.com.unity Forums
  The Official e-Store of Shrapnel Games

This Month's Specials

Air Assault Task Force- Save $8.00
winSPMBT: Main Battle Tank- Save $6.00

   







Go Back   .com.unity Forums > The Camo Workshop > WinSPMBT > After Action Reports
Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old January 3rd, 2012, 01:27 PM

-Luc- -Luc- is offline
Corporal
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 105
Thanks: 15
Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts
-Luc- is on a distinguished road
Smile Re: CCCP vs NATO long campaign (1948-1991)

Hi,

Turn 29-END

In our progress towards the 3 village, a Churchill tank threat Soviet forces that have almost no AT munitions.



Fortunately, the infantry succeeded in eliminating the tank.

Another Churchill appear to our southern flank but falls into an ambush prepared by ours engineers.

This is a bad surprise for the soviets who are exhausted.

****

Meanwhile, a few infantry units attacked the village to the southeast. They are easily destroyed.

The decision to bring the T-34/85 BTU as reinforcements on the main front is taken.

It will be a good decision...

***

THE CENTRAL HILL IS UNDER ATTACK!!!



The situation is critical... 2 Centurion MKII.

A White scout car is lost and soviet forces retreat.

This is a big threat, we have to reorganise ourself fast!

We plot an ambush with what we have...

***

After fierce fighting, and some losses, the enemy is destroyed and the victory is ours.





That was a good fight!

Thank you,

-Luc-
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old January 4th, 2012, 12:07 PM

-Luc- -Luc- is offline
Corporal
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 105
Thanks: 15
Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts
-Luc- is on a distinguished road
Smile Re: CCCP vs NATO long campaign (1948-1991)

Hi,

ANALYSIS:

UK forces were better organized than others.

They had:
- RECCE elements;
- Good and mordern armored force (Centurion MK2);
- Infantry support;
- Artillery support (3 inches mortars, 40mm AA guns);

Their strategy was not bad et well executed.

The combination tank-infantry-mortars caused most of my losses early in the game.

Their reserve forces (Churchills) was an unpleasant surprise ...

Their Centurion are better than our T-34/85. They are practically invulnerable from the front while our tanks cant resist to their main gun. This is a real problem... I want to change them, but by what... IS-3? I have important choices to do for the next battle.

Their infantry was not bad but inferior to our. 1 SMG section per platoon was a good idea. Unfortunatly they all died. We can say that our infantry saved us by destroying many tanks with RPG-6 AT genades, satchel charges and flamethrower. The addition of the RPG-2 in 1949 will be much appreciated. Our enginneers were very brave and effective. The problem of coordination between tanks and infantry remains. I think I should carry some units on the tanks to be have them on the front at the right time. Is it a good idea? Until we get BTRs, I see no better choice.

Our Regimental 152mm D-1 worked very well; they eliminated 2 of 3 mortars in CB fire. I realised that our 76mm Zis-3 FG are not enought powerfull. I'll probably change them for the 122mm M-30. Untill now, I am satisfied with my mortars.

I think adding a reserve platoon to liberate my regular forces...

Despite my modest losses, the battle was difficult.

Thank you,

-Luc
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old January 4th, 2012, 03:34 PM
Suhiir's Avatar

Suhiir Suhiir is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 2,256
Thanks: 232
Thanked 493 Times in 381 Posts
Suhiir is on a distinguished road
Default Re: CCCP vs NATO long campaign (1948-1991)

Quote:
Originally Posted by -Luc- View Post
Their infantry was not bad but inferior to our. 1 SMG section per platoon was a good idea. Unfortunatly they all died. We can say that our infantry saved us by destroying many tanks with RPG-6 AT genades, satchel charges and flamethrower. The addition of the RPG-2 in 1949 will be much appreciated. Our enginneers were very brave and effective. The problem of coordination between tanks and infantry remains. I think I should carry some units on the tanks to be have them on the front at the right time. Is it a good idea? Until we get BTRs, I see no better choice.
Infantry riding tanks works fine till the tanks receive fire, then the infantry gets hit hard as they have no cover at all. Don't place infantry on the lead tank, when it's fired on the rest know it is time to unload their infantry.
__________________
Suhiir - Wargame Junkie

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old January 4th, 2012, 04:01 PM

-Luc- -Luc- is offline
Corporal
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 105
Thanks: 15
Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts
-Luc- is on a distinguished road
Wink Re: CCCP vs NATO long campaign (1948-1991)

Hi,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suhiir View Post
Infantry riding tanks works fine till the tanks receive fire, then the infantry gets hit hard as they have no cover at all. Don't place infantry on the lead tank, when it's fired on the rest know it is time to unload their infantry.
And... on which tank do you think they should ride?

T-44 was a transition tank built in very small number.

T-54-1 was full of technical problems and was never fielded.

IS-3 is the last option but I dont really like heavy tanks for many reasons...

Maybe they have a good protection, but they are slow and dont have a lot of ammos.

I'll do some experiments tonigt.

Thank you,

-Luc-
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old January 4th, 2012, 04:34 PM
Aeraaa's Avatar

Aeraaa Aeraaa is offline
Second Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 400
Thanks: 84
Thanked 196 Times in 127 Posts
Aeraaa is on a distinguished road
Default Re: CCCP vs NATO long campaign (1948-1991)

I played only 1 game with a Soviet force in 1946 and my views on heavy tanks is exactly the opposite. Soviet heavies are BEASTS, they can survive close range hits from 90mm guns! If you ever play an assault scenario, I'd recommend them...
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old January 4th, 2012, 06:42 PM
gila's Avatar

gila gila is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 898
Thanks: 45
Thanked 60 Times in 54 Posts
gila is on a distinguished road
Default Re: CCCP vs NATO long campaign (1948-1991)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suhiir View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by -Luc- View Post
Their infantry was not bad but inferior to our. 1 SMG section per platoon was a good idea. Unfortunatly they all died. We can say that our infantry saved us by destroying many tanks with RPG-6 AT genades, satchel charges and flamethrower. The addition of the RPG-2 in 1949 will be much appreciated. Our enginneers were very brave and effective. The problem of coordination between tanks and infantry remains. I think I should carry some units on the tanks to be have them on the front at the right time. Is it a good idea? Until we get BTRs, I see no better choice.
Infantry riding tanks works fine till the tanks receive fire, then the infantry gets hit hard as they have no cover at all. Don't place infantry on the lead tank, when it's fired on the rest know it is time to unload their infantry.
Little wonder,on why desant infrantry was deemed not a good idea anymore when the guns got to 90-120mm.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old January 4th, 2012, 06:53 PM
gila's Avatar

gila gila is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 898
Thanks: 45
Thanked 60 Times in 54 Posts
gila is on a distinguished road
Default Re: CCCP vs NATO long campaign (1948-1991)

Seriously,

I would suggest never using tank riders at all,except the first .
turn or two,maybe.

Very vunerable to small arms fire.

The AI "will" target them and in pbem also they make a juicy target.

Thats why there is APC's,albiet, they are choice targets also
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old January 4th, 2012, 07:26 PM
Suhiir's Avatar

Suhiir Suhiir is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 2,256
Thanks: 232
Thanked 493 Times in 381 Posts
Suhiir is on a distinguished road
Default Re: CCCP vs NATO long campaign (1948-1991)

Really just a matter of getting off before you get fired on.
IFVs/APCs/trucks all have their uses, as do tank-riders. It's merely a matter of weighing the advantages vs the disadvantages of each.
__________________
Suhiir - Wargame Junkie

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old January 4th, 2012, 08:07 PM
gila's Avatar

gila gila is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 898
Thanks: 45
Thanked 60 Times in 54 Posts
gila is on a distinguished road
Default Re: CCCP vs NATO long campaign (1948-1991)

I find it is almost always true,the time to dis-embark,was the last turn
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old January 4th, 2012, 10:36 PM
Suhiir's Avatar

Suhiir Suhiir is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 2,256
Thanks: 232
Thanked 493 Times in 381 Posts
Suhiir is on a distinguished road
Default Re: CCCP vs NATO long campaign (1948-1991)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gila View Post
I find it is almost always true,the time to dis-embark,was the last turn
Truer words have seldom been spoken.
__________________
Suhiir - Wargame Junkie

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2018, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.