Posts made by a44bigdog

Krieg I think his 2nd question referred to all the UK territories in the Pacific that Japan starts out with in the '42 scenario.

Hey that is cheap compared to this

http://dvice.com/archives/2008/12/mind-blowing_re.php

In a Revised game I did a SBR of Russia with Japan 2 bombers to Russia 1 to Caucasus all three bombers were shot down. The odds are so low that AA Calc at Frood will not even show the odds.

Only one thing is missing now from the Battlemap modules and that is a tech chart to keep track of who has what.

@Cmdr:

Just interesting.  I know Germany eventually lost, but could the entire affair have been negated if France had allowed their children testicles and England had Winston as Prime Minister in the 1930s instead of Neville?

In reference to that posed question you might find this interesting. It is a bit long but still probably worth reading.

www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB622.pdf

hadn’t heard that about the French. Even if they did that generation would probably have been too young for the fall of France in '40. Actually all the German accounts I have read have given pretty high marks to the bravery and individual fighting ability of the French soldiers. The French Army however as whole and especially the leadership was quite a mess.

Sadly I agree with the first paragraph as I consider myself born '69 to be some of the last generation of Americans to have a “pair”. Gah, one of my constant comments in real life is that if Hitler came along today we would all be sprechen deutsch.

As far as the 2nd paragraph. MOVE. From what I understand Arizona is an “open carry” state and it is quite common to see people walking about with pistols on their hips. Not real sure on the hand gun laws here in the south as I don’t do pistols (I prefer Assault Rifles) but I know a handgun permit in Alabama is easy to get and I don’t think CCW permits are all that hard to get either. Seriously I cannot think of one household that I know of here that does not have at least one firearm of some flavor.

I honestly think about the only change that NEEDS to be done is move the Chinese fighter off the front lines.

With NO’s Russia can quickly buy up the offensive pieces it lacks. The UK has plenty of money on the first turn if they want to buy an IC. I think if played correctly the US can challenge Japan and contribute in Europe. However as far as the Allies go China is basically free IPCs to Japan. they have a very limited means of resistance and for all purposes no means of attack. Never mind they cannot enter the territory that the Chinese Army actually contributed to liberating in the actual war.

I don’t even advocate attacking the Indian IC in J2.

If the Russians are reinforcing it, great! That is less units they have elsewhere. India can produce 3 units and with Improved ICs or whatever the Tech is called at most 5. Japan can match this without even breaking a sweat. Know what that means? Standoff. And I do not think it helps the Allies one bit. This is merely UK units tied down in one territory or maybe dead zoning and trading Burma. So what? It is no threat at all to Japan and again just a drain on Allied resources. As brutally nasty as Japan gets in the '41 scenario I don’t even feel like they have to take the Indian IC, merely contain it. Japan can produce enough units to take the central or northern route to Moscow or go kick the snot out of the US.

Again I see more of the old answers being given. Has it been proved that a long game in '41 benefits the Allies? I think the verdict is still out on that one and I suspect the opposite is true.

Again I still just do not see the need for Egypt G1. I think this is just more of a hold over from the older AA games.

My personal preference is to send 2 SS 1 FGT 1 BMB to SZ12, subs for fodder. I use the med Transport to reinforce Libya. So what if the UK fighter and tank in Egypt live. It isn’t like this can’t be taken care of either on Italy 1, Germany 2, or Italy 2.

So what if the UK builds an IC in India and flies the fighter there and sends the Egypt tank that way. I also do not see where Japan has to bust its guts just to take it out on J2. Yes the UK may take Burma, so what? After J2 China should be unable to produce infantry, the Pacific money islands (except New Zealand) should be yours, and Australia should be as well, to give you your 3rd NO and take away 1 of the UK’s. Once all this has been done, on J2 mind you, Japan can set its sights on comfortably taking India when it is dang good and ready to with the proper resources.

Looking for a battlemap AA50 game. With NOs, tech can go either way. It can be '41 or '42. I am online generally only on weekends but will be online daily from Christmas through New Years and maybe a bit afterwords.

The laptop comment made me laugh so loud I scared my girlfriend. +1 Karma to ya.

I can’t comment on the original issue as I know I would get political and probably hurt somebodies feelings.  :roll:

Even quicker.

At the end of round 2 in my current game Japan is at 39 with out NOs and 54 with them. We are using NO’s but so far no purchased units have even entered combat yet. This game is against MrMorden and is in the play by forums section for those of you that would care to look.

I still haven’t seen a great need to venture off into Egypt on G1.

Now killing the SZ12 fleet that is a priority. I also leave the UK BB alone, I don’t see it as an immediate enough of a threat to weaken my other battles.

This is an extract from a Russian military history magazine.

Yes. Here’s an extract from the article which emphasizes you point. Referring to the T-34 at Aberdeen Proving Ground which broke down at 343 kilometers,

"there was nothing unusual about a tank breaking down after such a short period. At that time T-34 tanks were guaranteed not to break down for 1,000 kilometers, but in practice this number was unattainable. According to a report by the Scientific Institute for Armored Equipment (NIBT) to Ya. N. Fedorenko, the chief of the Red Army’s Auto-Armored Directorate, the average distance a T-34 traveled before requiring major overhaul (capital repairs) did not exceed 200 kilometers. The Aberdeen T-34 exceeded this.

In 1942 the quality of Soviet tanks had significantly fallen for many understandable reasons. These included the difficulty of reestablishing production by the evacuated factories at new locations, factories switching over to new production, the loss of many supply lines and sources of raw materials, a sharp drop in the average qualification of workers due to losses among experienced workers and the hiring of many new, inexperienced workers including women and teenagers. These new workers worked tirelessly and did everything they could for the front, but they were not qualified. Producing the most tanks possible was the priority, which was understandable since the heavy losses of the initial part of the year had to be made up. Therefore the requirement for quality was reduced, and the military accepted any tank that was built. As a result, in 1942 some 34’s could only go 30-35 kilometers before needing an overhaul.

To a certain degree this was justified because tanks, as a rule, did not survive until the expiration of its overhaul life, short as that was. The life of a tank on the front line was not long – on average 4-10 days (not counting time spent in transit by rail and being repaired), or from 1-3 attacks. In 1942 the average mileage before being put out of service due to combat was 66.7 kilometers, which was less than half the average mileage before needing an overhaul. The majority of tanks simply didn’t live long enough to break down.

The V-2 diesel engine which equipped T-34s and KV-1s was still suffering growing pains. At that time its designers were struggling to extend the diesel’s service life to 100 hours, but in reality it seldom lasted more than 60. The engine of the T-34 which was tested at Aberdeen broke down at 72.5 hours, of which 58.45 were under load and 14.05 were while idling. The KV’s diesel lasted 66.4 hours. One of the deficiencies of the B-2, besides a short guaranteed life, was an increased fuel consumption (12% above norm), and, especially, a completely unacceptable over-consumption of oil, which exceeded existing norms by 3-8 times! Therefore the range of a T-34 in 1942 was limited not by fuel, but by oil: according to the averages at that time from the technical department of the People’s Commissariat for Tank Production, a T-34 carried enough fuel for 200-220 kilometers, but oil for only 145. At the same time German and American tanks didn’t require any additional oil; it was simply changed every 2,000 kilometers.”

Here is the copy and paste for those interested in reading it.

Footnote 1 – reads, “The full name of the document is, “An Evaluation of the T-34 and KV tanks by workers of the Aberdeen Testing Grounds of the U.S., submitted by firms, officers and members of military commissions responsible for testing tanks.” The tanks were given to the U.S. by the Soviets at the end of 1942 for familiarization.”)
The condition of the tanks

The medium tank T-34, after driving 343 km, became disabled and could not be fixed. The reason: owing to the extremely poor air cleaner on the diesel, a large quantity of dirt got into the engine and a breakdown occurred, as a result of which the pistons and cylinders were damaged to such a degree that they were impossible to fix. The tank was withdrawn from tests and was to be shelled by the KV and its “Z/ 3” (?) – by the cannon of the M-10 tank. After this it would be sent to Aberdeen, where it would be analyzed and kept as an exhibit.

The heavy tank KV is still functional. Tests are continuing, although it has many mechanical defects.
The silhouette/configuration of the tanks

Everyone, without exception, approves of the shape of the hull of our tanks. The T-34’s is particularly good. All are of the opinion that the shape of the T-34’s hull is better than that of any American tank. The KV’s is worse than on any current American tank.
Armor

A chemical analysis of the armour showed that on both tanks the armour plating has a shallow surface tempering, whereas the main mass of the armoured plating is made of soft steel.

In this regard, the Americans consider that, by changing the technology used to temper the armoured plating, it would be possible to significantly reduce its thickness while preserving its protective capacities. As a result the weight of the tank could be decreased by 8-10%, with all the resulting benefits (an increase in speed, reduction in ground pressure, etc.)
Hull

The main deficiency is the permeability to water of the lower hull during water crossings, as well as the upper hull during rain. In heavy rain lots of water flows through chinks/ cracks, which leads to the disabling of the electrical equipment and even the ammunition.

The Americans liked how the ammunition is stowed.
Turret

Its main weakness is that it is very tight. The Americans could not understand how our tankers could fit inside during winter, when they wear sheepskin jackets. The electrical mechanism for turning the turret is very bad. The motor is weak, heavily overloaded and sparks horribly, as a result of which the device regulating the speed of the rotation burns out, and the teeth of the cogwheels break into pieces. They recommend redoing it as a hydraulic or simply manual system.

KV-1 heavy tank at Bovington Museum (England) (photo by […])
Armament

The gun of the T-34 is very good. It is simple, dependable and easy to service. Its weakness is that the initial speed of the shell is significantly less than that of the American “Z/ 3” (3200 feet versus 5700 feet per second).
Aiming/Back-sight

The general opinion: the best in the world. Incomparable with any existing (well-known here) tanks or any under development.
Track

The Americans very much like the idea of steel tracks. But they believe that until they receive the results of the comparative performance of steel vs. rubber tracks on American tanks in Tunis and other active fronts, there is no basis for changing from the American solution of rubber bushings and pads.

The deficiencies in our tracks from their viewpoint results from the lightness of their construction. They can easily be damaged by small calibre shells and mortar bombs. The pins are extremely poorly tempered and made of poor steel. As a result they quickly wear and the track often breaks. The idea of having loose track pins that are held in place by a cam welded to the side of the hull, at first was greatly liked by the Americans. But when in use under certain operating conditions, the pins would become bent which often resulted in the track rupturing. The Americans consider that if the armour is reduced in thickness the resultant weight saving can be used to make the tracks heavier and more reliable.
Suspension

On the T-34, it is poor. Suspension of the Christie type was tested long ago by the Americans, and unconditionally rejected. On our tanks, as a result of the poor steel on the springs, it very quickly (unclear word) and as a result clearance is noticeably reduced. On the KV the suspension is very good.
Motor

The diesel is good and light. The idea of using diesel engines on tanks is shared in full by American specialists and military personnel. Unfortunately, diesel engines produced in U.S. factories are used by the navy and therefore the army is deprived of the possibility of installing diesels in its tanks.

The deficiency of our diesels is the criminally poor air cleaners on the T-34. The Americans consider that only a saboteur could have constructed such a device. They also don’t understand why in our manuals it is called oil-bath. Their tests in a laboratory showed that:

• the air cleaner doesn’t clean at all the air which is drawn into the motor;
• its capacity does not allow for the flow of the necessary quantity of air, even when the motor is idling. As a result, the motor does not achieve its full capacity. Dirt getting into the cylinders leads them to quickly wear out, compression drops, and the engine loses even more power. In addition, the filter was manufactured, from a mechanical point of view, extremely primitively: in places the spot-welding of the electric welding has burned through the metal, leading to leakage of oil etc. On the KV the filter is better manufactured, but it does not secure the flow in sufficient quantity of normal cleaned air. On both motors the starters are poor, being weak and of unreliable construction.
  Transmission

Without doubt, poor. An interesting thing happened. Those working on the transmission of the KV were struck that it was very much like those transmissions on which they had worked 12-15 years ago. The firm was questioned. The firm sent the blueprints of their transmission type A-23. To everyone’s surprise, the blueprints of our transmission turned out to be a copy of those sent (?). The Americans were surprised, not that we were copying their design, but that we were copying a design that they had rejected 15-20 years ago. The Americans consider that, from the point of view of the designer, installing such a transmission in the tank would create an inhuman harshness for the driver (hard to work). On the T-34 the transmission is also very poor. When it was being operated, the cogs completely fell to pieces (on all the cogwheels). A chemical analysis of the cogs on the cogwheels showed that their thermal treatment is very poor and does not in any way meet American standards for such mechanisms.
Rolling friction clutches

Without doubt, poor. In America, they rejected the installation of friction clutches, even on tractors (never mind tanks), several years ago. In addition to the fallaciousness of the very principle, our friction clutches are extremely carelessly machined from low-quality steel, which quickly causes wear and tear, accelerates the penetration of dirt into the drum and in no way ensures reliable functioning.
General comments

From the American point of view, our tanks are slow. Both our tanks can climb an incline better than any American tank. The welding of the armour plating is extremely crude and careless. The radio sets in laboratory tests turned out to be not bad. However, because of poor shielding and poor protection, after installation in the tanks the sets did not manage to establish normal communications at distances greater than 10 miles. The compactness of the radio sets and their intelligent placement in the tanks was pleasing. The machining of equipment components and parts was, with few exceptions, very poor. In particular the Americans were troubled by the disgraceful design and extremely poor work on the drive/ gear/ transmission links/ blocks (?) on the T-34. After much torment they made new ones and replaced ours. All the tanks’ mechanisms demand very frequent adjustments/ fine-tuning.
Conclusions, suggestions

1. On both tanks, quickly replace the air cleaners with models with greater capacity capable of actually cleaning the air.

2. The technology for tempering the armour plating should be changed. This would increase the protectiveness of the armour, either by using an equivalent thickness or, by reducing the thickness, lowering the weight and, accordingly, the use of metal.

3. Make the tracks thicker.

4. Replace the existing transmission of outdated design with the American “Final Drive,” which would significantly increase the tanks’ manoeuvrability.

5. Abandon the use of friction clutches.

6. Simplify the construction of small components, increase their reliability and decrease to the maximum extent possible the need to constantly make adjustments.

7. Comparing American and Russian tanks, it is clear that driving Russian tanks is much harder. A virtuosity is demanded of Russian drivers in changing gear on the move, special experience in using friction clutches, great experience as a mechanic, and the ability to keep tanks in working condition (adjustments and repairs of components, which are constantly becoming disabled). This greatly complicates the training of tankers and drivers.

8. Judging by samples, Russians when producing tanks pay little attention to careful machining or the finishing and technology of small parts and components, which leads to the loss of the advantage what would otherwise accrue from what on the whole are well designed tanks.

9. Despite the advantages of the use of diesel, the good contours of the tanks, thick armour, good and reliable armaments, the successful design of the tracks etc., Russian tanks are significantly inferior to American tanks in their simplicity of driving, manoeuvrability, the strength of firing [reference to speed of shell], speed, the reliability of mechanical construction and the ease of keeping them running.

Signed – The head of the 2nd Department of the Main Intelligence Department of the Red Army, General Major of Tank Armies, Khlopo… (end missing: Khlopov?)

So far I haven’t found the original I remember reading Just a copy and paste at a forum. The Aberdeen T-34 lasted for over 300km while the Soviets were getting a bit over 200km in the field. The Engine went with 70 something hours on it. Maybe next weekend I can find the original document.

I also recall back when I was in the service the T-72s were regarded as world beaters. Operation Desert Storm blew that right out of the water.

The AK-47 is touted as the model of reliability yet no one mentions the effective range of 100Ms 1/3 of an M16A1 1/5 of an M/16A2.

1988 for me. It was a game all the guys I played Squad Leader with could get the wives to play. Off and on through the '90s again due to it was a war game the wives would play. As a matter of fact a friend of mines wife owned the game. When I gave up on getting back into Advanced Squad Leader (The rule book was out of print forever) I bought Revised in 2005. The girlfriend bought AA50 for us and we will be starting our first game tonight.

Ohh and for you guys that think the retail price of Anniversary is high go by http://www.multimanpublishing.com/index1.php and look at ASL prices.

That is true. I am curious Craig as I know you travel and do tournaments if you have advanced to the multiple planos on hand trucks ala the squad leader community?

If you will look in the Axis & Allies Revised section of the forum there is a stickied thread about battlemap.