Relative Parity on the Eastern Front in CMBB

[Le Tondu]

I was wondering what your opinions are about a time on the Eastern Front when each side was relatively the same in terms of quality of tanks, etc... I know that the Germans early on had the advantage and maybe the Soviets had the upper hand at the end. So, somewhere in the middle, I presume.

It would seem to me that this time of relative parity (if it existed) would be an excellent time for Meeting Engagement scenarios. My buddy and I like it when each side is equal to each other and the winner ends up being the one who is the most resourceful, tactically speaking.

Do you think that the CMBB game manual will have suggestions for this sort of thing?

Thanks.

[ May 03, 2002, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: Le Tondu ]

[Captain Wacky]

Actually you could argue that the Soviets had the advantage throughout the war. The T-34 and KV-1 could wup the butt of any German tank until the Tiger came along, there just weren't as many of them in the early years. The Germans succeeded in the early war due to their tactics, commanders, and coordination, not the technical superiority of their armor.

[Zitadelle]

Originally posted by Le Tondu:

[QB]I was wondering what your opinions are about a time on the Eastern Front when each side was relatively the same in terms of quality of tanks, etc... I know that the Germans early on had the advantage and maybe the Soviets had the upper hand at the end. So, somewhere in the middle, I presume.

It would seem to me that this time of relative parity (if it existed) would be an excellent time for Meeting Engagement scenarios. My buddy and I like it when each side is equal to each other and the winner ends up being the one who is the most resourceful, tactically speaking.....QB]

I think you may want to focus your question a little more. What sort of parity are you looking for- tactics, tanks, artillery, infantry, morale? There will be different responses dependent upon the question.

This response will probably get the grogs going, but here are some thoughts (along some focused arenas).

Tactics- the Germans definitely held the lead in the early phases, however the Russians eventually learned the lessons and were applying them back to their instructors (i.e., the Germans). It could be argued by the time of Operation Uranus; definitely by mid-1943. By the later part of the war, however, the Germans were not following their own tactical rules. For example, during Operation Bagration, Hitler did not allow the Germans to withdraw to gain tactical advantages.

Also along the tactical realm- remember we are recreating the battles. The tactics that you and your buddy will use, will probably not follow either German or Russian doctrine. You are fully aware of using combined arms elements. Remember Russian commanders in 41-42 did not fully follow that doctrine. Your Russians will probably act more like Germans in their tactics than they would have in reality.

Tanks (ughh, here come the grogs...)- I don't think that Russian and German tank equity can be easily compared. The basic philosophy behind both tanks were radically different. The Germans followed a quality approach (hell, Tigers and Panthers were hand made with individual part numbers!!) versus the Russian quantity approach. How many T-34/76s were built versus how many PzKW IVs or Panthers. Other factors come into play as well (e.g., radio availability). The tanks were also different weight categories. The Panther would have qualified as a heavy tank in the Russian army (similar weight to the JS-2m and the 75mmL70 pentration was about the same as the 122mm).

For quick comparison, I would say the T-34/85 versus the Tiger I or Panther (in Spring/Summer, 1944). However, then parity doesn't work either since the numbers were radically different. By 1944, the number of available tanks along a German army group did not compare well against the available numbers along a Russian front. The number argument even is a factor in the great Kursk tank battles.

This is just a quick summary- we can go on and on about this one....

Infantry- again we fall back to tactics and also quality of training. How are the units used will have a major impact on the play balance. Are you going to follow (and enforce) German and Russian doctrines? The German infantry unit was organized around the machine gun. The Russian infantry unit used machines guns as supporting elements, and focused on the rifle (unless of course it is the SMG squad).

Additionally, the two armies looked at infantry entirely differently. For example, on the offense Germans used the tank to establish breaks in defensive lines and then exploited/encircled with tanks and used infantry to take care of the mop-up actions. However, Russians used infantry to initially establish the break in defensive lines. Thereafter, tanks were used for the exploit/encircle phase.

In summary, I don't think there is an actual period where the two sides were at parity due to the radical differences between the two sides. Tactically, it will be easy to create well balanced scenarios, but an overall balanced phase of the conflict did not exist. The approach I would recommend, is to analyze the two forces (for whatever time period) and work at creating balances through their advantages and disadvantages. Think about how many T-34/76s will need to go up against a PzKW VIE platoon in a good defensive position. How many German infantry companies and supporting artillery is need for unrooting a well defended Russian position in a factory?

Compounding the problem, will be our use of the computer soldiers. We live in the present, so we tend to think in the present. Our Russians will probably act more like Germans on the offensive and defensive. They will work as a combined arms group- something that did not exist in the early part of the conflict. And, our late-war Germans will actually retreat. It would be interesting to have two CMBB players fight several battles following the forces' doctrine of the day.

Ok, grogs....

[Lordfluffers]

Originally posted by Captain Wacky:

Actually you could argue that the Soviets had the advantage throughout the war. The T-34 and KV-1 could wup the butt of any German tank until the Tiger came along, there just weren't as many of them in the early years. The Germans succeeded in the early war due to their tactics, commanders, and coordination, not the technical superiority of their armor.

Arguably not true. I would rather be in a long barrelled German Mark IV than in a early T34 in a one on one situation. People forget that the T34 was severely handicapped by its two man turret which slowed reaction, firing and targetting times. The anti tank projectile for the long barrelled MkIV was much more effective too.

I would however feel a little more nervous if a KV1 popped its head up.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Captain Wacky:

Actually you could argue that the Soviets had the advantage throughout the war. The T-34 and KV-1 could wup the butt of any German tank until the Tiger came along, there just weren't as many of them in the early years. The Germans succeeded in the early war due to their tactics, commanders, and coordination, not the technical superiority of their armor.

Define superiority. I'd rather have a three man turret and a radio than thick armor and a bigger gun

[Captain Wacky]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Captain Wacky:

Actually you could argue that the Soviets had the advantage throughout the war. The T-34 and KV-1 could wup the butt of any German tank until the Tiger came along, there just weren't as many of them in the early years. The Germans succeeded in the early war due to their tactics, commanders, and coordination, not the technical superiority of their armor.

Define superiority. I'd rather have a three man turret and a radio than thick armor and a bigger gun</font>

[Mattias]

Autumn '42 to Spring '43 and Autumn '44 to the end sounds like period with the kind of situation you are looking for.

Personally I think there will be excellent opportunities for ME's between the summer of '41 into spring '45. It was not on the tactical level that the war was won or lost and when equal buy point are available to both sides, both sides will be equal unless BTS has miscalculated the system.

That is the advantage, and a bit of the disadvantage, of ME's.

M.

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

Define superiority. I'd rather have a three man turret and a radio than thick armor and a bigger gun

Well, sure, but Germans don't always get the luxury of 3-man turrets in the early war period. I'd much rather have a T-34 than, say, a 35(t). And there were large numbers of 35(t)s in 1941, along with a lot of (better) 38(t)s.

Of course, the Germans won smashing victories with these tanks. But I bet they would rather have been in T-34s...

[Scott B]

A tank is more than just the sum total of its armor protection, mobility, and firepower. If it can not be efficiently integrated into a combined arms team, advantages in these areas can be quickly negated. The Soviets had serious problems fitting their armor into the combined arms "scheme" in no small part due to the layout of the T-34/76's turret, and the scarcity of radios. The fact that it took until October 1941 at Mtsensk for the Germans (Guderian, in this case) to really note how effective the T-34 could be when used properly illustrates that point.

So I agree with Berli. While in a one on one duel the T-34 might be superior, in actual combat conditions the Panzer IIIs and IVs that the Germans had on hand were much more effective. It wasn't impossible to get T-34 to "work" well with the other arms when it didn't have effective commo and the commander was overworked, but it was significantly harder than it would have been with a better designed turret.

For what it's worth, the Soviets were already aware of these shortcomings as well, but chose rather than changing production lines over to an updated version (T-34M), to keep them running to maximize output.

[Jagdratt]

Originally posted by Zitadelle:

[

Tanks (ughh, here come the grogs...)- I don't think that Russian and German tank equity can be easily compared. The basic philosophy behind both tanks were radically different. The Germans followed a quality approach (hell, Tigers and Panthers were hand made with individual part numbers!!) QB]

I'd be very interested in hearing more about this, if you've got more information. I've always heard how expensive the Tigers were to manufacture, and saw some figures on production hours. Why was this the case?

[KNac]

This speaks alone:

Battle for Dubno, open of Operation Barbarossa, June 25-July 1, around 4381 Soviet tanks lost, 241000 men casualities and 5006 guns lost too, along them a great number of T-34 and KV series.

Why? Kipornos who was in charge of the mechanized corps that entered into the battle was one of the best commanders the Soviet army had, but at tactical level the Soviet army was useless without good NCO and junior officers and lack of ideas.

Technically they were superior, outnumbered the Germans and a number of their tanks were far superior to the Germans. But not using combined arms doctrine and without air support they were almost destroyed. The luftwaffe was the key to the early war in the east front, destroyed the enmy airforce, destroyed a great part of its infrastructure, and cooperated usually as CAS with the Heer. All about tacticas and doctrine.

[reichpapers]

I always thought that the German tanks were not matching up to the Soviets because of the short barreled PanzerIV, isn't that why they started arming the PanzerIV with 75mm starting with either ausf. F1 or F2.

[Gen-x87H]

I remember seeing something about the production of Panthers vs T-34s around the battle of Kursk.

The Germans were getting something like 50 tanks a month vs the Soviets 1000.

Parity? Hard to say. This game will have a hard time modeling the lack of coordination and Stalins stupidity in the first weeks of the war. In all reality it will be hard for a Soviet player to mimick the ineffectiveness of the Soviet droves until later in the war when the Germans were lacking in every single part of the battle. And the human wave technique worked. I am sure some role playing grogs will try. But can they sit idly by as hundreds of thier virtual soldiers just disintegrate from enemy fire? Just to model it correctly? I am guessing a lot of these battles will not look like real life from the simple fact both players will be using techniques that were not used in the real war.

Gen

[Panzer Leader]

Originally posted by reichpapers:

I always thought that the German tanks were not matching up to the Soviets because of the short barreled PanzerIV, isn't that why they started arming the PanzerIV with 75mm starting with either ausf. F1 or F2.

Actually the PzIV always had a 75mm cannon, its just that it was L24 or short, also known as the "stummel" or stump. In the Ausf F2 they went to a longer barrel and this greatly increased range and penetration. I think it was the L40 maybe? And I think they bumped up the L at least once more thoughtout the range of the PzIVs but one thing is certain: they ALL had 75mm cannons!

[Zitadelle]

Originally posted by Jagdratt:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Zitadelle:

[

Tanks (ughh, here come the grogs...)- I don't think that Russian and German tank equity can be easily compared. The basic philosophy behind both tanks were radically different. The Germans followed a quality approach (hell, Tigers and Panthers were hand made with individual part numbers!!) QB]

I'd be very interested in hearing more about this, if you've got more information. I've always heard how expensive the Tigers were to manufacture, and saw some figures on production hours. Why was this the case?</font>

[Zitadelle]

Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by reichpapers:

I always thought that the German tanks were not matching up to the Soviets because of the short barreled PanzerIV, isn't that why they started arming the PanzerIV with 75mm starting with either ausf. F1 or F2.

Actually the PzIV always had a 75mm cannon, its just that it was L24 or short, also known as the "stummel" or stump. In the Ausf F2 they went to a longer barrel and this greatly increased range and penetration. I think it was the L40 maybe? And I think they bumped up the L at least once more thoughtout the range of the PzIVs but one thing is certain: they ALL had 75mm cannons!</font>

[Grisha]

I think at the tactical level parity will be few and far between in terms of combat power and effectiveness. The reason is that the Soviets never placed as much importance on tactical initiative as the Germans, because their operational methods didn't rely on it. Far more important to the Soviets was the manipulation of intelligence to isolate German sectors of their choosing in order to plan elaborate operations that verged on surprise attacks at the operational level. By stacking the deck in their favor, the Soviets had less need for versatility - at least until the exploitation phase. And that was alleviated to a degree by wide usage of forward detachments.

[ May 03, 2002, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Grisha ]

[Mattias]

Originally posted by Zitadelle:

First models of the Pz IV: 75L24

Ausf. F2 and a whole lot of G's: 75L43

The rest: 75L48

The tanks named Mk IV Special by the British were armed with the L43 gun.

M.

[ May 03, 2002, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: Mattias ]

[Skipper]

Aaaaargh...

> I remember seeing something about the

> production of Panthers vs T-34s around the

> battle of Kursk.

Why not King Tigers vs SU-76?

> The Germans were getting something like 50

> tanks a month vs the Soviets 1000.

Which makes it what, 600 tanks per year? Surely, they only built Panthers. Especially around Kursk.

> Parity? Hard to say. This game will have a hard

> time modeling the lack of coordination and

> Stalins stupidity in the first weeks of the

> war.

NB: this is a tactical game.

> In all reality it will be hard for a Soviet

> player to mimick the ineffectiveness of the

> Soviet droves until later in the war when the

> Germans were lacking in every single part of

> the battle.

Mainly due to frost and mud, no doubt?

> And the human wave technique worked.

Yup, tell me more about it.

[Panzer Leader]

Skipper, you're having a bad day aren't you? Just remember: TGIF!

[Skipper]

Man, I feel like crying on somebody's chest!

Played a ladder game today - non-fatal penetration from 76mm gun, then a 75 mm round bouncing off frontal plate of Stug III (mind you, it was supposed to penetrate at least 10% more at that distance). Needless to say, "his" shots don't bounce. Still made it a draw...

And then look what we have here.

[Skipper]

By the way, what's TGIF?

[Auggy]

Skipper- TGIF is an acronym (i don't know if it's spelled right) for thank goodness it's friday

[Skipper]

Oh, yeah. Here it's practically Saturday though.

One day I may become angrier than I am lazy, and post something like "Report on combat actions of 10th tank division on the front of struggle with german faschism, during the period of 22.6 till 1.8.41, map 200 000" here. Or "Dispatch of 12 mech corps HQ on corps' combat actions during the period of 22 June - 1 August 1941".

[Mattias]

Your not alone out there Skipper!

My StuG IV missed a Priest twice at 250 meters and in plain sight, needless to say the Priest killed me with his first shot. And in the same minute another StuG IV crept into hull down position and acquired a Sherman that was busy hosing my infantry. That is, before he cranked his turret 90 degrees right and killed me with one shot

Then another threadfull of innovative posts to top it off.. lol..

Cheers mate!

M.