Is the Kursk campaign viable?

[cavalry corps]

In my version of Kursk V4



Military principle .
Open combat should suit the Germans at Kursk this was not possible ( at least initially ) . The Germans were still masters of mobile warfare in Summer 43 .
Static attrition was what the Russians wanted and needed to halt the Germans , though they too were getting better at mobile ops as would be seen later in the year . Bearing these principles in mind ...I have addressed the following issues

Almost no Russian units are fixed except the strategic reserve. This is an essential amendment . Other Strategic units release a little earlier .

There are some VP locations in German hands in the North , the Russians can make a play for them if the Germans strip this units out .

The defences in general are much tougher , terrain defensive values are slightly higher . For instance Russian 76mm gun strong point in the open B morale 16/2 hard attack -60 defence +40 attack

The supply issue will become important on day three as it did mostly to The Germans

Russian air is a little better

Added stockpiling for artillery , this makes the Russian guns pretty powerful . It was the guns that stopped most of the Northern attack I understand

Some Russian units have raised morale all AT guns are better , better morale and much better defensive positions better killing power .

Many OOB amendments but no units were added or deleted


Having said all this the German units are tougher than the stock version and IF the Germans can gain the open ground in good order the Russians will get a beating

The scenario will be sent to Glenn later make sure you get Version 4




Kind regards

Michael

[Landser34]

One more bone to pick with stock K43 Campaign the Replacement rates should be switched the germans get 6 percent a turn and the Russian 2 percent now who thinks that is justifiable

[Elxaime]

I have often wondered about that. Here the Germans are, deep in Russia, arguably putting into the Kursk offensive their last significant reserves of men and materiel. And yet, in an attrition battle with the Soviets they will win. Why? Because in the stock scenario German units recover four times faster. This of course is not just fatigue, but men, tanks, guns.

As far as tanks, you can argue that the German tank recovery teams were good. But more than four times better than the Soviets? At a time when many believed that Soviet armor, which was simplified in design and in particular had less teething problems compared to the newer German tanks, were noted for their durability and ease of repair?

On infantry and guns, the argument I assume is that the higher recovery rates reflect better unit organization, medical services, and supply services for the Germans. I am not sure that would be the case at this point in the war, particularly as the Germans were at the end of a thousand mile supply system that was under constant partisan attack.

This was, I believe, another aspect of the design where it was deemed required for play balance that a German player, punching along the historic axis of advance into the teeth of constantly arriving Soviet reinforcements, needed a higher recovery rate to keep going. However, as it stands in the stock scenario, the German who wants an easy win will never attack as historically and the higher recovery rates mean he can also win a battle of attrition, at least in the south.

[Volcano Man]

Actually, this came up several times before in some discussions when I first created K43 ALT campaign scenarios. The recovery rate does not represent replacements, rather, it represents equipment and vehicles recovered and repaired and lightly wounded soldiers returned to duty.

Sure, replacements troops fall into the catigory somewhere (perhaps 1%) but the 2%/6% in Kursk in no means represents replacement soldiers fresh out of training.

Also, the issues lies in that fact that units of men / guns and vehicles utilize the same replacment level. This is rather unfortunate since in many cases the axis should have high recovery rates for vehicle units, moderate for levels for guns and rather low for units of men. The Soviets on the other hand would have a high recovery rate of men to represent those replacments. So because of this system it requires the axis (Germans) to have a moderate recovery rate to properly recover their vehicle based units.

[Elxaime]

Very good point on the differential needed in the replacement, recovery process. Ideally, this should be designer-defined for the game, which ability to set replacement/recovery rates separately for vehicles, guns and men.

One place where this would be great is N44 on the UK sector. By July 1944, the UK was running out of infantry replacements and indeed would soon start cannibalizing infantry units and breaking them down to fill out remaining formations. This shortage had a major impact on Montgomery's planning, resulting in carefully arranged set piece offensives that maximized artillery use. In the Goodwood operation, it became primarily an armored attack because the UK had plenty of tanks it could afford to replace, and didn't want to use up its infantry.

But in N44 as it stands, the UK replacement rate is the same for AFV (of which they had tens of thousands) and men (of which they were running out) allowing the Allied player to use his infantry in a manner more akin to the Somme 1916 than N44.

[Volcano Man]

Yes indeed, or, even better, remove the recovery percent from the PDT and apply it to each unit in the OOB as a numeric value. Thus, each turn, the engine checks the units recovery / replacement percent. But I doubt that will ever happen. I did mentioned before that a flag would be best for such circumstances in the OOB, something like "lower replacments" or "lower recovery", when given reduces the recovery rate of the unit by as much as 1/5. This could be applied to British infantry in N44, or units that required special training (thus restricting their replacement pool). This idea was apparently shot down though.

Part of the problem with lowerering the German recovery rate in K43 also stems from the issue that the Russians have so much artillery. I experimented with swapping the recovery values but it always results in the axis advance being stopped cold with no real chance of success from the constant soviet barrages. So the question is, should they (soviets) really have all those 36 gun mortar units or should they have a lower supply level. If neither of these is incorrect then the replacement rates must remain close to the stock values.

[Richrd]

Why not put one hex exclusion zone thingies between the sides everywhere except where the historical attack went in. If you can get through there you can go anywhere you want.

[Dashammer75]

Kursk is a great game. My only problem is that alot of the Russian combat power is fixed for a large portion of the fight. I would think that if all the Russian forces started the fight unfixed the out come maybe different.

I have started the campaign game 4 times with 3 different players. 3 times I have played the Russians and once as the Germans. I have won once as the Russians and once as Germans, 1 guy I was playing faded away and now I am playing one of the senior guys here at the blitz as the Russians and holding my own I think but it is still real early in the fight.

In my limited experience I have found that Russian to have any chance of winning has got to take the fight to the Germans. I mean The Russian has got to go on the Offensive.

The one thing I like the most about these games is that you fight the fight as your own history maker.