"Battle for Moscow 1941-1943"

[samba_liten]

Ok... on 22/6-41 the 11th Army had:
Fla-Btl.22, Fla-Kp.1./47 (Heer)
and
Flak-Rgts.Stb.18, Flak-Abt.(gem.) I./14, I./43, I./64 (Luftwaffe)

My conclusion is that flak was an army level asset, and also that i have absolutely no idea where to find this info for the dates of the scenario in question. If you are interested, i can copy paste the rest of the flak assets for 22/6.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: polarenper

Ok... on 22/6-41 the 11th Army had:
Fla-Btl.22, Fla-Kp.1./47 (Heer)
and
Flak-Rgts.Stb.18, Flak-Abt.(gem.) I./14, I./43, I./64 (Luftwaffe)

My conclusion is that flak was an army level asset, and also that i have absolutely no idea where to find this info for the dates of the scenario in question. If you are interested, i can copy paste the rest of the flak assets for 22/6.

You can go hunting at http://www.ww2.dk/ . That information's organized in a rather impenetrable fashion, but it's there.

This will only cover the Luftwaffe flak units. For the Germans, bear in mind that there are Luftwaffe and Heer Flak units. Two different peoples... Usual tactical units are battalions, and they were generally assigned at the Corps level.

However, the Germans definitely did use flak extensively for ground support (particularly when enemy airpower wasn't a concern), and you definitely want to find it all.

As a note, starting in 1942, Flak units with 88's and 2cm guns were permanently assigned to all panzer divisions as a fourth battalion in the artillery regiment.

[BigDuke66]

Some more small recommendations:
-Rename "3HunCorps 2PzG" to "3HunCorps AOK2" It never served with the 2.PzA.


-More info regarding 7,5cm Pak 97/38 & 7,5cm Pak 40:
***
A source(KTB Org.Abt. III) states this:
20.5.42 - "Bis Monatsende gingen in Durchführung o.(bigens) Programms folgende s.Pak an die Heeresgruppen ab:
Pak 40:
H.Gr. Süd - 280
Pak 97/38:
H.Gr. Süd - 342
H.Gr. Mitte - 295
H.Gr. Nord - 150

4.6.42 - "Die Zuführung .. konnte auf die folgenden Zahlen gesteigert werden"
Pak 40:
H.Gr. Süd - 360
Pak 97/38:
H.Gr. Süd - 425
H.Gr. Mitte - 295
H.Gr. Nord - 150

And a different entry states(in the diary 11.-20.7.42):"um den 20.7.42 herum wurde die "Festlegung der Verteilung des zweiten Tausends Pak 97/38" beschlossen"
***
So you see till June 870 7,5cm Pak 97/38 reach the troops in the east and that is already a bunch more than the 700 overall production some sources state, furthermore the other entry speaks about the second 1000 Pak 97/38 and how they should be allocated so Hahns(Fritz Hahn "Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933-1945" 1942=2854 & 1943=858) numbers for the 7,5cm Pak 97/38 seem much more realistic. Also interesting is that almost half of them were placed at HG Süd I guess this percentage should reach HG Mitte in this scenario.

***
"Überblick über den Rüstungszustand beim Heer"
Abnahmezahlen 7,5cm Pak 40 (in brackets, how many of these are with Räderlafette)

1942=2126
1 –
2 – 15 (3)
3 – 10 (10)
4 – 156 (156)
5 – 251 (251)
6 – 93 (20)
7 – 176 (33)
8 – 175
9 – 185 (347 ?? maybe 8-10 together)
10 – 307
11 – 290 (100)
12 – 468 (434)

1943=8740
1 – 500 (337)
2 – 551 (490)
3 – 610 (480)
4 – 651 (525)
5 – 700 (592)
6 – 751 (621)
7 – 800 (700)
8 – 850 (662)
9 – 800 (676)
10 – 950 (841)
11 – 645 (481)
12 – 932 (929)
***
Here you can see that the first were taken off in February 1942.

Bases on this info my recommendations are to lower the 7,5cm Pak 97/38 to 14 per turn and the 7,5cm Pak 40 should start in February(turn 37) with 22 per turn but only if none are allocated to the troops, looking at the scenario 1412 are already in the game so you should first pull them out of every unit that is on map or comes in before February 1942 and than see what is still allocated, subtracting these of the 1942 overall production should give you a good number for replacement per turn.


-What about the stop line for 1942?
I think the HG Nord would still stay more or less in place so the stop line near the map edge looks good also the south edge looks OK(I would prefer it a bit closer to the Don, at least the end should be at the Don river) as I don't think that HG Süd would/could keep pace with a new offensive in 1942 the Hungarian III Corps will already have problems pushing forward near the map edge(at least i hope so), but the center should be moved further east maybe even to the map edge.

[Panama]

Unfortunately, you can look at six different sources and get six conflicting statistics. What has to be done is settle on one and stick with it. At least that's the conclusion I've come to.

[Oberst_Klink]

Lads,

the whole TO&E and OOB business, especially the various post in TOAW, SPWAW, etc forums dictates the following:

A comprehensive, MS Excel/Access based DB. I know it's not an easy undertaking, BUT... Those who're interested should contact me to exchange ideas about HOW to achieve it. The .XML export function for scenarios should make it a lot easier.

I am not a VBA or script geek, but macros or cross linking at Excel or Access I know. The DB could contain the various OOB and TO&E of the participating nations for a specific campaign period. I am still torturing my noggin about, which TO&E works best. E.g. The strentgh of the whole Division or divided into Regiments and the attached Abteilungen/Battalions?

Any feedback is more than welcome!

Klink

[BigDuke66]

Well the KTB Org.Abt. III & "Überblick über den Rüstungszustand beim Heer" confirm Hahns numbers, that's 3 in a row so why should you stick with anything else?
Of course some more or some less don't really matter but if one source say 700 and another over 2850 alone for 1942 and that source is confirmed I would stick with it, wouldn't you too?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

Lads,

the whole TO&E and OOB business, especially the various post in TOAW, SPWAW, etc forums dictates the following:

A comprehensive, MS Excel/Access based DB. I know it's not an easy undertaking, BUT... Those who're interested should contact me to exchange ideas about HOW to achieve it. The .XML export function for scenarios should make it a lot easier.

I am not a VBA or script geek, but macros or cross linking at Excel or Access I know. The DB could contain the various OOB and TO&E of the participating nations for a specific campaign period. I am still torturing my noggin about, which TO&E works best. E.g. The strentgh of the whole Division or divided into Regiments and the attached Abteilungen/Battalions?

Any feedback is more than welcome!

Klink

Note that, particularly on the Eastern Front, units were rarely at T0&E.

For my own purposes, I'm interested in the southern sector in the Summer of 1942. Glancing down a list of unit 'fills' pulled from the interval July-Sept in the Don sector, we find only one Soviet unit with more than two-thirds of its theoretical manpower, while the Germans had managed to raise the fill of units assigned to Blau to an average about 85%.

Certainly figuring out how to represent the TO&E is a starting point -- but that's all it is. For example, with my Soviet Rifle Divisions, I set their authorized level at 2/3's of the theoretical TO&E -- after all, they rarely rose to more than that in the period I'm concerned with.

Then -- absent any other information -- I set the assigned equipment at 60% of that. Other information causes me to adjust that up or down or to adjust individual items of equipment for the particular division.

[Oberst_Klink]

Colin,

thanks for the answer. I am aware of the "paper strength" and the KStN... Wouldn't it be at least a tad easier for the scenario designers to have those in one XLS or MDB file? Same for the OOB of certain campaigns. Let's presume I want to create a battle of a vital sector on the Ostfront... E.g. State Farm 79, one of the battles along the Chir. Forces involved, maybe one Coprs each, unit size, Battalion. There are plenty of larger scale scenarios where I see, ok. 17.Pz Div, 100 Sqds, yada, yada.. We know the OOB or the organisation of that unit and split it up into the Rgt, Btl, Abt.
That was my idea behind it.

Klink

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Well the KTB Org.Abt. III & "Überblick über den Rüstungszustand beim Heer" confirm Hahns numbers, that's 3 in a row so why should you stick with anything else?
Of course some more or some less don't really matter but if one source say 700 and another over 2850 alone for 1942 and that source is confirmed I would stick with it, wouldn't you too?

Geez dude, not arguing with you. Just sayin. [:D]

[Oberst_Klink]

Chill out lads, chill out... As the bloke@the Death Star, Moff Jerjerrod, said: "We shall double our efforts!"

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

Chill out lads, chill out... As the bloke@the Death Star, Moff Jerjerrod, said: "We shall double our efforts!"

Aye Polkovnik Klink. [8D]

[briantopp]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

Colin,

thanks for the answer. I am aware of the "paper strength" and the KStN... Wouldn't it be at least a tad easier for the scenario designers to have those in one XLS or MDB file? Same for the OOB of certain campaigns. Let's presume I want to create a battle of a vital sector on the Ostfront... E.g. State Farm 79, one of the battles along the Chir. Forces involved, maybe one Coprs each, unit size, Battalion. There are plenty of larger scale scenarios where I see, ok. 17.Pz Div, 100 Sqds, yada, yada.. We know the OOB or the organisation of that unit and split it up into the Rgt, Btl, Abt.
That was my idea behind it.

Klink

I think that would be very useful to have. The hard work is summing up the available -- and conflicting -- information and converting it accurately into TOAW editor terms.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: briantopp

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

Colin,

thanks for the answer. I am aware of the "paper strength" and the KStN... Wouldn't it be at least a tad easier for the scenario designers to have those in one XLS or MDB file? Same for the OOB of certain campaigns. Let's presume I want to create a battle of a vital sector on the Ostfront... E.g. State Farm 79, one of the battles along the Chir. Forces involved, maybe one Coprs each, unit size, Battalion. There are plenty of larger scale scenarios where I see, ok. 17.Pz Div, 100 Sqds, yada, yada.. We know the OOB or the organisation of that unit and split it up into the Rgt, Btl, Abt.
That was my idea behind it.

Klink

I think that would be very useful to have. The hard work is summing up the available -- and conflicting -- information and converting it accurately into TOAW editor terms.

It might be more useful if it was unconverted. There are several different theories about how to represent things in TOAW. What I'm saying is that (this is intended for illustrative purposes and is not based on any data at all) that rather than seeing

'Russian Rifle Regiment 1942: 108 Rifle Squads, 36 Med.MG, 12 50 mm mortars, 12 82 mm mortars, 4 76 mm ER guns, 4 45 mm AT guns, four wagons...'

It could be more helpful to have...

'Russian Rifle Regiment 1942: 3108 men, organized into three battalions of three rifle companies and one MG company each. Total arms: 2943 Model whatever bolt-action rifles, 384 Ppsh-39 submachine guns, 123 Model __ machine guns, 38 model __ machine guns...etc.

Usually, Neihorster et al serve quite nicely to resolve any questions about how all this was arranged. For example, 36 of the thirty eight medium MG's will turn out to be in the machine gun companies, while 2 of them might be with the 76 mm field gun battery.

Point is, I'd probably represent the 36 MG's and leave out the 2. Curtis LeMay would probably put in all 38. We both should have the raw data that permits us to apply our theories of how to represent things in TOAW.

[Oberst_Klink]

Thanks Brian!

Support is what ye'ole lad needs. What I have to figure out are... the different import/export functions and filters for the scenario XML dump. I managed to import, filter, remove the non relevant stuff to show you an example how it MIGHT look/work. If I find out, manage, how to export it into a scenario XML again, the scenario designer would just copy/paste and use Notepad++ or Excel to edit the OOB, forces and the rest via the editor in TOAW.

See attched screenshot -> One can filter for the parents HQ, the attached units, the lot...
The cell NAME12 is the parent HQ, in this case the II. SS PzK, NAME18 is the for the units attached to it... etc etc

[ColinWright]

I'm being a killjoy, but...

In my experience, if a unit is set at 90% proficiency, it will prove reluctant to break off attacks.

I remember playing Fall Grau -- a hypothetical invasion of North America. Anything that went to 90% or more proficiency was effectively only useful for defense. Put it into an attack -- and watch your turn end.

Better to go with 85% and drop everyone else by 5%.

[briantopp]

I basically agree -- 90% proficiency units behave erratically.

[briantopp]

Wouldn't it be more straightforward to just set up model units in the editor and save the unit files? They could then be downloaded and imported into TOAW like lego blocks.

[Oberst_Klink]

Gents... it was just an example I used from the Frozen Steppes 42-43 scenario... I am not a developer or coder... I am just trying to make it easier for the lads who spend hours just looking for OOB etc...

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

... I am just trying to make it easier for the lads who spend hours just looking for OOB etc...

But that's the fun part. Looking for oob.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

... I am just trying to make it easier for the lads who spend hours just looking for OOB etc...

But that's the fun part. Looking for oob.

[:D] You are certifiably insane.

Looking for TO&E for anything under brigade for Soviet units has been an exercise in frustration.