GC43 - German Light Flak amounts

[Wiedrock]

I am folling an AAR of the GC43 (Kursk). There the number of missing Light Flak on ~T15 09th Oct. 1943 is rather high. Essentially 6k missing.
Not sure how the Scenario is set up.
Can anyone explain this?

[Wiedrock]

BArch RL 2-III/1165 there is a list starting page 216 which gives as far as I can tell the total numbers of active Flak of the LW in July 1943. Below it interestingly also all the Beute made during the month.

Heer's Flak numbers should be the ones in the Quartermaster reports (NARA T078 R0165 until R0169).

[Wiedrock]

Numbers (correct if wrong). The Heer numbers are for "June" and I do nto know the exact date for the LW numbers....so it is +/- 1 month depending on how one would look at it, but it gives a sense.

Heer (bläck-white pic) should be about:
2cm Flak 30+38 = 5376 [of which 313Pool?]
2cm Vierling = 825 [of which 19Pool?]
3,7cm Flak 18+36 = 287 [of which 63Pool?]

Luftwaffe, see colored pic.

So total about:
2cm Flak 30+38 → 5376+18848=24224 (+365LWPool?)
2cm Vierling → 825+1762=2587 (+118LWPool?)
3,7cm Flak 18+36 → 287+2729=3016 (+108LWPool?)

Note: Sometimes (in case of the LW?! [in other "firepower'ish" calculations - like ammo per gun/barrel calculations]) the Quad is counted "x4" per gun, so barrels counted. I don't think that is the case here.

So in total Light Flak at start should be around:
24224+2587+2729=29540 (this includes the mentioned "of which" Heer Pool)
And LW Pool total may be another 591.

All this ignores plenty of other guns (e.g. captured stuff).
It also ignores SS.
It also ignores Marine.

[Wiedrock]

These were shared in Discord.

Here we see that for the 2cm Flak there are 11k missing. Whatever the historical amount of "missing" may have been (it's not even close to 11k ), the total active+pool are nowhere near where even the LW figure of almost 19k should already be.
3.7cm and 2cm Quad you can see yourself and do the math.

GC43_Flak overview.png (192.26 KiB) Viewed 464 times

Part of the issue may be the Regiments.

GC43_Flak_part of the issue.png (106.05 KiB) Viewed 464 times

[Denniss]

Issue 1) Marine flak Regiment using improper Luftwaffe OB
Issue 2) Those Flak Regiments look like having been built as 43b Flak Regiment but this was a motorized version deployed in the field. They have been updated to proper OB but were not rebuilt to this OB. The static home defense Regiments were much larger and much less mobile.

[thek3mu]

Issue 1) Marine flak Regiment using improper Luftwaffe OB
Issue 2) Those Flak Regiments look like having been built as 43b Flak Regiment but this was a motorized version deployed in the field. They have been updated to proper OB but were not rebuilt to this OB. The static home defense Regiments were much larger and much less mobile.

sry, but had to ask:
what does "using improper Luftwaffe OB" and "have been updated to proper OB but were not rebuilt to this OB" mean in this context? is this scenario OB modded or something else?
... trying to understand is all, i guess. tia

[Denniss]

Marine Flak Rgts have a dedicated OB without having LW (=Luftwaffe) in name.
The Flak Rgts were semingly built using an old/improper OB but this OB has since been corrected although the Flak Rgts have not been rebuilt to this correct OB. So they are massively understrength now.
I have also seen Flak Rgts labelled as mot. but are neither mot nor use proper mot OB.

[Joel Billings]

Issue 1) Marine flak Regiment using improper Luftwaffe OB
Issue 2) Those Flak Regiments look like having been built as 43b Flak Regiment but this was a motorized version deployed in the field. They have been updated to proper OB but were not rebuilt to this OB. The static home defense Regiments were much larger and much less mobile.

sry, but had to ask:
what does "using improper Luftwaffe OB" and "have been updated to proper OB but were not rebuilt to this OB" mean in this context? is this scenario OB modded or something else?
... trying to understand is all, i guess. tia

Each unit has an OB that determines what equipment it wants to have. Some patches have changes to the OBs. But just because an OB has changed, doesn't mean the status of the unit at the start of a scenario changes. To change the starting situation of the unit, the unit must be "rebuilt" using the new OB to make sure it is equipped with the correct ground elements at the start (and/or the unit must be assigned a different OB to follow and then rebuilt). If a unit's assigned OB has changed, but it is not rebuilt, then once the scenario begins, over time, the unit will usually adjust itself automatically to better align with the changed OB. So when we change generic data (OBs are generic data), we try to make a determination if it's important to change the scenarios to better align with the generic changes, or whether it's ok to let things adjust over time. There are a lot of different scenarios, so adjustments can be non-trivial in nature. Given finite time to work on generic data and scenarios, there's always some tension between wanting to update generic data to be more accurate, while also wanting to make sure the scenarios benefit from the changes or at least don't suffer because of them.

[thek3mu]

mr. billings, thank you very much!

heroApplause.gif (93.93 KiB) Viewed 368 times

[Wiedrock]

I want to highlight that:

All this ignores plenty of other guns (e.g. captured stuff).
It also ignores SS.
It also ignores Marine.

So even if the Marine unit's TOEs get corrected there may still be thousands of 1-barrel 2cm guns "missing" in active service - no idea where - without even looking at the Marine.