Historical accuracy of Air dropping fuel

Historical accuracy of Air dropping fuel (Full Version)

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

Message

lastkozak -> Historical accuracy of Air dropping fuel (11/23/2013 2:05:41 PM)
Has anybody ever come across any historical documents that talk about air dropping fuel and supplies to German units, other than in the winter of '42-43 at Stalingrad? I am not sure how historical this is, and am finding it a bit of a pain in the butt as the Soviet player. The reality is, that fuel is quite dangerous and dropping oil drums out of an airplane with a parachute seems a little ridiculous and counter intuitive. lastkozak

Peltonx -> RE: Historical accuracy of Air dropping fuel (11/23/2013 2:10:09 PM)
They land the supplys on runways aka fields, very easy to do once ground is froozen for both sides. There were allot of pockets that had supplies flown in to them during the war GHC and SHC.

lastkozak -> RE: Historical accuracy of Air dropping fuel (11/23/2013 2:14:33 PM)
I thought the problem with Stalingrad was they could not fly in enough fuel and supplies. Further, during mud this should not be allowed. Even with this new patch, my opponents armour seems to be so full of fuel that they just keep coming, and running behind the lines anytime they get a break through. I am not sure this new patch has balanced things, as much as given the Germans a major unhistorical advantage now.

Peltonx -> RE: Historical accuracy of Air dropping fuel (11/23/2013 2:28:28 PM)
Fuel drops are not even needed for Germany. I played 4 games not even doing fuel drops and won or tied all 4. Leningrad and Rostov fell in 41 with Moscow close behind in 42. Historically speaking Germany went from Kiev to Rostov in 4 weeks, the issue is not logistics. Everyone is all tied up with unhistorical supply systems tring to limit Germany to less then what was done historically in 1941 and 1942 south of Rostov. The issue is not the logistics or supply systems, its the combat engine. The combat engine is where supplies/ammo should be getting used up not stupid movement/logistics system. This is not the pacific theater. This would reward SHC to attack more there by limiting GHC supplies and ammo. Yes loses would suck, but they did historically. The tempo of combat limited German operations as the war went on. Germany had more manpower and gas in 44 then 41, but the tempo of combat was much much higher. Tring to hog tie Germany based on logistics instead of combat is the core issue aka problem. This is not the pacific theater.

Aurelian -> RE: Historical accuracy of Air dropping fuel (11/23/2013 3:17:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pelton They land the supplys on runways aka fields, very easy to do once ground is froozen for both sides. There were allot of pockets that had supplies flown in to them during the war GHC and SHC. List them. With sources that can be checked.

Aurelian -> RE: Historical accuracy of Air dropping fuel (11/23/2013 3:42:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lastkozak I thought the problem with Stalingrad was they could not fly in enough fuel and supplies. Further, during mud this should not be allowed. Even with this new patch, my opponents armour seems to be so full of fuel that they just keep coming, and running behind the lines anytime they get a break through. I am not sure this new patch has balanced things, as much as given the Germans a major unhistorical advantage now. It was. 6th Army needed 500 tons/day, (the army said the bare minimum was 300.) 150 JU-52s per day had to land in the pocket at the airfields. http://www.stalingrad.net/german-hq/the-stalingrad-airlift/mainpage_airlift.htm Richthofen really needed 800 JU-52s. He only had 295. And with other commitments, he could only use 30. http://www.stalingrad.net/german-hq/the-stalingrad-airlift/airstat.html During the 72 days and nights between Nov 24th, 1942 and Feb 3rd, 1943, the Luftwaffe had carried or dropped to the encircled troops a total of 8350.7 tons of rations, fuel and ammunition, or an average of 117.6 tons a day. The Army needed 300 tons a day, the absolute minimum amount. (To keep 6th Army operational, the army needed 500 tons a day)

STEF78 -> RE: Historical accuracy of Air dropping fuel (11/23/2013 3:57:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian quote: ORIGINAL: Pelton They land the supplys on runways aka fields, very easy to do once ground is froozen for both sides. There were allot of pockets that had supplies flown in to them during the war GHC and SHC. List them. With sources that can be checked. Demyansk Pocket http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demyansk_Pocket After being assured that the pocket could be supplied with its daily requirement of 270 short tons (240 t) of supplies by Luftflotte 1, Hitler ordered that the surrounded divisions hold their positions until relieved. The pocket contained two fairly capable airfields at Demyansk and Peski. From the middle of February, the weather improved significantly, and while there was still considerable snow on the ground at this time, resupply operations were generally very successful due to weakness of the Red Air Forces in the area. However the operation did use up all of the Luftwaffe's transport capability, as well as elements of their bomber force.

Aurelian -> RE: Historical accuracy of Air dropping fuel (11/23/2013 10:17:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: STEF78 quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian quote: ORIGINAL: Pelton They land the supplys on runways aka fields, very easy to do once ground is froozen for both sides. There were allot of pockets that had supplies flown in to them during the war GHC and SHC. List them. With sources that can be checked. Demyansk Pocket http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demyansk_Pocket After being assured that the pocket could be supplied with its daily requirement of 270 short tons (240 t) of supplies by Luftflotte 1, Hitler ordered that the surrounded divisions hold their positions until relieved. The pocket contained two fairly capable airfields at Demyansk and Peski. From the middle of February, the weather improved significantly, and while there was still considerable snow on the ground at this time, resupply operations were generally very successful due to weakness of the Red Air Forces in the area. However the operation did use up all of the Luftwaffe's transport capability, as well as elements of their bomber force. The key word is airfields. I read it, and saw no mention of frozen ground. Pelton equates frozen ground the same as a runway. Which isn't so.

lastkozak -> RE: Historical accuracy of Air dropping fuel (11/23/2013 10:38:25 PM)
If they used frozen ground only, and not airfields, then the Germans should not be allowed to do such except in winter. Personally, if one had ever seen the steppes when frozen, they would realize frozen or not frozen, one cannot land a plane on a bumpy farmer's field; uneven land is worse when it is frozen! Airstrips still need a certain level of flat surface to land and take off. Even the British knew the lawn had to be cut, lest the types of turf and weeds clump and create raised bumps. Further any field can easily be filled with ground hog holes, thus any field needs a certain amount of repairing so that it is useable. When one is trying to find accurate history on such topics, it is important not to refer to 'folk' history of such accounts, nor websites of low caliber. One can find any website saying something, but as to whether it is truthful is dependent upon the source. And wikipedia is not considered a reference by educational institutions in my country, not even for high school students.

Brandle -> RE: Historical accuracy of Air dropping fuel (11/25/2013 1:31:25 PM)
I think hey used the surfaces of frozen lakes to land. The wiki seems like a good summary to me. Did you see anything specific in the Demyansk page that caught your eye as incorrect?

Mehring -> RE: Historical accuracy of Air dropping fuel (11/25/2013 2:56:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brandle I think hey used the surfaces of frozen lakes to land. The wiki seems like a good summary to me. Did you see anything specific in the Demyansk page that caught your eye as incorrect? Compacted snow can be made to even out moderately uneven ground. Perhaps lastkozak objects to wiki because it's free. I've always found it a useful source.

Schmart -> RE: Historical accuracy of Air dropping fuel (11/25/2013 4:28:22 PM)
This topic was discussed at length previously. Can't find the thread right now. No, these long-term and large scale fuel or supply drops did not occur frequently. We all know about Stalingrad, and then there was the reasonably successful Demyansk Pocket (Winter 41-42), which is what Goering based his ability/belief on to be able to supply the Stalingrad pocket. IIRC, Demyansk involved pretty much the entire JU-52 transport fleet, which suffered significant losses, to keep a 1/2 dozen depleted divisions alive just barely long enough to break out. This is not the same as flying in tons of fuel to Panzer spreaheads on offensive operations... Unfortunately for the 6th Army, the success of Demyansk was not easily repeatable nor scalable. And no, natural grass fields, compacted snow, and frozen lakes do not automatically transform at the snap of one's fingers into easy landing strips for heavy transport planes. There's much more work involved, often requiring heavy engineering equipment.

lastkozak -> RE: Historical accuracy of Air dropping fuel (11/25/2013 4:28:22 PM)
Compacted snow is very possible, but then you need certain temperatures and thickness, and basically a certain type of snow. Igloos can be made of snow, but they need certain types of snow! My point is that it is still going to take time and engineers to lay out a field. One cannot necessarily find flat surfaces to land on, all over the countryside! Especially ones that can handle larger aircraft! Those engineers need equipment, bulldozers and back hoes. They also need time, based upon the quantity of people they have in the unit. Have you ever tried to grade your back yard when laying new grass seed or sod? It is not easy. It may look flat, but then the soft spots sink in a bit, and it is all rough. Such would cause airplanes to bounce when they land, resulting in less control and requiring a longer runway. Further snow and ice are hard to break on, also requiring longer runways to slow the planes down. They did not have the ability to reverse engines in those days. You dropped power and hit the breaks. Mehring, I would strongly ask that you not guess or publish your opinion as to what you think my motivations for being opposed to wiki are. Until they can control the input and verify that all sources and references are indeed peer reviewed and valid sources, they will always be a publication loaded with 'folk history' rather than historical truth and historical evidence. By all means use wiki, to get the jist of some topic, and or begin to know what you are looking for, but to use it as a source, is like using Joe Smoe at the supermarket to decide what stocks to buy! Wikipedia can easily be influenced and load up on the kind of history 'they' want you to know! I am sure there is a page there that indicates that the USA won WW2 all on its own, and had they not come in, the world would be occupied by the Nazis! They probably list Vietnam as a victory too!

Brandle -> RE: Historical accuracy of Air dropping fuel (11/25/2013 5:52:27 PM)
Thats ok, USA's history is overrated and the Maple Leafs who have not won anything since pre-Tet are smoking hot.

lastkozak -> RE: Historical accuracy of Air dropping fuel (11/25/2013 7:45:06 PM)
Tet Offensive was 1968. Last Stanley Cup the Leafs won was 1967 against Montreal.

Brandle -> RE: Historical accuracy of Air dropping fuel (11/25/2013 7:54:11 PM)
Do you understand pre- means before? Pre-Tet = before 1968

carlkay58 -> RE: Historical accuracy of Air dropping fuel (11/25/2013 9:48:10 PM)
There are quite a few historical examples of air supply of fuel, stores, and ammo. The final drive by the Italians to conquer Ethiopia was completely supplied by air. It included live cattle being airdropped from SM79s. The British did a complete study in the mid 30s on how to supply armored units by air. They actually used it in North Africa for small (company or smaller) units such as the LRDG. They never really needed it past that in the European theater but both Britain and the US used aerial supply lines in the Pacific theater - especially in Burma. Guderian and several other German generals refer to aerial supply of fuel and stores during the 1941 campaign. Note that these cases were supplying battalions or smaller and the amount of time to have the air strip marked, the aircraft landed and unloaded, and the transfer to the combat units was measured in days - usually two to three days for a battalion. This has been reflected in the change on fuel drops in 7.11. There were actual air drops of ammo and stores in 1941 and 42 to front line units, usually in bad weather (i.e. Blizzard or Mud) situations. And of course Stalingrad where it was proven that even with full support at all command levels supplying more than a division or two was pretty much unfeasible. When a force is surrounded, the amount of troops needed to safeguard the air strips needed for supply is greater than the amount of supply able to be flown in. No, there are no examples of successful mass supply of large units such as corps and armies. At most the air was able to supplement existing supply lines, not replace them altogether.

carlkay58 -> RE: Historical accuracy of Air dropping fuel (11/25/2013 9:57:37 PM)
OOPS

lastkozak -> RE: Historical accuracy of Air dropping fuel (11/26/2013 2:39:01 PM)
So, when air dropping fuel and supplies, it was only sort of successful in small groups, and in larger groups took massive casualties in Transports, so why even after the latest patch is it so effective, and why do the Germans not run out of Ju52's? Is this a design flaw or ignorance of history, or an attempt to give the Germans a better chance?

misesfan -> RE: Historical accuracy of Air dropping fuel (11/27/2013 12:55:24 AM)
A simple Google search shows that Pelton is correct - wide-ranged use of air to resupply encircled troops by the Wehrmacht - examples from the first page were Korsun, Demyansk, and Rzhev (!!). Sources include the US Army center of military history. As far as use of fuel in panzer operations - the game isnt modelling the Western Front circa 1944. In the East Front, Germany was still able to gain local superiority in certain sectors throughout the war.

SigUp -> RE: Historical accuracy of Air dropping fuel (11/27/2013 4:44:21 AM)
The question isn't whether this was utilized, everybody knows it was. The question is its effectiveness. And there is a major difference between keeping a few divisions in a pocket (barely) alive and supplying panzers which are rushing forward by air only.

misesfan -> RE: Historical accuracy of Air dropping fuel (11/27/2013 9:28:41 AM)
There were significant air supply drops in both the west and east theaters throughout the war. I read somewhere that in France, 1940, near Abbeville, the Germans airlifted around 400 tons of fuel in one day. (no source, I forget where I read that.) The effectiveness is arguable, given the stupidity of the infamous Halt order at Dunkirk. But the capacity to crush the British armed forces was certainly a potential outcome.

swkuh -> RE: Historical accuracy of Air dropping fuel (11/27/2013 3:18:58 PM)
Well, IMHO, the game is allowing fueling up far-flung large Panzer forces for deep penetrations. That seems a-historical from my knowledge. The other guy should have a lot to say about that possibility. Perhaps beyond current game engines' capabilities.

lastkozak -> RE: Historical accuracy of Air dropping fuel (11/27/2013 3:39:00 PM)
Well, I can see an infantry unit or units being supplied, especially if they are not going too far, or their fuel requirements were minimal, but a Tank Division being kept in fuel and shells? That is not possible beyond subsistence! If pocketed I can see them trying it, but as a main supply source? Or even a supplemental supply source, I do no think it would make an impact! But in the game it does!

SigUp -> RE: Historical accuracy of Air dropping fuel (11/27/2013 3:44:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pwieland There were significant air supply drops in both the west and east theaters throughout the war. I read somewhere that in France, 1940, near Abbeville, the Germans airlifted around 400 tons of fuel in one day. (no source, I forget where I read that.) The effectiveness is arguable, given the stupidity of the infamous Halt order at Dunkirk. But the capacity to crush the British armed forces was certainly a potential outcome. I doubt that number. If you look above at the post of Aurelian, even on the best day of the Stalingrad airlift only 362 tons were flown in by about 190 planes.

Schmart -> RE: Historical accuracy of Air dropping fuel (11/27/2013 7:38:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pwieland A simple Google search shows that Pelton is correct - wide-ranged use of air to resupply encircled troops by the Wehrmacht - examples from the first page were Korsun, Demyansk, and Rzhev (!!). Sources include the US Army center of military history. As far as use of fuel in panzer operations - the game isnt modelling the Western Front circa 1944. In the East Front, Germany was still able to gain local superiority in certain sectors throughout the war. Yes it was used on many occasions, but it was rarely successful on a large scale. Demyansk is pretty much the only example, and even then it was only used in a defensive/survival operation. Supplies (especially fuel) consumed during defensive operations are far less than in offensive operations. If air supply should be as effective as can be represented in WitE, then there would be more historical examples of entire Panzer Armies roving behind enemy lines, being supplied primarily from airlift. The fact that there are no such examples, directly implies the ineffectiveness/inability of of such operations. It's one thing to fly in supplies to a stranded Panzer Company/Battalion to keep it moving for another couple days. It's something entirely else to supply an entire Corps, let alone Army.

SigUp -> RE: Historical accuracy of Air dropping fuel (11/27/2013 7:40:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Schmart quote: ORIGINAL: pwieland A simple Google search shows that Pelton is correct - wide-ranged use of air to resupply encircled troops by the Wehrmacht - examples from the first page were Korsun, Demyansk, and Rzhev (!!). Sources include the US Army center of military history. As far as use of fuel in panzer operations - the game isnt modelling the Western Front circa 1944. In the East Front, Germany was still able to gain local superiority in certain sectors throughout the war. Yes it was used on many occasions, but it was rarely successful on a large scale. Demyansk is pretty much the only example, and even then it was only used in a defensive/survival operation. Supplies (especially fuel) consumed during defensive operations are far less than in offensive operations. If air supply should be as effective as can be represented in WitE, then there would be more historical examples of entire Panzer Armies roving behind enemy lines, being supplied primarily from airlift. The fact that there are no such examples, directly implies the ineffectiveness/inability of of such operations. It's one thing to fly in supplies to a stranded Panzer Company/Battalion to keep it moving for another couple days. It's something entirely else to supply an entire Corps, let alone Army. If this was possible the Western Allies with the ressources at their disposal would have been plenty stupid not to do it when they ran into supply troubles after the breakout from Normandy.

Schmart -> RE: Historical accuracy of Air dropping fuel (11/27/2013 7:47:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SigUp quote: ORIGINAL: pwieland There were significant air supply drops in both the west and east theaters throughout the war. I read somewhere that in France, 1940, near Abbeville, the Germans airlifted around 400 tons of fuel in one day. (no source, I forget where I read that.) The effectiveness is arguable, given the stupidity of the infamous Halt order at Dunkirk. But the capacity to crush the British armed forces was certainly a potential outcome. I doubt that number. If you look above at the post of Aurelian, even on the best day of the Stalingrad airlift only 362 tons were flown in by about 190 planes. According to some stats, the Demyansk airlift maxed out at 544 tons in a single day, so technically it was possible. However, it took some time to get things organized enough for the Luftwaffe to get to even 300 tons a day. And that was a well organized, established, and sustained operation. 400 tons for a single day in a one-off operation? That would require multiple sorties by the entire Ju-52 fleet... That scale and success would likely be a well known operation. Interestingly, here's probably another major reason the Germans didn't/couldn't pull off more major airlift operations. The very last sentence of the link I provided above: "Secondly, the consumption of 42,155 tons of aviation fuel � roughly one-third of the Third Reich�s production of aviation fuel for one month � was an exorbitant waste of fuel that the Luftwaffe would later regret." Simply, these types of operations are horribly inefficient and expensive means of transporting men and supplies.

Schmart -> RE: Historical accuracy of Air dropping fuel (11/27/2013 7:56:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SigUp quote: ORIGINAL: Schmart quote: ORIGINAL: pwieland A simple Google search shows that Pelton is correct - wide-ranged use of air to resupply encircled troops by the Wehrmacht - examples from the first page were Korsun, Demyansk, and Rzhev (!!). Sources include the US Army center of military history. As far as use of fuel in panzer operations - the game isnt modelling the Western Front circa 1944. In the East Front, Germany was still able to gain local superiority in certain sectors throughout the war. Yes it was used on many occasions, but it was rarely successful on a large scale. Demyansk is pretty much the only example, and even then it was only used in a defensive/survival operation. Supplies (especially fuel) consumed during defensive operations are far less than in offensive operations. If air supply should be as effective as can be represented in WitE, then there would be more historical examples of entire Panzer Armies roving behind enemy lines, being supplied primarily from airlift. The fact that there are no such examples, directly implies the ineffectiveness/inability of of such operations. It's one thing to fly in supplies to a stranded Panzer Company/Battalion to keep it moving for another couple days. It's something entirely else to supply an entire Corps, let alone Army. If this was possible the Western Allies with the ressources at their disposal would have been plenty stupid not to do it when they ran into supply troubles after the breakout from Normandy. Exactly the point I made in the previous thread. If the Allies, with their thousands of transport planes and vast supplies of fuel didn't/couldn't do it, what makes the Germans able to do it with a couple hundred planes and a shoe-string fuel supply?

lastkozak -> RE: Historical accuracy of Air dropping fuel (11/27/2013 7:58:12 PM)
Indeed SigUp! In fact Operation market Garden was a call based upon supply limits. Patton was pissed, that they were giving the supplies for Monty's plan to end the war by Christmas! Further the allies, for many reasons, found it impossible to supply a reduced Airborne division. Their plan was to supply them for a day or two, at most 4 days. they never expected it to be a week! Patton only had a corps! Why not airdrop supplies from England to him? because they couldn't! For that matter why build mulberry ports at all? If all they had to do was airdrop supplies to the beachhead? No let me guess, they would land the planes on an improvised landing strip on the hard sand at low tide, right? (Or float a flat iceberg/ice-sheet down from Scapa Flow, so they could have an airstrip docked off the beach? Airdrop supplies, is not possible for an Offensive Panzer Armees! The game should at least allow this to be an option, but not allow Panzer divisions to receive supplies this way, or the units need to be isolated first, or the computer does not let you do it.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

4.078003