Grisha
Posts: 355
Joined: 5/11/2000 From: Seattle Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Flaviusx The replacement situation gets increasingly tight as the war goes on, and you'll probably have to stagger your offensives with the Red Army in 1944 the way the Sovs did with Bagration. Already I was having to be extremely careful about refits towards the end of 1943, sharply limiting which units got constant flows of manpower to build up some kind of a reserve to deal with run down rifle formations. Running an offensive across the entire front will dramatically increase your losses and risk burning out the Red Army at this stage. I agree for the most part. I wonder if it might be possible to put on a counteroffensive in 1943 that follows the 1944 pattern of layered strategic deception. If so, then losses might be lighter--though Kursk will always be Kursk. Personally, I don't think the Soviet's development of armored force structure was going to mature until the operations of 1944. Tank army TOE really didn't become refined until then. For instance, I doubt a tank army in 1943 could have done what Rybalko's 3rd Guards did in the Vistula-Oder operation of 1945. It would be fun to give a go in WitE though! Lastly, a question back to you. Do losses impact future replacement levels, or are replacement levels hard-wired chronologically? For example, will lighter than historical losses for a side result in greater replacement factors in future? I realize it's not that cut and dried especially as there were factors outside the theater, but I would think such things would have some impact.
_____________________________
Best regards, Greg Guerrero
|