German supply

[KenchiSulla]

I honestly thought you were fooling around a bit, based on your comments. If you are serious then, well, enjoy this thread...

[Crackaces]

If One is interested in a detailed read of the German Supply problems and how they affected operations in the first weeks represented by WITE I believe Fugate (1984) is a very good read. (Operation Barbarossa. Strategy And Tactics On The Eastern Front, 1941
Just as a note -- I find the moderators of this forum not to tolerate trolls .. it is one reason I enjoy the interaction as I try and master this very complex game. The good news is it simple to block either arrogant or blissful ignorance.

[RedLancer]

Crackaces is correct. Bad behaviour is not tolerated.

Chuckles - Please either apologise or edit your posts. I welcome debate, especially on logistic issues, but there is no need for personal slights.

[chuckfourth]

Sure, sure, I apologise, sincerely, wholeheartedly and unconditionally.
Now back to business
It is very simple arithmetic
Rommel supplied 3 corps 65 hexes away from his rail head (Tripoli) along one single road with trucks. How much supply did he lose along the way? nearly none. He could do a HQBU at 65 hexes, three times the current 20.
WITE starts to penalise supply delivery if the unit is 10 hexes from a rail head,(that's 3 hours in a truck) and stops it at 25 hexes.
Clearly the Rommel example shows that the Germans were NOT tied so closely to the rail heads as they are in this game.
It was made very clear in Poland France and Yugoslavia/Greece that the German army and its logistics system was absolutely first class. Both the Ardennes and Yugoslavia had narrow underdeveloped roads, it didn't stop them. Germans staff work was brilliant, the suggestion that they hadn't planned Barbarossa to within an inch of its life is revisionist. They knew how far and how fast the armoured spearheads could go and catered accordingly. They had just had 3 large scale, live fire trial runs, Poland, France and Yugoslavia. In Russia they predicted what the fuel needs would be well before they set foot on Russian soil. As the offensive developed they could see what was running low at get it forward in good time, they had radios.
The weather beat them, not logistical ineptitude.

I guess I am not alone in thinking this and so the HQBU rule has appeared.
This is a case of giving with one hand and taking with the other.
First the supply of the far away units is severely restricted with the supply rules and then completely unrestricted with HQBU.
Clearly the logistics system is trying to get as much supply forward as possible, and in the game if the units are too far away it can't do this fully, but somehow automagically with the pressing of the HQBU button now it can supply them fully. Where do these extra trucks come from?
Why aren't the "extra" HQBU trucks just running supply's to the far away units in the first place?
It seems an unnecessary complication. Easier to do it this way, remove HQBU and use these supply restrictions.
If the units are 5 hexes to the corps and the crops is 15 units to the Panzer Group and the Panzer Group is 45 hexes to the army group then they should be in full supply or nearly so.
Note that this adds up to 65 hexes, Rommel's ability to service his army with trucks.
Note The Food and Water Rommel had to bring forward is available locally in Russia.
OK there are supply glitches, but a whole corps marooned for a week before the Mud arrives?

Supply Build up already happens in the local towns? Maybe change pressing the HQBU button to bringing this supply on line?
Tweak Soviet Morale to adjust play balance, they were rural men with excellent bushcraft, often poorly led and poorly equipped but undoubtedly brave and stubborn.
Remove the Surprise rule.

It would be helpful if the people offering Reading material offered some specific relevant quotes as I don't have these books. Of the 3 quotes supplied so far, one is due to mud the other two probably as well, thought context is missing.

A quote from the American observer William Shirer on the advance into France

"And what a magnificent machine that keeps them running so smoothly. In fact that is the chief impression you get from watching the German army at work. It is a gigantic, impersonal war machine, run as coolly and efficiently, say as our automobile industry in Detroit"

I am happy to help with an AAR?

These changes I think will force the Russian to feed his units into the mincing machine of the German advance in a desperate attempt to slow him down as the Russian builds his strength, as was the historical reality.
Stalin never said everyone pull back, well just let him come up to the gates of Moscow and stop him there because we know he will he out of fuel by then.

Also this quote from Glantz.
http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/2011/0 ... ad-tycoon/

"by 1 July its railroad engineers managed to restore the Brest-Minsk line only as far as Baranovichi, a distance of 300 kilometers, with one track operational on German gauge and the other on wider Russian gauge. Laboring feverishly, the engineers were able to push the latter to Stolbtsy on 3 July and Minsk a day later. "

Thats 16 hexes of German guage in 2 turns way ahead of the games possible 8.
And of course, a single line will have sidings so trains can pass each other.

Just one last point the Baltic rail zone should probably correspond to the state boundaries rather than the current zig zag.

Thanks in advance for your attention.

[No idea]

Nobody said the germans were inept at logistics, why have you reached that conclusion?

HQBUs is the way the game has to mimick the hoarding of ammo, supplies and fuel that preceded offensives and long advances. I agree it is not the best solution (WITW depots make more sense) but it isnt nonsense either. You need TIME to hoard resources, especially far from your supply lines. It is not a question of how many trucks you want to use, it is a question of supply througput (the amount of trucks that can pass through a given road/trains that can pass through a given railroad is limited. A given army supply condition wouldnt improve just because you use all the trucks in the werhmatch to supply them if you dont expand or improve transport networks at the same time), something the game doesnt really model well.

If you want some more data, in Glantz I read not long ago that the senior werhmacht logistics officer clearly told that the werhmatch could be supported 500 kms beyond the border more or less. Beyond that serious supply problems would start arising.

On any case, as some others told you, the game mimicks the advance quite well, even if using weird ways and features to mimick it. Simply read any AAR and compare it with the real life german advance and you will see that players tend to keep the same pace or slightly better.

[RforRush]

Rommel is very bad example, he lost several times by outrunning his supply lines. This shows that it wasn't possible to adequately supply an army without rail connection.
We don't know yet how supply will look in WitE2 and probably nothing major will change in current game, so it's better to wait for details on next game before running deep into speculations.

[No idea]

ORIGINAL: RforRush

Rommel is very bad example, he lost several times by outrunning his supply lines. This shows that it wasn't possible to adequately supply an army without rail connection.
We don't know yet how supply will look in WitE2 and probably nothing major will change in current game, so it's better to wait for details on next game before running deep into speculations.

Regarding supply I think I read they are going to get rid of HQBUs and give us the same "supply via depots" used in WITW. And they are going to implement some kind of supply throughput with railroads, as there will be simple and double rail lanes (but dont quote me on this, I could have dreamt it)

[RedLancer]

ORIGINAL: No idea

Regarding supply I think I read they are going to get rid of HQBUs and give us the same "supply via depots" used in WITW. And they are going to implement some kind of supply throughput with railroads, as there will be simple and double rail lanes (but dont quote me on this, I could have dreamt it)

Not dreaming so your sanity is safe. When I get a spare few minutes I'll provide an update in the WitE2 thread.

[56ajax]

Just a couple of points here on rail. This game runs on 'averages' and not highs and lows so whilst the line may be almost to Minsk quick smart, the historical average conversion approximates 8 hexes??

The germans expected to capture sufficient locos and rolling stock, and they didn't.

German locos were unsuited to the harsh russian winter; insufficiently insulated so they couldn't retain the heat and thus achieve sufficient pressure to work effectively.

[chuckfourth]

My point is that until the mud arrives the remaining Russian rail and road network was sufficient to allow all the throughput required. WITHOUT evidence to the contrary I think this is a safe assumption to make.
A truck can drive 1000 miles as easily as 100. The petrol engine is a very reliable thing.
Don't forget the Germans required a very small logistical tail (they had a high "bayonet strength") Unlike the relatively bloated logistical requiremments of the Western allies who relied much more heavily on HE rather than schwerepunkt and coordination. France is a good example of this, when the Germans went through they caused very little collateral damage, the Allies layed waste to much of the country.
Making specific claims without substantiation might not be dishonest but it is certainly questionable. Who gives the 500k limit and in what context? A quote turns an unsupported claim into something that can be worked with.
I still think Rommel is a good example. Rommel had good supply while Malta was suppressed and bad when it wasn't. His main difficulty was not the via Balba but whole shiploads of equipment and supplies sinking to the bottom of the mare mediterraneo.

[Psych0]

Agree with you chuckles. Get rid of HQBU and relax the supply rules and rail conversion limits. Wite2 will be better hopefully but why not make Wite better almost overnight. No need for new rules or concepts, just reconfigure the existing ones for more realism...

[RedLancer]

ORIGINAL: chuckles

A truck can drive 1000 miles as easily as 100. The petrol engine is a very reliable thing.

That is a sweeping generalisation which does not promote your argument one iota. A ten times increase in distance costs time, increases fuel consumption by ten and also increases spares consumption (certainly not by ten but there is an increase). All of these factors reduce the capacity of a given number of trucks to move materiel. That is logistics at its most simple.

WitE is overly generous logistically.

[chuckfourth]

I make the point about trucks because the game starts to penalise supply delivery after 10 hexes, 100 miles. It is only about 3 hours driving. A truck can drive several hundred miles in a day. I think this suggests the 10 hex penalty should be moved out to a minimum of one days travel, say 15 hours that would be about 50 hexes and then multiples of that, or even dropped altogether.
The Germans Schell program had ensured that the Germans had quality trucks in use. The captive Czechoslovakian motor industry Tatra trucks were also excellent vehicles and also produced in quantity. Other occupied territories also supplied trucks, I believe that the French trucks however were not up to the rigors of the Russian winter.
The vast majority of the trucks you see driving down the road today are substantially no different to those in use during WW2. They are very reliable now and were then. The current basic truck design had been successfully bedded down by the end of WW1
Regular services for trucks would be after several 1000's of miles running, this may require nothing more that topping up fluids. So I think spares comsumption is probably insignificant at distances of 100 miles, 10 hexes.
The fuel consumption only effects supply delivered if the truck runs out of fuel. I would assume that in the rear areas fuels stops would be located at appropriate points on the journey back and fourth? So no need to account for that.
Time is a tricky one. I don't understand why taking more time to deliver the supplies should effect how much supplies are delivered unless there weren't enough trucks to deliver all the supplies needed.
The fact that no one has supplied an example of large formations running out of fuel or supplies before the first mud appears seems to confirm to me that they did have enough trucks so this one also I think is actually OK.
Also trucks already suffer attrition, the 10 hex rule seems to be a kind of double whammy.
So once again if the attrition is deemed sufficient then removing the supply 10 hex penalty simplifies the game.
So I still think that while the weather held the trucks would be capable of bridging the gap between railhead and corps successfully, mainly because of their inherent simplicity and reliability.

Thank you for your support Psych0

[RedLancer]

You are missing the point. The further trucks go the less that they can carry in a given period of time when there are a finite number of trucks available. There is no evidence that the Germans chose not to use some of their trucks. The logistic's elastic band starts to stretch at the very first mile. As I tried to explain it is not just time that is involved. The further the trucks go the more they need to support them and that has to be taken from the supplies that would have been delivered to the units that they are supporting.

As for evidence on supply difficulties for Barbarossa here is a quick quote:

Williamson Murray, “Barbarossa”, The Quarterly Journal of Military History, No. 4 (New York, MHQ Inc., 1992)

By the end of July, German operations came to a grinding halt. The lead elements, the panzer and motorized infantry divisions, ran out of fuel and ammunition. Restrictions had to be put on the number of shells that artillery units could fire. On the primitive roads with their heat, dust, and deep glutinous mud when it rained, the German logistic system began to fall apart. By July 11, after just nineteen days, 25 % of German supply vehicles permanently broke down. The panzer divisions could not repair damaged tanks and other vehicles because parts could not get through. The panzer and motorized infantry divisions became dangerously exposed as a result. Soviet reserve forces arrived in increasing numbers. These counterattacks exacerbated the dangerous German shortage of ammunition. In tum, the need for ammunition placed a further drain on the diminishing number of supply vehicles, which drastically curtailed the Germans' ability to supply fuel to the front.


As a professional military logistician whose hobby is helping to develop WitE2 I can promise you I keep a very close eye on the logistics aspect of the game and have spent considerable time researching some of the key factors such as the speed of rail repair and depot capacity. The most successful players of this Game have learned that understanding trucks is key to success; and for very good reason.

[xxCLASHxx]

Logistics must of been hugely complicated but I doubt that it stays the same relative to distance. Whilst trucks were capable of running 1000 miles a trip it is without doubt that 100 miles logistically would be easier and more reliable.

I think that running trucks 100 miles is relatively trouble free when using good roads and good weather, running 300 miles without doubt offers a greater problem for things such as maintenance. 300 miles in one direction is a 600 mile round trip.

I am sure that even in heavy summer rain roads would become difficult, factor in the need to return large quantities of vehicles for refitting and you have mixed traffic heading in two directions. Supplies of all sorts not just fuel are using the network.

Add in construction, casualties, prisoners, troop movements, breakdowns then I think it could be pretty chaotic, maybe driving 300 miles itself would take much longer than just 3 x 100 miles and the closer you are to the front the more problems there would be.

I am sure that fuel would be prioritised but once you are 150 miles down the road I am sure that directives would be diluted according to conditions.

[chuckfourth]

Well the quote appears dubious at best to me, and so general as to be meaningless, anyone can say such things.
It does however supply one number, 25% of German trucks permanently broken down in the first 19 days. OK so what is more likely? permanently broken down or temporarily broken down? Temporarily I would think so conservatively that would be a minimum 50 % of the trucks out on action by 19 days, So no trucks at all by 38 days into the offensive especially as the distance they need to travel in the second 19 days is much greater at least double. You have said that there is no evidence of replacement trucks. So Clearly either your quote is wrong or you have missed some trucks.

These arguments can go on forever luckily you are a logistical professional, clearly you have based your calculations on some numbers. What numbers have you got for the tonnage of supply's an infantry, motorised and panzer division needs to be just sitting in place? and how many trucks did the Germans have?

Hi xxCLASHxx I am a truck driver, In Australia I can drive Sydney Melbourne over 1000 miles round trip without bating an eyelid, obviously on a freeway, But the truck, semitrailer can do it easily no maintenance required at all.

[No idea]

Regarding trucks (taken from Glantz, "Clash of Titans", page 39 of the spanish edition, talking about the wehrmacht limitations, my own translation):

"A big number of checz tanks and guns and french trucks equipped some of the recently created formations (in 1940 and 1941). (...). For example, the 3rd motorized division and the 11th and 20th Panzer division were equipped with many french trucks which werent designed for the long treks required by Blitzkrieg. (...)
Germans had solved the lack of vehicles requisitioning comercial trucks all over occupied Europe, but without the appropiate spare parts, maintenance manuals and tools they broke down at an alarming rate."

Just to show what kind of roads the trucks had to use, according to Glantz, the whole of European Russia had just 64.375 kms of asphalted roads. Imagine a piece of territory as big as half the USA with just 64.375 kms of asphalted roads. Granted, most of those kms were located on the territory where Barbarossa would take place, but most roads were not asphalted.

More on logistics (Glantz, same book, page 41):

"On 12th and 15th november of 1940, the wehrmatchs logistic chief, Generalmajor Edouard Wagner, showed his logistic calculus to General Franz Halder, chief of OKH. Looking with retrospective, the calculus were notably precise. Wagner estimated that the army had enough fuel to advance to a maximun depth of 500 to 800 kms, with enough food and ammo for a 20 days operation. After that, the army would have to stop several weeks to provision, and would depend on the soviet rail to sustain a deeper penetration. In all the Soviet Union there were just 82.000 kms of rails [a country which was around 15% of all land on the Earth], all of them with a different width to that of Germany and East Europe.
(...)
Halder concluded that good logistics would require and emphasis on motorized transport and leadership feats to overcome the breach that would open between the railyards and the front. But the wehrmatch had a critic shortage of vehicles in the combat units and of petrol derivated products. Moreover, logisticians calculated that the maximun effective range of truck transport was a 300 kms round trip; beyond that, trucks would consume more fuel than the one they would transport".

[56ajax]

ORIGINAL: chuckles

Well the quote appears dubious at best to me, and so general as to be meaningless, anyone can say such things.
It does however supply one number, 25% of German trucks permanently broken down in the first 19 days. OK so what is more likely? permanently broken down or temporarily broken down? Temporarily I would think so conservatively that would be a minimum 50 % of the trucks out on action by 19 days, So no trucks at all by 38 days into the offensive especially as the distance they need to travel in the second 19 days is much greater at least double. You have said that there is no evidence of replacement trucks. So Clearly either your quote is wrong or you have missed some trucks.

These arguments can go on forever luckily you are a logistical professional, clearly you have based your calculations on some numbers. What numbers have you got for the tonnage of supply's an infantry, motorised and panzer division needs to be just sitting in place? and how many trucks did the Germans have?

Hi xxCLASHxx I am a truck driver, In Australia I can drive Sydney Melbourne over 1000 miles round trip without bating an eyelid, obviously on a freeway, But the truck, semitrailer can do it easily no maintenance required at all.

How do have time to play this game?

I remember my father told me about a family road trip from Melb - Syd return in the 1930s...and the number of times he had to get out and push...

[xxCLASHxx]

Hi Chuckles - I used to be a tipper driver for a number of years when I was in my 20's.

I started out with a Scammel Routeman - basic tipper with poor half shafts, crash gearbox, weak diffs, rigid leaf sprung suspension, no power steering, no proper heating, double the clutch to even start to find a gear, radiators that would leak frequently etc etc- that was 1982.

Do 1000m in a single trip with that and I guarantee you would not make it without maintenance - yes the principles of a truck remain similar but the mechanics are worlds apart with modern vehicles.

A year later I purchased a Volvo F7, it was incomparable in every aspect to the Scammel.

I note that even the British army still use Scammel for tank transporters but with 80 years of evolution.

Site work in a tipper would have some similarities to the conditions faced by many transports on the Eastern front especially when it rains.

Unlike you guys I do not nearly know enough about the supplies and logistics of the war and you will have forgotten more than I would know but I do not think you can compare modern vehicles with those of 80 years back when many of those were probably already older designs too.

This is a great debate though and now it is not quite so feisty there are some good concepts being aired.

[RedLancer]

Chuckles I am more than happy to debate the issues you raise but you have provided no evidence that I am incorrect. Where is your historical evidence to counter my facts? To date your arguments appear to be based on your own intuition and experience. Saying 'I don't believe you' is not a reasoned argument.

If you look into the data that underpins the game the statistics of supply usage are provided and they are historically accurate. I advise against using notional size of formation in any argument on logistics. The demand in fuel, ammo and spares varies greatly between different types of equipment. 75% of logistic lift is usually consumed by artillery ammunition.

I am very glad to tell xxCLASHxx that we no longer use Scammels in the British Army (thank goodness) but his point is well made on reliability. The difference between consumption of modern electronically controlled engines and old ones is significant. As a rough and ready example the size of the British Army's MAN Truck Fleet and Landrover Fleet are pretty equal. We break 36x more Landrover Engines than we do MAN ones. Another huge difference in reliability since WW2 has been delivered by improvements in lubrication and filtering.