Urban combat needs to be looked at

[ToxicThug11]

Stalingrad, held by two divisions and nearly at LVL 4 Fortifications inflicted 300 losses on the attackers?

Level 3 Fort - Connected trench networked system with both primary and alternate dug-in positions. Crew served positions in earthen bunkers with overhead cover. Additional week or two. More extensive camouflage. Typical WW1 or static eastern front positions.
Level 4 Fort - Introduction of interlocking concrete field fortifications with elaborate defensive engineering works

Panzer 4s (which got the most Hits per element) would probably not enjoy driving through complex urban defenses IRL.

[ToxicThug11]

Let's compare to this battle. My opponent attacked exhausted, unentrenched cavalry corps. Despite getting better odds than the Battle of Stalingrad, he loses 20x the AFVs, more men, more guns.

[ToxicThug11]

Here my opponent attacked a rather weak Rifle Division which was unentrenched, tired and in the open. And this has comparable losses to the battle of Stalingrad.

I understand there are many things at play in the Battle for Stalingrad like pioneers reducing fortifications and artillery suppressing Soviet units, but Stalingrad would be a torn up hellhole if 1.4k various guns opened fire on it, making it a death trap for tanks.

[K62_]

Some of the changes implemented to make urban combat more costly may have actually made it worse in this regard. In the open field, if you try to attack a unit with 3x your combat value the battle will end pretty quickly at a range of 300+ yards. In urban combat, they start at low range and don't retreat very easily, which means the initial CVs don't matter. It looks like all your guns got suppressed by aircraft and by the massive German arty concentration, and then the 1000+ tanks got to shoot up your infantry with impunity.

[Jango32]

Combat starting at close range is really quite nasty.

[jasonbroomer]

Numbers count. In the Stalingrad battle the Germans out number the Soviets 7 to 1. I suspect that 1100 guns just blew away 20,000 defenders. The comparative battle you provide is in light mud and the Axis only outnumber by 4 to 1.

I'm not sure whether the game system is discrete about entrenchment levels. I suspect that there is no difference between level 3 forts and level 3 plus 99% (i.e. 1% shy of level 4).

[Gunner Garidel]

Urban combat ALWAYS benefits the defender. You need look no further than the Ukraine-Russo war at Bakhmut and Melitopol [sp?]. In general it is considered a 3:1 advantage is necessary to prevail over a defender. When the offensive is aimed at the urban environment, however, 3:1 is out the window and probably doubles to 6:1 or more.

Look at the Russian lack of success in Ukraine in Bakhmut and Melitopol. None of the Russian attacks have reached even the minimum 3:1 advantage, IMHO. Bakhmut still holds and Melitopol only surrendered when the ammo & food was exhausted, and it was clear no help was on the way.

This does not mean just numbers, because the odds can be changed by things such as artillery, engineers, air support, even morale, etc. such as was the case in the Stalingrad game. The Germans had a 7:1 advantage and the results showed it.

Based on what I read in the messages, and the results I saw, I think the Urban combat rules are fair and realistic.

Semper Fi!

[Wiedrock]

The Germans had a 7:1 advantage and the results showed it.

Not sure what you mean by this.
Do you remember the source you got that 7:1 ratio from?

All German Divisions even before Stalingrad were well under strength, resulting in a ratio of about ~2-3GER:1SOV soldier, ofc that slightly changed thoughout the whole battle but 7:1 seems kind of exaggerated (maybe counting the guys defending the South and Kotluban Areas would give that ratio?!).

[ShaggyHiK]

The Germans had a 7:1 advantage and the results showed it.

Not sure what you mean by this.
Do you remember the source you got that 7:1 ratio from?

All German Divisions even before Stalingrad were well under strength, resulting in a ratio of about ~2-3GER:1SOV soldier, ofc that slightly changed thoughout the whole battle but 7:1 seems kind of exaggerated (maybe counting the guys defending the South and Kotluban Areas would give that ratio?!).

Most likely, taking into account the entire Army Group A, he opposes it only to the Stalingrad Front of the USSR. Not taking into account the entire "volume" of space.

[Veterin]

The Germans had a 7:1 advantage and the results showed it.

Not sure what you mean by this.
Do you remember the source you got that 7:1 ratio from?

All German Divisions even before Stalingrad were well under strength, resulting in a ratio of about ~2-3GER:1SOV soldier, ofc that slightly changed thoughout the whole battle but 7:1 seems kind of exaggerated (maybe counting the guys defending the South and Kotluban Areas would give that ratio?!).

I believe he’s referencing the initial battle from the first post rather than the actual battle of Stalingrad

[Wiedrock]

I believe he’s referencing the initial battle from the first post rather than the actual battle of Stalingrad

Oh my, ....I guess he did. I just got up.
Thought it's a historical reference since he was talking about RL stuff before.

[K62_]

When the offensive is aimed at the urban environment, however, 3:1 is out the window and probably doubles to 6:1 or more.

This does not mean just numbers, because the odds can be changed by things such as artillery, engineers, air support, even morale, etc. such as was the case in the Stalingrad game. The Germans had a 7:1 advantage and the results showed it.

Based on what I read in the messages, and the results I saw, I think the Urban combat rules are fair and realistic.

I appreciate your perspective on the urban combat rules. However, I would like to respectfully present a different viewpoint for your consideration. I believe it is important to acknowledge the differences between Stalingrad and modern urban warfare situations, such as Fallujah.

First, the capability gap between the German and Soviet forces in 1942 was much smaller than that between a modern, well-equipped army and insurgents. When comparing the two, it's important to remember that the context and technology available at the time of the Stalingrad battle were vastly different from those in contemporary conflicts.

Moreover, the density of forces in an urban environment like Fallujah differs significantly from that in Stalingrad. For instance, fitting 140,000 men along a 10-mile front, the size of a WiTE2 hex, would result in roughly 8 men per yard. Given that most of the frontage is occupied by buildings and various obstacles, attackers would only be able to utilize a small fraction of their firepower, while simultaneously becoming a target-rich environment for the 20,0000 defenders. This highlights why the Wehrmacht generally tried to avoid Stalingrad-type battles.

Furthermore, it's crucial to consider the timeline of this urban combat. While a sophisticated army with a 7:1 superiority in numbers may eventually prevail, it is unlikely to happen within a week, which is how long a WiTE2 turn takes. Urban warfare is often characterized by its protracted nature and the inherent difficulties in navigating a complex, built-up environment.

In conclusion, while your post provides valuable insights, it's essential to recognize the differences between past and contemporary urban combat scenarios. Accounting for these differences allows for a more nuanced understanding of the challenges faced by WW2 forces in urban environments.

Thank you for considering this perspective, and I look forward to further discussion on this topic.

[ShaggyHiK]

The capture of Berlin in a week and Koenigsberg in 3 days in 45 suggests that technically it is technically possible to take the city quickly. Bakhmut's example is not correct, they simply proceed from the fact that Russia clearly does not have an advantage in numbers, and recently even ammunition is a big problem.

Also, Smolensk in 41, for example, was taken literally in 1 day.
Although if you transfer it to the game "reality", it was defended by an "unready" division with a total of up to 5 thousand people.

In the game, you need to look at each result separately. However, I notice that players failing, first of all blame the "mechanics" of the game, combat, "cheat" strategies. Not understanding why failures are obtained.


In fact, there is not a single screenshot that would not be logical. All results are more than predictable, at least based on the number.

Discussion of this topic is a repetition of a bunch of topics that were before.

There is no game problem here, there is a problem of players who do not understand the game.

So the person who raised the topic, on emotions, in an accusatory tone, demanded to change something, although it is obvious that he hardly understands anything about the battle. Moreover, he does not participate in further discussion.

And the topic is supported by people just as poorly understanding what is happening and why. And they are also looking for some kind of "conspiracy theory" on emotions. Creating myths. The discussion in this vein just keeps the myth alive in people's minds.

[ShaggyHiK]

And what's worse than that. For some reason, players like to compare the incomparable.

For some reason, in the minds of people, Stalingrad = Bakhmut.
Smolenks = Berlin.
Bolid F1 = their family Ford Focus.

Each time they compare "soft" with "warm", "wet" with "flashlight".

It upsets me that at the beginning there are emotions and a person is ready to splash with saliva, but as soon as the emotions have passed, the person becomes indifferent to why and how?

Did the person pay attention to the fact that in his battle, which he swears at, there is no Soviet artillery? But German artillery and other support units are in abundance. I don't think he took notice.

[ShaggyHiK]

There is also, for example, an illustrative example of Rzhev in Operation Mars, when the Soviet armies have an excellent ratio of numbers, guns, tanks.

But due to lack of training, lack of reconnaissance, the poor state of supply and production of ammunition, unfavorable terrain and other combinations of factors, they washed themselves with blood without achieving almost any tactical goals set for the troops. And only in perspective and / or retrospective, this bloody experience played a role in the future.