What exactly do 'we' want

[oldsoldier173]

The 'War' no matter what period was fought by a common soldier, not elites as demanded in game. The average 'Soldat' of the HEER carried his K98 from Sep 39 to May 45, the HEER NCO had a MP-38, MP-40 as well during this period. The LMG went from MG-34, to MG42, but not a total replacement of the earlier MG-34.


Your basic one each Soviet Infantryman was handed a M91/30 rifle and it as well served in the majority of the units as the first line weapon again from the winter war to Berlin in 45. NCO's initially had PPsh models, and eventually 'shock' infantry or tankodesantniki (tank rider infantry) had a combination of PPsH41's and M91/30's.The DP27/28 served as the LMG from day one.


Logistically the use of captured weapons was very limited as well as not generally accepted, as the sounds of the weapons were unique and identification friend or foe became an issue in close combat. In a real world situation as a Soviet infantryman I hear a MP-40 firing in another room or around the corner, to me it is a German not some Soviet uping his weapon skill or rating, and in comes the grenade.....


RO2 is a basic Infantryman's game centered in the Aug 42 to Feb 43 time frame. All these fancy elite weapons were few and far between. With all the photos available of day to day combat in or near Stalingrad, you see the occasional 'elite' weapon but the majority is your general issue national weapons.


If TW wants to expand go into RO3 and the 'late war' and play Tanks, vehicles, experimental weapons and all the 'toys', but RO2 is not the place based on the maps and era.


Going late war in RO2 will just push more players away as it turns into MW5, BF21, or whatever fantasy game it morphs into.

 

[aaz777]

what do you call " elite " weapons?

 

[Catalavos]

what do you call " elite " weapons?

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that he means things like the Mkb, dual magazine MP-40, silenced Nagant revolver, etc... which were outside of the garden variety infantry weapons carried by the majority of soldiers during the war.

 

[oldsoldier173]

Simple, what was the 'basic' issue weapons for each side.


For German the K98, MP-38/40, MG-34, P-08, P-38, scoped K98, ATR.


For Soviet M91/30, PPsH41, DP27/28, ATR, TT33, M-1895, scoped M91/30.


The basic issue weapons each side issued during this period


Everything else would be 'elite' of more fantasy issue, rare, and as we see historically in RO2 era not uniformily if ever issued.


And if you don't pick it up as a capture, opposition weapons not available for initial issue.

 

[aaz777]

For German the K98, MP-38/40, MG-34, P-08, P-38, scoped K98, ATR.


For Soviet M91/30, PPsH41, DP27/28, ATR, TT33, M-1895, scoped M91/30.

You forgot SVT-40, it was quite common weapon in first half of war.
Germans had pretty few ATRs, only 40 000 pzb39.

 

[oldsoldier173]

The SVT-40 early on was more in the NKVD regiments rather than regular Strelkovy. The SVT-40 was complex for the general 'peasant' soldier of 40-43, the NKVD were more educated and selected for political and 'party' means. It really did not migrate to regular Strelkovy or Motostrelkovy for general issue till mid 43.


By Jun 41 the German PZB39 was more a anti-material rifle than an true anti-tank rifle. The captured Soviet 14.5X114 ATR's were far better than the 7.92X94 PZB39 in any event.


Soviet Infantry, US Army ref 1945
Weapons and Effects of German Small Arms, US Army ref 1944

 

[aaz777]

The SVT-40 early on was more in the NKVD regiments rather than regular Strelkovy. The SVT-40 was complex for the general 'peasant' soldier of 40-43, the NKVD were more educated and selected for political and 'party' means. It really did not migrate to regular Strelkovy or Motostrelkovy for general issue till mid 43.

you say it like only NKVD used it. It was also used by others, Naval infantry and kursants for example. Remember the 10th company of kursants that defended Moscow in 1941 and made successful counteratacks. They ALL had ONLY SVT-40s as primary weapon.
Anyway it doesnt deny that Red Army had lots of semi auto rifles. I can say further - it was even more common that MP40 for germans in first half of war. USSR produced 1,6 mln SVTs, 1 mln - before german invading. Germany made 1,2-2 mln MP40s by different sources and production of them was growing by the time unlike SVT.

By Jun 41 the German PZB39 was more a anti-material rifle than an true anti-tank rifle. The captured Soviet 14.5X114 ATR's were far better than the 7.92X94 PZB39 in any event.

are we talking about what is better or what is more common? and your words

Logistically the use of captured weapons was very limited as well as not generally accepted,

 

[oldsoldier173]

The intent of the Soviet military was to totally replace the M-91/30 with SVT-38/40 rifles by late 41. That plan was disrupted by the German invasion and the decision was made to continue the production of M91/30's in far greater numbers than to totally re-tool for SVT's.


The weapon was more seen in the hands of NCO's, yes Naval Infantry as well as NKVD, and the few 'speciality' units here and there. It was not manufactured in the numbers required for general issue. The M91/30 and the later M-1944 were the more common Infantry general issue small arm until the SKS post war, the SVT and AVT fell quickly from favor by 1944. You do understand that from Jun 41 till it's peak the Soviet Army had in excess of 14.5 million 'Infantry' to arm, 1.6million SVT's really shows how scarce this weapon actually was in the total numbers.
The early Jun 41-Jun 42 reinforcement forces were sometimes armed with only 1 in 5 with a rifle, ammunition sometimes as scarce, production of M91/30's could not supply the numbers required, now imagine the delay in re-tooling to the SVT in the numbers required, STRAF or 'penal' units sometimes were deployed totally unarmed, the Soviet logistical efforts were very difficult to arm all the initial mass conscript units with even the more available M91/30 well into late 1942.


The MP-40 was a NCO/Officer/vehicle crewman weapon, similar to the US Army upgrading from .45 M1911 pistols to the M1 Carbine later in the war. If you read into the German Army small arms you will find that the MP-38/40 was not a preferred weapon on any front for the base Infantryman. NCO's preferred it based on their squad mission of directing the fires of the squad, and the ROF as he saw problems. The German Army still well into 1943 was in the 'old mode' of longer ranged accurate single fire with rifles in excess of 250m, the rifleman in maneuver support of the light machine gun in the squad makeup. The 50m 9mm was not favored in anything but close quarter 'urban' warfare for obvious reasons.
The development of the Sturmgewehr series was a direct result of the numbers facing the Wehrmacht in the east and a need for a high firepower 250m weapon with knockdown. Just a heads up ever wonder why 250m is a 'standard' even today for 'effective' fire? The human eye can not focus and make out detailed shape, color, or contrast out past 250m as a norm.


The Germans already understood the ATR was obsolete in early 1941 in action in North Africa prior to Jun 41. The Soviets were different and saw the ATR as it's primary infantry anti-tank 'answer' based on their designs such as the standard Tankovy T-26 of 40/41, once exposed to the heavier German vehicles they too went more to a anti-material and 'sniper' weapon with their ATR's. The mass numbers of Soviet ATR's dwarfed whatever numbers of German PZB-39s were on the Eastern Front till the end of the war. The PTRS was carried into Berlin by the Strelkovy Infantry Batalon weapons sections, long after it's ability to 'hurt' tanks. BTW the operating system of the PTRS was designed by Simonov, who scaled it down and created the SKS in 1945.


I reference US Army training an research material from WW2. One of my many other 'hobbies' is miniature wargaming of WW2 and my preference is the Soviet Red Army. I research down to finite details for 'painting' as well as the equipment for the period represented. I have built a 'early', mid, and late war Soviet Strelkovy as well as Motostrelkovy units in both FoW and Bolt Action, and have yet to arm them with the seldom available SVT. My units are actually based on real TO&E's of Soviet Forces of the actual periods.

 

[aaz777]

The intent of the Soviet military was to totally replace the M-91/30 with SVT-38/40 rifles by late 41. That plan was disrupted by the German invasion and the decision was made to continue the production of M91/30's in far greater numbers than to totally re-tool for SVT's.


The weapon was more seen in the hands of NCO's, yes Naval Infantry as well as NKVD, and the few 'speciality' units here and there. It was not manufactured in the numbers required for general issue. The M91/30 and the later M-1944 were the more common Infantry general issue small arm until the SKS post war, the SVT and AVT fell quickly from favor by 1944. You do understand that from Jun 41 till it's peak the Soviet Army had in excess of 14.5 million 'Infantry' to arm, 1.6million SVT's really shows how scarce this weapon actually was in the total numbers.
The early Jun 41-Jun 42 reinforcement forces were sometimes armed with only 1 in 5 with a rifle, ammunition sometimes as scarce, production of M91/30's could not supply the numbers required, now imagine the delay in re-tooling to the SVT in the numbers required, STRAF or 'penal' units sometimes were deployed totally unarmed, the Soviet logistical efforts were very difficult to arm all the initial mass conscript units with even the more available M91/30 well into late 1942.


The MP-40 was a NCO/Officer/vehicle crewman weapon, similar to the US Army upgrading from .45 M1911 pistols to the M1 Carbine later in the war. If you read into the German Army small arms you will find that the MP-38/40 was not a preferred weapon on any front for the base Infantryman. NCO's preferred it based on their squad mission of directing the fires of the squad, and the ROF as he saw problems. The German Army still well into 1943 was in the 'old mode' of longer ranged accurate single fire with rifles in excess of 250m, the rifleman in maneuver support of the light machine gun in the squad makeup. The 50m 9mm was not favored in anything but close quarter 'urban' warfare for obvious reasons.
The development of the Sturmgewehr series was a direct result of the numbers facing the Wehrmacht in the east and a need for a high firepower 250m weapon with knockdown. Just a heads up ever wonder why 250m is a 'standard' even today for 'effective' fire? The human eye can not focus and make out detailed shape, color, or contrast out past 250m as a norm.


The Germans already understood the ATR was obsolete in early 1941 in action in North Africa prior to Jun 41. The Soviets were different and saw the ATR as it's primary infantry anti-tank 'answer' based on their designs such as the standard Tankovy T-26 of 40/41, once exposed to the heavier German vehicles they too went more to a anti-material and 'sniper' weapon with their ATR's. The mass numbers of Soviet ATR's dwarfed whatever numbers of German PZB-39s were on the Eastern Front till the end of the war. The PTRS was carried into Berlin by the Strelkovy Infantry Batalon weapons sections, long after it's ability to 'hurt' tanks. BTW the operating system of the PTRS was designed by Simonov, who scaled it down and created the SKS in 1945.


I reference US Army training an research material from WW2. One of my many other 'hobbies' is miniature wargaming of WW2 and my preference is the Soviet Red Army. I research down to finite details for 'painting' as well as the equipment for the period represented. I have built a 'early', mid, and late war Soviet Strelkovy as well as Motostrelkovy units in both FoW and Bolt Action, and have yet to arm them with the seldom available SVT. My units are actually based on real TO&E's of Soviet Forces of the actual periods.

nobody is sayng that SVT-40 was main weapon of everyone, i just said that it was quite popular, compared to other semi auto rifles and it wasnt a super rare project like 8000 made mkb42.

1 in 5, unarmed penal.. are you serious? well, in 1941 Red Army often failed and there was a big mess in communication and organization and everything could happen, but things like 1 rifle on 5 soilders happened only just as single cases. Penal companies in Red Army were made only in 1942, unlike german army that had penal companies from 1941, and they were well armed.

About ATRs - it was a very good weapon against any light armor vehicles and destroying/damaging middle tanks was still possible. So for the first part of war it was a very good weapon, at the moment when nazi germany invaded USSR germans had mostly light tanks. When germans started using their heavy tanks panthers and tigers in 1943, ATRs were less and less effective AT weapon, but still useful for any light armored vehicles, pillboxes ( not sure if i use this word correctly ), as anti material rifle, etc. USSR made HEAT grenades RPG43 and RPG6 for destroying new heavy tanks. Sadly we didnt make any HEAT Gls ( like panzerfaust, panzershreck ), but it was very balanced by MONSTER numbers of captured panzerfausts. I was reading memories, in some guard divisions every 3rd soilder had a captured panzerfaust and soilders loved them much.

 

[oldsoldier173]

According to many references the issue of weapons to the mass conscripts was varied. Yes there are writings of in the Aug 41-Feb 42 many new formed conscript units were deployed with 1 in 3 or 1 in 5 armed with a rifle.
The initial Soviet logistics system as you mentioned was a mess of idiocy as well as corruption. But if Uncle Joe said you are to attack here, now, and your troops are armed, trained or not the Commander attacked or faced other issues in command.


Yes, any semi would be popular over a bolt action, the mind of the front line soldier will never change in that anything that can give them an edge over the opponent is 'popular'.


Anti-material in the definition is to include light armor as well as transport (trucks). The 14.5 steel or tungsten cored round was a great penetrate improved position bounce around see what you hit weapon. Pop the TC of that tank out of 7.62 range, shoot through the walls of an occupied building, there was a purpose for the ATR. What the Soviets used it for more than true anti-tank work by mid/late war. We even found them in VN, still. Today we (US) use the .50 (12.7mm) BMG Barrett system for the same purpose, long range anti material work.


Guards units were a totally different class in the Red Army of 41-45. They did receive the primo equipment available, the standard Strelkovy got what was available, obsolete or not. A Strelkovy troop could be issued a WW1 era 91/30, a pre-war model, or a 1942/43 model, it was what was available to issue, more than total numbers.


The 'piles' of panzerfausts to capture were a norm on eastern as well as western front. The US Army issued a operations manual on the various Panzerfaust models in Feb 1945 to the front line troops, a how to use it effectively manual.

 

[Jank]

Me, I want the little 50mm mortars used by both sides.


PM-40 Russian 50mm mortar

Granatwerfer-36 German 5cm Mortar

 

[aaz777]

According to many references the issue of weapons to the mass conscripts was varied. Yes there are writings of in the Aug 41-Feb 42 many new formed conscript units were deployed with 1 in 3 or 1 in 5 armed with a rifle.

Well, reserve units often was unarmed, but when they are going to fight they get the rifles. There was few cases when reserves meet enemys and they have to fight with few rifles at 1941, but again - its just single cases. The famous "1 rifle on 3 " is reality for russian civil war and 100% myth for Great Patriotic War.
And you should also keep in mind 1 thing... Red army in 1941 and Red arrmy un 1945 are TOTALLY DIFFERENT, UNCOMPARABLE things. In 1941 it was full of disorganization, fails and other problems; in 1945 it was the strongest and organized army in the whole world - because it went throught tonns of lessons.

 

[aaz777]

Me, I want the little 50mm mortars used by both sides.


PM-40 Russian 50mm mortar

Granatwerfer-36 German 5cm Mortar

nice idea, i think it can be made from japan mortars

 

[oldsoldier173]

"And you should also keep in mind 1 thing... Red army in 1941 and Red arrmy un 1945 are TOTALLY DIFFERENT, UNCOMPARABLE things. In 1941 it was full of disorganization, fails and other problems; in 1945 it was the strongest and organized army in the whole world - because it went throught tonns of lessons."


A little case of 'Victory Disease'?


The US Army fought on 4 fronts, Europe, Pacific, China/Burma/India, and Italian, against two(three if you count Italians) totally different enemies...so would they not be considered the Strongest and most organized army in the whole world. Even Uncle Joe backed down from taking on the US Army in 45, was told he thought about it, 48/49 Berlin Airlift era, etc...wonder why?


Have fun.......

 

[oldsoldier173]

50mm light mortars, the 'grenade' launchers of it's day would be an interesting and realilistic addition.

 

[Perun58]

"And you should also keep in mind 1 thing... Red army in 1941 and Red arrmy un 1945 are TOTALLY DIFFERENT, UNCOMPARABLE things. In 1941 it was full of disorganization, fails and other problems; in 1945 it was the strongest and organized army in the whole world - because it went throught tonns of lessons."


A little case of 'Victory Disease'?


The US Army fought on 4 fronts, Europe, Pacific, China/Burma/India, and Italian, against two(three if you count Italians) totally different enemies...so would they not be considered the Strongest and most organized army in the whole world. Even Uncle Joe backed down from taking on the US Army in 45, was told he thought about it, 48/49 Berlin Airlift era, etc...wonder why?


Have fun.......

1. USSR fought against Japan too and they have totally crashed them. In the beginning and in the end. In the beginning they have attacked USSR after coquering China. They have surrendered after one week.

2. It's not just about number of fronts. USSR fought against Italians too on the eastern front + against Germany, Hungary, Romania, Finland, Baltic states, Slovakia, Croatia, Cossacks, Vlasov's army.. and so on.

3. Comparing how hard is to defeat Japanese army or Italian army to how hard is to defeat German army is .. let's say funny

4. USA fough against Germany in 1944 after it was clear who is winner and ONLY against 15% of their forces if much.

Now imagine if USSR would fight against Japan and Italy and then in 1944 against Germany. They would crash Japan and Italy in one year. In 1944 Germany would not be such a big problem in 1944.

I don't say USA had bad army or anything. I am just saying you can't compare what USA fough against and what USSR fough against. USA also didn't have to build it's army during the conquest of their own country.

Besides USSR had in 1945 bigger army then all other ally states together with (in average) better equipment.

 

[oldsoldier173]

Just a 'joke' thrown at 'Victory Disease', how pride in nation and history sometimes gets a little distorted, both armies in 45 we fought out, tired of the war, and basically done for a few years.

 

[SirBurger27]

1. USSR fought against Japan too and they have totally crashed them. In the beginning and in the end. In the beginning they have attacked USSR after coquering China. They have surrendered after one week.

2. It's not just about number of fronts. USSR fought against Italians too on the eastern front + against Germany, Hungary, Romania, Finland, Baltic states, Slovakia, Croatia, Cossacks, Vlasov's army.. and so on.

3. Comparing how hard is to defeat Japanese army or Italian army to how hard is to defeat German army is .. let's say funny

4. USA fough against Germany in 1944 after it was clear who is winner and ONLY against 15% of their forces if much.

Now imagine if USSR would fight against Japan and Italy and then in 1944 against Germany. They would crash Japan and Italy in one year. In 1944 Germany would not be such a big problem in 1944.

I don't say USA had bad army or anything. I am just saying you can't compare what USA fough against and what USSR fough against. USA also didn't have to build it's army during the conquest of their own country.

Besides USSR had in 1945 bigger army then all other ally states together with (in average) better equipment.

How about we throw this silly nationalism aside and continue to focus our discussion on the video game please. Lets not waste our time arguing whether the US military or the Soviet military was superior 70 years ago. It will be impossible to have an educated discussion on this topic since there will be large amounts of bias involved, and there are no historical examples of combat between the two nations anyway.

 

[Perun58]

How about we throw this silly nationalism aside and continue to focus our discussion on the video game please. Lets not waste our time arguing whether the US military or the Soviet military was superior 70 years ago. It will be impossible to have an educated discussion on this topic since there will be large amounts of bias involved, and there are no historical examples of combat between the two nations anyway.

Agree.
Mortars posted by AAZ are good idea, to be honest I would like to see flamethrowers in Stalingrad they were VERY popular there.

http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/Weapons/flamethrowers/ROKS-2_2.jpg
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2710/4409718543_1fb63be09c.jpg

But when it comes to me priority would be weapon sorting... no PPS-42 in 1940-1942 maps for example.

 

[Jpz38 Hetzer]

Agree.
Mortars posted by AAZ are good idea, to be honest I would like to see flamethrowers in Stalingrad they were VERY popular there.

+1 for russian / german flamethrowers