Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Supply Point Confusion

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> The Operational Art of War IV >> RE: Supply Point Confusion Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Supply Point Confusion - 12/16/2020 11:28:37 AM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5313
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

But still, it would be more fitting to call German infantry divisions partially motorized instead of horse drawn.


Oh yeah? How often did German leg infantry get in the truck and roll- versus marching while the truck carried their heavy weapons.

In TOAW, you should NOT have trucks in a German infantry division. If you do, the division will move faster than marching pace, whereas in the real world the unit would be strictly limited by the rate of march.

quote:

And as the campaign progressed some of the lost motorization was made up by using captured Soviet equipment. 4800 trucks and about 1400 other vehicles. Everyone seems to forget about that last point.


4,800 trucks really is a drop in the ocean. As you've noted even an infantry division has over 500 trucks- that's just to make sure that the guys on the line can get their fresh bread, and the AT guns can be moved around properly.

Then, too, I doubt those Soviet trucks were in German service for very long- since they wouldn't have also captured extensive stocks of spare parts etc.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 31
RE: Supply Point Confusion - 12/16/2020 11:29:59 AM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5313
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Furthermore, beyond what they could just physically lift, the trucks were much faster and could run 24/7.


Well in theory- but I rather suspect that German infantry divisions didn't contain three shifts of drivers for the trucks, nor were they in the business of running supplies on bad roads during the night (which is a fast way to not have a truck any more). This might happen in exceptional circumstances- but I think the same applies to the poor horses, too.

< Message edited by golden delicious -- 12/16/2020 12:52:07 PM >


_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 32
RE: Supply Point Confusion - 12/16/2020 11:31:07 AM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5313
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cathar1244


What would be very useful would be to be able to change a FORMATION's supply setting with an event. This would reflect shifting command priorities for who gets how much supply.


One does have supply units, which will boost the supply level in nearby hexes- but obviously these too have their limitations.

< Message edited by golden delicious -- 12/16/2020 11:32:22 AM >


_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to cathar1244)
Post #: 33
RE: Supply Point Confusion - 12/16/2020 11:51:13 AM   
cathar1244

 

Posts: 933
Joined: 9/5/2009
Status: offline
quote:

One does have supply units, which will boost the supply level in nearby hexes- but obviously these too have their limitations.


Golden, yeah, I guess one could have an elite corps of supply units to move around to whichever formation is the fair-haired boy of the moment.

For the France 44 situation, probably best bet is to have two (or three, for 6th AG as well) separate rail networks and just use the rail networks as supply distro simulation. Units were moved by rail in that campaign by the Allies, but I think most of that took place post capture of Antwerp -- an event that calls for a different representation of supply, at least in the northern half of France and the Low Countries.

That means supply modeling for a scenario covering the entire 11 month span of operations would probably be less than optimal. Six of one, half dozen of the other.

Cheers

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 34
RE: Supply Point Confusion - 12/16/2020 12:35:23 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5313
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cathar1244

Golden, yeah, I guess one could have an elite corps of supply units to move around to whichever formation is the fair-haired boy of the moment.

For the France 44 situation, probably best bet is to have two (or three, for 6th AG as well) separate rail networks and just use the rail networks as supply distro simulation. Units were moved by rail in that campaign by the Allies, but I think most of that took place post capture of Antwerp -- an event that calls for a different representation of supply, at least in the northern half of France and the Low Countries.

That means supply modeling for a scenario covering the entire 11 month span of operations would probably be less than optimal. Six of one, half dozen of the other.

Cheers


You could also play around with adding / removing alternative HQ units with different numbers of support squads. From memory, there is some weird behaviour when a formation has two HQs, but it's worth exploring as this, in a roundabout way, would actually allow you to modify Formation supply levels by event.


_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to cathar1244)
Post #: 35
RE: Supply Point Confusion - 12/16/2020 12:52:04 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 4906
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

In TOAW, you should NOT have trucks in a German infantry division. If you do, the division will move faster than marching pace, whereas in the real world the unit would be strictly limited by the rate of march.



Oh give me a break. You know as well as I do that one truck is not one truck in the game. Add one truck to a unit without trucks and you increase it's movement dramatically. That's why everyone knows you have to limit them.

And they were indeed partially motorized.

< Message edited by Lobster -- 12/16/2020 12:58:18 PM >


_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Wearing blinders and earplugs everything you do is correct.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 36
RE: Supply Point Confusion - 12/16/2020 3:12:23 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 13021
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

The 3 motorized were probably carrying 10x the supply volume of the 6 horse drawn, though.


Do you know that? Or are you guessing?

If I was a bureaucrat in the German army I would make sure that a "transport column" was interchangeable, i.e. a horse drawn column would be able to haul the same volume of supplies as a truck column. If that means the truck column has a fraction of the personnel then that's not a problem: what matters is that a commander can say "I have ten transport columns" and have a pretty good idea of what he can do with them without having to break out his slide rule.


I found this:

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=85630&start=15

Note that to lift 30 tons takes 10 trucks and 40 horse carts. Then the trucks are 5 times faster. 4x5 = 20 times the delivery. Since it was 6 columns vs. 3, I was spot on!

And note that trucks in a foot infantry unit are not used to lift the troops - just for supply. Think of what that tells us: The impact of trucks on the supply column trumps the impact that having the combat unit move at a motorized rate would have had! The trucks are so beneficial to supply that they would rather the unit move on foot than move supply by horse!

I also have, from "War in the East" (Strategy & Tactics Staff Study #1) pg 127: "20 trucks could carry 120 tons of supplies 200 miles per day, while 40 horse-drawn vehicles (with 100 horse) could only carry 30 tons twenty miles per day. In addition the horses consumed more fuel (by weight) in the form of fodder than the trucks consumed gasoline."

Those figures give even higher impact: 2x4x10 = 80x!

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 12/16/2020 5:17:28 PM >


_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 37
RE: Supply Point Confusion - 12/16/2020 5:15:53 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5313
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

And they were indeed partially motorized.


Sure- the AT battalion, the recon detachment and some of the engineers. If those are individual units then absolutely you'd want to give them trucks. In my Poland scenario, the motorised elements of the infantry divisions are grouped together so that they can race ahead if the situation presents itself.

For reference, a British infantry battalion in 1940 had 38 organic trucks and 12 other motor vehicles, excluding motorcycles. Nevertheless this is an infantry formation, it moved on foot, and in TOAW the unit should have 0 trucks authorised- much like the German organisation you're describing.

< Message edited by golden delicious -- 12/16/2020 5:17:16 PM >


_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 38
RE: Supply Point Confusion - 12/16/2020 5:30:15 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5313
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Note that to lift 30 tons takes 10 trucks and 40 horse carts. Then the trucks are 5 times faster. 4x5 = 20 times the delivery. Since it was 6 columns vs. 3, I was spot on!


Trucks move 5 times faster- provided you have a good road and no traffic jams. You'll also find they load and unload at the same speed. Perhaps twice the deliveries.

Then, your source notes that the lift capacity of a motor transport column was either 30 or 60 tons depending on the type of column, and the figure for horsed transport was 30 tons. Let's be generous and say your motor transport columns are all the large kind, so they have double the capacity.

So we have 2x2 = 4x. That's presuming the trucks remain in good condition all the time, and that fuel is available (harder to forage for than horse fodder)

quote:

And note that trucks in a foot infantry unit are not used to lift the troops - just for supply. Think of what that tells us: The impact of trucks on the supply column trumps the impact that having the combat unit move at a motorized rate would have had! The trucks are so beneficial to supply that they would rather the unit move on foot than move supply by horse!


Oh indeed- though it's notable that none of these units have enough motor vehicles to be fully motorised even if you ignore supply considerations. This is where most trucks end up that one sees in equipment lists of all types. The Soviets received 300,000 trucks from the western Allies, enough to provide this kind of mixed supply transport for most of the Red Army.

The biggest advantage of motor transport is the last point you make- that trucks don't consume anything like as much fuel by weight for a given distance travelled. If you're operating a long supply line from the railhead, trucks are indispensable, as the truck can just run and run, then refuel when it gets back to base. If on the other hand the railhead is just a few km back, this advantage begins to disappear, as most of your time is going to be spent loading and unloading (since after all we don't have containerised transport in 1941 to take a box off the back of a train and right onto a truckbed).

The other big advantage I would suggest would be manpower. Running a horse supply unit is going to be much more labour intensive than the equivalent motor transport.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 39
RE: Supply Point Confusion - 12/16/2020 5:37:29 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 4906
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline
Welle (halftracks are prime movers Sd Kfz 10, 11, 6, 7, 8, 9)
1) 1189 horse teams, 516 trucks, 237 lt transport, 12 lt halftracks, 2 med halftracks
2) 1189 horse teams, 540 trucks, 240 lt transport, 12 lt halftracks, 10 med halftracks
3) 1228 horse teams, 310 trucks, 142 lt transport, 1 med halftrack (Only 206 and 217 took part in Barbarossa. The other 12 were either replacement army or Army Group D)
4) 1174 horse teams, 527 trucks, 243 lt transport, 10 lt halftracks, 2 med halftracks
5) 1319 horse teams, 372 trucks, 167 lt transport, 1 med halftrack (Only 95 took part in Barbarossa. The rest were assigned to Army Group D)
6) 1310 horse teams, 254 trucks, 149 lt transport, 1 med halftrack (All assigned to Army Group D)
7) 1258 horse teams, 387 trucks, 200 lt transport, 1 med halftrack (Of 14 divisions 6 assigned to AG Center and South. The others to Norway Army occupation duties, 12 Army Balkans, 3 to Norway Army Befehlsstelle Finland (East Front only))
8) 1282 horse teams, 398 trucks, 202 lt transport, 1 med halftrack (1 division to 12 Army. The 9 divisions sent to the East Front were given more trucks and lt transport, some well over 500 trucks)
11) 1183 horse teams, 503 trucks, 233 lt transport, 27 lt halftrack, 2 med halftrack
12) 1215 horse teams, 502 trucks, 227 lt transport, 2 med halftrack
12 light) 944 horse teams, 438 trucks, 248 lt transport, 24 lt halftracks, 12 med halftracks
13, 14, 15 all were used for occupation duties in occupied Europe and had considerably less mobility than the other Welle for that reason.

Also, few if any divisions were up to TOE standards. Typically there were more or less transport or horse teams than they were supposed to have. Many medium halftracks were replaced with heavy halftracks. The German motorpool was a quartermaster's nightmare because of all of the captured vehicles used. The captured Soviet trucks would equip over 9 divisions with motorized transport. Not a drop in the bucket when you are so far from your railhead.


_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Wearing blinders and earplugs everything you do is correct.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 40
RE: Supply Point Confusion - 12/16/2020 9:17:12 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 13021
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Trucks move 5 times faster- provided you have a good road and no traffic jams. You'll also find they load and unload at the same speed. Perhaps twice the deliveries.


Poor roads would impact horse carts just as much as trucks. Four times as many vehicles for the same lift means much worse traffic jams for horse carts. Loading and unloading can take place at night - when, as you mentioned, transport would most likely not take place. Regardless, if the front lines are hundreds of miles from the supply head, the supply columns are well spread out, and there are few traffic jams. Five times faster and four times the lift still equals 20 times the delivery - truck vs horse cart.

quote:

So we have 2x2 = 4x. That's presuming the trucks remain in good condition all the time, and that fuel is available (harder to forage for than horse fodder)


Horses drop dead - and can't be repaired once they do. Alternately, they can become fatigued. Time for foraging cuts the duty-cycle for horse teams accordingly.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 41
RE: Supply Point Confusion - 12/16/2020 9:24:02 PM   
Zovs


Posts: 5780
Joined: 2/23/2009
From: United States
Status: offline
I am pretty sure in Italy, Burma, and parts of Russia horses, mules and carts were much better in horrid weather then trucks. So saying cart blanc that "Poor roads would impact horse carts just as much as trucks" is not necessarily true.

_____________________________


Beta Tester for:
Flashpoint Campaigns: Sudden Storm
War in the East 1 & 2
WarPlan & WarPlan Pacific
Valor & Victory
DG CWIE 2
SPWW2 & SPMBT scenario creator

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 42
RE: Supply Point Confusion - 12/16/2020 10:02:36 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 13021
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zovs

I am pretty sure in Italy, Burma, and parts of Russia horses, mules and carts were much better in horrid weather then trucks. So saying cart blanc that "Poor roads would impact horse carts just as much as trucks" is not necessarily true.

I wasn't talking about weather. Just the quality of the road. Summer in 1941 wasn't a mud period.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to Zovs)
Post #: 43
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> The Operational Art of War IV >> RE: Supply Point Confusion Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.266