Vehicles lost to attrition

[safe-keeper]

This just occured to me -- in the Paradox games, you lose men to attrition, which you continuously have to replace with fresh reserves from your manpower pool. Now, I was just reading an article on how unreliable Tiger tanks were, and the thought occured to me -- why not have attrition affect vehicles, too? I figure that the same way you lose men outside of battle, you should also lose vehicles, which have to be replaced. Vehicles can break down, be disabled by landmines, wrecked in accidents, ambushed by partisans, what have you. Areas with high attrition should cause even more of these losses; for example, you should expect more tanks to be lost trying to cross a snowy mountain on poor roads than driving down a highway deep in friendly territory.

I feel that if this was implemented, it'd make terrain types matter even more, making for more strategic depth, and also make the "Reliability" stat feel much more realistic and important, and less like just an abstracted number that helped calculate attack strength. What do you think?

 

[adski42]

+1 I like that idea so long as its balanced properly. For aircraft this could represent the non-combat losses - accidents and crashes, perhaps affected by weather rather than terrain.

 

[safe-keeper]

Testing and balancing would be really important, of course, otherwise this would just get annoying really quickly.

 

[Jazumir]

I kinda thought this goes without saying, once the way equipment will work in IV was announced.

 

[Poh]

isnt that how its going to work? Equipment having a base attrition so they need to be replaced and that this base attrition is reduced by higher reliability stat.

 

[safe-keeper]

I hope so .

 

[Dark Jakkaru]

Unless the vehicle was totally destroyed, the vast majority can be recovered. It just depends on the means to do so. Attrition for mechanical vehicles like tanks doesn't equate to complete write-offs.

 

[Kovax]

Unless the vehicle was totally destroyed, the vast majority can be recovered. It just depends on the means to do so. Attrition for mechanical vehicles like tanks doesn't equate to complete write-offs.

A portion of them were complete write-offs, but most were fixable. A lot of tanks were worn out after about 5-10K miles.

 

[Centurion1973]

Unless the vehicle was totally destroyed, the vast majority can be recovered. It just depends on the means to do so. Attrition for mechanical vehicles like tanks doesn't equate to complete write-offs.

What matters a lot, is who owns the battlefield after shooting is over - if you own the battlefield, enemy will lose even tanks with mininimal damage that took them out of action.

 

[Dark Jakkaru]

A portion of them were complete write-offs, but most were fixable. A lot of tanks were worn out after about 5-10K miles.

Those tanks worn out from wear and tear that would be considered as "write offs" normally get salvaged, nudged onto a train, and sent back to the factory for a complete overhaul. Usually this is the case of some really new technologies that took a number of shortcuts for field testing, such as the Panther's debut, where there are a number of other things that are causing the tank in question to be written off the Order of Battle due to some incomplete design work or manufacturing defects. The Soviet Union did the same testing their heavy tanks on the Mannerheim Line with a number of them ending up like the mentioned Panther. That's for frontline fighting conditions.

The only other way normal wear and tear could result a tank being "written off" is from road marches. By the late 30s, there aren't really that many tanks that were so unreliable as to mimic the marching capacity of their WW1 ancestors only making 5-10k Miles. (edit: to add, normally tanks would have been rail-bound if they need to leg that many thousands of KM!). Most of those tanks could be recovered with the right amount of support units attached to tank units in the very said road marches. The difference between Wehrmacht's dismal road march to Austria and the Russian Tank Corps getting to the Brody-Dubno area aren't that many from a parts and logistics standpoint. There are a number of key problems with an early 30s design such as the t-26 which required a lot of maintenance as it wasn't designed or built to a reliable standard as had the latter BT or T-34 designs were. But, design and standard considerations aside, things like normal wear and tear can always be recovered so long as there was the right amount of logistics attached to a tank unit. The design and construction limitations would then only constitute the maximum effective operating range the unit could do before the breakdowns would start to be reliably written off and the tanks being shoved onto railcars for a complete overhaul.

OF course, how this relates to HOI IV remains to be seen. I don't know how logistics works. It would be interesting say if you didn't attach the right amount of logistics units would do a lot to hamper the effectiveness of complex vehicles like tanks and raise the 'attrition' rate of vehicles being sent back to the factory for overhaul.

 

[SonGoku]

A portion of them were complete write-offs, but most were fixable. A lot of tanks were worn out after about 5-10K miles.

Then there should be a tech to improve the tank/vehicle-recovery crews and their equipment, hence lowering vehicle attrition.

 

[fabius]

Tracked Vehicles then and now need a lot of maintenance. I recall reading Germans lost a lot of runners in the late stages of Barbarossa so some mechanism for poor supply would be good. That said, how much gameplay would this enhance to track it and returning vehicles is questionable.

 

[Poh]

Unless the vehicle was totally destroyed, the vast majority can be recovered. It just depends on the means to do so. Attrition for mechanical vehicles like tanks doesn't equate to complete write-offs.

Since we do not have equipment below whole tanks depicted the only way to show the industrial strain of faulty drivetrains, replaced engines, new tracks or other repair work is through attrition in % of whole tanks. Otherwise every single piece of produced equipment would essentially be a magical selfrepairing selfsurstaining piece of war material, what would only need to be replaced if totally destroyed or lost in battle. Which tbh would be kinda silly. This was also dicussed in another thread.

 

[columbusbobby23]

What matters a lot, is who owns the battlefield after shooting is over - if you own the battlefield, enemy will lose even tanks with mininimal damage that took them out of action.

This. Salvage was a major aspect of WWII. Especially with the campaigns in Africa where breakdowns were more common place. I've heard that some tanks and equipment would change sides 2 or 3 times during the war.

 

[Dark Jakkaru]

Since we do not have equipment below whole tanks depicted the only way to show the industrial strain of faulty drivetrains, replaced engines, new tracks or other repair work is through attrition in % of whole tanks. Otherwise every single piece of produced equipment would essentially be a magical selfrepairing selfsurstaining piece of war material, what would only need to be replaced if totally destroyed or lost in battle. Which tbh would be kinda silly. This was also dicussed in another thread.

Why is it an either or? After all, when you "write off" equipment, you are removing it from your Operational Order of Battle, not your strategic war weapons roster! At the end of the day, the equipment is still there just not capable of any further Operational Role without being rebuilt which is just something that is common with frequent use and breakdowns. HOI IV is all about the strategic interplay and I do hope, as my original response was meant for, that "attrition" doesn't equate to you just building more tanks to replace the war material that just breaks down and is "written off" Operationally. THAT would be silly!

 

[Mitsugi]

The only other way normal wear and tear could result a tank being "written off" is from road marches. By the late 30s, there aren't really that many tanks that were so unreliable as to mimic the marching capacity of their WW1 ancestors only making 5-10k Miles. (edit: to add, normally tanks would have been rail-bound if they need to leg that many thousands of KM!).

First, WWI tanks required overhaul more like every 100 miles, sometimes much less. Second, 5-10k miles is way, way more than pretty much any WW2 tank could do without replacing basically the whole drivetrain. The Soviets estimated the lifespan of their T-34s and M4A2s as 2000-2500km or 250-300 hours. Note in that post the quote from Guderian who is pleased that the Panther is up to 700-1000km between engine replacements by Feb 44. If you read Jentz' "Germany's Panther Tank", one Panther regiment is getting about 1500km on its engines by April. But they were also getting ~1500km for the gearbox and ~1500-1800km on the tracks. By that point, you'd probably need new drive sprockets and half the torsion bars would already have been replaced. All that was peanuts to the final drives, which averaged 150km. No, really, less than 100 miles between failures.

Sure, all this could be repaired if you kept the battlefield and you had the equipment, but once you've dropped in a new engine, gearbox, transmission, suspension, and tracks, you're sort of teetering on the brink of "new tank". Which is how the Soviets recorded it. See, for the Germans, a tank that could theoretically be repaired and re-enter service wasn't lost. For the Soviets (and more or less for the other Allies), anything that (even temporarily) couldn't engage in operations was "lost" and likewise any tank that came out of a factory was "built" whether it had gone in as steel plate or as a wrecked tank. This is one reason why the statistics show low German losses and high Soviet/US losses, they had a dramatically tighter definition of "lost" than their opponents.

 

[Dark Jakkaru]

First, WWI tanks required overhaul more like every 100 miles, sometimes much less. Second, 5-10k miles is way, way more than pretty much any WW2 tank could do without replacing basically the whole drivetrain.

You do realize the reply was in regards to road marches right? So, are you suggesting that 5-10K road march is something that isn't done by rail? Even for WW2 standards, I don't see a complete road march done for 5000 to 10,000 mile stretches. Just isn't going to happen.

Combat Attrition I didn't discuss as it largely has to do with whoever owns the battlefield at the end of the day that can salvage the spoils. Most of my input here in this thread clearly intends to come across where you will have 100% capability to salvage the broken down vehicle.

By that point, you'd probably need new drive sprockets and half the torsion bars would already have been replaced. All that was peanuts to the final drives, which averaged 150km. No, really, less than 100 miles between failures.

The final drive was designed for a vehicle much less in weight which is what that problem revolves around. If you pushed the speed of the Panther, for example like the Kummersdorf video or as they did in Kursk, on a constant basis you ARE going to break down a lot sooner than "100 miles" you aim to quote from. That figure was training the Panther drivers not to push the 50t tank to crack the final drive so they could get on average the figure you are quoting from. It's a little bit more involved than a technical estimation but rather training folks to go around a problem and have a solution to make the tank Operate better on the battlefield. IN other words, a "work around".

Sure, all this could be repaired if you kept the battlefield and you had the equipment, but once you've dropped in a new engine, gearbox, transmission, suspension, and tracks, you're sort of teetering on the brink of "new tank". Which is how the Soviets recorded it.

But it's not exactly a "new tank" because you are reusing a lot of metal work that does not have to be redone or can be patched up, like the "armor" in an armored vehicle like on a tank. I don't recall coming across Soviet sources, or at least those translated into English, that linked "capital rebuilding" to becoming "new tanks". The Soviets used Capital Rebuilding periodically to upgrade previous tanks to the latest standards but never came across where recovered tanks would mistakenly be mixed into actual tank production figures (which would factor into "new tanks"). Please show us the source.

Remember folks, the OP said outside of battle.

I figure that the same way you lose men outside of battle, you should also lose vehicles, which have to be replaced.

 

[RabbidHamster]

I very much like the idea of this proposed attrition mechanic.

What I would like to see even more, is to have it combined with a 'reinforcement/refit/resupply' mechanic that makes sense. i.e. one where strength actually matters, and isn't always at or near 100%. If I lose half my divisions tanks while hundreds of miles deep in enemy territory, they should not all be replaced inside of a week. It should take much longer (IMHO), and perhaps be based on the supply mechanic (although since we know little about that, its hard to say if that's a good idea)... This would increase the importance of supply lines, instead of just an out of supply malus, units far away from home recover lost materials more slowly. Suddenly a costly battle far from home doesn't just cost man power from a pool, or IC to replace, but leads to a local weakness in forces that can be exploited by an opponent for a time...

 

[Centurion1973]

I very much like the idea of this proposed attrition mechanic.

What I would like to see even more, is to have it combined with a 'reinforcement/refit/resupply' mechanic that makes sense. i.e. one where strength actually matters, and isn't always at or near 100%. If I lose half my divisions tanks while hundreds of miles deep in enemy territory, they should not all be replaced inside of a week. It should take much longer (IMHO), and perhaps be based on the supply mechanic (although since we know little about that, its hard to say if that's a good idea)... This would increase the importance of supply lines, instead of just an out of supply malus, units far away from home recover lost materials more slowly. Suddenly a costly battle far from home doesn't just cost man power from a pool, or IC to replace, but leads to a local weakness in forces that can be exploited by an opponent for a time...

If you have spare tanks and crews available, you can replace those losses in a few days - IRL allies replaced destroyed tanks very quickly in 1943 or later.

 

[lordhoth444]

I like this idea