Supply Point Confusion

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

candlestick maker.

Still looking for the full TO&E for 107. SchwereCandelstikMaker Abteilung (mot.)

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

It's worth noting that you'll get whatever supply level is coming over the rail net. It doesn't matter if you're next to a 50% supply point if there's a 100% supply point the other side of the map which is connected up to you by rail.

But if there is no repaired rail net?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Of the actual transport columns, 6 out of 10 were horse-drawn, 3 were motorised, and the tenth was fuel transport (so presumably tankers which again can't really carry boxes of ammo instead)

The 3 motorized were probably carrying 10x the supply volume of the 6 horse drawn, though. And fuel is part of the supply equation, so, having it motorized...

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

14. Welle had six transport columns of which only one was motorised, plus there are no trucks for the butcher, baker or candlestick maker.

14 made up part of Army Group D all of which were in France after being assigned and didn't need anything but horses.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Of the actual transport columns, 6 out of 10 were horse-drawn, 3 were motorised, and the tenth was fuel transport (so presumably tankers which again can't really carry boxes of ammo instead)

The 3 motorized were probably carrying 10x the supply volume of the 6 horse drawn, though. And fuel is part of the supply equation, so, having it motorized...

1189 horse teams about 1.25 metric tons lift each. 84 used for artillery limber (6 to 8 horse teams). 516 trucks averaging 2.5 metric tons lift capacity. 237 light vehicles averaging 0.6 metric tons lift each. 14 half tracked prime movers. 490 heavy motorcycles the vast majority heavy 750cc machines. 190 with side cars. The motorized portion had a lift capacity that equaled 53% of the total lift capacity of the division. The horse drawn portion made up the rest. And as Bob said, the horse teams had much less lift capacity (about 1.25 metric ton per team). The higher the wave number the less motorization and the higher the dependence on war loot. But still, it would be more fitting to call German infantry divisions partially motorized instead of horse drawn. And as the campaign progressed some of the lost motorization was made up by using captured Soviet equipment. 4800 trucks and about 1400 other vehicles. Everyone seems to forget about that last point.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Of the actual transport columns, 6 out of 10 were horse-drawn, 3 were motorised, and the tenth was fuel transport (so presumably tankers which again can't really carry boxes of ammo instead)

The 3 motorized were probably carrying 10x the supply volume of the 6 horse drawn, though. And fuel is part of the supply equation, so, having it motorized...

1189 horse teams about 1.25 metric tons lift each. 84 used for artillery limber (6 to 8 horse teams). 516 trucks averaging 2.5 metric tons lift capacity. 237 light vehicles averaging 0.6 metric tons lift each. 14 half tracked prime movers. 490 heavy motorcycles the vast majority heavy 750cc machines. 190 with side cars. The motorized portion had a lift capacity that equaled 53% of the total lift capacity of the division. The horse drawn portion made up the rest. And as Bob said, the horse teams had much less lift capacity (about 1.25 metric ton per team). The higher the wave number the less motorization and the higher the dependence on war loot. But still, it would be more fitting to call German infantry divisions partially motorized instead of horse drawn. And as the campaign progressed some of the lost motorization was made up by using captured Soviet equipment. 4800 trucks and about 1400 other vehicles. Everyone seems to forget about that last point.

Furthermore, beyond what they could just physically lift, the trucks were much faster and could run 24/7. What they could deliver in a given time interval far exceeded the horse teams.

[cathar1244]

It's worth noting that you'll get whatever supply level is coming over the rail net. It doesn't matter if you're next to a 50% supply point if there's a 100% supply point the other side of the map which is connected up to you by rail.

This.

Take France 1944 as a situation. 21st AG is well supplied in September while 12th AG is not.

It is well and fine to have "non repaired rail net" in the situation, but the scenario needs to crank down on automatic rail repair or availability of rail repair units. Sure, that can be done, but the 'fixes' get increasingly strained and gamey.

Trying to recall, but I think in 1946 and perhaps 1947, there were only TWO functional permanent rail bridges across the Rhine. It took that long to restore infrastructure over major streams. TOAW allows us to rather handily repair rail bridges, but if that was made difficult or impossible, the game's supply representation wouldn't allow for things like trucks offloading cargo from one rail line, crossing on a tactical bridge, and re-loading the cargo on a rail line on the far side of a river.

What would be very useful would be to be able to change a FORMATION's supply setting with an event. This would reflect shifting command priorities for who gets how much supply.

Cheers

[Lobster]

The German army had a handful of schwere Schiffsbrucke, literally 'heavy ship bridge', that could be put up in a week. These were railroad pontoon bridges. Not sure if the Western Allies had any but railroad pontoon bridges had been used in the U.S. for a century before WW2. But yeah, it's too easy to fix railroad bridges. Most every major actor in WW2 had heavy pontoon bridges that could be assembled in a day and were far more than tactical.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

The 3 motorized were probably carrying 10x the supply volume of the 6 horse drawn, though.

Do you know that? Or are you guessing?

If I was a bureaucrat in the German army I would make sure that a "transport column" was interchangeable, i.e. a horse drawn column would be able to haul the same volume of supplies as a truck column. If that means the truck column has a fraction of the personnel then that's not a problem: what matters is that a commander can say "I have ten transport columns" and have a pretty good idea of what he can do with them without having to break out his slide rule.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

14. Welle had six transport columns of which only one was motorised, plus there are no trucks for the butcher, baker or candlestick maker.

14 made up part of Army Group D all of which were in France after being assigned and didn't need anything but horses.

You do have to be difficult don't you?

Would you like me to pick one of the other Welles and demonstrate that they, too, had less motor transport than 1. Welle?

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

But still, it would be more fitting to call German infantry divisions partially motorized instead of horse drawn.

Oh yeah? How often did German leg infantry get in the truck and roll- versus marching while the truck carried their heavy weapons.

In TOAW, you should NOT have trucks in a German infantry division. If you do, the division will move faster than marching pace, whereas in the real world the unit would be strictly limited by the rate of march.

And as the campaign progressed some of the lost motorization was made up by using captured Soviet equipment. 4800 trucks and about 1400 other vehicles. Everyone seems to forget about that last point.

4,800 trucks really is a drop in the ocean. As you've noted even an infantry division has over 500 trucks- that's just to make sure that the guys on the line can get their fresh bread, and the AT guns can be moved around properly.

Then, too, I doubt those Soviet trucks were in German service for very long- since they wouldn't have also captured extensive stocks of spare parts etc.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Furthermore, beyond what they could just physically lift, the trucks were much faster and could run 24/7.

Well in theory- but I rather suspect that German infantry divisions didn't contain three shifts of drivers for the trucks, nor were they in the business of running supplies on bad roads during the night (which is a fast way to not have a truck any more). This might happen in exceptional circumstances- but I think the same applies to the poor horses, too.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: cathar1244


What would be very useful would be to be able to change a FORMATION's supply setting with an event. This would reflect shifting command priorities for who gets how much supply.

One does have supply units, which will boost the supply level in nearby hexes- but obviously these too have their limitations.

[cathar1244]

One does have supply units, which will boost the supply level in nearby hexes- but obviously these too have their limitations.

Golden, yeah, I guess one could have an elite corps of supply units to move around to whichever formation is the fair-haired boy of the moment.

For the France 44 situation, probably best bet is to have two (or three, for 6th AG as well) separate rail networks and just use the rail networks as supply distro simulation. Units were moved by rail in that campaign by the Allies, but I think most of that took place post capture of Antwerp -- an event that calls for a different representation of supply, at least in the northern half of France and the Low Countries.

That means supply modeling for a scenario covering the entire 11 month span of operations would probably be less than optimal. Six of one, half dozen of the other.

Cheers

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: cathar1244

Golden, yeah, I guess one could have an elite corps of supply units to move around to whichever formation is the fair-haired boy of the moment.

For the France 44 situation, probably best bet is to have two (or three, for 6th AG as well) separate rail networks and just use the rail networks as supply distro simulation. Units were moved by rail in that campaign by the Allies, but I think most of that took place post capture of Antwerp -- an event that calls for a different representation of supply, at least in the northern half of France and the Low Countries.

That means supply modeling for a scenario covering the entire 11 month span of operations would probably be less than optimal. Six of one, half dozen of the other.

Cheers

You could also play around with adding / removing alternative HQ units with different numbers of support squads. From memory, there is some weird behaviour when a formation has two HQs, but it's worth exploring as this, in a roundabout way, would actually allow you to modify Formation supply levels by event.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

In TOAW, you should NOT have trucks in a German infantry division. If you do, the division will move faster than marching pace, whereas in the real world the unit would be strictly limited by the rate of march.

Oh give me a break. You know as well as I do that one truck is not one truck in the game. Add one truck to a unit without trucks and you increase it's movement dramatically. That's why everyone knows you have to limit them. [8|]

And they were indeed partially motorized.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

The 3 motorized were probably carrying 10x the supply volume of the 6 horse drawn, though.

Do you know that? Or are you guessing?

If I was a bureaucrat in the German army I would make sure that a "transport column" was interchangeable, i.e. a horse drawn column would be able to haul the same volume of supplies as a truck column. If that means the truck column has a fraction of the personnel then that's not a problem: what matters is that a commander can say "I have ten transport columns" and have a pretty good idea of what he can do with them without having to break out his slide rule.

I found this:

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic ... 0&start=15

Note that to lift 30 tons takes 10 trucks and 40 horse carts. Then the trucks are 5 times faster. 4x5 = 20 times the delivery. Since it was 6 columns vs. 3, I was spot on!

And note that trucks in a foot infantry unit are not used to lift the troops - just for supply. Think of what that tells us: The impact of trucks on the supply column trumps the impact that having the combat unit move at a motorized rate would have had! The trucks are so beneficial to supply that they would rather the unit move on foot than move supply by horse!

I also have, from "War in the East" (Strategy & Tactics Staff Study #1) pg 127: "20 trucks could carry 120 tons of supplies 200 miles per day, while 40 horse-drawn vehicles (with 100 horse) could only carry 30 tons twenty miles per day. In addition the horses consumed more fuel (by weight) in the form of fodder than the trucks consumed gasoline."

Those figures give even higher impact: 2x4x10 = 80x!

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

And they were indeed partially motorized.

Sure- the AT battalion, the recon detachment and some of the engineers. If those are individual units then absolutely you'd want to give them trucks. In my Poland scenario, the motorised elements of the infantry divisions are grouped together so that they can race ahead if the situation presents itself.

For reference, a British infantry battalion in 1940 had 38 organic trucks and 12 other motor vehicles, excluding motorcycles. Nevertheless this is an infantry formation, it moved on foot, and in TOAW the unit should have 0 trucks authorised- much like the German organisation you're describing.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Note that to lift 30 tons takes 10 trucks and 40 horse carts. Then the trucks are 5 times faster. 4x5 = 20 times the delivery. Since it was 6 columns vs. 3, I was spot on!

Trucks move 5 times faster- provided you have a good road and no traffic jams. You'll also find they load and unload at the same speed. Perhaps twice the deliveries.

Then, your source notes that the lift capacity of a motor transport column was either 30 or 60 tons depending on the type of column, and the figure for horsed transport was 30 tons. Let's be generous and say your motor transport columns are all the large kind, so they have double the capacity.

So we have 2x2 = 4x. That's presuming the trucks remain in good condition all the time, and that fuel is available (harder to forage for than horse fodder)

And note that trucks in a foot infantry unit are not used to lift the troops - just for supply. Think of what that tells us: The impact of trucks on the supply column trumps the impact that having the combat unit move at a motorized rate would have had! The trucks are so beneficial to supply that they would rather the unit move on foot than move supply by horse!

Oh indeed- though it's notable that none of these units have enough motor vehicles to be fully motorised even if you ignore supply considerations. This is where most trucks end up that one sees in equipment lists of all types. The Soviets received 300,000 trucks from the western Allies, enough to provide this kind of mixed supply transport for most of the Red Army.

The biggest advantage of motor transport is the last point you make- that trucks don't consume anything like as much fuel by weight for a given distance travelled. If you're operating a long supply line from the railhead, trucks are indispensable, as the truck can just run and run, then refuel when it gets back to base. If on the other hand the railhead is just a few km back, this advantage begins to disappear, as most of your time is going to be spent loading and unloading (since after all we don't have containerised transport in 1941 to take a box off the back of a train and right onto a truckbed).

The other big advantage I would suggest would be manpower. Running a horse supply unit is going to be much more labour intensive than the equivalent motor transport.

[Lobster]

Welle (halftracks are prime movers Sd Kfz 10, 11, 6, 7, 8, 9)
1) 1189 horse teams, 516 trucks, 237 lt transport, 12 lt halftracks, 2 med halftracks
2) 1189 horse teams, 540 trucks, 240 lt transport, 12 lt halftracks, 10 med halftracks
3) 1228 horse teams, 310 trucks, 142 lt transport, 1 med halftrack (Only 206 and 217 took part in Barbarossa. The other 12 were either replacement army or Army Group D)
4) 1174 horse teams, 527 trucks, 243 lt transport, 10 lt halftracks, 2 med halftracks
5) 1319 horse teams, 372 trucks, 167 lt transport, 1 med halftrack (Only 95 took part in Barbarossa. The rest were assigned to Army Group D)
6) 1310 horse teams, 254 trucks, 149 lt transport, 1 med halftrack (All assigned to Army Group D)
7) 1258 horse teams, 387 trucks, 200 lt transport, 1 med halftrack (Of 14 divisions 6 assigned to AG Center and South. The others to Norway Army occupation duties, 12 Army Balkans, 3 to Norway Army Befehlsstelle Finland (East Front only))
8) 1282 horse teams, 398 trucks, 202 lt transport, 1 med halftrack (1 division to 12 Army. The 9 divisions sent to the East Front were given more trucks and lt transport, some well over 500 trucks)
11) 1183 horse teams, 503 trucks, 233 lt transport, 27 lt halftrack, 2 med halftrack
12) 1215 horse teams, 502 trucks, 227 lt transport, 2 med halftrack
12 light) 944 horse teams, 438 trucks, 248 lt transport, 24 lt halftracks, 12 med halftracks
13, 14, 15 all were used for occupation duties in occupied Europe and had considerably less mobility than the other Welle for that reason.

Also, few if any divisions were up to TOE standards. Typically there were more or less transport or horse teams than they were supposed to have. Many medium halftracks were replaced with heavy halftracks. The German motorpool was a quartermaster's nightmare because of all of the captured vehicles used. The captured Soviet trucks would equip over 9 divisions with motorized transport. Not a drop in the bucket when you are so far from your railhead.