Slitherine

quote:

I'm reminded of Guderian's observation that when his division commanders would claim to be out of fuel, he could safely assume that actually they still had enough for another day and would issue orders accordingly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

Just readed the whole thing (well kinda)... and a couple of points:

1) Curtiss - AA fire (regardless of enemy aircraft shotdown) vs precision of the bombing, there was definitely a connection! It wouldn't be if the pilots were robots

2) Collin - I don't know where you got the idea that the AOK 6 in Stalingrad only had/received supply for the infantry units. You are not gonna hang in there for months without tanks, and specially, artillery.

quote:



Also, ref the reliabilty of tanks: thing is, is very difficult (or impossible?) to find objective data regarding the respective level of serviceable tanks, in different armies, to compare. And even if you do, that not only would reflect how "reliable" a tank is, but many other things. And, the Tigers were not concentrated in separate battalions because of this, but since they were supposed to be used in the focal center of an attact, they were at dispossal of the Corps/Army level. And, I may add, at first some units were integrated in the divisions with other Panzers (see SS units at Kursk), or even mixed with other tanks in the Battalions (Pz III)

Finally

quote:

I'm reminded of Guderian's observation that when his division commanders would claim to be out of fuel, he could safely assume that actually they still had enough for another day and would issue orders accordingly.

I believe that was in Mellenthin's book, and I think he was quoting Balck..


Nothing personal, just bussiness

Regards, Hernán.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
correct

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

The point really is that the infantry was able to operate at much closer to its full potential even under conditions of straitened supply, and that in any case, infantry requires far less in the way of sheer tonnage. Food and ammo for a day of heavy fighting for an infantry battalion might come to ten tons -- and they could have considerable combat value even if that number was divided by four. The requirements for food, ammo, and fuel for a day of heavy fighting for a tank battalion would be more on the order of a hundred tons -- and there'll be a more or less straight line decline in efficacy if that value is reduced. You can make a hungry man march -- and he can pose a meaningful threat with even a pound of cartridges. A tank without fuel simply can't move, and each one of its shells weighs thirty pounds or so. Artillery is going to be even more extreme.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

The point really is that the infantry was able to operate at much closer to its full potential even under conditions of straitened supply, and that in any case, infantry requires far less in the way of sheer tonnage. Food and ammo for a day of heavy fighting for an infantry battalion might come to ten tons -- and they could have considerable combat value even if that number was divided by four. The requirements for food, ammo, and fuel for a day of heavy fighting for a tank battalion would be more on the order of a hundred tons -- and there'll be a more or less straight line decline in efficacy if that value is reduced. You can make a hungry man march -- and he can pose a meaningful threat with even a pound of cartridges. A tank without fuel simply can't move, and each one of its shells weighs thirty pounds or so. Artillery is going to be even more extreme.

Soviet Rifle division first day supply of munitions, food fodder and fuel was 404 tons.

Soviet Tank brigade first day supply of same was 86 tons. Tank corp 440 tons. Mech corp 854 tons. (The Soviet Economy and the Red Army, Walter S. Dunn, Jr)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

BTW, if you compare a Soviet Rifle division munitions expenditure to a US Infantry division munitions expenditure in WW2 you will find the Soviets shot at the Germans more. Maybe the US didn't dislike the German people as much.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Yeah, infantry divisions do contain artillery. So do regiments. For that matter so do battalions. I don't understand what you are getting at. I know you're not suggesting making one set of supply rules for battalion level scenarios, another for regimental, etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

Just readed the whole thing (well kinda)... and a couple of points:

1) Curtiss - AA fire (regardless of enemy aircraft shotdown) vs precision of the bombing, there was definitely a connection! It wouldn't be if the pilots were robots

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

Just readed the whole thing (well kinda)... and a couple of points:

1) Curtiss - AA fire (regardless of enemy aircraft shotdown) vs precision of the bombing, there was definitely a connection! It wouldn't be if the pilots were robots

I'm not saying otherwise. I'm saying that the system already has this built in. We know that because current bombing effects aren't unhistorical. Virtually every unit will have some AAA ability, so the game simply assumes it. The case that isn't covered is where the target has no AAA and the bombers know it. Then they can adapt techniques to exploit this that would increase bombing efficacy. But that's so rare it can basically be ignored.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

... and that in any case, infantry requires far less in the way of sheer tonnage. Food and ammo for a day of heavy fighting for an infantry battalion might come to ten tons -- and they could have considerable combat value even if that number was divided by four. The requirements for food, ammo, and fuel for a day of heavy fighting for a tank battalion would be more on the order of a hundred tons...

quote:

-- and there'll be a more or less straight line decline in efficacy if that value is reduced.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

In an ideal world...(and yes, this is an item for the wish list)

If a unit whose supply has fallen to or below 0% attempts to move, all fixed equipment and all equipment which requires fuel to move should be treated as 'static' equipment -- i.e., it would have to be abandoned.  It's been suggested, for example, that this is one reason Manstein was equivocal about Sixth Army actually breaking out of Stalingrad.  As long as it stayed where it was, it had considerable combat value, and was tying down quite a large number of Russian troops, and giving him some hope of building up a front to the West.  If it did break out, it would do so as a horde of mostly weaponless fugitives, and would effectively release many Russians while not doing a whole lot to bolster his ability to contain them.

Anyway, some related considerations.

Obviously, in the case of pure tank and pure artillery units, there's the problem of the unit simply vanishing.  Some designers already include light rifles in their artillery battalions, which would be one route -- designers just need to make sure there's going to be something left in the units.  Alternatively, they could simply be left to their fate.

However (again in an ideal world) we would have a 'heavy weapons crew' that would replace the abandoned gun or tank.  This is, after all, what generally happened.  One commonly had 'artillery fighting as infantry' in forces such as those on Crete.  Then whenever the unit started to get its tanks back, these 'crews' would vanish back into the restored equipment.  However, this sounds a bit ambitious for now.

Finally, I would be inclined to favor horse-drawn guns being abandoned as well.  One can make a theoretical argument that they should have elasticity like leg infantry, but they effectively didn't, as a rule.  Units in straightened supply circumstances usually either didn't have the fodder to keep their draft animals strong, or they were eating them. Guns -- whether truck- or horse-drawn -- notoriously get abandoned by retreating armies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Logically therefore, there should be no AA units or weapons in the game at all.

Since their effect is already built in.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Logically therefore, there should be no AA units or weapons in the game at all.

Since their effect is already built in.

No. Their effects are not built in. But the game is making a safe assumption that all bombing targets have some AAA.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Logically therefore, there should be no AA units or weapons in the game at all.

Since their effect is already built in.

No. Their effects are not built in. But the game is making a safe assumption that all bombing targets have some AAA.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

So in your scenarios you omit a certain quantity of AA on that basis? Since it's already assumed to be there by the game engine?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

So in your scenarios you omit a certain quantity of AA on that basis? Since it's already assumed to be there by the game engine?

That's not what I'm saying. Make an effort to understand. Bombers are assumed to already be taking precautions against AAA in their targets. That's what's built in.

Otherwise, we would have to slash bomber efficacy whenever a target had AAA. There's just no basis for doing so.

Perhaps there is a rationale for providing a bomber boost whenever the target totally lacks AAA, but I still think those are just footnote cases.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

... and that in any case, infantry requires far less in the way of sheer tonnage. Food and ammo for a day of heavy fighting for an infantry battalion might come to ten tons -- and they could have considerable combat value even if that number was divided by four. The requirements for food, ammo, and fuel for a day of heavy fighting for a tank battalion would be more on the order of a hundred tons...

But that would only matter if the infantry battalion and the tank battalion were being sent the same tonnage of supply. They won't be. That would be idiotic. The quartermasters know the tonnage requirements for each type of unit and fill them accordingly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

I kind of thought whenever an air unit went on a sortie it was assumed it would encounter some kind of ground fire. Type dependant on altitude. So a tac unit would encounter small arms fire at the least. I know if I had a chance I would have shot a low flying aircraft. Not that there were any.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Indeed. However, the point is that sometimes an unlimited amount of munitions is not available. Under such circumstances, a couple of tons will suffice to restore some combat value to an infantry battalion -- and they can just go hungry for a day.

Try that with an artillery battalion, and you get ammo for six salvos. Physically, the guns can't be moved a few kilometers even though there's no gas -- they can't be moved at all.

This exerts an effect in real life. Sixth Army's artillery and armor quickly lost most of its combat value -- and certainly wasn't going to be able to come along if there was a breakout. The infantry retained some viability. When the Germans advanced over the Caucasus, the trickle of supply they were receiving sufficed to maintain the infantry -- but any effective artillery was out of the question.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

In an ideal world...(and yes, this is an item for the wish list)

If a unit whose supply has fallen to or below 0% attempts to move, all fixed equipment and all equipment which requires fuel to move should be treated as 'static' equipment -- i.e., it would have to be abandoned.  It's been suggested, for example, that this is one reason Manstein was equivocal about Sixth Army actually breaking out of Stalingrad.  As long as it stayed where it was, it had considerable combat value, and was tying down quite a large number of Russian troops, and giving him some hope of building up a front to the West.  If it did break out, it would do so as a horde of mostly weaponless fugitives, and would effectively release many Russians while not doing a whole lot to bolster his ability to contain them.

Anyway, some related considerations.

Obviously, in the case of pure tank and pure artillery units, there's the problem of the unit simply vanishing.  Some designers already include light rifles in their artillery battalions, which would be one route -- designers just need to make sure there's going to be something left in the units.  Alternatively, they could simply be left to their fate.

However (again in an ideal world) we would have a 'heavy weapons crew' that would replace the abandoned gun or tank.  This is, after all, what generally happened.  One commonly had 'artillery fighting as infantry' in forces such as those on Crete.  Then whenever the unit started to get its tanks back, these 'crews' would vanish back into the restored equipment.  However, this sounds a bit ambitious for now.

Finally, I would be inclined to favor horse-drawn guns being abandoned as well.  One can make a theoretical argument that they should have elasticity like leg infantry, but they effectively didn't, as a rule.  Units in straightened supply circumstances usually either didn't have the fodder to keep their draft animals strong, or they were eating them. Guns -- whether truck- or horse-drawn -- notoriously get abandoned by retreating armies.

This is all based upon the common misconception about unit supply values. They do not equate to the unit's actual supply stockpile. A unit at 1% supply is not out of supply.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

What you are saying implies some 'normal' level of AA protection.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

I kind of thought whenever an air unit went on a sortie it was assumed it would encounter some kind of ground fire.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Indeed. However, the point is that sometimes an unlimited amount of munitions is not available. Under such circumstances, a couple of tons will suffice to restore some combat value to an infantry battalion -- and they can just go hungry for a day.

Try that with an artillery battalion, and you get ammo for six salvos. Physically, the guns can't be moved a few kilometers even though there's no gas -- they can't be moved at all.

quote:

This exerts an effect in real life. Sixth Army's artillery and armor quickly lost most of its combat value -- and certainly wasn't going to be able to come along if there was a breakout. The infantry retained some viability. When the Germans advanced over the Caucasus, the trickle of supply they were receiving sufficed to maintain the infantry -- but any effective artillery was out of the question.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I don't see how this addresses the issue at all. The point is that artillery, armor, etc both require a large amount of supply to function and decline in effectiveness in direct proportion to the lack of that supply. An artillery piece without shells is useless. It doesn't have 30% of the potency it would have if it was at full supply -- it's useless. A tank without fuel can't drive 80 km a day instead of 200 km a day -- it can't move at all.