Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

1943 German manpower

 
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] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room >> 1943 German manpower Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
1943 German manpower - 7/6/2015 6:48:17 AM   
Bob12

 

Posts: 78
Joined: 1/16/2015
Status: offline 		Something I touched on earlier in another thread, but it is my understanding that in 1943 the Germans were able to mobilize a much larger than number of replacements (albeit of lower quality) than in previous years as they geared up for a total war, to the extent that the Wehrmacht reached it's highest strength in the theater in summer 1943.

I looked at the game manual and it says that the german manpower modifier is 8, the same as in 42 and lower than in 41. I may be missing something with hiwis or captured manpower, but I would have thought the number would be larger than previous years. Is this intentional/working as designed?
Post #: 1
RE: 1943 German manpower - 7/6/2015 7:43:51 AM   
loki100


Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline 		its hard to answer this without crossing over into things best not discussed.

My understanding is by 1943/44 the Germans decided to make more use of *involuntary* labour and this allowed a shake out from industry, domestic service and agriculture into the military. This actually led to other problems. In part, to be brutal, it takes just that bit more food to feed someone to work rather than let them slowly die and by 1943 Germany already had a food shortage.

So this actually worsened the overall food situation. The other problem was it actually took more of their manpower to guard these people than when you have them locked up behind barbed wire. So the amount of net manpower was relatively small.

Also in game terms, a lot of that extra manpower went to the west, so the lower multiplier sounds ok.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

To the wider points you and Chaos45 are making. Yes the game engine produces too few losses. I doubt that will change this side of WiTE2 so its something to put up with. You're not going to see the 6,000 man rifle divisions that were the norm for the Soviets from 1943 onwards and so on.

In game, the Germans will face some manpower problems in 1942 - not as crippling as in reality but its a constraint.

_____________________________


(in reply to Bob12)
Post #: 2
RE: 1943 German manpower - 7/6/2015 10:02:23 AM   
Bob12

 

Posts: 78
Joined: 1/16/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

To the wider points you and Chaos45 are making. Yes the game engine produces too few losses. I doubt that will change this side of WiTE2 so its something to put up with. You're not going to see the 6,000 man rifle divisions that were the norm for the Soviets from 1943 onwards and so on.

In game, the Germans will face some manpower problems in 1942 - not as crippling as in reality but its a constraint.


You may be right but I am cautiously optimistic, moravel+crew have been very industrious in their work thus far. In any case we'll have to see the effect of the next patch on the situation first.


(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 3
RE: 1943 German manpower - 7/6/2015 11:00:22 AM   
Bob12

 

Posts: 78
Joined: 1/16/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

its hard to answer this without crossing over into things best not discussed.

My understanding is by 1943/44 the Germans decided to make more use of *involuntary* labour and this allowed a shake out from industry, domestic service and agriculture into the military. This actually led to other problems. In part, to be brutal, it takes just that bit more food to feed someone to work rather than let them slowly die and by 1943 Germany already had a food shortage.

So this actually worsened the overall food situation. The other problem was it actually took more of their manpower to guard these people than when you have them locked up behind barbed wire. So the amount of net manpower was relatively small.

Also in game terms, a lot of that extra manpower went to the west, so the lower multiplier sounds ok.



But in a period of less than six months their oob in the east went from ~2.3M to ~3.5M which is a pretty large change, whatever the method they did manage to make a larger than usual number of troops available for the eastern front, at least for the first 6 months of the year. It would seem to me the game manpower doesn't currently account for this.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 4
RE: 1943 German manpower - 7/6/2015 12:43:04 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline 		Well currently the Germans will still have an OOB of 3.5-4M in early 1943 so no reason to increase it more.

(in reply to Bob12)
Post #: 5
RE: 1943 German manpower - 7/6/2015 1:10:50 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline 		It's hard to track German manpower with all these arrivals (and withdrawals), which give (and take) "free" manpower. With the new disband feature introduced in .05 (so as to punish the Germans less if they didn't lose troops in encirclements like their historical counterparts did), German manpower may find itself in best shape ever, and that's not something I would really like to see, unless the new cranked up losses from combat will help. But they may not be enough, especially if more ammo will not be granted to units, so they have the resources to fire more times in combat. And increasing ammo consumption will result in bigger supply problems in 1941, and will tax already drained HI factories to unknown extent (especially for the Soviets). So as you see a change in one place may result in problems in another place, as these are all interconnected.

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 6
RE: 1943 German manpower - 7/6/2015 2:17:42 PM   
M60A3TTS


Posts: 4014
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: offline 		I don't get it. The German players have almost never suffered from getting surrounded in this game, and you want them rewarded for this. The Soviets in this game don't have the wherewithal to surround the Germans to any extent so in fact you are giving them a freebie. It seems that the active player base is getting very little input into these kind of changes although it certainly seems that Pelton fed you this one.

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 7
RE: 1943 German manpower - 7/6/2015 2:34:37 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline 		It was Denniss' pet project, he asked a long time for this feature. And it's logically grounded, so I agreed. Unit that was destroyed in combat and not rebuilt was represented as unit withdrawing with all equipment, even if at full strength. Removing withdrawal altogether wasn't feasible, so at least unit will dump it's equipment to the pool before disappearing.

(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 8
RE: 1943 German manpower - 7/6/2015 2:41:42 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline 		M60- its an issue history has taught German players lol.

A German player even with limited Fog of war knows about what soviet capabilities are due to 20/20 hindsight this was something the Germans didnt know historically.

One way some board games have addressed this issue of the unknown/lack of giving Germans the perfect picture is to give Soviet players a limited number of operational surprise turns themselves to use when they see fit.

One board game gave the Soviets effectively 3 Operational surprise turns- to represent 1st winter blizzard counterattack, Stalingrad encirclement, and the follow on destruction of the Italians/hungarians.

Dont know if WiTE could implement a surprise turn for the soviets as it couldnt be a set turn-Germans would prep for it, would have to be an activated thing by the soviet player. Also to not give the Soviets the perfect plan either would make it almost like an invasion thing, as most of these operations took the Soviets several weeks if not months to prepare for. So say the Soviet play must activate their surprise offensive 2-4 turns in advance and then bam on that turn the soviets get lower Zoc/enemy terrain movement penalties higher German disruption an such.

This might even force German players to leave some armor reserves to counter these surprise offensives scattered around the front kinda like historical lol.

The Soviets werent as completely incompetent as alot of ppl like to think if you only read German sources. In general to me the war follows these principles-

Tactical lvl- here we are talking company/battalion/regimental/divisional level- Germans typically outperform Soviet leadership on a consistent basis until probably later 1943 on. Even then Certain German units maintain this edge to the very end.

Operational lvl- Corps/Army/Front/AG level- in 1941/early 1942 the Germans outperform Soviets...however by end of 1942- parity -Soviets begin to understand the deep battle philosphy and have the capability to execute it- thus stalingrad and the failure of Operations Mars. By 1943/1944 the Soviets are simply superior to the Germans in both capability and understanding of operational surprise. Also OKH/OKW doesnt help the situation by not allowing German commanders any real freedom of action against soviet operations. Bagration was actually a larger defeat than stalingrad for the Germans in all reality in the summer of 1944 massive operational success and surprise achieved. It wasnt a pure numbers thing the Germans had the forces available on the eastern front they were just in the wrong positions and they had no idea the attack was coming the Soviets just like stalingrad did a masterful job of concealing true troop concentrations and operational intentions.

Strategic lvl- High Command- Germany failed completely and utterly at this the entire war. Here is where the Soviets understood the war, had a better plan, and executed their plan with complete and utter ruthlessness to success. The German high command dithered on exactly what the main plan was and how they could actually achieve it, and never fully grasped the capabilities that would be needed to actually win.

Maybe a good solid thought for WITE2.

(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 9
RE: 1943 German manpower - 7/6/2015 4:24:50 PM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline
Multiple land units had their withdrawal changed to disband if:
1) They were destroyed in battle, rebuilt and not used in East
2) They were merged with/into other/larger units which are present in the east and are considered reforming in the East
3) They were disbanded historically excluding some disbands in late 44/45

Multiple land units have been disabled if they only appeared as a new incarnation of an existing unit and are considered to reform in the East.

Multiple air units had their withdrawal removed if the only reason was to re-appear under a new name.
Multiple air units have been disabled if they only appeared as new incarnation of an existing unit.

Some examples:
3rd motorized div - withdraw changed to disband (destroyed in the East, rebuilt via renaming an existing division and used in Italy/West)
16th motorized div - withdraw changed to disband (destroyed in the East, rebuilt and used in the West)
XIV Panzer Corps - withdraw changed to disband (destroyed in Stalingrad, rebuilt and used in Italy)
XXXIV Corps - withdraw changed to disband (merged with XXXV Corps in January 42), date changed to mid January 42
26th Infantry Division - withdraw changed to disband (almost destroyed and disbanded summer 44, rebuilt autumn 44 as Volksgrenadier Division and used in the West)
62nd Infantry Division - withdraw changed to disband (destroyed in the East 8/44, rebuilt autumn 44 as Volksgrenadier Division and used in the West)
71st Infantry Division - withdraw changed to disband (destroyed in Stalingrad, rebuilt early 43 and used in Italy)
43rd Sturm Pionier Bn - withdraw changed to disband (became part of Großdeutschland div which is reformed in the East)
51st and 52nd Panzer Bn - withdraw changed to disband; they were re-integrated into the Panzer Division the personnell was taken from
60th Pionier Bn - withdraw changed to disband (destroyed in Stalingrad, rebuilt and used elsewhere)
93rd Heavy Jagdpanzer Bn - withdraw changed to disband,(largely destroyed in 8/44, reformed and used in West)
I/109th Gun Bn - withdraw changed to disband (became part of Großdeutschland div which is reformed in the East)
271/272/274, 276th-278th motorized Flak Bn - withdraw changed to disband - became organic components of Panzer division
501st heavy panzer Bn - remove withdrawal, was reformed as 424th heavy panzer Bn and stayed in the East
529th Jagdpanzer Bn - withdraw changed to disband (was disbanded 6/42)
560th Panzerjäger Bn - withdraw changed to disband, moved forward to 9/42 (became part of 27th Panzer div which arrives in the East as shell)
611th Jagdpanzer Bn - withdraw changed to disband, disband moved forward to June 43 (destroyed in Stalingrad, rebuilt as company of 655th Heavy PzJ Bn which arrives in 7/43)

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 10
RE: 1943 German manpower - 7/6/2015 6:00:49 PM   
M60A3TTS


Posts: 4014
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: offline 		So Denniss, your logic is that the eastern unit turns all its manpower and equipment over to the OstHeer and a shell unit of the same designation appears in the west that OB West or its equivalent in Italy is expected to flesh out with its own equipment and manpower. Do I have that right?

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 11
RE: 1943 German manpower - 7/6/2015 6:50:04 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline 		No these were all units that were historically effectively destroyed on the eastern front.

Then historically what happened is the survivors- as there were alot of WIA moved home and flown out of the pocket during the fighting were used to be the cadre of most of these rebuilt divisions.

It makes some sense, but not alot of sense in that the German army is already artificially much stronger than it should be as the war progresses. Im wondering why attrition losses were reduced several patches ago if you read the patch notes-was awhile back in the patches, as that might have something to do with it.

For all logical purposes its a valid fix. Going forward though hopefully .05 increase losses a fair amount but from morvaels comments im not sure thats really going to happen as he seems skeptical. I dont care if losses are completely historical but they should be a close approximation to be realistic.

< Message edited by chaos45 -- 7/6/2015 7:53:13 PM >

(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 12
RE: 1943 German manpower - 7/6/2015 7:06:43 PM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline 		Units sent to other fronts still withdraw and don't disband.

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 13
RE: 1943 German manpower - 7/6/2015 7:58:33 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline 		There was a huge increase in losses of AFV due to combat, way above historical in 1.08 due to unlocking of secondary squad weapons and heat weapons in general. By adding repair after move we reduced the problem somewhat, but losses were still greater than IRL, so they are going to be nerfed again. But I think losses in infantry are too small and could be raised. Thus there would be higher expenditure of manpower, but smaller of specialized equipment. If raising rate of fire is not a solution due to ammo constrains, there perhaps easing to obtain a kill/damage result on soft targets is in order.

edit: I do agree with chaos45's assessment of tactical/operational/strategic levels of (in)competence for both sides.

The problem with balancing WitE is lack of real feedback. To get a good (from statistical POV) sample, there should be a hundred of you guys playing WitE PBEM 24/7, giving us results from finished campaigns using latest version on weekly basis. As it happens it takes months (or years) to finish a campaign, so they are not very useful for balancing (started many patches back they do not relate to current meta). And AIvsAI tests are good for testing stability but are not representing what happens in PBEM games at all. AI can only push back enemy and requires many tricks to work. PvP games work in a different way and expose different problems.

< Message edited by morvael -- 7/6/2015 9:02:13 PM >

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 14
RE: 1943 German manpower - 7/7/2015 11:41:28 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline 		Well currently me and Pelton just finished up April 1942 last turn- German OOB was 3.7M mine was 6.7M so by historical standards Germans about 1 million stronger than historical and Soviets about 500-600k stronger at this point.

Leningrad will fall most likely 1st week of May....I have my own complaints on the combat system about how easily it fell when it was basically the best defense the Soviets can possibly mount in 1942...Lvl 3 fort in woods with 3x 50+ morale soviet divisions w/reserve rifle BDE committed and about the best soviet general and still lost every fight on first deliberate German assault- in March even----really? German engineers are way Overpowered- dropped every fort from 3 to 0 everytime- I can understand a one level drop but 3 levels in one assault is abit much to believe.

Also I have inflicted almost 1.1M axis casualties...so inflicted under historical....but even then something is very wrong in the game as historical should be around 1.4-1.5M and German OOB by 1942 campaign start is 2.5M.....So I only inflicted approx 500k fewer losses than historical yet his OOB is still 1.2M higher than historical...points to big issue somewhere in that the German army is getting far more troops than they ever had on hand or the historical data for summer 1942 is completely wrong in the game.

Easier hit/kill vs soft targets is probably a good choice if it can be done. Artillery usually did its lethal work on soft targets.




(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 15
RE: 1943 German manpower - 7/8/2015 5:41:41 AM   
Blubel

 

Posts: 287
Joined: 6/22/2011
Status: offline 		A small point, but the Germans in the 42 campaign have actually 2.7mil men, as they have 100k in pool and OOB is about 2.58mil.
Also, in the Stalingrad-Berlin campaign, the Germans start with about 3.17mil men. As you almost don't get any replacements upto Nov 42 this is not possible in the 42 campaign. And since Stalingra-Berlin is the latest campaign, I would argue that it was the best researched.

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 16
RE: 1943 German manpower - 7/8/2015 12:11:25 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline 		Very well could be, however from doing some searching this guys website seems to be pretty accurate as it also reflects alot of the same numbers Glantz uses for Soviets in his books as well.

You can see at no point does the German army/SS go over 3M.....also as you follow you can see losses for both sides are much higher.

Lower losses for the Soviet side, this explains a 6-7M OOB in 1942- even in my game vs Pelton were I took some very heavy losses Im only at around 4.2-4.3M total losses if I remember right in May42- historical losses- should be closer to 7M...which going completely historical shows the game isnt giving the Soviets as many replacements as they historicaly generated, but nor are they losing as many men so somewhat balances itself- as completely historical- your talking just based on our game statistics compared to historical I should have an army of about 8-8.5M men, and my army in the game will be closer to 7M by June. Also lower Soviet losses are most likely explained by Soviet players not launching suicidal attacks constantly on German lines. Also shows Soviet industry is far underperforming as you couldnt even arm all those extra millions by game industry levels.

The ever growing German OOB is the mystery.....as they never historically reached 3M+ men ever by these charts. they come very close in 1943 at almost 3M. Now from doing more research these numbers dont include the luftwaffe air units manpower so would have to see how many men the game is giving for all the Luftwaffe HQs. As it only included elements under army/SS command. So Luftwaffe data is the main outstanding number needed since they are included in the Game OOB numbers.

However I do believe these numbers include German units conducting operations in northern finland/northern norway against murmansk- forces not included in the WiTE game. So when you factor in 50-100k German ground troops in the numbers that arent inlcuded in WiTE Im not so sure the luftwaffe numbers are going to modify the totals that massively. As alot of the Luftwaffe strength was back in Germany/Europe providing training/admin/logistics trains to the actual luftwaffe airbases at the front. These are eventually combed out in late 1942/early 1943 and sent to the heer as the luftwaffe feld divisions.

Even when lower overall German losses are taken into account it doesnt explain the 3.5M-4M OOB the Germans are maintaining. Total german losses thru mid 1942- 1.3M+ historically and you end up with an OOB of 2.6M. So even best case if the Germans take super low losses your talking OOB of around 3M men in mid 1942. An that would be best case you avoid the worst of the blizzard losses and have a gravy winter, which I dont think will happen most of the time- even in me and peltons game I was regularly successfully attacking his lines 10-20 times per week. Again have to check how many men all those luftwaffe bases are supplying in the OOB numbers. If I get some time will do that tonight.

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2011/11/strength-and-loss-data-eastern-front.html

< Message edited by chaos45 -- 7/8/2015 3:46:24 PM >

(in reply to Blubel)
Post #: 17
RE: 1943 German manpower - 7/13/2015 4:30:12 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline 		In reply to Hitman on the Korsun battle/pocket.

You must have read some very different history books than I have on that battle- the encirclement was hotly contested and the relief force couldnt fight its way into the pocket is why they had to assault the Soviets from inside the pocket with virtually no armor support left. In the end they lost almost 100% of all thier heavy equipment getting out with heavy losses amongst the troops that did successfully reach german lines through a very thin opening they had managed to open in the soviet lines to reach the relief forces.

2-3 week battle- losses: (say three weeks of combat = average of 20k+ losses per week)
Glantz-German -----55,000 killed and wounded, 18,000 prisoners
Other source German--Inside the pocket: 31.000 killed and wounded 16.500 captured
Beside the pocket: 27.000 killed and wounded 1.500 captured

Soviet-24,286 killed or missing and 55,902 wounded and sick (average over 3 weeks= 25k+ losses per week)

this is one battle taking place over the entire eastern front...many others were going on at the same time-----easily points that at times of high intensity of operations you are talking 50-100k losses should be standard. Also just read up on this battle the fighting was extremely intense from the accounts I have read, with the end result being an entire German army effectively destroyed...yes 30k men got out alive but just men doesnt make a fighting force. Was actually one of the arguments for why to keep the 6th Army in STalingrad because at least there they could fight, as breaking out of the pocket they would have had to leave almost all their heavy weapons behind and most likely just escape with manpower and the few mobile vehicles they had remaining fuel for. Effectively no matter what happened in a historical sense 6th Army was going to be destroyed as an effective military force either in the pocket or escaping from it....now escaping would mean eventually more manpower to rebuild the army but Germany needing fighting strength at that moment not later--an that was the one thing 6th Army did do was tie down Soviet units that otherwise could have been moving on Rostov/Kharkov, and most likely one of the big reasons they were left to die in place for the big picture.

As to Soviet underutilization of forces- dont view it as thus- more like Soviet sacrifice of troops on a regular basis. Once the Soviets thought they had an edge in a sector they attacked thus their much higher level of losses to themselves than in the game...however you cant do this in the game because the game is shorting the Soviets 2M men in just the first 12 months...you attack repeatedly every single turn even losing and you would grind yourself down since your lacking all of those replacements.

An i agree the Soviets need to lose more men to, alot more....but if you make say Soviet losses a x4 over current then you will probably also have to add in more historical levels of Soviet replacements---around the 150-200k Replacements extra per month that arent currently in the game.

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 18
RE: 1943 German manpower - 7/13/2015 5:05:36 PM   
Callistrid

 

Posts: 669
Joined: 8/11/2011
Status: offline 		The german gives manpower from locations, and still gets from new units. So they receive 2x more men. I believe that is the main game error of german side.

Several divisions after 43 arrived with half, or lower scale, and some never builded in full forces (Tatra, etc... divisions), justin regimental level, but was accrued as division.
The soviet side casualties must be 2-3X higher, if we wish to represent the casualties.

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 19
RE: 1943 German manpower - 7/13/2015 5:17:05 PM   
HITMAN202


Posts: 714
Joined: 11/10/2011
Status: offline 		Read personal accounts. Exaggeration is oft the rule when historical experts comment on events that have not been personally witnessed. Classic example is what's described as the "classic breakout" of four German divisions. In fact a large number were evacuated by air and the rest walked out in single file. Read the account. Sure there was fighting and many paths of retreat were blocked by impressive Soviet defensive network, but there were no "breakout" per se. Towns that we "lost and recaptured" by "furious attacks", were simple tactical withdrawals that were followed up by a simple counterattack involving few units that panicked Soviet forces. The relief force consisted of 2-3 dozen tanks (11th Panzer) that made very little headway. To say it was anything more than a skirmish is an exaggeration IMO.
No doubt there was tremendous death and suffering, but full scale multi-arm combats ?? Very few.

< Message edited by HITMAN202 -- 7/13/2015 6:32:37 PM >

_____________________________

WITE is a good addiction with no cure.

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 20
RE: 1943 German manpower - 7/13/2015 5:59:04 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline 		Yep have read personal accounts of the battle from the commanders on the ground- they differ completely from your telling of the situation. They didnt call the exit from the pocket hellsgate because it was a pleasant experience......also the casualty figures tell the true story of how bloody a fight it was.

You do realize thats like 3,000 men per day of action just at this pocket? Thats pretty much a full regiment+ of combat troops lost every single day......that is telling in and of itself of how brutal this combat situation was.

Also to get a rough idea of casualties just look at total losses for the war- a quick rough estimate for German losses from 1941 until the end the lost an average of around 3,000 KIA/MIA per day...wouded and sick probably 3x that from most what Ive seen.

So every single day of WW2 on average your looking at the German Army lost 10,000-15,000 men----per day- now im sure mud/weather weeks were lower operations/lower losses but as an overall average.

So in a given week the total average for the war would around 70,000 men KIA/WIA/MIA/POW....yes some weeks more some less but as a rough overall average- and probably on the low side for overall average....short of major encirclements you will never see this, in this game. (another roughly 10 million total POWs from the last year of the war I didnt include)

The Soviets average...much higher, just some quick math probably 10,000 KIA/MIA/POW per day with apparently alot lower percentage of wounded from what I see guess so many more captured is another reason. So about 10k wounded per day.

So average weekly losses rock in around 140K+ give or take a couple thousand. Alot are permanent losses due to alot of POWs, about half.

An if you really want to start counting 1945+ losses and German POWs the German POW count skyrockets in 1945 and the losses per day about triple or more due to massive surrendering to the western allies. Also you have some massive surrenders in North Africa and after Normandy.....

So its very easy to see with just some basic research the game is all wrong on casualties. As most of the time there werent massive encirclements going on and entire armies being wiped out. Pure daily combat along a thousand miles of frontline adds up to a ton of dead/wounded/missing/POW every single day....and that number then skyrockets when major operations actually kick off.

In modern war we get upset over a squad being wiped out- in WW2 nobody really cared when a squad/company/even battalion was wiped out- that was standard combat losses. The Germans knew going into barbarossa they were going to lose at least Half a million men- they knew this.....and those estimates were provided the war was done by Fall.

Now the issue in the game is trying to make this happen without either army collapsing due to losses being to high suddenly from combat. I think in the game if the German player suddenly starts burning close to 50k men a week for operations they will soon have to curtail operations due to attrition especially by the summer of 1942. Now given mud turns both sides would lose alot less....and this goes a long way towards explaining why in the real was there were period of just static operations neither side had the men to conduct major costly assaults because manpower is finite.

Even in mid to late 1943 when the soviets go over to the attack they attack for awhile...then they have to halt and rebuild...then attack for awhile...casualties are one of the big reasons.....their units would be effectively destroyed after several weeks of combat....same with the German units in the Ukraine during this time....most of the German divisions were down to less than 10K total manpower and probably closer to 5-8K in total manpower often with only 1-2K of that being actual combat infantrymen/pioneers.

< Message edited by chaos45 -- 7/13/2015 7:32:22 PM >

(in reply to HITMAN202)
Post #: 21
RE: 1943 German manpower - 7/13/2015 6:15:16 PM   
Peltonx


Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

It makes some sense, but not alot of sense in that
the German army is already artificially much stronger than
it should be as the war progresses. Im wondering why attrition
losses were reduced several patches ago if you read the patch notes-was
awhile back in the patches, as that might have something to do with it.

For all logical purposes its a valid fix.
Going forward though hopefully .05 increase losses a fair amount but from morvaels comments
im not sure thats really going to happen as he seems skeptical. I dont care if losses are completely
historical but they should be a close approximation to be realistic.


The lower loses are because of what I have clearly posted 15+ times each time someone questions the loses.
The patch lowered the loses because they are cooked into the books at 2 to 1 then one Russian gets Infantry Corps they are 1 to 1.
The combat engine is based mostly on retreat loses, which means 120,000 Russians running across a field only lose 5000.
Choas your complete ignorance of this make everything you say a non factor as it never address the facts of the matter(how the engine works).
Also I am not Hitler and your not Stalin.


The loses were lowered because the combat engine can not be historical in any way shape or form.

Historical loses, again for the 1000000 time. 42-44 there were very few pockets so the average loses for 42 should be 6 to 1
Which as we know for a fact are 2 to 1 so the only way Germans can reach historical loses is pockets.

1942
1st—————280,000——————1,686,000———-6 to 1
2nd—————220,000——————1,395,000———-6.3 to 1
3rd—————383,000——————2,371,000———-6 to 1
4th—————177,000——————1,281,000———-7.2 to 1
1943
1st—————498,000——————1,908,000———3.8 to 1
2nd—————110,000——————444,000———-4 to 1
3rd—————533,000——————2,633,000———-5 to 1
4th—————381,000——————1,939,000———-5 to 1
1944
1st—————423,000——————1,859,000———-4.4 to 1
2nd—————352,000——————1,021,000———-3 to 1
3rd—————879,000——————1,771,000———-2 to 1
4th—————297,000——————1,086,000———-3.6 to 1





_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 22
RE: 1943 German manpower - 7/13/2015 6:19:17 PM   
Peltonx


Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Well currently me and Pelton just finished up April 1942 last turn-
German OOB was 3.7M mine was
6.7M so by historical standards Germans about 1 million stronger
than historical and Soviets about 500-600k stronger at this point.





At some point can you stick to the facts and not just make things up as you go along?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)

The Russians had 5.3 million men on the Russian front June 42.

We are in the summer of 42 not 43 silly pants

^ Glantz, David, The Soviet©\German War 1941¨C45: Myths and Realities: A Survey Essay.

If we are going to quote people at least quote them correctly


< Message edited by Pelton -- 7/13/2015 7:18:50 PM >

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 23
RE: 1943 German manpower - 7/13/2015 6:21:49 PM   
Callistrid

 

Posts: 669
Joined: 8/11/2011
Status: offline 		Pelton has the right, the posted losses are historical, but the german reinforcements are high, and gains 2x, one from manpower, second from full strengthen divisions.


(in reply to Peltonx)
Post #: 24
RE: 1943 German manpower - 7/13/2015 6:27:55 PM   
Peltonx


Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

There was a huge increase in losses of AFV due to combat, way above historical in 1.08 due to unlocking of secondary squad weapons and heat weapons in general. By adding repair after move we reduced the problem somewhat, but losses were still greater than IRL, so they are going to be nerfed again. But I think losses in infantry are too small and could be raised. Thus there would be higher expenditure of manpower, but smaller of specialized equipment. If raising rate of fire is not a solution due to ammo constrains, there perhaps easing to obtain a kill/damage result on soft targets is in order.

edit: I do agree with chaos45's assessment of tactical/operational/strategic levels of (in)competence for both sides.

The problem with balancing WitE is lack of real feedback. To get a good (from statistical POV) sample, there should be a hundred of you guys playing WitE PBEM 24/7, giving us results from finished campaigns using latest version on weekly basis. As it happens it takes months (or years) to finish a campaign, so they are not very useful for balancing (started many patches back they do not relate to current meta). And AIvsAI tests are good for testing stability but are not representing what happens in PBEM games at all. AI can only push back enemy and requires many tricks to work. PvP games work in a different way and expose different problems.


As we know from historical data and game data of which I have collected and posted more then anyone by 100000% not AI vs AI junk.

The problem is retreat loses and plan old combat loses are way way way off.

The loses the germans take are slightly low, but the combat loses the Russians take ( no pockets as per 42-44) are 3 times to low and the combat engine will NEVER EVER reflex this.

If German loses are increased Russian loses need to be 3x increase, but the combat engine can not do this and Russian rifle Corp are hugely over powered, but that is another story for another thread.

Yes Chaos is right Russian loses should be far higher and germans slightly higher.

The loses were lowered because ALL AS IN ALL THE GAMES all things being equal ended in summer of fall 44 in Berlin and the Red Army was on the offensive in late 41 YES 41.

Because eevery moron figured out you simply spam attacked and lost 90% of the time but you could grind down german OOB easly.

Why because Russian combat loses are 2 to 1 and should be 5 to 1 minus all surrendered troops


_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 25
RE: 1943 German manpower - 7/13/2015 6:45:57 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline 		Pelton I dont know where you got that chart from but its wrong.

The German totals do not include WIA and the Soviet totals are including WIA from just a quick look at the numbers.

So whoever did that chart did it to put the results showing more favorable German ratios.

Which is why you wont believe my numbers which are including WIA/POW Germans in them. You chart is KIA only and maybe MIA...but it sure isnt including German POW/WIA.

Over 6 million German WIA and over 10 million POW by wars end......you chart is only showing 4 million total or so losses. which goes along with the estimate 5 million+ total German KIA by the end of WW2.

As to Soviet spam attacks wearing down the German OOB- well thats kinda historically what happened. Now is just to figure out how to get the game to work without it causing the German army to collapse pre 1944. As historically the Soviets did lose alot of the attacks but the key thing was they took some Germans with them each time.

Also----as to historical and the game fall of Berlin in late 1944----You do realize that I think they termed it the "October miracle" that the German army halted the Soviets at all in late 1944. Things were looking pretty grim in the Summer of 1944 for the Germans and german high command/Hitler thought it was game over.

I havent studied Soviet operations super in depth in that period as it was pretty much game over for Germany by fall of 1944...but I do know some thought has been conjectured that the Soviets could have stormed berlin before 1945 but Zhukov decided to be safe and wipe out the German forces in Prussia/along the north coast before moving on Berlin. As he was worried/overestimated German capabilities for a counterattack from that direction into his flank. In all reality the German threat was minimal but Fog of war and perceptions. Least from my limited study on those operations is my understanding.

< Message edited by chaos45 -- 7/13/2015 8:17:12 PM >

(in reply to Peltonx)
Post #: 26
RE: 1943 German manpower - 7/13/2015 7:12:50 PM   
loki100


Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Pelton I dont know where you got that chart from but its wrong.

The German totals do not include WIA and the Soviet totals are including WIA from just a quick look at the numbers.

So whoever did that chart did it to put the results showing more favorable German ratios.

...


you'll find that Pelton has a long history of producing that chart as definitive proof that he is right ... and there is a long history of people making exactly the response you've just made (quite correctly).

_____________________________


(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 27
RE: 1943 German manpower - 7/13/2015 8:20:07 PM   
Peltonx


Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100


quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Pelton I dont know where you got that chart from but its wrong.

The German totals do not include WIA and the Soviet totals are including WIA from just a quick look at the numbers.

So whoever did that chart did it to put the results showing more favorable German ratios.

...


you'll find that Pelton has a long history of producing that chart as definitive proof that he is right ... and there is a long history of people making exactly the response you've just made (quite correctly).


As you know loki I have posted the links more then once not sure why you making this claim?

General Krivosheyev became widely known after the 1993 publication of the book titled Ãðèô ñåêðåòíîñòè ñíÿò: Ïîòåðè Âîîðóæåííûõ Ñèë ÑÑÑÐ â âîéíàõ, áîåâûõ äåéñòâèÿõ è âîåííûõ êîíôëèêòàõ (Transliteration: Grif sekretnosti snyat: poteri vooruzhyonnyh sil SSSR v voynah, boevyh deystviyah i voennyh konfliktah), originally in Russian, and about Soviet military casualties in various conflicts of the twentieth century, particularly in World War II.[1] With Krivosheyev being the general editor of the book, this analysis prepared by historians based on declassified Soviet archival data represents the first comprehensive attempt to scientifically address the losses of the armed forces of the former Soviet Union during World War II. Previously, the number of human casualties was mostly a matter of political speculations, and widely fluctuated with changes in political expediencies. In 1997 Krivosheyev's book was translated and published in English under the title of Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century.[2]
A follow-up book also under editorship of Krivosheyev addressed Russian and Soviet combat losses in the wars of the 20th century, titled Russia and the USSR in the Wars of the Twentieth Century: Losses of the Armed Forces. A Statistical Study, was published in Moscow in 2001.[3]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigoriy_Krivosheyev


This blog has the chart posted:

Unless you like to buy the book of course.


http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2011/11/strength-and-loss-data-eastern-front.html



< Message edited by Pelton -- 7/13/2015 9:20:38 PM >

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 28
RE: 1943 German manpower - 7/13/2015 8:25:18 PM   
Peltonx


Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Pelton I dont know where you got that chart from but its wrong.

The German totals do not include WIA and the Soviet totals are including WIA from just a quick look at the numbers.

So whoever did that chart did it to put the results showing more favorable German ratios.

Which is why you wont believe my numbers which are including WIA/POW Germans in them. You chart is KIA only and maybe MIA...but it sure isnt including German POW/WIA.

Over 6 million German WIA and over 10 million POW by wars end......you chart is only showing 4 million total or so losses. which goes along with the estimate 5 million+ total German KIA by the end of WW2.

As to Soviet spam attacks wearing down the German OOB- well thats kinda historically what happened. Now is just to figure out how to get the game to work without it causing the German army to collapse pre 1944. As historically the Soviets did lose alot of the attacks but the key thing was they took some Germans with them each time.

Also----as to historical and the game fall of Berlin in late 1944----You do realize that I think they termed it the "October miracle" that the German army halted the Soviets at all in late 1944. Things were looking pretty grim in the Summer of 1944 for the Germans and german high command/Hitler thought it was game over.

I havent studied Soviet operations super in depth in that period as it was pretty much game over for Germany by fall of 1944...but I do know some thought has been conjectured that the Soviets could have stormed berlin before 1945 but Zhukov decided to be safe and wipe out the German forces in Prussia/along the north coast before moving on Berlin. As he was worried/overestimated German capabilities for a counterattack from that direction into his flank. In all reality the German threat was minimal but Fog of war and perceptions. Least from my limited study on those operations is my understanding.


Your data is cherry picking.

You are talking 1942 or say 43.

Look at the data for 42 and 43 and its clear that - Stalingrad German OOB would be historical.

And your wrong about Russia OOB in 42

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)

The Russians had 5.3 million men on the Russian front June 42.

Dude it not to hard to google info.

Get the facts straight.

The totals for the war have little to do with 42 and 43.

and my charts have links where are you getting your data?

If its anything like your 42 Russian OOB claims I will ot believe it unless you post something to back up your wild claims.


< Message edited by Pelton -- 7/13/2015 9:26:03 PM >

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 29
RE: 1943 German manpower - 7/13/2015 8:30:57 PM   
Callistrid

 

Posts: 669
Joined: 8/11/2011
Status: offline 		Check this:

http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html

and this:

http://ww2stats.com/1941_11_MIA.jpg

(in reply to Peltonx)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room >> 1943 German manpower Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
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

0.813