Barbarossa Planning

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
User avatar
Stugbit
Member
Posts: 246
Joined: 01 Sep 2013 18:26
Location: Goiânia

Re: Barbarossa Planning

Post by Stugbit » 06 Feb 2019 22:09

ljadw wrote:
06 Feb 2019 21:28
Stugbit wrote:
06 Feb 2019 18:48
Guys, how important were the reinforces that arrived from the Far East to defend Moscow in Typhoon? They played a big role in the battle?
NO : only a few divisions . This has been discussed already on this forum .
Ok. Would you be kind enough to show me the thread where this was discussed?

Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008 20:40

Re: Barbarossa Planning

Post by Hanny » 06 Feb 2019 22:49

Stugbit wrote:
06 Feb 2019 22:09


Ok. Would you be kind enough to show me the thread where this was discussed?

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the- ... uly%201941
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

User avatar
Stugbit
Member
Posts: 246
Joined: 01 Sep 2013 18:26
Location: Goiânia

Re: Barbarossa Planning

Post by Stugbit » 06 Feb 2019 23:02

Hanny wrote:
06 Feb 2019 22:49
Stugbit wrote:
06 Feb 2019 22:09


Ok. Would you be kind enough to show me the thread where this was discussed?

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the- ... uly%201941
Nice site! Thank you, Hanny.

Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008 20:40

Re: Barbarossa Planning

Post by Hanny » 07 Feb 2019 08:09

Stugbit wrote:
06 Feb 2019 23:02


Nice site! Thank you, Hanny.
Hi

Your welcome, https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nigel-Askey/e/B00IQS5WQK he has a number of publications, plenty of data, and some are available as free google books.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Boby
Member
Posts: 2556
Joined: 19 Nov 2004 17:22
Location: Spain

Re: Barbarossa Planning

Post by Boby » 07 Feb 2019 10:56

Halder on 28.7.

"von Bock's forces too weak for further advance to the east, since he needed large forces on his right wing"

So jesk?

User avatar
BDV
Financial supporter
Posts: 3700
Joined: 10 Apr 2009 16:11

Re: Barbarossa Planning

Post by BDV » 07 Feb 2019 15:12

Boby wrote: Halder on 28.7.

"von Bock's forces too weak for further advance to the east, since he needed large forces on his right wing"

So jesk?
The move on Moscow is not necessarily a bad idea as such.

In the setting of:
PLANNED kesselschlaht operations between the wings of advancing Armee Groups, west of the Dvina-Dniepr, and as needed ON the Dvina-Dniepr basin,

the abandoning the Leningrad pipedream, and of the Silberfuchs imbecility

Axis forces could be on a line slightly east of the Pskov-Nevel-Vitebsk-Mazyr-Zhytomir-Iasi perimeter by end of July, backed by repaired North-South and a number of West-East raillines, fully stocked, with moderate casualties, fully prepared to strike either East and North-East (early Taifun) or in South and South-East (early Kiev).

Vitebsk - Moscow 520 km, Vitebsk - Leningrad 620 km, so there is a kernel of truth in the "early Moscow" narrative; but it could have a hope to work only if AGN-AGC cooperation is executed, Leningrad is not pursued, and early AGC-AGS cooperation is planned and executed.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

User avatar
BDV
Financial supporter
Posts: 3700
Joined: 10 Apr 2009 16:11

Re: Barbarossa Planning

Post by BDV » 07 Feb 2019 15:35

ljadw wrote:One example : it would take the railways weeks to transport the enormous amount of artillery ammunition to the front , even if this artillery ammunition was available in Germany, something which is unproved and even unlikely .
The ammunitions for the trophy guns were present in 1943 (when the retooled french 75 mm guns finally get to the Romanian units) and to the coastal artillery units in 1942 (as WAlly forces can attest from their first hand Dieppe experience).

Given that it was not produced after the occupation, it stands to reason that it was present beforehand. Thus it was present in 1941. Proper planning and execution would have seen it used against Sovjet strongpoints, improving timetables and reducing Axis casualties
(unless the Neuer Sowjetischer Mann was impervious to 194 mm obus explosif volleyed by Colonel Filloux's devices).
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008 20:40

Re: Barbarossa Planning

Post by Hanny » 07 Feb 2019 16:06

Gary Grigsby's War in the East is on sale, on steam if military sims ( and its a simulation rather than a game) are your thing its a good time to shell out 20 squids, then you can play out a drive on Moscow

online vid of the older version of the game to show you what kind of game it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-Mjn03AF_Q

Latest version
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFs9ZYO7_CA
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

User avatar
Stugbit
Member
Posts: 246
Joined: 01 Sep 2013 18:26
Location: Goiânia

Re: Barbarossa Planning

Post by Stugbit » 07 Feb 2019 20:07

Hanny wrote:
07 Feb 2019 16:06
Gary Grigsby's War in the East is on sale, on steam if military sims ( and its a simulation rather than a game) are your thing its a good time to shell out 20 squids, then you can play out a drive on Moscow

online vid of the older version of the game to show you what kind of game it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-Mjn03AF_Q

Latest version
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFs9ZYO7_CA
Yep, I bought this a while ago, excellent simulation yet quite difficult. I got stuck in Smolensk and Mogilev. Capturing Minsk and the initial cities are fine to me, but when you reach Smolensk there`s already a mass of Russian divisions like three hexagons wide. You just can`t find a way to do any kind of breakthrough at that point. But I`m still learning how it works, when I manage to master the rules of it perhaps I will be able to reach further.

This game would be a great thing for Jesk to see how logistics works, by the way. :D

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10076
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Barbarossa Planning

Post by ljadw » 08 Feb 2019 10:06

BDV wrote:
07 Feb 2019 15:35
ljadw wrote:One example : it would take the railways weeks to transport the enormous amount of artillery ammunition to the front , even if this artillery ammunition was available in Germany, something which is unproved and even unlikely .
The ammunitions for the trophy guns were present in 1943 (when the retooled french 75 mm guns finally get to the Romanian units) and to the coastal artillery units in 1942 (as WAlly forces can attest from their first hand Dieppe experience).

Given that it was not produced after the occupation, it stands to reason that it was present beforehand. Thus it was present in 1941. Proper planning and execution would have seen it used against Sovjet strongpoints, improving timetables and reducing Axis casualties
(unless the Neuer Sowjetischer Mann was impervious to 194 mm obus explosif volleyed by Colonel Filloux's devices).
Askey is saying the following in his Volume IIB PP 101/102 : while it is unclear how many French artillery and ammunition was available in June 1941, Germany and WWII (Volume I ) is saying that Germany had 614 French anti-tank guns ,redesigned PAK 47 , but ammunition shortages and supply and logistic difficulties for these weapons meant that most of them were not used in the east .Askey gives no figures about other French artillery used in the east .

There is also the following point : =that they were not needed at Smolensk in July 1941 , as the success of Barbarossa depended on the possibility to avoid/prevent big fighting east of the DD line .The advance to the Wolga would happen without the artillery, as there would be no need for artillery to pursue a defeated enemy .
One can not expect that the Germans would make plans for a scenario where Barbarossa failed .

Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008 20:40

Re: Barbarossa Planning

Post by Hanny » 08 Feb 2019 15:36

Stugbit wrote:
07 Feb 2019 20:07


Yep, I bought this a while ago, excellent simulation yet quite difficult. I got stuck in Smolensk and Mogilev. Capturing Minsk and the initial cities are fine to me, but when you reach Smolensk there`s already a mass of Russian divisions like three hexagons wide. You just can`t find a way to do any kind of breakthrough at that point. But I`m still learning how it works, when I manage to master the rules of it perhaps I will be able to reach further.

This game would be a great thing for Jesk to see how logistics works, by the way. :D
Some suggestions, administration points are used to enable new formations, typically SU can maintain historical force levels on normal, slightly higher on each difficulty level as force generation becomes easier with bonus to adminstration levels, SU goes into overdrive on number of units available if your not removing them from play, at a rate compared to historical losses.

So i suggest ( without seeing a save game file i cant be sure) what your seeing is a combination of the result of playing on hard, ( as opposed to normal with historic force level generation) extra admin points making SU able to generate new units easier than historically, and either failing to destroy units but shatter them so that they go back in force pools to be used to generate new formations, rather than surving manpower becoming pows when a unit is destroyed.

Secondly early turns, ( turns 1 to 4) the SU if allowed, ( plan your deep penetrations to move through, being next to RR stops supplies passing through it in the supply phase evn though its not controlled by you, or end up in RR nodes that stop strategic use of Rail and supply through rail, not so much you can do to prevent ports being using to evacuate to further back into SU, unless you also clear the ports, along the coast latvia/lithuania/estonia as SU will do that if you cut the overland supply by rail) will use RR to pull out from the frontier to escape your encirclement, so if you cant sever RR lines the ai SU pulls back by strategic rail a lot of units that you can with some effort, cut off by severing the RR net allowing them to become supply deficient and moped up as they attempt to walk out of the pockets in those turns. If it does that, you again see more units present by the time you see smolonsk as it only has to replace attrition movement losses for the escaping formations.

Example, north of Lwow, punch a hole with reserve ID eastwards to remove ZOC influence, push AD through the hole and cut SE towards Tarnopol, defeat reserves in and around Tarnopol by committing rear most AD first so as to save movement points from front line AD top expolit once Tarnopol is freed up of ZOC, you wont wipe out many of the forces there, but drive them eastwards, but you will destroy HQ and air wings sever the RR net and free up ZOC so that a MOT or PZR can from the front line( as long as its not used to attack on the front line to create break through) race along the now free of enemy ZOC that inhibts movement, from north of Lwow, East and then SE to Tarnopol, and from there you have just enough movement to reach the Rumanian border and attack a SEC Div from the rear and defeat it and put yourself back in supply. This puts a vast number of foamations out of supply and out of the RR net, and you can mop them up in the next couple of turns.

When i first started it was what and how to cope South of the Pripet region that was the hardest thing to sort out.

Another tactic, breakdown to Regimental level, a MOT formation, use these sub units,to move onto routed formations that regroup well to the rear after a heavy defeat, as that takes them out of the game but only risks a reg as your going into space the SU will have enough formations to cut you off and or counter attack you.

Jesk neither knows what logistics is or what its for, so would be wasted on him. :P

Happy to talk more in the proper forum, movies/games if you want.
Last edited by Hanny on 08 Feb 2019 16:54, edited 1 time in total.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

User avatar
BDV
Financial supporter
Posts: 3700
Joined: 10 Apr 2009 16:11

Re: Barbarossa Planning

Post by BDV » 08 Feb 2019 16:05

ljadw wrote: Askey is saying the following in his Volume IIB PP 101/102 : while it is unclear how many French artillery and ammunition was available in June 1941, Germany and WWII (Volume I ) is saying that Germany had 614 French anti-tank guns, redesigned PAK 47, but ammunition shortages and supply and logistic difficulties for these weapons meant that most of them were not used in the east. Askey gives no figures about other French artillery used in the east .
Richard J Evans states in "The Third Reich at War 1939-1945" that:
After the defeat of France, the German armies sequestered for their own use over 300,000 French rifles, more than 5,000 pieces of French artillery, nearly 4 million French shells and 2,170 tanks.
Again, the shells were present at Dieppe in 1942. So they were present elsewhere (Ostend, Dunkirk, Calais, Boulogne, Le Havre, Cherbourg, etc, etc, etc); unless Dieppe was "special."

There is also the following point : =that they were not needed at Smolensk in July 1941 , as the success of Barbarossa depended on the possibility to avoid/prevent big fighting east of the DD line. The advance to the Wolga would happen without the artillery, as there would be no need for artillery to pursue a defeated enemy.
One can not expect that the Germans would make plans for a scenario where Barbarossa failed.
RKKA was full happy to fight West of the DD line. It was the Wehrmacht that eschewed giving battle West of DD line. As soon as openings were present, the PzJockeys jumped eastward, actual fighting of the RKKA units be damned.

(of course, this opens the possibility of German Generals thinking/fearing that they CANNOT destroy RKKA West of the DD line ... thus the attempt to entice RKKA/Sovjets into a "running battle").
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10076
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Barbarossa Planning

Post by ljadw » 08 Feb 2019 21:06

I don't see why the figures from Evans would be important :
a lot of these artillery and ammunition were not available in the East because they were needed in France .
a lot of what was available could not go to the East for logistic reasons
and why should what could go to the East be needed in the East? On July 3 Halder said (and Hitler repeated the next day ) : the war in the East is won but not over . And this was WITHOUT all this French artillery .
As the standing Soviet forces were defeated west of the DD line WITHOUT the French artillery, why would additional artillery be needed ?
It is the same for Typhoon : more French artillery would not make Typhoon make possible in July, or would make Typhoon successful . One can argue that more French artillery would slow down the advance ,and the slower the advance would start,the slower it would continue, giving the Soviets the opportunity to send reinforcements .
The Germans defeated the Soviets at Briansk/Viazma, without the French artillery , thus why would they need this artillery ?
If in September 1944 Patton was given additional artillery, he would in the beginning have advanced slower,and very soon , he would have to stop . It was the same for von Bock : Typhoon could succeed only as a pursuit of a defeated enemy by fast ,thus light armed units . If artillery was needed, this meant that the enemy was not defeated and that the pursuit would fail .
Speed was essential,and more artillery would slow downd the advance .The final conclusion is that success/failure of Barbarossa depended essentially on what the Soviets could and would do . More artillery, more tanks, more infantry would not help the Germans .It is even possible that less artillery, less tanks, less infantry would not hurt the Germans and that the outcome/development of the campaign would remain the same .
About the battle of the DD line : the Germans did not eschew this battle: the PzD went farther east ,because a PzD that remained immobile ,lost all its benefits : PzD provided mobility, infantry manpower and artillery firepower .At the end of July the Germans had taken 813000 POWs,that proves that there was a battle west of the DD line .

User avatar
Stugbit
Member
Posts: 246
Joined: 01 Sep 2013 18:26
Location: Goiânia

Re: Barbarossa Planning

Post by Stugbit » 09 Feb 2019 00:47

Hanny wrote:
08 Feb 2019 15:36
Stugbit wrote:
07 Feb 2019 20:07


Yep, I bought this a while ago, excellent simulation yet quite difficult. I got stuck in Smolensk and Mogilev. Capturing Minsk and the initial cities are fine to me, but when you reach Smolensk there`s already a mass of Russian divisions like three hexagons wide. You just can`t find a way to do any kind of breakthrough at that point. But I`m still learning how it works, when I manage to master the rules of it perhaps I will be able to reach further.

This game would be a great thing for Jesk to see how logistics works, by the way. :D
Some suggestions, administration points are used to enable new formations, typically SU can maintain historical force levels on normal, slightly higher on each difficulty level as force generation becomes easier with bonus to adminstration levels, SU goes into overdrive on number of units available if your not removing them from play, at a rate compared to historical losses.

So i suggest ( without seeing a save game file i cant be sure) what your seeing is a combination of the result of playing on hard, ( as opposed to normal with historic force level generation) extra admin points making SU able to generate new units easier than historically, and either failing to destroy units but shatter them so that they go back in force pools to be used to generate new formations, rather than surving manpower becoming pows when a unit is destroyed.

Secondly early turns, ( turns 1 to 4) the SU if allowed, ( plan your deep penetrations to move through, being next to RR stops supplies passing through it in the supply phase evn though its not controlled by you, or end up in RR nodes that stop strategic use of Rail and supply through rail, not so much you can do to prevent ports being using to evacuate to further back into SU, unless you also clear the ports, along the coast latvia/lithuania/estonia as SU will do that if you cut the overland supply by rail) will use RR to pull out from the frontier to escape your encirclement, so if you cant sever RR lines the ai SU pulls back by strategic rail a lot of units that you can with some effort, cut off by severing the RR net allowing them to become supply deficient and moped up as they attempt to walk out of the pockets in those turns. If it does that, you again see more units present by the time you see smolonsk as it only has to replace attrition movement losses for the escaping formations.

Example, north of Lwow, punch a hole with reserve ID eastwards to remove ZOC influence, push AD through the hole and cut SE towards Tarnopol, defeat reserves in and around Tarnopol by committing rear most AD first so as to save movement points from front line AD top expolit once Tarnopol is freed up of ZOC, you wont wipe out many of the forces there, but drive them eastwards, but you will destroy HQ and air wings sever the RR net and free up ZOC so that a MOT or PZR can from the front line( as long as its not used to attack on the front line to create break through) race along the now free of enemy ZOC that inhibts movement, from north of Lwow, East and then SE to Tarnopol, and from there you have just enough movement to reach the Rumanian border and attack a SEC Div from the rear and defeat it and put yourself back in supply. This puts a vast number of foamations out of supply and out of the RR net, and you can mop them up in the next couple of turns.

When i first started it was what and how to cope South of the Pripet region that was the hardest thing to sort out.

Another tactic, breakdown to Regimental level, a MOT formation, use these sub units,to move onto routed formations that regroup well to the rear after a heavy defeat, as that takes them out of the game but only risks a reg as your going into space the SU will have enough formations to cut you off and or counter attack you.

Jesk neither knows what logistics is or what its for, so would be wasted on him. :P

Happy to talk more in the proper forum, movies/games if you want.
Hi, Hanny. Many thanks for those hints!

I`m still getting used to the rules, how to work the supplies and how HQs matter to achieve better movements. Unfortunately, I don`t think the game is in the “hard mode”. :lol:

I didn`t know very much how the vehicle pool worked, for instance. And if some enemy units reach one of your HQs and rout it, then it will drop their pumps, and all units attached to it would then be without the supplies. I was a bit reckless in the beginning and those actions slowed my advance a bit, I guess. I even stopped the advance to Leningrad in Riga and sent the AGN units to help the middle.

The most important thing to do is to encircle and make enemy forces surrender, is that right?

And you said that those weak units that once routed and went to rearguard helps to create more divisions latter? I didn`t know about that. So, my feeling about making them to surrender was correct. Because you could somehow still easily open space to advance just by making the enemy to rout all along. By the way, when the game passes, by September/October, making an encirclement is almost impossible, I just can advance by routing the enemy backwards.

Anyway, this is my first attempt to “panzerjocke” Soviet Union, as BDV says, and considering all the mess I did in the first rounds I think it would be wiser to start another campaign again. :D

I find GG:WitE the most realistic strategic game concerning WWII that I have seen so far. But have you ever played a game called Panzer General 1? It is not even as half as realistic as War in the East but that game was still something, I got interested in WWII by playing it. To capture Moscow I just turned half of my infantry in paratroopers and dispatched them! :lol:

If you guys play games online, please feel free to add me on Steam. Just look for Stugbit in the community.

My best regards!

Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008 20:40

Re: Barbarossa Planning

Post by Hanny » 10 Feb 2019 13:20

Stugbit wrote:
09 Feb 2019 00:47

The most important thing to do is to encircle and make enemy forces surrender, is that right?


My best regards!
You have the same problems in game as in real life. 300 oddd pages of whats under the hood is a handfull to understand and remember, of course you can just point and click and that will work, but understanding whats under the hood will make the difference in winning an loesing.

When you attack you kill capture soviets, the units retreat, 20 klicks, regroups, and is ready for further offensive and defensive combat at reduced force levels but has gained experience, if its a heavy defeat they are routed and retreat 100 klicks, regroups, and is ready for further defensive combat only at greatly reduced combat levels, if its a major defeat they are shattered and dont regroup, most end up as pows.

Each attack on a unit has the same outcome, so pursuit of a routed force ( which may have retreated back onto reserves) creates a combat between a defender who has limited defensive values, and is now shattered and removed from play rather than again rout another 100 klicks if defeated, which may be what teh reserve formation suffers.

Each time you unit fights it gains experience, typicaly a German is 80% from the get go, SU lower, now if its shattered and removed from play, it has to be rebuilt from scratch by use of admin points, and will take 26 weeks to work up to 45% training, so any newly formed formations are much easier to defeat as they have yet to learn how to become effective compared to formations with a long combat history.

The same is also true of defeating a formation by successive small defeats that result in it retreating, each such defeat produces losses and experience, so 4 small defeats could see it loss 40% of manpower while gaining 5 experience points, which when replacements come in, reduce the combat efficiency of the formation as the influx of poorly trained is so high relative to numbers in the unit.

The same is also true by not combating the enemy formation but encirclement of it, which puts it out of supply, hence it combat power is reduced as Div level supply is consumed and not replaced, out of supply routed units are less likely to reform and be available for offensive use in the next turn, and theyb suffer increased attrition for being out of supply, and increased attrition if in the ZOC of an enemy unit, dont forget you inflict losses on enemy just by having them in your ZOC, and its greater if they are out of supply.

So your aim to make the SU spend its admin points on creation of new formations, and keep a lid on how many formations it has in play, if it has few formations to replace it simply ramps up with n ew formations and you get overmatched in units against you, so you need to take out as many as practible. the ones you dont, you need to inflict as much loss as possible, as influx of new recruits dilutes any experience the formation gained, in doing so you want to suffer as few losses as possible so that you gain in experience for your formations.

Your admin points go to having the better commanders present as HQ and Div commanders, so that they can have the extra formations assigned to them without penalty for commanding to many troops, and draw of higher command levels for Corps and army formatiosn to be assigned as reserves when attacked, a leader check is made at all levels of command to see if its requested and made avaiable, so having effective leadeership is very important, keeping the AI from doing the same is always usfull, as it tends to keep force levels up, and then assign a better command structure of what it has.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”