Romania's national characteristics are unrealistic

[AbsntMndedProf]

My understanding of the reason the Romanians fared so baldy against the Soviet forces during the battle for Stalingrad was due to their lack of AT equipment. Also the failure of the XXII Panzer reserves to make it to the battle due to damage inflicted to their tanks by mice and lack of preventative maintenance added to the Romanian troops' predicament. (I recall reading this in 'Hitler Moves East', however I cannot give a specific sitation, as I sold my copy, much to my regret.)[:(]

Eric Maietta

[forgorin]

'Why the bloody hell didnt you get there on time to save their butts?' screamed the Field General into the field tellephone.

'We are really sorry sir, but mice ate out tanks.' Whinged the colonel in charge of the XXII Panzer reserves.[:D]

[Tropsbor]

I wouldn't say that the Romanians fared so badly against the Soviets. Considering they were outnumbered almost 1:5 in infantry and the density of the medium AT guns were one at every 2.735 km in the sector of the 3rd Army and one at every 5.7 km in the sector of the 4th Army, I thought they did fairly well in these circumstances. I'm not exactly sure of the 1:5 infantry ratio, but together the 3rd and 4th Romanian Armies mustered 240,000 men including 11,000 Germans (probably from the 22nd Panzer Division put in reserve). And from the I read some time ago the Soviet South-Western Front facing the 3rd Romanian Army and the Stalingrad Front facing the 4th Romanian Army numbered over 1,100,000 men and 1,300 tanks of which mostly T-34's and KV tanks. The 1st Romanian Panzer Division had only 22 medium tanks (11 x Mark III and 11 x Mark IV). Anyway, what I can tell you for sure is that when the offensive started the South-Western Front assaulted the Romanian lines with the 5th Tank Army and 21st Army. In total 338,631 men against something like 45,000 men from the 13th, 14th Infantry and 1st Cavalry divisions.
 
serg3d suggested that the Romanians crumbled in an instant, but while I'm waiting for his proof here are some incidents in which Romanian infantrymen held they grounds very long against overwhelming odds:
 
"Rasconescu was a battalion commander in the 15th Dorobanti [infantry] Regiment of the 6th Infantry Division. His was the only Romanian formation of Lascar's embattled group to escape Soviet encirclement during the Battle of Stalingrad. From 26th November until 3rd December 1942 Rasconescu's battalion prevented the Soviet 8th Cavalry Corps from capturing the vital German airfield at Oblivkavia, a heroic stand against overwhelming odds which earned this very junior officer a Ritterkreuz."
 
"Hristea commanded the famed 2nd Calarasi Cavalry Regiment, which during the Battle of Stalingrad defended an eighty-kilometer stretch of front for the embattled Romanian 4th Army. Incredibly, Hristea held this sector against Soviet attacks for nearly a month before being forced to withdraw. Hristea himself suffering grievous maiming wounds while leading his troops against heavy Soviet armor, in one instance firing his pistol at a KV-1 tank."
 
use of limited ressources: [:D]
 
"[Alexandru Serbanescu] distinguished himself during the retreat from Stalingrad's airfields in a dramatic battle. When Soviets broke the German and Romanian defense in November 1942 and appeared near the Karpovka airfield, where the 7th FG was stationed, ªerbãnescu organized very well the defense of the airbase. His infantry experience was in that case very useful. ªerbãnescu had only limited resources: FLAK guns, aircraft guns and a company of soldiers. The Romanian camouflaged positions and well leaded defense stopped Russian tank attacks on the airfield during next the 2 days! Using the Bf 109's 20 mm guns like antitank weapons on the ground was a unique case of airplane-tank duel (the airplane's tail was lifted on barrels)! On 23 November 1942 the Romanians evacuated 16 Bf 109E (3 of them were lost because they had to take off under fire and were hit). Each airplane carried two or three people. ªerbãnescu had two mechanics as passengers."
 
That's it for now I got to go to work.

[azraelck]

Going by Stalingrad, then the Germans should get very poor ratings as well. The Romanians in Stalingrad fared no worse than their German counterparts; ill equipped, and facing a massive superiority in manpower and armor, as well as air superiority and artillery superiority; in an unfamiliar area with literally millions of holes for enemies to hide and ambush you. Things were further compunded by the immense idiocies of Hitler, who's obssesive nature, lack of intelligent thought, constant shuffling of the high command, refusal to allow withdrawl, and failure of the Luftwaffe to keep them supplied. I don't care what army you were from, or what nation; your not going to fare particularly well in the Stalingrad campaign.

[serg3d]

I have impression abot low morale of Romanian troops mostly from Antony Beevor "Stalingrad".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Beevor
He compare protocols of interrogations of German and Romanian prisoners.Interrogator conclusion was that Germans were ready fight to the end, while Romanian were "in low political moral state", had widespread hatred for Antonescu for "having sold their moverland to Germany" and have high number self-inflicting wounds and poor relations with their own officers who were "very rude" and "often struk them".
BTW I didn't tell Romanian "crumble at once". I was talking about Poland and Ygo and them not crambling at once while facing Germans.
And to state that Romainans fought better then Finns would by a nonsence in my opinion and completly discredit the source. At the end of Continuation War in 1944  Finns were facing battle hardened Red Army with overwheliming amount of atrillery and tanks and elite 30th Guard Army Corps on the point of the offence and fought it to standstill.

[264rifle]

In ANY FIRST HAND RECOLLECTION, we have evaluate the source. Did the person making the statement have first hand knowledge of ALL the facts.

In this instance did the German officer comparing the Romanians to other troops actually serve in the field with ALL the troops he was refering to???? Not just sit at headquarters and recieve reports.?????
Maybe He did, I don't know.

Assigning moral ratings or experience levels based on one battle or couple of month campaign out of a multi-year war can also be very misleading. Or rating an entire army by the performance of ONE batalion or regiment. It may have been all the game designer had at the time the game was worked on however.

As has been said before, some times these ratings are modified to TRY to cover other problems that are not quite relected in the game.

See the above quote about Romanians fighting well "IF" given the "SAME" heavy support as german troops.
I am guessing that the Romanian army used even fewer trucks for transport than the Germans and had fewer and lighter guns (artillery) on the average per division. THe lack of motor transport might mean less tonnage of artillery ammunition per division. Trying to adress this by higher costs per battery of Romanian Artillery or lower ammo load outs per battery for same costs screws up the game for the head to head match-up games. And would generate a stack of OOB compaints. tryng to adress the problem by lowering the morale and experience levels does't work well either.

Given the game engine limits there may not be a "GREAT" solution, only a less bad one[&:]

This is another case of WHICH way the the game should go. Tatical (battalion) level history were EVERY army had some units that fought very well. OR GRAND TACTICAL (division or corp) level were incompetent command could negate the best efforts of the men in the field and lead to "historic" (every body knows that the XXXXXX troops crumpled at the first shot ) results in our games.

[Tropsbor]

I have impression abot low morale of Romanian troops mostly from Antony Beevor "Stalingrad".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Beevor
He compare protocols of interrogations of German and Romanian prisoners.Interrogator conclusion was that Germans were ready fight to the end, while Romanian were "in low political moral state", had widespread hatred for Antonescu for "having sold their moverland to Germany" and have high number self-inflicting wounds and poor relations with their own officers who were "very rude" and "often struk them".
BTW I didn't tell Romanian "crumble at once". I was talking about Poland and Ygo and them not crambling at once while facing Germans.
And to state that Romainans fought better then Finns would by a nonsence in my opinion and completly discredit the source. At the end of Continuation War in 1944 Finns were facing battle hardened Red Army with overwheliming amount of atrillery and tanks and elite 30th Guard Army Corps on the point of the offence and fought it to standstill.

 
He also writes this:
 
"After one hour, Soviet rifle divisions, unsupported by tanks, advanced. The guns and Katyusha batteries, still shooting blind, increased their range to take on the Romanian second line and artillery. The ill-equipped Romanian infantry, although shaken by the heavy bombardment, straightened up in their trenches, and fought back bravely. 'The attack was repulsed,' reported a German officer with the 13th Romanian Infantry Division. A second assault, this time supported by tanks, was also beaten off. Eventually, after another round of shelling, the Soviet guns abruptly ceased shooting. The mist seemed to make the silence deeper. Then, the Romanians heard the sound of tank engines."
 
and

"The Romanian soldiers stood up bravely to several more waves of Soviet infantry, and managed to knock out a number of tanks, but without enough anti-tank weapons, they were doomed. Several groups of tanks broke through, then attacked sideways. Unable to waste further time with infantry attacks, the Soviet generals sent their armored formations straight at the Romanian lines en masse, and the main breakthroughs came around midday."
 
But I have a small faith in Beevor's writings about the Romanian army at Stalingrad because his book is based on German and Russian archives which makes his stories pretty one-sided. For this reason I would discard authors like him, Craig, Keegan, etc. to tell anything close to truthful about the Romanian army. Personally I find certain German reports about the battle very dubious. Fo example, Beevor writes that the reason why Heim's 48th Panzer Corps failed to help the embattled 3rd Romanian Army is because his tanks have been sabotaged by MICE! If you actually believe this you'll believe anything. I've only read excerpts from his book and so far I had no idea about the interrogations but I find them dubious and meaningless too. During the battle of Stalingrad the Romanian army suffered 160,000 casualties and of the 91,000 Axis prisoners taken by the Soviets when the 6th Army surrendered, only 3,000 were Romanians. If the German prisoners were so willing to fight until death why didn't they? Because the Romanian soldiers trapped inside the city did fight until death. If only 3,000 survived to be captured from the 1st Cavalry, 20th Infantry and Col. Voicu detachment, then I believe they did fight until death. Whether their political moral state was high or low this has no major bearing on their fighting capability unless you believe that every German soldier adored Hitler and his party. The following paragraph also contradicts what Beevor wrote about Romanian troops trapped inside the city.
 
"At the beginning of December, the 82nd Infantry Regiment, from the 20th Division, repulsed the attack of two Soviet divisions, earning the Mihai Viteazul Order 3rd class, 50 Iron Crosses for some of its men and citations from the 4th Corps and 6th Army."
http://www.worldwar2.ro/operatii/?article=12

Also I don't see any reason for you to compare the Finnish and Romanian armies. The conditions in which they fought were quite different. For example major operations ceased in the north between late 1941 and mid 1944. This in turn allowed the Finns to be in a much better shape in time for the Soviet offensive. On the other side the Romanian armies at Stalingrad had been fighting for 2 years without break and it was very hard to supply reinforcements over a 2,000 km distance. The Finns benefited from much shorter supply routes. Also the fights in the north didn't reach the same intensity as in the south. And you think the Romanian armies at Stalingrad were not overwhelmed? 3rd Rom. Army, 4th Rom. Army versus 1st Guard Army, 5th Tank Army, 21st Army, 51st Army, 62nd Army, 63rd Army and 57th Army totalling over 1,000,000 men, 1,300 tanks, 11,000 artillery pieces and over 800 airplanes. And bear in mind that the Romanian armies had to cover over 438 kilometers of frontline, hence the low density of the heavy AT guns (in average one heavy AT gun per every 4.23 kilometer)! The 8th Cavalry division found itself covering 100 km of the front...

[Alby]

play the Romainians in SPWAW Enhanced
they aint bad
[:)]

[Tropsbor]

If you doubt the quality of Romanian officers then please see the list of foreign RK receivers. If you don't have such a list I can provide you with one: http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=1728
 
Their accomplishments: http://www.feldgrau.com/romkc.html
 
If you think that the current exp/morale ratings reflect well on these men and many others you have to be out of your mind. But I don't deny that there were also bad officers. However you can't take one bad or good incident and generalize it to all of them. This is what SPWAW does though.
 
An excellent post written by one of the owners of www.worldwar2.ro regarding Romanian officers: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... anu#625517

[Tropsbor]

Thanks Alby. I've downloaded the game last night and am installing it now.
 
(how come I can't edit my posts anymore)

[Twotribes]

The winter was especially hard on the area as the Soviets had burned and destroyed everything as they fled. The mice moved into the vehicles and destroyed the wiring inside them. It isnt a made up story. Enough people have commented on it with back up to make it not some fairy tale concocted to protect the germans. If anything it makes the germans look bad for such slip shod care of their vehicles.

[azraelck]

Seems to me, for both Romania and Poland as well (I have a book, written by the 4th Panzer Army's Chief Staff Officer, that notes the courage and determination of the poles, and the intellectual lack of their commanders. In it, he even mentions Polish Calvary assaulting tanks with drawn sabers) is to have good morale for the troops but poor leaders' morale and experience.

[Orzel Bialy]

ORIGINAL: azraelck

Seems to me, for both Romania and Poland as well (I have a book, written by the 4th Panzer Army's Chief Staff Officer, that notes the courage and determination of the poles, and the intellectual lack of their commanders. In it, he even mentions Polish Calvary assaulting tanks with drawn sabers) is to have good morale for the troops but poor leaders' morale and experience.

Except that "charge" never happened against tanks in reality. [;)]

What that was is just a re-telling of a myth that was started by the Germans to invoke the idea of Polish officers being ingorant...and given some measure of validity by some Poles who surprisingly embraced the story (regardless of it's being made up) as a symbol of their bravery against overwhelming odds.

[Korpraali V]

ORIGINAL: Tropsbor

Also I don't see any reason for you to compare the Finnish and Romanian armies. The conditions in which they fought were quite different. For example major operations ceased in the north between late 1941 and mid 1944. This in turn allowed the Finns to be in a much better shape in time for the Soviet offensive. On the other side the Romanian armies at Stalingrad had been fighting for 2 years without break and it was very hard to supply reinforcements over a 2,000 km distance. The Finns benefited from much shorter supply routes. Also the fights in the north didn't reach the same intensity as in the south. And you think the Romanian armies at Stalingrad were not overwhelmed? 3rd Rom. Army, 4th Rom. Army versus 1st Guard Army, 5th Tank Army, 21st Army, 51st Army, 62nd Army, 63rd Army and 57th Army totalling over 1,000,000 men, 1,300 tanks, 11,000 artillery pieces and over 800 airplanes. And bear in mind that the Romanian armies had to cover over 438 kilometers of frontline, hence the low density of the heavy AT guns (in average one heavy AT gun per every 4.23 kilometer)! The 8th Cavalry division found itself covering 100 km of the front...

If you don't find any reasons to compare the Finnish and Romanian armies, then don't do that.

First of all, the German commander may refer either one Finnish Army Corps that was under German command between 1941-44 in northern Finland or one Finnish SS-Battalion between 1941-43 in Army Group South's Wiking Division. Hard to compare Northern Finland and Stalingrad or one Battalion and three Armies.

There were no Germans in Isthmus of Karelia or northern side of lake Ladoga/Laatokka when the Soviet offensive started, so they naturally have nothing to say about it. (In Isthmus of Karelia - Soviet main offensive - Soviets had 300-400 artillery pieces per frontline kilometer, in Stalingrad they had 200 pieces. The barrage was hardest so far in military history, and still the first assaults were stopped with thin line of defence - three Divisions and one Brigade. The break happened next day when three Guards Divisions attacked against one Regiment.)

Defend the Romanian ratings and you'll have many to support you. But when you start to claim that "we fought better than you" you'll end up in nothing.

And sorry, nothing personal... [:)]

[serg3d]

ORIGINAL: Korpraali V
(In Isthmus of Karelia - Soviet main offensive - Soviets had 300-400 artillery pieces per frontline kilometer, in Stalingrad they had 200 pieces. The barrage was hardest so far in military history, and still the first assaults were stopped with thin line of defence - three Divisions and one Brigade. The break happened next day when three Guards Divisions attacked against one Regiment.)

Actually, I think it's a very good luck for Europe and Russia that Finland is a small country and does not seem have too much interest in expanding it's borders. Though Nokia and Linux make me doubt if Finns really abandoned the idea of world domination. [:)]

[Korpraali V]

ORIGINAL: serg3d

Actually, I think it's a very good luck for Europe and Russia that Finland is a small country and does not seem have too much interest in expanding it's borders. Though Nokia and Linux make me doubt if Finns really abandoned the idea of world domination. [:)]

Lol! [:D] [:D] [:D] [:D]

Actually Finns DID occupy Moscow! [:D] ...at 1610




We have plans for your future...[;)] [:D] [:D]

[Puukkoo]

There were alredy some Finns as the lifeguards of the Byzantine Emperor.

Sergei hits the spot with Linux and Nokia, but there's certainly worse to come because hell is already frozen with our win in the certain song contest.

[azraelck]

ORIGINAL: Orzel Bialy




Except that "charge" never happened against tanks in reality. [;)]

What that was is just a re-telling of a myth that was started by the Germans to invoke the idea of Polish officers being ingorant...and given some measure of validity by some Poles who surprisingly embraced the story (regardless of it's being made up) as a symbol of their bravery against overwhelming odds.

It's kinda odd that multiple sources, including those by american writers as well as german accounts; would have the exact same event mentioned. Every book I have read that has something on the invasion of Poland in 1939 has mentioned a calvary charge against tanks. In addition, I believe I've even found some stuff on the internet the also mentions the Polish charge as well.

Where is your evidence for the charge being mere propganda (propoganda that makes no sense and has no purpose)? I tend to believe accounts from sources such as a German chief of staff and Reader's Digest, as well as individual troop histories and official histories of various nations; rather than a flat statement with no mentioned sources or links to back it up.

[serg3d]

ORIGINAL: azraelck

ORIGINAL: Orzel Bialy




Except that "charge" never happened against tanks in reality. [;)]

What that was is just a re-telling of a myth that was started by the Germans to invoke the idea of Polish officers being ingorant...and given some measure of validity by some Poles who surprisingly embraced the story (regardless of it's being made up) as a symbol of their bravery against overwhelming odds.

It's kinda odd that multiple sources, including those by american writers as well as german accounts; would have the exact same event mentioned. Every book I have read that has something on the invasion of Poland in 1939 has mentioned a calvary charge against tanks. In addition, I believe I've even found some stuff on the internet the also mentions the Polish charge as well.

I don't remember the source, but I've read it was some kind of misunderstanding. The cavalry were retreating and run into German tanks, who thought they were attacked.

[azraelck]

I can accept that as more likely than mere propoganda by the Germans. Propoganda makes no sense, a misunderstanding of the situation in the midst of combat does. I still would like a source though. If nothing else, I love to read.