Game engine and combat ratio need and over haul.

[Klydon]

I don't know if I would go as far as Pelton to say the Western Allied invasion made the difference or not. With 1/3 of its troops committed to Italy and Western Europe, there is no question Germany was not able to deploy its forces like it wanted to against the Russians, but within that 1/3 there are some issues.

First, while the troops in Italy were typically first rate, many of those divisions in France were not. Their equipment was captured and this was also a location the Germans used more "unreliable" troops like captured Russian units who broke the first chance they got. While there were 10 panzer divisions in the west on the eve of Overlord, several had makeshift equipment that amounted to rebuilt French tanks and those formations would have simply not lasted long or been very effective on the eastern front.

The German defenses in the east were taking their toll of the Red army. T-34 life was measured in weeks. Rifle strength became more of a cronic issue as the war went along and at the end, it looked like the end of the Rocky 1 fight with the Russians being Rocky.

While having say 75% of the German troops available from the west (and south) to go to the eastern front, I don't know that it would have changed the result, but there is no question it would have had an effect. The key for the Germans for the most part was their tactics. Even if they had the additional troops, would they have had a different result compared to historical if they kept the same rigid tactics?

As far as other things for Russia, it has been in vogue to poo-poo the western allied contribution to the Russian war effort. There are a few areas where Allied support made a huge difference. First, is the huge pile of trucks that most people are aware of. Of just as much importance, but not really mentioned in many cases was the amount of food the Allies sent in the form of battlefield rations. The one thing the Russians could not move is the most productive areas of their country when it came to food production. Their food production during the war was understandibly terrible. The impact of this continued to be felt after the war because of the scorched earth tactics employed by both sides.

One last note on one of CannonFodder's 3 battles. You attack with 10k more men with no armor support at all, etc. You win the fight and the Germans lose nearly 75% of the sizeable amount of tanks there. This also looks like a 1:1 that became a 2:1, so extra casualties are in order for the Russians anyway, but you nuked close to 10% of the enemy manpower, close to 10% of his guns, and almost 75% of his tanks and that is an issue for the Russian?

[DTurtle]

Klydon wrote:

One last note on one of CannonFodder's 3 battles. You attack with 10k more men with no armor support at all, etc. You win the fight and the Germans lose nearly 75% of the sizeable amount of tanks there. This also looks like a 1:1 that became a 2:1, so extra casualties are in order for the Russians anyway, but you nuked close to 10% of the enemy manpower, close to 10% of his guns, and almost 75% of his tanks and that is an issue for the Russian?

You completely missed the point of that battle (and the list of failed attacks that I posted): Currently, from '41 to the end of the blizzard (I have no info for '42 cause my first GC didn't get that far, and my second one is only on turn 5) the vast majority of losses caused by the Soviets are caused during the retreat phase - the combat/firing phases cause very small losses.
In that attack posted by Cannonfodder, 20 elements (121 men) were destroyed during combat and through air support. 360 elements (3621 men) were destroyed due to retreat. For the Soviets, 515 elements (4711 men) were destroyed through combat. If he had lost, that number would have grown a bit due to retreat losses. In addition, the Germans suffered 80 elements (396 men) damaged and 14 elements (125 men) disrupted. For the Soviets, 559 elements (4970 men) were damaged and 1565 elements (13530 men) were disrupted. If the attack had failed, the Soviet losses would have been even larger, while the German units would have been almost untouched (maybe 200 dead total).

Look at my screen shot of failed attacks: If you fail an attack as the Soviets (in '41 till the end of blizzard), you leave the German unit almost untouched. If you succeed, you will cause some losses during the summer, and large losses during the blizzard. Panzer units are especially vulnerable to losses, while infantry and mobile divisions aren't weakened very much.

[Peltonx]

Here is another interesting fact that gets over looked because of Stalin myths.
( Slaughterhouse:The handbook of the eastern front and When Titans Clashed)

The German army in 1939 was 4.5 million men and in 1942 June 1942 numbered 8.4 million men, bigger then the Russian army (5.3 million) by 3 million men.

Hitler only had about 3 million men on the eastern front.

So taking into account:

Russian Population 170 million
German Population 80 million

1942 combat ratio 6 to 1

German army 8.4 million
Russian army 5.4 million

If Hitler wanted to going by the numbers could have easly out numbered or atleast had equal odds on the russian front during 1942 to say nothing of 43.

Also German Tank forses had up graded to better weapons from 41 to 42 and Russian forses basicly had the same weapons.


Simply going by the historical data Stalins speech he gave in November of 1941 was a fairytale. Russia was not bleeding the German army, but in fact were the ones getting bleed to death.

Thats why in early November Stalin had put feelers out to see if Hitler would come to peace terms.

The more data I read the more it seems Manstein was right.

Pelton

[TulliusDetritus]

Pelton, something is missing in some of your comments about the Eastern Front (the statistical ones). Feel free to attach the pic below each time you mention some of your theories. You make good points but...

Cheers and Merry Christmas [:)]

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Pelton, something is missing in some of your comments about the Eastern Front (the statistical ones). Feel free to attach the pic below each time you mention some of your theories. You make good points but...

Cheers and Merry Christmas [:)]

It is historical.

The German army in 1939 was 4.5 million men and in 1942 June 1942 numbered 8.4 million men, bigger then the Russian army (5.3 million) by 3 million men.

Hitler only had about 3 million men on the eastern front.

So taking into account:

Russian Population 170 million
German Population 80 million

1942 combat ratio 6 to 1

German army 8.4 million
Russian army 5.4 million

Nothing new here, old news really.

Just most people take the eastern front myths spun by Stalin and friends as fact, until you just look at the facts.

You can read these and they have ( Slaughterhouse:The handbook of the eastern front and When Titans Clashed)

or follow my links above.

or simply look it up for yourself.

There is no question what the population size was and there is no question about the size of the 2 army's

There are some questions about los ratio, but I go with the low side of 4 to 1.

Simply looking at what we know and going with the min lose ratio germany could have easly taken out Russia if fighting 1 vs 1.

Germany had almost 2x the army.

[&o]1+1=2[&o]

Pelton

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

It is historical.

The German army in 1939 was 4.5 million men and in 1942 June 1942 numbered 8.4 million men,
Pelton

The German Army in 1939 was 3.737.000 and in 1942 5.800.000

source: http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html

I hate to ask this...but...do you know the difference between Heer and Wehrmacht?

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

I don't know if I would go as far as Pelton to say the Western Allied invasion made the difference or not.

The invasion saved western Europe from being overrun by the Red Army. So it made a difference. Just not the one Pelton thinks.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

ORIGINAL: Klydon

I don't know if I would go as far as Pelton to say the Western Allied invasion made the difference or not.

The invasion saved western Europe from being overrun by the Red Army. So it made a difference. Just not the one Pelton thinks.

So what are you questioning?

That the Russian population was 170 million?
That the German population was 80 million?

That the German army had 8.4 million men in 1942?
That the Russian army had 5.4 million men in 1942?

That the combat ratio was 4 to 1 + in 1942?

As always no data to refute my data on personal attacks. I am not thinking anything.

I know its hard to go against what you thought was true, but the facts are the facts.

Refute the facts.

Games should not be built on myths.

Pelton

[pompack]

Games should not be built on myths

Now there is where I can actually agree with Pelton. [8|]

[barbarrossa]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

That the combat ratio was 4 to 1 + in 1942?

Then why was the German summer '42 offensive confined to the south, and why were efforts to relieve the 6th Army at Stalingrad a failure? Perhaps it was 4 to 1 in specific locations of concentration but over the whole of the front???

Amazing.

But don't worry, Kampfgruppe Steiner will set everything right, you'll see.[8|]

[randallw]

Once the Germans moved east ( in 1941 ) the bulk of the army was deployed there, even into 1944 and 1945.

The German 6th Army was defeated ( Jan-Feb 1943 ) while no Allied troops were engaging Axis troops on mainland Western Europe.

The last major German offensive in the East ( Citadel ),which basically ruined their tank fleet for months, occurred in the same month that they were defending Sicily from invasion, using just two divisions of their own to begin with ( Italians the rest ), then they sent two more to help out.

Of course, since the Germans won the war of attrition in the east, none of this quite exactly happened; it's just Stalinist propaganda. [;)]

[amatteucci]

[font="courier new"][font="arial"]Soviet and German losses 1941-1944 (KIA and died of wound or accidents, no MIA, no WIA, no POW)    
Data collected from Krivosheev and Overmans.    
N.B. German allies' losses not included!   [/font]       
                    
                USSR    Germany  Loss ratio       
1941                    
3rd quarter    430578    185198    2.3:1       
4th quarter    371613    117297    3.2:1       
TOTAL          802191    302495    2.7:1       
                   
1942                    
1st quarter    493660    136396    3.6:1       
2nd quarter    314443     90198    3.5:1       
3rd quarter    539728    145264    3.7:1       
4th quarter    395164    134957    2.9:1       
TOTAL         1742995    506815    3.4:1       
                   
1943                    
1st quarter    582586    294706    2.0:1       
2nd quarter    169452     48132    3.5:1       
3rd quarter    688142    187858    3.7:1       
4th quarter    504443    169957    3.0:1       
TOTAL         1944623    700653    2.8:1       
                   
1944                    
1st quarter    518098    228419    2.3:1       
2nd quarter    305881    263706    1.2:1       
3rd quarter    465325    467907    1.0:1       
4th quarter    307024    222914    1.4:1       
TOTAL         1596328   1182946    1.3:1     [/font]

[amatteucci]

For those interested, here are the tables from which I collected the figures listed in the above message.

First Krivosheev:

[amatteucci]

...then Overmans:

[KenchiSulla]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Pelton, something is missing in some of your comments about the Eastern Front (the statistical ones). Feel free to attach the pic below each time you mention some of your theories. You make good points but...

Cheers and Merry Christmas [:)]

It is historical.

The German army in 1939 was 4.5 million men and in 1942 June 1942 numbered 8.4 million men, bigger then the Russian army (5.3 million) by 3 million men.

Hitler only had about 3 million men on the eastern front.

So taking into account:

Russian Population 170 million
German Population 80 million

1942 combat ratio 6 to 1

German army 8.4 million
Russian army 5.4 million

Nothing new here, old news really.

Just most people take the eastern front myths spun by Stalin and friends as fact, until you just look at the facts.

You can read these and they have ( Slaughterhouse:The handbook of the eastern front and When Titans Clashed)

or follow my links above.

or simply look it up for yourself.

There is no question what the population size was and there is no question about the size of the 2 army's

There are some questions about los ratio, but I go with the low side of 4 to 1.

Simply looking at what we know and going with the min lose ratio germany could have easly taken out Russia if fighting 1 vs 1.

Germany had almost 2x the army.

[&o]1+1=2[&o]

Pelton

Not even getting into a numbers game with you (because it is pointless, you don't listen).. Just consider this... Who was pushing who aside in the summer of 1943, before any european mainland invasion? Who needed help from their allies to secure the flanks of operations against, amongst others, Stalingrad? You think German officers wanted that or did they HAVE TO?

Don't give me the "Stalin" propaganda bull either... The Soviets suffered very heavily, yes... But they were not being beaten...

[KenchiSulla]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

It got worse and worse....

The same was true for the Russian side, if your not blindly following the Stalin myths. Millions of women servered in the Russian army in support roles. The Russians had old men and children servering also.

An open mind sees both sides not just one side.

You can't refute the facts.

80 million Germans
170 million Russians

Are you refuting this fact with Stalin myth's?

The combat Ratio from 42 to early 44 = 4.2 to 1

Are you refuting this fact or refuting it with more Stalin myths?

The facts are the facts

The Germans were bleeding the Russians dry by a 2 to 1 ratio based on population size and combat ratio's

The only thing that saved Russia was the Western allies.

Germany could not win a 2 front war, but could based 100% on facts and not myths win a 1 front war vs Russia.

Its very hard for poeple to accept this historical fact, because of the 45 years of Stalin propaganda that the world was spoon feed from 45 to 85.

Now that the wall has come down and historians can get past the myths to the facts, its more then clear that Russia could not have possibly taken on Germany alone.

It was a team effort of which Russia suffered the most by far. There was no way the Western allies could have defeated Germany alone and the same goes for Russia. ( other then the A-bomb, hehe)

The basic facts are the facts and can not be attacked on their merit.

But poeple will generally attack the messanger when they can't refute the facts.

Pelton

Chinese, Soviets, Japanese, Germans.. they all used child soldiers.. I never said it was just the Germans... It was you who was talking about the soviet army being build of old men, women, children...

Also, the soviet willingness to have women in combat situations (and the germans refusing to let women do combat) is another reason to put your money on the soviet army....

Pelton, one day you will have to wake up and look beyond the bullshit...

[Aurelian]

June 41 Axis 3,767,000 (3,117,000 German.) 900,000 in West. Soviet 2,680,000 in theater 5,500,000 overall.

June 42 Axis 3,720,000 (2,690,000 German.) 80% in the East. Soviet 5,313,000.

July 43 Axis 3,993,000 (3,483,000 German.) 63% in the East. Soviet 6,724,000.

June 44 Axis 3.370,000 (2,520,000 German.) 62% in the East. Soviet 6,425,000

Jan 45 Axis 2,330,000 (2,230,000 German.) 60% in the East. Soviet 6,532,000

April 45 German 1,960,000. Soviet 6,410,000

Slaughterhouse: The Handbook of the Eastern Front.

Includes the following: Left to their own devices, the Soviets might of taken 12-18 months longer to defeat the Wehrmacht; the ultimate result would probably have been the same, except the Soviet soldiers could of waded at France's Atlantic beaches.

And what "Stalinist propaganda."? Since a majority of history of the Russian front was based on Western/German records.

[mmarquo]

Operation Bagration was launched on June, 22 1944, just 16 days after D-Day. Army Group Centre was very virtually annhilated, with ~ 400,000 overall casualties. The Soviets did not need the West to win, and had essentially won before the Allied Armies landed in France.

The proAxis numbers and manipulations of data posted here are but vain, wistful attempts by a minority of disgruntled Axis players to deflect attention from poor playing and inability to as of yet find tactics/stratregies to win. This is the mark of a great game: the key to winning is not easily determined.The psychic energy spent bashing this game in frustration could be put to better use: solve the puzzle instead of arguing for changes so one can win without thinking anymore.

BTW, playing many games poorly is not as good as playing a few well.

Happy Holidays,

Marquo

[KamilS]

I think discussion went off topic a bit. [;)] In my opinion all changes needs to be applied carefully, but the sooner high ROF elements get nerfed the better. It unbalances game in Soviet favour. Once they start spawning corps size units German losses are mounting really fast, and counter-attacking gets pointless.


btw. I strongly disagree with opinion, that Soviet Union would have defeated Germany if they were fighting only on 1 front, but I think it should be discussed in different thread.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Marquo

Operation Bagration was launched on June, 22 1944, just 16 days after D-Day. Army Group Centre was very virtually annhilated, with ~ 400,000 overall casualties. The Soviets did not need the West to win, and had essentially won before the Allied Armies landed in France.

The proAxis numbers and manipulations of data posted here are but vain, wistful attempts by a minority of disgruntled Axis players to deflect attention from poor playing and inability to as of yet find tactics/stratregies to win. This is the mark of a great game: the key to winning is not easily determined.The psychic energy spent bashing this game in frustration could be put to better use: solve the puzzle instead of arguing for changes so one can win without thinking anymore.

BTW, playing many games poorly is not as good as playing a few well.

Happy Holidays,

Marquo

Several million germans were on the western front and close to another in the Med.