"Battle for Moscow 1941-1943"

[samba_liten]

15th Welle:

288 Rifle Squads
12 l.F.H 16
8 Light Rifle Squads
9 Engineer Squads

That's it for the infantry. Let me know if you need the motorized, mountain or panzer divisions from that site.

Edit: Typo on the arty...

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: briantopp

Personally I'm not in the "Kiev was a mistake" camp, in that regaging debate that has gone on since 1945. Capturing a 600,000-man army is hard to frame as a mistake -- and leaving it on your southern flank, ready to kick in a long salient to Moscow, feels like one. Stolfi certainly has many supporters in the ranks of German memoir-writers, however.

What fun. I'm similarly ambivalent -- 600,000 prisoners isn't chopped liver. However, I'm inclined to come down on the side of a drive on Moscow.

First off, in Russia Germany had a bear that it had momentarily knocked down. If you knock a bear down, you don't go for a contest of strength, you go for the jugular.

Secondly, I've been reading the first two volumes of Glantz's Stalingrad trilogy. It makes it quite clear that right through the end of 1942, reasonably fit German divisions could easily fend off even the most determined Soviet counter-offensives. See in particular the repeated -- and impressively unsuccessful -- attacks on the northern shoulder of the Stalingrad salient and attempts to recapture Voronezh. Until the Summer of 1943, the Russians were only able to achieve significant successes against German troops that were already exhausted and depleted by their own exertions or against the armies of German satellites. This won't be what Kirponos will run into if he turns north.

We can assume that the troops around Kiev would have posed a threat to the German flank. However, I think it would have turned out to have been a manageable threat. At the same time, I think the Soviet regime was tottering: Moscow falling at the end of the summer of 1941 could well have produced collapse. Aside from everything else, it's worth noting that at this date, the populace would still be unaware or unconvinced that the Germans were an even worse threat than Stalin. Moscow goes, and rebellion starts flaring all over the Soviet Union. The word's going to go out from mountain villages in the Caucasus to the slave camps in the Kolyma. By winter, there isn't going to be a Soviet state.

It's often argued that Russian defenses on the road to Moscow in August would have proved formidable. But I have a very hard time believing that. When the Germans did resume their advance in October, they almost effortlessly sliced these defenses to pieces. It was the onset of mud that gave the Russians some breathing room. So why would it be harder in August -- against defenses that had not had two months to be manned and prepared?

When I picture the 'what if' I see the Germans resuming their advance with great success. The Soviet forces to the south, whipped on by Stalin, struggle to disentangle themselves from their struggle with Army Group South and mount an offensive northwards. But this is the Soviet Army of 1941, and it's got to advance a considerable distance, against perfectly intact German defenses with considerable room to fall back. I don't see them making much progress.

The Germans roll triumphantly into Moscow in September and the Soviet Union collapses. Can't guarantee it, but that's the outcome I'd predict.

[Panama]

I'm with ColinWright. Here's why:

If the Soviets had pushed into the south flank of a German drive on Moscow they would still have to contend with the German army south of the swamps. A weakened Soviet south would have been chopped to pieces. And don't forget Buddeny was in command in the south where a push against a German flank would have taken place. At that level of command he was horribly inept. Give him an untrained army and I think you are looking at a disaster for an offensive.

The Soviet defenses in front of Moscow were weaker when Guderian went to argue with Hitler about a push on Moscow in late August. In October, when the Soviets had time to strengthen things even more, the Germans still pushed through them.

Moscow was the transportation hub of the Soviet Union. All of the militarily important rail lines ran through there. Moscow falls and the north and south are split in two. To get north to south by rail would have meant going east of the Urals and then back west.

The Soviets would have been forced to commit troops they still held in reserve. Those troops resulted in the very successful winter offensive. What would have been left for a winter offensive if forced to commit those troops earlier than they did?

Some Moscow citizens had begun to openly criticize Stalin when the Germans got close in November/December. Not for long but still, it was there. If Moscow falls what happens to the southern regions of the Soviet Union? Very possibly armed revolt. They had just finished quelling that very thing only nine years earlier.

In late August the Soviet Union was ripe for the picking. Kiev and 600k troops weren't the prize Moscow, it's factories, it's populace, it's transportation center and it's troops would have been.

But then opinions are like belly buttons, everyone has one. [;)]

[Panama]

This probably isn't a big deal except for Grognards. The TO&E didn't have anti tank rifles until the December 41 Shtats. The AT rifles were actually used first in November 1941 by the 1075th Rifle Regiment. I realize they are shown as part of the TO&E in the April 1939 Shtats but production was terminated before many were produced and subsequent Shtats had removed the rifles until December 1941.

Production was resumed in July with two types. Semi auto (PTRS) and bolt action single shot (PTRD). The semi was more difficult to make so the bolt action was the predominate model, about 3 to 1.

Also, there are two 150th Tank Brigades. I don't see two same named 150th Tank Brigades in the unit histories.

[sPzAbt653]

No AT Rifles on the Axis side either, if anyone is counting those as someting that needs to occupy slots.

29 mot is in a 27 PzK Formation (no such thing). Maybe should be in 47 PzK of 2 PzG.

Don't know if it was intended, but some regular artillery units still have 170's - 10 corps AOK16, 8th corps AOK9 (2), 46th pz 4pzG (3), 2nd panzer Group, 35th corps 2pzG.

[Panama]

I was also wondering. How would a scenario designer differentiate Heavy AT Rifle from an AT Rifle. The Soviets used 14.5mm AT Rifles. The Germans had Panzerbüchse 38 or 39 7.92mm plus the 2.8 cm schwere Panzerbüchse 41 (yeah, I know, but it's called an anti tank RIFLE). The Finns and Japanese had 20mm. The Boys was .55 (13.9mm).

Would 7.92mm to 14.5mm be a regular AT Rifle while anything larger a Heavy AT Rifle?

Just wondering.

[r6kunz]

Nice work, polarenper. Yes, it would be great to see the TOAW breakdown for 1941 panzer and mot inf schützen. I believe these had three rifle squads per platoon, and two MG per squad.
Thanks again for your work on this.

[briantopp]

ORIGINAL: HPT KUNZ

Nice work, polarenper. Yes, it would be great to see the TOAW breakdown for 1941 panzer and mot inf schützen. I believe these had three rifle squads per platoon, and two MG per squad.
Thanks again for your work on this.

I second that!

This is incredibly helpful and I bet will be referred to quite a bit in the future.

(If you're up for it, could I put in a pitch to break out the panzer and motorised divisions by battalion/regiment, perhaps along the lines I've laid them out in BfM? I think they model and play well laid out that way.)

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

I was also wondering. How would a scenario designer differentiate Heavy AT Rifle from an AT Rifle. The Soviets used 14.5mm AT Rifles. The Germans had Panzerbüchse 38 or 39 7.92mm plus the 2.8 cm schwere Panzerbüchse 41 (yeah, I know, but it's called an anti tank RIFLE). The Finns and Japanese had 20mm. The Boys was .55 (13.9mm).

Would 7.92mm to 14.5mm be a regular AT Rifle while anything larger a Heavy AT Rifle?

Just wondering.

The 2.8 cm sPzBusche is in the database, and I treat it as an anti-tank gun. I'd probably do the same with a 2 cm piece -- or maybe use the 'heavy AT rifle.'

However, I'm starting to just omit anti-tank rifles proper. I've run into very little to suggest they were any more effective than Molotov cocktails and whatever other anti-tank weapons the infantry of the time had. Certainly it's not impressive that the Boys was captured in large numbers by the Germans at Dunkirk and dismissed as useless. The next year, the Germans themselves were known to throw away their own anti-tank rifles in disgust.

The Russian pieces might have been more useful -- but I'd be inclined to just omit them as well. Can anyone cite any examples -- outside of Soviet propaganda -- of a German tank force suffering significant losses to their fire?

[sPzAbt653]

Wiki sums it up nicely:

The usefulness of rifles for this purpose ran from the introduction of tanks in World War I into the early Second World War, when they were rendered almost entirely obsolete. Vehicle armour became too thick to be penetrated by rigid projectiles from rifles that could be carried by a single soldier.

[JMass]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Can anyone cite any examples -- outside of Soviet propaganda -- of a German tank force suffering significant losses to their fire?

Schurzen were employed on german tanks to avoid side perforations by soviet AT rifles, I think that them could be considered Heavy AT Rifles.

[Panama]

PzKpfwIII and IV were vulnerable to flank and rear shot (V to rear shot) by the 14.5mm AT Rifle at close range (100 meters). Probably more of a harassment weapon but there were a lot of them. About 470k during the war. Other than a few bazookas from the U.S. it was all they had that was man portable.

[Curtis Lemay]

And there's all sorts of light armor out there other than tanks (halftracks, armored cars, etc.).

[ColinWright]

One gets into the value TOAW assigns to the things. An AT rifle has a value of one. What's a 50 mm AT gun? Six?

Would six AT rifles be worth one 50 mm AT gun? I think not. Your typical late 1942 Russian infantry division might have in practice fielded half a dozen 45 mm AT guns and perhaps a score of 76 mm artillery pieces -- and I dunno -- fifty AT rifles?

So represent the AT rifles, and each of these categories acquires about the same potency as tank killers. But what would actually being doing most of the killing? Not the AT rifles.

One just does not read sentences like this:

"...having suffered severe losses to the Russian AT rifles, Panzer Regiment 5 was forced to break off the attack..."

I don't see any historical or other evidence that justifies including them in the game. The Russians probably issued the things so that their infantry wouldn't feel utterly helpless -- but I don't think they worked.

AT rifles seem to have at times been regarded as utterly worthless. Even when they weren't utterly worthless, I doubt if they had a value that would justify representing them in the game.

It is, if nothing else a tidy solution to the problem of how to represent AT rifles, and which ones. Don't represent them at all. Probably more accurate than the alternative.

[briantopp]

-delete-

[samba_liten]

All right, the pz divisions all have individual diagrams. I'll start with 1.Pz Div. Please note that new K.st.N. were issued and a reorganization started in July, so these numbers are correct only until then.

Division HQ with:
2 Light Rifle Squads

1st Pz.Rgt with:
28 Pz. IV short
35 PZ. II
48 Pz. III 37mm
8 Rifle Squads

That's 2 medium and 4 light companies, plus the staff zug.

Before i go on, i should note that the Pz.Gren. Rifle Squads had 14 men each. Each company had 18 LMG and 2 HMG. In light of this i have chosen to portray them as Heavy Rifle Squads. As usual, i portray any riflemen associated with AT units etc as light.
1. Pz.Gren.Brigade with:
15 37mm AT
248 Heavy Rifle Squads
5 Light Rifle Squads
21 Engineer Squads
68 Motorcycle Squads (including 14 Heavy Motorcycle Squads, if such exist in the editor)
14 75mm Inf Guns
14 150mm Inf Guns
30 82mm Mortars

Please note: The diagram shows these units as a brigade, composed of the 1st and 113th regiments. Half of each regiment (1 Battalion) is armored, and the other half is motorized. In order to break the brigade into regiments, divide everything by 2, except the motorcycle units who come from a separate battalion. Also leave 3AT guns, 2 75mm Inf. Guns, 1 Light Rifle squad and 6 82mm Mortars for the bicycle battalion. Further subtract 6 150mm inf guns, which come from a separate company, numbered 702, and including tracked transport for the guns. I suppose that might make them self-propelled, if any SP arty of that caliber was around in '41?

Artillery Regiment 73 with:
18 Light Rifle Squads
12 s.F.H. 18
24 l.F.H. 18
All the guns come with motor transport.

4. Motorized Recon Battalion with:
3 Sd.Kfz. 231
3 Sd.Kfz. 232
16 Sd.Kfz. 221
4 leichter Pz.Sp.Wg. (2cm Kw.K.30)

37. Anti-tank Battalion with:
2 Quad 20mm AA Guns
8 20mm AA guns
All AA guns with the tracked symbol. Self-propelled?
9 50mm AT Guns
24 37mm AT Guns
18 Light Rifle Squads

More tomorrow[:)]

EDIT: Corrected sloppiness. Thanks for pointing it out!

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Would six AT rifles be worth one 50 mm AT gun? I think not. Your typical late 1942 Russian infantry division might have in practice fielded half a dozen 45 mm AT guns and perhaps a score of 76 mm artillery pieces -- and I dunno -- fifty AT rifles?

Impossible to add up six AT rifles to equal one AT gun of any size since they have completely different penetration values. Your typical Soviet Rifle division was supposed to have 212 AT rifles (18 March 1942). Like I said, it was the only man portable AT weapon available. At least with a range more than what can be thrown by a man. Because there were so many they actually did cause a problem for the Germans.

"Although not powerful enough to destroy a tank, they were such a painful nuisance that in 1943 the Germans began to place armour skirts around the sides of the turret and hull of their tanks and assault guns to protect against this menace." Companion to the Red Army, Steven J. Zaloga & Leland S. Ness, page196. BTW, the was formerly called The Red Army Hand Book. Exact same book, different name.

Now I had assumed the Germans put on the skirts to protect from shaped charges the Soviets copied from the Germans. They weren't available to the Soviets until late 42 even though the design was poor as was velocity and penetration wasn't so great either. So I'm a little confused here as to exactly why the Germans used the skirting.

I imagine if the battlefield were a billiard table they would be utterly worthless since you wouldn't get close enough to use them. However, there were huge tracts of forests in the Soviet Union. Not to mention buildings.

BTW, they also could do a fair job of killing a man whether or not he was behind a wall. And as Bob pointed out, there were a lot of non tank vehicles.

[sPzAbt653]

For what its worth, I gave 212 Heavy AT Rifles to a Soviet division and it raised its Anti Armor Strength from 3 to 5, which would outclass the armor rating of all but the later models of German tanks. That might make sense, as the later versions had thicker armor or skirts. Does one AT Rifle in TOAW = one AT Rifle, or a section with multiple rifles?

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

For what its worth, I gave 212 Heavy AT Rifles to a Soviet division and it raised its Anti Armor Strength from 3 to 5, which would outclass the armor rating of all but the later models of German tanks. That might make sense, as the later versions had thicker armor or skirts. Does one AT Rifle in TOAW = one AT Rifle, or a section with multiple rifles?

Looking in the equipment editor and comparing it to small AT guns I'd have to say one AT rifle. It needs to have an AP strenght too. It's zero in the game.

[r6kunz]

Again, nice work. I would, however, like to revisit the number of rifle squads in the schützen regiment.
My sources put two MG34 in each rifle squad, so the 18 LMG per company in Niehorster gives nine rifle squads per company, or a total of 9 x 3 =27 per battalion, or 54 rifle squads per schützen regiment. See:
http://www.bayonetstrength.com/german_a ... _bat_39_40 :
• Three Rifle Companies (5 Officers, 222 men), each comprised of;
o Company HQ (1 Officer, 9 men)
o Company Train and Maintenance (22 men)
o Machine Gun Platoon (1 Officer, 41 men)
o Three Rifle Platoons, each comprised of;
Platoon HQ (1 Officer, 4 men)
Light Mortar Section (4 men)
Three Rifle Squads, each comprised of 14 men
Suggested Total Strength of 1008 all ranks (29 Officers and 979 men)


Let me know what you think.