Soviet AT Support Units

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Soviet AT Support Units

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 >> Soviet AT Support Units

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Soviet AT Support Units - 9/12/2021 7:30:57 PM

dereck

Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline

Is it worth having separate AT units or would one be better off disbanding them and having their AT and AA guns go directly to fill out combat unit TOEs?

Thanks

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

Post #: 1

RE: Soviet AT Support Units - 9/12/2021 7:41:11 PM

AlbertN

Posts: 3693
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline

By what I understood of the game I think the having flexible Brigades that work as SU units pretty much allows a player to attach them on the fly as emergency units to bolster sectors in need.

(in reply to dereck)

Post #: 2

RE: Soviet AT Support Units - 9/13/2021 8:07:55 AM

loki100

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck

Is it worth having separate AT units or would one be better off disbanding them and having their AT and AA guns go directly to fill out combat unit TOEs?

Thanks

as you'd expect this is situational, and probably not fully tested for WiTE2 yet. The logic in #1 was best in the units, but TOE had a slightly different role there.

Split the world into 3 scenarios:

a) a real global shortage of 'x' - I think the specialist route is probably the best, it gives you some control
b) an enduring lack of 'x' - I'd tend to unit, gets more use, keeps them strong and in the end they are your core combat tool
c) no real lack of 'x' - as you wish

The problem is that its not always feasible to separate out allocations even with refit and so on. The Soviet heavy artillery is an eg, it tends to solution (a) but you can't actually stop it flowing to the combat units (even if you'd be happy to see them reliant on mortars and 76mm artillery assets).

In 1941/2, the combination of low morale and low TOE is what triggers routs and shatters for the Soviets. Now again its not a simple choice. Getting their artillery/AT assets up is good (improves the TOE part of the equation) but makes them vulnerable to loss, but in the main I'd want as many of my combat formations at a high TOE as I can manage

_____________________________

(in reply to dereck)

Post #: 3

RE: Soviet AT Support Units - 9/14/2021 11:10:28 AM

Kel

Posts: 229
Joined: 12/17/2010
Status: offline

In 1941 I tend to keep a small pool of regiments in the Reserve for emergencies and disband the rest to flesh out the rifle divisions.
Later on, as the weapons come in higher numbers and infantry formations are correctly provisioned, I build some more in reserve.
The general key rule for support units, IMO, is to find a balance between having the SR too full (of unusable low-toe support units) or too empty - because freshly built support units have no experience.

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 4

RE: Soviet AT Support Units - 9/14/2021 2:52:47 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

My 2 kopeks, through 1942 the Red Army will have a shortage of AT guns for on-map units. For that reason, I would keep a handful of Regts for quick reinforcement of units about to get attacked by Panzers, and disband the rest. You need them in the Divisions.

The other factor nobody mentioned is TRUCKS; AT Regts and Brigades use vehicles. AT guns in Rifle Divisions do not. You'll save some vehicles that way which is important.

_____________________________

(in reply to Kel)

Post #: 5