Has anyone seen Soviet AI beat Germany?

[blue emu]

I have never bought that "obsolete" argument. In poor mechanical condition and deployed stupidly, certainly, but not obsolete.

Obsolete compared to what?

Compared to the contemporary German tanks, like the PzKpw 38t, which formed the bulk of several Panzer Divisions. Most of the PzKpw Mk-I and Mk-II's had been retired after the Polish and French campaigns.

The Germans, and every other army also had a large number of light tanks like the BT series and the T-26. The number of T-34's and KV's almost matched the number of PzKpfw III's and IV's, if I remember correctly.

Only 5% of the 1941 Russian Tank park were T-34's. They had 639 KV-1's, and about 200 KV-2's. The vast majority of their tanks were BT's and the greatly inferior T-26s.

I think the game has it right with the late BT series being the equal of the early marks of the PzKpfw III in technical terms.

But "late" BT's (like the BT-7M which the game equates to a Pz-III) accounted for only a fraction of the Russia Tank park... early BT's (like the BT-5 and BT-7 / BT-7a) and T-26s... or even worse, the horrible T-28's and T-35's... were much more common.

Have you checked the production and inventory figures?

 

[unmerged(57689)]

Almost all of them were obsolete...

This is a common misconception...
the BT series were the most mobile tanks in the world, able to do 70-75kph on roads and had a 45mm gun wich was capable of penatrating the armor of panzers-I/II/III(wich made up the bulk of Ger tank div) Their armor was on par with panzers I/II/III. The T-28 was a good match for the panzer-IV.
T-34 and KV-1/2 had no equals anywere in 40-41

...in poor mechanical condition, and either deployed as Brigades or not deployed at all.
I totaly agree... the organization, maintnance and deployment were sevire problems... but i think most of that can be blamed on lack of experienced officers. The replacements were unable to maintain training and readiness.

Anyway my point is that their is no way to really reprisent in the game the damage caused by Stalin. If the Red Army developed at the same pace as before the Purge their is no way the German army would have made as much progress as they did.

One more thing... in 1938 Molotov made an offer of allience to British PM Chamberlain wich he ignored. I wonder if germany would have been able to defeat Russia UK and France in 39....

 

[Jape]

I've heard about a man who's friend once saw the Soviets win...

:rofl:

 

[AOK. 11]

Compared to the contemporary German tanks, like the PzKpw 38t, which formed the bulk of several Panzer Divisions. Most of the PzKpw Mk-I and Mk-II's had been retired after the Polish and French campaigns.

Only 5% of the 1941 Russian Tank park were T-34's. They had 639 KV-1's, and about 200 KV-2's. The vast majority of their tanks were BT's and the greatly inferior T-26s.

But "late" BT's (like the BT-7M which the game equates to a Pz-III) accounted for only a fraction of the Russia Tank park... early BT's (like the BT-5 and BT-7 / BT-7a) and T-26s... or even worse, the horrible T-28's and T-35's... were much more common.

Have you checked the production and inventory figures?

Blu-emu, you are almost always right, but I am afraid you are mistaken here.

Tank inventory for the entire Heer deployed for Operation Barbarossa 6/22/41:

152 Pz.Kpfw. I
793 Pz.Ppfw. II
259 Pz.Kpfw. III (3.7cm)
717 Pz.Kpfw. III (5cm)
155 Pz.Kpfw. 35(t)
625 Pz.Kpfw. 38(t)
439 Pz.Kpfw. IV

Total = 3140 Panzers

So the most common Panzer in the formations alloted for the invasion of Russia was the Mark II.

"Most of the PzKpw Mk-I and Mk-II's had been retired after the Polish and French campaigns"

That is not so accurate is it? The numbers for the entire Heer in all theaters are even more dramatic in terms of the number of Mark I and II's still in service.

The BT series had 1.5cm of frontal armor, the T-26 1.6cm. Both were armed with a 4.5cm/46 main gun. That main gun penetrates 3.5cm of armor at a 30 degree angle at 500m. The BT-7M had 3cm of frontal armor and the same gun. Also, the upper hull armor of the BT series was heavily angled compared with the German armor, making it tougher to penetrate.

The Pz.Kpfw IIc had 1.45cm of armor, the d Ausf 3.0cm. The Mark II had a 2cm cannon that penetrated 1.4cm of armor at a 30 degree angle at 500m.

The Pz.Kpfw 35(t) and early 38(t) had 2.5cm of armor, the later 38(t) with 5cm. They both had a 3.7cm gun that could penetrate 3cm of armor at a 30 degree angle at 500m.

The early Pz.Kpfw III had 3cm of armor and a 3.7cm gun that penetrated 2.9cm of armor at a 30 degree angle at 500m.

This does not count an important factor, mobility. The BT series was more mobile than the German light tanks. It was called a "fast tank" for this reason I suppose.

Also, the advantage of the heavier 4.5cm shell was even more telling at longer ranges.
________________________________________________________________


So, in all the T-26 and BT were clearly superior to the Mark I and II's, which made up almost 30% of the total Panzer force at the opening of Operation Barbarossa.

The T-26 was equal, and BT superior to the Panzer 35(t), which made up another 5% of the Panzer force.

The Pz.Kpfw III (3.7cm) and Pz.Kpfw. 38(t) were superior to the T-26 in armor, mobility, but were inferior in gun strength. They were superior to the BT in armor, but were inferior in gun strength and mobility. They were equal in armor to the BT-7M, so had no major advantages against that model, of which over 700 were made.

So, while the 38(t) and early Mark III's have advantages over the T-26, and less so over the BT, they also lack in some areas. The facts, in my opinion, do not show a clear inferiority of Soviet light tanks to their German counterparts.

So when the T-26 and BT are clearly superior to over 35% of the total Panzer force, and only somewhat inferior, if at all, to another 28% of the force, that leaves only 37% of the Panzer force, or about 1200 Panzers that the T-26 and BT are totally inferior to, that being the later Mark III's (5cm) and Mark IV's. Add to the fact that the Soviets would have well over 10,000-12,000 tanks, and you begin to see my point.

If you add also the 840 or so KVs and the 500-1000 (estimation) of T-34's, which are all clearly superior to every single panzer model at that time, you begin to see that the technical inferiority of Soviet armor at the opening of Operation Barbarossa is a myth.

That is what I draw from the facts.

Perhaps you, blu-emu, should check production and inventory figures?

Source: Jentz, Thomas: Panzer Truppen: The Complete Guide to the Creation & Combat Employment Of Germany's Tank Force - 1933-1942

 

[Permanganate]

152 Pz.Kpfw. I
793 Pz.Ppfw. II
259 Pz.Kpfw. III (3.7cm)
717 Pz.Kpfw. III (5cm)
155 Pz.Kpfw. 35(t)
625 Pz.Kpfw. 38(t)
439 Pz.Kpfw. IV

Total = 3140 Panzers

So the most common Panzer in the formations alloted for the invasion of Russia was the Mark II.

While most of your post is reasonable, IMO this part's arrangement is ridiculous. Dividing Pz.III production into two categories so it can be said that the Pz.II was the most common tank? I'm not saying you did this, but it seems Thomas Jentz has something to answer for...

 

[PackMan]

A while ago we discussed why you as a German human player never see manpower problems fighting SU. Some friendly community member then posted this little event (not yet tested) to fix that:

################
# Great Patriotic War 
################

event = { 
	id = 98700
	random = no
	country = sov
	picture = "great_patriotic_war"

    trigger = { war = { country = ger country = sov } }

	name = "The Great Patriotic War" 
	desc = "Everything for the front, everything for victory!"

	style = 0

	action_a = { name = "The fascists will pay for this."

	command = { type = relative_manpower value = 200 }

	command = { type = build_time which = land when = now where = relative value = -50 }
	command = { type = build_cost which = land when = now where = relative value = -50 }

	command = { type = build_time which = air when = now where = relative value = -50 }
	command = { type = build_cost which = air when = now where = relative value = -50 }

	}
}

If I read this correctly it should give SU some advantage...
Since it won't trigger until SU and Germany is at war Germany should have the upper hand for perhaps a few months.

 

[AOK. 11]

While most of your post is reasonable, IMO this part's arrangement is ridiculous. Dividing Pz.III production into two categories so it can be said that the Pz.II was the most common tank? I'm not saying you did this, but it seems Thomas Jentz has something to answer for...

It is divided because it has different capabilities.

A tank having 3+3cm, 5cm, or later 5+2cm armor and a 5cm/42, later /60 gun is most definately a different tank than one with 1.45cm, or 3cm armor and 3.7cm/45 gun.

That is Jentz's thinking, and I agree with it. He devides all Panzers with different gun types. Its like any series of upgrades of armor, gun, optics, suspension, ect. that most tank designs go through. Is the M1 the same as an M1A2? No, absolutely not.

I do not see how that is flawed thinking.

If you want to combine the two numbers and wipe out my comment on the Mark II being the most common model, then go ahead. It does not change the basic capabilities of the different models and thus the percentages also remain the same. Its the way I think, and if you do not, then I understand.

 

[unmerged(42032)]

It is devided because it has different capabilities.

A tank having 3+3cm, 5cm, or later 5+2cm armor and a 5cm/42, later /60 gun is most definately a different tank than one with 1.45cm, or 3cm armor and 3.7cm/45 gun.

That is Jentz's thinking, and I agree with it. He devides all Panzers with different gun types. Its like any series of upgrades of armor, gun, optics, suspension, ect. that most tank designs go through. Is the M1 the same as an M1A2? No, absolutely not.

I do not see how that is flawed thinking.

If you want to combine the two numbers and wipe out my comment on the Mark II being the most common model, then go ahead. It does not change the basic capabilities of the different models and thus the percentages also remain the same. Its the way I think, and if you do not, then I understand.

tottaly agreed

But this is another thread about the game beeing unrealistic so people stop doing it it has no sence at all it is made so to balance the game...

 

[unmerged(57661)]

In my first game SU beats the germans in 1945 conquered all of europa except spain(italy included). All went according to historical 1941 late summer barbaorssa etc. I am playing DD 1.2. But soviets got alot of supplies from US.

 

[Delor]

While most of your post is reasonable, IMO this part's arrangement is ridiculous. Dividing Pz.III production into two categories so it can be said that the Pz.II was the most common tank? I'm not saying you did this, but it seems Thomas Jentz has something to answer for...

I've also read in many Sources that next to the Pzr.III, the Panzer II was one of the "Backbones" of the German Panzertruppe in Operation Barbarossa.

 

[CmdKewin]

In my latest game (as Japan), i saw a lot of "weird" things happen. Germany got one province from Moscow in 1941, then suddenly SU sued for peace, and Germany accepted. They have been standing that way ever since (1944). Usa didn't enter the alliance and I was able to "avoid" war with them also. Not a "realistic" approach on my part, but i'm happliy third in score points (taken all of China, Vietman, and the Netherlands Indies), so what the hell. I've even got more Infrantry units than SU itself. China is DEFINITIVELY a big Manpower pool....

 

[Long Lance]

In my latest game (as Japan), i saw a lot of "weird" things happen. Germany got one province from Moscow in 1941, then suddenly SU sued for peace, and Germany accepted. They have been standing that way ever since (1944). Usa didn't enter the alliance and I was able to "avoid" war with them also. Not a "realistic" approach on my part, but i'm happliy third in score points (taken all of China, Vietman, and the Netherlands Indies), so what the hell. I've even got more Infrantry units than SU itself. China is DEFINITIVELY a big Manpower pool....

Welcome to the forums!


Just a note: China should give you as Japan ZERO manpower...

 

[unmerged(55246)]

Even if the different comparisons between tank types are exact , they are largely irrelevant to the issue of the war .
If the German were winning with Panzers III (1941) while being outnumbered by 1:7 and loosing with Tigers and Panthers while producing about the same amounts as SU (1944) , then there is more to it than simply guns and armor thickness .

It is that the 3000 "inferior" german Panzers never met the 20 000 "superior" russian tanks .

The actual course of the Russian tank force is, it starts huge but with no ability to supply , move and command this behemoth and leads to the fact that the early fleet was destroyed in the first few months.

Actually it has been destroyed to a large extent in just the first 2-3 weeks. Adding up the tank losses (as given by Krivosheev) for the border battles up to 10 July already puts Soviet tank losses past 12,000 - wholly incomparable to anything witnessed in miltary history .

When looking at the same thing from the German side (Armies reports to the OKW) , most of those Russian tank losses go on account of ... infantery Divisions with their artillery and ATG !

The Panzer Divisons in the Blitzkrieg doctrine were not meant to primarily fight tanks , they were meant to breakthrough , destroy supply , command and communication networks , build pockets .
The actual destruction was left to the mother nature (failures , lack of ammunition and of fuel , lack of roads) and to the infantery divisions that followed .

 

[unmerged(42032)]

Even if the different comparisons between tank types are exact , they are largely irrelevant to the issue of the war .
If the German were winning with Panzers III (1941) while being outnumbered by 1:7 and loosing with Tigers and Panthers while producing about the same amounts as SU (1944) , then there is more to it than simply guns and armor thickness .

It is that the 3000 "inferior" german Panzers never met the 20 000 "superior" russian tanks .

The actual course of the Russian tank force is, it starts huge but with no ability to supply , move and command this behemoth and leads to the fact that the early fleet was destroyed in the first few months.

Actually it has been destroyed to a large extent in just the first 2-3 weeks. Adding up the tank losses (as given by Krivosheev) for the border battles up to 10 July already puts Soviet tank losses past 12,000 - wholly incomparable to anything witnessed in miltary history .

When looking at the same thing from the German side (Armies reports to the OKW) , most of those Russian tank losses go on account of ... infantery Divisions with their artillery and ATG !

The Panzer Divisons in the Blitzkrieg doctrine were not meant to primarily fight tanks , they were meant to breakthrough , destroy supply , command and communication networks , build pockets .
The actual destruction was left to the mother nature (failures , lack of ammunition and of fuel , lack of roads) and to the infantery divisions that followed .

yes but it still doesent explain why are there so litle tanks ...what your talking about are the doctrines....

 

[unmerged(55246)]

yes but it still doesent explain why are there so litle tanks ...what your talking about are the doctrines....

Yes it does .
Because if there was an equivalent of 70 tank divisons for the russians in the game already in 1939 , it would have been HORRIBLY unbalanced and wouldn't even remotely simulate history .

To balance it up there would have to be additional game features like f.ex :
- the SU player may not move more than a dozen per week
- only X % get supplies
- they stop randomly moving or don't execute the player's orders
- they overload hugely the TAC
- they get randomly 0 , 0 leaders

As such rules are not implemented , the SU player gets the amount that the russians could have more or less manage yet he is able to expand this force fast with no additional penalties .

 

[CmdKewin]

Welcome to the forums!


Just a note: China should give you as Japan ZERO manpower...

Lurking around....



Anyway, after having sucessfully annexed all the chinese factions, my manpower went from 2000 or so up to 3500... don't know why, but that's what it did... maybe the 120 garrisons defending the new territories help. I'm fairly new to Hoi2: played a LOT of Victoria, but didn't like HoI one bit.

 

[blue emu]

Just a note: China should give you as Japan ZERO manpower...

Only while at war.

When at peace, you do collect Manpower from overseas conquests.

 

[CmdKewin]

Only while at war.

When at peace, you do collect Manpower from overseas conquests.

That's the answer Thanks. Enough OT.

 

[unmerged(46195)]

I think the starting red army in 36 38 and 39 is far below what it should be.
From around 35 to the begining of Barbarossa SU had more tanks then the rest of the world combined... about 20000(about 17000 were BT-5/7 and T-26 and the rest were T-28 some T-35 and about 500 more advanced tanks like t-34 and KV-1/2). As well as about 20000 aircraft althow almost all fighters were old J-15/16...
In 39 you start off with 3 light and 1 med tank div???
A SU tank div consisted of around 300 tanks... that means 66-67 tank div 10 of witch are medium.
Anyway Red army is alot closer to what it should be in 41...
Another problem is Nazi Economy in 35-42 their weapon production went up from 1/3-1/2 of SU output and from 42-44 it was rufly equal...
The reason for that huge difrence was that SU industry in 35-41 was already working full time on weapon production but Ger only went to total war around the time of Stalingrad.

The Red Army also had severe shortages of munitions, very few Radios, and even fewer technical personnel.

I agree that in my games that in most of my games, without a second front the SU is doomed far more often than not. Granted with an Axis China the USSR under the AI has no chance of survival since they leave themselves open to vivisection via a slash through Kazakistan. o

 

[AOK. 11]

Even if the different comparisons between tank types are exact , they are largely irrelevant to the issue of the war .
If the German were winning with Panzers III (1941) while being outnumbered by 1:7 and loosing with Tigers and Panthers while producing about the same amounts as SU (1944) , then there is more to it than simply guns and armor thickness .

It is that the 3000 "inferior" german Panzers never met the 20 000 "superior" russian tanks .

The actual course of the Russian tank force is, it starts huge but with no ability to supply , move and command this behemoth and leads to the fact that the early fleet was destroyed in the first few months.

Actually it has been destroyed to a large extent in just the first 2-3 weeks. Adding up the tank losses (as given by Krivosheev) for the border battles up to 10 July already puts Soviet tank losses past 12,000 - wholly incomparable to anything witnessed in miltary history .

When looking at the same thing from the German side (Armies reports to the OKW) , most of those Russian tank losses go on account of ... infantery Divisions with their artillery and ATG !

The Panzer Divisons in the Blitzkrieg doctrine were not meant to primarily fight tanks , they were meant to breakthrough , destroy supply , command and communication networks , build pockets .
The actual destruction was left to the mother nature (failures , lack of ammunition and of fuel , lack of roads) and to the infantery divisions that followed .

I know full well the Germans annihilated the Soviet armor in 1941 with many different arms. I also did not imply that techincal aspects of a specific tank are critical in winning a campaign.

"When looking at the same thing from the German side (Armies reports to the OKW) , most of those Russian tank losses go on account of ... infantery Divisions with their artillery and ATG"

Did I say anything different? This is true for every theatre.

I was saying that Soviet tanks were not obsolete compared to their German counterparts, as is often claimed. The reasons for the massacre of Soviet armor lie elsewhere.