Disbanding artillery and AA units - is this really how things should be?

[Tarhunnas]

I start this thread in response to the various AARs that recommend disbanding artillery and AA units, especially late in the war for the German side, to free up manpower.

Artillery is the big killer in 20th century warfare, typically accounting for around 75% of casualties. The reason for having artillery in support units is that the corps/army commander can then easier concentrate this vital asset to the points where it is most needed, either in attack or defense. It seems odd that the game mechanics encourage players to disband these assets and rely on artillery intrinsic to the divisions instead. In fact, during the period of artillery shortage in the Soviet army in late 1941, the Soviets actually did the opposite, the divisions had to give up half of their guns to support units, so that the artillery could be concentrated where it was most needed.

A note on casualties by artillery. The original War in the East book (I think it accompanied the original War in the East game) has German casualties due to artillery much lower on the eastern front than in the west, the figure mentioned is 50%. Soviet artillery was plentiful, but also rather inefficiently used. The Soviet artillery mostly relied on fixed fire plans and could not shift targets rapidly, nor did they ever attain any significant precision counter battery capability.

German artillery handling on the other hand was an art, and they went to great lengths to hide and protect their artillery, only using it when needed so as not to reveal the locations of batteries, while knocking out enemy artillery was a prime objective. Counter battery fire was supported by sound and light location units and highly efficient. Once the enemy artillery is silenced, the battle is half won.

As for AA units, it appears odd that the game encourages disbanding your AA units when the enemy air force gets too strong. One would think that was when they were needed most! And the purpose of AA is not primarily to shoot down planes, but to force enemy aircraft to be more cautious, bomb from greater altitude etc. Disbanding all AA would give enemy pilots a free rein to shoot up anything without fear of getting hit themselves!

Looking at statistics, German production of light AA guns were 15,000 in 1942, 19,000 in 1943 and 17,000 in 1944, so there doesn’t seem to be any historical trend toward radically fewer anti aircraft guns in the later war years.

[ComradeP]

As I'm one of the people suggesting that disbanding artillery and AA is a good idea, I'll give my reasons why.

Artillery was naturally indeed "the big killer". However, the German artillery units generally have 12 or less guns, which means they don't add much to the firepower of a division or a corps. Let's say you give each corps 4 artillery battalions. That means the corps has 48 extra guns. That's not too impressive and those guns than take up the commitment "slots" of other combat units because the more support units there are in a HQ, the smaller the chance support units will be committed as per the manual.

Gun losses can also be pretty bad for the Germans, not just when the Soviets start getting on-map artillery units, but also before that. As such, concentrating artillery in the infantry divisions doesn't reduce the firepower of the Germans, it just concentrates it in the divisions. It's an efficiency measure. Also keep in mind that support units are always refitting, and that when an artillery battalion is destroyed, you also lose its support units. When the guns belong to a division, that problem is reduced a bit.

As to AA: my main reason for disbanding those is again because they're small, but also because there are currently issues which keep AA effectiveness downs. It is still unknown what those issues are, but it's possible it's linked to the air system which is also not entirely as it should be as we all know. German divisional AA also increases, so disbanding AA units is also an efficiency measure.

You're not taking the artillery or AA out of the game, you're mostly concentrating it in a more efficient way that won't result in a loss of support units if the unit dies. The constantly refitting support units can be a significant drain on armament points or equipment production too. You don't have that problem when the equipment is concentrated in divisions.

[Aditia]

disbanding takes AP tho right?

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

You're not taking the artillery or AA out of the game, you're mostly concentrating it in a more efficient way that won't result in a loss of support units if the unit dies. The constantly refitting support units can be a significant drain on armament points or equipment production too. You don't have that problem when the equipment is concentrated in divisions.

I am not questioning the efficiency in the game. I am thinking that the mechanisms in the game encourage players to take measures that are contrary to what was historical practice.

[ComradeP]

You could say it comes down to size: in historical practice, you could theoretically see a regimental sized artillery unit supporting a battle, but in this case that will always be 3-4 different battalions, which are fragile due to being battalions. Still, 36 or 48 guns are still rather vulnerable when you're facing thousands of Soviet guns.

I'm also not entirely sure if you could call it completely ahistorical, considering that German "independent" artillery support was generally small in number compared to that of the Western Allies or the Soviets. The Americans brought lots of battalions, the Soviets artillery brigades or divisions. The game already models that by giving you primarily small units to work with, but that also means there's a limit to the effectiveness of those small units.

disbanding takes AP tho right?

Yeah, so it's probably not entirely convenient in a non-1941 campaign game until most of the line/the entire line is no longer static. Another reason to wait until mud/winter.

[gids]

yes,atm im busy with an PBEM game and im gradually putting in massive amounts of artillery atm i sometimes have 1000 to 2000 pieces per battle,i dont feel the manpowerdrain whatsoever(im su),but theres no stopping to it ,now the real thing is here,that the advisable amount is to 5000 pieces per battle(i heared that and read that here in forums).Atm i make gains in the summer offensive of 1943 ,which didnt hit my opponent just back it smashes him with a hammer:p,so i think tarhunnas has a point ,while german counterpart is stripping everything to get manpower and armaments the SU are building massive amounts of arty ,the germans were indeed much better with their eqiupment,where the russians used a sledgehammer and massive amounts of art and guns the germans used tactics and skill and availble resources to its best.Now you can simulate in a game guns ,arty and massive waves of humans,but its a bit more difficult to simulate tactics and skill.So i think there need to be a way to make the russians have a cap on arty and if they go over it it will be less efficient or"killing",something like the command cap in Headquarters maybe.im talking against my own shop because im playing a few games as russian
Atm i play against tarhunnas in the AAR "pride goed before fall blau"i enjoy this game alot and Tarhunnas did very well and some great moves which upsetted me hehe,now i dont know if he pushed his panzers to much( i think he did),but i noticed in the winter all his CV were low ,so i decided then not to wait with attacking and rebuilding,but already i started to hit the whole front,to drain his manpower and everything he had ,so i would be more safe in the summer,now it went better then i thought , he cant stop me,and he really pulls everything out of the closet,the only time i stop is to reorganize my lines ,NOT to give my units rest,or refit(refit goes to back)ONLY to organize,as far as i can see or feel is that he doesnt have time to make fortifications,now im not sure how close to history this is but i do know the germans were ALWAYS through the war able to make offensives ,some minor some big,also im not sure but i think tarhunnas is done with making offensive for a long time of not for the remainder of the game :p
ofc i dont know how he played and which mistakes he made with settings of TOE,the only thing i noticed is that he pushed his panzers like a wtf :p,and he went over the edge there,its a great game,but i dont feel the stress the russians had stil in 1943 from the germans .
this is not a critisism on the game btw ,its a great game ,im merely helping out with observations from my side of the game.
I know the reactions here sometimes on the word Historical :p ,and it doesnt need to be historical either for me ,but balance is a nice thing,at the moment of this writing im in turn 63 of fall blau and took like 15 german divisions in surrender(summer of 1943)

[Montbrun]

The game mechanics don't encourage disbanding units - certain individuals who play the game do.

IMHO, as the Axis player, artillery should never be disbanded - these units are too valuable as force-multipliers, both in offense and defense. The AA units are too valuable, especially later as the Red Air Force becomes dominant, as plane killers, and tank killers. Personnally, the only Axis units I disband are the late-war bottom-of-the-barrel divisions that were created.

As the Soviet player, you should be creating units, but have to carefully watch your manpower and vehicle pools as you do.

Brad

[Aditia]

As the german player in a 43-45 PBEM I am not disbanding anything (currently in turn 6), I just can't afford the AP. I did disband 2 things in the beginning (an airbase and a RHG HQ), because other players were telling me to, but I actually regret it. My AP's go towards activations -> Assigning SU in crucial hexes -> replacing leaders (have not gotten to that yet). Disbanding units comes dead last, as I don't really see the point. Any manpower/tube management I do with TOE's, support levels and refit status.

(oh btw, a random mud turn when you were just redeploying units to address a crisis in the front is sooooooo much fun ;-P )

[Klydon]

I will disband units for both sides. A lot of what I do is to have fewer, but better support units. For the Russians, I typically will disband battalions because they are not as effective as regiments. Would you rather have 2 battalions of sappers or 1 regiment? I want the regiment. AA units. Is a 20 mm AA unit really that effective? I would rather have the available resources/manpower going into something more effective. If I had my choice, I would not be wasting my time on anti-tank rifles. Give me regular rifles or machine guns.

I can't remember which ratio went to what, but in 1944, the Germans were using ridiculous amounts of materials and industrial capacity to produce AA guns. Keep in mind that AA guns rarely caused casualties of more thank 5% on any given raid, etc and you wonder what the Germans were thinking of. It was the desire to have something, anything to fight back with that led to this, even if it was not that effective. Part of it was the fuel situation as well of course.

Hitler was also very reluctant to disband units to bring others up to strength. He would rather have 3 divisions at 33% and treat them as "divisions" than to disband 2 divisions to bring the one remaining division up to strength. Disbanding Luftwaffe field units was unthinkable, but at least the Germans have the option to do that in this game. Having more units is not necessarily a good thing if they are all understrength and all those units are looking for replacements and equipment. IMO in this game, the German has to work hard at keeping his army "right sized" and that includes disbanding units so that the remaining units are stronger and less manpower is tied up in support elements. 

[Aditia]

Well, the german has the option to merge units, altho I have not seen people using this feature very much. In my opinion you are only gonna want to use this option when the front shortens (i.e. you get thrown back) AND you are facing high levels of casualties for front line units without having the manpower to prop them up

[Montbrun]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

I will disband units for both sides. A lot of what I do is to have fewer, but better support units. For the Russians, I typically will disband battalions because they are not as effective as regiments. Would you rather have 2 battalions of sappers or 1 regiment? I want the regiment. AA units. Is a 20 mm AA unit really that effective? I would rather have the available resources/manpower going into something more effective. If I had my choice, I would not be wasting my time on anti-tank rifles. Give me regular rifles or machine guns.

I can't remember which ratio went to what, but in 1944, the Germans were using ridiculous amounts of materials and industrial capacity to produce AA guns. Keep in mind that AA guns rarely caused casualties of more thank 5% on any given raid, etc and you wonder what the Germans were thinking of. It was the desire to have something, anything to fight back with that led to this, even if it was not that effective. Part of it was the fuel situation as well of course.

Hitler was also very reluctant to disband units to bring others up to strength. He would rather have 3 divisions at 33% and treat them as "divisions" than to disband 2 divisions to bring the one remaining division up to strength. Disbanding Luftwaffe field units was unthinkable, but at least the Germans have the option to do that in this game. Having more units is not necessarily a good thing if they are all understrength and all those units are looking for replacements and equipment. IMO in this game, the German has to work hard at keeping his army "right sized" and that includes disbanding units so that the remaining units are stronger and less manpower is tied up in support elements. 

Keep in mind that German doctrine allowed for engaging ground targets with the smaller AA guns - the 2 cm Fla was particularly useful.

[PeeDeeAitch]

I don't disband too much, never wanted to. I got rid of the security HQs, this I could justify since the divisions are spread all over the map and attachment to regional HQs made sense to me. I don't want to fiddle too much, that is not my way. What if I were to miss the bright pink arrows and disband the 402nd Bicycle Recon? I am not sure I could live that down, and the next turn I would likely see "PDH is dismissed" on the Events Log.

[Zebedee]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

I am not questioning the efficiency in the game. I am thinking that the mechanisms in the game encourage players to take measures that are contrary to what was historical practice.

Historical practice was to keep the husks of divisions rather than disband and consolidate. By March 1944, there were 10k German-made guns in use by the Heer. And 8.5k captured guns. (6.5k to 1.5k on Ostfront). An interesting comparison can be made with the numbers for September 1939, where 25k German-made and 2.5k captured guns were in use. By spring 1942, the Ostheer alone had a shortfall in artillery of 1900 guns - that's a substantial chunk of what they should have had.

The game allows you to make some ahistorical decisions which the Heer weren't historically allowed to do. Whether you feel it's better to keep more divisions but of lower effectiveness than fewer and better is a judgement call for the player to make in this game (obviously within certain limitations - the changes to ToE are hardcoded, for instance).

[squatter]

ORIGINAL: Zebedee

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

I am not questioning the efficiency in the game. I am thinking that the mechanisms in the game encourage players to take measures that are contrary to what was historical practice.

Historical practice was to keep the husks of divisions rather than disband and consolidate. By March 1944, there were 10k German-made guns in use by the Heer. And 8.5k captured guns. (6.5k to 1.5k on Ostfront). An interesting comparison can be made with the numbers for September 1939, where 25k German-made and 2.5k captured guns were in use. By spring 1942, the Ostheer alone had a shortfall in artillery of 1900 guns - that's a substantial chunk of what they should have had.

The game allows you to make some ahistorical decisions which the Heer weren't historically allowed to do. Whether you feel it's better to keep more divisions but of lower effectiveness than fewer and better is a judgement call for the player to make in this game (obviously within certain limitations - the changes to ToE are hardcoded, for instance).

If your figures about captured guns are accurate, then the game could certainly do some work simulating this better - quantities of captured equipment are extremely low IMO, even in 41 when the grand pockets are made. They number 100s at the highpoint, not 1000s.

[Klydon]

I think most of the captured stuff went to other theaters. I remember reading someplace that was part of the issue for the defenses in the West was there were a lot of different types of artillery (primarily captured French and Russian) that ammo was limited and would not improve because they only had captured stocks while they sent German ammo to the Eastern Front to help with ammo shortages. I also know some of the captured stuff went to the other Axis members. 

[Q-Ball]

IIRC, the Germans manufactured 76mm and 122mm Ammo, but didn't for other stuff they captured (like 100mm Czech and 107mm Russian, etc.) Alot of those guns ended-up as Coastal Artillery on the Atlantic Wall.

I remember from AH The Longest Day that all the German Fixed Artillery was a grab-bag of various captured equipment, mostly.

I get the impression that the limitation the Germans had wasn't a lack of tubes, but rather a lack of available transport. That's why alot of those tubes ended-up in fixed emplacements, and not in Artillery units.

[Zebedee]

ORIGINAL: squatter
If your figures about captured guns are accurate, then the game could certainly do some work simulating this better - quantities of captured equipment are extremely low IMO, even in 41 when the grand pockets are made. They number 100s at the highpoint, not 1000s.

I gave sourced figures from QM reports in another thread for use of captured equipment. As highlighted in the split for the Ostheer, usage on the Ostfront was a lot lower than other fronts. Primarily this was a logistical consideration as supporting such a wide variety of weaponry would have added needless strain on a fragile and overloaded logistics network. Biggest contributor to the Heer by usage was the former French artillery park in any case.

[randallw]

Playing the Soviet side a lot I haven't captured much Axis stuff at times; I force a division to surrender and I end up with 1 or 2 pieces of some equipment types from it.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: randallw
Playing the Soviet side a lot I haven't captured much Axis stuff at times; I force a division to surrender and I end up with 1 or 2 pieces of some equipment types from it.

During a 1941 Blizzard I played against a human opponent I found out that German Fortified Zones are actually like Christmas trees. You just tear through them with T-34s and you uncover a big pile of presents. I ended up capturing over one thousand mortar, artillery and AT pieces:

[squatter]

Incredible amounts of captured equipment you got there though, never seem that before.
 
But sadly no player with any knowledge of the game will use Fortified Zones in the line - he will use them for digging, and then disband before the Russians can 'unwrap' them.