AFV losses in the 01.01.15 patch

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: panzer51
Most German tank losses in the first months of Barbarossa were recoverable, how many of these losses are?

Please feel free to play and try it out. You can see that in-game.

[Nix77]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: panzer51
Most German tank losses in the first months of Barbarossa were recoverable, how many of these losses are?

Please feel free to play and try it out. You can see that in-game.

I tried to calculate the actual destroyed AFVs, but couldn't really get the numbers to match... on the Ground Losses screen (L), does the AFV losses number actually include something else on top of destroyed AFVs?

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Nix77

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: panzer51
Most German tank losses in the first months of Barbarossa were recoverable, how many of these losses are?

Please feel free to play and try it out. You can see that in-game.

I tried to calculate the actual destroyed AFVs, but couldn't really get the numbers to match... on the Ground Losses screen (L), does the AFV losses number actually include something else on top of destroyed AFVs?

see 23.10.3 and 36.2.1

the losses in the battle screen are recalculated in the logistics phase. Some destroys are recovered and some damaged are fully lost and others fully repaired.

in combination its not the easiest thing to track in detail but the losses screen is more 'accurate' than the immediate combat report due to these secondary recalculations.

its even worse in a way for manpower as an element is a single unit and thus either damaged or destroyed but the component manpower is split between ok, disabled and dead depending on the result and the admin rolls in the logistics phase

[DeletedUser44]

ORIGINAL: Nix77

ORIGINAL: Sauron_II

Some of the screen-shots posted does not really seem that bad from Soviet's perspective.

Even the 2-1 odds attack against the German 7th Pz Division, on TURN 2.

As the Germans, I would be horrified. 178 AFVs out of 253 destroyed (even at the cost of 679 AFVs) is a nightmare for the Germans.

The 7th Pz Division is effectively, emasculated for the rest of Barbarossa.

Where as the Soviets fart more than 679 AFVs at a time. On TURN 2, those are most likely crap Soviet AFVs anyways.

Stalin would be dancing in the Kremlin after receiving this report.

The AFV exchange ratio seems OK to me (4:1 for Germans in that 7thPzD battle), but the total amount of AFV destroyed is the crippling part, especially for the Germans in this case. The Soviets for sure had the upper hand in that battle with 5 divisions facing one GE PzDiv, and the 2:1 victory is well deserved, but the AFV losses got out of hand in that battle too, like in many other examples.

Just guessing here, but it could be that the AFVs are now firing & getting fired at too many times in single battle?

That is the only conclusion I could draw as well in this case. Too many 'firing' rounds for the AFVs.

[DeletedUser44]

ORIGINAL: Sauron_II

Some of the screen-shots posted does not really seem that bad from Soviet's perspective.

Even the 2-1 odds attack against the German 7th Pz Division, on TURN 2.

As the Germans, I would be horrified. 178 AFVs out of 253 destroyed (even at the cost of 679 AFVs) is a nightmare for the Germans.

The 7th Pz Division is effectively, emasculated for the rest of Barbarossa.

Where as the Soviets fart more than 679 AFVs at a time. On TURN 2, those are most likely crap Soviet AFVs anyways.

Stalin would be dancing in the Kremlin after receiving this report.

The results from this one engagement were so striking, I could not help but think about it.

If an engagement truly took place of this nature, it would have made all the history books and subsequently studied the world over.

Despite the issue with AFV losses, the simple fact that the game even allows a coordinated attack by the Soviets of this magnitude at this stage of the war is of great concern.

1. The Soviet command and control structure had not evolved to the point of allowing a coordinated counter-attack involving 58,000 troops and 850+ afvs, not yet. (the very next turn from one of the greatest strategic and tactical surprise attack in human history...)

Many documented accounts of Soviets trying, but just could not pull it off this early in the war. Numerous such engagements attempted would have the Soviets, haphazardly attacking in piecemeal. (it will still take a good month or two of reorganization, trial and error, combat experience before something even close to this is possible.)

2. For the Germans to basically, line up all their forces and trade blows with an opponent, who has magically brought all 3 rifle divisions, 3 motorcycle regiments and 2 tank divisions (58,000 troops and 867 afvs) to bare in such coordination, at the exact same time - while sustaining these losses, and NOT tactically withdrawing is a flight of fancy.

---

Now, I am not sure what is most alarming. The afv numbers? - or - or the fact the game allowed such of a fanciful counter-attack to begin with?

[Joel Billings]

Look up the Battle of Brody. In theory even much larger numbers of troops were engaged, although many of the Soviet AFVs didn't make it to the fight. The ratio of losses here is much similar to the losses in the Battle of Brody. The difference is that there were more AFVs on both sides. It does appear that a higher proportion of engaged AFVs are lost in the game, but again, we'd like to see some actual games with longer term results before drawing definitive conclusions.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Sauron_II
1. The Soviet command and control structure had not evolved to the point of allowing a coordinated counter-attack involving 58,000 troops and 850+ afvs, not yet. (the very next turn from one of the greatest strategic and tactical surprise attack in human history...)

Many documented accounts of Soviets trying, but just could not pull it off this early in the war. Numerous such engagements attempted would have the Soviets, haphazardly attacking in piecemeal. (it will still take a good month or two of reorganization, trial and error, combat experience before something even close to this is possible.)

2. For the Germans to basically, line up all their forces and trade blows with an opponent, who has magically brought all 3 rifle divisions, 3 motorcycle regiments and 2 tank divisions (58,000 troops and 867 afvs) to bare in such coordination, at the exact same time - while sustaining these losses, and NOT tactically withdrawing is a flight of fancy.

The game is not actually assuming that both sides line up everything and fire. There's a huge amount of variability in the combat engine, including who fires and how much, as well as the effects of terrain, weather, equipment, ammo, fatigue, experience/morale and leader checks but you can also get extremes. Once again, it's not particularly useful to over-focus on one screenshot of one battle and history almost always provides extreme one-offs as well.

[panzer51]

Besides allowing Soviets to coordinate all such attacks with great efficiency, the game doesn't proper account for Soviet disaster fuel and ammo management during the first 2 years. Most of tanks were left behind due to breakdown, lack of fuel or ammo. But let's look at the other side, were Soviets even be able to fight Germans in tanks to tank battles?

The NKO Order #325 dated October 16, 1942 states

The tanks do not fulfill their main task of destroying enemy's infantry, but rather get distracted to fight enemy tanks and artillery. The practice of opposing enemy tanks' attacks with our tanks and getting involved in tank to tank battles is wrong and harmful.

So even one year after start of Barbarossa Soviets could not muster anything against German armor, the results were always disastrous. Yet in the game Soviets can happily trade their useless tanks against better German one and more importantly more experienced German crews.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: panzer51
Besides allowing Soviets to coordinate all such attacks with great efficiency, the game doesn't proper account for Soviet disaster fuel and ammo management during the first 2 years. Most of tanks were left behind due to breakdown, lack of fuel or ammo. But let's look at the other side, were Soviets even be able to fight Germans in tanks to tank battles?

Why would you assume the game doesn't account for the Soviet issues with coordination and supply/ammo management?

Regards,

- Erik

[panzer51]

I don't have the code so I can't tell how much influence it has on Soviet's supply situation. IRL it was atrocious. But since you brought up the battle of Dubno-Brody, the unrecoverable losses for Wehrmacht were 85 tanks, and approximately 200 recoverable. Soviets lost 2,648 - all unrecoverable. This is at best 10:1 ratio, and at worse 35:1 in Germany's favor. Any Soviet tank unit attack in 1941 should end in its complete destruction, with the only benefit being delay and disruption.

[AlbertN]

@Panzer - If I well understood the latest patch rectified to some extent the coordination and cooperation of the Soviets. -- I cannot express an opinion if it worked out or not yet.

[Jango32]

I think it's best to do what Beethoven has suggested and see what the losses are like over a longer period of time. Ideally including 1942.

[Nix77]

In my opinion the game currently simulates very well what was happening on the Eastern Front during Barbarossa. My concern in the current patch is that the AFV losses may be a bit too high, and I'm not even sure yet if that concern is valid

[jubjub]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: panzer51
Besides allowing Soviets to coordinate all such attacks with great efficiency, the game doesn't proper account for Soviet disaster fuel and ammo management during the first 2 years. Most of tanks were left behind due to breakdown, lack of fuel or ammo. But let's look at the other side, were Soviets even be able to fight Germans in tanks to tank battles?

Why would you assume the game doesn't account for the Soviet issues with coordination and supply/ammo management?

Regards,

- Erik

I'm sure it's modeled, but it has the appearance that the Soviets were masters of logistics in '41. If you know what you're doing, you can clear the entire supply backlog for the Red army after turn 2 logistics. After that it's 16/35 MP for almost everyone in '41.

I did some tests before, and setting the Soviet logistics and transport difficulty multipliers to their lowest setting didn't materially affect the amount of supplies and replacements during the turn 1 logistics phase. Between this and the ease of logistics, the conclusion I drew was that the Soviets have too much logistics capacity in '41.

I think there is an issue giving the USSR the same rail capacity from Moscow (and other NSS's) as they have in 1944. I would like to see the Soviet NSS rail capacity multiplier start small and increase over time.

[Nix77]

1. The Soviet command and control structure had not evolved to the point of allowing a coordinated counter-attack involving 58,000 troops and 850+ afvs, not yet. (the very next turn from one of the greatest strategic and tactical surprise attack in human history...)

It would be moderately difficult to prevent the Soviets to arrange such attacks by game engine limitations, but I dont think that really is needed. Currently the Soviets can orchestrate a counterattack of even larger scale than you described, even on turn 1, but the result is probably a death sentence by isolation for those attacking units...

I agree with Jubjub, Soviet logistics in 1941 at least seem moderately carefree, but I haven't really paid too much attention what could or should be fixed or fine-tuned there.

[loki100]

I think the telling thing about the Soviet logistics in 1941 is that you don't really need to think too much about it.

Heres a battle under this patch, now the Soviet defenders had been GA-unit bombed in advance but that is devastating (& not unusual).

If that is reflected in 1941 then its going to be a lot harder for Soviet players to lock down sectors



edit - ignore the .exe number, as often I'm using a test version but it has no further combat related changes compared to the public 01.15 beta

[Nix77]

In an AI vs AI game (100/100), German on-map AFV numbers dropped from 4500 => 1400 in 8 turns, Apr-44 => Jun-44. Also Soviet AFV numbers dropped from 12500 => 6000 in 12 turns during Summer -43, with highest losses being 2200+ AFVs on single turn.

Not sure if these are normal or desirable numbers for an AI vs AI game? This loss ratio will end up to be close to historical claims, but I'd still say the loss numbers are slightly too high. Too many times there are 100% AFVs wiped out in a single, not too intense, battles.