RE: TOE Errata

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: TOE Errata

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: TOE Errata

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: TOE Errata - 2/14/2012 8:17:16 PM

jaw

Posts: 1045
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

Will you also accept errata for other forces? The German Arty TOE being an obvious, easy, yet unfixed case.

MechFO,

The German Artillery TOE is not incorrect; it is a matter of interpretation. The Germans suffered substantial artillery losses in the winter of 41/42 and in many, not all mind you, cases re-organized their artillery to a lower establishment. Given the way the game system worked, I felt it was more accurate to build this ad hoc re-organization into the TOE so the guns couldn't be magically replaced by merely putting a division in refit. If we had fixed artillery production like we have fixed AFV production I wouldn't have felt compelled to do that.

When I see that an elite division like the 78th Sturm Division with a still reduced artillery establishment in late 1943 I'm not inclined to change my mind on this subject but I'm open to any rational argument.

Jim

(in reply to MechFO)

Post #: 31

RE: TOE Errata - 2/14/2012 9:16:52 PM

MechFO

Posts: 669
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

Will you also accept errata for other forces? The German Arty TOE being an obvious, easy, yet unfixed case.

MechFO,

The German Artillery TOE is not incorrect; it is a matter of interpretation. The Germans suffered substantial artillery losses in the winter of 41/42 and in many, not all mind you, cases re-organized their artillery to a lower establishment. Given the way the game system worked, I felt it was more accurate to build this ad hoc re-organization into the TOE so the guns couldn't be magically replaced by merely putting a division in refit. If we had fixed artillery production like we have fixed AFV production I wouldn't have felt compelled to do that.

When I see that an elite division like the 78th Sturm Division with a still reduced artillery establishment in late 1943 I'm not inclined to change my mind on this subject but I'm open to any rational argument.

Jim

As I acknowledged in a previous post, the current setup does reflect de facto post 42 historical reality. However I have yet to see a player lose 20-30 Division equivalents by early 43 so I wonder why it's supposed to be relevant. Also your argument applies to any and every piece of equipment. I don't see many in game Divisons running around with full TOE's so I fail to see the relevance. As a simple test I suggest you lose 20 Divisions or so and look what your TOE Artillery averages are after half a year. Gun production was toned down x patches ago so I really don't see the justification, but I guess that's just me.

Either way, I don't see where there's room for rational argument. Either one believes in historical determinism or not. I don't, and I observe that, once again, the Germans are the only ones being held to it since very few Soviet units fully reached and maintained their paper TOE.

< Message edited by MechFO -- 2/14/2012 9:20:47 PM >

(in reply to jaw)

Post #: 32

RE: TOE Errata - 2/14/2012 11:10:52 PM

Tentpeg

Posts: 45
Joined: 1/6/2012
Status: offline

I am with MechFO on this one. Making an arbitrary decision to reduce the Axis artillery strength in the Division (where it is needed most) because you do not agree with the historical TO&E could be perceived as bias. Let the player decide what to do with assets available. If the player needs to curtail unit strength to converse assets allow them the freedom to chose the units and equipment they curtail.

(in reply to MechFO)

Post #: 33

RE: TOE Errata - 2/15/2012 1:06:18 AM

MechFO

Posts: 669
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline

Here's the production numbers of the most common German Divisional Arty types.

10.5 cm FH 18

1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945
483 1.380 1.160 1.237 1.661 1.009 56

10.5 cm FH 18/40

1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945
------- ------- ------- ------- 1.872 7.827 566

s. 10-cm-K. 18
1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945
------ 35 108 135 454 701 ----

15.5 cm

1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945
190 580 516 636 785 2.295 401

As you see, losing 20-30 Divisions worth takes a serious bite out of production until the 43 ramp up. I seriously doubt the Germans are currently reaching those numbers in most games which start in 41.

< Message edited by MechFO -- 2/15/2012 1:16:17 AM >

(in reply to Tentpeg)

Post #: 34

RE: TOE Errata - 2/15/2012 4:56:19 AM

TAIL_GUNNER

Posts: 248
Joined: 6/14/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

quote:

ORIGINAL: TAIL_GUNNER

@MechFO - It's my understanding flame-throwers weren't shown on the KStN. You will need the corresponding KAN file which should be the same number and date as the KStN.

You don't find FT's per se but you find the number of Flammsch�tzen, I assume 2 Flammsch�tzen corresponds to 1 FT.

I found something useful with KSTN No. 1118 A+B Panzer Pio Kp for Pz Gren Regiments, motorized and armoured, Kriegsetat 44.

Pz Pio Kp for the mot Pz Gren Reg has:

3 motorized Platoons � 4 Squads, 1 MG per Squad, each platoon with 4 Flammsch�tzen -> probably 2 FT's
6 Panzerschreck

armoured Pz Pio Kp for the arm. Pz Gren Reg has.

2 mot Platoons � 4 Squads, 1 MG per Squad, each platoon with 4 Flammsch�tzen
1 arm. Platoon with 3 Squads, 2 MG's per Squad, no Flammsch�tzen (1 x 251/17)
1 arm. FT platoon with 6 x 251/16
3 Panzerschreck

EDIT: The early war KSTN's that I have don't explicitly mention the number of Flammsch�tzen, even if equipment clearly indicates that there must be some in the unit. Also, on second thought, since all FT's were 1 man versions, 4 Flammsch�tzen might very well mean 4 FT's....FT production really ramped up in 43/44, so 4 FT per platoon might actually be possible.
As an aside I have found that the arm. FT platoon had 5 x 251/16 in 43.

Also, since this thread is getting crowded with other stuff I'll start posting in the other thread if I find anything.

Good stuff!
I think this KStN 1118 is very similar to the early war 1124, so I probably won't have to create a whole new type of engineer squads.

Know anything about the 251/1-II "Stuka zu Fuss"? As far as I can tell, the early war Panzer Pioneers had six of these kits issued for the single Panzer-Pioneer zug at the time. Can't find any information on if they were used throughout the entire war, though they do appear in a KStN for a Panzer Brigade in 1943.

(in reply to MechFO)

Post #: 35

RE: TOE Errata - 2/15/2012 6:57:02 AM

Update

Posts: 122
Joined: 10/8/2007
Status: offline

Sd Kfz 251/1 mittlere Sch�tzenpanzerwagen (Wurfrahmen 40)
Crew 7, Armament 2x MG34 or MG42. Ammunition 2010, 6xWurfrahmen 40 (5x 28cm Sprengranate, 1x 32cm Flammgranate.
After French campaign panzerpioneers saw the need for heavy bombardment capability and J. Gast KG. Berlin was ordered to develop a projector for 251/1 series SPW. The launcher were attached in their wooden crates on the side (3/side) and were launched in sequence (took 10 seconds to launch all of them).
Range for 28cm was 1.9 km and 32cm was 2.2 km.
They were in use from the summer 1941on, most likely from the start of Barbarossa since the Wurfrahme 40 itself was deployed over a year earlier (I cannot find exact deployment date for 251/1 combination). Some of the vehicles were also field conversions and this same method was used with many other vehicles (French Hotchkiss H-35, Renault UE/AMX UE and so on) to give more mobility and survivability for 28/32 cm rocket units. I think, not sure, that they were in use for the duration of the war since KStN tables lists them in 1944 also.
6 of these units formed one Z�g (normally 3rd) in PzPioneer Companies.

_____________________________

Nobody respects a country with a poor army, but everybody respects a country with a good army. I raise my toast to the Finnish Army.

Attributed to Josef Stalin, 1948.

(in reply to TAIL_GUNNER)

Post #: 36

RE: TOE Errata - 2/15/2012 12:52:58 PM

jaw

Posts: 1045
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tentpeg

I am with MechFO on this one. Making an arbitrary decision to reduce the Axis artillery strength in the Division (where it is needed most) because you do not agree with the historical TO&E could be perceived as bias. Let the player decide what to do with assets available. If the player needs to curtail unit strength to converse assets allow them the freedom to chose the units and equipment they curtail.

It wasn't an arbitrary decision; it was based on analyzing the actual OOBs of the various divisions. If one division had 26 guns and another division had 31 guns and yet another division had 35 guns I'd say they were below the prescribed TOE and should eventually be brought up to strength. But when division after division has 27 guns organized in batteries of 3 guns you've got to say that was the prescribed TOE in the field regardless of what the official TOE was.

That said, I am not closed minded on this issue and will discuss it with the development team to see if they feel any adjustment is warranted.

Jim

(in reply to Tentpeg)

Post #: 37

RE: TOE Errata - 2/16/2012 12:34:49 AM

Tentpeg

Posts: 45
Joined: 1/6/2012
Status: offline

jaw;

Thank you. I appreciate the explanation of the why behind the decision. It was has also been pointed out that a number of the Soviet TO&E's fall into a similiar situation. If that is so then they should receive the same consideration.

My main point is that hindsight/oversight variables (and plain common sense) means that neither side is going to find itself in the historical reality of 1942 (or 43 - 44). If the assets are available let the player decide who gets what. Maybe the Axis decides the Corps Artillery battalions get curtailed instead of the Division, or he he has conserved his forces enough to keep all of them up to (TO&E) strength.

(in reply to jaw)

Post #: 38

RE: TOE Errata - 2/16/2012 6:46:54 AM

Update

Posts: 122
Joined: 10/8/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tentpeg

Thank you. I appreciate the explanation of the why behind the decision. It was has also been pointed out that a number of the Soviet TO&E's fall into a similiar situation. If that is so then they should receive the same consideration.

I think that Tentpeg has a good point. Isn't the idea of TOE(OB) to show what should have been and the %number what you want to put in the division.
If we take the approach of average division strenght is the de facto TOE(OB) then, as Tentpeg pointed out, Red Army's manpower in Divisions should also be reduced quite severly.
For example: (Soviet Military Operational Art in Pursuit of Deep Battle, David M. Glantz, Frank Cass Printing, 1991)

quote:

Soviet 1944 Rifle division
11,706 men
64 guns
127 mortars
12 AA guns
54 AT guns
- Rifle Division strenghts are by TOE. Actual strenght was much lower, and averaged 3,500-4,500 men per division in 1945.

To be fair for everyone I think that German TOE(OB) should be according to TOE OR Russian TOE should receive the same reduction treatment as Germans. Personally I favor the first alternative since it doesn't handicap players at all.

_____________________________

Nobody respects a country with a poor army, but everybody respects a country with a good army. I raise my toast to the Finnish Army.

Attributed to Josef Stalin, 1948.

(in reply to Tentpeg)

Post #: 39

RE: TOE Errata - 2/16/2012 1:35:30 PM

MechFO

Posts: 669
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tentpeg

I am with MechFO on this one. Making an arbitrary decision to reduce the Axis artillery strength in the Division (where it is needed most) because you do not agree with the historical TO&E could be perceived as bias. Let the player decide what to do with assets available. If the player needs to curtail unit strength to converse assets allow them the freedom to chose the units and equipment they curtail.

It wasn't an arbitrary decision; it was based on analyzing the actual OOBs of the various divisions. If one division had 26 guns and another division had 31 guns and yet another division had 35 guns I'd say they were below the prescribed TOE and should eventually be brought up to strength. But when division after division has 27 guns organized in batteries of 3 guns you've got to say that was the prescribed TOE in the field regardless of what the official TOE was.

That said, I am not closed minded on this issue and will discuss it with the development team to see if they feel any adjustment is warranted.

Jim

The relevant passage from "Deutsche Artillerie 1934-1945" Engelmann/Scheibert 1974, pretty much the standard work on the subject.

Page 61
"1943 wird bei zahlreichen Divisions-Artillerieregimentern das Gesch�tzsoll von 4 auf 3 herabgesetzt. Bei verbesserter Ger�telage wird diese Massnahme ab 1944 wieder aufgehoben."

The reduction was a temporary measure reflecting the material situation and reversed once the material situation improved.

As an aside, there also seems to be a lot of Nebelwerfer missing. Active Strength in 1945 (including PzWerfer) was 4816. Even accounting for the ones on the western front, a whole bunch must be missing somewhere.

EDIT: More on the missing Nebelwerger.

In the 1944 scenario there are only 4 Heavy Regs and 3 normal Regiments + 1 Abt, for a max TOE strength of (4x44+3x54+2x18(including GD)=374)....I can also find only 1 Nbw Abteilung in the reeinforcement queue.

Say of the total strength of nearly 5000, 50% was on the western front, as of late 44 there are nearly 2000 Nbw missing in the German OOB....

After a cursory inspection following units seem to be missing, I didn't check the independent Abteilungen:

schweres Werferregiment 23, 24
Werferregiment 70, 81, 82
Stellungswerferregiment 102, 103

I didn't add those that were in the east, destroyed and then newly setup and used in the West.

3rd. Edit: I think I see where the problem is, the active strength of nearly 5000 also includes the Wurfrahmen, which don't seem to exist in the game. Also some of the above Regiments are missing in the 44 scenario but exist in the 41 scenario. However, they come in split up as Abteilungen which is incorrect. The 44 scenario is better in this respect since they are kept as Regiments.

< Message edited by MechFO -- 2/16/2012 3:35:19 PM >

(in reply to jaw)

Post #: 40

RE: TOE Errata - 2/16/2012 1:41:18 PM

MechFO

Posts: 669
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TAIL_GUNNER

quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

quote:

ORIGINAL: TAIL_GUNNER

@MechFO - It's my understanding flame-throwers weren't shown on the KStN. You will need the corresponding KAN file which should be the same number and date as the KStN.

You don't find FT's per se but you find the number of Flammsch�tzen, I assume 2 Flammsch�tzen corresponds to 1 FT.

I found something useful with KSTN No. 1118 A+B Panzer Pio Kp for Pz Gren Regiments, motorized and armoured, Kriegsetat 44.

Pz Pio Kp for the mot Pz Gren Reg has:

3 motorized Platoons � 4 Squads, 1 MG per Squad, each platoon with 4 Flammsch�tzen -> probably 2 FT's
6 Panzerschreck

armoured Pz Pio Kp for the arm. Pz Gren Reg has.

2 mot Platoons � 4 Squads, 1 MG per Squad, each platoon with 4 Flammsch�tzen
1 arm. Platoon with 3 Squads, 2 MG's per Squad, no Flammsch�tzen (1 x 251/17)
1 arm. FT platoon with 6 x 251/16
3 Panzerschreck

EDIT: The early war KSTN's that I have don't explicitly mention the number of Flammsch�tzen, even if equipment clearly indicates that there must be some in the unit. Also, on second thought, since all FT's were 1 man versions, 4 Flammsch�tzen might very well mean 4 FT's....FT production really ramped up in 43/44, so 4 FT per platoon might actually be possible.
As an aside I have found that the arm. FT platoon had 5 x 251/16 in 43.

Also, since this thread is getting crowded with other stuff I'll start posting in the other thread if I find anything.

Good stuff!
I think this KStN 1118 is very similar to the early war 1124, so I probably won't have to create a whole new type of engineer squads.

Know anything about the 251/1-II "Stuka zu Fuss"? As far as I can tell, the early war Panzer Pioneers had six of these kits issued for the single Panzer-Pioneer zug at the time. Can't find any information on if they were used throughout the entire war, though they do appear in a KStN for a Panzer Brigade in 1943.

Sadly no. I haven't been able to find anything. However judging from the fact that they were kits which were field mounted, I assume that they were used on an ad hoc basis. No idea how to represent this in game. Give every Pz Pionier Squad a few 28cm rockets!

(in reply to TAIL_GUNNER)

Post #: 41

RE: TOE Errata - 2/16/2012 3:25:21 PM

Update

Posts: 122
Joined: 10/8/2007
Status: offline

See post number 36 above

_____________________________

Nobody respects a country with a poor army, but everybody respects a country with a good army. I raise my toast to the Finnish Army.

Attributed to Josef Stalin, 1948.

(in reply to MechFO)

Post #: 42

RE: TOE Errata - 2/17/2012 2:35:31 AM

TAIL_GUNNER

Posts: 248
Joined: 6/14/2004
Status: offline

@Pertti...I have seen pics of this beast throughout the war years on various versions of the 251/1, so I'm guessing you're right.

@MechFO, that may be a valid idea. I wouldn't want to model them as individual vehicles because I believe that the crew were actually members of the Panzer-Pioneer squad. They all got out and stood well clear while one guy pushed the launch button, then went on to their normal engineering tasks.

There is a 280/300mm device already in the game.......
hmmm....

(in reply to Update)

Post #: 43