Slitherine

I did mention the idea a number of times to them and could never get them to do it!

I also wanted commonwealth units to arrive in Suez at some point - representing Indian, SAF, AUS & NZ divs

but NP Unger - its an interesting discussion - I do like Glantz, and recognize some of errors on German info - but also I think having both sides is best in discovering the reality of it.

This seems a good point to ask, can the engine even do this?

Is it possible to give a player reinforcements as actual specific units, and if so can they start with experience?

I don't think so.

vypuero wrote:I did mention the idea a number of times to them and could never get them to do it!

I also wanted commonwealth units to arrive in Suez at some point - representing Indian, SAF, AUS & NZ divs

but NP Unger - its an interesting discussion - I do like Glantz, and recognize some of errors on German info - but also I think having both sides is best in discovering the reality of it.

Yes, it would be great if the game engine could place units on the map according to date/game turn. This would be a huge step forward to improving gameplay. This sort of thing tends to help the AI a lot.

I agree that the more info the better

As I mentioned above the info is widely scattered across many books, so one has to carefully trace an army or unit to see what happens to it.

possum wrote:This seems a good point to ask, can the engine even do this?

Is it possible to give a player reinforcements as actual specific units, and if so can they start with experience?

I don't think so.

I hope it can.

This sort of thing gives the AI a great deal of help. This sort of thing has been used in the SP games and in CivII.

According to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_%28So ... rds_armies) the 24th army was involved in the Yelnya offensive August-Sept 41, and the HQ was disbanded in October 41. It was reformed, but a date is not given. Redesignated 4th Guards Army in 1943. - Glantz "Colossus Reborn" is noted as the source for this.

16th army was part of Zhukov's Western Front at Moscow (see http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ensive.jpg)

See what I mean about information being fragmentary.

Glantz, in "Stumbling Colossus" , on page 16, shows the Siberian 24th Army in reserve just to the east of Moscow in December, 1941.

Erickson, "Road to Stalingrad", p. 268, also agrees that the 24th Army was part of the reserve front behind Moscow and formed up between Nov29-Dec2/41.

Glantz does not show that - the map on page 16 shows the mobilisatoin areas of armies in 2 time frames - 31 July, and from August-December 1941.

There is more info on both the 16th and 24th armies in the t ext, including that the 24th sent many of its units to other sectors, and was consequently reinforced with 5 newly raised divisions from the Moscow and Orel military districs on 5 August. I suspect that the area shown for hte 24th represents this.

august is about as far as Stumbling Colossus goes and there's no further informatoin on the 24th after that.

Sorry for not responding sooner, just finished two exams.

OK, S_O, yes you are right about the Siberian 24th Army. Some divisions were sent to other sectors, while newly raised (rookie) units were added to it.

In addition, units from the Far East were usually sent to a variety of other armies, such as the 10th.

Why?

The main discussion seems to center around the fact that the Siberians and other Far Eastern Armies and divisions did not arrive en masses and "save the day". Mainly, they arrived as individual divisions and then were parceled out to other units.

Why?

Let's use a concrete example:

If you are the manager in a sales office, and if you have two experienced sales men and two rookie sales men, how do you pair them up? Do you place the two rookies together? Or do you pair up the rookie with an experienced sales man? So that you have two good sales teams?

Similarly, in combat, if you have 5 veterans and 5 green recruits and 5 foxholes, how do you pair up the men?

I think the answer is obvious. The veteran steadies and helps the recruit.

Rommel did this all the time in North Africa by pairing Italian units with German ones. This often improved Italian fighting capabilities.

This sort of thing is done all the time in business and in the army. It just makes practical sense.

Now, let's look at the Siberian 24th Army:

As of June 22, 1941, it was a solid, cohesive unit. Yet, by July 19th, some of its divisions were sent elsewhere, while 5 newly raised, green divisions (from the Moscow area) were added to it.

Why?

The Soviet high command knew that the remaining 24th Army Siberians would steady the new recruits.

Did it work?

You bet it did.

Read this about the Yelnya Offensive:

The Soviet Army's Yelnya Offensive (August 30, 1941- September 8, 1941) was part of the Battle of Smolensk during the Great Patriotic War.

The offensive was against the semi-circular Yelnya salient which the Germans had extended 50km East of Smolensk forming a launching place for an attack on Moscow. On August 26 Stavka ordered the 24th Army , led by Major General Konstantin Rakutin, to start an offensive on August 30 against the salient. On September 3, under the threat of the encirclement the Germans started retreating from the salient while maintaining resistance on the flanks. On September 6 Yelnya was retaken. The Soviet offensive continued until September 8, when it was stopped at the new German defense line.

This was the most substantial reverse that the Wehrmacht had suffered up to that date and the first successful planned Soviet offensive operation in the Soviet-German war. German losses in the operation were 45,000 killed, wounded or captured. Major General Rakutin fell during the battle along with an extremely high number of his men.

The Yelnya Offensive is also associated with the creation of the elite Soviet Guards units.




Thus, the effectiveness of the Siberians and the other Far Eastern divisions should be looked at according to their effectiveness, their fighting ability, and their ability to prop up and help the many newly raised green units. Siberian divisions were transferred to other armies to shore them up and provide stability.

Were they effective?

Yes. Many historians have noted this time and again.

Thus, I think having Siberians in the game as reinforcements is keeping with historical reality. As reinforcements, they should not arrive all at once, but should arrive over a period of several months. This is probably something that modders can add to the game.

Let's look at the Siberian 16th Army:

16th Army soldiers were mainly veterans and were highly trained. Not only did they fight as a cohesive army, but some of these divisions were transferred elsewhere to help stabilize threatened areas.

According to Soviet historian Erickson, "Road to Stalingrad":

".... in May [1941], Lukin's 16th Army was ordered west to the Ukraine, where large numbers of Kholkin-Gol veterans (from the battles with Japan)... were being concentrated" (p. 232).

"32nd Rifle Division (of the 16th Army)... were immensely tough troops [which] German units soon discovered to their cost" (p. 239).

Um....the 24th army was sent to the Ukraine where many veterans of Khalkin gol were assembling...??

sounds to me like the veterans are different to the army!

there weer many divisions in the Soviet army - many European ones fought well too, but often their story is lost in the general disaster of the Russian army.

Is it the 16th or the 24th that is recorded as having divisions of 100 and 400 men somewhere in Stumling Colossus? I'm at work so don't have it with me.

Your post 2 ago is exactly what I've been saying - i'm pleased you'er finally seeign the light!!

Also I note that in CEAW the soviets have a number of corps in "garrison" well back on the map (urals, Stalingrad, etc) that "other" games do not represent, and the limitations of rail movment means they drift in in 1's and 2's as capacity allows. I havent' tried to map these to historical formations in those areas, but I do wonder if they are surrogates for "Siberians".

stalins_organ wrote:Um....the 24th army was sent to the Ukraine where many veterans of Khalkin gol were assembling...??

sounds to me like the veterans are different to the army!

there weer many divisions in the Soviet army - many European ones fought well too, but often their story is lost in the general disaster of the Russian army.

Is it the 16th or the 24th that is recorded as having divisions of 100 and 400 men somewhere in Stumling Colossus? I'm at work so don't have it with me.

Your post 2 ago is exactly what I've been saying - i'm pleased you'er finally seeign the light!!

Also I note that in CEAW the soviets have a number of corps in "garrison" well back on the map (urals, Stalingrad, etc) that "other" games do not represent, and the limitations of rail movment means they drift in in 1's and 2's as capacity allows. I havent' tried to map these to historical formations in those areas, but I do wonder if they are surrogates for "Siberians".

16th Army had many of the Kholkin-Gol veterans, and it was sent to the Ukraine.

I agree that things can be confusing, however, there are certain things that almost all the historians agree upon, and that is the effectiveness of the Far Eastern divisions.

The issue under discussion is not that the Siberians came all at once, because we already knew that they didn't.

The issue, I think, is whether the Siberians were effective or not. According to Zhukov they were not that effective, coming as they did in divisional strength (except for 16th and 24th Armies).

So the question is: were the Siberian/Far Eastern divisions effective? Did they have an impact?

I truly believe they did.

My long post above proves that the Siberians made an effective impact. Even diluted with 5 raw divisions, the Siberian 24th Army still beat the Germans at Yelnya. This was the most substantial reverse that the Wehrmacht had suffered up to that date and it was the first successful planned Soviet offensive operation in the Soviet-German war.

On page 151, of "Road to Stalingrad", Erickson notes:

"The dozen militia divisions raised in Moscow [in late 1941] were ultimately taken into Red Army strength proper: the Far Eastern units were carefully filtered into the front."

Erickson, in "Road to Stalingrad", on p.240 writes:

"The 58th Tank Division... in mid-November was hastily pulled out of 16th Army and sent as 'reinforcement' to 30th Army."

At Istra, on Nov 27th/41, the Siberian 78th division of 16th Army fought "hand-to-hand with the SS infantry of Das Reich Division" [p.261].

Here again, we see the Soviets mixing the raw recruit divisions with the better trained Siberian units. The Siberians steadied and helped the more inexperienced units. By doing this they increased the effectiveness of the recruit divisions and thereby played a big role in stopping the Germans.

Did the Far Eastern troops have an impact? Oh, yes.... far more than we realize.

I believe that it is our thinking that is faulty. We think that just because the Siberians didn't arrive en masse, then they weren't effective. However, the Soviets understood how to use these excellent troops after they had transferred them to the west.

They mixed them with the newly recruited divisions; they transferred them to threatened sectors; they pitted them against some of Germany's best troops (the SS divisions).

This was really the only way to use them.


Here is what other authorities have to say:

In "Barbarossa", on page 149, Alan Clark writes:

"But there was one reserve pool still left to the Russians, and it contained some of the finest units in the whole Red Army; these were the twenty-five infantry divisions, and the nine armoured brigades of General Apanasenko's 'Far Eastern Front'. Apanasenko's command had been fully mobilized on 22nd June, and as the western frontiers began to cave in a Japanese attack was expected hourly."


John Erickson, in "Road to Stalingrad", writes [p. 237]:

"Locked up in the Soviet Far East Stalin had more than three-quarters of a million excellent troops, organized into more than a score of well-trained divisions with very strong tank and air support....

"For ten years, the strength of the Far Eastern forces had been steadily built up, and had reached some 30 divisions, 3 cavalry brigades, 16 tank brigades and over 2,000 tanks and aircraft. All forces east of Lake Baikal were considered first line formations for operations involving the Japanese, while a second line force was maintained to the west of Baikal, consisting of the Siberian district garrisons and the Ural troops, to act as reinforcement for either the Far Eastern or European theatres."



In "Barbarossa", on page 170, Alan Clark writes:

"The total brought from the Far East in the winter of 1941 included seventeen hundred tanks and fifteen hundred aircraft, and was made up as follows:

Transbaikalia: seven rifle, two cavalry divisions, two tank brigades

Outer Mongolia: one rifle division, two tank brigades

Amur: two rifle divisions, one tank brigade

Ussuri: five rifle divisions, one cavalry division, three tank brigades"

So here we have 17 rifle divisions and 8 tank brigades that were transferred west to the Moscow area from Siberia. Many of these divisions were at full strength and were experienced


Anthony Beever, in his book, "Stalingrad", mentions that "The Siberian divisions, including many ski-troop battalions, formed only part of the counter-attack force.... (page 40-41)".


Erickson, in "Road to Stalingrad", on p.239 writes:

"Stalin set about moving what was eventually to amount to half the divisional strength of the Far Eastern command (including the formation transferred in the late spring of 1941); between eight and ten rifle divisions were moved in October and November, together with 1,000 tanks and 1,000 aircraft.

"Not that this left gaps in the Far Eastern ranks: by immediate mobilization, eight rifle divisions, one cavalry division and three tank brigades were established by the end of 1941".

"At the same time as he reached into his Far Eastern hoard of men and tanks, Stalin sent a high-powered command contingent to the Urals to supervise the training of reserve and recruit formations.... that the new divisions be trained in close combat, in particular anti-tank tactics, and that the officers should be told how to handle operations."

A note to modders:

In order to setup the Soviet Far Eastern units historically, I would suggest the following:

1) 3 Corps and one tank unit (to represent 16th and 24th Armies). They should be experienced and they should be placed in the Ukraine on June 22, 1941.

2) Several more units (a few corps, a couple of tank units) should become active in Oct, Nov, and Dec, 1941. They should be spread out over these three months and they should have a bit of experience, since they have had good training (unlike newly raised units).

The issue under discussion is not that the Siberians came all at once, because we already knew that they didn't.

nope - that was the only thing that I and others objected to, and for which we were roundly condemned by...er....some.....

The issue, I think, is whether the Siberians were effective or not. According to Zhukov they were not that effective, coming as they did in divisional strength (except for 16th and 24th Armies).

I have Zhukov, and AFAIK he never mentions siberians anywhere, so I'd be interested in where he says that they were not effective.

I do recall that he mentions that his Western Front received 100,000 men, 300 tanks and 2000 a/c from 1 Nov-15 Nov 41 - I don't have the page reference here at work but I can get it at home in a couple of hours if you want it.

He may mention corps or armies from "Siberia" by number somewhere tho?

Of course the "Siberians" were not the only veterans of hte army - there were many more from the Winter War against Finland than there ever were from Khalkin Gol!

I wouldn't read too much into Yelna - the So'vs concentrated 2 tank and a motorised division in the 24th army at that time (102, 105 tank, 103 mot), which seem to ahve done most of the attacking, and the Wikipedia claim of 45,000 German casualties seems a bit far fetched, since they started with only 3 divisions total (about 51,000 if at full strength!!), none are noted as having been actually destroyed, and the Sov's are reported as having suffered "heavy losses" themselves.

I'm pretty sure 102 & 105 tank divisions were recently raised formations, but I'd have to check.

24th army OOB on 1 Spt right after Yelnya is at http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/batt ... sept41.htm, and there's a map of the attack at http://www.rkka.ru/maps/elnya.gif - the German 20 korps has 3 infantry divisions.......they're just a little outnumbered (by at least 10 divisions on the map, 24 army has 11 divisions in that OB for 1 Sept), and attacked on 3 sides, plus part of the 120th division is still surrounded in the rear of the German forces!!

All in all the Sov's picked a good place to attack!

the map and the OOB tie up pretty well, although my russian isn't very good so I'm not entirely sure what the map symbols are - however:

"cd" and "md" seem to be Russian divisions - of the 3 divisions labeled "md" on the map, 1 is listed as tank in the OOB (102nd), 1 as motorised (103rd) and 1 as infantry (106), so I'm not really sure how that ties up!

"nd" is a German division

Differences betwen the map and the Sept OOB are:
Map includes 133 and 300 "cd" that are not on the OOB (although 133 Rfl Div is listed as a seperate division under the front command on the OOB)
Map includes the 3 "md" divisions as above (102, 103, 106) that I cannot positively identify with divisions in the OOB
OOB includes 102 and 105 tank, 103 motorised, 106 infantry and 6th militia (home Guard) divisions that I cannot positively identify on the map.

Edit: Some info in the 102 and 105 tank divisions is at http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/form ... iv1941.htm - seems they were formed soon "mid july 1941" based on the 56th and 53rd tank divisions respectively, which were originally planned to be part of the 26th and 27th Mech corps respectively, and those 2 mech corps were not actually completed.

stalins_organ wrote:

The issue under discussion is not that the Siberians came all at once, because we already knew that they didn't.

nope - that was the only thing that I and others objected to, and for which we were roundly condemned by...er....some.....

The issue, I think, is whether the Siberians were effective or not. According to Zhukov they were not that effective, coming as they did in divisional strength (except for 16th and 24th Armies).

I have Zhukov, and AFAIK he never mentions siberians anywhere, so I'd be interested in where he says that they were not effective.

I do recall that he mentions that his Western Front received 100,000 men, 300 tanks and 2000 a/c from 1 Nov-15 Nov 41 - I don't have the page reference here at work but I can get it at home in a couple of hours if you want it.

He may mention corps or armies from "Siberia" by number somewhere tho?

Of course the "Siberians" were not the only veterans of hte army - there were many more from the Winter War against Finland than there ever were from Khalkin Gol!

Well, I don't want to talk around in circles here.

But I am only writing what others have said Zhukov has written about. If he doesn't mention them, then he doesn't mention them.

He does mention the armies by name: 16th Army, etc.

The Far Eastern armies did not arrive all at once as I have noted above. This does not in anyway diminish their effectiveness.

stalins_organ wrote:I wouldn't read too much into Yelna - the So'vs concentrated 2 tank and a motorised division in the 24th army at that time (102, 105 tank, 103 mot), which seem to ahve done most of the attacking, and the Wikipedia claim of 45,000 German casualties seems a bit far fetched, since they started with only 3 divisions total (about 51,000 if at full strength!!), none are noted as having been actually destroyed, and the Sov's are reported as having suffered "heavy losses" themselves.

I'm pretty sure 102 & 105 tank divisions were recently raised formations, but I'd have to check.

24th army OOB on 1 Spt right after Yelnya is at http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/batt ... sept41.htm, and there's a map of the attack at http://www.rkka.ru/maps/elnya.gif - the German 20 korps has 3 infantry divisions.......they're just a little outnumbered (by at least 10 divisions on the map, 24 army has 11 divisions in that OB for 1 Sept), and attacked on 3 sides, plus part of the 120th division is still surrounded in the rear of the German forces!!

All in all the Sov's picked a good place to attack!

the map and the OOB tie up pretty well, although my russian isn't very good so I'm not entirely sure what the map symbols are - however:

"cd" and "md" seem to be Russian divisions - of the 3 divisions labeled "md" on the map, 1 is listed as tank in the OOB (102nd), 1 as motorised (103rd) and 1 as infantry (106), so I'm not really sure how that ties up!

"nd" is a German division

Differences betwen the map and the Sept OOB are:
Map includes 133 and 300 "cd" that are not on the OOB (although 133 Rfl Div is listed as a seperate division under the front command on the OOB)
Map includes the 3 "md" divisions as above (102, 103, 106) that I cannot positively identify with divisions in the OOB
OOB includes 102 and 105 tank, 103 motorised, 106 infantry and 6th militia (home Guard) divisions that I cannot positively identify on the map.

Edit: Some info in the 102 and 105 tank divisions is at http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/form ... iv1941.htm - seems they were formed soon "mid july 1941" based on the 56th and 53rd tank divisions respectively, which were originally planned to be part of the 26th and 27th Mech corps respectively, and those 2 mech corps were not actually completed.

Well, I am not reading too much into Yelnya; the historians are.

heheh

Yelnya was the FIRST major German set back of the war in the east!

It involved first line German infantry and panzer units (Guderian), and the 24th Army (even after losing some core divisions and then being diluted by recruit divisions) trashed the Germans and drove them back, recapturing Yelnya.

Not a significant victory?

Here is what Soviet expert Erickson says about the Yelnya Offensive (Stalingrad, p. 213):

"Yelnya, in a surge of very savage fighting, fell to the Russians on 6 September,a psychological boost of no mean proportion..."

Antony Beevor, in "Stalingrad", p. 29 says this about the Yelnya victory:

"Some historians... argue convincingly that this (the Yelnya Offensive) delayed the German advance at a crucial moment, with important consequences later."



As for getting information from the Armchair General site, I would be cautious. Some of the info you are listing is vague or incorrect.

Glantz lists the tank divisions such the 101, 102, 104, etc as having been renumbered from existing formations. Which means they are not NEW formations; it means that already existing formations have been renumbered.

Other tank formations such as the 111th and 112th were formed in the Far East from local units and from the disbanded 30th Mechanized Corps. This also means these are not NEW formations, but are well trained units that were formed from existing formations.

I am starting a new job tomorrow and will be very busy, so I doubt I will have any more time to contribute to this topic further. However, I think there is more than enough info in this thread for the reader to judge the issue for himself.

Were the Far Eastern divisions effective? All the historians agree that they were.

As a final thought, here is what Soviet expert Erickson, in "Road to Stalingrad", pp. 531-2, says about Zhukov's memoirs:

Zhukov's account of the battle for Moscow, "is a pallid and even uninformative account. Its chief feature is the dogmatic insistence on the correctness of Zhukov's own appraisals and actions.... it is clear that this chapter is but a small portion of all that passed between Zhukov and Stalin..."

Erickson then talks about parts of the book that are missing and other portions that have been diluted. Then he states: "This raises the question of what exactly are the 'Zhukov memoirs'".

Glantz states that the reader should be wary of some of Zhukov's interpretations - ie they are self-serving.

Just wanted to add a few things:

1) stalins_organ - enjoy playing Commander, and I hope you have nice summer

2) I think this topic is interesting, yet it seems to remain largely unexplored. I think it would make an interesting research paper for someone who is taking history in university.

All the best!

Glantz lists the tank divisions such the 101, 102, 104, etc as having been renumbered from existing formations. Which means they are not NEW formations; it means that already existing formations have been renumbered.

Had you actually read my post you would have noted that I said this, and gave the numbers.

however I suspect those original Tank divisions were not fully formed before they weer renumbered, since they were part of the major expansion of the Mechanised Corps ordered in 1941, and the 2 Mech Corps they came from were never fielded.