Supply, Transport and Speed

[Mithel]

I wanted to start this thread so that we can discuss our thoughts and opinions on "Supply, Transport and Speed".

From my reading it appears that in World War II a division really could not effectively operate more than 300 miles from a primary supply depot (railhead or port). This was a major contributing factor to stopping the German advance in Russia. Unfortunately HoI has no real way to represent this (perhaps we can partially say this is represented by the new supply distance modifier).

Supply organization was different from army to army but there is no doubt that logistics is a key factor in waging modern warfare.

I'm inclined to feel that units could use their own organic transport to enhance their speed, thus I feel that while an individual paratrooper soldier may travel lighter and faster than an infantry man, the paratrooper unit (division/brigade/regiment) lacks organic transport and thus is not as mobile as a standard infantry division.

Let's also try to compile some notes on supply consumption for the various division types we have in HoI. I feel man for man "elite" units (paratrooper, marine, mountain) should use more supply than "standard" divisions.

Thoughts, comments, discussion?

 

[unmerged(13914)]

The problem with making paras or mountain or marine units consume more supply is that they didn't really burn more operationally, they consumed it in training. Paras burned a lot of aviation gasoline back in the States, but not when they were in the line at Bastogne. The thing all the elite units have in common (even the US Marines) is lighter and fewer artillery pieces, and less motor transport. Fuel made up 40 % of supply consumption by weight, and artillery ammunition made up another 40 %.

My preferred method is to make elite units take longer to build, but actually consume the same supply, or a bit less.

Here are the HSP build costs:


----------------------------- Old ---------------------- New
------------- IC ---- days -- total --- men ----- IC --- days -- total -- men
infantry ------ 6 ---- 95 ----- 570 ---- 10 ------ 2 ---- 140 ---- 280 --- 12
militia ------- 4 ---- 40 ----- 160 ----- 5 ------ 1 ---- 100 ---- 100 ---- 5
mountain ------ 6 --- 160 ----- 960 ---- 13 ------ 2 ---- 180 ---- 360 --- 10
cavalry ------- 7 ---- 95 ----- 665 ----- 9 ------ 1 ---- 190 ---- 190 ---- 7
marine -------- 8 --- 160 ---- 1280 ---- 13 ------ 2 ---- 200 ---- 400 --- 10
mechanized --- 10 --- 125 ---- 1250 ---- 10 ------ 5 ---- 210 --- 1050 --- 10
early panzer - 14 --- 180 ---- 2520 ----- 7 ------ 5 ---- 240 --- 1200 ---- 9
late panzer -- 29 --- 180 ---- 5220 ----- 7 ------ 9 ---- 240 --- 2160 --- 13
motorized ----- 8 --- 120 ----- 960 ---- 10 ------ 3 ---- 160 --- 480 ---- 10

 

[Soapy Frog]

Paratroop units may not have had much organic transport once they dropped, but when deployed in the line they got their fair share (or even more than their fair share) of trucks nad other transport resources to get from point A to point B. For example the Fallschrimjaeger were heavily motorized, and even the Russian paratrooper brigades had a much better allotment of trucks than their equivalent rifle divisions.

Also, training for paratroops did not stoip once they were deployed. If these units were not actively fighting in the line, they were training, so some measure of additional supply use should represent that fact.

 

[Soapy Frog]

Math Guy: use the code /code tags (with the square brackets around them) to preserve spacing.

e.g.

             Old                 New
             IC days total  men  IC  days  total men
infantry      6   95   570   10   2   140    280  12
militia       4   40   160    5   1   100    100   5
mountain      6  160   960   13   2   180    360  10
cavalry       7   95   665    9   1   190    190   7
marine        8  160  1280   13   2   200    400  10
mechanized   10  125  1250   10   5   210   1050  10
early panzer 14  180  2520    7   5   240   1200   9
late panzer  29  180  5220    7   9   240   2160   9

 

[Mithel]

I consider "pay" to be part of the cost of supplies and I'm under the impression that your average "elite" soldier is paid more than your average "regular" soldier. True? Hence, I do think elite troops should have slightly higher supply costs, they probably were given more (proportionally) ammo and certainly received some of the better (expensive?) equipment/weapons (which of course costs more to replace as it wears out or is damaged or lost).

 

[Truchses]

I think marines and paratroopers are elite units, and they would always cost more. Even if they don't get paid more or shoot more than others, they get the better equippment in first place and they have special equippment. From my impression of austrian (german) mountaineers I don't consider mountaineers to be elite units.

But I cosider paras, mountaineers and militia as light infantry. I don't think they move faster than other units, but I give them less movement penalties in bad terrain.

You might know that after the invasion in Kreta Hitler gave up on the airborne warfare. The german 22.Inf.Div. (airborne) was reassigned to normal infantry tasks. It participated in the conquest of the Krim under Manstein. After his units broke through the defensive lines, he would have needed a fast division, but the OKH deplrived him of the mot division he originally had, so he built a mot battle group out of mot elements of several divisions. It was also mentioned that the 22.Inf.Div. had already built its own mot battle group and sent it into the Krim. The division had more mot units than usual infantry divisions, because it was a former airborne division.

 

[Mithel]

Ah, I found the terms I was trying to remember: Kleinkolonnenraum (attached to the troops) used for transport within the zone of operations and Grosstransportraum to deliver supplies from the railheads to the divisions.

Also as far as paratroopers the TOE I found for the German paratroop divisions indicates 2,141 motor vehicles and 389 motorcycles. That gives it less vehicles than a Panzergrenadier division or Panzer division but a heck of a lot more than an Infantry division (more than double).

So I think it boils down to: Do we want to model a ground utilized paratroop division or an actually airdropped paratroop division? (they certainly couldn't have brought those vehicles on the gliders or transports with them)

The TOE for UK (21 men per truck) and USA (22 men per truck) airborne divisions actually show a lot fewer vehicles per man than German airborne (7.5 men per truck). That surprises me! A 1943 USA Infantry division (widely reported as "fully motorized") had 2,012 vehicles (or 7 men per vehicle) - thus we could interpret this to mean we should give (German) paratroop divisions speed equal to a motorized division!

Of course we might want to factor in that Germany had a widespread shortage of vehicles and thus the intended allocation was not what was actually available for deployment and operations.

It really is difficult to create a "one size fits all" model.

 

[Ghost_dk]

Ah, I found the terms I was trying to remember: Kleinkolonnenraum (attached to the troops) used for transport within the zone of operations and Grosstransportraum to deliver supplies from the railheads to the divisions.

Also as far as paratroopers the TOE I found for the German paratroop divisions indicates 2,141 motor vehicles and 389 motorcycles. That gives it less vehicles than a Panzergrenadier division or Panzer division but a heck of a lot more than an Infantry division (more than double).

So I think it boils down to: Do we want to model a ground utilized paratroop division or an actually airdropped paratroop division? (they certainly couldn't have brought those vehicles on the gliders or transports with them)

The TOE for UK (21 men per truck) and USA (22 men per truck) airborne divisions actually show a lot fewer vehicles per man than German airborne (7.5 men per truck). That surprises me! A 1943 USA Infantry division (widely reported as "fully motorized") had 2,012 vehicles (or 7 men per vehicle) - thus we could interpret this to mean we should give (German) paratroop divisions speed equal to a motorized division!

Of course we might want to factor in that Germany had a widespread shortage of vehicles and thus the intended allocation was not what was actually available for deployment and operations.

It really is difficult to create a "one size fits all" model.

Think I just got a pretty good idea. At least as far as the German Para's go

How about a tech that if choosen moves the Paratroopers from their regular airborne function to land deployment. It would have the following effects.

1) reduce the range of Air transports to Zero , effectively grounding the para's

2) change movement and other stats to signal the transfer of new material, trucks, guns and such.

3) change oil supply to motorized level

Changes to the paras should only be applied upon upgrade.

This is what happened after Crete

Only problem I see with this is finding something to trigger this change.

Ghost_dk

 

[unmerged(19411)]

It really is difficult to create a "one size fits all" model.

Why not make a tech - or several techs that increase the speed of a division, at the same time increasing it's supply/IC cost?

If you're starting off in the '36 scenario, give all countries' divisions the stats that they would have historically at that time, and leave it up to the player to decide whether to invest in the techs or not.

They don't need to be historical techs - just 'motorisation' techs of some sort.

 

[unmerged(13914)]

I think the best way to express the light/elite/nonmotorized paradox goes something like this.

The German formations that were deliberately given lighter equipment (mountain, airlanding, and para), whether 'elite' in nature or not, tended to be given extra motor transport when they were not engaged in their specialized task. You can take this partly as evidence of political 'pull,' particularly for the paras, but the simpler and more general explanation is: they didn't have horses, wagons, or the necessary veterinary battalion support. They were given extra trucks when not engaged in mountain operations or drops, because that was the simplest way to make them mobile to the same extent as other troops.

In fact, ANY unit without intrinsic horsedrawn transport, however humble, would likely acquire motor transport from time to time. The Reich Arbeit Dienst (RAD) construction troops, say, or second-line flak troops who normally had minimal numbers of prime movers for their guns. Being light, they took fewer trips to ferry, and this was attractive to planners, so the light units would get first call. Also, horsedrawn transport was something of a liability because it could not easily be transferred among units -- the horses could not be marched long distances just to reassign them, particularly in bad weather. Whereas motor transport units like the Kleinkolonnenraum (I was trying to remember the word too) were accustomed to being reassigned and shifted to new areas of operation.

So paradoxically, units without horses could be both faster and slower to move. The traditional infantry division had a certain amount of intrinsic capacity that would not be given away. Trucks were more in demand and nobody "owned" them. (As commanders from Army Group North and Army Group Center found in 1942, when their remaining motor transport was stripped away to rebuild Army Group South for the Caucasus offensive.)

Personally, I much prefer to rate light units according to how they would perform without extra motor transport. Give the mountain troops a big advantage when moving in mountains. Give all light troops an advantage in crossing rivers, or moving through forests and jungles, because they don't have heavy equipment to create delays while bridges are reinforced or trails are upgraded to actual roads.

Then in situations where we would expect them to have extra motor transport, you can put up with the fact that the simulation falls a little short. The biggest use of extra motor transport would be transfers behind the lines, and they already go significantly faster there, and have the option of strategic movement.

 

[kionas76]

About trucks and elite.

I totally disagree with anybody who wants to give Paras a motorised division speed and oil consumption.Its true that when NOT employed in their elite role they had organic transports but in HoI we cant desice that.Paras are designed as a para-only task so if we give them same or better than infantry speed then there will be exploits from airdroped formations creating breakthroughts behind enemy lines.Actually the 1st nation who did manage to motorise their paras and been able to drop the equipment by air was SOV in 1960-70's with the BMD series of APC's and other heavy equipment.In Hoi however since there is no way to add or remove features from the divisions according to the situation i propose that Paras and other elite(not marines) should have a high org./low speed/better bonuses for bad whether-terrain-urban fight(better training in general) and smaller MP requirments since these units had fewer combat personal that standart infantry divisions.

 

[Soapy Frog]

I totally disagree with anybody who wants to give Paras a motorised division speed and oil consumption.

So do I! I dont think anyone is really suggesting this.

HOWEVER, were it possible to create Para division that were undroppable (using the transportwieght parameters, though this does not work at this time) I would create para models to represent the larger "airborne" formations that were used by the Germans and the Soviets as front line combat troops on both assault and defence. That would be neat!

 

[Mithel]

I think we all would enjoy having more options for unit types.

For Starfire I've consulted with a few others and have decided it is best to continue to represent Airborne "divisions" as brigades "after the drop" (i.e. reduced speed). While this doesn't actually represent the majority of "airborne" division usage in WWII, it best handles the unique unit abilities to support actual paradrops.

 

[unmerged(14683)]

(...)Here are the HSP build costs:


----------------------------- Old ---------------------- New
------------- IC ---- days -- total --- men ----- IC --- days -- total -- men
infantry ------ 6 ---- 95 ----- 570 ---- 10 ------ 2 ---- 140 ---- 280 --- 12
militia ------- 4 ---- 40 ----- 160 ----- 5 ------ 1 ---- 100 ---- 100 ---- 5
mountain ------ 6 --- 160 ----- 960 ---- 13 ------ 2 ---- 180 ---- 360 --- 10
cavalry ------- 7 ---- 95 ----- 665 ----- 9 ------ 1 ---- 190 ---- 190 ---- 7
marine -------- 8 --- 160 ---- 1280 ---- 13 ------ 2 ---- 200 ---- 400 --- 10
mechanized --- 10 --- 125 ---- 1250 ---- 10 ------ 5 ---- 210 --- 1050 --- 10
early panzer - 14 --- 180 ---- 2520 ----- 7 ------ 5 ---- 240 --- 1200 ---- 9
late panzer -- 29 --- 180 ---- 5220 ----- 7 ------ 9 ---- 240 --- 2160 --- 13
motorized ----- 8 --- 120 ----- 960 ---- 10 ------ 3 ---- 160 --- 480 ---- 10

Math Guy, have you tested how those values combine with various ministers? In many cases minister can seriously lower the cost of unit - even if description says "10% chaper" it often means "-1 IC cheaper"... We have had that problem with cheap naval units (subs, low end destroyers) in CORE.

Ministers, with their unmoddable effects, can be serious problem when it comes to balancing cost/time of the units...