A Declassified, unbiased look at the German logistical issues on the Eastern Front 1941. (Full Version)

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



Message

Peltonx -> A Declassified, unbiased look at the German logistical issues on the Eastern Front 1941. (7/10/2016 6:36:44 PM)

Shortly after December 7th 1941 the USA is now part of the WA fighting against Germany.

The question before President Roosevelt and the rest of the free world was:

Could Germany in 1942 finish off Russia and turn west again before the USA had time to gather the strength to be felt across 2 Oceans.

The task of answering this question was given to the OCI later to become The Office of Strategic Services of War Information
or OSS headed by “Wild” Bill Donovan a precursor to the CIA. Bill was also known as the Father of the CIA.

Information was gathered from all allied, governments, armed forces and intelligent branches.
At this time the OCI had no political axe to grind, no history to rewrite.
It had to answer a central question based on data/facts.

As Chaos/Flaviusx/MT and others have stated we can believe what we want to support which even side we want, but here we have a study that has to be honest as best it can.
Because the free world is at risk and its leaders need to make decisions based on what is really going on and not what they wish was
going on over the last year.

The world was in the balance and there is no room for politics or just so fairytales.

The study was printed March 25th 1942 and later reviewed by CIA and other offices not for political reasons, but because this was the first of its kind and going forward was critical for our leaders to make decisions based on the facts on the ground. It was a ground breaking study that is the model many governments still use to this day in the area of logistics and intelligences gathering.
I am not sure how 2by3 is modelling unit consumption, but this report does quantify divisional consumption. What is also very helpful is it corrects the March 1942 report with new information gathered after the war. Like the areas where unit consumptions was high, low, corrects Halder in area ect ect. It was critical to get things right going forward so the next war leaders would be given better information over all. I would think 2by3 would want to base 2.0 consumption rates on an unbiased historical model.
The report also splits the information by AGN/AGC/AGC, time periods, battle tempo, rail tonnage required, transport capacity, rail line conversion rates, ect.

It also gives conclusions.

Again to be clear this is not some one writing a book to make coin, the victors retelling history or the losing Generals blaming
someone else for the lost battles and war.

Quote: With respects to the past , what happened in 1941, the estimate was right that there had been no over-all supply deficiency but that there has been temporary and local ones and that intervals of comparative quiet on the fronts reflected time required to build up supplies for a new push. But the aggregated figures for supply requirements and transport capacity supporting this conclusion were inflated by compounding errors to several times those revealed in the Halder notes and other sources.
.

As stated the study was not perfect, but corrected over time so I would think this would be the best model to use when 2by3 is
making the logistics model for 2.0


https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol6no4/pdf/v06i4a07p.pdf



swkuh -> RE: A Declassified, unbiased look at the German logistical issues on the Eastern Front 1941. (7/10/2016 10:26:55 PM)

KUDOS your contribution...



Peltonx -> RE: A Declassified, unbiased look at the German logistical issues on the Eastern Front 1941. (7/11/2016 2:35:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rrbill

KUDOS your contribution...


Thanks bro, but the real question is anyone listening?

I have sent this data to 2by3 and morveal before posting it here with zip for a response.

Will game be based on this Earth or Middle Earth?





RKhan -> RE: A Declassified, unbiased look at the German logistical issues on the Eastern Front 1941. (7/11/2016 7:47:05 AM)

Pelton,

Thank you as well for this report which is interesting reading.

However, you seem to suggest that this report, written at the time, and with the best of intentions, is somehow superior to any research that came later. Perhaps it is, but that does not necessarily follow. There are a large number of intelligence reports, written for the same reasons, which later turned out to be false (again, not saying this one is).

The best measure of Axis logistic capability is surely what the Axis actually achieved in fact, not an American view of it beforehand. If you don't think the definite research on this topic has yet been produced then perhaps you should have a go at it. I would look forward to reading that work. There are plenty of military history magazines which might even publish it.

R




robinsa -> RE: A Declassified, unbiased look at the German logistical issues on the Eastern Front 1941. (7/11/2016 11:51:44 AM)

I find it interesting that a slow advance require more ammunition per unit than a major push. I guess any OPFOR is dealt with quicker in a major push and thus reduce the use of munitions?



morvael -> RE: A Declassified, unbiased look at the German logistical issues on the Eastern Front 1941. (7/11/2016 11:59:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Thanks bro, but the real question is anyone listening?

I have sent this data to 2by3 and morveal before posting it here with zip for a response.



I found and read that study before.

Anyway, I'm not really involved in WitE2 development process (though I really hope to find some time to test it as a normal tester), so me listening (or not) will have no impact on that game. And it's too late in WitE1 cycle to change major assumptions made in the supply system.



chaos45 -> RE: A Declassified, unbiased look at the German logistical issues on the Eastern Front 1941. (7/11/2016 1:20:35 PM)

The statistics are off in this report, as it shows 35.1 tons of ammunition use for almost all categories.

Any logistics officer know Ammunition and fuel are your two biggest categories of supply tonnage in a combat environment. So the person writing the report showing the same ammunition useage for all but one category shows me the research is fluffed by the writer.

Unbiased or not they didnt do thorough research on ammunition useage at the minimum.



Bozo_the_Clown -> RE: A Declassified, unbiased look at the German logistical issues on the Eastern Front 1941. (7/11/2016 1:54:24 PM)

quote:

Thanks bro, but the real question is anyone listening?

I have sent this data to 2by3 and morveal before posting it here with zip for a response.

Will game be based on this Earth or Middle Earth?


This is high school level. Let me take that back. This is middle school level. You take a "study" you like, claim that it is unbiased and then try to use it to influence game design. In the process you ignore 70 years of research on the subject. LOL

If I were you I would leave game design to the professionals.



darbycmcd -> RE: A Declassified, unbiased look at the German logistical issues on the Eastern Front 1941. (7/11/2016 3:06:35 PM)

Pelton, this is why it is so hard to take you seriously. This doesn't even say what you think it says. The document you posted is a commentary on the study, remarking that the previous OCI study was noteworthy not because of its accuracy but because it was innovative. And your fixation on historical outcomes rather than process shows... maybe you could strengthen your understanding of simulation and military operations principles.

Your own quote demonstrates the issue. No one is arguing that Germany could not supply, in a general and long-term sense, its forces in the field. There was no equivalent of the shell crisis of WWI. But think about what it means, in game terms, to say there were "temporary and local (supply deficiencies) and that intervals of comparative quiet on the fronts reflected time required to build up supplies for a new push".... That is exactly what is in the game. When you have to stop your Panzer-ball warp speed rush for a couple turns to let the rails catch up, that is exactly what the quote refers to. Both the original study and this review paper also don´t really explore in detail the problem of moving supplies from forward rail-heads to units using trucks, with a truck fleet that even Halder points out on 18 Nov had a 30% attrition rate and further 55% needing repair. There are different problems at different times and require different understandings. The early war logistics leash was the rate of conversion of Soviet rail system (not just the rails themselves as many have pointed out) but by late Barbarossa, Typhoon period had changed to be motor transport. But in both periods the German army fought with very serious logistical constraints. Because the original paper does not address this issue, neither does this paper because this paper is not talking about details of East Front logistics, it is talking about flaws in an earlier study....

Also, you fail to point out what this review believes is the largest single reason the earlier estimate for supply consumption was too high. "Probably the greatest single source of error in estimating requirements was the unspoken assumption that except for the 12.8% attrition allowed in numbers of divisions the armies had been kept up to strength in men and material, whereas in fact they had fallen to about half of original combat strength" (p. A26)

Do you normally see your German combat force down to around 50% before the winter push? I somehow doubt it. You cannot use historical outcomes (there was adequate supply seems to be your point) without using the historical context (because of high attrition of German forces) and make a statement that is useful in game terms. Really what you are saying using this study is that the German army should have no problem supplying half its force for offensive operations by late 41.... well, ok, congrats, I think we all agree with that.



HMSWarspite -> RE: A Declassified, unbiased look at the German logistical issues on the Eastern Front 1941. (7/11/2016 6:06:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton


quote:

ORIGINAL: rrbill

KUDOS your contribution...


Thanks bro, but the real question is anyone listening?

I have sent this data to 2by3 and morveal before posting it here with zip for a response.

Will game be based on this Earth or Middle Earth?





How long before you posted here did you give them? You don't suppose they want time to read and consider it? Its been less than a day since you posted. I don't always get back to my boss that fast, and he pays me!

And please please please will you not start the Middle Earth references again.



robinsa -> RE: A Declassified, unbiased look at the German logistical issues on the Eastern Front 1941. (7/11/2016 7:38:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: robinsa

I find it interesting that a slow advance require more ammunition per unit than a major push. I guess any OPFOR is dealt with quicker in a major push and thus reduce the use of munitions?

Does anyone have a good explanation for this? I'm getting really curious if this is actually the case and if so why. On the other hand I might just have misread the report (or its faulty).



darbycmcd -> RE: A Declassified, unbiased look at the German logistical issues on the Eastern Front 1941. (7/11/2016 9:41:50 PM)

I think it is the term 'major push' which makes it confusing. It seems to mean faster moving ie less opposition, although now we use it to mean major offensive. It has more fuel and less ammo required than 'slow advance´ which probably means heavy resistance.... my guess.



pz501 -> RE: A Declassified, unbiased look at the German logistical issues on the Eastern Front 1941. (7/11/2016 10:15:21 PM)

The terms in the document ARE a bit confusing. I've read it, and the only comparisons I can make are some terms we used in the 1980's when I was working at the S-3 level as an Ops Sgt: To us a "Major Push" was something like a WW I set-piece attack involving entire Corps and Armies, or in WW II, something like 2nd Alamein, Operation Totalize, or for the East Front, the Vistula-Oder Operation. The term itself was considered dated or obsolete in that time period.

Instead, we used the term "sustained attack" to describe a fully supplied attack with planned rates of advance, lasting 2+ days conducted by an Army, Corps, or Division.

Either way, both a Major Push/Sustained Attack were both strategic/operational in scope.

That said, I'm still a little confused...it's not what the doc says, it's just how it's worded.



robinsa -> RE: A Declassified, unbiased look at the German logistical issues on the Eastern Front 1941. (7/11/2016 11:34:52 PM)

I think you guys are correct. Now I can put this to rest and sleep well tonight.

Edit. Thanks.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.718994