RE: Are VVS losses reasonable? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2



Message


Stamb -> RE: Are VVS losses reasonable? (2/4/2022 5:51:43 PM)

So it is 1 German fighter (as allies go straight to reserve/Soviet garrison) for 9 Soviets.




Jango32 -> RE: Are VVS losses reasonable? (2/4/2022 5:53:08 PM)

The officially admitted Russian fighter losses for the VVS, post-USSR (so the Krivosheev study) in 1941 are 9600 fighters, so I'd say the VVS losses align with the Krivosheev study.




Nikel -> RE: Are VVS losses reasonable? (2/4/2022 6:05:56 PM)

It would be even worse because you have not ended the year 1941 yet.

To what corresponds the 4th column? 47+101+13+372=533

Google translates it as stormtroopers. LOL [:)]

Would it be interceptors or fighter bombers?




Stamb -> RE: Are VVS losses reasonable? (2/4/2022 6:09:48 PM)

Tactical bombers
Like il 2

This type:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_aircraft

When you switch to russian wiki you get Штурмовик

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A8%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%BA




Nikel -> RE: Are VVS losses reasonable? (2/4/2022 6:24:34 PM)

Oh, I see.

Searching for "stormtroopers" in the translated workbook it appears also in tab 255, and includes IL-2 and IL-10.




vvs007 -> RE: Are VVS losses reasonable? (2/4/2022 7:16:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stamb

losses for a fighters are:

in the air combat: 1380
AA fire: 350
destroyed on the airfields: 1286
did not comeback from a sortie: 1400

total: 4416 fighters


plus 662 fighters PVO command (tab.258)
plus 400-500 fighters Sea command (VVS VMF) (tab.260)

total: at least 5500 fighters

the figures are similar, but different in the structure of losses.

the main problem is in the calculations that the Germans and Russians used completely different systems for accounting for "dead" aircraft. The Russians have everything that landed at the airfield, but could not fly out the next day - these are all combat losses, including aircraft transferred for repair (for example, in the Battle of Kursk transferred for repair about 70% of "combat" losses). The Germans, on the other hand, had a "damage-percentage system", only an aircraft was considered in combat losses if it was 100% destroyed. If an aircraft was found in the field by advancing german tanks, and the rear services sent it to the Reich, but the report shows 85% damage, then such an aircraft was not included in combat losses. At the factory, it could be melted down or restored.

in the game we expect the same accounting system, and it is very difficult to make it.

in any case, the lethality of German fighters is too high. For example, near Kursk in July 43, there were 90% of all Lufftwaffe fighters on the Eastern front. The losses of the Germans to at least 684 aircraft (damage more 60%)*, the Russians had at least 2558 aircraft (taking into account non-combat and not restored under repair).

The 2nd Air Army made 10,366 sorties during the day and 2,562 sorties at night from 5/07/43 to 23/07/43, with a loss of 437 aircraft. Almost 30 sorties for 1 aircraft loss. These are the most intense air battles of the entire war. Compare with what is in the WITE2 air war :)

_______
*the figure was calculated from German archives or restored from russian reports of inspection of captured airfields, etc. . historian Vitaly Gorbach (unfortunately his books and films are not published in English)

an estimate of 60% is applied - which quite accurately reflects whether the aircraft will be restored or disassembled for spare parts. But as we remember, there are "no losses" in German documents :)






Stamb -> RE: Are VVS losses reasonable? (2/4/2022 7:40:26 PM)

That is why I made this topic. Current system for Soviets air war is very brutal, probably the only 1 area where Soviets are not overpowered :) and underperform




RC01214 -> RE: Are VVS losses reasonable? (2/4/2022 8:52:31 PM)

Didn't Russian and German tank losses irl also have the same issue as you described?




vvs007 -> RE: Are VVS losses reasonable? (2/4/2022 11:26:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RC01214

Didn't Russian and German tank losses irl also have the same issue as you described?


yes, something similar... as long as there is hope to restore the tank, it is not considered lost for Wehrmacht,
indicative February 43 - irretrievable losses of 1842 medium and heavy tanks and self-propelled guns per month!. For all 1942 year only 2562... what happened in February 43? written off in combat losses, all tanks and spgs that remained near Stalingrad, because the hope for repairs died with the Sixth Army.

the main combat losses = tanks left on the battlefield , quite possible for repair(2/3 and more?) ... but, this mechanic is just implemented in WITE 2 at a good level. The difference is immediately visible, if the Panzer division retreated or hold. Thx to DEV!

Russians, again, in combat losses include what cannot be repaired on the first line (in the workshops of the brigade) ... some repaired at tank factories were included as well as the release of new ones. Overestimated immediately factories output and losses. If Stalin knew how we are racking our brains over this here, he would have taken into account the German system as more advantageous in terms of loss ratios ;)










Jango32 -> RE: Are VVS losses reasonable? (2/4/2022 11:53:44 PM)

There's a world of difference between total loss and recoverable loss. All the major combatants differentiated between the two.




MechFO -> RE: Are VVS losses reasonable? (2/5/2022 11:23:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vvs007

the main problem is in the calculations that the Germans and Russians used completely different systems for accounting for "dead" aircraft.

The Germans, on the other hand, had a "damage-percentage system", only an aircraft was considered in combat losses if it was 100% destroyed. If an aircraft was found in the field by advancing german tanks, and the rear services sent it to the Reich, but the report shows 85% damage, then such an aircraft was not included in combat losses. At the factory, it could be melted down or restored.

an estimate of 60% is applied - which quite accurately reflects whether the aircraft will be restored or disassembled for spare parts. But as we remember, there are "no losses" in German documents :)


Writeoffs, and thus reported losses, at the unit level could happen down to damage % of maybe 20-30%, depending on circumstances. A damaged plane that they thought could be repaired and staid with the unit-> not a write off,

an undamaged plane that couldn't be moved with the unit-> write off

Relevant as that the plane was located with the unit and was moved with it.

Total loss numbers are roughly correct. What is unclear and subject to much interpretation is cause and the timing of the cause of loss.

First, what share of losses are combat losses? F.e. is a 20% combat damaged plane that was abandoned counted as a combat or non combat loss? Is a plane with a few non relevant bullet holes that has a landing accident a combat or non combat loss? etc.

There were no central guidlines on these matters so reporting varied by period and unit. Furthermore, the time of actual incident that caused the loss is not reported, only the write off date. A write off in August could be caused by an incident in June. This makes it hard to pin down exact losses by combat in a certain period.

This can lead to a unit that has less planes shot down but suffers more damaged planes, could report higher combat write offs than another unit that has more planes shot down but staid on it's base for a few weeks more.

Planes that were handed off to higher level repairshops are recorded as such, if those planes are lost at a later date then it won't show in the unit loss reports, as the planes have already been booked out, but will show up in higher level loss report. However, the numbers of aircraft going to higher level workshops is fairly small in all the reporting sheets I've looked at. The Luftwaffe had a very primitive repair system in the East.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vvs007
If an aircraft was found in the field by advancing german tanks, and the rear services sent it to the Reich, but the report shows 85% damage, then such an aircraft was not included in combat losses.


That is an outright fantasy.





vvs007 -> RE: Are VVS losses reasonable? (2/6/2022 2:02:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

The loss rate per sortie is much too high. Losing 200 planes from being intercepted by 50 just never happened. Reasonably a WITE2 sortie covers several real life sorties, since several sorties a day were normal, but even then units would have ceased operations long before being wiped out in this manner.


Good explanation, but the mechanics of the game considers this to be a single sortie, and the german fighters can be used somewhere else because they did not spend all their miles. And the Russian bombers did not inflict any damage, as if they were shot down all at once, and not in a week of fighting, as it could be. And if they flew for a week, then some part should have hit targets. In fact, this mechanic is broken... and our PRO players need to figure out how to fix it.

quote:

Total loss numbers are roughly correct.


in a super match of our PRO players loki100 vs Speedysteve

on September 12, 1943 losses 14.5k vs 47.3k

if we assume that during the entire war the combat losses of the USSR aircraft amounted to 45.6 thousand, and the Germans plus minors were at least 30 thousand on the eastern front, then it is difficult to agree with your conclusion. In his pre-release match for USSR, loki100 lost 68 thousand aircraft against 18, which is much worse than the real result.

Maybe our main great experimenter HLYA in his party for the Russians will show how to make Soviet aviation great again :)

exchanges of 1 to 15, 1 to 20, 1 to 25 for 43 year look like pure fantasy, in a real war this was not even close. Again, if we consider real non-returnable combat losses, using the same method for both sides.





Zovs -> RE: Are VVS losses reasonable? (2/6/2022 2:18:27 PM)

Based those numbers the loss ratio is 30.65% so in the game this seems very reasonable.




Zovs -> RE: Are VVS losses reasonable? (2/6/2022 2:20:54 PM)

That is the loss ratio comparison of both sides. We would need the data of numbers of sorties vs these losses.




Zovs -> RE: Are VVS losses reasonable? (2/6/2022 2:24:24 PM)

For the last value:

26.47% of 68000 = 18000

For the first value:

30.65% of 47300 = 14500




AlbertN -> RE: Are VVS losses reasonable? (2/6/2022 3:27:35 PM)

I think people again are getting exceedingly into number crunching - that would require pratically an exact repeat in game of each and every historical deed - than the general feel for the game.

Besides players may make little to less use of their airforces - til the bombing is not sorted out. It seems last beta patch did something in this direction.

For now in the 'Air Supply' war the losses are not heinous for the Reds.
And I believe in most cases the air battles we saw are pratically rested and full strenght LW against Soviets, not some overstretched thin and fatigued LW due to constant action... because the game has not warranted any aerial constant action.




Stamb -> RE: Are VVS losses reasonable? (2/11/2022 6:23:59 PM)

Another examples:

[image]https://i.imgur.com/gi1rkL7.png[/image]

[image]https://i.imgur.com/rIiS56k.png[/image]

It is almost complete wipe of VVS

Can not imagine that IRL it was 1:10, 1:20




Zovs -> RE: Are VVS losses reasonable? (2/11/2022 6:27:42 PM)

What is the exp and morale of both sides fighters?




Zebtucker12 -> RE: Are VVS losses reasonable? (2/11/2022 6:36:05 PM)

That is actually unsustainble losses for the germans not soviets.




Stamb -> RE: Are VVS losses reasonable? (2/11/2022 6:40:26 PM)

Not sure how SKILL is calculated, is it an average from a group?

[image]local://upfiles/82464/C899E00F8A7545869C0DD5FBE40CAFBF.jpg[/image]




Stamb -> RE: Are VVS losses reasonable? (2/11/2022 6:41:51 PM)

And my AOG is 85 exp, 90 morale




Stamb -> RE: Are VVS losses reasonable? (2/11/2022 6:44:41 PM)

And few more pilots, but you got an idea

[image]local://upfiles/82464/8E28D9B885C341419A431769DFC05FEE.jpg[/image]




Stamb -> RE: Are VVS losses reasonable? (2/11/2022 6:45:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zebtucker12

That is actually unsustainble losses for the germans not soviets.

you will change it in your mode, right? ;)




AlbertN -> RE: Are VVS losses reasonable? (2/11/2022 7:17:24 PM)

I am speaking of Soviet bombers - when they get to bomb.

[image]local://upfiles/36315/E34A2541B29B4C498B4C0BA2463D0E36.jpg[/image]




AlbertN -> RE: Are VVS losses reasonable? (2/11/2022 11:56:27 PM)

There - it's just a pattern.
Easily recreable.

Start a new game vs the AI, do your things, and see how many guns start to go ablaze for the Germans as soon as they're pratically out of fighter cover and attack -anything-.

Flak has also turned entirely useless for what concerns the Germans.

[image]local://upfiles/36315/4397D21E12E447EE8C313C595AA35663.jpg[/image]




AlbertN -> RE: Are VVS losses reasonable? (2/12/2022 12:19:03 AM)

Just another screenshot for the sake of it.

12 Soviet bombers blast away 10 ATs and 4 real artillery pieces ontop of other stuff.

The real problem (besides how quality these pilots are!) is that the Germans will be advancing out of their air umbrella for a long amount of time in '41, which translates in being beated down to pulps by bombers if the Soviets are attentive and leave their GS on.

[image]local://upfiles/36315/4F918FA15DE9413AAA50B5DD29DD7A60.jpg[/image]




RedJohn -> RE: Are VVS losses reasonable? (2/12/2022 12:19:21 AM)

Much like with most things to do with the air war, I believe it is overblown in it's impact but hey!




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.9365234