FITE opinions

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: morleron1
I agree, the Soviet OOB does seem inflated both in numbers and in capability. IIRC, the Soviets were in the process of disbanding their Mechanized Corps and reorganizing the men and equipment into true "all arms" formations, based loosely on the German panzer divisions, when the Germans embarked on their little vacation trip. From what Guderian wrote in his memoirs the Soviet Mech Corps were unwieldy and the command structure did not lend itself to rapid reaction - both factors which prompted the Soviets to pull them out and reorganize them as quickly as they could. The Soviets also suffered from having far too many different kinds of tanks - all with different capabilities and not really trained to work together - problems which they corrected (at least organizationally) by 1942 after the Germans relieved them of most of their useless T-28s, etc. in the 1941 encirclement battles. Somewhere I have a picture of the main highway between Moscow and Smolensk which looked a lot like the highway north of Kuwait City when the Iraqis tried to evacuate during Desert Storm - miles of abandoned and destroyed vehicles.

Is it possible to still get McBride's DNO scenario. He's withdrawn it from the "Rugged Defense" site and I've been unable to find it elsewhere. How big a job would it be to graft his initial OOB onto FiTE? Also, is there a definitive source for Red Army OOB information over the course of the war?

The Soviets had already started to disband their Mech Corps in late 1939/early 1940. 'Lessons' learned in Spain, Poland and Finland made the Soviets reconsider their usefulness. They started splitting up the tank units to support infantry and cavalry. Then came the German successes in France and the Soviets did an about face. Not only did they reinstitute the Mech Corps, they were going to expand them so they would have 29! They didn't even have the equipment for the 9 they had!

Also, the Axis didn't have to relieve the Soviets of tanks. Old and obsolete, the majority of them broke down, were abandoned by paniced crews or ran out of gas/ammo. There werre too few modern tanks. In the SW one unit received about a dozen KVII but there was no ammo for the 152mm guns they mounted.

The reasons for the abysmal performance of many of the mech corps were legion. Untrained officers/ncos. No time to train as a unit at any level. Many of the tank and mech divisions had only formed three or fewer months earlier. Hardly enough time to get men and equipment together let alone train. There was a severe shortage of modern tanks and tankers who knew how to simply drive them properly. If you use the two words, "Not Enough" and put anything after them pertaining to the Soviet Mech corps you would be correct. There were a few brights spots, generally south of the Pripets where some units had actually trained together. The tank battles in the Ukraine were the result. Barely mentioned in any histories, these battles bought some badly needed days for the Soviets and bloodied some German units. Some of the future Tank Army commanders came from these battles.

The solution for the unweildy Mech Corps was to disband all of them, I believe around the end of July 1941. Then the Soviets disbanded the tank divisions and formed brigades in August and September 1941. There were still over 2 thousand tanks in the West and another few thousand in the Far East. These brigades became the foundation for the Tank Corps and Mech Corps to come. They still had to suffer through 1942 but with the time bought by distance and blood they learned and won.

You should read about the history of the Soviet tank corps. It's an amazing story.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: morleron1

ORIGINAL: Olorin

I am with Panama. The Soviet OOB is ridiculously unrealistic.
- Just take a look at the starting oob and you will find divisions near the front that didn't even exist until much later. They sit ON the path where the Germans will advance, fortified.
- And the ones that did exist are also fortified and in good health, even nkvd units.
- The Mech Corps in Fite is a very powerful formation, whereas in reality it lacked mobility, leadership, supply and training.

So the German player has to fight a much larger and stronger Soviet West Front than was the case historically. And that's only in 41, which is supposed to be the easiest year to depict. Later we've got other problems, I don't need to repeat them, Panama has done it already.

A good first step would be to incorporate Daniel McBride's OOB for 1941 from DNO, which is almost 100% correct, and build on that.

I agree, the Soviet OOB does seem inflated both in numbers and in capability. IIRC, the Soviets were in the process of disbanding their Mechanized Corps and reorganizing the men and equipment into true "all arms" formations, based loosely on the German panzer divisions, when the Germans embarked on their little vacation trip. From what Guderian wrote in his memoirs the Soviet Mech Corps were unwieldy and the command structure did not lend itself to rapid reaction - both factors which prompted the Soviets to pull them out and reorganize them as quickly as they could. The Soviets also suffered from having far too many different kinds of tanks - all with different capabilities and not really trained to work together - problems which they corrected (at least organizationally) by 1942 after the Germans relieved them of most of their useless T-28s, etc. in the 1941 encirclement battles. Somewhere I have a picture of the main highway between Moscow and Smolensk which looked a lot like the highway north of Kuwait City when the Iraqis tried to evacuate during Desert Storm - miles of abandoned and destroyed vehicles.

Is it possible to still get McBride's DNO scenario. He's withdrawn it from the "Rugged Defense" site and I've been unable to find it elsewhere. How big a job would it be to graft his initial OOB onto FiTE? Also, is there a definitive source for Red Army OOB information over the course of the war?

Going by Glantz, most of the Mechanized Corps basically collapsed gasping within days of the opening of Barbarossa. Between equipment shortages, absence of any logistical support, and those pesky Germans always interfering, some had become little more than fragments of leg infantry by the end of the first week.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama




Also, the Axis didn't have to relieve the Soviets of tanks. Old and obsolete, the majority of them broke down, were abandoned by paniced crews or ran out of gas/ammo. There werre too few modern tanks. In the SW one unit received about a dozen KVII but there was no ammo for the 152mm guns they mounted.

That actually is one place where the Germans timed things really well. Most of the Soviet Tank units were expecting the new T-34's and KV's -- but didn't have them yet. In anticipation, maintenance (not exactly a Soviet strong point to begin with) on the old models had been allowed to lapse. Some incredible percentage of the Soviet tank park was either inoperative or became inoperative about two blocks down the street.

[ColinWright]

As far as simulating the Red Army at the start of the war goes, the OOB and equipment would be an immense job, but doable. You'd have to make educated guesses all over the place, but Glantz gives you enough so that after a few hundred man hours you'd probably have a good approximation.

The real difficulty is mimicking Soviet behavior for at least the first three months. Those pathetic 1-3's have to keep flinging themselves (if they're not in re-org) at the German 12-20's -- and often, one at a time. And often, over and over.

The current system has the ability to simulate passive idiocy to some extent -- it can make formations very prone to go into re-org, make early turn ending more likely, allow for an appalling supply level. What it can't do is force active stupidity. It can't make you mount pointless attacks, and it can't make you vigorously advance into closing pockets. Absent that, any simulation of 1941 is going to wind up pretty far from history -- either in terms of the number and raw combat power of the units, or in terms of the outcome. You have your choice.

What would be needed -- and considering the interest in the topic it's not all that unreasonable a request -- is a way for the Russian forces to start out under P.O. control and shift to player control. Hopefully gradually and formation by formation, but all at once if necessary. Indeed, sporadic player control that gradually becomes the norm might get us close to the ideal.

Failing that, I've always advocated a scenario that starts -- say -- after the Kiev encirclement. Stalin still had various strokes of genius after that point, but the errors started to become more like something actual players might commit. However, researching that would be a bi____.

[Raver508]

What would be needed -- and considering the interest in the topic it's not all that unreasonable a request -- is a way for the Russian forces to start out under P.O. control and shift to player control. Hopefully gradually and formation by formation, but all at once if necessary. Indeed, sporadic player control that gradually becomes the norm might get us close to the ideal.


Now that is an interesting idea! I always thought passive idiocy was the best representation possible.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Raver508

What would be needed -- and considering the interest in the topic it's not all that unreasonable a request -- is a way for the Russian forces to start out under P.O. control and shift to player control. Hopefully gradually and formation by formation, but all at once if necessary. Indeed, sporadic player control that gradually becomes the norm might get us close to the ideal.


Now that is an interesting idea! I always thought passive idiocy was the best representation possible.

I'm sure most know that you can change from PO to player control during the PO's turn by right clicking on the map while the PO is moving. However...you would not have a password protected game. [:D]

I suppose, if bribed, Ralph could take care of it. But he has a full plate, platter, table and dining room. You would have to stick him into Mr Peabody's Wayback Machine a few times so there is more than one iteration of him working on the game. [8D]

[philturco]

The Soviets lacked effective command&control that first summer and poor morale in their ranks. Simply making it difficult for the soviets to move would model this. Say give a negative shock penalty to any unit that voluntarily moves the first 8 or 10 turns. I think a global shock penalty for voluntarily abandoning key areas too early is a possibility. The Soviets needed to learn the hard way...by losing large amts of men and material. Stalin had to sack his bad commanders,but first they had to make the big mistakes we are trying to model. These huge losses weaken the Soviet collosus, but with clever pull backs in 42 and beyond the Soviets survive and eventually prevail.These early Soviet losses if we can model them into the game allow the game to stay competitive into 42 (case blue) and maybe into 43 (citadel)

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Bibbo

The Soviets lacked effective command&control that first summer and poor morale in their ranks. Simply making it difficult for the soviets to move would model this. Say give a negative shock penalty to any unit that voluntarily moves the first 8 or 10 turns. I think a global shock penalty for voluntarily abandoning key areas too early is a possibility. The Soviets needed to learn the hard way...by losing large amts of men and material. Stalin had to sack his bad commanders,but first they had to make the big mistakes we are trying to model. These huge losses weaken the Soviet collosus, but with clever pull backs in 42 and beyond the Soviets survive and eventually prevail.These early Soviet losses if we can model them into the game allow the game to stay competitive into 42 (case blue) and maybe into 43 (citadel)

Buddeny was an old cavalry cronie of Stalin's. They served together in the Russian civil wars. When the purges were taking place one of Buddeny's staff officers voiced his concern to him. Buddeny was to have replied, "Do not worry. They are only killing the smart ones." [:D]

Why does everyone use a ten foot wide brush to paint the state of the RKKA in June, 1941? Yes, some units were horrible. 4th Tank Division was one of the five best equiped units in the Soviet Army. It lasted about one day in the Bialystok salient. HQ bombed in the morning killing the division commander and communications. Tanks ran out of fuel and abandoned without firing a shot. Very bad. Alot of the blame for the lack of preparedness in the West Front can be laid at Pavlov's feet. A total disregard for what was happening to the front of his units. He was executed by the way. I probably would have shot him too. I know Patton would have. [;)]

On the other hand, in the Southwest Front Kirponos was in close touch with the border units and stepped his forces through increasing states of preparedness. This is why the Axis had a difficult time there. The best tankers were there too. Some of the units had actually had training. The tank divisions of the SW front bloodied more than one German armor and infantry division.

Also, many of the officers, NCOs and enlisted men in the army were veterans of Finland and the Far East campaigns. And, believe it or not, the RKKA actually did move from one spot to another. Mostly to follow the general order of advance and counter attack (the Minsk pocket resulted). The West Front just happened to be the most inept of the lot becasue of A) purges B) a 300% expansion of the army between 1939 and 1941 C) antiquated equipment D) a severe lack of transport and E) Stalin's refusal to believe Hitler would actually attack.

Don't make the mistake of other East Front scenario designers and believe that one size fits all is the way to go. That's why FitE doesn't work, IMO.

[madner]

Hello,
while this thread is old, I'm wondering how many of the people suggesting fixes actually played the scenario extensively. The border forces won't stop a competent German player. Minsk will fall around turn 4-6, Stalin line will be breached and Kiev will fall rather easily. The border mech corps will be destroyed, and they won't reconstitute. If one or two manage to escape it shouldn't be a big deal on the scale we are dealing with.
Also it might be an idea to set the replacement for those forces to none or very low, simulating they loss of strength by moving. This could force the Sovjet player to use them as long as they still have a punch.

A much bigger issue are tanks. For some reason the Pz-IIIJ only arrives after turn 47 and I see no Pz-IIIL at all.
Unless I'm missing an event that will dump around 1500 Pz-IIIJ, the Germans lack them.

The real issue is the double dipping. The Red army replacements are historical, but adjusted for locations. So if the German player can't advance to the historical line the Red Army will be stronger. However historically the factories were moved east anyway, so we end up with to high Soviet production. The other double dip are the replacement. Both sides had logistic constraints on the size of the forces they could field each year. But as 1941 the Red Army lost so many units, it has a much larger force if it pulls back then it would have had.
And the last issue is that the Germans were a victim of they success, they casualties were low until October and then they got behind the curve. I'm not sure if events can be triggered by casualties modifiers? 

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: madner

The real issue is the double dipping. The Red army replacements are historical, but adjusted for locations. So if the German player can't advance to the historical line the Red Army will be stronger. However historically the factories were moved east anyway, so we end up with to high Soviet production.

I have to assume that- whatever the Soviet propaganda- the relocation of the factories to the East resulted in a major dip in their effective output. This in addition to loss of millions of able bodied workers and potential recruits. So I'm sure that, all else being equal, the Soviets would have produced more if the Germans had not advanced as far.

Both sides had logistic constraints on the size of the forces they could field each year. But as 1941 the Red Army lost so many units, it has a much larger force if it pulls back then it would have had.

That's true- but it's really only a symptom of the key problem: the ability of the Red Army to make an orderly exit from the Western Soviet Union more or less without a fight. This is what would need to be changed.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
I have to assume that- whatever the Soviet propaganda- the relocation of the factories to the East resulted in a major dip in their effective output. This in addition to loss of millions of able bodied workers and potential recruits. So I'm sure that, all else being equal, the Soviets would have produced more if the Germans had not advanced as far.


That's true- but it's really only a symptom of the key problem: the ability of the Red Army to make an orderly exit from the Western Soviet Union more or less without a fight. This is what would need to be changed.

No doubt the Soviets could have produced more:
Losses were placed at coal 42%, iron ore, 65%, pig iron 60%, steel 55%, and coke 63% the first year.

Those are major Donbas resources.

Now, if the RKKA had retreated as players seem to want to do I doubt very much if they could have justified this to the population. Blatantly abandoning 40% of the population, 60% aluminum, 41% of the railroads, the bulk of their prime farmland, 42% of the electrical production and the pigs, think of the pigs, 60% of them. [X(]

How long could the regime last if they had actually turned their back on that without a fight? Plus the previous coal, etc figures.

[Karri]

There is no point forcing the Soviets to fight in the West because they can't. They do not even have enough unit to form a frontline...any defence there would just be roadblocks and nothing else.

[madner]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: madner
The real issue is the double dipping. The Red army replacements are historical, but adjusted for locations. So if the German player can't advance to the historical line the Red Army will be stronger. However historically the factories were moved east anyway, so we end up with to high Soviet production.

I have to assume that- whatever the Soviet propaganda- the relocation of the factories to the East resulted in a major dip in their effective output. This in addition to loss of millions of able bodied workers and potential recruits. So I'm sure that, all else being equal, the Soviets would have produced more if the Germans had not advanced as far.

Well it did result in a major dip, but only as time was needed to move them. Now, the question is which major factories have been overrun, and what percentage was in the west.
Further which factories were not moved.

The biggest changes were that new models which were scheduled to be produced were not to not disrupt war time production. But this changes were done as soon as the war started.
It is no coincidence the artillery production of USSR reached his peak in 1942, as no heavy gun was produced until Stalingrad.

[madner]

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
I have to assume that- whatever the Soviet propaganda- the relocation of the factories to the East resulted in a major dip in their effective output. This in addition to loss of millions of able bodied workers and potential recruits. So I'm sure that, all else being equal, the Soviets would have produced more if the Germans had not advanced as far.


That's true- but it's really only a symptom of the key problem: the ability of the Red Army to make an orderly exit from the Western Soviet Union more or less without a fight. This is what would need to be changed.

No doubt the Soviets could have produced more:
Losses were placed at coal 42%, iron ore, 65%, pig iron 60%, steel 55%, and coke 63% the first year.

Those are major Donbas resources.

Now, if the RKKA had retreated as players seem to want to do I doubt very much if they could have justified this to the population. Blatantly abandoning 40% of the population, 60% aluminum, 41% of the railroads, the bulk of their prime farmland, 42% of the electrical production and the pigs, think of the pigs, 60% of them. [X(]

How long could the regime last if they had actually turned their back on that without a fight? Plus the previous coal, etc figures.

That only matters if the resource is the bottleneck. [;)]
Luckily for the Sovjet Union, they had plenty of forest. Wood became the primary energy source.

Now, the Donbas had critical ammo production facilities, which were not moved, but luckily for the Sovjets the western allies were able to provide the resources they need.
As for the pigs:

Code: Select all

Sugar
 (thousands of tons)
 Soviet Production	1,460
 Allied Deliveries	610
 Total	2,070
 Allied Proportion	29.5%

Code: Select all

Meat
 (thousands of tons)
 Soviet Production	3,715
 Allied Deliveries	664.9
 Total	4,379.9
 Allied Proportion	15.1% 

Code: Select all

Explosives
 (in tons)
 Soviet Production	600,000
 Allied Deliveries	295,600
 Total	895,600
 Allied Proportion	33%

Code: Select all

Copper Ore
 (in tons)
 Soviet Production	470,000
 Allied Deliveries	387,600
 Total	857,600
 Allied Proportion	45.2%

Code: Select all

Aluminum
 (thousands of tons)
 1940	1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	Total
 66	56	45	69	82.7	86.3	263
 Allied Deliveries	328.1
 Total	591.1
 Allied Proportion	55.5% 

Code: Select all

 Railroad rails
 (excluding narrow guage rails)
 Soviet Production	48,990
 Allied Deliveries	622,100
 Total	671,090
 Allied Proportion	92.7%

Code: Select all

Locomotives
 (all types)
 1940	1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	Total
 928	708	9	43	32	8	442
 Allied Deliveries	1966
 Total	2408
 Allied Proportion	81.6%

Code: Select all

Rail cars
 (all types)
 Soviet Production	2635
 Allied Deliveries	11,075
 Total	13,710
 Allied Proportion	80.7%

Code: Select all

 Aviation Fuel
 thousands of tons (includes Allied deliveries)
 1940	1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	Total	%
 889	1269	912	1007	1334	1017	4396
 Allied Deliveries	2586	59
 Soviet Production	1810	41

Code: Select all

Automotive Fuel
 thousands of tons
 Soviet Production	9431.5
 Allied Deliveries	242.3
 Total	9673.8
 Allied Proportion	2.5% 

[larryfulkerson]

Hey Madner:

if you put the tags [ code ]  [ / code ]  around the figures in your post (without the spaces in the tags I used as an example ) the numbers will stay in lined up columns.  It'll make your post look a tiny bit better.  Just a thought.

like this:

Code: Select all

 [ code ]
                             Automotive Fuel 
                             thousands of tons 
  Soviet Production             9431.5 
  Allied Deliveries             	242.3 
  Total                         9673.8 
  Allied Proportion                2.5%  
    

[ / code ]

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

Hey Madner:

if you put the tags [ code ]  [ / code ]  around the figures in your post (without the spaces in the tags I used as an example ) the numbers will stay in lined up columns.  It'll make your post look a tiny bit better.  Just a thought.

like this:

Code: Select all

 [ code ]
                             Automotive Fuel 
                             thousands of tons 
  Soviet Production             9431.5 
  Allied Deliveries             	242.3 
  Total                         9673.8 
  Allied Proportion                2.5%  
    

[ / code ]

Yet another mystery of the internet unlocked. Thanks.

[ColinWright]

Copied from elsewhere.

'...Perhaps designers of early East Front scenarios should look at crippling the recon ability of their Russian units and enhancing that of the Germans. Here, I've adopted an idea of Ben's. Typically, all German tanks get the recon box checked.

Perhaps in an East Front scenario, German infantry squads as well as tanks should get a recon ability. One would want to test the effect this had on their ability to mount direct assaults -- but it should allow them to bypass Russian units and/or RBC unprepared defenders with much greater facility.'