Reread Glantz

Share your gameplay tips, secret tactics and fabulous strategies with fellow gamers here.

Moderators: Joel Billings, Sabre21

User avatar
Panama
Posts: 1362
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:48 pm

RE: Reread Glantz

Post by Panama »

ORIGINAL: Marquo

Panama,

I used to think, but no longer agree, that the Axis was the world's premier military power at the time. Afterall, the Germans spent most of the war trying to catch up to Soviet technologies - they initally had inferior tanks, inferior tactical bombers, etc. Also the most important military asset, intelligence, was woefully if not criminally inept. OKH ran into whole reserve armies they knew nothing about at Smolensk; etc. And the upper echelon Axis leadership was pathetic - they could do little to fix the blunders of the dilitante who was the highest military authority. So all in all, despite the bravey of the boots on the ground and the competent mid and lower officer corps, the Wehrmacht in the east was ill-equipped, ill-supplied, had crap intelligence and led astray and abandoned by it's upper leadership. And to finish off the mess, they deliberately and maliciously alienated a population eager to be freed from Stalin's yoke. They were doomed from the beginning and this was acknowledged by many German officers as of October, 1941.

In terms of the game, I beleive it should be decided in 1945 on the outskirts of Beriln. There is plenty of opportunity for both sides the attack and defend multiple times during the this time span. One simply has to get over the mindset that Russia should fold in 1941; it so much more fun to play the entire map.

Marquo [:)]

To borrow a line from runyan, ok, politically, economically and technologically they were inept. But militarily they were the best. [:D]
User avatar
Great_Ajax
Posts: 4924
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Oklahoma, USA

RE: Reread Glantz

Post by Great_Ajax »

Heh. Well, if you could figure out the maths involved, you would be the next renowned scholar. There are still heated debates 70 years after the war on what the actual casualties were for the Germans and the Soviets. Manpower numbers are all an estimated and educated guess crap shoot anyway. You won't find the 'Holy Grail' on these numbers but you can arrive at some decent estimates.

Trey
ORIGINAL: alfonso

ORIGINAL: el hefe

The number of German forces committed to Barbarossa plus OKH's reserve (2nd Army) was around 3.2m. You also had roughly an additional 400k in reinforcement units (various divisions and brigades) and around 300k in replacements bringing your total committment to around 3.9m. From December to March 1942, total German strength was around 2.5 - 2.7m with losses around the one million mark (KIA, wounded, and sick). When you consider that a majority of those losses come from the infantry, pioneer, and armored forces, I don't think it is hard to believe that units were so low on manpower. The US Army's research on the subject quotes many German companies at half strength just before the Soviet winter counteroffensive. You can read about it here.

http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/resources/csi/wray/wray.asp

Trey

ORIGINAL: alfonso




Glantz says in that book that on 22 June the German Army in the East were 3,050,000 men, and on December 1st 2,700,000.

Even concending that some elements were particularly depleted (e.g the tank components of the Panzer Divisions), I don't see the average 30-40 %TOE claimed.

Yes, I know that the casualties are concentrated among the fighting units in a Division, so it is difficult for me to equate them with loss of combat power, because I don't know what proportion of a Division is really doing the fighting.

You said before that before Blau AGN and AGC were 50-60%. Glantz says that AGS was at 85% TOE before the summer campaign of 1942. But then Glantz says that the German Army was at a 2,600,000 level in that moment. How is it compatible having between 50% and 85% TOE and 2,600,000 soldiers, with having a TOE of 30-40% with 2,700,000 soldiers?. I don't understand the maths involved.

I have read the link you provided, but I did not find general figures of TOEs. Could the references to badly depleted units be a case of ascertainment bias, whereby only the most spectacularly mauled Divisions (and not the average Division) found their way to the history pages?
"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
WitE 2.0 Scenario Designer
Aurelian
Posts: 4090
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm

RE: Reread Glantz

Post by Aurelian »

ORIGINAL: alfonso

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: alfonso



Yes, I know that the casualties are concentrated among the fighting units in a Division, so it is difficult for me to equate them with loss of combat power, because I don't know what proportion of a Division is really doing the fighting.

You said before that before Blau AGN and AGC were 50-60%. Glantz says that AGS was at 85% TOE before the summer campaign of 1942.

He also says that they were at 85% because they stripped units from the other two groups.

Yes, I had assumed that the 50-60% provided by el hefe was after sending men to AG South, and therefore it is simultaneous to 85% in AGS...

Ahhhhh!!
Building a new PC.
User avatar
mmarquo
Posts: 1376
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Reread Glantz

Post by mmarquo »

"am skeptical of the reports that the German army as a whole was at 30%-40% strength at the start of Winter. Anyone have a source for that?"
 
I read that figure in Glanz's' "Titan's" in the chapter about the Battles around Moscow. Why is it hard to beleive that units which had been fighting continuously for 5 1/2 months in atrocious conditions could not be at 30 - 40% effective TOE? 
 
This was in refernece to AGC; he also said that after refit (IIRC) for the spring/summer campaign that AGS was at ~ 80% and the AGC/AGN were at ~ 50%.
 
Marquo
User avatar
Zebedee
Posts: 535
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 11:52 am

RE: Reread Glantz

Post by Zebedee »

Strength reports as of middle of August: Infantry divisions all fit for operations. Combat strength about 66 percent. Between 20 and 27 August replacements totaling 63,000 men crossed the German frontier. This means that of 380,000 casualties, 175,000 will have been replaced (including replacements from field replacement battalions).

Deficit of motor vehicles (16 August): 38,000. 50 percent in armored forces, and 25 percent each in GHq. troops and one-fourth in infantry divisions.

Tank Situation:

Armd. Gp. 1: Average, 50 percent (16th Mot. Div. poorest)
Armd. Gp. 2: 10th. Armd. Div., 83 percent
18th Armd. Div., 57 percent
All other armd. divs., average 45 percent
Armd. Gp. 3: 7th Armd. Div. has only 24 percent left
All other divs., average 45 percent
Armd. Gp. 4: Best (Czech materiel!), on an average between 50 and 75 percent.

Source: The Halder War Diary, 28 August 1941, quoting from General Buhle.

a. The eastern army has a shortage of 340,000 men, i.e., 50 percent of the combat strength of its infantry. Company combat strength is 50 to 60 men.

b. Current losses and returning convalescents approximately offset each other at this time. Gaps can be filled only by disbanding some divisions.

In Germany we have only 33,00 men available. The bulk of the replacements are not yet broken in to the front-line routine and so have limited combat value.

c. Trucks: Serviceability, at most 60 percent.

d. Time needed for the rehabilitation of an armored division is six months. Units should therefore be returned to Germany for refitting as soon as possible.

e. We cannot replace even 50 percent of our motorcycle losses.

f. Truck replacements available are sufficient to:

Equip three divisions (22d, 23d, 24th) - 100 percent
Equip two motor infantry divisions slated for conversion to armored divisions - 50 percent
Rehabilitate four more infantry motorized divisions - 50 percent
Rehabilitate two more armoured divisions - 75 percent

We have completely new equipment for five armoured divisions.

We can convert one infantry division into a motorized division.

....

h. I veto the proposal to deactivate one army Hq.

Source: The Halder War Diary, 30 November 1941, quoting from General Buhle.
1. Effect of winter battles:

a. Personnel: 1.11.1941 - 1.4.1942, including sick: 900,000 losses, 450,000 replacements. These numbers include almost total use of the 1922 year and strong encroachment on the economy.

b. Material: 1.10.1941 - 15.3.1942: loss of 74,183 vehicles and 2,340 tracked vehicles; addition of 7,441 vehicles (10 percent) and 1,847 tracked vehicles (80 percent).
Weapons: shortages include 28,000 rifles, 14,000 machine guns, 7,000 AT guns, 1,900 guns.
Horses: 15.10.1941 - 15.3.1942: losses of 179,609, additions of 20,000

....

3. Vacancies 1.5.1942: in the east, short 625,000 men. South: Each infantry division short about 2,400; motorised units 1,000 to 2,000. Will probably be made good by start of operations. Middle: Infantry divisions 6,900; motorised divisions less. North: Infantry divisions 4,800, motorized divisions similar. On 1.5. the southern units are 50 percent and in the north 35 percent of their original infantry combat strength.

....

5. Tank status: South: Close to level; Center and North: one battalion for each armored division. AT equipment will iin the course of the summer compare favorably.

....

7. Loss of battle worthiness through losses of experienced officers and NCOs. Loss of experienced specialists. Fatigue of personnel, horses, and equipment. Irregularity of combat value.

Source: The Halder War Diary, 21 April 1942, quoting notes for a presentation to Hitler made on that day.

re. What proportion of a division does the majority of the fighting - the rifle companies. 9 rifle companies per division at this time, establishment of roughly 200 men. Those are the guys who'll take the vast majority of all combat casualties (outside of military disasters of course). So when Halder talks of company strength being at 50 to 60 men you can see just how far replacements of 'teeth' units is falling behind the casualties. To prop the numbers up in the rifle companies, most divisions ended up cannibalising their support arms, and even consolidated rifle companies so that they only had 6 rifle companies, ultimately leading to the 'official' 1942 standard divisions purely because there was no way on earth Germany was going to find the manpower to replace its losses from 41/early 42. Course, if you pull all your mechanics into rifle companies then it does tend to have a knock on effect on the divisions trucks starting to break down etc.

re. German numbers generally - there may have been a retroactive attempt to pin the tail on the donkey. Someone respected in a history forum claimed to have such a document and was using it as the basis of his thesis and gave the following numbers for strength of the Ostheer:

Jun 41 2765276
Jul 41 2650626
Aug 41 2579879
Sep 41 2539110
Oct 41 2381337
Nov 41 2362463
Dec 41 2112002
Jan 42 1981356
Feb 42 2044692
Mar 42 2130239
Apr 42 2240876
May 42 2324717

Source cited: RW 6/535 (NB: Not been to Freiburg to check it for myself, but no reason to disbelieve its existance, albeit one wonders at its accuracy). Just a general caution with the numbers - remember that you need to factor in replacements flowing in (both as riflemen and as whole divisions) as well as flowing out when playing with 'overall' figures such as these.

Image
User avatar
mmarquo
Posts: 1376
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Reread Glantz

Post by mmarquo »

The state of the Wehrmacht in 1942 during Feld Blau? Abysmal. Whole panzer divisions with ~ 50 tanks, infantry divisions at 50% before the fighting even started?
 
Marquo 
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”