Relative Parity on the Eastern Front in CMBB

[TSword]

RCHRD,

Thx, for your clarification !

Btw: I've read that the T-70 was outphased in 1943

Up to which date were they still standard outfit for russian tankformations ?

[RCHRD]

April 43 the shtat was issued for an all medium tank bgde. It took the Germans awhile to weed them out. The survivors were stored somewhere late in 43, marked "For emergency use only"

[TSword]

RCHRD,

THX !

But i was a bit optimistic about your prev. post, there's still a tiny little gap of 9 tanks, 53 tanks (ment. by Glantz as lower figure) to 44 of yours.

However much more important are the operational in the field figures. For me those standard-outfits give me only a rough direction. How fast can vehicles be repaired or total losses replenished is atleast of same importance than the outfit numbers.

Greets

Daniel

[RCHRD]

You're right and he's right. My numbers don't add up. The July 42 shtat shows two battalions, one w/21 T-34's and one w/10 T-34's and 21 T-70's. With Hq tanks it comes to 53. That means they kept the same orginisation from summer 42 until and after Kursk. From April 43 replacing T-70's w/T-34's.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Skipper:

"As a result of the failure of Zitadel offensive, we suffered a decisive defeat. Armored troops, replenished with such difficulties, due toi large losses of equipment were for a long time out of action... Of course, russians hurried to exploit their success. And there were no more calm days on the eastern front. Initiative went fully to the enemy." © Guderian, Inspector General of panzer troops

"By the end of 14 July, it has become obvious that german offensive has failed. From the german side, personnel losses were not so great, but LOSSES OF TANKS WERE HORRIBLE. Tanks of Panther type did not justify our hopes, they were easy to set on fire,... crews did not have sufficient skills. Of all Panthers that took part in the battle, on 14 July just a few machines remaind intact. Sitation in SS panzer corps was not any better... russian High Command during Kursk Battle acted with a great skill... by 23 July 4th Panzer Army was thrown back to its initial positions" © von Mellentin, chief of staff 48th Panzer Corps

Cough cough 'German Panzer/StuG losses did not exceed 300 during Zitadelle for comparsion through the periods July-December 1943 the germans were losing on avarage 640 Panzers/StuGs per month. Yet the Germans wer building around 900 Panzers/StuGs per month.' ( P145-148 2000, Kursk a statistical Analysis Zetterling).

Lets look at that again Zitadelle means a loss of 300 Panzers/StuGs. during July 511 Panzers and 306 StuGs left the German factories. Guderian got it wrong as did von Mellentin and both never mention numbers lost or replaced.

[ May 06, 2002, 05:53 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Skipper]

> Red Army: 3'6 Million men (off which around 1

> Mill. Stawka reserves), 5670 tanks NOT COUNTING

> THE MATERIAL RESERVES to fill gaps and

> losses !!!!!!!!!!!!

> German Army (p. 283 ff):

> 940'000 men, 2778 Tanks and Assaultguns (OK, 20

> % OFF), NO RESERVES

These figures are correct if used for the analysis of whether or not germans could have won. In fact, half the Stepnoy front and almost whole Stavke reserve was not used during Kursk battle itself - these reserves ensured success of the subsequent soviet offensive.

According t my understanding, germans did have strategic reserves of about 400,000 people.

> And you're right the case of "destroyed"

> russian tanks are operational losses, while the

> sole tiger and 14 elefants were consolidated

> complete losses (as i mentioned correctly), the

> operational losses of course were much higher.

Yup - total of 1500 for the whole battle (2/3rds of the whole force). In comparison, soviet operational losses were ~6000 tanks and SPGs.

Thing is, a lot of german operational losses, especially heavy tanks, have later been destroyed at repair bases, in the face of RKKA advances.

> At average a german tankdivision had around 50

> tanks operational.

Ditto.

Speaking of Prokhorovka, it's not like there were only Tigers and Elefants - 2nd SS tank corps had a lot of medium tanks, too. Still, it was Vasilevsky's operational blunder. NB: not tactical, CM scale, but operational. Front-level decision and army-level execution.

Bastables:

> Guderian got it wrong as did von Mellentin and

> both never mention numbers lost or replaced.

But some armchair statistical analyst got it right? Hmm... Read the manual - after Kursk, germans had precious few operational tanks in the sector, while RKKA still had an intact tank army. The fact that RKKA has immediately converted in huge territorial gains.

[Keke]

Originally posted by Skipper:

Speaking of Prokhorovka, it's not like there were only Tigers and Elefants - 2nd SS tank corps had a lot of medium tanks, too. Still, it was Vasilevsky's operational blunder. NB: not tactical, CM scale, but operational. Front-level decision and army-level execution.

What do you mean? Doesn´t kill ratios tell something about tactical abilities?

And who said that there were only Tigers and Elefants at Prokhorovka? :confused:

[Skipper]

> Doesn´t kill ratios tell something about

> tactical abilities?

Suppose, your tactical abilities are better than mine (I don't really believe it , but nevermind).

For argument's sake, we can make a QB: large map, rolling hills, sparsely forrested. I take 2 Tigers, 2 Panthers and 4 Pz-IVs. You take 8 75mm Shermans and 4 Stuarts and try to attack. That's an order from your army CO, you see. Let's see what happens.

> And who said that there were only Tigers and

> Elefants at Prokhorovka?

Oh, I wont bother to quote exactly, but somebody said something silly along the lines "germans lost only 1 Tiger".

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Skipper:

>

Speaking of Prokhorovka, it's not like there were only Tigers and Elefants - 2nd SS tank corps had a lot of medium tanks, too. Still, it was Vasilevsky's operational blunder. NB: not tactical, CM scale, but operational. Front-level decision and army-level execution.

Bastables:

> Guderian got it wrong as did von Mellentin and

> both never mention numbers lost or replaced.

But some armchair statistical analyst got it right? Hmm... Read the manual - after Kursk, germans had precious few operational tanks in the sector, while RKKA still had an intact tank army. The fact that RKKA has immediately converted in huge territorial gains.

There were no Ferdinand’s in the 4th Panzer army and therefore Porkhorovka, all of them were assigned to Models 9th army in the North.

Again German Archival materials discussed by Armchair statisticians are in direct contrast to your glib statements. I suggest you read the manual and provide numerical evidence for your ‘arguments’. And explain away why 1st, 2nd and 5th Guards Tank armies had to be pulled back for rest and refit after losses approaching 45 percent. (2000, Zetterling P126). As you say the only reason that the Russians were able to advance was due to reinforcement form Stavk and interior military districts.

Jentz Pg 110 StuGs are not included in these figures of operational Panzer in the east 1943

20 July:1471

31 Aug:1176

10 Aug:987

20 Aug:926

None of these figures show a catastrophic loss of operational Panzers.

[Keke]

Originally posted by Skipper:

For argument's sake, we can make a QB: large map, rolling hills, sparsely forrested. I take 2 Tigers, 2 Panthers and 4 Pz-IVs. You take 8 75mm Shermans and 4 Stuarts and try to attack. That's an order from your army CO, you see. Let's see what happens.

With Prokhorovka in mind it should be more like 1 Tiger, 1 Panther and 6 Pz-IVs for you, 10 76mm Jumbos and 6 Stuarts for me. With better tactical use of my tanks, I could give you some ass whuppin´.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Keke:

With Prokhorovka in mind it should be more like 1 Tiger, 1 Panther and 6 Pz-IVs for you, 10 76mm Jumbos and 6 Stuarts for me. With better tactical use of my tanks, I could give you some ass whuppin´.

That is way off. the Soviets had nothing as powerful as the US 76, nor anything as heavily armored as the Jumbo

[Skipper]

> There were no Ferdinand’s in the 4th Panzer

> army

I know - hence no Jagdpanthers in the hypothetical QB.

> Again German Archival materials discussed by

> Armchair statisticians are in direct contrast

> to your glib statements.

Not really. Conclusions that armchair statisticians make are (or rather, your understanding thereof).

> And explain away why 1st, 2nd and 5th Guards

> Tank armies had to be pulled back

Why do I need to explain away something that I am not debating.

> and interior military districts.

What? What interior districts?

> figures of operational Panzer in the east 1943

> 20 July:1471

> 20 Aug:926

Think about it - on 5 July of the same year germans had 3000 operational tanks at the area of Kursk salient alone. Do I need to say more?

[Skipper]

> With Prokhorovka in mind it should be more like

> 1 Tiger, 1 Panther and 6 Pz-IVs for you,

My OOBs for Prokhorovka are different than yours.

> 10 76mm Jumbos and 6 Stuarts for me.

T-34-76 obr 1942 was a mean beast, but like the other orator has pointed out, it could not penetrate the frontal projection of either Pz-V or Pz-VIB, and it's frontal projection could rather easily be penetrated by german 75mm. OTOH, it was fast. Which makes it rather more comparable to the vanilla Sherman.

[Keke]

That is way off. the Soviets had nothing as powerful as the US 76, nor anything as heavily armored as the Jumbo

Yes, you are quite right. Let´s change those Jumbos to 76mm Shermans(W). Russian 76mm was as powerful as the US 76.

[ May 07, 2002, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: Keke ]

[Keke]

And remember Skipper, we are talking about meeting engagement.

[Skipper]

> Yes, you are quite right. Let´s change those

> Jumbos to 76mm Shermans(W). Russian 76mm was as

> powerful as the US 76.

Well, almost. Mere 40% percent difference.

NB: ZIS-3 and F-34 are completely different things.

> And remember Skipper, we are talking about

> meeting engagement.

No. There are no flags in the middle of the field. Both sides want to get right across the map.

[ May 07, 2002, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: Skipper ]

[Mattias]

Seems there is a bit of an übertank myth with regards to the T-34 too. Perhaps it is the Sovietophiles that will cry foul when CM:BB comes out, just like the Panzer fanatics did when CM:BO entered the scene

M.

[Keke]

According to Zetterling:

"...[O]n the evening before 12 July the II SS-Panzer Corps had 294 tanks and assault guns operational of which 15 were Tigers (no Panthers or Ferdinands, not even in workshops)."

"Depending on how one prefers to define the battle at Prokhorovka, it involved from 294 German (II SS-Panzer Corps) and 616 Soviet AFV (those engaging II SS-Panzer Corps) up to a maximum of 429 German and 870 Soviet AFV."

"Rotmistrov's 5th Guards Tank Army reported that it had lost 222 T-34, 89 T-70, 12 Churchill and 11 assault guns up to 16 July. These were total write-offs."

So the more precise numbers for the Prokhorova-like meeting engagement with CMBO would be: 1 immobilized Tiger, no Panthers and 7 Mark IVs for the Axis player; 12 76mm Shermans (W) and 4 Stuarts for the Soviet player.

[Keke]

Originally posted by Skipper:

No. There are no flags in the middle of the field. Both sides want to get right across the map.

So it is a meeting engagement!!!

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Skipper:

>> Again German Archival materials discussed by

> Armchair statisticians are in direct contrast

> to your glib statements.

Not really. Conclusions that armchair statisticians make are (or rather, your understanding thereof).

> And explain away why 1st, 2nd and 5th Guards

> Tank armies had to be pulled back

Why do I need to explain away something that I am not debating.

> and interior military districts.

What? What interior districts?

> figures of operational Panzer in the east 1943

> 20 July:1471

> 20 Aug:926

Think about it - on 5 July of the same year germans had 3000 operational tanks at the area of Kursk salient alone. Do I need to say more?

3000 operationl tanks at Kursk? On the entire eastern front the germans had

30 June: 2584 Panzers

30 June: 2287 Operational Panzers

(Jentz Pg 110) These were the highest numbers reached in 43.

Again you not only make glib comments but then seem to fabricate figures to support them.

[Mattias]

Originally posted by Keke:

12 76mm Shermans (W) and 4 Stuarts for the Soviet player.

Really, where do you get these numbers that puts the Soviet 76mm's on par with the US?

It takes special ammunition, what's it called, 350P something, to put the T-34 gun ahead of even the 75mm cannon mounted on the regular Sherman.

M.

[Keke]

Originally posted by Mattias:

Really, where do you get these numbers that puts the Soviet 76mm's on par with the US?

It takes special ammunition, what's it called, 350P something, to put the T-34 gun ahead of even the 75mm cannon mounted on the regular Sherman.

OK, I keep on retreating like Germans in 1943. After doing some research, even I think that 75mm guns are more approriate choice for `T-34-like´ Shermans. Now I´m going to hold my ground at all cost.

[Keke]

I want to add, that I had the effectivity of the towed Russian 76mm AT-gun in mind, not the tank version. Sorry about that.

[mrcitizenkane]

Yet another string of my tank is better then your tank. Lets face a few things. #1 There is no super tank that is better then the rest. #2 Even the best tank, must have a good crew with experience in fighting their enemy. Knowing your enemy is the key to any victory.

The Soviets train of thought was build them fast and a lot of them to over-whelm the enemy. Which in mid to late war they did very well. The T-34 was a great tank for its time, but it had is faults. The Germans had some great tanks too and again they had there faults. I was watching a WWII documentary on TV a few months back. They had some WWII German tank crews interviews. One of them was a Tiger tank commander. He recalled knocking out 6 T-34s alone before they got their track knock off then they knock out 6 more tanks before running out of ammo. I think that's pretty good odds.

T-34s where know for water leaks and electrical problems. They where one of the few diesel powered tanks in WWII, that gave them a huge advantage in power/speed but that Christy track configuration took for-ever to stop rocking to get a shot off accurately.

The US abandoned the Christy track configuration do to the rocking effect. The US did not go with diesels because of the shortage of diesel engines, seemed the Navy was getting them all. The logistics of a single fuel for all vehicles made more sense at the time anyway.

Sloped armor was another great thing about the T34, but mid war standards it was out gunned until they cam out with the 85.

All in all a great tank! I think you can build a equal/fair battle with any year time frame in all cases. Good luck!

[mrcitizenkane]

http://history.vif2.ru/library/archives/stat/stat7.html

[ May 07, 2002, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: mrcitizenkane ]