Jump to content

Recommended Posts

sburke & MikeyD

I was just using the 1941 Soviet troops as an example but you could easily say that about the newly minted 1945 German troops being thrown into the line.

I am not sure how you would model tactical rigidity. The command delay was a means to an end but while not a perfect one, it did make you think about things more. I.e. Having reserves near the back of the map as your units in the thick of things would not react fast enough. Those 120 second command delays were a real headache to deal with.

You do have options to model this type of rigidity

  1. Command Delays
  2. Removing allowable actions (e.g. no assault with green troops, just move or fast for conscripts)
  3. No splitting of squads
  4. Units always want to move towards commanders if out of command (now I am just throwing out some ideas)
  5. Conscript Units no longer show up if they are outside of command control (like in Iron mode but with the possibility of appearing again
  6. You can only provide orders for them once every two minutes instead of immediately (RT) or each minute (WEGO)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 628
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

sburke & MikeyD

I was just using the 1941 Soviet troops as an example but you could easily say that about the newly minted 1945 German troops being thrown into the line.

I am not sure how you would model tactical rigidity. The command delay was a means to an end but while not a perfect one, it did make you think about things more. I.e. Having reserves near the back of the map as your units in the thick of things would not react fast enough. Those 120 second command delays were a real headache to deal with.

You do have options to model this type of rigidity

  1. Command Delays
  2. Removing allowable actions (e.g. no assault with green troops, just move or fast for conscripts)
  3. No splitting of squads
  4. Units always want to move towards commanders if out of command (now I am just throwing out some ideas)
  5. Conscript Units no longer show up if they are outside of command control (like in Iron mode but with the possibility of appearing again
  6. You can only provide orders for them once every two minutes instead of immediately (RT) or each minute (WEGO)

There is another thread going into more detail on this. I found some old commentary from Steve on the subject as well.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=112912&page=2

Link to post
Share on other sites

sburke,

Am reading Clark's book, The Battle of the Tanks: Kursk 1943. In it, he says, or maybe quotes a Russian general, to the effect that the Russians realized the Germans had a major tactical edge, which is why they shifted their focus to beating the Germans at the operational level. That's exactly what they did, as seen in the counterstroke that cut off Stalingrad. The casualties in the Stalingrad battle proper are pretty close, but what the Russians did to Axis forces in the encirclement dwarfed those.

In some ways, you could argue that the Germans maintained a tactical edge right to the very end, as seen, for example in the Luftwaffe's being able to attack the Oder bridgehead, despite vast masses of AAA and fighters, with slow, awkward to maneuver Ju-87Gs. Even the last hurrah of the Panzers in Hungary, I think, hurt the Russians. From what I've read, the Germans, tank crew for tank crew, were overall far better trained and more experienced than their Russian counterparts. There's no question the Russians got a lot better than they were when Barbarossa began, but if you look at their tank losses in one huge op after another, both logic and their own accounts indicate tank crews were created from Russian infantry, given a few hours of training on the tank and sent straight into battle. How much better matters became subsequently, I don't know. HSU Loza's Defending the Soviet Motherland doesn't say, nor does the interview on Battlefield.ru and I haven't read his other book, Commanding Sherman Tanks in War.

Also not helping the situation at all was that the T-34 had issues with fires, big issues with the fuel tanks in the crew compartment, despite the use of the theoretically less dangerous diesel fuel. Their own assessment, with some translation oddities in it, was provided by one TripleC here (left out the .xxx part) Not pretty.

http://www.ww2f. /topic/20889-t-34-crew-surivability-a-soviet-assessment/

This is an illuminating look at the performance of the T-34 over time, starting with a hard look at the claims regarding the scarcity of the T-34 at the beginning of the war. The material on exchange ratios year by year makes fascinating reading, as does the material addressing the late war exchange ratio (3:1 in German favor) and astounding overall loss numbers. It's a good thing the Russians built so many, for the Germans destroyed them on a scale almost impossible to conceive.

http://operationbarbarossa.net/Myth-Busters/MythBusters2.html

This Dupuy Institute discussion said German basic training alone was 12-16 weeks. That's before Panzer selection and training even starts. This same thread gives the training breakdown for the Royal Tank Regiment. And if you go look at the histories of the first U.S. armored divisions, they spent 2 years in training. Contrast that with what Glantz says of one Russian tank division in which the tank drivers had 5 HOURS of driving experience, having transitioned to tanks never having driven so much as a tractor. People forget how overwhelmingly rural and poorly mechanized Russia was. Consequently, there was no real pool of drivers upon which to draw. In Penalty Strike, a man who rose to be a company commander in an Independent Penal Battalion describes how he was arbitrarily assigned as a truck driver, was given a few minutes' explanation of the controls, and off he went. That alone should be deemed a prime indicator.

I'm reasonably certain the info we seek lies primarily in Russian language sources (haven't read the one in English by a Russian tank and SPG TC), as well as VIZh, of which Andreas had quite a pile online years(?) ago. Those VIZh issues had all kinds of articles on pretty much everything to do with the Russian Army during WW II.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to post
Share on other sites
Conscript Units no longer show up if they are outside of command control (like in Iron mode but with the possibility of appearing again

The wording in the manual is quite confusing and this seems to crop up now or then:

You do NOT loose units in iron mode that are out of C2.

When you highlight a unit in iron you only see what this unit sees. They may indeed loose contact/sight to their superior unit. This is why IMHO iron is actually easier to play because you exactly know what your units see.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The wording in the manual is quite confusing and this seems to crop up now or then:

You do NOT loose units in iron mode that are out of C2.

When you highlight a unit in iron you only see what this unit sees. They may indeed loose contact/sight to their superior unit. This is why IMHO iron is actually easier to play because you exactly know what your units see.

+1 on that. Despite my initial reservations I actually found Iron mode to be the most helpful at understanding and managing my units C2 issues. It is really graphic in wooded or dense urban terrain as you can see just how quickly you can lose C2 and why unit density becomes so much of a factor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Answers! According to the statement by an SU-76M commander, Rem Ulyanov, the course for truck driving was three months. It looks as though tank drivers generally came from truck drivers, but it's not clear how long that course was, since the tank driver was actually called driver mechanic. What's specifically stated is that he was supposed to get 18 hours of driving and got 3!

Degon Lazarevich went to the Kharkov Tank Training School where after a year of intensive training, during which he fired a whopping 3 tank rounds, he graduated as a junior lieutenant tank commander. He'd already been a MG gunner, a scout and other things before then.

http://english.iremember.ru/tankers/73-degen-ion-lazarevich-.html?q=%2Ftankers%2F73-degen-ion-lazarevich-.html%3Fq%3D%2Ftankers%2F73-degen-ion-lazarevich-.html%3Fq%3D%2Ftankers%2F73-degen-ion-lazarevich-.html&start=5

Here's his assessment of the training and battle readiness of his crew. Bears reading!

"- How do you assess the level of capability of the crew for fighting?

- I can only give one estimate mark - zero. In the TTR (tank training regiment) the crew had been badly starved but taught little. I had nothing to hold against the gun commander; he could fire his gun. The driver had only eight hours of the tank driving practice. But it was not even a matter of professional training - the crew was emaciated. I was looking with regret at the turret gunner and wondered how that goner would be able in action, in indescribable confinedness, on the move, to load 15 kg tank gun shells, where he would get the strength to lift a shell out of the ammo case? I kept thinking of how to feed the crew."

In the account below, Faden Mikhailovich, who's already had 18 months of motorcycle training and knows how to drive a car, spends 8 months in TC training (late August '43-late April '43), puts a crew together and enters action July 12, 1943.

http://english.iremember.ru/tankers/68-fadin-alexander-mikhailovich.html

There are a few more accounts there I've yet to check, but this gives some idea of the situation on the Russian side.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice :)

I like to see the work on the easter front game. The greater maps, the tank riders and the functionally Flak-guns are the most greatest advantages.

I think for eastern front the tank riders are really important, because the sovjets dont have much halftracks.

In my opion I don´t miss fire that much, it would be nice but its not important for me.

Beute-cars are more important in my opinion. I would be glad to see some russian Opel-Blitz, Kübelwagen, a german Halftrack (sdkfz.251/1) and maybe a sort of a MarkIV tank (known as T-4) or Panther (T-5 Pantera).

On the german side there could be some stolen russian GAS-AA, some T-34 (known as Pz. 747®) or some other allied cars like british Bedfort trucks (the models are already there, only in the wrong paint).

By the way, it could be interesting to give empty cars and trucks in special to the editor. Maybe to add a single kübelwagen or truck without a driver to a group. To improve some scenarios.

Link to post
Share on other sites
...the sovjets dont have much halftracks.

Depends on what you mean by 'much' [many]. From 1944 on they got quite a few via Lend-Lease. Not enough to put a big part of their army in halftracks, but certain formations like the Mechanized Corps had substantial parts of their infantry on tracks.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, sorry. Many is the right word. My english is not the very best, my german is better.

Yeah, the sovjets got some Lend-Lease vehicles, shermans, jeeps, trucks, halftracks. But only a few and not enough to gave their hordes of infantry the chance to follow their mass of T34 tanks.

So I think tankriders are important and if they get some vehicles from their enemies they would use it like the german did the same.

So some "Beute"-vehicles and the tankriders will get the intention of the indigent situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"- How do you assess the level of capability of the crew for fighting?

- I can only give one estimate mark - zero. In the TTR (tank training regiment) the crew had been badly starved but taught little. I had nothing to hold against the gun commander; he could fire his gun. The driver had only eight hours of the tank driving practice. But it was not even a matter of professional training - the crew was emaciated. I was looking with regret at the turret gunner and wondered how that goner would be able in action, in indescribable confinedness, on the move, to load 15 kg tank gun shells, where he would get the strength to lift a shell out of the ammo case? I kept thinking of how to feed the crew."

Very interesting. I am currently finishing up The Taste of War: World War II and the Battle for Food by Lizzie Cunningham, and it's a great and informative read. It is incredible that the Soviets were able to fight and produce on a diet severely lacking in calories and nutrients.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before we assume that all Russian tankers were both blind and incompetent let us recall on August 12 1944 Lt. Oskin in his T34-85 killed three King Tigers from sPzAbt 501 in quick succession, skillfully maneuvering for side and rear shots and using his tank riders to capture the surviving tank crews. The Germans didn't know what hit them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know BFC has discussed the East Front as either being several games or one game with many modules.

I exclusively play PBEM QBs against 1 friend. In setting up the games we select random for most options and just go from there. We don't give each other rejection rights if we don't like the battle.

I would like to see a single game spanning from 41-45 with random selections for date and region. And with regards to the BFC business model, I would see no problems paying the game price each time a new year is introduced. And the $35 for any modules for each of the years.

Additionally on the CMBN I'd like to see the Region selection France/Holland and date/month add an option of RANDOM.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Before we assume that all Russian tankers were both blind and incompetent let us recall on August 12 1944 Lt. Oskin in his T34-85 killed three King Tigers from sPzAbt 501 in quick succession, skillfully maneuvering for side and rear shots and using his tank riders to capture the surviving tank crews. The Germans didn't know what hit them.

Ogledow always comes to my mind when others talk of Soviet tankers having little tactical prowess. I remember there being a CMBB scenario of it, was fun as hell hiding the T-34's in the wheat waiting for the Tigers to pass by. Hope someone makes a uptdated version for well whats the name of this anyway CM:EF?? CM:B?? CM:OB??

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, the sovjets got some Lend-Lease vehicles, shermans, jeeps, trucks, halftracks. But only a few and not enough to gave their hordes of infantry the chance to follow their mass of T34 tanks.

True, but this was the same problem that all armies of that era had to a greater or lesser degree, including the German army. Most German infantry marched wherever they were going if there wasn't a train available to take them. The bulk of their artillery and supplies were pulled by horses.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fun fact: Hitler is always credited for the Autobahn (at least here he is). But it was actually started by the Weimar Republic and only very reluctantly finished by the Nazis (who made a huge publicity stunt out of it - effective even today).

Most of the money went into tracks which he knew he would need for his troops.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...