SOVIET UNION 1941 MOBILE VARIANT AAR

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: governato

One thing that worries me is that 1 TOAW truck does NOT represent one real truck, this can be guessed by the change in MPs vs trucks associated to a given unit. Rather than worrying on the absolute number of trucks I would like to see tests that focused directly on the Axis movement capabilities.

Mind me, I like the current experiment, but what I would do is adding XX trucks to boost MPs by given fraction to each unit and provide enough replacements to sustain that. That would provide a clean test and free the scenario from the plausibility arguments that have been brought up.

1 TOAW truck does not represent one real truck until you start talking about halftracks. Then they equal both one halftrack and any number of halftracks.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: governato

I will say it again: TOAW does not explicitly include attrition/breakdown losses. I think it is a problem that forces designers to partially compensate in other ways, but we may just agree to disagree here!

Again, no TOAW scenario ever made ever required this before, including Barbarossa scenarios. What is a readiness deficit other than equipment in the TO&E but not ready for use?

[Lobster]

8.2.3 Unit Readiness
This represents the effects of wear and tear on equipment and troop fatigue. A fully-rested unit
has a Readiness of 100%, and a completely exhausted unit has a Readiness of 33%.

This is your point and would include equipment breakdown. Unfortunately it appears to be the same for every piece of equipment.

[governato]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

8.2.3 Unit Readiness
This represents the effects of wear and tear on equipment and troop fatigue. A fully-rested unit
has a Readiness of 100%, and a completely exhausted unit has a Readiness of 33%.

This is your point and would include equipment breakdown. Unfortunately it appears to be the same for every piece of equipment.

It only works to a point. Equipment cannot always be repaired. The projected life/durability of a T-34 was 6 months,
even without an 88mm gun getting in the way. Moreover recovering readiness does not solve the problem of obsolete equipment that should get removed from the TOE of a unit.

The beauty of TOAW is that the engine is flexible enough to allow designers to experiment on new ideas and focus on
various problems. I think attrition is important, especially in long scenarios and I try to take care of it. Other designers may think differently and that is fine.

Bob a good metric 'd be to compare Axis tank losses during Barbarossa. These figures include all unrecoverable losses (from Stahel Kiev 1941 I think). Negative figures are the actual losses. Hope it's useful!

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: governato

Bob a good metric 'd be to compare Axis tank losses during Barbarossa. These figures include all unrecoverable losses (from Stahel Kiev 1941 I think). Negative figures are the actual losses. Hope it's useful!

If I total all the losses from June through November it looks like about 2110 or so. The German losses in the game were 3149 for those equipment types.

Note that the chart doesn't distinguish between losses from combat and losses from breakdowns (I'm sure it could, but why do so - they're the same in the end, right?). So, TOAW need not make the distinction either. You want permanent breakdowns - just crank up the combat lethality a little.

[Lobster]

Cranking up losses could work. Except a tank that doesn't make it to the battlefield can't shoot at the other guy. So actually breakdowns are not the same as tanks and crews that make it to the battle. In 1941 the Soviets would have been much better off if all of their old broken down tanks made it to a battle to shoot at the other guy. But they didn't. The roads were littered with broken down Soviet armor. So, in the end, it is not the same. Some method would be nice where attrition levels could be applied to individual pieces of equipment. It would also be nice if I were a fabulously wealthy person. I'm sure both things have an equal chance of happening. [;)]

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

They get them earlier by making the decision to loot them earlier. That's the basis of the scenario.

Quite. They should therefore get the same benefit earlier (to my knowledge, the ability to supply an army in the Caucasus plus another half dozen mechanised divisions). Not some other benefit entirely.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

If I total all the losses from June through November it looks like about 2110 or so. The German losses in the game were 3149 for those equipment types.

I must be getting senile. My scenario runs through December, even into the first week of January - not ending at November. So, add about 600 more to the first number, about 2710. That correlates better with the 3149 number from the game.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Cranking up losses could work. Except a tank that doesn't make it to the battlefield can't shoot at the other guy. So actually breakdowns are not the same as tanks and crews that make it to the battle. In 1941 the Soviets would have been much better off if all of their old broken down tanks made it to a battle to shoot at the other guy. But they didn't. The roads were littered with broken down Soviet armor. So, in the end, it is not the same. Some method would be nice where attrition levels could be applied to individual pieces of equipment. It would also be nice if I were a fabulously wealthy person. I'm sure both things have an equal chance of happening. [;)]

But, if both sides are having breakdowns, it sort of evens out in the end. So Axis combat losses are higher and Soviet combat losses are correspondingly higher - somewhat accounting for both side's breakdowns to some extent. It's not perfect, of course. But we'll never get to that.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Quite. They should therefore get the same benefit earlier (to my knowledge, the ability to supply an army in the Caucasus plus another half dozen mechanised divisions). Not some other benefit entirely.

If they wait till after Barbarossa to loot them then they have to be used primarily to replace the heavy truck losses of Barbarossa to the supply columns. By looting before Barbarossa, however, they motorize the entire Wehrmacht. The figures say so.

Now, in 1942, they can't do the looting again, so there will be issues with that. It's probable that they will have to revert back to a mostly foot army to get the supply columns back to normal. But, by then it won't be that important. All they have to do is mop up.