micbal

Free Play Account
  • Content count

    950
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Green Tag

About micbal

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday
  1. The germans demostrated a lot of art to build a front out of nothing in that war. Belarus'44, Don'43, Oder'45, Phine river'44 as well. One more reason, some historians noted what the allies tried their best to avoid any serious risk in Italy since Anzio.
  2. I tried to start a thread in this department of the forums some time ago; about the best general in history. Surprisingly many voted Patton as the one; some were not joking. Sid Meyer's "Civilization" in its early version featured Stalin as the Leader of the Russians by default, later replaced with Katherine the Great. I see a trend. I read Omar Bradley's book some time ago. He was very soft about Patton. Dead man's privilege to be spoken about positively or not at all. I better support that rule now; as long as the others do the dirty job critisizing the idol.
  3. Thats one crazy location of the ammo box. The soldier is kinda chained to his rifle by the belt, he will never surrender!
  4. Walfly, here some of the info you asked, quote: Thus, on 13 May 1952 a group of F-86 fighters consisting of 12 aircraft with an interval between flights of 2 minutes provided cover for a 12-20 F-86 aircraft to dive down from 4,000 meters to drop a total of 12 254-kg high-explosive bombs on the flying field portion of the airfield. Bomb dispersion was up to 3 kilometers. The covering group was echeloned from 8,000 to 10,000 meters (see Figure 20). http://www.korean-war.com/Russia/KoreaPoligon428-473.html Quote: The number and consist of the groups used for close escort depended upon the numbers and consist of the bomber and fighter-bomber groups being escorted, as well as the level of opposition from OVA fighter aviation. At the start of the war in Korea the largest groups of bombers were escorted by fighters at a ration of 1:1. With the introduction of jet fighter aircraft by the KPA and CPV the number of close escort fighters was significantly increased and on occasion approached 5 fighters for every 1 bomber or fighter-bomber and 8-12 fighters for 1 reconnaissance aircraft. The fighters met up with the bombers or reconnaissance aircraft they were escorting near the front line or in a previously designated area or over their own airfields. When moving to the target and back the fighters kept within visual contact of the aircraft they were escorting, flying behind and above them by 2,000 to 5,000 meters, echeloned in 2-3 groups by altitude. On occasion the close escort would be deployed not only by groups, but by individual flights echeloned one after the other at intervals of 400 to 700 meters. If the escorted aircraft broke into small groups or single flights then the fighters would likewise be allocated to keep visual contact with them, following each group as assigned above and 1-2 kilometers behind them. The close escort fighter group was divided up into an escort group and a strike group. During strikes by OVA fighters the Americans would strive to repel the initial attack with the forces of the strike group, and when necessary call in part of the forces of the strike group to reinforce the close escort group. ((( ... It is a long bookscan, but worth reading, unless you are afraid to attain some evil spirit of the enemy and his sight of the conflict. ...))) Quote: From April 1953 onward, when the Americans were operating in those regions that were covered by OVA fighter aviation, they used the F-86 fighter-bomber, which after dropping its bombs could then successfully turn to conduct air combat with the MiG-15bis fighter. On occasion, with the goal of launching a surprise attack on a ground target the F-86 fighter-bombers would approach the target as part of the fighter "screen" which was composed of F-86 fighters. After that, when the F-86 fighter "screen" went into combat with the OVA fighters, they would head to attack the target. Bombing was carried out in a 30-50 degree dive from 3,000-4,000 meters. (( ... Nothing of napalm use by F-86 ... )) End of quoting. I am really sorry about my lame humor, Walfly, but the US military history suffers from the same illness the Soviet did. It is all "we are the greatest, the best, the fairest and the world would be a ruin without us and only us", if you excuse me my misunderstanding. I guess the proper works to be studied in the military academies only, but some could be declassified and published. The book from which I quote looks that way.
  5. No problem. The Soviet air detachments did have a fair amount of AAA to cover the bases and the essential river crossings from China to Korea. None of the AAA units operated outside of these areas. Here the Soviet order of battle. http://www.korean-war.com/ussrairorderofbattle.html
  6. Neither Chinese nor Russians had any SAMs in Korea. They did not exist.
  7. I never knew F-86s were intentionally used in CAS role in Korea. Are you sure? Quote: Even though the Yalu was now out of range, on January 14, an F-86A detachment appeared at Taegu to participate as fighter bombers to try to halt the Chinese advance. The F-86A was not very successful in the fighter-bomber role, being judged much less effective than slower types such as the F-80 and the F-84. When carrying underwing ordinance, the F-86A's range and endurance were much too low, and it could not carry a sufficiently large offensive load to make it a really effective fighter bomber. In these attacks, the underwing armament was usually limited to only a pair of 5-inch rockets. Another quote: A total of 78 Sabres were lost in air-to-air combat, with 19 additional Sabres being lost to ground fire, and 13 to unknown causes. So the overall superiority of the Sabre over the MiG was about ten to one. ^ BS, but made "official" to boost american patriotic feelings and sence of invincibility. This is better: http://korean-war.com/AirWar/AircraftType-LossList.html Read this for a change, unless you serve in USAF active duty. That might minimize your chances of promotion. Stick to the american official view. http://www.korean-war.com/ussr.html
  8. Micbal, player of 4 years active. Recently decided to go axis as the allied side got stronger and no longer need my pity and assistance. Please make me a permanent member of KGW. The other account I often play goes axis-only too as a perk. . Interests: HUGIN (as 110c 110c4, stuka), ODEN (lmg is my speciality), SLEIPNER (pak38, pak40), THOR (Stug3G), ISOKE (232, naturally) Age: 36 Country of origin: USSR Country of residence: USA Impressed with KGW organization, my decision to continue subscribtion rests entirely on membership in KGW. KGW attacks is something like they meant to be in ww2ol.
  9. Sign me up for an allied DD, please.
  10. You forgot the nuclear-powered "Ulyanovsk" and "Varyag", both scrapped by Ukraine after the fall of the USSR. "Varyag" was 70% ready (the hull), if I remember that right. "Admiral Kuznetsov" itself was barely saved from the "parade of independence", as that was called in the USSR, pulled thru the turkish straights and classified as a "cruiser" to make that possible. She had many systems not yet operational too. "Admiral Kuznetsov", now in miserable condition due to the lack of proper maintenance (no dry-docking is possible, as I heard and read, but much needed), is the only true carrier of the Russian Navy. Going to be the first and the last one, at least for a few decades, in my humble opinion. "Varyag" and "Ulyanovsk" were sometimes considered to be "Kuznetsov" 's sisterships, but that was not true, "Ulyanovsk" was a completely different project. Just like "Kirov"-class cruisers, each ship was unique in design. Typical, for the USSR and its shipbuilding program. The number of different designs implemented was a very heavy burden, compare to more streamlined and standartized US Navy shipbuilding practice. I could be wrong, writing this post completely out of the top of my head.
  11. It would be nice to see some Soviet troops joining the allies if they (the allies) live to see tier 3. The legend: the Soviet Army, a neutral observer of the prolonged conflict between the 3 powers joins to prevent the imminent defeat of the allies (the Tiger effect). The form: some expeditional brigades, sort of Soviet expeditionary division (or two). It may be possible to equip the Soviet divisions with some British or American equipment. The theatre: the same old map, well developed and tested, especially as it (the map) expands. IMHO that would be a great attractor. The problem is the development costs, in my even humblier (or humbler?) opinion. Modelling the infantry alone ... . But imagine the 14.5mm ATR with up to 30mm armor-piercing capability! And since it is Tiger as an opponent, T-34-85s would be appropriate (compare to Sherman/76) and Su-85. Not much harm in dreaming.
  12. Many automatic pistols have clips for 8 rounds. That was almost a standart for decades and only recently the high-capacity magazines (15+) became more popular and standart. Who started that trend and why? Was that the "Luger", again?
  13. Desperate measures (in addition, The Red Army): 1. Small arms fire targeting the slits; 2. Digging the tanktraps and covering them with planks and dirt (the anti-tank trenches just like other visible obstacles sold separately); 3. Blinding the crew with cloth over the slits and hatches; 4. Using the bundles of ordinary or heavier "anti-tank" handgrenades. The thrower was dead to the explosion in many cases, the bundles were very heavy to have any effect and had to be tossed close range.
  14. I was about to start yaking about "history and distortions". What the hell, better to quote Mgallun! Right, Zac74! The people must have publications to qualify for a PhD so they type! Lets "decompose" the battle to research it properly and forget to mention anything that won't fit the author's "shocking" discovery. I know that the German tank troops lost their ability to move forward and were pushed back as a result of "Prokhorovka". I have a great idea! There was no "Kursk" battle at all! The battle never came anywhere near that city. By the way, only the troops stationed in El-Alamein itself or on the property of its residents must count as the participants of that great battle. Of course, the battle of El-Alamein was great counting the strategic outcome. Let's see, what if I count only the grand total of the troops and subtract the Italian divisions as poorly equipped and motivated? I got a dwarf of a battle, barely an engagement. And yes, that proves that the british troops fought poorly too! Now compare that dwarf I created to Stalingrad. Heh, I qualify to become a Soviet historian, they did exactly as I described. But the Soviet propaganda we all resented and laughed at was right about one thing, there were and still are the same "methods" on the "outside". They always were and will be, the 300 Spartans held a 3 million strong army. There was actually 11:1 K/D F-86/MiG-15 in Korea. I won't mention anything newer, too emotional to many. Sure only one invincible and indestructible panzer division must count as a battle participant. Hell, I yaked anyway and got pathetically emotional myself! The battle got tons of yarns about it and was "hollywoodicised" Soviet-style. Sure tank ramming is a legend, close engagements between tanks on the move is not. You see, Uncle Jimbo and his friend Ned destroyed the entire Vietcong army; (to all the savages who are not familiar: in "South Park", the US-made cartoon series). Charge and sword them, the galloping steed attached.
  15. The artillery, even self-propelled, has been slowly phased out worldwide for almost half a century. One more sad example of that above. I like dinosaurs. The artillery platforms of the XX century were often beautiful and pleasing the sore eyes of people with engineering background, tired of the box- and tubular- shaped rocket/missile launchers. Battlecruisers "Derflinger" class forewer!