Soviet Campaigns

[serg3d]

I'd love Crimea campain. Amphibious tanks in action !
About map - here is what I found on the net. They are not topographics, and not enough resolution, but something to start from.
clickable:
http://travel.kyiv.org/crimea/map/
another clickable
http://209.82.14.226/ua-maps/road-map/page-i08.html

[Smersh]

My school (university) library apprantly has a huge map collection. I'll give it a visit this week, and see what maps scans or copies I can make. I'm told they have historical maps too. I'll check out the crimea area, any other particular areas I should look into?

edit: are we talking about the crimea in 41 or 44? I personally would perfer 44. the early stages of the war, are always covered, alot less on the later stage. (heroes of the motherland, covers moscow battles in 41, russian steel mostly early war, ends in 43.)

[Double_Deuce]

Smersh said:
My school (university) library apprantly has a huge map collection. I'll give it a visit this week, and see what maps scans or copies I can make. I'm told they have historical maps too. I'll check out the crimea area, any other particular areas I should look into?

I would search for any topo's at 1:50000 scale and make a list on some paper. Then see what battle/historical info you can find on those areas. This way you can see what you have to work with and pick from that. Then the fun part begins . . .

[Smersh]

I havan't had a chance to check look at the maps yet, but here is some other info I found.

dealing with the invasion of manchuria in 45, this is also a something that isn't covered at all, and it could actually make use of the new Manchokou nation.

tactical level info (this includes alot of detailed maps, could be useful in map design)
http://www.cgsc.army.mil/carl/resour...z4/glantz4.asp
strategic level info
http://www.cgsc.army.mil/carl/resour...z3/glantz3.asp

if people want to cover lesser known areas, and not focus on more famous battles: stalingrad, kursk. Then this I think is a good candidate. paratroopers were used extensively, could be interesting.

edit: here is another peice of info, on tactical defense, prior and during kursk. (it includes regimental and battalion defense diagrams)
http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/car...bs/glantz2.pdf

[Charles22]

Isn't the '45 Manchurian attack one of the USSR attacking Japanese units? Some might find that interesting, but it's sure a very lopsided battle. There the IJA had to put up with their worst nightmare, that is a nation who didn't care that much about losses, whom had some of the best tanks.

[Smersh]

japanese and manchuko units.

when your playing as the german army attacking poland is that not also "lopsided"?

also both sides had nearly equal amount of men in the area: the combined japanese, manchuko armies where over 1 million men, and 1000 tank (yes, japanese ones), yes the tank forces were not equal, but a campign could focus on the infantry aspects, paratroop landing, limited tank breathrough.,since only one tank army operated during the campign in a relatevly isolated area. Not only that but the japanese defense was no push-over either.

I don't know what the comment about "who didn't care that much about losses" is about

But this is just one possibilty for a campign.

[Charles22]

Smersh said:

japanese and manchuko units.

when your playing as the german army attacking poland is that not also "lopsided"?

also both sides had nearly equal amount of men in the area: the combined japanese, manchuko armies where over 1 million men, and 1000 tank (yes, japanese ones), yes the tank forces were not equal, but a campign could focus on the infantry aspects, paratroop landing, limited tank breathrough.,since only one tank army operated during the campign in a relatevly isolated area. Not only that but the japanese defense was no push-over either.

I don't know what the comment about "who didn't care that much about losses" is about

But this is just one possibilty for a campign.

Oh come on Smersh, Japan was basically Poland in 1945; it's barely comparable and the Germans weren't with T34/85's and JS-III's either. Heck, I played Poland just a little while back and had just as many of my AFV's destroyed as he did (like 18 to 19). Think you can kill USSR armor at that rate as Japan? It's not even close. Poland is quite a bit stronger than it was in previous SPWW2's. Most of the Polish guns can now slice through the German armor, to say nothing of the extra effective 75mm HOW the Poles were using to destroy some of them. The Japanese basically have nothing to stop Soviet armor. Someone can build the game if they want, but I'm trying to tell you the game won't even be close if representing history in any way.

At least with Poland in that first battle I got only a marginal victory, but I had to walk on glass to keep from having tremendous losses. I guess if I knew in advance that the artillery I had would obliterate everything, and that none of it would counter-fire, I would have came out much better (I'm not saying the counter-fire is broken for Germany, but I sure had it firing in the previous version of SPWW2 [probably too much]).

As far as "didn't care much about losses" the USSR histroy is rife with throwing men away as cannon-fodder, such as clearing minefields with penal battalions. Now, in reality, I don't think much of the USSR attitude towards the survivability of their men was "very" excessive, but you have to pit that attitude against the other Japanese opponents. The USA and Britain, for example, were VERY sensitive to losses, way too much so in my opinion. When the Japanese mindset was to hope that causing high losses would cause enemies to sue for peace, they couldn't hope for that with the USSR, because though the USSR was growing tired of the war, and the losses hurt, they just weren't as sensitive as the western powers to losses, which with those nations was all they could hope for. You couldn't hope the USSR populace would overthrow the government due to high losses in other words.

From the Russia at War book I have, the Japanese suffered 80,000 dead in Manchuria compared to 8,000 USSR dead, not even counting the losses due to captured equipment. That doesn't sound like a very good IJ army. Buy then the emporer had already surrendered to the allies and the IJA surrendered in Manchuria shortly after their own army command surrendered too.

In any event, I think I've presented a strong enough case of '45 Manchuria being a very lopsided battle, and since it was that then besides all the other reasons you've heard about lack of USSR scenarios, that is the main reason for not having that one. I mean, the thing was over in like 3 days, right? How could that be representative of a quality USSR battle? If I were doing 100 USSR scenarios, that wouldn't even make it. If I even bothered it would only be because of the uniqueness of the battle being so one-sided.

[Smersh]

I did say this was just one possibility, the amphibous operations, the paratrooper use, the interesting terrain features, etc. would make it a fun campign.

Oh come on Smersh, Japan was basically Poland in 1945; it's barely comparable and the Germans weren't with T34/85's and JS-III's either.

If you look at the materials I provided it shows that equipment was not the cause of the lopsidedness (I do agree that it was lopsided), but superior tactics and the same reasons why germany was successful in poland and france. Also I already pointed out the scenarios wouldn't be tank heavy, and this is historically possible to do.

Heck, I played Poland just a little while back and had just as many of my AFV's destroyed as he did (like 18 to 19). Think you can kill USSR armor at that rate as Japan?

how many historical campigns have u played with poland fighting germany in pitched tank to tank battles?

As far as "didn't care much about losses" the USSR histroy is rife with throwing men away as cannon-fodder, such as clearing minefields with penal battalions.

this has nothing to do with the manchurain operations, and lets not get into a big discussion over this. taking only 8,000 casualties out a force of 1.5 million men for the whole of manjuria isn't a example of not caring for lives, in comparison the USA lost 6,000 men out of a 30,000 man force on iwo jima.

I understand its not perfect charles22 but it is a possible possibility . however being the first red army campign, it should probably deal with a better known more famous aspect of the war. my personal feeling are something involving kursk or stalingrad, but I'll go along with group consensus.

[Charles22]

Smersh:

how many historical campigns have u played with poland fighting germany in pitched tank to tank battles?

This wasn't a pitched tank-to-tank battle. You need only look at the statistics for the prmiary Pole tanks to see they're at least the equal to the German ones, but, then, as I said, I think the Polish armor is too good here. I'm not sure if you're comparing the German/Polish actions of the previous SPWW2, this version, or history. I just wanted to point out that as far as AFV losses they playe dme even. There were maybe 18 Polish tanks total in my batlte, and I had between 35-40 tanks, but there never was much of a conflict between them if that means anything. I took most of my tank losses to 75mm HOW's and most of the rest from infantry or ATG's. I may had suffered one or two losses from the tanks. Their tanks were generally better (with the exception of somewhat inferior experience) but they just got in at me piecemeal against not only the tanks but somoe of my infatry as well. I'm trying to point out this is a better Polish opponent.

The real life Poles lasted a month, while the Japanese lasted I think it was 3 days agsinst the USSR. Sure the Japanese had consdierably different circumstances, but I see no evidence that Poland got off so poorly compared to the '45 Manchuria. Heck, Poland was even attacked by the Germans -and- the USSR, and still lasted longer.

To answer your question directly, though, quite a few times I've been in tank battles Poland through both this game's earlier versions and SPWAW. Poland is much better is this version.

this has nothing to do with the manchurain operations, and lets not get into a big discussion over this. taking only 8,000 casualties out a force of 1.5 million men for the whole of manjuria isn't a example of not caring for lives, in comparison the USA lost 6,000 men out of a 30,000 man force on iwo jima.

I understand its not perfect charles22 but it is a possible possibility . however being the first red army campign, it should probably deal with a better known more famous aspect of the war. my personal feeling are something involving kursk or stalingrad, but I'll go along with group consensus.

The USSR taking only 8,000 dead is NOT a statement on how little they cared for their men. Read it again. It was a statement on proving just how lopsided that operation was for the USSR and how bad that game would play if representing such results (8,000 dead compared to 80,000). Mentioning the cannon-fodder penal battalions WAS some of the proof that they cared little for their men. I was trying to make two seperate points. Japan knows that causing large losses to the USSR will not result in problems for the USSR government, as well as the USSR having VASTLY superior equipment it was an easy decision to surrender; that makes it a lousy battle. Why not Kursk for USSR battles? Why not Rostov? Why not Sevastopol? Why not the Caucasas? So many battles hugely better than against a far overmatched opponent. I won't bother you anymore about that.

As far as comparing the USA to the USSR, and then trying to switch that into the USA not caring for lives because, I guess, their ratio of loss is greater than the USSR Manchurian battles, only backs my point the more. Wasn't I saying how the USSR's caring less for their men worked as a strength against Japan? Read the strategy of Japan I discussed earlier. You give USA greater losses. Why? Because you can affect their government that way (see Vietnam for further proof). You didn't see IJ surredering to the USA or GB for that very reason. You surrender to the USSR in droves (somehow saving face was forgotten about) not only because inflicting losses on them has very little effect, but also because their army, or more specifically their tanks were at least twice as good in kind and number compared to the other allies. You want to see a greater indication of the extreme differences that Japan had towards the USA/GB and the USSR? Consider that not only were the kamekazis being thrown against the western allies, but that they also had every intention on defending their home islands as they did all those other islands, only far worse. They had 5,350 kamekazi planes stored away in "underground" airfields (I doubt all of them were underground) alongside alongside 5,350 in the standard military role (the US had 9,000 planes). They had 2,300,000 troops with 28,000 civilian volunteers, compared to 650,000 allied troops. The allies had 131 surface ships while IJ had 19 destroyers and 3,300 special kamikaze attack craft (probably PT boat sort of thing). They got all this extra things by denuding the Chinese Front a lot, so Japan was even weaker there than she had normally been. One of the primary reasons the USSR did so well other than what I mentioned, was because IJ were totally surprised that the USSR would attack them. The commander of the allied forces for Olympic was so overwhelmed by the destruction of the kamikaze aircraft (in FAR fewer numbers than an invasion of the IJ homeland would bring) that that made his mind up to not attack the mainland and hope the bomb would do the trick (the kamikazes sank 30 ships off Okinawa and damaged over a hundred more). From what I've come up with I doubt the allies had any idea just how many kamikaze aircraft were awaiting them in numbers should they invade, simply because that was part of the Japanese strategy, to not get very many shot down and useless and just send smaller raids instead, in order to give the appearance that their air force was beaten totally (though Okinawa was the largest attacks of the war - see here:

21 Oct44 Two planes with volunteers flew from the Philippines to attack US carriers.
23-26 Oct44. Off Leyte, 55 Kamikaze pilots, in the first planned mass suicide attacks of the war, coordinated with the IJN attack on Leyte Gulf, hit the escort carriers and sank the St. Lo (CVE-63) and damaged the large escorts Sangamon (CVE-26), Suwannee (CVE-27), Santee (CVE-29), and small escorts White Plains, Kalinin Bay, and Kitkun Bay. In all, 7 carriers were hit and 40 other types damaged; five ships were sunk, 23 heavily damaged, and 12 moderate damage.
25Mar45-21Jun45. Off Okinawa -- Ten "Kikusui", swarms of Kamikaze, up to 350 attackers at a time, 1,900 in total, damaged 250 ships with 34 destroyers and smaller ships sunk. Several ships were damaged so badly they were not repaired. One in seven of all naval causalities occurred off Okinawa.
3,500 naval planes and an additional 1,500 army planes are hidden on Kyushu for the "final battle" and just as many for orthodox use; once suicide planes were used up, the orthodox pilots would become Kamikazes. This is a number sufficient to sink or damage 1,000 ships of an invading fleet.

The above was pulled from here: http://www.ww2pacific.com/suicide.html

[Smersh]

ok, no manchuria campign then, but I would like to see what others say about this one. just to correct a few points, the fighting lasted a week, not 3 days (not a big difference but just of accuracy). don't put all the blame on the japanese tanks, its no small feat to attack an area the size of western europe, under horrible terrian and weather conditions.

I still think though, that the built up terrian and swampy terrian will make for interesting infantry fights. there was considerable fighting too, 80,000 men dying in one week is not a picnic. a similar campign I would point to that has a similar lopsidedness, but is still fun is the invasion of norway campign in spwaw.

my statement about the "not caring for lives" was saying that it had nothing to do with the manchurian campign. did u see penal battalions or "cannon-fodder" tactics?

Why not Kursk for USSR battles? Why not Rostov? Why not Sevastopol? Why not the Caucasas? So many battles hugely better than against a far overmatched opponent.

I agree.