4. SMG's are still extensively used by para-military, police forces, and even elite specialist troops in preference to modern Assault rifles specifically because of their lighter weight and greater firepower.

5. Most SMG's are not in use anymore, by the regular military, not because of their short range, but because of the development of body armour by other nations. Simply put, if your expected enemy has body armour capable of stopping an SMG round then you should develop a weapon capable of penetrating that body armour.

In short, a Soviet Squad (armed with SMGs) of the same size as an American Squad (armed with Garands) will deliver more firepower but at shorter range. I leave it you how you want to translate that in your version of the game. BTW if you want to research the exact differences I suggest you fully explore Ian V. Hogg and John Week's "Military Small Arms of the 20th Century"

It is confusion to believe "fully automatic" means "more firepower." There is a reason the M-16 - fully automatic when introduced - CANNOT be used in that mode today. And I am a deciple of Ian V. Hogg. Love his work - and once attended his classes.

I admit that my training (by Marines - after formal training by NRA as a child) probably is prejudiced against fully automatic fire. The Marines taught that the last thing you need is to run out of ammunition - either in the middile of a firefight - or on a long patrol. Worse, fully automatic fire from almost all weapons (of the WWII era through the 1960s) is guaranteed to make you miss - and the Marines taught aimed fire. [There are rumors of SMGs that don't force you off target, starting with the Uzi, but we never had those to play with.] The combination - you can't hit what you aim at and you run out of ammunition - in the clip - or in the pack - soon - seemed fatal - and I never taught it - either to USN landing parties nor to Vietnamese militia. I understand the research that implies soldiers who "feel like they have a machine gun try, those who don't don't" - but I believe in training, fire discipline and fire control. We actually had 2 SMGs in our armory - they were the ONLY weapons we never used on land - but in a narrow passageway of a ship they were regarded highly worth taking along. As were pump shotguns. I found the shotguns much more useful: in a metal ship, if the enemy had no hearing protection, the 12 gage produced shock effects - so you actually shoot it BEFORE you see them - THEN go around the corner and shoot again.

I am so old school I believe the Marrine addage "it is not the number of rounds that matter - it is where the first round goes that matters." Once caught in an Alaska USA Federal Credit Union on Subic Bay Naval Station invested with about a score of M-16 armed bad guys (we were told they were Huks, but a PNP colonel now a relative tells me they were Philippine Army) - and armed only with a pistol and 2 clips each with 5 rounds - I can say that the idea of multiple shots per target never entered my mind.
I set up the marines outside (by telephone) - the enemy was color coded - all in black - and the good girls had on white blouces and the sailors white uniforms - it is not much better color coded than black and white! - and hoped they got inside before I ran out of rounds when things got hot. They did - but every round if fired had a separate target. I never doubted the Marine doctrine - and I think the mentality of "shoot multiple times" is plain wrong if you want to be EFFECTIVE in combat.

My initial training - Landing Party School - had us trained to use BARs, M-1s, Thompsons and Mossbergs. In spite of fully automatic weapons, the Marines taught the "one round burst" principle. The idea is that IF you fire one round at a time- your clip lasts longer before you must change it - and you are more able to aim each round - and
bonus
you don't seem to be a machine gun - attracting enemy fire.
I think they were right on all counts. And never did I teach anything else. Firepower is not a measure of rounds per minute erupting from your weapon. Firepower is a measure of rounds per minute doing damage to - or surpressing - different enemies. Not at all the same thing. The latter normally requires you shoot less - but with a lot more control.

[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?

[Sneer]

yes it is weird
especially on russo- japanese border with almost non-existing urban hexes
and I see urban hex fight when they should be rated as high - 10% and less of all land combat against Russia
Actual value should be even lower than comparable inf squads just because lack of long weaponery
 

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Sneer

yes it is weird
especially on russo- japanese border with almost non-existing urban hexes
and I see urban hex fight when they should be rated as high - 10% and less of all land combat against Russia
Actual value should be even lower than comparable inf squads just because lack of long weaponery

The frontiers of Siberia and Mongolia and Manchuria and Korea are almost entirely forrested, or entirely open terrain, or a mixture of both.
The only significant city in the area is Vladivostok - and unless Japan is on the offensive - it isn't going to be in the fight. I completely concur with Sneer that SMG equipped units in this terrain should not be regarded as MORE effective than LMG/rifle equipped units. There is a reason the Russians bury tank turrets on hard points in this area: there is a LOT of long range killing ground.

[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.

[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.

[Sneer]

there was strong tank thrust which bypassed weak defence till mountain passes were reached
Japan was not ready for this operation