CCCP vs NATO long campaign (1948-1991)

[-Luc-]

Hi,

My analysis of the battle:

Despite their superior quality and quantity, Americans misused their potential. Their frontal assault was a complete failure.

Their tanks (M26 and M46) were better than ours and could have been a serious problem for us. We believe that a lack of synergy explains the failure.Their infantry were also better. Often, their results were higher than ours, and despite that ours positions (top of hill) was better. Thus, they were able to approach and destroyed many of our tanks.Our infantry also tends to run away often and stuck under mortar fire. Their artillery, even fewer than ours, has been well used.

Our biggest problem is the transport of infantry. The trucks cant follow the tanks. Our tanks are becoming vulnerable.

During the next battle, we need to use better both, even lossing a tank quality, the movement.

Overall, we will maintain our strategy seems to be effective. Bombing, recognize, concentrate forces, bombing and attack.

Is it the Blitzkrieg?

Thank you,

-Luc-

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by -Luc-

Is it the Blitzkrieg?

In essence Blitzkrieg involves poking a hole in your opponents front line then spreading out behind his front line and destroying support and supply units to make the rest of his units/positions vulnerable. The second (behind the opponents lines) part is the real "destruction" caused by the Blitzkrieg type attack.

Given that WinSPMBT deals primarily with front line type units rather then support types you're performing the "hole poking" part of a Blitzkrieg but not the "rampage behind the lines" part.