Grunhilde gets antsy - 1941 GC

[Beethoven1]

Congrats on getting Leningrad!

From what I can see, a (or the) vital factor seems to have been how quickly you got close to it. From the very first map of the north you posted on turn 6:



You were already only 6 hexes away from Leningrad, with no Soviet unit (that is visible, anyway) between your lead motorized regiments and Leningrad.

And then once you were that close, it seems it was just a matter of time, slowly grinding forward until eventually you cut it off, and once you cut it off until you eventually took it.

Surely he could have stopped you from getting that far on turn 6, if he wanted to, did he just not bother defending particularly in front of that? This seems like a common mistake that Soviet players can make, retreating in the north too much and too early despite there being plenty of defensible terrain further up where they could delay things.

[loki100]

yes agree that was criical, once I am that close, its a matter of time if I pressed on. I think you've made this point well in your AARs, you have to slow the Germans before the Luga line. Basically its that period of 45 NM from late 41 to mid-42 cripples the capacity of a Soviet player in a hex by hex battle once the winter effects are limited (or gone). Its not such a thing in more open situations as a defense in depth is the way to go in any case.

We discussed why that had caught him out and some was inexperience but mainly he was tracking my command functions and I'd loaded up the 2 mot corps to the limit (in effect disguising the addition of a Pzr corps from PG3). I was ridiculously pleased with myself that a bit of deception paid off.

As in the Soviet post for the game to the start of December, he really prioritised Moscow, that might have been WiTE1 experience since in different patches it was a much more feasible target than it is in #2?

[M60A3TTS]

That turn takes my HWM to 617 with a +6 for Voronezh (I do now need to hold it to T81 to come out ahead on the exchange). Leningrad will give me 653 (580 of base city values). That puts me within 50 city points of the 630 which is where the Soviets need to more than match their historical December 1944 performance (as ever assuming all the bonuses cancel out).

I'm curious where you come up with the 630 number. Is that all the city VPs the Soviets historically would have had at that date?

[loki100]

yes that is what I'm trying to work out. its a bit like nailing custard on a wall as I keep on forgetting this or that factor (Helsinki is one that its easy to overlook). So in effect, if all the other bonuses balance off, then if the Germans are > 630 city points, the Soviets in turn have to over-reach by Jan 45 by the same margin.

I might have the actual number a bit wrong but somewhere there is a cross over between the Soviets needing to match their historical gains and to exceed them.

My logic is the Germans start with 370 points



They historically took 260 (which is my 630)



So to match that, and the Soviets start with 280 (the cities never lost) + whatever of the 260 they have regained to trigger the initiative change.



For the Soviets in turn to reach 630 they need their core cities + all the USSR (280+260=540) and 90 outside the Soviet Union (in most games I'd suspect Bucharest, Ploesti, and Helsinki). So that is a perfectly historical game with both sides trading time and theatre points.

Now its a bit messier as in theory the Soviets can get more time points than the Axis player can. The very best the Axis player can do for Minsk, Lvov, Riga and Pskov is +16 while in theory they can get +24 for that set. The other hardwired +6 for them is Helsinki (it has no date and its shift is inevitable), so they have a net +14 time pts (30 vs 16) that the Axis player can't match. I also suspect in most games the Soviets will get a few automatic +6 for cities that should have been captured but weren't (Kalinin is a good eg) or if they can take something back in the first winter. Now in combination, thats not enough to compensate for not taking say Bucherest but plus perhaps really focussing on a drive via Minsk there are cities in Poland and E Prussia that would compensate.

If I'm right, if the Axis player has say 650 city points then the Soviets need Krakow and Warsaw or Koenigsberg, or a decent time point lead, to get past the HWM.

Problem is we have no data, AI games (either side) tell us a lot but not what the impact is in HtH to having to under or over-achieve simply to take the game into 1945. My last game suggested that an Axis player who is cautious about using key resources can end up dictating operational tempo. The problem here is that StB, while seriously good fun, opens with the Axis player in a far worse position than is likely in any 1941 game that is still being played?

[DesertedFox]

The tank losses are clearly a lot lower (I think its running at 60% of my last game) and that is going to have a bearing if I end up on the strategic defensive. But then the Soviets should see lower losses too as their experience builds up, so that is one change that may even out across the game.

I am seeing far less historical losses for both sides, for example as per Glantz the Germans possessed 140 operational

panzers on the eastern front as of March 1st, 1942.

For me this isn't a problem as it seems to balance respectively for both sides and game balance is more important than

chasing an impossible dream such as historical losses in 41-42 for Stalin's mistakes and then try and balance the

game.

This is a first GC for WiTE2, but a fair bit (some time back) for #1.

Ok, this would explain his error of judgement at Leningrad.

[loki100]

....

This is a first GC for WiTE2, but a fair bit (some time back) for #1.

Ok, this would explain his error of judgement at Leningrad.

I think there is a fine line between fair commentary and judgement. I lost one opponent with a game into early 1944 due to him getting PMs from various people wanting his saves so they could tell him what he was doing wrong. I'd rather not have a repeat.

Specifically I don't think it was a clear error. Its actually a very close call for the Soviet player. You can do as MSAG has done vs M60 and simply over-commit, as it that game it closes down Leningrad at the cost of shedding something important elsewhere. We've discussed it and yes, he relied too much on terrain rather than units but it was a choice. The payback was basically closing down any gains on the Moscow axis after the Smolensk battles.

At the moment, i think its a good idea for a German player to over-commit to Leningrad as its a bit of a net gain. The Soviets need a lot to nail it down, thats a lot not somewhere else, its operationally a bit easier for the German side to repurpose the mobile units (to something akin to the Typhoon concept), its a bit harder for the Soviets, especially in all that high MP terrain and worsening weather. Even via the reserve can take say 1 turn to an exit point, 1 turn in transit, 1 turn in the reserve, 1 back to the front. Trying to use rail is a trade off as there isn't that much rail cap on that sector.

The other bit is what happens now. Without too many spoilers, it looks like he's traded Leningrad for retaining Stalingrad. So at a VP level that is 1-1, at a strategic level I've come out ahead. In the end unless the Soviets are on the point of collapse, Stalingrad is a fleeting hold, not least as its harder to isolate than Leningrad is and any attempt at a pocket is asking for trouble. If I'd taken Leningrad in 1941, then yes I think its game over, the German player is less exposed in the winter, easier to redeploy for the summer targets and can get started on that campaign by late March. We're at the end of June, depending on my plans, the freed up units won't be back in action till mid-July - not exactly a fatal gap but I am running say the Orel-Tula campaign on a shoestring at the moment and really taking gambles with my flanks to concentrate. Fortunately I'm handing out so much damage that they can do hit and run but not really commit to exploiting a potential gap.

[loki100]

T54 – 28 June 1942

Surprisingly active turn, also finally start to allocate formations for the next phase.

At Leningrad pull out 4 PzrA, allocate the remaining formations to 18A, make some more gains to constrict the Soviets just to Osinovets and also to rebalance my line along the Volkhov. I think its worth one last attempt to secure the Ladoga ports as I doubt I can clear Osinovets head on [1].



It seems as if the pressure is really starting to tell on the long front from Byransk to Voronezh. Not only were there no Soviet raids or localised attacks but they also gave ground. 4 German armies pressed steadily north, in places attacking simply to stop the Soviets regaining their balance but 3 Pzr A probed for the chance to drive north to Tula, potentially threatening a large encirclement.



In turn 2 PzrA struck south, encircling the Soviet units that were trying to hold the line of the Don. A combination of 2 HuA and 6A were following up the rapidly retreating Soviets on the long gap between the Don and the Donets.

To the south, elements of 1 PzrA outflanked the Soviet defenders on the Donets crossings and pushed NE. Another corps, exploited the bridgehead carved out by 17A and crossed the Don just east of Rostov.



Combined with the missing 4 PzrA the goal was to present the Soviets with multiple problems. Even a simple defeat tends to mean that formation needs to refit, so is not available for 3 or so turns (if it stays on the line it risks a rout or even a shatter).

My interpretation is this means the Soviets are badly stretched, they have made no effort to break the recent pockets and I am facing less niggly local attacks.

As discussed, I have a big choice over 4PzA, it could go for Rzhev (and probably Kalinin), add its weight to the Tula operation or be used to clear the Don and then for Stalingrad. As it is currently configured it would be well suited for any of these. In turn 2 PzA and 6A could swap so that 6A pushes east from the Don while 2 PzrA goes for Stalingrad, or they could hold their current positions giving me a mobile force very much in the centre of the Soviet lines.

In turn 1Pzr and 17A could go for the Caucasus or add their weight to a Stalingrad operation.

Nice to have real choices – and to some extent the stretched Soviets need to cover them all.

Of course once I start to commit, they can match me so its really a case of maximising the value of the initial surprise.

Losses pretty much where I want them to be



Looks like the on-map Soviet numbers are down, but its feasible they are cycling formations via the reserve, especially given that Leningrad is now a dead end for them.



Logistics situation not too bad given how much I've gained. I have 2 FBD working well to the rear improving my W-E links over the 1941 border and 3 doing their best to keep the offensive in decent supply. Since some sectors have poor W-E links this is not always that easy so the rail net is playing a large part in my planning.



[1] Actually this was a silly idea that did nothing but delay the redeployment of key formations, for some time Osinovets was a bit of a King Charles's head issue for me (in other words got so obsessed over something that didn't matter I almost lost something important)

[loki100]

Soviet report

As a side note, as with the last such update my opponent sent me a block of short notes and some images to make into a post. I got this about 6 turns after T54 (28 June) so it is relatively open about the issues at that stage.

For the summary report, a lot of units were sent to the reserve last turn. In part to try and clear the refit backlog but contains the equivalent of 2 armies pulled out of the north (and on their way to Stalingrad).

Rest is no suprise, taking heavy losses, freight/supply situation is fine, lots of on map problems.



Air war, am ok for ground attack planes but a constant fighter shortage. As in the reports, have tried to be aggressive and wear down the LW, some turns this works but mostly leads to very one-sided losses. But I don't want the LW to have freedom over the front so trying more targetted allocations and putting air commands that are low on fighters to rest.

Using the U2s for harrasment GA, seems to work well, they replenish easily, are training pilots I can use for the Il2s later and inflict a steady stream of losses on the Axis.

In effect that is 1,000+ German soldiers killed per turn for free. Well the cost was 170 U-2s but have plenty available.



The one bright spot in the air was winning the battles over Lake Ladoga.

Despite this, am only 250 pilots short of what is needed and train 200 a turn.


The real problem is the steady flow of units slipping to low TOE. I have a varying threshold for when I pull back to refit but this is around 60%. As noted in the reports, below that units just rout causing even more losses.

The result is every turn a need to pull SU to refit and replace (if I can) and then pull a batch of on map formations back to depots. To put the problem into context, on map I have 269 Rifle Divisions and 38 needed to be pulled back to refit. At best this is 3 turns not available. This may not sound too bad but it all adds to the problem of stopping the axis making big gains.

Equally having to replace 3-5 divisions due to their destruction a turn slows the refitting of the active formations.

Layout of the Fronts is more or less as predictable:









Among those are 28 Corps (13 Tank, 5 Rifle and 10 Cavalry) and (on map) 12 Guards formations (5 Rifle Corps, 3 divisions and 4 Cavalry Corps).

One consequence of being badly stretched out is that it is hard to justify forming up too many Corps at the moment.

The problem is what to do. At the moment the Axis can dismantle a given sector in two turns, by that stage I am left with weak units and starting to see small pockets. In some ways, their infantry is the real killer as they can methodically dismantle any position.

I know there is one strong army unaccounted for, and clearly it can go anywhere. Since we are 100 VP short of an Axis auto win in October, I suspect the focus will be on where the VP are.

But, can't weaken NW or Kalinin Fronts as they protect Moscow. I want to hold onto Osinovets simply as that forces the Germans to leave formations at Leningrad.

My best units are facing the current German offensive north towards Tula.

And I can't just rely on distance and logistics to protect Stalingrad – which I think is going to be the key. But it is currently protected only by the very battered S Front.

[Stamb]

considering that it is first GC for the Soviet player - he is doing pretty well vs much more experienced opponent
is he (Soviet) using supply priority 4?

[loki100]

AFAIK, he's not, I think he has a lot on #4 around Moscow but said he was using 2 and 3 elsewhere. Even if the truck saving is minimal, worth stocking up for the presumably inevitable 1943 squeeze.

He's also been a bit cautious in the generation of Tank Corps at this phase.

My practical problem is I've lost a handle on the Soviet mid-game. The last time I played that was the pre-release beta AAR (on the forum). At that stage, there was the issue of truck allocation to units coming out the reserve. Not only did you have to be very careful to bring Tank/Mech Corps out at a NSS but volume was also constrained and it was very easy to end up with them stuck in the mid-20 MP range. What I'm not sure is how far my experience then was influenced by the rules around truck/reserve in play at that stage. So while its clear from the summary report he currently has a good truck/unit ratio I think he's not got that much armour deployed and it may be as he inevitably reconfigures into 1943 then a truck shortage will hit. If so, seems prudent not to overclaim supply now.

From a comment he regularly has 16MP infantry, 45MP+ armour at the moment, so a more varied supply priority is clearly making no difference to Soviet mobility - hence the hit and run attacks.

Another key difference, is that in the last game vs Steven, he had little problem with rail repair and rebuilding his supply depot as he never really lost much. We had that long sitzkrieg from say Oct 42-June 43 and then mostly small, localised movements of the front. In this game, he's going to have to repair pretty much every rail line west of a line from the Caspian, east of the Don and along the Oka (that sentence may include spoilers). So that might give us a better test of how Soviet logistics work into that phase as they advance and are trying to stitch back a depot system than my last game did. I still hold to the view that the Soviets need lots of small depots to a decent depth and that is hard when you have linear repaired lines and some of the geographically inevitable E-W gaps in the rail net.

As maybe clear, in a few places i am taking ground simply to dismantle the connections that the Soviets need.

[Stamb]

based on a screenshot from a Soviet, he has a lot of trucks in a pool and depots
curious to see state of a trucks in a long term
as from my point of view the only way to lost a lot of trucks is to get routed, which happens pretty often with Soviets mobile units, as it was in a game vs Steve

also black and white screenshots are pretty hard to read, imho
maybe it is worth putting a bit longer delay in AAR but show map in colors, especially this modded beautiful map?

[DesertedFox]

Absolutely fair comment trading Leningrad for Stalingrad.

The resources to then take Leningrad in 42 will mean fewer resources available in the south. However, it's late June and there is still plenty of good weather and time left to possibly secure Stalingrad.

As you said a lot of Russians have been destroyed in recent turns. Regardless I think Leningrad is slightly more valuable as retaking it means either attacking entrenched German units in difficult terrain (a very difficult prospect) or attempting to outflank or bypass the position from the south.

Nonetheless, a very interesting game moving forward.

[loki100]

My assumption is that at this stage, as indeed from the turn summary, he has no truck issues. We discussed build strategies for 42 and I passed on Steven's view that he overbuilt and I think he is being cautious at adding too much. Its notable that the reserve is mostly relatively empty, so he prob is mostly refitting on map and only replacing losses. I'll do an update of the comparison table, but prob at the start of Oct as I want to bundle all the summer battles into one phase - especially as with hindsight, it was the losses I inflicted (for no real terrain gain) in mid-42 that actually won me that game.

The genuine unknown is how the truck situation works in 1943. On one side, he can't win just with powerful Rifle Corps, he has to increase his mobility and bring in far bigger artillery concentrations. Add on to that, maybe a more stretched Soviet logistic situation than we've usually seen (or not, as above I've lost any real feel for the Soviet mid-game). But, the other bit is that analysis stems from my experience then the truck allocation to units exiting the reserve was far more tricky to handle.

Where I made Steven pay was the surround/rout routine, it helped that I, in turn, regularly had 45MP+ Pzr formations. This time its very rare to end up with a Tank Corps that I can reach, never mind surround. I also think the composition with 3 Mot brigades as the attachments has made them much more robust than adding tank brigades. They seem to have more defensive merit than my experience in earlier games (though that may be keying off the new rules that reward decent experience armour with more effectiveness)

We are just into September in the game and its retained a nice balance - genuinely no idea how its going to work out.

But i do agree, while mathematically Leningrad=Stalingrad, in the game context its a trade off I'll readily take. In the end, Leningrad is very defensible, esp if I also commit to Kronsdadt. Now that is say 2 corps left behind but there is a huge, secondary, gain. If I've read the Finland chain properly, it won't surrender as long as I hold Leningrad. I don't think its feasible but that is 60 city VP withheld, so I don't think the Soviets can risk letting me cling on - which may force a serious diversion to a sector they can usually ignore. In most games, you can force AGN into a retreat simply by pushing towards Daugavipils.

[tm1]

The Stalingrad / Caucasus region presents to me that is a number of opportunities here.

Looking at the screenshot I highly doubt its completely Soviet free, but I'm looking at this as someone who eyes are set on trapping the AI Soviet Army.

1. If you can free up your 2nd Pz Armee Pz's along the Front line somehow and combined with 6th Armee, swing North while 4th Armee attacks and swings down South you could trap all 3 Soviet ( 10th,43rd and 37th ) Armies or at least a big chunk of them unless he realises and pulls back because the risk to encirclement is to great.

You have a chance to trap around 20 Div's looking at the screenshot.

2. Naturally one would assume that there are units behind 51st Army but your Pz's could envelop them and move on and let the supporting Inf Div's destroy them.

3. Part of 1st Pz swings South then turns behind 8th Army which I assume the Rostov defenders are part of, even if those units are part of another Army you could still bag the lot.

4. Do both options 2 and 3 you have enough troops from the looks of it, even if you don't trap all of them they would have to fall back.

Anyway that's my 2 cents if the AI was conducting the defences, destroy his Armies, its a 10 week turn around before there back on the map.

[loki100]

Agree with the reading of the map - and the options. Just the execution was a wee bit less than stellar. Basically 1 PzrA is still stuck with relatively low MP (mid/high 20s) so good enough for anything but a sweeping encirclement - and getting over the Don is a problem that eats seriously into that low allocation.

The other issue, esp in the Caucasus is he got very pocket averse, for some time. I think he was hoping to pull me to the point where my supply wouldn't allow me to do much, so really every turn they just pull back out of reach

[loki100]

T55 – 5 July 1942

AGN continued to make small gains in the north. Soviets confined to Osinovets on the Leningrad sector and took Kahona and breached their defensive line just north of Volkhov. If I can take that, at the least it ends rail supply to the ports feeding Osinovets.

Strong Soviet attacks in the 4A sector slowed AGC – not least keeping at least one Pzr Corps in reserve just in case – but still made some gains all along the front.



East of the Don, destroyed last turn's pocket and started to reorganise for the next phase. Still not sure how to best use 2 PzrA (eastwards here, more directly at Stalingrad or to support 3 PzrA) but it needs more infantry and the Soviet retreat has effectively freed up 6A for that role. 4A can then concentrate on defending Voronezh and push towards Tambov if it can.

Italian 8A pressed into the space left by the retreating Soviets and some elements of 1 PzrA tried to cut the rail line back to Chir and Stalingrad.

4PzrA starts to arrive in the Stalino-Rostov sector.



First attempt to take Rostov failed. Clearly this time the Soviets were expecting an attack.



Beyond that, little progress for AGS. Deepened bridgehead over the Don east of Rostov,



Keeping Soviet losses at 100k per week



No off map VP gains for some time, actually I'm really lucky not to be shedding VP so need to send some SU to see if I can improve things.

[loki100]

T56 - 12 July 1942

Bit of a lull, but have finished the recent batch of force tailoring for the next phase and really need to think of my practical targets for the summer.

So at this stage I have the dominance to make gains pretty much anywhere but that is a bit of a false illusion. I think I can really make a sustained effort for 2 sets of targets.

I'll shut down AGN, yes I can win battles here but its better to divert the stored freight, the SU and at least one of the assault corps elsewhere. So I drop almost every depot to 1 or 2, just a few left at 3. Match this by dropping unit priority. If needs be I can adjust this back quickly – this is the one sector where delivery is not a problem.

I can construct a strong front line and fall back lines before the Soviets can even think of making any effort. Osinovets is a concern but I can't take it out frontally, I can't interdict its supply lines and I don't think its even worth the effort to think about capturing the eastern Ladoga ports.

For AGC, I am going to concentrate on the cluster of never captured cities, basically Tula, Ryazan and Tambov. Two of those is +32 VP (and I keep the time bonus), all 3 is +48.

This means bringing 2 PzrA north and allocating the formations which will now be released from Leningrad.

For AGS, I'm going to set a line between the North and South branches of the Don. The Soviets will have the problem of a single rail track from Stalingrad and (I think) will have to screen that strongly just in case I go for Stalingrad. My intention is actually to go for the Caucasus. This is clearly a logistics challenge but I think should give me Maikop and Krasnodar and I can actually make it the secondary part of my summer offensive.

A key bit to this will be to manage Rostov as a logistics hub, so there I am going to use a super-depot (I'll probably set another at Orel – that leaves me 3 FBD for repairs and the auto repair can carry on back filling).

This aims at somewhere in the range of 52 – 72 VP depending on time bonuses.



So not going for an auto-win but if I do reach over 700 then can consider options for the winter. This does basically trade Leningrad for Stalingrad and the risk of 2 relatively narrow sectors is that the Soviets can concentrate – but I have latent threats elsewhere they cannot ignore.

Whatever solution I adopt in the south, I am going to have a long flank so a lot of re-organising to try and impose some geographical logic, ensure there will be a reserve and try to match specialist formations to likely tasks – in particular allocate the Italian and Rumanian mountain formations to the drive south.

Main immediate action was to commit elements of 1 PzrA to the east of Rostov threatening to cut off the defenders. 4 Pzr A completes its redeployment and will attack next turn.



In the Crimea, the Soviets start to pull back, for the moment content to let them break contact but surround Feodosiyia in case they try to hold onto it.

AGC saw relatively limited actions. On the flanks 2 and 4 Armies probed the Soviet defences and 3 PzrA tried to carve out another small pocket. 2 Pzr A commenced its redeployment to attack along the eastern flank of the wider operation.



Ground losses – not enough but reflects the relative quiet of the turn.



Less so in the air where the VVS tried to contest the skies and suffered heavy losses as a result.



OOB, Soviets heading for 6m but it will take some time for them to train up their reserve. Seems most of their tanks are on map

[loki100]

T57 – 19 July 1942

Following last turn's decisions, LW redeployment completed (and the Kdo formation split so it can direct GS to AG-B when that comes in a few turns).



Also after redoing depot priority, a significant amount of freight was shifted out of the AGN sector to the planned operations. In total something like 40k released. The majority arrived in the AGC sector, which helps.

Presume more will go next turn as that has probably taken up a lot of the local rail capacity, especially when the unit moves are added on.



But doesn't solve the problem of long traces for AGS. No build up in the local depots but I'll set Rostov up as a super-depot to support the next operational phase.



Not much actually happened, I want to build up so I can sustain pressure for 3 (or more) turns on a given sector and in places the Soviets pulled back.

Army Group Centre saw more probing infantry attacks to test out the Soviet line and gain an improved starting point. The only deeper attack was an attempt by XXIV motorised corps to encircle Lipetsk,



In the South, the Soviets abandoned Rostov rather than risk encirclement and pulled back to the Yeya. Elements of 1 Pzr A followed up, trying to cut their line of retreat into the Caucasus and overran 8A's HQ and encircled one Soviet formation. Elements of 4PzrA pushed across the river but generally re-organised for the next phase.

The Crimea has been abandoned apart from Kerch.



Loss ratio not good, its good to take some ground but in the end the Red Army is my target.



As we slip towards the 6m mark.



So a quick review of the various bits of truck data. In theory truck/unit ratio is over 90% but practically its near 80% due to the usage of trucks in the freight system. I need to shorten those long traces in the south, especially if I push further on (and I have to).



Regaining Rostov pushes the HWM up to 683. I have to T60 to take Maikop and Krasnodar at 3 time points each – possible given current progress. So by August may have around 709 VP.

[loki100]

T58 – 26 July 1942

The freight redeployment carried on with the last of the stored stocks in AGN moving to AGC. Not totally where I want them but a real improvement.

Not much happened for AGS, another Soviet retreat in the Caucasus so follow up with 1 Pzr A (my plan is to use 4 PzrA later so that can gain CPP/supply for now). Pocket a few stragglers try to identify their MLR. 4 Rum reaches Kerch.

A very bruising turn for both sides around Tula.

Major Soviet attack isolated and routed all of XXX Corps near Efremov but this left their tank corps in the front line for the first turn. The result was to destroy the bulk of their armoured assets on this sector, occupy Lipetsk and generate a small pocket. In turn 3 Pzr A deployed its fresh formations and made significant gains east of Tula.

Elements of 2 and 9 Armies disrupted the Soviet front to the west.

With 2 reinforced Pzr Armies on the sector, the possibility of pocketing some of those first rate Soviet formations appears.

This will either provoke a full brawl (and no idea who will come out of that ahead) or a Soviet retreat (and thus no local counter-attacks).



[In addition to pushing on Tula, my hope is this takes out enough of their formations to prevent any more structured counter-attacks for a few turns].

Loss ratio not what I need but a bad week for the Soviet tankers.



First signs of Soviet formations retreating from an infantry attack with 1-1 losses (and no rout, probably no hit on their TOE). Inevitable and a sign of things to come but adds to my concerns as to how much progress I can really make.

Supply situation still a problem for AGS but no real problems elsewhere.

Issue for AGS is the back log, quite a lot of freight is arriving but it is also being immediately redistributed.

[Stamb]

do Soviets still lose ~70-100% AFVs in retreat/route?