|
MSAG -> RE: A tale from '42 - AlbertN vs MSAG (1/9/2022 10:38:57 AM)
|
SOVIET COMMENTS CONTINUED (3)
FALL 42 and WINTER 42
Autumn has brought slowdown in the Axis offensive operations across the front. AlbertN kept attacking Leningrad (beyond reasonable hope to rescue by then) but in other sectors his actions become a little … opportunistic. He pounded to oblivion (in many ways he has been doing so till now) any weaker spots in the front but it seems that the “great offensive” mindset that was clear in his playing style is not there anymore. Probably it is unavoidable. We all suffer from “historical hindsight” (and WITE2 hindsight as well by now) – we know what to expect from our troops and from enemy’s.
I have my hindsight as well I admit – so I prepared the great Stalingrad offensive and a bunch of smaller ones in other sectors to make sure Axis reserves are engaged in other places as well. I decided for the frontal push without any fancy surrounding attempts because first, I believe that the balance of power is clearly in favour of Axis comparing to history (so they can break any kessel easily), and second, my supply situation in the south was not as good as I could wish. I also wanted to gain experience and morale for my troops and get some Guards upgrades (I have only about half as many Guards Rifle troops as I could have had had my army been more successful).
The URANUS offensive was, in general, the major disappointment. Only limited local successes were achieved. Plusses first. Going after Panzer and PzG Divisions (the latter are still called Mot Infantry but seem to have their own Armor units now) and causing them to retreat can to be really rewarding. In any panzer battle there seems to be a lot of damaged tanks and in case of retreat big portion of them is left on the battlefield and lost. So it is always (from T1) worth to make Pz Division retreat.
Negatives – almost all the rest. Axis skilful counterattacks pushed my forces back. The losses balance was like 3:1 or 4:1 against me. And my units started to go on “limited supply” in no time. My offensive lacked the power. And it should have had it! (power that is). I have Depots aplenty. And most of the action was happening not far from the National Supply Source in Saratov.
I slowly realized that something was wrong. I must have been mismanaging some aspects of my army. After 2-3 turns all my mighty Rifle Corps became the “10+” shadows of the former selves (fully rested and supplied, 60 morale GRC can have AV of 35). I tried to shuffle the SUs, beefing my GRSs up for a turn to AV of 15 lets say. But that does not work really. The transferred units have no CPP. And they require supply themselves. So supply situation becomes worse on the next turn. Something is clearly not right …
SUPPLY and VEHICLE (MIS)MANAGEMENT
I believe that Vehicles are my “Achilles heel”. The game does not report any “hard” limits of Vehicles needed in the Pool and in the Depots so it is a little difficult to formulate strong opinions. However, for the first time during my present game with AlbertN I stared to see units very close to the Depot with supply status of 50% and sometimes less (Soviets have the advantage of fighting on their own soil with developed rail network and the National Supply Sources close).
I am afraid I over-mechanized my army. While I refrained from building more than a dozen of Tank Corps I have created all possible Mech Corps + a lot of Artillery units. That has increased substantially the demand for Vehicles in the units. I was hoping that the increased lend-lease Vehicle allotment should help (from 800 in 1942 to 4500 in 1943), and it probably will, but most likely only in time.
During the last 2 turns I have performed the vehicle demand driven downsizing. Some Tank Brigades, 2 Mech Corps, lots of motorized artillery units have been disbanded. I went with “unit vehicle demand” from 220K to 190K. That should add up to 50% to my transport capacity for Depots.
I will see how it works in the next couple of turns.
|
|
|
|
