RE: Why not free production? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series



Message

Capt Cliff -> RE: Why not free production? (9/28/2009 7:03:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: itsjustme


quote:

ORIGINAL: paullus99

Absolutely - German industry was doing the best (well, sort of) it could, with what it had at the time. It was inefficient to close down the PzIII production lines, so they started making Marders, Stugs & other upgraded SPGs instead. They didn't have the capacity to just build wholesale new production lines, willy-nilly.


c'mon Paulus. That's not accurate. The German economy wasn't put on a war footing until late 42/early 43. Had they been put on a war footing, production would have been through the roof. Look at the numbers in 43 and early 44 even while the Allies are bombing the heart out of the Reich, production was climbing.


Give me a break!! Keeping open and increasing existing production lines is one thing shifting PZIII lines to PZIV or PZV's is another. German industry was not based on the mass production system like the USA was. Panthers were hand built with leather seats and not like T-34's where they didn't even paint the inside. No way could Germa industry react in such a short time frame like was modelled in WiR. They only built 1500 Tigers from 42 to 45!! Lets see 365 times 3 is 1095 days or 1.5 Tigers a day. Bleh! [:-]



SnowBlue88 -> RE: Why not free production? (10/4/2009 7:10:01 AM)

Meh, seems like most players who want free production only consider the German side of the situation and want a system where they can only do historically better. No one really seems to care how complex such a system has to be or provide an idea that wont screw what was historically possible. Keep in mind that a Soviet player will also have similar options and in the end you are going to end up in situations that would seem atrocious from a historical point of view, like Panther equipped division fighting JSIII and T-44 Tank Corps. Anyways to truly affect production as the 3rd Reich certain drastic changes would have to be made that would seem even more unhistorical, like mobilizing women. 

Some people might want these options but I think having that much change would just seem odd. Why not also include the whole political aspect and allow the Nazi's to recognize Ukraine and the Soviets to abolish commissars right from the beginning?



IronDuke_slith -> RE: Why not free production? (10/7/2009 11:38:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hexagon

Ok, i know, but no free production == historical [:-] is all i say because the game dont have political intromisions in military area and this is more historical for me (not invade England, dont select Moscow as main objetive...).

For Barbarrossa and the Panther in Moscow i only say that could be fixed tech (for example the 75mmL70 because if i dont have bad memory was a plan to use a longer 50mm in Panther before the new 75mm was ready), time to adapt factories to new type when start production or time to have ready the prototypes... and of course, production points, you dont need the same effort to produce a PzIV (Ford of german tanks) than Panther/Tiger (Rolls Royce).

Of course games are only historical the 1st turn. Is only a game a it have the options that it have.

PD: change a little the german tank production can give a choice to germans to survive a Stalingrad because they can have reserves, with... 400 or 500 PzIV in reserve...



The Germans had plenty of tanks, what they lacked was the spare parts to keep most of them in the field or the fuel to keep most of them on the move.

Lets say you have 400-500 Panzer IVs in some sort of strategic reserve because you stopped Kubelwagon production in 1940, who is going to use them post Stalingrad? It takes more than 180 tanks to rebuild a shattered Panzer Division. What about Crews, Panzergrenadiers, support vehicles, the recce battalion, artillery etc....etc...etc

It wasn't lack of tanks that prevented the Germans breaking through to Stalingrad and stabilising the southern front, but lack of Panzer Divisions. Producing extra MK IVs doesn't give you extra Panzer Divisionen.



Iņaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: Why not free production? (10/8/2009 2:03:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke



It wasn't lack of tanks that prevented the Germans breaking through to Stalingrad and stabilising the southern front, but lack of Panzer Divisions. Producing extra MK IVs doesn't give you extra Panzer Divisionen.


I canīt agree with that, tanks were the main asset lacking in the German armoured force at the time, when Pz division were deployed with a complement of less than 30 tanks. IMO focusing on producing PzIV, leaving the PzIII chasis for auxiliar vehicules, would have been the logical option from a logistics/production perspective.



IronDuke_slith -> RE: Why not free production? (10/8/2009 11:30:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iņaki Harrizabalagatar


quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke



It wasn't lack of tanks that prevented the Germans breaking through to Stalingrad and stabilising the southern front, but lack of Panzer Divisions. Producing extra MK IVs doesn't give you extra Panzer Divisionen.


I canīt agree with that, tanks were the main asset lacking in the German armoured force at the time, when Pz division were deployed with a complement of less than 30 tanks. IMO focusing on producing PzIV, leaving the PzIII chasis for auxiliar vehicules, would have been the logical option from a logistics/production perspective.


Well, if memory serves, then the Germans were driven out of the Kharkov area, they left behind a tank repair depot that contained over 300 vehicles. A similiar thing happened in Normandy. German repair efforts were prodigious at times, if they had the spare parts.

As for Stalingrad, 23rd Panzer started Winterstorm with around 70 tanks, 6th Panzer with over 140. 11th Panzer was hived off earlier to deal with the issues along the Chir. 6th Panzer had no room in the inventory for extra vehicles, 23rd Panzer had room, but I have no record whether it had the crews. However, another 60 tanks would not have made Winterstorm a success, another couple of Panzer Divisions might.

The German issue was attempting to shuffle a small number of mobile units back and forth between crises. They simply never had enough of them. Lack of tanks was a symptom of a bigger problem, but producing heavier vehicles would surely not have increased the overall German tank park so how would such a production option have aided them?

Regards,
IronDuke



Iņaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: Why not free production? (10/9/2009 11:22:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke



The German issue was attempting to shuffle a small number of mobile units back and forth between crises. They simply never had enough of them. Lack of tanks was a symptom of a bigger problem, but producing heavier vehicles would surely not have increased the overall German tank park so how would such a production option have aided them?

Regards,
IronDuke

I am not sure I understand you. My point is that Pz Div were regularly understrength because German tank production was too diversified, too many models produced, too low productivity as a result, and inmense logistic problems for the units. IMO a more rational approach to the tank production, focused on the PzIV, would have had inmense beneficies, keeping Pz units close to full strength. Keep in mind that it is not the same focusing on some Pz units assembled for a particular operation that taking a look to the big picture, where you could see understrength Pz Div everywhere.



Terminus -> RE: Why not free production? (10/9/2009 2:32:40 PM)

Well, another problem was that panzer production routinely went to new units being raised away from the fronts, instead of as replacements.



IronDuke_slith -> RE: Why not free production? (10/10/2009 12:05:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iņaki Harrizabalagatar


quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke



The German issue was attempting to shuffle a small number of mobile units back and forth between crises. They simply never had enough of them. Lack of tanks was a symptom of a bigger problem, but producing heavier vehicles would surely not have increased the overall German tank park so how would such a production option have aided them?

Regards,
IronDuke

I am not sure I understand you. My point is that Pz Div were regularly understrength because German tank production was too diversified, too many models produced, too low productivity as a result, and inmense logistic problems for the units. IMO a more rational approach to the tank production, focused on the PzIV, would have had inmense beneficies, keeping Pz units close to full strength. Keep in mind that it is not the same focusing on some Pz units assembled for a particular operation that taking a look to the big picture, where you could see understrength Pz Div everywhere.


But a Panzer Division was more than just a regiment of tanks. The number of runners declined in some sort of proportion to everything else. Understrength Panzer Units were short more than just 30-40 Tanks. Where does the rest of the combat power come from? Besides, More replacements meant more replacement crews, extra fuel the logistics system never had to find in reality because the replacements weren't there, more Pzgr because tanks without infantry were a sitting duck in some circumstances etc. I don't see an extra 500 Panzer IVs as a panacea to German problems.

You don't see Panzer divisions with just 30 tanks but full Regimental complements of infantry, engineers and artillery etc. Also, extra vehicles would have required even more spart parts that the Germans simply never had. Pumping in more and more tanks would simply have created Armoured Regiments with green crews.

Raionalising production would have helped, and indeed that is what Guderian and Speer achieved when the going got really tough, but in the years if victory, I don't see it made that much difference. The German problem extended beyond mere production numbers. Their tanks were often over engineered and they never had the spare parts to keep the tank park they did have in the field, never mind another 500 or a 1000.

Look at some of the daily totals for the Divisions. They fluctuate wildly, not because replacements are coming in, but because vehicles are being repaired all the time. What the Germans really needed was a steady supply of spare parts.

Besides, the Divisions they did have frequently stopped during Barbarossa, Blue and the 43-44 period because they did not have the logistical support required to continue operations. Extra vehicles would merely have exacerbated that.

Regards,
IronDuke



paullus99 -> RE: Why not free production? (10/10/2009 9:56:31 AM)

IronDuke - I will say that your extremely rational arguments about logistical limitations have won me over. Unless you revamped everything (and just about everyone will admit, when it came to raising troops, the Germans were very good at it), there is a practical limit to what could and could not be done by Germany to either expand production & create whole new formations out of thin air.

Just because you can build additional tanks or SPGs, that doesn't automatically conjure up the support structure, infantry, vehicles, and fuel to fully flesh out the units. Since the developers have already told us that they will allow players to decide to refit their units (either keep existing units up to strength or allow new, understength units to be built - like Hitler's obsession with seeing lots of divisions on his maps), I believe that should give quite a bit of flexibility to maintain cohesion and upgrade units as we deem practical.



Capt Cliff -> RE: Why not free production? (10/12/2009 7:44:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: paullus99

IronDuke - I will say that your extremely rational arguments about logistical limitations have won me over. Unless you revamped everything (and just about everyone will admit, when it came to raising troops, the Germans were very good at it), there is a practical limit to what could and could not be done by Germany to either expand production & create whole new formations out of thin air.

Just because you can build additional tanks or SPGs, that doesn't automatically conjure up the support structure, infantry, vehicles, and fuel to fully flesh out the units. Since the developers have already told us that they will allow players to decide to refit their units (either keep existing units up to strength or allow new, understength units to be built - like Hitler's obsession with seeing lots of divisions on his maps), I believe that should give quite a bit of flexibility to maintain cohesion and upgrade units as we deem practical.


I agree with Von Paul here! I think and feel the Germans worked on the principle thta if it ain't broke don't fix it. They didn't learn it was broke until it was too late. Everybody was crying for equipment and not just tanks, everything! Perhaps an option at the start that puts German industry on a war footing from 41 or at 42 or at 43 (historical) or 44 (for the die hard wingnuts). German industry has to satify everyone not just Strumgruppen Fuhrer Pieper for more tanks!



Skanvak -> RE: Why not free production? (10/12/2009 8:33:55 PM)

Iron Duke
quote:

Look at some of the daily totals for the Divisions. They fluctuate wildly, not because replacements are coming in, but because vehicles are being repaired all the time. What the Germans really needed was a steady supply of spare parts.


Though I agree with you, I think that building less type of tank allow for more spare part because it is simpler to 1000 same parts that 300 parts for this tanks, 300 for the other and 400 for the last (who by the way would have needed 600). The Russian used standardized model for Tank building that help them build them and provide spare parts.

But, and that is one of the reason I am "ok" with fixed production, I think that one of the problem of the tank for Germany is their design. In the 40's French had heavy and slow tank, we lost to the rapid and light german tanks. In 1945 the German had heavy slow tank and ultimately lost to faster and lighter tanks. You should realized the number of battle with Tiger I that has been lost compare to the battle won with the same tanks. Design is really a trademark of the mind of what the nazi regime did to its war industry.



Iņaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: Why not free production? (10/13/2009 11:28:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke




But a Panzer Division was more than just a regiment of tanks. The number of runners declined in some sort of proportion to everything else. Understrength Panzer Units were short more than just 30-40 Tanks. Where does the rest of the combat power come from? Besides, More replacements meant more replacement crews, extra fuel the logistics system never had to find in reality because the replacements weren't there, more Pzgr because tanks without infantry were a sitting duck in some circumstances etc. I don't see an extra 500 Panzer IVs as a panacea to German problems.

You don't see Panzer divisions with just 30 tanks but full Regimental complements of infantry, engineers and artillery etc. Also, extra vehicles would have required even more spart parts that the Germans simply never had. Pumping in more and more tanks would simply have created Armoured Regiments with green crews.

Raionalising production would have helped, and indeed that is what Guderian and Speer achieved when the going got really tough, but in the years if victory, I don't see it made that much difference. The German problem extended beyond mere production numbers. Their tanks were often over engineered and they never had the spare parts to keep the tank park they did have in the field, never mind another 500 or a 1000.

Look at some of the daily totals for the Divisions. They fluctuate wildly, not because replacements are coming in, but because vehicles are being repaired all the time. What the Germans really needed was a steady supply of spare parts.

Besides, the Divisions they did have frequently stopped during Barbarossa, Blue and the 43-44 period because they did not have the logistical support required to continue operations. Extra vehicles would merely have exacerbated that.

Regards,
IronDuke

Your arguments miss a crucial point, that the ratio of tanks in Pz Divisions was continually decreasing along the war. In France 1940 Pz Divs had 4 Pz Regiments and up to 230 tanks, for Operation Blau some Pz Div still deployed 3 regiments and up to 160 tanks, in 1943 Pz Divs had just 2 regiments and under 100 tanks. Guderian complained that Pz Divs were too short of armour for offensive operations, and that they had the same logisitical impact on operations as the previous divisions with more tanks, easily collpasing traffic along roads of advance. Guderian would have liked PzDivs back to over 200 tanks, and that without increasing the rest of the PzDiv units. I think even if PzDivs could be maintained at complement of 160 PzIV tanks it would have been a great improvement.
Besides, there is another point, the attrition rate of armour is much greater than that of other units in a Pz Regiment, especially when retreating a Pz Div would abandone all non running tanks, while infantry would slip away. Time after time you find PzDivs with spare crews, strong on infantry and with barley a few armour left. Having plenty of tanks to replace losses was crucial, as the Soviet army knew very well.



Skanvak -> RE: Why not free production? (10/13/2009 5:41:14 PM)

Unit density, you refer to, Inaki, is different from absolute number of tanks, I think Ironduke is referring to.



paullus99 -> RE: Why not free production? (10/13/2009 8:48:38 PM)

Absolutely - I could conjure up dozens of additional Panzer Divisions, as long as each one had one tank, one crew, & a few infantry.

That's the point IronDuke is making - the Germans created additional Panzer Divisions during the war, but mostly at the cost of reducing the total amount of equipment each one had (therefore reducing the efficiency of the units). In WiTE, you had the option of not producing additional units, but keeping your existing units closer to full strength - of course, you'll need to balance that with the need to cover your front, so it should be an interesting part of the game.



ComradeP -> RE: Why not free production? (10/15/2009 6:20:04 PM)

quote:

In France 1940 Pz Divs had 4 Pz Regiments and up to 230 tanks, for Operation Blau some Pz Div still deployed 3 regiments and up to 160 tanks, in 1943 Pz Divs had just 2 regiments and under 100 tanks.


That's nonsense.

A division with 4 Panzer regiments? Not in Hitler's lifetime.

4 battalions, yes, but never 4 regiments. That's a VERY substantial difference.

Guderian et all might have wanted to give each division around 300 tanks, but they never got further than 4 battalions. In any case, many panzer divisions in 1940 didn't even have a fourth battalion attached to them to begin with, and most of the fourth battalions came fresh from training.

After the start of Barbarossa, the Panzer divisions quickly lost their fourth battalion in any case, just like motorized infantry regiments were suddenly 2 battalions strong in motorized divisions to keep their brothers in the Panzer divisions remotely close to full strength.



ram300 -> RE: Why not free production? (10/19/2009 1:32:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: itsjustme
The German economy wasn't put on a war footing until late 42/early 43.


I think Adam Tooze does a very good job of dispelling that notion in the Wages of Destruction.



Kesselring -> RE: Why not free production? (11/9/2009 9:24:19 AM)

I really think the player controlled production is a very attractive feature. Without War in Russia, WitE may have provided enough, but with WiR, I cannot help feeling that there is something missing if the production cannot be controlled.
For the coding part, I don't think it is unachievable since the programmers should be able to access the codes for WiR, WitP(AE), EDBtR where the player controlled production is available.



HMSWarspite -> RE: Why not free production? (11/9/2009 8:57:11 PM)

These threads never cease to amaze me - the designer/coder says that the gane scope is 'X'. Cue a giant debate. It is like me telling you I am going to design and sell kits of Concorde, and you telling me I am wrong because it doesn't include the maintenance hanger!


Also, am I the only one who thinks that most production systems in wargames are usually complete fantasy? Almost everyone here who wants it, wants it so they can 'undo the mistakes the Germans made', and have armies equipped with Tigers, KT and Panthers with late model PzIV to carry the division commanders field kitchen. Why do we have debates about the exact armour penetration of a 7.62mm rifle round against T34 armour, and then throw rattles out of prams because some ultra simplified 'production' model is not there to allow them to turn the game into space invaders?

Allowing a player to have control of even just tank production means that we need a simulation of the pure resource availabilty (manpower, major components such as engines and armour plates, power, exotic metals/alloys etc). Then you need to know the requirements of each tank (man hours to build, tonnage of armour, etc). So now you have a x PzIVd=y Panther exchange rate, and off you go right? Wrong. There are minor issues like politics - will company A help company B build products? What about guns - if I build more Tigers, I need more 88mm - so I need to simultate the effect on other users of that (AA etc). There is a suggestion  (flippant I know) that someone could stop Kubelwagen production for Panthers - does the game accuarately simulate the effect of less Kw? It has been said that the Jeep won the war for the Allies!
Then there is the whole R&D thing... how do I make the design available early? What is the cost/effect? What would the western Allies do if Germans  did very well in east, and were better equipped... oops better have US production and convoying modelled...
I could rant for ages on this. I think GG's design choice is entirely reasonable and would hate a 'quick' production system grafted on. You might as well have a system to allow the Germans to have Leopard IIs in 1941!



Skanvak -> RE: Why not free production? (11/10/2009 7:26:24 AM)

Well, all production model are wrong, even historical reinforcement at our level (part of the production come from Russia). Thought it is this option for this game and it is not a bad one. Free production is meaningful and coherent for grand strategy games. For once you are in the boots of a general that does not control its country. It is enough for me, the game being big enough (I don't want a model where I have tobuild, convoy and administrate my supply of spare part at the units).



PyleDriver -> RE: Why not free production? (11/10/2009 4:09:52 PM)

Well said... Unlike WIR you play as OKH or STAVKA. Trust me your plate is full... Damn I love this game and were not done yet...



Sentinel Six -> RE: Why not free production? (11/11/2009 10:31:42 AM)

As much as I would like to see player controlled production (properly modelled, with resource allocation, manpower etc) I understand that to do this in a proper manner would require a lot of work and the game designers have made a conscious decision not to implement some unrealistic half measure.

However I do think that a game of this scope and detail should really include Karelia and the Kola Peninsular. I know the designers have said that it would major addition to the map, but all the arguments about historical accuracy go out of the window if a major portion of the front is missing.



Skanvak -> RE: Why not free production? (11/11/2009 11:07:04 AM)

ah? there is not the northern part of the front?

On this point I will agree with Sentinel Six that is lacking (but adding it will need historical research...)



Helpless -> RE: Why not free production? (11/11/2009 12:33:46 PM)

quote:

However I do think that a game of this scope and detail should really include Karelia and the Kola Peninsular. I know the designers have said that it would major addition to the map, but all the arguments about historical accuracy go out of the window if a major portion of the front is missing.


I'm away from my sources, but iirc the size of Karelian Front was ~200K men. Which would be ~5% of active part of RKKA. German presence was even smaller. Besides historically it was very silent comparing to all other places. So I'd not qualify it as major.

Yes, I would like to see Karelia and Kola in WITE, but to add these 5 percent would require HUGE additional work which right now would hurt much the rest 95%.



Cavalry Corp -> RE: Why not free production? (11/11/2009 4:20:42 PM)

So that could be in an expansion MOD later ??

It all looks great but I can live without it - but would prefer it in.



Sentinel Six -> RE: Why not free production? (11/11/2009 5:25:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Helpless

quote:

However I do think that a game of this scope and detail should really include Karelia and the Kola Peninsular. I know the designers have said that it would major addition to the map, but all the arguments about historical accuracy go out of the window if a major portion of the front is missing.


I'm away from my sources, but iirc the size of Karelian Front was ~200K men. Which would be ~5% of active part of RKKA. German presence was even smaller. Besides historically it was very silent comparing to all other places. So I'd not qualify it as major.

Yes, I would like to see Karelia and Kola in WITE, but to add these 5 percent would require HUGE additional work which right now would hurt much the rest 95%.



This is true but the region was strategically and politically important to the Germans. If the Germans had taken Leningrad in 41 the Finns would probably have been more willing to play an active part further north causing the Soviets to react.

I understand the reason for not including it (map etc) but it is a significant section of front that should be included at some stage if possible.



freeboy -> RE: Why not free production? (11/11/2009 8:02:25 PM)

again another reason why we need an editor, Those who want a historical straightjacket are happy as is, those who wish to explore more rational, than the historical counterparts, can play with the numbers of troops etc



PyleDriver -> RE: Why not free production? (11/11/2009 9:07:05 PM)

Were really tring to keep this a simulation, not a manipulation. We have what your asking for, an I would love to see this issue die. It really is old now, And ain''t going to happen, so please, lets save everyones time...



Capt Cliff -> RE: Why not free production? (11/12/2009 6:46:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

Were really tring to keep this a simulation, not a manipulation. We have what your asking for, an I would love to see this issue die. It really is old now, And ain''t going to happen, so please, lets save everyones time...


I totally agree ... I couldn't find a picture of a dead horse sooooo *place here*



joliverlay -> RE: Why not free production? (11/13/2009 3:05:29 AM)

The number of tanks per panzer division discreased dramatically during the war because there were NOT enought tanks to keep the TOE up. The claims that there were plenty of tanks but not enough spare parts are just wrong. There may have been a shortage of spare parts as well but there were NOT enought tanks.

The conversion of motorized divisions to panzer was one problem, losses was another, but lack of production was the big one.

The tank shortage was so severe that tank batallions were removed from the panzer divisons wholesale and later some of the remaining ones were replaced with assult guns because they were cheaper to produce. Not as effective for offensive operations, but better than nothing. It is pretty clear that the Germans would have benefited from streamlined production and keeping the TOE at a reasonable level. They might have done as well or better to have produced just the Mark IV in very large numbers.



MengCiao -> RE: Why not free production? (12/3/2009 8:37:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joliverlay

The number of tanks per panzer division discreased dramatically during the war because there were NOT enought tanks to keep the TOE up. The claims that there were plenty of tanks but not enough spare parts are just wrong. There may have been a shortage of spare parts as well but there were NOT enought tanks.

The conversion of motorized divisions to panzer was one problem, losses was another, but lack of production was the big one.

The tank shortage was so severe that tank batallions were removed from the panzer divisons wholesale and later some of the remaining ones were replaced with assult guns because they were cheaper to produce. Not as effective for offensive operations, but better than nothing. It is pretty clear that the Germans would have benefited from streamlined production and keeping the TOE at a reasonable level. They might have done as well or better to have produced just the Mark IV in very large numbers.


It's hard to keep all the myths straight when it comes to German Production before and during WWII. I've just been reading Adam Tooze's book The Wages of Destruction...it discusses quite a number of myths. Perhaps the spare-parts myth is a mythical echo of the actual subcomponent crisis that followed the attacks of Bomber Command on the Ruhr in 1943.

As for cases of "might have done better"...these are so numerous as to make the idea of a rational German production system seem even more mythical than all the other myths. To give one example, "they might have done better" not to have starved the 3 million Russian POWs captured in 1941, but instead to have used them to work in the agricultural sector which was in trouble from 1940 on.



Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.359375