Surplus of Soviet Tanks

[56ajax]

What do I do with the all those Soviet Tanks...or how do i use them....

It is T43 and I have close to 3600 post 1939 tanks sitting in the pool.

Armaments points is well up, though manpower is lowish and the vehicle pool is on a steady decline....

Independent Tank Battalions? Get every Tank brigade to charge!!!!!!

Advice please.

[Stelteck]

You mean T-34, right ? Are you sûre it is T-43 ?

The problem with medium tank is that soviet have a huge production (and also getting huge number from land lease) without having the units to use them.
On the other side, you will always lack light tanks.
(Heavy tanks production looks ok).

- In 1941, armored division mostly use light tanks.
- Middle 1941, the tank bataillon can be created, but this support unit use 2/3 light tanks and 1/3 others, so you cannot use it to use your spare medium tanks.
- End 1941, you have 100 tanks brigades, but they are using 50% light tanks, 35% medium tanks and 15% heavy.
- Spring 1942, the tank corps use 50% light tanks, 35% medium tanks and 15% heavy.
- November 1942, the tank corps is upgraded. Heavy tanks are removed and now the corps will use 40% light tanks, 60% medium tanks. (But you can and must create guard heavy tank regiments to use heavy tanks).
- January 1943, the tank bataillon is upgraded to tank regiment, using now 70% medium tanks.
- November 1943, at last, the tank corps and tank bataillon looses their light tanks to have 100% medium tanks.

So in the current production system, there is no solution to use your spare medium tanks, at least until end 1943. (And you may have 10000 spare medium tanks end 1943 so it will still be complicated).

And you will always lack light tanks....

[GPT55]

Stelteck, thanks for the clear description of the light vs. medium tank situation. I have to wonder if WiTE isn't being way to inflexible in strictly filling units according to arbitrary TOEs. Would the Soviets really not substitute superior medium tanks for light tanks when there are thousands of medium tanks sitting in inventory, and no light tanks? It seems like an attempt to be super realistic that is not actually realistic and just doesn't make sense. Maybe this can't be changed in WiTE 1--but I hope it can be improved in WiTE 2.

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: gpt

Stelteck, thanks for the clear description of the light vs. medium tank situation. I have to wonder if WiTE isn't being way to inflexible in strictly filling units according to arbitrary TOEs. Would the Soviets really not substitute superior medium tanks for light tanks when there are thousands of medium tanks sitting in inventory, and no light tanks? It seems like an attempt to be super realistic that is not actually realistic and just doesn't make sense. Maybe this can't be changed in WiTE 1--but I hope it can be improved in WiTE 2.

I agree with your assessment. At the very least for AP’s Allow the Soviet to create Medium Tank units or some other TO&E ratio .. the other possibility i think is to edit through the editor to create ahistorical units ?

[Stelteck]

I think the T-34 production in the game is probably realistic for an historical point of view. I know that the developper are really carefull of that.
Same as the TOE of tank brigade and corps. (And numbers are also historical).

So i wonder where the soviet union used all these T-34.

Reading wikipedia, it looks like the battle of moscow end 1941 hardly saw any T-34. Only 45 were engaged here according to the article. (Mostly T-60 and others light tanks fought the battle). It is only end 1942/1943 that the T-34 was more than half of soviet tanks.
But still in 1941 1800 T-34 were producted and 12000+ in 1942. Where did all these T-34 went ?

Did soviet loose them far more than we loose them in game ? Did they store them in depot like us in game and not use them ? Or sent them in 6 month training before engaging ?

Anyone have historical info of T-34 looses or things like that ?

[No idea]

Two probable reasons:

1. Low casualties
2. APs crunch that wasnt present irl.

Or both at the same time

[morvael]

In my PBEM game I had a shortage of medium tanks, mostly after T-34/85 went into production.

Players are too passive, in other words game doesn't encourage you to attack constantly and burn your tank pool in this way.

[No idea]

ORIGINAL: morvael

In my PBEM game I had a shortage of medium tanks, mostly after T-34/85 went into production.

Players are too passive, in other words game doesn't encourage you to attack constantly and burn your tank pool in this way.

The problem is in the game you know, more or less, when you are going to win a battle (with something between 2.5 and 3 times CV a full atack will give you victory 95% of times). So, with this on mind, many times it is pointless to attck when you know you are going to be defeated. IRL they didnt have the luxury of doing a quick math and knowing if the attack was going to be sucessful. They didnt have the perfect info we have (well, most times is perfect, as you exactly know the CV of your enemy 90% of the times you attack)

[Stelteck]

ORIGINAL: morvael

In my PBEM game I had a shortage of medium tanks, mostly after T-34/85 went into production.

Players are too passive, in other words game doesn't encourage you to attack constantly and burn your tank pool in this way.

Ok so shortage can happen in 1944. Never reached this date yet, but i'am in the way. Will be interesting.

[Stelteck]

The problem of attacking and failing is that it give morale to the ennemy. (And ennemy looses are often not so much).

Failure also slow the guard promotion of your units.

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: No idea

ORIGINAL: morvael

In my PBEM game I had a shortage of medium tanks, mostly after T-34/85 went into production.

Players are too passive, in other words game doesn't encourage you to attack constantly and burn your tank pool in this way.

The problem is in the game you know, more or less, when you are going to win a battle (with something between 2.5 and 3 times CV a full atack will give you victory 95% of times). So, with this on mind, many times it is pointless to attck when you know you are going to be defeated. IRL they didnt have the luxury of doing a quick math and knowing if the attack was going to be sucessful. They didnt have the perfect info we have (well, most times is perfect, as you exactly know the CV of your enemy 90% of the times you attack)

I am not sure they really cared ... using an American analogy .. Grant knew he had a lot more stuff that eventually the South could not replace .. so he took on a lopsided war of attrition until the South broke (well the election of 1864 was closer because of Grant ) I can see the Soviets knowing they have a bad exchange ratio 7:1 but also know the eventually in a war of attrition the Germans can keep the production levels ..
I think a battle option to "hold at all costs" and/or "attack or come back dead" option that increases casualties at a higher risk of rout or increased morale reduction might make such an alternative feasible.

[Stelteck]

But in game the limiting factor for the soviet union is manpower.

We cannot say that the soviet in game have manpower surplus. The soviet have tank surplus, armement surplus but lack manpower all the time. The stocks are always zero.

So i'am not sûre the "exchange ratio" thing is a good idea in the current campaign. The soviet army need quality troops to compensate the lack of manpower.

[morvael]

Tanks use less manpower than infantry, so throw your tank brigades at the enemy

johntoml56, how many tanks in the field do you have? What units?

On turn 43 I had 6787 AFV in the field (bear in mind it was played on an older version, and many things worked differently then).
Had about 18k at the end of 1943, that were reduced to 13k at the end of '44 summer. Rebuilt in three months to 22k in January 1945, after five weeks of an all-out offensive were down to 17k. 2048 lost on the last turn

Finished the war with 28 Tank Corps, 1 Tank Brigade, 6 Mechanized Corps, 62 Light SU Brigades, 20 Cavalry Corps, 55 Heavy Tank Regiments, 33 Heavy SU Regiments, 1 Light SU Regiment, and 27 Flame Tank Regiments.

[No idea]

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

ORIGINAL: No idea

ORIGINAL: morvael

In my PBEM game I had a shortage of medium tanks, mostly after T-34/85 went into production.

Players are too passive, in other words game doesn't encourage you to attack constantly and burn your tank pool in this way.

The problem is in the game you know, more or less, when you are going to win a battle (with something between 2.5 and 3 times CV a full atack will give you victory 95% of times). So, with this on mind, many times it is pointless to attck when you know you are going to be defeated. IRL they didnt have the luxury of doing a quick math and knowing if the attack was going to be sucessful. They didnt have the perfect info we have (well, most times is perfect, as you exactly know the CV of your enemy 90% of the times you attack)

I am not sure they really cared ... using an American analogy .. Grant knew he had a lot more stuff that eventually the South could not replace .. so he took on a lopsided war of attrition until the South broke (well the election of 1864 was closer because of Grant ) I can see the Soviets knowing they have a bad exchange ratio 7:1 but also know the eventually in a war of attrition the Germans can keep the production levels ..
I think a battle option to "hold at all costs" and/or "attack or come back dead" option that increases casualties at a higher risk of rout or increased morale reduction might make such an alternative feasible.

At least in the first two years of the war the soviets tought germen tank production was similar to theirs (when it was much lower) And they should have known the axis powers had more manpower after a good chunk of european soviet union was overrum

[No idea]

ORIGINAL: Stelteck

But in game the limiting factor for the soviet union is manpower.

We cannot say that the soviet in game have manpower surplus. The soviet have tank surplus, armement surplus but lack manpower all the time. The stocks are always zero.

So i'am not sûre the "exchange ratio" thing is a good idea in the current campaign. The soviet army need quality troops to compensate the lack of manpower.

I find trucks to be the biggest limitor of soviet advance.

[STEF78]

ORIGINAL: Stelteck

Ok so shortage can happen in 1944. Never reached this date yet, but i'am in the way. Will be interesting.

You should reach 1944 as russian within a few monthes [:D]

Just as example my OOB as russian in march 1944 (against Bobo)



and a good way to use T34 (march 1944 too). A killing unit!

[wallas]

Just convert a medium tank factory to light tanks if your allowed.

[56ajax]

ORIGINAL: No idea

ORIGINAL: morvael

In my PBEM game I had a shortage of medium tanks, mostly after T-34/85 went into production.

Players are too passive, in other words game doesn't encourage you to attack constantly and burn your tank pool in this way.

The problem is in the game you know, more or less, when you are going to win a battle (with something between 2.5 and 3 times CV a full atack will give you victory 95% of times). So, with this on mind, many times it is pointless to attck when you know you are going to be defeated. IRL they didnt have the luxury of doing a quick math and knowing if the attack was going to be sucessful. They didnt have the perfect info we have (well, most times is perfect, as you exactly know the CV of your enemy 90% of the times you attack)

The game practically demands that you be passive until 1943...and all the real action happens in attrition...which makes the game unpalatable at times...like watching a movie with a bag over your head...it's happened but I didn't see it...

[56ajax]

ORIGINAL: Stelteck

But in game the limiting factor for the soviet union is manpower.

We cannot say that the soviet in game have manpower surplus. The soviet have tank surplus, armement surplus but lack manpower all the time. The stocks are always zero.

So i'am not sûre the "exchange ratio" thing is a good idea in the current campaign. The soviet army need quality troops to compensate the lack of manpower.

I tend to agree on the manpower....it is now Turn 44 (April 42) and the manpower pool is hovering around the 40k mark. I am incrementally increasing the TOEs on my infantry units but shudder to think what will happen when the AXIS non-mud offensive starts.. I hang onto every town possible to keep manpower but it takes forever for a recaptured town to contribute... I have surplus of everything else except for partisans who actually do something...

[56ajax]

ORIGINAL: morvael

Tanks use less manpower than infantry, so throw your tank brigades at the enemy

johntoml56, how many tanks in the field do you have? What units?

On turn 43 I had 6787 AFV in the field (bear in mind it was played on an older version, and many things worked differently then).
Had about 18k at the end of 1943, that were reduced to 13k at the end of '44 summer. Rebuilt in three months to 22k in January 1945, after five weeks of an all-out offensive were down to 17k. 2048 lost on the last turn

Finished the war with 28 Tank Corps, 1 Tank Brigade, 6 Mechanized Corps, 62 Light SU Brigades, 20 Cavalry Corps, 55 Heavy Tank Regiments, 33 Heavy SU Regiments, 1 Light SU Regiment, and 27 Flame Tank Regiments.

Turn 44 AFVs in the field - 7198 (includes self propelled flack)

3 Tank Corp (uses less Tanks than the combined Brigades)
1 Tank Div
122 Tank Brigades
1 Motorised Brigade (because I could)
32 Motorcycle Regiments
22 Sep Tank Battalions (low on manpower but never gain experience if not in front line)
11 TD Batteries

In the pool (577 tanks being added each week)

T60 - 491, T70 - 13, Stuart - 119, Matilda - 220, Valentine - 504, lee 140, T34 - 2520, KV1 - 462