Soviet Production a bit too much / Major Game play issue?

[Adnan Meshuggi]

Hi,

the sherman was not equal to a t34...
the 76er was not bad but the russian tanks were "better".
Russians used anything they had, so this is no evidence for "good" weaponary...

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

Hi,

the sherman was not equal to a t34...
the 76er was not bad but the russian tanks were "better".
Russians used anything they had, so this is no evidence for "good" weaponary...

[:D] Opinions are like belly buttons. Everyone has one. I have never crewed either in a war so I can only relate printed material. One thing that is not arguable is the reliability, gun and radio. The rest is subjective.

[Panama]

sorry bout this one [&:]

[horza66]

I don't want to continue the thread hijack but someone linked to this on an earlier thread, an account from a tank commander of the 5th GTC in Shermans. It's worth repeating.

http://english.iremember.ru/tankers/17-dmitriy-loza.html

[Adnan Meshuggi]

Well, about the opinions, i agree

About the missing radios... in 1945 most modern russian combat tanks (the others were mostly destroyed) had radio.... you could survive german counterfire much more in a JS or T34/85 as in a sherman (any model of the US Army)... so a good canon is one thing (ammo for it another)

sure, they had a purpose... but to say the russians wanted these tanks because they were better as the russian tanks sounds a little bit strange for me.

Generally, if you have a tank and the other side has none, you are in a better position.
If the others have 5 tigers and you have only shermans instead of faster t34-85, then it is not so good.

Hope you got my point, i had no interest in critizing things we can´t know (cause you are right.. we both did not sit in any tank in ww2), just offered my opinion to the thing.

And yes, i do belive that the sherman is not underrated in war games... [;)]

for guns - the 85mm-Gun of the t34 was far better and exacter to shoot as the 75 or even 76mm-Guns of the shermans. And i think i read sometimes, that the russians had not the expensive special ammo for tigerbusting... so you get an 76mm-gun (similar to the t34/76c-maingun) that is waaaaaaaay inferior to the german 75 and 88mm-guns.

So, if i think in what tank do i want to sit in a combat engagement with german animals, i think i like the idea to sit in a t34... faster crossroads, better hitchance at greater distance and i can go nearer faster if needed.

[Adnan Meshuggi]

ORIGINAL: horza66

I don't want to continue the thread hijack but someone linked to this on an earlier thread, an account from a tank commander of the 5th GTC in Shermans. It's worth repeating.

http://english.iremember.ru/tankers/17-dmitriy-loza.html

well, yes. so what?
It seems nearly all historicans and experts are wrong?

why are these russkis so stupid. just ask for more shermans..... [8|]
and why the t34 was copied in most criterias from all other nations and NOT the sherman?

another bunch of stupid people, i think.....

only these russian guys of the 5th knew the truth... right?

[ComradeP]

and why the t34 was copied in most criterias from all other nations and NOT the sherman?

Because the wealthy Western states generally had their own tank producing industries, and the Soviet Union primarily exported to second and third world countries without a well developed armament industry.

American military equipment was and is exported to a wide variety of countries, though less than Soviet/Russian equipment. The main reason: Soviet/Russian equipment is cheaper, and certainly not always better. It's why many African states still use Soviet tanks: cheap to maintain, cheap to purchase.

Soviet designs were in many cases quite good, but they lacked "force multipliers" that could improve on the design, like good ammunition and range finders or other technological aids. In the game, the Soviets are already helped by having a universal tank construction quality/reliability, even though quality could vary quite a bit from factory to factory.

As to the main subject of the thread: the Soviet Union was huge, capturing a line to the Volga would remove quite a bit of its population, but it would still be capable of producing significant quantities of armaments. Keep in mind that it was a totalitarian state, if Stalin didn't want consumer goods to be produced, the population just had to accept it. As such, the breaking point of the Soviet Union was way beyond the breaking point of Western states in terms of how much territory/population could be lost before the war was lost.

[Speedysteve]

Please no more Tiger vs Sherman vs T34 debates....I still have nightmares about them[;)]

[ComradeP]

Those debates are pointless, so there's a new twist: debating why some tanks were exported more often than others.

[fsp]

Please don't turn this into another Sherman vs T-34 debate...

What I am getting at is: In what way are you supposed to win damage the Soviet war effort as the Axis? Where is the Achilles heel of the Soviets? It sure is not production, as one can see by my example. Even if you capture almost all that is needed for an auto victory, this does not hamper Soviet production and in a human v human game, almost no one gets as far as I did in this game versus the AI.

[ComradeP]

Where is the Achilles heel of the Soviets?

The plummeting of the manpower multiplier over time. When about 1/3 or even more of the Soviet Union's population is lost such as in the advance you describe, it will be extremely difficult for the Soviets to keep an offensive going later in the war. Over time, you can bleed them white (bleeding the reds white? ah, the irony).

[Speedysteve]

Yup. Make as many SU Units Surrender as you can from November 1941.....

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: fsp

Please don't turn this into another Sherman vs T-34 debate...

What I am getting at is: In what way are you supposed to win damage the Soviet war effort as the Axis? Where is the Achilles heel of the Soviets? It sure is not production, as one can see by my example. Even if you capture almost all that is needed for an auto victory, this does not hamper Soviet production and in a human v human game, almost no one gets as far as I did in this game versus the AI.

IMO, the Achilles heel was just about reached. About the time the prisons and gulags were emptied (the last reserves of the Empire) because manpower was reaching a tipping point in late 1941 into 1942. No one has the exact number. Around 1 million. Women were being given rear area roles to allow fit males to join active combat units. Older unfit males were also being given non combat duties to relieve more fit people for active combat roles. Of course with Hitler throwing away resources at unreachable goals manpower proved to be sufficient until liberated areas could be tapped. All elligible males in liberated areas were conscripted (impressed actually) into active service. Training was sometimes a very short time and some were not issued entire uniforms or even a helmet. Cannon fodder. For example, 2 million men were pressed into service during the destruciton of AGC.

So I would think if you had reached Hitlers original dreamed of stop line, Arkangelsk to Astrakhan, manpower would have been the nail in the coffin before that line was reached. I don't think the facist armies could ever have accomplished that because they had a manpower problem of their own. IMO.

[Adnan Meshuggi]

true - and this is the main problem from the axis pov.

If the game forces the axis player to reduce his own limited pool, he can´t do anything to reach a line the russian player can´t attack in the necessary strenght.

But - as it seems in the moment - the german numbers get halved by blizzard, the german loose the capability to fight a war in 42. You break the german neck much earlier as it happend historically.

So, the goal of a axis player is to save the own manpower pool and bleed the russian one white. Otherwise the axis can do what he want, it doesen´t matter.

Why play at all, if you can do what you want but it doesen´t matter. Not because the enemy is so superior (he isn´t) but because the weather effects are a balancing system for game-engine-problems
Because, if the axis side is too strong in 41, you can destroy the russian side to easily in 42. this would be wrong,too.

But, here i repeat myself, it should be the player who can reach better results (or worse), not the game by "liquidating 60% of your combat effiency.
If the russian run away, he can´t do good in winter41, because the german troops are much stronger as historically and the FEW full winterized troops the russians had in this ugly winter are to little. They did not achive the "final victory" in history, agaist a stronger and better prepared enemy they should achive zero sucsess (if attacking on a broad front instead of 2 or 3 single locations)

[fbs]

Taking the opportunity of this thread... perhaps someone could answer a question?

My 76mm Inf Gun have a build cost of 40; say I have 1,000,000 points in Armament Production pool, and that I created a ton of artillery units around, so my OOBs require an additional 10,000 76mm Inf Gun (which would take 400,000 Armaments).

Nothing stops the game from building me 10,000 guns in one week, right? Provided that all the "checks" in the units are successful, they are in supply, etc..., then I really have no limitations on producing my 10,000 guns in one week.

I mean, does anyone reach zero in their armament pool as Soviets? They start with 1,000,000, and get 70,000 more each turn... that's a lot of equipment. I have the feeling that the Soviet build-up is limited by the "roll checks" rather than by industrial production.

[bednarre]

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: fsp

Please don't turn this into another Sherman vs T-34 debate...

What I am getting at is: In what way are you supposed to win damage the Soviet war effort as the Axis? Where is the Achilles heel of the Soviets? It sure is not production, as one can see by my example. Even if you capture almost all that is needed for an auto victory, this does not hamper Soviet production and in a human v human game, almost no one gets as far as I did in this game versus the AI.

IMO, the Achilles heel was just about reached. About the time the prisons and gulags were emptied (the last reserves of the Empire) because manpower was reaching a tipping point in late 1941 into 1942. No one has the exact number. Around 1 million. Women were being given rear area roles to allow fit males to join active combat units. Older unfit males were also being given non combat duties to relieve more fit people for active combat roles. Of course with Hitler throwing away resources at unreachable goals manpower proved to be sufficient until liberated areas could be tapped. All elligible males in liberated areas were conscripted (impressed actually) into active service. Training was sometimes a very short time and some were not issued entire uniforms or even a helmet. Cannon fodder. For example, 2 million men were pressed into service during the destruciton of AGC.

So I would think if you had reached Hitlers original dreamed of stop line, Arkangelsk to Astrakhan, manpower would have been the nail in the coffin before that line was reached. I don't think the facist armies could ever have accomplished that because they had a manpower problem of their own. IMO.

The book "Absolute War" by Chris Bellamy has an interesting Table 15.2 of Soviet war losses. In terms of irrecoverable losses, 1941 only amounted to 27.8% of the total losses for the war. In 1942, the losses were actually higher, 28.9%. In 1943 the totals came to 20.5%, and in 1944 15.6%. Thus from 1943 to the end of the war the Russians lost 43.2% of the total losses for the war. In other words, for every 100 Russians lost in the 1941-1942 time frame, there were 76 lost over the rest of the war! The fact that the Russians did not have to change their wastefull assault tactics during the second half of the war leads me to believe the Russians did not have manpower problems. The Russian military recruited 34.5 million soldiers (some women), and had about 15.5 million irrecoverable losses (killed/captured/crippled).

The Russian population was around 170 million. Using German statistics as a reference, the 1939 population of Germany was about 80 million, with 17.7 million males of age 15 to 44. Assuming this ratio of 22% applies to the Russian population as well, the estimate is about 34 million males of age 15 to 44. Since the Germans mobilized women too late in the work force, many of these males were working in industry. The Wehrmacht mobilized 17.9 million men, the Russians could have mobilized more than 34 million the same way the Germans did, by recruiting soldiers older than 44! Since this was a war to the death, Russia could have recruited many more women in the military, although many had to serve in the defense industry. The Russian Navy was large, and could have provided additional manpower. Finally, Germany overmobilized and severely inhibited its defense industry (last year of the war). Interestingly the US only mobilized 8 to 10 million.

[VictorCharlie]

Based on those figures did Germany ever have a chance of defeating the Soviets then?

Besides a collapse similar to WW1, on pure attrition the math don’t look good for them.

Can quality overcome quantity?

That’s the question I think this game should be showing us.

If production is too high then the end results is going to be badly trained, ill equipped and poorly led troops who will be next to worthless on the battlefield against experienced veterans.

[ComradeP]

In terms of irrecoverable losses, 1941 only amounted to 27.8% of the total losses for the war.

I'm not sure why you're presenting this as a low figure. It's actually a really high percentage out of the total considering that the fighting only lasted a bit over 6 months in 1941.

[MengJiao]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

and why the t34 was copied in most criterias from all other nations and NOT the sherman?

Because the wealthy Western states generally had their own tank producing industries, and the Soviet Union primarily exported to second and third world countries without a well developed armament industry.

American military equipment was and is exported to a wide variety of countries, though less than Soviet/Russian equipment. The main reason: Soviet/Russian equipment is cheaper, and certainly not always better. It's why many African states still use Soviet tanks: cheap to maintain, cheap to purchase.

Soviet designs were in many cases quite good, but they lacked "force multipliers" that could improve on the design, like good ammunition and range finders or other technological aids. In the game, the Soviets are already helped by having a universal tank construction quality/reliability, even though quality could vary quite a bit from factory to factory.

As to the main subject of the thread: the Soviet Union was huge, capturing a line to the Volga would remove quite a bit of its population, but it would still be capable of producing significant quantities of armaments. Keep in mind that it was a totalitarian state, if Stalin didn't want consumer goods to be produced, the population just had to accept it. As such, the breaking point of the Soviet Union was way beyond the breaking point of Western states in terms of how much territory/population could be lost before the war was lost.

Very true about the breaking point. Chris Bellamy makes the point in Absolute War that it is really hard to see how the Soviets survived 1942. From the point of view of stress on the economy, 1942 was much worse than 1941, but production of things like T34s went up in 1942.
Basically, Bellamy says the breaking point for a normal society had been reached in 1942 and he sort of gives up on figuring out how the Soviets came out swinging over and over after plenty of knock-downs and knock-outs in 1942 and resorts to a proverbial story about rats and wolves (I just remember the rats, but another AESOPIAN animal or two was involved).

[MengJiao]

ORIGINAL: victor charlie

Based on those figures did Germany ever have a chance of defeating the Soviets then?

Besides a collapse similar to WW1, on pure attrition the math don’t look good for them.

Can quality overcome quantity?

That’s the question I think this game should be showing us.

If production is too high then the end results is going to be badly trained, ill equipped and poorly led troops who will be next to worthless on the battlefield against experienced veterans.

The results on the Eastern Front suggest that even experienced veterans can be killed in large numbers from time to time.