Campaign, tyronec (Axis) vs MSAG (Soviet)

[tyronec]

It is true that multiple factors go into the outcome of any particular game. However, I wonder what you would say to these questions:

1) Do you think you could have achieved the large breakthroughs you got towards both Leningrad and Moscow as easily (or at all?) if MSAG had all or most of the Southwestern/southern front troops supplementing his defenses in the north/center with more defense in depth?

2) Suppose that MSAG had defended the south more lightly, and you reached as far as the outskirts of Voronezh on turn 12-15 or so and it is either sparsely defended or maybe even entirely undefended - the point being that you think you can easily take it. Would you take it, or would you intentionally avoid taking Voronezh, knowing that mud is just around the corner and your logistics will be appalling that far away, and also keeping in mind that if Soviets re-take it during winter, they will get 6 bonus VP for re-taking the city early, whereas if you don't take it in 1941 and then take it in 1942 instead and can hold it, you will still get exactly the same 6 bonus VP from taking it early that you would get by taking it now, but the Soviets will not get the 6 bonus VP for re-taking it early as long as you can hold it beyond late '42 or so? Assume that Soviets have been retreating or defending lightly in the south (which is why you have gotten as far as Voronezh), and consequently have a large OOB capable of supporting a significant winter offensive, and thus it is plausible that you may lose Voronezh during the blizzard. You may also wish to consider the fact that if you do take Voronezh early, the Soviet IL-2 factories and 3 armaments factories will nevertheless be evacuated (although they will have somewhat more damage and Soviet IL-2 production will end up being slightly lower, but not enough to make a dent in the many thousands they will eventually make).

3) If you decide to take Voronezh despite the questionable VP incentives for doing so, do you push on to Tambov or Saratov despite knowing that your logistics will be even worse during mud/blizzard than they already will be in Voronezh?

Am not going to speculate on how the game would pan out if MSAG had tried a different strategy. There are far too many uncertainties but more important it is just not the way I behave.

[Stamb]

If all Soviet players will use that running tactic then there will be no or maybe only few players who will want to play as an Axis at all. It is shown that not defending South is giving huge bonuses for the Soviets with almost no downsides. If there will be no changes in a game or some clever way to house rule it somehow - I have doubts that there will be any pvp games at all. At least in GC.

[Beethoven1]

OK, I don't want to hijack the AAR thread, so I won't say anything more after this post regarding hypotheticals and the south, but... It seems a bit extreme to think that we can't say anything at all about what would have happened in a game counter-factually if players had done some things differently. The purpose of AARs is, after all, to evaluate "lessons learned."

At the very least, surely we can say that it would have been more difficult for tyronec to achieve his breakthroughs in the north/center if Soviets had more troops and more depth there. Although it is fair to argue that this would have had some downsides elsewhere (in the south), that is a separate question from whether the north/center could have held better with more troops.

If MSAG feels any more able to speculate than tyronec, then I wonder if he regrets his defense in the south at all, and if he thinks he could have been able to stop the breakthroughs in the north/center any better if he had instead sent more troops there and had less in the south.

[MSAG]

Thank you for reading and for your reactions and responses to this AAR.

Re Beethoven1 (post $57): I chose my strategy based on the premise that supply is the key limiting factor of Axis advance & that by defending key logistical hubs the supply flow can be restricted, delayed and disrupted. I still believe it to be fundamentally correct assertion.
It is my execution (amplified by my Opponent's prowess of course) that I find lacking.
The way I see it today:
- I overestimated the ability to defend fortresses during the first 5-8 turns. Probably it is better to focus on e.g. Kharkov and D-town than Kiev, Pskov and Odessa.
- On top of that I misplaced some defence positions (vide Kiev or Mogilev), that were bypassed entirely.
- The missteps above resulted in wrong force position and allocation and that in turn led to faster Axis progress than reasonably expected otherwise (Leningrad, Crimea).

[MSAG]

TURN 5

DISASTER continues

Another massive breakthrough. This time on the Moscow axis. Deep one.
Leningrad breach expanded & looking grim.
On top of that Odessa captured after 1(!) attack.

Kiev surrounded but not attacked yet.
My reserves start to arrive in greater numbers, so at least for now I have troops to patch the worst gaps.
He can’t be strong everywhere – I see quite a few “silent areas” of the front. Also according to the intelligence reports AGC sent troops to strengthen other areas. How strong exactly are the forces in the center breakthrough…

Detailed reports:
- On map strength: 3.2M men, 38K guns, 6000 AFVs
- 32 leaders lost till date. Including Bezguly (Inf 6)
- 20K trucks mobilized, Total (units, depots, pool): 246K trucks (90% of units demand).
Axis Vehicles.
3300 lost this turn (8200 total). Significant increase. 13600 soviet trucks captured. Altogether +5400.

[MSAG]

Odessa debacle.
1 attack. 6 Infantry Divisions, each one with 3 Engineer battalions. Have a look how skilfully my Opponent executed it. He attacked from 2 hexes, leaving 2 open. My units withdrew out of the city, instead of evacuating by sea. On top of that decent general (Belov) KIA.
It is as bad as it can get.

[MSAG]

Breakthrough in the centre – I misplaced somewhere the screenshot of the situation at the beginning of turn.

[MSAG]

Counterattack south of Sychevka routed the Kampfgruppe of 7th Panzer Division, commanded, how fittingly, by Rommel.

[RedJohn]

Another snake! It's unfortunate that you couldn't cut him off.

Situation looks okay though, for Moscow.

Also I'm surprised he was able to get 140k men from just 2 hexes. Reserve activations?

[MSAG]

Leningrad front. I do not have forces to counterattack and cut off the breakthrough. Decided to withdraw forces on the west. Situation looks grim.

[MSAG]

ORIGINAL: RedJohn

Also I'm surprised he was able to get 140k men from just 2 hexes. Reserve activations?

IIRC only 1/3 of a division. Axis Infantry Division + 3 x Engineer battalion = 18-19K men. There was a lot of SUs.

[RedJohn]

Ahh that is true, forgot pioneers had quite a few men.

[tyronec]

T06
AGN.
Have reached the outskirts of Lenningrad, 10 or so units routed this turn. Have options next turn, can go NW and pocket anything west of Lenningrad; North and assault across the river and the direct route to take Lenningrad or NE and aim to take the mainland ports

[tyronec]

AGC.
Had two of my lead Panzer regiments cut off and one routed last turn, it is a reasonable sacrifice to have got past all those rivers.
Just lots more attacks this turn to fill out the spearhead, about 10 or so Soviet units routed here too.

4th Army push past Gomel in the South and link up with PG2.

PG2 push north to link up with PG3. Soviets are defending with scattered units on swamp hexes, rout a few and pocket a couple.

Holding off the assault of Kiev till next turn to build up some CPP and redeploy the pioneers and seige artillery. Will let them drop a morale point too.

[tyronec]

AGS.
Just advancing into space, well placed to get behind D’town and Z’town next turn.
Up to the Crimea though the infantry are not in place for an assault yet.
Pocket a few units around Kherson.

Good loss ratio helped by 50k of the Odessa garrison.
I continue to lose a lot of recon from Soviet interceptions.

[Rosencrantus]

.

[MSAG]

TURN 6
Well, it is now official I think – I am being outmanoeuvred and outfought. Crimea wide open. Kiev isolated. Leningrad to be cut off soon and struggling in the centre.
My strategy to block key cities seems unsuccessful – the planned fortresses fall faster than planned AND (what is rather humiliating – my Opponent bypasses them as irrelevant (!!) as they do not block his key supply line).

Detailed reports:
- On map strength: 3.2M men, 36K guns, 4700AFVs
- 6 leaders KIA (total 38 leaders, of which 8 with Inf rating of 6 and more).
- 20K trucks mobilized, Total (units, depots, pool): 260+K trucks (90+% of units demand).

Axis Vehicles.
2700 lost this turn (11300 total). 15700 soviet trucks captured. Altogether +4400.

below: Situation in the North BOT

[MSAG]

The debacle in the South during the last 2 turns turned my defence into the picket line. With predictable consequences.

[tyronec]

PG4 are up to the river, quite a few units are not going to escape from Lenningrad.
Next turn can strike West to take the airfields for Naval Interdiction OR attempt to cross the river OR push NE to take out the Lagoda ports.

PG3 make a modest advance, Viasma was well defended so have pocketed it, hopefully will hold.

[tyronec]

PG2 are heading towards Kharkov and Kursk, have broken out of the last of the swamp hexes.
17th Army assault Kiev, maybe the worst combat results I have ever seen for Axis this early in Barbarossa, and that with a top general and stacked with heavy artillery. It is actually not important and will just leave Romanians to besiege it now.