Matrix Games Forums

Originally posted by Bernard
Back to the thread :
US planes were produced in different locations, different companies - you'll know better than me, so I won't go into details but a lot of Wildcats, helcats and mustangs etc were produced eleswhere than in their other companies. Canada produced Shermans (and Kangaroos) whose designs they didn't invent. So why the same wouldn't happen in germany ? A counntry whose reputation is base among others on discipline, organisation, procedure and highly skilled workers and white collars couldn't do the same?

Yes, there appeared to be more flexibility among Western powers when it came to production and sharing technology, but someone in this or another thread spoke to this issue with respect to the Germans in the last few days. The German procurement system was far from disciplined and well organized. There was both structural and political impediments from keeping common sense decisions from being made.

Besides, with discipline, there is such a thing as too much. The German command structure was too disciplined according to many, to the point of being dangerously rigid. It prevented lower ranking officers from making snap decisions and reacting to changes on the battlefield without having to stop and get permission from higher up the command chain.

Originally posted by Bernard
Back to the thread :
US planes were produced in different locations, different companies - you'll know better than me, so I won't go into details but a lot of Wildcats, helcats and mustangs etc were produced eleswhere than in their other companies. Canada produced Shermans (and Kangaroos) whose designs they didn't invent. So why the same wouldn't happen in germany ? A counntry whose reputation is base among others on discipline, organisation, procedure and highly skilled workers and white collars couldn't do the same?
PzII switching to Tigers is impossible ? what did they do ? remained producing PzII ?

Disruption in production has more to do with politics.
Heinkel HE something were indeed promising better than Bf 109 in 193+ (Bayerisch Flugzeugwerke not Messeerchmidt, that name came later in the war when Willy took over).

Best regards.

You aren't really listening. I did not say that it was impossible to change Pzkpfw II factories to Tiger I, but in reality it would have used up too many resources in order to be viable (just about everything in the factory, except for the building, would have to be replaced). Actually, Germany did produce Panzer II's until 1944, and planned some for 1945.

Germany sent only very few tanks to their allies. I think Romania (their largest ally, second to Italy) received only around 50 Panzer IV tanks, with the majority of those given being Pzkpfw 38's (when they were totally obsolete).

Sure, they COULD have done it, but they did only in minimal numbers. The US COULD have produced T-34's. There are a lot of could haves, but it is up to us to decide not the 'coulds' but the 'likely'.

Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard


You aren't really listening.

COLOR=orangered]yes i am. i'm only disagreeing.[/COLOR]



The US COULD have produced T-34's. There are a lot of could haves, but it is up to us to decide not the 'coulds' but the 'likely'.

Coulds and likely... you beat me with vocabulary. I don't really see the difference. we can go on for hours like that. Right now i am getting stubborn, so if you have intersting material on War production in Germany during WW2, just send the references, i am getting more and more interested myself and i'll dig into this. if i find anything better than just impressions, i'll inform you.

As for transfer of panzers to Romenia or others... this is not my point. But these countries got Bf109 (even G version), Hs129 etc. Captured tanks were largely given or retooled in SP and Pzjg.



best regards.

Originally posted by Bernard
There are some interesting points here.
just let me put a few stones.
1. Elefants in Kursk....
2. taking Moscow and win or not is also interesting. Of course Hitler's plan was not the best but you forget some points :
- war between Germany and Russia was inevitable (they were bot in for dominating the world Stalin did succed fairly well in the end, dominating half Europe). I personlay don't think Moscow fall wouldn't ended the war, but put Hitler in a much better position. He still neded oil from caucasus.
- Allied help (lend lease etc) : does really anyone think it had a key role ? it surely helped but what was the percentage of allied tanks in russians divisions ???
- USSR was unprepared for the war in 1941 : Stalin had killed or imprisoned most of the officers (like 90% of Marcechals, 100% of top Admirals etc), material was **** and badly maintained (how many percent of the total number of planes and tanks were able to fly or roll ?.
- Stalin was a real butcher, not really liked in Russia, and USSR could really have collapsed, if Hitler hadn't been so racist and had trated Ukraine and other USSR provinces better. In the beginning, a lot of russian troops surrendered and a lot of inhabitants of towns conquered considered themselves as "freed" (Ukraine, for one, lost MILLIONS of dead thanks to Stalin starvation policy in mid 20's).
- what made Hitler lose was of course some flaws but surely his hatred of Slavs that made everybody turn against him and enabled Stalin to be seen as the only hope (some kind of lesser Satan.) With that and Stalin reverting to defending the Rodina instead of the soviets, allowing people to go to church a little bit more freely tec made him look like the only alternative. This is why Russians fought back with all strenght and didn't surredner anymore "en masse" after 42. (this and the fact that 1 out of 5-6 prisoner of war survived the camps, I guess didn't make you volunteer for surrender - on both sides).

.

Re the Elefant... isn't this kind of stuff more appropriate for the really anal retentive guys on the Steel Panthers forum??:)

The Moscow question has been beaten into the ground (sort of like Germans in 1944), and I'll just stick to my humble opinion that it's fall was not a serious part of the Barbarossa plan. Either the invasion plan was fatally flawed or it wasn't.

One could argue (probably ad infinatum on this forum;)) that the Red Army held together because of the purges. The fear of Stalin was perhaps stronger than the fear of the Germans. In the west, the professionals caved in awfully quickly. Maybe what the Parisians need was a Zhukov. The officer corps was intellectually emasculated but clearly loyal and politically reliable (which was, after all, the point to the purge).

Does anyone have info on what Red Army units willingly surrendered without resistance. Paul Carell mentions three divisions; anyone have more info? The mass surrenders usually came from units out of food, ammo, and fuel, not from unwillingness to fight. The Red Army was largely based on ethnic units; how many Ukranians and Belorussians quit at the getgo?

FYI, the Red Army plans for war with Germany, written in 1936, assumed there would be at least 15 days warning. The Russians began revising the assumptions by December 1940, but like much of their military, was incomplete in June. A great read is Jacob Kipp's Barbarossa, Soviet Covering Forces and the Initial Period of the War: Military History and Airland Battle available at the Foreign Military Studies website.

Originally posted by Mark_BookGuy


Re the Elefant... isn't this kind of stuff more appropriate for the really anal retentive guys on the Steel Panthers forum??:)

The Moscow question has been beaten into the ground (sort of like Germans in 1944), and I'll just stick to my humble opinion that it's fall was not a serious part of the Barbarossa plan. Either the invasion plan was fatally flawed or it wasn't.

One could argue (probably ad infinatum on this forum;)) that the Red Army held together because of the purges. The fear of Stalin was perhaps stronger than the fear of the Germans. In the west, the professionals caved in awfully quickly. Maybe what the Parisians need was a Zhukov. The officer corps was intellectually emasculated but clearly loyal and politically reliable (which was, after all, the point to the purge).

Does anyone have info on what Red Army units willingly surrendered without resistance. Paul Carell mentions three divisions; anyone have more info? The mass surrenders usually came from units out of food, ammo, and fuel, not from unwillingness to fight. The Red Army was largely based on ethnic units; how many Ukranians and Belorussians quit at the getgo?

FYI, the Red Army plans for war with Germany, written in 1936, assumed there would be at least 15 days warning. The Russians began revising the assumptions by December 1940, but like much of their military, was incomplete in June. A great read is Jacob Kipp's Barbarossa, Soviet Covering Forces and the Initial Period of the War: Military History and Airland Battle available at the Foreign Military Studies website.

Mark,

Waiting for a reply from the HC re Stalin and surrender mentioned in their Barbarossa programme.

I'll use this rule when fighting an enemy in his own land...if they keep attacking, even if they are down to forks and butter knives, you know you are in for hell. The stories of the Soviet breakouts (aka banshee busts) from the pockets are horrific, especially when you hear it from the German side. Just think how those poor bastards must have felt looking a field strewn with hundreds and thousands of Red Army troops knowing that there was no end in sight. Guys waking up to be overrun on the morning of June 22nd don't count in the surrender department I guess.

Stalin is to fear as Kirov is to dead. You better believe the Red Army feared pappa more than the Germans. He basically mandated that you can die how you like. Soviet penal units were a nice touch of sadism, don't ya think?

On Moscow, I stick to my guns and aim them at the spires! That is all.

Regards,

Montenegro

Originally posted by Montenegro



Mark,

Waiting for a reply from the HC re Stalin and surrender mentioned in their Barbarossa programme.

I'll use this rule when fighting an enemy in his own land...if they keep attacking, even if they are down to forks and butter knives, you know you are in for hell. The stories of the Soviet breakouts (aka banshee busts) from the pockets are horrific, especially when you hear it from the German side. Just think how those poor bastards must have felt looking a field strewn with hundreds and thousands of Red Army troops knowing that there was no end in sight. Guys waking up to be overrun on the morning of June 22nd don't count in the surrender department I guess.

Stalin is to fear as Kirov is to dead. You better believe the Red Army feared pappa more than the Germans. He basically mandated that you can die how you like. Soviet penal units were a nice touch of sadism, don't ya think?

On Moscow, I stick to my guns and aim them at the spires! That is all.

Regards,

Montenegro

Yup, I agree with all this. My problem with the "Moscow firsters" is they don't put the question in context with the Barbarossa plan. Obviously one can argue at length at whether or not running panzers into St. Basil's should have come first. But, to me the question is, given the Barbarossa plan, which should have come first? The invasion plan was very clear that Moscow was NOT first. By going after the Soviet forces at Kiev, Hitler was sticking to the letter and spirit of the Barbarossa planning. Either the plan was wrong or it was not. If the plan was right, then Hitler was correct in going after Kiev. If the plan was wrong, then who's to blame for the plan? You can't have your borscht both ways.

Originally posted by Mark_BookGuy


Re the Elefant... isn't this kind of stuff more appropriate for the really anal retentive guys on the Steel Panthers forum??:)

i like this.

best regards.

Originally posted by Mark_BookGuy

My problem with the "Moscow firsters" is they don't put the question in context with the Barbarossa plan.

.....

If the plan was wrong, then who's to blame for the plan? You can't have your borscht both ways.

Ok, this "Moscow Firster" believes the plan was wrong. The emphasis should have been on the speed of advance to the Leningrad-Moscow-Karkov line. Taking Leningrad could wait till after Moscow falls so some AGN forces could have been sent to AGC for the Moscow push, and taking Kharkov is not really necessary, just take enough ground to protect the right flank of the push to Moscow. Destruction of forces in detail should have explicitly been a *secondary* objective. Let the infantry take care of the pockets, keep the panzers moving east, except where cutoff pockets are preventing a further advance.

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn



Ok, this "Moscow Firster" believes the plan was wrong. The emphasis should have been on the speed of advance to the Leningrad-Moscow-Karkov line. Taking Leningrad could wait till after Moscow falls so some AGN forces could have been sent to AGC for the Moscow push, and taking Kharkov is not really necessary, just take enough ground to protect the right flank of the push to Moscow. Destruction of forces in detail should have explicitly been a *secondary* objective. Let the infantry take care of the pockets, keep the panzers moving east, except where cutoff pockets are preventing a further advance.

Ed

The 'Moscow first' players must take a hard look at their own abillities before deciding if Moscow should come first. If you think the soviet Player is more skilled then it comes down to the wire in
September as to whether they will be able to take Moscow. If you honestly assess your own skill you can set yourself up starting in July to have the best position you can if Moscow eludes you.
I recently played as soviet against Josan and he took Moscow in the last week of sept. I am now playing him as German and have placed my Germans to be in good position if i do not take Moscow to hold through Winter. I accept that he is one good player and my goals may not be reached. So i adjust the Date and method to achieve those goals.

Basically Moscow First depends on how successful you are as german. Decide in Mid-sept at lattest if you will have to wait till '42 to win and then organise with this in mind.

Loki

Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir


Ed

The 'Moscow first' players must take a hard look at their own abillities before deciding if Moscow should come first. If you think the soviet Player is more skilled then it comes down to the wire in
September as to whether they will be able to take Moscow. If you honestly assess your own skill you can set yourself up starting in July to have the best position you can if Moscow eludes you.
I recently played as soviet against Josan and he took Moscow in the last week of sept. I am now playing him as German and have placed my Germans to be in good position if i do not take Moscow to hold through Winter. I accept that he is one good player and my goals may not be reached. So i adjust the Date and method to achieve those goals.

Basically Moscow First depends on how successful you are as german. Decide in Mid-sept at lattest if you will have to wait till '42 to win and then organise with this in mind.

Loki

Loki,

I think as far as WIR goes, interdiction and Luftwaffe strength are so powerful that there is no way a skilled German player can be stopped when you add this to the already huge factors of readiness, mobility, and armor in '41. If you basically attack Lenningrad with the idea of taking out as much of the Soviet defenses in the swamps and form a front line around Kharkov and Rostov, Moscow is a very real possibility by Sept, Oct , or even Nov. However, a good Soviet player can draw enough blood and defend properly to make Generals Mud and Winter be the stop gap reserves. I contend that all this game needs in a future update is historical readiness/fighting on Soviet side where they deserve it, better entrenchment values in these areas (especially if Zhukov is in command), and more of a partisan factor, particularly in the movement of German forces by rail or even basic transfer btw HQ's and units.

Regards,

Montenegro

Originally posted by Montenegro


Loki,

I think as far as WIR goes, interdiction and Luftwaffe strength are so powerful that there is no way a skilled German player can be stopped when you add this to the already huge factors of readiness, mobility, and armor in '41. If you basically attack Lenningrad with the idea of taking out as much of the Soviet defenses in the swamps and form a front line around Kharkov and Rostov, Moscow is a very real possibility by Sept, Oct , or even Nov. However, a good Soviet player can draw enough blood and defend properly to make Generals Mud and Winter be the stop gap reserves. I contend that all this game needs in a future update is historical readiness/fighting on Soviet side where they deserve it, better entrenchment values in these areas (especially if Zhukov is in command), and more of a partisan factor, particularly in the movement of German forces by rail or even basic transfer btw HQ's and units.

Regards,

Montenegro

I agree. WIR is grossly imbalanced in the 1941 senario. Any German player worth his salt will take at least Leningrad without too much trouble, even against a good human opponent. I have a number of suggestions, which I hope more experienced WIR players will comment upon:

1. The panzer corps move too far, too fast. In WIR they can race without pausing for brautwurst breaks. A personal pet peeve is they will create zones of control as they run amok in the Russian rear (and later, tank armies do the same). This automatically condemns the Russian to mass losses because they go instantly out of supply. It took the Germans two months to go 400 miles; in WIR you can do it in half the time. Because of the ZOCs, it's almost impossible for Russians to have any chance of escape - which large numbers did in reality. A good German player doesn't need to wait for the infantry, which in reality they had to do to seal off escape routes. Most of the mass surrenders were caused by the lack of Russian movement, waiting too long to withdraw before infantry, not armor, sealed their fate. You'd never guess from WIR the terribly high loss in German infantry from cleaning up the pockets that WIR just surrenders. Kiev almost automatically falls in the 3rd week which is way too fast. You'd never guess from WIR that the Red Army stopped AGN and AGS by August, which is why AGC was split to go north and south. Playing even level against a human, it's almost impossible for a Russian to win the 41 senario.

2. It's too easy to move forces around!! Jeez, in WIR one can shift large forces almost with abandon. In reality, large scale troop movements were very complex and surprisingly slow.

3. How about letting the Russian player have the option of not getting penalized for early war command and control. It's nearly impossible to corrdinate any reasonable counterattack. In reality, a number of their attacks went off well; others were more problematic.

4. The attrition rate for marching armor is too low. German armor was notorious for breakdowns.

5. Who ever calculated the production costs? I think there've been threads on this, but German costs are too low.

6. Swamps should all but stop armor. Period.

7. How did all those German airplanes get shot down?? In WIR the Red Air Force must spend a good chunk of the war in the far east eating borscht and playing the accordian just to survive. Losses should be heavy, but the Luftwaffe losses don't seem very realistic.

8. Lastly, I just think WIR has a generally pro-German bias. Give me a break on the command strengths. Much of this is based on the myths propogated by the Germans themselves after the war. Put Guderian in Pavlov's shoes in June 1941 and let's see how well he'd do.

Anyway, comments and suggestions.....???

Originally posted by Mark_BookGuy


I agree. WIR is grossly imbalanced in the 1941 senario. Any German player worth his salt will take at least Leningrad without too much trouble, even against a good human opponent. I have a number of suggestions, which I hope more experienced WIR players will comment upon:

Well, I comment only this part. With historical 20/20 hindsight and managing production, German player can have good success. Even with their strategic and operational mistakes they came *this* close to capture either Leningrad or Moscow historically.

Thus...German commander can do better than historical..but that's the whole point of the game..from both sides. Good Russian player will not use Summer 1941 Soviet strategy against German player. Especially not leaving his air and ground for slaughter and conserving strength to where it really matters.

This game makes huge abstractions..and is 1 % war..99% game. But would you like a game where you have no chance of winning...like starting Operation Bagration as German..then game would say "no...those units cannot retreat"..as was historical. What would be the whole point of the game if the conclusions would be predetermined ?

And I agree, good German player can, (with bit of luck) take either Leningrad or Moscow even against good Soviet player. But that's whole point, trying to do better than historical commanders. And it's never foregone conclusion. Russian commander can do better than historical too.

Sorry for the rant

M.S.

I agree. Though there are little tweaks that would be nice in the game, I find it satisfactory on both sides of the map. AS Ivan I'm in two do-or-die situations at the gates of Moscow in turns of alternating rain or snow. In one, Leningrad is a complete loss with his south end immobile at Rostov...and in the other game, Leningad is a definite maybe with his southern wing resting at Dnetropovplask (did I spell it right?) In both games Moscow is the scene of many PzKorps...both will be close run things. I have no doubt that my opponents are skilled players..though one has a penchant for high risk strategies, and the other just cleaned the northern half of the Rodina as if I wasn't even there.
In my German games, things vary...in snow and mud, one opponent has me stymied from just east of Leningrad (I took the city after many turns of trying to isolate it), 120 miles west of Moscow, and just west of Rostov.
In the others I'm not as far along, still making for Leningrad, and involved in fierce fighting for the Kiev area.
To say the Soviets have no chance, I just can't agree with. Saving Moscow has to be the foremost concern.
If you see your opponent advancing with most or all of his PzKorps towards Moscow...you're gonna have to give somewhere else...cause if you don't have a huge amount of troops in Moscow..his panzers will break you. I'm finding that entrenchment of 5 or 6 isn't enbough at times. Leningrad, though a painful loss is far easier to stomach than losing Moscow. Rostov, Kiev, an Kharkov are hardly worth considering once the factories have been removed.
Basically, I believe it depends on paying close attention to your opponent's strategy. It will become apparent whether he is trying to play along a more historical approach, or that he is hell bent for Moscow, bugger all else

here are my 2 cents ("2 grosze" in polish) :
1. soviet coordinacion in 1941 - AFAIR it was agreed in some of previous threads that something should be done in this issue, e.g. making the chance of succesfull move greater and shorten penalty period.
2. Moscow - honestly speaking I dont know if it is possible to survive as Soviets in PBEM with both Leningrad and Moscow taken. I agree it is a bit (just a bit) to easy for Germans to take Leningrad and Moscow, but on the other hand they deserve a chance to win. So they are few ways to solve this problem
- if we tweak soviet C&C problems in 1941 skilled soviet player will be able to make germans live much more difficult
- key cities should have much higher entrechment values
- for a game sake players might agree beforehand that germans cannot take both Leningrad and Moscow in 1941. But that would mean Germans cannot win in 1941 and IMHO is not a best way to solve a problem.

In generall I still have lots of fun playing this game as is, both as German and Soviet so I dont think this are major concerns.
Production problem has been already covered so many times so I wont waste time repeating.
regards
Maciej

To all,

Is there any way to add more of a partisan factor in this grand game, specifically in the areas of German troop and supply movement by long distance rail?

Kiev should not fall in July. Hell, even Brest-Litovsk wasn't completely taken until the close of the Minsk pocket. What I say is that we could possibly add a little more history to yes, a great GAME. Maybe force the German player to leave some reserves in the rear, specifically in AGC where a lot of the behind the lines activity went on. I do not sympathise with Soviet players who bemoan their air force. Until Citadel, they were not very good, let's face it. Attrition more than Soviet airmanship was the demise of the Luftwaffe in the East. I am 100% German in my preference of play in WIR. Even with a little tweeking in the areas of Soviet entrenchment and readiness---where deserved---I still believe a good german player has a lot going for him and can still win or set himself up to win by '43.

Regards,

Montenegro

Does somebody have a good list of the Luftwaffe losses from June-December 1941?

Is it true Goering said that his pilots cracked up three planes for every four Russians they destroyed? Does anyone have a source for this quote. I've seen it on the web a few times but no one gives a citation (of course).

Thanks.

Another nasty quote from Goering? I've never heard of that one...but he did give the Jagdflieger short shrift many times. Most of his comments were undeserved and far from realistically based. I can't think of anyone in WWII who sot of his mouth more incorrectly than herr Meier in his drug induced haze.

As far as the Partisan questions from above go...
I don't know what one could do to make it more realistic. Cutting off every rail line for a week at a time seems like a stretch.
But then again, I feel that the German player SHOULD have to do something. But, in exchange, those units left in the rear for anti-partisan duties should have a higher area of control than 20 miles. My ideal solution would for be for a creation of security corps which could do nothing other than hunt partisans, and in return be given control of an area of the hex it's hq sits in, and all adjacent hexes.

AS for my current solution...once I see partisan activity, I send 2 corps into the area. Each corps has one of my allied divisions in it...you know which ones...the ones that start at a strength of 99-109 with very low experience numbers. Later, when it really gets nasty in the balkan peninsula, I have about 6 corps in there, plotting them up and down the railways. "partisans annihilated in combat" is one of my favourite sights.

Concerning partisans - perhaps there could be a special HQ like the West and Italian Front HQs, and the more divisions are in this unit the lower would be the possibility of partisans taking hexes?

As I recall, about 10% of the heer was busy chasing partisans around the map. Does anyone know if Hungarians, Rumanians, or Italians were actively used in anti-partisan activities. My gut feeling is that they would have been awful at this nasty business.