From wikipedia:

“On 22 June 1941 Germany launched Operation Barbarossa, attacking the Soviet Union on a wide front. Romania joined in the offensive, with Romanian troops crossing the River Prut. After recovering Bessarabia and Bukovina (Operation München), Romanian units fought side by side with the Germans onward to Odessa, Sevastopol, Stalingrad and the Caucasus. The Romanian contribution of troops was enormous. The total number of troops involved in the Romanian Third Army and the Romanian Fourth Army was second only to Nazi Germany itself. The Romanian Army had a total of 686,258 men under arms in the summer of 1941 and a total of 1,224,691 men in the summer of 1944.[6] The number of Romanian troops sent to fight in Russia exceeded that of all of Germany’s other allies combined.”

from WoT:

Dumitru’s Medal – Awarded for the destruction of four enemy self-propelled guns.
Ion S. Dumitru was a Romanian tank ace. He fought in World War II for just twenty-five days, of which five on the German side, and, after Romania changed sides, twenty days against the Germans. On March 6th, 1945, Dumitru contributed to the destruction of six enemy tank destroyers and capture of a battery [eight pieces] of 150 mm guns.

Didn’t know much about Romania, but a quick search and there it goes. Results!

As for the heavy/medium thingie…I’m a little pro and a little against. Whatever WG wants. I don’t mind if they decide to put it in or leave it out.

I assumed “justified” was a synonym to what you reiterated now as:
“given the “historical context”, do you *expect* the Soviets to have done when the dust settled?”
as in, the soviets were justified in their atrocities by the atrocities done unto them. This is only semantics. You didn’t use “justified”, but I understood it as such. If it was a mistake it was on my part then. My point was that I think the soviets didn’t in any way “go easy” to use your exact wording, on the Axis members. Considering the atrocities committed on both sides, mercy was not to be expected but then again I just want to parallel this to the fate of West Germany. After the War it had to live next to countries that it had ravaged and ruined. It was helped back on it’s feet and integrated into NATO, and finally the western economic block. Although it had been bombed to ashes and every neighbour resented it’s wartime behaviour. Eastern Europe was effectively enslaved by the USSR for decades and that damage is clear even to this day. Is the negative impact of that war comparable to what is Germany experiencing now ?

I don’t think we can argue about the the bandwagon. It was the worst one to join indeed, but was there any other alternative ? Could any nation located between Nazi Germany and the USSR remain neutral in that time ? When Hitler twisted every arm he could to gather “allies”, and when the British and French assurances were not worth the paper they were written on, what else could they have done ? It’s always easy to judge in hindsight but to me it feels like condemning a man that had to kill to survive.

That aside, you just pulled that bit about “justification” out of your ass because I never even used the word. Which is a fallacy called “strawman argument”.

Second, boo hoo. Be as it may the Central European “Axis Minors” jumped onto the wrongest bandwagon ever and AFAIK engaged in fair bit of quite voluntary nastiness on the side; and what, given the “historical context”, do you *expect* the Soviets to have done when the dust settled? Give them a stern talking-to, tell them not to do it again, and go home to lick their wounds?
Fat fucking chance.

Gun depression/elevation = -5 / +37 (to be confirmed)