Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: daft

I don't think the historical composition of Soviet forces really supported the deep battle doctrine that early in the war. When they reorganized the tank armies in may -42 they were done so with a fashion to support the breakthrough - exploitation thinking permeating the Red Army. Problem was it didn't really work too well due to the low motorization of the attached rifle divisions as well as due to the fact that the tank armies often were deployed well forward an the front lines. Obviously they had some successes in the winter of -42 with this type of composite armies, but they were still hampered by the force structure. It took some additional time (and the experiences of the winter of 1942 offensive) for the Red Army to make their tank forces more self-sufficient and geared towards exploitation with the tank elements detached from the un-motorized rifle elements.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

quote:

ORIGINAL: daft

I don't think the historical composition of Soviet forces really supported the deep battle doctrine that early in the war. When they reorganized the tank armies in may -42 they were done so with a fashion to support the breakthrough - exploitation thinking permeating the Red Army. Problem was it didn't really work too well due to the low motorization of the attached rifle divisions as well as due to the fact that the tank armies often were deployed well forward an the front lines. Obviously they had some successes in the winter of -42 with this type of composite armies, but they were still hampered by the force structure. It took some additional time (and the experiences of the winter of 1942 offensive) for the Red Army to make their tank forces more self-sufficient and geared towards exploitation with the tank elements detached from the un-motorized rifle elements.

My reading suggests otherwise. The problem is that often the infantry often did not effect the desired breakthrough, and therefore the mobile units were committed too early as they had to help effect the breakthrough rather than exploit it. Operational failures were analyzed at the highest levels, and adjustments made. Contrary to Pelton's incorrect assertion that "the Red Army never got any better only bigger," it did get better, much better, and dangerously so.

Marquo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo
We did the first 18 moves with the prior 1.04 xx and now are using 1.05 xx. At least this will give some idea as to the winter offensive and then the '42 riposte. I will ask my opponent if it is okay to share.

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek


In any case, I see a bit of exaggeration implicit in your last sentence. It wasn't a cake walk for the Red Army either, to push AGS all the way from Kharkov to Lvov in nine months. Actually they had to stop large-scale operations everywhere else.

No, they did not.

People keep saying this. It's just not true. 1943 was a broad front offensive that included a good 2/3 of the front. You don't hear much about the stuff up north because the Sovs didn't do as well as the Ukraine, but these fronts were active and made their own, slower, bloodier advances. Indeed, they started operations during the whole Kursk battle, by launching their own offensive on the Orel salient. Bryansk, Western, and Kalinin Fronts were quite as busy as Steppe, Voronezh, Southwestern and Southern.

Only by Leningrad did the Sovs stay put until year's end.

This is one of the things that seriously annoys me about the stock 1943 campaign, btw. It seriously underestimates the Red Army's potential by keeping virtually 3/4 of it on static at a time when 3/4 of it was active, and you don't have anything like the required amount of APs to get it moving when it should. There are some expedients around this, but it definitely reflects this preposterous old school view that the Red Army didn't do broad front offensives.

Absolutely wrong. The Red Army didn't do anything but broad front offensives until 1944.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek


In any case, I see a bit of exaggeration implicit in your last sentence. It wasn't a cake walk for the Red Army either, to push AGS all the way from Kharkov to Lvov in nine months. Actually they had to stop large-scale operations everywhere else.

No, they did not.

People keep saying this. It's just not true. 1943 was a broad front offensive that included a good 2/3 of the front. You don't hear much about the stuff up north because the Sovs didn't do as well as the Ukraine, but these fronts were active and made their own, slower, bloodier advances. Indeed, they started operations during the whole Kursk battle, by launching their own offensive on the Orel salient. Bryansk, Western, and Kalinin Fronts were quite as busy as Steppe, Voronezh, Southwestern and Southern.

Only by Leningrad did the Sovs stay put until year's end.

This is one of the things that seriously annoys me about the stock 1943 campaign, btw. It seriously underestimates the Red Army's potential by keeping virtually 3/4 of it on static at a time when 3/4 of it was active, and you don't have anything like the required amount of APs to get it moving when it should. There are some expedients around this, but it definitely reflects this preposterous old school view that the Red Army didn't do broad front offensives.

Absolutely wrong. The Red Army didn't do anything but broad front offensives until 1944.

Well, I said "Kharkov" and "Lvov", because the center of mass of the Soviet effort was certainly moving along that line during the nine months that go from July 1943 to March 1944. That's hardly "absolutely wrong" :) What I got "absolutely wrong" was not giving any indication on the frontage.

Sorry Flavio, but looking at the dates of historical (major, involving a whole front or bigger) operations, I don't buy that the Red Army launched continuous offensives all the way from Velikiye Luki to the Black Sea, non-stop, from July 1943 to March 1944... We agree that there were absolutely no major operations going on from Leningrad to 50 miles north of Smolensk (and that's almost 1/3 of the frontline, indeed) in the period that goes from July 1943 to December 1943.

Kalinin, Western and Central Fronts initiated a series of linked offensives starting on August 7th and which died out on early October, taking them up to the Vitebsk - Gomel line. And then, they stopped, or rather advanced as the Germans retreated as far as Rogachev by November 1943. Also, if we compare the forces allotted to these fronts along this three month period and compare them with the forces allocated to the Voronezh, Steppe, Southwest and Southern Fronts, we'd see there were the double of Soviet forces in the latter four Fronts than in the former three. And I'm not counting the Northern Caucasus Front and its fight on the Kuban against 17. Armee.

From early November 1943 to spring 1944 the conflict was mainly fought on the Ukraine. The operation to lift Leningrad Siege started on January 14th 1944 and ended up in late February 1944. While it was a very important operation, it was nowhere near as big and massive and what the Soviet Union threw at the Ukraine.

So yes, summer 1943 involved a Soviet offensive along 2/3 of the Eastern Front, up to late September. They managed to keep that massive operation going on for exactly roughly two months (August, September) or in WiTE terms, six turns. But also no, they restricted their operations greatly, most certainly during Winter 1943-44.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
We agree that there were absolutely no major operations going on from Leningrad to 50 miles north of Smolensk (and that's almost 1/3 of the frontline, indeed) in the period that goes from July 1943 to December 1943.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zebedee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
We agree that there were absolutely no major operations going on from Leningrad to 50 miles north of Smolensk (and that's almost 1/3 of the frontline, indeed) in the period that goes from July 1943 to December 1943.

Major operations continued around Siniavino until September. In October, planning began for the offensive which commenced in 1944 whilst the Germans began to plan their withdrawal to a new defensive line in September. cf Glantz, The Siege of Leningrad. The chapter Cracking the Blockade covers some of the fighting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Bletchley, you're just quibbling here. My point stands.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
Zeb, Sinyavin operation took place in August - September 1942. I can't check that reference, I don't have the book. I can't find any reference on the Internet on major soviet operations to lift Leningrad Siege after Polar Star, in April 1943. Perhaps there were a third Sinyavin offensive, but my understanding was that after the Polar Star fiasco things got quiet up there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

You are still quibbling. And playing semantic games to boot. Although admittedly there is a boundary issue here between staggered and broad front offensives. A sufficiently loose interpretation of these could even define the 1944 summer offensive as broad.