Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Jyri, it was Hitler who dictated the objectives of Fall Blau. He certainly had strong economic motives to get oil. But Baku might as well have been on the moon. They never even got close. The drive stalled well before it for lack of forces and rickety logistics. No matter how much he wanted and needed the oil, the mere desire couldn't overcome these objective limitations. He willed the end without willing the means. The plan was an impossible one.

And Stalingrad was 100% a prestige objective that Hitler wanted for propaganda purposes -- the Germans didn't need to actually take the city to support a drive to the Caucuses.

It was not he that needed the oil, it was the German war economy that needed it to fight efficiently against the Allies. Only with hindsight one could claim that the plan was impossible. I'm not defending Hitler here, but to put blame solely on him is the oldest trick of the German generalship - far too many have believed it.

City fighting in Stalingrad have been greatly dramatized over the years, when much more significant fighting with more troops actually happened outside the city - especially on the steppes NW of the city.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke
City fighting in Stalingrad have been greatly dramatized over the years, when much more significant fighting with more troops actually happened outside the city - especially on the steppes NW of the city.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Jyri, I'm going to have to go with the old school blame it on Hitler crowd so far as Blau goes, sorry. It was his plan. He set the objectives. (We can blame the General Staff for boners like Citadel.) The strategy was all him and nobody else. Saying that Germany badly needed oil is just an evasion here. It was never a realistic proposition due to objective military factors that were calculable prior to the offensive.

Since it couldn't be done, they would have been better off using their forces elsewhere to accomplish more realistic goals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Empire101

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

For myself, I've always thought that Fall Blau was pretty boneheaded. The plan didn't make a lick of sense. Neither the logistics nor forces were adequate for it, and dividing one army group into two half army groups seeking wildly divergent objectives looks pretty bad on general principles.

It failed and imo very predictably so. It opened up brilliantly enough, sure, and took advantage of Soviet fiascos in Kharkov and the Crimea to wreck the southern position; but it all went south after that. (pun intended.)

I've always thought the Germans should have turned north after reaching Voronezh and rolled up the Soviet positions. And chop off the bizarro salients by Rzhev, etc. in conjunction with such a move.

To paraphrase Grant vis a vis Lee: the Red Army is your objective. Wherever it goes, you go. This is even the completely orthodox Clausewitzian strategy -- and Hitler, who fancied himself some kind of expert on Clausewitz, threw out that playbook completely.

Very well put sir!!

I've been reading this thread with interest, as it has raised many interesting points. What I would say however is that while denying those resources in Caucasus to the Soviets is important, there should be a mechanism to allow the Germans to utilise those resources in some meaningful and realistic way.

This then can lead to players formulating their own equivalent 'Fall Blau's' in 42. I think it could only be good for the game, and would lead to some very interesting games, and putting some measure of uncertainty into the Russian players planning ( ie Are the Germans going south for the oil or OMG!! He has switched his axis of advance and is rolling up the defences and heading North. Break out the vodka, its going to be a grim year. )

Conversely it would add to piling up pressure on the Germans to actually let rip in 42 before the overwhelming numbers of the Red Army begin to tell. If those resources can in some measure contribute to the German war effort ( again I emphasise in a meaningful way ), then perhaps players will start coming up with alternative strategems to get their greasy mitts on them. It puts both players in the seat of aquiring/denying access to these valuable assets, and would stretch each player to attack/defend to the absolute limit.

Lets not forget that Fall Blau came close to success. The immolation of VIth Army at Stalingrad led to disaster, and the whole plan unravelled faster than a ball of wool. Although the fixation of Stalingrad came largely from Hitler, I have always looked to von Paulus as the architect of the German disaster on the Volga.

Humour me, as I hope this post bears relevance ( I hope I'm not waffling ) to what is being argued in this thread.

Lets see, what would I do if there was a large, bombed out, 20km long city on a river, with 90% of the city on my side ( ie the western side) of the river.

Would I:-

a) Look at the situation and apply a 'Verdun' approach to the whole battle. Apply frontal assaults in ever increasing brutality and ferocity, attempt to cut off river traffic with artillery and aircraft, and basically sacrifice the lives of my men in WWI types of assaults to literally 'push' every single one of the gallant defenders off the western bank and out of the city?

or

b) Get to the northern end of the city and river bank ( achieved by 16th Panzer Div and 60th Motorised Div). Get to the Southern end of the city and riverbank. ( achieved by 14th, 24th Panzer Division, and 94th Inf Div). Cut off river traffic with artillery and aircraft. Then work up and down the riverbank respectively, denying the Russians their landing stages and jetty's, until 62nd Army is either cut off or they retreat back over the Volga.
Battle over.

It seems amazing, sitting here in my armchair, that von Paulus never really latched onto the signifcance of (b), which is an adaption of the Blitzkrieg mindset, and instead went for (a), the tried and tested WWI mindset, that could'nt possibly match the results of (b), and as we all know, paved the way to disaster.

As an aside, in my opinion, fate played a huge hand in the outcome of Fall Blau. Von Reichenau had died of a heart attack in January 42.
If this fellow had lived for another year, the strategy employed at Stalingrad would almost certainly have been (b), and the outcome very different.

I hope you'll pardon the slight digression from the topic, but I'm trying to show that Fall Blau could have ended very differently, no matter how half cocked it was at the planning stage. Which brings me back to the whole reason for Fall Blau.....the simultaneous aims of denying the oil to the Soviets, while at the same time the Germans being able to boost their own war effort. Those resources and VP's in the Caucasus must be made more meaningful to the German player, he must start weighing in his mind those far off glittering prizes, what they are worth and what to do about them. The Soviets too would have to carefully weigh up the strategic significance and defence allocations made accordingly.

Lets face it. In most games, the German player is going to have basically four strategic choices in 1942.
1) A new Operation Typhoon to invest Moscow.
2) Capture Vorenzh, wrong foot the Soviets, roll up their defences and attack towards Moscow from the South
3) Capture Vorenzh and head south for the oilfields.
4) Sit behind his defences and do vitually nothing.

Well, none of us ( I hope ) want to see (4) becoming a viable option. We all need to come up with the workable and achievable idea to plant this seed in the German players mindset, not just in 42, but 43 as well.... which is this....

'Mein Fuhrer, the final objective is just over the next hill..... obtain it, and the war is ours!!'

Apologies for going on a bit, and I hope there was'nt too much waffle.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild
Cities should have more strategic importance...I for one can't understand why there seems to be so little interest in this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild
Cities should have more strategic importance...I for one can't understand why there seems to be so little interest in this.

I guess the question is how you suggest to give cities "strategic importance"? I guess some people think they already have strategic importance (manpower, rail capacity/hubs, etc.). Others (like me!) have suggested a per-turn VP mechanism. What is your suggestion?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Farfarer

Perhaps "instant" supply and fuel from a captured city, after all the neither SS Pz Corps nor the the GTA were delivering aid. Also, instant repair of damaged AFV (%) and vehicles (%) through expropriation, though not under the rules of 'usufruct' for certain.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lieste

quote:

ORIGINAL: Farfarer

Perhaps "instant" supply and fuel from a captured city, after all the neither SS Pz Corps nor the the GTA were delivering aid. Also, instant repair of damaged AFV (%) and vehicles (%) through expropriation, though not under the rules of 'usufruct' for certain.

Instinctively I don't like this... the intent is to reduce 'gamey' exploits of raiding, and this suggestion gives even more incentives to do just that...

Any benefit should be longer-term, and penalties for the 'losing' side be more gradual, to make counter-attacking to recapture worthwhile (and short-term risks not a war-winner). An 'every thing dead' result for the defender makes to and fro struggles for cities pointless, and rewards deep lightning strikes. Adding 'everything repaired' for the attacker, and there is every reason for the attacker to take ludicrous efforts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Again...

It seems there is an interaction of cause and effect.

HQ build-up is abused (sometimes) as raiding is effective.
Raiding is effective because factories are instantly destroyed on entering a city.
Raiding is required, because by focussing Rail Capacity the Soviets can empty most cities in 1-2 weeks, at least of the 'critical' components - and normal attacks are usually not broad or fast enough to make this an unsolvable problem.

If the evacuation of factories takes longer but uses the same capacity (e.g. plan move 1, disassemble & entrain move 2, evacuate move 3) then the Soviet player must think further ahead, and the German player might sometimes do something 'normal' but unexpected that wrong-foots the evacuation schedule - additionally if the evacuation capacity is limited to some multiplier of the local rail-capacity from city and factory rail sidings, then a huge effort is not practical in one area of the front... and it becomes harder to finesse the evacuation.

If also the complete destruction of facilities is something that happens at the start of the following attacker's turn, rather than before the defender's turn, then there is less point in suicidal 'raids' which are no more than inconveniences, and more reason to defend the city and the local area strongly. Also more reason to isolate a city to hold the contents, rather than 'capture' it with an improbable assault into a BUA with armour.

Without the instant results of a deep raid, they would be far less attractive, as they are largely unsustainable - if they are 'big enough' and shallow enough to hold, then they may be a valid manoeuvres in their own right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Jyri, it was Hitler who dictated the objectives of Fall Blau. He certainly had strong economic motives to get oil. But Baku might as well have been on the moon. They never even got close. The drive stalled well before it for lack of forces and rickety logistics. No matter how much he wanted and needed the oil, the mere desire couldn't overcome these objective limitations. He willed the end without willing the means. The plan was an impossible one.

And Stalingrad was 100% a prestige objective that Hitler wanted for propaganda purposes -- the Germans didn't need to actually take the city to support a drive to the Caucuses.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

(snip)

5. Raiding issue. My take would be that arm and hvy can be railed out, but factorys can't. Arm and hvy factorys are generally small operations where as tank ect are huge. I would also say that cost should be 2x because of city is under attack, not sure if that can be coded into system

Best patch so far, great job. I am sure we will find a few other things to bitch about, but this seems to be a home run as far as patchs goes.

Pelton