Entrenchment!- A solution to soviet manpower!

[Muzrub]

Can the entrenchment value for German allies be lowered or slowed?

ie Rumanian units along the Don (Nov 42) had little anti-tank defenses (small calibre guns etc etc) low training, moral and leadership- and had an ability to abandon defensive postions at the drop of a hat (maybe not all ran- but many did).

Should not their entrenchment value be lowered to reflect their poor defensive skills?


Also believe German entrenchment should be lowered each year ie:

41-6
42 5-6
43 5-4
44 4-3
45 3-1
Maybe even greater cuts in entrenchment are called for- let me know!

Something along those lines- this would remove the need for increased manpower for the Soviets- if German defences are decreased each year. It would also reflect the ability for the Soviets to force attacks through Germaan lines.

German defensive barriers always suffered from a lack of material, as it stands in the game the Germans can build a retreat line and it will hold- but with a lack of entrenchment it will give away sooner and reflect the great defesive battles which actually took place to a greater degree of historical accuracy!

I may add this post to its own thread to also invite wider discussion!

Thanks.

[czerpak]

Muzrub,
I have to agree and disagree in the same time
I agree german (not talking about minor allies) defence lines are bloody strong thru whole war and in later years should be easier for soviets to attack.
From the other side from what I read germans were even better in defending then in blitzkrieg, so I am not sure if this is a right way to solve the problem.
Anyways interesting idea.
Maciej

[Muzrub]

From the other side from what I read germans were even better in defending then in blitzkrieg, so I am not sure if this is a right way to solve the problem.

The Germans were very good at solving problems with quickly formed battlegroups ad hoc- but in the game reality the Germans can be very difficult indeed in defence- more than in real life at times.
Mind you if German defensive measures were so good they still would be in Russia today!

We have people saying the Soviets dont have enough manpower etc etc- this problem cannot be solved- but by lowering German defense entrenchment makes up for this loss!

It depends on how you read history- the germans though good in defense lacked the materials to truely create a good defensive barrier, by the later years though troops did fight hard they could not hold back the tide, areas of the front would slip away (due to lack of experience- equipment etc etc).

Now in reality Hitler held ground as much as he could- in the game players withdraw and build defensive lines, in reality Hitler was not a great believer in retreat lines- he believed German troops would just withdraw instead of holding ground!

As such in the game the Germans are normally in better condition than their real life counterparts and as such the entrenchment is a real issue!.

[czerpak]

You are right Muzrub, there is a problem. I just dont agree with solving manpower problem with changing entrenchment levels. Only my opinion, nothing to fight about.
Maciej

[Rundstedt]

Originally posted by Muzrub


The Germans were very good at solving problems with quickly formed battlegroups ad hoc- but in the game reality the Germans can be very difficult indeed in defence- more than in real life at times.
Mind you if German defensive measures were so good they still would be in Russia today!

We have people saying the Soviets dont have enough manpower etc etc- this problem cannot be solved- but by lowering German defense entrenchment makes up for this loss!

It depends on how you read history- the germans though good in defense lacked the materials to truely create a good defensive barrier, by the later years though troops did fight hard they could not hold back the tide, areas of the front would slip away (due to lack of experience- equipment etc etc).

Now in reality Hitler held ground as much as he could- in the game players withdraw and build defensive lines, in reality Hitler was not a great believer in retreat lines- he believed German troops would just withdraw instead of holding ground!

As such in the game the Germans are normally in better condition than their real life counterparts and as such the entrenchment is a real issue!.

You are correct. Hitler was once quoted saying that "withdrawing our forces will only shift a disaster from one location to another". To some extent he was right... At least that's what my opinion is, and was.

The single most terrible mistake Hitler, and the High Command, made was to send an unprepared German army into the Soviet Union. The lack of winterized equipment and inadequate supplies were the reasons why we...eeeh...Germany lost the war. It wouldn't have mattered if the the Wehrmacht was allowed to withdraw to "stronger positions", because there weren't any such positions prepared.

One of the German army's greatest assets in defensive combat was the German officer's adroit ability to swiftly mobilize improvised units. But it is also true that we often were unable to contain all enemy forces trapped in our encirclements, as the case was at Charkov in March 1943, due to manpower shortages which were becoming readily apparent even at that stage of the war.

Should the German player be penalized when entrenching units? No, not automatically anyway. It should strictly depend upon the shape of the German war industry, under the exceptional direction of Reichminister Speer. With enough reserves and equipment, the German player should be able to maintain a solid line against an offensive Soviet player, although this should rarely occur from early 1944 an onwards.



Regards, von Rundstedt (OB WEST)

[Montenegro]

The "what if's" in this campaign were what makes this one of the most scrutinized military actions of all time, and it goes without saying that more than a few eyes in the West were silently approving an all out assault on Communism. Just imagine if von Bock and Guederian would have been running the war in the East. The encirclement at Kiev cost them a month+ of good weather and material that would have easily increased the odds of Moscow's collapse had Army Group Centre been allowed to push on from Smolensk at somewhat full force. Or what if Zukov would have perished in the purges? Operation Barbarossa is the greatest riddle that will never be solved. I like the fact that this game also allows for historical input, and I suggest we keep this dialogue a going!

On entrenchment: swamp fighting around lenningrad is the ultimate bear in '41. Any suggestions for a newbie as to how to circumvent this or any suggestions for driving on Pskov and beyond. As I play now, I usually commit 40th Panzer to the frey and this is developing rather ok in my current game.

Thanks

Montenegro

[Rundstedt]

Originally posted by Montenegro
On entrenchment: swamp fighting around lenningrad is the ultimate bear in '41. Any suggestions for a newbie as to how to circumvent this or any suggestions for driving on Pskov and beyond. As I play now, I usually commit 40th Panzer to the frey and this is developing rather ok in my current game.

Thanks

Montenegro

Usually I would refrain from using panzer units, if possible, in static warfare (in your case south of Leningrad). It's such a waste of good tanks... Then again, if you don't have anything else, what choice do you have?

Yes, I agree that the campaign in the east is one of the most intriguing episodes of 19th century history. What should the Germans have done in order to win? There are many questions like this one to ask, but there is really no exact and true answers.

One common opinion is that the campaign against Yugoslavia and Greece critically delayed "Operation Barbarossa". From what I've read about this statement (mostly "The Other Side of the Hill" by B. H. Liddell Hart), it's not correct. Generaloberst(?) Franz Halder claimed the weather in early May 1941 didn't allow any offensive operations against the Soviet Union. So even if the forces were available, an invasion would have been nearly impossible.



Regards, von Rundstedt (OB WEST)

[Montenegro]

Yes, I don't use tanks in this situation, merely infantry and air assault before attacks. My main challange at this point is trying to seal off Lenningrad at least by end of Sept., although this objective is probably the most difficult due to terrain and defences. It is, however, possible if mobility is directed correctly in my opinion.

I do think that the Balkans crisis management that the Wermacht had to do for Italy did effect at least the potential involvement of troops in the East a bit earlier. But as we know, the Germans were quite into schedules and timetables, so this is probably a mute point. It is important to note that the Serbs and Montengrens did draw much blood from the German war machine throughout the war, but particullarly in conjuction with the Soviet winter offensive in '41. I really recommend "War without Garlands" by Robert Kershaw. It gives an unfettered account of German mortality and how titanic the invasion itself was in terms of realistic accomplishment. To this day, however, I agree with historians who believe that the failure to drive on Moscow in July/Aug was a decisive mistake. Hitler was a politician and a madman, and like most leaders with this MO, a terrible tactician. He clearly had the better generals, but much like the Confederacy in the Civil War, ya can't eat tobacco. I also think another great sub-plot in this struggle was how he basically fired his best leaders by the spring '42. Sans murder, he copied Stalin's ineptness almost to a T.

[davewolf]

Originally posted by Montenegro
Hitler was a politician and a madman, and like most leaders with this MO, a terrible tactician.

Montenegro

Well I certainly know what you mean and that this is off topic. But anyway it hurt's me a bit to see Corporal Hitler being called a 'politician'. What about a megalomaniac mass murderer?

Dave

[Rundstedt]

...But you're not completely correct regarding Hitler. He was not a madman, at least not in the beginning. He had his visions, but he was not mad. There's a differense you know...

You should read "Inside the Third Reich" by Albert Speer and "On the Other Side of the Hill" by B. H. Liddell Hart. Hitler was a very poor tactician, but he did know what the troops needed in order to fight well, since he had been an infantryman himself during WW1.

He also proved his "experienced" generals wrong several times. Another example was that he approved von Manstein's plan to attack through the Ardennes Forest back in 1940, when the general staff opposed the idea.

I'm not defending what Hitler did, but it is very, very wrong to say that he was incompetent. You really shoud read "Inside the Third Reich" by Albert Speer! It's a great book, giving many insights about the Reich and Hitler's inner-circle.

Off topic? Oh, well....


Regards, von Rundstedt (OB WEST)

[davewolf]

Originally posted by Rundstedt
...But you're not completely correct regarding Hitler. He was not a madman, at least not in the beginning. He had his visions, but he was not mad. There's a differense you know...

GFM

The difference is that being mad doesn't mean that the one cannot be intelligent. Like a lot of psychopaths he was a very intelligent man and by the way he had an almost photographic memory. But from a psychiatric point of view he was definitely insane from the very beginning.

Still off topic...

Dave

[RickyB]

I don't feel the entrenchments should be altered to allow an easier time for the Soviets, or to make up for manpower shortages, etc. The Germans got better with their field entrenchments throughout the war, but the Soviets increased their firepower, experience and mobility even more, and the Germans didn't have the manpower to hold the lines against it.

I haven't seen enough of the last version after 1942, but earlier if the Soviets survived without losing Moscow at some point, they could push the Germans back no matter what the entrenchment level. Thus, i would put the blame for any problems on other issues, not entrenchments. The manpower issue can be fixed if there is one, by bumping up the city ratings. Even small changes here go a long way. A question on tanks though. If someone has recent experience with tank reserves, do the Soviets build up plenty of tanks in reserve? That to me would be key, by raising the capacity of their tank units to hold more tanks, or adding more tank units to the game, although that creates difficulties with getting them into battle anyway.

[jontegrabben]

Some thoughts.

1. Rumainians have a really bad reputation and thats wrong to a degree. Officers, equipment and tactics really didnt excel BUT the troops usually put up a fight. Exempel, Stalingrad it took Sovjet elite panzer troops days to smash through Rumainian defence lines and they lacked everything!!!!!

2. The eastfronts main problem was that army groups never could support each other (Kiev really being the only time it happend). There never where any mobile reserves (neither "unmobile" reserves for that matter). They just pulled troops from the front who didnt where up to strenght, enough equipped and rested. Had this been the case many Sovjet breakthroughs would have been crushed. Kharkov is an example when this happend.

Any holes in my "bulletproof" stratagem?

[moonfog]

Originally posted by davewolf


Montenegro

Well I certainly know what you mean and that this is off topic. But anyway it hurt's me a bit to see Corporal Hitler being called a 'politician'. What about a megalomaniac mass murderer?

Dave

Dave,

if you are interested in some reading, concerning Hitler's personality and a probable answer to the question how he became the maniac he was I recommend you Ian Kershaw's biography of the "Führer" in two volumes (both also available in german):

Kershaw, Ian, Hitler. 1889-1936: Hubris, London/Stuttgart 1998
Kershaw, Ian, Hitler. 1936-1945: Nemesis, London/Stuttgart 2000

They are both really worth the money...

Regards
Ray

[Montenegro]

Thanks for bringing this discussion full circle. I really like the fact that people of strategy and history have a forum such as this, and my very still newbie cudos to the designers of the update!

The only thing I have left to say on the previous topics...I have read much on the topic, including Speer's work. I have and will as a lot of historians have, a careful, intellectual respect for the Wermacht. What that army did in terms of military success is staggering, and I think that the fact that so many people today still cite their impact in the very unfotunate scope of warfare will stand the test of time. It goes without saying that both principle parties in this struggle---Stalin and Hitler---were beyond reproach to all involved, including their own men. Stalingrad seems to me insanity for starters...

On entrenchment: I like the way the game is now. For all intents and purposes, I think the game makes the important distinction btw German defenders and Rumanians, Italians, etc., the latter obviously being inferior. Personally, I would like to see more Soviet capabilities in this and all respects in matters of defense and attack as of Sept '41. I have noticed higher interdiction losses for the Soviet tanks, but also stark losses to the Germans if joint attacks are not coordinated properly by Aug turns. I'm no pro, but maybe we should just play on!

Sincerely,

Montenegro

[Rundstedt]

Originally posted by davewolf


GFM

The difference is that being mad doesn't mean that the one cannot be intelligent. Like a lot of psychopaths he was a very intelligent man and by the way he had an almost photographic memory. But from a psychiatric point of view he was definitely insane from the very beginning.

Still off topic...

Dave

OK, I agree to some extent. But the people who met Hitler never thought he was insain, especially early in the war and before. If you are looking for insain people then you should looka at Hitler's henchmen. Himmler, Göring etc. Those people really scare me...


Regards, von Rundstedt (OB WEST)

[Guardsman]

I think Hitler succeeded early in the war becasue his delusions turned out to be fairly reflective of reality. However when the reality changed Hitler's delusions did not and he became increasingly out of touch with the conduct of the war.

Like any other bully Hitler had a certain ability to know when his victims could be pushed and how far to push them, at first. Like every other bully, once his victims decided to fight he was totally out of his element. He consisntently believed that his enemies "were on the verge of collapse" when in fact they were not.

His strategic thinking, while sharp in the political arena, was not suited for war, and his tactical thinking was still in the trenches of WWI France.

In short, Hitler has always lived in his own world. As the world changed around him he was completely unable to deal with it and withdrew deeper into his mental illness.

[Possum]

Hello all
Sorry, but altering entrenchment ability is beyond my abilities.
The only thing that could be done would be to increase the city size for the Soviets, to give them more manpower

[Muzrub]

Rumainians have a really bad reputation and thats wrong to a degree. Officers, equipment and tactics really didnt excel BUT the troops usually put up a fight. Exempel, Stalingrad it took Sovjet elite panzer troops days to smash through Rumainian defence lines and they lacked everything!!!!!

Really?- well thats wrong.

On the Southern front during operation Uranus Yeremenko's procesed 10,000 Rumanians within a few hours- the Soviets described masses of Rumanain infantry moving towards them with their hands up. If not for the 29th Motorized Division attacking on the right flank of the Soviet Fifty-Seventh Army the attack on the Southern sector would have been more rapid!

On the Northern front the Soviets drove through the lines and gained 20 miles in one day "Most succumbed to tank fright, leapt from cover and ran. Only a few stayed to duel the armour"

The fact is of the 22 divisions 9 where destroyed, 9 other fled and only 4 were fit for battle.

So in essence they were not up to the task and in many cases just fled at the first sign of trouble and paniced others!

[Muzrub]

I don't feel the entrenchments should be altered to allow an easier time for the Soviets, or to make up for manpower shortages, etc. The Germans got better with their field entrenchments throughout the war, but the Soviets increased their firepower, experience and mobility even more, and the Germans didn't have the manpower to hold the lines against it.

Thats why game reality and real life are different.

The Soviets only stopped after smashing Army group centre due to a lack of supplies- the Germans had nothing.

But the game the Germans do- players dont make the same mistakes at Hitler so the reserves are in place and in general fighting troops are in better condition.
As such it very much harder and based on historical events? no.


Maybe an increase in Soviet manpower could do the trick- but a while ago when many of had that discussion people thought the Soviets had enough. I disagreed with too, I also believe Soviet production should be higher, penalty movies (41) should be changed, lower German production (or heavy penalties for factory changes) more Soviet experience for the Air force- and lower rates of experience for the Germans etc etc- the list continues.