CMBB is quite "gamey" and Ruskies are way too good

[CombinedArms]

Also consider the Romanian and Hungarian units that the Russians had to fight against sometimes. According to Martin Gilbert, the Russians launched the northern pincer of their Stalingrad encirclement on November 19, '42, and 24 hours later had bagged 65,000 prisoners. If the Russians were such bad soliders, how did they do that?

[Hannibal]

Plus when looking at causualty figures I do not think that germanys eastern front allies are included .

[Grisha]

Originally posted by Schoerner:

But the force ratios need to be taken into account.

It's much more difficult to achieve a 1:1.64 while the force ratios are 1:3 - 1:12.

This is true. The Soviets generally had a larger numerical superiority than the Germans ever had in 1941 (which by Nov 1941 was roughly 2:1 in Germany's favor). However, the topic of numerical superiority is misleading. The Soviets first obtained an overall 2:1 numerical superiority in Feb 1943, then it dropped below this line until Oct 1943. In May 1944, the 2:1 numerical threshold dropped once more for the Soviets, but after that it steadily rose until by Oct 1944 Soviet numerical superiority held at 3:1 until Jan 1945.

Where this is misleading is that during the major offensives of summer 1944, the Soviets were able to amass operational numerical concentrations that reached as high as 6:1, and tactical concentrations of up to 10:1. These extra numbers had to come from somewhere, and the Soviets obtained them by thinning other secondary sectors of the front, and/or secretly regrouping forces to planned main attack sectors. The use of active deception aided in confusing German intelligence, preventing them from determining the scale, location and time of main Soviet operations.

Yes, the Soviets made greater use of numerical superiority than the Germans. It was necessary to compensate for German tactical expertise. And, in the end, combined with superior operational capabilities, it paid off for the Soviets.

[ February 16, 2003, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: Grisha ]

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by Mud:

Schoerner --

Glantz in _Clash of the Titans_ cites the Russian:German force ratio over the front as only reaching 4:1 in May '45. In fact, starting November '41, the force ratio was 1:1.9. It took until Feb '43 for the ratio to become 2:1, after which it dropped until July-Oct '43. Glantz shows 3:1 only after October '44.

I read Glanz several years ago but if i remember correclty, he was (another author) totally ignoring the huge kettle-battles during the first weeks of Barbarossa, where more than the half of the russian army was destroyed.

Only until end of '41 3 million russian pows of fighting forces were made.

The encircled and destroyed forces during the first weeks were even more, than the whole german Ostheer.

And Glanz also didn't take into account, that 2000 russian fighters were destroyed in the first 24 hours.

This numbers need to be taken into account, too.

So, if the Germans ever faced 12:1 odds against, it wasn't because they were thusly overwhelmed over the entire front.

If they ever faced it?

This was in late war even quite common on tactical level (plus no air cover).

For CM these tactical force ratios are important.

Taking all forces of the front into account, the ratios are not that high, that's logical. But that's not interesting for judging the tactical expertise of the soldiers involved in the real tactical battles.

[von Lucke]

The same old stereotypical statements, put in the same old way... *sigh* If the Sovs sucked so bad, how did they ever succeed in throwing the Fascists out of Russia?

Perhaps you should do a little more reading, and not the biased "cover-my-own-ass" accounts put out by most of the German senior officers, out to keep their own reputations in tact.

I see the war in the East as a big teeter-totter: It starts out in 1941 weighted in favor of the Germans, and gradually tilts in favor of the Soviets. The German army of 1941 and the Soviet army of late 1944 have a lot in common. (As do the Soviet army of 1941 and the German army of 1944). As the Germans become more rigid, the Soviets become more flexible. The more Stalin came to trust his Generals, the more Hitler came to distrust his. It's all a big red and black yin-yang.

Even at the start of Barbarossa, as most Soviet formations were destroyed in hopeless counter-attacks, some Soviet units showed a hint of things to come. Read up on the defense of Brest-Litovsk:

A major city on the Sov / German border, it was hit on the first day of Barbarossa. The garrison (a hodge-podge of Border Troops, Rifle regiments, Engineers, and stragglers) held on for over thirty days of constant bombardment and assaults before being wiped out almost to the last man. The Fortress of Brest was named a Hero City in 1971 to commemorate the defenders sacrifice. Maybe not a battle on the epic scale of Stalingrad, but it certainly put's the "all Sov troops suck in 1941" statements in doubt.

[JasonC]

Nippy shoots - he scores!

And the crowd goes wild, ladies and gents...

[Mace]

Originally posted by Nikke:

Here are some observations of a long time hardcore strategy gamer

Here is one observation of a long term hardcore eastern-front tactical gamer.

You're wrong.

Mace

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by von Lucke:

If the Sovs sucked so bad, how did they ever succeed in throwing the Fascists out of Russia?

Calm down.

Huge numerical superiority.

The same old stereotypes?

Hm.

How comes, that numbers accepted by all involved sides, become wrong stereotypes, if they don_'t fit into the scheme?

How many russian pows of fighting troops were made until end of '41?

How many fighters were destroyed withing the first 24 hours?

Did Glanz (like most other authors) neglect these numbers?

I don't say the Russians sucked.

I would say, that the Germans, the Finns and the Brits were just the better soldiers.

[ February 17, 2003, 05:35 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

[Mace]

Originally posted by Schoerner:

I would say, that the Germans, the Finns and the Brits were just the better soldiers.

I'd argue that the Soviet soldier was as every bit adept in fighting as the ones you listed, but suffered from very poor leadership and a command structure that was somewhat inflexible and lacking in initiative.

On a quick web search it's evident that the German Command was impressed by the qualities of their opponent, given the comments of certain 'famous' German Commanders about the typical Soviet soldier.

Mace

[ February 17, 2003, 05:47 AM: Message edited by: Mace ]

[Sergei]

German army was the worst army of the second world war in the world, consisting mostly of conscripts who couldn't hit a barn with a rifle. They totally sucked and usually surrendered as soon as possible, unless some Nazi officer threatened to kill them. It was typical for the demoralized Germans to shoot their officers and rout.

I read about that in an account of a Soviet general descriping the last 24 hours of the war. I don't understand why CMBB doesn't reflect this absolute German inferiority when I'm playing summer of 1941. WTF!!! :mad:

[Sergei]

P.S. I think Glanz is biased for neglecting the Germans destroyed during the last weeks of war.

[JasonC]

Excessive, comical literalism sometimes reveals things. Thus, consider the statement - "I've for example read very many histories where a single Panzerkampfwagen IV kills 3-5 T34s within a few minutes. That was an everyday thing during WWII"

OK, so suppose half of all Pz IVs kill 3-5 T-34s (being silly) *literally* every day. How many dead T-34s is that? Several million. Oops, 2 orders of magnitude more than all the T-34s there were.

So, OK, he meant somewhere on the entire Russian front, a single, solitary, highest-scoring Pz IV killed 3-5 T-34s, every day. That is more managable, being only around 10% of all T-34s built. Not by Panzer IVs, mind, by just one Pz IV, the best scoring one each day.

Then there are the PAK, and the 88s, and the Panthers, and the Tigers, and the StuGs, and the infantry, and the Stukas. And oh, don't forget, every other Pz IV besides the high scoring one that day.

As a fact, the average German -division- in Russia KOed (TWO) one tank about every other day.

Well OK, but certainly every Pz IV killed 4 T-34s before it was killed itself. Err, there still aren't enough dead Russian tanks to believe all the typical claims - Tigers and Panthers 10, 88s dozens, Pz IVs 3-5, StuGs at least as many as Pz IVs, PAK several each - pretty soon you've kill all of them 5 times over.

The Russians outproduced the Germans in tanks only 2 to 1. They ended with a fleet of around 30,000 AFVs, somewhat bigger than the (much lighter) fleet they started the war with. The Germans ended with nothing. Ergo...

Well, if you stretch things as much as possible, (score some to the west, etc) you might push the average AFV kill ratio to 3. The "vanilla" types that weren't appreciably better than their Russian counterparts have to be below that average figure, for the better types to be above it.

All tanks are not above average. The average Pz IV might have accounted for 2 T-34s before being lost itself. Not 3-5 every few minutes or every day.

The Germans mobilized 18 million men during WW II. 13 million of them became casualties. Seems curious that they didn't wipe out 1.3 billion Russians at least, since the latter were charging straight at them across wide open fields in shirtsleeves and the Germans all had machineguns. As a fact, they might have hit 3-4 men apiece on average.

Hardly an impressive score against such an enourmous and vunerable target, is it? Heck, they had more than that many rounds in one rifle clip. They also managed to fire about 5 heavy artillery shells for every Russian they hit. Remarkably poor average blast for large caliber ordinance at crowds of running men in open fields, no?

But oh, I forgot. The Russians had 2 billion Chinamen up their sleeve. It was all the "mongol hordes", don't you know.

"But I've read all these accounts about how the Germans were outnumbered 10 and 20 to 1." But the production and mobilization was only 2 and 3 to 1. "So are the stories lies?" No. The "1" moved. Downward. It became .2 instead of 1.

"How could that be?" Germans produced that 1 - and Russians blew up 0.8 of them, leaving 0.2. Little things like Stalingrad and the Dnepr bend and Bagration did that. The odds did not come from production alone, they came from attrition.

But, you can't make a 2-3:1 odds ratio stemming from production turn into a 10:1 odds ratio after losses, if the side with the "2-3" is losing 10 times as much as the side with the "1". The odds ratio will only move -that way- if the loss ratio is less than the initial ratio.

So the story that the Germans went to Russia, were outproduced 2-3 to 1, tried to make up for it by inflicting 10 to 1 losses but somehow didn't manage despite doing so, and so were left facing 10 to 1 odds by the end - is incoherent.

The reality is the Germans only inflicted such lopsided losses - most of them prisoners not KIA, taken in giant encirclements not mowed down in crowds charging machineguns - in the first 6 months of the war.

Russian production and mobilization did replace those losses. But with the loss ratio so high, production could only move the odds back toward, not past, the 2-3 to 1 production ratio. In 1942 the Russians more or less accomplished that, despite a still pretty high loss ratio (around 4-5, probably, in that year), because the loss rate was low. They drafted more men than were hit, they built more tanks than were KOed. So they made some modest progress toward 2 to 1.

But to break out from the production ratio "ceiling" to the late war 10 to 1 stuff, that was something production alone would never have given them. They needed to drive the loss ratio below 2-3 to 1, and then drive the loss rate higher. The evidence that they did so is pretty obvious. There is no other place for the late war odds (say, at the time of Bagration) to come from.

Another fellow gave the figure of 1.6 to 1 after a certain point. That is believable. It would have been enough. Keep producing at 2 to 1, and take losses of only 1.6 to 1, and the resulting "forces remaining" ratio will go to infinity. Slowly at first, faster as a better fielded forces ratio drives the loss rate higher and the loss ratio lower.

Look at numbers to see this point. 200 vs 100 after some losses becomes 120 vs. 50, then production ups it to 320 vs. 150, losses 160 to 50 - by then the odds have moved from 2 to 1 to 3.2 to 1. You don't have to lose less than the other guy to move the odds by attrition. You do have to lose less than the production or replacement ratio.

For what it is worth.

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by Schoerner:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by von Lucke:

If the Sovs sucked so bad, how did they ever succeed in throwing the Fascists out of Russia?

Calm down.

Huge numerical superiority.

The same old stereotypes?

Hm.

How comes, that numbers accepted by all involved sides, become wrong stereotypes, if they don_'t fit into the scheme?</font>

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

Also consider the Romanian and Hungarian units that the Russians had to fight against sometimes. According to Martin Gilbert, the Russians launched the northern pincer of their Stalingrad encirclement on November 19, '42, and 24 hours later had bagged 65,000 prisoners. If the Russians were such bad soliders, how did they do that?

It's not really hard to overwhelm fleeing forces.

When the russian attack on the northern flank started, the Romanian and Hungarian units were just running away when they saw the T34 coming.

The very few german units in the northern flank, thought as a corsett in the case of an attack, didn't run away.

The Romanians and Hungarians panicked and the Russians could easily overrun the few left german forces.

The russian advance was that fast (but not a real surprise) and without any resistance, that, in case of a russian attack, the assigned german forces for this reason couldn't even be brought to the area, 'cause there is only a front, if someone is fighting.

The Romanians and Hungarians were just running.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

When talking about casualty ratios, force ratios and combat effectiveness there are a few points that need to be remembered, and have no doubt already been mentioned by some above, but I missed them.

In no particular order.

1) As the force ratio increases, so the attackers casualties will increase until a force ratio of around 7 : 1 is reached. What I mean is this. As the number of attackers increase, relative to the number of defenders, the “aggregate” casualties of the attacker will also increase, but in percentage terms decrease, until the number of attackers becomes so overwhelming that even in “aggregate” terms the attackers casualties decrease as the defender is totally overwhelmed. This point is reached at a force ratio of around 7 : 1.

2) Historically the average force ratio, from the beginning of July 43 to the end of March 45 was 2.7 : 1 , Soviet to German, note this is very much only an average. If the Germans had been attacked by a force that was in every way clones of itself, equipment, training, every thing, but at the historical force ratio of 2.7 : 1, the casualty ratio one would have expected is 1.4 : 1, attacker to defender. The actual, historical casualty ratio was 1.64 : 1 Soviet to German for the period described. This tells us that the combat effectiveness of the Soviet was around 1.17 : 1, Soviet to German, the lower the figure the better. To put this in perspective, the combat effectiveness of both the Commonwealth forces and the US forces was 1.2 : 1, Allies to Germans.

That is right, you guessed it, the Soviet combat effectiveness was just as high as that of the British of US forces, and yes, all the figures for all the major players are “very” close by the second half of the war.

Of course, in retrospect, this is not a surprise. By the second half of the war all the major players, particularly the British and Soviets, had massive experience and had reached solutions to similar problems that were just as viable as the German solutions to those same problems. It’s called evolution.

By the second half of the war, all knew what they were about.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. The above calculations do assume massive local concentration, they are for 15,000 defenders and 40,500 attackers, with 6-10 : 1 in some local tactical engagements.

[Sardaukar]

Lot of Soviet problems existed because of inexperienced and incompetent commanders from platoons to STAVKA. Lot of that was because of purges and system of political supervision, not many wanted to try to show their military prowess after Tuhatshevski. But that is something that is not simulated in game, because that commanding officer is you (if Soviet).

As when playing against AI, lower AI experience level simulates history quite well indeed. Coscript/Green Soviets have very hard time against Regular/Veteran Germans (or Finns).

1944 situation started to be bad for Germans. Not only Soviets started to have more experienced troops around, but German casualties and tendency to form new units instead of replacing the casualties of old had bled veterans white and introduced scores of green units.

One example how that effects on troops is Soviet XXX Guards Corps. It performed very well during summer 1944 on Karelia Isthmus. Due to high casualties, it was then given lots of replacements and sent to Baltic Front. There, not surprisingly, it's performance at start was less than stellar...and that was an unit whose core was veteran. Imagine how newly formed Luftwaffe Field Division with no veteran core and no compat experience..or even suitable training could fare.

Cheers,

M.S.

[Biltong]

Originally posted by Nikke:

...Also, Russians are modeled too favourably. The kill ratio between Germans and Russians in WWII was something like 1 German to 5-10 Russians...

Hi Nikke,

It looks like you might be playing against the AI? In that case you might want to try BCR (see sig below). BCR has modifiers taking care of the Quality/ammo/fitness etc differences between the Axis/Allies at the different times of the year.

You might enjoy the added realism.

Ignore the guys jumping on you - most of these guys will swop their wifes for The Game. Come to think about it - so will I

Biltong

[ February 17, 2003, 07:59 AM: Message edited by: Biltong ]

[rum]

Originally posted by Schoerner:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by von Lucke:

If the Sovs sucked so bad, how did they ever succeed in throwing the Fascists out of Russia?

Calm down.

Huge numerical superiority.

</font>

[Grisha]

Originally posted by Schoerner:

I would say, that the Germans, the Finns and the Brits were just the better soldiers.

Depends on what level of military art you're talking about. At the tactical level, where combatants engage in battle, the Germans were generally the best. At the operational level, where operations are used as planned, successive steps to attaining strategic objectives, the Soviets were second to none in WWII.

WWI had already proven the ineffectiveness of tactical success translating into strategic success. War had taken on such huge dimensions and developed such destructive firepower that any sort of tactically-based offensive was doomed to only fleeting success. Because of this, Soviet military thought in the 1920s and 1930s consciously emphasized the operational level as the means of attaining victory in modern war, and subsequently saw innovation at the tactical level as less important. The Soviet-German War proved the Soviets right, where a tactically-based army lost to an operationally-based army. Granted, the German combined arms concept, though tactically based, did introduce certain operational principles as well, and the more talented German commanders grasped their significance intuitively. But German operational theory and practice was grounded in the tactical level, and thus remained rudimentary throughout the war.

[Sergeant Pepper]

German army was the worst army of the second world war in the world, consisting mostly of conscripts who couldn't hit a barn with a rifle. They totally sucked and usually surrendered as soon as possible, unless some Nazi officer threatened to kill them. It was typical for the demoralized Germans to shoot their officers and rout.

Have you been watching stalingrad again sergei? How can u say the german army was the the worst army of the second world war,as a brit i have a great respect for the russian and german armys and the heroic way some of them fought.

I think youll find germanys war machine held quite alot of europe at certain times during this period. Although they did have allies fighting along side i don t think they can b compared to the likes of britain usa etc.

I think if all germany had to fight was a one edged war in the east and not deploy in the west to it may of been a different story, especially considering the supplies that were sent to russia to help there cause. Ultimately i think the weather had alot to do with defeating the germans as it did with napoleans invasion.

Also just a quick 1 to prove they weren t the worst you forgot about the french mind you thats easliy done.

Regards

J Lad

[ParaBellum]

Sergeant Pepper, read Sergej's post again, I think you didn't understand him...

[Lawyer]

Hey Nikke,

I see from your profile that your occupation is being me: Lawyer. That job is already taken. And it doesn't pay very well either. You should find a new occupation.

[Sergei]

Sgt.Pepper, you probably could have read the second paragraph in my post before replying.

[nevermind]

Originally posted by von Lucke:

[QB] The same old stereotypical statements, put in the same old way... *sigh* If the Sovs sucked so bad, how did they ever succeed in throwing the Fascists out of Russia?

Lets see...could it be a dwindling german economic system(resources,was most likely the reason for invading russia)?Could it have been that the germans had an overly complex supply and logistics system(Look at the allies in the WTO,standardized munitions...etc)?Could it have been the germans were fighting a war on two fronts(yes i know that was mainly at the very end of the war,but contributed none the less)Last but not least,let us not forget that if it werent for an early and severe russian winter,that the germans were ignorantly not prepared for,there might not even be russians today.I look forward to the response to that last point.Im sure it will be debated,but it shouldnt be,who can argue that the reds were on their heels(if not their backs),and the onset of winter allowed them to hold,then plan to retake thier contry.

PS,

When defending the russians,and you have a name like Sergei,please dont use the word biased.

[Keke]

Originally posted by Ares_the_Great:

[QB] Could it have been the germans were fighting a war on two fronts(yes i know that was mainly at the very end of the war,but contributed none the les)

How come only "mainly at the very end of the war"?