Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: "Battle for Moscow 1941-1943"

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> RE: "Battle for Moscow 1941-1943" Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: "Battle for Moscow 1941-1943" - 11/17/2010 10:00:41 PM   
PRUSSIAN TOM

 

Posts: 156
Joined: 10/23/2008
From: Los Angeles, Califonia
Status: offline
Excellent scenario, even if a regiment or two had the Panzer II or IV with the short caliber. I kind of LIKED getting to start on Sept. 30. If we are going to refight the battle (which was a strategic mistake due to the time wasted around Smolensk (deciding to go to Kiev or Moscow...the General Staff should really take the rap for that, not Hitler. They wasted more time argueing with him than the 3 or 4 day you give us).

(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 121
RE: "Battle for Moscow 1941-1943" - 11/17/2010 10:57:40 PM   
briantopp

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 8/28/2006
From: Toronto
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Indeed the equipment transition is tricky and I guess it will have to be tweaked again and again till its OK but that's the reason I suggest to use the really dates and production figures as starting point and from there you can move in the direction that is needed.

I would suggest to only withdraw Pz regiments and replace them with new ones if absolute necessary because the performance up to that point is erased because even if the old equipment lands in the pool the tank inventory of the new units will sometimes vary strongly from the old unit so you get a unit that is maybe much stronger or weaker than the one it replaces, as stated this is a disconnection to the performance the player made before and very unrealistic to a unit that stays on the frontline.
I only see that really necessary in April 43 when the basic layout of the Panzer units changes from PIII to PIV as main tank or of course if the unit moved out of the theater for a long time like the 6th & 7th Pz divisions(the 10th moved to Africa and was wiped out there)did.

BTW is there a reason not to move the starting date to the 2nd October when the rest of HG Mitte starts the offensive?(Besides Panzergruppe 2 starting already on the 30th September but you see its position on 1.10.41 in the evening so positioning them shouldn't be a problem).
I also thought about moving the starting date to a sooner date but with the half-week turns it just doesn't fit because the PG 2 has either 1 or even 2 days to much(not sure if the first turn covers 4 or 3 days) when getting the date in-line with the 2nd October when the rest attacks.


Basically it depends how important it is to get the "H"s cleanly phased out, the "J"s in place as the principal runners, and the
"L"s in place as a secondary weapon.

I set up a complete TO&E rebuild to see how it worked. It kind of feels like an old 8-track -- it goes ka-CHUNK on turn 54, distractingly -- and then the whole park is modernized for the rest of the game. Is that tolerable or goofy? All the panzers were basically out of commission then, historically. So it is not unlike what really happened (remembering that most AGN and AGC panzers were reduced to a single battalion, while AGS' panzer divisions were built up to three battalions for "blau").

The alternative might be:

At start:
IIIh 40/40 produce 14 per turn
IIIj 0/40
IIIL 0/10
IVe 10/10 produce 7 per turn
IV2 0/10

On turn 54:
Discontinue IIIh; begin production of IIIj 14 per turn
Discontinue IVe; begin production of IV2 7 per turn

On turn 78 or so:
Reduce IIIj to 7 per turn
Produce IIIL at 7 per turn

Roughly fits the production numbers you post and would simply transition the units through this equipment -- at the risk of having grab-bag units (as perhaps they were in real life).

(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 122
RE: "Battle for Moscow 1941-1943" - 11/17/2010 11:00:26 PM   
briantopp

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 8/28/2006
From: Toronto
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PRUSSIAN TOM

Excellent scenario, even if a regiment or two had the Panzer II or IV with the short caliber. I kind of LIKED getting to start on Sept. 30. If we are going to refight the battle (which was a strategic mistake due to the time wasted around Smolensk (deciding to go to Kiev or Moscow...the General Staff should really take the rap for that, not Hitler. They wasted more time argueing with him than the 3 or 4 day you give us).

I think phase one of the battle (to Nov 2nd or so) is pretty irresistible for the Axis given the opportunity (given poor Soviet deployment) to pocket western and Bryansk fronts -- more than 40 divisions, and several hundred kilometers of the line. The big issue is in late October/early November. To press on, or to pause, regroup, and wage a more deliberate compaign in 1942?

< Message edited by briantopp -- 11/17/2010 11:01:00 PM >

(in reply to PRUSSIAN TOM)
Post #: 123
RE: "Battle for Moscow 1941-1943" - 11/18/2010 12:02:22 AM   
PRUSSIAN TOM

 

Posts: 156
Joined: 10/23/2008
From: Los Angeles, Califonia
Status: offline
Sorry, I think the scenario is GREAT! I just ment that the entire Russian campaign was really handicapped by the September fued between Hitler and the General Staff. The General Staff gets the rap for wasting time (arguing with Hitler was a pretty much established waste of time by then! ). Hitler gets the rap for most of the other stupid mistakes in the campaign, including declaring war on Russia in 1941.

All of the scenarios are historical "What If's" (very fun "What if's in this case). I just ment that, given a hypothetical well researched re-run of Typhoon (long version), why not start a turn earlier. I've seen scenario's with a lot wilder speculations, that played out quite enjoyably (which is the major point for a lot of us consumers).

(in reply to briantopp)
Post #: 124
RE: "Battle for Moscow 1941-1943" - 11/18/2010 12:58:11 AM   
briantopp

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 8/28/2006
From: Toronto
Status: offline
Could do (we have the map for it). Wouldn't be hard to set up

(in reply to PRUSSIAN TOM)
Post #: 125
RE: "Battle for Moscow 1941-1943" - 11/18/2010 2:28:12 AM   
BigDuke66


Posts: 2013
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline
Re-thought post, see post # 130

< Message edited by BigDuke66 -- 11/18/2010 10:30:42 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to briantopp)
Post #: 126
RE: "Battle for Moscow 1941-1943" - 11/18/2010 3:05:53 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: briantopp
Not unreasonable given that, historically, the pz regiments were hollow shells by midwinter 42 and so not doing much on the front line.


Something like 140 tanks across 16 panzer divisions by the time the Soviet offensives died out.

I was wondering about the 50mm PAK38. I thought they were only available in very limited numbers until Spring 1942 and that the 37mm PAK36 "Heeresanklopfgerät" ("army door knocking device") was still the predominate infantry division AT gun until then.

< Message edited by Panama -- 11/18/2010 3:14:14 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to briantopp)
Post #: 127
RE: "Battle for Moscow 1941-1943" - 11/18/2010 8:45:31 PM   
Grymme

 

Posts: 1821
Joined: 12/16/2007
Status: offline
Hi

Sorry if going a little off topic here.

I noticed people are discussing the Germany and the second world series. I have only the volume IV book. Its an excellent book (the best one ive read when it comes to reading about preparations for the eastern campaign). However my copy lacks the annexe map volume.

I have contacted the german original publisher without reply and the bookstore that sold me the book said that OUP doesnt print the map volume any more. So my question is if anyone knows where you can get your hands on the 27p map volume that should come with the book. Purchase or digital.

Any help appreciated

Sincerely, Grymme

_____________________________

My Advanced Tactics Mod page
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com

30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G

(in reply to PRUSSIAN TOM)
Post #: 128
RE: "Battle for Moscow 1941-1943" - 11/18/2010 10:13:28 PM   
BigDuke66


Posts: 2013
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline
I can only advise to search for it on Ebay, its seldom sold separate from Volume 4 so it will take some time to find it.
Also I would look world wide for it, when I see for what the volume is sold on Amazon the price on Ebay may not be far behind and so even when finding the map book you will maybe have to pay very much, here in Germany the prices aren't that high I bought the complete series for an average price of 27,78Euros(including shipment) per book, so even the expensive shipment over the Atlantic shouldn't get the price as high as for what the book is sold in the US.

_____________________________


(in reply to Grymme)
Post #: 129
RE: "Battle for Moscow 1941-1943" - 11/18/2010 10:27:57 PM   
BigDuke66


Posts: 2013
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline
Regarding the Pz division layouts, should they start with the amount of "Abteilungen" they had in 1941?
If so than:
-3. PzD needs a 3rd Abteilung
-6. PzD needs a 3rd Abteilung(has already a third coming in April 42 but it had a third right from the start of Barbarossa and lost its 3rd in 42)
-7. PzD needs a 3rd Abteilung(has already a third coming in April 42 but it had a third right from the start of Barbarossa and lost its 3rd in 42)
-10. PzD moves out of theater in May 1942 so a 3rd Abteilung isn't needed but comes in April 42, or do you want to keep it in Russia?
-18. PzD needs a 3rd Abteilung
-20. PzD needs a 3rd Abteilung


Another idea:
As far as I see the HG Nord keeps the 12th and 8th with a TO for the 8th to be send to HG Mitte, but the HG Süd keeps 13th, 14th, 16th and gets 22nd & 23rd in early 42 what seems a lot, sure HG Süd frontline is twice as long if not longer than what HG Nord had to cover and it has better tank terrain but the Russian winter offensive was more serious & successful at HG Nord than at HG Süd so overall I would advise to sent the 22nd & 23rd to the HG Mitte and scrap the TO for getting the 8th PzD & 18th mot. ID. because pulling those 2 out in any phase of the game(they had already given the Panzergruppe 4 to HG Mitte and at the time of the Soviet winter offensive or after it with the seriously disrupted frontline they need those units badly)could have serious impact on HG Nord.

I checked the HG Süd a bit and I think they can handle it without the 22nd & 23rd PzD, the Kerch reconquering was mainly achieved because of the incompetence of the Soviets so no real need for the 22nd PzD, after that with Sevastopol set to a simple siege enough forces should be free to hold/stop any Soviet offensive out the the Charkov frontline arc so the 23rd PzD isn't needed there too, I guess even destroying the Charkov arc would be possible later in the year. Finally there is a chance to minimize the use of German IDs in the south by forcing the German Allies to move more stuff to the south(as they did).

So some more IDs from the south could be set up to come in by TO maybe 5-6(btw the 239. ID was disband on 1.1.42 so another ID should be used) from HG Süd and the IDs of HG Nord should cost twice as much as those from HG Süd so the player takes them only if very badly needed.


Regarding the 10th PzD I think it's even more reasonable for it to move to Africa because the offensive to the Caucasus doesn't happen and so the Allied focus in the Middle East stays at the Africa front. I think Daniel McBride is incorporating Allied units for his "Drang nach Asien 1942 - The Last Blitzkrieg" scenario but I'm not sure if the allies really moved some stuff there.


And finally the rail artillery units should be erased, I think they would now be even more useful/needed at Leningrad and/or Sevastopol, especially as the use in TOAW is very unrealistic, I read that it took 5 weeks to setup fire position for "Dora" near Sevastopol but in TOAW it is very easy & fast, also the railnetwork that has to be converted may not even be able to really support it terms of weight but also in terms if support as it took a lot of transport room to supply the gun, Thor & Odin can be handle easier but nonetheless I think they should be removed too.

< Message edited by BigDuke66 -- 11/18/2010 10:48:05 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 130
RE: "Battle for Moscow 1941-1943" - 11/19/2010 8:31:45 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

I was wondering about the 50mm PAK38. I thought they were only available in very limited numbers until Spring 1942 and that the 37mm PAK36 "Heeresanklopfgerät" ("army door knocking device") was still the predominate infantry division AT gun until then.


I think the 50mm's were available in numbers by the time of this scenario and the 75mm's didn't arrive until late '42. I didn't find anything specific other than the general info that can be found on Wiki, and some production stats:

50mm PAK 38, 1940 - 388, 1941 - 2072, 1942 - 4480, 1943 - 2626.
75mm PAK 97/38, 1942 - 2845, 1943 - 858.
75mm PAK 40, 1942 - 2114, 1943 - 8740, 1944 - 11728, 1945 - 721.

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 131
RE: "Battle for Moscow 1941-1943" - 11/19/2010 8:43:59 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

...the rail artillery units should be erased...


Just for arguments sake, the Axis did have a good number of other seige artillery that could have been left at Sevastopol and Leningrad while the big guns, for propaganda and moral, are moved to the Moscow front. But in the scenario they maybe should have the heavy artillery icon instead of the rail icon, and no transport assets. That way they are limited in movement and rate of fire, as historically they were difficult to relocate and the number of shells were limited.

(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 132
RE: "Battle for Moscow 1941-1943" - 11/19/2010 9:10:57 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline
Amazon currently list 1 used volume of Book 4, with the map book, at $1005!

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0198228864/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&qid=1290157673&sr=8-1&condition=used

(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 133
RE: "Battle for Moscow 1941-1943" - 11/19/2010 12:30:52 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

I was wondering about the 50mm PAK38. I thought they were only available in very limited numbers until Spring 1942 and that the 37mm PAK36 "Heeresanklopfgerät" ("army door knocking device") was still the predominate infantry division AT gun until then.


I think the 50mm's were available in numbers by the time of this scenario and the 75mm's didn't arrive until late '42. I didn't find anything specific other than the general info that can be found on Wiki, and some production stats:

50mm PAK 38, 1940 - 388, 1941 - 2072, 1942 - 4480, 1943 - 2626.
75mm PAK 97/38, 1942 - 2845, 1943 - 858.
75mm PAK 40, 1942 - 2114, 1943 - 8740, 1944 - 11728, 1945 - 721.


"The new 50mm antitank gun, intended to replace the woefully inadequate 37mm, had begun to come off the assembly line in greater numbers but was still the exception in ordinary German infantry units." To the Gates of Stalingrad, Soviet-German Combat Operations, April-August 1942", David M. Glantz with Jonathan M. House.

That was in spring 1942. The scenario begins in October 1941. Unfortunately it would force a transition.

Also, would be fun to see the lend lease tanks. (But then again, more transitions.)

We need a better way to transition equipment.

_____________________________


(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 134
RE: "Battle for Moscow 1941-1943" - 11/19/2010 12:35:34 PM   
briantopp

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 8/28/2006
From: Toronto
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Regarding the Pz division layouts, should they start with the amount of "Abteilungen" they had in 1941?
If so than:
-3. PzD needs a 3rd Abteilung
-6. PzD needs a 3rd Abteilung(has already a third coming in April 42 but it had a third right from the start of Barbarossa and lost its 3rd in 42)
-7. PzD needs a 3rd Abteilung(has already a third coming in April 42 but it had a third right from the start of Barbarossa and lost its 3rd in 42)
-10. PzD moves out of theater in May 1942 so a 3rd Abteilung isn't needed but comes in April 42, or do you want to keep it in Russia?
-18. PzD needs a 3rd Abteilung
-20. PzD needs a 3rd Abteilung


Another idea:
As far as I see the HG Nord keeps the 12th and 8th with a TO for the 8th to be send to HG Mitte, but the HG Süd keeps 13th, 14th, 16th and gets 22nd & 23rd in early 42 what seems a lot, sure HG Süd frontline is twice as long if not longer than what HG Nord had to cover and it has better tank terrain but the Russian winter offensive was more serious & successful at HG Nord than at HG Süd so overall I would advise to sent the 22nd & 23rd to the HG Mitte and scrap the TO for getting the 8th PzD & 18th mot. ID. because pulling those 2 out in any phase of the game(they had already given the Panzergruppe 4 to HG Mitte and at the time of the Soviet winter offensive or after it with the seriously disrupted frontline they need those units badly)could have serious impact on HG Nord.

I checked the HG Süd a bit and I think they can handle it without the 22nd & 23rd PzD, the Kerch reconquering was mainly achieved because of the incompetence of the Soviets so no real need for the 22nd PzD, after that with Sevastopol set to a simple siege enough forces should be free to hold/stop any Soviet offensive out the the Charkov frontline arc so the 23rd PzD isn't needed there too, I guess even destroying the Charkov arc would be possible later in the year. Finally there is a chance to minimize the use of German IDs in the south by forcing the German Allies to move more stuff to the south(as they did).

So some more IDs from the south could be set up to come in by TO maybe 5-6(btw the 239. ID was disband on 1.1.42 so another ID should be used) from HG Süd and the IDs of HG Nord should cost twice as much as those from HG Süd so the player takes them only if very badly needed.


Regarding the 10th PzD I think it's even more reasonable for it to move to Africa because the offensive to the Caucasus doesn't happen and so the Allied focus in the Middle East stays at the Africa front. I think Daniel McBride is incorporating Allied units for his "Drang nach Asien 1942 - The Last Blitzkrieg" scenario but I'm not sure if the allies really moved some stuff there.


And finally the rail artillery units should be erased, I think they would now be even more useful/needed at Leningrad and/or Sevastopol, especially as the use in TOAW is very unrealistic, I read that it took 5 weeks to setup fire position for "Dora" near Sevastopol but in TOAW it is very easy & fast, also the railnetwork that has to be converted may not even be able to really support it terms of weight but also in terms if support as it took a lot of transport room to supply the gun, Thor & Odin can be handle easier but nonetheless I think they should be removed too.


Yes I think you're right the 3rd bats should be added.

8th: it does seem clear from the literature that 8-pz was slated to be redeployed to AGC and then was held back to deal with the pressure on AGN to which you refer. Thus the victory point penalty for deploying it. I think this is accurate chrome. But I like the idea of adding the 22-pz and 23-pz as additional theatre option redeployments (perhaps with a slightly lighter VP penalty?) as a further game-balancing measure and to give the scenario more variability and more options.

10th: arguably a determined Moscow-first strategy would have kept this unit in theatre. Maybe the thing to do is charge a VP penalty for NOT withdrawing it -- and leave it up to the player through another theatre option (say, a 5VP penalty for not withdrawing it -- "Rommel is very disappointed"). There is a similar issue with the luftwaffe which diverted a fair bit of its Russian front strength to the med during some of this scenario.

Artillery: it's kind of the same case here. A truly determined Moscow-first strategy means less priority on both Leningrad and Sevastopol. The proposal below to change the unit symbol and to make these units much more ponderous might fit. Again they could go into the "reserve" pool and perhaps be available in return for a small VP penalty, to charge the Axis player for not pursuing the other sieges.

(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 135
RE: "Battle for Moscow 1941-1943" - 11/19/2010 12:43:04 PM   
briantopp

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 8/28/2006
From: Toronto
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

...the rail artillery units should be erased...


Just for arguments sake, the Axis did have a good number of other seige artillery that could have been left at Sevastopol and Leningrad while the big guns, for propaganda and moral, are moved to the Moscow front. But in the scenario they maybe should have the heavy artillery icon instead of the rail icon, and no transport assets. That way they are limited in movement and rate of fire, as historically they were difficult to relocate and the number of shells were limited.

I like that. Also to put these into the reserve pool and assess a small VP penalty for their use -- which is how they are handled in the reference game.

I completed another run-through of this scenario last night. My conclusion is that the play balance in this build is weighed towards the Axis, and that the Soviets need to be buttressed especially from Dec.41 forward. What I'm thinking of doing is assigning more complete (i.e. closer to say 90%-95%) TO&Es to Soviet reinforcements, and gradually stepping up Soviet supply to reflect gradually more effective Soviet logistics. So the Soviet supply centres, which are 100-point centres, could go to say 120 in dec 41; to 140 in Dec. 42; and to perhaps 160 in Dec 43 -- roughly corresponding to the increasingly formidable historical Soviet winter offensives. Since you're doing a playthrough, how do you find the balance and do you think this might make the scenario more challenging?

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 136
RE: "Battle for Moscow 1941-1943" - 11/19/2010 12:51:16 PM   
briantopp

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 8/28/2006
From: Toronto
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

I was wondering about the 50mm PAK38. I thought they were only available in very limited numbers until Spring 1942 and that the 37mm PAK36 "Heeresanklopfgerät" ("army door knocking device") was still the predominate infantry division AT gun until then.


I think the 50mm's were available in numbers by the time of this scenario and the 75mm's didn't arrive until late '42. I didn't find anything specific other than the general info that can be found on Wiki, and some production stats:

50mm PAK 38, 1940 - 388, 1941 - 2072, 1942 - 4480, 1943 - 2626.
75mm PAK 97/38, 1942 - 2845, 1943 - 858.
75mm PAK 40, 1942 - 2114, 1943 - 8740, 1944 - 11728, 1945 - 721.


"The new 50mm antitank gun, intended to replace the woefully inadequate 37mm, had begun to come off the assembly line in greater numbers but was still the exception in ordinary German infantry units." To the Gates of Stalingrad, Soviet-German Combat Operations, April-August 1942", David M. Glantz with Jonathan M. House.

That was in spring 1942. The scenario begins in October 1941. Unfortunately it would force a transition.

Also, would be fun to see the lend lease tanks. (But then again, more transitions.)

We need a better way to transition equipment.

That's not too tricky to do -- just to set up a 0/x slot for the 50mms, and stop the 37s at an appropriate time and start production of the modernized version at the appropriate time -- maybe December 41 or so.

Do you have any info on which Soviet units used the lend-lease tanks and in what numbers? As I note above I think the Soviets need to be buttressed a bit in this scenario and I'm on the hunt to add some historically plausible capability to the Red Army. A couple of Soviet tank brigades with British and U.S. tanks would be fun to include to see how they do (the Soviets have some hurricanes and American fighters in the current build).

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 137
RE: "Battle for Moscow 1941-1943" - 11/19/2010 2:35:56 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: briantopp

Do you have any info on which Soviet units used the lend-lease tanks and in what numbers? As I note above I think the Soviets need to be buttressed a bit in this scenario and I'm on the hunt to add some historically plausible capability to the Red Army. A couple of Soviet tank brigades with British and U.S. tanks would be fun to include to see how they do (the Soviets have some hurricanes and American fighters in the current build).


If you are ok with Charles Sharp's "Soviet Order of Battle WW2" I can give you some numbers. It's in Volume 12, "Red Hammers, Soviet Self-Propelled Artillery and Lend Lease Armor 41-45".

_____________________________


(in reply to briantopp)
Post #: 138
RE: "Battle for Moscow 1941-1943" - 11/19/2010 2:38:30 PM   
briantopp

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 8/28/2006
From: Toronto
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama


quote:

ORIGINAL: briantopp

Do you have any info on which Soviet units used the lend-lease tanks and in what numbers? As I note above I think the Soviets need to be buttressed a bit in this scenario and I'm on the hunt to add some historically plausible capability to the Red Army. A couple of Soviet tank brigades with British and U.S. tanks would be fun to include to see how they do (the Soviets have some hurricanes and American fighters in the current build).


If you are ok with Charles Sharp's "Soviet Order of Battle WW2" I can give you some numbers. It's in Volume 12, "Red Hammers, Soviet Self-Propelled Artillery and Lend Lease Armor 41-45".


Sure thing -- most useful info is: number of Soviet army; unit name & size (typically a tank brigade); key elements of TO&E; date the unit arrives

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 139
RE: "Battle for Moscow 1941-1943" - 11/19/2010 3:12:01 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: briantopp
Sure thing -- most useful info is: number of Soviet army; unit name & size (typically a tank brigade); key elements of TO&E; date the unit arrives



Ok, there will be two tank corp, one mechanized corp and a plethora of separate brigades (36+?) equiped partially or entirely with Matildas, Valentines, Lees, Grants and, interestingly, Matildas that the Soviets had equiped with the 76.2mm tank cannon. The Germans called it Matilda MKIIe.

_____________________________


(in reply to briantopp)
Post #: 140
RE: "Battle for Moscow 1941-1943" - 11/19/2010 5:49:25 PM   
briantopp

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 8/28/2006
From: Toronto
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama


quote:

ORIGINAL: briantopp
Sure thing -- most useful info is: number of Soviet army; unit name & size (typically a tank brigade); key elements of TO&E; date the unit arrives



Ok, there will be two tank corp, one mechanized corp and a plethora of separate brigades (36+?) equiped partially or entirely with Matildas, Valentines, Lees, Grants and, interestingly, Matildas that the Soviets had equiped with the 76.2mm tank cannon. The Germans called it Matilda MKIIe.


Wow that's a surprisingly large number of brigades

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 141
RE: "Battle for Moscow 1941-1943" - 11/19/2010 8:23:54 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

"The new 50mm antitank gun, intended to replace the woefully inadequate 37mm, had begun to come off the assembly line in greater numbers but was still the exception in ordinary German infantry units."


That quote seems a little misleading, as the 50mm was not new by that time. It may have been the exception in ordinary units, but then we have to debate what an 'ordinary' unit was. Production numbers can be found here:

http://sturmvogel.orbat.com/GermWeapProd.html#monthly

By the time of the scenario there were almost 2,000 made. Some had to be present on the Russian Front, I assume. Generally 18 total AT guns organic to each division, plus another 24 in the Divisional AT Abt. The 37's were certainly predominant in numbers early on. What do you think about the Infantry Divisions starting the scenario with 27/27 37's, 6/15 50's, 0/12 75's ?

The 37mm production can stop at the beginning of 42, and the 75's can start at that time, while the 50's can stay thru out.

A further distinction between the stop gap 75mm PAK 97/38 and the very good 75mm PAK 40 could be made by giving Inf Div's 0/12 of each at start, with the 97/38 production running from 1-42 to 6-42, and the PAK 40 from 6-42 to the end. Maybe?

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 142
RE: "Battle for Moscow 1941-1943" - 11/19/2010 8:52:02 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
Ordinary meaning the line infantry divisions as opposed to the mobile units.

New meaning not as old as the 37mm



< Message edited by Panama -- 11/19/2010 9:03:46 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 143
RE: "Battle for Moscow 1941-1943" - 11/19/2010 9:02:26 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
Here are the ones most likely part of your OOB. Since I couldn't open the scenario with TOAWIII Scenario Viewer I couldn't know for certain without going through the entire OOB in the game. That would have been lots of fun.

All the Valentines had the 2pdr gun. TB = Tank Brigade. MMD = Moscow Military District.

10th Tank Corps. Formed 19 April 1942 MMD. 7 July 1942 first action with: 178th Tank Brigade: 24 KV and 16 T-60. 183rd Tank Brigade: 30 Matilda II and 16 T-60. 186th Tank Brigade: 30 Matilda II and 16 T-60. (actually the total for the corps was 24 KV, 60 Matilda II, 48 T-60. I split the Matilda and T-60 evenly between the brigades that had them) The Matildas were never replaced as they were lost.

11th Tank Corps. Formed 19 May 1942 MMD. June 1942 when assigned to 5th Army: 53rd Brigade: 15 KV, 16 Matilda II, 29 T-60. 59th Tank Brigade: 42 Matilda II, 10 T-60. 160th Tank Brigade, Matilda II and T-60 but no reliable numbers. Again, the Matildas were replace with T-34 as the campaign wore on.

5th Mechanized Corps. Formed September to 2 November 1942 MMD from the 22nd Tank Corps staff. First action December 42, Stalingrad offensive with: All Matilda II in place of T-34 and all Valentine MKIII as the light tanks.

12th (was 66th TB), 13th (was 67th TB), 14th (was 174th TB) Guards Tank Brigades of the 4th Guards Tank Corps (was 17th Tank Corps) 3 January 1943. Rebuilt with 2/3 T-34, 1/3 Valentines. By the end of 1943 entirely equipped with T-34.

23rd Guards TB formed from 6th Guards TB (there were two same named units from 5 March 1942 until 22 Feb 1943) 22 Feb 1943. This 'second' 6th Guards TB was equipped with Matilda II instead of T-34 from it's formation and still had some left when it became 23 Guards TB. Was in 16th Army at the time of it's name change but had supported various armies through it's existance which is pretty true of all the multitude of separate Soviet units.

43rd Guards TB formed 10 April 1943 from 145th TB in MMD. 19 M3 Stuarts probably received during the 145th TB rebuilding in MMD after getting beat up in September 1942.

36th, 37th, 38th TB. Evacuated from Kharkov before fully formed (several TB like this). Completed forming in MMD April 1942. Each with 10 Matilda IIe (76.2mm gun), 20 Valentine MK III, 20 T-60. First two TB were destroyed in sW Front by early summer 1942. 38th had all SOviet tanks by summer 1943.

15th TB. Formed September 1941. Equipped entirely with M3 Stuarts for light tanks and M3 Grants for medium tanks in September 1942 (perhaps as early as April) until refitted in volga MD March 1943.

64th TB. Finished forming in MMD by April 1942. Sent to 21st Tank Corps. Matildas for mediums.Valentines and T-60 for light. Since it was destroyed at Izyum who knows when the Lend Lease would have been replaced.

92nd TB. Finished forming in MMD June 1942. Went to 31st Army in JUly. Equipped with M3 Grants/Lees until early 1943.

101st TB. Finished forming at Gorkiy June 1942. Equipped with M3 tanks. Probably both flavors. Went to 31st Army. Fought as infantry support brigade in Western and Kalinin Fronts. Refitted with T-34 late spring 1943.

102nd TB. Formed at Stalingrad March 1942. Went to 4th Tank Corps. 7 KV, 30 Matilda II, 15-20 T-60. Went into action at Voronezh June 1942. October 1942 refitted with T-34.

108th TB. Formed near Moscow February 1942 from 108th Tank Div. Went to 50th Army. Equipped entirely with Matilda II for mediums and Valentines for light. Was refitted with T-34 probably February 1943.

The unfortunate 114th TB. Destroyed and rebuilt twice between May and September. Formed in MMD March 1942. Light tanks were M3 Stuarts. After the last smashing was rebuilt with T-34 in October 1942.

120th TB. Finished forming in Volga MD June 1942. Went to 20th Army Western Front. Equipped with M3 Grants as mediums and Valentines as light until April 1943.

145th TB.(see 43rd Guards above) Formed in August 1941 from 104th Tank Div. Refit MMD February 1942. Went to Western Front. US M3 Medium tanks until November 1942. Got banged up around Rzhev and rebuilt with KV and T-34 plus some M3.

154th TB. Finished forming Volga MD June 1942. Western and Kalinin Front as support brigade. US M3 Medium and light tanks. Lend Lease was replaced by T-34 my late 1942.

167th TB. Finsihed forming MMD June 1942. Went to 13th Tank Corps. Matildas as medium, Valentines as light.

192nd TB. Formed in MMD March 1942. M3 medium (probably Grants) and M3 light. Probably went to 61st or 40th Army but in general was infantry support for various formations. Didn't refit with Soviet armor until about October 1943.

202nd TB. Finished forming in MMD April 1942. Went to 48th Army. Matilda II and Valentines. 19th Tank Corps by January 1943. May 1943 refit with all Soviet equipment.

_____________________________


(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 144
RE: "Battle for Moscow 1941-1943" - 11/19/2010 9:50:27 PM   
BigDuke66


Posts: 2013
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: briantopp
8th: it does seem clear from the literature that 8-pz was slated to be redeployed to AGC and then was held back to deal with the pressure on AGN to which you refer. Thus the victory point penalty for deploying it. I think this is accurate chrome. But I like the idea of adding the 22-pz and 23-pz as additional theater option redeployments (perhaps with a slightly lighter VP penalty?) as a further game-balancing measure and to give the scenario more variability and more options.

Yes as TO would also be good but as said I think the HG Süd can handle their theater surely without them so a higher VP penalty doesn't seem appropriate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: briantopp
10th: arguably a determined Moscow-first strategy would have kept this unit in theater. Maybe the thing to do is charge a VP penalty for NOT withdrawing it -- and leave it up to the player through another theater option (say, a 5VP penalty for not withdrawing it -- "Rommel is very disappointed"). There is a similar issue with the luftwaffe which diverted a fair bit of its Russian front strength to the med during some of this scenario.

I like the idea for a VP penalty when not withdrawing it, question would be where to set the deadline, in April 42 when it was sent to France for R&R or in November 42 when it was sent to Africa?

quote:

ORIGINAL: briantopp
Artillery: it's kind of the same case here. A truly determined Moscow-first strategy means less priority on both Leningrad and Sevastopol. The proposal below to change the unit symbol and to make these units much more ponderous might fit. Again they could go into the "reserve" pool and perhaps be available in return for a small VP penalty, to charge the Axis player for not pursuing the other sieges.

The changes that sPzAbt653 proposes and the VP penalty for using them are both great ideas, I would go for it this way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: briantopp
I completed another run-through of this scenario last night. My conclusion is that the play balance in this build is weighed towards the Axis, and that the Soviets need to be buttressed especially from Dec.41 forward. What I'm thinking of doing is assigning more complete (i.e. closer to say 90%-95%) TO&Es to Soviet reinforcements, and gradually stepping up Soviet supply to reflect gradually more effective Soviet logistics. So the Soviet supply centres, which are 100-point centres, could go to say 120 in dec 41; to 140 in Dec. 42; and to perhaps 160 in Dec 43 -- roughly corresponding to the increasingly formidable historical Soviet winter offensives. Since you're doing a playthrough, how do you find the balance and do you think this might make the scenario more challenging?

Question should the Soviet be tuned up or the Axis tuned down.
Just from a quick look I would say that especially the units from Panzergruppe 2 have a much too high supply stock at the start considering that their offensive is already running.
I'm currently going thru the deployment and after that I'll check the reinforcements, just as small ahead info I can say that the 250(Spanish) shouldn't be in as they were most of the time off-map North of the Ilmensee and units that were busy in the backward area like the SS Cav. Brig. should maybe be in garrison mode till the Russian winter offensive to prohibit unrealistic frontline use.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
http://sturmvogel.orbat.com/GermWeapProd.html#monthly


I really wonder if those numbers are right, on the equipment list for the complete army in the east(22.6.1941) I see:
-22 divisions with French Pak
-10 divisions with less Pak than normal
-2 divisions with French Pak & without PzJ.Abt.
-9 divisions without PzJ.Abt.
So 41 division with foreign equipment and/or less than normal Pak amount.
Did some maybe go to Hungary, Romania or Italy?

< Message edited by BigDuke66 -- 11/19/2010 9:54:16 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to briantopp)
Post #: 145
RE: "Battle for Moscow 1941-1943" - 11/19/2010 10:28:05 PM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline
I've never heard of Matildas being up gunned with Russian 76's - is there an online source for that?
Ta

(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 146
RE: "Battle for Moscow 1941-1943" - 11/20/2010 1:01:27 AM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

I've never heard of Matildas being up gunned with Russian 76's - is there an online source for that?
Ta



Nope. Just what Mr. Sharp has in his book. There are a few people whom I trust regarding the East Front. Charles Sharp is one of them. And since he found reference to them in German intelligence I am doubly confident in his report.

It doesn't surprise me that the Soviets would try to do this with a few Matildas since they regarded them as being undergunned. They also tried to remove the side skirts on some because mud and snow got caught up in them making the tank even slower than it was.

_____________________________


(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 147
RE: "Battle for Moscow 1941-1943" - 11/20/2010 3:48:59 AM   
BigDuke66


Posts: 2013
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline
I read they tried it but the 76mm gun was too big for the small turret. Could it be a typo and he means the Russian 45mm, I read they were used?

Regarding the TO for the PzDs, I wonder if they get the new regiments when the TO is pulled after the change-out of regiments took place.

< Message edited by BigDuke66 -- 11/20/2010 7:36:41 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 148
RE: "Battle for Moscow 1941-1943" - 11/20/2010 12:56:19 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
That's why there were only a few of them. If it had been a better fit I'm sure it would have become common. I just thought it was an interesting item.

_____________________________


(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 149
RE: "Battle for Moscow 1941-1943" - 11/20/2010 4:17:06 PM   
BigDuke66


Posts: 2013
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline
Sure but if there were just "few" I think it can be ignored for this scenario, especially in the light of the over 1084 Matildas delivered.

_____________________________


(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> RE: "Battle for Moscow 1941-1943" Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.828