R.E.D. WWII: Concepts & Suggestions
- Thread starter Gedemon
- Start date
ww2commander
Emperor
I hope you do not interrupt my post as having a go at you. I was merely trying to contribute more info to this discussion. I have no particular bias to USSR, Germany or any major power during WWII and find all aspects interesting. The Eastern Front just happens to be a main focus of my curiosity in the last few years.
What I was hoping to do was set straight some of the misconceptions about the USSR and its capabilities during WII. I agree on your point about other historic forum discussions degenerating into a slinging match (one of the reasons I don't join those types of forums). Thus why I provided some starting links in my post to emphasis that my reply in no way was a flame starter, but a 'take a look and reconsider' post. Also, it is not smart of me to have a go at someone on a moderator's very own forum section.
Good questions. For those interested:
German Steel/Coal industry analysis:http://www.sturmvogel.orbat.com/SteelCoal.html
Take note of comments around iron ore bottlenecks, Martin/Bessemer steel used for armaments and train capacity issues.
Soviet Industry Production: http://www.sturmvogel.orbat.com/sovprod.html
Take note of dropping capacity due to disruption and evacuation of industry. Lend lease does play a key role here. However natural resources are quite high. Unlike Germany, fuel overall is not a real issue. Caucasus provided the bulk of the fuel but other oilfields were later exploited near Volga regions
Finally comparison of natural resources in 1937: http://www.sturmvogel.orbat.com/resources.html
Good info for all ww2 modders.
Probably a better question is 'Did Germany have an advantage on the Eastern Front and was it a strategic advantage?
Here is a good read on this subject if interested: http://www.feldgrau.com/dreichsbahn.html
Quantity does not necessarily dictate an advantage in this case.
Also here is a link to a discussion which does indeed revert into one of those measurement debates you mention
: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=132150Correct. This was what I was talking about. Germany had no real chance of conquering the USSR. Many now acknowledge this fact. The Soviets would have just kept moving back and the Germans would have continued to extend their supply lines. Thus exactly what you say but applied to the Germans. Don't forget that the German army relied primarily on horse transportation.
The front on most cases was a few miles ahead and most vehicles were driven straight off the production line and into battle (Leningrad siege, Moscow siege, Stalingrad, Kharkov and so on). The Trans-Siberian and other Southern Ural lines provided the bulk capacity for Ural production sites. This question is probably more relevant for the Germans based on the previous rail link I provided.
From Colossus Reborn (David Glantz) (p441):
Although it obtained most of the Red Army's uniforms and other clothing from Soviet light industry, the clothing directorate also collected clothing voluntarily or on a requisition basis from workers in Soviet industry and civilians. For example, the UVS (Directorate for Clothing Supply) provided more than 38 million military greatcoats, 70 million sets of uniforms, 117 million sets of underwear, 64 million pairs of leather boots, 20 million padded jackets and quilted trousers, and 2 million sheepskin coats to the Red Army's troops during the war.
Hope this puts things into perspective with regards to clothing and boots. Also, the rough correlating strength at any given year for the total Red Army was around 8-10 million men.
On food, I wont quote at length from the same book, but summarize it as the Red Army soldier was always hungry and the problem was never resolved even towards the end of the war. To quote "Red Army soldiers quickly learned how to survive on their own by developing the practice of scavenging to a high art". Vodka kept their minds off hunger and that is a known fact. It surprises me how a mostly drunk army conquered the world most professional army at the time!
. However, David Glantz does emphasis the contribution lend-lease made with food, but there was never enough of it to make a difference in this area.USSR/Germany (39-45)
Aircraft: 158,218 / 117,881
Tanks: 105,232 / ~57,300
Artillery: 547,348 / ~92,000
Source: The Oxford Companion to World War II (p826)
The figure do the talking and thats not including Lend-Lease. From memory, lend-lease vehicles and aircraft contributed less that 10%. I could be wrong on this percentage
Hopefully this information provides some clarity and helps others who might be interested in these topics.
thecivinator58
Warlord
About 20% of the soviet airforce was made up of lend lease planes, not to sure about tanks though.
@ww2commander/kelestra The part of lend-lease that really helped was the logistical support, the trucks, transport planes, things like that. What stopped the Soviets during Operation Bagration and the winter offensive of 1944-45 was not German resistence, but the fact that Soviet logistics were at their breaking point. Now imagine what would have happened if ~90% of those logistics vanished. In short, lend-lease did a lot. As for whether or not Hitler could have won in Russia, see this link.
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/invadingrussia.aspx
@ww2commander/kelestra The part of lend-lease that really helped was the logistical support, the trucks, transport planes, things like that. What stopped the Soviets during Operation Bagration and the winter offensive of 1944-45 was not German resistence, but the fact that Soviet logistics were at their breaking point. Now imagine what would have happened if ~90% of those logistics vanished. In short, lend-lease did a lot. As for whether or not Hitler could have won in Russia, see this link.
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/invadingrussia.aspx
@Gedemon:
You misinterpreted the beginning of my post. It was not about flaming someone. It was a prediction. I said this will end in a "who has the longest"-topic because of simply ignoring facts that don't fit into the favour of what someone wants to think.
As you can see from the post above i must be some kind of almighty oracle...
I will no longer contribute to this offtopic discussion. Just keep in mind which kind of support land lease gave to the USSR and try to consider it with your mod if you want to make it historically correct. That's all i wanted to say. Some additional words to consider:
-communication equipement
-fuel ment aircraft fuel
-rails
-offroad driveable trucks for the bad roads
@wwIIcommander:
If you really want to answer, than answer to my questions and their essence. Or read the post-cold-war literature an not the manipulated SU-number-based romantic sources. How would you build thousands of tanks without special steel? How would you relocate whole factories without trains and trucks? How do you move and support millions of soldiers without the 400.000+ trucks and 1800+ locomotives and the waggons and the rails? How would you coordinate your army without the millions of miles of cables and the radios? How would you force the Luftwaffe to be involved in the Western Front with 50% of their capacities? How would you force the rest to protect their troops without fighters and plane fuel? How would you feed your soldiers? How can you provide the logistical capacities (spare pieces, ammunition, supply lines, equipping reserve) for all the great (and argueable) numbers of weapons you "quote" within one year?
Let me cut a long story short:
Look at the numbers and the years they appear. Without LL-Act SU warproduction would have collapsed till '43. Then the front would have collapsed shortly after. Let me quote a smart guy:
"Look at the facts of history and remove your bias.
The Soviets had a huge army, but they couldn't properly be fed, clothed, transported or armed.
Soviet Weapons Losses in 1941 (The First Six Months Of The War)
72% of all Tanks.
34% of all Combat Aircraft.
56% of all Small-arms and Machine guns.
69% of all Anti-Tank guns.
59% of all Field guns and Mortars.
Take it from Zhukov:
"It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have formed our reserves and could not have continued the war . . . we had no explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance."
Look at the complete list of the US Lend Lease to the SU.
If you refuse to listen to Zhukov, the Soviet's own "Super General" there will be no reasoning with you."
@thecivinator58:
I don't like thinkings like this. He lost, and i pretty sure as a German that this fact is a good thing. Fact is, USSR wasn't beaten in total. And this is because in the critical phase of the war between Hitler and Stalin, the one side had less support and "allies" than the other, and not because the other one was in some way stronger.
You misinterpreted the beginning of my post. It was not about flaming someone. It was a prediction. I said this will end in a "who has the longest"-topic because of simply ignoring facts that don't fit into the favour of what someone wants to think.
As you can see from the post above i must be some kind of almighty oracle...
I will no longer contribute to this offtopic discussion. Just keep in mind which kind of support land lease gave to the USSR and try to consider it with your mod if you want to make it historically correct. That's all i wanted to say. Some additional words to consider:
-communication equipement
-fuel ment aircraft fuel
-rails
-offroad driveable trucks for the bad roads
@wwIIcommander:
If you really want to answer, than answer to my questions and their essence. Or read the post-cold-war literature an not the manipulated SU-number-based romantic sources. How would you build thousands of tanks without special steel? How would you relocate whole factories without trains and trucks? How do you move and support millions of soldiers without the 400.000+ trucks and 1800+ locomotives and the waggons and the rails? How would you coordinate your army without the millions of miles of cables and the radios? How would you force the Luftwaffe to be involved in the Western Front with 50% of their capacities? How would you force the rest to protect their troops without fighters and plane fuel? How would you feed your soldiers? How can you provide the logistical capacities (spare pieces, ammunition, supply lines, equipping reserve) for all the great (and argueable) numbers of weapons you "quote" within one year?
Let me cut a long story short:
Look at the numbers and the years they appear. Without LL-Act SU warproduction would have collapsed till '43. Then the front would have collapsed shortly after. Let me quote a smart guy:
"Look at the facts of history and remove your bias.
The Soviets had a huge army, but they couldn't properly be fed, clothed, transported or armed.
Soviet Weapons Losses in 1941 (The First Six Months Of The War)
72% of all Tanks.
34% of all Combat Aircraft.
56% of all Small-arms and Machine guns.
69% of all Anti-Tank guns.
59% of all Field guns and Mortars.
Take it from Zhukov:
"It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have formed our reserves and could not have continued the war . . . we had no explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance."
Look at the complete list of the US Lend Lease to the SU.
If you refuse to listen to Zhukov, the Soviet's own "Super General" there will be no reasoning with you."
@thecivinator58:
I don't like thinkings like this. He lost, and i pretty sure as a German that this fact is a good thing. Fact is, USSR wasn't beaten in total. And this is because in the critical phase of the war between Hitler and Stalin, the one side had less support and "allies" than the other, and not because the other one was in some way stronger.
The periodic arrival of (Lend-Lease) units at Murmansk during the summer months would be a great addition (and make Murmansk a strategic goal for the Germans to capture.)
With respect to some of the recent discussion, it is always good to keep in mind that this is at best a simulation and glosses over many important details such as weather and supply. It is also a simulation by design that will depart considerably from what happened historically. The goals as far as I am concerned are to provide a highly playable (and enjoyable) game/simulation that lets one experiment with different strategies with the goal of achieving/preventing world domination in a way that is reasonably consistent with the historical context.
As was pointed out, the Germans had greater logistical issues in Russia than the Russians did (although the Russians had them in spades as well). The effect of supply lines on the advancing Germans is not adequately modeled (e.g. I currently have several Panzer IV units advancing across Siberia with no issues) and it can't be at this level of simulation detail. There are multiple ways to "build" this into the simulation. One could, for example, subtract hitpoints from all units more than x hexes from a road/railroad. A simple way to account for this would be to let the Russian player have (low strength) partisan units that would reclaim territory and could thereby cut supply lines. This would force the Germans to keep troops back from the front in order to keep their supply lines open.
Partisan units for all occupied countries would be a nice addition to the game (probably best to have a option to have them or not have them). They were an issue that tied down troops and threatened supply lines. The combination of partisans to cut supply lines and the ability to relocate factories east of the Urals would make conquering Russia a much more involved and drawn out task. The addition of units via Murmansk would help Russia significantly as well, especially before Russian production is ramped up.
With respect to some of the recent discussion, it is always good to keep in mind that this is at best a simulation and glosses over many important details such as weather and supply. It is also a simulation by design that will depart considerably from what happened historically. The goals as far as I am concerned are to provide a highly playable (and enjoyable) game/simulation that lets one experiment with different strategies with the goal of achieving/preventing world domination in a way that is reasonably consistent with the historical context.
As was pointed out, the Germans had greater logistical issues in Russia than the Russians did (although the Russians had them in spades as well). The effect of supply lines on the advancing Germans is not adequately modeled (e.g. I currently have several Panzer IV units advancing across Siberia with no issues) and it can't be at this level of simulation detail. There are multiple ways to "build" this into the simulation. One could, for example, subtract hitpoints from all units more than x hexes from a road/railroad. A simple way to account for this would be to let the Russian player have (low strength) partisan units that would reclaim territory and could thereby cut supply lines. This would force the Germans to keep troops back from the front in order to keep their supply lines open.
Partisan units for all occupied countries would be a nice addition to the game (probably best to have a option to have them or not have them). They were an issue that tied down troops and threatened supply lines. The combination of partisans to cut supply lines and the ability to relocate factories east of the Urals would make conquering Russia a much more involved and drawn out task. The addition of units via Murmansk would help Russia significantly as well, especially before Russian production is ramped up.
thecivinator58
Warlord
Sorry, I didn't mean come come off as pro-nazi or anything like that, but the fact of the matter is, Hitler COULD have beaten Russia. I never said he SHOULD have, or that he was morally right to do so. Besides, this is civ, you can kill billions with the click of a few buttons.
And the title of the article is asking right in a operational/tactical sense, not a moral one
@thecivinator:
I didn't want to call you one either. I just wanted to express that i have a bad feeling in discussing such things.
@topic:
So for earth-map there should be a reasonable productive capacity to achieve by a project that should be finished in i guess '43. Before that perhaps, as no convois exist, there might be a real high delivery of gold that enables USSR-AI to buy units or buildings.
Also it might be important that the Nations that delivered the aid are armed later when they entered war (when i conquer USA as Hitler in mid '43 there is nearly one unit on every tile, and i'm not sure if this is correct).
@Gedemon:
Just a few thoughts. I don't know if you thought of it or if you can give a statement of the possibility: trade personal/material (per round)? Convoys as produceable units that needs to be built by lets say USA instead of already spamming mass land units instead of ships and planes?
I didn't want to call you one either. I just wanted to express that i have a bad feeling in discussing such things.
@topic:
So for earth-map there should be a reasonable productive capacity to achieve by a project that should be finished in i guess '43. Before that perhaps, as no convois exist, there might be a real high delivery of gold that enables USSR-AI to buy units or buildings.
Also it might be important that the Nations that delivered the aid are armed later when they entered war (when i conquer USA as Hitler in mid '43 there is nearly one unit on every tile, and i'm not sure if this is correct).
@Gedemon:
Just a few thoughts. I don't know if you thought of it or if you can give a statement of the possibility: trade personal/material (per round)? Convoys as produceable units that needs to be built by lets say USA instead of already spamming mass land units instead of ships and planes?
T_KCommanderbly
Prince
Hey Gedemon finally got civilization to work, do you still want the popup events? I've updated it to v35, I just need to shorten some of the description texts so they fit on the screen.
Anyways, working on earth 1936 scenario so hopefully I'll have an update soon.
Anyways, working on earth 1936 scenario so hopefully I'll have an update soon.
better to work on troops route so the AI use those units instead of stocking them IMO.
and what would be the incentive for a human USA to build convoy ?
Yes, still want them.
Not sure yet on how I will include them as the data file is already at Steam's 100mb limit and I don't want to have a core file weighting more than 10mb.
Maybe I'll make a second data mod with "optional" data (like mp3 speeches)
thecivinator58
Warlord
I have to ask, is there an ETA on new units like the Italian M.C. 200s and 205s, German King Tigers, Soviet T-60s and Yak-9s, Japanese Ki-43s and A7Ms, etc?
Ah, i got you. I think it should be the affect that without these convois the USSR would mainly be under Nazi control in the mid of '42/end of '42. And i guess it should be balanced this way so that the decision of US-Players should be: a) "fight a Hitler in a two front war later with a little smaller amount of more modern troops" or b) attack him directly (i terms of turn 20-30 because of building units and move the mass over the atlantik, risky) with all i have and risk USSR to be a m-m-m-m-monster that will overwhelm all europe while i also have to deal with the Japanese that are about to cut me of the supply from Asia-Pacific-Route".
This would be mostly historically accurate, i think.
IMO most players won't see the long-term effect of sending material to USSR, the same way they don't see the effects of wearing down the enemy material with bombers' interception.
And I would prefer to send an unit that I can control on USSR territory than send a convoy containing an unit that the AI will control poorly.
And I would prefer to send an unit that I can control on USSR territory than send a convoy containing an unit that the AI will control poorly.
Perhaps the status "Allied" between UK and USA is to similar to the "Allied" status between USA and USSR. I don't think Stalin ever accepted US-Units or better armies on USSR terretory, and i doubt USA would have been a) able and b) willing to send whole armies/support to USSR. US citizens and congress nearly cancelled Land&Lease to UK, remind that.
So i suggest that US/UK units should NOT get reinforcements on USSR terretory or USSR terretory is not accessable for US/UK troops!
Beside this, i would do the same as you suggest atm.
Additionaly:
I spent some time in reading a lot of stuff about SU tanks, because i got the idea of their superiority by reading some wiki articels (yep, blody mistake). While some data on sheets suggest a superiority to Nazi tank models, the kill/loss ratio on the eastern front speaks a very different language. This is why i want to suggest to slighty adjust the combat strength of SU tanks or to increase combat strength of Nazi tanks. A quite usefull summary (i recommend the whole article for those that are interested) of this can be found here: http://operationbarbarossa.net/Myth-Busters/MythBusters2.html#an_8
So i suggest that US/UK units should NOT get reinforcements on USSR terretory or USSR terretory is not accessable for US/UK troops!
Beside this, i would do the same as you suggest atm.
Additionaly:
I spent some time in reading a lot of stuff about SU tanks, because i got the idea of their superiority by reading some wiki articels (yep, blody mistake). While some data on sheets suggest a superiority to Nazi tank models, the kill/loss ratio on the eastern front speaks a very different language. This is why i want to suggest to slighty adjust the combat strength of SU tanks or to increase combat strength of Nazi tanks. A quite usefull summary (i recommend the whole article for those that are interested) of this can be found here: http://operationbarbarossa.net/Myth-Busters/MythBusters2.html#an_8
thecivinator58
Warlord
This was due to the fact the Germans were perhaps the best soldiers in the world at this time, and the Soviet army was devestated by Stalin's purges, hence most Red Army tank men were very inexperienced. One German tank commander said "If the Russians knew halfway what they were doing, they could have run us back into Poland within 2 weeks"
So it was the German tankmen that were superior, not the tanks themselves
T_KCommanderbly
Prince
Hey Gedemon just about done, do you want me to post the whole mod file or the individual files that I edited?
And is it possible with the DLL to allow more minor states or maybe you have already done that? because it would be nice to have more minors in the 1936 scenario.
oh and I love the regiment system just had to add that
And is it possible with the DLL to allow more minor states or maybe you have already done that? because it would be nice to have more minors in the 1936 scenario.
oh and I love the regiment system just had to add that
I don't know if I can easily prevent open borders to be signed between USSR and the other allied nations. Should be an option if it's possible, but one I would use, yes.
The (late) Germans tanks are already better than Soviets (the Panther is slightly cheaper & stronger than a t-34-85, and the Tiger II will be slightly stronger than an IS-2)
But about the K/D ratio, as pointed by thecivinator, is there a way to sort out the human factor ? (thinking of training/tactics here, referring to the Battle of France for example - but then maybe this battle is not a good example for the ratio itself
)whole mod, I'll compare.Hey Gedemon just about done, do you want me to post the whole mod file or the individual files that I edited?
And is it possible with the DLL to allow more minor states or maybe you have already done that? because it would be nice to have more minors in the 1936 scenario.
oh and I love the regiment system just had to add that
I suppose it could be done for the DLL, but then we need to look ahead and think a the maximum number of major civs we may want in a scenario. ATM raising the number of CS will take slots from the 22 reserved for major civs.
@Gedemon:
The strength of a weapon should reflect it's power on the battlefield. Although training is a major factor, you have to see the design fails of the t34. Of course its cannon and its front armor on paper seems very strong, why in reality they didn't easily kill a German tank? Because their superiority is a legend. The optics of the cannon were bad, the moveability of the tower was bad, the communication was bad (if present at all), and most important: the tank commander was weapon instructor and gunner in one person.
As it's often shown by sources a T34 was struck several times before it was able to locate the enemy. Then all the other problems with aiming, turret, commanding etc came to the table.
Some sources show k/d ratios of 1:7 in favour of german tanks/self propelled guns throughout the war (so also in 1945 when Wehrmacht was heavily outnumbered, on withdraw, short supplies and with no tactical initiative), and even when we etimate that the lower numbers shown by most sources that reached a 1:5 were more than 100% overestimated, you will arrive at an 1:2.5 K/D ratio.
Ingame it is not nearly shown that a lets say Panzer IV G (at not even the weaker models that caused the heavy losses in the first years of the war) can beat 2.5 or more T34 in any situation. It's more likely that a T34 will win a 1on1 atm, which is truly not historically correct.
Compare the losses the Wehrmacht got from the polish army. Their tanks were very fancy designed, especially the optics, and although beaten in a few weeks they made the Wehrmacht nearly collapsed according to some sources. There you can see how huge the difference was.
To my mind, it would be interesting as a USSR player to spam units. When there are 2 Panzer IV units on the front, than i should be able to defeat them in 10-15 round while loosing several units, at least 4. So i don't know if it's possible to adjust production costs and combatstrength of the units in a way that might display that.
Or speak in gaming language: USSR should feel like Zerg, Nazi like Protoss...
By the way:
Does anyone of you have an idea why my CIV, even after a complete reinstall still crashes more often than other machines and why the "Fall-Of-France" event doesn't work? Where's the problem? Is it because of something in my system? Any (system)option to steam, any setting ingame? I tried everything i know, but nothing helped. 36 scenarios crashed, 1939 crashed, 42 crashed. Hotseat crashed. No matter which savegame, game keeps crashing. Whats wrong? I don't have that problem with other mods or standardgame, or even other games. Just this mod, which is the only game atm i enjoy, keeps frustrating me...
The strength of a weapon should reflect it's power on the battlefield. Although training is a major factor, you have to see the design fails of the t34. Of course its cannon and its front armor on paper seems very strong, why in reality they didn't easily kill a German tank? Because their superiority is a legend. The optics of the cannon were bad, the moveability of the tower was bad, the communication was bad (if present at all), and most important: the tank commander was weapon instructor and gunner in one person.
As it's often shown by sources a T34 was struck several times before it was able to locate the enemy. Then all the other problems with aiming, turret, commanding etc came to the table.
Some sources show k/d ratios of 1:7 in favour of german tanks/self propelled guns throughout the war (so also in 1945 when Wehrmacht was heavily outnumbered, on withdraw, short supplies and with no tactical initiative), and even when we etimate that the lower numbers shown by most sources that reached a 1:5 were more than 100% overestimated, you will arrive at an 1:2.5 K/D ratio.
Ingame it is not nearly shown that a lets say Panzer IV G (at not even the weaker models that caused the heavy losses in the first years of the war) can beat 2.5 or more T34 in any situation. It's more likely that a T34 will win a 1on1 atm, which is truly not historically correct.
Compare the losses the Wehrmacht got from the polish army. Their tanks were very fancy designed, especially the optics, and although beaten in a few weeks they made the Wehrmacht nearly collapsed according to some sources. There you can see how huge the difference was.
To my mind, it would be interesting as a USSR player to spam units. When there are 2 Panzer IV units on the front, than i should be able to defeat them in 10-15 round while loosing several units, at least 4. So i don't know if it's possible to adjust production costs and combatstrength of the units in a way that might display that.
Or speak in gaming language: USSR should feel like Zerg, Nazi like Protoss...
By the way:
Does anyone of you have an idea why my CIV, even after a complete reinstall still crashes more often than other machines and why the "Fall-Of-France" event doesn't work? Where's the problem? Is it because of something in my system? Any (system)option to steam, any setting ingame? I tried everything i know, but nothing helped. 36 scenarios crashed, 1939 crashed, 42 crashed. Hotseat crashed. No matter which savegame, game keeps crashing. Whats wrong? I don't have that problem with other mods or standardgame, or even other games. Just this mod, which is the only game atm i enjoy, keeps frustrating me...
Similar threads
