The Anti Bolshevik Crusade - Tarhunnas vs Q-Ball (no Q-Ball please)

[Balou]

What's the story on the Finns weaknesses during summer? It's something I didn't get right: they perform great in winter and now they falter ? Because they don't have proper replacements ?

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Balou

What's the story on the Finns weaknesses during summer? It's something I didn't get right: they perform great in winter and now they falter ? Because they don't have proper replacements ?

They lose morale from being outside the no attack line, and they get relatively few replacements. Many players, me included, tend to drive them hard during the winter of 41-42 to take the pressure off the Germans, which doesn't make things better. In my experience, their divisions will invariably be at 2-3 CV at best in 1943. Its' not just summer, it's any season after the spring of 1942.

[Balou]

Question has already been answered by Q-Ball in another post...

[Balou]

Never been that far in my games, so I have another question: OOB shows roughly a 3,5:1 SU superiority in tanks. What tanks, mostly T34 ? And what color is shown for morale and experience of those SU tank units?
BTW thanks for your answer to the Finns issue, the answer I gave myself came a bit slow.

[Klydon]

In 1942, a lot of those tanks are going to still be the T60-T70 light tanks. Production will end for those soon and everything switches over to KV/T34 production.

Most any SU tank unit is going to not be very good for awhile since when they are formed, they have very low training values.

[Balou]

So one could be tempted not to worry about the frontline beeing plastered with SU troops if the same goes for their infantry. However it seems there is a lot of commotion about 42' soviet fighting power in several posts.

[Klydon]

The main fighting power of the Russian troops in 1941 and 42 is going to be their infantry. They may have some good tank brigades available training/moral wise after the blizzard offensive, but they will take a major hit when formed into tank corps. The tank corps are not that hot combat wise during 1942, but good Russian players will protect them and bring them along.

The real Russian offensive threat during 1942 are rifle corps (usually Guards rifle corps). Fortunately for the Germans to a point, these units are not very fast and clumsy, but if they get a chance to do a set piece battle, watch out.

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

This is the kind of combat result that I would love to be explained in detail by someone.

Pretty simple: mortars are extremely effective defensive weapons in the game and the Soviets have plenty. Mortar teams are rarely disrupted in the initial bombardment by artillery and the fire of the attacker is pretty poor at 500 meters, so mortars can generally fire twice before your infantry can do anything.

For some reason, German defensive fire seems to be less effective than Soviet defensive fire. Keep in mind that the loss results you see are with the additional casualties. If you remove them, such as in a version we're testing, casualty ratios can become really poor for the Axis.

Watching a battle at the detailed message level 4 will show one exactly what ComradeP is talking about here. Mortars are deadly.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Mynok

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

This is the kind of combat result that I would love to be explained in detail by someone.

Pretty simple: mortars are extremely effective defensive weapons in the game and the Soviets have plenty. Mortar teams are rarely disrupted in the initial bombardment by artillery and the fire of the attacker is pretty poor at 500 meters, so mortars can generally fire twice before your infantry can do anything.

For some reason, German defensive fire seems to be less effective than Soviet defensive fire. Keep in mind that the loss results you see are with the additional casualties. If you remove them, such as in a version we're testing, casualty ratios can become really poor for the Axis.

Watching a battle at the detailed message level 4 will show one exactly what ComradeP is talking about here. Mortars are deadly.

I get the first paragraph, it explains away why is so hard to punch through certain Soviet units. But, does that really make sense? I know that mortars were a big killer in WW2 - especially in contrived spaces such as Normandy - but... Would it be possible that some aspect in the tactical simulation is enhancing a bit too much the effect of certain weapon systems (anti-tank rifles, mortars, etc.)? I mean, yes, mortars can be deadly... if their barrage lands on top of the heads of the advancing forces, which I don't think is something that usual.

But I don't get the second paragraph in ComradeP answer. What are those "additional casualties" mentioned? Retreat casualties?

[ComradeP]

Like you say, mortars work best in a confined space. They're far less deadly and most certainly not as deadly as heavy or medium artillery in the open where the attacker can quickly change his path of approach. It requires great skill to estimate correctly where a mortar round will land. Currently, it's common that mortars cause 2/3 to 3/4 of the casualties. I recall a figure of 57% to British forces in Normandy, but that might be my memory messing with me.

But I don't get the second paragraph in ComradeP answer. What are those "additional casualties" mentioned? Retreat casualties?

I knew that part of my post might've been a bit unclear.

I meant the additional casualties the Soviets take when they attack. When you remove those, like in a version we're testing to check some possible changes to the combat system, you'll see that the loss ratio turns sour quickly for the Axis. Even with the additional casualties, the loss ratio can be close to 1:1 but without those losses the Soviets can make some pretty good attacks (of course, 1:1 suits them fine as well).

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Like you say, mortars work best in a confined space. They're far less deadly and most certainly not as deadly as heavy or medium artillery in the open where the attacker can quickly change his path of approach. It requires great skill to estimate correctly where a mortar round will land. Currently, it's common that mortars cause 2/3 to 3/4 of the casualties. I recall a figure of 57% to British forces in Normandy, but that might be my memory messing with me.

I don't see why mortars should be so different from other artillery? Mortars are just another form of artillery, somewhat shorter range, worse accuracy and higher rate of fire, but not all that different from other artillery.

[Klydon]

I know the Germans hated the 120mm mortar with a passion and were very fast to put captured stocks in use, which in turn led to the Western Allies hating them as well. Must be a reason behind it, but I don't know about causing 1/2 to 2/3rds of all casualties.

One thing for sure when I get back to my Russian game; a lot of mortar units are getting built. [:D]

[ComradeP]

I don't see why mortars should be so different from other artillery? Mortars are just another form of artillery, somewhat shorter range, worse accuracy and higher rate of fire, but not all that different from other artillery.

They tend to fire more often. For some reason, I rarely see artillery fire again when the attacker closes in on the defender, but mortars fire more often. The 120mm mortar in particular is deadly because it has an extra chance to fire due to its range compared to the smaller mortars. 85 morale/experience howitzers seem to fire one salvo and then they call it a day, but the Soviet 50 morale/experience mortar teams try to fire whenever they can. Infantry guns don't seem to hit much at range either. Currently, the reduced accuracy of mortars/low chance to hit for mediocre experience elements is more than compensated by the rate of fire and by the fact that a hit tends to whack an entire squad, at least for the 120mm's.

One thing for sure when I get back to my Russian game; a lot of mortar units are getting built.

That's a good idea not just for their effectiveness, but also because mortar battalions/regiments are much cheaper to keep up to strength than artillery regiments, because you can fill an entire battalion/regiment for the armament cost of about five 122mm or 152mm howitzers.

[Mynok]

I'll bet rifle corps have gobs of those things. If so, that's very telling reason why they are so deadly.

[Tarhunnas]

The mortar discussion is interesting, but it is diluting the AAR. I am creating a separate mortar thread in the War Room and continuing the discussion there.

[Tarhunnas]

Turn 64. September 3 1942.

Not much happening. The Soviets are slowly pressing northeast and the Finns are slowly retreating. 2d Panzer Army is in place for a possible counter thrust as indicated by the yellow arrow. Whether that will take place depends on how things develop.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Ketza

Our OOBs are fairly close at this time of the game. This seems a bit odd to me given the casualties in your game. Can you post your total casualties for ground an air?

Here you are:

[Tarhunnas]

And here:

[Tarhunnas]

Reserves do make a difference sometimes. Here is an example where it seems the reinforcing panzer division turned the tables and the attack ended with gruesome Soviet casualties.

[Peltonx]

This game and mine vs Arstavidios ( tm.asp?m=2831410&mpage=4&key= ) started same time an was hoping to compare what was a better over-all strategy manpower or armaments.

The game has come to a stop basicly at turn 47, only played a turn the last 2 weeks. Can you post a current OOB?

Its looking like Armaments are more important then manpower centers.

Great job in the air.

I have totally changed my strategy with the Finns. When I take Leningrad I am not going any further then a few hexes to east 0ne hexes past river and digging in there. They really become a hand cap in late 42 or early 43.