USA and USSR the superpowers... or not?

User avatar
Darkstar387
Warrant Officer
Posts: 485
Joined: Wed 19 Feb 2014 16:36
Location: Tower on the 38th Parallel
Contact:

Re: USA and USSR the superpowers... or not?

Postby Darkstar387 » Tue 13 Dec 2016 20:56

I don't think there's any point arguing it anymore. Regardless of how well you present your argument, it is my opinion that Eugen will no longer dedicate time or resources altering either of these 2 nations. If they truly felt any aspect of the US or USSR needed attention, they would have said or done something by this point. Its way too late in the game to overhaul anything, so my assumption is that both factions are balanced to the developers liking.

User avatar
wargamer1985
Brigadier
Posts: 3305
Joined: Sat 4 May 2013 00:36
Contact:

Re: USA and USSR the superpowers... or not?

Postby wargamer1985 » Tue 13 Dec 2016 20:59

Darkstar387 wrote:I don't think there's any point arguing it anymore. Regardless of how well you present your argument, it is my opinion that Eugen will no longer dedicate time or resources altering either of these 2 nations. If they truly felt any aspect of the US or USSR needed attention, they would have said or done something by this point. Its way too late in the game to overhaul anything, so my assumption is that both factions are balanced to the developers liking.

I thought the same was true whenever I looked at Red Dragons, but they are getting some much-needed love. Don't lose hope yet Comrade.
APPLY TO THE GLORIOUS CULT OF THE WARHAWK! LIBERATING NAZIS SINCE 1939!
Image

APSinc
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 555
Joined: Wed 3 Sep 2014 09:56
Contact:

Re: USA and USSR the superpowers... or not?

Postby APSinc » Wed 14 Dec 2016 11:46

Xeno426 wrote:
APSinc wrote:Also, Sherman was a lovely tank, but totally outclassed. My recollection is that it's saving grace was its maneuverability and numbers, allowing it to take on the Panthers and Tigers by overwhelming them.

Shermans had little issue with Panthers in Italy, mainly because the terrain forced rather close engagements where the 75mm gun was perfectly capable of dealing with even the frontal armor. In Normandy and onwards to Berlin, the longer ranges necessitated the 76 be brought up (the 76 was ready by D-Day but none were sent over because they didn't think they'd be needed). Regarding armor, once slope was accounted for the Sherman had armor that was only a little over half an inch less thick than the Tiger (and the Jumbo had even more armor on the front); the difference was that the Tiger had a much more powerful gun. At the ranges one was likely to actually hit anything, the 76mm gun (particularly with HVAP) was perfectly fine. Sure, the Firefly could punch through more armor at longer range, but the chance to hit anything at those ranges made it useless to fire even from complete surprise.

However, Tiger issues is rather moot as the number of times that American forces faced a confirmed Tiger (rather than a stressed crew member reporting a Panzer IV as a Tiger) could be counted on one hand. Panthers were a greater threat, and post-war analysis found the winner mainly came down to who shot first.

There's more to a tank than just its armor and gun anyway. Sherman crew had a greater chance of surviving a penetrating shot, thanks both to exit layout and ammunition (which smoldered before blowing up, giving time to escape); deaths per tank knockout was about 0.6, worse for the British because they didn't wear helmets in their tanks. The Sherman was also immensely cheaper to produce than the Tiger, easier and quicker to produce, and there were more available spare parts. War, particularly the two World Wars, were won by the average trooper, not elite forces.

Cool stuff. Didn't know the bit about Italy, and I may have been mixing up a few of my tank lines. Mostly didn't consider the Firefly, though, because of its rarity and the fact that Tiger tanks were rare enough on the Western Front. Not sure where you got that info about actual encounters, but I'll take it at face value for now; it's not like I have evidence to the contrary.

I should have stated that the Panther was the bigger threat (since there were so few Tigers) but I wasn't fully aware of the scope of their reliability issues.

Also, tbh I was kinda hoping your comment would be more related to the suggestion (not mine) of a US coalition with itself, but I guess that's been rehashed to death with the obvious answers.

User avatar
Xeno426
Carbon 13
Posts: 11965
Joined: Tue 13 Mar 2012 21:27
Location: Acheron, Hadley's Hope
Contact:

Re: USA and USSR the superpowers... or not?

Postby Xeno426 » Wed 14 Dec 2016 18:06

APSinc wrote:I should have stated that the Panther was the bigger threat (since there were so few Tigers) but I wasn't fully aware of the scope of their reliability issues.

After three days during the Battle of Kursk, at least 1/3 the force was in repairs for non-battle related damage. Several destroyed themselves on the way to the battle...
The later German tanks suffered from what could be called over-engineering; the parts had so little tolerance that in the field where mud and grit was everywhere, stuff would break down with disturbing frequency. This put a heavy industrial burden on Germany to produce lots of spare parts, an industrial burden that Germany could ill afford thanks to both limited resources and allied bombing.

APSinc wrote:Also, tbh I was kinda hoping your comment would be more related to the suggestion (not mine) of a US coalition with itself, but I guess that's been rehashed to death with the obvious answers.

Yeah. I brought up the US being its own coalition as USAF + Army and USMC + Navy before RD was released and got denied, so I don't see that happening now.
Image
CloakandDagger wrote:And you're one of the people with the shiny colored name. No wonder the game is in the state it's in.

User avatar
HrcAk47
Colonel
Posts: 2788
Joined: Sat 3 May 2014 18:00
Contact:

Re: USA and USSR the superpowers... or not?

Postby HrcAk47 » Wed 14 Dec 2016 18:42

Xeno426 wrote:
APSinc wrote:Also, tbh I was kinda hoping your comment would be more related to the suggestion (not mine) of a US coalition with itself, but I guess that's been rehashed to death with the obvious answers.

Yeah. I brought up the US being its own coalition as USAF + Army and USMC + Navy before RD was released and got denied, so I don't see that happening now.


Oh snap, now this is a really good idea.

Soviets can be a coalition of Army and VDV (as VDV has literally its own designs for everything).
The SEAD never bothered me anyway.

SMB Yugoslavia Retexture Mod, now released, v.1.0

User avatar
wargamer1985
Brigadier
Posts: 3305
Joined: Sat 4 May 2013 00:36
Contact:

Re: USA and USSR the superpowers... or not?

Postby wargamer1985 » Wed 14 Dec 2016 18:44

HrcAk47 wrote:
Xeno426 wrote:
APSinc wrote:Also, tbh I was kinda hoping your comment would be more related to the suggestion (not mine) of a US coalition with itself, but I guess that's been rehashed to death with the obvious answers.

Yeah. I brought up the US being its own coalition as USAF + Army and USMC + Navy before RD was released and got denied, so I don't see that happening now.


Oh snap, now this is a really good idea.

Soviets can be a coalition of Army and VDV (as VDV has literally its own designs for everything).

I think the idea of Soviet Army + VDV and US Army + USMC is a pretty good idea, and would certainly make for some interesting considerations, especially if national bonuses for different sections of the deck are added at any point.
APPLY TO THE GLORIOUS CULT OF THE WARHAWK! LIBERATING NAZIS SINCE 1939!
Image

User avatar
Xeno426
Carbon 13
Posts: 11965
Joined: Tue 13 Mar 2012 21:27
Location: Acheron, Hadley's Hope
Contact:

Re: USA and USSR the superpowers... or not?

Postby Xeno426 » Wed 14 Dec 2016 18:56

HrcAk47 wrote:Soviets can be a coalition of Army and VDV (as VDV has literally its own designs for everything).

Don't know how well that would work for the USSR, though. The US pretty much has all the units it needs to do this already, with maybe a couple missing things like a Marine SHORAD and some infantry considerations (autocannon transports of USMC, non-shock USMC infantry, non-Marine Shock for Army, non-Marine SF recon, SF worth a damn for either side, etc). The aircraft are already pretty well split, as are the tanks. A few support assets might be in short supply with each, but the idea is that US + USAF would be mostly standalone already (which is why it would need those shock infantry) while the USMC + Navy would be the weaker of the pair and could then join other nations in realistic coalitions, like USMC + South Korea.
Image
CloakandDagger wrote:And you're one of the people with the shiny colored name. No wonder the game is in the state it's in.

User avatar
PzAz04Maus
Lieutenant
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sat 22 Mar 2014 01:42
Contact:

Re: USA and USSR the superpowers... or not?

Postby PzAz04Maus » Wed 14 Dec 2016 19:00

After three days during the Battle of Kursk, at least 1/3 the force was in repairs for non-battle related damage. Several destroyed themselves on the way to the battle...


That was when the Panther was first introduced, when it was a pile of teething issues.

User avatar
Bougnas
Major-General
Posts: 3699
Joined: Sat 26 Apr 2014 18:24
Contact:

Re: USA and USSR the superpowers... or not?

Postby Bougnas » Wed 14 Dec 2016 19:02

Xeno426 wrote:
HrcAk47 wrote:Soviets can be a coalition of Army and VDV (as VDV has literally its own designs for everything).

Don't know how well that would work for the USSR, though. The US pretty much has all the units it needs to do this already, with maybe a couple missing things like a Marine SHORAD and some infantry considerations (autocannon transports of USMC, non-shock USMC infantry, non-Marine Shock for Army, non-Marine SF recon, SF worth a damn for either side, etc). The aircraft are already pretty well split, as are the tanks. A few support assets might be in short supply with each, but the idea is that US + USAF would be mostly standalone already (which is why it would need those shock infantry) while the USMC + Navy would be the weaker of the pair and could then join other nations in realistic coalitions, like USMC + South Korea.


Moreover USMC would have a much more different gameplay than USA+USAF.

Hell you could even add the National guard to USA to get the US Roland :lol:
Image

User avatar
Xeno426
Carbon 13
Posts: 11965
Joined: Tue 13 Mar 2012 21:27
Location: Acheron, Hadley's Hope
Contact:

Re: USA and USSR the superpowers... or not?

Postby Xeno426 » Wed 14 Dec 2016 19:12

PzAz04Maus wrote:That was when the Panther was first introduced, when it was a pile of teething issues.

Maintenance issues didn't go away, though. Again, parts had too little tolerance and Germany wasn't in a position to be producing lots of spare parts. Material shortages (like vanadium) meant armor quality suffered from '44 onwards.

Bougnas wrote:Moreover USMC would have a much more different gameplay than USA+USAF.

Indeed. I daresay it would be the US's equivalent of a motorized deck, focusing on speed and firepower at the general expense of armor.
Image
CloakandDagger wrote:And you're one of the people with the shiny colored name. No wonder the game is in the state it's in.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests