Captured manpower

Captured manpower (Full Version)

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

Message

squatter -> Captured manpower (4/8/2011 1:36:54 AM)
Can I just clarify something - the Axis player does benefit from the captured manpower of the Soviet population centres he captures, right?

jomni -> RE: Captured manpower (4/8/2011 2:02:12 AM)
Of course not. Hitler does not want to conscript every Russian into his army. The benefit in capturing manpower centers is to deprive the enemy of the manpower.

squatter -> RE: Captured manpower (4/8/2011 2:19:29 AM)
That might have been what the propaganda poster said, in reality hundreds of thousands of Soviet citizens served in the German Army - I believe as many as 800,000 at one point. Most of these would have, in game terms, been in support squads, security squads, labour squads, etc. But given the difficulty any of the late game AAR players are showing in keeping German manpower levels high enough (including testers), this is a pretty huge ommission. Combined with the calculations ComP came up with relating to the impact of captured Soviet resources on German production (ie none), can the player in fact affect the size and strength of the Axis army in any way over the course of the five year campaign, other than through what happens on the battlefield? The Byzantine formulas and a hieroglyphic flow chart contained in the manual on this matter are impossible to decipher, but it would be interesting to know what the practical effect of holding oil producing centres in the Caucuses is for the Axis (hopefully not the same impact as holding resource centres: ie none)

Muzrub -> RE: Captured manpower (4/8/2011 7:43:48 AM)
I would like to see the adoption of Russian manpower into the German military either as replacements or as individual units- its not totally ahistorical. (would be a great mod)

squatter -> RE: Captured manpower (4/9/2011 11:42:52 AM)
So what's the deal with this? Why come the Germans dont get the benefit of a limited amount of Soviet manpower? Seems strange when Polish, Czech, Slovak manpower are modelled.

keystone70 -> RE: Captured manpower (4/9/2011 3:26:25 PM)
I don't think this can applied uniformally since not all commanders utilized the local population. And in some areas the population was not sympathetic to the Germans or outright hostile due to SS reprisals after Partisan attacks. That being said Army Group South's(and later Groups A & B) could not have moved without the help of the Ukrainian population. Some divisions entire support apparatus were comprised of Russians. The Ukraine and Baltic hated the Russians more than the Germans and had the SS not gone through and 'cleansed' more would have rallied to the German cause.

Great_Ajax -> RE: Captured manpower (4/9/2011 3:31:49 PM)
I think it is because these countries have a small Volksdeutsch population that is subject to conscription in the Wehrmacht. Trey quote: ORIGINAL: squatter So what's the deal with this? Why come the Germans dont get the benefit of a limited amount of Soviet manpower? Seems strange when Polish, Czech, Slovak manpower are modelled.

Aditia -> RE: Captured manpower (4/9/2011 5:44:35 PM)
Well looking at the manpower issues (which is of course historical, not sure if to this extent) reported in the later stages of the war; there is in my opinion both a historical and a gameplay reason to include captured manpower use. Factors to determine if at all, and to what extent could be distance to the front and garissoning of cities. A special case should be the Baltics, not sure if the game already models manpower usage from the baltics, but as far as I can see, all the game does is introduce the SS units that were raised in the Baltics, where support for the Germans was quite high, and I think Estonians especially deployed a large number of men on the side of the wehrmacht in 1944. If the game does not model manpower usage from the Baltics through the German pool this means these units would recieve zero non-german reinforcements, which is at least weird. I am by no means a detailed expert on this subject, but it seems to me some manpower use from occupied countries in the east is at least warranted for historical and gameplay reasons. To what extent and at what stage in the war is hard for me to say and I will leave that to the experts. In the 43-45 game I am PBEM'ing as the Axis I can already see a huge manpower issue coming after 4 turns of play. The front has been quiet thus far, but I am already having issues, and TOE adjustments seem to take quite a while to take effect (if at all).

Tarhunnas -> RE: Captured manpower (4/9/2011 7:35:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aditia I am by no means a detailed expert on this subject, but it seems to me some manpower use from occupied countries in the east is at least warranted for historical and gameplay reasons. To what extent and at what stage in the war is hard for me to say and I will leave that to the experts. +1

Mynok -> RE: Captured manpower (4/10/2011 12:52:35 AM)
Didn't most of the OST units serve on the western front? I know there's a bunch in my AH The Longest Day game.

Great_Ajax -> RE: Captured manpower (4/10/2011 1:45:45 AM)
I have suggested in the past to the team to use captured manpower to feed German support squads as Hiwis. This would free up more German manpower for the fighting elements. Too much to do and limited time ... Trey

Zorch -> RE: Captured manpower (4/10/2011 11:40:47 AM)
+1 Hiwis

Zebedee -> RE: Captured manpower (4/10/2011 1:29:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el hefe I have suggested in the past to the team to use captured manpower to feed German support squads as Hiwis. This would free up more German manpower for the fighting elements. Too much to do and limited time ... Trey Would be a real stab in the dark guessing at numbers Trey? Other than a few individual army and divisional reports from 1942 onwards and a lot of anecdotal evidence, there's no real hard count to be found for numbers of 'former soviet citizens' on the Heer's strength reports. On the other hand, German industry (for which figures are available) benefits from the output of the labour of Soviet citizens whether or not the war plays out historically. Swings and roundabouts sometimes.

Steelers708 -> RE: Captured manpower (4/10/2011 6:39:43 PM)
Considering the rigidity of the German TOE's in the game it would be quite easy to include Hiwi's in the game. Hitler first authorised the use/recruitment of Hiwi's in September 1941, they could be recruited upto 15% of the divisional strength. By 1943 it was estimated that there were 250,000 Hiwi's. With the advent of the changes to TOE's the M1944 Infantry division was to have 12,772 men, of which 11,317 were German and 1455 were Hiwi's. The M1945 Infantry division was to have 11,899 men of which 11,211 were German and 698 were Hiwi's. The M1944 Pz Division was to have 14,727 men, of which 14,013 were German and 714 were Hiwi's.

Great_Ajax -> RE: Captured manpower (4/10/2011 6:50:31 PM)
The 6th Army in mid November 1942 shows over 50k Hiwis as an example. Trey quote: ORIGINAL: Zebedee quote: ORIGINAL: el hefe I have suggested in the past to the team to use captured manpower to feed German support squads as Hiwis. This would free up more German manpower for the fighting elements. Too much to do and limited time ... Trey Would be a real stab in the dark guessing at numbers Trey? Other than a few individual army and divisional reports from 1942 onwards and a lot of anecdotal evidence, there's no real hard count to be found for numbers of 'former soviet citizens' on the Heer's strength reports. On the other hand, German industry (for which figures are available) benefits from the output of the labour of Soviet citizens whether or not the war plays out historically. Swings and roundabouts sometimes.

Great_Ajax -> RE: Captured manpower (4/10/2011 6:52:29 PM)
Honestly, if it was easy, it would have been done already. Thats the constant appraisal by the developers on features. Is the time investment worth the feature? Once we get the parameters of the game set and looking right - 41 blizzard, manpower, production, etc. I hope we can relook at some of these. Trey quote: ORIGINAL: Steelers708 Considering the rigidity of the German TOE's in the game it would be quite easy to include Hiwi's in the game. Hitler first authorised the use/recruitment of Hiwi's in September 1941, they could be recruited upto 15% of the divisional strength. By 1943 it was estimated that there were 250,000 Hiwi's. With the advent of the changes to TOE's the M1944 Infantry division was to have 12,772 men, of which 11,317 were German and 1455 were Hiwi's. The M1945 Infantry division was to have 11,899 men of which 11,211 were German and 698 were Hiwi's. The M1944 Pz Division was to have 14,727 men, of which 14,013 were German and 714 were Hiwi's.

Steelers708 -> RE: Captured manpower (4/10/2011 8:02:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el hefe Honestly, if it was easy, it would have been done already. Thats the constant appraisal by the developers on features. Is the time investment worth the feature? Once we get the parameters of the game set and looking right - 41 blizzard, manpower, production, etc. I hope we can relook at some of these. Trey quote: ORIGINAL: Steelers708 Considering the rigidity of the German TOE's in the game it would be quite easy to include Hiwi's in the game. Hitler first authorised the use/recruitment of Hiwi's in September 1941, they could be recruited upto 15% of the divisional strength. By 1943 it was estimated that there were 250,000 Hiwi's. With the advent of the changes to TOE's the M1944 Infantry division was to have 12,772 men, of which 11,317 were German and 1455 were Hiwi's. The M1945 Infantry division was to have 11,899 men of which 11,211 were German and 698 were Hiwi's. The M1944 Pz Division was to have 14,727 men, of which 14,013 were German and 714 were Hiwi's. Sorry Trey I didn't mean to imply that it would be easy in terms of the actual game mechanics/algorithms, I was referring to the fact that we know how many men to account for/add to the relevant German TOE's.

Zebedee -> RE: Captured manpower (4/11/2011 1:28:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el hefe The 6th Army in mid November 1942 shows over 50k Hiwis as an example. Trey Sure, and we can cite the divisional numbers which contribute to that figure as well as the guesstimation of the army and corps troops which are added on to get to the 50k figure. But was late 1942 an exceptional time in this regard? Was Sixth Army exceptional in this regard? There just isn't the hard numbers to come to any conclusion.

Steelers708 -> RE: Captured manpower (4/11/2011 6:12:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zebedee quote: ORIGINAL: el hefe The 6th Army in mid November 1942 shows over 50k Hiwis as an example. Trey Sure, and we can cite the divisional numbers which contribute to that figure as well as the guesstimation of the army and corps troops which are added on to get to the 50k figure. But was late 1942 an exceptional time in this regard? Was Sixth Army exceptional in this regard? There just isn't the hard numbers to come to any conclusion. Well actually we can show the divisional numbers. Unit Hiwi's 376th ID 4,105 44th ID 2,365 4th ID 1,804 76th ID 8,033 113th ID 5,564 94th ID 2,581 16th PzD 1,843 60th MotD 2,071 3rd MotD 4,530 71st ID 8,134 295th ID 50 100th JgrD 2,132 79th ID 2,018 305th ID 1,562 389th ID 2,379 14th PzD 934 24th PzD 1,675 I was going to give the Ration Strength, combat strength and non-combat strengths for each division also, but the nice neat table I did just looked a jumble of figures when I previewed it, so I decided not to bother.

Zebedee -> RE: Captured manpower (4/11/2011 8:05:53 PM)
Steelers - erm, yes? Although your figures look suspiciously similar to Overmans' and are incorrect in detail as a result. Perhaps to illustrate my point better it might be fun to find, as an example, similar figures for Sixth Army in May 1942 and perhaps compare them across to the figures for any random Army in May 1941 and also May 1943? Even a percentage of non-German composition of such divisions would be useful... One cannot assume that Sixth Army in October/November 1942 was in any way representative of the Heer as a whole at that time, let alone being representative for four years.

Great_Ajax -> RE: Captured manpower (4/11/2011 8:06:12 PM)
Good question. I dunno. It would take some more research. It seems like it was a division's preference as I noted one division had hardly any Hiwis so it could be a command issue by unit. Trey quote: ORIGINAL: Zebedee quote: ORIGINAL: el hefe The 6th Army in mid November 1942 shows over 50k Hiwis as an example. Trey Sure, and we can cite the divisional numbers which contribute to that figure as well as the guesstimation of the army and corps troops which are added on to get to the 50k figure. But was late 1942 an exceptional time in this regard? Was Sixth Army exceptional in this regard? There just isn't the hard numbers to come to any conclusion.

Zebedee -> RE: Captured manpower (4/11/2011 8:33:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el hefe Good question. I dunno. It would take some more research. It seems like it was a division's preference as I noted one division had hardly any Hiwis so it could be a command issue by unit. Trey You might be chasing one of the remaining Holy Grails if you can find any comprehensive collation which sheds light on German vs non-German divisional composition. Even taking Sixth Army as an example just raises more questions. In July, you've got potentially up to 12k Hiwis (who may in fact just be PoWs being processed because of the ambiguity of how they were classed at this point). In October, you've got 28k Hiwis in the divisions which is the high point. But by end of December, that number is down to 19k. As you suggest, it seems to have been down to individual unit preference (combined with need perhaps from the summer fighting?) and fluctuated wildly as a result even within that one Army where fairly continuous records exist over several months.

squatter -> RE: Captured manpower (4/11/2011 8:45:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zebedee quote: ORIGINAL: el hefe Good question. I dunno. It would take some more research. It seems like it was a division's preference as I noted one division had hardly any Hiwis so it could be a command issue by unit. Trey You might be chasing one of the remaining Holy Grails if you can find any comprehensive collation which sheds light on German vs non-German divisional composition. Even taking Sixth Army as an example just raises more questions. In July, you've got potentially up to 12k Hiwis (who may in fact just be PoWs being processed because of the ambiguity of how they were classed at this point). In October, you've got 28k Hiwis in the divisions which is the high point. But by end of December, that number is down to 19k. As you suggest, it seems to have been down to individual unit preference (combined with need perhaps from the summer fighting?) and fluctuated wildly as a result even within that one Army where fairly continuous records exist over several months. Well, I think that's contradicted by Anthony Beevor's Stalingrad: I think he writes that there were 50,000 hiwis in uniform in front line divisions of 6th Army, with a further 70,000 in rear area units. This is 6th Army alone.

Zebedee -> RE: Captured manpower (4/11/2011 9:01:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: squatter Well, I think that's contradicted by Anthony Beevor's Stalingrad: I think he writes that there were 50,000 hiwis in uniform in front line divisions of 6th Army, with a further 70,000 in rear area units. This is 6th Army alone. It actually illustrates how confusing this subject is. The divisional reports give figures for the individual division and also for attached units to that division. 28k is the figure for non-German men in divisions themselves. You'd have to go through the divisional reporting individually to establish what proportion of the c.12k men in attached units (Zugeteilte Einheiten) were non-German, but I know for a fact that not all of them were. (eg 44 ID in mid-October reported 880 men in assigned units, of whom, only 2 (two) were non-German). Beevor's 50k figure is faulty, and I presume is a result of him (again) not checking the figures for himself and so perpetuating errors made by others (I suspect Overmans who conflates the two seperate figures into one overall 'hiwis' when it is no such thing). edit: brainfart math - for c.12k read c.22k. Errata humanum est and all that jazz ;)

squatter -> RE: Captured manpower (4/11/2011 9:17:13 PM)
Well, I must admit, you have a far deeper knowledge on the subject than I. Is Beevor considered unreliable in general? He certainly knows how to produce a compelling narrative, but I have no idea about his sources.

Steelers708 -> RE: Captured manpower (4/11/2011 10:41:03 PM)
I have no idea who/what Overmans is, the figures I gave are from Manfred Kehrigs' Stalingrad: Analayse und dokumentation ener schlact(Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlag Anstalt, 1974) citing reports dated 11th & 19th November, and can be found reproduced in David Glantzs' Armageddon in Stalingrad: September-November 1942, the Stalingrad Trilogy Vol.2, as far as I'm aware Veit Scherzer also used the same figures in his book on the history of the 113th ID. The reports regarding the 44th ID in Mid-October also show that the 44th ID had 3,964 Hiwis/POWs within the division itself. Whilst I agree that we will never know the exact numbers for all Hiwis at any one time, unless somebody has the time, money and inclination to spend years going through the archives, we do know how many Hiwis were authorized for each division via the KSTN tables, and therefore it would not be difficult to include them within the games TOE's. I have always found Beevor to be great on narrative and very short on detailed info.

Zebedee -> RE: Captured manpower (4/12/2011 12:56:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Steelers708 I have no idea who/what Overmans is, the figures I gave are from Manfred Kehrigs' Stalingrad: Analayse und dokumentation ener schlact(Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlag Anstalt, 1974) citing reports dated 11th & 19th November, and can be found reproduced in David Glantzs' Armageddon in Stalingrad: September-November 1942, the Stalingrad Trilogy Vol.2, as far as I'm aware Veit Scherzer also used the same figures in his book on the history of the 113th ID. The reports regarding the 44th ID in Mid-October also show that the 44th ID had 3,964 Hiwis/POWs within the division itself. Whilst I agree that we will never know the exact numbers for all Hiwis at any one time, unless somebody has the time, money and inclination to spend years going through the archives, we do know how many Hiwis were authorized for each division via the KSTN tables, and therefore it would not be difficult to include them within the games TOE's. I have always found Beevor to be great on narrative and very short on detailed info. If you're quoting directly from Kehrings then you should be aware of the distinction he makes in the numbers as they appear in the reports, which is precisely the one I've drawn your attention to. If Glantz is quoting the two numbers together, then he too has made the same mistake as Overmans (who incidentally also claims to have got his figures from Kehring but has obviously misread/misunderstood the distinction that not every non-divisional unit attached to a division was 100% hiwi). edit: an example of what I'm talking about. http://img651.imageshack.us/f/hiwisxiak.jpg (for some reason can't imbed it nvm) edit 2: not sure how authorised numbers under ToEs can help any more than using ToEs to claim that German divisions were at maximum strength all the time... it's blindly flailing about for lack of the information which has so far eluded decades of researchers into the subject. edit 3: in fairness to Beevor, he does mention the problems of numbers in his appendices and does cite the figure of 19300 for Hiwis on 18 November as well as other figures reflecting what the reports actually say.

wosung -> RE: Captured manpower (4/12/2011 9:00:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zebedee edit 2: not sure how authorised numbers under ToEs can help any more than using ToEs to claim that German divisions were at maximum strength all the time... it's blindly flailing about for lack of the information which has so far eluded decades of researchers into the subject. This quote: ORIGINAL: Steelers708 Whilst I agree that we will never know the exact numbers for all Hiwis at any one time, unless somebody has the time, money and inclination to spend years going through the archives, we do know how many Hiwis were authorized for each division via the KSTN tables, and therefore it would not be difficult to include them within the games TOE's. Esp. in later war years authorized strength via KSTN is fiction. Authorization process was a bureaucratic procedure lagging behind reality up front and in the factories, even concerning more important items like tanks and arty.

squatter -> RE: Captured manpower (4/12/2011 9:25:04 AM)
So what we're saying is that there is no way to be sure exactly how many hiwis there were in the German Army. But I think we are in agreement that there were a substantial number, in the tens of thousands, and that is referring to combat troops alone, and not even including what the game would refer to as 'support' elements. So do we agree that the game perhaps ought to have some mechanism for captured manpower to add to German manpower strength, whatever the figure ends up being agreed on?

wosung -> RE: Captured manpower (4/12/2011 11:52:27 AM)
Below some snippets from: Bernhard R. Kroener: Menschenbewirtschaftung, Bevölkerungsverteilung und Personelle Rüstung in der 2. Kriegshälfte (1942-44) [personnel management, distribution of population and manpower use in the second half of the war], in: Das Deutsche Reich und der 2. Weltkrieg, Vol 5.2., pp. 777-995] In 1944 some 1.255.000 non-Germans served in the Wehrmacht: 763.000 from annexed areas (Alsace-Lorraine, Luxembourg), 370.000 Russian and Italian Hiwis (the latter were members of the Italien forces interned by the Wehrmacht in 1943), 122.000 in ethnical-foreign (“fremdvölkischen”) units. All in all some 13 % of the Wehmacht’s Ist-Stärke. [p. 983] Appr. 1 Mio. Soviet citizens and soldiers served in German formations and attached units during WW2. They were divided in 4 categories by the Decree 8000 concerning native auxiliary forces in the East by the Chief of Generalstaff of the Heer (Aug. 1942): - Hiwis in German units, mostly employed in non-combat roles (estimates from Hoffmann, Müller-Hillebrand and Kroener range from 150.000-400.000 in May 1943, with 200.000-250.000 are said to be being likely. Beside TOE, KSTN authoritation, the whole Hiwi issue has a strong aspect of improvisation) - Security personnel of the auxiliary police forces, which under different designations, were organized by the Army Groups for guarding their rear area (“Rückwärtiges Heeresgebiet”). (60.-70.000 in May 1943). - Military security units in the rear area (no data) - Combat forces (Turk bataillons, Foreign Legions, Cossack and Tatar units). (1943: 170-250.000 men) - Besides, in the Reichskommissariate there were local (?) security forces under the SS (300.000 men) - Russian POWs also served in Home Flak Bataillons [p. 989] According to the Verpflegungsstärke der Kriegswehrmacht 1.Sept. 1943, Wehrmacht [p. 974] provided supplies for Its Allies, including Osttruppen und Legionen in the field army and Luftwaffe 670.752 at the home front 207.646 Kriegsmarine 822 POWs and Interned By field Army and Luftwaffe 316.399 In the Reich, etc. 530.048 Kriegsmarine 11.974 End of 1941Germany took first steps to use Russian POWs as a labor pool instead of letting them die by hunger. At the same time the Wehrmacht in the East started to field the first cossack-hundreds (“Kossakenhundertschaften”) from POWs for the mostly unoccupied rear aerea (“Rückwärtiges Heeresgebiet”) behind all 3 Army Groups. At the same time the Heer in the East also started to employ Russian Hiwis in non-combat-roles in an first attempt to raise its combat efficiency “Auskämmungswelle”. 1942 appr. 50.000 Soviet citizens, mostly cossacks, Ukrainians, Belo-Russians, were employed in non-combat roles in the German Ostheer. According to the General Staffs plans for maximizing the combat power (Aug. 1943) the new type standard infantry division was to have 10.708 Germans plus 2005 Hiwis Sollstärke. But this was a theoretical plan, retro-sanctioning appr. reality. [959] End of Dec. 1942 the foreign units from the East (not the Hiwis) were placed under the just established General der Osttruppen under the OKH. In the Caucausus offensive the Wehrmacht succcesuful recruited non-russian anti-soviet Caucasus people: Until 1945 between 170.000 and 250.000 of them fought attached to the Wehrmacht. At first, recruitment of those oriental Russians was the domain of the German Heer, whereas only the SS had the right to recruit in the Baltic and also mostly did so in the Ukraine. In 1944 the SS also fielded some oriental Russian units, which didn’t for last long. The Hiwi and Osttruppen recruitment begun out of necessity. Starting in 1943 there were attempts to give it some ideogical and political meaning (Manifesto of Prague, “Comitee for the Liberation of the People of Russia”Russian Liberation Army). The reliability of Osttruppen declined with the German defeats. Thus, end of 1943 the Wehrmacht contemplated to disolve those units. But what happened was, that Osttruppen security units (Ostbataillone) with then appr. 30% Russian volunteers were switched with those third rate German units guarding the “Atlantikwall”, using a 2:1 ratio. Apparently the Hiwis embedded in German divisions’ rear service seem to have been more reliable, even in late war. [pp. 986-988]

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

5.875