okay this forums super pisses me off I type something up go to submit and it shoots a time out error erasing what I typed...really need to fix that.
Control A - Control C is a common pratice on these forums before hitting the send button. U not the first to experience this.
Glantz STalingrad series going to make it short since stupid server wiped me out after being meticulous.
5.9 million soviets may 1942- deployable
6 million casualties- 3.5 million dead/captured/missing
4.3 million soviets Jan 1942- deployable- doubt you will ever see a soviet army that small in the game
Do the russian armies gets to large generally speaking yes but they arent the only ones. One can question ask ur self as the russian player know that the german army is aslo inflated that u hafta preemptively counteract this and try and save as much as possible in 1941 in part leading to runs. Ur mobiblization/replacement numbers wont do this for u.
As u noted earlier yes the russians do take few casulties when attacking later on. As Sigup showed u that isnt exclusive to teh russian the germans take far few casulties too in 1941. AS is the case of 50% lower than historic if u use ur own 500k number. This is by numbers that has been researched in the 00es by the Bundeswehr research department(BBND). Which have bene hard at work revising numbers including such work as dr Rüdiger Overmans. Hard to call those soviet revisionists...
Not only that the russian get less in kickbacks and when u look at the number u actually mobilize on teh russian side in history and in game it falls far short of the historic. So yes u take fewer casulties attacking and i wrote an synopis on the issues of the combat engine a year or year and a half ago u coudl possibly go back and look at. This goes for both sides but as russian presumably will attack for longer and the numbers are higher it doesnt necesarrily equals out.
So in some sense tho as u can argue u do see larger russian armies than historic the lower casulties has to some extend by counteracted by designers to give the russians far less replacement than historic. Tho not to an extend that u see historic russian OOB numbers. Again this isnt exclusive to teh russian side and u could see it as a countermessaure by the russian player to what happens on the german side.
Also u talk alot of how the germans could have done better. A typical error in what if is is not to take into account that the otehr side might have done things differently too. If u allow the german player to "correct soem of what u see as historic mistakes". Well the russian player might do the same. Why launch all of the spoiling attack of Stalins, Why get overextended as the likes of the situasion that sets up 3rd Kharkov. If u dont u take fewer losses too. So u go to some length to tell about what the german could have done differently but fail to take the same into account on the russian side. Who says if u allowed as german to use different tactis that the russian player doesnt follow suit and alters his. That he doesnt make the same historical mistakes nor on the russian side. if we assume they indeed are mistakes. I mean u started the what if situasion and allows for it on one side to change its stuff.
About the numbers u cite. On the russian side there has been research too and since its one of Peltons favorit books to use and u dont think we can call him a soviet revisionist i suggest u look into the work of such as G. I. Krivosheev. He gives some what different numbers in 1941 than previously thot tho he isnt shy on upping later on.
He also go into length about teh russian mobilization numbers that in game is pretty far from his numbers.
2.5 million- April 1942
1 million axis allied April 1942
approx 1 million german losses by 1Jan 1942- about right many sick to recover from the winter Im sure.
Draft call of almost 400,000 Germans alone in DEC1941- puts them in units right about april/may 1942 I would guess and why the German army was able to rebuild so quickly esp with sick/wounded returning as well.
Lots more reading to do but found the statistics interesting considering this is supposed to be one of the most well researched books on the topic using both German and Soviet records to date.
Yes and then there is the ingame realities. I suggest reading a thread.
The german side in game atm doesnt only take far fewer casulties in 1941 and they also gain manpower at a rate that is higher than historic. Which as noted in the thread it isnt unusal to seea a pre Blau in game german only OOB numbers of 3.6-3.7m range. The lower end of scale when every thign goes wrong is numbers is 3.2-3.3m. Still a good number over the historic ones and even the games own 42 scn.
So there is an automacy in that cuz of the above reasons that the german army gets inflated. If u give teh german army 700k-800 more troops well u know as russian in order to compete in 42 that u better have a larger than historic army too. If we assumed u had a near historic army and the possible larger german army then along with axis minor u not far from having parity in numbers come summer of 42 in game. Sure its a axis side wet dream but it isnt a particular historic situasion. In where the german side had to steal and borrow from AGN/AGC to make an offensive in AGS possible. A situasion that is hard to show when u in no way are nearly as depleted through taking fewer losses and gaining more Manpower of the german side than historic If u had had historic situasions where german army come Blau u could have put 700-800k more men into Blau, how would it have fared?
Ur premise about the german army ability to recover is simply off base. The german army except for a few Month during the mud periode in spring mud of 42 and 43 was in continual decline. The numbers that come back to the german army is fairly consitandly always lower than those that leave. U can say sure but u could do better a german in 41 and thst is right but as shown in the other thread. U Manpower input doesnt compute to the historic ones so u with an automacy is going to do better Manpower wise and the isses of to low casulties attacking that hits teh russian later on is teh same for the germans in 41/42.
Look at http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3394514
and u can get numbers and charts beyound march 42 at: ww2stats.com
Again this is BBND and OKW/OKH numbers.
A general error that had had becomed teh norm until recently when talking german losses was only to look at numbers for "blutige verlüste" which doesnt include for example sick, frontbits and other causes that woudl else fall under nomral attritional effects. Whether u leave ur unit and may or may not come back from projectile wound or from a case of trenchfoot doesnt really matter to OOB numbers but if u only include half in ur losses estimate, well ur numbers are going to get scewed. So many times the number used in books is based purely on the "blutige verlüste" but that isnt a real messure of what the german actualy lost in strength.
In game we see german armies in early/mid 43 of 4.3m. So in short many of the reaons of the combat engine things that causes lower russian casulties affects the german army the same and it gets larger than historic and u dont have much choice but to follow suit as russian.
That dosnt mean u not right in that the combat engine isnt flawed if u ask me. I how ever dont share the conconclusions u draw from that as u dont seem to look at what the same isues does to the german side.
Futher some of ur lines of thots and views on what history was like. Seems to emminate from the book like Paul Carrells and other based on 1970ies research and if that is what ur read it might be perfectly understandble. Which again toke alot of its information directly from interviews and memories of the german generals from the 1950ies. 1st hand sources what could be better....
Problem is that later research has looked critically at alot of the statements that drove the 1970ies books( i generalize) and prove them to misleading at best and higly inaccurate at worst. Then those "primary sources" tend to put alot of blame om Hitler and very little on them selfs. That migth be understable from a psycological perpespective but doesnt necesarrily make it right. Nor do many of them spend much if any times on the logistical side of things but rather on their real superiority in tactics/operations, but an army marches on its stomach or it dont march at all. One in reality makes the other a possibility or not as teh case might be and if the one is flawed it put its limits on the other. No where is there any real answers to those issues from these primary sources.
If i were u i would for example read up on some of newer books on AGN in 42 and 43. A time where teh german "easily" resplused the soviet offensives and overall the defensive strategy worked. Non the less if u look into the revised casulty numbers of the troops involved overall in these operations. Sure russians toke more casulties, but it cant just have been a question of german annihilating the russian formations, with no losses to them self. Not that it cant have happned in cases but overall the casulty comparison simply makes it so, that it overall cant be true. This in a case that perfectly fits ur premise of ur defensive strategy and u dont have losses like AGCs destruction to scew the numbers towards the russians.
With newer resaearch primarily from 1990 and on there appaeare lots of flaws and inaccuracies if u wana put it mildly. What one general as Bayerlein descripes and what he gives as casulties for Pz Lehr on its way to Normandy isnt in line with the his divisonal records, actually fairly far from it, and that funnily enough he him self have sign off on those records back in 1944. That isnt to saay it disnt slow Pz Lehr and it didnt have its effects on the advances it certainly did, but the extend of such isnt always factually in line with the statements. So when ppl have started to look some what critially on the statements from these primary sources and looked at what the germans own records tells it doesnt always looks the same.
< Message edited by Walloc -- 9/11/2013 4:41:46 PM >