Russian Infantry Fragility

[c3k]

It's all very well having c3k-esque disregard for the wellbeing of your pTruppen, but I find that if I'm not solicitous of their welfare, they stop being capable of doing anything very much at all. Losing 10 men out of a platoon from one shell burst would pretty much leave them shaking in their boots and unwilling to advance on active enemy... How do you keep the Russians going in the face of these casualties?

One word: commissars.

[c3k]

So (and please understand this is not a pointed question, just trying to clarify) you are saying that the old rule of thumb that you would send a Soviet unit one size up (say a company instead of a platoon) from an equivalent western force to do any given job was based on TO&E of heavily attrited forces rather than any tendancy to send more men to complete the job than the western allies would?

Pointed questions are also welcome.

The "one-size up" would apply to FULL size TO&E. That would be due to command and control, command push, type of tendencies. Add yet another step up for depleted TO&E.

FWIW, reading Bartlett's book about the Soviet Zhitomir Berdichev Op of December '43/January '44, some German infantry Regiments had fighting strengths of 40-80 men (seven regiments in this range, just in one corps), and several had 80-150 men. To translate, that is not even the strength of a company. Two steps down, and weak, even at that.

That was how devastatingly bloody the attrition on the East Front was for both sides.

[Battlefront.com]

One thing to keep in mind when looking at a formation's headcount is how much of it was admin. Each nation, at different points in the war, had wildly different amounts of support strength. Grossly overstating things, the Soviets had the least, Americans had the most. The Germans and British continually trimmed service personnel as the war went on due to losses. Soviets did quite a lot of trimming as well.

So (and please understand this is not a pointed question, just trying to clarify) you are saying that the old rule of thumb that you would send a Soviet unit one size up (say a company instead of a platoon) from an equivalent western force to do any given job was based on TO&E of heavily attrited forces rather than any tendancy to send more men to complete the job than the western allies would?

There were a bunch of reasons. First, Soviet units were inherently more brittle. Supply and replacement systems were not great for most of the war, which meant a unit that expended it's supplies and suffered casualties was more likely to be incapable of attacking. Second, low level leadership was not very good, which meant losses were likely to be higher. If you have higher losses you need more replacements. And because of the way the Soviet replacement system worked, this meant you needed more formations. Third, flooding an area with forces caused huge strain on the Germans who themselves had personnel and supply shortages. If a German unit only had enough ammo to take out 100 Soviet riflemen, then hitting the unit with 150 riflemen was a pretty smart thing to do (even if you lost 100 in the process).

It's all very well having c3k-esque disregard for the wellbeing of your pTruppen, but I find that if I'm not solicitous of their welfare, they stop being capable of doing anything very much at all. Losing 10 men out of a platoon from one shell burst would pretty much leave them shaking in their boots and unwilling to advance on active enemy... How do you keep the Russians going in the face of these casualties?

By having more forces to swap in. This is the big difference between playing as the German or Allied player. Here's an example...

The German or Allied player has two companies abreast with a denser concentration in the middle where the main effort is. The player needs to preserve these forces to get to the ultimate objectives on the other side of the map. If one platoon becomes combat ineffective it's not good, if he loses two then he's in bad shape, if he loses three it's probably going to be a defeat.

The Soviet side would more likely have 4 or more companies in the same space. Two abreast, like the German or Allied player, but two more in reserve. As the initial wave takes casualties the formations start to become combat ineffective. Hopefully by the time this happens they've gained significant ground and caused the Germans to be stressed out. Then a third company is "fed" into the battle where it will do the most good and that hopefully breaks the back of the defense. The fourth company is "fed" into the battle to clean up OR compensate for failures in the previous waves.

The other possibility, if terrain allows for it, is to feed all 4 companies into the battle all at once. This is riskier because the Soviet commander doesn't know yet where the problem areas are going to be. And once committed it's pretty hard to shift forces.

Note that German and Allied rules of thumb were 2 up and 1 back. Meaning you have 2 battalions up front and 1 hanging back in reserve, 2 companies up front, 1 hanging back in reserve. Below that it was more-or-less everybody at the front with only small reserves.

The Soviets, on the other hand, did roughly 9 up and 1 back. This meant that for each division a battalion was held back in reserve. For each regiment a company was held in reserve. And for each battalion, perhaps no more than a platoon.

Big difference.

The Russians seem to lack squad weapon support, either as doctrine or in-game, cause those stalin record players suck. I have to micro the guys with them to get them to be aggressive, and, well they don't carry much ammo compared to their MG34 counter part jockeys. I think that's where the perceived weak Russian squad firepower may be coming from.

OTOH the smg squads, once they do get close, will tramp over a fixed position, but its only by terrain or shear numbers that allows them to get close to do that.

Yes, and the primary reason for this is that support weapons require more training to use correctly. Much easier to give everybody a SMG and have them hose down targets individually than it is to have a Squad or Platoon perform intricate fire and move tactics.

Steve

[db_zero]

Be nice if we had some commisar and NKVD units to maintain momentium and morale. I heard stories from the 41-43 period. Not sure if that was still the case in 44.

[womble]

By having more forces to swap in.

That's fine too. Great if that's the way the scenario has been set up.

If you're the Russian. How does this translate into games? I'm assuming (not having bought RT) that the average Russian rifle platoon doesn't cost half the number of QB points that a German platoon does, and isn't half as effective. The Russians won, after all, so making 2Russ v 1Ger "even" wouldn't be right. In real life, the Russians had the operational advantages they worked hard to achieve, which led to having the capacity to put 4 companies where a western force would have had 2. I get that. What nobody's explained is how that translates into the game.

To extend your example: if the Allies were putting 2 companies into a frontage, they wouldn't be expecting (they might hope, but they wouldn't be expect it as a foregone conclusion) to dislodge a german force half their size dug in and waiting for them, but let's say they're up against a german company. A dicey proposition. Perhaps a good game. How does RT make ramming 4 companies of Russians into the same battle space fun? I'm not denying that it does, for a minute, I'm just wondering about the dynamics that make it other than a steamroller (as it was, over time, historically). A very bloody steam roller, on both sides, but an inevitable loss for the Germans.

I don't imagine the Soviets will be fielding twice the infantry numbers of the Germans in meeting engagement QBs. Or maybe they will.

[Michael Emrys]

I love my pixel comrades!

Then rejoice at the opportunity to invite them to Valhalla...or whatever the Russian equivalent is called.

(Ye gods, I am starting to sound like c3k!:eek:)

Michael

[db_zero]

Womble-I haven't made a comparison, but when selecting my Red forces I thought the T34s and other goodies were pretty cheap considering what I was used to paying for when playing Americans and Germans.

[MikeyD]

Operation Bagration covered just 3 months and cost the Russians 180,000 killed and 590,000 wounded. And they were the winners! I don't think we can quite imagine the scale of carnage. One complaint about CMBN was that players tended to be over-aggressive and waste lives. We may have the opposite problem with CMRT, unwilling to stick our arm into the proverbial meatgrinder.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Very quick post... as usual during the week just don’t have the time.. also only very quickly scanned posts above.

Where I disagree with what Steve implies, or may imply...not sure from a very quick scan through... is that by ’44 Soviet casualties were on average/in a typical clash.. whatever that may be... still higher than German casualties in percentage terms. In aggregate maybe... for discussion another day, but for now let’s deal with the percentage casualty rate.

Let me illustrate by looking first at the six months of war in the East in ’41.

Ok.. quick ballpark figures. Casualty ratio Soviet to German 6 : 1 for the six months. Force ratio Soviet to German lets go for 1.7 : 1.

It will instantly become apparent that the Soviets were suffering far higher casualties as a percentage of their forces than the Germans. Germans where outnumbered 1.7 to 1, but inflicting casualties in the ratio six to one.

Soviets survived due to their ability to generate new forces that in turn were then knocked down only to be replaced by more. This happened so often that the casualty ratio reached 6 : 1 but the Germans still ground to halt due to attrition.

For ’42 it’s the same. But less extreme. Let’s go for a casualty ratio of 4.5 : 1 and a force ratio of 2.7 : 1. Soviet ability to generate forces resulted in the end in the Germans “victorying themselves to death...” . Of course in ’42 it ended in defeat at Stalingrad... but let’s not quibble .

Now... fast forward to ’44. The figures I will use are for illustration only.. saves me having to defend them with sources and stuff ... but will at some time... when I can drag myself away from actually playing CMRT... ... post what I believe the actual figures were.

So for illustration... in ’44 imagine if by then the casualty ratio was “below..” the force ratio. Soviet to German. Say casualty ratio of 2 : 1 but force ratio of 3.5 : 1.

What this would mean is the reverse of the situation in ’41. As a percentage of their forces the Germans.. typically, on average, would have been suffering higher casualties than the Soviets.

I believe this was the case. By ’44 the casualty ratio... Soviet to German.... had fallen below the force ratio. In a typical clash, but with any number of exceptions you wish to imagine... when Soviet and German forces clashed in ’44 the Germans did normally suffer higher casualties in percentage terms. And in fact had done so from around August ’43.

This has some big implications.. means for example that if there was a difference in experience, in straight “time survived at the front..” terms... more often than not the Soviet field officers, even NCOs and LMGers will often have had more experience.

All very good fun, cannot believe my luck, all our luck that... Steve and Charles did not decide to develop Space Lobsters.. the horror of how close it came gives me nightmares..!!!

I like a good argument... but like playing CMRT more... and sleeping...

All the best,

Kip.

PS. CMX2 is so good it’s a form of military history... really... not kidding... !

[db_zero]

Operation Bagration covered just 3 months and cost the Russians 180,000 killed and 590,000 wounded. And they were the winners! I don't think we can quite imagine the scale of carnage. One complaint about CMBN was that players tended to be over-aggressive and waste lives. We may have the opposite problem with CMRT, unwilling to stick our arm into the proverbial meatgrinder.

I'm sure as long as there is a supply of pixel troops players will be more than happy to butcher them. May just need a readjustment period to get used to playing the reds.

[Flying Penguin]

Pointed questions are also welcome.

Pointed questions work better when I'm not talking from a position of complete ignorance

Thanks for the clarification!

[Volksgrenadier]

Playing the Soviets I have a question:

How am I supposed to keep them moving, if their morale breaks down like for German units?

I appreciate that nation specific modelling is avoided, but the sometimes incredible ignorance regarding own losses in the Red Army currently seems absent.

Couldn't this be modelled by using special units and equipment and therefore by avoiding nation specific modelling? I'm thinking about Commissar units and alcohol.

For example, the closer these Commissar units to friendly units, the higher their effect would be.

With the ability to make them shoot on own units, this could enforce hard decisions on the player: do I order them to shoot on my own unit, because it has broken down and the attack will stall, or do I shoot at it and it will continue to move forward?

And the other effect I'm thinking about is alcohol.

If made available as "support", the player decides in the setup phase, if he wants to use it - and which units should receive it.

Ignorance for own losses could be simulated quite well with the combination of the two effects.

[ridethe415]

Let me illustrate by looking first at the six months of war in the East in ’41.

In Glantz's book on Stalingrad he states the the Russians, in the first 6 months of Barbarossa, lost 3.1 million men, but also raised 3.3 million men for new armies. Being able to replace what you lose is key.

[c3k]

Hi,

Very quick post... as usual during the week just don’t have the time.. also only very quickly scanned posts above.

Where I disagree with what Steve implies, or may imply...not sure from a very quick scan through... is that by ’44 Soviet casualties were on average/in a typical clash.. whatever that may be... still higher than German casualties in percentage terms. In aggregate maybe... for discussion another day, but for now let’s deal with the percentage casualty rate.

Let me illustrate by looking first at the six months of war in the East in ’41.

Ok.. quick ballpark figures. Casualty ratio Soviet to German 6 : 1 for the six months. Force ratio Soviet to German lets go for 1.7 : 1.

It will instantly become apparent that the Soviets were suffering far higher casualties as a percentage of their forces than the Germans. Germans where outnumbered 1.7 to 1, but inflicting casualties in the ratio six to one.

Soviets survived due to their ability to generate new forces that in turn were then knocked down only to be replaced by more. This happened so often that the casualty ratio reached 6 : 1 but the Germans still ground to halt due to attrition.

For ’42 it’s the same. But less extreme. Let’s go for a casualty ratio of 4.5 : 1 and a force ratio of 2.7 : 1. Soviet ability to generate forces resulted in the end in the Germans “victorying themselves to death...” . Of course in ’42 it ended in defeat at Stalingrad... but let’s not quibble .

Now... fast forward to ’44. The figures I will use are for illustration only.. saves me having to defend them with sources and stuff ... but will at some time... when I can drag myself away from actually playing CMRT... ... post what I believe the actual figures were.

So for illustration... in ’44 imagine if by then the casualty ratio was “below..” the force ratio. Soviet to German. Say casualty ratio of 2 : 1 but force ratio of 3.5 : 1.

What this would mean is the reverse of the situation in ’41. As a percentage of their forces the Germans.. typically, on average, would have been suffering higher casualties than the Soviets.

I believe this was the case. By ’44 the casualty ratio... Soviet to German.... had fallen below the force ratio. In a typical clash, but with any number of exceptions you wish to imagine... when Soviet and German forces clashed in ’44 the Germans did normally suffer higher casualties in percentage terms. And in fact had done so from around August ’43.

This has some big implications.. means for example that if there was a difference in experience, in straight “time survived at the front..” terms... more often than not the Soviet field officers, even NCOs and LMGers will often have had more experience.

All very good fun, cannot believe my luck, all our luck that... Steve and Charles did not decide to develop Space Lobsters.. the horror of how close it came gives me nightmares..!!!

I like a good argument... but like playing CMRT more... and sleeping...

All the best,

Kip.

PS. CMX2 is so good it’s a form of military history... really... not kidding... !

Early '41 figures are grossly distorted by the various "pocket" battles. I'm not saying the casualties don't count, but, rather, the enormous Soviet losses skew the results of away from combat effectiveness ratios. If we subtract out the Soviet captured from Minks, Kiev, Bryansk, and Vyazma, that's roughly 2 million Soviets who didn't really fight. (Big approximation, that.) By "really fight", I don't mean to diminish the hell they faced. But, it is far different being pocketed and trying frantically to break out than it is to sit in prepared defenses or partake in a planned attack.

Many of the German forces trying to contain the pocketed Soviets on the east side of the pockets were decimated. Or worse. (See Stahel's books for good examples of this.)

Of course, in early '44 and on, many German units were pocketed and facing the same issues the Soviets faced in '41 and '42.

Both sides have historically skewed the casualty figures in their own favor for various reasons. Germans to show their prowess against uncountable hordes, Soviets to show they faced more Germans and lost fewer than what the West thinks to show their mastery of the operational art. And to save the reputations of many who fought those bloody battles and then gained political power. Can't be saying our president was an incompetent butcher of our soldiery, can we?

Regardless, I do support the general thrust of your statement: loss ratios to force ratios started one way and then went the other.

That does feed into the Wehrmacht tenet that offensive is the superior form of fighting and is always preferable to the defense. (Your numbers show the attacker always had a better loss ratio, looking at it from a strategic perspective.) That ignores many, many, many factors. Kind of like how the German leadership ignored them...

[Fernando]

For some people dreaming of commisars: They were abolished on Oct. 9th, 1942. They were replaced by political officers with no control on military matters and usually a lower rank than the military commander. IIRC many former commissars were just reconverted to regular officers then assigned to combat units.

[Volksgrenadier]

Fernando,

only a formal abolishment.

At the company- and regiment-level, the pompolit officer was replaced with the zampolit (deputy for political matters). Though no longer known by the original "commissar" title, political officers were retained by the Soviet armed forces until the Soviet dissolution in 1991.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_commissar

[sburke]

Playing the Soviets I have a question:

How am I supposed to keep them moving, if their morale breaks down like for German units?

I appreciate that nation specific modelling is avoided, but the sometimes incredible ignorance regarding own losses in the Red Army currently seems absent.

Couldn't this be modelled by using special units and equipment and therefore by avoiding nation specific modelling? I'm thinking about Commissar units and alcohol.

For example, the closer these Commissar units to friendly units, the higher their effect would be.

With the ability to make them shoot on own units, this could enforce hard decisions on the player: do I order them to shoot on my own unit, because it has broken down and the attack will stall, or do I shoot at it and it will continue to move forward?

And the other effect I'm thinking about is alcohol.

If made available as "support", the player decides in the setup phase, if he wants to use it - and which units should receive it.

Ignorance for own losses could be simulated quite well with the combination of the two effects.

Sorry I don't think BF is interested in trying to portray cartoonish stereotypes in CM. You don't see any goose stepping Nazis running around either. I also doubt they will try to portray drunken German soldiers in the Bulge game of which there are more than a few anecdotal stories.

[Bastables]

Fernando,

only a formal abolishment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_commissar

I presume for a 1944 game you'll want, German Feldgendarmerie with the ability to conduct summery executions of "malingerer" that allow one to game/magic powers like "rebuild morale" of your little pixel truppen. Also the more informal SS officer wandering around with troops doing the same and sometimes fighting Feldgendarmerie units.

Combat mission beyond discipline/papers please,

Might be better as a RPG i think. I think a ogre's tactic isometric battle map combined with visual novel presentation would be ace. Soften the brutality of murdering scared men of your own side by having all the characters be my little ponies or anime girls in nazi uniforms.

maybe get C Love on board as writer.

[Fernando]

Fernando,

only a formal abolishment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_commissar

It was not:

“The Presidium of the Supreme Soviet took another major step in increasing the stature and quality of the officer corps when it abolished the formal commissar system (the institute of military commissars) and restored the principle of single (unified) command (edinonachalie) within the Red Army on 9 October 1942 and did the same within the Navy and NKVD on 13 October. Under the new principle of edinonachalie, which meant the commander had full authority over his force, deputy commanders for political affairs replaced the former commissars at every level of command. Therefore, although this measure evidenced increased Party faith in the reliability of the Red Army’s command cadre, political education continued unabated.

The GKO accelerated its introduction of the principle of edinonachalie throughout the army during late May 1943, when it abolished the duty position of deputy commander for political affairs at company and battery levels. At the same time, it reduced the number of deputy chiefs of staff for political affairs in corps, division, brigades, PVO (air defense) region, and fortified regions, and it replaced the deputy commanders and deputy chiefs for political affairs in formations and military-educational institutions with the chiefs of the political departments. In addition of lessening the stifling presence of commissars and political officers, these measures freed up more than 122,000 political officers and workers who had considerable combat experience for service in line combat command positions.”

Glantz, D.M., “Colossus Reborn. The Red Army at War, 1941-1943”, page 475, Universty Press of Kansas, 2005.

From May 1943 onwards no Zampolit (former Politruk) at company/battery level.

[Peregrine]

MG42s are pretty good after the 2.? patch (forgot which one update MG suppression) so the fragility compared to what you may be used to is probably a result of the Russians not generating enough firepower in return.

[Volksgrenadier]

Sorry I don't think BF is interested in trying to portray cartoonish stereotypes in CM. You don't see any goose stepping Nazis running around either. I also doubt they will try to portray drunken German soldiers in the Bulge game of which there are more than a few anecdotal stories.

Drunken German soldiers, but it's only a cartoonish stereotype for the Red Army...

I understand.

[sburke]

Drunken German soldiers, but it's only a cartoonish stereotype for the Red Army...

I understand.

No I don't think you do. The point was I think it is cartoonish to do for either and doubt BF would consider including for any nationality. On the other hand you think it should be in for the Russians only.*

*note lack of cute smiley

[Collingwood]

Well. If we are going to have Commisars enhancing Soviet morale, I want a new order: "Carefully target commisars"

[db_zero]

The take away from all this is the Red Army plays differently and that is a very good thing. If they looked, played and felt like the Western armies we would have a big problem, but from the look and sound of it they are not clones of the Germans or American armies.

I'm looking forward to learning and playing for and against them.

[kaburke61]

Well. If we are going to have Commisars enhancing Soviet morale, I want a new order: "Carefully target commisars"

LOL...Zing!