Steve… future plans, possible timetable?

[kipanderson]

Steve,

Congratulations on the patch… I also know you will be busy with other things for the next week..

But just quickly.. what is the possible, best guess timetable for the Normandy game and you did post that you had decided there would one day be an Eastern Front version, is this still the case… long in the future no doubt.

Thanks…

Have good Christmas… you are lucky, I am jealous of the snow you get in New England… never recovered from watching Dreaming of the White Christmas as a child

All the best,

Kip.

[Battlefront.com]

Hi Kip,

Sorry, no timeline for anything in terms of dates, only in terms of order. But I can say for sure we are going back to the Eastern Front as soon as we can. Like all our games now, it will initially focus on a fairly small slice of that epic war and then Modules will add more options for people. Currently we're thinking 1944 because that has the most "interesting" stuff for most people.

Yeah, lots and lots of snow here. If you had to go out and shovel it all the time you might be a little less jealous Still, I'm not complaining. This is the first good winter we've had since about 2002. Looks like we'll have our traditional 1m standing snow for the bulk of winter.

Steve

[kipanderson]

Steve,

“Currently we're thinking 1944 because that has the most "interesting" stuff for most people.”

Now we are talking… by far my favorite period… both sides still very different in style but both knew what they were about.

BTW… the June’44 army the Germans fielded was their best ever. Superbly equipped and trained. In most units full order of battle. It is just that everyone else had improved even more .

Korsun Pocket Jan/Feb ‘44… is winter which people expect from the Eastern Front. Operational stunningly interesting.. a pocket formed, the Soviets won but not the total massacre of some other pockets.

Environmentally/climatically, tactically and operationally it just begs to be the subject of CM.

All the best,

Kip.

[Cuirassier]

"BTW… the June’44 army the Germans fielded was their best ever. Superbly equipped and trained. In most units full order of battle. It is just that everyone else had improved even more."

What? By June 1944 all German infantry formations were seriously understrength and were only to suffer more once Bagration kicked off. Even many Heer Panzer Divisions were understrength, with many missing a full Panzer battalion (usually undergoing refit at home to get Panthers). Only the favored SS Panzer-Grenadier and some Heer Panzer formations were kept at anything close to full strength. Training had also suffered and the large amounts of casualties (those being replaced by drafted, less skilled troops) lowered quality of the army. Technology wise, the German Army was weaker relatively to the Soviets than it had been the previous summer.

Nonetheless, I think the most interesting area/time of operations for a CMX2 East Front would cover the Soviet counter-offensives after Kursk up until the Soviets halt at the Carpathians. Obviously, if the theatre could also cover the center and north of late 1943-44, that would be great too.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

BTW… the June’44 army the Germans fielded was their best ever. Superbly equipped and trained. In most units full order of battle. It is just that everyone else had improved even more .

Not even close to being true. Many of the "German" troops garrisoning the coast in Normandy, for example, weren't even German and I believe by June 1944 or shortly thereafter, foreign troops began to outnumber German nationals (volksdeutsche and reichsdeutsche) in the Waffen SS.

What could possibly be your source for this?

Basic training by June of 1944 had decreased in the Heer from 16 weeks to less than 8. Recruitment age had dropped from 18 years of age to dip down to, I believe 16. Physical standards dropped, and even the SS was accepting conscripts in addition to their racial standards dropping. Not that foreign nationals made poor soldiers (I don't believe the racist nonsense that the Germans did), but they didn't receive the training nor equipment the "German" formations did, and historically did not operate as well, in general, as the low-numbered ethnic Germans.

Even the low-numbered SS formations were not at their prime in 1944 - compare the teenagers in the 12th SS Division with the Leibstandarte at their best one or two years earlier and there are marked differences in tactical ability and staying power that go well beyond the differences in Allied firepower applied to them.

Not that the German Army was bad in June 1944, but the statement that they were at their peak in terms of performance seems indefensible given their composition alone.

[ December 16, 2007, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[kipanderson]

Hi,

“What? By June 1944 all German infantry formations were seriously understrength and were only to suffer more once Bagration kicked off.”

No not the case… I used to think so too… however there is chap, my books are in storage so I cannot look up his name but he is “the man” on the German army of WWII as an institution… who has gone through all the histories/units many where over strength.

Also…when it comes to training the intake of November ’43, the last full intake, got seven months training. Four months in Germany or the interior and three months in the operational area. More than enough with existing structure of veterans in each unit. Remember the intensity of training for real, imminent war is not the same as peace time training.

Of course units that were actually in contact were reduced in strength, but were for everyone else’s units in that situation too.

This guy is the authority on the German army as an institution… is up there with Newton and Glantz as a serious historian of WWII…

I will have a dig around and see if I can come up with the book and author…

Clearly units that were in contact were written down but there is no mistake… the per-D-Day/ Bagration German army of June ’44 was by far the best equipped, and trained and was fully manned (with the above qualification) Germany ever fielded.

We will just swap… “yes it was… no it was not” until I find the details of the book. But you will be shocked. He uses the German army’s own records as his source material. All his information comes directly from the German army’s records.

Will see if I can dig up the book details.

All the best,

Kip.

BTW… I do agree on the fact that what is often now called “The Battle For The Ukraine”… August ’43-May’44… was the most interesting period on the Eastern Front. But within that Korsun gets my vote .

[Cuirassier]

Sorry, whoever the hisotrian you speak of is, he is flat wrong. German formations were much more understrength in June 1944 than they had been before and the problem was getting worse, not better. For example, infantry divisions adopted the 6 battalion orgainzation over the 9 battalion organization as one measure to deal with understrength units. There were never enough men in the German army. And how could there be. The Germans never pulled out the manpower stops until *after* Bagration. The Germans realized perhaps they may need more men only after Army Group Center had been destroyed. Oops, a little late.

And I know The Soviets were also understrength, but not as much as were the Germans. Regular Rifle divisions were likely to have at least 1000 more men than their German counterparts, whereas Guards Rifle divisions were closer to TOE. Soviet mech formations were always brought up to TOE before any major offensive. Obviously, they would be reduced, sometimes severely, during operations, but that is not the point. The point is the Soviets are using all of the manpower they can aquire to feed their formations, while the Germans aren't until post-Bagration and D-day. As a result, German formations are very thin manpower wise in 1944.

As for quality, according to Zaloga and Glantz, the German army was replacing losses with Eastern European Germans and also drafted other ethnic minorities from the fringe of Germany. These draftees were of much lower quality than anything the German army had used before. To say the German army of 1944 was better trained than the German army of 1941, is laughable. It simply wasn't.

And from 1943 on, the German army does not improve technology wise very much. The Soviet army does however, with the introduction of the T-34/85 and IS-2. Thus, German tech advantage, while still there in June 1944, was not as great as it had been during Kursk.

And if you are talking about how great an army is, operational leadership must be taken into account. The Soviets had been steadily getting better in the area, and had many good commanders who had proven themselves directing operations. (eg Rokossovsky, Konev, Zhukov)

OTOH, the Germans are horrible operationally at this point in the war. And it is obvious why. Hitler was virtually running the show and the best field commanders (eg Manstein, Guderian, Rundtstedt) had all been fired before.

So, as far as Eastern Front history goes, I think I'll stick with Glantz and Erickson.

[ December 16, 2007, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: Cuirassier ]

[76mm]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

[QB] Hi,

I cannot look up his name but he is “the man” on the German army of WWII as an institution… who has gone through all the histories/units many where over strength.

This guy is the authority on the German army as an institution… is up there with Newton and Glantz as a serious historian of WWII…

I will have a dig around and see if I can come up with the book and author…

Perhaps Sajer or Carell?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by 76mm:

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

[QB] Hi,

I cannot look up his name but he is “the man” on the German army of WWII as an institution… who has gone through all the histories/units many where over strength.

This guy is the authority on the German army as an institution… is up there with Newton and Glantz as a serious historian of WWII…

I will have a dig around and see if I can come up with the book and author…

Perhaps Sajer or Carell? </font>

[MeatEtr]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Hi Kip,

Sorry, no timeline for anything in terms of dates, only in terms of order. But I can say for sure we are going back to the Eastern Front as soon as we can. Like all our games now, it will initially focus on a fairly small slice of that epic war and then Modules will add more options for people. Currently we're thinking 1944 because that has the most "interesting" stuff for most people.

Yeah, lots and lots of snow here. If you had to go out and shovel it all the time you might be a little less jealous Still, I'm not complaining. This is the first good winter we've had since about 2002. Looks like we'll have our traditional 1m standing snow for the bulk of winter.

Steve

YES, there is a god, Hallelujah... let the light shine on down...

Ok, when can we pre-order?

[kipanderson]

Cuirassier, Michael, hi,

What you forget it just how written down the German arm was even by the autumn of ’41 .

The German army that crossed the border on 22 June ’41 was indeed in fine fettle manpower wise, but of course even then not in equipment, very poorly kitted out. By the end of September ’41, let alone the end of December ’41 it was shattered. In every way a mere shadow. This happened again and again over the three years to June’44. The so called glory days when the German army in the east was fully equipped and trained that you seem to reference never existed.

The big difference, the important point, is that every time it was rebuilt over the following winter. The big intake of conscript and manpower being November of each year. November ’43 was the last time this happened. Those recruited, inducted, scrapped from the navy and air force and so on…. after Novebmer’43 and throughout ’44 where indeed as badly trained as you say.

The intake of November ’43 was a full intake of standard quality. It was fully trained, they were not sent to the front to fill gaps before their training was complete, and they were equipped to a standard far above any German units that went before them.

In everything from machine guns per unit, to tanks, to radios they had more per unit than any German army before them. Their equipment was also of a far higher quality.

The German army that was fielded, then fought to destruction on both front from June to September ’44 was by all measures the best the Germans every put together. Hugely more powerful than any of it predecessors.

Remember all sides had the units in contact with the enemy severely written down, not just the Germans. During the near three months of “relative quiet” on the Eastern Front prior to June 22 ’44 the army in the east did successfully integrate the November ’43 intake and re-equip.

I will find the book… it simply restates and Germans own records.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[Thomm]

LOL!!!

Along with the WWII theme, back come the grog discussions!

I'd rather read the Peng Challenge thread

Best regards,

Thomm

[Cuirassier]

Kipanderson,

"The German army that crossed the border on 22 June ’41 was indeed in fine fettle manpower wise, but of course even then not in equipment, very poorly kitted out."

So what. The Germans romp with Pz. III's and IV's in Barbarossa and the early stages of Blue. They annihilate entire armies. When they get Tigers and Panthers, they suffer a near continuos stream of defeats. Does this not show the abilities of the invading German army? And the failings of the June 1944 army? Tech thus means little to the quality of an army. This is especially the case by 1944. The Germans only have a slight lead in tech over the West and Soviets, so it is not much of a force mulitplier.

"By the end of September ’41, let alone the end of December ’41 it was shattered. In every way a mere shadow. This happened again and again over the three years to June’44. The so called glory days when the German army in the east was fully equipped and trained that you seem to reference never existed."

I never said there were "glory days" of the German army in the East. The 1941 army was clearly superior to any German army during the war. All formations were near full strength if not full strength before the invasion. And while the June 1944 army was formed around a core of veterans, the 1941 army had many more veterans. Other than a few of the newer SS units, most German formations consisted of veterans from Poland and France. They certainly had combat experience. By 1944, many of these men are dead, and are replace by Volksdeutsche.

And the German army was not shattered by Sept. 1941 or Dec. 1941. Running on a logistical shoe-string certainly. But shattered? If shattered, how does the German army bag another group of Soviet armies at Viazma and Briansk? Why would the Soviets take another 4 years to kick the Germans off Russian soil if the Germans had been shattered after the 41 campaign?

"The intake of November ’43 was a full intake of standard quality. It was fully trained, they were not sent to the front to fill gaps before their training was complete, and they were equipped to a standard far above any German units that went before them."

That is untrue. By 1944, the best available soldiers were already in the army, as these were the men that had survived the campaign up to this point. To replace losses (something the Germans didn't do on a 1-1 basis), Hitler was more keen to use outlying regions for recruits, as it did not disrupt life as much in 'Greater Germany.' However, it made for poor quality troops.

"In everything from machine guns per unit, to tanks, to radios they had more per unit than any German army before them. Their equipment was also of a far higher quality."

Sure they had better tech. Tech gets better with time. Everyone else had gotten better tech as well.

However, to say the army was full-strength is nonsense. Virtually all infantry divisions are down to 2000 men and organized into 6 battalions, instead of 9. The 78th Sturm division, opposite the Orsha thrust during Bagration, was only slighty better than the norm with probably 3000-3500 men. This was *not* the case in 1941. Panzer divisions were also understrength, and often Panzer Recon or Pioneers had to be used in infantry roles, as there were never enough Panzer-Grenadiers, as can be seen in many after-action reports. And as I said early, some Panzer divisions were lacking a full battalion of tanks.

"Remember all sides had the units in contact with the enemy severely written down, not just the Germans. During the near three months of “relative quiet” on the Eastern Front prior to June 22 ’44 the army in the east did successfully integrate the November ’43 intake and re-equip."

I've already said that both the Soviets and Germans were understrength. I don't deny that. The Germans were deffinately more understrength however. The Soviets were using their manpower pool to the fullest to equip their army. The Germans weren't. The Germans would not pull out all the man power stops until after Bagration.

I look forward to seeing who this historian is.

['Card]

This conversation is a perfect example of why I wish this series was going in any direction other than WW2. :cool:

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Bingo… the Eagle has Landed…. I thought I had the books in storage, have just moved house, but have found them in a packing case.

All by Walter S Dunn, Jr.

Soviet Blitzkrieg ISBN 1-55587-880-6

Hitler’s Nemesis ISBN 0-275-94894-3

Kursk ISBN 0-275-95733-0

Impossible to overstate how good these books are. I like many here have several hundred books on the Eastern Front including manuals I have found in museum archives and if Googled do not seem to have another copy. Yet the three above books must count as the best of the best. Why… because Dunn has meticulously gone through the Germans own huge mass of records and simply collates and restates it for those who do not have months to spend in the Library of Congress archives.

A note on the historiography here. The outstanding series from Germany, Germany and the Second World War, makes clear that the tone and much of the content of the ‘50s to ‘70s memoirs and books by German officers who severed on the Eastern Front turnout to be works of fiction. They are so heavily spun they are worthless as history. A lot of it is simply untrue. However, the good news is that huge records the Germans kept of themselves and of the Soviets were very accurate. Spot on.

The above are simply a narrative form of those records.

Now to the substance of our discussion.

The German army of end September ’41, and even more so end December ’41 was indeed shattered in terms of their frontline casualties. They defeated the Soviet frontline, border armies in a straight fight in first six weeks but the reserves Soviet armies they faced for the rest of the ’41 campaign were often totally untrained. In every way what we toady would call “third world armies”. This is why the Germans got as far as they did even with their heavy casualties.

The importance of veterans is also often overstated. Historically troops tend to be of most use after one or two months in the front line then often after three or so months their effectiveness drops off.

Back the specifics of your debate.

The November ’43 intake in Germany of the last, full “normal” annual intake. They were not substandard… but just the normal full annual intake. They were then given seven months training. Four months in the interior, Germany and such, then three months in theatre. After which they were integrated into combat units during the quite period of May/June ’44. At the same time there was by German standards a huge surge in equipment of very high quality pouring into units. From machine guns to radios to tanks. Output of everything, even rifles climbing hugely until its peak of September ’44.

The German army that faced the great Soviet onslaughts of summer ’44 was in very way the equal of any previous army in man power quality, there was nothing magical about the army of ’41, and in equipment quality and quantity in different stratosphere.

It is just that the Soviet army had improved probably as much as five fold in pure “combat power per unit” and was much bigger than in ’41. Depending on the dates you choose, three times bigger or more.

All fun stuff,

All the best,

Kip.

[luderbamsen]

Hi everyone

This forum has a quote function, located to the right on the line above each post. Please use it.

Thank you

PS: 1944? StG44's, Panzerfausts/-schrecks, Panthers, T-34/85's, JS-2's. Yeah, I'm game

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

But I can say for sure we are going back to the Eastern Front as soon as we can. Like all our games now, it will initially focus on a fairly small slice of that epic war and then Modules will add more options for people. Currently we're thinking 1944 because that has the most "interesting" stuff for most people.

"EASTERN FRONT!" :cool: :cool: :cool:

ya baby, bring it on, Normandy '44 REDUX holds little interest for me, but a new Soviet front game may actuallly make me retire CMBB.

As I see it, the 1944 eastern front is interesting on a tactical level because of the late war armor, since on an operational and strategic level, it was a disaster for the Germans.

Steve, will the Luftwaffe be featured or will you abolish it like the Syrian Air Force?

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

But I can say for sure we are going back to the Eastern Front as soon as we can.

Just to clarify, does this mean that the 1st WWII game using the CMx2 engine will NOT be Westeren Front? In which case I would rejoice!

[Thomm]

It will be Normandy.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Waycool]

How about Italy? and so it begins LOL

[panzermartin]

Well, while Eastern front is my favourite too, I think the CMSF scale indicates that the engine suits far better a Normandy game. Big fights arent that playable, and an eastern front game without hordes of T-34s and big maps wont be eastern front at all

The Normandy game with smaller unit actions, paras, hedgerows vigniettes, small picturesque (please please add some more character in built up areas!) french villages, plus a later Bastogne and Market garden module would be awesome. Just the perfect scale for CMx2 imo.

[Niskalaukaus]

Eastern front... mmm sounds lovely. I certainly hope it includes Finnish-Russian front too ;D

[kipanderson]

Hi,

The following quote comes from Soviet Blitzkrieg by Walter S Dunn Jr. page 58. The preamble to the quote is a detailed account of the replacements and manpower of two infantry divisions in Army Group Centre.

“The surplus of Germans over authorized strength probably prevailed over most to the divisions of Army Group Centre in June. The improvements in both divisions reflect a plentiful supply of men and weapons for the Eastern Front, rather than a shortage because of the diversion of men and material to France.”

This is not taken out of context; there are pages on the subject which imply/say the same thing.

How could this be? The answer I referred to in an earlier post. The German army’s own very full and detailed records do not correlate with the military histories written post war by German commanders. The Germans were able to fully rebuild most units with fully trained manpower right up to the second half of ’44. They were also increasingly well equipped.

Added to this overall force ratios were far less in favour the Soviets than German accounts imply. By early ’43 the Soviet frontline army had reached six million and was held at that level until the end of the war. Force ratios German to Soviet were less than 1:2 for most of ’43 and less than 1:2.5 for most of ’44. And that is only counting German troops and not any of their allies.

Again, very different from that which German officers would have you believe.

The accounts written by German officers need to be regarded as personal frontline accounts not accurate military histories.

If I had been through all the surviving German officers had experienced I am sure my account would also be very partial. It is called being human.

All the best,

Kip.

[igor]

>This conversation is a perfect example of why I >wish this series was going in any direction >other than WW2.

I'm with you...WW2 has been done to death. ANYTHING else would be better. WWI, 19th Century,

sheeesh. How many times can you re-fight the same old same old.

IMHO.

[Sitting Duck]

Originally posted by igor:

...How many times can you re-fight the same old same old...[?]

Many, many, many, many, many times.