Charles Sharp

Some comments on TEM # 28's set of EXchanges:

1. To Mark Swenholt: Regarding the Soviet c/m divisions 1941-43, by I January 1942 the Soviets had exactly five c/m divisions left in the "real war": the three Guards, or soon-to-be Guards motorized divisions, and two tank divisions in the Far East. The majority of the prewar divisions were disbanded to provide some semblance of trained personnel for the new tank brigades. The new tank brigades were formed because not one tank, mechanized, or motorized division was ever formed to full TOE either before or after the war started. The Soviet Union simply did not have the assets in modern tanks, trucks, tractors, and maintenance and POL support, to form tank or mechanized divisions with 1500-2500 vehicles each and keep them in combat. Out of 79 tank brigades formed in 1941, only 22 were formed "from the schools"--the other 57 were formed using cadres from disbanded divisions.

What we have here is our recurring "Europa problem" (which occurs in numerous other games as well), that the historical restrictions are not reflected in our rules, so "artificial" rules have to be written to reflect the restrictions. In my current "Incomplete Draft Soviet OB" for FitE/SE, virtually all the 1941 tank brigades are added to the Replacement Pool on Aug I 41. To form any number of them, the player has no choice but to disband c/m divisions.

As of Jan I 42, every full strength non-Guards, nonNKVD tank, mech, or mot XX not in the Far East, Transbaikal, or Central Asia MDs requires 1 Armor RP be spent each turn or it reverts to cadre strength. This reflects the fact that these units required a great deal of support of a type that was in short supply.

I like Victor's idea about changing Soviet prewar c/m divisional AEC and ATEC to the Axis-Allied rating. Neither the mech nor the tank divisions had any antitank units assigned by TOE, and their inability to coordinate the weapons they did have would be better reflected by the 1/2 ATEC for all. Also the mech divisions lack of trucks to mobilize their infantry (in almost all units for which I have records) easily justifies no more than 1/2 AECA/AECD.

2. To Chuck Minshew: Regarding engineers and construction troops. I once wrote an article for the old ETO detailing all the various duties, including road and supply line maintenance, of engineer-type folks, with a chart of how to break down who could do what. I have since come around to Astell's belief that most of this "behind the lines" maintenance should be factored into the logistics rules rather than shown as independent units.

Mostly, I was brought to this as my list of Soviet construction troops units grew, and I realized that including counters for all the military construction commands, NKVD construction troops (convict labor), pontoon brigades, heavy pontoon regiments, special purpose Front engineer brigades, etc. would flood the map with 0-6, 0-1-6, 0-4, and other insectoid counters.

As to heavy equipment for engineers, most of the Soviet units, at least, rarely had it. Their answer was to "pool" the heavy construction equipment in a special purpose engineer unit (battalion to brigade) at Front level, and farm out equipment as needed to the 11 ordinary" construction or engineer troops. I have studied in detail the abilities of German and Soviet engineers on the eastern front, and to a lesser extent the US and Japanese construction troops in the Pacific, and I think the "heavy equipment" debate is out of place: given enough people, you can accomplish anything the heavy equipment can.

3. To Jess Hansen: The best source for a complete Soviet naval OB is the following book: Enzyklopaedie des sowjetischen Kriegsschiffbaus, by Siegfried Breyer, published by Koehlers Verlag in 3 volumes, 1988-1991. This beast is in German, but it has details, including in most cases detailed drawings or plans, of everything ever floated by the Soviets, down to river patrol boats and trawlers.

Of course, the ultimate sources are now (sort of) available: the RGAVMF, Russian State Archive of the Navy, in St. Petersburg, and the TsVMA, Central Naval Archive of the Ministry of Defense, at Gatchina (outside St. Petersburg). The first covers the Russian navy from 1718 to 1940, the second all records from 1941 to the present day. Write for permission to visit ahead of time, and be prepared to spend a few days: the two archives include over 3,300,000 items.

4. Reference Victor's disagreement on light artillery effects. I proposed full ATEC for specific artillery units formed with 100% 76mm high-velocity divisional guns. Victor is "skeptical that light artillery units had the same training, doctrine, and employment as dedicated AT units... Further, what kind of ammunition the light artillery units received (and in what proportion) compared to dedicated AT units." Well, let's take these points in order:

Training and doctrine: I quote from the PU-36 Soviet Field Ordinance: "in defense (against tanks), use heavy machine-gun, AA machine-gun, antitank, artillery, and infantry gun fire and pioneer attacks on tanks..."in other words, all weapons had, by prewar doctrine and training, an antitank mission. As for employment, the antitank regiments attached in support of the rifle divisions in front of Moscow, such as the 289th (20x 76mm, 4x 37mm guns) were by the definition I am proposing, "light artillery". Some of them, like the 705th "AT" Regt, with 107mm cannon, were actually equipped as Corps artillery, but used as antitank artillery!

Ammunition: Since when do we consider types of ammunition in a game the scale of Europa? First, it doesn't matter too much what kind of ammunition you fire from a 76mm gun at 680 m/sec against an 18-ton PzKpfw III with less than 2" of armor! Second, if we start considering ammunition types available as affecting combat strength points and AEC/ATEC, then you have to track German availability of HEAT rounds against the KV-1 in 1941-42, the introduction of HVDS, HVAP, and all the other alphabetical anti-tank rounds of the war.

The point is that there is a very real difference between the effectiveness of a 45mm gun and a high-velocity 76mm gun used in the direct-fire mode, which was the typical Soviet employment from start to end of the war. The Soviet statistics, for the entire period of the war, where that a 45mm gun could knock out .3 German tanks, a 76mm gun 2.6 tanks, before being themselves destroyed.

By late 1944, over 80% of the antitank guns in the Soviet army were 76mm pieces, and the most common "upgrade" of artillery units I've found in 1944-45 is the conversion from AT (mixed 45-57-76mm guns) to Light Artillery (all 76mm).

In the critical 1941 period, this change is significant. The bulk of the designated "antitank" units in 1941 were, in fact, equipped with 76mm divisional guns. Others were equipped with 76mm AA, 85mm AA, and even 37mm AA pieces. The typical 1-2-8 AT X that the current FitE/SE OBs reflect is the organization of late 1942, with regiments of mixed 76mm and 45mm guns, AT rifles, and a minelaying engineer unit. These did not exist at all until after June 1942, and even the individual AT regiments they were composed of didn't start forming in any numbers until the spring of 1942.

The AT defense of the Red Army in 1941 is all "antitank" units with mostly regular artillery weapons.

As for effectiveness, I refer you to the charts in Mueller Hillebrandt's Das Deutsche Heer, of German tank losses. Total panzers "written off" in July and August 1941 were 744 and 604, respectively, and they were the highest monthly loss rates suffered until February 1943: losses inflicted during perfect summer weather, by a Soviet Army with no large tank formations of its own, and antitank formations consisting mostly of "light artillery".

In Victor's opinion light artillery may rate "at the very best" 1/2 ATEC, but I would like to see his factual or statistical arguments that they are only 1/2 as effective as AT brigades of 1942.

And last, but far from least, regarding John Astell's "Early Barbarossa":

The Soviet Strategic Reserve armies were all formed in their respective Military Districts in April and May 1941, and the order moving them to their positions behind the frontiers wasn't issued until 13 May 1941. Therefore, except for the 20th Army that was formed in Moscow/Orel districts, the rest of the "strategic reserve" on May II 41 will still be in their formation districts: In peacetime deployment, the units should be distributed among all the full, partial, dot, or reference cities in the district, as evenly as possible.

The Strategic Reserve armies should deploy as follows:

16th Army
Eastern MDs (Transbaikal)

19th Army
North Caucasus MD, except 129th, 134th, and 162nd Rifle XX, and 1x 2-6 Art X (25th Rifle Corps) which are in Kharkov MD, and 23rd Mechanized Corps, which is in Orel MD.

21st Army
Volga MD

22nd Army
Eastern MDs (Urals)

If there is no German attack, they start moving by rail on May II 41 to their Scorched Earth Jun II 41 positions. I suggest that the "prewar" rail allowance for moving these troops be limited to 60 REs, since many of their units were, in fact, still on rails on 22 June 1941.

Daniel R. Lewis

I am currently assisting in writing a book with a founder of a think tank here in Washington. In it, we discuss the issue of tyrannicide with regards to Hitler. In this context, we are attempting to find out how many people (military and civilian) were killed as a result of the war (combat, starvation, disease, concentration camps, etc.) before and after July 20, 1944.

As hard as this is to believe, I have heard that more died in the last nine months of the war than all the time before it. I need to confirm or deny this. Do you have these kinds of figures, or if not, can you refer me to someone in the Association who would? I would appreciate any help you can give. Thank you.

Ralf Schulz

Here's a playing tip for TEM readers. For those people who take up a lot of table space for their games, I've found that a great way to save space is to mount their maps on a wall and use small pellets of plastic adhesive to stick their counters to the maps. I use a material called "Fun Tak", although "Hold It" and "PlastiTack" will also work.

For FitE/SE, mount the east edge along the top of the wall. With the Urals near the ceiling, the usual playing area (maps 1, 2, 3, and 4) is at a convenient height for sitting. If mounting your maps directly on the wall is undesirable, then mount them on plywood and lean the mounting against the wall. I also advise keeping the floor around the maps clear so that any falling counters are easily recoverable. Europa maps make a nice wall decoration and are out of the way, yet in view at all times.

On another subject, I've read several attempts at rules proposals allowing retreats through ZOCs in order to recreate the jagged-salient effects of the historical fronts. I'm not satisfied with any of them. I think the real problem is that the offense is overrated in Europa. Specifically, units in fortifications aren't powerful enough. I would give forts a -2 (except in cities where they would remain -1). In addition, units in fortifications might also be immune to retreat results. This would allow players to hold salients like Rzhev and Demyansk that were in fact held historically. Artillery (except siege guns) and air power might also be halved against fortifications.

My play experiences on the East Front have led me to conclude that the current fortification rules are too weak. I suspect that attempting to recreate Normandy and Italy will make this even clearer. I don't believe that the present fortification rules will allow anything like the Battle of Cassino, or the holding of the West Wall, not to mention the Battle of Kursk, the Soviet defense of the Kalinin Front, or the German defense of the Rzhev salient.

Tim Statler

I've just received TEM #29 and read the flak regarding Victor Hauser's editorial in TEM #26 with avid interest. As a veteran German player of FitE/SE, I wanted to share my thoughts on this issue.

I agree with Charles Sharp and Flavio Carrillo that historically the Germans didn't have a very good chance of capturing Moscow in 1941, but FitE/SE doesn't even give the German player any chance. How many times have you heard of a FitE/SE game where the German player equaled, let alone exceeded, the German historical achievement against competent Soviet play?

That is the issue we need to address. Charles Sharp stated that the Soviet Western and Northwestern Front commanders didn't even know where their units were, yet Southwestern and Southern Fronts did have control of their troops. This "command shock" doesn't appear in FitE/SE. My idea to represent this is to limit the units that start in the Baltic and Western MDs to regular movement on the Jun II 41 turn, with no administrative or operational rail movement allowed. Units that start in the Kiev and Odessa MDs would be able to move administratively, but not to use operational rail movement. Strategic Rail movement wouldn't be affected.

Movement in, and from, the other MDs wouldn't be affected either. This includes moving into the four "front line" MDs from the other MDs. This would represent the confusion and unreadiness of the Soviet front line commands without limiting Soviet players to the historical setup (as Flavio suggested).

As to the chance of a coup in Russia? Forget it! Even if the German player gets lucky and captures the Soviet government or causes it to be transferred, I don't think that Stalin (qr his replacement) would have surrendered. But the morale shock on the Soviet military and people would have been tremendous. If the capital was transferred or captured, many Soviets who might not have defected before would do so at that time, not to mention some that would have been so demoralized as to surrender. I don't believe this condition would have lasted for very long before the government reexerted command.

Below is a revamping of the Soviet government rule from FitE/SE. Right now the only penalty the Soviets incur is the halving of their infantry RPs for 4 turns following capture. This rewrite tries to bring the surrender rules into line with other games. I put surrendered units into the dead pool instead of removing them from play because I think the Soviets would have reused the unit IDs.

I gladly welcome any comments and playtest reports on this treatment. It shouldn't be too unbalancing, though I admit I haven't had a chance to test it myself. Our little gaming group lost its playing space and we have been working on clearing out a garage to use.

31E. The Soviet Government. The seat of the government of the USSR starts the game in Moskva (2A:3317). A capital counter is provided in the counter mix. For brevity, the Soviet Government is called the capital.

1) During any initial phase on or after the Aug I 41 turn the capital may be transferred. It may transfer to any partial or full hex city within the 1939 borders of the USSR or to the Urals (off map). On the turn of transfer, the Soviet player may only increase his rail cap by 30 REs.

When the capital is transferred check for demoralization by making a single die roll. Any Soviet ground unit that is in a ZOC and out-of-supply surrenders on a roll of a 1 or 2, and is immediately placed in the replacement pool. Guards units add one to this die roll, The Soviet player also has his regular infantry RPs halved on the turn of transfer.

2) The German player may capture the capital. If the hex containing the capital is attacked, treat the capital as an NKVD regiment with zero strength and no stacking value. The capital is not lost in an exchange; instead, roll one die. On a roll of 1 or 2, the capital escapes capture; on any other roll the capital is captured by the German player.

If the German player fails to capture the capital it must be transferred in the next Soviet initial phase.

The first time the capital is captured, the German player receives 20 VPs. He does not receive any VPs for any subsequent captures.

Whenever the capital is captured the following results occur.

During the next Soviet initial phase, the Soviet player may not increase his rail cap beyond its current capacity by spending resource points.

Soviet regular infantry RPs are halved for the next four Soviet turns following the capture of the capital.

Following the capture of the capital certain Soviet units may surrender. On the Soviet initial phase follow the capture of the capital determine the supply and isolation status of all soviet units. Then check for surrender for Soviet ground units that meet the following conditions:

The unit is unsupplied.
The unit is in a German ZOC.

Roll one die for each unit that meets the above conditions; the unit surrenders on a roll of 4 or less.

In addition, roll one die for each Soviet unit in a German ZOC, but in supply; the unit surrenders on a roll of 1.

Units that surrender are placed in the Soviet replacement pool. The following modifiers apply to the above die rolls:

+1 if the unit is in a major city hex or fortress.
+1 if a Guards unit.
+1 if after Dec II 42 turn.
-1 if the weather is frost or snow.
-1 if outside the 1939 border of the USSR.

On the fourth Soviet initial phase following the capture of the capital, the Soviet player places the capital in any full or partial hex on-map city within the 1939 borders of the USSR, or in the Urals (off map).

When the capital is transferred or captured, total all isolated and unisolated losses due to this occurrence. One half of the unisolated losses (rounded down) are added to the Soviet infantry SRP calculation for the following turn. One third of the isolated losses are added to the German player's eastern troops SRP calculation for the following turn.

John Berger

My copy of TEM # 29 arrived today, complete with Steve Grover's ID of Fritz Kuhn as the "Ghost of TEM #8". Since I apparently failed to write in and identify Kuhn as the ghost, I'm writing now to round out Mr. Grover's account:

Kuhn was born in Munich in 1896 and was awarded the E.K.1 as an infantry lieutenant in World War I. He served with the Freikorps after the war.

Kuhn left Germany in 1923, but lived in Mexico for five years before being admitted to the United States. (As Mr. Grover mentions in his account, Kuhn then worked as a chemist in Detroit before resigning to devote his life to the Bund).

Kuhn was paroled from prison in 1943 and held in various civilian internment camps until he was deported to Germany in September of 1945. Upon arrival he was jailed as a war criminal, released, and later rearrested. Convicted in absentia and sentenced to ten years at hard labor by a de-Nazification court in 1948, he appealed the verdict after being taken into custody six months later and was released in 1950.

Kuhn died in 195 1.

And that's the rest of the story.

For further information see:

Canedy, Susan, America's Nazis, Markgraf Publications, Menlo Park, CA, 1990.
Diamond, Sander A., The Nazi Movement in the United States 19241941, Cornell University Press, Ithica NY, 1974.
McKale, Donald M., The Swastika Outside Germany, Kent State University Press, 1977.

James Steel

TEM # 30--Gosh! What a lot of material these Europa magazines contain, and what immense amounts of information the Europa games themselves include. Many thanks to all of you altruistic people, working away to produce this vast colossus for little reward other than the critical acclaim it no doubt deserves. I am intrigued by the idea of Glory, but I have little idea of how it might work.

I will be looking out for your treatment of the other big land front in WWII- what price partisan rules in China? Manchuria should be fun, too, and if you don't have political rules for Communist/Nationalist/Japanese/Soviet interactions, I'll be very surprised. I am still, however, hoping for all the Collectors Editions of the old Europa games first. It will depend on time, finances, and what the market will stand, I suppose.

The French Order of Battle was interesting, but I still don't know if it gives the French a chance in the long run using the current Europa rules. If the French had actually tied the Germans down into a WWI type war (fat chance much after Sedan I know) then they would have been in their element. Good luck with finishing Second gemeiotg Front accurately and soon. The partisan rules on pp 15-17 make a lot more sense than previously. I haven't tried "Weserubung" yet, so I can't comment on it, but the philosophy behind the attempt is very laudable. If any bits of the war don't work at Europa scales then there's something wrong with Europa.

Personally, I prefer the more philosophical articles to the huge long Orders of Battle you run, but that's just personal preference. I tend to believe that even minor changes to the system have far more effect than shifting combat and movement ratings up or down by a few points. Mind you, both are essential if you're trying to accurately simulate WWII at such a level and still have it work on a larger scale. I wouldn't like to be the one considering Grand Europa economics and strategic warfare right now.

As is so often the case, I found "EXchange" to be one of the most interesting parts of the magazine. It is nice to see the strategic and grand strategic issues of gameplay that are not addressed in the rest of the magazine come up here. I hope that John Astell will not be too conservative to introduce one or two of the excellent proposals I have seen in these pages over the last few issues; I think rigorous play-testing of some of them would be worthwhile, even if it took time.

Although I applaud the decision to try to keep the rules system simple, if it doesn't give believable WWII type results at a larger scale, then Europa might as well remain as separate small games that happen to have a common games system (and don't bother reprinting FitE/SE or doing SF at all... they're bound to go wrong.)

With regard to the "Boot Camp" rules in First to Fight--I have successfully used these rules to introduce players to Europa and they work pretty well. I was quite disappointed that no boot camp section was included in A Winter War since it is a far more balanced game, with both players having something to do offensively. First to Fight is pure firefighting from the Polish side and gives less opportunities for teaching some of the subtleties of wargame strategy.

[See this issue's list of upcoming scenarios-a Boot Camp rules set for A Winter War is in the works! -RMG]

Getting back an issue or two I certainly agree with the proposal to change victory conditions to be more time and politics dependent. Commanders on the ground in the military campaigns you represent had very different aims to wargamers trying to get the "best result". If Rommel decides to disobey Hitler's orders in North Africa he'd sure better be effective. Not enough emphasis in wargames is placed on the fact that the military men are under the command of the politicians, and the politicians aren't modern military men.

Sure, the Germans would have done better in Russia without Hitler, but if they hadn't had Hitler they wouldn't have been fighting! Are you saying that OKW should have a free hand? Get real! Anybody saying, "If I'd been Paulus I'd have broken out," should be told, "If you'd been Paulus, Hitler would have shot you." Which one actually survived the war?

My congratulations on getting the prospect of a sensible naval system. I think the one proposed a few issues back (by Dean Brooks in TEM #25) feels a lot more sensible than the one in Their Finest Hour, although that works well enough for that single game. I look forward to the German team leaders shouting very loudly at their top admirals in due course.

I have experimented with an Ammo point system to solve some of the strategic problems faced in the longer and larger games, including Grand Europa. Having tested a few aspects of it, I feel it is simple enough for consideration. I will describe it further in a future missive, as I believe it reflects a situation that was very relevant to the real war.

Joseph Czerwinski

Overall, I think you guys are doing fine. Of course, we would all have liked to have Second Front in our hands by this time, but what would be the point if you just had to redo it five years down the line? So keep plugging away at it and please try to get it out by the 50th anniversary of D-Day. (After that, I think my patience will be exhausted.)

Regarding your future priorities, while I recognize the popularity of the desert games, they were more recently available than FoF or TFH. For people like myself who have been into Europa for less than 10 years, a remake of the earlier titles would hold tremendous appeal. Following the release of SF, the war in the West (1939-1941 or so) will be the largest remaining gap in Europa coverage. The peripheral theaters also under consideration (Norway, North Africa, Spain), although they may make for some exciting gaming, are exactly that-peripheral.

The naval rules, as they appeared in Supermarina I and II, left my mind spinning to the point that I never even tried them. I'm sure part of that was due to the rules being in draft form, but I think the focus of the Europa system should remain where it is--on the land war. Certainly if Grand Europa is ever to become a reality, some sort of naval system will be needed, but let's keep it playable. Thus far in the series, John Astell has struck a fine balance between complexity and playability that must be retained as the naval system is developed. I think most gamers realize that some degree of abstraction is necessary when dealing with two-week turns.

As an aside to Winston, my first contact with Europa came through a review of FitE by John Schuler in Fire and Movement. His favorable review of the system moved me to buy Western Desert as an introduction to Europa. Then I took the plunge by purchasing FitE and SE. I can understand your frustrated reaction to negative reviews, but favorable reviews serve to broaden the base of Europa players.

I suspect there are a lot of people out there (including some game reviewers) who do not believe you can make a good game out of the three campaigns addressed in GRD's most recent releases (BF, FtF, and AWW), and therefore discount the products before giving them a real opportunity. However, I hope that you will encourage reviews of SF, as I am sure it will have a lot of appeal to wargamers who previously have not tried Europa. My caveat to you is simply to encourage the magazines to have someone already familiar with the Europa system do the review. Also, insist on space for a designer's rebuttal, should one prove necessary.

I think Europa is the best wargaming system in the marketplace and if the games are reviewed by knowledgeable, objective people, it can only help our hobby (and GRD's wallet).

Stefan & Andrew Farrelly

We now know how Stalin felt whilst awaiting the arrival of the long vaunted Second Front. Meanwhile we have been having problems on the Eastern Front. Due to the superb quality of the FtF and AWW maps, the old FitE maps are truly obsolete. The massive changes to terrain, ports, roads and railroads have affected standard tactical operations severely. We have heard the map makers have completed the new SF maps, so how about redoing the four main maps for FitE for those Eastern Front supporters such as ourselves? Simply publishing a list of revisions to important features in TEM would be a huge help, rather than making us wait years for a complete revision of FitE. This would lead to a huge improvement of the existing game.

Already changes such as the Russian historical OB, revision of cavalry divisions, and new air rules have made a huge impact on the old game. Now revelations such as Narva not even being a port (per the AWW map) or even occupying a forest hex destroy the Leningrad: 1941 "Narva Fleet Defense" plan. The road from Podporozhye heading east on the new AWW map goes to where? And what about the low cap railroad from Bobruysk to Mogilev to where on the new FtF maps? This railroad, along with the new high volume railroad from Wolkowysk to Lida to Molodeczno, is an extremely important new feature to any FitE '41 scenario.

We have recently been studying the map on page 110 in Stalingrad to Berlin and it shows a road from Pskov north along the shore of Lake Peipus to east of Narva. This is the road the Germans used historically, so how about some investigation to see whether it should be added to a revised FitE map. It also shows a road/railroad complex at Novgorod which is completely absent from our FitE maps. Does it exist? The amount of changes already made to western Russia by the new FtF maps indicate a similar number of changes will be made to all of the FitE maps when a revision of them is completed. Some results published in TEM would allow us to update our existing maps until the Collectors Edition of FitE is completed in a few years time. How about it?

By the way, keep up the good work. A Winter War is excellent. We had trouble understanding how Kronshtadt and the Leningrad-Finnish border were left off, but the rest is fine. We've had six games of AWW and the best the Finns have done is a substantial loss. The VP totals seem so unbalanced. Also some of the new terrain effects conflict with SE and Grand Europa charts, so we couldn't decide which supersedes which. Are the terrain charts from AWW changes to our GE charts or not? We also really look forward to each TEM, so keep it up.

[One should probably not try to use the AWW charts to play other Europa games. The charts for AWW have been specially edited to dispense with the overall -1 die roll modifier for snow weather. This makes them unique among published Europa charts.

I have heard from other players who feel that the competitive position of the Finns in AWW is hopeless, so there may be some foundation to your complaint. However, I am seeking more input from veteran players before forming any conclusions. During the early phases of the AWW playtest there was substantial evidence that the Finns were too strongly rated, and they were accordingly revised downward. We remain convinced we have it about right in the final version.

Your suggestion for a preview of the proposed changes to the FitE maps has merit. I will see if I can prevail upon one of our columnists to pull such an article together for a future issue. -RMG]