Matrix Games Forums

@bairdlander, see that the Smolensk pocket is left and the Wehrmacht went East. I'll have to try something like it. Must be that the AI puts a sea of molasses around all the Russkies.

ORIGINAL: Pelton

No historically 50% toe german divisions could hold off 3 Russian Corps easly. The russians had to attack with 3 Corp, then another 3 fresh Corp then another 3 fresh Corp before getting the German division to retreat a hex.

[:D]

You do have experience with the game engine and understand quite well how it works, but history you seem to know nothing about. A half strength German divisions holding of 9 Soviet corps'? What on earth are you basing that on? Sven Hassel?

You know maths, right? Assuming rifle corps hovers somewhere between 10-20 000 men, you can assume that in order to dislodge a German division you need between 90 000 and 180 000 men. German divisional strength was something on the order of 13 000 men...at 50% that is 6500 men. Therefore Soviets would require a superiority of 13-27 to 1 in order to drive back a German unit. Yet, if you look at the battles and campaigns they never held such superiority in numbers, thus concluding that you are wrong.

Bagration, a very successful operation was done with 4-5:1 superiority in men, 10:1 in guns and planes and 20:1 in AFVs.

It looks like 13-27:1 in men is 1) impossible to achieve and 2) unnecessary.

ORIGINAL: Karri

ORIGINAL: Pelton

No historically 50% toe german divisions could hold off 3 Russian Corps easly. The russians had to attack with 3 Corp, then another 3 fresh Corp then another 3 fresh Corp before getting the German division to retreat a hex.

[:D]

You do have experience with the game engine and understand quite well how it works, but history you seem to know nothing about. A half strength German divisions holding of 9 Soviet corps'? What on earth are you basing that on? Sven Hassel?

You know maths, right? Assuming rifle corps hovers somewhere between 10-20 000 men, you can assume that in order to dislodge a German division you need between 90 000 and 180 000 men. German divisional strength was something on the order of 13 000 men...at 50% that is 6500 men. Therefore Soviets would require a superiority of 13-27 to 1 in order to drive back a German unit. Yet, if you look at the battles and campaigns they never held such superiority in numbers, thus concluding that you are wrong.

[edit] Narva Offensives, 15–28 February and 1–4 MarchMain articles: Narva Offensive (15–28 February 1944) and Narva Offensive (1–4 March 1944)
The Soviet 30th Guards Rifle Corps and the 124th Rifle Corps launched a new Narva Offensive on 15 February.[7] In ferocious battles, units of the Sponheimer Group exhausted the Soviet army, which halted its offensive. Both sides used the pause for bringing in additional forces. The fresh SS Volunteer Grenadier Regiments 45 and 46 (1st and 2nd Estonian) accompanied by units of the "Nordland" Division destroyed the Soviet bridgeheads north of Narva by 6 March. The newly arrived 59th Army attacked westwards from the Krivasoo Swamp and encircled the strong points of the 214th Infantry Division and Estonian 658th and 659th Eastern Battalions. The resistance of the encircled units gave the German command time to move in all available forces and to stop the 59th Army units' advance.[1][14]

A division and 2 regiments kick 2 Corp butts. Then a hole Army is required to cut off 1 infantry divisions and 2 battalions.


6–24 MarchThe Soviet air force conducted an air raid, leveling the historic town of Narva on 6 March. An air and artillery shock of 100,000 shells and grenades at the "Nordland" and "Nederland" detachments in Ivangorod prepared the way for the 30th Guards Rifle Division's attack on 8 March. Simultaneous pitched battles took place north of the town, where the 14th Rifle Corps supported by the artillery of the 8th Estonian Rifle Corps attempted to re-establish a bridgehead. Regiments of the Estonian SS Division repulsed the attacks, causing great Soviet losses.[1][14]

Again we have 2 regiments easy holding off 2 Corp, heheh there is example after example of German regiments holding of Corp size attacks

This is simply the facts on the eastern front.

But remember a few other things:

1) A German regiment = a Soviet division in strength and organization.

2) The old 3:1 adage really held up well in WWII - so three divisions (one corps) is about what is needed for the 3:1 manpower mark on the attack against a single regiment.

3) Both the Germans and Soviets typically used formations with only 50-60% TOE throughout the war so about equivalent manpower is still present.

ORIGINAL: Pelton
[edit] Narva Offensives, 15–28 February and 1–4 MarchMain articles: Narva Offensive (15–28 February 1944) and Narva Offensive (1–4 March 1944)
The Soviet 30th Guards Rifle Corps and the 124th Rifle Corps launched a new Narva Offensive on 15 February.[7] In ferocious battles, units of the Sponheimer Group exhausted the Soviet army, which halted its offensive. Both sides used the pause for bringing in additional forces. The fresh SS Volunteer Grenadier Regiments 45 and 46 (1st and 2nd Estonian) accompanied by units of the "Nordland" Division destroyed the Soviet bridgeheads north of Narva by 6 March. The newly arrived 59th Army attacked westwards from the Krivasoo Swamp and encircled the strong points of the 214th Infantry Division and Estonian 658th and 659th Eastern Battalions. The resistance of the encircled units gave the German command time to move in all available forces and to stop the 59th Army units' advance.[1][14]

A division and 2 regiments kick 2 Corp butts. Then a hole Army is required to cut off 1 infantry divisions and 2 battalions.

So where in here does it prove that 9 corps are needed to defeat one half strenght division?

And furthermore the Germans had 3 corps in the area(one of them panzer corps)facing 5 Sopviet corps. The soviet had about 2 to 1 advantage...not 13 to 1. So...again, you are wrong.

Furthemore, wiki has this to say about the elimination of the bridgeheads:
"Steiner threw the Estonian Division into battle on 20 February. Being the first into Narva, the division had the 1st and 2nd Estonian Regiments separate the two bridgeheads at Riigiküla and Sliversti on 21 February. The failure of their follow-up attacks made it clear that direct assaults were impossible because of the batteries across the river. Instead, "rolling" tactics were applied; they had been learned by officers in the Estonian National Defence College before World War II.[3] This meant placing small shock platoons in the Soviet trenches which the artillery found impossible to spot. It was considered a matter of national honour to annihilate the Soviet bridgehead by 24 February - Estonian Independence Day.[20] The bridgehead was reinforced with the 1078th Rifle Regiment increasing the number of defenders to 776 and 14 assault guns. The Leningrad Front command was convinced by well-placed artillery fire forcing back every possible attack.[15] The II.Battalion, 2nd Estonian Regiment, and the German artillery appeared as if committing a direct assault while a platoon of the 6th Company threw themselves into the Soviet trenches. At first, the Soviets resisted but after running out of hand-grenades, they were forced to retreat over the frozen river.[18][3]"


So the Estonians were not kicking 2 corps' butts, they were attacking a bridgehead of 700 men with 2 regiments...therefore, again, the Soviets did not hold an advantage of 13 to 1.

6–24 MarchThe Soviet air force conducted an air raid, leveling the historic town of Narva on 6 March. An air and artillery shock of 100,000 shells and grenades at the "Nordland" and "Nederland" detachments in Ivangorod prepared the way for the 30th Guards Rifle Division's attack on 8 March. Simultaneous pitched battles took place north of the town, where the 14th Rifle Corps supported by the artillery of the 8th Estonian Rifle Corps attempted to re-establish a bridgehead. Regiments of the Estonian SS Division repulsed the attacks, causing great Soviet losses.[1][14]

Again we have 2 regiments easy holding off 2 Corp, heheh there is example after example of German regiments holding of Corp size attacks

This is simply the facts on the eastern front.

This is simply your selective reading, and misunderstanding of facts. And again, do tell me how 1 regiment holding off a corps equals to 1 half strength division holding off 9 corps?

As for this action they were not attacking a regiment but the Estonian division.


I'd also like you to explain the yelnya offensive, and how the Soviets were able to push the Germans back in 1941 without 9 to 1 advantage as you require:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yelnya_Offensive

13 to 1?

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

But remember a few other things:

1) A German regiment = a Soviet division in strength and organization.

2) The old 3:1 adage really held up well in WWII - so three divisions (one corps) is about what is needed for the 3:1 manpower mark on the attack against a single regiment.

3) Both the Germans and Soviets typically used formations with only 50-60% TOE throughout the war so about equivalent manpower is still present.

1. A SHC division has higher CV then a GHC regiment and same goes for GHC divisions vs SHC Corps. Guess you have not seen a SHC Corp in 43. A higher CV and lower Morale and exp.

So not historical at all. There is nothing equal about it.

2. The Germans were out numbered in 41-42. The russians had better equipment also. Again ignoring history does not change it.

3. Ignoring the historical fact that the Germans generally attacked with even odds or worse and vs an enemy with better equipment doesn't prove anything other then your ignoring history.

4. The only large formations cut off and forced to surrender were russians during the 41/42 blizzard.

Lets stick to history and not Middle Earth history.

In game CV doent reflex history at all.

If you go by history GHC formations should have 3x the value of SHC formations.

They should not have lower values.

Wite should reflex history not be tring to rewrite it.


Historical losses on Eastern front, only includes KIA,MIA,WIA

——————German——————-Russian————Ratio

1941
3rd—————551,000——————2,795,000———-5 to 1
4th—————280,000——————1,598,000———-5.7to 1
1942
1st—————280,000——————1,686,000———-6 to 1
2nd—————220,000——————1,395,000———-6.3 to 1
3rd—————383,000——————2,371,000———-6 to 1
4th—————177,000——————1,281,000———-7.2 to 1
1943
1st—————498,000——————1,908,000———3.8 to 1
2nd—————110,000——————444,000———-4 to 1
3rd—————533,000——————2,633,000———-5 to 1
4th—————381,000——————1,939,000———-5 to 1
1944
1st—————423,000——————1,859,000———-4.4 to 1
2nd—————352,000——————1,021,000———-3 to 1
3rd—————879,000——————1,771,000———-2 to 1
4th—————297,000——————1,086,000———-3.6 to 1

ORIGINAL: Pelton

13 to 1?

You know maths, right? Assuming rifle corps hovers somewhere between 10-20 000 men, you can assume that in order to dislodge a German division you need between 90 000 and 180 000 men. German divisional strength was something on the order of 13 000 men...at 50% that is 6500 men. Therefore Soviets would require a superiority of 13-27 to 1 in order to drive back a German unit. Yet, if you look at the battles and campaigns they never held such superiority in numbers, thus concluding that you are wrong.

There is an event when the Germans were held for three days having a superiority of 40 to 1. Connected with above evidence it shows some kind of a paper-scissors-stone game, where each army has it's own good and/or bad days. And that is the reality, sometimes - in special circumstances of time & place & supply & orders & training & chance - very small number of troops is required to hold (more often) or break (less often) superior numbers of the enemy troops. It doesn't allow for generalization though, every case is unique and special. Some may even depend on such events like feud between commanders or a hangover from a day's before anniversary. The "average" advantage of German units over Soviet ones has to be somewhere in the 2:1 to 3:1 range and nothing more. In connection with the usual 3:1 deemed required for a successful attack, this would allow the Germans to defend against 6:1 to 9:1 ratios and attack with 1:1 to 1.5:1 ratios in troop numbers. And this seems quite reasonable. Anything more is just depending on a "one in a million" chance (though, if you read Pratchett you know whay he says about such chances ).

While people would like to debate Pelton's maths, as they say, I think the community misses two points which are indisputable:

A) There's no point playing Germany if you want to enjoy your game

B) Both the air war algorithm/model and the ground war algorithm/model do not reflect World War 2 combat dynamics at all accurately.

I'll be back to remind people of this as War in the West approaches release.

For A) I'd say that there is Hearts of Iron 3 for those who want to take over the world as Germany (that is fine game too, albeit different in scale and scope). WitE wants to be closer to history, and as such it can't allow the Germans to win outright in more than (IMHO) 1-2% cases, therefore it's a matter of attitude to enjoy playing as Axis - you know you can't really win, you are here just to fare better than in history by defending longer, and having better casualty ratio than Germans did. That's not much, it's true, but expecting the game to offer 50:50 chance of winning outright military victory is naive. It's a matter of end-game victory conditions then to compare the player's results vs history (not that WitE's victory conditions are good either, they don't show any progress mid-game and as such are useless to keep up the player's morale during the game).

For B) I'd say every game has issues and every model has it's strong and weak points. WitE's one is very complicated (thousands of separate random elements) and thus hard to "push" in proper direction, you have to give it a solid kick to change something and this just usually only reverses the issue and requires another kick and so on.

OPINIONS will vary on the German chances to defeat the Soviet Union, but by and large I think most agree the Axis had a good deal less than a 50-50 chance of an outright win, especially if you go by the original plan of being done with Russia in 1941.

I have to agree with Helidorus on the game model. Sorry, but it doesn't seem to have a good "feel" of eastern front combat and isn't close to being "real" by any stretch of the imagination.

The air model is absolutely a mess and between players, house rules must be used or the Luftwaffe will be reduced to nothing by the middle of 1942 and the rest of the German ground troops will suffer as a result. Same issue with bombing HQ units. The ground war is better, but there are glaring inconsistencies (Axis panzers must be very afraid of Russian anti-tank rifles for example when historically they were all but useless, but not in WiTE world) and the complication of the whole thing makes it very difficult to figure out what is going on at times with clear fudges. The lack of overrun ability (for both sides) against "ant" units like security regiments is silly. 1000 guys with small arms are going to hold up the 1st Guards Mech Corps. Really? Even more maddening is such a unit won't die, but will take a capped amount of damage, regardless if it was confronted with 20,000 or 200,000 men and either 5 tanks or 1000 tanks.

The game overall has promise, but there is a lot to fix. My take is it isn't really fit to play between players, but if you want an enjoyable time, then either side against the AI is not bad.

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

A) There's no point playing Germany if you want to enjoy your game

Sorry but I disagree. I love playing Germany, it forces me to try to think outside the box and come up with something clever. Is it frustrating at times? Sure. Do I yell at the screen at times? Sure. Do I know I am likely to lose the game? Sure. But in the end, do I have fun? Yes!


Terje

ORIGINAL: Pelton

2. The Germans were out numbered in 41-42. The russians had better equipment also. Again ignoring history does not change it.

Apart from that it wasnt the germans vs the russians it was teh axis vs the russians. Add Finnish, Hungarien, Romenia and slovakian troops and u have a slight advantage in number at start of 41.

If u look at Case Blue and add in axis minors again u a nice advantage to axis side. Over all on front tho as whole u do have a russian advantange.

3. Ignoring the historical fact that the Germans generally attacked with even odds or worse and vs an enemy with better equipment doesn't prove anything other then your ignoring history.

See above.

Historical losses on Eastern front, only includes KIA,MIA,WIA

——————German——————-Russian————Ratio

1941
3rd—————551,000——————2,795,000———-5 to 1
4th—————280,000——————1,598,000———-5.7to 1
1942
1st—————280,000——————1,686,000———-6 to 1
2nd—————220,000——————1,395,000———-6.3 to 1
3rd—————383,000——————2,371,000———-6 to 1
4th—————177,000——————1,281,000———-7.2 to 1
1943
1st—————498,000——————1,908,000———3.8 to 1
2nd—————110,000——————444,000———-4 to 1
3rd—————533,000——————2,633,000———-5 to 1
4th—————381,000——————1,939,000———-5 to 1
1944
1st—————423,000——————1,859,000———-4.4 to 1
2nd—————352,000——————1,021,000———-3 to 1
3rd—————879,000——————1,771,000———-2 to 1
4th—————297,000——————1,086,000———-3.6 to 1

Apart from the fact that these figurs even by OKW numbers are to low for german side from time to time and that OKW figurs later has been disputed by newer research especialy led by Dr. Per Rüdiger Overmans. It totally leave out the axis minor losses which that russians fought too.

Take for example 4th Quater 42. 177.000 apart from the fact that this figur isnt correct for the german side, what happened there?
Oh yeah russian fought alot of romenias, and italian and hungarians at Uranus. Add the axis minor losses to the german losses and then compare to russian loses and u no where near a 7:1 loss factor.

U using full figurs from one side while conviently leaving out half the figurs from other side.

Lets stick to history and not Middle Earth history.

Please lets.


Kind regards,

Rasmus

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

While people would like to debate Pelton's maths, as they say, I think the community misses two points which are indisputable:

A) There's no point playing Germany if you want to enjoy your game

B) Both the air war algorithm/model and the ground war algorithm/model do not reflect World War 2 combat dynamics at all accurately.

I'll be back to remind people of this as War in the West approaches release.

A is totally subjective. So while this might be true for u, u seem to make that a universal truth, its not.
From ur rantings over the times. It seems unless u sure to win as germans, A wont be what u want it too be.
I can only support others, thats fine, play HoI or some thing. Its possible with ease there. Doesnt mean its historicly true and well
WiTE as said by other choose a path of gaming closer to history. Even if not every thing is perfect.

On B u have some merit. i've done my share about complaining about it, non the less if B is just to make ur vision of A true. I think there would be an disparity in the change u and i would want.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

ORIGINAL: Walloc

ORIGINAL: Pelton

2. The Germans were out numbered in 41-42. The russians had better equipment also. Again ignoring history does not change it.

Apart from that it wasnt the germans vs the russians it was teh axis vs the russians. Add Finnish, Hungarien, Romenia and slovakian troops and u have a slight advantage in number at start of 41.

If u look at Case Blue and add in axis minors again u a nice advantage to axis side. Over all on front tho as whole u do have a russian advantange.

3. Ignoring the historical fact that the Germans generally attacked with even odds or worse and vs an enemy with better equipment doesn't prove anything other then your ignoring history.

See above.

Historical losses on Eastern front, only includes KIA,MIA,WIA

——————German——————-Russian————Ratio

1941
3rd—————551,000——————2,795,000———-5 to 1
4th—————280,000——————1,598,000———-5.7to 1
1942
1st—————280,000——————1,686,000———-6 to 1
2nd—————220,000——————1,395,000———-6.3 to 1
3rd—————383,000——————2,371,000———-6 to 1
4th—————177,000——————1,281,000———-7.2 to 1
1943
1st—————498,000——————1,908,000———3.8 to 1
2nd—————110,000——————444,000———-4 to 1
3rd—————533,000——————2,633,000———-5 to 1
4th—————381,000——————1,939,000———-5 to 1
1944
1st—————423,000——————1,859,000———-4.4 to 1
2nd—————352,000——————1,021,000———-3 to 1
3rd—————879,000——————1,771,000———-2 to 1
4th—————297,000——————1,086,000———-3.6 to 1

Apart from the fact that these figurs even by OKW numbers are to low for german side from time to time and that OKW figurs later has been disputed by newer research especialy led by Dr. Per Rüdiger Overmans. It totally leave out the axis minor losses which that russians fought too.

Take for example 4th Quater 42. 177.000 apart from the fact that this figur isnt correct for the german side, what happened there?
Oh yeah russian fought alot of romenias, and italian and hungarians at Uranus. Add the axis minor losses to the german losses and then compare to russian loses and u no where near a 7:1 loss factor.

U using full figurs from one side while conviently leaving out half the figurs from other side.

Lets stick to history and not Middle Earth history.

Please lets.


Kind regards,

Rasmus

These numbers are from a russian historian Rasmus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigoriy_Krivosheyev

Strength and loss data Eastern Front – part 1
I have the following table from Axis History forum user Qvist :



Quarter German Istarke Soviet Fronts Ratio

1941 3q41 2,800,000 3,334,000 1.2
4q41 2,675,000 2,818,500 1.1

1942 1q42 2,525,000 4,186,000 1.7
2q42 2,600,000 5,060,300 1.9
3q42 2,825,000 5,664,600 2.0
4q42 2,900,000 6,343,600 2.2

1943 1q43 2,800,000 5,892,800 2.1
2q43 2,850,000 6,459,800 2.3
3q43 2,850,000 6,816,800 2.4
4q43 2,575,000 6,387,200 2.5

1944 1q44 2,406,750 6,268,600 2.6
2q44 2,409,750 6,447,000 2.7
3q44 2,076,250 6,714,300 3.2
4q44 1,900,800 6,770,100 3.6

1945 1q45 1,800,000 6,461,100 3.6
2q45 6,135,300






Explanation for Iststarke :Actual strength, includes all men that are part of the unit's composition. Men on leave or temporarily detached to other units are included. Also men sick or wounded are included if they are assumed to return to service within eight weeks. Thus, despite its name, this strength category does not give the actual number of men available for service with the unit at the given time.


Source : Zetterling, Niklas and Frankson, Anders(1998)'Analyzing World War II eastern front battles',The Journal of Slavic Military Studies


The data for the Soviet Forces comes from Krivosheev, Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century..

More data for German forces can be found in Kursk 1943: A Statistical Analysis ,by Zetterling and Frankson.Specifically pages 2 and 5:
On 1 July 1942 German forces in the East were 2.635.000 plus 150.000 in Finland and 212.000 in rear occupied areas of Eastern Europe.Total 2.997.000.
On 1 July 1943 German forces in the East were 3.138.000(Waffen SS and ground combat units of the Luftwaffe are included) plus 80.000 on Finnish front.Total 3.218.000.
The same authors in ‘’Analyzing World War II Eastern front battles’’ give for 1 June 1944 a German Istarke of 2.089.559 in the East. This figure does not include non-combat GHQ units and units directly under command of OKH (which were quite numerous).If those units are included the total is 2.557.000
At the start of Barbarossa the German had 2.5 mln troops in action and 500.000 as reinforcements .Also ~150.000 were based in the Far North theater .So total ~3.2mln.This is mentioned by many authors,including Ziemke.
What about casualties? Here is a table using Krivosheev for Soviet forces and Axis History Forum for German losses ( both sets of data refer only to only KIA,MIA,WIA ):

East Front Casualties
Losses By quarter

Quarter German Soviet Ratio

1941 3q41 551,189 2,795,638 5.07
4q41 279,861 1,598,456 5.71

1942 1q42 280,238 1,686,355 6.02
2q42 220,291 1,395,335 6.33
3q42 383,750 2,371,162 6.18
4q42 177,050 1,281,085 7.24

1943 1q43 498,795 1,908,052 3.83
2q43 110,139 444,858 4.04
3q43 533,025 2,633,522 4.94
4q43 381,725 1,939,845 5.08

1944 1q44 423,715 1,859,810 4.39
2q44 352,831 1,021,576 2.90
3q44 879,127 1,771,879 2.02
4q44 297,782 1,086,807 3.65

Author Zetterling in ‘’Normandy 1944’’ gives slightly higher losses for the Germans :

German Losses -Zetterling

1941 831,050
1942 1,080,950
1943 1,601,445
1944 1,947,106

Accurate data on German losses are not available for 1945.
In order to make this comparison complete we should include the strength and losses of the German allies.
From various sources I have the following strength data at the start of Barbarossa campaign (all approximate):
Rumanian 340.000 , Finnish 250.000 , Italian 60.000 , Hungarian 44.000 , Slovak 45.000 .
Sum : 739.000 .Not all participants joined combat at the start of the campaign though.
From ‘’Kursk 1943’’ : 1 July 1942 – German satellites 648.000 , Finnish forces 210.000
1 July 1943 -German satellites 225.000 , Finnish forces 230.000.
Finally regarding losses ,this thread in AHF has information .
Using various sources I made this table :
Axis Allies Casualties Eastern Front

KIA MIA WIA Total

Rumania 1941-August 1944 71,000 163,000 243,000 477,000
Don Battles 155,000


Italy 30,000 54,000 34,000 118,000

Finland Continuation War 52,554 2,377 161,217 216,148


Hungary 41-5/45 120,000 200,000 320,000
Don Battles 8,718 79,870 16,497 105,085

Blue Division 3,938 300 8,466 12,704

Slovakia 41-March 44 1,235 2,537 3,198 6,970

Division Wallonien 2,500 2,500

All this information is valuable for assessing the true nature of the war in the East.


Historically 1941 ratio was 5.5 to 1
1942 6 to 1
1943 4.5 to 1
1944 3 to 1

The wite combat ratio after 1941 is 2.6 to 1 I have had several AAR threads where I trend this data for many many turns in several games.

The historical combat ratios given by a russian historian is far higher then wite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigoriy_Krivosheyev

http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... poteri.txt

Let stick to the Earth's History and not Middle Earth history.

Wite is by far the best Eastern Front game to date and I am sure WitW will be lite years better then anything we have seen so far.

The Combat Engine (SHC side) can be gamed so so easly by guys like MT, myself and others because some equipment does damage thats not close to historical.

Letting the players mess with SHC production is like letting "some" mess with logistics on the GHC side.

Production needs to be fixed or your really going to have huge exploits exploited by the poeple that know how to. The GHC side is fixed yet its taken 2 yrs to nerf most of them.

The SHC side is littered with exploits waiting to be had. Could that be why some guys (SHC) CV is magicly so high in early 41? Katza has exp this first hand in his own words in an AAR.

Well then add the figurs together. Axis minor forces by ur numbers is at the start of barbarossa is around 750.000 men. If u add that atop of the german u get more than the russian forces aviable. If one does same at for example Case Blue the result is the same.
So while technicly the force ratio of germans to russian might be 1.2 at start(near start) of Barbarossa its not when u count into those force.
If u add in the rear forces/reinforcements as per ur numbers u get near approx 5 mio axis vs 4 mio russians. Thats not a 1.2 favor to the russians. More like a 1.2 ratio in favor of the axis side. If u only tell half the story u only get half the truth.


Similar by ur own figurs axis minor take around 1 mio death, wounded and MIA. If u add those to the german losses. The figurs/loss ratio's are different than those u cite. Not counting the later "mass" PoWs. Since by mid 44 german casulties amount to around 4.5 mio. Adding around 1,0-1,2 mio more axis minor losses will alter the ratio. U cant take a strictly germans vs soviet ratio and say thats the eastern front. Alot of axis minor soldiers was casulties as well as casusing part of those russian casulties u count in when do a russian vs german loss ratio.

Here is a link too photocopies and tables of the original OKW papers:

http://www.ww2stats.com/index.html

I have all of Zetterlings books as well as Grigoriy Krivosheyev's at lease his published in english and have read them. He has an updated version out in russian only that i have "read" parts of. Having a russian sister in law helps with that as i know nada russian.
Btw i would really suggest reading Zetterlings books he has some excellent points/statisical analyses among others on losses caused by air to ground that would hopefully balance ur view on Rudel and his marry bands. Funny how there at times are more claimed russian tanks destroyed alone by air than actually participated in the battle. Quite a feat.
His book on Normandy has a whole chapter on this problem. Allies tactical airforces make the same claims which by their own after battle studies turns out to be wholly inaccurate and totally out of proportion to actual german losses.


I dunno where this Qvist gets his figurs, but u will see the OKW own figurs are closer to Zetterlings, well that is where he gets them from so its no supprise.
A note: Dr Per Rüdiger Overmanns has later(in 2000) on behave of the german goverment publish a study/P.HD dissortation showing that german losses had to have been unestimated. He alone in deaths arrive at 5.3 mio for the entire german forces, but given normal death to wounded and so ratio one can only surmise that the total losses had been higher than the previously thot. That said i personally have, as others, some misgivings about this study, but that isnt the issue here.

If u make a comparison of german(using OKW figurs) vs russian losses and leave out the axis miors and arrive at X ratio. Lets say 7-1. Add in the axis minor the rate falls to around 5-1. If it he had 5-1 it falls to 4-1 and so on. So when making such comparison u will hafta add those in or at leased make a huge note about the lack of that.


We agree that at some points, tho u in 41 before the blizzards its not been unusual to see a 4/5-1 ratio of axis to russians not to far from history, the loss ratio at other times doesnt follow the the historic one. Can that be a problem, sure. Problem with saying that out of context is that u can in game give historical losses as is now. If u did with currently russian replacement u would have a negative russian army. Simple as that. Similar the german manpower is to high compared to the historic one in game. Again if u wana have the near the historic loss rates but dont hand out to either side the historic forces u cant have historic loss rates and expect similar results. The altered in game force ratio will then ofc screw with the end result.

So taken that out of context and see the game is wrong is highly problematic and far from the whole issue at hand. If we with out any other alteration gave russian side historical losses there would be no rusian army in late 41 and 42 that doesnt make for much of a game.


The same Grigoriy Krivosheyev's also gives the total russian mobilized manpower at 29.575.000 men. (note that this does only count a man once, as there apparently quite a number of the same person being drafted multiple times). U get no where near that number in a normal game. Rather just over half of that. Hench in order if one was to achieve loss ratio strictly following the historic ones u would have to give the russian side far more men than the recieve currently, plus alterations to arms and so on to make up a huge short fall that would occure there.

If u take the overall figurs until end of 44 using Zetterling/OKW and Grigoriy Krivosheyev's figurs and add at end of 44. Purposly avoid 45 cuz of mass surrenders u then get.
23.687.000 russian casulties /5.459.000 german + 1.2 mio axis minors = 6.659.000 = ratio of 3.56. Higher than 2.6 ofc but not many times high and again u by simple fact cant take 23,687 mio russian as casulties in game as u dont have it.
Remember u in the 41-end 44, numbers count in the early mass russian surrenders. If u added the 45 figurs with german masss surrender the ratio would drop significantly.


Kind regards,

Rasmus

Which AAR for Ketza where he faced odd Soviet CVs? I looked at the one where he played Unknown and didn't seem to mention anything about that.

ORIGINAL: randallw

Which AAR for Ketza where he faced odd Soviet CVs? I looked at the one where he played Unknown and didn't seem to mention anything about that.

Generally I ask him, you might try that first so you get first hand info.

Asking players about other players is best way to figure things out.