The Russian Army of WWII and SC2

[ev]

As of 1941 the Russian Army had over 3 million enlisted men. By most account, the Russian Army also had the best and the most tanks. And, it also had 5 million partially trained men ready to be called to arms. (In preparation for an impending war with Hitler's Germany they had made provision to give partiall training to all abled bodied men. On the date of the invasion they had over 5 million men with one month worth of miliatry training in addition to the 3.3 million enlisted men.)

But the Russian Army also faced some daunting limitations which almost cost them the war:

Limmitation #1: Because of Stalin's Purges, the Russian Army was desperately short of officers.

The shortage was so accute that they did not have officers to staff Corps headquarters and at one point were forced to temporarily elminate them. The lack of qualified officers limited large scale maneuvers. Even at Stalingrad, the Russian had serius lmitations executing large scale maneuvers.

In fact, they did not even have enough qualified artillery spotters. These was one major reason for stripping infantry divisions of their artillery and concentrating them in artillery corps.

The shortage of officers was of greatest importance in the development of mechanized forces where the tempo of the battle was much faster and where there was a need to coordinate a more diverse group of weapons.

There is a great book on this subject: When Titans Clashed.

#2 The T 34 is over rated. The T 34's slopping armor and large gun were important improvements. But in other important aspects the T 34 was inferior to the Panzer III and IV:

One of this limitation is obvious: one out of four T 34's did not have radios. ...perhaps another casualty of Stalin's purges. The purges were not limited to army officers, but included a wide range of people through out the govenment and the general economy... In any event, the Russians could not produce enough radios.

Other limitations of the T-34 were less obvious. The crew was over loaded - it needed a fourth crew member. The tank could not cary enough ammo and gas for deep penetrations. The optics were not nearly as good as the Germans. ...and, my guess from anecdotal references, loading, turning the turret, aiming and shooting was too slow.

Limmitation #3: The Russians did not have enough trucks. Infantry attached to mechanized forces walked on foot during 1941 and 1942. The Russians never had enough trucks to carry the infantry of their mechanized forces.

The challenge is to find ways to represent this limmitations in a game such as SC2. To the extent we manage to do this, we will be able to allow the Russian more units, thus better representing the war in the eastern front: Here is my shot at it:

#1 Lack of Qualified Officers: First, do not allow the formation of Army Units during 1941 and 1942. Allow the Russians only to build Corps during this period. Second, make Corps units cheaper, but Army units more expensive. Third, create Mechanized Corps as well as Mechanized Armies. Allow the Russians to make only the smaller Mechanized Corps during 1941-42. Allow the formation of full blown Mechanized Armies only past January 1943.

#2 T 34 over rated: Do not give the Russian a head start on armor over the Germans.

#3 Not enough trucks: Make it more expensive for the Russians to "motorize" their units.

[arado234]

While all of those are historically accurate(we supplied russia with most of their trucks)you are in command not stalin.Its assumed you wouldnt have done all the stupid things he did.If you choose to invest lots in tank tech.then why shouldnt you have better tanks.Remember the early german tanks that attacked russia had real trouble(as did ALL their equipment)with the the russian terrian and the environemnt.If you are going to penalize russia you would also have to do the same to germany.Im sure you know about the trouble the germans had against the kvs.Also germanys tanks(narrow tracks)and trucks did terrible in the russian mud.This is reflected only equally in the game even though the t34 and the kvs had wide tracks and could go much better.Remeber this game in noway relects the true allied industrial might.If you make the game more historically accurate you would have to put allied war production at historical levels and then this game would be pointless.I think its balanced quite well the way it is.

[Guest Mike]

sure the T34 wasn't the world beater some made it out to be, and yet when well handled (ie as well as the Germans handled their tanks) it beat the snot out of German armour in 1941.

Mechanisation of infantry is a trade off for the Soviets - they can pay more and have it, or not. Historically they chose not to have it and most trucks carried supplies not infantry. their truck factories in the 30's weer set up mainly with US aid, advice and systems, and built copies of early-30's US model trucks - as an aside info on soviet tructs and production can be seen at http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/weapons/Trucks_buses.htm - many trucks went out of production in 1941 because the facilities were captured or used to produce more important goods - truck factories could produce light tanks for example.

When the US started shipping 10's of thousands of trucks to the USSR there was no need to expand them. You get this same choice in SC2 also, by choosing where to spend your MPP's

The soviets actually abandoned corps as a unit in late 1941 - so to have them build only corps would be an unusual inversion!! Instead they maximised their officer capabilities by cutting out that layer of command - instead they had armies usually of 6-10 divisions as their basic high level unit.

They also built an awful lot of brigades in 1941 and to a lesser extent in 1942 - infantry brigades were, however, a bad mistake - they lacked the ability to integrate all arms and so had low fightign power. Tank brigades were a reasonable success, as they were fitted to the capabilities of a rapidly expanding tank corps and allowed new officers to get experience.

Organisation of the mobile units in 1941 was terrible - they lacked repair and recovery abilities - so a march by a tank corps would see large numbers of vehicles berakdown (as was the norm for the time in most armies!!) - but they could not be repaired.

The Soviets were well aware of their deficiencies wnd were in the process of reorganising their army to correct them - it was planned to be finished by mid 1942.

Overall the Sov's should have low effectiveness due to poor organisation and problems with the officer corps, but these were mostly corrected by 1942, and the artificial restrictions you would impose are unjustified IMO.

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

More importantly in '41 there was only a few T-34s, the bulk or Russian armor was obsolete BT-5, BT-7 and T-26s.

As for radios yes it was a limitation but not due to Stalin, production or whatever : it was jut not deemed useful enough ! It was the same in the French army, that had no dictator ...

In SC2 terms Russia should have a lot of rather crappy armor, maybe half-strength for example.

As for organisational problems, forbiding Armies altogether seems a bit extreme. Maybe Russian HQs should be limited to 3 units until mid-42 ?

[Guest Mike]

By 22 June 1941 1244 T34's, 424 KV-1's and 213 2's had been produced.

German tank strength consisted of 746 Pz-II's, 812 35T's and 38T's, 1065 Pz-III's and 479 Pz-IV's.

Of course many of the Russian vehicles were in poor supply - there is an account of KV-1's in the first week runing over german equipment as they had no ammo, then stopping dead when they ran out of gas in the same action!! The Germans later found the guns on these vehicles had not been boresighted!

The Radio situation was the same in the British army of 1940 too, and most of their tanks only had 2-man turrets at that stage.

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

I think *production* numbers aren't meaningful, what matters is how many T34 and KVs were in fighting shape, and that's much fewer !

[PowerGmbH]

I Think the Russian Capacity is well represented in SC2 scenario, the movability of Army is reduced to 0 tech, so 1 less than germany, the only thing that could be useful would be to rduce USSR Basis Movability of armys and corps to 2 resp. 1 in each case. for tanks it could even keep equal.

HQ rating could be same maybe Shukov 10 instead of 9, but then simply it would be possible to reduce HQ attachments to 3 in representation of facts.

[Kuniworth]

It's easy to target russian Mech Corps(1000 tanks each if fully manned) to be failures. The organisation proved to large to handle and it would take time to develop the tank armies of 1943 onwards(500-700 tanks)

But russian tank forces although inflicted serious losses to the wehrmacht in 1941, Brody and Raseinai in june, and more attacks later on showed that the Red Army tried to implement panzer-thrusts but failed for different reasons.

Probably the main reason for the disaster in 1941 is something people tend to overlook:

Aircover.

[Blashy]

Good point Kuniworth. I remember a documentary showing how dive bombers were obliterating Russian tanks when it all started.

[Lars]

Originally posted by arado234:

If you are going to penalize russia you would also have to do the same to germany.

So true. Germany was largely a horse drawn army.

Always fun to watch those old videos of V-2's prepping for takeoff, and you notice the guy on a horsecart out on the launch pad.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by ev:

There is a great book on this subject: When Titans Clashed.

Lol always nice to see new people discover David Glantz. Their view on the eastern front change rather quick.

[ev]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

The soviets actually abandoned corps as a unit in late 1941 - so to have them build only corps would be an unusual inversion!! Instead they maximised their officer capabilities by cutting out that layer of command - instead they had armies usually of 6-10 divisions as their basic high level unit.

Yes, at first glance it seems contradictory. But let us look closer at both the game and the historical track.

First, in SC2 the main difference between an ARMY and a CORPS is that the ARMY has more attack strength (see combat value table). The ARMY is your attack unit - sort of like the Russian Shock units. Meanwhile the CORPS is your defending unit.

In the historical front line the Russians were unable to coordinate large scale attacks. All attacks were shallow and lacked concentration. The consequenes first in the Ukraine (where the first serious counter attack was mounted), later in front of Moscow, and finally all along the front during the winter of 1941-42 these counter attacks failed misserably because of dissipation of effort.

Eventually Stavka passed a directive requiring Front Commanders to use Shock Troops in an attack (my recollection is that this happened in late '42).

Shock armies were organized to operate in a 30 mile wide front, instead of dispersing over much wider front like regular troops. These shock armies were the equivalent to SC2 Armies and SC2 Tank Groups. Coincidentally, only at this stage was the Russian Army able to mount successfull attacks against the Germans.

[arado234]

ev one of the reasons(as we all know)why the russians were so pathetic in the begining is that most of their fronline officers were wiped out by stalin.

Remember you(we)are in charge not stalin.Its assumed we wouldnt act paranoid and start wacking all the officers.

I wonder how well the germans would have done if stalin hadnt killed all his officers?

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Pascal DI FOLCO:

I think *production* numbers aren't meaningful, what matters is how many T34 and KVs were in fighting shape, and that's much fewer !

then you shouldn't say that there weren't many - yuo should say that there weren't many in combat condition - a statement that applies to much of the Soviet army in 1941!

Kuni aircover helped, but it was not THE decisive factor - THE decisive factor was the almost complete uselessness of Soviet formations - they were short of everything from General officers to rifles, they were poorly trained, they were disorganised.

In short they were really not fighting units in the first place!

When Titan's Clashed isn't Glantz's only eye-opener - "Stumbling Colossus" is another goodie.

[jon_j_rambo]

I used to love the Squad Leader games with Bunta vs Commie. Russians would have x3 the troops, with only 2 leaders & no weapons. Bunta would have HMG with 9-2 leader in upper story stone building & could hold off half of them attacking. The other half was another story.

[targul]

Still wondering what a Bunta is. Looked it up and the word is not in the dictionary so......

[arado234]

Rambo i didnt know you were a squadleader person.

Remember when the russians would go red and would launch a massive wave attack?

[jon_j_rambo]

@arado234 --- Squad Leader, Cross of Iron, Crescendo of Doom, G.I. Anvil of Victory

My favorite game was Victory Game's Civil War.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by targul:

Still wondering what a Bunta is. Looked it up and the word is not in the dictionary so......

Its JJvR's pet word for Nazi.

[ev]

Originally posted by arado234:

ev one of the reasons(as we all know)why the russians were so pathetic in the begining is that most of their fronline officers were wiped out by stalin.

Remember you(we)are in charge not stalin.Its assumed we wouldnt act paranoid and start wacking all the officers.

I wonder how well the germans would have done if stalin hadnt killed all his officers?

Must of the purges took place before the game starts (September 1939). When Stalin saw Hitler take Poland in a few days, he realized he needed the army. A couple of months later Stalin lost half a million men to the small Finish Army (16 ;ight infantry divisions) in 1940. After this fiasco, not only the purges were over, but he started taking officers out of prison and sending them back to their units. ...but it was too late.

If the purges had not taken place, Hitler would not have had a chance in Russia. However, if the purges had not taken place, the Finns would not have slaughtered half a million Russians. And, this in turn must have been an important element in Hitler's decission to accept a two front war. See Glantz's When Titans Clashed.

Think about it, if you see the Russians lose half a million men to a tiny and lightly equipped Finnish Army. And, meanwhile, the Wermacht destroys Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium France and the British Expeditionary Force in no time, with small casualties... Hitler probably was superbly confident.

In his book, Lost Victories, Manstein tells us that Hitler had a very good grasp of the tactical but failed to realize the time and the number of men needed to achieve large strategic objective. Manstein speaks of Hitler as an intelligent person who lacked the "staff trainning" necessary to comprehend the resources needed to achieve the objective he set out for himself.

If you add these two elements together: a superb confidence on the tactical superiority of the Wermacht with a limitation the appreciate the time and resources needed to cover the vast Russian country and subdue the large though ineffective Russian Army, it is easy to understand Hitler's mistake.

[jon_j_rambo]

Russians lost 500,000 to Finns? What a joke.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

Kuni aircover helped, but it was not THE decisive factor - THE decisive factor was the almost complete uselessness of Soviet formations - they were short of everything from General officers to rifles, they were poorly trained, they were disorganised.

When Titan's Clashed isn't Glantz's only eye-opener - "Stumbling Colossus" is another goodie.

Stumbling colossus is ok but Colossus Reborn is probably one of the best books I have ever read.

Yes it's true that the mech corps formation was unsuitable to the inexperienced Red Army in 1941. However the lack of air cover effectively broke up the counteroffensives the Red Army conducted in 1941. It's vital to remember that although the formations were completly inadequate it was the lack of coordination and support that caused the disasters when Stavka tried to implement it's defense plan.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

Russians lost 500,000 to Finns? What a joke.

Not really. 500,000 if you count wounded and so on.

The finnish army earned more of their victories to the gruesome fighting spirit of the soldiers than anything else.

I had the big pleasure of meeting Harry Järv a couple of years ago. Järv is finland's most decorated soldier ever and did more than 200 missions behind enemy lines. One of the great ww2 legendary soldiers, like Audie Murphy in USA and Vasily Zaitsev in the Soviet Union.

[arado234]

ev what you say makes sense but i think the developers of the game had to eliminate many happenings of ww2 to make the game playable.So if you start to make major changes to the russians for the bad because they are historically accurate then i would think you have to make some changes for the benefit of the allies(historical ind.and prod.output,ultra).

This would make the game a no win situation for germany.

If the game was changed as you would like,what changes would you make to benefit the allies?

As it is now the germans have a real chance to defeat russia.In reality they only had one slim chance once you factor everything in.

The only other thing i can see being factored in if you were to include actual allied might and ultra would be the chance for russia to join germany(as they may have done had hitler used his head).The problem with this would be if any one of these options were used i think the game would be pointless unless all three happened in one game.Then you would have a massive battle(maybe kind of fun).

[SeaMonkey]

Actually A234 I think the best the Axis can hope for in USSR is stalemate.

Given two exactly equal :confused: Players I believe the Germans for the most part will bog down with both Western Allies still active.

The question is.......are the Reds in such a weakened and an unopportune location on the map that they can't mount an effective counter-offensive and retake Moscow.