Combat capabilities of fast divisions 1938-1942

[Pang Bingxun]

I tried to value the different fast divisions available in the relevant timeframe 1938 till 1942. In 1943 Arm1943 with speed 15 finally makes Light Armour obsolete and as icd are less scarce by then they are likely the best choice while before then limited icd are a much bigger concern.

I measured how much icd it takes to produce the first brigaded divisions after retooling is done. This happened with best available ministers, 1940 doctrines and -24% from sliders, so those values are more or less typical for construction near Danzig.

In all cases the brigade is SpArt1940. It is a good brigade and having the same brigade in all cases simplifies the issue.

I did some savegame editing to create an easy test scenario. Playing Germany Luxembourg serves as victim. In the forests of Luxembourg there is one Inf1943-Art1943 with more than 100 org. So this will be a an enemy that is strong enough to last a while but weak enough to be beaten safely.

I move a formation of 3 identical divisions to Cologne, declare war at april the first and let the actual attack start at 6 hours. So that is dawn. The days last 13 hours, the nights 11 hours.

In all cases +10% from ministers apply, also +10% due to skill 4 and +5% due to offensive leaders. For mechanized and armoured divisions also +5% due to panzer leader apply.

For each division i run 5 tests. The first reliable conclusion i can draw is that a sample size of 5 is way too low to derive reasonable averages. On a smale scale war in AoD is more gambling than strategy.

Due to this it is only a weak conclusion that better models of the same division type do surspringly little to mitigate manpower losses.

Another possible conclusion is that better types of divisions do also do surspringly little to mitigate manpower losses. But one should keep in mind that forests do strongly disfavour armoured divisions. Compared to armoured divisions mechanized and motorized divions get +30% on attack, cavalry even +40%.

For all battles i measure the strenght loss of the entire formation, the manpower loss and the duration of the battle. I also totaled the losses for all 5 test iterations.

semimot Cav1937-SpArt1940: 69 days times 9.1342 ic = 630.2598 icd
18 strenght, 868 men, 30 hours
21 strenght, 985 men, 32 hours
19 strenght, 885 men, 31 hours
23 strenght, 1064 men, 36 hours
20 strenght, 945 men, 27 hours
4747 total loss of men

Mot1938-SpArt1940: 72 days times 11.1904 ic = 805.7088 icd
21 strenght, 1096 men, 35 hours
18 strenght, 953 men, 29 hours
14 strenght, 737 men, 29 hours
24 strenght, 1234 men, 48 hours
19 strenght, 1000 men, 31 hours
5020 total loss of men

Mot1941-SpArt1940: 72 days times 11.5514 ic = 831.7008 icd
11 strenght, 592 men, 26 hours
19 strenght, 1039 men, 33 hours
19 strenght, 985 men, 33 hours
21 strenght, 1077 men, 31 hours
22 strenght, 1207 men, 33 hours
4900 total loss of men

Mech1940-SpArt1940: 86 days times 13.0591 ic = 1123.0826 icd
18 strenght, 1110 men, 29 hours
25 strenght, 1552 men, 31 hours
14 strenght, 884 men, 24 hours
16 strenght, 1029 men, 27 hours
17 strenght, 1052 men, 31 hours
5627 total loss of men

Mech1942-SpArt1940: 86 days times 14.4271 ic = 1240.7306 icd
14 strenght, 931 men, 26 hours
17 strenght, 1047 men, 25 hours
6 strenght, 376 men, 10 hours
16 strenght, 987 men, 27 hours
17 strenght, 1033 men, 29 hours
4374 total loss of men

LArm1938-SpArt1940: 112 days times 13.6093 ic = 1524.2416 icd
36 strenght, 1337 men, 55 hours
27 strenght, 1004 men, 49 hours
31 strenght, 1128 men, 55 hours
25 strenght, 916 men, 49 hours
30 strenght, 1105 men, 55 hours
4590 total loss of men

LArm1939-SpArt1940: 123 days times 14.1861 ic = 1744.8903 icd
24 strenght, 878 men, 37 hours
32 strenght, 1176 men, 56 hours
20 strenght, 713 men, 36 hours
26 strenght, 959 men, 51 hours
22 strenght, 794 men, 36 hours
4520 total loss of men

Arm1939-SpArt1940: 127 days times 15.6595 ic = 1988.7565 icd
21 strenght, 760 men, 38 hours
27 strenght, 1008 men, 37 hours
17 strenght, 618 men, 34 hours
23 strenght, 850 men, 43 hours
11 strenght, 406 men, 25 hours
3642 total loss of men

Arm1941-SpArt1940: 127 days times 17.0275 ic = 2162.4925 icd
17 strenght, 617 men, 28 hours
24 strenght, 886 men, 38 hours
20 strenght, 723 men, 40 hours
17 strenght, 626 men, 43 hours
10 strenght, 368 men, 24 hours
3220 total loss of men

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

What I get from this is that semi-mot cavalry are the most cost-effective offensive unit upto 1943?

 

[Pang Bingxun]

What I get from this is that semi-mot cavalry are the most cost-effective offensive unit up to 1943?

That is one way to look at it. Mot1941(speed 13) is more tc-efficient than semi-mot cavalry(speed 10). Mech1942(speed 12) is more tc-efficient than Mot1941. Both Arm1939(speed 10) and Arm1941(speed 12) are way more manpower-efficient than both mechanized divisions. LArm1938(speed 14) and LArm1939(speed 15) are the fastest land divisions prior to 1943.

Semi-mot cavalry is the most icd-efficient and continues to be a good choice for certain terrains. But in desert it sucks and in plains armoured divisions do excel. In other words it really depends. But for a strong force of many fast divisions around Danzig cavalry does excel. Later they can be complemented with Arm1941 build with assembly line discounts and to some degree even replaced. The question is whether this still pays off.

 

[Commander666]

What I get from this is that semi-mot cavalry are the most cost-effective offensive unit upto 1943?

Ha ha. Why I have been building CAV-4 and recommended them highly thru out a decade of Forum. And Pang should try some tests in swamps to get even more astounding results.

But what I don't get, as I interpret the examples, in all cases but the last one it seems that the more strength you use then the longer the battle takes and so the loses are the highest? That seems rather unusual.

 

[Commander666]

That is one way to look at it. Mot1941(speed 13) is more tc-efficient than semi-mot cavalry(speed 10). Mech1942(speed 12) is more tc-efficient than Mot1941. Both Arm1939(speed 10) and Arm1941(speed 12) are way more manpower-efficient than both mechanized divisions. LArm1938(speed 14) and LArm1939(speed 15) are the fastest land divisions prior to 1943.

You missed completely relating to the "other" attribute - suppression.

Semi-mot cavalry is the most icd-efficient and continues to be a good choice for certain terrains. But in desert it sucks and in plains armoured divisions do excel. In other words it really depends.

But there is no desert between Berlin and Moscow, is there? The trick is to build 12-15 CAV and then use them where they excel so you don't waste any of your mobiles doing something a CAV (best unit by Danzig therefore supposed to built already) should be doing anyway.

The strategy is very much about proper conduct around and in the Soviet marshes; and the ARM and MOT staying miles away (to race to Moscow).

But for a strong force of many fast divisions around Danzig cavalry does excel. Later they can be complemented with Arm1941 build with assembly line discounts and to some degree even replaced. The question is whether this still pays off.

Correct about first point. But getting rid of them at anytime is a huge mistake as long as Germany has MP to keep building the other units it needs. World-wide there is a need for 12-15 Wehrmacht CAV-4. That is true even when they are a considerably weaker unit in later years and before they upgrade. The trick is learning to use them properly - not to battle contemporary stronger troops (or even compare strength stats) but employ them where they still over excel compared to anything else.

Here's an example: 1944 Battle for USA. Who you gonna send to seize empty and un-occupied New Orleans? An air borne division? Or had you landed a CAV with the expected AMPHIB at Houston, then closing the coast line would be rather simple. It's not like there will be any modern USA INF division guarding New Orleans. Of course, Germany would already be in Baton Rouge in this scenario of "amphibing along the USA seaboard".

The other example that happens all the time: mobiles race ahead, next air base taken, want to base your aircraft forward, but once mobiles move the province will be empty because the inf are days behind. What better unit is there than the CAV who reaches that airbase by the time the mobiles are in next province? The suppression of CAV is a crucial attribute, and ignoring it is simply ignoring one of the many reasons why player should build a reasonable #.

The full list of CAV-4 attributes is immense:

• only unit that doesn't require any upgrading (until far later)
• the strongest battle unit at 1939 (or just as strong as the other strongest)
• the fastest unit for its strength when compared in icd
• the only offensive battle unit that gives significant suppression
• the best battle unit in marshes at any year
• the best battle unit in woods in the early years
• the ideal "cheap mobile" unit to drop off and guard air bases deep in enemy territory long before inf can reach there. One should consider that the enemy we might be discussing just could have PAR, and would be crazy enough to land them on your stack of bombers. Of course, we would be taking about another human!

 

[Pang Bingxun]

But what I don't get, as I interpret the examples, in all cases but the last one it seems that the more strength you use then the longer the battle takes and so the loses are the highest?

The initial strenght is always 300, 3 divisions at 100 strenght. What i wrote down is the loss of strenght. Longer battle cause higher loss of strenght.

You missed completely relating to the "other" attribute - suppression.

That is not a combat capability. So it is offtopic.

Correct about first point. But getting rid of them at anytime is a huge mistake as long as Germany has MP to keep building the other units it needs. World-wide there is a need for 12-15 Wehrmacht CAV-4.

So if one had built 144 cavalry divisions one nould need to disband 129 cavalry divisions?

The underlying assumption of my statement was having built cavalry in numbers. 144 by Danzig would be much, but not impossibly much. Some crazy conquest is possibly if going for cavalry in numbers. If those conquered territories are kept, then available ic a year later will be high.

the strongest battle unit at 1939 (or just as strong as the other strongest)

For Germany it is possible to have Mech1940 or Mot1941 in Numbers(say 54 divisions) by Danzig. Arm1939 is also meaningfully stronger in plains. There are many plains.

 

[Commander666]

That is not a combat capability. So it is offtopic.

I would not assume that. Whenever I had a partisan erupt, I ended up doing combat with it. So suppression is a capability that impacts on combat possibly happening or not.

So if one had built 144 cavalry divisions one nould need to disband 129 cavalry divisions?

Anybody that builds 144 CAV-4 needs to learn about "balance".

The underlying assumption of my statement was having built cavalry in numbers.

And you expect me to know automatically such "underlying assumptions"? Please don't. Anyway,

For Germany it is possible to have Mech1940 or Mot1941 in Numbers(say 54 divisions) by Danzig. Arm1939 is also meaningfully stronger in plains. There are many plains.

There are also many swamps. And you would do well to use the best unit for each of the two different places and stop trying to cross-examine their capabilities when it is fairly well accepted that CAV are not recommended over ARM and MECH in the plains, and ARM and MECH don't do so well in the swamps. It is quite simple: As Barbarossa has varied terrain types, and units come with varied capabilities, the best play is to match a reasonable number of units to seize each terrain feature. By rights, such a statement is a total endorsement of PAR - another unit you have ignored in your limited discussion. And - if you don't know - PAR is not only a fast unit, but actually the fastest unit on the map (250 kph). That speed becomes crucial in seizing provinces where battle was just won but defender will reinforce hours before other "regular" fast attacking units can enter province. In short, the PAR/TRA special speed combo is the key to not just seizing provinces quickly right after battle won - but also avoiding needless new battles for same province your regular "fast" units failed to get in a timely fashion. How could you omit even mentioning the Fallschirmjäger?

While I think your above detailed comparison is interesting (and really like how CAV did in the test) unfortunately I am not in agreement with what I consider "lack of correct focus" with such a test. You place all the importance on winning a battle because of stronger capability. But I have always maintained that is the most incorrect approach to running a successful blitzkrieg in Russia. And as my blitzkrieg times have gotten shorter and with fewer casualties I know I am right in saying that the trick with reaching Moscow in under 2 weeks is to use inf as much as possible to break thru the lines, CAV to secure the swamps, and the ARM to rush over the plains - PREFERABLY UNOPPOSED - to Moscow while the MOTs guard their flanks. This scenario begs for the minimum of combat - an idea that simply does not seem to register much in your discussion regarding Barbarossa, and certainly is not portrayed by your testing comparing longer combat times.

That you are not thinking blitzkrieg but still extoling the virtues of trench warfare capabilities in your test is obvious to me. Had you really been thinking how to blitz Barbarossa using "fast" units then your tests might have started with, firstly, examining how many hours can a PAR defend without supply when isolated, what attack strength can a PAR sustain for how many hours, and which are the worst/best types of terrain that PAR should avoid, or look for to land on? Had these questions interested you then you would have gotten my praise instead of this. But to think PAR is not a fast unit - and just skip over inspecting it - is simply missing everything regarding Germany's best exploit.

And please don't tell me that is "OT" when your title reads, "Combat capabilities of fast divisions". Seems you failed to list all of Germany's "fast divisions".

 

[Pang Bingxun]

I would not assume that. Whenever I had a partisan erupt, I ended up doing combat with it. So suppression is a capability that impacts on combat possibly happening or not.

Partisan can well be combated with unbrigaded divisions. Partisans donnot put on the kind of fight that regular nations do. So it is a different topic.

And you expect me to know automatically such "underlying assumptions"?

Well, the low icd required for cavalry is an invitation to spam them. Why spend icd on less icd-efficient units while icd are still limited?

By rights, such a statement is a total endorsement of PAR - another unit you have ignored in your limited discussion. And - if you don't know - PAR is not only a fast unit, but actually the fastest unit on the map (250 kph).

It is a completely different type of unit. If however you use them just like cavalry, than they do suck and are not fast. Only by utilization of planes they can reach the equivalent of high (average) speed. If the fast units discussed in this thread are combined with planes this also changes the picture as their firepower becomes less relevant, which then more or less strongly changes the balance in favour of light armour.

You place all the importance on winning a battle because of stronger capability.

No, i donnot. In every single test the battle was won. They question is how fast and with what kind of losses. What is the value of a better model of the same type of division? What is the value of a better type of division? Those are the questions this thread attempts to answers. This thread is about mere facts, not about strategy.

 

[Commander666]

Partisan can well be combated with unbrigaded divisions. Partisans donnot put on the kind of fight that regular nations do. So it is a different topic.

Partisan can also be fought with CAV brigaded with the Sp/Art which you have used through out the test, so making it no reason for you to declare my comment as OT. It isn't.

Well, the low icd required for cavalry is an invitation to spam them.

In that case, why don't you spam Militia?

Why spend icd on less icd-efficient units while icd are still limited?

No idea why anybody would do that. No idea why you are even making this point since you just tested and revealed that CAV are a very icd-efficient unit. Or did I miss something? On the other hand, you might want to check out the icd efficiency of PAR. To get a realistic cost figure, allow two TRA per PAR.

It is a completely different type of unit. If however you use them just like cavalry, than they do suck and are not fast. Only by utilization of planes they can reach the equivalent of high (average) speed. If the fast units discussed in this thread are combined with planes this also changes the picture as their firepower becomes less relevant, which then more or less strongly changes the balance in favour of light armour.

Ha Ha. But you can't put the fast units you discussed in an airplane, can you? What nonsense to propose using PAR like cavalry. The problem is not your excuse of "they are a completely different type of unit" but only that you have not discovered their proper place to contribute to a blitzkrieg. If you had, you would indeed be running different tests - and not tests that fit to WW1 tactics. I mean, you simply ignore PAR as a fast unit... period!

Yet I tell you that they are the key to quick victory in Poland, France, and Barbarossa. While you adhere to the principle of quick victory = high efficiency and usually low casualties (and end of hostile front attrition) unfortunately you seem stuck in the typical wrong judgement that winning Poland in 5 days doesn't matter because can't annex until 7th day anyway (true) and getting a 10 day Vichy event doesn't matter because England isn't going away anywhere if Fall Gelb takes a few days or couple weeks longer (also true except it is practice for next part) and so Barbarossa must also not matter whether Moscow is seized on the 10th, 15th, 30th or 60th day of the conflict (FALSE). It is false because all the many units that SU has (and which Germany must still fight even when Moscow is captured) suddenly have their defensive capability seriously deteriorated the second Soviet capital relocates. Instantly all those 100+ units in Karelia and Baltic and along front line have their ESE degraded. In a stroke of magic, taking Moscow changes the game. It literally becomes "mop up" of all west of Moscow while all east of Moscow is the new front line that matters.

That is why a blitzkrieg at Barbarossa matters. The hour Moscow is seized matters. It is not just some vain player self-imposed deadline or personal challenge. No, it actually is massive battle efficiency (exactly what you are trying to test for)... and only the best use of some Fallschirmjäger can make that kind of true "lightning war" happen. Yet you assume that the only fast units worth testing are the regular mobiles when in fact they are not fast at all compared to using PAR.

Remember, it is only 7 days for Lt-ARM-3 to reach Moscow. As such - given the proper play with the PAR doing their job and all else falling into place, there is a theoretical "9-days to seize Moscow" (1 day opening battle to break the line, 7 days travel to Moscow outskirts, 1 day battle for Lt-ARM to enter Moscow. But that can only happen IF the PAR succeed in holding open all the key places that the Lt-ARM must race thru. Therefore a proper test of "fast units" (like you are trying to do) should include the defensive ability of PAR (how many hours can they last against how many defenders and consideration of terrain and lack of supply) because they are the fastest element in the whole set up. They are the ones that must last out against the enemy, or the blitzkrieg fails to use the full speed potential of the units you are testing because then your regular mobiles need fight every step of the way if the PAR did not hold open Stanislawow, Kiev and a couple other key places on the route to Moscow.

What is the value of a better model of the same type of division? What is the value of a better type of division? Those are the questions this thread attempts to answers. This thread is about mere facts, not about strategy.

Testing a PAR for the questions I mentioned is only facts. You missed it because your testing - contrary to what you state about "only facts" actually is focused as to the facts pertinent only to a specific strategy (that you employ but did not mention: exclusion of PAR). But your thread is about testing fast units. And I point out that you missed the fastest unit of all. But you can't accept your omission? Much better you relook at the reality of what the PAR is when used properly. But, of course, to see that reality one first needs to envision a strategy to use them. The problem is not my mere slight mention of strategy but the fact that you fail to see PAR as a fast unit (because you can't see the strategy to use them at all, I suppose).

Well, the strategy for them exists... and I am not detailing it here. That would take a comprehensive report including numerous screen shots. What I am saying is that your test failed to include the fastest unit of all. But you wish to disagree. Fine.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

Partisan can also be fought with CAV brigaded with the Sp/Art which you have used through out the test, so making it no reason for you to declare my comment as OT. It isn't.

But is is not required. Militia is very very weak. It takes 486 Mil1936 to match the firepower of 6 Inf1939-Art1940 .

In that case, why don't you spam Militia?

Because it is very inefficient. Mil1936-AC1937 has soft attack 4. To match the firepower of 6 proper cavalry divisions one would need 108.375 Mil1936-AC1937 or even 165.375 to match 6 Mech1942-Spart1940. At attack this exceeds the highest possible command limit per angle of attack. But even if that were not so Militia is simply not icd-efficient despite its low icd.

The problem is not your excuse of "they are a completely different type of unit" but only that you have not discovered their proper place to contribute to a blitzkrieg. If you had, you would indeed be running different tests - and not tests that fit to WW1 tactics. I mean, you simply ignore PAR as a fast unit... period!

That would be the issue of a different thread. This thread is about combat capabilities of fast divisions. All the fast divisions are more or less interchangeable. I doubt you would say the same about your beloved paratroopers.

But you can't accept your omission?

It is a deliberate one in the sense that Paras are used very differently than fast units. What you are spamming here is merely offtopic.

 

[bshirt73]

Wow......excellent read with very good insights regarding terrain in Russia. Love it! Pang & Commander are......great.....thank you both so very much!

 

[Commander666]

Well, I think Pang was "greater" in the above discussion - which was why I never replied any further after his last excellent points. Anyway, Pang and I have very different views on what fast means. For me it means "greased lightning".

 

[bshirt73]

You're really something Commander. I really appreciate your keen help in the last year or two. AOD is incredibly addicting.

Anyways, I just started another game and sure enough, just as you suggested, Semi-motorized cavalry works extremely well in Russia's north terrain with it's endless swamps and forests. Thanks mostly due to that, Moscow was easier captured than ever before for me.

My heavy armor will be a vicious animal in the central and southern Russian plains next year (1942). I don't know why but I previously didn't pay much attention to terrain. Haha.....so silly of me. So again......thank you sir!!

 

[Commander666]

My heavy armor will be a vicious animal in the central and southern Russian plains next year (1942).

You are very welcome. If by "heavy armor" you mean the Heavy Tank Brigade I would strongly advise against them. The speed loss is not helpful, and such strong hard attack value when attached to your ARM is rarely needed. Your terrain choice is excellent, and you want maximum speed over it to out flank the enemy. Try to cut his forward troops off so they can't retreat to Moscow.

The best and simplistic brigade to build in quantity is do separate lines of Sp/ART and attach to MOTs, ARM, Lt-ARM, CAV and even HQs. It has been judged as the best all-round brigade.

 

[bshirt73]

You are very welcome. If by "heavy armor" you mean the Heavy Tank Brigade I would strongly advise against them. The speed loss is not helpful, and such strong hard attack value when attached to your ARM is rarely needed. Your terrain choice is excellent, and you want maximum speed over it to out flank the enemy. Try to cut his forward troops off so they can't retreat to Moscow.

The best and simplistic brigade to build in quantity is do separate lines of Sp/ART and attach to MOTs, ARM, Lt-ARM, CAV and even HQs. It has been judged as the best all-round brigade.

[/QUOTE]

Oh wow......really? I would have thought with Tiger brigades they would be unstoppable. But I hear ya. Overall it's preferable to have Sp/ART attached to armor? Hmmm......well, the scumbag commies have boatloads of infantry everywhere. Heh, I didn't even know you can attach those to armor. Learn something every day!

Very good. Thank you Commander!! I'll arrange that immediately.

 

[Commander666]

OK, I caught up with you. You have Moscow... good... so now you starting Phase 2 in following year. Ideally, you want to run around the south with the ARM and encircle as big a pocket as you can get. Fast ARM - and especially the three (or four) Lt-ARM3/Sp-Art with the Panzer Defense Specialist - can be your spear point. You have any Fallschirmjäger?

 

[bshirt73]

Yes.....that's right. Exactly on the money. I want to start the circle far northeast of Stalingrad to surround them by heading east to maybe Yoskar Olo.....then south getting to Gurive. If I can hack that we'll then wipe out something like 50 to 100 communist divisions. I've got lots of Cavs, Mots & a handful of Mechs ....all with the latest Sp/Art. But sadly not with armor.....but I'm changing that over the winter. I've only got 5 tanks so far anyways.....but more coming soon. I'm hoping my infantry can move fast enough to keep the huge circle.......we'll see.

Haha.....I've never tried this before and it could turn out to be a monster failure. Otoh, it could be terrific and a huge kick in the butt. No balls, no glory.....right?

I'm humiliated to have to ask you Commander.....what is a Fallschirmjäger? My ignorance is truly unlimited!

 

[MJF]

The full list of CAV-4 attributes is immense:

• only unit that doesn't require any upgrading (until far later)
• the strongest battle unit at 1939 (or just as strong as the other strongest)
• the fastest unit for its strength when compared in icd
• the only offensive battle unit that gives significant suppression
• the best battle unit in marshes at any year
• the best battle unit in woods in the early years
• the ideal "cheap mobile" unit to drop off and guard air bases deep in enemy territory long before inf can reach there. One should consider that the enemy we might be discussing just could have PAR, and would be crazy enough to land them on your stack of bombers. Of course, we would be taking about another human!

I believe marines are the unit of choice in marsh/swamps. I don't see much advantage by terrain for CAV IV's, except early bang-for-the-buck:

 

[Commander666]

While you have the combat values correctly attributed to marines as best fighting unit in swamps, when will people learn that "fighting" matters less than "movement" to winning the Barbarossa blitzkrieg?

Marines are FAR TOO expensive, and FAR TOO SLOW to put into Barbarossa in large numbers. Marines are great for also taking swamp close to where they amphibed - but not for moving inland any distance to take swamp there. Even ARM in the distant swamp is a far better choice than waiting weeks for the MAR to get there.

However, if Barbarossa will degenerate into a several month long affair, then player would have time to use MAR effectively in swamps inland… although their cost is very prohibitive. At most I might have 6 MAR (usually only 3). They take (within 3-4 weeks) all of Baltic Coast and Archangel. That is getting performance out of Marines. Again, I look to avoid them fighting (or minimize it most I can) while you seem to rely on figures that support maximizing combat - which is the greatest error in running a proper blitzkrieg.

IMO, if Barbarossa failed to pocket and eliminate the majority of AI SU forces and have Moscow in 30 days, then human player has much practice to do.

 

[Commander666]

. I want to start the circle far northeast of Stalingrad to surround them by heading east to maybe Yoskar Olo.....then south getting to Gurive. If I can hack that we'll then wipe out something like 50 to 100 communist divisions. I've got lots of Cavs, Mots & a handful of Mechs ....all with the latest Sp/Art. But sadly not with armor. I've only got 5 tanks so far anyways. I'm hoping my infantry can move fast enough to keep the huge circle.......we'll see.

It is a good plan. BTW, spelling is critical to use the search function, but I finally found both Yoskar Ola and Guriev. Your CAV in the north can bleed off into the swamps to protect your northern flank from counter-attack. The counter-attack will come from direction of his capital (is that Sverdlovsk?). Surrounding Stalingrad instead of the typical AoD player who "bashes at Stalingrad" is a far superior blitzkrieg having huge potential rewards - and huge risk if lacking proper units or battle tactics. The key concept about this mini-blitzkrieg to get the envelopment you described ( good area size/terrain and probable enemy actions) is that your southern pincher runs past the south of Stalingrad while MTN or INF protect the southern flank by getting the hills just north of the Caucasus. You don't want to push him into the Caucasus. But you do want to cut off the Caucasus while Stalingrad pocket is reduced and eliminated. Then later go into the Caucasus mountains. The trick is closing the pocket east of Stalingrad while 50-100 enemy divisions are threatening to fight towards Berlin. This requires speed - and there is nothing faster than Fallschirmjäger (paratroopers) to make the final connection as north and south pincher are about to meet. And in this truth was the gist of my whole debate with Pang and what I consider is his limited idea of what really are the "fast units". I don't care that they fly or however they might be categorized. I do care that they are the fastest units to achieve what is called "closing the gap".

Haha.....I've never tried this before and it could turn out to be a monster failure. Otoh, it could be terrific and a huge kick in the butt. No balls, no glory.....right?

Yes, it could be a monstrous failure with loss of PAR (if you build any), the spearhead (possibly your LtARM) cut off and annihilated, or the majority of your forces enveloped instead - or worst - a Red break out towards Berlin.

No risk...no gain is very true. After all, it is a game... and how else can one learn to run a proper blitzkrieg without starting somewhere. Believe me, when I started I also "bashed at Stalingrad". But "blitzkrieg" is the ultimate juggling act of "force balance over great speed" and avoiding enemy action to counter that. That is best done with an air force that has FTR to operate effectively there to protect the brigaded TAC (and a steady stream of airbases providing 1 new one every week) to keep FTR in range as SU will have a raft of INTs in Stalingrad. Avoid them. They are to be driven off their airfield and not fought in the skies.

I'm humiliated to have to ask you Commander.....what is a Fallschirmjäger? My ignorance is truly unlimited!

No problem. It is German for paratrooper. Even though this is the English forum, I make a few tiny exceptions when it comes to giving "game flavor" to what is - arguably - AoD's finest unit. Of course, all the MPers and 90% of Forum might disagree, but they have yet to master "15 days until Moscow seized". I stress this because - in the end - there is only beating one's self set goals if playing SP.

So I applaud you for taking the risky challenge of pocketing Stalingrad instead of smashing Stalingrad. However, in 1942 - after a year of war with SU - expect Stalin to have different idea.