The Competition & Teaser Thread

[ComradeP]

I see...so the basis for giving most Sov units D morale is that "several [German-biased] books" and (German) "records" show that even in 1944 the Red Army was automatons incapable of attacking at less than 7:1 odds? Oddly enough, reading Sov sources gives a distinctly different impression...

I guess Volcano Man's/David's explanation might have been a bit simplistic, but flawed doctrine is at the core of the Soviet problem. Whereas Soviet behaviour on the strategic level improved significantly from 1941 to 1945, they were still hindered by an inferior doctrine which handicapped tactical prowess. Even if a unit had a core of veterans, high casualties resulting in complete overhauls of the division's manpower every couple of months worth of fighting and the conscription of untrained men from liberated territory would ensure that many of the men would be recruits with only rudimentary training.

Centralization of support assets, inflexible air support and logistics also meant that there were few consistent force multipliers to enhance the performance of the frontline ground units. After the initial very impressive opening barrage for an offensive, there might be literally no artillery support from anything bigger than the division's 122mm howitzers for days, depending on how quickly the artillery could be moved forwards and how important the army command thought your objectives were.

Even in 1945, the Soviets mostly suffered low to average casualties when fighting an encirclement battle, which is where German strategic doctrine significantly hindered the Germans by gluing them in place.

Attacks against prepared German positions remained costly because of the inflexible doctrine. If the plan called for you to assault across a minefield to remove the Germans from their bunkers, you did so even if the neighbouring formation had just achieved a breakthrough you could take advantage of. Soviet staff studies are actually quite honest about this if you can see through the euphemisms.

They clearly describe the Soviet plan and when you read that an attack "encountered strong opposition", you know the assault troops suffered high losses and didn't get anywhere. As the staff studies are rarely critical of higher echelons, you do have some reading in between the lines, but the information you need is normally there. Do keep in mind that the staffs tended to assume the German formations were full strength and planned for that, this also explains instances in 1944-1945 where massive firepower was deployed against burned out German divisions, with the predictable result that the German frontline folded instantly.

German reports are biased, obviously, but the lower level they are, the more honest they often become. A general like Von Manstein writing his memoirs benefits from representing the Soviets as clumsy amateurs, but a regiment's or battalion's report of a Soviet attack can be quite honest.

As PzC abstracts a number of things and doesn't have a direct leadership effect on combat (the leader quality is irrelevant for the actual combat), some sort of solution needed to be found I guess, so battalions/companies/platoons/sections might perform more poorly than they normally would to account for the flaws in Soviet leadership below corps level, doctrine and the problems of centralization and inferior logistics. Sadly for the average Ivan, his own experience often didn't matter much if his commander was incompetent and the plan for the operation was too simplistic or even suicidal.

On the other hand, provided the replacement system works in favour of the Soviets (as we've seen, this is an issue with Moscow '42), the game models Soviet strengths well I'd say: more tanks, more artillery, more units in general. You already have a serious advantage in being able to direct Soviet units where you want, and waging war with a more "Western" operational plan.

On average, generic German quality ratings (A quality for all mobile units and SS, B for everything else up to a certain point) might be more of a problem than C or D for the Soviets, as having less capable individual units wouldn't be much of a problem if there were not such a gap in capabilities with even regular German infantry units due to better soft attack ratings and quality ratings. In Moscow '42, for me the main challenge is not keeping the Soviet offensive going in terms of casualties sustained/strength left but the speed at which Soviet units disrupt and their often low recovering chance (the modified HQ file helps, though).

[Xaver]

Thanks for the pic strela, maybe this is the best way to show the game units and compare both sides.

Well, for me C-D quality in soviet side allways works fine in PzC, a lot better than when they try create a "detailed" quality OOB... i think in Minsk44 where with stock OOB soviet can roll over germans in good positions with no problem without use the roller.

For me C quality is the frontier between veteran units with good basic training (B quality) and the regular units but with not good basic training (D quality), A is for the combination of good training+good command+esprit de corps/fanatism+battle experience (more than other units) and well, E-F for me are another combination but in negative way (thinkin Ost battalions).

I see guard units as 50% veterans with bad basic training (from D to C or even B) but 50% are recruits with bad training and 0 experience... if we merge B or C with D for me C is a more real in game quality for guards, the unit main advantage was priority in replacements, they receive more recruits than regular units this means they can fight more and have more veterans but they suffer more casualties to.

Germans... well, before 1943 and after the initial war campaigns, training was good, modern and with time for it this for me means C quality in replacements but when you merge veterans with good training with this no experience recruits... i see more B than C, of course units with less battle experience could be set as C and you can see this quality in few titles but in general B is a good value for german infantry before middle 1944. Panzers is other history and here A-B depens for me of game balance.

I never believe 100% sources from one side but well, i find more reliable german official documents... see Prokhorovka and soviets 400-500 destroyed panzers

Oooo congratulations Strela, she looks very happy with her new trophy but ... ummm .... i think she is thinking "Strela, darling, finish PzB 01 or i am going to do my own version of Basic Instinct with out ice pick"

[Aaron]

Several books (such as von Mellenthin’s “Panzer Battles”) make the observation that the Red Army lacked individualism which is characteristic of western armies. This lack of individualism produced an almost automaton adherence to doctrine without any creativity whatsoever at the tactical level.
*******
Finally, it is said that even in 1944 the German soldier knew and felt that his unit was superior to his Russian counterpart. However, German divisions were like tiny stones in the midst of a vast ocean of endless Red Army troops. It should be noted that Russian troop quality, as a whole, was indeed improving gradually from 1942 to 1944, but this is inherently reflected in the fact that the number of Guards divisions were increasing as these divisions proved themselves and the organizational changes that improved over time (more artillery, air superiority etc). Records show that German units could stand their own ground even when outnumbered 6:1 but when Russian units are given high quality (B) this becomes impossible.

I see...so the basis for giving most Sov units D morale is that "several [German-biased] books" and (German) "records" show that even in 1944 the Red Army was automatons incapable of attacking at less than 7:1 odds? Oddly enough, reading Sov sources gives a distinctly different impression...

The individual fighter in the Red Army was, either intentionally or not, submerged into the “crowd” or “herd”. To that end, there is no real justification for Red Army units to be of sporadic quality levels between B and E but, rather, a standard average quality of C and D for combat units and varying quality levels ranging from excellent to terrible for individual HQ, based on their ability.

I find this statement rather strange, another reference to the inferior Sov "herd"...I would think that the soldiers in all armies (at least since Troy) are "submerged into the crowd", rather than running about as individual heroes, and yet German units can have distinctive quality ratings and Russian units cannot.

Frankly, this approach (I've refrained from calling it a "bias") is a significant turn off for me. I guess the Sov defenders in Stalingrad would also get C and D ratings, since you know, they are militarily incompetent automatons?

Its good that morale is moddable and can be changed to anything anyone wants. One of the qualitys of these games.

As for C rating this is an average rating not a bad rating. If you look at all the troops on the planet most armies would be a D,E and F so C is not a bad thing. Its nothing about the Russian solder as an individual fighting man but its a combination of him, his tactics and his commanders.

[Tide1]

Frankly, this approach (I've refrained from calling it a "bias") is a significant turn off for me. I guess the Sov defenders in Stalingrad would also get C and D ratings, since you know, they are militarily incompetent automatons?


Chill Dog

You've been around this site a couple of years now and know people on this site are students of The Great Patriotic War. Since the government archives have been opened in Moscow and material has been translated and published an even greater understanding of that period has come about.
Don't let your emotions cloud your judgment.

[GerryM]

The explanations above make sense, some at least. Will be interesting to see how many German units are A, maybe the fire brigade outfits?

If someone changes morale for some units I assume that means they cannot play PBEM as the other person's config would be different? I hope it is that way at least.

Read some of Decision in the Ukraine by Nipe. IIRC the Russians took very heavy casualties on the Mius. Got the impression they were throwing bodies at the problem as they assaulted the German trench line.

Also IIRC at Prokhorovka some Russian tanks broke through the German ranks but did not seem to know what to do when they did.

I assume the Morale is taking into account these kinds of incidents as well as those mentioned above by ComradeP et al.

Gerry

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

The Russians couldn't do much without overwhelming numbers most of the time. They did not appear to have the junior leadership like the western armies. They have never seemed to worry about casualties. When I was stationed in Germany, 80-82, they were expecting 10% casualties on live fire training exercises. Most things I have read about Russians is they didn't do anything without orders. There were times that if their orders were to take a hill, they continually attacked the same way without changes where the western armies most likely change things in the first attack if what they were doing wasn't working.

As for those in Stalingrad, what choice did they have? Fight the Germans or be shot by the NKVD? At least against the Germans, they had a chance to live, whereas with the NKVD, they knew they would be shot. For years, the description of an elite unit has been generously tossed about that is not warranted. Iraqi Republican Guards for one. I just don't see elite units in any of the lesser second, third or worse worlds out there. Countries just don't train like western militaries do.

[TheBigRedOne]

Years and years ago Frank "Echo 4" Harmon wrote a synopsis on what he felt the Squad Battles ratings means, at least in terms of the first game, Vietnam. Apples and oranges, I realize, but maybe some comparisons can be made...

A+ Morale

A leader with A+ Morale is a machine. A guy who walks upright in combat. He is usually a stone hearted SOB, a blind patriot, VERY convinced that what he is doing is right, or a very devout religious man. Only these personas can usually grant a man the moral justification for being such an efficient killer. If he doesn't die or win a Medal of Honor-Navy Cross ( or both ) the scenario or hasn't already won either or, or at least written up for them on numerous occasions, or achieve a spectacular feat, then he should not be given an A+ rating. A+ Morale is borderline to full blown insanity and a super healthy dose of luck. NO amount of training can give a Soldier A+ morale. He is born with it.

A Morale

This rating should be given only to Spec Ops, LRRP's, Div. Recon, or B rating troops in rare form that lives in infamy in the pages of history, Khe Sanh for example. A Morale is fanatical.

B Morale

This rating is for TOP OF THE LINE regular troops on any given day. Not fanatics, but highly trained "regular" units. Marine Infantry, 1st Air Cav, Army Airborne Inf. etc.

C Morale

C is actually above average when the ratings go to F. They wont hesitate to get into a scrap. However, like most Combat troops, they quickly become disillusioned if they start getting their asses kicked and may even become B Morale if they are kicking some themselves. I would say this level of morale is typical of regular army infantry.

D Morale

Realistically, D Morale is not as bad as one thinks. They'll fight if they have to, but they are in no big hurry to get into the mix. They just want to do what they have to get through it all and get home. A D is still a passing grade. Just below average for expectations of one's command. I hate to break it to most but when life is the cost, most people are not in a big hurry to do anything and this rating may be a bit more common than one may enjoy believing.

E Morale

E troops have either suffered a serious butt kicking or they are just ill suited for combat and they know it. Things look pretty grim to troops with E Morale.

F Morale

These guys want the hell out of Dodge as quick as possible.

[Compass Rose]

[ComradeP]

Even though the Soviets were certainly not a horde, replacing training in modern warfare with the cohesion of a massed attack was acceptable to both the Soviets and armies like the Chinese army in Korea or even most WWI armies at the start of the conflict.

Given enough time, the Soviets were quite good at strategic and operational level operations by 1945, but they were fighting a foe that was no longer remotely capable of offering prolonged resistance. Personally, I feel a Cold War turned hot scenario would've ended badly for NATO for most of the Cold War until the mid 1980's for the same reason: not enough men to hold the line, even though individual German/NATO units were superior on the tactical and lower command echelon levels.

There were many poor German commanders as well, obviously, but they were at the least trained properly in terms of doctrine which could serve as a partial compensation for flaws in leadership. For the Soviets, even a good leader would be handicapped by doctrine on the tactical level, just like the good German leaders were handicapped by doctrine on the strategic level and Hitler's meddling.

Let's say you're part of a Guards tank corps. Like Allied armoured formations, your organic infantry support is small compared to the number of tanks in the formation. Unlike Allied armoured formations, you have few organic support assets most of the time because even if they would normally be attached you're fighting well below paper strength, limited access to artillery support and little air support. Your flexibility is as such limited.

Shortages of halftracks means most of that infantry support is likely to be riding in trucks or partially on tanks. This means the tanks will soon outrun their infantry support in difficult terrain/difficult weather.

Even if the maintenance of the tanks is up to a high standard, which it often wasn't because unlike in Western armies many Soviet tank crews could only perform the most basic maintenance tasks themselves, poor manufacturing quality might still results in numerous breakdowns. Let's say this doesn't happen and the tanks work fine.

Compared to Western armies, you have an additional command level to deal with as a Soviet tank brigade's tank complement is the size of a Western tank battalion and on the tactical level you're handicapped because your tank platoons are small, so you end up with a lot of chiefs and few indians.

Assuming all of your commanders know what they're doing and you break through the initial German line after the opening artillery barrage, the tank corps is quickly stretched out over a significant area because its components are travelling at quite different speeds. (The Germans faced the same problem for their infantry support in Panzer divisions but the heavier support weapons were often towed by halftracks or on halftracks.)

At that point, your commanders need to make a choice, and making a choice is dangerous in the Soviet army because punishment usually waits if you fail. The choice they need to make is if they keep driving forwards to complicate the German response or not. If they do, a clean breakthrough might very well be the result but your unit is so stretched out that if it meets organized resistance it won't be combat effective until its components meet up. Time and time again, Soviet armoured spearheads were cut off and destroyed because tanks can't control non-clear terrain and there was no infantry to actually hold the terrain.

Your logistics are inefficient and aerial resupply is rare. Artillery support would also be rare aside from accompanying Katyusha's as the artillery's either still supporting the infantry or slowly moving to the front.

Even if you want to advance quickly, provided there's some kind of German reserve in the area your advance is going to be methodical both by design and out of necessity. The success of a deep penetration depends largely on how quickly the infantry can get to you and seal off any encirclements. Even if the initial German frontline is wrecked, that often can't be exploited fully. There were just too many things handicapping the Soviet mobile units to compare them to Western mobile formations, with good organic support in weapons and logistics, effective air support and aerial resupply and in the Allied case mechanized infantry support.

[Xaver]

Well, this is the problem when in units you only have 1 value to measure the unit performance (without weapons), here we can talk about:

1-training
2-morale
3-experience

Maybe with at least these 3 values are less problems, soviet can have good morale, good experience but bad training for example.

For me is a question of balance, i can say that soviets with B-C range simple are to strong in PzC for example and well, in WWII for me in east front was more a question of germany losing quality than soviets wining quality... in the end the training received by soviets in 1941 was more and better in 1945??? of course is diferent but i see more a reduction in german training quality+quantity.

Of course there is the option to edit OOB, here i need say that scen editor needs an improvement, i think if in an OOB the only things you change are units values (hard, soft, assault, quality... only values) why not we cant edit scen and select the alt OOB???, and maybe same with PDT... i think in open a scenario with editor and in File have not only the filenames you can have Edit filenames to select diferent OOB and PDT files.

Now the only way to have your OOB with diferent values is do this in a game folder copy.

The thread is on fire

Now we need see pics with germany infantry regiments to keep calm