Updated Normandy'44_Alt (third time, 13 AUG)

[Lowlander]

Would recommend Fire Brigades, The Panzer Divisions 1943-45 by Kamen Nevenkin, detailed combat history and graphs for unit OOB. However it's a expensive book but well worth the cost. I believe it's the holy grail on Panzer Divisions.

A few years back I sold some of my older wargame figurines at a wargaming event and bought a load of expensive books some second-hand including this at the same venue with the proceeds. So many that I still hav'nt read them all.

Gave my better half the change £200+, she still was'nt pleased at what I had spent.

[Strela]

Great post Volcano man re the challenges tank forces have when used en masse - under the McNamara rule set.

I was particularly interested in the comments regarding German tank strengths in Normandy. It echoed what I had seen with Korsun in that all German tank units were full strength and way over stated for the actual situation. It was the findings of that research that prompted me to redo the Korsun scenarios.

A quick scout through my reference library (Jentz's Panzertruppen 2 sufficed in this case) turned up the following;

Guderian's (Panzer Inspector) report to Hitler on June 10th regarding tank strength available in France. It's very important to note that France was being used to refurbish and reconstitute units from the Eastern Front. This meant that they were bought up to full TO&E in terms of equipment very quickly but took longer to bring personnel up to a level that they could be committed to combat. The German doctrine was to leave units in the field until they burned out and then rebuild them (in Germany & France). Of the nine Panzer Divisions in France & Belgium only three had been slated for the actual defence of the country (21st, Panzer Lehr & 12th SS). 17th SS Panzer Grenadier with it's single Panzer Battalion was also slated for the defence of France.

Guderian's Report showed nearly 1,900 armoured vehicles available.





Importantly, the actual number available (both operational and under repair) is in the following charts;


Forces responsible for defending France;





Reinforcements used in Normandy during June (usually moved from their training grounds in France to the front)





Reinforcements used in Normandy during July (from across Europe)





As can be seen many of these units were full TO&E before being committed to combat. Very importantly though to note is that the ONLY Panzer replacements received in the West between June 6th & July 8th was 17 Pzkw IV's to 21st Panzer Division. Every unit had to recover its own vehicles and repair / keep them in good repair with their own assets. Essentially the German forces in the West received reinforcements of whole formations, rather than replacements for units in the field.

Here is the summary of the claimed German losses by the Allies and the actual complete write offs of vehicles recorded by the Germans;




Of interest is that Guderian said that the Panzer Divisions were in very good shape during June and July and were available for offensive actions. When compared to the starting strength of 1,891 vehicles this 349 vehicle loss equated to just 18.5% of the starting number.

If we look at some of the fluctuating strengths during the campaign we see the following.

21st Panzer Divisions, 22nd Panzer Regiment. This Division lost half its Pzkw IV's during June but actually kept operational the remainder of its vehicles till at least mid July.




Michael Wittman's SS sPz Abt 101 lost half its vehicles on the approach march (due to mechanical issues) but managed to keep 30 Tigers on its roster for nearly all of June & July. It 'only' had 15 irreparable losses during June and a further 5 in July. That said the actual operational vehicles was painfully low at any one time with periods where no Tigers were available for combat. Again the organic workshops managed to keep this Abteilung in the field.




As a final comparison, here is 1st SS Panzer Regiment (Leibstandarte). This unit once having traversed France to Normandy increased it's operational strength as damaged vehicles returned to the battalions;




Looking at the losses in July, a period of initial positional warfare and then the break out we see the following;




Of significance is the comments regarding losses to air attack. This equates to less than 10% of vehicles reviewed by the British post battle. Of interest a similar comment was made regarding the (first) Gulf War;

One Iraqi tank battalion started the war with about 35ish tanks dug in Kuwait - after 6 weeks of aerial attack by highly sophisticated modern fighter bombers with smart weapons they had lost 7 destroyed.

During the land battle a US armoured unit engaged the afore mentioned Iraqi battalion and 15 minutes later they had no tanks, or any other vehicles left.

Considering how sophisticated modern fighter bombers are that is an interesting set of statistics…..

All in all on the above, I would concur that the German Panzers should be fairly close to full strength, pretty resilient and injured but not fatally by air.

As a final comment to back up Volcano Man's test; after the war debriefing of German Generals confirmed that about 30% of their losses were mechanical, 10% air, 15% AT defences and the rest to allied tanks.

David

[Elxaime]

Thanks for the comments. There seem to be three issues here regarding the McNamara values and Normandy tank stacks:

1. Direct fire against infantry = should infantry be as helpless as they are?
2. Artillery fire = is it doing adequate damage?
3. Are tank quantities/qualities overstated?

On point 1, this brings up something that came up also during a Modern Campaigns discussion. Are certain armored vehicles doctrines and ammunition supply consistent with maintaining sustained long distance fire against soft targets? Some vehicles, like the US 155mm mounted on an AFV chassis, are dedicated to this task. Others, like the Panther or Tiger, is that also the case? Didn't they carry limited quantities of HE? How common was it for them during the war to sit and bombard enemy infantry, turn after turn after turn? As far as the doctrine part, AFV strength is always assumed to partly lie in their mobility. German generals lamented the necessary use of their tanks in Normandy as glorified pill boxes to stiffen their thin line. An emplaced or semi-mobile tank became a target for enemy air and naval guns. Maybe the answer is to reduce armor soft attack values to reflect both doctrine and ammunition supplies (being mainly for use against hard targets).

On point 2, the history books time and again point to how concentrations of targets, whether hard or soft targets, provided tremendous incentives for enemy artillery. I am not sure the current impact of artillery, even in the example given, is adequate. I am wondering if another way to handle things is to increase the values of weapons hitting an over stacked hex.

On point 3, that sounds like an interesting historical debate. The Germans may have had ready stores of replacement tanks. But what use are they without trained crews? And did the Panzer divisions, including SS, refitting in Normandy receive enough crews, and well-trained ones, to crew those new/repaired vehicles and operate them at their accustomed efficiency. Perhaps tweaks are in order to German numbers, and maybe use of the replacement system to simulate their reliance on repairing what they had rather than getting new vehicles. Maybe also a drop in morale rating for some of the battalions within a division that were the ones that were most recently refitted. Finally, how about raising the breakdown values for the Germans to reflect how worn some of their equipment was?

An example of how to creative address some of these issues was one of the mods that was done for Kursk 1943 (I forget which one). In stock K43, the southern front Germans get three battalions of Panthers. These were the early models and more or less brand new, still being subject to many "teething" issues and high breakdown rates. Many of the issues were not fully revealed until they had been tried in combat/field conditions. Alas, the stock Kursk 43 did not reflect these issues. The three Panther battalions were all rated at their "book" level of efficient and given "A" ratings. As a result, a stock Kursk 43 game did not play out at all like history. In the game, the Panthers are real killers and form an unstoppable wedge. In reality, in history many broke down repeatedly, others wandered into a mine field, and overall their performance was disappointing.

How did the mod handle this? The Panthers morale rating was reduced to "C". This is not because they didn't have skilled or motivated crews. This was a work-around to reflect the other issues that hampered their efficiency. Unfortunately, since the PzC breakdown rates are set globally, it wasn't possible to single out the new model Panthers for higher breakdown rates, so this was the only way to take the edge off their effectiveness and to better model historical performance.

---

This brings to mind two things I'd love to see if they ever decide to update the PzC engine:
- the ability to set break-down rates by unit
- the ability to set replacement rates by unit

[Tide1]

I love reading a discussion like this....Facts Facts Facts... You can't make bricks without clay. As the old saying goes.

[Ricky B]

Ah, I see Strela already posted counts for the divisions, so the comments below can be ignored if you like.

VM some example tank strengths at the start of June:

21st Panzer: 117 PzMkIVs (short and long)
Panzer Lehr: 101 PzMkIVs
89 Panthers
3 Tigers
2nd Panzer: 99 PzMkIVs
79 Panthers
Some would be in repair, others lost if moving to the front, due to air attacks or breakdowns. I discount air attacks killing too many based on various analysis I have seen, but there would be some level of damage to tanks anyway.

Rick

[Strela]

This brings to mind two things I'd love to see if they ever decide to update the PzC engine:
- the ability to set break-down rates by unit
- the ability to set replacement rates by unit

Both are in the system.

You can set breakdown by vehicle type. It's called low reliability. It was actually introduced in Kursk for the Germans. It was last used in Moscow '42 for tanks like the Matilda.

Replacement rates by unit can be set within the order of battle, a feature introduced with France '14.


David

[Elxaime]

This brings to mind two things I'd love to see if they ever decide to update the PzC engine:
- the ability to set break-down rates by unit
- the ability to set replacement rates by unit

Both are in the system.

You can set breakdown by vehicle type. It's called low reliability. It was actually introduced in Kursk for the Germans. It was last used in Moscow '42 for tanks like the Matilda.

Replacement rates by unit can be set within the order of battle, a feature introduced with France '14.


David

Thanks! I did not know that!

[Volcano Man]

Strela,

WOW, thanks for the extensive info! This is exactly the info I need. Thanks also Rick. :)

OK, so we now know that the paper strength of these units were (for the most part) at their full compliment, but now I know that all of these tank battalions arriving from off map sources MUST be reduced to factor in maintenance failures, air interdiction and partisan activities enroute.

At this point in time I have a possible approach: 70% strength for units that arrive from Calais, which models -10% for interdiction + -20% for maintenance failures (both enroute and of the residual rot kind). 80% strength for units that arrive from just off map, which models -15% maintenance and -5% interdiction.

I think that is a pretty good approach for a more realistic arrival tank strength here, rather than having them show up at 100%. I will do that in the next update, so anyone wanting to play a N44_Alt campaign might want to wait for that. ;)

[Volcano Man]

Elxaime,

Unfortunately I probably do not have the time to address all your questions as much as you would like, but I will try! But really though, (and I hate to say it) this has all been discussed in the past so maybe you can find more answers in the forum search or within the changes files in each _Alt. That said, a couple of things I will try to mention:

1) In regards to artillery, this all depends. I mean, in the stock game is artillery particularly effective against later war tanks? No, I don't think it is. The point being, how effective artillery is against hard targets depends on a lot of factors. In the Alt, if you can catch a large tank unit in clear terrain with several 155mm 20+ gun battalions then you can punish it, but this would be mid to early war tanks. This isn't much different than the stock game in that regard, and the artillery hard attack values (3 and 5) were actually officially sanctioned after being discussed extensively at Tillercon II (or III). Late war tanks of course have a higher defensive rating, which of course cuts back on how effective artillery, and everything else for that matter, is against them. I am not sure I understand why this is apparently a bad thing though, because artillery should be supplemental to everything else in the first place, used for fatigue accumulation and disruption mainly, not for decimating tanks or infantry.

2) In regards to tanks vs. infantry with direct fire, in my example I stated that I had tanks firing on infantry and the results from a 50 Panther tank battalion were not that staggering. Of course in the open the situation would be different, but there the tanks reign supreme anyway. Having had the curse of being both a tanker and infantryman myself, I don't see the current relationship in the (Alt) of infantry relying on AT battalions and other tanks to provide them with the real AT capability they require to stand up against tanks as a bad thing. IMO, the stock OOB doesn't place enough emphesis on tanks -- tanks are just one more unit type that gets thrown into the meat grinder of values that churn around and turn into a WW1 game of attrition after both sides meet. That is just my personal opinion though, and the goal in the Alt is to make the combat more mobile, but I am not saying that my approach isn't incorrect. I think any approach will have a flaw, so you just have to "pick your poison", so to speak. :)

3) In regards to German tank quantities and qualities, yes indeed! I think that the Alt values simply help expose a truth: that the German tanks are too highly rated in quality and also too numerous in N44 as compared to historical levels at the front -- as I mention, they arrive at 100% strength from off map sources after long road marches and heavy air interdiction. This doesn't make any sense to me and as I said I am going to go with the 70/80% approach in the next update, because I think it makes sense. Secondly, regarding quality, it is a fact that the Germans were, as you hint, rebuilding their forces in Normandy with fresh recruits so they typically didn't have the experience yet to be rated A and B in many cases. Because of this, we can assume the following (going down the OOB):

21st Panzer Division: this one really is quite astounding to me, because I think it is simply our infatuation with the division from North Afrika (DAK) heritage that causes us to rate it as B in the game. This unit practically ceased to exist after the North African campaign, and was rebuilt from the ground up in France after that, and the rank and file had mostly no experience whatsoever. Interestingly enough, you can really predict how much of a hodge podge ad hoc thrown together unit was just by looking at its units -- it uses quite a bit of French equipment in armor and SP artillery; DAK veteran formation it was not. This division is the most offending in unit quality to me, being rated B again because I think we are just so in love with its DAK heritage. It makes more sense to rate this unit as C, with A quality HQs (which represent the highly experienced cadre and leaders from the battles in North Africa). Of course this unit doesn't have any Panthers though, so it isn't much of an issue with super tank stacks anyway, still, they can be quite terrible to deal with, probably more than was historically the case. Weakening them, as I think they should be, would more historically confine them to a smaller section of the front once the reinforcements arrive, and put them in a more (historical) defensive role after that I think.

1st SS Panzer Division: this division was another one that was totally rebuilt from the Eastern Front, having no experience yet (IIRC). So this is rated C already in the _Alt and also in the stock game, and this makes sense. The HQs are rated at A though, to represent where the experience was.

12th SS Panzer Division: this division had no combat experience, but as we know it was highly motivated and trained. This is a bit tricky here, would the high motivation but lack of experience register at B quality instead of A? I tend to think that they should be rated as B but with A quality HQs. Here is something that supports that:

"While the Hitlerjugend members, who had grown up under NSDAP propaganda, were committed to the Nazi cause, they had no military experience. To provide a skilled backbone for the division, veterans from the 1st SS Panzer Division LSSAH were assigned to the Hitlerjugend division and provided all the regimental, battalion and most of the company commanders... " --Wiki

It seems to me like the reason this unit is rated at A is simply because of those History Channel documentaries that are so infatuated with the unit.

2nd SS Panzer Division: like the 1st SS Panzer Division, this division was also rebuilt after heavy fighting on the Eastern Front and contained recruits with no experience. Its HQs are A of course.

9th & 10th SS Panzer Divisions: both of these were refitted, but had seen action on the Eastern Front after that, so they are already both rated as entirely B quality (HQs too since both divisions were relatively new) now in the next version of the Alt. It makes sense too, considering that these divisions were often referenced as "twins" in this campaign (IIRC). The old ratings for these divisions were A and C respectively, so it averages those two together, which makes sense given their nearly identical situation.

17th SS Panzer Grenadier Division: while not a panzer division, I think this one is perplexing and very wrong. It is rated at B, probably again because of the tendency to rate German formations too highly (especially SS), but in reality this division was built from scratch at the end of 1943 from replacement units and conscripts, many of which were Romanians and French. At the time of Normandy, this formation only had a few months of training, so it makes sense to rate this division no higher than C quality. According to wiki, the division was understrength in officers and NCOs, so C quality brigade HQs can represent that, and it doesn't sound like they were drawn from experienced sources either, but the division HQ should probably be B quality as the only nod given to the fact that at least that HQ would have some experienced leadership.

2nd Panzer Division: this is another division whose quality is more likely decided by infatuation with the unit rather than any sort of reality. It is generally accepted that this division was an elite panzer division in the German army, but it too suffered heavy casualties and was refitted in France with recruits. They have always been rated as A in N44, but I believe this to be a mistake. We can assume that they too should be rated as C with A quality HQs, but then we can also give them a nod because of their "elite" status has to be some sort of motivating factor for them, recruits or not, which probably means they should at most be rated as B with A quality HQs. This more or less puts them in line with some of the panzer divisions in France '40 I think (elite status but no experience = B), which incidentally is also the reason for rating the 12th SS Pz Division as B above.

Panzer Lehr Division: again, our love for this division overrides any sort of logical quality assignment I think. The entire division is rated as A, despite having no experience. We know it was an elite formation, being comprised of elite training and demonstration units, but no experience has to count for something. So, this division should be rated similar to 2nd Pz Division and 12th SS Pz Division above, B quality from elite status and training but lack of experience, A quality HQs.

116th Panzer Lehr Division: IIRC this division was created from the remnants of a panzer grenadier division that was nearly destroyed on the Eastern Front, and some second line static infantry division from southern France, however it is rated as B. Again, another case of rating German panzer divisions too highly. The second rate formation could probably have been considered as D quality at best, and the remnants of the panzer grenadier division from the eastern front was all but destroyed and rebuilt, so this should all combine to rate the division as C with A quality panzer grenadier regiment HQs taken from that experienced division. The division HQ could be rated as A (von Schwerin was an experienced division commander and capable), and the panzer brigade could be rated B because it would likely have had experienced officers but also newly promoted ones (because the original formations this division was comprised of did not have a panzer regiment).

9th Panzer Division: yet another division that was almost totally destroyed on the eastern front, and rebuilt from recruits (it apparently only had 13 tanks in the division when it was transferred to France for refit). So, it should be rated as C with A quality HQs to again represent experienced leadership and cadre.

Whew. I think this is all on the right track as a more historical and logical assignment of quality levels to these German panzer formations, and it moves away from a Germanophile approach to quality level assignments. This also means that the only German panzer formation in the OOB that will be rated as A would be the SS.Pz.Btl.101, which makes sense to me (being both experienced, highly trained and of elite status). I am leaning towards doing all this in the next update unless someone has a major gripe about it, but I think all these changes are good (quality level adjustment, slightly higher breakdown, reinforcement arrival strength adjustment). All of these changes are subtle, logical and should have a nice effect on balance in the long run of the campaign game. :)

BTW, you are correct about the Panthers in Kursk '43. The stock game had these rated at A, but this made them basically the spearhead and centerpiece of anything that happens in the south, which is not historical. They played a part in the battle, but (as you said) their crews were inexperienced and the tanks had not yet been teethed. They do have "low reliability" flag in K43_Alt, and it was rationalized that these units would be rated as C because of no experience, but then lowered again to D because of relatively little experience with the new equipment they were given. This makes them less of a centerpiece in the campaign, and more of a minimal impact - like a "cool" unit to use at first until it wastes away into nothing later.

///////////////////

All that said, I also do think the Axis breakdown rate should be a LITTLE different than it is too. Let us think about this for a moment: it is a well known fact that German tanks could be considered a highly engineered piece of equipment for its day, which is both a good and a bad thing. This often meant that they were more prone to mechanical failures than simpler (and less effective) allied tanks. Barring giving the "low reliability" flag to all German tank units -- which wouldn't be fair -- at the very least they should always have a higher breakdown rate than the Allies *late in the war* (lets say 1943+). If they do not, then historical advantages such as a extremely reliable T-34 or Sherman tank, cannot be represented because both sides have the same breakdown rate (which is usually around 10%). Furthermore, IIRC, the breakdown rate is dependent on unit quality so this only further complicates the issue making breakdowns for German tanks even less likely than the allies, because they typically always have their tank units in the A and B range, while the allied tank units are typically in the B - D range. This means the allies actually suffer more breakdowns than the Germans do. It gets better: because the German tank units are generally always of higher quality then it usually also means that they are recovering strength faster than the allied tank units, if recovery levels are comparable (and they usually are, typically being 1% to 2% or so). So what does this mean? I think a typical breakdown rate for both sides in 1943+ campaigns in PzC should probably always be about 2 times that of the Allies. Rather than doubling the Allied rate here, I think I will make an adjustment to both, instead of 10% for both, I will change it to 8% Allied vs. 16% Axis, as this is not much different than the original, but establishes that 1:2 ratio mentioned above.

I know at least one old former big time PzC player around here that absolutely hated breakdowns, but this is/was a fact of life in armored warfare, and a problem that just had to be adapted to for operational commanders. It sometimes caused tank units to avoid lots of movement, because they didn't want to overwork their vehicles or because they needed to sit while they recovered the already broken down ones. This translates into more realistic behavior too, because commanders must avoid excessive movement, or at the very least, plan the movements better. That said, I am not recommending an extensive change here either, just one that establishes a better relationship between both allied and axis rates.

EDITED: I left out a few divisions the first time I made the post, added now.

[Strela]

All that said, I also do think the Axis breakdown rate should be a LITTLE different than it is too. Let us think about this for a moment: it is a well known fact that German tanks could be considered a highly engineered piece of equipment for its day, which is both a good and a bad thing. This often meant that they were more prone to mechanical failures than simpler (and less effective) allied tanks. Barring giving the "low reliability" flag to all German tank units -- which wouldn't be fair -- at the very least they should always have a higher breakdown rate than the Allies *late in the war* (lets say 1943+). If they do not, then historical advantages such as a extremely reliable T-34 or Sherman tank, cannot be represented because both sides have the same breakdown rate (which is usually around 10%). Furthermore, IIRC, the breakdown rate is dependent on unit quality so this only further complicates the issue making breakdowns for German tanks even less likely than the allies, because they typically always have their tank units in the A and B range, while the allied tank units are typically in the B - D range. This means the allies actually suffer more breakdowns than the Germans do. It gets better: because the German tank units are generally always of higher quality then it usually also means that they are recovering strength faster than the allied tank units, if recovery levels are comparable (and they usually are, typically being 1% to 2% or so). So what does this mean? I think a typical breakdown rate for both sides in most campaigns in PzC should probably always be about 2 times that of the Allies. Rather than doubling the Allied rate here, I think I will make an adjustment to both, instead of 10% for both, I will change it to 6% Allied vs. 12% Axis, as this is not much different than the original, but establishes that 1:2 ratio mentioned above.

I know at least one old former big time PzC player around here that absolutely hated breakdowns, but this is/was a fact of life in armored warfare, and a problem that just had to be adapted to for operational commanders. It sometimes caused tank units to avoid lots of movement, because they didn't want to overwork their vehicles or because they needed to sit while they recovered the already broken down ones. This translates into more realistic behavior too, because commanders must avoid excessive movement, or at the very least, plan the movements better. That said, I am not recommending an extensive change here either, just one that establishes a better relationship between both allied and axis rates.

EDITED: I left out a few divisions the first time I made the post, added now.

VM,

Again I think you're right on the money regarding the morale levels for each of the German Panzer/PG Divisions.

I am wondering though whether there is value in looking at the replacement rates for at least the Panzer battalions via the OB flag? I concur there should be a higher breakdown rate for the Axis vehicles but as I have pointed out in my post they were masters at getting those vehicles back into action. Doing this via the OB would have the advantage of not impacting the Infantry and other arms.

My rationale is that when static and not heavily engaged the Germans would recover and repair their vehicles. When moving or taking part in operations there would be no recovery and the expected attrition. Couple this with your lower starting strengths, the attenuation due to morale and it would be an unwise Axis player who threw all his Panzer Divisions into the line without ensuring ample time to rest or cycle units in or out.

As a compromise maybe a test OB could be setup using variant's to your standard Alt's.

All in all I am really liking the look of what you're suggesting and could even be enough to interest this East Front nut in the West Front!!!

David