WitE 2

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I really can't believe this narrow mindedness that gets displayed by the Red fan club every time a what if comes up. Do you guys possess any imagination at all?

Can't you see that if a decision was taken to go for Moscow prior to making the decision to go for Kiev that said supply hub/resources at Gomel would simply have been moved north well beforehand? Gimme a break. Have a little room in your heads for some relative logistical changes if objectives were changed earlier.

You are arguing that if the Germans decided to go for Moscow instead that they would have still built and positioned supply dumps for a drive on Kiev. I don't think even Stahel would think them that stupid.

Michael

it really doesn't help to trot out the rather tired 'red fan club' (or its opposite).

Look at the map, Gomel can be resupplied by a different rail line to Smolensk. So there is a rail capacity issue you can't send all the Gomel supplies to Smolensk by rail. What you need to do is to use (more) of your (scarce) trucks to do so?

Of course they swapped supply around as their priorities shifted but there is a finite limit to the amount you can send to anyone sector.

The point is the road east was full of rather irate Soviet formations who had, in late August, the tactical advantage. The road south was effectively empty (see the source I used above for why). I presume you too share my view that the supplies needed to not just conduct a major offensive, but to do so by starting on the back foot, are different to those required to push through an area held by little but battalion sized blocking detachments?

[Michael T]

The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination. - Albert Einstein

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I really can't believe this narrow mindedness that gets displayed by the Red fan club every time a what if comes up. Do you guys possess any imagination at all?

Can't you see that if a decision was taken to go for Moscow prior to making the decision to go for Kiev that said supply hub/resources at Gomel would simply have been moved north well beforehand? Gimme a break. Have a little room in your heads for some relative logistical changes if objectives were changed earlier.

You are arguing that if the Germans decided to go for Moscow instead that they would have still built and positioned supply dumps for a drive on Kiev. I don't think even Stahel would think them that stupid.

Red fan club, first time that I've been accused of that. [:D]

As loki said, you are completely ignoring the limits of rail capacity. The supply hub at Gomel was supplied via the line Minsk - Bobruisk - Zhlobin - Gomel. For a drive to Moscow there were two possible hubs with Vitebsk and Smolesnk. Vitebsk relied on the line Daugavpils - Polotsk - Vitebsk while the Smolensk hub relied on Minsk - Borisov - Orsha - Smolensk.

If now the rail capacity towards Vitebsk/Smolensk was already struggling to keep the Germans in the Smolesnk region in adequate supply for daily operations alone in August 1941 (9th Army as mentioned experienced dwindling stocks in ammunition), how do you imagine the Germans procuring the capacity to supply another panzer group, and all that for a major offensive towards Moscow?

[loki100]

can we skip the insults? Please.

Ok, try this as an argument. A number of posters in this thread are arguing (in different ways) that logistics was the fundamental flaw behind the German invasion of the Soviet Union. That may have been made worse by the rather unclear strategic directives but the Germans weren't the first to fail to solve the problem that the political structures of the Russian state are in the north and its economic strength in the south.

You deny that logistics was so important. I presume you share my view that the Soviet command etc was so disorganised that they couldn't win a battle/campaign in any meaningful sense - the best they could do was to avoid a crippling defeat - which is what they managed.

So why did the Germans fail? In your model you seem to be left with some variant of Hitler undermining his generals or his generals undermining Hitler (depends if you prefer the post-war Wehrmacht explanation or the revisionist neo-nazi narrative). Those you accuse of being 'red fan boys' can easily cope with the idea that operationally and tactically at this stage of WW2 the Germans had the best army in the field.

[Michael T]

I don't know what your on but it must be good stuff.

The only argument I have made here is that Germany could have reached Moscow in September 1941 with a PG, since they got to Kiev with one PG in the same period. I stand by it. And will always do so as it is feasible. Any rational and impartial person would recognize that.

[zakblood]

everyone is entitled to there own opinions and we all should respects others points of views on any given subject, debate is good, insults, flaming, name calling is for the play ground only and is against the rules here and could in the end lead to another thread being locked, which would again be a shame for all the good posts and good members contributing so far constructively, this isn't aimed at anyone or any post either, just a reminder to be and stay civil please, thanks

[Manstein63]

It seems to me that the major problem that we have is that the Axis didn't defeat the Soviets in 1941, so everything that has been said can only be conjecture or personal opinion. We can all agree that the logistic model in WitE 1.0 leaves an awful lot to be desired however from what I have read WitE 2.0 appears to handle logistics in a more realistic manner. I for one am prepared to wait to see how the game has evolved before making any judgements. That being said I am quite sure that it would have been possible for the Germans to have pushed one Panzergruppe towards Moscow Rather than turning it south toward Kiev, but at what cost? As I understand it the Kiev pocket captured significant amounts of men & materials. If they had not been dealt with what would they be doing while the Germans were advancing, I'm sure that they wouldn't just be sitting around on their hands. It's easy to look at something in isolation & say that it can be done but every action has consequences unfortunately we will never really know what might have happened if the Germans continued to Moscow without dealing with Kiev.

Manstein63

[DeletedUser1769703214]

ORIGINAL: Manstein63

It seems to me that the major problem that we have is that the Axis didn't defeat the Soviets in 1941, so everything that has been said can only be conjecture or personal opinion. We can all agree that the logistic model in WitE 1.0 leaves an awful lot to be desired however from what I have read WitE 2.0 appears to handle logistics in a more realistic manner. I for one am prepared to wait to see how the game has evolved before making any judgements. That being said I am quite sure that it would have been possible for the Germans to have pushed one Panzergruppe towards Moscow Rather than turning it south toward Kiev, but at what cost? As I understand it the Kiev pocket captured significant amounts of men & materials. If they had not been dealt with what would they be doing while the Germans were advancing, I'm sure that they wouldn't just be sitting around on their hands. It's easy to look at something in isolation & say that it can be done but every action has consequences unfortunately we will never really know what might have happened if the Germans continued to Moscow without dealing with Kiev.

Manstein63

So, what if the Germans didnt have to come to the reacue in the Balkins and North Africa? All of those troops and supplies could be sent East. Would love to have a "what if" scenario in WitE2 for that. . (Along with an earlier start month for the invasion)

[Flaviusx]

Hey.

The only True Red Army Fanboi around here is me! Loki and SigUp? Those guys are just pretenders.

[Manstein63]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

So, what if the Germans didnt have to come to the reacue in the Balkins and North Africa? All of those troops and supplies could be sent East. Would love to have a "what if" scenario in WitE2 for that. . (Along with an earlier start month for the invasion)

Exactly my point, just where exactly do you draw the line. If there was no Med campaign what would Britain be doing? & remember the initial German contribution to Africa was small in comparison to what was going to Barbarossa.

Manstein63

[Capitaine]

Above all else, actual historical truth about capabilities should take precedence. There is not however always complete agreement on what is the objective reality in every case, especially where possibilities of unachieved objectives are concerned. In such cases we must extrapolate the facts from data we do have. And given that to achieve victory certain goals must be attained, in cases of reasonable disputed assessments I would slightly incline toward the side saying something *was* possible than the side saying it wasn't. Because if we preclude a goal from happening, it would likely result in a decidedly less interesting game experience.

And I emphasize the words "reasonably disputed" and "slight inclination", not to make a fictional exercise by any means.

[Commanderski]

Are any improvements or upgrades being made to the AI for 2.0 or will be pretty much the same as WITW?

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Commanderski

Are any improvements or upgrades being made to the AI for 2.0 or will be pretty much the same as WITW?

I think its already a lot better.

The German AI still struggles to close pockets as opposed to routing units but this is less a clear cut mistake than it is in WiTE. For a start the Soviets in 1941 get a lot more shatters (esp if its a low morale/low experience unit) so that is a second way to cull the Soviet OOB. Secondly as mentioned early combat itself is more lethal. So even vs AI, around 2.2m Soviet losses to the start of the blizzard offensive seems pretty normal.

Soviet AI seems to be a lot more intelligent about terrain. Again what is fatal in WiTE is good play in WiTE2 so holding onto cities to deny their use as depots and salients etc are less of a death trap than in WiTE. It also counterattacks in a very Stalinist style, so as the German you have this horrible feeling of winning all the battles even as the war slips away from you.

So my feeling is it is far more situational aware than in WiTE and the switch in game play away from relying on the formation of pockets as the key means to make progress seems to minimise one of its earlier weaknesses.

Its still going to have a specially script for the axis T1 but it is always going to need that crutch to get it started.

Some builds it is really good, others less so but that is more a reflection of other game parameters being shifted rather than its basic competence.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Manstein63

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

So, what if the Germans didnt have to come to the reacue in the Balkins and North Africa? All of those troops and supplies could be sent East. Would love to have a "what if" scenario in WitE2 for that. . (Along with an earlier start month for the invasion)

Exactly my point, just where exactly do you draw the line. If there was no Med campaign what would Britain be doing? & remember the initial German contribution to Africa was small in comparison to what was going to Barbarossa.

Manstein63

From what I've read, the spring rains and mud in the USSR had lasted later than usual in 1941. And there is always the problem of logistics.

[Tejszd]

ORIGINAL: loki100

Its still going to have a specially script for the axis T1 but it is always going to need that crutch to get it started.

If a script is used for the opening Axis T1 there should be a few alternatives, as option, to add variety....

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Tejszd

ORIGINAL: loki100

Its still going to have a specially script for the axis T1 but it is always going to need that crutch to get it started.

If a script is used for the opening Axis T1 there should be a few alternatives, as option, to add variety....

this might change but I doubt there will be a range of options. As I understand it, the AI has to be given a sequence of moves/attacks where there is no risk of failure (at the critical points) or the entire script will fail. Equally it is set up to model the historical German force allocation (so far in testing WiTE2 this makes far more sense to stick to than it does in WiTE).

You can vary it by altering the NM %. The above works at 100% so if you push NM up to say 120% the AI will do better - not least as movement costs in enemy territory will drop for a number of formations that now meet the morale thresholds etc.

[Peltonx]

A declassified, unbiased look at the German logistical issues on the Eastern Front 1941.

Shortly after December 7th 1941 the USA is now part of the WA fighting against Germany.

The question before President Roosevelt and the rest of the free world was:

Could Germany in 1942 finish off Russia and turn west again before the USA had time to gather the strength to be felt across 2 Oceans.

The task of answering this question was given to the OCI later to become The Office of Strategic Services of War Information
or OSS headed by ?gWild?h Bill Donovan a precursor to the CIA. Bill was also known as the Father of the CIA.

Information was gathered from all allied, governments, armed forces and intelligent branches.
At this time the OCI had no political axe to grind, no history to rewrite.
It had to answer a central question based on data/facts.

As Chaos/Flaviusx/MT and others have stated we can believe what we want to support which even side we want, but here we have a study that has to be honest as best it can.
Because the free world is at risk and its leaders need to make decisions based on what is really going on and not what they wish was
going on over the last year.

The world was in the balance and there is no room for politics or just so fairytales.

The study was printed March 25th 1942 and later reviewed by CIA and other offices not for political reasons, but because this was the first of its kind and going forward was critical for our leaders to make decisions based on the facts on the ground. It was a ground breaking study that is the model many governments still use to this day in the area of logistics and intelligences gathering.
I am not sure how 2by3 is modelling unit consumption, but this report does quantify divisional consumption. What is also very helpful is it corrects the March 1942 report with new information gathered after the war. Like the areas where unit consumptions was high, low, corrects Halder in area ect ect. It was critical to get things right going forward so the next war leaders would be given better information over all. I would think 2by3 would want to base 2.0 consumption rates on an unbiased historical model.
The report also splits the information by AGN/AGC/AGC, time periods, battle tempo, rail tonnage required, transport capacity, rail line conversion rates, ect.

It also gives conclusions.

Again to be clear this is not some one writing a book to make coin, the victors retelling history or the losing Generals blaming
someone else for the lost battles and war.

Quote: With respects to the past , what happened in 1941, the estimate was right that there had been no over-all supply deficiency but that there has been temporary and local ones and that intervals of comparative quiet on the fronts reflected time required to build up supplies for a new push. But the aggregated figures for supply requirements and transport capacity supporting this conclusion were inflated by compounding errors to several times those revealed in the Halder notes and other sources.
.

As stated the study was not perfect, but corrected over time so I would think this would be the best model to use when 2by3 is
making the logistics model for 2.0


https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for- ... i4a07p.pdf

[demyansk]

Thanks for the link and I downloaded.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: demjansk

Thanks for the link and I downloaded.

NP bro.

Just tring to keep things focused non-personal/political and focused on historical data unbiased data/facts.


A few questions for 2by3.

1. On paper the USSR had a total of 24,000 tanks on June 22.
10,650 were out of service for routine maintenance, 6,950 were undergoing major maintance (transmition/engine repairs) leaving just
6,450 to face Germanys invasion. That number fell quickly because Russia did not have a single armored recover vehicle do
they were forced to leave behind 1000’s of vehicles. Will this be reflexed during turn 1-3?
2. 2.0 is centered around depots. Historiclly some 200+ depots were captured intact by the Germans by July 10th .
Will there be any special rules that does not let the Russian player simply disband these depots during the first 3 weeks?
3. As I have stated as far as AGN goes will it reflex history? AGN captured a bridge over the Luga near Kinisepp on
July 13th or turn 3 or 4 by game time. We also know supplies were being delivered by rail 40 miles east of Poskv.
Directive 21 and other leading up to 22nd states Leningrad as the #1 objective of the operation.

[MechFO]

ORIGINAL: chaos45
As trained frontline combat infantry/panzer crew/combat engineers were only like 1:4 of every german......so when only 25-30% of your troops are actual combat troops each loss in those units is more heavily felt. Soviets managed a closer to 1:2 ratio...meant less support per rifleman but at the same time each rifleman lost meant less overall loss in combat power.

There is no free lunch. The support system the Germans had in their Division TOE also existed somewhere on the Soviet side, just in another ledger column. A tank needs a certain maintenance infrastructure, food needs to be made, supplies need to be transported and distributed.

Don't provide that in house and it will have to come from outside or efficiency will break down sooner rather than later.

What can be argued is that several factors led to the Soviets being able to substitute industrial production for manpower, while the Germans did the reverse, but either way, the Soviets should have Support deficits which needs higher level units to help out (which in turn should arguably be bigger than the German counterparts).