Matrix Games Forums

The attached screenshot charts light weapon losses (machine guns, AT guns, light guns, mortars, AAA guns). The gridlines are 20,000 weapons. The chart partly reflects that the Soviets had to defend with much of their rear-area elements out of desperation. But this can also be attributed to the same Axis edges mentioned under the squad loss chart.

The attached screenshot charts artillery losses. The gridlines are 5,000 weapons. This chart reflects the fact both that Soviet HQs often came under attack, and that a higher proportion of Soviet artillery was retained in the frontline elements.

The attached screenshot charts transport (horse teams, trucks, APCs, ferries) losses. Also, I merged the Scout Car losses with this chart, since the Soviets don’t have any. The gridlines are 10,000 vehicles. This chart is the most favorable to the Soviets, but it’s because the Germans now have so many additional trucks.

The attached screenshot charts AFV (armored cars, SPAT, Tanks) losses. The gridlines are 2,000 vehicles. Among other things, this chart reflects that the Axis losses were focused on their armored elements, by choice, as the attackers.

The attached screenshot charts Aircraft losses. The gridlines are 1,000 planes. It’s clear from the chart that, after the initial surprise attack, the Soviets kept their airforce out of action until the air shock penalties were ended (that allowed it to rebuild, too). Then they were thrown back into the fray, with mostly abysmal results.

The attached screenshot charts total losses. The gridlines are 50,000 items. Similar to the loss penalty chart, you can see the initial Soviet slaughter during the surprise attack and the flat area during the mud phase. The Axis edge in losses slowly degraded, but a significant advantage remained to the end.

The attached screenshot charts the victory level. The yellow line is the victory level. Grid lines are 200 VPs. Other lines show how it is formed. Blue lines are Axis; red are Soviets; black dashed lines show the level points. There are three Soviet lines showing awards, loss penalty, and objectives. The three Axis lines show the same things for them. The six level points are at -600, -400, -200, 200, 400, and 600. Note that the two objective lines are mirror images of each other (a gain for the Axis was a loss for the Soviets). The Soviets have a 350 VP award on turn one, while the Axis received VP awards by event for Soviet exercise of factory release TOs and factory destruction. The loss penalties are the same as on the earlier chart.

The victory level began as Soviet Overwhelming, then gradually fell into the German Overwhelming category.

The attached screenshot charts Soviet production levels. Red is Manpower and Blue is Factory Output. Manpower production drops all the way to only 41.2% of initial, averaging 57.7% of initial (42.3% less than maximum). Factory Output drops all the way to 48% of initial, averaging 58.5% of initial (41.5% less than maximum). Since the historical average was only 17% less than maximum, you can see that the impact of the faster Axis advance meant far less Soviet squads and weapons than they enjoyed historically. That, in turn, made the Axis advance even easier – a snowballing effect.

The attached screenshot shows the final statistics for both sides. The Axis losses were about the same as in the original (31.1% vs. 34.6%). Soviet losses were significantly higher (71.5% vs. 50.25%) This was due to the Soviet defenses being attacked before they could gel. Meanwhile, Soviet production reductions meant that total Soviet forces were significantly smaller (662,253 vs. 756,802) – 12.5% reduction. Axis totals were about the same except for transport – all those extra trucks. Combine those two and you have a recipe for disaster. That’s what happened.

The result was not a fluke – it should probably always happen. That means that this scenario is not much of a game due to the severe imbalance (although it might make a good newbie vs. veteran game). What it is, however, is a simulation. And that simulation says that the Axis could have won had they fully motorized before Barbarossa. It may seem surprising that a few miserable trucks could have such a decisive effect, but not if you understand the Soviet strategy. They were trying to trade space for time – and they needed the time. The trucks mean that they don’t get enough time in exchange for that space, and the jig is up for them.

The game took 22 days to play at a leisurely pace. (Writing this report took another couple of weeks).

Once again, happy operational wargaming!

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

not if you understand the Soviet strategy. They were trying to trade space for time

That's what wound up happening, but in 1941 Soviet strategy was to dig in, counterattack and die in place. They won the campaign in spite of their strategy, not because of it.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

not if you understand the Soviet strategy. They were trying to trade space for time

That's what wound up happening, but in 1941 Soviet strategy was to dig in, counterattack and die in place. They won the campaign in spite of their strategy, not because of it.

Ok, regardless of what their strategy was, they won because of the time they gained from their strategic depth. Here, they don't get enough time.

Thanks for the test! It really highlights how the number of trucks in a scenario is important. One point though: trucks in TOAW never break down, unless shot by the enemy (I assume that this is true even with the Overstretched supply option, can you confirm?)
So you basically gave OKH the logistic capabilities of Desert Storm....

One option would be to assign at start more trucks than allowed by a unit TOE. This will give the unit a lot of MPs. Then those trucks will be slowly shed as the units move. Then you can add a `sink' unit at the edge of the map with a high replacement probability that will collect those trucks (I use it for tanks in EF41-45) and keep them out of the replacement pool. This way you could simulate the organic breakdown of equipement due to driving through thousand of miles of unpaved road (Stahel's 'Kiev' is a good reading about it).

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Ok, regardless of what their strategy was, they won because of the time they gained from their strategic depth. Here, they don't get enough time.

Yes, it's a good demonstration of the importance of mobility in TOAW.

Of course in reality this kind of broad scale motorisation wasn't possible.

ORIGINAL: governato

Thanks for the test! It really highlights how the number of trucks in a scenario is important. One point though: trucks in TOAW never break down, unless shot by the enemy (I assume that this is true even with the Overstretched supply option, can you confirm?)

Still true.

So you basically gave OKH the logistic capabilities of Desert Storm....

No. The logistical net is identical to the one in the original. It delivers the exact same tonnage of supply just as far and fast as historically - and that is just as inadequate as it was historically.

One option would be to assign at start more trucks than allowed by a unit TOE. This will give the unit a lot of MPs. Then those trucks will be slowly shed as the units move. Then you can add a `sink' unit at the edge of the map with a high replacement probability that will collect those trucks (I use it for tanks in EF41-45) and keep them out of the replacement pool. This way you could simulate the organic breakdown of equipement due to driving through thousand of miles of unpaved road (Stahel's 'Kiev' is a good reading about it).

I don't understand why that would be necessary since it doesn't seem to be necessary in any other Barbarossa scenario. The few historical motorized units didn't convert to foot units by the end of the campaign. The difference here is only quantity. Regardless, it's in the opening turns where the real impact is felt - long before any breakdown rate could have an impact.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Of course in reality this kind of broad scale motorisation wasn't possible.

I realize it's controversial, but my source says it was - and that was the basis for the scenario.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: governato

Thanks for the test! It really highlights how the number of trucks in a scenario is important. One point though: trucks in TOAW never break down, unless shot by the enemy (I assume that this is true even with the Overstretched supply option, can you confirm?)

Still true.

So you basically gave OKH the logistic capabilities of Desert Storm....

No. The logistical net is identical to the one in the original. It delivers the exact same tonnage of supply just as far and fast as historically - and that is just as inadequate as it was historically.

I don't understand why that would be necessary since it doesn't seem to be necessary in any other Barbarossa scenario. The few historical motorized units didn't convert to foot units by the end of the campaign. The difference here is only quantity. Regardless, it's in the opening turns where the real impact is felt - long before any breakdown rate could have an impact.

I agree on the supply network. I only pointed out that trucks in TOAW do not break down, like they did in the real world of 1940 (as opposed to modern armies!) If simulating the breakdown is not necessary in some Barbarossa scenarios, it probably implies that the process of the progressive slowing down of the Wehrmacht is modeled in other ways (perhaps with a low supply rate). I find that the approach I suggested works really well and is clear to model.

ORIGINAL: governato

I agree on the supply network. I only pointed out that trucks in TOAW do not break down, like they did in the real world of 1940 (as opposed to modern armies!) If simulating the breakdown is not necessary in some Barbarossa scenarios, it probably implies that the process of the progressive slowing down of the Wehrmacht is modeled in other ways (perhaps with a low supply rate). I find that the approach I suggested works really well and is clear to model.

Well, if you realize that most of the trucks in the campaign were in the supply net, that should be a way to address truck breakdowns. Note that the Axis Supply Radius drops from 5 hexes to 3 hexes after turn 16 (as it does in the original). Part of that is due to ground conditions, of course, but one could also think of some of it as due to truck losses.

I would also point out that, while TOAW doesn't model truck breakdowns, trucks are destroyed in combat to an extent that they probably shouldn't be. Where, historically, they would be left in the rear, in TOAW they are treated as front-line elements.

Finally, note that the scenario's hypothetical truck looting provided a margin well beyond the TO&E needs (290,000 vs. 170,000) - allowing generous hypothetical replacements.

I don't think there's any great surprise with this - just like there wouldn't be if, for example, you tried a scenario where Stalin hadn't wiped out most of the senior military leadership......

Both are fantasy variations that are interesting as tests of TOAW's systems, but personally not in the least bit interesting as simulations of plausible history.

There's a discussion on the mechanisation capabilities of the whermacht here that may be informative to some - http://www.ww2f.com/topic/43183-mechani ... wehrmacht/

I've come across that before. Thought it was kind of humorous. If all of the trucks carried troops the trucks and tanks would all have to wait for the horse drawn fuel to catch up to them before they could continue on. [:D]