Kolesnik Alexander. "Militia formations of the Russian Federation during the Great Patriotic War"
Literally find neither the Autor nor this Book on the internet and to be honest it seems a bit odd that he would write about Militia formations of the Russian Federation ... wouldn't Militia formations of the Soviet Union be more fitting. Are you sure this is the correct title?(but then again there are lots of strange translations out there so maybe bad book-translator?)?
Could you please provide a link, screenshot ... anything? All the sources I quoted are freely available on the internet
And here is complete nonsense - confirmation of this, the instructor sergeant submissive ran over to the Germans and during interrogation clearly said that each militia had a rifle, a gas mask, and each was dressed with the same uniform. Moreover, the Leningrad militia turned out to be very stubborn and staunch in defense, the reason for the double staff of mortars, mortars were produced in Leningrad and the militia received a double staff of mortars.
in the Central Archives of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation there are documents on the degree of staffing with weapons of all twelve divisions of the people's militia on September 3, 1941.
The provision of rifles, machine guns, light and heavy machine guns, 50-mm mortars, 76-mm divisional guns, 122-mm howitzers is 100% in them. Among the total number of heavy machine guns, there are 412 Colt heavy machine guns model 1915.
In which it is not said that these soldiers went into battle without weapons, and they say about the difficulty of the offensive, because these soldiers could not immediately go into the attack. This often happened when the soldiers arrived at the front line before the weapon.
But it shows that not only rear construction units could / did lack rifles
And in this case (the 284th rifle division) it actually was a lack of weapons that remained for months. On July 20th the quoted report was written. On then next day the unit was ordered to counterattack and on September 17th it was assigned to the defense of Stalingrad while still lacking weapons. On wikipedia is it written (sadly don't have the book that they quote for this passage)that it was involved in "difficult fighting" on September 22nd.
And in the third, you talk about a hastily created militia. The militia, depending on the situation, received an old weapon, or was armed with SVT-40 (Tula militia), even in your example it says badly armed but not unarmed.
Badly armed can again be interpreted in variing ways so here is another quote from one of Beevors Books.
No, it didn’t happen. Soviet soldiers never attacked without weapons. Neither Soviet nor German documents and reports confirm this. The only thing that could happen was the capture of construction divisions, they had no weapons for a simple logical reason - they built fortifications deep in the rear, but after large encirclements over a large territory with hundreds of thousands of prisoners, such divisions could be captured without weapons.
There were Soviet Divisions that lacked rifles that is for sure and it is confirmed by reports:
And there are also sources that state that poorly armed soldiers were sent into battle:
Which cavity collapses if you look at the skin. The conscripts skin is a 1943 uniform. And this means the conscripts are much better prepared and there is no hint of the mythical one rifle for three.
Uniforms in this game are a joke anyways. Osttruppen have a sign on their uniform that wasn't introduced until late 44' iirc. and Grenadiers have some kind of made up skin as far as I know also there are G43s, Panzerschrecks and even one Tiger in 1942 in the Single Player Mode.
And the "one rifle for two (or three)" is btw. not 100% mythical. There are instances in 1941 and 1942 where this happened
Alrighty then, are you saying the Stug is the go-to tool vs heavy tanks and counters KV1,-2,-8, IS2 and Pershing? This explains everything, I am such a noob! Did not know that Panther and Jagdpanzer are gimmicky decoration and there is a much cheaper, better tool. THE STUG! How to shot Heavies into oblivion. Obviously!
I always thought it's a cheap armored AT alternative to keep T34 and Shermans at bay, but hey, just a 4-digit thought ...
My main point was that Stug IIIs cost more than the TDs you compared them to and come later and also have no arty and no cloak unlike the Su 76. So of course Su 76s won't "turn Tiger tanks into swiss cheese" ... at least as long as you use just one or two of them (a lone Stug won't "shoot heavies into oblivion" either btw. only once one gets 2 of them they become a reliable treat to most unsupported Heavies that just run straight into them). Wasn't saying that they are the go-to tool vs heavies
Jagdpanzer is OKW btw.
Regarding the Stugs role:
Double Stug III is nice but Panther is better (better AI, 360° Mg, Turret, and also better against heavies)
Poor stug struggles against the heaviest tank the USF can field. Well, at least Su76 and M10 are absolutely known to turn heavy Tiger tanks into swiss cheese, so there is that.
Stug III comes after 245 fuel (if ones skips T2)
Su 76 comes after 160 fuel if one goes T1 (and no clown car)
M10 can come after 225 fuel (if one skips everything)
M10 costs 80 fuel and 10 pop cap and has a turret (and better mobility)
Su 76 costs 75 fuel and 8 pop cap and has cloaking + arty
AFAIK you can destroy USF fighting position nothing but with small arms. I'm actually with you. We need to buff fighting position's armor so small arm can't deal dmg to bunker.
Doing dmg with nade is another story of course.
One can but it takes long. 8 Ober squads with Mg 34s take about 35 seconds. (with 8 WEHR Pioneers it just takes about 15 seconds, with 8 OKW Pioneers about 22 seconds)
IMO Bunkers should actually get changed so they get a tiny bit of damage from rifles (not much just a tiny bit) ... having 10 Sections nearby that don't do even just a tiny bit of damage just felt weird ... but then again something "feeling weird" is not really an argument when it comes to balance factors
Sections with MGs and Sov. Paratroopers with MGs do damage to Bunkers by the way.
Alpha damage might not matter at whatever scrub rank in 4v4 RT meatgrinder you play, but it most definitely does matter a whole lot in 1s and 2s, especially when all players involved know how to play just as good as google for stats.
I guess its high time to get that first ever soviet game going then and see how actually "op" it is compared to what it sounds, eh?
Always funny when players that don't even play the game accuse others of being "4 vs 4 Scrubs" or not playing a certain faction (despite their Playercard clearly showing the opposite in both cases)
I am not sure why people keep bringing this up but it has clearly been demonstrate the PTRS Penal have similar DPS with other AT infantry vs mediums.
Do they? Just tested it and this doesn't seem to be the case (from the side / rear it might be possible but not from the front) ... but then again PTRS is cheaper, (more precise ... at least it really feels this way), givies snare and leaves the unit probably with much more AI power
Currently the axis have a big advantage in 2v2+ modes. So if the winrates drop to 50-50, that would mean B4 OP or?
Do they? Top 200 is always below 42% and sometimes as low as 25% for the last three weeks for axis 3 vs 3. For top 200 2 vs 2 it looks similar albeit not quite as bad (always below 50% except one week, where WEHR has 52.4%). Only mode where "Top 200" Axis rules is 4 vs 4
Also: Could a Drop really be attributed for the B4 alone? Wasn't there much more stuff changed?
Computer - Leicht
Relic Entertainment
