WitE 2

[RedLancer]

I'd be interested in any details on rail conversion rates. In game there must be a differential between the cost of double and single repair with a unit of the same strength but what that will finally be is still up for debate. Goranw is our resident map expert and we think we have captured all the double rails but any info anyone has can be compared to our sources.

Road values are interesting. The road quality for the hex accounts for both the amount of roads in the hex and the resistance of the roads to weather. A major highway or autobahn alone is probably enough to bump a hex to good, but so could lots of decent paved roads that are running through the hex. At the end of the day it's a judgement call I've had to make based on the info I can find.

The bottom line on the map is that with the new tile based system we can keep amending the map almost to the finish and also after release.

[MechFO]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

I'd be interested in any details on rail conversion rates. In game there must be a differential between the cost of double and single repair with a unit of the same strength but what that will finally be is still up for debate. Goranw is our resident map expert and we think we have captured all the double rails but any info anyone has can be compared to our sources.

http://www.allworldwars.com/Comments-on ... -Bork.html

[RedLancer]

Thanks - this is exactly the sort of thing I've been looking for.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: 821Bobo

The RR system in Romania could have been overall better than in Soviet union but did they have any west-east double track? Also I really doubt that they had any double track crossing Carpathian mountains and every transport from Germany have to cross Carpaths. Going via Lvov is more logical.

I think the myth of Romania having a poor railway system is something that started here.

Romania had allot of 2x track and modern rolling stock and engines.

Remember they were the 7th largest producer of oil in the world in 1941 with almost all if it rolling into Europe.

2x answered

This event was significant for Romanian railways because it meant that the large Arad rolling stock and steel factory, previously located on Austro-Hungarian territory, was now part of Romania, and was consequently used to produce a wide range of rolling stock and locomotives for CFR.

During this time, various railways were "doubled"— that is, double tracks were introduced on routes to permit a greater flow of traffic. The first line to be doubled was the Bucharest–Ploiești–Câmpina line, where doubling was completed in 1912. In the period between the wars, various other lines were doubled, including:
Constanța–Cernavodã (1931)
Adjud–Tecuci (1933)
Teiuº–Apahida (1940)
Câmpina–Brașov (1941)
Buzãu–Mãrãșești (1942)

They were tied to the European railnet work long before 1940

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

Thanks - this is exactly the sort of thing I've been looking for.

I personally like to go back to the 2011 WitE forums and see what people were talking about back then-so the data's been around for a long time.

printable.asp?m=2937444&mpage=1

Then if you take the time to read the furoms you find this link

http://allworldwars.com/Comments-on-Rus ... -Bork.html

This was a study done by USA which is one of the links I have been using.

Baltic state had paved roads most rail lines were standard, and the engines/rolling stock and personal were more then happy to help.

Its historical fact 400 miles of rail was connected to the front in just 27 days.

and

Romania's rail network was modern and tied to Europe with 2x rail lines using modern engines and rolling stock.

[821Bobo]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

I think the myth of Romania having a poor railway system is something that started here.

Romania had allot of 2x track and modern rolling stock and engines.

Remember they were the 7th largest producer of oil in the world in 1941 with almost all if it rolling into Europe.

2x answered

This event was significant for Romanian railways because it meant that the large Arad rolling stock and steel factory, previously located on Austro-Hungarian territory, was now part of Romania, and was consequently used to produce a wide range of rolling stock and locomotives for CFR.

During this time, various railways were "doubled"— that is, double tracks were introduced on routes to permit a greater flow of traffic. The first line to be doubled was the Bucharest–Ploiești–Câmpina line, where doubling was completed in 1912. In the period between the wars, various other lines were doubled, including:
Constanța–Cernavodã (1931)
Adjud–Tecuci (1933)
Teiuº–Apahida (1940)
Câmpina–Brașov (1941)
Buzãu–Mãrãșești (1942)

They were tied to the European railnet work long before 1940

The only relevant from this list is Câmpina–Brașov because thats the one crossing Carpathian mountains. However Arad - Sibiu - Brasov was still single track. I am not saying Romania was backward country but there has not been any double track from west to east.

[RedLancer]

I've made a couple of changes but most of Romania was already accurate.

[morvael]

I think that
-Bessarabia would be the weakest link in the chain
-Ploesti nexus would be overloaded, guess it was used to ship oil to Germany and that was its major task
-No good rail from Brasov north
-Coordinating shipments via Hungary/Slovakia and Romania would be really difficult (three separate rail organizations)
-The length of that route would tie up many more trains
-Already supplying two Romanian and one German army means there is not much capacity of a single double rail line to spare (one double per army is ideal)

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: morvael

I think that
-Bessarabia would be the weakest link in the chain


-Ploesti nexus would be overloaded, guess it was used to ship oil to Germany and that was its major task

-No good rail from Brasov north

-Coordinating shipments via Hungary/Slovakia and Romania would be really difficult (three separate rail organizations)
-The length of that route would tie up many more trains
-Already supplying two Romanian and one German army means there is not much capacity of a single double rail line to spare (one double per army is ideal)

I agree with your points over all, just making the point that Romanian rail system was not useless or worse then Russia's.

If you read up on the who controlled the rail systems, Germany did.
But your point is a good one, but not and end all.

Germany was not stupid in the study I sent to MT it was clear that
Germany knew before invading they had HUGE issues they faced logisticly in the center.

AGN was never and issue and historically it never was logisticly. Ports/raods/not many lines to convert/rolling stock/engines/standard support system and willing workers.

AGS had a big advantage over AGC-ports, still a bitch but not as hopeless as AGC.

AGC was the bitch which is why 41/42 winter was a hit for AGC and not the other 2 AG's

Each area is its own logistical problem, to make all 3 the same is not historical.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

I've made a couple of changes but most of Romania was already accurate.

+1 good job

[Michael T]

I do like the look of that map. And I totally agree that rail conversion rates in WITE 1.0 are way below historical rates. There is a lot of myth surrounding Germany's supposed lack of rail smarts. Do people really think the most professional army in the world had no plan to supply itself properly? Sure they had logistical problems, like all did. But some around here think the Germans were totally incompetent at logistics. It's good that this aspect is being looked at objectively.

[Icier]

check out this post by the German railways... its what I would call a definitively description
of the German/Russian rail system.

Deutsche Reichsbahn - The German State Railway in WWII
www.feldgrau.com/dreichsbahn.html

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I do like the look of that map. And I totally agree that rail conversion rates in WITE 1.0 are way below historical rates. There is a lot of myth surrounding Germany's supposed lack of rail smarts. Do people really think the most professional army in the world had no plan to supply itself properly? Sure they had logistical problems, like all did. But some around here think the Germans were totally incompetent at logistics. It's good that this aspect is being looked at objectively.

Yes, actually. Their handling of logistics was abysmal and they never got those rail lines to deliver anything like their theoretical capacity. There's a lot more going on here than just track conversion.

I strongly recommend you read anything by David Stehel, since I know you refuse to read Glantz. He lays it all out in detail. And it's not a happy story.

Basically you need to get up to speed with the state of the art in military history. It has progressed from your essentially Cold War era views of the conflict. Which are getting more and more dated.

[Michael T]

I don't agree with your new age take at all. The fact is this. After 100 or so books are written on any subject, a new writer needs to conjure up something new to sell books. It's been happening for a while now. Not just on the Eastern war but also other fronts, notably the Pacific.

Basically you need to get up to speed with the state of the art in military history

Maybe you need to adopt a more impartial view of things and not be so accepting of writers who need to come up with something new just make a buck?

[darbycmcd]

MT, it is interesting that you are so opposed to Glantz, who was considered one of the best current academic writers of East Front operations right now. I admit though it has been a while since I was following the field. Can you point out a couple errors he makes, either in fact or in analysis, that you used to come to your position? What specific things makes you think he is wrong, other than he has a 'bias', which of course is true in the sense that he is approaching a topic from a particular perspective, every researcher does that.
Also, given that we live in a time when many people believe in chemtrails and we have anti-vaxxers, the argument that 'lots of people think so' just isn't very compelling.

[Michael T]

Considered best by who I would ask. Other than his publishers and Red fanbois?

I read one of his books a few years back. IMO it was biased. I am not about to go back and mark out it's failings. I have better things to do.

On the other hand, a book recommended by Flavio, written by Erickson, I found to be very good, and impartial even though it was written from the Soviet perspective.

[Flaviusx]

Erickson is very good but somewhat dated at this point. Still, surprising how much of his work stands the test of time. He had to work without access to the kind of records that only became available post Cold War.

Glantz and Stahel are not in it "to make a buck." They're both pretty severely academic historians writing on what is now a fairly esoteric topic. (so was Erickson, for that matter.) Nobody is making big bucks writing the kind of deep operational histories they are writing. It's very niche stuff. Glantz in particular doesn't even have a very good writing style. (Stahel is the more readable.)

I just don't see how you can simply ignore this recent scholarship.

Stahel writes from the German POV, btw. But without illusions. He is indeed far harder on the Germans than Glantz ever was.

So far as German logistics go, it really comes down to this: they were not planning on a long war. The idea was to beat the Red Army entirely west of the Dnepr and then mop things up. They did pretty amazing considering, but in the end material factors were decisive.

[Michael T]

I agree they planned for a short war. But they did plan to capture Moscow, Leningrad, Rostov and beyond. So why would anyone think they did not plan to send and supply their armies that far east?

Anyway I digress. I don't rate Glantz. I prefer other authors. Simple as that. I form my views based on a wide range of books. Not just one author. I will leave it at that.

[RedLancer]

I've already translated the data on Baltic rail conversion into game metrics and shared with Joel. We are already pretty close in with what we are seeing with the new rail conversion rules.

Reading this excellent discussion two things come to the fore.

Firstly I need data for the non Baltic area so if any one has that info please share and we can check that against the system.

Secondly please remember that with the new logistic rules rail conversion is only half the problem. You also need to create depots. Depots built on locations with larger railyards are much more capable. It's not rail capacity that is the limiting factor it's depot capacity. This is where the new system can be made to be much more historical as the end points of the rails are not equal. Excessive rail usage (i.e congestion) means that freight delivery costs more and therefore you get less but a Depot is still limited by its maximum capacity. Testers are learning to capture key railyards and not just convert the rails closest to the major targets like Moscow and Leningrad. For the Soviets holding these locations for an extra turn is well worth it.

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I agree they planned for a short war. But they did plan to capture Moscow, Leningrad, Rostov and beyond. So why would anyone think they did not plan to send and supply their armies that far east?

Anyway I digress. I don't rate Glantz. I prefer other authors. Simple as that. I form my views based on a wide range of books. Not just one author. I will leave it at that.

As I said: the plan was to beat the Red Army west of the Dnepr and then mop up.

They didn't anticipate the ability of the Soviet Union to mobilize tens of millions of people and hundreds of divisions. They figured on knocking out a couple hundred divisions and taking a victory lap. (That was the numbers they estimated they had to beat before the war.) The war would effectively be over in a few weeks.

So there wouldn't be any need to supply heavy combat to take these objectives. This is even mentioned in Halder's diary. The front was supposed to broken well before they reached places like Leningrad or Moscow.

The plan rested on the shakiest of assumptions.