Osinovets

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: morvael

I'm already afraid German players will not like the balance of the next patch, why kick them where it hurts the most again? [:)]

As long as the balance makes sense and it also affects the Soviets to the same degree in the later war stages I am fine with it. I will say that I don't feel that the Germans are overpowered in the current patch. There are certain loopholes that German players use to improve their supply in an unrealistic way (the whole Odessa thing) but in general, if a German player plays the game realistically they will face some of the same problems that the Germans did in real life. I personally saw the effects of the supply (or lack thereof) in the south first hand and I have gone to great effort to show that in my AAR.

It is my belief that the biggest factor at play is the skill of your opponent and the way they play (realistic or simply to get the most out of the game and win no matter how). 2 evenly matched opponents with similar playstyles should enjoy a great campaign that resembles the historical one.

PS: Do you have any idea when the new patch may be launched?

@chaos45: I doubt you will see those kind of losses against a good German player, since they will not give you the chance to recreate a Bagration style operation that annihilates a whole Army Group. But then again, as the Germans you also never get to recreate a Kiev style encirclement (in terms of men and equipment captured).

[DeletedUser1769703214]

ORIGINAL: morvael

I'm already afraid German players will not like the balance of the next patch, why kick them where it hurts the most again? [:)]

I just hope the pendulum doesn't swing too much in favor of the Soviets. There are some items to be addressed but nothing drastic.

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: morvael

I'm already afraid German players will not like the balance of the next patch, why kick them where it hurts the most again? [:)]

I just hope the pendulum doesn't swing too much in favor of the Soviets. There are some items to be addressed but nothing drastic.

I share your sentiment there. The game is in a stable state right now. Minor tweaks are needed but nothing major.

[chaos45]

Xhoel….bagration isn't what caused 3,000+ german tanks losses...those tanks were already destroyed just not reported as destroyed due to the way the Germans kept the books.

They had no choice but to finally report them as total losses when the tank graveyards finally fell into soviet hands.

Having been a maintenance officer in the military I know first hand how this works. Militaries don't like to acknowledge when vehicles are destroyed and will keep them in a repairable status until some day they have to move and then its finally written off as destroyed/total loss. Any vehicle can be repaired even if it was destroyed--as long as its not blown to scrap metal...now will your maintenance crews ever have the time or the factories ship you the tons of parts you need to fix the totally destroyed vehicle....no...

The Germans were the worst offenders on not writing off vehicles as destroyed in combat, it allowed them to inflate kill ratios an such. Not saying other armies didn't do it as well because they did, but its pretty blatant with the Germans and the monthly losses in AFVs reveal the deception in their military record keeping.

[xhoel]

@chaos45: Seems like you are stretching the truth a bit too far when saying that: "The Germans were the worst offenders on not writing off vehicles as destroyed in combat, it allowed them to inflate kill ratios an such." especially when considering the length the Soviets would go to make bold kill claims, often claiming the destruction of more AFVs than the Germans had actually deployed in a sector (Kursk comes to mind). Can you provide a source for what you claimed?

Anyway, we are going off topic here. I simply said that you won't see Bagration/Kiev pocket type of losses because the players (on both sides) are far too cautious to allow that in game.

[morvael]

I'm so happy I made a Kiev once

[morvael]

"Demolishing the Myth: The Tank Battle at Prokhorovka, Kursk, July 1943: An Operational Narrative" by Valeriy Zamulin, Stuart Britton -

"Several reasons explain such a wide divergence in figures. First is the way the Wehrmacht calculated combat losses. The Germans regarded as lost only those combat vehicles that were completely destroyed or left abandoned to the enemy – all remaining tanks were assigned to the repair pool. In documents, damaged armor were assigned to a different category, either long-term or short-term repairs. Accordingly, if one considers that the Germans controlled the battlefield at Prokhorovka right up to the afternoon of 17 July, then they were able to recover all of their knocked-out armor and return those that could be repaired to eventual action. Only the few armored vehicles that could not be returned to service were counted as destroyed. Meanwhile, the enemy blew up all of our equipment that was left on the battlefield during our withdrawal. This fact gives rise to the seemingly absurd assertion that the German side lost only five tanks at Prokhorovka on 12 July. Moreover, how should we consider badly damaged tanks, not considered as lost in the engagement, but assigned to long-term repair, when they were sent back to Germany for a lengthy period, after the fighting at Prokhorovka had been concluded?"

[chaos45]

xhoel...the issue is the game simulates Soviets taking massive Tank losses so its not an issue of soviet inflation. The issue is the game buys into the invincible German armor myth to much.

Facts also back up my thesis that the Germans hid tank losses and only reported them when they absolutely had to. How else do you explain the JUL and AUG 1944 tank loss results?

Look at the make up of Army Group Center--they really didn't have that many tanks when operation bagration started. Only a couple Panzer divisions were in action in the center for most of June and into July 1944....yet thousands of tanks were lost when most divisions in action weren't panzer divisions? Those losses are because they lost "long" term tank repair yards in the rear of AGC.

I know you feel I'm a super Soviet fan boy but I can assure I'm not, I've just studied WW2 way to much for it not being my actual job lol. The soviets had lots of issues, and that resulted in basically obscene losses for them 1941-1943....in 1944 though they actually got the better of the Germans even on infantry losses in many operations, as most German losses in 1944 were permanent- KIA and POW while a larger chunk of the soviet casualties in 1944 were recoverable since they were suffering fewer POW and actually had transportation and better care of the wounded from a better support structure and well lend lease equipment. Stalin can be blamed for the massive soviet losses in 1945 as he rushed the offensives at the cost of soviet losses to try and secure more of Europe before the western allies got there.

Also when I was younger and less studied many German generals seemed amazing, you know you read their books and your like man if only this Hitler guy hadn't kept making all these bad decisions and forcing the generals into bad battles an such....but the facts upon investigation and more well researched information point out that many of them weren't as great as they let on in their books. TIK a youtuber actually points to meetings and statements recorded at the time of various operations show that some of them are outright lying in their books. He does a good job of pointing out when lies were told to protect officers reputations and blame the fall guy Hitler that everyone hated at the end of WW2.

There is no dispute that on average a German soldier has more combat power than a soviet soldier in WW2 on the whole which is well represented in the game. Some studies also say the German soldier was better than any allied soldier....however that is debatable as casualty exchange rates on the Western front esp 1944/45 France/Germany were not so much in the Germans favor. That can be explained by allied support superiority but is that a bad thing for the soldier on the front? and is that not the same advantage the Germans had against the Soviets for 1941-43 on the eastern front which helped give them such a high exchange ratio? So you can get into some debates on that.

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: chaos45

xhoel...the issue is the game simulates Soviets taking massive Tank losses so its not an issue of soviet inflation. The issue is the game buys into the invincible German armor myth to much.

We had this discussion in one of the posts. I presented you with facts and you moved on to another point ignoring what I said. it was one of the reasons why I stopped replying to you and opted out of the discussion because you never adressed points made. Since you keep insisting on this argument here are 3 examples taken from AARs in the forum and 1 from a team game I am part of:

Xhoel vs Bitburgerdraft, T29 (1st of January 1942), AFV losses: 3.886 (Axis), 20.332 (Soviet).
BrianG vs HLYA, T33 (T33, 29th of January 1942), AFV losses: 5.801 (Axis), 21.597 (Soviet).
STEF78 vs Stelteck, (T32, 22nd of January 1942), AFV losses: 4.115 (Axis), 19.630 (Soviet).
2by3+ team game, (T29, 1st of January 1942), AFV losses: 3.185 (Axis), 19.710 (Soviet).

Historical AFV losses for 1941: 2.839 (German), 20.500 (Soviet).

You could argue that part of the Axis AFV losses in game are also losses from the Axis Allies, but those countries have such small AFV contigents that it cannot explain such high numbers that the Axis get. In 3 of those games the Soviets have suffered less casualties than they did historically yet the Axis (Germans) have always suffered higher AFV losses than was the case in reality.

So can you please please elaborate on what facts do you base the claim that Soviet AFV losses are inflated while the Germans take lower losses then historically?

Facts also back up my thesis that the Germans hid tank losses and only reported them when they absolutely had to. How else do you explain the JUL and AUG 1944 tank loss results?

Which facts? I asked you for a source and you didn't provide one. Classifying losses differently like morvael stated above does not mean that the Germans "hid" losses. Until you provide a reliable source for that I won't address this point again.

Look at the make up of Army Group Center--they really didn't have that many tanks when operation bagration started. Only a couple Panzer divisions were in action in the center for most of June and into July 1944....yet thousands of tanks were lost when most divisions in action weren't panzer divisions? Those losses are because they lost "long" term tank repair yards in the rear of AGC.

And that proves what?

I know you feel I'm a super Soviet fan boy but I can assure I'm not, I've just studied WW2 way to much for it not being my actual job lol. The soviets had lots of issues, and that resulted in basically obscene losses for them 1941-1943....in 1944 though they actually got the better of the Germans even on infantry losses in many operations, as most German losses in 1944 were permanent- KIA and POW while a larger chunk of the soviet casualties in 1944 were recoverable since they were suffering fewer POW and actually had transportation and better care of the wounded from a better support structure and well lend lease equipment. Stalin can be blamed for the massive soviet losses in 1945 as he rushed the offensives at the cost of soviet losses to try and secure more of Europe before the western allies got there.

Yes I agree on that but what does that have to do with the topic of AFV losses?

Also when I was younger and less studied many German generals seemed amazing, you know you read their books and your like man if only this Hitler guy hadn't kept making all these bad decisions and forcing the generals into bad battles an such....but the facts upon investigation and more well researched information point out that many of them weren't as great as they let on in their books. TIK a youtuber actually points to meetings and statements recorded at the time of various operations show that some of them are outright lying in their books. He does a good job of pointing out when lies were told to protect officers reputations and blame the fall guy Hitler that everyone hated at the end of WW2.

A common mistake that I am sure many people have made. I have long grown out of that and have no illusions about what the Germans or the Soviets were capable of. TIK makes good series and I enjoy the attention to detail that he puts in his videos. I have erased the "it was only Hitlers fault" idea from my head entirely and am more than capable of seeing that the failures of the German Army were given to a dictator who was long dead as an attempt by those surviving generals to put themselves in a better light, thus ignoring their own mistakes when writing their Autobiographies and other books related to the war. Hitler had faults and intervened in operations time and time again but that doesn't mean that German generals always knew what was best and it was always Hitler who ruined everything.

There is no dispute that on average a German soldier has more combat power than a soviet soldier in WW2 on the whole which is well represented in the game. Some studies also say the German soldier was better than any allied soldier....however that is debatable as casualty exchange rates on the Western front esp 1944/45 France/Germany were not so much in the Germans favor. That can be explained by allied support superiority but is that a bad thing for the soldier on the front? and is that not the same advantage the Germans had against the Soviets for 1941-43 on the eastern front which helped give them such a high exchange ratio? So you can get into some debates on that.

I don't think you can compare the Western front in 44-45 to the Eastern Front in 1941-43. The Soviets suffered immensely and it is a test to their will as a nation that they were able to stand their ground against Nazi Germany which should be applauded. That being said the Soviets were focused on 1 front, had an industry that wasn't being bombed day and night, had enough manpower, had enough help from the Western Allies (both in terms of material provided through Lend Lease and in the opening of other fronts which pulled substantial German resources away from the East) and they didn't have fuel shortages. The Germans in 1944 were fighting on 3 fronts (East, West, Italy). Their air force was in tatters which allowed the Allies to have complete superiority in the air (as opposed to local superiority the Germans had in the East). The Germans did not have the same manpower reserves as the Soviets nor did they have an intact industry hidden away in the Urals and they were fighting a coaltion of major powers that had an unending supply of everything from men, to tanks, to planes, to supplies etc. Add to that the fact that in 1944 Germany had been stripped of almost all of its Allies (which never had the same power as the US or GB did).

EDIT: Updated German AFV losses with more accurate numbers.

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: morvael

I'm so happy I made a Kiev once

As in a pocket that netted you 650k POWs? [:)]

[joelmar]

Small parenthesis... I agree... no Hitler was not responsible for everything, and no his generals weren't always right. They didn't even agree among themselves, leading to constant bickering and rivalties during Barbarossa, but also in other campaigns. Von Kluge and Guderian being of course the most famous example. If they didn't agree, it means that at least one of them was wrong.

Still... in spite of all that, there is no denying that Hitler is directly to blame for most of the blunders and bad decisions that caused the worst defeats Germany suffered in the war. And worst, when it happened, he became even more adamant about doing things his own way, concentrating more and more power into his hands and creating divisions in the high command to make sure there would be no one able to stand up to him, starting with how he continuously created unclear delimitation and competing jurisdictions between OKH and OKW. And furthermore he asked for complete responsibility.

Since he so desperatly asked for it, why not give it to him? lol!

[Hardradi]

ORIGINAL: chaos45

A common mistake that I am sure many people have made. I have long grown out of that and have no illusions about what the Germans or the Soviets were capable of. TIK makes good series and I enjoy the attention to detail that he puts in his videos. I have erased the "it was Hitlers fault" idea from my head entirely and am more than capable of seeing that the failures of the German Army were given to a dictator who was long dead as an attempt by those surviving generals to put themselves in a better light, thus ignoring their own mistakes when writing their Autobiographies and other books related to the war. Hitler had faults and intervened in operations time and time again but that doesn't mean that German generals always knew what was best and it was always Hitler who ruined everything.

Yes but is this really the case. I like this TIK blokes work but he can sometimes be a bit sensationalist. He seems to be pushing this Hitler was not a madman and the German generals were incompetent view quite a bit (maybe too much).

[morvael]

ORIGINAL: xhoel

ORIGINAL: morvael

I'm so happy I made a Kiev once

As in a pocket that netted you 650k POWs? [:)]

Well, maybe half that number:

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: morvael

ORIGINAL: xhoel

ORIGINAL: morvael

I'm so happy I made a Kiev once

As in a pocket that netted you 650k POWs? [:)]

Well, maybe half that number:

Congrats! I pulled off a similar feat in a multiplayer game that ended the game as my opponent surrendered because he had no units left in the south.

However I mentioned Kiev and Bagration in terms of losses, not operational scope. In Bagration the Germans lost around 400k men and in the Battle of Kiev the Soviets lost around 828k men. Those kind of figures are hard to be recreated in game. That was my point.

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: Hardradi

ORIGINAL: chaos45

A common mistake that I am sure many people have made. I have long grown out of that and have no illusions about what the Germans or the Soviets were capable of. TIK makes good series and I enjoy the attention to detail that he puts in his videos. I have erased the "it was only Hitlers fault" idea from my head entirely and am more than capable of seeing that the failures of the German Army were given to a dictator who was long dead as an attempt by those surviving generals to put themselves in a better light, thus ignoring their own mistakes when writing their Autobiographies and other books related to the war. Hitler had faults and intervened in operations time and time again but that doesn't mean that German generals always knew what was best and it was always Hitler who ruined everything.

Yes but is this really the case. I like this TIK blokes work but he can sometimes be a bit sensationalist. He seems to be pushing this Hitler was not a madman and the German generals were incompetent view quite a bit (maybe too much).

Yes he does indeed push that view a lot and I don't fully agree with him. But I think it would be a mistake to blame Hitler for every military failure that the Reich suffered.

[chaos45]

As youtubers do....but I like that TIK backs up a lot of what he says with facts.

I would have to see where you pulled the stats on 1941/42 german tank losses...I had only recently been studying the 1944 losses and so used those as an example...most my library is packed up in boxes like 3,000 miles from where im currently located but I found a long time ago the actual German production numbers and losses reported to OKW ever month of war online somewhere and printed them off and stuff them in my library as those are hard to find..but again not on hand and it was years ago I found the information online.

Also the game counts armored cars an such in AFV losses so make sure your source is also counting all the light armored vehicles in the loss reports. An honestly the soviet losses in you example are all easily within a couple percentage of margin of error...as they still all basically lost 20k tanks which is damn close to historical...so shows the Soviet player really has no way influence lower tank losses in the game.

My initial point was at no point in 1 month will you destroy anywhere near the almost 4k reported German tank losses in July 1944 and 3k in AUG 1944....as well the Germans lost something like 25k and 20k trucks in both of those months. As well I don't think Bagration answers where those losses come from---only 20th panzer division was destroyed in Bagration and a couple PzGren divisions--20th panzer only had 1 panzer battalion with only Pz III/IVs at that time....so you only had a couple actual panzer battalions in AGC when Bagration kicks off...that's nowhere near 4k tanks/assault guns...again my point is the only way/reason the Germans lose that many tanks is the losses to "long term" repair tanks that were effectively destroyed already finally having to be removed from the books.


Now my take would be you need average out those huge months of German armor losses to show the actual case of German tank/assault gun losses. You can see another massive spike in German tank write offs around Stalingrad--why because they lost the "long term" repair yards---again my argument is that these were effectively destroyed tanks that were unlikely to ever be repaired. The break out of Normandy also shows a huge similar spike, and I think when you look at the actual operational rate of combat vehicles in panzer/mechanized division you will see the percentage of actually useable tanks is often quite low unless the division was recently issued a huge batch of replacement tanks.

[joelmar]

@chaos45: "...but I found a long time ago the actual German production numbers and losses reported to OKW ever month of war online somewhere..."

really good reference! lol!

That said, seems to me xhoel already answered with the stats he provided from his own previous game experience. The game gives the real ingame values for tank numbers, not some inflated propaganda numbers and it seems they are higher than real figures. And what is written off is written off as it happens. I don't understand why some phoney propaganda mechanism should be reproduced in the game if the net result is already there.

I like TIK, he is funny. But to me he is primarily an entertainer. So I don't count him in the serious historians ranks. To create controversy is his butter and bread. In french, we call this kind "puta-click". You can look up what "puta" means if you wish.

If you want to assess the overall quality of the german officer corp, you have many other sources than the German generals. Like those who fought them. And their deeds are also there to testify. Anyone who thinks Manstein by example is not a top of the rank tactician and strategist must go back and look at what he actually did on the field.

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: chaos45

I would have to see where you pulled the stats on 1941/42 german tank losses...I had only recently been studying the 1944 losses and so used those as an example...most my library is packed up in boxes like 3,000 miles from where im currently located but I found a long time ago the actual German production numbers and losses reported to OKW ever month of war online somewhere and printed them off and stuff them in my library as those are hard to find..but again not on hand and it was years ago I found the information online.

By all means go ahead and provide another source. The German Institute for Military History at Potsdam places German losses at 2.839 (tanks+SPG) and most sources seem to agree that these are the losses taken in the Eastern Front for 1941.

I am using the Operation Barbarossa: the Complete Organisational and Statistical Analysis by Nigel Askey. The numbers are taken from page 185.

Also the game counts armored cars an such in AFV losses so make sure your source is also counting all the light armored vehicles in the loss reports.

The game separates AC/SP losses from the totals but I did include them in the first answer I gave. However, since I cannot find a source that counts the ACs in the totals, I will just revise the numbers from the game to only show tank losses. Here are the revised numbers [Only AFVs (Stugs included), not SP/AC]:

Xhoel vs Bitburgerdraft, T29 (1st of January 1942), AFV losses: 3.129 (Axis), 15.577 (Soviet).
BrianG vs HLYA, T33 (T33, 29th of January 1942), AFV losses: 4.478 (Axis), 16.724 (Soviet).
STEF78 vs Stelteck, (T32, 22nd of January 1942), AFV losses: 3.406 (Axis), 15.410 (Soviet).
2by3+ team game, (T29, 1st of January 1942), AFV losses: 2.580 (Axis), 15.124 (Soviet).

Historical AFV losses for 1941: 2.839 (German), 20.500 (Soviet).

So you can see that historically the Germans achieved a Kill loss ratio of 7.2 against the Soviets. This is stated in the book by Askey.

Now let's check the K/L ratios in game shall we?

Xhoel vs Bitburgerdraft, K/L ratio: 4,97
BrianG vs HLYA, K/L ratio: 3,73
STEF78 vs Stelteck, K/L ratio: 4,52
2by3+ team game, K/L ratio: 5,86

So it appears that not only isn't the game inflating Soviet tank losses (since they are lower than historical by a huge margin of around 5.000 tanks) but you can clearly see that the Axis/Germans take losses that are above historical losses in all the examples that were shown above.

An honestly the soviet losses in you example are all easily within a couple percentage of margin of error...as they still all basically lost 20k tanks which is damn close to historical...so shows the Soviet player really has no way influence lower tank losses in the game.

First of all that is not a margin of error, it is a difference between losses in game and historical losses. And secondly I see that you reverted to your old tactics again, of changing the point and ignoring what I said. Why do you ignore the fact that in all cases Axis losses are higher and the Soviet losses are lower? Please provide evidence or facts if you want to convince anyone with what you are saying.

The issue is the game simulates Soviets taking massive Tank losses so its not an issue of soviet inflation. The issue is the game buys into the invincible German armor myth to much.

This is what you said and what made me start this debate/argument with you. I have proven you wrong using evidence and facts. It appears that contrary to what you keep repeating, the Soviets not only aren't taking massive Tank losses but are taking way fewer losses than they did historically. See the revised numbers above. So it isn't as much that the game "buys into the German armor myth too much", it's that you for whatever reason want to show that the Soviets are very weak and want them to be better. At the same time you fail to make coherent arguments that are based on factual evidence and keep jumping from one point to another, drawing conclusions that you pulled out of thin air. And then you write a whole paragraph about you not being a Soviet fanboy. Sure.

My initial point was at no point in 1 month will you destroy anywhere near the almost 4k reported German tank losses in July 1944 and 3k in AUG 1944....as well the Germans lost something like 25k and 20k trucks in both of those months.

You won't destroy that number because no player would let the German Army in game be at the terrible state that it was in historically. Almost always the in game Armies will have better morale, exp, TOEs, C&C, better commanders, more trucks, better supply, better defensive positioning than the armies had historically because the players are taking care of all these variables with depth and are aware of what will happen. Try playing the 1944-45 campaign and see if you can reach those numbers.

And can you provide a source for those numbers?

Unless you address my points directly and provide proper sources and evidence for what you claim and have been claiming all this time I won't waste my time and reply to you. I am making this clear so you are aware of it. The readers, are free to make their own conclusions about which one of us is right.

Best regards,
Xhoel

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: joelmar

If you want to assess the overall quality of the german officer corp, you have many other sources than the German generals. Like those who fought them. And their deeds are also there to testify. Anyone who thinks Manstein by example is not a top of the rank tactician and strategist must go back and look at what he actually did on the field.

There is absolutely no doubt that the German Officer Corp was excellent in what they did and they produced a lot of brilliant officers. I don't think anyone would be so stupid as to not consider Manstein a masterful commander.

[joelmar]

@xhoel
I don't think anyone would be so stupid as to not consider Manstein a masterful commander.

As a matter of fact, yes, I had the discussion somewhere else before, and I was flabergasted. But I agree my example was a bit extreme and I didn't want to imply it was anyone's opinion in this discussion.