In side the magic box of the air system

[KWG]

Pelton, I bet close to 100% of the four-digit losses were due to bombing a hex with an HQ. This is not a problem of the air system, it's a problem with the vulnerability of HQs that dates back to WitE. Especially Allied HQs are susceptible to gigantic losses due to how packed they are.



So unless you post the detailed breakdown of those four-digit kills I can't see those numbers as evidence that the air system is flawed.

+1.

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: KWG

Then how does one account for:




"The Kursk salient became a storm of combat, but on 13 July Hitler, confronted with the Anglo-American invasion of Sicily, called off CITADEL. The Battle of Kursk was a significant Soviet victory, and would soon lead to pressing back the Germans all along the Eastern Front. The Shturmovik had made a major contribution to the success of Red arms. Il-2s destroyed 70 tanks of the 9th Panzer Division in a mere 20 minutes, inflicted losses of 2,000 men and 270 tanks in two hours of attack on the 3rd Panzer Division, and effectively destroyed the 17th Panzer Division in four hours of strikes, smashing 240 vehicles out of their total of almost 300. "



A 2 hour attack. Or is the above a QUOTE and not DATA?

KWG, I can tell you that this account is definitely wrong. Sounds like one of those myths created by the Soviets after Kursk.

First of all, 270 destroyed tanks is wrong in any case since the TOE didn't even contain that many tanks. The 3rd Panzer Division mentioned here only possessed a single panzer regiment in 1943.

Zetterling and Frankson give the losses of the German panzer divisions in the sector of Army Group Centre in the entirety of July 1943 as:

2nd Panzer Division - 45
4th Panzer Division - 19
5th Panzer Division - 55
8th Panzer Division - 41
9th Panzer Division - 25
12th Panzer Division - 14
18th Panzer Division - 27
20th Panzer Division - 24

Army Group South divisions from 5th to 17th July 1943 suffered

3rd Panzer Division - 9
11th Panzer Division - 5
Grossdeutschland - 20
Leibstandarte - 12
Das Reich - 9
Totenkopf - 12
6th Panzer Division - 25
7th Panzer Division - 10
19th Panzer Division - 27

The Soviet misreports for the Kursk battle is pretty notorious with Prokhorovka being the most infamous one. Leibstandarte on 12th July 1943 lost only four tanks and Das Reich reported a single loss from 10th to 13th July.

[KWG]

The numbers are all over. Were they as high or as low as each side reports? And the loss of troops.

Another claim
Army Group South claimed 161 tanks and 14 assault guns lost. Up to 14 July,

And numbers aside there is the results on the battlefield from the involvement of aircraft.

And with some reported losses, from all causes, so low why was there defeat or victory?

Both Russians and Germans claim higher losses to enemy and lower losses to themselves. HMMMMM!!!

opposite for 9th Panzer
1.On 7th July 1943, in one 20 minute period it has been claimed IL-2s destroyed 70 tanks of the 9th Panzer Division.(13) It actually turns out that close to the start of the battle on 1st July 1943, 9th Panzer Division had only one tank battalion present (the II./Pz Regt 33) with only 83 tanks and assault guns of all types in the Division.(14) 9th Panzer Division doesn’t record any such loss in July (it registers an air-attack referred to as heavy strafing), and 9th Panzer Division continued in action for over three months after this so called ‘devastating attack’, with most of its initial tanks still intact.

[SigUp]

Given a working administration and reporting system the own loss reports is more or less accurate, especially if they have control over the battlefield which was the case for the Germans at Kursk. Meanwhile opposing loss reports is nearly always too high and there are a multitude of reasons for it. Tendency to look at it positively, tough to gauge destroyed vs. damaged, chaos of the battlefield etc.

The Germans grew suspicious of their own reports regarding destroyed Soviet tanks that OKH decided in December 1942 to cut 50% off the reported losses for a better estimate of the Russian losses. Turns out 50% was a bit too much with overreporting numbering about 40%.

German losses at Kursk have been checked from multiple angles by German and foreign historians and they can be seen as more or less accurate.

[KWG]

ORIGINAL: SigUp

Given a working administration and reporting system the own loss reports is more or less accurate, especially if they have control over the battlefield which was the case for the Germans at Kursk. Meanwhile opposing loss reports is nearly always too high and there are a multitude of reasons for it. Tendency to look at it positively, tough to gauge destroyed vs. damaged, chaos of the battlefield etc.

The Germans grew suspicious of their own reports regarding destroyed Soviet tanks that OKH decided in December 1942 to cut 50% off the reported losses for a better estimate of the Russian losses. Turns out 50% was a bit too much with overreporting numbering about 40%.

German losses at Kursk have been checked from multiple angles by German and foreign historians and they can be seen as more or less accurate.

Game losses are low for afv and some of those return , true? as with the troop losses?

Can 36 aircraft flying 72 sorties in excellent weather cause 4,849 casualties if the variables and FATE are right? And is that FOW for the Germans in the report above?

How does everything Tactical get accounted for?

In Normandy it was almost impossible for the Germans to fly recon over Allies until the Ar 234 recon. Yet in game, with Allied fighters stationed in Normandy and with Air Supremacy missions the Germans recon many Allied hexs.
I dont see that as impossible as the game engine has enough room to account for a change in tactics being used.

[Great_Ajax]

Ah, the claims of the V VS where they destroyed more armored vehicles than were even on hand in these divisions. Based on my reading, all aviators wildly over estimate ground losses. Normandy reports from Allied aviators during the Mortain offensive read the same way with the Germans actually losing a minimal amount of tanks to airborne weapons.

Trey

ORIGINAL: KWG

If you read all my posts my main argument has bee that it COULD be done, not so much what it does.


Then how does one account for:




"The Kursk salient became a storm of combat, but on 13 July Hitler, confronted with the Anglo-American invasion of Sicily, called off CITADEL. The Battle of Kursk was a significant Soviet victory, and would soon lead to pressing back the Germans all along the Eastern Front. The Shturmovik had made a major contribution to the success of Red arms. Il-2s destroyed 70 tanks of the 9th Panzer Division in a mere 20 minutes, inflicted losses of 2,000 men and 270 tanks in two hours of attack on the 3rd Panzer Division, and effectively destroyed the 17th Panzer Division in four hours of strikes, smashing 240 vehicles out of their total of almost 300. "



A 2 hour attack. Or is the above a QUOTE and not DATA?



And when one considers the Luftwaffe and what causalities it caused at the 2nd battle of Kharkov.

Stalingrad what is the data for causalities caused by Luftwaffe?

Am I correct in that not all looses are KIA and there will be troops returning?

[KWG]

Losses reported vary greatly for every report every front.

Totenkopf - 12

Really? only 12 for the unit that was in the thickest fighting from start to end?

As most reports have the Totenkopf losing over half all AVF and vehicles.






9th Panzer

From

"destroyed 70 tanks of the 9th Panzer Division in a mere 20 minutes"

to

"What War?"

"9th Panzer Division doesn’t record any such loss in July (it registers an air-attack referred to as heavy strafing), and 9th Panzer Division continued in action for over three months after this so called ‘devastating attack’, with most of its initial tanks still intact."

What did 9th Panzer do at Kursk? Just watch?



Then later after Kursk
Then there is the case of 8th Panzer that took the road instead of the woods as ordered by Black and caught on the move by Russian aircraft and "suffered devastating losses". "Long columns of tanks and lorries went up in flame and all hopes of a counterattack disappeared."

[Great_Ajax]

Good article on the subject which actually deals with one of the direct quotes being used in this thread.

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/comb ... r-in-wwii/

Trey

[KWG]

ORIGINAL: el hefe

Good article on the subject which actually deals with one of the direct quotes being used in this thread.

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/comb ... r-in-wwii/

Trey

Yes Ive quoted from it. Just the effects on armor. Almost argues for the disbanding of squadrons game wise.


Then read this and its telling of the aircraft's impact on armor. a PDF that canbe found on one of the internets .

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: KWG

Really? only 12 for the unit that was in the thickest fighting from start to end?

As most reports have the Totenkopf losing over half all AVF and vehicles.

You have to distinguish between damaged and destroyed. As the Germans were on the offensive they controlled the battlefield and they were very meticulate in recovering their AFVs. German irrecoverable tank and StuG losses at Kursk numbered fewer than 300 total. The Germans lost far more tanks during retreats than during offensives. Army Group Centre in July 1943 lost 311 AFVs, of which only 88 came during Kursk. The defensive battle at Orel was far more costly.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



That's why I don't disband the Luftwaffe bombers. If you use them in quieter areas of the front you can sometimes get away with only losing a few of them. Even in more heavily defended areas, I was trading half the Luftwaffe bombers for good vps.

Before the rockets got fixed I was also killing an awful lot of guns and afvs. But the dive bombers are pretty good too.

What I be asking is why the big freebee day every week?

Why so many loses on 1 day then the 3000-5000 men, 200-500 guns and 50-200 AFV’s lost to 40-50 planes then next
to nothing the other 6 days.

The WA bombers get the same freebee every turn even when you fly over a small group of planes generally the cut off is at 20%.

And in all the other cases I did not use rockets, always uses bombs or drop tanks if I even used FB’s for attacking.

As we know the WA's have allot more and can do more with it.

As with WitE I am not that smart but when something is wrong I hand it to morveal and he has to find out what is wrong in the code.

I am just am player all I can do is post the info and someone smarter then me has to find out just whats wrong.

Its happens in any hex vs what ever units, but the effects are deflated slightly by terrain and fort levels.

Its effects are inflated by a depot, HQ or AA in the hex or combinations of them and if u fly escort's even 3 not sure WTH that matters?

Plane type/ load out size of raid also effects over all loses, but its generally always the same one inflated day.

If you hit the lower % right you can get the inflated day and not have to bomb the other 6 - which is a red flag for me.

Like I said generally at this point morveal takes over digging into the code.

I am not doing anything magical.

You have what I know so good luck.

Off to watch the rest of the game.

[KWG]

ORIGINAL: SigUp

ORIGINAL: KWG

Really? only 12 for the unit that was in the thickest fighting from start to end?

As most reports have the Totenkopf losing over half all AVF and vehicles.

You have to distinguish between damaged and destroyed. As the Germans were on the offensive they controlled the battlefield and they were very meticulate in recovering their AFVs. German irrecoverable tank and StuG losses at Kursk numbered fewer than 300 total. The Germans lost far more tanks during retreats than during offensives. Army Group Centre in July 1943 lost 311 AFVs, of which only 88 came during Kursk. The defensive battle at Orel was far more costly.

You have to distinguish between damaged and destroyed. As the Germans were on the offensive they controlled the battlefield and they were very meticulate in recovering their AFVs. German irrecoverable tank and StuG losses at Kursk numbered fewer than 300 total. The Germans lost far more tanks during retreats than during offensives. Army Group Centre in July 1943 lost 311 AFVs, of which only 88 came during Kursk. The defensive battle at Orel was far more costly.

Not much of a SWAN SONG of the German Armored Forces.

Exactly as Ive been saying about the games loss report. Some of the losses will return.

Plus destroyed = left on battle field? Or destroyed + left on field.


Ive broken track on armor and it canbe as bad as being destroyed. Yet only 12 thats almost still full strength

So Totenkofp left Kursk with all but 12 AFVs?

[Seminole]

ORIGINAL: Pelton
I am just am player all I can do is post the info and someone smarter then me has to find out just whats wrong.

Can you post a before air execution phase save so we can delve into particulars?
I'm down to 1 game waiting on me, so I might have time to test soon.

[Harrybanana]

Pelton,

I am at least partially on your side on this. Your data shows bombing creating way more casualties than it should especially, it would appear, to HQ Units. But I for one would appreciate more data on how your bombers are creating these casualties. I have run some test as well and have not been nearly as effective as you. In particular could you post data showing:

1. How many days per week are your bombers flying these missions?
2. How many bombers do you have in each mission?
3. What are the bomber air groups morale at the end of the week?
4. How much of the damage is being caused by the heavies and how much by the medium bombers and FBs?
5. How many of the casualties are being taken by the HQs as opposed to the combat units?

Like Seminole I would really appreciate it if you could post your save just prior to Air execution.

[SigUp]

The issue here isn't with the bombers, it's with the vulnerability of the HQ units. HQs have been extremely soft going back to WitE. The biggest killers here are tactical bombers/fighter bombers. Of course the more packed an HQ is the more you can kill. Even a small number of tactical bombers coming through can create a bloodbath as I have shown in my post earlier with the five-digit losses caused to SHAEF.

[Denniss]

Is all the data posted with FoW Off ?
Strange to see WitW still having vulnerable HQs - most of the assigned units and support squad should actually be spread to multiple units with HQ just acting as virtual force concentration.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: SigUp

The issue here isn't with the bombers, it's with the vulnerability of the HQ units. HQs have been extremely soft going back to WitE. The biggest killers here are tactical bombers/fighter bombers. Of course the more packed an HQ is the more you can kill. Even a small number of tactical bombers coming through can create a bloodbath as I have shown in my post earlier with the five-digit losses caused to SHAEF.

completely agree ... to do sensible test you have to remove all HQs from the target area - while its less easy to do the WiTE exploit of deliberately hitting HQs they will distort any bombing reports, especially when all you've done is to report a single iteration

ORIGINAL: Denniss

Is all the data posted with FoW Off ?
Strange to see WitW still having vulnerable HQs - most of the assigned units and support squad should actually be spread to multiple units with HQ just acting as virtual force concentration.

think that SHAEF is a bit of a special case - a lot of allied players don't really bother moving most of the AA that builds up in that command away so it may be over-stuffed. But there is a wider issue which is that senior command units in WiTW seem to lock up more manpower and stuff than they do in WiTE.


edit: don't really want to add to the Kursk debate but my understanding was that AGC did have to abandon quite a few damaged tanks as the Soviet Orel offensive forced them to redeploy and the Soviet formations on the north side of the Kursk salient were in a better state to go over to the offensive. Agree about AGS in that they controlled the battlefields and managed an orderly withdrawal - but I think the Soviets over-ran a number of repair sites once the AGS front broke after the fall of Kharkov?

[soeren01]

ORIGINAL: Seminole

ORIGINAL: Pelton
I am just am player all I can do is post the info and someone smarter then me has to find out just whats wrong.

Can you post a before air execution phase save so we can delve into particulars?
I'm down to 1 game waiting on me, so I might have time to test soon.

I would like to see a save too.

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: loki100

think that SHAEF is a bit of a special case - a lot of allied players don't really bother moving most of the AA that builds up in that command away so it may be over-stuffed. But there is a wider issue which is that senior command units in WiTW seem to lock up more manpower and stuff than they do in WiTE.

Yes, SHAEF is just extremely packed with 180.000 men, so I set up the test again with the Westwall scenario and targeted various HQs. Fog of war is off, recon on days 1-3 then a single 500 bomber strike mainly using fighter bombers (trained as fighters) plus a few level bombers on days 4-7 from 15.000 feet. The FW-190s are equipped with one 250kg bomb. The He-111s with one 1000kg bomb and four 250kg ones. And the Ju-88s with two 500kg bombs. The Allied airforce is set to rest.

First VIII British Corps:



Then 2nd British Army:



21st Army Group:



SHAEF:



VII US Corps:



1st US Army:



Also to check the effect on regular units,

Guards Armoured Division:



Stack of units (6th Guard Armoured Brigade, 8th Armoured Brigade, 43rd Infantry Division)



Last but not least, bombing a hex with more than one HQ (XII British, XXX British Corps plus Irene Brigade)



If anybody wants to try it out, here's the save file:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/j611m9bvkong0r5/test.sav?dl=0

[Helpless]

If anybody wants to try it out, here's the save file:

Thanks. Downloaded. Will check it out.