Russian Infantry Fragility

[MikeyD]

The take away from all this is the Red Army plays differently and that is a very good thing.

I suspect that a few people here probably missed out on CM:Afghanistan. Let me tell you, if that title taught you anything it was that Russians - even 1970s Russians - played really really differently.

[Bastables]

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

Which also buffs the Soviets troops willingness to fight to the death as an unintended consequence. Aka one of the arguments for Hitlers repugnant Commissioner order to be rescinded.

[Chops]

After studiously reading the Forums, carefully perusing the Manual, and laboriously absorbing the rantings and ravings of c3k (aka Ken) for every tidbit and morsel of information on how to best utilize the Soviet Army in 1944, and a bottle of Moskovskaya courage by my side; I finally felt like my lessons were learned and I was ready.

Ready to Attack as the Soviet Army was meant to attack. No pesky scouting, no deploying teams, no fancy maneuver, just plain old Attack. Attack with overwhelming numbers, keep the plan simple and get er done. So I proceeded to Attack.

Shortly thereafter I, Company Commander Polivanov +1, found myself with a bloodied, shaken, rattled and cowering mass of pixeltruppen scratching the earth amidst smoke, haze, and screams. This pathetic mass was additionally surrounded by the burning hulks of T-34's adding to their agony as internal stores cooked off.

Being that defeat was not an option (don't look behind you), I, Company Commander Polivanov picked myself up by my bootstraps and trotted up to the front line. Apparently word had filtered back of my 1941-style leadership, incompetence and gross negligence. No sooner had I reached my panicky frontline troops, when an IS-2 took me out with a 122mm round of friendly fire, leaving the rest of the HQ squad completely unharmed. CC Polivanov was no more.

And this was only the 3rd mission of the Tutorial Campaign..........for this veteran of CMSF, CMA, and CMBN. Back to the drawing board.

[Battlefront.com]

Early '41 figures are grossly distorted by the various "pocket" battles.

<snip>

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

Yup, which is why looking at force ratios (as Kip did) don't relate to tactical combat at all. Not even a little bit Even when looking at the overall force ratio for a specific operation there's so many caveats that it renders the numbers totally useless when looking at the tactical level.

First of all, statistically it doesn't make any sense without major caveats and adjustments. For example, Soviets had a much higher proportion of their military forces in combat positions vs. support positions compared to the Germans. In addition, Soviet doctrine dictated a higher proportion of frontline forces be employed in a combat operation than Germans (theoretically, that is). Then you also have to consider mass surrenders, rear support units being wiped out by combat forces, etc. Meaning that for a given specific tactical battle the combat force ratios were likely totally different than the amalgamated force ratio for the entire front or extended period of time.

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

I agree to the extent that Soviet rifle unit losses were horrid compared to Germans at the tactical level, but this improved dramatically as the war went on. However, there is a ton of evidence to show that their losses were still higher proportional to German losses on average. Even in 1945 when the Germans were defeated, Soviet weaponry was at it's height, force ratios were favorable, etc. If one wants to double check this, look at the force ratios and losses on the Western Front. It's a good source for comparison since the Germans are constant for both and largely on the defensive in both theaters.

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...

The problem with this is that there is SOME truth to the German claims of "superiority" vis-a-vis low level tactical one on one encounters. The gap got smaller as the war went on, partly because the Soviets got better but also partly because the Germans got worse. Same against the Western Allies... Germans got worse, Allies got better.

Where the German myth totally breaks down is in how it generalizes things. Not only on a battle by battle basis, but over the course of the whole war. Listen to the stereotypical German position and you'd think that the Germans never lost a tactical fight except when overwhelmed by numbers. Similarly, the German stereotypical fantasy position is that the Western Allies only won because they had more supplies, artillery, and aircraft. Total and utter nonsense

And of course anybody who thinks that the Germans fought an intelligent, efficient, well directed, sane war at the strategic level is smoking crack. The big surprise isn't that the Third Reich lost the war, it's that it took so damned long to lose it. The credit for that, I think, is the fighting quality of the average German soldier. Because any sane and clear headed historian certainly can't credit Hitler and senior military leadership for anything other than occasionally screwing something up a little less badly than the last disaster.

Steve

[db_zero]

After studiously reading the Forums, carefully perusing the Manual, and laboriously absorbing the rantings and ravings of c3k (aka Ken) for every tidbit and morsel of information on how to best utilize the Soviet Army in 1944, and a bottle of Moskovskaya courage by my side; I finally felt like my lessons were learned and I was ready.

Ready to Attack as the Soviet Army was meant to attack. No pesky scouting, no deploying teams, no fancy maneuver, just plain old Attack. Attack with overwhelming numbers, keep the plan simple and get er done. So I proceeded to Attack.

Shortly thereafter I, Company Commander Polivanov +1, found myself with a bloodied, shaken, rattled and cowering mass of pixeltruppen scratching the earth amidst smoke, haze, and screams. This pathetic mass was additionally surrounded by the burning hulks of T-34's adding to their agony as internal stores cooked off.

Being that defeat was not an option (don't look behind you), I, Company Commander Polivanov picked myself up by my bootstraps and trotted up to the front line. Apparently word had filtered back of my 1941-style leadership, incompetence and gross negligence. No sooner had I reached my panicky frontline troops, when an IS-2 took me out with a 122mm round of friendly fire, leaving the rest of the HQ squad completely unharmed. CC Polivanov was no more.

And this was only the 3rd mission of the Tutorial Campaign..........for this veteran of CMSF, CMA, and CMBN. Back to the drawing board.

I haven't been able to get into RT that much as I have a lot of other h2h games going on. That being said I have a mirrored h2h game of Borderland and like my opponent I'm discovering that there are some times when you got to just say f**k it and be brutal and just steamroller the opponent and take what comes.

You win some and you lose some. You can't always be fancy and maneuver.

[fry30]

i am nfortuntely using my windows software keyboard because mine just died, . but i have to ah screew it. best cm ever paying a soviets is amazing. agree that platoon is lowest group ill use to maneuver etc. arg nvrmnd. fun new challenge.

[mjkerner]

...fun new challenge.

The game or the keyboard?

[LukeFF]

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.

If that isn't a stereotypical and absurd idea, then I don't know what one would be.

[db_zero]

And of course anybody who thinks that the Germans fought an intelligent, efficient, well directed, sane war at the strategic level is smoking crack. The big surprise isn't that the Third Reich lost the war, it's that it took so damned long to lose it. The credit for that, I think, is the fighting quality of the average German soldier. Because any sane and clear headed historian certainly can't credit Hitler and senior military leadership for anything other than occasionally screwing something up a little less badly than the last disaster.

Steve

The supreme leader of Germany was a meth addict and it shows. Left 250,000 battle hardened troops to rot in North Africa and wasted an army at Stalingrad.

One can only imagine what would have happened if those half a million troops were available in 44-45.

[Battlefront.com]

One of these days the secret intelligence will be de-classifified and we'll know just what the allied knew. For all we know they probably were funneling dope to Der Furher and others knowing it was in there best long term interests.

You might not be too far off the mark.

There is actually a newish branch of history (damn, I forget the term!) that seeks to explain major historical events based on the psychology of "movers and shakers". One specific thing is to examine how medical conditions for an individual may have had disproportional impact on historical events. With Hitler the focus has been on injuries suffered from the bomb blast and the quack treatments he had after.

I don't know if anybody out there has specifically stated this or not, but it is quite possible that Hitler suffered from TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury) from the bomb blast. His behavior pattern after the bombing is at least superficially similar to some of the things seen from TBI cases in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as professional sports. Paranoia, mood swings, irrational decision making, etc.

So yeah, it's quite possible that Hitler went from bad to worse in part, or perhaps significantly, because of the drug regiment he was under.

Steve

[Collingwood]

because of the drug regiment

Every Division should have a drug regiment.

[ChrisND]

Every Division should have a drug regiment.

What are you talking about? We have a whole Chemical Corps!

That is what the name means, doesn't it?

[kipanderson]

Hi,

The big difference between Stalin and Hitler... as war leaders no matter how appealing in other ways.. was that Stalin was often a good judge of his marshals and even when on the face of things events went badly stuck with them. If they performed well... given the prevailing circumstances... he seemed to judge that correctly and did not sack them as Hitler would.

The Soviet spring ’42 counterattack around Kharkov was a disaster and Stalin’s baby. He seemed to realise this and then for two yours did stand back and allowed his generals to have their way on most matters.

BTW... have also thought of the “pocket issue...” re casualties. Looked carefully at the first six months of ’44 when in fact there were not all these huge pockets. What surprised me was that the same formula as for late ’44 held.

In the NWE the casualty ratio was often Allied to German, 1 : 2. The Germans were routinely out fought. This was largely due to resources... but that is not cheating... . If NATO uses air and artillery against poorer enemies it’s not cheating. As in comparative advantage in economics armies play to their strengths.

I don’t think the evidence is overwhelming that by ’44 the Soviets still lost more as a percentage of their forces than the Germans... even at the CM level.... . More later... but the ratios moved so far to the advantage of the Soviets that if at the tactical level the Germans were still routinely so much better if should really show in the figures in a way it does not.

All fun stuff,

All the best,

Kip.

[76mm]

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.

Certainly an interesting idea, in that it would allow Battlefront to crank out modules and new games much faster, since they could dispense with doing all that pesky research and modelling stuff--they could restrict their research to sources to Carrell, Hassell, and perhaps selected Nazi fanboi comic books, and they could just make up the underlying data to match the results in such sources. Much easier!!

Of course, such a move would lose them a significant part of their current market, but they could crank out a lot more games, and as we know from the Eastern Front quantity has a quality all of its own.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

No, it's probably closer to 1.4-1.5 to 1. Take a standard Grenadier company and delete the 'schrecks so the only heavy weapons teams are the 2 MG42 HMGs. You have 113 men costing 619 points, or 5.5 per man. A Soviet rifle '43 company with the AT rifles and mortar platoon deleted -- leaving the one organic Maxim HMG -- is 137 men costing 542 points, or 4 per man.

Including all the heavy weapons will drive the per man cost of German troops higher because panzerschrecks are 4 times the price of AT rifles.

[Bastables]

Certainly an interesting idea, in that it would allow Battlefront to crank out modules and new games much faster, since they could dispense with doing all that pesky research and modelling stuff--they could restrict their research to sources to Carrell, Hassell, and perhaps selected Nazi fanboi comic books, and they could just make up the underlying data to match the results in such sources. Much easier!!

Of course, such a move would lose them a significant part of their current market, but they could crank out a lot more games, and as we know from the Eastern Front quantity has a quality all of its own.

We just need more pretty blonds in fetish nazi uniforms.

[c3k]

^^^

I bought that movie. (I enjoy supporting indie's.) If you approach it as it was meant, as a totally over the top spoof, it wasn't THAT bad.

Re: Stalin becoming a better judge of his generals. I think he just became self-assured that they were sufficiently afraid of him (and Beria) to fight harder at the front. (The period images of him are, to a Western perspective, ludicrous. A tall man, bigger than anyone around; master of all, etc., etc. Similar to Kim il un's "he played golf once and got 15 holes in one.")

[76mm]

^^^

Re: Stalin becoming a better judge of his generals. I think he just became self-assured that they were sufficiently afraid of him (and Beria) to fight harder at the front.

I think that is a bit simplistic; actually, I think Stalin's role gradually changed because:

1) Stalin finally understanding that most of the generals were already fighting as best they knew how, and arresting/shooting the unsuccessful ones wouldn't necessarily improve matters;

2) already by the fall of 1941, Stalin began to gradually appreciate that at least some of his generals were more or less competent, and some were completely incompetent (although plenty of deadwood remained throughout 1942 at least); and

3) Stalin understanding (after Kiev, Kharkov, etc.) that he himself was not a great military leader, and unless he put the talented generals in charge the war would not end well.

[Bastables]

^^^

I bought that movie. (I enjoy supporting indie's.) If you approach it as it was meant, as a totally over the top spoof, it wasn't THAT bad.

Re: Stalin becoming a better judge of his generals. I think he just became self-assured that they were sufficiently afraid of him (and Beria) to fight harder at the front. (The period images of him are, to a Western perspective, ludicrous. A tall man, bigger than anyone around; master of all, etc., etc. Similar to Kim il un's "he played golf once and got 15 holes in one.")

I own the movie and the game on PS3, it's hilariously over the top .

[76mm]

I own the movie and the game on PS3...

uh oh, sounds like the niche proposed by volksgrenadier has already been occupied by another game developer...

Tough break for battlefront I guess, but good news for volksgrenadier, because now he doesn't have to wait to play his game.

[Macisle]

We just need more pretty blonds in fetish nazi uniforms.

Fit North Korean chicks in uniform goosestepping does it for me.

[z1812]

Some quick comments:

1. From a code standpoint there is nothing different about Soviet infantry than any other infantry of any other nation (excepting split Squads). All Soviet weapons are simulated with the same attention to detail a all other weapons. The organization is also done to the same degree of attention/accuracy as with other nations. Which means if Soviet infantry isn't performing up to expectations it is the expectations that are the source of the "error".

Steve

If I understand the above correctly then there is no specific "weakness" built into the Soviet units unless you are splitting squads.

My experience in game play does not bear this out. Soviet Infantry are far less resilient than the Germans. Keeping my Soviet squads under command and moving them together has little bonus. As soon as they receive any sustained fire they start to panic.

I am no where near being an expert on World War 2 tactical combat. However I have read some books concerning this period and by German accounts alone by 43, and certainly by 44, they had a healthy respect for Soviet Infantry.

Perhaps I am missing something. If someone can enlighten me, then I am all ears.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

What are you talking about? We have a whole Chemical Corps!

That is what the name means, doesn't it?

The Germans have Herman Goering. One suspects he would count as a drug regiment all on his own

[akd]

If I understand the above correctly then there is no specific "weakness" built into the Soviet units unless you are splitting squads.

Soft factors play a role obviously, and assistant leaders count for something and may result in some additional fragility even for combined squads.

[Splinty]

I've noticed a tendency on my own part, to try to protect my Soviet pixeltruppen the same way I try to protect my American or CW troops. I then seem to become over aggressive when trying compensate for my overprotectiveness. There's just too much "Over" going on here!