TOE Errata

Post new scenarios and mods here to share with other gamers.

Moderators: Joel Billings, Sabre21, bcgames

User avatar
Seminole
Posts: 2237
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:56 am

RE: TOE Errata

Post by Seminole »

The Finnish OOB in my two games (as Soviet) seems to go into significant decline after mid-August.

Do they have units withdrawn, or am I bleeding them that badly?

In one game they peaked in total men at 380k in late July, declining to 281k by late November. 60k of that drop happened in essentially one week in late October!

In my other game they peaked at 372k total men in mid October, and fell as far as 297k by late January.

The first game there was a prolonged fight along the northern Ladoga shore, but in the second essentially static along a defensive line I established at the choke point north of Ladoga.
"War is never a technical problem only, and if in pursuing technical solutions you neglect the psychological and the political, then the best technical solutions will be worthless." - Hermann Balck
jaw
Posts: 1049
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:07 pm

RE: TOE Errata

Post by jaw »

ORIGINAL: Keke

You have no clue how much the Finnish forces were improved from their original sorry state, and why every detail was not included. Calling them a huge mess is just pure slander.

As the person responsible for the "original sorry state" I take no offense here in the hope of seeing a truce called in this Finnish Civil War so that legitimate issues can be addressed in a calm and respectful manner.

To begin with, if ANYBODY wants to see something fixed in the data base the public forum (even the private development forum) is the least efficient place to see that happen. As I have said before the best thing to do is to email me directly at jawirth@comcast.net. Denniss, Pieter and even you Jyri will agree that one gets much faster response when you email me directly.

Second, Jyri is my primary expert on Finnish forces so any change to their equipment and/or organization will be run by him before it becomes official. If anyone doesn't like that arrangement they can appeal to Joel but that's my position.

Now that we're clear on the ground rules let's put the knives away and send your comments/questions directly to me.

Thank you,

Jim Wirth
TAIL_GUNNER
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 1:33 pm

RE: TOE Errata

Post by TAIL_GUNNER »

@Pertti - thanks for the info...that's good stuff.

@MechFO - It's my understanding flame-throwers weren't shown on the KStN. You will need the corresponding KAN file which should be the same number and date as the KStN.

@jaw - Good post. I'm sure there'll still be debates 300 years from now as to what, who, and how many were there regarding the epic scope of this War in the East.
I can only imagine what a monumental effort it was to create all these hundreds of TOEs from scratch for this great game. Hats off to you and your crew.
I also mean no disrespect in the slightest with regards to my own "mods"...I'm just some nut-job that would rather tinker in the editor than play the game...
ChadG
AKA "Juggalo"
MechFO
Posts: 767
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 4:06 am

RE: TOE Errata

Post by MechFO »

ORIGINAL: TAIL_GUNNER

@MechFO - It's my understanding flame-throwers weren't shown on the KStN. You will need the corresponding KAN file which should be the same number and date as the KStN.

You don't find FT's per se but you find the number of Flammschützen, I assume 2 Flammschützen corresponds to 1 FT.

I found something useful with KSTN No. 1118 A+B Panzer Pio Kp for Pz Gren Regiments, motorized and armoured, Kriegsetat 44.

Pz Pio Kp for the mot Pz Gren Reg has:

3 motorized Platoons à 4 Squads, 1 MG per Squad, each platoon with 4 Flammschützen -> probably 2 FT's
6 Panzerschreck

armoured Pz Pio Kp for the arm. Pz Gren Reg has.

2 mot Platoons à 4 Squads, 1 MG per Squad, each platoon with 4 Flammschützen
1 arm. Platoon with 3 Squads, 2 MG's per Squad, no Flammschützen (1 x 251/17)
1 arm. FT platoon with 6 x 251/16
3 Panzerschreck

EDIT: The early war KSTN's that I have don't explicitly mention the number of Flammschützen, even if equipment clearly indicates that there must be some in the unit. Also, on second thought, since all FT's were 1 man versions, 4 Flammschützen might very well mean 4 FT's....FT production really ramped up in 43/44, so 4 FT per platoon might actually be possible.
As an aside I have found that the arm. FT platoon had 5 x 251/16 in 43.

Also, since this thread is getting crowded with other stuff I'll start posting in the other thread if I find anything.
User avatar
Update
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:45 am

RE: TOE Errata

Post by Update »

To begin with, if ANYBODY wants to see something fixed in the data base the public forum (even the private development forum) is the least efficient place to see that happen. As I have said before the best thing to do is to email me directly at jawirth@comcast.net.
OK JAWS, I will send you e-mail when I get the things done. Do you want scans of the relevant original sources (comes to quite a few pages! = 100+ pages) or just word files that list the needed changes with references?
By the way, I do not see any Civil War going on from my point of view since there has been no comments on the facts that I posted (post#2).
I do acknowledge and apologize for poking Keke just for fun in order to get him blow some steam out of his system (post #15).
Nobody respects a country with a poor army, but everybody respects a country with a good army. I raise my toast to the Finnish Army.

Attributed to Josef Stalin, 1948.
User avatar
JJKettunen
Posts: 2289
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Finland

RE: TOE Errata

Post by JJKettunen »

ORIGINAL: Pertti

By the way, I do not see any Civil War going on from my point of view since there has been no comments on the facts that I posted (post#2).

Just as an example: I requested those Landsverks, but the reply was that they are not needed because there were only a few of them, and because SP-AA-units don't work properly in the game anyhow.

Considering the fact that the Finnish front is only a small sideshow in the game, it was pretty understandable that majority of smaller details were left out.

Oh, and if you have a problem with the Finnish air forces, then you have a problem with Jatkosodan historia too. Major map and production changes were not possible when I got on board. So please don't spew out garbage anymore.
Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn
User avatar
Update
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:45 am

RE: TOE Errata

Post by Update »

Keke what’s wrong with your attitude?
Pertti, you sound like a real muppet.

Muppet
a person who defies explanation with regard to common sense and logic, exhubing an air of confidence that is mutually exclusive to that of their accomplishments or ability

You have no clue how much the Finnish forces were improved from their original sorry state, and why every detail was not included. Calling them a huge mess is just pure slander.

So please don't spew out garbage anymore.

Lighten up before you get a heart attack!

Since this whole TOE thing is purely an academic excercise (no real bullets flying here) let me give you a piece of advice from somebody whose been kicking around the globe (literally) close to a half a century. I heard it long ago from my mentor professor in the USA before my final thesis defence debate.
Never get rattled and never EVER get personal during a debate.
In the first case it shows that there is something iffy going with your research and the second case has two possible outcomes. One: You are right but nobody cares since you went for personal level. Two you are wrong, the other person gets fed up with you, proves your research wrong and trashes publicly your academic reputation so badly that it ruins your career and therefore your life!

Anyway, let’s leave all this behind and talk about the relevant things.
Just as an example: I requested those Landsverks, but the reply was that they are not needed because there were only a few of them, and because SP-AA-units don't work properly in the game anyhow.


This is really worrisome since Germans have a huge number of AA units in this category. Also, the Landsverk Anti is already in the game as Nimrod (official designation 40M Nimrod) for Hungary (#287)

The reason why I mentioned checking the Finnish Air Force is the Fieseler Fi 156 Storch which stuck to my memory from the export-import reports. Finland purchased 2 of these planes in 1938 (arrived 1939 I think) and no more. The game imports from Germany (starting 10/41) 30 of these planes. So there might be some other programming slips in the data bases.

I try to get the infantry TOE(OB)’s for JAWS this week before next weeks ski vacation here in Finland.
Nobody respects a country with a poor army, but everybody respects a country with a good army. I raise my toast to the Finnish Army.

Attributed to Josef Stalin, 1948.
User avatar
JJKettunen
Posts: 2289
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Finland

RE: TOE Errata

Post by JJKettunen »

ORIGINAL: Pertti

Keke what’s wrong with your attitude?

ORIGINAL: Pertti

The ground forces TOE is also in need of fixing, especially Finnish Forces are a HUGE mess!
ORIGINAL: Pertti

In the first case it shows that there is something iffy going with your research and the second case has two possible outcomes. One: You are right but nobody cares since you went for personal level. Two you are wrong, the other person gets fed up with you, proves your research wrong and trashes publicly your academic reputation so badly that it ruins your career and therefore your life!

I'd say you definitely have some weird attitude issues. Perhaps you have been "kicking around the globe" in your mind for too long, eh?
ORIGINAL: Pertti
I try to get the infantry TOE(OB)’s for JAWS this week before next weeks ski vacation here in Finland.

I fail to see what's the point because they didn't make it in the first place, but be my guest. There are more important issues to deal with in any case.
Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn
jaw
Posts: 1049
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:07 pm

RE: TOE Errata

Post by jaw »

ORIGINAL: Pertti
To begin with, if ANYBODY wants to see something fixed in the data base the public forum (even the private development forum) is the least efficient place to see that happen. As I have said before the best thing to do is to email me directly at jawirth@comcast.net.
OK JAWS, I will send you e-mail when I get the things done. Do you want scans of the relevant original sources (comes to quite a few pages! = 100+ pages) or just word files that list the needed changes with references?
By the way, I do not see any Civil War going on from my point of view since there has been no comments on the facts that I posted (post#2).
I do acknowledge and apologize for poking Keke just for fun in order to get him blow some steam out of his system (post #15).

Pertti,

I need specific reference the data base such as "I think TOE so and so should have this" or "Ground element so and so is wrong/missing, etc.". I do not want "raw" data except to substantiate some change requested. I should warn you that even with verification unless we are talking a major data mistake that has a game effect (very unlikely with respect to the Finns) the chance that any further changes would be made is very low in the current version of the game. When we get to the War in the East 2.0 project I expect that we will have a much improved data system which will allow for greater variation than the current product. That will be the time to throw in everything and the kitchen sink.

Jim
MechFO
Posts: 767
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 4:06 am

RE: TOE Errata

Post by MechFO »

ORIGINAL: jaw

ORIGINAL: Pertti
To begin with, if ANYBODY wants to see something fixed in the data base the public forum (even the private development forum) is the least efficient place to see that happen. As I have said before the best thing to do is to email me directly at jawirth@comcast.net.
OK JAWS, I will send you e-mail when I get the things done. Do you want scans of the relevant original sources (comes to quite a few pages! = 100+ pages) or just word files that list the needed changes with references?
By the way, I do not see any Civil War going on from my point of view since there has been no comments on the facts that I posted (post#2).
I do acknowledge and apologize for poking Keke just for fun in order to get him blow some steam out of his system (post #15).

Pertti,

I need specific reference the data base such as "I think TOE so and so should have this" or "Ground element so and so is wrong/missing, etc.". I do not want "raw" data except to substantiate some change requested. I should warn you that even with verification unless we are talking a major data mistake that has a game effect (very unlikely with respect to the Finns) the chance that any further changes would be made is very low in the current version of the game. When we get to the War in the East 2.0 project I expect that we will have a much improved data system which will allow for greater variation than the current product. That will be the time to throw in everything and the kitchen sink.

Jim

Will you also accept errata for other forces? The German Arty TOE being an obvious, easy, yet unfixed case.
jaw
Posts: 1049
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:07 pm

RE: TOE Errata

Post by jaw »

ORIGINAL: MechFO

Will you also accept errata for other forces? The German Arty TOE being an obvious, easy, yet unfixed case.

MechFO,

The German Artillery TOE is not incorrect; it is a matter of interpretation. The Germans suffered substantial artillery losses in the winter of 41/42 and in many, not all mind you, cases re-organized their artillery to a lower establishment. Given the way the game system worked, I felt it was more accurate to build this ad hoc re-organization into the TOE so the guns couldn't be magically replaced by merely putting a division in refit. If we had fixed artillery production like we have fixed AFV production I wouldn't have felt compelled to do that.

When I see that an elite division like the 78th Sturm Division with a still reduced artillery establishment in late 1943 I'm not inclined to change my mind on this subject but I'm open to any rational argument.

Jim
MechFO
Posts: 767
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 4:06 am

RE: TOE Errata

Post by MechFO »

ORIGINAL: jaw

ORIGINAL: MechFO

Will you also accept errata for other forces? The German Arty TOE being an obvious, easy, yet unfixed case.

MechFO,

The German Artillery TOE is not incorrect; it is a matter of interpretation. The Germans suffered substantial artillery losses in the winter of 41/42 and in many, not all mind you, cases re-organized their artillery to a lower establishment. Given the way the game system worked, I felt it was more accurate to build this ad hoc re-organization into the TOE so the guns couldn't be magically replaced by merely putting a division in refit. If we had fixed artillery production like we have fixed AFV production I wouldn't have felt compelled to do that.

When I see that an elite division like the 78th Sturm Division with a still reduced artillery establishment in late 1943 I'm not inclined to change my mind on this subject but I'm open to any rational argument.

Jim

As I acknowledged in a previous post, the current setup does reflect de facto post 42 historical reality. However I have yet to see a player lose 20-30 Division equivalents by early 43 so I wonder why it's supposed to be relevant. Also your argument applies to any and every piece of equipment. I don't see many in game Divisons running around with full TOE's so I fail to see the relevance. As a simple test I suggest you lose 20 Divisions or so and look what your TOE Artillery averages are after half a year. Gun production was toned down x patches ago so I really don't see the justification, but I guess that's just me.

Either way, I don't see where there's room for rational argument. Either one believes in historical determinism or not. I don't, and I observe that, once again, the Germans are the only ones being held to it since very few Soviet units fully reached and maintained their paper TOE.

Tentpeg
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 5:42 pm

RE: TOE Errata

Post by Tentpeg »

I am with MechFO on this one. Making an arbitrary decision to reduce the Axis artillery strength in the Division (where it is needed most) because you do not agree with the historical TO&E could be perceived as bias. Let the player decide what to do with assets available. If the player needs to curtail unit strength to converse assets allow them the freedom to chose the units and equipment they curtail.
MechFO
Posts: 767
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 4:06 am

RE: TOE Errata

Post by MechFO »

Here's the production numbers of the most common German Divisional Arty types.

10.5 cm FH 18

1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945
483 1.380 1.160 1.237 1.661 1.009 56

10.5 cm FH 18/40

1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945
------- ------- ------- ------- 1.872 7.827 566

s. 10-cm-K. 18
1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945
------ 35 108 135 454 701 ----

15.5 cm

1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945
190 580 516 636 785 2.295 401

As you see, losing 20-30 Divisions worth takes a serious bite out of production until the 43 ramp up. I seriously doubt the Germans are currently reaching those numbers in most games which start in 41.
TAIL_GUNNER
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 1:33 pm

RE: TOE Errata

Post by TAIL_GUNNER »

ORIGINAL: MechFO
ORIGINAL: TAIL_GUNNER

@MechFO - It's my understanding flame-throwers weren't shown on the KStN. You will need the corresponding KAN file which should be the same number and date as the KStN.

You don't find FT's per se but you find the number of Flammschützen, I assume 2 Flammschützen corresponds to 1 FT.

I found something useful with KSTN No. 1118 A+B Panzer Pio Kp for Pz Gren Regiments, motorized and armoured, Kriegsetat 44.

Pz Pio Kp for the mot Pz Gren Reg has:

3 motorized Platoons à 4 Squads, 1 MG per Squad, each platoon with 4 Flammschützen -> probably 2 FT's
6 Panzerschreck

armoured Pz Pio Kp for the arm. Pz Gren Reg has.

2 mot Platoons à 4 Squads, 1 MG per Squad, each platoon with 4 Flammschützen
1 arm. Platoon with 3 Squads, 2 MG's per Squad, no Flammschützen (1 x 251/17)
1 arm. FT platoon with 6 x 251/16
3 Panzerschreck

EDIT: The early war KSTN's that I have don't explicitly mention the number of Flammschützen, even if equipment clearly indicates that there must be some in the unit. Also, on second thought, since all FT's were 1 man versions, 4 Flammschützen might very well mean 4 FT's....FT production really ramped up in 43/44, so 4 FT per platoon might actually be possible.
As an aside I have found that the arm. FT platoon had 5 x 251/16 in 43.

Also, since this thread is getting crowded with other stuff I'll start posting in the other thread if I find anything.


Good stuff!
I think this KStN 1118 is very similar to the early war 1124, so I probably won't have to create a whole new type of engineer squads.

Know anything about the 251/1-II "Stuka zu Fuss"? As far as I can tell, the early war Panzer Pioneers had six of these kits issued for the single Panzer-Pioneer zug at the time. Can't find any information on if they were used throughout the entire war, though they do appear in a KStN for a Panzer Brigade in 1943.
AKA "Juggalo"
User avatar
Update
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:45 am

RE: TOE Errata

Post by Update »

Sd Kfz 251/1 mittlere Schützenpanzerwagen (Wurfrahmen 40)
Crew 7, Armament 2x MG34 or MG42. Ammunition 2010, 6xWurfrahmen 40 (5x 28cm Sprengranate, 1x 32cm Flammgranate.
After French campaign panzerpioneers saw the need for heavy bombardment capability and J. Gast KG. Berlin was ordered to develop a projector for 251/1 series SPW. The launcher were attached in their wooden crates on the side (3/side) and were launched in sequence (took 10 seconds to launch all of them).
Range for 28cm was 1.9 km and 32cm was 2.2 km.
They were in use from the summer 1941on, most likely from the start of Barbarossa since the Wurfrahme 40 itself was deployed over a year earlier (I cannot find exact deployment date for 251/1 combination). Some of the vehicles were also field conversions and this same method was used with many other vehicles (French Hotchkiss H-35, Renault UE/AMX UE and so on) to give more mobility and survivability for 28/32 cm rocket units. I think, not sure, that they were in use for the duration of the war since KStN tables lists them in 1944 also.
6 of these units formed one Züg (normally 3rd) in PzPioneer Companies.
Nobody respects a country with a poor army, but everybody respects a country with a good army. I raise my toast to the Finnish Army.

Attributed to Josef Stalin, 1948.
jaw
Posts: 1049
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:07 pm

RE: TOE Errata

Post by jaw »

ORIGINAL: Tentpeg

I am with MechFO on this one. Making an arbitrary decision to reduce the Axis artillery strength in the Division (where it is needed most) because you do not agree with the historical TO&E could be perceived as bias. Let the player decide what to do with assets available. If the player needs to curtail unit strength to converse assets allow them the freedom to chose the units and equipment they curtail.

It wasn't an arbitrary decision; it was based on analyzing the actual OOBs of the various divisions. If one division had 26 guns and another division had 31 guns and yet another division had 35 guns I'd say they were below the prescribed TOE and should eventually be brought up to strength. But when division after division has 27 guns organized in batteries of 3 guns you've got to say that was the prescribed TOE in the field regardless of what the official TOE was.

That said, I am not closed minded on this issue and will discuss it with the development team to see if they feel any adjustment is warranted.

Jim
Tentpeg
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 5:42 pm

RE: TOE Errata

Post by Tentpeg »

jaw;

Thank you. I appreciate the explanation of the why behind the decision. It was has also been pointed out that a number of the Soviet TO&E's fall into a similiar situation. If that is so then they should receive the same consideration.

My main point is that hindsight/oversight variables (and plain common sense) means that neither side is going to find itself in the historical reality of 1942 (or 43 - 44). If the assets are available let the player decide who gets what. Maybe the Axis decides the Corps Artillery battalions get curtailed instead of the Division, or he he has conserved his forces enough to keep all of them up to (TO&E) strength.

User avatar
Update
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:45 am

RE: TOE Errata

Post by Update »

ORIGINAL: Tentpeg

Thank you. I appreciate the explanation of the why behind the decision. It was has also been pointed out that a number of the Soviet TO&E's fall into a similiar situation. If that is so then they should receive the same consideration.
I think that Tentpeg has a good point. Isn't the idea of TOE(OB) to show what should have been and the %number what you want to put in the division.
If we take the approach of average division strenght is the de facto TOE(OB) then, as Tentpeg pointed out, Red Army's manpower in Divisions should also be reduced quite severly.
For example: (Soviet Military Operational Art in Pursuit of Deep Battle, David M. Glantz, Frank Cass Printing, 1991)
Soviet 1944 Rifle division
11,706 men
64 guns
127 mortars
12 AA guns
54 AT guns
- Rifle Division strenghts are by TOE. Actual strenght was much lower, and averaged 3,500-4,500 men per division in 1945.
To be fair for everyone I think that German TOE(OB) should be according to TOE OR Russian TOE should receive the same reduction treatment as Germans. Personally I favor the first alternative since it doesn't handicap players at all.
Nobody respects a country with a poor army, but everybody respects a country with a good army. I raise my toast to the Finnish Army.

Attributed to Josef Stalin, 1948.
MechFO
Posts: 767
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 4:06 am

RE: TOE Errata

Post by MechFO »

ORIGINAL: jaw

ORIGINAL: Tentpeg

I am with MechFO on this one. Making an arbitrary decision to reduce the Axis artillery strength in the Division (where it is needed most) because you do not agree with the historical TO&E could be perceived as bias. Let the player decide what to do with assets available. If the player needs to curtail unit strength to converse assets allow them the freedom to chose the units and equipment they curtail.

It wasn't an arbitrary decision; it was based on analyzing the actual OOBs of the various divisions. If one division had 26 guns and another division had 31 guns and yet another division had 35 guns I'd say they were below the prescribed TOE and should eventually be brought up to strength. But when division after division has 27 guns organized in batteries of 3 guns you've got to say that was the prescribed TOE in the field regardless of what the official TOE was.

That said, I am not closed minded on this issue and will discuss it with the development team to see if they feel any adjustment is warranted.

Jim


The relevant passage from "Deutsche Artillerie 1934-1945" Engelmann/Scheibert 1974, pretty much the standard work on the subject.

Page 61
"1943 wird bei zahlreichen Divisions-Artillerieregimentern das Geschützsoll von 4 auf 3 herabgesetzt. Bei verbesserter Gerätelage wird diese Massnahme ab 1944 wieder aufgehoben."

The reduction was a temporary measure reflecting the material situation and reversed once the material situation improved.

As an aside, there also seems to be a lot of Nebelwerfer missing. Active Strength in 1945 (including PzWerfer) was 4816. Even accounting for the ones on the western front, a whole bunch must be missing somewhere.

EDIT: More on the missing Nebelwerger.

In the 1944 scenario there are only 4 Heavy Regs and 3 normal Regiments + 1 Abt, for a max TOE strength of (4x44+3x54+2x18(including GD)=374)....I can also find only 1 Nbw Abteilung in the reeinforcement queue.

Say of the total strength of nearly 5000, 50% was on the western front, as of late 44 there are nearly 2000 Nbw missing in the German OOB....

After a cursory inspection following units seem to be missing, I didn't check the independent Abteilungen:

schweres Werferregiment 23, 24
Werferregiment 70, 81, 82
Stellungswerferregiment 102, 103

I didn't add those that were in the east, destroyed and then newly setup and used in the West.

3rd. Edit: I think I see where the problem is, the active strength of nearly 5000 also includes the Wurfrahmen, which don't seem to exist in the game. Also some of the above Regiments are missing in the 44 scenario but exist in the 41 scenario. However, they come in split up as Abteilungen which is incorrect. The 44 scenario is better in this respect since they are kept as Regiments.
Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design and Modding”