Utter madness... if you didn't believe something was wrong before

[2ndACR]

I have said it before, will say again. There is no sure fire thing in combat. Too many variables. Try looking at it more realistically.

The German Div moves to attack, 20 miles away equals about 3-4 hours in combat formation, the Russian advance party (scouts) spot the dust cloud and send word to Div command. The Div commander orders hasty positions (farmhouses, quick foxholes). Remember, we use 7 day turns. So the Germans reach the edge of Russian area, start to deploy. Some one notices that the combat trains (supply trucks) took a left instead of a right about 8 miles back. German commander decides to hasty attack anyway. The German artillery fire falls short and long, advance German tanks start hitting hasty made minefield causing some confusion. German infantry advancing with the Panzer's are forced to drop back and seek cover due to heavy artillery fire and machine gun fire. The German armor commander decides to press the attack anyway. They make headway, the Russian commander seeing his 1st Regiment under heavy pressure and taking heavy losses order's his unit to pull back, thus saving his other 2 Regiments and his combat trains from certain destruction.

 All of this is plausible and can and does happen in real life combat operations. The game simulates this very very well. Sometimes you just have to use your head to explain things.

I have really tried to avoid most of this thread, but I am seeing alot of "this does not happen in real life"........sorry, but it does, even to this day.

[PeeDeeAitch]

It would also be nice to see if the IL-2s caused any damage - by their losses they did seem to press home their attacks. Did the attack start too late in a day? A hasty attack in the game seems to cover a broad range of effects, and the effect on the attackers are unpredictable.
 
One thing that does seem likely is that the outcome would be far different in a deliberate attack (given what I have seen in the game perhaps 20% or more casualties to a Soviet division caught in the open, likely a route way as well)

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
Well, that explains the following then:

ORIGINAL: bwheatley

I guess I should not be surprise at the low-IQ type responses on this thread, people like Oleg Mastruko have never had anything useful to say from day 1.

I'm going to make you look the fools you are.
Oleg, you can skip this part as you've already establish that your mental challenges prevent you from any sort of reasonable thought process.

Hypocrit much?

Those weren't bwheatley's words. They were kirkgregerson's from post #44. Unfortunately, bwheatley's editing of the nested quotes left the impression that he was the original author of the slur. He wasn't and you owe him an apology.

I return you to your scheduled entertainment...

JAMiAM: Thank you. I had mis-interpreted this post as well.

While Bill and I had our differences earlier, I have come to respect his contributions and his moderation. I have to admit that I was shocked when I read the post above because I also thought those were his words. However instead of tracking back to the earlier posts he was referencing I just shook my head sadly and went on. So I feel that I also should apologize to him for believing even for a minute that he would write something that ... immoderate.

Bwheatley, I'm sorry. [:(]

[Aurelian]

My apologies.

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: bwheatley

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

What actually inflamed me the most was all the people that quickly attacked abulbulians well document improbable outcome as far as realism is concerned. Maybe this outcome is more probably IN the game,... but that's maybe the heart of the issue. These attack on the post were with out any merit as they had no evidence or documentation to refute abulbulian's claim that the outcome was totally improbably. I agree with his assessment. Not that I've read hundreds of books on the subject, but I've read more than a few in the last few months. I couldn't find any account of a sov rifle div in 42 accomplishing anything close to this posted battle outcome in all my readings given the battle settings. BUT, I did read about many accounts of the German mobile units, like the 11th Panzer, performing amazing feats against incredible odds. Yes, also in a sort of 'Hasty' attack fashion, as they usually had to be in two places at once.

So if people want to post what they see is wrong with abulbulian's assessment why not post something to back up your claim? [&:]

I agree people attacking others is lame.

Well, that explains the following then:

ORIGINAL: bwheatley

I guess I should not be surprise at the low-IQ type responses on this thread, people like Oleg Mastruko have never had anything useful to say from day 1.

I'm going to make you look the fools you are.
Oleg, you can skip this part as you've already establish that your mental challenges prevent you from any sort of reasonable thought process.

Hypocrit much?

That wasn't me saying that the forums i guess have a limit when you have too many embedded quotes If you look back you'll see kirk saying that. I'll have to go find the post and fix it

[SgtKachalin]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

...

I have really tried to avoid most of this thread, but I am seeing alot of "this does not happen in real life"........sorry, but it does, even to this day.

Hear hear. Count me an another that sees nothing wrong with the OPs combat example and result.

Calls for documentation that every time a Pz Div attacked a Rifle Div in 1942 it did not instantly crush them are ludicrous; there are plenty of historical accounts. It's one of the features of the fighting in Blau I and Blau II, and well explains why the huge haul of prisoners seen in 1941 were not seen then. From Glantz, "To the Gates of Stalingrad"

"... the recently rebuilt panzer divisions rolled across the landscape against what seemed at the highest levels to be minor resistance. Yet despite the Wehrmacht's initial dramatic advances, it became increasingly difficult for the Germans to sustain momentum given the twin challenges of distance and the growing Soviet military competence. ... First, the Red Army was qualitatively far superior to what it had been in 1941 and continued to improve at a rapid pace during 1942. ... Second, while it is true that some green Soviet units crumbled in the face of the superbly executed blitzkrieg, others gave good account of themselves. Indeed, the surprising skill of the Soviet soldiers and at least some of their leaders was chiefly responsible for the sometimes slow progress of the German spearheads and their failure to repeat the huge prisoner hauls of the previous year. ... the Germans in the field were aware that the Soviets were constantly counterattacking and often inflicting heavy casualties on the invaders." pp. 477-478

In short the OPs battle tells me that the game is working well. It's 1942. The Panzers attack. They win the battle (causing an enemy that wants to stand to retreat is, by any objective measure, victory). But the Red unit doesn't vaporize, and even hits back some before retreating. That is totally historical. It's not 1941 any more.

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: pompack

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
Well, that explains the following then:




Hypocrit much?

Those weren't bwheatley's words. They were kirkgregerson's from post #44. Unfortunately, bwheatley's editing of the nested quotes left the impression that he was the original author of the slur. He wasn't and you owe him an apology.

I return you to your scheduled entertainment...

JAMiAM: Thank you. I had mis-interpreted this post as well.

While Bill and I had our differences earlier, I have come to respect his contributions and his moderation. I have to admit that I was shocked when I read the post above because I also thought those were his words. However instead of tracking back to the earlier posts he was referencing I just shook my head sadly and went on. So I feel that I also should apologize to him for believing even for a minute that he would write something that ... immoderate.

Bwheatley, I'm sorry. [:(]

Hehe no worries man I will be more sure to preview next time if there are a lot of embedded quotes so that doesn't happen again. There are sometimes i really really get fired up and might be a dick. But i try hard to keep respectful tones and active listening. Like tutilus (sp) says it's just a game.

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

My apologies.

No worries its all good

[Jakerson]

At eastern front there were documated cases where attacker lost more than 3000-5000 men without being able to kill zero defenders. It happened when defender had one recon plane or forward observer team in the right place at right time calling artillery strike on enemy deployment zone just when they where starting to attack and devastating artillery fire hit right on the target with power of 50 tons of TNT just in couple of minutes and that tryout attack was over.

I never seen this happening in this game even when that should be possible to stop attack with artillery fire with decimating casulties to attacking side without being able to lauch attack at all. This game really gives a lot of better chances to attack than historically was possible.

EDIT: btw. this is not whining I understand that wargame need set of rules and is always abstraction of reality.

[jomni]

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

At eastern front there were documated cases where attacker lost more than 3000-5000 men without being able to kill zero defenders. It happened when defender had one recon plane or forward observer team in the right place at right time calling artillery strike on enemy deployment zone just when they where starting to attack and devastating artillery fire hit right on the target with power of 50 tons of TNT just in couple of minutes and that tryout attack was over.

I never seen this happening in this game even when that should be possible to stop attack with artillery fire with decimating casulties to attacking side without being able to lauch attack at all. This game really gives a lot of better chances to attack than historically was possible.

I happens to me as Soviet. I do a hasty attack on a 1CV German unit. He takes no casualties while I take some and then my leaders call off the attack.

[Jakerson]

ORIGINAL: jomni
I happens to me as Soviet. I do a hasty attack on a 1CV German unit. He takes no casualties while I take some and then my leaders call off the attack.

Its possible then at least some level then never happened to me. I dont whine about this I'm pretty happy about how artillery works in this game in grand scale as I just tested 1944 campaing and both sides have tons of artillery deployed on the line and casulties really grow from that a lot. Well soviet more but german can really do some bad damage.

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

At eastern front there were documated cases where attacker lost more than 3000-5000 men without being able to kill zero defenders. It happened when defender had one recon plane or forward observer team in the right place at right time calling artillery strike on enemy deployment zone just when they where starting to attack and devastating artillery fire hit right on the target with power of 50 tons of TNT just in couple of minutes and that tryout attack was over.

I never seen this happening in this game even when that should be possible to stop attack with artillery fire with decimating casulties to attacking side without being able to lauch attack at all. This game really gives a lot of better chances to attack than historically was possible.

EDIT: btw. this is not whining I understand that wargame need set of rules and is always abstraction of reality.

I too have had this happen as the soviets on the attack. Nice to see the germans making it hard for me!

[XAAL.]

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

Ok, I've been reading a few of the following books lately that have been describing how the German Pz Div were almost 'super-human' in dealing with some of the most incredible tasks of defending an attacking.

[:-]
Perhaps that day, gunners forgot to tell 203mm shells they would fall on the "super-human" germans, had they known, they would have refused to explode, of course [8|]
Same apply for the 19 IL-2, had they known they were attacking super-humans, they would refused to fire their guns when their "untermenschen" pilots press the trigger...[8|]
203mm shells and Il-2 planes, all in awe..... lol [&o]

According to your logic, the Germans should not lose any tanks when attacking forces in defense. OK, so one wonders how they managed to lose tanks in 1941 and 1942.
And it only take 1h to make a foxhole or a basic trench with a showel.

Ok, now take a chill out pill, thank you. lol

[amatteucci]

I agree with the fact that Soviet air and support artillery units alone could be accounted for the majority of the losses the German force suffered. Therefore the "crack Panzerdivision vs. puny Rifle Division" argument is a moot point.

What is strange? That a regiment of 19 Il-2 disabled eight German AFVs? Or that a Guards high power artillery regiment, armed with 24 203mm howitzers, caused a few hundreds of WIAs and KIAs against moving troops in the open?

As it was already said, the attached combat report screenshot is, by itself, insufficient in proving that there's something absolutely and unbelievably wrong with the game system.

I'm not saying that there's plenty of evidence that there's no problem with the game combat system itself, I'm saying that there's no evidence of a problem, yet. This because we don't know what happened exactly (i.e. what Soviet units scored the kills) and we don't know how probable was this result (one should run the very same attack a lot of times and compare the results).

I don't agree with the opinion that such a result should be impossible to obtain in all circumstances and, therefore, the game shouldn't allow for such an outcome, even once in a thousand times.
I can rationalize such a result without problems, no suspension of disbelief needed.

Having said so, I, once more, present the request of having the option of dumping combat detailed results dumped into text file logs. Nobody would actually run the game resolving combats with level 7 descriptions. But it would be interesting to have the option to review in detail some combats, to understand better how things work in WitE and to base this kind of discussions upon hard data and not just our guesses.

[76mm]

I find a couple of points about kirkgregerson's ranting interesting:

1) he criticizes virtually everyone on this thread for failing to analyze or prove their positions and yet he has not provided the slightest "proof" of his assertions, other than to state his strongly-held opinion about how things should work.  By now several have posted excerpts from German reports to the effect that Russians could inflict signficant losses on panzers...what more do we need to do kirkgregerson?

2)  He is probably the first wargamer I've ever encountered that considers combat to be a determinitive process (ie, not involving luck), and who apparently wants this approach reflected in wargames as well.  In my view, his position is like saying that once you really drill down into the physics, rolling dice does not involve any luck at all, because based on the various properties and forces involved, you should be able to determine in advance what the result will be. Obviously this statement is true on some level, but not at the level of detail reflected in this game, as we have no idea about many significant factors which could have influenced the battle, including:
a) the specific terrain (generally open, but perhaps with various streams or the ravines common in parts of Russia),
b) how long the battle actually lasted/how it was conducted (ie, weekly turns, maybe attack launched in the evening as the panzers arrived, and Sovs withdrew at night, etc.),
c) whether there was fog on certain mornings which could have disrupted an attack or allowed the Sovs to escape,
d) etc. etc. etc.

For these reasons it is rather difficult for me to understand how someone could be so outraged by the results of this battle, I consider it a rather lucky for the Sovs but well within the realm of the possible.

And before further patronizing comments, yes, I have read more than a few books on this topic...

And I second the request to be able to turn on logging for the battle results; usually I keep in on Level 1 or 2, which is not very illuminating, but for seemingly anamolous results it would be great to go back and see what what driving the result.

[MechFO]

ORIGINAL: amatteucci

I agree with the fact that Soviet air and support artillery units alone could be accounted for the majority of the losses the German force suffered. Therefore the "crack Panzerdivision vs. puny Rifle Division" argument is a moot point.

What is strange? That a regiment of 19 Il-2 disabled eight German AFVs? Or that a Guards high power artillery regiment, armed with 24 203mm howitzers, caused a few hundreds of WIAs and KIAs against moving troops in the open?

As it was already said, the attached combat report screenshot is, by itself, insufficient in proving that there's something absolutely and unbelievably wrong with the game system.
The "crack Panzerdivision vs. puny Rifle Division" argument is a moot point, since Soviet air and support artillery units alone could be accounted for the majority of the losses the German force suffered.

The problem for me is mainly that the relative losses and the combat result don't add up. RETREAT is defined in the manual as a forced displacement, I checked to be sure, and that definition is repeated ad nauseam. So this wasn't a delaying action (which is it's own discussion).

This was by any measure a highly successful defensive action, so it should be a HOLD.

If it really was a RETREAT, then German losses can still be rationalised, but Russian losses are way too low.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: MechFO
The problem for me is mainly that the relative losses and the combat result don't add up. RETREAT is defined in the manual as a forced displacement, I checked to be sure, and that definition is repeated ad nauseam. So this wasn't a delaying action (which is it's own discussion).

This was by any measure a highly successful defensive action, so it should be a HOLD.

If it really was a RETREAT, then German losses can still be rationalised, but Russian losses are way too low.

It seems to me like you are wrapped up in semantics, I don't think that the distinctions that you are making between a "HOLD", a "delaying action" and a "retreat" are necessarily valid.

The Sovs retreated, so I don't see why it should be a HOLD? And why couldn't a successful delaying action be shown in the game as a retreat? Delaying actions generally do involve moving backwards under enemy pressure, not staying in place.

Finally, I don't understand why everyone considers these Sov losses so unbelievably low. As stated in a previous post, these turns are a week long...how do we know that the Russians did not retreat at night, or in the fog? As far as I know, clear weather for a weekly turn does not mean sunshine 24/7...

[amatteucci]

ORIGINAL: MechFO
The problem for me is mainly that the relative losses and the combat result don't add up. RETREAT is defined in the manual as a forced displacement, I checked to be sure, and that definition is repeated ad nauseam. So this wasn't a delaying action (which is it's own discussion).

I wonder how WitE would model a delaying action in a single combat (strictly speaking I guess it couldn't) but this is not important now.
OK, let's agree that the result was a "forced displacement", that is the defender was compelled by the situation to give way, even if it was not the intended course of action.

This was by any measure a highly successful defensive action, so it should be a HOLD.

This wasn't by any measure a succesful defensive action, this was an action in which air and artillery support managed to inflict additional losses to the attacker but these losses were not sufficient to stop the attack in its tracks but merely to buy time for the defender that managed to withdraw without collapsing. The Rifle Division commander assessed the situation and judged that this was the best moment ro bug out, avoiding additional losses.
A retreat (and this is a retreat, not a route or a shattering overrun) almost always occurs because the defender decides to retreat, not because he's physically pushed aside by the attacking forces. Once a commander sees that there's no option to but to retreat it's logical to do so before the attacker can bring to bear all his weight and transform an ordinate retreat into a route.

If it really was a RETREAT, then German losses can still be rationalised, but Russian losses are way too low.

I just think that it was a retreat because it was German pressure (and not a pre-made decision) that convinced the Soviet commander that he couldn't possibly hold more his position, but, at the same time, air and artillery denied the German commander the possibility to achieve overwhelming superiority.

If one sees this combat as two separate actions (the combat between lead elements of the Pz. Div and the defending RD and the long range artillery fire and air attacks into second echelon forces that were to reinforce the attack and exploit the success) I think the result could be rationalized anyway.
The leading elements of the Panzerdivision (say in batallion or regimental strength) start the attack and obtain an initial success against a section of the Soviet defensive line. Red air and artillery manage to delay the arrival of Axis reinforcing armour and infantry, so the attack goes on but at a slower pace than anticipated. The Soviet commander realize that the Germans are experiencing difficulties but coming reports make clear that the German speartip is still advancing and it's only matter of time before the Germans will be able to reach the depths of the defensive deployment. So he decides to oder a rifle regiment to bear the brunt of the action and allow the rest of the Division to disegnage and retreat.

[PMCN]

The situation is a result of people having assumptions that build expectations.  When those expectations are not fulfilled then that leaves the person with two options.  The first is to go back to the assumption you made and revise them, the second is to state that reality is wrong.

I hate to say this but I and most people do the second a lot more than we should.

The results are the reality, the problem was both the expectation and the assumptions that produced it.  For the sake of your sanity if you are playing the axis and are entering 42 accept that as far as how your units performed in 41...diese zeit ist vorbei...this time is at an end.  You still can look forward to "Von Kleist's panzers roamed at will over the Russian steppes" but the time when you could ignore the Russians and concentrate on finding out where you are on your horrid maps is done.  The soviet forces have undergone 3 TOE changes, they have a core of mortars, artillery and machine guns that will make advancing to contact a lot more costly then it was in the golden days of the summer and fall of 41.  Factor it in, because if you don't you are going to be in for a lot of trouble in a few months.

Turn up the message level to 4 at least occasionally so you can learn what the game is about, for your own sake please do this.  I can't stress this enough.  These results were not a "fluke" the only thing that may be random is if the unit in question suffered from serious retreat attrition as that is (as far as I can figure out from the manual) a single leader check.  The number of rolls in combat is so high that you are always in the middle of the Guassian curve.  I have executed 3 near identical attacks in one turn the variance in results was negligible.  Air support, SU's and so on change the results...having a mixed flak battalion showed up cost me 80 tanks out of 150 for example, reinforcements etc all these can change the results but when they aren't factors or not significant ones then the results are consistent.

[MengJiao]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

I find a couple of points about kirkgregerson's ranting interesting:

1) he criticizes virtually everyone on this thread for failing to analyze or prove their positions and yet he has not provided the slightest "proof" of his assertions, other than to state his strongly-held opinion about how things should work.  By now several have posted excerpts from German reports to the effect that Russians could inflict signficant losses on panzers...what more do we need to do kirkgregerson?

2)  He is probably the first wargamer I've ever encountered that considers combat to be a determinitive process (ie, not involving luck), and who apparently wants this approach reflected in wargames as well.  In my view, his position is like saying that once you really drill down into the physics, rolling dice does not involve any luck at all, because based on the various properties and forces involved, you should be able to determine in advance what the result will be. Obviously this statement is true on some level, but not at the level of detail reflected in this game, as we have no idea about many significant factors which could have influenced the battle, including:
a) the specific terrain (generally open, but perhaps with various streams or the ravines common in parts of Russia),
b) how long the battle actually lasted/how it was conducted (ie, weekly turns, maybe attack launched in the evening as the panzers arrived, and Sovs withdrew at night, etc.),
c) whether there was fog on certain mornings which could have disrupted an attack or allowed the Sovs to escape,
d) etc. etc. etc.

For these reasons it is rather difficult for me to understand how someone could be so outraged by the results of this battle, I consider it a rather lucky for the Sovs but well within the realm of the possible.

And before further patronizing comments, yes, I have read more than a few books on this topic...

And I second the request to be able to turn on logging for the battle results; usually I keep in on Level 1 or 2, which is not very illuminating, but for seemingly anamolous results it would be great to go back and see what what driving the result.

All good points -- especially the point that the Russians could have done their airstrikes and artillery late in the afternoon, taken a small beating and pulled out at night.
I think it might also be worth considering that the game does seem to model reconnaissance. I think an attack with better info on the defenders has a better chance of inflicting losses earlier. I'm not sure of this but I recall seeing a combat result of "enemy scouted"...which imples that the next hasty attack that turn will have some advantages.

Let's suppose an unscouted defender has some advantages. The attacker knows he is there, but has no exact information about what the defender has, or his exact strength or location. The attacker tries to push the defender aside with minimal force (a hasty attack) and after being hit by airstrikes and artillery only belatedly engages the defenders main line of defense. Both sides take loses and the defender retreats without ever having be hit by the full force of the attacker.