Manpower question

[humble1]

Where are they getting the manpower from? Germany is adding 30,000 manpower but sometimes they
get double manpower in the replacement phases.

I tried posting the info in the attachment but I got error saying I was posting phone numbers.
I am trying to post event log stats.

[humble1]

That's the error message it try to post the stats directly in to the post


"You are not allowed to post links, emails or phone numbers for 7 days from the date of your tenth post"

[sillyflower]

the error message is for new forum members who can't post attachments immediately.

30K manpower may be axis, not Germany. There's a country-specific filter to right on the production screen

Manpower comes from manpower centres which are factories

[Denniss]

You likely have a lot of ground elements sent back to pool thus additional manpower is released once they arrive.

[morvael]

there are also returns from disabled

[humble1]

It is probably a combination of the disabled and but I feel that most would come back from
released manpower from units. I figured out how launch multiple air attacks against ground units
I thought that I was limited to 3 attacks per air army but it turns out that its 3 attacks on the same unit.
Since that discovery I been hitting the German with massive SHAP air units. I destroy a lot of guns
probably 600 to 700 plus even more damaged guns per turn from air attacks. Thinking back my air attacks started around the same time
that I have been getting these big increases in Germany manpower.
I noticed that I may be destroying 600 to 700 guns but I lucky to destroy 1 tank unit from all those air attacks. I think that the
patch changes have really tone down the effects of attacks on German tank units. I noticed the same thing in WITW, I get local total control
of the air I want to in send in the tactical bomber aircraft to really work over the Germans. It is really unsatisfying to launch 5000
sorties of tactical bombers and destroy 1 tank.

[morvael]

They don't like to hit tanks as they know they will not hurt them. I would prefer them to hit most common element most often - which means combat squads or supports.

[No idea]

ORIGINAL: morvael

They don't like to hit tanks as they know they will not hurt them. I would prefer them to hit most common element most often - which means combat squads or supports.

Why is so? Air power was rather limited when trying to destroy a tank (and I mean a tank, not other lightlier armoured vehicles or non AFVs), but the chances to disable them should be a bit bigger. A near miss could perfectly damage the tank caterpillar. A direct hit by bombs or rockets would destroy any tank (the really difficult thing was getting a direct hit). And Stukas and Henschels armed with 37mm cannons were moderately effective at destroying tanks and with cannons it was easier to score a hit than with bombs or rockets.

Conluding, air power (mainly thanks to close support attack aircraft like the Stuka) shouldnt be a juggernaut of tank destruction, far from it, but should take its toll on AFVs.

[drkarl143]

if you look at the historical data, most of the german tanks werent knocked out by aircraft, hell most of the tank losses werent even caused by enemy action, but by fuel shortages and so the tanks had to be destroyed by their own crews... also try to damage a tiger or kingtiger with a 37mm gun Also planes like the stuka or the henschel were able to do attack very small targets very precisely and the excellent pilots (Rudel e.g. who destroyed hundrets of enemy tanks) used them very well. So overall I think its fine to inflict little tank losses by air attacks...

[No idea]

ORIGINAL: drkarl143

if you look at the historical data, most of the german tanks werent knocked out by aircraft, hell most of the tank losses werent even caused by enemy action, but by fuel shortages and so the tanks had to be destroyed by their own crews... also try to damage a tiger or kingtiger with a 37mm gun Also planes like the stuka or the henschel were able to do attack very small targets very precisely and the excellent pilots (Rudel e.g. who destroyed hundrets of enemy tanks) used them very well. So overall I think its fine to inflict little tank losses by air attacks...

That is exactly the same I tried to say.

[morvael]

Yeah, but that would require serious rework of the targetting code and rebalancing of results. Currently it prioritises targets it can penetrate and destroy, ignoring the ability to damage only.

[Steelers708]

I think it's a very large exaggeration to say that during five and a half years of war "hell most of the tank losses werent even caused by enemy action, but by fuel shortages and so the tanks had to be destroyed by their own crews.", I wouldn't even like to make that statement about the last 6 months of the war without some solid proof.

[56ajax]

ORIGINAL: Steelers708

I think it's a very large exaggeration to say that during five and a half years of war "hell most of the tank losses werent even caused by enemy action, but by fuel shortages and so the tanks had to be destroyed by their own crews.", I wouldn't even like to make that statement about the last 6 months of the war without some solid proof.

It all depends on whether you win or lose control of the battle field. Winners dont lose tanks to break downs or fuel shortages because they recover them and repair/refuel. Losers do. So an after the battle survey will show the winners losses are due to enemy action and the losers are to enemy action, breakdowns and fuel shortages.

And I have read a battlefield survey commissioned by the Western Allies of German armour losses in Western Europe from D-Day (I think) till they stopped at the Rhine...and the majority of losses were abandoned and not due to Allied Action.

And the AXIS lost control of the battlefield from late 1942. And the AXIS experience in Russia showed that the enemy were very quick to reuse abandoned vehicles, sometimes in under an hour, hence the need to blow them up.

[No idea]

ORIGINAL: johntoml56

ORIGINAL: Steelers708

I think it's a very large exaggeration to say that during five and a half years of war "hell most of the tank losses werent even caused by enemy action, but by fuel shortages and so the tanks had to be destroyed by their own crews.", I wouldn't even like to make that statement about the last 6 months of the war without some solid proof.

It all depends on whether you win or lose control of the battle field. Winners dont lose tanks to break downs or fuel shortages because they recover them and repair/refuel. Losers do. So an after the battle survey will show the winners losses are due to enemy action and the losers are to enemy action, breakdowns and fuel shortages.

And I have read a battlefield survey commissioned by the Western Allies of German armour losses in Western Europe from D-Day (I think) till they stopped at the Rhine...and the majority of losses were abandoned and not due to Allied Action.

And the AXIS lost control of the battlefield from late 1942. And the AXIS experience in Russia showed that the enemy were very quick to reuse abandoned vehicles, sometimes in under an hour, hence the need to blow them up.

This.

Controlling the battlefield after a tank action was vital regarding to losses. You could have a tank action where both sides had a similar loss of tanks (lets say, 100 tanks). However, you must take into account that most losses (around 80%, according to Robert Forzyk) werent total loss. Most of them could be repaired if enough spare parts could be gotten. So, sooner or later, 80 out of the 100 tanks lost would see action again. Basically, that meant that long term losses of the winner were just 20 tanks (in an ideal situation were there are enough spare parts) while the loser losses were still 100 tanks (the actual combat losses) and probably more. Depending on the defeat magnitude, retreating tanks could run out of supply before being able to refuel. On those cases, the tanks were abandoned most times (this was especially true during Barbarossas first weeks).

I cant say if most tanks losses were due to lack of fuel, but lack of fuel was an important reason for tank losses IN THE LOSER SIDE.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: No idea

ORIGINAL: johntoml56

ORIGINAL: Steelers708

I think it's a very large exaggeration to say that during five and a half years of war "hell most of the tank losses werent even caused by enemy action, but by fuel shortages and so the tanks had to be destroyed by their own crews.", I wouldn't even like to make that statement about the last 6 months of the war without some solid proof.

It all depends on whether you win or lose control of the battle field. Winners dont lose tanks to break downs or fuel shortages because they recover them and repair/refuel. Losers do. So an after the battle survey will show the winners losses are due to enemy action and the losers are to enemy action, breakdowns and fuel shortages.

And I have read a battlefield survey commissioned by the Western Allies of German armour losses in Western Europe from D-Day (I think) till they stopped at the Rhine...and the majority of losses were abandoned and not due to Allied Action.

And the AXIS lost control of the battlefield from late 1942. And the AXIS experience in Russia showed that the enemy were very quick to reuse abandoned vehicles, sometimes in under an hour, hence the need to blow them up.

This.

Controlling the battlefield after a tank action was vital regarding to losses. You could have a tank action where both sides had a similar loss of tanks (lets say, 100 tanks). However, you must take into account that most losses (around 80%, according to Robert Forzyk) werent total loss. Most of them could be repaired if enough spare parts could be gotten. So, sooner or later, 80 out of the 100 tanks lost would see action again. Basically, that meant that long term losses of the winner were just 20 tanks (in an ideal situation were there are enough spare parts) while the loser losses were still 100 tanks (the actual combat losses) and probably more. Depending on the defeat magnitude, retreating tanks could run out of supply before being able to refuel. On those cases, the tanks were abandoned most times (this was especially true during Barbarossas first weeks).

I cant say if most tanks losses were due to lack of fuel, but lack of fuel was an important reason for tank losses IN THE LOSER SIDE.

Stop with the facts most people here can't handle them - I have been here 5 yrs now.

Never stop spamming the facts as with everything the truth always wins out,

You might get banned but the truth always wins in the end.



Some people cant handle the truth

Just because they cant figure out how you do it does not mean it can't be done or stop the fact that you do it over and over.