Minotaur Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 I open the scenario 1941-Barbarossa with the Editor to check how Germany was prepared for it... And I was surprized... 10 Armies, 4 Tanks, 3 planes & 3 HQ... Is it just me or this is way too few... When I think back of one of my game... I had, from Konigsburg to the Black Sea, almost 3 hexes thick of units when Barbarossa begin (I waited until they declare war)... 1st line only Armies & Tanks... 2nd line, Armies, Tanks & a lot of Corps... 3rd line, Corps, 4 HQs & 2 Air Fleets... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuniworth Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 No its about correct according to the historical OOB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayJay_H Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 Originally posted by Minotaur: 10 Armies, 4 Tanks, 3 planes & 3 HQ... Is it just me or this is way too few... Its not just you. But the 41 Barb campaign features only the units that where present at that time originally, historically acurate and so the limited number of armies and tanks is correct from that point of view. Starting the game with the polish campaign leaves the player more than enuff time to power up your war machine so the asian hordes will be unable to stop the glorious Wehrmacht. Thats why every game against the AI should be played against ally +2 exp and max expert settings, otherwise its a much too easy walkthrough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John DiFool Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 Another argument against the plunder concept (at least tone it down some...). JD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 John DiFool I don't think it's the German plunder that's too high but the UK MPP amounts that are too low. I'll leave it at that as there are already numerous Forums which discuss this aspect. One of the German generals interviewed for the World at War BBC series (I think it was either Warlimont of Manteuffel) said Barbarossa was launched with too few of everything. The farther east they went the more obvious it became as the front widened and the base of operations receeded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted February 24, 2003 Author Share Posted February 24, 2003 I red (last night) that Germany send 3,000,000 mens into USSR in june 1941... I'm curious to know how many mens a Unit (Army, Tank, Air Fleet) in the game has... The User Manual says an Army has from 60,000 to 100,000 mens... Let's say any units is 100,000 mens: 10 armies x 100,000 = 1,000,000 4 tanks x 100,000 = 400,000 3 Air Fleet x 100,000 = 300,000 3 HQ x 100,000 = 300,000 Total = 2,000,000... And I'm willing to bet I gave more men that units really have... So where is the last 1,000,000 mens?... Perhaps it's just me... Attacking Russia with so few units just don't fit in my head... :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 Minotaur Not too familiar with the Barbarossa scenario but I think the average army would have been over 150,000 men. There's still 500,000 missing by your count. Did you include the Romanians? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted February 24, 2003 Author Share Posted February 24, 2003 Originally posted by JerseyJohn: Not too familiar with the Barbarossa scenario but I think the average army would have been over 150,000 men. There's still 500,000 missing by your count. From my book, WW2 Chronicles: "...Germany sent into battle 152 divisions (more than 3,000,000 mens)..." We could use this formula: 3,000,000 / 150 = 20,000 mens... But I'm sure it's not accurate... Surely a Tank unit doesn't have the same number of mens than a Fighter unit or a Corps... And I wonder if it is only fighting mens or it also includes technicians (Repairing tanks, preparing fighters, etc...), medics, truck drivers, etc... Perhaps the gaps is here... Originally posted by JerseyJohn: Did you include the Romanians? Yes... 7 germans, 2 Romanians & 1 Hungarian... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted February 24, 2003 Author Share Posted February 24, 2003 Originally posted by John DiFool: Another argument against the plunder concept (at least tone it down some...). Perhaps... But I could have buy the Bismarck, the Tirpitz, the Prinz Eugen, more subs or the Graf Zeppelin... I could have invest more and buy some rockets... I could have buy bombers... But I prefered to buy enough Corps, Armies, Tanks, Fighters and HQs to fill a 3 hexes wide Russian front... And it work cuz I won... If there's a problem, I think it's not plunder but unlimited Man Pool... But that's another story... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 Minotaur An interesting thread. I hope Hubert responds, he usually does in OB issues. [ February 24, 2003, 01:47 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 Minotaur You will have to make some assumptions if you are trying to fit the Order of Battle into the units you see. Not every Corp or Army had the same number of men. And we are using "generic" units which do imply they are the same. And the real problem is the manpower issue as you stated. Historical Germans could not raise the number of units the "Greys" do by '41. Even assuming the "what-ifs" went Germanies way, still could not have reached the military size we as players do. Very interesting how I sound like some of the people forty (40) or fifty (50) pages back who voiced the same complaints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted February 25, 2003 Author Share Posted February 25, 2003 Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage: Very interesting how I sound like some of the people forty (40) or fifty (50) pages back who voiced the same complaints. That proves 2 things: - These flaws (or not) that peoples complains are very visibles... - The Forum need more than a General & Troubleshooting section... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfe Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 All of the German Armies, Panzergruppe, and Luftflotte that were involved in Barbarossa are represented in the campaign. There's even an extra Corps (VIII) that would normally be a part of the 9th Army that was separated to guard a city. The Russians, however, are missing atleast 3 armies AFAICT (10th, 12th, and 13th). Axis Barbarossa OOB You could break them down into Corps, which would give the Axis ~35 infantry units. But you'd probably want to do the same to both sides. - Chris [ February 24, 2003, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: Wolfe ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 As mentioned before it would probably take a million men to support 2 million in combat. One take can man a crew of 5. Medium bombers a higher # and divebombers 2...Plus engineers and maintenance men on the ground to fix, refuel and coordinate flight control. Those leaders too old for combat but skilled and of sound mind to draw out battle orders, support units from a safe distance. Medical detachments...and so forth We must also take into consideration though not represented in the game every hex<depending where it is> requires a police force and even the supply runners can be quite numerous... Otherwise you'd never hold the territory you conquored nor be able to supply armies as they proceeded forwards. The Plunder is barely enough the way the game is run Ahistorically allowing for British/Russian/US Invasion of Free Nations... Ireland/Iraq/Portugal/Sweden and so forth. Also the fact that U-boats don't play a roll at all. SO the British/French Navies have one roll. One is to bombard the hell out of Germany and protect Britian. The other is to be disbanded right away and turned into a Headquarters/or extra corps/armies. Plus morale is no factor you know what a corps ordered to go sit on a hex to die would feel like? Or run supply out Only the bravest soldiers wouldn't surrender Perhaps the game should take into consideration the many unique unit types available<their pros and cons> rather than alter anything else first! i.e. British had the best fighters in Europe. The US had the best Bombers. Germans had the capability to develop jet aircraft before anyone. Russians had more numerous units than anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Liam Good post. In air units, as we've both mentioned earlier in another forum, the ratio of support to flight personnel is much, much higher. Probably more like 50:1! If the nincompoop incompetants Goering and Udet hadn't scrapped the jet program in 1939, the air war over Europe and, consequently the ground war also, would have gone much differently. When it was too late and Speer was given a free hand everything changed overnight. Even if that hadn't been done in '39 or '40, such a boost in efficiency and honest research development as late as '41 would probably have won the war for Germany. Goering didn't get back on the ball till late '44, when he began backing the Horten Brothers stealthy, fast, and long range Flying Wing project. Way, way too late. Before that, Goering's idea of being responsible was going on a stag hunt with Heinkel, attending a party afterwards and, intoxicated, hearing what old man Heinkel was offering, then buying it sight unseen. Brilliant! [ February 25, 2003, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Even though the Jet Program in Germany was far ahead of other nations. I still don't know how practical those particular designs would've been as early as they could've employed them. Usually it takes awhile to make modifications to the planes and tactics in order to make something new useful. i.e. the German U-boats were far better suited to Raiding Merchant Marines than to supporting Battleships. Though a small # still would be valuable for recon & Fire support. We didn't even truely use the full capability of the jet until 1950s Korea... So I'm stiill a bit shakey about the German Jet project having turned the tide all the way. However the German's had ingenuity and they would've probably adapted faster than most nations to make something of what they had! Also to take into consideration early jets did not make Props completely obsolete. Though for the most part #s would still rule out Superior quality... As it did say with the Sherman tank vs Panthers. Poor Germany... She had so many brilliant minds and ideas and a few quacky leaders... She really could've possibly ruled Europe and a large portion of the World without those faults... Had she waited and the Allies would've remained unprepared for a War. Say 1947? Regardless on the point: Russia was overrun faster than this game allows and many historical cities are represented on the map! I find usually a good Russian can delay the siege of Kharkov Rostov/southern Ukraine Mines until some time in 1942 and if by that time you've not made headway you may not succeed at all. Also considering the Allies mobilize quite hastily for a D-Day landing the Germans are usually pushed hard in 1942 by the Allies and must put Air against the Naval supremacy of the Allies or Land strength of the US quickly to stop Iraq or Norway/Sweden from falling. That's if she achieved sub-average dominance... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Liam According to a few recent documentaries I've seen, though not from books I've referenced, the full capability of the German jets is only now being understood. Many of them were flown be inexperienced pilots and even the best pilots had to invent their tactics as they went along. After the war, those planes were analysed briefly and by pilots still thinking in prop terms. The main surprise was that the final model, the volksjet intended for the Hitler Youth, formerly thought to be a death trap, is a great fighter. All it needed was high grade glue instead of the substandard junk the Germans were using on it. Constructed out of aluminum, as originally intended, instead of wood, as necessitated by circumstances, and it's a very reliable, hard to hit fighter with lots of maneuverability, speed, and a sneaky punch. In 1939 Germany actually had working prototypes of planes they didn't have again till late 1942 when the designers and technicians were located among footsoldiers fighting in Russia! The British also had some jet technology in '39, and the Italians were designing jet engines but neither had prototypes. What it means in game terms is that Germany might well have developed L=3 jets in late '40 or early '41! At that early stage I think that's a pretty good edge for anyone. Ernst Udet, who was supposed to be the Luftwaffe's guiding hand, decided between drunken binges that jets were too fast to be effective fighters. Georing agreed with him. So naturally you scrap the program and send all the designers into infantry units. Aircraft designers are finding now that some of the late German fighters were easily a decade ahead of their time. The Norten Brother's flying wing would have been a good weapon even in today's skies! It was similar to the American flying wing, developed during the same years, neither program, as far as I know, being aware of the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Yes! I've watched a recent program myself on the Luftwaffe Jet Fighters. Some of the designs with swept wings and even cheap alternative fuel as was used with the V-1 Rockets available with the engines on the top of the 'craft were impressive and ahead of their time. Mousillini was going to be rescued by one of the first helicopters designed by the Nazis. They were at the forefront of Aircraft design. As was Japan from some of the exchanges and even improved upon some of the basic designs. Of course too little too late Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 The same documentary. Interesting material especially for the Z-Plan Forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hueristic Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Originally posted by JerseyJohn: The Norten Brother's flying wing would have been a good weapon even in today's skies! LMAO sorry man i always enjoy your posts and by and large they are the most informative and factual of any i c regarding history but this statement is beyond streching the truth Lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 10 Armies, 4 Tanks, 3 planes & 3 HQ... Is it just me or this is way too few... The 1941 scenario also has a Tank and HQ starting in North Africa. If you don't send Rommel to the desert, and substitute another Air instead of 2 Armies, you'd have 8-4-4-4 going into Russia. That's more typical in many SC games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Mr H. Thanks for the nod. The statement about that German Flying Wing stretches the truth a little, but not by very much. True, it can't go against the cutting edge American weapons, but it would fit in with many of the aircraft used by Third World Countries. It was not only fast -- and the advanced larger design would have had a very long range -- but practically invisible to radar -- much more stealthy than it's American counterpart. Detailed Article about the Horten Bros, their research and the ONE WING aircraft, with illustrations. Brief Bio of Jack Northrup and account of Politics blocking the Flying Wing. The very similar American version also had a very long range and stealthy ability. These planes aren't far removed from the present stalth bombers. The main difference is in the materials used for their construction, most of which were unavailable in the forties. The Following Flying Wing Pictures have been lifted from the Prop and Jet Forum I've brought back. along with the Horten One Wing model Properller Version of the American Northrup Flying WingOriginally posted by Compassion. Jet version of the Northrup Flying Wing taken Fifty Years Ago! Direct ancestor to the Stealth Bombers (also See above Biog Article Link)Originally posted by Compassion. Present Day Stealth Bomber Originally posted by Compassion. Model of the Horten One Wing Bomber (also See above Article link) Artist's conception of trans-Atlantic Arado E555 Bomber in planning stage 1945. Originally posted by JayJay_H [ February 26, 2003, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 No matter some of the best fighters are designs that are 30 years old. We took a lot from the Nazis in Aircraft design but we've skyrocketed since. I would say the Americans are at the forefront of Aircraft design now... It didn't matter in WW2 however the German's though scientific<and some of their aviator designers ahead of their time> were held up by a #s of factors. As mentioned before... The 1941 Barbarossa in this isn't very strong. I've played the scenario and you're barely able to achieve your goals<against a real oponent>. People tend to forget after Stalin's great Purges there was little or no chance of defending from a Proffessional Army like Germany had a available. if you were to line up any Army in 1941 to do all out War... I think Germany would've been first... the Americans wouldn't take that place for a few years. I'm uncertain how a fully mobilized US and USSR at WW2 tech would have came out...Alone without assistance... No Winter, No harsh terrain... of course since all these things are factors unless we rewind the tape back before Stalin's Great Purges we have no idea what's going to happen. Perhaps he could've expanded before Hitler face! You can't kill 'nearly' all your officers and expect to be able to lead an Army. I think with the Italians we've shown that leadership is 90% of it. Germans/Americans & Brits were the only ones to have much in leadership early. Even Zhukov was killed by Stalin? German spies teehee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Liam Of course the United States is ahead of that technology now, those are designs from fifty to sixty years ago. Fifty or sixty years prior to that there were scientists who were trying to prove that manned heavier than air flight was impossible! The main question is, when did that Flying Wing and One Wing technology really become obsolete? It could be they were both still the best in stealth till the U.S. put out it's current line in the '80s! [ February 26, 2003, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 The Aerodynamic Flying Wing is a great achievement. Plenty of lift! Right size and bombload to carry hell to where ever you want... I think that Fighters and Missiles have taken over bombers... There's no more need ot have a heavy bomber when you can send it without risk.. i.e. towmissile, cruise, smart bombs, unmanned aerial craft, etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts