Soviet vs German Formation Support Scope (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design



Message

Shazman -> Soviet vs German Formation Support Scope (3/13/2009 10:30:22 PM)

I've been reading Soviet Rifle division histories and after getting to the 19th Rifle Division came to realize the Soviets switched their divisions from corp to corp and army to army as much as the Germans did thoughout the war. Not only would you see a Rifle Division in a 'regular' army unit, you would see them move to a Guards Army and not be a Guards unit. It would seem once an offensive got under way the unit would stay in it's Army until the offensive petered out but otherwise they were moved all over the front.

So now I have to wonder why so many of the scenario designers have crippled the Soviets by forcing them into Internal Support. A unit is forced to stay in one Army in a most ahistorical manner. Perhaps the only units that should be on internal support are the beginning mech corps. It would seem any Army HQ should be able to supply any division Rifle Division. I don't know, it seems the Soviets were not as inflexible as I had come to believe and there must be some way to represent this in a scenario without throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Seems I'm spamming the forum here, eh? [:D]



ColinWright -> RE: Soviet vs German Formation Support Scope (3/14/2009 2:10:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shazman

I've been reading Soviet Rifle division histories and after getting to the 19th Rifle Division came to realize the Soviets switched their divisions from corp to corp and army to army as much as the Germans did thoughout the war. Not only would you see a Rifle Division in a 'regular' army unit, you would see them move to a Guards Army and not be a Guards unit. It would seem once an offensive got under way the unit would stay in it's Army until the offensive petered out but otherwise they were moved all over the front.

So now I have to wonder why so many of the scenario designers have crippled the Soviets by forcing them into Internal Support. A unit is forced to stay in one Army in a most ahistorical manner. Perhaps the only units that should be on internal support are the beginning mech corps. It would seem any Army HQ should be able to supply any division Rifle Division. I don't know, it seems the Soviets were not as inflexible as I had come to believe and there must be some way to represent this in a scenario without throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Seems I'm spamming the forum here, eh? [:D]


Well...TOAW has deficiencies. What can one say?

The alternative to what you object to would be be nimble, readily reorganized Soviets, able to cooperate easily and not subject to the penalties of confusion. Not necessarily an improvement...



Shazman -> RE: Soviet vs German Formation Support Scope (3/22/2009 4:02:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Well...TOAW has deficiencies. What can one say?

The alternative to what you object to would be be nimble, readily reorganized Soviets, able to cooperate easily and not subject to the penalties of confusion. Not necessarily an improvement...


Your point being?

Let's see, did they readily shift divisions from Army to Army? Unequivocally.

Readily reorganized? If not they would have fallen. The Soviet prewar mobilization plan in the West was trash by the end of day one. Mobilization areas were over run by the end of the week and reservists were either POWs or evacuated east far from their mobilization areas and mobilization times. Over 90k officers of all ranks were permanently gone from the field by the end of the year. For a time supply was a shambles. It wouldn't be a stretch to say most Western armies would have folded. The end. War over.

Yet this un nimble rigid army was able to make adjustments quickly and they did it well. Trashing old systems in a fortnight and coming up with plans that worked and worked well. 192k officers were trained. Divisions were reorgainzed to be smaller and more easily managed and from June to December another 258 Rifle Divisions were formed. New divisions. In six months. They did a bang up job of reorganizing by anyone's standards.

Confusion? For a short time yes. But nothing about the above would indicate a constant state of confusion. On the contrary, it would indicate a firm grasp of capabilities and goals.

While I would grant that once an offensive began the shifting of units from Army to Army doesn't seem typical yet movements between pushes were common.

Personally I'm not sure how the way the Soviets moved divisions around can be done in game terms but I'll try a few things to see if it can be made to more closely resemble a true Soviet Army not the rigid writen in stone monolith that is constantly and improperly modeled.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.921875