The core problem with WitE+

[carlkay58]

Pelton,

If you have no fuel, you can't move your trucks or AFVs.

If you have no ammo, your guns don't fire.

If you have no stores, your people don't eat.

That said, yes logistics matters. However, German artillery units during the Battle of Smolensk averaged roughly 50 fires per tube per day. The Soviet artillery units were firing between 150 and 200 fires per tube per day. So the Axis were burning less supplies per tube than the Soviets and were able to hold. Add in the fact that the Soviets had five or six times the number of tubes that the Axis had and you start to see what WitE is trying to emulate using the higher morale and experience levels for the Axis. But the fact remains that the Axis NEEDS to pay just as much attention to their logistics as every other nation in WWII.

[Toidi]

ORIGINAL: chuckles

(...)

The current assault modelling appears relatively simple. As I understand it the two sides line up and march forward all weapons firing. This results in way too many specialist weapons and indirect fire weapons being damaged/destroyed.

my suggestion for how to run an assault in game.
(...)

Would be a great change. The issue with the simulation like that is that actually the battle may take place only at say 1km width of front, and the tanks can exploit all the hex (or even more).

As such, the other possibility is to use some engine like one in Steel Panthers World at War for battle simulation (player could be watching a replay if one likes, but without all graphic on modern computer, one can get a battle finished in seconds). The advantages of such approach are many - different AI may be implemented for different armies at different times to enhance the doctrine and command effect. Also possibly one may do battle with element numbers proportionally reduced on both sides [again, the reduction on offense may depend on the doctrine, and mobile defense may be approximated as coming later to battle - e.g. tanks from different hexes, or infantry coming into support from reserve within the hex].

T.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

Pelton,

If you have no fuel, you can't move your trucks or AFVs.

If you have no ammo, your guns don't fire.

If you have no stores, your people don't eat.

That said, yes logistics matters. However, German artillery units during the Battle of Smolensk averaged roughly 50 fires per tube per day. The Soviet artillery units were firing between 150 and 200 fires per tube per day. So the Axis were burning less supplies per tube than the Soviets and were able to hold. Add in the fact that the Soviets had five or six times the number of tubes that the Axis had and you start to see what WitE is trying to emulate using the higher morale and experience levels for the Axis. But the fact remains that the Axis NEEDS to pay just as much attention to their logistics as every other nation in WWII.

France 1940

France and England had better tanks, guns, planes were equal ect ect

France and England had more equipment-planes/tanks/guns and men.

France and England were dug in with strong reserves.

France and England had more ammo/supplies/fuel.

Yet the got lost very badly.

If you go back and read the engagments even at the tactic level France and England got schooled.

Logistics ONLY matters if it is a war of attrition. Logistics did not matter at the tactical level.

Logistics was never an issue in Europe other then fuel late in 44 on the ground.

Morale is the game engines key matrix when it should be training and C&C

The future combat engine will have to work from 1939-1945.

You guys ignoring France 1940 does not change the fact of what history clearly points out.

The current combat engine fails to model the facts on the ground, which is why the epic failure of combat ratios on the eastern front.

The system does not come close to modeling historical, because it is not models after the historical combat result.

If it keeps on modeling non historical combat results it will be a failure as it is now.

The Russian army never got better then 3 to 1 ratio yet in late 42 it is with the current engine, because it simply does not account for German training and C&C.

Its a great morel for the Pasifics but falls far short in Europe

[Peltonx]

Every time I bring up these facts everyone ignores them.

1941 6 to 1
1942 5 to 1
1943 4 to 1
1944-45 3 to 1

Logistics mattered very little to Germany, but yet we try to model all sides after logistic - but we ignore the combat ratios/German C&C and training.

[SigUp]

And as I said before, comparing France to the Soviet Union is inappropriate. Western Europe is significantly smaller than the European part of the Soviet Union with a far superior road and rail network. If you read accounts from German commanders you'll frequently see complaints about lack of supplies, fuel or spare parts hurting operations etc.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

el hefe something to think about and you to Flaviusx.

France 1940

France and England had better tanks, guns, planes were equal ect ect

France and England had more equipment-planes/tanks/guns and men.

France and England were dug in with strong reserves.

France and England had more ammo/supplies/fuel.

Yet the got lost very badly.

If you go back and read the engagments even at the tactic level France and England got schooled.

Logistics ONLY matters if it is a war of attrition. Logistics did not matter at the tactical level.

Logistics was never an issue in Europe other then fuel late in 44 on the ground.

Morale is the game engines key matrix when it should be training and C&C

Putting Russian troops on an equal footing with German troops even in late 44 was simply not happening other then in odd cases, that's why the ratio was 3 to 1 even in 44

The key problem for the Allies in 1940 was organisation, the French Prioux Cavalry Corps received about 7 changes of orders from high command, whilst attempting to stem the German advance into Belgium. This unit performed well when it got into action, but could have been much more effective. The same thing happened to Soviet 8th Mech Corps on the South Western Front in 1941. The power of both units was dissipated by multiple changes of orders, resulting in the damage that these units could have done being greatly reduced, not because of any lack of morale, they were eager to get at the Germans, but by weak and faulty command and control.

French HQ at Vincennes was sending out orders by dispatch rider, sometimes taking 2 days to find the units involved, by which time the Germans had moved on many miles, negating the intent of the orders. Similarly the Soviets did not make full use of radio, mainly due to lack of equipment and training, but relying more on telephone lines, which are easily cut and of little use in mobile operations.

German command and control worked better at all levels, based heavily on radio (Guderian's early expertise was in radio and applied that to the control of mobile units), allowing their units to perform better than their opponents, despite being often outnumbered, having less logistical support and sometimes inferior equipment.

Eventually the balance of numbers, lack in general logistics and particularity fuel, overcame command and control advantages, but it took a long time.

Having high morale, plenty of guns, fuel and ammo are useless, if it's in the wrong place.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

Pelton,

If you have no fuel, you can't move your trucks or AFVs.

If you have no ammo, your guns don't fire.

If you have no stores, your people don't eat.

That said, yes logistics matters. However, German artillery units during the Battle of Smolensk averaged roughly 50 fires per tube per day. The Soviet artillery units were firing between 150 and 200 fires per tube per day. So the Axis were burning less supplies per tube than the Soviets and were able to hold. Add in the fact that the Soviets had five or six times the number of tubes that the Axis had and you start to see what WitE is trying to emulate using the higher morale and experience levels for the Axis. But the fact remains that the Axis NEEDS to pay just as much attention to their logistics as every other nation in WWII.

carlkay58 and SigUP

Again your ignoring the facts, who won the battle of Smolensk 1941?

You simply made my point, Germany won because logistics mattered very little to the out come.

Ignoring the combat ratios 41-45 Eastern front does not change the facts of the current combat engine failing to reflex historical out comes.

Logistics mattered little to Germany, because they did more with less.

2by3 so far as ignored this and keeps tring to stick Germany in a box that only the allies should be stuck in.

There are 100's if not 1000's of battles where the allies had far more "logistics" more men and better equipment and lost horribly.

The Eastern Front being the very best example of this from 41-44, but yet the current engine gives us 1.5 to 1 rations from 43 -44 and 42 2.5 to 1.

[loki100]

Pelton

You've been called on the accuracies of those casualty ratios so many times that one presumes you carry on using them purely because they suit your argument not because even you believe they were correct.

Re: 1940

I'm afraid you are wrong. The decisive battles happened in N Belgium. There both the British and French abandoned their pre-May defences to move forward. The BEF even adopted the suicidal Breda Variant (an attempt to link up with the Dutch) making them hugely vulnerable even to a German offensive that ignored the Ardennes option.

In terms of kit, the French did have the best tank at the time (the S-35) but it was badly used. The British doctrine was a disaster waiting to happen as it more or less prevented effective tank-infantry concentration.

And of course logistics were key to any campaign.

The whole German planning for Barbarossa was a classic case. They knew how much they could ship east, they then made the Red Army fit the size of force they could defeat before that capacity fell to pieces or they had to start shipping winter equipment. German generals knew how bad the Russian winter was going to be - don't forget many of them fought on the Eastern Front in WW1 and post Russian surrender they occupied land up to the eastern Ukraine, close to Petrograd and around Minsk. Add on many trained in the USSR in the Weimar period.

I mean yes, losses mattered, so did equipment and command capacity, but logistics drawf those constraints time after time.

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Logistics mattered little to Germany, because they did more with less.

Pretty much nobody denies that the combat system needs a major overhaul. Above you chuckles formulated a suggestion, timmyab agrees with you, even the ones you call out (like me) say that the combat system is faulty. What we say is that the logistics system is equally broken. It doesn't differentiate between single and dual-track rail lines, it doesn't consider how much can be shipped on rail line, how the road conditions are etc. Why do you make it an "either-or" case when it should be an "and" case?

Furthermore, this statement above is simply wrong. It did have an impact in regards of delayed offensives, channeling troop movements into certain directions etc. Logistics had a major impact on the Stalingrad campaign for example. In early August 1942 6th Army was basically sitting in the steppes doing nothing for two weeks, giving the Soviets enough time to build up defenses in front of the city. A good case can be made that this delay was crucial in allowing the Soviets to hold Stalingrad.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Again your ignoring the facts, who won the battle of Smolensk 1941?

Actually, although Glantz vastly over-eggs his thesis, you could say the Soviets did. The battle and its aftershocks lasted from July-October and stalled AGC. It made turning Guderian south an attractive option to the German high command.

You don't always win in a conventional ways. By so badly stalling AGC the Soviets won time and it was that they needed more than anything else.

[rmonical]

Again your ignoring the facts, who won the battle of Smolensk 1941?

The Soviets:
- Germans did not close the pocket.
- German advanced stopped.

[swkuh]

As I play GHQ vs AI I've found it useful to vary the game factors for logistics & transportation to get the "feel" I want, currently doing 90/100, 90/100. But I find the morale setting problematic. It doesn't reflect the C&C advantage the Germans had through most of the conflict, especially on the Eastern front. Maybe the game developers thought it through, but their game's code doesn't give the player explicit control over this important factor.

Any one have some help here, i.e., how do you control for the German's C&C advantage?

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Pelton
Again your ignoring the facts, who won the battle of Smolensk 1941?

Actually, although Glantz vastly over-eggs his thesis, you could say the Soviets did. The battle and its aftershocks lasted from July-October and stalled AGC. It made turning Guderian south an attractive option to the German high command.

You don't always win in a conventional ways. By so badly stalling AGC the Soviets won time and it was that they needed more than anything else.

This will make it possible for strong mobile forces to advance northwards and, in conjunction with the Northern Army Group operating out of East Prussia in the general direction of Leningrad, to destroy the enemy forces operating in the Baltic area. Only after the fulfilment of this first essential task, which must include the occupation of Leningrad and Kronstadt, will the attack be continued with the intention of occupying Moscow, an important centre of communications and of the armaments industry.

Only a surprisingly rapid collapse of Russian resistance could justify the simultaneous pursuit of both objectives. Directive 21.

The diversion of armoured forces from AGC (after Smolensk), to the Leningrad front, was merely continuing the 'Barbarossa' plan. 'Barbarossa' only envisages an immediate continuation of the advance to Moscow, if there is an unexpected collapse of Soviet forces, which obviously had not happened.

The delay in further operations was imposed by the command conflict, as Halder, Guderian and others, try to change Hitler's mind and force an advance on Moscow. When they fail and Hitler insists on sticking with the original plan, Guderian strikes South and wraps up the Kiev operation within 3 weeks. Despite all of the logistical problems the Germans had and whatever the Soviet forces achieve, after Smolensk, the Germans still managed to carry out wide-ranging and opposed operations, over hundred of miles, ending up with re-positioning North again for 'Typhoon'.

The Germans were not forced to go South, Hitler chose to do so (rightly or wrongly), as the destruction of the Soviet army was always the final objective of 'Barbarossa', the conflict in the German high command was about how best to achieve this and a large proportion of the Soviet army was around Kiev. If Halder and Guderian had won their case (that the bulk of the Soviet army would be destroyed defending Moscow), I am sure that the advance on Moscow would have proceeded, despite the logistical difficulties and the resistance the Soviets might have attempted.

It was not only logistics, or Soviet resistance, that imposed the delay, important though they may have been, it was more the German command and control conflict which emerged after Smolensk.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: rmonical

Again your ignoring the facts, who won the battle of Smolensk 1941?

The Soviets:
- Germans did not close the pocket.
- German advanced stopped.

Guderian was too busy trying to bounce Hitler into a continued advance on Moscow, the taking of the Yelnya bridgehead was to facilitate further advance towards Moscow and did not contribute to closing the pocket. Guderian had forced the pace and exceed orders during the blitzkreig in France, taking a mediocre plan and turning into a spectacular success, but Hitler was having no more insubordination, as he progressively exerted his control over the high command. It was that battle of wills which stopped the advance, which irresistibly got underway again when the command conflict was resolved, albeit to the South.

With the 'stop order' before Dunkirk, Hitler had demonstrated that his own command position was more important to himself, even more than the huge strategic implications of his decisions.

[Disgruntled Veteran]

[/quote]

Again your ignoring the facts, who won the battle of Smolensk 1941?

Ultimately I would say the Germans won the battle of Smolensk but it was a very costly adventure and it didn't go anywhere near their way. As someone already said, it brought about the Kiev option...actually less of an option and more like the only real alternative. The pocket of smolensk did close only much later than it could have had Guderian not attempted to hold the Yelna salient.

You simply made my point, Germany won because logistics mattered very little to the out come.

Very ignorant statement. The Germans barely held AGC's front only because of superb training and seemingly inhuman discipline in the face of disaster. Had the Germans been in full supply the Smolensk campaign would have been over in a much shorter period of time..

Stahel accounts how the Germans were heavily outgunned because they couldn't return fire against the Soviet artillery. The logistics system was heavily over burdened once the Panzer Groups crossed the Dnepr. Fuel, ammo, spare parts, tires you name it. Even after the infantry caught up there was never enough artillery ammo and spare parts.

The German army survived the first winter with a huge lack of winter equipment at the front. However I would hardly say that it mattered very little. This is one of your poorer arguments.

I think everyone agrees that the combat model is jacked for sure...however, I also agree that the current supply system is full arcade mode. One rail line couldn't sustain but 1 army iirc. However this is surely a WITE 2 fix.

[Bozo_the_Clown]

I think everyone agrees that the combat model is jacked for sure...however, I also agree that the current supply system is full arcade mode. One rail line couldn't sustain but 1 army iirc. However this is surely a WITE 2 fix.

I'm glad someone is pointing this out. In WitE supply is the same whether you are on a rail hex 1000 miles in Russia or at the border of Poland. To make matters worse you can do an HQ buildup 1000 miles into Russia just as long as you are 20 MP from the rail head. This surely has nothing to do with reality.

[Aurelian]

"Logistics mattered little to Germany,,,"?

They mattered so little that during the 41-42 winter in Russia they prioritized food and ammunition over winter clothing.

Why did they have to do that if they mattered so little.

German logistics were geared for short campaigns.

It's one thing to fight in Western Europe with its high density of proper roads and railways. Quite another in Russia, which didn't.

There's a reason for the saying "Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics."

Supply is not everything, but without supply everything is nothing

[Aurelian]

http://www.feldgrau.com/dreichsbahn.html

[rmonical]

Glantz, David M. (2012-04-10). Barbarossa Derailed: The Battle for Smolensk 10 July-10 September 1941 Volume 2: The German Offensives on the Flanks and the Third Soviet Counteroffensive, 25 August-10 September 1941 (Kindle Locations 11551-11552). Helion Pub. Kindle Edition.

In addition to affecting the Wehrmacht’s operational capabilities, all of these unexpected complications also helped shape Hitler’s and the OKW’s strategy for conducting the Barbarossa campaign. Operationally, by mid-July, increasing Soviet resistance and severe logistical and transport constraints combined to limit the scope and duration of Army Group Center’s advances. This severely constrained Blitzkrieg-type tactics, which had proven so vital for the successful conduct of previous German campaigns. By mid-July 1941, for example, and thereafter, German offensive operations developed in distinctive “spurts” or “offensive leaps,” specifically, advances of 100-120 kilometers conducted within a time period of roughly 10 days, with each of these “spurts” punctuated by 7-10-day-long pauses necessary to regroup the attacking forces and replenish them with critical fuel and ammunition. In addition, over time, the depth, duration, number, and attack frontages of these “spurts” also tended to decrease. Conversely, the pauses in between these offensive impulses provided the Stavka and its operating fronts with the time necessary to mobilize, arm and equip, and deploy fresh forces and commit these forces into action.

I find the notion that logistics did not effect AGC's advance staggeringly naive.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: rmonical

Again your ignoring the facts, who won the battle of Smolensk 1941?

The Soviets:
- Germans did not close the pocket.

Ultimately, the Soviet 16th, 19th and the 20th Armies were encircled and destroyed just to the south of Smolensk, though significant numbers from the 19th and 20th Army managed to escape the pocket.
In the end, about 300,000 men were taken prisoner when the encirclement was subsequently reestablished and the pocket eliminated

- German advanced stopped.

Albeit a huge temporary success for Hitler, the losses in terms of men and materiel incurred by the Wehrmacht during this drawn-out battle were enormous

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Smolensk_(1941)

Logistics again had nothing to do with the out come.

Also the facts are more important then your opinion, Sir

Again why people keep on defending the undefendable is amazing.