Prokhorovka Map

Got an interesting idea about a new scenario design? ...or maybe you just need some help with the Scenario Editor; this is the place!

Moderators: AlexS, Run5 Staff, SSG Staff

Postby Ian » Thu May 01, 2008 5:49 pm

Hi Savio

Thanks for your comments. :)
I also found a few typos which I will correct in the updated release.

As far as the German flak units are concerned I have done the following:

a. All 88mm flak guns are combat units and has no anti air capabilities. So that means the 88mm guns are used in anti tank role which might come in handy against Russian units that might slip through your thinly held front line as the battle progresses.
b. All 37mm self-propelled flak units are also combat units and has no anti air capabilities. I did this for the same reason as above.
c. Only the 20mm towed flak units have anti air capabilities. There are several of these so I think the Germans should have enough anti air cover.

Till later
User avatar
Ian
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:37 pm
Location: Cape Town, South Africa

Postby Abwehr » Thu May 01, 2008 11:24 pm

A minor note: what's the reasoning for giving Russian tanks relatively good direct fire rolls, even though their guns were often inferior to German tanks with the same roll? For example: KV's (at least: their icon indicates a KV) has a 2 for a direct attack roll, which is the same as what a Tiger has, even though the KV's gun was a lot worse. Similarly, even though the T-34 gun was comparable in power to a long German 5cm, it's comparable to a long 7.5cm gun in the scenario.
Abwehr
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1041
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:23 am
Location: Arnhem, Gelderland province, the Netherlands

Postby zanekin » Fri May 02, 2008 2:54 am

Two comments for a final release:
- as far as as can see, there's no offensive supply consumption. Future implementation ?
- All formations are free to move at start. So the soviet may try to fill the gap in the first defensive line as soon as possible. I note that few formations (and their HQ and truck in particular) can hope to reach this first line in time but without any timed release why a player would stay gently in their defensive line ?

Ironically, I'm saying this the day of Karkhov's announcement which introduce the Area of Operation concept to reduce the hindsight effect in this type of historical battle.
It's just bullshit !
zanekin
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 8:38 pm
Location: Near Lille (France)

Postby Ian » Fri May 02, 2008 7:39 pm

Hi Abwehr

Thanks for your comments

My reasoning as far as direct fire values are concerned came down to gun calibre. So I basically assigned direct fire values to gun calibres. 80-90mm = 2+, 70-76mm = 3+ and so on.

a. Your reference to the KV-1 is correct. Indeed the KV-1 had the same 76mm gun as the T-34-76. It was only during October 1943 that the KV-85 with an 85mm gun was produced. The 2 for direct fire is thus incorrect and will be adjusted accordingly.

b. The T-34 was armed with a 76mm high velocity gun and hence the 3+ for direct fire.

You made an interesting comment about the T-34 gun being comparable to the German 50mm gun, I will for my part do more research on this and keep you posted.

Thanks once again for sharing your thoughts on this.
User avatar
Ian
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:37 pm
Location: Cape Town, South Africa

Postby Abwehr » Fri May 02, 2008 7:59 pm

My reasoning as far as direct fire values are concerned came down to gun calibre. So I basically assigned direct fire values to gun calibres. 80-90mm = 2+, 70-76mm = 3+ and so on.


Most wargames, like SPWWII for example, rate Soviet guns lower than German guns with a similar calibre. Usually, the Soviet guns are equal to German guns one step down as far as tank guns are concerned. For example: the KV 85's gun is comparable to a long German 7.5cm, the post-1939/1940 T34's gun is rated as being slightly better than the long 5 cm usually (a difference of 1 point or the like).

This rating system doesn't count for Soviet AT guns. For example, Soviet 57mm AT guns (the L73 ZiS 4 for example) are comparable to a German 7.5cm PaK 40. The same goes for the 76.2mm obr 36.
Abwehr
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1041
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:23 am
Location: Arnhem, Gelderland province, the Netherlands

Postby Ian » Fri May 02, 2008 9:21 pm

Hi Zanekin

Thanks for your comments

a. I must admit that I am unfamiliar with the term “offensive supply”. I searched the manual and found reference to “supply” but not “offensive supply”. Do you mind explaining this or maybe you can direct me to find this in the manual.

b. Yes as it stands now the Russians are free to move all their units from their first turn. My reasoning for this was to give the Russian player the freedom to explore different defence strategies since they are outnumbered, at least until their reserves enter the battle on the 12th July (in game terms this will be around turns 26 to 30).

As far as some of the German units not being able to reach the first line of defence is concerned, there are three areas that will need to be addressed.
1. the random weather setting will be changed to the historical weather. (the weather document got lost on my hard drive but after a quick search I found it).
2. the actual placement of units on the German left flank will need a small adjustment.
3. I left out lesser roads when creating the map. A mistake on my part. This has already been corrected and will be included in the updated version.

Keep your comments coming. I appreciate your thoughts and will try to reply to all of them.

Till later.
User avatar
Ian
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:37 pm
Location: Cape Town, South Africa

Postby Brubaker » Fri May 02, 2008 10:30 pm

Abwehr I have been reading up on Soviet guns of late and agree with your comments. Overall the anti tank guns, particulalry the high velociy 76mm, were exceptional weapons. Hence part of the reason they found strong use when captured.

The artillery too was particularly good, especially the 122mm (M-30)howitzer which was the backbone of the artillery arm and enjoyed extensive postwar service.

I wonder if the relative lower rating given Soviet weapons in wargames is more due to their employment rather than the quality of the weapon itself? At any rate I agree with the raising of the data figures (as Ian has confirmed) to 'degrade' the units a little, to better represent the forces involved.

Cheers

Brubaker
User avatar
Brubaker
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1769
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 10:57 am

Postby zanekin » Sat May 03, 2008 2:27 am

As correct in my last mail, I mean "attack supply"...
It's just bullshit !
zanekin
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 8:38 pm
Location: Near Lille (France)

Postby Abwehr » Sat May 03, 2008 5:15 am

The artillery too was particularly good, especially the 122mm (M-30)howitzer which was the backbone of the artillery arm and enjoyed extensive postwar service.


The standard artillery guns (76.2mm, 122mm, 152mm) during most of the war were all from Tsarist times, so they weren't really Soviet. The Soviets made some adaptions to their designs, but the basics remained unchanged. Also keep in mind that the Soviets used the 76.2mm gun as their standard artillery piece (with 122mm's, 152mm's and rockets, primarily) throughout the war, not a 105mm like Western forces. The Soviets often had a lot of artillery, but most of it had a fairly low calibre. As a result, Soviet artillery bombardments were usually intense, but didn't cause many casualties or structural damage to troops and trenches.

The reason why the Soviet equipment isn't rated very highly is because it lacked good ammunition in the beginning, radio's, durable armour (for example, early KV armour could fracture when hit. The turret of the T-34 suffered from similar problems) and high tech design. A T-34 is made to be used by a barely literate farmer, whilst a Western tank is made to be driven by highly trained specialists.
Abwehr
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1041
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:23 am
Location: Arnhem, Gelderland province, the Netherlands

Postby Ian » Sun May 04, 2008 1:22 am

zanekin wrote:As correct in my last mail, I mean "attack supply"...


Hi Zanekin

I found what you were referring to. The game editor uses the term "HQ Refit (Attack)". Abwehr also picked up on this. All Russian HQ's are set as "No effect".

This is an omission on my part and will be corrected in the updated release.

Thanks to both of you for letting me know.

Till later.
User avatar
Ian
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:37 pm
Location: Cape Town, South Africa

Postby Brubaker » Sun May 04, 2008 12:07 pm

Abwehr wrote:The reason why the Soviet equipment isn't rated very highly is because it lacked good ammunition in the beginning, radio's, durable armour (for example, early KV armour could fracture when hit. The turret of the T-34 suffered from similar problems) and high tech design. A T-34 is made to be used by a barely literate farmer, whilst a Western tank is made to be driven by highly trained specialists.


Good points Abwehr. But again though doesn't your last sentence underline that human frailty was (perhaps) the wek link in the Soviet armed forces and not the weaponry?

There is a particular passage of text in Hans von Luck's memoirs where he describes the advance of the German 18th(?) army through Lithuania toward Leningrad where his armoured units where delyaed constanly by counter attacks by handfuls of KV-1s. He describes them as formidable, lumbering around on the battle field in a way similar to the old MkV's in 1918. He states he weponry just could not deal with the dinosaurs and their effect on the advance of his troops was enormous. It was only through ingenious use of hand held explosive his troops were able to disable the tanks or force them to retreat.

My point here is that though hardly cutting edge, the (few) KV-1s in this experience were capable of slowing the German professional forces, and that perhaps only lack of training on behalf of the crews stopped them from causing a dangerous delay in the German battle plan. :?:
User avatar
Brubaker
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1769
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 10:57 am

I agree with Bru.

Postby critter » Sun May 04, 2008 3:51 pm

Even while the Germ Cdr's laughed at the way the Russki's "threw" themselves away at the spearheads. Few failed to notice that their own Div's were that much smaller, disorganised, and had less hitting power when they finally stopped them....
Image
critter
Major
Major
 
Posts: 460
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 6:17 pm
Location: Marine IL.

Postby Abwehr » Sun May 04, 2008 10:41 pm

Good points Abwehr. But again though doesn't your last sentence underline that human frailty was (perhaps) the wek link in the Soviet armed forces and not the weaponry?


Not per se. I was trying to point out that the quality of the weaponry was a direct result of the people who were trying to use them. The Soviets didn't have the technical knowledge or the training to design high quality equipment during most of the war. If you take a look at Soviet tanks, you'll see that most of them lacked proper fire control system and range meters, and at least up to the second half of 1943, most didn't have functional radio's.

Soviet vehicle armour was of a poor quality, as was most of their ammunition. Human incompetence stands at the foundation of those flaws, admittedly, but the Soviets could easily have designed better equipment.

The Germans might have used mostly AM radio's, which were less practical than US FM radio's, but at least they had radio's.

As to the KV's slowing the German advance: a KV is still a KV, whether it has a clueless crew or not. If you don't have anything that is capable of stopping such a tank (like the by then more or less recently introduced 50mm PaK 38 ) , you won't stop it, regardless of who is driving it.

Similarly, if you're facing tanks with weak armour, but your men don't know how to stop them, you won't stop it either, which is why the German tank force which was composed mostly of Panzer II's and early model Czech tanks (about 2000 of the German tanks engaged were not Panzer III's or Panzer IV's in June 1941), could break through.

Few failed to notice that their own Div's were that much smaller, disorganised, and had less hitting power when they finally stopped them....


German casualties only started to increase significantly in winter 1941-1942, and German losses to frostbite were higher than losses to the Soviets at that point in any case. Overall, the losses only started to peak after Bagration in 1944, by which time the Soviets had more or less abandoned sending walls of men towards the Germans. By August 1941, after two months of fighting walls of Soviets, German casualties were still around 100.000 KIA, which isn't all that much.
Abwehr
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1041
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:23 am
Location: Arnhem, Gelderland province, the Netherlands

Postby Wallas » Mon May 05, 2008 9:17 am

Abwehr wrote:A minor note: what's the reasoning for giving Russian tanks relatively good direct fire rolls, even though their guns were often inferior to German tanks .


By the end of 1945, over 57,000 T-34s had been built not to mention all the other types russians tanks. Compare this to the germans.

Pre-war 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 Wartime Total

Panzer I 1,893 - - - - - - - - 1,893
Panzer II 1,223 15 99 265 848 803 151 - 2,181 3,404
Panzer 38(t) 78 153 367 678 652 1,008 2,356 1,335 6,549 6,627
Panzer III 98 157 1,054 2,213 1,564 5,435 4,752 1,136 16,311 16,409
Panzer IV 211 45 268 467 994 3,822 6,625 1,090 13,311 13,522
Panzer V Panther - - - - - 1,849 4,003 705 6,557 6,557
Panzer VI Tiger I, II - - - - 78 650 1,069 140 1,937 1,937
Elefant - - - - - 90 - - 90 90

Total 3,503 370 1,788 3,623 4,136 13,657 18,956 4,406 46,936 50,439

germans total tank production during ww2 was 50,000 and over 30,000 them where no match for T34. Another point germans had 3 fronts for these 50,439 tanks russians had one
Wallas
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 10:55 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Postby Abwehr » Mon May 05, 2008 8:19 pm

Wallas: first of all, I don't see what your post about total production figures has to do with my point that Soviet tanks were inferior to German tanks in terms of quality of the armament and technology.

If a country produces, say, 100.000 poor quality tanks (let's say France only produces FT 17's), does that make the tanks better? I don't think so.

Also: mid-war Panzer III's could take on a T-34 with a reliable chance of destroying it, which means only 13.000 or so (the list doesn't include all of the tanks the Germans used) tanks had a below average chance or were incapable of taking out a T-34.

And as a final note: the Elefant/Ferdinand is not a tank.
Abwehr
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1041
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:23 am
Location: Arnhem, Gelderland province, the Netherlands

PreviousNext

Return to Battlefront Scenario Design

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron