Matrix Games Forums

and, over all, your plan/idea, is worthless to the battle, you are not gaining anything, but getting some troops killed

You're saying you're not gaining anything by making a pocket? Judging by the screenshots, the Soviets don't have a lot of quality forces in 1941-1942, which is historical. If you can pocket those quality forces (Guards units, Tank/Cavalry/Rifle Corps), you will gain quite a lot. Killing units in a pocket will usually result in far less casualties than attacking them head on if the casualty reports from elmo's AAR are an indication.

If you can let the AI advance into some steppe/clear/farmland hexes without much strategic value (ergo: most of the western and southern parts of the map) and can kill units by pocketing them, I don't think that's a "worthless" thing to try. The Germans have to kill Soviet units, and pocketed units seem to die a lot faster than regular units. Besides, it's sort of a backhand blow+ method, and the backhand blow was used with a fair amount of success by both sides (the first years of the war from the Soviet perspective eventually turned into one giant nationwide backhand blow).

(the first years of the war from the Soviet perspective eventually turned into one giant nationwide backhand blow).

I'm unsure how to interpret the above. Are you referring to the first winter offensive? Or Uranus/Saturn/Mars? The first winter offensive, at the very least, was an exercise in opportunism - and exceedingly poorly executed, at that. That is to say, it was not a conscious 'backhanded blow', ala Manstein's Kharkov experiences in 1942/1943. Stalin committed the carefully husbanded strategic reserve into an offensive all along the front that was weak everywhere and strong nowhere, despite heavy opposition from Zhukov and the General Staff.

Killing units in a pocket will usually result in far less casualties than attacking them head on if the casualty reports from elmo's AAR are an indication.

A recent screenshot from another alpha tester had me wondering. I believe it was from the 1943-1945 scenario, and was documenting a large Soviet attack on an exposed German formation. Eight Soviet Rifle Corps against two German PzDs, a Luftwaffe Field Division and another unit. Despite outnumbering the Germans 6:1 (~240,000 / 40,000) and 10:1 in artillery, Soviet casualties were six times as heavy in a defeat (3,500 German losses against ~ 19,000 Soviet). This was not a common Soviet experience during the second/third period of the war (as defined by Glantz). Granted, the German PzDs likely skewed the result - but those formations were never intended to defend a position against a determined infantry assault. I wonder how the battle result was calculated.

From the perspective of Soviet operational art, the cardinal error in that particular facts scenario was the lack of Soviet armor involved. The infantry was envisioned by the Soviets in the Field Manual 1944 as a means of breaching the Main Line of Resistance - not necessarily taking ground. It would, however, occupy ground vacated by unhinged defensive forces busy fighting the development of the exploitation by Soviet armor.

That should be a lesson to you, dlazov; throw your armor in, son![;)]

I'm unsure how to interpret the above. Are you referring to the first winter offensive? Or Uranus/Saturn/Mars? The first winter offensive, at the very least, was an exercise in opportunism - and exceedingly poorly executed, at that. That is to say, it was not a conscious 'backhanded blow', ala Manstein's Kharkov experiences in 1942/1943. Stalin committed the carefully husbanded strategic reserve into an offensive all along the front that was weak everywhere and strong nowhere, despite heavy opposition from Zhukov and the General Staff.

You're preaching to the choir when it comes to saying the first winter offensive was a failure considering what Stalin intended to do.

I was talking about the entire war in the East until mid-late 1943 more or less being a backhand blow on a nationwide scale. The Soviets depleted the Axis reserves and frontline strength, then crushed the weaker parts of the line, causing the stronger units to pull back too and not being able to attack.

A recent screenshot from another alpha tester had me wondering.

I also commented on that. If you look at the Attack Value vs Defensive Value, you'll see the Soviets didn't even have 2-1 odds. Panzer divisions were indeed not ideal for defence, especially not in difficult terrain, but if what you're facing is a giant wave of men coming at you, barely supported by armour, the battle quickly turns into a machine gunner's dream, and tanks are of course effective anti-infantry weapons when deployed against non-entrenched infantry.

Ironically, that main line of defence you refer to often wasn't where it should be by 1944. Hitler often specifically ordered reserves to stay at the actual front, instead of the main line of defence which should be about 12 kilometres to the rear of the first line of defences according to German defensive doctrine, with mobile forces possibly being stationed even further to the rear. If you place armoured formations directly at the front, they can't really respond to threats outside the sector they are covering. The exception being bad weather conditions where they would not be able to respond in any case. Elmo's AAR has shown that quite clearly, with Panzer formations not responding even though they were the operational reserve. In those cases, it might be necessary to plug a hole in the line with them.

That should be a lesson to you, dlazov; throw your armor in, son!

Very correct, but in this sector my tank bgds were refitting and training and I did not assign any indpt. tank units to that attack.

Needless to say without any armor support (that is until the AI got wise and sent some Pz & Pz.G units up north) I was able to kick back the line and link up Leningrad Front-Volkhov Front-2nd Baltic Front and push back the invaders several hexes deep. Now I need to rest as even though my Corps are in supply and have fuel they are at 50% TOE...

I just realized I hijacked PyleDrivers thread, many sorrows comrade, back to my hole I go...

T4...Well the Soviets hit 4th PzA's flanks hard. This will be interresting...

Pyle Driver, not to worry...a few frames ago you were talking about pockets in pockets.

The silver lining is that while costing you time, it may also give you a chance to destroy in detail some of the more mobile forces that could have given you headaches in a few moves. That is if you don't lose 4PzA in the process! [:@]

What was the order...oh yeah, find the enemy and destroy him.

Did your recon indicate the build up at all?

I said interresting, nothing about worry. Hell I'm not concerned when they come out of their holes, they make better targets...lol...

(BAR) "The pocket"...Theres alot of power there, just watch where it heads...Remember Moscow is the goal...

You're preaching to the choir when it comes to saying the first winter offensive was a failure considering what Stalin intended to do.

I spend a lot of time preaching to choirs. [8D]

I was talking about the entire war in the East until mid-late 1943 more or less being a backhand blow on a nationwide scale.

I see what you're saying - and in an overall sense I can agree - but from the historical perspective you will forgive my reluctance! [:)]

Panzer divisions were indeed not ideal for defence, especially not in difficult terrain, but if what you're facing is a giant wave of men coming at you, barely supported by armour, the battle quickly turns into a machine gunner's dream, and tanks are of course effective anti-infantry weapons when deployed against non-entrenched infantry.

My thoughts on this should perhaps go elsewhere (my profuse apologies, PyleDriver, I promise that this is my last post on the topic! Your AAR is excellent!), but I would venture the following:

1) German tanks of the war, especially, could in fact be characterized as extremely poor anti-infantry weapons. The Wehrmacht at no point emphasized HE capability for tanks in the same manner as the Soviets did (i.e. compare the HE ability of Soviet 76.2mm against German 75mm, and respective ammo loads of HE/AP). Their MMGs were extraordinarily limited in terms of ammunition and flexibility. The observability of surrounding terrain and small targets (say, for example, infantry) was low.

2) 240,000 riflemen in eight Rifle Corps - judged from afar - does, indeed, constitute a giant wave of men. But one cannot envision such a battlefield/zone of operations as flat grassland with few, if any, obstructions or terrain features. Rather, one must imagine an echeloned advance by tactical groups of infantry supported by enormous volumes of firepower (in this case, 5,000 guns), aviation (Il2s would greatly appreciate entrenched/buttoned up German armor refraining from maneuver) and utilizing terrain features to advance into the tactical zone unobserved. If confronted by armored pillboxes (this is what those tanks would amount to, in such an anti-infantry scenario), Soviet AT guns would be wheeled into direct fire positions from the third echelon, and would act as 'can openers'. AT rifles and grenades would further complicate the lives of the tankers in question. Logically, I concede, it does sound like a machinegunner's dream... In practice, though, I'm simply not sure.

Hitler often specifically ordered reserves to stay at the actual front, instead of the main line of defence which should be about 12 kilometres to the rear of the first line of defences according to German defensive doctrine, with mobile forces possibly being stationed even further to the rear.

Interestingly enough, this was often not the case. The Vistula-Oder Operation, for example, saw the initial penetration frustrated (though still successfully conducted) because the Soviets were unsure as to the German deployment. In this case, the German MLR (the echelon of which can vary) proved to be the third defensive belt, rather than the frontline. In that instance, the Soviets spent great quantities of ammunition and time bombarding empty trenches. Ditto for the Berlin operation (Seelow Heights). Hitler at times involved himself in battalion-level deployment - but only very rarely. He was more likely to order an area held, rather than a particular defensive line. In any case, the concentration of German forces in the first line was, to my knowledge, very uncommon...

If you place armoured formations directly at the front, they can't really respond to threats outside the sector they are covering.

Absolutely. Which is why I can only imagine that battle result if I envision it as a case of a pair of PzDs maneuvering against that Soviet force! Although, that introduces other logical difficulties.

But, really, I'm just being retentive.  [8D]

(BAR) Well the Soviets have become a real pain in the ass. They hit my flank hard agian in the approch to Rostov...

(BAR) Well the Soviets have become a real pain in the ass. They hit my flank hard agian in the approch to Rostov...

 
Well at least we know the AI is responding to your attacks.[:D]
 
This is what we all want to see, an AI that provides a challenge.

Yep it's not the same AI as three months ago. The attrition has got me wondering now. The Russians can afford it, I can't...Still I will press this fight...

Going over to the defence now seems pointless to OKH - your only chance of victory must be with der blitzen, Herr von Driver!

I guess you could pull back from Rostov and concentrate everything in the centre, but I also guess this means the Rusians will do the same, and simply pour in all their reserves up there.

What chance is there of pressing to the North of the Rostov counter-attack, through the weak bigade/division and the HQ West of Voroshilovgrad and towards and to the South of the city, and threatening another pocket?  Would this cause them to pull back, do you think, even though that attack is not the 'real' Scwherpunkt?   Can even fairly strong Inf Divisions do this sort of thing without armour support?   (Assuming you haven't got a spare Pz Corps or two lying around to help? [;)])   


Having blarted on, by the time you get this, you will probably have done the deed already!

Can't wait for the SS's of your responses to the very aggresssive AI this turn (indeed I can't wait to take it on myself).   It seems really challenging, at least at the operations level even if I'm not sure it'll be able to read your overall strategic intent?   Or do you suspect that it does read you?   [Can the advanced chess AI programmes (was it called Deep Blue?) do that, does anyone know?]

von J

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

and, over all, your plan/idea, is worthless to the battle, you are not gaining anything, but getting some troops killed

You're saying you're not gaining anything by making a pocket? Judging by the screenshots, the Soviets don't have a lot of quality forces in 1941-1942, which is historical. If you can pocket those quality forces (Guards units, Tank/Cavalry/Rifle Corps), you will gain quite a lot. Killing units in a pocket will usually result in far less casualties than attacking them head on if the casualty reports from elmo's AAR are an indication.

If you can let the AI advance into some steppe/clear/farmland hexes without much strategic value (ergo: most of the western and southern parts of the map) and can kill units by pocketing them, I don't think that's a "worthless" thing to try. The Germans have to kill Soviet units, and pocketed units seem to die a lot faster than regular units. Besides, it's sort of a backhand blow+ method, and the backhand blow was used with a fair amount of success by both sides (the first years of the war from the Soviet perspective eventually turned into one giant nationwide backhand blow).

well, to be honest, you are twisting the statement, what I was trying to say, to from a line, get a pocket, clean the pocket, and then from the line to set up another pocket, is what I meant is worthless (now, if your moving forward and gaining a pocket each turn, each two turns, great, but, staying in place, to try and suck the AI into a Pocket is not going to be of much use, and as Jon has shown, the AI does not react that way)

last night, I was running the Typhoon battle, on turn 3, I cleaned up my pockets, got 30 Divs and 9 Armor Brigs (about 350,000 men, 350 AFV)

most of the end of the turn, I set up a new pocket, and was able to force a gap, though that gap, I drove deep, because I could get 3 VH's, if I had went for the northern pocket, I may never of gotten to those VH's

as it is, I am getting my butt kicked (those 3 VH and the ones I have taken from the SU, will start to even the score now, if I can hold them)

but, just trying to say, forming pockets and then trying to trick the AI into making a new one, will not help you in the long run (make your stats pretty though)

okay back to Jon, he is the Master at taking Moscow, let him show you the way

Ron where do I send the kisses and roses?...lol...The AI is not kind right now, but I will press this hand, I still think I will break the bears back...

Well I guess you guys are biting on the bone. This is a (DAR) During Action Report...Ist Pz spread out to close the pocket up north... Armin's Corp is about to be sprung into game. This will get ugly...Theres only so many reserves for the Soviets...

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

Ron where do I send the kisses and roses?...lol...The AI is not kind right now, but I will press this hand, I still think I will break the bears back...

no Hassle mate

giving the Devil his due

game is getting ruff, Typhoon, I think I have killed 42 Divs, and 21 Brigs, and Mud, interdiction, reserves are kicking my butt (I should make it close, but...)

and I got the Blizzard to look forward to (in 4 or 5 turns)

well, again, not trying to steal the thunder here

but...

while not a trap as stated, I did leave 5 or so PZ Divs hanging, the AI backed off, it could "see" it may of been a trap (they were)

so, overall, I think we can honestly say, the AI is not stupid, or will fall into the same trap over and over again, really, and I think Jon will agree, the German doesn't set traps, he makes them

Jon, can you believe that Vyshny Volochek may be the key to my battle ?

(I take that, it will off set my not being able to take Moscow (if I can hold what I now have)

PyleDriver: seems the AI went braindead again for a moment. There's not a single unit close to your bridgehead at the Dvina and nothing was pulled back from the line to stop you it seems.

It's a bit of a paradox to read about how capable the AI is whilst the AI as displayed in the screenshots sometimes appears to be somewhat ineffective, especially considering that you closed that pocket with 3 Panzer regiments and didn't even have to use the other Panzer division (it's in the same hex where you left it last turn).

PyleDriver, What are those numbers on the Russian units? 10=60 and 17=93?