Glad you enjoyed the video and thank you for the feedback. I've owned Red Thunder for a while but not really had a decent opportunity to play. Whilst this battle was frustrating at times I'm interested in learning more on how to utilise the Russians. I also played a quick battle and almost instantly got annihilated by two Panthers, losing an entire platoon of T34 and a couple of SU to very few losses on the German side. Much more to understand, but I like to learn so it keeps me coming back for more

@@MrSirDouble Oddly enough, I find that I actually prefer t34s with the 76.2 mm gun over t34/85s. They 76.2 models seem to react faster and they have cannister rounds. The 76.2 mm gun is adequate against most german machines and there are usually enough heavy assault guns available for the big cats. As a side note on soviet tactics I played one of the first tactical level computer wargames back in 1980. (I cannot recall the name of it). The designers recommended allowing the computer to play soviet since the AI at that time could intelligently duplicate Soviet tactics which essentially were 'mass and ' crush'.

@@markraffety3246 Didn't know they had computerized wargames back then. Cut my teeth on Avalon Hill's and SSI's paper maps, cardboard unit counters, dental floss for determining LOS and dice for combat results. Horse-and- buggy stuff nowadays, but some diehards still play that way!

@@jonshive5482 I still play the Avalon Hill games too particularly Afvanced Squad Leader. I have racked my brain trying to recall the name of the computer game. It was loaded via a cassette and you had to sit quietly while it was loading or it would misfire LOL. I would rate the old Tractics minature game, the Squad Leader/ASL games, Steel Panthers and the Combat Mission (original and current) games as the best tactical games ever done.

This is anything but a ‘big deal’. The Germans had better gun sights. If by better you mean accurate at long range. This has nothing to do with target acquisition. In fact the German sights were worse for that because they had a narrower field of view. But that doesn’t matter much because for target acquisition it’s the observation devices that matter (periscopes and vision ports). The Germans had a big advantage in this early in the war but the Soviets did catch up, adding commander’s cupolas and all round vision ports in later war tank models. All of this is mostly irrelevant when the commander has his head out the hatch and we’re talking about combat ranges below 500m. Also CM doesn’t model muzzleblasts (I think) or the sharing of combat intel between units (pretty sure about that one).

@@SgtKelly100 You're wrong on both counts about the CM engine. Verifiably wrong. Units shooting does increase their spotability, and spotting information is shared between nearby units, although it does take time. It's not a "if the guy next to me sees him I see him", but instead a "the guy next to me points out where he sees the guy and tells me where to look, but I still need to actually spot him." Sharing spotting is crucial for Soviet performance. As far as Soviet tank design, there's a difference between having vision ports and having good ones. In comparative tests, German tanks were rated higher for target acquisition, even just by the gunner. Sometimes, sight quality does play a role. Course, the Sherman was one of the best tanks in the war for it with its unitary sight, but some tanks were better than others.

Glad you enjoyed the video and thanks for the positive feedback.

You did kill a lot of his infantry aswell, something which is not mentioned that much in the video. Over half his men are casualties, compared to yours were less then 1/4 men were casualties. Your tanks, SU-76s and Zis-3 guns must've been doing some real work on that front.

I'm glad you enjoyed the video. Thanks for the suggestion on the runners, that's very helpful. You're right on the infantry, because the tank riders had mostly PPsH and very limited range the infantry mostly slipped from my thoughts. One should never forget the frontline infantry man

Not a bad idea!

Thank you kindly

Awesome, thank you and glad you enjoy the videos

Glad you liked the video and thanks for the positive comment

Glad you enjoyed the video. I have a couple more PvP battle ongoing at the moment, none of which are RT. Stick with the channel, I will return to RT at some point, just not right now.

Both players were too timid but it cost the Germans more. This scenario is not easy as the Soviets because as you said, the Germans get a lot of armour to break the red tide.

I did talk with RichieRich towards the end of the battle and he pointed out he'd taken too defensive a stance through the battle, hind sight is always helpful. I'd certainly have had a difficult time dislodging his armour from some of the objectives. What I perhaps didn't make apparent in the video is that several of his armoured units to the rear had been damaged by my 76mm fire. Not knocked out but rendered ineffective so his force looks stronger than it potentially was.

The soviet 85mm packs quite a wallop and Double had a lot of them plus a lot of 76mm guns. That's a lot of firepower. I would have kept my head down more than usual too were I german.

tiger 1 can be penned by the 85

I'm glad you enjoyed the video

I've played a couple of matches with the Soviets now and starting to get to grip with them. It really is about applying mass at specific points, a bit like using a hammer versus a scalpel

@@MrSirDouble Yeah that sums up the Germans vs soviets in ww2 well really.

Absolutely

Glad you enjoyed the video. Yes, most of the vehicle mods are Aris, I like his work

Glad you enjoyed the video. I did chat with RichieRich towards the end of the battle and he thought he hadn't really got the full potential out of his forces

I'm glad you enjoyed the video. I haven't done a lot in RT at the moment, but I will go back to it :)

Interesting that you got a similar result. I'd certainly give this scenario a go commanding the Germans.

You may be right. It is sometimes disappointing with Combat Mission when one spends a considerable amount of money on a new CM game to then find regurgitated maps, soldier voices and vehicle sounds. It hit me most when I got Black Sea and most of the vehicles sound like Sherman Tanks..... WTF, seriously, Battlefront couldn't be arsed to go and record a truck or some such sh*t to at least have a BMP sound different to a WW2 Sherman. I had to get over it ;)

@@MrSirDouble The joys of a game with no real competition

I'm glad you liked the video. My advance on my right flank was effectively stopped by RichieRich when he ambushed my infantry in the ruins. I'd also lost several of my supporting overwatch T34. I was conscious that there was at least 1 tiger and a King Tiger in the woods supporting his left flank. I didn't think I'd win an engagement against him so decided to withdraw and consolidate my right flank further back. The voice volume is something I regularly struggle to get right, hopefully it wasn't too distracting to your enjoyment

I find the calm commentary rather enjoyable.

As far as spotting goes, Soviet tanks are significantly worse than German tanks IRL. The turned out commander plays an aspect, sure, but the gunner is also scanning with his sights, and generally speaking the T-34's optics were worse than most German vehicles. This is especially true if the commanders are turned in. And honestly, Soviet tanks remained that way all the way through the Cold War.

It's something I've seen in a tabletop wargame manual that was devised by British ex-serviceman, so I think it's fairly standard in wargames, regardless of who makes the rules (software developers ir servicemen).

In general the soviet infantry are fine skill vs skill the issue with this game as EviTwinn and others have said has to do with spotting of soviet optics which was pretty low grade compared to western especially German engineering.

Thank you

Maybe that’s the reason why the Red Army, although managing to destroy Army Group Centre, lost 800,000 men to the German’s 500,000.

@@wenqiweiabcd Or that's the result of being on the offensive. Attackers always take more casualties than defenders.

@@SuperMegaCyrus You are correct that's generally the rule. But I mean most of the time on the attack in the east the Germans inflicted more than they lost not always though of course. I'm not saying the red army was bad just that it wasn't as good as the Wehrmacht at inflicting casualties generally the Wehrmacht generally had better trained and equipped soldiers and more skilled commanders with the exception of 45 when German industry had been destroyed and there were no training facilities left and 10 year old's were being called up along with their ww1 vet grandpas. Also plenty of those 500,000 were captured not killed or wounded so that makes the disparity between the two higher. Just like in 41 when a lot of the soviets weren't battle casualties but captured.

I haven't had the same experience with soviet infantry having trouble spotting, it seems about the same as the Germans when I have played. The big difference is between the spotting ability of Soviet armor vs the German armor, which to my understanding is historically accurate because the Soviets had notoriously bad optics on their armor that was very difficult to see out of compared to the German optics.

Historically accurate. Here is a picture for you then. I got to interview a Hungarian Engineer who was eventually captured in Budapest. He explained that in the first waves of the Urban attacks about 60% of the Russian forces did not have weapons but were expected to pick up the dead man's rifle. The Russians lost heavily in Budapest against mostly Hungarian forces as the Germans pulled out. I tried to get more info about this sort of logistical issue, and upon reading and reading I found a commonality. The only forces that were at 70% strength or higher were Guard units, or those attached to an attack while the rest of an Army group, etc. were sort of scavenged. More and more info about the true numbers keep coming out. 40% of Russian forces on the East Front were below 50% fighting strength and the attacking forces were obviously well stocked to the point where they were about 70% or higher combat effective. So it kind of makes you wonder if the Germans had only one front, would it have ended the same? Anyways interesting stuff.

I have no hard proof but playing multiple scenarios does suggest the level's of skill are relative. One could say it's linked to the overall abilities of the relevant Army, training etc. A Russian soldier could be considered a veteran within the context of his doctrine and training whilst a different country would not consider that soldier a 'veteran' versus a comparable solider within their own army. One cannot command and play the Russian forces as one would western forces and expect the same result, so something must be different

Really late here, but alot of what goes into it is the equipment troops carry. Is it easier to aim with a mosin versus a kar98k? What about the optics of a T-34 vs a Pz4? I think questions revolving around equipment like these are factored in to the effectiveness of various units, so veterans with worse equipment perform worse than veterans with better equipment.

@@VynalDerp Given that the western allies, especially the Americans, had pretty much the best equipment of the war (especially American infantry with standardized semi automatic rifles, giving them average firepower well beyond any other nation at the time), this would track. In my understanding, the Soviets are best used up close on the flanks. The SMG squads will shatter Germans in seconds up close, forcing them to the ground, into retreat, or just killing them outright. Rifles are pretty much used purely as suppression, allowing your SMGs to bound towards the enemy. Same with MGs. The T-34s are basically glass cannons. Their optics and communications are awful so you have to put yourself into a position where you get the first shot. In almost all cases that means closing the distance as quickly as possible. In any sniper dual with the German cats you'll lose. Even the IS-2s have a minor disadvantage. Panzer IVs and stugs are a different story, but annoyingly players have very little incentive to use them in realistic numbers compared to Panthers and Tigers, in head to head battles. IRL Panthers and Tigers, although mostly concentrated on the eastern front, were still not the most common occurence for Soviet tankers, who were far more concerned with stugs, which were very difficult to spot.

It's absolutely modelled into CM games and always has been. Even back in the very early days of the CM1x series. In CMBB you could have a German tank dawdling around in front of your armor for a turn with them unable to spot and shoot it. Personally I think it's kind of shitty. Take CM: Black Sea for instance. The USA spot so well they're effectively like using supermen. I get that their vehicles are all thermal equipped which is a huge advantage. However it even applies to infanty. I've played a head to head as Russia and had my opponent blunder his USA infantry into a patch of woods I had my infantry concealed in. No problem for him, his super human US soldiers spotted my concealed soldiers and fired on them before mine could even spot his. Mine continued to be unable to spot his and return fire as they got chewed to pieces. That's just rubbish.

@@thepinkplushie As far as the western allies having the best equipment I mean it really depends what were talking about. The m1 is definitely superior to the K98 in firepower but the StG is superior to the M1(and when it was issued was issued to whole squads not Nickle and dime) the MG34/42 is also better than the Bren or Browning in firepower. This is because the MG was the centerpiece of the German squad unlike western allies where the MG was just meant to add additional firepower to rifle squads. The Germans were backwards the MG was the main event so to speak and the riflemen were only there to support it. It really gets complicated for other reasons too like American tanks were designed to be survivable(losing a tank sucks but losing a crew is much worse America has the industrial base to make more) and light enough to ship 1000s of miles fairly easily which the Sherman did both exceptionally well but at the same time Tiger and panthers could really chew them up(if they weren't hit with air support first lol) But they were about equally matched in the field with the Pz4. So I think to say they had the best equipment is an oversimplification that's not always true. They designed their equipment with different priorities in mind than the Germans and both sides equipment did very well at what it was designed to do(when it made it to the battlefield looking at you early panther models especially)

I was always a Betamax myself, usually picked the wrong technology tree ;)

@@MrSirDouble same also sinclair spectrum but did you notice the weird explosion effect?

You mean like try hit the tanks gun itself

They really aren't at all. The advantages of the their doctrine is simply harder to put into practice in Combat Mission's tactical frame.