Siberian Reinforcements

[MengCiao]

ORIGINAL: targul

"Stalin remembered the fierce fighting in Mongolia as well. Even as he summoned 1,000 tanks and 1,200 warplanes from Soviet Far Eastern forces to battle the German invaders who were making spectacular gains, 19 reserve divisions, 1,200 tanks and some 1,000 aircraft remained in Mongolia to confront the Japanese."  Military History Magazine from Historynet.com

No SMK I am quite serious 1000 tanks.  This was a serious military force.  Wiki also said these tanks where fresh T34's.  Now you may not like this but that is what the authors say.  This is also included in the The World at War AMC  TV documentary.

I know this myth was just designed to confuse wargamers and that you have found the truth.  But the above quotes from magazines, internet sources and TV documentaries and many different publications lead me to believe there is a possibilty you are wrong.  Otherwise every wargame I and many of us have played has placed those mythical reinforcements in there games.  And even though SPI always listed there sources for such troops they were wrong also because you are right.  You have found the great hoax pulled over the world.  It surprises me that Siberian transfer is recognized by every source I find and that when I click on your sources I find those sites are closed.

From 1939-43 34,780 T34 Tanks were produced.  So to get 1000 while coming through the Urals would not be that difficult since one of the major T34 Factories was located there and Stalin ordered it.

I was thinking about how to simulate Siberians in game terms (where there are no individualized units). And there definitely were Siberian units and they were extra-effective for a number of reasons:

1) They were rifle divisions with the full pre-1941 organization and all the trimings like amphibious recon tanks, 3 rifle regiments, regimental field artillery and full divisional artillery up to 122mm and some organic motor transport
2) They had great morale and had not been part of any retreats
3) they arrived fresh and were committed from reserve status into fairly well-understood situations
4) they faced German units that were pretty worn out

At one point near Tula, a German mechanized corps surrounded a Siberian division as it was strung out while detraining. The division commander was killed and all the heavy equipment was destroyed. The Siberian division rallied and made a night attack that virtually annihilated a German motorized division and then the Siberians marched away to fight another day.

Anyway...to simulate that sort of thing what about:

1) a little burst of PP in Nov 1941
2) a commander labelled "Siberian Myth" that you can buy for relatively cheap?

[Dave Ferguson]

A quick trawl of references suggests that:
 
The UK should have 2 additional battleship units
The UK should have the same number of fighters as Germany
The UK strategic bomber should stay in the OOB, it is really just a very poor TAC air?
There should be a UK TAC air in Egypt
There should be up to 8 French corps, the best armies were in the Maginot line, not garrisons
Italian units should be of low quality compared with UK
The UK should have a commander deployed in Egypt
The russians should have a commander deployed in Moscow.
 
the russian OOB and pp totals should be checked to see if they give a reasonable replacement rate. Basically the russians replaced everything lost and then added some more. Actually you can build up to 20 russian corps before a historical invasion time.
 
When the editor is released we can playtest these sorts of changes.
 
The performance of the Italian navy should be researched, just why did they perform so poorly when they had at least parity v the UK in the Med?
 
etc etc

[MengCiao]

The performance of the Italian navy should be researched, just why did they perform so poorly when they had at least parity v the UK in the Med?

etc etc

The Italian Navy had lots of trouble for a number of reasons:

1) the British could read their codes and the Luftwaffe codes
2) many RN ships had good radar
3) the RN had carriers and made good use of them (for example the raid on Taranto in Oct 1940 and at Cape Matapan)
4) a shortage of fuel
5) the ability of Admiral Cunningham to fool the Japanese in Egypt about when he was going to play golf (perhaps the key to winning Cape Matapan).

And of course in the End it was the Luftwaffe who sank the Italian Battleship Roma with a guided missile...life was rough in the Med.

[targul]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

my hassle with this talk, is I think the game covers what they want to add, but nobody is talking about all the stuff that is wrong with the basic OOB for the start of the game

where is the English Airpower ? 1 fighter and 1 bomber ? (which to be fair, I think the bomber should not be there, BC at this time was pretty much the same as the LW Bombers, if the LW is stuck with Tac Bombers, so should the GB

where is the French Army ?

where is the Russian Army, where is the Russian Airforce (okay, most of it got knocked out in the first week, but it was still huge)

oh well, don't think it matters, think there are reasons for the size of the Armies in the game

I have mentioned those in other posts. The start up forces are way off in many areas. I mean 1 destryer for England.
No air in Africa. Inferior French troops on line. They should probably be corps with low effieciency instead. Many other things but I am glad to see people are finally starting to figure out they missed a bunch.

[Warfare1]

ORIGINAL: Dave Ferguson

A quick trawl of references suggests that:

The UK should have 2 additional battleship units
The UK should have the same number of fighters as Germany
The UK strategic bomber should stay in the OOB, it is really just a very poor TAC air?
There should be a UK TAC air in Egypt
There should be up to 8 French corps, the best armies were in the Maginot line, not garrisons
Italian units should be of low quality compared with UK
The UK should have a commander deployed in Egypt
The russians should have a commander deployed in Moscow.

the russian OOB and pp totals should be checked to see if they give a reasonable replacement rate. Basically the russians replaced everything lost and then added some more. Actually you can build up to 20 russian corps before a historical invasion time.

When the editor is released we can playtest these sorts of changes.

The performance of the Italian navy should be researched, just why did they perform so poorly when they had at least parity v the UK in the Med?

etc etc

Good ideas.

In many different wargames I have played Italian experience, morale and equipment usually plays a big role.

Since Italian ships had equal parity to the UK, then I think training and morale were the deciding factors. Especially morale. After Taranto, the Italians simply refused to leave port.

[firepowerjohan]

Italians have Organisation Level 0 while UK has Lvl 2 and the Italian Commanders have less leadership so yes the UK units will in general have higher effectiveness than the Italians.

Yes, when the editor is ready you can make new alternative setups and it will be very exciting to see when someone makes for instance a historical 1939 scenario. However, our setups were a design decision rather than lack of historical realism because we want the game in 1939 to be playable, competetive and pretty even with chances for both sides.

Historically, the Allies and USSR would have a BIG economic lead while we instead chose to even it out abit. Another point is, we slightly reduced the unit density both by setup and with prices so that we get abit less units than historically. The danger else would be that for some ppl the game would simply become too big to handle and take too many hours to finish. But, I am sure there are players who would like to have a big bite into more hardcore realism variations. Editor will be available soon [:)]

[Warfare1]

ORIGINAL: firepowerjohan

Italians have Organisation Level 0 while UK has Lvl 2 and the Italian Commanders have less leadership so yes the UK units will in general have higher effectiveness than the Italians.

Yes, when the editor is ready you can make new alternative setups and it will be very exciting to see when someone makes for instance a historical 1939 scenario. However, our setups were a design decision rather than lack of historical realism because we want the game in 1939 to be playable, competetive and pretty even with chances for both sides.

Historically, the Allies and USSR would have a BIG economic lead while we instead chose to even it out abit. Another point is, we slightly reduced the unit density both by setup and with prices so that we get abit less units than historically. The danger else would be that for some ppl the game would simply become too big to handle and take too many hours to finish. But, I am sure there are players who would like to have a big bite into more hardcore realism variations. Editor will be available soon [:)]

Good to know.

Most wargames I have played, it is the user created scenarios and campaigns that were always the main ones to provide the most challenge.

That editor will be very welcome....

[targul]

ORIGINAL: firepowerjohan

Italians have Organisation Level 0 while UK has Lvl 2 and the Italian Commanders have less leadership so yes the UK units will in general have higher effectiveness than the Italians.

Yes, when the editor is ready you can make new alternative setups and it will be very exciting to see when someone makes for instance a historical 1939 scenario. However, our setups were a design decision rather than lack of historical realism because we want the game in 1939 to be playable, competetive and pretty even with chances for both sides.

Historically, the Allies and USSR would have a BIG economic lead while we instead chose to even it out abit. Another point is, we slightly reduced the unit density both by setup and with prices so that we get abit less units than historically. The danger else would be that for some ppl the game would simply become too big to handle and take too many hours to finish. But, I am sure there are players who would like to have a big bite into more hardcore realism variations. Editor will be available soon [:)]

Well, this was extremely obvious. The Axis was left with enough points to build all the tech they want so as the game proceeds the Axis maintains that lead you gave them over the real start. This leads to ahistorical results throughout the map and game. The lower production for the Allies keeps them behind the ball in tech and units.

When I play Axis against humans Africa falls 100% of the time. This leaves the English behind from then on. Russia takes a serious beating when they are out teched with 5-8 when they are still waiting to get a tech.

When I play Allies the Axis beats the crap out of me for the same reason.

Yes you balanced it in 39 but by 41 that balance has swung significantly to the Axis. This is a serious problem a should be fixed.

Best way to fix and keep that balance you want would be to lower the war effort of the axis to a reasonable number so that techs are as difficult if not slightly more difficult then Allies.

Even with that the Allies really need there troops. At least one air in Egypt to start. Add a tac bomber to Italy to keep the balance if you like. Give the Allies at least 3 destroyers. 1 is just crazy.

Give the Russians some production once the war starts. They are so far below historical they cant possibly hold verses the Axis hoard. Give them the Siberan reinforcements with seasoned troops.

First winter needs to seriously drop the effectiveness of the German Army in Russia. As it is now the winter comes so Germany attacks and takes Moscow. Moscow seems to fall the month winter arrives every game. Come on it should really help the Soviets hold Moscow not mean the small decrease you give them allows them go signal to continue the attack without any real change.

Winters after are fine.

Weather should be on the western front also. I really tire of the invasion of Netherlands in November, Belgium in Decemeber followed by 3 months in France and boom April France falls. This happens every game regardless of side.

I should inform you I am not talking about AI play I only play human vs human in this game since the AI is sleeping.

[SMK-at-work]

Wartime KV production: http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/weapons/afv_production.htm#KV
Wartime T34 production: http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/weapons/afv_production.htm#T34

There's a lot of myth and misinformation about the Soviet production - they only evacuated TWO tank factories - plant 183 from Kharkov (It made 220-260/month until only 40 in October 41, and came back into production with 25 in the Urals in December and 75 in January 1942) and 185 from Lenningrad (production started slowing in September 41 (180 down to 80, 30 in October), TchZK production in Chelyabinsk was 24-27/month until September then 62 in October, 156 in November)

Targul you said 100 T34's - not "just" 1000 tanks.  I said that 100 tanks from "Siberia" would likely be mostly T26's - I'm not arguing over hte numbers, just the type.

Zhukov's possibly personality flaws have little or no bearing on the accuracy of his memoirs.  Or would you also discount Patton as an arrogant jerk, and Montogommery as an officious twit?  Support for Communism is harly a surprise from a Marshal of the Soviet Union!!

However we are also now in the forunate position of have historians such as Glantz getting access to Soviet official records of the era, and confirming what he said about the "Siberians".  It is no longer tenable to repeat the "history" that was accepted in the 70's and 80's as correct and anyone interested i what actually happened really needs to get to amazon and improve their library!!

I recommend starting with:
Slaughterhouse: The Handbook of the Eastern Front

Zhukov's Greatest Defeat: The Red Army's Epic Disaster in Operation Mars, 1942
When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler
Before Stalingrad: Barbarossa, Hitler's Invasion of Russia 1941
Stumbling Colossus:  the Red Army on hte eve of WWII
Black Cross Red Star: The air war over the Eastern Front, Vol's 1, 2 and 3 are out, although vol 1 is as rare as hen's teeth & people are asking a fortune for it!!

don't get me wrong - I was bought up on Siberians and the Russian winter, and human waves, etc as the story of the Eastern front too, and it's only in the last couple of years I've come to realise that those were one-sided accounts - from the Germans.  Adding soviet accounts gives a much better picture.

So to summarise the "Siberians":

1/ There was no mass arrival of combat ready veterans to the Moscow front in December of 1941.
2/ Siberian troops were sent to the west, but as individual divisions spread out among various armies, and they weer not particularly more veteran than anyone else.
3/ The troops that attacked that winter were "normal" Soviet formations, albeit reasonably trained and equipped, that had been held in reserve by STAVKA
4/ The Germans were halted anyway - they had reached the end of their abilities due to only planning for a short war
5/ The perception of "new" troops by the Germans is quite correct - but only insofar as the Russians had kept reserves and trained and equipped them better than the rest of the army had been for 1941.  the appearance of reasonably well trained soviets in decent clothing was a hell of a shock to them because they had no intelligence information that the Soviets had such a reserve.

Of course CEAW still gets it wrong, as do other games of the type, but I look forward to better efforts in the future now there is better info available.

PS: Telumar using Wiki as a source is...um.....fraught with problems. It can be really useful, but I find it is best used as a starting point to look up better information. After all anyone can goin in and alter it - if I went there now and changed it to the above would you still quote it??!![:)]

[Warfare1]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
Zhukov's possibly personality flaws have little or no bearing on the accuracy of his memoirs. Or would you also discount Patton as an arrogant jerk, and Montogommery as an officious twit? Support for Communism is harly a surprise from a Marshal of the Soviet Union!!

HI

I am somewhat dismayed and surprised that you have said this. What I wrote has nothing to do with Zhukov's personality.

It has to do with his very tight allegiance with the Communist Party, whose censors altered his book on at least 10 occasions (on its 10 printings between 1969 and 1990).

Historians such as Glantz and others have clearly documented Zhukov's outright lies and gross exaggerations in his historical accounts of Operation Mars and other battles.

So I am very surprised that Zhukov's book is the ONLY source you mention.

Sorry, but it is fraught with distortions.

I would love to see some sources from well known historians who can back your claim about the Siberian troop levels and experience.

Thanks [:)]

[SMK-at-work]

Waht do you mean it is the only work I mention??  What about the other 5 titles I listed to support my contentions?? Sheesh![&:][&:][X(]

Operation Mars is a well known case of his glossing over a significant failing - he is hardly the only person ever to have done that - there are similar criticisms of many western leaders such as Churchill, Patton, Montgomery, Eisenhower, "Bomber" Harris, etc.

The idea that his support of communism has nothign to do with his personality is indefensible.  political considerations of hte times and how he handles them are integral to his person, and I don't see how you can say his work was heavily censored and then lay the blame for all the errors (which we know about) solely at his door.

Reading any Soviet era work is the same - they are often great stories but require a fairly large grain of salt.

[Warfare1]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Waht do you mean it is the only work I mention?? What about the other 5 titles I listed to support my contentions?? Sheesh![&:][&:][X(]

Operation Mars is a well known case of his glossing over a significant failing - he is hardly the only person ever to have done that - there are similar criticisms of many western leaders such as Churchill, Patton, Montgomery, Eisenhower, "Bomber" Harris, etc.

The idea that his support of communism has nothign to do with his personality is indefensible. political considerations of hte times and how he handles them are integral to his person, and I don't see how you can say his work was heavily censored and then lay the blame for all the errors (which we know about) solely at his door.

Reading any Soviet era work is the same - they are often great stories but require a fairly large grain of salt.

Hi

You mention 5 sources but provide no page numbers or book quotes.

As for Zhukov: The Party he belonged to also heavily censored his book on numerous occasions. This is more than just inflated ego or historical errors. It has to do with deliberate distortions of the truth, and not with personality.

Personality is about how a person speaks and acts; it is not about his scholarship or lack of it.

If I'm doing research on a subject I will not use just one book as a source; especially a source which is questionable, especially when it comes to providing NEW information.

Thanks

[SMK-at-work]

I didn't quote page or verse number for Zhukov either, but you had no problems getting onto me about using him as a source, and you were happy enough to mention Glantz's work "Zhukov's greatest defeat" without page number.  why do yuo apply a different standard to me?
 
I shall get you sources in a couple of weeks, as these works are on loan from me at het moment.
 
It is you who linked Zhukov's personality to the issue with "Zhukov professes faith in communism".  i'm happy that you seem to have decided that has nothign to do with it after all.

[Warfare1]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

I didn't quote page or verse number for Zhukov either, but you had no problems getting onto me about using him as a source, and you were happy enough to mention Glantz's work "Zhukov's greatest defeat" without page number. why do yuo apply a different standard to me?

Hi

It is not my intention to place you on the spot.

However, you are the person who talked about the Siberian Reinforcements being a myth. Therefore, the burden to provide the information for this rests with you. I am eager to learn new things provided they are backed by adequate sources.

You brought up Zhukov as a primary source.

I merely indicated he is a "questionable" source. You have Glantz's book which I used, so the information about Zhukov's falsifications should have been known to you.

It is you who linked Zhukov's personality to the issue with "Zhukov professes faith in communism". i'm happy that you seem to have decided that has nothign to do with it after all.

I said nothing about personality.

You brought it up.

For some odd reason which continues to baffle me you have linked party affiliation as being a person's personality.

Personality has nothing to do with one's religious belief, political party affiliation, or the number of books one has written. Personality has to with one's actions, words, character.

I have never met Zhukov (he died years ago), so I do not know whether I would like his personality or not. However, he wrote a book which was heavily censored by the wonderful Communist Party to deliberately falsify, distort, and twist many historical facts.

I don't care about Zhukov's personality; but I do care about the deliberate distortions in his book; a book that is being used as a source for providing historical information.

[SMK-at-work]

Here are just a few examples of why we should be more critical of Zhukov's book:

1) Zhukov professes great faith in communism:

 
So we should be critical of his book because he believed in Communism, and that's got nothign to do with his personality?? 
 
Do you even understand what you wrote??[X(]
 
 

[Warfare1]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Here are just a few examples of why we should be more critical of Zhukov's book:

1) Zhukov professes great faith in communism:

So we should be critical of his book because he believed in Communism, and that's got nothign to do with his personality??

Do you even understand what you wrote??[X(]

Hi

Let's try this again....

Party affiliation has NOTHING to do with personality.

I mentioned Zhukov's great zeal for Communism BECAUSE he went along with the Communist censors in altering his book.

Historians aren't critical of Zhukov because he was a communist; they are critical of his book because it was heavily censored and contains well-documented falsehoods.

Again, this has nothing to do with personality; it has everything to do with obfuscating historical facts.

Thanks

[Warfare1]

Definitions of personality

1. [n] - a person of considerable prominence

2. [n] - the complex of all the attributes--behavioral, temperamental, emotional and mental--that characterize a unique individual

[Zakhal]

I wouldnt be suprised if communists censerod teh part about siberians because they didnt want it look like som mongoloids from east saved the great soviet people in the holy patriotic war. [:D]

[Dave Ferguson]

ORIGINAL: firepowerjohan

......Yes, when the editor is ready you can make new alternative setups and it will be very exciting to see when someone makes for instance a historical 1939 scenario. However, our setups were a design decision rather than lack of historical realism because we want the game in 1939 to be playable, competetive and pretty even with chances for both sides.
.......

The problem with developng LONG scenarios is playtesting, you might have just spent 20+ hours and got to 1943 and guess what, something does not look right and you have to go back all the way to 1939, adjust a value and start again. This problem applies to lots of games, as the war progresses the situation can move away from the reasonable toward the downright ridiculous.

What is needed is the ability to dip into the game and change some values and numbers DURING the game. Designers do not like this because they believe it will just result in cheating during play. Not so if you have a change log and warning message. Thinks - I was once playtesting a huge TOAW scenario and my opponent was exploiting every loophole to win, the problem was he was not reporting it because his competitive instinct was too large.

[IrishGuards]

Well lots of reading material does not make up for some good old common sense. [:'(]
The issues that are brought up here are, suppose to have some bearing on the game, how it functions and playability.
I think since the mechanics of the game, so far dictate certain structures that are basic parts of the whole.
The dynamics of CEaW have been given a baseline, whether this is ok in say 1939 and might not be Ok in 1941 is the matter of discussion.

As I try to play within the framework given, this is really what I think Wargaming is actually all about, fighting fires, plugging holes, basically problem solving 101. [:D]

Given a game and rules and the ability to accomplish what I think I need to in order to achieve success against an opponent.
As I look at these issues, which I must say are rapidly changing depending on Year, OOB and the overall scheme of things, my actions in the game are inherently tied to just what my pointy units are capable of ..
What my economy can support and the damage I can inflict for the resources used ..
and especially the gains achieved ..
In essence providing me a better position to continue the conflict.
These are all part of the overall Strategy and Tactics I employ in that aim ...
I think since playing the game more I have come to the conclusion that ..
It is not Siberian Reinforcements or Partisans that is the main issue at all.

I think it stems from the Organization of the actual game itself and what the pointy units can do or not .. [X(]
If as the Russian player or any other for that matter I have no ability [X(] to even mount any kind of limited offensive without any possibility other than complete and utter devestation to ones forces without inflicting any real degree of damage on my opponent .. or even alleviate the battlefield situation on a limited scale .. time and area .. why would I bother ... I am just contributing to the problem .. not solving it .. [:'(]

If all your opponent has is a unit that can only defend and retreat .. I must disagree with this on basic principle ..
In real history .. all Nations had some Elite Units .. whose capabilities were far better than the average .. and they were usually reserved for use and not sent into battle unless desperately needed .. and when they were they made an impact ..

This is why production and reinforcement is VIP ... If I am limited in the extreme to change or even alter my overall situation .. that's not a test of my abilities ..

That usually means the framework I am trying to work within is not suffeciently capable of being altered to the degree neccessary to even achieve any resistance worth mention ..
That means I have to try and develop a strategy within the parameters in the game ..
I have no problem with this .. Where my concern lies is are the parameters of the game able to give me as a Wargamer the flexibility and adaptability to even remotely alter the outcome in any way, shape or form ... !!

I as a wargamer will attempt to use all the assets at my disposal to create an imbalance so my opponent will be forced to react to a situation that he might not want or even be able to, If my opponent does not have this ability also ... thats not balanced .. and I know there is a fine line .. depends on the caliber of player or players you are faced with ..
IDG