Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Winter ‘41 Soviet Strategy

 
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 2 >> The War Room >> Winter ‘41 Soviet Strategy Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Winter ‘41 Soviet Strategy - 6/20/2021 5:26:23 PM   
Firewire9452

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 4/1/2021
Status: offline
Does anyone have any advice on what my goals should be for the1941 winter as the Soviets? I just completed my first 1941 winter as my more or less first time ever playing as the Soviets, and here’s how I thought about it.

(1) I had three goals for the winter. First, I wanted to regain terrain in areas where the Germans would start too close to their objectives for the 1942 offensive. Second, I wanted to generate wins to promote infantry, cavalry, and armor to guards. Third, I wanted to inflict as much damage (both in terms of morale but also AFVs) on the panzers.

(2) These objectives led me to focus my offensive from Kursk to Sevastopol. In my game against the AI, I still had enough space in Leningrad and Moscow, but had been pressed near Kursk/Kharkov/Rostov. The terrain in the south is far less favorable to defense, and the main defensive obstacle (rivers) are a non issue in the winter. In my experience, the supply situation in the south is also worse for the Germans. Moreover, the extended front, reliance on romanians, and clear terrain permits easier breakthroughs, greater mobility (and therefore a greater likelihood of encirclements). While I didn’t expect to encircle significant German formations, I did expect that the risk of encirclement would force the Germans to retreat from entrenched positions, increasing their attrition during winter and possibly moving them to areas more than 3 spaces away from depots—increasing truck attrition and decreasing replacements and supplies. That inclined me to focus on the south/central area. I think this was probably the right decision, but what do others think?

(3) Operationally, I decided to rely primarily upon infantry divisions to create breakthroughs and cavalry corps exploration. I kept tank/mechanized divisions in reserve to counterattack panzers. My goal was concentrate forces in a single area and push towards a likely supply depot on a rail center (in my case, a north to South push towards dnepropetrovsk that would threaten supply to units further towards Rostov and potentially for e a retreat by threatening a cutoff) and to stop at a defensible river line to entrench for Summer 42. In retrospect, I overestimated the mobility of low morale Soviet formations. While I was able to achieve a breakthrough, I couldn’t flip as many hexes as I expected. And in terms of composition, I’d make a few tweaks. Instead of putting 2 tank brigades and 1 rifle brigade on each cavalry corps, I’d use 2 tank brigades and 1 motorized brigade to help with forming guards tank corps later. Also, I used rifle divisions for attacks. In retrospect, I think I’d try to maneuver my rifle corps to the offensive sector so I could stack more divisions for the attacks and attach more brigades. I am also reconsidering whether a broader push across the line might be more effective than a concentrated push, given mobility limits.

(4) My final goal was to prepare for 1942. Eventually, I chose to build lots of rifle divisions because I had a lot of manpower and to only use my corps allotment when I had 2 guards divisions available. I think this was the right strategy for 1942 because, while the Soviets are in a better position to fight in 1942 compared to 1941 (ie they can entrench, have more troops, better commanders in place, more TOE in HQs) I found that they still lose most individual combats (their NM falls to 45 during this time, and the Germans start 1942 with infantry on the line instead of chasing panzers and with a better supply situation). Certainly, they can’t be strong enough to prevent breakthroughs everywhere, so they’ll have to abandon their fully entrenched line and soon be in a running battle. So I found that for most of the line in clear terrain, it was unrealistic to expect to hold the entire line, but to instead build a defense in depth to slow the German advance and deplete their starting CPP. Lots of rifle divisions meet this goal, but there were several problems that I didn’t anticipate.

By promoting only guard corps, the corps were scattered throughout the line. I also failed to anticipate the command capacity change to 18 for most armies in early 1942, which also unlocks your armies and pull SUs up, and the lack of front command capacity until new fronts arrive (the Caucasus/Crimean, the SE, the Voronezh, and the Transcaucasus and unlocking of north Caucasus military district). I also failed to anticipate the artillery shortage that this would create, especially among the 88/120mm mortars, the 72mm usv and the 122mm howitzer. Even in late 1942 now, I’m still experiencing shortages of these items, even after production switch (and effectively doubled) from the USV to the ZIS. In contrast, I have a constant shortage of tank brigades and a surplus of tanks. I should have ordered a lot more brigades to account for the large increase in the large increase in armies needing brigades as attachments, the increase in corps needing them as attachments, the large increase in 1942 tank production (ie, with lend lease, the Soviets are receiving over 400 medium tanks a week by mid/late 1942) and the need to have a surplus sitting in the reserve gaining experience while others are in the field. And I also failed to anticipate the lead time for rifle division construction. Allocating the TOE and manpower can be done quite quickly, but the division is much better if it sits in the SR until it’s experience increases to 45 (ideally 50, but NM drops to 45 during this time).

In retrospect, I’d order a lot of rifle divisions shortly after their AP cost drops to 2, I’d try to build armies as 9 divisions each or as 3 corps/3 divisions or as a 5 corps set up for shock/guards armies for non-assault fronts. For every 20 rifle divisions that I built (which should create 2 guards divisions and 1 Guards corps at 10% guard rates and 1 full 9 division army), I’d order 5 tank brigades (2 for the army, 1 to attach to the guards corps, 2 to rebuild in the reserve as replacements when the combat brigades have a low TOE). This is on top of whatever would be needed for the cavalry corps for the winter offensive. I might even up this to 6 brigades, depending on whether I want attach 1 or 2 tank brigades to a corps. I would also have a few reserve armies attached to STAVKA sitting on the map, but behind the line building CPP, and I’d ensure that I had lots of rifle brigades deployed in May 1942 to merge into depleted divisions, because the losses in the first few turns of summer 1942 were so high that on map replacements and refit were just not enough to keep up.

So, what could I have improved in my thinking? This was more or less my first time playing Soviets ever, WITE1/2 combined.


< Message edited by Firewire9452 -- 6/20/2021 5:43:57 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Winter ‘41 Soviet Strategy - 6/20/2021 6:03:35 PM   
loki100


Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline
1+2 seem pretty sound ideas

3 - not sure I'd see the Mech/Tank divisions as combat formations, if you get a turn with just snow they are very mobile (& no big deal if you lose them)

4 - I wouldn't overbuild, its not AP or even manpower but artillery (as you say below)

doesn't sound like you made enough use of the Assault fronts, that both eases CP and allows an attack in echelon. You have to pick a sector but a formation in an assault command that doesn't move and is out of ZoC gets 50 CPP back. Done with some care this allows you to really build momentum (for the Soviets CPP is good not just for the combat bonus but if offsets some of your low leadership values)

don't forget that changing unit HQ is pretty much cost free, so you should be able to bring the Corps/Gds together

you're right, esp in the south you are not going to hold onto these gains, come late Feb start to think about where to pull back.

quote:

few reserve armies attached to STAVKA sitting on the map, but behind the line building CPP


as above in an assualt front that is 50 CPP per turn, elsewhere its around 16.


_____________________________


(in reply to Firewire9452)
Post #: 2
RE: Winter ‘41 Soviet Strategy - 6/20/2021 8:11:48 PM   
Firewire9452

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 4/1/2021
Status: offline
Thanks for your input. I was using 2 assault headquarters and still ran into command capacity issues (but I think that might have been the result of playing against the AI; my 41 losses were lower than most of the AARs that I've read). I also delayed setting a 3rd assault headquarters because I was holding it until I had a better idea where the 42 offensive would strike and because I didn't want to waste the AP. In retrospect, I would have used the 3rd assault HQ as soon as it became available because I'm running a large AP surplus by the end of 42. If I had to change the assault HQ in June, it wouldn't have been a big deal.

You're right that overbuilding was an issue. If I had to redo Winter 41, I'd build the forces that I needed for the Winter '41 offensive first, and then proceed to build 6-8 rifle divisions a turn until I depleted any built-up mortar and artillery reserves. Being my first attempt, I fell behind on the building, and then had a few turns of building 20 divisions, which predictably overshot.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 3
RE: Winter ‘41 Soviet Strategy - 6/21/2021 5:57:26 PM   
GloriousRuse

 

Posts: 906
Joined: 10/26/2013
Status: offline
As a personal preference, I tend to think of “the breakthrough” as a bit of a siren call for the winter offensive. If the enemy is strong, you need heavy snow and blizzards to choke them and provide maluses, as well as prevent counterattacks from ruining you. Heavy snow means you aren’t racing to exploit.

Where the supply deserts let you smash the Germans about, your own logistics are usually going to give out before they’re badly battered enough to create reliable holes for penetration.

And where there’s just “clear snow”, the German mobility advantage is going to make breakthroughs very difficult without exposing yourself to counter-encirclement.

As a result, I tend to think the best way to kill the Germans is to beat them to death and maybe take what small isolations you can. It’s far easier to simply kick a corps in the teeth every week until it collapses than it is to try to out-German the Germans.

(in reply to Firewire9452)
Post #: 4
RE: Winter ‘41 Soviet Strategy - 6/21/2021 9:11:48 PM   
M60A3TTS


Posts: 4014
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Firewire9452
And in terms of composition, I’d make a few tweaks. Instead of putting 2 tank brigades and 1 rifle brigade on each cavalry corps, I’d use 2 tank brigades and 1 motorized brigade to help with forming guards tank corps later.


If you are going to go with 2 tank brigades, I'd use a naval infantry brigade to round out the support units. The motorized brigade needs trucks and the naval infantry doesn't. That and the latter is basically the stronger of the two.

(in reply to Firewire9452)
Post #: 5
RE: Winter ‘41 Soviet Strategy - 6/22/2021 8:18:10 PM   
Firewire9452

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 4/1/2021
Status: offline
Would you recommend something other than 2 tank brigades? My goal was to maximize my chance to promote tank brigades to guards for tank corps, but I didn’t experiment with different setups to see the impact on CV. Also, I disbanded most of the naval brigades to redirect manpower and equipment to rifle divisions and the larger rifle brigades. It sounds like you have a favorable view of the naval brigade and would recommend against this.

(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 6
RE: Winter ‘41 Soviet Strategy - 6/23/2021 12:46:12 AM   
56ajax


Posts: 1950
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Carnegie, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS


quote:

ORIGINAL: Firewire9452
And in terms of composition, I’d make a few tweaks. Instead of putting 2 tank brigades and 1 rifle brigade on each cavalry corps, I’d use 2 tank brigades and 1 motorized brigade to help with forming guards tank corps later.


If you are going to go with 2 tank brigades, I'd use a naval infantry brigade to round out the support units. The motorized brigade needs trucks and the naval infantry doesn't. That and the latter is basically the stronger of the two.


I have noticed that a Sov tank regiment has more tanks than a brigade. So is it important to assign support units that contain weapons that the Corps is lacking or is it just a case of numbers, having as many 'tubes' as possible pointing in the general direction of the enemy?

_____________________________

Molotov : This we did not deserve.

Foch : This is not peace. This is a 20 year armistice.

C'est la guerre aérienne

(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 7
RE: Winter ‘41 Soviet Strategy - 6/23/2021 2:31:10 AM   
M60A3TTS


Posts: 4014
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Firewire9452

Would you recommend something other than 2 tank brigades? My goal was to maximize my chance to promote tank brigades to guards for tank corps, but I didn’t experiment with different setups to see the impact on CV. Also, I disbanded most of the naval brigades to redirect manpower and equipment to rifle divisions and the larger rifle brigades. It sounds like you have a favorable view of the naval brigade and would recommend against this.



It depends on what you want your cavalry corps to do. If you are trying to gain wins for the tank brigades. go with two and an infantry. Use them initially to support your rifle division attacks. Later, if you are going to exploit and be subject to counterattack, go with two infantry and one tank.

Yes, you just deleted many of your best support units from a CV standpoint. Try not to do that in the future if it can be avoided.

Cavalry corps should never get motorized infantry. It's an unnecessary truck commitment. Regular brigades don't need trucks and the cavalry corps goes just as fast.

(in reply to Firewire9452)
Post #: 8
RE: Winter ‘41 Soviet Strategy - 6/23/2021 2:34:24 AM   
M60A3TTS


Posts: 4014
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 56ajax


quote:

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS


quote:

ORIGINAL: Firewire9452
And in terms of composition, I’d make a few tweaks. Instead of putting 2 tank brigades and 1 rifle brigade on each cavalry corps, I’d use 2 tank brigades and 1 motorized brigade to help with forming guards tank corps later.


If you are going to go with 2 tank brigades, I'd use a naval infantry brigade to round out the support units. The motorized brigade needs trucks and the naval infantry doesn't. That and the latter is basically the stronger of the two.


I have noticed that a Sov tank regiment has more tanks than a brigade. So is it important to assign support units that contain weapons that the Corps is lacking or is it just a case of numbers, having as many 'tubes' as possible pointing in the general direction of the enemy?


You are right about regiments having more tanks. That's really all they are. The brigades have fewer tanks but a modicum of infantry that helps with the CV. I'd suggest any tank regiments you intend to employ stick with rifle units while keeping them away from tank and cavalry corps that could use the infantry help that brigades provide.

(in reply to 56ajax)
Post #: 9
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2 >> The War Room >> Winter ‘41 Soviet Strategy Page: [1]
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

2.640