German Operational Losses (not historic)

[Zovs]

First off I may not be doing the math correctly but it seems to me that the Germans turn 1 (or one week) operational losses are excessively higher then what the Germans historically achieved in one week.

I have ran several tests and my last test shows the following losses:



Plugging those numbers into an online percentage calculator shows that my operational losses were: 73.91304347826086% ! (92 total losses with 68 operational losses)

The main source is a book (a free online book and I posted a link to it early on another thread someplace) called: Strategy For Defeat: The Luftwaffe 1933-1945 by Williamson Murray.

Chapter III, page 84:

The air losses suffered by Fliegerkorps VIII in twelve days (August 10 to 21)
while supporting I Army Corps in its effort to cut the main Moscow-Leningrad
railroad dramatizes the impact of attrition on Lufttwaffe strength. In this period
supporting the advance of one army corps, Fliegerkorps VIII lost 10.3 percent of its
aircraft (destroyed or written off as the result of operations), with 54.5 percent of its
aircraft damaged but reparable. During this action, the air corps had 3.9 percent of
its flying personnel killed, 5.7 percent wounded, and 2.9 percent listed as missing
for a 12.5 percent total casualty rate.

This is just a note to one of the several threads on sorties (page 86):

From a level of over 1,000 sorties per day before the onset of bad weather, the sortie rate fell to 559 on October 8 and to 269 on the 9th.

Page 87:

By the beginning of October, the
in-commission rate for the Luftwaffe's bomber force had sunk below 40 percent,
while only 58 percent of single-engine fighters were in commission. The rate for all
aircraft hovered near 53 percent . Further complicating the Luftwaffe's problem of
flying missions at the end of tenuous supply lines was the fact that its aircraft were
flying off primitive dirt strips, while the Red Air Force was using more permanent
facilities in the vicinity of Moscow.

Here are some screenshots from the book:



















So to me it seems that the Operational loss ratio is not in line with reality, no?

Thoughts?

[Zovs]

Oh, I am using version 1.02.00_Beta

[AlbertN]

I think many players already pointed out to the exceedingly high operational losses. And other players dismissed the point by saying the former lot best learn the game mechanics better!

[Joel Billings]

Weren't German total losses in the first week 150 or so? While I agree we may have op losses too high, total losses if anything may be too low.

[panzer51]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Weren't German total losses in the first week 150 or so? While I agree we may have op losses too high, total losses if anything may be too low.

I think in reality most targets that were actually engaged by air groups are simply not present in the game (bridges, power stations, trains, special buildings, dams etc). So the only things that are left are intercept and GA attacks, and many players use them judiciously to avoid high op losses.

[jubjub]

ORIGINAL: panzer51

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Weren't German total losses in the first week 150 or so? While I agree we may have op losses too high, total losses if anything may be too low.

I think in reality most targets that were actually engaged by air groups are simply not present in the game (bridges, power stations, trains, special buildings, dams etc). So the only things that are left are intercept and GA attacks, and many players use them judiciously to avoid high op losses.

This ties into the overstated Soviet logistics situation in 1941. It is currently not worth it at all to bomb Soviet railyards, which I would like to do and I think should be good play. Although I would like to interdict Soviet retreat paths, it's basically impossible to predict where you want it until after recon has already flown. Really, I want to fly it after the ground phase, where I know where the soviets will retreat through.

German GA is good, but it's hard to know what you want to bomb until after recon - unless it's a static situation. It's also pretty costly to supply level bombers.

[jubjub]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Weren't German total losses in the first week 150 or so? While I agree we may have op losses too high, total losses if anything may be too low.

Can we please start including the number of sorties flown when we discuss air losses?? There's no basis to any claim about how losses are too high or too low without knowing how many sorties are flown. Would it not change your assessment if he only flew 500 sorties and lost 90 planes? Also, it's not clear if this is after the entire turn or just the air phase. In my game vs. Beethoven, I think turn 1 casualties were around 150, but only about 100 were in the air phase.

Since I flew about 3400 sorties, the loss rate was 2.9% for the air phase. It's currently impossible to track the amount of sorties flown during GS without digging into the excel export - which I don't have.

By comparison, in "Barbarossa - the Air Battle", the author claims that Luftflotte 2 flew around 2,000 sorties on June 22nd, 1,072 on June 26th, 862 on June 27th, 458 on Jun 28th, and 260 on June 29th.

The total loss rates he cites are .5% per sortie on June 26th, .9% on the 28th, and 1.9% on the 29th. Reading more, most of these losses seem to be from air combat and damage from air combat. Another source listed non-combat losses as .3% per sortie during the battle of Britain.

[Zovs]

It was only the air attack. Total sorties was around 2800 or so, afk so I’ll check tomorrow.

Historical iirc the Germans only lost 135 for the week, will double check tomorrow.

[Sammy5IsAlive]

Hi Zovs I think in terms of the percentages you are comparing apples with oranges at the moment.

The in game losses screen you have posted represents a total loss rate for that turn of 5.5% (assuming I have the filters set up correctly in the 1941 GC that I've just loaded as a test - I have 1665 ready German Fs/FBs/LBs/TacBs). So for that turn in isolation I think the percentage of ops losses is neither here nor there. Particularly as by its nature the air activity in T1 is going to be much more one-sided in the Luftwaffe's favour and so inevitably the proportion of combat losses is going to be much lower than normal.

I do think some of the material you have posted is useful but you need to be comparing it with the in game numbers from quite a bit later. In 'turn terms' the start of November is T20 so I guess what you need to be looking at is the total in-game losses at that point, whether they are broadly comparable to the historical number of the LW being down to 50% of its 'authorised' strength and if that number is broadly comparable whether the combat/ops losses split is also comparable to the roughly 60/40 split seen in history.

If an Axis player has been much more sparing with their use of the LW and as a result is going into November at 75+% strength then the balance between combat and ops losses will likely be similarly different from the historical ratio.

[Zovs]

Good points, I’ll work towards turn 20.

[GibsonPete]

Examine the air war turn 1 thread in the War room forum. The posters have demonstrated that you can accomplish (even better) what the Axis did historically. Operational losses can be reduced significantly.

[AlbertN]

By T20 though you also best have tracked how often you have flown your planes!

As JubJub said above many are judicious or ... conservative. I surely am because I feel in general Axis bombers are totally useless for ground support (Lists of 0 hits damaged or destroyed and handful of destroyed) and as pointed out by many, me included in a variety of thread, without knowing of the Soviet locations and disposition and of the ongoing ground progress by Axis forces it's impossible to direct bombers beforehand to interdict or other actions.

[Rosencrantus]

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

By T20 though you also best have tracked how often you have flown your planes!

As JubJub said above many are judicious or ... conservative. I surely am because I feel in general Axis bombers are totally useless for ground support (Lists of 0 hits damaged or destroyed and handful of destroyed) and as pointed out by many, me included in a variety of thread, without knowing of the Soviet locations and disposition and of the ongoing ground progress by Axis forces it's impossible to direct bombers beforehand to interdict or other actions.

Check the amount of elements that are disrupted, disrupted elements cannot participate in the battle if GS is used.

[jubjub]

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

By T20 though you also best have tracked how often you have flown your planes!

As JubJub said above many are judicious or ... conservative. I surely am because I feel in general Axis bombers are totally useless for ground support (Lists of 0 hits damaged or destroyed and handful of destroyed) and as pointed out by many, me included in a variety of thread, without knowing of the Soviet locations and disposition and of the ongoing ground progress by Axis forces it's impossible to direct bombers beforehand to interdict or other actions.

Not totally useless. They are quite useful when conducting hasty attacks, and seem to really make a difference if you are trying to rout a unit. A good Stuka run can double the amount of disrupted elements compared to a panzer division attacking (without artillery support). I'll try to post an example when the situation comes up again.

[Zovs]

Here is my air data for just the air attack on turn 1.

I flew 35 Air Directives, a total sortie of 2,939 with 92 Luftwaffe aircraft lost with 82 damaged. The Soviets lost 19 in Air Combat with 1 damaged.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

ORIGINAL: jubjub

This ties into the overstated Soviet logistics situation in 1941. It is currently not worth it at all to bomb Soviet railyards, which I would like to do and I think should be good play. Although I would like to interdict Soviet retreat paths, it's basically impossible to predict where you want it until after recon has already flown. Really, I want to fly it after the ground phase, where I know where the soviets will retreat through.

German GA is good, but it's hard to know what you want to bomb until after recon - unless it's a static situation. It's also pretty costly to supply level bombers.

Yes, I concur with you 100% here. Spot on.

[Zovs]

As a funny flipside to my original post, I am doing a solo game using the latest development patch and for the Soviets first turn it is now proven I am a terrible Soviet air commander lol

I decided to throw some Soviet GA at my German advance and also move some Soviets around to 'help' the AI, I am sure it is not please with my GA...lol

[panzer51]

Actually air combat early on is stacked in German favor. I gave every Soviet airbase 100% supplies, fuel and air support, and the results were about the same except most aircraft was destroyed in air combat instead.

[GibsonPete]

If the Axis player (and Soviet) use their air &ground units in a manner that differs from the 'historical' way the losses will differ. I expect to do better than what actually occurred. I have advantages they did not have. They had Hitler (& Stalin).

[Zovs]

I would think that Historically the Soviets Air would have the cards stacked against them. The Luftwaffe did devastate the VVS, and over time the VVS gained experience, the attrition and supplies in 1941-42 is what wore down the Luftwaffe, as per the above references.