Rail repairs and Sevastapol

[larryfulkerson]

It's unfortunate that cutting the rail line north of the Isthmas disables the rail all the way to Sevastapol. I'm pretty sure in the Real World the Soviets could ship in some Rail stuff and put the rail road back in action. I'm finding repaired rail with three white dots in them going north from Sevastapol which renders the rail road inop until it's connected with Z-town I guess.

[Panama]

If I recall correctly, after the Axis got into the Crimea there was basically no rail. It takes more than some tracks to make these things work. You need constant maintenance, fuel, watering, track work, repair yards, the list goes on and on. The Soviets had more things to worry about than keeping trains supplied. If there was no connection to the mainland then there was no rail.

[marcpennington]

I hadn't realized the Soviets had no rail capacity once the Crimea was cut off---- I had always assumed (based really only on guess work) that Kerch would have been connected to the Caucuses through a ferry/ rail link, kinda, for example, like there is between Sweden and Copenhagen. That the Soviets don't have rail in the Crimea does really hamper its strategic importance as a potential jumping off point for offensives on the German right flank.

PS--- Larry, noticed from your screenshot that you have the itallic font thing on the numbers of your unit counters... This started for me as well a couple weeks ago, and was driving me nuts as I found it very hard to read as opposed the normal font the game had been using up to that point. Turned out my ariel font file had become corrupted, likely by a virus, and it was a simple matter to download a fresh copy of the font file (sourceforge has one, for example). Resolved not only an annoying WITE display issue, but numerous web page display problems as well. Anyway, I imagine you must have the same problem.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Panama

If I recall correctly, after the Axis got into the Crimea there was basically no rail. It takes more than some tracks to make these things work. You need constant maintenance, fuel, watering, track work, repair yards, the list goes on and on. The Soviets had more things to worry about than keeping trains supplied. If there was no connection to the mainland then there was no rail.

I've brought up this point several times...I can't claim any historical knowledge on this point, but it is pretty counterintuitive that the vast Crimea would have no rail--all those things you cite (maintenance, watering, track work, repair yards) would presumably already be in place, or could be pretty easily brought in. What happened historically might not be relevant for many game situations, as I think the Germans broke into and took most of the Crimea quickly and thus the Sovs might not have had the time/opportunity to use rail as it could be used if the Sovs retain the whole Crimea.

[johnnyvagas]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

It's unfortunate that cutting the rail line north of the Isthmas disables the rail all the way to Sevastapol. I'm pretty sure in the Real World the Soviets could ship in some Rail stuff and put the rail road back in action. I'm finding repaired rail with three white dots in them going north from Sevastapol which renders the rail road inop until it's connected with Z-town I guess.

I vaguely recall reading somewhere that the Soviets ran a railroad ferry across the Azov Straights. Which would make sense as it would likely shave several days travel for trains coming from the Trans Caucasus Area into the Crimea. Assuming the Azov railroad ferry can be confirmed, cutting the northern isthmus off from The Ukraine\Don Basin and the overall Soviet rail net shouldn't really result in loss of the rail movement capability within the Crimea as in theory it would still be connected to the overall Soviet rail net via the ferry crossing at Azov. Moreover critical logistics such as coal, spare parts, etc can still be brought into the region via the Azov Straights.

[Fänrik Stål]

ORIGINAL: map66

connected to the Caucuses through a ferry/ rail link, kinda, for example, like there is between Sweden and Copenhagen.

Was. There's a bridge now.[:D]

[Farfarer61]

Well you still get prt supply and the reduced MP cost along the rail lines, so perhaps this is another appropriate abstraction of "limited" rail shuttling in the isolated zone.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Farfarer
...so perhaps this is another appropriate abstraction of "limited" rail shuttling in the isolated zone.

Only if "limited rail shuttling" means "walking along the railroad tracks". To me the lack of rail down there makes no sense...

[Farfarer61]

This is related to rail breaks causing complete halts. Perhaps it can be coded that isolated rail networks provide X capacity per linked intact hex.

[Mehring]

ORIGINAL: Panama

If I recall correctly, after the Axis got into the Crimea there was basically no rail. It takes more than some tracks to make these things work. You need constant maintenance, fuel, watering, track work, repair yards, the list goes on and on. The Soviets had more things to worry about than keeping trains supplied. If there was no connection to the mainland then there was no rail.

As to the specifics of the Crimea, I do not know but as a generalisation, this is not true. The Germans managed even to run captured rolling stock and move small but significant amounts of supply on stretches of Russian gauge rail around Bryansk, Krasnograd and Melitopol. They can hardly be said to have had the logistics inftrastructre you cite as necessary to do this.

As for Crimea, in my game the area has been cut off just south of Zaporozhye, leaving a stretch of track 210 miles long North to South, 230 East to West, including Sebastopol's 3 railyard points, out of operation. Like I say, I don't know the specifics but it sounds unlikely that any side would have been unable to operate trains under such circumstances and would have allowed their forces to suffer the logistical consequences. Game logistics seriously needs sharpening up.

[Panama]

Are you talking about moving troops on rail or moving supplies on rail? It takes only one supply train to keep every unit in the Crimea supplied if you can keep it running 24/7. But it takes 40 times more trains to move a division. And again, it takes 'stuff' to keep the trains rolling. What would you rather ship in? What the Army needs to survive or what you need to keep your choo choos running?

As far as I can tell from all my reading supply was never a problem for the Soviets in the Crimea probably because of how the battle there unfolded. Nor was moving troops since it was a small theater. Distances were relatively small.

BTW, do you really think they were worried about shipping rolling stock, engines, maintanance supplies and fuel to the Crimea when a third of all the rail capacity was being used to move industry AND troops were being moved all over the 'mainland' from one crises to another? Really?

Small theater. Short distances. Relatively few troops. The whole of the Crimea should be supplied as long as there's a port to move the supplies through. I don't see a problem other than game engine limitations.

[Mehring]

ORIGINAL: Panama

Are you talking about moving troops on rail or moving supplies on rail? It takes only one supply train to keep every unit in the Crimea supplied if you can keep it running 24/7. But it takes 40 times more trains to move a division. And again, it takes 'stuff' to keep the trains rolling. What would you rather ship in? What the Army needs to survive or what you need to keep your choo choos running?

As far as I can tell from all my reading supply was never a problem for the Soviets in the Crimea probably because of how the battle there unfolded. Nor was moving troops since it was a small theater. Distances were relatively small.

BTW, do you really think they were worried about shipping rolling stock, engines, maintanance supplies and fuel to the Crimea when a third of all the rail capacity was being used to move industry AND troops were being moved all over the 'mainland' from one crises to another? Really?

Small theater. Short distances. Relatively few troops. The whole of the Crimea should be supplied as long as there's a port to move the supplies through. I don't see a problem other than game engine limitations.

For starters I'm generalising about rail nets cut off from the main net, however that might be defined. The size of the cut off rail net may be, and in my experience is, considerably larger than the historical Crimean theatre of 41-2, as I have detailed. Surely there is more than a loose relation between the number of railyards and size and the rail net cut off, and the amount of potential rail capacity one might expect to find on a rail 'sub-net'.

I'm talking primarily supply, though I can't see why troop and supply movement capability would be mutually exclusive whatever the quantities of rolling stock involved. Rolling stock cut off from the main net does not disappear by virtue of being cut off, does it? If 40 locomotives are cut off along with all the other stuff needed, you have capacity to move troops en masse. If not, maybe you don't. It strikes me, then, that rail capacity should be determined by railyards attached to the net.

Supply and troop movemnent by train is logistically more economical than movement by road so supplies (which may or may not need to be shipped in) used to sustain a cut off rail net may well be less than the petrol and forage needed to sustain a horse/vehicle transport net. Do you think horses don't need to be fed and maintained, their carts maintained and repaired? I question, then, the validity of the choice you present, between supplying your army or supplying your trains. No logistics network runs on good will alone.

In my Crimea theatre, there are a number of ports and a substantial rail net and the railyard in Sebastopol as mentioned. I find it tedious and disadvantageous to have to march troops to the ports to refit and then march them back again. It seems obvious to me that with 50% of existing formations unavailable at any time, in such a situation a side would make every effort to utilise their rail net. It's fast, economical in supplies, and economical keeping formations active in the front line, but the game doesn't allow it.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Mehring

In my Crimea theatre, there are a number of ports and a substantial rail net and the railyard in Sebastopol as mentioned. I find it tedious and disadvantageous to have to march troops to the ports to refit and then march them back again. It seems obvious to me that with 50% of existing formations unavailable at any time, in such a situation a side would make every effort to utilise their rail net. It's fast, economical in supplies, and economical keeping formations active in the front line, but the game doesn't allow it.

The problem is not with anything other than the game engine if this is your concern. It has nothing to do with history nor potential.