Stalingrad Campaign alt turn 55 - some comments

[cavalry corps]

I would like to make the following observations based on a full campaign of M44 and 60 turns of S42 alt games. First of all I think that the alt oob has added a lot to PZC but there seem to be a few bits out of sync.

These are my observations on my current game of S42 some of them of coarse can be changed but I would like to put them forward as possible amendments and welcome any comments.

1. I think that where there are really no HW companies and few AT guns depicted there should be some hard attack value at one hex for all infantry in S42, armour fires away at them with complete impunity. In M44 there is a fire value ( I know in there ate PZFST etc by 44 ) and that helps but in S42 there is not and the infantry are just getting trashed without reply which leads me on to the issue of the T34 76c
2. In alt this tank T34 76c seems overrated 19/2 for soft attack , where does that come from , I do not think any usual tank should have a two hex soft value in the first place( I know there are a few ) . The hard value seems high as well 17/1?

3. Set up value for Soviet artillery in S42 seems a bit high as they are moving and firing pretty quickly. I would have thought set up times would still be quite long.

4. Rumanian soft fire values seem so low even in some of their best units like the IST Tank they hardly do anything 4/1 could be replaced with 6/1

5. It would be nice if some of the later fortifications were added on the map by that I mean bunkers

6. Regt HQ units could be added for all Panzer divisions( or increase the command range of the Divisional HQ ). Maybe the command range of 6A HQ could be improved. I know Paulus was ultra cautious but I think he should be able to reach most of his units; the short range is causing a lot of problems.

7. Tank Corps HQ command range should be reduced for Soviet for lack of radios and keep them tight together in stead of running all over the map – they simply could not do this. How about say 5 hex

8. Soviet Penal co should be morale E or F not C (is that an error), maybe give them mine clearance capability.

9. Soviet guards seem to have lower soft attack values than non guards and the hard values are at variance is that correct?

10. 1942 Guards artillery units should really be rated as D, the first units are emerging as C at this stage not really whole divisions. All rockets should be D anyway

11. IL2 defence is 18 Stuka is 10, is this by design?

12. 44ID could be A morale it was probably the best inf Division of 6A

13. Soviet Cav Div command range should be improved a little these units were designed around a loose organisation able to operate over a wide area.

14. The German Nashorn unit has a def of 15 , lovely but I think its wrong , I bought this up before

15. AA units are still not primarily AA in how I use them , suggest improving the AA range by all at least one hex.

16. Jaegers in STGD area are D morale , I think this maybe a mistake as they have been lumped with the LW units

17. 2SS Pzc values seem a bit out of sync some PZGr are 10/1 while others are 11/ 1 . The command range seems a bit low for such elite units as it does for all PZD

18. Why is the MG btln assault value so low ( North STGD sector )

one or two other things I cannot remember now
Anyway always playing alt and these are my cvomments

Cav.

[Vaevictis]

>>2SS Pzc values seem a bit out of sync some PZGr are 10/1 while others are 11/ 1 . The command range seems a bit low for such elite units as it does for all PZD

For the SS the lower command range might make sense. I've read in several places that their upper command structures suffered from lacking the training and professionalization of the Wehrmacht leadership.

[Vaevictis]

I found one of the references I was recalling:

Ziemke, Stalingrad to Berlin p. 90

"Headquarters, SS Panzer Corps, was new and afflicted with both inexperience and overconfidence."

The quote is in the context of the Feb. 43 fighting around Kharkov.

He also mentions command problems stemming from SS back-channels to Hitler, which allowed them to be insubordinate and get away with mistakes by shifting blame to Wehrmacht commanders.

Ziemke has a strong example in SS Corps commander Hausser's reaction to the Feb. 14th revolt in Kharkov, again on p.90.

Hausser, against a direct order from Lanz, prepared to bug out of the city. Next day, he is talking about "Holding the City to the last man". Day after that, he decides to withdraw from the city, presenting Lanz with a fait accompli due to the dire situatiuon.

After the loss of the city, Hitler sacked Lanz, whom Ziemke then describes as a 'scapegoat'.

[cavalry corps]

OK there was lots of in fighting but they still pulled it off. What about my other comments?

[Volcano Man]

I have answered all of these over at vmods.com where you posted the same thing.

[Vaevictis]

I was thinking they pulled it off due to the quality of troops and equipment in spite of higher level command deficiencies. Pzc can simulate such a situation well with a lower HQ range combined with high morale and combat values.

I don't think it is the in-fighting itself that is a problem. Hausser's insubordination and irresolute leadership is what is bad, and the SS superiority at in-fighting is just an explanation of how someone with those flaws could stay in his job.

Overall, I get the sense that the privileged back channels protected poor leaders from being weeded out. At the same time, the SS leadership may have been less able to learn from mistakes that they could blame on others.